₦airaland Forum

@huxley,

huxley:
I may not have the Dr training in pschiatry, but I have a scientific background and I have read hundreds of scientific papers in my previous incarnation. I have come closed to being published but for career reasons had to change career completely, which scuppered my publications. Nowadays, hardly a day goes by but I don't read a scientific book/paper or material from the philosophy of science.

There are a lot of people who read scientific material published by scientists of repute; and they don't just "stop reading" just because they don't like to see certain words in other people's researcha nd works. I also read philosophy of science weekly at a deeper level than most people assume they delve into that discipline - and I have used the tools of that discipline to discuss issues rationally with many people.

It is not a healthy attitude to discredit a scientist's research work based just on one word ('scripture') - just evaluating his whole research on that word is prejudice, not science. It is as much for me to hold an anchor in the discipline of Philosophy of Science, and then read and dismiss research works by other scientists just because they mention the word "evolution"! To do so would be unhealthy and even irrational on my part - just as one would assume to call a scientists repute into question on just the word "scripture"!

huxley:
Look, science is essentially a free-for-all. It is you job to convince the scientific community that whatever you propose has scientific merits. Am afraid, by the Dr evincing such gross bias towards supernaturalism in what he claims to be a scientific study, predisposes him towards neglect at best and ridicule at worst.

You see, huxley, a default skeptic mind is hardly doing science. Even when it is not a research on religious and spiritual phenomena, you of all people should know for a fact that there are supernatural events in our real world! More and more scientists are beginning to recognize that it is irrational to dismiss these supernatural and paranormal occurence on skeptic inclinations. Skepticism is NOT science - and anyone pushing this idea around is not doing science or thinking.

We have mentioned a few other phenomena like crop circles which scientists have continued to investigate (even leave UFO aside that continues to be unashamedly and unjustifiably denied by skeptics). No matter how many excuses skeptics give, they cannot deny that there are supernatural and paranormal realities in our world! If Dr. Gallagher investigates the phenomena of demon possession by the basic of all scientific methods - observation and critical thinking - on what basis do skeptics think this is too much to handle? To discredit the researvch on your personal disaffection is nOT science at all! That is why I still ask that those who will simply read issues without this skeptic default will see that on a good ground, they cannot dismiss the reality of that occurence out of hand! There is no "scientific" rationalism for doing so - and personal disavowals are not substitutes for critical scientific reasoning!

@huxley,

huxley:
Let say the Dr was writing a scientific paper intended for publication in his professional journal, in which he included the statement,

Do you think that would be considered scientific? This would lose him credibility and predispose all his work to be treated as sub-science or pseudoscience.

I stopped reading when I saw that statement. I wish the statement had occurred earlier as it would have saved me the trouble of reading him.

Could I make a few observations here that may help us both ways?

1. It is not good scientific posture to "stop reading" just because you read his reference to Scripture. A healthy mind of inquiry does not "shut off" on a publication of repute, especially "Oxford" just because the researcher happens to have mentioned Scripture - that is prejudice, not fairness.

2. You are not qualified at all to discredit a man of Dr. Gallagher's repute and and standing in the scientific community. Until you have academically qualified yourself and earned a doctorate as well, there really is no substance to the assertion that such and such would "lose him credibility".

3. If one would read essentially what Dr. Gallagher stated, they could not miss the fact he addressed readers of either groups - religious and scientific. He should know in his own standing of repute that there are "fakes" and "genuine" cases of what he investigated; and as such, he warns that this investigation is a much needed exercise so that the gullible public would be wary of those who "tele­vangelists' dunning their audience for cash as they conduct exhibitionist ceremonies". It is on the basis of this unfortunate confusion where many may not know the difference in demon-possession that he warned that genuine cases "good scriptural authority", rather than dismiss it out of hand.

4. If the skeptics were ever interested to seriously pursue this phenomena fairly, and without prejudice, they would themselves have gone out to conduct their own investigations to "correct" Dr. Gallagher's report. It is a very weak attitude and posture to sit smugly and try to dismiss these occurences without having done any work on them, nor witnessed them, nor even tried to understand them! This is why another reviewer noted that he didn't

expect psychiatrists to make diagnostic judgments in this area:
"They have been trained (and rightly so) to be skeptical," and
"physicians should not be expected to make discernments in matters
of this sort -- it is not their trained task or area of expertise."

Bearing these in mind, one should not that Dr. Gallagher's work has been appreciated by a wide community of researchers as well - one should not on their disproportionate attitude and prejudice call a researcher's repute into question just because they saw something in the report that they don't like to hear or read.

There's a balance on both sides of the scientific and religious community in his research - others have noted it in their comments, and that is why I have tried to post a few and Dr. Gallagher's response as well.

huxley:
Is this the language of a man of science? What a shame.

Is that the only thing you saw in all the report?

make una try with just 4 lettes naw. .

ABBA.

Another. . .

[list]How Can She Be So Active?

I was appalled and disappointed that you found Lindy Morelli's story ("Through a Crucible to Spring," article, April) to be worthy of publication. How could a woman "blind since birth" be so active -- an apparently accomplished musician, traveling back and forth from Pennsylvania to New York, and eventually taking a "bright," sunny flight to Ireland's "green, lush countryside"? Prior to that she took two trips to Medjugorje. When I read this, a red flag went up, and from that point on I read her article with a jaundiced eye. I feel like "I've been took!"


Barbara R. Grimaldi
Miramar Beach, Florida[/list]

---

[list]LINDY MORELLI REPLIES:

I became blind due to an accident at birth. My identical twin sister and I were born premature at six and a half months in 1964. We weighed only two and a half pounds, and were placed for safety reasons in an incubator, which caused too much oxygen to be directed toward my optic nerves. This overabundance of oxygen caused permanent nerve damage, which resulted in total blindness.

I received my education at Overbrook School for the Blind in Philadelphia. At Overbrook we were given all the necessary life skills to live an independent life. I received a topnotch education, and went on to receive a bachelors degree in theology, and a masters degree in counseling, and am presently studying for my doctoral degree in ministry at Catholic University. While at Overbrook, I was given sufficient training in mobility and orientation skills so that I would be able to travel on my own.

I was always naturally gifted with musical ability. While at Over­brook I had several great opportunities to learn how to play the flute and how to sing and lead musical gatherings for public worship. Blind musicians are not rare; several are well-known -- e.g., Ray Charles and Ste­vie Wonder.

Most people today are aware of the amazing accomplishments of Helen Keller, who was not only totally blind, but also totally deaf. One may ask how she could have done all she did -- working for peace, traveling the world, and writing several books -- but she is a prime example of someone who was able to overcome her handicaps.

Barbara Grimaldi questions my saying that I would enjoy the "green, lush countryside" in Ireland and the "bright" sunshine on my plane trip. Anyone who has engaged in a normal conversation or knows anything about Ireland knows that it is green and lush. And everybody knows that on a warm day the sun is bright.

