Biina's Posts
Nairaland Forum › Biina's Profile › Biina's Posts
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 (of 125 pages)
Some posters just don't get it. The list is of top 2000 world biggest companies, and says nothing about their profitability. The increased capitalization influenced this, but says nothing of their performance. Yet Soludo, as CBN governor, only made the regulation, he did not source the funds, neither did he manage the banks, ergo the whole OP is pointless |
realpastor:Personally I do not approve of the church owning a university (or being involved in any form of business for that matter) and would rather have a full time pastor. Still I disagree with justifying one wrong in te name of another. You say you do not force people to give tithe, then I ask do you force them to accept Christ? I doubt you do, and yet all Christians believe that those who do not accept Christ are set for damnation. The freedom of choice is not taken away even on the most important issue of salvation, rather it is what God desires of us that we (try to) do in faith. To use the word force is an exaggeration, though some pastors are known to try to put pressure on people to contribute (and not just their tithes). You can accuse some pastors of abusing the scriptures to benefit their selfish goals, but that does not change the truth behind the scripture. It was same for the Pharisees, their actions did not change the truth of the law. Even the devil tried to manipulate the scripture, but this does not change the scripture. |
@KunleOshob I believe I understand the issue of the law well enough, otherwise on what is my faith built? I never said you should practice the law to the letter as it is defined in Leviticus. All I have ever said is that the notion behind the law is what is important and still relevant. We all know (I hope) that obedience is better than sacrifice. The law was not given unto itself, but rather to draw man towards God. When the law stated that people should be put to death for sinning, it was not to justify the killing of the sinner, but to sway people away from sin. The laws failed in achieving the latter, but that does not make the purpose of the law invalid. Hence Jesus was able to compand and expand the law (Matthew 5), without changing the notion behind them. After all, God changeth not, and his desires of us are unchanged as well. To abolish the law, which is what you say, is directly against Mathew 5:17. Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them 'Thou shall not kill' is stated in the mosaic laws, but was applied to Cain before the law was stated. In Romans 13:8-10 Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law. For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law it is shown that the above law, along with the others are based on the notion to love thy neighbor. This is consistent throughout the bible Earlier I asked you a question as to why Abraham paid tithe to Melchizedek, and why Jacob also swore to pay a tenth unto God. You parried the question saying they did it of their own free will. People accept Christ of their own free will, does that mean that God does not desire it? Cain and Abel gave offerings unto God, were they obeying the mosaic law? Abraham and Jacob were two of the few characters in Genesis (before the mosaic laws) that were highly favored by God, and yet you say that their actions are irrelevant, for it was done of their free will. In the true sense of it, all is done of free will and none is forced, hence you will be judged for your actions and/or inaction. The issue of giving your tithe to God and of a pastor or church receiving it are two separate things. I gave you my understanding of Malachi 3:8, in that God desire that you pay your tithe to him (else you rob God), but the physical manner in which to pay it depends on the individual. The latter is up for debate, the former I believe is not. I do not agree that the entirety of your income should dwell in your pockets. You can say that the pastors do not qualify to receive tithe as the levitical priesthood is superseded, but that does not change the fact that you should give your tithe unto the Lord. It is stated in Leviticus 27:30 A tithe of everything from the land, whether grain from the soil or fruit from the trees, belongs to the LORD; it is holy to the LORD which made no reference to levis, rather the levis were addressed in Numbers 18:21 [i]"I give to the Levites all the tithes in Israel as their inheritance in return for the work they do while serving at the Tent of Meeting.[/i] The tithe belongs to God and he gave it to the Levis as their wages, and they also were required to still pay a tithe to the Lord (or would they have paid unto themselves) as in Numbers 18:26 Thus speak unto the Levites, and say unto them, When ye take of the children of Israel the tithes which I have given you from them for your inheritance, then ye shall offer up an heave offering of it for the LORD, even a tenth part of the tithe. If you feel that Leviticus 27:30 is no longer valid, based on the passages of Hebrews and Galatians, then I believe we have irreconcilable differences, as I have stated that i feel you are abusing those passages. We can argue as to if one working full time in the service of the Lord deserves to receive of the tithes, or if one with a regular job should not. Should the church consume the money of its own, or even if you should pay your tithe where you worship. You can pay to orphanages, charities or whatever cause you deem fit, as long as the cause is in line with the word of God. The giving is not tied to the receiving. |
