₦airaland Forum

9inches:
Yeah, the dictionary is misleading.
I'll have them apologize to you and also to redact the "misleading" definition.

I sense some element of sarcasm in the latter part of your post
but hey there isnt the need to apologise 9inches,
afterall, we are all unlearning and thereafter relearning.

As I earlier said, if something like that and/or a perception, is misleading,
what else, is out there, that, you have learned
or we have learned, that is misleading too?

9inches:
You are the ignorant one here.

Post your source for refuting the meaning of ekklesia.

Your wish is my command

9inches:
ecclesia
[ih-klee-zhee-uh, -zee-uh]
noun, plural ec·cle·si·ae [ih-klee-zhee-ee, -zee-ee] /ɪˈkli ʒiˌi, -ziˌi/.

1. an assembly, especially the popular assembly of ancient Athens.
2. a congregation; church.

But if I tarry long,
that thou may know how it is expedient to behave thyself in the house of God,
which is the congregation {Gr. ekklesia – called out ones} of the living God,
the pillar and base of the truth.
- 1 Timothy 3:15 Jubilee Bible 2000

For all it's worth, it's necessary and important to be familiar with this word "church"
because as we start to read about or know things done in the past,
we can begin to learn from them, learn a thing or two, would have become wiser and wise enough to make re-adjustments, where if applicable, to our theology

To start with and as a matter of fact, "ekklesia" is the proper and correct noun word for believers called out and/or gathering together, which the word "church", as it is, presently or currently represents.

"Ekklesia" actually, is a Greek word,
which in Athens and in most Greek poleis (i.e. Greek cities or states) means an assembly of demo
(i.e. yes, demo, is Greek for people, as like the demo in democracy)

"Ekklesia" is an assembly of summoned free people or gathering of those summoned.
The word is derived from “ekkletos” meaning summoned and “ekkaleom” meaning to summon or call out.

"Ekklesia" in Strong's Greek Concordance, is defined as "an assembly, congregation, the whole body of Christian believers"
and says it’s formed from a compound of "ek" which means "out of or out from and to" and a derivative of "kaleo" which means "to call or a calling"

"Ekkletoi" refers to the called-out inhabitants or citizens of Athens or any of the Greek poleis, assembled together, as a result of a call out request done by a herald, announcer or town crier.

"Ekklesia" appears 114 times in the NT.
It first appeared in Matthew 16:18,
and that's where it was first mentioned and first used by none other than Jesus
Now here's a sense of biblical déjà vu repeating itself , Eve out of Adam, Israelites out of Egypt etc
and this is, God, again, in the person of Jesus Christ doing a "call out from... and to assembly"

"Ekklesia" as far back in the Old Testament wilderness, has always been an assembly or congregation of called-out people
(i.e. Acts 7:38 is referring to the congregation in Deuteronomy 9:10)
and it's no different in the original Greek New Testament whether in non-secular and secular capacities
(i.e. Matthew 16:18, Acts 7:38 non-secular and Acts 19:32, 39 and 41 for secular)

Notice in Acts 19:32, 39 and 41, that "ekklesia" is used three times, for people not connected with religious or christian matters, assembling or gathering together.

This so far, is showing that, "ekklesia" represents something totally different to what we've commonly perceived what "church" is.

Also, the true meaning, import or connotation of "ekklesia" is lost or eroded when it is used or translated to/as "church"

"Ekklesia" isn't about physical structures, and the Greeks; originators of the word, never referred it, to be a building or place of worship, so at least Freeze got something right

At this juncture, some might say, all this etymology stuff is bunkum and time wasting, it's nitpicking over minute details, and that it's pedantic fault-finding or say church or ekklesia, whatever the noun used, it doesn't matter.

Others, like 9inches possibly, delighting in their ignorance(s), could say, church or ekklesia, it makes no difference,
it's much ado about nothing and so what's the big deal.

Well, 9inches, FYI, in 1526 AD, William Tyndale's New Testament, was the first New Testament printed in the English Language
and the fact about this translation, is that, not a single occurrence of the word "church" is found used for congregation in it.

9inches note here that, William Tyndale did however, use the word "church" twice in Acts 14:13 and Acts 19:37 for something else.
It was in reference to pagan Temples;
9inches, I hope you noticed that "ekklesia" wasn't used in either of those Acts 14:13 and Acts 19:37 verses mentioned.

Then Iupiters Preste which dwelt before their cite brought oxe and garlondes vnto the churche porche and wolde have done sacrifise with the people
- Acts 14:13 William Tyndale.

Zeus' temple was at the entrance to the city. The priest of the god Zeus brought bulls with flowery wreaths around their necks to the temple gates. The priest and the crowd wanted to offer a sacrifice [to Paul and Barnabas].
- Acts 14:13 GOD'S WORD® Translation.

For you have brought here these men, who are neither robbers of temples, nor yet blasphemers of your goddess.
- Acts 19:37 King James 2000 Bible

For ye have brought hyther these me whiche are nether robbers of churches nor yet despisers of youre goddes.
- Acts 19:37 William Tyndale.

