₦airaland Forum

newmi:
but be that as it may many of those who have stood out in the support for parents have not in anyway made any pleasant or gratifying remark to at least justify the office of the pastor, l hope this is not an attempt to discredit it.

The "office" of "Pastor" needs to be properly understood. What for the most part obtains in many churches in Nigeria/Black/Pentecostal churches is nowhere to be found in scripture. Not just discredit, but also dispel and disabuse (we call it "deliverance" in the trade  ). If you can find it - and hence "credit" it - in scripture please do so, and kindly share with us here.

newmi:
because there are some people in this forum who have never said anything good about the office of the pastor and you wonder if they have pastors over them or the same Bible they claim to expain in the defence of their view points doesn't say anything about the place of the pastor in the life of the christian in the church.

In a sense, but I don't think its in the way you are alluding too. But like I said - If you can find it - and hence "credit" it - in scripture please do so, and kindly share with us here.

Thanks
TV

Hi @Joagbaje,

I actually started by asking you various questions - all detailed below - and I would appreciate answers. But in truth, I see your position as being based on the commandments and traditions of men, which have no basis in scripture or are at best woefully erroneouss misapplications of same.

You have made numerous assertions, based very much on what obtains in many "churches" today, but none of which you have supported scripturally.

As you can see from some posts, its a very emotive subject. Relationship are being strained and influenced, by this "nowhere to be found in scripture" (I speak of both the "role of pastor" as generally practiced and "pastoral authority" as typically proclaimed). How many wives have I heard answer their husbands (or worse still potential husbands) with "pastor says" regards their personal matters. Or children respond to their parents about other "superceding" parents in the Lord?

This mandate for "Pastors" to bless, curse, command is nowhere to be found in scripture. "The Head of every man" is Christ. That is sprititual headship. There is no longer an intermediary priesthood for believers. And there is no divine protocol that demands God always/only blesses via Pastors. Where do people get these notions?

Eldership authority is limited to church and church affairs, it is not a "whole of life" issue. Church and church affairs are a part of the Christian life - and not even the primary part of that. Marriage is a divine institution, but a civil matter. Church involvement is optional at best. Of course counsel and wisdom from Xtian elders is great, but not obligatory or mandated by scripture.


My questions;

Joagbaje:
Parental authority is not forever , when you get to the age of accountability, you are responsible for you life.

I agree with you here. Parental authority is not forever, but parental honour is. And the authority is still in place regards "family" as opposed to "personal" issues.

And that accountability you mentioned,  is to whom?

Joagbaje:
Okija jujuwe should not arrogate to parents the role or responsible that is not theirs.  You respect , honour them by gifts(honorarium). Children are encouraged to obey the parents in the lord.

Children are to honour, respect, submit to, obey and account to their parents. By the time a child is able to give "gifts" surely thats the point they are most likely to have reached the age of "accountability"?

^{Would it be wrong to suggest Honour is equated to cash in essence as it bolsters the notion that "double honour" for elders is also erroneously read to mean money by many?}

Joagbaje:
Parents can only play pastoral role in the lives of the children if they have such calling.  That makes them the spiritual head over them . If you are born again , what dealings do you have with unsaved parents? They don't have any spiritual part to play in your life. You only have the responsibility of honouring them. This honour for parents has nothing to do with their status. That means , even if your mother were a witch , you must still honour her. But that doesnt give such parent spiritual headship over you

What is spiritual headship sir? Who has spiritual headship?? Over whom? When??

Joagbaje:
[your problem is ignorance of scriptures. How long will you make your son a mummy's boy?. Timothy was raised in the word of Go. By his mum , but did she continue to dictate the course of his life. He submitted himself to his pastor, Paul , who guided him in Gods plan.

Timothy submitted himself to Paul in "church affairs" and Pauls guidance/authority started and ended in that sphere. There is no record showing he submitted his life affairs to Paul. So again, did Paul have "Spiritual Headship" or "Spiritual Authority" over Timothy? And who in turn acted in  a like capacity over Paul?

Joagbaje:
parental authority is not spiritual authority. But pastoral authority is spiritual. Marriage is a spiritual institution and not a social one. That is why we have the traditional one where the parents are honoured but, in church? It is the pastor that they are submitted to that has the power and anointing to bless them.

Please explain the difference between spiritual and non-spiritula authority sir, and particularly the dynamics of "Spiritual Authority"

Joagbaje:
Even the traditional wedding, parents that are unspiritual have nothing to impart to a saint.Theres exception for Christian parents who are spiritual. These are the first spiritual authority over the children. I asked in my first post. What blessing can a juju man pronounce on you?. All parents are not the same . Parents that are not spiritual have nothing to offer. The pastor is Gods representative to bless.

So all non-Christian marriages (before and after the advent of Christianity) are somehow missing any parental blessing?

More importantly the bolded part of your statement, could you show any sort of scritural attestation to support that assertion.

Joagbaje:
We can't deny the authority the parents have over the children, but at the same time , we must recognize , their authority has limits.
1. When they reach the age of accountability.
2. When the parents take a stand against the word of God.

