₦airaland Forum

chaircover:
Interesting comments Claus.

Lets flip this around.

God forbid, if your wife cheated on you, was caught but started crying and said that she still loves you in spite of everything, will you beleive her?

Ok Maybe I am being too one way here; so lets break things down a little - If a man goes to a party on his own and somehow as a one off he ends up banging a girl he met at the party outside in his car; just maybe just maybe I will say that he does under normal circumstances love his wife but he was for a split second overcome by temptation & was unable to say no. Not an ideal situation but these things do happpen. If he learns from the incident and tries never to put himself in a position that this will repeat itself then one can say it was a one off mistake.

But the man who lies day after day to his wife, making up all sorts of stories just to get out of the house, he deliberately chases all sorts of girls around, he beds the youth corpers in his office, picks girls up on the street, has girlfriends in every state etc cannot possibly love or resect his wife.

My wife having an affair is not even something I want to think about.

I certainly can't argue with your other points though, and I'm glad you understood what I meant. A good loving man can still stray if he lets himself slip.

However, a consistently philandering man has already decided that he doesn't give a toss about his vows and yes, that does raise serious questions about whether he loves his wife.

Bawss1:
I'll probably confuse some people with the following but for what its worth here goes:

The argument that men are polygamous is a veil to cover the deep seated vice that some people have given control over to.  That argument would have been given legitimacy if the core of us humans was entirely earthly or should I say animistic but that is not so. There is more to a person that just flesh and blood or chemistry and biology. We are at our inner most core spiritual beings and the spiritual always strives for the noble anytime it is expressed. It is this expression of nobility that lends itself to the adoption of exclusive or should I say monogamous relationships. The more a society matured, i.e. the more the society revealed its spiritual nature and did away with the animistic and became more humane, the more monogamous relationships became wide spread. That many people want to maintain that we are polygamous is in fact retrogressive; it is just a baseless attempt to justify the weakness that many people still carry within themselves.

I agree with a lot of what you've said, but I wouldn't dismiss the "polygamous" nature of a modern man as a baseless attempt to justify weakness.

If we refer to affairs as the modern equivalent of polygamy, we see that many men have risked careers, lives and their families' happiness because of this "weakness", so it certainly warrants a deeper understanding and shouldn't be easily dismissed.

Men's natural intimacy instincts are the same as they were 100 years ago and I believe that most men need support in being able to curb this "weakness". Of course, I refer to the men that have a desire to curb the weakness in the first place.

For the other type of man who has not desire to curb those natural instincts, then yes, I strongly condemn such attitudes.

PS: In my post above, I used the word SFXUAL but this was changed to intimate.

Interesting topic.

Men are very intimate beings (I would recommend that people read the book, or at least a review of The intimate Man by Archibald D. Hart).

In spite of these strong intimate impulses (which by nature are greater than a woman's), many men respect and uphold their vows to their wives. It's actually a lot harder than it looks, but with a firm decision to never cheat, and the wisdom of putting the right safeguards around oneself, it is very possible.

Other men don't even bother and just give in to their natural intimate impulses.

For women, the most important thing they should realise (and a lot of women already realise this) is that men are naturally VERY intimate beings, whether they show it or not.

I actually believe that a man that loves his wife can still cheat on her.

Joagbaje:
Galatians 6:6-7
Let him that is taught in the word communicate unto him that teacheth in all good things.
7 Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap

Is Paul encouraging kalo kalo here?

[/color]

Galatians 6
8For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting.

Paul isn't encouraging kalo kalo at all nor is he talking about sowing money, verse 8 gives us more details of the message Paul was trying to convey.

I don't even know whether to laugh or cry.

Joagbaje may be right in the sense that you can't verify some of these stories that are reported. However, if we're honest, we all know that this story is very plausible in the current ministry climate in Nigeria.

Joagbaje:
It depends on what you mean by expensive . Cost is cost. Is it free ? Does it cost?  How much it should cost is another matter.

What I mean by expensive is "costly". Costly is the word you yourself used in the title of the topic. Is the gospel free or costly (expensive)? Please look up the meaning of costly. How much it should cost is NOT another matter. It falls squarely under your question of whether it is free or costly.

Joagbaje:
it is carnal to see it that way. Every minister has his area of calling  to meet the needs of people. Td jakes is mending broken hearts , reaching out with hope to the wounded etc. Creflo is different , benny is different ,CEC is teaching about new creation realities. Some others are into prophetic, deliverance,holiness, etc, everyone has their grace . They should go to where God send them. If you look at it with business eye, it is carnal

I don't buy this at all, and I reject your point that it is a carnal way to see it.

