₦airaland Forum

Abuzola:
Christ wasn't dead nor raised, go through the Gospel of Barnabas (This very one)

Abuzola, see your own recommendation:

But God, who had decreed the issue, reserved Judas for the cross, in order that he might suffer that horrible death to which he had sold another

Where is this consistent with Islamic teaching?

@noetic2,

My heartfelt thanks for further clarifying your concerns. It helps to foster an enabling atmosphere for a healthy discussion.

Just one small correction, though:

noetic2:
My point is this,  note that
1. KAG refused to ontologically define esensed on the premise that there are several concepts of ontology.

No, the assumption (and any mistake thereto) was mine - I had interjected that 'there are DIFFERENT TYPES of 'ontologies'' (and indeed there are), and I don't think KAG was responding a fortiori on my interjection.

Thanks  again, and enjoy.

Uche2nna:
I dont have a problem with ur point of view which by the way is not the view held by the proponents of evolution. My problem lies specifically with the consensus view of evolution.

That's what I was thinking about as well when m_nwakwo said:

[quote author=m_nwankwo link=topic=252741.msg4039147#msg4039147 date=1245180631]My view is that evolution of biological life is not a random event, rather it was created and maintained by the power of God. Thus if God created evolution as I believe he did, then their is no room for permutations, chance and improbabilities that you seem to talk about.[/quote]It's not so much what you believe about God having something to do with evolution, but rather its consensus among evolutionists. I'm not aware that the consensus has yet reached what is daubed "crevolution" (that is, a pun from fusing "creation" and "evolution".

@Allta,

Allta:
To Pilgrim.1

You still haven't answered my honest question.

You still haven't given an example of pastors who teaches pro-Tithe, but doesn't quote Mal 3:9

I don't know the answer to my honest question, still searching though. But I can give examples of Churches pro-Tithe and teaches Mal3:9 - RCCG, LightHouse, 4square, New Waters Christian Fellowship, Hopewall Envagelical Church etc. I can even give 100 if you want

I'm trying to not have an argument with you and have repeatedly stated that I'm disinclined thereto. It seems you actually want an argument - well, if that's the case then you're in for some bleaching that will hopefully leave you well mannered. One thing I won't put up with is sanctimonious pretences of "peace out" that is inclined to something far from it.

There are many Anglican pastors who are pro-tithing and rather quote Malachi 3:10; the same with many I know among Catholics and most of the Assemblies of God Churches I'm familiar with. Let me be more specific -

[list]

The word “tithe” orignally meant ten percent (10%). The “tithe,” however, is only a barometer or guideline to help determine one’s sacrificial giving. Some can and should offer more than a 10% tithe; others may have circumstances that warrant them paying less than a 10% tithe.
. . .

If a tithe (10%) is legitimately too much for one’s current budget, a member may begin with a lower percentage that will be both sacrificial and yet possible. Then the member may gradually raise the level of giving until the full tithe is reached. In this way brothers and sisters and families are making a decision for the Lord first and only afterward considering their own needs and wants.

[note: apart from quoting malachi 3:4-10, it was later down the page that they quoted only verse 10 in their teaching:

302. Additional Scriptures on this call to trust are: Mal 3:10; Mt 6:19-34; Lk 12:22-32; 1 Tm 6:17-19.]

source: Legion of the Order of St. Michael (Catholic)[/list]


[list]

The Bible, in *Malachi 6:10, says, "Bring the full tithe into my house." A tithe is the giving back of 10% of what God has given us. It’s a form of proportionate giving. We may begin anywhere (on average in mainline Protestantism it’s about 1.5% of annual income), then increase our percentage, perhaps each year. For some, tithing is inconceivable; for others, it’s the least they can do; for all of us, we can pray about it.

[* they evidently meant to quote Malachi 3:10 - not 6:10]

source: United Church of Christ[/list]


[list]As far as I know, Anglicans do not "force" tithes on their members; but here's a quote to show that it was Malachi 3:10 that was used instead of verse 9 -

In addition to the income generating activities and the other sources specified above, the Church expects more tithing from members whether rich or poor. It is a scriptural injunction (Malachi 3: 10). Nothing is too great and nothing too small

source: The Church of Nigeria[/list]


[list]

TITHING at 10% may not be possible for everyone at first, so you start at whatever percentage is do-able and challenging for you, and then you learn to grow in your giving until you reach 10% and beyond. We are called to give joyfully and thankfully to God FIRST, for that which God has done and continues to do for us!

source: Evangelical Lutheran Church[/list]


[list]

The Assemblies of God is also concerned about people who withhold tithes when they do not like decisions and directions espoused by spiritual leaders. Christians should fellowship with a local body of believers and bring their whole tithes into that storehouse (Malachi 3:10).

source: Assemblies of God[/list]

The above are specific cases that I'm well aware of that are pro-tithing and are not abusive. Second, they quote Malachi 3:10 (not "Mal. 3:9" - and there are numerous others who follow that same pattern. This was why I hinted that "Malachi 3:9" is not the most quoted verse in churches today - and even those who quote in in some other churches have not thereby argued that those in their congregations who don't tithe are cursed - they do not teach such. You might complain about some churches with comparably few denominations in contrast to larger churches like the Anglican (over 18 million members in Nigeria alone) and the Catholic Church (over 17 million members in Nigeria alone) - have you also considered them? You tend to assume that all pastors and churches who are pro-tithing never quote anything else than your troubled "Malachi 3:9" - you never consider others who have millions of members far more than those you mentioned.

