₦airaland Forum

Nope, the Sabbath was not changed by we know who - the Roman Catholics.

The issue is that the first day of the week was observed from the earliest by
Christians as a day on which Christ rose from the dead, and Paul's argument
was that keeping the Sabbath (of a Saturday) as a means to pleasing God is
clearly failing to see the reality that has come through Jesus Christ:

"Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or
with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath. These are a shadow of
the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ." (Col. 2:16-17).

As for the Sabbath, for Christians wondering if they should be observing a day
according to the OT as a means to drawing near to God, the same Paul would
say:

"But now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how
can you turn back again to the weak and worthless elementary principles of the
world, whose slaves you want to be once more? You observe days and months
and seasons and years! I am afraid I may have labored over you in vain."
(Gal. 4:9-11).

But the argument goes further to say:

"For he has somewhere spoken of the seventh day in this way: “And God rested
on the seventh day from all his works. . . So then, there remains a Sabbath rest
for the people of God, for whoever has entered God's rest has also rested from
his works as God did from his." (Heb. 4:4, 9-10).

There we are - we have entered into God's true rest by faith in Jesus Christ who
invited us with the calling: "Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and
I will give you rest." I offer that the observance of days and seasons as a means
to securing grace or pleasing God is not actually a Christian position. Sabbath in
the NT is simply a rest provided for us in Jesus, and that's what we are called to
enter into - His true rest for our souls.

@nuru,

I understand why Muslims will not engaged in slanderous argumements with any
discussant or participant in an open Forum, and that's a commendable example
to emulate, if only our dear Muslim friends would not be too hasty to accuse others.
Indeed, the Bible urges calmness and respect/deference to others when engaging
in any discussion with people who may not understand why we believe what we
do -

"But even if you should suffer for righteousness' sake, you will be blessed. Have no
fear of them, nor be troubled, but in your hearts regard Christ the Lord as holy, always
being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope
that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect, having a good conscience, so
that, when you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be
put to shame." (I Pet. 3:14-16).

In relation to what you quoted from the Qur'an, the question is: did Muhammad really
keep the injunction of Qur'an ch. 3 vs 20 - "but if they turn away, your duty is only to
convey the Message"? What happened and still happens to those who "turn away"
from Islam and become converts to other religions - did Muhammad simply convey
the Message or he sought to behead them? Are his followers today still conveying
the Message or they are seeking to follow Muhammad's example of beheading the
converts to other religions?

It is hard to defend the notion that "Prophet Muhammad followed the injunctions of
God in-to-to", unless one is ignoring the issues of what the Qur'an claimed on the
one hand; and what happened and how Muhammad lived his life and pursued his
career on the other hand. If he lived his life simply as a Messenger who "only" and
only conveyed the Message without seeking to behead those who turned away or
converted to other religions, then you would have a point. However, the very texts
of both the Qur'an and the Hadith prove the contrary - and I therefore submit that
Muhammad did not follow the injunctions of God precisely in the verse you quoted
in Qur'an ch 3 vs 20.

@Logical,

For one thing, I think you had taken a 'smart' exit instead of answering questions
raised in consequence to your claims. If anyone was turning a "blind eye", it most
certainly seems to be applicable to your case as you failed to address enquiries
that offered you the opportunity for intellectual debate. Certianly, I'm not one who
readily uses vulgarity and/or bias, and I think this should go both ways for every
discussant on the forum. Most of us who have read your inputs have found them
insufficiently addressing issues, and we hope that you'll do the next smart thing
by providing good points that won't dribble around debates.

Now, in consequence of your recent entry, I'll still ask a few questions in hope that
you'll provide some well-reasoned points as well:

Question #1:
How many of Muhammad's disciples actually married under-aged girls as did their
prophet Muhammad? Notice that it is said that Muhammad married Aisha when she
was 6 y.o. and "consumated" the marriage when she was 9 y.o. What then do you
understand by the marriage being "consumated" when she was not even quite in
her first decade?

Question #2:
Do you concede that the bragado you made earlier about your claim of the KJV of
the Bible was dishonest?

Question #3:
Since, as you said, "There is no where in the teachings of Islam, that promotes
marriage at a young age, rather it encourages marriage when you are matured
and able", why then did the Prophet Muhammad not keep that or respect the
age of maturity for Aisha before consumating his marriage to her at such a tender
age?

If you're taking the views you raised as an educated or schooled opinion about
history, why are there still gaps in your replies to these issues?

@abdul fata,

It's interesting that you've suddenly fallen in love with Dr. Gary Miller's lecture, even
though that lecture has lots of gapping holes in it. Like I said in my rejoinder to the
very same article you posted in another thread, check out the claims of the Qur'an
especially where it purports that Allah was He who sent down the "Gospel" of Jesus
and the Psalms of David (Sura 3:3 and 17:55). When you are done, ask yourself a
few salient questions:

#1. What did the Gospels and the Psalms call the Messiah?

