NewStats: 3,265,360 , 8,186,507 topics. Date: Saturday, 14 June 2025 at 04:11 PM 6i225q

I am tired of going round in circles.
This has being fun.
Once again this is what I copied from A.i review.

The scientific consensus is that the universe is not eternal. The Big Bang theory is the leading scientific theory for the universe's origin, suggesting it began around 13.8 billion years ago. This model suggests that the universe is not infinite and has a beginning in time.
Here's why the concept of an eternal universe is not ed by current scientific understanding:
Big Bang Theory:
The Big Bang theory posits that the universe expanded from an incredibly hot, dense state, suggesting a finite beginning.
Expansion of the Universe:
Observations of the universe's expansion provide evidence against an eternally static or unchanging state.
Entropy:
The concept of entropy, which dictates that systems tend toward disorder, would suggest that an infinitely old universe would be in a state of uniform temperature, with no structure or life.
Finite vs. Infinite:
The question of whether the universe is finite or infinite is separate from whether it's eternal. The universe could be infinite in size but still have a finite age.
Philosophical Considerations:
While the idea of an eternal universe has been explored in philosophy, it's not ed by scientific evidence.

Is it logical to what has evidence or what does not have evidence?
I am done.

Coolname:


Depends on how you look at it. The Big Bang is the process whereby spacetime began to rapidly expand. Therefore if all observable space came from the Big Bang, it follows that time did the same.

not observable space, BUT Space and time itself.

How do you measure time before the Big Bang? Is it even possible? Time is relative to entropy right so how do we measure time of nothing is changing?

Check out at this scenario: imagine everything in the observable universe was on pause for 10 minutes (in this scenario, you are an outside observer, like a movie viewer). From inside the universe, it would be impossible to notice the age of the 10 minutes.

I'm of the opinion that time started with the Big Bang. For anything to preceed it that would mean we must have some form of "super time" that things were operating on beforehand. I'm of the opinion that there is no before.

Time is time whether super or duper time. If time does not exist before the big bang then it does not exist. If fact physicts are saying there is nothing like time before the Big bang.

You are beginning to see the problem with eternal universe in whatever shape or form. it does not just work.

evidence actually goes Aginst eternal universe. By the way when scientists said the universe began at be big bang, it means before the big bang there was no space an there was no time, what is happening is typical atheists dodging and deflecting, one is saying that the logical thing to do is to follow the least assumption, which have no shred of evidence while rejecting what has evidence. Unknown to him what he thought was least assumption whatever that even mean has being found to be actually illogical.
There was actually no space and time before the beginning of time meaning physics itself could not have existed at all, matter couldn't have existed because the will be no space for matter to exist and there will be no time for matter to existence.
Smarter atheists are actually propounded new theory of higher dimension or multiverses but al these does not actually solve the problem but rather compound it and pushes further.

Coolname:


I'm not saying it's impossible but much like the multiverse hypothesis, doesn't it just kick the can further down the road?

They just raise questions as to what started the cycle or what caused the multiverse to come to be. But we don't have these answers.

However, what we do know is that the universe rapidly expanded 13.8 billion years ago. In the absence of any further evidence, the most logical path to take should be the one with the least assumptions which would be that the universe has always existed in some form. This can then be disproven once evidence suggests otherwise.

Actually

The universe likely does not have an eternal existence. Key evidence against an eternal universe includes the Big Bang theory, the Second Law of Thermodynamics, and the expansion of the universe. The Big Bang theory posits that the universe originated from an initial singularity, not an eternal state. The Second Law of Thermodynamics suggests that a universe that has existed forever would have reached a state of heat death, which is not what we observe. Additionally, the expansion of the universe, observed through redshift, indicates that it has a finite age, not an eternal one.

.

Everyday247:
Wow! 😲
You're a theist that believes in the big bang?!
you're the first I've seen on Nairaland.
congratulations! 🎉 👏 🥳

The big bang does not conflict the existence of God.

According to the big bang theory, a singularity expanded into what we know as the universe. But then questions remain:
1. where did this singularity come from?
2. How long had this singularity been around before it expanded in the form of the big bang?

What if someone claims that this singularity has always existed (eternal), how would you counter this?

mathematically it is not possible for the singularity to have existed for all eternity and also physically it is not possible. If the singularity has being there for all eternity what kept it as singularity why did it after eternity dsuddenly exploded eternity means endless time, so it makes no logical sense and no evidence what sover for the singularity to have being there for all eternity.
Physicists have tried to work with the model of singularity to be eternal but it does not simply work.
You might think it makes sense but smarter scientists have tried the model but it all failed.

