₦airaland Forum

^^^ You're absolutely correct.

noetic15:
why should anyone believe the analogy on this thread?

Lol, noetic15. . there's nothing super-tight about analogies, so that should not be such a problem to readers. I reckon I made the mistake of seeing far too much and having great expectations in the OP and subsequent posts. On the whole, analogies are helpful - and we can appreciate the efforts here while hoping to make our own contributions inbetween, yes?

___________________

nuclearboy:
@Mavenbox and Viaro:

Its all so simple really!

High intellect has the tendency to try to over-simplify and then you find other high intellects needing to read meaning where there's none. I doubt either of you should feel bad that the other has a really high intellect. I think Viaros' mind just kept going and took it to levels Mavenbox didn't intend and then her own mind spun into gear and on and on and on

Imagine a marriage between such! Hell would run and hide

Hehe. . nuclearboy, thank you, I heed your call.

@Maven, hugs - let's get on with the thread.

Mavenb0x:
@Viaro: I have a private conjecture on aliens and UFOs which is a little bizarre, and if it is true, then it negates my posts on this thread. I want you to consider it with me. I must confess I am not so much of a scientist, so pardon my wrong nomenclature if any.

Assume space and time is continuous, and a certain force (c.f. gravity's downward pull) is what keeps drawing man in the forward time axis. Just like man grappled with gravity for years before aerodynamics was instituted, man will soon discover a way to travel in short bursts through time. Short "backward" bursts in which he can see but can't interact with his past, but he keeps being drawn back into present. Until considerable time-travel is invented and man can travel across time in either direction.

Assume this first time machine invention happens on January 1, 2050.

Thus, January 1, 2050 will be a kind of "terminus" for those travelling from the future into the past. They may travel past that point, but they may not interact with people beyond that point. i.e. say a tourist from the future visits 2009 Georgia. This will be observed in Georgia as a "UFO" but there will be no interaction between the parties, because such interaction will cause the time machine to be built much faster than January 1. 2050 thanks to the transfer of advanced knowledge from the future. (This may be a reason there have not been any recorded exchange with any "UFO".

As from January 1, 2050 when the time machine is invented, tourists from all sorts of future civilizations will arrive to examine Earth, and scientists and tourists from the present will be able to attend to the future as well. This is where my conjecture gets complex. I believe, in this conjecture, that any physical interaction we may have with "aliens" will start occurring from that January 1, 2050. These "aliens" are in fact humans who have undergone varying extra-terrestrial conditions (compare with the formation of diverse human races) such as, for example, a civilization where thanks to some space-wars, the universe became polluted and man had to begin wearing body-suites because flesh will be wasted on contact with the environment. Or civilizations where man had to be modified physically to suit other ambient conditions. Or, say, a group of highly intelligent humans who travelled off into a diverse civilization where only the highly intelligent humans survived, and thus learnt the technology of the future, then returned to the present to implement them, and proceeds to travel into the future to exterminate that OTHER civilization, or something?

My surmise is that if this were the case, from that day that time travel is properly established, there will be all kinds of "aliens" who are spawns of various human civilizations gone wrong (or done right). We can't interact with them yet because there is a "membrane" between us in space and time, and until that membrane is punctured on that hypothetical January 1, 2050, they can only peek through the membrane and see us. They can't come through, and we can see them sometimes if they allow us to (carelessly or voluntarily). In other words, it's still diverse variations of mankind at the end of the day, and not some "aliens", and they would still require salvation. If this was the case, they can return to Adam's point of sin, but they can't prevent it (as I said earlier, they can only observe the past beyond Jan 1, 2050). They would still need the salvation of Jesus in that case.

I hope you understand my case, but it's all conjecture.

@Mavenb0x, that was simply illuminating. As beneli has aptly noted, some of the things you conjectured are actually on-going discussions in some circles; so I don't think it would serve me any good to begin to pick holes in yours - afterall, it is only a conjecture (and one that I find quite interesting for what it is worth). So, well done.

