₦airaland Forum

Deep Sight:
What happened to you too, Viaro: You always seemed amiable and decent: of late your tongue competes with Tudor's!

Nope, ask Tudor: my tongue could be far sharper where it matters. I just don't think your fanatical attitude against Christians should be treated with kids gloves, especially after repeatedly calling your attention to your misplaced fundamentalism.

And i quote this from YOUR comments in the thread you referenced above:

Could it be that you are caustic to me just because i challenge your belief system?

Not at all - I could care much less whatever you want to 'challenge'. Fact is, you're not challenging nothing but rather seeking grounds so many times to vomit your arrogance on Christians for finding your deism at odds with Biblical teaching.

aletheia:
@ viaro.
Thanks for your observations but I 'd like to respond a bit.
1. Like I stated in my post, there are other types of healings (I will still post more concerning the other types) apart from the miraculous ones. Indeed, not all healing described in the bible was miraculous (Epaphroditus, Trophimus, Timothy). But where it occurred, the bible often gave enough detail so that what occurred was verifiable.
2. Where WoF proponents get it wrong is their not distinguishing between God's providential processes which can occur through natural healing and miracles of the sort described in the bible.
3. The distorted doctrine of WoF discountenances God's sovereignty, a point that ttalks made earlier.
4. That I placed heart failure in parentheses after dropsy was to help the non-medical have a better understanding of that archaic word (By virtue of my training I am well aware of the various connotations of that word).

Otherwise, I do not think I disagree much with you

@aletheia, many thanks and God's blessings be yours.

ttalks:
jo agbaje said something about praying for the dead to rise and none had risen yet. He alluded that his faith not being at a certain level was the reason for this.

That is false. The bible says if one's faith could even be as little as that of a mustard seed, a lot could happen. . . . . . . .

So, it isn't about the faith not being at a particular level that some miracles do not happen or whatever. It all depends on God's will and purpose as regarding that point in time.

@ttalks,

Thanks for the points you made - I appreciate some, and the above may need a balancing off.

Faith is important in our walk with God at every level - we all know that. Yet, in some matters, we recognize that we need to 'strengthen' our faith (Luke 17:5 - 'the apostles said unto the Lord, Increase our faith').

Perhaps, at other times though, we need to recognize that a faith as small as a mustard seed is not sufficient to accomplish certain results. 'Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting' (Matt. 17:21).

Yet, I appreciate your point that 'all depends on God's will and purpose as regarding that point in time'.

Deep Sight:
Well Viaro; i have given ELEVEN verses many of which explicity kill off the idea of the deity of Christ. I am not inclined to help you through the grammar as you always expect me to: as any body who reads those verses can see that he denied divinity severally.

You were not half witted to discuss the subject; and if I were a deist I could have fetched well over a hundred verses in both the OT and NT about the Humanity of Jesus and used them to argue endlessly against His deity. I only gave you at most three verses of the NT showing the affirmation of His Deity, and the fact that Jesus did not deny His deity in any of the verses you cited is very telling.

I have no problem with your deism, as long as you don't try to use your narrow reflections to bedevil Christians for what they believe. You many times act like a fanatic - and I should have known the fact before trying to mellow things off on your behalf when Atheists pointed out your misplaced fundamentalism. You can discuss with people without fanatically barking your slobbers at them simply because they believe differently from your narrow deism. It is issues like the way you act that engender unnecessary diatribes and rubbishes your own worldview, not to mention altogether derailing threads. What happened to you?

@ OP - My sincere apologies for derailing the thread.

You should change from this attitude.

Deep Sight:
On my part, I have shown a few verses where Jesus denied his Deity.

Pathological liar. None of the verses you cited showed Jesus denying His deity, but rather affirming His Humanity. Both His Humanity and Deity are taught in both the OT and NT. Try again, liar.

I don't see any of the verses you cited as showing that Jesus affirmed His Deity.

John 5:23. Lie again.

If you have any verse where Jesus said He WAS God, please show

Did already - and a few, refer to my reply here. You're not half smart.

I have provided proof in to-to. If you were actually an intelligent reader, that should not have been difficult to see.

No one intelligent enough would be mixing up and confusing between His Humanity and His Deity. Could you please try lying again? Thanks in advance.

Deep Sight:
Joker. What's the import of a verse where he asks to be honoured as against the ELEVEN verses i pointed out clearly debunking the idea that he is God? ? ?

Carry on with your worship of a dead Jewish Rabbi - whatever rocks ya boat.

I honour Him because He says so - John 5:23. Cultists who go about with red lies all over the place are the ones who deny that verse and refer to it as "his delusions".

Deep Sight:
Oneness of Infinity again? Another way in which you call the Bible a book of lies?

Yes, oneness of infinite - and the Bible does not teach the arrant nonsense that you tried to pass off for OOI.

Because it states that God is ONE and it also states that God is INFINITE or eternal.

That God is One and Infinite is not OOI - the oneness of infinity doctrine of your deism is a huge lie - we have tried to follow you to show this, but you kept jumping from one infinity to three infinities to zero infinity to a singularity that collapsed into an illiterate nothingness. That is not what the Bible teaches, and only cultists with red eyes go about stealing words and claiming the Bible teaches their cultism.

So ya bible agrees with the Oneness of Infinity - each time you deny it - you are denying the Bible.

Nope, the Bible does not teach the deistic oneness of infinity. That is another attempt to gull the public, because since you have failed to impress even yourself on that rubbish, you think by hanging it on the Bible, all would be fair weather. Please find another illiterate  excuse to hang your non-starter.