Tyndale recognised, "ecclesia or ekklesia" to be congregacion or congregation of "called out people" who are believers
and that churches were buildings for religious practices or purposes, and this includes Jewish or pagan temples.

So, in this first English New Testament translation print, congregation originally was in the place where "church" is presently or currently found in most English translations.

In the beginning, building(s) was what "church" was original identified as,
but now, it's obvious and no denying that, "church" is prevalently also called or known as the body of Christ.
Examples of other churches, we have, as of today are:
The Church of Scientology, Church of Wicca, The National Church of Bey (i.e. Beyonce), Church of Satan,
The Sunday Assembly (i.e. an atheist church), The Church of Humanity etcetera.

1557 AD was the first time "ekklesia" was translated as "church" by William Whittingham in the Geneva New Testament produced, subsequent bible translations, KJV included, began having "church" used to describe people and their place of congregation or place of meetings too
From then to the present, the norm now is, "church" erroneously is the physical structure and people assembling together
(i.e. Matthew 16:18, Acts 14:23, James 5:14)

In the New Testament, we are used to knowing synagogue also to be an equivalent name of the building used for assembling in or congregating in, but the Greek word "sunagogé" means "coming together" and could imply a meeting (i.e. gathering together) rather than a building (i.e. Acts 13:43, James 2:2);
so synagogues were simply gatherings that took place outdoors or in people’s houses or courtyards
(i.e. refer to 2 Thessalonians 2:1 or Hebrews 10:25 Greek Text Analysis for more details)

TB Joshua’s set-up, calls itself synagogue,
but then for good measure, appends the word "church", making it: The Synagogue, Church Of All Nations (i.e. SCOAN)

The English word "church" on it's self, actually has pagan origins.
It's a derivation from the Old English word cir(i)ce, cyr(i)ce, related to the Anglo Saxon circay, kirk in Scottish, the Latin circus/circulous, Dutch kerk, or German Kirche.

These words all have associations with "gathering in circles"
and researches showed that most pagan religions meetings have worshippers/attendees gathered together round in prayer circles.

This information gives some insight into Tyndales' understanding
and the reason why he selected the word "Church" to refer to buildings; pagan temple(s) included
and used congregacion (i.e. congregation) to mean "ekklesia"

Why was a totally unrelated word to ekklesia, substituted for ekklesia? (i.e. like in Job 14:4)

As so far noticed, the word "Church" has varied origins and different meanings to what we're accustomed to,
but the word in Latin for ekklesia is also ekklesia,
so, if Latin in the absence of a proper word, managed to retain the word ekklesia,
why couldn't the "called out ones" who translated, retain it too?

In light of all these information, why the word "church", is falsely used in place of Christ's ekklesia leaves one literally open-mouthed

No doubt, there are strong indications of foul-play somewhere down the history lanes of church,
as "church" DOESN'T COME from the original Koine Greek word ekklesia like 9inches believes it does

9inches:
ecclesia
[ih-klee-zhee-uh, -zee-uh]
noun, plural ec·cle·si·ae [ih-klee-zhee-ee, -zee-ee] /ɪˈkli ʒiˌi, -ziˌi/.

1. an assembly, especially the popular assembly of ancient Athens.
2. a congregation; church.

It's the above definition, not me, that says you are ignorant.

OK, but it is misleading 9inches
If that can be misleading, what else that you've learned is misleading too

9inches:
You are the ignorant one here.

The ignorant are ignorant of their ignorance.
9inches, the highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.
Everybody is ignorant, only on different subjects,
and on the subject of the true meaning of church compared with ecclesia, 9inches you're ignorant.

9inches:
Post your source for refuting the meaning of ekklesia.

ecclesia
[ih-klee-zhee-uh, -zee-uh]
noun, plural ec·cle·si·ae [ih-klee-zhee-ee, -zee-ee] /ɪˈkli ʒiˌi, -ziˌi/.

1. an assembly, especially the popular assembly of ancient Athens.
2. a congregation; church.

9inches, please dont go down this path.
I will spare you your blushes, so I pass on posting information on the true meaning of church compared with ecclesia

Ishilove:
Describe 'Christian aura'

and circular marriage too

9inches:
I can't.

"I accept same sex relationship,
regardless of age, consent, honesty, sustainability and loyalty of the people involved,
as long as it does not involve the act of homosexuality which I condemn"
- Page 0 9inches ©
1. I haven't done any homosexual act to know exactly.
We can work with any example you provide
(I assume you are a homosexual).
2. Maybe you should take it up with the moral giver, not me.
3. Because the moral giver set the rules.
Right.

[img]https://s1/images/MuttAmin.gif[/img]
This got me cracked up
You no go keel pesin with lafta

spartan117:
If anyone refuses to work it's because they are lazy, it has nothing to do with Christianity because the bible is very clear on this issue.

