₦airaland Forum

Hi Telly B,

Why do your posts sound like one long issue-dodging harangue? No one is arguing for civil disobedience, no one is saying that God is not sovreign (although the enemy has a certain lien and sphere of influence).

Not everything called/labelled Christian is of Christ, including great swathes of what many believe to be traditional/denominational Christianity. After all, Catholics, Protestants, JW, SDA and other strains are often at odds on this very forum.

To deny a religious element in may wars is just naiive. No one said WWII was a war of Christian denominations, rather each side co-opted religion (cynically and politically) as excuse and justification for their actions. You'll be hard pressed today to mention any conflict anywhere on the earth that does not have religious undertones.

Please answer the basic premise - How far should Christians be involved in party politics as a means to acquire and wield state power? (Does this have scriptural warrant? Is it something that can be gleaned by the example of the Lord, His Apostles or the early church? To what end? and how does this benefit the kingdom of God, or the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ?)

And without any of us having to dredge up tons of material showing how political leaders often use the name of God and religion to justify and galvanise nations to war, please outline exactly how professing Christians can go to war against other professing Christians and still claim to be followers of Christ?


@All,

Insight, ideas, doctrines, concepts, knowledge, understanding, wisdom, not personalities. Thanks.

Best
TV

Donduke et Telly B,

I would appreciate your outlining scriptural warrant for money used for anything other than purely physical needs. If there is no physical need there is no giving.

When time permits I will happily discuss this on yet another level, but as yet neithjer of you have shown scriptural chapter and verse for the "expense" of missions.

To clarify, money needs in response to the physical need of any member of the body. No distinction whatsoever.

God bless

Hi Telly B,

You seem to prefer to engage in what is essentially a side skirmish, no probs. Neither did I ask after your personal political interest, rather the thread is discussing Christians and politics, as is the poser I made most recently.

Sage's reference to wars is not far off. Till this day, many political leaders/state goverments try and use church/religious imprimateur as an endorsement for their wars. The fact that many wars are engaged in without people (participants or observers), being aware of the religious undertones does not make them any less relevent.

Thanks
TV

Donduke & Tell B,

I don't have the time to post at length here, but the scriptures you have posted point to physical needs being met (which then enables them to carry out the work), not money (expensive or otherwise, I made no such distinction), to actually do the work.

God bless

donduke:
We are also to give towards to spread of the gospel.

I'm not sure I agree with you on this point sir. There is no biblical warrant to suggest this. Money only moves in (or without) the body in response to physical need. Preaching the gospel does not cost money. The fact that men have decided to turn it into programs, crusades, organisations and the like which most definitely need money (and devour widows homes), is down to men and not outlined in the scriptures.

God bless

TV01:
Our stand has always been against the misguided notion that Christians should arrogate power to themselves (whilst making erroneous/bogus claims about furthering the kingdom of God), through partisan party politics, especially in it's modern guise. And of course the corollary errors, that such is Gods will, and that it is necessary to facilitate the return of Christ (Dominionism).

Okay, to save us all a lot of time and bother. Please change the first word "Our" to "My". If you have anything to say which totally refutes, somewhat moderates or even adds to that core notion, please say on. Otherwise I'm happy to desist.

(May I just note that although I don't want us to digress into "war in the name of religion" here, I think that it is not to far removed, has been touched on before and may be revisited in the course of an orderly discussion. But for now sir, can we please address the core premise above!).

Regards
TV

Telly B:
But then, your input in simple terms establishes a fundamental truth found in Romans 13; and stimulus has well argued the case earlier, strating from here:

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-26936.128.html#msg1038964

@ Telly B

I note your comments and TheSilent1' rather long post a few entries ago.

It never ceases to amaze me when people knowingly or inadvertently try to scupper, derail or win a debate by subtly changing the premise or parameters.

Neither Sage or myself or any other proponent of Christian separation from the things of the world, has ever preached disobedience to civil or governmental authorities - except were it directly contravenes God's law - so for example, I would have no problems with God fearing men and women refusing to perform abortions, indeed, I'd expect it.

Neither have we exhorted Christians to not engage socially or in their communities - spreading the gospel, preaching Christ and glorifying the Father - or even take up positions as civil servants, as indeed the bible has many noteworthy examples of such.

Our stand has always been against the misguided notion that Christians should arrogate power to themselves (whilst making erroneous/bogus claims about furthering the kingdom of God), through partisan party politics, especially in it's modern guise. And of course the corollary errors, that such is Gods will, and that it is necessary to facilitate the return of Christ (Dominionism).

I believe we have shown time and again that no matter how romantic it may sound, it is practically unworkable. The state works to further it's own ends, Christianity will be tolerated as long as it does just that., but once Christians stand for the pure unadulterated truth of God's word - especially in light of injustice & corruption from the state - the state will turn on the Church.

