₦airaland Forum

@Chrisbenogor,

Chrisbenogor:
Ok sorry if that came out the wrong way I did not mean it like that, it was a general statement, how can I want christians to kill nooooooooooo ohhhhhhhhhhhh
Don't be pissed, I meant like the ten commandments and some other stuff that you learn by.

No worries, no toothaches. Just thought issues should not be confused, abi?

Chrisbenogor:
If you only took the second sentence a little bit more serious, I meant reconciling that God would order those things in the OT to the JEWS and not to the christians and that you still believed in the same God, surely you took some things out of context here.

Sorry if I took anything out of contexts. I could still believe in the same God, for it was not the warfares that eventually settled my decision to be a Christian. That is why I have wondered aloud that if there were no God, would being an atheist "prove" that there's any substance to the argument of this thread? Just incase: after all this back and forth arguments and complaints, what do you guys hope to achive from all this?

Chrisbenogor:
Can you answer me question now

As above?

huxley:
Great contributions guys. I am enjoying it, except for the bit where atheism is being dragged in again, kicking and screaming.

Lol. . I knew this was coming! See what I meant by "you guys are quick to protest"?   Okay, hux. . just enjoy, eh?


Edit.

huxley:
Is it really ever possible to examine the claims of the religionists for ant sense of verisimilitude without them turn the tables? This thread was meant to question the claims of the believers of the bible. If the bible contains "truth" should it not be possible to determine that fact without some other distracting accusatory charges?

I think that if you're passionate for truth and you need to question any worldviews on the premise of those same charges you bring against Christians (termed by you as "religionists", then that same honesty requires that you spend as much time looking at the same problem in the hands of atheists as well. To shy away from doing so should tell us that you're not as passionate to face up this matter without prejudice. If all that has been said could be said (barbaric, cruel, inhumane, etc) about the Biblical case, could not be said about atheists who are also in the same dilemma, then something is seriously wrong somewhere. If not, then spend the same time and energy slurring atheists as well with the same passion - that too much to ask, huxley? And it doesn't matter whether they dunnit by a code or vacancy of conscience - just spend as much time, energy and grammar doing the same.

Chrisbenogor:
@pilgrimThats nairaland for you my dear we love to yap away here, its kind of fun

Abeg enjoy, o jare!

Chrisbenogor:
I copy you on that one maybe we should start dealing with issues that affect us now rather than being stuck back in time, where do we start.

Any suggestions? No fibs, eh?

Bless.

Hi @Aloy.Emeka,

[quote author=Aloy.Emeka link=topic=183994.msg2965284#msg2965284 date=1224442891]@Oladegbu

Point of correction: The difference between the roman catholic bible and the other ones is the apocryphal books which the protestants themselves agreed should be kept as separate but not inclusive in the bible just like they unanimously agreed to cut down the 22 books of the synoptic gospels to four, VIZ: Mattew, Mark, Luke and John. So i don't know where you got the information that Mary is the spouse of the holy ghost. That is a straight lie and heretic.[/quote]I'm sorry to weigh in on this issue here - are we pursuing simple facts or not? if we are, a few things to note:

1. I don't think that OLAADEGBU inferred that such a doctrine was brought out of the Bible - whether the one used by Catholics or Protestants. No. He only showed where the misconception was for most people - that it is what some Catholics believe.

2. As to (1) above, we have so many cases where this is clearly the case. A few? here:

[list][list]Litany in Honor of the Holy Infancy of
The Blessed Virgin by St. John Eudes
. . .

Infant, Mother of the Son,                               Pray for us.

Infant, Spouse of the Holy Ghost,                       Pray for us.
[/list][/list]

                      ________________________________________


[list][list]"Our Blessed Mother Mary is the Immaculate Mediatrix who is the Chosen Spouse of the Holy Spirit. Our Lady is so intimately linked to the Holy Spirit—the Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity—through her profound love and obedience that we can attest without a trace of exaggeration that she is the Spouse of the Paraclete."

Catholic Online.[/list][/list]

I don't need to fill this page with more attestations, but as you calmly check, you will find numerous other Catholic testimony to that same point.

Cheers.

@mazaje,

mazaje:
you understood very well what i was saying but you prefer to not discuss it but erupt in a wild distortion of what i laid down

Don't pat yourself on the back with such cheap self-congratulations. The fact that I can choose to roundly ignore rants from such fissures as yours does not mean that there was anything you had that was better than your previous entries. If you wanted to discuss, you would not start out in your previous post saying "Your argument falls flat here" as if you had said anything better. So, when I chose to consign your rants to the bin, e dey pain you? I still dey wait to see how you wan wipe blood comot for atheists hands.

Chrisbenogor:
Is you life as a Christian about killing me, NO IT IS NOT.

Then what was the meaning of this fib:

Chrisbenogor:
Do you follow the way the jews worship God, yes you do.

How could you be so overbearing as to suggest that when you should know better? This whole matter has been on one thing: atheists here so far see only one thing in their binoculars tonight: "killings". It has been either about "killing apostates". .  or "killing other nations" . . or "killing" this and that other group of people - and then you come back feeding that same idea as if the way to worship God as a Jew was about killings (even though i'm not a Jew under Judaism)?

If the thread had been about something else, I'm sure you would not have jumped in here hooting:

Me I am with mazaje all the way on this one

. . as if mazaje's complaints have been any better or other than the same subject of killings - until you made it clear for him that atheists hands are dripping with blood as well, No?

@Chrisbenogor,

Chrisbenogor:
Fine dearie, just nursing an aching gum, didn't have fun at with the dentist.

I'm beginning to have a toothache with the yannings this p.m. sef! Lol. . . awww, so sorry about you aches: pls get better soon, yeah?

Chrisbenogor:
Na wa self for my philosopher, but don't you think that those statements are too small to assume that what he was questioning was the existence of God?

