spikedcylinder:

choic.A,I don't believe that the bible is the key to God's state of mind. .

Then, could you kindly tell me what is the key to God's state of mind from your own perspective - and which 'God' you're referring to? Your point might make sense if you're not referring to the Christian God. As a Christian, the one way to understand the mind of God on any subject is to check it out in the Bible. How do I know that Jesus Christ is the Saviour? How do I know the will of God for my life? Now, if you disregard the Bible, how then would you be able to know His mind or thoughts on anything concerning the Christian faith?

Perhaps it boils down to same thing I had tried to point out to KAG, that just because some people speak of 'God', it does not necessarily mean that they are speaking of the Christian deity. There's no true Christian I know who rejects the Bible as the basis for faith and practise in their commitment to the Christian God.

The whole point is that people make choices and become what they opt for in life. So, just because someone claims that he believes 'God made him gay' and sound as if he had no choice in the matter does not necessarily stand up to scrutiny. Any other excuse might make their point, but definitely not God making them so - as far as the Christian God is being blamed for what yet He condemns in the Bible.

spikedcylinder:

No its not that simple simmy because i don't believe what the bible says.

Heck,am not gay,i don't have any close or far friends that are gay,i don't even know anyone that is gay but i'd like to think that i understand their state of mind.

There you go. If you don't believe what the Bible says, it makes no sense in forming an opinion about God making people gay. From God's point of view, being gay is not an OK lifestyle - He says so, and I believe it. So, if you don't believe in the Bible, then you can't justify a gay saying that God made him that way.

Second, there's no point wasting your time speaking on behalf of gays when you don't know their state of mind - how could you if you don't even know anyone that is gay? It's a free world and you're welcome to express your opinion, but your opinion remains just that - your opinion. God can't be held responsible for the excuses people make for being gay.

I know that He didn't make anyone gay because Lev.20:13 and Rom.1:27 express the mind of God on the subject. Conclusion: He did not make anyone abominable in His sight.

Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions. - Eccl. 7:29.

I know that He didn't make anyone gay because Lev.20:13 and Rom.1:27 express the mind of God on the subject. Conclusion: He did not make anyone abominable in His sight.

chinani:

@ choice.A
If the "young man in question" was referring to a Christian God or another God, what does it matter?
How does this change your opinion?

He is welcome to refer to another 'God'; but for someone to push the idea that it has to be the Christian God is to give a bad name to the Christian faith. The point is this: anybody could claim to be anything and blame it on 'God' - the Christian God. Something is wrong somewhere when someone asserts that his being gay is the handiwork of God whereas the Christian God sees the act as abominable and unseemly. These are two opposite strains of thought. If someone else came up to say he believed the Christian God made him a rapist, a drunkard, effeminate or a thief, should we just go with the flow and nod approvingly? Oh, by the way, drunks and thieves are as much 'human' as the gay.

Speaking as a Christian, God created everyone in love - but He certainly didn't create anyone as a gay in as much as He didn't create anyone a drunk or a thief. If speaking out against the misconception that the Bible sanctions what it does not, and some people feel that is like judging them, too bad. I can't be a mute when the Bible shows me the very opposite of what they claim. There are a million and ten other excuses for whatever badge they wear, but to blame homosexuality on the Christian God (whereas the Bible says the opposite) calls for comments to refute the misconception.

KAG:

I fear you misunderstood me, in many parts of the world where christian evangelists have spread the christian doctrine (amongst other things), the christian God is often referred to simply as GOD. "I prayed to GOD last night", , "GOD made me all that I am today", "GOD created the universe", etc. Hindus on the other hand don't refer to their God(s) as GOD, they say Brahma (sp?), Ganesh, etc. What's even more telling about the usage of GOD for the christian deity, is the fact that many from other religions, call the christian deity GOD too.

