₦airaland Forum

ollah2:
Very senseless defence, a Christian terrorist killed Muslims in the mosques but it's not religious since the terrorist involved is a Christian. Anybody who defends this kinda of monster isnt only a bigot but also a potential terrorist and most nairaland Christians who graced this thread have exhibited that acts. It's a shame !!

Pls, Ollah don't insult me, i have not insulted you. Don't label me as senseless, it's a very uncharitable way of engaging in an argument. You have not shown me or anyone here how my analysis of the situation is wrong. All you do is repeat your assertion. Insulting your opponent doesn't prove your point. Instead of insulting me why can't you just show me how my argument is senseless. I believe you are insulting me because you can't counter my argument /analysis.

The point here is not whether the terrorist is a Christian or Muslim or atheist but the motives behind his actions, wether he did it because of religious reasons. He has given his reasons which is contrary to what you are saying. Until he says otherwise, there no evidence / proof on which you can base your assertions.

I'm not defending the guys actions. I have not done so, so far. Where did you get that from?
Please, im not into insults. If you want us to continue, pls interact with the points i have made so far.

I believe i have answered that questions already but i will try again. He didn't go to the mall, supermarket or cinema because those places would be filled with white people. He is not after white people. The people he killed at the mosques are people of color, non whites. Blacks, brown people, Pakistanis ,Somalians etc. Do you sincerely believe that he would have attacked that mosque had it been filled with white people? The answer is No. He chose muslim community in particular because he said that Muslims ( who are obviously non whites) were the ones killing his people(whites). Muslim communities in the west are made up of non whites.This guy would definitely not shoot up a white mosque assuming there is one in New Zealand. In his mind, he was taking revenge on behalf of the white people.

He has given these reasons already. This guy would have chosen any black church in any black community had he perceived that black community as an existential threat to his white people i.e Assuming he had noticed that black Christians are killing white people, he would have done the same thing to any black community/church. All that this guy sees is color, not religion. I believe you are still making the wrong diagnosis here. Thanks.

ollah2:
He played a racist song while driving, went to a drive way to park his car. Went to the trunk of his car removed a semi automatic gun, proceeded to a mosque and shot them at sight, moved further to kill them on the ground to further ensure he truly killed them. He kept reloading until he killed them all.

He went back to his car while his trunk was still opened, took another gun proceeded to shoot those within the mosque environs, he shot children and women. He shot a particular lady who was screaming help help but he went there to finish his gods work. Went to his car, closed the trunk and drove away. Continued listening to the racist song and was heading to another mosque to continue killing until he was apprehended. He resisted arrest but the two policemen outpowered him. He had other dangerous weapons in his car which includes explosives but our fellow Nigerian Christians says it's not religious. He didnt go the mall, supermarket, cinema or whatever but TWO MOSQUES yet it's not religious. Welcome to he world of Christian hypocrites and bigots. His excuse is also justified and reasonable according to some of them and the innocent muslims deserve to die. These are the people that claim to be tolerant and heaven bound since only Christian will make heaven according to them.



I hail una

The person who committed the crime has said why he did it. Are you trying to put words into his mouth. He targeted muslims because he believes Muslims are the ones doing this kind of thing to his people, (whites). Secondly, he targeted Muslims because most Muslims are not white. The guy is just a white supremacist. All white supremacist are racists. Sometime ago, a white supremacist went to a black church and committed mass murder. He was a christian too.

He never gave any religious reasons for his actions. You have not been able to prove that he did it because of religious reasons. That he is a Christian doesn't prove the point that you're trying to make. Many Muslims have killed Christians because of non religious reasons too. This case is unlike cases involving Muslims fundamentalist groups who kill people because of religious beliefs. They call on the koran, hadeet and Shira whenever they want to commit atrocities. They make their reasons known. What you are trying to imply here is simply not true. I'm very sad with respect to what happened. Please, don't call me a bigot. I don't think I'm one. I have seen the video. The video tells nothing about his motives.

Nadheer15:
White Supremacists are Christians, them attacking Jews means nothing because Christians for years have been known to kill Jews. White supremacists like the KKK who are Christians but anti-Catholic also attack Black Christians. They're Christians, don't turn this around, no one is talking about virgins or the likes.

A white supremacist can identify himself as a Christian, yes i agree. The difference is that he didn't murder these people because of his religious beliefs unlike Muslim fundamentalist who do much worse because of their religious beliefs. He gave the reason why he did it. He was taking revenge. Whether the revange is unreasonable or not is another thing. As far as I'm concerned, the excuses he gave for his actions was very unreasonable.

This Man has never been a child of God let alone a man of God. By their fruit you shall know them. He didn't make a mistake. Sin is not a mistake, otherwise it will not be sin anymore. He planned all of it, slept over it and carried it out, it's no mistake. He is evil. A manipuIator. I believe he has been sleeping with other women.

He made no confession. He was just blaming his ex wife, who might be innocent. Yes, this man has very serious moral issues to deal with so his words can't be trusted. African women has suffered in the hands of men. She has not said her side of the story. He didn't say he regretted what he did. He didn't say he betrayed the trust people have on him. He didn't say he was sorry. Sheer display of arrogance. No humility, no remorse, therefore no repentance. He came out to do damage control before things would get out of control. He knew that soon people would expose his infidelity. Nice move. Sharp guy.

He lacks the moral grounds to take care of souls. This scandal shows that he is a danger to people's spiritual well-being. He should step aside and let another take over, but i know he will not even contemplate it because of personal gains.

I wish he will repent. He's no child of God.

A large number of nigerian police officers are nothing but a bunch of hardened criminals.

Considering the reputation of nigerian police force, there is a very high probability that this guy was innocent. They have told their own version of story but where is the proof? Where? Where are other gang members? Where is the owner of the vehicle? Was he caught in the act? How sure are they that he was one of the suspects? Who identified him as the suspect? Was he shooting at the police when he was killed? This will be a tough case to prove in court.

The most likely thing that happened was that after they murdered the handsome boy, they discovered he was a corper through his id card and they panicked. A game changer situation. In their bloody rage, they murdered a government pikin. Putting themselves in this difficult situation, they manufactured a story to link the boy to an allegedly robbery. They don't have options than to forge a story without knowing that forged stories always have a lot of open ends.

Don't trust Nigerian police. Don't make friends with them. A lot of them are criminals.

I don't know if people are just being malicious or ignorantly quoting the scriptures out of context.

May the Most High God, who gave you victory over your enemies, be praised!” And Abram gave Melchizedek a tenth of all the loot he had recovered.Genesis 14:20

Abraham paid tithe without pressure, command or curse….he also did not tithe of his substance but of the spoils of war. In other words his tenth was voluntary. He was not compelled by any law to do so. Again what he did was a one time thing. There was no indication anywhere else that he was tithing in the hands of MELCHIDEZEK before or after the incident contrary to some people's opinion of Abraham paying 'tithes' to MELCHIDEZEK.

This is quite different from the one many pastors are talking about.

Adeebiwa09:
Nice to hear from you again, I see your on point view, knowledge and understanding
I celebrate you sir I just have a few long questions, sorry for the learnt I like been expressive

1. If the old testament in the context of the Mosaic law, which is not Gen to malachi by the way, is irrelevant to Christians why is it part of the Bible?

2. In the life of Jesus according to luke he had women one of them a very influential woman gave for his ministry, throughout his living their where people who supplied what he needed, even his "boxers" was expensive ask the soldier who were doing "naijabet" on it. He sent them out without money but they lacked nothing meaning they didn't manage, was it an angel that gave they money or the woman who poured an expensive jar of ointment on him. Granted a lot of pastors live extravagant lives, but this tithe is even different from personal gifts to them called prophet offering and honorarium. The use is still my issue. Then Judas was the treasurer, he was the only one among the Disciples with an office. Money was all over Jesus' ministry he was ruled by it and it wasn't the centre that's the difference with the ministers these days. Care to disagree?

