₦airaland Forum

ruhu, may Allah conyinue to bless you for the good job

Who is this Usisky guy?

lousy thread. but funny anyway

Horus:
Does Allah not know that the moon does not conceal the sun? (Koran 36:40)

Whenever you guys want to do your fraud. you simple mention verses without quoting them. I have quoted the verse for you . Pls advance your arguement if you are truthful.
"It is not permitted to the Sun to catch up the Moon, nor can the night outstrip the day, each just swims along in its own orbit." (36:40 Ali translation)

Jcross and his foolish posts

[quote author=Tudór link=topic=371029.msg5179742#msg5179742 date=1261669448]These people who just down  heineken and begin writing under the influence.

Show me where science has ever proven or shown the existence of a Super human being.

God can only be known through reasoning? More crap. What you think and what actually is are two different things.

If you give a monkey a keyboard and ask him to type an abridged dictionary for eternity its possible he'd do it. Eternity is a long time and anything CAN happen.[/quote]the problem i have with you so called atheists is your arrogance. You read my post and this is all you came up with. Where in my post did i claim anywhere that science has or can prove God. You have summed up your mentality by the word you posted "If you give a monkey a keyboard and ask him to type an abridged dictionary for eternity its possible he'd do it. Eternity is a long time and anything CAN happen". You would rather believe in this than intelligent design. Shame on you!

Jesoul, thanks for the compliments and i really appreciate your insight. I think i somewhat agree with your views (though not completely). The main problem with evolutionists is their desperate attempt to exclude God thereby spinning the theory into an unscientific myth rather than logical science. I really have no problem with mechanisms like natural selection cos it is proven science inside and outside the laboratory and like you said Dog will always remain dog no matter how refined they may get. I do not believe that evolution can create new species in the true sense. The limits that can be achieved by evolution is just permutations within a gene pool and thus variation rather than speciation. Evolutionist have attempted to decieve us by extraploting such variation (for which there is abundant evidence) to speciation.

I insist on calling evolution a myth based on the fact that it claims mindless independent process could possibly have created life in all its manifestations

"@Yisraylite, pls dont mind nuclearboy. I just proved to him on another thread that the phropecy about Emmanuel has nothing to do with jesus. I just dont understand why they keep repeating the same white lies like robots. Lies that have been disproven over an over again


@nuclearboy
John 1:1 reads 'in the beginning there was God and the Word was with God and the Word was God'
First of all, these words were first penned by Philo of Alexandria (a pholisopher) many years before jesus was born. Somehow these words crept ito the writings of John. It therefore has nothing to do with jesus.

Secondly the Greek words OTHEOS (God) and TANTHEOS (a god) were both mischevious translated to mean God.
The original greek text reads 'In the beginning there was God (OTHEOS) and the Word was with God (OTHEOS) and the Word was a god (TANTHEOS)
Another classical example of how bible translators try to pull wool over our eyes

THE EVOLUTION MYTH AND THE ‘GOD QUESTION'


In 1831 a young British scientist set aboard the H.M.S Beagle naval frigate on a five-year expedition around the world. He was strongly influenced by the similarities and variations of life, especially on the Galapagos Island. In 1959, he summed up his observations and findings in his book The Origin of Species. The name of this scientist is Charles Darwin and he had just propounded what was to become the most controversial subject of modern science- The Theory of Evolution.

Today, evolution theory has become the Holy Grail of science and anyone who dares question it stands the risk of being excommunicated from the fold of ‘enlightened’ scientists. But what really is evolution? And is it a science or a myth? According to the theory, life emerged on earth by chance as a result of random complex chemical and energy interactions. This ‘first life’ subsequently multiplied and under variable environmental conditions, transformed to all species including man,  To put it frankly, we are here (on earth) by chance and not a product of special creation. This ultimately raises the ‘God’ question and the inevitable clash between science and religion ensues. However in the light of recent findings in paleontology, microbiology, embryology, comparative anatomy, population genetics and biophysics evolution has become a theory in crisis. As a geologist and a scientist, I do not seek to preach religion as an alternative to science, I only wish to separate proven science from invalid hypothesis.

As a rule, for something to be established as a scientific fact, one must to be able to run a repeatable experiment to demonstrate it. There is however no empirical evidence to support evolution. To take a line of fossils and claim that it represents a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that is testable. Why then do evolutionists assert that evolution theory is proven fact? The candid answer is that it excludes the existence of God. They assert that it is not scientifically permissible to consider the possibility of a supreme being. This assertion is closed-minded because it excludes a viable alternative to how life came about on earth. The alternative hypothesis is called Intelligent Design or ID. It states that life in all its manifestations is specially designed and specifically created by a super human intelligent being- God

In its purest form, Darwinism (evolution as originally proposed by Charles Darwin) has become obsolete even among modern evolutionists. Darwin based his theory on the assumption that acquired traits could be transferred from parent to offspring. To put it in layman terms, a body builder who acquired his huge muscles from weight lifting can simply transfer such acquired trait to his offspring. Today we all know this is untrue, Darwin’s ignorance can however be excused because it was some years later that Gregor Mendel established the basic laws of genetics and heredity. Darwin also tried to explain evolution using NATURAL SELECTION. He stated that organisms within a population are in continuous struggle for survival, fiercely competing with each other for food and space. Hence, SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST AND ELIMINATION OF THE UNFIT. For instance, in a pack of wolves an unfit member is unable to fend for itself and thus unlikely to survive. This a mechanism by which nature eliminates weak and diseased genes from a population.  Stephen Jay Gould- a strong proponent of evolution commented that ”the essence of Darwinism lies in a single phrase; natural selection is the creative force of evolutionary change. No one denies that selection will play a negative role in eliminating the unfit, Darwinian Theories require that it create the fit as well”. And thus, ‘arrival of the fittest’ instead of survival of the fittest. The truth is that no matter how much nature eliminates the unfit wolves and preserves the fit ones; wolf will remain wolf and will not evolve into another species.

