₦airaland Forum

dgreatrock:
Please i want to know if it is possible to truly, totally abstain from having sex before and or when married.

Absolutley.

However, I don't answer as a "Religionist", rather as one who places his faith in the grace of God in Christ Jesus. My personal use of the word religionist is perjorative. Appreciate yours or any others may not be.

Not to digress however, with faith and by grace its almost ridiculously easy. Again that is my personal experience. After the first few months, its like forgoing say chocolate - sorry girls - or any purely physical desire/thing.

Important not to set the wrong atmosphere or place yourself in a contrary environment though.

Being single, I wouldn't want to speak on behalf of a married couple as the dynamic is somewhat different. But if they agree !

God bless
TV

simmy:
quick question, assuming i have a genuine desire to serve God and start a church/ministry, how do you intend i source for funds to run the church?

It would be good to start by allying the "genuine desire" with a proper understanding.

There is only one church of God in Christ Jesus, and I'm sure many will recall the Lord as saying "He will build His church".
That church has been started - founded upon The Rock - with the blueprint disseminated by the early apostles.

So point 1, no matter how genuine or deep your desire to serve God - in Christ Jesus - you can't start a church. Unless of course its your own church, which is essentially what most places that call themselves churches these days are, man-made and run religious organisations. That is not to say that there are not members of the body of Christ within them.

I've had occassion to touch on the organisational nature of these places before. Just overlay the imperatives of any man-made organisation and you will see an exact fit. Nowhere in the scriptural narrative is "church" an organisation or did church require "funding" to exist or to grow.

The church - or ecclessia - are the called out individuals comprising the body of Christ through the ages in heaven and earth. 101'ish I agree, but you'd be surprised at the number of people that would claim to know that and yet not be able to differentiate it from what typically obtains.

Just to be clear, the church does not require funding. Organisations do. Money is utilised by the body to meet genuine welfare needs. Pretty much everything else is add-on by your "Friendly Neighbourhood Religionist".

So let me sew two maybe three threads with one post.

1. There are not too many churches as some would posit - there is merely a blight on the landscape of for the most part shabby 4th rate religious organisations that choose to call themsleves churches - and of course wilfully misappropriate things of the "True Church". But why worry? "The Lord knows those who are His".

2. Strictly speaking, there is no counterfeight Christianity, just like there is no "false truth". Lots of things that try and mimick it, co-opt parts of it or even mislead you about it, but you'll only find Christ in His Kingdom, with His church. The historical aspects of Christ and the Church whilst noteworthy, are in truth pointless. Christ is living - one can know Him now, rendering the need for an absolute knowledge and understanding of history, languages, customs or anything else irelevant. A small point to clarify. Where there truly only 4 gospels? or was it 30? maybe more or maybe less? If you know Christ here and now, it won't matter - and if it did, the Holy Spirit would reveal even that to you. Eyes on the prize please people.

3. For the appeasers, i.e. those that would rationalise the divinity of Christ. Ooops sorry out of space !

God bless
TV

KunleOshob:
@TVO1
How now? Long time how have you been? Hope all is well with you.

I'm well Kunosh. Hope your walk is drawing you closer to Him. On break from a course, so I thought I'd discomfort some religionists for fun! How far?

Tonye-t:
I would that you read this note below maybe you'll understand a better notion about tithe to your question 1.

The primary reason for tithing I will say is first worship to a god to acknowledge his/her ownership of everything and as such they are given back all/some portion. Some ancient writings say it could also mean an act of appreciation , a solicitation , an enquiry , an appeasement to a deity. Whichever way its been seen, it should be appreciated a fact that this act mean more of an ancestral standard to a law. How do I mean, in the Babylonian scrolls which preceded Abrahamism or Judaism none ever revealed that they were commanded to tithe under any given law, neither was it recorded that the first tithers- Cain and Abel (Bikkurim) ever did so based on compulsion as the supposedly law era gave.
Howbeit the introduction of this ancestral act in the era of Judaism (Moses’ time) was never given as a law per se, but the law only showed how this act was to be administered.

Tonye-t you can lie. Spiritualise it all you like by calling it worship. A disciple of Christ knows that he is only a steward. You cannot give to someone what is His and not yours in the first place. Christian imperatives are far higher. We are not law-bound, but spirit led. God forbid that bondservants of Christ become slaves of men.