3. I would like you to know that if today all Christians stop paying tithe to churches and decide to do whatever with it which I believe over 75 will use it for personal ingradizement the top ministers can not go poor. Meanwhile who told you that they use tithe for personal reasons the effect those men as little as we see it has made to the country the government who is actually tasked with the work has not. Talk of road, scholarships, schools, hospitals etc

4. Lastly, in the acts of Apostles there was a lot of giving even more than tithe, entrusted into the hand of Paul, the early church people gave more than half of all they had the couple that didn't and lied died. In philippians and 1 Corinthians Paul praise the Philippian and Macedonian church for meeting his need all the time and even encourage more, that other churches started doing same. Several times he could thank people for support in kind and cash so is that not a new testament practice we should follow?

Granted people should give willing even Paul admonished that but don't you think all this brouhaha and hullabaloo about tithe, giving, Pastors etc will discourage people from giving which is a new testament bible practice? Don't you think as much as we say tithe is not new testament, are we not adding any form of giving to it? What is even the purpose of all this talk will not paying the one tenth make the person richer than dangote in 40 years, will paying it affect their life, all the while they have been paying did they get into trouble for paying? I really see no sense in our (not you but Christians in general) stupid argument that is focused on nothing but vain babbling all these bible warns against. If I don't see a biblical, Kingdom growth purpose to what I want to do I better leave it. Heb 6 says we should leave trivia things and move on to perfection and better things. In the context of what we are discussing Rev. 22 says let him that do good, evil, holy, tithe not tithe I added those, continue I am coming and my reward is with me to give to everyone what his work (study James on work and faith with giving) shall be. I don't think you will give a reward to someone who did nothing.

As always I am elated hearing from you, you depth is awesome. I have learnt from your writing in all sincerity God is witness, I am not trying to be political. Thanks continue in God's grace. Love you

If you erase references to the mosaic law in the old testament, Christains will not be able to know what it is. They will not know it when they see it. Consequently, Christians will not be able to stay away from it. I'm staying away from mosaic tithing because it is among the mosaic law in the old testament. References of the law were made in many places in the new testament, therefore, there is no way anybody can understand what the new testament is saying without knowing what the law or old covenant is all about. To be frank with you, I'm surprised at this question. Perhaps, you are trying to tell me indirectly that we should observe the mosaic law because it's still in the bible. If this is what you are trying to say then what is the reason for the new covenant. The law belongs to the old covenant. That is what my bible says.

'For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. Hebrew8:7'

There are 613 Old Covenant laws in the Old Testament (ask any Orthodox Jew) Many church leaders have selected one of those laws to keep for the Church, The Tithe. To support this, they quote Malachi who was talking about mosaic tithing.
However, in the old covenant, all 613 laws had to be kept perfectly. To break any one voided the entire contract and attracts curses.

'For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it.' James 2:10.

Unless you are a Jew living under the Old Covenant, these laws and Jewish Observances did not apply to you in the first place.


'..and through Him everyone who believes is freed from all things, from which you could not be freed through the Law of Moses.' Acts 13:39.

'Now, therefore, why are you putting God to the test by placing a yoke on the neck of the (new Gentiles believers) disciples that neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear?' Acts 15:10 .

'Blotting out ordinances which was against us, taking them out of the way by nailing them to his cross.' Colossians 2:14.

'Moses’ Teachings designated mortals as chief priests even though they had weaknesses. But God’s promise, which came after Moses’ Teachings, designated the Son who forever accomplished everything that God required.' Hebrews 7: 28.

Your second point is irrelevant in our discussion because it has nothing to do with whether mosaic tithing being preached by many pastors using Malachi is allowed in the new covenant or not. You have not been able to show so far why we must remove only tithing or some others from the law and observe them. Im not against supporting the church. If you like, sell your house and donate the money to the church. We are not discussing how much Jesus and his disciples received during his ministry. Pls focus on the topic of discussion. Obviously, Jesus and his disciples did not collect tithes.

Your third point is also irrelevant. Pls, stay on course. What you said did not address anything on the topic. Point of correction, i have never said that pastors misuse tithe money. That should be another topic of discussion. All I'm saying is that mosaic tithing is not allowed in the new covenant. I have used the bible and church history to support my argument so far. Pls don't put words into my mouth.

Your fourth point is once again irrelevant. If a christian wants, let him sell all his possessions and give the money to his pastor. It's his choice. Im not discouraging anyone from giving to church. Im just repeating the warnings the bible gave to christians concerning the law. Preaching mosaic tithing to christians is not a trivial matter because the apostles warned christians to stay away from the law. I take the word of God seriously.

“Each one should give as he has decided (purposed) in his own heart, not out of duty or obligation, for God loves a cheerful giver.' 2 Corinthians 9:7.

It's hypocrisy to bring one or two mosaic laws from 613 laws of the old covenant into new covenant while leaving others out. It doesn't work that way. Infact, the tithing done in many churches today is quite different from how the jews are tithing. Im not really against tithing but im against mosaic tithing which Malachi talked about. The law carries curses that's why Christains were warned to stay away. If you do one, you must do the rest. If not, you have failed. If you must give God ten percent or more of your earnings, don't do it under the Law. Again, christ didn't collect tithes, apostles didn't collect tithes and early christians didn't collect tithes. Tithing started centuries after the death and resurrection of Jesus. Many pastors who collect tithes know about this. Why they collect it ( mosaic tithing) is still a mystery to me. We must not cut and join the word of God. Thanks

Adeebiwa09:
Thank you, I get your point and you made it very clear and profound. However you omitted the question of we following other mosaic laws because as you said if want to follow one we must follow all example if you want are certain regulations on child birth, incest and stuff, people marrying as virgins and so on, common what am I even saying what about the teachings of the new testaments that we don't follow. And to your question as to who taught me it was the TEACHER. believe it or not I learn from him and confirm from ministers and still do my searching. You know with what you said I have learnt something new and my spirit bears witness even though you were not able to address some points I raised, in your defence NL is not a suitable platform to discuss those. Malachi actually says bring all the tithes so that there would be meat and it didn't say tithe alone it says tithe and offering Mal 3:8 so what do you think offering is also old testament and should not be paid. I only question the motive behind this preaching against tithe if it's a question of the way men of God use it I understand but that we shouldn't pay then you have cancelled Matt 28:18-19 and Luk 10, so it should come like it came to the apostles but should be disbursed well let's change our fight to what it is used for. It's a good thing you mentioned Jews I will have you reminded that they are the riches and most successful tribe in the world, then again we are alienated from Israel until salvation and also we are Abraham's seed, then again we are circumcised thus we are 'Jews' so we should pay tithe. Jesus didn't come to abolish the mosaic laws all together in that law are regulatory laws, ceremonial laws and laws because of the hardness of heart Jesus spoke against the last one because the Holy Spirit will deal with them all eg an eye for an eye and so on. Thanks for your time, passion for God and knowledge I celebrate knowing and meeting someone who still knows the word in this our days

Im not a jew. Christains cannot be jews. A jew is a person who believes in and practises the religion of Judaism. Jews don't believe in Jesus Christ. They don't believe that he is the son of God. They don't believe that he is the Messiah. Jews believe in mosaic law. Hope you understand.

