₦airaland Forum

kola oloye:
Still meditating.

. . . Let the meditation of your heart be acceptable in His sight . . .  

^^^ I think it is quite easy enough to distinguish between what I wrote myself and third-party information which I usually placed in quotes.

^^^ The above seems to be (derived from?) a form of open theism. The problem is the difficulty of squaring it with God's foreknowledge and omniscience as understood.

Praise God, from whom all blessings flow;
praise him, all creatures here below;
praise him above, ye heavenly host;
praise Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.


This Doxology is well known by a very popular and beautiful tune. However, I really like the Jimmy Owens tune considerably; the tune can be heard here:

http://ligamusic.com/Lyrics/6917378/VA/Silence/Jimmy_Owens_-_The_Doxology/download-mp3/

Too many "intellectuals" and mockers. Surprisingly, they don't seem to have much to discuss among themselves for "intellectuals", rather they come to take cheap shots at Christianity and make edifying discussion among we Christians a bit difficult. 

The Moslems who do not stick to their own section (again maybe not having much to discuss among themselves?) are not much better.

If all of them (whether Moslem or "intellectual" participate in Christian discussion to ask legitimate questions, seek clarification, make polite and legitimate criticism of the much, much and much that is wrong with "Christianity" as it is perceived today that would not be a problem.

At the moment they are like tolerated companions who keep farting odiously in company. 

Copyright law is very very very funny business. Sometimes the law itself is unclear and grey; sometimes the law is pretty clear. But even when the law is pretty clear, the morality can be very very very very grey indeed.

Examples

1. A CD that you bought with your own money: it may be illegal to record it on to tape.

2. It may be illegal to make a copy CD of that same CD ---- whether for yourself or for a friend etc

3. Anyone who goes to Ikeja to buy computer software (cheaply because most are 'pirated') may be committing an offence or at least acting illegally. (Now would you rather pay N2,000 for a 'fake' or N60,000 for an original?)

4. International "gospel" artiste performs a concert in America; a Nigerian living in America buys a legal copy of the CD; tells his brother in Naija; his brother asks him to upload it for him so it can be downloaded in Naija.

5. A Naija guy buys a legal copy of a 'powerfully anointed' new music CD released by a Nigerian 'gospel' artiste and tells his brother living in Finland about it; the brother living in Finland cannot get a copy and asks his Naija brother to upload it.

6. (This one came up on this Board recently): an "anointed" foreign (or even) Naija 'gospel' artiste has released a 'worship' CD containing a song that has become a sensation and very popular, Church choirs and congreagations in Naija sing this song regularly as part of 'worship': they may be acting illegally.

@Jesoul, you keep making me jealous of the little guy aka enigmalet.  However, no we haven't 'done' him yet; we do plan to though.

In baptism of infants (and children) the parents and God-parents make promises to bring up the children in the Christian faith and the Church i.e. the Universal Christian Church promises to provide support in this respect; thus, it is connected to the 'suffer the children to come unto me' statement in that the parents/God-parents/Church all help the infant/child in 'coming unto Him'. It is thus important that the parents/Godparents/Church themselves understand their important duty and the gravity of the promises that they make.

I like your response on JTB, though I disagree with it.  You see we often make the debate in terms of 'infant/child' baptism but what of the 'household'? A good example was given in terms of some Old Testament 'rituals' e.g. circumcision which were based on God's promises to a people - a chosen people. The Passover was for the household; many people in the OT stated: 'as for me and my household, we will serve the Lord'. And as I said before, the 'household' of Cornelius was baptised ------ arguably after they were already saved.

Thus if the household is committed to the Christian faith, I see nothing wrong with the baptism of infants and children in the household.

I have deliberately, so far, kept away from the 'dedication' part of the discussion. A couple of brief points: firstly, Jesus was not in fact 'dedicated' as such but rather was presented in the temple which was a requirement concerning every male that opens the womb who was regarded as holy to the law Lord. Thus if we were strictly following that, no female child needs to be presented or 'dedicated' and no child, male or female, that is a second (onwards) child needs to be presented or 'dedicated'. Secondly, people have already made the distinction between the 'dedication' that is done today and the dedication of Samuel for example. However, I do not wish to speak per se against the type of 'dedication' that is done today.

