₦airaland Forum

Hi Kinglarry,

I am not holding brief for Nwoke, but blasphemy can be summed up as follows;

~ Profanity in action, speech or writing against God.
~ The act of claiming the attributes, rights or privileges of God.
~ An irreverent or impious attitude towards the holy or divine.  

Pray tell, how people discussing the utterances of a man is blasphemy. It was I presume, posted so that people with an interest in "religion" or religious things could discuss.

And one other thing, the "level", specifically in the spiritual. Could you explain with reference to the Holy Bible.

Thank you.

God bless

Kimba, go to your room! .

Th only thing preventing the eradication of malaria from the African continent is the "will" to do so . .

Hi Nwoke,

Thanks very much for your last post.

Christians, some of you love the law so much, you've morphed into Jews. Beware the leaven of the pharisees .

My advice (which you are not obliged to follow); don't burn yourselves out ushering at three services on a Sunday, carrying the "MOG's" bible, or otherwise working yourselves into the ground serving those religious institutions that some pranksters call church.

I rest my case (pun intended ).

God bless

4get_me, good morning to you sir,

I greatly appreciate you scholarship, but I usually end up questioning one of two things,
1. the premise or
2. the conclusion.

Let me explain;

Re: Alcohol ~ your conclusion was
Wine, permissible
Strong drink not encouraged

Are we encouraged to drink wine? No. Are we permitted to drink strong drink? Yes. There is very little distinction between the two. So too sum up, one can do one, both or none (obviously with moderation in mind). You have essentially agreed with me.

Re: Tithing ~ you opened thus (on 21/04/06);
"Tithe or no tithe, even giving is NOT an obligation in the NT to Christians".
(seemingly agreeing with me)

You then go on to say that, there is a difference, you do both and that there are different benefits accruing as a result of doing so.

So as to the question “to tithe or not?” you seemingly agree and then in a convoluted way disagree? If the question had been “to pray or not?” We all know that it’s not a law, but it would be madness not to do so, which is essentially what you are saying about tithing. And that sir, is at best misguided (my view of course, please don’t take umbrage at my choice of words).

(Why do I still think there is a hint of trying to "fit scripture to tradition" here?)

As for the notion of “give to get”, you are not the first I have had this discussion with (I have previously discussed this with Welborn and Baby4u2). I don’t see this as NT Christian motivation. God blesses His own. Simple. Christians give/bless as a consequence of Christ’s love flowing through them, it’s a response to need, a form of “Christian witness”. “Giving to get” smacks, of an investment strategy. Gods promise is to “supply need”. Even your breakdown of “types of giving” sounds questionable. Giving to ministry, giving to the poor, giving to orphans etc, etc, and claiming that there are blessing associated with each “type”. Sir you appear to be talking income streams. In 2Corinthians 8 the Macedonians gave beyond their abilities (sacrificially). Is that to be taken as some sort of risk free gamble on their part? Knowing that God would sooooo bless them as a result? And yes I know that “fruit abounds” to one’s account, but the drawings are not just material and not solely in the here and now. Am I hearing a more “user friendly” version of the “prosperity Gospel” (which is unquestionably “another”)?

Does God bless when we give? Do talebearers cause strife?
Do we give with an eye on a return? Do grizzlies fish for tinned salmon?

Maybe I’ll get round to developing my Letter vs. Intent theme one day, but for now let me say this. Material blessings where the promise of obedience under the OT Law.  There is a deeper meaning under the New Covenant.

And no I am not championing poverty.

“Though He were rich, yet for our sakes He became poor”

May grace & peace be multiplied to all.

God bless

4get_me:
That is part of the issue. The problem is that for the mere mention of 'tithes' (besides other types of giving), people feel that some of us have qualified as ___!

4get_me,

Further to your quote above and for a better understanding, could you please illustrate what you mean by "other types of giving".

It's just that your wording seems to suggest that tithing is giving? and that there are different types?

If you equate tithing with giving, I'm not sure there is any point to our discussion, except my question above about "types of giving", as I still maintain that Christians simply give.

Am I missing something or are we not discussing whether there is a biblical injunction to tithe as in a tenth?

