₦airaland Forum

I am just putting the finishing touches to a scanner that will detect false doctrine! Soon to be deployed by border agencies and immigration officers worldwide. !

Good evening all,

I earlier summarised my position on tithing thus;

1.Tithing is not mandatory, but it is permissable - and like most opponents, my opposition is to those that would make it mandatory for Christians and warp scripture to do so - not tithing per se.

2. I believe that in the fullness of NT living, it is redundant and with time one would see that. But why and who can force understanding on people who do not yet see that? Hence, Christian liberty.

3. It cannot be justified/enforced under the law and the prophets or based on something else and then enforced by same.

4. Abrahams sole instance was/is not a pattern or ordinance. Abrahams faith is the only pointer for NT Christians.

5. Tithing confers no distinct or unique blessings over one who simply gives - whatever amount/frequency - with the right posture.

6. I don't actually agree that God is obliged to respond to our giving in any form on the basis of some set pattern or return.

7. I don't believe that God ranks giving or distinguishes giving types or gifts/offerings and then responds accordingly.

8. NT giving is predicated on need, also noting;

9. the offering/worship element - #1459 - but in the NT dispensation I see no real examples of that, although I stand to be corrected.

10. Following on from 8 & 9, I'D be really interested to hear how one would worship God directly with any physical gift in this dispensation. New thread?


I will now briefly outline my views on NT Christian giving;

1. There are only two reasons to give, the first predicated on need and the second based on a desire to bless and honour God. One may say worship, no problem!

2. However, both reasons are valid worship responses, especially when motivated by a good and cheerful heart. Living out life to do His will, through His power, under His grace and to His glory, means every act is one of worship.

3. Even if one gives as a “blessing to God”, it’s ultimate end will be to minister to need, so while I note and will not quibble over the two reasons, the final employ of any “giving” will be to minister to need.  Hence, I may say all giving is predicated by need to keep it simple, with my first point as a rider.

4. Giving is not classified, although it may be described using different terminology, including but not limited to; giving; offering, blessing, sacrifice, gift, etc. Start to worry if it’s called salary, wages, stipend, remuneration etc and/or is given for “ministry” . Worry even if it’s called any of the first listing and is predicated on ministry”

5. There are different needs to - all pertaining to physical wellbeing and ministering – give too, different times to give, different constituencies to give too, different degrees of giving, but there are not “types of giving”. And there are certainly not different types of giving that attract different blessings or returns or negative blessings or returns for non-compliance. No giving is legislated for or mandatory.

6. Giving is a ”grace” – one of the many facets of grace – which a Christian grows into and which enables the Christian to give even to a sacrificial degree. One of the main distinctions from giving by law.

7. I don’t believe God ascribes absolute or relative value to the gift. It’s is acceptable based on heart and posture. No part of any giving is considered more hallowed or sanctified or holy or indeed needs to be or is “spiritualised” in any way. As believers focus on the Giver, The Lord also see’s the heart of the giver.

8.  Giving can take many forms.  Often it will be monetary, but it can be time, counsel, fellowship, food and as we all know and acknowledge, things one can’t always apply a monetary value too, such as a life. Let’s thank God for His “indescribable gift”.

9. There is no NT mandate or ordinance – be that as law or institution – or anything that can be gleaned from the scriptural narrative that would suggest that at that time, or in the future, money would be required for temples, salaried or professional clergy or in any way to build or support the “church” as an organisational entity.

10. There is no hidden mystery to giving.


God bless you as you seek and live for Him.
TV

@All

I am really saddened by some of what is being postulated on this thread. I had been somewhat remiss by not following as closely as I should, so read a few pages back to try and pick up some lines of enquiry and themes that were being explored.

I must also confess that I didn't read ab initio neither did I cover all that I had missed, but I saw enough to cause me grave concern. I have mixed feelings - not about the issue in question - about the motivation behind some of the postings here. I'm sensing something else, but I shall hold counsel for now.

In as much as I have no problems with indviduals who unilaterally or corporately choose to tithe, that is based on my belief that the walk with God is essentially an individual thing. And I believe that God will in His own time and according to His own purpose enlighten/deliver those who truly seek Him.

Do I need to repeat that I believe the paying or enforcing or supporting of a tithe on the basis of the law and prophets is wrong and potentially dangerous? And doing so on the basis of Abrahams one off tithe of spoils to Melchizedek at best misguided?

But do I for one minute believe, that even if my stance on tithing if 100% correct, it makes me in some way better or spiritually superior or even closer to God than someone who takes the opposite stance. No, no, no. Do I believe the essence of Christianity is doctrinal excellence? Again, no, no and thrice no. It's one of the reasons I no longer engage like before. I do not seek - if it indeed exists - doctrinal excellence as I do not believe that is key - although it may well derive frm - a closer walk with God and knowing The Lord

I don't want us to become tedious or way tiresome to one another, neither do I necessarily want us to abandon what has been a for the most part a wothwhile discussion.

