LordReed:


You are the one talking about possibilities but now you reject this one. What is evident in my case is the remnants of my Christian bias brought about by indoctrination which is not easily discarded. I don't see any tendencies in you but since we are talking about possibilities let's also lay that one out there.

Reject? You aren't reading me well most times. You will need to observe my usage of words well. I am a detailed and careful person especially when discussing what affect a man's eternity. So, I can easily know when you aren't paying attention to what I write.

So, I asked you if there are tendencies you see, you said no. Good. Hence that limits the possibilities.

But. I have seen tendencies in you for a victory at last over every high thoughts in your mind. So I am speaking on this possibilities because I have seen you checked all the points of a man close to being seated with Christ and in Christ. Hence the time is near.

LordReed:


Indeed, just like you may one day also become an atheist.

Have you seen this tendencies in me? Because I have seen yours? And they are evident.

LordReed:


Well your opinion is wrong since I have no intention of ever becoming religious in any sense of the word.

Many things we found ourselves in overtime in life never started as intention but can end in intention. Things happen, that's the beauty of life.

LordReed:


Yes you people always know me better than myself. Just so that we are clear, is this a prophecy or you saw it in dream? LMFAO!

Prophecy? Saw you? That means I must have eaten jollof rice to sleep such night.

I gave you my personal opinion. But like I said, it's not needed for discussion.

Workch:
why not?

Good, hope my views will be welcome.

LordReed:


Sure it's a possibility but I wanted to know if you have actual facts which as always is lacking.


Do you mean me converting to Christianity? Not even if I was granted a million lifetimes.

I pointed you to the fact that I said "it seems" but it also seems you have a target or opinion to hold. You will be the one to start reading with a good mindset to avoid reading like this.

So, you could see that you are the one always making assumptions.

On you and Christianity issues. It's not a discussion. I have seen people use words like "over my dead body", yet their bodies refused to die when reality dawn.

So, don't let us put it up for discussion, I just pointed out what I know, that you are closer to the end of that "a million lifetimes" you needed, where you can now receive the gospel afterwards.

Workch:
We have a group for irreligious people in Lagos. We have a lot of fun here and we are holding a hangout by next month to have more fun.

Drop your number and I will tell the admin to add you.

Or you can send me a mail at workch6@outlook.com

Am I invited? I want to chill with this your group with my Bible in my hands and the gospel in my mouth.

Can we chill?

Workch:
You see that you don't tolerate those that don't share your opinion?
You believe your God is superior and that's how religious extremism and terrorism starts. I can't allow you place your God over other peoples gods

You need to respect my opinion that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is equally valid as your God.

Tolerate?
Hope you are in front of a mirror to see the reflection of your words staring at you?

LordReed:


Who are the intelligent atheists that have been converted?

"it seems"

That was my text. That means it can be one of the possibilities because these days such atheists are fewer.

But aren't you okay with that? Atheist conversion? I see you a step closer, just a last leg-wide jump and you are there.

SSIPON:
most people would not have any problems with religion, if it is not used as a basis to run the country and justify senseless laws.

1. You still assumed here and confirmed my post, by using most people. That's an assumption. Even on nairaland here, the numbers of these set can't be called most.


2. Use your PVC/right to vote who you want, not holding unto another man's belief. In a system of government where you can decide, please use the power of that "most people" and get your irreligious candidate there.

I wonder how you can have a religious person governing you in the first place, if "most people" have issues with that. That means the most aren't being smart or aren't most.


3. it's a convenience to have issues with another man's belief on the basis of his commitment to it. It's a lazy convenience.

There are only bad leaders and good leaders. That is it. We have irreligious leaders who are bad, we have religious leaders who are good. So it's a poor yardstick for governance.

That is how leadership is judge not base on religion, tribe, race or family. If he is good, keep him, if he is bad, remove him.

---

4. Lastly, read this well.
The one who judge governance by a man's religions has the same problem with the one who govern using his religion. They have the same mentality, same mindset. A poor one. Because their mindset is captivated on the circle of:

- One of them feel, religion is what can make me do well in governance.

- The other feel, religion is what make people do bad in governance.

Both stands have lost focus on the essence of good governance. And start picking stones. They will both produce bad leadership with such mindset.

SSIPON:
Athiest: someone who believes in one less God than you - Ricky Gervais

You picked one story about one “God” out of a pile of 3000 stories about other “Gods” and think they’re right about everything because of something a 2,000 yr old book with texts and figures stolen from other previous religions said. The religion you happened to be born into, just happens to be the right one. How convenient!

