₦airaland Forum

stimulus:
While appreciating your persuasion on issues of this sort, I'm afraid that they do not rise to the crux of the gangrene in Christendom (not, the Body of Christ).

My thoughts exactly. I particularly like the distinction b/w Christendom & The Body of Christ.

How unthinking is the notion that we only pray for false teachers 

That is, you don't confront, challenge or expose false teachers/ing. You let them go right ahead and interceed for them out of sight (while their falsehood wrecks the salvation and impairs the communion with God of many  ). Sounds like the kind of deception a false teacher would use. Indeed, anyone who peddles that arrant nonsense is hereby labelled a false teacher  !

God bless dude

stimulus:
I hope my input would not be stretching issues;

Not at all bro'

stimulus:
but then, the Bible teaches the prosperity (spiritual and material) of God's people.

Mmm

stimulus:
The difference (in my opinion) is that godly believers are not to focus on materialism to the detriment of their spiritual call in Christ.

"Seek ye first"
"All other things will be"

My take is that Christians are to be concerned primarily with spiritual things. Anything required above and beyond basic needs will be provided.

Many go to great lengths to prove that the gospel is about material prosperity. A pure reading of the scriptures will instead make one wary of having more than is needed.

We are not to chase wealth under the guise of "extending the KOG". It's at best cover for greed and in actuality an outright lie.

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.

God bless

[quote author=trini_girl link=topic=47759.msg1020571#msg1020571 date=1175870848]See here! Startling astonishingly mind boggling manipulative deluded unscriptural brainwashed error and false teaching in all its shining glory and splendor! [/quote]Yes 0, well said !

Indeed the Bible preaches against covetousness.

Agreed in a sense. But make that "emphatically warns against".

That is a foundational teaching in the 'doctrine' of prosperity that I have come to understand.

There is not such thing as the doctrine (or gospel) of prosperity. What there are, are false teachers trying to disguise their concupiscence as biblically justified.

My earliest exposure to the teaching of prosperity came through reading Kenneth Copeland's booklet titled: the Fool's Hardy!

Can we use the Holy scriptures as our point of reference please  !

He pointed out from scripture (especially proverbs) how not to be a fool so as not to be destroyed by the prosperity that is inherent in God's covenant with us.

Maybe you should enunciate as clearly as you can (from scripture), the salient points of this covenant.

If God makes rich and add no sorrow, surely he wouldn't give "prosperity" to fools (the unbeliever), or the foolish (immature believers)?

God is pleasurably interested in the prosperity of His servants who favor His righteous cause and not those who want to be rich just so they could consume such on their lust.

You are putting man before God. This is a hallmark of all man-centric religious thinking. You don't decide to be rich and then bless God. God decides what he would have you do and provides whatever is necessary.

He labored to show that prosperity is not given so one can consume it on his lusts, rather it is to advance God's cause on earth.

I see what he laboured to do as justifying avarice. Where in NT Christianity as narrated in the Bible were riches ever a pre-requisite or a pre-cursor to anything that God desired or ordained to be achieved through men.

Interestingly enough the proponents of earthly riches/prosperity (and tithing) always overlook the common purse that was the norm amongst early Christians. "Having all things in common". And no one said anything he possesed was his own.

Plus you conveniently ignored my earlier request reposted here;

(plus I would appreciate your categorically showing that The Lord spoke more about money  than anything else in His parables - Would you extend this to His life and ministry as well as the parables? Would you go further and kindly expound on your implication that money is somehow core to the Gospel, KOG or Christian life)

In response to your earlier statement reposted here;

Interesting response. I guess you realise Jesus spoke more about money in His parables than any other subject.

God bless

TayoD:
This sounds like a backslidden TV01 .

In what way? I don't see how it can be done. But in order for the discussion to unfold and to give the initiater and fora space to weigh in, I started with that basic premise.

Can show me examples of any one that has successfully done so?
In any event, I can see no scriptural, historical or contemporary backing for this.

