Uyi Iredia:
@ Okeyxyz: I am disappointed you will be an atheist without Jesus.

That's because, knowing what I know now; I've come to realize that all religions, spirituality and God-consciousness are derived from the true christian doctrine(I don't mean conventional christianity). Every religion or God-consciousness is a shadowy imitation of christianity. It doesn't matter whether these religions came before or after christianity. They all see christ principle, they know it works and rules the universe but they do not understand this christ principle, so they are all groping in the dark to find the best fit to this christ doctrine. Like I said before; it doesn't matter that your religion came before christianity, it is still derived from christian doctrine, just like Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, david, Moses, etc(even the law of Moses), saw the promise/vision of christ thousands of years before christ eventually appeared on earth, so their faith is based on christ even though their religion/belief system was not christian. So it is with Islam, paganism, occult doctrines, etc, these are all trying to get a best fit to that vision/principle of christ that they see but do not understand, and all they can do is speculate and dogmatize. So without christianity, no religion would even exist in the first place. Just like without the substance, the shadow will not exist.

So without christ, atheism would be the only thing that makes sense.

Joagbaje: There's difference between the covenant and the law. We are not under the old covenant but the law itself contain certain principles that are right .

We don't know what sin is except for the law.

Romans 7:7
if it had not been for the Law, I should not have recognized sin or have known its meaning. [For instance] I would not have known about covetousness [would have had no consciousness of sin or sense of guilt] if the Law had not [repeatedly] said, You shall not covet and have an evil desire [for one thing and another].

So principles are forever. Principles travelled in the law didn't die with the law. We have had different constitution in our nation . But there' are element which are foundational in every constitution . They remain even after the old constitution is abolished by the new. For example .we had had litleton constitition in nigeria which was replaced by clifford constitution in 1947 and Macpherson constitution in Nigeria 1951 Murder will always be a crime In every constitution . So the law contains elements that are eternal principles and principles transcends dispensations .

Romans 7:12
Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.

Because the Jewish covenant is obsolete does that justify murder or idolatry now?

Why don't we just live in sin because the old is gone?

The only issue about the law is that it cannot bring justification or make a man right before God. You can use the law on a lawfulf way.

1Timothy 1:8
But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully;

Because of its principles but don't seek to be justified by it because a man can only be justified by faith .

Galatians 2:16
Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law:for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

The principles in the Law are not the problems but the interpretations are. Every principle contained in the law are perfect, but do you understand what they are really saying? This is why the law was referred to as a shadow of things to come(christinaity). What is the characteristics of a shadow? A shadow imitates the real substance, it acts according to the substance but ultimately, it is a misrepresentation of the substance. Do you take the parables of Jesus Christ(who was the law in flesh/person) literally? if you do, then you are lost. Do you take the saying "An eye for an eye, a life for a life " literally? then you are lost. Do you take the saying "A woman must not wear a man's clothes..." literally? if you do, then you are lost. These sayings are founded on God's perfect principles but the people to whom the law was given to were not also given the understanding to go with it (Romans 7:14), so everything they thought the law was saying was wrong, thus the abolishing of the law means the abolishing of what we thought and understood from the law.

The only way to understand all that the law was saying is to have a new mindset found only in Christ. This is what it means to be born again, to have a new mindset to re-interpret everything we'd heard before.

Uyi Iredia:
• If your religion (or way of life for Christians Bible reading, praise/worship, Holy Communion etc, for Muslims, Koran reading, Ramadan, tarawijd) died today, would you believe in God ?

If christianity (from my POV) died today, then I'd stop believing in God. Life would just be meaningless with no purpose, no respect, no hope. Just live and die.

• Is it compulsory that prophets eg Muhammad (PBUH) or Jesus (The Son of God) must come before we assume a Creator behind Nature ?

The coming of Jesus christ forms my perspective on life as it is. So if he'd not come, I probably would be following a false religion today or be an atheist. So yes, it is compulsory for christ to come before christianity, else it's another (false) religion.