Lady 234:
I once went to a Pentecostal church. During worship the visiting pastor called out a Lady and told her there was a prophecy that she was going to be the First Lady in the future that she should bring 10,000 naira to get in contact if not the prophecy will not come true, when the poor Lady told him she couldn't provide the 10,000 naira immediately, the pastor kept on reducing the amount she was supposed to pay till he reached 2,500 naira.
Meanwhile during the service i kept on covering myself with the Bood of Jesus because of the things that were happening in the church. Thank God i left the church before something bad happened to me.

Is this one tale enough to define all pentecostals while applauding yourself for not being one? You remind me of Luke 18:9 - it will do you some good to read that verse and what follows: "He also told this parable to some who trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and treated others with contempt".

honeric01:
Comparing one church in a whole state to 5 churches in one street, is your comparison justified?

I think so - in accordance with the part of your post that I responded to; and in accordance with the general problem of people complaining like you.

Right now, your church has four branches (as you said) in four states. I have a few questions in mind: (a) were there no churches in the place where you church went and pitched their own tents? (b) how has your own church helped to solve the problem by erecting their own station in each of those four states? (c) is your small number of four churches in four states the better deal from heaven that we never knew about in the Bible all these years? (d) AOB - 'any other business'

You see, my dear honeric01, if I were to follow your example, then I could chorus after you that 'i don't care who i hurt with this but it's the truth'; and perhaps this other side of the 'truth' did not cross your mind when you splattered out like that earlier.

Does this mean that it is all right for the problems highlighted here to keep proliferating indiscriminately? No, that is not what I'm saying. I think that when issues like this come up, we ought to be thinking with our heads and hearts and ask if we're part of the problem or the solution.

honeric01:
the church i attend has a branch in like 4 states for now, and it's only one per state,

what stops their members from going to another church near them?

Didn't your own church know that there were already other churches in those four states before forming their own? What stops them from just simply going to those churches already established instead of polluting the environment with their own nuisance?

_{It just seems the same thing: people tend to blame others so they can feel comfortable with their own.}

Mavenb0x:
IF aliens exist, then they do not need the salvation of Jesus, who came in the form of man to save mankind.

Unless of course, God had alternate plans for their own salvation, and He came in the form of one of their own there as well.

Interesting, but not quite 'it'.

Analytical:
You know what kunleoshob? I think your outburst is just uncalled for. Why do you allow your hatred to becloud your sense of reasoning by spewing forth such profanities anytime the names of your avowed enemies or anything remotely connected to them is mentioned, whether or not they are culpable? Check the usage of your words in your post! It's amazing for someone that calls himself a christian on a narrow pathway. Where is decorum and civility?

!

nuclearboy:
Viaro, whats the right word for the existence of 2 gods rather than 3?

Lol, brother. The word you're looking for: Ditheism.

Mavenb0x:
@Viaro: I dont think you understand me, yet. When I speak of relationships, I was referring to unions that are geared towards marriage.

Possibly, and indeed I could have misunderstood you. Let me explain:

1. You were right on track from the onset, for I understood that you set out to deal with 'Christian emotional and physical relationships up to and including marriage and the place of both spouses in the union'. No problem there.

2. My worry came at reading your 4th paragraph in post #12: 'but the deepest level of "intimacy", spiritually speaking, will be when he returns for us.'. That was what made me wonder - does that 'deepest level' not deal with matters far, far above marriages and romatic relationships? I had in mind those saints who were not married, though. . . and that was what brought about a wider circle of saints than 'Christians' in my post of #14 this thread.

Yes, Maven, I could have misunderstood you between those two points. So no need for me to be stubborn on any point: I already said I appreciate your (and nuclearboy's) efforts in this thread.

Try this thread: UFO's And Christian Beliefs?

nuclearboy:
I see where you both are coming from now. I was using the dictionary definition which I see you now show as Tritheism.

No problem.

Still, I think my use of the word is in consonance with the questions to which I await the pleasure of DeepSight and KunleOshob in responding to because my understanding is that they believe Jesus less than God which would mean He is a separate God or NO god at all. But they likely don't see what they say like that.

I wondered about that as well.

and VIARO: I think you got me wrong with your last referenced quote.

My sincere apologies - viaro often misreads people.