Speaking of which hows Chris "El Presido" Okotie ?

God bless

TayoD:
So are you MOG now?

I can explain  !

The call was too, too strong, the annoy.ting too too apparent. I tried to fight it, but the prophetic utterances of highly blessed Nairaland's has propelled me into my undeniable destiny to minister cross denominationally (and inter-planetarily) to the nations.

We are still working on a name/title (any improvement on Apostolic-Prophet to the galactic constellations?). My few followers currently refer to me as "Daddy GC"  !

So what is the Lord's position.  don't tell me He has nothing to say for or against prosperity or poverty.

What I am saying is that material things are not the main import of the gospel or the Kingdom.

Although I would add for those who are consumed by the desire to scriptural justify their carnal cravings for earthly riches, that the most oft repeated NT warning is against "Covetousness", followed wierldly enough by "False teachers". Funnily enough, you tend to find the two go together. Now there's a coincidence!!!

You are making the Lord appear as if He cannot make up His mind about this central subject to everyone's life - whether christian or otherwise.

On the contrary, I have made my position very clear. In any event I consider neutrality about material things to be preferable to the notion that Christ hung on a cross so that you could prance about in a hummer or that the bigger your house the more you glorify God.

TayoD, any time you please, I'm more than happy to sit down and discuss the eternal weight of glory that is the essence of Christianity. It grieves me to see one with evident zeal blinded by a fixation with the temporal. _{A zeal he said, but not according to knowledge!}

God bless

If they can do so without compromising their faith or serving another master.

TayoD me old mucker, how far  ?

You started the discussion

I did  ? To the best of my knowledge, I can't take credit for that. Plus it wasn't about money per se or in general, but about a mandatory tithe.

it is up to you to tell us what you believe the Lord has to say about money.

Like I said, I never entered that discussion. But if you'd like to hear, just ask.

It is so convenient to sit in your high chair and condemn everything others say not realising you are condemning yourself.

Exactly where, when and who did I condemn?

If you believe the Lord teaches prosperity, then i hope you will embrace it

No I don't believe the Lord in particular or the Bible in general teach material prosperity. The Bible reveals Christ and Christ preached the gospel of the Kingdom of God.

If you'd like to translate the cross into a money grab and interprete the scriptures as a get-rich quick scheme, pray run with it.

if you think He advocates poverty

No I don't believe the Lord in particular or the Bible in general teach material prosperity poverty. The Bible reveals Christ and Christ preached the gospel of the Kingdom of God.

Subscribing to the notion that material wealth or lack thereof is in any way pivotal to the gospel of Christ or the KOG is at best seriously unbalanced & misguided.

Like I said if you have anything to share, please feel free to do so. Or are you waiting for MOG clearance? Oya, granted  .

God bless

TayoD:
Interesting response. I guess you realise Jesus spoke more about money in His parables than any other subject.

You obviously have something to say, don't wait for me , please go ahead!

(plus I would appreciate your categorically showing that The Lord spoke more about money than anything else in His parables - Would you extend this to His life and ministry as well as the parables? Would you go further and kindly expound on your implication that money is somehow core to the Gospel, KOG or Christian life)

God bless

Horus:
Hell is about Money!

Wrong, it's religion that is about money (and power).

No time wasting, blacklist this one kia kia. Anoionting ko, lubrication ni 

I was away late March, what was the conclusion of the whole matter?

bongs:
Anybody I could chat with about pastor Chris?

I would suggest the man himself. Just like any one wanting to know God would ggo to God, wouldn't they?

I would further suggest you discuss ideas, doctrine, concepts and the like, but not people. At least not more than incidentally.

You'll find lots of knowledgeablwe people here on NL (religion) who are willing to share with you.

God bless

I often wonder why people in this dispensation of grace and worship in spirit and truth would articulate, give credence or attempt to deepen their relationship with God through people, things or activity?

