₦airaland Forum

Hi again modupe01,

I had just logged out of NL when my inbox pinged, announcing a reply in a thread I was following. A quick look and it was this one. I'll try and run through that link you recommended.

I see that we have discussed almost all the points highlighted there - another one of Henry Morris' (Ph.D) write-ups. Nothing new there; so perhaps it might be somewhat easier and better to offer a summary yet again:

The three basic areas of Morris' concerns for the view of his YEC are partly quoted in their relevant portions below:

1. The Bible nowhere allows for long ages.
One can search the Scriptures (see my book Biblical Creationism for proof) from beginning to end without finding even a hint of evolution or long ages.

2. The Bible explicitly states how and when creation took place.
. . . The question seems to be even more firmly settled when God wrote with His own finger that "in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the [seventh] day, and hallowed it" (Exodus 20:11), thereby basing our calendar's seven-day week on this primeval creation week.

3. The Lord Jesus recognized that men and women existed right from the beginning.
The current opinion is that the cosmos evolved about 16 billion years ago, the earth about 4.6 billion, primitive life perhaps two billion, and human life about one million years ago. The Lord Jesus, on the other hand (who was there, having Himself created all things—note John 1:1-3), taught that men and women were made essentially at the same time as the cosmos itself, when He said that "from the beginning God . . . made them male and female" (Mark 10:6). "The beginning" obviously was a reference to Genesis 1:1, and Christ was specifically citing Genesis 1:26.

You would find that there's nothing new in these arguments, which I have examined in detail. However, in the third quote, the remark that caught my interest was this statement:

     --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
     that, the Lord Jesus. .
     'taught that men and women were made essentially at the same time as
     the cosmos itself
     --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As we have seen, that statement is as false as anything false can be! That was Morris putting words in Jesus' mouth, forcing the text to say what it does not state! The Lord Jesus nowhere teach that men and women were made essentially at the same time as the cosmos - unless Henry Morris with a Ph.D does not understand what the 'cosmos' is. This is what worries me with people who beggar what true science actually is; especially in the face of the Biblical warning that we should avoid "science falsely so called" (1 Tim. 6:20).

Another thing you might notice is Henry Morris' repeated mention of evolution. Why does he assume that anyone who thinks differently and sees an old age cosmos must by default be resorting to evolution? As is evident in this thread, I believe from Scripture that the cosmos is older than 6,000 years old - but my conclusions were not reached by evolutionary thinking at all.

He also mentions the work of "Creationist geologists", and for the life of me I still can't find what type of scientific model, hypothesis, or theories these creationist geologists have formulated and tested. Where are the scientific theories that these creationist geologists have that could be referenced for their work and replicated by other non-partisan geoscientists?

During the coming week, no matter how tight my schedules, I shall take time to come examine the religious geology of some of these ICR staff. The findings may surprise you - and there's no need to wonder about any outside influences: I will stick to the Bible and query some of their thinking.

Cheers.

bawomolo:
I can't demonstrate it, only if we go back in time.

Okay, fair enough. Nor could I.

Virtual particles pop in and out of existence while violating E = mc^2 (temporarily).  They even appear in vacuum that supposedly empty and inert.  Who is to say matter wasn't created in such a manner?  Maybe they universe came out nothingness (that would make a good sci-fi movie).

Lol, bawo. . . this is sci-fi you're conjecturing. Someday, I would like to seriously take up that idea of "popping in an out of existence" with anyone who has some muscle to go the distance in such a discussion. For now, I'll just retire to my work - see ya tomorrow.

@bawomolo,

bawomolo:
thanks a lot viaro.  Good to see some variety in deism.

No worries.

well can't it be argued something has always existed? that matter didn't need to be created.

Could you demonstrate those in the highlight?

you should read up on this.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle
i'm obviously no physicists but who says something can't come out of nothing.   Of course it can be argued a supernatural force is responsible for the actions of this particles.

I don't know how the virtual particle demonstrates that something came out of nothing on its own. Care to elucidate?

@modupe01,

I am not your enemy; and no, I don't have any problem. I tried to reason out this subject with you concerning the age of the earth and the universe, the cosmos. . and so that you won't have to worry about any "outside influences", my posts were drawn from Scripture, where I both discussed from, drew questions and proffered some reason. When something just does not follow, we should not force our thinking to bend any verse to make it 'work' - to do so is why unbelievers will laugh and use the familiar phrase 'lying for Jesus' to retire the pseudoscience that many like the chaps at ICR practise.

People can have different ways of seeing things; but where we disagree, it should not be reason enough to allege things which are not true about me - and to even keep maintaining such allegations after I corrected them. This was why I put your 'YEC/YUC' assertions to the test, and only found it wanting. Turning the thread into a devotional does not help to redeem the fallacy of your YEC/YUC; but you can enjoy whatever is left of it. Cheers.

modupe01:
The Beginning Of The Creation

"And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God" (Revelation 3:14).

This salutation in the last of the seven church epistles in Revelation contains the last of four occurrences of the distinctive phrase, "the beginning of the creation."  The glorified Christ here assumes this as one of His divine names.

Here is another occurrence of the clause 'the beginning of creation' - which your devotional affirms is one of the divine names of Christ, yes? Yes. I previously pointed out that such a clause does not mean exactly the very same thing in all the places where they occur; and this is why you should have been reasonable and calm to think carefully through this matter. As such, since Christ affirms that clause as one of His divine names, does that make Christ only 6,000 years old? Is this not the reason why I cautioned that you should not be too assertive in your feigned interpretations of Scripture?

Just a subscript, though: it might be painful for you to realize this fact - ICR does not do science. They are better at weaving surprising tales than making any good attempt at science. That is perhaps why you made an attempt to determine the age of the cosmos by the shed blood of Abel. Applause.

modupe01:
A man with an experience is not at the mercy of the man with an argument.

You neither demonstrated that experience in any argument, nor handled your arguments sanely. Thus, it's true no one could be at the mercy of any man who spins webs to put words in Jesus' mouth.

I have discovered your problem which has been enumerated into details here.  You will do yourself a lot of favour if you read and learn from it.  I wish you the best in your chosen path.