JeSoul:
Good point. And I would counter that we readily see in scripture multitudes of examples of baptism candidates, and that they were not just those who were of age, but more importantly those who were of age and of understanding to comprehend what baptism was, why they ought to partake of it, and how they ought to approach it. Infants do not have the ability to grasp any of the above.

And let me throw this into the mix, what is the motivation for baptising an infant in the first place? (that is if you're not of the catholic persuation)

Naaah, I am not of 'the catholic persuasion'.  However, I have nothing against infant/child baptism; in fact, I support it positively. For now, I will just make two quick points: (1) Jesus said: "suffer the little children to come unto me" i.e. do not hinder the little children from coming to Him ----- think about the potential ramifications of that for infant/child baptism. (2) Do you reaaaaally think that John the Baptist would have turned away little children if they were brought to him for baptism (which was a very very very likely scenario)?

@The Clown

I am neither Protestant nor Pentecostal nor, for that matter, Roman Catholic!

I did not say anything disparaging of the Roman Catholic Church in any of my posts; the third-party article contained some negative points about the Roman Catholic Church --- most of those issues are secondary to the point/purpose of this thread. Moreover, I did place a disclaimer in the opening post that there are things in the article that one may question.

Of course it is heretical nonsense. I just posted it for all to see for themselves.

Kenneth Copeland in his own words:

“The Spirit of God spoke to me and He said, “Son, realize this. Now follow me in this and don’t let your tradition trip you up.” He said, “Think this way — a twice-born man whipped Satan in his own domain.” And I threw my Bible down… like that. I said, “What?” He said, “A born-again man defeated Satan, the firstborn of many brethren defeated him.” He said, “You are the very image, the very copy of that one.” I said, “Goodness, gracious sakes alive!” And I began to see what had gone on in there, and I said, “Well now you don’t mean, you couldn’t dare mean, that I could have done the same thing?” He said, “Oh yeah, if you’d had the knowledge of the Word of God that He did, you could have done the same thing, ’cause you’re a reborn man too.”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K3yDODIkf5I

I am going to throw into the mix that we should even be cautious about criticising infant/child baptism; remember that Cornelius and his "household" were baptised and who is to say that the "household" did not include infants or children?

I have to say, Olaadegbu made some really powerful posts in this thread (ignoring the cartoons). 

EDIT similarly by Image123 especially on page 2; and I already stated my admiration for one of aletheia's posts.

I quite enjoyed the post below by Olaadegbu from the thread linked in last post above and I've decided to copy and paste its substance here:

OLAADEGBU:
. . .

What does it mean to call Jesus the Son of God?

Does the title applied to Jesus, Son of God, imply that He is different than God? No. Jesus is the only begotten Son of God (John 3:16), while Christians are adopted sons of God (Romans 8:15-17). Christians are called adopted sons of God because we are different from God and must become His children (hence, adopted, not begotten). Jesus is not called adopted because He never became God's Son, but has always been God's Son. Calling Jesus the only begotten Son of God means that He is of the same nature as God, not a different nature, as C.S. Lewis explains:

"To beget is to become the father of: to create is to make. And the difference is this. When you beget, you beget something of the same kind as yourself. A man begets human babies, a beaver begets little beavers, But when you make, you make something of a different kind from yourself. A bird makes a nest, a beaver builds a dam . . . Now that is the first thing to get clear. What God begets is God; just as what man begets is man. What God creates is not God, just as what man makes is not man. That is why men are not Sons of God in the sense that Christ is. They may be like God in certain ways, but they are not things of the same kind."

There is a clear distinction between making and begetting, that is, you cannot make what you beget. What you make is different from yourself, what you beget has your nature. Therefore to call Jesus the only begotten Son is to say that He has God's nature and was not made. Since He has God's nature, He is, by definition, God and therefore eternal. If Jesus was created by God, He could not have been begotten, and John 3:16; 1:18, 1 John 4:9, etc. are in error.

Sorry to seem to be bumping this thread but I am just using style to bookmark it because of some seriously powerful posts by the poster Prizm.

Some will find this and this useful.

toba:
This thread is very necessary. For the fact that most atheists here start ridiculous topics,make ridiculous comments&do mock the theists on matters rel,ated to this,therefore Its only fair to do same when such fraudulent act is committed by the one of the mockers(atheists). U would agree with me that neither Akingbola or Cecilia was spared here on nairaland when we heard they did something similar. Its reasonable to balance things. On this basis, the thread is necessary.

