MaxInDHouse:
@ I know you're banking on the past errors of God's people...

I am not. I only used it to show that even now your entire belief system may be a complete sham, and you would never be able to tell

MaxInDHouse:
The first century Apostles committed blunders so if those who walked with Jesus makes mistakes what makes you think those who never saw him but relied only on what was written must be infallible?

But they were inspired. You people are NOT! And have "complete unity" unlike the early church where they could disagree so that the truth can be seen. But nothing to check you from believing entire falsehood. I only used the examples of the due dates of failed prophecies to illustrate my point; that was the only check and balance you had to know that what you taught was wrong, because NOBODY was even able to spot the wrong in the teaching until the due date showed it to be false! Now imagine teaching without due date! How will you know this one with nothing to show it clearly cos it has no due date to reveal it? Answer: NO WAY!

MaxInDHouse:
Well know today that only the truth can achieve God's purpose for salvation among imperfect humans. If JWs could gather people throughout the earth and achieve what God said pure worship will achieve during the end time that means God is WORKING with them even though they are imperfect humans like you and i! Zechariah 8:23

Loool, don't get me started on this. A stagnant population with membership for years with news of many leaving? I'll just leave this point for now

MaxInDHouse:

This is really hilarious, why not say God Himself must be error?

God has never made errors, like EVER!
But you have...
Absolutely no comparison here

MaxInDHouse:


Do you really know the import of what you're quoting?
My friend the Israelites were God's people yet they committed lots and lots of blunders even killing God's messengers but one thing is sure: the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob remain faithful to His promises that He will use them to accomplish His purpose in uniting faithful people throughout the earth.
After the death of Jesus Christ of Nazareth the Israelites lost God's favour and the followers of Christ became God's chosen people.
What about Jehovah's Witnesses organization today?
This people came from different races and were busy making research to find out how pure worship failed to achieve it's purpose and they went through thick and thin until God adopted them and shower them with His blessings because they were searching for Him with all their hearts.
So God doesn't count on mistakes but once you are ready to admit your error He remain faithful to you.
That's exactly what happened to JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES organization today.
Can you present a group having godly devotion and proving true to it's power?
Remember you can only prove true when you achieve God's purpose.
So Jehovah's Witnesses have proved that God's word (Bible) is powerfully working out BENEFITS in their midst! James 2:18-26

Again, that "unity" of which you're so proud of is your Achilles heel! You will NEVER be able to detect wrong doctrine, EVER! You will agree with falsehood forever and ever if there's no due date to reveal it as false (since it didn't come to pass). You may even now be believing all things wrong from top to bottom, and have absolutely no way to know this, since everybody CANNOT disagree, but blindly follow each other into error, being happy y'all agree

MaxInDHouse:


So by the end of the day they're able to gather people throughout the world, used the Bible to resolve all their racial disparities, divert their resources into production of food and information materials, erased the passion for vengeance and production of weapons from their hearts, taught them to forgo racism, politics and military services, finally made them vow never to raise weapons against anyone again! Isaiah 2:2-4

Jesus never said they will not make mistakes but "by their FRUIT" Matthew 7:16-18

So if they're the one and only group producing the fruitage of FAITH then i believe their journey or research towards pure worship has been a success no matter their past mistakes! James 2:18-26

You shifted the goalpost though. This isn't what i was referring to. For all you know your entire worship may be a sham, because you are in "complete unity" even into error with no way to detect it! This is really the implication of the sort of "unity" you're proud of.

Regarding these you've just spoken of, there's such a thing as having a form of godliness and denying its power (2 Timothy 3:5). You can have such godly devotion, yet still be false. That "unity" will be your undoing

Kobojunkie:
1. That is what the Jesus Christ said of Satan in Matthew 16 vs 22 - 24.

2. You don't need the dictionary but your eyes and mind at this point.

Well I've learned to hold my peace...

Kobojunkie:
That doesn't answer the question at all. He is called the enemy since he is opposite of good.

Again....Where do you get the idea they were broken up to begin with?

The God vs Satan myth isn't of biblical onions. It is instead sourced from pagan beliefs and traditions.

"Enemy" means "opposite of good"? Loool this cracked me up real good!

