₦airaland Forum

Although people try to over-spiritualise it, or even label it a revival, what is happening with the prosperity gospel is easily explained by economics. We wonder why, for example, in Nigeria churches are opening in every street corner.

It's called supernormal profits. When firms enjoy these supernormal profits, others are incentivised to enter the industry to try to acquire some of these profits for themselves.

Some of the things I've heard on the pulpit would put Gordon Gekko's "Greed is Good" speech to shame!

Poster, in theory, your divorce case should be handled in the U.S. where you reside. You'd only have a case in Nigeria if you were resident in Nigeria. Also, it'll be difficult to prove the value of the assets he owns in Nigeria and (although I'm not a lawyer) in any case I don't think any judgement on his assets in Nigeria can be enforced.

As an aside, guys, please don't be so harsh now. I'm actually against the extremes that the American and British courts have gone in awarding assets to wives in divorce cases.

However, the Nigerian scenario is the opposite extreme and needs to be balanced. The example from my family is that a husband, after about 20 years, packed the wife's stuff and dropped it in front of her parents house. She met him while he was a student, and when he became rich, he encouraged her to give up her career to be a housewife. He was the one that actually handed in her resignation letter. Now she has no source of income, apart from money from her kids. A new "wife" (who was the husband's mistress while he was married to the first) is now enjoying all the privileges. In this scenario, I am for the Nigerian legal system awarding something fair to the first wife.

Joagbaje:
.
The word speaks for itself

Except for the ones we ignore which suggest principles contrary to the ones we want to believe.

Reverse engineering of the word of God (i.e. looking for the scriptures that fit in with what we WANT to believe) will always exist.

Let everyone put their energy into seeking the things that please them. We are in an era of "spiritual consumerism".

^^^
True talk.

One can't even begin to imagine the number of such cases that exist in Nigeria. Amazingly, a lot of people see nothing wrong in treating other less privileged kids in such a way while wearing the facade of being deeply spiritual.

Katsumoto:
It was a coup. The Ifeajuna coup was crushed and there were people who could have taken over but were prevented from doing so by Ironsi. It is not clear the role other officers played in this regard.

In his speech after he led Biafran troops into the midwest, Victor Banjo mentioned that he was one of the senior army officers that impressed it upon Ironsi that the army should take over. I don't believe it was a unilateral decision by Ironsi.

~Bluetooth:
Was it also part of their plan to make Awolowo the president ? If yes,why did Aguiyi installed himself.if no,why did Aguiyi not prosecute the coup plotters if truly he wasn't aware or an accomplice to the coup ?

I'm not sure Ademoyega mmentioned in his book that they wanted to install Awolowo (apologies, it's been a while since I read the book), but I remember reading it somewhere else. To my recollection, none of the coup plotters explicitly confirmed this.

Aguiyi Ironsi did not install himself per se. He was able to rally troops to crush the coup. Once the dust had settled, there was still a core number of politicians from the ruling party that could have formed a government. However, in a couple of books that I read about Col Victor Banjo, it seems he, along with some other senior officers were in favour of the military taking over. Naturally the leadership went to Ironsi as the most senior military officer at the time, and incidentally also the chief coup crusher.

It's quite baffling as to why Ironsi didn't swiftly prosecute and punish the coup plotters. Perhaps he too was aware of his illegal move (as I mentioned before, once the coup had been crushed, there was still a core number of politicians who could have legally taken over the reins of government). Therefore, what Ironsi and his senior military officers did by taking over could in itself be termed a coup. They may, however, have claimed that they did it for security reasons.

Officially, the Jan 16 coup plotters were in jail and awaiting trial for the entire duration of Ironsi's regime.

Everyone should try to get their hands on the book "Why We Struck". It was written by Ademola Ademoyega. He was a Major, a friend to both Ifeajuna and Nzeogwu, and one of the key players in the Jan 1966 coup.

It should clear up a lot of the arguments that have been going on in this forum.

For example, it is clear from the book that Aguiyi Ironsi was not a part of their coup. In their coup, they planned to "neutralise" various policians and senior army officers. This was on the basis of them wanting to eliminate those military men that could be a threat to the coup. This is the first time I'm hearing about them trying to prevent messages from being delivered (of what use would a delivered message be once the coup had been carried out).

Ironsi himself was marked down for elimination, but Ifeajuna failed (some say deliberately) in this task. Other officers that claimed to have escaped the coup include David Ejoor and Yakubu Gowon. In fact Gowon himself later rallied some troops to help crush the coup. The tribal appearance of the coup was coincidental.

Other officers that were left alone, on the basis that the coup plotters did not feel that they would be a threat once the coup started gaining success include Victor Banjo and Adekunle Fajuyi.

One of the things about the events of those years is that it's quite difficult to get a good picture without reading many different sources. I have managed to read about 4 books on the coups and civil war, but still feel like there are so many bits missing.

I like these discussions though as it's always amazed me that a big piece of our history just goes undiscussed.