• What problems do you find with people who disbelieve in organised religion irrespective of stance ?

There's nothing wrong with organized religion. When two or more people have a common interest and they want to share, review and advance their interest, then it's only natural that they organize themselves for learning/teaching, querying, inspiration and encouragement, establishing systems, protocols, hierarchy, doctrines, etc. So organization is not the problem, the problem is having a false belief system.

Edited (because of answers about Christianity being a 'way of life' and not a religion)

People who say christianity is not a religion are either being dishonest/deceiving themselves or they lack the capacity to think and assert their believes. What is wrong with having a religion?? These people are so lacking in conviction that they are now dancing to the tune of atheists and anti-christian bodies who make it a mission to find faults and blames in religion, therefore these silly "christians" have become ashamed of the word "religion" and run away from being associated with it. I am a christian and I am religious. I am not ashamed of it. The fact that other people abuse religion will not make me deny my religion. And to those who are ashamed of being labeled "religious": You have serious self esteem issues.

Freedom of religion, freedom to invite people to your religion and freedom to refuse religion. Ever heard of them??

Pastor Olu T:
wo wo wo, slow down, I need to get something straight, pls kindly explain what u meant about man can enjoy whatever he pleases be it s*ex, etc so I dont misquote u.
The reason I am asking is 'cos someone once told me (now a pastor) that he can kill someone n not sin 'cos he is under grace

I mean Precisely what I wrote. Sex is a nature and gift of God, to be enjoyed by all who understand and practice grace. It is the Law of Moses that declares marriage as the only condition for sex. With God, sex is free for them who understand.

As a 100-percent, absolute grace, new testament christian, I understand that the Laws of Moses and it's definitions of right and wrong have been absolutely abolished. The new testament and old cannot co-exist in one dispensation. The old testament is absolutely dead(through the death of Jesus) and the life that I live now is due to the new testament. The differences between the two are simple and are as follows:

God have created all things and declared them to be good and fit for use by man for his education, creation, pleasure and profit. Man is not a sinner by whatsoever he decides to use and enjoy, whether they be clothes, food, drink, sex, knowledge, etc. God has absolutely sanctified everything that he created. Therefore there is no evil/sin in nature.

The law(knowledge) of good and evil (aka: the law of Moses; the Law of sin and death) on the other hand does bot agree that there is absolute goodness in all that God has created, it declares some good and others evil and forbids us from using them, making us sinners both in conscience and in action. This is contrary to God's definitions, thus whoever follows or agrees with the definitions of the Laws of Moses is a sinner.

alexleo:

If there was polygamy in the church then does that make polygamy right? NO. There were other things that paul said a bishop should not do, does that mean that if the rest of the church does that then its no more a sin? NO
Ignoring what Jesus said and trying to figure out why Paul said what he said does not show sincerity on your part in this matter. You are in love with polygamy and can't stand the condemnation that Jesus did to it that's why you are running away from it and chasing shadows in why paul made the statement he made.
Now here is the scripture that you are trying to twist to suit your false believe. 1 Timothy 3:1-7

1.  This is a faithful saying: If a man desires the position of a bishop,[a] he desires a good work. 2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach; 3 not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money, but gentle, not quarrelsome, not covetous; 4 one who rules his own house well, having his children in submission with all reverence 5 (for if a man does not know how to rule his own house, how will he take care of the church of God?); 6 not a novice, lest being puffed up with pride he fall into the same condemnation as the devil. 7 Moreover he must have a good testimony among those who are outside, lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.

So are you now saying that all these things that paul said in the scripture up is wrong for a bishop to do but right when the rest of the church does it? For example, he mentioned that a bishop should not be violent, greedy, quarrellsome etc, if we should go by your interpretation it means that the rest of the church who are engaging in this evil mentioned are not doing wrong. Its only when a bishop does them that it is wrong? NO WAY. Pls face this issue with a sincere mind bros.

