₦airaland Forum

plaetton:
Too many falsehoods and contradictions in this post. Too many asserted facts that are clearly in contrast to what we have learned from history, archeology and science.

No matter how blind your faith is, or how much mental gymnastics you perform, even your bible tells you that Yahweh was one tribal deity among many.
Even Yahweh himself confesses that the tribe of Jacob and some portions of the land of Canaan were his own INHERITANCE.
Dwell on that word INHERITANCE, if cognitive dissonance would let you.

I will address the entire post later.

the bible says Yahweh is God of the whole universe, i'll stick with that. I remember i had this same story not lond ago.

I simply have one question for you.

Have you ever asked yourself why is it that for the first 1500 yrs of christianity all christian everywhere prayed for their dead and that why it is that your position is considered a new wave of doctrine both for christians and jews?

Goshen360:
I will respond in details later.

how later is later?

Goshen360:
The same Olaadegbu that will adopt extra biblical event to justify falsehood is here talking about sola scriptura? The day he stop copying from too many sites and learn the word by himself, maybe he will agree with same sola scriptura. That's when we take him serious. ..

this is wierd, so you wont be discussingg one of the 5 solas simply because it was presented by Ola?

Bratking:
Not mostly true but definitely true, as in 100%. And not only in europe but south American and Africa as well.

have you done research in these places to see that it is really true there.

At least i know that those around me do not consider pews to be torture equipment.

Kay17:
This was what you ought to have said from the beginning; that your understanding of "love the sinner, hate the sin" meant the sinner was given a redemptive opportunity. Rather than haggle with me over responsibility and love.

hehehe,

you were the person really drawing the issue. It isn't a "A" redemptive opportunity, it is a life time of redemptive opportunities.

plaetton:
I thought Yahweh was the god of the ancient Hebrews.
When exactly did he transform into a personal god for all humanity.
Is that dogma?
At what church council was this particular dogma articulated?

it is probably the most important part of christian, and its found in scriptures. Yahweh is God of the whole world he chose the hebrews are an instrument of salvation for all humanity. So yes, Yahweh is God of all and each man may have a personal relationship with him.

And secondly, we Igbo believe also in the concept of a personal god, The Chi.
Each person had his or her own Chi that guided the life and destiny of that person.
Do you think that notion of personal god you are referring to and the Igbo concept if Chi are one and the same?

i am conversant with the idea of Chi and it isn't exactly the same concept as that of a personal one God. Instead i believe that the guy who created the universe and governs it and establishes it laws is also a personal being who establishes bonds of friendship with his creature and capable of relationships with his creatures..

And finally, how is, or how can a universal god who created, sustains and manipulate the universe be personal?
This would suggest a god who would be in perpetual conflict with himself.

no really,
why do u think the universe was created?
I believe it was created for my good and that of humanity, creation is there to serve me, so yeah i believe the creator is a personal God and is happy to manipulate it for my good.

PastorAIO:
Dogma cannot be avoided. It provides a framework within which you practise. Dogmas become a deathbed when you stop at the dogma and all you do is engage with dogma, and argue over dogma, and juggle dogmas etc. But the Dogma is NOT the practice of Religion.

Let me try to make an analogy with Medicine. Based on Theory of Humours (a dogma received from Galen) a doctor prescribes a course of medicine for a patient. It so happens that the medicine is effective and the patient recovers.

Later on, many centuries pass, and doctors do not accept the Theory of Humours anymore but have instead a Theory of Pathogens. They also discover that the medicine prescribed previously but the old skool doctors had active ingredients that effective attacked the pathogens in the patient and that was why the previous course of medicine worked. They might have been following different Theories but the actually course of Medicine prescribed remains the same.

What use is the notion that there is a God, a personal God, if all you do is stop at the notion and do not practice a discipline to experience the Presence of God?

o.k, i see your point and i agree.

What about the person who undertakes the practice and experiences satisfactory results, BUT somehow does not feel that God, as he was dogmatically taught in sunday school, has anything to do with the experience?

then he has to go back to his "drawing board" and check again who God is, i have also learnt that experiences are that always a perfect guide in our relationships with God.

JusConcept:
What do you mean by dogma and
can you define dogma in line with practicing the presence of God?

dogmas are simply set beliefs e.g There is God, Jesus is lord, he live he me, i am the temple of the holyspirit, they are called dogmas.

To practice the presence of God then you need a few dogma, one is that there is God, another is that he has made a home in us.

Kay17:
Pls try to be clear. My argument goes together, cosmology is a natural event which is drawn up by the bigban.g and subsequently evolution theories. This goes against the Bible (Conflict 1) because the Bible sees creation as a supernatural event.

then the big bang itself will be an unsustainable theory. As i said the term natural is pretty hard to define.

