noetic16:

Your argument is potent if and only if u can establish a unique pattern through which God does the things that he does? I state this because while this "change of hands" experience that the bible went through might just have been God's way of revealing His word. take for instance, God permitted the descendants of Abraham to go into slavery for the sins of Abraham. they went into slavery for 432 years. God permitted the descendants of king hezekiah to go into slavery for his sins.
To the descendants of hezekiah and abraham, their slavery and deliverance is meaningless and shows the "inefficiency" of God . . .to abrahanm and hezekiah, this is a righteous God who can behold no iniquity and will as such pay man back according to his deeds. To latter day generation of believers, we see a comprehensive ontology of God in His relations to man.
my point is that your world view about the compilation of the bible does not in any way rubbish the intended work of God. why we have no absolute understanding as to why God does what he does. . . we do however know that all what is done fits into a uniquely divine purpose.

Ok. Going by these assumptions, then one cannot actually determine what it is that God wants to do. If this is so, what would then be the use of praying if He will simply go ahead and do whatever he wants irrespective of who will suffer for this action?

noetic16:

God reaches out to everyone by the dictates of their conscience. God reaches out to all of mankind in this generation  by the salvation offered on the cross of calvary. God's plan for all is that we become co-heirs with his son.

His method seems quite inefficient given his numerous capabilities and his previous methods of reaching out to others. He has used floating pillars of fire and clouds, speaking animals etc. Why does he depend on other fallible humans to spread this message? Why the change in tactics?

noetic16:

This question assumes that the non-believer already believes in God but does not know how to get to him or know what message comes from him. The answer is to go directly to God in sincerity and prayer. God will definitely respond, unless he is indifferent and cannot be bothered. . .  which is biblically not the case.

Yes it implies a belief in some God but can one actually determine the true one without the Bible? One would need to know this to determine who to pray to.

noetic16:

what biblical account has been demonstrated as false? and by whom?

Going by biblical genealogy, one can conclude that all current humans arose from a single ancestor in two events less than 5000 years ago. But by science and scientific methods, we can conclusively say that this is not so.

noetic16:

The bible was written as a prayer and faith tool. In the context of prayer and faith, it cannot be wrong. why use the bible for scientific exploration?

You say it was designed for prayer and faith. Then why also try to extend it to scientifically verifiable fields?

noetic16:

This was the point I made when I asserted that the bible cannot be used to construct an historical argument. . . it was not designed to do so.

1. if u objectively look at the creation accounts . . . .I think it is more plausible than evolution or any other theory. As it postulates a super-intelligent being creating an intelligent universe full of life. it is both absurd and intellectually backward to suggest that the universe and the essentials of life as we see it today is an accidental occurrence.

The thing here is that evolution and other theories are based on evidence that we have. We simply do not have evidence for this super intelligent being and an intelligent universe. Another problem with such a concept is that this intelligent being would also require an explanation.

noetic16:

2. You are actually assuming that the earth was always like this. .   in this scattered and divided form. There are plausible scientific notions that suggest that the earth was not always like this and was most importantly not in this form when Noah's flood took place. And again have u heard of rootless polystrate fossils? they IMO explain Noah's flood in graphic terms.

I don't see how these polystrate fossils explain Noah's flood because in several cases, dating of these fossils indicates that they are simply too old to have been laid down only during the flood which is relatively recent in geological terms. This to me is selectively applying scientific evidence to fit a preconceived notion.

noetic16:

Valid . . .YES. but no one said anything about being bound to follow this instructions. The old covenant has been replaced with the new covenant. they both complement and reveal each other. So while the entire scriptures is valid, its interpretation should be subject to the spirit of God.

Well if one actually believes these are instructions from God, they should feel bound to follow them since they surely would not wish to go against God. Does the replacement of covenants mean that the previous laws should not be followed?

noetic16:

This is just an opinion . . . . IMO its an uninformed opinion.

I don't think it's uninformed because I'm basing this opinion on what I've seen quite a number of Christians do.

noetic16:

Ask God in prayer.

That's part of my question. Do you think it's possible to get to know your God by any other means other than the Bible?

noetic16:

Abraham tried to interpret God's simple and direct instructions using his carnal knowledge only to end up doing something contrary to the plan of God. The situation Abraham found himself is the same situation many believers who hear directly from God also find themselves.

This means God simply has a win win situation on his hands. e.g if one is to be healed of all illnesses by faith then gets healed, God takes the credit. If the person decides not to take this literally and opts for medication which also treats the illness, God still gets the credit.

noetic16:

hearing from God gives u an extra responsibility of humility .  ,   to ask for clarification for even the simplest instructions.
you are entitled to your opinion. 

Another question. What are your best three reasons for concluding that Christianity is actually true?

jesus.:

Yea just feel free to display your 'all knowing' ability since u claim that another person is 'spreading disinformation'.

But hey you're the one pointing out my all knowing ability. Disinformation is actually just a euphemism for what he was spreading.

jesus.:

In fact use same 'knowledge' to present the ratio since this directly concerns you

Ok here it is.
OLAADEGBU has created 111 topics as of the time of my review. I have responded on less than 7 of these topics. And more recently, on three of them. This makes the ratio < 7:111. Do you think that this is overzealousness?

jesus.:

Really i hope u wouldn't make allegation(s) against noetic to be 'spreading disinformation' upon concluding the discussion

Why would I?

jesus.:

I may then say u actually admitted to have made unwarranted error and could possibly have been as a result of overzealousness or being unconscious when the post was made before being rectified
To make frivolous comments and posts and later rectify is also part an open online forum

Were the comments frivolous? You really should read through those posts and try to understand what you read there.
Do you think someone can actually post replies on this forum while being unconscious?
Yes it is. It happens in conversations. I hope you do have conversations from time to time.

jesus.:

Thk you which means the scenario is brought up isn't applicable on this thread

Why not? The reason for which I decided to start this thread was from that previous one.

jesus.:

sems u know how to ask questions. Give it a try once more i may oblige u then

I've found out that asking questions is a very efficient way of finding out other people's opinions. You may wish to try this sometime.

jesus.:

This is increadible. where did u get this logic from? OMG i hope u wouldnt want to discuss with noetic with this kind or reasoning.  If u do that im sure this thread might not end well. U mean for u to advice on a subject implies u have 'probably had some opinions on the topic at hand'?
So no man/woman could possibly give advice with prior knowledge or experience on the subject?

You might need to rephrase your question here. I really don't understand how you got the last line there from what I said. Or are you mistyping something there?

jesus.:

Why didnt u ask instead of first comparing and talking about 'handle'? u placed the cart before the horse

You should read that post again. I did ask first.

jesus.:

U must really be 'good at wrong guessing"

Here you go again. Why don't you simply answer the question about the relationship between your handle here and your given or legal name.

jesus.:

Im sure thats what u probably have done on the thread u and toba had issues on some of your posts which u found to be wrong before u rectified. Hope u  would do same here if u erred by chance

I think you need to go through all those threads and try to understand the concepts raised there.

jesus.:

Ridiculous question. U talked about new testament, Kindly tell me the new testament u were referring to

What other New Testament is there? Please present me with a list so I can clearly pick it out for you.

jesus.:

How many of mine have u answered mr guesser/ mr rectifier?