No mind am sef! These philosophers too dey grow grey hairs on one spot!
No, I did not think he was about the existence or non-existence of God, at least that is clear from this:

Is God able to stop evil but not willing- then he is not all loving

. . meaning that his inference is that God is not all loving, and not that God does not exist.

But then, if I be you, I no go bend to that wisecrack and make am appear for my input. Because it only comes back to the poster to find a solution for the malady he complains about rather than fuss and complain. Talk is cheap, and to just complain about something without doing anything about it is one of the hallmarks of lazy dudes.

Chrisbenogor:
I think the nature of God is what he was after.

Don't you think he was not really after that, but just simply looking out for a way of hanging his garboil on Him? I mean, if God was not all powerful, how has that inference helped the philosopher made a move to discover an all-powerful being to solve his problem of evil?

Chrisbenogor:
What has atheism done to better the world not really the issue is it?

I was just asking directly to help us see that this career of seeking always to deride religion is unhealthy. Do I believe that religion (even Christianity) could and should be critiqued? Yes (that is my opinion: am not saying every Christian feels this way). But what I think is that such critiques (not criticisms) should be done in a healthy and honest way. It is because of such critiques that we have what is called apologetics in Christianity (1 Peter 3:15-16). But when people don't do this in a healthy manner that fosters good dialogue, what then do we have?

Feel better from that ache, and let me see more of you. Cheers.

@mazaje,

mazaje:
Your argument falls flat here reason is that athiest have never claimed to be guided by a force of goodness,kindness,love and justice.

This is the dumbest thing I ever heard this decade! Don't you have eyes to see how worse your case is? You are not guided by force of anything (goodness, kindness, love and justice) and you make a career educating others how to go about living by them? Even without any such force, your own case for atheistic murder is so dumb. At least, if one was guided by a force (whatever that is) to commit the things you complain about, how in the world do we understand that without that same or any force, there's blood dripping from atheistic hands?

You go on and on about this case, and yet we don't see you make any intelligent case for your worries. well done.

@Chrisbenogor,

Chrisbenogor:
@pilgrim
Sweetness I am not living my life by the examples of any one, you are.

Meaning. . . I have come over to kill you, yes? You see how silly this roundabout argument comes across every single time?

Chrisbenogor:
I do not have a book written by atheists that I have dubbed holy and absolute truth, but you have.

And that should mean I as a Christian was madated to kill you, Chris?

Chrisbenogor:
Is atheism better than practicing religion, I really don't know.

Hahaha!! You're so funny! Bros, a middle position of agnostic "I don't know" is not a viable one - sheepish at best. It seems a comfortable one, but it has hardly stood its own waters anyday. Sorry, but I knew you would wave that as first aid.

Chrisbenogor:
Have there been atheists that murdered people in the name of atheism, yes loads of em.

Em, mazaje. . take note and disgest, eh? Your eyes have always been sharp to point accusing fingers, and you delight so much to pass glibly over this fact, not so? Well done.

Chrisbenogor:
Does it make what they have done right, hell no, but do you agree that moses's orchestrated killings were wrong, no you don't.

When have you seen me enter every discussion with atheists on that same note? The reason why I decided to enter this discussion even lately is to see if atheism actually presents anything better than an incurable complaint while we constantly continue to witness atheistic murders in the world today. "God did this-and-that-and-the-other" . . we hear. End result - that because of these issues, I should then choose to be what? An atheist? and then have to face up with an even more serious dilemma on the same complaint?

Chrisbenogor:
Would I want to follow the ways in which these atheists lived their lives, hell no. Do you follow the way the jews worship God, yes you do.

I should take that as a delirious joke, Chrisbenogor. Have I as a Christian come after you with a threat to kill you? If not, where is this joke coming from? As if to worship God is all about killing people? When are you guys going to even for one moment be honest to your own hearts?

Chrisbenogor:
There is a big difference my dear, and you know it. There is no code for atheists to live their lives, there is for you.

Have I ever anywhere spelt out a code for atheist to live their lives by? WHO has been saying such things as "it is not in my place to define how other people should live their lives"? And no wonder - if the atheist has no code, does that not undergird the point I have been making that even without any such codes, atheistic murders are a reality that is as shocking? You guys seem to play this joke every single time - complain and whinge about religious warfare. . . and then come back making an even weaker case for atheism even without a code? haa!

Chrisbenogor:
Atheists that murdered people are responsible for their actions, God is responsible for the killings in the bible.

yea, and all you see that worries you day-in-day-out is to bother yourself with the God-factor, but too shy to use the same energy to debate atheistic murders. Thank you.

Chrisbenogor:
I don't even like those killers, talk less of worship them.

Too weak a cover for the atheist game. . . any better excuse?

Chrisbenogor:
Do you worship the hebrew God?
I think you do. :-)

Yes, I do - and I have said that no matter the ridicule and slobbers, I stand to honestly confess my faith in Him - it does not cost much to be honest, Chris. . . as a Christian, my life is not about killing you, is it?

Regards.

@Chrisbenogor,

How body? I wonder if your philosopher actually had any real gist to hold unto - just curious.

Let us even assume that there was "no God", question is -

Chrisbenogor:
- then why is there still evil in the world

. . and if there was "no God", how has atheism solved evil in the world?

affee:
pilgrim how body?

My dear, I'm cool and thank God for His grace. And you? Hope all is going great for you (trusting you feel much better now since the last we talked . . you were down?). Bless you.

Gamine:
tithing didnt make Abraham anymo righteous

why would it make you?

Gamine, you keep missing the point by many miles. I don't remember anyone arguing that tithing made them righteous - is that what the discussion has been about? If not, why do people keep sounding this same note when nobody is connecting tithe to that idea at all? Just why?