KunleOshob:I don't know what you mean by 'christian tithing' or your basis for classifying the statement as 'merely a comment'. If you read the entire chapter, Jesus was preaching to a crowd, telling them what to do and not to follow the acts of pharisees. The statement wasn't directed specifically at the pharisees. You tithe what you earn, and since money is the common means of transferring value, I don't see what is wrong in tithing in monetary terms. If you are a farmer, you are free to tithe your produce. The crux of your argument rests on your believe that the laws are not applicable to Christians. This I disagree with, as I feel it is incoherent with the rest of the bible. Reading Paul's epistle to the Romans might help to shed some light on where I stand in terms of the law and Christianity. The notion behind every law is still quite relevant to a christian, as paul said in Romans 3:27-31 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. Is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too, since there is only one God, who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith. Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law. and Roman 7:7-25 What shall we say, then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! Indeed I would not have known what sin was except through the law. [/b]For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, "Do not covet." But sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of covetous desire. For apart from law, sin is dead. Once I was alive apart from law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died. I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death. For sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, deceived me, and through the commandment put me to death. [b]So then, the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous and good. Did that which is good, then, become death to me? By no means! But in order that sin might be recognized as sin, it produced death in me through what was good, so that through the commandment sin might become utterly sinful. We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin. I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing. Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it. So I find this law at work: When I want to do good, evil is right there with me. For in my inner being I delight in God's law; but I see another law at work in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within my members. What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death? Thanks be to God—through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God's law, but in the sinful nature a slave to the law of sin. Anyways, each is free to worship God in his own way. |
KunleOshob:Matthew 23:23 Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices—mint, dill and cummin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former. same is referenced in Luke 11:42 |
ere kere, bi orun ori keke won n tan e, iwo na n tan abela won ga e, iwo na n ga orun |
gabrywyl:The initial scenario of a daughter is biased against the heterosexual pedophile as the child is directly at risk of being a victim. The case of a teenage son is a fairer scenario, in that the primary risk would be either party (gay guy or heterosexual pedophile) influencing the sexual orientation of the kid. A side note is that pedophilia is considered a crime, and thus the society has a formal instrument that is supposed to dissuade people of such orientation, but both orientations suffer from societal rejection. |
@poster Some people don't drive because they feel their reflexes and/or coordination are not good enough to drive safely. Personally, I prefer them to some morons one sees on the roads. BTW, why the gender specificity? Shouldn't same be applicable to ladies? |
netotse:wrong ![]() |
[quote author=pres-elect link=topic=261584.msg3729772#msg3729772 date=1239749930]another sad tale involving nigeria. while this is not enough to condemn a whole nation(this particular nation has already been condemned by other factors), it goes to show how evil human beings can be. and when these evil people are from a lawless nation, u bet, there will be no restriction in evil.[/quote]Another one. Are you sure that the alleged perpetrator is a Nigerian? |
Kobojunkie:the news is from Jamaica |
If you get money - plastic surgery If you no get money - buy him a mask |
Winnergal:In Igbo: Amara In Yoruba: Ore ofe |
Who was the first military president of Nigeria? 1. Major General Johnson Aguiyi-Ironsi 2. General Yakubu Gowon 3. General Murtala Mohammed 4. General Olusegun Obasanjo 5. Major General Muhammadu Buhari 6. General Ibrahim Babangida 7. General Sanni Abacha 8. General Abdulsalami Abubakar |
proudly9ja:They would soon be saying " The suspect looked Caucasian/Chinese/Indian/Martian, but was definitely a Nigerian cos he/she had a Nigerian accent" |
[quote author=Aloy.Emeka link=topic=261584.msg3729116#msg3729116 date=1239740866]This is not the first time a Nigerian did a thing like this. There was a story of one Nigerian woman who works in an oil company that kidnapped about 4 American children and hid them in an orphanage in Abeokuta while collecting money from American government for their upkeep. The kids were discovered 4 years ago by an American tourist and brought back to America. Didn't you hear that?. I think the woman was jailed for 10 years after interpol nabbed her somewhere in the middle east.[/quote]What prove do you have (beyond the granny saying the doctor sounded Nigerian), that the perpetrator was a Nigerian. Every nation has criminals, so don't make it out to be something spectacular. Just because others don't wash their dirty linen outside, doesn't make them saints. In 1994 in the US, Susan Smith alleged that she had been carjacked by a black man who drove away with her sons still in the car. Her story sent the whole nation into an uproar, with many believing her. A few days later they found out that she confessed to letting her car roll into the lake with her 2 kids in it. ![]() Some of you sound convinced that a Nigerian was responsible for the crime (and that's even if there was indeed a crime committed). Its simply irritating that you can't give your nation the benefit of doubt. |
