Welcome, Guest: Register On Nairaland / LOGIN! / Trending / Recent / NewStats: 3,195,008 members, 7,956,734 topics. Date: Monday, 23 September 2024 at 05:44 PM |
Nairaland Forum / Viaro's Profile / Viaro's Posts
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (of 85 pages)
Religion / Re: To The Theists, Who Determines/control Destiny, Man Or God? by viaro: 4:14pm On Jun 13, 2010 |
5solas: Well, it all depends. For example, we know that God has not 'determined' the perdition of anyone (2 Peter 3:9 and 1 Timothy 2:4). One reason why I suggested that we each take a look at what we might mean by 'destiny' is because it appears it is used to mean different things to any speaker in reference. As InesQor pointed out, while it may mean the 'overall circumstances or condition in life' of any person, to other thinkers it might leave open the question as to who ultimately determines such "overall circumstances"? Some feel strongly that man determines the "overall circumstances"; others feel it must be God who determines it. However, what can we say for definite about the verse that says "time and chance happeneth to them all" (Eccl. 9:11)?? |
Religion / Re: 30-day Back-2-basics Bible Digest >>> Viaro, Aletheia, &other Christian Teachers by viaro: 4:01pm On Jun 13, 2010 |
^^Thanks, InesQor. I may not have a definite study 'structure' that may suit every experience, and I very much like your approach on 'A Study of Jesus' (rather than 'THE' study of Jesus). If the principle focus of the thread is to help those newly coming to faith in Christ, perhaps we might seek an approach or structure that takes their own perspective into consideration. When I newly came to saving faith in Christ, the basic question for me about Jesus was: WHO He has revealed Himself to be, especially in the area of my daily walk and fellowship with other believers. This certainly may not be the same basic question or experience of others who have newly believed; but for me, I felt that my relationship with Him was (and to a large extent, is) going to be affected by how that question is answered in my life. So, if I were to follow your pen in 'a study' of Jesus Christ (especially as proposed in your Day 1 on Isaiah 53), the basic question would be about Christ as our Redemption and Redeemer. This is just a suggestion, especially following the next line in yours on the 'Fall of Man' (Genesis 3). However, more to that theme is how that affects my daily experience as a Christian on the one hand, and what that experience would mean in my fellowship with other believers. ^^ That is only a suggestion. But do we need to wait to have anything close to "the" perfect study structure? No. Rather, we may begin the digest as proposed - and in doing so, bearing in mind that the believer perhaps is looking for effective outcomes: how the study impacts on our lives and fellowships with one another. |
Religion / Re: To The Theists, Who Determines/control Destiny, Man Or God? by viaro: 3:49pm On Jun 13, 2010 |
Perhaps a good place to start is to look at what each one of us all mean by that nebulous word 'destiny'. Inbetween all the points of reference, there seems to be a silverline cutting neatly through it all. |
Religion / Re: 30-day Back-2-basics Bible Digest >>> Viaro, Aletheia, &other Christian Teachers by viaro: 3:41pm On Jun 13, 2010 |
Hello all. I'm surprised to be able to post again after the "**" went awry. Anyways, this is a timely and interesting thread - more so because it does not argue to push any post(s) or discussion as THE 'truth'. Anyone who may, can benefit - if otherwise, no worries. For one, viaro does not lay any claims to being a "teacher" by any stretch. But I'm willing to share on certain subjects. A lot of issues may arise (as already is evident), and I think it is a good thing in terms of helping us all as believers to think deeper. So, my thanks and appreciation to the OP/thread starter. However, perhaps there should be a structure of sorts for the 'digest'. When one proposes a discussion as "a study", it leaves open the fact that there are a number of such studies one might betake on the subject. It is just like the synoptic Gospels which present the same theme (the Gospel of Jesus Christ) but each of the Gospels (Matthew Mark Luke and John) seeing the central theme from a different perspective of a collective whole. In all, I envisage that it is not only the 'new convert' that would have something helpful to take away from the digest - 'believers' as 'believers' would benefit as well. I may be mistaken, but perhaps owing to the fact that not many people find the "basics" quite stimulating, there has been a whole range of concerns in many places about what we hear from many pulpits. As already, toba has highlighted one such from Rod Parsley - how this ties back to the theme of the 30-day digest would also be interesting food for thought. I hope to throw in my bit here and there as time allows. Cheers. |
Religion / Re: Creating From Nothing by viaro: 11:53pm On May 29, 2010 |
mazaje: I'm not playing any games. Just provide me with the one clear answer I have been asking you for this obviously dubios statement you made: mazaje: Mazaje, how long am I going to wait? If you can't show in your next reply, I take it that you're just out for mischief, and we can let it be at that. |
Religion / Re: Creating From Nothing by viaro: 11:23pm On May 29, 2010 |