There is however a place for prayer and faith.
That is why the Christian never loses hope because there is no such thing as hopelessness for the child of God.

Prayers means talking to God, after prayers it's necessary to wait on him in order to hear from him, when you do he gives a specific instruction pertaining to that situation and that guarantees your success.
Remember the story of Peter?
He had toiled all night and caught nothing,
but when the master gave him a specific instruction to cast the net in a particular part of the water, he got results.
Note that he still had to make an effort to cast the net (faith without work is dead) if he didn't do that he would have caught nothing.

John 21:6 And he said unto them, Cast the net on the right side of the ship, and ye shall find. They cast therefore, and now they were not able to draw it for the multitude of fishes.

Unfortunately some christians are yet to understand this truth. But it will be revealed to them in the fullness of time.

budaatum:
Sounds pretty much like what happens when I meditate, spartan.
My mind searches for and provides solutions.
Its usually in the form of some work I have to go off and do.
And I hope the work I do solves the issues that confront me, and I have faith that it would because it did in the past, and always has.

Please note back to that "some" in my earlier. It is the practise of "some" that I am against.
And those "some" tend to claim they are doing what they consider to be the word of god, or what god told them. I just do not agree that gods are as stupid as some make out. But again, note that "some".

And atheists don't live without hope. No one does, except those who give up

The law of gravity is respecter of nobody
The law of gravity doesnt know if you're christian or if you are an atheist.
It just does it's thing to whoever crosses it.

Same way, principles, regardless of who you are, when set off or set going, will work for you and not against you.

Look at Nairaland, the "Reply" button, works for registered Nairaland monikers.
Without clicking the "Reply" button to start composing a post, you can pray till kingdom comes
but nothing will happen, if you're hoping your post will get published without first clicking the "Reply" button and then begin composing
The "Reply" button is a prerequisite step, whether you believe in using the "Reply" button or not.
It works for everyone, regardless of who you are, what you are and where you're at

9inches:
The word “church” comes from the Greek word ekklesia
which is defined as “an assembly” or “called-out ones.”

Wrong 9inches.
The word “church” DOES NOT, DID NOT & NEVER came from the Greek word ekklesia.

Why are people so ill-informed about something like this
and other terms used in relation to the thread's subject matter

9inches:
Where did you get the notion that the church "must condemn homosexuals"?

"I accept same sex relationship,
regardless of age, consent, honesty, sustainability and loyalty of the people involved,
as long as it does not involve the act of homosexuality which I condemn"
- Page 0 9inches ©

Whoever that person with the notion that the church "must condemn homosexuals", I am yet to know
Budaatum seems to have mistaken you for the person with the notion that the church "must condemn homosexuals"?

You, apparently, as you earlier put it, as can be seen with respect to to the above inverted commas,
condemn the act of homosexuality or dont you anymore?

That's why, I earlier asked the following questions, to solicit clearer and more information
1/ What exactly, in the act of homosexuality, do you condemn?
2/ Why do you deem what the act of homosexuality is in #1/ above, deserves to be condemned?
3/ How and/or why did you arrive at this position of condemning the act of homosexuality?

9inches:
I can't.

Or you dont, you can't bring yourself to say

9inches:
Do you have any in mind for consideration?

"I accept same sex relationship,
regardless of age, consent, honesty, sustainability and loyalty of the people involved,
as long as it does not involve the act of homosexuality which I condemn"
- Page 0 9inches ©

No, I dont have anything for consideration crossing my mind,
not when it's to do with consenting adults of same gender, faithful and committed to each other
whilst being in relationship that's meaningful, honest, truthful, loving and lasting a lifetime,

but you apparently, as you put it and wrt to the above inverted commas, condemn the act of homosexuality.
1/ What exactly, in the act of homosexuality, do you condemn?
2/ Why do you deem what the act of homosexuality is in #1/ above, deserves to be condemned?
3/ How and/or why did you arrive at this position of condemning the act of homosexuality?

9inches:
Nothing is impossible.

Nothing is impossible, especially with God.

9inches:
My point in essence is that the Church does not know who is a sinner or who isn't.
Infact, the church does not ask such question.
However, when a liar or an adulterer tries to promote lying or adultery in an attempt to subvert (check meaning) the Church,
that's when the Church reacts inorder to protect itself including the congregation from such corruption.

I hope I made it clear enough for you.

budaatum:
I must have mixed you up with the person who was claiming the church must condemn homosexuals.

The facts are that no religious organisation in UK is permitted to discriminate, in any way whatsoever, against gays and homosexuals.
And that includes refusing them communion, for an example.
They all have to obey the law of the land or they will get prosecuted if found not to and fined if found guilty, and they can't claim God or their holy book says they can.

UK seems to have adopted the attitude that people are more important and need protection and religious institutions and gods can take care of themselves, if you asked me.

