₦airaland Forum

FOLYKAZE: Yahweh is the god of hills.

That is all the thread is about.

And God of hills in Yoruba is Orish Oke.

Isnt that interesting?

i don't see anything interesting in what you wrote, yahweh is God of both mountains, plains, hills, rocks, water, and all creation! Ascribing him to mountains alone is an attempt limiting him. He is God of all.

So no, i am not amazed

SalC: Why are you now troublesome? What happened to you?

you no even attempt my question, i think beth-el means house of God, bethel is a name of a place, bethel can be the name of a lady.

So weytin be my own with this sisi wey dem dey call bethel?


Besides which trouble i con dey find?

Rossikki: I guess to try and understand why a book for which money was shared and votes made before arriving at its contents should be considered the 'Word of God' by any sensible person.

you have been rebuted on all counts. First constatine had nothing to do with the canon of scriptures, second no one shared money in the councils where the canon was decided.


I'm surprised the idea of voting repulses you, when the people of God agree on a matter it is considered sealed. The church has been voting since the first century deal with it.

Pr0ton: I'm done



unfollows thread...

are you runing away? I have been polite and i have rebuted your teaching of once saved always saved. Go and read the scriptures dear, and correct yourself.

SalC: You need to "go back to Bethel"

dem dey share rice for bethel? Abi bethel na the name of the chick wey u be wan give woky?

I agree with pastor aio.

The church as founded by Christ came before the christian bible.

The bible came before the "sola scriptural" christianity.

christemmbassey: Still on planet earth for almost one year and i did see this? OMG!

why am i here?

SalC: So the new you is this troublesome?

hey! Be truthful, you love the new me.

FOLYKAZE: Would reply when you are done reading the link.


How ur day bro?

i read it, and i found nothing particularly interesting about it.

Hmm

What exactly is the point of the thread.

AlfaSeltzer: When I was a young catholic, I used to sin without consequence.
I was having sex every time knowing fully well it was a sin but not bothered because I knew I only had to go and tell the priest about it and my slate is wiped clean.
My girlfriend used to ask me if I had gone to confession and it was very reassuring for her to hear that our previous act has been absolved before we start again. Infact the only worry we had then is dying before our next confession and having to spend a few centuries in purgatory. Hell was not for us.
I am now beginning to wonder what type of all knowing god will keep forging a sin over and over again knowing fully well that you intend to keep sinning? It can only be a mugu god. If god was a bank manager, his bank would be broke because you just have to go back every week and take more loan with a promise that you will pay back but never do.
The catholic god is a god that encourages sin through confessions and the ease of forgiveness and the promise of purgatory.
So my people, if you must remain a xtian, be a catholic. You will enjoy this life better.

this only shows you were a misinformed or/and uninformed catholic.

You can go to confession 100 times and you sin will remain with you a thousand times. Forgiveness doesn't begin in the confessional.

To actually be forgiven, you have to be,

1. Truly and sincerely sorry for you sins, contrition
2. Sincerely confess, confession
3. Be truly resolute not to sin again.
4. Contribute according to grace with good works, penance.

If any of the first 3 is missing then you have not received a sacrament, you have no received forgiveness or a blessing...depending on the case you may have commited sacrilege and you may have left the confessional witha curse instead of a blessing.

The bad use of a good thing is usually catatrophic, no wonder you are no longer a catholic, you wanted to play with God's mercy.

SalC: This is your alternate personality speaking

my "alternate personality" no longer exist. This is the new me, yay!

striktlymi: Let me not be a typical human and answer your question with another of mine.

If I am not Catholic then I can't remain a Christian. The last I checked I was a Christian and that was about 2 seconds ago; and still am.

hmmmm, what does the bolded mean?



Besides, una don see chikk?

SalC: This is your alternate personality speaking

my "alternate personality" no longer exist. This is the new me, yay!

Emotional maturity

TheBigUrban2:

BUTTHURT

FOLYKAZE: Dont make me believe you aint reading your bible.
Exodus 34:14, Jeremiah 25:6 and 2 Kings 17:38-39 is clear enough and points out your claim is wrong.
The same bible that asked you to hate your father and mother (Luke 14:26)?

i actually read my bible, i read it for a very long time every day. I study it, meditate on it, carry it in my heart and chew it like a cord, everyday.

