ttalks:

I didn't say the reality does not exist.rather I meant that the perception about it is wrong;hence the title:"Hell is a Christian Hoax".
Maybe it should have read: "The Christian perception of hell is wrong".

Fair enough. The one thing that seems to be inferred in Ray Smith's argument generally is that hell does not exist - or, that such a reality does not exist. That it may exist but the perception is wrong are two different things.

ttalks:

Verse 9 talks about judgement bringing righteousness.
verse 10 talks about favour; . . two diferent things.

So again: at what point does the wicked learn righteousness since verse 10 says he WILL NOT LEARN righteousness even if favour was showed? The initial question was about such a person persisting in his wickedness ('the ultimate end of all the ungodly, unregenerate and unrepentant') - and if the wicked will not learn righteousness even if favour was shown, what then?

ttalks:

I will have to get back to you on this.I have been swamped with
a whole load of work at the moment and will not be able to continue today.
I will have to continue tomorrow(my personal internet is down at the moment; I'm currently using
the one at work).

Okay, no rush. I'll wait. . . and thanks for providing answers to my queries.

Thank you, ttalks. I like your outline - succinct and straight to the point.

ttalks:

Question 1. The simple fact that they end up in the Lake of Fire.
But the question that ought to be asked is : what is this Lake of fire?

Glad to read this. But then, first thing is this: if they end up in the lake of fire, that is acknowledging that such a reality exists, no? Second, if that reality does not exist, why then acknowledge that anyone is going to end up there?

See why we have these concerns? However, what do you make out to be the Lake of Fire?

ttalks:

Question 2. They will learn righteousness and be saved.

Isaiah 26:9
(9)  With my soul have I desired thee in the night; yea, with my spirit within me will I seek thee early: for when thy judgments are in the earth, the inhabitants of the world will learn righteousness.

Nice - but sad inference. Verse 10 (the very next verse after Isaiah 26:9) says of the wicked (emphasis added):

         Let favour be shewed to the wicked, yet will he NOT LEARN righteousness:
         in the land of uprightness WILL he DEAL UNJUSTLY,
         and WILL NOT behold the majesty of the LORD.

At what point is the wicked going to be saved if he WILL NOT learn righteousness, sir?

ttalks:

Question 3. To escape the second death/Lake of fire experience at the time of judgement; to escape the painful experience of being purged and refined to
get rid of anything sin or unrighteousness. That's what this whole hell/second death/lake of fire thing is; a period or age of going through God's refining to be purged of all wrong and element of sin. It is not the fabrication of endless torture and torment forever.

No sir - Revelation that mentions the Lake of fire and second death does not show us anything about your conclusion - unless you have pointers in specific verses that say so. The second death is NOWHERE said to be a purging of wrong elements of sin - care to show us where it is otherwise taught so in Revelation?

toba:

Viaro wants to be sin free and not want to end up like solomon or judas, is it God that will help u to achieve this?

That is an example of God's sovereignty and man's responsibility. Let me explain:

(1)  God's sovereignty: ONLY GOD is able to set me free from sin.
(2)  Man's responsibility: only if I commit myself to God would that become true in my life.

God would not do the committing of myself to Him - that is hugely my own responsibility, for He has established the foundation of my deliverance: that is in Christ.

Scripture that reminds me of the above: Matthew 19 -
'²⁵When his disciples heard it, they were exceedingly amazed, saying, Who then can be saved? ²⁶But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.' (see also Luke 18:26-27).

toba:
Viaro wants a PHD, u need to study hard and get money for material research will God come down to help achieve this? or its like 70% your responsibility?

That is another example of man's responsibility and God's sovereignty. Let me again explain:

(1)  God's sovereignty:  He desires me to pursue a successful career *(Titus 3:14)
(2)  Man's responsibility: it is contingent upon me to study and work hard (1 Thes. 4:11)

If along the line, God has some other plans for me rather than to have a PhD, then in His sovereignty that other plan will come to pass if I heed His call. I cannot point to any verse that says categorically that God definitely has determined me to have a PhD, just as He will not come down to write research papers for me. And if I desire to pursue some other professional qualifications or vocation, I'm also fully responsible to work hard at it - I think same principle applies.