Deep Sight:
I have asked you and i am still asking: in which of those verses did Jesus ever say that he WAS God? ? ? ? ?

You have been arguing that Jesus used every opportunity to show that He was NOt God. Let me quote you: "Did Jesus not make clear AT EVERY OPPURTUNITY that he was NOT God ? ? ?"

On my part, I have shown a few verses where Jesus affirmed His Deity. I don't see any of the verses you cited as showing that Jesus denied His Deity. If you have any verse where Jesus said He was not God, please show.

Now please show me where Jesus affirmed His deity and said that He WAS God in any verse - just show the verse.

I have done so.

If you were actually an intelligent reader, that should not have been difficult to see.

Deep Sight:
Lol. Why don't YOU show me the verse where he asserts that he IS God? ? ?

After all, he who asserts must prove.

Especially when the assertion is a psycotic claim to the divinity of one Jewish man.

I'm not quite sure you would remain sane if I were to show you. I already did point out from His own mouth that He made a claim to deity in John 5:23 - and I asked you a few questions thereto. What was your answer, you liar?

Your problem is quite pitiful. Having run out of steam to show who your oneness of infinity is, you turn round to discomfit yourself with what others believe. Deism is known for stealing doctrines from other worldviews - and even after doing so, you guys yet do not understand your own 'god' and would murder both prose, mathematics and the physical sciences in your attempt to gull or hoodwink the public about your fallacy. Is it any wonder why you have never been able to address your oneness of infinity to anyone's coherence? I have been waiting for you to dribble in your prose as you promised for your thread - you artfully dodged it with an excuse, because you know you have been lying to the public and shaming your deism.

Nevermind, when folks like you have completely lost the plot, you show your frustrations in many ways than one.

^^ You just confirmed it is trademark with you to derail threads - well done.

Deep Sight:
Here - the word's of the Jewish Rabbi you worship - knock yourself out denying each and every one of them: as i stated earlier your favourite pastime seems to be calling your God a liar since you reject ALL his words such as these. . .

You can use all the colours in the universe to slob as much as you want, it changes nothing about the simplicity of the case set before you about honouring Jesus as we honour the Father - John 5:23. Not in one instance have I called God a liar; so where did you get that from?

I have asked and still asking: in which of those verses did Jesus ever say that He was not God? One verse would have sufficed, not your charade of frantically and fanatically rushing to other verses that did not show any statement of His denying His deity. Please show me that verse where Jesus ever denied His deity, if you may, or if you can - that would be more gentlemanly, than being such a circus.

1Timothy 2:5: "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.”

The same apostle Paul referred to Jesus Christ as God - "Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ" Titus 2:13.

Romans 9:5 - "Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen."

We know of both the Humanity and Deity of Christ - as shown in both the OT and NT. The Bible teaches both, and not just His Humanity. Now please show me where Jesus denied His deity and said that He was not God in any verse - just show the verse.

Deep Sight:
Did Jesus ever anywhere clearly say that he was God?

I cannot account for his delusions in claiming such an honour.

What is clear is that he stated the following -

"Do not call me good, only God is good"

"The Father is greater than I"

"OF THAT DAY AND HOUR NO MAN KNOWS. . .NOT EVEN THE SON , .BUT ONLY THE FATHER. . ." - CLEARLY SHOWING THAT HE LACKED OMNISCIENCE - A KEY ATTRIBUTE OF GOD.

And many many more; including shamefully petitioning himself in Gethsemane to avert an event that he himself (as God) had pre-destined. What comedy.

You can spend your weekend creating artsy somersaults to once again escape the BRUTALLY CLEAR words of your own carpenter God. . . it is afterall your hobby to call him a liar - given that you have never accepted any of his clear words as being true.

As for me I am weary of it all - we have argued this too many times anyway; and it will also amount to derailing the thread.

^^^ Where in all of those did Jesus ever say that He was not God? If you had no verse, simply say so and stop making yourself further shallow.

I cannot account for his delusions in claiming such an honour

Because you would rather remain the infantile liar you are, that is why you refer to His statements now as 'his delusions'. I laugh at your foolishness. I'm not here for your artsy somersaults: I asked a series of simple questions - you returned your cosmetic answers. Does John 5:23 serve as your most severe problem to deal with?

As for me I am weary of it all - we have argued this too many times anyway; and it will also amount to derailing the thread

You're quickly getting fed up with your hallmark, no? Perhaps you should have respected that point before attempting to derail the thread - that's classic of your style these days, so what's your retirement about that supposed to serve?

^^ Please don't amuse us with your theatricals. NONE of those verses ever stated Jesus saying "I am NOT God".

However, my questions to you still stand - you can choose to address them honestly, or again shout out in all caps to show your frustrations -

* Did Jesus ever anywhere clearly say that He was NOT God?

* If He did say so at any time at all, would it make sense to you that He Himself
claimed the very same honour that men render to the Father in John 5:23?

* If you do not render Jesus that same honour that is due to the Father,
are you even rendering any honour to the Father if you deny what Jesus
said in that verse?

* If you do not render Jesus that same honour as He stated in that verse,
would you not be denying His statement there?

Deep Sight:
When will you stop peddling these unbiblical and nonsensical lies? Can you not see what you have written above merely reveals the unsustainable contradictions within that pagan dogma? Did Jesus not make clear AT EVERY OPPURTUNITY that he was NOT God? ? ?

