₦airaland Forum

Christianity made easy! That is what it is now. Make some confessions and whatever sin you commit after that is not held against you! Is it that you don't read the bible on your own and try to understand apart from what your pastor tells you? Is he God? So if a born again commits sin, will he go to heaven or hell? If hell then what took him there?
Okay oh

I can’t prosecute Yerima – Adoke
From AIDOGHIE PAULINUS (Abuja) and TEMILOLUWA ADELEKE, Lagos
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
•Yerima
The Sun Publishing

The Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Muhammed Bello-Adoke has said he has no power to prosecute former Zamfara State governor, Ahmed Yerima over his marriage to a minor.

He, however, admitted as immoral, Yerima’s marriage to the 14-year-old Egyptian.

The AGF, who made the remarks when he paid a courtesy call on the Minister of Information and Communication, Professor Dora Akunyili in Abuja yesterday, however said, “even though, there have been questions here and there over Yerima’s action, all I can say is that it was an immoral act.”
Adoke, who disclosed that the visit was to congratulate Akunyili for her good work, riterated his commitment to upholding the rule of law saying, “I’m ready to be attacked or sacked.”

This issue is treated differently by different people even in the Catholic Church. Again, no amount of explanation on Nairaland would tell you exactly what you want to hear, this is because you are not the only that would be addressed here, meaning, people with even greater doubts than yourself would surface to derail the thread, amidst insult and name-callings. Just like Muslims and Jehovah witnesses would never agree with you that Jesus Christ, whom you believe to be God is actually God and bring in all forms of logic to convince you accordingly, that is how Catholics, amidst other believes would argue the bodily assumption of Mary into heaven. The argument, if started might never finish.
My advice to you is, if you are really sincere about knowing the truth, or even just understanding what its all about, meet your parish priest or a knowledgeable member of the block rosary, they would answer all your questions, at the end, whether its satisfactory or not depends on you. Faith is most times as perceived by an individual or a group of people and not as seen by everybody, highly subjective. The question then becomes what you take from your faith, how it works for you, and where you hope it leads you to. There is therefore no need holding a faith that you don't agree with, deep down your heart.

The primate was not equivocal in his predictions, meaning, he's sure of their authenticity.

@Joagbaja, which miracles do you see everyday? That of TB Joshua I guess, the same ones that people claim are fake and arranged, the same one that you sweat profusely defending,
I thought you should have known better!
Days of Noah!

Nopuquiter,

You amuse me, so your first reaction to my post was my grammar? Well, thank God I don't need your approval for a degree in English language, I have none and don't need it. I'm happy though that you understood my questions despite the poor grammar, the purpose was achieved after all. 

You requested that I should post whatever I have against Islam here, in as much as I would want to, my answer to that request is no. You left your section to this place to meddle in whatever we discuss and even raise topics to insult and discredit our religion, I would do same in your section since I've gotten your permission. That though wouldn't prevent me from posting any other topic of interest about your religion in this section, thanks.

i care:
, SO YOU CAN ONLY BE SAVED IN THE BODY AND RESURRECT AS A SPIRIT LIKE JESUS.

So Christ's resurrection was not bodily but just spiritual?

, Humn,

vedaxcool:
CAUGHT NAPPING

The disciples were caught as the Englishman would say with their "pants down".1 Literally they were caught napping. The enemy trod over them roughshod. Only one of the soldiers of Christ had the presence of mind to ask:

". . . Master, shall we smite them with the sword?"

(HOLY BIBLE) Luke 22:49

But before Jesus could attempt a reply, the impetuous Peter struck out with his sword and cut off the right ear of one of the enemy. Jesus had not anticipated Roman soldiers. Realising that the tables were turned against his misconceived strategy, he advises his disciples:

". . . Put up again thy sword into its place; for all they that TAKE THE SWORD shall PERISH WITH THE SWORD."
(HOLY BIBLE) Matthew 26:52

1. "Pants down": a figure of speech, meaning caught in an unguarded moment; unawares.

CHANGE OF STRATEGY

Did Jesus not know the truth of this statement when he ordered his disciples to sell their garments and buy SWORDS? He surely did! Then why the contradiction now? . There is really no contradiction! The situation changes, so the strategy must also change. He had sense enough to realise that against trained and well-equipped Roman soldiers it would be suicidal for his sleepy warriors to offer even a pretence of resistance.