Is there ever an age of accountability for a Christian, or must he/she always be under Pastors headship or authority?

Joagbaje:
When a man is born again, he's Gods property, there's God purpose to fulfil. The person that has spiritual authority to bless them is the pastor. The parents have parental authority for a period in their lives, but the pastors spiritual authority to bless supersedes the parental . If parents are not born again, they have no blessing to offer a Christian . Because there's a rule in blessing. You can't bless your senior! The lesser person is blessed by the greater person.

Heb 7:7
The less is blessed of the better.

If ones "Pastor" has a broken communion with God, how does that impact things? If the communion of a GO with say 5'000 churches, 10'000 sub-pastors and 2'000'000 members has broken communio, how are those under his "Spiritual Authority/headship" impacted?

nuclearboy:
[4] This pastoral "spiritual" authority - what happens to it where the pastor falls by the wayside? Is it transferred or kept "in holding" till another submission to another pastor. Like in the case of such as Jimmy Swarggart, perharps?

Joagbaje:
I don't know exactly what you mean by spiritual authority .
We have the believers authority, we have the authority of the word and the holyghost. And we have pastoral authority .
All has to do with spiritual authority.

Maybe you should simply state what you mean by "Spiritual Authority", and we'll take it from there.

Thanks
TV

KunleOshob:
By divine design children are placed under the authority of their parents and their parents(in most cases) genuinely love an d care for them, they bless their children with material and spiritual needs and would even sacrofice their lives for their children.

You know I'm not partial to the exclamation "GBAM". But High Velocity Armour piercing GBAM, "Out before he hit the floor" GBAM, "Rocket launched volley from 35 yards at 85 mph into the top left hand corner GBAM, ^{I'll stop now, I don pioneer am  !}

KunleOshob:
On the other hand most pastors are only interested in their pockets and would never lift a finger to bless you materially, they claim to bless you "spiritually" whilst they you to "pay" them for their services materially. Simply there is no basis for comparision, would stick to my parents anyday, at least I am sure their love and care is genuine.

Motivation apart - and that is a critical aspect - as a "model" how does it even work? If you change locations, is there a "transfer process" - like when one changes GP or school. If "Your Pastor" has his (even her nowadays sef?) communion with God impaired, is yours also? Who is Spiritual authority over "Your Pastor" and onward up the chain? where does this hierarchy end?

Oya Joagbaje, you seem very emphatic on your earlier declaration, perhaps you would care to expansiate here. Thanks.

TV

I knew a topic of this type would smoke certain people out !

@Joagbaje, I have asked you several questions now, all of which you have failed to reply. Please surprise me in this instance.

Regards "Spiritual Authority", please explain - however briefly or however long - its working, how it is exercised, how one subjects oneself to it and more pressingly, its specific place in Christianity.

Thanks

TV

Yes 0! and for a while now.

KunleOshob:
The truth is that "chritians" and the church have long abandoned Christ (They claim to know God but by there actions deny him titus 1:16) most churches and christians do not teach or practise the core teachings of christ, they only use his name to project their various church establishments, their worship is a farce cos they deny christ by their actions so yes you can stop being a "christian" and still belong to christ. I all ready wrote a thread titled "The church has rejected christianity" you can search for it, I can't provide the link now cos I am browsing with a mobile device.

I differ slightly here. The "True Church" cannot and will not abandon Christ. "He will build His Church", emphasis on His. Lots of others are also building churches, and appropriating - some would say mis - Christ for their own ends. The Lord knows those who are His. The Lods Church will not be prevailed against. So in discussing Church, one should try and make the distinction between the "True Church" and all the others. He is coming back for a Church - Bride - without spot, blemish or wrinkle.

nuclearboy:
Welcome, Anne Rice, to the gathering of those that worship God in Spirit and in Truth

"Those" full ground. The Lord knows "those" who are his.

skyone:
Is it possible to say "i am not a Nigerian but my ethnicity is Nigeria" of course it's impossible.

Yes its possible. In my case its also true. I am British, but ehtnically, I am Nigerian. To be proper "Nigerian" is a nationality, not an ethnicity. Apologies, but your choice of analogy is rather poor, as is your use of terms. Apologies again "Essex boy"  !

skyone:
" Followers of Christ are called christians" therefore as we have illegal Nigerians so we have fake christians so move on from this idealogy and continue to do the will of JEHOVAH.

Nope, followers of Christ are called "Disciples". The Lord knows those who are his. As we have the "True Church", so we have "all the others". Grays abi? Chafford Hundred sef??

You're probably not a sportsman are you?

Enigma:
OK as the person who started this thread I think I should reveal my own hand and express where I stand.

I totally understand, appreciate and respect my brethren (& sistren) who find themselves no longer able to stomach organised church assemblies and prefer to look for alternatives. Unfortunately the church has been invaded, not merely infiltrated, by anti-Christs, charlatans and fraudsters; sadly, they are carrying along honest, well-meaning but misguided people as well.