_______

* Ha! Pls and pls. . . I did not type "bosom"! I wanted to shorthand the verse and said "Tit. 3:14" . . I don't know where "bosom" suddenly appeared!

Jenwitemi:

Typical! You have misinterpreted like a true literalist.

Lol, that's quite typical of you! I asked a question based on your previous interpretation. The parable of the rich man and Lazarus mentions their deaths clearly enough - and what I wanted to know from you is whether that also was symbolic - yes or no. It has nothing to do with labelling me a literalist, unless you're beginning to be unsure of your own assumptions.

Jenwitemi:

What i and the parable itself meant was,

Speak about what you are interpreting, not what the parable means as if you and the parable have a signed contract of meaning or agreement. The parable certainly did not mean what you assumed, and here's why:

Jenwitemi:
"in their minds while they are still living!". After one is dead, that is the end of it all, end of the show.

Sorry dude, go and read Luke 16:19-31 carefully. Nothing is said about any 'hell' while either the rich man or Lazarus was still living. The mention of "hell" in verse 23 was after their deaths, not while they were still alive. This is why the parable does not mean what you are trying to mean!

Jenwitemi:

Every drama happens here on earth, in this physical existence. Dying is like logging out of existence the way you log out of the internet. The whole drama of existence takes place inside this physical reality. Nothing is taken out of it with the exception of the soul loaded with all the experiences of each individual souls in their physical lifetime.

So, okay - when was "hell" mentioned in the parable: while they were still living or AFTER their deaths?

Jenwitemi:

It is all about data collecting through of our individual experiences, as well as the collective. When we die, as in log out, our souls are amptied and made ready for another round trip of data collecting or experiencing in this universe or in some other universe or dimensions or planes, or whatever. It is an eternal process of data collecting done via many lives. The central archive being what we call, GOD. That is why God is all knowing.

That is just unnecessary detraction from our basic point. Pls attend to my question above ("when was "hell" mentioned in the parable: while they were still living or AFTER their deaths?"

Jenwitemi:
THERE IS NO JUDGEMENT DRAMA AFTER DEATH, FOLKS. THERE IS NO ETERNAL BURNING PLACE AFTER DEATH, EITHER. It is a tragedy for christians, i know, but worse sh.i.t can and does happen. Sheesh!

Sad. If you knew what you were talking about, then your readers could pay you some attention. But seeing you just bend backwards to go through so much emotion to confuse issues for yourself, no one can take you seriously.

Jenwitemi:

A different teaching? At the worst, a false teaching. But according to you guys, any teaching that have in it's core the saving of the entire humanity, is from the pit of hell?

That is NOT true - and this is where the likes of Ray Smith are getting it wrong. The saving of the entire humanity is the core of the Gospel - that much we know from Scripture: John 3:16, 2 Pet. 3:9 and 1 Timothy 2:4.

However, the Gospel does not present the claim that Ray Smith and his allies make - that "the whole of humanity" will ultimately be saved even if many persist in sin and are unrepentant. This is why Ray denies Scripture so he could create grounds for his own beliefs that can't be defended. And if you want to take that as "false teaching", what is the problem with other Christians recognizing and not adhering to such 'false teaching'?

Jenwitemi:

I just can't fathom that. A group of humanity clamouring for the eternal burning of their fellow humans. . . absolutely sick! sick to the core!

I think it is rather sick to jump to conclusions on unfounded excuses. The questions we are asking are specific -

1.  what happens to the devil and his angels?

2.  what is the ultimate end of all the ungodly, unregenerate and unrepentant?

3.  what then is the need for anyone at all to repent, since everyone would ultimately be saved after persisting in sin?

those are specific questions to be addressed - and it does not make any sense to just jump to conclusion as if anyone here is "clamouring" for the whole of humanity to be burnt.

Jenwitemi:

You folks are totally messed up, and the tragedy of it all is that you all don't even know it.

In other words, because some of us disagree with your own summaries, we could be written off as sick. Thanks - you can go clean up your acts and check how messed up you are.

toba:

I agree with u but to a large extent your responsibilities are sure more than that of God. isn't it through?