mazaje: Haha. . . you're not desperate, no? You're looking for every wind to use as your excuse for your obvious duplicity that you can't sustain, so you have to go on a long search about whether other Christians are mad at viaro, yes? Dude, I don't argue by jingoism - I notice that is the firstaid of a desperate atheist, and that's what you're doing now. Just climb off your high horse and keep to what is being discussed in this thread. mazaje: Are you now again clutching at straws? When I reminded you several times about "origins science" and "creation", what did you say afterwards? Did you, mazaje, do turn round and say that you're not discussing "origins"? If you were a sensible chap, you would have left it there and not force yourself to lie into "science" by making very silly statements and confirming what a clueless chap you actually are! This is why I let you drive on rough until now you just argue endlessly and show nothing for what you asserted - not to mention your illiterate statements that makes one wonder if you read basic science at all! mazaje: How many times have I tried to answer this question and hinted that we may not agree as to details? "I don't know if I ever claimed anywhere to know HOW the Universe was created in terms of the details" was what I said in post #23, and I've reminded you a couple of times that for me, the Bible does not give the details in step-by-step procedural layout. Yet, no "science" anywhere as drawn any coclusion about "God" - which is why I have been asking you to show me any such scientific research on God that should warrant your dubious assertion which you now tuck under the BB theory. mazaje: Choose any Universe and still show me your "science" for your dubious assertion. By all this excuses, you sound even far more desperate! Where is the "science" for this assertion you made ?? -- mazaje: |
Religion / Re: Creating From Nothing by viaro: 10:43pm On May 29, 2010 |
mazaje: What do you mean by "science doesn't make assumptions"? The more I read your wild statements foisted on "science", the more I feel you should go back to school! Science makes "assumptions" - scientists know this. Without these 'assumptions', you can't even begin to make any mention of the "scientific method". At the elementary level, this is the connection - Wikipedia: Philosophy of science looks at the underpinning logic of the scientific method, at what separates science from non-science, and the ethic that is implicit in science. There are basic assumptions derived from philosophy that form the base of the scientific method - namely, that reality is objective and consistent, that humans have the capacity to perceive reality accurately, and that rational explanations exist for elements of the real world. These assumptions from methodological naturalism form the basis on which science is grounded. Dude, please cut to the chase and stop making unfounded assertions cooked up in your backyard! You sound more and more detarched from "science" - otherwise you would not be making the silly statements one reads from you these days. |
Religion / Re: Creating From Nothing by viaro: 10:20pm On May 29, 2010 |
mazaje:viaro link=topic=451756.msg6113504#msg6113504 date=1275126770: You're a confirmed waste of space! The BB does not say anything about God - nothing in the excerpts made about the BB says a word about "God", and I think your insisting your assertion there has become far more serious than being desperately and deliberately dubious. mazaje: Lol, is it not rather silly that you made an obviously brainless assertion that you can't show anything for? I have always and consistently maintained that no science anywhere has come up with any research on "God" - that is not what "science" is about. Yet, no science has said anywhere that God did not create the Universe - scientists are trying to grapple with the question of what caused the existence of the Universe after coming to the conclusion that the Universe is not eternal or uncaused. Science has not said anywhere that God created or did not create the Universe - and for you to have dodged behind your excuse to make science say what it did not say is quite dishonest - which is why up until now you have not found any research paper asserting your duplicity! mazaje: What is at the heart of this discussion is CREATION - I have mentioned that same thing to you several times until you begged that you were not discussing "origins". To turn round and confuse yourself is hardly surprising, but you must insist on a "origins science" that you're clueless about, and that was why I asked you to do the simple sane thing of showing me any line where your science mentions anything about "God". Where is that paper? Why do you like to be so shamelessly gutless like this? Again, sir. . . if you are feigning ignorance at the same time as you're making vacant noise, this is the part I would like to bring again to your attention: The second part of the question, as to what existed before the Big Bang, has scientists baffled. By definition, nothing existed prior to the beginning, but that fact creates more questions than answers. For instance, if nothing existed prior to the Big Bang, what caused the singularity to be created in the first place? So, try another game up your sleeves - provide an paper that says the same thing that you asserted here: mazaje: I don't know how many times I have to ask that simple request: but surprise me and provide any "science" that says that same thing - it's either you can't find and then come back with another excuse. |
