₦airaland Forum

Akosbaba:
It's like adolf hitler coming back to save the jews.

interesting angle and correct analogy
please note that hitler also ruined his german compatriots while trying to rule the world with his Aryan race.
the same way IBB ruined his northern brethren and nigerians at large trying to hang on to power.

The Babangida years

By Tolu Ogunlesi
April 17, 2010 10:36PM  

In his first New Year Days speech as military president, months after deposing the Buhari-Idiagbon government in a bloodless coup enthusiastically welcomed by Nigerians, Ibrahim Babangida declared: I wish to reaffirm that this administration does not intend to stay in power a day longer than is required to lay the necessary institutional framework to bring about a better and more stable Nigeria. Babangidas bonhomie (its trademark an endearing gap-toothed smile) - in stark contrast to the stern, unsmiling façade of Muhammadu Buhari, his predecessor - made it easy for him to be believed.
The distinction between the two regimes in fact ran much deeper than personality quirks. Babangida, in action, proved to be the complete antithesis of his predecessor. He threw open prison doors, setting free hundreds of 3rd republic politicians convicted and jailed by Buhari. He repealed the obnoxious Decree No. 4 of 1984 with which the Buhari regime had shackled the media. He promised to run an open administration that is responsive to the yearnings and aspirations of all the people - a departure from the high-handedness of the Buhari/Idiagbon era.
One of his first actions as military president was to allow Nigerians to decide, through public debates, whether to accept the $2.5 billion International Monetary Fund (IMF) loan the Buhari government had been negotiating for.
After the terror of the Buhari years, Nigerians appeared to have found a statesman in military uniform.

Tough times that lasted

By 1985, Nigerias foreign debt had ballooned to $18 billion, up from $3.4 billion in 1980 (it would rise beyond $30 billion by the end of the 80s), and external reserves had dwindled to less than $2 billion. Oil prices had been in freefall for 3 years running, and in January 1986 they finally fell to less than $20 per barrel, a record low since the start of the decade.
To his credit Babangida made all the right noises about revamping the economy. In his Independence Day 1985 speech, barely two months old in office, he declared a state of economic emergency for the next 15 months. That speech went on to lay down a comprehensive plan for economic reconstruction.
This plan included a moratorium on new foreign debt, promotion of agriculture and industrial development, restriction of importation to essential commodities, financial sector reform and privatisation.

Populist leanings

IBB was a master of the populist move - ambitious government programs targeted at tackling poverty, and empowering rural dwellers. His government churned out program after program, in a bid to actualize his promises to run an inclusive, people-facing government. In 1986, Babangida launched the Mass Mobilization for Self Reliance, Social Justice, and Economic Recovery (MAMSER).
In 1987, the Directorate of Food and Rural Infrastructure (DFFRI) was launched to promote agriculture and transform Nigerias rural landscape by providing modern infrastructure. Other Babangida creations include the National Directorate of Employment (NDE), National Economic Reconstruction Fund (NERFUND), Peoples Bank of Nigeria (PBN), National Board for Community Banks (NBCB), Nigerian Deposit Insurance Corporation (NDIC), Nigeria Export-Import Bank (NEXIM), National Planning Commission (NPC), and the Urban Development Bank.
No other Nigerian government presided over such substantial expansion of government bureaucracy as the Babangida administration. In time, the fiscal prudence that Babangida espoused vanished: billions of naira were sunk into an endless transition programme, and in the early 90s, 12 billion dollars worth of windfall crude oil revenue (courtesy of the rise in the oil prices due to the Gulf War) could not be accounted for.
Mr. Babangida also came to perfect the art of dispensing patronage through political appointments (mostly targeted at leading members of the opposition) and a far-from-transparent allocation of lucrative oil blocks.

A man whose words mean nothing

Mr. Babangidas contradictions eventually overwhelmed his reputation so that when, in May 1993, the activist and lawyer Gani Fawehinmi described him as a man whose words mean nothing to him, evidence of this littered his eight years in power.
Only months after vowing to run a government by consultation with the people, Mr. Babangida in 1986 surreptitiously - and unilaterally - took Nigeria, an avowed secular state, into full membership of the Organisation of Islamic Conference (OIC), a body which describes itself as the collective voice of the Muslim world.
Mr. Babangida lamented the large role played by the public sector in economic activity with hardly any concrete results to justify such a role.Ironically, over the course of the next five years, he would go ahead to supervise an unprecedented expansion of government. And despite his deference to the wish of Nigerians to reject the IMF loan, Mr. Babangida went ahead to implement some of the Funds most drastic requirements - a devaluation of the naira, and removal of subsidies, chief of which were the petroleum subsidies.
Mr. Babangida promised Nigerians that the belt-tightening was sorely needed: the painful injection that would usher in vibrant economic health; the mandatory dark lining before a cloud of prosperity. Those reforms, which he christened Structural Adjustment Programme (SAP), came into effect in 1986, with a far-from-pleasant impact on Nigerians. Purchasing powers dwindled, inflation rose, and the obliteration of the middle class began. In 1989, SAP riots rocked the country, as Nigerians had finally had enough of economic reforms which silver lining they waited in vain for.

Greatest failings

Mr. Babangidas greatest failings were however in two key areas: his human rights record, and his political transition programme. In December 1985, a group of soldiers, which included his close friend, Mamman Vatsa, were arrested on allegations of plotting to topple the 4-month old Babangida government. After Vatsa was convicted and sentenced to death, Mr. Babangida assured a delegation of distinguished writers (Wole Soyinka, Chinua Achebe and J.P. Clark), which had come pleading for mercy, that he was determined to do everything in my power to save (Vatsa).
Hours later, Vatsa and the other alleged plotters were executed.
As opposition to Mr. Babangidas rule grew, so did his intolerance for dissent, so that he routinely shut down or proscribed media houses; and harassed journalists, civil society and labour groups using the instruments of state (the State Security Service, Directorate of Military Intelligence and the Police).
In 1986, five students of the Ahmadu Bello University were murdered when mobile policemen invaded the campus to quell anti-IMF protests. He also promulgated a series of draconian decrees targeted at quelling all opposition, and on occasion did not hesitate to deport foreign critics (University lecturer Patrick Wilmot and journalist William Keeling).
In October 1986, frontline journalist Dele Giwa was murdered by a letter bomb in Lagos. Preliminary police investigations stated that senior officers of Mr. Babangidas intelligence services, who had hounded Giwa in his final days, had questions to answer regarding Giwas death. The mystery of the Giwa assassination remains unsolved till date.

An interminable journey

A maddeningly convoluted transition programme, whose terminal date soon became a mirage - first 1990, then 1992, and then 1993 - is one of the most significant things Babangida will be remembered for.
Early on in his administration, Mr. Babangida inaugurated a Political Bureau to kick off, as it were, the national debate on a viable future political ethos and structure for our dear country.
The political bureau was soon followed by a Constituent Assembly, which in 1989 fashioned a new constitution for the country.
Also, in 1989, he created, by presidential fiat, two political parties, the Social Democratic Party and the National Republican Convention. Then in 1991, he released a controversial list of prominent politicians whom he said were banned from participating in the transition programme.
In October 1992, he cancelled the results of the parties presidential primaries, causing new primaries to be held in March 1993. And then in June 1993 he annulled the results of the presidential elections, presumed to have been won by billionaire businessman MKO Abiola.

This was the final straw
.
By this time, Nigerians had finally had enough of his shenanigans, and violent protests forced him to step aside on August 27, 1993,My colleagues and I are determined to change the course of history, Mr. Babangida told Nigerians in his maiden speech as Head of State, on August 27, 1985.
By the time he reluctantly relinquished power exactly eight years later, he had achieved that goal, far more successfully than he, or anyone else, could ever have imagined.

Source: Next
====================

The Holy Book says "my people perish for lack of knowledge".
Will you allow 150m of us (Nigerians) perish or will you ALSO forward this article on the (mis) deeds of our self-proclaimed "evil genius" to all Nigerians that you know
Will you help confirm "maradona" IBB's claim (in Germany in the 90s during one of his radiculopathy treatment trips) that we, his fellow citizens are "docile" (MUGUs) by not sharing this mail
Find a way to get involved at all levels- local, state and federal- this election period for a better Nigeria!!!