I have met many people from other religions who speak of 'God' as the deity of their religion - and not even one of them would readily think first and foremost of the Christian God when you mention 'God' to them. For example, in religious discussions with some of my friends of the Bahá'i faith, the moment I mention 'God' to them, they readily think of the deity they worship in their religion. Although its history is recent, Bahá'i believe quite a few things about God that sound 'Christian', but that is not to mean that just because they also call Him 'God' in English, therefore it is the Christian God that they are speaking of. The one thing a Bahá'i sharply disagrees with the Christian about God is that "God cannot become incarnate in a human being." [You may find this link helpful: http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/bahai/beliefs/god.shtml]. I'd say you're inaccurate in representing this view that anyone mentioning 'God' must be speaking of the Christian deity by default; and if that's what you'll still try to drive around, it would only mean you're forcing this idea without any justification. Incidentally, when my Bahá'i friends leave me offlines (Yahoo IMs), they say just the same things as you mentioned in your reply - "I prayed to GOD last night", "GOD made me all that I am today", "GOD created the universe" - and for all that, none of them ever was referring to the Christian deity!

To be fair, I went to the site you offered in your last reply - and I was shocked to find it confirmed my suspicion. On the one hand, as far as I'm concerned, the writer did not discuss the Biblical position of immoral sexual activities as is clearly stated in Lev.20:13 - it doesn't matter to me whatever translations he or she was reading. Okay, they don't read 'homosexual' prior to 1946, but 'effeminate' was the hush word? So, what were the writer(s) trying to sell - that 'effeminate' persons were heirs of the Kingdom of God whereas 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 says 'No'? Let's be honest with ourselves. The truth is, homosexuality is listed as a sexual sin in God's eyes, and it does not matter who else feels it's right. Go figure - even the word 'catamites' (a boy who has a sexual relationship with a man) is not disconnected from this practice; although the author, in quoting Daniel Helminiak, wants us to believe that homosexuality was not an issue as far back as 347-407 A.D. What these gentlemen should realise is that Leviticus 20:13 was penned long before then, and even the New Testament did not countenance such sexual vice. Let me put it simply: in sexual relations, "man + man = homosexuality" - and that is what Rom.1:27 clearly states ('men with men working that which is unseemly'). In the list of verses given in the article on the website, I wonder how it is that the author just did not see the Rom.1:27 text - and by all means shied away from it.

KAG:

The point is, are most of our sexual orientations concious choices? Do homosexuals choose to be attracted to the same sex anymore than heterosexuals choose to be attracted to the opposite sex? The young man, like many homosexuals, claims he never made a concious choice to be attracted to the same sex; if that is the case, and it is evident to me that it doesn't seem to be a conscious choice, then they could make an argument that they were "created" that way by GOD (if they are christians).

Please. I offer again that the young man could not have been referring to the Christian God. There's just a simple way to look at it: God speaks through the Bible about the way He created us, and states in clear terms that His design in sex was not homsexual, else we would not find Lev.20:13 (OT) and Rom.1:27 (NT) in our Bibles. Think about it for a moment: if He sees these acts as both 'abominable' (OT) and 'unseemly' (NT), why would He want to create people this way and then later punish them for what was not borne out of their conscious choices? It is alright for someone to make a claim that God created him or her in a certain way, but if we look in the Bible (speaking as a Christian now) and find that He did not create them that way, who would be lying?

KAG:

Gal 3:13 "Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law", Gal 5:18, "But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law." The very fact that christians do neither practise "an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth", nor do they bother to keep the Sabbath day free from any work, shows that the Mosiac laws have been superceded. It is pehaps telling that Jesus who had nothing to say about homosexuality, preached love and commitment.

It is true that Jesus preached love and commitment - but just what do these terms mean if one still parades a lifestyle that the Bible openly discountenances? Your reasoning here does not make a strong point. If Jesus had nothing to say about homosexuality, does that in itself make it an OK lifestyle? Again, it is also true that Jesus had nothing to say about abortion; but does that make abortion a happy-clappy thing to pursue? Just because Jesus seemed to have said nothing about one issue or another does not justify an act in itself. "But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law." [Gal. 5:18]. My question then is, who would really be claiming they are led of the Spirit if they were holding a lifestyle that Rom.1:27 does not approve of?

Anyone could claim just about anything - but if they were referring to the Christian God as responsible for their preferred lifestyles while excusing themselves as not consciously choosing to do so, I'd call their bluff and challenge their lies by asking they point out their beliefs or convictions from the Bible itself.

