₦airaland Forum

@TV01,

I chose to respond to you not because I feel you are here to learn from others as you share valuable knowledge too, but because some of weak faith might take your bold-face stance as the Gospel truth.   I must admit that I understand your quest to ensure that Christians live by the Bible, but you have only suceeded in moving from the ditch on one side of the road into a ditch on the other side.  The goal here is to stay in the middle of the road and not vear off-course.

Pray tell, did the Lord expect these fed to remain in need of feeding forever? Would you expect a younger brother of yours to be dependant on your for the entirety of his life?

Of course the Lord expect us to be fed for ever.  He only expects that we do not remain on the diet of milk forever.  Milk is fed to the babies, while strong meat is fed to those that are of full age.  A sheep will always remain a sheep and will always require a shepherd.  Jesus is described as the Chief Shepherd in scriptures, indicating that there are some under-shepherds under Him.  

You really do believe that faith in Jesus Christ is at least in part predicated on a relationship with MOGS don’t you. The Lord said “My sheep” He also said “My voice”. He went on to say “follow me”. And further “Take up your cross and follow me”. Due mostly to your flawed understanding of Christian relationship and interaction (you probably – knowingly or unknowingly – cling to an organisational/hierarchical model of church), you really can’t see it can you? Paul met with the Lord. Have you? Have you even met with Paul? “The treasure is in jars of clay, that the excellency may be of God”. We all imitate our earthly fathers or elder brothers, but you have to be able to stand. You really feel that giving attention to men will aid your walk? Can you tell the difference between a sheep and a lemming?

I do not understand what you mean by a relationship with MOG.  I can't remember if I've ever had to ask or seek a personal time with my Pastor in over 10 years.  Like my Pastor in naija used to say, no one would ever need to see him if all will make good use of the ministry teaching tapes, because there is nothing that he will say now in that situation that'll be differnet from what he said before.   The same Word of God hasn't changed and that is all that matters.  Have I met the Lord you ask.  The answer to that is Yes, and I met Him and believed on Him through men John 17:20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word.

Follow their faith, not them. Their example. Daddy was a coal miner and worked hard. Is it about being a coal miner or working hard? Dude, get understanding!

I must hand it to you TV01, you have the unique gift of ascribing things and acts to people that are alien to them.  I know you might think it strange, but I do not pray to my Pastor at all, I do not even pray in his name, and neither do I see him as the Comforter who shall lead me into all truth.  So does this answer your question?  And by the way, the 'HIM' in whom I live, and move and have my beign which you must have seen as my signature on this forum is actually not my Pastor  .  

Again, you fail to read and respond in turn. I said you were misapplying the OT, your response is to say I am declaring it redundant. Speaks volumes about your reasoning and thought processes. BTW, the NT says rebuke sin and restore a fallen brother in love. The OT is not a template for NT Christian life. BY trying to force fit it, and ham-fistedly misapply it, you are undermining the fullness to be found in the NT.

Why are you trying to teach me anything when the Holy Spirit is the one meant to teach me all things?  Are you trying to usurp His role?  While the OT is not a template for the Christian life, there is no instruction or admonition in it that is not relevant to our daily experience.  Can you count how many times the NT writings refernces the OT?  And by the way, if your application of a NT reality contradicts the  principle and Spirit of the OT, then something must be wrong somewhere.

Again your ignorance thunders. An elder and a pastor are to a great degree synonymous. Again, you wrongly ascribe and plain misunderstand. I believe in the Lord. “Pastorship” is not something one believes in, it’s something one understands (or fails to) and applies (or mis-applies)accordingly. I have said time and again, there is no scriptural mandate for a “Pastorship” as commonly used in many churches these days, and that would include the sort assumed by Ted Haggard (I’m 100% sure that you won’t attempt to validate your “pastorship” stance from scripture, as it can’t be done!).

I have no problem if I'm ignorant.  I know I do not know it all, and the more I know, the more I realise I don't know.  Like someone said knowledge is going from an unconscious to a conscious knoweldge of one's ignorance.   As long as you realise that pastor does not necessarily means elder, then I have no problem with you.  An elder might be a pastor, but not necessarily one; while a pastor might also be an elder but not necessarily one.  A common denominator with all elders is their ages and maturity.  The elder concept was adopted by the church from the Mosaic tradition, where the affairs of the community is handled by those that are advance in years.   However, the principle that spiritality and wisdom transcends age was well laid out by Elihu who said: I thought that age should speak and multitude of years should teach wisdom, but there is a spirit in man, and the inspiration of the Lord gives them understanding.  Going by this same prinsiple, Paul instructed Timothy (the young Pastor of the church in Ephesus) that he should ensure no one despises his youth.  This same young pastor had the sole power and responsibility to appoint elders and to rebuke them when they are out of line.  It is also curious that Jesus in the Book of Revelation had to mention just one messenger when addressing the churches.  Elders were conspicuosly absent in His messages.

