₦airaland Forum

Joagbaje: I would advise every spiritual minded person not to engage in this debate or whatever. It's just an opportunity for insults . You're not dealing with people who want to hear or see your point of view . You're dealing with people who take pleasure in mockery . Even if you present all the convincing evidence are they humble enough to admit? . @Image don't get your righteous soul injured .
Mo ti so fún e

i understand and appreciate your concern. We both know and predicted how this usually plays out. The would barely read or recall what is said, and they already have their closing positions ready. However, i'm choosing to leave them without an excuse or witness. i'm counting it all joy, you understand i trust. Thanks.

DrummaBoy: As for ur ally, I will advice U seek for a replacement. If he comes along the way U can still incooperate him into ur presentation. That is miwerds does not disagree. As for the rule, pls let us keep it that way. That was d set back to d deepsight thread on trinity and we should not repeat the mistake. If U need more time for a presentation, U can request for it and we should grant it. I am finalizing issus with the central moderators. The minute I get their cooperation we will start. In the main time get Rhmey or a replacement.

i'm always ready. However, i thought it not out of place that we wait fdor Rhymejohn who is the only one who expressed interest in this discussion. i'm ready when you are but in that case, i will only be presenting five points. If Rhymewj comes he might have some spot to add to. Tell us when 24hours start counting for first presentation. i suggest we use a new thread BTW.

Gombs: Just like GEJ taking FFK for campaign coordinator in the SW

hahahahahahaahhaha. Kunle might have being drinking.

DrummaBoy: Image123 we are still waiting to hear from you and your ally and to know how far you have gone with preparation.

I am still asking you guys to study the rules and mode of presentation so that we do not have difficulty during the presentation.

One item of rule is added now to curb excessive waste of time. Pls check the rules on pages 4 once more.

Let me hear from you, ASAP.

i never hear from my ally oh. i think the 12hour ultimatum is short. Please make it 24hours. i'll do the best to respond early but i sincerely cannot guarantee the 12hour limit everytime. i think i'm ready,lol.

haibe: You are just an hypocrite Image123, its the fact.

Without the western part, how do we know that trousers are meant for men or that skirts are meant foe women?

It is not common sense to think shirts are for both sexes since history proves you wrong saying they were made exclusively for men

it is not common sense to think trousers are made for men only because history proves you wrong saying trousers were worn by both sexes among the early users

So you have no point bro, you are denying a clear fact, if God will take a nigerian woman to hell for wearing trousers, then he would take the women that wore trousers too in the early use of it, if God would not, then he wouldn't take the nigerian woman to hell either.

Don't be a deceiver; all upper garments wears are not shirts, because a shirt is an upper garment doesn't mean all upper garment wears are shirts, that doesn't make sense.. infact no dictionary will tell you all upper garments are shirts, how absurd.

If you say all upper garments are shirts, then u can say all lower garment are trousers with this definition.


trou•sers (ˈtraʊ zərz)
n. (used with a pl. v. )
Sometimes, trouser. a usu. loose-fitting
outer garment for the lower part of the
body

You are the hypocrite in this case. even an illiterate in Nigeria knows that trousers belong to men. In fact, illiterates and many in the rural parts are yet to fully understand why or if women should wear trousers. As is becoming your custom, you glossed over all i said without replying them or perhaps even reading them. later on, you will come or someone else, to ask the same questions to pad your conscience. You keep referring to male shirts as shirts. The point and proof is that there are different types of shirts. Perhaps you need to re-read the links more carefully. There is a difference between the name and the design. You seem to be harping on the design, i am referring to the name. i have given you proof that the blouse is a female shirt BTW. The halter top is a shirt, was it made exclusively for men? If you do not get this simple point, there is no need for back and forths. like i initially said, you have left the issue at hand, to word janglings about shirts. Again i ask, what is the meaning of Deuteronomy 22v5? What does it mean?

You didn't read the post do you? you think everybody discriminates like you? nah I still respect those In DLBC, why shouldn't I? as long as they are saved.. but they shouldn't condemn the lady on trousers or those who are not law keepers like them, it's very bad.

