₦airaland Forum

UceeGod:
Look for this book online, download and read

RECOVERING BIBLICAL MANHOOD AND WOMANHOOD by John Piper and Wayne Grudem

It'll help answer your question

I think you should tell what it is was the imaginary question I was supposed to have asked UceeGod.

I already have this book and I doubt you've read it at all, because if you did or have, you would have noticed on page 42, that the authors support home leadership in women.

Please deal with what I've posted and requested be shown, be original, do this from your own understanding and don't sign post me to other people except if I request you do so. Thanks.

VBCampaign:
This picture was gleaned from Facebook. Photographer is unknown. Yet picture speaks a million words.

Would you caption the photo?

I think "Sweet Mother" does.

Dont laugh mum, when I say, I'll buy you a house when I grow up.

TVSA:
MuttleyLaff, I understand your point. But when you have a problem with a woman leading a family (of small size), you will definitely have problem with a woman leading a larger number of people, say a female mayor, governor or president. I am just inferring anyway.

You might be right, but I still do not believe VBCampaign has a problem with Theresa or Angela and let me veer off topic and push the envelope a bit, neither with Leo Varadkar either

Now, I wonder what VBCampaign thinks, if the husband through some cruelty of life and/or accident became an invalid, should the wife shun leadership decision making, role and/or position?

I am quite sure that VBCampaign agrees and accept that before Genesis 3:16, the woman was not a subordinate but according to Genesis 1:26-28, leadership was paired.

UceeGod:
Postmodernism has creeped into the Church. Christians no longer keep to the Word for direction. It's even evident from the responses here.

Spot a complementarian season has begun.

VBCampaign, it's true that the quest to be pastors today is not unconnected with the vain glory that pastoral ministry comes with in our day, and that is why we have hired hand women and men, that run away when they see the wolf coming because they truly arent what they claim in the first place to be

If really keeping to the Word for direction, like UceeGod put it and VBCampaign thanked him for that comment, then, I will gladly accept to be educated, if and/or when VBCampaign can show in the scripture, where it, in black and white, categorically, specifically and outrightly says women, should not be pastors and/or more appropiately, says, do not permit women to be elders and so thereby barring them from leadership

RealKingDavid:
The beast Which has seven heads and ten crowns is the same beasts in the book of DANIEL. This beast is the fourth and the last beast in Daniels night dream.
The beast has seven heads as explained in revelation the heads means mountains or land.
In this present day we have 7 continents which is being ruled by this beast.
Then another beast comes after which has two horns like a lamb but speak like a dragon - this is definitely a man.. This man will enforce the resurrection and worship of the former beast, he will give life to the image of the beast and will let this living images of the beast killed whoever won't worship the beast by refusing the 666 mark
Now this same man will rule for a very short time then the kingdom will be God's.
This man is already in power, the president of France (Babylon), the King of the north, he was elected in 2017, that means we are very close to the end.
Watch out for Emmanuel Macron the one who call himself God

Jupiter

TVSA:
This guy will have a hard time working under a female boss.

VBCampaign? Nah

TVSA:
I believe you have a problem with women in leadership roles

Not leadership roles per se, but problem with being under a woman in leadership role at church setting, and not necesaasrily elsewhere.

Shepherd00:
He is a misogynist

I know VBCampaign and I boldly can vouch that he isnt misogynist, he is egalitarian and that's why I called his views quasi-misogynist.

Ihedinobi3:
I know that. I was wondering why he identified those two specific individuals as evangelicals. I wouldn't be surprised if he met Mormons and called them evangelicals just because he wants to make a point against biblical Christianity.

and because it's just a colloquial he decided to use

VBCampaign:
Why Women Should Not Be Pastors

By: Deji Yesufu

A recent discussion on social media led to a focus on the question of whether or not women should be pastors in our day. As I engaged a particular lady on the question, two words emerged that I needed a dictionary to find out what exactly they meant. They are: misogynist and patriarchal. A misogynist is a person who despises or is strongly prejudiced against women. Patriarchal, on the other hand, is a system of government run only by men. So, quite naturally, I was called a misogynist and the Bible, from which I was taking my authority from, was labelled patriarchal. When a debate is reduced to such fundamental definitions and the other side is unable to see that they just may be wrong, it is better to call an end to the discussion. While I have ended the debate on social media, I thought I could express my thoughts clearly here in my column.

While it is OK for anyone to refer to me as misogynist, I would humbly state that I am not. I do not despise nor am I prejudiced against women. I had a lovely mother and I am married to the most beautiful woman on earth. I have a daughter whom I am hoping to train up to be the most powerful woman on earth. But no matter how powerful my daughter becomes, she would still remain a woman and that is a lesson I hope I would drum into her as I train her up into adult life. The other misconception that must be put aright is that the Bible is not patriarchal. The Bible is the word of God. Indeed the extent to which Christians and the congregations they belong to hold the Bible as inspired and inerrant, is the extent to which they would understand the peculiar place of the woman in the world that God made.