Secondly, the Bible explains in details how the Creation took place and in supernatural fashion. Since Genesis 1 talks about cosmology and cosmology is not a religious topic, it is fair to say that Genesis 1 is an attempt at science. If the Bible had restricted itself to moral and ethical tales etc, it would be fair to say it isn't a scientific literature.

i actually disagree, gen1 talks about God ordering creation that is certainly within the realm of religion, science simply study the technique with which the events occur.

As such, i believe that science can only make theories as to how they believe the worls came into existence, science is absolutely incompetent to tell us who brought the world into existence and to attempt to do this will be biting more than it can chew.

The Bible says God created Heaven and Earth (not the Universe) is 7 days which is in stark conflict with our modern scientific theories. The Earth was not formed in 7 days, life on earth did not sprout on just one day.

actually dear "heaven and earth" in that passage means the entire creation, as to when the universe and the term "day" is open to interpretation.

I just came from the thread that advises that the Rccg G.O should settle the issue of succession before death. In one of your response there you made reference to a "babylon system of the world" and gave the impression that churches are part of it.


My question is simply... What does that mean?

The bible doesn't teach sola scriptura as your article clearly says.

Why should i follow a man made tradition made in the 16th century?

alabig:
Is it consequential for a minister to sue a church he's pastoring to court? God owns the church and the gate of hell shall never prevail against it.

i don't think that passage applys here.

striktlymi:
If by any chance that 'bad place' happens to be the wedding mass of the Arch Bishop of Lagos at Epe, I won't mind a face to face discussion on this.

it seems i didn't see this yesterday....

Something tells me that if i were at that wedding and was actually looking at your big head on the said day, i wouldn't say "hi i'm ubenedictus". Been anonymous is one of the things i enjoy about nairaland.

Melahou:
What can you say about the catholic church in the event of the death of the pope?

i don't think you should be using the catholic church as an example in this issue.

striktlymi:
Ubenedictus

What are your thoughts concerning the Church's teachings with regards to the number of Children a Catholic family should be open to?

I know the Church doesn't really state a number but it does frown at members who choose to have only one child.

A background info may help guide your answer...

A close friend is getting married tomorrow. The topic naturally was bothered around marriage and some of the Church's 'bitter teachings' as it regards this.

I was shocked when my friend (a young chap of no more than 33) suggested that he may go ahead and have close to 9 kids.

To say that I was shocked to hear this would be an understatement. In order not to catch his fever, I quickly told him that I want only one child. At most two!

Before I could seat back to feel cool about what I said he literally beat me silly with a number of quotes from the Popes concerning this matter. The dude almost took it personal.

I have also argued this with a female colleague (a member of Opus Dei) and she too was open to as many children as possible.

I felt those guys were not thinking straight. what is your opinion?

I wouldn't want a text book answer.

when i said i would discuss this yesterday i forgot it was all saints day, my day only opened up this night.

First there is no text book answers to your question, these are topics that I expect catholic couples to excercise a well informed conscience.

There is a point in natural law from which the church always operate from, i.e marriage is naturally order for procreation and the continued existence of our species. Scriptures put a premuim on having kids that "full the quiver". It is with this in mind that there is a promise in wedding ceremonies that say "i will accept all the children that God sends me", (that is a carefully crafted statement).

Then there is the reality on ground, several factors have to be considered, like the financial angle, mental angle, the physical angle, the emotional angle.... Then there is such a thing in catholicism as "Responsible parenthood". It is unwise to give birth to all possible kids one can bear, instead the couples must take into consideration the reality on ground an make a decision on how many kids they can bear and cater for.


Personally i think the churches teaching on this is wise, let each man and woman decide for themselves the number of kids they can bear and cater for. Personally i think your friend may have a good point, the mental picture i have of you seems to say you should be able to cater adequately for more than two kids (supposing your patner is as fit as a fiddle), your china's-one-child-family plan runs the risk of been looked at as been closed to life and probably more interested in looking at children as burdens.

I may be wrong in accessing you, but this issue is principally for the couples in question, there are many couples among whom i live who i think should have only 2 kids(personal opinion), there are others who have 5-6 kids who i believe got their stuff right. I also know a family with 11 kids all of whom i am happy to know. If your friend has a wife who shares his vision for children and she is mentally, physically and emotionally fit for that many (with maybe some cousins and grand parents to help out) and is financially stable with income that is able to take care adequately of those kids then i say Goodluck to him...big families can be a blessing.


