This thread and forum should have been for our greater good.

Surprisingly alot of things some people tagged as heresies had adequate scriptural backing provided.
It's very funny when someone makes apost and someone says he is lying or twisting stuff when it is in plain view and can be countered responsibly with scriptures.
At the end, everyone is entitled to his view since they have a scripture back up.

However, insults and so much acid is flung all over the place? Is it needed.

Pity now that the person claiming victim is trying to seek audience with someone he has pissed off with insults.
What goes around does come around.

Enigma:

Regarding heresies: they amount to heresies because they/some of them (a) go against the teachings of Christ; (b) go against the teachings of the apostles; (c) go against the historic teaching of the Church; (d) go against common sense; (e) are demonic.

Good, well for starters l like the expression ". . . because they/some of them.  . . " hmmm! this means that there are certain areas that you think and you convinced that we are getting it right ok please can build from there because you have always criticized perhaps this is one opportunity to say something good. Please what are this areas.?

Enigma:

Regarding heresies: they amount to heresies because they/some of them (a) go against the teachings of Christ; (b) go against the teachings of the apostles; (c) go against the historic teaching of the Church; (d) go against common sense; (e) are demonic.

In any event, you are wasting my time because you know well that on various threads, we explained teachings that were unbiblical and why but what did you do? Run away; get evasive when asked simple questions; join together with the rest of your cohort to derail the topic completely with inanities and insults as you lot are shamefully doing only just above and as you are well known for.

A few of the questions that you lot (and you personally) have run away from.

1. Was Jesus "born again"?
2. Was Jesus tortured in hell by Satan and demons?
3. Can Christians pray to or through Christ.
4. Are you Christ?
5. Is a non-tither robbing God?

This is a very small number of the questions that you have run away from.

Regarding your request on what is the gospel, read the below and work your way from there.

Romans 5  

Enigma:

join together with the rest of your cohort to derail the topic completely with inanities and insults as you lot are shamefully doing only just above and as you are well known for.

Well l mean no disrespect l think l will take that as a compliment but frankly speaking l can't see anything tone of insult in my earlier post perhaps you should read it again my friend.

nuclearboy:


@DeepSight:

Joagbaje was caught using multiple IDs. How is my saying so an "insult"?
He said I am/was demonic - would you (a non-believer) go to your enemy? You may not like that I exposed him but did I lie?
He claimed to be a businessman making millions from paying tithes and then Kunle discovered he was actually collecting tithes. That is deceit and how is my saying so an insult?
How is me saying such people ought not stand on the pulpit as teachers an insult? Are Biblical standards not clear?

I do know I can be extremely insulting and emotional in these matters but I will NOT lie.

And we all do it, friend - which is why though I am repeatedly calling you "friend" deliberately, you have JUDGED (though you said only God can judge) me to be petty, insulting, ungentlemanly, etc. Just as the fake tries to insult a battle-hardened veteran by pointing towards my ancestry. Which cannot be compared to his obviously desperately reaching for societal acceptance manner in getting money no matter what/how.

My friend, I am sure with hindsight you will agree that there could have been a more tidy way to go about this. That is what I am saying to you. As it is, it is all very messy, and I am sure you could not be very proud of this.

Deep Sight:

Hi Inesqor. Thank you for the courtesy of a question. That seems to be short supply amongst the Holy Vanguard on this forum these days.

WhT i mean by that statement is simply that each man is responsible for his own salvation before God. There is no church that can save or damn anybody, least of all Jo and CE. Salvation rests within the spirit and if one bears within his spirit the love of God and the spirit of charity, there is no amount of debate that can take that away from one. It simply is a gemstone sitting firmly in your conscience.

Thus when people say that souls are at stake, i think they are being paranoid. No soul will be saved or damned other than on account of that which he bears within his spirit.

I don't know if I have conveyed my meaning properly, but for a better elucidation the is a thread I opened titled "the true meaning of love, by nwankwo". In that thread i posted something written by mnwankwo in my op. Please read it, and it summarizes my view on this matter.

Thank you.

