mavenbox:

@Davidylan
I laugh in Ekiti-kete, then i somersault in Waffi and finish my laughter in Nupe, shedding tears of fun.

mama-gee:

This is funny as heck.

@mama-gee: Sistah no mind me jare. The OP was such a comic, I had to do my own part!

On Nairaland, I enjoy just two kinds of threads: the ones I can laugh my head off at , and the ones I can learn from . . .

davidylan:

I dont read where it says a christian woman cannot look beautiful, i dont see were the bible says she shld not wear pants or paint her nails or adorn her hair . . . if you wish to marry a deeperlife wife pls go ahead but dont use the bible to support your personal decision. Me i would love to have a woman i can be proud of anywhere.
My 2 kobo

LOL no offense meant at anyone but me I like this Davidylan guy. Way to go!

@JeSoul: I got tired of the gist jare. I think I have flogged the issue too much  (someone may say 'cos Maven is implicated but that won't be quite right 'cos I hardly use make-up)

Please read Hebrews 6 to see the order in which perfection can be attained. Works of love come as a result of faith which is a doctrine of Christ, after the repentance from dead works.

Deepsight, your question to JeSoul is answered in Hebrews 11:13,39,40 those patriachs of faith were not complete before Christ. That was why Jesus said Abraham rejoiced to see his day.

And if you do not take the Bible as inviolable truth, Deepsight, the argument is moot so I may need to stop this discussion just like my friend JeSoul. And why is that? All my responses are by the help of the Holy Spirit, and they are all backed up by the Bible (i have not been quoting the scriptures cos im still posting from my phone, and i like quoting in context using various versions if need be), so all I know of God is invariably found in the Bible, and also from my experience living for God. I cannot discuss salvation outside the whole Bible but from the sermon on the mount.

Deepsight, in answering your question, i want you to know that God knows the human heart in-depth. He made a solution available, but definitely not everyone may understand it. But unlike a school teacher who does not know the limits of her students' understanding, God knows who UNDERSTANDS Christ's sacrifice and yet scorns it. And he knows those who never heard and those who heard but never understood. He knows the moment one gets it and makes a choice to discard it or accept it. So, those two men you mentioned will be justly considered because the one who worshipped Amadioha and was good to men and had the mind to understand Amadioha's rules for life, and lived by it, but was shown the truth, AND UNDERSTOOD IT LIKE HOW HE UNDERSTOOD AMADIOHA but he still rejected it, has rejected God. E.g. The fact that one had always believed that eating fish causes skin cancer, and has researched in it for 30 years does not mean when new undeniable evidence is presented, it should be deliberately ignored. It would be a different matter if they did not understand. This thread is evidence that all the discussants understand, we are just trying to fit it into logical boxes. God and his intents cannot be boxed up this way.

@MyJoe: Lol. Thats no doctrine. Its faith, without which no man can please God. Doctrines interprete the basics of faith, howbeit from varying perspectives. Faith unites our view.

@DeepSight: Ok. Can you please explain why those on the right were called righteous (no pun intended) and "blessed of My Father" and they were said to do those things for "these BROTHERS of mine"? Does that not indicate that this is not fundamental, but instead a secondary criterion? How does one attain righteousness, blessedness and a place in God's family? What is the yardstick? Did Ghandi definitely attain it? How do you know for sure? Do you know that from two people, you may have tried but not tried hard enough, or you may have done your best? Only God would be an impartial judge, and do you know his standards? Can a man know them? If man cant know the yardstick wont it be unjust of God to expect us to just try our best and possibly fail just short of the passmark? No he is just, so since men fell short of their consciences and the law, he made a simple foundation that makes him accept us: his Son. So that we dont need to bother about acceptance, we will ALL be accepted once in Christ, or if you never heard the gospel, it will be based on your mind (only seen by God. Do you know if Gandhi had evil thoughts?) and your outward works seen by all men. But for us, our works will count for our benefit in heaven, just as there are hierarchies on earth, in heaven everyone gets his reward for post-salvation works and thats what Jesus meant here. When we return to earth, the hierarchies will count as well.

Thanks, Kristonium, if we were physically discussing I would have stopped. But since this site may be here for years, you do not know who may visit in years to come and find answers here. Someone willing to understand, someone who found this page via google.

Jesoul, as you have truly said, no doctrine can save any. In fact, all that is required to save one is to accept that Jesus died to pay for their sins and has thus reconciled them to God if they mentally accept the offer (how Adam mentally accepted to sin). My entire explanation was background, which i tot DeepSight would appreciate cos he appears meticulous. Obviously i didnt need to do that.

I said you were screaming "lies" meaning that you were screaming that i was lying. Wait, did you see those quotation marks i.e. "lies". Do you now see why I said you were a blind discussant? It was not a slight on you. Unlike DeepSight and just like Olabowale, You dont read carefully before you respond. Apologies for taking your time with my long post.

@Topic: today we are comparing Gandhi and Christ a la salvation. Sometime in the future, maybe men will worship Job for his longsuffering. He was a good man too.

Deepsight, you made reference to the fact that you do not know many Christians who, by accepting Christ, became a better person? What does a Better Person mean? Who is the judge? Do you remember the man who fulfilled all the law since childhood, including love, and Jesus asked him to sell all he had and follow him but he couldnt? He had fulfilled all human law but that was nothing before God. So, what are the standards for being good? Is it when you give your best to help people, or when you give all, or when you die in the process? If love is the prerequisite for salvation, how much love? How do we know Gandhi hit the mark and didnt stop at 20% because of the human limitations? What is the measure? What are the limits that guarantee a pass mark? Can we know, since God is the judge to weigh out our measures of love or is mankind doomed then?