Nevertheless, I believe it is possible to remain part of an organised assembly and yet true to Christ and sound christian doctrine. That is why I am still part of an organised church assembly. As a matter of fact I can worship in almost (stress almost) any church assembly where I believe there is at least one (just one) person who honestly and genuinely is putting his trust in the One and Only, the Wonderful Counsellor, the Prince of Peace, the Everlasting Father, the Mighty God, the risen, ascended glorified, the Glorious Lord Jesus Christ. Believe me, I will even worship in such an assembly of WoFers! I will probably never become a member or a regular though!

On one occasion, I was in the US on a Sunday; I went to the church assembly most local to my hotel. It turned out it was a service involving feet washing. I promptly joined in with gusto! I had my feet washed and washed other people's feet. Even today, I do not know/remember what 'denomination' they were. On another occasion here in the UK I went into a Baptist church which turned out to be a strict Baptist church that would not let other Baptists, let alone me, take part in their "Holy Communion". And after the service they expressed hope to see me again in their 'church'. Na so!

In the same token, I will continue to call myself a Christian. I will not let the anti-Christs, charlatans, fraudsters etc deprive me of that appellation by which the apostles (including Peter, James, John Paul etc), the great Church Fathers of gigantic intellect, and countless people throughout history have been known.

And you are free to do so. There are "those who are His" in false churches. They will be led, mostly out I believe. But as nuclearboy alludes too in the post previous to yours, how long do you remain a part - and possibly spiritually tied - to something that is corrupt and perverted and not partake of the potential consequences. "Come out of her My people".

But I agree about being called a Christian. Its niether here nor there to me. Although these days there are as many species of Christian and varieties of Christianity as there are adherents.

TV

KunleOshob:
TV01 twas really good to read from you again after a long while, trust you are doing great.

I'm well 0 mbrofam, how far?  I keep close check on your indefatigable and relentless MOGmyth slaying work. You are performing valiantly, but lemme know if you need me to unsheath my sword and discomfort any errant IRD's or MOGW' !
_{Thats "Institutionalised Religion/ous Drones" & "MOG Worshippers" for those that don't know. Oh sorry, didn't know you meant that, it means "my brother from another mother". Nice huh? Like it? I coined it myself}

No plans for Naija at the moment - even the thought sef just wearies me - but I'm sure ther'll be reason in the not too distant future. If you are ever at my end, make you holla 0!

TV

Jessie & KunOsh, my two - some would say only - bestest friends on NL. Salute 0!

ogajim:
These guys are still at it under one "assumed name" or another

Chei, I am sooooo naive & trusting, it didn't for once cross my mind that our new buddy MickeyC might be an extant NL'er. And there I was extending brotherly loff and a hearty welcome to NL, when he prolly get plot for here !

Oya Bro' MickeyC, confess, who you be? No matter sha, next time we engage its gloves off. So "Scrap Iron" it is then. _{My discernment is screaming "scroll-searcher" Hmmmmm.}

TV

MickeyC:
Ha ha! I enjoy the banter.

And I appreciate your humour and demeanour in comprehending that. No offense was intended and  I'm glad non was taken. May I unoficially recieve you to the NL religion board.  Welcome sir!

MickeyC:
Maybe we should define our terms!

So you can't play tennis but fancy yourself at semantics abi? Ok 0!

MickeyC:
But I don't have a problem with saying that we are under grace so therefore that leads to us living in a certain way. Obligation is an "ok" word to use, meaning, moral constraint. To quote Romans, "So then brothers we are debtors." Paul certainly thought we would be obliged or under constraint to live in a certain way. In fact he describes us as slaves to obedience. Again sounds like obligation.

I am loathe to  teach until I am unmistakebly called to - and not by man - but kindly permit me to share my little apprehension of grace with you.

Grace is a teacher and enabler, a tutor, and a transformer. So, far example, one previously hated giving; enter grace. Now such a one does not so much feel obliged or constrained to give - morally, legally or otherwise - it becomes his very nature. One does not do what comes naturally out of obligation. Or do you feel obliged to continuously net those weak first serves? No it's 'cos of your puny arm muscles, its your nature !

MickeyC:
(I'm waiting of the accusations of me "contradicting myself" but I am just quoting two scriptures

Not contradicting yourself in this instance, confusing yourself would be more apt here,  We are contrasting giving vs. tithing, grace vs law,  obligation vs. freewill. Not having established a position there, you then proceeded to needlessly throw in salvation, works, justification and a whole bunch of stuff. More thought, less haste. Shot selection again!

Indeed you "quoted two scriptures" and more, but needs must make sense of them and correctly contextualise, ok?

MickeyC:
I'm just waiting for the onslaught I'm going to receive, 

Ah, ah! Onslaught ke? Are you calling NL' wicked? After having a booming serve rained down on your head and your best shots effortlessly returned, we then relegated you from the main tour to the challenger circuit. No need for any onslaught again 0 !

MickeyC:
Well iron sharpens iron - to quote Proverbs (although I'm sure from your previous comments you wouldn't consider me as iron!!!)

