₦airaland Forum

Janosky:
1.. the scriptures stated ( Acts 14:27 etc) addressed that.

2 & 3, 1 Corinthians 15:58, Matthew 24:14 & John 4:34 are the guiding principles.
Time, personal inconvenience and even resources require working long hours to accomplish the ministry.

The question again ,

Is it mentioned in the Bible that Christians must put in 70hours of preaching or fieldwork monthly ? Yes or no

Long hours is indefinite time . It doesn't answer the question at all.

Janosky:
Based on Bible principles and practice of Jehovah's servants.
Presentation of Reports is a common practice of Jehovah's servants in Templee333's copy of holy Bible.

Go and verify...

Acts 14:27
When they had arrived, and had gathered the assembly together, they reported all the things that God had done with them, and that he had opened a door of faith to the nations.

Acts 15:4
When they had come to Jerusalem, they were received by the assembly and the apostles and the elders, and they reported all things that God had done with them.


Acts 21:19
When he had greeted them, he reported one by one the things which God had worked among the Gentiles through his ministry.
Did Moses report to Jehovah his God?

John 17:1-14,Did Jesus Christ report to his God and Father?

The issue with the OP,Templee333 be say na follow follow him be,with shallow knowledge of Bible truth and principles.
He lacks in-depth knowledge or understanding of God's word, John 17:3, coupled with loss of faith which led him to atheism and making pretences in Christendom by teaching kids and adults about the holy bible he doesn't believe in.

I think you have misinterpreted Temple 333

It is not just the reporting alone he complained of, but the hours of reporting which is fixed at minimum of 70hours monthly.

Is there anywhere in the Bible that Christians must preach 70 hours monthly?

That's the question he has asked.

GraceAndPeace:
My dear, no one is trying to condemn you or anyone, in short its because we love all men that we present the truth to them.

Its unfortunate that your Father died an atheist. But who knows, he may have changed his mind before passing on. You can't say how far he went with his beliefs.

Truly I agree with the author of this book that there are indeed Atheists for moral reasons and for other reasons. Its possible that all the atheists you know belong in the later category but the fact that there are immoral atheists cannot be overlooked also.

Many people including atheists are hateful, vengeful, malicious, dubious, perverts, etc And judging by appearance may not look so at all.
But one thing that would always bring their sins to the surface is their conscience. No matter how hidden ours sins are, the conscience would always speak them out.

Some people appease the voice of their conscience by performing religious dead works that have no spiritual foundation.

Others(mostly atheists) handle it by questioning the authority of the conscience, which is God.

Someone may appear good and still not be good. You can only see their outward behaviours/modifications. And you think you know them enough?

Why are you deflecting? You asked a question and I responded by letting you know that it's not true that 99% of atheists are what you think. Instead of taking it from there, you want to run away.This is not good enough and it shows you want to engage in deceptive arguments.


The person who died foolishly believing that your religious God exist is the one who has died unfortunately. My father never died unfortunately. You say you are young and lack experience. So I will forgive for showing lack of respect for the dead.

Maybe when you grow up you would know better and dump your religion after knowing the lies in it.

At the moment, you're speaking from the position of indoctrination.You have been indoctrinated to believe that your rellgion is the only true one and unfortunately an indoctrinated religious person lacks the awareness to know that they have been brainwashed. So whatever I say would not make sense to you. That's how your brain works under indoctrination.

Muslims believe Christians don't know the truth and it's also due to their own indoctrination.

Think about this and start to question your beliefs to be sure that what you believe is actually the correct thing before trying to give it to others.

You said someone may appear good but may not be really good . Why don't you also consider it the other way round. Someone may appear bad to you ,but may not be really bad; The atheist you consider bad may not really bad ,but your religious beliefs has caused you to regard them as bad people.

GraceAndPeace:
[u]People may disbelieve God, but they cannot deny there is morality. Let me tell you frankly, that though I am still young, at least ninety-nine out of a hundred atheists are questionable in respect of
their personal morality. I have yet to meet an atheist who lives somewhat morally. There are some in the audience who are older
than I. May I ask you if you have ever met an atheist whose morality is even slightly dependable? Whether asking fellow students,
business associates, or friends, the atheists whom I have met are all morally corrupt; s

You have used your personal experience to generalise that 99,,% of atheists are immoral. You're forgiving since you admit you're still young .Your experience is not enough.

My late father was an atheist. He never lived his life recklessly and was known to be a very honest person.


His friends who were atheist too that I know, also displayed the same character traits; they were honest people who also never lived life recklessly.

