@monshege
@trini_girl
New Testament and old testament are still part of the bible and we ought to abide by what they say, however focusing on tithing based on New testament, read Mat. 23:23 "Jesus admonished the Pharisees and teachers of the law to practice justice, mercy and faithfulness without neglecting tithing"
read Hebrews 7; if tithing wasnt important, we wouldnt have been reminded that Abraham gave his tithe to Melchizedek who represents Jesus .
having asked just about New testament, i take it that you realize the mention of "tithe/offering" in couple of places in the old testament especially in Mal. 3:8


The Old Testament also says and eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. It also says that the high priest needs to make sacrifice to atone for our sin. I thought Jesus is not our great high priest who died for all. And I'm quite sure he is the better covenanat. Why then did He die? I'm not going to get into another long religous debate over this since it has been covered at least 3 times on this forum. 

If you consider yourself a Pharisee, according to the scripture you chose, and if you choose to live under the Law of Moses, and not by the grace of God for which Jesus suffered die and resurrected so that we might enjoy, suit yourself. Those who live by law, will also be judged by the law.  Just remember if you follow one, you have to follow all.  Continue to live in bondage if you please.

Tithe is a noose around every christian's neck.  A scheme manipulated and perpetrated by religious institutions to fatten to pockets of church leadership.  IT IS NOT FOR TODAY'S BODY OF CHRIST!

Perhaps later if I feel like it I'll set you straight with the relevent scriptures. But I have to work now.

monshege:

@Trini_girl where did you get that quotation under the new covenant?

If you're asking if that statement is in the new testament. Obviously not.
My questions to you is, where are we admonished to pay tithe in the new testament.

Tithe is unneccessary under the new covenant.  however, we are admonished to give to the needy, and to give cheerfully in general.

It's not a sin if the relationship is between a MAN and a WOMAN, and they're in a committed relationship.

TV01:

Hi TG, Long time. How now? You've been keeping a low profile huh? Busy??

TV! I'm fine. I've been observing from the sidelines. Nothing too interesting going on these days.  But haven't you noticed me trying to get your attention? https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-44339.32.html

TV01:

I stand to be corrected, but I thought the suffix "Pre" meant "before". Pre-marital sex then being sex before marriage.

Sex by either of the partners in a marriage is called "Extra-marital". I think bopth meanings of "extra apply here !

So "Post-marital" sex is legit. Pre-marital is not, neither is extra-marital.

Let me correct you then. your reasoning is flawed! You can set yourself straight by sticking to the definition of FORNICATION and not the lose definition of sex pre and post marriage since fornication can occur either before marriage (pre-marital) or within (post matrimonial) marriage. Remember, fornication is unnatural sex, example with prostitues, homosexuality, beastiality, incest etc.

TV01:

You opened this statement with a blatant lie. The Bible is as clear as glass on this point. There is no divinely sanctioned relationship that permits sexual intimacy except the wedded union. Unless of course you can show biblical evidence for that.

and exactly which statement do you misinterpret as a lie?  show me YOUR relevent appropriate biblical evidence where the bible is clear that sexual intimacy between man and woman should only occur inside "wedded union" and then we'll give it a go.

TV01:

The only way such a relationship could even be considered legitimate, was if by the very act of sex they considered themselves to married. Even this breaks down, as if that were this case, the word would be "covenanted" and not "committed".

Legitimate in whose eyes, yours?  So if you have sex with someone, you're automatically married to them? Scriputre please, thank youuuu.

I'm quite sure you argued that someone argued this can only happen with the exchange of vows. 

TV01:

Let me ask you this; How binding is the committment mentioned? Is it till death do part or until the attraction fades? Disagreements set in? Or something better comes along. If while either party is still alive, can either of them commit to another?

If either of the parties in the relationship above died or the Lord where to return, what would the status of the couple be?

It sounds like a classic case of "learning without ever coming to the knowledge of the truth".

You've asked me this question before.  If the only intent of marriage is being bound then we see marriage quite differently.  Sex is only a part of a committed relationship.  a wedding is just an open declaration of a decision already made by both parties.  Even common law relationships are 'binding' in the eyes of the law, and in the eyes of God.

