₦airaland Forum

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,

[quote author=4get_me link=topic=10902.msg311559#msg311559 date=1145895897]Wine - yes, permissible;
Alchohol - not encouraged.[/quote]"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?"

[quote author=4get_me link=topic=10902.msg310984#msg310984 date=1145885447]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?[/quote]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).

[quote author=4get_me link=topic=10902.msg310984#msg310984 date=1145885447]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?[/quote]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,

[quote author=4get_me link=topic=272.msg305767#msg305767 date=1145628824]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[/quote]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

Hi Babymine

A glass of red wine a day appears to have served the French very well in health terms.

Personally I've never had a drink (before or since I became a Christian, sweettoothed me  ). If I decided to have the odd glass of wine with some meals (porridge and wine sounds somewhat odd  ), it would be a question of how much is beneficial? and how much is too much? As long as I could reconcile those two points no problem

I have heard it preached that drinking is actually a sin, but I don't agree with that. Study the Bible, be led by the Holy Spirit and draw your own conclusions.


God bless

Hi Babymine,

I don't believe drinking in moderation is wrong.
I believe the Bible teaches us not to be drunk with wine (Ephesians 5:18)

The medicinal effects of the occasional glass of red wine are well documented.
Paul exhorted Timothy to drink a little wine for his frequent infirmities ( 1 Timothy 5:23, another Bible first! ) But please note he said "a little".

The bible calls wine/strong drink a mocker (Proverbs 20:1), and describes drunkards as unwise.

The word "drunk" is also used in some instances to describe the pouring out of
God's wrath, (we should be aware and careful as strong drink is not the only thing one can be drunk on). But that's probably a bit "off-thread" so I'll stop.


God bless

Mmmmm, "Sleep paralysis", so that's what its called?  

Regardless of all the scientific theories, the mountains of detailed analysis and the most laborious foresensic research, what can trump the empirical?

Call it what you will, I had it bad.
As soon as I repented towards God and placed my faith in Jesus Christ. It left.
No prayer, no fasting, no sacrifice. Gone like a shot! Not an incidence in 7 years.

Glory to God (always!)

4get_me (et al),

Pray do not be offended, I was in no way belittling your "ministry" (keep up the good work!). I had a brief look at the "Reverends" site a while back, and even the cursory look I took revealed that neither he nor it were to be taken in the slightest degree seriously.

Thank you for your lengthy rejoinder.

Since you only responded to the first of the two points I made, can I take it that we are agreed on the second point?

God bless

Hi 4real,

Your quote below;

4real:
well one thing i know about Christ embassy members is that they would defend there pastor till death do them part, wither the guy is right or wrong, as for me i just think for the program they did not get there acts right and so if there is going to be more programs there should be more help to clear up the road. and people please we worship God and not man.

I'm not sure wether you realise it or not (or intended it or not), but your statement suggests a form of "idolatry".

I'm not taking a position for or against the person or the ministry involved (I know next to nothing specific about either). I find that statement speaks deeply about faith and religion as it is now practiced/lived.

I also have friends and family who respond in like manner to inquiries about the "ministries" or "men of God" they follow.

I hope people think about this.


And too the ministry in question;
Proverbs 15:1 - soft answer turns away wrath, But a harsh word stirs up anger[color=#000099][/color]

I think a heartfelt acceptance that things did not go altogether smoothly and sincere apologies to anyone that was inconvenienced would have quenched a lot of ire and given people cause to hold you in esteem for your humility.

God bless

Hi Welborn,

Hope all is well.

Non-technical me is having all sorts of problems figuring out where everyhing is. But I'm improving, please bear with me, my excuses for tawdry responses are in no way as laudable as yours.

The way many people view the question of denominations or groups of Christian gatherings are many times uninformed,
In response to your point above, please advise how you feel I am uninformed. My position is taking God's truth, re-codifying it, building structures and traditions around it is simply wrong.

I trust that anyone who has believed in Jesus Christ as the Bible prescribes is actually born again (John 1:12; 3:3-5).
I'm sure (re Galatians 3:26, we had agreed on this point). And again, I absolutely agree that there will be error, either due to immaturity or mis-interpretation. But what denominationalism has the tendency to do is codify error, enforce it by man-made laws, and stop people enquiring for themselves.