Tonye-t:
Question 2. Did he give it once or always, read this!

Tithing – Once in a Lifetime or Daily or Weekly or Monthly or Yearly?

- Following the scriptures, Cain and Abel were recorded to have given once, maybe they gave more, we don’t know unless we judge following John. 21 : 25
- Abraham was recorded to have given once.
- Jacob was recorded once to have promised giving tithe
- Moses’ time and the Nation of Israel introduced it into the law and did not specify a time for ma’aser safe for the ‘year of tithing- once every third year’. Scholars say they practiced it after every harvest (time of increase)which varied by tribes and calendars
- Jephthah was recorded once to have promised Bikkurim and he fulfilled the promise. (Judg.11…)
- Religious sect in the NT strictly adhered unto the Terumat that it was given just about every week if not every day but wrongly on hypocritical grounds.

Ma’aser is an act of worship and one should give as unto God and not unto any religious order except we choose to follow religion (which to me is still not wrong -2Tim.3:16, James.1:7) . The importance is that tithing should be made on the ground of worship / appeasement / appreciation / solicitation / enquiry. One who choses to give once in a life time is same as the other who choses to give daily, weekly and so on for he who gives should do so as unto the Lord and not to Man (Eph. 6:7).

Falsehood upon falsehood. Go and sleep jo. Your whole life, entire being and existence are consecrated and if required consumed as a woirship offering to God. your "beggarly" tithing as worship notion is nothing more than limp man-made religion and pointless ritual. Your theology is all born of man, blood and flesh. Stop already!

Tonye-t:
Question 3: Pentecostal Pastors are not after the order of the levites but the order of the Christ who followed after Melchisedek, read it![/color][/font]


Tithing – The Priesthood Significance

Through the bible, God’s relationship with man has followed a pattern and this pattern has standards that both parties must maintain for a true relationship
What were this patterns?:
one of such was that there must be a Priest who mediates between God and Man (read.Heb.7:17-20)Mechisedek was the first to assume this office of which Job did the same (Job.1:5), thereafter Abraham (Gen.18:20-33),Abraham’s lineage and then to Jacob’s and later to Moses and the trail followed until Jesus’s time. What made this priestly office unique was the fact that they gave offerings as a means of worship/relationship and they offered sacrifices which were meant to make atonement for sins, they taught the people how to relate with God and Man.
Again, One practice the bible noted that some of these princes/priests did was the act of receiving offerings, take for example Melchisedek received offering, Aaron and the priesthoods received offerings as Moses instituted, both Jesus (Lk.7:37), Paul and Peter received offerings too.

Now Melchisedek in Retrospect:

Jesus was made a priest after the order of melchisedek, Jesus Christ was a priest after Melchisedek and Melchisedek received offering, what then is expected of Jesus Christ?. This order could be compared as unto Aaron (as melchisedek) and the levites (as Christ)-Heb.7:16, Aaron received it under the law; likewise the levites took it from the people and gave it to the High priest whom Aaron fell into.
Today when we give tithe, the clergies after the order of Christ receive it and offer prayers of blessings. refer Gen. 18:19. And he (Melchisedek) blessed him, and said, Blessed be Abram of the most high God, possessor of heaven and earth. Read Hebrews.6, 7,8

Ah, ah! Simply wretched and mischevious. There is only one High Priest in this dispensation. The One who is Higher, Holy and undefiled. We are all priests and kings to boot. Your wilful delineation of types of clergy after Christ is nothing short of blasphemy.

Bobo whats your motivation? Apart form Filthy lucre that is?

Truly men say that religion and politics are the cause of all the worlds wars/problems etc. While I do not subscribe to worldy sayings in their entirety, there're often nuggets of truth contained therein.

The politicians that are bedeviling this land and the religionists that are bewitching it are one and the same. Surely God will judge.

TV

Tonye-t:
>>>Matthew.23:23 - Jesus said unto the Hypocrites, practise mercy [yes], practise faithfulness [yes], practise Justice [yes], and i say do not neglect to practise Tithe [yes]

Zikkyy, maybe i am yet to show you any "senseful" post because my posts seem contrary to your free-choiced tithing, which the above passage doesnt not validate.

Aimed at those under the law by One who was Himself under it. It's noteworthy that Jesus who was born under, lived under and perfectly fulfilled the law never paid tithe. It was not money in the first instance - as evidenced by the verse you quoted. Its also noteworthy, that actually paying tithe has little bearing on righteousness, as does not paying it.