I hope this will help you; but if you're sporting for an unnecessary argument, please be my guest.

Allta:
I feel you're beating about the bush, ok if Deut 14 is half-way, begin from the genesis of Tithe to it's revelation.

Thank you, but why is my comment 'beating about the bush'? Are you sporting for an argument? I've asked this question repeatedly, and if you can't discuss without such tomfoolery, let me know. It is this kind of stupidity that I like to bleach once and for all! Just let me know how you want to discuss and let me bleach your retired sanctimony!

Allta:
Pastors shouldn't use just Mal 3! That's my point, why do you have to mask the point by looking for holes?

I'm not masking the point - and there's no reason why Pastors cannot use Malachi 3 or any verse they are led to use. Telling people what to use and what not to use is illiterate. The apostle Paul used Exodus 16:18 to preach about Christian giving in 2 Cor. 8:15 - I didn't hear folks like you shout your guts out that he should not have used the Exodus 16 verse, since it has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with ANY type of giving!

Again in both 1 Cor. 9:9 and 1 Tim. 5:18, he also quoted Deuteronomy 25:4 - "Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn" - why are you not screaming out your guts that he should not have used that OT verse about "ox" for Christian giving?

Folks like you just sit down and plaster just about any vacancy of thought you can muster and then seek to commendeer a presumption over others - telling them what they can quote and what they cannot quote. This was why I asked you if you're the Lord's personal secretary to begin to tell others what they can teach and where they cannot teach from. How have YOU been labouring for Him in His vineyard other than sit here and whinge in such a manner? If you had carefully read through this thread, you'd not be making such otiose remarks.

Allta:
Whether these points have been discussed or not, they should be taught by Pastors in Churches, that's my point! They are truths(contrary to what you will say), and should be taught.

You can only talk about what you're familiar with and not bragging about some "truth" you have no grasp of at all.

Abuzola:
1 Corinthians 15:14
And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.

I hope you understand that without Christ's resurrection, your hope is vain?

Pastor AIO:
Thank you o, PIlgrim and KUnleoshb. Phew!

I'll come back with more comments when I'm more settled but one quick thought, that is a bit of an aside but humorous to consider, is this:

Can the passage about Oxen be applied to officials of the nigerian civil service?


Since nigerian officials are threshing in their workplace is it not right that they too be left unmuzzled. People complain about corruption but shouldn't they be allowed to graze where they toil?

Indeed, a humorous case to consider. But there's an answer: let the nigerian civil service explain their labour within the grid of Jewish exegesis, and viola! the 'oxen' will find a way!

Allta:
Miss/Mrs Pilgrim.1

What will it benefit me to argue with you and loose my soul?

See, before I stumbled upon this thread last year, I use to pay my tithe under fear. I even sometimes take loans just to pay of my tithes because I don't want curses on my head like my pastors always tell me.

Okay, let me help you. You notice I've shared earlier about my disinclination to yap on about misrepresentations, which was why I disinclined an argument. If you're enquring to clarify or know about something, I would oblige - gladly. If not, the same - and it is entirely up to you what you want to do with your soul afterwards. Your case of tithing under fear was your own experience - it does not mean therefore that every tither was/is like you. There are still many who tithe without doing it out of fear.

Allta:
This post is titled "The Truth your pastor would not tell you about tithes"; so I will keep my scope of contributions within it. It's not a post to discuss whether Christianity is a Religion or not, so I give you that.

You should have kept within the topic and left out the 'religion' this-and-that in the first place.

Allta:
So let me just highlight few things from your response:

No worries.

Allta:
Can you please give me 5 tithe-preaching pastors who doesn't quote "You are under a curse because you're robbing God of tithes" Mal 3:9 , one of the most quoted verses in churches today.

I could give you more examples of whole churches if you want. Yet, Malachi 3:9 is not one of the 'most quoted' verses in churches today - that is what many people say without any statistical proof, because they have issues with tithes.

Allta:
So, now that I'm quoting from the same scriptures you quoted James 1:27 from, I'm now making law from others enh? And that has made me the PA of the Lord and you're not a PA from quoting from same Bible? How do you explain that?

Have you ever heard that you should leave others the freedom to do as they're led in their hearts? I have no problem with anyone quoting scripture - but to do so with a presumption that is unhealthy is what I zeroed in on.

