₦airaland Forum

Joagbaje:
So every americans have recieved the message is that what youre saying? Besides  word of God has no boundary. Ministry is of the holyghost . Men of God move as they are led. God didn't make some people to be spiritual immigration officer . The message if for all the world.

I may not want to go into that now. Every man has the degree of his own knowledge.

Reality now is; "Self acclaimed Men of God" move as the money leads them.

How do I know? The worldly and extravagant and contradictory lifestyle they lead.

nlMediator:
I'm beginning to think that deep down, these Nigerian ministers do not believe their hype that they're going abroad to take back the gospel to them. [b]I think they simply want to take the gospel to Nigerians in the diaspora, especially members of their church in Nigeria who relocated and whom they use as a base for reaching out to others. To an extent, God seems to be honoring their 'vision' because their churches are making near-zero impact in the non-Nigerian population. Not that that would stop them from taking pictures of a solitary white man or woman in their congregation and inserting them in glossy brochures touting their global harvest field.[/b]That would even generate more contributions from members who are so proud to be part of such an exclusive ministry.

You just echoed my long-time observation. Absolutley no effect whatsoever on the communities abroad. Forget the diasporans, look back at home, what positive effect do they have on the nation and surrounding environment- NOTHING-

Still a corrupt country with corrupt leaders. Poverty and inefficiency still rampant, and your are talking about abroad, C'mon.

Joagbaje:
We need to hear from people before we judge them. Let's know their passion and motive. We may look from a different perspective .

TL OSBORNE held several crusades in africa. Apart from the salvation ,healing ,miracles he sent relief. And the bigger part ,he trained ministers and gave thousands of P.A system. Megaphones for street preaching, projectors for filmshow and vehicles.

We should study on people and hear what they do and their motives. We should not assume we know their motives. That's why this judgemental thing is dangerous . We find ourselves sinning without knowing. When we get to heaven ,at the judgement seat of christ we shall know who is who.

Lol, You crack me up.

People, stop judging these self accliamed "Men of God". Keep turning the blind eye and wait for God's Judgement. Keep allowing them to molest Kids, Keep allowing them to swindle money, Keep allowing them to manipulate the bible.

Tell that to your congregation,people are getting smarter.

@ Jo

They are "penetrating" with churches in areas fillied with churches already


Seriously?

@Joaagbje

From what you quoted, does that sound like they charttered the ship?

Why are you re-asserting the context of the bible and giving it your own meaning to justify your argument.

The quoted text clearly did not incline  to "chartter" or use any similar language. It only states " a small ship should wait on him",

Pls where is "charter" or "borrow" or "lend" in that simple sentence?

Classic case of thread derailment.



*Why can't you two just get a room---- sorry get a thread*

1. I am and was not descriminating anything.
2. Pls pin-point the "the father, the son and the Holy ghost" in the bible because I honestly have not come accross it.
3. What you are then saying, from my understanding of your reply, is that Jesus was talking to himself?


I have no intention to ridicle, I am just looking for more explanation to further my understanding. The reply to number three would be greatly appriciated becuase I have long pondered who Jesus was talking to.

@ Lucenzo

If Christ is God, then who was he talking to on the cross when he asked the "Father" to forgive them?

" Why art thou forsaken me"------------who was he talking to?


Himself?-------why had he forsaken himself?


Really?, pls help me out here.

^^^^^^

He did not blaspheme the name of God-----he is blaspheming Chris Oyakhilome. Chris Oyakilome is not God.


@Crossman9,

Dude, what's up with you and Chris? What has he done to you that you go to the extreme when addressing his related issue?

over 90% of your post that I have encountered is of negativity towards the Man. Have you two got any History?

@ mabell


Your view on the subject matter would be appreciated as well (while riding another person's view on).I followed your advise to read on it and came back with an excerpt from my reading, could you indulge me on your own research.

@ rickado and mabell

I made the "unguarded" comment you reffered to, perhaps you should try to understand the context in which it was made.

The missionaries were not only financed by the "committed believers" , they were also financed by imperialist government that supported the slave trade. I have included a source to support my statement, it's better to read the comments of the post in it's entirety before quoting people out of context.

The point however, was that money were not required of the newly converts, hence the reason why I made the comment you quoted.


Edit. You said the "choice to support is obligatory not mandatory", really? , lol in the "current dispensation" when some attribute non-tithing as "robbing God". Very obligatory choice of words indeed.

@stagger,

Perharps your "empty head" needed to understand the context in which that assertion was reached and purpose at which it was aimed at. So, you need to educate yourself in reading and comprehension.


The aim was to show that the missionaries themselves did not charge the indigenous population for the "good news" literally, while the Imperialist Government perpetrated slavery and robbed the continent. The missionaries themselves were instrumental in the abolition of the slave trade.

I do agree that some Imperialist did use CHristianity as an excuse to prove the subordination of the "savages" and used some missionaries to advance their cause. The argument however is did the missionary charge the natives "directly" for bringing the gospel?  