Regardless of what anyone thinks about many of these high profile (that of course is relative) people, I know one thing for sure, when one has a taste or a glimpse of God for him/herself, these people will never be more than a distraction at best.

I pray the Father that all will come to the knowledge of the truth. And I absolutely believe that those whose hearts are stayed on Him will do so, regardless of false profits and fake apostles, snake-oil salesmen/women, merchandisers, hustlers and belly-god worshippers, of whom we have been severally warned in the holy scriptures, abound in number and are enemies of the cross of Christ.

God bless

tlops:
hi TV01. I am about to post a new controversy.

Really  ?

tlops:
Now I will like to inform you that tithe predated the old old testament.

As did circumcision.
Tithing predates the bible, Abraham, the Hebrews, so what? There niether is nor was any command to tithe.

Even by your reasoning it is redundant. We have Pre-OT, OT & NT. If we are under the NT what hold has anything prior to on us?

Presumably it's fine to marry your Fathers daughter now as well? Stop already  !

tlops:
I know i am going to be crucified for this but please read and digest before posting the next!

As much as we would like too, we realise that your death would have no redemptive value. As such, we shall satisfy ourselves with booing you off the stage (after marking you as ritually unclean ).

God bless

mitchiano:
Most people would categorize me as a religious critic,but for the few who really understand what it means to be Christan in this end time,i am sure they would be asking themselves this same question.

Personally,i am not a church goer because i believe God is getting ready to break out of the "usual"church in order to establish His true church.therefor,every true believer who understands the matrix of the spiritual realm would know that whenever God wants to establish something new,He always uses people who are outside the religious status quo.a typical example is seen in the case of John the Baptist,the bible tells us that "during the high priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas,the word of the lord came to John son of Zechariah in the desert"(Luke3:2).f the Spirit of the Lord can by-pass the religious elite in the days of the high priesthood and rest upon a man who was clothed in animal skin,who looked like a retard,how much more can we say of the 21st century churches

I'm so hearing this. My walk has also led me to this conclusion.

Remember, the "status quo" will try to absorb you or destroy you. (They won't label you critic, they'll label you evil, rebellious, deranged, possessed and a heretic.

May God lead, guide and protect you on your walk.

Tayo! Tayo!! Tayo!!! Ah ah 

You have to understand something about jacob at this point. He wasn't following in the footsteps of his father. He was a supplanter who has being selfish all his life.  In this scenario, he had come to the end of himself and turned to God as a matter of desperation.

Ok!

He wanted to prosper by all means and knew from his father Isaac, who would have learned form his father Abraham that giving yourself over to God is incomplete without giving your living as well. He was entering into the same covenant that Abraham had, and he realised that the tithe is a necessary part of it.

TayoD, you are in danger of descending into pure whimsy. There is no mention or reference to anything that went before, Abraham or any other. It was a very personal thing. What you are doing is at once both worrying and dangerous. What covenant did Abraham cut with God (vice-versa, pardon me), that incorporated an element of tithe? Abraham's covenant with God was cut (excuse the pun ) with circumcision.

Jacob referenced neither his father or his grandfather, codified law or pre-existing tradition. Tithing was extant before Abrahams time. It was paid to the most senior chieftain or priest. Jacobs vow was acknowledging Gods sovreignty and seeking provision and protection.

Please notice that he promised God a tegth of ALL that God gives to him i.e. a tithe of ALL his increase. Doing that is an eloquent testimony to the fact that he acknowledges God as the one who provides and the primary possessor.

Whatever the case may be, that doesn't support your preceeding premise.

Don't get hooked on the spoils of war you are talking about. Babyosisi also said same. As long as she hasn;t won any war, she wouldn't tithe like Abraham.  The war booty represents an increase for Abraham and that is why he tithed. This is understood by Melchizedek's proclamation about God being the primary possessor even though Abraham can lay claim to being the possessor of that bounty.

