₦airaland Forum

Aww, Nwoke, you have a great sense of humour. But in truth I was familiar with Greek mythology (not a pejorative term I use here - the Greeks actually call it that), and I know that they have a pantheon of "gods". Zeus was most revered among them, but what do I say. . . glorify them? Nah-nah.

Temple of the sacred coconut . . . hmmm. Not at this time.

Hi virozuru,

I didn't get you. . . what really were those texts for? Perhaps it would be more helpful sometime in the future to write them out as we usually try to do.

wiseguy:
[quote author=syrup link=topic=11781.msg344520#msg344520 date=1147113403]whether they come in their next life as a tree, a bird, a worm, or a lizard. There's just no way out of karma: it is rigid and does not abate until one has gone through the full circle.

The above is a wrong understanding of re-incarnation. A human spirit cannot be re-incarnated as anything else but a human spirit. Any opinion contrary to this is wrong.[/quote]That may well be. You may like to check this weblink about people who claim to have animal memories of past life. Since the Law of karma does not affect the Christian life, the article you posted are assumptions based on the writer's views and not what the Bible teaches. You may wish to see the Biblical texts the author of your article quoted for yourself - there you'll realise that he's trying to force interpretations that have no bearing on the whole tenor of Scripture. I've tried to point this out in another thread which you can access here.

wiseguy:
I believe the Lord Christ would have rebuked the disciples immediately if their belief, as contained in the questions and answers, was wrong. Even Christ himself asked the disciples. "who do people say that Iam?". We know the responses. If it is not possible for souls to re-inarnate, Christ would have used any of these opportunities to say so.

Important questions to address:

# If Jesus was referring to or endorsing the concept of re-incarnation in the answers His disciples
gave to His questions in Matt. 16:13-16, which one of the prophets was He a re-incarnation of
as suggested in the opinions of the crowd?

# If Christ endorsed re-incarnation, why then did He not speak of people being re-born so many times
to correct their mishaps and attain to nirvana, rather than a one time judgement without a second
afterlife of correcting past mistakes? See Luke 13:1-5.

# So, was Christ or any of the disciples re-incarnated beings?

You may see the Law of karma and re-incarnation in the Bible, and you're free to read them so. At the end of the day, you'll find that God's grace in Christ doesn't mix with karma and re-incarnation.

TV01:
As I said earlier, where faith/culture/government all merge, I don't see how the tithe could be seen as anything other than tax?

@TV01, The idea of tithe was not to be read as taxation - OT and NT - because both were in operation among the Israelites at some time in their history. Interpretations do have a funny way of driving things beyond their contexts and arriving at other than their intended meanings. Theocracy did not end in I Samuel 8 - else would David have been something other than God's gracious purposes for His people Israel (I Samuel 16:1 & 13). The people didn't ask for a king in David's case, but God Himself chose a king after His own heart.

For a few references on forms of taxes being payed other than tithes, see the following:

# And Solomon reigned over all kingdoms from the river unto the land of the Philistines, and unto
the border of Egypt: they brought presents, and served Solomon all the days of his life.
- I Kings 4:21. (the word "presents" is actually "tribute" in Hebrew).

# There have been mighty kings also over Jerusalem, which have ruled over all countries beyond
the river; and toll, tribute, and custom, was paid unto them. - Ezra 4:20.

Notice that the mighty kings were actually the Jewish kings, not foreign overlords. And these kings actually taxed the people they ruled over - which would include their own people, the Jews. However you read I Samuel 8, it still does not negate the fact that taxes (in form of toll, tribute, and custom) were different from tithes and both operated at the same period. It may be true that God did not impose the taxes on the Israelites - which distinguished that from the tithes that He did. Do you read me well at this point?


So again,

TV01:
My point being that the Israelites under Theocracy where commanded to pay tithes.
At that point, the Jewish/Culture/Faith/Government all merged, so my stance is that tithing was essentially taxation to them. (Used to run/care for the government; the priesthood. Used for social welfare; the needy. And as a form of worship; the feasting).

. . . that's what I couldn't get in your piece, because you seemed to have supposed that tithes were essentially taxes; but that would not hold true as the verses I quoted just above point out.

In all, I appreciate where you're coming from and thus respect your views thereto.

Blessings.

@TV01, that's how you read the OT, and no qualms about that. I wouldn't read that tithes were the same thing as taxes in the Old Testament. Earlier you alluded to this inference of the two meaning essentially the same, which you have repeated just above. Would I then take it that you're inferring that no other form(s) of taxes were imposed on the Israelites than tithes (if they are the same at all)?

lol. . . Nwoke, whose "gospel" is that? The artist was surely mischievous in trying to imitate the Jack Chick Gospel Tracts publishers, and giving out another "gospel" with other "Gods" (Olympus and Apollon). You'd have to explain how Olympus and Apollon could turn out to be "the right ones."

@Logical, and you have my respects.

TV01,

I appreciate your stance and interpretation of what you suppose tithing was/is. But you somewhat mixed issues up (at least for me) in stating:

Christians are not governed by those same laws, all such laws being fulfilled by the birth,
sinless life, death and resurrection of The Lord.

. . .and then seemingly again convoluting this thought with:

Christians pay taxes as demanded by the nations in which they live.

Tithing thus translates into taxation - was that what you meant in explicating Matt. 17:25 (". . .my stance tithing was essentially taxation to them"? Well, it's your stance and I can't go into any quarrels about that. But I wonder if really the Bible teaches that tithes and taxes are essentially the same things.

Notice this: if tithing is essentially the same thing as taxation, and as Christians we are not under the Law of tithes, why then should we pay taxes at all, according to your surmising?