I am pretty sure it is possible to table your argument without resorting to name- calling.  It is really unnecessary especially if no one insulted you initially.

This was what the "empty headed" individual posted to follow up his assertion;

dare2think:
You are right, money was already raised for the early missionaries and most were " Imperialist state money", in simpler terms,Government funds, not money from the New Converts.


Perhaps ms Mabell, you ought to do a study on it too.

www.hyperhistory.net/apwh/essays/comp/cw25colonizationafrica.htm


"As for missionary work in the French, British, and Belgian colonies, missionaries, either Protestant or Catholic, had freedom to work in any of the British colonies. They gave medical aid through hospitals they built, education through mission schools, worked at translating the Bible into the local dialect, and of course tried to win converts to Christianity. Missionaries in the French and Belgian colonies did not have as much freedom. Around the beginning of the 20th century, the French government fell out with the Roman Catholic Church. As a result, the French government stopped supporting all missionaries in the colonies. Nevertheless, the missionaries had the freedom to remain in the colonies. Ironically enough, the severance did their evangelism a good turn. "The blacks are far from ignoring that the colonial authorities are hostile to us and that our religion is not that of the whites who live in the [French] Sudan," reported one Mgr. Bazin. [12] However, missionaries in the Belgian Congo had the toughest time of all. Before Belgium took control of the Belgian Congo (from Leopold II) in 1908, Leopold II had expressly forbidden any Catholic missionaries to work in the Belgian. Despite this, he did let several Protestant missionaries into the area. But of the three countries, Leopold limited missionary work in Africa the most."

mabell:
They didn't need to because they already raised funds for that purpose
do a study on it

You are right, money was already raised for the early missionaries and most were " Imperialist state money", in simpler terms,Government funds, not money from the New Converts.


Perhaps ms Mabell, you ought to do a study on it too.

www.hyperhistory.net/apwh/essays/comp/cw25colonizationafrica.htm


"As for missionary work in the French, British, and Belgian colonies, missionaries, either Protestant or Catholic, had freedom to work in any of the British colonies. They gave medical aid through hospitals they built, education through mission schools, worked at translating the Bible into the local dialect, and of course tried to win converts to Christianity. Missionaries in the French and Belgian colonies did not have as much freedom. Around the beginning of the 20th century, the French government fell out with the Roman Catholic Church. As a result, the French government stopped supporting all missionaries in the colonies. Nevertheless, the missionaries had the freedom to remain in the colonies. Ironically enough, the severance did their evangelism a good turn. "The blacks are far from ignoring that the colonial authorities are hostile to us and that our religion is not that of the whites who live in the [French] Sudan," reported one Mgr. Bazin. [12] However, missionaries in the Belgian Congo had the toughest time of all. Before Belgium took control of the Belgian Congo (from Leopold II) in 1908, Leopold II had expressly forbidden any Catholic missionaries to work in the Belgian. Despite this, he did let several Protestant missionaries into the area. But of the three countries, Leopold limited missionary work in Africa the most."

Sorry, not "charging",

Extortion and manipulation for financial gain is more appropriate.

And yes, it happens in most churches. In most cases, the only evidential beneficiary of the whole "process" are the people in charge i.e self accliamed " men of God".

How much did Jesus collect for bringing the "good news"?

I wonder how much the missionaries charged our ancestor when they brought Christianity to our lands.


but hey, faith is now a commodity with a price tag.

^^^^^^^

@Noetic

Pls don't be tempted to ridicle his comment or assertion, that's what he believes.

Just curious though, did God tell you he speaks to anyone?

And please dont quote from a book written by "Men".

Has God actually spoken to you, literally?

laytoshtwo:
A lot of people comment out of frustration,[b]no job,no joy,[/b]dont provoke them.Frustrated youths,turn to God he will help you.Don 't add more petrol to your burning lives by abusing men of God.

-sighs-

And you know these, how?

By the way, when did self-aclaimed "Men Of God" become God?

^^^^^

Very True.


Another truthful aspect is that the people supporting this ego-massaging and adulation of "men" know the truth. One thing is to be igonarnt of the truth, another is to blatantly refuse the truth. So, the hypocrisy going on is overwhelming. Fraudulent folks will always support fraudulent activivities, even if it involves the name of God.

The name of God has been used for several insidious activities, (Killing, manipulation and so on). So, making money with his name is only inevitable, now imagin that in a fruadulent and corrupt country like ours.

The church is now inadvertently used for these fruadulent activities. So, Fraudulent people will vehemently and naturally protect their interests.

Joagbaje:
It's about the office,not about the person .those who function in leadership are anointed by the virtue of that office.

Is that what the bible said, "Its about the office"?

Again,"those who function in leadership are anointed by the virtue of that office" . Did the bible state this or is this your "own" assertion.?

Joagbaje:
I'm sure my answer above clears the second question.

Sorry Joagbaje, your answer the not clear the question. For clarification this was what I asked.

"Did God tell you he anointed them or did he anoint them in your presence?"