Maybe, check the dictionary for what enemy really means

MaxInDHouse:


Only Jehovah's Witnesses (true disciples of Christ) can agree perfectly on God's word {John 17:22 compare to 1Corin 1:10} but as for all other religionists nothing can make you people agree on God's word except what is plainly written which everyone including unbelievers can just pick up scriptures and read.
So whenever it comes to sacred secrets you will all be SCATTERED spiritually speaking.
Na our King talk am! Luke 11:23

This isn't the compliment you think it is tho, and I'll tell you why:

You see, by their own admission, the GB of Jehovah's witnesses aren't inspired, which is why they've made numerous mistakes in time past. But in spite of this, everybody agrees with them whether they're right or wrong! Nobody even has a mind of his own to spot the wrong and disagree, and we saw that play out in all the failed prophecies that were made. Every single soul agreed with what was plainly wrong! Is this a compliment really? That even when there's wrong, everybody will keep agreeing, and not a single soul can spot the error, until the due date of the prophecies come about and it fails before they can see it?

The implication of this is that in matters not pertaining to prophecy, if there's no due date attached the a particular doctrine, absolutely nobody will ever be able to see that it wrong because there's no due date (like there is in prophecy) to reveal the error clearly for all people to see! You may even now be holding on to doctrinal errors that have no due date attached as in prophecy, and will therefore not ever be able to know, since nothing serves to reveal it wrong, meanwhile everybody is busy agreeing to errors as in the past, only this time nobody ever gets to know without such due date!

For example, the GB have taught something, then changed it up later on, then much later do away totally with the changes, going back to the much earlier belief they initially had, and everybody just adjusts like that, believing each one each time until the GB change it again, with absolutely nobody at all able to see the wrong, everybody agreeing on errors as tho they are true! Scary! Certainly not a complement...

No, disagreements are HEALTHY. The ability to disagree is also what helps protect ppl from error:

NKJV 1Co 11:18-19: "¹⁸ For first of all, when you come together as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you, and in part I believe it. ¹⁹  For there must also be factions among you, that those who are approved may be recognized among you."

There MUST be disagreements! So that those with the truth can be seen! When everybody just blindly agrees with the leader and follow them upandan into error, nobody ever able to see it especially if there's no due date like in a prophecy, that's a scary phenomenon.

The unity Jesus was speaking about wasn't at all about agreeing totally about God's word so that nobody can detect when there r errors. It's about loving each other and being in unity and harmony with one another regardless of that! There were such disagreements in the early church as you can see Paul say so, and he said it's healthy and to be expected. If there's none today amongst JW, it is actually a problem, and NOT a compliment.

Kobojunkie:
Where do you get the idea they were broken up to begin with?

The God vs Satan myth isn't of biblical onions. It is instead sourced from pagan beliefs and traditions.

Jesus calls the devil his enemy:

NKJV Mt 13:24-25,37,39: "²⁴ Another parable He put forth to them, saying: “The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field; ²⁵ but while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat and went his way. … ³⁷  ...“ He who sows the good seed is the Son of Man. … ³⁹ The enemy who sowed them is the devil, the harvest is the end of the age, and the reapers are the angels."

NKJV Lu 10:19: "¹⁹ Behold, I give you the authority to trample on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy, and nothing shall by any means hurt you."

AntiChristian:
Even if she didn't destroy the shrine, she would still have gone mad. It's madness period in her destiny.

Village people have no power except on whoever God wants them to have power over.

Maybe go thru the thread and see comments of ppl to see it kept happening to ppl that tried it. It isn't random. It's a consequence of their actions

Dtruthspeaker:
"I will lie down in green pastures." This is surely better than a bed of roses because roses have thorns in them. But laying on lawns, is very very sweet!

True. But contrary to op, the reward actually begins here on earth. Many don't know this and do not collect their rewards

NKJV 1Ti 4:8: "⁸ For bodily exercise profits a little, but godliness is profitable for all things, having promise of the life that now is and of that which is to come."

NKJV Lu 18:29-30: "²⁹ So He said to them, “Assuredly, I say to you, there is no one who has left house or parents or brothers or wife or children, for the sake of the kingdom of God, ³⁰ who shall not receive many times more in this present time, and in the age to come eternal life.”"

Amen!

Ken4Christ:


Satan does not work for God. Rather, he seeks permission from God before he can perform his evil schemes on God's own people. But he only succeeds in getting his permission granted if he has a good argument to put forth. Besides, Job was under Satan's power or dominion by virtue of the sin of Adam. There is no recorded Covenant between God and Job that would have permitted God to stop Satan. If God does that, he will be infringing on Satan's legality over Job. Hence, he told Satan;

Job 1:12
...Behold, ALL THAT HE HATH IS IN THY POWER; only upon himself put not forth thine hand...