Answer: They both called Him the Son of God (read Psalm 2:7-12 and Mark 1:1).

#2. Can you confess Jesus as the Son of God as the Gospel and the Psalms say?

#3. Do you know what it means to be a Christian?

Answer: A Christian believes and confesses Jesus Christ as the Son of God and
also gives Him the same honour as they ascribe to the Father - just as Jesus
Christ Himself said we should in John 5:23. (see my rejoinder about the same
post of yours in Similarities and Differences Between Christianity and Islam).

So, if you cannot confess what the Gospels and Psalms call the Messiah, there
are a few inferences to draw:

# Your conclusion is wrong and misleading because you cannot be more
     Christian than the Christians themselves - until you start confessing the
     same thing that Christians confess.

# The claims of the Qur'an to have sent down the Gospel of Jesus and the
     Psalms of David is either an empty claim that has no substance; or any
     complaints Muslims have should be directed at the Qur'an for not having
     pointed out that both the Gospels and the Psalms call the Messiah the
     "Son" of God.

# The Muslim complaint that the Gospel is according to Luke should also be
     blamed on the Qur'an, because Luke was part of the New Testament
     Gospel in circulation when Muhammad received "revelation" from Allah to
     have confirmed the Bible itself! See what it says: "It is He Who sent down
     to thee (step by step), in truth, the Book, [size=13pt]confirming[/size] what went before it;
     and He sent down the Law (of Moses) and the Gospel (of Jesus) before
     this, as a guide to mankind, and He sent down the criterion (of judgment
     between right and wrong)" (Sura 3:3, Yusuf Ali).

There are so many other issues in your reposting of Dr. Gary Miller's lecture, but
these are just a few points for your consideration. Check out the claim of Quran,
see if it holds any substance and ask yourself in all honesty if you believe in both
the Gospel and the Psalms as the Qur'an says that Allah confirmed the Book -
that is, the Bible!! It is either that claim is empty (I say this respectfully); or as
a matter of consequence, Muslims just have to take what the Gospels and the
Psalms say, as well as the whole Book - the Bible. As far as I know, "the Book"
that Allah endorsed says that Jesus is the Son of God, He died by crucifixion on
the Cross, rose again, and is coming back. Further, it says both in the Psalms
and the Gospels that people should put their trust in the Messiah, that is, to
believe and have faith in Him. If this is too much for you to take in, there's just
one thing you can do:

Strike out your flawed conclusion that Muslims are "more Christian than the Christians
themselves", because that is simply hilarious and begs the whole aim of your effort.

Welcome on board abdul fata. I have a few questions and observations for your to
consider in the reposting of Dr. Gary Miller's lecture:

From your conclusion:

(a) If Christian is a person who follows the teachings of Christ (pbuh) and not one who worships Christ (pbuh). (We are more Christian than the Christians themselves).

Question #1:
Since when do Muslims start referring to themselves as "Christian" that you run
away with the claim: ("We are more Christian than the Christians themselves"?

Let me share a few things about what it means to be a Christian:

(a) A Christian is one who believes and confesses that Jesus Christ is the Son of
the Living God; and that He suffered, died by crucifixion on the Cross by the same
claim to be the Son of God, and that He rose again to ascertain that claim (see a
few of these in Rom. 10:9-12; John 3:16; and Mark 14:61-64).

(b) A Christian is one who truly believes in Jesus Christ as the Son of God and as
a matter of consequence ascribes equal honour to Him as is ascribed to the Father
- because that is what Jesus Himself explicitly stated: "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." (John 5:23).

Now abdul fata, if you haven't started confessing Jesus Christ as "the Son of God"
and giving Him the due honour as He said in John 5:23, are you still convinced you
are "more Christian than the Christians themselves"?

Observation #2:
What "Gospel" of Jesus and "Psalms" of David did the Qur'an endorse or purport to
have been given to David by Allah? (see Sura 17:55 - ". . .and unto David We gave the
Psalms" - Pickthal). Now, does the Qur'an really want Muslims to believe that its claim
about David's Psalms was genuine - especially when the second Psalm (Psa. 2:12) refers
to the Messiah as the Son of God in whom people should put their trust? It's easy for
the Qur'an to have made a claim that the Allah of Islam gave the Psalms to David; but
do you really know what the Psalms actually said? If David's second Psalm therefore
hinted that the Messiah was the Son of God, how is it that Muslims have never taken the
time to see this for themselves?