Did Jesus ever anywhere clearly say that He was NOT God? If He did say so at any time at all, would it make sense to you that He Himself claimed the very same honour that men render to the Father in John 5:23? If you do not render Jesus that same honour that is due to the Father, are you even rendering any honour to the Father if you deny what Jesus said in that verse? If you do not render Jesus that same honour as He stated in that verse, would you not be denying His statement there?

Deep Sight:
No Viaro. And I am not concerned with what gentlemanly concessions MyJoe makes to you  - I verily believe that he does such only out of a compound and most mature desire to assimilate all views as well as avoid needless and long-drawn out quibbling – which you are very well known for.

His analogy was offbeat - he conceded, and I had no further point on that note. You're beginning to sound desperately antique with your over-zealousness about whatever viaro posts, and that is really bad for your health.

Let us examine again the said analogy.

I would rather leave it to MyJoe to do so. If he thought it was such a huge point, he would have examined it "again". Neither AIDS nor his analogy is the big issue here, and that much both I myself and MyJoe have amicably seen long before now. Now if you don't mind, I'm not quite interested in your quibbling over non-essentials, as I've got better things to do than be bored with your retired drivels, sorry.

To any other person, getting this point across would have been as simple as stating the age old axiom – ACTION SPEAKS LOUDER THAN WORDS! ! ! But for you even that simplest of sayings requires special and extended explanations.

I wonder why you are lost on the simplicity of the discussions between myself and MyJoe? You actually amuse me on the fact that even at your best dressed cosmetics, you often struggle with simple comprehension.

You should thus see that the example is perfectly on-point in proving that which it set out to – namely – that the ACTIONS of so called “believers” speak louder than words in unveiling that which rests in the deepest base of their hearts - - - viz:

THE FACT THAT THEY DO NOT REALLY BELIEVE IN GOD.

DeepSight, shouting in all caps is a sign of frustration - you're known for this, and it really does not help in anywise. However, both myself and MyJoe have a common ground - encapsulated on this:
(a) MyJoe - "to underscore the fact that action can belie belief without the author noticing"
(b) viaro - "we all know that actions are precursors to underlying beliefs"
Neither MyJoe nor I had to shout in all caps to come to that common ground - but the only one here hooting rabidly is you. Do you mind taking your feverish frustration elsewhere, huh?

“The fool says in his heart . . . there is no God . . .”

I hope its become clear now for you: that this is what such people have said IN THEIR HEARTS. . . that there is no God!

Tell me: does the atheist make that claim only with his mouth and believe differently in his heart that there is no God? Are you such a loaded ignoramus that the point between MyJoe and myself is well agreed, and even you have acquisced thereto? Did you Deepsight not state: "The biblical assertion "the fool says in his heart - there is no God" applies perfectly to the atheistic mindset"?? And did MyJoe himself not respond directly by saying "Yes indeed"?? And what did viaro pooint out in all this?? When MyJoe said this -

I consider it foolish for a man with such a limited viewpoint as we have, to contemplate all the wonders around us and reach a definitive position that there is no God. Agnosticism, particularly where used as a strategy to ask further questions, I can understand, but atheism, damn presumptuous

. . . my immediate and direct response to that was: "No worries, I concur." So what are you sobbing on about on this issue?

DeepSight, you're trying too hard to confuse issues here unnecessarily. . . and the only thing you end up doing is showing how shallow you are. Not even MyJoe disagreed with where I pointed out the distinction between 'denying God' and 'denying the existence of God'. If he found it such quiblling, he would have said so - rather, he said: "The distinction you make is a good point and it is hard to dispute it. I cannot dismiss it out of hand, too." If MyJoe could be clear and agreed with the gist of my posts, what crapola are you on about?

So who are the fools?

Should I refer you again to the link I previously had in my discussion with Tudor; or are you deliberately closing your eyes to the fact I already mentioned it several times? Already.

Moot point. Because the subconscious is mostly unnoticed anyhow - especially by hypocrites.

Yes, your moot point indeed.

Of course they are hypocrites. What else could they be? Your point is ? ? ? ?

I long made my point; and it must be the eleventh wonder that after shouting your clinically hollow disagreement, you retire yourself to a limp agreement to turn round and ask like a plank about what point I had made? Such piffling on your part!

What’s your obsession with the Oneness of Infinity Theory? Why are you never able to address any posers I raise without rushing back to that? What does it do to help your argument here? ? ? Is that being discussed on this thread ? ? ? Of course you only rush back to that on account of a complex you need to hide from!

What is your obsession with the doctrine of hell? Why are you never able to focus on a simple discussion in a thread without bringing in unrelated matters to deviate from the main gist?? What do such deviations do to help your point here?? Is that what is being discussed on this thread ? ? ? Of course you only rush back to such deviations on account of a complex you need to hide your dubious oneness of infinity from!

Please focus on the issue at hand jaare.

I would ask you take your advice, no?

Guys, between ourselves as Christians, we should try to balance things off so we don't descend to unnecessary brawls on such sensitive subjects.

The topic of the thread is interesting; and subsequent posts have added flavour in many ways to the whole thing. However, I think there seems to be issues which are beginning to be stretched to extremes - and that is where problems begin to emerge.

@aletheia, while there are some good points in your recent post, please let me draw your attention to a few points which a quite questionable:

aletheia:
Healings in the NT never took a long time. They were always accomplished the same day, and in most cases were instantaneous.