But it's no longer so. Those in Christ have been delivered from the power of darkness. Satan can only have access to us if we yield ourselves to obey our sinful desires. This is why it's important you keep yourself from sin so that the devil will have nothing to accuse you of.

And even if you sin, be quick to repent and depend on his grace to overcome any wrong habit that easily overwhelms you.

This is beautiful
{clap clap clap}

I had planned to respond to this, but hadn't been able to until now. it remains paramount that I still do so, not necessarily cos of you (I've seen that there's absolutely I can ever say to change your mind on any topic, and I accept that that's possible), but because I know the origin of some doctrine about "holy communion", being a one-time Roman Catholic. This teaching emanated from them (You don't have to realize/acknowledge this- but protestants did break out from them). The op mentioned "transubstantiation"... By this false doctrine the bread and wine BECOME Jesus, (u know, cos "his flesh" and "his blood" and are no longer bread and wine, such that Catholics now worship the bread and wine as Jesus himself!. This is of course idolatry. Parts of their doctrine have carried on to others, and people wrongly claim what scripture never said.

Now in truth, if scripture had said some things as "requirement to salvation" like you claimed, we cannot argue back against it. But it DID NOT even talk about "communion" at all in John 6. Again I CANNOT change your beliefs. You WILL NOT agree. I know this from experience. Absolutely nothing I can ever say. But that's fine; it can happen.

NKJV Joh 6:30-33: "³⁰ Therefore they said to Him, “What sign will You perform then, that we may see it and believe You? What work will You do? ³¹ Our fathers ate the manna in the desert; as it is written, ‘He gave them bread from heaven to eat.’ ” ³² Then Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, Moses did not give you the bread from heaven, but My Father gives you the true bread from heaven. ³³ For the bread of God is He who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.”"

They asked for a sign from Jesus. They wanted to eat bread. So Jesus told them about the true bread from heaven which is himself, sent by God, coming down to give life to mankind. This aroused their curiosity, so they asked for this bread:

NKJV Joh 6:34-35: "³⁴ Then they said to Him, “Lord, give us this bread always.” ³⁵ And Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life. He who comes to Me shall never hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst."

They asked that they be given the bread!. The next response of Jesus was the answer to "I want this bread, give it to me". If that were you answering them, would your next response, to ppl who seemingly want the bread you're telling them to get, not be "ok so now this is how you get it"? It's only logical and common sense! That would be ANYBODY'S response! It was therefore Jesus telling them how he gives them the bread! So how does Jesus give the bread of life? Look again:

NKJV Joh 6:35: "³⁵ And Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life. He who comes to Me shall never hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst."

Again, how did Jesus in response to ppl asking him how he will give them the bread of life respond telling them the way to get it? See it VERY CLEARLY! He gives to them by they coming to him and they believing in him!. This is the only way that scripture makes sense! Or else why would ppl just by coming to Jesus, before having yet eaten communion at all, never get hungry again , if this doesn't mean they're eating of the bread of life just by coming to him ALONE, and why would ppl who merely believe in Jesus without having taken any communion at all yet, never thirst again unless this means by believing in him ALONE they're drinking of him?

THIS IS THE ONLY WAY THIS SCRIPTURE MAKES ANY SENSE AT ALL!

Jesus told them how to get the bread of life! Coming to him and believing in him is eating of Jesus as the bread of life! It's eating his flesh and drinking his blood! This has absolutely nothing to do with communion! The passage makes ABSOLUTELY NO REFERENCE AT ALL to communion! It is man-made interpretation of Jesus' words that it means communion, because the part of the passage where he tells them how to get the bread of life is by believing in him and coming to him is ignored!

Actually, NOWHERE does "communion" mean eating Jesus' flesh and drinking of his blood literally. It is always a FIGURATIVE expression to show that the bread stands for his body that was crucified, and the wine for his blood that was poured out in the cross as he gave his life for us. They ARE NOT literally flesh and blood of Jesus, but merely stand for them in crucifixion!

NKJV Mr 14:23-25: "²³ Then He took the cup, and when He had given thanks He gave it to them, and they all drank from it. ²⁴ And He said to them, “ This is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many. ²⁵ Assuredly, I say to you, I will no longer drink of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God.”"