"I accept same sex relationship,
regardless of age, consent, honesty, sustainability and loyalty of the people involved,
as long as it does not involve the act of homosexuality which I condemn"
- Page 0 9inches ©

By virtue of what ekklesia means, which is "the called out"
but since over time, the word ekklesia has been exchanged
and that "church" has since then been erroneously used in place of ekklesia (i.e. "the called out'')
May I submit to you bud, that 9inches is ekklesia; the church, and ekklesia; the church, is 9inches

Whoever that person is, the person's position, is that the church must condemn homosexuals,
whilst 9inches' position, from the above inverted commas, condemns same sex relationship, if it involves the act of homosexuality

9inches:
They can could and would be committing sin if they act upon any kind of sinful desire either by acting out the desire or by encouraging the desire and deliberately engaging in fantasies about acting it out.

I'll like you to give examples of:
1/ any kind of sinful desire
2/ the desire not to act out and/or not to encourage
3/ deliberately engaging in fantasies about acting it out

9inches:
You also succinctly nailed it here:

So you do accept then,
that there is no ongoing action between consenting adults in a same gender relationship that could and would be faulted
provided the union is honest, truthful, loving, committed, lasting a lifetime, faithful and meaningful?

9inches:
Brother, there's nothing like sinful enough. Sin is sin. Is there any particular act you want to know if it qualifies as a sin?

MuttleyLaff:
OK, brother, I hear you
Now let me rephrase that then
by saying please, what exactly in their ways, allegedly, is the sin, that requires changing.
Please dont make dodging from answering this question turn into a habit
So, tell in a clear and detailed manner, leaving no room for confusion or doubt, what it is please

9inches:
Since we don't know what the people we are referring to,
how would I know what they do, so as to say if it's sin or not?

"Everyone who commits sin commits lawlessness, for sin is lawlessness." (1 John 3:4)

budaatum:
On the assumption the phrase "we are referring to", has a "do" at the end,
since you don't "know what they do so as to say if it's sin or not"...

I can tell for free, what the people, the thread along, is refering to

The people, the thread all along, is refering to, are consenting adults in a honest, loving, committed, lasting a lifetime, faithful and meaningful same gender relationship

So now, 9inches, please, tell, in a clear and detailed manner, leaving no room for confusion or doubt, if at all there is any,
how consenting adults in a honest, loving, committed, lasting a lifetime, faithful
and meaningful same gender relationship could and would be committing sin

Syncan:
MuttleyLaff, I haven't been posting on Nairaland for a long time because I really do not have the time.
You called me out on this,I simply came to clarify things.
I find it unappealing reading responses to broken down posts of mine,
as I do acknowledge that I am handicap in that respect in which I have noticed that you're quite skillful in.
Having read through your post, I find nothing that interests me to respond to, so I will gladly pass with these words...
Those members of the church you talk about; are not saints in heaven because the were Canonized,
no, they were Canonized because they are saints in heaven.
The books of the bible did not become inspired because they were Canonized,
no, they were Canonized because they are Inspired.

Do have a splendid day.

I wish you same too

Ubenedictus:
Amen

Syncan, as I earlier mentioned, I dont want and never set to fall out with you.

I dont have the time too, but I when necessary, just free time to post.

Responding to posts section by section, remark by remark, statement by statement is an acquired skill
How else to counter?

Canon of scripture is not the same thing as canonisation of saints
Canon of scripture is a collection or list of sacred books accepted as genuine and are distinct from falsely attributed works

Why the canonisation of saints then?
Is it an exercise done or necessary to recognise the gennine from the false?
If its accepted and agreed that, they are already saints in heaven, why then, is it necessary to declare them saints?

Syncan:
MuttleyLaff, I haven't been posting on Nairaland for a long time because I really do not have the time.
You called me out on this,I simply came to clarify things.
I find it unappealing reading responses to broken down posts of mine,
as I do acknowledge that I am handicap in that respect in which I have noticed that you're quite skillful in.
Having read through your post, I find nothing that interests me to respond to, so I will gladly pass with these words...
Those members of the church you talk about; are not saints in heaven because the were Canonized,
no, they were Canonized because they are saints in heaven.
The books of the bible did not become inspired because they were Canonized,
no, they were Canonized because they are Inspired.

Do have a splendid day.

I wish you same too

Ubenedictus:
Amen

Syncan, as I earlier mentioned, I dont want and never set to fall out with you.

I dont have the time too, I, when necessary, just free time to post.

Responding to posts section by section, remark by remark, statement by statement is an acquired skill
How else to counter?

Canon of scripture is not the same thing as canonisation of saints
Canon of scripture is a collection or list of sacred books accepted as genuine and are distinct from falsely attributed works

Why the canonisation of saints then?
Is it an exercise done or necessary to recognise the gennine from the false?
If its accepted and agreed that, they are already saints in heaven, why then, is it necessary to declare them saints?

budaatum:
Can a person be bi if they've decided to be mono?

Naturally, I love German cars,
but I've been known to have decided, at one time or the other, to go for French, British and Asian cars
Though in my heart, I am a German car person through and through,
sometimes because of situation, circumstance and/or condition I end up having a car that's not German.

budaatum:
Not quite. It's like fancying both at the same time.
Once you settle for one, you're no more "b".