Religion / Re: Offering In The Early Church by viaro: 9:36pm On May 29, 2010 |
@petres_007, I understand just a bit what you guys are trying to say. However, I tend to see things from another perspective - I think the problem is far more serious than any arguments for or against tithes. Fraud takes many forms, and clever people will look for other ways to dupe unsuspecting believers than all talk about tithes. This should help us see that many of the arguments are not dealing with the real issues - and I think that is where we need to focus on. petres_007: Well, I'm a bit lazy to search for relevant links presently (hope to post you some when I can). However, the operative word there is "enforce" - I have no problem with anyone who would quote the OT to encourage giving or seek a spiritual truth for Christians; but to "enforce" whatever they teach upon others is leaving grace behind and tending to legalism. When we go through the NT, we find a whole range of verses taken from the OT and applied to Christian living. Some of these just "seem" to have no direct link to any mention of any type of 'giving'. For instance, what has the mention of "ox" in Deut. 25:4 got anything to do with "giving"? Yet the apostle quoted that OT verse twice in the NT (1 Cor. 9:9 and 1 Tim. 5:18) in connection with giving and receiving! But after all is said and done, we find that the apostle did not "enforce" anything upon the Christian (e.g., see 1 Cor. 9:15). So it is: there should be no problem at all with quoting from any passages of the OT to teach about 'giving' in the NT. What the Bible does not urge upon us is to force anything upon anybody - whether it be tithes, freewill offerings, donations, contributions, etc., nothing should be enforced on the believer. |
Religion / Re: Creating From Nothing by viaro: 4:43pm On May 29, 2010 |
Jenwitemi: There's nobody I ever came across who makes the kind of run-away physics you're doing here. If you can show me any scientist who makes such an inference as to suppose that inspiration compares to such things as the big bang, please show me. Jenwitemi: Please give me a solid example of your own creatio ex nihilo - just one example will do. Jenwitemi: ^^ that does not even come close to creatio ex nihilo. |
Religion / Re: Shocking, but true!!! by viaro: 3:53pm On May 29, 2010 |
^^ I don't think we should be deeply surprised or shocked out of our socks with such things. This trend is only another dimension of an older problem - [you can fill in the gap here]. But seriously, along the same lines of concerns are reports of "pastors" who are transgengered. A few of them: Methodists Vote to Keep Transgender Pastor [quote][/quote] |
Religion / Re: Why Do People Try To Impose Their Beliefs On Others? by viaro: 3:43pm On May 29, 2010 |
^^ hehe, I stand to be corrected on this one, but Dawkins does not represent the atheism of many atheists. I understand that quite a lot of other atheists themselves are not impressed by the likes of Dawkins and his band of 'new atheists'. |
Religion / Re: Offering In The Early Church by viaro: 3:40pm On May 29, 2010 |
Joagbaje: Please, let's not use this thread as a platform for a repeat 'broadcast' of that blight in Christendom. It is not only the Vatican that has shameful things to contend with - even in our own (yes, "our own" non-Vatican and non-Catholic expressions of Christianity, we have experienced very sad episodes that we would only be too ashamed to mention. If tithing is the subject to be discussed, let's focus on that. For one, the point Justin Martyr would have made is that nobody was forced to give whatever they gave - The wealthy, if they wish, may make a contribution, and they themselves decide the amount. People should not be forced or manipulated to "give" - even where we are encouraging giving. One pastor has said: 'If it is not by grace, then everything that follows is a disgrace'. Nothing should be forced - not even "freewill giving". |
Religion / Re: Offering In The Early Church by viaro: 3:32pm On May 29, 2010 |
KunleOshob: If tithing was not specifically mentioned, we are only appealing to a logical fallacy to argue against what the article does not argue for or against. Indeed, many other things that are not mentioned among early Christians have now found their way into Christianity today and we all seem to be comfortable with them. However, it is not only tithing that is being used today as a form of fraud in many religious groups - all sorts are being used as well. The real problem is not tithing or anti-tithing, but something else: greed. |
Religion / Re: Why Do People Try To Impose Their Beliefs On Others? by viaro: 2:45pm On May 29, 2010 |
@wirinet, I see your point though; but I do not agree with the basis of your conclusions. People feel a need to seek some commonality in whatever they believe - whether they are theists or atheists, it matters very little whatever the number of such maybe. Either way, there are some in both atheism and theism who do not care about 'evangelizing/converting/proselytizing'; but we cannot say at the basic level, this need is mainly a matter more about Christianity or Islam. One may only draw that conclusion on the idea that atheists by contrast are smaller in numerical strength; but we know that there are many efforts today by atheists to push their own beliefs to the fore. Perhaps, it may be said without much risk that it is particularly agnostics (not atheists or theists) who may not be perturbed about seeking 'converts' or pushing their 'beliefs'. |