The Babangida years

By Tolu Ogunlesi
April 17, 2010 10:36PM

In his first New Year Days speech as military president, months after deposing the Buhari-Idiagbon government in a bloodless coup enthusiastically welcomed by Nigerians, Ibrahim Babangida declared: I wish to reaffirm that this administration does not intend to stay in power a day longer than is required to lay the necessary institutional framework to bring about a better and more stable Nigeria. Babangidas bonhomie (its trademark an endearing gap-toothed smile) - in stark contrast to the stern, unsmiling façade of Muhammadu Buhari, his predecessor - made it easy for him to be believed.
The distinction between the two regimes in fact ran much deeper than personality quirks. Babangida, in action, proved to be the complete antithesis of his predecessor. He threw open prison doors, setting free hundreds of 3rd republic politicians convicted and jailed by Buhari. He repealed the obnoxious Decree No. 4 of 1984 with which the Buhari regime had shackled the media. He promised to run an open administration that is responsive to the yearnings and aspirations of all the people - a departure from the high-handedness of the Buhari/Idiagbon era.
One of his first actions as military president was to allow Nigerians to decide, through public debates, whether to accept the $2.5 billion International Monetary Fund (IMF) loan the Buhari government had been negotiating for.
After the terror of the Buhari years, Nigerians appeared to have found a statesman in military uniform.

Tough times that lasted

By 1985, Nigerias foreign debt had ballooned to $18 billion, up from $3.4 billion in 1980 (it would rise beyond $30 billion by the end of the 80s), and external reserves had dwindled to less than $2 billion. Oil prices had been in freefall for 3 years running, and in January 1986 they finally fell to less than $20 per barrel, a record low since the start of the decade.
To his credit Babangida made all the right noises about revamping the economy. In his Independence Day 1985 speech, barely two months old in office, he declared a state of economic emergency for the next 15 months. That speech went on to lay down a comprehensive plan for economic reconstruction.
This plan included a moratorium on new foreign debt, promotion of agriculture and industrial development, restriction of importation to essential commodities, financial sector reform and privatisation.

Populist leanings

IBB was a master of the populist move - ambitious government programs targeted at tackling poverty, and empowering rural dwellers. His government churned out program after program, in a bid to actualize his promises to run an inclusive, people-facing government. In 1986, Babangida launched the Mass Mobilization for Self Reliance, Social Justice, and Economic Recovery (MAMSER).
In 1987, the Directorate of Food and Rural Infrastructure (DFFRI) was launched to promote agriculture and transform Nigerias rural landscape by providing modern infrastructure. Other Babangida creations include the National Directorate of Employment (NDE), National Economic Reconstruction Fund (NERFUND), Peoples Bank of Nigeria (PBN), National Board for Community Banks (NBCB), Nigerian Deposit Insurance Corporation (NDIC), Nigeria Export-Import Bank (NEXIM), National Planning Commission (NPC), and the Urban Development Bank.
No other Nigerian government presided over such substantial expansion of government bureaucracy as the Babangida administration. In time, the fiscal prudence that Babangida espoused vanished: billions of naira were sunk into an endless transition programme, and in the early 90s, 12 billion dollars worth of windfall crude oil revenue (courtesy of the rise in the oil prices due to the Gulf War) could not be accounted for.
Mr. Babangida also came to perfect the art of dispensing patronage through political appointments (mostly targeted at leading members of the opposition) and a far-from-transparent allocation of lucrative oil blocks.

A man whose words mean nothing

Mr. Babangidas contradictions eventually overwhelmed his reputation so that when, in May 1993, the activist and lawyer Gani Fawehinmi described him as a man whose words mean nothing to him, evidence of this littered his eight years in power.
Only months after vowing to run a government by consultation with the people, Mr. Babangida in 1986 surreptitiously - and unilaterally - took Nigeria, an avowed secular state, into full membership of the Organisation of Islamic Conference (OIC), a body which describes itself as the collective voice of the Muslim world.
Mr. Babangida lamented the large role played by the public sector in economic activity with hardly any concrete results to justify such a role.Ironically, over the course of the next five years, he would go ahead to supervise an unprecedented expansion of government. And despite his deference to the wish of Nigerians to reject the IMF loan, Mr. Babangida went ahead to implement some of the Funds most drastic requirements - a devaluation of the naira, and removal of subsidies, chief of which were the petroleum subsidies.
Mr. Babangida promised Nigerians that the belt-tightening was sorely needed: the painful injection that would usher in vibrant economic health; the mandatory dark lining before a cloud of prosperity. Those reforms, which he christened Structural Adjustment Programme (SAP), came into effect in 1986, with a far-from-pleasant impact on Nigerians. Purchasing powers dwindled, inflation rose, and the obliteration of the middle class began. In 1989, SAP riots rocked the country, as Nigerians had finally had enough of economic reforms which silver lining they waited in vain for.

Greatest failings

Mr. Babangidas greatest failings were however in two key areas: his human rights record, and his political transition programme. In December 1985, a group of soldiers, which included his close friend, Mamman Vatsa, were arrested on allegations of plotting to topple the 4-month old Babangida government. After Vatsa was convicted and sentenced to death, Mr. Babangida assured a delegation of distinguished writers (Wole Soyinka, Chinua Achebe and J.P. Clark), which had come pleading for mercy, that he was determined to do everything in my power to save (Vatsa).
Hours later, Vatsa and the other alleged plotters were executed.
As opposition to Mr. Babangidas rule grew, so did his intolerance for dissent, so that he routinely shut down or proscribed media houses; and harassed journalists, civil society and labour groups using the instruments of state (the State Security Service, Directorate of Military Intelligence and the Police).
In 1986, five students of the Ahmadu Bello University were murdered when mobile policemen invaded the campus to quell anti-IMF protests. He also promulgated a series of draconian decrees targeted at quelling all opposition, and on occasion did not hesitate to deport foreign critics (University lecturer Patrick Wilmot and journalist William Keeling).
In October 1986, frontline journalist Dele Giwa was murdered by a letter bomb in Lagos. Preliminary police investigations stated that senior officers of Mr. Babangidas intelligence services, who had hounded Giwa in his final days, had questions to answer regarding Giwas death. The mystery of the Giwa assassination remains unsolved till date.

An interminable journey

A maddeningly convoluted transition programme, whose terminal date soon became a mirage - first 1990, then 1992, and then 1993 - is one of the most significant things Babangida will be remembered for.
Early on in his administration, Mr. Babangida inaugurated a Political Bureau to kick off, as it were, the national debate on a viable future political ethos and structure for our dear country.
The political bureau was soon followed by a Constituent Assembly, which in 1989 fashioned a new constitution for the country.
Also, in 1989, he created, by presidential fiat, two political parties, the Social Democratic Party and the National Republican Convention. Then in 1991, he released a controversial list of prominent politicians whom he said were banned from participating in the transition programme.
In October 1992, he cancelled the results of the parties presidential primaries, causing new primaries to be held in March 1993. And then in June 1993 he annulled the results of the presidential elections, presumed to have been won by billionaire businessman MKO Abiola.

This was the final straw
.
By this time, Nigerians had finally had enough of his shenanigans, and violent protests forced him to step aside on August 27, 1993,My colleagues and I are determined to change the course of history, Mr. Babangida told Nigerians in his maiden speech as Head of State, on August 27, 1985.
By the time he reluctantly relinquished power exactly eight years later, he had achieved that goal, far more successfully than he, or anyone else, could ever have imagined.

Source: Next
====================

The Holy Book says "my people perish for lack of knowledge".
Will you allow 150m of us (Nigerians) perish or will you ALSO forward this article on the (mis) deeds of our self-proclaimed "evil genius" to all Nigerians that you know
Will you help confirm "maradona" IBB's claim (in Germany in the 90s during one of his radiculopathy treatment trips) that we, his fellow citizens are "docile" (MUGUs) by not sharing this mail
Find a way to get involved at all levels- local, state and federal- this election period for a better Nigeria!!!

anonimi:
now wey fight don reach intense level we dey hear "na look una dey look us? abeg i no wan fight (insult) anymore"
BTW, one of the opposites (antonyms) of free is enslaved. QED

precap2:

This endless wrangling sef. I don tire

Holla me!

e be like sey me sef go form my church start dey scam people as i see sey i don sabi dey make prophecy wey dey come true sharp, sharp

might be useful to go back to the original posts:

precap2:
You did your best to explain and tried not to offend, but I personally have never been afraid of offending anyone for any reason. Let everyone be offended but let the truth be told.

Pimpu:
@precaps i think u should see a doctor

precap2:
You've always been a free thinker, haven't you?

Holla!

Pastor AIO:
What's wrong with being a free-thinker? Are you an enslaved thinker? Enslaved to idiocy, mendacity, and salacious pedantry.