So I would ask that you read the thread from the beginning to be fully appraised of exactly were we reached in the discussion and then introduce some hitherto unexplored perspective or ask a pertinent question to keep the discussion live and relevent. Thanks

Best
TV01

uchetobi:
am still confused about this tithe stuff but maybe is safer to pay

Ah, tithe as insurance. A response out of fear. Usually engendered by some manipulative MOG, butchering the bible. remember "perfect love casts out fear".

God bless you

Hi Sage,

Hope you are well. I applaud your endurance. Presumably you read my earlier post addressed directly to you, and the subsequent one addressed to Pataks?

I am absolutely convinced that Christians are no be caught up in party politics and lobbying for power, and certainly not in the name of Christ.

I have stated this severally, across various thread, looking at it historically, practically and scripturally. No one responded with anything to make me change my position, though I pondered everything posted.

Indeed, some of the material you've posted has served to amplify the truth of what I believe. I hail your doggednes, especially in light of the ridicule coming from some quarters.

It doesn't take much digging to reveal that Hitler sold himself as a Christian martyr (using a warped form of othodoxy - a mix of scripture and cultural folklore, that is hetrodoxy) and co-opted many high placed ecclessiastical figures in the drive to war.

You provided historical/global context with WWII and local flavour with the Nigerian civil war. If I were to mention the internecine conflict between the Hutsi & Tutsi, even given the almost negligible tribal differences and the fact that many of the prime movers in the conflict were professing Christians would any one care or look deeper?

Even a cursory understanding of "the Church" (the true church that is) and it's role would make one instinctly averse to partnering with the state or as you have rightly and severally mentioned, becoming it's 'ho.

Sage, you have battled long and hard, and valiantly. If anyone has anything that genuinely warrants an answer, then oblige, if not content yourself with the fact that you engaged and pray that a seed has been sown in fertile ground.

Those that seek God's truth will ultimately find it and Him. I was once the biggest proponent of tithing, the scourge of those who argued for net instead of gross. But God in his infinite mercy opened my eye's to that truth and many others.

Be encouraged bro' (and if you really insist on going toe-to-toe some more with the gainsayers, I got your back dude. , but my first call is to leave it).

God bless

donnie:
But i hope u got a pastor over you now.

I know, this is getting tedious, but I'll say it once again.

God (in Christ Jesus), does not put a "Pastor" (or a rev, bishop, go, cardinal, superintendent etc etc) over anyone. Men cannot and do not cover men, flesh cannot and does not cover flesh.

NT Christians grow up into the head who is Christ, hear His voice and follow Him and are led by His Spirit. Period.

Please unshackle yourself from redundant OT mores and strictures (along with man-made and self-imposed religion). Avail yourself of the true liberty in Christ, the One who truly sets free.

1Corinthaians 7:23 - You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of
men.

God bless

Here comes TV with his spanner 

What's up peeps? Greetings y'all.

Not that I'm particularly agitated by this debate - or any other these days - but in one very literal sense, could someone please tell me what in all honesty the following scripture suggests?

TayoD:
Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life;.

God bless

mrpataki:
Parlez vous francais?

Non!

mrpataki:
My Brother am very fine and always remain blessed! Nice to read from you once again. Are you in London? Should be in London sometime soon

Please sir, bring me roasted groundnut!

mrpataki:
Maybe we might have a bible verse serving lambaste

I'm not sure I understand you exactly?

God Bless Bro.

Likewise sir, likewise.

mrpataki:

. . . . . . Chei Nairaland Users no go kill me oh! You started this idealogy now you have a scripture you are using to run away!

Run? Me? Au contraire mon frere!

I know my position on this topic and have clearly stated it. No one has by dint of scripture been able to persuade me otherwise. Indeed, take a poll of all Xtian contributors to this discussion and see who has changed or even moderated their stance as a result of our dialogue. Then kindly reconsider what you posted above.

Topic aside Pataks, how are you sir?

God bless

WHERE IS TV01? MY GUY HAS BEEN MISSING IN ACTION. I THOUGHT THAT AT A CERTAIN POINT HE WOULD COME BACK INTO THIS DEBATE. He brought me into this topic and left

Hi Sage, I'm here, just holding my peace for the most part. Hope all is well with you. Fight the good fight, but avoid needless and time wasting disputes. God bless.

Aha!!    TV01, how are you?? Saw you on another Forum, and was wondering if it was not you!! How far??

I'm well thanks. I guess that would be "Yomi Says?". I really only post here and there. I just read other sites.

I've come to a point in my walk where I question how, when and why I post. I still follow but I'm not sure if I'll be engaging for some time if at all. I was just astonished at the sheer jingoism in the statement I quoted. Of course I apologise if the poster was 1. not Nigerian, 2. hails from a land where such does not exist .

