₦airaland Forum

African girls are not very romantic

It's basically a pentecostal movement that concentrates mostly on ACTS and OLD TESTAMENT

The Bible was written in very simple language.

Present-day translations are reliable. The main objection to King James Version (KJV) is that English has changed a great deal since 1611, so we nowadays are likely to misunderstand what was, in its time, an excellent translation. RSV and NASV are good modern translations that stick close to wording of KJV. For fresher wording, use NIV.
If translations differ, you can assume the original is unclear! Look to context, not translator, for help. I would worry about a translation in which all unclear verses are nicely cleared up -- it would indicate the translator's opinions were being put in. Likewise, beware of translations with an axe to grind, such as Oxford University Press’s "Inclusive Version."
Paraphrases (Living Bible, etc.) strongly reflect the doctrinal position of the writer; translations do not.
Remember that the Bible is written in simple language (especially NT) and a translation that seems especially remote, flowery, and/or "beautiful" is, to that extent, inaccurate.
Division into chapters and verses is not in the original; it was added around 1500, to make printed editions easier to use. I do not think verses should be indented as if they were paragraphs; this encourages people to take verses out of context.

Even if one taked it literally it does not add up to what they say. They not even able to read I think

Perhaps the pastor corrupted their Bible

Their pastors are robbing them and God and they still cannot understand that.

What is it about our culture that promotes mediocrity?

If you watch TV on a regular basis, you probably know you could read a teleprompter better than many of the anchors you're watching. You probably know that the spokesman or woman on your favorite cable news channel who happens to be talking about the industry you work in really doesn't understand it any better than you do.

You probably know more about sports than the guy on ESPN or on your local television station.
You're probably smarter than most of the people who got into the college you had your heart set on but couldn't get into.

If you listen to music, or more accurately, if you attend a live concert where some megabucks pop star is lip synching because she can't sing nearly as well as the music companies would have you believe, you might be thinking you can do it better.

If there's one thing "American Idol" has demonstrated, good singers don't have to hide behind the technology of a sound studio or the talents of producers who know how to use that technology.

Models are airbrushed. Radio voices are filtered. Sports stars are trained by dozens of professionals using state-of-the-art equipment, or worse, they're taking performance-enhancing drugs. Actors do dozens of takes of the same scene until they get it right. Your boss is taking credit for your work, and her boss is taking credit for her work, and so on.

The chief of police is corrupt and everybody knows it. The mayor is incompetent and everybody knows it. The Wall Street analyst is getting kickbacks or having his house wired by vendors of the company he works for, and everybody knows it.

Some of us are better than the pastor

You always like this? About being a one minute man, well I am Italian, you do the math.

So what, you' will spend all day having sex. Don't you have nothing alse to do? You sound boring man.

Maybe not, but it is still small compared to the rest of the day.

Faith, in its aspect as "intensity of conviction," is not in itself a warrant of truth (since one can be fervently convinced of something and still be mistaken).
But then I began to think, what else is there that we believe? (And I thought then about the witch doctors, and how easy it would have been to check on them by noticing that nothing really worked.) So I found things that even more people believe, such as that we have some knowledge of how to educate. There are big schools of reading methods and mathematics methods, and so forth, but if you notice, you'll see the reading scores keep going down--or hardly going up--in spite of the fact that we continually use these same people to improve the methods. There's a witch doctor remedy that doesn't work. It ought to be looked into; how do they know that their method should work? Another example is how to treat criminals. We obviously have made no progress--lots of theory, but no progress--in decreasing the amount of crime by the method that we use to handle criminals.

Yet these things are said to be scientific. We study them. And I think ordinary people with commonsense ideas are intimidated by this pseudoscience. A teacher who has some good idea of how to teach her children to read is forced by the school system to do it some other way--or is even fooled by the school system into thinking that her method is not necessarily a good one. Or a parent of bad boys, after disciplining them in one way or another, feels guilty for the rest of her life because she didn't do "the right thing," according to the experts.

So we really ought to look into theories that don't work.

That's the way to your heart? Well can be ok for some time but you got to live with her all days long not just couple of minutes during sex.

The Church's position is that "Faith should dominate," whereas sane people's conviction is that "Truth should persuade."

Note that it doesn't make sense to say (on the basis of this) that "the Church believes in Faith, whereas others believed in Truth"! Things are more complicated than that, and we have to puzzle out how things stand, under B's formulation. Let's try to pull out for inspection the CONTRASTING ASSUMPTIONS BEHIND these conflicting mperatives.

That "Faith should dominate" presupposes that

(1) belief is a function of the will;

(2) the natural will (being sinful) is too corrupt to submit itself on its own to the beliefs;

(a) that God ordains (i.e., wills us to believe), and

(b) that God communicates to man through His chosen avenues of disclosure: the Church -- and, by way of the Church's mediating scrutiny, Scripture, the authoritative writers of antiquity (e.g., Aristotle), and Nature itself.

(3) those who refuse to submit to the decrees of the Church must be reduced to obedience by force.

A will in the thrall of the flesh can be spoken to only through the body. To break the defiant will, it is necessary to break the body whose appetites hold it in subjection. Hence the rack (and, through the imagination, the threat of the rack, the garrote, the fire at the stake).

That is, Faith has no other recourse than violence when obstinate sinners take refuge, sincere or hypocritical, in "reason and the evidence of the senses" in refusing to admit what right-believers know BY faith.

That "Truth must persuade" presupposes

(1) human beings possess adquate natural faculties by which a compelling CASE FOR the truth can be recognized.

(2) these faculties are reason, imagination, and the senses.