An increase over and above what? Whatever you decide the "what" to be, Abraham never tithed on it.

Which has been my point up until now.  I am of the opinion that the Isrealites would have paid tithe even if the law never commanded it. Jacob their father learnt to pay tithe from Abraham and he would have taught the same things to his children.  See Genesis 18:19 - For I know him, that he will command his children and his household after him, and they shall keep the way of the LORD, to do justice and judgment; that the LORD may bring upon Abraham that which he hath spoken of him. As you may have noticed, Abraham received the blessing after the payment of tithe.

You are entitled to your opinions, as we all are.
But your "Jacob learnt to pay tithe from Abraham" premise is tenuous at best. Kindly stop conveniently overlooking Isaac to force-fit this baseless assumption. Abraham was blessed of God way before the Melchizedek incident (Chapter 12 vs 14).

Your scurrillous suppositions would lend credence to the notion that Isaac was not party to the covenant as he has no biblical tithing record. please stop trying to hinge the covenant on the tithe.

How can you say it is not Abraham's property?  When last did you give away things that don't belong to you?  What you do with your 9/10th is your problem. You can sow it, you can eat it or you can give it away - the choice is yours.

This speaks volumes about the faulty understanding of NT Christianity that proponents of mandatory tithing labour under. It's why the tithe is the joy of the self-righteous religionist. Everything a Christian has is God's. What are you thinking?

Abraham was willing to give his son! Forget gold and silver for a minute. That is, everything he had, all he held dear.

The whole Melchizedek incident/type,  was to show the eternal nature of the Lords High Priesthood and it's superiority over the Aaronic/Levitical type. I don't personally think Melchizedek was priest of a foreign God.

The notion that by tithing one is ratifying a covenant with God is simply not supported by scripture.

God bless

Hi @All,

I've been following and very much appreciate where BackSlider is coming from, although I may not have approached it in the same way.

The truth is there is a lot out there on the religious landscape that claims to be Christian and is not. Many will be decieved, fall and stumble because of such people.

The Bible is unambiguous about this. And they will for the most part arise from within. And while I said I would possibly approach it differently to BackSlider, I doubt wether I would adopt the trite response of calling everyone brother or saying we will all stand before our maker (although that is patently true), just because the called themselves Christian. It's life and it's death and some of these people are enemies of the Cross.

As ever, I don't like to talk about personalities (maybe that's something I need to get over?), but to comment on some of what has passed.

1. T. D Jakes ~ As Stimulus said, I don't think issue cannot be taken with him on the basis of his understanding or articulating of the Trinity. And I hope on this point at least BackSlider can accept that.

2. Could someone please show me what in NT Christinity would require a "Prophetess to the Nations"? What does that mean ? What does it entail??

We have spoken at length about women in authority (with liberty to disagree with one another), church structure and the like. Personally, I don't see it.

When I first came across Juanita Bynum, I wondered what all the fanfare was about. I was particularly interested as a lot of the young (read single  ) women were so into her and her "ministry".

I obtained a copy of her book (the first one I think), she mentioned her "divorce", albeit briefly. My reading of it was her clearly saying "that God took her out of that marriage". That is not how I understand God, or what I understand God to be saying about marriage. Maybe someone could set me straight on that?

I read/hear/see the odd thing about her, the Million $ wedding etc etc. To be honest, I've seen nothing I like and to be blunt she leaves me cold.

To me personally it is neither here nor there, in a very individual sense, she has zero impact on my personal walk. What impact I think her "ministry" may have on others is another thing.

Without overstepping the mark, we should be free to question and scrutinise, the doctrines and practices of all who claim to be followers of Christ. We do it amongst ourselves (and the various traditions) here on Nairaland all the time. Why are those with a high profile, following or "ministry" exempted? Indeed, they should be subject to greater examination. Remember the words of James on teachers?

God bless

Oya, TayoD answer now. I expect more "Smoke & Mirror" theology from your good self. Anything for a laugh !