I'm not totally sure of the way forward, but perhaps is we discussed Christian life in the NT, with an emphasis on the daily lives of the saints and elders, the injunctions about giving we will recieve further insight. Perhaps we could - even on a seperate thread - consider what predicated giving and distribution in the NT, how and what collections or aid were used for,and further, how in this dispensation one would worship The Lord with physical gifts.


May The Lords light shine.

God bless
TV

sarmy:
It seems you've got a kind of revelation of it and also trying very hard to explain it. Is there a mystery to that name tithe and from your perspective, how do you define tithe (I'm sorry if this has been mentioned b/4)

Yes 0! All this talk of deeper meaning, allowing God to show us what we are not seeing, hallowed part etc etc. This would suggest a revelation of sorts or at least an insight/understanding that we are not seeing.

But no problem. I would therefore request that you share! If you cannot share for some reason, why go there? If it's divine say so, if you cannot reveal it, advise. If it's your own study or by dint of scholarship, again, I would exhort you to share. If you recieved it from someone, pray tell and reveal your source and provenance. But why keep us in suspense or attempt to spiritualise it?

A true revelation would be bourne out by scripture. Easily, logically, unambiguously, obviously even. After it had been pointed out and it would leave no room for gainsaying. If by sound scholarship, again any postulation would stand on it's own merits, fit well with scripture and not jar with other doctrine.

And I don't think balance is a big issue here. The discussion has not revolved around "exreme positions". It's the meaning, basis, validity, practicality, use, scriptural narrative, examples, form and many other things that have been chewed on and mulled over on this thread.

We eagerly await this revelation/insight/scholarship piece/teaching .

Hi Sis' P,

pilgrim.1:
My dear brother, I urge you to please go back and spend some time on this matter and not to just be cemented on one assumption, no matter how many times you think you have read it. I am begging you, because you may have no opportunity to come back and shy away from this assertion if your errors are pointed out. Let's not be too much in haste to understand issues.

It was always on farm produce, not on money. There was a clause about converting to money for long journeys, but it was not based on monetary income.

I won't shy away. I believe it's necessary to state ones position clearly and clarify if required, which I'm happy to do. If undecided or in doubt, one should also say so. However, if you can show differently, I'm all ears.

pilgrim.1:
My brother, try and go back and see it O. . . you may be arguing from a secular humanistic ideology and not actually seeing what is there. I am begging.

Please feel free to correct - as opposed to assert - if I am. Don't beg, just show. As mentioned, I'm all ears.

pilgrim.1:
Please, please and please - go back and see that the extremum is applicable to both those arguing for and against tithes in Scripture. I have given an example already - there are so many others I could easily repost here, but I don't want to scare anyone to see what tithe-antagonists have said about their brethren.

The discussion has always been about an obligation to tithe. I don't recall - although I may be wrong - anyone who was against tithing attaching curses to the practise. Not on this thread anyway.

However, I stand by the fact that, making tithing an obligation and doing so on the basis of the mosaic law could be very dangerous. And to knowingly enforce tithing on that basis cannot be condoned or considered merely extreme.

God bless
TV

Hi All,

I appreciate and applaud the brotherly way the conversation is progressing. Now to work;

Did Jesus pay tithes?

I doubt it, he was a carpenter by profession and not from a land owning family that I can tell. The tithe was always on agricultural/land based produce. Livestock or arable crops. It was never money, so the poor, disenfranchised etc would not be liable or considered in default.

Indeed, tithe was in part meant to cater for such. It makes little sense to demand a tithe from those whom it was meant for. Or insist on a tithe of a poor persons recipt of the tithe distribution?? Although a heartfelt freewill offering in appreciation would be kind of cute  !

Extreme?

It's extreme to claim curses accrue for not paying tithe, it's also lie.

It's extreme to claim hell for those who pay, but if you do pay as a mandatory obligation based on the law, it's very dangerous, why needlessly fall from grace.

However I'm convinced that God leads those who are seeking him. I was mandatory tithings biggest proponent. I waged war on non-payers, even those who paid, but questioned if it should be net. It was one of the first things God delivered me from as I sought Him, and I was'nt even asking about it.

If a true seeker pays a law based tithe ignorantly, I know God will deliver such a one as they seek Him.

Hell for those who knowingly warp the scriptures to enforce a mandatory tithe? That would depend on your definition of hell and it's purpose. Don't lets go there, at least not on this thread. But there is still the "falling from grace" penalty for such, no?

Could we perhaps take it further, with the following posers, or others that contributors may have?

Why don't Catholics, Anglicans, JW or others pay tithe
What is the tithe used for
Is it's use biblically prescribed
What would happen if it was eliminated and all giving became freewill and disbursement became needs based?

God bless
TV

Morning Pilgrim,

Hope you are well.

Ah, ah, you know the sheer length of your replies will deter me . Rather than reply to every point, I'll share.

First, I know I stepped in midway, I had been kind of following, but yes, I am remiss for not reading thoroughly, your submissions are too detailed for me to render that disservice. Apologies.