Based on the above stated inadequacies of Darwinism it began to loose popularity. The ideology had however won some faithfuls among respected scientists. To solve the problem of genetic stability (genetic homeostasis), the new concept of MUTATION was introduced. Mutation is the spontaneous or induced random transformation of an organism genetic structure due to damage or relocation of genes. Evolutionist paired mutation with natural selection to give rise to the so-called SYNTHETIC THEORY OF EVOLUTION. By this, evolutionists claim, an organism could acquire exotic more beneficial hereditable traits through genetic mutation. Natural selection then acts to select upon the products of such mutation until it become dominant within the population. With subsequent progressive mutations, a new species appears in a period of a few million years. Evolutionists have finally found the magic wand that could transform blue-green algae into a human being in a couple billion years.

A closer examination of mutation will reveal it is not he kind of mechanism that can cause organisms to ‘evolve’ to a new species. The DNA is a very complex molecule and random effects can only damage it. All the known cases of mutation in human are negative and destructive. These include mongolism, albinism, progeria, cancer, Down syndrome and the over 4500 documented genetic diseases. How then can a good-effect evolution to a higher form of life-result from mutation practically all of which are harmful? The only example of “positive” mutation that evolutionist put forward is sickle cell anemia in Negroes. This is very deadly genetic disease that makes the red blood cells deformed and unable to carry sufficient oxygen. Evolutionists claim that the partial immunity that victims of this disease have to malaria is a positive mutation and thus an example of evolution in humans. Even if we suppose that sickle cell anemia gives total immunity to malaria, would anyone prefer sickle cell anemia in exchange for a lifetime free of malaria? Or that in the ‘evolutionary future’ we should all have sickle cell anemia and forever be free of malaria. This is absurd and can only be described as a gift from the devil. It is like saying being born cripple is an advantage since one would not be able to walk around freely and is thus unlikely to engage in traffic accidents. How ludicrous! In reality, mutation does not in anyway lead to evolution. For instance the bacteria produce the highest number of mutants of all species, yet it has remained more or less the same for over 1 billion years. This lead Pierre Paul Grasse- former president of the French academy of sciences to say “what is the use of their (bacteria) unceasing mutation if they do not (produce evolutionary) change?”

In a futile attempt to generate 'evidence' for evolution, evolutionists have been inducing mutation (using radiation and chemicals) in Drosophillia (fruit flies) for decades. On this Gordon Taylor- an evolution geneticist admittedly said “it is striking, but not much mentioned fact that, though geneticists have been breeding fruit flies for 60 years or more in labs around the world- flies that produce anew generation every 11 days- they have never yet seen the emergence of a new species or even a new enzyme”. They only succeeded in producing sick and deformed often-sterile flies that often die off. Further attempts to provide evidence from other fields of biology have also proven unsuccessful. Such evidences either slowly fade away or are unceremoniously withdrawn. Some of the failed evidences include embryonic recapitulation theory, vestigial organs and Homology.  Ernest Haekel proposed recapitulation theory, where he claimed that living embryos re-experience the evolutionary process that their psuedo-ancestors underwent. This theory has been confirmed to be totally baseless in science. Organs like appendix, spleen, tonsil, thymus and parathyroid that evolutionists once claimed were useless evolutionary relics (vestigial organs) have now been discovered to constitute part of the lymphatic system that helps the body fight diseases. Also evolutionist earlier claimed that since all quadrupeds (i.e. man, dogs, birds, pigs, lizards, bats, etc) have five digits, it must be controlled by the same set of genes and consequently represents common evolutionary origin. They called it Homology of Pentadactylism. Recent findings in genetics have proven that pentadactylism and other so called homologous organs are in most cases actually governed by completely different set of genes that are in no way related. The phyletic classification of organisms based on the imaginary evolutionary tree has started causing headaches for biologists. For example recent genetic classification based on RNA, genes and proteins have grouped rabbits with primates rather than rodents, and chicken has been shown (using protein sequences) to be closer to Man than to crocodile. Evolutionist once claimed that since man is the peak of the so-called evolutionary tree, it is expected that He should have more DNA per cell that any other organism. It has however been discovered that lower organisms like some toads, frogs and even lung fish have more DNA per cell than Man.

The phenomenon of IRREDUCIBLE COMPLEXITY is another serious problem for evolution theory. Darwin envisaged this and stated, “if it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have formed from numerous successive slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down”. It is unfortunate for Darwin that modern science has actually confirmed his fears- organs of irreducible complexity do really exist. A common example is the human eye, which consists of about 40 different functional parts. Amazingly the eye cannot function if one of the elements is missing or even partly formed. How then could the eye have evolved? Similarly, for a fish to evolve into a tetrapod, it would have to develop complex organs like kidney and lungs progressively. It has however been demonstrated that a partly developed kidney or lung cannot function.

Any direct evidence for evolution would have to come from the field of paleontology (study of fossils). Darwin stated “if my theory is true, numberless intermediate varieties, linking closely all the species of the same group must assuredly have existed . . . . Consequently evidence of their former existence could be found among fossil remains. After 150 years of digging up fossils we are yet to find a single one of these transitional forms. This is perhaps the greatest impasse of evolution theory and is alone to collapse it. Normally it should be expected that the transitional forms should by far outnumber all known animal species and their remains should be found all around the world. To circumvent the problem of the ‘missing fossils’, evolutionists claim that fossil records are incomplete as a result of hiatuses (gaps).