If it worked why do you think atheist scientist like Hawkins could work with it.
The only model that works is a universe that is not eternal.

Off Topic question: As a theist that believes in the big bang:
1. How do you reconcile your religious beliefs that the world is ten thousand years old with the approximately 14 billion years of the big bang theory?
2. if you believe in the big bang theory proposed by science, do you also believe in the theory of evolution also proposed by that same science?
3. I thought Christian theists believed in a 6 day creation not the big bang theory?

The big bang does not conflict the Christian world view. There are different explanation.

Yes it does.
If something doesn't exist, it cannot be found anywhere in the universe, which makes it spaceless.
If something doesn't exist, it won't be found at any point in time (past, presence and future), which makes it timeless.
An event that never occurred is eternal e.g when will someone who was never born die? the answer is never.
Anything that never begun can never end. (can be said to be eternal)

According to you anything that does not occupy space immaterial and times does not exist right?
Answer this question does space exist? If yes which space does space occupy? And According to your world view space must be timeless right and immaterial else where the material that make up space occup?

What's the difference between the statements: " intelligence must come from intelligence" and "Only intelligence can create intelligence"?

seriously, is this even a question? What is the difference between "only a human can give birth to a human" and "every human must give birth to a human"?

This is logical leap. How is something having a beginning evidence for creation?

it is not a logical leap. Having a beginning means it has a starting point, if the universe began to exist then it is not eternal.

If science has not proven the existence of something means it can be either false or true since no confirmation can be made.

Is science the only way to get knowledge? Can you scientifically prove your answer? Can you scientifically prove moral values?

Science is "currently" the only way to prove the existence of something. If there are any other methods of proving the existence of something, they haven't been discovered yet.

have you heard of history? Can science prove that the Nigeria civil war happened?

When and where were they debunked?
And who debunked them?
How were they debunked?

Not outrightly debunked but there is no evidence but as a matter of fact there is evidence against it, which is the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

Mathematics is an abstract concept. Mathematics is neither sentient nor alive. Mathematics cannot create things. Mathematics cannot think.
Are you saying that your god is abstract?
Or that your god is neither sentient nor alive?
Or that your god can't think?
Or that your god cannot create things?

Evil and goodness are characteristics or properties of things.

Love is an electro chemical process that occurs inside brains.

Consciousness is a process that occurs inside the brains of living things.

Do they exist? What is their material and what space does they occupy?
So love is an electro chemical process? Has it be proven? Provide link.
Has consciousness being proven scientifically, prove link to it?

Human values come from the brains of humans.

So if people do not see anything wrong with rape does that make it OK?
There are many people who don't see anything wrong with it. Since in their Brian rape is OK, does that make it right?

Everyday247:
what are these evidences that show that the universe is not eternal?
You did not answer my question on how to determine if something is eternal or not.
If someone claims that the sun is eternal, how do we this claim?

Simple evidence and logical deduction. Evidence shows the sun is not eternal and gets what so is the universe.

The evidence points to the universe not being eternal but having a beginning, likely through the Big Bang.[/b] This evidence includes:
Expansion of the universe:
The observed expansion of the universe suggests it has been growing from a smaller, denser state.
Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB):
The CMB, leftover radiation from the early universe, provides a snapshot of the universe shortly after the Big Bang, indicating it was not always at its current state.
General Relativity:
The theory of general relativity, tested by numerous observations, predicts that spacetime cannot be static and must either expand or contract, suggesting a beginning point.
Second Law of Thermodynamics:
This law states that the universe is trending towards disorder, meaning it cannot have been eternally in a stable state of equilibrium.
Mathematical models:
Some mathematical models, like the Penrose-Hawking Singularity Theorem and Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theorem, suggest the universe began from an initial singularity.
Observations of the universe's structure:
The distribution of galaxies and the existence of large-scale structures, such as superclusters, point to a universe that evolved from an initial, more homogeneous state.
Evolution of matter:
The formation of heavier elements in stars and the subsequent distribution of these elements throughout the universe suggests an ongoing process of evolution, not a static, eternal state.

Also as a side note, spaceless, timeless and immaterial are attributes that can be found in nonexistent things. The definition of existence is something that occupies space and is under the effect of time.

that definition does not apply to whatever is outside of space and time.

