₦airaland Forum

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.

[quote author=trini_girl link=topic=48026.msg1033769#msg1033769 date=1176405861]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. [/quote]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!

[quote author=trini_girl link=topic=35449.msg1031500#msg1031500 date=1176330477]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![/quote]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

[quote author=trini_girl link=topic=48026.msg1031467#msg1031467 date=1176329012]Oh yes! Thank you for reminding me!

And my favourite earthly MOG, TayoD! [/quote]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

[quote author=trini_girl link=topic=48026.msg1030179#msg1030179 date=1176296575]My Pastor's name is Jesus Christ, the Good Shepherd.[/quote]How's about a mention for your favourite MOG !

[quote author=trini_girl link=topic=47924.msg1030190#msg1030190 date=1176296917]So TV your problem is the moving of the hips, is that it? I'm not getting you on this one.[/quote]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.

[quote author=trini_girl link=topic=47924.msg1030190#msg1030190 date=1176296917]Are you saying that praising God by dancing promotes lust in the church?[/quote]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?

I have been following the various threads on music and may I say/ask the following;

Music is apprehended by the senses and appreciated physically (by the body(. Music is first and foremost a sensual experience. I think any discussion of music should not overlook this fact.

Am I saying that God cannot be worshipped by music? No, indeed, the Bible instructs us to make melody in our hearts to God.

Many feel that a distinction can be made between the beats and the lyrics (music & song), and whilst this is obviously true in a technical sense, from a spiritual perspective, I believe there can be blurring between the two, with the distinction being harder to make, if at all.

Many argue that as long as the lyrics are glorifying God then it’s ok. Is it? In many occult rituals, rhythmic beats are used to cross the physical/spiritual divide and summon spirits. Would one suggest that these same beats/rythms/melodies are God glorifying if attenuated with wholesome Christian lyrics. Can one drink the cup of God and of idols?

Further, as spiritual as we sometimes like to think we are with phrases like “that song/music really moved me in my spirit”, if one is honest, who can deny that the experience be it sensual or spiritual is very much alike as it must of a necessity involve the physical even if it then transcends to the spiritual. I hope I am making myself clear here? Would anyone deny that what is in essence a “bootylicious vibe” or a “get jiggy thang“ could be mistaken for a spiritual high?

For a long time, I couldn’t understand that why despite my conversion and renouncing R&B, Gangsta Rap and other secular music, whenever I heard such music (especially pre-conversion favourites), I’d feel a stirring. It finally dawned on me that it’s a carnal response, and that while I am still in the flesh, it will be an ever present danger, even if dormant. As soon as one gives leave to the flesh, it creeps. It’s that spirit vs. flesh battle, so one must beware of feeding the flesh. Could that be why we often find that Choirs are beset with all sorts of carnal issues? Just a question 0 Bro’/Sis’ head of worship ministry

Bringing something into the church does not automatically sanctify it. Remember the "accursed thing"?

If that which is from without the church (the world), attracts people who are not of church (the world) into church, I would be wary.

Personally I find worship in song rings more true when I’m alone and singing acapella.

Sing to the lord a new song!

God bless

I have been following the various threads on music and may I say/ask the following;

Music is apprehended by the senses and appreciated physically (by the body(. Music is first and foremost a sensual experience. I think any discussion of music should not overlook this fact.

Am I saying that God cannot be worshipped by music? No, indeed, the Bible instructs us to make melody in our hearts to God.

Many feel that a distinction can be made between the beats and the lyrics (music & song), and whilst this is obviously true in a technical sense, from a spiritual perspective, I believe there can be blurring between the two, with the distinction being harder to make, if at all.

Many argue that as long as the lyrics are glorifying God then it’s ok. Is it? In many occult rituals, rhythmic beats are used to cross the physical/spiritual divide and summon spirits. Would one suggest that these same beats/rythms/melodies are God glorifying if attenuated with wholesome Christian lyrics. Can one drink the cup of God and of idols?

Further, as spiritual as we sometimes like to think we are with phrases like “that song/music really moved me in my spirit”, if one is honest, who can deny that the experience be it sensual or spiritual is very much alike as it must of a necessity involve the physical even if it then transcends to the spiritual. I hope I am making myself clear here? Would anyone deny that what is in essence a “bootylicious vibe” or a “get jiggy thang“ could be mistaken for a spiritual high?

For a long time, I couldn’t understand that why despite my conversion and renouncing R&B, Gangsta Rap and other secular music, whenever I heard such music (especially pre-conversion favourites), I’d feel a stirring. It finally dawned on me that it’s a carnal response, and that while I am still in the flesh, it will be an ever present danger, even if dormant. As soon as one gives leave to the flesh, it creeps. It’s that spirit vs. flesh battle, so one must beware of feeding the flesh. Could that be why we often find that Choirs are beset with all sorts of carnal issues? Just a question 0 Bro’/Sis’ head of worship ministry !