AIO, having established you as another blind discussant, screaming "lies" without proof and claiming that im a fraud when you dont know jack about me, i just relegated you to a growing list of NL religion folk (headed by Olabowale) that i wont respond to most of the time. Even Jesus didnt answer all the questions asking him to prove himself. I owe you nothing. And nothing more on this topic.


I can hardly wait to leave this field &get on a PC so i can stop this T9 joke. JeSoul summarizes for me again. What wisdom! Let me add, DeepSight, these questions;
1. What does it mean to be a Christian and how does one get it?
2. Is there any difference between Gandhi's teaching and the Gospel of Christ? What are the differences between these hard teachings?
3. The beatitudes was a hard teaching. But was it fundamental, i.e. Can one start out by being pure in heart, meek, or peaceful just of itself, or did Gandhi do it all because he felt like it? Can any human being for the sake of it assume those traits? If so, is there any prerequisite?

Na wa for this AIO guy. Did you Really read what i wrote? The organization may be faulty cos im not wit my laptop now, im using my phone.

When I mentioned Nigeria, could you not see that i was not referring to Nigeria as you have now assumed? I was saying the same way you cant judge a book by its cover and say all Nigerians (or Japanese or russians or Eskimos or Italians, who cares?) are the same, you shouldnt say all Christians are the same. Always try to read through my posts before you start tearing it apart, ok? Maybe you have been rolling with the wrong people, so you keep peddling the lies that you have not met any Christian who was the better for it. I know very many, and time will tell all the more over time. Besides, i can speak for myself, who used to worship idols before i became a Christian as a teenager. You do not know me in reality so starting to pursue the differences in my life is a moot point right now. If you used to be a pastor and this is what you have become, it is only evident that you never got it at all in the first case. Or how can a human being decide to abandon the human life and become a sparrow? If you truly had the life of God, you wouldnt have abandoned it. Its people like you that you must have been referring to when you said people accept Christ and they are not changed. I guess thats what people who used to know you and now look at you from afar will say of you now. Pity.

AIO and KunleOshob have missed the entire point. The fact that there are phony Nigerians does not make us all fraudsters. If there are professed Xtians who do not walk in love, then their faith without works is dead and their reward is sure. Deepsight's point is that salvation has nothing to do with the man Jesus, and if at all it does, it is only about his teachings on love.
That is what God is all about with respect to man: his son dying in our place so as to discharge and acquit us. Jesus death was not a coincidence after he taught on walking in love, as Deepsight would have us believe. THAT WAS THE PLAN FOR SALVATION. The same way Adam went from disobedience to walking in sin to death, Jesus went from obedience to walking in love to life. Its a very simple equation but it is unpalatable to those who are perishing. If one denies THAT simple spiritual equation of Jesus being the last Adam, then that one denies salvation for himself! On earth today there are two types of man with two types of life: Adam and Christ. As long as you have ever heard of Christ, the Adam project for you has been shut down, and you need to choose life or death. Your works wont count for anything until you are in Christ.
Its dead easy. Adam CHOSE to obey Satan's counsel and sin, THUS man inherited sin, Jesus CHOSE to obey God's counsel and be without sin, THUS man inherited life through him. But since all men came through Adam's choice, all men need to come through Jesus' choice too in order to be saved! It does not stop there, for Jesus also had to die in place of ALL the Adam seed. The love that we can walk in, is as a consequence of salvation. Those who walk in love before men and knew of Christ and didnt switch to that line will be judged based on Adam's sin, which they inherited.
I can explain and make it even simpler, but i dont think that is necessary because i notice its often the more intelligent people who dont understand this. Making it simpler wont help them.

When i got notified that MamaGEE had posted i braced myself for comedy but i was wrong. Mama gee!

@Davidylan
I laugh in Ekiti-kete, then i somersault in Waffi and finish my laughter in Nupe, shedding tears of fun.

@Tudor: Haba, why u dey antagonize the man! We, each one, all have our take, or the lack thereof, on RELIGION!

@DeepSight: I get what you mean about the perfection of divinity and how man cannot attain it. Very well understood. Seeing your take, do you think it is possible for man to ever understand that perfect will of divinity for himself/herself in order to attempt to live by it, since divinity is entirely perfect and man is entirely hopeless with regards to correctness or perfection i.e. Holiness? If so, how can that be done? If not, why acknowledge divinity since the spheres of interaction of mankind and divinity will never be concentric except by random chance?

Deepsight, I am off the pc once again. Im mobile now and even T9 isnt so nice. Proper replies tomorrow. As for the long gist, i wanted to be sure that you and all other readers do not misunderstand me at all, since your question is deep. After all, as Jesoul said, all of this has been discussed in the past, and truthfully one such thread with you and Davidylan was where i 1st saw you on Nairaland. But my own method is to teach as if we are in kindergarten, so that even if afterwards you still do not agree, the evidence will be there for those who will have questions in years to come.

God never changed the criteria. He is indeed perfect. His purposes are gradually revealed to man because we cannot comprehend it all at once. His purpose has always been Jesus, and the Bible says the law was a schoolmaster to train people in preparation for Grace. Jesus is a fulfilment of all the eras, and it wasnt God changing the rules, it was Adam and all his sinful seed. God never moved, as the Bible says Christ is the lamb of God who was slain before the foundations of the earth. THAT HAD ALWAYS BEEN THE PLAN. But man thought he was wise in his own eyes and he kept trying to do right by himself.

