₦airaland Forum

chukwudi44:
pilgrim!!! pilgrim!!!pilgrim!!! how many times did I call u ,professor of confusion,infact you are more than confusion,you should be called confucious

ogajim:
WOW


I had no idea that "redeem" , "if"or 20 fold won't answer your question, haba!

Our "Christianity" allows us to call guys "girlie in skirt" na wa for waec.

As Fela talk " I don pass pickin, I don pass university, " so teacher don't teach me nonsense, anyone who wants to be "zombified" by this obvious scheme/scam go continue as well so save your lecture for those.

God help you in your journey, As for me, I will continue my walk in faith with his grace.

I'm hardly surprised that this is all we can get from the anti-tithing camp. When reason fails, then shouting, name-calling, empty noise and misrepresentations take center stage. Ah, ogajim, I was wondering like you in the part of the world where you live; but after all the 'wows' and yadas, where are your answers to the simple question I asked earlier? I knew you had none - so I can indeed redeem my bet from a friend (I told him you would come back with no answers - he's fuming now). If you can find me an answer direct from Scripture for your vacant bragging, I would be glad to read it (and I would bet again that you would come back with none other than the same reaction you gave above).

@chukwudi, the last time I checked, the question you addressed to me was well answered. Did you find anything else to argue to the contrary afterwards? Nada. .  zilch. Again, anti-tithers should not resort to these games we find here when they have come to the end of the road. It only confirms again and again that the typical reaction from anti-tithers is turn round to name-calling when reason departs their camp. No surprises there.


Now I understand Tonye-t's post in #471.
Yes, it makes sense that -

TONYE-T = VIARO = BOBBYAF = GENTLEME = all pro-tithers

It only makes sense when anti-tithers have nothing else to argue.


Anyhow guys, chill out. There's no need for frayed nerves. We can discuss amicably and respectfully like grown ups. If you can't afford to do so, you're not under arrest. Peace.

KunleOshob:
And could you give me one single example of mud slinging or insult i have done against you on this thread Infact since you re-surfaced and started posting on this thread i have actually made a concerted effort from joining issues with you cause i know debating with you is pointless and you would always resort to insults when the obvious fallacies and scriptural manipulations in your posts are exposed.

When you repeatedly misaddress me, I have laid out my objection clearly and kindly expected you would not keep resorting to that same game. That was why I had earlier in post #369 indicated that if you're not capable of holding out fair play in dialogue, please don't seek to engage me. I find that attitude of yours quite mischievous, and please don't try to pretend you're too thick as to not understand what you're up to. When TV01 followed in your shoes, I set him straight - and since then I have not had any cause to give him a second reminder. What in the universe do you mean to address me as "aunty" and then go on to say that I was "trying to be clever by half"?? You have the nerve to even come back asking me the obvious? Puh-leezze!

If you feel that I was mistaking certain issues, the sane thing to have done is kindly point them out and discuss those views. It is not beyond me to consider them and apologise where I got my views wrong. But to resort to these childish games and pretend you're quite unware of your antics is below you. A healthy debate is welcome anyday - I have held such with several people on this forum, and still continue to do so. If you're not capable of holding one yourself, stop crying pretentiously - that is just below your level.

KunleOshob:
You are finally reavealing your true colours as chukwudi44 said, a leopard cannot change it's spots

I gave you time to stop playing games with me. I only lived up to my words - remember my post #369? Here again is what I stated to you personally:

The question is: are you capable of holding a debate. That is not a personal attack; but my concern is that I honestly don't like the way you have handled debates with others on this subject in your previous posts. If something does not favour an anti-tithing position, it should not go down the path of name-calling and all sorts. I have read this worrying trend in some of your own posts, and that is something I do not want to entertain. If we (you and I) are not capable of controlling our emotions on disagreeable fringes, I would rather not enter into a debate that leaves us lifeless, loveless, and lawless.