That is not quite true. Although we read in many passages of the NT that healings were almost instantenous, there are also cases were healings among believers took quite a while. One example is the case of Epaphroditus (Php. 2:25-30). The Philippians had heard that he had been ill, and this caused him some distress. The fact that he had been ill 'nigh unto death' tells us that his recovery was not instantenous, but gradual - and this shows that a few times, even when believers prayed for healing, it was not always immediate that they recovered. 'God had mercy on him', says Paul, and that is in context indicative that Epaphroditus was not instantenously healed. The same apostle Paul suffered infirmities, but nowhere do we read that he received instantenous healings for them (Galatians 4:13-14 and 2 Cor. 12:5 & 10); and some of his close associates (like Timothy) was frequently ill, but Paul recommended he took a little wine instead of water - which again was no indicative of instantenous healings (1 Tim. 5:23).

Due to space and time constraints, I will list some verses and the ailments cured.

. . . [skip]. . .

Luke 14:4 - dropsy (heart failure)

Just a small matter, though: while dropsy is today commonly pointing to diseases of the heart, it was not meant in the sense of heart failure in Luke 14. The difference is ~

[list](a) 'Dropsy would be called congestive heart failure today'; but ~[/list]

[list](b) Dropsy
In medicine, an unnatural collection of water in any part of the body, proceeding from a greater effersion of serum by the exhalant arteries, than the absorbents take up. It occurs most frequently in persons of lax habits, or in bodies debilitated by disease. The dropsy takes different names, according to the part affected; as ascites, or dropsy of the abdomen; hydrocephalus, or water in the head; anasarca, or a watery swelling over the whole body, etc'[/list]

Many enthusiasts of healings in the Bible very quickly point to dropsy as heart failure; but the Greek (hudrōpikos) in Luke 14:2 indicates the patient in a condition as if "looking watery" rather than as one having a heart failure. It is from this mix up that many televangelists make so much about heart diseases and cancer into that text and send some to their untimely deaths.

. . . [skip]. . .

Acts 28:8 - fever and dysentery
If you would deign to study these scriptures, you will note the immediacy of all the healings. Furthermore the diseases listed were incurable at that time of history.

Nope, lol. A careful study of a simple case of fever shows the direct opposite, and we cannot maintain that it is an example in the list of diseases which were incurable at that time.

Fever has been described medically even before the common era of the Christian age. For example, a study of medical history shows the following:

[list]Case histories recorded by Hippocrates around 400 B.C. describe the clinical manifestations of scarlet fever and rheumatic fever, although the entities are not identified by name. Although the descriptions are not as detailed or complete as they would be today, they strongly suggest the existence of scarlet fever and rheumatic fever at that time. Hippocrates' references to these illnesses were presumably the first to be documented and/or discovered, as a thorough search of the worldwide medical literature revealed no prior descriptions.
~~ Quinn RW. Department of Preventive Medicine, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, Tennessee 37212.  PMID: 1775859 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE][/list]

Not only that medical history shows a clinical description of many ailments and diseases before the AD age, but common cures were well known. The ancient Chinese used a mixture of common herbs, most notably Cinammon. Also, medical students who studied under Hypocrates were well familiar with cures by mixture of herbs, not only for fevers, but also for others like jaundice -

[list]The Hippocratic physicians were among the first who described jaundice (icterus). The Hippocratic Corpus has numerous appearances of the condition, where its etiology, description, prognosis, and treatment are provided. The connection made between the liver and jaundice was remarkable, bearing in mind that the Hippocratic physicians had not performed dissections and that their medical views were based on observation. The Hippocratic doctors described five kinds of jaundice. The etiology was, as in most cases of diseases mentioned in the Hippocratic Corpus, “humoral” imbalance. The diagnosis and prognosis were based on the color of the skin, the urine, the feces, and several other factors, such as the season of the year during which the disease first appeared or the coexisting diseases. The treatment, finally, consisted of herbal medications, baths, diet, and blood-letting, depending on the type of jaundice in question. Finally, an attempt is made to correlate modern diseases with the Hippocratic types of jaundice.
~~ find study source here.[/list]

The point is that most of these ailments were well known and clinically described before Christ was born; and in many ancient civilizations there were known cures for them - commonly by herbal mixtures. However, that does not take anything away from the cases of Biblical healings, which are miraculous; but it is not correct or fair to assert that the diseases which one could have listed from the NT were incurable at that time of history - that is indeed not true.

And this one:

To definitively prove that a healing is a Biblical Divine Healing today. . .that healing would have to be
(1) of an incurable condition
(2) obvious
(3) verifiable
(4) a problem well known to many people
(5) immediate
(6) lasting and
(7) ascribed alone to the glory of God Who accomplished it by His omnipotent power alone.
If it does not meet ALL these criteria it should not be used to prove it is a type of Biblical Divine Healing.

Nope, not so true. As seen, fever is an example of an ailment that no one can argue that it is an 'incurable condition'. Second, we have observed the fact that even among believers in the NT, not all cases alluding to healings were instantenous; and third, some instances were recurring (as Paul made reference to "frequent illness/infirmities" in 1 Tim. 5:23). The reason I point these out is to show that we sometime fall into the error of making rules for spiritual matters where we ought not to, and then end up becoming dogmatically rigid in the causes we pursue. Conditions for Biblical healings do not have to be dressed up so rigidly with rules to say that they "would have to be" - that is missing the whole issue on the examples I have highlighted above.

Cheers.

Deep Sight:
Viaro - as usual you quibble over words and split hairs as though you were a tailor kniiting up a cloth from the hair of Samson.