Of course you are iron - of the scrap variety sha 0 ! So sir you have a choice of nicknames. Those being "Wild Card" or "Scrap-Iron Mike".

God bless
TV

MickeyC:
Thank you, I did read the thread and I felt what I said would help in the discussion, maybe I wasn't clear. But in response to your recent comment, I agree that a great emphasis was given to giving to the poor and needy but that doesn't negate passages like, 1 Timothy 5:17 "Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honour, especially those who labour in preaching and teaching." The Church must have been giving well to support God's kingdom building, if we have all giving with no gospel proclamation we become a glorified social club. If you have a pastor / teacher who "doesn't peddle the word of God for profit" and who actually qualifies for the position (1 Timothy 3:3 - "Not a lover of money" then there shouldn't be a problem. Maybe by God's grace I've not had to suffer the type of teaching that you have been exposed to, so therefore am seeing things from the other perspective, I'm sure we are singing from the same "hymn sheet"!

Oh man!!!! I shoulda seen this coming. See as you jus' come scatter de whole tin'. Defaulted, retired, whatever. _{Have you considered a non-sporting career.}

Yours Concerned Bro'

MickeyC:
We are not required to give to gain access to God. Those who are in a real living relationship with God will see that God gave them everything in Jesus and therefore say, "Everything I have is only by the grace of God." That leads to sacrificial giving. Not 10%, not 20% but an attitude of everything belongs to Him and I will give accordingly. Giving proves to us that God is more valuable to us than silver and gold. Closing question, do you have money, or does money have you? Let's use our God given resources to see His Kingdom come.

Hmmm, and please don't think I overlooked the above. Valiant effort to be sure , but that your last sentence, ah, ah. See as you come fumble easy return

My advise? Work on your service, returns, shot selection and positioning. Some stamina work and strength training would probably go a long way as well. Omo, wild card no be beans 0 !

Yours Bro' Coach

MickeyC:
As Christians we are no longer under the law but under grace. But that doesn't reduce the obligation to "tithe" but only increase it.

Hi @ MickeyC, I do apologise, but your first two sentences contradict each other. One cannot be "under grace" and at the same time "obliged". First serve sails over the baseline  .

MickeyC:
But that doesn't reduce the obligation to "tithe" but only increase it. Paul says in 1 Corinthians 8:7-9 "But as you excel in everything - in faith, in speech, in knowledge, in all earnestness, and in our love for you - see that you excel in this act of grace also ("this act of grace" is referring to giving if you read the context).

Your third sentence then contradicts your second one. You appear to be making "Increasing Obligation" synonymous with "Increasing (Excelling) in grace". Not content with a poor second serve, you also proceed to make a foot fault., as your ending "act of grace is refering to giving", is clearly at variance with your earlier notion of "increasing obligation".

So dude you lose this one by a series of unforced errors. Your opponent barely breaking sweat. O boy, you no try at all at all.

First round exit.

Yours Bro' Umpire !

Neither. Nigerians are Nigerias greatest obstacle. I suggest carpet bombing, fumigating and restocking with Ghanaians, genetically spliced with Senegambians, with perhaps with a hint of Camerounian. Why do you ask ?

Please. Forget the ill-fitting, gaudy, "straight out of pimps paradise" outfits favoured by the Pentarascal upstarts. Everyone knows the "high churches" have the best kit. Some of those Catholic ensembles with the "chi chi" beret style fílá', are to die for and wouldn't look out of place on the haute couture runways. !

Hmmmm, seems like you are on fire. Go and marry quick, quick ! _{(And please spare us the details afterwards !)}

Joagbaje:
@TV01,

Have you asked yourself where Jesus got money to hire boat, and for welfare.
Luke 8:3
And Joanna the wife of Chuza Herod's steward, and Susanna, and many others, which ministered unto him of their substance.
Where did Judas get money to steal from jesus?
John 12:6
This he said, not that he cared for the poor; but because he was a thief, and had the bag, and bare what was put therein.

I asked you a question on another thread - related to Gods supposed tithing plan as a vehicle for prosperity or some such notion you postulated - if I recall, you did'nt even acknowledge the question, let alone respond. Anyway.

Welfare = Need. This exists with or without preaching and I spoke to this already. Please try harder. "The Labourer is worthy of His wages".

Thanks
TV

Image123:
^someone who will do anything of significance in this world must use money. Money is a defence. The person who wants to spread the gospel effectively must eat, transport himself and take care of others. You're not more spiritual than Jesus who himself talked about and spent money. You're not on the internet free, are you?

Sounds very plausible doesn't it? Please demonstrate from the bible where/when/how money is requird to preach the gospel of The Lord Jesus Christ. When He sent them "out with nowt", they took nothing. How was it funded?

Maybe you could put a figure on it. Could you perhaps "unitise" it, then attempt to "monetise" it. Say " a unit of gospel preaching" could be UGP the unit cost of preaching the gospel (UCPG). Pray tell us how money defends one preaching the gospel? Please post something with a little thought behind it.

I can't say I'm more spiritual than Jesus, no. But no one can show where Jesus talked about or spent money to preach the gospel?