Allta:
Ofcourse not, hence why I said "start" not use only Deut 14, start from Deut 14! Go all the way through the entire bible, touch base on Mal 3 and then move to Mat23:23, Heb 7; tell people if Christ death paid only for some Mosaic laws or all! Let people get the picture of how people served God before Christ's death and ressurection, and a picture of how people did after the old law or former regulations were nullified or set aside. Teach people of God if or not there was any account that early Christians pay tithe and why was there no account. Teach people about freewill givings and why they should. There are loads of topics to get through within this subject, and those that I've listed is by no means everything.

None of your complaints are addressing new issues - they've all been well-discussed, and I can bear with your being a late-comer to the scene. However, it still does not make any sense to "start from Deuteronomy 14" - that is not even the first place where tithes are taught, so why begin half-way?

Allta:
Tell me, which half truth have I said now? Is the fact that Pastors create fears in Modern Christians about tithe half truth? Is the fact that most tithe paying Christians don't do it according to how it was written in the Bible half truth? Is the fact that Pastors don't use Deut or even Heb 7 to teach people on how to pay tithe half truth?

Please stop flailing. Your half-truth was highlighted about Christianity and religion - that's where I began, not your change of subject up there.

Allta:
Well, I don't see my 3 candid points as half truth, and definately the fact that Christianity transits religion as a half truth either! A way of life is definitely different from a Religion in my own sight. Ofcourse not all Christians practices Christianity(eg. 75% of people in the UK call themselves Christians, and only 10% attend churches), not all those who practices Christianity are indeed true Christians.

Please share the difference between a way of life and a religion as defined in james 1:27. Please, I beg you - share.

Allta:
I've said it before, let me say it again: It's not compulsory to be a Christian, it's not compulsory to go to Church, it's not compulsory to even believe in God, it's not compulsory to tithe, it's not compulsory to even accept the fact that tithing isn't compulsory. It's not compulsory to agree with me, or me to agree with you. It's not compulsory to be born again, a man can choose to live a life on earth that goes towards heaven, or hell! That's what makes our life a lot more interesting than non-humans, we've got choices! Those who want to pay Tithe should do so, and those who aren't inclined should be left alone in peace and not in fear of courses. This is my own take on this topic all along! But that doesn't mean the truth behind Tithe shouldn't be unveiled as per the topic title! There has been so much bible-quotings, and posts within this thread, so I will not waste anyones time, again.

It may help tremendously to read through what has been discussed before assuming anything.

Allta:
My prayer is that we wouldn't miss the most import thing in our Christian journey , destination:Heaven! God help us! Amen!

Amen.

@Allta,

Let me know this: do you want to know or you want to argue? I don't want to waste my time on non-essentials; but if you cough for an argument, I can clear my desk and devote time enough for you. Which is it?

That's alright, ogajim. I share your concerns. And no, I didn't use the word 'accusation' as if you were accusing me. I just don't like to be preoccupied with the 'negative' more than the 'positive'. Cheers.

Abuzola:
I gave you a similar instance of the Question you are asking, mind you i did not go too far to ask you where Catholic, protestant, jehoha witness, orthodox, evangelism etc where jesus said as well,

You're welcome to give examples, but it does not mean you have to dubiously quote your own example as if that was what I had posted. That is dishonest and does not demonstrate any intelligence or honesty on your part.

Abuzola:
Why do you people like tautology, Shiite, sunni etc never claim not to be muslim and i gave u an example, if i belong to Lion's club society or warefare society does that denounces my religion ? I bet you don't have fish brain so don't behave like one,

If you are having a hard time sorting out your fish-brain adventures, you don't need to make it obvious to others. But it seems you're marking time on the same pointless spot about your own tautology in posting pointless enquiries. Just in the same way that Shiite, sunni etc never claimed not to be muslim, so Catholics, Protestants etc never claimed not to be Christian. How does that worry you?

Lol, [coke-a-stic]. .
Well, I'm doing okay.

huxley2:
Naturalism is the doctrine that the natural world is all there is. That there are no non-natural entitties.

Thank you, huxley2. Could I keep that definition in mind until needs be in future?

Uche2nna:
One more reason why I think the thought that the presence of divergent species on this planet can be explained by random and spontaneous mutation of DNA sequences is the most [i]stupidest [/i]thought mankind have ever come up with.

I trowey salute O! Wetin happen - you dey vex when you type the highlighted?
How body sha?

ogajim:
PG.1,


Thank you, you have made my point.

Okay, no wahala.

ogajim:
Whatever I am doing now should be between me and God and not meant to be shared as the "pharisees" did but our Lord Jesus warned us against seeking the glory of men in our deeds so I will leave that alone.

Then why is it difficult for you guys to let others do what is between them and God? I'm not talking about 'pimps' now; but without the 'pimps', there are many believers who are inclined to tithe as a matter between them and God - so why is it too difficult to let them choose to demonstrate their love towards God as they have chosen for thmselves? If you cannot share whatever you're doing, don't you think something is terribly wrong in your demanding others should share what they're doing? Why ask about others when you feel constrained to keep your own from being queried?

ogajim:
I don't remember registering a company I mean church so building a school is kinda out of my reach for now but if that is his will for me, I will do that as well.