Don't bet on it, 4get_me. You never could be so sure about who is married to who. I don't mean any harm, and definitely not taking a swipe at KAG, but there are lots of couples who are homosexuals/straight who believe that the Christian God is to be blamed for the choices they make. That is the very notion I'm challenging.

KAG,

Your response is simply hilarious. In stating that "GOD = christian God " you assume that the English name/word 'God' must have been hijacked by Christians. So much for misrepresenting facts. So, anyone who talks about God today must necessarily be referring to the Christian God? - if you could only sell that story to the Hindus who see their religion as predating Christianity, and still talk about 'God' without necessarily referring to the Christian deity.

I don't know if you've been reading another book, but I find it no where stated in the Bible that Christ came to save us from the mosaic law. The two things indicated in the Bible in this context are that (a) Christ came to save us from our sins (Matt.1:21 and I Tim.1:15), and (b) Christ is the end of the Law for righteousness to everyone who believes (Rom.10:4). That Christ is the end of the Law does not mean that we are no longer obliged to live in righteousness as the Law stipulates - for what is an abomination in the OT does not suddenly become a licence for lasciviousness in the NT. "Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good. [Rom 7:12]. Just because Leviticus is under the OT economy does not justify or relax the implications of homosexuality in the NT dealings of God with man. Let me reference this with a few quotes -

"And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet." [Rom.1:27, KJV]; "Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. [I Cor.6:9-10, ESV].


Just because someone believes just about anything does not establish a case for his or her adventure. I have heard some very silly things in just the same strain of thought. If people reason that "all things were planned by God" and the many stupid things they do under the sun are not a conscious choice of theirs, it still doesn't change the fact that they're lying. And that is precisely why we challenge such hypocrisy and ask that they point out the verses in the Bible that justify their homosexual preferences as the handiwork of the Christian God. At best, they could talk about the million and one gods out there and I as a Christian would not lose sleep over that.

KAG:

so in a sense he's claim that GOd made him gay is valid. It is also my opinion that the Bible doesn't condemn non-practising homosexuals

Really? And what God is that you're talking about?

"If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination" Lev.20:13.

It is hilarious to read of the notion of "non-practising homosexuals" - what does it take to be a practising homosexual? Bottom line: anyone excusing his homosexual preference as God's handiwork is lying through his or her teeth. At best, they are welcome to claim and blame any other 'God' as responsible for their profession - but they definitely would not be referring to the same God who speaks in such texts in the Bible as Lev.20:13. The question of 'this gay boy' deconverting from christianity is stretching the story a bit too far - there's nothing in the original post to suggest that he was a Christian. In black and white in Genesis, God created the first humans male and female and called them 'Adam and Eve' - not Adam and Steve. The Bible does not encourage fornication, so I don't agree with you that "it is possible that marriage would cover the fornicating part."

So, What Role Did Christ Play in God's Economy?

In creation, redemption and worship, Christ was not any less 'God' than the Father and the Spirit. Everything that exists -visible and invisible - came into being by Jesus Christ, and He upholds and sustains them: "For by Him (that is, Christ) were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. [Col. 1:16-17; see Heb.1:3 and John 1:3 also]. This is not to say that the Father and the Spirit were passive in creation. "Thou sendest forth thy Spirit, they are created: and Thou renewest the face of the earth." [Psa. 104:30] This Psalm highlights the active roles of the Father and the Spirit in creation - the Spirit also creating, and the Father renewing.

In worship, the equal glory of the Father and the Son is demonstrated in Jesus' teaching about honouring God the Father in John 5:23 - "That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him." That clearly is calling for equal honour to both the Father and the Son and nothing else will do. The import of this is to safeguard any notion that the Son is a lesser 'God' than the Father and the Spirit. In Jesus' prayer in John 17:5, it is clear that the Son had the same glory with the Father from time past: "And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed."_[ESV]


The Trinity at Work - Sharing Together

All this just simply go to show one thing: in the operations of God, the Trinity is together involved in every single detail. If you try to separate and assign individual roles to the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, the confusion will be endless. In creation, redemption, worship and instruction, the Trinity is involved in such a harmonious way that it becomes difficult to examine the operations of any one Member of the Trinity without finding the others as much involved in the same activity simultaneously.