Did Adam and Eve 'exchange vows'? Nowadays, we would called that a common law arrangement and frown upon it. 

Admit it, fornication as religion has defined it, is flawed.

I am not re-engineering anything.  I'm surprised you made no mention of the actual root meaning of fornication, but instead, as you have before, chose to expatiate on your emotional opinion on the issue. I expect better from you. 

I'm not trying to convince anyone to change to my view.  In fact, as i said before, I'm open to change my view once shown RELEVENT scripture discrediting my findings.

Bless!

The phrase "pre-marital sex" is one that was created by man to describe sex outside of marriage.


Pre-marital sex (sex before marriage) may be fornication if the sex is ILLICIT, PERVERSE, or UNNATURAL example idolatry, homosexuality/lesbianism, harlotry, whoredom (promiscuity) etc. See above

However, post-marital/matrimonial sex (sex after marriage) can also be fornication and adultery with the same definintion of fornication in each case.

There is no evidence that pre-marital sex with one partner, by consenting male and female, in a committed monogamous relationship, over an extended period of time, is fornication. It is not illicit, it is not illegal, it is not immoral.

The more we learn what fornication truly is, the more we learn that "normal" pre marital sex is not fornication.

Please, this by no means is a free card for having sex. In my opinion sex still remains an enjoyable activity between two consenting, responsible ADULTS, in a long term relationship

Strong’s Lexicon Definition of Fornication

In Hebrew

2181 zanah zaw-naw' ….: to commit adultery (usually of the female, rarely of[b] involuntary ravishment(rape))[/b]
figuratively, to commit[b] idolatry[/b] (the Jewish people being regarded as the spouse of Jehovah)
(cause to) commit fornication (be an, play the) harlot (cause to be, play the) LovePeddler, (commit, fall to) whoredom, (cause to) go a-whoring, whorish.
________________________________________
2183 zanuwn zaw-noon' from 2181; adultery; figuratively, idolatry:--whoredom.
________________________________________
2185 zonowth zo-noth' regarded by some as if from 2109 or an unused root, and applied to military equipments; but evidently the feminine plural active participle of 2181; harlots:--armour.
________________________________________
8457 taznuwth taz-nooth' or taznuth {taz-nooth'}; from 2181; harlotry, i.e. (figuratively) idolatry:--fornication, whoredom.



In Greek

1608. ekporneuo ek-porn-yoo'-o :--give self over to fornication.
________________________________________
4202. porneia por-ni'-ah from 4203; harlotry (including adultery and incest); figuratively, idolatry:--fornication.
________________________________________
4203. porneuo porn-yoo'-o from 4204; to act the harlot, i.e. (literally) indulge unlawful lust (of either sex), or (figuratively) practise idolatry:--commit (fornication

stimulus:

Thank you, and you too. The next I know is that another "observation" will be made insinuating that stimulus is ope_emi!

lol!! you guys are cracking me up! lol!!

On the rare occasion my powers of observation and perception may be a[i] tad[/i] off key, and that may have been the case here.  I'm not surprised since I was not 100% sure. However I find it funny that dryrup would post such a lengthy statement on my "petty" observation.  

I should have known though, syrup has a more condescending and haughty overtone to her posts, unlike shahan.

Nevertheless, my point was never to show anyone up, but to warn you guys who take everything they say as true and right hands down, just because of impressive diction, grammer and scripture quotation. Only religious folks do that "pastor says so" thing.  I have no problem with guys oggling over my fellow intelligent sister shahan  

It's interesting that this syrup character hasn't commented on the real issue at hand, and I'm a bit disappointed that neither one has cautioned people on the self praising but rather enjoy it.  Pride is in all of us I guess. We are all guilty, but we also need to be careful about the spirit with which do things.  

I am personally embarrassed by too much praise on things I post, which is why I have not been posting the way I used to, but I still get my points across quite clearly.  Without  the quadruple syllabic soliloquys.  

Incorrectly label it as jealousy or whatever else, my message remains the same to all; be careful not to idolize and worship the creation instead of the creator.  