So maybe sometimes there is no real difference?

Personally I find worship in song rings more true when I’m alone and singing acapella.

Doris B:
Jesus is our example,He never partispated in politics,so its wrong for a christian to do that because especially in Nigeria,no matter how holy you are you must be tempted to loot and steal.

A sound premise will test true no matter how simply it is stated. Well said

debosky:
so we should let the country be destroyed by the corrupt? I don't think so

bible says if you know what to do (to improve the nation) and you do not do it, you commit SIN.

Christians should participate, and show themselves to be above board.

So Christians not participating in politics is sin?

Maybe it would help if we considered that social activism is not limited to part politics.
Christians are called to participate socially by offering succour to the needy, being law-abiding and presenting pure uncompromised witness to their Lord.

Analytical:
We have tried to do that severally, giving examples of saints of old. That, you have not agreed with.

Their involvement was not political by any stretch of the imagination. One can be involved in social discourse without resort to partisan politics. Where state and religion are blurred, fascism sets in. Sharia anybody?

God bless

[quote author=trini_girl link=topic=35449.msg1028569#msg1028569 date=1176232214]Very well said One.[/quote]Hi TG,

So within the context of your long-term, committed, monogamous, heterosexual etc. etc. relationship, the One' example as outlined swings? When it is patently clear that going by this example, one can assign an arbitary (and of course changing) level of sexual compatability requirement.

This as you can plainly see is a serial phillanderers charter. Presumably your approval means you believe no sin was committed here?

Trini, you are muddled on this one. I'm even more bemused as women are obviously more vulnerable and at greater risk?

God bless

stimulus:
You never cease to amaze me with your apt assessment of the current development being applauded today in many quarters. may God have mercy on us all.

Amen to your prayer. We are all in need of His mercy and His grace to see through. I trust that those who truly seek Him will recieve it.

And thanks for your kind words, but I truly wish that truth was so widespread and so deep that such comments would be uneccesary and none would be decieved. But the Bible clearly foretells times of widespread deception.

However, there's something that I'm constantly trying to call attention to - "balance" in our inputs (and I trust you share the same persuasion). There's a great divide between an erring minister who is humble enough to receive correction; and another minister who is set in his ways to pursue a career of deception.

Very true. One of the problems I see here is the structure of church that some adopt. When one person is exalted and placed on a pedestal, especially as a sole or lead authority figure - compounded with the erroneous notion of said person having some superior anointing - it becomes hard for those considered "spiritually junior" to question or challenge him/her.

This is worsened by unbiblical notions of submission and authority, so in time you have a venerated leader who cannot be questioned let alone withstood. It also becomes hard for the "MOG" concerned to remain grounded. Be it because of the way they are venerated, or the slow creep of believing their own press, thus feeding their own sense of importance and indispensibility in the scheme of things.

I continue to cry that the srciptures show clearly that leadership in the body of Christ (that is a church setting), is clearly outlined as a plurality of co-equal elders. The flesh loves to glory and anyone who succumbs to the reverence (that is not actually mans to claim in the first place), will almost certainly stumble to some degree.

The checks to errant ministers (be there merely mistaken or outright deceitful), should emanate from those they fellowship with. We find the exact opposite. Having set their hearts on the MOG, they become their strongest apologists. Error is perpetuated re-inforced and takes deep root, ultimately becoming outright heresy. As church is no longer local and community based as was the pattern - and given advances in communication - the undiscerning can be decieved on a global scale. Such error should be met and contained locally.

It's why a baby Christian, indeed a carnal man will clearly see/sense that something is wrong in an organisation (althought they may not be able to discern what exactly that is), but those within will not hear of it. It's symptomatic of the "My church", "My Pastor" idolatory.

I am at once prayers biggest fan and it's biggest failure, but did Paul have to pray before confronting Peter? Not really, although I don't say it would be a bad idea. Truth is truth. It's the only thing that stands alone. One who truly loves the Truth will see the error of his/her ways. Prayer comes in if they refuse to hear. This spineless notion of praying for the MOG in silence is wholesale lame. Brother please.

Like you said, we are all to earnestly, vigorously, unceasingly contend for the faith. Fight the good fight.

The voice of one crying.

God bless

Bobbyaf:
That is a good question and topic. Personally, I don't see a problem if christians should take an active part in politics if we stop to properly define the purpose of politics. However, it would be foolish of me to give the impression that any christian is expected to remain spotless while being involved, especially in today's politics.

You may well see it as not problematic, but surely pursuing something that will leave a Christian with spot, wrinkle, or blemish is to be steadfastly avoided if not outright abhorred?

Vintage TV01! I like your dogged spirit, though.