On the contrary, you're still "B"
You still fancy both sexes, but you have decided not to follow it through.
As you're now committed in a relationship built on trust, truthfulness, honesty and faithfulness to this person you've chosen to settle down with

Syncan:
I do wonder what joy you gain in deception.
How trying to look smart and not honest will help your life as a christian

Whoa, whoa, whoa, you kicked off on an ad hominien rampage
"Shey mo gba e jadu iyawo po ni?"
Attack the message, not the messenger.
Biko, leave the courier out of it.

Paul wasnt even among what I emboldened before wondering whether the aforementioned accept and agree with it.
Not even when everyone in the know, knows that the apostleship didnt shack Paul.
Paul didnt go on apostleship ego trips.
1 Corinthians 15:9 and 2 Corinthians 12:11 are a testament to this biblical fact and truth

Syncan:
I am glad you're not the only one God has blessed with a functional grey matter,
so those who read us can draw their inferences as well.
How those quotes exonerate you from what I wrote, I do not know

I merely showed how Paul came about the Apostleship
1/ an apostle--sent not from men nor by man
2/ an apostle of Christ Jesus by the command of God our Savior and of Christ Jesus our hope
3/ called to be an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God

Syncan:
Very clearly I stated that St. Paul addressed himself as apostle, you started copying and pasting everywhere he did that, to support me or what?

Not to support you or what
but a mere exercise of presenting on their own merits factual biblical verses

Syncan:
If you do not understand my post, then I can't discuss with you

Seems, I didnt understand it.
Discussion to clarify and clear the air about it will be most welcome.

Syncan:
If you understood and simply want to deceive, then I don't have time to waste

I dont know about what and/or any deception you're talking about

Syncan:
Yes, you don't have beef with Paul calling himself an apostle when he isn't one of the twelve.
How you can explain this

"And remember, our Lord's patience gives people time to be saved.
This is what our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you with the wisdom God gave him--"
- 2 Peter 3:15

"¹¹You have made me act like a fool--boasting like this.
You ought to be writing commendations for me, for I am not at all inferior to these "super apostles," even though I am nothing at all.
¹²When I was with you, I certainly gave you proof that I am an apostle.
For I patiently did many signs and wonders and miracles among you"
- 2 Corinthians 12:11-12

Peter, who is one of the twelve, in 2 Peter 3:15 above, gives Paul an endorsement, acceptance and approval.
I'll let 2 Corinthians 12:11-12 above, do the rest of explaning.

Syncan:
and can't understand the use of saint for members of the church in heaven ...

I dont want to fall out with you,
but recognise that it was wondered whether you agree to the emboldened before up there
and accept that believers dont need to be canonized or formally recognized as biblical saints

It was just a simple and harmless curiosity remark

Syncan:
... only hatred can tell.

There is no iota of hatred.
Dont perceive me as a hater. All I've got for you is love Syncan
So Syncan no need for teeth baring, I love you. No homo.
Not saying "No homo", for fear of treated like a pariah, but just saying.
As you started your post with "Its no problem at all o...", that's good enough for me.

RuthlessLeader:
Face my question.

Your question was and is faced
There was no excuse for you to lose control and resort to foul languages
Your mind ultimately will answer your question

RuthlessLeader:
Good

I am happy you agree

RuthlessLeader:
What is the rationale?

Ruth' a question asked in the right way often points to its right answer

RuthlessLeader:
Fixed

You must be desperate, to need and have to resort this bizzare behaviour

RuthlessLeader:
That's my problem.
Why didn't God give the same punishment or something as severe?

Because of the underlining difference.
Betrothal and the lack thereof?

RuthlessLeader:
The only biased one here is you.
If you were objective you would realise this law can be abused and misinterpreted by the illiterate Israelites.

"Illiterate" Israelites hmm.
Most of the Israelites are intelligient and educated enough not to, any that will, are few and far in between to abuse and misinterpret the law.

RuthlessLeader:
Like how god commands his people to kill homosexuals

Are you sure, God commanded His people to kill homosexuals?
Are you absolutely sure. Let's mildly test this, if you reply is affirmative, then
1/ What's the "homosexuals'" crime?
2/ What have they, the "homosexuals" done for this kind of treatment to be levelled against them,
3/ God commands people to kill "homosexuals", allegedly. Why? What's the reason for this?

RuthlessLeader:
You have this habit of ignoring questions

Started with my reply to "Non-sequitur" and now this off tangent "You have this habit of ignoring questions" remark
It's because you have this habit of making statements that are wholly ill-information,
it stops one dead in the track and move forward to progress
and you wonder why your question(s) isnt/arent answered

RuthlessLeader:
Yes

I dont you really know what you there said yes to.
You're saying, yes, it was so popular that countless people took advantage of the law and abused it then?
As far as I know, it's not countless number of people, but a number that be counted using one hand

RuthlessLeader:
Just say you don't know.
I won't kill you.

