Dtruthspeaker:


Your question tended to put on me what is not mine, for I never said so nor intended to say so, to wit-


The bolded is not my statement and I do not accept it.

Which is why I answered that I was very clear on what I said, which is recorded here, therefore, if you wish to take me on by what I said, then let it be on the ground of what I said, not on another.

Thus, if you are interested in this line of reasoning, it would be clean and honourable for you to raise it up properly.



Isn't this a clean, reasonable and healthy way to argue? I love clean, reasonable and healthy arguments even if we are on opposing sides, but it is with the understanding that a personal opinion Always Remains a Personal Opinion (P.O)

As to our previous unhealthy and hostile encounters, that was last year, when war and hostility was the business of the day in Nairaland.

However, this year, these are nice days of peace and reasonablility, so it is unreasonable for anyone to go at an argument daggers drawn.

It was clearly a sentiment you expressed. You said laws were made by your god though I am yet to see were your god made a rule about traffic lights or seatbelts. So according to you if man makes a rule that your god didn't make, you are under no obligation to obey it, also known as a rule you don't like.

Using words like crafty is belligerent and derogatory language. If you want us to go down that route then fine.

annyplenty:


Ok let us begin.

Revelation 1:8-9 KJV
Almighty. [9] I John, who also am your brother, and companion in tribulation, and in the kingdom and patience h of Jesus Christ, was in the isle that is called Patmos, for the word of God, and for the testimony of Jesus Christ.

Let us try and define tribulation with the statement of John above.

If you restrict your understanding of what "Tribulation" truly means ONLY to John's Revelation, then you have done great injustice to The Lord who said it Earlier in Mathew 24 and therefore, you would also not see it in action in other earlier references.

So this clearly shows that your opinion of what "Tribulation" truly means must be different from mine.

My observation throughout the Bible from Genesis to revelation "Tribulation" has only One Great Meaning whenever it is used.

Thus, Tribulation refers to Increased Troubles. If observant you would see that Tribulation and Troubles are Always Linked both in words and in fact. Hence I think that what was called Tribulation in the past can also be called "Troublations or Trouble-lations today".

Which on further observation it is seen and known that all the people in the world fall into one Trouble or the other with some form of regularity and these types are usually bearable and tolerable.

However there is a period of time where there is a Noticeable Increase in the Number, Regularity, Vehemence and Hotness of Troubles, and here the afflicted soul cries out and everyone sees and can see that such a soul is afflicted.

The afflicted even cries out saying "who I don offend? dem curse me? What did I do to deserve this kain wahala?"

This state is what I have identified to be Tribulation.

And I gleaned this both from personal experience and from several passages in the Bible most especially Psalms, Proverbs and Ecclesiastes, which I used to overcome all these experiences and observations.

Eg Psalm 25:17, Psalm 16:4 etc

Dtruthspeaker:


If you restrict your understanding of what "Tribulation" truly means ONLY to John's Revelation, then you have done great injustice to The Lord who said it Earlier in Mathew 24 and therefore, you would also not see it in action in other earlier references.

So this clearly shows that your opinion of what "Tribulation" truly means must be different from mine.

My observation throughout the Bible from Genesis to revelation "Tribulation" has only One Great Meaning whenever it is used.

Thus, Tribulation refers to Increased Troubles. If observant you would see that Tribulation and Troubles are Always Linked both in words and in fact. Hence I think that what was called Tribulation in the past can also be called "Troublations or Trouble-lations today".

Which on further observation it is seen and known that all the people in the world fall into one Trouble or the other with some form of regularity and these types are usually bearable and tolerable.

However there is a period of time where there is a Noticeable Increase in the Number, Regularity, Vehemence and Hotness of Troubles, and here the afflicted soul cries out and everyone sees and can see that such a soul is afflicted.

The afflicted even cries out saying "who I don offend? dem curse me? What did I do to deserve this kain wahala?"

This state is what I have identified to be Tribulation.

And I gleaned this both from personal experience and from several passages in the Bible most especially Psalms, Proverbs and Ecclesiastes, which I used to overcome all these experiences and observations.