Is a person made up of many divisible parts? Once their broken hearts and wounds are healed at TD Jakes ministry, will they then move on to Creflo to obtain the Creflo grace. Once done, should they then move on to the Benny grace, and once ready for new creation realities they move to the CEC grace and then finish it off with the Eddie Long grace.

How can you say a ministry established to cater to complete people only has the grace for a subset of the gospel? Where then are the people supposed to obtain the other subsets of the gospel?

THE GOSPEL OF JESUS CHRIST IS HOLISTIC!!!

Spreading the gospel DOES NOT have to be expensive. There are costs associated with it, that is a fact. There were costs in Jesus's time as well.

I believe it's Zikky that has hit the nail by pointing to the branding issue. People are determined to expand THEIR own ministry. This is what brings exhorbitant costs.

You see ministers trying to establish their ministries in cities already full of churches. Ministries creating TV/Satellite channels and programs to be broadcast in cities that already have 24hr Christian channels. Each ministry spending money doing their own thing and duplicating efforts.

Someone mentioned about the missionaries of old and how they came to Africa. What the person failed to point out is that Africa had NEVER heard the gospel before then. Those missionaries weren't bringing the gospel to villages and towns that already had pastors and churches. They were bringing the gospel to idol worshippers.

Today, someone from Africa embarks on a mission to set up a church in Dallas, a city where a big ministry (T D Jakes Potters House) is already established. Then they say that because they have such a wide network of churches, they need a private jet to fly the main man around.

What's the motivation? Global vision right?

lol-ade:
This argument also took place during the time of Jesus, His disciple complained about the apparent wastage of one woman Matthew 26:7-13. The master's response was"Leave her alone, there will always be poor people in your midst"

This is not the same argument.

11 The poor you will always have with you,[a] but you will not always have me. 12 When she poured this perfume on my body, she did it to prepare me for burial.

When Jesus said this, He knew He was God living in a human form and that His time on the earth was short. The poor would always be there, but He wouldn't, so the perfume being used on Him was not a waste.


Today we find people using this section of the Bible to justify all manner of waste and extravagance!

Zikkyy:
This approach could damage the brand of the bigger churches (those with very strong brand image). I don't think they want that to happen.

Exactly!

If ministers are serious about putting the money available to the best use to spread the gospel and for charitable work, the above pooling scenario could save billions of naira.

If preaching the gospel is costly, it is because resources aren't used efficiently.

One classic example is the use of private jets. Let's just assume for this argument that the private jets are necessary, as a lot of people claim.

A pool of 2 or 3 jets can serve many ministries, yet a lot of ministries go all out to get their own exclusive jet.
All in the name of propagating the gospel right

Before praying for wealth etc, Christians should first pray for discernment so they can see through falsehood.

^^^

I don't think many people started out in ministry for the money. That is why the scripture below is one that everyone should keep close to their heart so that they don't stray the way a number of people have strayed due to money.

1 Timothy6 But godliness with contentment is great gain. 7 For we brought nothing into the world, and we can take nothing out of it. 8 But if we have food and clothing, we will be content with that. 9 Those who want to get rich fall into temptation and a trap and into many foolish and harmful desires that plunge people into ruin and destruction. 10 For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs.

Sicherheit:
@ Eldee
I agree with you, what does flying in economy teach if at the end of day what I call home is a 30 room mansion with pool the size of a football field, I drive a car that's worth 5 people's salary and I have access to millions at the snap of a finger.

Once examples of real people are brought into these arguments, we have to be as factual as possible. The above comments can't be substantiated.

I don't know how he did it (flying economy or otherwise), but even with his £billions, he seems to have raised well grounded kids. The one that we hear a little bit about (Holly Branson) qualified as a medical doctor a few years ago.

eldee:
At the end of the day, my parents don't own a 'Virgin Islands'. They still have get better life chances than every Nigerian family you know. They're still more 'pampered' than anyone I know.

For sure, that's inevitable given the £billions he's worth. Just putting the Branson example back into context. From what we've seen of him, he really is a down to earth guy and he appears to have passed this on to his children.

eldee:
I'm not the one trying to write a rulebook on child-rearing. All I've said is that it is daft to praise their restriction to economy-class flights as prudent if we ignore the fact that life on a billionaire's island is not the prudent lifestyle he's advocating.

Access to friends in the royal family/Fortune 500 company dinners, cars, home tuition, extensive travelling . . . and you tell me flying business class makes Adebola feel like he doesn't have to work for anything in life?? I call B.S.

Just to clarify, Richard Branson's island is a mini resort that he mainly lets out. It's an income generator. It's very likely that his family get to go on vacations there for free, but they don't live there.

It shouldn't detract from the point that was being made, which is that a number of wealthy men attempt to instill good values in their kids by not over-pampering them.

Keep saying it. Don't stop talking it!!!

