₦airaland Forum

sexkillz:
GOOD means i acknowledged your response! So who evaded the question then?

Oh leave off! You only "acknowledge" other peoples' responses, but you have a problem with giving answers to the questions people are asking you - that's a very slippery way to discuss.

Hope you arent an atheist though, i've had enough of those DUMB GUYS!

Lol, others are "dumb" when you can't answer their questions and just prefer to ask your own!

sexkillz:
GOOD! So what now is the origin of the word HELLFIRE according to you! I have mine!

What is "good"? Do you ever read anything before you hit your keyboard to respond? This is why people simply laugh at your arguments mny times - you don't seem to realise you're talking against your white screen without engaging people in dialogue.

A discussion should not be evasive, which means that you should be willing to discuss and answer questions that people ask YOU directly concerning your own arguments. Ignoring what they are saying and posting in stylish fonts is not the same thing as engaging in meaningful discussion.

Ah oh, please remind me. . . when there's a poll for nominating the most risible and irrelvant poster, I'd be first to nominate you.

sexkillz:
^^^I DONT believe any thing religious that is NOT from the BIBLE!

That probably suggests the root of the problem you're dealing with. Not all religious truth is found in the Bible - even some of the prophets in the Bible actually used other books that are NOT in the Bible. Examples? Daniel ("I Daniel understood by books the number of the years", Dan. 9:2) and Paul ("bring the books too, and especially the ones made of parchment" - 2 Tim. 4:13).

More examples? What about the Gentiles who did not have the Law - that is, they did not carry any Bible with them? Romans 2:14 - "Those who are not Jews don't have the law. But when they naturally do what the law commands without even knowing the law, then they are their own law. This is true even though they don't have the written law." (ERV)

If you cannot believe anything religious until it is found in the Bible, that's fine - it still does not mean that it is only in the Bible that one finds all religious or spiritual truths. Sorry, but that's a fact that good-headed folks do not argue against.

What i dont get is why you quote JOHN 21:25 to support the CLAIM that HELLFIRE EXISTS! Why should GOD be labeled CRUEL because SOME people came up with the HORRENDOUS IDEA that HELLFIRE EXISTS and that GOD punishes wicked ones for eternity in HELL?

If your problem is about the labelling or ascribing cruelty to God, there's no problem with that. You don't even need the doctrine of hell or hellfire or lake of fire or whatnots for that label. What about God's command in the Old Testament to kill women and children? The labelling you're worried about started long before the New Testament - and NO, that is not a "religious truth" from outside the Bible - it is found in your Bible, read it in Deuteronomy 3:6.

toba:
listen my English expression is clear. the church may use part of the money to BUY bibles that may be distributed freely to various parts across continents. with that the gospel is being propagated with the money donated by the atheist

Okay, okay - no problem. That is how you feel, and people may see differently. It's all good, take it easy.

frosbel:
The right church is the church of Christ, invisible, united and bound with LOVE for GOD and Christ Jesus.

An "invisible" church does not exist in the Bible - it is a farce!

Let me define the TRUE church of GOD as me mentioned in the bible !!

>> . . .

So as you can see the characteristcs of the TRUE CHURCH ARE :
>> . . .

- They live HOLY and PURE lives

>> . . .

- They sacrifice their lives for the purpose of their Leader, Christ Jesus,

How do we know about this so-called 'true church' when it is "invisible"? What has happened to Matthew 5:16 - "Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven"?? Are people in this "invisible" church supposed to be shining "invisible light" before "invisible men"?

Please, just drop this fallacy of the "invisible church" - I sometimes wonder at how many Christians have arrived at words that only tend to invisible arguments.

What seems to be happening here is cherry picking verses to emphasise partial arguments about the non-existence of hell.