Chrisbenogor:
Me I am with mazaje all the way on this one. That is what I have been trying to reconcile for a very long time. It is the same God which they served that the christians do today I see no difference. Someone will tell me that was the old law and now this is the new one makes no sense, dude this guy is God and if I as a mere human being knows that those killings were wrong and totally barbaric I wonder why God could not see it.
*shakes his head in wonder*

You don't need to reconcile anything - we are waiting to see how atheism (the same atheism) has been any better than this glib joke you guys pretend not to notice. "Killings" - is not a strange word in atheistic history as well: and why have you guys not ceased being human beings on that note?

@mazaje,

mazaje:
My problem with this line of argument/reasoning is that it is the same god that gave out the same babaric laws to the jews that has now turned 360 degrees to issue out very different laws to the gentiles,

My problem with this weathered argument in yours is because you're comfortably sitting to call the laws of other people "barbaric" while you fail to provide any better history for your atheism. I wasn't a Jew (even though I am guilty of once deriding them); but as one who had to face the reality of my conscience, it was not the warfare that drew me to the love of God - that same God that has always been ridiculed by people who themselves are not at peace with their own consciences.

There are so many philosophies and worldviews in the world today - including atheism. I have remarked once in another thread that it is not in my place to try and define the life of other people whose worldviews are not any concern of mine, as long as I am not one of their adherents. Why is it that this same Hebrew God has been a problem to you guys if you have decided to walk away from Him? That attitude shows me just one thing: to be constantly disturbed about issues that are no longer your worry is to show a restless conscience - which is a paradox in itself, because one would have wondered that your rejection of that same God would give you peace. But has it?

Indeed, the problem I have with the sort of reasoning you present is that you make so much issue out of warfare that you have not stopped for a minute to think about the proportion of murders committed by atheists who did not need the help of religion to cause such shock in history. Nor have I made it my career to always go around with atheist murders as a recurrent decimal in every thread visited.

I have never stopped believing in that same God - yes, the Hebrew God - and it doesn't matter how bitterly anyone ridicules Him. Constantly harping on those warfares does not tell me that your own conscience is at peace - nor is that state of restlessness any worry of mine for me to start referring to you as a barbarian.

mazaje:
how can you reconcile a god that tells jews to kill apostates and punishes them in some cases if they don't, and the same god telling the gentiles something very different while maintaing that he is the same god to day, yesterday and forever who never changes?

It is not in my place to reconcile these issues, if your reference point is to start out with a fib as you did earlier.

mazaje:
why was the biblical god so tribal, billigerent, manovalent and down right cruel when dealing with the jews and humanity in general in the old testament but the same god changed 360 degrees in most parts of the new testament while dealing with humanity and the same god kept saying that he remains the same god forever who never changes. . . . . how can you reconcile these two very contradictory personalities. . . . . .

Sorry, you just failed your own test. He is not contradictory in His holiness, and evil will be severely judged at the proper time and scale. Your post again does not nullify the fact that atheists have been as contradictory in themselves as well as have been billigerent, manivolent, and down right cruel when dealing with Jews and humanity in general - we're still experiencing these things today in several countries. the moment I make reference to Communism etc, you guys are quick to protest: but such protests do not erase the blithe disregard of atheism in history. Does that make you feel any better now?

Regards.

mazaje:
now it has all boiled down to the jews and gentiles argument

Lol, mazaje deary. . it did not boil down to what you are assuming - it has always been so. Problem was that not many people were seeing that distinction, and that was why we have all been mixing it up ("we", because I was always making that mistake). Anyway, enjoy the evening.

Dear Gamine,

Let me start with this:

Gamine:
We are all learning, and may God enlighten us daily!

Amen.

Gamine:
I really would have prefered one line of answer

i must admit, i hardly read these long things

No worries - perhaps that is why I have to keep repeating myself over and over again at issues that I already mentioned?

Gamine:
We are all learning, infact, I'm purging my mind of everything
ive learnt on tithing and not tithing to seek out these truths myself.

Me too, because I feel it's quite an unhealthy position to take if one assumes he/she knows all ther is to know on any one subject.

Gamine:
The questions i asked, i felt, where straightforward and could have been
dealt with, with simple answers

Anyways,

Jesus, is our High Priest after the order of Melchisedec.
The bible clearly states this, nothing wrong in it.

Lets not even get into the whole levitical priesthood thingy.

Reason why I kept repeating myself endlessly about the Levitical priesthood was because our friends were ignoring what I had said about Melchizedek.

Gamine:
What is the order of Melchi?

The order differs from the person.

The order connotes the following;

1) He was both a King and a Priest, simultaneously:
2) He was the personification of the Names He bore, which were indicative of qualities of His character:
King of Righteousness, King of Salem which is also King of Peace; all this before and in the Eyes of God
3) He had no geneaological record, which was required for priesthood in the levitical order

Jesus follows this.SAS

Points I already considered, no?

Now, these are interesting -

1.[list]

Gamine:
Abraham wasnt commanded to do this,

[/list]

2.[list]

Gamine:
His decision to tithe was motivated by gratitude,

[/list]

3.[list]

Gamine:
rather than obedience, fear of punishment, or even in order to obtain a blessing from God.

[/list]

Good points - which I also mentioned much earlier.

1. [list]

Gamine:
Jacob also, made a Vow to God of giving a tenth part, again Voluntarily.

[/list]

Uhm,. . won't mention much there - other than that (IMHO) Jacob seemed to had mentioned tithes out of seeking a favour of God's protection (Genesis 28:20-22), no?

Gamine:
In the Levitical order, The israelites were commanded to, since this order has been done away with , what do we have left?

Lol, Gamine. . who are the "we" in that quote there?

I think your answer is right there in your quote. The Levitical order belonged only to Israel; it had nothing to do with any "we" (Gentiles) because "we" were never under that order in the first place!