Never the less, I don't see the premise of your arguement and still feel that you are set on justifying your position by sheer dint of scholarship.

Mine has been simple;

1. Tithing is permissable, but not mandatory - and like most opponents, opposition is to those that would make it mandatory, not tithing per se
2. I believe that in the fullness of NT living, it is redundant and with time one would see that. But why force it? Hence, Christian liberty
3. It cannot be justified/enforced under the law and the prophets or based on something else and then enforced by same
4. Abrahams sole instance was/is not a pattern or ordinance. Abrahams faith is the only pointer for NT Christians.
5. Confers no distinct or unique blessings over one who simply gives - whatever amount/frequency - with the right posture
6. I don't actually agee that God is obliged to respond to our giving in any form on the basis of some set pattern or return
7. I don 't believe that God ranks giving or distinguishes giving types or gifts/offerings and then responds accordingly
8. NT giving is predicated on need, also noting
9. the offering/worship element - #1459 - but in the NT dispensation I see no real examples of that, although I stand to be corrected.
10. Following on from 8 & 9, I'D be really interested to hear how one would worship God directly with any physical gift in this dispensation. New thread?

I'm happy to discuss any point, or any that you may raise, but after so long and with so little consensus, I appreciate that it may start to get circular and tedious.

I'll find time - or there'll be opportunity at some stage - to explain all the failed jokes/one liners !

Best
TV

pilgrim.1:
Hi again TV01,

Hi Miss.

pilgrim.1:
How body?

Body dey fine sis', I have reason to really thank God, I've been all but incapacitated recently, but I'm on the mend.

I'll make a few brief points;

pilgrim.1:
(1) The percentage (%) thingy: My point is that we have always been stuck on a particular percentage in this question of giving; whareas my effort has been to help readers see that is not the point God has always wanted us to look at (IMHO). And what point is it? I think that tithes go further than mere calculations based on income - it goes as far as its spiritual value - which points to that which is the 'hallowed part' of all our giving.

You may well have attempted to make a point about the "hallowed part", firstly there is no such scriptural notion. And secondly, you have singularly failed to make it. Please think on the application of "hallowed".

Giving - without classification - as a Christian notion is a response to a need predicated on a heartfelt compassion for man, bourne out of a love for God. What hallows it, is the attitude (heart/spiritual sincerity). Perhaps unintentionally, by focusing on the gift, you do no more than ritualise it. Just as a supplicants focus on the Giver, not the gift. Likewise, God's focus is on the giver not the gift.

pilgrim.1:
(2) Complusory: My point has always been that nothing has been made compulsory to the Christian as regards this issue. Absolutely nothing. Yes, I have noted that in my opinion this ministry has been ordained by the Lord Himself; but even so, He did not force it upon any believer at all.

Bearing these issues in mind, it then becomes apparent why those who are vehemently ooposed to tithes may have serious issues as not to be able to see these points. In which case, they argue again and again that ~~

(a) it has always been compulsory
(b) it is based every single time on 10%
(c ) it is only given to meet needs
(d) it is always a matter of the LAW

So, it's not compulsory, yet it is ordained by the Lord? Is it an ordinance, a command, a sacrement, a law? Like communion perhaps? Could you kindly draw scriptural parallels or lend further insight to clarify what appears to be a contradictory statement.

No one - at least not myself, is "vehemently opposed" - in the way you are suggesting, and I clearly outlined my premise and riders in my last post.

a. as part of the mosaic/levitical law, and any arguments for a tithe drawing on the law must acknowledge this.
b. whatever the %age, if stipulated as law, then a. comes into play.
c. NT giving is only on the basis of need (lets leave out worship offering as I requested in my last post) 
d. it is if you use the law and the prophets to establish tithing as a NT notion

pilgrim.1:
Now dear TV01, I have serious problems digesting those assertions as based on Scripture. Why? For the simple reasons already shared that:

(a) it has not always been compulsory - citing Abraham's case

(b) it has not always been 10% every single time (citing a few other examples)

(c) it was not Melchizedek's need that made Abraham give tithes

(d) it was not always a matter of the LAW (again, Abraham's example)

Now, some are also opposed to the above because they counter that __

(1) Abraham tithed only once

(2) Abraham did not give of his own income

(3) we cannot repeat anything that Abraham did

(4) there was nothing said about tithing in the NT

Again, I counter that indeed ~~

(1) Abraham indeed tithed once; but how many times did Melchizedek meet him?

(2) if Abraham's tithes were unacceptable as "tithes", God would say so

(3) the basic current in Abraham's life was faith (see Galatians 3:7)

(4) there are indeed so many texts in the NT where tithes were mentioned

I'll respond briefly point by point;

a. Abrahams case was to demonstrate the superiority of the Melchizedical priesthood over the Aaronic/Levitical. Once. Never before or after, repeated.
b. please cite examples outside the law
c. worship offering, please don't muddy the waters.
d. outside of Abrahams one of tithe for a specific reason please see a. - it was.

