₦airaland Forum

I'd skip to the last major paragraph of your post where you asked a question for space. If you want me to address those other issues you raised i would do so.

I have only one question to ask here. With your total belief that your exposed to the word of God and highly intellectual in it, what are the chances of you making heaven before the iya alata or baba eleran who goes to church to serve God whether in the Rcc or aladura church? In as much as you can quote certain parts of the scriptures to buttress your point, doesnt that also make you a proffessor of faith? because apart from your constant criticism, you havent shown me anything apart from the word of God which you so loving like to remind us that your well versed in. Your not God and while i might appreciate you correcting me on some issues, you don't hold the ace to determine who goes to heaven and how or why or when he or she does so just because he reads the bible.

Sorry if i come across wrongly, but my goal is never to let people know that i'm versed in the bible and they are not. I don't think that's anyone's goal on here. I wouldn't trivialize a knowledge of the scriptures as though it were a non-issue, however, i wouldn't presume that knowledge alone is what is important. Obviously, before one can be a doer of the word, one has to first know that word. Knowing is not wrong, it is not doing what you know that is wrong. However, if one does not even know at all, then of course one cannot walk in those things.
And yes, it is true that i do not hold the ace to determine who'd go to heaven. However, i would like you to consider some issues with me:
      ~ is there such a thing as false doctrine?
      ~ is believing and accepting false doctrines harmless to an individual or do they have any consequence?
      ~ is there a clear message of salvation as outlined by the bible and that is not stated anywhere else?
      ~ is it possible for that message to be misrepresented, misunderstood or mistaught?
      ~ if one believes a wrong / different gospel from the one Christ clearly taught, does it matter?
      ~ did Jesus make exclusive claims as regards salvation and heaven?
      ~ did Jesus warn us to be careful lest any man decieve us?
Those are the issues that matter to me in my discussions. There are some things that should be taken very seriously and with which we should be very careful about. It is because some of us have been confronted with those issues (by yet some other people in the past) that we now also do same.
"Since, then, we know what it is to fear the Lord, we try to persuade men."
Cheers

Trust me my friend, the word of God is just one and it says there is a GOD, his only begotten son called Jesus christ and his mother was mary. Now i don't see any thing adulterated from what i just recited that is probably different from what is in your own bible. Whether you call it the kings james version or the rcc missal or whatever, it's just a book and remains a book until you commit the scriptures to your heart and act accordingly. Does the so called adulterated bible of the Rcc promote murders, lies, cheating and what ever have you? You might say at this junction that the vatican promoted the killing of this in 1533 or 1750 or so, but it's just the work of humans not the word of God. So please make a strong distinction between which bible is better than the other. They are just bloody books hanging on the shelves until you commit it to your heart and pray to God to help you understand his teachings so as to recieve his blessings.

Nice. I notice the fact that you were as minimal as possible in your reference to the word of God .
Anyways, first you misunderstand me; I wasn’t even talking about different bibles , although there indeed are some differences (eg the apocrypha), I was talking about doctrine . Second, I’ve never mentioned the past atrocities of the Vatican – believe me that’s not really my issue, my issue is the present spiritual condition of those who fellowship therein.
Having said that, do consider my point. The bible is not as minimal as you put it up there, LOL. It’s actually very comprehensive. Why? Because God wanted us to have a detailed rule-book that addressed everything relating to spirituality, such that if any one were to say something contrary to the biblical account, you’d have to desist from such. Now, of course it’s not every single line of the bible that one must believe in order to be a Christian. However those core issues must not be shortchanged. Take for instance, the core issue of justification . Note that this is something as basic and foundational as the gospel; for the very message of the gospel clearly includes the teaching on justification.
(Now I’m sorry in advance if what I would quote here from RCC would offend you or anyone – those are the very same reasons I don’t really post too much here. However, the truth must be told).
Let’s see how the biblical doctrine of justification stands with respect to the RCC on the said justification. A few quotes from the book of Romans:
“and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.” Rom 3; 24
“he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.” vs 26
“For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law” vs 28
“However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness.” 4:5
“"The words it was credited to him" were written not for him alone, but also for us, to whom God will credit righteousness—for us who believe in him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead” 23-24
“Therefore, since we have been justified through faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ,” 5:1

Now, I posted all those scriptures to make one point – from the bible, it is CRYSTAL CLEAR that any man is justified (pronounced righteous) merely by faith in Christ alone (and not on the basis of anything the man does).

Now what is the RCC statement / doctrine on the very same issue, here’s just one quote (there are others):

"If any one saith, that justifying faith is nothing else but confidence in the divine mercy which remits sins for Christ's sake; or, that this confidence alone is that whereby we are justified; let him be anathema. " (Canon 12, Council of Trent).

Can you see the clear contradiction? Now, according to the RCC, any person who chooses to believe the true gospel (according to the scriptures) rather than what they have determined to be the gospel is under a curse. Again, sorry to say, but the person who goes to the RCC, thinking he is going to hear the true Word of God, is sincerely wrong, because he would be hearing a different gospel from that which the bible teaches (the priests are not exempt from that anathemas, so they CANNOT teach what is contrary to RCC doctrine). Now we are not even talking about Mary here nor any other peripheral issue – we are talking about the gospel . Do you get my point? Obviously, the doctrine of justification by faith will NOT be preached in any RCC except that priest wants to be ex-communicated. Is it because it isn’t TRUE? No. It’s because it isn’t in accordance with what the RCC accepts and teaches as doctrine.
The curse is not even my main problem – as sad as that may be, it’s the fact that many people will not hear the true gospel because they have prohibited it from being taught as truth.
Again, my apology for pointing this out, but this is a very serious issue, and these are the things that grieve my heart when I think and pray about my catholic friends. I did not write that quote; you can clearly verify it yourself. I am aware that many Catholics do not know this and indeed, they do not know very many things about the organization that they so sincerely devote their allegiance to. That’s why we’ve been trying to implore you guys to scrutinize those things you have accepted and been taught more carefully. That is just ONE of very many things that one can easily point out here on a cursory look at the scriptures and Roman Catholic doctrine.

I won't go into detail about what the catholic doctrine on the Mass is - which is another very serious issue. All in all, I'm just trying to make a simple point - and i hope it's not lost on the readers in the many words.

Firstly you talk of an allegiance. Is it a crime to pledge allegiance to something you believe in and trust? Just the way various protestant churches pay allegiance to their churches and pastors which i have no qualms with, why single out the Rcc alone as a set of people paying allegiance to the church? I guess you do attend a church and your proud of your church and what it teaches you. Isnt that a form of allegiance to that church? Why don't you shift churches every sunday just because you want to hear the word of God?

Sincerely I admire your sincerity – and I can easily see the sincerity of a lot of catholic folks on here. In one of my earlier posts to you, i've addressed the issues you raised here. Its not a crime to pledge allegiance to something you believe in and trust. Let me explain – my question was; who owes your allegiance? Let me use myself as an example. If I have been attending a certain church and all of a sudden the pastor introduces a teaching that I know clearly contradicts what Christ taught, how do you think I’d react? I’d try to confront the pastor and if he does not budge, I’d leave. Paul made a very important statement as regards following people:
“Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.” ICor. 11.1
In other words, your allegiance to a person or an organization, as a Christian, is only valid and warranted insofar as that person or organization is explicitly following Christ. If the person or organization strays in its teachings or practices from Christ, then that person ceases to be a pattern to be followed. When the RCC clearly disregards and teaches contrary to the words of Christ as has been shown, will be shown now and will continue to be shown later, one has to really reconsider. Obviously no one can force anything on anyone, the best we can do is counsel one another.