 On the issue of Matthew 23:23 & Luke 11:42, the first thing we have to understand when we look at these verses is that the New Covenant did not begin until Jesus died on the cross. These verses occur in the context of the Old Covenant and were directed to people who were still under the Old Covenant. Jesus was born under the Old Covenant and under the Law of Moses, as were all the Jews who were alive during Jesus’ life. It was necessary for Jesus to be born under the Law and to keep it perfectly so He could serve as the perfect sacrifice to cover the punishment of our sins. Jesus was not talking to gentiles or christians. There is no where in these verses where Jesus told Christians to pay tithes.

       'But when the fullness of the time came, God sent out his Son, born to a woman, born under the law, 5 that he might redeem those who were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of children'.Galatians 4:4-5 

Jesus was also exposing the hypocrisy of Pharisees and scribes who observed some laws and neglected the more important ones. Consequently, he urged them to obey all. If you must tithe, you must observe all. No two ways about that.

Christians are not under the law of Moses. It's made clear in many places in the Bible. Examples:
'1 Stand firm therefore in the liberty by which Christ has made us free, and don’t be entangled again with a yoke of bondage. 2 Behold, I, Paul, tell you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will profit you nothing. 3 Yes, I testify again to every man who receives circumcision, that he is a debtor to do the whole law. 4You are alienated from Christ, you who desire to be justified by the law. You have fallen away from grace. 5 For we, through the Spirit, by faith wait for the hope of righteousness. 6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision amounts to anything, nor uncircumcision, but faith working through love.'
Galatians 5:1-6 ,
“For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them” Gal 3:10.,
'But by becoming a curse for us Christ has redeemed us from the curse that the Law brings; for the scripture says, “Anyone who is hanged on a tree is under God's curse.”Gal 3:13. Etc.

I have searched the new testament to see where tithing was taught to Christian but i have not seen one. Jesus did not collect tithes. Apostles didn't collect tithes. Paul did not collect tithes. Early christians did not collect tithes. It was introduced centuries later. This is well documented. The question is 'why should we collect it?' we are in the new covenant. So why? Why must we do what the apostles and early christians, who handed down our faith to us, didn't do.

Even if someone decides to partaking in some parts of the law, like tithing, let it be voluntary so that it doesn't become a curse to him or her when he or she didn't observe the others.

Adeebiwa09:
Yes, you have a lot of points but before you conclude and teach so please look into it from these angles.

SORRY IT WOULD BE LONG BUT INDULGE ME YOU WILL SEE WHAT I WAS SAYING

1. Please and please paying tithe is not a mosaic law, Abraham paid tithes to MELCHIDEZEK, who was a picture of Christ and that was not a yardstick for his prosperity but the blessing of the Lord which makes rich and adds no sorrow, then bible says honor the Lord with your substance and the first fruit of your increase. So paying tithe is an honor to God. I keep seeing and insisting that all these pay tithe or not is just an Avenue people are looking not to pay tithe. Truthfully the churches where these tithes are paid are not helping the members but think of it if someone is not sufficient after tithe then not paying tithe won't make the person rich. Now the issue of the mosaic law and tithe there are a lot of mosaic laws that is not repeated in the new testament but is still a sin to do it. What about that?

2. The early church may not have spoken about tithe in terms of one tenth but they were mad in giving, people sold their properties, gave half, more than half etc that is more than tithe so, the new testament gave more than tithe and that is what we should emulate but the church in our days does not, I am talking about they having all things common. The church had no rich and no poor, no divide but now what do we have? So...

3. In rebuking the Pharisees, Jesus told them they pay tithe of all things but disregard the heavier matters of the law so tithe is not to be disregarded even if it's not heavier it is heavy. Remember the money paid in the temple that was tithe but the widow gave all, while others paid part, she was recognised for giving more because she honored God with her substance, why mammon. Mammon is the only thing "equated" to God, you can't serve God and mammon. So giving to God is a show of the level of your love. You can't claim you love God and not give.

4. This is actually Strange but just humor me. The old testament is actually divided into 3. A. Pre law times B. Mosaic law times C. Pre grace period, just consider the characters and relationships of God and people from the fall to the exodus, the exodus to the time of David, David to the return from exile

PS THE PROBLEM OR ISSUES I WOULD HAVE LOVED IF FREEZE AND OTHERS TO FOCUS ON WOULD BE WHAT THE CHURCH SHOULD USE TITHE, OFFERING AND THE CHURCH RICHES FOR MATT 28:18-19. AFFECT AND CHANGE THE WORLD BUT WE HAVE SAT ON COSTLY UNIVERSITIES (MISSIONARIES BUILT SCHOOLS AND GAVE FREE EDUCATION), ELECTRICITY, HEALTH ETC WE WOULD CHANGE THE WORLD AND BRING PEOPLE TO CHRIST THROUGH THAT

God bless and love you

Paying tithe is a part of mosaic law. Abraham paid tithe without pressure, command or curse….he also did not tithe of his substance but of the spoils of war. In other words his tenth was voluntary. He was not compelled by any law to do so. Again what he did was a one time thing. There was no indication anywhere else that he was tithing in the hands of MELCHIDEZEK before or after the incident contrary to your opinion of Abraham paying 'tithes' to MELCHIDEZEK.
This tithe is different from the one tithe collectors are talking about. They are talking about the one which was later included in the Mosaic Law which carries commands to give a tenth for tabernacle worship. Tithing is mentioned 18 times in the Law, as the people were to share their produce and livestock to support the Levites etc. This is the one that carries commands which Malachi was talking about. I wonder who told you that tithe is not a mosaic law. Tithing is still a mosaic law till today. You can go and ask any jew whether tithe is a mosaic law or not and see the reply he will give you. You can also google it. Who taught you this? Tithing was later included in the mosaic law therefore it's a mosaic law. i don't really understand when you say it's not a mosaic law. Are you the one who removed it from the list?

I don't need to touch other points you raised cos i don't think it is necessary in order to make my points clear but i will do in the future if necessary .

Remain blessed

If we must pay tithe, we must fulfill other mosaic laws. Why must we pick only one, the one that has to do with money. Apostles did not collect tithes. Early church didn't pay tithes. Priests who collected tithes in the old testament era had no inheritance but all the tithe collectors we have now have different types of inheritance. The poverty in our society has nothing to do with tithe. It is a systematic problem. In a society where things are done the right way, Christian, muslims, aethist, misers, idol worshipers, satanists,marmons etc all enjoy prosperity. There is no difference between those who pay tithe and those who do not pay in Nigeria. Everbody is suffering from the same harsh conditions brought about due to the failures in our system. There is no evidence that supports paying tithe makes you richer. All i see in Nigeria are personal testimonies which contradicts the reality on the ground in their various churches and in our society as a whole. I have seen stingy people who are very rich. I have seen people who do not go to church but they are very rich and prosperous in terms of early riches. Uncountable tithe payers in Nigeria are very poor just like many others who don't pay. It's nobody's fault but the fault of systematic failures. Many poor nigerians who left nigeria for a better society got better financially with time. I have many of them as friends.

The focus should be on whether Ojukwu lied or not. Other side talks here are irrelevant. Gowon should be more precise in his accusations by revealing the lies Ojukwu told in his speech. If you say that someone lied, you should demonstrate how the person lied. I'm still waiting for him to do that. And i know he will never do that.

Gowon should tell us the lies ojukwu told at least in details so that we can understand what he was talking about. He went unprepared. Maybe he left his brain at home before going to Ghana. That was exactly why he went against the agreement after he came back. Pathological liar. History is always very difficult to bend. That is exactly what gowon is trying so desperately to do. Ojukwu is late and all of a sudden gowon is calling him a liar.