God bless

4get me,

Agreed on your first 2 sentences.
But not everything that labels itself "Christianity" is.
And while I don't subscribe to any denomination (in fact, I would go as far as to suggest most are outright apostate!), I know that some of those within are God's people.

1 Samuel 7 And the Lord said to Samuel, "Heed the voice of the people in all that they say to you; for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected Me, that I should not reign over them.

It was God the Israelites were rejecting, not theocracy, democracy or any other kind of government. And the consequences are clearly outlined. It clearly evident in todays man-made traditions, from "Popery" to the "MOG" syndrome.

I see (mostly young & single) people working themselves into the ground for "Gods work". They are not and it is not. They are simply being chewed up by a man-made religious system,. That is what the narrative of 1 Samuel 8 speaks too.

Why wouldn't I agree? It's clearly outlined. I'm not at loggerheads with you, and as ever I appreciate your scholarship.

Speak soon.

God bless

Hi All,

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/malcolmbowden/indexx.htm

Hows about some Christian bias? .

God bless

4get me, I thought you were away?

Abraham gave a tithe once. There is nothing to suggest it was a lifetime practice. Even if it was, like Jacob, he took it upon himself to do so.

Tithing as part of the law was given to the Jews for specific purposes. Said law has now been done away with. Christians give.

Like I said before, maintaining that it is not obligatory and then saying it should be done, sounds to me like jumping through hoops to justify what is probably a traditional position.

The reason I hate it is because when preached as demanded by God it is blasphemy and binds the ignorant. Additionally, enforcing it by reference to the OT, is a perverse way of re-introducing the law. Attempting to be justified by the law means you fall from grace.

So, not only are you not cursed if you don't tithe, you are putting yourself back under the law and therefore abide under wrath if you do!

I appreciate your time Sir, please don't take any of this the wrong way.

God bless

Hi 4get_me,

Hope you are well, apologies for the delay.

"Curse on the Church"
Do I mean God's "elect/chosen/set apart ones"? No. I mean the Institutionalised, corporate man made religion that masquerades as Christianity.

The 1 Samuel 8 narrative clearly shows consequences when men reject the Lord as their King and want to be like the other nations. Yet another thread   .

I take your points on Communion and the Love feast.

As for Law & Grace. I also believe you are mistaken, but we are still talking, so no probs.

God bless

Morning KAG,

KAG:
I wouldn't call them lame attempts, nor would I call it unbelief. It is infact what has gone on for centuries, when christians realise that the world operates in a way that contradicts their biblical interpretation, they either conclude the Bible was wrong, or their interpretation was wrong.

I quite agree with "interpretations" possibly being wrong. But if the Bible itself is wrong, that effectively nullifies it and all it's claims. As a matter of integrity, if one come to the conclusion that the Bible is untrue, why not simply place your faith elsewhere?

KAG:
Are you perchance a geocentrist?

No, I am not, or perhaps I am but don't know it, or maybe I will be! I'm not a scientist or expert in any field and I don't feel the need to become one. Faith and the Bible are essentially simple things. That's not to say I despise or shun intellectual or scientific discussions, especially where the Bible is concerned, and whilst I try to keep abreast of things, I'm more about living my faith than proving it.

I'm a Christian. A  Bible believing Christian. A fundamentalist if you like. I believe in the divine inspiration, inerrancy, infallibility and immutability of the Bible as Gods word. Could there be errors in translation ? maybe, but I don't see that as affecting the essence of the Bible, or the Bible as being God's revelation.

Lets abandon the "mythical/allegorical" thing is a bit of a mute point.

KAG:
And there are those who claim to be God's people, yet are not, even though they believe every word of the Bible. By the way, I've yet to meet any christian who in some ways does not disregard some doctrines in the Bible.

I can't speak for others, but I live my faith by what I know from reading, researching or what has been revealed. Some of my positions are literally by default. So for example I used to tithe as I was taught. I now understand it is not a Christian notion, so I stopped. I hope this speaks to the "geocentrist" question as well.

KAG:
The Torah does have multiple authors, and realising that the creation narrative in Genesis isn't literal, doesn't mean denial of the virgin birth etc.

The Bible records Moses as the inspired author of the Torah. To deny that is to deny Biblical Christianity. To a Christian, "believing God" is righteousness. A half truth is a lie.