Tonye-t:
Beautiful, just beautiful, now prove to me that TITHING IS A JEWISH LAW. or you'll remain the hypocrite!

No, you prove its a Christian Law, which you are claiming directly or indirectly. And if it is, what was the point of the written code being fulfilled and done away with as I noted earlier? Is there a canon of laws for Christians? and if there are, please enunciate them?

God bless
TV

noetic15:
This is irrelevantly dogmatic. Tithing is biblical. . . , and there are also biblical precedents. The bone of contention is whether or not tithing is a compulsory injunction.
No its not. . .but does that make tithing criminal. . .NO.

Biblical meaning what? That it is contained within the scriptural narrative and therefore, acceptable, good or binding?
There are precedents for many things in the bible. Per your use of the word "Biblical" and my response above, what exactly is your point?

Their is no bone of contention. Tithing is not compulsory, but it is of course permissable. Little more than a cursory grasp of scripture will show that it is not a NT notion and rather pointless as a practise, superseeded as it were by something much more glorious.

Not sinful, not criminal, but at best lacking true insight. However the way it is sometimes peddled as compulsory with curses for failure to comply certainly is.

noetic15:
Tithing by Abraham reflects honour to God. is honouring God now a pointless venture?

Before Abraham was, He was.
Another twist? Tithing is now a matter of honouring God? Biblical abi?

noetic15:
You have no understanding of the inherent truths in xtianity or a relationship with God. There is nothing that u have that should be so scared for u, that u cannot honour God with.
That explains why God demanded Isaac for sacrifice and Abraham obliged.

So a Christian relationship with God is about honouring Him with your worldly possessions?
So honour = tithing = Gods demand for sacrifice?

A compulsory 10% maybe a sacrifice, but it is not an honour to the almighty. An optional 10% may well be, but so would an optional 9% or 11%. As a one-off, frequently, infrequently. Can God be honoured without a tithe or without giving material things to Him?

noetic15:
Tithing remains optional. . . , but all saints MUST honour God with all that they have.

Small, small. The saints of God, the disciples of the Lord Jesus Christ have nothing they call their own. As its all held in trust. Everything is His. As you learn to know, hear, and trust Him, you'll know where, when, to whom and on what to spend that entrusted in your care.

I pray you are not bound, either by compulsion or option. He came to set the captives free.

God bless
TV

noetic15:
there is a lot of sense in the pro-tithing argument too.

Sorry sir, doctrine is not dereived on a "makes sense" basis or based on a "strong argument" - be that on the seeming merits of the case, or the force with which it is made.

noetic15:
tithing remains an optional thing

At best. But if properly understood, one would realise it misses the point - so much so as to be pointless.

noetic15:
but every xtian must be financially commited to the spread of the gospel.

Perhaps one of the biggest errors/untruths in Christendom. The gospel does not require money to spread. Although, religious - or any - organisations require money in order to survive, grow and dominate.

Needless to say, the error above is to a great extent supported by and tied too the deceptive teaching around tithing.

God bless
TV

Tonye-t:
"If a Blind man lead another the both will fall into a dish"

Not content with butchering scripture, Tonye-t then attempts to murder the queens English. Dayuum ! Apa!

One of the biggest myths and most abused mantras in "christendom" is "it takes money to spread the gospel". Closely related to "it takes money to run the church". Assertions nowhere found in or anyway backed up by scripture. Other close relatives are "salaried church employees" or "full time paid pastors". All false and at best showing a wilful ignorance or disregard for the inherent simplicity of scriptural narrative. And anyone with even a modicum of insight or discernment will see clearly that this is all underpinned by the heresy of a mandatory tithe or more subtly, manipulated and/or co-ercerd giving. !

Maranatha Lord Jesus.

TV

Hmmmm!

The turgid prose
The torturous obsfuscation
The swift descent into souless invective
The relentless drive, used to weary the opposition into submission
The preternatural ability to befuddle by making misleading and aimless tributary theme's
The voluminous output that makes one wonder, na full-time job? Is there more than one? Abi supernatural don enter?

There can be only one !

_{Fond ke? Like one is of toothache!}

viaro:
and if it wasn't that you and TV01 are fond of her, you should have known better.