So who started the insults
who sustained the insulting exchange in the 1st instance by responding to the initial insult does opening up the field for more insults
now wey fight don reach intense level we dey hear "na look una dey look us? abeg i no wan fight (insult) anymore"
BTW, one of the opposites (antonyms) of free is enslaved. QED

Depilot:
Oga, u need to check urself first.
Babangida does not have to contest as a PDP candidate. So,what the he11 are u talking about?
Again, people this is not UK or USA. All it takes is to turn this thing into a war btw the north and south or xtian and muslim, and it is over.

that may be where Atiku may come in as the compromise candidate selleable to the southern magas and their belly-wise elites/leaders to ensure nigeria does not break up or is reconfigured with a weak federal and stronger federating units.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Babangida years

By Tolu Ogunlesi
April 17, 2010 10:36PM   

In his first New Year Days speech as military president, months after deposing the Buhari-Idiagbon government in a bloodless coup enthusiastically welcomed by Nigerians, Ibrahim Babangida declared: I wish to reaffirm that this administration does not intend to stay in power a day longer than is required to lay the necessary institutional framework to bring about a better and more stable Nigeria. Babangidas bonhomie (its trademark an endearing gap-toothed smile) - in stark contrast to the stern, unsmiling façade of Muhammadu Buhari, his predecessor - made it easy for him to be believed.
The distinction between the two regimes in fact ran much deeper than personality quirks. Babangida, in action, proved to be the complete antithesis of his predecessor. He threw open prison doors, setting free hundreds of 3rd republic politicians convicted and jailed by Buhari. He repealed the obnoxious Decree No. 4 of 1984 with which the Buhari regime had shackled the media. He promised to run an open administration that is responsive to the yearnings and aspirations of all the people - a departure from the high-handedness of the Buhari/Idiagbon era.
One of his first actions as military president was to allow Nigerians to decide, through public debates, whether to accept the $2.5 billion International Monetary Fund (IMF) loan the Buhari government had been negotiating for.
After the terror of the Buhari years, Nigerians appeared to have found a statesman in military uniform.

Tough times that lasted

By 1985, Nigerias foreign debt had ballooned to $18 billion, up from $3.4 billion in 1980 (it would rise beyond $30 billion by the end of the 80s), and external reserves had dwindled to less than $2 billion. Oil prices had been in freefall for 3 years running, and in January 1986 they finally fell to less than $20 per barrel, a record low since the start of the decade.
To his credit Babangida made all the right noises about revamping the economy. In his Independence Day 1985 speech, barely two months old in office, he declared a state of economic emergency for the next 15 months. That speech went on to lay down a comprehensive plan for economic reconstruction.
This plan included a moratorium on new foreign debt, promotion of agriculture and industrial development, restriction of importation to essential commodities, financial sector reform and privatisation.

Populist leanings

IBB was a master of the populist move - ambitious government programs targeted at tackling poverty, and empowering rural dwellers. His government churned out program after program, in a bid to actualize his promises to run an inclusive, people-facing government. In 1986, Babangida launched the Mass Mobilization for Self Reliance, Social Justice, and Economic Recovery (MAMSER).
In 1987, the Directorate of Food and Rural Infrastructure (DFFRI) was launched to promote agriculture and transform Nigerias rural landscape by providing modern infrastructure. Other Babangida creations include the National Directorate of Employment (NDE), National Economic Reconstruction Fund (NERFUND), Peoples Bank of Nigeria (PBN), National Board for Community Banks (NBCB), Nigerian Deposit Insurance Corporation (NDIC), Nigeria Export-Import Bank (NEXIM), National Planning Commission (NPC), and the Urban Development Bank.
No other Nigerian government presided over such substantial expansion of government bureaucracy as the Babangida administration. In time, the fiscal prudence that Babangida espoused vanished: billions of naira were sunk into an endless transition programme, and in the early 90s, 12 billion dollars worth of windfall crude oil revenue (courtesy of the rise in the oil prices due to the Gulf War) could not be accounted for.
Mr. Babangida also came to perfect the art of dispensing patronage through political appointments (mostly targeted at leading members of the opposition) and a far-from-transparent allocation of lucrative oil blocks.

A man whose words mean nothing

Mr. Babangidas contradictions eventually overwhelmed his reputation so that when, in May 1993, the activist and lawyer Gani Fawehinmi described him as a man whose words mean nothing to him, evidence of this littered his eight years in power.
Only months after vowing to run a government by consultation with the people, Mr. Babangida in 1986 surreptitiously - and unilaterally - took Nigeria, an avowed secular state, into full membership of the Organisation of Islamic Conference (OIC), a body which describes itself as the collective voice of the Muslim world.
Mr. Babangida lamented the large role played by the public sector in economic activity with hardly any concrete results to justify such a role.Ironically, over the course of the next five years, he would go ahead to supervise an unprecedented expansion of government. And despite his deference to the wish of Nigerians to reject the IMF loan, Mr. Babangida went ahead to implement some of the Funds most drastic requirements - a devaluation of the naira, and removal of subsidies, chief of which were the petroleum subsidies.
Mr. Babangida promised Nigerians that the belt-tightening was sorely needed: the painful injection that would usher in vibrant economic health; the mandatory dark lining before a cloud of prosperity. Those reforms, which he christened Structural Adjustment Programme (SAP), came into effect in 1986, with a far-from-pleasant impact on Nigerians. Purchasing powers dwindled, inflation rose, and the obliteration of the middle class began. In 1989, SAP riots rocked the country, as Nigerians had finally had enough of economic reforms which silver lining they waited in vain for.

Greatest failings

Mr. Babangidas greatest failings were however in two key areas: his human rights record, and his political transition programme. In December 1985, a group of soldiers, which included his close friend, Mamman Vatsa, were arrested on allegations of plotting to topple the 4-month old Babangida government. After Vatsa was convicted and sentenced to death, Mr. Babangida assured a delegation of distinguished writers (Wole Soyinka, Chinua Achebe and J.P. Clark), which had come pleading for mercy, that he was determined to do everything in my power to save (Vatsa).
Hours later, Vatsa and the other alleged plotters were executed.
As opposition to Mr. Babangidas rule grew, so did his intolerance for dissent, so that he routinely shut down or proscribed media houses; and harassed journalists, civil society and labour groups using the instruments of state (the State Security Service, Directorate of Military Intelligence and the Police).
In 1986, five students of the Ahmadu Bello University were murdered when mobile policemen invaded the campus to quell anti-IMF protests. He also promulgated a series of draconian decrees targeted at quelling all opposition, and on occasion did not hesitate to deport foreign critics (University lecturer Patrick Wilmot and journalist William Keeling).
In October 1986, frontline journalist Dele Giwa was murdered by a letter bomb in Lagos. Preliminary police investigations stated that senior officers of Mr. Babangidas intelligence services, who had hounded Giwa in his final days, had questions to answer regarding Giwas death. The mystery of the Giwa assassination remains unsolved till date.

An interminable journey

A maddeningly convoluted transition programme, whose terminal date soon became a mirage - first 1990, then 1992, and then 1993 - is one of the most significant things Babangida will be remembered for.
Early on in his administration, Mr. Babangida inaugurated a Political Bureau to kick off, as it were, the national debate on a viable future political ethos and structure for our dear country.
The political bureau was soon followed by a Constituent Assembly, which in 1989 fashioned a new constitution for the country.
Also, in 1989, he created, by presidential fiat, two political parties, the Social Democratic Party and the National Republican Convention. Then in 1991, he released a controversial list of prominent politicians whom he said were banned from participating in the transition programme.
In October 1992, he cancelled the results of the parties presidential primaries, causing new primaries to be held in March 1993. And then in June 1993 he annulled the results of the presidential elections, presumed to have been won by billionaire businessman MKO Abiola.

This was the final straw
.
By this time, Nigerians had finally had enough of his shenanigans, and violent protests forced him to step aside on August 27, 1993,My colleagues and I are determined to change the course of history, Mr. Babangida told Nigerians in his maiden speech as Head of State, on August 27, 1985.
By the time he reluctantly relinquished power exactly eight years later, he had achieved that goal, far more successfully than he, or anyone else, could ever have imagined.

Source: Next
====================

The Holy Book says "my people perish for lack of knowledge".
Will you allow 150m of us (Nigerians) perish or will you ALSO forward this article on the (mis) deeds of our self-proclaimed "evil genius" to all Nigerians that you know
Will you help confirm "maradona" IBB's claim (in Germany in the 90s during one of his radiculopathy treatment trips) that we, his fellow citizens are "docile" (MUGUs) by not sharing this mail
Find a way to get involved at all levels- local, state and federal- this election period for a better Nigeria!!!

Depilot:
Let me first of all state that I'm not a supporter of Babangida or any other presidential candidate. I see every single politician in Nigeria as enemy of the states. They are all the same. You must be a fo ol to see this differently.

