₦airaland Forum

Hey David, just establishing a common ground, so that there's no confusion. We could quickly move to solid evidences in favour of evolution via speciation, there is specific evidence for common descent (that's macroevolution). It'll be astonishing to look at these and not give a pause to denying evolution as a fact.
.

Ok; before proceeding, could we have a common definition for "evolution"? A basic biology textbook is sufficient to define evolution precisely. Do you have a working definition for evolution?
.

But here: unfortunately, the question is waaay too late. There's irrefutable evidence to support evolution; it's quite a twist to now ask "what happen if evolution isn't true"; problem is: it is true. What Christians who've found this to be so are doing is to find a way to marry God the Creator and evolution. Not an easy job; but someone's got to do it.  

.

Well, you've reframed the question; not bad. But, th epoint still remains: the question must be directed at that atheist who also believes in evolution; not all atheists believe in evolution.

.

Interesting you brought this up. The other day, here on these pages, we'd mentioned something about the primitive understanding of genetics that's apparent in the bible; and this version of Jacobian-genetic-mutation was mentioned. The larger one, of course, would be to figure what would have been in the DNA of the son of Mary, Jesus the Christ. Who contributed the male half of him? Was he fertilized from Virgin Mary's egg? Cool questions. Perhaps we could get a hint from primitive Jacobian genetics.

Or did humanity miss the holy grail of God's DNA??


.

David: question already answered: Not all atheists believe in (Darwinian) evolution (don't be very surprised, )

I hope you'll notice it's quite absurdly unfair to ask someone to explain wha they don't believe? Like, say, asking you to prove that Satan is Angel Michael.
.

Very funny, some of these last comments.

olivetree:
Do you think the board of Newsweek that included him in the list are fools, or you guys feel he has bribed them?

The joke is on the pastor, or the believers; except, of course, you detect the sarcasm in Newsweek's suggestion about the faulty gauge.

As for the other fellow, there's a four-letter word for people who insist they've driven a car for 200miles on a empty tank; beyond that word, it could be a strong indication of delusion. And any earthling who doesn't understand the reason for asking the 200mile question needs serious help. Seriosly.

.

These are preliminary conclusions from those 7 or so questions:

1) The asker does not understand the meaning of "science". Assignment: read-up on "science" to understand.
2) It is quite impossible to imagine the sort of confusion of ideas and knowledge that would inspire questions 1 through 3B-C.
3) Question 4 shows this asker does not understand mathematics. Hint: what does "middle of an equation" mean??
4) Question 4A is quite - er, no offence - stupid. What movie? A movie?? Like a Nigerian Nollywood movie? Someone would need to be quite exceedingly dull to not be able to figure many of these movies from - heck - the titles and the quite expressive pictures on the jackets.
5) Item 5 is a display of a depth of ignorance that's so absurd it's unbelievable.
6) Item 6 isn't reasoning; any SS2 student worth his/her salt should be able to sort that out in a moment.
7) Item 6A: predicting the future? Scientists do this all the time.
Item 7 shows how not to go at as issue: it's clear the fellow asking these questions has a problem with (Darwinian) evolution, yet they start out by asking atheists; hey, not all atheists believe in (Darwinian) evolution.
.

kenny888:
hello members,please have you seen anyone that came back from death,bicos i want to know if there is realy life after death,because i am already tired with this life,please let me know before i commit suicide,i don't want to die now and discover that there is no life after death,so please let someone talk to me.

Hmnnn. The elders say as we do on earth, so we do in heaven; goes to show comiiting suicide on earth wouldn't help much, eh; you'll just as soon suicide in heaven and get back to earth; it could get worse: what're the odds of not being born in Somalia?  
.

loisamy:
Touch not my anoited and do my prophet no harm.

Oh, no; no one wishes the Pastor any harm, people're just calling him out on his claims.

loisamy:
Judge not that ye be not judged.

Er, misapplication of scripture; we're evaluating the relevance of a statement made to look like regular events are exceptional.

loisamy:
let God be the judge and of all ministers of the gospel Is Daddy Adeboye.

Pastor Adeboye's comments weren't directed at God, but at humans; surely God wouldn't be pissed that we're being careful - like the Bereans who checked the things Paul told them to be sure they were true.

loisamy:
please don't call the wrath of God upon u.

Nope, Jesus the Christ, who's the Administrator of the New Testament isn't a short-tempered being; he's reasonable, isn't he? Why be wrathful over a discussion of claims?