Eg Psalm 25:17, Psalm 16:4 etc

Thank you for your response. I am not saying that you are wrong. I am equally trying to draw out the real meaning of the great tribulation as God would have the church and believers to know so that we will not be in error.

Truth be spoken, majority of believers today, do not know the actual meaning of the great tribulation as God would have them know. And unless we allow scripture to explain itself, we will run into error.

What I want to do is to allow scripture to explain itself and not try to read my own meaning into the scripture.

Let me finish my exposition, using only scripture to explain scripture, then you can make your opinion of my presentation.

I will definitely continue today, if God wills.

LordReed:
It was clearly a sentiment you expressed. You said laws were made by your god though I am yet to see were your god made a rule about traffic lights or seatbelts. So according to you if man makes a rule that your god didn't make, you are under no obligation to obey it, also known as a rule you don't like.

Now you have properly raised a fresh issue in line with your reasoning which I can attempt to address.

So on God issuing laws on traffic lights and seatbelts, surely you know that you are being unreasonable here, for traffic lights and seatbelt laws can only apply to those places where they are in use, called Limited Jurisdiction not Worldwide Laws. Thus, there is No traffic light and seatbelt law in Riverine Communities and on the High Seas but God's Laws Covers All and are therefore still there.

LordReed:

So according to you if man makes a rule that your god didn't make, you are under no obligation to obey...

Yes, I verily did say so and I do say so and I always will say so.

The Lord, Covered It and Them All.

LordReed:

... also known as a rule you don't like.

Objection!

You are the one who testifies about the "Likeness of a rule", I made no comments about "liking" or "not liking" any rule,

LordReed:

Using words like crafty is belligerent and derogatory language. If you want us to go down that route then fine.

If I offended you in saying you were being crafty, I apologize, but you must understand that where a foul/offence is perpetrated on me it is my duty to cry out and raise up an objection timeously.

annyplenty:


Thank you for your response. I am not saying that you are wrong. I am equally trying to draw out the real meaning of the great tribulation as God would have the church and believers to know so that we will not be in error.

Truth be spoken, majority of believers today, do not know the actual meaning of the great tribulation as God would have them know. And unless we allow scripture to explain itself, we will run into error.

What I want to do is to allow scripture to explain itself and not try to read my own meaning into the scripture.

Let me finish my exposition, using only scripture to explain scripture, then you can make your opinion of my presentation.

I will definitely continue today, if God wills.

It's ok, I love "Statements speaking for themselves"!

Dtruthspeaker:


Now you have properly raised a fresh issue in line with your reasoning which I can attempt to address.

So on God issuing laws on traffic lights and seatbelts, surely you know that you are being unreasonable here, for traffic lights and seatbelt laws can only apply to those places where they are in use, called Limited Jurisdiction not Worldwide Laws. Thus, there is No traffic light and seatbelt law in Riverine Communities and on the High Seas but God's Laws Covers All and are therefore still there.



Yes, I verily did say so and I do say so and I always will say so.

The Lord, Covered It and Them All.



Objection!

You are the one who testifies about the "Likeness of a rule", I made no comments about "liking" or "not liking" any rule,



If I offended you in saying you were being crafty, I apologize, but you must understand that where a foul/offence is perpetrated on me it is my duty to cry out and raise up an objection timeously.

I am not sure what you are objecting to. Do you like the things your god does not sanction?

You can express your reservations without being derogatory.

LordReed:

Do you like the things your god does not sanction?

Thank you. This is a clear and direct question which I can present my own personal opinion without being connected to any other person's opinion or popular opinion.

However, there is a problem with your question, it is too ambiguous, that is your truest intention or intentions for the question is very unclear.

In that are you asking,

1) whether "I Like" the things that God did not sanction? (Here, you are making my personal pleasure or preference which may still be independent from my pleasure, in issue)

2) Whether I like "The Things" that God did not sanction? (here, is it about the things?) or

2) Whether I like the things that "God Did Not Sanction"? (Here, is it about the fact that God Sanctioned or did not sanctioned them as different from whether I or any other man sanctions or does not sanction them?)

For this word "sanction" is both positive and negative, thereby leading to unclarity when I present my answer.

