eni

What is it talking about for goodness sake??????

If I should let you know how incenced I was to read your piece on the position of America, you might expect a far extreme response to your piece.

However, I have chosen to continue my campaign of enlightment.It is not only Americans that claim a unique destiny of the US in the world,this admiration can be seen the world over.
Sometimes the praise is secular, and sometimes God (the god of Americas founders;look at the eye on the piramid) has a hand in it.
Whatever the source, it is an absurd and a ridiculous claim.

Let me focus on the foreign affairs of the greatest (only in science and Technology)country on earth.

Starting from the recent catastrophy,Mr Bush quoted a certain Jewish Prophet named Elija to confirm a connection to "Gods call on America",yet while still a Governor in Texas, he chose to throw out the "chosen by God" line in an attempt to cover a butt on racial issues. (I mean his association with the painfully public bigotry of Bob Jones University)
More clearly,on Saturday he said and I quote "...we pray that they are safely home..." You and billions of others probably understood "home" here to mean "haven".

Digest these facts and consider Americas' history which include a brutal history of genocide of indigenous peole, African slavery and the legalized subordination of nonwhites, and the ongoing social and economic apartheid;now are your claims absurd? May be not enough to convince you yet.

Furthermore, the invocation of a direct connection to God and truth is a peculiar, and particular dangerous fearture of American history, built on a background of a country from the East, whose leaders created the first real democracy entrenched on liberty with a beacon of freedom for people all over the world; a model to nations to foster peace, freedom and democracy.

Furtunately enough, only a certain segment of the population would truly defend this- those sufficiently insulated from the reality of the U.S. actions abroad- and embrace such illusion.

Try to sell the idea to the people of Guatemala, rebuilding their country from a dictatorship installed and funded by the U.S.

Tell it to the people of Vietnam who receive bombs, bullets and chemical weapons all made in American for standing against "freedom managed by puppet leadership put in place by America. That sickness is still killing them today.And while I was there some infected adults confirmed that they would have prefared to have died at birth than to live with such a deformity that there children and generations later would see the symptoms. This is Sad! Who bears the responsibilty the Sender or the administrator?

Tell this to 5,000 Iraqi children dying monthly because, to contain Saddam the U.S. continue to back the harshest economic embargo in morden history.
Try to convince them that this Administrator of freedom, peace and liberty is God´s sent and you will come to know that there is notting saintly about the U.S. foreign policy.

Satan would not do this badly if he had ever proclaimed to be God´s chosen and gift to humanity.And if you insist that God has sent America to send this on these people, I wonder if you would not worship me if I swear to do better in caring for all Humanity, Americans alike.

Remain Blessed in the Goodness of Natures Creator.

DEL

Our financial markets used to be measured in the old fractional English system, like 1/8, but we converted to the decimal system to match the rest of the world.

Eni, I have an idea of what direction you want me to go with Suzanna's original article, and I will go there when I am good and ready. For now, I will like to see more writeups from people like DEL before I commit myself to yet another project of ENLIGHTENMENT!

Faloye and Suzanne please be patient. Monkey is coming and we are yet to hear from some other members of the 'animal kingdom', the so called moslem apologists. Good America, she continues to be a place of comfort to people that hate her.

God bless Nigeria.

eni

I will bet all of you a dollar for a macadamia cookie that Eni d Law has been looking for ways to commit suicide. Eni d Law, I have always told you to be like ode_eshi, Naija.com is not the place to be serious. Maybe you need to visit ode_eshi in LA and see what the real ode_eshi is capable of.

Talking of home, Nnah, Ada-daddy is getting so pretty and growing so fast. With a head full of hair down to her neck, I can’t just help it but to sometimes keep admiring the beauty and perfection of ode_eshi and wifey’s productive genius. I have to go and enlist in the army and get proper training because when she starts coming of age and those curves and cleavages and good things begin to develop, it is going to be war with guys. As former bad-boy, ode_eshi knows the game; I don’t need training in that aspect.

Abeg jooo, make I comot for work, I no dey for all this una headache on naija.com. Where Yorubaboy dey sef, I don begin miss am.

While you are gathering your facts together and putting you arguements in order, I would like you to understand that I respect your comments, but that,this method of discussion is unacceptable to me.You do not pre-empt, if only you are contributing to an enlightment issue.

Many seem to acuse me of anti-American comments because according to their feeble mind, I have chosen blindness as a tactic to ignoring the good of America.But I am rather not here to balance the good of America with the evil of America.

I am here to challenge and question the notion- here I am send me- that America is Gods chosen.

There seem to be another rising notion that any thing anti- American must be pro-Islam and an accompanying accusation of me as a moslem because of my idea of challenging this dead absurdity with living facts.This is a very sad development.

In this piece, I shall be using existing facts to enlighten you all on these matters.If there is any thing nearest to "Gods own country" or Gods "chosen" here on Earth, then is God not GOD.

Looking into how America has defended this absurdity, I call on you to go back to the summer of 1991.The 43-day bombing campaign- the most devastating concentrated bombing in history- was evidence of Americas responsibility to the wider world on the orders of "god".
A Harvard study team reported that the attack on Iraqi electricity, water, and sewage treatment systems had begun to kill thousands of civillians, especially the most vulnerable- children, the ederly, the sick.Put somebody you know in their seat and see your reaction to Suzanna telling you that "it was done by the deciples of God".

I have some good undertstanding of International law and it specifically prohibits civillian targets; violation to be regarded as war crimes.
Pentagon planners knew perfectly well that civillians would die, yet the called it "absolute precision-bomb".

A UN study shows that after 12 years of the most comprehensive multilateral economic sanctions in morden times, at least 1.3 million iraqis have died as a direct result of an action from "Gods people"

Every Iraqi target was "perfectly legitimate", Cheney (then NSA chief) told a Washington Post reporter, adding "if I had to do it over again, I would do exactly the same thing".

Similarly, Madeline Albright-her self a refugee and victim of war- asserted that "it was a hard choice, but worth paying...to counter Saddam". In no form was Saddam affected by this bombing.

The God I know would have asked his chosen one to give real diplomacy and compassion for the suffering of real people in Iraq.

Even if we comically agree that the U.S. is Gods chosen, AMERICA will not be ready to repudiate this comment and they have not done so.

Why does the U.S continue to pursue military solutions that violate international law while rejecting international consensus that calls for a less belligerent and more humane approach to Iraq?
Is the voice of the People no longer the voice of GOD? And if God is the maker of haven and Earth and has chosen America to lead this war, does it mean that that is the only solution HE deems fit?

The U.S. claimed that they are supported by about a dozen countries to deal with Iraq, eight fronm Europe, are we talking of this dozen on the face of 198 other sovereign countries? This can not be of my God and not in HIS name.

Truly, Iraqis live under an extremely brutal regime that has no conscience, but when "God" through "HIS" "chosen ones" agree that the suffering of innocents must continue, we must ask, Where is the conscience of this American god?

Is America chosen by God to direct the drift of the World? The answer is not least ambigous.IT IS NO.

If I did not love AMERICA, I would not tell her the TRUTH.

Remain Blessed in the Goodness of Natures creator.

DEL

A while back ago, you began your campaign against Nigerian Christians who fought nobody, attacked nobody, imposed sanctions on nobody. All they did was fellowship and trust in their God. You picked an issue with that, and called them all sorts of names here. Now here you are calling on God because you have a bone to pick with American foreign policy. Quit speaking from both sides of your mouth, dude!!!!

I ask this because of all your so called concern for the Arabs. You see, while I agree the Westerners have committed a number of appalling acts, so to have other people's around the world.

Saddam Insane and his Arab cohorts are silent about the murderous jihad the racist Arabs are carrying against the Bantus of the Southern Sudan. Fortunately, the Bantus have managed to oust those deranged Muslims from the South. The civil war is now about whether the Arabs or the Bantus will control the central Sudan, as it is, the Sudan is basically two different nations.

The United States and West at least have deal with their human rights atrocities, We are concerned about the enslavement of blacks in Mauritania.

By why is it that the black Muslim, is so beholden and slavishly loyal to Arabs interests, that he can only rant and rave about the oppression that Europeans institute, but is silent on what Arabs do.

I am black, but screw this third world liberation nonsense. Now matter what deranged Muslim or leftist cultists say, just because you have black hair and brown eyes does not mean you have the same culture, values, or interest.

As for Latin America, while the US certain did support some ruthless regimes, let me point out that Latin America is a creation of the white Spanish and Portuguese who imported African slaves, and allowed immmigrants to come there from other European, Middle Eastern, and Asian nations. So really, Brazil, Costa Rica, Argentina, etc are all mirror images of the United States! The US, simply developed itself more because we invested in our nation, while the Latin Americans preferred to by from the British.

this kind of approach is indeed very sad.I would appreciate you put me on quote concerning your allegations.

You seem to reject understanding when you assert that I am against God in favour of Natures creator.Well, if this is true, would you then reject the fact that you are a produce of Nature?

However,let us not deviate from this very touching points that I have raised and do not fail again to post an adequate and responsible response to the issue at point.You could do better than that.

Again, like always, I bless you with the Goodness of Natures Creator. When you reject these blessings- long life, happiness, health- which are all possible through nature, please re-direct them back to me and then ask yourself, who else could have made these Natural things if not the Creator of Nature?

Remain Blessed continually.

DEL

But why? If Americans claim that their nation is GOD-ordained, why can't Nigerians claim the same thing, if they believe that their nation is also GOD-ordained? Afterall, Americans do not have a patent on the phrase; "GOD BLESS...". On this issue Del, I respect your opinion, but I also reject it.

You wrote in your article that you are not interested in balancing the "good of America with the evil of America". I dare inform you that that is the number one problem that you have as a purported objective forumite.

In your attempt to demonstrate your abhorence for American foreign policy, you wrote and I quote: "I call on you to go back to the summer of 1991.The 43-day bombing campaign- the most devastating concentrated bombing in history- was evidence of Americas responsibility to the wider world on the orders of "god"".

I have couple of questions for you in reference to that quote:

Number 1: What did Iraq, under Saddam Gommarah Insane, do BEFORE summer of 1991? Discussing Operation Desert Storm without disussing what that insane S.O.B. tyrannical dictator do, is like discussing America's participation in Second world war, without discussing Pearl Harbor. People like you need to be objective. If Cameroon had driven you and your family out of your country Nigeria, and America had reversed the invasion, would you be out there screaming about the suffering Cameroonians?

Number 2: If you really had no bone to pick with America, why in the name of fairness and justice did you neglect to mention that AMERICA was just one of the countries of the world that participated in Operation Desert Storm? Why did you leave out a country like Saudi Arabia, for example?

In a war, innocent people die. That has been the reality for as long as human beings have existed. On September 11, 2001, thousands of American INNOCENTS died. They didn't ask to be killed by the Islamic Jihadists, but they were killed anyway.

When you go to war, you go to war to win. Part of your strategy may include creating a blackout by knocking out your opponent's source of electricity. It was done in Iraq by America and other nations during Operation Desert Storm, just as it was done in Bosnia by America and NATO, in addition to blowing up bridges, including the ones over Danube, in an attempt to create a safe haven away from Slobadan Milosevic, who was slaughtering moslems because he "understood them and America didn't".

You blamed "1.3 million" deaths in Iraq on sanctions. That figure must have come from those Harvard liberals. Did they just hand it over to UN? How did they count 1.3 million dead people in a nation where everybody lives in FEAR? Why did those liberals forget to tell you that during the same period of time in which sanction was in place, Saddam Insane built more palaces the size of Central Park in New York State? Where did he get the money from? Could he have used the money to buy medicine for the POOR and DYING Iraqi children? Did you see the latest Biological weapon plant built by Saddam Insane? I guess not.

When America acts, it is a bully. When it doesn't act, it is an isolationist. As an African, I would have wished that America had intervened in Rwanda before the Hutus and the Tutsis killed themselves in the millions. I would have wished that America had ended slavery before the Emancipation Proclamation, thereby preventing many hangings of innocent slaves. I would have wished that America had not allowed United Kingdom to stand alone for over 18 months or so before joining it to confront Hitler, thereby preventing the slaughter of about 6 million Jews. I would have wished that America had confronted Josef Stalin before he killed over 18 millions of his own people. 18 million innocent lives that people like you never complained about! Just like you people never complain about millions of Chinese murdered by Chairman Mao! If America fails to STOP the mad man of Iraq and the one in North Korea and the one in Iran; History will repeat itself, and people like you, and the Catholic Church, and the liberal evangelical Churches, will ONCE AGAIN be on the wrong side of History!

American Conscience is too slow to act. I wish it would move faster; faster to get rid of the "axis of evil". And as the true Americans like to say: MAY GOD BLESS AMERICA!!!

P.S. If you think that the 43-day bombings of 1991 was atrocious, please stay tuned. The Pentagon has said that they plan on unleashing more bombs on Iraq in just two days of the upcoming confrontation, than were unleashed in those 43 days.

Del, please name one contribution, just one contribution, of Iraq under Saddam Insane, to the betterment of the world at large. Just one contribution!!!

regretably, you seem to have missed my point of arguement.I think it should be more than pelucid to every constructive mind to understand that "not balancing Americas Wrongs with her rights" simply shows an acknowledgement of the fact that all said and done, there is a bad as well as good side of everything.

It would be denial on my part to put a wholesale blancket of evil on America.Therefore, while recorgnising this,I am asserting that in good or evil, God has not sent the U.S. period and I would have appreciated you concentrated on this point.

It would have been an honour for me to engage you further, but when you question a particular statistic- 1,3 million Iraqi deaths- and also go ahead in the same breath to give me figures like six million jews and 18 million...I tend to conclude that you are simply not being honest.

On your questions: although you earlier rejected connecting to my position, your qouestions seem to suggest that I am a pro-Saddam. My dear, I am not.I abhore every aspect of dictatorship and I condenm Saddams attitude towards the Iraqis.

I remember a certain incident where someone called me a moslem because of my statements and went on to remind my comrade who is black, a U.S citizen and a Republican," it realy does not matter where you stand,to be American means white and male".

These kinds of people in their widest dreams, fantacy and simplicity also rush to the judgement that anyone who stands against America at all, could not be American. Let them dream on.

Like I said, the U.S may go to Iraq and destroy it. They may even post some nuks- sometimes I may support them and at other times I may challenge them depending on the guidiance of my conscience and reasoning- but in all these, I will continue to contend that God has not sent them.You may agree with me or disagree with me, and I shall never assert that "either you are with me or you are against me".Your concept shall always be appreciated.I therefore rest my case here.