When you sling mud and assume that I should ignore the warning I offered you, don't come back crying about my true character. You should be able to hold yourself from mud slinging and expecting to be treated with kids glove - read Proverbs 26:5.

Again, let me remind you:

viaro:
A discussion would be nice to have, if you may. If you're going to keep playing games, I may as well serve you as much as you give, Ciao.

Omenuko:
Ok, i see. . . .The teaching on purgatory (which is a doctrine of the Catholic Church) has not changed.  Purgatory is a separate concept from limbo (which is not a doctrine of the Catholic Church).  The teaching on limbo was developed by theologians in the middle ages.  Some people (theologians and popes included) believe in the concept of limbo, while other people (theologians and popes included) do not.  To believe (or not believe) in the concept of limbo is not a matter of salvation for Catholics.  Personally, I side with current pope and believe that infants that die without sanctifying grace from baptism receive God's mercy and enter heaven (which is different from the teaching on limbo).

That's a tidy explanation. Appreciated.

KunleOshob:
Aunty stop trying to be clever by half, the fact that nobody was recorded to have been penalized in the bible for paying monetary tithes does not mean the bible did not give clear instructions against it. The instruction is clearly stated in the scriptures below: Leviticus 27:30-31:

30 “One tenth of the produce of the land, whether grain from the fields or fruit from the trees, belongs to the Lord and must be set apart to him as holy. 31 If you want to buy back the Lord’s tenth of the grain or fruit, you must pay its value, plus 20 percent.

The additional 20% surcharge is clearly a penalty for monetizing the tithes.

If you're reading like a dunce, your reaction hardly surprises me. By the way, I was addressing ogakim, not the girlie in skirt called KunleOshob.

The question I addressed to ogajim was simple enough, not that I was unaware about what Leviticus 27:30-31 states or teaches. Those verses, if argued for your presumptions, would simply refute the basis of ogajim's assertion that "Tithe was never about money". If that argument holds, then by quoting those verses, you're inadvertently claiming that it actually was about money. Since his argument was that it was not about money, my question was: "who penalised anyone for using money as tithes? Who? Where? When?"

You can't have it both ways - one, that tithes were not about money; then two, that there was money involved to penalise anybody. To make this convoluted argument is to speak from both sides of the mouth.

A discussion would be nice to have, if you may. If you're going to keep playing games, I may as well serve you as much as you give, Ciao.

Thank you, Omenko. Incidentally, I'd seen the catholic.com site, so no surprises there. Your efforts are appreciated, though.

However, I don't see where the essential answer to the question appears in the article excerpted from that site. The essential question was about the issue of whether the doctrine of purgatory/limbo had been rejected, or the Catholic views about that doctrine have changed in the course of time, dialogue and experience.

I might have questions on this part, though:

Omenuko:
The Church teaches that those who die in Gods grace, but imperfectly purified undergo a process of purification.  This purification is necessary because, as Scripture teaches, nothing unclean will enter the presence of God in heaven (Rev. 21:27) and, while we may die with our mortal sins (i.e., sins that kill the spiritual life of the soul and deprive a person of salvation, unless he repents) forgiven, there can still be many impurities in us, specifically venial sins (i.e., minor sins) and the temporal punishment due to sins already forgiven.

In some Christian traditions, it is taught that our souls are declared clean when we accept Christ. Scripture reveals that Christ obtained all or our salvation on the cross and it is applied to us over the course of time through, among other things, the process of sanctification through which the Christian is made holy. Sanctification involves suffering (Rom. 5:3–5), and purgatory is the final stage of sanctification that some of us need to undergo before we enter heaven. Purgatory is the final phase of Christ’s applying to us the purifying redemption that he accomplished for us by his death on the cross. Not all will have to undergo purification, i.e., some people die in a state of grace.  But for those that do not, the process of purification takes place where they are actually made clean (i.e., purified). (see www.catholic.com for more info).

But that is dialogue or discussion for another thread.