Religion / Re: Offering In The Early Church by viaro: 2:35pm On May 29, 2010 |
^^ What is the logic behind quoting what does not say a dot for or against tithing and using it to criminalize others? I would see the point if Martyr said anything against it - but since he does not, what logic is there in using that quote against tithing? |
Religion / Re: Offering In The Early Church by viaro: 11:10am On May 29, 2010 |
chukwudi44: And what does this "prove" about tithing or anti-tithing? For one, Justin Martyr does not say a word in that quote about or against tithing. If a Christian decides to set apart what amounts to a tenth of his/her income to help the poor and for Church outreaches, there is nothing in the NT or in Justin Martyr's quote above that negates that. Second, there are very many things which Christianity has come to adopt today that we do not read a word about in the Bible. If we want to keep complaining about what the early Christians practised, reason would have us actually focus on those other things that later crept into Christianity and as well eschew them from Christianity altogether. Third, there are some theologians regarded much respected for their works today who actually argued in favour of the principle (not literalism) of tithing among Christians - Thomas Aquinas is one of them, and I wonder how many people will now turn against him just because he saw tithing as a healthy practice which yet should not be forced upn Christians? We should be careful what we read into the excerpts we make - there are many logical fallacies which appear in the arguments of people who touch this and other subject. AT the end of the day, let's learn to seperate what from chaff and promote love and faith (yes, and TRUTH). |
Religion / Re: Creating From Nothing by viaro: 10:52am On May 29, 2010 |
mazaje: Does the BB theory assert that God did not create the Universe? Is that the conclusion of the BB? The thing is that you made a blatant assertion, viz: mazaje:. . . and what you have posted about the BB theory does not in any line assert such a thing anywhere. The BB theory does not even draw the conclusion that you tried to make it argue. I'm waiting for your "science" that asserts that God did not create the Universe - the BB theory does not say any such things. Do you want to try another excuse again pretentiously termed your "science"? Even if you want to hide behind the Big Bang, perhaps the question at the heart of this discussion eludes you - and here it is, enlarged and highlighted below: The Big Bang Your excuse of the Big Bang is a late arrival, dude. As is highlighted above, the core question of "what caused the singularity to be created in the first place" is what is at the heart of this discussion. If you know any "Origins Science" that has made your blatant assertion concluding that God did not create the Universe, please show - or just shut up about what you don't know. The BB theory does not draw any conclusions about "God" or "ORIGINS SCIENCE" or even about "creation" - so pick another joke up your sleeves. |
Religion / Re: Why Do People Try To Impose Their Beliefs On Others? by viaro: 10:33am On May 29, 2010 |
wirinet: All the above ^^ are found both among theists and atheists. |
Religion / Re: Why Do People Try To Impose Their Beliefs On Others? by viaro: 10:32am On May 29, 2010 |
wirinet: Try these: huxley2: huxley: What do the quotes above suggest? |
Religion / Re: Creating From Nothing by viaro: 10:05am On May 29, 2010 |
mazaje: I have come to the conclusion you're a waste of time in discussion - my only regret is that I learnt it late. If ever anyone would tell me you of all people have a clue about the "science" you have been noising up and down the street, I would know better now that such is another one of your "rhetorics". But whenever you can, please show me your "science" for this assertion - mazaje: It is either you're a mischievous fellow who is absolutely clueless about "science", or you just like to make noise with that word and show nothing. Please show me where "Origins Science" has asserted what you did above there - I want the "science", not your jokes. |
Religion / Re: Creating From Nothing by viaro: 10:00am On May 29, 2010 |
Jenwitemi: No. . . unless you have something to show how it could be so in reality. |
Religion / Re: Creating From Nothing by viaro: 6:32pm On May 28, 2010 |
Romeo4real: Hehe, I'm actually sorry for my loss! I thought he could be taken on seriously. . . it must be the eleventh wonder that it took me this long to realize the discussion was leading nowhere. |
Religion / Re: Proof Of The Trinity? by viaro: 6:29pm On May 28, 2010 |
ednut1: Haha! Did she talk about the different races from Adam or about the Trinity from Genesis? I guess your goggles are wider than a windscreen! |
Religion / Re: Creating From Nothing by viaro: 2:30pm On May 28, 2010 |