These are the things which makes this question very ambiguous.

Dtruthspeaker:


Thank you. This is a clear and direct question which I can present my own personal opinion without being connected to any other person's opinion or popular opinion.

However, there is a problem with your question, it is too ambiguous, that is your truest intention or intentions for the question is very unclear.

In that are you asking,

1) whether "I Like" the things that God did not sanction? (Here, you are making my personal pleasure or preference which may still be independent from my pleasure, in issue)

2) Whether I like "The Things" that God did not sanction? (here, is it about the things?) or

2) Whether I like the things that "God Did Not Sanction"? (Here, is it about the fact that God Sanctioned or did not sanctioned them as different from whether I or any other man sanctions or does not sanction them?)

For this word "sanction" is both positive and negative, thereby leading to unclarity when I present my answer.

These are the things which makes this question very ambiguous.

There is no ambiguity in my question, you are the one attempting to make things convoluted.

The word sanction in this context means official permission or approval for an action. So it is a straight forward question, do you like the things your god doesn't sanction, yay or nay.

LordReed:


There is no ambiguity in my question, you are the one attempting to make things convoluted.

The word sanction in this context means official permission or approval for an action. So it is a straight forward question, do you like the things your god doesn't sanction, yay or nay.

Since you have settled your meaning of the word "sanction" then I can answer.

Like a House is to A Baby, I like everyone, came to meet these Laws here already, so The Lord did not consult me or anyone when He issued these Laws neither should I or any man be consulted when The Lord formulated these Laws!

So my like or dislike is of no consequence!

Dtruthspeaker:


Since you have settled your meaning of the word "sanction" then I can answer.

Like a House is to A Baby, I like everyone, came to meet these Laws here already, so The Lord did not consult me or anyone when He issued these Laws neither should I or any man be consulted when The Lord formulated these Laws!

So my like or dislike is of no consequence!

I never said your like or dislike was of consequence so my question remains unanswered and I suspect you are playing these word games because you can see what it leads to if you answer plainly.

LordReed:


Your bible told you to obey your earthly rulers, even your Jesus did so but here you are turning everything on its head. Anyway its not a surprise its you peoples way, you can use the bible to justify anything.

You ought to obey God rather than men, i believe you remember that. If man's rule is against God like Nebuchadnezzar's idolatrous order, you obey God instead.

LordReed:


I never said your like or dislike was of consequence so my question remains unanswered and I suspect you are playing these word games because you can see what it leads to if you answer plainly.

Okay, since it is settled that my answer here is inconsequential and of no effect, so I can patronisingly make my own fair comment on this parts as per your question.

So your question

"Do you like the things God did not sanction?" Can I alter the question to

"Do i like the things God prohibited?" So that I could answer from this view?

And could you lay down some examples of those things He Prohibited/sanctioned which you truly have in mind?

Dtruthspeaker:


If you restrict your understanding of what "Tribulation" truly means ONLY to John's Revelation, then you have done great injustice to The Lord who said it Earlier in Mathew 24 and therefore, you would also not see it in action in other earlier references.

So this clearly shows that your opinion of what "Tribulation" truly means must be different from mine.

My observation throughout the Bible from Genesis to revelation "Tribulation" has only One Great Meaning whenever it is used.

Thus, Tribulation refers to Increased Troubles. If observant you would see that Tribulation and Troubles are Always Linked both in words and in fact. Hence I think that what was called Tribulation in the past can also be called "Troublations or Trouble-lations today".

Which on further observation it is seen and known that all the people in the world fall into one Trouble or the other with some form of regularity and these types are usually bearable and tolerable.

However there is a period of time where there is a Noticeable Increase in the Number, Regularity, Vehemence and Hotness of Troubles, and here the afflicted soul cries out and everyone sees and can see that such a soul is afflicted.

The afflicted even cries out saying "who I don offend? dem curse me? What did I do to deserve this kain wahala?"

This state is what I have identified to be Tribulation.

And I gleaned this both from personal experience and from several passages in the Bible most especially Psalms, Proverbs and Ecclesiastes, which I used to overcome all these experiences and observations.