Since you didn't remember doing such, leave those who are doing it to carry on their work for God's sake. They also don't remember seeking your permission to effect what God called them to do.

ogajim:
The main thing here is educating others who felt it but didn't know what to make of the message, it's like reaching out to those who are under the "curse, bondage, trap, etc" to let them know they're not alone. It took a major move for me to review what I had been hearing and realizing that I was being taken for a ride ( and to the cleaners) so I had to hit the breaks and studied ( I will continue to) the standard operating manual he bequeathed to us - The Holy Bible.
We love you sister girl, no offense. Serve God only and may his grace be with you.

I also had a major move from an anti-tithing position to a tithing persuasion. What was more serious for me was the discovery that on both sides of the debate people have said very diabolic things across the fence, and on both sides people have lied. Rather than join any bandwagon to "educate" people with accusations and more falsehood, we can share with them simple issues, encourage them to tithe where they can, and let them make their choices freely - whether to do so or decline from doing so. Trying to constantly heckle tithers with unnecessary claims is bad enough for us as believers. What we can do is share to encourage, not constantly seek to justify unnecessary accusations and to be "busy-bodies in other people's affairs" (cf. 1 Tim. 5:13) - quite often, when asked to produce our own evidence for our own labours for God, there's nothing to show. We should be more of "do-ers" than mere "talkers, accusers," or "complainers".

No offences; but as you serve God, encourage others and let Him be glorified in all things.

Hallo omenuko,

Omenuko:
I should learn to acknowledge what, without feeling hurt?

Your response to faith69's post was inaccurate and misleading. Did faith69 say all of the "Christian sects" (orthodox and heretic) were part of the Catholic Church? No. . .what he posted was that the churches that you presented were all once part of the Catholic Church.

I understand how you feel and have been watching this thread grow. I hope my contributions and observations will not make things worse towards your feelings; but there's reason to believe that faith69 was not correct about that idea. There's more we can share about this - and this has been done sometime in 2007; but point still remains that faith69 was wrong.

Cheers.

Allta:
Na wa o!
See me see trouble oO! I can only speak for myself, and I'm not saying people should stop paying tithe. All I'm saying is there is no devourer to devour your pocket if one doesn't! That's the truth, and why do you Pilgrim of all people find it difficult to accept the truth!

What 'truth' have you shared that I find difficult to accept? What is your brand of spirituality that presents half-truths and hopes anyone should accept it or they qualify under your accusations? if you don't know something, ask! that's what people do, not make half-statements denying what your Bible teaches and complaining against others.

Allta:
BTW: Wether you quote scripture or not, Christianity transits religion, James 1:27 recognises that there are religions, but there is a Pure and Undefiled Religion. How many people in the world today practices this form of Religion, there are those who lie that God will curse you if you don't pay tithe as a Christian and that he will let devourer(devil) chop your pocket.

However you excuse that verse, it teaches you that Christianity is a religion. QED. Making excuses here and there is no better than denying that verse. Anytjhing you cannot identify with, you use 'tithes' as an automatic excuse to dust it under.

Allta:
Please don't quote scripture out of context, Christianity is more than just meeting in a building every particular days of the week, getting high and hyped and then going home to return to same building again. That's religion, Christianity is more than that.

Sorry you have no clue - my deep empathy. Did I ever anywhere define religion in the manner you have done? Just stop making cheap excuses - the Bible teaches that Christianity IS a religion. That is not something you can start haggling like the price of fish in the market.

Allta:
I for call you olodo if not for the so much contributions you've made in this forum.

You can call me whatever - it's your call, so welcome to do so anytime.

Allta:
Did James 1:27 said Christianity is a Religion? Emphatically NO! It simply defined a Pure and Undefiled Religion as this: Visiting Fatherless and widows in their afflictions; keeping oneself unspotted from the world! Where in this passage is Christianity mentioned!? Intellectual contributions is more than just googlesearching bible for key words, it means to be logical and clear on transmitting your points home, you should try it sometimes.

Sometimes I just wish you guys will grow up. So, just because you did not see the word Christianity there, you assume the verse has nothing to do with it? Does that verse not mention "God and the Father"? Which other religion in the world is presented as "BEFORE GOD AND THE FATHER" in the verse? You assume that I went Googling. . and yet you can't quote the webpage I stumbled on! So much for your magical intellectualism.

Allta:
These are my points:
1. Pastors should stop creating fears in modern Christians that if they don't pay tithe, they will be devoured and curses will be rained on them.

Not all tithe-preaching pastors teach that.

Allta:
2. Whoever wants to tithe, should do so as commanded in Deut 14:22-29

Why make a law for others - are you now the personal assistant of the Lord?