Lalas:
trini, u still havent answered the question TV asked,

Leave Sis' TG 0! She don carry go ! In understanding or expounding the gospel, big grammer and complicated lingo are not required. Complicated definitions, new-fangled word-usage, grammatical re-engineering and the like will not change the basic meaning of scripture.

TG you have outlined a poor facsimile of marriage, with all but the covenant vows that seal it.

Is sex outside marriage between a man and woman in a long term, monogamous committed relationship NOT biblically sanctioned? Can you show it with references from the scriptures?

Usng the phrase "Long-Term" is to blur and dilute the true import. It leaves too many unanswered questions and gaps that charlatans can slip through. Even cursory scrutiny shows that it lacks so much. Even the obvious questions are myriad; How long is long-term, what constitutes a commitment, under what circumstances can it be voided, and so on and so forth.

Scripturally let me say this

=> There are only three types of Biblically sanctioned relationships a man can have with a women (both believers), Mother, Sister & Wife. Full stop (I'm not digressing to things like co-worker, classmate etc).

=> Note the lady by the Well. The Lord said to her "And the one you have now is not your husband". She could have insisted that the relationship met TG's criteria, and maybe it did. But it fell woefully short of the Holy Writ. He's your Father, Brother or Husband.

=> Even if you are betrothed as Joseph & Mary were, you are not yet permitted to come together. A betrothal fulfills your criteria, but does not allow sexual intimacy until the marriage covenant is cut. There is no grey area on this point. It's very open and shut.

Hope you are well. I shall contact you as soon as I am able.

God bless.

_{TV wakes up real grumpy and goes out spoiling for a fight  !}

amodiaquin:
1. In obedience to His command, NEGLECT NOT THE GATHERING OF BELIEVERS

One does not have to go to a place called church to satisfy this. Indeed one may go to a place called church and not satisfy this.

2. To hear more of His Word

As above

3. I find peace in His presence

Again, as above. And what on earth gave you the idea that God dwells in "temples built with hands?"

4. I teach His Word in Church, If I don't go to church i may miss the person He wants me to speak a Word to that day

And again, as above. Interestingly enough you actually think God may intend for you to speak to someone and your own action/inaction may thwart that? Presumably you consider your role as co-starring with God?

So matey, do you have anything to add to this?

God bless

To rescue damsels in distress. Although they often don't realise it and refuse to be rescued !

[quote author=A.w.o link=topic=45362.msg999136#msg999136 date=1175088329]I'm not going to quote any scriptures[/quote]And why not?

but I'll speak from experience.

Anecdotal evidence!

Paying tithes has really paid off

That is, it was some sort of investment scheme or insurance policy?

You see, it's simply a covenant between you and God

If you mean like Jacob, then true. But if you mean mandatory and punishable by cursing if in default, then not true.

In other words, when you give your tithe give it freely and you'll never regret you did.

You don't "give" something that's mandatory, you pay. And it can't be "freely" if you have too!

Whatever the Pastor does with it at the end of the day is between him and God

I'd like to label this Kindergarten Christian thinking, but the truth is it's not Christian and it's not thinking.

I am clearly speaking for myself.

That's allowed. And thanks for making that very clear.

monshege:
Thank you, I couldnt have said it any better than that

Actually, you couldn't have said it any worse. It's devoid of any real scriptural foundation or biblical understanding. Presumably you wouldn't have gone to the Word either. But recounted examples of it working for you?

God bless

Hi Nferyn,

Okay, no problem. You don't hold top a notion of ensoulment, I am happy to put it to one side for the moment.

However, you must realise that you it reads somewhat blurred when you make statements like this;

Early term abortions are not the killing of a person, but merely the extraction of human cells with the potential of becoming a person.

So when does the potential become actual?

when the foetus is severely handicapped

How severe a handicap warrants termination and who is to say?