I think I've answered them all or at least most of them. Just answer that simple question and put all this to rest.

jesus.:

that one nah story
here it is
'son of God? how do u know God has a son? and that i have a handle similar to that of his son?

Please point out how I contradicted myself.
I've already answered this on post #18 is there any word or phrase there that you did not understand?

OLAADEGBU:

@thehomer,

Read the bible.  It will scare the hell out of you. 

Like I've said before, it would scare you if you actually believe all that is written in it.

thehomer:

Like I've said before, it would scare you if you actually believe all that is written in it.

The Holy Bible

This book contains the mind of God,
The state of man,
The way of salvation,
The doom of sinners and-
The happiness of believers.

Its precepts are binding,
Its history is true, and
Its decisions are immutable.

Read it to be wise,
Believe it to be saved, and
Practise it to be holy.

It contains light to direct you,
Food to support you, and
Comfort to cheer you.

It is the traveller’s map and
The Christian’s charter.

Here is paradise restored,
Heaven opened and
Gates of hell closed.

Christ is the grand subject,[color=#990000][/color]
Our good its design, and
The glory of God its end.

Read it
Slowly,
Frequently, and
Prayerfully.

It is a mine of wealth,
A paradise of glory, and
A river of pleasure.

It will reward the greatest labour and
Condemn all who trifle with its sacred contents.

The Book:
The Book of books;
The Book of life;
The Book of God;
The Bible;
The Revelation of God to man.


Warnings!

This Book will keep you from sin, and
Sin will keep you from this Book.

Reading and confessing this book will:
Terrify the devil,
Stupefy the rebellious,
Mystify the world,
Pacify the critics,
Ratify the covenant,
Edify the church,
Magnify the Word, and
Glorify the Lord!

thehomer:

But hey you're the one pointing out my all knowing ability. Disinformation is actually just a euphemism for what he was spreading.

Ok here it is.
OLAADEGBU has created 111 topics as of the time of my review. I have responded on less than 7 of these topics. And more recently, on three of them. This makes the ratio < 7:111. Do you think that this is overzealousness?

My last count of your response to the threads I started was 70 posts out of just 8 topics!  If that is not an obsession then I don't know what it is.  I also noted that you started this fixation when I started posting threads like "Atheist goes to hell" and "Divine revelation of hell", that is why I suggest that reading the Bible would scare the hell out of you.

thehomer:

But hey you're the one pointing out my all knowing ability. Disinformation is actually just a euphemism for what he was spreading.

U can decide to be more direct or even use more offensive words rather than the euphemism of disinformation adopted by ur self, i careless. Get it the 'all knowing ability' which i used in describing u is in quote, i hope u understand with ur wrong guesses and errors u make and later say ' i rectified it'

thehomer:

Ok here it is.
OLAADEGBU has created 111 topics as of the time of my review. I have responded on less than 7 of these topics. And more recently, on three of them. This makes the ratio < 7:111. Do you think that this is overzealousness?

See above OLAADEGBU has defended himself. Its called obsession. Rem hes a man and not a woman just imagine
'My last count of your response to the threads I started was 70 posts out of just 8 topics!'
I just shake my head imagining the sort of person u are

thehomer:

Why would I?

Cos u done it in the past and could possibly repeat such errors here

thehomer:

Were the comments frivolous? You really should read through those posts and try to understand what you read there.

The lies in ur comments were. U said the guy defended the pope on the gay issue, whereas he never said any thing about gay marriage. What can u call that

thehomer:

Do you think someone can actually post replies on this forum while being unconscious?

Yes a good example is u the 'all knowing homer'

thehomer:

Yes it is. It happens in conversations. I hope you do have conversations from time to time.

Yes but not with people like u

thehomer:

Why not? The reason for which I decided to start this thread was from that previous one.

Why don't u go re-read the scenario to see what im talking about. Guy its isnt applicable at all

thehomer:

I've found out that asking questions is a very efficient way of finding out other people's opinions. You may wish to try this sometime.

But its possible to ask irrelevant or insensible questions at times

thehomer:

You might need to rephrase your question here. I really don't understand how you got the last line there from what I said. Or are you mistyping something there?

Rem u are 'all knowing' try to figure it out. Im not like u that makes rectification. Go read again to get the gist

thehomer:

You should read that post again. I did ask first.

You are a bloody liar Why then did u post this

thehomer:


I meant handle as in pseudonym. I'm guessing that jesus is not your real name.

and later said this

thehomer:

It's based on your handle here "jesus." which is similar to that used to address the "Messiah" in the New Testament.
Or to put this part to rest, is "jesus." the name you were given at birth or a name you have legally adopted?

Did u first asked or guessed?

thehomer:

Here you go again. Why don't you simply answer the question about the relationship between your handle here and your given or legal name.

How does it affect ur life?

thehomer:

I think you need to go through all those threads and try to understand the concepts raised there.

What other concept were there. One was on the issue of the pope and gay marriage whilst the other was on whether all the unanswerables for science could be attributted to a metaphysical being. And on both threads u made frivolous posts.

thehomer:

What other New Testament is there? Please present me with a list so I can clearly pick it out for you.

U talked about new testament which one is it?

thehomer:

I think I've answered them all or at least most of them. Just answer that simple question and put all this to rest.

No u ve not

thehomer:

Please point out how I contradicted myself.
I've already answered this on post #18 is there any word or phrase there that you did not understand?

How do u know God has a son?

noetic16:



what biblical account has been demonstrated as false? and by whom?

So many of them, I will list just 3, the exodus from Egypt, Noah's flood and the resurrection of all the Jewish saints who walked round the city of Jerusalem for all to see which the bible alleges took place on the day that Jesus was crucified. . . .All these have been shown to be FALSE claims by the bible. . . . .

The bible was written as a prayer and faith tool. In the context of prayer and faith, it cannot be wrong. why use the bible for scientific exploration?

FALSE, the Tanakkah(Old testament) was written both as a historical document and as a form of heritage and identity, your claim about the bible being a prayer and faith tool is NOT true, because a simple reading of the book says it is much more than what you are trying to make it to be. . .  .

This was the point I made when I asserted that the bible cannot be used to construct an historical argument. . . it was not designed to do so.

FALSE, parts of the bible was designed to serves as a historical document, read the OT again, its very clear you have never read it. . . .The bible has served as a historical document for the Jew for a very long time, so i don't get what you are trying to say here.   

1. if u objectively look at the creation accounts . . . .I think it is more plausible than evolution or any other theory. As it postulates a super-intelligent being creating an intelligent universe full of life. it is both absurd and intellectually backward to suggest that the universe and the essentials of life as we see it today is an accidental occurrence.

False, The big bang theory despite its flaws better explains the existence of the universe and how it came about FAR better than the 2 DIFFERENT creation accounts we have in the bible, the accounts in genesis 1 and 2 were written by 2 different people over two different periods and that is the FACT. . . . . . .No body is saying that the universe came about by accident, people that are concerned are looking into it and they have made a lot of progress even though they haven't gone there yet. . . .You can start a topic and lets compare the biblical claims of origin written in genesis with the big bang theory and lets see which one  of the 2 has the support of the observable evidence we see around us. . . . . .