Evening @viaro, I thought you were new here? How would you be aware of the fact - if indeed it is a fact - that I or anyone else is "fond" of Pilgrim.1? Given your first post on this forum was in early October and Pilgrim.1 hasn't posted since early July, has she?

Sweet dreams 

TV

KunleOshob:
Ahh!!!!!! TV01, nice to see your post, how have you been?

I'm well thanks Kunosh. Hope you are also.How's the walk?

KunleOshob:
You can see your friend is back to harrass us whilst continously twisting scripture to promote her tithing agenda. I really wonder what keeps her going.

I posted on the "Once saved always saved" thread initiated by Gamine. Coincidentally - or not? - she was right behind me. After one post I pretty much sussed. Motive? inspiration?? I have my thoughts.

tayotoyin:
I loooooooooooooove your courtesy man!

It'll never last and he is a she.  !

God bless
TV

hmmmmmmmmmm Pilly!

viaro:
Now, that's problematic for me. I don't think that 1 John 1:8-10 holds that a Christian 'does not' or 'cannot' sin. If that were so, why then does it say in verse 9 that "if we confess our sins"? Who are the "we" in that verse? And if the "we" points to those who are saved, does that not immediately show that Christians do sin and can indeed sin?

Thanks for your response @viaro. I also appreciate the differing viewpoints and they do give pause for thought.

Firstly, I qualified the type/state of the Christian.
Secondly, would you be so kind as to state your reading of 1 John 3:5-10.

viaro:
The point is not that we should go on sinning - Romans 6:1-2 expressly forbid that idea.

If the point is that "Christians  should not go on sinning", how and when does a Christian get to that point? Is it not contradictory to say do and will sin, but in the same breath say they should not go on sinning?

Did the Lords work only make atonement for past sins and any we may commit in future, or is it efficacious in delivering us from the sin nature. Yes, no? How, why?

viaro:
However, in our experiences, we find indeed that some may sin in one way or another. although as Christians it is not the experience we should desire. Does this help at all to put things in context?

What a Christian - and I talk in the discipleship sense - should desire is to be like His Master. Is there atonement for sin and deliverance from the sin nature, or just atonement, even if in  a present continous sense?

What is the difference between one who willfully sins - and maybe does not even believe - and one who believes and sins, even if its with regret?

God bless
TV

Time constraints and other priotities make it hard for me to keep up.

But let me add this to the mix.

A truly/fully saved Christian does not sin. Cannot Sin. Why, because once truly saved you have discarded the nature of Adam and taken on the nature of Christ. True salvation means you become like He was on this earth. No sin in Him.

Quoting 1 John 1:8-10 is only part of the story, the beginning of the journey. The Lord makes atonement for sins, but the true beauty of the salvific work is to rid us of the sin nature. That is the point that one truly experiences the fullnes of salvation.

But if you don't understand and believe that how will you wait on and trust the Lord for it?

The end of the Journey is stated clearly in 1 John 3

5 And you know that He was manifested to take away our sins, and in Him there is no sin. 6 Whoever abides in Him does not sin. Whoever sins has neither seen Him nor known Him. 7 Little children, let no one deceive you. He who practices righteousness is righteous, just as He is righteous. 8 He who sins is of the devil, for the devil has sinned from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that He might destroy the works of the devil. 9 Whoever has been born of God does not sin, for His seed remains in him; and he cannot sin, because he has been born of God. 10 In this the children of God and the children of the devil are manifest: Whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is he who does not love his brother.

Doctrine is good and needful, but let it be end-to-end. Why stop at 1 John 1:8-10. It speaks of the journey. Then live the journey.

So if you sin willfully and inverterately, or just have the once in a decade occurence, its because you have not laid hold of the fullness of salvation. In fact, we have harrumphed about about exactly when one is saved. Read the passage above and tell me, when is one actually born again?

Read the gospels, the Lord clearly said "He who sins is of the Devil", as in verse 8 above. Is that absolute, relative,does it mean often or infrequently?

I detest the oft quoted "while we are in the flesh (this body) we will always sin. Its a lie. Christianity is first and foremost about death. His then yours. Die to self (mortify the flesh, or more technically its driving lusts and passions so you can be Spirit-led ) so that He can live in you. That is what takes time as you carry your cross and it slowly but surely kills you, and He can be enthroned.

Someone quoted this earlier.

Hebrews 9:28 so Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many. To those who eagerly wait for Him He will appear a second time, apart from sin, for salvation.