1. true, but that bolsters the position of those against
2. likewise
3. we are only to have the faith of Abraham, not to marry close relatives -are you Ijebu ? - or lie to the king.
4. nothing said to Christians as an ordinance or law or ritual or to suggest that it's a NT imperative

1. We are informed of the once, which was for the reason outlined above. It was not a law or ritual, it was symbolic to contrast types.
2. unacceptable? your point here being? No one has denied the right of believers to tithe, but it's not Christian doctrine. It's Christian  liberty.
3. true, please see 3. above.  We are not to ritualise his actions. I know, lets go to war and plunder some heathen potentate !
4. 3 times, 2 are the same - the gospels - and are addressed to those under the law, but not understanding or living it, and once per 1. above.

pilgrim.1:
You see, we keep going round in circles like this until. . .

But my points are that: (a) people should look away from a calculation of percentage (%) and rather look at the basic issue involved in the meaning of tithes - God alone specifically pronounced what it meant: Leviticus 27:30. . . . and, (b) they should be willing to look beyond the LAW and understand what tithe meant outside of it - which was why I have been calling attention to Abraham's case.

Maybe some day we might have the happy occasion to expound on the various types of offerings in the NT. But I think somewhere along this discussions I made reference to the various kinds of giving in the NT (which I "stole" from another poster). In anycase, I shall come back and outline them again.

However, suffice to say that we make a mistake (IMHO) when we assume that all giving in the NT was in refernece to need. I don't think so; and both in the OT and NT, there are examples where they were given in response to worship even though the receiver had no need. Two examples: Abraham to melchizedek (the latter had no need); and the widow mites in the NT (she was the one in need, but were the treasurers in need?). I think we should look into these issues and see the point.

I'm humble to see where it is so, if you could help me see it. However, even when people have questioned my position, I have always tried to share with them the consistency in my position.

I agree; we are not to force anything on anybody - and as annimi noted, it is important to note the details so that nobody is confused about issues. If we did not attempt to clarify the details, people would still be making huge mistakes and running with the default idea that tithes were not mentioned at all in the NT; or that tithes = LAW, whereas it is not so.

Beyond the law are grace and truth, John 1:17. Giving is a grace 2 Corinthians 8

I recall the taxonomy of giving severally outlined earlier in the. It simply misses the point, the only drivers are need (and worship). The requirement is not to give, but too have the right spiritual posture when doing so.

You are only agreeing with me citing giving in response to need and worship. Finito. I leave out worship offering too 1. keep things simple, however, 2. I believe the bible shows giving to the needy is actually considered worship, 3. if one wishes to make the distinction and then give for either reason the introduction and use of the word tithe or employing notions like "hallowed" are essentially pointless at best and potentially dangerous.

That sis' is the whole problem with your position. Its not only inconsistent, but also contradictory. It's not by law, but you defend it using the law. It's not compulsory, but it is an ordinance. It's not a set%age, but it is hallowed. Forcing a deeper meaning into it is just an attempt to justify it. Can't honestly be sold using the law, attaching blessing or curses is the flip side of the same coin and just wrong. Abrahams example was clearly symbolic and shown to be such in the only other NT reference in Hebrews. So finally, painted into a corner and running out of options, we spiritualise it? Enough already.

Your only plank - short and shaky - is that it's a level one gets to. In that case why pursue it? Let folks get there. And please, acknowledging that anecdotal evidence and personal experience do not constitute doctrine whilst citing lots of both is disingenious. That wasn't so much Pilgrim.

pilgrim.1:
Cheers and thanks again for pointing out these issues.

Blessings.

Kindest regards Miss, it's my pleasure. Apologies if I come across a bit terse, you know I flinch at - but admire - how much you can slap down in one post. Where's mein feisty Pilly? I'm not so sure about this new "humble" person !!!

Peace

God bless
TV

Hi Pilgrim,

How far? Hope you are well.

I wonder, if a tithe is not a fixed %age and is not compulsory, exactly how does it differ from simple giving? And exactly what is your premise or point?

Also, when you say "types of giving", could you kindly classify these types from NT scripture. My premise is that NT giving is predicated solely on need (I will not ignore, but distinguish it from "offering,even though I don't see that that takes a physical form in the NT. I wil leave that out for the purpose of this discussion, although I'm happy to discuss elsewhere).

Pilly you must realise that you are on a hiding to nothing and have gradually blurred your position. I'm actually see no reason to force this, trusting true seekers and seekers of truth will be led. I just miss you some, and thought I'd engage .

@ All,

Although my walk has led me away from deep discussion of doctrinal/sectarian issues, I would still love to share more. One thing that deters me is the lack of "end-to-end"discussion around topics. Point in question, what is the practical outworking and fit with real Christian living of a tithe?

Note: I have no issue with tithe as a personal thing between a believer and their God, my issue is with a mandatory, fixed rate, benefit or curse accruing faith wide diktat. Neither do I see any basis for suppoting NT tithe from OT scripture or Abrahams one off example.