Let me state it up front that I hold that a woman cannot be a Pastor solely because the Bible teaches this. 1 Corinthians 14:34-35, 1 Timothy 2:11-12, and 1 Timothy 3:2 are scriptures that speaks expressly to the issue: women cannot exercise authority over men; women cannot teach men in church; women should be silent in church; a woman cannot be “husband of one wife” – only men can be that; etc. These are biblical and authoritative statements and in a world where the inspiration of the Bible had not be attacked, such a statement would be obeyed and not argued with. Besides, it is certainly in the spirit of these words that led Christ to elect men, and not women, as his disciples. The argument that the system of Christ’s day was patriarchal would certainly not hold water because in that case every other command of the scriptures can be wished away in the name of the culture of those days. We do ourselves a lot of good by simply obeying biblical commands and not debating them.

Then there is the fact that even nature dictates this. The family is the smallest unit of a society. Most people are agreed that the man is the head of a family and that a family functions best when a man leads it. On the other hand, the church is a conglomerate of families; gathered together to worship Jesus Christ. If the man leads the family, why would anyone expect that a woman would lead a conglomeration of families? It would clearly be out of place and even nature would abhor it. The matter of women seeking to lead churches in pastoral ministry is a reflection of the decadence in society that is creeping into the church. When men have failed to be men in their homes and have relinquished their responsibilities to their wives, it is no surprise that the women are seeking positions in church too.

In other cases, when churches have become a place of stardom, women would also be also seeking to enter into the limelight - to become celebrity pastors too. If pastoral ministry consisted of the weight of responsibility that it ought to be, women would not dare to be pastors. The fact of the matter is that God who made the man and the woman, designed them for certain roles. The man provides for his home. The woman gives birth to children. Would anyone suggest that a man should come forward and give birth to a child? If this is not practical, then it should equally be impractical to ask women to lead churches as pastors. It is just not the role that the creator has made them to occupy.

Then there is the matter of authority. As the leader of the home, a man comes into society with a sense of responsibility that is equipped with a God given authority. It is a similar authority that a man brings to pastoral ministry. A pastor’s primary duty is to preach the gospel and he should declare this message with authority. He should reel out God’s holy standards to men and demand that they believe the gospel as well as repent of their sins. This is no mean task. In the days of Jesus, it was said that he spoke with authority – an authority that the Pharisees lacked. It is clear that when gospel content begin to diminish on the pulpit and preaching becomes an “appeal” or a “suggestion” and not a declaration, it quickly becomes an all comers affairs.

When matters that are serious are to be discussed in a normal family, members tell themselves that these matter cannot be resolved outside the father’s presence. The same goes with preaching: the father, the Pastor, the man, must be the person declaring the counsel of God to a conglomerate of families in the churches. When the gospel has lost its power, it quickly becomes an all comers affair. This is why women can very easily be suggested as pastors. In the days when gospel preaching came with paying a heavy price; if by preaching a message one risked being incarcerated, the wheat would long have been separated from the chaff. Women would never have found pastoral work attractive.

In my meditation into women in ministry, I find one person that stands out. She is the woman missionary to Calabar, Nigeria, in the late 19th century – Mary Slessor. The biography of this woman records that she had an exceptional ministry in her lifetime. She brought the gospel to communities in present day Cross River State and helped establish social reforms – one which ended the killing of twins in that part of the country. Does Mary Slessor put to nought my argument in this piece? I do not think so.

I think that Mary Slessor was an exception in the work of God, rather than the norm. I think that eternity would show that Ms. Slessor was called into that ministry when men failed to take up the task – and the task must be done; even if God would raise up stones to do it. Another thing that I see in her case is that Ms. Slessor remained a man in a sense since she never did get married. I am convinced that a married woman, that is bearing children, has her ministry already cut out for her: to help her husband in family life and to take care of her children. She is to endeavour to raise those children up to godly seeds. Working to ensure that the boys become responsible men in society and the girls responsible wives to their husbands. A woman who is married has no business in pastoral ministry. The mere fact that Ms. Slessor never married freed her to the evangelistic work that she did in Calabar. Lastly, I think in a sense Mary Slessor was an evangelist and not a pastor. Her biography records that she often set out to break new frontiers for the gospel in those days – while the men she had trained carried out the work of pastoring the congregations gathered.

I am convinced that the quest for women to be pastors today is not unconnected with the vain glory that pastoral ministry comes with in our day. It is just like politicians who do everything to get into political office. This happens because the gains of office far outweighs the responsibilities of office. Very few people realize the enormous responsibility that comes with pastoring the souls of men. They do not realize that pastors would give account, before God, of every soul that passed through their ministry. They do not realize that God would hold many men responsibly for the eternal ruin of many who ought to have been taught the way of salvation but had spent most of their ministry doing frivolous things. If women realize that God has created certain gender for certain roles, they would not be seeking to be pastors. The waterloo of many in the eternal state would be doing things that God never called them to do.

I am thoroughly convinced both by the testimony of the Bible and by the witness of nature that women are not crafted by God to be pastors. Therefore women should not be pastors. Those that are already pastors have the opportunity this day to repent and to find some other useful thing to use their lives for. Those of you going to women-led churches, you would do well to find a truly Bible believing church to go to – for thine eternal soul sake.

