₦airaland Forum

@drag_on

Are you a Catholic who really has a problem with pentecostalism or protestantism, or you're just trying to finish off a quarrel you picked up from somewhere else? I marvel that you seem to be against the New Testament, and yet you quote it when it suits your petty whining - or where did you get all the scriptures you used in your lecture on this page [matt:28.19-20,acts:10.44-48. .1cor:14,23-32. . ]?? How did you know that Paul made tents, or that the Lord always talked about the spirit ["he will guide u(not the bible)into ALL TRUTH, and will show u THINGS TO COME"] - if you didn't get that from the same Bible (particularly the New Testament) that you're shouting your crapola against? And your favourite writer John: where do you find his writings - in Ebony magazine or the New Testament? It doesn't make any sense for you to slur the Bible and yet call one of its inspired writers your favourite!

Miracles. . . noisy prayers. . . speaking in tongues. . . pastors did this and that - what's the next pentecostal and protestant activity that gives you sleepless night? Why pointing accusing fingers - if others have not been able to perform miracles on the streets of Lagos, what is stopping you from being the first to display your faith of a mustard seed? This is the kind of double standard that Jesus warned against - beware of mere talk without action to back it up. . . He calls it hypocrisy (see Luke 12:1 and Matt.23:3).

Friend, you need to take care of your prejudices before shouting at others. Those who do wrong, the Lord will deal with them - so leave them to Him. "Therefore do not pronounce judgment before the time, before the Lord comes, who will bring to light the things now hidden in darkness and will disclose the purposes of the heart. Then each one will receive his commendation from God." (1Cor. 4:5). Miracles, tongues and all else that God has given to His children are priceless and honourable - so hold your tongue from the temptation of classifying the miracles of the Lord as "demonic, delusion, fraud, and heartbreak." You failed to mention that there are genuine miracles - I've experienced some for myself in my life, and they did not lead to the possibility of frauds, delusions, or heartbreaks. God is love and bigger than the noise you're making - He's definitely bigger than Catholicism, Protestantism, Pentecostalism or any "-isms" in Christendom. Whatever the confusion we see around us, we can help to warn against evil and encourage towards the good: in all things, God alone will be God.

Your response would have made sense if it was coherent, but let's bare a few facts out.

biggjoe:
Believe it or not Chriatianity started as Catholicism before factions started emerging due to misinterpretations of the Bible. Jackie is trying to put this forward but in a rather harsh way.

The end product of Bible misinterpretations is Protestantism which you and many other christians today belong to.

Though you acknowledged that Jackie24's response was somewhat harsh, I had stated that my rejoinder to hers was not seeking to attack the Catholic Church/faith (see my disclaimer). However, your getting upset by my reply has not helped established good sense in yours. You obviously are as ignorant as me or worse if you suppose that "Christianity started as Catholicism" because it actually did not - you even contradicted your own argument by saying: "Catholicism took its root from the apostles after Christ's Asscencion." Read the beginnings of the Church in Acts 1-2 and see for yourself.

biggjoe:
Your continued use of catholic Bible is rather funny because it simply demonstrates that you lack the knowledge of history of christianity. Who made your Bible what it is? CATHOLICS! . . .

When protestents argue about the Bible as if it is their own God sent gift it makes me laugh. Was it not Catholics that compiled all the books of the NT and made it joined it to the SCRIPTURES to make today's bible.

Protestants may use a canon of the Bible somewhat different from Catholics, and your argument that Catholics gave protestants their Bible says nothing about your commitment to Christ. Do you read your own Bible. . . does Jackie24? How do you begin to discuss a subject with someone who says she neither quotes nor trusts the Bible? It is okay if she doesn't trust the Bible; but which Bible was she referring to as 'fake' and having been erased in some parts - the same one that Catholics gave Protestants? So, you agree that the corruption did not come from the Protestants but from you Catholics who gave us the Bible! It is not protestant evangelicals that say they don't trust the Bible or consider it misleading or fake - it is often Catholics who get so angry at nothing that blurt out such shame; and to think that the Bible that Catholics gave us protestants can't even be trusted by Catholics themselves is a bigger shame.

biggjoe:
Idolatory is different from use of images in worship. Idolater is worshiping his/her symbol but a catholic praying or celebrating mass infront of a crucifix is not worshiping the wooden crucifix but who it represents. You can argue against this till next year.

The cherubs being referred to in the ark were they not heavenly beings too but God gave that specifications because it doesnt annoy him.