The questions I want answered are

[1] Do you believe Jesus exists?
[2] Do you believe the Holy Spirit exists?
[3] Is Jesus Divine?
[4] Is the Holy Spirit Divine?
[5] If Jesus is Divine, is He lower than God?
[6] If the Holy Spirit is Divine, is "it" lower than God?

I think you'll agree that answering this will let us know where the "answeree" ( ) is coming from

Nice.

Mavenb0x:
Even YOU cannot make a statement, no matter how simple, and everyone in the world would see it in the same perspective so wetin you dey yarn sef?

@mavenb0x, I was not trying to be complex - and if anything, viaro is one guy that likes the KISS method and is quite disinclined to illations that complicate matters. It was that reason that made me clarify what I meant by 'simplistic' rather than simple - your analogy/comparison may be useful, but it is quite misleading; and there, we should avoid making such generalizations that are more problematic than solving enigmas.

Did you understand me at all? When I said ANY, I meant it with reference to US who are Christians, not to pre-incarnate saints or Jews or Yisraylites or some aliens in outer space.

I tried to understand you; but when you said 'ANY question about relationships in Christianity', it seemed to me to be stretching Biblical truth. I shall show this in a moment from the same Ephesians you referenced.

THIS is the reason I posted that, by extrapolation:

Eph 5:23  For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.
Eph 5:24  Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.
Eph 5:25  Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;

That is not all there is in relationship[b]s[/b] (note, plural - relationship[b]s[/b]) in Christianity. In the same Ephesians, those who lived before the Incarnation are definitely included in that relationship: "That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him" - Ephesians 1:10. Let's note them carefully:

         1.   God meant to 'gather together', not separately
         2.   This 'gathering together' included all things, not just Christians
         3.   the scope of this is 'both which are in heaven, and which are on earth'
         4.   It is in Christ that all things will be gathered together - IN ONE.

This verse shows us that we should be very broad in our thinking - God's divine economy includes 'ALL things' according to that verse, and not just 'Christians' which are only a portion of that gathering. This scores well with chapter 3:15 of the same Ephesians - Of whom (the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ - v. 14) the whole family in heaven and earth is named' - and on that note I wondered if the whole family excluded those saints who lived before the Incarnation.

Surely God would not be speaking of the whole family in heaven and earth as referring to just 'Christians', especially when His Word says that it is in Christ that He is gathering together all things, no?

Please, understand that when I make posts on Nairaland, I often speak in relation to the understanding of the one that I am replying, and not to everyone. Whoever then does not understand or disagrees, I may attempt to clarify for that one as well. If I could speak one thing and everyone will get their own EXACT PRIVATE interpretation then I guess I may as well be divine

I get you, maven. That was the reason why I said earlier:[list]

IMO, I don't think any single Christian (theologian or lay) could give a 'pure' perspective on any subject of the Bible where loopholes are absent.

[/list]
It happens to everyone, so please understand that viaro was not trying to complicate matters. Rather I was cautioning that we be careful to not make simplistic generalizations which eventually turn out to be more problematic than the solutions we hope to proffer.

nuclearboy:
Before we become what we condemn in other religions with long posts that only complicate issues further, could someone just answer my questions and lets find a way forward

Trinity and Tritheism are not the same things.

[list]Tritheism is commonly understood to be 'the heretical belief that the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are three separate gods'

Trinity is commonly understood to be 'the union of the Father and Son and Holy Ghost in [url=http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=holy%20trinity]one Godhead[/url][/list]

Theologians who refer to the Trinity are not thinking of 'three Gods' but perhaps (yes, 'perhaps' in many instances) thinking of 'tri-unity' - One God revealed in the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit in one Godhead.

@nuclearboy, I get what you're trying to convey and appreciate your efforts.

However, I meant 'simplistic' (not 'simple') in the sense of something being 'characterized by extreme and often misleading simplicity'.

Which was why I wondered that the simplistic generalizations we often make about relationships in Christ may not serve well, especially when we think that such generalizations could answer 'ANY question about relationships in Christianity' - clearly, they do not. They may make some sense; but they do not answer to just 'any question' one may have about relationships in Christianity.