Your belief in a magic zombie sky fairy doesn’t translate into reality, and isn’t a base for arguing anything. You keep arguing about faith because you know that you have literally no evidence to back up your claims.

Athiests only believe in one fewer religion, of the thousands, than you.

You're 99% atheist.

I always think they say atheists are intelligent people. These days, I am beginning to see lazy and unintelligent assumptions and conclusions from Atheists.

The author of the above write up needs proper education. When you take the general opinion around you to judge the whole, it is a sign of low intelligence.

Attacking a belief system isn't a smart thing either. Presenting top class argument is what intelligent people do. It seems atheists with such intelligence are now converted to what they once crucified as it is hard to find one today.

Just thinking....

ochibuogwu5:
"There is a different between “can” and “should”. To say a believer cannot lose his salvation is not true, but he should not lose his salvation. There is a man’s part in the receiving of salvation, it’s not all dependent on God. If everything were all dependent on God, we would have been in paradise the very day Jesus rose from the dead. There wouldn’t be need for preaching, evangelism and churches, because Jesus did a perfect work and finished it. Why do people still die and go to hell? Salvation has to be received! Receiving salvation involves the act of your will, and you don’t lose your will power after receiving salvation. Jesus respects human will, and will not force His will on anybody. You should NOT lose your salvation because it has been eternally procured, but you don’t lose the ability to walk away from Jesus and go to hell if you choose to. Unfortunately, lots of believers make that poor choice, die and go to hell." (Delison Tanko)

Just for further study.
Have you considered the angle where life was first pointed out in the scriptures. The angle of Adam in the garden.

Would Adam WILL be able to make him loose afterwards the life received, if he has partaken from the life (tree of life). Would there be anything that will make him lose that life?

Put into consideration what God said,

... that he (Adam) even in his current state will live forever if he has access to "tree of life". That is, irrespective of his action afterwards, that "fruit" will provide life eternal to him.

I guess that's what set the pace of life eternal in the scriptures. This might be an interesting study.

But personally, I love to keep by the side ways in this type of topic.

Crystyano:



Please

Can you help me with any amount of money?


I will be very grateful


Please.......


I need to get some foodstuffs

Bro, this is better done in a dm or is it PM nairaland calls it. You can do that.

Myer:


Riddle me this.
If we are to take the story of the Garden of Eden as figurative.
Why was its location well described with the various rivers and tributaries?

If we are to take it as figurative what does it mean that God banished Adam and Eve from the Garden and what does it mean that Cherubs were placed to guard man from reentry?

You are already making lots of assumptions for me o. I haven't even mention any figurative here.

But the clarity of the story of Eden is that Moses employed language in explaining this story. That means the story is a reality but there are words and languages used along that are literature wisdom.

Like I told you before.

You need to examine story within the language structure.

A safe way to do this is to look at how the NT writers read the story and the scriptures.

All NT writer wrote from the OT. That was their manual. When you see the word "scriptures" in the Bible, it primarily refer Firstly to OT because that was all they had then.

You must then observe how they read the scriptures and interpreted it. We aren't supposed to deviate from what they read.

---

For example.

Paul when reading Gen 1:1-3 call the darkness the heart of man, called the light, the gospel of Christ.

2 Cor 4:3-6
3 But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost:
4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.
5 For we preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord; and ourselves your servants for Jesus' sake.
6 For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.

Your explanation must not deviate from this.


What it means is that, if Jesus is to read this verse or the apostles, this will be their interpretation. Any reader of the Bible that doesn't see this, isn't reading yet.


Also observe John, speaking referencing directly the event of Gen 1-3. In John 1:1-9.

He said there was a life in the beginning to give light to man.

The man in the beginning was Adam. Then we must ask, who is the life in the beginning. Moses employed language of his time, tree of life, John was more clear, he called the life a person.

In him was life and the life was the light of men (Adam inclusive).


What these means is that the apostles read the OT in a different way from the pharisees as they were taught by Jesus.

---

Jesus, reading the OT, expressly interpreted all his messages to refer to himself.

Luke 24:44
44 And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.


He said the subject matter of Moses and Prophets writings was him.
Hence, knowing fully well that Moses was communicating God's plan in Genesis and we know that the center point of God's plan is Christ we would do well to examine the story, how Jesus would have examined it. He said its concerning him.

---

So key questions

What does Moses referred to as TREE OF Life?
What of Fruit?

---

Paul simply made things easy for you in Romans 5.

Observe Paul was also teaching Romans 5 from Genesis, that is what he was reading when writing romans 5. I am sure that's obvious to you.