Hmm Deep Sight thanks for your reply, though I don't totally agree. My view is midway between yours and the popular view that churches and people can "save". I believe it is up to each soul to absorb the free gift of salvation but My view also has to do with influence. It is easier for some people to influence other people's lives, by nature of their interaction or the elevation at which those people have placed them in their minds. At the end of the day, it is up to each human to believe or not (as you have said), but I believe any soul who claims to have any partaking in love for God ought not to lead others into possible failure and/or damnation.

Here's an analogy (as usual to my posts, it's a wack one but it does the job  ). It's like a dude in a story I once wrote, who used to "fish" from a local river by adding a cheap germicide to the water, and the fishes would float upwards, very dead. Dude would then sell the fish at a very cheap price, and market women and men would buy in volumes. Is the guy to blame for selling poisoned fish (the General Overseer), or are the sellers to blame for buying cheap fish without questions ([s]trusting their General Overseer without questioning[/s]); or are the innocent retailers and housewives to blame for buying at the normal price ([s]trusting their pastors without questioning[/s]) after some bargaining with the market women(pastors) and maybe they should have gone to a supermarket?

I hope you see my point. In some cases there is an undeniable influence brought to bear on unsuspecting "users". It is one's duty to test all spirits and take nothing hook line and sinker. If you need clarification on my point please do tell.

"Taste all Spirits. Let none go to Waste" - Pastor Jack Daniels. Hic.

What is patently obvious is that all snowwy etc want is to ridicule my posts or get me to show "more" so they can further demonize me as critical, unforgiving etc. Those who will learn from this entire saga have the information before them & I find no pleasure in continuing. The whole point anyway, was to show what manner of character & allegiances Pastor Joe Agbaje has. That has been made abundantly clear.


@Snowwy/newmi-double:

Me and DeepSight have come a long way but see this issues from differing perspectives. I say so (not him) but did you notice he has kept totally mute about Joagbaje's CHARACTER to be able to continue? You could almost say it is me he is supporting as in "don't soil yourself for the sake of the character involved". But you cannot see that, obviously. And even if that was not the message, I see it as that if he doesn't find it worthwhile to correct you and yours but does so with me - infers you are past redemption and are only windbags. plus DS (and even your Jo) knows I NEVER ASK FOR HELP or pity - I leave that to shallow people with a victim mentality

@DeepSight:

Yes it was messy and for me to say I went to a pastor to ask counsel shows it bothered me. But time has passed when they do whatever they wish but hang the critic thingy on us. Remember that Christ was also a critic - a critic so vociferous that people "GNASHED" their teeth and foamed from the mouth into their beards. I can just imagine the manner of yabs/truth that caused so much rancor that they killed Him. We follow that example, not civility or urbaneness

In my opinion the synopsis of this thread is brilliant bollocks. frosbel started this shenanigan and he has soon retreated to watch nuclearboy and his ilk derail it, as usual.

I must commend deepsight and NLmediator for trying to convince a stolid, callow churlish rabble rouser to see reason in being comity and suave. For some of us that discovered his belligerent poise many months ago, we stopped paying any attention to him and his wanton rantings. He doesn't know the word, he doesn't know his God, he doesn't know anything!

Severally on this forum joagbaje had complained continuously about the attacks on his personality,mentions of names, places and what have you to the moderators to no avail. It comes to me to no surprise that he sought the option of seeking the various culprits of such despotic acts telling them unequivocally to back down from such. He even said it here himself "challenge me on the word,scriptures. . . . let us live churches out of it" but they wouldn't stop, especially the atomic toddler.

Isn't it risible that what joagbaje is being criticised for could have been the only means nuclearboy employed in getting the so called pictures of joagbaje and his paintings hence i see it as an outright show of duplicity and hypocrisy for him to constantly accuse jo of the "multiple ID" saga. which in actual fact was not as he, joagbaje agreed to only using akhozems ID which adds up to a double ID and not multiple as is being peddled. i know the lady with the ID "mabel" and i might be shocked to find out that she has even met joagbaje in person.

As for Snowwy, newmi et al You have to understand where nuke's coming from : a wanton desire to be a cynosure in christian issues so he'd first cast aspersions then claim the victims position. who else acts that way but a toddler

Joagbaje, thank you for enlightening us with the word always. As Snowwy affirmed, you always support your beliefs and views with the scriptures, something those that always attack you have been unable to do. I also commend your unencumbered disposition even in the face of so much bile and resentment. Remember what Jesus said "it is sufficient for the servant to be like his master, if they hated me, they would hate you too"

@mba_emeka:

Chei. Your post above, na so so grammar o!