If Aliens exist, God didnt mention then cos they are not our business. The Aliens you mention do not need Jesus because Adam was not one of them. They didnt inherit the sin from Adam so they dont need to inherit salvation from Christ.

I studied Ghandi when i was a teenager. I actually like the guy. What a hero. In hell? I do not know. But if he knew of Christ and ignored his excuse, he is enduring hell, i know. If he did not know, then God will deal with him justly, by measures known only to him. But he knew. As YOU do too. Good thing you are still alive, Deepsight.

Update: the beatitudes? That was before Christ was sacrificed, you know? Same reason the thief on the cross entered paradise. But now the paradise project is closed. The keys to heaven and hell are in the same hands: that of Jesus. Choose.

More later. And i havent even answered your other questions,

JeSoul, I love you. You explained my heart using your last 3 or 4 posts, what I tried to say with many words. I guess thats the hazard of hardened writers of fantasy like me: verbosity.

O my king! OLABOWALE on this thread, making puerile remarks at my post because his senile mind couldn't comprehend it? Has anyone noticed he is the only person i insult on nairaland? Please I need an intelligent muslim if at all i need a muslim to respond to my post. Where is the seeker? Or some comedy from Abuzola?

@Tudor and Deepsight: Soffree soffree na!

@Deepsight:

That's why humans have freewill and angels do not.

I believe angels have freewill too. Lucifer chose to sin and try to usurp God's authority, and some angels followed him to wage war.

a divergence from the will of God is only possible at great distances from his core

No, sir. Adam and Eve were WITH God and yet they sinned and ate the forbidden fruit.

Freewill is a gift given to man. The angels had it already (they were created before man, created to serve him).

@Topic: Those angels that you do not believe in, do they believe in you?

This is for the ongoing local / global flood argument.

1. There was no need for a global flood to wipe out all mankind since mankind was concentrated in an area on earth until they were scattered at Babel. What God said was that he would wipe out MANKIND with a flood. There was no need for it to be global, a local flood could have done the job. But that is not my concern at all. The important thing is that only the Ark and its occupants survived.

2. "what were the ‘fountains of the deep’ mentioned in Gen. 7:11?". "Where did the excess water come from or go to?"
"In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened"

Molten rocks deep in the earths interior may be surprisingly wet, Japanese researchers said in 2002. From lab experiments, they have concluded there may be more water (H₂O) deep underground than in all oceans, lakes, and rivers combined.

Earth's oceans make up just 0.02 percent of the planet's total mass. This means the vast lower mantle could contain many times more water than floats on the planet's surface. Research has suggested that a zone between the mantle and the crust also contain a great deal of water, the Japanese researchers noted. If so, there could be more than ten times the amount of water inside the planet as there is on its surface.

More here: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/03/0307_0307_waterworld.html

As for the YEC argument, I have nothing more to say

@The_seeker: You should know that mama gee is a comedian, just like the Mama-gee on Nollywood!

I sincerely apologize for the delay, I have been away from the internet for over 24 hours.

This week may be really busy for me, since the nature of my (other) job (besides computer programming) may require my attention at any time at all, and I must comply with no delay. So, with patience, I can explain every single thing I believe about salvation, and hopefully show you from the Bible that your points concerning salvation are wrong.

Unless of course, by your mention of salvation, you are not making reference to the same God who is my Father. In which case this entire argument is moot

To tell you the truth, there are volumes of things that I have come to understand and I can explain by faith, but time is a limitation in this realm. You have asked many questions, and as such my responses will as well be very long. Besides, this topic is very deep, as it is the hinge upon which the Christian faith is borne, so please bear with me (no pun intended) as I type it out in bits whenever I can sneak away to get online.

Having previously established that man is a spirit who owns a soul and lives in a body, I resume my argument.

What is salvation, you ask?
In the Bible, there are many words that are translated salvation, including deliverance, aid, victory, prosperity, protection, help, healing, safety, welfare, rescue (personal, national or spiritual), liberty, defense, etc.

In short, salvation (Greek: soteria) means to be rescued from disadvantage, whether it is in the present or the future. Soteria also means safety from harm, and from death (which are both forms of "disadvantage".

There are three kinds of death:
1. Spiritual death: A separation from God. The word "sin" was used when the Bible was translated into English because "sin" is actually a word employed in archery to describe the error when an arrow misses the bull's eye. So, to SIN is to miss the mark, to miss the target. In this case, the target is God, so to speak. Sin separates us from God, and we have inherited this sin, this separation, from Adam due to his error in Eden.

2. Physical death: A separation of the soul and the body. The human is no longer a valid citizen who can interact with the physical realms. This is one of the attributes of the spiritual death mentioned above.

Gen 3:19  In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

3. Eternal death: At the time one physically dies, their spiritual status (life or death) will indicate whether they are deserving of eternal death or not. Eternal death is an eternal separation from God, a final judgment in which sin will be eternally destroyed. This death is reserved only for the original sinner (lucifer, i.e. the devil) and also the ones who have sworn allegiance to him. This is the final point of spiritual death, separation from God(compare with a man who keeps driving further away from a rock and then falls over the precipice).