Again:
1) Every pregnancy is a miracle, as is every birth; Pastor Adeboye is thus not on shaky ground to proclaim the birth of the children as wonderful events; yet, why/how are they any more wonderful than the thousands of babies born in Lagos that day?

2) How would the birth of sets of twins indicate a good omen for the Congress?

3) Pastor adeboye has also claimed that he drove a car for more than 300km on an empty tank; do you also believe this? And no, the car wasn't hydrogen-powered, nor solar-powered, nor was is powered by electricity; and, er, the Pastor is certain his fuel gauge was not faulty; he claims he simply drove on empty. Do you believe that?

And this, though not reported to be a comment by the pastor:

One peculiar thing about the babies delivered during the programme is that they are always pointer to what God will do during those programmes. Take for example, sometimes ago, the number of boys was greater than the number of girls. You will discover that what God did during those programmes are numerous," he said.

The number of miracles correlates with the number of new joysticks? Nonsense.
.

Would be swell if you could ask your friend for his/her source. . .

Are text messages monitored at those branches too??

.

Sheesh! Easy, easy.

1) Log-in to your account again and check that the debit is still there.
2) If yes, then check what the the narration says for the debit for the amount.
3) If it looks suspicious or unauthorised by you, call your account officer if you have the officer's mobile telephone number.
4) If 3)'s not applicable, check if you have the mobile phone number for any GTBank member of staff; if you do, then do call the peron to explain the situation.
5) It's already the 26th, but of this transaction isn't authorised, then there couldn't be any limit/restraint to sorting it; could you report to this page the position of things?

If unauthorised, this is very bad, and it'll be top priority.

.

Being a born again christian, you are required by God to forgive and forget.

First off, the ". . . and forget part" sounds a bit like a stretch. No one is required to forget.

Plus, does the Hebrew God really forgive, let alone, forget?
.

There's no answer to the question: "How much do people that work for NNPC earn. Average monthly wage please"; any average wouldn't be useful: there's a wide range of numbers for earnings.

Seeing the monthly salary slip could only tell you a minimum; you couldn't find a reibale figure from that.

Here's sth for your purpose: get a legal practitioner to handle this for you, one with a good reputation; a comprehensive list of all you've got will be made, and the potential tenant will be checked out for reliability and abilityt o pay. This sort of service doesn't cost much; there're legal practitioners authorised to act as "caretakers"; they'll take care of the paperwork and payment for a modest fee.
.

omonla wrote: Oh believe me, the mass extermination that is coming will make Hitler look like a saint.

Hope you don't consider that to be a positive thing; isn't there something familiar about gods and worshippers relishing the flow of blood and the smell of death? The Aztecs would hold out a pulsing human heart to the sun; that's nothing I'll suppose, to mass extermination of people who don't agree with you; or, is it?

omonla wrote: Why would anyone believe in such a God? Because it is not His choice that anyone should be 'offed' like that. The people getting exterminated are the ones who chose to be exterminated in said manner.

O, c'mon! God has no choice? God, no choice? That's insulting to the Almighty. Aren't you shortening his hand? Aren't you underestimating His imagination? It's unworthy of any Christian to paint God as having no choice. when Moses reasoned with God about mass murder, God changed his mind. No, it's not the choice of those to be exterminated; the responsibility must be put firmly where it belongs: with the exterminators and those justifying the extermination.

omonla wrote: This Judgement means that every person who shunned the chance to check out what God is truly about now, is choosing to spend eternity without Him. If not eternity with God, your other option is eternity with satan. This is worse than what Hitler could have done to you. But why blame God for the pain of spending eternity with satan in 'extermination'?

Surely, there'll be something in between? This thing you've written here is against everything that's fair: just two firm results for a who lot of humans. What about those who had no option to choose: the child who died shortly after birth? The exceptional ones amongst us? Those who lived in lands who never heard of Jesus? Should it count if a baby was born to atheist parents? Or someone born into a Muslim home? Would your version of god factor these into the iron clad opposite rewards? Have you not made God in the image of the imagination of your own mind?

omonla wrote: People who poke fun at Him now are expressly choosing, of their own free will, to be judged in that way - To be separated from Him for ever. Exterminated.

That's one hell of a punishment: death for humour; sounds like harsh, extreme and inhuman punishment. Why do you paint your god so? Surely, God has a better face; God couldn't be a bloodthirsty, unreasoning, death-threatening being; you're insulting God by painting him like a psychopath; that isn't God.

omonla wrote: It is written: Do not fear him who can kill the body; but rather, fear Him Who can condemn both soul and body to Hell.