toba: I don't think mazaje is interested in discussing in an interesting manner. If it is not jumping here and there and making false statements and dragging "science" into it, then he's turning round and saying it was all part of his "rhetorics". If you laugh it off, then again he turns round and cries that he is VERY serious! It is interesting to see how some of these loud mouthed atheists just assert things under "science" and end up showing that they do not have a clue what "science" they are talking about. I was waiting for mazaje to surprise me all along for the "science" - any type of "science" - that says what he said such a "science" has said! WHY has that taken so very long? When I hinted that most atheists argue and assert that the Universe has been in existence for all eternity, mazaje was worried and quibbled and danced all around between the implications of that hint. It is obvious that not all atheists everywhere at every time hold/held the view that the Universe was eternal or that it created itself; but in very fact, many atheist have held that view and celebrated it under the excuse of a "science" that only they can talk about but has never shown itself to stand anywhere! With a little help, perhaps, mazaje knows this already, but decided to dance around when challenged on that event, a few examples to the point: (1) Here's one of such assertions that is just asserted out of wind with no science anywhere to show for it: 'Bill' from hygrography blog: I am not saying that the above is precisely mazaje's claim or statement; but I am drawning on these things to make him take a position because they often pass to our notice that such is the ideology behind the atheist's assertion that the Universe has always existed. When such people are challenged, then begin to quibble and then turn round and forver mention "science" this and "science" that, and yet will never at any place show such a "science" that has researched 'God' to have concluded that the Universe was not created by God. Anyone who wishes might just go to that blog and read the whole page - for all the arguments of this materialist ideology, there is NO SCIENCE anywhere to show the basis of their assertion of a self-created or eternal Universe. However, even in recent times, some have tried to cheat along the lines in their attempts to rise to the challenge of providing the said "science" that says God did not create the Universe. An example is one Terrence A. Lynch who posits "The Infinite and Eternal Nature of the Universe as a Sinusoidal Flux in the Space-Time Continuum". In his piece, he argues: Terrence Lynch: The existence of God as the creator of the universe is negated by the fact that the space-time continuum is infinite. Having no beginning nor end, the universe continues into infinity, our present having arisen from an infinite past which leads into an infinite future. Thus there never was a creation and it is therefore false for God to be envisioned as creator of the universe. Just so we don't risk misunderstanding what Terrence meant by an eternal universe, he goes on to explain that - Terrence Lynch: Herein is proposed the theory of an infinite or eternal universe (infinite in terms of time and duration of existence; hence, the eternal universe). The basic principles which prescribe an eternal universe are set forth and the models which support and enable such an eternal universe are explained. Anyone who reads such a proposition might at first sight assume that Terrence was on to something brilliant. But the so-called "science" he propounds is a cheat all the way - because he takes far too much leaps and gaps in his proposed theory and explains nothing about the nature of existence and causes. For those who just want to cut to the chase, perhaps we need to ask Terrence how he arrived at any calculations of "inifinity" where he just jumps into huge conclusions with nothing in his models to show the workable calculations for his proposition. However, for those who have tried to consider the same question of ORIGINS in science (I'm not talking about cheap shots from brazen atheistic loud mouths who show nothing), I am still waiting to see where any such sciences have established this run-away lie of an eternal Universe. Leaving "creation" for a while, what would theoretic physicists conclusde from their years of research? I give you an example of Stephen Hawkings: (Astrophysicist Stephen Hawking speaks at an international gathering of scientists on the origins of the universe at Beijing's Great Hall of the People in China Monday, June 19, 2006. Hawking is in Beijing to attend the 'Strings 2006' conference on the riddle of string theory which, if solved, could help unlock the mysteries of black holes and the creation of the universe. Photo: AP) I'm not a scientist nor a cosmologist. But when I read atheists arguing for an eternal Universe that had no beginning in its existence, I become very interested indeed to see what theorems they have propounded to draw such conclusions. Atheists may argue that the Universe was not created; but SCIENCE does not come to that conclusion at all anywhere. The above is by no means all there is to the subject - but where someone is saying that "origins science says" thus and thus, it would help greatly if such people lay aside their own atheism and show us where any research in ORIGINS SCIENCE has ever SAID what they want to force into "science". To keep making such assertions and showing nothing is quite mischievous - and we can leave it at that. |