Also you talk of if the mariolalatry tendencies were removed, there would still be problems. First thing you have to understand, the mariolatory tendences of the catholic church will never be removed from the catholic church. The best thing that can happen is to make it conform with mordern times and expunge some parts which contemporary thoughts will assume to be repugnant. The whole issue of praying to mary and worshipping it could be interpreted by millions of people to mean a million different things but to say i as a person go to the rcc to pray to mary all day is not true.

I made the statement that there would still be problems even if Mariolatry was expunged because presently there are many other teachings and practices in the RCC that are wrong and no less grievous. Although Pilgrim.1, i guess so as not to be too sweeping, decided to focus mainly on Mariolatry in her posts here on nairaland, that is not the only thing that is wrong with the RCC. There are many other doctrinal issues, and later in this post I would still illustrate just one of them. Thus, my point has not really been on those peripheral things, my point has been about the core issues that I asked about. What place does the Word of God hold in relation to catholic doctrine? What carries more weight – church tradition or the Scriptures? Again, I’ve addressed this issue in an earlier post of mine and that is what I believe lies at the root of the problem.
Thus, even though a lot of things about Mariolatry have been exposed on this thread; the question one should then ask is, in the light of the clear scriptural injunctions that have been referenced in discussing the subject, “do Catholics even agree that the place the RCC has accorded Mary is not in agreement with the scriptures?”
A lot of people could interpret it in different ways; however the fact still remains that many attributes and appellations that have been accorded Mary by the RCC are just not biblical. I never did say Catholics prayed to Mary all day; in fact I’ve not even said many things on this thread because I wanted to restrain myself.
The issue I have confined myself to is that Mariolatry is a symptom of a much deeper problem. There are other symptoms – purgatory, mass, sacraments, etc that are also very serious. The question one should be asking is “why all these doctrines?”

Besides the history of protestant churches shows that there has been a major paragrim shift from the modus operandi from the days of the lutherians and the calvinist to mordern day benny hinn or oyakhilome and in the next 20 years, new things will evolve and things that don't conform with the teachings in protestant churches will give way too. The way the catholic church was 300 years ago or so, is not the same way it is being practiced in a lowly catholic church somewhere in idumota or in saotome. When you keep on lumping the activities of the past churches and present times worship, your making a grave error. The only constant thing is change from the doctrine but not a change from the word of God.

True. There have been lots of changes in the protestant churches. However I disagree that there has been a major paradigm shift – it’s still the same importance placed on the word of God. Ever since the reformation, there has been a progressive restoration of the body of Christ into an experience of all the Truth contained in scripture, and by God’s grace that restoration process will culminate in the “perfect man” (Eph. 4;13) at His coming. Those changes, to a high degree, have NOT been about false doctrines being taught and later modified, but about people getting into a higher level of understanding of Truths that have always been in Scripture. For example, baptism of the Holy Spirit has always been in the bible; yet people did not understand and come into an experience of that biblical truth until the beginning of the 20th century. Those who experienced those truths moved on into a new phase of God’s restoration in the church – while those who did not accept it stayed back.
Again, I have not concerned my self with past atrocities of the RCC (not that it is a non-issue), but with the present teachings.

@Lawyer,
Before i reply to the main issues, let me address the initial points you raised.
First, i really don't believe i "laced (my post) with sugar coated insults" - at least that wasn't my intention. Perhaps i need to mention that pointing out erroneous statements in expressed reasoning is not insult. I usually try to distinguish the person i'm addressing from the post itself and i see them as two seperate entities. I didn't say you were stupid or anything; i only pointed out a particular logic in one part of your post - that, to me, is not an insult. However since you consider it to be one i apoligize and would desist from such when discussing with you.

You pointed out an error i made - true, i made a mistake. Sorry about that. In my mind i meant to say the plaintiff and THE ACCUSED (rather than the prosecutor and the plaintiff). I believe this correction obviously is what parallels with your post - you also seemed to have noticed that that was what i meant. That said, although my analogy might not have been very apt, my point was: pointing out someone else's atrocities does not constitute "doing the same thing you abhor" except it is done with the aim of blackmail or slander; which i don't believe is the case here.
However, like i said in that post - that is NOT the main issue i was after.
I'd again address the main issues in more detail now.
(It is NOT my intention to inundate you with long posts, however i notice that it is usually better to be detailed in one's posts sometimes.)

drrionelli:
To those who write that marriage was sanctioned by a deity, how do you address those whose beliefs are not in that same deity? Also, what about those who believe in no deity?

I don't really get your question; 3 different things are coming to my mind. Do you mean that those people are not allowed to believe that marriage is sanctioned by a diety? Or that they should discountenance such beliefs when dealing (discussing) with people of other viewpoints? Or that what allowance does their belief framework make for people of differing positions?
if you could clarify it would help. Cheers

yeh ! posts = 419 . . .

[quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=53890.msg1647140#msg1647140 date=1194124287]My Yoruba don rusty no be small! [/quote]nor mind me jare; i still dey speak the thing every blessed day.

You no see how rascal I be? Was supposed to be in classes today. . . "lekshurer" left a note yesterday he was off sick! (and them no go refund person money O!) So, I say make I unwind small for Nairaland jare!

Abeg you need am. If e no happen, our friends for don dey shut our mouths with them 'biblical discoveries' and 'Mo(saw) in the bible' mysteries .
I suppose dey lab today meself - but, i need this saturday off; those expts go wait till next week.
Trust your exam preps are going well - enjoy

@Pilgrim,
thanks. I've been enjoying your inscriptions on gold.

BTW, as per the yoruba thingy, although the letter 'p' is pronounced 'kpi', it is written as 'p' . . . .
true talk; you don miss naija.
Cheers .

anyways, back to the question at hand . . . we still dey wait.

olabowale:
I know what may be considered to be true in the Bible: If it agrees with the premise of whatever about it is in the Qur'an.

bros Olabo,
If we were to look at this statement critically, it's obvious that it begs the question. If a christian were to also make the same statement - that the Qur'an is false in that it disagrees with the bible - you guys will not accept it.
But, if you really try to be objective, which is what i love when dealing with people, you can clearly see the contradiction in what you have written up there. The Qur'an does not have any "premise" as regards any biblical truth; your premise needs to come before your conclusion - if the conclusion has already been reached there CANNOT be another 'premise' - this is true from Mathematics to philosophy. Any other 'premise' that contradicts any of the terms of the initial statements that led to the conclusion that was reached is usually discarded.
In so far as the bible was in its completion before the Qu'ran, then the latter should be weighed on the basis of the truth of the bible and NOT vice versa.
Revelation is progressive - if a latter revelation disagrees with a former one - whilst still making reference to AND drawing its authority from the former one, objectively speaking, which is to be retained and which is to be discarded?
Of course, as I'm writing this, i already can anticipate your reply - that the bible was corrupted and all that. However, again, if you want to be objective, it can cleary be shown that that is NOT the case - the manuscript evidence for the bible (in which the earliest extant copies can be dated to as early as the early 2nd century) is overwhelming; and objectively, such a claim should not even be entertained.
Anyways, just wanted you to ponder on that point. Have a nice day. Cheers

^{Disclaimer: this is sarcasm}

davidylan:
these same "questions" again?