I don't think so. . . unless there's something you may want to explain about how my responsibilities are more than that of God.

Jenwitemi:

The rich man going to hell quote is nothing but a metaphor something of a deep spiritual truth, nuclearboy. It was not meant to be literarily understood. A richman will not find heaven(peace of mind, happiness and tranquility) because of his clinging to all his material wealth that he has acquired because of his fear of not losing it all, in his mind! That is what the parable is telling us. A rich man who is forever worried about loosing his wealth and who spends all his life trying to acquire more, is already leaving in a selfcreated hell(anxiety, worries, hunger for more, fear of lsing, etc). That is the message the parable was meant to convey.

So, the death of the rich and poor were in their minds, and only to be taken symbolically?

^^ thank you, Tudor. The argument is unnecessary and I won't further your complaints.

toba:

Who takes the largest share of responsibility man or God

God exercises His "sovereignty" - viaro has his "responsibilty". The responsibility of man cannot be misconstrued for the sovereignty of God.

Jenwitemi:

Absolutely bizarre, and getting more and more bizarre by the day! According to them, any teaching that say otherwise is a teaching straight from the pit of hell!!.

And according to you, what does not agree with your own teaching amounts to what?

toba:

I brought it up to u guys if its true or not. Viaro wants to have a good outcome i.e get married, have kids, be successful, have a good later part like that of job and then find himself in the kingdom of God. Who determines this for viaro? viaro himself or God?

Okay, so let viaro make an honest attempt. The way I see it, based on your explanations, it will bring me back to agree largely with 5solas on the sovereignty of God and my responsibility: they both find a warm embrace in my life and experience - which would also agree with what you initially highlighted about both God and man being involved: "I said in the OP that on one hand its God&on the other its man" (post #22).

mrmayor:

Take Your Pick

And yours is. . .?

Hehe, commander. .  trust me, I fell off my chair when I heard that 'mmPMs' (initially thought it had to do with the financial scandal of British MPs. . . how very wrong I was!).

nuclearboy:

When you say individualism though, I get the idea that you forget such as Moses, Elijah and Jesus Himself were accused of such. Truth is that there will be errors in individual understandings but these are incomparable to "institutionalized" congregational errors. Where one afflicts an individual, imagine error accepted as truth in a congregation as large as RCCG and its far reaching effect.

Good point, sir. I considered that and tried to cover both sides (the individualism/isolationism on one hand, and the 'group fellowships' on the other hand).

The point here is that a 'believer' is seeking to grow in his/her relationship with Jesus Christ. It could be taken for granted that Moses and Elijah pointed to Jesus rather than to themselves (if that is what Luke 9:30-31 and 24:27 may yield) - so again, the DIYs and isolationism that seem to appeal to many Christians today could as well be ripe ground for being misled.

I have to be careful here: the point is not to say that a believer cannot or should not seek God personally. No, that is not what I'm saying. In fact, I've acknowledged the importance of a "personal relationship" that a believer has with God - and having initially established that relationship, growth and development come next. A believer should personally study the Bible, personally pray, personally seek to serve according to the capacity he/she is granted by the Lord. . . as well these things should be encouraged in group fellowships.

What we have to exercise discernment on is where either forms (personal/individual or group fellowships) tend to lead away from Christ or mar the believer's walk with God. The example you gave about the RCCG points to "institutionalized" rather than "individualized" problem. But it's not just the 'institutionalized' identity that produces the problem - the believer at the individual level also creates problems for himself/herself. Between either parts, discernment becomes necessary.

viaro:

Ah there! That was the "implication" I was shying away from.

It seemed inevitable that at some point, the issue is going to be raised about the big picture in the minds of some. If 'destiny' renders us helpless so that whetever will happen will 'inevitably happen in the future' (ala toba's 'Que sera sera'), then some indeed might feel a licence to just do as they please - afterall, at what point can any helpless person change the inevitability of what is going to happen . . . especially if we throw in the aforesaid "bad luck" or "unpredictable events"?

^^ that does not mean that I was advocating a licence to do just about anything!

nuclearboy:

^^ fair points BUT I wonder - ALL things being predetermined by God would be a licence to whatever we feel like since "its all settled whether I'm for heaven or condemnation".