Someone has just quoted this:

KnowAll:
Luke 16:19-31

“

There was a certain rich man who was splendidly clothed in purple and fine linen and who lived each day in luxury. At his gate lay a poor man named Lazarus who was covered with sores. As Lazarus lay there longing for scraps from the rich man’s table, the dogs would come and lick his open sores. “Finally, the poor man died and was carried by the angels to be with Abraham. The rich man also died and was buried, and his soul went to the place of the dead. There, in torment, he saw Abraham in the far distance with Lazarus at his side. “The rich man shouted, ‘Father Abraham, have some pity! Send Lazarus over here to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue. I am in anguish in these flames.’“But Abraham said to him, ‘Son, remember that during your lifetime you had everything you wanted, and Lazarus had nothing. So now he is here being comforted, and you are in anguish. And besides, there is a great chasm separating us. No one can cross over to you from here, and no one can cross over to us from there.’“Then the rich man said, ‘Please, Father Abraham, at least send him to my father’s home. For I have five brothers, and I want him to warn them so they don’t end up in this place of torment.’“But Abraham said, ‘Moses and the prophets have warned them. Your brothers can read what they wrote.’“The rich man replied, ‘No, Father Abraham! But if someone is sent to them from the dead, then they will repent of their sins and turn to God.’“But Abraham said, ‘If they won’t listen to Moses and the prophets, they won’t listen even if someone rises from the dead.”

. . . your answer to that was -

sexkillz:
Are you saying JESUS contradicted himself? (JOHN 3:13)

So, how does John 3:13 contradict Luke 16:19-31? HOW?

@toba,

toba:
so directly or indirectly the guy has given it for the propagation of the gospel of God.

No. There's no arguing against the facts. Mr. Wilson did not give in order to propagate the Gospel, but rather for the promotion of good education for kids in lousy school systems - a totally different thing from directly or indirectly propagating the Gospel. Let's not argue about this.

What caught my attention -

Mr. Wilson fielding in question to press men from Bloomberg said he owes the tribute to Catholic Church and not even to God since as an atheist he does not believe in God. He rather believes in the catholic church for her contributions to development of the world.

"Lets face it, without the Roman Catholic Church, there would be no Western civilisation", Wilson Said,"Shunning religious organisation would be abhorrent" he added.

Wilson, 80, therefore said, it was a chance for a very modest amount of money to get kids out of lousy school system and into a good school system, adding that he has no problem and will not grow tired of giving money to fund Catholic schools.

http://bestinfoz..com/2008/11/atheist-gives-225-million-to-catholic.html

Perhaps, just perhaps. . . one of such "developments" of the world that Mr. Wilson might have thought about is the Terrence Cardinal Cooke Health Care Center (Terrence) or the Tri-State programme. I think it is only fair to say that atheists like Mr. Wilson largely see developmental programmes more than religious causes as reason for their gifts.

Pastor Kun:
@wordtalk
Whilst I agree with you that Paul preached on various types of giving, I was just trying to correct PA1982's claims that paul's teachings on giving was only to support his ministry.

That's okay. I should have been more patient to read the connection more carefully before commenting. Thanks for pointing that out.

Pastor Kun:
A true man of God must be honest enough to tell his congregation that tithing is not obligatory or mandatory for believers

That is true, and I second it. Likewise, a genuine Christian should be able to say also that tithing should be voluntary and encouraged IF the believer in Christ desires to express his or her giving in that form.

and also that there is no blessing or curse attached to tithing or not tithing for christians. It is the false teaching on tithes that I consistently attack and not tithing per se.

Nope, that is half-truth. We can say that the curses of the old covenant may not apply to believers in the new covenant in that fashion; but we know that the blessings in the Old Testament do apply to Christians today. On the one hand, 2 Corinthians 1:20 says that, "For no matter how many promises God has made, they are “Yes” in Christ" - this is why, for example, the apostles clearly restated some of the blessings found in the Law to believers in the NT (such as the blessing of Exodus 20:12 reiterated in Ephesians 6:2-3).

On the other hand, there are people who have been blessed in tithing, although others may not have testimonies of such blessings. In just the same manner, people who do not tithe but give in other ways have also found some blessings, while yet other givers do not have testimonies of being blessed in their giving. We cannot be too mechanistic in these matters by being too generalistic to conclude that there are no blessings in tithing. The gospel of "no blessings in tithing" is the same thing as the gospel of "no blessings in giving" - both of them are false arguments.

There are blessings in giving - whether in the form of tithing, freewill offerings, contributions, donations, gifts, alms, etc. Not everyone would testify of being blessed in every instance though. However, there are some types of giving in the New Testament that may bring negative results - such as giving in order to impress a crowd (Acts 5) or giving in order to buy the gift of God (Acts 8:20).

