₦airaland Forum

Wow! I like love you guys for inviting a discussion, and I shall try and maintain some decorum! I wish many people can follow these examples from you guys.

Deep Sight, how can I thank you for not taking my rough side personally? I deeply appreciate that happy attitude you demonstrate. This one just blasted me to the floor in all laughter. .

Deep Sight:
(although once he catches you "yabbing" others, he could deal you a rough blow, as i just discovered in the thread for Davidylan and the deity of Christ).

ROFL. .!! Please, Deep Sight, that was silly of me! Please, I'm begging and deeply regret that brashness on my part.

Now we can move on. . one step at a time.

Deep Sight:
Point taken. But i need to clarify that my swipe was NOT at anything Yoruba, but at the trinity doctrine.

I can understand where you're coming from, and please don't take me seriously on my previous post.

I understand that the Yoruba Myth talks about someone decending from heaven with a rope and a chicken and some sand. The chicken spread the sand about which became dry land, etc. Now it is clear that this is merely a folk tale, all i meant to state is that we modern Africans can see clearly that it is a folk-tale, whereas when equally outlandish tales are brought by foreigners, we accept them as inviolable truth.

Well, pardon my ignorance of the Yoruba legend. Outlandish? I can't say. . since I don't know anything about it to be able to make any informed opinions. However, be that as it may, I wouldn't write them off like some unfit scrap for junk yard.

I certainly did not intend to in any way speak ill of the yoruba, given that i am a core lagos-boy myself.

I cannot apologise enough. . please pardon my mistake and misapprehension.

But Viaro, it will be a cold day in hell, before i respect the perception of any human being as being almighty God. Sounds to me like the claims of the followers of Olumba Olumba Obu, that he is the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, almighty God.

That is one of the pivotal concerns that many non-Christians bear against the Christian faith - I dare say that even the most brilliant minds in Christendom cannot adequately digest and consequently explain the mystery of the Incarnation to others. Should someone else (like the example you gave) make the same claim to deity, that is his own world. Do I care two scoobies to argue with them? Nope. And even while I won't enter into any kind of apologetic polemics with them about their own claims to deity, I would seek more to understand my own worldview. Perhaps the only grounds where I might seriously engage them is when they try to hang their claims on the foundation of the Biblical faiths.

_{P.S: God's existence is a deep and mysterious subject: its not surprising that someone like me you who dares to approach and break it down in absorbable terms will sound absolutely incoherent to most listeners. I understand that.}

The bold - I agree.

ogajim:
we don't all have to act alike but there is no need to get profane in our critique.

God bless you.

Chrisbenogor:
The thread is open, see you there.

Done.

Thank you, Chrisbenogor. I'm delighted and quite honoured that anyone would consider discussing with me on any issue at all. I had hoped to have more time in the coming months (Dec - Jan, '09/10) to discuss pending issues. .  but it seems inevitable to have a head start with yours and progress until when time would be luxuriously furnished to my disposal.

However, a few prefatory remarks:

Chrisbenogor:
The purpose of this thread is to try and understand your views on religion as a whole with a close look at Christianity.

I shall try and do so. Yet, it is important to observe that my views and understanding may not satisfy a whole lot of people at any stretch. .  and I'd be first to nod from the onset that there would be problems with some of the comments I'd be sharing. However, whatever you read from me is not definitive or conclusive for the totality of Christianity for anyone, believers and unbelievers alike.

In this thread you will be answering questions that I dare say has plagued christianity in a bid to show us how you rationalize them.

You'd be shocked, Chris. . I always shy away from rationalizing anything. I acknowledge that many of the things we believe in our Christian faith may be curious to non-Christian observers (I prefer 'observers' for now and reserve other terms for later). Indeed, a whole lot of things have plagued nearly all faiths and belief systems that I know of, bar none. Yet, even when we make up any hypothesis or theories to explain anything anywhere and anyhow, no explanation is water-tight as to be finalist on any question. If we keep this in mind, it would not be difficult for my readers to understand why I am still a Christian in spite of the problems that may be highlighted along our discussions.

You come across as a calm person but I have seen this website do a lot of things to people and I hope you are always like this.

I shall do my best, and thank you for the compliment.

That said I will kindly wait for you to acknowledge this thread and then we can begin.

Acknowledged.

Chrisbenogor:
viaro I like the way you reply posts I want to drag a few answers out of you, do you mind?
oh by the way are you male or female?

No, I don't mind. Male.

ccollins:
If Jesus just a man and not firstborn of God .hw come do we use the name"JESUS" DURING PRAYER AND WHEN FACING STORMS OR ANY SPIRITUAL BATTLE. He Jesus is also God cos both are one.HMMm

My dear ccollins, just because we use the name 'Jesus' in any prayer at all does not prove anything about His deity. I know of a few religious belief systems that also use names of men in chanting or prayer - does that also mean that those men are thereby 'God' because their adherents pray or chant with their names? I believe that there are other cogent ways we could point to the Deity of Christ beyond just using His Name in prayer.

I like to plank you sometimes for those silly comments. . and afterwards we can nod to ourselves and move on. So no big worries there.

ogajim:
no, I have never come across anyone who continued to tithe after they found out it was not mandatory.

Well, that's okay; but your comment was simply out of place. I personally know a lot of people who already understand that their tithing is not mandatory, not obligatory, not coerced. And yes, they were tithing while anti-tithing theologians kept making a lot of the hula-hula.

No one should tell me how, who, and when to give, even if they try, I won't listen because I am not a "follow the herd" kind of man, I like to blaze my own trails.