In 1970 Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Edredge proposed the punctuated equilibrium model to explain the problem of the ‘missing fossils’. The model stated that species do not evolve by gradual successive changes (microevolution), rather they evolve by large sudden changes (macro-mutations) after which they remained stable for a long time (stasis). This kind of evolution was called PHYLETIC EVOLUTION. Unlike in microevolution where a reptile evolved into a bird through a succession of countless micro transformations, in phyletic evolution, the reptile evolved by undergoing a few sudden massive changes (resulting from extreme mutation) and remaining stable over a long time before the next giant leap. As a result intermediate forms are few. Also, unlike in microevolution, phyletic evolution occurs in small isolated populations that are not eventually preserved in fossil records.

The punctuated equilibrium model actually created more serious problems. As stated earlier, even small mutations are extremely dangerous. Imagine a massive mutation, such organism will have no chance for survival. A typical example can be seen in victims of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The effects are appalling monsters. Another problem for this model is that the small isolated populations required for it to work will result in inbreeding and consequent genetic weakening and easy spread of diseases. It becomes obvious that in an attempt to save evolution from crisis, punctuated equilibrium actually dealt the final blow on it. It exposed and confirmed its greatest weakness - the lack of intermediate forms.

Despite the invalidities of evolution theory, evolutionists still accept it by faith and have taken up the kind of dogmatic stand they often associate with religion. They have even gone to the extent of falsifying evidence to suppose it. Haekel forged and misrepresented fetal drawings to support his embryological recapitulation ‘evidence’ for evolution. Also the famous ‘evidence’ of Industrial Melanism (the peppered moth of story) was discovered to be a forged demonstration. Similarly the fossil of so called “Piltdown Man” (which was labeled as a human ancestor) was discovered to be a fake after being displayed in several museums for 40 years and over 500 doctoral thesis was written on it.


Now we come to the greatest question of all. How did life first originate? The evolutionist tells us that it originated by chemical evolution/ abiogenesis through random chemical processes from a ‘primordial solution’ rich in amino acids (both left & right handed amines). To test the validity of this claim, we shall examine how possible it is for ‘random chemical process’ to originate a single averaged-sized protein consisting of 288 amino acids of 12 different kinds of amino acids. Statistically there is 1 * 10300, possible combinations of which only one will give the desired protein.

1. The random process will have to sort out a total of 1 * 10300 to achieve the only correct sequence
2. It would have to select only left handed amines. Inclusion of a single right handed amino will render the entire structure useless.
3. All the bonds must be peptide bonds. And not any of the other possible bonds.
4. Since the formation of the peptide bond releases H¬20, such reaction cannot take place in a hydrous solution in the first place (Le Chateliers principle)

It is obvious from the above analysis that it is totally impossible for even a single protein to form by a random chemical process, let alone the 600 types of protein found in one of the smallest bacteria (Mycoplasma hominis H39). We have not even talked about the DNA (which is much more complex) or even other cell organelles. Scientists have calculated that the probability of life having emerged by chance is one out of 1040,000. Kandra Wickramasinghe- a professor of applied math and astronomy at Cardiff University commented that “the likelihood of the spontaneous generation of life from inanimate matter is one to a number with 40,000 noughts after it. . . it is enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of evolution. There is no primeval soup either on this planet or on any other, and if the beginning of life were not random, they must therefore have been a product of purposeful intelligence”. The evolutionists however insist abiogenesis is possible given 100’s of millions of geological years. This is like saying if a monkey tapped long enough on the keyboard of a computer, it could somehow produce a complete standard unabridged dictionary. In his book, the essentials of earth history, William Stokes said, “It (abiogenesis) would not occur in billion of years on billions of planets covered by a blanket of the concentrated watery solution of the necessary amino acids”.

In conclusion, I wish to state that I believe in scientific enquiry and no not propose God-did-it as the answer to every natural question. But I think it is time evolutionist recognized a brick wall when they see one instead of creating myths to circumvent it. It is quite unfortunate that this myth is taught in our schools as fact. Latest research in most fields of science is beginning to point to the existence of an Intelligent Superhuman Being. For example the discovery by astronomers that the universe is not timeless, but has a beginning has raised questions about an originator (God). Some physicists have also used quantum mechanics to theorize the existence of God (Elegance theory). It however remains an obvious fact that science can never prove God. He can only be known through reasoning.

Hmm, jesus a peacemaker? Can anyone remember the 'jihads' he ordered moses and joshua to fight. Sorry, he was not God at the time of joshua and moses. Just an helpless boy watching his Daddy order the massacre and rape of innocent children.

@nuclearboy, I have gotten you to the point i intended. That point where a smart guy makes a fool of his intellect just beacuse he has to believe. Read your responses again and ask yourself if it makes any logical sense. At least you have responded to my challenge by answering my questions. Like i said ealier, arguments are never won. the only judge we have are our consciences. I rest my case.

As for the things you said about Allah and His noble Prophet, please provide your evidence if you are truthful

Eli Eli lama sabachthani. Was he praying to himself?

@mavenbox and nuclearboy pls take a bite at this

@jcross pls stay off. You lie too much and aint very smart either. Also i hate the way you write in uppercase

@nuclearboy.
Earlier i posted some verses that negates your spuroius claim of christ divinity but you claimed they were quoted out of context. I begged you to provide the context but you stylishly dodged. Now i am begging challenging again you to prove that these verse do not mean what i said they mean.
I am giving you a second chance

John 20:17 - "I ascend to My Father and to your Father, My God and to your God."
John 17:3 - "And this is eternal life, that they know You are the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent."
Joh n 14:28 - Jesus says, "The Father is greater than I."
The most important one," answered Jesus, "is this: 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one.
"Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good–except God alone.No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father" 

On the other hand when i accused you of quoting out of context, i provided the context with irrefutable argument that the prophecy of 'virgin' birth in Isiah has nothing to do with christ. I assume your non repsponse implies consent. The fact that you however took exception to my use of 'young woman' in place of 'virgin' shows you are not well in researched in the bible as i though you were. The word used in the original hebrew text is ALMAH (young woman) not BETHULAH (virgin). Somehow, in the usual desperate attempt to fit OT prophecis to christ, 'young woman' was replaced with 'virgin'. Let give you a classical example of  a similar case of forced prohecies perpetuated by gospel writers.