2. You are actually assuming that the earth was always like this. .   in this scattered and divided form. There are plausible scientific notions that suggest that the earth was not always like this and was most importantly not in this form when Noah's flood took place. And again have u heard of rootless polystrate fossils? they IMO explain Noah's flood in graphic terms.

According to the bible the Noah's flood took place about 4500 years ago, pls do you have any scientific evidence to show that the continents were all together in one place 4500 years ago? The scientific evidence shows that the continents broke apart millions of years ago not 4500 years ago. . . .Historical evidence from other cultures show that the Noah's flood REMAINS a myth(no wonder many christians are now claiming was only a local flood due to the lack of evidence) . . . .If you read up about the nation of Gojoseon in the Korean peninsula you wil learn that it came in to power in 2333 BCE after the end of the Bai-dal kingdom, just 15 years after the supposed date of the Flood (2348 BCE). . . . . .

Also, in Egypt there is the end of the Fifth Dynasty and start of the Sixth Dynasty (founded by Teti) in 2345BCE. Funny, I don't recall Teti being listed in the genealogy of Noah's sons. . . . .All this historical evidence show that there was never a global flood . . . . . .

thehomer:

Ok. Going by these assumptions, then one cannot actually determine what it is that God wants to do. If this is so, what would then be the use of praying if He will simply go ahead and do whatever he wants irrespective of who will suffer for this action?

1. while we do not know the mind of God or what He intends to do. . .we however know that He does nothing unless he reveals it to his prophets. So God makes revelations of his intentions.

2. prayer is a communication channel to God. Jesus said whatsoever is asked in his name according to the father's will shall be done. it is also through prayer that we get to know of what God wants to do. prayer is the catalyst to knowing God in an agnostic way.

His method seems quite inefficient given his numerous capabilities and his previous methods of reaching out to others. He has used floating pillars of fire and clouds, speaking animals etc. Why does he depend on other fallible humans to spread this message? Why the change in tactics?

This is just your opinion.

why do u not eat the same type of food every single day? because u have the liberty, funds and free will to choose what type of food u want and the source. The same applies to God , . . .he reaches out to all at the liberty of his enormous resources.

Yes it implies a belief in some God but can one actually determine the true one without the Bible? One would need to know this to determine who to pray to.

You are assuming that there is more than one creator.

Going by biblical genealogy, one can conclude that all current humans arose from a single ancestor in two events less than 5000 years ago. But by science and scientific methods, we can conclusively say that this is not so.

why is it impossible for humans to have a single ancestor within the last 6000 years?

You say it was designed for prayer and faith. Then why also try to extend it to scientifically verifiable fields?

because I do not think that biblical claims can fail an objective scientific enquiry.

The thing here is that evolution and other theories are based on evidence that we have. We simply do not have evidence for this super intelligent being and an intelligent universe. Another problem with such a concept is that this intelligent being would also require an explanation.

really? is evolution a science? how scientific is evolution? can the pioneer chemical reactions that kick started life be repeated?

I don't see how these polystrate fossils explain Noah's flood because in several cases, dating of these fossils indicates that they are simply too old to have been laid down only during the flood which is relatively recent in geological terms. This to me is selectively applying scientific evidence to fit a preconceived notion.

thats not the point.

how did this rootless polystrate fossils get to their found location? where was their origin? what could have transported them to their present location other than a global flood?

Well if one actually believes these are instructions from God, they should feel bound to follow them since they surely would not wish to go against God. Does the replacement of covenants mean that the previous laws should not be followed?

They are not just instructions. it takes a deeper understanding to make the intended deductions from the scriptures. circumcision was the mark of the old covenant, but circumcision has been relegated by the new covenant established by faith. So why should a christian circumcise their kid because of an ot injunction? would this not mean a wrong understanding of biblical teachings?

I don't think it's uninformed because I'm basing this opinion on what I've seen quite a number of Christians do.

I have seen a lot of black folks committing fraud. . .does that mean all blacks are fraudsters?

That's part of my question. Do you think it's possible to get to know your God by any other means other than the Bible?

why rule out the bible? let the bible be ur starting point, . . , that way one does not miss God.

This means God simply has a win win situation on his hands. e.g if one is to be healed of all illnesses by faith then gets healed, God takes the credit. If the person decides not to take this literally and opts for medication which also treats the illness, God still gets the credit.

the only basis for a miraculous healing is when there is no medical healing. The medical knowledge we possess today is a GIFT from God.

Another question. What are your best three reasons for concluding that Christianity is actually true?

I have never thought about listing a couple of reasons for believing in Christianity. . talk less of my best three.
but to tease u a bit. . . . here are three

1. true worship makes a believer agnostic. u get to know God personally and feel an inner out pour of peace, direction and purpose. u tap into the love of God.

2. u are at peace with ur maker through the salvation of the cross. an unlimited access to the father.

3. you reign with Christ in eternity. . . , an eternity devoid of the evil of this present world.

noetic16:

1. while we do not know the mind of God or what He intends to do. . .we however know that He does nothing unless he reveals it to his prophets. So God makes revelations of his intentions.

Lots of his prophets seem to have made quite wrong predictions lately. Unless they are actually not his prophets in which case, how can one then determine who his true prophets are?

noetic16:

2. prayer is a communication channel to God. Jesus said whatsoever is asked in his name according to the father's will shall be done. it is also through prayer that we get to know of what God wants to do. prayer is the catalyst to knowing God in an agnostic way.

I'm not sure what you mean by "knowing God in an agnostic way".

noetic16:

This is just your opinion.
why do u not eat the same type of food every single day? because u have the liberty, funds and free will to choose what type of food u want and the source. The same applies to God , . . .he reaches out to all at the liberty of his enormous resources.

Ok. What I'm wondering is if there is any particular reason why God has chosen to limit himself to the use of humans.

noetic16:

You are assuming that there is more than one creator.

I really don't know if there are multiple, one or none.

noetic16:

why is it impossible for humans to have a single ancestor within the last 6000 years?

The evidence we currently have does not agree with such a conclusion considering the presence of various civilzations at different parts of the globe at that time.

noetic16:

because I do not think that biblical claims can fail an objective scientific enquiry.

That's just my point. They have failed such enquiries. Such as Noah's flood, the first ever rainbow etc.

noetic16:

really? is evolution a science? how scientific is evolution? can the pioneer chemical reactions that kick started life be repeated?

Evolution is science. I think you're speaking there of abiogenesis which is not evolution.

noetic16:

thats not the point.
how did this rootless polystrate fossils get to their found location? where was their origin? what could have transported them to their present location other than a global flood?

In many cases, they were formed right there.

noetic16:

They are not just instructions. it takes a deeper understanding to make the intended deductions from the scriptures. circumcision was the mark of the old covenant, but circumcision has been relegated by the new covenant established by faith. So why should a christian circumcise their kid because of an ot injunction? would this not mean a wrong understanding of biblical teachings?

Ok so I get that you feel circumcision is no longer mandatory.
How about the crimes and punishments listed in the Old Testament. Do they also apply?

noetic16:

I have seen a lot of black folks committing fraud. . .does that mean all blacks are fraudsters?

The point I was making is that it is not uninformed but based on what some Christians do based on reasoning from their Bible where such activities are encouraged. Though it seems that according to you, those Christians are misguided.

noetic16:

why rule out the bible? let the bible be your starting point, . . , that way one does not miss God.