So finally you acknowledge that there was polygamy in the church?? Good, we are moving forward, so you guys should stop telling lies that there was nothing like polygamy in christianity. Now polygamy may not be the preferred type of marriage but certainly it was permissble in christianity, and for you people to go about preaching otherwise is a wicked lie and an attempt to enforce your preferences/biases on other christians. Even Paul himself was wise in such manner as to handling people in that he would state his preferences and how he wished every christian would be like him but he also acknowledges that everybody is not the same and each has his level of understanding and faith. Now he says: A bishop should be the husband of one wife... A bishop is a privileged, official and exemplary position in the church(just like Paul himself being an apostle occupies a privileged, official and exemplary position), therefore anybody who occupies such position should submit to absolute discipline because other people will have to lookup to him. He cannot just do what is permissible but must always be seen to do what is perfect. Nowhere did Paul nor Jesus preach that polygamy was a sin, it was permissible, and your attempt to paint it as sin is the real lie.

Again, nowhere did Jesus condemn polygamy. He did condemn divorce(except for reasons of unfaithfulness), but you are trying to redefine polygamy and divorce to mean the same thing, this is very dishonest.

alexleo:

You are the one mixing things up to suit your false believe. Do you understand the word "replacement"? When you are claiming that one can marry any number of wives he wants, what has replacement got to do with that? Replacement fits into where a specific number of things are given and when one of the thing is lost then you replace. But when there is no limit to the number(as you are falsely claiming), what has replacement got to do with that? That statement of Jesus is very clear whether you accept it or not. If there were no specific in number, then the issue of replacement wouldn't have come up at all since the man is free to have as many as possible. .

You can beat around all you want, but you have deliberately failed to answer my question: Why would Paul say that he wants a bishop to be the husband of one wife if not that there was polygamy in the church? If there was no polygamy in the church then there wouldn't be a need to explicitly state the preference for a monogamous man.

alexleo:

I don't need ur word. What I want is what is written in the bible. If you feel some apostles married more than one wife pls show me in the scriptures and if you can't show me, then your assumptions are not for me. If you can't understand the relationship of the scripture I quoted with this issue then you are not being sincere. Marry twenty wives if you want. That's your business but don't manipulate the scriptures to suit such an ungodly choice pls.

You are the one who was making assumptions without any scriptural backing that christianity forbids polygamy and I called you out for it. And you specifically said there were no polygamous christians, now you are trying to back-out by just talking about apostles only. Even at that, the only instances the bible dictates a one-wife marriage is for christians who want become bishops, an official role in the church. I ask you again: why would the apostle say that a bishop should be the husband of one wife if not that there were polygamous christians amongst them??

If there was room for us to marry more than one wife then Jesus wouldn't have made this comment in Matthew 19:9

9.  And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.”

So why should Jesus condemn marrying another wife if there was room to marry more than one?

Obviously you fail to understand the bolded , hence all your interpretations are misguided. Jesus said: whoever divorces his wife and marries another, in other words: whoever replaces his wife with another..., It does not mean the same thing as having more than one wife at the same time.

alexleo:
The word Christian came into existence in the new testament and none of those christians/apostles married more than one wife.

Don't make claims about things you can't possibly know about. The bible makes references to the possibility that some of the apostles were married but it never stated whether they had one wife or many, and your claim that none of the christians had more than one wife is a blatant lie, yes!! a blatant lie. Else Why would the apostle emphasize that a bishop should be the husband of one wife if not that there were polygamous christians amongst them?? (Titus 1:6, 1 Timothy 3:2, 1 Timothy 3:12). This your doctrine is false.

John 4:16-18.

16 Jesus said to her, “Go, call your husband, and come here.”

17 The woman answered and said, “I have no husband.”

Jesus said to her, “You have well said, ‘I have no husband,’ 18 for you have had five husbands, and the one whom you now have is not your husband; in that you spoke truly.”

^^^ What has this got to do with polygamy??