Please see my immediate previous response. The flawed structure and unscriptural mandates speak to and feed the flesh. The outworking is what you see all around you. There is a difference between a man honoured and respected as an elder (scriptural), and one revered and deferred to as a MOG (not scriptural).

I have nothing to say about anyone, but please hear this -  “For I know nothing against myself, yet I am not justified by this; but He who judges me is the Lord”. Paul could not even presume to declare himself guiltless. And here you are endorsing a mere man, whom I doubt you even met. But then again, you venerate those who you haven’t even seen. Working hard for that "Mogsbottom" title

Can you point out the differences between the honour and fear of those in authority as you have mentioned above.  I fear and rever no one, but I hold in high esteem and honor those the Lord has placed in authority over me in the local assembly.  And as I said earlier, the elder concept was brought into the church from judaism.  I find no where in the Bible where Jesus called some to be elders, rather He called some to be Pastors etc,    Please compare that Paul's statment with this one 1 Thessalonians 2:10 - Ye are witnesses, and God also, how holily and justly and unblameably we behaved ourselves among you that believe:  So was Paul endorsing himself as you have claimed?  And how are we to follow their examples if we can't judge what they've done?  And going by the example yo cited earlier, how will I know to follow someon's hardworking example if I can't judge that he was hardworking?  You so contradict yourself in your effort to maintain your unscriptural positing.  And by the way, you mentioned Ted Haggard as an example of a victim of a failed church structure, yet you calim you know no man's reputation.  Now, that is a contemporary case of hypocrisy.

@Seun,

Neither Ted nor any Christian advocates intolerance towards homosexuals. We condemn the sin of homosexuality while praying for, admonishing and loving those who are caught in this vilest of sins.

That we condemn stealing does not mean we are intolerant towards thieves. I hope you will make that correction in your mind and not hold to the current one so as to remain an ally with those who have an agenda.

While I may have heard some 'horror' stories about the NYSC and relationships, I do nothing but bless the memories of my service to my country as a Youth Corper as well as bless the town known as Isi-Alangwa in Abia State, where I met my sweet, oh so sweet wife.

Without that opportunity provided through NYSC, I doubt if I ever would have met, let alone marry her. I guess NYSC means different things to different people afterall.

@TV01,

Why shouldn't I focus on you TV01?  Am I not instructred to seek first and ahead of mine, the interests of others?  Jokes aside (though I need that), let's get into the WORD.

As usual, you have taken the liberty to read more meanings into the biblical practices of others.  No one is making this about any man, except the Man Christ Jesus.  Even Christ understood the fact that it takes men to point others to Him, no wonder He said to Peter three times to feed his sheep.  Going by your conclusions, are we then to condemn Apostle Paul for telling us to follow him as he follows Christ?   And I wonder why there are stories of other men who serve God in the Bible if all we are to do is just keep our attention only on Jesus and not on the heritage of faith that others have left for us and are living in front of us.  What about the admonitions in Hebrews 13: 7 Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God: whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation.  But of course, according to the Gospel of TV01, that is tantamount to the works of the flesh.

So the Old Testament is now anachronistic, unprofitable for doctrine, for reproof, correction and instructions in righteousness?  A clear case of what our reactions should be to the fall of a brother as illustrated by David's attitude is not applicable to us as Christians?  Men, I wonder what you will teach in your church when you eventually become an Elder (since you do not believe in pastorship).

Your conclusions baffle me about Ted being a victim of the church structure.  When are you going to understand that the things which defile a man come from the inside (the heart) unto the outside?  How come others in such a position are not Homosexuals.  We know of the heritage of faith left by Kenneth E. Hagin.  Not once was he caught up in any scandal.  And he was in ministry for 70 years of his 86 years on earth.  Again, you will tell us it is not about personalities, but you will see the personality in the instance of a fall, but wouldn't in the instance of a triumph.

Indeed Christians fall into sin everyday.  And if I may ask, are all those victims of the Church structure as well?  Why do I make this a big deal?  Because Paul said sexual immorality is one that should not be ONCE named amongst us as Christians?    And to think it happens to be homosexuality knocks the wind out of me because no sin represents a greater rebellion to the image of Christ as the sin of homosexuality.  The long an short of the whole matter is this: there is indeed a fundamental flaw in all of us: THE FLESH.   That flesh cannot be pacified, neither can it be prayed away.  It will have to be crucified, daily.

@TV01,

Words fail me to describe what I feel about your outbursts here.  You have shown that you are only after the letter of the Word and you lack the spiritual impetus that separates the called from the chosen.  I was, and I'm still at the point of weeping hearing about what happened to Ted Haggard, but here you are trying to make a cheap point over an issue that should get you crying.

David, though persecuted by Saul couldn't help but weep over his death; acknowledging that indeed the anointed of the Lord has fallen.  At the murder of  Abner, here what he has to say:  2 Samuel 3: 38 And the king said unto his servants, Know ye not that there is a prince and a great man fallen this day in Israel? 39 And I am this day weak, though anointed king;   No wonder God refered to him as a man after His heart.  But what are you doing here TV01?  Gloating and showing yourself more righteous over the fall of a Man of God (Yes, he is a MOG).