Eseentially, has there been any change(s) in the Catholic views of purgatory/limbo - no matter how significant or small such a change might be?

Pastor AIO:
The only difference between the catholic church and the Anglican church is that the Queen of England is the head of the Anglican church while the pope is the head of the catholic church. doctrinally they are the same.

That's something I'm reading for the first time. I'm not Anglican; but then I like to read what other people see on various issues. To that end, I wonder if the Anglicans also pray to Mary? I have a few friends (Anglican and Catholic) who disagree on that doctrine though.

[quote author=the_seeker link=topic=82886.msg4771264#msg4771264 date=1256111928]do you u know there were lots of would be messiahs before and after jesus?
Though the second phophecy fit him like a crown, it still does not exclude other possibilities. Many others are vague and could easily other people. And imposter could easily act up to fit these phophecies. I could simply ride an ass and a colt to jerusalem and claim to be king of jews. Does that make me the messiah?[/quote]Lol, @the_seeker. There might be a simple way to sort out this issue. Conjectures of 'lots of. . . other possibilities. . . other people' etc. do not help your point, not least because you don't seem to have been able to fit any of such possibilities into those prophecies.

Look again at what OLAADEGBU has proffered for his answers as to Christ fulfilling those OT prophecies: he did not just make a flat statement, but he rather went ahead to share some line-by-line delineation of what he meant. That being so, you can take up a specific figure of your choice among those 'other possibilities', then demonstrate the same thing for your chosen figure as OLAADEGBU has outlined for Christ in post#130, and present it for his (and our) consideration(s). I think that would be far more effective than the previous ways you have tried to set forth your persuasions.

Sometimes, I wonder why people seem to enjoy saying things that are just knee jerk comments without having first calmly considered what they are saying.

@donduke, please don't take my comments as reactive against you. But allow me at the same time to pick your brains for just a bit and see how unncessary they are. I think as an anti-tither (my assumption about you), you should learn to let people have their say without lumping everyone in one group just because their views differ from yours.

donduke:
Pro-tithers should seek better grounds for their argument.

Every person (whether pro-tithers or anti-tithers) should seek good grounds for what they believe. This divide in the Body of Christ between 'pro' and 'anti' is unhealthy.

If you want to pay tithes like Abraham, go get other people's stuff, then pay a tenth to God, give the rest away! These tithers don't notice that it was a one-time affair for Abraham. He never did it again,

Anti-tithers fail repeatedly to understand that even though Abraham's act was done only once, the Bible nevertheless called it "TITHES" in both the OT and the NT! How many times would Abraham have given tithes before it could be called "tithes"? What has the frequency got to do with the fact that it was recognized as TITHES in the Bible that you read?

Besides, are you failing to understand that it is ANTI-TITHING theologians themselves who have argued wrongly that Abraham took 'other people's stuff' to tithe to Melchizedek? Another way they say it is: 'go kick some butt, plunder some nations and then offer 10% from the booty!' That is the most seriously defective argument I ever heard from any theologian with a Ph.D! Just so you don't presume I'm making this up, an example is Russell Kelly. What is even so fascinating is that he had no clue that what he was quoting as his reference in that argument was stating the direct opposite of his own argument!

Now, here's the interesting thing about this silly anti-tithing argument: if Abraham took other 'people's stuff to tithe', then that makes him out to be a thief - and if you're a Christian, that effectively sets you apart as a THIEF! Does the New Testament not argue that Christians are children of Abraham in Galatians 3:7 & 29? Perhaps you never came to that realisation before drumming this retired argument for your anti-tithing stance! Ask me, and I'll show you why I am not an anti-tither nor a thief, because Abraham did not take other people's stuff to offer as tithe. If you believe he did so, that sets you apart as a thief.

When Israel paid tithes under Moses, the tithes were given to one tribe that was NOT allowed to work, NOT alloted land or any property. The Levites only ate if their brothers gave tithes: they were lean and starved if others did not tithe. They were the priests and hence, 'food in my house'.