UnchangeableGod:
You are wrong in your allegation that I criticize the Catholic Church with animosity. What I detest is your false claims of 'exclusive divine authority' borne out of sheer conceit. Your problem is that you lump what you term Protestant Churches together and see this as Roman Catholic versus Protestants war. You are wrong sir. I am not after religious politics. Whatever I see as an error on the part of any group, including the so-called Bible only believers, I do point it out. You can check my other comments. That some so called Protestants have some obvious errors themselves is not in any way a justification of the multitudes of false doctrines that abound in the Roman Catholic Institution, yet you people make false claims to exclusive divine authority. Let me make this clear. I do not know about the Protestant Movement. I was not born during the Reformation. I am not protesting anything. All I know is that I heard the gospel, was convicted of my sins, repented and gave my life to Christ. I then decided to join the Church of the person through whom I was converted having been challenged by his exemplary lifestyle. That is why I always bring in the need for salvation because that is the crux of the matter. Once you are genuinely saved, the Holy Spirit will guide you into all truth. So this your Roman Catholic versus Protestant battle is neither here nor there and I am not part if it. But I am quite sure that there are sincere people who can read between the lines and decipher what is the truth and as such decide for themselves for their present and eternal good. I am quite sure of that. It is not everybody that is blinded by religion. Everybody cannot be deceived. Thank you.

My question is in order, very much in order.

Im not lumping any protestant churches together. Infact it is the obvious differences that made me to ask the question which you have so far refused to answer.

Your so called obvious errors in Catholics teaching is as a result of your bible alone Christianity and your 66 books bible created by your people which the church fathers never practiced.

It is funny that you don't know about protestant reformation because that was the genesis of bible alone Christianity you are practicing today. Protestants reformation is the genesis of your 66 books bible. Your church wouldn't have come into existence without the reformation, therefore, you can't separate yourself from the protestant reformation

You are protesting against the Catholic Church, therefore, you are a protestant. That is exactly what you are doing here. That is the dictionary meaning of a protestant. It's as simple as that.

You said that some other protestant churches have errors. The problem is that they don't see it that way. They are interpreting ,teaching and practicing the things they believe are right and they are ready to defend it using the same protestant bible.

This brings me to the same question. Protestant churches have different interpretations, teachings and doctrines. Which one of them is getting it right? I asked this question because all of them are claiming the same thing as you, conversion, salvation, Holy Spirit leading them to the truth etc.

My question is simple and understandable. It's not ambiguous. I even used your interpretation of revelation 22, 18-19 to give you example. I used other examples too. Im very surprised at your refusal to answer simple question.

UnchangeableGod:
"If anyone teaches otherwise and consent not to wholesome words, even the WORDS OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST, AND THE DOCTRINE WHICH IS ACCORDING TO GODLINESS, such a one is proud, knowing nothing, but dotting about questions and strife of words, whereof cometh envy, railings, evil surmisings(conjectures)" (1st Timothy 6:3,4).

First Timothy 6:3-4 does not answer the question rather it generates the question.

Which church has the right teaching, doctrines and interpretations? For the fact that among the protestant churches there exists different interpretations, doctrines and teachings from the same 66 books bible, which of the Churches has everything right. I went further to give you examples eg your interpretation of revelation 22 18-19 is different from mine and some protestant churches. Another example is that in some protestant churches wearing earing sends to someone to hell fire in some its allowed. In some, women wearing trousers sends them to hell fire in some it's ok. In some head attachments sends them to hell fire while some it's ok. I can go on and on. A primary school student will easily understand this question with all the examples i have given but you pretend not to understand it. You have decided not answer the question, simple.

From the above example, it's obvious that Protestantism does not solve the problem of false doctrines, teaching etc. They will still end up in hell fire according to you.

It's not enough for you to criticize the Catholic Church with animosity without telling us the church that's is getting everything right. For me, it's a shame on your part if you refuse to tell us.

UnchangeableGod:
You are right sir. The true children of God (those who are saved and remain in Christ till pothe end) will be revealed on the last day. But one needs to be sure now not waiting for then. No one gatecrashes into Heaven. Paul the Apostle said while still on earth and I quote "I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith: henceforth, there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, shall give me at that day: and not to me only, but unto all them also that love His appearing". The purpose of such assertion sir, is not to score oneself, but to inspire others that they can be very certain about where they are heading (Heaven) even while still on earth. For your information sir, I have read the history you are referring to both from neutral and Catholic points and they all agree that certain books (commonly called the Apocrypha) are not included in the present Bible. But the rationale behind such non inclusion is where there are disagreements. My point about Martin Luther who played a major role in the Reformation is that he is in the best position to answer such question pertaining to the role, if any, that he played in the non inclusion of the Apocrypha in the Bible but he is not around. He is currently receiving his reward according to all he did while on earth and the motive behind such. The reason I don't think the Apocrypha matters so much is because they didn't play a role in my conversion, sanctification, healing, miracles l have received so far and how the Lord has kept me till now (here I go again with my testimonies). So if God could do all that for me from the provisions of Genesis to Revelation, then He must be OK with that and happy with me and others with similar spiritual experiences. I don't really know what else I stand to benefit spiritually speaking as a Christian from the Apocrypha which I am not benefiting from Genesis to Revelation. In any case there might be things I could benefit from the other Books if I have time to read them, but my not reading them certainly does not have any eternal consequences. As for which Church has the right interpretation, the right teaching and the right doctrine, I would like us to define Church first of all. A Church from the Bible point of view refers to all born again children of God who are currently living according to His will throughout the world (Acts 20:28; Gal 1:13; Ephesians 5:25; Colossians 1:18). So there is a local Church and the universal Church. Each individual Christian is member of the universal Church. Therefore all Christians in all local Churches (and there are so many) who are currently living right by His grace must be benefiting from the right interpretation, right teaching and right doctrine. So all the Shepherds of such local Churches are having the right interpretations, teaching and doctrines. God knows them ( just as you suggested) and will reward them accordingly. As for why we cannot agree. Sir, it is because obviously we don't have similar testimonies and experiences, we don't believe same thing, are not serving same Master, not pursuing same goal and regrettably, may not ultimately meet in the same place at the end of life. I pray we do and that we meet at the Feet of the Lord Jesus I J N, Amen. God bless you sir.

Brother, let us get one thing clear, we do not use the same bible. You mentioned "present" bible ie 66 books bible. The people who use your so called present bible are the protestants. My present bible is the original one the was canonized by the church fathers that has been in existence for more than 1000yrs. This is simple fact. A baby can easily understand these differences.

If the deuterocanonical books doesn't matter to you for whatever reasons ,that is your own problem. it matters to me because they are sacred scriptures that were removed by protestants.

If you think that you can't benefit spiritually from the books that were removed, that one is your concern. I benefit spiritually from them. The only people who don't see the spiritual benefits are protestants who removed them. The church fathers saw spiritual benefits in them but to you , protestants know more than the church fathers.

To you and i, "genesis to revelation" means different things. To you, it means 66 books. To me, it means 73 books. You are free to operate with your 66 books. Someone can remove more books and still get "genesis to revelation".

I have shown clearly that your bible came out as a removal of the word of God. You have the right to categorize the removed books the way you want. Anyone has the right to remove and categorize any book in the Bible the way he or she believes.

Whether you will suffer damnation or not if you don't accept the books as sacred scriptures is again your own problem. The church fathers called them sacred scriptures. You say they are not. You are entitled to your own opinion. You said that damnation awaits someone who removes from the Bible but you think this rule doesn't apply to you because you believe the books that were removed are not word of God.

The implication of this action is that anyone can declare more books in the Bible unsacred, remove them and still suffers no consequences.

Again you have refused to answer the questions. In summary, according to you, the right churches are ones with good shepherds doing the right interpretations etc.