Before I explain what salvation entails, I must describe WHY exactly we need to be saved, so that the definition can be clearer. The Old testament is only a fore-shadow of the New Testament. I must outline a profoundly striking difference between the Old Testament and the New Testament, since you have made reference to a "salvation" of the OT folk. The OT folk lived in different eras with respect to God's relationship with man, so you cannot generalize. Each OT era had a definition which man kept failing to live by. Each era was emphasized by someone or the other: Adam (Innocence to Conscience), Noah (Conscience to Human Kingdoms), Abraham (Human kingdoms to Promise), Moses (Promise to the Law), Samuel (the Law and the Prophets), David (the Law, the Prophets and the Kingdoms). And then began the New Testament (Grace and Salvation through Christ).

Each era had its own definitions, penalties for sin, and a plan for restoration of the God-Man relationship.

In Eden, Adam and Eve were innocent. That was the era of innocence. On one hand, there was God the Father, the Word and the Spirit of God and the angels who were with them. On the other hand, there was the renegade angel lucifer (who had tried to usurp God's rule and was expelled for insurbordination) and the angels that fought with him against God (one-third of the angelic host Revelations 12:4 and 9). Adam and Eve were on God's side without any argument, but lucifer tempted Eve, telling her that eating the fruit would make her just like God (or gods), which was true, God affirmed it in Gen 3:22.

Gen 3:22  And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil:

But what made the temptation cunning was that just like when the devil tempted Christ Jesus, he quoted the truth but distorted its meaning. He lied by saying they would not die, because they did when they got separated from God. Then he buttressed his point by saying they would be like God, which was true. When Eve ate and gave Adam, man became "like God" i.e. man was no longer on God's side, he now formed a third party beside Good and Evil. He could now delve into either party and join forces with either. But the cunning part was that although man was now supposed to be a third party, what he really did was to enter into lucifer's party, because God had ALREADY instructed them not to eat the fruit. By eating the fruit, they were not on the fence like they wanted to be. Rather, they sold themselves into lucifer's hands. And thus lucifer became the god of this world (2 Cor 4:4). It's like colonial rule. Adam and eve sold themselves into spiritual slavery). All the evil in the world today, only little of it will be prevented by God because the devil has inherited the earth. And that is why Christ came, so we can take it back. When we give instructions on earth now, they are held up against lucifer's purposes and they win. Whatever a believer has not appropriated is in the hands of lucifer to do as he wills.
(1Jn 5:4 For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith. )

To prevent the possible existence of another eternal sinner  like lucifer, God didn't want man to eat of the tree of life, so he drove them out of Eden (Gen 3:22-23).

Ever since Moses delivered the Law, there was only one expectation to be in God's good books: a healthy fear of God. God didn't desire it to be like that, but it all started from Adam, too, right after he sinned. He was afraid because he was unclothed, not only physically but it also indicates vulnerability and a loss of innocence.

Gen 3:10  He said, I heard the sound of You [walking] in the garden, and I was afraid because I was unclothed; and I hid myself.
Exo 20:20  And Moses said to the people, Fear not; for God has come to prove you, so that the [reverential] fear of Him may be before you, that you may not sin.

So, the deal was that since man had now come to know good and evil choices (his conscience had been activated), the era of innocence ended and a new era of conscience prevailed. But the nature of evil and sin is like an epidemic, it tends to run out of control. Very soon, man's choice between good and evil tended ALWAYS to evil. It wasn't God's plan either, it was a continuation of Adam's sin.

Gen 6:5  The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination and intention of all human thinking was only evil continually.
Gen 6:6  And the Lord regretted that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved at heart.
Gen 6:7  So the Lord said, I will destroy, blot out, and wipe away mankind, whom I have created from the face of the ground--not only man, [but] the beasts and the creeping things and the birds of the air--for it grieves Me and makes Me regretful that I have made them.
Gen 6:8  But Noah found grace (favor) in the eyes of the Lord.
Gen 6:9  This is the history of the generations of Noah. Noah was a just and righteous man, blameless in his [evil] generation; Noah walked [in habitual fellowship] with God.

Noah was the reason why God did not blot out mankind entirely (YES. Entirely! I have seen the thread where Viaro and some others are arguing about a global / local flood, and I have concrete evidence for a global flood. Besides, it didn't even need to have been a global flood to wipe out all mankind, because people were not all over the earth in those days till God scattered them at Babel. But that is a digression, I will come back to it on the other thread).

Remember that man was still in the era of choices based on conscience? So God, as JUST as ever, told Noah to tell everyone that a flood was coming to wipe them all out. He gave them a fair chance BASED ON THEIR OWN JUDGMENT. They had a conscience to choose between good and evil, so they could have chosen to enter the Ark to avert the coming evil. But no, they laughed and scorned as Noah built the ark. The flood came and the only humans that survived were those in the Ark. God told Noah to repopulate the earth, and His intentions were such that Noah being a good man would bring up his generations the right way. But Noah made wine, got drunk, and his son (Ham) sodomized him (that's what the Bible means by "he saw his father's unclothedness". "See" there is to approve, discern, and experience for yourself) so Noah cursed him. By Ham (father of Canaan), sin continued to escalate. Throughout Israel's history, Canaan provided more and more trouble. Through him was born Cush, who fathered Nimrod.

Gen 10:8  Cush became the father of Nimrod; he was the first to be a mighty man on the earth.
Gen 10:9  He was a mighty hunter before the Lord; therefore it is said, Like Nimrod, a mighty hunter before the Lord.
Gen 10:10  The beginning of his kingdom was Babel, Erech, Accad, and Calneh, in the land of Shinar [in Babylonia].
Gen 10:11  Out of the land he [Nimrod] went forth into Assyria and built Nineveh, Rehoboth-Ir, Calah,
Gen 10:12  And Resen, which is between Nineveh and Calah; all these [suburbs combined to form] the great city.