Thank you sir.
As yet, no one has demonstrated how it may be done. And that premise is general and should rightfully be considered before a Christian engages in any activity.

God bless

TayoD:
Once again, I am not surprised that you have gone beyond what anyone has said here to promote your bias. Who said anything about striving for material wealth?  All I said is that prosperity is part and parcel of our covenant with God that was purchased by the blood of Jesus.  If you do not believe that, I will expect you to swear allegiance to poverty for the rest of your life. Doing otherwise is nothing short of hypocrisy.

Your use of the contrasting words prosperity and poverty clearly suggest you are using the words in their extreme sense. Wether read as "strive to acquire" or as "acquired as part of the covenant". I do not agree that that can be inferred from scripture.

Let me repeat my position for clarity' sake;

Becoming a Christian does not necessarily engender wealth, nor is there any inherent covenanted promise that guarantees such. Neither does adherence to certain principles on the basis of being a Christian engender material prosperity (and certainly not in as much as adherence to said principles would not work for an unbeliever).

Becoming a Christian is not "the way to material success". It is abundantly evident that material wealth (like the rain and the sun) are experienced by the good and the bad the righteous and the wicked.

Wealth or lack thereof is in no way a testimony to one's faith or right standing with God.

As for that which was purchased by the sacrifice of the Lord, I would sum that up in two words, neither of them being money, wealthy, riches or material prosperity.

Riches (or comfort) or lack of are neither here nor there in the Christian walk. Attitude to abundance or lack, and stewardship of what you are entrusted with are key.

I'll be back to respond to the rest of your post shortly.

God bless

Next up, the indefatiguable TG ! How now?

If you're looking for someone to say that we have to "strive" meaning struggle and endeavour for material wealth, I won't be the one to take the bait.

Gosh, am I that obvious ! I honestly didn't intend it like that, but I appreciate how it might read. Thanks.

However, there are kingdom principles that would make life comfortable for the believer.

I disagree with this on so many levels, I'm not sure where exactly to begin .

Maybe I should ask in what way "comfortable"?

Being a walker on the narrow path immediately puts you at odds with the world. Indeed we rejoice that we are counted worthy to suffer shame for His name. No comfort there Miss?

As for material comfort (if that's what you meant), that is not shown from biblical doctrine or narrative. But if it is, millions of Christians are not adhering/following these principles you mention. Care to expound on them?

Finally on this, (to me) in true Christian terms "comfort" almost sounds like a swear word !

Seek first the kingdom of God yes, however the praciticality of it is that we need to work for our money. There is faith, foolishness and presumption. In all your getting, get wisdom, get understanding.

Kinda agree with you here. But the Bible is chocca with reference to the fact that God supplies (and we are not to bother about) more than we need. All things added is for the necessities (and some to bless), not t engender "Christian Consumerism"

3 John 1:2
Beloved, I wish above all things that thou mayest prosper and be in health, even as thy soul prospereth.

What exactly are you reading into this? "To prosper" in no way means worldly riches.

John 10:10
The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly.

There is life and there is life. Please think on this; "if in this life only". And may I say this if you mean abundant life to be riches, one doesn't need Christ to acquire them.

Back to you girl.

God bless

stimulus:
Does that mean Christians are to be impoverished? By no means! We trust in the living God - for He is well able to richly provide us all things to enjoy (vs. 17).

Cheers all.

Hi Stimulus, for the most part, I pretty much agree with your post. One thing though, When the Lord said "The poor are always with you" did that exclude believers?

I'm not saying poverty is the default Christian position. But I do not see it in the scriptures that becoming a Christian automatically engenders wealth.

God bless

Morning All,

Stimulus, Lafile, truth is most people who are decieved actually want to be. Deep down they'd rather offload the burden of cultivating intimacy with God on to someone else. They are happy with a "facsimile faith" and "comfortable religious endevour".

To acknowledge the fact that a lot of rot is being dissemenated and passed off as Gosple would demand to much of them. They simply prefer not to see the glaring error in what they are being fed.

Additionally all the sorry, worn our, jaded cliches such as "touch not" or "God will judge", are trotted out to absolve themselves of responsibilty. I personally lmao at the "I pay my tithe what Pastor does with it ios between him & God" mantra.

It's more than is at first readily apparent. There are decievers, the want to be decieved and the truly decived. Kinda like The unchurched, the churched and the true church. Most people mistake the 2nd for the 3rd it's why only a few find the narrow path that leads to salvation.

I applaud and encourage you in your efforts to warn true believers. But because some refuse to recieve the love of the truth, God Himself sends them deep deception. Who will deliver such?

God bless

TV01:
The request I made of TayoD is open to all.

Please detail the scriptures showing that we must strive for or as a result of the "covenant" acquire material wealth. I'd appreciate NT references and not the overworked Abrahmas blessings or variations thereof.

Anyone?