But see Paul's theology. He said one man sinned. He never mention tree or fruits, he called Adam's sin disobedient. Nothing attached. And to disobeyed it means you have been instructed. Hence Paul never focus on tree, but instruction of life.

---

Lastly and more importantly is to ensure you aren't separating Moses time and audience from his writings. Likewise always know that the NT writer have read and gave us interpretation of most of the OT writing. This we must follow. So.

1. Moses wrote in the time of the ancient east culture, where we have mostly Agrarian. This must let you know why he used agricultural languages to explain.

2. He wrote primarily to the Israelite not to you or the world. It's God's bigger plan that got the word of God to the world. Moses never had you in mind when writing to Israelite to slice their immediate problem.

3. The NT writer were students of the OT writings, that was their study manual. Hence they have taught the OT in their gathering, churches, epistles. What we must do is to find out where they were teaching from in any of their text and align our taught to theirs if we truly believe they were inspired or God. Hence we won't be looking for our own interpretation nor deviate from their interpretation.

These three points must be emphatic in your interpretations.


So, can we now study along this line of Jesus's and the apostles interpretation of the same text? That's is how Jesus taught and commanded his disciples to read and interpret the scriptures.

And he instructed them to pass the same to us.

Matthew 28:20
...teaching them to observe what so ever I have commanded you.....

Tamaratonye1:

This is starting to get hilarious, why did you partition my reply into multiple posts? Is this your own rendition of the Gish gallop fallacy? LOL

[1] You claim that the view in my OP is not biblical and that not all Christians believe, right? Well, hupernikao, all Christians believe, or have faith, that supernatural entities and paranormal phenomena exist in the real world. This points to a common delusional state of mind shared by the 2.382 billion Christians inhabiting the planet - or, effectively, an entity.

[2] You claim that my arguments are based on assumption. But you forget your own misplaced assumption that the bible is inerrant, and that God and gods exist. Those are assumptions simply because you have no empirical evidence supporting those claims.

[3] You claim that everything I say about the Bible is in divergence to all the Bible stands for and they weren't taught in the Bible. You know what, you're right. Of course they are because I'm an atheist who regards your holy book as - put simply - a collection of half-truths, misinformation, mythology, fabrications, duplicity, and deliberate lies.

[4] You claim that I've been fed with wrong information. Well guess what? Just as you and every Christian on the planet has been. Fed by people tasked with convincing you from an early age - ministers of religion, parents, evangelists, school teachers etc - that biblical scripture is infallible, reliable, well-founded, and flawless. Which of course, to any skeptical 21st-century investigator, it is not. You've fallen for the same trap that you wrongly accuse me of falling for.

[5] You want to talk to me about " scriptural truth" without showing any evidence for it. You've simply and uncritically accepted - without any of the due skepticism that a competent researcher must have - that what you've read in your holy book, and/or what you've been told by people with a vested interest is in fact all true.

[6] You claim I tagged you a Calvinist. If you're not being dishonest, please provide evidence for your claim.

[7] As an atheist, I really don't give two flying bleeps as to whether or not you take my criticism "seriously". You seem to have forgotten that I am an atheist.

[8] I attended Bible classes, but I don't remember anything about yardsticks, or any kind of corporal punishment at all.

From what I can observe, you can't tell the difference between made-up theistic commandments and general social understandings far older than religion. The requirements of tending to the elderly and not stealing from or killing a neighbor go back way further than organized religions. Organized religions merely codify local practices. They also mythologize the origins of morality, just like they mythologize the origin of the world. Organized religions simply redefine such things as coming from God, and the credulous believe them.

Trying to win arguments by defining yourself as good and others as bad is the very definition of self-righteousness. I honestly thought you were better than this. Of course, the priests running religions benefit in social status from misleading other people, just as they were misled themselves. Religions are like pyramid schemes. At some point, you religious people need to question your assumptions and listen to different, better interpretations.

This discussion is clearly not going anywhere, so I'm done here.

Firstly, I partition your messages because I love separating issues, you are muddling many things up just as you did above again and a basic way of exposing hidden thoughts is to partition them so as to handle each issue separately. I don't think you should find that bad.

Your wirteup already showed that your heart wants to listen but your mind is adamant based on reasons best known to you. Help your mind, this isn't an argument of I win or you win. You must know this.


Secondly, Leave all these emotional blackmail. I have told you i am more than that.

Take simple correction and live. You can't be discussing what you are supposed to be learning. I have shown you over and over again, that your knowledge premise of the scripture is faulty. This doesn't mean I demean your intelligence, but as per the scriptures, you need a lot to learn to know what it truly teaches.