The thread is perfectly legitimate. In the history of the religious section since its inception it has always been normal to post religious or related news whether purely as news, for information, serious discussion or even light hearted amusement. Moreover, I don't recall ever seeing the non-Christians complain when we Christians post similar threads about televangelists for example ---- something which we have always regularly done here.

aletheia:
. . .
It is absurd for Dawkins to sue his friend; afterall Timonen was only exhibiting "survival of the fittest". If Dawkins cannot compete with Timonen according to the mores of his evolutionary religion, he shouldn't seek a cop out from God's moral code which declares: "Thou shall not steal!"

Ah ha, Interesting!  Compare what he is quoted to have said well before this incident (if I understand correctly)- from here http://www.examiner.com/christian-apologetics-in-albuquerque/atheist-vs-atheist-richard-dawkins-sues-josh-timonen (I'm afraid the site has pop-up ads)

If somebody used my views to justify a completely self - centred lifestyle, which involved trampling all over other people in any way they chose roughly what, I suppose, at a sociological level social Darwinists did - I think I would be fairly hard put to it to argue on purely intellectual grounds.

I think it would be more: “This is not a society in which I wish to live. Without having a rational reason for it necessarily, I'm going to do whatever I can to stop you doing this.” I couldn't, ultimately, argue intellectually against somebody who did something I found obnoxious. I think I could finally only say, “Well, in this society you can't get away with it” and call the police. I realise this is very weak, and I've said I don't feel equipped to produce moral arguments in the way I feel equipped to produce arguments of a cosmological and biological kind. But I still think it's a separate issue from beliefs in cosmic truths.

PS @ toba

Maybe it is best to just ignore these fellows and leave them to their ways once they get beyond reasonable or 'rational'  debate. 

@Toba

Upon all the claims of atheists being intelligent, did you notice the extremely poor comprehension of the two atheists that jumped in when they failed to understand what was 'staggeringly' simple and patently obvious from the opening post? So much for the much-vaunted 'intelligence' of our atheists here!

Zikkyy:
. . .
Jo, I advise that you stick to fleecing the flock. That’s one area I know you can excel. BTW I am still waiting for your thread on finance, I believe that will be more interesting.

Wicked! Totally funny!

From here https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria?topic=315268.msg6664317#msg6664317

Enigma:
. . .
For the church to be repositioned (speaking of Nigeria specifically), the first thing would be to destroy the prosperity "gospel". However, this is not likely to happen because of the extent of greed and materialistic desire prevalent in our urban societies/communities especially.

In the past the church was seen as a place to go in order to take one's mind off the things of the world and to contemplate higher values. Today, the "church" is where to go to look for things of the world and to place one's mind deep in the gutter/sewer/soakaway ----------- . . .

sauer:
I wonder what's ungodly bout this. I truly wondr. Does enigma think straight at al?

Typical of an atheist mumu.

From http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/an-ungodly-row-dawkins-sues-his-disciple-2115632.html

Josh Timonen was one of a small coterie of young protégés around Richard Dawkins, sharing his boss's zealous atheism. But now he and the evolutionary theorist have fallen out spectacularly. Professor Dawkins's charity has accused Mr Timonen of embezzling hundreds of thousands of pounds.

The two atheists had become close in recent years, with Dawkins, the best-selling author and Emeritus Professor of Biology at Oxford University, even dedicating his latest book, The Greatest Show on Earth, to him. But Mr Timonen and the Dawkins foundation are now preparing for a legal wrangle.

The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science, has filed four lawsuits in a Californian court alleging that Mr Timonen, who ran its online operation in America, stole $375,000 (£239,000) over three years. It is claiming $950,000 in damages, while Mr Dawkins is suing him for $14,000 owed to him personally. Mr Timonen strongly denies the allegations.

aletheia:
But the Truth can sometimes be outrageous. Not so.