Firstly, who established that the universe is a creation?
As far as current science is concerned the origin of the universe is unknown.
Secondly, you are the one that created the category of "intelligence that must come from other intelligence". And god is an intelligent being, which automatically falls into the category of "intelligent beings that must be created". You made a contradictory statement.

You are straw Manning. I never said intelligence must come from intelligence but rather only intelligence can create intelligence same with life, only life can create life.

What you said is that "intelligence begets intelligence" and "life cannot come from non life, and god automatically falls under the category of living/intelligent which makes god subject to the same rule you imposed on all intelligence/life.
Also, god is also an effect and therefore requires a cause.
You keep using the created and creation, do you have any evidence for creation?

Evidence for creation is the fact that the universe has a beginning

I'm surprised that you are talking about science based on evidence, while making unscientific claims without evidence.
Do you have any evidence that the concept of eternal things/eternity exists?
Science so far, has not proven the existence of eternal things.

If science has not proven that eternal things exist does that mean they don't exist?
Is science the only way to get knowledge? If yes, can you scientifically prove your answer?

Who told you that there are only two possibilities?
So because you can only think of two possibilities means that there only two? Scientifically speaking, there may be many other possibilities that we are not aware of. Just because you can only think of two, doesn't mean that there are only two.

While the evidence say that the universe had a beginning, I do not rule out the possibility of infinite or eternal cycles of universes i.e universes that came before our own and universes that will come after.

Did you Even read what you wrote, you just proved me right. All the possibilities you brought out are all example of eternal universe, which by the way has being debunked, if you are really serious to know the truth you will actually go and find out why they were rejected.

Yes I'm a materialist. I believe only in the physical reality because it can be tested and experimentally verified.
Meanwhile there's no means to non material realities meaning there's no way to differentiate between them and falsehoods.

Good at least you are honest. Now answer this, Is mathematics material in nature? Does mathematics exist?
What color is evil, goodness, love? What kind of material is consciousness made off?
Where does the human value come from?

Everyday247:
This raises questions:
Firstly, how does one know if something (God or anything else) is eternal?
Secondly, how do you know that the universe isn't eternal?

All evidence shows that the universe cannot be eternal.
God by basic definition is eternal else he would not be God. The basic definition of what God is, is that he is timeless, spaceless and immaterial personal being.

I don't understand how this analogy relates to the question. What are the different categories the sun and moon belong to?
What are the different categories God and the universe belong to?

God belongs to the category of what is eternal while the universe belong to the category of what is not eternal. I used the sun and the moon to demonstrate how categories work. The sun belong to the category of things that generate their light while the moon belong to another category of things that depend on others for light. It is therefore illogical to try to force the sun into the moon's category or vice versa. That is what you are trying to do trying to force God into categories of created things.

What is that definition of God that makes god eternal?
Why do you say creation* must depend on God and not something else?

The definition of God that makes him eternal is because he is before all created things and therefore cannot be part of created things.
I say creation depend on God because creation itself is an effect and every effect has a cause.

*It's too early to conclude that the universe is a creation when we currently do not understand how the universe works and it's nature.

Do you have any evidence that the unverse may be eternal? Science is base on evidence and not wisful thinking, if there is another evidence that the unverse is eternal then the current understanding will change but so far all evidence prove the unverse has a beginning.

You are making hasty generalisations by saying "we all know that something must be eternal", because first of all, we currently don't know how the universe work.
And also, is there any such thing as "outside the universe"?

dude there only two possibities either the unverse has always existed in any shape of form (multiverse, parallel universe etc included) or something outside of the unverse brought it into being. This has nothing to do with our understanding of how the universe works.

The universe is defined as space and time. So it doesn't make sense to say "outside the universe" because "outside" is an attribute of space. If there's a "here" and "there", it implies a presence of space. Unless you are claiming that there's another universe outside our universe. Or that our universe is in another universe which is a wild claim.

The fact that you don't understand it, does not make it untrue. What matters is the evidence to what we feel is true or possible and the evidence is, the unverse (space-time) has a beginning (it has not always being.

You are probably a materialist that is why you think the only reality that existent is the physical reality however evidence says the physical reality has a beginning.

budaatum:


I am reading your "being" as been. Correct me if i misunderstand please.

The assumption that there are "only two possible explanations", I doubt, considering the numerous universe creation narratives believed. In fact, isn't this discussion the dispute of myths themselves, or would you like to argue anyone saw a big bang?

yes there are myths and what's not, that is why evidence is uttermost importance to ascertain truth.
There might not be a big bang or there might be but however every evidence points to the direction of a universe that has a beginning.