Now, pray tell, who did you used to be? I thought I recognised the style, even chanced a guess at the person, but I don't recall ever discussing with a "Telly B"

God bless
TV01

segoye2:
There is no doubt all cultures have had false idols. However, it surely seems that Latin Americans are quite susceptible to manipulation based on faith. Perhaps it is a religious zeal that springs from Latin America's geography and gets mixed with rich mythology and a variety of legends.

Unlike say, the scripture searching, theologically erudite Nigerians Please!

ricadelide:
I'm totally with you on that one! i hereby pronounce the argument STOPPED!!

You can pronounce till the cows come home, the cock crows or pigs fly!

babyosisi:
stop this argument already!!

Or till you're blue in the face!


Tithing is law-bound, Christ-denying, faith-void, religiously perverse, thrice-redundant, ritualistic codswallop (there's no arguing with that !)

Contending for the faith.

God bless

sage:
i admire your conciliatory tone. I need to adopt it a lil bit. But i can't help but put it out like it is.
Christiandom is so disgusting it makes somebody want to puke. In the midst of smo many God dishonoring doctrines, lies and falsifications, and man glorifying robes they still have the audacity to leave the primary commision given to christians and have turned to mire themselves in wordly politics and laud human govts.

Shameful

Hi Sage, Concilitory in that I'm willing to talk. I am in no way compromising my position. Christian involvement in politics demonstrates Godliness without power (or even real belief).

God bless.

trini_girl:
No problem sha! On one condition, both you and TV have to agree with me that pre-marital sex as defined in my thread is not fornication. How does that sound? Small price to pay for the pre tax nairas I'm sure.

Since you are seriously misled on the sexb4marriage thing and TayoD is way wrong on the tithe issue, thats a no and a no !

TayoD:
@trini_girl,

There is only one problem here. TV01 and I have never agreed about anything before. Do you think your ministry of reconciliation is strong enough to turn that around?

Another no!

trini_girl:
From where in One's articulate opinion did you erroneously devise that he was on his way to becoming a philanderer? Sometimes I wonder about you. You go through rejoinders with a fine tooth comb and draw conclusions out of thin air!

I didn't say the One per se, but I said it could be used that way. However, having said that;

One:
I am of the opinion that before 2 people get married, they should at least have a relationship for some time. During this period, they can discover a lot about themselves including if they can actally live together as man and wife. One critical issue is sexual satisfaction.

Can you see from the above that because of the subjectiveness inherent in this kind of premise this is a philanderes charter? You live together and/or have a full-blown intimate relationship to test percieved satisfaction/compatibility? Presumably you understand that relationships no matter the initial joy, mutual attraction, or compatibility have to be continually worked on ?

Even worldy statistics all testify against dry run marriages. It's universally known that they lead to a greater degree of failure in real ones. The outline for living together as man and wife are in their essence depenant on understanding and maturity (assuming a shared faith).

When one introduces subjective (unquantifiables?) such as sexual compatability, any solid foundation is removed. Who determines SC? What if one thinks yes and theother no? How can either be sure if they both happen to be virgins? What of the natural human urge (covetousness) to try/have more just in case? What man or woman wouldn't find a 30 year old version of their 50 year old spouse more sexually attractive (and hence compatible)?

Not to mention that you overlook the fact that mutual satisfaction can be worked on, improved and heigtens over time and with deeper love, mutual respect and understanding.

Is frigidity the end of the road? No, counselling, deliverance, therapy, prayer are all available. You really are floundering here and not thinking through your arguments

What if during a marriage a man becomes impotent? Is that leave to leave (sorry, not punny )? You seem to have fallen for the worldy notion that sex is the basis for a relationship. No, no, no. There are loads of people most of us could (would even) have sex with, but that does not testify to our compatibility in a marriage union.

Resort to divine order girl. Love a persons spirit, character and you'll love their body (if indeed that continues to be a major concern).

If you want to talk of sin, which is the bigger sin. Marrying the frigid girl and eventually committing adultery and/or getting divorced, or finding out before hand and making a decision to break it off.

Answered.

The guy even said he was planning to marry her now. Ah ah! He did not say he was sampling.

I can be the most naive person, but leave that out. He was not planning to marry. He was planning to marry on the subjective, personal (selfish), basis that he was satisfied. So yes, he was sampling. Like I press Avo's in the mart prior to buying. If it tests firm I buy it, if it does not I put it back (some other poor sap can have it). Sometimes, the first one is fine, other times I press a few (some more than once).

Women are at greater risk of what. Each person is responsible for their on life and the choices they make. Both men and women can be at risk of a number of things in any relationship.

Okay, I can be naive, but you are just being obtuse. Are you aware of the the figures for STD transmission from men to women and vice versa? In the event of a child outside wedlock, who is more likely to have their lifes disrupted? Who becomes primary carer. If the relationship fails after that which gender is likely to be worse off financially. What of the societal stigma, who bears the brunt and consequences of that?