Imagination invents different hypotheses -- i.e., ways of rationally accounting for the appearances.

Reason determines which hypotheses best accord with the appearances.

The senses put us in touch, directly and through instrumentation, with the appearances Nature affords us. These appearances both set the task for explanation (interpretation) and serve as the final arbiter among competing interpretations once their implications have been clarified by reason.

[Faith, in its aspect as "intensity of conviction," is not in itself a warrant of truth (since one can be fervently convinced of something and still be mistaken).]

(3) discovery of the truth is an inherently social enterprise:

(a) the contributions of many individuals are essential;

(b) these contributions - observational, theoretical, critical - must be synthesized and criticized by the community of inquirers.

Hence force can never serve the cause of truth: not only can it not make something true that is untrue, but insofar as human beings are fallible, the use of force to shut off discussion forecloses the possibility of future discovery of error.

IMPORTANT! IN 1:6, GOD BEGINS SPEAKING ESPECIALLY TO THE PRIESTS, THE MINISTERS, AND NOT TO THE PEOPLE. FOLLOW THE PATH OF THE WORD "YOU" TO DETERMINE IF AND WHEN HE STOPS SPEAKING SPECIFICALLY TO THE PRIESTS!

SINS OF THE PRIESTS, 1:6-14

Mal. 1:6 A son honors his father, and a servant his master. If then I am a father, where is my honor? And if I am a master, where is my fear? says the LORD of hosts to you, O PRIESTS, that despise my name. And you say, Wherein have we despised your name?

Mal. 1:7 You offer polluted bread upon my altar. And you say, "How have we polluted you?"

By saying, "The table of the LORD is contemptible."

Mal. 1:8 And if you offer the blind for sacrifice, is it not evil? And if you offer the lame and sick, is it not evil? Offer it now to your governor. Will he be pleased with you, or accept your person?" says the LORD of hosts.

Mal. 1:9 But now entreat God's favor, that He may be gracious to [ALL OF] us. While this is being done by your hands. Will He accept you favorably? says the LORD of hosts. NKJV

Mal. 1:10 "Oh that there were one among you who would shut the gates, that you might not uselessly kindle fire on My altar! I am not pleased with you," says the LORD of hosts, "nor will I accept an offering from you." NASU

Mal. 1:12 "But you are profaning it, in that you say, "The table of the Lord is defiled, and as for its fruit, its food is to be despised.'

Mal. 1:13 "You also say, "My, how tiresome it is!' And you disdainfully sniff at it," says the LORD of hosts, "and you bring what was taken by robbery and what is lame or sick; so you bring the offering! Should I receive that from your hand?" says the LORD.

Mal. 1:14 "But CURSED be the swindler who HAS a male in his [the priest’s] flock and vows it, but sacrifices a blemished animal to the Lord, for I am a great King," says the LORD of hosts, "and My name is feared among the nations."

(1:6) According to 1:6 and 2:1, Malachi is most specifically addressed to dishonest ministers, that is, Old Covenant priests! These two verses, 1:6 and 2:1, are the KEYS to understanding the entire book of Malachi. These two verses actually REVERSE what most of us have been told all of our lives. As you study the remainder of Malachi, do not forget the context of these two verses. God is specifically rebuking His ministers, the priests, and not the people. The first "you" in Malachi 1:6 refers to the priests. They are guilty of dishonoring God and despising His name.

If you have already read the previous two chapters on Second Chronicles 31 and Nehemiah, you will be far better prepared for the study of Malachi. This chapter will give evidence from God’s Word that the tithing texts from Malachi 3:8-10 have been interpreted and applied incorrectly by the majority of the Christian church. It will show that those who are guilty of robbing God in Malachi 3:8 are the ministering priests and not the people. Consequently, those cursed in Malachi 3:9 are the priests who are cursed for breaking the Old Covenant. When compared to Numbers 18:21-24 and Nehemiah 10:37b, the usual interpretation of "bring the whole tithe into the storehouse" has been turned into a terrible lie which, for the decency of God’s truth and for the good of Christ’s church, must stop immediately.

Although, the book of Malachi is only four (4) short chapters, many have never read it completely in one sitting. For the sake of clarity, I plead with you to carefully and prayerfully read all four chapters after reading this paragraph. While you are reading, ask yourself these questions, "To whom is God speaking in this section? When did He start speaking to this group of persons? Has He changed His address from one group of persons to another? If so, what evidence is there that He has changed from speaking to one group towards speaking to another group?" -- Please stop and read Malachi now. --

The cartoons bit was hilarious

So tell me in which category do you go?

Me? What issues have I got. It was them who had pshychotic delusions, not me.

Let me give you an example of my experience and what I learned from uni.

When I was in Jr. High, all I wanted was a girl with big breasts.

In high school, I dated a girl with big breasts, but there was no passion. So I decided I needed a passionate girl.

In college, I dated a passionate girl, but she was too emotional. Everything was an emergency, she cried all the time. So I decided I needed a girl with some stability.

I found a very stable girl, but she was boring. She never got excited about anything. So I decided I needed a girl with some excitement.

I found an exciting girl, but I couldn't keep up with her. She rushed from one thing to another, never settling on anything. She was without direction. So I decided to find a girl with some ambition.

After college, I found an ambitious girl and married her. She was so ambitious, she divorced me and took everything I owned.

Now all I want is a girl with big breasts!!

So you never learned anything from uni then

We are getting to the surreal here.

But suppose a lady cannot cook, cannot dress, cannot put her own makeup, cannot satisfy her husband in bed. I mean that is not good either, yes?

I agree, how about he keeps thing like that from you. Sure you would not appreciate that.