An if you feel otherwise, all you need to do is to prove me wrong not throwing emotions.


Lastly, if no one has told you this before, take this as a truth about your knowledge of Christianity and the scriptures. They are based on much assumptions. Facts aren't seen in all you put forward. You are only speaking assumptions. You will feel exposed if you are put on a spotlight to discuss what you think you know about it. This is the reasons you can't face the main issues here but dragging sidetrack rather than driving on the main road.


I have told you, I can even make you a better critic of the scriptures by helping you correct your wrong premises. By giving you the right information about what the Bible teaches then you can start drawing your dagger from there since you feel you are in the opposite of its methodology.

But for now. Don't let's leave the focus. Or better still let's discuss your issues with scriptures than trying to bring in strawman actions.

So, Ma, calm down much, that is how we can move ahead.

Myer:


Brotherly. I trust you're doing great.
I assure you everything I said here were extracted from the pages of the bible.
How it is my interpretation remains subject of debate.

1. Did God not place the tree of knowledge of good and evil in the same garden as the tree of life?

I assume your claim is also that the events of the garden of eden were simply figurative right?
Its that not also simply your own interpretation?

2. I simply highlighted 7 points on the subject of the thread not the whole bible sir.

I'm actually curious to hear your "unbiased and unsentimental" counterpoints.
Since your normal inclination as a Christian is to defend God and his actions as a Muslim is inclined to defend Allah and Mohammed.

No one can defend God. His word are self sufficient. So what I am doing isn't defence for God but putting things right the way it should be read.

The whole of the Bible is filled with the echos of the Eden story. Life, death, good, evil.
So extracting the meaning of eden story using the Gen 2-3 narrative alone will put you in a pit error.

You must ensure your interpretation aligned with

1. what Moses taught all through his books

2. what the prophets taught

3. what Jesus and his apostles taught.

[/I] That alignment must be seen all through to know if you have the right interpretation[/i].

That is the foundation of all good doctrines.

So, what I give as explanation aren't my opinion so far it aligned with the whole story of the Bible in the mouth of all its writers.

A quick check of your own interpretation, will let you know, that your line of thought will fall flat when tested with other Bible narratives, events and practices that has the same resemblance.

God doesn't change, his principles and requirements are the same all through. Hence, if we can't see this resemblance in your explanation, then it's not the true explanation.

---

So, as a primer,

Basic things you must ask,

What is life?
Why did Moses used tree?

Is there a tree ever, that you will see "fruit of life" on it?

How was tree of life used by other authors?

How was fruits used and why?

These are important question to ask before reaching a conclusion.


Bear in mind that, Moses wrote in a time that knowledge is very little and the culture and practice of their world were mostly Agrarian not office workers.
Hence when you read most ancient books of their age, you will see usage of fruits, trees, land, sheep, shepherd water etc.

That's must not be lost in your explanation.

---

In conclusion, you can't read an ancient book with the mindset of a millennia, you must travel back in time to their days to understand the reasons for the language, culture, words and events used in their text. This must be applied to the story of Genesis too.

LordReed:


Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a disgrace to any people. (Prov. 14:34)

Okay. So your study should now start in asking what does it mean by.

1. Righteousness
2. Exalt
3. Nation

Then the phrase
1. Exalt a nation
2. Sin a disgrace.

Firstly, it you read a Bible text and take your meaning from non biblical knowledge or text, then you haven't gotten the meaning of the text.

You must draw your explanation from the same book. That is what is called context.

---

To reduce your burden of theological hermeneutics, I will give you a simple test of that text in the scriptures that will give you obvious reason why the text isn't referring to a country becoming rich or wealthy.

Look into the scriptures and examine persons, people or nations who walked righteously at a time and see if that translate to riches and wealth for them automatically.

Do righteous people in the scriptures become rich and wealth by their righteousness?

What example do we have in the scripture.

When you see this, you will see the right direction and interpretation.

---

God's exaltation was never in riches and wealth but in life eternal and dominion over evil. This is the reason the writer compared exaltation with reproach (shame). If exaltation is about riches or human greatness, then the contrast would be poverty not shame.


In a simple NT language, that text will simple reads: In righteousness is life eternal (exaltation), in sin is perishing (reproach, disgrace).

---

Righteousness was never taught as what will make one or a nation rich or wealthy.
Hardworking was taught by the scriptures for this.

