₦airaland Forum

PastorAIO:
Leaving aside the question of authenticity in the letters of paul, I don't believe that when Paul was writing his various letters that he thought that he was writing scriptures. You write letters. I write letters. I write letters admonishing and advising people. So do many people write such letters.

To have the Holy Spirit and to write letters does not make the letter a special divine scripture from God.

plaetton:
I agree.
Btw,
It's been a long absence.
How have you been?
Nice to have you back.

PastorAIO:
Oh, and btw, you did not even answer my question. Do you have Holy Spirit, or not?

PastorAIO:
Oh, and btw, you did not even answer my question. Do you have Holy Spirit, or not?

PastorAIO:
Please quote what he said and show us how it pertains to his claim to speak of his own volition and NOT FROM THE LORD.

Unless 'Not from the Lord' means 'from the lord' if you have holy spirit.

PastorAIO:
You sef, do you have Holy Spirit or do you not have Holy spirit?


the things you write, who do you say it is from?

PastorAIO:
Going back to that text I wrote the other morning. If it doesn't contradict anything in the bible does that mean it is inspired of God and fit to be used as an authority for your life?

You seem to be confused. two things concurring do not mean that they have the same source. I would love you to actually address the point I made, and the passage I used to buttress it.

Paul states, clearly and blatantly, that the advice he is giving is 'Not from the Lord'. I really don't know how 'Not from the Lord' can be interpreted by you as 'from the lord'. Whether the statement agrees with the rest of the bible or not does not change the fact that the passage itself claims that it is 'not from the lord'.

Please if you can do the magic and turn 'not from the lord' to 'from the lord' I would be mightily entertained to read it.

DoctorAlien:
Continue posting whatever you believe then. Those who read their Bibles only laugh when they see foolish philosophies from confused men.

PastorAIO:
It's not about what I believe. It's about what I post. What I post changes a lot. It challenges what you post. it makes readers think. Some innocent prey that might have fallen for your posts would be more cautious when they see a counter opinion. A lot can be changed. And a lot WILL be changed. We are only just starting.

PastorAIO:
It's not about what I believe. It's about what I post. What I post changes a lot. It challenges what you post. it makes readers think. Some innocent prey that might have fallen for your posts would be more cautious when they see a counter opinion. A lot can be changed. And a lot WILL be changed. We are only just starting.

texanomaly:
I find it interesting that a man who claims to believe in logic and science would make such a statement as the bolded. Life, in its simplest form, is energy. Energy never ceases to exist. It simply changes form. So why do you believe we cease. Is it not logic to believe we continue in another form?

texanomaly:
Simple science can be applied here to deduce the outcome. Since spiritual energy cannot be quantified, in the end, I suppose, technically this theory is only hypothesis till it can be proven. In which case, it can only be proven in death. Anyway, logic and science still have sway here.
.

plaetton:
Yeah.

He forgets that all of the world's Religions were built on such fanciful, romantic and grandiose speculations and wishful thinking about the origins of life, the purpose of life, death and the after-life( the after-death, to be more correct. )

plaetton:
Each experience adds something ' other' that was not previously there.

A conscious being or mind cannot stand outside of time and space, for the simple reason that it would be devoid of experience. And without the flux of interactive information, there cannot be experience, and there cannot be consciousness.

Sounds confusing, even to me.
But then, it is a deep and confusing subject.

DeepSight:
This is a most important point you have made I think.



Time is indeed a great mystery: however I will offer what has been my own definition of time (and space), which I believe is reasonable and sufficient for the purpose of this discussion:

~ Time is the infinite continuum into which events are interpolated

In the same way, Space for me is -

~ The infinite field into which objects are interpolated



Going with the above definitions I do not think that real existential time is susceptible to manipulation, however the perception, observation or experience of it is highly subjective and indeed susceptible to manipulation. These are my thoughts only.



Real Space does not expand, as it is an infinite field already as I said. What seems to expand are the the positions of the objects within the infinite field that is called space.



That a multiverse or even infinitverse exists, i take for granted, but this presents even more questions than any answer.



In terms of the nature of our individual realities I think this is correct. Perhaps that every single choice leads you to live in a range of happenings on a different dimension of reality created by that choice.



