₦airaland Forum

Abeg commot dia jor frosbel. Biblical this and biblical that...

There's nothing wrong in a church asking its workers to dress the part and look official. Would you prefer ushers & pastors be shabbily dressed? I visited a church once where the pastor was actually wearing pajama pants with a shirt over it...a church of at least 500 in attendance and it was so distracting. When you congregate amongst other believers there is nothing wrong in putting forth a good foot and looking proper - as long as it is not done distastefully, competitively (women take note lol) or in a manner that distracts.

The verse you quoted is not applicable - it only matters if the church is treating people who are attending differently based on how they appear. I don't think there is any (real) church that would turn you away simply because you wore jeans & trainers (darn Brits ) sneakers.

@Moredendisc, Goshen - sorry guys, didn't mean to not reply sooner, forgives moi .

@the issue of God 'hating'...
I almost added the very thing moredendisc stated, that the verses talking about God 'hating' are simply due to translational shortcomings...that is certainly a very plausible view. I personally do not see the 'hate' on par with the kind of petty human emotion of hate we understand, but rather a deeper one that (very important) is not in conflict with His ability to simultaneously love the sinner. Much like He chose us - BUT yet we also chose Him. We can open a separate thread to discuss further brothers .

Godbless!

lol, Enigma smile very well oh lol.

musKeeto: Interestingly, I also had the same experience but mine was from a post on the Science/religion section... Got resolved quickly though... Post and ban...

Hmmm interesting...are you able to post there now? from your profile it says that you are still banned till the 5th.

Hi JeSoul, how body?

Body dey oh my dear brother...aside from this nasty sprained ankle I obtained playing with my company soccer team...the one time I try to play striker lol, instead of playing my defense jeje. Ain't no stopping me tho...I'm gearing up for tennis season busted foot or not.

Wassup on ur side? India is a big (and 'happening') country...

Enigma: Ah, I didn't know about the 2 weeks part. To be honest, it is about time I retired (or at least take another extended break as I once did) from the Religion section, if not from the whole Nairaland sef. Just a little more unfinished business . . . . . . .

I rebuke that spirit of retirement and every spirit of extended break...the business is not only unfinished - it will never finish self. Abeg, pack the layers of your agbada on your shoulder well jor and don't go nowhere. Tanka .

Enigma: Thanks Jesoul

The post was just a little attempt at an 'in-joke' with another poster, so I wasn't going to make a fuss. Plus, I reckoned I was going to be banned for about an hour --- again not a big deal.

Oh, and flattered about the 'following'.

Regards to all.

Regarded! thanks

and oh, new NL anti-spambot action is to ban 'spam' for 1 hr and 2 weeks lol. If you noticed on your profile the ban was to end Mar 5th. We can't have you inactive that long...what would the evangelicals do without you?

[quote author=PAGAN 9JA]ok thnx Sister.[/quote]U welcomes sir

@Enigma,
in case you're watching, I saw the spambot got you (one of the 'perks' of following you ). I've unbanned & untagged the post. Cheers.

^nice thread. You didn't post your own now

For me it has to be:

2 Corinthians 5:15 - and He died for all, so that they who live might no longer live for themselves, but for Him who died and rose again on their behalf.

It reminds me my life is not my own and I have to reflect that in my daily choices - and that my purpose is His purpose and never to lose sight of that truth.

Damn those meat pies

and @Damiso, that spinach & turkey party looks delicious!

[quote author=PAGAN 9JA]MOD why is my requested topic not yet on the front page?[/quote]MMW submitted it...I'll resubmit it just in case it got lost in the shuffle.

@other posters, I'll submit your threads.

plaetton: When you are the supreme God, the definer of good and evil, who understands love and suffering, making rules/passing guidlines for something DEFINITELY is the same as approval of that act.
Yahweh did not give a guideline for eating pork because he forbade it. He did not give guidelines for adultery or beastiality because he forbade them.
However, he did give guidelines for commerce, loans and debts, slavery, because , he approved of them.

Your opinion sir and it is well respected .

Kay 17: @jesoul

Slavery did get guidelines and regulations. But all that depends on how one reads the Bible. But is love possible with Slavery?

To ensure we are actually talking about the same concept, I need to understand what/how you define love sir Kay. We are all familiar with Paul, Philemon & Onesimus and the slave-master relationship in a christian context. There was a plea for love & compassion in the context of 'slavery' - is this what you're asking?

^lol. Okay madam, apologies.

Kay 17: From a literal reading of the Bible, Slavery was approved, should we conclude the same for homosexuality??

Yea Love is always being preached in the Bible, yet is Love possible side to side with Slavery??

I don't understand your point here Kay. I want to stress making rules/ passing guidelines etc etc for something is not the same as 'approval'. And again, your own understanding of what love is is different from the Christian. Cheers friend.

panafrican: Thanks. This is clear !

welcome sir.

[quote author=*Shollypopz]Is ur hand itching u to ban users?? Are u alright?? Why d heck did u ban "Shollypopz?"