Three fallacies there, bro:

(a) tithe in Scripture are not predicated upon the Law of Moses - the Law did not originate tithes; and you cannot argue every instance of tithe in the Bible upon the Law.

(b) the Levites actually were alloted land - and yes, they possessed many properties: go figure in Numbers 35:2-8 and Leviticus 25:32-34.

(c) tithes were not restricted to the Levites - the poor from other tribes within Israel also were given the tithes (Deut. 26:12) - as you also stated. The difference is that you did not realise that tithes were not restricted to only one tribe. Never assume that only one thing that you read must be the only answer - read the whole texts and then get the big picture!

1. Question is, where do we see an injunction to give (or pay) tithes in the NT?
2. Who are the Levites today? Not pastors, (I am a pastor, by the way) because every church should pay their pastor an agreed salary for his work.
3. Why are Christians ignoring the clear NT teaching on giving which allows believers the LIBERTY to worship with their substance - giving as they have purposed in their hearts, giving sacrificially, giving as able, giving cheerfully?

Am I to believe that man just loves laws hanging over his neck or he will not do what is right?

I should not be tedious to you, and yes: there are answers to each an every question you have asked. However, my answers will come when you answer this simple one:

You stated that "every church should pay their pastor an agreed salary for his work", not so? Dear pastor, with all due respect sir, can you show me where in the New Testament you saw any commandment or Law for that statement? Let us read it; then I shall provide answers directly to you, sir. Cheers.

Omenuko:
I'll ask my question again. . . .When and where did the pope or the Church claim that purgatory and limbo existed then later claim that they didn't exist?  Can you provide a source to this?

Perhaps a better approach is for you to advise on what the real situation actually is. There seems to be many sources saying different things on the web; and that includes some sources that claim to be Catholic. What, in your view, is the confusion about; and how do you offer a balance?

adexio:
If you wants to move from Zero level to higher level in your BUSINESS, FINANCES, EDUCATION, CHOOSING YOUR SPOUSE, VICTOR OVER YOUR ENEMY. KINDLY CALL ME ON THIS NUMBER 08023821869 OR 07034205740
E-mail: adexio@yahoo.com

Do you offer these services for free?

@ttts,

ttts:
So if you give Him the first salary of your new job or even the increase of your salary,if it is a promotion, God will certainly take care of the rest.

Your comments may have helped some people one way or another. Although I think there's some value on the subject of the firstfruit type of giving, I don't think it refers to the idea of someone giving up his/her "first salary". The firstfruit is a portion of something, not the whole of that thing. Perhaps you may have a different view, and it would be great to read.

ogajim:
Viaro: Leviticus 27:28-35 laid out the tithe system for the Children of Israel.

Dear sir, I asked you specific questions, not about how the tithe system was laid out for the children of Israel. I would be delighted if you could answer that/those specific questio(s); and if there are no answers you can provide, it would be even nicer to simply say you went off the tangent. As far as Leviticus is concerned, nobody was "penalised" for using money as tithes -none! If there was any such case (even in the Leviticus 27:28-35 that you quoted), then please show us WHO was actually "penalised" accordingly.

I have not seen anywhere on NL where "pro tithers" answer the question of the current tax system that we live under and how it relates or comes from the old tithe system.

That's not the question I asked you, my guy. As far as I'm concerned, taxes and tithes are not mixed up in Scripture - they are NOT the same things. If you argue that they are the same, you will find yourself in a difficult position bereft of any answers if you and I are to discuss them. So, I'll just ask that you throw that unncessary argument out.

Tithe was never about money or else we would see instances where "craftsmen", or other non farm/produce related "professions" were made to pay. The system suffered abuse even then hence Malachi writing about it before Jesus Christ himself was chasing them out of the Temple for "turning my father's house into a den of thieves"

Malachi does not provide grounds for Jesus' reaction that you referred to. I'm still waiting to see where you got the idea that anyone was "penalised" for money tithes - that was the simple question I asked following from your bold assertion that such was the case.

