₦airaland Forum

haibe: lol, it seems you didn't read this thread from the beginning before joining the conversation but anyway lemme ask, where are the dead?

The dead are in different places. Some in hell, some in paradise with the Lord.

haibe: What does the bible say about the state of the dead?

It for instance gives us the state of lazarus and the rich man. It gives us the state of the thief on the cross, of Elijah and of Moses, of the souls at the altar in Heaven. These are all biblical teachings of what happens to the dead.

haibe: lol, am backing out too if I find out they still hang on to their pastors words without searching the scriptures to confirm them.

It is not pastor's word, it is what the Bible says. It is what Jesus the creator of hell, taught.

haibe: A person Is detained till he defends himself in the court of law and so still have the tendency to be made free.

So are you saying after judgement, a person initially in hell can still make heaven? If not what is the essence of detaining him in hell before judgement.

i used the detention example for better understanding to show that it was not the final sentence. Police detention/custody is not exactly a palace experience. Some devils are kept in detention too till later. Evil spirits are not comfortable as they are, that's why they seek to possess people/bodies.
Jud 1:6 And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.
They do not have the tendency to be free. They are detained so they are not roaming about before sentence/judgement. Criminals are not let loose before sentence, they are usually detained. This is common na.

frosbel: ha - opt out clause ! ( really means I have no clue ) .

There was no opt out, i answered his question. The fact remains that not everything answers to logic. And a believer is not primarily driven by logic but by faith. If Abraham was driven by logic, he will not be the father of faith or the friend of God that we know today. Same thing for Jesus, Moses, David, and all the prophets and apostles. The virgin birth does not succumb to logic, neither does the new birth, or sin or eternity. Logic BTW is relative. Not everyone has to logically understand before doing things or believing things. Some folks have logical understanding of how the human body works, some how diseases come and go, some how atoms work, some how ICs work, some how the phone and laptops specifications work. You do not have to be a specialist to use a phone or get healed from a sickness. Not everyone logically understands that the earth is revolving around the sun at an amazing speed. If a christian is saying let me understand everything very well and logically before i believe or take action, i do not think that is the highest level of operation of a christian. That is why i'm telling him not to be too logical about it. The just lives by faith, not by logic.

haibe: how come satan and his demons who committed a greater sin are yet to be thrown to hell fire until the time of judgement?

Ask God why. You're a brother, right? BTW, nobody is in hell fire yet, neither was that said or suggested. i'm wondering why you are invoking a fallacy.

And you call paradise a place of happiness, will you be happy watching your loved one burning in hell?

Is Jesus happy or in Heaven? He is said to watch people in torments. You're trying to conform the Word to your logic and emotion.

frosbel: ^^^^

I don't know about others, but I have one single motive and that is to expose charlatans and robbers in the pulpit so that the precious sheep can be set free from their control and group thinking and use their money for their own families and needs.

The normal human will do excellently with 90%. Infact, 90% is excellent and A in most grading systems globally. i think something else is eating you, not the tenth. You do not claim to be a sheep or fellowship with sheep. i do not think you a sheep, so why the obsession for the precious sheep? The sheep that me i know take the spoiling of their goods joyfully and are not so engrossed in material wealth.

DrummaBoy: @ All

After this post I will be redesigning the OP post because close to three days now since the offer for a discuss on tithing has been given, we are yet to find one person who is willing to discuss with Mark Miwerds and Candour on this subject of tithing.

So we are opening up the request and asking any tither to come and discuss with Mark/Candour on this subject of tithing with the intention of shedding light on the matter and not to win an argument.

The person who expresses willingness to enter into the discuss shall discuss with Mark/Candour on what the rules of the thread will be.

You will both agree on who your moderator will be.

You will agree on the mode of presentation of the presentation.

And we trust that God will be glorified at the end.

We hereby invite any willing tither to a discussion with Mark/Candour on tithing.