Remain Blessed in the Goodness of Natures Creator.

DEL

The question has to be; how do you know that God did not send America? Your evidence MUST come from an answer to that question, IF the question is the basis of your hangup on American foreign policy!

The God that I worship, the same God that most Americans today profess to worship, the same God that 99.98% of early Americans claimed to worship (0.02% claimed to be Jews), is not just a God, HE IS ALSO A JUST GOD, and therefore HE MUST punish evil in all of its ramifications, through the instrumentality of other nations or peoples! And just as the "chosen people" of the God that I worship did not, nor ever can, escape HIS Justice, so also will it be impossible for even America to escape HIS Justice, IF America continues to thumb its nose at HIM!

America is no more evil than any other nation of the world that you can name. No more evil than EVEN the Vatican City. And before you lose your mind over that statement, let me give you my definition of evil. "Evil" is the inability to do GOD's will ALL THE TIME.

In my ealier response to you, I challenged the authenticity of your "1.3 million" figure of the Iraqis that you claimed have died as a result of worldwide sanctions against a bloody dictator. I did that because the number of dead Iraqis, on account of the sanctions, is very fluid depending on whom you are dealing with. For example, that figure is "close to 2 million" if you listen to the "Peace Activists" in America, and "over 2 million" if you believe the Nazi bums in Germany! My quibble with you is that the figure you gave is UNVERIFIABLE in a country where everybody lives in FEAR, and foreigners are NOT welcome to check out the facts. Concerning the figures that I gave you, I stand by them wholeheartedly because 1; they have been verified by independent bodies who think with their brain and not their heart like the U.N. and 2. those figures are not fluid. For example, you have never heard anyone claim that 7 million Jews were killed by Hitler. The figure has always been 6 million. Some Neo Nazi deny the figure, but that is to be expected since they were the murderers. And about the 18 million Russians that Stalin killed, I have pictures right here, gruesome pictures that will make you weep. I have pictures of unearthed mass graves of humans. I have a list of the Russian military Generals that were murdered by the atheist Communist Stalin. For example: Stalin murdered 3 out of 5 marshalls. I even have their names. He killed 13 out of 15 army Generals, 8 out of 9 Admirals, 50 out of 57 army corps generals, 154 out of 186 division generals, 16 out of 16 army commissars, 25 out of 28 army corps commissars...on and on and on goes the list. America whose policy you despise so very much has not committed any atrocity to that degree; not even in Vietnam or Tuskegie.

Therefore, my friend Del, if you despise dictatorship, if you don't like dictatorial regimes like that of Saddam Insane, if you are in favour of protecting innocent human lives, then you better support the decision of America to topple the Iraqi devil incarnate, whose evil deeds know no bounds. Do not forget that he invaded Iran in 1980, Kuwait in 1990, poisoned the Kurds in the North, murdered the Shi'ite in the South, ordered the murder of his own sons-in-law AFTER he told them to return home from Jordan. This is an evil man, and I will not be surprised to one day realize that America has been ordained by GOD, to rid the world of people like him. I don't believe that I can offer you ay emprical evidence to support what I just wrote, but I doubt it that you have any evidence to dispute it.

And concerning the possible use of nuke in Iraq, George W. has already signed an order in November, authorizing the use of tactical nuclear bombs IF AND ONLY IF Saddam Insane's generals use weapons of mass destruction on American troops in the upcoming war. So, the ball is in Saddam's court. We may be witnessing a Third World War in slow motion!

The United States did make some tactical errors. WHile I deplore the Soviet Union in any and all form(communism was doomed to fail), the US made alliances with deranged jihadists in order to ward of communists. We should have broken out alliance with them right after the cold war. Sept. 11th forced that change. Likewise, we supported the horrific Hussein against Iran. Now we have to clean up our mess in the Middle East, and place Saddam Insane and the Gul States mad mullahs where they belong, in the animal hospital.

Del, as for non intervention, do you believe that it would be okay to hold Americans of African descent in slavery?

You see, the confederates states had no intention of letting the slaves in the South go. Those slaves were freed only because the Union government(the United States) defeated the South and freed them. The confederates argued then that each state was a country, and that the US government had no right to intervene in a soviegrn state.

Likewise, people lik Martin Luther King would have been murdered if the US government hadn't have protected them. The Southerners argued that the US government tramped on their rights.

So Del, what should have happenned? Should the US government avoided hurting the South's feelings at the expense?

Should the US have allowed Adolf Shitler to annihilate Jews, and do hs best to overrun the world? Had that madman Hitler succeeding in maintaining control in Europe, the consequences of it might have been very bad for Africans(all non whites actually!).

You see, if you have a nice garden, and a weed sprouts. What must you do? Pull up that weed and be viligent. Or else your garden will be overrun by weeds!

The Islamic fundamentalism in the Middle East will have to be addressed. There are paid cult leaders like Farrakhan and Umar that were on the payrolls of the Saudis in an attempt to wage a prison jihad in the US!

We are under attack.

You have asked,"How do you know that God did not send America?"

This question has confirmed my reservations on your awearness with contemporary global politics.

However, I intend to provide you two rock-solid evidences before I go further to reveal to you why I chose to respond this final time.

First, on Nov.16, 1989, memebers of an elite Salvadoran Military unit entered the Campus of the University of Central America in San Salvador and murdered sis Jesuit priests,their housekeeper and her 15-year-old girl. Please add this number to the 70,000 others killed in El Salvador´s civil war.It was with U.S funding and active support that these atrocities were carried out.

Mr Faloye, simple moral decency demands that we understand our culpability.(if you are a citizen)

Perhaps the world was still blind to the real issue until the murder of Archbishop Oscar Romero by the military in 1980. Before that, President Carter had ignored Romeros´s please to stop the flow of weapons,instead President Reagan on taking office increased funding, weapons, and training.The CIA confirmed they trained the Atlacatl Battalion that carried out the murder and President Clinton did acknowledge our role in that country.He delivered a heartfelt apology.

By this act Mr Faloye,Mr Clinton was literaly saying that there was a crime commited and not in the name of the people.

Secondly, nearly three decades ago, Dr Martin Luther King argued that "...if the sickness in the soul of America is diagonised, it would read VIETNAM..."

Despite the incessant claims of U.S leaders on why we went to war in Vietnam,the truth finally prevailed. After the Vietnamese defeat of French colonialism in 1954, the Geneva Conference called for free elections in 1956. But the United States and its client regime in South Vietnam blocked those elections.Why? In his memoirs, President Eisenhower explained honestly: In free elections, the communists would have won by an overwhelming margin. As is typical, the Unites states is all for elections in other countries, if they turn out the way we want.what is wrong from nations emerging from colonialism to believe they had a right to decide their own futures, outside the U.S. orbit?
This admission of deceit is clear to free conscience that God did not send America.
Mr Akinola Faloye, how would you feel if in Six years (when President Bush) he writes his memoirs and tells us the real motives behind his invasion of Iraq, if the truth comes to be anyother than what is public knowledge today? Did you listen to Mr Mandela´s speech? That voice reminds me the truth in the words of Dr King.

Finally, How could the same God you claim you worship send America...?I have chosen to respond this final time because of your illusionary believe that we all worship the same god. More importantly, your idealogy of your god is different from mine.

Furthermore, Mr Faloye,for the most part, those responsible for the morally inspired constitution of your country and my country were Freemasons- George Washington,Ben Franklin,T. Jefferson,J Adams and Charles Thompson. The last designed the great seal of the United states of America and was a member of the Franklins American Philosophical society- a counterpart of Britains´s Invisible college. The imagery of the seal is directly related to alchemical tradition, inherited from the allegory of the ancient Egyptian Therapeutate. The eagle, the olive branch, the arrows, and the pentagrams are all occult symbols of opposites: good and evil, male and female, war and peace, darkness and light, etc.On the reverse is the truncated pyramid, indivcating the loss of the old wisdom, forced underground by the church estalishment.But above this are the rays of ever-hopeful light, incorperating the all-seeing eye, used as symbol in the French revolution that insired the Colma (France) born artist who built a statue in the face of De Molly and called it the status of Liberty.More than 98 percent Americans today look up to the statue as an inspiration of freedom.The one hundred people responsible for shaping Americas policy today are all part of this underground wisdom. Alarming as this might sound to you. Check out these: on every single seat in the Capitol is a compass. And on the back of the leather seat used by all U.S presidents in the Oval office is also the same compass. This compass is in the shape of the Star of King David/Solomon and it is also the most sacred symbol of Masonic ritual.
Please book a ticket to Washington and check all these yourselves.
And before I forget, our leaders do not worship the same god that you worship and therefore can not take orders from him.

If that is the 98.98% you meant then you are among the many looking up to De Molly the greatest French Masonic master that ever lived.

Remain blessed in the Goodness.

Del

People like you majorly oversimply things. Back then, we had a cold war between the USA and the USSR. The Soviet Union in 1960s had placed missiles in Cuba. The US responded by blockading Cuba.

After this, the United States, for it's own security did everything in its power to squash communist movements in Latin America especially, for the same reason it blockaded Cuba. Our government was seeking to destroy threats to our way of life and our interests, and by and large they succeeded.

As for Third World liberation, the biggest enemies of the THird WOrld have been those dictators who insisted on statist regimes and who squashed anyone who disagreed with them. The people in these countries knew nothing about communism. Foriegn movements in these countries were funded by the Soviet Union, as sought to inflirate the masses. Communism is a creation of European psuedo-intellectuals. It is a fantasy that will never come into existence(an uptopian ideal which failed in the Soviet Union). Once the Soviet Union fell, every other communist regime fell as most were supported by the Soviet Union. China privatized all of it's state owned assets and is capitalist. North Korea is starving and talking about reuniting with South Korea.

Basically, those communist would have had third world people leave on master(the United States and Western Europe)for another white master(the Soviet Union). The Soviet Union and other communists countries, because of extreme repression and of a lack of a private sector, were unable to advance.

As for our war in Iraq, I support it. Why? The first Bush have removed Hussein from power after the Gulf War, much like Manuel Noriega(an illiterate thug) was removed from power in Panama. The result is Panama is an ally of the US now, while Iraq is an enemy. Years of sanctions hardened Saddam Insane's grip on power, and denied us use of Iraqi oil. Now with the lunatic fundamentalists as enemies of the world, the last thing we need is a madman in power. Removing Saddam Insane will accomplish two objects.

We will have access to Iraqi oil again.

We will have liberated Iraq's oppressed minorities from an oppressive regimes.

We will have army bases in Iraq, to put a dagger at the heart of Iran and Saudi Arabia. Muslim fundamentalists are learning to respect the West.

As for countries that support the US invasion of Iraq, almost all of Europe has allied itself with the US. France wavers between saying yes and no, thoug htye did say Iraq has a Feb 14th deadline.

As for black subsaharan Africa, well, considering the statements many on this forum make who are either animist or Christian, I'd say most people don't give a damn. Ditto for Latin America as awhole.

Of course, Isreal and India aren't too fond of Muslims, and considering the problems they have in Western China, nor are the Chinese. Or the philipnes, given the problems they have with Muslims there.

Again I ask Del, why would you defend those Arabs like Mr. Insane, who remain silent on the fact that there Arab brethen enslave blacks? Again, this is the case of people jumping from Western slavemasters to Arab slavemasters.

Africans and blacks are better off pursuing our own adgendas to better ourselves. I do not give a damn for white communist or Arab Islamists(note that I am not racist, I have many white and Arab friends).

you probably live within our soil, but the concept you have graps could only be found in Siberia.

World Politics which encompasses Democracy, Freedom and Self-determination is not a common discourse and therefore can not be comprehended by common minds.

Your statement gives rise to this question: Would our President back-pedal if on the eve of Iraqi invasion, he learns through CIA that Al Quida had smulggled a box of nuclear weapon into Washington and ready to roll unless we withdraw from the entire Persian region or not?

Any sensible answer to this could only mirrow the grim and complex situation that Freedom means.

And please do not dwell in the illusion that access to Iraqi oil wealth would benefit the common citizen like you. Again, this is the evidence of wretched reasoning.

Del

The United States defense of its interest has done wonders for the average citizen here. But as you do not know who I am, you shouldn't be so eager to attach the label of average citizen to me. Perhaps I am an investor in petroleum companies? Perhaps my livlihood depends on automobile sales, which in part depend on cheap petroleum?

Lower oil prices benefit the entire economy, as it helps make large companies like airlines more profitable.

The simple fact is the Arab regime are a bunch of low level primitives who simply can not develop their countries. Saudi Araba depends on the West for everything, including the tools to drill their wells.

So really, they have only themselves to blame, as selfish dictators could not invest the money to use in worthwhile projects. Indeed, Mr. Insane wasted massive Iraqi resouces in his war with Iran. He then invaded Kuwait. Leaving an unstable madman in power who may cause another war or do something stable which would make oil prices around the world skyrocket is not a wise idea.

By the way, the average US citizen felt the Arab oil embargo at the oil pump. Likewise, they will feel Bush's seizure of Iraq, at the pump.

And let it be noted, Del, I have never considered myself a commoner!

Would you mind elucidating a little bit what you meant by the following statement?

"World Politics which encompasses Democracy, Freedom and Self-determination is not a common discourse and therefore can not be comprehended by common minds," especially in the context of Nigeria's current situation!

Please do not dis-locate my words.I did not say that. Moreover there is no contexual connection to Nigeria in this regard.Please eleborate, because I can not understand your point.

Del

I was just curious about what is in "Democracy, Freedom and
Self-determination" that the writer claimed "cannot be comprehended by common minds!" It might explain why Nigeria appears to be struggling with it!

But if you now disclaim what was written in your posting #24 up there, then I guess I have no point!

When Iran was a worse enemy to America than Iraq was, America supported Iraq in its war against Iran. But now that Iraq now represents a real and present danger to America, America must, and it will, extract its own one pound of flesh. When the former Soviet Union represented a worse threat to America than the Mujahidin? terrorists of Afghanistan, America helped the latter to defeat the former. When the latter now turned into Al-Qaeda, America must and it will go after every single one of those baboon Islamic fanatics. When former Soviet Union suppported the leftist Communist Sandinistas of Nicaragua, America responded by supporting the pro-Western movement of the same country; the Contras, and therefore destroyed the leftist. The list is endless.