Deep Sight:
^^^ That's expected. The word "Esoteric" which i used naturally means that those philosophies are not meant for the masses.

Not much different from what I had in mind: 'confined to and understandable by only an enlightened inner circle'.

Sorry, didn't realise that mavenbox has done a good summary in post #43 - my connection went awry a moment ago.

nuclearboy:
@Viaro:

Tritheism? I'm not familiar with the word. Could you please explain and then tell me what Trinity is?

No worries, nuclearboy.

tritheism ((Christianity) the heretical belief that the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are three separate gods).

Deep Sight:
Duh. Did you not read this -

? ? ? ?

You are bored.

Or struck with some bizzare obsession.

I hope you can see there's more than viaro who knows you for the person you are? Hint: see post #49.

Deep Sight:
No response required.

I didn't expect one from you.

toneyb:
I agree, but there are so many things that you have to accept based on faith and not on reason, I am not saying that faith and reason are opposites, Please don't get me wrong.

I confess to having misread you, and apologise.

Deep Sight:
I can only assume that despite your considerable vocabulary you do not know the meaning of the word "Esoteric."

I quite understand it, and if you have a different meaning that we never have heard before, please share.

What i stated is clear enough: Nobody needs to know my "singularity" - that is a theological abstraction for philosophers to play with.

I find that another one of your huge gaps with the previous quote from you: "For me it is sufficient that a person knows that there is a supreme being to whom he owes his existence" - did I read from two different people?

Recognition of a superior being is what i said is enough. And virtually all tribes of the world have such in their traditions, so what are you talking about.

What I am talking about is your penchant for drawing unrelated illations and making huge gaps in your own gaping theory of a singularity while forcing your own dogmatism upon the worldviews you don't subscribe to.

Looks like you are bored or something.

I'm indeed bored with recycled non-starters, apologies.

toneyb:
You think believers care about this proposition of yours? When God "explains" everything there is no real reason to try to find the truth about it. Seriously this is why people are supposed to have faith and not reason.

Faith is not antithetical to reason.

Deep Sight, perhaps you failed to grasp the simple outline in my previous comment before launching into the very thing that was to be avoided - that is quite funny.

Deep Sight:
"Singularity" is simply an esoteric definition of the Almighty meant for the initiated.

What is the 'Almighty' in your worldview? Why are you throwing words around that are of no import to you personally? This is not only irrational, it is time-wasting.

For me it is sufficient that a person knows that there is a supreme being to whom he owes his existence.

And that, dear sir, is what your initial question re-worded in my initial comment should be addressing: 'ie., that such a singularity which you call 'god' existed at all?' You're jumping into huge but empty conclusions by your presupposition above. If you assume that it is sufficient that 'a person knows that there is a supreme being', how do you bring such a person to that identity you call a 'singularity' re-arranged into the 'Almighty'? I don't know how many people think that a singularity is 'god', and if that is what you're on about then you need to establish how people come to know that such a singularity existed. Please don't make such gaps - they are boring.

This knowledge is widespread amongst virtually all tribes of the world, and for millenia has been assimilated by stark illiterates.

This 'singularity' dressed up as 'god' in your deism is NOT widespread. Quit it.

So no problem there.

Huge problem.

It might be slightly more difficult however to press on people of all tribes of the world, that a man like themselves from one tribe, is almighty God whom they must acknowledge. Not to talk about ritual sacrifices of redemption through the judicial murder of that man. In that, Chrisbenegor's concerns are very real indeed.

You hastily read my initial comments, and that was why I foresaw that your problem was of the least concerns to me at this time. Yet, how have I made it a matter of 'pressing' the Gospel on anyone - let alone on people of all tribes? Please answer me that one first.

Indeed I was talking about denominations - and that is precisely what proliferation of churches are! That does not mean my initial comments were about what any franchise remits anywhere and anyhow, for if that were the case, then I know how just to deal with that as well.

The Gospel is preached and men are saved by simply believing. That does not exclude an intelligent response of the heart and mind. However, many people try to complicate issues for themselves by unrelated illations - which is frankly how I see your question. That is not something that is of any interest to me just now (maybe later).