Vivian. SA:
We are not here, at least in this posted reporting talking about Pastor Chris. No, we are talking about the lives of people gone after receiving thei healings and that's a proven fact.

Well spoken!

Where lives are being lost, there is clearly a need for concern.

Sadly, as humans, trying to sanitise the image of something that they're a part of takes precedence.

NAJALYN:
The Church receives love gifts only from members. So by agitating that Pastors should pay tax we are saying that Government should start taxing gifts. Once Government sets such a precedent then it must be applied to every other person.

You're right, the issue of administering the tax on pastors will be tricky.

Having said that, I think that all the benefits that accrue to a pastor, [/b]by virtue of their position as a pastor[b] should at the very least be declared for transparency. Tax authorities may then have to take a view of which of these benefits can be taxed.

I believe the obvious answer to the post is YES.

The more difficult question is how do the authorities enforce this.
With the lax personal income tax system that we have in Nigeria, most people not on PAYE probably pay far less tax than they ought to.

Deleted

Certainly any pastor with integrity should pay tax on his/her income. It's not even a question of "should", the laws are already there.

The only issue in Nigeria is that a pastor's "income" tends not to be formal. Many receive "gifts" by virtue of their being pastors. So if a congregation decides to give their pastor N10m as a gift, can the authorities ask for tax? If they set that precedent, then should other gifts given to individuals also be subject to tax.

IF I had the opportunity to advise tax authorities, I would say that pastors should declare all income that accrues to them by virtue of their position as a pastor, and of course, as with the entire population that should be subject to tax.

The only issue with that is that there are many informal workers in Nigeria who do not declare their income and then pay the tax (think of the market woman, taxi driver, other self-employed people).

It's complicated!

Joagbaje:
Yes precisely, graces are divine endowment. Corithian church was endowed with so much grace, they were also very carnal.

There is a grace for utterance ,grace of knowledge, grace door Favour, grace of finances, charisma etc.

1 Corinthians 14:26
26 How is it then, brethren? when ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying.

Finnis Dakes , writer of bible was known for grace of knowing scriptures by heart. He could recite any portion of scriptures you call for him by heart. Some Christian has the grace of counselling. Some people have the grace for leadership. Every endpwement of God is a grace.

Joe,
Just as a final question.
Your point is that there are many graces of God and we have a number of things we should obey (including tithing) in order to partake of these different graces in our lives?

Joagbaje:
Paul admonished the corinthians to abound in this particular giving grace which they lacked. But he affirmed they already abounded in some other graces

BTW, Paul wasn't affirming that they abounded in some other graces. He said that as they abound in everything, mentioning them as faith, utterance, knowledge, earnestness and love, they should abound in this grace (the grace of God he mentioned in verse 1) also.

Unless you're saying that faith, utterance, knowledge, earnestness and love were the other "types of graces" that they already had and then Paul wanted them to add the "giving grace" which you mentioned. That's certainly not the way I see that scripture.

Remember the 2 Corinthians 8:1 verse talks about [/b]THE grace of God[b], but then you say there are different kinds of graces in God.

Surely what you mean is that the grace of God can manifest itself in different areas.

You'll notice that in most of the scriptures that you quoted, the talk about grace abounding is through/after the knowledge of God/Jesus Christ.

My understanding of this is that it is the increased knowledge of God's grace that allows one to abound in it as opposed to any other human acts that we may think will somehow increase this grace (e.g. tithing).

Joe, going back to 2 Corinthians 8:1 tells us the grace that Paul was talking about later on in 2 Cotinthians 8:7.

[/i]2 Corintihans 8:1
Moreover, brethren, we make known to you the grace of God which hath been given in the churches of Macedonia[i]

I don't believe there's justification for trying to differentiate this grace and say it's another type of grace.

Joagbaje:
It is wrong to threaten anybody with tithe, it's not by force. God does not punish anyone for not tithing. The only issue is, every practise of the word of God carry a grace., if you do them the grace that is connected to such abounds, if you don't do it , you miss out of the grace such obedience carry. God is not punishing you . It's just like prayer. It's necessary but Mot by force. If you pray, you partake of it's benefit , if you don't , you miss out of it's benefit. Same thing goes for tithing.

Joe, being a former member of the ministry you're in, I was taught time without number that the grace of God was His unmerited favour.


Now you're saying there's a "grace" I can earn.

Beaf,

Section 376 is now moving on to the offence of extortion (or blackmail) as opposed to the defamation itself, but it turns out you're right, under Naija law, the offence of defamation is criminal and can lead to jail.

"375.         Subject to the provisions of this Chapter, any person who of publishes any defamatory matter is guilty of a misdemeanour, and is liable to imprisonment for one year; and any person who publishes any defamatory matter knowing it to be false is liable to imprisonment for two years."


The above is from the 1990 Criminal Code. Not sure if this is what is still in operation, but I couldn't find a more recent version (a lot of these codes enacted before the 1999 constitution are still in force).

Given the above, I think those trained in the Nigerian law should be the ones to argue these things out.