Most of the atheist I have met offline try to live an honest life

They don't look for trouble or brother you with their non belief. It is only here on Nairaland you see such things and it's because they want you to consider what you believe since they were once like you.

Christians are usually shocked to find out that the good and honest man they have known and doing business with doesn't believe in God. The next thing they say after the shocked has died down, usually goes like this,, "ah you're too good not to believe in God. You're supposed to be a Christian." " No no no. God will arrest you very soon" and blah blah blah


The idea that people are atheists because they want to live anyhow is simply not true.
Most atheists are people who detest lies. They don't want you to lie to them and they try not to lie to you .

And it's exactly for this reason they reject your religion that is based on lies and not because they want to live an immoral life or the ridiculous idea that they don't have God in them.


Don't get me wrong. There are atheists whose behaviour leaves much to be desired. Those ones have fallen for the pitfall of thinking that atheism gives one the licence to live life anyhow ..It has nothing to do with their non belief but how they have personally chosen to live their lifes.

Instead of focusing on atheist,you should be more worried for your follow Christians who don't follow strictly the moral code of your religion. They're lots of Christians who can't be regarded as Christians.

Those ones, don't they accept God exist? Or maybe they know your God doesn't exist and since they lack the courage to break away from the religion, they remain and pretend.

FYI, I am not an atheist. You can describe me as irreligious or agnostic.I don't attach any label to my self.

Who was Mary Kathryn?
She was proven to be a lunatic and fraud when she was alive.
Her book has been "fingered" as one of the causes of RST, Religious stress Trauma, experienced by some Christians who have read it and believed her fiction.

Here below would help you to know about the person whose reality distorting book the Op is serialising.
Later, I would come back to explain in more detail how the book has destroyed minds and still doing so.
Expect more.https://medium.com/belover/the-hell-hustler-654de600fff5

tctrills:
The other time, you spoke about Adam and Eve's "disobedience" I agree with you, they disobeyed God. But remember, they did not have the knowledge of Good and evil.
But it was not a sin because they did not have knowledge. Below is the bible's definition of sin; James 4:17
Anyone, then, who knows the right thing to do, yet fails to do it, is guilty of sin.
Without the knowledge of Good and bad, there can be no sin.

Disobey which God? In a story that's an allegory?

It's clear you don't even understand anything I have said and just replying nonsense.
Take a break. It would do you some good

tctrills:
I understand how you feel but it doesn't change anything.
Humanity had 2 options.
1. Remain in the garden forever, never to die and be forever innocent.
2. Leave the garden, overcome sin and become like God.
I would choose option 2 what about you?

The above is not the reason for my interactions with you, and you know it



We don't need Jesus for anything since the story is an allegory. That has been my argument with you and not because I don't understand the real meaning encoded in the story.

So far you have failed to convince anyone why your Jesus should sacrifice himself for what happened in a fictional story.

I am going to repeat this again, all the characters in the story are symbolic, meaning no real God, Adam and Eve or talking snake Even the garden was not a real place. It's just the product of the imagination of those who wrote the story.

So, talking of the story as if it's something that actually happened is exposing your level of understanding.


Enjoy yourself.

tctrills:
The knowledge of sin and also good came from the garden. It would be foolish to stick to the garden. The Garden was only a part of the plan. God's entire plan was to make man like him. The Garden played a major role in the plan but it would have been a curse and a failure without other aspects of the plan.

God's plan began with Jesus Christ, not Adam. Jesus Christ is the center of the plan. Adam played a vital role. Through him, the knowledge of good and evil came into the world. Also through him, man became mortal and we could go through the trials of mortality. These would not have been possible in the garden. I hope you understand it now.

Before you ask me if I understand, read again the gibberish you wrote up there ,and ask yourself if it really make any sense to you.

You just typed anything that came to your head with the hope it would make sense.It has not. It just a series of disjointed and unrelated statements.

If you don't want to answer one by one to each of the points I raised in my last reply, then , don't bother anymore.

You have failed woefully to prove your claim of how God planned what happened in the garden to pave way for Jesus coming later.

tctrills:
You are now making my point. You said,
"In the world that we live in, nothing can be known or understood without its opposite. Without evil, we wouldn't appreciate good or know what is good, and without good, we can't make sense of what is evil."
Do you now see why eating the fruit was not a curse? Man could understand good and evil and from then we could resist evil. The only way we can become like God is if we overcome evil. In the Garden, Adam and Eve could not overcome evil.

