Image123:


How many sachets of pure water do you need for relevance sir?

Relevance to who? I just notice that there are certain types on here who will come on a thread where people are discussing and offer nothing but invectives. Invectives laced with the most obtuse Nonsense dressed up as arguments. Where things were once pleasant, they come and leave things unpleasant. It is without a doubt an ailment that they suffer caused by their antipathy to Truth.

Now whether you consider that relevant or not is totally your choice.

InesQor:


Lol see how you just blackguarded me like that sha.

The "tired of being a Christian" is used loosely and in a sardonic manner. It is written in such a way as to make Christians see that they need to pay attention to some issues, and not that the author or myself is ACTUALLY tired of being a Christian. Urgh let's not be so literal. We were expected to read between the lines here. That's why I'm asking, did people really read the article?

If I say I'm tired of being a Nigerian because the whole world has stereotyped us as internet fraudsters, does it mean that I plan to change nationality? Or rather does it mean that I am not satisfied with some things generally associated with Nigerians and I wish to draw attention to those issues?

Sarcasm, sarcasm!

You are Nigerian by virtue of the location you found yourself and not by virtue of our respective moralities so it wouldn't apply here.

Of course I read the article. Can we say a thing is the same thing if it is corrupted?

Reyginus:
You are Nigerian by virtue of the location you found yourself and not by virtue of our respective moralities so it wouldn't apply here.

Of course I read the article. Can we say a thing is the same thing if it is corrupted?

Oh, I am not even in Nigeria but my point is that when people say "I'm tired of being a Nigerian", it is a trope. Somewhat like a hyperbole! An exaggeration. My point has nothing to do with morality or the lack thereof.

Corruption does not change the nature of a thing, even though it might color one's perceptions or perspectives about it. Is a house that has not been cleaned for 10 years still a house? Is a dirty, poor, old, sick and hungry hobo still a man?

InesQor:

Oh, I am not even in Nigeria but my point is that when people say "I'm tired of being a Nigerian", it is a trope. Somewhat like a hyperbole! An exaggeration. My point has nothing to do with morality or the lack thereof.

Corruption does not change the nature of a thing, even though it might color one's perceptions or perspectives about it. Is a house that has not been cleaned for 10 years still a house? Is a dirty, poor, old, sick and hungry hobo still a man?

But then we can not say the house, or man is still the same house or man. That's the point.

While I understand your first paragraph it's the way you used the first post's words that trouble me. The writer didn't make any clarification like you are doing now, so you shouldn't really blame me if I use her words to understand your point in the first place.

Reyginus:


Of course I read the article. Can we say a thing is the same thing if it is corrupted?

Good ol' problem of Identity.


Can a thing be said to have existence if it is corruptible?

PastorAIO:



Good ol' problem of Identity.


Can a thing be said to have existence if it is corruptible?

Of course yes.

Reyginus:
Of course yes.

So where does it go after corruption sets in?

If a piece of iron turns to rust, where did the iron go?

PastorAIO:

So where does it go after corruption sets in?
If a piece of iron turns to rust, where did the iron go?

The Iron goes nowhere but have a new oxygen association.

Reyginus:
The Iron goes nowhere but have a new oxygen association.

Iron oxide is not iron. Where did the iron go?

PastorAIO:


Iron oxide is not iron. Where did the iron go?

You are mixing the point. Iron is in Iron III Oxide which is our rust but our rust is neither Iron nor Oxygen. It is like asking where either of Oxygen, Nitrogen went after forming Air mixture. They go nowhere.

It could also be likened to the union of a man and wife to give us a couple. You can never say the man is a couple or the woman is the couple but both of them make being a couple possible. Now where did the man go?

double post.

One would have thought/expected that people who pride themselves in knowledge, science and logic(as against faith) would know what is so basic as energy conversion, JSS1 basic science/introductory technology.

Reyginus:
You are mixing the point. Iron is in Iron III Oxide which is our rust but our rust is neither Iron nor Oxygen. It is like asking where either of Oxygen, Nitrogen went after forming Air mixture. They go nowhere.

