₦airaland Forum

Morning All,

Most of the more nuanced submissions have acknowledged that there are gender differences in roles, spheres of influence and areas of responsibility.

Can women prophesy, preach, teach or take authority?
The answer appears to be yes to all, but with exceptions.

Women are not permitted to take authority over mature Christian men in a full church setting. Over children, over adolescents and over other women, yes. But not in church in the presence of mature adult males men. To do so is to usurp authority and rebel against divine order.

Vast learning, eloquence, charisma, family background, or ability of any kind is not cause to rebel against divinely instituted order. Will all self-titled females whose position gives them (an unscriptural) authority over men please desist forthwith. You have been warned!!![/color][color=#990000]

Hi goodguy,

I still can't say I fully understand your position. I can't even say if we totally differ or if we are just talking perspective here. I've re-read the scriptures quoted. Let me ask this;

1. Are you saying marriage is lifelong whatever the issue?

2. That if a spouse divorces because of adultery, such a one has committed a sin for divorcing, but is not responsible for the adultery of the offending partner if they remarry, as adultery had already been perpetrated? This implies that divorce itself is a sin.

3. What then is the situation if adultery is committed, divorce ensues, but neither party remarries?

Would you also disagree with a rendering of Matthew 5:32 in two parts? Being

1.Divorce for any reason except sexual immorality is a causing the divorced party to commit adultery if they remarry.

2. Remarriage by a divorced spouse is adultry, because as I have mentioned (and bourne out by both Romans & Corinthians 7, remarriage apart from death is always adultery.

I am starting to appreciate your view. And I must say it's an interesting take.

God bless

bobby1:
please give me a break no church can force anyone to pay your first fruits and there is nothing wrong in paying your firstfruits. it all for your own benefit. in my church we don't force people to do things and a lot of u on this forum don't know how to talk

Sir, I would appreciate two things from you.

1. An exposition of the "firstfruits" doctrine as you know it/it is ppreached in your church.
2. The name of your church and pastor.

We are compiling a list  .

Lord have mercy.

shinystar:
The earlier we believe it, the better for us. It is real and I have met church members who admitted they have been told to do it. One minister even said pointedly on Tv that those who default are setting themselves up against God this year. What further evidences do you need?

I sugget you counsel the "church members" who had been told to do it the true counsel of God.
As for the minister who proclaimed it on TV, I think you should noise his name abroad, so that people can correct and/or ignore him.

We have a register of sex offenders here in the UK, maybe one for snake oil salesmen, hucksters and charlatans of the religious type would be a good idea? Truly it is written.

God bless

babyosisi:
so TV01 you are saying in essence that if a man errs and commits adultery,repents of it,his wife could refuse to forgive him and take him back on that grounds.
Let's be careful what we say,there is still a thing known as forgiveness.
We cannot pick and choose what suits us,a forgiving spirit should be in any true Christian.

TV01:
And finally, although I see adultery as the only reason for divorce, I don't say it has to lead to divorce. The crux is forgiveness. As God constantly forgave adulterous Israel and Christ is constantly sanctifying his Church/Bride, divorce (again except in an extreme inverterate case) reeks of unforgiveness. It's why the decision to divorce if taken, does not mean you can re-marry. What you are saying is either you are not willing to forgive and happy to live alone, or this persons infidelity is so unyielding that its better for you to live alone.

Hi Babyosisi, Happy new year. While I was on my Nairaland posting (but not reviewing) fast, I read about your nuptials, may I offer my belated congratulations and wish you and your spouse a delightful and fruitful union.

There was a little needle in our discourse last year, so while we are expounding on "forgiveness" I apologise for any offence on my part, and I am happy to let bygones be bygones.

I hope my repost above satisfactorily answers your query, as I trust you would not intentionally mis-quote me.

God bless.

Easyy:
All,

I was getting blessed by reading all the posts and the reactions of Orikinla and TV01 to each other until babyosisi entered with a rather instigational post and everything went pear shaped, then came in disguised or supressed unhappiness with each other.

At which point I left !

Hi TayoD,

I am aware of the “Eldership” tradition in early Jewish culture. It is referred to severally in both the new & old testaments. I think it’s pertinent to note that while a mainstay of the culture, it did not grow out of the religious command, but worked in conjunction with it. The lines are further blurred by the fact that Jewish religion, suffused most aspects of everyday life.