Who is making your point? You just demonstrated that you have not been reading very well any of my replies. I have maintained that what happened in the garden was not a curse but a blessing. Christianity which you subscribe to doesn't regard it as blessing, but the downfall of man. You see why I said you're not able to comprehend simple things and you say I was rude. If you insist that Christian theology says it is blessing, then, please mention the name of your Christian group so one can confirm you're telling it as it is. You're misconstruing my statements everytime to create confusion.

Yes, Jesus was needed to remove sin. Let me quote a verse to help you with your confusion.

Just imagine. Clear you own confusion first. You're certainly confused as you want to deceive yourself by jumping from Jesus coming to remove evil of the forbidden fruit to now removing sin of the world. Where did the sin came from according to Christianity? Stick to what happened in the garden of Eden to prove why Christ has to die for any sin.You're running away from that to start quoting unrelated scripture. You claimed that everything that happened in the garden was for Jesus to die later. Focus on that

John 1:29. 29 The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.

How does this verse relate with what happened in the garden of Eden or do you now accept Adam and Eve committed the original sin by disobeying God. Hope you can now understand why I say you're confused .If a Muslim quotes something from the Quran would you accept it as truth? Certainly not. The Bible verse is church theology it is not truth but to you. And what is the sin of the world?

The role of Christ was to take away the sins of all those who surrender to him.

So. nothing to do with the garden of Eden then? And what is sin?

Again I would never mention my group to you. I reserve the right to that and if you are not satisfied sorry. I don't need to know what you worship to discuss with you. If you feel you have a duty to know where I worship before discussing with me, I can't help you, sir.

I have mentioned the reason I want to know. You dare not mention it as you know you would be exposed for saying things that are contrary to what is preached in your church. That's the truth. You're mixing to opposing viewpoints to rationalise Christianity's wrong interpretation of the Genesis account . Instead of admitting that it is your own personal interpretation, which is commendable, you're trying desperately to tie it to church theology. The interpretation that Adam and Eve eating the forbidden fruit is blessing is not Church theology. Others know that but not you. I think I have wasted too much time with you. You're have been running from pillar to post trying to cover up for what you started.

tctrills:
Christian doctrine is a very broad concept. At no time have Christians of all denominations agreed on a particular doctrine. You would have known if you were a Christian.

Now let's go to the few things you pointed out. You said;
If what happened in the garden was planned by God so that they eat the fruit and become wise, then the later sacrifice of Jesus is meaningless and not needed.

How do you mean? God told Adam and Eve that they would die if they eat the fruit, they obviously needed someone to save them from death.
Secondly, the fruit was called the fruit of knowledge of good and bad for a reason. True it gave man the Knowledge of good, but it also gave him the knowledge of evil. Christ came to take away the sins of the world. Do you get it now?

Oga, I say let me know the denomination or Christian group you belong to.

You're mixing to opposing viewpoints to interpret the Genesis account. I told you this is deception as a Christian..

.Your answer to the op which I responded to, says that God planned everything so that he could later send his son to die as sacrifice. This is contrary to Christian theology that everyone is familiar with.

In Christianity, the interpretation is that the first two couples disobeyed God and this led to their alienation. To reconcile the descendant of Adam and Eve back to God ,a Jesus sacrifice must happen, if not the burden of original sin remains.

But your Gnostic interpretation is that God wanted them to eat the fruit so their eyes can be opened so they know evil from good and become wise.

Now that they did what God wanted, why do we still need Jesus to die for anything.

You said to remove evil. But this is where you have failed because you don't understand what it means to have the knowledge of good and evil.

In the world that we live in, nothing can be known or understood without its opposite. Without evil we wouldn't appreciate good or know what is good, and without good we can't make sense of what is evil.

Adam and Eve did not know they were naked because they had no knowledge of what is good and evil, but after eating the forbidden fruit their eyes became open to know they were naked.
Hope you get it now? So stop saying Jesus was needed to remove evil. If that were to happen, then it means we would all go back to the pre-Adamic era, ignorance. Naked not Knowing we are naked.
Do you want that to happen? I don't think so.

Evil can't be removed from the world. It is as simple as that. Jesus didn't come to remove evil. That idea is Christian theology and not truth.

Please don't fail in your reply to mention the Christian group you belong to ,so one can be sure you're telling the truth as it is preached there, if not ,it is better the conversation is discontinued.