If you can't listen to anyone because you're too full of your self, then there is no need for you to make any comments about how others feel about their preferences. You tend to be too assuming that is why you can't resist jesting about what others do . . and yet it does not satisfy you to let them be without your "yuck".

May God help you in your quest and I do pray you find some peace in your belief system. We must all "work out our own salvation with fear and trembling" so to each his own.

Amen . . and may you find His help as well.

ogajim:
People can choose to do what they like with their money as far as I am concerned

Did I object to that? Or did my comments demonstrate that is aworry in the least to me at any time?

I am trying to see where the highlighted portion from my earlier post shows discrimination

It's sad if you can make discriminatory statements and yet never recognize it! That is very poor indeed. What is wrong with other people giving in a manner that is different from your own preferred manner, ogajim? What was all that "yuck" about? What are you trying to justify by opening goo-goo eyes like it was the biggest thing to be brought to your attention?

I have never said anything bad about those who choose to pay tithe, all we have said on this and other threads was the compulsive nature of the teachings of tithe by the greedy pimps or MOGs as some would call them.

Oh please, wake up! HOW MANY TIMES HAVE I HAD TO LET YOU KNOW THAT MY DISCUSSIONS ON THIS TOPIC HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH MANDATORY OR OBLIGATED TITHES OR GIVING??

When you're shown something stupid you wrote, please don't go spinning round about "obligatory" or "mandatory" this and that! Playing cheap with this twist and diversion is sickening when you have been shown that discriminating at others with "yuck" is a blight on the pious post you made earlier. How difficult is that to see?

How many people will continue to pay it if they realize it is not MANDATORY?

Are you for real?!? So in your own world, there is nobody who has continued to tithe after they came to understand that it is not mandatory? Is that it?

You're not serious in life! Just go and watch cartoons if you can beggar discussions with such silly comments. . . latest scooby-doo will be nice for a start!

Deep Sight, howdy?

Deep Sight:
It astonishes me that educated adults will subscribe to a foreign myth such as this which is by far more outlandish and laughable than the yoruba creation myth.

I have problems - serious problems - with people who make such kinds of remarks. I may not know a dot about Yoruba creation legends - even so, I can respect people whose cultures and outlook on life are different from mine. Asserting that they are outlandish and laughable probably puts the asserter in very poor light, especially because he makes such assertions ignorantly as an outsider that knows absolutely nothing about such cultures and is not even willing to know!

Yes, I am an educated adult - and I subscribe to a worldview that did not originate from my culture. But who says that anyone has to adopt only those views that are local to them anyway? If anyone - including you - cannot understand why educated people can believe in 'God' differently from the way you mold a concept of your own 'god', then what would they make of your own 'singularity' that repeatedly cheats common sense and science, and yet remains as [b]v[/b]ague, [b]v[/b]alueless, [b]v[/b]acantly assertive, [b]v[/b]agrantly constructed, [b]v[/b]ariegated, [b]v[/b]ociferous, and frequently [b]v[/b]olte-face?? Your outlandish remark about 'yoruba'  is an insensate attack on the Yoruba people - and that needs no telling to an adult, let alone an educated one!

You may not believe in the views of other people as regards God; but you should be cautious in the way you charge blindly at them for their beliefs especially when your own assertive constructs for your 'God' is unrecognizable. What is even more laughable is the way you try to take a swipe at others when you have never had a good grasp of your own deification of a non-existent "singularity". Please Deep Sight, I did not expect you to lower yourself to that level, and I hope with fingers crossed that a change of attitude would be on the horizon.

@Pastor AIO,

Thank you for taking the time to outline your misgivings, especially as regards your perception of KAG's style and summations in those discourses. However, I fail to see how all what you have argued here should critically justify placing him and tpia on the same level (or rather, in the same box) with the said Abuzola. Now, of course, I have been here for just a short time and do not know all the details undergirding your conclusions. . but reason would have us believe that even from what you quoted, KAG actually tried discussing issues. That he may not have leaned towards your happy conclusions should not mean therefore that he is 'obnoxious'. I may not have come across Abuzola even trying to ever discuss anything - and we understand that discussions are key to the health and sustainability of any forum.

During discussions, people may make right or wrong, or even surprisingly remarkable, statements - as long as they are discussing. We often engage them and argue our points out with them until. . I, for one, have learnt never to assume my views are even close to being absolutely correct - they are the way I understand issues from what is available to me - unless, out of a queer peculiarity I just want to lie my way out of a hole I senselessly dug for myself! And no, I won't do that.

All the same, I might contain why you feel the way you do; although I don't have much in your reply to come to the same conclusions as in yours. However, I should not fail to mention my thanks for posting those links. . they opened my eyes to the fact that some philosophical discussions have already been on NL.

ogajim:
Viaro, I reserve the right to close my eyes to undisciplined behavior be it food or otherwise, we are the Temple of God and we have a duty to keep it pure, free from hate, mischief and jealousy. People can choose to do what they like with their money as far as I am concerned, I thank the good Lord for the fact that money is the least of the things I consider me when it comes to a job, money can't make me I make money.
I don't need to prove anything on a digital fish wrap and those who insist on doing that can knock themselves out. I hope we continue to walk in his grace despite our inability to agree on certain things, God help us all.

Please, ogajim. . you may be entitled to any thing at all. But just because other Christians choose to give in different ways than yours does not justify your discriminating against them. That attitude is beggarly.

Rockamon:
That people say they are born into christianity, have read the Bibe all their lives and still believe in paying tithes have a problem. please I advice them to forget what their greedy pastors have taught them and go back and study, their bible. The human mind can be made to believe anything, if not how do you explain that 'Mr. Boko Haram' who drives around in flashy cars, owns handsets saying education is evil. How are tithe believing christians any different

Mr rockamon, how does mr Boko Haram conclude the whole matter about Christians tithing? It were better you please leave off that mentality we have retired many times and make sensible contributions on the topic. If not, you are entitled to take your personal issues to the doorsteps of mr Boko and trash it out with him one-on-one.