Ah there! That was the "implication" I was shying away from.

It seemed inevitable that at some point, the issue is going to be raised about the big picture in the minds of some. If 'destiny' renders us helpless so that whetever will happen will 'inevitably happen in the future' (ala toba's 'Que sera sera'), then some indeed might feel a licence to just do as they please - afterall, at what point can any helpless person change the inevitability of what is going to happen . . . especially if we throw in the aforesaid "bad luck" or "unpredictable events"?

@ttalks,

The article is faulty. It takes too many things for granted and excuses very important issues under the guise of what the author assumes falls under 'symbolic' language. That is an escape hatch that is not even half-clever, especially because Ray Smith is known to be too busy condemning others rather than delving into the Word for whetever he wants to say on any subject.

Okay, let's assume for his (and your) sake that hell is a hoax. The implication is that the whole world would be saved - which was what you wanted to lead us to believe. Good for you, but is that indeed what Scripture teaches? If you feel so, then please think carefully on these:

1. what happens to the devil and his angels?

2. what is the ultimate end of all the ungodly, unregenerate and unrepentant?

3. what then is the need for anyone at all to repent, since everyone would ultimately be saved after persisting in sin?

I would not like to assuage the thread, so let's take these few questions initially - more as we progress.

5solas:

Often, I have observed we are afraid to let scripture speak for itself because of what an admittance of what it says would amount to or we imagine it would amount to.

Happens to everyone - I might as well risk saying "everyone" (that is, believers in general). Perhaps, it is not so much a problem of letting Scripture speak for itself - it might be more about 'human factor' wanting to be the microphone of what we think Scripture is saying (ie., our interpretations often get in the way). But you made very good point: people have to think of what implications underlie what they call 'scripture'.

4. In addition, whether the believer is 'left alone' to seek God directly or there is a need for teaching and fellowship - whatever is the case there's bound to be heresies. Freelancing, individualism, isolationism, DIYs, etc. also promote the rise and establishment of heresies as much as group efforts.

In any endeavour or experience in life, it is a fact that people will indeed have differences and variations within the same worldview or ideology. That this happens among believers in the Christian worldview should not be alarming, although it is not what is encouraged. There are reasons why we find such things among Christians:

(a) where the seed of God's Word is sown, one is bound to find another kind of sowing - Matthew 13 >> [list]²⁴Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field: ²⁵But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way.[/list]
So, what happens? "³⁰Let both grow together until the harvest". No matter the recommendations of a believer seeking God directly in a DIY style or in group effort, we should not forget that unbelievers will bring in heresies (Acts 20:28-32).

(b) another reason why we find there's bound to be heresies inspite of our best intentions is because there are people who make claims of having been sent by the Holy Spirit and yet not adhering to His leading. Some of these folks who make such claims would have power to perform miracles that would even bewilder believers (Matthew 24:24). This is where discernment is necessary, and the believer who seeks a Godly walk understands why he/she should be careful about what is being said or done, even if at one's best intentions.

(c) the natural exuberance in us as humans has the tendency of intruding into spiritual matters - this is where the 'flesh' tries to domineer so that it appears as if the carnal man is acting spiritual. Such an atmosphere will produce schisms (1 Cor. 11:18) - and why? Here is the reason: "for there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized" (v. 19). Everyone may claim to be genuine and have best intentions and other people's best interests at heart; yet, we find that best intentions do not necessarily produce good results. When people force themselves into ministry at this point, schisms will appear, with many people saying very different things.

Following (c) above^^, James 3:1 says: "Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness." Not everyone claiming to be a teacher is actually one; and same applies in the case of some proclaiming themselves as apostles, Reverends, pastors, bishops, 'his holiness', 'his eminence', MOGs, 'mmPMs' (a friend's neologism for 'mumu-pastors-ministers', whetever that means), etc.