Deji Yesufu is the author of the book Victor Banjo. He can be reached on newdejix@gmail.com

"Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply your sorrow and your conception; in sorrow you shall bring forth children;
and your desire shall be to your husband, and he shall rule over you."
- Genesis 3:16

"¹⁰When Jesus had lifted himself up, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her,
Woman, where are those your accusers? has no man condemned you?
¹¹She said, No man, Lord.
And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn you: go, and sin no more."
- John 8:10-11

https://vimeo.com/11058446
Watch this "Called and Gifted" testimony video clip

VBCampaign, I don’t agree with what you say and though it feels like a kick in the stomach, I still, will defend to the death, your right to say all the ill-informed, quasi-misogynist and male chauvinism views, posted up here.

Joyce, Paula and Juanita arent exactly poster women in leading roles, I agree but I see you are still caught up in the latter part of Genesis 3:16 pitfall and forgotten to accept the truth and/or admit the existence of John 8:10-11

billionguy:
i wonder how some men feels whenever a wowan called pastor lay her hands on them. Some even go to some extent of bowing or kneeling while these women called pastor were praying for them.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zf0WTUAM_Rk
I wonder how God felt when Mary laid her hands on Him, cleaned His bum etcetera. Even went to the extent of sleeping on her chest and suckle at her bosoms

TheArranger:
Two evangelicals came to my door and told me that if evolution were real, they would be able to evolve hats atop their heads on a hot day instead of needing to purchase them. Like bruh....

I was so amused that I decided to see what else they would say, and we ended up talking for a good 20 minutes, starting with a ground-level explanation of evolutionary theory. They didn't get more insane than the hat-evolution remark though. Just seemed like ignorant, deeply misled kids doing what they were told to do.

As the conversation moved forward, I started applying my values-based communications training to the encounter with the goal of making them like me, then whipped it all around on the fellas at the end of our chat by revealing that I'm an atheist. They were astonished and said they thought atheists were all self-centered, unkind people. Then I gave the younger one of the two men, who looked no older than like 21 or 22, a copy of "The God Delusion" and said I didn't expect him to read it until he had questions of his own that his theology could not answer.
He thanked me, and the older man complimented me on my attitude toward people with differing views.
In all, it felt like I made a tiny bit of difference.

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."
- Aristotle

Ihedinobi3:
What's "evangelicals"?

Evangelicals somewhat or not, are Christians

MrProsperity:
That means you're not an atheist. Because atheist believe there is nothing spiritual at all. Meaning this world is just the way they came. Nothing unknown existed before them

I thought the same thing too. Apparently you thought I am but I am not and/or never was.

MrProsperity:
I thought you're an atheist and don't believe in anything spiritual why saying occult healing

There is spiritual and there is occult healing. There were miracles done by Moses and there were imitated miracles done by Pharaoh's magicians or wise men in retaliation.

bloodofthelamb:
This is definitely what I am talking about. It was sounding as if God lacked pleasure and joy prior creation, and because of that He created us to fill in that gap.

Mr Bond ride on!

bloodofthelamb, the point I was making with that James Bond phrase and similar, is that, pleasure doesn't necessarily have a need. God will not diminish or increase if God does or doesn't make Man. Pleasure is a phenomenon, independent of need or want. It is a will or desire to do or have something done. It is God's pleasure, to out of love create man, that is primary, every other thing is secondary and incidental.

My name is Bond. James Bond. The pleasure is mine, please sit down Mr Bond.

bloodofthelamb, God is agape love, hence doesnt need to have a need to give this agape love because agape love intrinsically is Him and His nature

ThothHermes:
I have seen Ibiyeomie do this several times. I don't know how he does it. I've also seen him do it with cash.
I've seen him draw an imaginary line and everyone who tried to cross the line fell to the ground.

Maybe my friends would have an explanation.

Muttleylaff

Johnnydon22

Budaatum

Jujusugar

Sabrinaxxx

Coolusername

Akin1212

If he really has "supernatural or supernormal" powers, why then did he have to resort to the court and corrupt judge(s) to get Kemi Olunloyo, because of a written report about him, dragged down to PH and banged up to spend 90 days in Port-Harcourt Maximum Prison.

I previously have intimated here on NL, that TB Joshua makes use of "remote control" which this beloved Ibiyeomie, who doesnt miss a trick, uses too also

"Remote control" is a technique to watch out for during some fake healing sessions also used in gatherings to bamboozle the gullibles with. This is when the "healer" stands ten feet or so away from unsuspecting "healees" and then manipulates the "healee's" movements with hand motions, for example, by scooting hand to the left or right, the "healee" irresistibly seems drawn to the left, or to the right. Also with the circling movement of the "healer's" hands, the "healee" is manipulated into a circle, and eventually ends up falling down into a dazed heap after a moment of spiralling out of control

"Point of contact" is another technique to watch out for. It like the "remote control" are occult healing practices and they both, are techniques adopted which are closely related to a control technique termed "mesmerism". "Mesmerism" is named after Franz Anton Mesmer (i.e. 1734-1815) an Austrian physician, who believed the human nervous system to be magnetized and so would wave his hands in front of his patients, believing that a magnetic force emanated from his hands.