Zech 9:9 states:
Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, thy King cometh unto thee: he is just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass.

Now mathew declared
Matt 21:1-7
And when they drew nigh unto Jerusalem, and were come to Bethphage, unto the mount of Olives, then sent Jesus two disciples,
Saying unto them, Go into the village over against you, and straightway ye shall find an ass tied, and a colt with her: loose them, and bring them unto me.
And if any man say ought unto you, ye shall say, The Lord hath need of them; and straightway he will send them.
All this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying,
Tell ye the daughter of Sion, Behold, thy King cometh unto thee, meek, and sitting upon an ass, and a colt the foal of an ass.
And the disciples went, and did as Jesus commanded them,
And brought the ass, and the colt, and put on them their clothes, and they set him thereon.

How can jesus ride an Ass and a Colt at the same time. Was he a circus performer? It is obvious that it in a desperate attempt to make christ fulfill the prophecy, mathew had to make him ride two donkeys at the same time


Sincerly, i am dissapointed that you find "Crying Carpenter Son the Son" funny and  that you think God should share the laughter. Now i am loosing respect for you. i cant continue to argue with you about and idealogy that you yourself have apparantly admitted does not make any logical. sense.

nuclearboy:
@the_seeker:

The respect I have had for you drops more than a notch when you say a particular earlier "response" was adequate and has your support/respect. You were joking, right? Cos its obvious reading what you've written in your worst posts that you have more than that upstairs. I refuse to dignify such with a response and can only smile thinking you had nothing to say and so decided solidarity was in order.

But I wonder if solidarity with idiocy befits such as you with the intelligence you had earlier portrayed. Anyway, we understand you needed a means of not replying yet staying applicable.

Like i said earlier, Bro. Olabowale's response did enough justice to your post, notwithstanding that i might have attacked from a different angle.
Unless you insist that we keep this dialogue between just me and you

nuclearboy:
For clarity, Alexander the Great was never revered by any man except as a great general and tactician. He said he was god but all knew that was hog-crap. With a sword to theit throats though, they said what he wanted to hear. The Pharaohs (and Ceasars) were men who knew that the divinity claim afforded them higher "powers". Their families supported them because such provided their own selves more comfort. People follow the teachings of Buddha and do not call him god. His is a way of discipleship. Sallesie had 2 lions that were so well trained they obeyed his every command. They brought him immense respect and created fear in his favor. His total aloofness to morality and ruthlessness also helped. It would be nice if you read more about him. He used the throne and history of his country as a claim that he too, was sitting on the throne of the king of kings. But he never said he was king of kings.

I likened jesus to these men not because i wanted to validate their divinity but to prove to you the inclination of man to accept his fellow man as God. Worship of your Hero jesus is no different.

nuclearboy:
Why are you quoting things out of context? Again I ask, why use fallacy/lies/half-truths/etc to support your claim when all you have is a restriction of God in your mind that says "He cannot humble Himself"? Thats all you have! And its only a product of limiting God and putting Him in a box of your own making (of your own size).

If you were referring to the verses i posted to disprove the divinty of christ, i beseech you  to post them in context and let’s see if it means otherwise. You are the one posting out of context. Like i said ealier the prophecy of ‘a virgin young woman shall give birth to a child and he shall be called Emmanuel’ has nothing to do with Christ. Now let me give you the context.

7:1 And it came to pass in the days of Ahaz the son of Jotham, the son of Uzziah, king of Judah, that Rezin the king of Syria, and Pekah the son of Remaliah, king of Israel, went up toward Jerusalem to war against it, but could not prevail against it.
7:2 And it was told the house of David, saying, Syria is confederate with Ephraim. And his heart was moved, and the heart of his people, as the trees of the wood are moved with the wind.
7:3 Then said the LORD unto Isaiah, Go forth now to meet Ahaz, thou, and Shearjashub thy son, at the end of the conduit of the upper pool in the highway of the fuller's field;
7:4 And say unto him, Take heed, and be quiet; fear not, neither be fainthearted for the two tails of these smoking firebrands, for the fierce anger of Rezin with Syria, and of the son of Remaliah.
7:5 Because Syria, Ephraim, and the son of Remaliah, have taken evil counsel against thee, saying,
7:6 Let us go up against Judah, and vex it, and let us make a breach therein for us, and set a king in the midst of it, even the son of Tabeal:
7:7 Thus saith the Lord GOD, It shall not stand, neither shall it come to pass.
7:8 For the head of Syria is Damascus, and the head of Damascus is Rezin; and within threescore and five years shall Ephraim be broken, that it be not a people.
7:9 And the head of Ephraim is Samaria, and the head of Samaria is Remaliah's son. If ye will not believe, surely ye shall not be established.
7:10 Moreover the LORD spake again unto Ahaz, saying,
7:11 Ask thee a sign of the LORD thy God; ask it either in the depth, or in the height above.
7:12 But Ahaz said, I will not ask, neither will I tempt the LORD.
7:13 And he said, Hear ye now, O house of David; Is it a small thing for you to weary men, but will ye weary my God also?
7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin young woman shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
7:15 Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good.
7:16 For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings.
7:17 The LORD shall bring upon thee, and upon thy people, and upon thy father's house, days that have not come, from the day that Ephraim departed from Judah; even the king of Assyria.
7:18 And it shall come to pass in that day, that the LORD shall hiss for the fly that is in the uttermost part of the rivers of Egypt, and for the bee that is in the land of Assyria.
7:19 And they shall come, and shall rest all of them in the desolate valleys, and in the holes of the rocks, and upon all thorns, and upon all bushes.
7:20 In the same day shall the Lord shave with a razor that is hired, namely, by them beyond the river, by the king of Assyria, the head, and the hair of the feet: and it shall also consume the beard.
7:21 And it shall come to pass in that day, that a man shall nourish a young cow, and two sheep;
7:22 And it shall come to pass, for the abundance of milk that they shall give he shall eat butter: for butter and honey shall every one eat that is left in the land.
7:23 And it shall come to pass in that day, that every place shall be, where there were a thousand vines at a thousand silverlings, it shall even be for briers and thorns.
7:24 With arrows and with bows shall men come thither; because all the land shall become briers and thorns.
7:25 And on all hills that shall be digged wit the mattock, there shall not come thither the fear of briers and thorns: but it shall be for the sending forth of oxen, and for the treading of lesser cattle.