The cherubim certainly are heavenly beings, and their depiction was ordained by God. But did you read anywhere that anyone bowed to the image of the cherubim? Was that what God asked them to do - to bow down to any image or pray in front of them as the Catholic Church would have you believe? There's no argument about this - just kindly quote me from any Bible of your choice where any true worshipper bowed to any image of a cherub. If there was nothing wrong with using images in worship as you would like to believe, why then did the Israelites not make images or statutes of Abraham, Moses, Joshua, and the seventy elders in the Old Testament? The early Christians never had a crucifix with them until the Catholic Church introduced it into Christian worship and claimed that it dated to the first century. There's nothing wrong with having pictures of people - I have loads of albums of friends and acquaintances; but that is not the same thing as the crucifix and other statues that you're asked to bow down to in Catholicism. You're surely not asking the right questions or making appropriate inferences.

biggjoe:
Catholicism took its root from the apostles after Christ's Asscencion. Before that He prayed that his followers be one. But what happened.

Protestants can say that we worship idols or do many other things which they say is unbiblical because they want to achieve one objective -- to get larger congregation which is equal to more profit. Catholic church has gone beyond that stage. The church is only looking to converting non christians and directing her followers to the way of Christ period.

If you want to argue about the unity of Catholics, it'll be a shame to revisit history - the whole world saw how divided Catholics were after Pope John Paul II passed into blessed memory. How many Catholics are actually in favour of the incumbent pope? Ok, centuries after protestants left the Catholic Church, where's the unity you boast of? You're sounding so accusative that you can't face reality. Not all protestant churches could be accused of seeking any profit - financial or political - and that's the propaganda that you're still feeding your mind with. There are hundreds of evangelical ministers whose passion for the salvation of souls is evident.

It's human to get angry at truth especially where it exposes human bias and tradition. Most Catholics just cannot face up to the truths discovered in the Bible due to diehard traditions. I'm not drawing out a quarrel, but if someone asserts a notion that has no basis in God's Word, I totally reject such regardless of the claim.

Jackie24:
I did not read your post and I do not quote the bible. Those who do use it for argueing purposes and I have no place for that. And having a picture of my grandmother and thinking of her is the same exact thing as having a picture of Jesus and thinking of him. It is simply the search for an arguement and judgement to make such an idiotic claim that it is sinful to have images that remind us of God in our homes. Quote the bible all you want, it is misread and misleading, it is misinterpreted and parts of it even fake, some peices erased from history. I do not trust the whole bible, ESPECIALLY when given only peices of it at a time.
The bible contradicts itself many times.

I'm surprised that as a Catholic you would say the sort of things you're saying. If the Bible contradicts itself many times, then your Catholic interpretations are definitely flawed - because by your own generalizations and summations, the Catholic Bible would contradict itself "many times" as it fits into your description that it is misread, misleading, misinterpreted, even fake, and some pieces erased. As you do not trust the whole Bible (especially the Catholic Bible), would that be a hint as to why you could not defend your statements and ideas, perhaps because there are all fake?


*Disclaimer: This is not to say that my response is attacking the Catholic faith as not every Catholic agrees with Jackie24's views, interpretations or generalizations.

Whether or not a calling can be ignored is not the issue. Where did you get your information from that gays are 'called' in the first place? Who gave them the "harder path" to follow?

Jackie24:
Giving your money away isn't foolish, Jesus tells the rich man it is the only way to enter heaven. Spending it foolishly by buying a bunch of non-sence is the problem. Giving money away is not foolish, it's selfless.

I'm not sure that Jesus ever told anyone that giving money away is the only way to enter heaven. Salvation is not obtained by money - whether giving or receiving. No, He never said so - or, please give us the scripture where He did. The only qualification above all else is to be born again -

"Jesus answered, Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." - John 3:5

Jackie24:
Those who are gay are, I believe, called to a life of abstinance and prayer, it's a hard task and my prayers go to those who follow such a path.

Could you please clarify that notion. How do you reconcile the fact that gays are sexually active to this idea that they are called to a life of abstinence and prayer?

You were only asked to explain a few things, especially how Jesus and the Almighty are vice versa. Hiding behind the excuse of your grammar does not mean you've provided answers.

Jackie24,

How did I misinterpret the Bible? Where did you read that the early Christians had images of Jesus as reminders of Him? I'd like to see you sensibly point out the Bible verses where you think I got it wrong.

Your grandmother's picture does not square with the issue of discussion - looking at her picture is not the same thing as what God has warned against concerning the use of images in worship.

If it wasn't that I'd gained from the inputs, maybe it would've been a little off topic.

what question?

wiseguy, forget your heat - unless you want to tell us who you had hoped to list as the "overzealous Christians of our time" on this Forum. If none, case closed.