The Father teaches (or, instructs) as Jesus pointed out in John 6:45 - "It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me." In Neh.9:20 the Spirit teaches - "Thou gavest also thy good Spirit to instruct them" (see the teaching ministry of the Spirit mentioned by Christ in John 14:26). Then in Matt.11:29, Jesus asks us to learn of Him - "Take My yoke upon you, and learn of Me."

When the Father sent the Son in redemption, both were seen together with the Spirit working to bring about the blessing of salvation. Jesus proclaimed that the Father had not left Him a single moment all by Himself - "And He that sent me is with me: the Father hath not left me alone; for I do always those things that please Him." [John 8:29]. The Spirit of God brings conviction to the hearts of people concerning the fact that the Father sent the Son (John 16:10). Then again, Jesus reveals that as the Father was always engaged in divine work, so also He (the Son) was working - "But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work." (John 5:17). The only one time when the Father forsook the Son is when our sins were judged on Jesus Christ upon the cross (Matt.27:46).

To believe in Christ is to believe in God as well - that is expressly declared by Jesus Christ: "Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me." (John 14:1). Conversely, to hate the Son is to hate the Father also - "He that hateth Me hateth my Father also" (John 15:23). All that the Father has belongs to the Son as well - "All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you" (John 16:15). "And all mine are thine, and thine are mine; and I am glorified in them." (John 17:10). And it is in the name of the Trinity that believers are baptized - "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." (Matt.28:19).

This is as much as I could express it in finite terms, and it is by no means stating everything about the relationship in the Trinity. The one thing to note therefore from the foregoing is that Christ is indeed God and He is seen playing a very significant role in the divine operatives that none else could have assumed unless such a Being is equally God Himself. Only He who is God can claim the same things and status as God Himself claims - whether in worship or rights over creation. And when Jesus Christ claimed divine titles and honours as we have seen, there is only one conclusion to draw from this: He was claiming to be God Himself.

kingdom,

It is not some people who say that Christ is God - it is there in the Bible. The moment you begin to doubt the Word of God, then you'll have countless reasons to argue and doubt who Jesus Christ claimed to be in Himself. No one can completely explain the Trinity - that is the one mystery among a few others that the human mind cannot grasp. Why? For the simple reason that the finite mind of man cannot know everything about the infinite God. "Canst thou by searching find out God? canst thou find out the Almighty unto perfection?" [Job 11:7]. That is not to say that we cannot know anything at all about God - His nature, character and work. But first, who really is Jesus Christ - only a man born in time and space, or the very God Himself who became incarnate for our salvation?


Is Christ God?

1. The New Testament
John 1:1 boldly proclaims: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." There is no doubt that the Word in that verse is pointing to Jesus Christ when you compare with Rev.19:13 - "his name is called The Word of God." Many have accused the apostle John of giving Jesus Christ the status of Godhood; but he is not the only disciple to have spoken of Christ's deity. Jesus Himself claimed the divine title 'Lord' in John 13:13 - "Ye call me Master and Lord: and ye say well; for so I am." That is the one title that Christians have confessed about Jesus Christ down through the ages, and which continues to draw persecution from all quarters. Not long after the Church was established, a young conservative Jew appeared on the scene, breathing fire and arresting any Christian he could find. After encountering the living Christ on the Damascus road _{Acts 9:1-6}, Paul, who formerly had attacked Christians for daring to call Jesus 'Lord', fearlessly proclaimed His deity throughout his ministry. Notice how through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, Paul declares both the humanity and deity of Christ in Rom.9:5 - "To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen." _{[ESV - English Standard Version]}

2. The Old Testament
Isn't it true that the deity of Christ is a New Testament doctrine that is not found in the Old Testament? No, for indeed several OT prophets clearly mentioned or indicated that the Messiah to come was God Himself. Isaiah calls the Child to be given by the divine name "The Mighty God." (Isa.9:5). Zachariah shows that the very God who said He would pour out the Spirit of grace and supplications upon the house of David, was the Messiah Himself - the One whom they would pierce: "they shall look upon Me whom they have pierced" (Zech.12:10). David in Spirit called Him 'Lord' (see Psa.110:1 and Matt.22:41-45). Several other OT texts speak about the deity of the Lord Jesus Christ.