DeepSight, my comments were not read as quibbling over words, thank you. The points I had addressed and commended to MyJoe were well articulated - and he affirmed he had no problems about the simple issues I had presented, as well attesting to the point by linking to a previous post in dialogue between myself and Tudor.

MyJoe's analogy about Aids was simple, clear, lucid and intelligible - for the commonsensical, that is.

His analogy with AIDS was off the beat - that much he even agreed.

It simply asserts the following -

1. That Action does not always connote belief

2. That inaction does not always connote unbelief

I did not argue about actions or inactions always connoting belief. He saw my point quite simply, made no disagreement thereto (because that analogy suffered an inferential limitation); and then also stated that his point was "to underscore the fact that action can belie belief without the author noticing". What you're doing here is muddying the waters by ignoring the common grounds of agreement between myself and MyJoe.

3. Thus that affirmation within the heart is the true affirmation

Was that not my point in noting that: "we all know that actions are precursors to underlying beliefs"?? I think you long lost the plot before vrooming in here to yap airingly.

4. And consquently that a person who through his actions and thoughts belies a truth he espouses; really does not hold such a truth.

False. If that were ever the case, it makes such a person a classic hypocrite. You don't go out of your way to make repeated assertions about an issue and then come back yapping that such assertions were not expressions of what you hold in your heart. Absolute rubbish. As far as the subject is concerned (and no thanks to your petty attempt to deviate from it), an atheist who says there is no God is not saying that with his mouth and believing something else! If that is what you're yapping on here, you count as a hypocrite - go figure.

I urge you to consider that the terrible myths of hell and the wrath of God which are held by the so-called religious - are so replete with terror that any person who GENUINELY believes in such can scarcely belie it within his actions.

Is this about the eschatology of hell or about the simple topic predicated on Psalm 14:1? I'm sorry to disappoint you, DeepSight - your penchant to deviate from a subject is long worn out and does not amuse me anymore. If I were to follow your style, I could as well turn this topic into a discussion about the fictitious and illiterate 'oneness of infinity' that has forever NEVER convinced anyone on Niaraland with commonsense - not even when you tried to hoodwink some with the attempt to dribble it in 'prose'.

There is nothing to argue with in the foregoing, but i expect that you will devote your energies once again to form and not to substance

You missed it by a million miles; and common sense would require that you pay attention to both form and substance in anything you read - that is what intelligent people do, and not the borrowed cosmetics you're displaying here. Thanks for trying, but no thanks. . . it's a beautiful morning here - wish you the same.

MyJoe:
Yes. The believer and the unbeliever may both do iniquity. Or they may not. If the Psalmist was thus addressing the doer of iniquity, why restrict him to the vociferous atheist? This I have often witnessed, hence this thread.

I understand where you are coming from; but I've explained quite enough already on that subject to show the distinction between denying God on the one hand, and denying the existence of God on the other hand - either of them are worlds apart.

I get your point. Yes, my choice of words in that instance imply as you say. But the whole write up does not. But I see going further on the point will only amount to repeating all I have said about my audience and the way that scripture has been used, as well as the phrases “first and foremost” and “far more than”.

Out of here till Monday. Have great weekend, you and everyone.

No worries. Do have yourself a fabulous weekend.

@TV01,

I have tried to follow your arguments here and came to this juncture that it seems you're contradicting yourself on several occasions on this subject. Here's an example:

(a)

TV01:
Elders are primarily responsible for the spiritual well-being of the flock, and facets of the eldership role include the pastoral (or shepherding if you will), teaching, counseling etc, which in a sense all overlap to some degree. The role of deacon is primarily concerned with the physical/material well-being of the flock.

. . .but, in post #45 you had argued that:

(b)

TV01:
However, I can see no scriptural support for a Clergy/Laity (leader/Follower) split in NT Xtianity. Further to my immediately prececeeding point, please outline who in addition to the "eldership" would be included in the "leadership" - you may want to briefly outline how they function and compliment the elders and deacons.

The point I would like to observe here is that you seem to be acknowledging that there is a leadership role in the Church on the one hand, while yet disavowing that same thing about leadership in the Church on the other hand. It's like you acknowledge "eldership role" (which is the same as leadership), and yet came back to say that there is no Scriptural support for such a fact!

Another example to show this in some of your posts elsewhere is this excerpt (post #1111):

TV01:
There is no clergy/laity - leader/follower - split in NTC. There is no call for paid ministry in the local congreagation.

Comparing those quotes above, it seems that the conclusion to be drawn is that you have been maintaining quite a contradition of your position, as well making very unfounded statements that are not informed by a careful study of God's Word.

However, without trying to draw a tone of finality, could I request that you try to reconcile both sides of your arguments so we could understand what you were on about?

^^

alimat 2:
My point is that i blame both the xtians nd the muslims for the action/actions of g1 and other atheists.

How is that so?

I think the point is directly the opposite - Christians and/or Muslims cannot be blamed for the idiocy of any atheist who lowers his dignity to the point of obscenity! It does not matter whatever one believes in or does not believe in; but going to the extent of posting obscene material because you're an "atheist" does not settle anything between Christian-and-Muslim exchanges.

We soo much disagree on issues and d atheists seems to be d refree in the field of wrestling.

An atheist does not have to be umpire at anything in discussions about beliefs he/she does not subscribe to; and especially so is the case, that if anyone would like to weigh into a discussion, they do not display rational by lowering themselves to obscenities.

It is not only between Christians and Muslims that disagreements are expressed - Deists, Cross-Bearers (of Grail Message) and others also disagree on several points: should that necessitate an atheist posting obscenity?