If it's about quality of life, living on less than a $1 a day in modern Nigeria, is really handicapping disabled or not, would you suggest their quality of life warrants termination?

Also you talk of weighing up rights and consequences. Whose rights exactly? By saying;

Yes and the negative effects should be weighed against the positive effect. It's up to the woman to determine which effects take precedence.

You are just trotting out the old "Womans right to choose" line which is not really a question of rights and consequences of all involved.

The only effect of killing an already born handicapped person is negative, quite different from the abortion case.

Please explain how?

God bless

Hi All,

Enigma, long time. Good to hear from you. TG, Ishmael et al, keep up the good work.

Funnily enough no one in support of mandatory tithing for Christians can even string together a half decent premise for it. On this point at least protagonists from Tlops to Gospelman are nothing more than well-versed religionists, spewing what they've been fed.

TayoD is the only tithing proponent that sounds like he is somewhat familiar with scripture, but as ever (on this point at least) he marshals a motley crew of half-truths, mis-interpretations and outright lies in order to defend something that he would clearly see is wrong if he just looked with unbiased eyes.

Knowing fully well that tithing under the law cannot be imposed on NT Christians, TayoD goes back to the Abraham/Melchizedek incident to establish it. Then as if by magic, he uses Malachi in an attempt to enforce it, insisting scripture calls non-payment "robbing God".

TayoD of course knows that the law & the prophets are to be read as a whole. Did I mention disengenious?

It's almost amusing how he convolutes, calling Jacob Abrahams son. Lies, saying that Abraham tithed on his increase and obfuscates saying that Jacob kept the law of tithing, when;

1. There is no mention of Abraham, Isaac or Jacob tithing on their increase. And there is lots of mention of Isaac's increase, even though TayoD conveniently overlooks this fact.

2. Jacob made a personal vow to God to tithe if God would give him something in return. It had nothing to do with the Abraham/Melchizedek incident, or any preexisting law.

3. TayoD also fails to tell us what, how or to whom Jacob would have tithed?

I could go on and on. How tithing as a practice predates Abraham, how a tithe paid to priests is a nonsense in NT Christianity, as we are all priests. How his notion that Christ collects the tithe in place of Melchizedek is almost scary, but not as scary as thinking that all OT testament laws were fulfilled in Christ except the "tithe". Maybe you'll realise that to call The Lords work incompletre is beyond scary.

In the earlier thread on this referred to by Enigma, we comprehensively treated this. Indeed some of the sub-themes were worthy of threads in their own right. Everything that TayoD is peddling here has already been laid bare. His final point was that he could find no fulfillment of the "gift" made by the OT High Priest, and erroneously (and obstinately) insisted that this was the tithe .

But if a brother insists on being emblematic of a lost cause and dodgy doctrine, who am I to stop him  ? Where's Analytical by the way? I'd guess he supports mandatory tithing. Apologies if you don't dude !

Like TG said, it's condemnation. Here and now (I used to feel guilty if I so much as thought about otherwise utilising my tithe money, and unworthy that I couldn't meet more needs outside of tithing), and thereafter, because keeping the law justifies no one.

God bless _{(and blesses, regardless of our puny attempts at self justification and righteousnes ~ Luke 18:10-12)}

Hi Nferyn,

Long time, Hope you are well.

nferyn:
Comparing abortions to murder is absolutely preposterous.

Why? The wilful destruction of a innocent human being (especially of the most vulnerable and defenseless) is murder.

Even though abortions should be avoided as much as possible

Based on your premise above, why? Surely you see it as just a lifestyle choice?

because of the negative psychological and physiological effects on the woman

Presumably any negative effects on the child are inconsequential?
This is also double speak, because;
1. Would you not say that the whole reason for wanting an abortion in the first place was to avoid negative p&p effects? and
2. You omit to mention the wholly positive effects pregnancy and childbirth.

