₦airaland Forum

@Analytical.

Thanks for you post and attempt to clarify and focus the discussion.

I note the dictionary definitions of politics you appended.

I am not referring to "civil service", but to "the pursuit of elected office and the authority/power that goes with it". Nothing to do with modes of governance, administration, organisational behaviour or any of that. If anyone is discussing at odds with that please say, so we can re-focus.

Additionally, one has to view these things from a scriptural/spiritual perspective. Thers's only one God. Sovreign, Omni(p,p,s), but there are two sources of power. Yes, indubuitably, God ultimately ushers everything towards the ultimate conclusion of His own will, but one must not fail to see the kingdoms of this world (and the ensuing authority are under  the sway of the evil one).

Luke 4:5 Then the devil, taking Him up on a high mountain, showed Him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time. 6 And the devil said to Him, "All this authority I will give You, and their glory; for this has been delivered to me, and I give it to whomever I wish. 7 Therefore, if You will worship before me, all will be Yours."

John 14:30 - I will no longer talk much with you, for the ruler of this world is coming, and he has nothing in Me.

1 John 5:19 - We know that we are of God, and the whole world lies under the sway of the wicked one.

Ephesians 2:2 - in which you once walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience,
 
So I feel those claiming that God rules in the affairs of men and thereby assuming that all things political are expedient to Christians are missing the nuance of scripture.

So for example, did God raise up Idi Amin? How about Pol Pot? Or the crop of war-mongering megalomaniac leaders in many states today? Or Herod (who killed only God knows how many babies and toddlers to eliminate the Messiah?) And what of Nebuchadnezzar? No, no, no! Even Pharoah was ultimately used for God's purposes, but that doesn't mean he was primarily seeking to serve or glorify God. But ultimately God used Pharoah for His purposes, just as He used Nebuchadnezzar to judge Judah and the surrounding nations, prior to judging Babylon and Nebuchadnezzar.

The systems, authority and power in this world are under the sway of the wicked one. His great tool is deceit. He divises a problem, then he offers you solutions. So he has you chasing red herrings. Deceit is a many headed snake.

Political power is not the mandated way for Christians to advance the kingdom. The dominionist (and totally erroneous) thinking that says Christians will take dominion of this world (thus preaparing the ground for the 2nd coming) and then hand over power to The Lord, is an example.

Christians further the KOG one soul at a time. The world is passing away and our mandate is to save souls out of it. Notice the parallel of Sodom & G. Did Lot ask for time so that he could seek elective office and legislate against gay-homosexuality? Did he form a lobby group, did he petition his local member of parliament? No he rounded up his brethren and fled. Just like S&G, the world is not for refurbishing or salvaging.

If you can serve and excel in civil service, by all means do so. But a grab for political power to further so called Christian ends, while laudable on the face of it does not bear scrutiny.

Nowhere does the Bible mandate Christians using the prevailing power structures of the time to advance the KOG.

John 18:36 - Jesus answered, "My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would fight, so that I should not be delivered to the Jews; but now My kingdom is not from here."

Acts 1:6 - Therefore, when they had come together, they asked Him, saying, "Lord, will You at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?"

It's a misunderstanding even the disciples had. Our kingdom is not from or of this world. We don't need neither can we use the power structures in it to further the KOG.

Psalm 94:20 - Shall the throne of iniquity, which devises evil by law, Have fellowship with You?

God bless

back again.

I'm seeing that some of the erroneous thinking is very much down to drawing conclusions from the application of the "Power & Might" of men and subsequently trying to justify it by "seemingly corroborating scriptures.

First of all, your quoting of the eldership selection in the OT is a point in question. That had nothing to do with politics. They were called to service on the back of their integrity, experience and maturity. Full stop. Their selection was not as a result of agitation.

It's also patently obvious how fuzzy such thinking is when you say things like this:
A Christian in politics does not represent unbelievers. He represents his constituency which include both believers and unbelievers alike. Of course we can stiop abortion if we have enough Christians in power to vote against it.

True God fearing, Christ following Christians will never be able to take political power, simply because in numerical terms there will never be enough of them. Most people (including many who profess religious beliefs, including many who claim to be Christians), are walking the broad path. There are few that find the narrow way. Please ponder that.