This I do not know. . .
However I will say that there are several esoteric arts and sciences by which human beings already transcend and observe the worlds, dimensions, universes and realities. The orthodox sciences disdain these for the most part though, and this is something that will have to evolve and change before mankind grows into the next level of his experience in the universe.

DeepSight:
Real Space does not expand, as it is an infinite field already as I said. What seems to expand are the the positions of the objects within the infinite field that is called space.

frosbel2:
Hell is a sign of God's LOVE for you , in fact he LOVES you so deeply that he is going to burn you forever if you do not LOVE him back.

God wants you to LOVE him perfectly because he LOVED you first , and if you spurn this LOVE or refuse to LOVE him back , you will be plunged into the bottomless abyss in an instant, burning with brimstone for all of eternity.

You see , your soul is so precious to God that he is determined to punish you for all eternity for losing it by a sinful and wicked lifestyle. Don't worry, when you are burning in eternal agony, embraced by the flames of his wrath and consumed by the worm that dies not, you can be comforted in knowing that it is all because God LOVES you :-)

Without HELL there cannot be God's LOVE because after all, how can God LOVE his creatures without the threat of eternal torture , this is the only way he can keep you in line with his LOVE and make you appreciate what he has done to save you from this terrible place.

God is LOVE, remember ? Oh yes, you cannot afford to forget for if you do , hell awaits you for eternity.

Hell is real and God is LOVE.

Ubenedictus:
d usual rant. it was also answered previously with pictures showing sherpherds in winter.

Ubenedictus:
https://int.icej.org/news/commentary/tower-flock
cbn.com/special/thenativitymovie/articles/whybethlehem.aspx

The sherpherd from the area of bethlehem watch their sheep all year round since they were destined for d temple

Ubenedictus:
https://int.icej.org/news/commentary/tower-flock
cbn.com/special/thenativitymovie/articles/whybethlehem.aspx

The sherpherd from the area of Bethlehem watch their sheep all year round since they were destined for d temple

Ubenedictus:
Golan height is a hilly area, and as geography should tell u such areas generally have heavy snow even when d surrounding areas are less snowy or without snow.

Jesus was born in bethlehem not golan hieghts, a community reputed for keeping d sheeps used in the temple and must be taken to jerusalem regardles of season. There are also pictures of shepherds moving with sheep even in d snow, such have been provided on this thread. Did u miss it?

Ubenedictus:
Objection 3: Christ could not have been born in December since Saint Luke describes shepherds herding in the neighboring fields of Bethlehem.
Shepherds do not herd during the
winter. Thus, Christ was not born in winter.


Reply to Objection 3: Recall that Palestine is not England, Russia, or Alaska. Bethlehem is situated at the latitude of 31.7. Dallas, Texas has the latitude of 32.8, and it’s still rather comfortable outside in December. As the great Cornelius a Lapide remarks during his lifetime, one could still see shepherds and sheep in the fields of Italy during late December, and Italy is at higher latitude than Bethlehem.


Now we move on to establishing the birthday of Christ from Sacred Scripture in two steps. The first step is to use Scripture to determine the birthday of Saint John the Baptist. The next step is
using Saint John the Baptist’s birthday as the key for finding Christ’s birthday. We can discover that Christ was born in late
December by observing first the time of year in which Saint Luke describes Saint Zacharias in the temple. This provides us with the approximate conception date
of Saint John the Baptist. From there we can follow the chronology that Saint Luke gives, and that lands us at the end of December.

Saint Luke reports that Zacharias served in the “course of Abias” (Lk 1:5) which Scripture records as the eighth course among the twenty-four priestly courses (Neh 12:17). Each shift of priests served one week in the temple for two times
each year. The course of Abias served during the eighth week and the thirty-second week in the annual cycle.
However, when did the cycle of
courses begin?
Josef Heinrich Friedlieb has convincingly established that the first priestly course of Jojarib was on duty during the destruction of Jerusalem on the ninth day of the Jewish month of Av. Thus the priestly course of Jojarib was on
duty during the second week of Av.
Consequently, the priestly course of Abias (the course of Saint Zacharias) was undoubtedly serving during the second week of the Jewish month of Tishri—the
very week of the Day of Atonement on the tenth day of Tishri. In our calendar, the Day of Atonement would land anywhere from September 22 to October 8.
Zacharias and Elizabeth conceived John the Baptist immediately after Zacharias served his course. This entails that Saint John the Baptist would have been conceived somewhere around the end
of September, placing John’s birth at the end of June, confirming the Catholic Church’s celebration of the Nativity of Saint John the Baptist on June 24.
Immediately after this entry into the temple and message of the Archangel Gabriel, Zacharias and Elizabeth conceive John the Baptist. Allowing for forty weeks of gestation, this places the birth
of John the Baptist at the end of June—once again confirming the Catholic date for the Nativity of Saint John the Baptist on June 24.