It is obvious that yorubas don't want IBB based on his record and the igbos because they want a break/they want Jonathan, the hausas on the other hand can not be predicted. And believe it or not, it is still possible that Babangida can win this election without a single vote of the Yorubas and Igbos. As a matter of fact, I honestly believe that sooner or later the 2011 presidential election will be turned into a war btw North and South; and once this happens everybody will lose.

I was told that message is being sent to the north that Yorubas and Igbos are all against Babangida only because he's a northerner and a muslim.
We have to slow down and use our head. Cursing or attacking Babangida for the same thing Obasanjo, Ibori, Akala, Gbenga Daniel, Odilli, Jonathan's wife and other politicians did is simply not going to bring anything great to this country.
Instead of constant attack/curse on Babangida and his supporters, I advise to embrace democracy, educate one another and make sure that our votes count. Allow our votes to get the job done.
Constant bashing/attacking/cursing will only bring sympathy toward Babangida's camp.
Be smart, do not make this election something personal btw north and south, if this happens Babangida wins.

I quite agree with depilot on his post especially the bold part in red.
We should take note of that and engage ourselves in mobilising each other particularly our northern brethren on IBB's evil legacy that will do them no good as well if allowed again.
Let's get cracking.

debosky:
The same EFCC that has been used as an agent of persecution against 'enemies' of the government? Let them take it to court and establish the facts of the matter - there are too many cases of false accusations and witch hunts by the EFCC. Besides, has the EFCC told you how much of the looted money was given to RCCG?

Zack declared his own guilt - have you heard Akingbola declare himself guilty?  Try to use examples in the right manner and apply some logic.

If he resigned (I don't know the details) you cannot force him to continue - resignation is not an acceptance of guilt either, it is an act to allow him defend himself against accusations.


What is the 'act' here that makes them concerned with 'mammon'?

First of all, does your church have all the records of your giving? How far back do the records go? At what point did the alleged stolen loot get donated to the church? 1 year ago? 10 years ago? 15 years ago?

There is a clear lack of critical reasoning here - the thread asks a question about returning looted money. Till the quantity of looted money (if any) that went into RCCG is determined, there can be no basis for a refund, bearing in mind that the church might not even have records of what was given.

The only bodies capable of determining these figures are law enforcement and the courts. SIMPLE.

obviously you continue to confirm that adeboye is a plain scammer- a man whose presence convicts witches etc on his convention grounds etc cannot convict a smart crook like akingbOLE, Ibru, OBJ, Ibori etc

both of them will be wasting their time, InshaAllah, DV.
Let Goodluck do a second term on behalf of his joint ticket with late Yaradua.

About time too.
He should go and join his collaborators cooling off in the UK jail.

jossy r:
nearly50% of donations made in churches nowadays are stolen.so there is no point asking RCCG to return the money.how will they seperate it 4rm the general offering?THE MONEY BELONGS TO GOD STOLEN ( ) OR NOT.

and i guess your bible states that God exists in churches and is represented by scam masters masquerading as pastors to their gullible, non-bible reading followers- right

debosky:
How would this realisation come about? By the government or courts pronouncing the money as looted.

You can't place the cart before the horse - determination of loot must be established prior to recovery.

If you don't know what is stolen, how can you recover it?

EFCC seizure of AkingbOLE's property is not "government. . . pronounciing the money looted" or is it?
logically, Christ should have told Zaccheus, you know since you have not been pronounced fraudulent and no court has proven your loot, you don't have to restitute to the poor and others
why did adeboye not wait for this cherished pronouncement of yours before sacking AkingbOLE or accepting his resignation?
to those who are in doubt that adeboye and his likes are not serving God, the father of Christ they can meditate on [url=http://www.christnotes.org/bible.php?q=matthew+7%3A+15-23&ver=kjv]Matthew 7:15-23[/url]

15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. 16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? 17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. 19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. 20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? 23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

it becomes clearer every day by comparing their acts and words to the standard established by Christ that adeboye and his pack of ravening wolves in sheep clothing are only concerned with mammon and not God.

[quote author=oyinda. link=topic=481794.msg6444051#msg6444051 date=1279989828]Tudor,

ok. point is: it's God's decision to accept offering or not. not the pastor. 
as i said earlier, God will reward the looter for their wrongdoing but you can't say that the money is dirty etc. since all money is dirty
thanks for the cain and abel correction.[/quote]my sister, please wake up and smell the coffee- we are no longer in the old testament of the Israelite God who accepeted or rejected offerings that were usually burnt on his altar.
Nowadays, na pastor dey claim to represent god and i don't know of any rejecting an offering yet. If you do, please share the story.

[quote author=Lord_Reed link=topic=481794.msg6443560#msg6443560 date=1279982901]Alot of u here have relatives, friends n associates in government positions n so on who give u money n favours how many of u reject them? Please![/quote]What Would Jesus Do (WWJD) should be the standard of any Christian (follower of Christ's exemplary life and teachings).
By God's grace I do not have to seek or accept money or favours from my friends and relations in government positions that will encourage corruption on their part. You should try to get to that level as well. Ever heard of teh word, contentment?
BTW, you should remember to meditate on Proverbs 14:34 :

Righteousness exalteth a nation: but sin is a reproach to any people.

as well as

23 Thus saith the Lord, Let not the wise man glory in his wisdom, neither let the mighty man glory in his might, let not the rich man glory in his riches: 24 But let him that glorieth glory in this, that he understandeth and knoweth me, that I am the Lord which exercise lovingkindness, judgment, and righteousness, in the earth: for in these things I delight, saith the Lord.

toba:
@josite
thats the point. Adeboye isnt a God he must ( ) make mistake like everyone of us.
If the bible says all have sinned&fall short the glory of God. I think thats clear that we have missed the mark. Even so called M.O.G. God may not reveal himself to man completely as a result of falling short

can one take it that the yoke of my-pastor-holy-pass is being released from you? i hope that is the case here.
hopefully you will start checking each and every little detail about your pastor's words and actions against the standard set by Christ and the early apostles as recorded in the new testament and be ready to rebuke them privately and publicly if necessary.

The Babangida years

By Tolu Ogunlesi
April 17, 2010 10:36PM   

In his first New Year Days speech as military president, months after deposing the Buhari-Idiagbon government in a bloodless coup enthusiastically welcomed by Nigerians, Ibrahim Babangida declared: I wish to reaffirm that this administration does not intend to stay in power a day longer than is required to lay the necessary institutional framework to bring about a better and more stable Nigeria. Babangidas bonhomie (its trademark an endearing gap-toothed smile) - in stark contrast to the stern, unsmiling façade of Muhammadu Buhari, his predecessor - made it easy for him to be believed.
The distinction between the two regimes in fact ran much deeper than personality quirks. Babangida, in action, proved to be the complete antithesis of his predecessor. He threw open prison doors, setting free hundreds of 3rd republic politicians convicted and jailed by Buhari. He repealed the obnoxious Decree No. 4 of 1984 with which the Buhari regime had shackled the media. He promised to run an open administration that is responsive to the yearnings and aspirations of all the people - a departure from the high-handedness of the Buhari/Idiagbon era.
One of his first actions as military president was to allow Nigerians to decide, through public debates, whether to accept the $2.5 billion International Monetary Fund (IMF) loan the Buhari government had been negotiating for.
After the terror of the Buhari years, Nigerians appeared to have found a statesman in military uniform.

Tough times that lasted

By 1985, Nigerias foreign debt had ballooned to $18 billion, up from $3.4 billion in 1980 (it would rise beyond $30 billion by the end of the 80s), and external reserves had dwindled to less than $2 billion. Oil prices had been in freefall for 3 years running, and in January 1986 they finally fell to less than $20 per barrel, a record low since the start of the decade.
To his credit Babangida made all the right noises about revamping the economy. In his Independence Day 1985 speech, barely two months old in office, he declared a state of economic emergency for the next 15 months. That speech went on to lay down a comprehensive plan for economic reconstruction.
This plan included a moratorium on new foreign debt, promotion of agriculture and industrial development, restriction of importation to essential commodities, financial sector reform and privatisation.

Populist leanings

IBB was a master of the populist move - ambitious government programs targeted at tackling poverty, and empowering rural dwellers. His government churned out program after program, in a bid to actualize his promises to run an inclusive, people-facing government. In 1986, Babangida launched the Mass Mobilization for Self Reliance, Social Justice, and Economic Recovery (MAMSER).
In 1987, the Directorate of Food and Rural Infrastructure (DFFRI) was launched to promote agriculture and transform Nigerias rural landscape by providing modern infrastructure. Other Babangida creations include the National Directorate of Employment (NDE), National Economic Reconstruction Fund (NERFUND), Peoples Bank of Nigeria (PBN), National Board for Community Banks (NBCB), Nigerian Deposit Insurance Corporation (NDIC), Nigeria Export-Import Bank (NEXIM), National Planning Commission (NPC), and the Urban Development Bank.
No other Nigerian government presided over such substantial expansion of government bureaucracy as the Babangida administration. In time, the fiscal prudence that Babangida espoused vanished: billions of naira were sunk into an endless transition programme, and in the early 90s, 12 billion dollars worth of windfall crude oil revenue (courtesy of the rise in the oil prices due to the Gulf War) could not be accounted for.
Mr. Babangida also came to perfect the art of dispensing patronage through political appointments (mostly targeted at leading members of the opposition) and a far-from-transparent allocation of lucrative oil blocks.