Eg Psalm 25:17, Psalm 16:4 etc

Let us continue.

Before I continue, I will like to say or stress that the phrase 'great tribulation' are used three times in the whole of the bible; one in Mathew 24 and twice in the book of revelation. The other phrace that looks like it is 'much tribulation' which is used in the book of acts.

So it follows that the phrase 'great tribulation is a term that relates solely to the end time. And to understand it clearly, scriptures especially those about end time should be consulted.

annyplenty:


Let us continue.

Before I continue, I will like to say or stress that the phrase 'great tribulation' are used three times in the whole of the bible; one in Mathew 24 and twice in the book of revelation. The other phrace that looks like it is 'much tribulation' which is used in the book of acts.

So it follows that the phrase 'great tribulation is a term that relates solely to the end time. And to understand it clearly, scriptures especially those about end time should be consulted.

Yep! But in my opinion I think everyone already sees and knows what Great Troublelations means for we are verily going through it, to wit Scarcity of the Word of God, much sufferings and hardships, plentous deaths, much hatred and strivings even between family members of the same blood etc

Dtruthspeaker:


It's ok, I love "Statements speaking for themselves"!

There are also some clarifications I want to make for better understanding.

-1. There is a sharp difference between the great tribulation and the wrath of God. Howbeit, most believers do not know the difference and they mix two things. I pray I get to explain the difference by and by

-2. Any time the scripture lay emphasis on a certain white Garment, it is talking about the rapture of the saints. Let me give instances.

Matthew 22:11-12 KJV
And when the king came in to see the guests, he saw there a man which had not on a wedding garment: [12] And he saith unto him, Friend, how camest thou in hither not having a wedding garment? And he was speechless.

Revelation 16:14-15 KJV
Almighty. [15] Behold, I come as a thief. Blessed is he that watcheth, and keepeth his garments, lest he walk naked, and they see his shame.

Revelation 19:6-8 KJV
[7] Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honour to him: for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made herself ready. [8] And to her was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white: g for the fine linen is the righteousness h of saints.

And so on.

I will make reference to this white Garment when I continue to show what tribulation is in my next comments

To be continued

Dtruthspeaker:


Okay, since it is settled that my answer here is inconsequential and of no effect, so I can patronisingly make my own fair comment on this parts as per your question.

So your question

"Do you like the things God did not sanction?" Can I alter the question to

"Do i like the things God prohibited?" So that I could answer from this view?

And could you lay down some examples of those things He Prohibited/sanctioned which you truly have in mind?

No because that is a different question. Let me illustrate, your god doesn't sanction men taking concubines but your god doesn't prohibit it either so my question using this example will be, do you like the taking of concubines?

EDIT: Concubines in today's parlance is Baby Mama.

LordReed:


No because that is a different question. Let me illustrate, your god doesn't sanction men taking concubines but your god doesn't prohibit it either so my question using this example will be, do you like the taking of concubines?

EDIT: Concubines in today's parlance is Baby Mama.

He can't reply without Bible quotes.

LordReed:


No because that is a different question. Let me illustrate, your god doesn't sanction men taking concubines but your god doesn't prohibit it either so my question using this example will be, do you like the taking of concubines?

EDIT: Concubines in today's parlance is Baby Mama.

The Bible clearly shows God's perfect plan of man and woman, husband and wife, not man and women, or husband and wives. Stop being crafty. You don't see such practice in the New Testament. Instead it is a disqualifier.

LordReed:


No because that is a different question. Let me illustrate, your god doesn't sanction men taking concubines but your god doesn't prohibit it either so my question using this example will be, do you like the taking of concubines?

EDIT: Concubines in today's parlance is Baby Mama.

I can answer this using your scenario.

First, like you have rightly observed, There is No Law Expressly Prohibiting the acquisition of concubines/baby mamas, however another Law takes care of that.

Please do not punish me for speaking the Truth for that is what and how I love to speak!

So, in answering that question truly, I need to first lay these Truths first, so that you can understand what I truly have in mind when answering this question.

1) I admit that I love the pleasures of sex
2) I have indeed seen that diverse women are indeed capable of satisfying that pleasure.
3) However, I have also seen that the satisfaction comes from one woman at any given period of time.

