₦airaland Forum

bindex:
The romans came invented Jesus and changed everything. even moderate moslems can not follow some of the laws in the koran in this modern era, unfotunately for the muslims the chinese did not come and hjack their Allah and make him softer and more inclusive the way the romans did to the jewish God.

Aah; that's to overlook the stringent conditions for conviction in Islam. The critical evidence is this: the actual penetration must be witnessed by 4 witnesses, and not just any witnesses, 4 men. tough, ain't it? Not sure the Hebrew God would pay that much attention to evidentiary detail
.

The one recent book I recall that's dealth with this topic is Jack Miles' "Christ: A Crisis in the Life of God". It's an apt title: Jesus the Christ represents a major crisis in the career of the Hebrew God. A few passages from the Old Testament, and Jesus' rather easy-going attitude could convince you. Or you could take the OT Hebrew God who would allow Satan into the heavenly court, joining a rocession of the angels, with Jesus who would castigate God's angelic 'son', in harsh times. The evidence points to a reworking of history to fit set patterns; the difference between Jesus the Christ and the OT Hebrew God is as clear as night and day in the tropics.
.

chika98:
Tufiakwa! Why would i do such a thing?? I don't need anyone to tell me what goes on there. I have seen how they worship and they can sing though that i give to them but I cannot understand why anyone would be involved with such a faith. I will keep my comments to myself.

Amazing; you haven't attended any of their meetings, yet, you have seen how they worship.

Who wouldn't want such powers!

~Lady~:
Truthfully JW's are not considered Christian. They can parade with the Bible all they want but as long as they deny the divinity and humanity of Jesus they are not Christian, they even go so far as to deny the Lord's prayer, stating that God's Kingdom has already come so there's no need for "thy kingdom come" as Jesus states in the Lord's prayer.

I am not one to start telling people who's christian and who isn't if they actually believe truly in Christ. But these people, omgoodness, they don't.

JWs do not deny the divinity of Jesus the Christ.

And while they claim that Jesus has been ruling (in/from heaven) since 1914, the establishment of God's Kigndom on earth is something yet for the future.

Dios is clearly a drooling slowpoke.
.

Your story somewhat mirrors the comments of Ms. Oprah Winfrey and (reportedly) of Mr. Colin Powell: '. . . all Nigerians are crooks . . . " or words to that effect.

You've come to a conclusion about "Muslims only deal with Muslims" based on the position of one or two Muslims. This isn't logical; it defies common sense. You don't live on Mars, and you're able to speak the English language; if you're not prejudiced to a masked hatred of Muslims, how would you come to the conclusion after you've had - by your own words - another Muslim push back on the position? (Even though the "radical muslim" line of your claimed Muslim friend is curious and strange. . . ). Think a little, and don't let emotions overtake your sense of reason.
.

Dios:
Don't single out the JWs, all of you are birds of the same feather.

This discussion is about JWs and Catholics; and, who's the "you" in your asinine submission? You can't tell birds from a hole on your face, so what's it with the feathers?
.

davidylan:
False . . . a day was set aside for the circumcision . . . that the bible does not go on to describe in detail the event does not nullify that it took place.

Emphasis (in blue) mine. This appears to be the case. While it is correct to assert that the bible does not explicitly say the circumcision of Jesus took place, it is reasonable to assume all went as culture demanded; there's no evidence to the contrary; it would have been am extraordinary event were the circumcision not to have taken place.

Again false . . . Jesus Christ was 8 days old when He was circumcised according to Jewish custom. He is God just as much as He was fully man and it was important that He followed Jewish custom to set an example to His followers that being Christians is not synonymous with disobedience to constituted authority.

Jesus wasn't exactly laying an example to be a Christian; he was about fulfilling the law (and the prophecies), up to the point of death; the example of his life would later be a spin-off, but his sacrificial death has always been the focus of his ministry, with the remainder of it - the resurrection - left to God his father to accomplish. It was clear, though, that Jewish custom was to be preserved, up to some reasonable point.
.

chika98:
We had an olumba church in our neighborhood in Nigeria. One of my friends in high school attended that church. It is nothing but an occult where people gather together to do all sorts of things. Holy spirit ko? preaching to folks at a tender age ke? I have been around them and I know they are bad news. Tufiakwa! Chineke agahi ekwe ihe ojo

Did you attend the Brotherhood congregation? Apparently you didn't; your friend did. Did you come to your conclusions based on what your friend reported?