You seem to be the one not doing the reading. i said and repeat that You are grudged, sanctimonious, berating, easily irritated and unapproving of others not in his clique. this is evident on this thread. As for your church members, time will tell. i've said mine own to help you, warn you as it were.

DrummaBoy: The next step really is you and Rhymeyjohn establishing a link for your presentations.

I am already in touch with HumbleByGrace to come and moderate the discuss with me. We can both be co-moderators, if he agrees.

Rhymej, my pally made my "ally" . Sorry, it seems i'm the "ally" fa. Anyway, i sent you a message oh, check your mail.

i saw tonyetithe, hahahahahaha.

haibe: No, am occupied with another thread and that's why I ended that statement with an "ok'.

You can answer those questions frosbel asked, I will be waiting to see your reply.

Yeah, that's more important for you. i'm also "occupied" on another thread. Most of what frosb is asking have little or no relevance. And you guys seem to have no issue with or rebuttal to my explanations already given. Do we leave that and go into another, only for one of you to come up again with what has already being dealt with as if it was never dealt with?

emmanuel950 account activated. Not a very smart move.

frosbel: 7 pages even before the DEBATE starts, lol.


I am outta here !

Close the door firmly but gently. Did you read that it is a discussion and not a debate.

DrummaBoy: Ryhmeyjohn, Image123, Mark Miwerds and Candour are hereby requested to look up the changes that has been made to the proposed rules, regulations and format of presentation as we have agreed so far. Please let us discuss any objection to them. Also you may ask any question on them. And they are still proposed in that they are subject to changes.

Fine. i don't like too many rules. Make i go prepare jare. i'm suggesting the discussion starts on a new thread and a working NL mod be available or at least agreeing to help with necessary clean ups.
What next?

haibe: This doesn't even apply to me; for your information I do attend deeper life bible church, yes a church that despise women wearing trousers but I remain in the church for one particular reason, and I do not have any problem in relating with them

The difference is that I do not just believe what a pastor says, I look deep into the scriptures and reality.

Being in bondage to the law is not freedom, it is slavery. . So yes, the yoke of Christ is okay for us to bear, no need to go around putting an extra yoke on God's people.

King James Bible
Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast
out the bondwoman and her son: for the
son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with
the son of the freewoman.

So then, brethren, we are not children of
the bondwoman, but of the free.

If you still want to be the child of the bond woman, then you are bound to obey all the laws to be justified, unless you are cursed as the scriptures point out.

You are grudged, sanctimonious, berating, easily irritated and unapproving of others not in his clique. this is evident on this thread. The fact that you refer to your church members has them shows the air you have already. You think you are the enlightened one, managing to tabernacle with the brainwashed hypocrites who have not done proper research. i do beg, hope and pray that you do not sow seeds of discord, discontent and disrespect in their midst. Sometimes, sheep are better off with their kind and a good shepherd. Than to have some disgruntled folk showing them freedom and light that takes one nowhere. So, anyone that is not of your view just believe what a pastor says, and does not look deep into the scriptures? You must be the deepest not only deeper.

frosbel: no , he/she is not clear.

I am ready to discuss this with you point by point in an amicable way if you are ready for it.

Woah, you speak on his behalf now? Easy mr, easy.

BTW, your drumboy wan employ me for the other thread na. If he no give me employment letter, i fit consider your offer

frosbel: This is for those MOG who intentionally preach on the TITHE knowing it is a FRAUD :

Exodus 20:17 : Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.

You're not even ashamed that you lied, giving a false report. because you know most folks would not watch the youtube video, you decided to come up with a lie about trouncing and awkwardness. is this the freedom you are calling folks into? The freedom to lie and not have a conscience, and freedom to do all sort of childish things like you can now drink anything or wear anything, freedom not to go to heaven. That is not the freedom Jesus shed His precious blood for.

haibe: Yes in the western part, trousers were known foe men but other parts have it for both sexes

So because the western parts see trousers as for male only at that time means other part of the world should melt down with the standard of the western culture?

i'm not here to argue about parts. Is Nigeria a Western part? i said it is common and undeniable general knowledge. i am most interested in the scripture and its application to what i know. not to some unknown, or to some alleged thing that happened in the antartic in 1820. i know my village, i know my country, and most people i know, literate and illiterate agree to the simple fact that trousers are male clothing. i also know that that agreement is changing for some in the recent decades.