Phoenix619: [s][/s]
Nonsense. What of polyandry? Is it outlawed too?

@op when next she asks for your prayers tell her polygamy is against your church doctrines. I suppose it is.

Why don't you show or explain to us, a christian doctrine which outlaws polygamy for general christians? A bishop is a christian office, for the select few.

@OP

No where in christian doctrine is polygamy outlawed. All the people who go about enforcing monogamy on all christians are simply acting either out of ignorance or deliberately using "christianity" to enforce their personal (and wicked) biases against other people's choice of marriage. A recommendation was made in the bible that a man aspiring to be a bishop(an official position) should be a husband of one wife (Titus 1:6, 1 Timothy 3:2, 1 Timothy 3:12). How do you guys now translate this to become a law enforceable on all christians(or anybody for that matter). Your judging whether or not she is worthy to benefit from your prayers because of her status as a second wife is totally misplaced, and as long as she(or her husband) doesn't hold any official positions that excludes polygamy, then you are in no position whatsoever to judge her polygamy.

Again I say: All people who enforce this rule on everybody are either ignorant of outright wicked.

Kay 17: Upon reading the OP, Freewill jumped into my mind.
Freewill is the total self autonomy of control. Man equipped by freewill is in a position of power/authority. He can do and undo. Man can actively choose whether or not to follow the laws. The authority of all laws rests on their acceptance by the recipients.

NOTE: man through his freewill is sinless, because he can make and break moral laws, create and destroy such. Before man becomes a sinner, he must choose whether or not he wears the shame, must accept willingly the idea of sin. Hence sin is meaningless without acknowledgement.

The way you guys sing "free will", I can't help but laugh. "Free will" does not mean correct/right will. We know what correctness is by observation, questioning and efforts towards improvement. Yeah, we know you have free will, you can jump off a sky scraper if you want, but how is that a good idea? How does it benefit you?

2. It is lame for both (theists and atheists) to seek out moral basis from Nature! For atheists, it is implicitly accepting some form of external overarching purpose in Nature which governs man. It is a bad idea to behave as a plant.

No it is not lame. We are part of nature, No?? Nature is a principal means to observe and determine what purpose is, hence make we can tell when something goes wrong.

wiegraf:

Obviously, very false. Do you happen to know, say, birds with foot fetishes? You're welcome to point them out. Perhaps maybe fish that prefers big booties? Or goats that like to whip and tie themselves before they engage in some action?

There are gay birds (exclusively/primarily gay as well), gay goats (10% of all male goats are primarily ghey), and ghey fish.

As for not natural, lol. That's nature bleeping up badly it would seem, no? Let's indulge you, anything other than missionary is not 'natural', as everything else is superfluous. So get rid of all of it, rather then focus on the acts that you do not fancy, bigot. And if you need a 'natural' explanation, look at bonobos for instance, they use it as a means of bonding, a social tool. They aren't the only ones, dolphins, elephants, the other apes, basically any species with mental capabilities similar to ours, do so. This is even ignoring the fact that humans are ridiculously atypical due to our mental capabilities, or do you see any other species browsing the internet consciously? So why you apply their standards to us bewilders me.

Your questions don't seem to have any bearings on my postings and judgments here, perhaps you mistake me for somebody else?? so you are not addressing(or you misunderstand) them. Your argument was that homosexuality is "ubiquitous" amongst other species and I agree(though it's still debated in the scientific community, but let's suppose it's true..), but your flaw is in justifying the correctness of homosexuality based on it's ubiquitousness, this is bad reasoning, borne more out of political appeal rather than a scientific one(being that you guys --atheists-- purport to be the defenders of science). I have already stated(and of which anybody whether a scientist or not can observe) nature is very flawed both in a spiritual and scientific context and that these arising mental and biological diseases/disorders/deviations and in this case--homosexuality, are the result of these flaws.

Reyginus: Frankly speaking, I still find it hard to understand your point. But don't wear yourself out replying if you lack the patience/strength to reply.