These two above mentioned techniques among others, are easily spotted used on local and international recorded satellite healing TV or YouTube broadcasts

There are several distinctness in the way Jesus healed and performed miracles that are not characteristic of the manner the likes of this this beloved Ibiyeomie goes about his. Check these facts out. First, Jesus healed instantly, second, Jesus never employed showmanships, Jesus never showed off and not with smugness or malignant pleasure like Ibiyeomie did in that YouTube clip. Jesus didn't describe or draw attention to the healing, nor use billboards, adverts etc in order to encourage attendance or promote "sales" Interestingly, Jesus never healed the same way twice (i.e. He healed spontaneously. He didn't have a modus operandi and never followed healing set techniques)

bloodofthelamb:
Bro muttleyLaff, all things came to be by his will, not necessarily out of need, but out of love. By the way here is Revelation 4:11 in NKJV

"You are worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power ; for you created all things, and by your will they exist and were created." Old king James made it seem as if God created out of need for derivation of pleasure. I new something was wrong somewhere, so I went searching and digging.

God was full of pleasure when he made all things, infact in his eternal pleasure he created all things that we might share in it.

"Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power:
for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created."
- Revelation 4:11

Remember the above, is how I previously posted the Revelation 4:11 verse, and that was, with "for thy pleasure" emboldened and pleasure underlined for the obvious reason(s).

The thing is, Revelation 4:11, states that, we are and were created for God's pleasure. It means, God, accepted and agreed, us worthy to be created and do, for Him to have a sense or feeling happiness, satisfaction and enjoyment out of the enterprise. God didnt need to create us, didnt have to create us but because God is agape love, and importantly to note, without necessarily any reason and/or justification, decided to let His creativity go wild, win the day and so boom, here on the scene, we came.

Even, if KJV made it seem as if God created out of need for derivation of pleasure, it hasnt really strayed from the truth because pleasure and desire are synonymous words. God had a desire, strongly wished for and/or wanted us, so He created us. It is the same way I wished and/or wanted that pint, glass of rouge or the oil paint canvas, and so had them

nwanne, let me ask you a serious question erh. 99 times out of 100, why do you make love? Is it for pleasure or chore? The creation of us, the project, is it then, a pleasure or chore nwanne bloodofthelamb?

Watch what will soon crawl and come out of the woodwork, as truthful posts, always fairk up, a guilty conscience, every time!

solite3:
Are you in bondage to homosexuality or you know of anyone in that sin? God can save you, yes he can! I don't hate homosexuals but rather I seek the salvation of their souls. the power that brought dead Lazarus back to life can save you from any sin but first stop justifying it. Turn to Jesus Christ for your deliverance.

Now and then, you like to make believe, and so say, you dont hate homosexual(s), but here you are unable to respond or reply to a simple and direct question, asking you, to tell, and that is, if you are going to be honest, sincere and truthful, is there nothing in and/or about being homosexual you hate, huh?. See, you ignore the question because if you should honestly, sincerely and truthfully respond, the answers in your reply, will reveal unpleasant fact(s) about yourself.

You rather divert from replying but instead prefer to ask whether I am in bondage to homosexuality or know of anyone in it, and terming it a sin, whether if you are two easy going, ordinary consenting adults, minding their own businesses enjoying a life long caring, faithful, committed, truthful, honest, loving each other lasting that's life-long and loyal same-sex relationship, that has no detriment to another person, no betrayal of another person, or no cheating on another person, and not harmful to an object or neighbour, it isnt a sin.

solite3:
Here you go again! you read it yourself

Here you go again, what?! You read it yourself what again?. Why dont you paste here your proofs that find that God said, He hates homosexuality and called it abomination, huh?

solite3:
ok I probably didnt read it! yea here is the what you seek;. The English word "abomination" refers to a thing which is revolting, repugnant, disgusting. An abomination is something that you back away from with horror or dread. It is something so revolting that it causes you to vomit. This is the idea which is expressed in English with the word "abomination," and I have found that this is the same concept which is expressed in Hebrew with the word "toebah."

Slow clapping. Good, good, I am getting impressed and pleased with this effort because you are making my work become easier and lighter

solite3:
There are many passages of Scripture which use the word "toebah" in a manner that does not refer to pagan temple practices but rather to things that are revolting.

For example:
Deut 24:4 says that it is "toebah" for a woman to divorce one husband, marry a second husband, and then divorce the second husband and remarry the first. This passage has nothing to do with pagan temple practices. It is merely describing something that God finds disgusting.
Deut 25:16 uses the word "toebah" in reference to cheating someone in the marketplace. The context has nothing at all to do with pagan temple practices. It is simply describing something revolting to God.

Psalm 88:8 speaks of God making a man a "toebah" to his own acquaintances, even while he was calling upon the Lord for deliverance. Would God actually make someone become involved in pagan temple practices?

Prov 11:1 refers back to Deut 25:16 and repeats the fact that unjust practices in the marketplace are "toebah" to God. There is nothing here about pagan temple practices. The same could be said of Prov 20:10 and 20:23.

If "toebah" refers to pagan temple practices, then Prov 13:19 becomes nonsensical. This verse speaks of a fool's revulsion to departing from evil. It has nothing to do with pagan temple practices.

Similarly, Prov 29:27 would mean that the upright are pagan temple practices to the wicked if that is the proper understanding of "toebah." It is much more sensible to view this passage as saying that the righteous are revolting to the wicked.