@Nukeboy:
Morning bro. Did you get my email? I sent it from my gmail address.

InesQor:

Hmm Deep Sight thanks for your reply, though I don't totally agree. My view is midway between yours and the popular view that churches and people can "save". I believe it is up to each soul to absorb the free gift of salvation but My view also has to do with influence. It is easier for some people to influence other people's lives, by nature of their interaction or the elevation at which those people have placed them in their minds. At the end of the day, it is up to each human to believe or not (as you have said), but I believe any soul who claims to have any partaking in love for God ought not to lead others into possible failure and/or damnation.

I hear you. But i insist that salvation rests as a rock within the spirit - and no man or church can save or damn anyone else. The living spark of love and charity, once alive in a man, cannot be taken away by anything - least of all by these online debates and such rhetoric.

Do this: take a cup and fill it with half measure of water and half measure of oil. There is no amount of influence that will make the oil mix with the water. Each liquid will separate itself on account of its different weight and consistency.

Thus the intrinsic nature of each spirit will naturally rise or fall to its natural place within creation.

Nothing can change this.

For this reason I keep a glass in my bedrrom half water and half oil, to remind me daily of this eternal spiritual truth. Each will rise to its place by virtue of its intrinsic nature.

Did you read M_Nwankwo's post that I referred you to?

Here's an analogy (as usual to my posts, it's a wack one but it does the job ). It's like a dude in a story I once wrote, who used to "fish" from a local river by adding a cheap germicide to the water, and the fishes would float upwards, very dead. Dude would then sell the fish at a very cheap price, and market women and men would buy in volumes. Is the guy to blame for selling poisoned fish (the General Overseer), or are the sellers to blame for buying cheap fish without questions (trusting their General Overseer without questioning); or are the innocent retailers and housewives to blame for buying at the normal price (trusting their pastors without questioning) after some bargaining with the market women(pastors) and maybe they should have gone to a supermarket?

This is a bad analogy because in the case of the spirit, its intrinsic nature is what determines its fate. It is not teh consumption of anything, the nature of which it is ignorant of, that will damn it. Rather its conscientuous disposition will seal its fate.

Jesus himself taught this when he stated that there is nothing that goes into the man that corrupts him - rather it is things that come out of the man that corrupt him. This shows that it is what the intrinsic spirit gives off that is cardinal.

I hope you see my point. In some cases there is an undeniable influence brought to bear on unsuspecting "users". It is one's duty to test all spirits and take nothing hook line and sinker. If you need clarification on my point please do tell.

I see your point but it does not change my view because even where there is influence, it takes two to tango. Nobody can influence another person without that other person accepting the influence. Nobody can influence you to commit murder without you first burying your own conscience.

@Deep Sight:

Deep Sight:

I hear you. But i insist that salvation rests as a rock within the spirit - and no man or church can save or damn anyone else. The living spark of love and charity, once alive in a man, cannot be taken away by anything - least of all by these online debates and such rhetoric.

How does this living spark AT FIRST get alive in a (any) man? Kindly describe the dynamics and show how they are void of influence (which is my point).

Deep Sight:

Do this: take a cup and fill it with half measure of water and half measure of oil. There is no amount of influence that will make the oil mix with the water. Each liquid will separate itself on account of its different weight and consistency.

Thus the intrinsic nature of each spirit will naturally rise or fall to its natural place within creation.

Nothing can change this.

For this reason I keep a glass in my bedrrom half water and half oil, to remind me daily of this eternal spiritual truth. Each will rise to its place by virtue of its intrinsic nature.

I understand your analogy but I do not accept it because even in that case, the oil is ruined and not so useful as pure combustive oil, and the water is ruined and no longer fit for drinking. They have yet influenced one another, howbeit they have not mixed.

Deep Sight:

Did you read M_Nwankwo's post that I referred you to?

Sure did. Even before I joined this thread at all.

Deep Sight:

This is a bad analogy because in the case of the spirit, its intrinsic nature is what determines its fate. It is not teh consumption of anything, the nature of which it is ignorant of, that will damn it. Rather its conscientuous disposition will seal its fate.