Isaiah's prophecy was that the child Immanuel was to have been born in 742 BCE, the first year of King Ahaz's reign. Ahaz, the king of Judah, faced the combined armies of Syria and Israel. Isaiah explained to Ahaz that he should not form an alliance with Assyria. In support of this advice, God would provide a sign: a young woman would conceive and bear a child who would be named Immanuel.

The sign would have only have been effective if it happened almost immediately. It would not have given a lot of support to Isaiah's prophecy if more than seven centuries passed before it was fulfilled, over 700 years after King Ahaz' death.

Isaih was clearly not referring to some event that would occur centuries later. When he referred to the far future, as in Chapter 11, he typically used a phrase such as "In that day."

The translatiun of the Hebrew name Emmanuel, (Greek Emmanouel) as "God with us" in Matthew 1:23 implies that the name-holder is divine. The name really means "God is with us," meaning that God will support us. The name makes perfect sense if the child's name was to indicate to King Ahaz that God is on their side.

nuclearboy:
You started with Trinity. Now you no longer use the "triune" argument? Same with the "Word of God" argument. Then the OOO issue! It seems you are just throwing straws hoping one will seem rigid enough to push me down. Then it became my conscience and "Eli" which means "Ascent" not God. Now it is Alexander and heathen notions. What next?

My entire argument is woven around the divinity of Christ. I never used "Word of God" argument. I don’t know where you got that one from.
I cant believe you are telling me Eli means "Ascent" and not God

Eli (אלי), a variant on the name of God as spoken in Hebrew and Aramaic. (The "i" suffix indicates first person singular possession, i.e., "my El" or "my God”
This is reminiscent of what our dear Christ cried out when dying on the cross “Eli Eli lama sabachthani”

nuclearboy:
Whatever it is, truth will prevail and I thank God many others are reading and reasoning.

NOTE: When you say your prophet would have been the greatest man-god, I wonder - what attributes of his would we be seeking to emulate? Please enumerate 5 things you (or better still, someone from another religious background) would like to do as he did then tell me 5 things Jesus did that you hate about His character. In effect, try compare

I feel so insignificant attempting to Qualify this man Muhammad. Allow me to borrow the words of these great non muslim thinkers

PHILOSOPHER, ORATOR, APOSTLE, LEGISLATOR, WARRIOR, CONQUEROR OF IDEAS, RESTORER OF RATIONAL BELIEFS, OF A CULT WITHOUT IMAGES: THE FOUNDER OF TWENTY TERRESTRIAL EMPIRES AND OF ONE SPIRITUAL EMPIRE, THAT IS MUHUMMED. AS REGARDS ALL STANDARDS BY WHICH HUMAN GREATNESS MAY BE MEASURED, WE MAY WELL ASK, IS THERE ANY MAN GREATER THEN HE? Lamartine, "Historie de la Turquie," Paris 1854

THE MOST SUCCESSFUL OF ALL RELIGIOUS PERSONALITIES.
Encyclopedia Britannica

"MY CHOICE OF MUHAMMAD TO LEAD THE LIST OF THE WORLD'S MOST INFLUENTIAL PERSONS MAY SURPRISE SOME READERS AND MAY BE QUESTIONED BY OTHERS, BUT HE WAS THE ONLY MAN IN HISTORY WHO WAS SUPREMELY SUCCESSFUL ON BOTH THE RELIGIOUS AND SECULAR LEVEL." Michael H. Hart "The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History", New York: Hart Publishing Company, Inc., 1978, p.33.

I have nothing against Christ, in fact i love and adore him with all my heart. There is nothing i hate about his nature. In fact he is sinless (like all prophets of God). All am saying is the guy is not God

@nuclearboy, i was about to respond when i saw the reponse from Bro. Olabowale. I could not have said any better. I want you to rethink your position. The notion of man god is for Heathens and not for civilized man. Jesus was not the first man god and will definately not be the last. Some of his colleagues include Alexander the great. Pharoah. Halle sallasie, budha, horus, etc. It is obvious that budha, sallasie and jesus never claimed divinity but their followers choose to make gods of of them. It is called Hero Worship. Muhammad would have been the greatest man god in the history of world if he wanted to. He had the world at his feet yet he remained a humble slave of Allah. Any temptation to diefy him after his death was was extinguished when Abubakar declared 'if you worship Muhammed, Muhammed is dead. If you worship Allah, Allah live forever!'

@Bro. Olabowale, may Allah continue to bless you and increase your wisdom.