Allta:
3. Pastors should start teaching from Deut 14 on how to pay tithe for those who want to.

Is that the only chapter on tithing you find in the Bible? If not, WHY make a rule on that one chapter?

Half-truths is a dangerous and very religious thing - and you're doing that very same thing you are asking others not to do. Well done.

Allta:
It's a free world and people should be allowed to express what they believe, I've expressed my own, just like you've done!

Amen, and Amen. 

Honestly, ogajim, I'd wanted to ignore your post - because it seems of late that you guys are not interested in discussing but merely continuing a needless jingoism. Nothing personal, just that I don't want to keep harping on that issue as you guys often do. But having addressed me directly, this is what I've to say to your enquiry:

ogajim:
Those Gospel pimps and their agents are not interested in what the Bible teaches if you ask me, they can only continue to deceive those who are too lazy to study the Bible for themselves. I smile now when I hear them quote the now most popular verse in the Bible Malachi3:10 ( heard it this past Sunday again), knowledge is the KEY to stopping these guilt peddlers.
Ever wonder why the new incorporated "churches" don't have anything like elementary school, high school, clinic, etc that serves the poor like the old time "missionaries" did?

First, I wasn't discussing 'pimps' with you or anyone; and tithes and Christian giving are not all about 'pimps' either. I believe we can discuss the subject without using those ideas as necessary distractions. God will deal with those who abuse His grace as best He sees fit and at the right time - and that is enough for me.

Second, I'm not joining any party to constantly point accusing fingers at anyone. If it's your domain, I wish you well; but it doesn't promote anyone's spirituality - and for that reason, I'm not inclined to waste precious time on such matters, as I believe enough has been said about such things. The many relevant threads for discussing such problems are still there, and if you're feeling like it, please seek them out and enjoy.

Third, rather than complain against others and constantly accuse people, we can do better than whinge all day. We should have evidence of our own labour for the Lord Jesus Christ, not 'evidence' littered about with accusations. I've made mistakes in the past - but I'm maturing and growing in my walk with the Lord. So, instead of asking accusingly why some new 'churches' are not doing this, that and the other, you can help fill the gap yourself - you can start by producing your own evidence of "elementary school, high school, clinic, etc" and also evidence of serving the poor like the old time "missionaries" did. The evidence we're talking about here is not to hide behind a PC and knock two fingers typing on a keyboard - NO. We need hard evidence with real people and real addresses of an ongoing demonstration that we're producing the same things we complain are lacking in some churches. To keep complaining and having no evidence ourselves will only tend to the hypocrisy condemned in Matt. 23:2 - "for they say, and do not". I'm not inclined to be a cheap talker and complainer without any evidence of such things operating in my own life - and that's why I often these days do not like engaging in arguments where people are only interested in pointing accusing fingers. It does not make me any better than anybody else; but my apologies for not joining such tendencies.

ogajim:
I want to ask PG.1 a question, "what is the worth of Jesus' sacrifice on the cross for our sake?
Thank you and God bless you all.

Thank you and God bless you as well.

Nobody can quantify the worth of His sacrifice. Absolutely nobody. So asking me what that 'worth' is, only tends to be quite an ambitious question to undertake.

However, even though we cannot quantify the worth of His sacrifice for our sake, there are many blessings that come along with that vicarious sacrifice;

      * our sin is taken away and we are redeemed

      * through faith we are the children of God as well joint-heirs with Christ

      * the works of darkness is destroyed

. .  and most of all:

      * through His sacrifice, the Father was glorified.

There are more. But just because He gave Himself for us does not mean we automatically stop obeying His Word or stop giving of our offerings altogether. Whatever the case, I know for a fact that such a sacrifice was not made for our sakes so that we can be 'accusers of the brethren'. When people deem it their prerogative to justify accusing other believers brashly, they are demonstrating a disgrace to His sacrifice rather than thankful appreciation thereto.

Cheers.

KunleOshob:
With the risk of sounding arrogant i am quite certain that you know fully well in your heart that i am quite verse as far as this issue of tithes is concerned and that i can not be faulted biblically speaking by any human being that brains in his/her head.

Okay, please show us from your "quite verse" shakara where you find your "perfectly okay" tithes. That is all you need to show, stop making vacant eternal excuses and providing none.

KunleOshob:
That is the problem people tithe not becos their hearts are led to tithe but becos they have been deceived into beliving that God requested it from them, the money is meant for God, not doing it is a grievious sin, They would be "blessed" by doing it and they are believe they are giving to "GOD". As the topic of this passage implies pastors should tell their congregation the whole truth about tithes before allowing them to be "led" by the spirit of mamon to give their "tithes"

I see - you have already assumed your bias about everyone who tithes. No worries.

KunleOshob:
My exact point is what is highlighted in red above but today unfortunately it is not what the bible teaches that matters but what the pastor teaches or the pastor's twisted interpretation of what the bible teaches.