Tamaratonye1:
Concerning the "Something from Nothing" canard, this is a much better article to refer to: 70-year-old quantum prediction comes true, as something is created from nothing

Now, I should have clarified this earlier when I posted the initial article. Please make no mistake, the claim that something emerged from "nothing" isn't simply misleading, it's as wrong as it's possible to get. What's going on here is called the Schwinger Effect, and it involves the production of electron-positron pairs in absurdly powerful electrical fields. Those are electrical fields so intense that we simply can't produce them. You'd need something like a neutron star for those types of energies. The particles being produced are NOT being produced from nothing. The energy needed to create them is drawn from the electrical field in accordance with Einstein's famous equation. So cool beans, energy is being converted into matter, but something is not coming from nothing.

In this case the researchers didn't even do that. They didn't produce particle-antiparticle pairs because, as mentioned, that takes Earth-shattering amounts of energy. Literally. What they observed was the spontaneous production of electrons and electron holes in doped graphene sheets under electrical fields that, while intense, can be generated relatively simply in most physics labs. They didn't actually produce any particles, they just induced quantum tunnelling of electrons between adjacent graphene sheets. That isn't to belittle their work. It's an elegant analogue of the Schwinger effect using practical energies that must have taken some serious skull sweat to figure out. Impressive, given that it was predicted that we'd never observe this effect at all.

By contrast, the pop sci writers who have misinterpreted and misrepresented their work should have their teeth filed off on concrete for their crimes against rational thought, basic decency, and scientific literacy in general.

Good you came yourself to correct the wrong impression created by the article.
I took my time to read it over and over again to be sure I wasn't missing something.

And each time I finished reading, I kept asking myself how did matter came from nothing in the experiment?. Nothing like that.

From what I understand, the experiment was to demonstrate that matter is coalesced energy. That's is surely not something from nothing

The idea that matter is coalesced energy is nothing new. Those who hold on to the tenets of higher consciousness, true spirituality, not rellgion, have always insisted that matter is coalesced spirit, energy.

So nothing new here. But good scientist are now attempting to demonstrate this so we can have a better understanding of how the solid universe was "created" from "nothing" , energy.

Arrowss:
Even though I did not quote the bible or mentioned church? Or even denomination, or talk about anyone one as man of God or woman of God, yet you are attacking, relax, stop attacking, sheath your sword, can't you explain without attacking? Who mentioned Sunday school here, or who has said no one should give opinion, may be you need to read my comment open mindedly. Well, I did not run away from not explaining what evil or Good is or wrong or right, I left the vacuum to be filled, anyway, I'll fill it. THERE IS NOTHING AS EVIL OR GOOD, OR BAD OR GOOD, THATS WHY WHEN THERE IS NO LAW, THERE CANT BE OFFENCE OR CRIME OR ANYTHING AS SIN, BUT AS SOON AS THERE IS LAW, THEN WE CAN START TO TALK OF WHAT AND WHAT SHOULD WE AGREE TO BE OFFENCE OR CRIME, WHAT WE WANT TO AGREE TO BE GOOD OR BAD, AND AS SUCH, THEY HAVE THEIR EXPIRY DATES, SINCE WHAT WE AGREED TO BE GOOD TODAY MAY BECOME WHAT WE LATER AGREE TO BECOME BAD TOMORROW, WHAT WE NAME BAD HERE MAY BE THE SAME THING OTHERS NAMED GOOD ELSWHERE, thats the reason I said there is nothing as good or bad or right or wrong. Now to God, its same with God, what he calls bad is bad, what he calls good is good, at any point in time, at that moment, thats why he said we should leave judgement for him. Infact we all operate on God's feelings, emotions, thoughts, That's why God is not bound by any rule or law, whatever God wishes is what God does. What ever God says is good is good, is bad is bad. Both have life spans and are subjected to change at any given time.

SO LIKE I SAID, ONE MAY SAY GOD KNWS BAD IS ABOUT TO HAPPEN AND GOD ALLOWED IT. MY PREVIOUS EXPLAINATION AND THIS ONE HAS CLEARED THE AIR FROM MY SIDE HERE. MY SUBMISSION.

Sorry. All you said is round about talk. Nobody can make sense of it.

If you think I am attacking you, then just ignore me.

tctrills:
Yes, I have been called names by the JW. The last guy to do so, I reminded him that it was in his right to call me anything.
Now to the more serious matters. The death of Jesus was many centuries after Adam but it was ordained ever before Adam ate the fruit. It was not an after thought of God. It was always the plan

Oga mention the name of your church or Christian group. That's what I am interesting in for now .

If you don't want to do that, then stop calling yourself a Christian. Don't hide . I am not asking for your name.

I want to know the real Identity of the person I am arguing with to determine if you're actually presenting what your church preaches and not your own personal interpretation which I already accepted is the proper way to view things.