God bless
TV

It does not take money to preach or to spread the gospel. Money in the body of Christ moves almost overwhemingly for physical need. End of. There is nothing writ in scripture or any biblical example to suggest otherwise - although I stand to be corrected if anyone can evidence otherwise. As for organised religion, now that requires cash money, and plenty of it.

God bless
TV

And lets not forget Traugott  !

<sup>Could it be an intelluct so massive it had to be split amongst multiple users? The worrd is on the tip of my tongue. Patience TV, one, day will be one day, when all darkness shall be exposed by light.

Some people will remain on my "utterly discredited" list until such time as they forsake their wickedness. I particularly dislike the damage to the Religious board community fabric often perpetrated by duplicitous users of multiple id's. What exactly do we pay mods generous allowances for? Abeg, seek and ban jo !</sup>

Purist:
Downplaying the role of women and forbidding them to speak in church implies what?

In what way did Paul "downplay" the role of women? He outlined gender specific roles and responsibilities in the home and church. Are you saying that having outlined the roles he downplayed them, or the roles somehow downplayed women?

Paul did not "forbid" women to speak in church, he set context. If you wish to label that chauvinist that is your subjective opinion. If you have anything that objectively demonstrates Paul was a chauvinist - considered or treated women inferior - I'd be very interested to see it.

Could I ask, in context - i.e. the role/position of women in society in that era - what would actually constitute a chauvinist? Or is your position based on a more contemporary view of what may be described as chauvinist?

Purist:
He may not really be chauvinistic as a person, but that instruction smacks of one borne out of a chauvinistic tendency,

If he is comfortable with delivering an instruction that "smacks" of chavinism, surely that makes him one- at least by agreement, if indeed he was merely "delivering the instruction" And likewise if he actually formulated it?

Don't have to tip-toe around it. Given the "sticks & stones" he suffered for his faith, I doubt a few "words" will make much difference.

And true while I am a "Christian" - and seems to mean as many things as there are Christians these days - I won't be proclaiming a "fatwah" if we don't see eye-to-eye on this, with or without any back-up to your assertions.


Thanks
TV

Joagbaje:
Tithing is Gods form of financial security for us .

@Joagbaje, I hope you are well.

I would really appreciate it if you could expound further on your statement above, specifically as follows;

1. Exactly what "financial security" entails
2. Exactly how God ensures that security via the tithe. And perhaps if you have the time /inclination and for completeness,
3. If there are caveats around the security, alternative ways to go about securing it, or perhaps co-dependency on other actions.

Thanks
TV

Could someone please show or detail the Apostle Pauls alleged chauvinism . Personally I'm struggling to see it.

Thanks
TV

Hi KAG & thehomer, hope y'all are good. I read through the links you so kindly provided. Good - if excrutiatingly dull - reads, but in truth not much advance on adaptation from what I could see. 

Hi justcool,

I trust you are well. Thanks for your responses. I had to take time to read and re-read in the little time I could muster and at the same time try to keep abreast of the thread.

Loads of questions, so will try and synthesize and revert later.

God bless
TV

And we do. From the community with Apo-AIM (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/information/apolipoprotein.html) to the community with a mutated limbs that gives them an advantage when it come to climbing (I'll have to find a link later), there are pockets of humans with some known beneficial mutations. The flip-side, of course, is the number of humans with maladaptive or damaging mutations.

So be the mutations good or bad, they remain humans, no?

However, yes, they are still humans, but one wouldn't expect just a known mutation here and there to cause speciation.

So what would?

It's more than a case of them being bipedal. The kangaroo rat species can't mate nor produce a fertile offspring with other rodents. More than that, their features from their kidneys, lack of sweat glands and gestation periods set them apart. I don't know what you mean by something different emerging, but I suspect you're thinking of some sort of saltation which isn't what the theory of evolution states.

Simply stated, Kangaroo rats are not actually rats. We have just presumed to label them that and assumed "evolution" from rats, as it can't be evidenced?

Would a phenomena such as lions and tigers or horses and donkeys being able to mate, but producing sterile offspring be more suggestive? And are there different species of human, as this is not the case with us? Surely there must be something to lend greater credence to the "fish to amphibian" postulation?

Thanks
TV

KAG:
Not really, no. I don't see the logic between a continuum and star trek and webbed feet, but, while there are humans with "Spock ears" and webbed feet, generally, the mutations that occur in most species are easily contained, repaired and/or unnoticeable amidst the many other proteins, etc in the genome. To be fair, many (most?) mutations, particularly in humans, are not physiological.

My point being that seing as adaptative/mutative evolution  - please excuse my use of terms, just trying to be understood and avoid "semantic drag" - is so random, wouldn't we expect to see some very peculiar adaptations in particular human populations? And in as much as those things occur (maybe not as vividly as in Star trek perhaps ), they are still humans and not another species or creature entirely.

As for most mutations not being "physiological", thats nice to know, but presumably some do become codified over time?