Yes 0! True salvation means you will know Him and you will See Him Please read in conjunction with 1 John 3:6 above. Don't be sold a pup.

Let God be true and every man, every organised religious entity, every ritualised corporate body and all institutionalised man-made religion a liar.

Apologies if I started to veer into rant. Ain't got passion for nowt else. Your cordial discourse is in itself a blessing.

God bless
TV

Zikkyy:
I just need to clarify something here, say . . . a sick unbeliever on his death bed. If he believes and accept christ at this point, does he need to perform any other act/work after this to be saved? considering this might be his last act.

If that acceptance is more than mere mental assent or belief. The Lord knows. I could ask the same question thus; "What if a sound, sane and healthy 21 year old believes and accepts Christ, is s/he saved right there and then.

Does everyone on the path to salvation live to the end? And if they sleep whilst walking that path, then what? I have my thoughts, but the Lord knows.

Works do not in and of themselves save. Faith produces works and "Spirit-ledness" produces fruit.

God bless
TV

Gamine:
So even if we have become a part of Gods kingdom,
we arent quite there yet, we still need to wok out our salvation.

Does believing or acceptance make you part of Gods Kingdom? My position is that entering the Kingdom and being saved simultaneously happen along with the fullness - return? - of Christ in one's life.

Gamine:
Another question is, What exactly does Jesus dying mean. why did he have to be 'sacrificed'
why him and not the goats, i need this to be really clear.

- To reconcile us to God
- To deliver us from sin
- That we may have abundant life
- To destroy the works of the Devil

The blood of the lesser cannot atone for the sin of the greater. Not sure how this informs your position, perhaps talk us through your thinking here some more.

What are we saved from? what are we saved for?? What is God after, Christs purpose and we to attain to. Salvation is not just delivery from, it is also translation to.

Once one can get a grasp of the point of being a Christian - as in a disciple of Christ, not a mere church goer or believer - then one can better, even if not necessarily perfectly appreciate the fullness of salvation.

God bless
TV

ttalks:
The highlighted above isn't exactly right. one isn't "saved" at that point of accepting Jesus; rather one begins the journey towards being saved.

I'm pretty much in accord with this point here.

- One is not saved merely because one believes in Jesus Christ or assents that He is Lord. Many believe and do nothing, or act - even the devil - contrary to that belief. Many believe and make it to organised church or some religious organisation, but still do not make that wholesale commitment to The Lord.

- I agree that salvation is a journey, not one of works or earning credit, but an experience - walk towards and with God that culminates in salvation.

Maybe the term "accepting Jesus" is somewhat misleading. Does "accepting" imply "believing" or something deeper?

One other point, I have every sense that salvation and the experience that leads to full salvation can and does happen here and now and doesn't have to wait until some end time culmination of all things. That is throughout the ages up until now, people have been and are being fully saved. That I believe is the return of Christ to those who eagerly await Him and entry to the Kingdom of Heaven.

God bless
TV

I've tried to read through, but the thread has been derailed on occassion. So let me start by posting my own position.

The short answer is "Yes".

The longer "put in perspective, with added background and placed within the right context" is still yes, but points where I find difference are;

- what constitutes saved?
- when is that point reached?
- what if anything happens prior, at that point or after
- how does one know

others include

- do you earn it
- work to keep it
- can possibly lose it after attaining it.

Whats the board saying?

God bless
TV

Hi All,

Interesting thread. Can anyone join?

TV

(Bo & Mo in the commentary box )

Bo - the smart money was always riding on Pilgrim 1 in this bout. Well schooled though Lady is, Pilgrim has mixed it at a higher level of opposition and as we enter the later rounds her experience is starting to show.

Pilgrims stamina is legendary and her ability to ride storms in the early rounds and come on strong is standing her in good stead.

Lady came out firing, but the wily Pilgrim 1, tucked up tight, defended well and waited for Lady to slow down. Pilgrim 1 is definately turning up the heat now and Lady appears to be wilting. Will she get a second wind and come out fighting? I think she needs to as we enter the championship rounds. What says Mo?

Mo- True talk Bo. Opponents often think that Pilgrims one dimensional approach and not very creative shot selection can easily be dealt with.But once in with her they realise its easier said than done. Apart from her stamina which you've already mentioned, she's actually a lot cuter on the inside than many give her credit for. And don't lets overlook her tight defense.