Proverbs 13:4 - The soul of the sluggard desireth, and hath nothing: but the soul of the diligent shall be made fat

Proverbs 14:23 - In all labour there is profit: but the talk of the lips tendeth only to penury

Proverbs 12:24 - The hand of the diligent shall bear rule: but the slothful shall be under tribute


This is well taught and practices in the Bible. Hence interpreting the scriptural text outside the events and practices you see in the Bible is erroneous.

---

Lastly, when you understand that righteousness as taught all through the Bible starts from what God did in Christ which is imparted on man through faith, you will know that its exaltation also must be in Christ not in things or worldly riches, same as the reproach of sin.


Hence a rich nation isn't rich because it has no faith, neither is a poor nation poor because it has many in faith.

Taking chances and diligence are what built nations and this, God has left in the capacity of man to do. So when you see your nations not doing well, look towards your leadership, virtues and diligence among its people, not looking for excuses around faith.

Because God's exaltation is not in riches but in his work of salvation from sin for man.

HappyPagan:

The quality of life of the average citizen is nothing to write home about.



Mosques and churches on every street haven't made us a great nation, or a nation to be envied. No one's gonna wake up on Jan 1 2050 and say 'ohh, Nigeria, what a great African country'... there's this general belief that it's God that makes nations great... maybe we are using the wrong Gods... maybe allah and yahweh realy dont like black africans.

Nairaland writers and general belief sha.

Are we to hold one on general belief or to hold one on what he is responsible for.

Does the scriptures promise a "great" nation in your context? That should be your study not using general belief to judge. You are to get what was truly taught and use as platform of your knowledge, discussions and criticism. Not using general belief.

Now do the research yourself.

Tamaratonye1:

You are scripture driven from the position of belief. It has never occurred to you to examine historical context, prose, accuracy, or translation. You accept it all at face value with no doubts whatsoever. That's why you're a Christian; you have been conditioned to accept it all as truth and never question anything.

And that's why you will never understand how other non Christians view your belief system. You are incapable of understanding it because you don't want to hear it in the first place.

Your middle name should be assumpta

You will be amazed at how you will be drive to be as I am today, if you give room with open mind to examine to historical context, prose, culture, accuracy and Translation of the scriptures together.

It will be the best journey of knowledge you ever embark on.

Tamaratonye1:


I was suckled on the Bible and ended up spending a year at Bible institute after high school, and spent every minute I could spare volunteering at church for years after. I have likely forgotten more of the Bible than you currently know.

Everyone who claims to "rightly" understand the scriptures simply dismisses anything that they disagree with as error". You are no different in that regard. And back in the day, I was no different. I know from experience how believers insulate themselves from the cognitive dissonance created by their departures from reason. It spares you having to engage in honest discourse, and most importantly, it means you don't have to engage with the actual points anyone raises with you.

It's unsurprising to know you were sucked in Bible classes, but unfortunately, reading the Bible or attending the best Bible school or becoming the Pope isn't the yard stick of understanding the scriptures.

The scriptures are evident of itself and your thoughts and explanation must be in knowing to all that is said from Genesis to revelation.

Whether you are a critic or a supporter of it, your argument must be sufficient enough to prove that the scriptures was consistent in teaching what you posit as true or as false. [/i]That is how theology is handle.

---

Take this from my simple heart.
Your days in Bible class or school weren't wasted but definitely you were taught wrongly. You read the scriptures, but the understanding provided to you aren't scriptural. It is well evident even today, that there are places the scriptures are read but not understood. Like I told you, a primer in understanding of the scriptures is consistency of explanation of its theology. Your knowledge of the scripture missed this.


So, please, do allow a proper explanation of the scriptures for you so that you can pick your criticism. I am not here to win argument but I will do all to ensure you interpret the scripture properly even if you want to criticize it. That is what is called honesty and I found that lacking in many who want to criticize the scriptures.

[i]I have heard a million times that atheist are open minded, but the reality of it is false. If you are open minded, you will seek to know the truth of what is written not the lies you have been fed with and hold to form a systematic ideology against a system of knowledge.

---

If you are open to discussion as you always claim to be open minded, we will examine all you held as and against Christian taught from the scripture and you will find a better landing for your criticism. This doesn't have to convince you about the scriptures but at least, let you judge a book in its honestly and your criticism will come from a true knowledge of what the Bible teacher have the burden to defend.


But as it stands now. You aren't speaking the scriptures heart but what is falsified and spread deliberately or indeliberately for personal gains of erroneous teachers or recognition among the preachers of such falsehood.

I hope you get this and be open to it.