Pastor Kun:
^^^
Even Paul's teachings were on giving to the poor and were he preached to give to the church, such collections were meant to help the poor believers within the church.

Part of Paul's preaching and admonition was to give to the poor (Acts 20:35) - but that is NOT all his preaching on giving was about. He also preached on giving to others for specific purposes that have nothing to do with the poor. Even Paul himself several times asked for contributions to support his ministry journeys:

[list][li]1 Cor. 16:6 - I’ll probably stay with you. I might even spend the winter. Then you can give me your support as I travel, wherever I decide to go.[/li][/list]
[list][li]Romans 15:24 - I am planning to go to Spain, and when I do, I will stop off in Rome. And after I have enjoyed your fellowship for a little while, you can provide for my journey.[/li][/list]
[list][li]2 Cor. 1:16 - My plans had been to go from the city of Corinth to the province of Macedonia. Then from Macedonia I had planned to return to you again in Corinth and have you support my trip to Judea.[/li][/list]

He also preached that giving should go to support those who preached the Gospel as well as those who teach in the Church:

[list][li]Galatians 6:6 - Those who are taught the word of God should provide for their teachers, sharing all good things with them.[/li][/list]
[list][li]1 Corinthians 9:14 - In the same way, the Lord ordered that those who preach the Good News should be supported by those who benefit from it.[/li][/list]
[list][li]1 Timothy 5:17 - Elders who do their work well should be respected and paid well, especially those who work hard at both preaching and teaching.[/li][/list]

There is giving to help the poor; but that is NOT all that the Bible teaches about giving - there is a need to see the other aspects of giving. Half truths are dangerous to spiritual health.

garyarnold:
wordtalk's reply has proven my point. He is playing games here.

Strawman! Only you see games by reading your misadventures into my comments. Fail.

Some words have many meanings. You can't just pick the one to fit what you want it to say.

Yada-yada. Of all the words that have several meanings, which one has the meaning and definition of 'asset' in any tithing verse in Scripture? You want to cheat forever by picking and choosing words which do not appear in any such verses - yet it is taking you forever to show any verse for your 'asset'. Ain't you such a player?

Anyway, arguing with wordtalk is a waste of time because he is so narrow minded he can't see the truth.

I can see through your deliberate and cowardly lies - that is why you have not been able to counter anything I have shown using even the same Bible dictionaries which your non-existent "scholars" also use.

His mind is made up, and he will continue to claim he has proven others wrong when the fact is, he has been proven wrong but can't see it.

Tell stories to fill in the gaps when you can't prove your case - it's your global anthem.

I am sure that many on this blog see his manipulation of the Word by using whatever version of the Bible supports his position, and also sees how he manipulates what others say.

Aren't you sobbing miserably for your failing to twist the KJV in support of your fallacies? 

Fact is, wordtalk doesn't know the difference between increase, income, assets, and income-producing assets.

You can shout it a billion times till you're blue in the face - propagandists and jingoists use such argumentative devices as first-aid to cover up for their fallacies. What did you show about posts #118 and #122?

Those of us with knowledge of these terms DO understand the difference and can easily see that the Biblical tithe was NEVER on income.

Rephrase: Those of you with pretentions try to dribble in words which you can't find to cover your fallacies in the KJV. No tithing verse in Scripture shows any reference to 'asset' - that is why it's taking you till 'thy-kingdom-come' to show the hebrew words for 'asset' in ANY tithing verse. Fundamentalist cheats like you will always pretend you have "knowledge" so you can congratulate yourselves on arguments you can't show from your beloved KJV.

But wordtalk will continue to "claim" he is right and the rest of us are wrong. One day wordtalk is going to wake up in the morning and say - oh! NOW I get it!

I already GET IT - you've been slaving yourself cheating others with your claims which you can't show in your KJV. . . yes, I GOT IT the first time, I still do GET IT. 

garyarnold:
Wordtalk is playing games with God's Word.