@nuclearboy, i was about to respond when i saw the reponse from Bro. Olabowale. I could not have said any better. I want you to rethink your position. The notion of man god is for Heathens and not for civilized man. Jesus was not the first man god and will definately not be the last. Some of his colleagues include Alexander the great. Pharoah. Halle sallasie, budha, horus, etc. It is obvious that budha, sallasie and jesus never claimed divinity but their followers choose to make gods of of them. It is called Hero Worship. Muhammad would have been the greatest man god in the history of world if he wanted to. He had the world at his feet yet he remained a humble slave of Allah. Any temptation to diefy him after his death was was extinguished when Abubakar declared 'if you worship Muhammed, Muhammed is dead. If you worship Allah, Allah live forever!'

@Bro. Olabowale, may Allah continue to bless you and increase your wisdom.

nuclearboy:
@the_seeker:

YOU are asking ME to think?? Strange since you have been taught something and REFUSE to think about it. What you're doing is forcing yourself to stick to that by forcing "errors" into other ideologies to self-justify. Maybe you should use the same criteria on yourself!

The beauty of true "Christianity" is that it is personal and doesn't allow any pre-decided idea(s) of who/what/how God is! Not what parents/society/peer pressure suggests. You will find that most real Believers fought a war within themselves before they believed and that is why its called "surrendering to God" or becoming "born-again". Wasn't easy, guy! We had to deal with what you are closing your mind to. And each thus has a different maturity/understanding level. That is supported by the Scriptures! So when you say each has his own understanding, Yes, that is right. Its not like memorizing something and just repeating it non-stop. Here, I need my mind and will to do whatever and it is personal

That is the beauty of free-will coupled with reason. I follow a creed that says "question everything". EVERYTHING! And it took time to reason out why I am my "word", why free-will sent Adam out and brings us in and that it makes sense to follow a God that is not proud, that is not distant, that cares enough to show His Love and whose worst "crime" was that He was Holy. And, He is the true God is why its only Him that everyone cares enough to study and fight against. Haba, on this forum, there are non-Christians who have read the Bible more than us its owners

I have lofty things to look up to, to try to achieve. Interesting that no religion claims evil "in any form" of Jesus. In fact, everyone tries to associate with Him. Compare that to the alternatives where everyone tries to force this "Crying Carpenter Son the Son etc" to be associated to them. Funny, ehn? Especially when Christianity ignores these alternatives since they don't matter to it.

You insist on using the word "Triune". It is NOT 3 GODS but 1 GOD showing Himself in 3 ways. My example was [1] a letter [2] a telephone call [3] a physical visit. If I can do that, well?

The Word for God in Genesis is plural! Have you forgotten Isaiah spoke of "Emmanuel [God with/amongst us] called the Saviour, Mighty God etc". Have you not neglected David's psalm where he said "The Lord said unto my Lord"? You selectively read the Bible looking for errors forgetting that what we say is that it was written by MEN but inspired by God. Each man used his own literature but 40 authors put together a book that has the SAME MESSAGE. Not coming together to make it "ONE" as other religions do, only proves that this is a personal issue wherein each finds his own way to the same truth and grow, aided by the Spirit of God and of course, fought every step of the way by religion, the lack of religion, satan, peer pressure etc. And of course, the wise men of NL

I notice you dont like the word TRIUNE or TRINITY. You dont like the idea that God is three. You prefer UNITY or UNITARIAN. But the problem is you cant reconcile the concept of UNITY to the dogma of the 'divinity' of christ. You tell me "It is NOT 3 GODS but 1 GOD showing Himself in 3 ways". But every time you think of God, three seperate and distinct images form in your head and no matter how hard you try you can never superimpose these three images.

As per the issue of plural for God in the OT. Allah severally refers to himslf as US and WE several times in the Quran. Anybody that know the semitic (arabic, aramic)  langauges will tell you it is Plural of Majesty . Even the Queen of England uses the pronoun WE to refer to herself. The jews know the OT better than anybody yet they have never concievd their God as a trinity or anything suggesting a plurality of forms. Your problem and that of christendom at large is that you guys are reading a Jewish book with western googles. Or are you telling me God hid his nature from Abraham, Moses, elijah etc. He also never told them he had a son

You made mention of 'prophecy' by Isiah about "Emmanuel [God with/amongst us]. You are trying to tell us that Isaiah said God will live with us as christ.
First of all, show me a single place in the NT where jesus was called by name Emmanuel
Secondly, if you deduce that cos someone is called Emmanuel [God with/amongst us], he is God then how about peolple call by the name ELI in the bible. Eg- 1 Samuel 3:5 And he ran to Eli and said, "Here I am; you called me ,
Thirdly, read the context of the prophecy from isiah 7:1 down and tell us if it refers in anyway to jesus

I leave you to ponder with these few verses of the bible and let your conscience be the judge

John 20:17 - "I ascend to My Father and to your Father, My God and to your God."
John 17:3 - "And this is eternal life, that they know You are the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent."
Joh n 14:28 - Jesus says, "The Father is greater than I."
The most important one," answered Jesus, "is this: 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one.
"Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good–except God alone.No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father"

@Sauer, brilliant post!

nuclearboy:
@the_seeker:

I sincerely believe most muslims believe what they say and have been brought up to detest Christianity. because they feel God is being insulted. Is it not funny however, that both in the Bible and Koran, it is people who have a false belief who feel compelled to defend their "GOD"? And bullies usually are wrong which is why they shout loudest believing noise to counter truth? Think about it.

ANUS? "another trick question" meant to offend and ridicule, abi? And then the avenue for name-calling is opened and the uncultured can be called in to start slinging insults at the different "GODs".  Don't play games here. All these "lets win using a trick" questions have no place in a conversation between people who are sincere. Funnily enough, the desire to turn every thread into a name and insult slinging doesn't help your case for a "supreme position" God who is above many things.