So, who's this person? God, or Satan, or Other?

omonla wrote: So don't fear Hitler. He was a mere man.

So your version of god shouldn't be feared too; no?

omonla wrote:[/b]I conclude that you shouldn't argue the extermination. Afterall, you would prefer not to be around Jesus, no? Then I would surmise that it is fair to be separated from Him, and be exterminated into satan's domain forever.

Your conclusion is, again, premature; we'll hope your version of god is way more careful. Now, the Jesus of the OT appears to be a reasonable fellow, able to reason, and amendable to logic; heck, he had a decent conversation with Satan. So Jesus, unlike what you're mutating to in your responses, appears to be a person able to have a conversation without resorting to death threats; sounds like a swell guy to be around; how could a fellow like me refuse such company?

[b]omonla wrote: So God is wicked, you are saying. Why would anyone serve Him? I would ask you this: Why would anyone not serve Him when they know He loves them enough to the point of allowing them to choose for themselves whether they want to be 'exterminated' or not?

You have definitely misunderstood. No problem here with anyone serving God; nope. Heck, serve anything you want. Do it. But don't issue death threats to other humans; and it's unreasonable to project your version and interpretation of God on all of the universe; He is your God, and you have an image of his qualities; fine. Have a discussion, away with the death threats.

And, it's quite a shame that you're serving God because you don't want to be exterminated; God shouldn't like that very much.

omonla wrote: Let every man work out his own salvation with fear and trembling. You have made your choice. I have made mine. We will all live, and die, with our choices.

It's all about life and death, right? We'll see what you guys will make of the earth when all the smart inventors and thinkers who don't believe in your faith are gone. Were God to have the time to read your comments, he'll be shaking his head and wondering what could have spurned the sort of confusion being spewed forth here.
.
.

GL:
i must admit it's puzzling to think homosexuality can be genetic.

Why is it puzzling? I'd like to now why you wrote this.

GL:
in the church however, i would say a big no homosexuality. at least the practice of it.

Many reasonable Christians see why allowing people who advocate an open homosexual lifestyle could be a problem. But a first step could be to agree that homosexuality could be genetic; that will mean accepting that a fraction of the population will always be sexually attracted to the same gender; (this appears to be a self-evident result from our genes; it is quite a surprise that some of us may consider it puzzling).

GL:
plus, the world is secular today and we can't expect everyone to follow our principles.

Quite the contrary; the world isn't largely secular; just a pretension of secularity.
.

Omonla:
I am not quite sure where you heard that God does not condone killing. He does, if one deserves it. And there is another mass killing coming. A killing that is of an eternal-damnation variety. Yeah, I know, I know, you don't believe it, and frankly, I don't care.

It's called Judgement Day.

I look forward to seeing you there.

A mass extermination that'll make Adolf Hitler look like an amateur, eh? Well, your God and the Angels will have a ball, eh? And could we suppose there wouldn't be any Christians pleading with God for those humans experiencing constant torture? Uh; humans aren't what they used to be. When the Hebrew God decided that the Israelites had to die, shortly after their rescue from Egypt, there was a man who pleaded and reasoned with God about it, and God, being reasonable, saw reason.

It'll be just like the Hutus and Tutsis, or the usual killings in the North, when people turn on their neighbours; yet, in those dark times, you find some neighbours who would protect others at great personal risk. Wouldn't it be something to know that some of your neighbours and friends would be continuously tortured, wailing and crying and in pain, stuff that'll make Abu Ghraib look like a dress rehearsal, yet, some members of the human race would be having fun on the other side?

It's just a thought. I wonder how many serve such a God.
.

Not many pastors in here. . .

.

Kuns:
@Nimshi Question: What I am saying is that homosexuality is a major part of european culture.

Er, how do you know this?

And, exactly what do you mean by "homosexuality is a major part of european culture"?

Answer:

Pederasty also also it roots and origin in Europe (Ancient Greek the father of european civilisation).

In Greek, the highest form of love was with a child, and the man to man and man to boy love .

The Cauasian (Canaanites) were doing beastality, pederasty and all other forms of devilishment (development) in the Cauasian mountains.