One of the keys to reading a book not written in english is to find a good translation.

Contemporary english at almost all time equate worship with adoration. That is the sense it is used in contemporary english. For instance 500yrs ago i would have absolutely no problem telling a protestant that catholics worship mary, becos 500yrs ago worship was a word that covered veneration, honor, respect adoration, i'll just have to specify the type of worship. Today if i tell a protestant that i worship my mum he will brand me a heretic, because in today vocabulary worship is usually translated as adoration.


So yeah i read my bible! And my bible say i shouldn't worship, honor, or venerate any supposed god, it also says to worship my parents and a whole lot of other people, and it reserves adoration, adoratio, latriia for the one true God. That iis what my bible says.

It is not about whether or not i'm reading my bible, it is about reading a bible with correct english translation.

Actually, you do against the indoctrination.

You adhore/serve your parents, country and so many other things.

no dear i don't.

I wonder why you refused to tell me why 'adore' is designated for Yawheh and not other Gods.

because there is only one true God and he alone deserve the submission of my intellect, will, heart and beign in recognision of his divine majesty.

www.nairaland.com/1508769/christians-god-idol-hills

i'll read.

Pr0ton: @Ubenedictus
The argument won't get us anywhere as I'm not ready to yield to your views and your not ready to yield to mine. And maybe we draw the line here.

But before then lemme brief this with you

Lets take for assumption. I said I would give you $1,000,000. You would collect that with joy because I gave it to you freely, and you would always be thanking me now and then even doing things that would please me and make me happy.
But if I said I'd give you this $1,000,000 only if you do this and that. You wouldn't be able tell others that you received the money freely. And your attitude to that person can not be compared with the one who received it freely.

There are numerous verses in the Bible that say salvation is a gift from God and we do not work for it, verses like eph 2:8-9, rom 10:9, titus 3:5, 2Tim 1:9 and many more. Or maybe I should quote Rom 11:6," and if it is by grace, then it is no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace.

Salvation is given freely

salvation is a gift given freely in the sense that it can't be strictly or truly merited by good works. Infact there is nothing man can do or will ever do that will merit him salvation. It is grace, it is given freely. BUT, salvation also comes with preconditions, no 1 precondition is faith! You need to believe to be saved, the bible says "by grace you have been saved through faith".

The second point is that like all free gifts salvation and grace can be rejected, it is rejected by what st john calls "deadly sins". It is rejected each time we turn away from God. That is why Jesus says "whoever does not bear fruit will be cut off", the cut of branch will wither and be used for fire wood.

Salvations can be rejected and it can be lost anyone who tells you it can't be lost is lying to you.

woky: To See My Partner in liquor

guess wat! we sipped in great ecstacy

mmaya men.
More beer to your bottles.

Naetochukwu: Are you same as Ubenedictus?

no, we are two different people.

TheBigUrban2: Saying that Dawkins doesnt support Eugenics is an ad hominem
Saying that atheism has nothing to do with Euthanasia is an ad hominem

And of course calling out the lies you told and calling a liar a liar is an ad hominem




Go and sleep

calling someone "shameless"...whatever is childish! It is immature and it is stupid.

It show you don't have the psychological capacity to even make a matured discussion. You speak like an old man with the emotional structure of a kid. Throwing trantrum when and if the other disagrees.


Get it together man! If you have a bad day don't spread it on the net.

Now have a nice evening.

TheBigUrban2: Nope, one dies because his medication was taken away and the other dies because he was given relief medication.


They both died because the doctor chose to change their medication

if lethal substances are relief medication, i hope you take them the next time you have a headache.

Una gudu marwing.

Salkc how you dey?

FOLYKAZE: Thanks for your contribution.

But I will like to keep somethings straight here dude.

Be it worship, exalt, veneration or adoration, it is written in the bible that ye shall not worship, serve, exalt, venerate or adore any other God. So the question rest on what God is? What does the bible say God is? Is there any speciality in God spelled with small case?

If you claim not all people believe in Orisha which I will take as wrong, you hold that you and some people believes in Yahweh. . . .do you know that Yahweh is Orisha Oke? Orisha Oke is much recognised in Abeokuta.

