₦airaland Forum

contd,
"Entreat me not to leave thee." How we ought to tell that to Jesus, our best friend and Head who is closer than a mother. It's a response of love, Lord I want to die and live in Your presence. Anywhere you go is where I go, and I'm not going anywhere without you. I'm not living/lodging anywhere without you.
Many 'christians' are only ready to go to church with Jesus. Jesus is not at work, at home or at play. Jesus' people are not their people. They have their clique that they drink together, or grew up together, or from the same town, tribe, or country, or status.
Ruth built a godly relationship and sustained it, we can. It's called commitment. Our relationship with Christ involves commitment. You can be committed, even if Jesus said "leave me alone and go serve your gods." You have NO EXCUSE.

September 1 Ruth 1v16

And Ruth said, Intreat me not to leave thee, or to return from following after thee: for whither thou goest, I will go; and where thou lodgest, I will lodge: thy people shall be my people, and thy God my God:

Relationships are built, and if you know anything about building, building involves WORK. Even when you finished/stopped building, a structure left to itself will decay. Little wonder we see great relationships, even marriages that turn sour. They were left alone, uncatered for, neglected, underestimated.
Ruth and Orpah were daughters-in-law to Naomi. They had an enviable in-law relationship. They had challenged the status quo and embraced a jewish family and their Jehovah. Despite serious drawbacks, they both 'arose' to follow their mother-in-law to know more of her God and His people. This about a decade long relationship was more than a "death do us part" relationship. It was a built relationship, they'd worked it no doubt. But then, Orpah went back to her people and her gods and Ruth was both admonished and commanded to do likewise. What a woman Ruth was! A model to every christian today.e than a "death do us part" relationship. It was a built relationship, they'd worked it no doubt. But then, Orpah went back to her people and her gods and Ruth was both admonished and commanded to do likewise. What a woman Ruth was! A model to every christian today.

This one sure needs help. Devourer ti devour gbogbo e finish.

@thehomer
You're embarrassed. Good! At last we have something in common. i'd also be embarrassed if i was found lying and unable to defend my false accusations. Again, kindly quote
where i said that God
created sickness, or that
God did not create
sickness. Do that or keep mute and move to another point.

@JeSoul
thanks for raising the dead? i guess case closed then.
On 70x7, no be mi talk am. It's here.
"Then came Peter to him, and said, Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me, and I FORGIVE him? till seven times? JESUS SAITH unto him, I say not unto thee, Until seven times: but, UNTIL SEVENTY TIMES SEVEN." (Matthew 18:21-22).
The Corinth passage well handles your query on abuse, except you want to hear something else. She may depart, but can reconcile or stay unmarried. it seems that's what it says?

So you'd say you're embarrassed?

^
What is natural evil?

@JeSoul and co.
i'll disagree like you probably forethought. God does not permit divorce based on adultery but on fornication. And thank God we have grace to forgive our spouses 70 times 7 times unlike the old covenant.
On your 3rd issue, there's no crime or sin without a solid and sympathetic defense. All you need is a good lawyer/advocate. But the Bible has helpfully given a separation go-ahead na.
"And unto the married I command, yet not I, but THE LORD, Let not the wife depart from her husband: But and IF SHE DEPART, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife." (1 Corinthians 7:10-11).
Every marriage can be worked at, just as God can clense the vilest, or you don't have faith ni?

juventino:
You mean God created rules for himself?

Very interesting

Are you saying that God created you?
Very interesting!

mazaje:
So your \god created all the natural evils like diseases, natural disasters, droughts etc. . . .Human's don't use them but they are always attacking humans, no?. . .So your God created disease that affect humans?. . . .You can't have it both ways. . . .Evil as nothing to do with any God, but the way you go about shooting yourselves with some baseless and convoluted hypothesis is mind boggling. . .

No be only mind boggling, it'll soon be mind burgling. You're leaping ahead of what i said, just stay with what i said ehn. I didn't say God created all the natural evils and bla bla. i said GOD CREATED EVIL.
Compare the context of 'we' saying God created earth. It doesn't completely translate that God made your car, plate, website, phone though in a sense all the materials were made by God.

thehomer:
So God created evil but not sickness? Why don't you try being consistent and realizing the implications of your statements?
There are two characters here, man and God and sickness that was created appears. If man did not create sickness, then who did? And note that some sickness is caused by creations like the malaria parasite. According to your Bible, where could such an organism have come from?

i'm convinced you can read and write. Kindly quote where i said that God created sickness, or that God did not create sickness. therailing is ya forte now.

Kobojunkie:
Since you ascribe that to Christians -- may I ask where in the Bible it says exactly that?

Maybe you could tell where in the Bible encourages exactly that. Asides your emotional love for pdp.