This is why I keep begging. . people, please try to look away from the Levitical priesthood - that is not where my persuasions to tithe come from.

Gamine:

Is it a sin to tithe? Of course not.

Okay, glad to read that.

Gamine:
Christians are free to voluntarily tithe, just as they are free to voluntarily practice circumcision, rest one day a week, refrain from certain non-kosher foods, etc.

I'm not sure this is the what we see in the NT, though. Voluntarily tithing? Yes, we have no quarrels on that. But "voluntarily practice circumcision"? Hmm, I won't comment on that. They are just not the same in the NT.

Gamine:
In fact, like i said before, they are of some good to man
But observing these things makes a person not one bit more pleasing in God’s sight.

I take a different view - later perhaps?

Gamine:
And not observing these things makes a person not one bit less pleasing in God’s sight.
Our standing with God does not depend at all on whether or not we observe such practices.
People who do not tithe cannot be accused of "robbing" God or Disobeying Him.

I haven't come across tither recently who accuses non-tithers the way our non-tithing friends have incessantly done against their brethren.

Gamine:
There are commands in the Bible to Christians, such as "love one another" e.t.c
but tithing is not commanded to New Testament believers neither did it speak against it. A non-tither/Tither is not living in sin.

I don't think we should put these things to such extreme levels. Go back and see - I'm still waiting for an answer from those who allege that God made tithing redundant and yet cannot show precisely where that happened. Would these brethren agree with you that God did not speak against tithes?

Gamine:
The problem is in believing that God still requires us to observe these things.

I don't think so - at least, so many people have clearly said that it is not a requirement that should be endlessly emphasized. But what I have actually been endlessly repeating was that non-tithers often have tried to make it a matter of compulsion and requirements, and even when they were corrected, they wouldn't let up but kept the same misadventure and yet came to a confused inference.

Gamine:
This is contrary to the grace of God and cheapens Christ’s precious blood that alone saves and sanctifies us.

Tithing was not said in Scripture to be a matter of salvation or about the Blood of Christ - and to make that inference is to actually cheapen the discussion. Nobody ever predicated tithing as a matter of salvation, the Blood, justification, etc. We know that circumcision was outrightly discouraged in the NT; but where do we find it so said about tithes?

Shalom.

@huxley,

huxley:
Basically, I was looking for a principle under which the picking&chosing can be justified and whether every tradition from the Old Testament can be fairly assessed under such principle.

How has that made your situation any better or clearer, huxley? Upon what basis are you seeking a "justification" of what you have already inferred was "barbarism" - especially when it had nothing to do with you - and then try to use that as the flagship for discussing CHRISTIANITY? I'm just not clear about your mission in that statement above.

huxley:
I know of the Christian concept of the New Covenant. Now, what is the New Covenant and what OT traditions does it have jurisdiction over?

These terms should not be confused, huxley. The old covenant (Judaism) is not the same thing as the Old Testament (Genesis to Malachi). So also the New Testament (Matthew to Revelation) is not to be confused for the new covenant (Christianity).

Christianity is not a continuum of Judaism; and when these matters are placed in their proper perspectives, I don't see why they should present any problem to anyone who is careful and honest enough to look at them.

huxley:
In fact, at what point did it pick in?

Sorry, let me repeat: Judaism is not a continuum into Christianity.

huxley:
Was it at Jesus's birth?
Was it during is adulescences?
Was at the moment of his baptism?
Was it at the moment of crucifixion?
Was it at resurrection?
Was it as ascension?

The new covenant came into effect when Jesus was glorified after the resurrection.

huxley:
Imagine, you were born on the same day as Jesus and had lived up to the grand old age of 60 years. In fact, imagine all people born with 10 - 20 years of Jesus's birth, form about 15 BCE to 10 CE. There would have been millions of such people in the Near East at the time who were contemporaries or near coevals with Jesus. What dispensation was open to such people?

The old covenant was never given to the nations of the world - rather, it was specifically given to just one nation: ISRAEL (Deuteronomy 5:2-3). Even if the other nations all fell under the period of the Old Testament, it does not mean that they were under the old covenant that was specifically given to israel (see Romans 2:14-15). And just incase you ever wondered how they related to these matters, please see Romans 2:12.

Lol, huxley. . . you make me laugh, and that's why I have been slow to reply! If you really wanted to know these matters, all you needed to do was study the Bible and see matters for yourself - even if you had to study it with an honest heart as a student of theology. One doesn't have to be a Christian to do theology, you know - and when you do these studies in their deixis (contextual settings), they will not present any problem to you.

huxley:
If you were 30 years old at the time of Jesus death, does it mean that for most of your life you would have been subject to the old covenant.

It all depends - as a Gentile, I was not subject to the old covenant (because I was not a Jew), and the only way that the same old covenant would have affected me was if I had become a proselyte to Judaism. In as much as I was not a Jew, the old covenant was not applicable to me, although in my conscience, I could not live against the dictates of my spiritual awakening.

huxley:
But immediately following his death, the new covenant would have kicked in, and you would have had to live the rest of your life under the new covenant?

The new covenant did not "kick in" or become effective until Jesus was glorified, which means it was not immediately after His death that these matters came into fruition.

huxley:
Which old covenant tradition would you have had to abandon?

As a Gentile, was I given any covenant? How could I abandon what I had not received in the first place?

huxley:
Would you have had to abandon the dietary law, the hygiene laws, the cleanliness laws, the apostasy laws?

Since I was never given any in the first place, the idea of "abandoning" is a mute consideration, NO?

Cheers.

huxley:
On the subject of picking&chosing, here is Jesus calling some other Jews to rights about tradition:

Matthew 15:

Thank you, huxley - and how does that relate to the killing of apostates?