For the fact that among the protestants using the same 66 books bible, there exists different interpretations, different teaching, different doctrines which one is the right church? Upon all these differences they are claiming the same thing as you, salvation, healing, bla, bla. All of them are quoting 2 Timothy 7-8. For example, your interpretation of revelation 22,18-19 is quite different from mine and some other protestant churches. How do we know the right one? Remember, any wrong interpretation = wrong teaching = hell fire .

As for your conversion expirence, it is your own personal experience. Everyone has his or hers. It has nothing to do with this discussion. I can't vouch for you on anything and you can't vouch for me also. I don't know you and you don't know me.

UnchangeableGod:
I have made my points very clear. If you did not agree with them neither will you agree with anything else I say. You seem to be angry with Martin Luther. I quite understand. He was a Roman Catholic priest who challenged the Church authorities over what he saw as erroneous teachings that could damn multitudes. As for allegedly removing some Books from the Bible, Martin Luther is not around to defend himself. So what you have is a one-sided history from Catholic point of view. It is unthinkable that God could save sinners and sanctify believers from the preachings read from 'incomplete false Bible' as claimed by you. A lot can be learnt from the Deuterocanonical Books or Apocrypha but their divine inspiration has been in doubt even before the advent of Martin Luther and the Reformation. Nothing stops you from reading from them but let us not miss the point. Ensure you repent and surrender your life to Christ as your personal Lord and Saviour and live right by His grace till the end. God bless you.

You didn't make any point clear. All you are saying is " believe my bible because I say so " No proof

You said something about Martin Luther defending himself. Against what? The point of this discussion is to show that Martin Luther removed books from the Bible.

You said that what i have is one-sided history from Catholic point of view . You are indeed a very ignorant person. You amaze all the time. Even Martin Luther himself did not deny that he removed books from the Bible rather he gave his reasons. Protestants apologists don't deny that he removed books from the Bible. Historians from both protestant and neutral sources didn't deny that he removed books from the Bible. Your problem is that you refused to read.

You said the divine inspiration of deuterocanonical books has been in doubt even before the advent of Martin Luther and the reformation. If the divine inspiration of the books were in doubt why did the church fathers canonize them?. Why did the church fathers declared them sacred scriptures? The only people who doubted the divine inspiration of the books were the ones who removed the books from the Bible. These people are you people, protestants. The bible canonized by church fathers were used uninterrupted for more than 1000yrs before the protestants tampered with it.

By tampering with the bible, protestants are saying that the church fathers are bereft of the Holy Spirit and that they added books to the scriptures therefore according to you they are suffering damnation.

You can categorize the book the way you want but the church fathers declared them holy scriptures. My point is simple, your 66 books bible is a derivation from the original Bible this implies that it is a diluted version. We are talking simple history here.

Again my question is " what stops someone from removing more books from the Bible and still call it bible?" This simply means that one can remove any books he or she is uncomfortable with from the Bible and it will still
be bible.

If i remove more books from the bible, can protestants summone the moral authority to warn me when they have committed the same offence?

Let me be frank with you. We can't agree on anything because we don't use the same bible. I use the Bible canonized by the church fathers and you use the one produced by Martin Luther.

Again stop avoiding the question. Tell us the church with the right interpretations, the right teaching and the right doctrines.

Lastly, the true children of God will be revealed on the judgement day. You don't need to tell me who you are in Christ or what i need to do. I don't know you. You don't know me. It's only God that knows our hearts. You can't take exams and score yourself. That's foul play.

If you refuse to answer the above simple question, I'm afraid i will not reply again.

UnchangeableGod:
Sir, I never spoke against education whether theological or secular was not necessary before gospel ministry. All I said is that conversion and right living is more important ministry. For your information, I do not know about Martin Luther or whoever and what they did. All I know is that God graciously saved me from what I heard from within the Bible. You claim it should be more than 66 canonised books. No problem sir. Are the 66 (Genesis to Revelation) not among them and are they not canonised? So long as the 66 are among the canonised, then they do not contain false doctrines contrary to your assertion. Sir, I also want to point your attention to one point - salvation and heavenly race is personal, not congregational. What counts first and foremost is one's repentance and right standing with God through the only Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ. After one has come to Christ, then where to worship in order to know God more and grow in faith and grace - whether where the person worships presently or elsewhere will fall into place by the leading of the Holy Spirit. I deliberately decided not to mention where I worship because that is not the point. Coming to where I worship does not automatically confer salvation on anyone. Apart from that, there are several other places of undiluted truth other than where I worship. Christ and Christ alone is the issue. Thanks.

You said that you don't know what Martin Luther did. Well that one is your own problem. You have chosen ignorance willingly. The point is that i know what Martin Luther did to the Bible you are using. It's history, well documented. I know how he removed books from the Bible to give the doctrine of 66 books bible.

You said that the 66 books are part of the canon. Yes you are right but the books he removed are part of the canon too. They are the sacred scriptures handed down to us by the church fathers.

You said i claimed that it should be more than 66 books. I did not claim anything because the church fathers canonized 73 books. It's history. Everyone with a little knowledge of history knows this. This is why i finfd it difficult to discuss with you.

Again you pretend not to understand my point. My point is that as far as Martin Luther has removed books from the bible and protestants still believe in that creation of Martin Luther they will share in whatever that happened to him because according to you revelation 22,18-19 have condemned them to hell fire. They will suffer damnation because they removed books from the Bible. The 66 books bible is a false doctrine on it's own because it's a product of a sin. Sin of tampering with the word of God.

This brings me to the next point. What stops someone from removing more books from the bible and still call it bible. By removing books from the bible, the protestants are telling us that we can always remove books between genesis and revelation and it will still be called bible. That is the implication of Martin Luther's action. Can protestants stand on any moral grounds to warn anyone against removing more books from the bible when they are guilty of the same offence?

You talked about undiluted truth. This sounds strange to me coming from you because the bible you are using is the diluted version which has many books missing from it. How can someone get undiluted truth from a Bible which Martin Luther created. I doubt it. Like i mentioned earlier your interpretation of revelation 22, 18-19 is quite different from my own. If one of us is getting the interpretation wrong that person is guilty of false teaching and misleading others therefore the person or the church is spreading false teaching.

Again stop avoiding the question. Tell us which church has the right teaching. The right interpretations. The right doctrines.

Like i said before, i don't which to continue with this discussion because you repeat the same thing again and again without answering any questions though you expect others to answer your questions.

9inches:
You keep building a strawman argument. The crux of the whole argument is below; address it.

I think you guys should leave this guy to have the final words just like i did. He runs around in a circle.
His arguments are always funny and childish.

For example, when i showed him that his 66 books bible is based on error, a creation of a man called Martin Luther , he said that he was not the one that removed the books therefore he shouldn't be held accountable. To buttress his point he quoted rev 22, 18-19. He went ahead to say that the same false doctrine of 66 books bible is enough for him.
The problem with this position is that if he believes in this error, on what moral grounds is he standing to correct Catholics whom he believes are in error.

Again observe his inability to accept responsibility for the creation of the 66 books bible without knowing that once he believes in the false bible that he should be held accountable for using the Martin Luther's creation because he is an adult. I will be held accountable for practicing my faith as a Catholic because im an adult. That is what is called the age of reason. If im enjoying stolen money with a criminal being aware of the origin, i will automatically have a share in the sin of the criminal. If i were to go with his style of reasoning, no catholic should be held accountable for anything because they were not there when everything was done.