So goodguy, ope emi and all you guys who obviously have crushes on a woman as out of your league as shahan, words of adulation will get you nowhere.    _{(i think, well, it never worked with me)}

Bless!

@ goodguy

I won't expect either shahan or her alter syrup to be here anytime soon after all, she now has matrimonial duties to fulfill, or did you not know.  Sharpen your eyes and you will see more my brother.

I'm very concerned about a person who not only posts and refers to her alter, but returns 2 1/2 hours later to congratulate that alter on a job well done.   


syrup (f) said
@shahan,

Very interesting rejoinder. I'm quite amazed, and your diction is inspiring.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

shahan (f) replied

@syrup,

Phew! How did I miss you online earlier? Please come back and make us smile with some of yours - I've been really challenged as well.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

funny girl.

goodguy:


Now again, not david or trini_girl, the Bible scholars have attempted to clarify, and if/when shahan comes in again to chip in her 50 cents, and is subsequently applauded for it, we'll be accused of worshipping her.

goodguy why are u so sore at david and me? are you still crying over being dealt with severely on the "What then happens to the unbeliever" thread? Is it because we sorted you out readily so much so that you had to take a break? come now, that's in the past.  be well. 

@mrmayor

oh i see you have now entered the link. well done, and you're welcome.

@mrmayor

mrmayor said "I will complete my analysis of Judas later,"

Im not too sure Mr. Kurt Saxon would find your plagiarism amusing.

http://www.kurtsaxon.com/atheist003.htm

debate ke.

mrpataki:

You know what David, while in my morning meditation this morning, this is exactly what I was thinking about. You said out what I got ministered to this morning.

Anyone can try and prove me wrong here, but most of the arguements here center on ENGLISH and COMPREHENSION!
If you check my earlier postings to babs787 on this particular topic, told him I was already loosing interest here. It has become more like I can preach better pass you and the sorts.

Not disparaging the efficacy of the word of God here, but rather I see it as we all easliy want to show off what acumen of the scriptures we hold in our folder, while others seek for sheer confrontations and back and forth arguements like the likes of goodguy, TV01, and the leader of them all blaba787, it seems to me to be a futile exercise trying to explain to them the knowledge and true riches that abound in the scriptures.

We all know in parts and my sayings here are just in parts. But let no man hold my sayings as the true and honest point here. I have also fallen into such errors in the times past here, but I thank God for his grace.

The letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.

Any man that lacks understanding let him ask of the Father who freely giveth.

mrpataki,

although i agree with you i have to state my objection to listing TV01 in the same category or even sentence as babsy787 and goodguy.  TV's posts carry a more spiritual and loving overtone, his motive is not  to just show off his knowledge and vocabulary, and he is almost always even tempered, even under extremely annoying circumstances, which I have always admired about him.  

There is a difference between christians having a religous debate for further clarifcation or a discussion to exchange knowledge and even correct erroneous beliefs, and antagonists who simply provoke people to submit their belief solely for argumentative and derisive reasons.

Which is one of the reasons I have never engaged in religous debate with muslims.  When I read some of the submissions from "christians" on those threads it makes me wonder.  It's very disappointing to say the least.

I believe we have all fallen for that on numerous occasions. There's a thin line at times.  However, guys like TV, TayoD and Analytical are long winded exemplars of healthy respectful boring (just kidding ) christian debate, and I thoroughly enjoy reading their posts

If you doubt me, go see the Sole Authority of Pastors thread.

davidylan:


My dear, i have better things to do with my time. I only made an observation. Now back to the topic at hand, i'm sure you will find the answers you want.
Like backslider said, most of these threads have become mere academic exercises, nothing of spiritual value. Of what purpose is a thread about Judas Iscariot? Does it add or remove anything from the gospel of Christ? How many times did you read about him in the epistles of Paul and Peter?

Too much study is a weariness to the soul. The letter killeth but the spirit it gives life.
Keep arguing about Judas and the unbelievers! 

Here here Davidylan. I am inclined to agree with you and Backslider (on this rare occasion).  The religion thread used to be a lot more interesting. 

Never mind goodguy.  In fact, I didn't even mention any particular person, however I'm glad the guilty parties know themselves since their immediate reaction is to attack the messengers, rather than consider the truth in the message.