Lady's the new kid on the block, brings a lot of support, a decent pedigree and truck loads of glamour to the sport, but maybe she's in too deep on this one. There's been a lot of unanswered punches in the last round or so and the ref maybe thinking of calling a halt to this one.

But so far it's been a helluva fight. The kind of tear-up the fans love. One for the ages - Mo & Bo will rejoin you for the next round. Seconds out.

Afternoon all,

Please forgive my posting ad-hoc, and without reference to scripture.

Paul the Apostle was a man seperated unto the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ by God. At that point it was his reality, his life.

Furthermore, for the most part he was a missionary-preacher, essentially involved in only two things;

1. Spreading the gospel
2. Strentghening those who had recieved it

He did nothing else and was consumed by what he was called to do. Not only was he far from seeking riches for it, he was more than happy to do it without pay - "woe is me".

His point to being supported by the gospel was for those whose whole lives  - along with any personal ambition, aspiration or will - were given up for it. Even so, he was not dogmatic about it in practice. He made no demands & always appreciated assistance/offering in regard his need as "gifts".

He was a Pharisee and trained lawyer. Tent making was not his profession, it was a side job undertaken when and as he could to provide for his needs, whilst maintaining focus on his calling. In as much as he took anything from anyone, it was always for his immediate physical need or that of others.

He was not a Sunday.Sunday congrgational elder (pastor or whatever your preferred option is) like most are today. That role is not meant to be "salaried" or funded by the church as a whole. That is why the ideal is "a plurality", so the burden of eldership can be shared.

If elders do recieve anything, it is based on their need, like it is for everyone else. Only that they should perhaps be prefered, due too their labour of love to the body.

He was not one to let the gospel be slandered or the Lord to be blasphemed because of filthy lucre.

_{Please note that he was never a self-styled "GO" or "Presiding Bishop" or "Covering Apostle" of those congregations he started or ministered to. Once strengthened and elders raised up they were self running/governing local communities. But don't let me derail the thread sha!}

God bless
TV

So, is it a structural/formation issue or one of doctrine/practice? Is it the provenance of those within?? Are these factors all related, perhaps fuelling each other Indeed, are there other causal factors or root issues. Could there be a deeper spiritual pattern playing out here?

emiemi:
Glad to hear this Kunle. But I will honestly tell you this, most young church usually start off right but
get distracted along the way or follow the saying ''if u can't beat them, join them''. I have been to
many churches too and have seen this phenomenom a lot of the times.

Sadly!

emiemi:
Remember to stay focused on your desire and whom u seek.

I'm not a big fan of this word, but GBAM!

KunleOshob:
My bro how you dey? Trust you had a blessed weekend.

Kunosh I dey 0! how far?

I'm spoiling bro'. What say we stand back to back and smite some of these ICD's with the edge of the sword ! Probably wouldn't stretch us overly much or last more than a few minutes, but it'd be fun while it lasted.  . We could probably carry on a edifying fellowship while we play .

fyneguy:
Ok Kunle

And if you are convinced, you will fully become a member and probably mature in spiritual things and quit rubbing religiousity on our faces.

May be this will put u on the positive side of progress in your christian life.

Much love, bro.

It takes a certain kind of proud - unthinking and unfeeling - religious hypocrite to post the kind of disdain and abuse that you have done above, subsequently labelling or proclaiming it as love, inherently suggesting it's "Christian" love.

Unfortunately this type abounds on NL.

_{does anyone actually discuss issues or topics anymore? is anyone capable. Lord, pray  save us from the invasion of the "Institutionalised Church Drones" ICD.}

Hi All,

I tust this finds everyone well.

I haven't posted for a while and the frequency of my posting is greatly reduced. Having said that, I still visit as often as I ever did, following any thread that catches my attention, but for the most part being content to reflect on the views of others.

I have followed this thread from the beginning and was again planning  - and happy -  to remain on the sidelines and hear other express their views.

I'm neither seeking a high profile or attention, so I would really rather I was personally left out of this. Having said that I took no issue with Kunle making mention of me during the discourse, after all I have no reason to believe his intent was in any way malicious. Neither will I object to anyone referencing anything I've published or even personally discussed, as long as it is accurately quoted and contextualised.


So I'm posting for two reasons;

The first is to respond to $osisi' post - #158 - earlier today.