There is no countrry (constituency) anywhere, that has a majority of true professing Christians

Neither is there any country (constituency), where you can campaign on unabashed Christian values, and be duly elected. Even in parties that claim to be "Christian" spiritual imperatives are always marginalised or way down the list of priorites. Even then, none of them dare to couch their manifestoes in scripture or unashamedly Christian prose. Please show me one.

You are also entirely missing the corrupting influence of the state on pure Christian witness. There are 16 (I think), Christian Bishops in the House of Lords, and not a few professong Christian MP's. Please show me one piece of legislation that has the imprimateur of the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ on it.

In fact, the day after (the very next day!) a piece oflegislation was passed favouring homosexuals (2005 summer or so), the Church of England, amended it's bye-laws to reflect same! It's why you have Bishops argueing about changing the limits on abortion and not for it's abolishment. It's hypocrisy and compromise and leads those who do not know better to think that is the official Christian position.

Again you fail to plot the natural outworking of this kind of thinking. Imagine for a moment, that Christians did assume political power. Would they legislate righteousness. No, that is not possible. Our Gospel is theological not idealogical. Often with Political power comes military might. The natural carnal outworking is to then enforce militarily what you can't legislate for. Welcome to the crusades!

It's such warped thinking that has got the so-called Christian right, blindly following a war-mongering president!

I'm not sure if there's so much you can't see or it's just sheer doggedness (or should that be dogmaggedness   ). Like I said "Might & Power" doctrine, utterly bogus.

I remain to be persuaded.

God bless

TayoD:
Can you separate divine favour from human effort? Have you seen where God elevated a novice to the position of a professor? My point is that while I believe in divine favour, it is not independent of the human vessel that God has favoured. Joseph went through different stages of administration, Daniel was schooled and well learned, Esther went through beauty classes - all these were human efforts. What you term divine favour is God crowning their human effort with success. Divine favour is when man's ordinary is complimented by God's extraordinary.

Please stop using slight of hand to buttress your position. We are discussing "Christian participation in party politics" here. I did not say we sit around and wait for divine intervention. The novice to professor thing is false. You are taking as read that God wants us to engage in poloitics and will crown our efforts if we do so. Where is that notion in the Bible? Please show me. The learning that Joseph went through was not political tutelage. Ditto for Daniel and Esther. To make the arguemnt for Christians in politics, you have to try and align uncorrelated events and misapply the biblical narrative.

Who amongst those mentioned was actively seeking political power? God elevated them in order to fulfil His own purpose. The fact that He used earthly rulers to assign the authority or influence to them was His plan, not theirs. What they went through was to prepare them for the roles.

TayoD:
It appears you do not have a problem with exerting political influence, rather you are totally against the process of attaining political influence. Let me ask you a question. In that parable I cited in Luke 19, how many of those people were told what exactly should be done with their talents? How many were told how to multiply their resources? The master expected them to use their common sense without violating their conscience to negotiate and multiply their resources. So while the destination is certain, the means is left to the individual.

This is a variation of your oft cited "by any mean necessary approach". Which effectively enables you to overlook scripture and point to the end as a means of justifying unbiblical practices. (Like trying to justify divorce because of the calling on a persons life ~ please! Again, this passage does not speak to overt agitation for political power. It seems a lot of your doctrine is merely theoretical. As I answered mr pataki above, please detail how you will wield political power (let alone obtain it without compromise), to the glory of God. A politician purports to serve those he represents. Could you ban abortion, stop wars, banish gambling? You are representing unbelievers, so even if you manage to ascend any kind of political height, if you don't work to their (evil) interests, they will soon be shot of you. It's a work of the flesh, so your position either becomes untenable, or you are forced to compromise to stay in power. If the whole process hasn't corrupted you already.

TayoD:
God uses men in different positions to get His will done. Through Government (politics), God delivered the world from famine through Joseph and delivered the Isrealites from genocide through Esther.
Daniel may not have practiced politics the way it is done today because such establishment wasn't in place during his days. The only government in the world during those times were dictatorship and monarchies. Democracy as we know it today was never in place. The question we need to ask is does politics contradict the spirit of the New Testament?