This and other Scriptural abuses might just be the "Spiritual wickedness" we ware warned to arm ourselves against because asking a "broke" man, widow, orphan to pony up some cash so the "MOG" can add to his fleet of SUVs or what have you has got to be from the devil to say the least. Jesus was not different from his disciples or they wouldn't need him to be betrayed with a kiss.

Please ogajim, I still have not found your answers for the bold statement you made about someone being penalised for tithing money. May I ask again: "who penalised anyone for using money as tithes? Who? Where? When?" So far, the comments you are making hitherto are deviating from those simple questions.

It our duty as Christians to help others and not expect even a thank you because we are doing it for our Lord but it is NOT OUR DUTY to buy a "pastor" a bigger house, newer car, nicer suits, etc. If people decide to "bless" him with any or all of the above, than can do so as long as it comes from their heart.

I'm not about duties one way or the other. Whether a pastor has big or small houses is not the issue. Please the question still begs to be answered; and if there are none, a blank from you would do nicely. I asked you that question deliberately because that was a first time I ever heard such - and I would really like to learn (even if from you). So, could you do me the kind favour accordingly? Thank you in advance.

ogajim:
When he needed to pay temple tithe, he paid with "2 shekels", when TITHE was required, money was not to be used or if you follow Mosaic law, you were actually penalized for using money.

But calm down. . . calm down. May I ask: who penalised anyone for using money as tithes? Who? Where? When? How is it that people make such blank statements in the idea that their own arguments are all there is to the topic?

KunleOshob:
My post was addressed to pilgrim.1 why should it bother you or respond on her behalf

I'm sorry that my direct response infuriates you; and no, I'm not responding on 'her' behalf. You have ever been playing this childish game on NL; and if it wasn't that you and TV01 are fond of her, you should have known better. Nothing in what you would have said would have mattered; other than the fact that you have continued to mis-address me for your misrepresentation. I wondered if pilgrim.1 has been in this thread, before you recycled your antics once again. This was why I wondered initially if you're capable of discussing or debating issues amicably with others, or you're just out to keep recycling your amusing attitudes without saying anything on the subject.

@Krayola,

I like this and think it is interesting:

The fallacy of quantifier-switch.

Example:

St. Thomas Aquinas's "Second Way", also known as the Cosmological Argument for the Existence of God, contains the follow essential but fallacious step:

Every thing or event is caused, or brought into being, by some other thing or event;
So, some thing or event caused, or brought into being, all other things and events.

Aquinas thought that this Prime Mover was God. This questionable step has the same logical form as the following:

Every number is greater than some other number;
So, some number is less than all other numbers.

The latter inference is clearly invalid: the premise is true of the real numbers (negative and positive), while the conclusion is false. (There is no least number; they keep on going back infinitely far "to the left".) Another argument of the same form, which is clearly invalid, is the following:

Everyone is fathered by someone else;
So, someone fathered everyone else.

Of course, I see a few problems there already which I'd like to highlight later on. . . perhaps after your response to post #92.

Hmm, it all depends. The answer may be yes and no - depending on the context that we talk about it.

Pastor AIO:
I think we should discuss as ladies and gentlemen.  Let us not forget the ladies in our midst.  we don't want to be taken for sexist.

Oops! Good point, AIO. I apologise (my mistake on the 'gentlemen' without remembering that the ladies come first). Thank you.

I trust that as Christians we can all show example to non-Christians. Maybe my mistake is because I live in a different world from those who are used to regularly discussing such controversial topics. Even then, we may all learn to hold one another in high esteem for the sake of Christ's love; especially because no single argument can make anybody more spiritual than another person.