When we are discussing about Orisha, there is no way you can claim some people disbelieve in it. You can only negate some Orisha but you cannot disbelieve in your own Ori. Can you?

Also, is there any speciality in adhoration? What is the difference between adoration (godful worship) and worship? And can you show me how adhoration is resevered for Yahweh (Orisha Oke) and not other Orisha?

hehehe,

first my bible doesn't say not to render worship to any other but yahweh, if it says so then it will contradict the commandment "honour your father and your mother". (the benefit of using an old bible) my bible say to not adore any other but yahweh, to serve no other "supposed gods".

Please what is orisha oke, is that not the mountain orisha?
Weytin concern that one and yahweh?

SalC: I said it! Damerry pele o

why you dey find damerry trouble na?

JMAN05: the question is not for everyone.

i'm sure italo wouldn't mind if you answered the question.

I am here

PastorOluT: Are u for real? Dint u all see what I wrote about catholic church meaning Universal-all emcompassing. Did he say anything concerning that? seeking date n time to history.

I even suggested we should look at the practices now n forget about history. Now lets take it one question at a time.

Lets look at the word Catholic n the intention of naming it then.

it is simple, if we don't understand the past then we will not understand the present.

The practices you are talking about all started in the past! If we can't discuss on the past then the present will not make sense to you.

That is why the question is very important, when did the church turn bad?

When did all her teachings and doctrines and practices become "wrong"?

If we can't see where exactly the church became bad then it is legitimately argued that the teachings and doctrine and practices are never bad.

So we are back to the question, when did the church become bad?

If you answer that we can all move on.

PastorAIO: Yes the circle will stop. It hasn't even started yet. It just wants to begin to start. It has been going in a straight line thus far, nevermind the distractions from people (like us) jumping in and adding irrelevant jara.

I find it curious that you would use the metaphor of 'shooting arrows' to describe his questions. Are you feeling assaulted by the questions? Two people are discussing a matter that they have dragged here from another thread. Did they not agree to have this discussion? Who then is shooting arrows and who is getting struck by arrows?

it seems no one wants to answer the question.

No one is interested in discussing the claims of protestanism from a historical point of view.

Let me wait maybe someone will decide to answer the question.

TheBigUrban2: What?

You dont know that most, if not all euthanasia patients are facing certain death?

They have terminal illnesses. They just want to die quicker because of the pain.

There is no difference between removing life support from someone with terminal illness and giving a lethal injection to someone with terminal illness.


You are killing both patients

sorry dear its not the same thing, in one case the patient dies of natural causes in the other he is killed by a deadly substance.

TheBigUrban2: 1) Eugenics is debunked science and very racist....both sensible christian and atheist scientists have thrown it away. For you to anyway pin Eugenics on atheism is a clear sign of bigotry. Shame on you

2) Dawkins does not and has never supported Eugenics. Please stop lying. Feel free to define Eugenics and directly quote (with links) where Dawkins supports it.

3) Euthanasia has nothing to do with atheism. Some support it, some do not

4) Evolution has nothing to do with atheism. Even the catholic church supports evolution. Catholic schools and organisations teach evolution. Please, think before you talk. Atheism existed before Darwin....centuries before.

5) You are a shameless, hopeless man. I dont know if christianity teaches you to lie.


Good night

hehehe, and you wonder why few people take you seriously.

You have resorted to ad hominen attacks like a little kid even without reasoning!

When you seem capable of partaking in reasoned discussions, you'll wipe away those personal attacks and discuss like a matured human that i hope you are.

voxpopp: In the example that I cited from the scriptures concerning the original name of the first church, the bible was yet to be completed.

Another fact I will like to point at is that the canonical bible was not compiled by the catholics alone but rather by the council of Nicea and the process was arranged presided over by emperor constatine.

Other members of the coucil of Nicea includes Delegates from;
Assyrian Church of the East,
Eastern Orthodox
Oriental Orthodox
and Most Protestant Denominations

this only shows your ignorance of this subject in particular and of church history in general.

1st, the council of nicea didn't compile the bible, it had nothing to do with compiling the bible, it instead condemned the arian heresy.

2nd protestanist began in th 16th century, the council was held in nice in the 4th cent B.C, no protestant church existed then.