It could also be likened to the union of a man and wife to give us a couple. You can never say the man is a couple or the woman is the couple but both of them make being a couple possible. Now where did the man go?

The human couple is not a good example. The man still functions as an individual. If he's a footballer he will still play his football in the weekends. The wife will still function as an individual too.

Rust does not function as Iron. There is nothing in rust that functions as iron. If it does not exhibit any of the properties of Iron then how can you say it is Iron or the Iron doesn't go anywhere?

Image123:
One would have thought/expected that people who pride themselves in knowledge, science and logic(as against faith) would know what is so basic as energy conversion, JSS1 basic science/introductory technology.

I'm going to presume that you are referring to me.

For a start I do not pride myself in 'knowledge...' etc. You just resent what little I've been able to present here and it is your resentment that is talking.

I know what I learned in school about energy conversion etc basic science, according to you. However that is not the point that I am making.


Iron is iron and exhibits the properties of Iron presumably due to the configuration of protons neutrons and electrons in it's atom. If you change the configuration of an atom, e.g. if you add 3 protons and three electrons to the atoms of Iron, and throw in 5 extra neutrons too, strangely the Iron will stop behaving like Iron but starts reacting instead like Copper. Where did the Iron Go?

I'm trying to demonstrate the difference between the essential being of a thing and it's states of being.

An angry man is just a state of being. You cannot define the man by his anger. Tomorrow you may see him and he is calm. What happened to the angry man? The anger was not an essential part of his being. It was merely a state he was passing through.

What is the ontological category of something that is subject to change vis a vis something that is adamant?

PastorAIO:


I'm going to presume that you are referring to me.

For a start I do not pride myself in 'knowledge...' etc. You just resent what little I've been able to present here and it is your resentment that is talking.

I know what I learned in school about energy conversion etc basic science, according to you. However that is not the point that I am making.


Iron is iron and exhibits the properties of Iron presumably due to the configuration of protons neutrons and electrons in it's atom. If you change the configuration of an atom, e.g. if you add 3 protons and three electrons to the atoms of Iron, and throw in 5 extra neutrons too, strangely the Iron will stop behaving like Iron but starts reacting instead like Copper. Where did the Iron Go?

I'm trying to demonstrate the difference between the essential being of a thing and it's states of being.

An angry man is just a state of being. You cannot define the man by his anger. Tomorrow you may see him and he is calm. What happened to the angry man? The anger was not an essential part of his being. It was merely a state he was passing through.

What is the ontological category of something that is subject to change vis a vis something that is adamant?

Like my young friends will say "E pain am sotey he come dey speak grammar". No need denying yourself na, We're not just meeting today or even this year. Keep enjoying your discussion, no worries.

PastorAIO:


The human couple is not a good example. The man still functions as an individual. If he's a footballer he will still play his football in the weekends. The wife will still function as an individual too.

Rust does not function as Iron. There is nothing in rust that functions as iron. If it does not exhibit any of the properties of Iron then how can you say it is Iron or the Iron doesn't go anywhere?

And who is saying rust functions as Iron or that the man doesn't function as an individual? I am only showing you the implications of your question. I never say rust is Iron too. Get it well now. I am not calling rust Iron. Neither am I calling the husband a couple. Your statement would have made more sense if I opined Iron is rust or that a husband once married loses that individuality. You are helping my case.

You asked where Iron goes to when moisture happens on it and it rust and I replied nowhere. Without the Iron there won't even be a rust in the first place. Water by itself cannot create rust it needs another element for this to happen. Now asking where the iron goes to is an irrational question because the Iron is still in the same place and without it you won't have any rust.

Reyginus:
And who is saying rust functions as Iron or that the man doesn't function as an individual? I am only showing you the implications of your question. I never say rust is Iron too. Get it well now. I am not calling rust Iron. Neither am I calling the husband a couple. Your statement would have made more sense if I opined Iron is rust or that a husband once married loses that individuality. You are helping my case.