Lol . . . why are you shocked? From babs' perspective, those questions are your worst nightmare!!

_{hope i don't dream about those "questions" tonight}

Em, smile
on what basis are you making such a demand? Do you ban people for having a different viewpoint - or for expressing their different viewpoint(s)?

Men, i've been trying my best to ignore, but . . . could questions get more ridiculous than this:

babs787:
1. Was Moses given the the book of Genesis to Malachi??

I mean, heck!!
Or am i missing something?

I saw this post earlier and earmarked it as one i would love to reply to; sorry it's late but here goes.

@lawyer, carlosein and others,

ok i get your point that you guys are totally pissed with the whole mary interceding for catholics concept designed by the vatican and as one commentator on this board put it succiently, without the issue of mary as the fore runner of the catholic faith, there would be no Rcc.

Ok, let’s read on.

But look deeply again, if the mariotary tendences were totally expunged as you crave for, does that mean people would no longer go to the catholic church and hear the word of God ? You guys make it sound like 24/7 catholics only talk about mary interceding and they don't read their bibles and do other things that the bible tells us to do.

First, “mariotary (sic) tendencies” isn’t the only problem with the catholic church – it is much deeper than that. Obviously, you can't just wave it aside as though it were trivial. However, concerning the RCC, at its core, it’s an allegiance problem – who is at the center of worship in the RCC? What is the central yardstick for the determination of doctrine? Those are the real questions. Thus, if Mariolatry tendencies were removed, there would still be problems – its like when an organization needs a whole paradigm shift, or a reform, a lot of things would have to be changed such that, at the end of the day, there would be no semblance with the original entity. The core problem is the what I outlined in bold – the Word of God is not the core allegiance of the RCC. When somebody tried to champion a cause for the Catholic Church to return to the scriptures – I assume you are aware with the theme of the reformation; “sola scriptura” – he was excommunicated, because the RCC does not accept that the scriptures are the sole basis for doctrine. Thus, you can see that there is a core issue that makes one stand apart and say; ‘come out of this organization’. The foundation of the Word is the only foundation given to man to build on – any other foundation is faulty; and if the foundations are destroyed . . . .
So when you say "hear the Word of God" i have to say; "which Word of God" - the RCC version? the adulterated version? which?
You cannot treat a disease by symptomatic treatment - it can only ameliorate the situation - you have to address the cause. Why the Mariolatory and other problems? If the catholic church clearly addresses its foundation - which i doubt is possible - then there would cease to be such a loud outcry.
Beyond that, I have to disagree that Catholics read their bible; I’ve been there before so I know. A few people do, but they do so with the background mindset that the bible is not that important, that there are some ‘traditions’ that must be upheld (even where they are at clear loggerheads with what is written) – what do you expect such a mindset to produce in you? If one were to carefully go through the bible independent of any outside persuasion, it wouldn’t take long for one to discover how much the practices of the RCC are at variance with the scriptures. All I’m saying is – it’s not a peripheral problem, it’s a core problem.

Besides, 85% of catholics don't even know what your talking about the past speeches of the popes dead and present and the politics of the vatican. They are just interested in the masses they attend and the thanksgiving at the end. So much of these intellectual speeches about the rcc, doesnt really hold water in a typical african catholic church. Just the way an american protestant church has it's ways and dealings of it's church, is totally different from the way african protestant ministers operate. The key word amongst both churches is that, they believe in God and christ is our saviour and we all want to go to heaven. They mode and manner we all achieve our final aspiration using the bible as a footnote is left to each individual to pursue.

First, ignorance is bliss – but it’s never a justifiable excuse. We as human beings have a responsibility to find things out, to test things, to ask questions. Sorry to say, but the way the book of proverbs describes the simple , especially in chapter one, does not leave it to be desired. Furthermore, the fact that the majority of people don’t know about it is not a license to continue in ignorance. One is accountable for the knowledge he receives – what about the ones that have heard about those things and still don’t care?
Now where the issue really gets dicey is that it is easy to mouth the “I believe in God, Jesus is our savior”. Some people will even take it very far and say “hey we are all serving the same God it is only that we take different routes” – such statements are easy to make but they don’t really hold water. That is why I believe Jesus clearly differentiated between the professors of faith (those who call him Lord, Lord) from those that actually walk in the faith. If your allegiance is not clearly to the word and you allow yourself to be swayed and thus deceived by another man’s (false) doctrine – you do not have an excuse (eph 4). So, merely making such professions and having wishes to go to heaven is not enough – Jesus clearly said the road is narrow, and the onus is on one to “examine himself to see if he is in the faith” (1Cor 13; 5). It is very clear that the RCC doctrines on as core an issue as salvation is markedly different from what the bible teaches. Furthermore, that said, one has to “continue in him” (Col 2: 5-6) – so even if one started on the right path and you suddenly discovered that you’ve strayed, one need to retrace his steps.

All these criticisms against the rcc is just over the top and mind you, we are all learning and sharing experiences about the best mode and manner to seek eternal life, be it the buddists, muslims, tibetan monks, protestants or rcc faithfuls. The pope is just human like everyone else and the chances of you making heaven before him is known to only God. So let's shealth our swords and spread the gospel and stop picking on fellow christians. It's this kind of put down syndrome that people of other faiths poke and make fun of christianity as not being a united front.

I’d ignore the fact that you robed all sorts of religions with totally different viewpoints together (I guess that’s the banner of ecumenism eh?).
The issue that we should point out is that, we are actually spreading the gospel – if you believe, for example, as a catholic that by saying the rosary you have escaped hell (or purgatory) and would enter heaven, does such a one actually think that by attaching (like a handbag) Jesus to that false doctrine, he has believed the gospel? Does such a one not need the gospel? Would preaching the gospel to such a one not entail pointing out the erroneous belief?
My real problem is: why do people think that ‘unity’ demands that we cannot speak the truth? Does unity connote uniformity? Furthermore, can two irreconcileable extremes be united? Paul was not in disunity with Peter, yet he was still able to correct the latter when he was in error. In fact, there cannot be true unity without a willingness to speak the truth and correct one another; in the absence of that you can only attain a mere façade of unity.

While you might go on about the excesses of the rcc and it's flagrant abuse of history and cover ups and pointing accusing fingers at everything catholic, remember your also doing the same thing that you aborh so much about the catholic church by also propagating and castigating another religious organization. 2 wrongs don't make a right and health discuss shouldnt be confused with mock me down syndrome.