The assertion in the quoted post doesn't appear to be supported by fact. There's a lot of suggestive information surrounding the Brotherhood faith; perhaps some are true, but these extreme allegations are tough to swallow.

chika98:
It is nothing but an occult where people gather together to do all sorts of things.

What sort of things?
.

spora1: good words for this and all seasons.
.

dgreatrock:
i had a visit from the jehovah's witnesses recently. they taught me that jesus christ being referred to as the prince of peace is therefore the same person as angel michael who was reffered to as the prince of your poeple in daniel. all my attempts to make them see reason fell on deaf ears. dear fellows kindly give your candid opinion on this matter.

dgreatrock: you need to pay attention to the bible verses they have summoned to support their argument. The argument appears good, but it's not ironclad.

We could start from the argument they presented to you, from Daniel:
1) Dan 10:13 - ", Michael, one of the foremost princes".
Dan 10:21 - ", Michael, the prince of YOU people."
Dan 12:1 - ", Michael will stand up, the great prince which is standing in behalf of the sons of
your people".
Reply: these were words to Daniel, and "you people" meant the Israelites.

Another favourite argument:
2) 1 Thessalonians 4:16, "The Lord himself will descend from heaven with a commanding call, with an archangel’s voice and with God’s trumpet."
Reply: So? what about the part about "God's trumpet"? Is he God too?

Another:
3) JW: Michael means 'who is like God'
Reply?: So? Emmanuel also means "God with us", yet, you guys don't believe Jesus is God. Quote Matthew 1:23 for good measure.

. . .
.

Interesting question. Here's an answer:

1) Jehovah's Witnesses (henceforth, JWs) rose to some prominence in the 1920s or earlier by railing against "organized religion". The Catholic Church offered a ready target. The Catholic Church is the face of "official" Christianity, with the Bishop of Rome, the Pope, being the recognized head.

2) Because the Catholic Church is big and occasionally in the news, sometimes for good, and at other times for bad, JWs find the Catholic Church an attractive target.

3) JWs claim to not be involved in politics (one of their interpretations of being no part of the world), and because the Vatican is by itself a State having ambassadors like regular countries do around the world, JWs find a perfect example of the mixture of religion and politics, hence, a fodder for good attack.

4) Another motivation: the Catholic Church offers the largest pool of recruits for JW propaganda, masked behind "bible studies" and bible-based discussions. When JWs point to the ills of the Catholic Church, JWs also advertise their own brand of Christianity as the real article.

JWs believe that they have the correct understanding of scripture, and that all other Christian denominations are fake, and that JWs are the one and only true religion. JWs teach that everyone not part of them will not survive Armageddon. A strange, hypocritical bunch, these JWs, if you knew them well enough.

.

You kidding? You probably don't know the OT God, or the Hebrew God well. . .

Anyways, talking of a limited imagination, look at this:

LEVITICUS 20:13 “If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman…they shall surely be put to death.”

Practising lesbians're off the hook, right?

Imagination is a terrible thing to waste, especially for Middle-Eastern religions.
.

No self-respecting Christian would argue that God does not accept a human sacrifice.

The ultimate human sacrifice, in the person of Jesus, was needed to redeem mankind.

And there were specs; no other regular human would do; it had to be one from the belly of a virgin, and his death had to be sacrificial, not natural; blood had to be spilled, and invoking the blood (as we would have in "Blood of Jesus" would be a powerful formula in prayer.