That's an acceptable method for you since you already believe but how about one who does not yet believe?

noetic16:

the only basis for a miraculous healing is when there is no medical healing. The medical knowledge we possess today is a GIFT from God.

Do you mean that it occurs if there is no medical healing? Because that means lots of sick people. I don't think it's a gift because several people have worked hard to develop this knowledge. Also, it seems like a strange method of giving gifts because lots of people who could have benefited from them were simply allowed to die.

noetic16:

I have never thought about listing a couple of reasons for believing in Christianity. . talk less of my best three.
but to tease u a bit. . . . here are three

1. true worship makes a believer agnostic. u get to know God personally and feel an inner out pour of peace, direction and purpose. u tap into the love of God.

I'm not sure what you mean here but agnostic means that the person does not know i.e more like undecided.

noetic16:

2. u are at peace with your maker through the salvation of the cross. an unlimited access to the father.

This requires prior beliefs that I think one accepts based on faith i.e with little evidence.

noetic16:

3. you reign with Christ in eternity. . . , an eternity devoid of the evil of this present world.

This one cannot determine until death.

OLAADEGBU:

My last count of your response to the threads I started was 70 posts out of just 8 topics!  If that is not an obsession then I don't know what it is.  I also noted that you started this fixation when I started posting threads like "Atheist goes to hell" and "Divine revelation of hell", that is why I suggest that reading the Bible would scare the hell out of you.

What I was speaking of is number of your posts i.e topics I had replied in. Though from what you've posted here, it seems I've already replied in 8 of your topics. I guess I was more prolific at posting than I thought. Anyway, replying in 8 of your topics out of 111 does not seem to me to be obsessive.

Like I said, to be scared, one must first believe it. Or do you think one should also be scared of poltergeists?

jesus.:

U can decide to be more direct or even use more offensive words rather than the euphemism of disinformation adopted by your self, i careless. Get it the 'all knowing ability' which i used in describing u is in quote, i hope u understand with your wrong guesses and errors u make and later say ' i rectified it'

It seems you're quite confused. You claimed that I know too much. It seems that I have now come across a person that has not made any errors.

jesus.:

See above OLAADEGBU has defended himself. Its called obsession. Rem hes a man and not a woman just imagine
'My last count of your response to the threads I started was 70 posts out of just 8 topics!'
I just shake my head imagining the sort of person u are

Of course keep shaking your head. You should first try to understand what was being counted.

jesus.:

Cos u done it in the past and could possibly repeat such errors here

The logical approach would have been for you to wait until such an incident occurred here.

jesus.:

The lies in your comments were. U said the guy defended the pope on the gay issue, whereas he never said any thing about gay marriage. What can u call that

And what was the topic of the thread? You really seem to have some comprehension issues.

jesus.:

Yes a good example is u the 'all knowing homer'

You should try to realize that you are making claims about me that I'm trying to point out to you as being unreasonable.

jesus.:

Yes but not with people like u

Of course not.

jesus.:

Why don't u go re-read the scenario to see what im talking about. Guy its isnt applicable at all

I think you need to clarify what you were saying then.

jesus.:

But its possible to ask irrelevant or insensible questions at times

And what's the relevance of this statement? You can point out the questions I asked that were irrelevant or the ones that seem insensible to you. I've done the same for one of yours but you seem unable to grasp what you posted.

jesus.:

Rem u are 'all knowing' try to figure it out. Im not like u that makes rectification. Go read again to get the gist

Your confusion is starting to show glaringly. You claimed I was all knowing. I've pointed out to you that what you posted made little sense to me. I was hoping that you would clarify it.
Here it is for anyone who can interpret it for me to understand what you're trying to say.

This is increadible. where did u get this logic from? OMG i hope u wouldnt want to discuss with noetic with this kind or reasoning.  If u do that im sure this thread might not end well. U mean for u to advice on a subject implies u have 'probably had some opinions on the topic at hand'?
So no man/woman could possibly give advice with prior knowledge or experience on the subject?

jesus.:

You are a bloody liar Why then did u post this

Here is my original quote. It also looks like you have some problems understanding the order of the sentence.

Pending his arrival, would you like to attempt them? Since you have a handle similar to that of the "Son of God", you might have some previously unconsidered insight.

You may wish to note that the question (the sentence that ended with the question mark) came before the name comparison.

jesus.:

and later said thisDid u first asked or guessed?

It seems you're deeply confused. You should realize that whenever you post on a thread, your handle appears right beside it. That was how I knew what it was.

jesus.:

How does it affect your life?

It doesn't but you seem so hung up on it that I had to ask to clear up all the noise you're trying to generate here.

jesus.:

What other concept were there. One was on the issue of the pope and gay marriage whilst the other was on whether all the unanswerables for science could be attributted to a metaphysical being. And on both threads u made frivolous posts.

Of course that would be your opinion. I wonder, how do you decide on what makes a post frivolous? It seems you really dislike having evidence presented to you. If you're this interested, you can still comment on those threads I don't think they're locked yet.

jesus.:

U talked about new testament which one is it?
No u ve not
How do u know God has a son?

And here you are asking questions that have been answered.

I just have to shake my head at a character such as yourself. Deepsight tried to explain the basic stuff to you to save you from embarrassing yourself but you just seem determined to continue doing that. 

thehomer:

What I was speaking of is number of your posts i.e topics I had replied in. Though from what you've posted here, it seems I've already replied in 8 of your topics. I guess I was more prolific at posting than I thought. Anyway, replying in 8 of your topics out of 111 does not seem to me to be obsessive.

Like I said, to be scared, one must first believe it. Or do you think one should also be scared of poltergeists?

Yes, that's what 'am talking about. All of your 70 posts bar 1 were all posted this year alone, and you know that you were stretching the truth when you said that you only replied in 7 of my threads/topics, stretching the truth always have its own way of coming back to haunt you, and as they say "Nothing else ruins the truth like stretching it".

Your conscience that is pulling your attention to your moral lapses should be heeded because you got no choice other than to be accountable and responsible to your Creator God. My sincere advise to you is to heed the Master's Whistle.

OLAADEGBU:

Yes, that's what 'am talking about. All of your 70 posts bar 1 were all posted this year alone, and you know that you were stretching the truth when you said that you only replied in 7 of my threads/topics, stretching the truth always have its own way of coming back to haunt you, and as they say "Nothing else ruins the truth like stretching it".

How many of your topics have I responded in? How many does it take for it to be deemed obsessive? Though there may not be a number but I don't think that a response in less than half of the topics you've started can even begin to be considered obsessive.

OLAADEGBU:

Your conscience that is pulling your attention to your moral lapses should be heeded because you got no choice other than to be accountable and responsible to your Creator God. My sincere advise to you is to heed the Master's Whistle.

Moral lapses?

@ mazaje and thehomer

I am not in a good frame of mind to answer ur posers now. but please be rest assured I will be back to answer all ur posers.

with love from noetic.

thehomer:

How many of your topics have I responded in? How many does it take for it to be deemed obsessive? Though there may not be a number but I don't think that a response in less than half of the topics you've started can even begin to be considered obsessive.