Nor is it only in the Religion Board that disagreements are expressed: those who may not have interest in religious discussions also express very strong disagreements, whether it be between football clubs in the Sports section, or the political adventures of public issues affecting people around the world in the Politics Board - but would such disagreements be better served with obscenities?

Please, just don't try to justify what g1 was doing - that was a display of idiocy that beggars intelligence, and there's no reason why anyone should be excusing that.

I fink d xtians nd muslims shld fight against d athesist and not against themselves.

That even makes matters worse. I don't think the flavour of a public forum should be about 'fights', for nothing good is ever achieved thereby. I know you're not advocating some fiasco of sorts, but we could discuss with atheists without seeking unnecessary attitudes between ourselves in such discussions.

(whic am also guilty and including u,u,u and u).

Hehe. . I know what I'm guilty of; but I cannot acknowledge the idea that "every body" is guilty of g1's obscenity on Nairaland.

MyJoe:
The distinction you make is a good point and it is hard to dispute it. I cannot dismiss it out of hand, too. However, it is not one I will attach undue importance to since the concept of God is largely metaphysical. And this is where my HIV/Aids analogy falls short. While viruses are material and can be apprehended objectively, God is not. I believe in the existence of God, and do so do you. But our reasons for believing might be different. The process of apprehending evidence for the existence of God is subjective. Subjective acceptance of God is then expressed by…, well for most, belief in the afterlife is fundamental.

I understand that theism is not a simplistic belief 'in God' - that is where (IMO) the typically uninformed atheist who argues alone on the "existence of God" misses the point. For that reason, I have tried to maintain a broader perspective by noting also that the question also involves the supernatural, which is where the analogy about AIDS becomes a bit worrisome.

Now, I don’t know how familiar you are with our national politics but permit me to draw my analogy from there.

That's my disadvantage in discussing on Nairaland, as I have very little or no firsthand experiences of the Nigerian scenario. But I shall try to follow you:

Once during a conversation my cousin remarked that he did not believe our immediate president, Olusegun Obasanjo, believes in the afterlife. I considered the matter and slowly added that I did not think Obasanjo, Ibrahim Babangida, Lamidi Adedibu, Ayo Fayose or Charles Taylor believed in any afterlife. Now belief in the afterlife is so central to belief in the existence God that even many of the champions of deistic thought like John Toland and Thomas Paine did not reject it. All the guys mentioned above are religious.

That's okay. . . and so:

If those who believe in the existence of God display such manifest wickedness that people take a look and say, he doesn’t believe in afterlife, can we still find a distinction between them the atheist with reference to denying the existence of God? Yes. But it is infinitesimally small. It is immaterial.

I may agree on compromise with you, so we could progress this thread. But please note that there is a fundamental difference between simply 'denying God' and patently denying the existence of God and the supernatural. I may deny acknowedging you in my affairs; but that is a different thing from denying your very existence.

However, we have a common ground here - that both in lifestyle and heart-belief, both believer and atheist 'deny God' in not acknowledging Him in their lives.

That was a good point you made to Tudor in that thread, but I am here concerned with the use of Psalm 14:1 to label people.

That's okay.

Thanks, MyJoe.

MyJoe:
My understanding of the gist of your reaction is that the intention of the psalmist could not have excluded atheists who mouth disbelief in the existence of God. I have no objection to this and I did not set out to make the point that those who vocalise their unbelief in God are not referred to in that verse.

That's fine with me.

[b]The point I set out to make is that, first and foremost, the scripture text refers to believers who disown God by their works. [/b]That is probably where we disagree.

I disagree with you, for that verse is not primarily addressing the believer, but the godless unbeliever. That statement is made twice over in the book of Psalms - (a) Psalm 14:1; (b) and Psalm 53:1 - and standing alone unqualified, it shows that it was not addressing the believer, as it is clear that even the one who categorically denies the existence of God is no better in his "abominable iniquity".

To be sure, I consider it foolish for a man with such a limited viewpoint as we have, to contemplate all the wonders around us and reach a definitive position that there is no God. Agnosticism, particularly where used as a strategy to ask further questions, I can understand, but atheism, damn presumptuous.

No worries, I concur.

I recognise that most analogies suffer severe inferential limitations and did not expect this to work for everyone. As I believe you can see, the whole idea was to underscore the fact that action can belie belief without the author noticing.

That is not a problem - we all know that actions are precursors to underlying beliefs.

When quoting Psalm 14:1 in dialogue, Christians are wont to stop at the first sentence, since they believe it conveys the point they are trying to get across - that the Bible calls you a fool if you say there is no God. I will get to the point you made to Tudor in that thread presently.

I would not like to belabour the point I already made: that, we should not be so broad in our generalisations. When you say "Christians", you're making a far more broader generalisation that is quite unwarranted - I have seen many who quote either Psalm 14:1 or 53:1 without stopping there or using those single quotes as best fits for some clichés to address only the atheist. Perhaps a better and more accommodating way to put it would be to qualify the statement with 'some Christians', as it cannot be said that 'Christians' around the world just stop somewhere on that verse.

What you wrote is not an accurate understanding of this:I think the inclusive qualifier, “first and foremost”, adequately conveys my position that both the atheist and the Christian are covered in that portion of the Bible. It shows my point of emphasis without being exclusive.