God uses whom he will when and as he pleases. He used Nebuvhadnezzar to judge Israel and all the surrounding nations, then judged Babylon & Nebuchadnezzer. Their has always been political intrigue and conspiracy. It flourishes wherever their is an earthly seat of power. it may be more genteel these days, but the bible is full of examples of kings being usurped or conspired against, even by their own flesh and blood. That's how it was done in those days. Daniel et al did not employ those methods. You revisionist history and extrapolation to contemporary times are both whimsical at best. And again a prime example of the kind of sophistry rampant in some denominations these days.

Gotta go, back later

mrpataki:
@ TV01,
Please answer my question, Is it wrong for christians to go into Politics?

Apologies.

If one can do so without compromising their faith in anyway, go right ahead.

Happy now?

Analytical:
Since you require examples of people that affected governments horizontally by being involved (doesn't have to be agitation as you put it), where then do you place Joseph, Daniel, Esther, Nehemiah, Ezra etc.

None of the people mentioned above were politically active or agitated for power. Indeed every single one of them was in some sort of servitude. It was divine favour and not human effort that elevated them. Again I believe you are using unrelated terms and events synonymously. So, being led, favoured and exalted by God (using human vessels, regardless of their beliefs, regardless of the govermental/political situation on the ground), and being used to fulfil Gods purpose and Glorify His name does not equate to being politically active, even if it leads to you having political influence.

Analytical:
While we pray, there also has to be God's people in place to affect policies and decisions that will serve to bless people. What shall we say of Daniel, the 1st of 3 presidents in Babylon, through whom an unbelieving king passed a decree that only the God of Daniel shall people worship. Would you know that Daniel and his 3 friends went through a rigorous selection process before they could be part of that government in a foreign land. Their exploits we all know.

I don't agree with your premise. Which is essentially saying, God needs believers to be in certain positions before He can effect His will. Who placed Daniel? did Daniel arrive in Babylon (as a captive slave) and join a political party, begin networking, articulating his political agenda and building a well defined constituency .

Analytical:
Or is it Joseph we should talk about, as the prime minister of Egypt, through whom God preserved the world in time of famine? If more than anything else, I think we need more of such set people for our time- people that will carry the banner of Jesus high in the high echelons of power and politics and bear their influence upon a crooked world and establish righteousness and justice in the land.

Joseph, the one in whom the "Spirit of God was". That is the key. When they see that in Christians, the uncommon wisdom, the moral probity, the unflinching righteousness, they will give God glory.

No, a Christians testimony, is his/her witness. We testify to the saving work of Christ (Gods goodness, mercy and grace) by our conduct in a corrupt and evil world, adopting it's mores to assume power which we then hand over to God. That is unadulterated "Dominionist" thinking. I personally don't see any scriptural foundation for it. Trying to effect the same end as mentioned Biblical figures mentioned, but by different means is error. As Paul said to the Galatians. You can't finish in the flesh that which is started in the Spirit and vice-versa.

God bless

Analytical:
I agree that the word democracy was not mentioned in the bible, but that does not remove the fact that God insituted government. I am of the opinion He also gave us free will to determine how we want to be governed as a people, as long as truth and justice according to His will are not compromised.

Exactly. Government does not necessarily mean democracy! And God effects His will whatwever system is in place, regardless of what the sons of men will to do. God is Sovreign!

TayoD:
Politics is about negotiation and not compromise. Maybe that is the fountain of your problems. A ruler/politician/government/administrator or whatever must be well taught and knowledgeable in the art of negotiation. You negotiate based on your values. Compromise sounds like a valueless player who seeks to get whatever he/she desires without recourse to a set of moral values.

Really? please show me where (how even!) politics is played without compromise  .

And if all politicians are not righteous, morally upright and selfless, than any supposed values are compromised. As politics is played out in a worldly arena, to worldly rules under the aegis of the god of this world, politics is not just compromising, it is utterly corrupt.