Now bros, this isn’t very good reasoning here. I assume you’re a lawyer: when did the prosecutor and the plaintiff become guilty of the same crime? You did not deny those crimes, yet you’re accusing the one who points out the crime as being likewise guilty – in what court does that line of accusation hold?
That said however, that is not the main issue – but a mere diversion, the real problem here is not a history problem, it’s a present problem – it’s not merely an atrocity issue (not that they don’t exist – but they probably don’t affect the majority of catholics) it’s the doctrinal issue (a foundational issue) – rather than an issue of past atrocities committed – that affects the majority of Catholics, and that’s what we’re concerned about. The catholic church might not be killing people now (physically) but a lot of people are being spiritually starved by being fed with erroneous doctrines – that’s the core issue; not the past atrocities of the Vatican. You can’t be eating poisoned food and expect to be healthy at the end – it doesn’t work that way.

P.s: what happened to the freedom of religion as expounded in the 1999 constitution of Nigeria?

Has this stopped being a mere discussion forum? Have people been prevented or constrained from keeping their religions? Ultimately what we can do for each other is to offer the Truth, it is the prerogative of every individual to accept or reject. Cheers

Now what I actually don't agree with some peoples "proof" of God's existence based on their own subjective experience. This is like when people say "I know God exists because I have believed in Christ and read the Bible and I have seen the power of God in my life". My argument is this is a spiritual experience, other religious people of different beliefs may share similar experiences. So you may as far as your life say yes definitely God exists, but that does not make it a universal truth. By that I mean your belief is no proof of the existence of God.

Hopefully I wouldn’t write such a long piece now. Let me come straight all at once – subjective belief can never be ‘proof’ of anything.
The issue of ‘proving’ God’s existence is one I don’t really try to indulge myself in. Strictly speaking, it is hard if not impossible for one person to prove God’s existence to another person especially if the object is not willing to entertain the possibility of God’s existence. It becomes even more complicated when one thinks of what the object might be willing to accept as “proof” for God’s existence – the answer to this would vary as much as there are queries. Amazing as it may sound, some people still entertain the notion that we physical humans are an object of each other’s imagination and thus not real – thus to them, that human beings exist is not a proven fact. However, we can discountenance such extremes.
In the case you mentioned, the question that should be answered is; is what the person claimed true? Is it true that the said one experienced something supernatural? If it is, then there has to be an explanation for that event that goes beyond the subjective experience of that person ie there has to be a universal (or at least an objective) explanation for the subjective experience. Now if the one with the experience goes further to give his own explanation, you as an observer, who has not experienced such might not accept his explanation – it is even probable the person has no explanation, that however does not rule out the need for a universal explanation, again, if the experience is true.
Ruling out the validity of the experience based on the fact that other people (albeit with different mindsets – being, in this case, different religions) have experienced the same and yet proffer differing views on the experience is not a valid way of ruling things out. One has to first show that it is indeed the same experience that they all share, and even if that is shown, one has to entertain the possibility of perception error – in which at least one of them could be right and the others are falsely interpreting what they experienced. Pardon me to use a biblical example – in Acts 9, Saul and some others had a spiritual experience. Paul had a complete experience – he saw a light and saw Jesus and heard him, but the others, who were with him, heard the sound but did not see anyone. If the latter decided to found a religion based on their experience – their experience being true – they would still be false in their interpretation of that experience because they did not have the full (or the correct) revelation of / concerning the Truth in/of that experience. Got my point? Beyond that though, the universality of a truth does not necessitate acceptance of that truth – it still boils down to the willingness of the person to accept the validity of the claim.
However, that said, I believe there are other, albeit more objective (and collective) approaches that can lead us to conclusions in which the existence of God is indeed necessitated; several arguments have been posited – design, cosmological, moral, ontological, transcendental etcetera which in most cases are consistent with the rules of logic (which we all can relate to) and the fair person I believe can find them sufficient.

Yes you are right in saying that the God you believe in may exist, but your reasoning may be based on personal experience that could be intepreted differently by someone of a different disposition. So isn't it possible that you see things that way due to factors like upbringing, exposure to certain emotional stimuli, predispostion towards religion. Would love to read your comments again.

I think I’ve addressed many of the points here already. So having said all those, I guess you can make inferences as to what does it for me in believing that God exists, I’ve mentioned many – however, I’ve not mentioned the most important one – probably because it might not be easy to discuss / explain – and that has to do with the capacity for absolute knowledge. My knowledge of God is spiritual; and true spiritual knowledge is absolute i.e. there exists the ability to know things with certainty; this is in sharp contrast with mere mental knowledge which only deals with probabilities. In other words, God has the ability to make man absolutely certain of Him; and that is what really does it for me. Again, I wouldn’t offer this as an argument – only as an answer to a query. However, like I was still discussing with an Indian colleague in the lab today, the God-question is one that is innate – there is a universal, subjective quest for God – it can be suppressed or nurtured either by the individual, by environment and so on – but ab initio, it had been there . Cheers.

Tasma:
@ ricadelide
Thanks for replying. First the point of my post was not to prove whether there is God or not. I have not actually said at any point in my post that a Creator does not exist.

Ok, i understand. Thanks for your nice rejoinder as well.

What I believe is that it might be out of our (sorry my    cognitive powers to have a proper perception of God. The existing religious books seem to deal more in a concept of spirituality as they probably should. Hence I can understand the message and lessons in the Bible but I certainly do not take it as a literal book that can be criticised in a scientific manner.

Pardon me for scrutinizing your premises in detail – believe me, I didn’t intend to write this long.
In your second statement you seem to draw a contrast – although you didn’t specifically say so, you seemed to allude that religious books tend to dwell on spirituality but do little or nothing to advance our perception of God. While I might agree with you to an extent that an ordinary human’s cognitive powers may not be able to attain an accurate perception of God, I need to make some clarifications as far my understanding of the subject goes.
If there is a supreme being (which, I assume is an issue you aren’t contesting), considering that we do not physically see that being, any knowledge of that being that can be attained is such as that being chooses to reveal of himself, in other words, truth as regards (a) God cannot arise from man, it has to arise from God – if you want me to, I can dwell on this point in more detail for it is very crucial. Thus there’s is a need for revelation of God to man, in order for man to perceive Him.
By default, the creator cannot be under the spec of observation of / by the creature – except the creator chooses such – either way, there has to be something that God does or reveals before man can know him. And even if man were to dwell merely at the stage of the former (ie observation of his acts) then there remains the possibility of perception error, because actions can be misinterpreted. Thus the point still remains that God has to reveal himself.
Furthermore, you tried to make the point that our collective progression as humans would ultimately lead us to a position of greater understanding as regards issues relating to the divine. Concerning such a premise, I differ considerably. By definition (as I outlined above) man’s efforts – largely independent of and in defiance to God – can not lead him (even as collective humanity) to understanding absolute, universal truths – he may theorize, he may posit models and all, but lending him more time and collective effort only adds to his problems rather than solves them – the best man can do is delude himself; by accepting as true something which appears to be true and seems to fit all the observations but yet is false. Even if in all his theorizing he stumbles on truth, he cannot be sure of it – for absolute certainty is beyond him – and thus the ‘truth’ is unprofitable to him.