How would a Christian argue that God doesn't accept human sacrifice when the Christian faith is dependent on one such sacrifice??
.

mezdim:
i nid an acomodation around vi nd ikoyi,or if any God fearing family or lady cn acomodate me 4 alitle wile befoe d 1st half o0f nxt yr,i wil b eternaly grateful,i wok wit a leadin insurance company in vi,my no. is 08035830380,cal me,i cn cal bk.am a girl of 26yrs,interestin 2b wit,abv all God fearing,i nid a God fearing frnd as wel.tnk u 4 ur undastndin

mezdim: empathetic of your situation. . . But you'd stand a better chance if you contacted your Church (since you mentioned 'God-fearing'), or network of colleagues. Another good tip would to be write in full English; one'll assume you're able to do this; people could become somewhat prejudiced with the sort of appeal above, even though you may be in genuine need. And, be careful about offers you receive; these're dangerous times. In the end, your Church/fellowship may be your best shot, since it appears you don't have friends you trust; this is when religious affiliation may serve a good purpose; explore the option.

Cheers.

.

I asked what Sin meant to you.

'Cos you've built this scheme with "acquisition", "pride", "materialism", "love of money", "root of all Evil", and "Evil". If you do understand, it should be easy as pie to define. Without a definition of "sin", there's no way to have a fruitful discussion. There're starightforward examples that'll show things aren't as black-and-white as they may appear to be, and one early step to engage the clarity of your thoughts/proposition is to carve out what you meant by using the word "sin".
.

Quite an achievement!

Sometimes, I'd wonder if I'd always agree with myself

.

A study has been carried out; the (preliminary) results are reported:

Harris tested how the brain responded to assertions in seven categories: mathematical, geographic, semantic, factual, autobiographical, ethical and religious. All seven provided some useful data, but only the ones relating to math and ethics produced results clear enough to give a vivid picture of the way the simple and the complex, the subjective and the objective intertwine. Regardless of their content, statements that the subjects believed lit up the ventral medial prefrontal cortex (VMPC), a location in the brain best known for processing reward, emotion and taste. Equally "primitive" areas associated with taste, pain perception and disgust determined disbelief. "False propositions may actually disgust us," Harris writes.

.

KunleOshob:
This is another assumption without scriptural basis. This what the old testament as to say about pre-marital sex.

Deuteronomy 22:28-29:

28 “Suppose a man has intercourse with a young woman who is a virgin but is not engaged to be married. If they are discovered, 29 he must pay her father fifty pieces of silver.[a] Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he may never divorce her as long as he lives.

Clearly here the penalty here is marriage (in the case of the girl being a virgin prior to the act) without option of divorce. this law to me seems man made and not divine. IMHO

Deut. 22: 28-29 provides the proof that pre-marital sex was not allowed. Whether the law here was man-made or god-made is irrelevant. The man is 'punished' by forever marrying the woman without the option of divorce.
.

Roaming, my brother. It's holiday time again, so there's plenty time.

tonye-t:
@nimshi,

kindly read my post up here and if you have understanding you will comprehend the comments and answer your own questions

Er, clearly, my post was in response to yours asking what the point was; it's clear enough, I think.
.

KunleOshob:
A lot of people don't even know that fornication as defined in the bible does not include pre-marital sex. If in doubt get a bible concordance and check for the biblical definition of fornication from the original greek and hebrew language.

The Greek word the writer (said to be Paul) used is porneia, which is badly mistranslated as "fornication", or, as some Christian sects do, defined to include adultery, idolatry and fonication. Below is a flavour of context for a particular text:

"I Cor 6:9 badly mistranslate "porneia" as fornication. Corinth was a wide-open port city. People there could get sex any way they wanted it. Where our English translations read 'fornication', Paul's original Greek word was 'porneia' which means to sell and refers to slaves bought and sold for cultic prostitution. What was happening in the Temples of Corinth was farmers were visiting the temple priestesses who represented the fertility Gods. By having sex with these prostitutes they believed their fields would be more furtile. It didn't even have to do with going to prostitutes, but pagan cultic worship.".

Matthew 5:32 and John 8:41 may not let themselves to such easy contextual interpretation.

But, what does this mean? Does this mean that pre-marital sex was allowed? Clearly, no. The clear evidence is that it was taken for granted in OT times, at least, that young persons wouldn't have the opportunity to engage in sexual intercourse because of the strict supervision that was part of the culture.
.