TayoD:
Luke 19:13 - And he called his ten servants, and delivered them ten pounds, and said unto them, Occupy till I come. The word 'occupy' in that verse is synonymous with negotiation. The Lord makes it clear from the parable that we are to trade and negotiate with what He has given us in other to obtain more. And before you jump to conclusion that it is all about commerce (which you also condemned in an earlier exchange), please read about how the parable was tied to the kingdom and government.

Please feel free to to continue to use scripture to validate your two overarching imperatives. Politics(power) & Money (financial prosperity). Why do some people think that God can only provide on the back of their material success, or reign when they have delivered political power to Him? Personally, I think they are just using the scriptures to validate their lust for and love of the earthly.

TayoD:
Are we not told that what happens in Govenrmnet can affect whether we as Christians will live a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty? That should give you an idea how His will can be established on earth as it is in heaven. There are many examples of that today which I can make available to you as we go. Infact, the political negotiations of Jesus' day was instrumental to the scriptures being fulfilled.

Like I just said  ?

We are told to affect governments vertically (by our prayer upward), not horizontally (by political agitation).

Go on then, provide yor examples. I'm right here!

God bless.

Analytical:
I think you got it all wrong!  Mrpataki has just blessed us with a verse that showed us some truths about the very nature of our God, for which we bless him.  I don't think we need to dwell on this for long, except if you don't believe in that scripture.

Maybe I did get it all wrong.
However, even if I did, why do you conclude that "I don't believe in that scripture". I could just have a different interpretation. So, we only need dwell on it if I don't believe as you do, and if I don't, then I don't believe?

I'm sorry, I didn't realise Christianity had "guru's"! Oh silly me, of course you call them G/MOG's!

Analytical:
No one has said He is not the Sovereign.  In fact, as the Sovereign, He decides what He wills as He wills.  All mrpataki said was that He instituted democracy and has been involved in politics, except if you don't believe that there is no power except ordained of God.  There is surely a God in heaven who still rules in the affairs of men.

If He's sovreign, then there can't at the same time be democracy.
If you are referring to democracy amongst men, please show me where He instituted it.

You are simply bunching up and using different terms (biblical & no-biblical) synonymously.
"Instuituted democracy","Involved in Politics", "no power except ordained of God", "Rules in the affairs of men". It just makes for a "dogs dinner" of an analysis (no pun intended).

There you go again, questioning my beliefs! Questioning my beliefs in no way proves your arguement, plus it's bordering on the ad-hominem. Don't let's go there!

Analytical:
Going through the scriptures, you will find various accounts of how God showed His Sovereignty in diverse ways.  Sometimes, He speaks, sometimes through his prophets, at other times through lots.  Remember the heads of the tribes that worked with Moses were chosen (Deuteronomy 1 vs 6-13), Saul was chosen as king by lot (1 Sam. 10 vs 17-21).  Even the 12th apostle to replace Judas was by lot.  The first deacons were selected by the congregation out of many.  But it's still the same God in all.  He appointed the kings, set up the prophets and priests and instituted the judges.  For short, He instituted government.

Did I question God's sovreignty?
Your various examples have no bearing on the point in question. God is not a politician. He doesn't go to anyone to request for a mandate, for instruction, for counsel, for understanding or for power.

The fact that God instituted order, hierarchy and government. Does not mean he instituted democracy or is involved in politics.

I must say, I've quite enjoyed your posts in the past, but I don't see this as one of your better efforts.

God bless

mrpataki:
Agreed. I may approve the idea that God is not a politician if given the understandinging of knowing that you are viewing it from the Nigerian context.

1. Whoever it was seeking mrpataki's approval of their idea, you got his vote (no pun intended).
2. I would consider it folly to view God or scripture from "the Nigerian context". What is that anyway?

mrpataki:
Thanks again for your response. we will both understand this issue very soon. Again let me stress further that, no man has the monopoly of knowledge.

1. By Gods grace. Please share on
2. A tautology. In return, a verse; 1Corinthians 13:9 - For we know in part and we prophesy in part.

mrpataki:
I believe the Kingdom is a Goverment Institution, whether you like that statement or not, or why would Lucifer want to overthrow God in his own foolish thinking.