A man whose words mean nothing

Mr. Babangidas contradictions eventually overwhelmed his reputation so that when, in May 1993, the activist and lawyer Gani Fawehinmi described him as a man whose words mean nothing to him, evidence of this littered his eight years in power.
Only months after vowing to run a government by consultation with the people, Mr. Babangida in 1986 surreptitiously - and unilaterally - took Nigeria, an avowed secular state, into full membership of the Organisation of Islamic Conference (OIC), a body which describes itself as the collective voice of the Muslim world.
Mr. Babangida lamented the large role played by the public sector in economic activity with hardly any concrete results to justify such a role.Ironically, over the course of the next five years, he would go ahead to supervise an unprecedented expansion of government. And despite his deference to the wish of Nigerians to reject the IMF loan, Mr. Babangida went ahead to implement some of the Funds most drastic requirements - a devaluation of the naira, and removal of subsidies, chief of which were the petroleum subsidies.
Mr. Babangida promised Nigerians that the belt-tightening was sorely needed: the painful injection that would usher in vibrant economic health; the mandatory dark lining before a cloud of prosperity. Those reforms, which he christened Structural Adjustment Programme (SAP), came into effect in 1986, with a far-from-pleasant impact on Nigerians. Purchasing powers dwindled, inflation rose, and the obliteration of the middle class began. In 1989, SAP riots rocked the country, as Nigerians had finally had enough of economic reforms which silver lining they waited in vain for.

Greatest failings

Mr. Babangidas greatest failings were however in two key areas: his human rights record, and his political transition programme. In December 1985, a group of soldiers, which included his close friend, Mamman Vatsa, were arrested on allegations of plotting to topple the 4-month old Babangida government. After Vatsa was convicted and sentenced to death, Mr. Babangida assured a delegation of distinguished writers (Wole Soyinka, Chinua Achebe and J.P. Clark), which had come pleading for mercy, that he was determined to do everything in my power to save (Vatsa).
Hours later, Vatsa and the other alleged plotters were executed.
As opposition to Mr. Babangidas rule grew, so did his intolerance for dissent, so that he routinely shut down or proscribed media houses; and harassed journalists, civil society and labour groups using the instruments of state (the State Security Service, Directorate of Military Intelligence and the Police).
In 1986, five students of the Ahmadu Bello University were murdered when mobile policemen invaded the campus to quell anti-IMF protests. He also promulgated a series of draconian decrees targeted at quelling all opposition, and on occasion did not hesitate to deport foreign critics (University lecturer Patrick Wilmot and journalist William Keeling).
In October 1986, frontline journalist Dele Giwa was murdered by a letter bomb in Lagos. Preliminary police investigations stated that senior officers of Mr. Babangidas intelligence services, who had hounded Giwa in his final days, had questions to answer regarding Giwas death. The mystery of the Giwa assassination remains unsolved till date.

An interminable journey

A maddeningly convoluted transition programme, whose terminal date soon became a mirage - first 1990, then 1992, and then 1993 - is one of the most significant things Babangida will be remembered for.
Early on in his administration, Mr. Babangida inaugurated a Political Bureau to kick off, as it were, the national debate on a viable future political ethos and structure for our dear country.
The political bureau was soon followed by a Constituent Assembly, which in 1989 fashioned a new constitution for the country.
Also, in 1989, he created, by presidential fiat, two political parties, the Social Democratic Party and the National Republican Convention. Then in 1991, he released a controversial list of prominent politicians whom he said were banned from participating in the transition programme.
In October 1992, he cancelled the results of the parties presidential primaries, causing new primaries to be held in March 1993. And then in June 1993 he annulled the results of the presidential elections, presumed to have been won by billionaire businessman MKO Abiola.

This was the final straw
.
By this time, Nigerians had finally had enough of his shenanigans, and violent protests forced him to step aside on August 27, 1993,My colleagues and I are determined to change the course of history, Mr. Babangida told Nigerians in his maiden speech as Head of State, on August 27, 1985.
By the time he reluctantly relinquished power exactly eight years later, he had achieved that goal, far more successfully than he, or anyone else, could ever have imagined.

Source: Next
====================

The Holy Book says "my people perish for lack of knowledge".
Will you allow 150m of us (Nigerians) perish or will you ALSO forward this article on the (mis) deeds of our self-proclaimed "evil genius" to all Nigerians that you know
Will you help confirm "maradona" IBB's claim (in Germany in the 90s during one of his radiculopathy treatment trips) that we, his fellow citizens are "docile" (MUGUs) by not sharing this mail
Find a way to get involved at all levels- local, state and federal- this election period for a better Nigeria!!!

dayokanu:
This case is simple.

We accept that Adeboye didnt know Akingbola, OBj, Ibru, Oyinlola, Ibri and co were stealing money since he is often in celestial realms and not in touch with earthly affairs

But now that Akingbola, OBJ, Ibori, Ibru and co are found to have stolen/looted public funds, Shouldnt RCCG as an organisation return the stolen money?

When money matter reach everybody go turn to attorney and student of Law

hello- hi,

to the defenders of daddy GO (& his co-travellers in the corruption/scam vehicle abi na jet), nothing has been "proven" "legally" against them YET. Neither has daddy god of daddy GO deemed it fit to tell/whisper/reveal to him the kleptomaniac tendencies of his business club members.
somebody shout hallelujah!!!

steveolu:
Hi guys, "its a dangerous thing to fall into the hands of the almighty God".
Pls note that God has not put the cane of any of His anointed in the hands
of any human being.
Why not allow God to judge them, He's the best judge and knows the
intent of every man's heart.
Some comments in this thread are very very dangerous.

My sincere advice is, "watch what u post"

I recommend you go through the following Bible based article. I wish you a thoughtful reading.
--------------------------
Touch not my anointed!

I challenge all who say this phrase to read this whole article through prayerfully and with an open mind and heart.

Loyalty is a good thing if it is for the right purpose and for truth. One certainly does not want to be loyal and find they have pledged their allegiance to something that is false.

“He who justifies the wicked, and he who condemns the just, both of them alike are an abomination to the LORD” (Proverbs 17:150

But for one to find out what is true or false they must look into matter and hear both sides before they make a final judgment. “The heart of the prudent acquires knowledge, and the ear of the wise seeks knowledge” (Proverbs 18:15).

In a time of catchy phrases and clichés', Christians can be no different. What does the Bible mean when it says not to touch God’s anointed? It’s not my opinion or yours that matters; but what God’s Word have to say about this that really counts? I certainly wish the people that repeat this phrase would read it in its context, 'the Lord's anointed', is a reference to the kings of the nation of Israel (1Sam. 12:3,5; 24:6,10; 26:9,11, 16,23; 2 Sam. 1:14,16; 19:21; Psalm 20:6; Lam. 4:20). The mention of prophets, is a reference to the patriarchs (Psalm 105:8-15; 1Chron. 16:15-22). It is used exclusively in the Old Testament.
Ps 105:11-15 Saying, “To you I will give the land of Canaan as the allotment of your inheritance,” When they were few in number, indeed very few, and strangers in it. When they went from one nation to another, from one kingdom to another people, “He permitted no one to do them wrong; yes, He rebuked kings for their sakes, Saying, “Do not touch My anointed ones, and do My prophets no harm.”  Notice in this Scripture that God protected His anointed (who was Israel) and His prophets from the enemies of Israel to bring physical harm.

The first thing one should notice is that the word touch actually means physical harm. What it does not mean is saying something about another person publicly that is true. How do we know this? Because that's exactly what David did about Saul. It was David who said he would not harm God’s anointed, who was King Saul at the time but He spoke out publicly about him.

Not only David, but Samuel “touched God's anointed,” as he spoke out against the kings disobedience. God told Saul to “Smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not, ” (1 Sam. 15:3). But instead, he spoke a half truth and “spared the best of the sheep and of the oxen, to sacrifice unto the Lord, ” (v.15). Samuel said it was rebellion like witchcraft and idolatry (v.24). Because he did not obey the Word of the Lord he would be removed being king. Saul admitted he feared the people and obeyed their voice. What a crucial thing to learn of Saul who was God's anointed.