And again, when Muslims complain about the "Gospels" as found in the New Testament
of the Bible, they should realise that these were the very same "Gospels" (Injil) that
the Qur'an claims were given to Jesus by Allah (Sura 3:3 - "It is He Who sent down to
thee (step by step), in truth, the Book, confirming what went before it; and He sent
down the Law (of Moses) and the Gospel (of Jesus) before this, as a guide to mankind,
and He sent down the criterion (of judgment between right and wrong)." - Yusuf Ali).

"It is He Who sent down to thee. . . the Gospel (of Jesus) before this, as a guide to
mankind" - and the interesting thing here is that the "Gospel" of Jesus included that
of Luke found in the New Testament! It is true that there is no mention of:

"these words were given to me by God here they are for you it is a revelation"

but the Qur'an should have seen that over 14 centuries ago before claiming to have
sent down the "Gospel" of Jesus! So, if Muslims today have a problem accepting it,
they should blame the Qur'an for their troubles - not Christians who still believe what
the Bible says.

What you don't seem to realise is that Dr. Gary Miller is a fine gentleman at making
his own huge mistakes and frantically searching around for who to lay the blame on.
And he picked on Paul - the very same man feared and hated by Muslims from time
past to this day. That is why I still cannot understand why Muslims who are convinced
that the Bible has been corrupted, still quote it to support their story of what they
believed Jesus might have said - just as you quoted John 5:30 at the bottom of your
piece. Question: do you really believe Jesus made that statement in John 5:30, or you
simply referenced it to ease your conscience?

I offer you this simply: check out the claims of the Qur'an especially where it purports
that Allah sent down the Gospel to Jesus and the Psalms to David - and ask yourself
in all honesty if you can confess what the Gospels and Psalms testify? They both tell
of the deity of Jesus as the Son of God, and of His crucifixion and resurrection (read
Psalm 22 as another example). They both ask people to put their trust in Him as the
"Son" of God (see Psalm 2:12). When you are done and still struggle with confessing
Jesus Christ as both what the Gospel and the Psalms testify of Him, then look again
at your conclusion and ask: ARE YOU TRULY MORE "CHRISTIAN" THAN CHRISTIANS
THEMSELVES??

Oga Nuru, so it's okay for the dialogue to continue with the use uncouth language
for other discussants on the Forum? And what part of the "book" that you claim to
follow would approve of such uncouth language at others as long as it is not used
on the Prophets? About that epilogue - 'For you is your religion and for me is mine'
- just read Sura 2:256 of the Qur'an ("let there be no compulsion in religion" and
ask yourself if Prophet Muhammad actually in his career believed and followed that
injunction.

Question: did Jesus condemn the idea of His disciples engaging in business?
Answer: No sir!

"Then you ought to have invested my money with the bankers, and at my
coming I should have received what was my own with interest."
(Matt. 25:27, ESV).

Question: what is the attitude of the Bible to money and business among
Christians?
Answer: do not worship money!

"No one can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love
the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You
cannot serve God and money." (Matt. 6:24, ESV).

"For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evils. It is through this craving
that some have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with
many pangs." (I Tim. 6:10, ESV).

"As for the rich in this present age, charge them not to be haughty, nor to
set their hopes on the uncertainty of riches, but on God, who richly provides
us with everything to enjoy." (I Tim. 6:17).

Question: what does the Bible say about complainers who hoot against the
Lord's servants who are usefully and seriously engaged in kingdom exploits?
Answer: His servants will be more blessed and increase, while the hooters
will be losers at all times!

"For to everyone who has will more be given, and he will have an abundance.
But from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away."
(Matt. 25:29, ESV).

"One gives freely, yet grows all the richer; another withholds what he should
give, and only suffers want." (Prov. 11:24, ESV).

Summary: May God continue to bless His servants who do exploits for His
Kingdom, engage people in education, business, career pursuits; relieve the
oppressed and destitute, preach the Gospel to the poor, and increase in
whatever their hands find to do!

May God raise more of His servants to "float" Jet Airlines, Radio and TV stations
with all kinds of latest tech (transponders and satellites inclusive), corporate
businesses, banks, Supermarkets and Malls; transform nations with a new
industrial revolution; be pioneers in charting new courses in every field of
human endeavour. Yes, and may the hooting get louder as God increases His
servants!!

In our world today, God's people cannot afford to sit by and do nothing in
the face of financial need. I'm not advocating the so-called prosperity Gospel,
but I'd cast my vote for men and women of faith who know how to handle
money for the Lord's cause. Certainly, I don't sanction the idea of any man
of God or church receiving stolen money as "donations". Yet, I believe that
God's intent for His people is to use wealth with integrity and to enjoy the
promise of His word in the pursuit of His Kingdom purposes:

"For the LORD your God will bless you, as he promised you, and you shall
lend to many nations, but you shall not borrow, and you shall rule over many
nations, but they shall not rule over you." (Deut. 15:6).