Folks, in as much as we seek to grow as BELIEVERS in our relationship with God, discernment is the watchword. Isolationism, DIYs (do-it-yourself), freelancing, individualism, etc willl not produce a healthy outcome in any believer's walk; and even one's best intentions in any denomination/church does not guarantee a healthy relationship either. The Holy Spirit does not encourage either individualism nor unhealthy group fellowships - but where He leads, His 'witness' will be experienced in the heart of a believer who understands what growth in the grace of God means.

Let's hope this is not an added detraction from the purpose of this thread, and I'd like to consolidate InesQor's recent post.

I tried initially to point out a few things, viz:

1. A believer already has a relationship with God.

2. What comes next is developing that relationship - that is, learning to grow in that relationship with God (please see 1 Pet. 2:2). This may come through a study of God's Word and prayer (of course, there are other things involved as well, such as learning to fellowship with other believers and serving in whatever capacity a believer is able according to what gift(s) he/she has received).

3. Whether the points above in 2. (understanding Scripture, prayer, fellowship, service) are done through "a study", what is far more important is that the believer seeks a practical outcome of such a study (ie., there is going to be a point where studying/learning translates into experience).

This ^^ is a suggestion, but that seems to be what we find in Scripture. For example, in Acts 8 we find that it was the same Isaiah 53 that the eunuch was reading when Philip the evangelist was directed by the Holy Spirit to 'guide' preach the Gospel to him. It was not enough to have 'studied' that passage, but the outcome of that 'study' was that the eunuch was led to a saving faith in Christ. This is an example of how a study translates into experience - and I thought that InesQor's mention of Isaiah 53 would well describe a suitable approach.

toba:

Which means man has no control over destiny save for God? Why then were we told to work out our own salvation? If God knows the outcomes,we should then go with 'Que sera sera' not so viaro?
Im confused here oo

5solas:

If all events are not foreknown certainly, how could we tell which were certainly forknown and which were not?

Lol, I tend to see outcomes as applicable in general aspects of our lives - but 'destiny' should be used with caution in very specific cases (examples already highlighted by several posters). If we brush this aside, then what would we say about those Bible versions like the GNB that talk about "unpredictable events" in Eccl. 9:11?? Where's the certainty in what is "unpredictable"? Or, like other versions put it: "bad luck" - how do you reconcile that with certainty?

InesQor:

@viaro: Don't sweat it bro. It's all a misunderstanding.

I apologise, didn't mean to throw it off at a tangent.

nuclearboy:

^^^ My point exactly. His foreknowledge is certain. However, my question/query arises on the issue of priorities - does everything have the same priority level or are some things left to us with just an overview of say like, a final result without details being set in stone?

^^ I like that - "without details being set in stone", which is why I'm concerned about the idea that 'destiny' is stretched to mean that something which will inevitably happen in the future and as such, regardless what anyone does they are just helpless.

Tudór:

I think i know this viaro dude's problem. . . . In a rush to expel you dont read posts in entirety as a body with a composite message. Rather read a paragraph take it as a message on its own, reply to it, move to the next paragraph do same.

Thanks for the analysis. Please go look ina mirror and see you're describing what's your own problem. If you ever tried to read what I posted earlier, there would be no need for your misadventures.

Tudór:
An entire post is supposed to relay a point with each paragraph as building blocks. Pls use common sense.

I don't see you using any common sense - do you have any at all? What have we said previously before you started mentioning what does not appear in other people's posts? Thanks for the lesson - you prolly have to first go back to your basics before complaining.

Tudór:

did you read that quoted section at all? Where did imply its supposed to help the new convert?
?

Maybe I didn't get you; but I suppose when you posted initially you had a point to pass across. The way you came across with whatever you wanted to post makes one wonder what exactly your point was. On the one hand, I may have missed it - but nowhere did I claim to "know it all" for you to have gone about writing off people that way. If you had a more brilliant point to make, at the very least you were invited to do so without being unduely concerned about what others are trying to say. Bottomline: how does the new convert benefit from what you are suggesting and then going down the terminus?

Tudór:

What am I saying?
Is that not why I ask that New believers be taught how to get that personal experiece rather than the rubbish exegesis and whatnot you people spew here.