Tamaratonye1:
:
Can't say I'm surprised you had the audacity to say this. I already saw it coming, in your desperation to push all your baseless narratives through your dishonest dodging and slithering, that you will soon stoop to telling bare faced lies. This was my statement in my previous post

You clearly didn't read my last post properly. Talk about rushing into conclusions and making assumptions. Tell me more about reading and understanding deeply. You don't even practice what you preach. You keep proving just how much of a fake you are. You keep claiming access to esoteric wisdom when your signature is ignorance. I never appended any tag to you and you know it.

You are actually the one who is writing and not following your line of thought. My reference to you thinking I am Arminianism or Calvinism wasn't based on your last post alone. Its foundation was found in your earlier post. Where you claimed its the Calvinist view i posited.

You need to follow things you write properly so that you won't accuse others of not reading you well, whereas you are the one who wrote in isolation to your previous thoughts.

So like I told you, my conviction is not based on Calvin view and was never the same. So speaking of them here is irrelevant.

Tamaratonye1:
.

You keep harping on and on about me getting the wrong interpretation of scriptures from Christian instructors and needing to be taught properly. I would have accepted your claims and say I was wrong, except your defense raises even more serious problems, and you obviously haven't bothered to sit and ask yourself the honest and important question: Why do so many people, even so called Christians, misrepresent the Bible and draw different conclusions from it? Futhermore, how do I know that my interpretation of scriptures is correct and everyone else is wrong?. You don't want to ask these questions because you know that they rudely interrupt your fantasies and easily call them into question. You don't find it convenient, so you choose to cling to your myopic, subjective reasoning.

Now I don't know if you missed all of this or if you're just too smart for your own good ( ), but these are two major facts of life I want to bring to your awareness, hupernikao.

[1] You may be smart, but there's a difference between being smart, and being knowledgeable. In fact, there's a whole world of difference between the two.

Your bold above is not the purpose of your OP, bringing that in just confirmed my earlier post that, you either don't know how to keep focus on discussion or deliberately using diversions. I have passed that if you need to truly make a point.

If you are much concern of the bold above, create a different thread to address this, then we can talk there.

But for now, we keep focus on your immediate assumption on Christians around the world.

Tamaratonye1:
It's ironic that you accuse me of being emotional since all I've pointed out to you here are cold, hard and bitter pills of truth which, evidently and understandably, you find so very painful to swallow. No matter how much you try to dodge and slither, the naked lies you have told on this thread bear me witness to your unparalleled dishonesty.


Repeating yourself like a broken record is typical of you when you're seriously out of your depth. I'm used to you by now. See you continuously fighting to so hard to escape the 7 feet grave you so magnanimously dug out for yourself. Unfortunately your indignant repetition is doing very little for you here.

Know this when discussing with me and live.

I am not one you can use lies and emotions to hold. Not strawman or deliberate accusation can achieve the aim either.

Your antics of name calling than focusing on discussion is a sign of losing the course of the discussion. If you have good conviction and understand what you are saying, you will start focus on discussion than diversionary writing filled with information not relevant to our discussion.

So go back to your learning table, and sieve out your discourse with me, which is filled up with 55% divergence, 40% assumptions and 5% focus. You cant pass any intelligent discuss this way.

Tamaratonye1:
It's ironic that you accuse me of being emotional since all I've pointed out to you here are cold, hard and bitter pills of truth which, evidently and understandably, you find so very painful to swallow. No matter how much you try to dodge and slither, the naked lies you have told on this thread bear me witness to your unparalleled dishonesty.


Repeating yourself like a broken record is typical of you when you're seriously out of your depth. I'm used to you by now. See you continuously fighting to so hard to escape the 7 feet grave you so magnanimously dug out for yourself. Unfortunately your indignant repetition is doing very little for you here.

And let this be the last time I warn you about your patronizing attitude. Your post reeks of smug condescension. This is your final warning. Keep it up and the tone in my next response to you will be 100% justified.

It doesn't matter how many times you bring this up to save face, I'll continue to rebut it a thousand fold.

The funny thing is, you actually support my position more and more with your posts. The initial quote in my original post concerning "heaven helps those...." is a major staple among most Christians nowadays.

You haven't taken to correction. Take to it that you may do well.

This is simple. Your writeup are full of assumptions. You kept saying

MOST CHRISTIANS.

how many Christians in your current span of life have you met or know? How did you come to this conclusion of yours of saying most Christians. Are your assumption not based on your localized view of Christian around you. Are your most Christians a view of over 50% of Christians all over the world?

You assumed too much and it's affecting your line of thought. Simple state it, That

MOST CHRISTIANS YOU KNOW.