"The LORD will open to you his good treasury, the heavens, to give the rain
to your land in its season and to bless all the work of your hands. And you
shall lend to many nations, but you shall not borrow." (Deut. 28:12).

"And the LORD will make you the head and not the tail, and you shall only
go up and not down, if you obey the commandments of the LORD your God,
which I command you today, being careful to do them" (Deut. 28:13).

Well, my understanding is quite limited in the significance of numbers in
the Bible. But, perhaps, you could find some very interesting notes about
this on the net - and I've included a few here:

1. A Yahoo Geocities article on Bible Numbers and their significance:
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Oracle/4134/biblenumbers.html

2. Another from Wild Olive Branch website:
http://fp.thebeers.f9.co.uk/numbers.htm

Please note that not everyone's inferences on the siginificance of any
number in the Bible is the same. Further, the significance of numbers
are not rigid - thus, a specific number may have more than just one
static significance, while in other cases, they are simply used to enumerate
quantity.

However, as time permits, I'll folow through with some personal notes
of some of the numbers in Scripture. Thanks for your comments.

In retrospect, I apologise - didn't mean to be that reactive, and had
hoped for a good exchange of ideas rather than what I read as a bit
out of place in ajia23's. No ill-feelings intended. Bless all.

@ajia23,

I would have adviced you to follow the withdrawal of Logical who obviously
could not pursue his logic to a beautiful finish; but since you decided to add
some more brouhaha to your plight, allow me a few lines more to remove
the mahogany from your iris.

Logical was asked to help with just two things: (a) quote the first chapters
of "every chapter or book" of the KJV of the Bible he said was in his
possession; (b) explain to us how a prophet in his golden age (over 50 years)
would marry a girl little older than a toddler who was barely in her first decade.
On both counts he failed and then honourably withdrew.

What you have done is break out with smoke yet again that the fire brigade
in your backyard has no water to douse your flames. How? Let me show you:

First, I'm not one given to invectives - and you already know me by now. In
this case, I refuse to iggy your continued use of uncouth language until you're
ready to cool down and have a dialogue.

Second, when people commit atrocities in the name of God (whether as Muslims
or Christians), we decry the violence on either side of the fence, and the basis
of this is an appeal to what is stipulated in the holy books of either faiths. Jesus
was not a jihadist, never wielded the sword to force people into Christianity,
did not behead those who turned away from following Him, and did not in any
way encourage violence as a means of following and finding God.

Muhammad carried out his atrocities by 'revelation' - by 'revelation' he took an
underaged girl to wife, by 'revelation' he slew people who turned away from Islam,
and by 'revelation' his followers could not agree about the earliest copies of the
Qur'an. The revelations still stand as guides today for the exemplified case
of "real Muslims" who would rather have beheaded a Christian convert in
Afghanistan had it not been for international outcry.

Now, my friend, who's playing judge here? You have the temerity to accuse and
judge others as hypocrites who have to remove logs from our eyes before we
remove specks from yours - good, because now I can see more clearly to remove
the mahogany from your red pupils. After foaming in the mouth and judging others,
you come back claiming a sob story of "I however would not judge them because
that's something that's the exclusive prerogative and preserve of God alone."
Please!!

Just let me enjoy my midsummer break - I worked hard for it and want to visit my
beloved home country Nigeria soon, log or no log!!

"Numerology" is not "numerology" because not all who dabble into it
are agreed on a single principle. For example, most numerologists would
come to a basic premise, that it is the theory "that every name and
every birthdate can be reduced down to a single number" - but then
the numbers should be from 1 to 9 and there should be no double
digits. So, Samantha Stevens leaves a gap in this principle by adding
11 and 22 (both of which can be reduced to 2 and 4 respectively) to the
theory of a single number in numerology.

Basically, the significance of numbers in the Bible point to symbolisms used
to depict divine mysteries; but nowhere are numbers used in the Bible in
the same way as is advanced by what is called numerology today. Take for
instance, the following numbers and their significance in the Bible -

1 - this is used most often to depict unity and singleness, whether it is a
case of 'plural unity' or 'singular unity'. It is a number that stands in its own
class and suggests a very strong testimony. Thus, in Judges 20:11 we
read: "So all the men of Israel were gathered against the city, knit together
as one man." And the Christian doctrine of the Trinity is an example of a
divine mystery that speaks of only one God revealed in the Father, the Son,
and the Holy Spirit.

2 - often a pointer to testimony, it suggests witness and confirmation or
agreement. A classic example in this is found in Amo 3:3 - "Can two walk
together, except they be agreed?"