Now, as to the “Eldership” structure in the church, the essential requirements for it are laid out in 1&2 Timothy & Titus. Reading from Acts and most of the letters following, it becomes very clear that lead for most church based activity is by the eldership. The narrative clearly reveals that it was always the elders that where charged with teaching, shepherding etc, etc. This was spoken of by Paul, Peter & James, especially when referencing an already existing and fully functioning church.

In as much as one believes that all scripture is Holy Ghost breathed, yes I do believe it was a commandment of the Lord. The Church was established by the Lord and His holy apostles (Ephesians 2:20), so anything spelt out under apostolic authority is as good as if the LORD Himself had spokenit.

Whilst on the face of it, Church eldership may seem identical to Jewish cultural eldership, I don’t believe the intention was to replicate the tradition. Incorporating Jewish traditional elements into Christianity was always a problem and served to hinder (especially Jewish converts), from fully embracing new life in Christ. It was something Paul fought bitterly against and drives much of the narrative in both Galatians & Hebrews.

TayoD:
Just like the Deacons, Elders were appointed to meet the needs of a growing community of faith. The needs and peculiarities of the present day church will also necessitate the need for different style of government and administration. While the nomenclature may be different, the purpose essentially remain the same: meeting the needs of the body of Christ.

On the face of it, a plausible arguement. but one that doesn't align with scripture. Just as God told Moses to see to it that he made all things according to the pattern shown him (Hebrews 8:5), we have our blueprint for orderly family and church life. I see this as obvious attempt to introduce will-worship into proceedings. An open-ended remit such as you suggest means anyone can do anything and leaves the scripture subject to tradition. In my book (& in the Bible ), that's a no-no.

New balls please.

God bless

God bless

goodguy:
I assume you're referring to Okotie here.  TayoD should be able to clear this up.  He probably knows more about Okotie than the rest of us here.  His submission here actually shows they are divorced, but not due to any conflicts.  I take back the instance I cited earlier.

Hi goodguy, thanks for the link to TayoD's earlier submission. I wasn't actually a member back then so missed this one. Let me start by saying this, I really like TayoD. My prime impetus for establishing relationships is sensing a love of God. And while I may be wrong, I sense that in Bro' TayoD, and that's sufficient for me.

TayoD and I have been having this on/off discussion about church structure (I'm too technologically backward to append a link ). With all due respect, I feel the scripture shows TayoD's position here is seriously flawed and smacks of an attemt to shoehorn scripture into tradition. To render acceptable an unacceptable situation. It's not the first time I've seen TayoD, hold a position by proxy (i.e the MOG said) even if it's contrary to scripture. Let me explain.

A bishop is no different from a pastor, a shepherd or an elder. They are all different renderings of the same role. I have shown this from scripture severally and specifically in the thread "Church Structure & Sole Authority Pastors". Pertinent to note the mandate assumed by many a "pastor" in Nigerian churches is no where to be found in scripture and a man-made construct. If anyone feels otherwise, I only ask that they show it from scripture. I am more than happy to admit and repent of any error on my part.

The alluded to sacrifice of his marriage to serve His Lord is fleshly will-worship, falsely validated by a wanton warping of scripture. The God that hates divorce will not demand or use it as a means to glorify His name. My position holds, which is one I've mentioned severally. family first and then church. Can God not raise someone else up? Saul made a hash of it and God did not hesitate to move him on. Get over yourselves. Failure to hold your family together disqualifies you from pastoring (assuming a bishopric). Even if they had not divorced and agreed a permanent seperation, that would be to make a mockery of the spirit, essence and intent of marriage. I can honestly say I don't think I've seen a more blatant disregard of a biblical imperative. And the cack-handed attempt to pass it off as valiant sacrifice. Slap me silly with a salty piece of cod why don't you? Utter tosh!

TayoD, I must say I'm surprised. I've noticed your campaign against the other pastor Chris, and to be honest, I feel you have made valid points, but it seems that you are suffering from the same blind spot his followers are.

goodguy:
If the basis of your conclusion is on Matt 5:32, I'm afraid that text states otherwise.  Things we need to note first in order to understand that scripture itself are:

* God hates divorce (Malachi 2:16), so it's logical to conclude that it is a sin.