Nice try, but look for another excuse with substance. I have no problem; and supposing one for me is a convenient way of evading the real issues here. ICR and their complaints are best suited to them - they are only making clowns of themselves all the more and those who quote them in a cosmetic fashion against other Christians. Here especially is one of the preposterous lines in that link that they made up to imprecate other Christians:

          ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Even more—questioning the character and nature of the God of the Bible
           by attributing to Him the evil, wasteful, chaotic, random, purposeless,
           death-filled processes of evolutionary "creation" making God the Author
           and Sustainer of all that evolution demands.
           ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

None of these things apply to me, since I have not questioned the 'character and nature' of God; nor have I attributed to Him any of those adjectival descriptives of any evolutionary 'creation'. The silliness of the chaps at ICR is why people see them for the clowns they are: because when their theses and pretentious interpretation of Scripture fails them, the next best thing they do is make silly ad hominems against other people. Is it any wonder then that you have turned this thread into an ICR devotional?

modupe01:
The Beginning Of The Creation

“But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female” (Mark 10:6).

These words of the Lord Jesus Christ ought to settle once and for all, for those who take His words seriously, the controversial question of the age of the earth.  The earth was created essentially at the same time, He said, as the creation of Adam and Eve.

Please stop putting words in His mouth! In Mark 10:6 that you quoted, Jesus did not mention any "earth" in that verse! Nor did He try to use Adam or Even to determine the age of the earth or the cosmos! This is why I earlier noted:

viaro:
What you have been doing is stretch truth, evade particular references, and go limp in the face of issues that question your obdurate assertions feigned as the interpretation of those verses of Scripture. I had a good laugh at the one where you tried to use the shed blood of Abel to establish the age of the cosmos! That was classic! Is there any wonder then that you really have no clue what you're arguing as regards the age of the universe?

bawomolo:
Why aren't there polytheist philosophies among Deists?

There are - several of them. However, one ready example is what is commonly (and collectively) called Polydeism.

[list]Polydeism (from Greek πολύς ( 'poly' ), meaning 'many', and Latin deus meaning God) is a polytheistic form of Deism encompassing the belief that the universe was the collective creation of multiple Gods, each of whom created a piece of the universe and then ceased to interact with the universe. This concept addresses an apparent contradiction in Deism - that a monotheistic God created the universe, but now expresses no apparent interest in it - by supposing that if the universe is the construct of many gods, none of them would have an interest in the universe as a whole.[/list]
[list]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polydeism[/list]

@chukwudi44,

Let me give you a few examples to help you see why your acrid and illiterate duplicity are uncalled for:

chukwudi44:
I was referring to your numerous hypocritical posts in other threads.You don't have to mask your true position on tithes it's all obvious you want this fraudulent acts to go on that's why u will prefer no one talks abnout it

My reply just above was -

viaro:
Outright lying is the reason why I call you a consummate fool. Not in one instance have I ever made any attempt to show that I "prefer no one talks about it". I have always made every effort to discuss the subject, and consistently maintained that Christians discuss it and share their views without trying to make either tithing or anti-tithing a law for the Body of Christ!

In case you have such short memory, here are examples harvested from the other thread to show that I have always encouraged a good discussion and discouraged making any argument a law for the Body of Christ:

(1) link: [url=https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-307798.608.html#msg4836344[/color]]https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-307798.608.html#msg4836344[/url]

viaro:
There's really no need for us as Christians to keep shouting at one another - it produces absolutely nothing for the health of our collective faith in Christ; and I'd have to remind us again that no singular argument (whether anti-tithing or pro-tithing) is law for the Body of Christ. As such, we could do better to discuss. Where disagreements arise from a lack of convictions, each one of us ought to take heed to the apostolic admonition given in Phil. 3:15 - "if in anything you think otherwise, God will reveal that also to you".

see:

       "I'd have to remind us again that no singular argument
        (whether anti-tithing or pro-tithing)
        is law for the Body of Christ"

       "As such, we could do better to discuss."

__________________________


(2) link: [url=https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-307798.544.html#msg4815649[/color]]https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-307798.544.html#msg4815649[/url]

viaro:
You may notice that I'm not on NL to split hairs with anyone. I've stated my position too many times that the divide is quite unnecessary; and no argument one way or the other is so water-tight that it becomes law for the Body of Christ.

see:

         "the divide is quite unnecessary"

         "no argument one way or the other is so water-tight
          that it becomes law for the Body of Christ"

__________________________


(3) link: [url=https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria?topic=307798.msg4810903#msg4810903[/color]]https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria?topic=307798.msg4810903#msg4810903[/url]

viaro:
Second, my discussions have never been based on making anything "binding" on anyone. People who promote an anti-tithing argument on the basis of whether it is 'binding' or not are simply wasting their time. Nobody made it "binding" upon Abraham in the first place; so why do people often resort to this mistake every time in discussing the topic?

"my discussions have never been based on
            making anything "binding" on anyone"



Are these not sufficient to show that your allegations are false? Why do you often force yourself to make such mendaciously stupid accusations to confuse yourself about my position, only to be shown up for the complete illiterate you actually are?

Is there any need to remind you again: either you discuss or ignore my comments. Making false accusations and casting aspersions against me will not work for you - and I will not spare you at any time you draw my daggers. Buffoon.

chukwudi44:
I was referring to your numerous hypocritical posts in other threads.You don't have to mask your true position on tithes it's all obvious you want this fraudulent acts to go on that's why u will prefer no one talks abnout it

Outright lying is the reason why I call you a consummate fool. Not in one instance have I ever made any attempt to show that I "prefer no one talks about it". I have always made every effort to discuss the subject, and consistently maintained that Christians discuss it and share their views without trying to make either tithing or anti-tithing a law for the Body of Christ!

You must be a very queer twerp who is either too challenged to read or yet even try to understand what you type with your stupid two fingers knocking your borrowed keyboard.

Krayola:
@Viaro. . . kai. . .this your grammar fit wound person  

Deep Sight:
Is this person out to destroy us all with his highly advanced grammar?

Viaro, you no go kill person o!