Not being satisfied that i pointed out that he was using a fake bible, he said that someone told him that the church fathers canonized 66 books after praying and bla, bla without telling us the church fathers who did that. When i told him he was lying, he claimed ignorance and said that someone told him. I even showed him a link to prove my case. He promised to show me a link where church fathers canonized 66 books but he has not done so till this moment, and he will never do so because it doesn't exist.

The point is, is this guy at his age really ignorant of where his Bible came from? I find this hard to believe. If he is ignorant indeed, i wonder what his church and friends are teaching him because this is simple history. It needs no interpretations like the bible.

He said Catholics are practicing false doctrine but his doctrines are based on one big false doctrine of 66 books bible.

He said that the Holy Spirit has left the Catholic Church because of false doctrines. He is simply saying that if you die a Catholic, you will go to hell fire because nobody can see God without the Holy Spirit.
The point is, what is the Holy Spirit doing in a church that tampered with his words. According to him, protestants are going to hell fire because they removed from the word of God (rev 22, 18-19) and continue to believe in the false bible of Martin Luther. They grieve the Holy Spirit by their continuous belief in the Martin Luther's creation.

By rejecting the word of God handed down to us by the church fathers, protestants are indirectly telling us that the church fathers and the Holy Spirit are liars.

He talked about building faith. Building faith in what, the 66 book bible doctrine? This is funny. He still believes his Bible is the right one therefore everyone must believe in it.

Sometimes, he asks questions that doesn't make sense at all, like that of the seminary. You begin to ask yourself whether God is afraid of education. Even some protestant churches have seminaries. Paul was a very educated man. He was an expert in the Old Testament before his conversion. He spoke Hebrew and greek perhaps other languages. Out of the 27 books, epistles and letters that make up the New Testament, 13 have been authored by the Apostle Paul (This does not include the book of Hebrews which some believe he wrote). Paul quoted three pagan philosophers, Epimenides, Menander, Aratus. This means that he knew greek philosophy. Only an idiot will not see how education helped Paul in his ministry. It was an added advantage.

He has refused to tell us which church has the right doctrines and why. Perhaps this will help us choose the right church.

Finally, i have decided to stop running around in a circle with the someone who doesn't even know the origin of the bible he has been reading. Allow him to have the final words instead of playing this funny games with him.

NairaEffect:
See Sec. 109 (b). Take note of the word "resembling".
From the pictures, she is putting on camouflage prints. Not even pink, red, purple or any other colour but green.

She could have passed for an Army officer and policemen at checkpoints would just wave her to "advance" not knowing she's a bloody civilian.

The Army has warned the public particularly "celebrities" that they are not to spot camo resembling theirs.
The soldier in the picture may have acted beyond the scope of his powers by asking the lady to strip publicly but the lady is guilty. Whether or not she is aware of the law.

The Latin maxim states "ignorantia juris non excusat" aka "ignorance of the law excuses no one".

Would the lady have preferred to serve the terms of imprisonment or suffer the humiliation? That is for her to answer.

My humble opinion.

The problems with this country are uncountable. Sometimes I don't understand how nigerians think. Why this kind of abuse will not end in Nigeria is because we always blame the victims instead of the perpetrators. If you refuse to give a police man bribe and the police man slaps you, people will the you. People will say " why did you refuse to give them bribe, it's your fault ". If a girl wears short skirt and in the process she gets sexually harassed. People will blame her for provoking criminals who harassed her.

Consequently, these kind of reactions from the public makes it difficult for victims of abuse to seek for justice because of lack of support. Again, we have a culture of not fighting for our rights. We like to leave everything for God as if God will come down from heaven and fight your battles for you.

The warnings the army have issued to the public has nothing whatsoever to do with this case. If the army felt that the Lady broke the law, they should arrest her and hand her over to the appropriate authority for prosecution. Nobody has the right to strip a citizen of this country naked in the public. To make the matter worse, they striped a woman naked in the public and some people here are even laughing at the whole ugly incident.

One of the problems with Nigerians is that we don't value ourselves. Can an American citizen do this kind of thing to a fellow American.

You said the lady is guilty. How do you know this? Are you a court of law?. Are the soldiers a Court of law. Only the court law can declare the lady guilty or not guilty. This is a clear case of abuse. The poor girl is innocent until the court says otherwise.

It left for the court to decide if she is wearing an army uniform or not. Not me, not you, not the army. Believe me, im very sure the army will lose the case in court because you have to provide a solid defence to prove your case. This is a shameless act coming from our shameless army. Nigeria is a zoo. Most people in Nigeria are animals that was why they couldn't see anything wrong with this act.

I just hope the girl will gather the courage and file a claim for damages.

UnchangeableGod:
Wikipedia though very reliable, does not have all the information because the writers do not know everything as human beings that they are. So their information is limited to what they are privileged to know. Thanks.

Wikipedia lied because it's not in your favour. At this point, im going to quit the discussion because i don't deal with people who are not truthful. You want to change history just to gain advantage. And you claim to have gotten salvaged etc. Well if you deny the the obvious,i wonder. Even many protestant apologists don't deny this fact rather they give reasons why they believed those books deserved to be removed. You said limited information as if this history is not well documented. Your comments baffle me, to be truthful to you. Don't expect me to respond again. Bye

Wikipedia has council of hippo and council of catharge held by the early church fathers.I don't want to qoute catholic sources.

UnchangeableGod:
According to Church history, about 73 books were recommended by the Church Fathers to be considered for canonization as Scripture. After prayerful and careful consideration by Spirit filled men of God using certain parameters and yardsticks, 66 of them passed the test and became canon. Littje wonder, whatever you need and will ever need, whatever is of concern to any human being born or yet to be born, there is provision for it in the (66 books of the canonized) holy Bible. Go no further sir except there is something else, other than how to walk and please God as well as get His abiding presence and reward in this world and hereafter that you are looking for.

This illogical statements is getting too much. You want to lie too. Pls qoute your source

UnchangeableGod:
Was Paul the Apostle ordained a priest in the Roman Catholic tradition then?

Was paul ordained priest in your church? We have hundreds of thousands of protestant churches with different doctrines. All of them are accusing the other of getting it wrong. Pls tell us which one paul was ordained in. I have been reading your comments. You seem to have your own dictionary. You define words the way you like.

The problem with this discussion is that there is no common ground. For example, you are insisting that the Bible has 66 books while the church fathers declared it to be 73. The church was using the Bible with73 books for more than 1000yrs until Martin Luther came and removed the deutroconical books. He even removed books like Hebrews and James though it was added back by some of the protestant fathers. I believe in what the church fathers said, not in what Martin Luther said.

You interpreted Revelation 22, 18 -19 as if it's talking about your whole Bible but actually those verses are talking about the book of revelation alone. The book of revelation was written when john was exiled to the island of patmos. When it was written the church fathers have not compiled the Bible. The book of revelation and other books of the new testament were hotly debated before they were declared scriptures and added to the Bible. Your interpretation is wrong or perhaps your church's interpretation is wrong as far as the Catholic Church is concerned. If i follow your interpretation, it then means that Martin Luther and other protestants will encounter damnation because they removed books from the Bible the church fathers authorized. Pls it will serve you right if you read a little bit of church history.

If the protestants removed Books from the Bible what prevents another group from removing more books from the Bible in the future and still call it holy scriptures.

I didn't want to comment on this issue cos i know we can never agree on anything because how your church interprete bible is not how Catholic and other churches do. We don't even use the same bible. Thanks

UnchangeableGod:
Are you sure you and your Church members have not been judging him (saying or implying that what he did amounts to sin) by your comments so far? Happy to learn that you do not wish him bad. May the Lord direct and guide him in the way he should go henceforth so that he will fulfill his ministry. May the Lord also help you and I to follow and do His will alone for our lives no matter what is popular and whatever others may say I J N, Amen. It is well. Thanks.