You're making an elementary mistake: you're supposing that because there's a record of different sexual acts in European history, then this implies that those are only of European cultures. There's no reason to suppose that these weren't present in other cultures. There are bestiality, homosexuality, and pedophilia (or to be precise, the sexual abuse of children) aren't unique to European culture. To give a famous example, Islam's Prophet married a girl who would be a child by any reasonable definition; he wasn't European. And we know because there's a record. Were there to be no record, we'd not be referring to it.

It is important to remember that humans are humans; and it'll be quite unreasonable to suppose that some sexual acts are unique to a particular culture. There are too many examples to support this notion.

Are you ok with that? If you are not satisfied keep asking?

Just google Homosexuality and or Pederasty, and see what come up?

Don't believe me, check it up for yourself.

Googling works because there's a record. Have you found records of pedophile priests who engage in the sexual abuse of children in Nigeria? Do you suppose there aren't? Or would we assume that because there're no records, then the problem does not exist? Do you suppose that because there aren't gay parades in Nigeria, then the % of gays, lesbians and bisexuals are significantly less than in other comparable parts of the world? the absence of records shouldn't be mistaken for the absence of the phenomenon; humans are humans.
.

GL:
i see what you mean by the difference between homosexuality and the act. like i said in an earlier post my understanding of homosexuality is sexual attraction between couples of the same sex.

Then, for clarity, don't you think your understanding needs to be, er, adjusted? Again: 'heterosexuality' principally doesn't have to do with sexual intercourse; you could be heterosexual and celibate; why then should you equate being homosexual with homosexual sex? It is important to differentiate, for the simple reason that there are some homosexuals who're not carrying on a homosexual lifestyle, or, simply, there are some celibate homosexuals. Some of these are Christians; it is important not to make the homosexual state a sin.

GL:
you're right that the bible doesn't use the word homosexuality, but homosexuality is the word in use today for what Paul was talking about in Romans 1 and what God told moses,

You're wrong, again. Paul refers to specific acts; he says men sleeping with men, and women forsaking their natural use. He was describing sexual acts; just as if he had stated that a man sleeping with a woman is a sexual act, that wouldn't be a description of the heterosexual state; the difference may appear subtle, but it is significant.

GL:
Rom 1:26 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:

The above is a description of an act; what about say, a man who is attracted to other men but does not engage in the above? Is he guilty of the sin Paul mentioned?

GL:
Rom 1:27 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.

Again, Paul describes acts; what about those who're disposed to this and yet do not engage in these acts?

GL:
Rom 1:28 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;

Perhaps its better to not comment here because it may distract from the meat of this discussion. "God gave them over . . . " Hmnn.

GL:
concerning sexual orientation you make it sound like it's genetic. i believe it's a choice thing. i'm straight so i can't say i know how they feel but i don't think the bible suggests that God created some people with homosexual orientation and others with heterosexual orientation. if it were true, however, that some people are genetically homosexual then that wouldn't be a sin because it's out of their control. in which case they would have to be celibate.

Let me first commend you for the possibility you hold in the last part of this post: that were some to be genetically disposed to being homosexual, it wouldn't be a sin; strictly, that would be that it wouldn't be their fault (I'll maintain that in traditional Christian thought, it will still be a sin. . . ). Anyway, first off, the bible says nothing about genetics as we understand it today; in fact, the bible ignores genetics in quite important cases (think of the story of Jacob and the red-marked animals when he served with Laban; and think of the big one: what/how is the male genetic material of Jesus who was born by Mary? Was he from Mary's egg? IF no, whose egg? And, crucially, where's the sperm from? These aren't very easy questions, and I don't think we should discuss them here because they would distract from the topic here).

The bible is silent on sexual orientation; this is quite likely because the concept of sexual orientation wasn't accessible in bible times to the bible writers. You say you believe it is a choice; I'll say that's a premature evaluation; do you know enough to make this conclusion? I suspect you don't, since you also submit that you 'gon't know how [homosexuals] feel. The preliminary suggestions would thus be on the table: perhaps it is a choice, perhaps it is genetic, perhaps it is learned; the last two of these three should give Christians a pause; it should evoke something human, and Christian in the reaction to homosexuals, and it should inspire humility.

GL:
sexual attraction itself isn't a sin, lust is though.

Let me seek a clarification here; according to your statement above, did you mean that:
1) heterosexual sexual attraction itself isn't a sin?
2) homosexual sexual attraction itself isn't a sin?

How do you define lust? I ask because lust could have a number of meaning; it is important that my understanding of the word is exactly the same as yours for consistency.