I have always believed that you have a right heart and a wrong head.  But I am seriously beginning to think perhaps, both are in the wrong.  You may claim to have knowledge of the Letter of this Word of God, but it is obvious that the Spirit behind that Letter is absent in your response.

Oh, how I weep.  Not only for Ted Haggard, but also for those who think it is time to judge him.  I pray that those spiritual ones around Ted will get to him first and restore him in fear and humility, before wolves come in and condemn him to a point of no return. Afterall, He who has every right to condemn us is the same one in heaven who forever makes intercession for us.  I am glad His opinion of Ted Haggard and the rest of us is different from the opinions of self righteous people of whom TV01 is chief.

@Olabowale,

Do not try to hide behind what Seun said to excuse your ignorance of the writings of Paul or any other Author of the Bible.  You also hide behind the broken monologue that the Bible is corrupted as an excuse to argue away every thing you can't explain away.  What a lazy alternative to pursue.

While standing behind what Seun said, can you kindly provide the proofs of such thoughts?  Can you kindly show us where and how Paul's writings contradicts any Old Testament teachings or how his teachings contradicts Jesus', Peter's, Luke's or John's teachings? 

Now the following Books and Authors do meet up the with the standards you personally listed.  Now please tell us how closely related to the revelations of the Beduoin 'Prophet' Muhammad, these revelations are.  The Books are the Gospel of John, The Gospels of Luke, Acts of the Apostles, The letter of James, 1 Peter, 2 Peter, 1, 2 & 3 John, Jude and Revelation.

I hope you won't change the goal posts again to satisfy your prejudice as your prophet was fond of doing.

@Seun,

Please provide proofs to back your assertion about Paul's writings, as some ignorant people here have now taken your word as gospel truth.

@Olabowale,

Now that you have decided to derail this thread by shooting yourself in the foot, may I require you to ask of your Allah who claim to have sent down the laws to Moses, the Gospels to Jesus and the Psalms to David, why He failed to have these Authors follow the protocol you keep wondering about.

When you have that answered, then I will begin to give you some answers.

@Kimba,

I once read/heard, whichever one, that the whole book of Job and all the happenings there actually happened before Genesis, I don't know how true that is, if I find the weblink, ill post it.

Don't get confused by hearsay. The Book of Job is the oldest Book written in the Bible. That does not make it a pre-adamic material. It's peculiarity also stems from the fact that it was written in Araimic. Much of the old Testament Books were written in Hebrew while much of the new were in Greek.

I guess a reference to the creature called Leviathan in the Book of Job might also be the cause of the confusion. It sure appears that such a creature was not of this world. That may be true, but God who created that world could well be refering to that same creature in this present world.

@nfern,

Faith brings manifestations. So inspite of starting at the point where you do not see, faith eventually brings the unseen into the seen. For instance, the issue of creation which has been mentioned here. A bystander during creation would not have seen the earth, It existed first in God's spirit, and through the instrumentality of faith (WORDS), God caused the earth to be brought into the tangible material we can now observe and see. So in essence, we understand that the material is a product of the spiritual. That is why using the material to validate the spiritual is unthinkable. The source validates the produce and not vice versa.

@nfern,

I will not go into any arguments with you.  As Dru has rightly pointed out, we are both on different starting blocks.  I believe and will expect us to start from the position of faith in the fact that there is God, and you will not begin from there.  It'll thus be a waste of both of our valuable times.

@Dru,

Thanks for clarifying that. I just thought some might read your piece and make the wrong conclusions. Nice to have it well explained for those who might take that scripture and run with it without a proper line upon line, precept upon precept interpretation of scripture.

Hi Dru,

I've watched your exchange with nfern and I must confess that you have done a great job.  Personally, I try to avoid getting into argument with Atheist or whatever term they call their system of beliefs.  How do you explain the spiritual to someone who is not ready to enter into the realm of faith?  Nature clearly shows that some results are only obtained when certain conditions are fulfilled.  For instance, through science, we know that you need a combination of 2 parts of hydogen to one part of oxygen to produce water.  Someone may claim that is not true because they have combined hydrogen and oxygen and never got water.  But the knowledge that person lacks is the right combination and environment.

The things of God can only be understood by faith, which is more tangible than the physical touch-me- I-touch-you world that these people only understand.  Until you enter into faith, you will never see or know God.  According to Hebrew 11:6, you must first believe God IS before you can begin to see a proof of Him.  Until the Atheists acknowledge this, they will continue to grope in darkness.  

Also, I couldn't but comment on what you term TV christians and your ascertion through scripture that it takes feeding the children to begin to know Christ.  Though unintentional (I believe), you have suceeded in painting a picture of salvation through works.  I'm sure you know that not one person will enter heaven based on their good works.  If that happens, then Christ died in vain.  