And when we consider the use of the word “taab” which is the verb form of "toebah," the meaning of revolting, repugnant and disgusting becomes even more apparent. For example:
If "taab" means "to make like or view as a pagan temple practice," then Deut 7:26 would essentially be telling the Jews to not bring a pagan temple practice into their homes but rather view it as a pagan temple practice. It makes much more sense to understand this verse as saying that the Jews were not to bring something revolting to God into their homes but were instead to view all such things as revolting to themselves also.

Deut 23:7 would make no sense at all if "taab" were to be translated as "to make like a pagan temple practice." Did God really feel the need to tell the Jews not to view the Edomites and the Egyptians as pagan temple practices? Or did He actually tell them that they should not view the Edomites and the Egyptians with revulsion or disgust?

And what could Job 9:31 possibly mean if "taab" refers to making something a pagan temple practice? Could Job's clothes really treat him in that manner, or is he instead saying that he had become revolting?

And what of Job 19:19? Jobs inward friends turned against him by viewing him as someone disgusting and by staying away from him rather than by viewing him as a pagan temple practice.
The pagan temple practice view of the word "taab" would make Psalm 107:18 say that fools draw near to death because they view eating meat as a pagan temple practice, but viewing "taab" as meaning "revolting, repugnant or disgusting" would make a lot more sense.
Isa 49:7 uses "taab" to speak of the pagan nations finding Jesus disgusting. It makes no sense whatsoever to say that the pagan nations found Jesus to be a pagan temple practice.
Similarly, Amos 5:10 and Micah 3:9 both speak of the wicked viewing the righteous and God's judgement as something repugnant and revolting.
Neither passage would make sense if this term referred to pagan temple practices.
These passages and many more reveal to us that the Hebrew word "toebah" does not refer to pagan temple practices as many defenders of homosexuality claim.

¹⁶There are six things which the LORD hates,
Yes, seven which are an abomination to Him:
¹⁷Haughty eyes, a lying tongue,
And hands that shed innocent blood,
¹⁸A heart that devises wicked plans,
Feet that run rapidly to evil,
¹⁹A false witness who utters lies,
And one who spreads strife among brothers.
- Proverbs 6:16-19

Nwanne for the record, please know that, homosexuality is not hated by God

Now Proverbs 6:16-19 above, shows the list of what God hates. It is a list of what God finds detestable and is also a list of what is an abomination to God.

Proverbs 6:18a, is where from, Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 fits but you need to ask what specifically in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, is abomination to God

Malachi 2:16, where God says, He hates divorce, also slots perfectly well in to Proverbs 6:18a
Amos 5:21, where God says: "I hate your religious festivals, and I will not smell in your solemn assemblies" is another verse, again, that slots perfectly well in to Proverbs 6:18a

See, I can tell you a thing and more about the original word toevah or or toebah, that is translated as "abomination", more than you properly know, so please feel free to ask me questions. Dont hesistate, if there is a need to shed more light.

Now you can see you are getting ahead of yourself with the above emboldened, dont you think?
Now, who told you and/or where did you get the impression from, that it had to do with all these verses you've stringed together, huh? Of course, neither passage would make sense if this term referred to pagan temple practices because you are being duplicitous solite3, by not presenting the undeniable and actual verse that referred the act to be pagan temple activities and practices.

solite3:
It is true that many of the uses of "toebah" in the Bible occur within the context of pagan temple practices, but that is because many of these practices (such as tossing living children into a fire to be burned to death) are repugnant and disgusting in and of themselves. The association with paganism is incidental to the revulsion.

It makes much more sense to view "toebah" as a reference to something revolting, repugnant or disgusting, and this is how the term has been consistently understood for thousands of years. The claim that it refers to pagan temple practices is merely an ad hoc response from the modern homosexual movement to passages describing homosexual intercourse as "toebah." In reality, these passages are claiming that such intercourse is revolting, and so it is.

Ah, haba, may God have mercy upon you and your soul, for trying to pull wool over eyes with the emboldened

solite3:
fornication can between two consenting two easy going, ordinary consenting adults, minding their own businesses enjoying a life long caring, faithful, committed, truthful, honest, loving each other lasting that's life-long and loyal relationship but not married yet it is a sin!

What is the honesty in commiting fornication nwanne? What is truthful in fornication that often is committed in secrecy huh solite3? You are grasping at straws

solite3:
read the above article on toeba
women lying down with women were not uncommon around those territories surrounding Israel, God uses the practices of the pagans that that were practiced around to teach the Israelites something.

Please, provide biblical verse as proof of the above emboldened and if you are unable to, then apologise for lying, and retract your misleading comment

solite3:
Mr muttylaff God didnt create anyone a homo.

Nwanne solite3, do you know that you're absolutely spot on and right about God didnt create anyone a homo, same way God didnt create anyone or animals, born that have two heads, or create human beings, born that have more than one type of genetilia like some that we do have. We live in an imperfect world nwanne, but you seem to forget this, and also declining to accept or agree that, as part of life, arbitrary things, events, and behaviours happen because of the imperfection

solite3:
Homosexuality is as a result of a degenerate society that rejects God.