Yikes!! Numerous apologies! I did not mean to be so out of this planet in my diction. Maybe I got carried away there by reminiscences recollections of school days. Sorry pals. . viaro will watch it henceforth (I hope) .

chukwudi44:
If this is what people who call themselves pastors preach ,nobody who will talking about tithes in nairaland.

Maybe, maybe not. It is clear that most anti-tithers on Nairaland do not even take the time to understand what people are saying about tithes before they categorically condemn tithes in any fashion they choose.

Pastors most especially Mathew Ashimolowo wil threaten the life out of you to part with your money.

Ashimolowo does not speak on behalf of every Christian who tithes, as surely as he does not represent other pastors such as Tunde Bakare. Ashimolowo may threaten his own church; but he cannot threaten another church that understands why they tithe without any feeling of anti-tithing guilt.

Hypocrites like you try to cover up for them most probably because u re benefitting from the scam

I have not addressed you in such a manner, and I hope you're not calling for such responses from me. Nowhere have I tried to cover up for the likes of Ashimolowo - and my position even in the other thread on tithing quite tessellates with what Tunde Bakare teaches his own church on the same tithe. That was why I gave a summary to leave no one in doubt:

viaro:
So, Bakare gives tithes? Yes. What is his persuasion to do so? The Melchizedek priesthood.

I like the way he delineated the priesthoods in the Bible: the Midian priesthood; Levitical priesthood; and the priesthood of Melchizedek. At the end of the day, let everyone be fully persudaded in his own mind; and the emphasis in red is what I had persistently maintained:

"I don’t make it a law for everybody"

How does that become grounds for you to allege hypocrisy towards me?

@wirinet,

I think you are over-stating issues to accentuate your atheistic comfort zone - and by doing so, have only yet again highlighted the very point that we both deplore. I would not go so far as to condemn people, even though I reserve the personal right to disagree with their ideologies in many things.

However, it is quite amusing that while you magnified the dark areas of the 7 examples you gave, you only gave a tacit remark about an atheist who displays egomania:

wirinet:
I think an atheist that has egomania and feels intellectually superiors to theists and others is still not sure of himself or his knowledge.

'Not sure of himself or his knowledge'? That's quite a mischievous remark, and leaves me wondering whether you're trying to play down the fact of atheistic egocentrism or just wishing that the possibility of finding atheists with larger-than-life displays of egomania is low. On the contrary, the possibility is quite high and we don't have to look far and long before we encounter notable examples. How many times have we heard many atheists (apprentice and hardcore) declare repeatedly that religious people are deluded while atheists are 'smarter'? As if that is not egocentric enough, your remark is sadly unhelpful as it does not consider the seriousness of atheistic egomania while happily emblazoning the same thing in others. I don't think any reasoned mind would applaud your attitude about these matters.

But there's more:

Most theist are not only concerned with their personal matters, collective matters or even matters about the earth, they usually venture into every other person's matters. They assert and impose it that the whole universe is built for them or their sect's sole purpose and exploitation.

Again, an over-stretching of an issue. I don't know of any theistic sect (as a "sect" where the fundamental tenet is "aliena nobis. . " (ie., 'other people's things are more pleasing to us'). For one, the Biblical worldview instructs Christians to "aspire to live quietly, and to mind your own affairs" (1 Thes. 4:11, ESV); but though you find some 'sects' in Christendom violating such exhortations, it does not therefore make every Christian guilty by such unfavourable association.

The same thing could be said of other religious groups. Some people may have a tendency to be polarised away from the basic tenet of their faith in such a way as to assume that the universe revolves around them; yet that is not to mean therefore that every expression of that religious group is to be judged by that one deviating sect!

The tendency for people to make hasty conclusions without seeking to understand a particular worldview in reference is sadly unintelligent. If, as in your example of Abuzola, some people go about with a 'social virus' in a public concourse, it does not mean therefore that every muslim is to be considered as reprobate or peccant as in the social pusillanimity of a few abuzolas.

^^^what can I say? Not only are we on different roads, we are most probably on different planets!

And this is supposed to be news? Haha. . I like Tunde Bakare's take on tithes. I just wonder that Nairaland's anti-tithers have not been as virulent to attack him, afterall most of what Bakare said are the same things which a lot of us have argued time and time again. Before joining Nairaland, my thoughts were similar to the same things he said, and I was delighted to read his views only afterwards.

Perhaps an excerpt might be worth reading here:

Q: What is the position of Christianity on tithing because some argue that it doesn’t have a place in Christianity?

A: I don’t have an opinion. I live by the book. I’ll tell you what is in the book. The first man to pay tithe was Abraham, when he met Melchizedek. And when he gave that tithe, the book of Hebrews says even Levi, who became a priest later, paid tithe while he was still in the loins of his father, Abraham. So, there was tithe before the law. There was tithe during the law. And Christ Jesus now came and said, this you ought to do, but you neglect the weightier matters of the law. This you ought to do and the other you do not neglect. If you are asking what is the agreed position in the New Testament, listen to Paul in I Corinthians Chapter 16, verse 1. At least I’m not reading from the Old Testament. I can tell you by the grace of God that at the Latter Rain Assembly, you can come and watch us, stay for about five or six weeks, you will not hear such a thing mentioned. You will know a church by the time you worship there for six or seven weeks.

We encourage our people because even the running of the place requires support of those who are worshipping there. Do you belong to any club or organisation? To join Ikoyi Club 1938, there are fees. It is the abuse that is the problem because it must come from your heart. Melchizedek did not demand tithe from Abraham. It was what Abraham did willingly. My opinion is that let every man be persuaded in his own heart. If it is not honour, then it is robbery. What the Bible says is honour the Lord with your susbstance and the first fruits of your increase so that your barns may be full. It has to be honour. It is the same word you use for your parents. The first time I gave my mother an allowance was when I was a Youth Corper. I gave her N50 out of my N200 monthly allowance because I was the only one she depended on. And from that year till today, my mother’s monthly allowance has increased, although I won’t tell you how much she gets now. She was 100 in October. I lost my father when I was two years old. So God allowed my mother to stay to see me through. Would I neglect my mother? So also will I not neglect the God who is the source of everything I have. But it has to be a matter of honour.