Take, for example, what Tonye-t said recently in post #455:

[quote author=Tonye-t link=topic=307798.msg4762050#msg4762050 date=1255959106][Font=trebuchet ms]Pathetic, who says Jesus never demanded it? I always feel like laffing each time I hear peeps saying Jesus never demanded so so and so from us[/font][/quote]I certainly may not agree with that statement as regards tithes; but even so, at least, I can have the heart to let Tonye-t have his convictions rather than shout him down or brand him names. He certainly has not asked me money nor has he argued that he 'must' have my tithes. But if I come down to the level of calling him a 'heretic' just because I disagree with his interpretations, does that make me a more spiritual Christian than Tonye-t?

Why is it that many anti-tithers never take time to reflect on their attitude when discussing topics in a public forum? Attitudes that quickly condemn our Christian brethren are not helping to demonstrate the 'love' we preach. I hope this would help some people think carefully before branding others names . . merely on disagreements. I like to commend the example of Zikkyy in handling this subject: we may see differently, but I can be thankful for his maturity and Christian love.

[quote author=Tonye-t link=topic=307798.msg4762319#msg4762319 date=1255961268]To Viaro,

leave him alone, his been well known to be sensitive especially when he lacks points to butress his vain and baseless arguments, he is my brother i know him very well [/quote]Okay, Tonye-t. I'll take your advice and ignore him henceforth.

KunleOshob:
Pilgrim.1, you are not satisfied with all the heresies you preached on tithing now you want to extend it to first fruit and manipulate scriptures to suit the agenda again, don't you ever get tired

Is there any need to misrepresent people, KunleOshob? If that was supposed to be a reply to my recent post, it's amazing that the best you can do is confuse posters and say absolutely nothing about the subject itself. This was what I said:

viaro:
I'm not calling for fights, please - just let's talk about the topic as gentlemen.

Is that too challenging a sentence to understand? If you cannot discuss the verse, let others have the opportunity to say something more sane.

Pastor AIO:
wow!  Jesus asked a man to sell everything he owned and give the money to . . . eh? . . . hang on?  . . . give the money to . . .  the poor.  Boy, I thought for a moment he was going to say 'and give the money to your pastor'.

The poor also give to others - we need to balance issues and not cherry pick verses to point against others if those quoting the texts have not first obeyed them.

KunleOshob:
@Tonye-t and other tithe preaching heretics.

There's no need to resort to this type of attitude. You may choose to disagree with him rather and discuss your disagreements.

The 'Nigerian situation' goes beyond issuing Communiqués, and that should be the same as the situation with any other country for that matter. I think that people should begin to look beyond the 'culture of the mosaic glass buildings' and begin to think about ways of intelligently empowering people to make a difference. Indeed, the problems are not just about religious differences or political maladies - people ought to match communiqués with action and turn the tables around.

Sounds good. . but how much is it?
The need to train leaders (especially in the Christian ministry) cannot be overemphasised.

Guys, could I pick some of y'all brains on this subject a bit more? I'm not calling for fights, please - just let's talk about the topic as gentlemen.

What do you think about Proverbs 3:9 -

'Honour the LORD with thy substance, and with the firstfruits of all thine increase'

I understand the verse does not stand alone and could be better understood in light of its surrounding verses. However, just looking at that verse for now, are we to limit it to the 'rituals' of the Mosaic Law, or its holds a principle beyond that dispensation?

Deep Sight:
Viaro - in fairness to Krayola, he is one of the VERY FEW who actually goes the distance, although i do not believe he has grasped the essentials of some of the arguments, but i must concede that he has a very very open mind, and considering the arguments he offers here, you will be surprised to find the fields of study that he is actually involved in.

As you can see in my reply to his, I was not categorically pointing him out as the defaulter in my general observations. But there - just me.

Krayola:
@viaro. It is unfortunate that you think we have not "attempted to carefully think through ourselves". Maybe we just disagree. But like I said, u ridicule those who disagree, and pretty much call them stupid. Whatever floats your boat.