That said, the question then is, if that God reveals Himself, would that revelation be beyond man’s cognition – I mean would it be hard for us to understand what God has revealed about Himself? Would the God be too complex for us to know and relate to?
Again, that is one of the places where I differ. Granted, our finite minds cannot grasp all there is to be known about such a being – we cannot even grasp all there is to be known about the universe – we can however understand enough of this God for us to be able to relate with Him. We should be able to know how he would act or not act in certain situations, to know what delights him and what doesn’t etcetera. There are some basic levels of mutual perception and understanding that is requisite to relationship between two parties – and IMO, we can (and perhaps do) possess such knowledge. In my opinion, God’s revelation of Himself is such that we can, by His help, understand and if possible, to a certain extent, “contain”.

All that said however, my main thrust is this; this God (that I know from the bible and experience) wants to reveal himself, he wants to be known, he wants man to relate to him. He has shown this by the grandeur of creation, by the extreme complexity of biological creatures, by the sanctity of the human life and so on. I used to ask myself – do we really need the universe to be so huge, the creatures to be so diverse, the flora and fauna to be so intricately designed and, yet, in the face of all this, that man’s life be so fleeting yet so valuable, for him to be so inconspicuous yet so important? The paradoxes abound and we can learn from them. The most important thing though that I think we can learn is that God desires that, in the grandeur of the immediate environment upon which we are thrust, we would crave to want to know Him. The craving of man is met by the willingness of God.
The problem I believe usually arises when we do not understand the aforementioned; that God has to reveal Himself and that, if we are sure that revelation is of Him, we have to accept it. However, if as a man, you choose to strive independent of God to sustain or rather quench your thirst for meaning, then God is inconsequential to such a one and he can be left to his own folly.
Now if on the other hand, then, there are people who have found that revelation and confirmed it in practice, if there occurs instances where the need has met with the provision, can we then say – at least in the case of those people – that “it is out of (their) cognitive powers to have a proper perception of God”? No – that statement is false. It is within their - and perhaps every man’s - cognitive powers to have a proper perception of God, as long as that perception comes from a revelation of God himself and is proved true in their experience. However, that quest cannot be forced upon every man, nor can every man be pressured upon to accept the revelation that is available, thus, ultimately, the question or issue of God is subjective or perhaps I should say it is personal – but that does not mean that that which is true for an individual is not or cannot be true for all.

All that said again, from your third statement I want to infer something you didn’t explicitly state; you seem to mean that – fine, the bible makes all sorts of claims, but how can we be sure that those claims are true. Although, the scientific approach is a good way to scrutinize things, it’s not the only way. There are other ways of testing the validities of claims, and in the case of the bible, I dare say that you can evaluate the claims of the bible to see if they are true. In fact, I think the bible requires them, in so far as they are done with the aim of finding truth – because one can always reach any conclusion from any book if one isn’t fair and objective. As the bible claims to be the word of God, observing its claims by itself is a first step i.e. checking to see if the revelation within the bible is self-sustaining and consistent – these are things that can be done. Beyond that, and in a more relevant manner, the Word of God can be ‘tested’ in experience i.e. one can take the said promises of God and see if God, as He claims, acts consistently with his promise. If that is done with the right understanding of what God will and will not do (again as revealed), one can get to a place of assurance in knowing that a particular account of God is true and verifiable in experience.
Lastly, true; the bible isn't all literal. There are many things that are figurative in the bible - but the fact is; many things in the bible are also literal. Cheers .

[quote author=m_nwankwo link=topic=87232.msg1632555#msg1632555 date=1193752179]God is the absolute TRUTH. Therefore it is impossible for any creature to understand the absolute TRUTH. Human beings, who are creatures can only understand as much as God reveals and as much as within their capacity to understand. We human beings should spend our time in leaving according to the laws of God instead of wasting resources in matters that cannot be understood even when we are in heaven.[/quote]Again, let me be brief for now.
It is true that Christ is the TRUTH (John 14:6). However, it is not true (from the Word) that it is "impossible for any creature to understand the absolute TRUTH". Perhaps you do not understand what i meant by 'absolute' - i do not mean that a man can become omniscient. No. By 'absolute' i meant unchanging and established.
Keeping that in mind, the bible is clear:
"For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the man's spirit within him? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. 12We have not received the spirit of the world but the Spirit who is from God, that we may understand what God has freely given us" (ICor. 2:11-12)
Earlier, Jesus had said:
"But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come." (John 16:13)

There are many other scriptures that can be quoted; but those two should suffice to make the point that God is able to lead us into understanding all truth by His Spirit which He has given us. You yourself made it clear that we can only understand as much as God has revealed; and the point is - God has revealed (see Eph.1:9, 2Pet. 1:3, 1Pet. 1:20) all that we need to know especially as regards life and godliness and we can understand that which he has revealed.
Understanding (of the truth) is very crucial, and i dare say is what seperates those who are on the right path from those who aren't (see Eph. 4:18, NIV). If we cannot understand the TRUTH, why the prayer of Paul in Eph. 1:18 -19?
You alluded that we should devote our time living according to "the laws of God". Although i don't really know what you mean by that phrase, i know that you can't live according to a set of laws if you do not understand those laws in the first place.
And lastly, although now "we know in part", i doubt if your statement that they "cannot be understood even when we are in heaven" is true biblically, for it clearly says we "shall know fully" (ICor. 13:12) and elsewhere it says "we shall see him as he is" (1John 3:2). Cheers.

henrijin:
i read everything i see and get out the truth from them.it does not matter where u read from, but the message u will get from what u read.i advise everybody not to just accept things blindly because other people accept.

Bros, let me just be brief. There's a difference between the TRUTH and a message. True, you can get a message from everything you read; even if you don't get a message, you would get information. However, TRUTH, in this case being objective, absolute truth, cannot be gotten from everything one reads.
It does matter where you read from, if the goal is to obtain truth from them. It is not possible for a book to provide answers or content as regards TRUTH if it uses the human reason as its reference point. Objective truth and reality cannot be gotten from a mere human perspective or even from collective humanity, because we are finite beings. Certainty of knowledge which is a prerequisite for making truth-claims demands that the author(s) know all things - which isn't possible for limited humans. Thus the only source of objective, universal truth has to be from God to man. Not from man to man.
Furthermore, even if a book lays claim to divine inspiration, that is still not the end of the matter - the truth-claims of such a book can be examined in order to see if the so-called inspiration is valid. Like you yourself said, we can't just accept any claim of divine inspiration blindly, without examining such claims to see if it is inherently consistent and consistent with observation. So you realize, the options we have for finding TRUTH are rather very narrow.

ricadelide.the problem with us is that we do not interprete the bible correctly.

Now, coming to the issue of interpreting the bible correctly, i have some questions: how is the interpretation that you have given to the biblical passages consistent with the bible itself? How does one interpret scripture? Are you aware that scripture must be interpreted with scripture (2Pet. 1:20-21, Is. 28:13)?
That was what i did in my response - by showing you Jesus' and Paul's references, which are also scripture, to counter the wrong interpretation that you have tried to give those bible passages. Cheers .

nice one olowotee, i particularly like "the anchor holds" and "i pledge allegiance". Cheers.