Joagbaje:
The word anointed has multiple use. It referes to an office ,it also refers to an empowerment .

If a man functions in an office . He is Gods  anointed by the virtue of that office. If a man receives ability ,empowerment ,a grace , it is also call an anointing. Jesus was the anointed (chosen one) that's an office . Even when he hadn't received an empowerment , he was the elect, anointed, but this anointing meant to be the chosen one. Later in life at the age of 30, he received an empowerment when he received the holyghost , the anointing came on him. So if someone functions in an office as a pastor for example , he is Gods anointed, this is by the virtue of the office he occupies.

I am assuming this is your own definition. Can you expantiate your assertion that Jesus' appointment been an office. Did the Bible describe it as such?

"If someone functions in an office as a pastor, he is God's annointed". Really? just by the virtue of the office.  So, if an insidious mind decides to open a church with the sole purpose of deception and manipulation, such individual is God's appointed? Just beacuse he happens to head the church he created?

Pastor Odulele (molester), pastor Jim jones (mass murderer),Some pastor wife beater, some polygamous pastors, Pastor Tery Jones (hate instigator that caused the deaths of innocent people), the deceptive popes in the medeivel era and so on.

The guys above have been appointed by God just by the virtue of their "office" to cause misery to his children. REALLY??

yommyuk:
Why not?

What is politics?

a process by which groups of people make collective decisions.

Therefore if the christian brethens come together to form a political party or have influence within the political elite, won't the world be a better place to live?

That is if the body allows itself to be corrupted.

Secondly, imagine if the christians come together and vote into goverment a leader who is God fearing. What a delight that will be in a place like naija

Can you then mention one political party/institutions/organization or affliation that is/was not corrupt or open to collusion in history

^^^^^^

Are you sure body of Christ need "political advantage"?

Yes political advantage help spread christianity (Constathine), but did Jesus need political advantage to spread or did he not just rely on the power of his words?

By the way, political advantage opens the "body" up to corruption and collusion.

Pls correct me if I am wrong.

^^^^^

If I had a perception Mrs Mabell, I would have mentioned it, But I would not claim what I dont know. My question still remains the same hence the reason I asked.

So rather than reply me with another question, why dont you answer what was already asked or acknowlegde truthfully that you don't know.

So, pls indulge me.

^^^^^^

Fair enough.

How do you know these pastors are anointed?

Did God tell you he anointed them or did he anoint them in your presence?

What parameters do we "judge" the perceived anointed? Large crowd? Perfoming miracles on tv? show of wealth from these individuals?

Please someone explain to me, what qualities do the "anointed" possess before we conclude that they are anointed?

As children of God is the "touch not my anointed" not applicable to everyone rather than some purpoted ones who want to shy away from criticism and want to gain control of the minds of their "subjects" without wanting to be questioned?

@Nuclearboy,

I aknowledge that God does wonders and nobody fully understands how God operates, but I am also aware of the antics and "formats" some 419s employ to rob other innocent folks. Your example about the russian incident is really suspect in my view, befor I conclude, as I accept that I may be wrong, do you know the tongue speaking man's travel history? was this church based in Nigeria? was the russian man invited or did he just come from nowhere?

It is important to ascertian these things before concluding that they are genuine, however, we can't prove otherwise either. I am certain though, that fraudsters invent innovative and complex structures in other to capture their victims and their innovations evolve day by day, so we have to keep our guard.

Except you have a relationship with either the "russian man" or the "tongue speaker" I would eliminate the 100% assurance that it was genuine and still keep my reservations. (Remember, even doubting Thomas was shown twice what he doubted to remove the doubt in his mind).

Pls correct me if I may be wrong.

"Never leave someone who will never leave you"

Some quote I encountered a while ago. But in your case, he left you and got involved with another person. Long distance can affect people's mind sometimes and their priorities shift, but if he is coming back to 9ger to stay, test out his commitments. Pls be sure he is coming to stay ,else he just wants  someone he can service easily before going back.( Most guys in diaspora do that when visiting 9ger)

The disadvantage is the fact that he has left you once, thereby de-valuing your union. This means he has a very high probability of doing it again compared to someone 'new' because if you get back with him and the going gets tough (which is inevitable in all relationships), what would he do?

Some men learn from their mistakes and adjust. Only you know this person and only you can truthfully ascertain if he has the capabilty of repeating a mistake.

The ball is in your court.

Do you possess the "High Standard" that you want your future spouse to have. A relationship without a compromise is an utopian relationship.

Get real dude.

^^^^^^

How will you know if someone would betray me?

Joagbaje:
There are different kinds of judgements . What it is in one verse may not be what it is in another.

It could mean, discern in another condemn , in another passage it refers to justice, or observation, or to choose in some it mean appraise.

So that's why the scripture can say we should judge in one sense and judge not in another . Whatever the case we are not to criticise or condemn others. We can discern and analyse issues

I hope you realise the contradiction between the bolded.

MrBible:
@dare2think After or before he betrays you?

after the betrayal