Christian doctrine says what happened in the garden is disobedience; the original sin that resulted in curses and condemnation.. For this a sacrifice is needed to put things right.

As a Christian,y ou're mixing two opposing viewpoint by saying it is a blessing as against what church doctrine says. You want to eat your cake and have it too? Not possible. Choose one

Concerning Jesus, you still don't get it and here is your confusion. If what happened in the garden was planned by God so that they eat the fruit and become wise, then the later sacrifice of Jesus is meaningless and not needed.

You don't punish somebody for doing the right thing you actually wanted and then later insisting a blood sacrifice must be made before you let go of the punishment. It doesn't make sense.

Your church indoctrination is why you still talk of compulsory sacrifice of Jesus after admitting that what happened in the garden is for the good of humanity. Fear is why you're not bold enough to admit church doctrine concerning the allegory doesn't make sense.

tctrills:
I am not mixing any view. I am just telling you the truth.

Don't agree you're telling the truth

Again, there are over 10000 churches. Which church interpretation are you talking about?
The Catholic interpretation is different from the Jehovah witness, which is different from the Adventist, which is also different for the Mormons, this is again different from the church of Christ.

After mentioning other denominations or Christian groups, you failed to identify with any so as to make it easy to verify if you're telling the truth of what your church preaches. If you're not hiding something, I dare you to mention your own church so any of your fellow members who might be following can verify that all you say here is the same as what they tell them in church about the story.
You have been called a fake Christian by a Jehovah witness , Maximus, who is not ashamed to identify with his organization. Prove you're not hiding something by announcing your own denomination. I dare you to do that in your next reply if not this would be the last time reply you.

The death of Jesus is what makes it a blessing. Let me ask you, what has man lost due to the fall?

You're certainly confused. If one were to accept the story is not an allegory, the death of Jesus centuries later can't turn it into a blessing. You don't require the spilling of blood of anyone to understand what a blessing is. You're not thinking this at all, but just preaching church doctrine disguised as truth.

tctrills:
You have a lot to understand
Adam and Eve's fall brought far more blessings than your so-called curse. Their fall brought about Jesus Christ, resurrection, and Immortality for all mankind. We are blessed with the knowledge of Good and evil just like God. We also have the ability to become perfect like God thanks to the fall.
So while both of us can keep making fun of each others logic, ask yourself, wether all these blessings I have outlined do not outweigh your perceived curse.

You're mixing two opposing view points ,gnosticism and Christianity to interpret the Genesis account in order to answer the op. Nothing wrong with that.

But the problem is that you want to make it seem as if the church interprets it the same way. This is deceptionon your part.

Can you preach that Adam and Eve disobedience( that's what church doctrine says) is a blessing in any Sunday school or from any pulpit? You have refused to answer that each time I ask.



I already said the story is an allegory and it has nothing to do with the so called "original sin" that would need a sacrifice to erase.

If you interpret the story as a blessing for humanity, I agree also, then I ask you where is the sense in Jesus coming to die again for what is already a blessing for humanity so that God can forgive what?

Why not just own up to what you're trying to do? You can deceive others but not somebody like me.

If you feel the church well known interpretation of the Genesis account doesn't make sense, why don't you do the needful by accepting you have outgrown the religion instead of looking for a way to rationalise things so you continue to believe.

This is exactly where you are right now.

tctrills:
Your logic is actually twisted. Christians of all ages believe that Christ died for sin yet they strive to do better and improve their lives. The notion that Christ's sacrifice would make Christians irresponsible people is so wrong. There is no evidence that Christians do not take responsibility when compared to other belief systems.

For your other comments, I don't see the need to keep going round in circles with you. If human sacrifice is an abomination to God, he would not have tested Abraham with an evil. God is not the Devil.

You win and congratulations since you believe that it was God's plan to set up Adam and Eve to eat the forbidden fruit so he can accuse them of disobedience and place curses to increase the pain of the woman during childbirth.
Then centuries later to forgive the original sin he set them up for, he sent his son to die so he can forgive the act of disobedience. Very good reasoning.

Talk you of and logic. I laugh.

And yea, still not showing you understand anything about the so called Abraham's sacrifice..

Modified. Do you know what it means to take responsibility for one's action?. No . You don't. You take responsibility by not waiting for somebody to die to forgive you or bear the consequences of what you have done

tctrills:
You have the example of Abraham and the example of Jesus, what more examples do you need to see that you are wrong? And if you are uncomfortable with our discussion, you can end it. The most sacred even in Christianity is the mortal sacrifice of Jesus Christ. Since you are not a Christian, I should be telling you the Christian doctrine but I can understand why you are uncomfortable.