* Adultery is a sin. (Exodus 20:14)

* Divorce based on the grounds of adultery makes one free of the two sins (the sin of divorce itself and the sin of making someone else commit adultery) that one would normally have been guilty of if the divorce was due to some other reasons.(Matthew 5:32)

From this, we can see that adultery is not a reason for divorce, at least, that's not what Jesus was saying.  But rather, if you divorce your spouse based on that ground, then you're free of the two sins listed above.

Hmmm. First of all, please re-read what you wrote above. Ae you saying adultery is not a reason for divorce, but if you do it on that basis you haven't sinned? I can't see the reasoning behind that. Could I ask you to clarify or illustrate please  .

I thnk we all know that a full reading of all related scripture (and the enduement of the Holy Spirit) is necessary to determine the Lords heart on a matter. So no my position is not based solely on Matthew 5:32. I would refer also to Matthew19:9 & Mark 10:11. Adultery is covenant breaking and the wronged party is within their rights to declare abrogation. For their many harlotries, God had every right to cast away Israel His firstborn and backsliding Judah. But longsuffering and divine love meant mercy triumphed over judgement.

My point is that sexual immorality is a reason for divorce, as it absolves you from sin if the offending party remarries. Said sin being on the offender and whoever marries them. I'm not sure that divorce per se is a sin, but if you divorce for any but the one reason and one/both of you re-marry, then one/both of you are committing adultery which is. And the fault for the adultery of the one divorced is place at the feet of the one who unsripturally divorces them.

So until someone can show otherwise, my position remains. Divorce is permissable only in the case of adultery, and remarriage only in the case of death. Not for battery, not for ministry and not for the myriad other reasons that have crept in. And I'm talking Christendom here.

Please don't think me hard hearted. I have divorce in my immediate family. I've seen it live and direct. The pain and aftershock seem unrelenting and there are no winners. Marriage and divorce have a way of exposing people. Showing if they say they do, but really don't. If they say they are but truly aren't. Is there anything God can't do?

I'm here.

God bless

Abusive relationships, mmmmmm that's a hard one.

A lot of people pull this one out of the bag to somehow justify divorce. That's not to say that in many cases it's not a real issue.

First off, I would say that marriages based on the proper foundation (Christ and maturity in Him) should rarely have this problem.

Where it does arise, I would counsel seperation and all the usual Christian help. This is assuming the couple are practising Christians.

I'm against secular courts being involved, as there imperatives are often at odds with Christian mores. Let's leave the courts to deal with non-Christian marriages. For the most part non-believers have a completely different concept of marriage anyway.

Assault/Battery or abuse of any kind is not adultery, which I believe is the only possible reason for divorce. There's mercy, forgiveness and grace to help. That should be the starting point.

I am not in the habit of picking on individuals, so i won't. But could someone please explain to me why a man would be permanently seperated from his wife (i.e not circumstancially enforced or only temporarily) if there is not a problem of some sort?

And finally, although I see adultery as the only reason for divorce, I don't say it has to lead to divorce. The crux is forgiveness. As God constantly forgave adulterous Israel and Christ is constantly sanctifying his Church/Bride, divorce (again except in an extreme inverterate case) reeks of unforgiveness. It's why the decision to divorce if taken, does not mean you can re-marry. What you are saying is either you are not willing to forgive and happy to live alone, or this persons infidelity is so unyielding that its better for you to live alone.

Thoughts please brethren.

God bless

[quote author=trini_girl link=topic=35349.msg815527#msg815527 date=1168692973]I'm still not sure if I agree with your stance on women and teaching. But the seperation of roles vs equality in creation and salvation is definitely refreshing.

Thanks[/quote]Sister trini_girl,

That is the whole point. God has specific areas of influence, roles and responsibility in mind to maximise the complimentary nature of the two genders.

A creational point is that men should talk a position of leadership and wield the authority and responsibility that comes with it. That is not to say that women are less capable, talented or gifted, it's merely adhering to divine order.

All things being equal, in a full church setting, women are not to take on the teaching role or assume authority over men. The scriptural narrative is very clear. Starting from the home (Gods basic building block, not the church as many presume), to the church which is essentially a supersized family.

So for example. You have ten families. Each headed by a husband, with a wife in dutiful (and biblical) submission, and say a couple of kids. When they come together as a church, does it make sense to now give authority to a women over the men? No, it is inconsistent. it's why women cannot be elders. It's as clear as spring water. Yes, there are important roles for women. It's sad that people think that mothering and nurturing the future, are somehow lesser roles than teaching the word or assuming a titular office.