Yet, it is an interesting question - that such a Person existed at all. The defence of such an enquiry is not something to be unduely pressed upon the simple minded as supposed in Chrisbenogor's concerns. To do this would be going into what is known as Apologetics, and it is not 'apologetics' that is presented to those who are least interested in exegesis of a theologically involved kind: rather, it is the simple presentation of the saving grace of Jesus Christ the Son of God that is presented for salvation - the salvation of which we speak.

Now, by extension, you have often argued for a singularity god in your deistic outlook/worldview. Think of it this way: what does it take to believe that anything you argue in that sense is worth anyone's time? i.e., that such a singularity which you call 'god' existed at all?

Quite an interesting thread. Could I follow the K.I.S.S. ('k[/b]eep [b]i[/b]t [b]s[/b]imple [b]s[/b]tupid') method and focus on your concerns, Chrisbenogor.

Chrisbenogor:
Anyway back to being serious, I asked viaro on the other thread what chance a christian has in a very rural church in the amazon forest of south America, or maybe in the Himalayas. So I would like to understand how you see these issues.

Chrisbenogor:
Our main stay remains how would the illiterate person searching for religion going to go about it. I can imagine a rural village setting where noetic, viaro and mavenbox preach every alternating sunday, I mean not all of us have the [b]intellectual ability to carry all these things, how the earth was created in millions of years and not days, and when the poor old carpenter looks at his bible what he can see is day.

Salvation in Christ is not predicated on how much of the Bible or Christian doctrines anyone understands. Nor is it based on cosmological arguments, or what nots. Simple faith in the Gospel of Jesus Christ is what the Biblical message provides as the basis of salvation: "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house" - Acts 16:31.

@A_K_O, compliments of the season to you as well (and here's a big one to the house).

One wonders how the nominations were made. On second thoughts, I find the word 'official' in the OP, and that seems benign.

Maybe in future, such nominations procedures should be open to Nairalanders in each Board/Section - and then nominees are set up for general votes for awards.

One thing more: is there a strategic reason why voters may not view progress of the elections or votes cast?

All the same, this is a welcome development. Well done to the House.

Mavenb0x:
Wooing => Jesus' teaching, living by example
Proposal => Jesus' death and resurrection, offer of eternal life
Acceptance => Salvation by faith in Christ
Courtship => A steady walk with the Holy Spirit
Going out, spending time together to understand one another => Diligent Word Study
Constant communication => Prayer
Marriage => Jesus' return for the Church

Considering each of these things carefully will answer ANY question about relationships in Christianity.

Lol, that analogy is simplistic. There are very many questions about relationships in Christianity that cannot be answered by that comparison. What about the saints who lived before the Incarnation? They surely cannot be termed 'Christian' or be said to have Jesus' teaching to live as example, no? Are those also outside of the 'Bride' of Christ?

I think we should be careful in making very polarised statements. Just my observation.

nuclearboy:
I'd like to treat issues like Destiny, Holiness, Church attendance, Tithes, Marital and other "emotional" relationships etc, providing for each a purely Biblical perspective.

A 'purely Biblical perspective' - That sounds quite ambitious. IMO, I don't think any single Christian (theologian or lay) could give a 'pure' perspective on any subject of the Bible where loopholes are absent. What you may be able to do is give your own understanding - which again cannot serve as standard for all Christians.

Krayo, you're a very interesting person. I enjoyed your inputs very much, and especially enlightening is the fact that your perspectives are sourced from the latest scholarly intellectuals on the subject. In the past week while busy elsewhere and absent from the forum, I had the fortune of perusing some other articles you gave by the ID 'Krayola2' (I may be mistaken about that, but thought it was you - the depth of refreshing insight).

VALIDATOR:
@Poster,
Your own website is the only reference you gave about the story. It may be just acting you know ^{something like nollywood}. Please can you give us any other reference to the news? I mean credible reference.

All you needed to do was search on the net - there are several sources 'confirming' the news.

Another like it: Somali woman stoned for adultery - BBC website news article, no graphic pictures though.