But why is it that you "peacelovers", you "FAIRMINDED PEOPLE" NEVER mention the involvement of Communist nations in the INSECURITY of the entire world? Didn't you guys watch that hidden video, in which the Chinese soldiers were executing Chinese prisoners in order to harvest their organs, which were sold in black markets? Chinese Liver any peacelover? Do you guys really have any idea of the role played by former Soviet Union in the destruction of many countries of the world, including those in the continent of Africa? Why don't you guys ever complain about the Communist, the fascist and the Neo Nazi nations of the world?

What is it that you guys REALLY REALLY REALLY hate about America? Is it its FREEDOM that allows you to openly dissent without an arrest? Gosh, this is incredible!!!

1. The pursuit of self interest is the bed rock philosophy of capitalism. Amorality is an inherent assumption within all free market democracies. Things are not done because they are right or wrong, but because, primarily, they are economically expedient, for the modified oligarchy that rules, or for dictators.

2. The evil of communism cannot be denied, neither can the evil of Islamic Imperialsim. The evil of America also canno be denied, neither can the evils of African dictators. The knot here is that someone is trying to make a moral evaluation of people, or of systems, that exist on amoral plains of economics. How does one morally justify the American companies that finance conflicts in Africa with the knowledge of the FBI? How does one justify the Arab Slave merchants or the Terrorist communists or Islamists?

3. America is a country. It has acted all over the world in its self interest and this actions have included some of the most horrendous acts in the history of mankind. That cannot be denied. But how do you apply moral principles in a world where the systems thereof operate basically on a dog eat dog philosophy?

4. There is a lot we could talk about here. We could talk about how cabals like the Bilderberg group and the Trilateral coalition dicatate the fate of nations, implanting stooges. But at the end of the day when we ask why? The ostensible answer is : Self Interest. The question then becomes; Is the pursuit of self interest a suitable concept on which to build enduring societies?

5. There is not doubt in my mind at all that the American Government is evil. But I would have to say the same things about African, Chinese, Arab FGs, if I applied the same principles to them.

6. The dilemma then becomes: What evil does one attack? The evil that is coming or the evil that is at work?

7. Americans have funded a lot of chaos around the world. The West generally has done that. They tested Syphillis vaccines on black men, but the Chinese also harvested Organ parts. They blew up Japan, but the Fascists overran France. Americans and Europeans Organized the slave trade, but today, it is African Governments that are selling out their people. So who does one convict? One convicts who one can --- All crooks are businessmen, it is the one who is arrested that is a criminal.

8. Let no one be deceived by the so called Freedom of America. It is a Freedom financed and sustained by blood. Interestingly enough, American dependence on Iraqi oil increased by 24% in January. Yet they are planning to bomb the indigenes. Saddam Hussein is definitely an evil man; but if morality speaks, morality would prohibit the sacrifice of many lives for the sake of one man.

9. America is not Gods chosen or blessed or Gods sent. Neither is any nation under the face of heaven. This is why history is important. At one time, Britain believed that they were Gods sent. They claimed that they were the lost tribes of Israel. Many still believe that today. However they are not, and the power of Britain has greatly been reduced. In times past they looked at the Grandeur of their empire and they believed they were God. But look at them now. One could say the same about Rome, about Assyria, about New Babylon under Nebuchadnezzar. It is perhaps the greatest deception of all, when a man assumes that Prosperity is a stamp of divine approval; interpreting Holy scriptures according to his corrupt senses. Anyone who knows anything knows how much demonic groups like the Free Masons and the Illuminati have infiltrated the working of the US government.

Bush was a member of the satanic cult, Skull and Bones at Yale. But how does one pass a moral judgement on that, when Bola Ige was a Rosicrucian and OBJ was a member of the Reformed Ogboni Fraternity?

10. Kingdoms rise and fall. However, even in the face of the glaring ineptitudes of World Governments, one can still safely say; that the History of the world in the modern age (Historically defined as 1500 upwards) has been marked by more bloodshed and violence, not at the hands of Africans or Communists; the Violence of the Modern age almost solely been a product of the Empires of Western Europe and their rebellious child, America. That, is a historical fact.

That isn't a fact at all. Japan killed 10s of millions of CHinese. Not a product of the US. Hindu versus Muslim violence in SOuth Asian has gone on long before the Europeans arrived on the scene. The JMuslim jihads across Africa also were occuring long before The Westerners came on the scene. The USSR supported atrocious dictators in countries like Ethiopia.

Stalin also purged 10 of millions of people. Mao Zedong killed quite a few in China. The Khmer Rogue, a Communist movement, killed millions in Cambodia.

How are you??

We know other people have killed. It is a question of who has killed more. So let us calculate.

African Slaves Killed during transit.
African slaves killed on site.
Chinese killed during the opium wars.
Red Indians Killed.
Jews and other peoples, Gypsies, slavics etc Killed by Hitler
People killed in Hiroshima and Nagasaki and still being killed today.
People killed in Korea and Vietnam.
Iraqis killed
British and Americans killed during the Revolution...

Bye the bye, the Jihads are not a part of Modern History. They all occured befored the 1500's. I do not doubt that the Arabs killed people too.

So add all that up and you will clearly see the scales tipping in the Wests direction.

Remember the French Revolution which killed Many, Napoleon Bonapartes rampages, etc.

I think the fact still stands.

However, I do disagree with some aspects of your conclusion. If we both agree that U.S. of A is as evil as Iran, Iraq, Russia, Germany, Japan, Great Britain etc, the question then becomes; to what end were the evil by those nations commited? Does the end always justify the means? For example, if America is accused of proxy killing of Nicaraguans because of its support of the Contras who wanted Democracy, and the Russians are accused of the same crime because of its support of the Sandinistas who wanted Communism, who is more guilty? Doesn't all of this still come down to Political/Philosophical ideology? Aren't we still going to end up assigning blame/fault to those nations on the basis of our own personal Political/Philosophical preferences?

If America killed 1 million Nazis in its effort to save 6 million Jews, should that American action be seen as an atrocity? Should we blame America for dropping nuclear bombs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima, while ignoring the actions of the Japanese in Pearl Harbour America? Do not forget that America made several announcements of the impending devastation the bomb would cause if Japan did not surrender, and Japan chose not to. In that military encounter, which nation was the aggressor, Japan or America?

The doctrine of "Self interest" cannot be limited to nations. The doctrine naturally, by definition, starts with individuals. If you aim your .38 calibre handgun at me, pull the trigger, and then graze my temple with the bullet, I have EVERY RIGHT in the world, as an individual, to empty all the magazines in my AK-47 on your head! Yoruba people have a say: Eni ti o ba koko ju oko lo nju ogulutu, meaning the first to throw stone usually throws a solidly molded sand. The victim may not be that generous!

In the first point you made, you wrote that "self interest is the bed rock philosophy of capitalism", and I agree with you 100%. But how do you reconcile that with the question you asked in the second point of your article? I quote: "How does one morally justify the American companies that finance conflicts in Africa with the knowledge of the FBI?" My own answer to that question is simple: YOU DON'T! But let me try to ask the question in a different way. How does a nation FINANCE conflicts in a foreign nation? If we all honestly answer that question, we would have untangled one of the knots responsible for our backwardness.

I love one philosophical question that you asked in your point number 4. You asked and I quote: "The question then becomes; Is the pursuit of self interest a suitable concept on which to build enduring societies?" My unequivocal answer to that question is YES! YES!! YES!!! The concept of self interest is not a difficult one at all to grasp. Its meaning is not hidden. We all deal with it everyday as individuals. For example, if you go to the market (our typical open market) to purchase a hen, the hen seller will do his/her best to spread the wings of that hen in a self interest bid to convince you that the hen is bigger than it really is. And in your own self interest not to overpay, you will then fold the wings, in your own bid to show that the hen is actually smaller than it really is. At the end of the day, you will both meet each other somewhere halfway, and then complete the transaction. If you however, neglect to fold the wings of the hen, you may overpay. And when that happens, you have yourself, and not the hen seller, to blame. You have to look out for your own self interest. If all leaders of all nations look out for the self interest of their nations, there will be negotiations amongst nations, and a fair deal will be struck all the time.

You wrote that America is planning to bomb the indigenes of Iraq. By indigenes, do you mean the civilian population or the military one?

"America is not Gods chosen or blessed or Gods sent. Neither is any nation under the face of heaven. This is why history is important. At one time, Britain believed that they were Gods sent. They claimed that they were the lost tribes of Israel. Many still believe that today."

Above is a quote from item 9 of your article. Let me premise my response to it by telling you about a comment made by Jerry Falwell, after the event of September 11, 2001. Jerry Falwell, a Baptist Minister, stated that the event of 9/11 was a punishment from Biblical God on America for its unrelenting abortions. Many Preachers almost lynched him for saying so. Jerry Falwell ought not to have said so, because GOD DID NOT TELL HIM the reason why 9/11 happened. However, the Preachers who claimed that abortions or God has nothing to do with the events of 9/11 were just as wrong as Reverend Falwell, unless they can convince me that GOD TOLD THEM SO!

Neop, you have no way of knowing whether America is chosen by God, elected by God, sent by God OR NOT. All we can go by is HISTORY, as you rightly pointed out. There are way too much historical evidence to prove beyond the shadow of any doubt, that America was founded by GOD-FEARING PEOPLE, who believed that they were GOD-SENT. The Historical founding of America is far far different from that of Great Britain. The Pilgrims who came to America were running away from the British Government intervention into their religious practices, and that is why America has been described by many historians as a "Church Relocation Exercise". The historical evidence is overwhelming Neop. It really is! But can we then take a leap of faith and conclude that America is God-sent? All we can go by is History! And History seems to SUGGEST so.

Yes, America can be described as a rebellious child of Britain, but so also can India. The question is, was their rebellion justifiable?

Akinola, just what history are you talking about here? Can you please show us proof that America was sent by God? Which God are you talking about here? Didn't your translation of the Bible tell you that, many will come in His name claiming to be sent by him?

Neop presented a very detailed and logical position stating in a nutshell, that since we(The West and those so-called "axis-of-evil") have both killed and committed atrocities, no one should claim a moral highground! No one can't sugar-coat their selfish, evil intentions with God's name and Hosannas. In the 21st century, we just won't buy it.
Only yesterday, i watched a documentary on Zimbabwe, where it showed that the retreating Rhodesian Army sensing defeat used napalm on black Zimbabwean liberation fighters, i didn't know this until yesterday.
America claiming to be God-sent has ships/carriers in the gulf surrounding Iraq stacked with WMD and have told us that they won't hesitate to use it! Neop and Del rightly argued that "All have sinned", that we should be weary of America's intentions based on past records, that their actions might have a domino effect, but you, haven read your Bible upside-down coupled with extremely flawed conservative views is hell-bent on justifying all of America's actions. I haven't read in the Bible where God asked or confer on America the title "God's Country" or God's assigned executioner, all i have read is that God is the creator of the universe and we are ALL is creation and solely accountable to him.

"If America killed 1 million Nazis in its effort to save 6 million Jews, should that American action be seen as an atrocity? Should we blame America for dropping nuclear bombs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima, while ignoring the actions of the Japanese in Pearl Harbour America? Do not forget that America made several announcements of the impending devastation the bomb would cause if Japan did not surrender, and Japan chose not to. In that military encounter, which nation was the aggressor, Japan or America?"

How did you know that 6 million Jews were killed? It could be less it could be more, just because people have consistently repeat the "About 6 million" figure for over 20 years doesn't mean that it's true.
There were reports recently that Americans might have instigated the Pearl Harbour attack, it wouldn't surprise me! The then US president lied about an American Carrier has being attacked by Vietnamese soldiers in other to again support for that terrible vietnam war. Based on present revelations, i would say America was the aggressor.

"I love one philosophical question that you asked in your point number 4. You asked and I quote: "The question then becomes; Is the pursuit of self interest a suitable concept on which to build enduring societies?" My unequivocal answer to that question is YES! YES!! YES!!! "

While i understand your right state your position, i would say that the above is a sad and dangerous position for self acclaimed Christian! Didn't your Bible teach you otherwise? Oh, i forgot that you are a Republican and a conservative, and you dislike Liberals!!!

Do yourself a favour Akinola, read Neop and Del's post again, take time and ponder on the points made, you will definitely learn something.

Would you please explain just how is the pursuit of one's rational self-interests a "dangerous position for self-acclaimed Christian," or for anyone for that matter?

And just what did the Bible teach about seeking one's rational self-interests?

The pursuit of one’s rational self-interests does not automatically imply an indifference towards the plights of other fellow human beings. But there is a big difference between duty/obligation and general goodwill towards others.

The altruists-collectivists make duty and obligation of one’s life, while the individualists extend general goodwill towards fellow human beings BECAUSE they are fellow human beings with potential values.

The altruists-collectivists preach self-sacrifice and make it a virtue, while the individualists preach no sacrifice and make moral value a virtue. A sacrifice is an exchange or surrender of higher value for lower value (or no value).

Would you prefer a parent who gave all his/her money to the church to feed the poor while his/her children are home hungry? But that is what the altruists-collectivists preach: self-immolation, love for others but yourself.

Everyone pursues his/her self-interests (not necessarily all rational) everyday. It is the pursuit of irrational self-interests that constitutes evil, because it requires and necessitates the sacrifice of self and/or others. Our so-called leaders are examples of the pursuit of irrational self-interests.

Your generosity and kindness towards your loved ones’ wellbeing constitute an implied pursuit of your own rational self-interests. Because they mean MORE to you, in the scale of your moral values, than anything or anyone else! Would you trade them for anything or anyone else? Can anyone blame you for seeking your loved-ones’ happiness, which in turn makes you happy? Then what you are seeking is your rational self-interest!

A Yoruba proverb says, “Omo eni kii se’di rebete, k’a fi ileke s’idi omo elomiran.” Meaning, one’s child’s buttocks could not so asymmetrical that one would rather adorn someone else’s child with beads! That is a rational self-interest for which there is no moral justification to accuse the parent of selfishness!

Does this mean one should be indifferent to the plights of strangers? NO! But what we do for those strangers in need should not constitute a duty or an obligation on our part, but an extension of general good will, simply because they are fellow human beings with potential values.

The US, whether God-sent or not, is great in the eyes of many simply because she pursues her own rational self-interests. She seeks anything that conduces to its survival and existence as a nation. Is anyone stopping Nigeria, or any other country, from seeking her own rational self-interests?

If the US claims she is God-sent, can anyone refute it (is it even necessary)? Can anyone refute Moslems’ claim that Mohammed was Allah-sent, or the Mormons that Joseph Smith was God-sent, or the Christians that Jesus Christ is Lord? The only time that it is morally justifiable to even entertain discussion on such claim is when the claimant seeks or demands acceptance or sanction on that basis alone!