I respectfully submit this response with the hope that it will help people realize that just because a person is blind, or otherwise physically disabled, does not mean he is resigned to a limited, imprisoned life without knowledge or function in the outside world.[/list]

Selected Comments and Responses following Dr. Gallagher's Work - (New Oxford Review)


[list]As an academic psychiatrist with an active clinical practice, I read Dr. Richard E. Gallagher's article "A Case of Demonic Possession" (March) with intense interest. Given the skepticism of the 21st-century academic world, Dr. Gallagher should be applauded for his courage in both writing about this case and acknowledging his work in this area. His article is balanced, appropriately pointing out that while many people dismiss the satanic as fantasy, some are quick to invoke satanic causes for well-explained natural occurrences. Also, he presents the facts without sensationalism. Furthermore, I can vouch for the accuracy of what Dr. Gallagher writes about current psychiatric concepts. And, based on what he presents, I concur that this case does not fit any known psychiatric diagnostic category.

I believe that his article has a broader application that goes beyond reminding us of the reality of demonic possession. As Dr. Gallagher states, possession is very rare. Much more common is subtle satanic influence. If you miss the subtlety, it can be at times obvious. I am writing this letter on Good Friday. This very day, in a nearby town, several Christian churches were vandalized with spray-painted satanic symbols. I doubt that the timing was coincidental.

Also not rare is the spiritual dimension of every person who presents himself to healthcare providers. Each of these people has a spirit, and Dr. Gallagher's article should give pause to those of us in the health­care professions. The well-being of the spirit needs to be accounted for in our approach to each person. We shortchange our patients if we take a biologically reductionist view of them, without taking into account the psychological, social, and spiritual aspects of their lives. Clearly, there are other forces taking a serious interest in them.


Mark J. Albanese, M.D.
Cambridge Health Alliance
Cambridge, Massachusetts[/list]

---

[list]Richard E. Gallagher, in his article "A Case of Demonic Possession" writes, "for about 30 minutes, she [Julia, the subject of the ‘possession'], actually levitated about half a foot in the air." Levitation is an illusion. Dr. Gallagher and his group were affected by Satan to see a performance, while supposedly participating in an exorcism.

Louis J. Mihalyi
Newland, North Carolina[/list]

---

[list]RICHARD E. GALLAGHER REPLIES:

I appreciate the two letters sent from fellow academic psychiatrists who seem to be unusually astute and highly knowledgeable physicians who can understand and vouch for my article's complex sorting out of psychiatric from demonic cases ("A Case of Demonic Possession," March). As noted in my article, I don't expect psychiatrists to make diagnostic judgments in this area: "They have been trained (and rightly so) to be skeptical," and "physicians should not be expected to make discernments in matters of this sort -- it is not their trained task or area of expertise." I'd add again that psychiatric input is often invaluable in ruling out manifest psychiatric illness, as indeed mental-health practitioners do rather routinely with psychotic and related symptomatology that can be mistaken by a certain fundamentalist mentality as diabolic attacks. It has been gratifying, by the way, for me to have heard from quite a few psychiatrists who became aware of my article and concur that its thesis meshes with their own beliefs, admittedly on the part of most of them without much direct experience in this area, given the extreme rarity of genuine possessions. Drs. English and Albanese, in my view, deserve special credit for writing attribution, although I can understand why some other colleagues are reluctant to do so.

Mr. Mihalyi presents a not implausible theory about levitation, with a bit more confidence and dogmatism on his part than makes sense to me; after all, he was not present at the exorcism in question. There are documented cases of levitation on historical record, and it is quite clear from the careful descriptions that they are hardly "illusions" (although a subset of such examples, for instance by sometimes acknowledged reports of trickery in Eastern religious lore, certainly seem so). I have provided the two best English references available on the subject, in my estimation, in the endnotes to my article -- viz., the classic work The Physical Phenomena of Mysticism by the scholarly Jesuit expert, Fr. Herbert Thurston, S.J., and also the little known but superbly argued Comparative Miracles by Robert D. Smith.

Concerning the exorcism ritual and levitation described in my article, I mentioned that I did not list all the details. One point worth adding about the levitation is that the two nuns who held "Julia" down were physically struggling mightily for about a half hour, such that her body did not rise further in the air. It sounds remarkable because it was! The nuns were quite fatigued by this point, and eventually the levitation ceased; amazingly, Julia went up and down quite smoothly. Mr. Mihalyi would certainly have a difficult time convincing participants that this literally exhausting event was an illusion.

Of course, we have it on good scriptural authority that some people will never be convinced. I am sometimes asked why we don't have a videotape -- as if demons (or God) were subject to pristine scientific conditions, or the entity involved, with an intelligence of its own, were going to perform for a camera! As also mentioned in my article, the historical events I portrayed are epistemological "singularities"; these episodes are not necessarily non-credible because they can't be replicated or weren't captured on camera. Otherwise, we would trust no historical accounts, such as General Washington's crossing the Delaware.

St. Paul seemed amazed that people did not believe what he thought were 500 witnesses to the resurrected Christ. As with miracles, which have often been exceptionally well documented too (e.g., at Lourdes), our Lord gives (or allows) the evidence He wishes. I have had no "illusions" that my article would persuade the "un-persuadable." My task was simply to document a clear-cut example of demonic possession, and to warn the overly credulous or naïve not to mistake common psychiatric disorders for diabolic phenomena, unfortunately not an infrequent error in our country now.[/list]

Follow Up On Dr Richard E. Gallagher's studies on the case of Exorcism.

Perhaps a few people who may be interested on this event need to visit this link (New Oxford Review) and see a few questions and answers as follow up on Dr. Gallagher's investigations.

---

AMONG THE MANY COUNTERFEITS
A Case of Demon Possession

March 2008
By Richard E. Gallagher

https://www.newoxfordreview.org/leaders/0308-gallagher.jpg

Richard E. Gallagher, M.D., is a board-certified psychiatrist in private practice in Hawthorne, New York, and Associate Professor of Clinical Psychiatry at New York Medical College. He is also on the faculties of the Columbia University Psychoanalytic Institute and a Roman Catholic seminary. He is a Phi Beta Kappa graduate of Princeton University, magna cum laude in Classics, and trained in Psychiatry at the Yale University School of Medicine. Dr. Gallagher is the only American psychiatrist to have been a consistent U.S. delegate to the International Association of Exorcists, and has addressed its plenary session.

[list]Amid widespread confusion and skepticism about the subject, the chief goal of this article is to document a contemporary and clear-cut case of demonic possession. Even those who doubt such a phenomenon exists may find the following example rather persuasive. For clergy, or indeed anyone involved in the spiritual or psychological care of others, it is equally critical, however, to recognize the many and infinitely more common "counterfeits" (i.e., false assignations) of demonic influence or attack as well.

This need for caution and precision is especially important at a time when untrained laymen or, worse, public ministries may unfortunately mislead or even exploit the faithful in this area. One has only to turn on a television to witness obvious abuses -- for instance, tele­vangelists' dunning their audience for cash as they conduct exhibitionist ceremonies before large assemblies of the overly credulous. Sharp distinctions -- long known to traditional theologians, but now often ignored -- need to be drawn.