@huxley,

huxley:
You are right in one sense.  "Move away"  was not the correct word to use in this context, as I don't think Christianity ever practiced these injunction, much as Jesus would have like his followers to, if his pronouncements in the NT are to be read literally,

You haven't made any case here - on the one hand trying to temper the issue under an acquiescence, and then forcing the same issue, that says a lot about your intension to stay put on your misgivings.

Let me ask: is it too much for people to simply discuss issues without forcing themselves to be this driven? If you want to invite a discussion, nobody would have to lecture you or me on that. My style doesn't have to be anybody's. . . but then, we can all approach an issue sensibly and not try to insinuate what is not there.

huxley:
In fact, the main blank of this post was not even the issue of killing apostate.

Then for crying out loud, why even go there? Do you see the very core of the matter that we have repeatedly called out on matters like this? You know very well that you were not even looking at that subject, but it just has to be in the body of your post - to what end?

huxley:
The main issue is the basis for picking and chosing parts of the bible as befits one's doctrine/agenda.

Great - I have discussed my position about that with Chrisbenogor in another thread up until it was highjacked, and I'm still discussing matters of the Law as distinct from the new covenant in the NT. If that was what you had wanted to discuss, you knew better than to lump it all and infer this matter with "killing apostates" and yet flavouring that with the "quran". Let me ask again as to what exactly does the mention of the quran have to do with the new covenant?

huxley:
I used the question of apostasy as an oblique way of getting to this subject.

There's nothing incidental about that - it has no bearing whatsoever on what you claim to have wanted to discuss. . . and I realized that already before posting any reply on this thread. Please forgive my conviction that it is so - because you may have noticed that it is not every thread you have raised that has interested my input. But I just could not sit back and watch this one continue to make this huge gap and let people assume that you had no intention of discussing the killing of apostates when that is not a Christian concern.

Cheers.

mazaje:
is the god of the old testament different from the god of the new testament? why did he encourage the jews to kill apostates before?

I am not a Jew, mazaje. You have your reasons to not believe in Him and have said so - I don't see any reason why this matter should disturb you since you walked away from believing in Him. You have not stopped being an atheist even though no one can deny that history testifies to atheistc murders, not so? You can't ave that excuse in my face, because you would have to provide a rational answer that satisfies your conscience for atheists who have murdered others without the help of God - and what does that make you? To keep harping on this matter when it is of no problem to you is to demonstrate some hypocrisy that is uncurable - sorry, but I have to be firm sometimes with people who shlepp up this hubris.

Atheism is not my problem - and I don't go about trying to slur atheists or decree for them how to live their lives. The same with other world views: I don't go about calling them barbaric. And to be disturbed about what is not a problem to you and then use that as a bold lie to infer that ALL religious people are driven by fear, is the same hypocrisy that has become second nature with fellows who are at liberty to just vomit their ignorance in public. My fingers are crossed for the day when we shall all learn to think honestly within ourselves, instead of going about trying ever so hard to legislate how others live their lives when their religion is not a problem to your atheism.

Cheers.

Cristalz:
Then you should have made your point clearer when you posted the above,instead of generally making it seem like you were referring to Christianity.

@huxley, I hope you can see now that I'm not the only one seeing what I tried to call your attention to? See how your post comes across to other readers - which simply demonstrates how very misrepresentative it is. Cheers.

@huxley,

huxley:
Did you read all the post?   Did you see the bits highlighted in red?  Here is it again.

I did read all through - and that was why I ignored the part you had wanted me to look at, because you are ignoring the fact that this thread does not address your concerns or fears about Christians. To misrepresent this issue on the idea that Christianity has "moved away from this form of barbarism" is to fail to see that Biblical Christianity did not start from such a premise before inferring that it "moved away" from such. This would be just as much to say that atheism has "moved away" from the denial of the supernatural to belief in the paranormal - would that be a correct analysis of your worldview? If not, why this deliberate misrepresentation?

The place for your to bear out this concern is not here - you know those whom you had in mind when looking at the killing of apostates - you should have gone there to ask them that question and not sit here starting out with this sort of misrepresentation and hoping to quote the "Old Testament" to force this issue and then turn back to ask if we never read through all your post. I wonder how you missed the fact that I called your attention initially to that point.

huxley:
Did I say anywhere that the vast majority Christians are required to act on this? C'mon, before you accuse me of anything, read my post carefully.

Did you pay any close attention to what I said earlier?

huxley:
The following verses from the Old Testament should give anyone reason to pause:

Thank you, dear huxley - like I said: confusing people make me really sad for people who claim to be so rational and yet cannot distinguish issues, as long as it helps their agenda. Sir, find me where CHRISTIANS are called to kill apostates. At least, not every atheist plays  this cheap games - and I know a few atheists who do not go this extreme to confuse Christians for Jews or Muslims.

So, can you just please find me that verse where CHRISTIANS are called to kill apostates?

mazaje:
Christains have killed apostates before the fact that times and civilization has changed doesnt mean that christains never did that before. . . . .

And how does that prove your hubris for "all" religious people being driven by fear? This is the silly games that narrow minded carps like you make - I'm sorry, mazaje: but when you feel at liberty to be driven with this misanthrope every single time without putting on your thinking cap, it just simply means that a time would come when people have to ask you guys to smart up and look at the devastation of atheistc murders as well. What is driving those fellows to kill religious people as well without the help of religion?

huxley:
Should religious apostates be killed? If not, under what grounds should they be spared?

@huxley, you should know where to post this interesting thread - Christians are not called to kill apostates; and it does not help to confuse identities of people. To do so, will invite an exposure to the same reaction that you cannot hold for atheism. Cheers.

mazaje:
All religious people are driven by fear.

People who talk like this show just how hypocritic they can be. You should be able to have travelled the whole world to know that "all" religious people are driven by fear. Don't make us laugh with this garboil.