Quote:
By the way, some of the strongest and most fervent christians I have met accept evolution.

Creation & ToE are mutually exclusive.
Believe God or don't believe God.

Romans 3:4 - Certainly not! Indeed, let God be true but every man a liar. As it is written: "That You may be justified in Your words, And may overcome when You are judged."

God bless

Hi Nferyn,

nferyn:
TV01,

What you mean to say is that Catholics are no Christians beause Catholics do believe in evolution, am I correct?

I stand by what I said. And I meant it exactly as stated. Please feel free to draw any logical inference.

Regards

Hi All,

One other thing, regardless of what "Christians", or scientists say, the Word of God holds true

Isaiah 40:22 - It is He who sits above the circle of the earth, And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers, Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.

The God of the Bible never said the earth He created was flat!

May that same God lift up His countenance upon you!

Hi KAG,

I refer to your quote earlier today;1

KAG:
I know you haven't said anything of the sort, but I feel I should point out agai, that evolution =\= atheism, and far more christiians than atheists accept the ToE. That is all.

And yesterday.

KAG:
I doubt that. Some of the christians who accept evolution believe that their interpretaion of the Genesis account actually shows that YHVH used evolution, the big bang, etc to create everything, some believe that the Genesis account is allegorical/mythical, some believe it was wrongly translated, and I'm sure there are many other christian evolutionists school of thought. However, what is clear is that the vast majority of christians accept the occurence of evolution, and probably most christians believe that although God used evolution to create humans it doesn't contradict their understag of Genesis.

I am by no means a scientist, and although I am familiar with the arguments of both sides, I am happy to let those who have actually studied the subjects lead the discourse on this, hence my silence.

However, the Bible and Christianity, I do study.

The lame attempts by some to reconcile (or even align) both positions, is (to my mind at least) pure evidence of unbelief (or perhaps shame at being thought backwards for having "blind faith", unlike evolutionists right?).

Yes, there are various ways to interprete the Bible. allegorical, prophetic and revalational. But a literal interpretation is always the first basis (and in some case the only one).  But two things;

1. The different meanings will always harmonise.
2. There is no such thing as a "mythical" interpretation. That in other words is calling it a fairytale. Unbelief!

You see, there have always been those who claim to be God's people, whilst disbelieving his word. In the Lords day there where the Sadducee's, who denied certain doctrine. And during the early church, there were others most notably the "gnostic".

Today we have those who deny the literal creation narrative, the virgin birth, the sinless life, death and resurrection of our Lord. They claim the Torah has multiple authors, and in various other ways claim the Bible is not true to itself or even the Word of God.

And no, I haven't said that "evolution = atheism",
what I am saying is that     "evolution =\= Christianity"

People are free to claim belief in both the ToE and the bible and to call themselves Christians. But a true understanding of, and belief in the Bible precludes you believing both. It guess it means you are neither "fish nor fowl", but again, we are still awaiting evolutionists to provide the fossil evidence for such a creature right?   .

God "The God of all flesh & the Father of Spirits" bless you

Fluffy:
Hello Remember me, I'm Fluffy, the one who started all this may I say something?        

Hi Fluffy,

I think this thing has gotten bigger than just you now. I'm greatly enjoying the discourse. I suggest you do the same. Unless of course you have something pertinent that will elevate this
discussion.

Simmy, Xkape,

May the good Lord strengthen your arms.

May God "The Uncreated Creator" richly bless you.

Hi KAG,

I take it from your posts that you are not a Christian. However, I must say you need the patience of a saint to engage Bro' Kimba  .

KAG:
There are many theists, many of whom are Christians, who believe that (their) God used evolution to "create" them.

I can't speak for all "theists", but a Christian who believes that God created man

(1) in His image
(2) from the dust of the ground
(3) and breathed the breath of life into his nostrils &
(4) on a different day to other creatures,

cannot believe in evolution, or that their God "used evolution to create them". That would entail disregarding the Bible from it's opening pages. Suffice to say, the only word I can think of, off the top of my head to qualify "Christianity" is "Biblical". The "Christian God" is the God of the Bible.

God bless.