1. Believe what you will sir, your doctrinal positions are not on my immediate lists of likes or dislikes.
2. Pray tell us!

mrpataki:
The Scripture I quoted here was just to show that even in our present day circumstance, God still rules and the 3 tiers of Goverment upon which any sustainable country thrives on is actually derived from the Bible.

1. Another tautology!
2. Pray show us!

God bless

Hi Shahan & TayoD (and anyone else who is interested or following),

Thank you for your responses to my take on[b] Hebrews 9:27[/b]. To be honest, it was probably a good thing that I didn't respond immediately. I've taken time to think a little and realise that if I had responded likewise (hastily & dismisively?), there's a good chance the discussion may have degenerated.

Shahan, the hastiness of you last post makes me think you answered totally out of your preconcieved notions and without recourse to scripture. Likewise TayoD, who did not even bother to question my post. Which in some ways may be better than Shahan, who questioned it on the basis of her own seemingly unretractable position.

The point (to answer your question after my posting of the 8th chapter), was to post  the chapter in question & the preceeding one, and try and make headway from there. I have no problem, if you do not want to continue the discussion, or even if you'd like to do another (just say) way. I just thought this way we could literally walk through it and anyone else who was so inclined could follow.

Our initial point of difference seems to be the frame of reference of the immediate scriptural narrative. I see it as a contrasting of the earthly and heavenly High Priesthoods. And in stating so, I don't see any reason for verse 27 of chapter 9 to suddenly switch tack and launch into a one verse discourse about the "commonality of death the once to all men". I feel this is out of step with the Epistle, chapter and narrative, while it also appears to contradict other parts of scripture (as you yourself have posted regards Enoch and Elijah and anyone else can see from the numerous accounts of people dying and been brought back to life).

So based on the chapters posted or any other from the epistle (for focus), or even the scriptures as a whole, please feel free to ask the first question.

God bless.

shahan:
Abeg, where are the guys who are "guys" on this Forum - we need to bleach this TV01!
_{At least, until he's as white as the rest of us politicised Christians!}

Like stubble, they are blown away  .

mrpataki:
You have said it all man, He is a Sovereign King as you have rightly stated which makes him the Executive Arm of government!

Are the three arms of democratic government not seperate & distinct? Your understanding of government, democracy and sovreignty (& in a sense God), all appear a bit fuzzy  .

TayoD:
I will not necessarily call God a Politician as you have done. While I know that the freest form of government on earth today is derived from Isaiah 33:22, I would rather say that God uses politics to accomplish His will on earth.

Ditto  !

TayoD:
Politics is all about negotiation and we are the once Jesus told to negotiate till He comes. Like my Pastor once said, "when God shows up on the scene, He never comes to take sides, He comes to take over." As the scripture has said "the earth has God given to the sons of men" and it is up to us to use the wisdom He has given us to negotiate our way to establishing His will on earth as it is done in heaven.

Negotiation makes it sound somewhat genteel doesn't it. Actually it's more about compromise.
Negotiate till He comes? The Lord said that? Please show me where!
So, we are to negotiate our way to establishing His will on earth as it is in heaven are we? Again, please expound how.

Psalm 2: 1 Why do the nations rage, And the people plot a vain thing? 2 The kings of the earth set themselves, And the rulers take counsel together, Against the Lord and against His Anointed, saying, 3 "Let us break Their bonds in pieces And cast away Their cords from us." 4 He who sits in the heavens shall laugh; The Lord shall hold them in derision. 5 Then He shall speak to them in His wrath, And distress them in His deep displeasure: 6 "Yet I have set My King On My holy hill of Zion."

If I shake my head much more, I might do myself an injury!! Honestly  ?

Lord, pray open their eyes

trini_girl:
Any corrections for me TV?

My sister, how now? You know, it's not for me to grade people's posts. I say it as I see it, and I also stand to be corrected.

I wonder how people honestly think that God has or needs a political persuasion. The thinking that God is somehow a "Republican/Conservative", or in anyway politically inclined, or that God endorses/favours any political position, is to me some of the most unsound Christian thinking out there.