Jesus himself taught this when he stated that there is nothing that goes into the man that corrupts him - rather it is things that come out of the man that corrupt him. This shows that it is what the intrinsic spirit gives off that is cardinal.

You appear to misunderstand my sense when I refer to "consumption". Like the start and growth of a fire, consumption entails feasting on fuel to nurture the first spark. The first fuel is some oxygen and then more oxygen and some combustible material.

Jesus was talking about [size=14pt]physical food[/size]: it can't corrupt a man. (Mark 7:18).

18 “Are you so dull?” he asked. “Don’t you see that nothing that enters a person from the outside can defile them? 19 For it doesn’t go into their heart but into their stomach, and then out of the body.” (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean.)

Jesus was NOT saying that anything one hears or takes in to their SPIRITS cannot defile them or save them. [/b]He in fact[b] teaches the OPPOSITE by adjudging us to be careful HOW we hear. Not only WHAT we hear, but HOW.

New Living Translation (©2007) Luke 8:18
"So pay attention to how you hear. To those who listen to my teaching, more understanding will be given. But for those who are not listening, even what they think they understand will be taken away from them."

Other likewise references in the NT:

2 Tim 4:3
New International Version (©1984)
For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.

2 Peter 2: 1- 3
1 But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves. 2 And many will follow their sensuality, and because of them the way of the truth will be maligned; 3 [size=14pt]and in their greed they will exploit you with false words[/size]; their judgment from long ago is not idle, and their destruction is not asleep.

Deep Sight:

I see your point but it does not change my view because even where there is influence, it takes two to tango. Nobody can influence another person without that other person accepting the influence. Nobody can influence you to commit murder without you first burying your own conscience.

You speak theoretically, man. You know things are not so cut-and-dried in the real world. Will you also say that a pederast (like Eddie Long is allegedly accused to be) is to be excused by law since the young boy that he molested was supposed to have complained to his parents from the first few moments that the molester made advances (which is true, the boy should have complained, but does that exonerate the pederast)? 

The influence of a little soap suffices to bind oil to water.

Soap vs. oil vs. water:

Water alone is not able to penetrate grease or oil because they are of opposite polarity.

When grease or oil (non-polar hydrocarbons) are mixed with a soap- water solution, the soap molecules work as a "bridge" between polar water molecules and non-polar oil molecules. Soap molecules have both properties of non-polar and polar at opposite ends of the molecule.

http://www.elmhurst.edu/~chm/vchembook/554soap.html

The root of the art is the soap of the wisemen, and it is the mineral of all salts and it is called bitter salt, because it cometh of the mineral of the sea, and it is more sharp than all salts of its kind. Bodies and spirits are calcined with it and the resolutions and coagulations of Elixir are made with it.

http://www.rexresearch.com/rosarium/rosarium.htm

@Pastor AIO: Ah that's refreshing to know. So if the water was impure (by virtue of soap particles). . . it just might bind to the oil. Deep Sight, you may want to drop some OMO into that glass in your room (if it exists ) and see what happens.

The point I'm even stressing to Deep Sight is that: THIS is what makes us human. Our abilities to influence one another for good and evil. We are not programmed robots using a synchronized hivemind of sorts, neither are we totally free agents that cannot be influenced in thought and lifestyle.

Hi Inesqor -

Fair points, but please note that I have not said that influenecs do not exist. Rather this is what I said -

I see your point but it does not change my view because even where there is influence, it takes two to tango. Nobody can influence another person without that other person accepting the influence. Nobody can influence you to commit murder without you first burying your own conscience.

Please note it carefully and I believe it addresses all your concerns. If there are any you think it does not address, please let me know.

If indeed you read M_Nwankwo's post, and if you absorbed it, then you would undetrstanfd my view better. Because within that post you can understand that I do not believe that a person will be saved or damned on account of denominations or labels. And for this reason the concerns being expressed here about souls being lost on account of debates here is surely paranoid. Any soul that is lost on such an account was already lost.

InesQor:


The point I'm even stressing to Deep Sight is that: THIS is what makes us human. Our abilities to influence one another for good and evil. We are not programmed robots using a synchronized hivemind of sorts, neither are we totally free agents that cannot be influenced in thought and lifestyle.