The rest of the dating is rather simple.
We read that just after the Virgin Mary conceived Christ, she went
to visit her cousin Elizabeth who was six months pregnant with John the Baptist.
This means that John the Baptist was six months older that our Lord Jesus Christ (Lk 1:24-27, 36). If you add six months to June 24 you get December 24-25 as the birthday of Christ. Then, if you subtract nine months from December 25 you get that the Annunciation was March 25. All the dates match up perfectly. So then, if John the Baptist was
conceived shortly after the Jewish Day of the Atonement, then the traditional Catholic dates are essentially correct. The birth of Christ would be about or on December 25.


Sacred Tradition also confirms December 25 as the birthday of the Son of God. The source of this ancient tradition is the Blessed Virgin Mary herself. Ask any
mother about the birth of her children. She will not only give you the date of the birth, but she will be able to rattle off the time, the location, the weather, the weight of the baby, the length of the baby, and a number of other details.

DeepSight:
Gotcha. I had forgotten my verses, pardon me.



But why?

What is the co-relation between the fall of man and consumption of meat?

I don't see the co-relation.



This is surely not true. There are life long vegetarians.

I once had a Hindu colleague who had never tasted meat in his life and he was middle aged.
This gentleman was the freshest, fittest, soundest looking of all of us always.

Surely this shows that it is not true to say that man cannot survive without meat.



The constant revision of the plans of a supposedly unchangeable God, a God who is the same yesterday, today and forever - is quite befuddling, wouldn't you say?

DeepSight:
Thank you for your question.



It is perfectly possible for humans to survive on a vegetarian diet alone: a lot of humans do this, particularly Hindus. In fact I understand that it is said to be particularly healthy, limits toxins in the body and also generally leads to greater longevity (I cannot confirm any of these). However I am personally favorably disposed to the idea as it is less barbaric than killing and consuming other conscious creatures such as animals and eating their corpses which is a somewhat hideous practice of ours in my estimation. (Moreso when we freeze the corpses to preserve them, then eat them again, while marinating the corpses which all manner of spices for our hideous enjoyment) - but I digress.



Please can you guide me to where this is made clear within scripture?



I am not sure that this is quite the case in scripture. Nevertheless please point it out to me within scripture please.



Well yes, there would still be an issue - although a less barbaric issue as I have described the eating of animal corpses above to be a most hideous practice of human beings.

The issue is because what is at play here is not just the question of what we eat but the fact that we must eat compulsively: thus we must work to gather such food compulsively and this inevitably leads to the evils mentioned in the OP: greed, selfishness, oppression, vicious competition for resources (which has always led to wars throughout history) etc. I mean just look at the slave plantations of the Americas - they were not harvesting meat, were they? They were dealing with plants and yet the labor was so great that men had to enslave other men in gruesome circumstances for centuries to assure that "living economy" could thrive.

The point therefore remains the same: what twisted mind would have conceived a world such as this, where underlying premises such as hunger, would eternally dictate sure and certain evil and barbarity for all time. . . ?

DeepSight:
Please can you guide me to where this is made clear within scripture?

DeepSight:
I am not sure that this is quite the case in scripture. Nevertheless please point it out to me within scripture please.

DeepSight:
Thank you. However I would have rather concentrated your thoughts on why the system is so wired in the first place. For it is, you must agree, a mercenary, crude, barbaric and savagely opportunistic "living economy" that has thus been set in place for all creatures on earth including humans.

Do you think that the author of this savagery is the primordial light itself which is God: or is more likely to be the simulation of intelligent beings within or outside this simulated universe: beings watching a savage game in play for the purposes of experiment or entertainment.