So did God tell you trousers(which man made) are to be and forever be for men only? or you haven't asked God?

What did God tell you about shirts too which women now wear?

Women have always worn shirts, do not be dull of hearing. BTW, why not focus on what is being discussed, TROUSERS?

There are female's shirts too, does God hate this.

Also is the trouser of a male same with a female's
Is the shirt of a male same with a female's?

Did you hear yourself at all? FEMALE shirts, good qualifier. Females have always had shirts that is the point. The same point cannot be made for trousers. trousers have pertained/belonged to men since like forever now. According to Deut 22v5,
"Women are not to wear men's clothing, and men are not to wear women's clothing; the LORD your God hates people who do such things.

Okay for the sake of this argument and since you have tried to equate all upper garments as shirts, I will give a definition of shirt.

Charvet shirt from the
1930s, Norsk
Folkemeuseum , Oslo.

A shirt is a cloth garment for the upper body.
Originally an undergarment worn exclusively
by men, it has become, in American English,
a catch-all term for a broad variety of upper
body garments and undergarments. In
British English, a shirt is more specifically a
garment with a collar , sleeves with cuffs,
and a full vertical opening with buttons or
snaps. (North Americans would call that a
"dress shirt", a specific type of "collared
shirt". A shirt can also be worn with a
necktie under the shirt collar.

www.en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shirt

Even Wikipedia shows that shirts were originally for men.

But okay by shirt now, I mean button down shirts, like the one SisterMe said is sinful

So am asking you, does God hate this shirt on ladies too?

Why give A definition of shirt, you are giving a specific. i gave a general, showing that shirts are upper body cloth, not just the designer specifics. There are different TYPES of shirt. you are trying to tie the definition to one. It has TRADITIONALLY being more than one. it is a catch-all term for a broad variety of upper body garments and undergarments. i'm quoting you BTW in case you did not read what you posted. i've been harping on the basic, general, definition. i never denied that there are FEMALE shirts. i even defined the blouse as a female shirt.
Button down shirts are not indecent BECAUSE of it belonging to men. The argument i've heard for its indecency has being that of exposure, not about pertaining to men. It is said to sometimes expose the female's underwear or even the main thing sef, especially if the person is busty. That's the argument i have heard about why some do not wear it.

lol, I do not keep the law of moses and so I am not bound to obey, only people who want to go to heaven by obeying laws are bound to obey all (See James 2:10)

Like I have said I am being led by the Holy Spirit and not the law

But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under
the law. Galatians 5:18

you're lolling. You got the point right. Oh but you have to argue and give a robust reply, thumbs up. i did not say, neither is it taught by those churches that they go to heaven by obeying laws. You asked that if i do not obey some other 612 laws, and i rightly pointed you to some of them that you obey. you said you are not bound to obey all, so why are you binding me or others to obey all? Are we under the old covenant or the new? i guess from your talk, your pastor is led by the law?

Mark Miwerds: I never made such a concession, nor will I ever make such a concession.

I have already said, "If God lays it on my heart to post in a tithe thread, I will do so."

Candour said the below

OK DrummaBoy, I'll go a step further. I'll not participate on any tithe related thread for the entire duration of the discussion and until a week after. Though I still wonder why but no wahala sha.

See this as a concession so you don't accuse me of not cooperating.

Thanks

And drumboy said

Thank you Candour and Mark.

@Image, they have made the concessions; what do you say?

Sorry, i thought you were both agreed. My conditions stand, and i have also made my concession by agreeing to Candour's concession.

Goshen360: You're always shifting post ever since I truly came to know you. You cherry pick the law where suitable to justify your opinion. I'm divorced to the Mosaic through Christ and never have any intercourse with it and you know it. I can't pick something in the law and say it applies but when it comes to other hard ones, I hide under it is being sacrificial or ceremonial or whatever you choose to call it.

