₦airaland Forum

[quote author=plus_Queen link=topic=187145.msg2990851#msg2990851 date=1224893957]Obviously this must be a rare practice
It is nauseating.
Now I hope it's clear[/quote]Its not rare especially in the villages. Once knew a woman who had to go thru that after her husband died.

[quote author=plus_Queen link=topic=187145.msg2990813#msg2990813 date=1224893444]let me ask you folks.
When You say
I'm Egba
I'm Ijebu
I'm Ilesha

It is just the towns where you're from or are they subtribes within yorubaland?[/quote]They are supposed to be subtribes. The cultures and languages have subtle differences. For example an Egba man wont understand an Ijebu man even though both claim to speak yoruba

huxley:
You are arguing that this was only binding to those you are born again.  That is an ad hoc statement, as you have not shown why this might be the case.

I'm not "arguing", i'm telling you a fact. The bible, its laws and promises are not binding to the unsaved. Cry from now till tomorrow, you're wasting ur time quoting it without salvation. You can buy textbooks and even purchase a school uniform, as long as u havent passed the common entrance exam u cant attend high school.

huxley:
For instance, Jesus also said:

1)  You love neighbour as yourself (Matt 5: 43) - Was this binding only to the saved?

The "love" Christ is talking about here is not the generic one you talk about. He's talking about a greater love, the one that God gives us as a gift when we get born again. We obtain that love thru Him alone because God IS LOVE.

So yes, Matt 5:43 has no place for the unsaved.

huxley:
Was Jesus entire teachings directed only at those who were already saved?  If so,  what is the point?

His entire ministry was geared towards one purpose - SALVATION. Much of the epistles were geared towards the GROWTH of the already saved.

huxley:
How do we know which parts of his Jesus were meant for the saved and which for the unsaved?

None is meant for the unsaved except for this - Ye must be born again.

huxley:
You also failed to address my point about the standard of people for people before Paul came into the scene.  Paul did not become converted and write until about 50 - 60 CE, about 20 years after Jesus's dead.  If Paul addressed these issues in Romans and Corinthian, Pauls views would not have become wide knowledge amongst the Christians until after about 325CE, after the council of Nicea.  Some for many hundreds of years Christians would have lived without the benefit of Paul's teachings.

The fact that we dont have it recorded does not mean the jews did not understand what Christ was talking about. If this was new the other apostles would have confronted Paul about teaching an alien message. We hear of no such thing. Omission is not the same as non-existence.

huxley:
Why would God arrange for such a cruel injunctions as this to pervade for hundreds of years before being "abrogated" by Paul?

see above.

huxley:
By the way, where is this addressed in Romans and Corinthians?  Chapters and Verses, please?

Look for it urself or best ignore it. Why shld u want to read the words of a "wicked" God?

huxley, this is a spinoff of an earlier thread.

I repeat again (seems you're not as "logical" as you claim) - to the unsaved, God's laws are of no use. You can obey the 10 commandments, go to church faithfully, give to the poor and pay tithe . . . as long as you havent given ur life to Christ all the promises in the bible dont apply to you.

Once u're saved you become a Son . . . now the biblical laws now apply to you and thru them the Holy Spirit guides and keeps you.

Just the same way you dont expect ur neighbour to pay ur school fees no matter how close you are to his family . . . so is it in the kingdom of God. Easy.

Quoting the bible as an unbeliever is a waste of time.

Christ came for the sinners but Salvation of the soul is the FIRST step.

tope2000:

just like moi  

@david
are u egba too?

born and bred. You see, we are a match made in heaven.

PepERSprAY:
Typical egba man with egba behavior.

i consider that an insult.  

manmustwac:
DavidDylan can you please paste the link here where i supposedly made such a statement because i think your mistaken me for somebody else

I thot u mentioned Sudan, Rwanda as examples of God's wickedness. Read ur last post.

Nimshi:
David: fine to see a return of Paul as author of Christianity theme.

continue beating the islamic drums of incoherence and falsehood.

Chrisbenogor:
Great now your talking, but sorry to sound like mazaje here is that God not responsible for those deaths in the old testament, it is the same way someone can say he did that and that means he does not care.

How is He responsible? Is the president of a country directly responsible for armed robbery?
since when did God become "responsible" for the actions of men with a choice?

Chris, i gotta run. I'll address your other concerns later. Adios bro . . . at least you are civil and level headed.

Abegi. Its about time to leave the juveniles to colonise threads as they usually do, with "disses" of course. A man has better things to do.  

goat, shit, disses, vagina . . . una never expand this archaic dictionary?