KAG:
First, evolutionary adaptations don't "need" a millennia to occur: they may take place, depending on gestation, in generations.

Second, genetic drift can also play a part, in that several small populations may have already possessed traits that help them to survive changes to their environment. Natural selection may then com into play.

Finally, yes, the immediate ability to adapt - plasticity - varies between species, and many species will go - an have gone - extinct as result of less plasticity.

I have no quibbles with any of this. But does this mean different/new creatures? This is merely variation in what I'd call the "genetic bandwith" inherent within each creature. Take dogs as an example. There're a million different "Mutt" variations, but they are all still dogs. And can viably mate with one another - Sausage Dog and Great Dane. Chihuhaha and Alsatian.

KAG:
Has it been shown to lead to new species? Yes. Rats make a good example as new species of rats have arisen based on changes, and/or transportation to new, environments. Kangaroo rats are a good example.

A new species that cannot mate or produce fertile offspring with non Kangaroo rats? Again not to drag, species is a form of construct, I'm talking one creature "evolving" into a completely different one here.

So some rats have big glutes? So do certain populations in Africa. Does that make them a different species fom the African or non-African populations that don't?

Adaptation, mutation with certain "genetic bandwiths" I can see, but morphing into a completely new creature I am yet to see evidenced.

Thanks for you as ever cogent post though.

Best
TV

Mad_Max:
Hi TV, and welcome.

Hiya MadMax,

Mad_Max:
The 'intermediate species' argument would entail a long explanation that would include explaining everything about evolution itself again. There are no strict intermediate species, because there isn't a biological continuum, the end of which a species is consciously moving towards. We're not at 1, and aiming for 3, with evolution as the vehicle. Adaptation takes place mostly to ensure the species survives a new, previously
unanticipated change in its biological fortunes.

No need, you'd probably lose me quite early on anyway . But based on what you've said above, it makes it even harder to comprehend.

If there's no continuum or pre-defined end-point, with random mutations - and lets assume they are all beneficial - happening all over the species, shouldn't the variation amongst humans look like something out of Star-Trek? Webbed feet for the dwellers/fishermen of the Lagos lagoons, big padded bottoms for those who spend all day seated at computer screens and the like? But seriously!

Do biological threats - or any other kind - really lead to new species? Again, simply put, would a real biological threat take a "time out" for an "evolutionary response (over millenia)" to happen? There is either pretty much instantaneous change to cope or the population/sub-populace perishes. Just like when new diseases are introduced to  populations. Resistance/immunity may be developed/acquired, but it will be based on the immediate ability to adapt no? Has it been shown to lead to an entirely new species?

Mad_Max:
If Dinosaurs hadn't vanished I suspect we'd still be here, but we'll have a body that has factored in the threat of dinosaurs, and adapted to it. Maybe we'd have great speed, or flight, or toxins that brough them down, or be as big or bigger than they are.

Again, this may sound somewhat plausible at first glance, but does it really bear close scrutiny?  Humans as big as Dinosaurs? Flying? At least lets start with webbed hands and feet . If Dinosaurs came before humans, wouldn't that suggest that humans wouldn't even have made it? Human response to such threats has been more technological than physical.

Mad_Max:
Adaptation isn't a continuous thing, but happens in fits and starts, when it has to. With us, it was a bit like making a baby, only we weren't growing but adapting. You see a foetus at one day, ten days, ten weeks, five months, nine months. What's the difference between the baby at say,two weeks, and the baby at two weeks plus one day? And the difference between that and when you add an extra day, and another extra day, and so on?You barely notice any, do you? But there's a very startling difference, after a long process, between the baby at nine months and the baby at two weeks isn't there, even though you couldn't see the day to day differences? If the changes had been taking place outside the womb, as adaptation, you would have called the nine month old baby a different species from the two week old foetus, and wondered where all the
'intermediate species' were. The question isn't 'Where are the intermediate species'. The question is: If you were shown the 'intermediate species', would YOU recognize it?

If adaptation is not a continuous, happening in "fits and starts" and evolution is not a continuum, how can you analogise via aging? which is continuous, pretty steady and absolutely a continuum, with very clear pre-determined start and end points?

If an embryo via foetus to an adullt likened to speciation, would a seed to a mighty oak be considered likewise. Growth/ageing do not IMO mirror your position on evolution via adaptation or otherwise.

All adaptations or change responses, to whatever kind of threat/difference, are based on whatever is inherent. Over time, some may become dominant or codified, but based on what was there.


Its why Justcools point of evolution being an end point is at first glance somewhat intriguing, although I'd need to hear more to better understand the creative timeline and reasoning behind it.

Oya Justcool  !

Thanks
TV

mantraa:
All mad max is saying is that the evolutionary changes are very small over many generations. For instance, you may look the same today as you did yesterday, but over the period of several years you will notice that you have changed. Evolutionary changes are much slower than that. For example, you may look similar to your father and grandfather but you will look nothing like your great great great great great great great great great great grandfather after all the incremental slight changes are taken into consideration.

I hope this helps you understand the logic of small incremental changes over long periods of time.