You asked why should anyone worship a God who wants human blood to be spilled before he can forgive anything. This is the best question you have ever asked. He already answered it. The wages of sin are death. Your sins have brought death upon you. Only a kind and loving God would give you his beloved son to save you from death.

Again, for you non-Christians, your view of death is very different from the Christian view of death. So yes, we worship a God who saved us from death by offering his most precious gift to mankind.

Look at you again. I asked where in the Bible was anybody' actually sacrificed for the God of Israel with the people doing the sacrificing saying what it was for . Why is it difficult for you to understand this simple question.

Abraham never really sacrificed Isaac so don't mention that one. An alternative was provided at the last minute. I kept mentioning this so you can understand exactly why the God of Israel instructed him to proceed with it in the first place. It was a test of faith. The action should not be the main focus, but this has continued to fly past your head each time I mentioned it. You can't simply grasp it.

And in case you don't know,Jesus sacrificing himself for your sins is Pauline theology . Jesus in the Bible never said he came to sacrifice himself for the atonement of sin ,neither did God in the new testament said he sent Jesus to come and die for anybody's sin.

It might be comforting to believe that someone else has died for your sins, but in the end it would only lead to not taking responsibility for own life.

Your Bible says what you sow is what you reap . If you want to mock your God, you can reject that and live your life the way you want it believing some has paid the price.

Me uncomfortable? You're just projecting. All of these started with you giving an unchristian interpretation of the Genesis account. You claimed that God set up Adam and Eve to eat the forbidden fruit in the garden so he can later send his son to come and die for what he set them up for. It was God's plan according to you.

Can you teach this kind of thing in any Sunday school or from a pulpit where other Christians are gathered and not be seen as a devil preaching heresy? Answer me.

So, I am not uncomfortable, but no longer interested in the conversation as you're just going round in circles while avoiding dealing with the illogicallity of what you said at first about Adam and Eve.

I have insisted the story is an allegory which you're misinterpreting.

You have avoided discussing that ,but have craftily succeeded steering the conversation away in a different direction and now preaching. Sorry, I am not uncomfortable, but no longer interested . Thank you.

tctrills:
Well, I wouldn't say rude things like you. But clearly, you don't understand. Even though God was testing Abraham's faith, he would never ask you to do something evil. God asked Abraham to sacrifice his son because it was not a sin before him.

As for the detestable thing that did, it was sacrificing humans to other Gods. That's all. He sacrificed his own son in human form so clearly, Human sacrifice could not be the sin here.

I don't think you know the meaning of the word ,rude.I said you have shown that you don't understand the Bible very well. You have been misinterpreting Bible verses because you don't really understand them.

And you have repeated the same thing in your latest reply. It's clearly stated that the God of Israel detest humans sacrificing their sons and daughters to Gods or gods and not that he is not happy if the sacrifice is not made to him. That's exactly what that verse is saying and not what you want it to mean.

It is obvious that you're deliberately misinterpreting it in order to reconcile it with the primitive Christian doctrine of blood for the remission of sin. This is one of the major contradictions in the Bible which Bible scholars over the years have struggled unsuccessfully to explain away; A God that detest human sacrifice but still want such sacrifice for the forgiveness of sin. See, you can't reconcile this no matter how you try.

Apart from the example of Abraham, please present any other instances in the Bible where the God of Israel accepted human sacrifice as burnt offering. Mind you, Abraham never really sacrificed Isaac .An alternative was provided at the last minute after Abraham demonstrated he was ready to follow without questioning anything God ask him to do. That's the actual reason for that test of faith and not that God of Israel likes human sacrifice. He detest it. The God of the old and New testament are obviously not the same.

BTW, why should anyone worship a God that wants human blood to be spilled before he can forgive anything? What does a God need blood for?


I think it should end now. You either as a Christian accept by faith church doctrine or you don't. It's not something you can defend with logic or trying to rationalise it . You will fail.There's a reason your religion wants you to accept things without questioning .
That's the only way they can keep you believing and not knowing the truth for yourself.

Arrowss:
That you knw about a thing before it happens doesn't necessarily mean you must stop it from happening or allow it to happen because you have the power to stop it or make it happen. You may now say, God saw evil about to happen yet he did not stop it, my question now is, do you actually know what evil is? What is good? What is bad? You may say, so God can see something good about to happen and wd stop it? Remember, because you kw what is to come doesn't necessarily mean you must stop it or allow it even when you have the power to. Well, I ask you same question, what is Good and what is Bad? If you can be able to answer the question, I have answered your question.