Insulting, derailing?? On what thread?? I can't remember when last I was on this section, what the hell?! I scanned through the threads on the first page of this section and did not find my ID, so where d hell did this ban come from??

Did u forget to take ur medicine, see me see trouble ooo [/quote]I mistakenly banned you in the wrong section. It's 'fixed' now. You're banned in the religion section.

Kay 17: @jeSoul

Would you say the Biblical directives against homosexuality are the exceptions for the expression of Love?

And while leafing through Mosaic laws, I found that the institution of slavery was regulated. Probably to make it less inhuman, yet personhood was negotiable. And slavery was very rampant in the times of the apostles. Therefore, should themes like Love outweigh and be preconsidered while reading directives, or equal weights and literal reading?

For the Christian, the Love is absolutely central and colors everything. I'm afraid Ihedinobi's question is exactly on point -

Ihedinobi: What would you say Love is?

^beacuase it would seem your understanding of 'love' is one that would stop short of addressing wrong/sin driven by the sometimes noble intention of not 'hurting' people's feelings - much like the writer of the article.

panafrican: When I click on my name I see Follow: then I see someone's name.

Does it mean this person is reading me at that point of time? or does it mean the person is a stalker.
What "follow" stands for in your vocabulary?

Hi brother Panafrican, when someone is 'following' you it simply means they are subscribed to you and get alerts whenever you post a comment on any thread across the forum. It helps people 'stay in touch' with their favorite posters.

ooman3: OOMAN is banned again. pls unban me

Done. You might keep getting banned trying to open that topic as it is typically spammers that populate this section with those 'join satanism' threads. You should be able to comment on a pre-existing thread - use the search function. Cheers.

[quote author=Chris†Kid]your comparison doesn't fit in well here. Man cannot survive without water or air but can survive without religion.[/quote]and man can also survive without science . But that wasn't the point of my comparison, rather both are important in their own respects.

From your quote Are you implying that having faith means denying what has been proven to be scientific fact? It doesn't matter or it's irrelevant? I'll check out the links, thanks for your input.

You're welcome sir. And no, I'm certainly noy implying that at all. I'm simply saying faith should focus on religious matters and science should focus on scientific matters - and we should not mix the two. I am a person on science myself - and also a person of faith.

Cheers.

Ihedinobi: I've been having an extremely tough time , Enigma, thanks for asking. How have you been, brother?

Just tell me who is messing with my brother Ihedinobi and I'll take them out quick...just say the word...my spiritual 9mm is on standby.

Goshen360: ^In other words, God loves the SINNER(S) but hates the SIN. Hence, Christians should follow same - love the sinners but hate the sin.

*cough cough* erhm...broda Gosh, make I troway one small wrench for your statement above:

small copy & paste job:
Psa 5:4-6
For thou art not a God that hath pleasure in wickedness: neither shall evil dwell with thee. The foolish shall not stand in thy sight: thou hatest all workers of iniquity. Thou shalt destroy them that speak leasing: the LORD will abhor the bloody and deceitful man.

Psalm 5:5,
The boastful shall not stand before Thine eyes; Thou dost hate all who do iniquity.

Psalm 11:5
The Lord tests the righteous and the wicked, and the one who loves violence His soul hates.

Lev. 20:23
Moreover, you shall not follow the customs of the nation which I shall drive out before you, for they did all these things, and therefore I have abhorred them.

Prov. 6:16-19
There are six things which the Lord hates , yes, seven which are an abomination to Him: Haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, A heart that devises wicked plans, feet that run rapidly to evil, A false witness who utters lies, and one who spreads strife among brothers."

Hosea 9:15
All their evil is at Gilgal; indeed, I came to hate them there! Because of the wickedness of their deeds I will drive them out of My house! I will love them no more; All their princes are rebels.

Which is more important, water or air?

https://www.nairaland.com/593999/science-religion-unending-conflict#7622406

JeSoul: Gbam left right and center.

Honestly, I don't think our aim should be trying to 'reconcile science with religion'. In my understanding, Science is simply the quest for knowledge. Its aim is to understand the physical world all around us through observation and experimentation. Religion is also a kind of quest for knowledge -spiritual knowledge, a journey to understand the heart and soul and deeper purpose of life. And trying to apply one quest in the place of the other is what leads to the 'conflict' we see all around us.

In my opinion, a true scientist has no business or concern for that matter making declarative claims like "God doesn't exist. God didn't create the world". What experiments did he carry out to prove this? Is the business of science supposed to be commenting on the business of the intangible? the spiritual? Can you try to examine ice cores deep in the artic circle by using a crystal ball that was made in aba? Can you examine the moral inclinations of a mans heart using a telescope? The disconnect to me is that sharp.

And likewise, people of faith shoot themselves in the foot when they try to comment on scientific matters that they have no obvious clues about. If current carbon dating techniques puts the earth at billions of years, so be it. That is what we know right now and it may or may not change with technological advancements. How does this necessarily reflect negatively on your faith? whether the earth is 6000 yrs or 6billion, the bottom line to a believer should be that faith tells you God made the world - the atomic specifics of how He did so to me are irrelevant - leave that to the scientists!