DeepSight:
@ Truthislight - how come you quote my post without writing anything of yours?

DeepSight:
I have often paused to contemplate the spectre of physical hunger and what it implies for the nature of the world in which we live. A living creature cannot subsist in the world of matter without energizing itself through the consumption of food. This food, consists of other living creatures, other living things or their by products. In essence, in the great circle of nature, life must consume life to subsist.

This very reality sets the pace for the entire food chain: the global economy of all living things - the global ecosystem in which the activity of each creature has a ripple effect on the survival and activities of other creatures and thus sets up a complex economy of all creatures. For the purpose of this thread I will refer to this simply as the "living economy."

This Living economy has both positive and negative consequences, both beautiful and macabre aspects. Almost every predatory action in the wild serves a function within an ecosystem: while predators control the population of cattle and keep cattle fit, alert and agile, scavengers such as the vulture ensure a most thorough "clean up" work of the remains of carcasses: insects interact with plants in the process of pollination and in some weirder instances some creatures will actually take up residence inside other creatures and eat and survive within their hosts. Not in all cases are these parasites harmful: in some cases the host derives benefits from the activity of the parasite.

I say all of that to establish that the "living economy" does have its own sense, its own rhythm, its own beat, its own pulse and it would appear its own very purpose. If man for instance, had no need to eat in order to survive, the compulsion to work might not exist and absent that compulsion humanity would certainly degenerate very fast and lose most of its creative capacities.

Nonetheless having said all that, I write to draw attention to the more macabre aspect of the living economy: particularly that aspect which involves conscious creatures eating one another for food. There is something intrinsically barbaric about the act especially as one observes it in the wild, that one has a compulsion to feel that this "living economy" could not be the creation or design of any benevolent designer.

It is true when it is said that nature is very cruel: absolutely unforgiving and could be the harshest and most merciless parent any creature could hope for: it abhors the weak and dispatches them mercilessly either at the hands of the elements or at the hands of disease or other beasts. In many ways the natural instincts of many creatures betrays such a horrendous innate cruelty that one must recoil: in taking over a pride, lions will not only kill or exile the displaced male: they will ensure that they murder every single cub of that pride in order to establish and perpetuate themselves. Some creatures kills their partners whilst mating as standard fare, other creatures such as some frogs and some snakes consume one another live and whole. In many instances the creatures which are prey will suffer significant levels of torture or misery in the process: and this is not a consequence of any particular wrong which they have done: it is simply the "living economy".

So there is this acid that works within our stomachs and other more powerful acids that work within the stomachs of other creatures. If you do not eat, this acid will burn you. It will begin first to consume the very same stomach walls. Then your body will start feeding on its own self until you die a horrible death.

You are therefore compelled to eat by this acid: by the imperatives of your body and in so doing you will eat other living things and likely other creatures too. It is an absolute compulsion: and never doubt that if absolutely necessary - this acid will force you to eat your own fellow human beings as well if there were no other food for a sufficiently long period of time. History is replete with it: and it is horrible.

Thus, hunger, this requirement to eat: drives many nasty things in the world: it drives greed, it drives selfishness, it drives oppression, it drove slavery, it drives imperialism, it drives corruption, it drives crime of every nature as well. And when one really thinks about it, in the complexity of the "living economy", with the presence of hunger, you will always have these consequences in a material world.

I will stop here for now, but the thought just crossed my mind what a grave danger those stomach acids are to a peaceful world: and how unpleasant the deities who constructed this world are: who have thus given it over to be ruled by such a nasty and implacable force such as Hunger.

Boomark:
You are right bro. People don't question their doctrines and belief. Take "trinity" for example, many where taught and still believe that God is 3 person in one God; many believe than one God is one God over all, who is the Father; many also believe that God is just one person appearing in different forms as the Father, Son and Holyspirit. These people study the bible but in line with their church doctrines.

Getting the truth out of all these belief is to approach them with QUESTIONS. When a trinitarian starts saying it is a 'mystery,' then s/he doesn't know what he believes in.

If people should approach the Jehovah's witnesses, Catholics, pentecostals, etc with questions on a particular belief, they will actually get to know the truth. And they have to do this by being neutral as they ask questions.

Boomark:
It is well.

Peace.