That said, yes, I agree that the universe must either have always been or it gradually came into being, and evidence suggests the latter at least from our earthly observation, that it gradually came into being, hence the many creation records like "God said" and big bang, all we humans way of understanding what we observe and writing it in books to disseminate it to those who can not observe for themselves.

yes true, humans observe and gather evidence then interpret it.

Your claim though that "If the universe has always being then there would have being an infinite amount of time before we could ever get here, meaning we would not have existed at all", I don't think I understand.

It seems like you are claiming that if a very large and long amount of time had ed, we humans would not have existed.

Can you explain what you mean by "infinite amount of time", please, and tell me why say, if the universe was born 10 million years ago, humans would not exist.

Alright, what I meant when I said that if the universe has always being then we wouldn't have being. Supposing you were walking on road going to a point at the end of the road but however the road is infinite would you ever get to your destination? Now try and reverse it supposing you were at an infinite time backward in the past would you have gotten to today? The answers are NO this is because no matter the time spent there will always be an infinite time left to get to your destination hence if the unverse was eternal there will never be today.
What I mean by infinite is endless time. Sometimes it is used to mean an incredible amount that placing a particular number maybe difficulty but however it is not truly infinite.

I assume eternal means always been. Do atheists claim the universe is eternal?

In fact, I'll ask them myself.

Atheists! Is the universe eternal?

eternal can mean timeless.

First, I'm beginning to think it is scientists that you mean when you say atheist, like you abhor their use of their own senses.

This is rude and dishonest of you, you falsely accused me of something I didn't do.

Second, I do not think atheists claim their brain is a "product of cosmic accident". In fact, I'd say the atheists claim is their brain is a product of development over a very long period of time, and that humans have evolved consequently from single cells with perhaps some accidents along the way.

Should we ask atheists, again, maybe, instead of you trying to portray them as you seem to think they are?

@bolded you have said it yourself.

I never said atheism gave anything, I hope.


You are rude!

you seem to attribute intelligence to atheism.
I apologize for the harshness of language.

That doesn't then give anyone the right to impose their god in the gap and tell everyone to just believe it especially if those people would rather go ask and knock and seek with their own hearts and souls and minds and beings, is what I think.

Still, I have never heard an atheist or a scientist claim the universe is eternal. They think they so smart they know when the universe was born.

Nobody is imposing god of the gap but oftentimes atheists love impose time of the gap argument.
Before the discovery of the microwave background and the expansion of the universe the default belief in the scientific community was that the unverse was eternal till today there are ignorant atheists still believe that others with knowledge have switch to mutiverse theory or the universe popping from nothing which itself is only possible by supernatural power as only a supernatural power can produce things out of nothing hence they end with a miracle without a miracle worker.

Everyday247:
doesn't the bolded also apply to this god?

It cannot apply to God because he is eternal while the universe is not.
God and the universe do not belong to same category. Take for example the Sun and the Moon, the moon depend on the Sun for her light but the Sun does not depend on anything for its light, they both depend of different category.
God by definition is untreated eternal but the creation depends on God to have its being.

Whether we wants to agree with this we all know that something must be eternal either the universe or something or someone outside of the universe.

God is looking for those who will worship him in Spirit and in truth.

budaatum:

I have always maintained that something has to exist to go bang.


Read the italics below, and tell me if it is not trying to say the same as what you said above.

The Big Bang theory, while explaining the expansion and evolution of the universe we know, doesn't offer an explanation for what existed before the initial singularity. This singularity is a point of infinite density and temperature from which the universe is thought to have emerged.

There are only two possible explanation, it is either the universe came into existence or the universe has always being. If the universe has always being then there would have being an infinite amount of time before we could ever get here, meaning we would not have existed at all.
The cyclical model of universe has being debunked. the law of thermodynamics only works in one direction which is disorderliness essential hence the universe could not have being eternal at all leaving only one possibility which is that the universe truly came into being and was not eternal.

Funny. The technology learnt along their search (and by the way, they are not all atheists as more scientists since the beginning of time have been religious than not), has increase human life span alone, and that's apart from empowering you to converse with me over a long distance. Or would you rather we remain ignorant and without satellites?

Funny how atheists could trust their brains if their brains were a product of cosmic accident? By the way atheism didn't give anything, technology is a product of Intelligence and only intelligence can produce intelligence.