Science should focus on what science can ascertain and quit commenting on matters far beyond its scope and reach - and likewise to religion.

and also.... https://www.nairaland.com/964581/science-religion-conflict-harmony#11123446

chukkynwob: Let me also use this opportunity to introduce myself,my name is Chuka,i have been inactive since signing up on NL until 2weeks ago or so.

I must admit I was so drawn to God after reading posts from people like Logicboy03,Macdaddy,with all their barrage against God...I was vexed in my spirit at the utter misrepresentation of facts and hence I became active.

Funny how atheists made me love God more,so all thanks to my atheists friends,the more I think about God the more I marvel at His awesomeness.

Also big ups to Davidlan,JeSoul,Enigma,Ihediobi,you all are doing great things here on NL.

Aww... an official welcome to you my dear brother Chuka. Glad to hear of someone who's even become more convicted about God - may He continue to reveal Himself to you each day. Amen! hope to see more & more postss from you .

Nice piece. I believe the writer is sincere...however there are a few shortcomings with his conclusion.

Let me preface by saying one of the coolest dude I've known was a co-worker of mine who was gay. I learned so much from him personally & professionally and as a christian it went a long long way in challenging and eventually changing my perception of homosexuals. Indeed, they are human beings with the same needs of love, acceptance, community etc as everyone else. We are all equally children of the Creator.

Now to the article:
On the writers' conclusion that biblical directives that are against homosexuality should be 'dismissed' much like those on slavery...uhm very very problematic conclusion for several reasons and for the sake of the argument I'll stick with the New Testament since much of the ceremonial laws that applied to the Jews do not apply to modern-day christians.


Exhibit A:
1 Corinthians 6:9-11
Don't you realize that those who do wrong will not inherit the Kingdom of God? Don't fool yourselves. Those who indulge in sexual sin, or who worship idols, or commit adultery, or are male prostitutes, or practice homosexuality, or are thieves, or greedy people, or drunkards, or are abusive, or cheat people-none of these will inherit the Kingdom of God . Some of you were once like that. But you were cleansed; you were made holy; you were made right with God by calling on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

Exhibit B:
1 Timothy 1:8-10
Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully, understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine


1. If he is going to say that biblical interpretation of homosexuality should be restricted to the cultural/contexutal times of the Jews/early christians, then you would also have to dismiss every other descriptor in those verses - liars, perjurers, sexually immoral, thieves, adulterers, drunkards etc etc as equally "cultural" and therefore should also be relegated as only applicable in biblical times.

^or else you would be guilty of selective, cherry-picking of 'sins' you want to excuse to fit with the 'modern times'. In this case, you cannot keep only one baby, and throw out the other babies along with the bath water.

2. His equating of homosexuality to slavery is also problematic - he is comparing an apple to a grapefruit - and regardless of what 'modern christians' feel about it, fact remains the bible never expressly condemns slavery - (and it is noteworty the bible also never expressly condemns many other things, think of womens' rights, tyrannical goverments etc). So this should not be a question of "well, modern christians oppose slavery so they shouldn't also oppose homosexuality because times have changed". On slavery, I don't know why the bible doesn't expressly condemn it - there are plenty of theories out there. Perhaps because it was an accepted part of the society? perhaps because the main goal of Christ wasn't to 'free slaves' but rather to save souls? perhaps Jesus started a movement and expected that out of that revolution, we would change the way we do 'business' in society? I'm inclined towards this position because of the way Jesus treated/interacted with the 'sinners, lowlifes, societally rejected' of His time - He ate, walked, talked, and spent time with them.

^all that said, there is definitely room for todays church to 'evolve' in how we treat homosexuals & the topic in general - less hate, more understanding. Homosexuality enjoys (or suffers) the status of a 'pedestal sin' and is truly considered the most heinous of the vices. But in our bid to handle the matter with wisdom & love, we must also stay true to what the bible actually says, that it is a sin - whether in the 1st, 21st or 81st century.

Cheerios.

Sorry Pagan9ja but this is offensive. You can present your case/thread much better than offending the faiths of the majority of posters here by comparing them to dogs.

ooman2: ooman is banned. pls unban me.

Done.

Anaphylaxis: please where are the mods. why have so many shockingly hateful and racist comments been allowed to go unchecked?

You know what, you're right.

Since you guys cannot discuss in a mature respectful manner, thread locked.

osram pls continue here: https://www.nairaland.com/1195706/pistorious-arrested-shooting-girlfriend-dead

otumfour: Madam mod, can I retaliate .......I'm really itching to here

Oga pls ehn. Thank you for not throwing back. I'll take care of it. Godbless ehn.

amosy007: Mods ...don't delete this post o... As u can see ...am not fighting again ...am only attending to his ignorance ....thanks

Lol, I have heard thank you for not fighting sir.

^Recevied & replied sister.