I'll be lying, if I say I dont know
and so you know, I am not afraid of death

RuthlessLeader:
Oga this is a very stupid analogy.
Wisdom and knowledge are useless unless they are shared so that other people can improve.
And as for all these precious substances, they are all meaningless to children and would be meaningless if they were more common.

Anyone like you, will call it a stupid analogy.
When looking and searching for answers, dig at the root, instead at hacking at the leaves
Dig. Better a diamond with a flaw, than a peeble without

RuthlessLeader:
Anyway:
Diamonds take intense heat and pressure to form so they are found deep in the earth, only volcanic eruptions bring them to the surface. Gold can be gotten by panning. And pearls and petrol form in the sea.
Natural Pearls form when an irritant - usually a parasite and not the proverbial grain of sand - works its way into an oyster, mussel, or clam.
As a defense mechanism, a fluid is used to coat the irritant.
Layer upon layer of this coating, called 'nacre', is deposited until a lustrous pearl is formed.

Thank you for this refresher
but the point made with that analogy that countered your
"...Why couldn't God just put the meaning there so even children could understand..." is that
what comes easy won't last, what lasts won't come easy.

You see, nothing worth knowing and/or worth having, comes quickly or easy.
If it did, I doubt we'll ever learn something new or grow.
Think about that.

RuthlessLeader:
No you listen to yourself.
You have still said absolutely nothing and in your attempt to sound smart, you made a big fool of yourself.

You need to have a kit-kat, as you've become overly sensitive

RuthlessLeader:
I think you are a troll or you are actually serious about all your nonsense.

Think more "midwifesie"
and you arent taking deep breaths, pushing the right way nor hard or harder enough

RuthlessLeader:
Nigerians & Poe's law are like 5&6

The muds aren't sticking.
You've flung all sorts at me so far.
Suppose should be expecting the kitchen sink to be next that you'll fling at me

God is Good

budaatum:
I used to think the same way.
But concluded that where other people put their bits is none of my business as long as they weren't putting it into me or I wasn't putting my bits into them.

Bud, I think it's like a case of fancying brunettes, that are tall and with heavy bazookas and bacca
but settling for a shorter one with just bacca, and get committed, faithful, honest to a lifetime long lasting relationship

In a sense, they're attracted to both sexes,
but become committed, faithful and honest once a particular plunge has been taken

9inches:
Brother, there's nothing like sinful enough. Sin is sin. Is there any particular act you want to know if it qualifies as a sin?

OK, brother, I hear you
Now let me rephrase that then
by saying please, what exactly in their ways, allegedly, is the sin, that requires changing.
Please dont make dodging from answering this question turn into a habit
So, tell in a clear and detailed manner, leaving no room for confusion or doubt, what it is please

RuthlessLeader:
Bullshit. I know that you will still ignore my reply and talk one rubbish.

Why is it necessary to resort to this sort of language
I knew it to be a matter of time.

RuthlessLeader:
Was it not you that said Context is king.
That is justifying rape in case you don't know.

Yes, that's correct, I did say context is king
No, RuthlessLeader, it isnt necessarily justifying rape.
When look into the context, you'll spot and/or find the rationale behind this particular law

I repeat myself, afterall a different sort of rape, had the penalty of death, whereas the one in Deuteronomy 22:28-29 doesnt
So gain, detach yourself, put aside any and/or all preconceived bias, be objective.
Unlearn, to then after, relearn

RuthlessLeader:
I guess you apply context when reading the bible verses on god commanding genocide and verses that allow slavery

Let's first finish the rape and this your Deuteronomy 22:28-29 thing before you start opening up on other things

RuthlessLeader:
Non-sequitur

You're developing this habit of dropping biblical verses and now added this phrase, to the list of things, you write out, stemming from an irresistible impulse

Do you at all understand what the expression "you cant see the wood for the trees" means?
I doubt you do, because you wont type "Non-sequitur" against it, if you did

RuthlessLeader:
Let's see how that law can be abused.
Say I want to marry a virgin girl who will not talk to me and.
So I gather as many shekels of silver as I can find and when it reaches fifty, I rape her.
I am caught but instead of me being stoned to death or exiled, I am "punished" by marrying the girl, which was what I wanted in the first place. So yeah, the rapist is being rewarded.

It must so popular that countless people took advantage of the law and abused it then

RuthlessLeader:
What is this bigger picture you can't just tell me about that makes you excuse this atrocity?

It's not for me to directly tell you,
you on your own accord, will have the epiphany
I'll drop dots, you have to connect them, then make out the emerging picture

RuthlessLeader:
This sounds like when all of a theist's points have been destroyed and he concedes by telling the atheist to pray about it and God will reveal it to him.
Seriously, I should to god to understand the meaning of that verse?
Why couldn't God just put the meaning there so even children could understand?