Well, my apologies if you perceive ridicule in any degree - it was not intended. Indeed people disagree all the time; but I'm not one to write off anyone as stupid merely on disagreements or irreconciliable differences. However, maybe it happens to be the circle of discussants I've experienced that leads me to the notion that people come to hasty conclusions about what they have not attempted to carefully think through themselves - that was not meant to be directed particularly at you.

Deep Sight:
Krayola, i would be deeply interested in a point-by-point response to #70 above containing Dr. Angelicus' proofs.

This is because i am sorely tired of people stating that "this or that argument has been debunked" without ever actually tackling the arguments head on (you are not guilty of this, but others are, particularly Banom, who has never responded to any single part of the cosmological argument).

The highlighted is precisely the big worry I have with people coming to hasty conclusions about what they have not attempted to carefully think through themselves. Fingers crossed on your repeated request.

Krayola:
It is not the holes in the argument that is the issue, but the unwillingness to acknowledge them. Instead y'all say people are being stubborn or are unable to comprehend the "depth" of what is being said. If the argument convinces you, fine. But you can't force it down people's throats, and then ridicule them for refusing it. Especially when they have given valid reasons.

I don't think this makes much sense. I don't see how one could argue accusingly about anyone's "unwillingness" to acknowledge the holes in an argument when the one making that observation does not provide a more powerful explanatory index.

For one thing, one may not be satisfied with a particular explanation to a given enquiry - that is not the same as accusing that anyone was 'forcing' anything down anybody's throat. It was just that same ideology of thinking anyone would force anything down anyone's throat that made me leave the other thread promptly. The very same complaint you bring up here could be said about the way you argue out issues. If someone rejects your own explanations by pointing to the gaping holes in them, it may be a long wait to see you acknowledge indeed the same in yours. What seems rather queer to me is that those who are quick to reject a particular postulation have not been able to demonstrate a more plausible explanatory hypothesis to the enquiry.

That the argument has holes does not mean God does not exist. . . it just means that the argument does little to nothing in terms of confirming God's existence, at least as far as we are concerned.

Glad to read the highlighted part - which I think is different from the previous assertion you made in post #76 - 'there is no proof for the existence of God'. Subtle as it was, I was being careful to point out that the holes in any argument do not lead to the denial of the existence of what it seeks to explain. There could be 'no proof' for this and that is not therefore to suppose that the existence of the very phenomenon itself is therefore to be denied. It is this subtilty that would lead some to quip that 'If God exist, we will not be here argueing over it'. Arguing over something does not lead to the denial of its existence - in this case, the existence of God and the supernatural.

I doubt anyone will respond to that argument again. . .  like I said that horse has been flogged back to life and into oblivion over and over again.

Agreed.

Krayola:
The holes in those arguments have been pointed out over and over again on several threads. The objections have been dismissed as just stubbornness, and pictures of butterflies and outer space were used as a retort.

In one of such threads, I simply left the stubbornness to continue. It was clear to me from the onset that was what it set out to accomplish, and nothing significantly different from that ever emerged.

There is no proof for the existence of a creator, or God. The best you can do is make a good argument. But every one has holes. Every single one.

Is there any single argument that is so watertight as to be declared free from holes to be exploited? Any single one? Even your own argument for whatever worldview you might hold? Even what is commonly called 'science' have holes in their very best postulations and continue to do so.

Yet, that an argument or theory has holes does not lead to the denial of the existence of what it seeks to explain. It is not the holes in any argument that is the focal point of this thread; and that is why it would be interesting to see a response to Deep Sight's post #72.

smoothman:
UPDATE ME

@smoothman,
Although I've been on the forum since our last convo, this is just to let you know that I haven't forgotten you as you've not read from me. I don't want to give you secondhand info; so pls exercise a little more patience, and I shall get back to you on the current requirements and suggestions on how best to apply some alternatives to meet your needs. Have a great week ahead.