I believe I have addressed this above, but simply for emphasis let me repeat that I never said that influence does not exist. I said very specifically that a spirit that bears the unction of love and charity within it cannot be lost on account of any exxagerated discussions here. And that is just the fact.

You talk about influence. Let me make it clear for you. Would you be influenced against your conscience? If you are, then you bear the responsibility for that: for going against your conscience. The truth is that if a spirit bears the unction of love and chariy within it, it will not go against its conscience, and as such it will not be lost.

This is what I stated and it certainly remains true. We live in the world of influences but no one can influence you against your spirit. Whatever influence you allow yourself to come under, you bear responsibility for that. Because there is no influence that will remove a child of God from the hands of the Light. That is my view.

See again my statements and note them carefully -

"There is not one single soul that will be lost if such a soul has the unction of love and charity. And in that regard, God, and not man, is the judge."

"Any soul that is lost can only blame itself. No soul that has the spark of love within it will be lost."

As far as I am concerned, these remain true. You may quibble about details about the oil and water analogy, but the spiritual principle remains clear: each spirit will align itself in terms of its intrinsic weight and consistency. This is an unavoidable spiritual law, which will justly hand to each human spirit its rightful place within God's creation.

Also you need to put in context the discussion. People contended that they have been willing to take steps such as hurl insults, fight, expose private communication, and even open threads dedicated to creating "compendiums" of the supposed odium of Jo and co. These are unsalutary acts - but they justify their actions with the claim thatr souls are at stake.

I say that that is a wrong contention because the arguments here do not put any souls at stake. Whether you believe it or not, there are atheists, agnostics, buddhists, muslims, christians, deists and even CEC members that will all find favour with the most High God. And this will be because of the unction of love in their spirits. The arguments of dogma here imperil no soul. Such arguments only imperill the temporal dignity of the discussants.

Deep Sight:


I say that that is a wrong contention because the arguments here do not put any souls at stake. Whether you believe it or not, there are atheists, agnostics, buddhists, muslims, christians, deists and even CEC members that will all find favour with the most High God. And this will be because of the unction of love in their spirits. The arguments of dogma here imperil no soul. Such arguments only imperill the temporal dignity of the discussants.

This is true and worthy a nota!

Nice to see calm descend on the thread. Everyone must have learnt a lesson or two.

Also good to see mature discussions and discussants.

@e.dynasty: Welcome to Nairaland. Your first post already.

@Deep Sight:

Indeed, Deep Sight you amaze me because you are preaching to the choir, telling me that people are not saved or damned based on denominations or labels or stuff. Was it not YOU who queried me and I replied with my views on my "controversial" salvation topic, or you need a link for a refresher? My gripe is "any soul that is lost can only blame itself" but I guess you have clarified now by showing that you MEAN that anyone who allows religious debates on doctrine to sway their beliefs , can only blame themselves. In such a case, I might agree with you because the conviction lies in each heart at the end of the day.

You say one is to be blamed if they are influenced against their own conscience. But you must surely realize that humans are at varying levels of consciousness or development. This is, as you like to say, ineluctable. My concern is NOT about "lost souls" (whatever that means) BUT tends to be about hardened hearts (towards God e.g. because one is angry at a "man of God" and other spiritual "losses " incurred in the process.

Jesus said a blind man leading the blind, they will both fall into a pit. The incontrovertible truth is that at ONE stage of your life or another, in one sphere or the other, you are a blind man (life is in stages and phases of growth). And when you are blind, you may be inclined to trust one whom you believe sees, to GUIDE you outwardly. Guide, but not to compel or restrict advancement; only to guide: a fallback. Nobody suddenly starts out as "a soul that has the unction of love and charity."   They all have stories. Even you do, before you came to your current convictions.

You cannot tell me that these 'arguments' have no bearing on people's spiritual development. Fine, they may not involve "souls" but I know for a fact that it provides spiritual advancement. [size=5pt]I have no intentions to boast, but any objective reader can compare my posts as mavenbox to my recent posts. A whole serious lot has advanced in less than 2 years, and it almost all came from here - from these same discussions and "arguments" that "dont win souls".[/size]

In all, let the arguments flow abeg. Nothing dey happen

*Munchs popcorn. Retreats to back-seat*

InesQor:

My gripe is "any soul that is lost can only blame itself" but I guess you have clarified now by showing that you MEAN that anyone who allows religious debates on doctrine to sway their beliefs , can only blame themselves. In such a case, I might agree with you because the conviction lies in each heart at the end of the day.