Why arent diamonds, gold, pearls lying on the surface, so that even children could pick them up
Why arent petrol flowing on the surface, so that even children could scoop them up
I know you're getting the drift

RuthlessLeader:
I have pondered deeply on it. And it is still a stupid law.
Why can't God just say the Israelites should build a prison or tell them how to chemically castrate rapists?
Not only would that be a better solution, it would also be way beyond their time and could be used to convert atheists.
But then again, the ancient mayans could perform surgery so...

Listen to yourself

RuthlessLeader:
Meaning you hope I stop asking questions and accepting this steaming pile of bullshit as enlightened wisdom, huh?

However you interpret it to be RuthlessLeader

Syncan:
Its no problem at all o, just that when you guys try everything to disparage the Church, you simply miss the point.

"John, to the seven congregations {Gr. ekklesia – called out ones} which are in Asia:
Grace be unto you and peace from him who is and who was
and who is to come and from the seven Spirits which are before his throne"
- Revelation 1:4

It's you who simply misses and/or missed the crucial point about ekklesia and what it is. The word "church" does not come from the Greek word ekklesia

Ekklesia has always been, case in point, as seen in Revelation 1:4 above, where and/or when Ignatius of Antioch, who incidentally was a disciple of the author of the above Revelation 1:4 verse, as in the person of Apostle John, coined the "ekklesia katholicos" phrase, it was used to mean the called out ones universally, in distinct to the local, town or city assemblies

Syncan:
Jesus appointed twelve apostles, the apostles elected Mattias to replace Judas Ischariot Acts1:23, the names of the twelve are written in heaven as seen in Rev.21:14.
However St. Paul still used the name apostle in referring to himself 1Cor.15:9.
He was not one of the twelve appointed by Jesus while on earth, neither was he elected by the apostles.
So is it that when you name the twelve apostles, you now confuse yourself with Paul, or God is now a God of disorder for that reason?
See how hard you're working to say the church is wrong for calling holy ones in heaven saints because it was used for those on earth, I just tire for you folks.

"Paul, an apostle--sent not from men nor by man,
but by Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised Him from the dead--"
- Galatians 1:1

"Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the command of God our Savior and of Christ Jesus our hope"
- 1 Timothy 1:1

"Paul, called to be an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, and our brother Sosthenes,"
- 1 Corinthians 1:1

Interesting, so your beef is with Paul being an apostle

bedspread:
CANT U READ....
Fornication, Adultery,Homosexualism and Atrocities of all kind
And of all kind even to the Men asking to sleep with the Angels...

Facepalm. SMH. I rest my case

RuthlessLeader:
No I just proved right now that you yourself don't know how to explain away that verse.
That's why you keep running around in circles.
But it sha boggles the mind how someone can justify rewarding rape.

No you've proved, you want to be nannied, spoon fed and all
Where and who said rape was justified?
You cant see the wood for the trees, that's the problem.
So you, thought the rapist was being rewarded, erh?
It is not about rewarding rape RuthlessLeader, there is a bigger picture, you're oblivious of and yet to see.
It will come to you later if not now,
just ponder deeply more on the broader side of the matter and not concerntrating on the perpetrator.
Sorry I cant go further on it than I've so far done

9inches:
I'm asking you to check the meaning of sin.

Brother, the meaning of sin in a simplistic and biblical term is, missing the mark.
Now, please, I repeat, what exactly in their ways, allegedly, is sinful enough, that requires changing.
Why are you dodging from answering this question?
Tell in a clear and detailed manner, leaving no room for confusion or doubt, what it is please.

RuthlessLeader:
Why don't you explain to me the context since you understand so much.
Or maybe you don't understand yourself

Shebi it was you who gragra was lampooning with Deuteronomy 22:28-29
Now you're playing a different card, the emotional one
I understand enough to have pointed out to you, how and where to lift, in order for you to uncover and see under.
Do the rest of the heavy lifting yourself, if not, then drop the weight.
Next time, dont inappropriately be throwing bible verses about,
especially when not well informed about it and the particular subject mentioned within it

RuthlessLeader:
There are many arguments over the use of the word “rape” and what is meant by “hold”, “seize” or “force”. Honestly, I have to wonder how much of this is revisionist viewings of the Bible in light of the modern day viewings of things.

Let’s look at 22:25–27, for example, where it’s clear what we’re discussing:

English: “But if in the open country a man meets a young woman who is betrothed, and the man seizes her and lies with her, then only the man who lay with her shall die. But you shall do nothing to the young woman; she has committed no offense punishable by death. For this case is like that of a man attacking and murdering his neighbor, because he met her in the open country, and though the betrothed young woman cried for help there was no one to rescue her.”

Very clearly a rape, right? (we won’t get into the fact that if a woman is raped in a city, she’s guilty of a crime…that’s pretty sick, really)

Now, let’s look at a straight, character-by-character translation: Deuteronomy 22:25 Hebrew Text Analysis

I see the word “force” and “lie”, so yes, let’s keep running with it…we’re discussing rape.

now, 22:28–29:

English: “If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, then the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the young woman fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he has violated her. He may not divorce her all his days.”