Women for the most part (confirmed scientifically and anecdotally) have better language/speech skills than men, that is not a reason for usurping God's divine order. It's important that we learn to obey and appreciate scriptural dynamics in relationships. So for example the marriage order shouldn't change if the woman is better paid, better connected, has a better pedigree, is famous etc etc.

I'll stop now 'because I know you detest lengthy posts, but i hope we are moving towards shared understanding!

God bless

lysaa:
i didnt say better mind u, i said on the same level. And i know that for sure, there are things a christian that prays in tongue can do that the other can't, its an obvious fact. take 2 christians out to pray for a sick person , observe their boldnessand convictions, i tell u by the time the one that can pray in tongues finishes rattling in tongues, he becomes high and speaks authoritatively. The spirit makes the difference . i'll say again, i didn't say tongue speaking christians are better than the ones that can't speak based on the ground that "to whom much is given much is expected". u can't say a 200L student is better than a 100L student but they can be assessed by what they have learnt. but the 100L one needs to progress into 200L. thats my point, we need to grow and not practise churchianity but real rugged and raw christianity.

My sister, I'm still not sure we are agreed. Are you saying that tongue speaking is an indicator of "level?". So all other things being equal, tongue speaking is some sort of tie-breaker?

Those at Corinth "came behind" in no gift" but as Christians go they were "yet carnal". The Christian walk is about maturity, devotion and a gaze focused upward where Christ is sat at the right hand of God.

As Christians we can of ourselves do nothing. Whatever we have, we have recieved, so we should not boast as if we did not. This kind of thinking is the very thing that engenders a spiritual caste system and veneration of men.

God bless

Because its a sign of the times as prophesied in the Bible. Nigeria is just a case in question. End times, end game. And those who know their God_______

Because religion is a massive con and generates hyper-profits for the hucksters & charlatans behind it.

Because it at once fills a void and serves as a vehicle for their hope (lessness?). Without hope the spirit of many in Nigeria would be crushed by the sheer grind and privation of day to day life.

Hi sister trini what's goin on ?

You work all day and post all night! Hopefully that keeps you outta trouble  .

Are you still insistent that pre-marital sex is not sinful in the sight of God?

God bless & keep you

lysaa:
A christian that speaks in tongues is never on the same level with the one that doesnt. carry out a survey, i dare u

I won't take you up on your dare to carry out a survey, but I will say this, a Christian that speaks in tongues is in no way better than one who does not. If we can be agreed on one thing, it is this, speaking in tongues (known or unknown) is a gift and the Holy Spirit distributes gifts severally as He wills.

There is no call for smugness or discrimination due to gift differentiation amongst believers. It's the cause of a lot of angst amongst brethren.

No shakin' for real

God bless

Hmmm, some interesting posts so far.

I'll start by stating my position, thereby subjecting it to scrutiny.

The only biblical reason for divorce is adultery.
The only biblical reason for remarriage is death.

God bless

Analytical:
True, 1 Tim 2 11-12 can be extended to other areas but it's primarily talking about a woman and a man in the sense of a wife's submission to her husband, hence the Adam and Eve example and reference to child-bearing.

Or another way of looking at it, could be that it talking about the relationship order between male & female, with the reference to Adam & Eve being made to stress that said order was instituted at creation?

God bless

shahan:
@TV01,

Thank you so very much for that input. I wouldn't want to sound accusative or pedantically persecutive. And God bless you for levelling the platform - you will not lose your reward, in Jesus Name!

Thank you & amen to that. Kind words indeed.

May the Lord lead & direct all who seek Him in truth and have mercy on those who do not!

There is error in all denominations (and outright heresy in some!). Show me any denominations structure and doctrine and I’ll show you error to some degree.

If per chance there is a denomination that perfectly (or even close too perfectly) adheres to biblical truths, one of the first things they would acknowledge is that they are not the authors, arbiters or sole possessors of that truth. Elijah made the same mistake, thinking it was just him left. Like I said, God knows and preserves those who truly seek Him.