It's really not going anywhere, is it? But I'll leave it to you to clear the air for me.

TV01,

Are you really so fastidious about issues?  

You really are hard to please, aren't you? What have I been pointing out all this while - something other than your error(s)? I thought we've put that to rest; but if you have a penchant for non-essentials, then you have a go. My apologies that I've wasted a discussion with you pointing these things out. But no matter.

If you have the time and interest, do you care to point this out for me -

TV01:
God knows this.
Matthew 17:25 - He said, "Yes." And when he had come into the house, Jesus anticipated him, saying, "What do you think, Simon? From whom do the kings of the earth take customs or taxes, from their sons or from strangers?" 26 Peter said to Him, "From strangers." Jesus said to him, "Then the sons are free.

There's a certain legalistic way of reading the scriptures, which is no better than a first step. Sure, it'll enable you to deal with some issues, but when it comes to the intent of the Word you can so easily get it wrong. That's why to some the above scripture has nothing to do with tithe,

How does Matt. 17:25 have to do with tithes?

Thank you.

TV01,

TV01:
When the Israelites came out of Egypt, through the time the law was given up until the time they demanded a king, God (through various prophets/judges etc) personally ruled the Israelite nation. That's what I mean by "Godocracy". True "Lordship" if you please.

"God (through various prophets/judges etc) personally ruled the Israelite nation" - Is that not clearly theocracy? Have you checked out the meaning of the word before advancing 'Godocracy'? I'll not be tedious to you any further if you can't see the difference. But let me share in a nutshell:

          Godocracy  -   [underived word and thus meaningless]

          theocracy   -   rule by God [from Theos (God) and kratein (-cracy; that is, "rule"]

          ecclesiocracy/
          hierocracy  -   rule by priests or religious ministers not claiming direct God-rule as in theocracy.

TV01:
I think it important to be precise so as to correctly convey my position. I do at times use words with my own distinctions in mind, neglecting to note that others may not make the same distinction. Apologies if I've done that here.

So, there goes your precision. We want to understood you, but speak the lingo we can understand and save everyone the needless pun.

[quote author=gbade. x link=topic=11781.msg345933#msg345933 date=1147178819]Karma talks about multiple after-lifes where consequences for every action done in the previous life are acted out in the after. there's a continous cycle of being 'reborn' till one passes into a state of perfectness called 'nirvana'. not so with Christianity. you live this life and your actions whether in Christ or not determines where you'll be in the great beyond.[/quote]@gbade. x, thank you so very much for straightening things out for me. That's just the point I was missing out and trying to explain in my replies.

TV01,

You might find it such a pleasure to be very finicky with words, especially where they're unnnecessary. "Theocracy" is what you see in Afghanistan, but when it comes to Godocracy, it's hanging in the air? Pardon me, but where have you actually seen "Godocracy" in practice, and why is "theocracy" a bastardised word in OT Israel's case? When did Godocracy begin and when did it end? Perhaps you could be more specific by enunciating how Godocracy was practised in the OT and how that differs from theocracy.

Thanks.

if only this game would continue
if only my summer vacations would last another 8 months! I make more bucks in summer than at any other time!

Hello TV01,

Oh yeah, I'm really gracious, but that shouldn't make me credulous to just about anything said. I'm not one to go into long debates that lead nowhere with you, but for the record: "Godocracy" is not a word at all, nor does it decsribe what you've tried to explain. "De facto ruler" and "really Lord of the nation" say just about the same thing; and then when was it that 'Theocracy' was not a more appropriate word? When did "Godocracy" begin and when did it end? Pretty 'bang on' between 22% and 23.33% is a misnomer; but if the simple arithmetic doesn't click with you, rest your heart.

I would like to share views but not when you want to be read slyly. Apologies if my warmth and tone distressed you.

God bless.

Perk

If he only knew what arms you've got!

TV01,

You're sounding like you've been badly hit sometime ago. A gentleman should be willing to take corrections where he's been shown to err. So, your arguments here tells more about your reaction to something other than the topic.

Anyways, there doesn't seem to be a dictionary meaning of the word you used: "Godocracy" (you probably meant "Theocracy". And 23.33% is not "a pretty bang on figure for income tax" (care to see an example of why this is so - click on this link for the case of England in a current review, or do a search on other countries yourself).

If God doesn't tax His sons, then pretty well don't pay your taxes - no quarrels about that warranting that line in bold fonts. And by the way, you're not obliged to tithes in just the same way that you're not obliged to a "heartfelt, voluntary giving."

if only there would be true democracy in Nigeria without a 'third term'
if only everyone in Nigeria would have their hearts wishes

Shirk

if only wishes could happen instantly
if only that were true

Entertain thyself, as pleaseth thy soul.


[syrup >>>chuckles: his tall dream!<<]

It doesn't have to be "books", my dear; so calm down. Afterall, the Da Vinci Code is days away from hitting the big screens. So, whether books, movies, journalism, utterances. . . would it have mattered that there was/were a disclaimer? If the journalist through the same medium uttered a disclaimer, would issues have been changed and Muslim attitude more amicable towards him? Bottomline: what was done was and is wrong - so explanations at this point of what one journalist said is like calling the fire brigade after the arson.

Nah-nah. . .lol. It's common knowledge that your type seem to define their illness with those three words and more, which is just a characteristic symptom of your pathological case, hhmmm? Okay. But wait until you check in and are properly oriented by the great Physician; then you'll know the difference. For now, keep up the entertaining, it matters little to me how cheaply you evaluate your soul.