I'm sorry, but please do you mind refraining from excusing your ideas under my posts? I don't think we've been on the same page; and as far as I know, many people have said the same thing as in mine and pointedly appealed to you to let others be. I don't know where you ever heeded that call. But I have no problem here if you can take it on board now; but if you again turn around and won't let others be, the choice is also yours.

Abuzola:
Whether sunni, shiite, kadiriya, sufi etc, their religion is islam and they are muslim, do you have a problem with that or lets treat it this way

So you have nothing to show that any such word is in your Qur'an. But there again, do you have to lie in order to cover up for what you are not able to show? Why are you pretending to quote what I never said? Ah, I forgot - sometimes you have to lie as part of what you believe.

wisedge:
Five consecutive but meaningless posts from the same poster. This guy must be shamelessly jobless. Little wonder a lot of his ilk end up as suicide bombers. An idle mind is indeed the devil's workshop.

You don't expect to hold a rational discourse with someone who sees only himself in the universe.

Abuzola:
With my deepest concern i feel so sorry for u not able to discover any single christianity in d bible, don't cry please

Where are the words 'Shiite', 'Sunni', 'Sufi' and a dozen other Muslim denominations found in your Qur'an?

KunleOshob:
Even if you decide to define christianity as a religion, it's principles and practises are way different from other world religions and that does not justify the forcing in of twisted and false doctrines such as tithes, seed offerings, first fruit offerings, thanks giving offerings, faith offerings e.t.c borrowed from Judaism religion which were never taught by the apostles or christ. And before you start quoting scriptures were Paul asked christians to sow seeds kindly include the part were the purpose of the seeds was stated; and that was to take care of poor and needy christians unlike what our greedy and selfish preachers practise and teach today

I know you have no clue what you often try to argue but just like to occupy space. Let people do as their hearts are led - they didn't deep their hands into your pocket, nor did Christianity begin and end with you or me. Please. Even you up until tomorrow cannot show from Scripture the very tithes you called "perfectly okay", so what is all this wasteful talk that you keep pointing at others when you cannot show your own?

I didn't "decide" to define Christianity as religion - the verse I quoted was not penned down by me or any of my relatives. Open your own Bible to that verse and strike it out if you see "religion" there - it won't be anything new. No matter how you slice it, Christianity was called a RELIGION in that verse in your Bible and there's nothing you can do about it. The excuse you're making was not stated in my reply earlier. Christians can and should let others live their lives as they see what the Bible teaches, not because someone else is grumbling about what they hope should not be there.

jagunlabi:
I am sorry to dissapoint you,but none of these links provide any evidence that modern man have any clue as to how those pyramids were built.

@jagunlabi, there was no disappointment there. Actually, I had agreed with Pastor AIO in essence that the question of HOW the pyramids were built remains a mystery. Please read it again:

[quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=280962.msg4036252#msg4036252 date=1245154401]I'm inclined to share your view precisely. However, in looking through a few sources claiming the mystery has been 'solved', it does not seem that they're seeking to answer the basic question of HOW it was built (I may be wrong, though).[/quote]

jagunlabi:
I am sorry to dissapoint you,but none of these links provide any evidence that modern man have any clue as to how those pyramids were built.

[quote author=Mad_Max link=topic=280962.msg4037237#msg4037237 date=1245164592]And that's disappointing how? The pyramids were an aside, a mere example in a post that argues that progress is more 'cyclical' than linear.[/quote]Hehe. . Lol, Mad_Max. .     I no fit laugh! But thanks for taking that outa ma mouth!

@noetic2,

Thanks for your observations, and my apologies where I might have misunderstood you. However I still feel that even where someone makes a response and we try to be objective in considering their views, we could calmly reason with them. It may be 'true' in your view that KAG 'failed'; but that may not ncessarily be so for others who might read the sequence in her response. Having read and re-read her logical development, it seemed to me it would be unfair to just dismiss hers in such a manner.

In all this, it wasn't my intension to offend anyone other than make the observation that one could not anticipate a response that is wider than a clearly defined foregoing premise. If someone was to 'prove' something (in this case, an 'ontology'), the essential things we could not ignore are:

1. to acknowledge the fact that esensed 'has' an ontology

2. to then contextualize what sort of ontology we're talking about

3. and then focus on that particular ontology

If, on the other hand, esensed was not on the same page with KAG as regards 'ontology', it was up to the former (ie., esensed) to show what he meant before inviting further discussions from KAG or anyone else. This is where people like me would plead 'ignorant' for the moment as regards what exactly the OP had in mind. Certainly, you're been helpful in trying to rephrase the OP's request.

One thing is clear: there are DIFFERENT TYPES of 'ontologies' - and it was sensible of KAG to have first chosen a particular one that she thought related to the OP's quest and then reply accordingly. If the OP felt she'd missed it, it would be up to him to show what he meant nonetheless. If again the OP wanted KAG to apply the latter's response on someone/something else by extension, he was free to let KAG know - and then they can both take it on from there.