25 weeks cannot possibly be considered a person because it lacks the neurological capacity to feel pain

Hmmm, having said that, you then siad this

When considering late term abortions on the other hand, I am compelled to believe these should be illegal, except under very specific circumstances, e.g when the woman's life is in danger or when the foetus is severely handicapped.

Here you are allowing abortion of an individual who can feel pain, but because said individual is handicapped?

There are lots of handicapped people who can feel pain. The main difference betwween them and the foetus is location (i.e. outside the womb). Presumably killing them wouldn't count as murder either?

Atheism is just a big hole unable to make coherent sense of the moral let alone the spiritual. Likewise science, which has it's place, but will always fall short.

Have a good day

God bless

@ Trini_Girl & Ishmael,

Greatly appreciate your efforts, and may God bless you. I hope you realise that this is more than a question of ignorance or mere misinformation? It's not even a question of lack of knowledge. It's deep spiritual bondage. I speak as one who by the grace of God was loosed from it.

A doctrine that makes no scripturally sense, has any biblical basis and no divine mandate. Yet some very intelligent people subscribe to it wholesale  .

We comprehensively thrashed this out over 27+ pages, every which way, but some will not have it.  This untruth is the main underpinning (and funding) of much of the carnal religious construct that holds sway today.

Fight the good fight.

God bless

Hi TG,

On-topic;

Okay, I'll ask you this and then leave it for now. Is sex outside marriage biblically sanctioned? Can you show it with references from the scriptures?

Off-topic;

I can't access my non-work e-mail right now and I'm catching a flight later today. I'll try and contact you via e-mail by late next week. Apologies, it's just so frenzied right now.

God bless.

[quote author=trini_girl link=topic=35449.msg980660#msg980660 date=1174515568]TV! I'm fine. I've been observing from the sidelines. Nothing too interesting going on these days.  But haven't you noticed me trying to get your attention? https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-44339.32.html[/quote]Good to hear you are well.

Yes 0! Things are one kin' these days. Hopefully it's just the ebb & flow of this kind of forum.

I went there 0! Given the title/theme of the thread I thought I'd give it a miss. I did read up until a few people were called out and still wasn't motivated. I've since gone back and read the whole thing. Still not really interested.

About the deviation. First, thanks for gettin'my back, much appreciated. Second I noticed the similarity between Syrup and Shahan, but concluded it was just that, a marked similarity. In fact, gender apart, I think Syrup is probably even motre akin to Bari_Kade in style and approach. That's not to comment on individual premises, positions or my personal opinion.

Now back to the topic  .

Let me correct you then. your reasoning is flawed!

We'll see!

You can set yourself straight by sticking to the definition of FORNICATION and not the lose definition of sex pre and post marriage since fornication can occur either before marriage (pre-marital) or within (post matrimonial) marriage. Remember, fornication is unnatural sex, example with prostitues, homosexuality, beastiality, incest etc.

Not as flawed as your premise girl. Fornication is illicit sex. This would include, but not be limited to the unnatural kind.

and exactly which statement do you misinterpret as a lie?  show me YOUR relevent appropriate biblical evidence where the bible is clear that sexual intimacy between man and woman should only occur inside "wedded union" and then we'll give it a go.

As I asked before, please detail scripture showing that sexual intimacy can be legitimately (in a biblical sense of course) enjoyed outside holy matrimony.

You wrote;

You've asked me this question before.  If the only intent of marriage is being bound then we see marriage quite differently.  Sex is only a part of a committed relationship.  a wedding is just an open declaration of a decision already made by both parties.  Even common law relationships are 'binding' in the eyes of the law, and in the eyes of God.

Then;

Legitimate in whose eyes, yours?  So if you have sex with someone, you're automatically married to them? Scriputre please, thank youuuu.

And then;

Did Adam and Eve 'exchange vows'? Nowadays, we would called that a common law arrangement and frown upon it.

Please make the connection. In the sight of God, the intimacy signalled marriage. Likewise with Isaac and his wife.