I am trying to convince myself that you are capable of accessing "all evidence", and I feel very certain you will not disappoint me.

You are deluded! Go and learn properly.

Imagine! You would think they read somewhere that they should ask and knock and seek with all their hearts and souls and minds and beings and they will know.

you are an ignorant person.

And yet it is possible to date when humans created their Gods, and God didn't exist everywhere, least not in my great grandfather's time until it was brought to where he was in a book. And there were Gods before God. And God isn't even the oldest God since some Gods have existed before God, though many have since died I it.

But seriously. Teach me master.

You dont know what you are saying. Tautology everywhere. How can God create God can't you see the stupidity there?

Let me summarize for you, the unverse has a beginning because physically and mathematically it is not possible for the universe to be eternal hence many atheists are forced to say the universe came from nothing but because they cannot u derstand how they are trying to redefine the word nothing which drives them into more insanity others try to shift it to multiverse which only begs the question, the cyclical model has being rejected because it is not possible.
There is only one possibility that the unverse was created from a being outside space and time.
You trickishly dodge the part where life can only come from life. Till today there is no evidence that a non living thing can produce a living thing.
With all the advancement in science and technology yet nobody knows how to make the simplest cell.

An atheists believe the universe is infinite without any shred of evidence and are willing to go against all evidence for their foolishness.
How do explain somebody saying who created God?
Another hammer or atheism is the existence of life. According to science life must come from life and non life cannot produce life. Which means all life came from an eternal persistent life and this life is timeless and immaterial.

Intelligence is another dilemma of atheism, untelligence cannot create intelligence only intelligence can create intelligence. However, intelligence is a property of mind and mind is a property of personhood.
Therefore it logical to conclude that a spaceless. Immaterial, timeless and personal being exist who created all things, this is God in basic definition.

budaatum:


How do you know this? And why is God not an example?

Why is "Eternal and infinite life" an attribute of God?

In fact, do you understand that infinite means immeasurably or inconceivably great or extensive, and that because you are incapable of measuring a thing does not mean it is eternal?

The current cosmological science backed up by evidence shows that the universe ( space-time-material) has a beginning. It therefore mean that whatever brought the universe into being is outside the universe (space-time-material). Therefore that being is spaceless timesless and immaterial.
Many atheists scientists in trying to fix their poopoo try to conjure infinite unverses which ended up not helping them at all but infact pushed their dilemma further.
All evidence points that there is a being that is immaterial and outside of the universe that created them.
Now the stupid question atheists usually ask is "who created God or where did God come from?"
God cannot be created because he is timeless, God cannot come from anywhere because he is spaceless or else he will not be God.

Lor have mercy.

Ken4Christ:
“Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them.” (Ephesians 5:11, NIV)
I understand that this title may come across as offensive to some—especially those who are guilty of the things I’m about to highlight. But please hear me: this is not about condemnation, but confrontation. We are instructed by Scripture not only to separate ourselves from works of darkness, but also to reprove—that is, expose—them.
This article is not written from a pedestal of perfection. I am not claiming to be a flawless minister. None of us are. However, there is a significant difference between falling into error and deliberately practicing wickedness while claiming to represent the Kingdom of God.
When a pastor errs and repents, God's grace abounds. But when someone engages in sinful practices without even seeing them as wrong—and worse, leads others down the same path—that person becomes a danger not only to themselves but to the souls under their influence.
So let us examine ten categories of dangerous pastors that every believer should beware of.

1. Oppressive Senior Pastors
These are some General Overseers or senior pastors who actively suppress and persecute younger ministers under them. They often feel threatened by the grace and potential they see in others. After asking a young pastor to pioneer a new work and grow it, they suddenly uproot them to a rural area and withdraw all .
When these young ministers quietly leave to start their own work, they are falsely accused, blackmailed, arrested, and publicly disgraced—all in an attempt to destroy their credibility.
In extreme cases, some even resort to violent or deadly plots. While appearing humble and godly before their congregations, they are spiritually manipulative behind closed doors.
Unless they repent, such pastors will not escape God’s judgment. They will not even “smell the gates of heaven.”

2. Greedy Pastors
These pastors exploit gullible followers through manipulative teachings and false promises. They demand payment for miracles, deliverance, or “special prayers”—contradicting the words of Jesus:
“Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils: freely ye have received, freely give.” (Matthew 10:
Salvation and healing are not commodities. Any pastor who sells what Jesus gave freely is dangerous.