3 - as the composite of 1 and 2, it indicates a stronger unity, testimony and
confirmation. As a unity, Eccl. 4:12 sheds light on this: "And if one prevail
against him, two shall withstand him; and a threefold cord is not quickly
broken."

. . . and on it goes. If anyone is interested, I could take the time to share
about other numbers in the Bible, but the interesting thing is that Biblical
"numerology" (if it applies at all) is not "numerology" as is so advanced as
the 'ancient science' of calculating one's birthday in order to determine
their destiny and/or influence. Even my Muslims friends who speak of the
mathematical miracle of the Qur'an based on the number 19 could share a
bit of what significance that number means to them; and perhaps, it would
not be surprising that Islamic numerology is not the same as other kinds
of numerology.

So, I don't agree that "numerology is numerology."

@Logical,

Logical:
Well the copy of bible I have, which is the King James Version, from Book of Genesis to the Book of Revelation, it says at the begining and I quote "According to" at the begining of every chapter or book.

You would do us a favour to provide the publication references of the KJV
(King James Version) of the Bible you have - who are its publishers and in
what year was it published? Every KJV Bible I have is the same and does
not begin with "According to" at the beginning of every chapter or book.

If you still insist on recycling what you learnt by rote from an Islamic or
Muslim scholar who didn't take the time to check his claims, then I urge
you to open your copy of the Bible and quote the beginning of the first
three chapters of Genesis and the first three chapters of Revelation
alone. I'd like to see how your assertion that "According to" is to be found
"at the beginning of every chapter or book".

Logical:
Lady its not about trust, its about having a healthy discussion, You forcing the words into me is not acceptable in an intellectual forum like this. Nobody says the chapter bears name rather the chapters are based according to someone or something, there is no place it is said that it is according to GOD !!.

First, I'm not a lady. Second, there's essential nothing you've clarified about
this issue in chapter based on someone/something or God. Even the Qur'an
does not say that each chapter is "according to God", so you can also throw
it out as well. It only says "In the name of Allah" (not "According to Allah/God"
in the heading of each chapter (Sura) of the Qur'an except Sura 9 - and there's
good reason to believe that it is the compilers of the Qur'an that arranged
it in verses - not God Himself.

Here's another weakness in your argument: the Qur'an endorsed or purported
to have believed in the Bible at one time until the tides turned for Muhammad.
Question: what was the beginning of every chapter of the Bible that the Qur'an
endorsed? This hoo-ha about every chapter of the Bible beginning with what
you say it does (which it does not) can be applied to the Qur'an itself - and then
you find that the claim of the Qur'an to have believed in the Book (the Bible) is
empty.

Logical:
It was a simple question, What was the age of marriage 1000 Years ago, Was it an acceptable practice?

As for the age of marriage 1000 years ago, how many of Muhammad's companions
married 6 year-olds? I'll be glad for you to help me on that note because I actually
don't know everything about Islamic history.

Logical:
All I can say is that all Islamic doctrines can be proven to be understandeable logically. Anything that can't be, and its based on faith only is questionable.

Well then, the Qur'an is questionable by your logic since it was not based on logic
but on faith as it testifies severally. There are no less than 260 verses in the Qur'an
(depending on English translation) where the word faith appears; not one verse in
the Qur'an even mentions the words "logic" or "logically" in any translation.

No one says a faith can't be questioned; but that does not justify your perennial
appeal to "logic" even in Islam.

And come to think of it - I don't know any Christian who believes in miracles in
order to strengthen their belief. We believe in miracles and all else that the Bible
says; and the Bible does not depend on anyone's belief or doubts in order for it
to be strengthened.

"Faith or logic" is not whatever I choose to call it - that's rather what you've been
hawking on this Forum as if we can't understand what we're about. Neither the
Qur'an nor the Bible are based on logic: they both claim to be promoting faith
from start to finish, and they can be understood by rational people.

Rev.,

How many times do you have to recycle this joke that has become unspeakbly
stale? We all know that members of your kinkychurch sit in the pews in the
nude - especially black Africans - and you take the pleasure of exposing them
on the internet in the nude under the excuse of "nude baptism" to qualify them
for membership in your church club.

Look closer home - tell your dad to try not enslaving people (especially more
intelligent black people) with his warped nude baptism doctrine and the rest
of the ramblings on your website.

Logical:
When you say that, I think Christianity is more guilty of that, when it comes to validation; because the bible is "according to someone" as clearly stated on every chapter?

Sorry, the Bible is [size=13pt]not[/size] "according to someone", and it is [size=13pt]not[/size] "as clearly
stated on every chapter". If that is a problem for you about trusting what it says,
then those chapter headings that bear the names of people in the Qur'an should
not be trusted, especially Sura 47 which bears the name of Muhammad.