Nimshi:
David, you're being outdone by your Christian brothers.

Wow! Lots Christian brain power here ain't it?  

its not about competing with each other. The topic is being addressed by those who are equally if not more knowledgeable than i am.

LadyT:
David its me and you today I will hurt you in so many ways.

Iro o! I don comot leg jejely . . . i dont like wahala again. E joo o ema binu.

Chrisbenogor:
What I was trying to point out is this, from the statement one can deduce the following
1. There is a God
2. That God created the universe
3. That maybe he does not care about his creation.
Is the above possible "logically" I think it is, clearer now?

The above will only be "logical" if the writer has invented her own god whom she is refering to. the God of the bible that i know cares for His own creation so much He didnt think twice about laying His own life down for His friends.

huxley:
Yes, but according to Jesus, anyone who marries her commits adultery.  Who would want to touch a woman like that.

doesnt seem you read my post at all. Here is what i said again - if both couples married as unbelievers and then decided to divorce along the line then that verse is NOT binding on them.

huxley:
Mind you, if Jesus said these words, that is Matt 5: 32, there would have been said on or before 33CE.  Romans was not wriiten until about 55 - 60 CE, about 30 years after Jesus's injunction.  We have no record of Jesus reversing this position.

So, in the intervening year, that is 33 - 60 CE, when Romans did not exist, was the bar on remarrying of divorce ladies likely to have been binding?

By the way, what gives Paul authority to abrogate an injunction made by God?

Paul wasnt "reversing" anything in Romans. He was simply clarifying the fact that God considers divorce among those who are saved a sin! The unsaved is already a sinner anyway so divorcing 200 times in 5 minutes wont make much of a difference.
When the sinner becomes saved he becomes a NEW CREATURE, OLD THINGS ARE PASSED AWAY . . . He starts a new life in Christ . . . his past divorces (of course there will be physical consequences) are wiped out and he is free to marry a fellow believer again.

LadyT:
David are you drunk today?

Shes an idiot.  Strong black woman my left nipple.  She posts daft topics about men and tribes just to cause upset.

Shior.

LadyT, i understand your stance. But make we calm down small for the chic now ehn. She's someone's daughter too . . . yeah she upsets us with her topics and tribal sentiments but haba . . . all na post now. She isnt bringing cane to flog all the men in her area just yet. She no fit.

[quote author=~Sauron~ link=topic=187145.msg2990462#msg2990462 date=1224888808]Don't make a mountain out of nuthing
DeepZone n Pataki have a tradition of dissing each other(all on a friendly note).
She has not complained about the disses yet which makes me wonder why her public address system is blaring!![/quote]this silly coward just doesnt know when to keep quiet.  
Its only in the world of silly kids who cant grow up that "disses" (whatever that juvenile word means) are on a friendly note.

JJYOU:
2p is still divisible bros. you mean no permanent friends on nairaland? i wont tell you how many times i have heard that before

permanent enemy no dey sef my brother.   As the pendulum swings . . . and yet we all abuse our politicians.  

To be entirely honest, Deepzone is not deserving of much of the abuse she gets . . . she's got a very thick skin . . . many of us would have gone up in smoke if we were subject to a barrage of unwarranted abuse from every anonymous "i-must-abuse-my-own".

Some insult her just for fun from what i can see.

Danke:
i tot they were all friends?

friendship isnt worth 2 pence on this site.  

huxley:
This is quite new to me. I thought Jesus also said "Go and preach the gospel to all nations and all peoples"

So this verse was only meant for those who have already converted to be born again? How did you come to that understanding?

Are there other "Good News Message" that were only meant for the born again.

The first gospel preached to the unsaved is about the need for salvation. You cant be preaching civics lessons to an illegal immigrant. He must first regularise his status first before you start talking to him about the penalties for voter fraud.

The same way the commandments of God are meaningless to a man who is unsaved. You're just putting the cart before the horse.

huxley:
OK, let me grant your position. Supposing a born again man meets a born again woman who is divorce. (in fact, my very own brother is in this position). Would it be adultery for him to get married to her?

Your brother has a bible and claims to be born again. He is free to either follow the bible or follow ur advice.
One thing you also have to note is this . . . if both couples married as unbelievers and then decided to divorce along the line then that verse is NOT binding on them. This issue is dealt with in Romans or Corinthians.

Now that the woman is saved she is free to marry again.