PRINCE OF PEACE

Why do not the Christian controversialists give their "Lord and Master" credit for this simple common-sense? Because they have been programmed for a period of two thousand years that Jesus, the "lamb", the "prince of peace", couldn't harm a fly. They overlook the other side of his nature which demanded blood and fire! They forget his instructions to his soldiers regarding those of his enemies who would not like him to rule over them, to bring them forth:

. . . and SLAY1 them before me."

(HOLY BIBLE) Luke 19:27

"Think NOT that I am come to send PEACE on earth; I. came NOT to send PEACE, but a SWORD."

(HOLY BIBLE) Matthew 10:34

"I am come to send FIRE on the earth; and what will I, if it be already kindled?
Suppose ye that I am come to give PEACE on earth? I tell you, NAY; but rather DIVISION."

(HOLY BIBLE) Luke 12:49 & 51

Now you speak in the voice of Ahmed Deedat and Zakir Naik. They've been proven wrong long ago so this useless answering you on that, plus, you wouldn't even understand. Still awaiting your reply to my earlier post though.

Vadexcool, Nopuquiter, I must say, with displeasure that I'm impressed with your unrelenting efforts to always ridicule the Christian faith. Call it dialogue or whatever, my question; why are you people so obsessed with the futile effort to beat down Christianity with the reason of authenticating your faith? Do you think that your religion is an alternative to the Christian religion, in which case, if you are able to discredit Christianity by your wit, Christians would abandon Christianity and accept your religion? Do you think most Christians see it that way? Do you think that in order of authenticity, most Christians hold your religion second to theirs among numerous religions to choose from beside Christianity, just in case you are able to finally plant doubt in the minds of shallow rooted Christians destined to perish for lack of knowledge?
Do you value you religion? Will you be happy if its scorned like you do here? Do you think your religious feelings need to be respected by others? Will it make you happy if I bring things up always in your session to discredit your prophet? Will you not mind, considering its an intellectual forum and freedom of speech is necessary for utmost understanding?
Well, Personally speaking, I respect your religion, and to add, so much. I often tell myself "its not necessary afterall" anytime your arrogance here forces me to react in like manner, ie, going into your holy book to bring up embarrassing portions and that is why, most times I don't follow up your replies.
Now, Nopuquiter and Vadexcool, I put it to you guys that your religion has too much holes to leave the entire Christian population panting for breadth picking. If you doubt it, dare me to post those hole continuously in your section like you always come here to do. This is a challenge to you because this is something I would ordinarily not do. This is also an avenue to seek justification from whatever hullabaloo what I would be posting would definitely cause, meaning, let the wrath come upon your heads, that is, if your level of confidence in your assumed fool proof religion would allow you to believe whatever I have to post would even generate any wrath from either God or Man in the first place. I sincerely hope your confidence lets you accept this challenge, without which I would hold my peace and assume that you two are aware of the insufficiency of your religion to be called one, that is if, and only if.
I sincerely wait to hear a decisive answer from either one of you, take note, decisive is the word.

Very nice topic though but My question to Pastor; What is the negative influence of neoplatonism in early Christianity. I say early Christianity because Christianity today is far from holding a single philosophy.

Kai Nopuquiter, what is your problem? Why is it that you always come to derail every interesting topic? Do you think that its all about how you feel? Do you think its all about Islam and argument and all? Please there are times we Christians want to discuss our own things so that we can be better informed and when I mean better informed, I don't men from the Quran.
Please, don't allow anyone to insult your religion and Holy book!

React to the topic my friend, Catholic or not, observations have been raised, react to them. If you are a pentecostal, then the above topic applies to you and if you think otherwise, bring your facts forward. The fact that someone else is a Catholic does not guarantee your unbiblical practices, what is wrong is wrong, no matter who practices them.
If you think Catholics are not Christians based on their practices, the ground is open for you to raise a topic on it like I raised this one then we all will discuss it, but making statements without being specific is making no statement at all, less so on a topic that is not related to it. I advise you to raise a topic on how you feel about Catholics and don't derail this one.
Again, do you agree with the thread above? If not bring forward your facts against it, in that way we would get ourselves clarified, you would learn and I would learn too. Your outrage shows your efforts to do something about a perceived attack on your perfect worship, which you hitherto thought was free of error, but can't even say anything to clear the air. This is not an attack if that is how you feel, this is to open your eyes to see how wrong you've been about your supposed faultless and pure practice after all. Open your mind, seek knowledge, remain blessed.