Note that in no place had God ever given any mighty man command over another man? Man chose to assemble into kingdoms and appoint or allow other men to RULE over them. And that's how we entered a new era: The era of human kingdoms, courtesy of Nimrod. As can be expected, idolatry increased because men would worship the mighty men who ruled over them. Whatever Nimrod (and other such sinful rulers) said was the law, so people cast off their consciences and followed their leaders into sin. When they gathered to defy God at Babel, God couldn't take it any more so he scattered them over the earth and confused their language. If they could imagine and carry out ANY task, then sin would multiply again because whatever Nimrod told them to do, they would do in unity against God. When they scattered, they proceeded to spread over the earth, each ones establishing their own kingdoms.

Gen 11:6  And the Lord said, Behold, they are one people and they have all one language; and this is only the beginning of what they will do, and now nothing they have imagined they can do will be impossible for them.
Gen 11:7  Come, let Us go down and there confound (mix up, confuse) their language, that they may not understand one another's speech.
Gen 11:8  So the Lord scattered them abroad from that place upon the face of the whole earth, and they gave up building the city.

In that era of human kingdoms, God decided to create a special kingdom who would live for his purposes, since man had decided to segregate into kingdoms. God saw Abraham in the kingdom of Haran, near your of the Chaldees, and he chose him to be the guardian of a promise. Thus man entered an era of promise, and this old man was promised a kingdom beyond imagination, and he believed it. Through him, the Old Covenant was established. Through him, the New Covenant would also be established, but that would be in very many years after man has tried his best and it is evident that man cannot save himself from the sin of Adam, a spiritual separation from God.

This promise was believed and understood by Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and then came Joseph whose brothers sold him into slavery such that he ended up in Egypt. Nothing takes God by surprise (he had discussed it with Abraham years ago in Genesis 15:13-16) so he was ready with Moses to lead them out of Egypt (as a physical anti-type of the spiritual salvation of Christ).

And, similar to my statement that began this debate, it took one night to take Israel out of Egypt but it took 40 years to take Egypt out of Israel! And the same way, Jesus saves people spiritually, but like a wound can get healed and scars take long to disappear, many sins they were used to may not just fall off like magic. They have to resist the devil before they watch him flee. And how does one resist the devil? By the Word of God! And the Word of God can no one fully appropriate unless they have the Spirit of God. Love, that you mentioned, is a fruit of the regenerated human spirit; it is not the initial pathway, it is an offshoot of salvation. No one can love (God's definition) unless they are saved.

Thus the Law was insitituted. Rules and laws were declared to enforce such fear, and to an extent it worked for most people. Just like a number of people would be criminals if not for the fear of the laws dealing with those crimes. Such fear would keep people from sinning, but it didn't really work because the fear of someone that you cannot see (God), cannot ALWAYS be with you as much as that of someone you can see. There had to be another way.

Two other eras followed in rapid succession: the Law and the Prophets, where the Prophets were the voice of God, and they helped to deal with circumstances where the Israelites couldn't handle by the Law because of their hard hearts; and the Law, Prophets and Kingdoms where Israel clamoured for kings like other world kingdoms. They started with Saul, then David and so on. I glossed over those two eras because the same spiritual dispensation covers both: The LAW!

As to Elijah, I will discuss more in my next post. Elijah did not go to heaven. None of the people up until the Thief on the Cross went to heaven. They went to paradise, a special place of hibernation as they waited for Christ's day. For the Jews, that place was referred to as Abraham's bosom, since Abraham was the first of the Jews. Jesus Christ did not go to heaven either, until he rose on that third day and made a shameful mockery of the devil and set open the gates of heaven for all mankind. All Hail! More on that later,

Before my next post (tonight or tomorrow), I want you to see these verses concerning this "Gospel of Salvation by Love" that you claim:

Love is the greatest, no doubt about that.
1Co 13:13  And so faith, hope, love abide [faith--conviction and belief respecting man's relation to God and divine things; hope--joyful and confident expectation of eternal salvation; love--true affection for God and man, growing out of God's love for and in us], these three; but the greatest of these is love.

Who can actually walk in love? It is he who treasures God's Word and observes His message in its entirety. Ghandi is thus disqualified.
1Jn 2:5  But he who keeps (treasures) His Word [who bears in mind His precepts, who observes His message in its entirety], truly in him has the love of and for God been perfected (completed, reached maturity). By this we may perceive (know, recognize, and be sure) that we are in Him:

How can Gandhi really walk in love if he did not keep Christ's commands?
Joh 14:21  The person who has My commands and keeps them is the one who [really] loves Me; and whoever [really] loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I [too] will love him and will show (reveal, manifest) Myself to him. [I will let Myself be clearly seen by him and make Myself real to him.]

Joh 15:9  I have loved you, [just] as the Father has loved Me; abide in My love [continue in His love with Me].
How does the Father love?
Rom 5:8  But God shows and clearly proves His [own] love for us by the fact that while we were still sinners, Christ (the Messiah, the Anointed One) died for us.

This indicates that the death of Christ is what God's Love hinges on. It's not the death of a miserable carpenter, it's the death of the given Son of God to redeem man from his sin.