Chrisbenogor:
@david and stillwater

I stressed the part in bold because I want you to see that it may not be the same thing as obtainable from the bible, LOGIC is the main thing connecting the both premises.
To answer your question david, a father can not care about his child, that does not stop him from being the father of the child.

the term "logic" is always bandied around by too many athiests as if everyone else lacks the capacity to be logical. the problem is most i have encountered are not very bright themselves and have trouble logically connecting issues, including many on these religion threads.

Back to your "scenario", the part in bold makes no sense. Essentially the writer is trying to say "well cant we all just believe that God created the earth (since i have failed to disprove this) and not bother about Him being involved with man".

that isnt logic at all. that is merely seeking an excuse to continue living in sin.

huxley:
You talk as if these are totally unrealistic scenarios.  Are these not the issues that face everyone of us?  Are these not the issues that Christian agonise over?

We are not talking about "scenarios", we are talking about the need to be entirely honest and to properly digest the point of each verse that you wish to mutilate for false motives.

If the topic had been about how christians overcome the issue of lust then that would been another story.

huxley:
Look, I have been a Christian, I live essentially amongst them, I listen to their conversation, I see them agonise over these issues.  So what is wrong in asking them on this forum?

No one cares what you once were or who you live amongst. Any christian who truly desires to know the mind of God concerning issues such as relationships needs only to check the pages of the bible and talk to more mature christians who can help him with whatever questions he/she has.

Christians who "agonise" over such issues are simply those who want an avenue to sin even though they know its wrong. don't worry, i've been there too so i know how it feels.

Look huxley, there is an important thing to establish here:

1. the unsaved (like you sir) have no business with the laws of Christ. You can divorce yourselves 900 times, when you die go to your own specially created heaven or wherever you think dead people go.

2. That verse speaks as it were to a couple that regards itself as born again. The warning is meant for them not the rest of society.

tope2000:
Roflamo . . . . .Hannibal is forming na and david is good and ready

tell them abeg, na you biko.

huxley:
Where have I suggested that lust was the same as physical attractiveness towards someone?  With respect, I don't think I did.   I deliberately left it open and vague to give the question more latitude in terms of how respondent might understand it.

the problem with your "questions" is that they are perpetually "vague" so as to give YOURSELF ample room to maneuver in case you get stuck.

you read your own bogus "question" again . . . you quote a verse that expressly talks about LUST and then ask a question about physical attraction.

Chrisbenogor:
@all
Isn't A God Who Only Created [b]More Logica[/b]l Than A God Who Cares

Read the above at least twice and pause at the bold part, then try to answer with a clear mind,

Cheers

that "question" is bogus at best. Lets look at a scenario, what is the difference between a man who fathered you and a father who cares?

The essence of that "question" is the same old trick in another form - a subtle attempt to say the same thing atheists have been crying about for so long . . . well we are not sure if a God exists or not but lets just say He doesnt care for anyone and we can all live without Him.

What really is new?

LadyT:

David if I jump on you!

abeg o . . . pls have mercy.

tpia:
there are some Yoruba men [b]married to Igbo women, who would have a different opinion than yours[/b], you know.


Making that kind of general statement is only bound to stoke tribal sentiment, especially since you know how emotional people are over tribe.

You are right, i shldnt have generalised. I know some igbos i wont wish on my enemy.
At the end of the day, we have to admit that experiences will mould our outlook on life. But i suppose its best to look more at the individual than were they're from.

Hence why i'm married to tope2000 even though she isnt igbo  

tope2000:

I knew u were lying all along

Nwannem, i still loff my yoruba sisters who know how to do it the igbo way.  
Are you sure u're yoruba? Go and check very well o . . .   you dont act like one.

chei. Shaz, i'm adding this thread to my "must see" list. I need to give u a whooping.

tpia:
you know, when you say these things, you should also add a side note explaining that you're half-Igbo ( Igbo mom). So people understand where you're coming from. Nothing wrong with admiring Igbo women, if your mom is one.

But before people start jumping up to say: "oh look- even a Yoruba man agrees that Igbo women are better than Yoruba women" or some such tribal mentality. Its all about tact and sensitivity.

Never mind the fact that Igbos will still see you as Yoruba anyway. So the stereotypes still apply to you. Believe it or not.

Lol you do have a point but my opinion is not based entirely on having igbo family. I lived all my life among the yoruba so i've had a chance to see both sides and i can say without a doubt that if i was forced to make a choice btw igbo or yoruba i'd pick igbo in a heart beat.

I dont bother about stereotypes.

@ JJYOU . . . no wahala . . . no strife on my watch