Jehovah chap chap

Criticism is easy to give but hard to take!!!!!! I advice ye faithful to defend your faith, not calling God's wrath on those that disagree with you!

There is a way way that seemeth right unto a man but the end of that way is destruction!

@ Belabela

Support your claims with authorities. Who are the Anabaptists? When did their movement in Christianity started? What are their claims? How were they persecuted? By whom and when?
The general idea of your post is understood but some of your assertions are a product of malicious lies fed into you which you took without verification. You've been hearing from one source, now you hear from a different source and all you do is make statements without grounds. Don't you even think that some of your statements need verifications? There are written literatures from neutral sources to either prove your points or set you straight, why not go through them? The writtings of Fathers of the Church long before the birth of Constantine are still available, why prefer "eye witness accounts" of those who tell you all these things that happened long ago and in far away lands?
Wikipedia is not an acceptable source of authority to you, provide a more acceptable unbiased source so that we can clarify ourselves atleast.

@Blackode

In Catholic circles, when Tertullian, a Montanist, furiously applied the term to Pope Callixtus I, with whom he was at odds, c.  220, over Callixtus's relaxation of the Church's penitential discipline, allowing repentant adulterers and fornicators back into the Church, under his Petrine authority to "bind and loosen," it was in bitter irony:

    "In opposition to this [modesty], could I not have acted the dissembler? I hear that there has even been an edict sent forth, and a peremptory one too. The 'Pontifex Maximus,' that is the 'bishop of bishops,' issues an edict: 'I remit, to such as have discharged [the requirements of] repentance, the sins both of adultery and of fornication.' O edict, on which cannot be inscribed, 'Good deed!' … Far, far from Christ's betrothed be such a proclamation!" (Tertullian, On Modesty ch. 1)

It is not clear if the word Pontifex was commonly used by early 3rd-century Christianity, as it was later, to denote a bishop. Tertullian's usage is unusual in that most of the technical terms of Roman paganism were avoided in the vocabulary of Christian Latin in favour of neologisms or Greek words.

I got the quote above from the link you provided below.

[/quote]A little research into pre-Christian Roman reliogious systems shows that the word 'pope' or 'high priest' had been in existence before they were converted as a state and it was called the 'Pontifex Maximus'(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontifex_Maximus). So that when Emperor Constantine was converted as a result of his dream, Christianity became the most politically strong religion and I am going to leave you @chukwudi44 to figure out what those pagan priests did to remain relevant. A deep look at some of the rites and rituals of the Roman Catholic Church would show so much similarities with what you would read in the Pontifex Maximus article.
[quote]

Why do people always wish history happened the way they imagine it to suit whatever argument they have to bring forward? The above quote from Tertulian containing the words 'Pope' and the use of 'Pontifex Maximus' was written 220 AD, more than 100 years before Constantine became a Christian and far more than 100 years before the Edict of Milan.
I've gone through this "Pontifex Maximus article" of yours and I'm yet to see those rites and rituals. Maybe my Catholic eyes evaded them, so can you please quote them here in words so that we all can see them? I believe there is enough space for that here.
Again, you are of this Imagination that after Constantine converted to Christianity, everybody in the Roman Empire converted to Christianity, including Roman Priests and thus came up with things so as to remain relevant in the Church, You are mistaken! Christianity was still very much in the minority and were only allowed to thrive. You might also think that the Edict of Milan made Christianity the State Religion of the Roman Empire, another mistake. The Edict of Milan made Christianity an 'acceptable religion'. That is, a religion which was before then considered 'unacceptable' now 'acceptable', a religion which before then was persecuted and later allowed to just be now considered acceptable. That was how Christianity, from unrestricted proselytism grew in leaps and bounds.
To affirm your statement, Yes, Christianity was persecuted in Rome, just like it was persecuted in Jerusalem, Egypt and almost everywhere it got. It is also true that it came to be widely accepted almost everywhere it was persecuted, less so in Jerusalem but more so in Rome and Egypt and Ethiopia et al. Christianity spread and grew by the persecution of Christians, making them flee abroad and the strength of their faith, making them impossible to silence, planting Christianity wherever they fled, which in time came to be 'accepted' by divine turn of events in her lands of her bitter persecution.