@Ivvie,
thanks for the burden thingy.
I'm not following him around by the way - you might have forgetten; i only replied to ONE post of his.
Cheers and have a nice week .

Ivvie:
You waste power when you argue with people that don't take your word the first time.

I think this line gets through to the core of the issue. Unfortunately, i can't let it pass.
Do you really think that people are supposed to "take your word" even if they are not persuaded that your word is correct? Do you think that your word = the Word of God? Have you checked your word at all against the Word? Is it that it is not possible that the reason they do not take your word is because you might be wrong? Or is it that you cannot be wrong?
Just some food for thought. May God help us all. Cheers.

Ivvie:
@Ricade

Leave him alone and pray for him. You cannot change a man's mind. Only God can. The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. I don't know what he has said in the past and not ready to care either.

Erm. . . bros, have you thought of practicing what you preach? Why don't you try leaving me alone and praying for me; since you're demanding i do same. This is a discussion forum, if you post anything, someone else can come and make thier mind known. I've showed you from the WORD that correcting people when they are wrong is required from christians. You haven't been able to show anything as of yet on this thread from the Word - like i've said countless times, we are not kids here that would just swallow what anyone is saying without cross-checking to see if the bible sanctions such. There is really no need for the unfounded condescension. If you have something to back up your claims, we'd gladly listen.
This is an extreme example for the sake of illustration; but if someone were to come here and post that Jesus was a sinner (again just an example); according to you, my responsibility as a christian is to "leave the person and pray for him"? Sorry, that's not what the bible teaches.

I do believe that he is very much inline with God's word.

its really not hard sir. I've asked you many times to please show us how, and as of yet you haven't been able to do so. He made 7 sweeping statements as @labi itemized. I have taken it upon myself to show from the scriptures the one of the seven statements that has a scriptural backing. You haven't shown any. Can you please do so? We don't take people's opinions for God's word - no matter who the person is. Thanks.

You don't strife with people. From the little I have read on his posts, God is actually stricter than all he has said (though he erred on one of his lines).

Lol . . . . bros, i haven't 'striven' with anybody on here. I have only expressed my mind - i did not tell anyone not to express their minds; in case you don't realize, you are the one doing so. You can't just make statements that have no basis and except people to just accept them for whatever reason. I don't claim to know everything - I have learnt a lot from this forum, especially from people who were willing and ready to defend what they have to say from the word. However, the bible does not implore us to be gullible but to rather check things out (Acts. 17:11). You said he only erred in one of his posts - can you show how "90% of what he said is true"? I think it is the reverse and i have shown it.

Jesus warned that except your righteousness surpasses that of the pharises, you won't enter the kingdom of God. The pharisees were righteous, godly and exhibited a high level of holiness - besides their hypocricy.

Bros, don't even go there. I don't want to take you on on this quote for now. Let me spare you. The pharisees were righteous, godly, and holy? Besides their hypocrisy? (Like thier hypocrisy is one small inconsequential issue ehn?) Did you even get the whole point of Jesus's clashes with them? No wonder we are not on the same page. Legalism is a major bane (and unfortunately is still around).

Your goal is to be spotless or have a spotless garment when Christ returns.

Thanks for letting me know my goal. Indeed my goal is to be like him, and as long as my focus is on him the rest will fall in place (Col. 3:1 - 4, 1John 3:2-3) . And like my footnote reads, by His grace i'm on the way to being like him.

Show a little compassion and in your right, place your issue against the poster to the throne of grace. That way, it's no longer your problem.

Thank you. Try practicing what you preach. I have done so. Beyond that, i have also gone further by obeying Prov. 27:5.

You did not die on the cross, Jesus did and it doesn't profit the kingdom of God if it fights each other.

Lol . . . . this is getting tedious. I don't fight people. It does not profit the kingdom if people think that their misinterpretation should be swallowed by the rest of us as the Word of God. Try reading Ephesians 4. That same chapter that talks about the "unity of the spirit" also lets us know that we must "speak the truth in love" - after pointing out that we must not, like children, be blown about by any wind of doctrine (14). Cheers.

as well.

[quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=66969.msg1627203#msg1627203 date=1193626056]That's good! Your keyboard was only in league with my dearest wishes! [/quote]Kai, no wonder, na you dey remotely control d thing, lol.

Lol. . . that uncle no dey hear word! He reminds me of somebody down my street that often. . . em. . !! And that is why I no fit spare uncle Ola sometimes.

But I go try go soft a bit on him.

Actually as the guy dey follow u about sef u no get choose - he deserves it. The rest of us can just sit back dey gbadun your 'dealings' with our friend.

How far with your exams sha? I hope all's going according to His grace O?!

Actually my exams went just as you described for yours. That's why i'm here gallivanting . The thing hard for exam hall but sha result na different story. God dey always surprise.
Best wishes with yours - promotion must come, by then we must 'wash' am. Cheers

@ First pili
abeg no vex. i been wan soft-pedal but my keyboard no gree

As per the exams, sebi na you? "As thou hath destroyeth part I so shalt thou destroyeth part II" (Rev. 23;1)
Easy on bros _olabo for the other thread oh. Enjoy

7. Whosoever will be a friend of God will be an enemy of the world

Actually @labiyemmy, no 7 in your post is true from the word; the reverse of this post is explicitly stated in James 4:4
"You adulteresses, do you not know that friendship with the world is hostility toward God? Therefore whoever wishes to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God."
This latter phrasing is corroborated by 1John 2:15.

The reverse phrasing in the quote can be validly inferred from John 14:18-19 and 17;14. Cheers.

@Ivvie,

Sincerely, all God wants from your own side is to pray for him in your own innocence.  In your own understanding of what you deem as right and wrong.  That way, God lifts you  up.

Sincerely again, that's not "all God wants from (my) own side". You are not God, so you don't know all God wants. We can know God's mind from the scriptures. Thank God for your ministry of prayer; however, that's not the only ministry. There is also the ministry of the word (Acts. 6:4) - and this ministry involves a lot of things, which include; correcting, rebuking, encouraging, etc all in love. (2Tim. 3;16, 4:2). I have tried to point out to my brother that what he is teaching is false; his statements have been clearly itemized both by me and @labiyemmy, yet as requested you haven't been able to show from the bible that what i am saying is wrong nor that his statements are right. The bible has always been the yardstick, not our own opinion - it hasn't changed. Like i said earlier, if one makes blanket statements and sweeping generalizations such as those, then one must be ready to defend it from the Word. The clear thing the bible tells us to do with regard to false teaching is not to condone it, nor to ignore it, but to confront it (see 1Tim. 1:3, Titus. 1:11 etc). So saying i should ignore and just pray is going against clear scriptural injunctions. If that were the case, what is the purpose of discussion fora such as these? why did Paul have to write the whole book of Galatians - why didn't Paul just pray? (not that he didn't pray, he did (4;19), but that's not all he did - he also spoke ie wrote). In fact, Jesus rebuked the churches in Pergamum and Thyatira for tolerating and holding to false teaching, rather than condemning and exposing them from the word. It is as we "speak the truth in love" that we will grow up into him in all things (Eph. 4:15).