There is only a right way to look at this there is no right answer and i do not discuss my opinion on the number of kids with couples i know. That is a decision for them to make.

Ukutsgp:
we dnt need her to intercede for us. we can go to God directly through Jesus.

and everybody could seek audience with king solomon, even prostitutes, yet his mother still has a position as intercessor.

God didn't create any christian to be an island, he made us christian as part of a body, i.e the body of Christ. If members of the same body are supposed to be of no use, then why did God make u a part of that body?

Ukutsgp:
show me. What is her functions in heaven as a queen like u said?

1 king 2:19

striktlymi:
Probably!

Yes, I drove like an Id*t.

I guess my driving pattern is now being affected by my environment. When it was at the mainland, I was always careful.

hehehe, weytin concern where u dey stay and how u drive?

OP, please correct the title of the thread. The pope didn't say that the creation account in genesis is false, he said that the big bang and evolution isn't incompartible with scripture rightly understood.

Pls your title is untrue.

striktlymi:
Ubenedictus

What are your thoughts concerning the Church's teachings with regards to the number of Children a Catholic family should be open to?

I know the Church doesn't really state a number but it does frown at members who choose to have only one child.

A background info may help guide your answer...

A close friend is getting married tomorrow. The topic naturally was bothered around marriage and some of the Church's 'bitter teachings' as it regards this.

I was shocked when my friend (a young chap of no more than 33) suggested that he may go ahead and have close to 9 kids.

To say that I was shocked to hear this would be an understatement. In order not to catch his fever, I quickly told him that I want only one child. At most two!

Before I could seat back to feel cool about what I said he literally beat me silly with a number of quotes from the Popes concerning this matter. The dude almost took it personal.

I have also argued this with a female colleague (a member of Opus Dei) and she too was open to as many children as possible.

I felt those guys were not thinking straight. Considering that you are a clergy who seems to want to voice his thoughts vis-a-vis the teachings of the Church; what is your opinion?

I wouldn't want a text book answer.

interesting one! I am in a bad place right now, i'm not supposed to be holding a phone. But i'm acknowledging that i saw this question.

I'll be in a settled place in the evening.

Kay17:
Yet it was explained in details the manner and timing of the creation, this sufficiently conflicts with scientific accounts and scientific assumption of naturalism. The Bible takes creation to be a supernatural activity unlike the scientific theories that claim cosmology is a natural event.

are you aware that the scriptures actually record "morning came evening came, the first day" even before the sun was created?

This simply means that the detailed explanation you see well penned now is mainly a transmission of religious truth not science. There is no morning and evening without a sun, but scriptures record this, this is why christians for centuries (atleast i have read the works of augustine) have believed that while the scriptures do describe true things and events it isn't particularly interested in the science of it or it sequence for that matter.

And yes, creation is anything but natural, i did a little study on the big bang some time ago and i found that the theory itself is self defeating unless the scientist believe that the laws of the universe were suddenly suspended in the earlier times of its existence. I found this interesting amongst other things.

The scientist may assume all he wishes, but i have a feeling that before they finish their arguement about if the bang was true or not, they will still find that their theory lacks something.

Besides, the word "natural" seems very hard to define.

alentyno:
I am not surprised. Catholic church is flawed only because the people who run it are...... only God knows what.

First it was about gays/lesbians

Now it is evolution/big-bang

Welldone Francis


Tags: italo syncan ubenedictus. You peeps can as well start your defending spree as usual SMH!!

there is nothing new here.

The issue of gays and lesbians have been long resolved, their inclination is disordered and their acts sinful, they should be accepted with sensitivity as it isn't a sin to be attracted to someone of the same sex.

On the issue, this isn't a new teaching.

When it comes to creation, catholics are bound to believe the following.
1. All that exist outside God was whole produces out of nothing by God.
2. God was moved by his goodness to create the world(prov 16:4)
3. The world was created for the glorification of God ps18:2
4. He created the world good gen1:31
5. The world is temporal and God alone created it and keeps it in existence.
6. By His providence he protects and guide the world.

These are the basic truths every catholic christian must hold as regards creation.

On the other hand the bible is not a story book, nor is it a science book, it is primarily a religious book, detailing the relationship between God and his people.

It is left for each individual catholic to excercise an informed faith and chose for himself how he believes God created the world in as much as it doesn't contradict divine revelation.

Pope johnpaul and francis thinks the big bang explains how God did it, pope benedict thinks the big bang and evolution is deficient to fully explain what happened at creation.