Hi $osisi,  I hope you are well. We have had very little interaction on NL and not directly for some time. We both have a body of postings and I'm sure have had occassion to read each others entries. I must say I'm rather saddened by your post earlier today and I'll explain why.

$osisi:
It's interesting that KunleOshob mentions TV01 another individual with a form of Christianity.

As an entre intended to both wound and calumnise, could you have done much better? Your pointedly referencing and ascribing a "form" of Christianity to both Kunle and myself is at best religiously censorious.  Which would suggest you are an arbiter of what are "true" and "form" strains of Christianity. At the very least if you are allowed to express you opinion  - wrightly or wrongly - about individuals, does not Kunle have the same right to express his opinion about strains of denominationalism or worship traditions?

$osisi:
Believers should be careful about any Christian who tells you he has read the Bible thoroughly and now knows the mind of God  concerning every issue and everyone else is in error.

I can only shake my head in wonder here, as I have never once suggested anything remotely like that. Wonder as you cannot fail to understand exactly what you are doing here, by falsely ascribing to me a stance I have never taken.

And for the record I will state here; simply I'm still on my journey. Neither do I believe that doctrinal excellence or scriptural supremacy is key. I am always ready to be disabused of any wrong notions I may hold, but please address the notions and refrain from ad hominen invective.

$osisi:
Or one who spends time critizing virtually everything in "his faith" and has a ready answer for all questions.

Again, you maliciously ascribe something to me that cannot be verified. I have my understanding and position on certain religious or faith practices and doctrine, but would you disallow me that? Or am I obliged to confer and agree with you on every point?

$osisi:
That is  the beginning of heresies and cults

Not content to falsely ascribe things to me and take issue because I have expressed an opinon, you progress to labelling me heretical and a probable cultist. Are you trying to flatter me ?

$osisi:
Could these be the people the Bible tells us have crept into the fold ?
I am not impressed
I am not deceived.

Both wierd and funny?? - In a sense, isn't Kunle on the verge of leaving your "fold"? Why not encourage him/us? Shouldn't you be glad?

And in all the religious landscape, are you sure its TV and Kunosh the Bible is warning you against? Two individuals without profiles, no following, no platforms, no power, influence and dare I say wealth. Who are not soliciting for followers or seeking to establish - neither belong too - a denomination or institutional church?? Or asking that you subscribe to their beliefs/doctrines or follow their paths or asking for your resources? Please don't take my word for it $osisi, but I'd say no! !

Eeeerrr, my desire to impress you exactly matches my desire to decieve you. No prizes.

$osisi:
May I never come to a point in my life where I feel like I have arrived in faith and now  know all there is to know about God and his ways.

That is the point Kunle and his best friend seem to have come to.
That, my friend,is a dangerous position to be in.
I do not envy them at all.

So then, is perdition your prognosis?

$osisi:
They may be on a quest to seek out a perfect gathering of non tithing believers meeting under a mango tree under an umbrella of love
But the moment they join it becomes imperfect because they are imperfect themselves

Lots has been said on the word "perfection" in relation to believers and the church in this thread and I was briefly tempted to write on that very point. I yet may.

All Kunosh has said - and please correct me if I am wrong - is that the various forms of institutionalised religious christianity are in his view so far removed from the scriptural blueprint that he has doubt if they are still in essence the true church refered too. Ergo, he may no longer worship in that setting.

He did not say he no longer believed, he did not say he would no longer fellowship, he did not say he was seeking perfect people or a perfect church. If your view is that he is in error or danger, why not show him scripturally why that is the case? Why not address the issue, possibly delivering him and others in the same position.

$osisi:
The Bible says that those who are led by the Spirit,are the sons of God.
Every believer should pray to be led
The letter kills but the Spirit gives life.
Let him who has an ear,hear.

I missed the bit where you actually referred to the topic or addressed the issue? Your intent becomes even more obvious. The effect? On me personally zilch. Some may be wrongly coloured in their opinion of me - but again for my own sake, no qualms.


$osisi I bear you no malice or ill-will, indeed my desire for you remains the same as for everyone - that we all seek and find the truth of God in Christ Jesus.


The second is to say if anyone would like to quote me, please take time to do so faithfully. Or just ask and I'll happily answer as best I can.


Enjoy the rest of your weekend.

God bless
TV

Sorry for my absence after my initial post, I got lost in the thick bush of SW Nigeria  .