Please show me where I have posted any exegesis in this thread? Just one. I think that you need to calm down and not hastily jump to conclusions. Fine - we're not about "cramming" or "exegesis" - I for one didn't make any such claims anywhere. So where is all this coming from? If the new believer is to be taught, at what point would such "teaching" come across to you as close enough to what you suggested without it being again written off the way you have been doing?

Tudór:

Did this dude read my post at all? So what have I been advocating since If not personal relationship

I read your post - perhaps YOU need to calm down and read what others are saying. Did you miss the fact I pointed out this experience earlier before trying to bring in what I never said anywhere about "cramming" the whole Bible? If you took time to read what others are saying, I don't see why this point would even bother you in the first place.

Tudór:

I laugh. . .my own way? I advocated that believers be taught to have a personal relationship with god which you have supported above then down below you label it ''my way'' and claim it leads away from god? Dude you must be drunk.

I didn't get off the bar with you, and you're left alone counting your bottles. You have advocated your own way, yes you did. This is what you said:

Tudór:

Either way thats why till today no one can come tell be crap about how I didnt believe, or didnt pray or was this or that. I know how sincere I was then. I put it all down as the longings of a child. Now I'm an adult and have forsaken childish hankerings. And i urge u all to do too.

. .  and you make that recommendation because you have drawn the conclusion that those who read issues here are still hanging on to childish hankerings as you make out? Is that why you find it is "too late" for you to have a relationship or experience with God and suppose that others may find yours anything above what this thread attempts?

The funny thing about your posts is that you vroom in here and act dismissively - yet, even on invitation to share something better, the bottomline is that the 'new believer' is not brought into that relationship with God, no?

Tudór:
who said you cram the bible or are you insecure? Damn, did my post touch a nerve?
way to go! Am i suprised? No!

Please get off your high horse. You may need go back and re-read what YOU wrote and see. What did you mean by "If he crams the whole bible and yet has no connection with your god then its purely baseless and of no use"?? I did not advocate that at all, and would I be surprised that you are too soon forgetting where you're coming from?

Tudór:

You alone has the right to declare who a believer is and is not. . . .we bow to your authority
what is the meaning of this?

Please show me anywhere you find that a believer as a "believer" has no relationship with God. I didn't bind you to any authority anywhere, so no need to come off sounding insecure. The point is simple: if you find something to the contrary, then let's hear you. Is that too much to ask?

Tudór:

So one seeking that experience isnt a believer according to you??

haha - this is where I know you have no clue about what I said. A believer as a "believer" already has a relationship with God - what comes next is to develop that relationship. In other words: GROW in that relationship. If you can properly establish that a believer is one who does not have a relationship with God, by all means please do so and let's read you.

Tudór:

Thanks. . .give us more of your exegesis pls o great teacher. Infact we need it to enter heaven.

I'm waiting - everyone else according to you is spouting "rubbish", so please teach us all!

Guys, sorry I had a call and had to log out initially. The point is that this word "luck" is huge - and the ancillary "chance" is another world entirely. Think about this on very involved situations - at what level does God involve "luck" or "chance" at salvation issues of our lives?

Or, to put it more light-heartedly: there are people who bet in one way or another on the outcomes of the the ongoing world cup tournament. Living in the UK, I saw guys "betting" their luck by chance the goals between the UK and the USA. I wondered (sort of cheekily, forgive me): at what level is God involved at the bets or "luck" or "chances" or casting a lot or even the cards and toss of coins or the throwing of the dice.

I know that we sometimes read some verses and take them at face value. I'm just wondering if such verses as Prov. 16:33 and Eccl. 9:11 are applicable across board.

Tudór:

Then what did I see? I get bamboozled with crap left right and center everyone claiming to know. I ask questions I hear this from Mr A, hear another from Mr B, mr C tells me to shut the fck up and just obey, i read the bible and see D. I'm like what the hell is this?

Bible says ask the Holy spirit, pray to god. I ask and dont see nada. I'm able to say, I never had any problems growing up. We were too comfortable, i had no health issues, i did good in school, my parents were wonderful. My prayer points consisted of god let me get that bmx bike this christmas and so on. My only serious and heartfelt prayer then was how do I know god coz I wanted from the source and not the undiluted BS everyone is putting my way.