But did the US ask anyone to believe or accept her claim of being God-sent? Have the Moslems? The Mormons? The Christians? See the difference?

A claim is just that, until and unless an acceptance is sought on that basis alone!

Olumoko,
Above is a direct quote from your post, below is the question that Neop asked, and Akinola's unequivocal reply:

"The question then becomes; Is the pursuit of self interest a suitable concept on which to build enduring societies?" My unequivocal answer to that question is YES! YES!! YES!!! "

I believe the difference is the word "Rational". Perhaps i should have qualified my statement with the word "Irrational self-interest". While i agree with your definition of rational and irrational self-interest and the inherent dangers of the latter, i am completely against Akinola's reply to Neop's philosophical question in the face of damming evidence of US atrocities. His position reeks of hypocrisy and wholesale approval of the pursuit of self-interest(rational and irrational).

Olumoko, you wrote and i quote:

"Everyone pursues his/her self-interests (not necessarily all rational) everyday. It is the pursuit of irrational self-interests that constitutes evil, because it requires and necessitates the sacrifice of self and/or others. Our so-called leaders are examples of the pursuit of irrational self-interests."

Then you went further and state:

"The US, whether God-sent or not, is great in the eyes of many simply because she pursues her own rational self-interests. She seeks anything that conduces to its survival and existence as a nation. Is anyone stopping Nigeria, or any other country, from seeking her own rational self-interests?"

And you sincerely believe that the US has not or still pursuing her irrational self-interest? Only our leaders have?

I beg to differ!

When you consider the level of rationality/irrationality of US and Nigeria's self-interests, which country is more prosperous today?

The pursuit of irrational self-interests is an invitaion to self-destruction! It is unavoidable.

Does a country's economic prosperity excuses her pursuit of irrational self-interest?
In your previous post, you wrote and i quote:

"It is the pursuit of irrational self-interests that constitutes evil..."

If the US of A his pursuing her irrational self-interest, going by your statement above, shouldn't we condemn such since it constitutes EVIL?

But keep in mind that the objective values that the furtherance of your life requres might be quite different from mine, but all based on the same principle of ethics. So, what you percived as a pursuit of my irrational self-interest might not be true! Same applies to countries!

We have to follow the same principle of ethical standard - integrity, which only applies to rational individuals in free countries!

Yes, the pursuit of irrational self-interests will eventually lead to self-destruction! You cannot cheat nature!

Atleast we both agreed that the pursuit of irrational self-interest is evil and leads to destruction.
Obviously what i see as the US pursuit of her irrational self-interest ie this planned war against Iraq, her unequivocal support for Israel's attrocities against the Palestinians and her conniving with the most corrupt and repressive/rogue regimes to achieve illicit economic gains, example Saudi Arabia, you, Olumoko see differently. Correct me if i am wrong, but you see nothing wrong with such pursuit as long as it generates economic prosperity.

While i appreciate that we all see things from different angles, simply ignoring the attrocities of this so-called, self-acclaim "God sent" messenger or executioner in mind's eye is the worst crime of all. I cannot fathom how most people will fail to see that behind all these sugar-coated, Biblically-laced, fallacious rhetorics from this evil-minded empire, the stench from her attrocities reaches up to the heavens and beyond.

Well, maybe it's just me, but surely, time will tell.

I think the issue of the second world war is about TRUST. People like you don't trust America. You will search all over the world, for ANYTHING, ANY STORY, that will satisfy your own personal presuppositions. It is all about trust. Concerning the attacks on Pearl Harbour, many doubters of American involvement have even written that it was Winston Churchill, in collution with Truman, that orchestrated the attacks as a way of changing the minds of Americans who didn't want to fight in another European war. But here is the problem that all of you have: THE JAPANESE HAVE NEVER EVER DENIED THAT THEY AND THEY ALONE ATTACKED PEARL HARBOUR IN A BID TO EXPAND THEIR EMPIRE. That should be the bottom line for anyone who is after the truth!!!

Concerning my position on "self interest" in reference to world politics, could you please show me any passages in the Holy Bible, that forbid me from taking that position? I don't know what Bible you guys are reading, but you are clearly misunderstanding the Bible, BIG TIME. America is NOT a Theocracy. Nigeria is NOT a Theocracy; at least not yet. I can never for the life of me understand why people like you continually use the Bible to disarm Christians; physically and mentally. Christianity is NOT a religion. It is a personal relationship with CHRIST. The buzz word here is "PERSONAL". This world is not my home so declared the Holy Bible and Jim Reeves. There is another system under which this world operates. As a Christian, I just have to find a way to work around it.

May be it wasn't 6 million Jews that were killed. May be it was 2 million. May be it was 10 million. But did they have to be killed at all simply because they were Jews? Why aren't you blaming any of the murderers, who decided to kill people on the basis of their race?

I will like for you, as well as people like you, to show me anywhere in the Bible, where there is a conflict between my position on "personal interest" and that of the Scripture.

No one said that the Japanese did not attacked Pearl Harbour or that it was ok for America to use WMD on the Japanese. Anyone after the truth would search for and examine all the evidences, and recent revelations shows that America must have fired the first shot or instigated that attack.

"I can never for the life of me understand why people like you continually use the Bible to disarm Christians; physically and mentally."

***Would please explain how we are doing this? I believed that Bible arms true Christians with sound, workable principles for everyday living, and it warns us of evil-minded and false preachers using it to their advantage(s). Many, Christ warns will come in his name, but he encourages to look at their fruits, it will help us discern who they really represent(who their Master really his)

<"Christianity is NOT a religion. It is a personal relationship with CHRIST. The buzz word here is "PERSONAL". This world is not my home so declared the Holy Bible and Jim Reeves. There is another system under which this world operates. As a Christian, I just have to find a way to work around it.">

This "personal relationship" is based on whose principles? Weren't true Christians encouraged to live an exemplary life(christ-like)? Looking at Christ's life that was filled with proselytizing and sharing of the "Good news" rather than conniving with the Pharisees and Sadducees to use the Mosaic laws to oppress and get rid of unbelievers. Christ didn't use the Roman army to oppress the Gentiles or seize governments by force, in his infinite wisdom did what the Father sent him do!
Then again, this world is not your own! I wonder what that mean? Are you referring to the physical earth or that you are not of the world as the Bible says?

"I will like for you, as well as people like you, to show me anywhere in the Bible, where there is a conflict between my position on "personal interest" and that of the Scripture."

Is it now "personal interest" as opposed to wholesale self-interest?

I wonder o!!

Please point out a reference to this. The Japanese have never claimed not to have fired the first short. Japan had becoe quite militaristic, had invaded and cruelly oppressed the Koreans, the Chinese, and other Asian nations.

In fact, the Japanese had enslaved Chinese, and reduced many Chinese women to comfort women(concubines). All this is from the words of the Chinese and Japanese and other Asians themselves.

So clearly the US did not fire the first shot!

You put forth a nice response, however...

1. The Problem of Justification: If you are a Christian, then you must believe in principles of Justification; and the standard is Christ. The bible says in Acts " ... that day when God shall judge the whole world, by that man whom he has appointed... Jesus Christ" So we know unequivocally that the world will be judged, at least, we know so, if the Bible is true. That raises the issue of a standard. All judgement must be executed on a standard. It is conformity or non conformity to that standard that provides Justification or Condemnation to peoples or societies. The question now is; Since we know the standard, at least we do if the Bible is True, is it now improper for us to apply that standard to the conduct of men in their every day lives? If it is not, then we ask, by the biblical standard, is America, as a Nation a Righteous Nation? And we also ask, Could any nation indeed on this earth be "Righteous"? And we ask, do the biblical standards justify the evil of America over the years, do the standards justify slavery, or colonialism or the torture of the centuries, if not, why is it wrong then to call America evil, or indeed, any other nation evil based on that standard?

2. The Problem of Relative Righteousness: But America has done good, foreign AID etc, desegregation etc. The question is, how do we evaluate a societys net worth on the scales of righteousness? It will not just do to say "we dont!!!" because we know that God does and will do even more so on the Day of The Lord. If indeed, Gods standards are not "works based", then the soul of America is unevaluateable. But Gods standards are Faith based and the faith of which we speak is Faith that Works, this seems to me that it then makes it much easier to evaluate a society, even of the bases of faith, because Faith bears fruit. So is America an evil society on the bases of Faith? How do we evaluate the works? We evaluate them on the bases of the Choices of the people. Look at the laws passed over the years in America, bringing the people into direct conflict with the word of God. But the issue of Judgement arises. A God who would not judge Sodom if he found there Ten Holy, would he Judge America wherein are millions of Xtians, even though the may lack political steering or do we say that the call has come; "flee out of her my people, lest ye be a partaker of her iniquities". Which is the case?

3. A country does finance conflicts in another nation. The issue here is one of bipolar complicity. Examine the Garden of Eden. The Serpent brought the idea, brought the temptation and the Man Yielded; yet God judged both Serpent and Man. Yes, in such cases, we are more responsible than we think for the evil that lies within our houses, HOWEVER, that does not justify the supporter or propagator or messenger of evil. It will not do to just say " Oh be responsible! Take Care of your own house and prevent evil from coming in"; because even the law makes room for complicity, accessories and possesors. It is true however, that while Serpents and such like may communicate evil and man may fall, the responsibility for redemption lies in the hand of the afflicted; as it is written "Choose ye this day... blessing or curse" and again "He that thirsteth, let him come and drink... water of life" and again "Save yourselves from this untoward generation".
However, the presence of the human will, does not of itself justify the activity of evil, God judges both and that is how we should view America and all other such like.

4. On The Chosen of God: It is evident that the hand of God has wrought through unbelievers in times past, working through a heathen king named Cyrus, Speaking through a donkey and prophesying through a profane high priest named Caiaphas. The question one asks is --- What Scriptural foundation can one provide for the assertion that the British are the Lost tribes of Israel or that America is Gods own country? NONE. The scripture eloquently debunks such ambitious claims by stating " IN Christ...neither Greek nor Jew...Slave nor Bound...Male or Female." Again the scripture states that "Ye are a chosen generation... a royal priesthood...a holy nation..." accurately identifying the NATION of GOD and GODS own Country as, not America or any other worldly establishment, but as THE CHURCH; as it is written again "Mount Zion... The Heavenly Jerusalem... The City of God"
So I disagree with you Mr Faloye, when you state that we have no way of knowing if America is Gods chosen or not. WE DO. And the answer is SHE IS NOT. The Scripture proves that.
However, in the sense of being an instrument for the accomplishment of divine will, America could be Gods chosen as could Iraq, Iran Saudi Arabia, Nigeria etc God can use any nation. IN times past, he used Babylon and its heathen King, Nebuchadnezzar to deliver end time prophecy and Judge Israel, He used Nineneveh, He used Egypt, he used the Kingdom of the Medes and Peres. However, it must be pointed out that such use, confers no special class or appointment like America likes to claim or Britain. Such notions are FALSE, they Breed FALSE nationalism that brings "Patriotic" Christians into direct conflict with the Cross and breeds horrors and false doctrines like:
a. The Hamitic Doctrine, The Curse of Ham and Negro Servility.
b. British Israelism
c. Justified Judaism, Zionism etc
d. The genocide upon Native Indians supported by passages of Scripture.
e. Genocide on Bantu speaking Tribes of South Africa by Dutch Boers claiming a divine appointment.
f. The Horrors of the Middle ages under the Catholic Church, The persecution of Puritans etc.

Such false notions breed all these horrors.

God Judged Rome, He judged Israel and he can very well judge America. However...

5. On Jerry Falwell, 9/11 and The Judgement of God:
a. You claim that God did not tell Falwell that 9/11 was judgement. However, you have no way of knowing that.
b. Therefore, let us examine the evidence.
c. When does God judge nations? The scripture is clear "Mankind had utterly corrupted his way on the face of the Earth... But Noah a Just and Perfect Man before the Lord" Also "I will go down to and see if their wickedness is as the cry of it that has come unto me" and "If you forsake the Lord you God, I testify unto you this day that you shall utterly perish". Let us apply these yardsticks to America. Has America corrupted her way on the face of the earth? Is America filled with Sodomic wickedness? Has America forsaken God? If you can answer these questions, then we can more accurately determine if America is due for Judgment.
d. But... The presence of evil is not sufficient reason for Judgment. Otherwise, the whole world would be gone. Again, if America was due for Judgement, how about Britain. Has she been judged for the slave trade? How about the Madness in the Middle East?
Can we apply the law of reciprocal actions here "To whom much has been given much is expected?" But then Britain also once had much... why not judge her?
e. If the gifts of the Spirit are in Operation today, and there are true prophets in Gods house... all indications point to the fact that America is in for a mighty time of Humbling, because that is what all the prophetic indicators say; and they also say that Islam is in for a death blow. Examine the words of David Wilkerson, The Kansas City Prophets (Joyner, Cain, Bickle et al) or even John Hagee. All prophetic indicators point to a time of great humbling for America. Is this enough to go by? Well I ask, Ministers of God say that God has told them that America is in for a time of Judgement. Faloye do you have any evidence to refute this?
f. All said and done, we can safely say that if Nations were to be judged on a numerical amount of evil deeds, America will be one of the first in line. If Nations were to be absolved and justified on the bases of Good deeds, America also might be one of the first in line. However, If Nations were to be judged on the bases of Motive on a scriptural standard, America would go to Hell.

6. On the Puritans and the Historical Founders of the USA:
a. Faloye, the puritans were not the founders of the USA. The constitutional frame work that defined the geo-political unit called the USA was framed by Free Masons and People with connections to the Illuminati.
Any minister today will tell you that the Free Masons are an occult group tracing their history to the Knights Templar.
b. But let us even assume that the Puritans were the founders of the USA, and on that bases provide a righteous building stone; we ask, how can people who committed genocide on the indians and stole their land, backing up their murder with scriptures, how can such a people have been pleasing to a Holy God, even if we evaluate according to differential standards in the Old and New testaments?
How could plain thieves, murderers and robbers, how could stark raving hypocrites have been pleasing to a holy God? NO SIR!!! God will NOT justify the wicked!!! No matter how people try to twist it around. The puritans were a bunch of loonies, hypocrites who soiled the name of God. They were not Gods people and they were not pleasing to the Lord. They were not righteous.
c. In actual fact, There were a people here before the Puritans from England and the Puritans gave them hell also, I mean English and Black people. The first blacks in America werent slaves; i.e Antoney Johnson and co. Many of them owned plantations. All the slavery nonsense was started by the Puritans.
d. Even today, many members of Government in the USA belong to Occult societies. George. W. Bush says in his autobiography "In my Junior Year in Yale, I joined the Skull and Bones Society, a society so secret, I cannot say anything more about it"
However, news sources and several ex bones men, reveal that the Skull and Bones society partcipated in Blood, Death and Sexual Rituals. It is a man that has participated in Blood, Death and Sexual Rituals that is running the USA, never mind his hypocritical christianity. And he is still a member of that society, with his Father and 60% of his Cabinet.
How could such be righteous people, according to any standards of Morality???