Deuteronomy wasn't written to Christians and should not apply to Christians.

You need to learn the art of staying on point, and actually commenting on the posts that you quote. i have shifted no post. You are free to show us simply how i have shifted post. On the contrary, i have being pleading almost that posts should not be shifted. The topic and the discussion is on women wearing TROUSERS, the main text being Deut 22v5. i have been harping now that we stay with that and at least understand that. Haibe and co have being the ones insisting that we thrash out SHIRTS or that we go and look at some other verse like say verse 11 or something. i have asked for the meaning of Deut 22v5, i do not think they replied. So stop accusing me falsely and deal intelligibly with what i have written.
i'm not interested in your marital or divorce status or intercourse routine, just deal with the thread topic. Also, kindly mention the books and chapters written to you abi to christians. i think i've heard you say the gospels are not written to you too. Let's have a sort of guide or list of books that you use. At least i will be able to relate with you on those lines.

OLAADEGBU: That is what you get when you agree to a debate that has been organised by anti tithers, you get set up!

frosb is lying BTW. i watched that debate and there was nothing trouncing or awkward about it. In fact, the majority of the audience was in support of the nigerian man that was for tithes, and they clapped for him till the end. Same can not be said for Russell. There however was one embittered man in the audience that almost burst into tears when he was talking the second time, he is an antitither. You could easily see that something was eating him up.

DrummaBoy: Thank you Image123.

Although I did not get it: will you want Rhymeyjohn as your ally or you want someone else?

The concept of an ally was not originally mine, it was suggested by Gombs and I latched on it because I felt it will give the discuss flesh. Two is better than one, remember?

I will request that your team look up the rules and regulations on page 4; I will adapt your request and add it the rules there now, say rule no. 12.

As for obsession with tithe talking, you will need to read the OP; I am tired of tithe debates too. And that is why I asked for this one to be a discuss not a debate. I really hope we would have an edifying time.

Thanks again Image123.

i'm asking for Rhymejohn's permission. He showed interest. i do not get/understand the ally thing. Is it that Mark will say his own, then candour will say his own, then the tither will say his own. How does it work? If anyone is interested in being the ally, no qualms. i'm not using my preferences but theirs. i do await Rhymej's approval though.

tensor777: Am I Image123? What concerns me with what he wrote? You need to take that up with him when he comes back.
And why would I want to put on a blouse/female shirt?

Hehehe, lovely. Don't mind him. Trying to create division, disagreement and confusion. You clearly said male shirts and he said female shirt. but he quickly became blinded and blurred/tried to blur issues with just shirt.

Gombs: ^^
The above looks like soliciting!

#Weird

No mind them. See soliciting oh.
Okay @drumb, no wahala. i'll take it up so far as my conditions still stands i.e the concessions Mark and candour are making/made not to talk about tithe in any other thread for the period of the discuss. That includes me and my "ally" BTW. And of course, also good now is Rhymeyjohn's permission since he is interested. Dunno how this ally thing works and if my tithing ogas will have the time. Its obvious we are all tired of endless tithe talk, don't know how it is such an obsession for the average antitiher here to want to talk about tithe. So, my tithe friends, if you're interested in ally work, oya oh start jogging, lol. If not, i'll do just fine with these fellows, i truly understand your stance.
Let's hear from Rhymeyj, if he agrees, i'll bring in one or two things and then we start.

haibe: okay

haibe, hope you are clear now?

Goshen360: ^ You can always go to wiki to support anything on your own desire. It's dangerous to have an opinion and just looking for bible verse to support it. Try to rightly divide the word of truth!

All the links are not wiki na. Some are Candour and VickyO. i gave him wiki because they earlier thought i was making up the definitions. i also gave Microsoft Encarta at some point. It's dangerous to have an opinion and just looking for bible verse to support it. Try to rightly divide the word of truth! Listen and meditate deeply on that Gosh.

haibe: Its the 16th page now, here is what I have noticed about the anti-female trousers guys

1). None of them have been able to explain how Deuteronomy 22:5 referred to trousers.