The God you claim all these "macho Oga patapata" attributes for has many things to prove. Listening and seeing all the insults we send in his direction in this Forum should have caused him to kill/maim/wound many people here. Why hasn't He? Cos the attribute is wrong. The True God has nothing to prove so whether its Christians, Athiests, Muslims or whatever barking, the name calling bounces off. It is the deliberate lies and mischief that are recorded and which will stand at judgement. And the fake one would not be allowed to do so by the true one so it doesn't seem to be the True one.

Again, think it through - the instance anything limits God, either the "limiter" is wrong or it is not the "true God" being referred to. Take your pick! God is UNLIMITED! And has the right to be anything including a piece of paper or yes, a PIG at any time He wants IF HE WANTS. Any god that needs to prove a point would have destroyed Satan and many people in this forum if he were the real God.

With such a proud (that can't allow himself to look low) god, "His Supreme position" is not consonant with any insult. Neither is it with people lying about Him in any way. Why hasn't He done anything about such and destroyed a sizable proportion of NL. He only sees having a partner or son ONLY as beneath HIS UNLIMITEDNESS? Wrong interpretation there, Bro.

Anyway, God is 1: a Spirit that manifested in Flesh as the SON and manifests as the Holy Ghost dwelling in and guiding His adopted children. Spirits do not use the toilet! BTW, the Bible says "I form light and create darkness"!  Unjust/Silly/etc are Human words being tried to "fit" a Divine Creator. You judge that someone did wrong before you say what they did was "unjust". Who's going to judge God? So then, who's going to say whatever He does is Unjust/Silly/etc because the minute you say so, you just judged the Almighty God

My post was neither meant to ridicule nor to offend. It was meant to stimulate your brain cells and force you to think. Think Man!
I never argue to win (arguements are never won), the idea is to expose the flaws and fallacies in your ideology.  You just dont accept a dogma because you want to believe. I have discussed with with several christians on the divinity of christ and the nature of the trinity and have realised that no two understandings of these dogmas are the same. I have heard all sorts of ludicrous interperations and explantions of these subjects. Everyone based on his own level of 'understanding'. It has becomes obvious that that they are all struggling to accept this dogma not because they think it makes sense but  just because they want to believe.

The good thing is that we as humans have conscience. and i know most christains go to bed every night asking themslves these same questions. How can God be one and yet be three? what is the true nature of Jesus? how can god be man? is really jesus God? The answer to these question have evaded the the greatest of thinkers for about 2,000 years? Why? Cos it is all a lie. A conspiracy of silence deeply rooted in the origins of christianty.

Islam offers you aswer to all these question. The creed of islam is free from ambiguty and is a true testimony to the unity of God. Have you ever asked yourself why it took until just 2,000 ago for God to 'reveal' to us that he is a triune God, that he has a son. Or why Moses or Abraham or Noah never knew God had a son preached that God is One. Have asked yourself why Jews and Muslims agree totally about the nature of God and his undivisible unity. And why only christianity stand out differently

Oncemore, i invite you to islam with these beautiful word from the Quran
Say: "People of the Book! Come to a proposition which is the same for us and you - that we should worship none but God and not associate any partners with Him and not take one another as lords besides God." (Qur'an, 3:64)

"Jcross, i henestly dont get your point. what are you trying to infer

bawomolo:
what about a religion that subjugates women's right in the name of sharia law, is that a devils doctrine? Is a religion that stones adulterers to death a devils doctrine too?

do you think i should run for my dear life from such religion?

Go and tell that to Moses. And dont forget to ask him whether it was the devil or his God jesus that gave him the COMMANDMENTS that adulterers should be stoned to death

if you had taken enough time to review the posts on this thread, you would notice that the focus in on travel to the past and not the future. Future travel seem like voodoo physics to me to

viaro:
No, it is not going too far. While I thanked him for his views in quoting the quran, I already said in the OP that this thread was not intended to be 'some religious apocalyptic drama being rehearsed in the corridors of science and philosophy'. That was why I wondered where to open the thread and just left it in the Religious board for now. Again, it is for this reason that I have not been busy quoting texts from the Bible, even though I am very well aware of what Revelation says about the apocalypse.

When people try to so confidently assert certain things, it just makes me wonder whether they have considered the discussion before making contributions. I don't have anything with his quotes from the quran; but when he went as far as "interpreting" those verses for us, he has crossed some thin line and should be ready to address questions based on his interpretations (even though we know many Muslims who will tell you that once the quran is translated into any language, it ceases to be the quran).

The topic of this thread is How The Universe Will End. The most popular scientific theory states that the universe will stop expanding at some point and start contracting until all matter is compressed together; THE BIG CRUNCH.
The quran  corroborate this precisely, from  the creation of the universe from a big bang to its expansion and finally it contraction to a 'crunch'.

THE BIG BANG
QURAN 21;30- Do not these disbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were an integrated mass (Primeveal atom), which We then split, and from water We made all living things? Will they not believe even then?


EXPANDING UNIVERSE
QURAN 51;47- With power did We construct Heaven. Verily, We are expanding it.

THE BIG CRUNCH
QURAN 21;104- On that day We will fold the heaven, like the folding of a book. Just as We initiated the first creation, We will revert it. This is Our promise. We will certainly fulfill it.

Viaro these verses are clear and unequivocal. You posts show you are automatically assuming that the Quran (or any religious book for that matter) cannot be right on scientific matters. It took scientists only recently to confirm postulate what was already recorded in the Quran over 1,400 years ago.

viaro:
Thanks for your views. However, a point of observation:

Hang on, mate. If the universe was separated from a whole, then that gives the idea that there are two entities -

      (a)  the Universe that was separated from the whole
      (b)  something from which the Universe was separated

Now please tell: what is that "something"?