Weak and baseless allegation! You have tried to play games at your hardest in smuggling in 'asset' into your KJV - it didn't work for you. Next you tried your strawman on the NIV. . . it went puff with smoke spiralling all over the place! Having exhausted yourself on your fallacies, you now blame me for your own games? 

The fact is, there is no scripture to show that God required, commanded, or requested a tithe from anyone before the law.

This is the mo[color=Black]st stu[/color]pid argument ever on the net! You're waiting for God to have "commanded" Abraham before you can rest your heart, no? Dunce! Who "commanded" Abel to bring offerings in Genesis 4? No, we don't read any verse about God "commanding" him, but in Hebrews 11:4 we read that "By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts: and by it he being dead yet speaketh."

No, we also did not read any verse in Genesis that uses the word "faith" for Abel - but Hebrews 11 says he offered "by faith" - WITHOUT any command from God, yes? And God "testified" of his gift - even though there was no "commandment" to the gentleman to bring "a more excellent sacrifice".

You see the rubbish that trails your arguments? Just because you don't see "command" in Genesis 14, you will look for loopholes to prevaricate - and then what? This is why you often swell and cry all by yourself after making fallacies you can't stand up for!

All three tithes commanded by God were on FOOD from crops, and the Levitical tithe also included animals in herds and flocks. God, Himself, NEVER sanctioned, in His Word, anything other than FOOD from crops and animals to be used for His tithe. God NEVER sanctioned, in His Word, anyone other than the Levites to receive His tithe (Levitical tithe), and made very clear what was to be done with the other two tithes.

Deceive yourself as much as you can. Hebrews 7 shows that the Levitical tithes did not supercede Abraham's tithes (Heb. 7:7-9). It is because you can't read that is why you will also look for a verse in Genesis 14 that spells out in A-B-C fashion that Abraham's tithes were an act of worship. Deny that one as well and come back with cardiac arrest about 'wordtalk'.

Now we are under grace, not the law. We are free to give as we please. Calling it "tithing" is INFERRING that it somehow relates to what God called tithing, and it does NOT. Therefore, it is misleading and causes confusion, if not insulting God, Himself.

Now we are under grace. But when anti-tithers prefer their own "freewill offerings", they do so without realising that it does not occur even once in the New Testament, and all references to that cliche appear in the Old Testament with regards to Judaism.

No one I know is against GIVING. But what would the reason be for calling your giving, "tithing," other than for your ego, or to broadcast what percent you are giving?

Was it not your own ego that made you brag about giving between 25-30% of your total income - and you're "retired"?? Did you not broadcast your own giving as "far, far, far, far, far more than" what others give - so you can sleep with a tight conscience?

Now IF there was a word for those giving 5%, or 15%, or 50%, etc., then it would make more sense.

So, what word is there for those who broadcast their giving of "25-30% of total income"? What word is there for your braggadocio of "far, far, far, far, far more than" others? Since you did not find a suitable New Testament word for your own broadcast, you then turn to heckle others, not so?

Otherwise, it serves no purpose other than to keep the confusion going. It is nothing but another trick of satan.

Your own "25-30%" is whose trick?

@garyarnold,

When someone keeps going over arguments that they cannot counter such as you're doing, it is a sign of intellectual weakness. I have shown you the difference and even outlined for you the etymology of asset - there's nothing you have shown to counter what you read in my rejoinders in posts #118 and #122 - so what are you yapping and yelping all about for? Do you enjoy grumbling so miserably when you can't defend your shallow assertions?

garyarnold:
He uses the Greek word for increase to show that it (can) also means income, and then finds versions of the Bible that uses the word income instead of increase.

And what is wrong with that? WHERE have you shown that tebuah means 'asset' in ANY of those tithing verses? Which version has translated tebuah as 'asset'? WHERE? You always grumble and panic when you can't show anything for your arguments and then twist and turn to blame your loss on my comments? I can't laugh!

But the KJV didn't choose the word income. They chose the word increase.

Please for the umpteenth time, get done with your hugging of the KJV - it is NOT the most accurate nor is it the only English translation available. Only fundamentalist Christians in California argue long and hard about the KJV and yet cannot find what they are looking for in any verse of that version!

Increase does not mean income.