Marlbron:
Viaro,

I was only quoting Noetic and as you see, we share the same view on the Holy Spirit.

My bad, sorry - I should have realised. However, I still do not agree with the sentiments statement about what the Holy Spirit is, according to your view.

Perhaps we can deal with this issue of the Godhead on a new thread, because I think the muslims have a perception which is easily accomodated.

No, muslims do not have any perception that could be accommodated in discussing what they have forever ridiculed. That is why I won't bother joining the discussions in that proposed thread, as I don't want to join issues shouting angrily at anyone. If the thread is going to be opened for Christians to discuss that matter, I would most certainly join in and share my views amicably.



Edit:

---

Marlbron:
Viaro,

I recomment reading John 14 till John 16, to understand fully about the Holy Spirit. The power of the holy spirit is limitless. The power was what Christ bestowed on the apostles. We get these things comfused, hence my equations above.

That's fine. Although I've read those chapters so many times, I shall humbly comply with your recommendations to read them again.

christ confessed that he was the least in the trinity, and he warned against blaspheming against the holy spirit, because the holy spirit is actually God the Father

I don't see where Christ ever confessed any such things or tried to make the Spirit to be actually God the Father. Nope, that is not what the Bible teaches.

Posting another member's picture on a forum without their consent is illegal!

I'm not trying to make my own rules for Nairaland, but I think without even stating it we should have known that at first call!

Please BAN the idiot who posted that picture pronto!                  

Pal askat, here's what I would think if I were in your shoes: she's playing the 'spirito' games with me. I either move on and forget the whole scenario as a joke to fill the gaps when there's nothing else to do; or just give her time to grow up a little.

Fine, she's a church worker as you are, she's young and 'fresh' for your blood. . your heart races every time you think of her. .  blah-blah. Your text came as a shock to her (prolly why she reacted that way) but she didn't say yes or no - yeah, we know. .  'spirito' babes like to keep things on a low profile and avoid the monika-lewinsky virus, hehe.  

What would I do? I won't conclude anything but just live my life. . . unless there's more to this whole affair than meets the eye.

@Marlbron,

There are a few things you've said that delighted me; but there are others that I'd have to disagree with:

Marlbron:
I will use the holy spirit analogy in my primordial post to describe Jesus. remember I said that the holy spirit is the manifestation of God's power as evidenced at the point of creation and in the affairs of men. the holy spirit is not a person or spirit neither is he a being. . . . but is the direct manifestation of God's power and influence.

I think the bold is a deeply flawed assertion that contradict what the Bible teaches. I contend that the Holy Spirit is a Person and the Power of God, being God Himself in the Trinity. My understanding is informed by the fact that the Holy Spirit is revealed in Scripture as having attributes of a divine Person -

* He speaks - Acts 8:29; 10:19; 11:12 and 13:2

* He forbids certain course of actions - Acts 16:6-7

* He guides - John 16:13

* He can be lied to - Acts 5:3

A 'power' in such abstract terms as you supposed does not 'speak' to people; and the Holy Spirit directly spoke to and still speaks to people to demonstrate His attribute as a divine Person.

Zikkyy:
I suggest you open the floor. After all you started this wahala. Lets hear you, and please speak english (my greek is very poor).

Allow me the honour of opening the floor by saying: "I don't give 2 scoobies!"

Hahaha!  Okay folks, that was just a teaser. .  no offence meant.


[quote author=Tonye-t link=topic=307798.msg4865307#msg4865307 date=1257415360]
starting in this order KunleOshod, Viaro, Zikkyy, Ogajim(the same person as one of us), Debosky,Tonye-t, Chukwudi44, and then we all can contrast maturedly or leave honorably. aight

God bless ya'll[/quote]You've spoken well, and I think you have brought us back to a sensible way of looking at the subject. I'd been thinking of doing that same thing sometime when less busy in the coming months, as I hinted earlier:

viaro:
Sometime soon in the coming months, I hope to address the real issue in these matters and invite others to table their concerns. That is when we shall all get to see the essential issues people have been missing.

My discussions won't be the usual way people have argued hard and long about the Law; but God helping me, I'd be looking at things from a different perspective and try to mirror these arguments against what is happening in many places today. Keep this in mind. Cheers.

VALIDATOR:
thank you for the keen observation and correction on my use of the word literarily instead of literally.

Not a big deal, bro. . we all make mistakes.

Why is it not more correct? Do those myths make any literal sense to you?

Yes, they do. . whether anyone chooses to call them myths, legends, etc., does not change the fact of its meaning to me. For one, the Bible is not the only source of knowledge about origins and cosmologies. There are many other sources that record ancient civilizations that point back to a creation; and I dare say that even the Bible acknowledges a few of these civilizations without giving details about them. Many things are merely mentioned and taken for granted without being elaborated upon in the Bible, and only in recent times are many Christians beginning to come to terms with the fact.

Why should your own interpretation be different from that of any other christian if you are all truly guided by the same God/holy spirit who is suppose to know all things?

Well, I don't expect everyone to have the same interpretation of the Biblical texts whether or not we make any claims of being guided by the same God. The Bible even takes for granted the fact that our understanding may yield very different views - whether for good or for bad. Not only so, it is a Biblical fact that we shall not know every thing there is to know nor understand every mystery there is to understand at the present time -

* 'And if any man think that he knoweth any thing, he knoweth nothing yet
as he ought to know' - 1 Corinthians 8:2

* 'Such knowledge is too wonderful for me; it is high, I cannot attain unto it.'
Psalm 139:6

We cannot know everything there is to know nor even have the same interpretation to every text in the Bible. In my opinion, if any Christian (or even scientist) claims that he knows and understands everything, there's more hope for a fool than for him.