All those '-isms' are simply beating me blues . . . I'm not trying to be silly, so no offences meant. All I know is that Jesus is not vice versa with the Almighty. If you "stand in the knowledge and [you] have no apologies for posting" that twister, let me ask you a question: Who died on the Cross for you - the Son or the Father? This "talan-tolo" wey U dey take shakara for us here is uncalled for. Did you not say "Jesus is the LOVE of the Almighty"?. . . and then you still post Him as vice versa with the Almighty. Oya, canst thou explain what thou meanest in thy treatise? So, if I pray to the Father in Jesus' Name, am I also praying to Jesus in Jesus' Name?

Father, Son and Holy Spirit - I believe.

Father, Son and Holy Spirit = vice versa. . . I NO believe!

What you're suggesting is called reductionism. Matters of the Christian faith are much more than that. Loving my neighbour as myself is only part of it and holds an important place, no doubt. But have you considered that loving my neighbour as myself is meaningless until I discover what it means to love God with all my heart, soul, mind and strength? The latter comes first and foremost, and the former is just useless without the latter.

The bullshit is yours. You were first to cry 'intimidation' when nobody was after you in anyway.

allonym:
On the contrary, it seems most of the Christians here are ignorant of their faith. Why should I expect you to be any different. You sure have not shown me you're any more educated than most others here. I like your generalizations about Christians, you are one of those who when they hear Jehovah's Witnessess say that on 140K people are going to heaven, your response is, they must not be christians.

You obviously were confused about me for you to have made such assertions. 'You are one of those. . . your response is. . . ' - I considered that really awkward. Where did you find me making the "generalizations about Christians" or the "response" you attributed to me?

And since you considered yourself so knowledgeable about the Jehovah Witnesses and their beliefs, ask and they'll correct you - the number is 144,000 (or 144K if you prefer); not 140K (or 140,000). If you've got issues mixed up, just ask before you blow your trumpet.

If you really need to amuse yourself, you could try this for size - I've reposted a question for your consideration as in my last reply:

welborn:
Let's make this simple: could you please give me your own views about God - if you're 'disputing that there is any God making rules in the first place', would I be correct in saying that you're atheistic? If no, then please say it as succinctly as you possibly could: where do you belong?

Is it that difficult for you to understand or you're now asking for an endless argument? Let me remind you of what I said:

". . . what I'd like you to see is that the word of God settles a question for me - does it settle questions for you as well?"

You tell me what you're basing your salvation on, and then I could make out just what your problem is.

omoge02863,

I didn't use the word 'argument' to mean that you're looking for a quarrel. It's simple: as long as you keep feeling this way or that, having this, that or the other option or opinion, there'll be no end in sight to all the hoo-ha anyone posts here. It's true that people interpret certain texts of the Bible differently from others; but what I'd like you to see is that the word of God settles a question for me - does it settle questions for you as well?

The point is, the clear statements of the Bible show me that it IS possible to identify a true Christian - and I've given some references to back up my reasoning. If you disagree, wouldn't it be just nice for you to quote me at least two or three scriptures for your arguments (options/opinions) in fair exchange? I respect your options/opinions; but is that what you desire me to base my contributions on - your opinions, rather than the solid word of God?

It's alright to stay with your answer; and so it is for everyone who sees something to share from the Bible.

allonym:
Funny, I suppose the consistent attempt to pretend this is a christian forum and thus my ideas have no place here is not some way to get me to stop posting. Seriously, nobody is that stupid to believe that is not one of your motives.

I never said I was God. And, I say you are wrong, the God in the Christian faith IS apathetic. All life on this planet points to that.

allonym,

You'd have to be sane enough to be consistent in what you're saying to make some sense. No one was intimidating you - you felt intimidated out of nothing other than the challenge to make some sense in what you say. Was that too much for you to handle? FYI, I have no ulterior motives as you suppose. There's no one stupid enough to think so unless they haven't read my posts. If I wanted you to stop posting replies here or elsewhere, it would be clearly stated in my replies. Let me remind you of some of my statements:

"You gravely misread me, allonym. . .and that's trash talk because I did not suggest that you could not respond to any post here or elsewhere. There's a difference between discussing a topic and picking on others' posts."____"If you don't want to preach your own apathetic 'God' or religion where you STRIVE to be apathetic, you don't have to feel anyone is thereby intimidating you. What a laugh! By all means feel free to make up your own religion of apathy."____"Responding to my posts is great and by all means do so as long as you make sense rather than sounding off against anyone's faith."

If you felt you could not respond to any posts here because you felt incapable of doing so in one way or the other, why blame it on some imagined 'intimidation' when no one was frightening you? Nor was I asking you not to post replies here. How could you afford to be so childish to miss the point in my replies? This is an open thread where anyone is free to post a message or discuss a topic ('discuss', not misrepresent) - I have not claimed it is exclusively for Christians, so slow down on the falsehood. God in the Christian faith is not apathetic, and if you insist He is, you're welcome to be my guest and show how narrow you could get. Your statement: "All life on this planet points to that" - Is that how sad your life really is?

allonym:
I never questioned why God would have rules for allowing anyone into heaven. NOBODY has given any sound replies even to that imaginary question. Stop propagating lies.