All these so nobody question the Genesis account. Sorry,Nairaland is not your Church or Sunday school where nobody is expected to question anything but jus accept whatever explanation given ,whether it makes sense or not.

You're not even sure of what you explained up there, the reason you're running away from telling us what is good or bad. You're engaged in deceptive argument in defense of the gospel. That's all. You're not the first and won't be the last.

Arrowss:
That you knw about a thing before it happens doesn't necessarily mean you must stop it from happening because you have the power to stop it. You may now say, God saw evil about to happen yet he did not stop it, my question now is, do you actually know what evil actually is? Think about it.

Then tell us what actually is evil since you're Gods spokesman.

tctrills:
Lol, read the verses you referred to again. God was talking about sacrificing humans to other Gods. It has nothing against his sacrificing his son. You are the one out of context
These are the verses you mentioned.
31 You must not worship the Lord your God in their way, because in worshiping their gods, they do all kinds of detestable things the Lord hates. They even burn their sons and daughters in the fire as sacrifices to their gods.

They all talk about sacrificing to other Gods. If God requires his son to sacrifice himself for mankind, it is not against his principles. Please read your bible.

God asked Abraham to sacrifice his son. God would never ask you to do something wrong.

I think comprehension is your problem. Sorry to say this. You read the verse and what you could make of it is that God would prefer that human sacrifice is made to him and not to other gods?
The verse says, they do all kinds all of destable things which God hates. One of these destable things is sacrificing human beings, their sons and daughters to their gods and not that the God of Israel is angry because the people did not offered it to him.

So the God of Israel detest human sacrifice of any kind, his son and anyone else

I hope your fellow Christians would comment on this. You're on your own and just saying anything that comes to your mind.

As for Abraham, he did not sacrifice his son an alternative was provided for him at the last minute showing it was a test of Faith and not that God actually wanted him to sacrifice his son.
I still insist you don't know your Bible very well and because of this you have been putting your God in a very bad light .

And please stop using the word, principle, to cover for something that is very reprehensible; sacrificing a human being to forgive sin.
Modified. Talking of context, it was Isaiah 1. 11 I said you took out of context and not Deuteronomy. Did you quote that before? Why don't you address the one you quoted? You want to confuse me?

tctrills:
Actually, the bible says God does not delight in animal sacrifice not human.
Isiah 1.11

This is very funny. God takes pleasure in human sacrifice but not animal sacrifice.

The Bible has not said so. You're the one saying so by taking Isaih 1.11 out of the context in which it was made. Read from verse 1 till the end and see the reason the God of Israel took no pleasure in the animal sacrifice offered by the children of Israel. It was not only animal sacrifice. He took no pleasure in their offerings and prayers as well.

Deuteronomy ,12.31 and 18. 10 as well as 2 kings. 21.6. shows how the God of Israel detest human sacrifice.
You sure don't know your Bible very well.

tctrills:
Did the bible not say that God gave his son and we are saved by the blood of Jesus Christ?

Then how do you solve the confusion of God not also delighting in human sacrifice. Are there two Gods in the Bible? Old testament God and new testament God? It would seem so from the look of things

tctrills:
It does not mean God and satan were working together. God wanted Jesus Christ to be crucified, would you say he was working with Judahs?

Sacrificed for what? Did the same Bible not say God doesn't delight in human sacrifice?

KnownUnknown:
@Triplechoice
Is tctrills a “fundamentalist” or a “moderate”?

I don't know enough of him to judge However religious fundamentalist are known to interpret religious text literally. Moderates are sometimes unwilling to publicly give a literal interpretation in order not to draw the ire of those who do.
So ,it is difficult to answer your question.
The sure way of identifying a fundamentalist is through the way they treat others around them who don't share exactly the same interpretation of scripture. They don't even tolerate fellow believers they consider not following scripture strictly not to talk of outsiders.

Muslims kill other Muslims because of this. Christians shun other Christian groups because of the same thing yet, they all use the same Bible or Koran.

tctrills:
So you see. You have developed your own opinion over God's words but you question other people. The Bible never said the story was an allegory.

And your opinion that God wanted Adam and Eve to eat the fruit is what?

If you insist God wanted them to eat it, then it means God and Satan are working together because without the later they wouldn't have thought of it.