By the way why is it that only well educated christians that have the power of logic/science at their disposal adopt your kind of views on creation/adam/messiah?

I don't know why that is so, nor am I endorsing the idea that 'only well educated Christians' with logic can have such views on creation and the Messiah - I don't know if this is true of all Christians all over the world, in as much as I don't know every Christian everywhere.

Your view is a very simple one and here is its summary IMO:

The Bible is the word of God and every other knowledge gained through science (or other means) can not make any part of it invalid.

Well, that's your opinion, but it need not be a reflection or summary of everything about my position. Science is not an end in itself, and it does not answer all questions of life and reality. There is a point where religion and science meet and travel together - but their natures are distinct and the questions either of them seek to answer are also distinct.

Both religious people and scientists can have very flawed interpretations of our existence and the realities of our world when they worship either science or religion. Science does not make categorical or conclusive pronouncements on the nature of religion; nor can people be so brash as to try and make their religion the authority over science. What is unfortunate to observe is when people try to assume that science is the answer to all questions about the world; and equally sad is when religious people (whether Christians, Muslims, Jews, Sikhs, etc., etc., etc.,) try to make their own religion the final authority about everything in the world.

Thanks, Deep Sight. I just took a peep and noted it. . will settle down and read a bit more.

@modupe01, I shall come back to answer to the other comments in yours - all very well appreciated. Perhaps that would be in another thread for that purpose, so that we don't muddle things up for the topic of thread. Thanks.

KAG, thank you for your thoughts. I was hoping you'd be somewhat enticed to drop a few lines in this thread - even if to correct any impressions that some of us are simply unaware of. Could you please (if it's not so much trouble) post me a link of your previous discussion with Deep Sight so I could take a peep? That would be great, thanks.

Or, Deep Sight. . could you do me that fav of pointing me to the thread as regards the above? Would be great, thanks.

modupe01:
If we are prepared to let the words of the language speak to us in accord with the context and normal definitions, without being influenced by outside ideas, then the word for "day" found in Genesis 1 which is qualified by a number, the phrase "evening and morning" and for Day 1 the words "light and darkness" which obviously means an ordinary day (approximately 24 hrs).

It is possible for 'day and night' and 'evening and morning' to be taken as a literal 24hrs. However, that does not necessarily have to be the case - not because we are looking for excuses from outside influence to stretch the days and nights in Genesis 1 into eons and epochs.

There are a few reasons why the time there (at least for me) does not necessarily refer to a 24hr time frame:

(1) Genesis 1 does not tell us anything about when certain things were created. It just mentions them and takes them for granted. An example? Water. You will not find any verse in that chapter telling you that God created water on any particular day. . count them: 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, or 6th day - none! The 7th is not included because He rested on that day. Rather, it just takes it for granted from as early as verse 2 - " the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters".

(2) Turning to the NT, the apostle Peter makes a remarkable statement in 2 Peter 3:5 --

'by the word of God the heavens were of old,
and the earth standing out of the water and in the water'

Notice, please: Peter was describing the primordial condition of the earth and noted that it was standing "out of" the water - and also "in" the water. Many people have assumed that Peter was describing a situation akin to the second day Genesis 1. However, it is strongly implying (to me, at least) that he was thinking more in terms of the primordial condition of the earth which Gen. 1:2 describes as "the face of the deep".

(3) To this end, would it be accurate to infer a 24hr period for the primordial condition of the earth? I don't think so - especially because no one knows just how long "the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters" in Genesis 1:2 before light appeared in verse 3.

(4) Again, let us think a little deeper: we have noted the example of water as taken for granted in Genesis 1 - we are not told just when God created water in all those days (1st to 6th). Another example is the Sun - we are not told when the Sun was created. We know that many people read Psalm 136:7-9 take for granted that the greater light refers to 'the sun' and the lesser light refers to 'the moon' in Genesis 1:16 - but that is just conveniently plugging holes. The earlier verses from 3 and 14-15 of Genesis 1 already spoke about lights even before talking about the lesser light and greater light in verse 16!

(5) From the above, we see that there are certain elements taken for granted in Genesis 1 (such as water and the sun) - nobody knows when in all those days they were created. There is not a single verse in the entire Bible that tells us anything about the very day they were created.

(6) Consequently, we understand that there are also so many other things described in the Bible that were already created and established, but which are not described in the epochs or 'days' in Genesis 1!

These are some very small matters to help us think when we form our thoughts about creation. The universe and the earth are far older than 6,000 years old - and all these I've shown without any outside influence like paleontology or archeology.

@modupe01, thank you for your reply and observations. Very interesting, and I understand where you're coming from. I only wish that you had taken a closer look at the distinctions I made between those words - that is how Scripture declares them in those verses.

modupe01:
It will be interesting knowing what our Lord Jesus Christ has to say about what Moses wrote or said.  Jesus consistently treated the miracle accounts of the OT as straightforward, truthful, historical accounts such as the creation of Adam, Noah and the Flood, Lot and his wife in Sodom, Moses and the manna, and Jonah in the fish.  He continually affirmed the authority of Scripture over men's ideas and traditions (Matthew 15:1-9).  In Mark 10:6 we have the clearest (amongst others) affirmation showing that Jesus was a young earth creationist.  He teaches that Adam and Eve were made at the "beginning of creation," not billions of years after the beginning, as would be the case if the universe were really billions of years old.  So, if Jesus was a young earth creationist, then how can His faithful followers have any other view?