You asked where Iron goes to when moisture happens on it and it rust and I replied nowhere. Without the Iron there won't even be a rust in the first place. Water by itself cannot create rust it needs another element for this to happen. Now asking where the iron goes to is an irrational question because the Iron is still in the same place and without it you won't have any rust.

Thank you for your response. I'm sorry if I put words in your mouth.

Reyginus:
Iron is in Iron III Oxide which is our rust but our rust is neither Iron nor Oxygen.

You're right, you said rust is not iron. you said Iron is in rust.

My issue is that the so-called iron in rust, can it continue to function as iron? as they say, if something walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and looks like a duck then it's probably a duck. We know iron by the properties it exhibits. If the iron in rust does not exhibit the properties of Iron as we know it, can we still say it's iron?

But these examples are straying from where we started from. Let's go back:

There were numerous individuals following Jesus. Peter, John, Thomas, Judas, Bartholomew..... etc etc etc.

At point Jesus gathered them together and form the church. These individuals make up the church.

Will you say that since these individuals existed before the formation of the church therefore the church existed before Christ formed the church?

If the church had a beginning and then according to you it suffered corruption....

Reyginus:


Of course I read the article. Can we say a thing is the same thing if it is corrupted?

I believe that question you asked is rhetorical. I could be wrong but I think you are saying that if it is corrupted it is no longer the same thing. That is what is usually understood as the problem of Identity. Can you continue to call something the same thing after it has undergone so many changes?

To you a corrupt church is no longer the church. am I right or wrong?

Or did you mean to say that as Iron maintains it's identity even when it is distorted by other atoms to form a molecule with totally different properties so does the church remains the church whether or not continues the exhibit the characteristics of the church?

I don't want to accuse you of talking out of both sides of your mouth at once till you properly explain to me what it is that you mean.

PastorAIO:


Thank you for your response. I'm sorry if I put words in your mouth.



You're right, you said rust is not iron. you said Iron is in rust.

My issue is that the so-called iron in rust, can it continue to function as iron? as they say, if something walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and looks like a duck then it's probably a duck. We know iron by the properties it exhibits. If the iron in rust does not exhibit the properties of Iron as we know it, can we still say it's iron?

In the compound it doesn't really function again as our Iron because it is no longer just Iron but has acquired some amounts of Oxygen.

PastorAIO:

But these examples are straying from where we started from. Let's go back:

There were numerous individuals following Jesus. Peter, John, Thomas, Judas, Bartholomew..... etc etc etc.

At point Jesus gathered them together and form the church. These individuals make up the church.

Will you say that since these individuals existed before the formation of the church therefore the church existed before Christ formed the church?

A thing cannot before it is formed. Nothing can.

PastorAIO:

If the church had a beginning and then according to you it suffered corruption....

Here you Jump the point. You see, like our Iron, once the church is corrupted and no longer the same we can no longer call it the church.

PastorAIO:

I believe that question you asked is rhetorical. I could be wrong but I think you are saying that if it is corrupted it is no longer the same thing. That is what is usually understood as the problem of Identity. Can you continue to call something the same thing after it has undergone so many changes?

No. If we really want to define change in its truest form we cannot call it the same thing.

PastorAIO:

To you a corrupt church is no longer the church. am I right or wrong?

Exactly.

PastorAIO:

Or did you mean to say that as Iron maintains it's identity even when it is distorted by other atoms to form a molecule with totally different properties so does the church remains the church whether or not continues the exhibit the characteristics of the church?

No not as you put it. It is better put as the church no longer remains the church because it is a union with a new property and acts like it.

PastorAIO:

I don't want to accuse you of talking out of both sides of your mouth at once till you properly explain to me what it is that you mean.

You can if you notice it.

Reyginus:

Here you Jump the point. You see, like our Iron, once the church is corrupted and no longer the same we can no longer call it the church.

No. If we really want to define change in its truest form we cannot call it the same thing.

Exactly.

Which now begs the question, Where is the incorruptible Church today? (no more where is the Iron). Has Satan won?

PastorAIO:


Which now begs the question, Where is the incorruptible Church today? (no more where is the Iron). Has Satan won?

In the heart of those who have kept the instruction of Jesus Christ. Or you are asking for a building?