Religion / Re: Creating From Nothing by viaro: 1:52pm On May 28, 2010 |
@mazaje, Please stop going round in circles. I have tried to be as amicable as can be and asked you to show me any science for your assertion that - mazaje: Please let's cut to the chase: show me anything from ORIGINS SCIENCE that says what you asserted above. That is all I'm intersted in at this point. If you can, let's talk. If you cannot, we can leave it at that. Asserting things on behalf of "science" and yet showing nothing anywhere as such is what I notice you champion these days. If not, please show me. |
Religion / Re: Spiritual And Not Religious? by viaro: 11:08am On May 28, 2010 |
ogajim: Em, I think the Bible shows in many places that it actually matters who you fellowship with, no? (eg., 2 Thes. 3:6 and 2 Tim. 3:5). |
Religion / Re: Creating From Nothing by viaro: 11:01am On May 28, 2010 |
mazaje: Okay, please show me any origins science research paper that has said anything about 'GOD'. That has been at the heart of your argument, so please don't come back like a hypocrite claiming you "don't know". It were better you just shut up and stop pretending you know anything about 'ORIGINS SCIENCE'. If you've any statement in a research paper that has concluded in "origins science" that God did not create the Universe, please show me. (it is almost confirming to me that you don't know anything about what is meant by "origins science" - that does not mean anyone should blame you for it; but it is quite naive and indeed brainless for you mazaje to make statements that you can't provide anything for. I'm asking for research from the field of "Origins Science" asserting that God did not create the Universe). |
Religion / Re: Creating From Nothing by viaro: 10:47am On May 28, 2010 |
mazaje: Please stop breaking your neck on Isaiah 13:10. This is what I said when I quoted that verse for you in post #26: [list][li]For one, Isaiah 13:10 indeed mentions "the constellations" of the heavens besides having mentioned the stars, but this 'constellations' is not specifically mentioned in Genesis.[/li][/list] [list][li]I will mention Isaiah 13:10 once again - "the stars of heaven and the constellations thereof" - this should help you understand that the Bible recognizes what you're on about the "other stars" being "solar systems like ours".[/li][/list] If you can't understand the meaning of "mention" and "recognize" then you're beyond being helped indeed! The "stars of heaven" are part of God's creation, "the constellations" are also part of God's creation - this is what the Bible recognizes if you're perturbed about "OTHER STARS" being solar systems like ours! That it appears in Isaiah 13:10 in a passage talking about judgement on sinners (cf. verse 9 - 'he shall destroy the sinners') does not mean therefore that the stars and the constellations are not part of His creation! In other passages dealing with judgement on sin and sinners, similar language is used about the sun, the moon, the stars and the bright lights of heaven being darkened (Ezekiel 32:7-, so what? That the sun and moon shall be darkened does not mean that they were not part of God's creation. In the same way, when Isaiah 13:10 says that the stars and the contellations shall not give their lights, it does not mean therefore that we could not point out that they are part of God's creation as well - and the mentioning of the "constellations" in that verse should have helped you see that the Bible recognizes the "other stars" like our solar system which you were noising earlier! Your petty excuses are beginning to bore me! Bottomline: you were on about "other stars" being solar systems like ours, no? I cited those references to show you that the mentioning of the stars and the constellations shows that the Bible recognizes those "other stars" you were on about! When again you check the Ezekiel 32:7-8 just cited above, you find indeed that these "others" you were on about are also recognized in the Bible - the sun, the moon, the stars, and the 'All the bright lights of heaven' (or as in NIV - 'all the shining lights in the heavens') - the Bible also recognizes that there are planets as part of God's creation (2 Kings 23:5). So how is my pointing out these things to you churn you on the inside to allege that I was lying through your teeth? mazaje: Please come off your high horse. Why are you being such a desperate hypocrite? You and I are familiar with the King James Version (KJV), and I guess you quite might've quoted from the KJV as well, no? Even at that, all you needed to have done was take a look into the KJV and see indeed that Genesis 2:4 states precisely: "These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens". Other translations may use the words history/account; but we know that is merely for convenience not to face up to the fact that "generations" does not refer to a 24hr reckoning of time - at the very least, the word "generations" would perhaps be more akin to the Hebrew (תּלדה / תּולדה - tôledâh). You told me in post #30 that you have the E[/b]nglish [b]S[/b]tandard [b]V[/b]ersion ([b]ESV) - and this is what it says: [list][li]These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created,in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens[/li][/list] . . . why did you skip that one? Other versions/translations