I note with interest the "Slain in the spirit/Falling under the anointing" thread. How come no one has asked the obvious question; What then? I believe it would make the discussions -or debates as they often are - much more robust and ultimately edifying.

God bless
TV

pilgrim.1:
Here's a well-deserved and huge one. . . [size=14pt]mwuuuaaahh![/size] I sooooo missed you and several others who have taught me a lesson or two that have been very helpful in my walk. God bless you plenty!

Well, d tory plenty, but I'm happy to be alive and well. . . much blessed by the many prayers on my behalf.

Hi Pilly, Sorry for the overly delayed response, so much going on with me, hard to keep up. Appreciate your kind thoughts and good wishes, but most of all I covet your prayers. Please do remember me in your supplications. Hopefully things are a little more settled with me now, so I'll try and stop by more.

God bless
TV

pilgrim.1:
@TV01,

I saw your icon flashing light, so I say make I hail you! How body? Trust you're doing okay. Grace to you.

Hailing in return Sis'Pilly - TV chances a quick "Holy Kiss" - How far?
Good to hear from you. I'm just wrapping up from a retreat, home soon. Peace.

So what's up? How's your journey? Was that what kept you away, or more mundane stuff?

donnie:
By d way, why did your topic go . . . even donnie?

I am soooooooo tempted,  !

I say amen to that and join with all who have cried to the Father for Bisi's speedy recovery in Jesus' name. God bless.

Present sir and thank you for enquiring  .

God bless
TV

^{so that you know it's me - find Bro' Donnie on any Pastor Chris,Christ-Embassy related thread !}

As promised;

Original question;

The Bible says the only time a christian should divorce is if there is adultery, what if there is physical abuse?

First answer;

then get a divorce. I don't think the bible admonishes you to remain in a marriage where your life is in danger.

My take;
Ok, lets for discussions sake assume it's actualy life threatening extreme physical abuse? Do we head straight for divorce? No counselling, support network intervention or other mediation? No thought of healing and reconcilliation?

Are we equally assuming day broke and extreme physical violence sprung with it? no precursor warning or other reasons? Are we assuming this was a Godly union to start with? And if not, why look to scripture to end it, and at the same time give God a bad name? Why not look to the worldview or mindset on which the union was predicated - then again you probably did hence divorce! If you look to scripture and to God, why not at least consider healing?

A comment;

It seems that we have narrowed what the Bible actually teaches. Adultery is not the ONLY time (or reason for) a Christian divorcing. 1 Corinthians 7 details the various issues involved in divorce questions as well. What about the question of beliefs - "If any brother hath a wife that believeth not" (as in v. 12)? There are cases when people have been divorced on grounds of whether they had different worldviews - and verse 12 (in my opinion, at least) suggests that sometimes these disagreements may be so heated as to involved physical abuses.

In such cases, is it then Biblical to be separated? The answer is given in verse 15 - "But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace."

Just my thoughts.

My thoughts;
Firstly, where does the bible suggest or even hint at a Christian instituted divorce for any other reason than adultery?
Secondly, in that it suggests seperation, does it necessarily imply divorce? and does divorce presume remarriage?
Thirdly, I would think that precisely what the bible does is discounts "worldview differences" as a reason for divorce.

A comment;

Not everything is written in black and white in the bible, you shld be able to let the Holy spirit guide you to taking the right decision.
Even though the bible doesnt say the believing party can leave a marriage, i believe strongly that also applies. What if the unbelieving party were a member of a secret cult? Would you sit there because the bible didnt give you express permission to leave?

My thoughts;
Maybe the bible is not always black and white, but it tends to give a unified whole if properly studied - Please be led 0! (easier said than done I know)
On what basis would you "strongly believe" something the bible doesn't say, suggest or even hint at. Especially when the bible is pretty clear on what it does say? What if they were a member of a secret cult. When did membership commence? before, during. I believe my earlier point about foundations in marriage apply and also trusting in the love and power of God. Why is divorce a starting point or a solution for one who practices Xtianity, trusts God and/or is Spirit led? Leaving is not synonymous with divorcing! Please!!


A comment;

(a) In John 8, Christ forgave the woman caught in the very act; and when He said that she should go and sin no more, I suppose that it did not mean that the woman in question was to remain unmarried.

My thoughts;
What it meant, was she was to go away and sin no more! If she was married and her husband forgave her, fine. If he decided to divorce her, he has no sin. Under the law, anyone seeking her hand in marriage would have been committing adultery. Under grace, I would at best posit that if she were in a position to remarry - all things being new - that would be with the full understanding of what marriage entails.

A comment;

(b) what about the woman in John 4? She had had 5 husbands and the man she was with was not her husband (v. 18). What would she do - divorce and remain unmarried - or remarry?