7. On Self Interest: What I have to say on this issue is this: The Church, Gods ideal society (If the Bible is to be believed) IS not to Run on self Interest. It is to run on LOVE, which means Putting the other before yourself, in compassion, according to 1st Corinthians 13. Love Motivates in Xtianity, NOT self interest. Even in a case of Self Defense, Love Motivates.
However, it is impossible for the world to run on this princple. The only other option is self interest. My point of difference with you is that I do not say "Self Interest is an appropriate principle to build societies on" like you have said. My position is "Self Interest is the Only principle World Societies CAN be built on, regardless of how inappropriate it is"
Communism has self interest of a ruling oligarchy at its core. All societies are run based on self interest. It cannot be otherwise, regardless of what name they cloak it in.
My point is: Though we cannot be without such, in the world, it is inappropriate, if the Bible is to be believed.

If not... hey, anything goes.

The Biblical doctrine of "JUSTIFICATION", as you used it in your article, has nothing to do with "JUSTICE" or "JUDGEMENT". It simply has to do with the trading of your sins for the Righteousness of Jesus Christ. Romans 4:25 clearly sheds light on that doctrine when it declares that: "He was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our JUSTIFICATION". Therefore, in the light of that clarification, everything you wrote under that doctrine has no bearing whatsoever to the issue at hand.

On the issue of Judgement. Nations and individuals are judged in the Holy Bible. Ananias and Sapphira were judged as individuals in the New Testament, while Canaan and Israel, amongst others, were judged as Nations. We must understand why people (nations) were judged as a group in the Old Testament, and people were judged as individuals in the New Testament. I am sure that you know why. Judgement i.e punishment for sins, belongs to God and to God alone. Matthew 13 teaches that. But we must not confuse punishment for sins; "judgement", with separation of truth from error; "discernment".

Many unbelievers, even many believers, believe that Christians are forbidden from pointing out errors in other people's way. They claim that the Bible forbids Christians from "judging others". To back up their claim, they usually (mis)quote the Holy Bible. They quote Matthew chapter 7 verse 1 for example,..."Do not judge or you too will be judged", and then stop. But, if they read that passage further, they will realize that what the Bible condemns are Christians who judge "self-righteously". This is evident in verse 5 of that passage: "You hypocrite, FIRST take the plank out of your own eye, and THEN you will see clearly to REMOVE the speck from your brother's eye". If we are not supposed to point out errors/mistakes or discern error from truth, then Jesus Christ Himself could be described as being guilty of "judging" others in Matthew chapter 23, starting from verse 13, when He said and I quote: "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites...Woe to you blind guides...You blind fools...You blind men...You snakes...You brood of vipers..." We all know that Jesus Christ could not have been wrong, because even the man who convicted Him stated that he could find no fault in Him. So, regardless of what you may have heard, it is appropriate to point out where others are wrong. It is appropriate to denounce Islam and Baha'i, for example, but we must do so in the spirit of 1 Peter 3:15; " But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. BUT DO THIS WITH GENTLENESS AND RESPECT". I know that I have not ALWAYS been true to the capitalized part of that verse, but I am a sinner, and I will do my best to get better!!!

My friend, you wrote that AMERICA is not chosen by God. To back up your point, you quoted Apostle Paul. But are you backing up your point, or are you just fishing? I ask that question because you contradicted yourself in your same article when you wrote the following: "However, in the sense of being an instrument for the
accomplishment of divine will, America could be Gods chosen as could Iraq, Iran Saudi Arabia, Nigeria etc God can use any nation". That is essentially what I wrote in my previous articles. I even suggested that al nations of the world are free to use the phrase; "GOD BLESS...". Nigerians are free to use the phrase "GOD BLESS NIGERIA", if they want to. Nigerians are even free to claim that they are the missing thirteenth tribe of Israel for all I care.

In your assessment of the doctrine of Righteousness, ( there is no such thing as relative righteousness, at least not in the Bible ) I notice that you mixed human laws with God's laws. There are no allowances for extraneous circumstances in Biblical God's law. Even unintentional sins are still sins in the eye of the Almighty God of the Holy Bible, and I have Biblical passages to support that statement if you need them.

And concerning Jerry Falwell's comment re: 9/11, I know that God did not tell him that it was a punishment for America's sins because Jerry didn't tell us HE did, and also because he later APOLOGISED for uttering the comment in the first place. I am sure that IF Jerry had seen a vision to that effect, he would NOT have backed down. He would have told us that GOD did infact tell him so! And we would have had to go by what he said, since we would have had no way of proving him wrong. And if he was lying, it would be between him and the ultimate JUDGE of us all.

Your historical account of the founding of America, as well as your character assasination of the Bushes, are simply untrue. But this is not the forum for that. The only issue for me here is that you don't have a way of knowing whether a nation is God sent or not. Your argument that simply because a nation does evil things, then it cannot be God sent, is simply unBiblical. Even God's own chosen people, committed a great deal of atrocities in the Bible. So, I really don't know where to go from here with you over this issue.

I am sure that I have missed some of the points you made. If they are really important to you, please restate them invidually, and I will address them.

Oh yes, John Hagee and the rest of them tiemybowtietiemybowtie people.
Did you know that John wrote in one of his books that the Jews, unlike the Budhists and the Baha'is and the moslems, don't have to believe in the Deity of Jesus Christ. He wrote that the covenant between the Jews and God has never been replaced by Christianity. You have to wonder if this senior Pastor of Cornerstone Church in Texas has ever read Romans, John, Galatians, Acts of Apostles etc. To make his claim even more Biblically untenable, Paul, himself a Jew, wrote most of the passages that refute Hagee's erroneous position. But hey, he got a lot of awards from Jewish organizations and Synagogues.

Faloye, the precceding clause states states "If the gifts are in operation and if there are prophets" The assertion is based on the conditional clause. Again you claim that God did not tell Jerry Falwell that he was Judging America, my response to that was you have no proof that God didnt say any such thing and that all we have as to a testimony of whether something or someone spoke, is the testimony of the hearer. Now, The KC Prophets say that they have heard. Do you have any proof to the contrary. Indeed, what is your proof that God isnt Judging America? And besides, as to the scriptural issue of who a prophet is. Yes, I believe I know who the Bible calls a Prophet. In Ephesians 4, the Bible lists the ministry of the Prophet as one of the ministry gifts that are still in operation in the church. The literal greek interpretation is "One who speaks on behalf of another".
Indeed, what evidence do you have that neither Cain nor Joyner is a prophet?

>
>The Biblical doctrine of "JUSTIFICATION", as you used it in
>your article, has nothing to do with "JUSTICE" or
>"JUDGEMENT". It simply has to do with the trading of your
>sins for the Righteousness of Jesus Christ. Romans 4:25
>clearly sheds light on that doctrine when it declares that:
>"He was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised
>to life for our JUSTIFICATION". Therefore, in the light of
>that clarification, everything you wrote under that doctrine
>has no bearing whatsoever to the issue at hand.

Indeed, you are wrong. The princple of justification is derived from the greek root "Diakonai" which simply means "right standing". It is a legal term and it means the imputation of innocence according to the standards of justice. Your remarks are highly fallacious. How can you say that justification has nothing to do with judgement? Why does God justify? Is it not that the sinner may escape his judgement? The Bible says "There is therefore now no codemnantion... and it goes on to say "Being now justified i.e declared not guilty, we have peace (fellowship) with God.
Even, trading your sins for the righteousness of God, has to with justice and judgement, because the converse effect is that if you do not trade, you will be judged and condemned according to Gods standards of Justice. So what are you trying to say?
Justification has everything to do with Justice and Judgment. Only Justice can Justify and the consequence of being UNjustified is JUDGEMENT.
I dont think you know what justification is. The greek root describes it as "A legal verdict of innocence" How can you under such circumstances then say that justification has nothing to do with justice or judgment?

>
>On the issue of Judgement. Nations and individuals are
>judged in the Holy Bible. Ananias and Sapphira were judged
>as individuals in the New Testament, while Canaan and
>Israel, amongst others, were judged as Nations. We must
>understand why people (nations) were judged as a group in
>the Old Testament, and people were judged as individuals in
>the New Testament. I am sure that you know why. Judgement
>i.e punishment for sins, belongs to God and to God alone.
>Matthew 13 teaches that. But we must not confuse punishment
>for sins; "judgement", with separation of truth from error;
>"discernment".
>

This has nothing to do with whether God might be judging America or not. The issue is simple. God has standards revealed in the scriptures. He has standards for nations and individuals. According to those standards revealed in the Bible, is america due for judgement? Answer.

>Many unbelievers, even many believers, believe that
>Christians are forbidden from pointing out errors in other
>people's way. They claim that the Bible forbids Christians
>from "judging others". To back up their claim, they usually
>(mis)quote the Holy Bible. They quote Matthew chapter 7
>verse 1 for example,..."Do not judge or you too will be
>judged", and then stop. But, if they read that passage
>further, they will realize that what the Bible condemns are
>Christians who judge "self-righteously". This is evident in
>verse 5 of that passage: "You hypocrite, FIRST take the
>plank out of your own eye, and THEN you will see clearly to
>REMOVE the speck from your brother's eye". If we are not
>supposed to point out errors/mistakes or discern error from
>truth, then Jesus Christ Himself could be described as being
>guilty of "judging" others in Matthew chapter 23, starting
>from verse 13, when He said and I quote: "Woe to you,
>teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites...Woe to
>you blind guides...You blind fools...You blind men...You
>snakes...You brood of vipers..." We all know that Jesus
>Christ could not have been wrong, because even the man who
>convicted Him stated that he could find no fault in Him. So,
>regardless of what you may have heard, it is appropriate to
>point out where others are wrong. It is appropriate to
>denounce Islam and Baha'i, for example, but we must do so in
>the spirit of 1 Peter 3:15; " But in your hearts set apart
>Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to
>everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that
>you have. BUT DO THIS WITH GENTLENESS AND RESPECT". I know
>that I have not ALWAYS been true to the capitalized part of
>that verse, but I am a sinner, and I will do my best to get
>better!!!

So how does this have anything to do with any issue I raised? I dont believe I ever raised the issue of people believing they are not supposed to judge or what not. This is a red herring.

>
>My friend, you wrote that AMERICA is not chosen by God. To
>back up your point, you quoted Apostle Paul. But are you
>backing up your point, or are you just fishing? I ask that
>question because you contradicted yourself in your same
>article when you wrote the following: "However, in the sense
>of being an instrument for the
>accomplishment of divine will, America could be Gods chosen
>as could Iraq, Iran Saudi Arabia, Nigeria etc God can use
>any nation". That is essentially what I wrote in my previous
>articles. I even suggested that al nations of the world are
>free to use the phrase; "GOD BLESS...". Nigerians are free
>to use the phrase "GOD BLESS NIGERIA", if they want to.
>Nigerians are even free to claim that they are the missing
>thirteenth tribe of Israel for all I care.

This is another red herring. You did not address my point. It is very clear in what sense I meant America was not chosen and it is also very clear in what sense I meant that she could be chosen. Even the devil could be chosen of God. So whats your point?
I am not contradicting myself. I laid out accurately in what etymological senses the phrase "chosen of God" could be used.

>
>In your assessment of the doctrine of Righteousness, ( there
>is no such thing as relative righteousness, at least not in
>the Bible ) I notice that you mixed human laws with God's
>laws. There are no allowances for extraneous circumstances
>in Biblical God's law. Even unintentional sins are still
>sins in the eye of the Almighty God of the Holy Bible, and I
>have Biblical passages to support that statement if you need
>them.

What the hell are you talking about? Wherever did I say that there was such a thing as relative righteousness? I said the problem of... which is a refernce of mans standards and Gods standards. Isaiah speaks of our righteousness being as filthy rags. Paul speaks of a righteousness which comes by works. Definitely in an eymological sense, there are 2 kinds of righteousness. That is where the problem arises. Wherever did I mention unintentional sins? You are just bring up unrelated issues to muddle the pool. And again, justify your statement that I mixed mans laws with Gods laws. Point that out!!!

>
>And concerning Jerry Falwell's comment re: 9/11, I know that
>God did not tell him that it was a punishment for America's
>sins because Jerry didn't tell us HE did,

Defective syllogism. Neither did Falwell say HE DIDN'T. Why are you assuming?

and also because
>he later APOLOGISED for uttering the comment in the first
>place.

He apologised, but he didnt say the comment was a lie. He apologised because it was insensitive. Today, Falwell still believes that statement to be true, which does not validate it; it only points out that your statements made on him are based on assumptions. Did Falwell say "God did not tell me this?"

I am sure that IF Jerry had seen a vision to that
>effect, he would NOT have backed down. He would have told us
>that GOD did infact tell him so! And we would have had to go
>by what he said, since we would have had no way of proving
>him wrong. And if he was lying, it would be between him and
>the ultimate JUDGE of us all.

Thats another untruth. You are assuming that everything God tells someone must be told to the public. You are assuming as to Jerry Falwells character and his private relationship with God. You are assuming that "he would have said so and so, if...."
The point is, if he has not declared that God did not tell him, you cannot assume that God did not, unless you have proof.
Several prophets in the Bible have backed down on things God actually told them, so whats your point?

>
>Your historical account of the founding of America, as well
>as your character assasination of the Bushes, are simply
>untrue. But this is not the forum for that. The only issue
>for me here is that you don't have a way of knowing whether
>a nation is God sent or not. Your argument that simply
>because a nation does evil things, then it cannot be God
>sent, is simply unBiblical. Even God's own chosen people,
>committed a great deal of atrocities in the Bible. So, I
>really don't know where to go from here with you over this
>issue.

Then you dont know squat about Americas founding. Go and find out. I am suprised at your ignorance!!! Again I never made the argument that because a nation does evil things it cannot be Gods chosen. I mentioned Israel in my post. Bush was a member of a secret society and still is. Havent you read his autobiography? What is wrong with you? How can you be so blind? This is amazing indeed. Please reread my initial post if you can and correct your confusion. Your reponse is filled with unsubstantiated associations.

