₦airaland Forum

Ammyng: Sorry but thats gross and I think he is just trying to hard. I guess to make up from whats been going on in Catholic community

i doubt he is even trying, it naturally flows for him, he did it while he was arch bishop of buenos aires, it isn't new for him.

Biggyd2: What is the problem here? Is this not supposed to be symbolic? I think it means that those in authority should actually be servants to those who put them there. But what do we see in the world today? Our dear country is a very good example.

this was exactly the homily that d pope preached, service!

frosbel: Jesus Christ did not kiss the feet of his disciples , he washed their feet.

Jesus Christ washed the feet of repentant believers , he did not wash the feet of unrepentant criminals

Jesus Christ washed the feet in a room with his disciples, not out in the open

Jesus Christ had a real humility that flowed from him, he did not need to do anything for show , especially for applause from the authorities or media.

who made you judge? Jesus washed the feet pope kissed d feet he washed and so? How does that become bad?
And are you God to know that d deliquents whose feet were washed were unrepentant?

frosbel: So the Pope is now Christ ? SMH.

Besides Jesus did it in a small room with only his disciples present , and to show them that if he their master could do it , they should do it to each other.

False religion always does things for show , while true religion does things in secret and out of true humility.

i just remembered the early xtians called themselves alter christus, another christ. Anti christ means contrary to christ. Washing feet isn't contrary to christ, and secondly d pope didnt do the above in a basilica he did it in a prison with very limited press presence.

oyibomoses: i no see black man for there, i dont like this

i b read 4 news say na from many nationality and race, i no know why camera no show any black person

Freksy: Italo, can you recall what happened when Uzzah and his brother Ahio led the wagon carrying the ark of the covenant from their house when David wanted it brought to Jerusalem?
When the bulls pulling the wagon nearly caused an upset, Uzzah reached out and grabbed hold to steady the Ark, for which God struck him dead on the spot.
At first, King David saw nothing wrong with the use of a more advanced technique then (the Wagon) to carry the Ark, rather than using the authorized means - for Kohathite Levites to carry it with the poles on their shoulders as God had directed. God's anger would not have been incurred if he had done the right thing. - Ex 25:13, 14; Nu 7:9. Remember, the bible did not specifically say: "thou shall not use the wagon" or "Uzzah should never prevent the Ark from falling".

Notwithstanding Uzzah's presumably good intentions to prevent the Ark from falling, he was judged as acting in "error." (2Sa 6:7) This was because deliberate disobedience was involved. God had instructed that under no circumstances was the Ark to be touched by unauthorized persons. (Nu 4:15, 19, 20)

What God wanted his worshipers to do concerning the death of his son was stated explicitly in the Bible. Jesus had even demonstrated this with his disciples a night before his death, and commanded as follows: "... this do in remembrance of me" - Luke 22:19.
When a clear-cut instruction is deliberately overstepped, it is a sin. When proper things that needs to be done are deliberately ignored, it is a sin. "So whoever knows what is good to do and does not do it is guilty of sin. - James 4:17 NET.

that means using a microphone in the church is sinful too! According to your logic.
And take note uzzah died not for "overstepping" as you claim but by "disobeying". The law say don't touch, he touched. On the otherhand the bible says " where the is no law, there is no sin". You can't accuse someone of sin becos he is celebrating the ressurection of Christ unless you can show the law or principle and expressly say or imply "don't celebrate the ressurection of christ".

italo: Notice how you answered all my previous questions with questions.

If you cannot defend your position, then kindly go and do something else with your time.

Dont waste my time here in the pretext that you have something worthwhile to say when you have nothing.

hehehe, just visited the thread and i am surprised to see the merry-go-round you guys have been doing.
I won't exactly commend you on this one, i still think you've gat to tone down a little if you want your points to be understood.

Oga ihendi, i'll say i'm surprised, i never really seen you enter into an arguement and pick up the trival, "my teachings not my teachings", "church vs magisterium", "syncan's idea of church is peter" e.t.c (i didnt attempt to quote you exactly).
I noticed the last part dealt with church vs magisterium, and i was more surprised when i read the part about usurping the holyspirit (hope i didnt misrepresent you). I was like wow! Really?
The magisterium from magister simply means teacher, in essence i believe that in the church there has alway been an authority for the interpretation of God's word. The council of Jerusalem comes to mind, the prebyters and episcopi were seen to discuss and decide on matters of doctrine for the christian people. And contrary to usurping the holyspirit they said "it seems good to the holyspirit and to us". Simply put they have arrived at a decision by the action of the holyspirit, the presbyters show themselves as teachers of God's people by the help of the holyspirit. I really haven't seen a place in d new tes where teaching became forbiden because the faithful are now God's children. I also do not know how come you seem to say each individual christian is his own teacher by the spirit in him. If that was the case then i will ask why did paul bother himself to write 1st and 2nd cor since the christian were suppose to be the final arbiter in doctrine. And honestly your principle of self interpretation is the reason for 40000 and still counting ecclesia communities who seem to agree only on the fact that "JESUS IS LORD".

Hehehe, enjoy your thread.

Ihedinobi: You're kidding, right? You really think the EU will turn her back on the US? Wanna venture a guess why?

i country would act first in its own interest! With russia literally above europe, i seriously doubt all the european countries will be supporting the U. S from whom they are separated by oceans.

I'm sure I don't understand what you are saying here. How will Russia be in trouble because she has Europe south of her if the EU won't back the US? Why wjll her Asian neighbors help to secure her Pacific border? Because they like her?

i didn't say anything about the E U, instead i talked about the possibility of each country chosing sides, the result will be pro russian countries against pro american countries.
In the event of a war, i take it japan and china will ally themselves with russia instead of the U. S, this will bring the pacific under control.

Which countries can serve as some examples and how are you sure that their hatred for the US will outweigh their concern for any other consequence of allying themselves with America's enemies?

as i said earlier, they won't be taking active part in the war. They'll simply give the enemy a free hand. For example a possible network of "terrorist-mercenary" cell will be efficent in a war against the U. S. Cuba and venezula will give them breathing space.

Israel will be isolated? Ok, I can accept that she will be, but I'm gaping at her neighbor's ganging up to teach her a lesson. I wonder if you know either the history or current happenings of and in that region. I said the region will explode becaise that part of the world is about the least predictable except for the fact that Israel will beat the hell out of anyone in that region that attacks them. If for some weird reason, the Arabs actually form a successful alliance to take on Israel, things will get really simple.

In such an event, there'll be just two sides: Israel and the Arabs and the Arabs aren't a safe bet even then. But should they in fact beat Israel, they'll instantly turn on each other.
The more likely event however is that Israel will try to confuse the alliance and the fight will grow messy. Then Israel might pick them off one by one or just watch them kill each other off and help by killing anyone that runs her way. However, Israel might survive with very severe and deep wounds. Because in royal rumbles, just about any freaking thing can happen.

you overestimate isreal. No army can fight a war on all fonts at the same time.

Honestly, the above didn't make a lot of sense to me. When I think you're saying that US allies will act to protect America, you end up saying they'll in fact fight America. When I think you're going to show how pro-Russian American states are going to will feature I get something that doesn't quite make sense.
Why would South American states go to war across the ocean just cos they hate America? It makes more sense that they should attack America herself next door. But then US allies also next door will beat the crap out of them for trying. You thought of Canada and, at least, Brazil, didn't you when you were typing? On the American continents, one of them is a military heavyweight too and the other is a budding heavywweight.

by states i mean countries pro american european countries. That will clarify things.

Ihedinobi: You guys do understand the phrase, 'relatively speaking', right?

What remaind is to be sure that you are right in your claim, @chukwudi44. That's why I asked you what council you refered to and what canon it produced.

your "relative" statement gave rise to a "relative" answer. My response wasn't becos i misunderstood ur post but becos i wanted to show how it would be.

italo: @ Reyginus,

I dont see where Ubenedictus said the body's without the head. Can you show me? God bless you as you do so.

this is quite interesting, i just visited d thread and saw d post, i was like, "what does this mean?"

Reyginus: Yes, really. That Christ gave us the power to both bind and loose does not indicate in any way the absence of the head. Do we bind and loose in our name or in Jesus's?

no it doesn't, i didn't imply it did. I do not seperate the doctrinal teachings of the church from church.
And seriously, i do not know what u imply by the above.

[quote author=Atheist:-D]In all cases. The combined jihadic efforts have killed more than Christian Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition combined.[/quote]i'll ask you to hold that thought, the muhamedans had a practice of occupying conquered states, a military skill the crusaders lacked. Both armies killed much but i don't think i will make a statement like the above.

[quote author=Atheist:-D]The crusaders did more to hamper Christianity than to halt Islams growth. Where were the Crusaders when the Ottomans conquered Constantinople? Oh yeah.... squabbling amiongst themselves as usual, what about Jerusalem? Same thing.[/quote]constantinople was a fortified city the seat of an empire, if anything constantinople should have been protecting others not the other way round.


In Jerusalem the 1st crusade did halt the ottaman advance. But ofcourse in those days it would be impossible for d western soldier to totally hold jerusalem since the ottaman empire was closer to jerusalem than the west. This caused a military disadvantage thus neccesitating more crusades.

adexsimply: your point?

my point is simple, we are talking about holy thursday and someone bring up da vinci code. Its just like talking about God and someone brings up the devil.

xtayle: May be you don't know but let me tell you. Catholics do not even worship Mary the mother of Jesus that they deceptively claim they worship. They just used her for cover up. Actually, they worship a roman goddess called d "queen of heaven". The romans founded d Catholic Church to worship their goddess because they believe she's the wife of God. They called her holy mary just to legitimize her worship biblically.

So they formed their church and designed their acceptable mode of worship outside d ordinances of the bible. Their service (or is it mass) is guided by a special book completely in contrast with the teachings of the bible.

whee did the romans found the catholic church? I dey wait for ya answer.

bukatyne: So you believe that Christians and Muslims serve the same God?

INTERESTING!

i believe God alone know those who trully serve him and he alone can save them.

Ihedinobi: Ok. You know, I was just thinking about all those books that were rejected when each canon was formed. I mean, you Romans have seven books more than us Protestants and apparently eight books less than the Egyptian (or was it Ethiopian?) Church.

So, relatively speaking, you removed eight books from the Bible, at least from the Egyptian (or Ethiopian) point of view. They could say the same thing to you that you say to us.

However, your mention of the first church council lands us in a discussion of history. So let me ask you. What council do you refer to as the first? And what was the canon it produced?

actually the ethiopian church can't claim d romans removed anything. The early church used the septuagint and the extra 8 books can't be found among the early church. Only one charge can be made, the ethiopean church added 8 books to their canon.

[quote author=frosbel2][/quote]hehehe, most of the guy you named were historical human beings not some myth formed to resemble some gods.

Billyonaire: Why is the thread sounding so Italian?

actually its sounding latin. It seems most catholic cathedral will probably be singing at least one latin or greek song depending on the rite.

adexsimply: did anyone read THE DAVINCI CODE?

someone once said on Nl, it's no surprise that when we talk of God the devil comes to mind.

pleep: Japan is lucky america used nukes sef... either way they were finished.

my dear, this is very untrue!! Strategically and technically japan had the advantage, for all intent and purposes america was as good as asking for a treaty. The thing nobody saw coming were the nukes!! Why do you think d U. S would use d nukes at that time. Infact is was a desperate move to shift the advantage.

Michaeljones36: In the future...

India will be a military superpower
China will be a military superpower
Russia will be a military superpower
Europe will be a military superpower (the EU)
The US will be a military superpower
Brazil will be a military superpower (if they ever fully implement their nuclear weapons program)


The real question is...where is Africa on this list?

actually my dear the way i see it, in the future most if not all the above superpowers would have distroyed themselves. Africa becomes d next superpower.

[quote author=shy-mmex]For all the theoretical American propaganda in the east - the Iskander missile alone will negate NATO's advancement in the east... Everything is just to bully defenceless and little countries... Where was NATO when Russia's reservists and their weakest Army regiment pummelled Georgia George Bush ranted and the other NATO countries murmured, but nothing happened... They had to send Sarkozy to Moscow a few times to plead with Putin...

Why's NATO scared of direct confrontation is Syria Tell them to declare a no-fly zone there to save humanity and see if the Russians won't use their fighter jets for target practice... You know the Russians are in Tartus, right?? And they deployed a few Iskander missiles there to counter the less efficient American Patriot missiles...

America is more or less a paper tiger, to be honest... Let's all pray against a wider war - the US is too immature to take on countries with years of experience in fighting wars... The yanks just like claiming everyone's glory as theirs like they claimed World war 2... every sane person knows that the Russians won that war for Europe...[/quote]and who say the japanese wouldnt have beaten the americans if not for the nukes. This time nukes will be matched with nukes

Ihedinobi: I doubt that I have the capacity to sympathize with NK. I pity her people for their misery but not the nation herself. And if she puts her money where her mouth is, she'll be dead at the end of the skirmish.

Also, I think the Chinese will be hurt badly by such an event and, like @bookface said, will indees try to prevent it, but it will cost them tremendously to do so if it all comes to blows. If Russia weighs in, so will pretty much everyone else and we'll have us a merry old royal rumble.

This does indeed have the capacity to trigger a third world war with fronts pretty much everywhere because the Chinese will be trying to maintain a buffer as has already been said in siding in with NK and Russia might be capitalizing on an opportunity if China is on full offensive with the US. The Middle East will simply explode without the American pressure valve if America is wrestling with two heavyweights unless Japan and South Korea prove equal to handling the Pacific front and I think that they will. Europe might throw her weight behind the US, in fact, I think she will and that should be a deterrent to Russia.

Unless everyone considers the cons, everyone will go to war. That's how I see it and if alliances can be trusted, NK will vanish from the map and Russia and China will be badly set back for years if not a full decade at least in development. The US won't suffer as badly as they two will but she definitely will. The world economy will take a very nasty hit too.

Still can't see much more than reverberations or ricochets in Africa who manages to always gain nothing from such events while suffering everything. Africa is like the poor kid that suffers when the adulta have killed themselves off.

NK would be a grand fool to really go to war with even SK alone. She's got no reason to fight except hate and, perhaps, jealousy. She can't say she's fighting to protect herself if she treats herself the way it is reported that she does. She might just want to force someone else to feel her pain or something. And her opponents will be fighting to preserve life which motive can make weak men do superhuman things.

while i believe that north korea is simply trying to threathen the U.S i doubt a 3rd world war won't affect the U. S that much. England will support the U. S but i doubt all europe will do same!! Russia will be in trouble since europe in in its south, the asian countries will help securing its pacific boder. U S on the otherhand has made interesting enemies in its south, those countries may not actively participate but they'll allow d enemies of the U. S to use them as lauching pads.
All in all, isreal will be isolated, asia will use the U. S base in the region for target practice, isreal's neighbour will team up and teach isreal a lesson. Pro russian american states will engage Pro american European states and russia will be pulling its weight to protect its allies. China, japan will protect d pacific fontiers and will have no problem joining to isolate U. S base in the area and attacking europe. Russia's main pre occupation will be the U. S, the atlantic frontier will be the battle field. Cuba, venezuela and co will serve as bases against the U S and d U S will take pleasure in crushing them. At the end i don't think the present world powers will still be world powers.

Segeggs: INTERFAITH is wrong and not biblical. What has light got to do with darkness?

Catholism just loves to mix lies with truth just like how the thread shows that non-christian ways can lead to christ-absolutely false.

you will be very surprised when you see some non-christians in heaven!!

gunners160: I was chattin wit a frnd 2day nd i asked her hw is she preparin 4 easter only 4 her 2 tell me dat she dnt celebrate easter i asked her y she told me dat it is a pagan way of worship nd nt biblical. pls is easter celebration nt biblical because i am confuse oooooo

the question you should have asked her is: DID JESUS THE SON OF GOD RISE FROM THE DEAD
If he did, IS IT WORTH CELEBRATING
That's all.

peteregwu: hey, chukwudi. be very careful, you are kicking against what you don know. we speak what we know. i am a member of this ministry, not only a member but a bonafide one, and also a born agiain chrisian. pls be very careful u are trying to carry the load u cant carry. u will think that this is just nairaland...hmmm...God is much more dreadful than satan in this matter. the worst thing is that when one fall into the hand of satan God can deliver that one. but u fall into the hand the living God, who then can deliver u.
the very reason u are saying this is becaus u are a catholic, and u are angry because we have against catholic doctrine. i see your fears and dissapointment. yes, it is true, a church thay does not go in line with the word, as a child of God, i have to speak against it in other for others to recognise the fact about the bible before they fall into the ditch.

you have been busy insulting d pope for calling for dialogue with muslims, now the table as turned and we see an accusation made against ur pastor and you are crying "u are trying to carry d load u can't carry".

xtayle: Them be brothers. Catholic na senior and islam na junior. In catholic, they have what they call "our lady of Fatima". They have an age-long alliance that probably didn't work. What has Catholic got to do with Fatima?

Both of them are grand deceptions.

i thought i was discussing with people who could make research, instead see all these silly accusation. Whatever u call urself go and make ur research Fatima is a place in portugal.

xtayle: Eeya!!

So "I fathered u in d lord" means rev. Father, mother and sister to you?

i guess u also have a problem with english language

So because Gabriel greeted mary then humans must worship her for d rest of our lives? Where is it written that as xtians, we should worship mary the way gabriel greeted her?

you are on your own, i said it before that u have a problem with english! You asked where d hail mary is in d bible, i showed you and d next thing u do, is to shout worship did u see anything like worship in what i said? GO back to school and learn to comprehend english.

Yes! Jesus is d Word and he's God but a worthy human vessel was necessary if he was to walk on the earth for the purpose of salvation. That was d role played by Mary. She was just a worthy vessel and

the bolded simply means anyone who gave birth to him has born God the son. The person is d mother of God d son.
I repeat: english!

obadiah777: YOU DO ERR

NOT KNOWING SCRIPTURE!!!
Hehehe

Enigma: OK

Was that eunuch taught specific "doctrines" like "papal infallibility", "transubstantiation", "universal jurisdiction"?

i see your aim is to riddicle.
I wasn't there, i do not know d exact specifics of what he was or wasn't taught.