My thoughts;
Firstly it is hard for us to know the exact detail of her situation. If "the one she was with" was someone elses husband, should he not return to his wife? Would you advise she kept and married him in that situation? Again, under grace, I would posit a best position. She was from that point saved - all things become new - thats not to say it is suddenly clear cut. If all her previous 5 husbands had remarried and had strong unions, could she be forced to go back to any of them? If there was someone free to marry her under grace and she was in a position to, would I decry it? Probably not, but with the caveat as previous.

A comment;

(b) If the divorce is irrecinciliable (especially if it was an unbeliever who walks away), then it seems (to me) that verse 15 does not hold a believer bound under such cases.

My thoughts;
A tricky one in truth. What if the unbeliever leaves a young spouse and remarries, or even remarries several times? What if there are offspring/step-families all over the place? What if the Christian abandoned is young and childless?

Thats why sound doctrine and scriptural understanding are great, but being Spirit led is in my opinion preferable. I would hasten to add that trust in God and/or the two should ensure a blessed union. Before and during.

God bless
TV

_{ps - My thoughts are just that, my thoughts. Based on my understanding, experience and revelation. Literal understanding and experience may differ, but true revelation will not - but could it be deeper? - as There is One Spirit. Hence my rider that everyone should seek God and seek to be led by the Spirit themselves. I still seek the demise of the MOGmyth.}

sheniqua:
My Lord!
Tv01 long time,we had a great time back in some other threads with my old name
welcome back

Hi Sheniqua, normally I would ask aka? to save myself the embarrassment, but I'll take a risk. Dru is that you?

4 Him:
If we only loved our spouses as Christ loved the church we wont even be discussing this issue in the first place. Divorce is usually not the first problem, it started long before.

A pertinent point methinks. Although I would say that contradicts with some of the points you made before. If that mindset is there bofore and during - by God's grace and tender mercies -  there will be no after!

Way too many - in my opinion anyway - erroneously discursive points such as "bad marriage", "abusive marriage", "valid reasons to leave". The relatonship was almost certainly bad or rocky before it was solemnised. Escape routes are then sought - twisting or re-interpreting scripture to fit - after the fact.

It would be way more honest if people seeking divorce were to point to error/sin before or when they got married. Does something perfect or merely good suddenly turn bad? Surely good would get better?  When it goes wrong after the fact, it's hypocritical and plain blasphemous when all of a sudden the marriage is bad or there are reasons to leave. Ergo the relationship was in all likelihood never good, or there were not sufficient reason or proof to tie the knot in the first place.

The bible doesnt espouse divorce - pun intended - for any reason. What it espouses is biblically based (or even better Spirit-led) wedded union.
In reading left to right - yes I know some scripts do - nonsense can be made of the divine beauty and order of scripture.
Starting a discussion about proper Christian marriage from the perspective of divorce can lead astray!

I take issue with some earlier comments. I'll try and attend to those next time permitting.

God bless
TV

eezzy:
but I believe the best thing to do is just pray and allow the Spirit of God to give you guidance.

I agree, although I doubt that anything contradictory to scripture will come forth. But I do know that sometimes a mere literal interpretation or academic understanding can be way off the mark.

eezzy:
Scriptures can be translated in many ways and many times we translate them to suit

Again true. Even an honest approach without illumination can be wrong. But an interpretation by one in a "bad marriage" is hardly likely to be right.

eezzy:
The scripture in 1st corinthians says if the unbeliever leaves, then the believing partner
is not bound - suggesting (only in my opinion) freedom from the law of marriage, whereby the law says
you can only remarry after death of a spouse.

Pause for thought here. This is one area I wonder about. Ideally a true practising - let alone living Christian - should not marry outside the faith. But what if it was prior to conversion? or if one partner falls away? What if he or she moves on too remarry? even a number of times? So in truth, some case may not be open and shut doctrinally - and hopefully all Xtians should seek guidance and ideally be Spirit led, before and during. Some scenarios would be unthinkable, let alone unbearable. Even living by scripture alone, I think the starting point should always be "ideal".

eezzy:
This scripture is used in most churches to stop mostly ladies
from moving away sometimes from very bad marriages. Yet in my opinion, God hates Divorce
but loves the divorcee becuase divorced or not you are still His child and he does not despise you
just because you left an abusive marriage.

I question some of the thinking here. Particularly the "most churches" and "mostly ladies" bits. Generalisations at best.

I abhor and decry physical violence - especially men against the weaker vessels and I have seen it live - but it cuts both ways.
Abuse is relative and difficult to define in some cases. Women wage war differently and I had my eyes opened to provocation and goading in another real life case. Abuse was her aim as it meant the law sided with her and she agitated and when the abuse didn't happen, she made it up. Please don't let's generalise.

In a marriage - entered into with a sacrificial love mindset - of true professing Xtians, who would enter planning abuse of any sort? And if it came, it would be a challenge and time of dependance on the Lord. Again I acknowledge difficult scenarios.