There are three priesthoods in the Bible. The priesthood of Midian, the Levitical priesthood and the Melchizedek priesthood.

This is what is causing the problem. The priesthood of Midian is that of Jethro, the father in-law of Moses. It deals with strategies, administration and dedication of duties. It teaches you how to delegate so that you are not overworked. It does not raise sons, it raises workers. So in such ministries where Jethro principle is what they’re following, you’ll be hearing workers, workers, workers, instead of raising sons of God.

Leviticus priesthood is mainly about offering. And remember they were in the wilderness; no supermarket, no work and they didn’t go anywhere. There was nowhere to spend all the money they took from Egypt. So, it’s offering in the morning, offering at night and offering in the evening. When you find a ministry whose major emphasis is bring, bring, give, give, its the Levitical priesthood. They are still in the wilderness.

But we have moved out of the wilderness. The priesthood of our Lord Jesus Christ Christ, according to Hebrew 6, 7 up to 8, is after the order of Melchizedek who was already a king before he met Abraham. He did not need the offering of Abraham to be king. So those who are practising Melchizedek priesthood do not depend on their congregation. They don’t wait because they are lazy for them to go and work and bring resources to them. They also labour with their own hands to have resources and when the church contributes, they probably contribute more. You can find out these things. So it depends on which priesthood is being practised.

Tithes are to be used to take care of widows, the helpless, and services in the house of God. Why should they come to you to say we want to pay NEPA bills, we want to pay church staff? People that are working in the ministry have to be paid and the organisation has to be run. But it’s never compulsory. If anybody tells you if you don’t pay tithe you will remain tight, greed in his heart is influencing that because Christ has become the cross for us. For it is written: ‘Cursed is anyone that hangs on the tree that the blessing of Abraham now come upon the Gentile’ If it is from your heart, like it was with Abraham, it will bring blessings. But if it is teleguided, it is no longer spirit-led and does not activate anything in heaven. I think what is causing it is that we embark on projects God did not give to us and put ourselves under financial pressure, which we transmit to people.

Do I pay tithe? Definitely. But I don’t make it a law for everybody. I do from my earnings because I don’t depend on church offerings. My hands, like Paul’s, provided for my necessities. I pay my tax like any other citizen of this country. I pay from my legitimate earnings. If I have to wait for them to give on Sundays before I send my children to school and eat, then something is wrong. If this church folds up, I cannot live anymore. And in a depressed economy, so many churches have opened up that are not at the instance of the Holy Spirit.

http://thenewsng.com/cover-story/why-i-quit-redeemed-church/2009/11

So, Bakare gives tithes? Yes. What is his persuasion to do so? The Melchizedek priesthood.

I like the way he delineated the priesthoods in the Bible: the Midian priesthood; Levitical priesthood; and the priesthood of Melchizedek. At the end of the day, let everyone be fully persudaded in his own mind; and the emphasis in red is what I had persistently maintained:

"I don’t make it a law for everybody"

He who has ears. . let him. . (?? - fill in the gap).

Now, I come to the very point in yours that surprised me.

wirinet:
I would please beg you to go back and reread my post on this subject, because i try to explain my assertions as plainly as possible, giving examples to illustrate my points. If you have any disagreements with my postulations or examples, point them out, so i can review it.

Your calm advice to re-read your posts says a lot for which I am indebted in no small way. It actually helps (as I have often been found stating) to read what people are saying and not what they are not saying. In which case, I may be condescending enough to allow for some compromise in yours (although strictly speaking, there are loads of arguably disagreeable assertions in them).

Where then is the compromise I'd be willing to allow? Well, in so far as you argued for "capacity" ('10% of our brain capacity'), that may be excusable; however, it is still quite a fable built on personal ideologies.

How do we know (or how can we determine) the 'total or aggregate capacity' of the human brain and nervous system to adjudicate any arbitrary or autarchical percentage (such as '10%') of that capacity or capability? For anyone to be able to make any discretionary and/or facultative statements on the "percentage capacity/capabilities" of the brain, such a person ought to be a "neuroscience conquistador" who has thoroughly mastered the total functions, capabilities and possibilities of the brain and the two nervous systems of the human body (CNS - the central nervous system; and PNS - the peripheral nervous system). Do you know if anyone has been able to achieve that feat yet? Only then could we be able to pay good attention to the idea of a 10% use of brain capacity/capabilities - otherwise, that is all simply futile.

However, rather than pick every line in your posts to disagree, it might be more helpful to simply take a few conspicuous assertions that undergird your arguments and deal a bit more thereto. This one is classic:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The human brain has been so completely mapped that the various states
responsible for various state of mind can be manipulated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[from yours at post #5, first page]

That's quite a statement! But one cannot be sure that is necessarily true. For one, the brain is part of the CNS and does not function as an independent or closed system on its own. Yet, brain topography/mapping still leaves many things yet unresolved and not understood at present.

Some scientists in this field would be willing to concede that the brain has not been so completely mapped, let alone understand various states of mind as to be manipulated. For instance, Prof. Dinesh Pai (a computer science professor) opines that it is still a mystery trying to understand 'what is really going on between your brain, your eyes and your hands' in reverse engineering the brain to model mind-body interactions. "No one," says Prof Pai, "has ever completely mapped out the processes at the level of specific neurons, muscles and tendons” (credit: Science Daily). But Prof. Dinesh Pai's $500,000 project is not the only example in this field of enquiry.

There is another $55 million project to map the brain, gene by gene. The Allen Brain Institute is attempting to 'systematically map out the expression patterns of more than 20,000 genes that make our grey matter tick'. When the Atlas is finished in 2012, scientists will start untangling the whys and hows of our neural network. It is hoped that, if the Institute succeeds, 'its maps will help scientists decipher the function of the thousands of genes that help produce the human brain.' Even so, there's this remarkable note that, inspite of the success of the Human Genome Project, "scientists still have little idea which genes are used to make the brain, let alone where in the brain they are expressed". Quite an interesting read in both articles sourced from the Wired Magazine online, here and here.