Kunle, I'm now back in Lagos for a few days before heading home. I'll mail you as noted.
Pastor, I live in the UK as well, maybe on my return.

Best
TV

And I'd like to meet up - paticularly with KunleOsh and Pastor AIO. God bless TV.

Gamine:
I think im passing through the second stage,

Thanks TV01, true words.

Ey yah Sister Gamine,

It has been abundantly clear from a lot of your posts. I never commented as we'd never really talked and every walk is personal. I gaurd mine jealously, but if you ever want to talk or share your journey.


Is this familiar;

It's a wrench to come out of organised religion. It's comforting, one is validated, accepted, lauded even. You would have felt at home, spiritual and like you were truly serving God. For a while you'll be a little lost, but hopefully the clarity of truth you've understood will stop you going back. In fact the move out can be an epiphany - accompanied by a better understanding and more clarity of that truth you grasped - and a sense of release.

But the withdrawal can be painful and protracted. Exacerbated by the length of time it was so overwhelming a part of your very existence. Not to mention the realisation that having left what is wrong, doesn't immediately mean you have laid hold of, or even know what is the true path of righteousness. It can be a little like a bereavement. Patterns, habits and schedules all askew - Sunday mornings for starters! A sense of loss, anger, frustration, helplessness and it can be knackering.

The road is narrow and there are few that find it.

There may be ostracism and slander to deal with. Many of those you thought you had an unbreakable bond with not only have no time for you, they will have a combination of pity and disdain for you, if they don't openly revile you. Finding people of similar leaning can seem nigh on impossible. Close relationship can be changed. If you are lucky maybe those who love you unconditionally, will still do so, but not really understand. Some perhaps will appreciate your passion, even if they don't get it.

You'll want to share this with everyone, but they'll be few that see what you have, or understand what too you may seem be obvious truth. Trying to explain will be mostly fruitless and frustrating. You see, belongong to a cult - be it the largest denomination or the smallest sect - is accompanied by a degree and form of spiritual bondage, blindness and stupor.

Additionally, there's the fact that you have some truth - enough to see the falsehood of organised religion - but not all, or possibly not enough to determine what next. Please keep trusting Him.

Narrow, hard and lonley. I wish there was a roadmap, but I suspect not. At least not in anything but the very broadest sense. Salvation is personal, as is the walk. But if it's Him you are after, I trust you will rejoice in the end. I don't know how long it's been or how long you've journeyed, but I wish you Godspeed and may the Lord be with you.

TV

Pastor AIO:
I think it is a bit too damning to state that they cannot be redeemed. Yes, the situation looks daunting from our perspective, but it doesn't happen by our powers, no matter the strength of the arguments.

Perhaps we should stop relying on our own understanding and our abilities to argue. The Truth cannot be arrived at via rhetorical arguments. The important thing is that you say what you have been inspired to say. The job of convincing anyone is not ours.

I agree with Pastor here.

I was once a fully paid up - rabid even - card carrying Pentecostal. But my heart was always to know God for myself. I believe Christ offers an intimacy with God that no other religion/philosophy or faith does, and I yearned and sought that with all my heart.

As I sought I saw and had to make some hard choices, the primary one being seek God or serve man. I thank God for His grace in leading me out of man-made religion, but 3 things;

1. When I was in the throes of organised religion, no one could - by argument or rhetoric - have forced me out. I was once the most fervent proponent of tithing. I even condemned those that practised it, but had the termerity to debate whether it was net or gross. But I sought God and He spoke to my about tithing when I wasn't even querying its validity. Tradition or Truth? That choice will have to be made at various points of one's journey. It was the start of a series of revelations that led me out of menc churches.

2. Having come out, I had a phase of exhorting everyone about the dangers and railing against religion. You know what? most people are exactly as I was in 1. above. For a while, I became almost religiously anti-religious. I see that as another phase I went through.

3. All I can say is that "The Lord knows those who are His" and they hear His voice and follow Him. God is way beyond. Anyone that truly seeks Him He will lead. But it can be a hard and lonely path. Being anti-religion does not in itself make you pro-God or to know Him.

There are lots of people out there who may not worship like we do, practise what we preach, but be fervently seeking God. I for one believe He will make a way even for those.

Lots to say, but it's more about seeking than speaking.

Pastor, Kunle et al, hope you are all well, if anyone has intimacy with God to share I'm all ears.

God bless
TV