Some people think a limited budget is abuse. I know of people who leave for multitude of reasons but dress it up abuse. I don't think saying God loves the divorcee but hates divorce quite cuts it. There is to much of a sense of selfish desire behind a lot of cases.

Pray tell, what is a "bad marriage" who defines that? I shudder at that. There will be trying times, challenges. If you are committed to it you persevere and endure. What of barreness? Impotency? or all the others possible - Lord have mercy - scenarios. A "bad marriage" has many perspectives. A good one is one built on sound Christian principles, practice, but ultimately faith in and dependance on The Lord.

Think deeply, you marry and there are trying times, so you leave, not temporary seperation whilst seeking healing, but divorce. Who did you trust to start with? Who are you trusting through it. Does the love and power of God only kick in after divorce?

To often it's about what we want our own desires our own image. God did not instutute a bad institution and He can certainly fix "bad marriages".

Thanks for sharing.

God bless
TV

It depends what you refer to, or who you ask!

Welcome back Syrup, it's a pleasure to read your reasoned discourse. Even more so seeing as there's a distinct lack of it on this thread nowadays.

This discussion has progressed somewhat so I'll share my thoughts in bullet point. I stand to be challenged of course, it's been a while.

1. Christian marriage is for life
2. Divorce is only permissable - not obligatory - where there is adultery
3. Divorce for adultery is never better than 2nd best, mercy triumphs over judgement
4. Divorce means that one refuses to forgive and or/one refuses to repent. Condemning both to singlehood.
5. To marry a divorcee is not allowed, its a sin
6. Remarriage is permissable only in the event of death. "Till death do us part"
7. Seperation is a burden that may have to be carried. Hopefully as a possible precursor to reconcilliation.

Why does it always have to be extreme "life in danger abuse" used to justify man made avenues for divorce? Biblically that is at best grounds for seperation. Knowing you cannot willfully divorce and remarry should lead you to bring all of your might into seeking healing and effecting reconcilliation. Hopefully this aligns with my points above.

Either you shouldn't or you can't.

God bless
TV

ps ~ to answer the question posed, NO!

Hiya,

KAG:
"the idea is"

Or you could say "The as yet unproven fact is", or "the belief without supporting evidence is" = "Faith"

KAG:
In any case, as far as I can tell, the problem isn't so much causing life to arise from non-life

Please re-read the links you posted. It was clearly stated as hypothetical. I post excerpts;

Microspheres
Arguably Sidney Fox's best-known research was conducted in the 1950s and 1960s, when he studied the spontaneous formation of protein structures. His early work demonstrated that under certain conditions amino acids could spontaneously form small peptides—the first step on the road to the assembly of large proteins. The result was significant because his experimental conditions duplicated conditions that might plausibly have existed early in Earth's history.

Further work revealed that these amino acids and small peptides could be encouraged to form closed spherical membranes, called microspheres. Fox has gone so far as to describe these formations as protocells, protein spheres that could grow and reproduce. They might be an important intermediate step in the origin of life. Microspheres might have served as a stepping stone between simple organic compounds and genuine living cells.

Microsphere
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Microspheres)• Learn more about using Wikipedia for research •Jump to: navigation, search
Not to be confused with Glass microsphere.
This article largely refers to microspheres or protein protocells as small spherical units postulated by some scientists as a key stage in the origin of life. The term microsphere is otherwise widely being used in various areas, such as, materials and pharmaceutical sciences, for spherical particles composed of various natural and synthetic materials with diameters in the micrometer range.

In 1953, Stanley Miller and Harold Urey demonstrated that many simple biomolecules could be formed spontaneously from inorganic precursor compounds under laboratory conditions designed to mimic those found on Earth before the evolution of life. Of particular interest was the substantial yield of amino acids obtained, since amino acids are the building blocks for proteins.

In 1957, Sidney Fox demonstrated that dry mixtures of amino acids could be encouraged to polymerize upon exposure to moderate heat. When the resulting polypeptides, or proteinoids, were dissolved in hot water and the solution allowed to cool, they formed small spherical shells about 2 μm in diameter—microspheres. Under appropriate conditions, microspheres will bud new spheres at their surfaces.

Although roughly cellular in appearance, microspheres in and of themselves are not alive. Although they do reproduce asexually by budding, they do not pass on any type of genetic material. However they may have been important in the development of life, providing a membrane-enclosed volume which is similar to that of a cell. Microspheres, like cells, can grow and contain a double membrane which undergoes diffusion of materials and osmosis. Sidney Fox postulated that as these microspeheres became more complex they would carry on more lifelike functions. They would become heterotrophs, organisms with the ability to absorb nutrients from the environment for energy and growth. As the amount of nutrients in the environment decreased, competition for those precious resources increased. Heterotrophs with more complex biochemical reactions would have an advantage in this competition. Over time organisms would evolve that used photosynthesis to produce energy.

KAG:
one finds that life can come from non-life.

Au contraire! It gave rise to more of it's kind. Organic non-life I would call it. Please excuse my terminology, I'm no scientist.