3. Business-Minded Pastors
These pastors turn the church into a commercial centre. They sell all kinds of “anointed” oils, waters, soaps, and handkerchiefs, promising healing or prosperity. Some have even sold fake “Blood of Jesus” in bottles.
One pastor in Nigeria reportedly built a swimming pool and charged N50,000 for people to bathe in it for healing. It’s astonishing how easily people are deceived when they fail to study the Scriptures for themselves.

4. Deceptive Pastors
These are con artists in clerical collars. They use fake prophecies and planted informants to extract money, property, and loyalty from unsuspecting . Even the so-called “miracle money” or “credit alerts” in services are often stage-managed.
Behind the scenes, they have access to people’s bank details and use it to orchestrate the appearance of divine intervention. These are wolves in sheep’s clothing.

5. Ritualist Pastors
These are perhaps the most terrifying of all. They engage in diabolical practices—burying charms under altars, using human sacrifices, and invoking dark powers to grow their congregations.
There are verified reports of children being buried alive under church foundations and horrifying rituals performed under the guise of ministry.
Many of these so-called pastors also indulge in occult-driven sexual perversion, which ties into the next category.

6. Sexually Immoral Pastors
There is a difference between a minister who falls into sin and one who habitually lives in it. Some pastors today are serial adulterers and fornicators, even abusing minors or engaging

9. Hyper-Grace Pastors
These pastors teach eternal security without responsibility. They claim that once you’re saved, you can never lose your salvation—regardless of how you live.
While it’s true that salvation is by grace (Ephesians 2:, the very next verse says:
“For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works…” (Ephesians 2:10)
Grace is not a license to sin. Scripture repeatedly warns that the unrighteous will not inherit the Kingdom of God (1 Corinthians 6:9-10; Galatians 5:19-21).

Actually there are evidences in the Bible that shows eternal security is true. The hyper grace teaching is actually license and has nothing to do with the grace of Jesus christ which lead to shun fleshly lost and pursue Godly life.

Lucifyre:


If intelligence cannot come from non intelligence and life cannot come from non life whence comes your god? (sp)

your question does not make sense, God is timeless and hence doesn't have a beginning.

Intelligence cannot come from non Intelligence, life cannot come from non life. This is the delima of naturalists.
The order and design of the universe plus the existence of life shows there is a living immaterial, spaceless and timeless personal being called God.

donnie:


Is it white laborers that installed the one in your house? That we were subjected to centuries of slavery doesn't mean we should forget our history. Many people attribute the invention of the smartphone to Europeans, but in fact, the first digital cell phone was invented by an African American man named Jesse Eugene Russell . Did you know the first University in the world was in Timbuktu? Did you know the first writing in the world (Nsibidi) was invented by Ejagham people?


You are so shallow in your thinking... a typical example of the destructive effects of colonialism on the psyche of our people. Many inventions of our people were stolen or attributed to white people. Its a systematic colonization of the mind. Have you seen a flying saucer before. I have seen one just 50 yards away. It can choose to appear and be visible or to be invisible. It can hide in what seems like clouds. Can you figure out he technology behind such a vehicle? Till today, even the US government is Afraid of the phenomenon. Till today, the cannot figure out how the pyramids were built. But you will see images of our people on the walls.



Have you not seen this AkwaIbom girl who invented the World's First AI Smartphone with holographic display, inbuilt charger and lie detector that is vey affordable- #3500?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7pFd21CZ8uc?si=QGaAa4hGT853hfyW

What about the man who invented a light bulb that is powered by just salt? This thing is inside us... we are descendants of the ancients... those who's normal life and spirituality is worshipped today as technology. It is people like you that destroy such gifts. This your mindset is our major problem in Africa.

Medicine was first practiced here before colonizers came to steal and to destroy it.
Those criminal politicians are people who think like you... always following white man with cap in hand, begging. They know nothing good can come out of them or their brainwashed people. You are under a spell.... white man's witchcraft, but you do not know.

The English you are typing with is it the black man's language?
The phone you are using is it a black man that owns it?
Is it a Blackman that made the car you are driving?
The educational system you have is it not the white man that gave it to you?

You are using the language of your colonial masters to call another person a slave where as you are the real slave.

We all know what Africa was before Christianity came, it filled with human sacrifice and every form of barbarism. Even before the white man started slavery Africans have started enslaving one another.