Hear this.
Whether it's left or right, republican or democrat, conservative or labour, it's not a real choice, it's two heads of the same snake. Play politics and get bitten, poisoned or both.

You have been warned.

Much love.

God bless

Hold up, wait a minute .
Before you all break your arms patting yourselves on the back and require tongue retreads from hailing each other, can I just say something please?

Thank you for your kind accomodation! Let me say this;

The God of the Bible, is not a democrat, He is a Sovreign!
Please, feel free to kiss-up and brown nose each other all the day long.
But don't reduce God (my God) to being a vote canvasser.

Nonsense and ingre-dent as uncle Titus would say.

Feel free to feel as sheepish as you please !

Hi Guys,

Finally back as promised. I'll keep this short. As I said earlier, I think Shahan', interpretation is the default one for many. I also note TayoD's entry, which to my mind sounds somewhat far-fetched, and I'm far from agreeing with it. I won't give in-depth detail as I feel the explanation speaks the simple truth and will appear as such to those who hear it. Hopefully that will also engender a personal search. But I trust you guys on that anyway. So here goes;

I believe the verse in particular, the chapter generally, (as well as most of the book up to that point), is expounding on the excellency of the NC with particular reference to the saving work of our Lord jesus Christ, and specifically His High Priesthood. What the portion in question is doing is opening up the shadow-type of the day of atonement, outlined in some detail in Leviticus.

Just a little broad background. As many may be aware, on the day of atonement the High Priest would enter the Most Holy place (ceremonially just the one time each year). He would take the blood of a ritually specified sacrifice to make atonement in place of himself). The HP always had a rope tied to his ankle. This was because if the sacrifice was not acceptable to God, the ensuing judgment (by fire!) would kill the HP, and they could retrieve his corpse without having to enter (would you ?) the Holy of Holies.

So what the verse is doing is comparing the yearly atonement sacrifice (verse 24 For Christ has not entered the holy places made with hands), where the HP entered with blood of another, to the spiritual fulfilment of this type, where Christ offered up Himself. Verses 25 goes on to explain how the shadow-type was repeated yearly, with blood of another, while verse 26 explains and exalts at the superiority of Christs sacrifice, being just the once, and with His own blood.

And the verse in question: verse 27 And as it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment,

This refers to the appointment of the house of Aaron (as HP) to ceremonially die once (but this was done vicariously via the ritual offering). The judgement being the judgement of God on the sacrifice offered for atonement. An imperfect (blemished!) sacrifice would have resulted in a consuming judgement and the death of the HP. It's acceptance being witnessed by the return of the HP (a type of ressurection in a sense as the blood should have been his?).

I believe that in a simple way unlocks and explains that particular verse. To me it fits the context, harmonises with the surrounding verses, the chapter and the book and offers by far the clearest interpretation I've heard. And no, I never really doubted the rendering, just the interpretation.

But then the Bible, the Gospel is essentially simple. It doesn't require heaps of theorising and lengthy discourse, nor does it need excessive spiritualising. Default positions arise as a result of dogma. If we seek Him and not them, He will surely speak. I heard Him once and I haven't been the same.

I feel we've all been given pieces off the big picture. We can seek Him for yet more, and come together to share. The Christian discourse on Nairaland is hereby declared a Dogma-free, tradition-free, mog-free zone! Give God glory.

Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and His ways past finding out![color=#990000][/color]

God bless

@All,

The bible says "restore such a one in love".

I'm sure Sister trini_girl appreciates the cut and thrust of debate, but regardless of our differences, can we desist from ad-hominem remarks. Judge the position all you will, but please lets refrain from summarily condemning anyone.

Stay out of His seat!

God bless

Hi Everyone,

Apologies for my not being able to post as intended, technical hitch. I'll try and post as promised soon.

God bless

mihai:
but who are you to say that you are worthy to judge anyone else? Your Christianity does not buy you a JD (juror's doctorate), neither does your Christianity make you God, nor Jesus, leave the judging to He who is Perfect. I have a feeling that no one is supposed to judge (at the very least not by God's Law, although of necessity, there is the law laid down by man, and, sometimes, enforced by man).