Possession is only one and not the most common type of demonic attack. Possession is very rare, though not as exceedingly so as many imagine. So-called "oppression," or "infestation," is less rare, though hardly frequent either, and sometimes more difficult to discern accurately. For our purposes here, a truly "possessed" individual exhibits so massive and unequivocal an assault that we will use it as the paradigmatic example of a genuine demonic attack. This case will be contrasted not to the many lesser degrees of demonic assault, but rather to the varied kinds of purported demonic involvement -- often psychotic conditions -- that turn out to have a purely natural explanation. These states should be more widely recognized as such by religious practitioners. This need is especially great among the many laymen now in deliverance ministries, a rapidly growing worldwide phenomenon.[/list]

huxley:
The Dr might have spoken about this but he clearly was not doing science by saying the victim was possessed by demons. Scientifically, the best he could have said was that this victim suffered/experience condition for which there is no rational explanation. Science CANNOT make attributions to an entity it does not recognise, and I don't think science recognise demons.

People indeed may laugh and giggle at him, but at least Dr. Richard E. Gallagher was honest enough to present a case well attested to that no skeptic in his right mind would dismiss out of hand.

It's also remarkable that you stated unequivocally that "Science CANNOT make attributions to an entity it does not recognise" - that is very interesting indeed. Those who cannot recognize the reality of these things should not wait for what type of "science" to apply when they encounter such incidents! It just makes me wonder that this thing about "science" we talk so much of, is not helping us at all. There are "orphic" phenomena and realities that no scientist can or could deny or dismiss - this report was just one of them! Science (the sort of "science" that one is looking for to "explain" these phenomena is just too lamely excused here - my observation (and I'm not alone). Basically, what science does is to affirm these matters as simply as could be recorded without trying to play a superiority over such issues that it cannot handle. It helps therefore, to recognize its limitations - and a well attested fact, that science does not address everything in our known realities.

cicero:
Ohije you are right, it is no longer our business what happens to the tithes and offerings after it goes into the storehouse.
This is where most people miss it.

Bros, thank you very largely. Maybe the reason why many people miss it are based on two things:

● the abuses by men who handle our gifts (not every church abuses God's gifts)

● the carelessness of those of us who give (though, not every Christian is careles about this)

Before the birth of Christ, men in the OT actually abused the tithes and offerings that people gave to honour God. It was not different during the earthly ministry of Christ, as by that time the Pharisees and leaders of the people have moved their monery-changers' tables into the temple and started commercializng Judaism (John 2:12-16). After the Church had been established, we find men also abusing this gifts - so that the apostles warned that we should watch out for those who go into ministry for filthy lucre's sake (Titus 1:11).

In all these things, should we be discouraged to give at all? The complaints will never grow thin - they will increase. But even though men were abusing the gifts and offerings in tithes of the people of God during the earthly ministry of Christ, there was a poor widow who did not complain or get discouraged by the abuses - she went quietly to the Treasury, gave her two mites without joining in the debate, and as quietly walked away. What did the Lord Jesus see and react to? "Of a truth I say unto you, that this poor widow hath cast in more than they all" (Luke 21:3). Just imagine if she had been bogged down by men who made so much noise about tithes and taxes (eg., Matt. 22:16-22) - would she even have been encouraged to dole out anything, even when she was that much in need?

May God help us see what many of us don't see in His Word.

@KunleOshob,

KunleOshob:
In summary if you truly desire to give to God as a christian based on the teachings of christ, the poor and the needy comes first.

Wrong - giving to God does not place a human being first! Go and study your Bible carefully! Let me help you notice what comes first before any other:

       ●   Mark 12:42-44
            a widow gave "all her living" - to who: the poor?

       ●   2 Corinthians 8:5
            the Corinthians first gave themselves - to who: the poor?

       ●   Leviticus 27:30
            what is the principle there - does the tithes there belong
            to man or to God?

What you don't understand here is that this ministry of giving is not first and foremost to any man. The moment you take that turn, you will never see the true meaning of one's tithes or giving - and that is why you will always have a problem with pastors and ministers. See the example of the widow and notice 3 things the Lord saw in her:

       ●   she did not give 10% - she gave everything!

       ●   she was poor, but that was not her real motive

       ●   she was not motivated by "give to the poor", but rather
            sought first and foremost to present her gift to GOD.

It was not the how much in our hands we dole out, but how true our devotions are to God! There is a place for giving to the poor - but that only makes meaning when we first understand what it means to God. If the people under the old covenant were cautioned to never treat the tithes as an unholy thing (Numbers 18:32 and Leviticus 22:15), are we to drive rough anyhow with our mouths and ridicule it with all these "collectively condemned" that God never once hinted in Scripture? Dear Kunle, Biblical giving is always first to God and then to man, not the other way round - just as loving God comes first before loving man! there is a place for each, and the second never takes the place of the first!

KunleOshob:
after that you can consider the church. (remember offerings in the early churchwas not a regular occurence and was usually targetted towards a psecific requirement)

I remember early Church giving - things happened spontaneously in many instances that necessitated a good teaching of the disciples. This is why we find that the apostles never once treated tithes with disdain or caricature. . . they did not force it on anyone, did not mention any specific % (we know tithes in the OT is not only 10%), did not condemn it in any way (even though they were specific about circumcision, sabbaths, ceremonial washings, meats and drinks, etc). After all these, they did not keep silence about it at all - and that is why it is not by coincidence that it appears in Hebrews 7:8 in relation to the One who "receives" tithes because He lives perpetually!

Many blessings.

@KunleOshob,

KunleOshob:
@pilgrim.1
I won't bother writing a point by point response to your post

Actually, I don't mind any which way you choose to post your replies, whether point by point or concisely addressing just a few highlights that caught your interest. However, my observations are that:

(a) you guys who oppose tithes are never able to answer simple questions

(b) you have never been able to find a single verse for your assertions

(c) it has become the norm to make excuses and never directly deal with an issue

(d) you confuse yourselves by your assertions, and when they are pointed out,
you have never come back to refer to that same point and just abandon it
altogether.

These are not allegations, but facts. That is why I don't try to evade any point in those posted by opposers - I address them point-by-point, deal directly with your objections, go back to scripture for clear and undeniable references. . . and then I leave very few simple questions - which up until now have been largely ignored by our friends who argue so against this subject (although I must acknowledge that you are the only person so far that has honestly attempted to provide some answers to some of those questins). This is not a matter about my rejoinders - but even when sleekymag posted some questions he enquired about and consequently both invited and reminded a few of our friends who oppose tithes, we no see their breaklight again! It was not even as if he posted them categorically to trip our friends - for he opened the question to both tithers and non-tithers alike!

Anyway,. . .

KunleOshob:
as we both know that tithing as no place in christian doctrine

You have never been able to show that as a fact other than the evasive exculpations you have continued to hold on shaky and questionable grounds. Whenever you make these assertions and I ask for the verses directly, you grit and never provide one - but when I provide a few pointers, you never seek to address them directly.

KunleOshob:
(some people including yourself are just trying to force it in) Christs teachings and the apostles teachings are crystal clear and TITHES was never even remotely included or suggested.

Then please calm down and answer my simple question on Hebrews 7:8 - WHO is HE that "recieves tithes" on the fact that He lives PERPETUALLY? Just please answer that question honestly - WHO is HE?

You keep sweating to deny these clear pointers but are never able to honestly bring yourself round to submit a simple answer. The problem you have with this subject will continue to be manifest until you calm down and understand the issue of the Law as treated in the NT. Because many people have always started off on a fausse patte (false foot) about the Law, that is why they make so much noise about 619 Laws, the Law being "dead and buried", and the "collective condemnation" that they see in Scripture where such things do not exist!