My point is that hom.ose.xuality is an effect of flaws in our nature(sin-nature). These effects can be active from birth or they develop over time during our growth and development. By flaws, I mean our normal, natural characteristics are suppressed/interrupted by opposing(and abnormal) forces/mechanisms so that our natural characteristics (in this case: se.xual interpretations/characteristics) are either totally or partially defeated and the opposing characteristics are domineering and influencing our interpretations, so that we respond se.xually to people of the same sex instead of the natural response to the opposite sex.

By suppression, our organic systems can be interrupted and malfunction during development in the womb so that we are born with a disposition to interpret (se.xual) stimulus in a contrary(to the natural..) manner like hom.ose.xuality. Likewise, even when we are born normal, social interactions also enforce values and interpretations that are contrary to our natural dispositions, forcing our developments to take alternative paths because the natural paths are suppressed, condemned and shamed. This is a sub-conscious formation and by the time we realize it, we are already fully formed into these alternative se.xualities.

Now my point is that all these biological and social forces that interrupt/suppress our natural paths to development emanate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, which was actually the law of Moses before it was documented and religiously/legally enforced on Israel, but It's effect has been active as part of human nature since it's adoption by Adam.

wiegraf:

Let's ignore that homose.xual activity, including full intercourse, is ubiquitous in nature. We'll also ignore that primary/exclusive homose.xuality has also been observed, for now..

All disorders/diseases are "ubiquitous in nature", That doesn't make them the natural(nature-designed) course of biological or mental development. They are Malfunctions of the biological/mental systems.

Reyginus: Your last line got me confused.
What does it really mean?

I believe my writings are clear. Hom.ose.xuality(se.xual disorders) are effects (fruits) in the mind and body resulting from the sin-nature , either from birth or through social interactions whereby one is subjected to antagonize his natural dispositions, resulting to guilt, shame, complexes until one's mind is re-wired to exhibit the unnatural behaviours, of which hom.ose.xuality is one of them. I call all these anti-nature subjections(through birth or through society) as derivatives of the same laws of Moses which society and religion enforces.

wiegraf:

Are you actually grouping these together in a secular sense? I hope you mean amongst you bigots, yes?

But necrophilia, pedophalia, bestiality, etc and -of course - homo.se.xuality are se.xual orientations. You disagree??

Localamos:
However, paraphiliacs were not born with the pre knowledge of the law of Moses. Everybody that has that knowledge, or feels affected by its provisions, does so through social interactions. These interactions are usually "forced down the throats" of unprepared children in their formative years, thereby causing psychological anomalies such as guilt, repression, and so on. And this brings us to the sociological/psychological approach to this discuss.

The normal values and definitions by which every society governs itself are all based on the Laws of Moses. Like I said before: This law was the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, back in Eden which man(Adam) adopted to rule himself. So if we believe that all men are descendants of Adam, then we have also inherited this same mindset by which Adam was ruled and convicted and we all also share of Adam's flaws and glories deriving from this law/mindset/nature. This law is universal(deriving from our common ancestor), not just a thing of christianity, islam and judaism; The label: "Law of Moses" is associated with the Jews(and follows to christianity and Islam) because it was a legal document for them, but it's mechanisms has been active in all men since Adam, It is human nature as stated in the book of Romans:

(Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.) 16This will take place on the day when God judges people’s secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares. (Romans 2: 14-16)

Homosexuality is a product/fruit of the sin nature. Whatever mindset/nature a person is occupied with will eventually produce effects on that person. These effects includes all manners of complexes and disorders like inferiority complex, OCD, all manners of phobias and phillias, including se.xual disorders such as bestiality, pedophilia, necrophilia, homos.exuality, etc.

The sin nature or imperfect/flawed nature occurs in two aspects of life. Firstly; you are born into this nature and it's effects are evident in biological flaws like all forms of diseases and physical disorders and ultimately death in accordance with Genesis 3:17-19 .