GL:
about the disposition to homosexual attractions, it wouldn't be a sin if it were a normal consequence of one's genes. but then, the bible calls it "vile affections".

The bible is silent on sexual orientation as we understand it now.
.

Let's take this thought-by-thought so that there isn't any confusion:

GL:
@ Nimshi, please can you say where in the bible it is written that homosexuality is not a sin.

The bible does not say homosexuality is not a sin; and the bible does not say homosexuality is a sin. I challenge you to show a verse or more from the bible where homosexuality is presented as a sin. I hope you'll read the challenge clearly: The challenge is to show those verses of scripture stating that homosexuality is a sin; I will be flexible to accept verses that imply that homosexuality is a sin. And I can tell you that you'll never find one; it is just the same as you wouldn't find that the bible says heterosexuality is a sin. The crucial hint here is to correctly define homosexuality, just as you could attempt to correctly define heterosexuality. Once you know these two, you may begin to see the point.

GL:
plus don't forget that christians accept the authority of only the bible so it is useless to bring in other books now.

Would you allow us to use a dictionary, at least? The bible doesn't use the word "homosexual". So, at the very least, I'll suppose you'll accept strict definitions that don't blur the difference between sexual orientation and sexual activity.

I'll suppose you're heterosexual. That you're heterosexual says nothing about your sexual activities; being heterosexual only tells me that you'll be attracted to persons of the other gender; you may be heterosexual and celibate. Consider the following:

1) "X" is heterosexual and single and celibate; then "X" is doing what is right according to the Christian faith.
2) "Y" is homosexual and single and celibate; then "Y" is doing what is right according the the Christian faith.

Is there any contradiction in the statements 1) and 2) above?

Are you seeing what it means to be homosexual?

GL:
the ultimate source of christian education is God's word which says homosexuality is a sin

Where does the bible say homosexuality is a sin?

I understand that the bible describes an activity as sinful: men having sexual intercourse with men. When two consenting males have sexual intercourse, they're having homosexual sex, just as when two consenting male and female doing the same would mean they're having heterosexual sex. The bible does not condemn the disposition to be sexually attracted to persons of the same sex; the bible condemns homosexual sex between men. Do you disagree with anything I've written here?

GL:
i don't know what Archbishop Tutu's views are on the subject except that he criticizes homophobia (and i agree, we shouldn't hate anyone).

Let me bring you up to speed about a specific comment by the Archbishop that's relevant to this discussion, and this is the comment that should command your attention and that of other Christians:

The Archbishop encourages homosexual priests not to practice homosexual sex; does this mean anything to you? This is the view that is relevant to Christians who're thinking about homosexuality. I find it bold, bolder than the Archbishop's views on homophobia (which any right thinking human ought to condemn).
.

mazaje:
what do you expect from goons that believe that jonah survied inside a fish for 3 days or that people decended from noah. ohh i forgot differences in languages began during the tower of babel and donkeys can talk.

Perhaps it could be argued that people believe the Jonah story because it happened a log while ago and because they've always heard the story; like folklore, they become repeated so often they begin to sound like truth; or people who know little about languages could probably be excused for supposing that all the languages on earth had their roots at a summary suspension of a building project.

But fuel scarcity is a real recurring event, perhaps people might identify with that, and perhaps be able to think a bit clearly.

Who here believes a man could drive a car on an empty tank from Ojota (in Lagos) to Iwo Road (at Ibadan) and back on an empty tank?
.

Question: Under what conditions could a man drive for 300km in a car with an empty tank?

.

Hei Chris, it's not difficult to feel your angst. And the case of homosexuality is particularly vexing. We've discussed this before, I'm sure, and it's tough to  have to  repeat thisngs while people don't check things up.

Chrisbenogor:
For instance I have been too lazy to read about evolution as the life sciences bore me so I don't rant about it.

It'll be a better world were people to take to not ranting about subjects we're yet to be up to speed about; or, at least, to be skeptical before submitting to the unreasonable.

Kuns:
You can easily research it, Also Homosexuality is epidermic within european culture and society. Just go on google and type in Homosexual or gay. You'll see.

No, homosexuality isn't "epidermic" within European Culture. If you do a bit of (re)search, you'll find that the number of homosexual persons in Africa wouldn't be less than the number of European homosexuals within any statistical significance.

Kuns:
What I am saying is that homosexuality is a major part of european culture.

Er, how do you know this?

And, exactly what do you mean by "homosexuality is a major part of european culture"?

Kuns:
Homosexual here implies sexual intercourse.