Logical:
Secondly what was the average age people got married, back then?

Please. What do you mean by "what was the average age people got married back
then?" Are you trying to sanction the act of a "prophet" over 50 years old marrying
a child not quite in her first decade?

Logical:
And fifthly are you really here to argue based on faith or what people would understand as normal human beings based on simple God given logic without being unbiased in your argument?

I don't get it: did Muhammad come with a religion of faith or a religion of logic?

Yes, as long as there's still something to say.

@donnie,

Now you come to the main point of this discussion - and that's something I had
hoped you'd realise. How does one show submission to authority if there's no
concern for what God says about His stipulations for what goes on in church?

And the questions you asked about the lady in a vehicle falling off the bridge
(I just seriously hope that you're not hoping it happens): it's really immature to
even think of it - the whole chapter of 1 Corinthians 11 deals with the activities
in church, not with someone falling off a bridge! Here's an illustration to buttress
the idea of the circumstances you suggested:

Most of our churches today praise God with musical instruments in church - and
I don't have any problems with that. But what happens when people have no
access to musical instruments, can't they praise God and rejoice in sweet and
beautiful melodies in worship to Him as Paul and Silas did in the Philippian jail
in Acts 16:25? So also: when someone is in a dire situation, I believe their cry
or prayers to God will be answered without waiting to grab a scarf - but when
in church, there should be no excuses for acting as if one was falling off a bridge
by ignoring what God's Word teaches in 1 Corinthians 11:1-16.

So, in church the inspired apostle made clear that this matter of submission to
authority is for both men and women to comply with by way of submitting
to what God has said about our hair and head: men ought not to cover; and women
are indeed to cover. The Bible never supposes that the Holy Ghost dwells on our
heads, so your last line shouldn't have been so hysterical.

@Ddii,

I'm sorry to disagree with you about those who use headdress in church activities.
They don't do so "just because they feel like it" - they know what they are doing
as 1 Corinthians 11 says. Most of our liberal churches tolerate a whole lot of stuff
that we simply just let them get away with issues because we're not even taking
the time to read the Scriptures.

Good to know that long hair has been given to ladies for a covering. So what then
happens to women who don't have "long" hair, or how "long" is long? The problem
with this type of reasoning is that the previous verses are ignored and then verse
15 just seems to be all too comfy for people who are persuaded to allow just
about anything in church. If we take that view, then there should be no problem
with men wearing long hair - and believe me, I've seen lots of men wearing such
and going about as 'ministers'; it even gets worse, for it was not too long ago that
I saw another 'minister' with long hair and an earring on just one ear!

On the other hand, besides the time-honoured tradition of pratices in church these
days, why then do people have a concern that men take off their hats and caps in
prayer or in church? I don't think the apostle was actually focusing on just one side
of the issue, for many times we often fail to see that this passage of Scripture is
concerned about men as well. So, if hair is the covering, then for love sake our men
should visit the nearest barber, because this is what the Bible says:

"A man, in fact, should [size=13pt]not[/size] cover his head, because he is God's image and glory, but
woman is man's glory." (verse 7).

It's got nothing to do with feelings; it's got everything to do with what God says.

@Idollier,

This is not about arguing over religion - and we gain a lot from these discussions.
Anyone can believe what they want to believe, even if that means that they can
drink "the cup of devils" (I Cor. 10:21)!! I'm sorry, but I don't see how this should
pass into an argument of "rubbishness" as you call it - rather, we're sharing ideas
about this and or other subjects. It may not be to your taste, but others will find
something worthwhile to say.

Drusilla,

Nothing touches me as sincerity and an open heart. I didn't see your entry in
time as I just went straight home after work yesterday and only came here after
my quiet time this morning. It won't be such a problem to go back on my knees
for you - what I really enjoy, and be sure you're on my prayer list from today.

Be encouraged - so many of us have felt like that sometime in our walk with the
Lord, and believe me: He's faithful and will lift you up as you look to Him. May
His countenance shine on you each day.

TV01, good to know that the discussion so far has been of some benefit
to you, as it has to me as well. You couldn't have been more correct to
have captured the essence of the present situation in many quarters by
observing that -

'. .there are wholesale attempts to "re-invent" The Lord and "re-engineer"
the faith, so the gospel no longer challenges or confronts, . . . there's no
longer a cross.'

Certainly, there's more to say on the issue and I'll find the time to share
a bit more as time permits, trusting that Drusilla would help broaden our
scope as she's done previously.

And thanks to syrup and others as well who saw beyond my small or limited
concern about what 'practising one's faith' entails. So, while it shouldn't be
just a matter of 'cuss-words', one has to look at the content of what is being
presented in the pulpits in our day. By grace we can depend on the Spirit to
both comfort and challenge us in our walk with God.