Let me put it in other words, there is something you are looking for to fill the gap in your heart and that thing can only be found in Jesus Christ. You reject the idea of there being a Creator Being who demands morality from His creation. So, to escape from the condemnation of your conscience you must deny the existence of God so as to deny the moral pull of your conscience.

thehomer:

Moral lapses?

The moral pull of your conscience will tell you why you choose to rebel against your Creator if you answer these questions conscientiously.

Have I always loved God my Creator with all my heart, mind, soul and strength? ____YES ___NO
Have I made a god in my own image? a god to suit myself? ____YES ___NO
Have I ever used God's name in vain? ____YES ___NO
Have I kept the Sabbath holy? ____YES ___NO
Have I always honoured my parents implicitly? ____YES ___NO
Have I murdered (God considers hatred as murder)? ____YES ___NO
Have I committed adultery (including premarital sex and lust)? ____YES ___NO
Have I stolen (the value is irrelevant)? ____YES ___NO
Have I lied (including fibs and these questions)? ____YES ___NO
Have I coveted (been greedy or materialistic)? ____YES ___NO

I first felt the need not to reply the bull.crap u ve posted, but nonetheless i would still do to expose ur folly

thehomer:

It seems you're quite confused . You claimed that I know too much. It seems that I have now come across a person that has not made any errors.

You are the confused one if u don't know as can be depicted from ur posts
Your errors of mis calculation/judgement kept on occurring even on this same thread that u authored. ur 'knowing too much' is in quote as revealed in my posts

thehomer:

Of course keep shaking your head. You should first try to understand what was being counted.

Why wouldn't i? who's doing the counting and who made the number error?

thehomer:

The logical approach would have been for you to wait until such an incident occurred here.

Yea i indeed waited and discovered that u said 7 topics wheres u posted in 8. no?

thehomer:

And what was the topic of the thread? You really seem to have some comprehension issues.

Hear this guy, ur comprehension challenge is incredible. Let me help u out. There were two things on the thread that concerns the pope. gay marriage and abortion. U both were arguing on just one of it which is abortion and he(toba) said nothing about the other subject, but out of ur overzealousness u alleged that he was defending the pope on the other subject which he never did. Go review the post to see if what i said about u is wrong u liar

thehomer:

You should try to realize that you are making claims about me that I'm trying to point out to you as being unreasonable.

The claims are based on ur antecedence no? yet u did the same thing i said here again

thehomer:

Of course not.

Yes i cant even imagine such

thehomer:

I think you need to clarify what you were saying then.

I know u would claim u didnt get the gist as u seldom do. U brought up a scenario on the previous page, im simply telling that ur scenario isnt applicable here. Thats all.

thehomer:

And what's the relevance of this statement? You can point out the questions I asked that were irrelevant or the ones that seem insensible to you. I've done the same for one of yours but you seem unable to grasp what you posted.

U see u have a great challenge, was my statement a question mr ITK?
here it is again

jesus. on Yesterday at 11:22:31 AM]
But its possible to ask irrelevant or insensible questions at times
[/quote]
May be u ve done that before or intend to do such now or later


[quote author=thehomer:

Your confusion is starting to show glaringly. You claimed I was all knowing. I've pointed out to you that what you posted made little sense to me. I was hoping that you would clarify it.
Here it is for anyone who can interpret it for me to understand what you're trying to say.

If u weren't confused u should have gotten it easily. Let me help u out. U said if any one advices, then by implication the advisor must know about the subject. I simply asked does it mean no one can advice except he/she has prior knowledge of the subject. Thats the question are to help ur comprehension challenge

thehomer:

Here is my original quote. It also looks like you have some problems understanding the order of the sentence.

I ve said it, that are a liar and a bloody one. I challenged on why u were doubting that jesus wasnt my real world name other than it being a 'handle' for the forum

This is a quote from OLAADEGBU to u 'Yes, that's what 'am talking about. All of your 70 posts bar 1 were all posted this year alone, a[b]nd you know that you were stretching the truth [/b] when you said that you only replied in 7 of my threads/topics, stretching the truth always have its own way of coming back to haunt you, and as they say "Nothing else ruins the truth like stretching it".'

Thats exactly what u are doing lies lies and lies

thehomer:

You may wish to note that the question (the sentence that ended with the question mark) came before the name comparison.

Lying again im talking about ur doubt about my real name being jesus and not on the issue of comparison. Stop pretending and get really guy.
Which one came first? ur guess or the asking about my real name? why didn't u ask about the name being jesus before u jumped the gun and referring to it as a 'handle' on NL was the point i was making. Stop lying Mr

thehomer:

It seems you're deeply confused. You should realize that whenever you post on a thread, your handle appears right beside it. That was how I knew what it was.

Who’s talking about this with u? U should be telling this to ur self and not to me mr u are simply confused. Read my statement before this one and get ITK. The gist is about ur guess that's not been factual

thehomer:

It doesn't but you seem so hung up on it that I had to ask to clear up all the noise you're trying to generate here.

What noise have u cleared? Rather u’re making more

thehomer:

Of course that would be your opinion. I wonder, how do you decide on what makes a post frivolous? It seems you really dislike having evidence presented to you. If you're this interested, you can still comment on those threads I don't think they're locked yet.

What evidence(s) have u provided? Like u said 'u need to connect to the internet'. Then Google/ask from online dictionary meaning of the word frivolous and check with ur posts on the threads in question to see if there isn't a match

thehomer:

And here you are asking questions that have been answered.

I just have to shake my head at a character such as yourself. Deepsight tried to explain the basic stuff to you to save you from embarrassing yourself but you just seem determined to continue doing that.

Show me where u ve answered the questions. 'Which new testament are u talking about' and 'how do u know God has a son'
U are the one embarrassing ur self with lies and mis calculation

noetic16:

@ mazaje and thehomer

I am not in a good frame of mind to answer your posers now. but please be rest assured I will be back to answer all your posers.

with love from noetic.

Ok.

OLAADEGBU:

Let me put it in other words, there is something you are looking for to fill the gap in your heart and that thing can only be found in Jesus Christ. You reject the idea of there being a Creator Being who demands morality from His creation. So, to escape from the condemnation of your conscience you must deny the existence of God so as to deny the moral pull of your conscience.

What you still fail to realize is that some regard your concept of a Creator Being similar to that of Thor. So do you think people wander round the world not believing in Thor to escape condemnation of their conscience?

OLAADEGBU:

The moral pull of your conscience will tell you why you choose to rebel against your Creator if you answer these questions conscientiously.

Have I always loved God my Creator with all my heart, mind, soul and strength? ____YES ___NO
Have I made a god in my own image? a god to suit myself? ____YES ___NO
Have I ever used God's name in vain? ____YES ___NO
Have I kept the Sabbath holy? ____YES ___NO
Have I always honoured my parents implicitly? ____YES ___NO
Have I murdered (God considers hatred as murder)? ____YES ___NO
Have I committed adultery (including premarital sex and lust)? ____YES ___NO
Have I stolen (the value is irrelevant)? ____YES ___NO
Have I lied (including fibs and these questions)? ____YES ___NO
Have I coveted (been greedy or materialistic)? ____YES ___NO

You may replace the first three with a reference to Thor to get a better perspective.
The fourth, you may also ask if I keep Thursday holy.
The others I satisfy or not as I see fit.

thehomer:

What you still fail to realize is that some regard your concept of a Creator Being similar to that of Thor. So do you think people wander round the world not believing in Thor to escape condemnation of their conscience?