Lie again - I've shown the meaning of 'tebuah' in post #54 as including INCOME, both from the STRONG's and BROWN-DRIVER-BRIGGS Bible Dictionaries. Neither of those dictionaries defined 'tebuah' as asset.

When you tried to wave another fallacy in post #64 that the word 'asset' may not have existed at the time, I asked you to check its etymology. You just kept evading that single request until I showed in post #118 that the word was first used in 1531 - nearly a century BEFORE the KJV emerged in 1611!

When you no longer have bandages to cover your fallacies, you turn then make your case even worse by resorting to deliberate and cowardly lies in a fresh page!

Yet wordtalk insists that Abram "tithed" because the KJV uses the word "tithe."

Sorry for your loss! I'm sure if the KJV did not use the word "TITHE" for Abraham, you would have argued another ten pages to deny that he did! Indeed, I insist that what Abraham gave to Melchizedek are called TITHES in both the Old Testament (Gen. 14:20) and the New Testament (Hebrews 7:6) - there's no arguing against that! Only your tendency to prevaricate would try so hard to deny the fact!

But the Greek word translated into tithe also means tenth, and many versions of the Bible chose the word tenth instead of tithe for Abram/Abraham; i.e. the NIV.

Okay, you're warming up to other versions now, aren't you? Nice.
So, what is the difference between the 'tithes' of the KJV and the 'tenth' of the NIV? Build another 40 pages of meaningless argument on that.

Therefore, if we can select whatever version of the Bible to make our case, as does wordtalk, then we can choose the NIV to show that Abram did NOT tithe - he gave a tenth.

Lol, red herring and strawman!
Even YOU have just asserted that "the Greek word translated into tithe also means tenth"  - so, anyone who quotes either the KJV or the NIV would be spot on! No quibbles on that! If you're looking for a backdoor to dribble in 'asset', sorry for your loss - neither the KJV nor the NIV uses the word 'asset' in ANY verses on tithing. You will have to look hard for another strawman!

^^ I thought as much, thanks.




And for this -

InesQor:
You see, we didn't talk for like 6 or 7 months - a lot changed then.

- it's actually my fault: I got your emails but was nursing back to health from something serious. I'll try and email you.

InesQor:
As I said recently,

"Even Satan is surely serving a purpose. Manufacturing calls it Quality Assurance and Control. He is being rebellious to God, but meanwhile God is using him to achieve useful ends anyway. God does as he pleases, He is the artist and dictates what the artwork is."

Well, people should be very careful in drawing analogies. I don't see the correllation between rebellion and 'quality assurance and control' - for why then should the other be punished for providing the quality assurance in order to serve "useful ends"?

Let's just be careful - not all quips and quotes make good sense. It's just like one that says 'Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me' - and you begin to wonder why many people react violently for a few words spoken to them.

Zikkyy:
What exactly are you preaching here? that voluntary tithes be encouraged? i need clarification. Thanks

That was in answer to Kun who says he had not seen 'one single person condemn giving of tithes' - I don't think that is true. This is what I've said - "Let others do as they have determined to do after praying - and if that includes expressing their giving in the form of tithes". This does not make an argument for compulsory tithes by any means.

Dulcet7:
No, but see again: it is the accused who leaps into the river by himself, meaning that the accus[b]er[/b] LAID down his life and if he is innocent, he will pick it up again.

I don't get you. Did you mean to say that the accus[b]ed[/b] laid down his life, or that the accus[b]er[/b] did that?

And are you still at the borderline? (not a serious question that demands any answers though)

Pastor Kun:
This I believe all christians who have knowledge of the truth(including wordtalk) should stand and fight against. I wonder how a supposed christian can tolerate fraud on a massive scale in the church that is supposed to be the epitome of good morals.

Please carefully examine what someone has said rather than jumping to unfounded conclusions by default. I do not tolerate "fraud on a massive scale" - I have shown this both on this forum and in several articles on my blog - an example: How Christians Think About Tithing, where I do not share Adeboye's teaching on compulsory tithing.