What's my point in all this? Simple: to demonstrate to you that your averment that "the human brain has been so completely mapped" is not true, as could be observed from the two project examples above. Even more compelling is the fact that scientists as yet "don't know where the brain ends and the mind begins", and that is just one among the Top 5 Unsolved Brain Mysteries. One cannot belabour or excessively elaborate on the point that the brain has NOT been completely mapped; but I hope you can see where are, and why, my disagreements with most of the things you had posted.

If the presumption that the brain has been 'so completely mapped' is what undergirds your posts, there's nothing much to argue or engage - because it would not be fruitful at all to banter on such a presumption that does not mirror facts on ground.

Cheers.

wirinet:
Now about Extra Sensory perception. I would like to first thank you for the sight you provided, it was very informative. I had done extensive studies in the past about people like Uri Geller, but there are others i had not been aware of.

I think your link is in agreement with my "thought wave hypothesis". The make use of words like "altered state of consciousness as a means of gaining psychic information", how does that differ significantly from what i am saying? They also talk about ESP signals and about telepathic senders to send telepathic messages and telepathic receivers to receive such messages.

I don't think you have quite grasped the gist in my enquiry. Aside the disagreement between our understanding of the term "extra sensory perception", I was particularly interested in seeing how you proferred an answer to this question: 'where does your "thought wave hypothesis" fit into what is precisely ESP (and not re-defined as you did with the 'extension of the physical')?? Where does "wave" come into ESP?'

The only grounds on which you may argue the wave hypothesis in yours is 'if and only if' (iff) you re-defined ESP in such a way as to remove it from its assumed meaning. Once we render the meaning of any subject meaningless, we produce nothing useful than tangential conjectures with no approbations. This is not going to be fruitful, because it would appear that our reasoning would be on parallel frequecies with no hope of a meeting point to close the gaps as long as the precise meanings of words/terms are compromised.

In this case then, I would just go on to examine some of those grey areas of disagreeable inferences in yours that surprised me.

wirinet:
It is because of this immense number of possible configuration of the human brain that no two humans can have similar state of mind or consciousness. Also all possible mental states can not be attained , and in fact there must be an enormous number of mental states or consciousness that had never been attained in the history of mankind.

It has been demonstrated again and again that most people cannot utilized the information storage (memory) capability of the brain even up to 10%. It has been demonstrated by hypnosis that a person is capable of remembering everything that had ever happened to him or her since birth and hypnotists and psychologists have used hypnosis to bring back some repressed childhood memories which the person had forgotten but still somehow affect the individual psychologically. But how many event in our lives do we actually remember? If we could remember up to 10% of our brain capability, we would never fail an exam in our life.

If the above was what you meant by the 'less than 10% of our brain capacity' usage, it still is unconvincing. This is especially because such a statement tends to take so much for granted and operates from a very presumptive premise - the presumption that the brain has been "so completely mapped", so that we pretend to know just how exactly it functions and in what capacity. The weakness in such a presumption is what I hope to set forth in my next post, and show you in some examples that neurologists and behavioural scientists do not assume a complete brain topography.

A good example is your PC, A lot of us posses dual core Pentium M with a processing speed up to 3 Gz, with a hard disc of between 120 - 250 Giga bit and 1024 RAM, and the only use to which we put all that power is word processing,chatting, basic internet operations like emailing, downloading music, etc. The operations a basic Pentium 3 with 512 Ram and 60 Gig hard disc can handle well. If i say most people do not use up to 50% capacity of their PC, would the argument in your web link hold?

I suppose the argument would still hold that the 10% use of the capacity of the brain is mere conjecture and not empirically determined. In the analogy of the PC, at least we have an idea of the 'capacity' of a computer as to determine what percentage of such capacity is being utilized (not minding that PCs come in various RAM and hard disc sizes). However, what we cannot do in the same way with the brain is assume we know the aggregate capacities of any human brain as to make arbitrary statements of what 'percentage capacity' is being used.

Hi wirinet again,

Perhaps my reply would be somewhat extensive as there are a few things in yours that whet my appetite as I read through. Please bear with me where you can; and I hope you'll find some sense and value in what you read in mine.

wirinet:
When i said theists think too much of them self, i do no mean it in a derogatory way. If you read the sentence in context of the paragraph, you would see i was referring to the egocentric views of theists that believes themself or their religion or their race or their specie or their planet is the reason for the universe.

My initial reaction at your post is regretable; but while there's some sense in the above, it may not follow that egocentrism is peculiarly demonstrable in theists any more than it could be in atheists. As Pastor AIO astutely observed, this egomania of inflated self-importance is common to all irrespective of race or creed. Do atheists demonstrate egocentrism? Absolutely - in just the manner that many of them believe that their own atheism is more "intellectually satisfying" than any form of theistic worldview(s).

Theists, deists, and adherents of some other belief systems (other than atheistic naturalism and materialism) perhaps have a concourse in a certain outlook that is telluric (ie., concerned with matters about the earth) - afterall, it is the planet we live on where our experiences are resourced, formed, shaped and sustained before we even proceed to seek and understand extraplanetary, interplanetary and extragalactic systems and phenomena. However, this should not be stretched as to imply that any particular worldview or weltanschauung (including atheistic naturalism and materialism) is reason for the entire cosmos. One should not be busy alleging egomania against other people and their worldviews while failing to see many times that the same asseveration applies within the accuser's own quarters.

I would please beg you to go back and reread my post on this subject, because i try to explain my assertions as plainly as possible, giving examples to illustrate my points. If you have any disagreements with my postulations or examples, point them out, so i can review it.

Yes, there is quite a load of grey areas to disagree with in yours; but permit me to shelve it until later where I highlight and discuss them in some detail in my subsequent posts.

Pastor AIO:
I believe that this is common to all the human race. We all thing far too much of our selves than we realize. And even when we realize we are self centered we still always underestimate the extent of it.

That was quite observant, and thanks for fine-tuning my oversight there. You got it in a nutshell.

I look forward to the discussions between wirinet and viaro. While wirinet may not be sticking strictly to the definition of ESP I think it is very important that the points involved are discussed thoroughly because it is my belief that too many subtle sensory perceptions get conflated with spiritual perceptions (or extra-sensory perceptions). We need to learn to discern one from the other.