Our problem, Kunle, is that we bought into these excuses from those men for far tooooo long - and so many people have been trying so hard to "protect" this tradition without seeking to correct their ideas from God's Word. Me, I have no such problem again, because I dealt with my opposition to tithes long ago and stopped legislating for God to condemn what He never once condemned! That is why when I ask for just one verse where He condemned tithes, opposers never find that verse at any single time! Why? Because they're playing "God" and reading their own vexations into the Word.

KunleOshob:
We also know that today's version of tithes is alien to biblical tithes.

We also know that today's "collective condemnation" of tithes is even more alien.

KunleOshob:
Christs teachings on giving is also crystal clear. Let me correct myself on the issue f the laws: Jesus condensed the law into two laws which are love to God and love to our fellow man. paul also tells us in the book of 2 corithians 3:3 that the law is written in our hearts which in effect means our conscience. Now as a christian what should determine law for us should be cleared under the summary of law christ gave us. So how does this bear on tithes or giving to the church/temple? Some people claim it is because of their love for God that they tithe, but this is contrary to the teachings of christ on giving to God found in the book of matthew 25:35-40:

Let's first deal with your worry above. The Lord Jesus did not "condense" the Law at any time - although He said that on those "two commandments hang all the law and the prophets" [Matthew 22:40], let us not continue to make this same mistake about any "condensing" of the Law. He also mentioned "the prophets" - does that mean He condensed them as well?

Although He spoke of loving God and man as being the foundation upon which all matters of the Law and the prophets were based, He did not by that mean that we should ignore the Law. That God wrote the Law upon our hearts should make us think carefully as to where He ever wrote upon our hearts that He has 'collectively condemned' tithes? Why do people like to legislate for God about things He never committed to their jurisprudence to condemn? Why do people play "God" and make such assertions when they know that there is not a single verse to show where God ever condemned tithes?

@Pastor AIO,

Pastor AIO:
Here is also a link for a recent case of demon possession. Although I cannot figure out why in this modern technological age the could not have made a video of the events or at least a tape recording.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=58835

Actually, some who have read that report have tried to cast doubt on its veracity on that same premise of a lack of video or tape recordings. Some honest skeptics do not run down the account, although they quip that it is really intriguing and "interesting".

But we should understand something here. There are a few things that further strengthen the report -

● the credential and standing of Dr. Richard E. Gallagher is unquestionable
even among colleagues in academia.

● it is understandable that the "nameless" woman may not wish her name
and identity to be published at this time - but again, that does not render
the report dubious or suspicious, as those who contest its veracity could
just approach Dr. Richard Gallagher and interview him directly (incidentally,
some have contacted him and he has posted his response).

● another point is that, it is to be understood that Catholic priests do not
draw hasty conclusions on exorcism - and this is not the first instance
where we know about such incidents; consequently, that this one passes
as a "recorded" incident may not rule out the fact that they may have
used other media for the recording.

It would be interesting to go through the report again and see the very issues about demon-possession that we speak of in this thread, then mirror those same highlights on the ideas that some have shared here to see their correlation or otherwise.

Regards.

@Pastor AIO,

Pastor AIO:
. . . oh and by the way, the reference to familiar spirits in the OT is not the same as demons that possess people. Familiar spirits are what mediums use to contact the dead and effect certain things, the familiar is subject to the medium not the other way round. Familiaris is latin for household servant.

They are the same. Although some mediums invite evil spirits to possess them for some advantage (such as the spirit of divination in Acts 16), the case of familiar spirits is not different in many respects from demon-possession. You probably have to see what demons do to people when they encounter the presence of God. Isaiah spoke about the effect of these demons known as "familiar spirits" as making their victims do the following -

● speak out of the ground,

● thy speech shall be low out of the dust,

● thy voice shall be, as of one that
hath a familiar spirit, out of the ground,

● and thy speech shall whisper out of the dust (Isaiah 29:4)

Have you ever witnessed what demon possession does to its victims when encountered for deliverance? All these features outlined above there are unmistakably identified! People have recorded instances where they encounter a demoniac who gave them exact and precise information about their background that the victims could not possibly have known prior to that time! And when the spirits/demons speak about these things, you just listen to the scowling and low guttoral voices (such as the "scatological" lingo used in the example you recommended in that link), the shrills, and the rapidly flowing nuaces that their victims could not possibly be pretending! Demons also could make their victims speak several languages fluently that their victims never learned or heard!

In all of these, what Isaiah the porphet described are being confirmed today in demon-possession! Just because he used the expression "familiar spirits" does not restrict its application to just spirits that act familiarly, lol. Go back and read what Isaiah said, and check out reports of demon-possession, then come back and let's see where these things are referring to other things.

Cheers.

@Pastor AIO,

Pastor AIO:
Possessed people are not in the state of possession trance constantly. It comes in cycles. It can be predicted most of the time. It could be weekly, or even every evening. But in the daylight, or interim times, they go back to normal.

I absolutely agree with you here. In most instances, they go about their "normal" lives with no hint of the real problem. It may surprise some people to know that some who are possessed are very "civil" in their behaviour. . until they come face to face with issues in the person's life that demons react to. In some more cunning situations, when people refer to "witches in church", they may not be far wrong, because it was a diabolical spirit that actually was trying to "promote and support" the ministers of the Gospel in Acts 16:16-18. People should be careful about these matters, because when we read what this spirit of divination said, it then becomes clear why we need the gift of discernment even more today in the Church --

And it came to pass, as we went to prayer,
a certain damsel possessed with a spirit of divination met us,
which brought her masters much gain by soothsaying:

The same followed Paul and us, and cried, saying,
These men are the servants of the most high God,
which shew unto [size=14pt]us[/size] the way of salvation.

And this did she many days. But Paul, being grieved,
turned and said to the spirit, I command thee in
the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her.
And he came out the same hour. '

Notice what the spirit said in verse 17 - "These men. . . shew unto us the way of salvation."

Hold on there. Are demons interested in being shown the way of salvation? We know they are not interested at all - but this is the character of demons: they belie the Gospel and twist its context; that is why we find such spirits even today proclaiming the same thing - "they shew unto US the way to be saved!" Only ministers who live for God will see through the diabolical pretences of those spirits and cast them out!

Pastor AIO:
During the possession trance their consciousness is blotted out. They have no recollection when they return to normal. Yet this is not the only phenomenon that does the same thing, like I mentioned before. Even having too much to drink can make you lose all memory of what you did that evening. Although some would argue that being drunk like that is also to be considered spirit possession afterall what else is good whisky if not some damn strong Spirit.

Lol, drinking liquer (also called "spirits" is not to be confused for demon-possession.

@Pastor AIO,

Pastor AIO:
My second problem with the demon influence versus demon possession position is as follows. An addict finds within himself the urge to act contrary to his conscious volition. He might resist the urge, or the urge might overwhelm him. How strong does the urge have to be before it stops becoming a demonic influence and actually becomes demonic possession.

The simple answer that one could give is this: demon possession are related to diabolic spirituality; while demonic influences cut across every strata of life and not restricted to just spirituality.