It is true and healthy that faithful followers of Jesus Christ should not be deviating from what He declared and affirmed. In that vein, I'm happy to note that my observations have not deviated from His, at least in so far as I read all the verses together for a coherent picture.

Now, Mark 10:6 is interesting (as is the synoptic in Matthew 19:4) - but do passages like that make Him a "YEC" - young earth creationist? No, I don't think so.

(1) In the first place, we know that the complete picture of the thinking of our Lord Jesus Christ does not lead to the idea that He saw the earth as a young or recent creation of some 6,000 years old. When the phrase "in the beginning" is used in Scripture, it does not necessarily all point to a dating system beginning with the 'first day' - they are used differently.

(2) If we look prophetically in Proverbs 8:23 (which many Christians believe is pointing to the prophetic declaration of Christ), we find that even the Lord Jesus Himself spoke about an age of existence long before even the earth was - and in that passage, He mentions "the beginning" as a time before the creation of the earth:

     "I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was"

(3)  That verse speaks about "the beginning" as a time when even the earth was not yet existing! Thus, we have to be very careful when we're talking about "the beginning" - it does not necessarily refer to the time when Adam was created - because even before Adam, life in biological forms in animate beings were clearly distinguished in male and female forms, which is not merely a matter of "man and woman".

(4)  When Jesus spoke of "the beginning" in such passages as Mark 10:6 and Matthew 19:4, he said 'male and female' - not 'man and woman'. I contend that He clearly was pointing out creation in broad terms rather than an idea presupposing a theory of YEC-ism.

(5)  Now,  the point in (4) above might startle many of us Christians - but that is only if we have been thinking that the phrase "in the beginning" always refers to the creation that occurred within the time frame as interpreted to support YEC. That is not true - because if that were true, it would mean that even John 1:1 translates into an idea that the Divine Word was 6,000 years old! Afterall, that verse also mentions 'in the beginning' . . "in the beginning was the Word". Is that clause there ("in the beginning" also pointing to a YEC? Clearly not - rather, in harmony with Prov. 8:23, it was a "beginning" that was much, much earlier than our traditional YEC-6,000 years old!

(6)  Another thing we have to understand: when Scripture speaks about the creation of the world including the earth, God does not set the date as recent as 6,000 old. Read Hebrews 1:6 where it is said that He "bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world" - when did this happen, modupe01? When the God bring in the firstbegotten into the world? The answer is in what follows - at the very time when He asked the angels to worship the Son! Do you know when that very thing happened? No, not after Adam was created - rather, there are some verses right in the Bible that shows that such a thing occured LONG BEFORE Adam was created! The point is that the world (including the earth) predates Adam such that there was a time when the Son of God Himself stepped into the mystery of the creation - "when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world".

(7)  Now, maybe I would find the opportunity to open this subject in detail; but focusing on Mark 10:6, we should not confuse "male and female" for 'man and woman' - no. Even the animals also appear as 'male and female' without being human beings (see Gen. 7:16 - "male and female of all flesh". As such, Christ was laying down a cardinal truth: animate life in the flesh (including those that predated Adam and those that came after) were created in distinct sexes - "male and female".

From the foregoing, we see why the idea of a 6,000 year-old YEC theory is an assumption that caters for traditional interpretations of Scripture and is froth with many problems. The YE Creationist has to account for those verses that show that "in the beginning" is also a time epoch that is far older than 6,000 years - otherwise they would have to say that John 1:1 ('in the beginning') is also 6,000 years old! Can they gamble on that?

If these would help to stir your thinking, then I shall be back much later to share on other comments you made.

Cheers.

ogajim:
. . if folks choose to have one, I will look at it just as I would someone stuffing their face with food or ice cream (yuck!)

Why would you react that way because some people choose what is different from yours? Is that not the same discrimination that you're trying to discourage and yet displaying at the same time? Why the 'yuck' simply because some people choose to give in a different manner than your preferred manner of giving?

Folks, please let's try to stop this finger pointing. It's particularly hideous to do so and yet not recognize it in ourselves. You don't have to look down on ANYBODY who chooses freely to give in a manner that is different from yours - that sort of thinking is what poisons the well.

@debosky,

Glad to read from you again. Unfortunately, it appears you're beginning to sound desperate to defend non-essentials, so I'll keep you on that page if that's what you're given to.

debosky:
Hehehe - I like to think my ass is smart so no offence taken. 

Fine.

I don't question others - again, this is all about someone making an assertion and being asked to back it up. I didn't get up and say 'oh I will question anyone who tithes'. Someone made a claim and I am looking at it critically and (in my opinion) seeing variances with the NT and saying so. As I've said a number of times, I don't usually engage in the wider debate, but if claims are made that interest me, I will look at them and comment accordingly.

Fine.

This is why the distinction is important - I don't 'tithe' in the sense of the obligatory requirement as some people describe it, but out of a completely different persuasion that is wholly personal and nothing more. In that regard, the exact percentage I give is immaterial and only happens to be 10%. As I mentioned in my previous post, what I do is not to 'tithe' as it were, but to set aside a portion of my income for regular giving, which (for now) happens to be 10%.

Let's stop all this childish balderdash. We all know that 10% every month is nothing other than tithing. Period. Anyone can cry from now till gollom, it doesn't change the fact. You tithe out of a completely different persuasion - not because you can find any place in the NT to lay your eggs on that! After all said an done, your "10% every month" is still tithing and has nothing to do with an argument about 'obligatory' or 'mandatory'.