So, what is the meaning of this statement in one of your replies: "If God doesn't care about you, and lets people into heaven or hell based on whether they followed certain rules,. . ."?? I'm not propagating lies. You stated that in your post and mlks_baby took you up on that. You're the same person who said: "I'm not complaining about the rules, I'm even disputing that there is any "God" making "rules" in the first place." Really? And what if actually God has set rules?

Let's make this simple: could you please give me your own views about God - if you're 'disputing that there is any God making rules in the first place', would I be correct in saying that you're atheistic? If no, then please say it as succinctly as you possibly could: where do you belong?

allonym:
On the contrary, it seems most of the Christians here are ignorant of their faith. Why should I expect you to be any different. You sure have not shown me you're any more educated than most others here. I like your generalizations about Christians, you are one of those who when they hear Jehovah's Witnessess say that on 140K people are going to heaven, your response is, they must not be christians.

Excuse me allonym, with all due respect I don't expect you at any level of intelligence to descend so low in your carping. I challenge that barefaced falsity you've just posted and request you to show where I've ever made generalizations about Christians, or subscribed to the Jehovah Witness teachings, or where I stated that 'they must not be christians', or that only 140k are going to heaven. This is a classic example of the sort of misrepresentation that I talked about in my rejoinders. As far as you don't misrepresent anyone or their faith, a good discussion is possible; as long as you miss the point and resort to making untrue statements, you don't make any sense.

omoge02863,

Being a Christian and identifying as one has very little to do with feelings - it does not matter how you feel about people. The Word of God shows how to know true Christians from false professors, and if you can't agree with what the Bible says, your argument will be endless. One thing I know is that Jesus said a person is known by his/her fruits. Fact is, it is possible to tell a true Christian from a fake.

kimba, thank you for your simple and straight forward answers - I couldn't have put it any simpler.

What is the problem with quoting the Bible? If they ask you to come to this or that church and they don't harmonise with what the Bible says, I simply walk away.

mamaput:
I don't know my bible so off head but I know that Jesus himself was tempted several times.

Okay, same could be said of me - I don't know everything in the Bible nor could I quote everything in it. We learn daily, and the Forum is a nice place to add to knowledge.

Jesus faced many temptations - direct from the Devil (Matt. 4:1-11), indirectly through His disciples (Matt. 16:21-23) as well as His opposers (Matt. 22:16-22). In all things, the Bible says He was tempted but found without sin - He did not yield to a single temptation and is the only One without sin (Heb.4:15).

mamaput:
I am not saying that Jesus and john had different things to say, but they did not have the same approach to the same topices.

Maybe John the Baptist and Jesus had different approaches to the same issues - but 'different approaches' are not the same as 'contradictions'. They never argued or disagreed. It was all the same consistent Gospel we see them both engaged in - John the Baptist as the forerunner and announcer; Jesus Christ the Perfecter of our faith (Heb. 12:2). Infact, John the Baptist said clearly that He must decrease while Jesus should increase because the latter was the Saviour and should have the pre-eminence (John 3:30).

mamaput:
But he did say do what i say and don't do as i do.

Nope - Jesus never said that. If He did, please I'd like you to fetch it out for me in any translation of the Bible you come across. Perhaps you meant to quote Matt. 23:1-3 - "Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples, Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat: All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.". Jesus was referring to the works of the srcibes and the Pharisees when He warned that we should not be hypocrites like them - only hypocrites talk about their religion and fail to obey what they preach. If that wasn't what you wanted to reference, then please kindly quote the verse in your next reply where it was written that Jesus said, "do what i say and don't do as i do."

mamaput:
Every one translates the bible the way the like at the end of the day its all about believing that Jesus is the son of god.       He came to save our souls and not our sex life. at least we can agree on that.
But on reading the bible did not god himself admit mistakes.?
Like when he got so annoyed and flooded the earth. Did he not promise not to do so again.?

God did not admit to mistakes by flooding the earth in His anger in Genesis 6-7. He clearly gave His reasons there for His judgement - the whole earth had become wicked (Gen. 6:5) The Hebrew word translated as 'repented' in Gen. 6:6,7 is nawkham and has the sense of 'sighing with pity'. I could sigh with pity at someone without feeling I made a mistake in that person's life. Colloquially, we could angrily say to someone who's annoying: "I pity you!" So, the sense of the word 'repented/repenteth' in Gen. 6:6-7 does not mean God admitted to a mistake.