Dear Gamine,

How body? Trust you've been having a good Sunday? I would have given just one line of answer; but permit me to be detailed once again so that nobody comes back confused about what I have often repeated.

Gamine:
Pilgrim,

You say you follow after the order of Melchizedec

Yes, but I just simply want to know: is there any problem with that at all?

This comment seems to be made too many times that I wonder if this is the first time ever that Christians are coming across it. I'm not seeking to make any issues out of it; but sometimes I wonder why people seem to react anytime Melchizedek is mentioned. Just curious.

Gamine:
Abraham gave this High Priest,the tithes directly

How do you give yours to Jesus, Who is now the High Priest?

I give my tithes in Church.

Gamine:
Especially now that the need of temples has been eradicated?

That does not mean at all that we should gather under rain and sun. People become too attached to the Levitical rites and temple ceremonies that we don't see anything beyond that. My tithes are not being given in Church to fulfill any Levitical temple rites. I have said so again and again, that I'm beginning to wonder what has been so difficult to grasp about that. Just curious about what I might be missing in sharing these points.

Gamine:
There are so many parts of the law, that are good for man

But why didn't anyone say so? Why have people been too shy to mention this very point until I deliberately challenged that shyness? Why all the talk all this while to thrash the Law when people who have not taken the time to study kept disavowing it? It was for this reason that I took time to be detailed and simply share the difference - to live by the Law is different from learning from the law.

Every single time I mentioned it and made clear that my reason for tithes are not predicated on the Law, the same response from our dear brethren was always "recourse to the Law". It is only now that we have come back acquiescing to the same fact that we once thrashed. We should always try to help ourselves about these matters, and I believe that help is not far from us.

Gamine:
but things that concern the temple and sacrifices have been fulfilled in Jesus.

My dear Gamine. . once again let me say it: please look away from the Levitical rites - that is not what I base my reasons for tithing upon. The Melchizedek priesthood did not derive from the temple sacrifices of the Levitical priesthood.

Let us say that we are asking another question: "by what Law do you tithe, pilgrim.1?" My answer is this: "No law - but rather, upon the power of an endless life as declared in Melchizedek's priesthood". Dear, I have tried again and again to help us distinguish this matter - not one time have I based my persuasion upon the sacrifices of the Levitical priesthood.

Lol, dear Gamine - I have said so many times: please, please and please people. . . when we look away from the ceremonial rites of the Levitical priesthood, and this matter will become clear as day for us all.

Gamine:
Then again, the law cannot save

Dear, but I already made that point so clear and had to repeat it again in detail:

                > the old covenant did not justify anyone - either in the OT or NT.
                 This is why even the matter of "tithes" does not seek to justify anyone
                 since tithes were not a matter of justification by Law (Galatians 2:16).
                 Hence, when I speak about the principle of faith in tithing, please, please
                 and please, learn to look away from the Levitical priesthood - for that is
                 not where I derive my persuasions for tithing.

Another way of saying it is that "nobody is saved by the Law" - and on that account, I noted that the law does not "justify" anybody. As such, if the Law does not justify anyone, would it not be silly of me to base my persuasion for tithing upon that same Law that does not save?  I knew already that the law does not justify or save anyone, and that is why I have often said that people should not hold on too tightly to this mentality of seeing only the Law in matters like this.

Gamine:
why should we dwell on it, given that the most important parts are established in Jesus.

I have not dwelt on it, Gamine; and besides, I'm not sure that there are any part that are less important that were not fulfilled by Christ. I already discussed in another thread how Christ fulfilled the whole Law.

When I tried to be concise on this matter, questions were raised, and I honestly welcomed them and tried to help. The only reason why I endeavoured to be detailed was because some of our brethren have been making every excuse under the sun to "condemn" tithes and make it "redundant" where God never said so anywhere! That was why I asked them the simple question for them to show me just one verse where God said that He condemned tithes at any one time! NOT ONCE!

I already knew these brethren would come back and wear themselves out on their own misgivings, and I only amused them on their own adventures. Bottomline: they are still looking hard for the verse where God "condemned" tithes - and they haven't found it! WHY? Because they have always had their eyes on the same Law they thrashed and had no clue for their own excuse. My approach now is to leave them a small exercise (without demanding that they must answer): could they tell us the meaning of -

    Romans 3:31 --
    Do we then make void the law through faith?
    God forbid: yea, we establish the law.

Since the Law is believed by many to be thrashed, I am waiting to see how these lovely people would duck that one! I don't think it is a hard thing to simply allow these matters take their contextual place in the NT, rather than for people to always hastily be brash to dismiss what they have no clue about.

Shalom.

kevchina:
it will be better to ban tithe and offerings in churches for sometime in naija lets see how many pastors that can stand it.

Lol, bros, we shall get to that part of the discussion - then you will see that the problem is not tithes at all. Men who serve money do not use the term "tithes" to draw money from people's pockets - they use very clever other means to make merchandise of people.

Just a small exercise for you and your folks, TV01:

TV01:
Forget the law peeps, it's so behind. It’s backwards looking. No matter how scrupulously one masters it, applies it, or keeps it. Be that in part or in whole.

I hear. Please could you and your folks let us know what you make of the following matter of the same Law you disdain? Here:

Romans 3:31 --
Do we then make void the law through faith?
God forbid: yea, we establish the law.

Many thanks.

@TV01,

Good morning, and I trust you enjoyed your fellowship.

I'm really saddened for you because I'm going to be very firm in my reposte. The fact that you have resorted to the same tactics of fausse braie (false pitch) sentimentality to harp on what nobody is saying is unhealthy. If you had no answers to the simple question I asked (which was reason why I took time to be detailed) , all you needed to do is save these unnecessary remarks and stop pretending to be reading "the Law" as the basis of our tithing, where you know it has been repeatedly stated that is not the case.

