₦airaland Forum

He tried to heal the people and He couldn’t. This wasn’t a function of His inability, for He is Himself God and can do all things, but their unbelief short-circuited His power

The animal who said the above is an intellectual sandbag, a waste of flesh and definitely doesn't represent Jesus.

But anyone who wishes to disprove me should simply show where it says "He COULDN'T though He tried"

Refusing because they had rejected Him was simply following his Own Words from the Psalms -"with the froward, I will be froward and with the perverse I will be perverse". Since they wanted miracles ONLY for mockery and fun, He. Followed His Words, simply marveled (found it to be ridiculous He was to become their sport) and thus refused to become their "show"! He REFUSED not that He tried!

Shame on you parasites! Scion of hellfire!

at "Mugulabi"! Apt too!

^ I half expected the above! You have met me face to face and are aware of the immense respec I have for your mind, morals and world-view! So let me first apologise though you read me wrongly up there!

In my communication with 2 people here (Jo included), I have boasted I have no other id and need none - take it as that then stopping me from the act rather than a "possible" righteousness which was NOT what I meant. I have in effect said thus and thus and will not change was my meaning.

D7 actually puts you higher than you were before in my estimation. And I am truly sorry you could not get me whenever - eyzhvntsn always was in touch and I wonder why I never knew before a few minutes ago

^ LOL - nope, not just for now but FOREVER except I get banned and need a new handle.

I don't have the capability to hide in any form plus my signature tells I have a fixation that makes me totally inflexible about truth- those who come to probity must come with clean hands. I dey vex too much so can't afford to leave my flanks exposed. My impatience also does worsen matters - I just cannot!

So don't worry - you have a harmless single ID'ed boy here!

Inesqor may be the devil after all to have deceived us all so easily but I'm still on your side!

^ it is indeed me, Ma'am!

Don't worry - I have only ONE id !

But those who could "cerebrally" engage Dulcet7 will now go easy on Inesqor is why my statement above & you will admit D7 brought some hot stuff there worthy of cross-examination

Interesting stuff up there, Inesqor! You should not yet have disclosed twas you, though!

Wish I had the capability to "manifest" as the "questions inside" as you did in D7

@Abujabir24

Please what is this their email address you spoke about?

If indeed they were not responsible for the bombing(s), there are ways that can be proven thus narrowing down suspects for these acts.

Sad really, when private citizens seem to always know more and have better intelligence than the government

Who's your friend, Loveking? Tell him - he is "binding" himself!

@Inesqor: I wondered at D7 but never thought twas you.

Okay, so which one of them would you expect to ask himself this question when it is precisely refusing to ask questions that keeps them deluded?

Most refuse to understand that "a brain is a dangerous thing to waste"

How've you been? Been awhile we saw you at our backwater!

@wordtalk

Can u give one (any) specific example of an issue you feel makes ogoamaka99's gist "timely"? Could you give one Specific example of "slander" or a "unceasingly accusing tongue" in this forum against someone?

Your intellect is increasingly becoming the prop for the scum of this forum to perpertuate their agenda to make all questioning and criticism seem evilly ungodly yet you know as well as any that the Spirit of Truth has almost always been at loggerheads with the establishment.

Its curious.

^

I did not support him "then" but he is there and he remains President, FRN. He should behave like a President!

Much cannot be said openly but he is not showing the cojones required at his level. If he does, the snake's head will be cut off and the body will die

Re: 5 posts back:

I refuse to "argue, not because I am wrong or insecure, but because once presented with facts, those who have brains will learn and those who lack mental strength have no choice but to remain shallow! Of course, there are also those who know the truth but "gain" from lies and thus stay on the side of perfidy!

If nothing else, we know many people have come to understand truth and two confessed that my (then) attritive style made them "hate" me till further study showed them the truth.

Re: post 447 by Enigma!

I have recently become convinced that being human, losing arguments usually only make most of us hard-headed, more recalcitrant and less likely to listen to reason. A supposedly "honest" person pushed to the wall by the "humiliation" of starting a discussion then finding heimself betterefd or that he cannot power it out will "become" dishonest as it becomes an affront to his "manhood" - as it were, an emasculation! Sad ( shows the flesh still rules) but true!