As a final point from me, in looking further into this, let's remember that Creflo Dollar shared a message about non-tithers that they should be lined up and shot ( I believe he was speaking metaphorically, but it certainly shows the attitude with which he wanted non-tithers to be treated).

He also wished there was an alarm system at the church door that would alert the church everytime a non-tither stepped in.

Now, a married Bishop is accused of using his influence and money to lure young men into having sex and all of a sudden it's called a wreck and the message is about forgiveness.

wole femi:
all sins are forgivable, its not your duty to judge what sin is much more than forgiveness,
let the congregation decides if they feel like going back or not,
dollar is right, if u disagree then i think you are not a Christian, this is not a crime where his head needs to be cut off

I don't think Creflo Dollar is right. Like I mentioned before, Eddie Long has not admitted any guilt and he hasn't asked the congregation for forgiveness. Is Creflo Dollar therefore admitting the guilt on Eddie Long's behalf?

I am in support of any congregant whose spirit no longer feels at ease in that place and therefore decides to leave, because they are being kept in the dark with the expectation that life should go on as usual.

The mediation route is normally chosen to prevent certain details from reaching the public domain through the courts. It is also a quick way to settle without having to admit guilt to anyone and comes with confidentiality agreements.

If I were one of his flock, I would leave, not because of a spirit of unforgiveness, but because I am being kept in the dark about the character and integrity of a man that's supposed to play a part in my spiritual welfare.

My wife had the same issue, so she had both her friend and sister as maids of honour.

Joagbaje:
That's why I said lets wait and see, he might not have done such things , he might have done it, who knows. Truth will come out. We need not fight over unconcluded matter

Well, let's pray for some divine intervention to bring the truth out.

As far as the normal processes have gone, they've done the mediation, reached a settlement and as is usually the case, probably signed a confidentiality agreement, so don't expect to hear the details.

Davidosh:
Of course you wouldnt my love.

Its really nothing to do with pastor or no pastor.

Innocent people do go to jail for crimes they did not commit. With a possibility of goin to jail especially with kids and a lot loose as a result of the publicity, in a case of them say - them say - sexual accusations. I would rather avoid the drama if i have the means.

Please see above.

Davidosh:
Hello Nairalanders just joined recently and cant help putting in a few words

Nothing wrong with what Creflo said, Bishop Long surely is goin thru a wreck at the moment but it will surely pass.

Yes you can make a settlement in a case when your innocent.
Yes sometimes settlement usually is the smart option especially in cases like this. ( try being accused of violation wen your innocent)
Yes, when you find urself is a court case like this and there is a possibility that u will go to jail, surely u will consider paying your accuser for your innocence , trust me[/b]Yes as far as the law is concerned Bishop is innocent.
And as far as I know, every other person just has an opinion.
Although its not a good situation though, but then again when problems comes they come in style.
[b]Bishop or no bishop, Whether he is guilty or innocent at this time is not relevant cos if the court didnt find enough evidence to pass a judgement against him, then I dont get this whole hoola baloo,

There was no possibility of Eddie Long going to jail as it was a civil case.

The court didn't find enough evidence to pass a judgement because it didn't get to court. They went into mediation to settle it out of court. The settlement has happened and in such cases, both parties are normally bound by confidentiality agreements.

Joagbaje:
Matthew 17:26-27
26 Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. 27 Notwithstanding, lest we should offend them, go thou to the sea, and cast an hook, and take up the fish that first cometh up; and when thou hast opened his mouth, thou shalt find a piece of money: that take, and give unto them for me and thee.


If Jesus could settle tax collectors unjustifiably just to avoid trouble, we should not assume every settlement is based on guilt. We shouldn't get exited at the fall or shortcomings of others.

[color=#990000]Galatians 6:1-2
Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted. 2 Bear ye one another's burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ.[/

We should cross our hands till the outcome of the full truth . Creflo Dollar did right. That's the bible.

Creflo Dollar didn't do right. Eddie Long has not admitted any guilt, so I'm not sure what Creflo Dollar is asking people to forgive. Eddie Long himself has not asked for such forgiveness from them.

Also comparing Jesus's payment of taxes to the authorities in the land to a pastor paying a settlement to four young men who accused him of sleeping with them is just not valid.

Joagbaje:
Creflo dollar was right. God has forgiven, that's if he did commit the error . There is no sin God won't forget. That didn't take away his calling from the man. He is still anointed to fulfil his assignment. If God forgive a man , we cant hold offence against him. Has God rejected him? . How many of us don't do wrong? If we get forgiveness , we should believe in the forgiveness of others. How you treat him matters, it can become your own sin.

I'm not entirely sure why Creflo Dollar made this move, or why you believe he is right.