Very good contribution by HISChild. Just to add that Jesus did not permit anyone to divorce for adultery but for fornication. And as HISChild as said, and God has taught us, we can forgive. Jesus has brought grace and we can come BOLDLY before the throne of grace to obtain grace in time of need. There's room, grace for forgivenessES and to work our marriages to premium standard.

Who created you?

@dare2think
i said suit yourself, i don't have any problem with giving to 'the poor'. The context of the thread is giving, and the argument is 'to the poor'. You insist that Jesus' emphasis is giving to the poor. I said Jesus sympathizes with the poor but that's not/never his emphasis. Then you go quoting all the passages where you think Jesus mentioned poor.
Note that ONLY 2 of those passages you quoted suggest GIVING to the poor. 2other verses you quoted suggest Jesus saying give to me first, you can think of the poor later. Now if that's emphasis, i'm wondering what's not.
P.S Give to the poor, give to the poor o! PLEASE give to the poor, happy?

i see PA1982 has decided to give me a new name. i'm flattered, which of your postS has been ignored?

A christian shouldn't call anybody ''i.di.ot" whether he's right or wrong.

@Bethor
Genesis 2v8 and 15 are saying about the same thing. So from your direction, which occured first or do we have a third creation too? Were the trees planted after Adam was placed in Eden? Were those rivers positioned after? And so on.
Is this the result of seminary or english class?

lagerwhenindoubt:
singing "don't u wanna be a part of the kingdom" 3 times that's the kingdom of God!!

Wish you'd rather sing like me 'so glad i'm an heir of the kingdom (3ce). Come on everybody.

@homer
Well we def know that man's involvement in evil was not His purpose. Even Eden's fellowship was clear on that. And stop saying what i've not said, i recall that as your pastime. Sickness came after evil, i didn't say God did or didn't create it.

@claremont
Dunno what you're deducing from your hypothesis. But i know though is that in the real life, there were NO inherit cracks in the pot moulded by Potter. The cracks came in after.

Bethor:
THERE HAVE ALWAYS BEEN TWO CREATION IN THE BIBLE IF ONLY PEOPLE WOULD CARE TO LOOK IT UP WITHOUT BIAS.
FIRST CREATION BY GOD AND THE SECOND BY THE LORD GOD.

WOULD EXPATIATE IF I HAVE THE TIME.

i don't want to believe that your truly first post on nl is an heresy?

^?
i was comparing cars to evil, not to humans. And you're already on another paragraph with the 'malaria'. Sickness and pain came as a result of sin.

So all you could do was to go and paste everywhere the word 'poor' was mentioned by Jesus in the gospels and that's your emphasis. Well, suit yourself. You're carried.

^
God is both willing and able to prevent evil. But there are protocols and rules to follow. You don't do everything you're able to do, or willing to do.

God created evil, but not for you to use. It's like blaming the inventor of a car because of car accidents. The point being that the purpose of inventing was not the car accidents. Or you'd go blaming your parents for using a kitchen after you set the building on fire, and burnt it down in your kitchen escapades.

Christianity is an experience of God's kingdom, and the kingdom of God is righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Ghost.

dare2think:
Jesus laid so much emphasis on the poor.

The word "poor" was mentioned so many times when he spoke.

He never mentioned the words "Tithes" or "Tithing" in the bible, yet the word existed during those times.



One would have thought he would have mentioned what was relevant to the lives of his Followers. (He did mention what was/is relevant to the lives of his followers, Tithing was not among)

Each sentence is wrong, why? While i sympathize with whoever you call 'poor', and i believe Jesus sympathizes. Truth is that Jesus didn't lay His emphasis on 'poor' like you're projecting.

Enjoy, no wahala

Cain's wife was either a sister of his, or a niece, or a cousin. It was his relative, i guess that's what you want to hear to give you joy. Even Abraham married his relative. God did not tell them to not do that for obvious reasons.
We all receive instructions both general and specific, from our superiors and parents. Come inside, go to school, go to bed, go and work etc. And we do understand what it means to disobey and when it's not disobedience. I know God gave us all the gift of common sense(although some lost it, some don't use it, some misuse it etc)

InesQor:
I dey o brother man. Before starting sef, you need to realize that your intended deductive "proof" is engendered by a MATHEMATICAL method

Ha InesQor, not all proof is mathematical na. And something being a mathematical method is not same as mathematics. Anyway enjoy.

davidylan:
At least it is stimulating discussion on a controversial subject. I dont see this as a poll as much as a question that forces you to dig back to the bible.

Stimulating discussion? Even the devil was the first recorded to start a stimulating discussion so what profit. The OP(whom i regard btw) said 'another poll', you david say it's not a poll. Well, my hands are off o, i'm shutting the door behind me also(though i'll peep/behold through the keyhole).