[[another example:  Another English word that has a different meaning today from the KJV translation is 'suffer' in Mat 19:14 - "But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven." Of course, Jesus did not mean that we should subject children to cruelty in order to bring them to Him; the Greek word is 'aphiemi' and means 'to send forth. . .to let'.]].

There was sufficient time and warnings given for repentance, but the people drove on in mad and desparate wickedness until God's patience ran out on them. When He promised not to judge the earth by a flood ever again (Gen. 9:11), it does not mean that judgement will not come - the future judgement will be by fire, not by flood (2 Pet.3:7).

Perhaps it would help to carefully read the Bible yourself before you arrive at any interpretations. Most times the opinions of people are flawed when they haven't checked out their facts before drawing conclusions.

omoge02863:
How can you identify a true christian ??
well, sorry we can't ,
ONLY GOD CAN

we as people of the earth can only have our own personal idea and options of what a true christian is
and everyones ideas and options are different.

If that's the way you interpret reality, then I guess that you cannot identify a false prophet and a deceiver when they come knocking on your door. Jesus didn't mince words when He said by their fruits we shall know them (Matt.7:15-20). It is only foolhardy to pretend we can't know anyone for who or what they are. I know a true Christian when I see one. How? The Bible clearly tells me how -

"If ye know that he is righteous, ye know that every one that doeth righteousness is born of him." - I John 2:29.

There is no confusion about how to know that Jesus is righteous - neither is there any ambiguity in knowing that anyone who does righteousness is born of God (or, if you please, "born again". A lot of people may claim to be born again but still living in and enjoying sin. In that case, the Bible clearly states that I should not have fellowship with such - Eph.5:11. It is true God knows those who are truly worshipping Him ("the Lord knows those that are His" - 2 Tim.2:19), but He has not left us guessing who is truly born again when I seek fellowship.

If no one can know for sure who is a Christian, then I guess YOU don't know if you're one. . . and it means I don't know for sure if I'm saved. . . and also, nobody could be sure if they were saved. However, since doubt is a sin to God, He does not want me to live like that but to keep believing what He has already accomplished so that I can have the assurance of salvation even before Jesus comes again! There's an abundance of assurance in the Bible that we can know for sure right now before that Day that we are born again:

(1) Beloved, we are God's children NOW, and what we will be has not yet appeared; but we know that when he appears we shall be like him, because we shall see him as he is. (I John 3:2). . . And hereby we know that we are of the truth, and shall assure our hearts before him. (1John 3:19). . . And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us. (I John 3:24). . . These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God. (1John 5:13).

There's just no guess work in God's salvation. Everyone who is born again is a Christian - and besides knowing from the Bible that we are saved by faith in Jesus Christ, the wonderful work of the Holy Spirit bears witness with our spirits that we ARE the children of God (Rom.8:16).

mamaput:
What ever its not about what Jesus did or did not do , but about what he preached.

The Christian faith is based on what Jesus both did and preached:

"In the first book, O Theophilus, I have dealt with all that Jesus began to do and teach" (Acts 1:1). "And Jesus went about all the cities and villages, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing every sickness and every disease among the people." (Matt. 9:35). "How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him." (Acts 10:38).

mamaput:
Did he and John the Baptist not have different reputations
Were people then not calling him a drunkard that was eating with sinners?

"For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, He hath a devil. The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold a man gluttonous, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners. But wisdom is justified of her children. (Matt.11:18-19)

The fact that Jesus and John the Baptist have different reputations among people does not mean that their ministries were opposed to each other - if that's what you meant. John was sent as a forerunner to bear witness of Jesus as:

(a) the Light of the world (John 1:6-9)
(b) the One who takes away the sin of the world (John 1:29).
(c) and the Son of God who baptizes with the Holy Ghost (John 1:33-34).

If people called Jesus a drunkard, does that mean He was actually a drunkard? Read the scriptures and see that you have misunderstood the contexts. Jesus was not a drunkard - people only accused Him of being such; and that's why He said "Wisdom is justified of her children" - no wise person would suppose that the accusation of the people was justified.

mamaput:
Jesus said he came to help the sick not so
But i must say that website i ddon'tunderstand what it has to do with religion.

Reverend Kinky's website does not give a true picture of what Christianity is. Believers in Jesus Christ don't live their lives the way Reverend kinky believes.

Softee:
What is reverends website?

Check it out here: http://kinkymarymagdelinechurch.cjb.net

Of course, a lot of changes have been made on the website, but if you see the discussions in the following link, you'll get the gist: https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-7656.96.html .

This is what I don't get in a religion.

Did Abdul Rahman commit sacrilege? Did he steal, murder, or commit treason?

What exactly was this man's high profile crime? He simply changed his religion - and that's just it? He should be killed just for that?