When you say "we", you mean the world not Christianity. There is no such scripturally defined relationship as "common-law" marriage. To suggest that God see's CLM as the world (law) is simply wrong.

You can have a committed relationship without sex. Indeed, many marriages exist (no, I don't know how ) without it. And I'd imagine all of any duration will do so at some stage (at least for a time).

What exactly is the wedding declaring if intimacy can be legally established outside it?

I see the error of trying to "divorce" sex from marriage. Can't be done. It's a ploy atheists and humanists love to adopt. To ruinous effect too.

Back off topic;

I noticed your labelling me as your 1st choice MOG. I'm flattered, must be said. But after long, prayerful and thoughtful reflection (a whole nano second  ), I have to say no. That's not a reflection on you TG, it's me .

If I say yes, I'll have to demand you submit to "my authority" (thorougly unbiblical), always qualify your posts on NL with "MyPas" (My Pastor says), and generally check your God given faculties whenever I speak. We'd have to gather followers (as numbers seem to be one way of legitimising MOGGERY) and start our own shursh (My Church), As if there is more than one? Of course in due time I'd delegate some small anointing/responsibility to you (My Ministry).

Of course, I'll have to finance this title and the empire that goes with it, so I might have to join the tithing and enforced offering brigade (not biblical). I'd like a plush office, necessitating a building fund so we could acquire a physical temple (redundant). Obviously I'd like staff, so that would lead to an organisational/hjierarchical structure being put in place (utter perversion of the NT relationship basis of worship),

I'd have to wear some weird kit. Dog collar anyone? Or worse still, fry my hair! Adopt some ecumenically profound title (Apolstolic-Prophet to the Futhermost galaxies  ) and camp out in the OT.

But the worst thing is I'd have to scrap my personal encounter with God and assume the role of a mediator (usurping The Lord). Equally tragic is the fact that you'll have to articulate your whole walk through me. So I won't enter in and I won't let you (or any of the others) enter in either.

Please understand.

God bless

Backslider:
I am not interested in any jot of praise.

That's good, 'cos I am not a praise singer. In fact, I am not a singer period .

I however don't have one single hate for you or your post to me.

You know I ain't got nuthin'but love for you bro' 1 No shaking. I appreciate your position on a lot of things, and you zeal is obvious. But regardless of our many differences, I am not about hate , hating or being hateful!


So back to your post.

"What is your view on Pastor EA Adeboye aka "Daddy GO" or more specifically, what is you take on the word he claimed was prophetic and how one should react"

God bless

TayoD:
I am reminded of what Paul says: I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean. Doesn't this apply to T.V., internet, money, politics etc as well?

Everything is to be judged on it's merits (or otherwise). As relating to "politics", you have been offered numerous opportunities to enunciate your position, and failed to do so severally. Don't try and sneak in a "quickly taken free-kick" here my friend  !

Although I am tagged TV01, I don't own a telly and I was greatly edified by giving it up and disavowing most worldly programming. Not to say that TV is inherently evil (Telly that is not me ). But to the immature or indisciplined, it has potential for great harm. Kinda like wine really.

BackSlider,  I appreciate your position regards wine, telly and the like, but you go beyond the biblical writ to add your own legalistic strictures. That is usual the beginnings of cultic /denominational isolation. Please be persuaded, but please beware.

God bless

TayoD:
Here is what Jesus has to say: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.

Correct, he also said this;

Luke 5:14 ~ And He charged him to tell no one, "But go and show yourself to the priest, and make an offering for your cleansing, as a testimony to them, just as Moses commanded."

And underwent this;

Luke 2:21~  And when eight days were completed for the circumcision of the Child, His name was called Jesus, the name given by the angel before He was conceived in the womb.

The Lords mission would have been aborted if He broke the law, or was party to any one else breaking it.

Don't let anyone bring you into bondage through the law of Moses. In Christ we have liberty.

God bless