Two things should make it immediately clear that this is a figurative description given in this passage

1) He called it the "blood of the new covenant" which really was yet to be shed for many at the time they were drinking of it! This was a futuristic thing! Were they drinking of something from the future yet to even be given? That would literally be IMPOSSIBLE! The only reasonable meaning is that it was merely a figurative representation of the blood of Jesus which he was yet to give!

2) Right after saying "this is my blood", Jesus then says "I won't drink of this "fruit of the vine".." Jesus called what they just drank "fruit of the vine"! (other translations, "wine". Why call it wine again if it no longer was wine but now Jesus blood they were literally drinking? Was Jesus confused as to what it really was, one moment it was his blood, the very next moment it was wine? The only reasonable interpretation is that it was wine ALL THROUGH! It never BECAME his blood, but only stood to represent is, which is why he still called it "this wine"!

See again Paul also saying similar things:

NKJV 1Co 11:23-26: "²³ For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you: that the Lord Jesus on the same night in which He was betrayed took bread; ²⁴ and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “Take, eat; this is My body which is broken for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” ²⁵ In the same manner He also took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.” ²⁶ For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death till He comes."

Although he says Jesus said "this is my body", what we really eat is bread, NOT his body (verse 26)! Meaning that it is bread and wine we eat and drink in communion, they merely represent the body and blood of Jesus! They ARE NOT literally body and blood, just represent them!

Transubstantiation is a false doctrine from the Roman Catholic church. It is literally bread and wine in the communion, NOT flesh and blood! Absolutely NO scripture speaks of literally eating flesh and drinking blood in communion. You eat bread and drink wine, which merely represent the body and blood of Jesus. So says scripture.

Kobojunkie:
What the frell!

1. The thief on the cross was saved, not according to New Covenant, but God's Old Covenant- Ezekiel 33 vs 9 - 20 - with a promise of eternal life to those who are saved - Deuteronomy 30 vs 15 - 20.

This is easy to reason out. Jesus Christ said you MUST be born-again- born of water and of Spirit, just as God explained in Ezekiel 36 vs 25 - 26 - in order to gain access to the Kingdom of God - John 3 vs 5 - 8 - either through the broad gate or the narrow gate
- Matthew 7 vs 13 - 14.

The man on the cross did none of what God and Jesus Christ stipulated as far as becoming a part of the Kingdom of God which belonged to Jesus Christ hence it is absolutely impossible that He could have been saved by God's New Covenant standard.

2. It is not what I say but instead what Jesus Christ, the owner and King of the Kingdom of God tells you. Those Words belong to the one who is God's very Eternal Life and believe Him when He tells you that you can only have the Eternal life He offers only if you eat His body and drink His blood. If you don't trust His own Words, if you don't believe He is God's own Truth, I am afraid I can't help you there.

3. When it comes to the Word of Truth.... the game is not pick and choose.. instead it is All Or Nothing. The same Jesus Christ that told you in order to be save you must believe ...

▪︎also told you that in order to be saved you must east His body and drink His blood.
▪︎ also told you you have to be born of water and of Spirit in order to be saved
▪︎ also said you must deny your self in order to be saved
▪︎also the same one who told you that if you want to to saved you must lose your life - job/career/possessions, abandon family, reputation etc. - to enter through the gate the leads to True Life and be saved.
....
▪︎ also said you must remain faithful until the end in order to be saved. ....

If you can't accept ALL of what He said to you as His Truth, then you are better off accepting none of Him.

Kobojunkie:
Open your eyes and read what is written to you in John 6 vs 32 - 58 so you can save your own soul from ignorance of the one who is God's Truth.

The thief on the cross with Jesus who never ate the communion, was he to receive everlasting life or not? Was his soul to be saved? Well according to Jesus, it was!

If what you say is true, ppl who don't eat the communion wouldn't be able to be saved, and yet they are. What i did is explain why, using passage from Jesus statements in that chapter of John 6, together with all other scripture (this is what i believe you miss by restricting yourself to only the gospels when Jesus also inspired the epistles by his Spirit. There will be contradictions, even from within the gospels such as the thief on the cross!)

No, according to Jesus' own words, what saves is coming to him and believing in him. Or else the thief on the cross cannot be saved

Kobojunkie:
Are you being intentionally daft of what?