Scriptures is not difficult to understand when you realise God's personality and the way He talks.  His emphasis on a subject sometimes gives the impression that other subjects are not important.  But in all, you will realise that every word of His is a command, and none is to be taken lightly.  According to Jesus, ", this you should do, without leaving the others undone".  Feeding the hungry children is just as important as taking care of the widow and the fatherless (which is refered to as the true religion).  But in no way is God implying that doing any of these will bring salvation.  Good works are encouraged by the scriptures and God is pleased with them, but such works are rewarded only if the one doing them is already saved.

The Lord gave me a good example with respect to this discusion a long time ago.  I was in a bus in Lagos on my way home from work.  I saw a woman in a government uniform sweeping the side of the road.  The Lord made me see that the only reason why that woman will get paid for the job done is because she is on the pay-roll of the Government.  Anyone may come out and do that job even better than that woman, but such a person will never get paid if they were not on the pay roll of the Government.  Same is true with faith, if you are not a believer, saved by grace, all those good works, while note-worthy will be lost.  That is why the Spirit of God sent believers to Cornelius to show him the way of salvation despite the fact that the man was full of good works.  His good works will not save him, and I doubt if good works will be rewarded in hell.

I must say you almost have a half point here. But it doesn't bear out under close scrutiny. I know of no Godly rulers, but lots of relatively happy countries/states. How manage? Secondly, you need to understand that Judaism coloured everything the Jews did. To such an extent that the religion/culture and politics where pretty much one. The test of a ruler in Judah?Israel was not their miltary might or their economic prowess, it was how God-fearing they were.

Are you trying to tell us that Proverbs 29:2 only applies to Isreal?  Are you also saying that your experience overides the scripture's submission?  Please make your points clearer as I believe you cannot be saying what you are obviouly implying here.  Pleae tell us, does a righteous person in authority today translate to the rejoicing of the people or not.  And doesn't this bear resemblance to 1 Timothy 2 where God desires that we live a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty?

I don't know many people who have anything good to say about IBB, but you are the first person I know to lay the whole blame for Nigeria's woes at his feet. Your point here cannot be corroborated by history, as Nigeria's problems have their roots in distant history and where well seeded before IBB arrived on the scene, he merely upped the ante. As for scripture, please read on. Let me try and link this with my response to your insightful piece about Israel with the "Thrones" thing I mentioned earlier. When the Kingdom was split into Israel & Judah it essentially established two thrones. The one of Judah was of God and was always relatively peaceful. Israel was a bad throne, a throne of rebellion. It will almost always corrupt whomever sits on it if they are not corrupt already. Therein lies the danger of trying to sit on the thrones of this world by worldly means. Maybe I should have been using corrupt instead of compromise in my earlier posts.

You read me wrong.  I never blamed all of Nigeira's woes on IBB, rather Nigeria degenerated into what it is today by the influence of that man.  We are yet to shake ourself completely free of the devastating consequences of that man having become the president of Nigeria.
Your references to the throne of Isreal corrupting the kings would have been taken at its face value except that the kings of Judah were just as corrupt as the kings of Isreal.  That must mean it isn't the throne that corrupts men, it is men who corrupt the throne.  A good man will do good on his throne while an evil man who do evil on his throne.  The throne only gives both kind of men the opportunity for a greater influence of good or evil.  If God was so opposed to the throne of Isreal, why then would He try to influence the decisions made on that throne?  Why would He raise up such great Prophets (Elijah and Elisha) in Isreal, and not even in Judah?  Please be reminded that the ofice of the Prophets in those days were an extension of the Government.

I made it very clear (and showed scriptural references) that the world comprised of Kingdoms (amongst other things). A kingdom/State, comprises of Politics, commerce, culture and much much more. I don't know if I previously mis-stated, or you misread, but I have subsequently made it very clear that I don't lump all the elements together as one. Politics and its power, ways & means are what are under discussion here. Trying to ascribe things to me was not funny the first time you tried it. Now it's unfunny and tedious to boot.

I have not tried to ascribe anything to you, but have emphasied the fact that no matter how you define the world, whether consisting of politics, comerce or culture, my Bible is very clear, that "the world belongs to us as Christians." - 1 Corinthians 3:21-23.  Besides, why should I stay away from the 'world' when the Bible mentioned that God so much loved the 'world' that He sent Jesus to die for it - John 3:16.  So why should christ's death be in vain?

I'm not sure if you misread what I meant if it actually matters given your ham-fisted way with the scriptures. Would you like scriptures showing that "Man" in his carnal state cannot be redeemed by law. Does God do it by law or by Grace. The riposte abouy God as King, lawgiver and judge sounds like you're out of ideas and thus "running to Daddy". Since when did Kings and democracy go together?

Of course man cannot be redeemed by law.  A nation's law is not promulgated to save man.  Rather, a nation's law, based on biblical principles will bring great blessings to the nation and to its people.  We have principles in scripture that if followed, will be a blessing to us, and not provide salvation in the sense of redeeming us from our sins.  Don't get all that muddled up.  On the other hand, a vagrant violation of God's law can bring God's wrath on the nation as we see in Soddom and Gomorrah, where homosexuality was obviously a national pastime.  Kings as used in scripture refers to the ruler.  There was no democracy in Bible times as we know it to be today.  So who is the Bible refering to in 1 timothey 2 when it says we should pray for Kings?