Trying to pursue one’s faith (or defends one’s position) based on strict adherence to man-made tradition will always (if one is honest) lead to a point where some precepts just don’t fit. For such a one, scriptural interpretation is always (at least in part) through the eyes of those they associate with, whether they realize/acknowledge it or not. Some doctrine although erroneous will have to be tightly held on too, or things will come unstuck (at least in part, if not totally).

A sermon I have never heard preached is the example of Paul (Saul). The narrative contained in his epistles clearly charts his transition from a zealous champion of man-made tradition to unadulterated faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. It’s why he told Timothy “His life was meant as pattern/example” to believers after Him.

In Galatians he recounts how legalistic and zealous he was. By Philippians, he has come to the understanding that all his achievements, zeal, background and pedigree were as dung and need to be utterly discarded to lay hold on true faith in Christ.

Most of us are “born-again” into one sect/denomination or the other. We are zealous for God, eager to learn and willing to please. We learn the precepts, the traditions and swallow wholesale the words of the Apostle, or Prophet. But the key is to focus firmly on the Author and Perfecter of your faith, if indeed He is. You have to keep asking, I know what the MOG says, but what are You saying Lord. Keep asking Like Paul did, “Who are you Lord?” and “What would you have me do?”

Otherwise you will become bound by tradition, trapped in a man-made carnal construct and ultimately end up a well-schooled religionist. I can personally testify that deliverance from that state to true liberty in Christ takes Gods grace, and is an epiphany akin to the rebirth experience.

The saved are always first and foremost individuals. They can be in any denomination. But if one is truly seeking God, loving the Lord and keeping His commandments, God will draw him to Himself, and in due course bring such a one out of “Babylon”. The Lords ways and thoughts are not ours. He knows the best time for individuals to make that transition. His sheep hear His voice and follow Him.

Yes, Spiritual Babylon is real, but I am not yet certain it is fully manifested. In these days, heresy is hard at work and apostasy is right on its heels. I personally believe that at it’s zenith, Babylon will comprise of a whole system of united denominations and sects (ecumenism), and possibly even religions (syncretism). And the religious aspect may well be joined be others (being the political and economic). But that’s another thread.

Interestingly enough, we are able to discuss these things at present, because for the most part we have liberty to choose Whom and how we worship. It may not always be thus. There is not as yet a universally mandated way to worship God. I suspect such a time will come, and those against or outside the system (Babylon), will understand the true meaning of the words “whoever kills you will think that he offers God service”.

Lets share openly and with hearts unprejudiced by denominational bias while we yet can.

God bless.

[quote author=trini_girl link=topic=35349.msg812689#msg812689 date=1168600627]TV ,  why do you always have to allude to me  nowww.[/quote]I don't believ I was, I said "sisters" plural. But even if I was, doubtless you are loving the attention  .

[quote author=trini_girl link=topic=35349.msg812689#msg812689 date=1168600627]So far according to your description of me, I am a belligerent, bellicose, aggressive, passionate, masculine  woman spewing for scatological teaching![/quote]I don't think I've been unfair. Harsh maybe. But I'm sure there's a lot more to you than I've seen here. And I'm equally sure it's mostly good.

[quote author=trini_girl link=topic=35349.msg812689#msg812689 date=1168600627]You're a walking Thesaurus!  You must have scored full points on your SATs (if you're american that is)[/quote]Far from it. I speak just the one language fluently, so if I don't have a decent grasp of that, what would be my excuse? As for my being American, please Sister, my burdens are already heavy enough 

[quote author=trini_girl link=topic=35349.msg812689#msg812689 date=1168600627]But why, why are you so hard on me?    Just stop reading my posts that's all  [/quote]It's called tough love my sister. You know I have your best interests at heart .

Later.

God bless

[quote author=trini_girl link=topic=35449.msg812670#msg812670 date=1168600077]Wellll,

If I am headed for hell for such a small thing as an opinion, I will be last in line behind those of you guys who watch porn, lust after the chick in the choir, lust after the chick on the street, lust after the MAN on the street, masturbate, have sex outside of marriage, masturbate, lie, slander your brothers and sisters, curse, neglect to pray, judge others, don't forgive, offend others (whew! getting tired), and yeah, did I mention masturbate, you hypocrites![/quote]Sister trini_girl, surely your utter confusion is manifest? Don't you realise you are gainsaying yourself by this statement

Lord have mercy.

shahan:
Lol, TV01. . . my posts are still clear, I pressume. Women can and are encouraged to preach; they are also encouraged to teach according to the settings in God's Word - as in the case of Tit. 2:3-5.