The Eternal plan of Salvation (a summary of this entire post)

Rom 5:10  For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, it is much more [certain], now that we are reconciled, that we shall be saved (daily delivered from sin's dominion) through His [resurrection] life.
Rom 5:11  Not only so, but we also rejoice and exultingly glory in God [in His love and perfection] through our Lord Jesus Christ, through Whom we have now received and enjoy [our] reconciliation. [Jer. 9:24.]
Rom 5:12  Therefore, as sin came into the world through one man, and death as the result of sin, so death spread to all men, [no one being able to stop it or to escape its power] because all men sinned.
Rom 5:13  [To be sure] sin was in the world before ever the Law was given, but sin is not charged to men's account where there is no law [to transgress].
Rom 5:14  Yet death held sway from Adam to Moses [the Lawgiver], even over those who did not themselves transgress [a positive command] as Adam did. Adam was a type (prefigure) of the One Who was to come [in reverse, the former destructive, the Latter saving]. [Gen. 5:5; 7:22; Deut. 34:5.]
Rom 5:15  But God's free gift is not at all to be compared to the trespass [His grace is out of all proportion to the fall of man]. For if many died through one man's falling away (his lapse, his offense), much more profusely did God's grace and the free gift [that comes] through the undeserved favor of the one Man Jesus Christ abound and overflow to and for [the benefit of] many.
Rom 5:16  Nor is the free gift at all to be compared to the effect of that one [man's] sin. For the sentence [following the trespass] of one [man] brought condemnation, whereas the free gift [following] many transgressions brings justification (an act of righteousness).
Rom 5:17  For if because of one man's trespass (lapse, offense) death reigned through that one, much more surely will those who receive [God's] overflowing grace (unmerited favor) and the free gift of righteousness [putting them into right standing with Himself] reign as kings in life through the one Man Jesus Christ (the Messiah, the Anointed One).

Rom 5:18  Well then, as one man's trespass [one man's false step and falling away led] to condemnation for all men, so one Man's act of righteousness [leads] to acquittal and right standing with God and life for all men.
Rom 5:19  For just as by one man's disobedience (failing to hear, heedlessness, and carelessness) the many were constituted sinners, so by one Man's obedience the many will be constituted righteous (made acceptable to God, brought into right standing with Him).
Rom 5:20  But then Law came in, [only] to expand and increase the trespass [making it more apparent and exciting opposition]. But where sin increased and abounded, grace (God's unmerited favor) has surpassed it and increased the more and superabounded,
Rom 5:21  So that, [just] as sin has reigned in death, [so] grace (His unearned and undeserved favor) might reign also through righteousness (right standing with God) which issues in eternal life through Jesus Christ (the Messiah, the Anointed One) our Lord.

I will continue in the next post. 

@DeepSight: LOL. Funny picture. That we may not derail the thread in our conversation, I created a new thread on the rudiments of salvation. Please meet me there.

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-365895.0.html

P.S> Sorry for taking time, I dislike typing 'cos I'm rather slow at it and since I like making myself very clear, I tend to type long posts. LOL.

With reference to our posts on the Atheist's Holy Day Thread, I present the links for easy following, and I also present summaries of the salient points of our exegeses:

Mavenbox: https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-363977.32.html#msg5095008

Speaking for Christianity, when a person gets saved by confessing Christ as Saviour, it's the spirit that gets saved. The mind/ soul is not saved YET, but will be eventually renewed as you walk with God.

Deepsight: https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-363977.32.html#msg5095027

Before i point out the tragedy of this unfortunate remark, please address it yourself. You're a bright girl, i am sure you see what's wrong with this statement. Go ahead. I am waiting.

Mavenbox: https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-363977.32.html#msg5095959

Man is essentially a spirit. He owns a soul, and he lives in a body.

The spirit is what communicates with the divine. The soul is what controls the "gates" of the physical realms (5 senses) and the vast human experience, including emotions, logic and imagination, by virtue of those sensations. The body is the visa for the human being to stay on earth until the visa expires.

The "renewal" of the mind is in the present-continuous tense, and it's purpose is to appropriate God's perfect will. (Rom 12:1-2)
One can "preserve" the soul by faith and reliance on God through Christ Jesus (Heb 10:39)
One can "torture" their own soul by experiencing and/or participating in unholy things. (2 Pe 2:
Before Christ (the last Adam), the human spirit was not active. The spirit was dormant because it is the vital connection to God, and God sought to have that vital connection restored. (John 4:23-24)
So Christ came, and he had the vital connection that enabled life to be restored to the spiritually-dead (1 Cor 15:45)
The spirit is saved BY the life-giving Spirit (Christ), but the soul isn't (yet). many people say "I have saved 10 souls" after they have proselytized to 10 new converts. But in truth, they just saved 10 spirits, which is more important. So how does the soul get saved? By dwelling upon God's Word with a patient disposition to learn (i.e. meekness) and having heard it, doing what it instructs as well. By walking with God. (James 1:21-24, 1 Cor 13:12, Job 7:9)

Jas 1:21  So get rid of all uncleanness and the rampant outgrowth of wickedness, and in a humble (gentle, modest) spirit receive and welcome the Word which implanted and rooted [in your hearts] contains the power to save your souls.

Thus unlike the spirit which has obtained a perfect 100% reconnection with God, the soul needs to be continually nurtured by looking into the "mirror" (the Word of God, see Jas 1:21-24). So the spirit gets saved, but the soul needs a constant renewing.

Then I ended up with an analogy about computer systems and an internet connection a la spirit, soul and body of man.