Let's apply this to a few cases. One could not give a list of all the possible things that demons bring about by possession - they could through possession wreck mental harm, cause physical injuries, and escalate psychologically disturbing effects on their victims. In Mark 9:25, the victim was troubled by a foul spirit specifically called a "dumb and deaf spirit". It does not mean that the spirit itself was dumb and deaf, but it was named as such because of its effect that it produced in its victim - and that was why it could respond to what was said to him ("Thou dumb and deaf spirit, I charge thee, come out of him, and enter no more into him. And the spirit cried, . ." - Mark 9:25-26).

Demons do not just possess people - they are not given that prerogative to do so. When these happen, it is because an invitation has been given deliberately to the demon to enter its victims, and this could happen in so many ways.

What about addiction?

In the case of an addiction, this is not necessarily a matter of possession, but of influence and alliction. Deep within, the addict knows and is conscious of his/her problems, but is simply unable to break free from such a deadlock. Please understand here that I differentiate between an addict and a pervert; the difference being that the addict would seek help to break free from his problem, whereas the pervert is not looking for help but will fight tooth and nail to remain in his problem. Some demonic activity gravitates to perverts; in the same way, addicts sometimes come under the direct attack of demons while seeking help to be free.

It does not matter how many times one has to keep engaging in a particularly addictive problem: doors could be opened to demonic attacks and direct influence from the diabolic world in just one or a few contacts in such activities. This usually happens through the careless and ignorantly adventurous person who throws caution to the wind and delves into such a phenomenon. I personally know some people who have allowed demons to invade their lives through pornography - and you can know the power behind that person's struggles to keep that depending on porn. Thankfully, some of them are seeking help and through those who have been delivered, we can understand the way these demons operate.

@Pastor AIO,

Pastor AIO:
These questions are very relevant if we are to make statements like a 'spirit entering a man's body'.

n demon-possession, diabolical spirits actually enter into the victim's body and take up residency there - and from that position, they take control of that person's faculties and render the victim incapable of living their own lives in any way contrary to what the demon(s) desires.

The highlighted part above would suggest to me that spirits actually occupy a specific location. If the spirit is in the body then the next question I find myself asking is "what part of the body is it in? the liver? the brain? or is it diffused all around the body?" Is it perceptible to the physical senses? Are phantoms and other effects of the imagination spirits?

Let's start with the last question: "Are phantoms and other effects of the imagination spirits?"

A simple answer is already in your question - "imaginations" are not "spirits". This is why again demons are not abstract entities like volitions, in as much as they are spirits with diabolical intents.

But what part of the body are they located when they possess a body? It's easier to understand when you ask yourself what part of your body your own spirit is located. Could you point to your brain, liver, or kidney as the precise location of a human spirit? No. This is why people who take that option speak so much about the spiritual connection/chord of the back of the brain, etc - forgeting the basic premise that no part of matter is a composite of the spirit.

So, where is the spirit located in man? Biblically, the spirit is in him - every part of his very being, and not just the material body. One cannot 'slice' the body, soul and spirit neatly with any instrument; for every part of man is permeated by his spirit, and the spirit of man is not divisible in a quantified manner (remember the nature of spirits above as being 'ethereal and incorporeal').

Let's apply a simple test. Assume a scenario where someone is critically injured, say on the arm and leg, and though he survives, those parts are to be amputated so he could continue to live. Now, the question is: when does any part of the spirit and soul get severed in the amputation as well? No. How do we know that? Because the faculties of the soul and spirit of that person are still intact, though their functions may be impaired.

In the same way as the spirit of man continues to reside in every single part of his body, so also a spirit possessing that body does not locate locally to a single part - they overwhelm every single part of the being (spirit, soul and body) of their victims. Here, it is not a matter of trying so hard to figure and imagine where the spirit is located, for spirits are not subject to physical laws. For this reason, a single body could contain just one person's spirit, or be invaded by several demons at the same time. At any rate when this happens, the single demon or several of them actually overwhelm their victims and hold them captive by taking every faculty of their victim under.

@Pastor AIO,

Pastor AIO:
[quote author=justcool link=topic=181454.msg3016762#msg3016762 date=1225377158]@pilgrim 1
Thanks for your reply but I have a few questions for you.
1)You keep maintaining that Demons are spirits. What is a spirit?

This is actually a damn good question. What do we understand by the term spirit? I accept that spirit is to be contrasted with physical matter. And there are certain defining things that we can say about physical matter. Like it has a location, and a spatial span (eg. 3 cubic metres). Also matter exhibits certain forces. Physics tells us that these forces are fourfold. Namely, Gravitational force, Electromagnetic force, and then Strong and Weak nuclear forces. It is due to these forces that matter is perceptible to our physical senses.

Can we make a similar outline for Spirit? What qualities does Spirit exhibit?[/quote]Indeed, justcool's question is a pretty good one. And I think reference in my rejoinders have already been made as to their nature. In contrast to the physical, I said that "A spirit is not abstract because it is a being that is ethereal and incorporeal, yet possessing a definite form".

What do these terms mean? When something is defined as ethereal, we are pointing to its nature as being characterized by insubstantiality - that is, it is not defined in terms of physical qualities or solid substance. A similar idea is expressed by its being "incorporeal", which is to say that it is a reality which is not composed of matter as we know it.

It is on these two premises that a spirit can easily permeate matter and not be subject to laws of physical quantities. While matter may be restricted in some sense as not being able to permeate and imbue solid substances, the case is different with spirits in their ethereal and incorporeal nature. For this reason, spirits can and do premeate solid bodies - thus possession.

As said, since spirits are characterized by insubstantiality, we do not quantify them by the way one would as in the case of a physical matter. As such, a body could be possessed by one spirit, or several spirits at the same time. It is not the size of the body that determines how many spirits could possess a body, for a spirit is not subject to physical properties.

[quote author=tonye-t link=topic=189222.msg3021084#msg3021084 date=1225458864]whats happening here between pilgrim and missy b,
can't u gals just send a private mail or smthing[/quote]No vex - it was not intentional. We just try to "connect".

My fav 4 letter: PRAY.

@KunleOshob,

KunleOshob:
instead yourun around in circlees and try to explain it in uncertain terms when the bible is already explicit on it.

Where is the EXPLICIT verse that condemns tithes, Kunle? 

KunleOshob:
The new convenant as absolutely nothing to do with giving to the church,

Okay, I don hear. I knew that would be a challenge to you - that's why I said that it seems to me that opposers to tithes would make so much noise and yet give nothing! Are you not in the new covenant? So, that new covenant has "nothing"  to do with giving to the church? I'm learning new excuses today!

KunleOshob:
the several times Jesus preached about giving was always giving to the poor and the needy the only time he commented on giving to the church was when he spoke about the widow's mite.

Now-now, bros, cool down. At the time when the event of the widow's mite was mentioned in Scripture (Luke 21:2 and Mark 12:42), the Church had not come into existence! There was no reference there about the Church, if you guys would like to be that honest! If I had used Matthew 23:23 and Luke 11:42 to speak of where Jesus mentioned tithes positively, you would wage war and lecture me about the Old Covenant!  Where did you see Church in the widow's mites? Are you not now reading your own eisegesis into the text?

KunleOshob:
the emphasis of jesus preaching of giving to the poor should direct us as christians were the emphasis of our giving should be directed. However this is not to say we should not give to the church.

This guy. . . what are you really up to? Did you not say that the New Covenant had nothing to do with giving in Church? Wetin dey happen?