I would like to also have us know that whatever language we use now once belonged to Pagans. Name it; Greek, Latin, English, French, German, Ibo, Hausa, Yoruba, Arabic and even Hebrew! So, there is virtually no religious word, which if properly looked into has no Pagan meaning at once upon a time, the difference is, what is it used to mean? Or, what is your own understanding of it? Thus, since the word Allah means "God" to muslims, does it not also mean God when a Christian Arab uses it? Since the word "Ubangiji" means "God" even to Pagan Hausas in those, does it connote a Pagan God when their Christian descendants use it? In my language to today, there is no way the word Priest (An English word which I also believe was used to refer to Pagan Priests when the English people were Pagans) can be translated without sounding the same as Shrine overseers are called! But when a Christian uses it, everyone know what he meant. There are also titles today which are ascribed to God almighty which were once used to refer to our various deities! For example 'Odogu na nya', 'Ojo Odoba Ogalagwu', 'Owoicho Agaba Idu', and every language has his', Hausa, Yoruba, Latin, Greek, et al. I could go on and on, you can either accept it or reject it but are you being fair both in the eyes of God and man in your condemnations?   

Latin was the language of intellectualism up till late 15th century, not just a Catholic Church thing. Before Christianity, Latin, just like every other language was spoken by Pagans. Pontif, is a Latin word used to denote a Bishop. In the Catholic Church, the same word is used to denote the most senior Bishop, the Bishop of Rome, also called 'papa', 'poppa' 'Pope' all translating to Father!

@Chakula

First, are you a Christian?
Do you or do you not agree with the tread above?
You don't have to be confused. You either agree with the thread or disagree with it as there is nothing ambiguous to be confused about. But if on the contrary you think some things are not clear, then be specific. As for me telling you who the real Christians are, I leave that to you to decipher for yourself.
Remember the Lords analogy in the in the Gospel, where he said on the last day, alot of people, disappointed would say things like;
Lord I preached in your name, I performed miracles in your name et al but at the end, he would still say to them, 'I know you not'.

Begotten, not made, one in substance with the father, and through him, all things were made. 'Apostles' Creed'.

Oh you are not Catholic? I'm surprised since its Catholics only that usually don't understand protestants and penticostals perfectly well whenever an issue arises!
@Acidosis
I can see you believe that Catholics, Muslims and Pagans don't believe in witchcraft, do you people actually read or observe before ascribing everything to the Catholic Church? Wake up your reasoning!
My sympathy to your friend.

@Tonye T,
I can understand your grievances. What you've believed and held as the truth all your life is being attacked! Well, I guess the best way to go about it is by proving the so called 'ignoramuses' wrong. So far, what you done is beat around the bush. If Christ or his disciples admonished preachers to take tithes, then make it clear to us so that we too can believe and as strongly as you do. For now, the only thing you've done is telling us how you feel about it, not why you think its the right thing to do. I agree with you though that people would eventually come to believe as the truth a false teaching they been subjected to for a very long time, unwilling to see reasons why they should believe otherwise all of a sudden.
Again, tithing is only one of several issues raised in the thread above. Present your facts against the numerous other ones or else study into them yourself so that you may know the truth. Anger is only a product of frustration, when things don't go your way. We learn everyday, don't throw reason to the dogs.
Remain blessed!

newdeal:
bearded faithful to enjoy his tender loot!

But its not funny at all

Thank you all for you contributions, I now understand that my opinion is after all not out of place with some Christians. Its however true that some arrogant brethren in Christ are either fed with lies or are just making excuses for their sins.

In response to a question; I mean live two adults of opposite sex, not related, sleeping and waking in the same room and doing things like married couples. As for having sex, I don't know but I would certainly not be invited to come and witness if they do in the secrecy of their rooms. Judging no one. I wanted an answer and the little I've gotten is enough for me. Thanks.