Then, I have also observed that men who have had multiple women were greatly destroyed or imprisoned in multiple troubles and never coming out of them.

Thus, I love myself much more than the pleasures of many women, therefore, my answer is "I do not want nor desire any other woman beyond my wife".

Therefore I do not wish nor desire nor wish to like taking any concubine/slay mama or baby mama!

Dtruthspeaker:


I can answer this using your scenario.

First, like you have rightly observed, There is No Law Expressly Prohibiting the acquisition of concubines/baby mamas, however another Law takes care of that.

Please do not punish me for speaking the Truth for that is what and how I love to speak!

So, in answering that question truly, I need to first lay these Truths first, so that you can understand what I truly have in mind when answering this question.

1) I admit that I love the pleasures of sex
2) I have indeed seen that diverse women are indeed capable of satisfying that pleasure.
3) However, I have also seen that the satisfaction comes from one woman at any given period of time.

Then, I have also observed that men who have had multiple women were greatly destroyed or imprisoned in multiple troubles and never coming out of them.

Thus, I love myself much more than the pleasures of many women, therefore, my answer is "I do not want nor desire any other woman beyond my wife".

Therefore I do not wish nor desire nor wish to like taking any concubine/slay mama or baby mama!

LMAO!

So very simply you do not like what your god has not sanctioned. Put in another way you would have liked it if your god had actually sanctioned it.

Now you can see your previous objection is moot.

LordReed:

LMAO!

So very simply you do not like what your god has not sanctioned. Put in another way you would have liked it if your god had actually sanctioned it.

Now you can see your previous objection is moot.

This is not True!

It is rather the opposite, I do like All He has sanctioned, why?

Because when I am at the receiving end of any of those activities, I would reasonably complain that that which is not good but rather very painful and unbearable has been perpetrated on me.

Therefore, His Order that No One does these things is a fair and just and balance prevention of the pain associated with the doing of these activities.

HellVictorinho:

He can't reply without Bible quotes.

sorry to disappoint you, I can always reply without a biblical quote.

Dtruthspeaker:


This is not True!

It is rather the opposite, I do like All He has sanctioned, why?

Because when I am at the receiving end of any of those activities, I would reasonably complain that that which is not good but rather very painful and unbearable has been perpetrated on me.

Therefore, His Order that No One does these things is a fair and just and balance prevention of the pain associated with the doing of these activities.

LoL. I think you should revise your post, it seems confused.

LordReed:


LoL. I think you should revise your post, it seems confused.

You already know that this is not True, for as you said in consensus with me, my like or dislike of The Laws of God are Truly Inconsequential

LordReed:


I never said your like or dislike was of consequence...

Dtruthspeaker:


sorry to disappoint you, I can always reply without a biblical quote.

Is that an achievement now

HellVictorinho:

Is that an achievement now

To overcome expected failure is always an achievement!

Dtruthspeaker:


To overcome expected failure is always an achievement!

Congratulations

HellVictorinho:

Congratulations

Thank you!

Dtruthspeaker:


You already know that this is not True, for as you said in consensus with me, my like or dislike of The Laws of God are Truly Inconsequential

I said you love the things your god sanctions then you said No, I love the things my god sanctions, that is a funny disjointed response.

LordReed:


I said you love the things your god sanctions then you said No, I love the things my god sanctions, that is a funny disjointed response.

You did not say, you asked!

LordReed:


I am not sure what you are objecting to. Do you like the things your god does not sanction?

You can express your reservations without being derogatory.

Which I have answered and is now been settled!

Dtruthspeaker:


You did not say, you asked!



Which I have answered and is now been settled!

I didn't ask:

LordReed:


Put in another way you would have liked it if your god had actually sanctioned it.

To which you replied no. You seem to like to object to the things you actually agree with then it has to take a laborious process to show you that you actually agree with what you are disagreeing with.

LordReed:


LoL. I think you should revise your post, it seems confused.

Because that was your crafty aim in the first place. Snakes like you should be handled on a different plane, what do i know, lol. Like your dad, you know the Bible but you are trying to trap him not seeking for truth.