to what degree? Even the ivy league schools still have paper handouts, paper submissions, and chalk boards. Focus on the primary problem of the poor quality of the school products. |
The facts of the story don't add up. 1. All we have is that the grandmother said the doctor sounded Nigerian. No name or other corroborative statement. 2. Under 'interrogation', the doctor admitted to sending the kid's to Nigeria. Not every nation is civil about interrogation, and if it anything like the police do in Nigeria or even india, the guy would have admitted to crucifying Jesus Christ, just to make them stop. 3. who is with the babies that they are communicating with? 4. The woman seems too dried eyed for someone that just lost her twins. I would have expected er to be inconsolable. It seems more like sensational journalism to me. The kids are likely truly missing, but the woman doesnt seem like she feels they are in harms way. |
ono:The hydroxyethane was just me being cheeky. The IUPAC name is ethanol, but same is also referred to as Ethyl alcohol; grain alcohol; pure alcohol; hydroxyethane; drinking alcohol; ethyl hydrate. I didn't want to use ethanol, and felt hydroxyethane was a bit more esoteric, and thus suited my purpose best. I suppose the hydroxyethane name is more descriptive of the process than the product, as you can produce ethanol by hydroxylation of ethane. |
JustGood:embassy fit no give dem visa ![]() |
Like debosky said, seems some have a poor grasp of the English language. From the merriam-webster dictionary Partner 1(archaic) : one that shares : partaker 2: a: one associated with another especially in an action : associate, colleague b: either of two persons who dance together c: one of two or more persons who play together in a game against an opposing side d: a person with whom one shares an intimate relationship : one member of a couple 3: a member of a partnership especially in a business ; also : such membership 4: one of the heavy timbers that strengthen a ship's deck to support a mast —usually used in plural Next step is for them to select (with prejudice) the meaning that best suits their purpose. ![]() |
@ono There are two parts to it. Firstly, its not that I have a problem per se with people making generalizations, after all, we all make such statements ever so often. I only noted that you were guilty of the same offence of generalizing that you accused others of, not because it is a felony, but because it is not so easy to always qualify one's statements. We all make statements based on our paradigms. I was actually aiming at the fact that people often hide under the 'objection to the generalization' banner, while the true objection is to the essence of the argument of another i.e. is it for or against their point of view. A case in point is hydroxyethane's objection to my post, in which I only cited my experience and hypothesized, but did not make a conclusive statement on the issue at hand. My crime seems to have been my citing negative evidence against the Ijebus (something that could be done against any tribe). He/She didn't seem to have problems with posts (like yours) that painted the Ijebus in a positive light. Some feel that others must always agree with them. Unfortunately for them, that is nothing but a pipe dream. People with such dreams belong under a totalitarian regime. The other point was more academic in nature, and was to be a positive criticism, as I felt your presentation of your point of view was not strong enough from a logical reasoning point of view. Typically one would present evidence/premise that supported the conclusion. I felt the evidence/examples you cited couldn't be directly linked to the conclusion you made, and thus weakens your argument. For example, citing your (or others) positive experience from dating or marrying an Ijebu woman, data and/or statistics showing their popularity etc. would have better served your purpose. Back on topic. Would I advice someone to marry an Ijebu? No. Would I advice someone against marrying an Ijebu? No. I wouldn't advice anybody to marry any specific tribe, because in any tribe you will always find the good, the bad and the ugly. |
C2H5OH:https://www.opaquelucidity.com/facepalm.jpg |
gabrywyl:That depends on the family and the person. 'For our family house', you don't introduce your 'flings' or 'casual bf/gf' to the family formally. Once you introduce a bf/gf to the family formally, it is assumed that you have found the other satisfactory and are fully committed towards marriage. You would have to make a strong case to void the candidacy of the said bf/gf. There are no overnight stay privileges until they have spoken to your parents (and preferably met in person). I have friends whose family are more lax, and the fact that you have been introduced is of little or no relevance. You can be substituted at any point in the game, even before half time. |
Gabrywyl, which one you be: interviewer or interviewee?, 'screener' or 'screenee'? |
gabrywyl:For a tenure track 'spousal office' ![]() |
gabrywyl:On site interview ![]() |
Q1. Depends on what expectations the parents/family of the host/hostess have, this will in turn depend on the information provided by the host/hostess. Q2. The seriousness depends on the family, but is often a sign of commitment to a long term relationship Q3. Pre-screening/Telephone interview . It could also just be an opportunity for the person at the other end of the line to attach a voice to the name e.g. 'so you are the . . . . . . . I have been hearing so much about'These are my humble opinions |
C2H5OH:You are so unrepentant of your ways. Could you please state categorically what was wrong with my initial post? |
tiffcisco:and if it was your teenage son? |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 (of 125 pages)
or put this way; IS THERE ANY BASIS FOR TITHING FROM THE TEACHINGS OF jESUS OR ANY OF THE APOSTLES WHO ESTABLISHED CHRISTIANITY