The Creator Being referred to is the One who Created the conscience that condemns you which you are trying to muzzle with your false ideologies.  So, wake up and smell the coffee.

thehomer:

You may replace the first three with a reference to Thor to get a better perspective.
The fourth, you may also ask if I keep Thursday holy.
The others I satisfy or not as I see fit.

As I said earlier let your conscience answer the questions and let it bypass your mind that is corrupted with the evolutionary myth.  And if you want me to translate the Moral Law to you in a language you will understand maybe you will see where your moral lapses lies.

[list]
1.  I am the Lord thy God, thou shalt not have any other gods before me.
         I'm God.  Don't play me.
[/list]

[list]
2.  Thou shalt not have any graven images
           Don't be makin no hood ornaments and charms out of me, or like me.
[/list]
[list]
3.  Thou shalt not use the name of the Lord thy God in vain
         Don't be callin' me for no reason.
[/list]
[list]
4.  Remember to keep the Sabbath day holy
          Y'all betta be in church on Sunday, and not just the Sundays when it's Mother's day, Easter and Christmas
[/list]
[list]
5.  Honour thy father and thy mother
          Don't Diss or cuss out yo momma,  and if you know who ya daddy is, don't Diss him neither.
[/list]
[list]
6.  Thou shalt not kill
          Don't be goin' on no drive bys.
[/list]
[list]
7.  Thou shalt not commit adultery   
         Stick to ya own Boo.
[/list]
[list]
8.  Thou shalt not steal
          Don't be borrow'n stuff and don't give it back.
[/list]
[list]
9.  Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy brother
          Don't be snitchin' on the otha' man to save your behind.
[/list]
[list]
10.  Thou shalt not covet anything that belongs to thy brother.
            Don't be eyein' (skeeming) yo homie's crib, ride, woman, or nuffin.
[/list]

[img width=500 height=200]http://www.answersingenesis.org/assets/images/media/cartoons/creationwise/ThinkethCW.gif[/img]

Homer Simpson -

Might I ask you this -

Is it the Religious Theist's perception and definition of GOD that you reject OR -

Do you entirely reject any notion that may be propounded as to the existence of a supreme creator.

If for example that creator is defined as - "An eternal self-existent element responsible for all that exists" - would you have a problem with such?

jesus.:

I first felt the need not to reply the bull.crap u ve posted, but nonetheless i would still do to expose your folly
You are the confused one if u don't know as can be depicted from your posts
Your errors of mis calculation/judgement kept on occurring even on this same thread that u authored. your 'knowing too much' is in quote as revealed in my posts

Wow you must really love being embarrassed.

jesus.:

Why wouldn't i? who's doing the counting and who made the number error?
Yea i indeed waited and discovered that u said 7 topics wheres u posted in 8. no?

So do you actually think posting in 8 out of 111 is obsessive? You now also wish to add a poor ability of evaluation to the mix.

jesus.:

Hear this guy, your comprehension challenge is incredible. Let me help u out. There were two things on the thread that concerns the pope. gay marriage and abortion. U both were arguing on just one of it which is abortion and he(toba) said nothing about the other subject, but out of your overzealousness u alleged that he was defending the pope on the other subject which he never did. Go review the post to see if what i said about u is wrong u liar

There you've stated it. The thread was about two issues being considered simultaneously. And you claim to be able to understand.

jesus.:

The claims are based on your antecedence no? yet u did the same thing i said here again
Yes i cant even imagine such
I know u would claim u didnt get the gist as u seldom do. U brought up a scenario on the previous page, im simply telling that your scenario isnt applicable here. Thats all.

What do you mean? I already told you that the reason for this thread was from the previous one. You really need to resolve your confusion or clarify what you're saying.

jesus.:

U see u have a great challenge, was my statement a question mr ITK?
here it is againMay be u ve done that before or intend to do such now or later

This coming from you? Just read the question in the first line of your quote.

jesus.:

If u weren't confused u should have gotten it easily. Let me help u out. U said if any one advices, then by implication the advisor must know about the subject. I simply asked does it mean no one can advice except he/she has prior knowledge of the subject. Thats the question are to help your comprehension challenge

I see. How did you expect me to understand that from the below quote? Also, what do you mean by the last sentence there?

U mean for u to advice on a subject implies u have 'probably had some opinions on the topic at hand'?
So no man/woman could possibly give advice with prior knowledge or experience on the subject?

Do you think they seem to mean the same thing?
Any way, do you see the sort of reasoning you're demonstrating here? Would you offer advice if you know nothing about the subject being discussed? Would you listen to a person who knows nothing about the subject being discussed? Your poor logic knows no bounds.  

jesus.:

I ve said it, that are a liar and a bloody one. I challenged on why u were doubting that jesus wasnt my real world name other than it being a 'handle' for the forum

There is no reason for me to take it as your real name but it is your handle on this forum. Again, you may wish to note that many nairalanders do not use their real names here; just handles.

jesus.:

This is a quote from OLAADEGBU to u 'Yes, that's what 'am talking about.  All of your 70 posts bar 1 were all posted this year alone, a[b]nd you know that you were stretching the truth [/b] when you said that you only replied in 7 of my threads/topics, stretching the truth always have its own way of coming back to haunt you, and as they say "Nothing else ruins the truth like stretching it".'

Again, responding in 7 or 8 or 20 out of 111 is obsessive? You need to get your ability of evaluating proportionality checked.

jesus.:

Thats exactly what u are doing lies lies and liesLying again im talking about your doubt about my real name being jesus and not on the issue of comparison. Stop pretending and get really guy.
Which one came first? your guess or the asking about my real name? why didn't u ask about the name being jesus before u jumped the gun and referring to it as a 'handle' on NL was the point i was making. Stop lying Mr

Which ever came first I'm asking now, is it your real name? You must really love trying to evade but you just don't know how to do it.

jesus.:

Who’s talking about this with u? U should be telling this to your self and not to me mr u are simply confused. Read my statement before this one and get ITK. The gist is about your guess that's not been factual
What noise have u cleared? Rather u’re making more

Again your confusion manifests itself.

jesus.:

What evidence(s) have u provided? Like u said 'u need to connect to the internet'. Then Google/ask from online dictionary meaning of the word frivolous and check with your posts on the threads in question to see if there isn't a match

For evidence presented, review the responses I've given on some of OLAADEGBU's threads.
I see that you're still learning to use the quotation marks. I see you wish to redefine frivolous. You really need to review my posts on the relevant topics.

jesus.:

Show me where u ve answered the questions. 'Which new testament are u talking about' and 'how do u know God has a son'
U are the one embarrassing your self with lies and mis calculation

I already answered them on #18
You need to stop embarrassing yourself here.

OLAADEGBU:

The Creator Being referred to is the One who Created the conscience that condemns you which you are trying to muzzle with your false ideologies.  So, wake up and smell the coffee.

And does this Creator Being have a name? How do I know it's not Thor?

OLAADEGBU:

As I said earlier let your conscience answer the questions and let it bypass your mind that is corrupted with the evolutionary myth.  And if you want me to translate the Moral Law to you in a language you will understand maybe you will see where your moral lapses lies.