And it is these 'outrageous' things, especially on spiritual matters, that these our "intellectuals" struggle to come to terms with. I recently came across a short essay from which I take the extract below:

Bare unsanctified reason cannot shine in the realm of the Spirit. The natural man is
helpless before the Truth, though he may be mighty in the realm of the mind. He may
be an adept in chemistry and astronomy, skillful in physical science, philosophy, and
the arts; but be ignorant of God and spiritual matters.When he turns his superb and
keenly trained faculties upon the spiritual things , the Fatherhood of God, the
eternal Sonship of Christ, the virgin birth, the resurrection of Christ, the forgiveness
of sins, the prodigal come home, the peace that passeth understanding, the hope that
maketh not ashamed , he is up before a stone wall. His knowledge and ability cannot
help him. His brain may storm the citadel and swagger and threaten; but harder than
flint, and higher than the walls of Jericho or those of the city of Tyre, more
invulnerable than the gates of babylon and the eternal hills is the knowledge of the
things of God. They are higher and more impassable to the natural man than all the
above mentioned invincible things. "Hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this
world?" . . . .

From http://www.gracegod.com/babes.pdf

Joagbaje, blinded by his own allegeiance to his own belly who is his god and the spiritual son of a spiritual vagabond! God help you is all we can say.

@ Pasiitor Joagbaje

Oh definitely, I want to ridicule you and your boss, your teacher in fleecing the flock. Here goes:

We have no clue when or by whom he was ordained. He is currently not accountable to anyone - whether pastoral or laity!

In other words and by your own criteria he (Chris oyakhilome) is a spiritual vagabond.

[b]WHEN[/B] was Chris Oyakhilome (first) ordained and by whom?

^^^ Which "church" did the Ethiopean eunuch belong to?

Kay 17:
From your post,a ready conclusion is reason is deficient in spiritual matters! Isn't that a difference?

In one sense this is correct; however, if you understand both Luther and Tertullian well, you will realise why it is not wholly correct. Reason on its own, i.e. pure worldly reason, can only take you so far. For example, it may not be able to take you to a point of accepting the virgin birth of Jesus; but when reason is "washed" and cleansed and thus conditioned or influenced by spiritual regeneration (e.g. the Christian new birth), that "holy" reason will take you through and beyond acceptance of the virgin birth.

Kay 17:
Faith asserts the existence of a god or gods,that has been the guidepost of all religions.

This is a subtle untruth because it it is not just faith that asserts the existence of a god (or gods); even your much-vaunted reason (including philosophy) asserts the existence of god. What is even more some scientists are now starting to talk of the so-called God-gene.

Yet they are all composed of different doctrines! Are we to accept that Allah, God, Zeus, Jupiter and their gang exists together?

Again, another false argument! Whether perceptions of God differ is not of itself good enough reason to deny the existence of God.

Tertullian's comment that the resurrection is impossible but fir faith is accepted. An unhealthy dose of faith it is, to disregard rationality.

I think a better understanding of Tertullian's brilliance including his oratory/rhetoric would be beneficial.

greateros:
One month in jail for hawking and working hard to survive and not be a criminal


6 months in jail for stealing almost one trillion Naira and crippling the economy!


Crime is more appreciated than hard work!


What a funny country with a funny law!!

It's crazy, isn't it? The lunatics running the asylum and all that . . .

Kay 17:
. . .
See what the Christian Father Tertullian has to say
                             'And the Son of God died; it is by all means to be believed, because it is absurd.
                              And He was buried and rose again; the fact is certain because it is impossible'.
he goes on and 'wishes a plague on Aristotle', reiterates bible verses 'God will destroy the wisdom of the wise', 'its reason that supplies heresies with their equipment'.

Similar point addressed by old post here  " . . . someone like Tertullian (himself a great scholar and intellectual) is sometimes referred to as "anti-intellectual" --- a charge that has been refuted in the literature. Incidentally, Tertullian seems to be a particular victim of misattribution/mistreatment as with the "Credo Quia Absurdum" quote -- see here for starters http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credo_quia_absurdum."

Kay 17:
. . .
Martin Luther, the Protestant leader and avid Jew hater descibes reason as 'beautiful LovePeddler', 'God's worst enemy', 'the bride of the devil'. 'Faith must trample reason, sense and understanding under ger foot'.

The same Luther also called reason "something divine". And those who know Luther's work would explain that in terms of earthly matters, Luther did esteem reason and to some extent even relegated Scripture behind reason on such matters; it is in respect of spiritual matters that he 'denigrated' reason since it has a tendency to lead to idolatry.