I find it a bit amusing that after begging for responses to this irrelevant topic, goodguy [/b]had to resort to using one of my threads to link to it in order to get responses, knowing full well that where shahan is, her devotees are bound to appear.  Good tactic I must say. She has a little fan club, which I'm tickled about because she seems nice enough as far as human beings go.

However, the issue here is not what she says but people's typical response to it, born out of their own ignorance of the subject matter.  No question, no challenge, just kudos whether she is right or wrong (which she is in some cases).

It is this same ignorance Pharisees and Sadducees preyed on to use knowledge over the people and keep them in bondage. all i'm saying is be careful.  It matters not if it's the goodly shahan, her self praising alter ego syrup, or my own favourite [b]MOG [/b]that I've been stalking for months now even after he virtually dumped me, [b]TV01  (and still, you don't see me submitting lick-your-shoes posts to everything he says). 

Really and truly, everyone has a right to their own opinion, but personally I see no purpose in a debate about Judas Iscariot. Where is the added value to the spirit?  Too much dead letter theological nothingness.

katekohut:

I really appreciate this discussion becuase I am seeking for the truth on this topic. I would actually like to talk to someone who believes it is ok to have sex without being married and find out how they can back that up. Is it ok to if a man's wife left him to go back to her parents in another country. She chooses to divorce him. He asks an unmarried woman to marry him. She feels cared for and she says yes and then they both have sex. Is there any sexual sin in this situation? To complicat this situation the wife wants him back but he doesn't want her back. He has moved on and is now romancing an unmarried woman.

If you're asking permission or justification for adultery or fornication as opined by me on this thread, you won't find it for the case you described above. It sounds like an adulterous relationship to me, and therefore according to the word of God is sin.

Ndipe:

abortion is murder, period!!!

I met a nigerian guy the other day and he said "IT IS NO PROBLEM FOR A MAN TO BEAT ANY OF HIS WIVES, PERIOD!!!"

4 Play:

I think its clear I have won this debate_{just speaking to myself}

Kudos to you if you think so. However, had I been in the mood for debate, which I'm not these days, you would be singing another song.

Another day perhaps.

4 play,

your opinion is duly noted.

God bless.

4get_me:

Take style talk true: small jealousy dey inside that post!
Me sef, I jealous small. But I can excuse myself for having been away for a looong while - on 'special assignment.' All the same, well done shahan!

well, i expected such a reponse.  let me just say that jealousy is an instinct to protect what is yours so im not jealous. just making an observation after reading many threads here over a long period of time.

naijacutee:

My problem with this is that it's all really simple. So what if the law said abortion was legal? Would common sense still tell the mother, who had just willingly ended a future before it began, who out of her selfish will robbed a human out of his/her own free-will all in the name of choice. . . Would simple common sense tell this mother that this was right?

I believe that all humans - whatever the race, religion or belief . . . All psychologically healthy humans know what they ought to do and what they ought not to do.

You'll find that issues of common sense, right and wrong and law are relative. A mother doesnt make the choice to abort her child out of "common sense", it's usually a very painful decision in most cases, but it the end it seems like the "right" thing to do whether or not the "law" supports the procedure.

As humans, even though we may think we know right from wrong, our own moral compass usually deceives us into only doing what seems right for ourselves at the present moment in time. Aborting a child may seem to be the right thing to do at that time, under that particular circumstance.

_{rolls eyes}
you people should really ease up on the syrup shahan worship. it's not healthy. enough back patting and awestruck responses here to make her a goddess. next thing I'll be seeing a thread on someone suggesting giving her a tenth of their income every month. 

here's an idea for you  syrup shahan devotees.  study the Word for yourselves instead of taking every long drawn out post shahan syrup submits as gospel (so to speak) 

4 Play:

@trini

If you agree that the unborn have a soul,it is rather incredible that you think the best course of action is to give the mother the licence to terminate the unborn.

I wouldn't call it the best course of action.  The best course of action is to have the baby.  However, I have learned to separate law from personal belief.  Therefore, I can support the legalization of the procedure.