Well I'm sure, i have not judged him and so far the church has not judged him. Forming an opinion about an issue is not judgement. For example, i cannot accuse you of judging the Catholic Church cos of some of the opinions you have formed about the Catholic church. To do that will be childish of me. In a dialogue /debate the two opposing sides must have their opinions about the topic that is being discussed.

Bros, for example, i can't assume because you have a negative opinion of my actions therefore you must hate me. That should, again, amount to being childish. I hope you understand me. Again, I wish him well. The same goes with you too.

As for your prayer, i say Amen. Remain blessed

UnchangeableGod:
OK if you are rocket sure that your unofficial gossip-based information about him refusing transfer is correct and not based on animosity to blackmail, then let us accept he disobeyed his superiors. But you should understand that not all disobedience to man equals disobedience to God. What if God did not sanction his brand of priesthood which has been done away with in the New Covenant established on better promises? (Hebrews 7:1-28; 8:1-13; 9:1-28) What if he entered this outdated Old Testament brand of priesthood in ignorance and later realized it? What if he had an encounter that drastically changed his perception about ministry? What if he has finally been convicted about the truth having read the Bible over and over? What if and what if?.........There may just be something you and I don't know about his exit. Let God be his judge. Thanks.

At least you have understood what I'm trying to point out. The fact is that he disobeyed the church authority. Of course, to him, he was sure that his disobedience was the right thing to do. That was why he did it. Is as simple as that.

Other things you pointed out might or might not be a factor in his exit. The only thing I'm sure of is the one that made him to leave. His final clash with church authority.

Mind you, the church is not judging him. Im not judging him. I just pointed out that he disobeyed his superiors. Sincerely i don't wish him bad. Thanks.

UnchangeableGod:
You got your information that he was being 'disobedient' and you believe your informant must be dead right, don't you? I never said anyone forced him to become a priest. Not at all. All I am saying is that as he entered the priesthood by his own free will, he can opt out by his own free will as well. the length of his seminary and priesthood notwithstanding. What do you mean by me accusing you of wishing him evil? I don't know where you dug that out from. Certainly that is not what I mean. What I mean is that having pronounced him guilty of disobedience, you will surely be delighted once the Church comes out with a position that aligns with yours 'vindicating' you. I am not one of those who wish people evil because it is a sin to do so. Praying that the eyes of people should be opened so that they will know the truth and be free from error and eventual eternal damnation is not wishing people or a denomination evil. God knows and He is the Perfect Judge of our actions and motives. A pastor is under obligation to obey his superior pastors. However, there are times when a superior can be wrong while a lieutenant can be right. If the junior officer cannot convince his boss, I think his best bet will then be to throw in the trowel ie resign honourably without any acrimony or fuss. God will approve of such an action.The bottom-line is this - let the man be.

Bros, as i said before, i got my info from the right source. I trust the info . In your church, you know how to get information if you need one. Are you saying i shouldn't trust the information from my church. Don't you trust the information from your church? Like i said before i wonder why Rev Edeth refused to say or write in details what transpired before his exit.

My point is simple. You said he entered on his own free will and left on his own free will. Agreed, good point but he was talking as if the church chained him all along. He was the one who chained himself by becoming a priest and promising to obey the church authority so he should not blame anyone. Do you get the logic?

At this point, i would like to quote you using your exact words . You said "and I was so sure you will be happy to hear bad news about him whether true or not from your mindset and comments so far." As far as im concerned what you said is that it would give me joy if i receive bad news about him whether the news is false or true. It might be on this matter or other matters. You didn't specify. This simply implies im not wishing him well but i still welcome your clarification. English is not our first language. I'm not at all perfect in it.

Thank you for concurring that we should obey our superiors. What is wrong in transferring someone? What is wrong in assigning another duty to someone? Must we do only the things that we like to do? Must everything go the way we want it to go? Others are being transferred why would he be afraid of it. My uncle was sent to a village in Malawi for missionary work. He spent ten years there. When we heard the news, some of us were unhappy but he came home and gathered us together and addressed us. I will never forget what he said that day. He said " like the apostles, Jesus is sending me to Malawi to win souls for him. Pray for me so that God will help me to accomplish the task. where you are sent doesn't matter but what matters is how many souls you were able to win......... " I will never in my life forget those words. This is a man who is ready to serve God. He didn't fight the Bishop for removing him from his comfort zone. He obeyed. If my uncle had refused, he would have been induging in disobedience. Father Edeth refused the task assigned to him so he guilty of disobedience. Is as simple as that.

I'm not disturbing Rev Edeth. I don't even know where he is now. All of us are here to express our opinions on matters like this and possibly learn one or two things from one another. Thanks

UnchangeableGod:
I did not say he left in order to get married. It is what a lot of people especially those who are not happy that he left the Catholic Church were insinuating. I only said if that is indeed true, then he is not wrong, biblically speaking. Well, you must be an authority in the Catholic Church to be so sure of the reason he left even when the Church is s yet to come out with am official position. I did not say the Catholic Church will come out with fake reasons as you accused me of saying. I only said I was sure their reason(s) will definitely not be in favour of the priest who left the Church especially considering the circumstances and I was so sure you will be happy to hear bad news about him whether true or not from your mindset and comments so far. If people have good reasons (or reasons best known to them) to leave the Church where I worship, there is no big deal. It is against the Scriptures for me to slander or blackmail them for that.Thanks.

I did not say that you said you were sure he left because of celibacy. I used' might ' which is under probability . You used 'may be' which is also under probability, so i think i quoted you correctly. Go back to your comment and correct me if I'm wrong.

Must i be an authority in the Catholic church to know what is going in my church? The same goes with you, must you be an authority in your church to know what is going on in your church? The only thing someone needs is to get the information from the right source. I'm very close to the church i know how to get my info.

Whether the reasons favour him or not is not important at this point cos i have given you the reason. I have told you the last incident that took place that made him to leave. Don't get me wrong, his reasons are logical. He doesn't want to take orders from the church authority anymore. He has had enough. That's fine with me but trying to talk as if he was forced to become a priest is what is called preposterous pretence.

If he is free now, who kept him in bondage before now. He entered seminary without coercion, spent average of 10yrs to become a priest on his own free will only to come out and start talking as if he was forced to become a Catholic priest.

Take for example, if i approach your church to become a pastor in your church , you now walk me through the rules and regulations of your church, and i accepted. After being a pastor, the church authority tells me to leave the thing that im doing and go to somewhere else to serve. Instead of going there, i will start telling them that they are not giving me free hand to operate. I start accusing them of keeping me in bondage cos I'm not having my way. After that i will go to a tv channel and annouce that im free now, free from all human directives. That to me is a smart way of being disobedient.

You said that i will be happy to hear bad news about him. No sir, im not that kind of person. Again, i think you are projecting your personality on me. I have been consistent with my point, that he is disobidient. That's all. He didn't offend me in anyway so why wish him evil. The problem with Christians these day is that they wish one another evil. They hardly pray for people outside their churches who are need. They don't even help people outside their respective churches who are in need. How sad. Perhaps you might think i wish bad too. Very sad indeed.

I didn't slander anyone. I said that he disobeyed people in authority. At least I'm entitled to my own opinion. Thanks

UnchangeableGod:
You are not even sure of why exactly he left yet you are in a hurry to accuse and judge him of disobedience. You are just pained. Of course, the Catholic Church will likely come out with an explanation and I don't expect their story to favour the man who left their fold. Then you can run with that. I pray that more peoples' eyes will be opened to the truth, the clergy and laity alike in Jesus' name, Amen.