in English that use "generations" include (but not limited to) - [list][li]'These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that Jehovah God made earth and heaven.' - [ASV - American Standard Version][/li][/list] [list][li]'These are the generations of the heaven and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made earth and heaven.' - [JPS - Jewish Publication Society Bible][/li][/list] [list][li]'These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created in the day that Jehovah God was making earth and heavens.' - [LITV - Literal Trans. of the Holy Bible][/li][/list] [list][li]'These are the generations of the heaven and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made earth and heaven.' - [RV - Revised Version][/li][/list] Now, that's six other translations using the same word "generations" in that Genesis 2:4 verse - either you just skipped them for your convenience and therefore inferred that I was quoting only one "wrong" translation, or you just presumed I wouldn't notice the difference. After blowing hot and cold, I don't know what you've managed to discuss on that word and what I pointed out. mazaje: The Bible does not say so - I only notice you're trying to force your own atheism into the Bible to help you prevaricate on the subject of Creation and Origins. mazaje: I have referred to and discussed them earlier. However, I also pointed out several times that before verse 14 to 16, Genesis 1:3 mentioned LIGHT. What did you say on that? Oh, I didn't forget - you excused it on your own story-telling about your pallying with YECs who yada-yada on that verse! I salute with three cheers! mazaje: That's true - I noted that the Bible does not conclude that the earth was created before the stars, and to show you why I said so, I went to other verses to point out that the Universe was much earlier than the earth, no? mazaje: Ahem, mazaje. . . you argued repeatedly that the stars were set in the firmament SOLELY to give light upon the earth; and I pointed out to you that you were skipping verse 14 which shows other purposes besides giving light on earth - I hope you haven't forgotten? mazaje: That would be giving it the traditional interpretation of the YECs - and you of all people know that I'm not a YEC. I have tried to show you why that would be problematic even for the YECs, and also noted that the Bible does not give us the precise age of the Universe. The only difference is that even though in cosmology the Bible indicates that time is relative and not static, it does not tell us that we ought therefore to conclude that the entire creation is only 6,000 years old. For this reason, I pointed out some other passages and asked questions around other creations of God in the Universe which we did not read in the Genesis account - these are clearly explicated in other verses of the Bible, and that was what I wanted folks to grapple with. The idea of a literal 24hr reckoning of 6 days in Genesis does not square with what other Bible verses are saying, it does not square with what is meant by "generations" (תּלדה/תּולדה - tôledâh) in Genesis 2:4; and certainly does not square with the chronology of created beings which are part of God's creation in other verses of the Bible. I believe there is a coherence in all these; however, many people just stand at Genesis 1 and never seek to compare with other verses on what is being said about God's creation. When I mention the "contellations" and "planets" which are recognized in other verses outside Genesis (that is, other books of the Bible, not outside the Bible), you can't even imagine my surprise at Christians who get upset with me for finding those things outside Genesis 1!! I tried to ask them what could possibly be the problem with recognizing that the Bible acknowledges the existence of PLANETS?!? I should spare you their reactions. In all these things, the best you can do is disagree with me in the way I comapre other verses with the Genesis 1 account - not that I'm trying to fault them; but rather because I see a coherence in them that brings out the fact that the Universe was indeed CREATED! And yes, not created by a "thing", but by God the Creator of all things. To this end, if you have any science or ORIGINS research to show that the Universe was not created, that would be useful to consider for your argument. The basic point is not whether you are agreeing with me half-way through - but as a Christian theist, I believe in CREATION; and I suppose that at the heart of your atheism, we find a materialist notion that asserts the Universe was not created! This is the basic point - and often is the case that many atheists will say that their reason for a "not-created" Universe is "science" - and if that's what you are on about, I want to see that "science". Your excuses that you were not arguing "origins" or "origins science" or "creation" is all bull and makes your posts meaningless. If you do want to discuss origins or creation (which I suppose is what this thread is about), then I'm willing to engage you. |
Religion / Re: Creating From Nothing by viaro: 10:42am On May 28, 2010 |