Drusilla,

Let me acknowledge that you're an inspiration as well for the food-
for-thought you provided in yours. Of course, you're also correct in
your assessment on many things, so God bless for your efforts and
thank you again.

Your observation about "right, wrong and good" is interesting, but here are two
things: (a) using the name of Christ for atrocities of any kind does not in any way
excuse the perpetrator from divine judgement, even though they assert that they
are "Christian"; (b) in the Old Testament dispensation, YHVH's command to the
Jews resulting in the killing of people should be understood in contexts of those
events - and it would require a whole volume for me to walk you through that.

In the latter case, Abraham's discourse with God in Genesis 18 gives us some
insight about His dealings when the patriarch asks: "Shall not the Judge of all
the earth do right?" (verse 25). Certainly, He would - that was even the reason
why He'd come down to check out the dealings of the inhabitants of Sodom and
Gomorrah in order to certify that He was going to deal as their works required
(verses 20-21).

Whenever these questions of the wars and killings in the OT arise, it would be
well to not be too hasty to generalise issues, but rather to look for the underlying
factors that led to such. On the whole, I'd echo a line from an OT text about the
dealings of God in this regard:

"Surely the Lord GOD will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants
the prophets." [Amos 3:7]

and I think this is consistent with what happened in Genesis 18 where we read:

"And the LORD said, Shall I hide from Abraham that thing which I do. . .?" (vs. 17)

But there again, my views are not authority for other Christians as they may have
their own persuasions about these matters, and I'd be grateful to learn where I get
it wrong.

¤¤¤

Here's what I see as regards the observation in your last but one paragraph:

An all-knowing (omniscient) God ought not necessarily to have 'stopped the
creation of those to be condemned for flimsy "sins" ' as surely as that He'd
not created "flawed creatures" - look again at Eccl. 7:29 quoted earlier: man
was indeed created upright, but he exercised his 'choice' to be sinful; and
also God in omnibenevolence offered Adam a chance to live and 'learn from'
what ensued in Genesis 3 (see particularly verse 17 where God only cursed
the ground for Adam's sake - 'a punishment to fit the crime' perhaps?).

¤¤¤

My gratitude for your patience to both reason with and challenge me thus far,
and I hope that even where my replies may not have sufficiently addressed
your concerns, we'll both have the grace to enjoy the discourses both ways.

@KAG,

I'll guarantee you just this: that the collective testimony of scripture never supposes
that Jesus' sacrifice was to save us from God, but rather to save us from His wrath.
There's a difference between God Himself and His wrath on sin. Also, man was not
created sinful but rather chose to be sinful as is indicated in Eccl. 7:29 -

"Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought
out many inventions."

Man indeed has the potential to sin; but is he incapable of living a righteous life by
God's help? If man chooses to live in sin, it presuppoes that a holy God will judge
what is sinful especially where He has both warned about its consequences and
also offered a provision in Christ's sacrifice to deal with the question of sin itself.

¤¤¤

Well, to be sure, loving one's neighbour applies to both the past and the present
dispensations. The difference is in the principles of either eras - (a) before the
first advent of Christ, man was under the Law (the Jews) and conscience (non-
Jews); and (b) since Christ, man is called to live by faith. That is why for us as
Christians, we're persuaded of the necessaity of accepting/receiving Jesus
personally.

¤¤¤

Lol, I'll pass on the question of 'damning babies', for like I said earlier: not every
Christian would be persuaded about the same things about these matters. I'd
rather at the present retain the persuasion that babies are not damned to hell.

¤¤¤

Omniscience does not translate into an idea of 'divine sport' simply because a
holy God judges sin and evil. To be sure, He would desire every single person
who ever lived to come to the knowledge of His saving grace; but a rejection of
that offer invites His wrath - so, the issue really is a matter of balance between
the Sovereignty of God and the responsibility of man.

Drusilla:
The point is the authors point. As the author repeatedly says: Our ideas____ of what "meek and mild" mean tend to distort the picture of Jesus Christ.

Precisely, Drusilla. The author's point fits aptly into what I stated earlier:

"Critical thinking" is good and serves the needs of those who appeal more
to it than a dependence upon the Spirit of God. . ."

As far as "our ideas" are concerned, Jesus could be anything but 'meek[i]
and lowly in heart[/i]' - and that's because some fail to understand that a
person of such disposition does not necessarily have to be thought of as
cowardly in situations that call for boldness. Take the case of the 6th point:
it's either we read it as that He "tells" people they're 'going to die just like
that', or rather that He was sounding a "warning" to them. And such a
disposition could well be applied to all the preceding points 1-5.