KunleOshob:
While christianity did not single out tithing for condemnation it was condenmed collectively with all the other 613 Mosaic laws

Hahaha!!   You are very, very funny! It was condemned "collectively" with ALL the other 613 laws, abi? My brother, wait let me show you part of those 613 Laws that you are condemning collectively:

       ●  "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart,
           and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind" ---------
           [NT - Matt. 22:37 ↔  OT Deut. 6:5]

       ●  "Honour thy father and mother; (which is the first commandment with promise)"
           [NT - Eph. 6:2 ↔  OT Exo. 20:12]
           -- see also Matt. 19:19 

       ●  "And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself"
           [NT - Matt. 22:39 ↔  OT Lev. 19:18]

Of course, there are many more in the NT - and by giving you those 3, I have helped you to bring it down from 613 to 610. Could you now tell me that the 3 above were also part of all the other 619 that were condemned collectively? This una shakara about the Law that you have no clues to! "Condemned collectively". . . you try!  Come back with another excuse and let's see what remains of your 619 "collective laws". You just hear something from somebody, and you never take the time to check whether that person is correct or misleading you! Then you just hold unto that misrepresented tradition and keep making noise with it. Kunle, time to wake up - those guys are deceiving you; and if I didn't care enough, I wouldn't even point these things out to you.

KunleOshob:
Have ever asked your self why it is only tithes that is being dug up out of all these obsolete laws the answer is in this verse 2 Peter 2:3:
3 In their greed they will make up clever lies to get hold of your money. But God condemned them long ago, and their destruction will not be delayed.

Lol, I'm gald you mentioned that - but go and check and see that Peter was not using tithes there as the basis for "merchandise" - never. The reality that will hit you guys is coming. . . just be patient, because those who are actually making merchandise of believers are not even using tithes that much for their filthy lucre games. We shall get there by and by, and then I shall show you what exactly those fellows are doing. You worry about 1 out of 10. . . get ready: after I show you how you have been duped, you will not show your face around with this noise against tithes.

Enjoy.

@KunleOshob,

KunleOshob:
@Pilgrim.1
A ususal you have said nothing new As we all know tithing from icome is a mordern day invent because it is a known fact that biblical tithes was never paid from income, it was always from agricultural produce and the only reason God ordained tithes for levites was clearly stated in the bible being that"they hae no property of their own" and they were not allowed to work. This reasons don't exist today, and if any pastor wants to equate pastors to levites then he must be ready to give up his right to own property and work elsewhere to generate further income.

Take style find me the verse where God ever condemned tithes now. .  please save all this yanga and fine me that verse! You guys are just tootling and twaddling about this issue because you know there's not a single verse for your assertions that it was ever negated in the Bible. Not one. You can't be using your excuses to doodle around that simple request.

KunleOshob:
You keep on refering to Hebrews 7:8 which was just a reference and not an injunction

That is not an answer to my question about that verse. If you are too embarrassed to answer that simple question, you're not alone - your Ph.D adulators still make the same excuses and yet scuttle round that simple question. As long as you keep projecting these exculpations and never answer that question, your long-drawn out excuses will never rise above complaints - and we all know that a complaint is not an answer.

KunleOshob:
but you always forget to mention Hebrews 7 :12 which in unmistakeble terms anulled the tithes that was being refered to in the previous verses.

Wayo!  Hebrews 7:12 does not negate tithes - that is why you will never be able to answer the question on Hebrews 7:8! Verse 12 is in reference to verse 11 (for under the Levitical priesthood, the people received the Law); and those verses did not say that TITHES are therefore cancelled! It never said so, and to keep dribbling that idea in is to play your game unfairly.

If you assume all the law is done with and buried and there's no part of the Law in your life as a Christian, then please go over and answer my question on Romans 3:39 --  "Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law".

There are about 22 simple questions in my rejoinders to help you guys think carefully about this - at least, Kunle, you try answer some. Others pretended they never saw them - and that was why I have left these two: (a) WHO receives tithes in Hebrews 7:8 on the fact that He lives perpetually? and (b) what does Romans 3:39 say in regards to your idea that the Law is "dead and buried"? Sorry bro, it was you who were dead and buried - not the Law (see Romans 7:4 - "Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ".

The serious problem that has always confused antagonists to tithes is that they always start arguing about the Law in such a way that they have no clues to; that is why they treat it in the very opposite way that it is treated in the Bible!

This has been the reason why I allowed you guys to keep playing this game for so long until sleekymag invited us to answer some questions about the Law. Not one time did the Bible ever treat the Law as "dead and buried", Kunle - and that has been your biggest mistake! Rather, YOU are the one who was dead and buried - that you as a Christian might be able to live the life of Christ in you. And again, I am the one who died and was buried, not the Law (Galatians 2:19 - "For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God. ". The collective testimony of Scripture is that "the law is spiritual" (Rom. 7:14); and that which was spiritual was not dead and buried - rather, it is you and me who were dead!

My dear Kunle, make I cool down. I understand that you have been generalizing these issues and arriving at the very opposite of what Scripture says. I was once there - but had a change of mind and heart when I saw my mistakes. What happened in Christ's vicarious sacrifice on the Cross for us with respect to the Law are these:

         -- abolishing the 'the enmity'
            "even the law of commandments contained in ordinances"
            [Ephesians 2:15]

         -- blotting out "the handwriting of ordinances that was against us"
             [Colossians 2:14]

He never "killed" or "buried" the Law itself - that is why Romans 3:39 continues to be enigmatic to so many Christians ("yea, we establish the law". Why? For the simple reason that -

       ●  the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us (Romans 8:4)

       ●  we might know how that God has written His Law on our hearts (Heb. 8:10; 10:16)

That is why you cannot throw the Law overboard as many do. As long as they continue to do so, they will continue to get so confused about what Hebrews 7:11-12 is teaching, and they will skip the inconvenient truth of Heb. 7:8!!

Kunle, cool down and answer that question I asked earlier: WHO is He that receives tithes on the fact that He lives PERPETUALLY (Heb. 7:8)?

Nothing is mentioned in Scripture as a matter of "just a reference" - that is some funny shakara of lazy thinkers!  It was mentioned there deliberately after thrice mentioning that Abraham gave tithes to Melchizedek (Heb. 7:2, 4 & 6)! Verse 8 is not "just a reference" and was put there - most probably for modern day tithe-opposers! That is why they will always duck that inconvenient truth with a million excuses and apologies!

@affee,

affee:
pilgrim aw u dey?

I now spend my time in the family, romance, food sections
but I'll pop in now and then

Take kia

Bo my sis, I just dey. I'll try to migrate come join U der one of these days. I trust say you dey enjoy. Take care - Jesus is Lord.

KunleOshob:
No matter what lame excuses and irrational reasoning you use to justify the unjustifiable tithing is not part of christianity and that is why the Apostles or Jesus Christ himself never taught their follwers. If tithes is meant to pay church workers salaries i wonder what all the other various offerings collected are meant for.

@KunleOshob,

Good morning. You see this ministry can be accommodated both ways - whether for or against.

Just as there is no explicit verse condemning tithes for the Christian, so there does not appear to be any verse explicitly demanding it from Christians. This does not mean therefore that tithes are a false teaching in the Church - the only thing one could say is that so many people teach it on untenable basis, just as so many people condemn it unjustifiably.