I'm Catholic but that not withstanding:
The attitudes of some Priests (Pastors inclusive) are highly embarrassing to the Church, and more so, destroying the faith of the weak. I doubt if there is a priest on this thread, so this message would not get to them. However, just like a someone reported, if you are approached by a priest, who is supposed to have given up earthly pleasures for the service of Christ, why not embarrass him publicly! Make them ashamed of themselves! Sit them down and advise them like children!
A Catholic Priest can opt out of the Priesthood if he cannot continue, provided he comes before the same congregation before whom he took the oath of Celibacy, Poverty (that is owning nothing more than required and unless of course provided him by the Charity of the Church and society), Communal life (In the case of congregations), and Obedience to the Bishop to serve Christianity and humanity even at the pain of death, and then renounce those oaths, giving reasons why he cannot continue.
Clergies can get married in the Church. We have married deacons in the Catholic Church, though not popular in the Africa, and priests of the eastern Catholic Church (Not to be confused with eastern Orthodox Church) get married. If you can't continue, why let your singular action smear the name of the Church? Very annoying.

This thread is too old to die quietly but I don't why they kept leaving on the front page!

Sometimes when I take a close look at the Penticostal churches I wonder. Almost everything about them contravene the new testament that they cling to so much! They have very little regard for the old testament but would not hesitate to quote from it when it supports their selfish arguments, like when it supports tithing. Their pastors take huge millions in the form of tithe like the Livitical priests, even when it was written no where in the new testament where Christ or his apostles received tithes, and even paul made it clear that he requires no body's money as the works of his hands can provide for him. When Christ was sending his disciples out on evangelism, the order he gave to them was 'eat whatever is set before you.' and not demand one tenth of your converts' incomes.
Again, the main massage Pentecostalism tend to carry or atleast flaunts is prosperity. It was clear in the Bible that Jesus never said a Christian life must be that of affluence. Himself and the apostles made it clear that a Christian is not of this world, and that life on earth would be filled with tribulations and that they should be endured for our rewards are great in heaven. He however did not rule out wages by hard work. Alot of pastor even go up to the point of defrauding people so as to live an outward life of their perceived Christianity.     
Again, they don't believe in doing good works, or, they don't see it as an essential part of our heavenly race they stick to Saint Paul's philosophy of justification by faith alone and even criticise those that labour in this direction. They over Christ analogy in the Gospel when he said that on the last day, the whole humanity would be divided into two groups, and to one he would say; When I was hungry you gave me to eat, when I was thirsty you gave me to drink, when I was unclothed you clothed me etc, now enter into the kingdom of my father and then the other half who never did anything like, he turned away, making it clear that good works is highly essential to get a man into heaven. Also, they ignore saint James epistle where he said faith without work is dead and clung to the one they saw easier.
Again, when they pray, they pray like the Pharisees, shouting out loud above their voices and very verbose, repeating the same phrases over and over again, ignoring the Biblical directive that Christians should keep their prayers simple and without vain repetitions and raising of voices but quietly, so that the Father who everything in secret would give his reward in secret.
It was at the advent of penticostalism that things like harlot-like dressing to Church, covering of hair, Voodoo in the Church for the sake of miracles, Pastors frying their hairs becoming a sign of reverence and alot of things that were not hitherto associated with the Church atleast became the order of the day.
There are a lot of things I observed I began to wander if they are actually Christians or a bunch if money making, public show, easy speaking, social organizations! Because based on the teachings of the new testament which they claim to uphold so much, they are not Christian! Based on the old testament which they denounce but embrace when it buttresses their arguments, they are not Christians! And based on the doctrines of the Apostles passed down, they are far from Christians! What are Pentecostals actually? I feel they are part of the devil's end time agenda, aimed at corrupting the very foundation of the Christian faith and her doctrines so that at the end, Christian would not even know what the standard is or supposed to be anymore. For example, most of them claim to have no teachings at all, calling it doctrines and making the word itself sound abhorrent. That is to say, no standard anymore, anything goes!
What is your own opinion? Sincere opinions, Insults and tongue bashings are welcome.