I won't reference (or research) the lady you mentioned. As I always maintain, it's not about personalities. But about "Giving glory to God". Half measures, compromise, pyhrric victories on bogus battle fronts and the mistaken assumption that God's kingdom is of this world or advanced by things of this world is in no way God gloryfying. Even if it's well intended, it's still misguided.

You say you have not seen a righteous ruler, and we should give you examples, but still you will not research living examples giving to you.  I just wonder why!   Your belief that God cannot use the kingdom of this world to further His work is unbelievably foolish on your part.  Did God use Nebuchadnezzar for His purpose?  Did He use Pharaoh to fulfill His promise for Isreal during the times of Joseph?  What about king Ahasuerus in the time of Esther for the preservation of Isreal?  What about the United Nations to establish Isreal in their land?  How about the Kings he use to save the life of that Christian sentenced to death in Afghanistan?   What about the many babes that could die or live through abortion that is directly influenced by those in authority?  And why would praying for our kings as metioned in 1 Timothy 2 lead to our ability to live a godly life?  Countless examples abound, but I doubt if they will make any differnce to you since you are not ready to consider any thing that contradicts your baseless belief-system.

I won't argue about about America's founding principles ( I wasn't there  ), but please don't roll out that sorry old cliche about it being a Christian country. There are no Christian countries.

Nobody said America is a Christian nation.  Indeed, there is no such thing.  On the other hand, you are the one that talks about the christian culture which you are yet to tell us about.

@TV01,

Looks like we finally have a topic to agree on.

Please if i am not right, could someone throw more light on the meaning of Shiloh.

The Hebrew word transliterated SHILOH is a very curiuos one.  The meaning is really uncertain.  However, it is generally regarded to mean a Place of rest, Peace, or better still TRANQUILISER.  

Jesus is refered to as SHILOH meaning our TRANQUILIZER who infuses peace in every storm of life.  See Genesis 49:10.

I have come across very 'dumb' topics on nairaland. This I say, is the "mother of them all".

It's very funny that no one has asked Celemel where he got this information from.  Give us the source of your information please, and stop making people discuss a hypothetical situation as real.

What Are The Biggest Problems Of Nigeria Today?

Too many Plane Crashes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

davidylan,

Your link isn't working right.

This documentary was shown at the University of Minnesota, but I couldn't make out the time to go view it. Fortunately, I was able to order the pre-release copy via their website. I have not had the time to watch it but I plan to do so soon. Hopefully, I'll be able to make my thoughts known via this medium.

@Bobbyaf,

Some argue that the earth in its initial stage of creation was formless, but only was like that before the Lord shaped it during the 6 days. In other words, on the first day of it being created it was formless until it was shaped and fashioned later on during the 6 dausof creation. I prefer the latter.

There is no grounds for this conclusion in the scriptures. I have showed earlier that God did not create the earth formless. "And the earth became without form and void, " is a popular alternative rendering of that passage in Genesis 1:2. Here is the proof once again:

An evidence that the earth was not created the way we find it revealed in Genesis 1:2 can be found in Isaiah 45:18: For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else. [/color]
The Hebrew word translated VAIN here in Isaiah is the same word used in Genesis 1:2 as WITHOUT FORM. The Hebrew word is transliterated as TOHUW. The word expresses a chaotic state, a state of emptiness, nothiness, wasteland or wilderness.
In other words, God did not create the earth WITHOUT FORM as reported in Genesis 1:2. The earth became WITHOUT FORM due to some events that occured between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2.

water was created the very first time when terra ferma was. Both land and water were created together.

While this conclusion may be right, it is not specifically stated in the scriptures (at least, as far as i know).

what did God mean when He asked man to re-plenish the earth? remember replenish means to fill up something that has been depleted

Truly, the Hebrew word "ALM", translated replenish actually means to fill up. In other words, God was instructing man to fill up the whole earth and not just remain in the Garden. I believe a direct violation of this instruction is one major reason why God confounded the language of the people at Babel. Men wanted to stay in one place, and God had to scatter them to the ends of the earth by the various languages in order to fulfil His commandment to 'fill' up the earth.

Well, there is only one earth, lol. We are not sure if Lucifer fell before, or after Adam and Eve were created. If Adam and Eve were responsible for sin generally, then it means that they had to have been the first couple.
If they were people in existence before them, which can be easily concluded from your question, then the idea of Adam and Eve being the first humans to sin wouldn't be true biblically. Just food for thought.

Lucifer fell well before Adam and Eve were created. Infact, the scriptures reveal that Lucifer was the one entrusted with the first Garden of Eden. Make no mistake, God's plan will and must be fulfilled. Earth will be recreated again after this one is gone, and the Garden of Eden will still be in the new earth. God will not be defeated.