SisterMe is doing an excellent job, a very commendable one. To add to and support it, She has explained you only failed to listen.
Deu 22:5 "Women are not to wear men's clothing, and men are not to wear women's clothing; the LORD your God hates people who do such things.
It is common knowledge and agreed to by many even on this thread that trousers were known as men's clothing until just recently in the fashion world. Vicky said it here
Candour said it too here
i recall you used to say it too here for instance.

2). None have been able to prove that trousers are made "strictly" for men

As it is, no one can prove that anything is made "strictly" for anyone. That is why you should allow God to guide you instead of seeking to force people to see reason in your new POV.

3). None have been able to explain why as a man they can't wear female's trousers and vice versa

Why? Because if there is anything like female tousers, Deut says "Women are not to wear men's clothing, and men are not to wear women's clothing; the LORD your God hates people who do such things.

4). None have been able to justify females wearing shirts which was initially for men too

Shirts were not initially for men. i have previously shown you that upper garments are referred to as shirts. A blouse is simply a female shirt. Here is a wiki link that says of blouses [4] Traditionally, the term has been used to refer to a shirt which blouses out AND .[1] Today, the word most commonly refers to a woman's shirt
i also showed here under types of shirts that the singlet, the modern camisole and even haltertops are seen as types of shirts in the general sense.

5). None have claimed to obey all other laws in Deuteronomy 22 even though breaking one is as good as breaking all.

Do you obey any of this or you flout them too using your excuse?
Deu 22:1 If you see your brother's ox or his sheep wandering, do not go by without helping, but take them back to your brother.
Deu 22:2 If their owner is not near, or if you are not certain who he is, then take the beast to your house and keep it till its owner comes in search of it, and then you are to give it back to him.
Deu 22:3 Do the same with his ass or his robe or anything which has gone from your brother's keeping and which you have come across: do not keep it to yourself.
Deu 22:4 If you see your brother's ox or his ass falling down on the road, do not go by without giving him help in lifting it up again.

Like i said, it is like a thief saying he will not stop stealing because he still does some other bad stuff and would not like to be a hypocrite. Where is the room for growth and putting off?

6). None have been able to explain why Deuteronomy 22:5 applies to us and not other 612 laws..I think the only person who did a bit of justice here is "SisterMe", only that her words couldn't justify what the scriptures requires as regards obeying the law

What other 612 laws are those? Do you obey any of these so called 612 laws? If yes, are you not indebted to keep the remaining. i am certain that love your neighbour is under these so called 612. Thou shall not steal, kill or covet are there. Idolatry and honouring parents are in these 612. Do you also flout them under this excuse?

7). Some who hold to this believe give an exception like weather, etc.

What is your interpretation of Deuteronomy 22v5?

. All other persons have no point, they keep ranting false preachers, end time preachers, satan messengers, you will.end up in hell, etc without defending their claim that these ladies will actually go to hell.

You have done likewise, you have no ground to sound holier than them. You have called others all sort of names and made many wild assumptions about each person not in your support.

From the above observations, it is safe for me to conclude that:

1). These christians are not really sure of what they believe

Inability to explain what one believes is not always a major problem. Not everyone can explain things. It is with the heart that true belief is done, not with the brain. Brain talk depends on hearing a convincing speaker most often.

2) These christians are legalists and not the Christians they think they are

Duh. They are not christians because they do not share your viewpoint on trousers? Yet you castigate those of them that feel the same way.

3) These christians are quick to judge.

You seem quicker recently.

4) These christians do not do a proper research on dressing, how it came about and how it applies, how dressing depends on a culture.

Like that is the essential thing to go do research on. You keep saying it does not matter and appearance is nothing, but we all should go do proper research, whatever that means. i guess anyone who does not agree with you is ignorant, an hypocrite, brainwashed and has not done proper research. congrats on your proper research. Hope it gets you a few feathers.

5). This christians are so much into man made doctrines.