4 Play:

Let's not kid ourselves,the number of women dieing from illicit abortion is relatively few compared to the number of abortions performed in the nations where the procedure is legal.While I know women who performed abortions,I do not know any woman has died during the procedure.

Unless you have actual facts and statistical information to verify this statement it is irrelevant speculation.  You are opining  that just because you don't personally know of women who died from self induced abortion it's not a major problem.  I expect better.

4 Play:


There are 2 interests here-that of the unborn and that of the mother.In the former,it has no say in the procedure and depends entirely on the latter.The latter can chose to perform or not to perform the procedure .The latter is more powerful than the former

And it is this power of CHOICE that every human being has the right to execute. When it comes down to it there is not such thing as PRO Life when it comes to abortion.  Every mother has the right to choose, whether she aborts in a hospital or for herself.

4 Play:

I fail to see why the instrument of the law should be used to protect the powerful at the expense of the weak. Am sure if a poll was done of  people whose birth mothers contemplated aborting them,the overwhelming majority will express delight that the mother decided against it.

Perhaps you should revisit the purpose and intent of the law.  I think where people are being mislead is that they believe that making abortion legal somehow empowers women to have abortions.  Again, whether or not it becomes a legal procedure, it will be done.

The focus of law is on the medical practitioner, as I said.  He/She is the only one who would suffer a detriment professionally.
Therefore, making it legal, only gives the doctor the peace of mind that if he/she is caught, there will be no legal repercussion.

On a personal level, I believe that abortion is wrong, but it does not mean that legally laws should not be passed to approve the procedure if it means giving the woman a safe place, counselling and even an opportunity to change her mind in the process.

4 Play:

@trini girl

Its about the ethical issues sorrounding the practice.

NB:The person who put up the post is probably in Nigeria where the law is different from Tinidad

Lol! Different law in Trinidad?  Funny.  I don't think the law lords would take too kindly to such a statement.

Is it ethical really or is it a legal issue?  The question is whether abortion should be made legal or not.  As soon as it becomes legal believe me it will become ethical in tandem for those who perform it.

You said in an earlier post that the focus should be on protecting the unborn and I disagree, since life is life regardless of how we might feel about a person's choice.

Rather than have someone overdose on some drug to get rid of the pregnancy, and kill themselves in the process, perhaps it would be better to give them the option of protecting themselves, and their lives.

I'm just saying so because whether or not we agree, it's still being done, and from a christian standpoint our focus should be on saving the soul of both mother and unborn.  If she dies then who wins?

By hypothecizing that christianity is a sham by extension contends that the existence of christ, his death, resurrection and holy spirt are all 'shams' as well.

If this is the case, then perhaps we should talk to the billions of true born again believers who testify of the l[b]iving[/b] Christ in their lives today, and ask them if He is real or not.

My Answer: He is Real, therefore Christianity is real.

4 Play:

@trini girl

Give me a break.We were working under the presumption that there is a human to murder
You can't talk of conspiracy to commit murder if their is none to murder.

If there was a murder charge that could be made,both the mother and the doctor will be charged

Well then let me clarify that I was only  jesting when I said she could probably be charged for conspiracy.  That in itself cannot exist under present law.  There is no presumption of murder since there is no 'human' to murder.

The fact remains that unborn babies, according to law, are not considered as humans 'in being'  , and therefore cannot be 'murdered'.  The mother will not be charged for such.

It's important to distinguish the legal, moral and religious issues when it comes to what we may define as murder.

4 Play:

@Trini Girl

You are making distinctions that are unknown to law.


Go and hire an assasin to kill someone and see whether they won't charge you for murder

On the contrary, the distinction is quite clear, since the actus reus and mens rea for murder can only exist if the person is 'in being' ie the victim must have been born, according to the english legal system, in order for it to be considered "murder".

Douzy:

You sound quite ludicrous.

Thank you for sharing your feelings.  However, perhaps I know more than you think. 

She should let him go.

Grouppoint:


from a biblical point of view, please consider this:
Jesus would probably not have been born since His mum was pregnant without a spouse. If abortion were legal in that time, she just may have had one.

Grouppoint, i hope you don't really believe what you just typed there.