As for the rest of your post, i really don't have anything to say - you are entitled to your convictions, i have no problem with that. It seems you haven't gotten the whole point i've been trying to make: we must quit calling other christians of different persuasion from ours on things the bible does not condemn or from a different congregation as going to hell. The bible is the yardstick for right and wrong. The bible is very clear in the book of Colossians chapter 2. Let me quote from 20 to 23;

"If you have died with Christ to the elementary principles of the world, why, as if you were living in the world, do you submit yourself to decrees, such as, 21 “Do not handle, do not taste, do not touch!” 22 (which all refer to things destined to perish with use)—in accordance with the commandments and teachings of men? 23 These are matters which have, to be sure, the appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and self-abasement and severe treatment of the body, but are of no value against fleshly indulgence."

Those "rules of men" based on our understanding (or lack thereof) of right and wrong may be good for some, and may even be a form of consecration as it were, but they have no foundation in the word of God and thus should not be used in labelling others as being on 'the road to perdition'. Cheers.

MisterMan:
A lot of people have been quoting the bible passage that a man shall leave his mother and mother and shall cleave unto his wife and (they will say not wives) the two shall become one flesh. Sure, but we have to read this in context of marriage. I don't mean to be vulgar here, another meaning that you can adduce here is that of sex. Why don't you look at it from this view: A man will leave his father and mother, rent his own house and start making love to his wife. This means that he should not put his wive under the influence (unneccessarily) of the wife's in-laws. Some mothers-in-law could be terrible. In order to guard against that, it is better to have his own flat. It also means that there should not be group sex. It could be between the wife and the first wife today and the man and another wife the next day. No 'blue film" I may be wrong here since there is no biblical text to back it up, just my stupid thought, but I feel that we should look at things in context. To me the phrase: the two shall become one, does not mean that they will have one head, two arms etc.

Before you allowed your thoughts to run amok , it would have been good if you had considered your premises with much more scrutiny. There is a phrase there that says "cleave to his wife" and you pointed out - not wive[b]s[/b] - where does that make provision for other wives or 'wife-in-laws'? Obviously the cleaving (or joining) in this case is marriage (for the man has to leave his father and mother), and it makes no allowance for others for it says the two shall become one.
What does the latter part mean (two becoming one)? There are only two active verbs in that passage; leaving and cleaving. "Becoming" in this case is not an active verb, rather it is a consequence - thus it is obvious that 'becoming one flesh' is not something that either the man or the woman does, it is a consequence of the earlier two actions; leaving and cleaving (in marriage). In cleaving, they (two) become one - becoming one is not another activity that is distinct from the cleaving. The very act of cleaving results in oneness. Eph 5;31 also refers to it, showing us that in the eyes of God, the two are no longer seen as individuals but as a single entity.
They keyword here is the cleaving (or joining or uniting). The real question is; what kind of cleaving is this case? and who do you cleave to? If you cleave to your wife (in marriage), you will become one with her (in the eyes of God).
However, it is possible for one to unite onself with (ie cleave to) one who isn't one's wife - a wrong type of 'cleaving' (see 1Cor 6:16) and by so doing 'become one' with her - this latter case is a clear violation of God's order and it only shows us the gravity of sexual immorality in the eyes of God by contrasting it with our need to unite ourselves with the Lord in spirit (verse 17). Thereby presenting a clear admonition to desist from such acts. If you truly understood the biblical context, there is no need for the 'blue film', lol

Pple love to say that God created them male and female. Here, we don't have armaphrodite (at least that is not God's purpose). Here, I don't mean to de-mean our female folks, from the account of creation (NOT MY VIEW), women are supposed to be afterthought. It was only when God observed that Adam was lonely that He created women. If Adam was not lonely, would God have created female? No (Not according to bible text)

Bros, na your view, not the creation account. The woman was not created as an afterthought. Let me explain - when God asks man a question, is it because he doesn't know the answer? or he wants the man to realize and see himself? Did God know beforehand that man would sin? He did; and he already made the provision via the lamb that was 'slain from the foundation of the world' (Rev.13:8, 1Pet. 1:20).
God is omniscient. Verse 18 of Genesis 2 clearly shows that God knew that it was not good for man to be alone, here he had already purported to "make him a help meet for him" - showing that that need could not be met in any of his existing creation at that time (ie animals), yet in the next verse God decided to show him animals and let man realize this need. The fact that God decided to show man his need (ie for a wife) does not mean that he had not been aware of the need himself, nor that he had not planned to create the woman. It was to allow the man to realize the special place the woman has in relation to him and God's creation in general.

So again, no need for the rest of your post. Cheers .

Ivvie:
Be careful Ricade, you don't know this person. 90% of what he has said is true. I don't know him either. The only thing God will want form you is to pray for him. Even in his err. If God has opened his eyes to some of what he is saying, you don't have the right to shut it. God is not a decision for anyone to play with. We have different people in the body of Christ. You don't know his purpose on earth. By principle of spiritual authority, be very careful. If he had no love, he wouldn'thave shared what he understands.

Ok - i should be careful; because i told him that his statements are false?
True, i don't know this person, neither do you know me. Can you let me know which "90%" of what he has said that is true and which 10% isn't? And please, let me know the yardstick by which you have determined the vericity of his claims. Since we can both appeal to the bible it would be good for it to be your reference, rather than using the yardstick of one's own opinion. Your own judgement is NOT the word of God.
The "only thing" that God wants from me isn't just to pray for him, it goes beyond that - it would start from correcting him. We are to walk in Jesus' steps - and i don't recall that Jesus only "prayed for" the people in his time when they said things that didn't line up with the Truth. I don't know if i need to run you through the scriptures on the several injunctions to correct, rebuke, etc wrong teachings - like Pastor Kumuyi being the only man of God in the world and the yardstick by which all others will be judged?! How sad.
God does not open people's eyes to err - so i don't understand what you mean by God opening his eyes in his error. Even if its only a little error that he made (which is blatantly not the case) one still needs to point it out, and be careful in ridding oneself of it - a little leaven affects the whole lump of dough.
And as regards my "not having the right" to express my mind - i really don't think i need to respond to you in that regard. I suppose you also think that in expressing my mind I obviously do not know God, and thus, you have a right to "shut" me.
Obviously, i haven't shown by my posts on this site that i'm here to play. I might have tried to use a joking tone so that i would ease on having to say my mind with more gravity, but that does not detract from the seriousness of the issue. It is statements like this that have led to sects that eventually split off entirely from christianity eg the JW's - because they were convinced that only they had or knew the truth. I'm surprised that, rather than strongly rebuking him for such brazen statements, you're suggesting i shut my mouth for doing so (not that i even did so - ie rebuke him - i focussed on his post rather than his person and implored him to GROW UP).
True we have different people in the body of christ - NO, we do not have different gospels in the body of christ (Eph. 4;4-6). When people make strong assertions such as this, then they should be bold enough to face up to the implications. Like i made it clear elsewhere, i don't have a problem with people choosing to believe certain things, it however becomes an issue when you make disputable matters that can't be justified from the bible as being the basis for christian living, and label other christians that do not follow such inclinations as going to 'hell' and not being 'true christians'.
I don't need to know his purpose on earth (i pray it is a good one) before i can make a comment. But i do know that making statements such as those by "christians" is the basis of a lot of problems in the body of Christ, and i know that it is necessary to "contend for the faith" and not be afraid to point out the truth.
Lastly, i do not recall accusing him of "having no love".  One can be sincere, and yet be sincerely wrong. Beyond that, i do not think it is hatred that made me point out his mistakes either - open rebuke the bible says is better than hidden love. I pray some of us that are so quick to make reference to the word love would realize what true love really entails.
Sorry in advance if my tone is strong.
Cheers.

nb. his screen name means either sorghum or millet (not sure which) used for making pap

Let me paraphrase just a few "WORDS ON MARBLE" from our friend okababa with some equations about hell and heaven.

okababa:
hOW on earth will you say that a xtian can put on trousers as female, paint lips like jezebel and curl his hair like chris oyakhiome and you think that such can ever get to heaven.