Go back through what has already been stated on this to see where you are obviously missing it abeg and stop the desperate attempts to pull down that which you obviously are using word find to learn of.

Sorry ma'am. I shall engage no further

Kobojunkie:
Are you being intentionally daft or something?

Communion is generally used to refer to the eating of the body represented as bread and drinking of the blood represented as wine of Jesus Christ. And if you read through John 6 with eyes open you will find Jesus Christ explaining why it is essential for you eat His body and drink His blood.

I'm not being daft. I just really wanted you to note that the passage makes absolutely no mention of communion, so that I can show you this:

NKJV Joh 6:34-35: "³⁴ Then they said to Him, “Lord, give us this bread always.” ³⁵ And Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life. He who comes to Me shall never hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst."

He had been speaking about the bread which lasts forever, unlike the normal bread the ate and later got hungry, so they asked that it be given to them. What was his response on how to "eat" the bread of life and "drink" the everlasting drink? "He who comes to him" stands for "eating the bread", which is why he can never go hungry again. "He who believes in him" stands for "drinking of him", which is why they can not go thirsty again!

"Coming to him" and "believing in him" was Jesus telling them how to "eat his flesh" and "drink his blood" when they asked how to! He was using FIGURE OF SPEECH in line with "food" that they were discussing in context!

So no mention of actual communion there like you can see. Coming to Jesus and believing in Jesus was what he meant there in that context by "eating his flesh and drinking his blood"! And by doing so one will have everlasting life!

This harmonizes with other scripture:

NKJV Joh 3:16: "¹⁶ For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."

NKJV 1Jo 5:13: "¹³ These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life, and that you may continue to believe in the name of the Son of God."


All these scriptures are from John. He cannot have been saying one thing in one place and then jumping all of a sudden to saying something entirely contradictory. As in all these scriptures, what gives eternal life is COMING TO JESUS and BELIEVING IN HIM. This is what gives everlasting life, NOT communion! John 6 was Jesus using allegory of food for coming to him and believing in him, not speaking of Holy communion. And all the scriptures harmonize in this way

Kobojunkie:
JW Bible aside, the claim that man is not Spirit but Soul was actually made by God and Jesus Christ.

■ In Genesis 2 where it is explained to you that man was made from the physical elements of this earth.
God's breath was put into the nostrils of the fully formed man after man had already been crested. So the suggestion that man is spirit is false. Instead the breath of God in man which is spirit since God Himself is spirit is that, the breath of God.
■ The same breath of life that God breathed into man after His creation, He also breathed into animals.
So any ideas that this breath specially installed a spirit in man of man's is baseless..

Errrr...

NKJV Zec 12:1: "¹ The burden of the word of the LORD against Israel. Thus says the LORD, who stretches out the heavens, lays the foundation of the earth, and forms the spirit of man within him:"

This spirit within man is formed! This clearly means that It is created! It is NOT the Spirit of God which is uncreated! It does NOT know the things of God as God's Spirit does, and is distinct from Him!

NKJV 1Co 2:11: "¹¹ For what man knows the things of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God."

Evidently then, man's spirit belongs to him as his own possession, as distinct from the Spirit of God. This is why it can be sanctified. it is a part of man created with him

NKJV 1Th 5:23: "²³ Now may the God of peace Himself sanctify you completely; and may your whole spirit, soul, and body be preserved blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ."

Notice "You wholly" to be "spirit, soul and body. This is the complete man! It is just as much a part of man along with his soul and body that God sanctifies, and "preserves blameless", implying it can actually "be with blame" just as much as the body and soul unless God preserves it.

When a person is born again they don't receive spirits. The spirit they already have, created as part of them, is reborn by the Holy Spirit

Kobojunkie:
1. Jesus Christ more than explained all of this in John 6 vs 32 - 58 where He went on to tell you that His blood and body was literal food.

Can you show exactly where the scripture in John 6 mentioned specifically, communion??

Sigh...

This exactly is why I'm weary. When one holds to just a fraction of what the Bible teaches as truth rejecting other revelation of Jesus Christ in scripture, this is what happens. You get only a part of it, and make a conclusion of the whole on just a part as if that part were the whole!

And now one cannot bring in the remaining part of the puzzle to show why this conclusion on just a part is stupendously wrong cos "it is doctrine of men against the truth of Jesus Christ and must be rejected".

This is where it leads.

Sigh...