The issue many of us may not have grasp is that the Bible does not recommend women teaching in the church. That would be an abuse of the recommendations in God's Word.

No Probs Shahan. I totally agree with the distinctions you've made.

But like I said, the order is set in the home and follows on into a full church setting.
All things being equal, women are not to assume authority in either. The Biblical injunctions naturally follow through, restricting eldership (same as pastor) to men.

Are we agreed on this? I realise some of the more strident sisters do not .

Thanks for your responses.

God bless

Hebrews 13:4 - Honor marriage, and guard the sacredness of sexual intimacy between wife and husband. God draws a firm line against casual and illicit sex.

Bible says (even in a version I don't normally have much truck for ~ The Message)

shahan:
I support 1000% - please Nne trini, preach am well-well as you're doing to Seun!! Don't let anybody hold you back o jare! Who knows?? Perhaps a woman will convert him! Amen and Amen!!

Shahan, presumably you are making the distinction between preaching & teaching/taking authority. If so, no problemo. If not, you know I have to withstand you.

God bless

[quote author=trini_girl link=topic=35349.msg811767#msg811767 date=1168552812]what are you going on about now? so you are still stalking me I see.[/quote]Usurping authority, pre-marital sex, bellicose behaviour, unrelenting attention seeking! Truth is you can still repent and be forgiven of those.

But now you're being boring and that really is an unforgivable sin. Like the irish say "wise up and catch yourself on"

[quote author=trini_girl link=topic=30552.msg811627#msg811627 date=1168548578]*** yawn ***[/quote]trini_girl, go to your room. And stay there. You are grounded till further notice for unruly behaviour and scatalogical posts! Naughty girl.

Sister trini_girl,

You are starting to sound preachy. Please stop, the holy scriptures forbid it !

Hebrews 13:4 - Marriage is honorable among all, and the bed undefiled; but fornicators and adulterers God will judge.


Bible says

[quote author=trini_girl link=topic=35449.msg811321#msg811321 date=1168540549]Let me then spell it out for you then, since you can't seem to grasp implied expressions.  Pre marital sex is NOT a sin.[/quote]So that's your stated position.

So let me ask you this;

If as a consequence of pre-marital sex a girl becomes pregnant and delivers a child, as long as marriage is the stated aim, then no sin has been committed is that right? In fact, said couple could have a number of children right trini?

[quote author=trini_girl link=topic=35449.msg811212#msg811212 date=1168535115]Pre marital sex, is sex before marriage, but it is not fornication.[/quote]Okay, lets humour you.
Lets for arguments sake agree that entymologically speaking Pre-marital sex is not fornication.

Question: Is premarital sex a sin?

[quote author=trini_girl link=topic=35349.msg810873#msg810873 date=1168527711]So my brother, what makes you think I don't have the sweet character of which you speak? Hmm??[/quote]I could be totally wrong, but so far you are yet to demonstrate such. By their fruits my sister.

[quote author=trini_girl link=topic=35349.msg810873#msg810873 date=1168527711]So because I have strong opinions that I am passionate about (and sometimes change once I am convinced), you are saying that I'm not sweet and do not have the grace of God ??  **sniff**[/quote]Strong opinions good, passion excellent. Please don't confuse these with the aggression and belligerence you sometimes portray in your posts. They are more masculine traits and not necessarily becoming even of men.

But I take heart that you responded to the charge laid against you. Like I said, it takes the grace of God. We are none of us perfect Sis', least of all myself. It's why I took a self imposed sabbatical from posting on Nairaland. During the last two months I've  followed everything with keen interest. I noted when you first joined (or maybe become more active?) late last year, and I've read your posts with interest and dare I say it, for the most part I've been quite impressed.

I particularly like the fact that you realise that law bound religion (tithing temples etc etc) is not synonymous with heart-felt faith. But in throwing off religious shackles and taking the full liberty to be found in Christ, please don't let your liberty turn into licentiousness (with particular regard to your post on pre-marital sex and fornication).

So sis' I speak not just as a blogger but as someone who in cyber terms knows a little about you and wants the best for you.

About the pic, I don't know what the Yahoo list is? Just show me yours and I'll show you mine  .

God bless.