Read Ezekiel 28: 11-19 to figure out what I said about Lucifer being the first Occupier of Eden.
[color=#990000]11 Moreover the word of the LORD came unto me, saying, 12 Son of man, take up a lamentation upon the king of Tyrus, and say unto him, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Thou sealest up the sum, full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty. 13 Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created. 14 Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire. 15 Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee. 16 By the multitude of thy merchandise they have filled the midst of thee with violence, and thou hast sinned: therefore I will cast thee as profane out of the mountain of God: and I will destroy thee, O covering cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire. 17 Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty, thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness: I will cast thee to the ground, I will lay thee before kings, that they may behold thee. 18 Thou hast defiled thy sanctuaries by the multitude of thine iniquities, by the iniquity of thy traffick; therefore will I bring forth a fire from the midst of thee, it shall devour thee, and I will bring thee to ashes upon the earth in the sight of all them that behold thee. 19 All they that know thee among the people shall be astonished at thee: thou shalt be a terror, and never shalt thou be any more.

We'll continue from here.

A lot of people are just trying to derail the topic by insinuating things that some of us meant.

Let it be clear that EFCC, as used in this discussion represents the State. In other words, any other organ of the State charged with a particular function should be able to extend its tentacles to the church when there is an obvious reason to do so. The Pollice force for instance can come into the Church if there is a case of lawlessness and disregard for law and order within the church. EFCC is a special body set up by the Government to deal with financial crimes, and as long as the Church is within the State, then it must be subject to the law of that State. It will only be out of place for EFCC (an organ of the Nigerian State) to investigate the Church in Togo, for instance.

@TV01,

Righteousness exalts a nation, not Christian politics/politicians

You sure have your way of running with a scripture without balancing that scripture with others.  I have emphasised in our discussion, the need to have the Bible explain itself, but it seems you are just set in your ways and your thought.  In any case, why not try and balance the referenced scripture above with the following:
Proverbs 29:2
Show me a righteous ruler and I will show you a happy people. Show me a wicked ruler and I will show you a miserable people. (GNT)
When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice: but when the wicked beareth rule, the people mourn. (KJV)
When the godly are in authority, the people rejoice. But when the wicked are in power, they groan (NLT).

The populace force the change. And a country gets the government it deserves (and secretly longs for).

This assertion can not be corroborated by scripture, nor by history.  With respect to history, Nigeria is what it is today basically because one man (Babangida) became the head of State.  Much of the corruption and lack of respect for lives and properties became the norm when he came into power.  In other words, the nation tends to take on the character of the leader.  Read through the book of Kings and Chronicles in the Bible, and you will see that Isreal either turns away or serve God based on the ruling King.  When the King is God-fearing, the whole of Isreal tend to be God-fearing and vice versa.

There is only one God and there are only two sources of power. Authority (Not ultimately, or ownership) over The Kingdoms of this world is currently in lien to the enemy. To sit on any of it's thrones, you have to serve him or compromise your position, which is essentially the same thing.
If the elevation to a position of authority or influence comes by divine favour, it will be clear and apparent to all. The glory will be God's.
Civil agitation for worldly power? As a Christian it simply beggars belief.

Your error is still based on your assumption that the 'world' refers to politics, commerce and culture.  I have shown you scriptures over and over again that contradicts your view but you just won't accept it.  Claiming you have to be compromised to attain political power, yet stating that God can favour you to such a 'compromising' position is an affront on the integrity of Almighty God.  Mitchelle Bachmann was in church giving all the glory to God.  By her position in politics, she's gained such a visibility (a city set on a hill that cannot be hid), and through that visibility, her testimony of Christ is heard in more homes across the State than most preachers or believers will ever dream of.
What you term civil agitation for worldly power is what we find in Exodus 18:21  Moreover thou shalt provide out of all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness; and place such over them, to be rulers of thousands, and rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens:  No wonder our countries are what they are today.  We have failed to elect "able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness; ,  to be rulers, "

The Bible narrative is very clear. Law doesn't avail to righteousness (which is the whole point of political power right? To be able to legislate!).

Please tell this to God, and advice Him that His role as a King (Executive), Lawgiver (Legislative) and Judge (Judiciary) is ill-adviced.  Can't you see that America, founded on the biblical principles actually got the idea of democracy from God as revealed in Isaiah 33:22 For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver, the LORD is our king; he will save us.
So since when did it become 'wordly' and 'ungodly' to imitiate God?  Ephesians 5:1  Be imitators of God, therefore, as dearly loved children

Your ideas are just what it is: Your Ideas.  They have no biblical foundation and are deprived of wisdom.  That the State has a history of persecuting the church does not make it an exclusive tool of the devil.  Christians are persecuted every day by members of their familes, friends and acquaitances.  Does that make these people exclusively subject to Satan's authority?  Definitely not.  The devil uses whoever yields to his influence, same principles applies to God.  The State, if it yields itself to God will be mightily used of God.