For anti-tithers to say that they have not seen 'one single person condemn giving of tithes' is not the same thing as anti-tithers encouraging voluntary tithes among Christians. Many have already and always concluded that Christians CANNOT express their giving in the form of tithes and should consequently say NO to tithing - that is why they use all sorts of fallacious arguments to fight tooth and nail against any hint of any type of tithing in the Body of Christ. When these fallacies are closely examined, the same anti-tithers become irrational in discussing issues.

anonimi:
You don't seem to get it.
No one is against giving to a church. What we are obliged to point out as Christians is that compulsory tithe as preached by pastors is not for those who are like Christ, who has fulfilled the law with his death on the cross.

No, you don't get it. My comments do not favour "compulsory tithing" - I have shown this in so many places. I don't think you were aware of what I have been saying that's why you probably jumped to conclusions.

Have you ever wondered about why the curtain that demarcates the Joly of Holies in the temple was torn in two at the death of Christ?

Tithing and any other type of giving has absolutely NOTHING to do with salvation and justification.

Biox:
I believe in miracles an a living proof,but doesn't this one seem untrue? How can I shadow strike down someone in the name of the anointing,or special move from God.

Just wondering about the same thing. What if Oprah Winfrey organizes the same stage shows, arranges a mammoth crowd from her shows, lines up a few odd g[color=Black]al[/color]s and guys, and passes by to let her shadow fall on them - with exactly or even more dramatic results to on lookers? What's the whole point in this show?

Why is it that it is healthy people who have no ailments that are made to stand and keel over after the shadow hits them? How do those allign with Acts 5:15-16??

[list]Insomuch that they brought forth the sick into the streets, and laid them on beds and couches, that at the least the shadow of Peter passing by might overshadow some of them. There came also a multitude out of the cities round about unto Jerusalem, bringing sick folks, and them which were vexed with unclean spirits: and they were healed every one.[/list]

Where are the healings from sicknesses and unclean spirits? Why are people often amazed by display without results?

aloy-emeka:
You are telling me that God anointed you specially for busting fake pastors?. Why didn't God also anoint you to bust crooked politicians since you have the EFCC anointing?.

Nobody needs any "anointing" to expose false teaching - even atheists without any "anointing" can see through many of these things. The man who boasts about a gift that does not exist is like clouds and wind without rain (Proverbs 25:14).

Anointing is given by God to promote the Gospel with positive results that bring unbelievers into His Kingdom. When Christians are presented with "another Gospel" that does not bring SALVATION, the anointing for discernment (which all believers have, 1 John 2:27) comes into operation. This anointing does not need any man to teach the believer in such matters ("the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you".

Image123:
I'd be referencing 'heavily' from the writing from a respected man of God, Nee To-sheng of Foochow, China.

I love Watchman Nee's ministry.

Pastor Kun:
@Wordtalk
Don't you get tired of this your manipulative strategy of grabbing at straws, building mountains out of mole hill etc. The exact number of OT laws does not matter what matters is that these laws are not applicable to christians and tithing ewhich is the subject matter is an integral part of the abolished laws.

I don't quibble on non-issues - that's why I noted to garyarnold he should let the fallacy of his "613 Old Testaments" lie dead and buried: it is a non-issue. When he turned back and tried to make it an issue, I took it up with him. Anti-tithers often hide behind their fallacies to justify arguments they can't sustain or defend intelligently or Biblically. Let others do as they have determined to do after praying - and if that includes expressing their giving in the form of tithes, why is that such an anathema to anti-tithers?

cultey:

Putting away was directed to men putting away their wives.

Eh, hang on. . . what happens when Christian women put away their husbands? I'm not being facetious - I've seen it happen!

garyarnold:
Some who don't understand his style of slippery argumentation may not easily see how he tends to shift goal posts.

This coming from someone who doesn't know the difference between increase and income. From one who doesn't know the difference between an asset, income, and income producing assets. Yet acts like he knows it all and continues day after day showing his ignorance.

I've shown you the difference, and you could not counter a dot in my rejoinder - posts #118 and #122. So stop summersaulting on the same page and move on.

And also from someone who takes NO stand as to what constitutes voluntary tithing. It's up for grabs. Everyone can do as they please.

I don't force people into anything as I allow other believers to do as they are persuaded in their hearts after praying and seeking answers from God. Forcing your own views on others (especially where they are fallacious) is intentionally diabolic.

I think most have discovered wordtalk's game playing here. No need to go into it any deeper.