In1 Sam.16:13-16 we find David who was shepherd boy was anointed before God took away Saul’s position. David refused to touch Saul physically but it didn’t stop him from telling everyone the truth about him publicly.

David not raising his hand to touch (harm physically) God’s anointed is used in 1 Sam.26:9,11,23. Look at 1 Sam.26:11: tells us that David would not stretch his hand out to touch him (harm him); instead he sneaked up and took Saul’s spear and water jug. In verse 15 David rebukes Abner for not guarding Saul and says he deserved to die. Saul hears the commotion and comes out, and David rebukes Saul before all his troops, asking why he is pursuing David’s life since he is innocent -- that the king has come out to seek a flea. Saul then repented for his rash behavior and called himself a fool. David returned Saul’s possessions and said, “For the Lord delivered you into my hand but I would not stretch out my hand against the Lord’s anointed.” Notice what this means, not to bring physical harm.

1 Samuel 24:10 “Look, this day your eyes have seen that the LORD delivered you today into my hand in the cave, and someone urged me to kill you. But my eye spared you, and I said, ‘I will not stretch out my hand against my lord, for he is the Lord's anointed.” “And David said to Abishai, “Do not destroy him; for who can stretch out his hand against the Lord's anointed, and be guiltless?”(1 Sam. 26:9)

Saul was anointed as King over Israel he had a position of rulership that was soon to be over. Knowing he was next in line David refused to physically touch the king as God’s anointed and remove him from his position prematurely. It was God, not David who would remove Saul from his position (26:8-10).

We should notice an important part in this story, it was Saul who was pursuing David, hunting him down and trying to kill him. The Bible story has Saul whose position was threatened, pursuing to kill David who was innocent. Isn’t this what we see today? Those who are in a greater position of leadership going after people who are anointed that are challenging them in what they are saying and doing as wrong. From their position they have trained people to listen to them and willing to silence their challengers. They do this by going after them with Bible threats such as “don’t touch God’s anointed” or you are committing the “blasphemy the Holy Spirit” when you speak against another “man of God.” Ignoring the fact that blasphemy meant one is saying that Jesus’ miracles were done by an unclean spirit, not about questioning another mans alleged miracles. Those of the flesh are pursuing those who are of the Spirit, just as Saul did to David. Those who are following the Spirit of the Lord go to His Word to keep themselves in the truth no matter what the opposition may say.

It’s interesting that in Rev. 6:9 John writes “When He opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain for the word of God and for the testimony which they held.” They were killed because they held to the Word against the opposition and so they became martyrs. Those who apostatize from the Word always hate those who keep it.

We find the story of Saul ends with David kept from the Battle that Saul and Jonathan lost their lives in, instead he fought the Amalakites. An Amalakite messenger came back with torn clothes and dust on his head showing he was in mourning, David inquired of him and he told David he killed Saul. “So David said to him, “How was it you were not afraid to put forth your hand to destroy the LORD's anointed?” Then David called one of the young men and said, “Go near, and execute him!” And he struck him so that he died. So David said to him, “Your blood is on your own head, for your own mouth has testified against you, saying, 'I have killed the LORD's anointed.’”(2 Sam 1:13-16) Again it is clear, to touch the anointed means to bring physical harm, most often death. But if you spiritualize it, it can mean anything you want. 2 Sam 1:17-19 David took up this lament concerning Saul and his son Jonathan, and ordered that the men of Judah be taught this lament of the bow (it is written in the Book of Jashar): “Your glory, O Israel, lies slain on your heights. How the mighty have fallen!” Each time is about those who were killed. David did not relish the fact that God's anointed was apostate and met his end, he wept.

Since most of these so called anointed teachers that come under their follower’s protection teach the Word out of context, its not surprising that they would quote a verse of Scripture removed  from its correct meaning for their own self- protection. Those who shout don’t touch God’s anointed think they are doing God’s work, but they rarely ever look at the facts presented. They listen to their teachers and do not want to hear the other side of the story. They cut themselves off from hearing the truth. And some, even when they are shown false teachings and prophecies do not care, but look to some personality who captured their loyalty. They become enemies of all reason, their own worst enemy. They do not realize they have been trained well, and like Pavlov’s dogs, react the same way each time. It's time to break free!

What are we supposed to do?

Its easy not to confront falsehood today, but it has become easy to confront those who point it out. How many people tell others not to touch the so-called anointed ever check out the claims from someone who has real concerns, and is trying to get them to read about it? I can tell you from experience, very few. Why is this? Because for the most part they can’t read the material, or should I be more specific and say, they are not allowed to. Again I ask why?

It was an apostle named Paul who called the Berean’s more noble than the others. For what reason? They looked to the Scripture to see if what Paul was teaching was accurate. Today those who protect their favorite teachers say don’t touch God’s anointed for doing this. Paul never said, “Touch not God’s anointed” or “do my prophets no harm”; you will never find an apostle teach this, nor is this found ONCE in the whole New Testament. I ask again why not? Paul was questioned, why didn’t he say this? The apostle Paul called those who checked out what he said as noble, meaning they were a better stock than the others. How noble are you? Do you go wherever the tide goes? Are you willing to take a stand for the truth of the Word of God despite what people say, or will you follow the rest of the sheep off the cliff.

To tell people not to search the Scriptures and expose false teaching as David exposed King Saul is to be touching God’s anointed. You are stopping people who have God’s anointed word from using it correctly! Even David later on in his ministry as King accepted rebuke and correction from Nathan the prophet. He did not say, “don’t touch God’s anointed” to protect himself, and neither should those who follow their leaders do the same.

Who are the anointed?

John 17:17 “Sanctify them by Your truth. Your word is truth.” Unless someone is speaking the word correctly they are not teaching the truth and it doesn’t matter if they call themselves anointed, or how big or successful a ministry they have, they are WRONG.

What do the anointed man and women of God act like? Do they stop you from going to check their teachings or anyone else’s by the Word? Of course not, Titus 1:9 “holding fast the faithful word as he has been taught, that he may be able, by sound doctrine, both to exhort and convict those who contradict.”

No apostle ever said they were anointed, they did not speak in this manner; “don’t touch me I’m God’s anointed.” If someone is truly anointed, they would want to encourage the people to discern what is true and what is not. They would encourage people to pursue truth no matter where it would lead. They would love the sheep enough to protect them from falsehood and want to see them grow. They would allow the sheep to learn and think for themselves. The anointing, who is the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Truth and someone who has the Spirit of Truth will never run from seeing error but will confront it when necessary. He will give someone the truth from the Word, subsequently leading us away from error.

We also need to ask the question who is anointed? The Bible tells us the whole body of Christ is, not just some certain people in the body. 2 Cor. 1:20-22 “Now He who establishes us with you in Christ and has anointed us is God, who also has sealed us and given us the Spirit in our hearts as a guarantee”

Let me ask those who use the phrase “touch not God’s anointed”, do you believe that only a certain teacher is anointed or can you admit that the whole body is anointed? If so, stop using this Scripture from the Old Testament as if there are only certain people anointed, like prophets or kings. Are there only a certain few leaders who are the anointed of God? Use it correctly.

The New Testament view identifies the anointed as all those who have received Jesus into their hearts and baptized into the body (1 Corinthians 12:13). It is not a certain church or group of people who are supposed leaders over the Church like the kings or prophets in the Old Testament; the whole body of Christ is anointed. When someone insists for people not to say anything when they see something wrong, it is THEY that are coming against the anointed. For everyone shares the same anointing. Before one gives the standard cliché to protect a favorite teacher with “don’t touch my anointed” to someone who is searching what the Scripture actually says, you should think this through. It just may be that it is you who are touching the anointed Jesus, the author of truth, His Word.

The New Testament teaching is that all Christians have the same anointing, the same Holy Spirit. I Jn. 2:27 “But the anointing which you have received from Him abides in you, and you do not need that anyone teach you; but as the same anointing teaches you concerning all things, and is true, and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you will abide in Him.” How does he teach? By the Word of God, by this we know what is true and false. Prior to this John wrote “But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and you know all things. I have not written to you because you do not know the truth, but because you know it, and that no lie is of the truth” (I Jn. 2:20-21). So if someone speaks something false about Christ (which is what John is concentrating on) or His word they are not speaking by the Spirit and not presenting truth. This is made simple enough for everyone to understand. John says they already know the truth; this was by being born again, by His teaching and the New Testament being circulated throughout the whole church.