The second aspect of the sin-nature is a spiritual/mindset one. This also has it's origins from Genesis and is the tree of the knowledge of good and evil referred to in the garden of Eden (Genesis 2:17). The knowledge(or law, or mindset) of good and evil is actually the law of Moses that interpretes good and evil in what God himself has declared to be good and fit for use by man. But this tree of knowledge of good and evil says otherwise; It declares Gods creation as evil and forbids man from using this creation and knowledge, instilling in man the conscience of sin for things that are perfectly natural for him. This is the spiritual aspect of the sin-nature that takes away man's god-nature and subjects him to a mere mortal, and producing in him all manners of fears, shame, failures, diseases and disorders. This is the nature that christ died to set us free from. Everybody who is subject to the Laws of Moses is prone to eventually suffer se.xual deviations, it's only a matter of time. Because when you suppress your natural se.xual interpretations(enforced by the laws of Moses), then the unnatural values would eventually take root in your minds and rule your physical bodies.

So bottom line, homos.exuality is not the sin itself, but is a fruit of the sin-nature/mindset.

So what is the kingdom of Heaven? Firstly: It is a physical existence, a state of physical immortality to be accomplished soon. It is not an invisible heaven. But it starts with a exercising mindset of righteousness, separate/apart(not according to) from the laws of Moses in order to be accounted worthy of that kingdom.

ayando: thanks for your reply. From your explanation, it can be deduced that majority of nowadays Christians may/will not enter the kingdom if God. Am I right?

True!! When churches begin to boast with the population of their memberships, it means their doctrines are pleasing to man rather than to God. All churches strategies are aimed at capturing millions of people. We know them: RCCG, Benny Hynn, Joyce Mayer, Christ Embassy, winners, Mountain of fire, The catholic church, Anglican, etc etc. They honestly think they are christian, but I know they are not, because their doctrines are based on the Law of Moses, hence their popularity

“Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. 14“For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it. (Matthew 7:13-14)

.

To start with, Spirit means character or mindset or value system; So to be poor in spirit is to be separate from the character/mindset/value systems of the world. Ie: not judging by popular opinion/culture but judging by true, spiritual meanings. The christianity we have today is not real christianity because they are based on traditions of men and this is why churches today are overflowing with numbers, because their doctrines are popular. God has been made in the image of man instead of man in the image of God, God has been democratized and secularized and man's/societal values are used to validate God. So being poor in spirit means separating yourself from these behaviours.

Why has this thread been banned: https://www.nairaland.com/1439402/gay-chatbox-gay-straight-alliance ??

Some good explanations would help to understand the soundness of the governing minds of our moderators. Are they simply using their Mod privileges to enforce their version/doctrines of christianity on everybody else? Why are real issues like homos.exuality within christianity systematically suppressed??

Yooguyz:
lemme clarify somethings, homosexuality is an orientation, something beyond one's control you didn't choose to be that way, its just like you didn't choose to be attracted to women its something that comes impulsely. Its just like i didn't choose to be attracted to both men and women, i found myself that way.

True!! In light of the above, I hope you can summon the same sympathy for paedophilia, bestiality and necrophilia, etc. These are all se.xual orientations that people struggle with too. And I'm not being sarcastic.

When one is gay, he chooses to be identified with the gaylifestyle, you talk about sex, you talk about labels. Well am not gay.
I know you may find the above hard to understand, i myself i still find it hard to comprehend. As a born-again, spirit-filled christian and also a pastor, i know all what the bible says about same-sex activities. I tell you after years of fasting, prayers, inner-conflict at a time i was thinking of suicide. I had to admit that my "weakness" would not go away, i had to reach the conclusion above in order to make peace with my self and still make heaven.

Now that you(and others like you) have come to terms with your se.xuality, the mission now is to put it in the right perspective. It's one thing to be gay, understanding that it's a weakness you are struggling with and looking for a solution/cure(if ever there is one), then it's another thing to try to redefine homose.xuality as a christian se.xuality.