However, no one can argue that other matters of the Law under the Levitical priesthood are dubitable in the NT. For instance, we know that the NT expressly says that Christians are not to seek --

● circumcision by the Law (1 Cor. 7:19); or. .

● observe the sabbath by the Law (Col. 2:16); or. .

● observe Jewish feasts by the Law (Heb. 13:9); or even. .

● observe ceremonial washings by the Law (Heb. 9:10).

These are all matters of the old covenant under the Levitical priesthood which are clearly and specifically spelt out in the NT as not applicable to Christians. Infact, nothing could be more explicit in the case of circumcision than we find in Galatians 5:2 - "Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing". In like manner, you will never find any statement against tithes in the NT, or the entire Bible condemning tithes - not one!!

Every time you think about condemning tithes and talk just about anyhow on the subject, please first find that verse that explicitly condemns it. This excuse that the Lord Jesus never taught it or the apostles never taught it is a naked lie! To continue to shlepp that false assertion may be the reason why those who condemn tithes are too embarrassed to answer the one question I have asked again and again about Hebrews 7:8 - who is HE that recieves tithes there based on the fact that He lives perpetually? Before you assume that nobody in the NT ever taught anything about tithes, have the grace to answer that question to your heart - it won't hurt your health.

Come to think of it, I wonder if those who fight against tithes can put their mouth where their pockets are. If God asked His people under the old covenant to give just 1 out of 10, are we as Christians under the new covenant to be careless with this matter? Those who were under the levitical priesthood were committed in giving just 1 out of 10; and yet we Christians make so much noise and are too challenged to be committed to give even 2 out of that 10? Yet, we make so much noise about being partakers of the new covenant that is "more glorious" than the old covenant! If you really want to enjoy the power of the new covenant, stop talking cheap - do the one thing that will challenge your mouth: give just 3 out of 10 and let's see how your talk of "cheerful giving" turns out in just 6 months!

We know as Christians that the new covenant is much more glorious than the old covenant, not so? "How shall not the ministration of the spirit be rather glorious?. . . by reason of the glory that excelleth" (2 Cor. 3:8-10) It is easy to complain against 1 out of 10 - but since we live in a more glorious covenant, encourage yourself to honestly set aside something "far glorious" than 1 . . go on and give 5 out of 10! Talk is cheap. Many people who argue against tithes for no reason they find in the NT are the ones who make so much noise and will give nothing!

The people under the old covenant gave tithes and offerings - How? Like this:

-- dedicatedly,

-- committedly,

-- consistently,

-- cheerfully!

For all that, they gave just 1 out of 10. You who live under the new and more glorious covenant, stop complaining and put your mouth into some action: follow on and set aside just 3 or 5 out of 10 with the same attitude:

-- dedicatedly,

-- committedly,

-- consistently,

-- cheerfully!

Come back and tell us how good you felt! We can sit here and argue all day long against just this 1 out of 10 - but that is not what life is about. The real deal is when we go beyond that 1 and surpass our arguments by practically living as people who know the power of the new covenant in its glory as exceeding the old! Do it today, and you will never regret it.

Bless you, bros.

@huxley,

huxley:
Pilgrim,

Not quite clear what you are saying here. What did Jesus mean?  There are many times when you seem to understand what Jesus meant.  Can you read the meaning out of this text?

If you do not understand, you don't have to make false assertions, huxley. I don't claim to understand everything, and that is what expositions are about - even though it may not appeal to you.

As regarding paradise, I have shown earlier that it is a different sphere from heaven. The Bible speaks about several spheres of heaven in various ways:

      John 14:1 - "In my Father's house are many mansions:
                          if it were not so, I would have told you.
                          I go to prepare a place for you"

     There is also the "third heaven"  - 2 Corinthians 12:2

Many people simply read "heaven" and then assume that is all there is. However, with respect to paradise, it is a sphere where the righteous dead are held unto the day of the final judgement. This is clearly distinguished metaphorically in Luke 16 as Abraham's bosom (v. 22) as distinct from the place where the wicked dead are reserved unto the day of judgement ("hades" - v. 23). When Christ spoke about 'paradise', He was referring to the place where the blessed dead are reserved until they come forth into the Day of eternity at the resurrection.

huxley:
I submit that,  Jesus anticipated his death and the bandit's dead as well.  With full knowledge that they were both going to die and in view of the prevailing belief that the dead either go to hell or paradise, such words in Jesus's mouth would make sense.

Granted. The question is: where do they go?

huxley:
If Jesus meant something other than the surface meaning, it is not obvious if the bandit would have got the full meaning of the words.  Why would Jesus deliberately want to hide or mislead his listener?

There is no indication that He was hiding anything from His listener in that passage. However, I cannot force my own assumptions into it to infer therefore that the man in question fully understood what Christ said to him - at best, it was a prospect that would delight his heart, for he understood he was not going to hades. Whether or not he fully grasped the meaning of paradise cannot be inferred from that passage alone.

huxley:
Was the bandit wicked?  Why did Jesus promise him entry into paradise?

I think that you would need to go to the text and see for yourself.

huxley:
Presumeably, that promise would have been kept and the two would have met in paradise.  When Jesus arose after three days, did he leave the bandit in paradise?  Or did the bandit never went into paradise, in spite of Jesus.

I could say that the repentant man was in paradise inspite of Jesus' resurrection. There's no confusion there in as much as hades is not to be confused for paradise.

huxley:
So where is paradise?  What is paradise?

As above - answered already.

huxley:
And is the bandit still in paradise awaiting the judgment day?

I think you're needlessly repeating yourself - as this is as much to ask as earlier:

huxley:
When Jesus arose after three days, did he leave the bandit in paradise?

Bastage:
No it's definition is to defend. Read the bit afterwards where I mention "defending".

But I gotta laugh when you don't see that your having to defend is having to apologise.

Defending the Christian faith is not to "apologise" for it; nor does it mean to defend "God". That is why I have asked that you do not disturb yourself unnecessarily - unless you just want to confirm the restlessness of your own belief.

@mazaje,

mazaje:
jesus said he is the way the truth and the life and that no one goes to the father except through him, some of his apostles made similar asertions in the bible, what did jesus mean when he says that a man can not enter into the kingdom of god without being born again? do moslems, shrirks, taoist,vodoo worshipper and hindus believe in being born again? the answer is no, infact most of them don't even know what it means and those of them that do, they simply do not believe in it. . . .remember that the biblical god killed so many people for worshipping other gods even their innocent children. . . remember he is a jealous god who wants people to whorship him alone . . . . show me where he says that those who worship other gods will inhereit his kingdom in the bible. . . . .

The killings cropping up into your rejoinders again, yes? I am still waiting for your answers to the questions I raised about atheistic murders - you seem to be evading that same issue and always repeating this same point in every thread. Have you made a better world for yourself with atheistic murders, mazaje - or are you the only person who is so ignorant of that fact as well? Even when you want to ask the question in reference to your initial assertions, I have pointed out why you were wrong - I left you a simple request, have you offered any?

@Bastage,

Bastage:
That about sums it all up.

You have to apologise for what you believe is right. Nobody needs to apologise if they're telling the truth. You wouldn't need to defend your god if he wasn't imperfect.