Certainly, you've communicated - but for some of us, there seem to be certain things being communicated in a vacuum. But let me comment on this:

noetic2:
How can KAG's assumption of esensed having an ontology be an evidence? evidence of what? This in my opinion is simple linguistic manipulation.

Your opinion is well respected; but for other readers like me, I would agree with KAG's 'assumption' and even go so far as to say that it was an astute statement - especially because she had explained the 'evidence' with pointers to "show that you [esensed] have the capabilities to be a dasein". The word 'evidence' is applied in various contexts to facilitate substance in an enquiry - it does not mean just one kind of 'evidence' for someone's bias. In simple terms, if the OP did not exist in any sense at all, he would not even be making any request in the first place. The fact that he does make a request (such as "please can you prove my ontology?" is 'evidence' in the philosophical sense that the OP has the capabilities of a dasein.

It's my desire to be as objective as possibly could be managed in reading anyone's input - which requires that I look at what is being said more than who says what. If someone seems to be making good sense in a particular discussion, my observations would not be affected either way by whether or not the person was a theist or an atheist.

I hope this helps in some way.

Pastor AIO:
Nobody is yet helping me with this my line of enquiry.

Is the bible to be taken literally or not. If not, then how is it to be interpreted.

No vex - I'd wanted to respond all along (I thought it was a brilliant topic, deep and refreshing); but my delay was because I'd hoped that others would be free to first come in and enjoy.

However, there are both literal and symbolic teachings in the Bible - we all know that; but the reason why I contextualize my answer thus is because the question (Is "the bible" to be taken literally or not) seems too wide to allow for balanced consideration. 'The Bible' was not given to be a
platitude of just one answer between 'yes' and 'no' - obviously, there are prophecies (for instance) that may be symbolic rather than literal; yet, in their fulfilment are literal.

Pastor AIO:
For example, was it known by all Jews that the commandment not to 'muzzle the ox while it treadeth' was not referring to oxen at all.

I don't know if all Jews knew that or took it in quite that determinative tone. Nonethless, it is obvious that many Jews applied both to oxen and human affairs/transactions. [Perhaps, when I visit the library this weekend, I'll consult some of the Jewish scholarly material that I'm familiar with and look up the subject for you].

Even so, let me leave you a sample of one I have in my notebook on my desk (emphasis mine):

[list]
But in any case, between the original command set down in Deuteronomy, which presumably was given originally out of concern for the proper care of oxen, and the application of the OT text and in 1 Corinthians 9, the text had passed through the grid of Jewish exegesis²⁷ to yield finally the analogy that Paul employs here. The argument works a fortiori, by applying the reasoning of the Torah concerning provision for working oxen to the situation of those laboring in the gospel ministry. In both Pauline texts, Paul followed or adapted the Jewish interpretation of the text and applied it to material support for those engaged in ministry.

[list]²⁷ This commandment had been a well of deeper meaning for rabbinical scholars (see StrB 3.382-99). It was used as a particular illustration of the “lesser to greater” logic that urged that God’s concern for animals implied far greater concern for the people (b. B. Mes. 88b; b. Git. 62a; 1 Cor 9:9; e.g., Philo, On the Virtues 145; see additional refs. in Knoch, 40). Pharisaic interpretation apparently deduced from this text a broader principle: oxen stand for all species of labor including that of humans (D. I. Brewer, “1 Corinthians 9:9-11: A Literal Interpretation of ‘Do Not Muzzle the Ox,’” NTS 38 [1992]: 554-65), and Paul may have drawn on this halakic rule instead of engaging in creative midrash himself.[/list]

source: The letters to Timothy and Titus By Philip H. Towner, p. 365[/list]

I hope that would be helpful for now.

Pastor AIO:
Is the meaning of any text singular or can numerous various meanings be extrapolated from a text?

Several meanings can indeed be extrapolated from a text - and there are several examples in both the OT and NT. As in the example above in Deut. 25:4 and Paul's use of that verse in both 1 Cor. 9:9 and 1 Tim. 5:18, we see how Paul derived some meaning from the 'treading ox' and applied it to support for ministers of the Gospel. I understand that the principle in this strand of Jewish interpretation follows thus: 'from the lower to the higher' - and it may well have been used by the Lord Jesus Himself when the Jews had issues with Him for healing a man on the Sabbath:

And he said unto them,
What man shall there be among you, that shall have one sheep,
and if it fall into a pit on the sabbath day, will he not lay hold on it, and lift it out?
How much then is a man better than a sheep?
Wherefore it is lawful to do well on the sabbath days.
~~ [Matthew 12:11-12]

Cheers.

[quote author=Mad_Max link=topic=280962.msg4036342#msg4036342 date=1245155672]"Is there a world of spirit behind matter?"
I'm reading the Isaac Heysinger article. Fascinating.[/quote]You're giving me goose pimples!
Lol, I also thought that was quite fascinating.