This will be more correct than the former. Hence this premise already render your argument void. So take this correction and live.

Speak base on what you know, what you have seen not what you assumed.

90% of Christians around me don't hold the view you stated is held by "most" Christians. Are you seeing your mistakes. Calm your nerves and see it.

GodHead85:

Ok

if you don't mind, I want to ask you some questions....
1. How old were you when you first came to believe in God?
2 Had you read the Bible before you became a believer?
3. What specifically convinced you that Bible God was real?

How does these you asked again relate to the discussion.

I am sure you don't answer exam questions like this in life even not you will be filled with remedial.

Like I told you, focus on discussion. And if you need assistance to understand what is been discussed, ask the OP to give you a class. Don't be ashamed to do that, it's more honorable than uttering confusion.

Don't go around dropping views incoherent with discussion. It's a sign of a poor and bad listener and reader.

Workch:
Watch how everyone will live in peace if you don’t spread your ridiculous beliefs in form of evangelism. If you don’t knock on my doors on Sundays to tell me your lies.

We will all live in peace if you don’t allow your ridiculous beliefs distort glaring facts they are key to development of humanity and society.

We will live in peace if you don’t try to make your unsubstantiated tenets the standard by which everyone should conform including trying to interfere with state affairs.

Until this is done, Christians and other religions will receive serious criticism.

Yet, you aren't at peace even in NL.
Do you actually know what peace is? If your peace is measured by the extent of those who preach to you, then you truly need the peace they preach.

Workch:
Aside from the many holes in the Bible; a very ridiculous book that reasonable people should equate to Spider-Man comic, the idea that nothing created god is ridiculous.

Going by that logic, if everything has to be created then god must also be created by something and if nothing created god, it’s more logical to worship nothing. Nothing is actually the true creator since he created god.

Hole kò, owl nì.

I said you need to read well Bro. You haven't taken to that.

Now Coming to the issue of creation again. I once asked you, how did life got here, you said no one knows. Is that a logical answer. Even in science, does "no one knows" sound logical to you.

I guess by your system, we can say "no one knows" created life and everything, so it is your creator.

Workch:
[s][/s]

Have you have done your revisions and carryovers in your studies of history and bible? I still hope you take your studies serious so as not to be exposing yourself here.

Please do.

Tamaratonye1:

Just in case it missed you, but I know it didn't because I now recognize your modus operandi, which is to hand wave apparent facts away anytime you get cornered in an argument; I've already addressed your arguments on "man's help" in this thread so it's intellectually lazy and quite insulting to come back and claim your stance is still valid without any reasonable... .

I have told you, that you are only trying to make a point where points never exist. You will need more than trying to make point to discuss with me. You will likewise need more than emotional grip to address my response.


Firstly, you spoke about Christians, yet claim you aren't referring to Bible, what do you call that in basic grammar. A Christian outside the bible? You should rather take away Christian from your discussion then we can take the effect of bible from it.

But sadly, you aren't ready to take correction that you made a mistake with your quote.


Secondly, you referred to Christians as an entity, your claim posed as one who have met all Christians in this world and know the quote they used. Now revealing to you that, not all Christians hold such view and such isn't even biblical, you took it for a fight. Is this how you fight when you are wrong.

---

Thirdly, you rush too much to conclusion. And mostly they are based on assumption. You will need to be open to be taught what exactly the Bible teaches than making assumption informed from wrong classes you have taken in your sojourn in Christian meetings.

Why did I say that?
Thinking I am an Arminianist or a Calvinist is a funny assumption. I never hold any of the view. I hold Bible view and have many reservation on the views above.

But note, like I said. Man is absolutely helpless. That is not Calvinism, that is the scriptures. But your helplessness is not God's doing, it's man's doing. Hence God never imposed or forced such helpless situation in man.

You need to ask for explanation, you must learn the true Bible, that is how your criticism will be real. All these you are saying about the Bible is absolutely in divergence to all the Bible stands for, they were never taught in the Bible.

---

What I mean is that, you have been fed with wrong information and your knowledge and mindset is built around this. You must seek proper knowledge of what you criticized, that is the wisdom in being a good critic.


But for now, all your points about the Bible, as I read they, they are only showing me one thing. You have a wrong background in scriptural truth, you have been fed with lies by one who either deliberately or accidental fed you with false doctrine. It shows in all your write up.


I will only start to take your criticism serious when you start presenting the Bible the right way in your criticism. For now I don't see you as a critic of the scriptures, but one who need to be taught properly and rightly. And you must receive that with humility.