Now mazaje, mazaje: That is absolutely bunk! You've been trying to argue "science" into the ORIGINS of the Universe - and that was why I obliged you a discussion to see where you derived your "sciences" from to argue your assertions about the Universe not having been created! Any "science" would do - whether cosmology, origins science, astronomy, or theoretical physics (including quantum theory) - ANY SCIENCE would do, as long as it would have shown any substance for your assertion that God did NOT CREATE the Universe! I even obliged you to pick any ORIGINS SCIENCE of your choice (Google if you please) and let me know which one of them has ever researched "God" and what their conclusions could have been as to assert that God did NOT CREATE the Universe. Rather, you quibbled and quibbled and never even attempted showing any difference between what you are arguing and ORIGINS SCIENCE or ORIGINS or CREATION! This is what you said earlier: [list] mazaje:[/list] . . . and in post #19 I argued to the contrary that: [list] viaro: The Universe DID NOT create itself - no science I am aware of would argue for a self-created Universe. I cannot provide any so-called "evidence" that shows or points to a Universe that created itself. Therefore, if your argument is to the contrary view that the Universe created itself, you have all the freedom in the cosmos to show me your evidence for that![/list] Your argument that you're not discussing "origins" or "origins science" etc., is pure bull! It would mean all that you've been sweating to do here is a cheap run under which you can hide, because you know that you have absolutely NOTHING to show from any science that the Universe created itself; nor any science to show ORIGINS research discussing and concluding anything about "God"; nor any science where all origins research terminate at a conclusion that the Universe was NOT CREATED. Where is your evidence for a Universe that self-created itself? NONE. Where is your evidence for ORIGINS SCIENCE? None. You're not discussing "origins". . . and how is that different from the origins and creation and origins science we have been talking about? If you are neither here nor there, what is the use trying to make any sense from what you're arguing? mazaje: And does the so-called "scientific" evidence conclude that the Universe was not created? Even where I have tried to be amicable on that point as in post #29 and allow for some deference (*not 'difference'), the basic point from your argument was what? If you're saying that God did not create the Universe, I wanted scientific evidence that discusses 'God' and showing that the Universe was not created. That is because as an atheist who hides behind "science", you're committed to pure materialism/naturalism - and that is why I wanted you to use that same "science" from whereever you may and show me that the Universe was not created. We may differ in details - but so far, none of what you argue has given anyone reason to conclude that the Universe was not created. I went that far to point you in the direction of current researches in that field, for which I have often mentioned "origins science". If perhaps you have any other "science" that points to origins and therefore show that the Universe was not created, I was also ready to oblige you a discussion. Where is your 'science' for origins or the creation of the Universe? mazaje: Please tell me: why did Genesis 1:3 mention LIGHT before the latter verses 14-16 that mention other lights? I have not read a single line from you dealing with verse 3, even though I have mentioned it a couple of times. Do you care to do so now? mazaje: Both you and those who are pandering to are a bigger joke. Where is it found "as it is written" that God was the source of the light that was shining on earth before the sun was created? What verse? You just accept their word and conclude that is precisely "as it is written" so that you can applud your cheap arguments. No wonder. But I have a question for you and your cheats. Genesis 1:3 says "And God said, Let there be light: and there was light." The bolded words ('let there be') is an act of creation - it was created light; so all the trash about they said this and that would just simply come down as an excuse. I've asked some of these YECs what they mean by "God is the source of the light in Genesis 1:3". . and some of them say that HE was that light! Can you imagine the idiocy of these guys? I remarked that if God was that light in verse 3, then was He creating Himself AFTER the creation of the heavens and the earth?!? You mazaje, are one piece of a joke! You like them YECs not because theyr are showing you what is written - but because they are cheaper shots for you to take a swing at! I wonder why you never for once asked them to show you what verse 3 was saying and whether God was creating Himself in that verse before coming down to verses 14-16 to talk about other lights! No, that explanation of the YECs on the preceding LIGHT in verse 3 is a joke beyond reason. Next opportunity you have, please ask them sensible questions rather than assume theyr are telling you stuff "as it is written". |
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (of 85 pages)
(Go Up)
Sections: politics (1) business autos (1) jobs (1) career education (1) romance computers phones travel sports fashion health religion celebs tv-movies music-radio literature webmasters programming techmarket Links: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) Nairaland - Copyright © 2005 - 2024 Oluwaseun Osewa. All rights reserved. See How To Advertise. 210 |