There could well be many changes or variation between a person and their G¹⁰Father due to a number of things, diet, lifestyle, climate etc etc, , but does that make them a different species? All the changes responses are to make him better suited, not different.

Over time the result of adaptation or variation may well make one change, but they'd still be the same "species" no?

Thanks
TV

Evening All,

All in all a really nice narrative discussion. Thanks to all the contributors of what for me has been a great read and in some ways a bit of a "humbler" for me. Only recently I was "whingeing" about there being nothing noteworthy on the religious board these days. Well resurrected moderator, one could be forgiven for thinking I whined directly to you. And about evolution, one I normally avoid, being in no way, shape or form a scientist.

@justcool, I must say, you've pretty much "owned" this thread - IMHO & thus far anyway - and the merits of your position apart, your very concise posts and patient unfussed responses has been great. You have my regards.

From your first post (#4), its seems to me that you believe in both creation and evolution, indeed it appears that you consider they are somehow part of the same process. Apologies if I misascribe anything too you, but if I have, I expect the same deliberate rebuttal that has been your hallmark on this thread.

My position is pretty much what you'd call the"default" Christian one of creation, not by revelation or even study, but primarily because I haven't heard anything to convince me otherwise.

I'm intrigued by your postulating evolution somehow bringing us to an "end point" as it were and would appreciate more on this if you care to indulge. Especially in light of this statement;

Evolution is a reality only that scientists have not yet figured-out exactly how it happened. The major problem, like you pointed out, is that evolution is not a repeatable experiment. We cannot repeat the process in a lab and observe exactly how it happened.

And my own thinking that humans beings, being in a fallen state, are if anything, for the most part spiritually and physically degenerating.

To all and regards evolution at large, I am yet to be convinced that any variation amongst humans is anything more than adaptation based on what is contained within the human genome and I guess what I'd describe as phenotypical differences? I also fail to grasp how this variation - whether termed evoutionary or not, could give rise to a whole new species, or even if it did, why (a) the species being evolved from would necessarily have to disappear (to the extent that they are not easily traceable by fossils or some other evidence, or even co-exist and perhaps inter-breed) and how (b) these changes would somehow uniformly transmit amongst a whole population.

Appreciate any thoughts regards my position and concerns

God bless
TV

John 8:34
Jesus answered them, "Most assuredly, I say to you, whoever commits sin is a slave of sin.

No be me talk am 0!

Can a believer lose salvation?

The way questions are posed can reveal quite a lot.

Firstly, "believing" does not make one "saved". Nor does it make one "born-again". To expound a little those experiences are neither simultaneous nor synonymous.

Upon believing, salvation is not necessarily a given, but upon grasping what true salvation is and believing Gods grace to attain it in Christ Jesus by the power of the Holy Spirit, it cannot be lost. Though it could I guess be given up?

^{Following the WOF'ers vs. the non-WOFer's - yeah, I detest labels too  - discussion earlier, its easy to see how one side see the promises of God in Salvation in Christ and speak of though t experiencing them although they don't, whilst the other side not experiencing them, deny them although they are in clearly writ in scripture. Once salvation is properly understood and attained, all such contentions will cease.}

God bless
TV

Hi All,

Thanks for the responses thus far.

For me, the anchor is Christ - not church, not religion not even christianity per se - and whilst I have no quibble with those that subscribe to reincarnation, the enunciation of it I have heard - on this thread at least - makes some implicit and to my mind questionable assertions, to wit;

- The work of Christ is not atonal, and pursuant to that man makes his own atonement - if he is good - or is doomed.
- The work of Christ is not salvific. Savation being something of a mute point or pretty much mirroring the outworking above.
- At the very least I believe I heard the omnipotence of God brought into question.
- Why did the Lord come to earth? No cogent reason and again as above, it didn't quite go to plan? Mans intent thwarting Gods will?

Not to mention claims such as Paul being a misogynist, contradicting The Lord, - never having met Him - and there being many ways to God? He is The Way, The Truth and The Life, no one comes unto the Father except by Him.

In an era when women were considered nothing more than chattel to be disposed of as men saw fit, Paul exhorted believers to "love their wives - have just the one - and live with them with understanding". Misogynist? Au contrairé.

Contradictory teaching? Paul was "co-opted" to preach the Gospel of The Lord in a way no one else was or ever will be. Paul met with the risen Lord the way we are all supposed to.

Its also clear that deception is rampant, not least due to some questionable spiritual practices. Nethertheless, I agree with the notion that God will lead those who are truly seeking Him.

God bless all who seek Him in truth and may He grant the grace to do so
TV

Hi All, sorry I'm late. May I beg your leave to join the convo? Thank you kindly .

First, I'd like to say this is such a well mannered thread and interesting, and I'd like to applaud all the discussants. I've all but swooned at the cast and of course the submissions, revealing as it were the earnestness of some of the seekers here. I'll try and post in the same vein and not let the more "unascended" parts of my nature get a look in. Although I may well be tested if any of our resident fantasists, demagogues or cross-dressers make an appearance.