And when you teach kids Sunday school ,you tell them God warned Adam and Eve not to eat the fruit, but however he never really meant they don't eat it.

tctrills:
That's not how to study the bible. It's not a question and answer booklet but from reading, you come to understand much. So the very first blessing that came to Adam and Eve from eating the fruit is that they became more like God.
And the Lord God said, "Now that the man has become like one of us, knowing good and bad,
The plan of God is that we become like him.
Be ye therefore perfect, even as your. Father which is in heaven is perfect.
God has all Knowledge and when we become like him, we would have all knowledge.

Interesting this. So you're the only one who can read and understand the Bible. When others read, they can only understand it if you interpret for them.

If God really wanted them to be like him ,then why chased them out of the garden so they don't eat what would really make them have immortality ? You skipped that

tctrills:
Good wanted them to work. remember Jesus said, my father works, even so, I work. Work is an internal principle. But God wanted them to make the choice.
As for pain, it's part of the package that comes with earth life. You may choose to see it as a curse but then even Jesus Christ learned and grew from his suffering. Hebrew 5.8.
Also, I never knew that your position is that there is no God. If I knew, there wouldn't have been a need for this discussion.

I am sure you never really read my response. You just glossed over it and then responded. I don't enjoy engaging people who do this.

Where did I mentioned my position about God. I said the story is an allegory. Meaning that the characters are symbolic. The story of Adam and Eve was plagiarized from Judaism where it is rightly treated for what it is; an allegory. It is only Islam and Christianity that has given it literal interpretation ,hence the confusion we have in the world today

tctrills:
I state 2 things here. 1. Knowledge and 2. Overcoming through Christ.
So I can show you 10s of verses where the importance of obtaining knowledge and I can quote many more that speak about overcoming sin through Jesus Christ.

This is not it. You said God wanted them to eat the forbidden fruit in the garden. Quote a verse were it is said God wanted this. If you're quoting any other thing about knowledge from the Bible, then it means God was using deception,a lie, to make Adam and Eve the fruit. He told them they would die the very day they eat the fruit, but this turned out not to be true as they continue to live

Modified. Why do we need Christ to overcome the original sin, if it was for our good

tctrills:
No, he wanted man to have the knowledge of good and evil and to overcome evil through his son.

Can you quote a Bible verse in support of the above?

tctrills:
What are the curses?
The man was given more responsibility. Work is a blessing, not a curse.

. It was God who never wanted them to work in the first place by placing them in a garden where he was spoon feeding them with different fruits everyday and would have continued for eternity if not for Eve that was bold and courageous enough to eat the forbidden fruit .So the blessings of work was theirs to fight for and not God's. God never wanted it.

Look at what the human race has accomplished because we were kicked out of our comfort zone and made to work. We have transformed the work and created civilizations.

Yes the human race as achieved a lot, but it was thanks to the snake and Eve. God never wanted it. He wanted our eyes closed in the garden for ever

Let me ask you if you are a billionaire, would you want your kids to work or would you want them to remain in a garden with everything they need and without the need to work and grow?

Let me also ask you ,how many billionaire fathers would keep their children at home at a time they should be in schoo?. God kept or wanted to keep Adam and Eve at home, in the garden, for eternity untill they got help from the snake. And the outcome was what led God to grudgingly forced them away to" school" and with some curses and swearing to go along with it.

For the woman the Lord said,
Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

This is putting it euphemistically. God actually placed curses to increase the pain of women during child birth. Just look at that . Then after 9 months of stressfully carrying a baby in the womb ,the woman has to experience one of the two most painful thing in the world; childbirth, (the other is burning by fire) And do you how many women have died from that painful experience since the beginning of the world? And why? Eve eat the fruit which was even a good thing.

It may seem like a curse but it is not.

This is double speak. It is a curse or punishment that's is not deserving at all

He gave the woman the responsibility over the children. He also made her be submissive to her husband. I don't see the curse in this.
Yes,

Submissive here is to hide the fact that God made Eve inferior or less than the Adam after disobeying him. Before the punishment, both of them were equals, nothing like the woman being submissive or less than the Adam.

God allowed them to face sorrow in the real world but it's only wonderful for their growth and experience.

. No. God never wanted it. It was the snake who actually wanted it for them and did everything to convince Eve to eat the fruit that led to their awakening. It is obvious you're trying to rationalise the behaviour of God in the garden by bringing in interpretations that are not part of church doctrine. It would only lead to confusion. This is the truth. The story is an allegory. There's no real God, Adam and Eve or Satan in it. Those characters are symbolic .

tctrills:
Have you ever heard of God's plan?God had a plan for man. If Adam had not eaten the fruit there would have been no need for Christ.

So God wanted Adam and Eve to commit the original sin so that in the future he would come down to die to take away the curse of the original sin and after that wake up three days later straight back to heaven?