Nwanne, being gay is like being left handed. Just as some people are left handed, so, most people aren't. Nobody really knows why, except for, it's due, as I earlier have mentioned, partly because we live in an imperfect world. There is no matter of right or wrong in it here. It is a matter of that's just the way things are, and that, there is nothing abnormal, especially and specifically, when and where, it is in two easy going, ordinary consenting adults, minding their own businesses enjoying a life long caring, faithful, committed, truthful, honest, loving each other lasting that's life-long and loyal same-sex relationship, that has no detriment to another person, no betrayal of another person, or no cheating on another person, and not harmful to an object or neighbour.

Having homosexual behaviour, as in the preceded, stated clearly and in detail, context, respect and/or circumstances, is no more abnormal than being lefthanded is, so accept the "fish out of water", especially when it is not evil. Accept their difference, when it is not doing anybody harm and/or not arent harming others with it

Promiscuousness, infidelity, double-dealing, dishonesty, unfair behaviour, badness, cheating etcetera whether in same sex relationships or no same sex relationships, like heterosexuals, is what leads to a degenerate society that rejects God and such God frowns upon

solite3:
you can't be in christ and be sinner.

You can't say and/or be in christ and be devoid of empathy and/or compassion. You want to play the sinner card here, huh? Dont even attempt, to again, on here, try it.
cc TV01

bloodofthelamb:
Bro muttleylaff, how does pleasure and worship correlate? The truth is that we will freely and willing worship and honour Him when we realize how beautifully and wonderfully He made us in love.

Years ago whilst meditating on the words of God, I did ponder with a friend of mine about the relationship between pleasure and worship plus what their mutual relationship is, if there's any. The explanation, I came up with, was this:

When I go to the pub, out of pleasure, I might decide to buy a pint or get a glass of rouge to bottoms up with. Whilst nursing my drink, I am being worshipped by the drink, each time when downing or sipping it. The drink is devoted to giving me a feeling of pleasure, a feeling of enjoying drinking it inconjunction of being in the relaxed ambience surrounding it.

It is a similar thing with when I pleasurably buy an expensive oil paint canvas to put and place on the space above my fireplace mantelpiece. Now, the canvas, on my living room above my fireplace mantelpiece is devoted to giving a feeling of great aesthetic pleasure. The pint, glass of rouge or the oil paint canvas, in their peculiar individual and special ways, are exuding a form of love to me. Incidentally that is what worship is all about. When something, like the pint or red wine loves you, it worships you, it holds you in high regard, it thinks highly of you, it wants to serve you, it wouldnt want to upset your metabolism, it'll be gentle on you, not wanting you to puke or throw up, wants to nourish you. If it is the oil paint canvas, it too loves you, so worships you as well, lights up living room with its rich oil painting colors, decorates the expanse above the fireplace mantelpiece for you, giving the place, an air of designer chic etcetera

The truth is that, the moment the pint, glass of rouge or the oil paint canvas, stops freely and willing worshipping and honouring me and stops anymore from being wonderful, beautiful and/or decorative, from when I first got them, then judgement comes, as in, to either pour into the kitchen sink and down the drain, or end up in the kitchen waste bin or trash can

The poetic licence. I know, forgive it. Hope you saw the pleasure and worship correlate in it all.

GoodMuyis:
I Love this line, it fits into the subject of infinite regression

How do you mean this, please explain in clear and convincing terms how

UyiIredia:
There is no evil in God. That is why evil doesn't exist in God's creation.

Who is Satan? Whose creation is Satan?

UyiIredia:
Then there cannot be evil in the world God created. Otan!

Why wouldnt or couldnt there. Evil, afterall, is the absence of good. Similar manner, darkness is the absence of light. There really isnt darkness, it is just an absence of light. So, evil is the absence and/or departure of the God factor

UyiIredia:
Your Christianity never ceases to amaze me. How does evil exist if it is not part of God's Nature?

I just knew before posting my comment, when staring at how to conspicuously put it as "God's Nature" that you would try and plan to slant it. Anyway and fyi, intrinsically, there is no evil in God.

bloodofthelamb:
And who told you that God made you to worship Him? He made us to love us.

God created out of love. He made all things in love, goodness and kindness that he might share with them all that He is.

"Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power:
for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created."
- Revelation 4:11

UyiIredia:
He also made all things in hate, evil and harshness so He might share them. Evil is part of God's Nature.

Man became god the moment after eating the fruit. Hate filled the vacuum, after the departure and/or absence of love. Evil filled the vacuum, after the departure and/or absence of good. Harshness proceeded and emanated because the ground was cursed due to man. There is no evil in God's Nature.

UyiIredia:
There is o. To be sure can God become an elephant or a rat?

UyiIredia, dont you already know that God has been and/or can be many things? Case in point, fire burning bush, pillar of fire, pillar of cloud

UyiIredia:
A God that can become one of his creation doesn't make much sense if you think. The creation is something different from the Creator. That's what I think.

It actually does especially when something like that isnt a big deal for God
I am quite sure, you can relate to: If you want or need something done right and well, if it is something that you can do then it's a good idea for you to DIY, do it yourself. Now, it shows a humble being not minding descending to the level of His creation and reinforces the fact that humility isn't actually humility unless there's something you're good enough at to be humble about, something good at, like becoming one of your creations

TheArranger:
What if i don't want to worship him?