Bros, let me ask you a question. Are you pained when people leave your church? Are you trying to tell me that some people have not left your church. You sound like a person who can't handle rejection. I have seen people like that. Don't project your personality onto someone. I told you my real reason why i commented. And you can't prove otherwise.

Yes, i was not sure why he left and i admitted it. You also said it might be because he wanted to get married. Were you sure when you made that comment?

The main reason Father Edeth left was because he was about to be sent to residence. He didn't want to be removed from the position he was holding. In summary, he didn't want to be transferred. He might have other reasons but this was what brought about his exit. He felt being pushed around. Good for him, there are people like that. They don't want to be told what to do. Tell me how this is not disobedience. I agree with him on this one, he is free from being told what to do by the church authority. I wish well.

You said that the Catholic Church will come out with fake reasons. Why is it that Rev Edeth refused to tell the exact story behind his exit? Did you notice that he refused to mention exactly what transpired before he left. Im still waiting for him to reveal it. Is he afraid? My answer is 'No'. He is a free man now , remember.

I discovered that you avoid my questions in your replies. Let me repeat my question again. In your church does your pastors disobey instructions from your church authority? Do your pastors do what they like in your church? Pls answer me.

On the issue of your eyes being closed or open. The problem with this position is that the people who left your church will also accuse you of your eyes being closed.They will also pray that the eyes of pastors and other members of your church will open. Thanks

UnchangeableGod:
Decision to marry or not should be personal, by choice, not by coercion. What if the man did not want to marry but later changed his mind? You are talking about disobedience. Yes, we can disobey man if his instruction is opposed to that of God. Except the man was told to do things in accordance to God's word as contained in the Bible and he disobeys, then he is being disobedient to God and will face the consequences if he does not repent and do restitution. Otherwise, you people are just pained and being emotional about an ordained highly placed person leaving your denomination and the impression it has created. Thanks.

The man in question didn't tell you that he left because of celibacy related wahala. like i said before, it is assumption. It is very unlikely he left cos of that. I said so because if he had wanted to marry he could've easily notified the church and they will give him go ahead to leave. There must be something that the Bishop told him told that he refused to do or something that he was doing that the Bishop told him to stop doing that he refused to stop doing . Don't be in a hurry soon the whole story will emerge. Sometimes some of these priests will refuse to go on tranfer when they are tranfered. Sometimes they are not prudent with money. When the Bishop tells them how to use fund, they will not follow instructions. Etc In your church, are pastors not taking orders from church authority on how to run the affairs the church. These orders might not be convenient for you sometimes but you must do it. That is obedience. If you refuse, it's called disobedience. Overseers do the same to pastors in their churches.
What do you mean by "in accordance with God's word." If you are tranfered and you refused to go, what has that to do with God's word. Was he told to go to okija shrine and become the chief priest there.

Again, i can see that you are not comfortable with celibacy in the Catholic church. This is not the topic of discussion but let me clear you on that. Nobody is forced into Catholic priesthood. You can't force an adult to do something that he doesn't want to do unless you have a gun on his head. It takes approximately 10 yrs to become a Catholic priest. So the person knows what he is entering into. During this time, you read will read philosophy and theology, you will go to apostolic work etc. All this time is enough for you to decide whether you will go on or not. Catholic priests don't marry cos the church doesn't want diversions of attention. And it's working well for them. It's our standard, simple. it's biblical. Some churches don't allow women putting on trousers. I can't go there and tell them what to do. If you enter their churches with trousers they will throw you away. Some don't allow ear rings.

Finally, im not pained that he left. I commented cos he was trying to make it look as if the church forced him to leave. Cheap blackmail. I believe that he is the one who pushed himself out due to disobedience.

701ecilana:
Hahahahahahahahaa. You are asking very childish questions. I grew up a Catholic. My family is an Exemplary Catholic family in my very big community. From generations to this day, Our house is used as a seminary for Seminarians and priests to stay before a Parision was built.

I have priests and Sisters in the family. My Dad died a Knight. So get it clearly, am not an outsider waiting to be told the evils of the Catholic Church. While a Catholic, i never saw whatever they did as evil, just like you right now, i defended them, went after anyone who said anything about their evil, but like you said, evil is evil it doesn't matter who commits it.

You said i should google and see the sexual escapades of the Pentecostals Pastors, yes they are there and we the pentecostals are the most critical of them all, we scream at their evils and expose them. We do not hide and encourage them as you do now.

You said mother superiors prepares and cleans these kids up for priests to defile. Well this is outrageous. Pls, it's time to give me the convent's name and the name of the mother superior so that i will personally report this case to the bishop. This is no longer a convent but a porn industry. Perhaps the priests pay the mother superior for the services she is rendering. For the fact the you know so much, you can as well tell us how much the mother superior is collecting for her services.

After secondary school, i got admission into school, i made friends. It was a large crowed of friends. I was actually their Center. Amongst all of us, I was the only one who had gone to secondary school from home (Thank God for that). I was a day student. They boarded.

They went to Catholic schools all of them. Most of them became friends back in secondary school. The name of the school is MOUNT CAMEL.

Guess what? They all came out Kunk Lesbians. Cigarette smoking Catholic Lesbians. Guess who takes them as lovers at a very tender age of admission into secondary school? Reverend sisters. They talk about their first times. They talk. Girls like to talk sex.

You said i ask childish questions. Please tell me why you think so? i think you said so cos you can't answer some of my questions. You accused the Catholic Church of sexual abuse as if it is not in other churches but i showed you that it is in other churches. Guess what you did? You changed tactics. You said the church is encouraging them. Tell us how? Some of these priests are in jail now. Some have been dismissed. Some, their cases are in court. Can i ask you. What does your church do to pastors who engage in sexual abuse? Does your church hang them? Does your church tie them to a tree and shoot them? Do they fry them alive in hot oil? Please tell me, i will like to know. Be specific. Im even surprised that it's in your church at all.

Remember you said that all the sisters are not virgins. I was expecting you to touch that topic again. Pls go back to your comment. Read it carefully. Can you swear that all the girls that were ordained rev sisters are not virgins. Sure you can't do that, right? You dare not cos you know you are not telling the truth. But you just opened your mouth and say it as if you were sure of what you were saying. Perhaps all the rev fathers are homos and fornicators too. My sister if you had found christ as you are claiming, you should not be making a general statement like that. I can't say that all the Pentecostal pastors are into sexual abuse. That is called xter assassination. That's careless talk.

You said im defending the Catholic Church. The answer is yes and no. For example, you talk about sexual abuse in the Catholic Church, i admitted it. You said that all girls in convent are fornicators and i said no to that. I showed you how ridiculous that claim is.

You said you were their centre. Im sure that some of them will have different opinion from you on that point. The truth is that boarding school corrupts children irrespective of where they come from. My parents didn't allow us to attend boarding school because of that. Im not saying that everyone who attended boarding school came out a bad person.

You said that your friends came out conc lesbians courtesy of rev sisters. Again some of them will disagree with you on that point too. It seems that you made a lot of bad friends when you were younger that explains your bad experiences. Some of my friends who left convent are married with children. How come they are not lesbians and only yours are lesbians. Do you really want people to believe this your story. To be frank with you i think you are just making things up. I think you will say anything possible to discredit the Catholic Church. Your stories don't add up, a lot of lose ends.

By the way, for your info, my immediate elder brother is a domican priest. My uncle ( the brother of my father) is a Holy Ghost priest. So don't think im a jjc in this church. I know a lot of things that many people don't know. Im very close to the church. So i can sense when someone is lying or telling the truth.

Finally, tell me where this Mount Carmel is located, so that i can google the school. The ones i saw are outside Nigeria. Thanks