One of the oldest church on earth is an African church not Roman catholicism. Christianity is not a western religion, the jews are not even white.
All human race came from one source, truth justice and mercy do not have color or race. 1+1= 2 is true irrespective of who first discovered it. Dismissing something because it came from another tribe or race is one of the most foolish thing to do.

Did your ancestors speak English? Did they drive cars, use phones, wear kind of clothes you wear? Did they go to schools?
Most things you use came from your colonial masters

A sinner is dead in sin and hence need life from Christ.

That is why I said you have a false security.

MaxInDHouse:

Oneness is what Jesus prayed {John 17:22} for so when there is no oneness it means those people aren't practicing true Christianity!

even the apostles had disagreement but that does not mean they are not one. Again, all true Christians have one belief in the things that matters most in the Christian faith. Having minor disagreements doesn't mean lack of unity.

Defending the faith before a believer or unbeliever?
If you've seen what Jesus said but you are not in agreement the scriptures said there is no need to continue arguing! Philippians 2:14; 1Timothy 6:4; Titus 3:9

Of course defending faith is before an unbeliever.

Born of God is not born again!


You are misconstruing the whole thing.
Born again Christians will inherit heaven {Matthew 5:3} while all other believers will inherit the earth! Matthew 5:5

No such thing in the Bible. Being born again is for all Christians not a select few. If you are not born again you won't see the kingdom of God meaning you would not be in God's kingdom in other words your portion is in the lake of fire.

MaxInDHouse:

Disagreement that makes worshipers to discriminate among themselves shey? 1Corinthans 1:10-14
Ọmọ that's confirmed disarray if you are deceiving yourself i'm not!

even in the early church where Paul and Peter were minster people discriminated to the extent some claimed to be followers of Peter, some same they are of Apollos others say they belong to Paul, does that mean the early Christians were not true worshiper? That your one line of thought without disagreement is alien to the body of christ.

Well you can only prove it wrong by the demonstration of adherents that's what faith means {Hebrew 11:1} not just arguments so present the works of your faith! James 2:18-26

The scripture said be prepared to defend your faith. If you claim to be teaching the truth from the Bible you should not be running away from scrutiny rather you should be happy about it.

That's for Jews whom he came to call as his corulers not the nations.

Jesus anyone who is not born of God can't see the kingdom of God he did not say its for the jews only.

Different context: born of God differs from born again!

Nah, they are the same.

1 Peter 1:23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.

Peter is referring to his audience as "born again". You will agree with me that Peter is not writing to spirits but to men who were born again hence to be born again doesn't mean you literally become spirit, it is the same as being born of God.

Omoawoke:


You have been eliminated from this debate….
Your response shows you are not mentally equipped to engage an intelligent debate… I feel so sorry for you, you are mentally inadequate.
I won’t respond to you anymore ! Bye!

There was no debate to start with. If you were intelligent you would have known A.i only give you what people put on net.

MaxInDHouse:

So called it disagreement not wrong interpretation it simply means there is a disagreement between my beliefs and yours!

Disagreements only minor issues, anyone who disagree on major issue is obviously not part of the body of christ.

Apart from God all spirit beings in heaven are God's sons (angels) so Jesus coming from heaven means he is one of God's sons an angel!

That is a wrong conclusion because Jesus is God not an angel.

They are people chosen from different countries throughout the world and Jesus said they will become angels when they get to heaven! Luke 20:34-36
Being born again simply means those chosen to rule with Christ not all Christians. Millions of us aren't going to heaven earth is our home and this is where we are designed to live forever!

Jesus said anyone not born again will not see the kingdom of God.

John 3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.


According to the Bible anyone who believe in Christ is born of God not a select few.

1 John 5:1 Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him.

You have stylishly dodge the part of my quote where I showed you Jesus is a man not an angel.
And no humans won't become angels because Jesus is not angel and the world to come is not subject to Angels but to humans.

MaxInDHouse:

That's what different religions are saying before they now amount to thousands in number yet claiming denominations of the same religion.
So if Kumuyi agree with Adeboye, if Oyedepo agree with Olukoya if Mouka agree with Oyakilome there won't be different religions in the name of denominations each is saying the same thing you just said:
"They wrongly interpret the Bible"

There must surely be disagreements what matters is if the scripture is properly taught.

I have answered but you never followed!
Jesus WAS an angel in heaven before his earthly mission {John 8:23} and after his ascension he returned to the spirit realms as an angel. His subjects are humans on earth as he is going to rule as king from heaven. John 18:36

Jesus never said he was an angel in heaven in John 8:23. Can you show it explicitly?