In my follow-up response shortly, I'll try to share the roles of Christ in God's economy.

God didn't make him gay. He's just sounding off his excuse for his sexual preference - and of all things it has to be God's handiwork?

First of all, may God not make anyone of us see that kind of calamity! Amen.

However, if it comes to choosing between my God and anything else, I'd choose to re-affirm my faith in Him, even in the face of death. You know, if the robber was actually bent on robbing, he would take whatever he fancied and not be too concerned about what I believed in - God or Satan. If, however, he was more miffed about my beliefs and asked me to choose Satan in order to live, I already know he has a mindset of the devil - it would be Satan himself pushing me to renounce God: and who knows if the robber would not play Russian roulette and pull the trigger anyway? There's no guarantee that dare-devil robbers ever keep their word. So, just in case he pulls the trigger or swings his sword, I'd be by far the better for it when I open my eyes at the other side of the celestial gates. Think of the lose if I chose Satan and the robber 'mistakenly' kpai man pickin - who I go blame? Haa!! Baba God, help us to have faith in you!!

Besides, whatever choice I make reflects the genuineness of my commitment and profession of faith. I would rather stay firm till the end than flag about and achieve nothing. In all, I pray God to grant us wisdom; maybe a gentle spirit might lessen the robber's harrassments (if it would not earn me a few more slaps in the end); but, nothing stops me from bolting through the window if I have the clear chance to; otherwise ___!! I'm only being humanly honest.

Softee:

Sorry i was referring to this quote!!

Welcome anytime. And be much encouraged in your faith - Jesus loves you!!

Softee:

1.) I had my own spirit. I am only connected to my mother and father by DNA, which is FLESH. Jesus has Gods spirit in him but was also the CHOSEN one.

Softee,

As Christians, it's better to be on safe grounds by stating the rubrics of our faith as clearly as the Word of God shows us. By stating that "Jesus had God's spirit in Him", you're making a non-committal statement that could be easily taken out of context to mean just anything a non-Christian wants it to mean. While I would not attempt to force my theology on anyone, perhaps it might help to see the uniqueness of Jesus Christ in contrast to other prophets.

1. "Jesus Had God's Spirit in Him" Does Not Confirm His Deity

When Jesus asked His disciples, "Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?", among their responses was that some people thought Jesus was one of the prophets_{Matt.16:13-14}. One characteristic of the prophets and chosen servants was that they had God's Spirit in them: as Bezaleel (Exo.31:2-3); Moses and the seventy elders (Num.11:25), David (I Sam.16:13), and Ezekiel (Ezek.2:2). If the uniqueness of Jesus Christ was simply that He had God's Spirit in Him, He would not be any different from the prophets of the past; and in order to correct that misconception, Jesus pressed His question more directly upon His disciples that led Peter to confess Him as the Son of the living God_{Matt.16:15-17} - a title that no other prophet assumed, and which was most definitely pointing to His deity than to His humanity.

2. Jesus Himself Claimed Deity

More than just having God's Spirit in Him_{(John 3:34 and Acts 10:38)} , Jesus claimed divine titles for Himself in a way that no other prophet has done. Notice how that He claimed to be Lord in John 13:13 - "Ye call me Master and Lord: and ye say well; for so I am." Indeed, some have queried the import of that claim by asserting that others too were called 'lord.' If indeed they were claiming the very same thing that Jesus was claiming, why then did He further ask them the question of Who He really was in Matt.22:43? Notice this in verses 41-45:

⁴¹While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them,
⁴²Saying, What think ye of Christ? whose son is he? They say unto him, The Son of David.
⁴³He saith unto them, How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying,
⁴⁴The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool?
⁴⁵If David then call him Lord, how is he his son?