Hang on, mate. . . I don't think you're helping that point, for the gist of your emphasis in your summary is to criminalise the Christian and acquit the atheist  - for your assertions pointed to this very point:

[list](a) "For the text says nothing at all about atheists"
and
(b) "religious folk whose works are wicked deny the existence of God far more than atheists. They are the fools"[/list]

I think the points are self-referencing and we don't need to pretend anything here.

That is again highlighted in the last paragraph with the expression ". . . far more than atheists." This is like the ancient saying that when you point a finger at someone, three are simultaneously pointed at you. This in no way vacates the fact that you are still pointing at the other person. And that applies to the whole write up. That the emphasis was placed on the three fingers was naturally because I was primarily addressing Christians, as atheists have had that scripture thrown in their faces long enough by Christians who apply it not to themselves, wrongly in my view.

I do not understand how you would deny the atheist was included in that verse by the assertion you made that it says "nothing at all about atheists" and then turn round to say you had included the atheist that you absolved from that same verse? Nor did you even try to make a balance between these things when your summary points the finger at religious folks as the ones who are the fools?

Nowhere did I do this. I did not even imply it. If you show me my error, I will apologise.

I think the emphasis in italisizing "in their heart" in your OP was what I was pointing to ~~

MyJoe:
“The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.” This is where Christians are wont to stop when quoting the verse. “It’s the Bible that says you are a fool, not me.” But even this portion, taken alone, refers first and foremost, not to the loquacious atheist who declares with his mouth that there is no God, but to anyone who says it in their heart. That is, those religious folk who mouth God from cockcrow to dusk but live mostly for earthbound lucre. (See Titus 1:16).

@DeepSight,

Deep Sight:
Viaaaaaro!

Where you don dey na? I have missed your caustic tongue. . .

Hehe, that should not be the main reason why you would miss me or anyone else. No worries, though - my tongue is tame at the moment ('someone' worked on me, hehehe).

Anyhow, I would like to just ask you a question on this part of your comments:

Deep Sight:
I will be inclined to saying that even if the conscious mind of such a person rejects the idea of God as expounded: the inner spirit of such a person has apprehended and absorbed the most essential principles of God.

What are 'the most essential principles of God'?

Traugott:
Viaro Nice to read from you on NL again, it's been a while!

Hi Traugott, haha. . true, loads have happened since the last email I sent you. Things are looking up at the moment, but I still need to tread carefully.

@jaffi,

jaffi:
we are not saying small 'g' or big 'G'.FORGET ALPHABETS!!!The letter killeth but the spirit giveth life.

No problem, I can afford to forget small or big letters in any language on the subject. However, my reference to the gods of 'small letter g' is informed by the fact that such a notion is the popular teaching of many WOF proponents such as Creflo Dollar, Kenneth Copeland, Paul Crouch of TBN, and several others. Do you care to show us your position on such teachings - whether you agree with them or disagree?

but functioning in his class even Jesus Christ our lord quoted this scriptures to the john 10:34.
suggest u read from verse 30.

The question of John 10:34 is open to anyone's interpretation howsoever they may choose. Not that I applaud all sorts of interpretations; but I tend to hold the view that - (a) the Lord Jesus in that verse was not affirming deity or divinity for any human being in His audience (Christian, Jewish or otherwise); (b) as well the point in verse 38 summing up what exactly He wanted to convey.

In other verses within that same John's Gospel, it is evident that He affirmed His Deity (John 5:23) without making any reference anywhere that Christians were to function the same in essence and nature in such pointers to His Deity.

religion will fight this like what you are doing now.

Let me assure you that my aim is not to fight what Jesus said; but rather that we all try and understand what He meant by any statement He made.

It is clear that there is a fundamental reason why it is written several times that the disciples did not understand what Jesus was saying at various instances (eg., Mark 9:32; Luke 2:50 and 18:34); and it was not until after His resurrection that He opened their understanding that they might understand the scripture (Luke 24:45). In the same manner, we should not just go by the sound of the words in John 10:34 without seeking to understand what He was saying. Whatever reference we might attach to it, it is clear that He certainly was not affirming deity for any man in His audience there.

read Heb 2 and see the position God gave man.

I don't see anything anywhere in Hebrews 2 saying that God has given any position of 'god' or 'deity' to any Christian. Could you kindly show me where the contrary might've been said in that same passage?

they wanted to stone Jesus imagine!
why because He said ,He and His father are ONE!

They also condemned Him more on His confession that He is the Son of God (see John 10:36 and 19:7).

THEY COULDN'T TAKE IT JUST LIKE YOU CAN'T TAKE THE FACT THE WE(CHRISTIANS) ARE GODS!SO THEY WANTED TO STONE HIM.
WHY ARE SO DIFFERENT?

I have not denied what Jesus said in John 10:34 - but the difference is that I categorically deny the WOF proponents' confession on that verse that Christians are therefore 'deity' (Jeremiah 10:11).

Deen4me:
I came across this interesting write up , I wanted to share it .

I would also like to share that many Muslims have asked questions about Islam and subsequently left it and converted to Christianity, or otherwise became agnostics or atheists. May God lead you closer to the fact of that 'truth' that even today, the same thing is happening and many Muslims are leaving Islam.

@alimat,

alimat 2:
Every body is guity of the crime charged against g1 except few people.

I'm sorry to observe that you don't seem to recognize there's a limit to idiocy anywhere in any forum. What does the statement {"Posting obscene material on nairaland"} mean to you?

When you say every body is guilty of the crime charged against g1, have you alimat been posting "obscence materials" such as "depicting pictures of mohammed and Jesus having an[color=Black]al s[/color]ex"?? How many people have been doing the same thing on Nairaland, alimat?