If you don't want to discuss, simply say so instead of sobbing like a high school dropout in Fresno.

@aletheia,

It was just a thought, mirrored against the backdrop of more serious crimes between and among Christians. While I shy away from concluding anything about anyone's salvation (as God alone knows who is saved or not), I was thinking of particular instances that might necessitate legal proceedings - hence, I wondered if it was wrong (and why it would be wrong) for Christians to deal with such matters by legal procedures [since Paul said "there is utterly a fault among you, because ye go to law one with another" - 1 Corinthians 6:7].

Dealing with crimes by legal procedures my not be wrong. I agree that minor church matters should be settled within the Church. But what about civil matters? A few examples:

1. I've seen a case of a Christian suing a pastor with a charge of 'Assault with Intent to R[color=Black]ap[/color]e'. She had reported the first incident to one of the elders whom she respected, but things got out of hand as the pastor tried to justify his crime by preaching against her in church the very next Sunday.

2. I've also seen a case of a Christian suing a company owned by another Christian for breach of business terms that cost staff the loss of jobs as well as incurring huge debts.

3. I've seen a case where a Christian banker sued a church in order to recover a huge sum of money.

These are just summaries and not much detailed. I just wondered in such circumstances whether it was wrong for those Christians to have sued the other Christians.

aletheia:
^If I understand garyarnorld: he said nine were repeated. So this leaves 604? Is that not ""over 600" of them are NOT repeated?"

Lol, just leave garyarnold to himself. Some who don't understand his style of slippery argumentation may not easily see how he tends to shift goal posts. I saw how he has always argued ONLY NINE 'repeated' out of the '613 OT commandments'; but when that non-issue is taken up, you'll find him making allowance for a few more -

garyarnold:
I already gave you nine. I said there may be more. That leaves another possible 3. Now, maybe you will find more than three in which case my math would be in error. But I can only find the nine I already quoted.

If he wants to stick with 'ONLY NINE' as he'd always argued, then what's with the 'another possible 3', etc., etc., etc.?

The implication of his peremptory argument that only those that are 'repeated' (NINE of them) are for the Christian would mean that all the other 600+ are excluded - that is, over 600 of them would quite conclusively have no part in the Christian life! That argument is quite fallacious, and that was what I wanted him to stand up to defend if he was confident about what he was arguing.

Since the argument of the 613 Mitzvot is a non-issue, there's no reason for his repeatedly waving that fallacy around - it should be retired once and for all.

garyarnold:
Since you don't even seem to understand the difference between income and increase, nor do you seem to understand what in substance means, I guess I am in for much more criticism. But IF you understood the common terms I use, this would have ended long ago.

Look, my dear sir, we're done with that part of the script on income and increase and whatnots (your missing links on 'assets') - you only tore your hair out and proved nothing. So leave all that behind and well buried.

I already gave you nine. I said there may be more. That leaves another possible 3. Now, maybe you will find more than three in which case my math would be in error. But I can only find the nine I already quoted.

Okay, I'll let you dream on with your nine - even though it effectively deflates your arguments, the shifting goal posts notwithstanding. I think you should also help yourself and not make an issue of it, since you're feeling quite under the weather with all the complaints about being criticized (complaints which are neither here nor there).

^^ Love it!

Keith Green - Oh Lord, You're Beutiful


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQ3lvN4tQmY

garyarnold:
http://www.gospeloutreach.net/613laws.html

http://www.hebrew4christians.com/Articles/Taryag/taryag.html

http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/756399/jewish/The-613-Commandments.htm

http://www.shalom-peace.com/613.html

^^ Please answer the questions instead of ducking behind these excuses.

(a) How many of the "613 OT laws/commandments" do you have left after you have determined that "over 600" of them are NOT repeated?

(b) What are those which are "repeated" - please name or outline them.

Please, let's see those "other commands repeated" - how many are they and what are they?

garyarnold:
I'm not going to continue playing your games.

That has become your global anthem anytime you beg to take off. If you're confident of your assertions on the blether about the '613 OT commandments', you would stand to reasonably and calmly defend them.

King of Kings, Majesty - Jarrod Cooper


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AfOOksq7kFI