Hi clemsonfan,

Re your quote below, does that make you a "Christian evolutionist"?

clemsonfan:
Here's what i think about the CREATION THEORY:

-It states in the bible that GOD created the earth in 6 days, How are we to know the length of time in ONE of GOD'S days. Because I am sure it is not 24 HRS, it Could be MILLIONS of years.
-It Also states in the Bible that GOD Rested on the 7^th day, Maybe, just maybe, God created the universe and let it evolve for the MILLIONS OF YEARS in the length of his DAY. Then he created light, which is the SUN i'm guessing, and let IT evolve for the same number of years in the length of his DAY.

So in conclusion, I say that maybe the "EVOLUTION THEORY", in some small way, and the"CREATION THEORY" link to gether.

I've heard that some "Christians", attempt to reconcile or are comfortable with both premises. I've also heard the "day as an age" theory.

True the Bible does not say "24 hour" day,  but if you translate day as an age, pray tell how do you translate the words "Day", "Night" "evening" and "morning" (say as found in Genesis 1:5)?

Genesis 1:5 - God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. So the evening and the morning were the first day.

God bless

Hi 4get_me,

Hope your trip went well and that the Lord prospered your way. Please don't apologise, I always appreciate your replies. Whenever they come, the effort you put into them always speaks for itself.

My "splitting hairs" comment is in reference to your distinguishing between wine and alcohol.
I don't quite get it? To me the very term "non-alcoholic" wine is in some sense an oxymoron. Given, it may be the case these days, but surely not in biblical times? In the real sense of this thread, non-alcoholic wine is not actually wine. It's fruit juice or soda.

The 43 references to "tithe" in my write up was for completeness, whilst I see the differentiation of wine & alcohol as a little pedantic, especially when you conclude like this,

4get_me:
Wine - yes, permissible;
Alchohol - not encouraged.

"Permissable" does not mean encouraged, and "not encouraged" does not mean impermissable.
So my reading of your conclusion is that it's something of a non-statement.

Like I said, I am not insinuating anything or being sly. I say it as I see it. Please don't be offended. In the cut and thrust of lively debate, things can easily be misconstrued. It helps me to stick too the essence of the discussion. You quite frequently use the term "my dear", you may well mean it as an endearment, but I find it patronising. But I don't let it stop me enjoying your posts.

Lets talk,

God bless

Hi Lioness & babymine,

Seemingly excellent advice, but whoever got "born-again" by sheer force of will? Plus, if it's primarily to rekindle the romance, it'll never last.

Peace.

Hi,

KAG:
Arsenal supporters?

I believe the team are referred to as "Gunners", the supporters are popularly called "Gooners"

I ordinarily wouldn't say no to the chance of a game with Arsenal, but since I subscribe to the fact of an "Afterlife", I'll be signed up to better things.

Hi 4get_me,

I copied this from a reply to a post you made in "Is It Right For A Christian To Take Alcohol?"

4get_me:
One more thing: let me quickly chip in here that those who want use Deut. 14:26 as the champion excuse for boozing should answer the following questions in all sincerity:

(a) that scripture is connected to tithing and meant for the Jewish people alone - are you a Jew?

I take it you gather the import of what you plainly stated ?

God bless

Hi 4get_me,

Totally unrelated to this thread, but it strikes our ongoing discussion in "To Tithe or Not to Tithe" head on (I'll copy this post there).

4get_me:
One more thing: let me quickly chip in here that those who want use Deut. 14:26 as the champion excuse for boozing should answer the following questions in all sincerity:

(a) that scripture is connected to tithing and meant for the Jewish people alone - are you a Jew?

I take it you gather the import of what you plainly stated?

God bless

Hi Kimba,

Regards your quote of my post below;

The "whole of Gods Word is truth", and whilst drunkenness is plainly decried, the Bible does not command total abstinence
you contradicted yourself:
1) The whole of Gods word is truth,
2) the whole of God's word plainly decries drunkenness
3) The Bible does not command total Abstinence

Which Bible are you talking about?

I almost missed it, but I see that your dogmatic stance regards alcohol consumption and what the Bible says, may in part (although somehow I doubt it!) be down to to "grammar"

Listen up sir;

As "to eat/eating" does not imply gluttony, neither is "to drink/drinking" synonymous with drunkenness. No contradiction there sir  .

As too "Which Bible I was talking about" I'll overlook that as a "keyboard malfunction"   .