I'll offer you this: the Lordship of Jesus Christ points to His deity, and that is what He had often maintained in His life and teachings. A diehard Jewish conservative never called David 'Lord'; neither did he call Moses or the other prophets by that title. But when he encountered the risen and living Christ, no one forced him to confess it; but the first thing that came through his lips was the divine title by which he called Jesus on the Damascus road: "And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks."_{Acts 9:5} You know I was referring to Saul who later became the apostle Paul.

I trust you'll see this and state it as clearly as the Bible does. The uniqueness of Jesus Christ goes far beyond having God's Spirit upon Him in His humanity - He was the divine Son of God, and His divinity sets Him apart from everyone else. If we are not careful to firmly let our enquirers see this, the confusion will grow out of proportion, and will lead to remarks like 9ijaMan's in his reply to yours: "If you have God's spirit in you too, then u are not any different from Jesus." Jesus is indeed Lord - and as we read in John 1:1, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

Many blessings.

This is way in back in the dusty archives, but just want to encourage you to keep searching for the truth - sincerely. I guarantee you that God will show you.

Nobody accuses you of any of that. Pull your kite if you get confused midway.

Eph 3:20  Now unto him that is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think, according to the power that worketh in us,
Eph 3:21  Unto him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end. Amen.

Praise You, Oh Father! In Jesus' Name! Amen.

__________
@gentleone:
Follow these threads : Did Jesus use Cannabis? https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-7995.0.html
                              Is Masturbation A Sin Against God? https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-7656.0.html

Amin oooooh!! Jesu!!

Amen and Amen!

I pray, O Father, that You grant discernment to the many people who are tempted to fall prey to schemes of the devil, both in Nigeria and beyond. Thy Word is Truth; Sanctify us with Thy Truth. In Jesus' Name.

Amen.

Reverend:

Why would I have removed the baptism pictures?
Why does nudity offend you?
Why do you call a naked person Gross?
Why does baptism offend you?
What makes you think that people join because of money?

I am afraid you are not correct on all counts. I find you attitude very childish and narrow minded! Of course there has to always be an ulterior motive.

All our members join of their own free will. Most of them are tired and angry with being told from birth to death that they are miserable sinners.

Our church makes arefreshing change :-)

1. Why would I have removed the baptism pictures?

I did not assert that you would have removed the pictures; but my inference is borne out of the fact that you have a track record of making changes on your website whenever you discover you've been checkmated - here today, gone tomorrow. Examples are when you changed the words in kmab.34.1 removing 'his sins' and 'his holy jism flowed onto her'); and Judas' question to Jesus as to why the latter would allow Mary Magdaline to rub his private parts. If you could be trusted, why the changes?

2. Why does nudity offend you?

When you promote nudity in the naked baptismal rites and subject people to exposures on the internet for millions to view, that is an infringement on their rights and human dignity. You may counter that none of them complains or protests; but they would not want to do so where they have been brainwashed. I guarantee you that if they knew the Biblical implications of what you are doing to them, they would have ceased being members. If they were properly told that they were not giving their bodies and souls to God, but rather to a man who wants them as 'game' for his kinky appetite, would anyone of them in their sane minds remain in your system? What are the children in your Sunday School services to think about the nude exposures that you subject their parents to under the guise of baptismal rites? What are decent people to think of you concerning the fact that any one of those children could go to your site and view the nudes of adult members of your church? How come everyone has to agree with your reasoning that nudity is not offensive; and those who disagree are immdediately written off by your carping of narrow mindedness?

Second, you make everything sound like it's only evangelical Christians that are opposed to immoral nude exposures. Most political institutions that are non-religious in structure have pursued laws to check the trend of such indecency based on previous evidence of the dangers of viewing nudity in various forms and media. You could check out the following links or do an online search yourself about what some governments and agencies are saying:

    Australian Institute of Criminology http://www.crime-research.org/articles/1236/
    Obscenity Crimes - Morality in Media, Inc. http://www.obscenitycrimes.org/helppornproblems.cfm
    Researchers at the University of New Hampshire's Crimes Against Children Research Center:
http://www.obscenitycrimes.org/news/newsMarch2003.cfm
    Crimes Against Children Research Center http://www.unh.edu/ccrc/projects/internet_survey.html
                 