So, what is meant by that, “seizes”. Some people seem to feel that means, basically, a seduction. So, once again, let’s look at the Hebrew: Deuteronomy 22:28 Hebrew Text Analysis

Hmmm…”lay hold”…in my eyes, this doesn’t sound like some poetic phrase…this sounds, again, like a captive of some sort.
Sadly, we never see this particular verbiage used again in the Bible, so we have nothing to compare it with.
So, it really seems to be in “the eye of the beholder.”

But, let’s look at something else that may make things a little clearer:

22:13–21: discusses penalties for lying about virginal status of a bride

22:22: penalty for adultery

22:23–24: penalty for raping an engaged woman in the city (assumed to be a virgin due to tradition)

22:25–27: penalty for raping an engaged woman in the country

22:28–29: penalty for having sex with a non-engaged virgin

This is…interesting…either we have to say that 22:28–29 is talking about the penalty for rape (as the pattern has been set by 23–27)…or the Bible has set forth no penalty whatsoever for raping a woman who isn’t engaged.

I’m not sure which is worse, but I’m inclined to say, due to the established pattern, 22:28–29 is discussing the penalty for rape. I feel very confident in making that determination.
Answer copied from garett murphy on quora.
Link: https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-meaning-of-Deuteronomy-22-28-29

RuthlessLeader, I dont care more nor less, about all these you copied that Garett Murphy wrote.
Do you know why? It's because you arent Garett Murphy who wrote it and so unable to defend the write-up
Only Garett Murphy can be taken to tasks on the gaping holes in that write-up, not you. Sorry.
Write your own composition and not somebody's else past downs

RuthlessLeader:
Why don't you give your own interpretation so I can learn more and correct my mistakes

My interpretation doesnt counts.
It is fact(s) and truth that matter
The broadly accurate guide or principle, for this and all matters, is captured, in that famous phrase "Context is King"

First thing to understand is the context of why and how that law came about.
Afterall a different sort of rape, had the penalty of death, whereas the one in Deuteronomy 22:28-29 doesnt
Again, detach yourself, put aside any and/or all preconceived bias, be objective. Unlearn then after relearn

MuttleyLaff:
Let's put "righteousness" for a short time, aside and latch on to " sinful ways"
We'll come back to "righteousness" later, properly and fully.
So what exactly in their ways, allegedly, is sinful enough, that it requires changing?

9inches:
Check the meaning of sin.

No, dont ask me to check the meaning of sin,
as all that's asked you is that, in this context, what exactly in their ways, allegedly, is sinful enough, that requires changing.
Why are you dodging from answering this question, in a clear and detailed manner, leaving no room for confusion or doubt?

MuttleyLaff:
1/ What right information exactly is this, that will force them to change?
2/ What precisely are they changing from, and what exactly are they changing into?

9inches:
1. The Word of God as authentic as it comes.
2. Changing from sinful ways to righteousness.

Let's put "righteousness" for a short time, aside and latch on to " sinful ways"
We'll come back to "righteousness" later, properly and fully.
So what exactly in their ways, allegedly, is sinful enough, that it requires changing?

RuthlessLeader:
Deuteronomy 22:28-29 says that if a man sees any virgin and rapes her and he is caught.
He is to marry that woman, pay her father 50 shekels of silver and can never divorce her.
This is a stupid law

When read in isolation, unsurprisingly, you would call it a stupid law.

RuthlessLeader:
The woman has no say in the matter at all

Are you sure. Are you sure about that

RuthlessLeader:
It is misogyny

It is misogny what?

RuthlessLeader:
What do you understand by the law?

Werent you earlier advised to be objective, factual, unprejudiced and most of all, be well-informed, as you next comment or post remarks
Are you saying you dont know or dont understand the context of how that law came about?

bedspread:
1. The Act of Homosexualism i.e. Either as Gay, Lesbian, Bestiality etc

2.The Act of mating with ur Kind either as Married Couples or otherwise.. what even an Animal will not do.... it's Disgusting, it's Wickedness, its Abominable

3. It's An Abominable against the doer body and it's Against GOD'S instructions to Man

3b. It's Abominable to the doer because he/ she did not create himself/herself... The Creator of that body and owner of that soul is against such and infact every form of sin..

4. The Sin of Homosexuality. Man having A Sexual Relationship with his fellow man.
Woman having a Sexual Relationship with a woman..

Leviticus 20:13
1corithians 6:9-11
Romans 1:26-28
1Timotht 1:9-10
Read Genesis 19 .. The Whole of that chapter

bedspread, you see yourself how ill-informed you are

Though you wont place or arrange your presented bible verses in line with applicable given answers
I can only hazard guesses which answer out of 1, 2, 3a, 3b and 4, the bible verses you gave applies to
Thats life, so let's start with the last first (i.e. you gave Genesis 19 to read)
What was the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah?