₦airaland Forum

Deep Sight:
What actuates the elements to derive developments in the biological make-up of the creature which further its survivability and thereby furthers life?

But hey, you often make reference to the idea of something that "furthers life" - but furthering life is one thing, and the origin of life is quite another. The point here is for you to solve the gap between these great leaps by showing HOW evolution "proves" creation.

Amico mio, viaro is doing well, thanks. And you?

The thing here is that your presentation is not helping the topic of your thread, nor helping us to see that you have a grasp of what you're trying to present. I'm not an expert on either evolution or creation - but I'm really curious about what you're saying, which is neither here nor there. Let's see a few examples:

Deep Sight:
Extinction does occur. But when some species go extinct, other species go on to survive.

Extinction answers your question earlier - to show that creatures die off completely.

Indeed natural selection as a theory is based on the very extinction of species that were unable to survive.

I don't know if that is what natural selection - as a theory - is based on. Perhaps, those who are versed in paleobiology would claim that field as theirs proper.

The theory which states that some species change and develop competitive features which enhance survival begs the question -

What actuates the development of such features?

Survival.

But what does 'survival' point to - that was what I'd wanted you to show. Your answer would throw us again to the initial question of "how" evolution proves anything about creation.

Why the need to survive? What is the Earth's/ Nature's/ the universe's (whichever you choose) interest in survival, such that creatures are impelled to develop features that enhance survival?

I'm not actually gonna play the devil's advocate here - but I don't think that cosmological sciences deem that the interest of the Universe (however you may term that) is 'survival' as such - and it all depends on what reference point you're approaching your subject from. Point is, not all systems within the cosmos from a naturalistic perspective are interested in either their own survival or the survival of other systems. Elements within systems may tend to seem like they are "interested" in survival - but that is far fetched outside of biological life and other assumed/hypothesised intelligences.

Does this not point to a propelling element furthering life?

No. At least, we know that diseases for instance do not tend to fit that descriptive element.

Can you tell me what actuates the need to survive?

I cannot tell you everything, because I don't know. I could only point to some - which again would not be descriptive of all such 'need to survive'. However, neither survival nor evolution "proves" anything about creation - which is what I think is more weighty here as a concern that you should show.

Enigma:
Repeated for emphasis:

You can do so from now till the nth page of this thread - doesn't change anything from the same reply I gave earlier. Come back and repeat it again to show how small you are.

skyone:
Common fool you dont need to run helplessly mad just because i exposed what composed her existence

You're kidding, right?

Enigma:
Repeated for emphasis:

It matters nothing of how many times you repeat a LIE from the pit of hell - it is a lie. Period. The better thing to do is just be open for a discussion to see how your emphasis was misplaced.

Deep Sight:
Why is it not simply that creatures rather than mutate or develop, just die off as a whole?

Ever heard of extinction?

Why is there the need for anything to survive? ? ?

How does the need for survival "prove" either evolution or creation?
Which of the two between evolution and creation is 'the need for anything to survive' pointing to?

It's interesting to see the development of this thread - something that started out as a simple enquiry now exploding to all sorts.

Besides, it seems that some poeple are confusing between giving (whether tithes or any other type) and domestic concerns (rents, bills, etc). Infact, an example of one of the most nonsensical I have ever read is this one:

Enigma:
There is no tithing requirement; the best they will come up with is Matthew 23:23 or Hebrews 7 (neither of which they understand and neither of which says a Christian should tithe; in fact, Hebrews 7 makes clear that "tithing" is abolished).

The highlighted is a lie from the pit of HELL! Hebrews 7 does not argue that tithing was abolished - infact, there is not a single verse in the entire Bible that argues that tithing was ever abolished! NONE WHATSOEVER! Theologians who even argue against tithe know that for a fact! That whole chapter clearly puts two types of tithes before us - neither of which was abolished! If you want to argue Hebrews 7, please open a thread and brace yourself to discover what you don't know. But please stop spreading this absolute lie from the darkest hell where you just simply have not done your homework!

People may have differing views on this subject - at the end of the day, the OP himself is mature enough to decide on what to do. Giving tithes is not to be confused for taking care of your necessary living. Infact, in an earlier comment, I tried to point out that coerced giving in any form is contrary to God's will for His children - because He wanted us to know that things having to do with our necessities for landed property is entirely in our own control (see Acts 5).

This has always been the principle, and another is found in Luke 14:28-30 where the Lord Jesus notes that if a man is trying to build a house (or a tower), he first must sit down and count the cost to see whether he has enough to complete the project! He even went as far as to say that if the builder embarks upon his project but does not complete it, such a person would only expose himself to public mockery! The analogy here is that you should first sit down and weigh your options carefully - because if you gave a tithe (which is perfectly within your celebrated rights), and yet fall short of completing your rents, you will only expose yourself to public ridicule - and believe me, on the authority of those verses, no amount of crying, praying, fasting for breakthrough will automatically esxplode more money into your hands.

Again, let me reiterate that all this is not to discourage you from giving in any form of your choice. Yes, for the Christian there is a choice in this matter - as a man has purposed in his heart to give (2 Cor. 9:7). Rather, this is to encourage you to determine for yourself what you want to do in a responsible way. There is no obligation for you in either case, but there is enough in the NT to warn us to make informed decisions in matters like this. If you are starting a project for a two year rent, commit it to God - and He who provided to meet this need will furnish you with more at the end of those two years.

Yes, when you make other income, you may determine to give from those. If you don't drop a coin from this rent money, God is not going to break your neck or blast your roof to leak through in the stormy rain. Why? He has clearly told you that it is in your control to do as you may (Acts 5). There is a time for every thing and every purpose - and we should not confuse them. What is due for your rent, keep for your rent; and what you have determined to set aside for your giving in church, set aside for that purpose. Although it is more blessed to give than to receive, people whould not be put on edge when situations like this come up.

Go through God's Word and check out what I've pointed out. God will not have you confused in money matters having to do with your shelter or housing projects. What is even far more dangerous is to find yourself giving something because you feel coerced to do so.

If at the end of the day you determine in yourself to give out everything and expect a greater blessing from the Provider Himself, then my last line is this: "Hast thou faith? have it to thyself before God. Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth" - Romans 14:22. You alone are responsible for what you allow - both in this case and any other major decision in your life. Shalom.

Perhaps the poster of this topic simply does not understand the meaning of either evolution or creation. HOW has evolution "proven" creation in this cyclical cacophony?

That something tends towards life DOES not tell you anything about the origin of LIFE or even anything about existence in the first place! Once again, I'm afraid you're taking very huge jumps to very hasty conclusions.

Deep Sight:
Malbron as you advised me the other day: its a waste of energy. Odd people who believe that Elijah went into "heaven" (wherever that is) with his physical body simply cannot be reasoned with.

What makes us "odd people" simply because we have established that Elijah did not die and YOU have not been able to show otherwise? Why is it that you have come down this low in your duplicity?

Joagbaje:
I dont really get your point. Maybe youre missing me somewhere., You may explain yoursef better. Your response has no relevance to what I was saying. except i miss your point.

Okay, let me try again.

This is part of what you said:

Joagbaje:
The issue of perfection (maturity)came from Christ which has to do with a level of growth ,maturity attained by denial ,sacrifice and, conquering greed and covetousness, through giving money.

The part that was of concern to me is the one highlighted, viz - 'conquering greed and covetousness, through giving money.'

I was wondering if the Bible teaches that it is by giving money that a Christian is supposed to conquer greed and covetousness. That seems to be what your statement indicates; and that was why I tried to point out that the Bible teaches something other than that. The point in mine was that, Scripture shows us that only by the power of the Holy Spirit could we hope to live a life that conquers such things, and it is not by giving money.

There are people who are covetous without necessarily focusing on money. Covetousness takes different forms, and because both believers and non-believers face this problem, we are warned to beware of covetousness (Luke 12:15).

However, for many people the form of covetousness is not about money but on other things (such as coveting someone else's wife - Exo. 20:17). The Bible shows that "from the least of them even unto the greatest of them every one is given to covetousness" (Jer. 6:13) - in such a situation, how are those people to conquer covetousness? Is it through "giving money", as you said? Is "giving money" the recommended way to conquer greed and covetousness? What would you say about how Paul overcame the same problem in Romans 7 and 8?

I hope this will help you understand what I posted earlier.

A poll will not solve your problem. Do another poll on whether to stay clean or play dirty on your babe - the results may mislead you, lol  

On a serious note, if I were in your shoes, I would just ignore that Sunday blarring about tithe from that pastor and pay my two year rent pronto. How is it that only when your pastor 'heard' of your fortune that he has been honking on the tithe message?

Don't let anyone put pressure on you to give out money whether by tithe or freewill offering by any means of mechanical prodding. The 'giving' by the believer is supposed to be from the heart - and this principle is what obtains in both the OT and NT (see e.g., Exodus 25:2 and 2 Cor. 9:7).

Again, if you have determined to do a certain thing especially with regards to landed property (sale, rent, mortgage, lease, etc), you are absolutely within your own determined right to do as you please! Let the example of Acts 5 speak to your heart - it fits in here with the question of "part of the price" (see v. 2). Ananias could not make up his mind and had to suffer for it - a salutory lesson for many believers who think to impress God with coerced giving.

What did Peter say to Ananias in Acts 5? Here - "Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power?" (verse 4). I like the way EMTV puts it: "While it remained unsold, did it not remain yours? And after it was sold, was it not in your control?"

Bro, you are perfectly alright to determine for yourself what to do with money set aside for landed property - whether selling, buying, leasing, renting, mortgaging - the Bible says it is in your control! To me, I sense that God very early showed us the seriousness of coerced giving - it results in double mindedness and brings with it all sorts of sad results.

So, don't feel pressured to fall into the trap of "part of the price" (see v. 2) - no matter how the pastor brings new Sunday messages about tithes, or freewill giving, or sacrifice, or anything else. I am not saying you should not give by any means; but what I am saying is that you should not be pressured into a situation where giving becomes (and remains) a problem to you.

Every man according as he purposeth in his heart, . . . not grudgingly, or of necessity - 2 Corinthians 9:7. Bless up.

@Joagbaje,

Perhaps this is the first time I would address you. I've tried to follow some of your posts to see just what you're putting forward - although I have not gone through everything to make an informed opinion, there seems to be cause for concern in your post above. Good sense in some of the things you stated, but here is the problem -

Joagbaje:
The issue of perfection (maturity)came from Christ which has to do with a level of growth ,maturity attained by denial ,sacrifice and, conquering greed and covetousness, through giving money.

Matthew 19:21
Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.

Indeed, part of the process of our growing into maturity involves denial, sacrifice - and conquering greed and covetousness. But I'm not so sure that the last two bits ('conquering greed and covetousness') are obtained through giving money. Maybe this is one reason why some have had some problems with your posts in the past? I don't know.

However, it seems to me that while we should beware of covetousness (Luke 12:15), the struggle is often depicted as a spiritual event, and the resources to overcome are also rather spiritual. I don't want to sound presumptive, but let me refer you to a few examples:

(a) Paul experienced this same struggle in Romans 7:7 - 'I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet'.

(b) He goes on to recognize the real problem in Rom. 7:14 - 'For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.'

(c) Of course, his way of overcoming this was not through giving money, but rather as expressed in Rom. 8:2 - 'For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.'

It seems that is the principle found in so many passages and follows that pattern: we overcome these issues by the power of the Holy Spirit in our lives, and not by material things - and I think that aletheia has repeatedly pointed this very thing to us.

ogajim:
Now this viaro "DUDE" is sounding more and more like

Like what? Belch it out and you'll get the same thing I reserve for dolts like you. I was trying to be reasonable with you until you showed you can't contain yourself until you throw up your stupidity my way. Try me.

You can't touch a nerve or sore spot with me at all because I have experience ignoring folks who have nothing useful to contribute to a given situation.

Good - then zip it and say nothing! If a nerve in you was not touched, why are you at pains to come back trying to cover your dirty face with verbal cosmetics? I, for one, don't take twerps like you with kids glove, and I won't even try and pretend to be nice to tosspots like you who can't be healed from your dementia.

The Haiti relief example remains that- an EXAMPLE but i guess you're too full or your own self to realize that. It was a QUESTION.

You're a dou[color=Black]ble idio[/color]t. Where did viaro ever try to deny anyone the right or privilege to donate towards the Haiti relief efforts as you previously hinted? If I didn't say any such thing, why bring in that stu[color=Black]pid ill[/color]ation to make it look like that was what I was about here in this thread?

I have never been to Italy (if that's where you really are) and really have no intention of going there when I have OPTIONS to go elsewhere in the EU, UK, etc.

And your point is. . .? Who wants dolts like you in Italy? Since you throw the 'Italian girls' thingy in my way, I only served you back pronto - can't handle your own dirty games, no?

There is a certain Nigerian "ting" to what we discuss on here and no amount of digital "fish wrap" experience can give you the whole picture, out of sight is not out of mind for most of us so even if I don't reside in Nigeria at the moment, I can't escape being a Nigerian even if I wanted to.

Thankfully, not many Nigerians are tosspots like you, or we would have been very sorry that you claim to be one. What is the Nigerian 'ting' that you can't discuss until you desperately run from pillar to post insinuating all sorts of what I never once inferred?

I refuse to stoop too low to be calling you names, I have standards below which I don't operate.

You don't operate what is above and beyond you - so just zip it. On the other hand, I don't have stomach for silly trumps like you.

Fela's ODOO comes to mind as another reference going going forward

Yes, we know you can't resist adding up the multiinfarct dementia to your CV. Well done.

^^If it is not panadol, is just is NOT.

nuclearboy:
Wetin happen again? E be like Seun never know say na you gan-gan be NL O. Our number one "tourist attraction"!

@commander nuclearboy,

Our own 'Abuzola' (the only 'Abu' + 'zo' + 'lala') does not talk like the newbie 'Abuz@la' - check here and see what the latter said about Islam. .  that sure would make the blood of our resident 'la-la' boil to 1000^oC!

@ogajim,

I sure must've touched a nerve on a sore spot that got your attention, no? Good. I just wanted you to know that I don't pastor any flock - not near your experience with handling Italian girls, if that's what shines in your CV. Slobs who go about with every wind of idiotic doublespeak like you do will sure make an empire out of your sanctimony that does no one any good.

Since you're deaf to an invitation to discuss a simple topic and want to draw out what you can't handle, you'll have truckloads without charge as long as you keep up your idiocy.

ogajim:
I am practical enough to know how and when I should give and to whom, are you trying to tell me that just because some folks now don't want to give to the Haiti relief through the Red Cross means they are too stingy to give?

You're obviously a consummate twerp! Did you read me anywhere denying anyone the privlege of giving to Haiti relief efforts or to the Red Cross? Where? Quote me directly! Are you now so desperate you must LIE on top of everything? This is why buffoons like you will troll every thread with your idiocy and lie on top of everything when you run out of steam! Ultra-shanky turd!

think about that for a minute because you continue your unholy rant.

Aye. . tosspot! Did you vacate your thinking faculty in your own rant?

This is a Nigerian FORUM last time I checked, ( coffin for head of state might make a good reference for you)

And the INTERNET belongs only to Nigerians, no? Did you check the last time that your profile indicates you are nowhere near Nigeria - or is that another shiny lie on your CV?

May God forgive us all!

Yes, after spewing your st[color=Black]upidit[/color]y you will cover up with sanctimonious one-liners. Dummkopf.

aletheia:
I think you are being harsh here.

I was (but not to you) - and that's because I actually have very little stomach for doublespeak especially among Christians. What was all the unnecessary illations he was drawing in here as if that is what this thread was about?

You really can't say none of us ever encourages freewill offering and GIVING when you haven't interacted with us on a personal level.

I should not have generalised, although I'm no stranger to the poster I was addressing. I don't see how such folks have actually encouraged that same GIVING without freaking and flipping over at any slight mention of 'money'. True, I have not interacted with you on a personal level, but at least you and I have come to a common agreement that we might be saying just about the same things.

Sowing and reaping is a principle mentioned in the bible: And as you can see from the scripture above, it pertains to eternal things.

No worries, I understand that.

No doubt sowing to the flesh includes our attitudes to money but unfortunately, we find that quite a lot of people reduce that principle to money:

I don't know about that, because the churches I've had the privilege of visiting as well pastors who I've listened to, do not 'reduce that principle to money'. The fact is that many people who just rule out any mention of 'money' are the ones who tend to make it sound like everything they ever come across on this principle is about that same thing, 'money'.

^^^So perfection is attained by sowing money. So much for the finished work of Jesus.

I don't think he said that - read again: "a perfection you attain" does not mean the same thing as 'all perfection'; nor does he mean by that to say that the finished work of Christ is not perfect and must needs be based on money talks. This is one thing that worries me - people drawing unnecessary conclusions where they ought not to. Rather, he said: 'So dont rule out money in the law of sowing and reaping it plays a major role.'

A number of us have been in situations where all we hear about is money, money and more money being preached as the gospel of Jesus, and one of the proof texts used to justify this is "seedtime and harvest" but we know And

I have been in places where people have preached more about money than anything else - but that does not mean that all we know should be rested upon those kinds of experiences. Fortunately for me, I have also been in fellowships where a healthy balance about money matters is taught, and this would be an opportunity to discuss healthy matters than tip the discussion to the down side. Just because some people tend to be covetous does not mean that we completely rule out the important aspect of financial matters in the principle of sowing and reaping.

Hi Pastor AIO,

Let me offer simple answers to your questions in view of the concerns of this thread.

Pastor AIO:
If I want to give in such a way as to maximize efficiency of my gift who is it better to give to. a) The church, or b) a charity organisation that is set up for precisely the purpose, that is familiar with the ins and outs of delivering aid in it's specific context and that is made up of experts and professionals who can most efficiently utilize your gift. e.g If I want to help the sick children of the world am I better off giving to the church or giving to Medecins San Frontieres.

You would notice that my views on these things do not tend to "exclusive divides" (said so in post #14). It is not a question of either this or that between 'better' alternatives, so it's not here a matter of between the church and an organisation. In Scripture there are clear verses pointing particularly to giving in Church, which do not mean that giving through other channels are more or less 'better' or 'efficient'.

Apart from articulating this obvious fact which is also exactly what the Law of Karma does, what else is the Law of Seedtime and Harvest time saying? How does the Law of Seedtime Harvest time say that the relationship works?

I also noted that this principle is "applied in so many instances to other aspects of our lives and faith"; and although it includes the question of using our resources (financial and material) in the Kingdom, it is not necessarily limited to the examples given thus far.

As to how the relationship works, it depends on what exactly the enquirer has in mind. If, for example, it is on the question of using our material resources to reach out to people in the Body of Christ, the relationship works on the basis of 2 Corinthians 8:14 - 'that there may be equality', where our resources help to better the circumstances of believers in the Body of Christ.

deluxecad:
It makes me feel awkward each time I try to reconcile it with the fact that God is an all-loving and good God.

[quote author=A_K_O link=topic=391248.msg5430621#msg5430621 date=1265091152]The context suggests:

1. God permitted the spirit to come upon Saul, it wasn't necessarily His evil spirit because God has none.[/quote]A_K_O, thank you. A few things to add:

(1) In 2 Samuel 22:26-28 is said the following as regards the ways of God:
[list]With the merciful thou wilt shew thyself merciful, and with the upright man thou wilt shew thyself upright. With the pure thou wilt shew thyself pure; and with the froward thou wilt shew thyself unsavoury. And the afflicted people thou wilt save: but thine eyes are upon the haughty, that thou mayest bring them down.[/list]

(2) Job 5:12-13 notes just about the same principle:
[list]'He disappointeth the devices of the crafty, so that their hands cannot perform their enterprise. He taketh the wise in their own craftiness: and the counsel of the froward is carried headlong'[/list]

@deluxecard, do the above help?

uplawal:
@sahara and viaro,see confused souls calling uplawal confused, did your empty bible tell u the earth is still going to be folded up backed up scientifically? but my Quran says and many more,not replying to your question dnt mean am as blind as you people

Ain't you even more confused? Is this thread about the earth folding up? I also hear that your quran speaks about seven earths, no? Where is the science for that? Who has found out scientifically how Muhammad slapped an angel to blindness in one eye? Yes, your quran has "many more" to say about confused and bemused Muslims missing their way into other people's threads than we can read in newspapers.

Marlbron:
I must thank you for keeping it clean so far. I hear your points but they are due to lack of understanding of the scripture.

I went through your explanations, and yet there is not a single line where you have established the distinctions between reincarnation, incarnation and resurrection to show that the Bible points to Christ as the incarnation of Adam. Rather, you only affirmed the very points in my previous replies - which would make it unnecessary for me to repeat myself. A summary may be apt:

1. Its not apalogic. Its the only way to explain the scripture. People were looking towards heaven and angels appear, who have better info on Christ's 2nd coming and they querried their looking up in the sky. If they querried it, then it is logical to assume that it is not necessary to look at the sky. In your day to day existence have you not querried things when you disapprove of it? Reflect carefully on the word "why?'' .

The angels in Acts 1:11 made clear that Christ shall come back in the very same manner that He ascended:

   (a)  'this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven,'

   (b)  'shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven'

The idea that it is not necessary to look into the sky is directly opposite to what the agels said. Jesus went up into heaven - He shall return in the same manner! That was their point - and the other texts I cited all bear the very same thing!

2. What manner did they see him leaving? They saw him leaving as a being. He will come back as a being. That was why the scriptures recorded his birth in his 2nd advent Isaiah 9: 6, and Rev 12:5 or were those verses not dealing with the risen Christ? The Bible is consistent.

What do you mean by 'a being' - were you expecting Him to return as other than a Being? Isaiah 9:6 does not deal with the resurrection but rather with His birth - "For unto us a child is born" - and this 'birth' does not suggest a 're-birth' by reincarnation. The same thing in Rev. 12:5 - it does not say that the child was 're-born' after a previous birth, and it is futile to twist what those verses say.

3. The presence of God in scripture has always been denoted by the use of the term cloud. Search even from the old testament. Coming in the clouds is coming in his heavenly glory. All eyes cannot see him if he comes from the sky. Will someone in London see him if he is in the sky over the States?

'Coming in the clouds in His heavenly glory' is not said to be a partial event where only a few would see Him - the Bible declares clearly that EVERY EYE SHALL SEE HIM (Revelation 1:7).

4. The end time story in mathew and mark is not well understood.

I don't see how you have shown a better understanding. It seems you're more given to your own personal interpolations by completely ignoring the principles of Biblical exegesis. Since that is what you have done, nothing you try to explicate would have any weight - which is why you have repeatedly confused between the terms 'reincarnation' and 'resurrection'.

let us do a verse by verse explanation

26. What is meant by the son of man coming in the clouds? Lets assume for a moment that you are right and he comes from the sky, then why does the end not come after his coming in the sky? Read down to the end.

Something tells me you are deliberately NOT READING the verses but hastily jumping into conclusions. The passage in Mark 13:26 does not say that 'the end' comes instantaneously at His second coming - in fact, verse 24 describes events in that epoch with the words "in those days". When you don't settle down to carefully note these points, you bring up all sorts of unnecessary questions that the verses do not point to in your favour.

Does it mean that we will all be gathered to the sky and living in the clouds with Christ? How will we function? How will we work, eat etc - in the clouds? Haba! Have you forgotten the beatitudes?

Have you never read that in the resurrection of the blessed, people do not live in the same manner as in this present experience? READ IT AGAIN:

[list]Matthew 22: 30
'For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.'

Luke 20:35-36
'But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage: Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection.'[/list]

Goodness! Marlbron, please just cut the crap!   If you can be asking those silly questions, it then shows that YOU HAVE NEVER READ THE BIBLE and I'm not going to keep entertaining your deliberate obfuscations and immature questions!

When Traugott said this -

Traugott:
Incorrect premise. The Bible never said Jesus is the Incarnation of Adam.

. .  it just sums up the whole thing here.

I would have hoped to see you point to any single verse that says that Jesus Christ is the "incarnation" of Adam. There is not a single verse that teaches any such, and trying to twist the words of any verse for your obfuscations will not help your cause.

Cheers.

ogajim:
Freewill offering and giving is fundamental to our faith, we tend to differ on what form and to some extent to whom.

Please! I'm weary of this hypocritical talk, so just zip it. None of you guys ever encourage freewill offering and GIVING - because if it obtains in your books in a PRACTICAL sense, you would not be quibbling over the mention of 'money' in threads where issues like this are discussed! We have long waited to see positive talk from your camp - but the first thing one notices here from you in particular is a negation of 'money'! If there's nothing positive you can contribute in threads like this, please don't even mention 'freewill offering and GIVING' while pu[color=Black]ssyfoo[/color]ting over financial giving. The thread calls for positive inputs on the principle of sowing and reaping, and if you've got practical encourage about this, then by all means post them.

We have clear instructions from Jesus Christ and not some Pastor/GO/DSP/ASP , Christians are supposed to follow his example unless there's something I am missing here.

What 'example' are you advancing - the quibbling over the mention of 'money' and tripping over yourself with non-starters? If the term 'pastor' is a hideous word in your Christian vocab, you can find other ways of amusing yourself rather than lump everyone in one senile box! It is Christ Himself that gave 'Pastors' among other gifts to the CHURCH (Ephesians 4:11). If you have one where you fellowship, you can damn him for all I care - but there are many churches that enjoy healthy fellowships with mature pastors authenticating the Word. It was never the 'example' of Christ to be arrogant to leaders He has given to build up the churches, and that is why we have forever waited for positive inputs from you guys and finding none!

I don't know what obtains in your neck of the woods but I have seen enough to hold the views I currently do and does not HATE anyone for holding something different.

What obtains in my neck of the woods is zero tolerance for attitudes from folks who are disatisfied with their own small cublicles and won't allow others be. You have not seen enough to heal from the polarised views you hold, that is why you can't see practical things about sowing and reaping when it comes to handling material blessings (2 Corinthians 9:6-11). Anytime threads about 'giving' come up, the only thing we tend to read from folks like you is a negation that only tends to desensitised outlook on the subject.

Christianity (to me)is not about making deals, it is more about following the footsteps of our Lord Jesus Christ and aspire to be perfect. My first visit to a Pentecostal church happened a long time ago, ich bin keine kinder

Who has asked you to be making 'deals' here?   What did you read in this thread to bring in that silly illation? Not all Pentecostal churches are clones of the one you might've visited, so what 'deal' are you seeking to strike here? If you can't have anything more practical to talk about, it could as well almost make one think that Sie sind ein Kind.

Marlbron:
But the Bible wil not teach you everything. The Spirit should be the one to teach you. You are made up of water blood and spirit and it is from the spirit that we resemble God. Remember that 'God is a spirit, and those that worship him must worship him in spirit and truth'.

The Spirit of God does not teach pantheism in the Bible. You may look elsewhere for that belief and any other thing else; but you won't find patheism in the Bible - nor does the Spirit of God ask us to interpolate just about any idea into the Bible.

I thought the refernce was clear. The first Adam was a living soul. The last Adam, means that Jesus was an incarnate of Adam, period. It is not rocket science. If you read the verses before, it tells you that death to one resulted in the other.

Those verses do not mention anything about incarnation of Adam - and it doesn't take rocket science to see either.

Ressurection occurs only for the dead because that is the point of separation of the spirit from the flesh. after that (ressurection), the spirit can come (reincarnate) with another body.

Lol, no authority on reincarnation will tell you that reincarnation comes after resurrection. Dude, please get a good grasp of what you are discussing and not making just about any remarks that fills the page.

That was why Paul argued in 1 Cor 15: 9

9 If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable.

That was supposed to be verse 19, not verse 9 - nevermind, we all make mistakes. However, the argument for verse 19 comes from verse 17 - "And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins". . which is nothing other than resurrection.

And he went further to explain in 1 Cor 15:35

What he went on to explain is RESURRECTION - read it again: "But some man will say, How are the dead raised up? and with what body do they come?" The dead being raised is the theme all through that chapter, see verse 13-14. there is not the slightest hint of reincarnation in those passages.

Now as regards the body of the resurrected (not bodies of the "reincarnated", it tells us in verse 52 that "the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed", which is not the language of teachers of reincarntion.

Thank you, Marlbron.

Marlbron:
What can I say! You are a brave man! Welcome. I am a Christian, though disagree with (your) overbearing Pentecostal beliefs which are in error in many aspects of scripture. Let me leave it there for now.

It's okay to disagree, although I don't remember putting up an argument for pentecostalism here. .  or did I?

I need to clear up a few points real quick, so that we do not get confused about ressurrection. When death occurs, the physical body which had hitherto trapped the spirit, dies, but the spirit is released which in effect means resurrection. Resurrection is misunderstood to mean the person coming back to earth in the same body, no. God has made one channel through which all creatures including himself come to inhabit the earth plane - the womb of a woman. It is after resurrection that incarnation can happen. When ressurection happens, we physically cannot see it as we cannot see the spirit. However Christ in his advent proved that resurrection happens.

For the most part, well done. But your idea that {'it is after resurrection that incarnation can happen'} does not resonate with me because I don't find any such thing taught anywhere in the Bible. As long as we don't jump gun and start confusing the meaning of words here, we shall go on just fine.

Let us take the case of Jesus Christ. After his death, he ressurrected but not with the same body.

. . And that is NOT 'incarnation'.

This explains why

a) They thought he was the gardner.
b) He did not want them to touch him initially - too much spiritual energy.
c) They did not recognize him. How come you do not recognize a guy after 3 days of death? Lazarus was recognized. Think!
d) He did not mix with them anymore, but was appearing and disappearing at will. He was moreless operating on earth in a glorified body.
e) He was "recognized" only after their eyes were "opened", after "hearing his voice". That is, they were spiritually awakened to "see" that he was Christ.

I'm sorry, but all of the above still have no bearing on the Biblical teaching of resurrection.

Let me help:
(a)  Mary's mistaking Him for a gardener does not prove anything about incarnation or reincarnation.
(b)  None of the verses teaches the 'too much energy' stuff - did His 'energy' deplete when He later asked Thomas to touch Him (John 20:27)?
(c)  Reason they could not recognize Him immediately is given in Mark 16:12 (He appeared in "another form" and Luke 24:16 ('their eyes were holden that they should not know him'). This all does not lend any weight to proving anything about reincarnation or incarnation or de-incarnation, whether it was only 3 days or many centuries.
(d)  He actually mixed with them - for a period of no less than forty days (Acts 1:3)
(e)  Yes, 'their eyes were opened, and they knew him' (Luke 24:31) - and what does that prove about reincranation?

Basically, Christ dieing was for him to prepare for his come back or re-incarnation or 2nd coming, choose your term.

Reincarnation is not resurrection, and resurrection if not the second coming, and the second coming is NOT reincarnation. This was why I noted earlier that we should not confuse the terms we use, because I notice that when people confuse the meaning of the words they are discussing, a lot of back and forths begin to come into play.

The second coming is occurs when Christ comes from above (Acts 1:11; Mark 13:26 and 1 Thes. 4:16). Resurrection, however, is a rising from the dead (Mark 6:16).

But reincarnation is a very different thing from resurrection - they are world apart, and if you consult authors who are authorities on reincranation, you will find that they do not ever - I mean, NEVER EVER - confuse 'reincarnation' for 'resurrection'. If you find any scholarly work where anyone is taking them to mean the same thing, please post it here with the source or link and let's comb it through and through.

His resurrection physically was moreoless to prove the concept of resurrection.

Good - that says it all. The resurrection of Christ was not to prove reincarnation, and that says it all for me.

I guess you may say that he will come in from the clouds, but it means you did not quite understand the scriptures.

Let me see how you explicate them.

Acts 1:9

9 And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight. 10 And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel; 11 which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.


The key to understanding this passage is to imagine you escort a friend from Lagos and watch him board a vehicle to say Kano and another friend of his who is closer now taps you on the shoulder and says "why do you keep looking towards the direction?". You will realize that the operative key here is the question "why?". Once that was uttered, it means that it is not necessary to look for him from heaven. Simple.

Er, please don't even go there - I shall not imagine anything here but stick with what the Bible declares. What you have up there is a very, very poor attempt at apagogic logic.

There is not a single verse in the entire Bible that helps what you are saying here, because the angels clearly indicated He will yet return in the same manner. Hear them in Acts 1:11 - "Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven". Of course, many other references show that He shall come back in the same manner - from heaven:

[list]Daniel 7:13 - 'I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him'

Matthew 24:30 - '. . and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory'

Mark 13:26 - 'And then shall they see the Son of man coming in the clouds with great power and glory' (see also Luke 21:27)

1 Thes. 4:16 - 'For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first'

Revelation 1:7 - 'Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen'.[/list]

All these and more show that He shall come back in that same manner that you denied - from heaven!

Cheers.

saharachic:
she seems confused

She's always been!

ogajim:
We can EXEMPLIFY our Lord Jesus Christ in the way we LIVE and interact with others more than any form of giving because there are folks that have enough self respect not to take/receive from some folks no matter their level of need if the vibe they see/perceive is not the kind they're comfortable with. There is a HUGE need for unity in the house of God but we also have to make sure it is not the kind of Worldly negotiated unity.

^^That up there seems to be doing very little to achieve unity in the Body of Christ.

The thread {"Christians Lets Discuss - The Law Of Seedtime And Harvest Time"} calls on CHRISTIANS in an inviting manner to DISCUSS a simple subject: 'The Law Of Seedtime And Harvest Time'. Without much ado, we can do so and share on many positive aspects of what that might be pointing to, rather than down every mention of 'money' as if Christians go about living on spit! To "interact with others" is meaningless if for the most part we can't do more than mere talk-talk-talk!! (1 John 3:17-18 and James 2:14-17).