Kobojunkie:
JW Bible aside, the claim that man is not Spirit but Soul was actually made by God and Jesus Christ.

■ In Genesis 2 where it is explained to you that man was made from the physical elements of this earth.
God's breath was put into the nostrils of the fully formed man after man had already been crested. So the suggestion that man is spirit is false. Instead the breath of God in man which is spirit since God Himself is spirit is that, the breath of God.
■ The same breath of life that God breathed into man after His creation, He also breathed into animals.
So any ideas that this breath specially installed a spirit in man of man's is baseless..

This same breath of life is reason why God, in Genesis 7 was able to annihilate all living things during Noah's flood, leaving only those He chose to spare.


■ In John 3, Jesus Christ confirms that indeed man was created without a spirit by conforming that mam was born of the physical elements of this world.
You were born a physical being from your mother's womb. The only way to acquire a spirit is when God grants you as an individual a spirit of your own. The righteous men of Old had a spirit of their own that remained in the grave with them after death e.g. Samuel. But those who believe in Jesus Christ are given a spirit of their own the moment they become born-again - John 3 vs 5 - 8

"Transubstantiation"

Sigh...

Even Catholics dunno they worship bread and wine as part of their whole idolatrous system

We4all:

That guy paragraphed his post. You are the blind one.

Not initially. Did so later

Loool tbh you're not responding to his post. You're really responding to things you've gone thru at the hands of other ppl

Sassy256:

So this long story is to justify your disrespect for your marriage or what Please save yourself the trouble. You're a cheat and a wilful one at that. I feel for your wife and I pity you if she finds out cos you do not deserve forgiveness. I pray she does the same to you cos if you don't taste it you won't know how it feels.
You're right that you have no excuses, and NO, you don't need a therapist, you're just an unrepentant cheat and you need to be back on the streets where you belong.
You even mentioned your wife went through FGM, were you not aware of that before you married her?? Rubbish.

frozen70:


Honestly, this is the first time I am reading an epistle that was soo interesting

You have tried, honestly I can feel your pain if loosing her yet you know you can't really have her forever

Lack of sex in your marriage pushed you into what you are in for

Be grateful to God that she didn't take in for you because you would have been in a different situation

I think you need another side chick or your move close to your family

I don't care if men have side chick, what I care for is, providing for your wife

Men cheats and they do that for fun and not to hurt their wives, they still love their wives and still love the side chick

No ma'am. Don't agree with you

Ninisun:




You go call am simp cus you haven't experienced being in love or truly loved by someone for a long time. Op it's not your fault jare, na the economy cause all these living apart these days.

Ok so I've seen a lot of hypocritical comments passing judgement on him, calling him all sort of names like they're saints and can never fall. That's too bad, and i called some out. I like that you aren't passing judgement on him...

Having said that, op IS at fault. He CANNOT be 100% exonerated! He did cheat on his wife, for two solid years! See if we don't cast appropriate blame where it's required, we end up tolerating ourselves doing all sorts; and we won't grow!

Yes there's nobody above making mistakes. But things could yet have been done better. He should NEVER have let her move in with him. Shebi he later paid rent for her somewhere? Why not at first? And this lasted way too long, two solid years, that it now became an issue!

Also true that we all must be humble. Even all these very righteous ppl here too. We all can fall in more disastrous ways than he did, it's like these ppl dunno they're human. They may not fall in this way, but in some other way, that may be more shameful than what we read here, so long as they're human. This is why it's very foolish for a mere man to pass judgement on a fellow man like himself.

But nobody must be content with falling down. Admit to it: it's your fault. Find out why and where, and fix it! And become a much better version of yourself.

Na you be perfect human being o. Someone came openly admitting his wrongs even tho he didn't plan to fall into it this way. And yet here you are, as one who can never commit unplanned errors in his life

VenumX:
Tales of a useless fool at 40+ adulterer.

Wow, for someone looking for advice

Saynoomore:
All hail the king of SIMPS. In the land of dimwits' , all the dimwits will call you miserable dimwit. Ode!

haekymbahd:

Numbers 23

19God is not a man, that He should tell or act a lie, neither the son of man, that He should feel repentance or compunction [for what He has promised]. Has He said and shall He not do it? Or has He spoken and shall He not make it good?



Is God a son of Man that he should die or cry?

1) Quit taking scripture out of context. it was talking about LYING as a man lies. Not die or cry!