[list]
1.  I am the Lord thy God, thou shalt not have any other gods before me.
         I'm God.  Don't play me.
[/list]

[list]
2.  Thou shalt not have any graven images
           Don't be makin no hood ornaments and charms out of me, or like me.
[/list]
[list]
3.  Thou shalt not use the name of the Lord thy God in vain
         Don't be callin' me for no reason.
[/list]
[list]
4.  Remember to keep the Sabbath day holy
          Y'all betta be in church on Sunday, and not just the Sundays when it's Mother's day, Easter and Christmas
[/list]
[list]
5.  Honour thy father and thy mother
          Don't Diss or cuss out yo momma,  and if you know who ya daddy is, don't Diss him neither.
[/list]
[list]
6.  Thou shalt not kill
          Don't be goin' on no drive bys.
[/list]
[list]
7.  Thou shalt not commit adultery   
         Stick to ya own Boo.
[/list]
[list]
8.  Thou shalt not steal
          Don't be borrow'n stuff and don't give it back.
[/list]
[list]
9.  Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy brother
          Don't be snitchin' on the otha' man to save your behind.
[/list]
[list]
10.  Thou shalt not covet anything that belongs to thy brother.
            Don't be eyein' (skeeming) yo homie's crib, ride, woman, or nuffin.
[/list]

My answer remains the same no matter how you wish to phrase it. You simply need a different set of rules.
For some reason, it seems that you don't understand that people can have a different view about your opinion of a God.

Deep Sight:

Homer Simpson -

It's more like a homing bird or homing missile or maybe Homer the legendary Greek. But hey every one loves Homer Simpson.

Deep Sight:

Might I ask you this -

Is it the Religious Theist's perception and definition of GOD that you reject OR -

Do you entirely reject any notion that may be propounded as to the existence of a supreme creator.

If for example that creator is defined as - "An eternal self-existent element responsible for all that exists" - would you have a problem with such?

It's more of the first that I tend to reject. The second I tend to ignore since if such an entity did exist, it does not bother with me nor I it. If I do reject such a notion, it would probably be on the basis of logic.

^^^ So do you reject the notion, and on what logic, then?

Does the law of cause and effect not presuppose an ultimate cause for all things?

thehomer:

And does this Creator Being have a name? How do I know it's not Thor?

Don't bother your head about His name, would you believe Him if I told you His name? why don't you find out?  Start with the known before you launch into the unknown.  Your conscience was created by this Creator Being and no matter how fast and far you run you cannot run away from your shadow.

thehomer:

My answer remains the same no matter how you wish to phrase it. You simply need a different set of rules.
For some reason, it seems that you don't understand that people can have a different view about your opinion of a God.

Even if you refuse to read or believe the Moral Law the hardware is written in your conscience, the written inspired Moral Law only reminds you of what your conscience has been alarming you of.

Deep Sight:

^^^ So do you reject the notion, and on what logic, then?

Just to be clear, I cannot just reject them all due to the various methods that some may wish to use to compose a concept and call that concept God.

Your example definition of a creator seems quite curious because I'm not sure if this creator you're talking about is conscious as we understand it i.e has motives, desires etc.

Deep Sight:

Does the law of cause and effect not presuppose an ultimate cause for all things?

Not really. We cannot say if it applies to the universe as a whole because for cause and effect to make sense, a dimension of time needs to be included and time as we currently understand it began with the beginning of this universe.

OLAADEGBU:

Don't bother your head about His name, would you believe Him if I told you His name/ why don't you find out? Start with the known before you launch into the unknown. Your conscience was created by this Creator Being and no matter how fast and far you run you cannot run away from your shadow.

Do you have any good evidence of the creation of my conscience?

OLAADEGBU:

Even if you refuse to read or believe the Moral Law the hardware is written in your conscience, the written inspired Moral Law only reminds you of what your conscience has been alarming you of.

Some of the laws you mentioned had nothing to do with morality.
Which one of them is the "Moral Law"?

@ Mr. H. Simpson -

I vehemently disagree that time is a thing that can be 'created' at all: much less by the big bang. I do not subscribe to the notion that time was created at the moment of the big bang. Please review the arguments here and let me have your comments -

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria?topic=328837.msg4649034#msg4649034

And also to discuss the nature of Time -

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-327706.0.html

Deep Sight:

@ Mr. H. Simpson -

I vehemently disagree that time is a thing that can be 'created' at all: much less by the big bang. I do not subscribe to the notion that time was created at the moment of the big bang. Please review the arguments here and let me have your comments -

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria?topic=328837.msg4649034#msg4649034

And also to discuss the nature of Time -

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-327706.0.html

I never said or implied that time was created because the way I understand it, creation requires a conscious desire and I don't agree with the concept of a disembodied mind.
So what I'm saying is that time as we perceive it in this universe began with the big bang since that was the beginning of the expansion of this universe and all that's in it. We simply cannot claim or point to some other reference point of time outside of this universe.

@ mazaje

So many of them, I will list just 3, the exodus from Egypt, Noah's flood and the resurrection of all the Jewish saints who walked round the city of Jerusalem for all to see which the bible alleges took place on the day that Jesus was crucified. . . .All these have been shown to be FALSE claims by the bible. . . . .

1. you disbelieve the exodus account simply because you doubt the veracity of the records. You discredit the non-biblical records that support exodus and scream foul that the exodus was an attempt by the jews to create an identity for themselves,  . . . .mazaje we have had this debate before and I will repeat what I said to u then. . . , your position on the exodus account is just an OPINION. . . . the exodus account has not been proven wrong. . that u disbelieve it does not make it false.

2. what explanation do u have for the rootless polystrate fossils . . .  .until u give me a plausible explanation that contradicts the need for a global flood to transport these fossils and the notion of the world being as it is now in the days of Noah. ,   .my take is that Noah's flood is scientifically plausible. . . .can u prove me wrong?

3. The Jewish resurrection was a spiritual context. your attempt to make literal meaning of it is jejune. where is the holy city mentioned in that scripture? is it a physical city or a spiritual one?

FALSE, the Tanakkah(Old testament) was written both as a historical document and as a form of heritage and identity, your claim about the bible being a prayer and faith tool is NOT true, because a simple reading of the book says it is much more than what you are trying to make it to be. . .  .

who does the Tanakkah point to? who does it lay emphasis on?. . . God.
if u cannot understand that the centre/focus of the scripture is God then u cannot understand the emphasis on faith and prayer. That the bible is used as an historical reference does not mean that that was what it was intended for.

Its unacceptable to suggest that apostle Paul was writing letters to the romans to serve as a historical tool for the jews. . .were the romans jews?

False, The big bang theory despite its flaws better explains the existence of the universe and how it came about FAR better than the 2 DIFFERENT creation accounts we have in the bible, the accounts in genesis 1 and 2 were written by 2 different people over two different periods and that is the FACT. . . . . . .No body is saying that the universe came about by accident, people that are concerned are looking into it and they have made a lot of progress even though they haven't gone there yet. . . .You can start a topic and lets compare the biblical claims of origin written in genesis with the big bang theory and lets see which one  of the 2 has the support of the observable evidence we see around us. . . . . .

1. on one hand you acknowledge the flaws of the big bang, yet on the other hand u consider it plausible. Your argument is as such not influenced by logic or reasoning, it is influenced by sentiments best defined as faith. . . .your faith that Christianity is wrong and atheism is right. . .fine.