Meekness does not translate into cowardice. Maybe I'm failing to see the
picture clearly, but while agreeing that our ideas at any level tend often to
confuse issues, blur the lines and distort things in a general way, in our
world of today when people tend to hide behind the "politically correct/incorrect"
smokescreen, it's well to see Jesus for Who He really is.

TayoD,

Thanks for that entry - so much to benefit from, especially with regards
to the functions of a priest. I've always thought along such lines as well,
but of course, your piece was based largely on The Last Outcast (haven't
read it though).

Bo, ma broder, I agree with you 109.5%!!

@donnie,

Good point, but the confusion that many people arrive at with that verse you
quoted is only a matter of ignoring the preceding verses.

Question: what happens to women who don't have long hair; and how "long"
is long hair?

Besides, what happens to the men - how do you explain the verse that says -

"For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image
and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man" (verse 7).

If the 'hair' (long or short) is the material for 'covering', then the men should
indeed not be covered - translation: barber gori-makpa kia-kia! There's just
no two ways about this - whenever we look at the issue, let's remember that
the men too are spoken of as well.

@Drusilla,

The exercise has been worth it and many thanks yet again.

One thing though, which is that many people see the Lord Jesus from
various/varying perspectives. It wouldn't be much of a problem unless
the inference to be drawn is that He was afterall not what the Bible
declares of Him.

This naturally reminds me of the pivotal question He asked His disciples:
"Whom do men say that I am?" In answering that question today, some
may be persuaded that He was something other than He was and is as
we read of Him in God's Word. For me, I'd always play it safe by aligning
my thoughts with what appears in Scripture than appeal to anything less.

"Critical thinking" is good and serves the needs of those who appeal more
to it than a dependence upon the Spirit of God, without Whom it is utterly
impossible to understand His ways or the inspired Word. When I rather
choose to depend on the Spirit, my conclusion is that Christ is indeed no
less as the Bible declares of Him - He is both meek and lowly in heart.

The challenges are well noted, and I trust you'll find grace and blessings
from Him in all spheres of life.

@ajia23,

I'll share them soon on the Forum so all could benefit in one way or the
other, hoping at the same time that no one would feel uneasy at what
they read. Thanks for your patience.

This is quaint. Seun, you're right in exercising your right to 'believe' as
you so please. Problem is that I'm often told that 'atheism' is simply a
"lack of belief", and the stress is usually on "in a God" - so we have
a complete structure of a phrase - "lack of belief in (the existence of)
a God."

But I ask: wetin "Redeemed" and "Church" dey do for your atheistic
signboard?

Okay, just being facetious, because I know quite a handful of my pals
who are ready (nay, actually have been waiting in the wings) to beat
me black and blue if ever I go about with the "lollygag idea that this
thing called atheism is a religion!" I'm just scratching my head about
the imbroglio.

Oh well, your second post - I alread clicked on posting the one above.

I understand that you're not ascribing my walk with any of those 'gods'
and you're absolutely correct that we should not hide under any excuses
as reason for disobedience.

God bless again.

Drusilla,

I'm sure your passion is admirable. The mammon god, the suburban god, the
hug god. . . and what else?

The fact is that I'm not running around worrying how to stay away from hell
because I know that's settled. You can also be sure that I'm not in any way
courting a passive spirit about the issues that daily confront us as believers
nor do I see complacency as a viable option.

In as much as I can help it, I submit myself to God daily before even doing a
single thing - the refreshing moments with Him in the mornings compares to
nothing else I've ever known in my rascally days.

Even so, I agree with all you've said so far; and I don't think leaving matters
of divine judgement to God as Judge alone should amount to complacency.

Actually, I enjoy the blessings of those who challenge me to good works, and
I trust that they can bear witness that I'm doing the same - and doing so in
creative ways as I continue to seek God's direction in any particular situation
that will bear more fruit for His glory.

For me, it's not just a matter of doing good works, but also how we do those
works as well. Jesus said for us to both take heed what we hear (Mark 4:24),
and also to take heed how we hear (Luke 8:18).

I've enjoyed your inputs and continue to be indebted to you for some of the
challenges you consistently offer me - and God bless you more.

Okay, I hear you. Question: so what happens when someone who does not
cover head goes to church with their mind filled with evil - does that matter?

I'm amused with the view that some things "don't matter" when they are as
clearly stated in God's Word in black and white. If they never mattered, can
someone please explain why the inspired apostle dealt with the issue in his
epistle to the Corinthians? So, he probably must have been joking to ask in
verse 13 of that chapter -

"Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?"

Or, what was he all about when earlier he said -

"For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame
for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered." [verse 6].

If one doesn't matter (covering or not covering the head), then other should
not matter (a mind filled with evil). If the latter matters, then the former does
as well. QED.

TV01, yes I indeed agree with elampiro.