We need to ask are they teaching the Bible from the Bible or are they teaching the Bible by another outside interpretation leading you into an experience, or possibly a spirit they think is the Holy Spirit? Doctrine keeps us in communion with Jesus. If they tell you to not bother with doctrine and all you need is love or an experience, run from this because it is a lie. The Bible states “Whosoever transgresses and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, HATH NOT GOD. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son” (2 John 1:9) “That you may charge some that they teach no other doctrine” (1 Timothy 1:3). Where is the doctrine found? In the Scriptures of course.

Ps. 105:14-15 “He permitted no one to do them wrong; yes, He rebuked kings for their sakes, Saying, “Do not touch My anointed ones, and do My prophets no harm.” He permitted no one to do them wrong. Who is he? God. The whole people of Israel were appointed to be a kingdom of priests and kings unto God; they were set apart to his service, it was God who protected them from physical harm. We know this is the context because v.13 states they went from nation to another, from kingdom to another people.” Prophets and the kings of Israel did not care too much about what others said about them, but they did care about what the enemies said of God. In the same sense, those who are saying this phrase today: are you protecting God’s word or a person?

It is God who protects His anointed, “Now I know that the LORD saves His anointed; He will answer him from His holy heaven with the saving strength of His right hand. Some trust in chariots, and some in horses; but we will remember the name of the LORD our God” (Psalm 20:6-7). “The LORD is their strength, and He is the saving refuge of His anointed” (Psalm 28:. If you are anointed you don’t have to make threats, “You will keep him in perfect peace, whose mind is stayed on You, because he trusts in You” (Isa. 26:3). Could these anointed men who threaten others be reacting in the flesh and not in His Spirit? Apparently so!

First: we are not to judge a man and his eternal destiny which is left up to God, but if we see their teachings as destructive, the Bible tells us to judge, it is a command. So if you are telling people not to judge by repeating the Scripture “touch not my anointed” you are telling them to be disobedient to God's command. That’s the clear and simple answer to this matter. So it has absolutely nothing to do with this cliché touch not my anointed. To hold to this shows ones immaturity in the Word.

Looking at the purpose of touch not God’s anointed, excludes the concept about judging. Most people who say don’t judge will go ahead and take apart everything someone presents as they explain that we are told to judge according to the Bible. For them to say don’t judge is a judgment in itself. But they cannot see the inconsistency in what they are actually doing.

It is the word of God that we use to Judge someone’s teaching and that is not My personal judgment, but God’s, so by obeying this we are doing EXACTLY what Jesus said, to JUDGE righteously. John 7:24 Jesus said: “Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment”, so we see Jesus did tell us to judge. Also if one examines Mt.7:1-5 in context they find that Jesus says if you have removed the same stumbling block from your eye and can clearly then go ahead and help your brother. 2nd it appears many have listened to men more than God, for the Bible scriptures that they are quoting need to read it in context. It is the self appointed leaders have trained people to think this way and by calling themselves anointed, they have made their followers go after people who say anything about them for their protection. The problem is evident; they can only quote a few certain verses that tell people not say anything about anyone.

Peter, Paul and John did a lot of judging the Biblical way. Every second epistle written is a judgment on false teaching explaining the truth by refuting the error. In 2 Timothy 2:17 he warns of the heresies of two men by name. Later in the same epistle (4:10), Paul judges by warning them about a man named Demas. Paul did a lot of judging and evaluating when it came to false teachers. Remember this is inspired by the Holy Spirit; therefore we have a mandate to judge false doctrine. In the epistle to the Hebrews 5:14 tells us that mature believers, those who are of “full age,” are those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern (judge) both good and evil.” It takes time to learn and grow in discernment; it is those who are babes, immature hold the position that we can’t judge. Think about it.

We are not to sit idly by when we see personal spiritual revelations change God’s Word.  If  men and women cannot hold to the core doctrines and instead make up new revelations or interpret the Scripture from their dreams, visions, visitations from angels or saints we are to point out this is unbiblical teaching.  This is what the Bible says, “holding fast the faithful word as he has been taught, that he may be able, by sound doctrine, both to exhort and convict those who contradict” (Titus 1:9). It's not opinion, its not chasing down a certain person because of any dislike, its a Bible doctrine that we are to practice. Those who see the error are to remove themselves from those who teach it. “Now I urge you, brethren, note those who cause divisions and offenses, contrary to the doctrine which you learned, and avoid them” (Rom 16:17). If you say you love the Lord lets see it by obeying Him on this matter.

God has given us objective truth to live by. He has not made the truth so vague and open ended that it becomes a matter of anyone’s interpretation, the bible is not an open-ended book. He has given us clear-cut instructions that are valid and applicable today. God gave us an objective means to know and walk with Him, by living out His written Word. The sheep hear the voice of the Shepherd found in the Word, not in new words that men claim God gave them. The sheep will be drawn to the Word if they have any questions. When someone says they are “anointed” or “led by the Spirit” but consistently teach contrary to the Word in its accurate context, you can be assured that they’re not being led by His Spirit delivering truth. This is especially important on the core doctrines. This of course does mean we must be able to teach perfectly every time. What I’m trying to convey is that it takes time to study, labor and gain spiritual understanding of the Word correctly, that is our goal. When someone distorts and butchers the word, changing or discarding its meaning, then we can safely assume they have not spent time in the word, they do not care, or should not be teaching . When it gets bad enough, harmful enough, its time to speak up to protect the babes, the immature and the naïve from eating poison food. The only alternative is to address the public of already circulated false teaching that is undermining foundational tenets of our faith. We are supposed to be our brother’s keeper, some are to watch over the Church. To ignore this is to have their blood on our hands (Acts 20:26), to warn them shows the same love and concern that Christ has. It's a matter of love and truth that people do the research to see if what is said is so.

Source: Reason

uche13:
@baslone
you didnt answer my question. If u didnt know your boss was involved in some shady deals and he gives u a bonus from the loot, will u be made to return it. The question is simple

so our all powerful god's representative on earth daddy GO didn't know
but he knows to identify witches and wizards and those who will be home owners etc at his next year's convention
i didn't realise his omniscience capacities were limited in a selective manner
i guess this is more evidence that adeboye has the annointing of something else NOT the God of Christ

[quote author=omo~fat link=topic=481794.msg6429989#msg6429989 date=1279791662]Christ went to eat in this man's house, no?
Lets imagine that Zacc didn't feel convicted and make the offer to repay, would Christ have had to vomit the food he ate?[/quote]do you know the Christ whom you claim to serve?
do you read your bible, especially the new testament to know the nature and essence of Christ?
it is obvious your hypothesis should not apply to Christ who is the only son of God but then just shows what goes on in today's christendom as opposed to the standard set by Christ and maintained by the early church. See [url=http://www.christnotes.org/bible.php?q=1+Corinthians+10%3A23&ver=kjv]1Cor.10:23[/url]

All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not.

Akobaje:
I agree with you. I think EFCC should investigate how much went to the church and retrieve it. You cant really blame an "innocent" receiver of stolen goods without knowledge of the crime can you?

The yorubas have a saying:

eni gbe epo l'aja ko jale bi eni to gba lowo e= he who stole oil from the shelve is not as guilty as the one who received it from him.

are you now claiming ignorance=innocence for our supposedly all-knowing GO who has tea etc with his daddy god.

For most Niaja christians [url=http://www.christnotes.org/bible.php?q=Proverbs+14%3A34&ver=kjv]Proverbs 14v34[/url]:

Righteousness exalteth a nation: but sin is a reproach to any people.

does not exist in their personal bible.

steaming:
how much is the church supposed to give back if they were to remit the money? who do they remit the money to? EFCC? what has the government done with all the supposed recovered loots?

abegi, make i hear word!

plenty questions- one simple answer:

follow the example of Christ with Zaccheus as stated in my previous post except the church is not of Christ.

debosky:
To declare them 'thieves' when the facts of the matter are still in dispute would be presumptive. Is the Church now a legal body to declare people thieves?

There is no die hard attempt - seeking to place the burden of proof on the church makes no sense here, since it is neither vested with the power or authority to determine if the allegations are true or not.

Luke 19: 1-10

1 And Jesus entered and passed through Jericho. 2 And, behold, there was a man named Zacchaeus, which was the chief among the publicans, and he was rich. 3 And he sought to see Jesus who he was; and could not for the press, because he was little of stature. 4 And he ran before, and climbed up into a sycomore tree to see him: for he was to pass that way. 5 And when Jesus came to the place, he looked up, and saw him, and said unto him, Zacchaeus, make haste, and come down; for to day I must abide at thy house. 6 And he made haste, and came down, and received him joyfully. 7 And when they saw it, they all murmured, saying, That he was gone to be guest with a man that is a sinner. 8 And Zacchaeus stood, and said unto the Lord; Behold, Lord, the half of my goods I give to the poor; and if I have taken any thing from any man by false accusation, I restore him fourfold. 9 And Jesus said unto him, This day is salvation come to this house, forsomuch as he also is a son of Abraham. 10 For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost.