Irony apart, I think you miss my point. So for example, is premarital sex wrong? One makes a judgement on that. That is to judge a situation not to condenm people. Likewise for teaching that does not align to scripture.

God bless

mihai:
Anyway, TV01, so what if a pastor is gay (we're all free to do as we please), as long as he's teaching the Bible and stays away from Romans 1 ^24-32. And the Bible does tell us, in Mat. 7: 1 to not judge others, else we ourselves will be judged.

Actually, I think it says with what measure we judge, is the same we will be judged by. And not that old "do not judge argument". We are not to judge as in "condenm", but are to "judge rightly", to discern. If Christians can't judge, no one can.

Or did I just miss the Irony?

God bless.

babyosisi:
Again we seem to be hammering on just adultery,there are many Christians that have divorced for other reasons like extreme physical and mental abuse,as a woman,I advise any woman in that situation to get out before she is killed or she goes mental.
What do you people say?Should the woman(or man) remain unmarried?

Not really, adultery and forgiveness appear to be the the two crux issues.

I don't deny spousal abuse is real, but the truth is, it is not essential to an understanding of the scriptures, is it? For a start, like you mentioned it's "extreme", and again like you mentioned, the foundation should be right. If it is, abuse should be very rare. And where it does occur, the "shared values" (and proper Christian intervention) should convict and help the errant partner revert to that foundation (which is Christ).

Again, on a basis of marriage being a lifelong bond, the suffering party may have to seperate, but it is always with a view towards healing and reconciliation (on that same basis). I think the error is to see seperation/divorce as a pre-cursor to re-marriage. No, no, no. 

I think most points have been covered and well articulated. I'd be interested to see if anyone can bring additional insight or nuance to the discussion.

God bless.

@Goodguy, nicely put. I see your point, can't say I disagree with anything and you've helped me see the same position from a slightly different view, adding depth. Thank you & God bless.

neelsel:
Where does this Androgyny takes us? Nowhere.

My pastor is a Woman and a very powerful one if I may add. I do not have a problem with male or female pastors, as long as they preach the Word of the Lord as it was intended,

Any takers for powerful homosexual preachers? Or how about powerful preachers who steal, kill etc etc.

Indeed, they will do wonders in His name.

God bless

trini_girl:
TV,

some new chick you got there buddy! mouth of fire worse than mine.  Good luck!

(you tell him euphoria girl!  )

**see what being sarcastic causes?**

You are both dumped forthwith  !

Later!

ps pray tell, what do lmao & roflmao mean?

Eurphoria:
errm lol look there you pot are telling me kettle to repent? roflmao
Listen i don't carry myself around this place like a saint, like many do. So don't judge me by any fake standards. Either that or pray for a sense of humor. You were abusing and cussing trinin not long ago and tried to get me involved and i simple made light of things and expressed not to be involved, don't now turn around to lay bible to me, you no saint buddy Apart form that we cool. Just don't be hypocritical to me, because i will tell u plain and simple how i see it.
what you got amnesia? please no need to bring that joke up again thanks

Sister Euphoria, I do have a sense of humour. I just didn't find that remark funny. Neither am I foul mouthed, I don't re-call cussing or abusing trini_girl, just ribbing her . And I wasn't judging you, there is One who sits in that seat.

Apologies if you took it other than as it was meant. Please don't take offence.

God bless

trini_girl:
1. Can Homosexuals Be Married?
2. Does Marriage Begin After The Wedding?
3. The Source of Homosexuality: Spiritual, Societal or Physical, Can It Be "Cured"?
4. How Do I Divorce In The Eyes of God, Not Just Legally In The Eyes Of Man.
5. Is Civil Union Marriage?

Any takers? I vote TV.

1. No
2. Marriage commences upon consumation => the physical fulfilment of the "one flesh" union
3. All, man is a fallen creature, spiritually & physically degenerate. Yes, holistic Xtian deliverance!
4. Kill him (and then repent, leaving you free to re-marry!)
5. No, it's civil union .

There, that was easy wasn't it. Why waste thread space?

Later peeps

God bless

Hi Euphoria,

You may be funny, pretty too, but the remark below does not suggest God-fearing .
Repent or you're dumped !