Simple. Exercise your freewill and damn the consequence then

TheArranger:
Why is there a punishment attached to not worshipping him?

Why shouldnt there be existence of judgement?
Give me a reason(s) why there shouldnt be judgement please.

Zither:
Lol. I have the impression you give your likes grudgingly, but thanks for the like, and for your careful perusal.

The entire post was art, what sold it for me, was the crescendo at the end, where and when you said: "His omni-x nature is not tied to need; it is tied to His will as a sovereign Being.". I buckled at that last sentence because it really is true, it captured and encapsulated the essence of the post itself and is a very insightful, very deep and very sexy beautiful statement

Zither:
thanks. just the truth and nothing but

I pondered over it, mulling it over and over again, so read the post 3-4 times before finally succumbing to the feeling of liking it

Zither:
TheArranger, you did not factor the will of such being into your premises? If God had a need He wouldn't be self-sufficient now, would He?

As a being, He has a will which He manifests in creation. It is easy to confuse the manifestation of will with the satisfaction of need. The manifestation of His will is an expression of His sovereignty, greatness and individuality evidenced by His creation. The satisfaction of a need would imply His dependence on external factors, and as such that would be in contrast with His nature as a God who is before all.

In other words, His omni-x nature is not tied to need; it is tied to His will as a sovereign Being

I think I like this post, so liked it

Horiolah:
NVM.

OK, and if you say so.

ThothHermes:
Anyone can say this. How does it translate to omni-xness?

Can you be whatever you want to be?
It's easier said than done, isn't it? It is only God that can hand pounding chest say: "I shall be that I shall be"
Xness means no limit, no number, means unknowable scope etcetera

ThothHermes:
Described by whom?
Can you quote from their scriptures or are you just saying what you've heard?

"God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: 'I AM has sent me to you."
- Exodus 3:14

TheArranger:
The creative process seems inexorably tied to needs. This process surges as a result of the need to survive, compete or for expression. (It can also happen by accident...)

An omni-x being, or God, by definition has no needs. One might argue that creating would go against his nature. From the Abrahamic standpoint, why would said beings create inferior beings to worship him?

One could attempt an argument as follows:

1. An omni-x being has no needs or reason to create anything

2. An omni-x being would simply be.

3. The universe exists.

4. Therefore, if the universe was created, the author was an entity with a need. (Or created it by accident...)

This conclusion would point to a being quite different from the omni-x God theists describe.

In fact, this omni-x God seems like a classic post hoc explanation for a reality we find difficult to explain.

What do you think?

ThothHermes:
Whoever said God has to be omni-x

No one is doubting whether or not God is: Spirit, and/or the Word, Jesus Christ

The fact and truth, that I know is difficult for many, to understand, is that, God, as well, is: I AM

''I AM that I AM'', ''I SHALL BE THAT I SHALL'' or ''I WILL BE THAT I BE'' are expressive phrase
God will be what God needs to be. We find out what God was yesterday, we keep knowing Him every moment and day
He is new every morning, He is new tomorrow

Thats why, God in Exodus 3:14, said to Moses:
"I AM WHO I AM.
This is what you are to say to the Israelites: 'I AM has sent me to you."

Essentially means, I will become whatsoever I may become.

God therefore, is, "not-known-number" of person
God, then, is, x-person
and God, in effect is, ∞-persons, as in, infinite or infinity.

God is someone without any bound, without limit, without an end.
God is someone bigger and larger than any specified number, even three or trinity.

TV01:
Pain from revealed truth is ultimately that of growth and edification. But please calm yourself, this is not a 12 round professional championship fight. More like amateur novice level.

No pain, no gain and we soon shall see

TV01:
SS physical intimacy is an abomination and against nature, as clearly stated. It’s against Gods will ergo, sinful and evil.

An opinion advanced by you because of your presuppositions, intolerances, agendas, and/or biases.

What is sin and evil in and with two easy going, ordinary consenting adults, minding their own businesses enjoying a life long caring, faithful, committed, truthful, honest, loving each other lasting that's life-long and loyal same-sex relationship, that has no detriment to another person, no betrayal of another person, or no cheating on another person, and not harmful to an object or neighbour, huh?

TV01:
No, what it is, is obfuscation, designed to draw attention from the nature of the thing and deflect attention to peoples desires and feelings around it. And, you are looking for avenues in which to take the discussion, when it is simply “are SS intimate relationships moral and biblically sanctified”.

You either are trying to be machiavellian or maybe you really dont know the meaning of obfuscation. No one, not a sane and rational person, will ever accuse me of obscuring. I've made the question, very easy and simple, to understand

TV01:
Again, you are trying to wrap this in a pretty package and present the packaging itself as the determinant in whether the contents are good or bad, holy or evil.

You rather and prefer, I present a promicuous, cheating, dishonest, harmful, sexually transmitted disease huh? Remember, the entire criteria is relevant to heterosexual relationships too but though applicable to them, they unfortunately arent part of the discussion, it's SS that is.

TV01:
Fine. However, no one demands those when discussing OS relationships or unions. Why, if you consider SS relationships equivalent, are you introducing additional burdens?