Well said, especially the highlighted. Poor me. . I had not carefully considered that point genially before charging at wirinet, for which I tender my apologies. The atmosphere in this thread is remarkably amicable, and it would be nice to see it maintained.

kolaxy:
Hi Viaro,


Please what's your view on the above bolded statements in Genesis 1:1-13. Thanks

Thank you, kolaxy.

First, notice that in verse 1 both the heavens are mentioned together without any day separating between them:

      'In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth'

No day separated this distinct declaration as if the heavens were first created and then the earth later came into existence the next day. I think when we disregard the very first verse, a whole lot of unrelated thinking are poured forth.

Next, we come to the first bolded line in your quote, which appears in verse 5:

      'And the evening and the morning were the first day.'

But just here is another problem: people who think the earth was left out on the first day have missed verse 2 again where the earth is already mentioned before the "first day" was marked in verse 5. Together, this is what both verses 1 and 2 declare about the earth:

       'In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.' [v. 1]

       'And the earth was without form, and void . .'  [v. 2]

This is clearly attesting to the fact that both the heavens and the earth were created in the beginning - no day separating between them; and verse 5 mentions the "first day" only after both verse 1 and 2 have clearly stated the fact of the creation of the earth before verse 5!

Now, what about verse 8? It declares the second day after stating that the firmament which divided waters from waters was named the "heavens". This does not mean we should discard what verse 1 states: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth"; nor should we forget that the earth was also mentioned in verse 1 and 2 before the "first day" in verse 5.

The same thing with verse 10 - "And God called the dry land Earth" does not mean that was when the earth was created, unless we want to deliberately ignore verse 1 and 2 about the creation of the earth mentioned together with the heavens without any day separating them.

It was for this reason (or reasons) that I earlier hinted that if we're not careful, we shall be reading an additional day to make the creation week a 7 day period with the divine rest on the 8th day. As long as we understand and take seriously what verse 1 states about the creation of the earth without any day separating that from the creation of the heavens, we shall not have to be faced with undue problems.

Awww. . . perhaps the thread has come to a dead end, and has switched over to a devotional one instead! It shouldn't surprise me though.

Pastor AIO:
I discovered recently that there were 2 Dionysus' from Areopagus. The one whom paul converted in Athens and then the 5th century philosopher. Obviously being separated by a good 400 years means that they could not have been the same person.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudo-Dionysius_the_Areopagite

Ahh, you anticipated me! And thanks.

KunleOshob:
In my bible based understanding Jesus is the son of God almighty which automatically makes him a God as well.[The bible acknowledges the existence of several lesser gods] But he is a distinct individual from his father and he made it clear in scriptures that the father is greater than him. So someone claiming on NL that he is of the same rank as the father is contrary to the teachings of christ himself.

Thank you for that simple point. But I was wondering that you might have hastily missed his point and drew wrong inferences. The post you replied to (chinedumo's) did not argue that Christ was of the same rank as "the Father"; rather this was his statement:

chinedumo:
4. he is the son of God of the same rank with God but humbled himself and took the form of a servant and was made in the likeness of man.

The "same rank with God", he said; and not what you supposed he had said ('the same rank as the father').

_{Where have I been as to have missed this thread?}

@the OP:

Atheists:
His bogus arguments on the existence of a nameless god are taken straight from a christian apologist handbook.

How does that make Deep Sight a "fundamentalist" or a "closet Christian"? Of what relevance was this thread anyway?

This may not be to everyone's liking, but it amazes me how people can afford to be so bigoted at others without even realizing it. There are many people who like to engage discussions and talk about 'belief' in one form or another - whether in atheistic religions, deism, or theism. People should be free to hold their own ideas (sometimes argued passionately as they wish) about God or 'god' and related phenomena, so long as we all keep a good head and eschew being deliberately caustic and puerile towards other discussants. At the end of the day, some may make some sense - others may not, and thereby fail to communicate effectively or convincingly. I don't see how that should become the pivot for some of the acrid statements made against this individual in this thread (to the extent that someone very early opines to call him 'a disguised and pretentious hell-bound anti-Christ').

The attitudes we sometimes display towards other people who believe differently from us leaves me scratching my head till it's sore. Why write off someone in such a manner as to infer the fiendish hell-bound anti-whatever on him? I just imagine that when the apostles went out on their missionary journeys and encountered people of different belief systems, the wonder of it all if they had made the same sweeping statements about those people. An example: in Acts 17, it is clear that the Athenians also believed in God (or at the very least, a 'god') whom they termed "THE UNKNOWN GOD". Paul even went so far as to acknowledge that some of their own poets had some thoughts about believing in God, such that they expressed in poetically as "we are also his offspring". Rather than shake his fists at the Athenians and write them off as hell-bound devils, he used the opportunity to present his message - "Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you".

The Athenians may not have held the very same theological views of the Jews; for they said in verse 19: "thou bringest certain strange things to our ears". There were also philosophers who encountered Paul; and even at the end some believed, some others mocked, and even some others desired to discuss more deeply with Paul on what he was preaching. What was Paul's attitude? "So Paul departed from among them" - that much he did, without slapping unpalatable appellations on those who disbelieved or mocked.

It is also interesting that some notable personalities were mentioned as among those who believed: Dionysius the Areopagite. Phew! That blew my mind, folks. I've always wondered how someone (especially a philosopher of no meager standing) could come to believe the Gospel of Christ for himself.

Being bigoted and caustic towards others seems to be the inevitable recourse when someone challenges our own belief systems, whatever they are: deism, theism or atheism. Some people's atheism might be mocked as much as is the deism of others. I concede that mockers against the Gospel of Christ abound; but how does that personally help those who delight in ridiculing other people?

KunleOshob:
The above highlighted statement is very faulty and it doesn't have any biblical basis. Jesus always deferred to God as his superior in the bible and NEVER at any time claim or even suggested equality with God. I often wonder why "chritians" like strecthing the truth about the the status of christ.

What does the Deity of Christ mean to you?