2) When this scripture was recorded, Jesus was not even yet born! He wasn't even yet the son of man! That scripture DID NOT say God would NEVER become the son of man AT ANY TIME! He wasn't AT THE TIME, didn't say he won't be FOREVER, nor could he LIE as a man does!

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth", the scripture begins. What are the heavens - I explain, you ignore. The earth was already in existence being created along with the "heavens". I explain, you ignore. Therefore the sun was already in existence, there was even light. This makes sense from those scriptures. I explain, you again ignore. "He made lights". You yourself can see that the moon isn't a light source, but yet call it the moon anyways, even tho i explained it cannot be the moon for it already was in existence as i explained but you ignored!

You will ignore all sensible and logical interpretation of scripture. Just so you can disagree with the final interpretation you get while ignoring the other things that were pointed out from the context!

Pretty please, what else can I do since you refuse to see all I showed from scripture, desperately not wishing what it makes sense, just so you can disagree? Nothing actually...

Cheers!

ReacherSaidNoth:
Genesis 1:11
And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

Genesis 1:16
God made the two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night.”

The above sequence negates everything you wrote up there, the great lights referring to the sun and the moon were made after plant life.

The Bible writers seem to have been ignorant of basic science as they also call the moon a light source which it is not.

You will not read carefully all I've said just so you can argue. You will not see that you calling the moon "light" is wrong even by your own admission as the moon isn't a light source. The " lights" are really lights, not "sun" and "moon" for these already existed as I'd already explained. If you will not see how what i said is the right interpretation from the Bible due to your bias, i can't help you. Cheers

haekymbahd:
it depends on what you mean by entering his creation cos Allah wouldn't enter inside of a man to the extent that he loses his ability as God and become weak (dieing, eating, sleeping e.t.c )....

On the one hand you say this:

haekymbahd:
He can descend if he wishes to who can decide for him...

On the other hand you decide for him yourself what he can and cannot do. You set restrictions for him that even if he wanted to do this you won't allow him to. Or that he won't want to because you put it in his mind not to. Can't you see this?

You say you can't decide for him and he can do anything he wishes, but turn around and put restriction on what he can and cannot do. You can't see your own contradiction?

ReacherSaidNoth:
Was it not in the Bible that Yaweh created plant life before the sun
Christianity is just as dumb as Islam.

This is a very uninformed comment. In the beginning God created the heavens (plural) and the earth! The plural "heavens" are not just the sky, but also the heavenly bodies in them too! The stars (which in reality are other planets, galaxies, etc), the moon and therefore the sun, are included in this creation. And all these took place BEFORE the first day! This is why you do not see him creating the earth in those six days. They were already existing being created before then. Well, so also were all other masses of land and planets also (as the earth alone couldn't be the only exception)

NKJV Ge 1:1-3,5: "¹ In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. ² The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. ³ Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light. … ⁵ God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. So the evening and the morning were the first day."

On the first day God said "let there be light". This is when light began coming out from light-producing bodies and stars. When light began to shine! So there was light, and there were the "heavens" already, by this time. What happened later on was God positioning the sun in the sky above the earth and not a creation of the sun!

NKJV Ge 1:14-18: "¹⁴ Then God said, “Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and seasons, and for days and years; ¹⁵ and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth”; and it was so. ¹⁶ Then God made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night and the stars also. ¹⁷ God set them in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth, ¹⁸ and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good."

Remember there was already "light" right from the first day, just not in the firmament of the heavens over the earth! He placed them there and arranged it all in place.

Also people speaking about a moving earth should really learn to read things properly. That quoted scripture DID NOT say the earth would never be moved! What it said is that the foundation of the earth will never be moved!

NKJV Ps 104:5: "⁵ You who laid the foundations of the earth, So that it should not be moved forever,"

Please learn to read properly! But what is this "foundation of the earth"?

NKJV Job 26:7: "⁷ He stretches out the north over empty space; He hangs the earth on nothing."

NOTHING! The "foundation" is really NOTHING! That scripture was employing figure of speech! There is no literal foundation!

So what happens when the foundation of a house is moved? It collapses! It gets destroyed!

By stating that the "foundation of the earth" will never be moved, it's really saying the earth won't of its own collapse. It won't of its own fall apart. It'll keep existing for as long as the maker wants it to!

And there are NO CONTRADICTIONS in the Bible, only a refusal to see the big picture of what all scripture taken together, is saying!