This clarification is important, but it doesn't appear to be enough. Why? It doesn't make good sense to accept this; we won't start redefining words in our corner of earth, would we? Would it be acceptable to say that "heterosexual" means "sexual intercourse"? Don't think so. An expression close to what you're talking about is probably "homosexual sex"; that could help.

.

Chrisbenogor:
Out of every ten christians, 9.5 are very very very very dumb. The remaining 0.5 just spew rubbish here.
So none of you could simply read up what homosexuality is?
*shakes his head*
You lot are a disgrace to human intelligence, what is so difficult in just using google?
I am not going to do any research for you, if you decide to live your lives on the intelligence of people who used candles as light and could not even make paper then so be it.
If any of you think you are a rare exception to my case step up and tell us the difference between a homosexual act and homosexuality.

Ahh, Chris. Don't even go there! It's not just the fault of Christianity, it's got a bit to do with education too; imagine what'll happen were many homophobic Christians, or Churchianits to checjk and find that homosexuality isn't itself a sin, and that as the smart Archbishop Desmond Tutu has noted, that there're homosexual priests who don't practice homosexuality; imagine if Churchianists and so-called Christians discovering the meaning of homosexuality; hahah, it'll rock their world. But no, people are content to repeat what they've heard.

And to think that the bible is silent about lesbians, chei!

.

bindex:
Why are people believing frauds and liars like Adeboye? He onced lied that he drove for over 300km in a 504 during feul scarcity with about 4 litters of fuel to carry out Gods work. He claimed God powered the car. ,

Oh no, he didn't say this?! Did he? Of course he did, and it is repeated in the Newsweek article:

Adeboye experienced a miracle recently on a long and dangerous stretch of highway near Lagos, he says. His car was out of gas, and the gas stations were empty. Then God spoke to him, clearly, and said to keep driving. Adeboye drove 200 miles on empty. Could his gas gauge have been broken? No, he insists, God intervened "because of the need … in a crisis." Adeboye knows well what some in the West have forgotten: in today's world, everyone needs a Daddy

.

Yet, the article claims he is honest:

Behind Adeboye's extraordinary success is his reputation for honesty. While other Pentecostal pastors (including some Nigerians) have been accused of financial misdeeds or faking supernatural powers, Adeboye remains above the fray

Perhaps Adeboye's influence could be translated to something good for Nigerians who ply the Lagos-Ibadan expressway; perhaps, Lagos State Gov. Fashola's visit to Adeboye's church included discussions on how to ease the major traffic problem ont he route to Pastor Adeboye's Church. Heck, this should be a relatively simpler problem compared to driving on an empty tank for more than 300km.
.

Nice news if true.

Shouldn't be a big deal; but it is. Why? It sets another good example. Small things, small beginnings, baby steps by influential leaders could go a long way in enlightening the people, particularly, those who may be disillusioned by why a Muslim governor would nonour a Church invitation. When Fashola explains why he did, perhaps more than a few may learn a thing or two.

Recent news report: December 2008

JW Pedophilia/abuse in Germany

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/2188229/jehovahs_witnesses_abused_child_in_germany/

ugborikoko:
Pastors should be able to ressurect the dead, if it is truely God's power they are using.

By their claims, yes, they should be able to.

Yet, they don't. Why? Easy:

1) This is one miracle difficult to fix and/or arrange.

2) The pastor won't be able to blame anyone for not having "enough faith"; you can't blame the dead fellow, could you?

.

Disclosing this in the early hours of Wednesday, the General Overseer of the church, Pastor E.A. Adeboye, said there were sets of twins among the babies, saying it was an indication that God was set to give the worshipers joy.

Weren't these women pregnant prior to coming to the Congress?

What's Pastor Adeboye's point?

.

Mariory:
The one you mentioned relates to regulations for sexual behaviour which is understandable for millions of people making a 40 year journey to the promised land. Peharps these laws were suitable for that time I don't know but, in my opinion, those laws were established to protect the Isrealites for the situation they were in.

Tough. then defining the limits of "city" for a nomadic people on a long journey would've been a tad tough, wouldn't it? These laws are difficult to understand under any circumstances: settled peoples, or journeying masses. What'll be interesting is to compute the value of 50 silver pieces today; no question, this wouldn't be an option today; the rapist gets to marry the girl.

Seriously now, Deuteronomy 22:23-24 stems from the 'female as property' theme. This offers a clearer road to understanding these rules.
.