Hello kolaxy,

kolaxy:
@ Viaro


You are very right with the above statements however, we know in that same Gen 1 that  the Heaven was created a day before the earth. If the Heaven was created a day before the earth, it is wise to conclude that all its(Heaven) creatures(angels, Lucifer inclusive) were created before the foundation of the earth(a day or 24hours)according to the verses I gave in my last post above.So, according to the Holy Bible,for me, the Heaven or Universe or Earth is not a Million or Billion year old. Thanks

That's okay - and I can absolutely let you have your opinion as simply as stated above, even though I do not agree with you.

However, should you wonder about why I disagree with you, it is on your assumption that "the Heaven was created a day before the earth". I do not find that assumption made in Genesis 1, and it would have been interesting to see you point out the verse for me.

Yet, the serious problem with your assumption is that the creation week would not be a 7 day period (ie., 1 day for creating heaven before earth + the other 6 days of creation) but rather an 8-day period, where God would have rested on the 8th day instead of the 7th. Have you carefully considered this before drawing your conclusions?

Perhaps there was something you wanted me to see which I have not. Your clarifications would be most appreciated.

viaro:
To wrap up the foregoing, let me ask a series of basic questions:

* are angels 6,000 years old? - were they created 6,000 years ago?

* is Satan the devil 6,000 years old? - was he created 6,000 years ago?

* on what particular day in the 6 days of Genesis 1 were angels created?

* on what particular day in the 6 days of Genesis 1 was Lucifer created?

* is the universe 6,000 years old? - was the universe created only 6,000 years ago?

* when exactly did creation start - 6,000 years ago and nothing at all created before then?

The reasons I ask these questions are twofold:

~~ they would help you think a bit more deeply about your polarised assertions

~~ your answers would provide a good basis for replying to the vids you posted.

If I can help it this weekend, I shall come back and consider your reply. Cheers.

modupe01:
I will only answer you based on one verse of the Scriptures (Genesis 1:31)

"And God saw every thing that He had made, and, behold, it was very good.  And the evening and the morning were the sixth day."

All the angels were part of the original creation, as Exodus 20:11 indicates and Colossians 1 seems to confirm, everything God had created by the end of the sixth day was "very good."  Therefore, there could not have been any rebellion before this time and Satan fell some time after Day 7.  The Scriptures does not say exactly when.  QED

Lol, c'mon modupe01. . you know you're being mischievous here!
So, you had no place to point to in any of those 6 days to show on what day angels were created? My questions were not about whether angels were part of the "original creation"; but rather as to WHAT day among those 6 days of creation they were created? Was it the 1st, 2nd, . . 5th day. . or what day in particular?!?

Not even Exodus 20:11 or Colossians 1 mentions any particular day in those 6 days of creation as regarding the day angels were created! This is what I mean by your mistake of stretching truth beyond elasticity! The fact that the angels were already created before the earth existed is alluded to in Job 38:4-7. Since you want to force all of creation (including the cosmos/universe, galaxies, and angels - "everything" as you said) to a 6,000 year old age, then please show us the particular verses in Genesis 1 that mentions the creation of the angels as precisely as verse 26 and 27 state about the creation of man. If you cannot find that verse and are hiding behind verse 31, then you're only confirming your arguments are all feathers and no flesh. Cheers.

He also mentioned the foundation of the world and the blood of Abel in the same breath.  I noted that you stopped short of verse 50 let me complete the rest of what Jesus said in verse 51

"From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias, which perished between the alter and the temple: verily I say unto you, It shall be required of this generation."

Does it make any difference if I had addressed Luke 11:51 as I did verse 50? Was the blood of Abel shed at the "foundation of the world"? Was Abel created at the same time as when God laid the 'foundation of the world' - at the same time when the angels rejoiced to see God lay such a foundation (Job 38:4-7)?

In dealing with verse 50 of Luke 11, I'd asked you pointedly: 'was the blood of all (or any) of the prophets shed "FROM the foundation of the world"?' You evaded an answer to that - probably because it would require you to show how that is so when we turn to the Old Testament. So, what difference does Abel's blood make in verse 51 as to the age of the cosmos?

You omitted the verse which explains the import of Jesus message for reasons best known to you only to see another scripture telling you that it was billions of years ago.

Please answer my simple question: Was the blood of Abel shed at the "foundation of the world"?

You're beginning to sound dry and funny; and let's even pursue this a bit further by proposing a few questions more:

        *  did the shedding of Abel's blood establish the age of the cosmos?

        *  did Jesus try to use that event as the direct evidence for your 'YUC' -
            ('[b]y[/b]oung [b]u[/b]niverse [b]c[/b]reationism') of 6,000 years old?

        *  Did Luke 11:51 point to the same time in history when angels were created?

There's one other person I know on NL who argues vacantly as you do: OLAADEGBU! The difference is that when he meets a dead end, he does not seem to pursue his futile arguments brazenly as you do. On top of that, you repeatedly insinuate and wrongly define my position as evolutionistic even though I have made clear that I'm not a fan of Darwinism.

You can only see what you want to see but the moment you are open minded and allow God to speak clearly you will realise that it is of no private interpretation but is incredibly clear.

To reassure you, viaro is a very open-minded fellow: he is not as narrow minded, hidebound or parochial as to just assume everything in a brassbound or inexorable manner without asking relevant questions where need be. Even God's Word warns against such attitudes: "The simple believes everything, but the prudent gives thought to his steps" (Prov. 14:15, ESV); or as rendered in the CEV - "Don't be stupid and believe all you hear; be smart and know where you are headed. " I've tried to always take that exhortation to heart.

What you have been doing is stretch truth, evade particular references, and go limp in the face of issues that question your obdurate assertions feigned as the interpretation of those verses of Scripture. I had a good laugh at the one where you tried to use the shed blood of Abel to establish the age of the cosmos! That was classic! Is there any wonder then that you really have no clue what you're arguing as regards the age of the universe? What then would be left of you if I had approached my subject from a geoscientific perspective? As to those clowns in the vids you posted, I would often watch them when I need a good laugh.

This verse alone settles the question of how long it God to create heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is them!  For you to still be arguing and forcing billions of years into Gen. 1:2 just shows how desperate you are trying to impress the evolutionists who do not even believe in the existence of God in the first place.