>
>I am sure that I have missed some of the points you made. If
>they are really important to you, please restate them
>invidually, and I will address them.
>

No time to restate. Go back and reread.

>Oh yes, John Hagee and the rest of them
>tiemybowtietiemybowtie people.
>Did you know that John wrote in one of his books that the
>Jews, unlike the Budhists and the Baha'is and the moslems,
>don't have to believe in the Deity of Jesus Christ. He wrote
>that the covenant between the Jews and God has never been
>replaced by Christianity. You have to wonder if this senior
>Pastor of Cornerstone Church in Texas has ever read Romans,
>John, Galatians, Acts of Apostles etc. To make his claim
>even more Biblically untenable, Paul, himself a Jew, wrote
>most of the passages that refute Hagee's erroneous position.
>But hey, he got a lot of awards from Jewish organizations
>and Synagogues.

Your post is disappointing. You evade lots of issues, introduce red herrings, make false assumptions. You must be having a bad day or typing ina hurry. I expect a better review of the issues at stake in future.
Again, I do not make a claim here for the sanctioning of Hagee, I have never done that. It seems you cant recognise conditional clauses in an argument or maybe you skipped over them.
Again, a profane priest named Caiaphas prophesied for God. What then is the proof, that Hagee, if indeed false, and erroneous, still cant speak for God, like Balaam or a Donkey or Nicolatus on some issues Though he be erroneous on others?

Just last night, i was reading Matthew chapters 23, 24, 25 and Romans 10, only to wake up today and read Akinola or supposed Akinola's explanation of or reference to these chapters......How strange!!!

Will the "REAL" Akinola Faloye please come back? That hardcore liberal-hating, Islam thrashing, conservative republican!!!

If I misread or misunderstood your position, I am big a man enough to PUBLICLY admit it. We all make mistakes, but I am of the opinion that you are the one making the mistake right now, and I don't think you are big enough to admit it. There is a possibility that I missed some of your points in posting number 47 because I did not respond to it "with quote", but the ones that I addressed, were accurately addressed. In order to make sure that I do not miss any of your points again, I will address few of your points at a time.

In your latest response to me in posting #77, you revisited the doctrine of "JUSTIFICATION". It is a very important doctrine that ALL Christians, if they want to remain within the pale of ORTHODOXY, MUST agree on. Therefore, without using "Strong's Concordance" to examine the ROOT Greek meaning of the doctrine, let us use the Holy Bible to lay out the 6 crucial concepts of the doctrine, in order to make it easier to understand.

1. Election. 2. JUSTIFICATION. 3. Propitiation. 4. Redemption. 5. Sanctification. and 6. Glorification.

In my previous response to you, I was making the argument that "JUSTIFICATION", as used in the Holy Bible, cannot be construed to mean some sort of "JUDICIAL" legal standard. I wrote in my posting number 75 that it is a "trading of your sins for the righteousness of Christ Jesus". In your response, you stated that you disagree with me, and then MIRACULOUSLY wrote the following in the same paragraph: "The princple of justification is derived from the greek root "Diakonai" which simply means "right standing". It is a legal term and IT MEANS THE IMPUTATION OF INNOCENCE according to the standards of justice".

Neop, what is the difference between "IMPUTATION OF INNOCENCE" as contained in your own article, and "trading of one's sins for the righteousness of Christ Jesus" as contained in my own article? You stated that this "imputation" is according to the "standards of justice". Whose standard of justice? Pope's or God's? Is God's standard of justice the same as man's? Simply put, the doctrine of Justification is Christians' God's way of declaring us INNOCENT in His Presence in the ABSENCE of ANY JUDICIAL TRIAL, by virtue of our RELATIONSHIP with Christ, even though we are STILL SINNERS. Martin Luther, the reformer, captured the essence of the state of our Justification when he described us thus: "A piece of dung covered with snow"!!!

And concerning those 6 concepts of the doctrine of Justification, you may read about them in the book of Romans chapters 3, 4, 5, 8 and 9.

The comment of Jerry Falwell is not worth fighting ot arguing over. The point that I have been making is PROBABLY the same point that you have been making; and that is: You have no way of knowing whether God spoke to Jerry Falwell or not. We can only go by what Jerry Falwell said. And Jerry Falwell COMMENTED that he was of the personal opinion that 9/11 was a punishment from God BECAUSE of America's millions of abortions. He NEVER told us that GOD told him to tell us that, like other Biblical prophets did whenever they spoke to the people of Israel. The comment was JUST his own personal opinion. He has a fifty percent chance of being right, and fifty percent of being wrong. You wrote that Jerry Falwell did not say the following; "God did not tell me this". Did Jerry Falwell say that; "God did tell me this?" In the absence of an affirmative answer to that question, shall we continue to attribute his comment to God, even though he has NEVER PUBLICLY stated that God spoke to him? You be the judge. But whatever you want to believe on this issue is fine with me, because it is totally UNIMPORTANT, and I will stop responding to it.

On the issue of the "prophets" you named in your article. First, let me say this; No one has the authority or the right to CONDEMN anyone to hell fire on the basis of what they say about Almighty God or the Holy Bible. That falls out of the domain of any human being. We however do have the right, as well as the Biblically charged obligation, NOT to accomodate false prophethood. For example, if a prophet claims to speak FOR God in his prophecy, and the prophecy IS NOT 100% ACCURATE ALL OF THE TIME, then the prophesy CANNOT be from GOD of the Holy Bible. That is what the Bible teaches. If you are wrong just once, while claiming to speak for God, that is it for me; and it should be it for any Bible following Christian. I will no longer believe whatever the so-called prophet may say. Joyner, Cain, Hagee, and many like them, are all mesmerists who use the power of hypersuggestibility to work people into an altered state of consciousness. You may choose to believe them, but I refuse to believe them on the account of many of their own writings. You may want to get hold of a transcript titled; "The Heart of David: Worship and Warfare" of April 1996. If after listening to it, you still consider those people Biblical, then I guess it is Ok for you to keep listening to them.

You have raised this issue of Balaam and his donkey which is contained in the book of Numbers, Deuteronomy etc, in relation to Biblical prophesies/prophets couple of times now. I am not too sure about the connection you are trying to make between that and the modern day false prophets. Balaam believed in Yahweh, the God of Israel, he just happened to believe in other gods as well. And the fact that his motive was not pure led to his death in Moab, when the Israelites invaded it. So what is the point? Do not forget that even Judas Iscariot maintained a facade of spirituality, and then committed suicide. So what is the point here? Are you suggesting that I should not complain about those people UNTIL God strikes them down for blaspheming His name?

1. Faloye, first of all, I did not not criticise you. I critiqued your response. No harm meant.

2. Bush said he was a member of a secret society. In that society they perform sexual, blood and death rituals. I dont think we should be ignorant of the whole fact that the governments of the world basically lie in Darkness and that includes Bush. Bush admitted to being a member of such a society. But he said that he could not discuss it. Its like being a member of the Reformed Ogboni Fraternity. How would you like it if I told you that the self righteous moralistic bush was Occultic? But that is exactly the case!!! By his own admission, he said he was a member. News reporters researched the Yale Cult and presented a documentary on MSNBC and several other channels on the Skull and Bones cult of Yale. So let us face the truth. Now as to Hell, any man can repent at any time. All I know is NO SORCERER or OCCULTIC person according to the Book of Revelations is going to Heaven. And besides, Bush is a Hypocrite.
Faloye, if you can, look up refernces in the Library of Congress to this terms:
"Bilderberg Group", Trilateral Coalition, Council on Foreign Affairs, Illuminati and Free Masons. In those 5 terms, you find the History of United States Politics.

>If I misread or misunderstood your position, I am big a man
>enough to PUBLICLY admit it. We all make mistakes, but I am
>of the opinion that you are the one making the mistake right
>now, and I don't think you are big enough to admit it. There
>is a possibility that I missed some of your points in
>posting number 47 because I did not respond to it "with
>quote", but the ones that I addressed, were accurately
>addressed. In order to make sure that I do not miss any of
>your points again, I will address few of your points at a
>time.
>

3. Look Faloye, dont lets get worked up here. All I am dealing with is evidence, okay. I dont think evidence should be denied. We all make mistakes true, but I dont think Bush, or any other crook on the world scene should be idolized.

>In your latest response to me in posting #77, you revisited
>the doctrine of "JUSTIFICATION". It is a very important
>doctrine that ALL Christians, if they want to remain within
>the pale of ORTHODOXY, MUST agree on. Therefore, without
>using "Strong's Concordance" to examine the ROOT Greek
>meaning of the doctrine, let us use the Holy Bible to lay
>out the 6 crucial concepts of the doctrine, in order to make
>it easier to understand.
>
>1. Election. 2. JUSTIFICATION. 3. Propitiation. 4.
>Redemption. 5. Sanctification. and 6. Glorification.
>
>In my previous response to you, I was making the argument
>that "JUSTIFICATION", as used in the Holy Bible, cannot be
>construed to mean some sort of "JUDICIAL" legal standard. I
>wrote in my posting number 75 that it is a "trading of your
>sins for the righteousness of Christ Jesus". In your
>response, you stated that you disagree with me, and then
>MIRACULOUSLY wrote the following in the same paragraph: "The
>princple of justification is derived from the greek root
>"Diakonai" which simply means "right standing". It is a
>legal term and IT MEANS THE IMPUTATION OF INNOCENCE
>according to the standards of justice".
>
>Neop, what is the difference between "IMPUTATION OF
>INNOCENCE" as contained in your own article, and "trading of
>one's sins for the righteousness of Christ Jesus" as
>contained in my own article? You stated that this
>"imputation" is according to the "standards of justice".
>Whose standard of justice? Pope's or God's? Is God's
>standard of justice the same as man's?

4. Mr. Faloye, there you go again. You have correctly read my statements but now are misinterpreting it. Diakonai implies a legal standard. Of course the legal standard is Gods. My whole post in the Original was trying to measure mens actions according to Gods standards of Justice!!! When I talk about justifying a nation or an action, I only mean, Does God approve of this, according to the revelation scripture gave us? Faloye in my original post, I punctuate all my statments with "If the Bible" and "Scriptural Standards" etc. Why dont you look at that for once? I never said that mans standards were the same as Gods, I said according to scriptural standards, is such and such a thing correct?

Simply put, the
>doctrine of Justification is Christians' God's way of
>declaring us INNOCENT in His Presence in the ABSENCE of ANY
>JUDICIAL TRIAL, by virtue of our RELATIONSHIP with Christ,
>even though we are STILL SINNERS. Martin Luther, the
>reformer, captured the essence of the state of our
>Justification when he described us thus: "A piece of dung
>covered with snow"!!!

5. Faloye, you are wrong here, and I say so with the greatest conviction. Martin Luther was wrong also. Luther described in Latin tha status of the Christian as "Homilies est Peccator" i.e. Righteous Sinner. This is wrong. There is a legal and forensic aspect to Biblical Justification. First, it refers to a declaration. Read your Bible. Justification is a Legal Term. A Trial has indeed taken place and the verdict is "NOT GUILTY OF ANY SINS" That is biblical justification. Justification means "Declared Not Guilty" But this justification is IN CHRIST. It refers to the fact that our patron before the Father is Jesus himself. There cannot be justification without a trial. No matter how you try to twist the language, justification is a legal term. God does not justify Sinners. He cannot Declare a sinner "NOT GUILTY" . To do so would be to say that White is Black. What happened is that when Jesus died, our sins were legally and vitally laid on him, according to Isaiah 53. His Blood provided a reconciliation, NOT AN ATONEMENT. The word atonement is not a new testament word. It is from the Hebrew, Kaphar, which means "a covering (for sins). However, in the New Testament, Our Sins are NOT Covered, There are Washed AWAY. Made as though they never EXISTED. This is why Colossians and Ephesians in the first 2 chpaters speak of us being "Holy and Blameless before God in Love".
The second aspect is RECREATION. In Ephesians Chapter 5, Paul says that we have in RECREATED in the image of true righteousness and holiness. This means that the VITAL LIFE PRINCIPLE in a Christian has been swicthed from the Corrupt human life that genders Vice, to the Zoe, the divine life of God, according to John Chapter 1, when he says that we were born not of Flesh or of Blood, but of God and 1st John Chapter 5 when he says "This is the record, God has given unto us life and this life is in his son."
The Christian is NOT a ball of dung covered with Snow. The Christian is the express image of Gods person, the Body of Christ on the Earth and according to 1 Corinthians 3, The Christian is the Glory of God on the Earth. He is NOT A BALL OF DUNG. The principle of Covering, is alien to the New Covenant. The only place you will find the word atonment in the NT is in the KJV in Romans Chapter 5 and the word atonement there is wrongly translated. It should read Propitiation, which means AN EXCHANGE, A SUBSTITUTE, not A COVERING. The word in the Greek is from the root "Hallismos" It does not mean Covering.

Does that mean the Christian doesnt sin? NO. But the Bible specifically states that he that is begotten of God doesnt sin. However, the truth here is that the word used for commit in that verse means "To Originate" and not "To Do"

This then is the position:
Justification means that God has declared the Christian NOT GUILTY of any offences, on the basis of his appropriation of the work of Christ Hence 2nd Corinthians Chapter 5 v 17: If any man be in Christ, he is a new Creation. Old things have passed away and behold all things have become new.

Now the phrase NEW CREATION in the Greek is "Kainos Ktisis". It means an original species of Being that has had no previous existence, a reference of course to the fact that the LIFE PRINCIPLE, Inherited from ADAM that made MEN SINNERS, has been done away with in Christ (According to the Verse in Hebrews: "Now once hath he appeared at the end of the world, to put away SIN (The Principle) by the offering of himself"). The old life is replaced with the new, the very vital life pf God.

I disagree with you Faloye on your understanding of Justification. God does not declare Christians righteous even though they are sinners. NO!!! He gets rid of the life principle of Sin by recreation and then declares them righteous. The legal declaration of Righteousness, is based on the fact that IN the MIND of GOD, they are in Christ, and that being in Christ, They are perfected, according to the verse again in Hebrews "Therefore by the Offering once of himself, he hath perfected in perpertuity they that are sanctified".

When you see the believer as one in Christ and as one with Christ, it is impossible for you to think of him as a ball of dung, covered though he may be. Can Christ be joined to a ball of dung in any sense of the word? NO!!! According to the verse "What Communion hath light with Darkness?" The position is not that Christians do everything correctly, but that their LIFE, who they ARE, is of GOD. On the basis of that LIFE they are Righteous. That Life is the Life Principle of God, ZOE.