Eurphoria (f)
London
Posts: 2148

Re: Pre-Marital Sex Is Not Fornication
« #275 on: Today at 01:42:38 AM »

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Watever when you two are done , please wipe the sheets thanks night love birds

Grouppoint:
If you are stating this within biblical context, then you need to show us where the bible states that Marriage must be performed before courts and Parents.

If however, you are referring to marriage in a civil society, then you have to accept that pre-marital sex, Homosexuality are not unlawful.

I believe that if two people are living together and committed, then they are joined together. If they be Christians, then they should invite God into their union. That is marriage. You don’t need Parents or Court.

All you need is God as the 3rd person in your union to be considered a wife or husband.

While we make proviso for parents, church and society, stripped bare, I think this is pretty spot on. Isaac effectively married Rebeccah when the relationship was consumated. Even now a civil marriage can be annulled on the basis of non-consumation.

Amongst other things, people who take the stance that pre-marital sex is not immoral need to understand that in a very real spiritual sense,  you cannot have pre-marital sex, as the very act signifies marriage and the ongoing consumation of that holy estate. It's why Paul said having sex with a harlot joins you with her".

And two more things.
Firstly, still on a spiritual note. Pray tell are you married to Christ? Part of the Bride of the Lamb? Or are you just in a male-female, adult, consensual, monogamous relationship with Him? Please think about that!

And on a more physical note, this position is a "cheats charter". Any predatory person (male or female), could simply seduce anyone into a " male-female, adult, consensual, monogamous relationship (a sorry excuse for a covenant, nowhere attested to in scripture or civilisation, but a glaring and damning indicator of the moral decline and wooly thinking in todays society _{preach it!)}, and then after a short interval call the whole thing off.

I ask anyone who holds to such a position as scripturally mandated to prayerfuly consider the possibilities and the dangers.

God bless

Weighty arguments guys. I 'm ust say a lot of effort is going on here I'm sure a lot of people are being educated and edified.

I hesitate to assume in all cases that words translated minister always signify office. I believe the import of that word is usually to signify service, not function or title. When Paul was acting in his capacity as an Apostle, he was always quick to say so.

Whilst I don't think it's far off to call Timothy & Titus bishops, I believe the capacity they were acting in was more akin to the apostolic. Remember, they were effectively establishing the church. When the men (I stress men here), whom they were instructed to equip were in place and a certain degree of all round maturity existed in the body, then the church could function according to the blueprint. Which I simply see as this, Male elders (who may or may not teach, as gifting, maturity or experience allowed) shepherding the flock. But so's not to overly digress, there's an ongoing thread "Church Structure & Sole Authority Pastors" discussing that.

As for the NIV+ version, lets just say it's way down on my list as well.

I really appreciate the excellent work so far.

God bless

trini_girl:
You're funny. I can't believe you're trying to insult me (you'll deny it I'm sure).

Sure will, 'cos I ain't. I will admit to having a good laugh at you expense though. Nothing personal, I quite like you and I'm sure you'll eventually see the error of your thinking (Notice I didn't say ways girl ).

Truth be told, your position became untenable about 8 pages back, I'm just enjoying the reparte.

Sorry for the impromptu dumping, but you know blokes nowadays, so fickle. Hey I see no ring on this here hand! Anyway, good thing you can test 'em first using the PMSPCCM model .

Now, where's Sister Euphoria?

God bless

trini_girl:
Did Paul join a "monastary"? Did he not simply say that he wishes that all men were like him, but if they can't take a wife so they won't fornicate?

Sister trini-girl, your arguments are consistently proving contradictory, not very well thought out and worst of all scripturally flawed. Why would Paul counsel wives in order to prevent fornication, or at least fail to mention (your supposed alternative), consenting male-female, adult monogamous relationships?

Errrrrr, by the way, you're dumped. I've fallen for sister Euphoria ! It doesn't just rain, it pours hey!
But look on the good side, you can just go find yourself another consenting, male-female, adult, monogamous relationship. No sin, no repentance!

I haven't had this much fun on Nairaland for ages (sure beats bullying TayoD ).

Lord have mercy