If you haven't noticed, I have not been discussing any such inferences about obligated or mandated tithes for anyone here - please go through all my posts in this thread. You have asked that I concern myself with your own concerns and not the wider discussions - and yet you don't seem to be able to do that same thing when you try to reply to my comments! It is because of these zig-zag idea in your style that I didn't bother to listen to your protests about not broadening the scope of the discourses - and consequently, I called your attention to other matters you have strategically pretended not to have noticed. The question now is whether you would keep playing this game or you would drop the convenient ego and face up to a real discussion.

I did not choose to engage you on whether you choose not to call your 10% a "tithe" or any such excuses. Rather, I find your arguments quite immature - which was why I raised some concern right from post #599 - "Why do you talk like this, debosky?" Even afterwards, I addressed that very concern back then and thought you would rather have seen this simple point there. But no - you did not, and rather tried to propound theories for a tithe in your case but cannot deliver when it comes to showing where in the NT such a thing is mentioned categorically.

Anyone can come up with all kinds of things and and claim that they are doing so on their own personal assumptions and interpretations. Do I care one or two scoobies? Nope. But when the same people try to put others on spot with all sorts of childish excuses where even they cannot deliver on the same matter, that is something that makes me shake my head in pity for such people.

I do not disparage you for any percentage you may have chosen to give - that is not the issue at all. Your arguments just don't have any substance to them, and after how many pages?

I do not practise what has been done away with - giving has not been done away with. What HAS been done away with in my opinion, is the tithe of the dill and cummin to an earthly Levitical Priesthood whose function as such as ceased with Jesus' assumption of the role as our High Priest. There is no physical temple, there is no priesthood requiring my tithes of dill and cummin (agricultural produce & livestock) as a result of a lack of inheritance and as such that has been done away with, or more pertinently, never applied to me as a Christian in the first place.

There goes the yapping again. Please stop fooling yourself. Your 10% every month is categorically tithing - nothing more, nothing less. Call it any name under the sun you may imagine, it changes nothing! Zilch! I did not ask you whether your tithing is on dill and cummin - if you even take anything on board in that regard, I asked rather whether the tithing you interpreted from Jesus' words are THE ONLY tithes in the entire Bible! If I thought you tithed dill and cummin, I could see your sense in even straining on that same point!

Your arguments about tithes and temple and all that are a waste and only makes me wonder if you have anything more refreshing to discuss than spewing the same retired arguments from theologians who are not worth their degrees! Dude, tithing is not constrained to temples - if you knew, you should have been one of the first to have seen that very point! Why do you guys like recycling the stupid arguments of illiterate ministers? Where was the temple in the case of Abraham's tithing to Melchizedek? Or of Jacob's? Or of Levi while he was still in the loins of Abraham? Just where were temples mentioned in those examples? besides, dude. . even within the Law, not all tithes were take to the Temple! How come this silly beggarly argument about tithes and temple keeps resurfacing on issues like this? Your 10% every month - do you give it to a physical temple? Goodness gracious!

Look debosky, I need to ask your pardon, but many times you bring up sheer unintelligent rants for arguments. Was that tithing-cum-temple issue a desperate curve on your graph to dramatise why you cannot deliver on simple issues up until now? Please er, please. . next time, when you choose to discuss this topic with me, do not make the mistake of recycling retired arguments often thrown about from the likes of Ernest Martin or Russell Kelly! The former is late; but the latter is a dunce! This argument on this issue is a non-starter and has never proven intelligent for his anti-tithing camp.

See above - as far as I'm concerned, deciding on what to do without compulsion as stated in 2 Cor 9:7 has not been done away with.

Dude, you're missing the point! Your arguments are a waste - I have not seen you defend it half-intelligently other than nice little quips for your convenience. 2 Corinthians 9:7 does not point to tithes, and using that verse as first-aid is not helping your case at all. The whole point, you should have noticed, is that I have never discussed this issue on the basis of cohesion or obligation! If you knew that all along, you would not have mentioned it in your replies to mine at all. But since you want to prove what cannot be proven, please be my guest and keep making vacant assertions. Mister, your 10% every month is a tithe - period! WHERE you find a principle for that is not in 2 Corinthians 9:7 - that is a verse that is not novel to NT believers, because even those under the Law were given that same principle without hanging it on any form of tithe! You're only conveniently ducking under that verse as if those in the OT did not know anything about that same principle! Oh c'mon!

The distinction is clear - if you cannot see it, again, refer to my answer above. I am not claiming giving, regardless of what percentage you decide has been done away with, but it is merely coincidental that my giving is 10% of my income, and nothing more - it is in no way a continuation of a practise which was based on agricultural goods.

This is even more comical. In the first place, I did not claim any percentage to have been done away - you made a statement about something having been done away! I drew from that and brought it up to your attention for intelligent address and defence - you failed to deliver on that and have been hooting on that same thing as if it was the best thing since slice bread! Puh-leeeze! Second, your 10% is now reduced to the level of a . . what? "Coincidence"? Oh, I just heard a new one tonight! Of all reasons that anyone has for tithing, yours is a "coincidence". . !! Oh heavens! That takes the icing on the cake!  Look dude, please close shop - immature comical standups like yours are not even worth discussing! 'Coincidence' indeed!  _{>viaro hisses<}

Kindly do so - as I have affirmed about 100 times now, my argument is also NOT about percentage, but a wrong belief in a mandatory system existing when it doesn't - surely if Paul found it necessary to confront any such teaching of mandatory requirements it is still pertinent to do so today. Yes there might be a 'real issue' to be dealt with, but that takes nothing away from the merit of examining a claim and determining it's veracity.

Please don't make these antique exaggerations. . unless you counted 100 times. In just the same way, I may have affirmed 10,000 times that I have never based my discussion about giving or tithes on the idea of a mandatory system or an obligation! Your come backs are vacant and strawman!