>
>And concerning those 6 concepts of the doctrine of
>Justification, you may read about them in the book of Romans
>chapters 3, 4, 5, 8 and 9.
>
>The comment of Jerry Falwell is not worth fighting ot
>arguing over. The point that I have been making is PROBABLY
>the same point that you have been making; and that is: You
>have no way of knowing whether God spoke to Jerry Falwell or
>not. We can only go by what Jerry Falwell said. And Jerry
>Falwell COMMENTED that he was of the personal opinion that
>9/11 was a punishment from God BECAUSE of America's millions
>of abortions. He NEVER told us that GOD told him to tell us
>that, like other Biblical prophets did whenever they spoke
>to the people of Israel. The comment was JUST his own
>personal opinion. He has a fifty percent chance of being
>right, and fifty percent of being wrong. You wrote that
>Jerry Falwell did not say the following; "God did not tell
>me this". Did Jerry Falwell say that; "God did tell me
>this?" In the absence of an affirmative answer to that
>question, shall we continue to attribute his comment to God,
>even though he has NEVER PUBLICLY stated that God spoke to
>him? You be the judge. But whatever you want to believe on
>this issue is fine with me, because it is totally
>UNIMPORTANT, and I will stop responding to it.
>

6. Agreed. Falwell never said God told him and he never said God didnt. There are assumptions on both sides.

>On the issue of the "prophets" you named in your article.
>First, let me say this; No one has the authority or the
>right to CONDEMN anyone to hell fire on the basis of what
>they say about Almighty God or the Holy Bible. That falls
>out of the domain of any human being. We however do have the
>right, as well as the Biblically charged obligation, NOT to
>accomodate false prophethood. For example, if a prophet
>claims to speak FOR God in his prophecy, and the prophecy IS
>NOT 100% ACCURATE ALL OF THE TIME, then the prophesy CANNOT
>be from GOD of the Holy Bible.

7. Okay Faloye, I agree with your statement about Condemnantion. But lets look at the office of the Prophet for a minute. Please Faloye, do not for once think that I am holding brief for Joyner et al. My position is that NONE of their critics has brought forth sufficient evidence. Let us go on. You claim that the true test of Prophethood is 100% fulfillment.
The book of Deuteronomy teaches this when Moses tells the People of Israel "If there arise amonsgt you a prophet or a dreamer of dreams and he show you a sign and that sing cometh to pass, then you know that prophet hath spoken in the name of the Lord and you shall fear him. But if that Prophet shew you a sign in the name of the Lord and that sign cometh not to pass, you shall not fear that Prophet or Dreamer of Dreams, he hath not spoken in the name of the Lord, he hath spoken Presumptuously. Ye shall not fear him. And if there arise amongst you a Prophet or Dreamer of Dreams and he show you a sign and that sign cometh to pass whereof he saith unto thee let us go after and worship other Gods, ye shall put away that Prophet from the midst of thee.... that he may not lead thee astray"

Now what Moses does here is that he identifies 3 categories of people:
1. A Prophets who speaks for God and it comes to pass
2. A Prophet who speaks for God, but it does not come to pass
3. A prophet who does not speak for God and it still comes to pass.

100% fullfilment has never been the test of any Prophet and so I must disagree with you. The bible in this verse above clearly teaches that it is possible for Prophet Class 2 to speak, and it will not come to pass, this does not make the man a false Prophet, but it does make his Prophecy a FALSE Prophecy. There is a difference between the two. How do we know?
Paul in giving advice on the operation of the Gifts of the Spirit in 1 Corintinans 12, said "Let the Prophets speak two or three and let the other Judge... and if anything be reaveled to him who is nearby, let him hold his peace"

Now Faloye I ask you, if prophecies were always perfect, why would there be a need to judge them?

You see, you really have to understand how the gifts work. That a person is called of God to be a teacher or a prophet does not mean he cant miss it once of twice. Balaam was once a true Prophet, yet he led Israel astray!!! Nicolatus, one of the seven deacons started the cult of the Nicolaitaines as mentioned in Revelations 2. Peter once spread the False doctrine of Segregation!!! Yet he was still a bonafide TEACHER of the word. The Apostles council once Rebuked Peter for Preaching to Gentiles, yet they were still bonafide apostles. That a person gives forth a prophecy that doesnt come to pass doesnt mean he isnt a true prophet of God. But there is more evidence.

In 2nd Corinthians Chapter 13, the Chapter on Love, Paul mentions "Whether there be tongues they shall cease, whether there be knowledge it shall vanish away, whether there be prophecies, they shall FAIL"

In other words, Paul tells us here, that Prophecies can fail. What does he mean? The word FAIL in the Greek is the word "Katargeos" It encompasses all of the following meanings "Render Inoperative, Render Ineffective, Render Powerless"
In other words, Prophecies can be rendered Inoperative, Ineffective and Powerless. AS such, they wouldnt come to pass!!! What better of example of this than Isaiah and Hezekiah. Isaiah told the King "YOU WILL DIE" Did the King die? NO!!! Why? Because the King through prayers and Supplications rendered that particluar negative prophecy powerless!!! And the Prophecy was reversed!!!
Another Good exmaple is Jonah. Jonah Told the people of Nineveh "In 40 days, Your city will be overthrown" The Prophecy clearly said that Nineveh will be overthrown in 40 days. But what did the people do? They rendered that propehcy powerless through prayers, fastings and genuine supplications to God. As such, in 40 days, Nineveh was NOT overthrown and Jonahs Prophecy FAILED. That was why he was angry and that was why he didnt want to Go to Nineveh on the first place. He said to God " I knew this would happen. I knew that in your mercy, this Prophecy would not come to pass". Jonah was worried about his reputation as a Prophet and knowing the principles of God, he knew that any Prophecy could be nullified. He didnt want to be seen as a false Prophet and So he fled.

Another good exmaple is David. God told him a Child of his would be on the throne forever. Did this happen? NO!!! Because the Prophecy of Blessing was nullified by His childrens evil actions.

It is the sane with Israel, where the Prophecy of Blessing that came to them was nullified by their disobedience.

So it is not true that everything a true prophet of God says will come to pass. The truth is that the individuals to whom any prophesy is addressed have the larger part to play. And we know exactly what will happen, because of the scriptures. In other words, if God prophesies disaster and the people repent, the disaster will be averted and the Prophesy will never come to pass. If God prophesies blessing and the people rebel, the blessing will never come.

So 100% fullfilment, IS NEVER the test for a true Prophet.

That is what the Bible
>teaches. If you are wrong just once, while claiming to speak
>for God, that is it for me; and it should be it for any
>Bible following Christian. I will no longer believe whatever
>the so-called prophet may say. Joyner, Cain, Hagee, and many
>like them, are all mesmerists who use the power of
>hypersuggestibility to work people into an altered state of
>consciousness.

8. Unfortunately, as I presented above, it is not what the Bible teaches. You may call Joyner et al mesmerists, they may be, but I have not seen any scriptural evidence to show that they are such. You talk about Hyper suggestibility. It is funny. Joyner et al are all good friends of BUSH.Perhaps they belong in the same cabal? . The Bible never teaches that if you are wrong once (what do you mean wrong anyway?, the Bible teaches responsibility in operating the Gifts of the Spirit. The Bible teaches that all operations should be Judged, even for confirmed Prophets. Paul even submitted his teachings to judgment of the Phillipians. The vessels are imperfect vessels. That someone was wrong once, doesnt mean he is false. Does the fact that you are a prophet mean that you are no longer a human being? Even Prophets lie. Balaam LIED, yet he was still a prophet. That is why we need to Objectively, not Subjectively judge every operation of the Gifts.)

You may choose to believe them, but I refuse
>to believe them on the account of many of their own
>writings. You may want to get hold of a transcript titled;
>"The Heart of David: Worship and Warfare" of April 1996. If
>after listening to it, you still consider those people
>Biblical, then I guess it is Ok for you to keep listening to
>them.
>

9. Faloye, relax. I said I wasnt holding brief for them and I aint condemning them either. One of my hobbies is following and watching religious groups, because I believe that they heavily influence Politics and Economics and besides, I am a Xtian. I have followed the KCP and several other movements for several years and so I know what these people teach okay? I also know that many of the people who oppose them have heavy doctrinal problems of their own. Sure Joyner has made some slip ups and so has Cain and so have many other traditional xtian groups. To my Knowledge, Joyner has never denied the Virgin Birth, The Deity of Christ, or the Universality of Sin. He has never denied the Blood, nor done despite to the spirit of Grace. Why should I then say he is unchristian even though he may have some scriptural hangups, like WE ALL DO?

>You have raised this issue of Balaam and his donkey which is
>contained in the book of Numbers, Deuteronomy etc, in
>relation to Biblical prophesies/prophets couple of times
>now. I am not too sure about the connection you are trying
>to make between that and the modern day false prophets.
>Balaam believed in Yahweh, the God of Israel, he just
>happened to believe in other gods as well. And the fact that
>his motive was not pure led to his death in Moab, when the
>Israelites invaded it. So what is the point? Do not forget
>that even Judas Iscariot maintained a facade of
>spirituality, and then committed suicide. So what is the
>point here? Are you suggesting that I should not complain
>about those people UNTIL God strikes them down for
>blaspheming His name?

10. Faloye, Balaam did not die because of Impure motives in prophecy. He died because he taught the Children of Israel ritual sacrifice after the Prophecy incident. Judas was a TRUE Apostle, but a day came when Satan entered into him. Judas' spirituality was NOT a facade. He was a TRUE Apostle. Jesus called him such, Jesus anointed him, but he still fell astray. The point is that someone can be headed for disaster, yet at the point in time, still be true. I doubt if God will be striking down Joyner et al. However, you have settled it in your mind that they are false prophets. That is your own opinion. But could it not also be that in the Records of Blashpemy, your name might feature more than once? Or the names of many other Xtians?

Martin Luther the Reformer was wrong on the doctrine of JUSTIFICATION? Then Philipp Melancthon must also be wrong. Cheminitz must be wrong. Augustine must be wrong. Anselm must be wrong. Aquinas must be wrong. Paley must be wrong. C.S Lewis must be wrong. Locke must be wrong. Gerstner must be wrong.... They must all be wrong because they ALL said the same thing BEFORE and AFTER Martin Luther the Reformer!

Neop, before we continue, hopefully on another thread, I like to tell you that I am a Protestant. What are you?

"You see, at just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the UNGODLY. Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous man, though for a good man someone might possibly dare to die. But God demonstrates His own LOVE for us in this: WHILE WE WERE STILL SINNERS, CHRIST DIED FOR US. Since we have now been JUSTIFIED by His blood, how much more shall we be saved from God's wrath through Him! For if when WE WERE GOD'S ENEMIES, we were RECONCILED to Him through the death of His Son, how much more, having been RECONCILED, shall we be saved through His life! Not only is this so, but we also rejoice in God in our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received RECONCILIATION". Romans 5:6-11.

"While we were STILL sinners, Christ died for us". As a result of that death, according to that passage, we all became JUSTIFIED by His blood. Where is the TRIAL before that JUSTIFICATION, Neop? All I see is LOVE. The Bible declares that IF GOD JUDGES sins, who can stand?

Romans 3:23-28. "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are JUSTIFIED FREELY BY HIS GRACE (not by HIS trial) through the REDEMPTION that came by Christ Jesus. God presented Him as a sacrifice of atonement, through FAITH (a component of Justification) in His blood. He did this to demonstrate His JUSTICE, BECAUSE in His FORBEARANCE He had left the sins committed beforehand UNPUNISHED-He did it to demonstrate His JUSTICE at the PRESENT TIME, so as to be JUST and the one who JUSTIFIES THOSE WHO HAVE FAITH in Jesus. Where, then, is BOASTING? It is EXCLUDED. On what principle? On that of observing the law? NO, but on that of FAITH. For we maintain that a man is JUSTIFIED by FAITH APART from observing the law". Parentheses are mine.

God's LOVE is what JUSTIFIES me THROUGH the blood of Christ Jesus at the Golgotha Neop, even though I am still a sinner. And a sinner I will die, no matter how hard I try. But by virtue of my RELATIONSHIP with Jesus Christ, I am confident to face the ULTIMATE JUDGE on the judgement day, NOT on the basis of my own RIGHTEOUSNESS or SINLESSNESS, but rather on the basis of the RIGHTEOUSNESS or SINLESSNESS of Christ Jesus. That is where IMPUTATION (that one cent big word) comes in!

Yes. A lot of them propagated false doctrines. Martin Luther for instance was an anti semite, like Peter the Hermit. Thomas Aquinas had his heretical bag quite heavy too. C. S. Lewis was the most sensible of the lot, but there were some things he also didnt understand. Study the Fathers of the reformation and you will find out that in many aspects, their knowledge was imperfect. Dont just take my word for it, look it up.

>
>Neop, before we continue, hopefully on another thread, I
>like to tell you that I am a Protestant. What are you?
>

I dont have a badge. I am a christian. I am not protesting anything. Martin Luther taught Justification by Faith... that was the crux of his teaching, However, his graphical depiction of what Justification was is WRONG!!! Homilies Est Peccator is not a RIGHT description!!!

>"You see, at just the right time, when we were still
>powerless, Christ died for the UNGODLY. Very rarely will
>anyone die for a righteous man, though for a good man
>someone might possibly dare to die. But God demonstrates His
>own LOVE for us in this: WHILE WE WERE STILL SINNERS, CHRIST
>DIED FOR US. Since we have now been JUSTIFIED by His blood,
>how much more shall we be saved from God's wrath through
>Him! For if when WE WERE GOD'S ENEMIES, we were RECONCILED
>to Him through the death of His Son, how much more, having
>been RECONCILED, shall we be saved through His life! Not
>only is this so, but we also rejoice in God in our Lord
>Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received
>RECONCILIATION". Romans 5:6-11.
>
>"While we were STILL sinners, Christ died for us". As a
>result of that death, according to that passage, we all
>became JUSTIFIED by His blood. Where is the TRIAL before
>that JUSTIFICATION, Neop? All I see is LOVE. The Bible
>declares that IF GOD JUDGES sins, who can stand?
>

Faloye, Christ received our Judgement for US and we IN HIM. That is why we cannot be judged "He was bruised for iniquities... etc" That is the judgement. We were judged in Christ, we died in HIM, when he was raised, we were raised in him, a NEW CREATION, without any of the vestiges of the past. That is our justification.
If God judges SIN, no one can stand. That is why Jesus died. Our sins were laid on him, and he was judged in our place. Death is the judgment for SIN and Christ received it for US. That is the true teaching of Christianity.
We have been proclaimed NOT GUILTY in Christ.