I hope this helps.


4get_me,

I saw your earlier post regards the difference, between "wine & alcohol". I am by no means a vintner or a scientist, but if grapes are fermented, they turn in some degree to alcohol. I see no reason to split hairs on this. If one drinks enough "low-alcohol content" wine, one will become merry, sloshed, drunk as skunk and ultimately comatose. Don't let's introduce "correctness" into our discussions.

I must say, although I thought the digression into the Lord on the cross added little to the question posed by this thread, it was a real eye opener for me, and both Zebudaya & yourself
come away with my respect and appreciation.

Best regards.

God bless

Hi Donnie,

Further to your quote below,

donnie:
That is because the conscience of carnal christains as well as their atheist counterparts will not let them rest.

"Carnal Christians". Would that be those who do or those who do not tithe?
(Please indulge my taking the easy option and not scrolling through 18 pages of discussion to see if you have posted previously on this thread )

And one more thing, could you please explain what exactly the "atheist counterpart" of a carnal Christian is.

Thanks

God bless

Hi 4get _me,

Good to hear from you. I appreciate you reading my earlier piece.

I'll respond in reverse order to your last two posts.

TWO

"My Tone" ~ Yes, I I've been upbraided a million times about it since I originally wrote that piece. I take all correction graciously. I dare say, you have had no cause to rebuke me since we started talking. That piece was posted unedited as it was where I was at the time of first copy, and in essence remains my position.

"A curse on the church currently" ~ Yes I do. It's a consequence of men asking for a king. Another thread? 

"Tithing details" ~ I won't say to much about this as we could infer anything up to 23.33% as tithe (almost like income tax in a religious community). Our positions are whether the tithe is current or redundant, so we can subsume those details to the greater truth for now.

"Taxes not tithes" ~ No, I wasn't mixing them up. My point was that as children of the Kingdom, God does not legislate taxes for us.

I've apologised for my tone, but do not hesitate to do so again in the interest of peace and progress. However, I don't retract the underlying inference, being that the real communion of the Lords supper is a meal (I must confess I don't know how you celebrate it - How do you?). I can't tell a lie, when I saw the truth of it  (or should I say was shown), I wasn't the happiest of bunnies. I find the bondage of enforced tithing a great evil, and nothing less than a blight on Christians and Christendom. And is there still a Levitical priesthood?

ONE

Your quote below;
The Pharisee could not be "justified by faith in Christ" (Gal. 2:6) while the law was still standing! Infact, Gal. 3:23 says, "But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed." The faith was not 'revealed' (that is, did not come into full effect) until Jesus Christ was glorified.

Well said.
So, does that not make it abundantly clear that if the Lord was addressing Pharisees, who where under the law, then tithing was something that they should have done/do as they where as yet under that dispensation. It's not something addressed to NT Christians under a totally different dispensation. I'm sure you are familiar with the verses in Hebrews which state that a change in the priesthood (after the Glorification of the Lord) necessitated a change in the law. QED methinks, although as ever, I both appreciate and accept you right to differ.

Again, the intent vs selective obedience stance is spoken to here. These "you should have done" (being under the law) without leaving the others undone (justice, mercy etc, which is the intent/essence of the law). Of which the two parts are 1. Love the Lord your God.2. Love your Neighbour. Again, to me it's glaring. I would ask that you read the opening of Matthew 12. The Pharisees charged the disciples with breaking the Sabbath. Which they had. What was the Lords response? Was that not to speak about "Mercy vs Sacrifice?" again, the intent of the Law is at the heart of the narrative.

One last thing,

4get_me:
Hi TV01,

Tithe or no tithe, even giving is NOT an obligation in the NT to Christians.

In the OT, tithing and other kinds of giving were obligatory; but in the NT they are rather set forth as a call to obedience. Rather than see it as a custom of "church denominations", try seeing it as a commitment in the Christian faith. Look at it this way:

"Every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give; not grudgingly, or of necessity:
for God loveth a cheerful giver." - II Cor. 9:7

If your position is tithing (I view heartfelt giving as something entirely different) is not obligatory, why would you go to great lengths to prove that it is, do it, and then claim you do it as an act of freewill? To be honest, I think the discussion could have ended there, but I was interested to hear your reasoning (and I greatly appreciate the input as it helps sharpen my own thinking) and I was still keen to hear your take on the Law/Grace distinction. Please don't be offended, but do I detect an attempt to reconcile the clear leading of scripture with "traditional church" practice?