TV01:
And so to the sharp end of this matter;

Trying to determine applicable elements of the law or parts the apostles overthrew or directly incorporated is a needless exercise. Looking prior to the law is unprofitable. The whole of history - before after and during the law - is pointing to one thing. The law and prophets themselves are pointing to one thing. Jesus. By Whom the law is "fulfilled".

You're just fussing and kicking at air. How many times did I share with the forum that indeed my persuasions on tithing are not based upon the Law? Because you can't seem to get over yourself and are too driven to see only the Law in all matters, that was why for your sake I made the distinctions and showed where the apostles quoted from the Law of Moses for Christian doctrines that even you have hypocritically used to argue the case of women keeping silence in the Church! If you knew it was indeed a needless exercise, why did you use the same text in your argument in the other case?

You guys are alarmingly lazy! If you even had any substance to your worries, these matters would not have been that difficult for you to see, nevermind that we have been through this in detail about the Law in another thread. All I expected you to do is fold your noise away and simply show where these matters were not so, in all the stuff I shared. At least, others have been open to point directly to particular references and discussed them genially. Why is it too difficult for you and your folks to do the same?

The basic question I keep asking the lot of your folks have forever remained unanswered. Do you know why? For the same reason that I knew you have been spinning yourselves on the same spot! Please forgive me - but I saw it ever since, and that is why I kept asking that same question: "show me just one verse where God ever condemned tithes" - just one verse! Have you found it yet? No - because you are seriously knotting yourself on the same huge mistake of looking at the Law and making circumcision a "metaphor" for it where you know deep in your heart that such an idea was a huge fallacy! Circumcision (as well as other matters of the old covenant) was specifically dealt with, and not in one instance did Paul use that as a metaphor for the Law. You make laws unto yourself to confuse your own mentality, and for all that you cannot even find one verse to help your mistakes.

TV01:
Forget the law peeps, it's so behind. It’s backwards looking. No matter how scrupulously one masters it, applies it, or keeps it. Be that in part or in whole.

You see your problem? That is why I continue to laugh at you! You spend all your days looking at the law only to come back worn out at your exercise - whereas I started sharing consistently that my persuasions for tithing were not based on the Law!

I am so sorry for you, TV01! You keep harping at what nobody has been saying, only to return folding your tail inbetween your legs. If you have nothing to share, all you needed to do is save yourself this risible joke! Have I been applying the Law to tithes, TV01? If that is not what I have been doing, why have you been miserably harping on endlessly about it?

TV01:
Did you really think it was down to doctrinal excellence or theological rigour? No, no and thrice no. It's by knowing Him being in Him and focusing on Him.

You make these lazy remarks when you know that your ideology has failed you and you had no answers to the simple one question I offered. You went into great length shouting "keep it simple", argued so much from a Law you had no clues about. . . and when your musings failed, you came back whinging about "doctrinal excellence". If you guys only sit in your congregation with blank pages, good for you. The day you ever come back yapping about any theological matter on the forum, I shall refer you to your carping here and see where you duck your hypocritic garb!

TV01, you should not make matters so bad for yourself! It is this kind of hypocrisy coming from believers that shames our Christian cause and make unbels laugh at our testimony! If great men of faith had listened to such harrumph from you, where would all the Bible Encyclopedia, Dictionaries, and Study Resources have been? Not that I make myself "great' by any measure - NO. But I wonder how silly you can sound sometimes when you know already that nobody has been making the same noise on the Law that you have been harping on.

TV01:
It’s the grace to be found in Christ Jesus that is the key, not principles of the law or even ordinances or practices that were pre-law.

Can I say it again: my persuasion for tithing is not based upon the Law but upon the power of an endless life!

Put it in another way: my tithing is based on the principle of the priesthood of Melchizedek and not on the Levitical priesthood - that should have helped you to see that I did not equate Melchizedek at any time with the Law! To keep harping on the Law was the reason I took time to share with you and your folks the difference so you don't keep confusing yourselves.

Nobody ever said (as far as I remember) that Christian tithing was not about grace, and your recourse to "pre-law" ordinaces is a serious joke - because I did not make any references to an ordinance in Abraham's case! If you ever wanted to be honest with yourself, you could not have missed where I have repeatedly said that Abraham tithing to Melchizedek was not under any Law, nor any commandments, nor any ordinances, nor any compulsion, nor even any excuses! Why these silly games you keep harping on every single time as a fausse braie for reading your misgivings into the position of others when they have repeatedly made these matters clear? Don't you think that is hypocritical on your part? You keep forcing a "Law" into tithing whereas I kept saying it was not about that Law!

TV01:
Recourse to the mosaic law - for Christians - is nothing short of tragic.

Here's your tragedy: who has been making any recourse to the Law for tithing? Please tell me - and I could come back and highlight your sanctimonious tartuffery here!

The funny thing in all this is that, even when I did not make any such recourse to the Law for tithing, you have not said anything about the distinctions I made where Paul quoted the Law of Moses for Christian doctrines practiced in the Church! I'm not surprised, actually - because what I did not argue for tithes, you will harp on endlessly and pretend people just can't see the difference!

TV01:
I beseech thee brethren, don't give yourselves to figuring out which parts of the law "pertain", trying to glean "principles" from it, or "infer" relevance to it, give yourself to the Lord.

Repeat after me: my persuasions for tithing are not predicated upon the Law! I have lost count of how many times I said that already. Refrain from this hypocrisy, dear bros, of pretending not to have noticed and then using the same false leg to harp on what nobody is saying!

TV01:
Forget having to determine the bits to discard and those to keep, forget seeking solace in carnal ordinances or righteousness in fleshly commandments and give yourselves over to The Lord.