KunleOshob:
To answer all your questions above, there is no clear cut christian injunction that a christian cannot marry more than one wife. It really is an assumption with very weak biblical foundation. Only church leaders were instructed not to have more than one wife, this can be verified in the following passages:

1 Timothy 3:2:

   2A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;

1 Timothy 3:12:

   12Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.


The fact that it was only church leaders that were specifically instructed not to have more than one wife implies that the rest of the church members could if they so desired  I think this idea of one wife was introduced when european culture mixed with christianity. Whilst i am not an advocate for polygamy, i believe it is wrong for preachers to present their personal opinions as the word of God and indoctrinate it. Such issues should at best be advisory and not presented as the word of God.

PS: If any one knows any clear cut bible quote which directs christians in general not to marry more than one wife, kindly post it here. I would really like to be corrected of this notion if i am wrong.

A balst of fresh air.

Thank you, KunleOshob, for a clear-headed answer.

It's important to read scripture free of pre-conceived notions. 
.
P.S.: the Albert Einstein quote isn't exactly complete; the part left out is the punchline ;-)

tonye-t:
@wirinet,

what exactly is your point

Well, it appears wirinet requests an unambiguous definition/description of "unapproachable light". A valid question considering the discussions. There may be valid answers, y'know; you could say the "light" of the sun is "unapproachable"; yet, you'd have to admit you're being flowery with language.

And he asks another question about the morality of the Hebrew God or the Old Testament God. Isn't it clear that this God is clearly of a different temperament than Jesus the Christ, to start with? You could be objective and answer valid questions. . .
.

To all atheist posters are you Nigerians?
Hard to see Nigerians in Nigeria owning up to be atheist. I
f you guys are Nigerians in the diaspora, then you're a victim of Western ideology where you can denounce God because you think its cool.
All i'm saying is, if you live in Nigeria, will you still be bold to declare openly you are an atheist? Just curious

Since you're curious, here's some: it's a joke to suppose that there aren't atheists in Nigeria, and ones open about it at that. A million years ago, when yours truly was a student in Nigeria, there were more than a few students who were open about their atheism; many others preferred to be agnostic; and - yes - there were a few Satanists; I knew two, Satanists. these two were exceptionally brilliant students, better than brilliant. The Mayflower graduates were in a special class: ideas flowed from them like a blessed river; we would have tough discussions that would end in us sharing a meal from a pot; those were the days.

The atheists were curious types; but they never were cast out: they were always brilliant and well-read. Not that the theists were dull, only that you've got to know when our arguments had stopped to appeal to logic and reason. Our early discussions led me to a conclusion: if you're a person of belief, it's fruitless to claim that your belief is based on logic, this will just make your submissions open to easy attacks. The ironclad position is to insist that your belief is based on faith. And of course, you couldn't credibly claim that 'faith', religiously defined, is logical.

There's a Nigerian Humanist Movement: http://www.iheu.org/node/1472
Leo Igwe writes op-eds in Nigerian newspapers (the Guardian at least)

Other related Nigeria-centric locations are:
http://new.iheyo.org/node/488
http://www.secularstudents.org/node/465

And, do you remember the writer who asked that god not weep in his beer? He's an atheist, I'd think. Hint: he was awarded a national award this week. Bonus hint: his son collected the award on his behalf. Soon, we'll get to when religion (or the absence of it) willcease to be a qualification for anything.
.

Chrisbenogor:
Fact and fiction

Faction, eh?
.

So, how do you define Sin?

Did you have a New Year resolution last year?
.

Sisi Jinx:
You are supposed to pay your tithes before your mortgage or car loans or school loans or any other loans you need to pay.

Ok; er, how about before tax?

Are you supposed to pay your tithe on your gross earnings?

Inquisitive minds should like to know.
.

Lol.

Another copy/paste of Jehovah's Witness propaganda.

Satan is the Dragon, the United Nations is the Wild Beast, eh? Yet, they get into bed with the United Nations, benefitting from priviledges when it was convenient and hidden, an affair that went on for a decade, until a British reported rats out on them, and what do the Jehovah's Witnesses do? They write a letter to dissociate from the United Nations Department of Public Information.

Hypocrites.
.