Reyginus:
In the heart of those who have kept the instruction of Jesus Christ. Or you are asking for a building?

Church means those that have been called out. You cannot have those that have been called out inside the hearts of people. There is no such thing as Church inside somebody's heart.

No, I'm asking for a community. A community that meets to share the sacraments. Sacraments such as Holy communion. Sacraments such as baptism.

That community of which this was written of in the second chapter of Acts.

42And they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers. 43And awee came upon every soul, and many wonders and signs were being done through the apostles. 44And all who believed were together and had all things in common. 45And they were selling their possessions and belongings and distributing the proceeds to all, as any had need. 46And day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes, they received their food with glad and generous hearts, 47praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to their number day by day those who were being saved.

PastorAIO:



Church means those that have been called out. You cannot have those that have been called out inside the hearts of people. There is no such thing as Church inside somebody's heart.

No, I'm asking for a community. A community that meets to share the sacraments. Sacraments such as Holy communion. Sacraments such as baptism.

That community of which this was written of in the second chapter of Acts.

42And they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers. 43And awee came upon every soul, and many wonders and signs were being done through the apostles. 44And all who believed were together and had all things in common. 45And they were selling their possessions and belongings and distributing the proceeds to all, as any had need. 46And day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes, they received their food with glad and generous hearts, 47praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to their number day by day those who were being saved.

So what has this got to do with my response to InesQor?

Reyginus:
So what has this got to do with my response to InesQor?

It is a more direct response to your response here:

Reyginus:
In the heart of those who have kept the instruction of Jesus Christ. Or you are asking for a building?

If you trace the reason and context of this your post=40201106 you'll no doubt get what it has to do with your response to Inesqor. They follow one from another.

PastorAIO:


It is a more direct response to your response here:



If you trace the reason and context of this your post=40201106 you'll no doubt get what it has to do with your response to Inesqor. They follow one from another.

I still don't get it. Show me.

Reyginus:
I still don't get it. Show me.

Ah, you get problem be that. I don't think you'll ever get it. You've dribbled yourself into the ground. I cannot answer for you the relevance of the question that you yourself asked. Try and meditate and pray for holy spirit to reveal to you why you asked the question and what it has to do with your response to InesQor.

PastorAIO:


Ah, you get problem be that. I don't think you'll ever get it. You've dribbled yourself into the ground. I cannot answer for you the relevance of the question that you yourself asked. Try and meditate and pray for holy spirit to reveal to you why you asked the question and what it has to do with your response to InesQor.

So what's hard is showing me?

Oh boy no be small thing oh. So I missed all of this.

Thank God for Thanksgiving, so I have time for NL.

Pastor AIO, thanks for the enlightening perspective! It is remarkable how we share few similar beliefs but for the ones we do, you are generally able to express the ideas way better than I can.

SirWere:
Hahahaha, so you mean great scientists and people who are christians are "scientifically illterate, technoglically backwards and economically confused" Forgetting that christianity actually encourages education Get wisdom. The only atheist I respect on NL is Johnnydon22. And even he is confused

Bro how market?

johnydon22:

Bro how market?

The things we say in confident ignorance at times.....

[quote author=Thoniameek post=39176316]


Dealing with it. There's something called religion and then there's relationship with God. And no one should mix the two....[ /quote]good reply my lady. religion is man attempting to fill that void. Christianity is God reaching out to man.

InesQor:

Hmm left to me I think religion is PART of our relationship with God.

It's like saying "there is something called breathing and then there's being alive, and nobody should mix the two". They are intertwined, and one is a strong sign of the other.

Our religion is the apparent evidence that we have a relationship with God. Anybody can claim to have a relationship with God.

God invent man and man invent religion .let me ask you, what is the purpose of man inventing religion ?

@OP,

I know it is not easy being a christian!!!


Image 1.You are expected to listen to come to church without your clothes(Nude church)!!!

Image 2:Christianity has a history of Mass suicide

Image 3:Christianity has a history of Racism

Image4:Christianity has a history of terrorism!!!