DeepSight: https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-363977.32.html#msg5100619

First off: let me say this: i have no problems whatsoever with the concept of spirit, soul and body that you laid out. ---
So no problems there. My problem is with your description of salvation. ---
Let me ask you what you understand by the word salvation.  And specifically what it entails to attain salvation. ---
In your perspective, it appears that salvation is attained through belief in Jesus Christ and the sacrifice at Golgotha. ---

We are both aware that the inner condition required of a human spirit inorder to attain the living light has always remained the same, and never changed.---and it is my positive conviction that that criteria remains love, love and only love. Love of God, love and wonder at creation, and love of fellow man.

In everything that i read in scripture, i am positively convinced that this is the standard only: and that millions of humans who lived and died without ever knowning of the carpenter from Nazareth called Jesus, still stand firmly in the love of God, and in that very salvation that Jesus preached, on account of their inner disposition and attunement towards love.

In this respect i am at odds with the claims of fanatical and fundamentalist christians (such as Noetic and Davidylan) that persons such as Mahatma Ghandi, who have devoted their entire livies to love of fellow man, and made unspeakable personal sacrifices in their life-long drive to spread peace and human brotherhood, must still stand condemned before God because they did not "accept" Jesus as their personal lord and saviour.

I am of the view that even if such an acceptance of christ is necessary, the definitive mode of "accepting" him - is only through the inculcation of the principle of love. This i believe is open to people of any religion and culture, and if you are interested i can refer you to much scripture even within the New Testament that supports this worldview.

---I do not believe that "confessing" Christ as saviour leads to salvation. And if at all it does, then the mode of confession is not by stating that Jesus is lord, or even by knowing of his existence at all, but by living according to the principle of love that he taught: whether or not one ever knows or acknowledges Jesus of Nazareth the man.

Secondly - and this is the core of my problem with your statement -

  1. What is salvation?

  2. What does it mean to be saved?

  3. Why is it the case that after the "acceptance" of christ, sin continues?

  4. Is the above persistence of sin not clear evidence that the "acceptance" of christ as saviour is meaningless?

  5. Cardinally; what distinguishes between the pre-acceptance state of the spirit and the post-acceptance state of the spirit?

In this your very own words show my case -

Quote by Mavenbox: The mind/ soul is not saved YET, but will be eventually renewed as you walk with God

Thus indicating that renewal comes through walking with God - through love - and regardless of any confession! In other words the "salvation by confession" that you talked about, you yourself have admitted to be useless unless one is able to walk with God! So what kind of salvation is that? Is it not clear from your very own words that the confession is meaningless and that "walking with God" is the real thing to strive for! Get my gist now?

Thus the idea that your "spirit" is saved by a mere "confession" (which any slowpoke can muster) is certainly in my mind dogmatic and reeks of a slavish adherence to an external ritualistic myth. I cannot see that such a "salvation" should take place, and the human being should, to be "saved" (again?) continue in the path of seeking the light: which has always been the true path: namely the path of seeking love. Particularly to make myself clear: i can see that the state of the man pre-confession and the state of the man post-confession are nothing; and spiritually meaningless compared to the state of a man pre-love, and the state of a man post-love; and this latter state has nothing at all to do with knowing the man Jesus, and remains open to people of every race, religion and culture.

Nuff. If you are interested in scripture that supports this worldview, i will oblige.

And herein continues our discussion.---

^^^ I think the people who segregate and say "born-again", "not born again" among Christians are deceiving themselves. A so-called "Christian" is someone that is, so to speak, "born-again", born from above into God's family.

Please note that CHRISTIAN is a slang. It's the name that people in the early centuries A.D. called Believers of Salvation through Christ, it was a derogative slang, an insult, it was used to describe them as "little Christs". BORN AGAIN is also a kind of slang, by way of speaking, because Jesus was trying to physically explain a complex spiritual truth about salvation of the human spirit, to Nicodemus. So he was telling him that he had to be "born again" like after his body had been birthed, his spirit had to be born from above as well. As I always say, whenever you attribute an analogy to explain a spiritual truth, some of the meaning is sacrificed.

So, what does the Bible call us, and how does God refer to us? Only two things: "Believer" and "Sons of God". Not Christians. Not Born-again Christians. The same way Barack Obama will not refer to Black Americans as niggers. It's just a slang, and people are crushing their heads over it?

1Jn 3:1 SEE WHAT [an incredible] quality of love the Father has given (shown, bestowed on) us, that we should [be permitted to] be named and called and counted the children of God! And so we are! The reason that the world does not know (recognize, acknowledge) us is that it does not know (recognize, acknowledge) Him.

and other references:

Joh 1:12 But to as many as did receive and welcome Him, He gave the authority (power, privilege, right) to become the children of God, that is, to those who believe in (adhere to, trust in, and rely on) His name--[Isa. 56:5.]

Rom 8:14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.

Rom 8:19 For [even the whole] creation (all nature) waits expectantly and longs earnestly for God's sons to be made known [waits for the revealing, the disclosing of their sonship].

Php 2:15 That you may show yourselves to be blameless and guileless, innocent and uncontaminated, children of God without blemish (faultless, unrebukable) in the midst of a crooked and wicked generation [spiritually perverted and perverse], among whom you are seen as bright lights (stars or beacons shining out clearly) in the [dark] world,

1Jn 3:2 Beloved, we are [even here and] now God's children; it is not yet disclosed (made clear) what we shall be [hereafter], but we know that when He comes and is manifested, we shall [as God's children] resemble and be like Him, for we shall see Him just as He [really] is.

So, it is unfortunate that in the world's social system, e.g. school registration, when you fill out a form, "Christian", that insultive slang coined by Jews and Romans in the early 1st century, is what is on the form but when I have to, I fill it out.