Can you imagine? Most of the folks who believe in tithing have being saying for ever now that it is not about arguments and circular talks. We have being talking against continual and unending talk on tithe, and proliferation of tithe threads. Antitithers sometimes open threads to argue about tithe at the rate of one per day if not more, when they are in the mood. Now and yet again, you still want to talk about tithe, na food? Do you never have anything important to discuss or talk about? Jesus did not think it so important, neither do we. But antitither's joy is not complete without tithe talk, why? It is a major indicator for most of you folk, why? It is what determines brotherhood and who is false or true for most of you, why?

i am certain that most of you will still open tithe threads after this, and participate actively on new tithe threads after this. Your minds are made up, so what exactly is the point?

haibe: Thank you for this, their hypocrisy is becoming clearer and clearer.

Is it good for women to put on what you call male trousers?

haibe: Trousers are not immoral, infact they cover up more than skirts.

Indeed??

haibe: Either a male or a female, Assuming it's the male which seems obvious, so who is the sinner. the male or the female?

You cannot just make such assumptions. Every upper garment is a shirt in a sense.

haibe: you didn't answer my question.

who made shirt a unisex cloth?

If shirt can be a unisex clothing, why can't trousers be a unisex clothing too?

No, either a male started wearing it or a female started wearing it.

So who is the sinner for wearing it later on, male or female

i answered na. You said "Who made shirt a unisex cloth?"i said Everyone has being wearing them since forever.
"If shirt can be a unisex clothing, why can't trousers be a unisex clothing too?" Because it is a male clothing, like the bra is female for instance.
A shirt is a cloth garment for the upper body. SHIRT 1 : a garment for the upper part of the body: Like some of your argument line, we do not see the word "shirt'' in the Bible, the kjv that is. But it is general knowledge since that everyone wears them. All upper body garments are shirts. So, technically, except somebody is clothless, the person is wearing a shirt.
Note that i'm not talking about sin or no sin, we are talking about whether the trouser belongs to men or to women, try to stay on point.

rationalmind: Yes. Remb I'm an atheist and a sinner. I can't even remb how to pray and even if I can, God doesn't answer the prayers of the unrighteous. That's why I need you to pray for me.

can't help you then. you should repent, then pray or get quality advice.

haibe: you didn't answer my question.

who made shirt a unisex cloth?

If shirt can be a unisex clothing, why can't trousers be a unisex clothing too?

Simply because we all know that from the beginning, it was not so.

haibe: No, either a male started wearing it or a female started wearing it.

So who is the sinner for wearing it later on, male or female

Who started wearing first then, at least we deal wih what we know or have light on. Him that knoweth to do.

haibe: So the saints will be watching the sinners burn in hell?? yes or no

i do not know. You ask if it is possible. i have shown you proof that it is possible.

haibe: So you mean God will first throw them in hell first and later on after judgement through them in lake of fire Talk about double punishment.

So tell me, is it logical to you that someone will be punished before judgement?

Easy on the logic brother. Not everything answers to logic.
BTW, there are different judgements. The first is like being in detention awaiting final sentence. the lake of fire is the final where they all enter the place.

FOLYKAZE: His gal is eyeing the tall and handsome guy down the street. Also he is a dwarf.

eeyah, he should go for a lady that is impressed with his height na. If she is running from him because she saw a taller man, nothing stops her from running to another taller man even if he became taller.

haibe: How did I interpret Abraham's bosom as paradise, I was only hanging on the assumption that the parable was literal.

The rich man had no offence, why was he in hell?

The way that parable began is enough prove to tell you its a fictional story trying to drive out a moral lesson.

"There was a certain man"

What is the name of the man?

By your assuming that "Also any poor man or beggar will be in paradise." You should remember that the parable talks about Abraham's bo.som not paradise, but you rightly interpreted it as paradise by stating it in your assumption.
It is safe for you to know that it is the righteous that enter the paradise while the unrighteous and wicked go to hell. Even the pharisees knew this as common knowledge.
That a passage starts with a phrase "certain man"does not in any way prove that the event is unlikely to occur or that it is fiction. Here are some other certain men that did occur.
Gen 37:15 And a certain man found him, and, behold, he was wandering in the field: and the man asked him, saying, What seekest thou?
Luk 14:2 And, behold, there was a certain man before him which had the dropsy.
Joh 5:5 And a certain man was there, which had an infirmity thirty and eight years.
Act 3:2 And a certain man lame from his mother's womb was carried, whom they laid daily at the gate of the temple which is called Beautiful, to ask alms of them that entered into the temple;
We do not know the names of these men but do you also think they were fictional?