But how does this help the 'new convert'? Everyone has his/her personal experiences in relating with God - and they are diverse. Mr A, B, C, D and Z^N telling you this and that does not deliver that personal relationship to you; and one would have waited to see how seriously you pursued God from 'the source' instead of sounding bitter hitherto.

There are some who turned their backs on God for various other reasons. What strikes me is what they have had to say about "the source". It so happens that so many times, the bitterness points back to what others told them rather than a real experience with God Himself.

I'm not laying blame on anyone, and I could also say that my own situation would very easily had led me down the same bitter road. What could one say about a life saddled with muslims, Christians, deists, and Hindus? Yet, I guess my fortune is that my extended family was never at 'war' among themselves despite the differences in worldviews. For me, it was a long, hard road up until I came to understand that my relationship with God does not ride on anyone's back - it's got to be "personal" and not 'borrowed' or 'secondhand'.

Tudór:
My point is, that promised relationship is the basis and not bombarding people with your opinions.

Then by all means keep yours! What amazes me is the way you come off sounding as know-it-all and yet accusing others of what you are guilty of yourself! After your own dismissives, you then "urge" others to go down your own lane - a lane which leads AWAY from God! I dare say that is not sensible in the least, and that was why we waited to see what you had to offer.

Tudór:

You are a NEW believer because you want that relationship and not because you have it already as viaro wrongly stated. If he crams the whole bible and yet has no connection with your god then its purely baseless and of no use.

This is where I have to state in no uncertain terms that I seriously disagree with you. I'm not all about cramming the whole Bible - a careful read through my posts here hitherto shows where I stand. I could oblige a reposting of relevant sections to show that I was more about experience in daily walk among BELIEVERS. A believer is a person who already has a relationship with God rather than groping ignorantly seeking that relationship.

I do not know of any "believer" who is one without a relationship at any level with God! It is how one grows in that relationship that comes after the initial contact of becoming a BELIEVER. This is why the unbeliever does not acknowledge any relationship with God at any level. This is not about cramming anything - it is about experience and growing in that experience.

nuclearboy:

^^ I think what Tudor is saying is that a "new" convert (having established a relationship) is flailing about helplessly not knowing what to do. My simple answer would be prayer and prayer and prayer but most of us don't even know how to pray. Biblical references for such "newbies" that will help create an understanding of prayer and SELF study is likely what Tudor wants provided.

Okay, I misunderstood and stand corrected. Perhaps it could be a case of levels of developments in that single relationship, since it appears to me that a believer (as a "believer" is one that has just come into a relationship at the initial stage with God. He/she needs to develop this relationship - which was what I tried explaining earlier:

viaro:

When I newly came to saving faith in Christ, the basic question for me about Jesus was: WHO He has revealed Himself to be, especially in the area of my daily walk and fellowship with other believers. This certainly may not be the same basic question or experience of others who have newly believed; but for me, I felt that my relationship with Him was (and to a large extent, is) going to be affected by how that question is answered in my life.
________

. . .the believer perhaps is looking for effective outcomes: how the study impacts on our lives and fellowships with one another.

nuclearboy:
BTW, Viaro, are you trying to force my prophecy of Prophet Pastor (Dr) Bishop (that most in support of his mentor Oyedepo) Tudor to come to pass sharpish? Cos you seem to be trying to force him to start teaching today?

Hahahaha!! Why is it that I cannot hide anything from you these days?
Do you have a special radar for scanning what I think these days?
Please guarantee me - I shall pay any amount of tithe you want!!

^^ Lol, but it seems that you're presenting a case for definiteness and certainties - that is the nature of  'systems' and 'laws'. The only 'systems' I can presently think of that is not defined as a certainty or 'definteness' is the system of randomness (or random systems and stochastic geometry).

However, when you even mention "luck" (whether it appertains to fortune or misfortune), the question is: how does anyone think about the definiteness or certainties of "luck" such as to be classed as a law or system? What would determine "luck" as following any set of laws or systems - be they spiritual, social or physical laws/systems?