How then do I understand or reconcile this murderous intention to this propaganda that "Islam is a religion of peace, tolerance, kindness and integrity"? [Ansarullah Mawlafizada, the trial judge]. 'Tolerance'. . . and Islam just could not tolerate a man's free will to change his religion? 'Kindness'. . .and Islam just could not be kind to Abdul Rahman but seek his death? It is okay for other faiths to tolerate Islam, but it has always been high treason for Islam to tolerate other faiths. It is okay for people to change their religion to Islam, but it is high treason for someone to change from Islam to any other faith. Something is twisted here.

For those who still believe that Islam is tolerant and peaceful and . . .blah, blah - listen to this: "The Prophet Muhammad has said several times that those who convert from Islam should be killed if they refuse to come back." (again, says the trial judge).

If Islam is not a religion of calculated fear and intimidation, would someone please define those four bold words in the trial judge's assertions.

allonym:
Hahaha. Actually, most of the time i'm involved in an argument, I strive to be apathetic. I don't care. To be honest, I could argue either side. I'm starting to see that many people here are more focused on attempting to somehow intimidate or influence me into being silent, rather than trying to respond to my statements.

Attempting to somehow intimidate you? I couldn't hold my laughter! You're beginning to sound childish indeed. I challenged you to make some sense in your responses and all you get out of it was intimidation? Phew!
There just isn't any need to ask you to go back and re-read my rejoinder.

By your own admittance, you're apathetic - or, to be more specific, you STRIVE to be apathetic. Did I not say so before? Even then, God in the Christian faith in NOT apathetic. And that's why you have grossly misrepresented Him. If you're apathetic as you admit, there is a God who loves me - and you're NOT Him!

allonym:
Hahaha. Actually, most of the time i'm involved in an argument, I strive to be apathetic. I don't care. To be honest, I could argue either side.

So, you're neither here nor there? Inconsistency has been your trademark and so far it hasn't helped anyone to better understand you. You can't be both for and against something. . . not even the worst of politicians I know are typical of such inconsistency.

allonym:
Ok, so, its ok that God should have rules for letting people into heaven. So what? I don't care. I was responding to whoever said that God loves us. If it wasn't you, great for you. . .

Hmmm. . . I now sense and understand your fear that pushed you into feeling intimidated when in fact no one was attempting to frighten you. In response to your questioning why God would have rules for allowing anyone into heaven, others have given you sound replies.

allonym:
Ok, that is nice, except, what if I don't feel like preaching and I feel like responding to posts I don't like? That is not against the forum rules. I know at least one other person who does this: you. How have I misrepresented anyone's faith? What makes you the authority on christianity? How do you know you have the correct interpretation? Funny how so many people exactly know what christianity or what God thinks.

Responding to my posts is great and by all means do so as long as you make sense rather than sounding off against anyone's faith. And you really don't like some posts? - what gets you so upset about them that you'd have to admit that you don't like them?

What makes me an authority? Don't make me laugh some more. You surely don't expect me as a Christian to be ignorant of my faith - and careful study of the Bible provides answers to some of the questions I encounter daily in my commitment to Christ. Interpretations may differ even among Christians, but no Bible-taught Christian would concede to your view that God is apathetic as you try to make Him out to be.

If you're propagating your own faith/religion (what shall we call it now. . ) and your own 'God' is apathetic, fantastic for you! If you believe your version of 'God' is apathetic and I argue that he/she/it is not, then I have misrepresented your belief. In the same way, if I know that God in my Christian faith is loving and you try to surmise that He is apathetic, you have misrepresented my faith. There's a simple way round this: as long as we don't misrepresent anyone's faith (even when we disagree with their tenets), there'll be less confusion in discussions. Try that out and see the change for the better.

If you don't want to preach your own apathetic 'God' or religion where you STRIVE to be apathetic, you don't have to feel anyone is thereby intimidating you. What a laugh! By all means feel free to make up your own religion of apathy. But good to note that your 'apathy religion' is not the same as Christianity - they are worlds apart.

TYPOP,

You're such a gentleman, and I apologise if my responses were a bit hard - I didn't mean it so. Thanks for being human.

allonym:
Reread my post, I never said that God truely loves and hates someone at the same time. I said that it is impossible to do so. Since some of God's actions are those a person who truely loves someone would do, and other actions are those a person who truely hates someone would take, then God must actually neither truely love or hate people.

There's a problem with your presumptions. You don't seem to understand that some of God's actions are not on the same level as those of a person on the human level. If you try to presume things this way, you'll be taking the wrong course of reductionism - in this context, reducing God to human level. Even so, no human being (including you) could ever "truely love and hate someone at the same time" (your exact words). If that's the case, you're also apathetic since you could do neither at the same time; because that's clearly the conclusion you drew from your logic:

allonym: Seeing as it is impossible to truely love and hate someone at the same time, the logical conclusion is that God is apathetic.