I honestly do not get your point with the 'something' or how you inferred that there are two entities

Pls ignore Mazaje. He is a typical arrogant atheist who thinks he can open his mouth and condemn anybodies religion or beliefs. You cant reason with someone who does not believe in anything!

[quote author=Abu-Safwan link=topic=358975.msg5110791#msg5110791 date=1260807330]Good step Banom. you h've now reached half position of the truth. Try and make another long jump to arrive at ultimate and perfect divine unity with no trinity i.e Islam. Wishing you the best and pray for you to fulfil your task.[/quote]Banom, has done well. The next logical step is to acquire a complete understanding of the true nature of God. Islam awaits you with open arms!

Here is what the quran has to say about the END. Pls read objectively and no anti-islam responses.


104- On that day We will fold the heaven, like the folding of a book. Just as We initiated the first creation, We will revert it. This is Our promise. We will certainly fulfill it.
21-The Prophets, 104

I would like to bring an interesting point to your attention. In the verse it is said that God will return it to its former state. Therefore, to be able to understand the end of the universe, we have to go back to the first three chapters of our book where the beginning of Creation is described. The fact that they appear in the same sura is meaningful (The beginning is explained in the sura The Prophets; verse 30, in the same sura, verse 104, the end is explained).

30- Do not these disbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were an integrated mass, which We then split, and from water We made all living things? Will they not believe even then?
21-The Prophets, 30

47- With power did We construct Heaven. Verily, We are expanding it.
51-The Dispersing, 47

We deduce from the above two verses;
1- that the universe was separated from a whole, and
2- that the universe formed following this separation is expanding.
The extraordinary miracle in these verses of the Quran was examined in the first three chapters. Now if we may be allowed to go back to the verse we quoted in this chapter, if the universe is going to regress to its original state, then:

1- the expanding universe will have to contract, and
2- the expanding universe will return to its primordial unity.

come to think of it! Information can actually travel faster than the speed of light. Like in the case of an entangled pair where information can travel btw the particles at faster than light speed

The earth is dragging us around the sun at 68,000 mph. That is some  89 times the speed of sound!.

chemistry?

There is no evidence whatsoever for a global flood. Viaro has done a good job of explaining the dynamics. Floods are very hard to miss in geological records. The flood was obviously local. There is strong evidence for an extensive flood in the mesopotamia basin.

nuclearboy:
Copied this from another thread here on NL Msg#155 on https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-283613.128.html

Please note this is used just to complement the issue of Omniscience/Omnipotence/Omnipresence. As I wrote earlier, our understanding differs and the author of the below has shown (better than I could myself) my understanding of God's power. Omni"gbogbo E" is just another way of limiting God.

QUOTE BEGINS

(1) The Koran throughout proclaims that God knows absolutely everything and that he can do whatever he wishes, whenever he pleases.

Comment: it appears that the Koran's authors didn't realise that omniscience and omnipotence are inconsistent characteristics. Thus, if God knows absolutely everything, then nobody could ask a question to which he doesn't know the answer, whereas if God could do whatever he wishes, whenever he pleases, then he could ask a question to which nobody knows the answer.

Verdict: inconsistency.
*
(2) It also appears that the Koran's authors did not appreciate that the concept of an omnipotent being is absurd. Thus, ex hypothesi an omnipotent being (OB) can do anything and everything; hence, there would not be any examples of what an OB cannot do; hence, it would be impossible for anyone to give any any examples of what an OB could not do; hence, an OB could not give any examples of what an OB could not do; but if an OB cannot give any examples of what an OB cannot do, that in itself would be an example of what an OB cannot do; hence, there would be at least one example of what an OB cannot do.

Verdict: absurdity.
*
QUOTE ENDS

Look at (2) again. There are no examples of what an Omnipotent being cannot be (including become a man or baby or piece of wood). The word limits God to human imagination and is MAN SPEAKING not GOD SPEAKING

So Bro, what are the questions you wished to ask?

The God of the Quran has power over all things and can do anything. In fact most secular scholars agree that the majesty and power of Allah in the Quran in unrivalled in any religius literature. Agreed that God can do anything, there are things that He will not do, simply because it is below his nature and unbeffiting of His majesty. For example God cannot lie or be unjust or ignorant or silly or subject to anything or anyone. I want you to tell me that your God can do any of these and i will close this argument. i defintely belive that you agree that God can do any thing but will not do every thing (voice you dissent if you have any)

All  said, i put it to you that God cannot become Man and Man cannot become God. What stops a god that can stoop as low as becoming a Man from becoming a dog or pig or worm or a coackroach. You must agree that this is unplesant and unbefiiting of our Almighty creator under any circumstances whatsoever.

In most religions and cultures, God is usually qualifed with positive Attributes (i.e thing that He is). like the Greatest, the Powerful, the Almighty etc. Quite interstingly, the Aborignee (Australoid) of australia call their God by a funny negative attribute. They call him[b] ATNATU[/b], meaning one without an Anus. This is perhaps the most intriguing name for God that i have ever come across. Unlike the usual names that qualify what He is, this one qualifies what He is not. Now lets see if our dear jesus  passes this litmus test. We all for one know he ate (broiled fish etc). i will leave this rest to your Imagination.

Does your God have an Anus?

@nuclearboy, no offence meant by my conclusion about christains, i was only judging based on my experince on and outside NL discussing with christians.
Since you have not clearly answered all my questions, i will stick to your unequivocal responses.

1. Is jesus the Almighty God?  YES
2. Is he the Son of God? YES
4. Does God taking up flesh and living among us make him loose his omniscience and omnipresence? NO God is always ominipresent and ominiscient
5. Do you believe in trinity? you believe in a triune God not the word 'trinity'

pls i need you to concur that i correctly interpreted your responses. sorry abt my style. i just want us to handle this methodically