Tudór:

I have a suggestion. I do not delude myself that you self appointed ''christian Teachers'' would take it into consideration. Since you know-it-alls seem to think u've got it all

Lol, it shouldn't be like this. I don't think anyone's arguing fastidiuously about 'knowing it all'. Infact, it seems that since you have a few points to make here and there, would it not be helpful that you share whatever it is you want to share? You may not be pleased about the foregoing posts, and it seems like you know better - so perhaps the 'new convert' might be waiting to see something of substance from yours.

Tudór:

The first thing to be taught a believer is how to have a PERSONAL relationship with your god. This PERsOnal relationship is important as faith can only take you so far.

Perhaps you may want to try doing that - since you know that is "THE first thing" to be taught a 'BELIEVER'.

I tend to think, however, that a believer is one who already has a personal relationship with God. I don't see how one is to be called a "believer" in the proper sense if he/she does not have any relationship whatsoever with God. Yet, perhaps the question therefore here is this: what comes next after having had this relationship as a 'BELIEVER'?

Hello toba,

It's a bit difficult to follow you on this subject. It seems to me that on the one hand you agree with some posts; but on the other hand, you're questioning what you agree with. A few examples:

toba:

If destiny is about future,then that said they should choose life is talking about their future&destinies.

. . .it seems that you're disagreeing that destiny is about the future; but then you seemed to have agreed here:

toba:

Viaro&everyone.
the definition i like to stick with on destiny is that it talks about future/what becomes of a man now and at the end.

Anyways, I think we're pointing to the same thing: that destinies are about the future - which is what I meant by "outcomes".

5solas:

Quite a long time Viaro, I have been missing you, your humour and posts.

Well, I miss you guys and NL but was unable to post for a few weeks/days due to NL's software. Anyways, glad to be back now.

5solas:

Destiny:
1.  somebody's preordained future: the apparently predetermined and inevitable series of events that happen to somebody or something
Microsoft® Encarta® 2008. © 1993-2007 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

Please show us, so I may perhaps sheathe my dagger.

Haha. . . well, from Wikipedia this one about 'destiny' and the various ways it is used by different people:

Wikipedia: Destiny may be seen either as a fixed sequence of events that is inevitable and unchangeable, or that individuals choose their own destiny by choosing different paths throughout their life.

As from the above, it is either of two consequences:

[list](a) that it is fixed and inevitable [and in this instance, 'predetermined' for people so that there's nothing anyone could do about it][/list]

[list]and (b) that individuals choose different paths [and as such are able for themselves to determine outcomes thereto].[/list]

This seems to have been recognized in the yester-years by a variety of English speakers, such as we find in the Webster dictionary of 1913:

Webster, 1913:
. . . predetermined state; condition foreordained by the Divine or by human will; fate; lot; doom.
[1913 Webster]

The point at the crossroads here is that, while destiny has been used to include the idea that conditions and outcomes could be determined by human will, other sources define or use it to mean 'a predetermined course of events considered as something beyond human power or control' - which in this case denies that human will has anything to do with one's destiny.

Hence, bewteen all points of references is the underlying thought that it may be argued in some instances (depending on context) that God determines the 'destiny' of people or individuals - and there are loads of verses to argue this to a nonstop; on the other hand, others may argue that man chooses his 'destiny' - thus, this is where "human will" comes into the mix.

However, one has to think deeper when reflecting on Eccl. 9:11 about time and chance happening to us all. The questions are: (a) what is meant by 'time and chance'? and (b) who determines this 'time and chance'?

Time and chance leads us to consider the idea of "luck" being suggested by some other sources/references. But how does God come into "luck"? Or, how does "luck" determine anybody's 'destiny'? Yes, the CEV (Contemporary English Version) reads "bad luck" into Eccl. 9:11, as does the GNB (Good News Bible) - the paraphrased version GW (God's WORD) says in that verse that "time and unpredictable events" overtake us all.

This is what informs my concerns at the beginning that we ought to slow down for a minute or two and ask ourselves what we might mean by 'destiny'. Does it mean "bad luck", or "unpredicatble events". . . or something which we are helpless about and have no say or control whatsoever - or, at the very least, could it be that ultimate outcomes are set before us which invite our human participations at some point?

^^ I'll check - that means I owe you a couple back replies. Sad. . . but I'll get there.