Candour: I think Its even illegal to open a parallel chatbox for whatever group of Christians considering what happened to the deeper life chatbox that was forcibly closed recently

Mods, if you closed Deeperlife chatbox, its only fair this one too should be closed unless there are different laws for different people on nairaland.

Why did the Mods close the deeperlife chatbox? And yes, I support the bolded, If a chatbox for a particular section of christians is closed then the same rule must apply to all sectionalized threads, including this one.

.

There are things that are permissible and there are things that are perfect and requiring the most discipline to attain. Permissible implies that you are allowed to practice worldly values and traditions; They draw you back and distract from absolute "holiness" but you have not sinned when you do them. Permissible can be found in the bible as follows:

All things are lawful(permissible), but not all things are profitable. All things are lawful(permissble), but not all things edify. (1 Corinthians 10:23)

All things are lawful(permissible) for me, but not all things are profitable. All things are lawful(permissble) for me, but I will not be mastered by anything. (1 Corinthians 6:12)

Note must be made that the new testament explicitly says All things.., I say this for the sake of those people who still preach the Law as christian doctrine. The law forbids a lot of things, christianity does not. In christianity, There is no sin in nature. That is why it is All things are permissible. The law on the other hand defines sin in what you eat, drink, how you dress, people you associate with, music you listen to, etc. These are not sins in true christian doctrine.

One important doctrine which nobody teaches is about marriage; marriage is a permissible will of God, but the churches preach marriage as a perfect will of God. Paul specifically states that his wish is that his followers would be like him and remain unmarried, but that if a man cannot control his passion(not se.xual urge), then he should marry. He has not sinned if he marries. Why would Paul make the emphasis that "He has not sinned if he marries.." except that marriage is a permissible will, not a perfect will.

But if you marry, you have not sinned; and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned. Yet such will have trouble in this life, and I am trying to spare you. (1 Corinthians 7:28)

True, God is against homosexuality but why do the churches not have a solution/cure for homosexuality then? Why is it that the only recommendation they have for gay people is "You must be born again..", "turn away from your evil/unnatural acts.. ", etc. How can church have any viable strategy against homosexuality when they don't even understand this disease in the first place? they don't understand it's origins/causes let alone having a solution. They churches still think that it's by will and choice that people become gay rather than their mental/psychological/biological disposition. The churches surely don't know God; they worship something else and think it is God; else they'd know how to treat/cure homosexuality.

Can you tell me the differences btw ZF1 & ZF2? Was learning ZF1 many months ago until I realized it was too early for me(back then) to use ZF without very good expertise on raw PHP. Now I want to take up Zend again and I'm wondering whether to pick-up where I left ZF1 or rather to move on to ZF2.

BERNIMOORE:

bolded above, how does God beget/begotten or 'born' jesus?

pls read my comment regarding beget in my opening post, was jesus beget through intercouse?

if not then jesus is not begotten by default, angels too exist through the same way that jesus exist.

Again you speak without understanding, using the literal interpretations of scripture(begat/begotten) instead of their spiritual and symbolic meaning and hence you are misled. To begat means to usher into a dispensation/mandate. Just like a literal birth ushers a baby into this external, physical world or when by adoption a stranger is ushered into the role/dispensation of sonship, God begetting Jesus ushers him(jesus) into his roles, whether unto the law or unto the spirit of grace. In whatever case, you are a son of whatever dispensation you were begotten(ushered/mandated) into.

so angel that appeared to john in the new testament is carrying out his task under law? you are funny, there is NOTHING that concerns spirit angels with humans law covenant, they are servants of God the same way that jesus was a servant.

Bros, I'm just gonna assume you don't read your bible, else you'd know that the law was administered by angels.

you who have received the law that was given through angels but have not obeyed it." (Acts 7:53)

Why, then, was the law given at all? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come. The law was given through angels and entrusted to a mediator. (Galatians 3:19)