As always, I buttress that with an analogy: It's like a primary school student who is a child prodigy and knows advanced calculus and mechanics. When the teacher condescendingly gives him graph-paper and he's meant to solve a math problem, he will be forced to solve it at the level at which he physically is: nursery school. He cannot employ derivatives to find the tangents and solve the mathematical problem because that is the system he is in. Because I answer to "Christian" does not mean that Christian is my real name. It is out of respect for world social systems.

As Jesus said,
Mat 22:21 They said, Caesar's. Then He said to them, Pay therefore to Caesar the things that are due to Caesar, and pay to God the things that are due to God.

@DeepSight: You are not forgotten. I am trying to relate my views concerning your post to you in a way that will afford great understanding without reckless verbosity. I have some free time now, so you will get it in a short while. Cheers.

tensor777:

Well there is the lust of the eyes, the lust of the flesh, and the pride of life. Agreed that someone may paint her face with no untoward motive but then it does invariably influence people's perception of her.

It is well known that men are moved more by what they see whereas women respond more to what they hear.
This visual stimulation, on the debit side, could lead to temptation, lust or even fear.

The terrible thing about religion is that nothing you ever do can be right, e.g. whether you wear make-up or you smear your face with red palm-oil. And that's why Jesus came, to give us Life rather than religion. Like a filthy rag, our religious correctness (holiness, righteousness, purity) will be tossed away in God's sight. But when God sees us, he sees Christ. Not Mavenbox. Not Tensor777. No. He sees Christ! And Christ is altogether holy, so we are not cast away.

Now, tell me, what about people that are very beautiful and even without make-up, others look at them and many invariably sin by virtue of that? Should they start wearing hoods like Lagbaja for that reason? Or what about people that even when they are dressed in rags, they are just very attractive effortlessly? I will keep harping on it: it's not the physical appearance that causes sin, it's the matter of the heart of the sinner and the causative factor. A classical LUST OF THE EYES example: In Eden, Eve had seen the forbidden fruit many times (so it was not a matter of the forbidden fruit's beauty or texture or color or shape) but she never sinned UNTIL the serpent made her see it from another angle (it was a matter of their hearts: i.e. the serpent's evil heart and Eve's peccant or gullible power-hungry heart). What you see cannot make you sin, it's what you do as a result of that. So if you know that something will germinate in you and produce evil fruit, don't look at it. But if, for instance, you are a doctor and you have, by virtue of work, seen many people au naturel, seeing another patient that way should not cause you to sin unless your heart already has a problem of sin leading to lust of the flesh.

tensor777:

So in order to avoid this Christian women are enjoined to dress modestly and behave chastely.
A lot of posters here are going on about moderation in applying face-paint. But when we get down to brass-tacks what exactly does that mean? To be on the safe side it is better to avoid it altogether.

I do not know what the others mean by moderation but this is what I mean:
Php 4:5  Let your moderation be known unto all men. The Lord is at hand. KJV
Php 4:5  Let all men know and perceive and recognize your unselfishness (your considerateness, your forbearing spirit). The Lord is near [He is coming soon]. AMPLIFIED

But I mostly love the MESSAGE rendition
Php 4:5  Make it as clear as you can to all you meet that you're on their side, working with them and not against them. Help them see that the Master is about to arrive. He could show up any minute!

The Greek word translated "moderation" is ἐπιεικής (epieikēs) meaning appropriate, mild, gentle, patient. The EXACT word as translated shows up ONLY in four other verses too, as I have boldened them:

Titus 3:1-2  Put them in mind to be subject to principalities and powers, to obey magistrates, to be ready to every good work,
Titus 3:2  To speak evil of no man, to be no brawlers, but gentle, shewing all meekness unto all men.

Jas 3:17  But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be intreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy.

1Pe 2:18  Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward.

1Ti 3:3  Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;

And from those perspectives, it is easy to see that MODERATE make-up means the type of make-up that is not over-colorful, gaudy, loud and noisy (see above Titus 3:1, 1 Tim 3:3), that actually makes the person look good as opposed to menacing, sullen or sinister (see Jas 3:17, 1 Pe 2:18) and lastly it makes people comfortable when they around you, that you're on their side and not trying to seduce them, intimidate them or horrify them (Php 4:5). So, if a woman has spots on her face and she needs to paint it over, it is better for her to do it IF the spots would make people uncomfortable around her, or if she's not comfortable having those spots on her face. But, as for applying red eye-liners, bright pink lipstick, heavy whatchamacallit and looking like a character from a Gothic thriller movie; I'm not for those kinds of things.

Let me quote Php 4:5 again in the MESSAGE to buttress my last point.

Php 4:5  Make it as clear as you can to all you meet that you're on their side, working with them and not against them. Help them see that the Master is about to arrive. He could show up any minute!

And that is why make-up is not wrong for a Christian whose heart is in the right place.

Q.E.D.

P.S> It was thoughts like this, no doubt, that started the whole women-suppression movement of the ancient Jews and the Muslims. Look at almost all cultures of the world, women are made to suffer with respect to men in terms of freedom. Which was something that Christ dealt with continuously. He never let any man put the women under chauvinistically. e.g. He actually had a number of women following him in ministry, one thing that annoyed many Jews. Now, I also know that women have a tendency to enter into excesses, but when the Holy Spirit is one's guide, one cannot fall into error.

Flap

*hey, Pweety you cheated! You could have said blog or something!!*

until finally

Hehehe

(c) www.oatmeal.com (http://theoatmeal.com/comics/design_hell)



If you have ever been in this circumstance, say Aye-Aye!