No, I am not trying to impress the evolutionists nor anyone else - I plainly said so in my opening remarks in post #114:

        'It is not for show or a superior display of anything that you're reading
         these things from me, modupe01; nor do I wish to embarrass any Christian,
         no matter how very skewed are their arguments. If anything, so that you
         come to terms with issues you may never have given much thought to hitherto.

I then proceeded to discuss my views and ask questions as well answer them on one and only one basis - the very same Scriptures that declare those very things you read in my posts! Does that sound like I was being desperate? Your inability to stand up as a real person with a head on your shoulder simply shows how myopic and naive your assertions have been.

As if this is not enough I showed you what Jesus' view was on the subject how He gave the proper interpretation on the writings of Moses and how He alluded and quoted from the book of Genesis, all you could see was that He was referring to something before the creation of Adam and Eve.  Let me give you the full quote of what you partly quoted in your post below:

You have repeated that fallacy far too many times that it has become such a bore! I do not see in Scripture anything to suggest that Jesus asserted a universe as young as 6,000 years old - there are other verses (which I have discussed) that show a much older creation, and even Jesus our Lord knew those verses quite well. I also discussed your inference on Luke 11:50-51, and the best you could do is offer a plastic re-quote without any attempts to discuss the point I made? Hmm, very interesting! Are we then to suppose that the blood of prophets were shed at the same time as the foundation of the earth? Are you so naive, modupe01?

Here, I referred to Jesus' allusion to the beginning of creation and Adam and Eve when He was speaking about the institution of marriage which He quoted from Gen.1:27 and 2:24 respectively but for some reasons best known to you will rather gloss of it or deny it.

Oh please stop being so stupid on top of everything else! If you cannot discuss issues, it is not even smarter to resort to prevarications and recreancy! How could you charge me with either having 'glossed' over Genesis 1:27 and 2:24, or even deny them, when to the contrary I actually discussed them in posts #85 and #86?!? Repeating yourself ad infinitum like a broken record and not saying anything in the face of other things I pointed out is not a smart way to progress from where you were yester-fore.

The "beginning of creation" is a phrase that does not mean the same thing in every place where it occurs. For this reason, I took the time to outline that fact more directly in posts #114 and #115 by discussing and asking questions about a creation event that nowhere appears in Genesis 1 -

* When did God create the angels and spirit beings?

* When did God create the angel that became Satan?

My summary of the above was given in post #116, where you mischievously evaded and chose to not discuss them. How could you then turn round to furtively assert that I denied discussing Genesis 1:27 and 2:24?

@modupe01,

modupe01:
@Hi viaro,

Thanks for coming back with your responses to my objections. Your presuppositions are now becoming clear to me which explains why you take such a stance.

I am beginning to realise who you see as an authority when it comes to the truth. Do you remember your response to my question when I asked whether you know that God Almighty personally inscribed the decalogue? This was your reply:

This quote of yours now begins to make sense to me that you actually only give a mental assent to the Word of God which you claim as a belief and not as knowledge. A person with belief is one who is as a child who's father warned not to touch a beautiful flame of fire on a candle. The child's belief will keep him away for a while but the attractiveness of the dancing flame will entice him to try to touch it to see whether what he believes is true, the moment he touches it and gets burnt he will then move from the realm of belief to the realm of experience or knowledge, then no body needs to convince him that fire does not burn because he now has an experience of it. And this explains your attitude to God's written word.

With all due respect, you have very wrongly prejudged my presuppositions and attitude to God's Word.

Indeed I remember quite well what my response to your question was - post #11 on page 1. It was not that I did not "know" where in the Bible it says that God wrote the decalogue with His own finger: that much I 'know' that such a statement was written, as well I 'know' where it was written that He did so [Exodus 31:18 and Deuteronomy 9:10]; but I do not 'know' that as an experiential fact as to be able to attest to it personally as if I was there when it happened, especially if asked to prove it in other ways (scientifically, historically, archeologically, etc) - and neither do you 'know' it in that way! Thus my reply in post #11, that: "I believe He did so in light of what the Scripture teaches".

Consequently, in post #15 you quipped that you guessed I was still in "the realm of belief rather than knowledge" - and added in parenthesis: "(my guess is as good as yours)." You did not even attempt to prove anything in that respect other than point out the verse I already knew as stating the point. If you were asked to show that you "know" that event experientially as to attest to its veracity both scientifically, historically and archeologically, how would you have proceeded to do so? You actually do not "know" anything, my dear pal. . and your attitude should be humble in just the way that Paul advised in 1 Corinthians 8:2 - "If anyone imagines that he knows something, he does not yet know as he ought to know." I don't brag about "knowing" anything so precisely as to make unguarded statements; and my advice is that you shy away from being too assertive where you absolutely do not know anything.

This is what God Almighty inscribed on tables of stone which explains Genesis 1:

In Exodus 20:11 which states that "For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day" this was even inscribed by the finger of the Almighty God! This passage was meant to be taken as speaking of a total of 7 literal days based on the Creation Week of 6 literal days of work and one literal day of rest.

And how does Exodus 20:11 answer the simple questions I posed in post #116?

I deliberately set my rejoinder on the basis of what Scripture teaches, and also made clear that those questions 'will be drawn directly from Scripture, so that you won't have to be unnerved by any insinuations of "outside influences" in my posts.' I have not appealed to any other source - not evolution, not paleontology, not archeology, not even the geosciences, nor anything from the videos you posted - nothing suggesting any "outside influences". I wanted to see how well your 'YUC' ('[b]y[/b]oung [b]u[/b]niverse [b]c[/b]reationism') could be sustained when closely examined. I can now say that it has proved to be all feather and no flesh. . empty, loud, pretentious, and only intended to attract notice and impress traditionalists who do not have a clue what they argue. What would you have done if I had argued creation and the Universe on the basis of the geosciences? Pal, you actually do not 'know' anything about whatever clauses you have been arguing hitherto.

^^^ Goodness grief! I didn't mean to trouble you at all, and I'm sorry the way my comments came across. I should not have been that forward - and no, I don't consider myself an intellectual 'heavy weight' (forget what anyone says to humour me on that, lol).

Okay, I shall try and spend some time (if I could) later in the evening - or shall consider them whenever I return. Do have a wonderful weekend.