@noetic2,

Bros, how body?

I don't think it would be fair to have stated this, though:

noetic2:
In one breadth the poster's request that u prove his ontology is an admission of his being an entity that can be ontologically defined, yet u failed woefully to ontologically define him.

My worry here is this: it would be unfair to say that the respondent (KAG) had 'failed woefully' or even 'failed' at all. For me, I think it was a very intelligent response she made; and anyone could plainly see how she developed her response - apt, precise, logical, smooth, and connected. The problem, though, was that you had hoped she would by extension make the same application to "a God who does not exist and as such cannot produce words". Honestly, it would sound to me like anticipating what was wider than the response she was supposed to have given in regards to the OP's request.

This, I suppose, is a simple logical sequence:

[#1]. the OP states a premise

[#2]. a respondent gives comment - based on the OP's premise and not wider than that

[#3]. if the OP would like to add more or develop his premise from the comment offered. .

[#4]. . . then the respondent addresses what's new or the development thereto.

There's no gainsaying the fact that #4 was well observed in the respondent's comments; example:

KAG:
P.S. If you have any questions or need me to be clearer in some part, then please don't hesitate to ask. I'll get on it as soon as I can.

One cannot anticipate a response that is wider than a stated premise - it would be. . er. . prove disastrous for the discussant who expects to go down that route.

These are just my observations, and I'm quite open and happy to be corrected. Enjoy.

Pastor AIO:
I didn't think that way the pyramids were built has been unravelled yet. I thought that was still a mystery. Can you give us any links to look it up?

I'm inclined to share your view precisely. However, in looking through a few sources claiming the mystery has been 'solved', it does not seem that they're seeking to answer the basic question of HOW it was built (I may be wrong, though). Sample:

        ● Mystery of the pyramids solved with stars  -  [ABC News in Science]

        ● Great Pyramid Mystery to Be Solved by Hidden Room? -
           [National Geogrpahic News, Nov. 14, 2008]

        ● Mystery of Great Pyramid 'solved' - [BBC News Online]

This is an interesting discussion so far, and let's not all go off on a tangent (abeg all of us).

@wirinet,

There's something I'd like to ask you on this argument:

wirinet:
I had already said in another thread and argument with you that to me Atheism is not Science, but said Science is Atheism. Lots of people disagreed with me, maybe because i put it too strongly, so i will rephrase it to Science supports atheism. I took the pains to highlight three main "facts" of your religion with God at the center as against three main "facts" of science without a God, explaining the creation of the universe, the earth and life. The scientific explanation supports Atheism rather than Theism.

What do you understand as atheism that you're dragooning "science" to be in support of?

To me your argument is not cogent enough to make an informed statement as yet (pls I don't mean this in an accusative manner). I'd just like for you to first explicate what exactly you mean by atheism, before you begin to say that "Science supports atheism" or that "The scientific explanation supports Atheism". It already sounds like you have come round to see that atheism is also a worldview with a "belief" as well; the only thing is that you're looking for 'science' to support it. So, what do you understand as "atheism" before trying to prop it up with some sort of 'support'?




_{[this would be interesting indeed - it just shows that some people either don't yet understand what they're arguing or are desperate to argue for their own worldview like it's some cherished 'religion' while at the same time arguing it is not]}

This is quite interesting. Just yesterday we had a light-hearted discussion on something along the lines of living one's life despite all odds. Someone among us who's been a bit reserved and just smiling all along finally made this observation: it's interesting that in well-known places around the world, there's always a Nigerian connection in the frontline of those who are recognized in ministry and other endeavours. I thought for a moment (as I'd not contemplated the matter previously) - just what did he mean?

he went on to mention some names, including T. D. Jakes in USA and the Igbo-connection; Matthew Ashimolowo in the UK and the Yoruba-connection, and Umaru Yar'Adua in Nigeria and the Hausa-connection!

You can imagine our raised eyebrows at the last mentioned (Yar'Adua). How does Yar'Adua have anything to do with ministry? The gentleman smiled and quipped:

[list]You dis 'christians' sef, na wah for una!
Una tink say the word 'ministry' is connected with only una religion? Wait.
Even politicians sef dem dey do 'ministry' and 'prophecy' - broaden your minds:
na Nigerian politicians dey see "visions" pass -
na de same Nigerian politicians gee us "Vision 2020" and "Vision 2010";
and Yar'Adua sef na 'general overseer' for ALL the ministries in naija -
'ALL' bar none (especially 'Ministry' of Finance).[/list]

Hmm, who could argue with him?

dalaman:
The bible as we know today it today was put together through the votes of the catholic bishops about 300 years after the death of Jesus. The bible as we know it was put together by the catholic bishops and without them and what they did we would have no bible, They also choose the names to give to the gospels(apostolic traditions). Go study a little history.

@dalaman,
Bros, Catholics did not write the Bible - so all this idea that without the Catholic Bishops we would have no Bible is a bit too presumptuous.