Yours is heaven made na. Proper research my foot.
i've seen many a person who would leave a church to go wear trousers, as in is that liberation? Is that the freedom you are talking about? Some who can never enter some church or accept an invitation because they do not agree with their viewpoint. Is that how Christ was? Is that the freedom He purchased? Freedom to wear what i feel like? Really? i'd rather keep the freedom that i have. The freedom over sin, over satan, over sickness, over condemnation, over eternal punishment, over myself. These are more precious to me than some spooky freedom that makes the receiver grudged, sanctimonious, berating, easily irritated and unapproving of others not in his clique.

.

jdilight: Pleasing God is the first step and walking on water or feeding the multitude is part of the big picture too.

lf l may ask, How do you please God?

Pleasing God is what is required. Without faith, it is impossible to please God. Jesus pleased God in His life all through out for 30 and more years. This is the example that every disciple/believer is expected to follow. Not every believer will do the ministry or miracles Jesus did. Not many will turn water into wine or walk on water. But we can all please God in our corners. Jesus did not wait doing nothing for 30 years. He was busied pleasing God, and before He did any miracle, He had the testimony that He pleased God. Miracles and wonders are not exactly signs or benchmark of pleasing God. In fact, Jesus said,
Mat 7:22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
Mat 7:23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

Many people are doing miraculous things today without pleasing God. Pleasing God is rooted in faith in Him and obedience to Him in all things and at all times. Pleasing Him at work and at home, in your speech and in your thoughts/thinking, in your plans and ambitions, in front of everybody and in the front of nobody.

vickyO: I never said you mentioned hell.
Point noted.

you told me "please don't go about judging those who do not hold your views. They will not go to hell, why? cause the Bible never said trouser wearers won't inherit the Kingdom of God.
Keep your doctrine to yourself". Why were you telling me these? Also, you did not tell me your interpretation of Deut 22v5?

vickyO: Trousers wasn't mentioned in that verse. You guys were trying to fit it into your notion.
Did I insult anyone? I doubt that.
You called me illogical at a point, it happens during arguments so I let it pass.
Well, let bygones be bygones.

You stick to your doctrine but please don't go about judging those who do not hold your views. They will not go to hell, why? cause the Bible never said trouser wearers won't inherit the Kingdom of God.
Keep your doctrine to yourself, preach the message of Christ, live a holy life and live in peace with all men. God bless you.

Hmmm, you doubt that you insulted anyone, that's serious. What is your interpretation of Deut 22:5? -i do not recall calling you illogical though., i never mentioned a thing about hell or judgement, i wonder why you bring that up. i have no doctine. Kindly keep your understanding to yourself too and do not let it affect your emotions negatively with people not on the same page with you.

vickyO: @ the bolded
It's cause you misinterpreted it.
By the way, you insulted others too, your sorry attitude is just a façade.
Just siddown for chair dey look, no talk again.

No, i did not misinteprete it. The interpretation is lmost straight forward. Folks like you are tryin to nullify it by bringing up other passages and calling others names like deluded, brainwashed, old etc. What is the/your interprettion of Deut 22:5?
how can you claim that i insulted others and say that you are not. Who did i insult and what was the insult na?

vickyO: Your post was offensive some what. So I told you to cool down.
I have friends who do not buy my opinion and we're good.
I hate no one. Christ said we should love.
And please stop playing Victim.
It's really annoying.

i'm the victim na. i've being falsely accused and labelled. Folks have being emotional on me like i wrote deut22 or something. Good to hear that you do not hate me.

vickyO: Why are you still on this thread? I thought you had proven your point.
Quote the post I claimed to be a mature Christian.
I'm human, I show emotions. The post was funny to me, what's your ish with that?
It's the truth, they are being delusional meaning they've got a false idea about trousers. It's not an insult.


Just go sit in a corner, and cool down.

i'm irritating you alrilght? Make i go sit down for corner oh, i tried to delude myself into thinking i would not be hated by christians because i do not buy their opinion.

vickyO: Dude I like you. you say the truth in a bluntly funny way.
God bless you....

Bluntly funny indeed. Its open to see how emotional you all are over this. Folks that seem not in agreement with you are delusional, brainwashed, follow follow their buush pastor etc. Yet, you are the ones claiming christian maturity and freedom.