This part isn't theology, it is science.

urheme:
if the evolution theory posit that man evolved from primitive to civilised, I would agree to that.

but that one amoeba changes into an insect and then became some kind of animal, then an ape then a human being. come on,
I no gree at all

i actually read what the pope said and a evolution from primitive to civilised seems to be what he explained.

plaetton:
This pope had already flown the kite that scriptures may have to be reinterpreted.
I think this is perhaps the first step in this long and tricky process, knowing fully well that religious people are slow learners.

there is no such thing as "first step" in what pope francis said.

His line of thought isn't particularly new nor his, he isn't the first pope to express the same sentiments, pope st John paul 2 already did before him as such statements are recognised as the personal opinions of the pope.


The catholic church has always taught that God created all things visible and invisible, the technique with which he did such mavelous work is of little importance. And since the big bang theory was proposed by a catholic priest it has always been the position of the church that in itself it doesn't contradict catholic teaching. The bang as any other "theory" could very well be the technique with which God created the world. Pope puis says the same thing for evolution.

It very well could be!

And each individual catholic could decide to accept or reject with neccesary caution those theories according to how convincing they are to him/her.

babestell:
My PRAYER INTENTIONS are as follows

1) i want to take over the world and be so great that people will hang a picture of me in the stars and tell their children " I want you to grow up and be like babestell"

2) 99% of the wisdom of Solomon

3) Forgiveness of sins

4) I want to have a hot shape and be so beautiful, people will ...........

5) Healing spiritual, physical, financial and mental

6) Is it okay to pray openly for a very wealthy, catholic spouse who will worship the ground i walk on

I showed my friend my prayer points and she said its very selfish. but hey today is my day....Am allowed to be selfish!!

chai! Chai!! Chai!!!

Dis gurl no go kill person! I no even know where to begin. See prayer intention!.

Thank God say God no be man.

Kamsified:
Do I know you?

ok oh!

U try!

I don hear!

U no know me abi? No friend in the jungle.

striktlymi:
I am not sure if I am alright. I believe I have a major issue. I am calm even when I face death head on. I feel that behaviour is not normal.

Anyways, the near-accident was a direct result of the actions of three idi*ts. Me, a cab driver and a tipper driver.

The first idi*t (me) saw the third idi*t (tipper driver), who happens to be driving beyond the speed limit, coming and felt I could easily cross the road since my car is obviously faster.

The first idi*t simply wanted to make what ordinarily would have been a routine cross to where he works. The road is one way and I come from the upside of town, hence the need to make the crossing before I get into the premises.

As the first idi*t was getting set to make his move, he did not notice the second idi*t (taxi driver) reversing on a one-way road, thus blocking the entry point of the first idiot.

The second idi*t was unfamiliar with the area and had gone past my place of work (his destination) by a bit before realizing it. I guess the second idi*t felt since the gate is not far of, he could simply back up and enter not minding that the first idi*t had already started his silly dash towards the gate.

The result was that the first idi*t was stuck in the middle of the road with just two options:

1) Continue the dash and get hit by both the second and third idi*ts, hence destroying both the front end and rear of my car; or
2) Stay in that deadly position (the middle of the road) and watch the over speeding third idi*t ram me from the side.

I went with option two because I wanted to avoid a multiple accident scenario.

All those analysis happened within 3 seconds. There was no way I could back up on time.

The fourth second, fifth second etc passed by and this first idi*t was very much alive and there was no accident. As the first idi*t approached the gate, the security guard said: "you are lucky".

idi*t, i join you in giving thanks to God.

I think u were in shock, you body made up for your anxieties by pumping more adrenaline.

Kay17:
You seem to forget that the so beloved people of Sodom and Gomorrah perished; and you place your own story side by side with that as if both had the same consequences. Whatever love that existed for the people of Sodom was far less than the example of hatred. At least the hatred of the sins did not save the sinners.

the "love the sinner" part is so the sinner may be saved, but not everybody wants salvation. For some sin has become a new kind of "normal". And like those of sodom love may not save them, their sins just call for justice.

mmsen:
If you are molested then surely it is god's will.

If you have a baby, again, it is god's will that both you and the child should suffer through remembering one of life's most traumatic events.

It is god's will that the child grow up resenting its father.

It is god's will that the mother should have conflicting feelings about the child.

Clearly this is a wonderful and considerate god.

kill the child so that you can avoid "pain" right? Because on your scale pain ranks heavier than life.

striktlymi:
Lol!!!

I always have the 'little' ones in mind whenever I post. A lot of my posts may seem radical and a bit senseless and nonsensical but below the 'facade' is sincerity.

Anyways, I may try to follow that advice whenever I am inspired, considering that I almost died today.

thank God....

Are u alrite? What happened?