@belabela

Not just the Pope, every Reverend Father in the Catholic is ordained after the order of Melchizedek. They are supposed to be a guide to the people, for the reason that they given up the world to serve God nothing else, they are to minister to the people like Melchizedek did.
Again, the word 'Pope' is not like an abstract word, it is a Latin word meaning Father (Papa, Poppa). He is the Bishop of Rome and the most senior of all the Bishops in the Catholic Church, thus, the overseer (worldly leader, as you would sure not like the word head) of the Catholic Church.
You said the Catholic was set-up by Constantine, I advise you to take a look at ancient churches like the southern India Mar Thoma Church which received their conversion directly from Saint Thomas, a disciple of Jesus Christ and afterwards got cut-off from the mainstream or was never in direct contact again with Christianity but survived independently among Hindus and Muslims until the Dutch protestants conquered the southern part of India some 1400 yrs after and even then never converted to protestantism as they saw it a wiered form of Christianity. Even after Portuguese Catholics took over the southern India, they never converted to Catholism even when there was virtually no difference between the two but maintained their faith. I also admonish you to take a look at the Coptic church which virtually developed independent of the influence of the Catholic Church. Take a look at these Churches which like the Catholic Church got their roots directly from individual Apostles of Christ and compare them with Catholic Church and you will fundamentally see no difference.
This is an era when every lie told about the Church hold, because people don't know but claim to know too much and their followers take everything hook, line and sinker. Seek knowledge.

@belabela

You are the highly confused person here!
The problem with you and your likes is that you take things at the surface without digging deep. You said the Catholic Church was established by Constantine, can you prove it?
@chukwudi has proven all his points with authorities. Your problem is that you don't go beyond the bible into church history and yet you claim to know a lot. Your case is clearly that of zeal without knowledge. You even said the Pope collects mass! Can you imagine, so mass now is money and is collected by the Pope? And that Constantine, (who's mother converted to Christianity early in life but who stuck with paganism until after the battle of Milvian Bridge, when as the result of the prayers offered by the Church in Rome courtesy his mother, he dreamt on the night before the battle and he saw a flaming cross and a voice addressed him 'by this sign, conquer') established the Catholic Church, dismantling the Church that prayed for him, his mother's Church! Again that the Catholic Church established the Levitical order of priesthood! Where on earth did you get that? The Catholic priesthood is never like the jewish priesthood, it is likened to Melchizedek and not Levi! At ordination, it is said of that 'you are a priest for ever, a priest like Melchizedek of old'.
You obviously don't know much about the Catholic Church beyond what your biased pastors tell you, seek the truth (even when I doubt you would because it is made clear in your arguments that you are swollen with pride would never accept any contrary opinion, even from tested authorities and sources).

Yes!!! I can hear Christians condemning wrong and hypocritical intentions of fellow Christians!

(No one is defending them and quoting ancient similar incidences from the long course of Islamic history to, "though not justify" (but obviously giving it credence) but,,,,,,,,,,,,)

What is wrong is wrong, if they try that, they would be calling on God's wrath and I know no Christian would support them and God help Christians in northern Nigeria.

Era of Science! Christianity has now become science! Everything is questioned and has to be proven with methods nigh unto scientific. And when we say faith, we forget that every faith demands work if not, what is so special about faith?

I believe in God (even devils believe in God and shiver)
I believe that Jesus Christ is the Lord (Is every tongue not supposed to confess that?)

All I see is people making new discoveries to make life easier (akin to technological improvements), thus, you don't need to do anything, just believe in God and his son Jesus Christ and you are there! A very attractive improvement on the old one!

My own religion is not faith alone, its faith and the good practices that makes it a faith worth holding. Thus I wouldn't say to a hungry man, 'may God almighty fill you stomach' when I can actually do it. And that my work wouldn't be in vain for I know that as I do for the needy ones now, I'm actually doing for Christ. I also feel encouraged whenever I read that portion of the holy scriptures where Christ said that on the last day, all mankind would be divided into two, and to one half he would say;

When I was hungry you gave me to eat, when I was thirsty you gave me to drink, when I was in the prison you visited me, when I was unclothed you clothed me (etc), now enter into the kingdom of my father. 

This is Christ himself making it clear that works is highly essential to get a man into heaven. My religion and her doctrines told me so too, and my faith is strengthened by these teachings and not words without practice, not faith without precepts, not believes without comely outward radiations. Words and philosophies, making arguments and fault finding the essence of the so-called faith devoid of religion! And by this faith, I've prayed to God many times and he has answered me in miraculous ways, what else do I need from a faith and her good works, and from a religion and her teachings or doctrines as some would prefer to call it.