^^ No worries at all. Hope your day is good?

jaffi:
Reason 3: we are gods as christian.
read psalm 82.

I don't mean to be a damper here; but whenever a believer quotes Psalm 82 and trying to affirm a 'god-status' for a Christian, I wonder if they also read the very next verse: "But ye shall die like men" (verse 7)?

However, Scripture testifies again and again that as to Deity and Divinity, we as Christians believe in one God (1 Cor. 8:6).

Furthermore, I hear many WOF teachers saying that the only difference between God and the born-again Christian is that God is spelt with a big 'G' and we are small 'g'. That says nothing at all - for there are indeed many, many differences between the only God and believers anywhere and anytime. An example: the prophet Jeremiah long ago said, "The [b]g[/b]ods that have not made the heavens and the earth, even they shall perish from the earth, and from under these heavens" (Jer. 10:11).

Let's be careful about the WOF movement: it is not every colour of yellow that is 'gold'.

debosky:
Do you really expect it to remain after discovery by the moderators?

Express yourself within the bounds set by the administrator as laid out in the forum rules - deviate from that and you are liable to be banned.

I think that is simple enough to comprehend and abide by.

I was wondering if Nairaland rules were long dead. Believe me, I know that I've broken the rules far too many times (with the tone of addressing other discussants) - and that was because I thought moderators were just not taking notice. It is the actions of mods as regards this subject that changed my mind. Cheers.

[quote author=rich_john link=topic=400454.msg5544001#msg5544001 date=1266576880]How do you know wether your jesus prefers g1 to you?[/quote]Please show us how.

[quote author=rich_john link=topic=400454.msg5544001#msg5544001 date=1266576880]@Nezan
Am not athiest and never will I be[/quote]I'm becoming really weary of this hypocritical statement. Since I don't want to risk jumping to conclusions, please tell us plainly what you are if you're not an atheist - it would help us to know how to set you straight on some of your assumptions.

Furthermore, please tell us why you will never be an atheist - so that atheists themselves would not be wasting their time hoping to make a convert of you.

but I think christians are the awkward people not athiests how can you believe a book like the 'bible' when you can clearly see discrepancies all over it? Well everyone is entitled to his opinion. xtianity makes me sick

There are many people who believe in weird things among atheists - and at the very least, most of them do not need any books to believe their own contradictions. Even in the sciences, many hold on to very contradictory statements; and even where there are no harmonies or consistencies in those beliefs, they still hold on tightly to them. Are those atheists and scientists mad and awkward as well?

Many times I wonder how folks like you try to demonstrate how 'clever' and 'cultured' you are NOT by mouthing off at the worldviews of other people. You really don't have to try to wave any pretences about who you are - because that even makes matters worse and is a pathetic minus on who you actually are. But please amuse me by obliging answers to my enquiries, would you? And then I hope to engage you particularly when you have gathered the guts for your own worldview. Cheers.

[quote author=rich_john link=topic=400000.msg5544417#msg5544417 date=1266580080]The case of someone that believes the bible is either deliberate ignorance/hyponized delusion or simply madness

I believe xtians are mad.[/quote]Thank you for trying to show how rational you could be. But even so, could you tell us where your own madness lies?

MyJoe:
In the same vein, religious folk whose works are wicked deny the existence of God far more than atheists. They are the fools. That fact is reinforced in the second part of the Bible verse: “They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.”

That again is the summary of a misguided assertion. Religious folks do not try to deny the existence of God, although they may 'deny God' by their lifestyles when they go contrary to the claims of their beliefs. To deny God and to deny the existence of God are two worlds apart.

Let me explain:

[list](a) you do not need to a worldview to deny God (both religious and irreligious folks could deny God);
(b) but, you certainly must hold on to a worldview to make a statement of denying the existence of God and the supernatural - and that worldview that assertively denies God's existence is atheism.[/list]

It is on that note that you accentuated a particularly misguided ideology on your assumption.

Expounding on (a) above, let me again recommend the link I posted earlier, clearly showing that "["it is not only atheists that are directly addressed as fools in the Bible - others have been described with similar qualifiers"].

And indeed, these 'others' include religious folks to whom are committed the tenets of their faith. A few examples: Israel was admonished to take heed to God's Word spoken to them, "lest ye deny your God" (Josh. 24:27) - this does not mean that they were in danger of denying 'God's existence', but rather that they risked turning away from Him to worshipping other gods (compare Duet. 6:12-14 and 32:18). The atheist who says "there is no God" does not turn aside to other deities nor does he acknowledge the supernatural - and it is not about atheism that Joshua was warning Israel.

Compare again the point in 2 Tim. 2:12 from the pen of the same apostle - 'If we suffer, we shall also reign with him: if we deny him, he also will deny us'. The 'denying' of God here is not about His existence or the supernatural, in as much as God denying anyone does not turn him to an atheist nor does it say that God does not believe in the existence of those who deny Him. It is rather the same message to be conveyed as that which you cited in Titus 1:16, whereby religious folks are living ungodly lives.

The express denial of the existence of God is not the claim of the religious or the theist, however unfaithful he or she might be. Rather, such a denial of His existence is the core of atheism for many atheists, who assert that 'there is no God', and that nothing exists outside of their materialistic and physicalistic worldview. To assert that 'there is no God' is the core of the belief of many atheists which they hold dearly in their hearts, unless other atheists would want to play the hypocrite of asserting something with their mouths which they believe differently from their hearts.