Your say my brother,

God bless

Hi 4get_me,

Thanks for your response, I appreciate your sharing. That is not to say I agree. We both obviously have strong and differing views on this.

For a fuller outline of my views you can refer to my post dated  April 04, 2006, 05:08 PM.

However, there is nothing to prevent us  progressing this discussion a bit at a time, which will probably help us get to the meat of it (and have a good chew! ).

Firstly, re your quote below;
I suppose that as long as you're holding this Law-Grace dichotomy the way you do, it'll be difficult for you to see things in their contexts. I've been there - so nothing new.

I wasn't at all suggesting that you where ignorant of this. In fact, I wasn't suggesting anything at all, but I absolutely appreciate that you may well have a different take on it. I'd also appreciate your sharing your views on how grace/law ties into this particular aspect of the faith.

It would also be greatly appreciated if at the same time you could briefly spell out your understanding of the following verse;

Matthew 5:17 - "Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill.

Thanks again.

God bless

Hi 4get_me,

Thanks for your post.

You started by agreeing with me, so I can hardly take issue with that   .

The term "call to obedience", kindly explain how one is too understand that?  You also seem to tie this call with a "commitment to the faith"?

About the above, I'll say this; my commitment to the Christian faith (in terms of giving), is attested to by the fact that I give. Cheerfully and as I purpose in my heart. Finito.

You talked about giving. And I absolutely agree. Your 2 points,

a) not an obligation - agreed
b) 1. as you purpose - agreed
   2. call it a tithe - tithe means "a tenth", but if you want to call whatever you give a tithe, I  
       won't be semantic.

Again I would like you to explain "tithe & other kinds". If we are talking about resources generally (i.e time) with tithe equating to money, we are agreed. But if tithe is one kind of financial giving and there are other kinds, again I do not see anything scriptural to necessitate this distinction.

"What Pastor does with my money"

That is not a concern of mine. (The whole "Pastor" discussion, including scriptural mandate and job spec, is a whole other discussion. Maybe sometime  !)

However, unlike some, I do not subscribe to the view that I give into collections/coffers and ask no questions about the use of the money and character/conduct of those charged with disposing it. And no, I don't believe I am called to be God's "Accountant General", but I do believe I will be calle to account for the gifts and resources entrusted to me and my stewardship of same. In this regard, my feelings about God's judgment of pastors guilty of financial mismanagement becomes a mute point.

Luke 11:42 and Matthew 23:23[/color]
Personally, I think this is where some find it quite tricky.
Have you truly pondered these verses in conjunction with the Lords attitude to the law as a whole? And with reference to the Lords "fulfilling" of the law (in His birth,ministry and death)? And the doing away with the law for grace?

(I will share what informs my view on this in another post if you like, as I don't want this one to be too lengthy)

I'll say this though, I don't believe The Lords rebuke of the Pharisees was not for selective obedience;
[color=#000099]Matthew 5:20 - For I say to you, that unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven.
I believe the rebuke was for holding tightly to the letter of the law and utterly missing it's intent.

I appreciate your responses, and no, I don't find you sarcastic. You shared a little of your walk, so I'll do likewise. I used to be the "tithers tither". When God showed me how wrong I was, I refused to agree. It went against everything I held dear. But in the end, my call to obedience was between loving Him and His way or obeying my denominational inclinations. I am committed sir. To Him and to His Word. By His Spirit and by His grace.

God bless

Hi flyKude,

In one sense you are absolutely right

flyKUDE:
you just have to give that customary 10% no escaping this.

If it's a "custom" in your tradition or church denomination, fine. Give it on that basis.

But no where, to no one and at no time does the Bible teach tithing as a Christian obligation.

God bless

Hi Kimba,

Appreciate the time and effort your rejoinder obviously entailed and the heartfelt belief which I trust motivated it.

But replying in like manner, my conclusion is that you are quite simply mistaken.

Firstly, no one who subscribed to the view that wine in moderation is permissable, was championing recreational/social drinking, wanton consumption, drunkenness or alcoholism. You on the other hand seem to be responding on that basis, please rethink.