And so. . .

allonym:
I was not complaining. I was responding to your post where you made the statement about God loving us. That was an example of how what may seem to be love can be shown to be apathy.

First, you were not responding to my post - go check it out (you might be mistaking me for someone else). Second, if you were not complaining, you shouldn't have had that quote in your response. Seeing that you indeed stated it so, I'll reiterate that it is perfectly fitting that God should have rules for letting people into heaven.

allonym:
If you want to say things where people CANNOT respond to you, then post in a journal. If you post things anywhere else, you are opening it up to discussion. In a discussion, it may sometimes happen, that someone's views will be contrary to yours. In any case, I'm just stating something, and looking for your response.

You gravely misread me, allonym. . .and that's trash talk because I did not suggest that you could not respond to any post here or elsewhere. There's a difference between discussing a topic and picking on others' posts. For example, we may view God differently, but that is not the same thing as misrepresenting someone's faith. So far, you've only been sounding off against the Christian view of God, but have not given me any alternative ideas of your own 'God/goddess' by which I could investigate and challenge your own views. If to you, God is apathetic in the Christian faith, we respond by refuting that presumption and misrepresentation; but then, what view of 'God' do YOU hold? Just saying that God in Christianity is apathetic does not tell me anything about YOUR OWN 'God'.

That is why I threw you a challenge to invite others to a thread and preach your own version of 'God' (or whatever you believe in) so that others could respond appropriately. If you open another thread and still attack the Christian view of God, you'd again be failing to see the difference between a discussion and petty arguments. My view of 'God' does not satisfy you is different from you preaching your own 'God'. If your 'God' neither loves nor hates and is apathetic, all the better for you - but that is not the Christian God.

Just one more thing. You really should not be self-congratulatory about equpping anyone to handle 'stuff' - because you have neither helped me nor anyone here nor even yourself. It is obvious from the responses following your posts that, rather than jubilate, everyone has been complaining about your illogical logic and apathetic conclusions.

Okay, I understand where you're coming from. However, there's a difference between someone persecuting you and someone bringing a false doctrine. Neither Jesus nor the apotles asked us to bless false teachers - they said to reject them and not share in their work either by blessing or encouraging them - anyone blessing a false teacher is also partaking of his evil works. If you ever wonder about the attitudes of the apostles with regards to false teachers and their docrines, this is an example of a Scripture:

"As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed." (Gal.1:9).

I'm not stating things too far in saying that Reverend's teachings are evil: he clearly insinuated that Jesus Christ was a sinner and a sex pervert. What does that mean to you? That is not something that deserves a blessing - it deserves the anathema by Biblical standards.

allonym:
I'm sure if I give to the homeless, rather than to the church, God also sees my heart.

Uhm, which God? 

Whether protestant, Catholic or JW (Jehovah Witness), faith is what saves - and it is faith that works by love that sustains the Christian life and witness.

The context of the Exodus, Psalms and Isaiah texts are related to warnings to God's people about the dangers of engaging in idolatory. It is clear that God hates worship centered on idolatory even if that worship is ascribed to Him.

However, when it comes to images used in the Old Testament worship, there we find explicit directions of how the cherubim were to be made. These were depictions of angelic beings that covered the mercy seat (compare Exo.25:18-20); they were not depictions of God Himself, because God cannot be compared to anything or anyone else - visible or invisible - and that is why He warned that no one should make any image to worship or bow down to it (Exo.20:4-5 and compare: "To whom then will ye liken God? or what likeness will ye compare unto him?" Isa 40:18). There's nothing and no one to compare to God and that is why He would not share His glory with anyone else. Notice also, that a true worshipper never bowed down in worship to the cherubim or any image used in the OT temple - they knew that the cherubim were not God Himself nor depicting God.

However, in New Testament times, after Jesus had been glorified, the true meaning of the OT symbols were now brought out powerfully. One such case is that God would no longer dwell in temples made by hands ("Howbeit the most High dwelleth not in temples made with hands; as saith the prophet; Heaven is my throne, and earth is my footstool: what house will ye build me? saith the Lord: or what is the place of my rest?" Acts 7:48-49). Jesus had announced that the Father was seeking true worshippers to worship Him in spirit and in truth (John4:24). This means that we are the Temple of the living God where He dwells in us by the Spirit (I Cor.3:16). No cherub dwells in this NT Temple; only God Himself dwells there. That is why the NT way of worship is radically different from the OT. Hebrews 9 is a wonderful chapter that explains why the use of carved/graven images in NT worship is not acceptable to God. Paul's inspired argument is that they do not make the conscience of the believer perfect and thus classed as dead works.