FELLOW NIGERIANS,

It is with a sense of national duty that I address you today. As you all know, our NASCENT DEMOCRACY has been hijacked by some DISGRUNTLED ELEMENTS whose quest for a THIRD TERM was predicated on UNCONSTITUTIONALITY and downright THUGERY. These MEN OF TIMBER AND CALIPERS, though regarded by many as TECHNOCRATS, are no more than POLITICAL THUGS, brandishing and INDUCING THE MASSES with GHANA-MUST-GO POLITICS that is far from the VISION of our POLITICAL GODFATHERS, I meant FOUNDING FATHERS.

To avoid a STATE OF EMERGENCY, I have decided to APPOINT A SOLE ADMINISTRATOR to handle the AFFAIRS OF STATE. This INTERIM GOVERNMENT shall be headed by he WHOM THE CAP FITS. This I believe, is the ONLY WAY FORWARD, it is VICTORY FOR DEMOCRACY. As you know, NIGERIA IS OUR ONLY COUNTRY, and we must do all we can to resolve this DICHOTOMY. MAY GOD BLESS THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA.

Let's see who can combine as much of these vocabs into the longest sentence possible.

Here is a video link showing EFCC in action apprehending some 419ers. I feel ashamed that they were even attacked by other citizens who should rejoice at such good works:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5fLn86Q4wSM

State of Emergency, economic sabotage, We have only one country, Indian Girls, Green Revolution, June 12, Disgruntled Elements, Political Assasination, Interim Government, our nascent democracy, victory for democracy, Impeachment etc,

@Mazaje,

What's causing the confusion?

@TV01,

Thanks for the compliment. I throw the same right back at you!

I am so alarmed by your reference to Daniel and Esther as slaves/servants. Please show me how any of these were regarded as slaves/servants. That their country was taken on exile into another land does not mean they were slaves. Joseph was only less in authority than Pharaoh in Egypt. Daniel (of noble birth) ruled over the entire province of Babylon, which is like the Washington of our day. Esther (the Queen) influenced the political decision of her day. Just tell us, did these people wield political power or not?

They could never have aspire to any political office. What elevated them was divine favour. They did not seek, pursue or campaign for office.

The question is not whether they aspired for political office or not. I assume by that statement you agree these people occupied political positions. In any case, why would God favour them so much that He will put them in a position that is contrary to His will? And in a sense, Esther was aware that her action was going to have a political implication. That is exactly the purpose of Christianity in politics. To exert political influence in such a way as to accomplish the Lord's desire for His will to be done on earth as it is in heaven.

Please, be not deceived that the war beween God and Satan is centered on kingdoms in the sense of geographical locations, riches etc. Rather, it is centered more on people. God is not so much concerned about commerce because He has already declared that the gold and silver, the earth and the fullness thereof belongs to Him. So there is really no contest in that arena.

Once again, if we will let the scriptures explain itself, then we will understand what was transpiring in the scenario you mentioned. According to Jesus, there are 2 kingdoms, the kingdom of heaven (or God) and the kingdom of darkness: Matthew 8: 11 And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven. 12 But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. All men were handed over to the devil when Adam sinned, and that is why death reigned over us: Romans 5:17 For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.) It is therefore clear that satan was telling Jesus that the men He came to save were under his dominion and He can hand them over to Jesus without Jesus having to go to the cross. But of course, there was an addendum to that offer. He wanted Jesus to worship him. I am sure you are aware that politics does not have anything to do with these kingdoms, and so how take this to mean Christians are not to partake in politics is unimaginable t me.

Campaigning for offices is a legitimate right of anyone in a country. God told us to obey the laws of our land which encourages us to seek for political offices. Going about obtaining political power through a legitimate and constitutional means is absolutely not in violation of the Bible.

So yes, we can trade, engage the culture, even serve the state in a sense, but not if it compromises our beliefs (as in anything), and not to seeking rule over it, or power from it.

I thought you said before that involving in commerce, culture and any form of plitical activity is contrary to our faith. Are you now beginning to see the fallacy of your statemement? The key-word here is compromise, and I have told you that it is a common denominator to all Christians, regardless if we are involved in politics or not. Strength of character will keep any Christian in politics, commerce or cultre. Joseph and Daniel are good examples. By the way, you are yet to tell me what the Christian culture you mentioned earlier is.

Arent all things lawful anymore? Doesn't the Bible tell us that all things are ours (including the world)? So who is shrinking and expanding the scritures to fit his preconceived idea of us two?

If all children are Godly, why do they need to be saved? Am I mis-reading you? Gay homosexuals cannot breed (at least with one) another?)

I think you need to rephrase these statement as it does not make any sense to me.

The Bible teaches that in the mouth of two or more witnesses, every word will be established. I wonder why Mohammed has none and you'all are just following after his deceit.

In any case, no one said the Holy Spirit is a thing. The Holy Spirit is God Himself. He is what we call the third member of the God-head. He is a tangible Being that lives on the inside of all Christians and He it is that came on the Disciples at Jerusalem, on the day of Petecost to fulfil Jesus' promise to His own.

I don't know what your Allah's standard is, but I know by the Bible's standard, Mohammed aint holy one bit. He may have done righteous acts, but your acts do not cleanse you of sin. At the same time, why should he say he is not sure of making heaven if Allah considers him holy?