I know it’s currently modish on "The Land" to laugh in human, angelic and antique languages, however, right now, I'm rather standing here looking quizzical and scratching my head in KiSwahilli, as some of this is Greek to me - no offense of course to any Greeks - pele 0, on your current financial travails - or KiSwahillians (lovely country y'all have there ) for that matter.

Apologies if I'm rambling, but I've been on a "posting sabbathical". I also went away - sun, sea and sand, since you so kindly ask - so I'm a little rusty as I make myself ready to actually articulate something. Please bear with me, its late here, I’m musing and the thread is a little quiet, so hopefully I have it all to myself for a while. ^{Hope I don't get yellow-carded before I actually say anything. Aunty Jess, ManMustDine, please 0, no vex!}

I wouldn’t want to derail the thread either – for a straight red - but as is wont to happen this thread has developed a few “side-tracks”, and my questions – 2 in total – pertain to some of those.

1. Reincarnation:
It may be helpful to note here that I’m happy to be identified as Christian – in as much as that can mean something different to everyone who identifies themselves as such. Having said that, I don’t have a hard and fast doctrinal position on re-incarnation, nor is that a particular concern. However, the default position in Christianity appears to be that such a notion is unfounded, the teaching being one of resurrection.

Being an avid reader of the scriptures, I have been conscious – for a while now - to see if I can glean such a notion myself and frankly I can’t. Further, the parts of the biblical narrative posted on this thread to support it, I honestly don’t see as doing so. Not having any revelationary insight or scriptural gleaning, could someone please explain in simple terms;

- What resurrection is
- What is its purpose
- I’d also be grateful for any personal experience or biblical outline for it
- Is anyone is willing to expound on the worldview they follow which teaches it?

Particularly Mad_Max, m_nwankwo and MyJoe. And sincere apologies if I’ve mis-ascribed anything to anyone. Whilst many of the comments appear to take ressurection for granted, I didn’t sense a coherent or consensus position on it, not here and not thus far at least.

Could TV01 really be John The Baptist, or should that be Elijah or whoever came before him or after them both, or? I hope you appreciate the reason for the KiSwahillian/Greek intro now?

2.Biblical Inerrancy
First I actually followed this to MyJoe’ thread on the subject and I’d actually stopped by there before, but since I wasn’t “called out” as it were, I didn’t actually post. I could post there I suppose, but I don’t think I really need to. However, if it gets to that point, I may well yet. For now, two things;

(a) My answers to the original questions posed on that thread would be i. Mute point and ii. No.

i. If you have a heavy duty mac designed to keep out the rain – and it does just that – yet it has a frayed hem, holed or lint filled pockets and is rather scruffy, even ill-fitting even, is it fit for purpose or not? When you understand the purpose of the bible and see that it perfectly fulfils that purpose, then inerrancy becomes a mute point.

ii. I need a recipe for sea-bass and I’ve searched the scriptures to no avail. No, it’s not complete in the sense that all questions are answered therein. It’s complete in its purpose and intent. I’m hungry and the bible is not a cookbook, nor is it bread. But it shows the way to satisfy that hunger. You can’t know God from the bible, it’s simply not intended that purpose.

(b) Mad_Max, you at once discredited the bible, yet at the same time sought recourse to it too ground your notion of reincarnation and even built a theory based on it. Shouldn’t a “gazillion tampering” mean discarding it in its entirety?


Thanks for your time everyone and I’d really appreciate some insight per my two questions above. I’d like to be able to stop the head-scratching - in any tongue. But its late here and I’ll bid you all goodbye for now in English as I yawn in Arapaho .

God bless
TV

Krayola:
I think it mostly boils down to belief in heaven/hell as actual places where people/souls/whateva spend eternity. When what guides one's conduct is whether he/she will be rewarded/punished for it by some authority, and not personal reflection on the real life consequences of one's conduct, then you shouldn't be surprised that people will do such. I don't think it is so much what the bible says, but how it is understood.

A good point sir and as it goes, I cannot speak for everyone on this, so I'll outline my personal motivation

At a point, notions of heaven and hell did come into consideration. Along with the sense of the eternal futulity of the vanities we pursue on this earth and my very real sense of personal sin and hopelessness

There are at least 3 different schools of thought on hell and I personally can't claim any revelational knowledge about it. My best reading of the bible and consideration of the views of others does not lead me to the commonly accepted view.

But as my journey unfolds it is less about doctrine as such and not about rewards or blessings. Its about the relationship and my desire to know
Him, to please Him, to honour and to glorify Him. My terror at the thought of forniction/adultery, is not so much at the consequences to me - which is less than my concern about the impact on others - its about the thought of damaging or impairing my relationship with Him. Perish the thought.

God bless
TV

^{Phew, it was bloody out there, but with mighty scything blows of my well thumbed NKJV, I put the gentile princes to flight - or "area scatter" as I'm told its known as these days". Timing wasn't great, but a little light exercise after a meal aids digestion. No time to relax my mission is as yet complete. Resets helmet and points chariot in the direction of the kings palace. tbc,}