Secondly, trying to bolster your arguments by likening it to smoking is disingenuous. Smoking is in no way akin to moderate wine intake. Wine is referenced throughout scripture. Please, taking your argument to it's logical conclusion would be to charge us with advocating substance abuse.

The "whole of Gods Word is truth", and whilst drunkenness is plainly decried, the Bible does not command total abstinence.

Thirdly, arguing that the composition of the "water turned to wine" was non-alcoholic is simply making it up as you go along. I'm particularly bemused by your ad-libbing. The fact that it was not a licentious affair speaks more to moderation. The Bible states plainly that water was turned into wine. Not coloured water, not fizzy drink, nor any other "religiously correct" beverage.

Maybe this will help. The Lords supper, how was it celebrated? Could the cup have been wine? What does the following scripture suggest to you?

1Corinthians 11:21 - for as you eat, each of you goes ahead without waiting for anybody else. One remains hungry, another gets drunk.

Was Paul condemning drinking? Clearly not, only selfishness, gluttony and drunkenness.

Speaking of gluttony, a better comparison would be to food. And please note, your stance and tone would condemn everyone who was in the least bit overweight. I trust you are not sir!

All I am hearing is people using scripture to defend their positions, be they personal or denominational. Cart before horse sir. I beseech everyone not to let ingrained religiosity and tradition rob you of the liberty we have in Christ.

Could we please let scripture speak for itself. I can assure you it always does given the opportunity.

So to the more mature and those at liberty, could I close with this ;

Roman 14:20  - Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All food is clean, but it is wrong for a man to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble. 21 It is better not to eat meat or drink wine or to do anything else that will cause your brother to fall. 22 So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the man who does not condemn himself by what he approves.

And to those with doubts;

23 But the man who has doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin.


Nothing but love

God bless

Hi Uche1,

Appended is the scripture detailing the Lord turning water into wine. While I'll accept it is not an endorsement for drunkenness, I think it's fair to assume that wine has it's place and time.

John 2:1 On the third day a wedding took place at Cana in Galilee. Jesus' mother was there, 2 and Jesus and his disciples had also been invited to the wedding. 3 When the wine was gone, Jesus' mother said to him, "They have no more wine." 4 "Dear woman, why do you involve me?" Jesus replied. "My time has not yet come." 5 His mother said to the servants, "Do whatever he tells you." 6 Nearby stood six stone water jars, the kind used by the Jews for ceremonial washing, each holding from twenty to thirty gallons. 7 Jesus said to the servants, "Fill the jars with water"; so they filled them to the brim. 8 Then he told them, "Now draw some out and take it to the master of the banquet." They did so, 9 and the master of the banquet tasted the water that had been turned into wine. He did not realize where it had come from, though the servants who had drawn the water knew. Then he called the bridegroom aside 10 and said, "Everyone brings out the choice wine first and then the cheaper wine after the guests have had too much to drink; but you have saved the best till now." 11 This, the first of his miraculous signs, Jesus performed at Cana in Galilee. He thus revealed his glory, and his disciples put their faith in him.

I for one will not even consider taking the Lord to task  .

Daniel 4:35 - All the peoples of the earth are regarded as nothing. He does as he pleases with the powers of heaven and the peoples of the earth. No one can hold back his hand or say to him: "What have you done?"

God bless

Hi Guys,

At this point in time Adebayor is a "poor mans" Kanu. Unless he improves in a lot of areas, I don't see him reaching the heights Kanu did. It kind of helps that they have Arsenal in common. We'll see if Adebayor goes on to become an Arsenal legend like Kanu undoubtedly did. To be candid, in terms of performance/contribution I don't see him as a real Arsenal player just yet. And if the improvements don't come, I see a danger of him being off-loaded or at best becoming a fringe player.

Fire hard tonight Gunners!

Hi 4get-me,

For a clearer insight, would you please share your understanding of exactly how The Lord "fulfilled" the law.


To All,

The statement that "it takes money to spread the gospel" is quite simply untrue. Please show me anywhere in the Bible (particularly the book of Acts), where money was ever collected for the propagation of the gospel.

I'd appreciate your various perspectives on this.

God bless