Please repeat after me:

                > the old covenant did not justify anyone - either in the OT or NT.
                 This is why even the matter of "tithes" does not seek to justify anyone
                 since tithes were not a matter of justification by Law (Galatians 2:16).
                 Hence, when I speak about the principle of faith in tithing, please, please
                 and please, learn to look away from the Levitical priesthood - for that is
                 not where I derive my persuasions for tithing.

TV01:
Quit fretting over ministers being cared for and temples not being built. Cease to worry over people not giving, the church not growing or the commission not being fulfilled and give yourselves over to the Lord.

Quit preaching your sanctimonious poverty!

TV01:
May you abound in grace as you seek and know Him.

Amen - knowing the Lord does not come by pretentious superfluity of harping at what nobody has been saying.

More grace to you.

Dear huxley,

My apologies. . . I was having a chat a while ago offline and a friend drew my attention to the fact that I might have been too forward in my repostes to yours. Again, I apologise - because it is not in my place to have assumed this was about you or any poster.

Nonetheless. .

huxley:
As you would imagine, I am a skeptic on most of these. A skeptic is someone who reserves judgment until all the evidence is in. As for UFO, crop circles, and a few others, I am new to the subject and hold judgment. As a naturalist, I am not "convinced" that "supernatural" forces are behind these things.

If it turns out that they are not created by humans, what ever creates then or are UFO are part of the natural realm that we have yet to understand. Basically when science explains a previously unexplanaible phenomenon, that phenomenon becomes part of the natural and know.

Incidentally, what is the evidence that has now convinced people that UFO are real? I have not kept up to speed this UFOlogy later, so inform me, if you may.

Cheers and bye. Am off to bed now.

As for the UFO phenomena, I posted one earlier: https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-178839.32.html#msg2896671

Again, during the course of trying to grow this thread, I was being careful to not alarm readers with all sorts of excitements. That is why I constantly left disclaimers that pilgrim.1 had no answers - we see and observe these "orphic" phenomena and would not be vacant of thought as to make hasty conclusions, even when some of them are unquestionably attested as real.

Anyhow, thanks for your inputs - it was quite refreshing and helpful to see someone challenge these issues, rather than swallow them wholesale. Not that I question the occurences of genuine crop circle; but the reason why I had been slow to grow the thread was to afford me time enough to scrutinize what would be suitable to be posted on the forum, so that no one is unduely excited on hoaxes. Nonetheless, it would be helpful any other time where rigorous research that debunk these findings may be posted so everyone could learn - so please, where you may come across any such research, do not hesitate to post them.

Regards and thanks again.

huxley:
Some interesting news about crop circles:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/norfolk/content/articles/2006/09/22/feature_inside_out_crop_circles_20060922_feature.shtml

http://www.lifeinthefastlane.ca/crop-circles-mystery-unraveled/offbeat-news

http://www.ufoparts.net/Crop-Circle-Research-Explanation.ashx

Lol, dear huxley, it is way tooooooooooooo easy for anyone to dismiss orphic phenomena as a "hoax" - a baby doesn't even have to try sooooooooo hard to do so. However, even the criteria given earlier from Colins Andrew were simply put there deliberately as a starter for simple disgestible form for anyone not yet familiar with the phenomena.

However, there was another scientific test conducted just to see if these phenomena could be replicated by human ingenuity using any method they chose - and come up with the same results as those which were said to have no signs of having being man-made. Let's see a bit of this and check the conclusions:

[list]Scientific analysis

In 2002, Discovery Channel commissioned five aeronautics and astronautics students from MIT to create crop circles of their own. Discovery's production team consulted with crop circle researcher Nancy Talbott, who provided them with three attributes that she believed set "real" crop circles apart from known man-made circles, such as those created by Doug Bower and Dave Chorley. These criteria were:

1. Elongated apical plant stem nodes
2. Expulsion cavities in the plant stems
3. The presence of 10-50 micrometer diameter magnetized iron spheres in the soils,
distributed linearly

Over the course of a single night the team was able to create a stereotypical "man-made" circle that they then attempted to enhance using the three criteria. The team used lengths of rope to plot their design and trampled the wheat down in a spiral pattern using lengths of wooden board attached to loops of rope. To meet criterion 2, they constructed a portable microwave emitter, using it to superheat the moisture inside the corn stalks until it burst out as steam. To meet criterion 3, they built a device - dubbed the "Flammschmeisser" - that sprayed iron particles through a heated ring. However, the device proved to be too time consuming to use, and they were forced to finish the task by using a pyrotechnic charge to distribute the iron around the circle. The circle was later analyzed by graduate students from MIT, who declared it to be "on a par with any of the documented cases". Their conclusion was later questioned by Talbott, who noted that the team had only been able to recreate two of the three criteria. Talbott also expressed concerns that the iron particles were not distributed laterally. Furthermore, she felt that the team's use of night vision headsets and other technologically advanced items would be out of reach for the average hoaxer.[35]

The creation of the circle was recorded and used in the Discovery channel documentary "Crop Circles: Mysteries in the Fields"

Source: Wikipedia[/list]

What's the point? Even when another researcher (Colins Andrew) may have given no less than 8 criteria for distinguishing genuine crop circle from hoaxes, isn't it remarkable that even the basic 3 given by Nancy Talbott to MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) students could not be met, given the freedom to do so with any form of technology available to them?

Further, one should seriously question whether the skeptics who look for excuses are actually trying to help their audience learn anything. This was how they constantly denounced the UFO phenomena until undeniable evidence began to emerge and we no longer heard them cough! I think when people are wont to dismiss issues with "smart" arguments, it should be clear that they're not actually seeking to find answers - at best, it is the usual slogan for them to say: "there are inconclusive evidences" - as if they were careful to check things out for themselves.

Enjoy!