GodHead85:

Not sure which Bible you're reading ...

......and I sure hope you have nothing to do with teaching it.

John 6:44 "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day."

The gods are in charge in your cult......
Jesus said so.

How does this relates to you helping yourself before God help you.

It is on nairaland I see one who never hold a book before claiming to be a professor of it.

What has what you wrote proven that man has to help himself before God help. Or you mixed or missed the topic?

Bro, go read well please.

Myer:
One of the popular christian axioms is that God never makes mistakes. In fact there are worship songs about this.
Even though we can see that obviously God made several mistakes.
Interestingly at no point in the bible did God say he never makes mistakes. But some motivational pastors have always preached this.

Let us list the undeniable mistakes God made as accounted in the bible.
Note that this is in no way to diminish God's omnipotence, omnipresence and omniscience.
Just to let us come to the truth as written in the bible after all Christ declared himself as the Way, the Life and the Truth.

1. Mistake in the Garden of Eden:
When God created the Garden of Eden and placed the tree of knowledge of good and evil and tree of life in the same garden.
According to God, if Adam and Eve had eaten of the tree of life after eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil man would have remained eternally in the sinful state.
If you ask me, even evicting Adam and Eve from the Garden did not solve the problem as... .

Do you disagree that God made mistakes, let's discuss.

My wonderful brother.
I trust you have been doing great.


On the topic.
Everything you wrote here are not found on the pages of the Bible. They are solely your very own interpretation.

When you read the Bible properly and the very texts you intend to explain, you will see that all that is listed as mistakes were only your very own insinuation and not biblical facts.

For example,
Your understanding of the events in Eden missed the whole essence and Moses would have put you in a remedial class for failing this.


Truly, I would have loved to pick your list one by one but, it will be a big sacrifice of time to give the details of all you wrote.

In simplicity, your write up is asking for explanation of the whole Bible, 66 books, 783,137 words (KJV) to be discussed on a NL thread.
It would be preferable to pull an elephant through the needle's eye, than to do such explanation here.

SSIPON:
The Bible (Genesis 6–9) describes a worldwide flood (the Noachian Flood) covering even the highest...

We read in the Bible that there is only one time in which the Flood waters are said to recede and leave the earth dry. That is, no multiple worldwide climatic conditions are described in which flooding, then drying to a dry earth, more flooding, more drying to a dry earth, in repeated cycles that occur over and over again in that Flood year. On that basis, it is logical that all the kinds of evaporite deposits and red beds in many different levels in the supposed Noachian Flood deposits could form only in local climates with desert drying-conditions and could not possibly have formed all at the same time — a time when a flood covered the whole earth for more than one year (Collins 2006). On that basis, the Noachian Flood story cannot describe a whole-earth flood, but it could only represent a large regional flood.

Well, I guess the writer of this OP got the real point wrong in understanding Noah's story.
In their age, Moses time, it is common to use stories to teach an essence and truths. And in the best of their colleges in Egypt and Mesopotamia, usage of nature and events in the past are employed to communicate wisdom.

If the writer above sat in the exam class of Moses, he would have failed woefully, as he has treated Noah's story as scientific records but failed to know the essence of the story.


As a Primer, Moses was a prophet of God not a scientist. If you miss this in the Bible story, the whole message of the writings is lost.

Moses wasn't communicating science but he was to communicate the plan of God for humanity. And this, he is to do firstly, to his people.

Due to limitation of knowledge of their time, they speak using events, expressions to teach their wisdom.

This same story you narrated was already in place even before the birth of Moses (check history well, in the ancient near East). That means people in their days are well aware of such stories. That means, in Moses education in Egypt, he must have been taught in his classroom.

Acts 7:22
And Moses was learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians, and was mighty in words and in deeds.


Hence Moses wasn't narrating some new stories but yet he unveiled new facts about God's plan. This wasn't taught in any school but taught by God's Spirit.


Therefore, the question any intelligent student of the Bible will ask is this.

AS A PROPHET OF GOD, WHAT WAS MOSES COMMUNICATING WHEN HE WROTE ABOUT THIS STORY.

Obviously not science but theology.

So, the first step for the author to realize the right interpretation of this scriptural text, is to first treat it as a theological text written within the history of man. Hence man's events culture and language will be his tool of communication and vehicle of revealing God's inspired message and plan for humanity.

Likewise, a man on a journey to debunk the scientific implication of such writing, will have to seek answers with the ancient world of Mesopotamia and not on the pages of an inspired theological compendium written to unveil spiritual facts.