When debating the issue of using images in worship, a believer should ask some questions:

(1) who/what does the image represent - does it depict God or something/someone less than God? If it is less than God, why are you bowing down to it? (Isa.40:18).

(2) if you bow down to, pray to, or solicit the prayers of the images (whether or not they represent saints or rosary), are you sure you're not violating the clear commandment of God not to do so? (Exo.20:4-5).

(3) what was Jesus' and the early Christian example - did you read anywhere in the Scriptures that they bowed down to images in order to improve their faith? (Eph.2:18 and 3:12).

We live in a day when people wonder if the Christian faith could be understood and lived - and Jesus Himself clearly warned that such a time will come. I just have one guarantee - that God's word stands forever and careful study will provide answers on any subject (I Pet.1:25).

Re: How Can U Identify True Christians?

Good question, tabuko. However, it looks like you were preaching more about the Jehovah Witness (JW) group than of who really is a Christian. There are certain things you mentioned that you will find in cultic groups - cults love their members as much as Christians do, but true Christians don't discriminate about who they show love to ("For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?" - Matt. 5:46. . . "But I say unto you which hear, Love your enemies, do good to them which hate you" - Luke 6:27). True Christians engage in politics in a limited sense - they pay taxes, respect their political leaders and countries (it's called 'patriotism') and show that respect by praying for them ("I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty. - I Tim.2:1-2).

How then could I recognise a true Christian? Two things stand out prominent above all else - (a) what such a person believes about Jesus Christ, and (b) how such a person lives the Christian life.

A true Christian is one who believes in and confesses the Lord Jesus Christ as his/her Lord and Saviour ("That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved." - Rom 10:9). Today, there all sorts of people claiming to be 'Christians' without believing in Jesus Christ or His atoning death and resurrection - e.g., you have such misnomers as 'Christian atheist'; and others who go by the title 'Christian' and yet don't believe that Jesus ever existed. Such ideas have no bearing on what God says on the matter, and what God has said on any subject settles it for me, regardless what arguments people advance.

Second is how a believer lives the Christian life. Since we know that people are known by their fruits, we understand that what a person claims to be by word must be married to how he/she lives by practice and lifestyle - U know, living the talk, or walking the talk, as they say. "If ye know that he is righteous, ye know that every one that doeth righteousness is born of him." - 1 John 2:29. This is why I don't really care what group a believer belongs to - whether Catholic, Baptist, Lutheran, Presbyterian, Assemblies of God, Brethren. At the basic level, all that matters to me are the belief and confession + the practice and lifestyle. If a person believes that Jesus Christ is whom the Scriptures say He is, and lives a life that expresses that belief, I am bound to receive, love and respect such as my brethren in the Lord Jesus Christ (For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus - Gal. 3:26).

Today, however, there's always a suspicion of people knocking on your door. And good reason to beware of people coming to you in the name of Christ because we are warned in the Bible that many false prophets would come disguised as genuine ministers in order to deceive. I am bound to test them, and if found to be counterfeits and impostors, reject them ("Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world." - I John 4:1). God knows who is worshipping Him in truth, and there should be no fights and accusations between people who profess to follow Christ.

If someone claims to be a Christian, leave him/her to God - neither you nor I are the judge: God, and God, alnoe is the Judge. The Lord knows those who are His, and we who claim to be genuine are asked to depart from iniquity - 2 Tim.2:19. Love is the ultimate expression of the Christian life. Let us learn to love more and accuse others less  

TYPOP: 'I am right. Read what I posted well. The Lord will bless (not him) but the works of his hands. So if they are good, he gets more goodies, and if bad, abundance of evils will come to him.'

What do you mean "not him but the works of his hands"? The Bible does not separate between the two - a man is determined before God by what he does - if God blesses the works of your hands, it is the same as God blessing you. God judges a man based on what he does. How could God bless what is clearly evil doctrines by your summation that the Lord will bless the works of his hands? What Reverend is teaching is wrong - clearly evil, from the Biblical point o view. So, don't even start to play on semantics.

"For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works." - Matt. 16:27.

"And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them." - Eph. 5:11

"Concerning the works of men, by the word of thy lips I have kept me from the paths of the destroyer." - Psa. 17:4

TYPOP,

Em. . . I definitely hope you didn't mean to say that. I don't want to question whether or not you're a Christian, but if you've read Reverend's ideas and works, you'd be a bit slow to wish him God's blessings. What would you say about someone whose website calls Jesus a sinner? See here for past discussion: https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-7656.96.html and navigate the thread.

If someone who claims to be a Christian is found to be a vendor of false doctrines to the extent of insinuating that Jesus was a sinner, what would you make of the following verse? -

"Everyone who goes on ahead and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God. Whoever abides in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house or give him any greeting, for whoever greets him takes part in his wicked works." (2 John 9-11).

Just an observation.