If you really a good student of the word, you will ask of those qualities in heterosexual relationships too, just as in with a SS realtionship, that's between two easy going, ordinary consenting adults, minding their own businesses enjoying a life long caring, faithful, committed, truthful, honest, loving each other lasting that's life-long and loyal same-sex relationship, that has no detriment to another person, no betrayal of another person, or no cheating on another person, and not harmful to an object or neighbour.

TV01:
Fine, although a minor point

There is nothing like a minor point when it comes to neighbour. C'mon, you should know that much

TV01:
Yes, yes, and, if you are able, please do so.

What are you waiting for. Are you expecting me to grovel at your feet begging you to provide evidences of the biblical backing ni? C'mon chop-chop. Spill the beans and drop it like its hot

TV01:
Because sexual intercourse was designed as an act of congress between male and female. It is abominable to all. God, people and right ordered society

Please next time number your answers, so I know which question you replied to, OK?

TV01:
Firstly, such imperfections, be that of the body or behaviour are called what they are. Secondly, I can’t tell, is this a yes or a no to SSA and SSR? Are they part of Gods original plan? Shying away already .

You dont seem to get it, we have gone past God's original creational intent. Gods' original creational intent was before the fall in Eden

TV01:
This pre-supposes a “yes” to my first question. Are you saying God ascribes sanctity to SS relationships – with or without your heavy qualification?

If within those remit, you are good to go and God might even heal your partner, if so happens, to be ill and/or sick

TV01:
This indicates a “no” to the first question Was SSA and SSR as a result of this Pandoras box of abnormalities and curses being opened?

Human being body with two heads, human beings with more than one type of Instruments etcetera are as a result of after the ground got cursed, then abnormalities and whatnot soon reared their heads because the Pandora box was opened but life goes on

TV01:
It’s not about the feeling, which appears to be an early point of departure for you. It’s about the facts and the truth.

Exactly. Enjoying and loving the facts and truth dispelling the blinkers. One day the monkey will go to the market and it will not come back.

TV01:
Cheers
TV

Bottoms up!

solite3:
I hate going in circles. mr mutty you are weird. How do you come to the conclusion that I HATE HOMOSEXUALS?

solite3, please dont get your knickers in a knot over something as obvious as this now. Tell me, and that is if you are going to be honest, sincere and truthful, is there nothing in and/or about being homosexual you hate, huh? See?

solite3:
God hates homosexuality and called it abomination

I still dont understand where you guys find that God hates homosexuality and called it abomination. Are you 110% sure, are you really sure the verses you had in mind absolutely said this, huh?

solite3:
Leviticus 18:22
Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

I remember last year, asking you that, what does the original word (i.e. toevah) translated as "abomination" means and in what context is it, used with Leviticus 18:22 & Leviticus 20:13 but you dodged that question without replying to it. See now how, you can run from a question but you cant run for ever and hide from it. You are my customer daada ni

solite3:
Jesus reiterated God's plan for sexual union

Matthew 19:4
And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,

God made sex for procreation.

God never created anyone homosexual, it is the result of the sin nature of man.

We know all these, but yeah, its here, what we and you going to do about two easy going, ordinary consenting adults, minding their own businesses enjoying a life long caring, faithful, committed, truthful, honest, loving each other lasting that's life-long and loyal same-sex relationship, that has no detriment to another person, no betrayal of another person, or no cheating on another person, and not harmful to an object or neighbour, huh?

solite3, you continually refuse and still havent said what the evil is in two easy going, ordinary consenting adults, minding their own businesses enjoying a life long caring, faithful, committed, truthful, honest, loving each other lasting that's life-long and loyal same-sex relationship, that has no detriment to another person, no betrayal of another person, or no cheating on another person, and not harmful to an object or neighbour.

solite3:
Paul records that homosexuality is as a result of depravity and a rejection of the knowledge of God.

You this man, you have started with your proof texting again. Please provide this verse where and when Paul records that homosexuality is as a result of depravity and a rejection of the knowledge of God.

solite3:
Romans 1:25-28 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

You want to hear word, isnt it, and that hear word, I'll give you.

Now you would accept and agree that there was no such thing as woman lying with woman in Old Testament Biblical records, erh?

Fast forward to New Testament Biblical records, and boom! What have we? Women, now too, are doing the female equivalent of, man lying down with man. Women have joined gang. Have left ordinarily being a shrine prostitute, for services of just men, but now offering the similar service for female patrons too

So what is happening and/or what happened in Romans 1:25-28?
Well, for your information solite3, Romans 1:18-32, especially verses 24, 26 & 27 is a rehash of Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13 with a twist

Paul, with Romans 1:18-32, especially verses 24, 26 & 27, is echoing what happened around when Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13 were given. He then added the twist (i.e. Romans 1:26b: ... for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature) which is, the women too, have joined to be participants in the ongoing "detestable customs practised"

solite3:
muttylaff is not what humans want but what the will of God is.

human way no matter how elaborate, innocent, nice and harmless it may be, but the end of it is death.

Proverbs 16:2
All the ways of a man are clean in his own eyes; but the LORD weigheth the spirits.

Proverbs 16:25
There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.

solite3, there is no longer Jew or Gentile, slave or free, male and female. For you are all one in Christ Jesus.