Debosky is one of those who has overcome that "pride" and infact, was one of the main reasons I stopped arguing tithes on this forum - we argued a number of times and while I felt he was wrong with his support for compulsory tithing then, I sensed him as being sincere and more intelligent than to feel intimidated! This thread proves (to me) I was right.

@Enigma:

You have enigmatrix waiting for you!

BTW, please study arguments and watch convictions - in the heat of it all, its easy to lose sight of relaxed convictions. Yet its easy to know those who will continue to update themselves with knowledge just as we have identified the bingos on the forum who have NO capability to do the math themselves or who are warped and can't be mended due to greed. Those who will update themselves are worth benefit of the doubt!

We cannot force convictions. But I tell you - I've met maybe 400 NL members physically and the effect is almost scary- a great deal has been achieved. We just must watch it so that those who are not "yet" as open to truth as Debosky will not further retreat because they feel bullied.

Love

@Enigma:

Glad you're sheathing the sword! WT's position as stated is clear enough and to be sincere, fair and tenable enough. Tis just your "suspicion" which can't be proved for now! Even if he kneels with arms outstretched saying "tithes can go anywhere", only the future can confirm that position!

And pleeeaaasSssssse, avoid bandying words with people who bring nothing to the table except seeking (as is their usual parasitic nature) to ride on intellect which they lack.

I keep wondering what Christianity has turned into!

^ happy you are back! And congrats on "survival", the Lord be praised!

mazaje's empty house is filling back up

Viaro!!

And to think that "clear" of the "Vinclear" gang never for once suspected though it should have been obvious - how many posters here could carry Jo's ideas on their backs and make them almost passable?

So Viaro, where have you hidden "Inesqor"?

Gonna call your (our) nemesis (DeepSight) and tell him "Linear Tarradiddle" is back!

@all: can't we contribute to buy a cage for Sweetnecta?

Section 238 ?! Section 292 !?

How do you expect Beaf to defend this except by saying the number "2" starts both section 238 and 292 and so they are the same?

Its rather obvious PDP & "free and fair" presido know the elections were so badly compromised that they dare not allow truth come out. Else why this farce?

Truly Fresh Fart! But this will be their undoing

^^

See this intelligent "NlMediator" bobo - are you saying you don't know that the criteria for knowing "god" is paying tithe?

Those Babylonians were born-again Jor - since they tithed!

If truly the NBA boycotts all courts, they would redeem the image of the judiciary as the last defence-line of this polity

TITHE - the one topic guaranteed to cause bared fangs in Christianity

@wordtalk:

I know you are not an advocate for anti-tithing! I have said that EVEN me am not whist being thought so because I argue against the COMPULSORY "legalistic" thrust it carries today!

What I meant with my statement was that your clarification about the "voluntary" nature it ought have takes the wind out of the sail of those who lay heavy loads upon God's people and who sought to use your initial statements as a prop for their avarice

@Debosky:

Multiple conversations are taking place simultaneously here but I plead your indulgence over the following

I disagree - if we take other actions of Abraham as evidence/symbolism of things to come - his faith, his circumcision, his encounter with Melchizedek, why can't a tithe (albeit recorded as a one-off) by Abraham serve as inspiration for people today?

Would you OR wordtalk THEN accept his "one-off" tithe as inspiration for us to also be "one-off" tithers today? Of course, I premise that query on the idea that he started it off and "is" our example which would mean we FOLLOW his lead.

Seeing as his example is found explicitly stated in the Word and nobody is supposed to add to that word!

Maybe that question clarifies the "other" position!

^^ benefit of the doubt, Brother!

Time will disclose IF there's chicanery there but I wager this guy is for real.

And again, his argument actually worsens that of the real dangers - those who would turn an act of worship into their own agenda for easy monies and control over the souls of men!

Sometimes also other "supporters" we don't know yet!

About emotions, what I meant was that the "passion" for clarity & frustration at wordtalk's refusal to state a simple yes or no took this conversation to a point where we forgot who we were and it thus degenerated into something that looked more like setting a trap! You will notice Debosky got same impression.

I think wordtalk's problem was not answering but he wanted to put caveats, clarifications and thus not find himself in a corner in the future.