Am not talking about Jesus or angels here, is lazarus an angel? or is lazarus Jesus?

So will the saints be viewing those in hell burning?

Also is hell and paradise divided by a gulf??

You're trying very hard to reason things. i hope to be able to help you, but important things are not obtained that way or deeply in that way. Jesus said that when we get to Heaven, we will be like the angels. i'm not hoping for a debate where i win. i hope that you re-ask the Lord for better understanding in these things. Are hell and paradise not divided by a gulf? i mean what kind of question are you asking? Of course, they are not in the same location or a fence or stone throw away.

rationalmind: Are u praying for me or not

You don't know how to pray? What do you need extra height for?

haibe: Who made shirt a unisex cloth?

If shirt can be a unisex cloth, why can't trouser be a unisex cloth?

Everyone has being wearing them since forever.

Ukuts gp: where is trouser mentioned in that verse? And are u doing all d laws in that chapter? If u are nt doing it, then u are an hypocrite.

help your bp mr man, its not a do or die. Mention cloths that pertain to men, and cloths that pertain to women? Thanks.

haibe: If trousers are strictly for men, can you prove that to me?

Also if trousers are strictly for men, shirts are strictly for who

There are unisex clothings na like some socks and some goggle for instance. But until just some decades ago, there was no debate about who trousers were for. Like someone already showed, men had even being wearing them since Bible times. even cross dressers today know this. You're aware that the bra is for women?

haibe: hmmm, so those in paradise can be viewing thosw burning in hell

Yesss, at least Jesus is said to be able to view them, i believe Jesus is not in hell?
Rev 14:10 The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb:

haibe: And was Jesus in paradise that day

You have some proof that He was not?

haibe: That's an unnecessary work you are giving me, the point here is the story in a parable is not important but the moral lesson.

If we are to take that parable literally, then any rich man will go to hell since the rich man had no offence.

Also any poor man or beggar will be in paradise.

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh haibeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee. Unnecessary work abi you have no answer. Who says that the story in a parable is not important. i mean, do we just wake up and determine things?
Any rich man can go to hell and any poor man can go to heaven, that is the point, not that all rich men or all poor men. Look at the Bible wholly na. Now, you interpreted Abraham's bo.soms correctly as paradise, but for winning logic and argument sake, you were chatting with someone earlier about how big Abraham's bo.som is. Why na?

haibe: both, and its human reasoning at a point in other to remove the irrationality in thinking trousers are strictly men wears when other wears are worn by both sexes without condemnation from any one.

It seems you are more on the line of according to Deut 22v5 trouser is not for men? No need to be emotional, there is nothing irrational in thinking that trousers are strictly men wears. It was something very rational to see just a couple of decades ago. It's like today when a public official in Nigeria laments that people are calling common stealing corruption(whatever that statement means). In his world view, stealing has become so common and part of life that he sees it as normal. But God does not see it as normal, stealing will never be normal.
Deuteronomy is quite straight.
Deu 22:5 The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.
One may bring up other arguments like arguing if it is a sin, or if people obey other scriptures etc. But as for Deut 22v5 oh, It is not right for a woman to be dressed in man's clothing, or for a man to put on a woman's robe: whoever does such things is disgusting to the Lord your God.
VERY Clear.

haibe: So you really think when believers die, they go to abraham bosom WOW, Abrahams bosom must be very large like the whole world then.

Try to get moral lessons in parables, most aren't literal.. The focal point of that parable is that because men despise you on earth doesn't mean God does in the hereafter and vice versa.. and so the use of a rich and poor man by Jesus.

kindly supply any three things from all of Jesus' parables that cannot happen or does not happen.

OP's conversation bothers a lot on human reasoning. Almost anything can be reasoned out to be not that bad BTW, depends on who is doing the reasoning and convincing. One thing is unclear. What is being discussed. Is it that trouser is a sin or not, or is it that according to Deut 22v5 trouser is not for men?

frosbel: this was a parable.

And so what?

Candour:

See me laughing with you. Its already very hilarious indeed.

You no wan laugh with me before? Laugh oh, its better.

frosbel: ^^^

pure evidence that you are uncertain on your position.

simply answer the question oga