Justification means THAT you ARE NOT GUILTY. Check the Greek root if you can. Justification by GRACE means that you are proclaimed NOT GUILTY, because ANOTHER has taken your PLACE.

The Sinlessnes of Christ is NOW the Possession of the Believer. 2nd Corinthians 5: WE HAVE BEEN MADE THE VERY RIGHTEOUSNESS of GOD. That does not talk about Imputation, it talks about A NATURE. The nature of the Christian is RIGHTEOUSNESS. Again Ephesians Chapter 3 says this.

This is what happened:

God Made Man and put him in the Garden with legal Authority over all that he made.
Man sold out to the devil, and through that, the Bible says, Sin came into the world. Through the Sin of one Man, Many, in that Man (Adam), by virtue of being in his LIFE, were CONSTITUTED Sinners and Made Corrupt.
All Men received a FALLEN Nature, ALIENATED from God.

The Logos of God, became Flesh, became a Man, the Mind of God was tabernacled in Flesh and we Called him Jesus.

He came as The second Man, to reclaim what the first MAN had sold out to the devil.
On him was laid the sin of the world. He received unto himself, the corruption of Mankind. He received the Judgement of Mankind. He DIED.

Now, because of this principle of substitution unto those who believe in him and receive his LIFE does it become that they have DIED in HIM, and have BEEN BURIED in HIM, and when he was RAISED, they were RAISED IN HIM, a NEW CREATION, with the LIFE OF GOD.

The Bible tells us that WE ARE In HIM now, We were Chosen IN HIM. That is, in his LIFE, in that Eternal LIFE which is OUR SOURCE and the ORIGIN of our GENEALOGY.

So there is a NEW RACE, A NEW PEOPLE, A NEW NATION of PRIESTS, with a NEW LIFE.

That is the Gospel.

Never does the Bible call the Christian a ball of dung.

There WAS A Trial before JUSTIFICATION, as there always IS. Now I am not talking about court room or whatever.

I am talking about the conclusion of GOD. The Bible says: GOD HAD CONCLUDED ALL UNDER SIN.

Now doesnt that sound like a trial to you? What is a trial? It is an evaluation of the facts. God evaluated the facts and concluded that all were under SIN.

However, when a person becomes BORN AGAIN, the Gods proclamation concerning that one is : YOU ARE INNOCENT. Another statement that suggests an evaluation of the FACT.

He couldnt have DIED if he wasnt TRIED and DEATH is JUDGEMENT, how can you judge someone you havent TRIED?
In the Mind of God, When JESUS Hung on the Cross, IT was YOU and I who were hanging there, and GODS Judgement was DEATH. That is the principle of substitution.

The Christian is NOT A SINNER. He is a SAINT. That is what the BIBLE calls him. This does not mean he does not SIN, any more than it means that an UNBELIEVER is uncapable of doinng GOOD DEEDS.

What this means is that IN CHRIST, the Believer HAS the LIFE of RIGHTEUOSNESS. HIS NATURE is HOLINESS. But he still does wrong, if he does not walk according to the dictates of HIS NEW NATURE.

Similarly, the Nature of the UNBELIEVER is SIN. That is why he is a SINNER. Not because of what he has done, but because of the corrupt LIFE he received from ADAM. This does not mean that the UNBELIEVER cannot do good deeds. But he is still a SINNER, by LIFE.

Which is why he MUST be BORN AGAIN (receive life again) and made a NEW CREATION in CHRIST.

The OLD CORRUPT LIFE must GO and be replaced by the NEW LIFE OF GOD.

Anyone who has studied the TENETS of Christianity KNOWS That this is the GOSPEL.

You asked me to study the Fathers of the Reformation. If I had not studied them, I would not be discussing them with you. But here is your opportunity to prove on this forum the "heretical bag" of just one of them; Thomas Aquinas, as well as the "false doctrines" that he propagated.

"I dont have a badge. I am a christian. I am not protesting anything. Martin Luther taught Justification by Faith... that was the crux of his teaching, However, his graphical depiction of what Justification was is WRONG!!! Homilies Est Peccator is not a RIGHT description!!!"

Biblically speaking, there is ONLY ONE kind of Christian, A BORN AGAIN Christian. But WE ALL come from different backgrounds, and those backgrounds determine EXACTLY how we debate ESSENTIAL Biblical Doctrines, and even non-essential ones. It does not mean that you are right and I am wrong in our understanding of the principles of those essential doctrines, but we MUST agree with the FUNDAMENTALS of those Doctrines, even if our UNDERSTANDING of their PRINCIPLES is different. For example, a Christian of Catholic background will approach the discussion of the Doctrine of Salvation differently from how a Baptist might. Just as a Jehovah Witness, (they too call themselves Christians), will discuss the Person of Christ in a different way than a Seventh Day Adventist will. So my question still remains, what is your own background? My background is rooted in Protestantism, with a great emphasis on Baptist denomination. Which one are you? There is really no need to dance around that very simple question, is there?

And by the way, I have read those antiJewish letters ( Martin cannot technically be described as an antiSemite ) of Martin Luther the Reformer, and no Christians that I know is with him on those letters. But were those letters part of his Doctrinal theses? Did it pass them on to future Christians as part of the Holy Bible, as he did with the doctrine of Justification? Do you know why he wrote those letters? Is it important? Must we impeach his credibility on all matters, simply because he screwed up on matters of personal opinion? Especially when he never claimed to speak for God? Especially when he only DISCOVERED from the Holy Bible, like many before him and many after him, that the selling of indulgences, as Rome was engaged in, was unBiblical? Has there been any human being that was free from reproach? Is anyone infallible? Are you infallible? Could you possibly be wrong in your assertion that those GIANTS were wrong in matters of Doctrinal principles? You be the judge!

The tenets of Christianity, as you stated them, I have no quarrel with. I have NEVER argued that with you. Our disagreement centers on whether our JUSTIFICATION as Christians was borne out of some sort of JUDICIAL JUDGEMENT, as you seem to be saying, or it was borne out of God's LOVE for those He created in His own image, as I am saying. I do not believe that we disagree on the THRUST of the Doctrine of Justification. I think it is about the means through which that Doctrine was established that we have a disagreement. Therefore, we may leave the Doctrine alone, and move on to another one on another thread. You may start it off. But before you do, I will like you to tell me about the "false doctrines" propagated by Thomas Aquinas.

Faloye, I dont get your drift. Are you trying to say that Luther or Peter wasnt anti semite?
Are you trying to say that Thomas Aquinas did not build his theology on the false doctrines of papacy that pervaded his time? What are you trying to say?
Peter and Luther both said that Jews ought to be Killed because they crucified the Christ. Luther taught it as absolute fact in Germany that the Jews were an inferior and debased race.
As for Thomas Aquinas in his famous tract Contras Errores Graecorum (Against the Errors of the Greeks (Byzantines)), Aquinas makes the following six propositions as the foundation of his theology:

The Pope has universal jurisdiction over the entire Church of Christ;
The Pope is the first and greatest among all bishops;

The Pope possesses in the Church a fullness of power;
The Pope enjoys the same power conferred on Peter by Christ;
To the Pope belongs the right of deciding what pertains to faith;
The Pope is the superior of the other patriarchs;
That to be subject to the Pope is necessary for salvation.

See Chapters 31 to 39 of the tract and you will see what I am talking about. The tract is in Greek, but there will be English translations available.

What else do you need as proof of heresy? I am not saying Aquinas was an evil man. I am saying that he had some doctrinal problems also.

>
>"I dont have a badge. I am a christian. I am not protesting
>anything. Martin Luther taught Justification by Faith...
>that was the crux of his teaching, However, his graphical
>depiction of what Justification was is WRONG!!! Homilies Est
>Peccator is not a RIGHT description!!!"
>
>Biblically speaking, there is ONLY ONE kind of Christian, A
>BORN AGAIN Christian. But WE ALL come from different
>backgrounds, and those backgrounds determine EXACTLY how we
>debate ESSENTIAL Biblical Doctrines, and even non-essential
>ones.

Faloye, GOD DID NOT SEPERATE us INTO BACKGROUNDS. There is ONE TRUTH and ONE SPIRIT. People may differ in UNDERSTANDING, but how does that mean that they are from different backgrounds? The backgrounds we have today are not the products of God, they are the Products of evil men who resisted the moving of the spirit and caused the formation of splinter groups.
No wonder Isaiah speaks Prophetically "The watchmen shall see eye to eye when the Lord shall build again Zion"

It does not mean that you are right and I am wrong in
>our understanding of the principles of those essential
>doctrines, but we MUST agree with the FUNDAMENTALS of those
>Doctrines, even if our UNDERSTANDING of their PRINCIPLES is
>different.

Faloye, we agree on fundamentals. What I am saying is that we LIVE by Principles. Christians agree on the deity of christ etc. It is true Paul gave room for disagreement on non essentials such as reverence for days or the eating of meat, however, understanding or the lack of it is not sufficient cause for division. That I do not see things the same way with my natural brother does not mean I divorce my family and start a new one. But that is what the Church has been doing, because of evil men who oppose the spirit.

For example, a Christian of Catholic background
>will approach the discussion of the Doctrine of Salvation
>differently from how a Baptist might. Just as a Jehovah
>Witness, (they too call themselves Christians), will discuss
>the Person of Christ in a different way than a Seventh Day
>Adventist will. So my question still remains, what is your
>own background? My background is rooted in Protestantism,
>with a great emphasis on Baptist denomination. Which one are
>you? There is really no need to dance around that very
>simple question, is there?
>

Faloye, and I maintain, that my background is Chritianity, The Gospels and the Epistles. I do not recognise divisions. I do not go into debates with my "background" as my badge. I ask people "Do you believe Jesus is the Son of God? Do you believe in his Deity? Did he Die and Rise?" What else do I want? Anyone who does not believe in this things is not a Christian. Anyone who does, IS. Now I dont care what we believes about Water Baptism, or about The Gifts of the Spirit or about Holy Communion, or if he is a Pre-Tribulationist, a Mid-Tribulationist or a Post-Tribulationist. He is a Christian.
I have attended many churches in my life, and I have read Christian books across denominations. AS far as I see, there is nothing for me to quarrel over with anybody. I am a Christian.

>And by the way, I have read those antiJewish letters (
>Martin cannot technically be described as an antiSemite )

Yes he can. He fueled anti semitism in Germany.

of
>Martin Luther the Reformer, and no Christians that I know is
>with him on those letters.

Yes there are. But you wont see them in public.

But were those letters part of
>his Doctrinal theses? Did it pass them on to future
>Christians as part of the Holy Bible, as he did with the
>doctrine of Justification?

Error, Faloye. Luther never passed anything on to future generations as part of the Holy Bible. Not even his doctrine of Justification. NO man has the authority to pass anything on as part of the Holy Bible. Luther explained what had been in the Bible all along. It was up to people to accept his explanation or not.
Even the doctrine of Justification is not something Luther passed on solely. The widespread movement of Justification included Zwingli and later on Whitefield, The Wesleys, Moody and Finney.

Do you know why he wrote those
>letters? Is it important?

Yes. Because it shows that Luther is fallible. If he made a mistake in interpreting or depicting the Bible with regards to the lot of the Jews, why should it suprise anyone that he made a mistake in depicting what justification really was?

Must we impeach his credibility on
>all matters, simply because he screwed up on matters of
>personal opinion?

This wasnt a matter of personal opinion. He propounded the anti semite theory as part of his understanding of Justification and how that affected the JEWS.

Especially when he never claimed to speak
>for God?

Neither did he claim to speak for God on Justification, so why believe him on that then? If not speaking for God is an excuse for his antisemitism, let us use that same yardstick and question his depiction of justification.

Especially when he only DISCOVERED from the Holy
>Bible, like many before him and many after him, that the
>selling of indulgences, as Rome was engaged in, was
>unBiblical? Has there been any human being that was free
>from reproach? Is anyone infallible? Are you infallible?
>Could you possibly be wrong in your assertion that those
>GIANTS were wrong in matters of Doctrinal principles? You be
>the judge!

Luther was a gaint, but he was wrong not in his understanding of Justification, but in his depiction of it. That is where I stand. A lot of the Fathers were wrong on many issues and we should not follow them blindly.

I already showed you Aquinas' heresy up there. But there are some more:

This is another quote from Aquinas' Summa Theologica:

As regards the individual nature, woman is defective and misbegotten, for the active power of the male seed tends to the production of a perfect likeness in the masculine sex; while the production of a woman comes from defect in the active power.
-- Summa Theologica, Thomas Aquinas

Now I am not saying that these mistakes make him a false teacher or a false prophet or even a damned heretic. I am saying that Men Of God are vessels, and they are defective. The infirmities of the human mind corrupt the purity of truth and that is why some of the Fathers made these mistakes in teaching and doctrine.

However Faloye, because you are a fan of these people, you are willing to overlook their mistakes, which is perfectly okay, yet when contemporary ministers like Joyner or Cain spew forth some doctrinial gobbledygook, you get on their case like a hound.

Aquinas was not God, neither was Luther or is Joyner. I dislike the way some Protestants "worship" these "Fathers" turning a blind eye to all their mistakes, yet they hack people like Cain to death.

I suppose some Protestants think the Luther is the Final Apostle and that after him NO Other can Come, or that everyone who follows must toe the Lutheran line. But that isnt true. Luther was merely a vessel and he had errors and he is long gone, there is nothing special about Luther or Joyner or Cain.

Christians should learn to hold on to the teaching, and not the teacher. All teachers have errors and every Teaching should be judged and critically examined after the manner of the Berean Christians in the light of the Holy Ghost.

Errors are not sufficient proof of a false calling. I have not called Luther false, neither do I believe Joyner should be called False on the basis of error alone. There must be some more evidence.

Akinola does not hate liberals per se, but he hates Liberalism, Communism, Fascism, Atheism, Nazism, Socialism, Modernism, Post Modernism, Collectivism, Islamism, and all the other negative izms out there.

Will the real Akinola please come back? The real Akinola never left!!

Personally, i would prefer if we take the religion out of this topic and thrash it out in a different/new topic, so that we can review, explore and learn Bible principles for everyday living, maybe you, me and other folks might learn something new or be bless.
I detest people mixing religion with politics, hope you get my drift!

I have noticed from the commentaries of some of us, that we are not that far from blazing down the trail of Biblical heresy. May be I am one of them, and may be we can help one another. May God help us all!