Aha! So I am now 'not grown'  . Are you a taxonomist by profession by any chance?

Er . . no, thanks for asking!  I applied once and found there was something higher for me!

You do have a penchant for culling new titles all the time, or maybe you're just following the divine instruction given to Adam to name the creation. 

Ooohh debosky! Please . . please, I do wanna laff!

They are distinguishable, but in the scheme of things very minor. Whether 'requested' or 'demanded', we are admonished to always be ready to explain our faith and I have not 'asked' for anything more. I know you are more learned than myself, but pardon my simple comprehension. 

Huh? Me. .  more learned? Where did you get that from? Chapter and verse. .??

Okay, bottomline: I get your drift, but I'd rather we try not to show an air of superiority when discussing with our brethren. No matter how far off the lane we might think Tonye-t has driven, we could be ready to discuss with him about the way we see things, not in an overbearing manner, but calmly, consistently, and humbly. We may not win arguments at all - either way - but at least we should not beggar our integrity to the level of almost losing the persons.

Blessings.

VALIDATOR:
The bold part is particularly interesting!
Truly,evolution can not rule out the fact that one particular homo-sapien had a God-like nature (made in His image) since it is beyond the scope of science.
I don't have issues with your views because they imply to me that you do not take biblical records literarily (I hope I am right). I however have issues with people who insist that the records in the bible are literally true.

For me, there is a difference between literarily and literally:

* literarily - in a literary manner, in regards to literature

* literally - in the exact manner that cannot be interpreted any other way

The Biblical records in many places are both literary and literal to me; but not so in some other parts. These other parts may be parabolic, symbolic, or allegorical (in which case they are addressing general truths in principle). What I believe does not have to be authority for anyone, for the views I have are based on my own understanding and deductions from what I read in the Biblical texts. Certainly, you may have issues with many people, and that is especially based on what they read and how they interpret those texts.

If something is literarily true,why should it not be subjected to literary examination. the records in the bible doesnt make literary sense to me.

I think you might have meant to say "literally true", rather than literarily true - the latter would be saying that something is true according to the style of literature. . . which is not the same as literality. Either way, it is not only the literature that should be examined - but the examiner himself ought to be scrutinised as well. This is true especially where we all are reading the same set of data and yet coming up with diverse interpretations (this is also the case even in science). Some people may see things differently from others, or a few other people might have missed some small details which led them to draw shaking conclusions. Either way, it is not the documents or texts that might be at fault, but rather the interpreters also might have a problem understanding a certain point due to any number of things. . including personal bias.

It is more correct to say that literarily they are myths/half truths/fantasies/exaggerations.

No, it is not "more correct" to draw that kind of assumption, because you may be doing so hastily where you have not understood anything in them yourself.

chukwudi44:
Did circumcision particularly mentioned by St Paul in the book of galatians originate from moses ? The fact remains that they all became part of the law,mind you what paul condemed was not really circumcision itself but compulsory circumcision in respect of the law ,the same way your criminal Pastors preach compulsory tithing in respect of the law by quoting the book of malachi.

chukwudi, I've addressed the question of your miserable ideas about circumcision; but don't you ever get tired of being a retard?

I asked a simple question - "How does giving tithes sever any Christian from the grace of Christ?" That was all I had hoped you would demonstrate, so that we can all see that anyone who has been giving any tithe is actually severed from Christ! HOW in the world does that happen?

This is why you retards are a good laugh any day. You can't give, can't address simple questions, can't read or understand a jot of what's in front of your eyes. .  and yet you take it upon yourself to try and join issues with people who have not asked you for a dime! Man, you suck with arrant nonsense. . . which is not surprising to say the least: because I didn't expect you would attempt to answer that question since you never know a jot of anything anyways.

Giving the tithe as a mandatory requirement of the law severes a christian from the grace of christ ,it is clearly stated in gal 5:4,

You schmuck. . lying is not a virtue, did you never know? First, Galatians 5:4 does not mention ANYTHING about tithes! Idiot! You have started this idiocy of Ernest L. Martin who shamelessly went about yapping out lies for gullible folks who are darn too illiterate to think for themselves. Please show me where that verse in any version mentions anything about TITHES! Don't try to cut corners, just show it plainly. Shameless retard and liar!

anyone who pays tithe because her pastor quotes the law of tithe  and chioses to fulfil the requirement stated in malachi 3 is no longer a christian.

Dunce! In your cult, you can damn people because they give tithes by believing in the principles of Malachi 3 - which is not new, because I have come across the same stupidity of desperate anti-tithing theologians who damn souls and pretend they are trying to save them! Lying is not going to redeem you in this hole you dug for yourself!

Pilgrim 1 whether you like it or not ,the game is up,the truth is already being exposed in the developed nations it is comming to africa,it might be a bit delayedd because of poverty and illiteracy,but I bet you in the next 50 years this scam will be over

First it was 20 years. .  now it is 50 years. .  next will be what? You're a consummate fool. The idiots who have spent their lives shouting against tithes are suddenly waking up to see that they've been lying to the world in their mega-zeal to condemn tithing in all forms! That is why you can sit back and mis-address me for pilgrim, make stupid statements that are entirely illiterate, strategically confirm your place among those of the "poverty and illiterate" base line, and hope that your delayed prophecy will come from developed world to your tiny cubicle! Humongous dunce! Next time you want to discuss, I'd be glad to dialogue; but as long as you wake up every now and often to spew your gutted crass verbosity, you get planked until you grow up.

Pastor AIO:
I put you in the same box as I put tpia and KAG.