I guess going by your logic, Zaccheus should have waited for "proof" and "legal body" to convict him rather than the presence of Christ alone being sufficient. Note that the declaration of salvation was after the restitution promise by Zaccheus.
But obviously Adeboye and others like him are not worshipping the God of Christ but something else.

debosky:
It isn't - there will be corrupt individuals in any organisation; the key is identifying them and removing them.

As long as human beings are involved, you will discover cases like these from time to time. Even those who start out with good intentions can get corrupted along the way. It is highly unrealistic to expect one person like Adeboye to know everything going on in an organisation of that size.

I hope the RCCG has/is developing internal mechanisms to continuously evaluate their ministers and identify those involved in corrupt practices.

is adeboye no longer a representative of God- the omniscience (all-knowing) etc
does adeboye not always call people out in his churches, meetings, conventions etc because he knows they are sick, crippled, poor, tenants, witches wizards etc
does adeboye not know how much a salaried worker earns whether he is director of a bank, clerk in a company/ministry or RCCG employee; or he does not live in Nigeria anymore, neither does he have relations living in Nigeria holding such jobs like he did many years ago himself as a university teacher

The yorubas have a saying:

eni gbe epo l'aja ko jale bi eni to gba lowo e= he who stole oil from the shelve is not as guilty as the one who received it from him.

do the maths and figure out where the gravity of the supposedly all-knowing pastors' guilt lies.

when one realises that Proverbs 14 verse 34 says:

Righteousness exalteth a nation: but sin is a reproach to any people.

it is obvious why our country is still in the doldrums despite multiple churches all over the place.

The yorubas have a saying:

eni gbe epo l'aja ko jale bi eni to gba lowo e= he who stole oil from the shelve is not as guilty as the one who received it from him.

do the maths and figure out where the gravity of the supposedly all-knowing pastors' guilt lies

ttalks:
When it becomes plural a.k.a "churches",you should know it is in reference to places/buildings/spots where people go to/gather to "worship", and not the church.
So,there is a difference which u failed to pick up or discern before u concluded.
This is in line with the verse he quoted refering to "the place where men ought to worship".

thanks for the above elucidation and reiteration of what Christ said plainly and simply to the samarritan woman in John 4.

ttalks:
Unfortunately, image123, I think you're not seeing this thing clearly and are being hasty in your judgement.
If you look closely,anonimi made use of the word "churches" when he said God isn't found therein.

i hope that the bold part is really true and not that he is motivated by the filthy lucre gains from misleading christians for which there is certainly consequences- sooner or later. Truly i hope.

Image123:
But truth remains that anonimi feels God is not to be found in church,

i am sure you are not opposing Christ's words in [url=http://www.christnotes.org/bible.php?q=john+4%3A7-26&ver=kjv]John 4: 7-26[/url] particularly verses:

20 Our fathers worshipped in this mountain; and ye say, that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship. 21 Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father. 22 Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews. 23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him. 24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

Image123:
his ilk usually imply that it's better to give to beggars than to give in church, unlike what you've stated above.
But i'm still not fully agreed with you that Jesus' my brethren refers to just anybody. BTW, how many hallmageriis have you personally taken in so far?

Just wondering if [url=http://www.christnotes.org/bible.php?q=Acts+4%3A32-37&ver=kjv]Acts4:32-37[/url] is contained in your Bible or you have chosen not to read or remember it. For your benefit, see in particular verses:

34 Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, 35 And laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.

do you think beggars and almajiris were those to whom "distribution was made"
compare and contrast with what happens with modern day "representatives of Christ" who find all means to get people into their churches to worship their god.

cryptic:
There was really no much sense in what you said.Are you saying there are no genuine men of God who truly love God and are holy?

now where did you get the bold part from in my post that you quoted?

cryptic:
This only shows how much of a jeRk u are.

and i guess you claim to be a follower of Christ- insulting someone who apparently only has a different opinion from yours

cryptic:
Did you read it in the papers or maybe over the internet, or did you personally experience all of the aforementioned ? Some may be true, but I do not totally conform to all of your claims.

BTW, will you mind sharing with us some that may be true of dayokanu's list that you refered to above? Thanks in advance.

Here is a related response on another thread:
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-481018.160.html#msg6419790
-------------------------------------
Adeboye and his fellow scamming pastors, who claim to be God's representative because they know-all obviously find it difficult to follow Christ's example when it comes to dealing with fraudsters and sharp-suited banker-scammers.
Read Jesus' encounter with Zaccheus in Luke 19: 1-10

1 And Jesus entered and passed through Jericho. 2 And, behold, there was a man named Zacchaeus, which was the chief among the publicans, and he was rich. 3 And he sought to see Jesus who he was; and could not for the press, because he was little of stature. 4 And he ran before, and climbed up into a sycomore tree to see him: for he was to pass that way. 5 And when Jesus came to the place, he looked up, and saw him, and said unto him, Zacchaeus, make haste, and come down; for to day I must abide at thy house. 6 And he made haste, and came down, and received him joyfully. 7 And when they saw it, they all murmured, saying, That he was gone to be guest with a man that is a sinner. 8 And Zacchaeus stood, and said unto the Lord; Behold, Lord, the half of my goods I give to the poor; and if I have taken any thing from any man by false accusation, I restore him fourfold. 9 And Jesus said unto him, This day is salvation come to this house, forsomuch as he also is a son of Abraham. 10 For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost.

Do you know of any such scenario in any church today
Did the Bible not say my people perish for lack of knowledge
This thread only confirms the above statement as most are hung on their scamming pastors words and defend the indefensible.

Adeboye and his fellow scamming pastors, who claim to be God's representative because they know-all obviously find it difficult to follow Christ's example when it comes to dealing with fraudsters and sharp-suited banker-scammers.
Read Jesus' encounter with Zaccheus in [url=http://www.christnotes.org/bible.php?q=Luke+19%3A+1-10&ver=kjvl]Luke 19: 1-10[/url]

1 And Jesus entered and passed through Jericho. 2 And, behold, there was a man named Zacchaeus, which was the chief among the publicans, and he was rich. 3 And he sought to see Jesus who he was; and could not for the press, because he was little of stature. 4 And he ran before, and climbed up into a sycomore tree to see him: for he was to pass that way. 5 And when Jesus came to the place, he looked up, and saw him, and said unto him, Zacchaeus, make haste, and come down; for to day I must abide at thy house. 6 And he made haste, and came down, and received him joyfully. 7 And when they saw it, they all murmured, saying, That he was gone to be guest with a man that is a sinner. 8 And Zacchaeus stood, and said unto the Lord; Behold, Lord, the half of my goods I give to the poor; and if I have taken any thing from any man by false accusation, I restore him fourfold. 9 And Jesus said unto him, This day is salvation come to this house, forsomuch as he also is a son of Abraham. 10 For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost.

Do you know of any such scenario in any church today
Did the Bible not say my people perish for lack of knowledge
This thread only confirms the above statement as most are hung on their scamming pastors words and defend the indefensible.

honeric01:
He's majorly known as a banker and not a pastor so why try to use his minor calling to describe him just because it's now a negative news?


Anyone can be a pastor at redeem.

maybe we should just stick with the bold part, which BTW applies in most naija churches, mosques and society at large i.e. honour is given to the rich no matter how they got the money.

Erastus Akingbola's personal web page clearly states in the last paragraph:

He is God-fearing indeed a practicing Christian, theologist and Pastor of the Redeemed Christian Church of Nigeria.

I wonder which part of Christ's gospel taught him to steal people's lifetime savings and investments to make big-man-by-force

Image123:
Regurgitation is supposed to be peculiar to ruminants, why does this keep coming up? What bites you so with 10% when you lay claims to giving 100%, hypocrites.

I am sure you know that God is not found in churches neither is any pastor equal to God. So when one says he is giving to God as a Christian he is following Christ's words here in [url=http://www.christnotes.org/bible.php?q=Matthew+25%3A+34-40&ver=kjv]Matthew 25[/url]:

34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:
35 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:
36 unclothed, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.
37 Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?
38 When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or unclothed, and clothed thee?
39 Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?
40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.

Cohomology:
All the fools embezzling Nigeria's funds in the billions only exist because WE protect them.

The day that protection, from the very people they're robbing blind ceases, is the day our collective failures will begin to evaporate. Am I holding my breadth for such a day? Nope!

3 big gbosas for your post!!!
I hope more of us will realise this and spread the reasoning to others.
we need to ask questions of those who claim to represent us at local, state and federal levels.