I'm off too read the response you posted for me (how do you do that? - Non-technical me ! )

But may I ask you this.

We have touched on error, but in some sense, thats a continuum that includes error, heresy and apostasy. Error is fine (in as much as one is open to being corrected), but it becomes heresy when it is codified and at some stage abounds to apostasy.

I wouldn't want to ascribe anything to you, so I'll ask,

1. What is your personal stance (or denominational take).
2. Is apostasy ever an issue? And if yes, when?

I'm enjoying and I'm learning.

Thank you and God bless

Hi Jagunlabi,

I think your thread has been well served by the responses thus far. I hope they have helped.

There's been a high level, objective response, a detailed, personal one, and a summary post. Quite comprehensive coverage and in a few responses.

I think even the way the question was framed gives the word/term "religion" a pejorative tone. And I'd agree with that. Religion as rite, ritual and obligation is definitely what Christianity is not. What it is is a relationship with God The Father, being transformed into the likeness The Son, by the power of The Holy Spirit.

That which is characterised by temples, mediatory priesthoods, physical sacrifices and other outward things is mere religion. And yes there is something like that which calls itself "Christian". Personally, I don't subscribe to that and for the purpose of this thread, have the following to say about it;

1. I don't believe that that expression is in it's essence different from any other "religion".
2. They are real "Christians" and seekers of truth in those modes of expression.

So sir, where you at? We have had opportunity to participate in a few threads together and I get a sense of someone who wants truth and is earnestly enquiring. I won't ask if you are disillusioned, doubting or just plain disbelieving, but I will encourage you to keep on seeking.

I discovered that if you go looking for the truth of God in Christ Jesus, no matter how clumsily you go about it, the Truth will find you.


God bless

Kimba, 4get Me, 4 real, Hi,

I can see that you guys are having fun on this thread, but two things

1. I don't think this chap is the type the Bible warns us about (Kimba @ 9:35:53 PM yesterday).
    Would anyone with half a brain cell and even the slightest desire for truth really be fooled by this
    guy? No, I don't think so. The false prophets the Bible warns us about will appear as angels of
    light, ministers of righteousness even. They'll look and sound like the real thing. There'll be signs
    wonders and mighty works, they'll even do things in "His name". I see a Joker at best and a   
    weirdly perverse mind at worse.

2. As for disgracing the title of "Reverend", that title along with a host of others have no place in 
    the Christian lexicon. So no disgrace there. He's free to call himself whatever he chooses.

Enjoy.

God bless

Hi Welborn,

I'm not sure we we are in the discussion, especially after the problems with the database, so I'll reply briefly.

I thing I''ve made my point about denominationalism and the fact that there are degrees of error and corruption in them all (which may or may not include pagan rituals).

Galatians 3:26 - For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.

My point exactly, anything more (tradition), or anything less is not faith in Jesus Christ.

And no, I don't agree with Jagunlabi, although he does have a point about syncretism being a problem.

Like I said I'm not sure if this is ahead/behind where we have already got to. I hope you have a better understanding of my perspective now.

Thanks & God bless

Hi Lioness,

After the problems with the database, I was just browsing a few of the threads again and came across your post quoted below.

lioness:
I have come to the conclusion that there are
1. Christians - who follow Christ Jesus, believers in his teachings, Love and atonement
2. Denominational worshippers - those who worship their denomination. Those who would rather die for their church/denomination instead of dying for Christ.

That pretty much captures a point I arrived at. I'm really interested to hear how this understanding has worked itself out in your walk.

Please let me know if/when/how.

God bless

Hi Lioness,

After the problems with the database, I was just browsing a few of the threads again and came across your post quoted below.
quote author=lioness link=topic=2894.msg287609#msg287609 date=1144850575]
I have come to the conclusion that there are
1. Christians - who follow Christ Jesus, believers in his teachings, Love and atonement
2. Denominational worshippers - those who worship their denomination. Those who would rather die for their church/denomination instead of dying for Christ.
[quote][/quote]That pretty much captures a point I arrived at. I'm really interested to hear how this understanding has worked itself out in your walk.

Please let me know if/when/how.

God bless