Good, agreed.

Jesus said a blind man leading the blind, they will both fall into a pit.

There is no soul that was created blind. The living conscience implanted in each and every soul by the creator is a living lamp which guides the soul.

The soul tht discards the lamp, does so at its own peril.

There is no influence that this lamp is not sufficient to judge and reproof for the benefit of the soul.

Nobody suddenly starts out as "a soul that has the unction of love and charity." 

O yes they do. In fact, we all do. We start out with the golden gift of the lamp of conscience. If anybody ignores his lamp, his guide: then he will fall into certain perdition. There is no "influence" that the lamp is not sufficient to guard against.

Indeed it is sad if anyone here thinks that his "attacks" against any church here is "saving souls." It is the gift of the lamp of conscience that will and does save souls everyday.

I have no intentions to boast, but any objective reader can compare my posts as mavenbox to my recent posts. A whole serious lot has advanced in less than 2 years, and it almost all came from here - from these same discussions and "arguments" that "dont win souls".

While I cannot know anything about your inner spirit, I must remind you to distinguish between mental development and spiritual development. One may not argue about certain things on account of an expansion of the mind: this does not mean that one did not always and already have the unction of love and charity within. It was always my sensing that you did.

InesQor:

@e.dynasty: Welcome to Nairaland. Your first post already.

ένα μετενσαρκώθηκαν αυτο 

@e.dynasty

Ξέρω ότι είσαι. Και γι 'αυτό σας υποδεχτεί!

e.dynasty:

ένα μετενσαρκώθηκαν αυτο 

^
οι οποίοι έχετε προηγουμένως

Οι άνθρωποι νομίζετε ότι είστε οι μόνοι που μπορούν να χρησιμοποιούν μια ελεύθερη μεταφραστή

σταματήσει αμέσως!

LMAO!!!



Deep Sight, you are unique in your own way.

Deep Sight:

σταματήσει αμέσως!

Γελάω στα ελληνικά

Yes sir. I will comply forthwith.

Deep Sight:


I say that that is a wrong contention because the arguments here do not put any souls at stake. Whether you believe it or not, there are atheists, agnostics, buddhists, muslims, christians, deists and even CEC members that will all find favour with the most High God. And this will be because of the unction of love in their spirits. The arguments of dogma here imperil no soul. Such arguments only imperill the temporal dignity of the discussants.

@deepsight,

I have been following this thread and have really witnessed a variety of emotions. I saw how you tried to apply the "gentle-man" dose to a situation that has been brewing for a while,  personally I dont feel it is right to single out a person for his views or stand, (However riduculous it may seem). In that respect, I'm with you. However you failed to realise that there are two sides to a coin and out of the innocence of your intent, you risked sounding bias.  Anyway I applaud you for your attempt to apply reason. 

On the subject of if "corrupt" teachings has the ability to damn souls. I agree with you there as well, as these "souls" chose to believe another person's interpretation of the text thereby giving their own consent without adequatly researching into these texts in order to get their own understanding on the subject matter. Religion is very contentious and highly emotive because it rests on people's hopes therefore critical thinking is discarded. All hope inadvertently rest on the interpreter of the text.  Various factors contribute to this submission, often people attribute it to poverty or ignorance. I believe it is also psychological thing, and the insidious perpetrators are highly skilled in it.

A lie repeated over and over again will eventually start sounding truthful. It echoes Joseph Goebbles manipulation techiques. I dont want to use this thread for my interaction with you, but if you are ready, we can have a useful and educative chat on the role religion plays in our everyday lives on a saperate thread. .

Again the bolded also reasserts my belief that God looks beyond race, sexuality, denominations and other human attributes, but he looks at the content of your heart- that I feel is an un-biased way of judging everyone accordingly. then again no-one knows how God works. Its funny how some people claim they do. (forgive my typos)

e.dynasty:

ένα μετενσαρκώθηκαν αυτο 

InesQor:

@e.dynasty

Ξέρω ότι είσαι. Και γι 'αυτό σας υποδεχτεί!