The rest of us can only grope in the dark, or base our judgements on what we think the law SHOULD be, based on western standard rule of law.

I dug this out in the name of being open, but man, I certainly don't support it.

Looks like if the judge, who will get to see the full text of the insults, deems them to be defamatory, he can actually jail the poor dude.

The part dealing with defamation starts from section 373 (not 393 as mentioned in the article).

PS: Slander - spoken
Libel - written/published.

Beaf:
My point has never been that the man should have been arrested, it has always been that the very same laws that govern us on the street also govern us on the Internet. Unfortunately, most people think the Internet is anonymous, therefore anything goes.
Mukhtari Ibrahim Aminu doesn't need to be told this anymore, he is now realising first hand, a few more like him will sanitise the way we Nigerians use the web; its just horrible.

You have delved into some detail about the validity of the punishments for the examples I sited, but the fact is we do not know Mukhtari Ibrahim Aminu's exact words and why they caused so much consternation; therefore, how can you conclude the his being hauled before the law is not valid? Lamido's being a governor cannot make Aminu any less guilty if he committed a jailable offense.

You're right that we don't know his exact words. We can only go by what we've seen in the report which indicated that he insulted the governor.

I didn't conclude that him being hauled before the law was not valid. I only tried to point out, as a couple of others have done, that the nature of the "haulage" should have been civil not criminal, based on the report saying he insulted the governor.

I don't disagree with a lot of what you write, he should certainly be jailed if he committed a jailable offence etc. Libel, stalking, harrasment etc should be dealt with according to the law, whether online or not.

The main difference we have is that, perhaps because I am aware of the heavy-handed nature of Nigerian big-men, I am more biased towards the underdog whose rights are unikely to be respected.

@Beaf

The examples you've given don't actually support your case that the man should have been arrested.

First example - Immigration rules can be complex. Where the FBI feel there is even the slightest threat to their president, the complexity is compounded. Remember, some countries will not let HIV+ people into their country.

Examples 2 & 3 - Clearly examples of persistent stalking and harrasment. Whether online, or physical, these would be deemed criminal.

A derogatory, but non-threatening (and the reports didn't indicate there were any threats) message to a governor, is no cause for jail. In countries that claim to have democracy/rule of law, this would not be criminal.

Beaf:
What makes you think it was slander?

Look back through the post to see where the very first instance of the word slander occurred.

The question regarding tithe today has always been about whether it's a directive from God or not for all Christians to give a tenth of their income.

All other stories that don't answer the above are just personal stories used to justify a personal decision to tithe, which is fine.

Joagbaje:
There have been occasion the spirit of God led me to give all as tithe.

This sentence is inspiring. However, since tithe=tenth, then I can still be inspired without the last two words.

donnie:
My Opinion doesn't count much. . . study your bible.

Charming!

You either don't realise that that was rude, or you intentionally decided to be rude.
Not good.

Thanks for confirmation about the value of your opinion.

^^^
How, in your opinion, does the Holy Spirit bring one into such an office?

^^^
No one can deny that these days, being a pastor has become one big gravy train.

That's why the example set by Paul, in the scriptures quoted above, is a great one. The example being set by our modern "genuine" pastors, I'm not so sure about.

@ some of the responses that have been critical of the man, I guess this must be one of the exceptions to the "touch not my anointed" principle.

garyarnold,

You should carry on sharing what you have learnt with the pastors that you have exposure to. We all know that most people will not take a position that is contrary to the one their pastor has taken, regardless of how much Bible study you use to back it up.

What next? National Waves magazine will soon start reporting on sightings of the Loch Ness monster in Nigeria!

Looks like the whole issue started in the lead up to their marriage, when the opinion of the whole family was taken on board.

I value the importance of the extended family, but I think the best thing for any young couple to do is to set the boundaries for decision making very early (preferably as soon as they decide to get married).

He should be assertive and tell her how he really feels. Assertiveness, rather than being seen in a negative light should be seen positively as it gives each partner the confidence that there's no hidden ill feeling.
She too should be assertive.

Sometimes in these cases, it's very difficult to advise a couple on what the best decision to take is. The best thing one can do is advise them about HOW to reach that decision.

Their confidence in the final decisions should come from the fact that they've both aired their views and have come to a conclusion that is best for their young family without any undue outside interference.

I think my main contribution has to be to the 50-50 question.

The question of submission for a lot of us is inherent in our cultural and religious backgrounds and certainly generates lots of controversy.

I find that most women I've come across are willing to "submit" to a man who cherishes them, and this is the ideal. The reason a lot of women resist is that too many men abuse their position.

When it comes to sharing household expenses, my views may be a bit controversial, but here goes. I firmly believe that if a woman is earning, she should be contributing.

If she's earning as much as the man, she should contribute as much as he does. The flip side is that the husband too would need to take over some of the roles that were seen as traditionally female (i.e. helping with the kids & household chores).

Society has evolved and women have (rightly) gained a lot of ground in their fight for equal education, employment etc. Having gained a lot of those rights, integrity demands that women also take up the responsibilities that come with those rights.