KAG:
The thing is, though, it isn't specific enough to the conception of RNA and DNA, etc.

Which makes absolute sense. As it's not life it need'nt be specific. It can't concieve and needs no genetic material to pass on.

Biogenesis I believe is the scientific term. Or "after/according to it's kind" as the "The Uncreated Creator" says (and did)

Excerpts from Genesis 1.
Then God said, "Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb that yields seed, and the fruit tree that yields fruit according to its kind, whose seed is in itself, on the earth"; and it was so. And the earth brought forth grass, the herb that yields seed according to its kind, and the tree that yields fruit, whose seed is in itself according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. So God created great sea creatures and every living thing that moves, with which the waters abounded, according to their kind, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. Then God said, "Let the earth bring forth the living creature according to its kind: cattle and creeping thing and beast of the earth, each according to its kind"; and it was so. And God made the beast of the earth according to its kind, cattle according to its kind, and everything that creeps on the earth according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

God bless
TV

KAG:
"Non-living" things, after a long process, became living.

- Kindly document and/or replicate.

KAG:
First, no faith is necessarily required.

- If you cannot replicate as requested above, then obviously it is.

How you doing bro? Been a real long time indeed. I remember the groundnut you requested I bring for you when coming down. Thats a long time ago now.

I'm well bro'. Thank you very much for asking. I stop by most days. Just don't post very much anymore. I still like peanuts tho' .

God bless
TV

It's been a while and I probably should'nt. But here goes. It's not an endorsement, direction or doctrine. Apologies if it's been posted previously. Greetings and love to all. God bless .TV.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uszqc3E7SvQ&feature=related

~Dupe~

Hi Dru,

Loooooooooooongest time. Good to see you are still in fine fettle.

May Jehovah bless you

TV

Greetings all,

Hope everyone's well.

I thought this discussion started off quite well.
But it very quickly detoured down a cul-de-sac about salvation by law or grace? And some other not so relevent side roads.

I don't think anyone of the discussants are unclear about salvation by grace and subsequent works of faith.

As ever I hate to make it about people, so may I suggest that contributors talk around what they think are the hallmarks of a true believer/disciple of Christ - at whatever level of walk/sevice/circumstance - and indeed traits/action/conduct/behaviour that run contrary to such a profession.

We have our Lord and Master as template, as well as the biblical record of the lives and responses of many early saints.

It may also help to define or at least understand what individuals mean by or consider to be a false prophet. For example, I could say my view is that anyone that has not personally encountered the risen Lord, subsequently entered into onging communion with Him and been specif ically instructed to speak is false, regardless of whether or not what is spoken is true.

It could be by levels. So for example if I had a poor understanding of law/works/grace salvation by dint of my being a baby in Christ, but did not presume to teach or lead and still earnestly sought Gods truth, that would be viewed accordingly. However if I pesumed to lead a large number of those who claimed - or indeed truly sought after God in Christ Jesus - and taught such as gospel truth, would that not be a different case?

Trying to judge or even appraise the motives or actions of individuals could be difficult and is usually charged. Said person could have changed, thier stance on a particular point could have changed. In both instances for good or bad, better or worse. Oft times we judge with the seeing of the eye, or our judgment may be clouded by association, again good r bad. Please stick with the One who changeth not.

It's good to see you are all well and in truth it was an excuse to drop in and say hi to many I have a deep affection for and think fondly of. Hi guys.

For those who seek him with an unyieling fervour, you have no need of any mediator.

I pray that The Lord Himself with stoke that yearning for Him. For those that truly love Him, may your love never grow cold.

Nothing but love.

TV

Hi Analytical,

How are you? I trust all's well. Good to hear you are still with us. Is it me or has the religion thread deteriorated somewhat.

I do stop by most days, but for the main refrain from posting, partly due to the reason I stated above, but mostly for the reason I stated prior (I think it was in the "The young man wearing the Linen cloth" thread).

To be honest, I'd love to share. I actually wanted to post something advising when I got to that point - I honestly think of a lot of the posters here as brethren and our discourse as fellowship - but that would have been initiating something and then lapsing into silence. Anyway, another lengthy doctrinal discussion was the last thing I wanted.

I really want to lay hold of what I believe the truth of the gospel is, and then talk it as one living it experientially and not merely spouting doctrine.

I must say, I have had some paradigm shifts in what most of the "crew" would probably consider orthodoxy, but it would be hard to focus on my walk and take the time to discuss all the different elements. So for now I press on and when there's anything to report - and if I am given leave - I'll certainly be back.

I'll leave you with this;

Luke 6:40 - A disciple is not above his teacher, but everyone who is perfectly trained will be like his teacher.

Who are we striving to be like? who's the teacher?? and when are we "perefectly" trained??

God bless
TV

^{ps: apologies for somewhat diverting the thread  .}

You said it all yourself sir.

Businesses advertise their products. Commerce implies an exchange (there'll be money changing hands somewhere! )

It shall be well with the righteous.