No, no and no - I'm sorry to have to reply to that line. It is not appropriate to equate Abu+zola with either tpia or KAG. There is just no basis to do so.

VALIDATOR:
@viaro,
I see you got the idea but may have missed my main point.The need for a messiah was anchored on these: w

1 The first man (Adam) was perfect
2 Adam acquired a sinful/imperfect nature i.e sin entered the world through one man
3 Only a perfect messiah(Jesus) can restore today's man to being perfect again. i.e sin can only be taken away through one man-- a perfect messiah
4 Those who reject the perfection offered by the messiah will eventually be purnished eternally (or destroyed).

So,it means that the reason for the messiahship of Jesus is to restore man to being perfect

But evolution theory implies that there was no perfect  Adam who acquired a sinful nature and needs a perfect Jesus for redemption of sin to restore the man to perfection. That is my main point.That is why christians reject the theory of evolution.

Lol, I understand that the above is put forward by some people - and since that's not my idea, I can't answer roll-call on their behalf.

However, there are two huge issues with such reasoning. In addition to the outline I gave earlier, here are a few observations that would help wrap this up:

[list](a) 4 Those who reject the perfection offered by the messiah will eventually be purnished eternally (or destroyed).[/list]

As regards (a) above taken from your quote, I wonder what some people who hold that view have to say about those who never heard anything about any Messiah because they lived in very far places from the Jewish lands, and also had very diverse cultures from Jewish society, as well lived long before the emergence of the Jews?

As Christians, we have long dwelt on the idea that every thing must begin and end within the epoch of a convenient 6,000 years - from Adam to Abraham to Moses and the Jews to Jesus. That is not even what the Bible teaches. .  nada, zilch. I have tried to hint that when we Christians open our Bibles and study it carefully, we cannot deny the fact that there are indications of a world older than 6,000 years counting backwards from the present, as well the fact that there are indications of other beings closely resembling humans before even Adam was created. Now, all this may come as a shock to many Christians holding a conveniently traditional interpretation of the creation accounts in all 66 books of the Bible, but such traditional views are not what viaro believes.

[list](b). "But evolution theory implies that there was no perfect  Adam who acquired a sinful nature"[/list]

Okay; but how does 'evolution' come to such conclusions? How does the evolution theory begin to test for sin and perfection on spiritual and moral issues? Where does evolution begin to argue about matters that are completely outside its domain? How does evolution tell you anything about the spiritual nature of anybody for that matter?

When people make conclusions in such niggardly manner, it's probably best to let them continue to pamper themselves on such vacant assertions. .  until serious questions begin to surface for them to answer. Of all the arguments that could be offered for evolution with regards to the question of sin, spirituality, morality, etc., one needs to calmly think through about how any acclaimed evolutionist came to such conclusions about issues that he has no clues about.

mazaje:
I personally don't have time pandering to your ridiculous delusions. . . I just say it as it is and leave it you If you don't like what I say then go break your neck. . . I do not have time to pander to your senseless delusions. . . .

The stupid and pathetic lies you goons tell yourselves so that you can sleep at night while holding unto the myths you have been conditioned and brought up in and made to believe in since childhood. . . You think I care if you take me seriously or not?   who cares if you take me seriously or not? Do you think any body takes you seriously?. . . .Pls stop giving your self credit that you do not deserve at all. . .

Absence of evidence is evidence of absence until you provide any evidence for you god then he like all others gods(Zeus.,Thor,Ra, Amun, Vishnu etc) are mythical characters simple. . . .The fact remains that those that talk about your god use ancient text full of stories that have no basis in reality to debate about his existence and that is a fact. . . By the way who is talking about scholarship here? I am not a scholar and I do not claim to be one. . .I state things the way they are and I do not have time pandering to your stupid delusions. . . 

I don't even know what to make of this ridiculous and pathetic rambling and meaningless rants that are all talk and NO substance at all. . .I do not pander to people's delusions(And I will not pander to your own delusions) I state things the way the are if you don't like it go break your neck. . . . That's your business. . .

"And mazaje, if you're there reading this, please let it pass. I will not try to even address your comments as replies to my penultimate rejoinder if you come off in the same manner." - post #42

Deep Sight:
Nobody responded to these posts.

I take it then that no loop holes were found.

Slow down, dear senior. . slow down!

Of course, there are some major objections to observe; and I for one was slow to jump in with a scimitar lest I appear before the panel for the umpteenth time!

Anyhow, I was particularly interested by some inferences you arrived at -

Yes guys, the abstract form of the number [1] is imbued with energy.

Now back to the Oneness of Infinity. I have already described above what that means.

Now what sort of energy would such a oneness of all infinity in existence exhibit. Clearly, it will exhibit infinite energy!

Thus we have the basis for energy being imbued within the oneness of all empty infinity.

Now with that in mind, let us take a look at our own universe. Are there any suggestions of an underlying pulsating energy which may be attributed to such?

I'm trying to be cautious here; but for the moment, I dare say that those conclusions have taken the physics out of reality and rather presented us with serious problems. The key notes that caught my curiosity are these -

* the idea of a oneness of all empty infinity

* what sort of energy is exhibited by the above

* what is meant by an infinity that is both -

(a) 'inclusive' (all empty infinity); and

(b) 'vacuous' (all empty infinity)

The inferences drawn from these postulations are hard, if not impossible, to defend by any dimension or stretch of imagination. By the time we begin to try to analyse each of those factors and try to synthesise them into the framework of your postulations, there would be a whole world of false mirrors against defined reality.

That was most certainly why I'd wanted to slow down (here and in the other thread) and see further developments of your postulations before I could attempt to wrap up anything.

So far, so interesting. Ride on.