But he is taking 144,000 humans there to serve as his corulers {Revelations 14:1 compare to John 14:1-3} these ones will become BORN AGAIN {John 3:3-5} meaning after their earthly course they will also become angels like him in heaven! Luke 20:34-36
Paul referred to Jesus as man because that is what Jesus became here when he was born by a woman! Matthew 20:28

The 144. 000 were jews and no mention of them becoming angels. Being born again is the same as salvation, all true Christians are born again and it does not mean they become angels.
Luke 20:35 said those that would inherit the world to come would not marry

They will be equal to the angels of God.

Luke 20:35 But they which shall be ed worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage:

However they will not be angels.
Hebrews 2:5 For unto the angels hath he not put in subjection the world to come, whereof we speak.
The world to come is not subject to Angels bit to men.

If Jesus is no longer a man why will Paul still be referring to him as "the man christ Jesus"

If Jesus is no longer a man that means Jesus could not be a priest neither can he referred to humans as brothers?

Paul is making a statement of the present.
1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

There is one God and one mediator between God and men and who is this mediator? Answer is a man not an angel. Let's say I was an American however I renounced my American nationality would you still be calling me an American?
If Jesus has stopped being a man that means Paul would be referring to another Jesus.

You see that Jehovah witness organization are preaching another Jesus.
2 Corinthians 11:4 For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him.

MaxInDHouse:

I know you don't see JWs as teachers of God's word but i will share my beliefs so you can know what all JWs have in mind.

They wrongly interpret the Bible that is why.

Jesus promised that God's Holy Spirit will be used to anoint some of his disciples so they will become BORN AGAIN after their water baptism {John 3:3-5} that's what happened at Pentecost 33 c.e after Jesus' ascension to heaven.
So those BORN AGAIN Christians are the brothers of Christ that we must IDENTIFY for our salvation that's why Paul wrote in his letter to Jewish Christians:

"Be obedient to those who are taking the lead among you and be submissive, for they are keeping watch over you as those who will render an , so that they may do this with joy and not with sighing, for this would be damaging to you." Hebrews 13:17

The highlighted in blue simply means whoever refuses to obey them will not have Christ's approval! Matthew 25:40, 45,46

Jesus told them that he is taking them to heaven where they will no longer live as humans but as angels {Luke 20:34-36} and Paul seconded Jesus' word at 1Thessalonians 4:16-17 so while they are humans like you and i they've been chosen as BORN AGAIN to become angels in the future.

That's why Jesus could call them his brothers!

You really didn't answer my question I don't know if you realize that. According to scripture Jesus referred to humans as his brethren, if Jesus is not a human how come he called them his brothers?
By the way, if Jesus was an angel why did Paul call Jesus a man?
1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.

MaxInDHouse:


Do you know CHRIST'S BROTHERS? Matthew 25:40

If you know them they will introduce you to Christ their brother otherwise Christ has no business with you! Matthew 25:45-46

In what way are they christ brothers? You guys believe that Jesus is angel? How then do you believe humans are brothers to an angel?
Don't get me wrong, I believe Jesus called humans his brethren and that is because Jesus has same humanity with them.

MaxInDHouse:


If you mean God's Kingdom in Paradise i'm 100% certain that i will be there.

Why am i so confident?

Jesus is the WAY {John 14:6} as promised in God's word that there will be a way of holiness {Isaiah 35:8} so all i need to do is IDENTIFY Christ's anointed brothers {Matthew 25:40} these people has been approved as corulers with Christ in the kingdom {Luke 12:32} for their hard work of assembling all peace lovers throughout the earth {Luke 10:6} to form one big and global family of peace loving worshipers! Isaiah 2:2-4; Micah 4:1-3
So as long as i remain OBEDIENT to them as i would have if Christ is here {Hebrew 13:7, 17} there is 100% guarantee that i will be in Paradise when they are ushering in their subjects! Luke 16:9

Max, you have a false security. You must totally put your trust in Jesus christ and his work on the cross not in Jehovah witness organization nor your fine works nor in any group.
In other to put your faith in christ you have to know who he is and unfortunately you don't know who he is.

You are wrong atheists are not the most evil people. There are atheists that are very moral. Many people who believe there is God are very wicked and evil.

Imf is making money improverishing nations on the pretense of goodwill and development.