Wordtalk has a position which if not well articulated could end up being turned against him - he simply wanted to avoid such in future, and he's not likely a "turncoat" - such cautious people rarely are.

Best, his stated stand does even MORE damage to the argument of the compulsory tithe advocates than ours -> BECAUSE BOTTOM-LINE, it shows that AT THEIR VERY BEST, the compulsory-tithe arguments reside in quicksand!

I hope you understand me now! And I did learn from you three

Akhozem (abi what's his name) will swear for the two of you the way you are spoiling business for him!

^^

Thank you!

Let me add that whist it is an act of worship to God to give to His Work (ministries, the poor, widows and generally all those in need), tithing or indeed "giving" is NOT the basis for prosperity or success in the Christian walk.

Abram (Abraham) was blessed even before he gave his single one time tithe! And I would like to see the person who will explain why there is not one single born-again Christian (indeed tither) amongst the worlds (or Nigeria's) wealthiest people.

Tithes are NOT your way to success!

^^ thank you Dare2think!

History has shown us that this is not so much about scholarship but about motives and the idea expressed that you have pointed out is why these issues are so delicate. Those of us who have risen above the possibility of manipulation by our "would-be masters" are not the problem but those who are young or just coming in.

These people insidiously create monsters even greater than themselves ultimately because whist they know the truth but only manipulate to self-advantage, the babe brought up on such poison will not have any background knowledge of "original" truth!

And this is why those who seemed to stand against wordtalk were so eager to have him distance himself from our true "sons of stomachs" and those who turn truth upon its head to suit personal agendas.

In all sincerity, your position was clear to me after my first question to you and your response!

Maybe my problem here is the same Debosky mentioned - I was not in the thread, just joined, saw a couple of posts (especially the one I quoted you from) and jumped in. So I may not have a concise idea where this is coming from.

My continued questions (from them, as it were) come from bewilderment at why something seemingly so simple became so personal.

Plus the last question brings something to light (in me). If pro-tithers state that Abram instituted tithing, I think its only fair they follow his rules! If its the Mosaic law, then the rules in that should hold sway! So which is it?

I ask that last question sincerely because in my estimation, it puts all pro-tithers in a quandary and I wonder if scripture and good sense can get them out of it - I want to know.

I am NOT trying to put anyone in a corner and you can see Enigma who is one of my closest friends (part of my 'gang' as our unfriendly unhappy NL pastor would say) is also now wondering at me!

But my brother, this is not so difficult! Okay - Suppose I too and like Abram have paid tithes ONCE in my life - am I a tither?

Or specifically, was Abram a tither? Can we follow his example?

Sorry!

Let me rephrase -> is an "Abram (one time tither who decides he wishes to tithe on one loaf of bread once in his life)" as much a tither as a salary earner who tithes on every dime that gets into his hands?

My question is based on the Abramic example that has us saying tithes came before the law (alluding to him as a tither) in effect, WAS Abram a tither and can people do exactly as he did, decide to pay once (probably on a gift or cash they found by the wayside) and YOU agree they are tithers?

If all would leave the flOor to wordtalk, we may get someplace now

IEnigma:

Because we're getting no-place! think the problem here is emotions. They have risen so high that they cloud not only judgement but even understanding of the questions

@Gary:

Please stop for awhile. Just hold on so this mess is unravelled!

@wordtalk:

Look at this matter this way -> Abram did give a tithe of ALL he won from war. That "tithe" was

1. Voluntary as it was his decision
2. But that also meant he chose what to tithe I.e. Spoils of war

He could also thus have chosen to tithe only on "SOME" or to have tithed on othet things

I believe this is what Gary used to deduce : IF Abram is our example of a tither, then someone, say me, could (using the same owner-decision capability) decide (once in my life) to tithe a 20 dollar gift I got yesterday and by above criteria, still be considered a tither as much as any other person who tithes daily and on everything.

The above is so of course, only if Abram is our basis for tithing. If he is not, the allegory does not stand

His question thus is with the stated, do you agree a one time tither (like Father Abram) is as justified (tithe-wise) as an Israeli vineyard owner in the time of King David?.