2. The big bang is not scientifically or intellectually plausibel, unless u are being dishonest. how cn u explain to a 5 year old kid that the intelligent existence of this universe is an accidental occurrence? . . .that sounds quite dumb to me.

3. The two accounts of Genesis are one and the same. Genesis 1 explains creation for God's point of view and Genesis 2 tells us from human point of view. An objective analysis of the two accounts will give a plausible illustration as to the manifestation of the works of God.

4. and what observable evidence does the big bang have? am I missing something?

According to the bible the Noah's flood took place about 4500 years ago, pls do you have any scientific evidence to show that the continents were all together in one place 4500 years ago? The scientific evidence shows that the continents broke apart millions of years ago not 4500 years ago. . . .

1. on what basis do u accept the carbon dating system as perfect in the fac of its flaws?

2. Science agrees that continents broke apart. . .the disagreement is over the time this happened. I ask you this simple question. . . .is a global flood possible in a world without divided continents?

Historical evidence from other cultures show that the Noah's flood REMAINS a myth(no wonder many christians are now claiming was only a local flood due to the lack of evidence) . . . .If you read up about the nation of Gojoseon in the Korean peninsula you wil learn that it came in to power in 2333 BCE after the end of the Bai-dal kingdom, just 15 years after the supposed date of the Flood (2348 BCE). . . . . .

blah blah blah

You accept historical evidences when they suit your preconceived notions and dogmas. . but when they dont u cry fr scientific evidence. . .please be real. ,  there is no room for historical or cultural myths in this discussion.

noetic16:

@ mazaje


1. you disbelieve the exodus account simply because you doubt the veracity of the records. You discredit the non-biblical records that support exodus and scream foul that the exodus was an attempt by the jews to create an identity for themselves,  . . . .mazaje we have had this debate before and I will repeat what I said to u then. . . , your position on the exodus account is just an OPINION. . . . the exodus account has not been proven wrong. . that u disbelieve it does not make it false.

WHERE are the non biblical records that support the exodus as narrated in the bible, PLEASE bring them on lets examine them. . . .The Exodus narative has been proven to be FALSE, There is NO archeological evidence to support the exodus narrative , if you have any archeological evidence form Archeologist not crazy christian pseudo archeologist then pls bring it on. . . . . .

2. what explanation do u have for the rootless polystrate fossils . . .  .until u give me a plausible explanation that contradicts the need for a global flood to transport these fossils and the notion of the world being as it is now in the days of Noah. ,   .my take is that Noah's flood is scientifically plausible. . . .can u prove me wrong?

We have been through this before, from I got this geological explanation for the formation of polystrate fossils from wikipedia. . .

I[b]n geology, such fossils are referred to as upright fossils, trunks, or trees. Brief periods of rapid sedimentation favor their formation. Upright fossils are typically found in layers associated with an actively subsiding coastal plain or rift basin, or with the accumulation of volcanic material around a periodically erupting stratovolcano. Typically, this period of rapid sedimentation was followed by a period of time, decades to thousands of years long, characterized by very slow or no accumulation of sediments. In river deltas  and other coastal plain settings, rapid sedimentation is often the end result of a brief period of accelerated subsidence of an area of coastal plain relative to sea level caused by salt tectonics, global sea level rise, growth faulting, continental margin collapse, or some combination of these factors[/b].

We don't even have to go into any scntific explanation at all, HISTORY disprves the Noah's flood because there were civilizations in places like China, India, Egypt and other parts of the world that were thriving during  and after the period of the so called global flood. . .

3. The Jewish resurrection was a spiritual context. your attempt to make literal meaning of it is jejune. where is the holy city mentioned in that scripture? is it a physical city or a spiritual one?

Why do you keep shooting yourself in the foot, where is it written in the story that the Jewish resurrection is a spiritual context? If that is the case then the alleged resurrection of Jesus is also a spiritual context and not a literal event. . . . .Was the massacre of the innocent that is recorded in the bible also of spiritual context, or what the census that was conducted also o spiritual context? what about the trial of Jesus by the Sanhedrin is it also of spiritual context? How do you know what is of spiritual context and what is not? This assertion is yours not that of the writer, a simple reading of the passage shows that it is not a spiritual narrative but a literal narrative, I will only take your claims seriously if you provide evidence from the text that supports your assertions. .  .

who does the Tanakkah point to? who does it lay emphasis on?. . . God.
if u cannot understand that the centre/focus of the scripture is God then u cannot understand the emphasis on faith and prayer. That the bible is used as an historical reference does not mean that that was what it was intended for.

All I know is that the ancient Jews have been using the BOTH as a historical and a spiritual book of guidance for ages. . . Mordern knowledge is what completely changed that line of thought, a simple reading of the OT will tell you that . . . . . . .

Its unacceptable to suggest that apostle Paul was writing letters to the romans to serve as a historical tool for the jews. . .were the romans jews?

I was referring to the OT. . .

1. on one hand you acknowledge the flaws of the big bang, yet on the other hand u consider it plausible. Your argument is as such not influenced by logic or reasoning, it is influenced by sentiments best defined as faith. . . .your faith that Christianity is wrong and atheism is right. . .fine.

2. The big bang is not scientifically or intellectually plausibel, unless u are being dishonest. how cn u explain to a 5 year old kid that the intelligent existence of this universe is an accidental occurrence? . . .that sounds quite dumb to me.

Where does the big bang state that the existence of the Universe is an accidental occurrence? It seems you are just making stuffs up and running commentary on them. . , .The big bang model is scientific and it has scientific evidence to back it up. . . . . .

3. The two accounts of Genesis are one and the same. Genesis 1 explains creation for God's point of view and Genesis 2 tells us from human point of view. An objective analysis of the two accounts will give a plausible illustration as to the manifestation of the works of God.

Where in the bible does it say that genesis 1 explains the creation in God's point of view and Genesis 2 an explanation from man's point of view, If that is the case when did God create the stars in genesis 2? Where did he create light and when did he create the sun in genesis 2?. . . . . The FACT of the matter is that both creation accounts are different, they were written by different people over different periods, in fact most scholars agree that genesis 2 was written before genesis on and genesis 1 is a priestly commentary on genesis 2

4. and what observable evidence does the big bang have? am I missing something?

Pls do a little study on the Big bang theory and you will see it for yourself. . . . .

1. on what basis do u accept the carbon dating system as perfect in the fac of its flaws?

Carbon dating is not the only method of dating available. . . . . .Scientist have been able to provide some evidence to support their assertions, where is yours?

2. Science agrees that continents broke apart. . .the disagreement is over the time this happened. I ask you this simple question. . . .is a global flood possible in a world without divided continents?

Do you have any evidence to show that the continent were all together just about 4500 years ago?. . . . .If you do pls bring it on and stop attacking science and the scientific process. . . . . .

blah blah blah

You accept historical evidences when they suit your preconceived notions and dogmas. . but when they dont u cry fr scientific evidence. . .please be real. , there is no room for historical or cultural myths in this discussion.

There is VERY rich historical narratives from other cultures that date over 10,000 years ago, there is also rich information from other cultures that date back to the time of the Noah's flood, that alone falsifies the global flood account. . . . .