Eddie Long's official stance is that he has done nothing wrong. The out of court settlement did not come with an admission of guilt and he has not admitted any guilt to his congregation.
So when Creflo Dollar talks about Eddie Long having a "wreck" and forgiving him, is he implicitly admitting that Eddie Long was guilty, something Eddie Long himself has not done.

How is there a need for forgiveness when the man has said he is innocent?

jennykadry:
So because I have kids I should not wear expensive designer clothes(if I can afford them)? that's balderdash.

It might or might not be balderdash, but that was not the context of my message.

I agree with the rest of what you wrote.

Sagamite:
The cue I will give my rascals is:

- "When you want something expensive, you work hard for it"

- "When you work hard, you can afford expensive things if you want them"

- "Only those that have worked hard are entitled to extra-ordinary things in life".

There will be somethings I will bulge on and give into or just use as reward, raising a child is about satisfying "wants" sometimes, but definitely I will not be spoiling them with money because I am a multi-millionaire.

If they come home with all As at A-levels, I might reward with the latest model of Volkswagen Golf, not a red Ferrari. I will drive one though.

Sounds reasonable. I hear you. Hoping you heard me too.

Sagamite:
I will always provide my kids with things that are of reasonable quality but I will not provide them with things for vanity.

If my child is starting to think Primark[b] is below him/her[/b], then something is wrong in my upbringing style. I don't know what they have achieved in life to say something is below them.

An extravagant parent will not necessarily breed an extravagant child, an extravagant upbringing might. The ideology and indoctrination you feed a child will have more weight.

But this points to what I am saying about being an example. If having things for vanity is wrong, then it is wrong in both the parent and the child.

Teaching the child not to have things for vanity while accumulating those things for oneself will just send a confusing message.

A child can only take their cue from their parents. If the parent is happy with Primark for themselves, the child is likely to be the same.

Personally, I'm not one for extravagance, but having provided the basic needs for my child, if I were to reward myself with some little luxuries for my success in work/business, I would see nothing wrong in rewarding my child with little luxuries (appropriate for their age) for their success in the home (e.g. good behaviour, doing chores), or for their success in their academic or other pursuits.

I would not be averse to taking those things away from misbehaving children. I think it will help with the lessons of associating hard work with rewards early on, as opposed to waiting until they themselves can earn money.

Like I mentioned before., the best way to teach any child about the value of money (amongst other things) is to lead by example.

An extravagant parent will breed an extravagant child, as long as that is what they observe.

Sagamite:
No.

I am going to preach: "You have to work bloody hard like I did to get this, bloody little brat. I am not giving it to you on a platter. If you want what I get/use, go and pick up your Maths and Physics text book and finish all the Mechanics, Newton Forces , Differentiation and Integration questions at the end of each chapter. Don't look at me with such silly innocent face young man, you are not too young at 6 years old to know the Black–Scholes model, go read up, Arrow!"

I am pretty sure that when the child actually comes, your parental instincts would give you a different attitude to the child than the one you infer above.


Someone mentioned that Bill Gates wouldn't buy an island for his child. The truth is that Bill Gates is unlikely to buy an island for HIMSELF. From what I know of him, things like that aren't his priority and it is likely that it is the values he has that he will pass on to the kids.

Bill Gates himself came from a wealthy home and has spoken about how his parents used to reward him for being a strong performer in school.

I strongly believe in not spoiling kids and only giving them things that are appropriate for their age. However, deliberate and extreme deprivation e.g. I shop at Gucci for myself, but shop at Primark for my kids is just wrong.

From an expectant parent.

^^^^
Certainly, I agree about the equivalents.

I specifically mentioned the diamonds in response to the diamond bracelets for adults/diamond earrings for kids example given in the previous post.

The example cited was of Frank Lampard who broke up with the mother of his children. The mother retained custody, so the lifestlye they live while with their mother depends on how much he gives her.

That is a slightly different issue to where both parents are raising the children together. The main moral of the story is that kids shouldn't be spoilt, which is fine.

The best ways to teach children about the value of money (as well as other lessons) is to lead by example. We must bear in mind that there are things that are appropriate for adults (e.g. diamonds), but not for kids. Restricting the kids access to these things is not necessarily making them live a lower standard.

However, with a lot of the other aspects e.g. holidays, place of residence (i.e. if you choose to live in a luxurious mansion, surely your kids must live in the same mansion) etc, these should be family oriented as they serve the function of strengthening family relationships.

I think a lot of peoples' views will be further refined when they have families of their own.

If you're sure she's only contacted you because she's realised that you now have a good job, then it's a no-brainer.

The issue isn't about being treated badly. It doesn't appear as if either of you treated the other in a particularly bad way in the past. Her affection is hers to keep or give by choice and if she believes she can only give it now that you are financially comfortable, then if I were you, I would walk away from any relationship.