This is not about you or me being liars. It is a case of who the liar is between Jesus and Mohammed. It is a case of whether Allah is the God revealed in the Bible or one of the 365 gods that was worshipped in the kabba in mecca. It is a case of the witness of hundreds of prophets compared to the witness of Mohammed.

Now to the issue of the holy Spirit, here is Jesus' statement in full: John 14: 16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; 17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.

Here are some qualities of the Holy Spirit listed here that can never be mistaken as referencing Mohammed:

1. He shall be with us forever. Isn't mohammed dead and rotten in his grave now? for how long did he live?

2. He can not be seen by the world. is Mohammed an invinsible being?

3. He dwells with us and shall be in us. Is Mohammed in you and does he dwell in you?

If your answer to any of these is NO, which it is, then the Comforter can never be Mohammed.

You might want to check out: http://www.breakawaymag.com/

@TV01,

While it is true that the State has been an organ of persecution against the Church, it has also been the tool used by the righteous to bring about God's will.  Joseph, Esther and Daniel readily comes to mind.  Imagine if what happened in Daniel were to happen in places like Pakistan and Saudi arabia that you mentioned, then a whole country will almost become christian overnight.  And I need to let you know that politics is is just one of the tools that we can use to propagate the Gospel.  Other means might be required for the scenario you called out.  Wisdom is profitable to direct.  In palces like Zamfara however, politics is a tool that can be used to reverse the unconstitutionality of the government.  Christians can go to court (Ceasar) to address that situation.

While I have shown you what the Bible defines as the world, you are dancing in circles without providing the scriptural basis for saying the world refers to politics, commerce and culture.  At least, one thing I understand from 1 John 2:16 is the fact that the Bible's reference to the 'world' may be substituted in some cases to mean the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes and the pride of life.

Of course I know your mind in this instance.  You have expressed your thoughts in the things you wrote.   Are you not the one that said:

Bad idea, we have a divine mandate to fulfil and enough to keep us occupied. Politics, commerce and culture (the world) are effectively under the sway of the evil one.

Are you not telling us here to hands off anything politics, commercial or cultural because they are effectively under the sway of the evil one?  and please tell us what the culture of christianity is, 'because I really don't know what you are talking about.

So can you show us from scripture where we are told that we may use all tools except politics, commerce and cultural ones?  It's funny how you quoted the scripture: 'all things are lawful, ' but you are quick to say politics is not.  Doesn't politics fall under the word 'ALL"?  And while you are searching the Bible for that answer, please read 1 Corinthians 3:22 Whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, or the world, or life, or death, or things present, or things to come; all are yours; .  As the scripture has said here: the world is mine.  This line must have inspired the statement "The World is Yours" used in Scarface the movie.

Please show me an uncompromised Christian politician.

Please show me an uncompromised Christian at all, whether politician or not.

You appear to be misconstuing praying for political leaders and being political leaders. In your ideal scenarion you'll simply be praying for yourself. What a hoot!

Prayer like politics is a tool we also use.  And what is wrong with praying for myself?  Don't you pray for yourself? 

You reasoning suggests that any non-believers should be legally barreed from reproducing

Not at all.  Rather you are the one that is reasoning that way.  I very much quoted the Bible to show that God requires a man and a woman (not righteous people as you suggested) to give birth within the marriage institution in order to give God a godly seed.  This will not happen in homosexual marriages.  Here is what I said again:   If you will throw your prejudice aside, please read that verse again noting that the only way a godly seed can be made is through the unity of a Man and a Woman in a holy wedlock.  The Lord asked Himself: "And why is the man and woman made one?"   And He came up with the answer: "so as to have a godly seed."     And that statement is borne out of the following scripture:  Has not the Lord made them one? In flesh and spirit they are his. And why one? Because he was seeking godly offspring.

@Olabowale,

I don't know what you mean by civil discussion, but I am one that says it as it is. I will also ask one favour from you, please do not claim the Bible is true when you so please, and discard its claim when it doesn't support your notion. If you believe one word in the Bible, then you must believe all. Otherwise, you will have to bring what you refer to as the 'original' Bible to fore. I don't believe a single claim in the Koran, and so cannot base my arguments on it. I will only refer to it to show you it is not worth the divine inspiration ascribed to it.

How many people saw Mohammed in Jerusalem? That he claims he was there does not mean he did make that journey. Besides, a lot of your traditions says he actually went there in a dream and not in the flesh. that is one thing about Mohammed, no one ever witness the supernatural occurences he claimed for himself. Meanwhile, all the other Prophets meantioned in scripture had witnesses to the

And how many of the disciples did he meet there? Jesus told His disciples to wait for the Comforter, and I would believe that comforter should have been there in their lifetime. In what year was Mohammed claimed to have gone to Jerusalem?

And while you are looking at the atributes of the Comforter, please do not forget that He is qualified with the word HOLY. I'm sure you know Mohammed is far from being Holy.