I can't laugh enough! Please get to understand what apologetics is - it is not to "apologise"; and there is no need to decry these things if you can't talk about your own god. You are beginning to come across as someone who must necessarily be disturbed by another where he fails to be satisfied in his own world. I have not held you from discussing about your belief, so what is all the fuss about what I believe?

Bastage:
LOL. A discussion means that both parties interact. Not with you. You preach. You don't share. The other party has to sit and listen because you, and only you, are correct.

Lol, Bastage, you seem to be the only person always making these cries. If I don't interract with others, they would say so. I have not asserted everytime that I must be correct - and those who feel that they disagree with what I state had the opportunity to point their own persuasions. Alleging your worries against me is not helping your world.

Cheers.

@mazaje,

mazaje:
not to go into another marathon of postings with you. . .

You guys are funny! Your replies don dey grow naw. . which one be "marathon" inside again?

mazaje:
who are the followers of christ? christains are. . . . will a muslim, hindu, vodoo worshipper, or a shrirk go to heaven according to the bible? the answer is NOso what are you saying? why are you talking about abraham? is he not a great figure in the bible? he is one of the exceptional characters of the bible so i don't understand why you are making reference to him,

Hehe. . mazaje, wetin dey bite you so? I no fit laugh finish. Wait, you asserted that only Christians would go to heaven, not so? My reply started by showing you that your assertion was wrong - that was why I mentioned a few names that lived before Christ was born - wetin dey chase you wey you dey hyperventilate like so?

have you found me the verse that establishes your assertion earlier?

@Bastage,

Bastage:
pilgrim.

To tell the truth it didn't suprise me that you've reacted in the way you have. People don't like admitting weakness.

Lol, you seem pretty determined to force your assumptions on me. But I'm sorry, you may read my entries as weakness; but if that's your own world, I don't have the prerogative of defining it for you.

Bastage:
I wouldn't give a shit. Honestly. I'm so comfortable with my God you can throw anything you like at Him and it won't stick. I won't defend him either - He's big enough and ugly enough to take care of himself. Whereas you feel the need to run around after yours like someone running around after a puppy taking a crap.

Thanks for the compliments.

Bastage:
But like I said, I'm not assuming. Your words speak volumes.

You don't share girl, you preach!!! Like every other fundamentalist, you ram it down people's throats. That's not sharing.

Again, thanks.

Bastage:
The fact that you have to keep defending your god and pushing your views onto others shows your fear.

Lol, I have said somewhere that I was not called to defend God or Christ - that is not what Christian apologetics is all about. The fact that I share and point things out from Scripture (as others do) does not mean that I "defend" God. If I never existed, He knows just how to draw others to Himself. But just so that people get to understand that some of the ideas they hold are not quite what the Bible states, that's why I engage them in discussions.

Bastage:
If you weren't afraid, you wouldn't need to do that. You'd realise that God can take care of himself.

Lol, why are U here, Bastage? Are you asking me to "shoo" and  and not appear on the forum because of you? Lol. God doesn't come down to type on a PC; and just what is wrong with me talking about Him in a forum?

Bastage:
Or do you think that by offering "advice" and "preaching" you're on the fast-track to Heaven?

Did I ever say that at all? Is this another retired way of alleging your presumptions into my posts?

Bastage:
If the latter, that's a little too close to "service to self" and Satanism for my liking.

Thanks, not so.

Bastage:
Beyond mere talk but then you comment.

I hear.

Bastage:
Two ways to look at this. You're either lying through your teeth or you're too dumb to recognise that you're on the end of a damn big stick.

Neither, but thanks anyway.

Bastage:
The one thing nobody can accuse you of is humility. Unfortunately, that accusation can be levelled at the vast majority of shallow fundamentalists.

I hear. Em, all your allegations against me - you hoot for humility, yes? I see. Enjoy.

@mazaje,

mazaje:
really. . . you are now making excuses. . . . what does jesus mean when he says he is the way the truth and the light and that no one goes to the father except through him? or when he says that except a man be born again he can not enter into the kingdom of god?. . . . there are a lot of christains that will not agree with you here, the other day there was a baptist minister that was castigating barack obama on TV because barack suggested that people of other faith can be saved the southern baptist minister said can you show me where the bible says that people can be saved through other names apart from christ?.

For one, if I had been making "excuses", does that suggest that your assertions were correct? Did you read in the Bible that it was only Christians that would go to heaven? No one would come to the Father except through Christ - but did you forget to read John 8:56 - "Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad"?

Before you allege anything against me, please let me understand where you really stand. You cannot be making wild assertions and using them to placate your soul that I was making any excuses. I don't know why you guys seem to be too reactive on simple issues like this.

In any case, it is true that not so many people would agree with me on these issues. That's okay - but please observe, this is not about Obama, and Obama is not a teacher of the Word. His political statements actually have no bearing upon what I have stated or believe thereto - so it would help you mazaje to be focued on the simple issues being discussed here, yes?

@huxley,

huxley:
So essentially the "144000" figure carries not useful information, because fewer or more than this number of the Jewish tribe could go into heaven. What significance has this figure got then?

Yet another piece of useless rubbish from the pages of the bible!

Not so - before you write these things off or react that way, why don't you at least get a good grasp of what you postulate? If the JW group had made such assertions of "only 144,000" going to heaven, and you had followed on that interpretation, does that necessarily make your own assumptions any less the "rubbish" you assert? The thing is that you could not be using the wrong assertion of ONLY a certain figure whereas it was not so - and then become disappointed in your reactions simply because you have been shown that your ideas were misplaced.

Nimshi:
Revelation 14 v 1-5:
JWs don't interpret all of the above literally, but, we get the idea.

Below, I'm linking an ongoing discussion with a potential Jehovah's Witness convert: https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-4050.96.html

You anticipated me, for I was coming to point out to huxley that he might have been looking at the JW's interpretation of those chapters (7 and 14) - which was why I had asked him not to stop short at the earlier verses in those chapters.

Hi @ohije,

You know what? It's great that you feel led to tithe, as you desire. However, I believe that the reason why many people are really concerned and consequently disdain this ministry is because some of us are presenting the subject on a very shaky foundation. Let me show you a few:

ohije:
Most important thing is that we pay in our own part in obedience to God because like Evangelism, tithe is also a strict command.

Well, if someone who is seeking to know God's Word asks for any reference to tithes for the Christian as a "strict command", where shall we point them? Certainly, you can't point them to the practice of Judaism under the Law which was being mediated by the Levitical priesthood. Why? Because we are not Jews, and we cannot claim to be Levites - not at all.

The one thing we can do is share simply that there is no "strict command" to tithe in the NT. None. But why do some of us tithe then? Because we understand that God does not force it upon His children as a compulsion, but draws their hearts by faith to respond to that ministry. In many instances where we read in the NT about God's command, ordinance, and instruction on giving, He still wants us to know that we approach Him with free spirits and not under any compulsion thereto. Both in the OT and NT, what's the point of someone bringing anything for His service under a grudge? So, while we may be persuaded to tithe, let's share this truth with understanding for some of our brethren who may not understand what we mean.

ohije:
INFACT IT'S JUST THAT WE HUMANS ARE MISBEHAVING AND GREEDY,

That's true; but we can begin to change our postures and do the right thing.

Regards.