Deep Sight:

Οι άνθρωποι νομίζετε ότι είστε οι μόνοι που μπορούν να χρησιμοποιούν μια ελεύθερη μεταφραστή

σταματήσει αμέσως!

aletheia:

^
οι οποίοι έχετε προηγουμένως

Are you guys writing in tongues

KunleOshob:

Are you guys writing in tongues

Greek, and only Deepsights' was translated properly (grammar-wise)

dare2think:

@deepsight,

I have been following this thread and have really witnessed a variety of emotions. I saw how you tried to apply the "gentle-man" dose to a situation that has been brewing for a while, personally I dont feel it is right to single out a person for his views or stand, (However riduculous it may seem). In that respect, I'm with you. However you failed to realise that there are two sides to a coin and out of the innocence of your intent, you risked sounding bias. Anyway I applaud you for your attempt to apply reason.

I thank you. I am glad that you do recognise "the innocence" of my intent, and you noted that that risked making me appear biased. I was and remain all too aware of the risk of that appearance, for most people would jump to the conclusion that one agrees with Jo, whereas one does not.

A lie repeated over and over again will eventually start sounding truthful.

To the variable mind perhaps, but not to the lamp of conscience.

I dont want to use this thread for my interaction with you, but if you are ready, we can have a useful and educative chat on the role religion plays in our everyday lives on a saperate thread. .

Sure, let's do it.

Again the bolded also reasserts my belief that God looks beyond race, sexuality, denominations and other human attributes, but he looks at the content of your heart- that I feel is an un-biased way of judging everyone accordingly. then again no-one knows how God works. Its funny how some people claim they do. (forgive my typos)

I could not agree more.

dare2think:

I dont want to use this thread for my interaction with you, but if you are ready, we can have a useful and educative chat on the role religion plays in our everyday lives on a saperate thread. .

. . . . this is one thread i'll be reading

Ðip▓§hïtë:

▲▲▲
μια μαλακία στάγδην χαρακτηρίζεται σαπουνόπερα

Οι Έλληνες ήταν αποφεύγονται από τον Ιησού

Ο Ιησούς αποφεύγεται εσκεμμένα οι Έλληνες, όταν οι μαθητές που υπάγονται πάνω από το κεφάλι τακούνια προσπαθούν να πείσουν το κοινό τους Έλληνες με τον

The owners and operators of NL really need to upgrade their anti-virus application

While Joagbaje has indeed come under an unprecedented amount of negative press and attention in the section, I can't help but feel that he needs blame no one but himself. The kind of claims/comments he makes are a lightning rod for controversy.

I mean when you boldly claim you raised someone from the dead . . . why won't people be all over your case? Furthermore it is true he has been caught in a lie about multiple ids, PastorAIO's thread was on point in that regard. So people criticizing him are well within their borders. For those wondering 'why the mods are not doing anything about it', it is not the job of mods to muzzle free speech . . . as long as no one is breaking forum rules (and we have not gotten any complaints by the way).

Nevertheless, I encourage my fellow section members to go easy with him. Feel free to express yourselves with the usual fervence but please try to put a lid on the personal stuff. In the pointing out of perceived differences in doctrine, lets all try to be civil and brotherly, such that we can look back and be proud of how we acted/treated each other because none of us is beyond fault or error.

JeSoul:

I mean when you boldly claim you raised someone from the dead . . . why won't people be all over your case?

Una neva see anything, it won't be long before Jo claim he is God People go develop cardiac arrest for here

^Zikky, how body now?

Deep Sight:

I thank you. I am glad that you do recognise "the innocence" of my intent, and you noted that that risked making me appear biased. I was and remain all too aware of the risk of that appearance, for most people would jump to the conclusion that one agrees with Jo, whereas one does not.

 Honestly, I am skeptical about the "innocence of your intent" . . . considering how you've made your contempt for the christian faith well known around here. Pleading for tolerance & longsufferance in this case seems to me inconsistent and that your defending of Jo is perhaps a silent 'attack' on the virtue your known doctrinal opponents like Enigma and Nuke.

  ^but if that is wrong and you're genuine, that'll be a good thing, seeing my skepticism of your motives is utterly irrelevant in the grand picture. Cheers.