The message is clear: exposure to nudity can be dangerous and past evidence show that some people have engaged in sex crimes  through viewing nudity. Need I mention the recent case of 61-year-old Gary Glitter (aka Paul Francis Gadd) who was served a 3 year jail term in Vietnam for child pornography that stemmed from such nudity games? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/4769164.stm 


3. Why do you call a naked person  Gross?

I did not call a naked person gross - that's your imagination. It was the nude pictures themselves being exposed on the internet that I referred to as 'gross'. I think it is rather unwise for you and the kinkychurch to expose members' nudity in such a manner for all the world to see. What is even more, it was not Christian baptism that members were given. Your baptismal rites stipulates that applicant members strip to the nude, oil themselves, and in full view expose their nudity to a camera. Is that what Jesus recommended in Matthew 28:19 and Mark 16:16?


4. Why does baptism offend you?

Where did I state that baptism offends me? How is it that you read ulterior meanings into my replies and then turn round and accuse me of your own misdemeanor? Christian baptism does not offend me - I was baptised soon after receiving the biblical Jesus Christ as my Saviour. You just could not call your kinky ritual a Christian baptism as it bears no resemblance to what the apostles taught in the Bible.


5. What makes you think that people join because of money?

Would anyone in their right mind who reads the Bible fall prey to your lewd and pretentious 'Christianity'? It is likely that some people in Africa in the face of dire economic needs would give anything to receive financial help. This is just a conjecture, and I'm ready to admit that I am flatly wrong in assuming that is one possible reason why people from Africa become members of your kinkychurch. However, in a country like Nigeria where it's almost impossible today to get a decent job and make a responsible earning, who would fault the idea that some people take the chance of becoming members as the prerequisite for being offered Scholarships of up to $50, 000USD and Anti 419 charity  of up to $10,000USD? (Do the mental maths in conversion rates to naira!). Is it not clearly stated that these offers are available to church members only? "Applications are invited from church members only. Non members can apply for grants and financial support, but will be required to complete full membership before payment is received" is cleraly stated on your website: http://kinkymarymagdelinechurch.cjb.net/ .

You don't need to twist God's word to arrive at your deceptive spirituality in order to 'make a refreshing change'. The Bible provides me with more reasons in Jesus Christ than I could number in order to live a refreshing life to the full. I'm not alone - millions more who have trusted in the real Jesus Christ know that refreshing life and do not miss anything in not exposing their boobs and ___ on the internet through your kinky website.

donnie,

Thanx for your response, but something is suspect here. For one, your input does not seem to follow the topic of this thread - "Allah and God: Are they the Same?" Are we discussing Islam and Christianity now, rather than the distinction between 'Allah' and 'God'?

Second, I did not see that your original response was in answer to someone's input or query about who was the rightful heir of Abraham according to the promise of God. As far as I can gather, the only direct post one could relate yours to is Islam's inference that Allah does not sanction taking one's life in open or in secret. In which case, your response immediately following that would be seen as countering Islam's inference by your quoting in bold Gen.16:12. Ishmael's being a 'wild man' connects directly to the thought of the religion of Islam being violent ("he will be a wild man". Speaking of which, it would have been in our good interest for you to open another thread to pursue that discourse. Neither does your recent post have any bearing on your adage in the earlier post that "Can a lion begin to claim that it is not in his nature to be carnivorous?" So, how should I interpret or understand your use of the clause "it is not in his nature to be carnivorous"?

On the whole, Muslims claim to trace their Islamic roots to Abraham through Ishmael. But again, I still don't think that Gen.16:12 was speaking about the religion Islam.

otokx:

na wa o; please come and establish a church in Nigeria.

Have you visited the kinkychurch website? There are lots of Nigerians and Ghanaians who have applied as members - see the gallery and the baptism pictures (warning: if you're very sensitive to viewing gross pictures, this is not a good recommendation for you as there are explicit nude 'baptism' there - if the Rev. hasn't taken them off already!). Methinks that the applicant members are being lured by the offer of money!