One:
Thanks for coming to my rescue Trini_girl. A lot many people are too fast to cast guilt even when they know in their hearts the truth. Its like playing to the gallery. Anyway, we are in a free world where any person can believe what he likes. Personally I don't believe in suppression or self denial. I have to check out any girl I intend marrying pysically, spiritually, intellectually etc. Its a two way thing. While I check her out, she is doing the same on me.

TG didn't rescue you, you are floundering together and in serious danger of dragging each other under .

The checking out is legitimate, but it stops short of physical union. That is to join, to effectively wed. Mature adults (Christians even) can discuss SC. If you are true any issues will surface. And if they are worth it you will wait and/or walk with them while they are resolved.

What of the things you can't check out, or are not readily apparent or currently manifest? Say fertility? A genetic condition that shows in later age? Are there clauses to the commitment to cover such instances? Pre-nups anyone? If the "commitment" is valid, what need covenant(marriage)?

One last thing, Self-Control is a fruit of the Spirit. Denial of worldly lust is a demand on followers of Christ. Both enabled by the power of the Holy Spirit.

Nonsense & ingredient

Don't get me started!

God bless

trini_girl:
Oh yes! Thank you for reminding me!

And my favourite earthly MOG, TayoD!

I asked for that didn't I !!!

ricadelide:
humorous fallacy as you may think it is, i will restate it that there are offices for these kinds of things, especially when it regards men of God who are His children but stumble in some way (as we all do). anyway i'd leave you guys to continue this thread, am out.

Hi Bro' ricadelide, regards your post above, you seem to be pretty much in tune with this current "move(ment?)" and the accompanying offices. Personally I see none of this, but I am happy to have it pointed out.

With particular reference to the "Prophetess to the nations" tag used by Jaunita and your endorsement of same for Cindy Jacobs. Could you please outline and give some detail pertaining this office and it's particulars for the fora. I'd particularly appreciate your tying this back to Priscilla service as narrated in scripture.

You also mentioned something about a special mandate for those who were to correct error. More on this would also be welcome.

God bless

trini_girl:
My Pastor's name is Jesus Christ, the Good Shepherd.

How's about a mention for your favourite MOG !

trini_girl:
So TV your problem is the moving of the hips, is that it? I'm not getting you on this one.

Not at all, I'm merely saying that a persons response to music or apprehension of it is not spiritual just because they are a Christian.

trini_girl:
Are you saying that praising God by dancing promotes lust in the church?

No I am not, but just because the dancing is done in church or by Christians, or even purportedly to worship God does it make it holy.

I realise there are a wide variety of experiences and responses on this one. Some of my most memorable worship experiences have been in or bourne out of song. The type of Christian I am means I gravitate more towards contermplative, meditative worship, even in song. I realise not everyone may be so inclined. I appreciate that.

I am just personally aware that music can feed the spirit or the flesh and the fact remains, that we experience it first as a physical phenomenum.

Please say on.

God bless

I didnt get your take on gospel music styles.

I was not making a distinction between types of music or styles of gospel. I was referring to music and lyrics as a whole.

You seem to believe that some certain styles are demonic and cannot be used for gospel music.

Here I was alluding to rythms/beats as opposed to lyrics.  Rythm/beats are used in occult rituals as well. Just calling them Christian - or adding Christian lyrics - or bringing them into the church does not automatically sanctify them.  Plus if the purveyors of certain styles or types of music worship a foreign God, does Christian use of the same rythms automatically sanctify them?

You also seem to suggest that supposed spiritual experiences in gospel music are more emotional than spiritual. more of the flesh than the spirit.

I'm saying that it can be a thin line between music as a true worship experience and a feel good (emotional/physical) one. And being Christian does not necessarily make ones response to music spiritual. Music is recieved first and foremost as a physical response is it not?

Sing a few words from a worship song in your head. Now add a funky beat; Did your hips move?

Is every Christian that sings (even in church) worshipping? Is there ever an element of performance (flesh) in music/singing as worship?

What is your experience?

God bless

lafile:
@TV01
This is a topic that truly interests me. I read your post twice but i get the feeling i didn't hit the core of what you are trying to say. Can you make your self a little bit clearer?

Could you be more specific please.

Thanks

TayoD:
What is your understanding of 2 Corinthians 8:9 - For ye know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that, though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, that ye through his poverty might be rich.

Based on the context, I believe Paul is talking here about material riches. What sayest thou?

You are joking right?
"You're not??

Let me get this right;
The Lord was rich (dollars, franks, shekels, whatever - materially)
He gave that up (became poor - penniless, impoverished
So that you could be rich (materially wealthy)

Or am I misunderstanding you?