When we spend most of our time quibbling especially on how NOT TO GIVE 'money', then we find a greater divide than any hope of the 'unity' we hope to offer. Even using nice-sounding words to hide this quibbling is not nearly solving our problems.

I think we can look past this back and forth and spend more time discussing positive and practical things about the principle of "sowing and reaping", or 'seedtime and harvest' if you prefer. It ought not be only about money, nor does it rule out money. How we handle our material blessings is a huge part of our Christian lives.

uplawal:
@viaro,pls this is not QURAN issue, but the bible

So what are you doing here?

ogajim:
Saying that one has to "sow a lot of seed money in order to reap bountifully, " is PLAIN WRONG in my book! This is another attempt in my view to bring Christians to blows over money, I don't buy it!

I don't know if anyone has said in this thread the very things in your quotation marks. But I happen to think that when Christians fight over money - especially how NOT TO GIVE - the true essence of what it means to follow Christ is lost!

Anyone is also free to follow the way they think brings blessing, I will follow Christ in the ways that has worked for me and really don't need to be bothered by how other folks want to interpret the Word to suit their game.

That is not freedom but bondage, my brother. If you truly want to know how to be free, let others be - and you face your own life with Christ without looking down on anyone else.

How can I be a friend of Christ who paid the ultimate price for our sakes and be a slave to a man? NO WAY Jose!

Jesus Christ did not "pay" the ultimate price so you can blab on and on against money. There are many Christians who have no problem with handling money and they know more about following Christ than you and I would ever know.

Bro, I think this back and forth quibbling between Christians should be minimised over the issue of money. Yes, there are all sorts of 'pimps' and 'scams' out there - but a topic like this should not necessarily be an opportunity to start yelling silly against this and that. Rather, we should seek ways to talk about positive things - even the positive and very practical ways we can use our material blessings to further the interest of God's Kingdom in the lives of people.

ogajim:
It's the god of mammon that drives this LUST for money, that's my 2 cents (free)

But who says that the discussion ought to be about lusting after money?

@Marlbron,

While we on my initial comments, let me quickly say a few things about the references you cited.

Marlbron:
That breath was God transferring life force or spirit into the object to make him a living soul. That life force is the spirit, which is also God and is present in all creation.

Eh, sorry - that is pantheism you're making out there, and the Bible does not teach any such ideas.

The spirit that formed Adam resurrected and later reincarnated as Jesus Christ.

Wow-wow-wow. .  hang on, mate! One thing at a time and don't jump guns.

(a)  Where can you show that Adam 'resurrected' - what scriptures exactly say that very thing?
(b)  Where does it say that Adam later reincarnated as Jesus Christ?

I don't think that it helps to make statements that you can't establish by clear references, so please sort these out.

This was the same breath, the same life force. Is it any wonder that while Adam lived beyond 900+years, Jesus lived for just 33 years? Also Adam's ribs were used to create Eve, and in the reincarnation, Mary (Eve ) was used as a vessel to deliver Jesus the Christ. Don't take my word for it, just read 1 Cor 15:14

Dude, 1 Corinthians 15:14 is not about reincarnation but rather about RESURRECTION - "And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain." This is the theme (resurrection) that runs through 1 Corinthians 15, as is manifest in verse 42 which you quoted:

42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption:

. .  see? It did not say the "reincarnation of the dead" - don't confuse them, please.

Can we now see how the death of Adam gave rise to the birth of the quickening spirit?

Nope, because that is not taught anywhere in any verse.

Examine also christ statement

24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit

Christ was simply talking about death leading to multiple reincarnations.

Try harder - Christ was not teaching 'multiple reincarnations'.

He talked about his departure or translation as a necessary condition for his coming as the comforter

7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.


Notice that christ was always talking about going, departure, coming etc, comfirming the process of incarnation, translation (de-incarnation), ressurection and birth (coming). God chooses the body to give the ressurrected spirit.

John 14 does not teach anything about 'de-incarnation, . . incarnation. .  reincarnation', etc. Nope. Nada. Zilch. Nix. In fact, in verse 26 the Comforter is clearly identified: "But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you".

Laters, but only informed discussions as there are many passengers in NL!

We're waiting for this 'informed discussion'. Laters.

The dance moves in the vid are absolute trash. Better dancers are all over the place - who was her choreographer?

bilms:
wow, i dont mean to hurt anybodies feelings but create a thread for trashing out what u know nothing about, but i can see that your soul and body reject it,

We've trashed out what you had no clues about. The lie has been rejected, because Song of Solomon was not referring to Muhammad at all anywhere. Up until now, you have not posted that verse from the Gospel of Barnabas that mentions Muhammad by EXACT NAME. We have shown you here that the Song of Solomon is not the same thing as the Gospel of Barnabas.

Why did you post a dubious title in the first place?