1   Female wearing trouser = hell
2   Female wearing lipstick = hell
3   Male curling hair = hell

Steer clear of these and heaven's door is probably wide open.

Further inferences from equations 1 - 3
(i)   Probably more than 90% of American females wear trouser, thus, there would be very few american females in heaven
(ii) More generation Y and Z females wear trousers than X and earlier generations, thus there would be very few ladies of the younger generation in heaven
(iii) Females are far more likely to wear trousers and lipstick than men are likely to curl their hair, thus, there would be far more men in heaven than women

What do you think holiness is? a filthy rag? please be guided! any church, person or pastor that is not in total agreement with pastor kumuyi/deeper life is not from God and will go to hell fire if they fail to repent.

Do i need to paraphrase? according to oka, Kumuyi (NOT christ) is the yardstack for people ie individuals, and DL for churches ie congregations - failure to conform, and? = Hell . . . . . (4)

As for me, pastor Kumuyi is the only man of God in africa and possibly the world.

All others, since you can't become pastor Kumuyi, don't even bother. Again = Hell . . . . (5)

Also note that you don't have to agree with this statement as the bible say that whosoever will be a friend of God will be an enemy of the world so , that a lot of people hate deeperlife or pastor Kumuyi is enough confirmation that the man is realy from God

6 A lot of people like you = Hell
7 A lot of people hate you = 'realy from God' = Heaven

thus from equation 7, we can safely postulate thus;
A lot of people hated Abacha = 'realy from God' = Heaven  (QED)

Need i do more paraphrasing?
The question is; when would some "christians" GROW UP??

nb. i'm not dissing Pastor Kumuyi and no offence to our DL folks, just had to respond to this post. Cheers all.

henrijin:
first, u need 2 know tgat the bible is a spiritual book and should not be taken too earthly or literarily. the story of adam and eve is a representation of how man came into being.it describes the creation of man by God in the first creation.the garden, eden, is a representation of the spiritual world where man originates.in other to develop,he must leave and the only place opened to it was to come down here on earth which is not a punishment but a help granted to man out of the Love of God. in summary,the garden of eden isn't located here on earth but a description of the spiritual realm where man originates.-REFLECT FELLOW READERS.

All the words in bold are what wont let me pass this up. Just a brief reposte.
Granted, the bible is a spiritual book. However, the question of what to take literarily and what to take figuratively in the bible is one we must be careful about. Are the early accounts in Genesis 1-3 literal and historical or merely figurative? The whole of the bible makes it clear that they are to be read literally. Jesus clearly points to Genesis, when he said, "have you not read that in the beginning he made them male and female"? If it wasn't a historical event, why would Jesus refer to it? Paul and other writers of the epistles likewise severally referred to Gen. 1 through 3. Paul makes it clear that through Adam sin entered the world - was that figurative? He also refers to Eve being deceived by the serpent's cunning, and that Adam was made first before Eve. There is no support in the bible for any reduction of Gen 1-3 to a mere figurative role. It is not figurative, neither is it a 'representation' of how man came into being - those are very false teaching to infer from the bible.
You mention a 'first creation' - what are you referring to? THere was only one creation account.
Was the garden of Eden a representation of the spiritual world? No where is that supported in the scriptures - clearly it teaches that God planted the garden in the east, and proceded to describe how God caused trees to grow out of the ground. Was it a spiritual ground? Furthermore it talks about a river that runs through the garden and describes the river in relation to known geographical regions like Cush, Assyria, etc - which clearly are not references to any spiritual domain. He even brought the animals to meet Adam in the garden - are the animals also spiritual as well?
As for your story about man needing to "develop" - that's where you grail message accounts totally do not have any bearing with the scriptures, and there's no point trying to reconcile them.
All in all, any cursory reading and 'reflection' on the biblical account makes no room for the false teachings you've tried to misread into the scriptures. You may choose to believe those things - but don't try to robe the bible in along with a false teaching. They don't go together at all. Cheers.

Ivvie:
@ricade

I believe you have been following the topic.  Emulation's what I was stressing!  It wasn't just for you alone so, don't single yourself out and finalise it.  It will be the same gospel that will speak against you someday if you don't seat and accept what the word has to say.  I don't have anything against you so don't come lashing.  Read and then try to apply before expressing yourself rudely. I leave you to God to judge.

Lol, no vex . . . i don't recall insulting you. If i did, i apologize. I don't recall you quoting the word - just expressing your opinion. And in fact, your opinion involved quite some lashing, and i was merely trying to defend others. Your opinion doesn't have to count as Baba's word. Even if it did, it won't apply to me because i don't perm my hair - i just wish people would be fair sometimes .
If i recall the diversion on the topic started with Oyakh's hair. Although i'm not his church-member, neither do i subscribe to many of his doctines, i can see that he still has curly hair - which isn't straight like whites have. If you want side-by-side pictures i can oblige. Furthermore, one does not know why he curls his hair, so saying he is emulating the white man is really overstretching it.
Sorry again, i already said i'm out. So enjoy

what has the long post got to do with the real issue. We all know that there are people that would take things to extreme. There is nothing wrong with wearing clothes, yet some people's motives for the choice of clothes they were might not be right. Furthermore, why the talk about mixed raced peoples? Are you now saying its also a sin to be of a mixed race - i dont get.

Anyways, if trivia are you problem, no be me and you. Keep on branding your dagger of sin-crushing. Cheers.

ok. Perming one's hair is "trying to be white"?!
I hear.
Then jheri curls by blacks (considering whites have straight hair rather than curly hair) is trying to be what?

Add to that that sun-tanning and applying sun-tanning lotions (by whites) is "trying to be black".

we shouldn't be so quick as to label people with 'sinning' when we don't know thier motives for doing certain things which aren't intrinsically evil. If the motive for an action is wrong then the action is; if not, let's not be so quick to bear the dagger.

and i'm guessing its also wrong to apply cream to your skin, apply deodourant, use a body spray, cut your hair, wear perfume or even, more to home, brush your teeth with a man-made toothpaste (rather than rinse it with water).
Furthermore, God did not create us wearing clothes - even when Adam fell God used a covering of skin - therefore wearing another kind of cloth rather than that made of skin is "look(ing) as God did not create you" and therefore a sin.

Just where or when are you going to draw the line when you've decided to go down this slippery road?