₦airaland Forum

nuclearboy:
@DS:

Replace "instincts" with "desire" if that will butter your toast

. . . . . And pray tell, who created desire? ? ? ?

These half-considered ripostes will not do.

Entirely, exhaustively, unspeakably, monumentally, and tragically misfooted, misconceived, and mis-delivered.

Frankly, a non-delivery altogether.

You have yet to grasp the simple connotation of that which may be deemed a religion. There have been too many threads where this has been beaten to death: I have not the strength to start it all over again: suffice to say that atheism is not a religion: the mere element of "belief" is insufficient to ground a religion: for if that were the case, my belief that my mother's food tastes good would amount to a religion.

Better still, any person expressing a rejection of that belief of mine: could be said to be practicing a religion - as atheism is a rejection of specific beliefs.

That is ridiculous in the extreme.

Puker up. You gat it wrang mi nigga.

nuclearboy:
Jenwitemi:

Inesqor has started to explain but let me try to give another perspectivenon this issue.

Until God made laws and said, "this is bad", there was NO sin or transgression possible. Once laws were in place, sin became a possibility.

The choice of doing right or wrong belongs to us. As long as we are tempted and do not act on the temptation, we remain free of sin. Satan acted on his instincts and decided he wanted more than was his due. That was the onset of sin. Its like saying a gun kills. No, people kill. And they don't just kill (in this case) - they DECIDE to kill

You need to come up with something more plausible. You say that "Satan acted on his instincts". . .without bothering to wonder from where such instincts arose? From where did all things in existence arise?

InesQor:
@4one9

What I quoted there by e36991 was, in English, "Where there is no law, there is no trangression".

When you define what is right, you have defined what is NOT right.

I have argued this metaphysically in the past, I wont bother doing so again. You can read it here.

Meta-ethics: The Nature And Origins Of Good And Evil

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria?topic=402063

Cheers

Chessmaster, you aint even scratched the surface. What do you mean "where there is no law. . ." - ? ? ?

Can you tell me at what time or place there has not been divine law?

Is divine law not eternal?

If God be eternal in the past, which he is asserted to be, and if God be the embodiment of divine law - then law has always existed. Start afresh.

^^^ The distinctions are beginning to blur. I cannot see any disagreement between what you have written and that which I set out.

@ Nuclear - for the avoidance of doubt, here is what I posted regarding the scriptural basis of WoF teachings -


Re: Belief & Reality
« #22 on: August 17, 2010, 04:36 PM »
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hello Nuclearboy -

I have had a look at the links you posted. I will like to note a number of things.

I do not believe that there is anything particularly heretical about the WoF teachings. However before proceeding, let me carefully draw a distinction between the personalities behind the movement historically and the teachings of the movement. I say this because it is all too apparent to me that some of these persons, as is common with modern-day commercial pentecostalism, anyway, are simply hawks who may be pursuing their own material and corrupt agenda. This is an entirely different question from the matter of the core teaching of their faith - which teaching is what I beleive is at issue.

I have selected some extracts from the second link you provided and I wish to use this extract to address the elements of the supposedly heretical WoF teachings as set out therein. Here -

Quote
At the heart of the Word of Faith movement is the belief in the "force of faith." It is believed words can be used to manipulate the faith-force, and thus actually create what they believe Scripture promises (health and wealth). Laws supposedly governing the faith-force are said to operate independently of God's sovereign will and that God Himself is subject to these laws. This is nothing short of idolatry, turning our faith—and by extension ourselves—into god.

I do not see that this is at variance with Christian teaching.

1. The power of faith is a key teaching of the New Testament. As i stated in the OP, Jesus himself famously taught that if men would have sufficient faith, they could walk on water or lift mountains into the sea. Whichever way you read these statements, either literally or symbolically - the connotation is clear: that by faith all things may be accomplished. Indeed in terms of walking on water this was actually literal as the scripture records that Jesus walked on water and urged Peter to do the same (and he actually did), but faltered, lacking sure conviction. If this is not a wholesale endorsement of the WoF teaching that faith accomplishes all things, I do not know what else is.

2. The extract talks about laws operating in the universe. Do you deny this? Does scripture deny this?

3. The extract talks about the laws being independent of God's will and that God himself is subject to those laws. Really this is just another way of stating that that which God has established is unchangeable in terms of the laws that govern creation: as such God is not to be seen changing his laws - and Bible teaching bears this out when it states that God is unchangeable. Understood right, therefore, this extract simply means that God will not change the laws of creation beacause those laws are perfect and eternal, as they proceed from God. For this reason there is nothing to change, and this is why it is said that God himself is "subject" to those laws. I believe this is mirrorred in the biblical teaching that heaven and earth may pass away but the word of the Lord abideth forever. That word, simply is the law of God, and this is what is said to abide forever.

4. It is thus not a question of turning faith into God: it is simply a question of realizing that there are latent laws within the universe and that the bible does teach that through faith one may key-into those laws and reach a desired reality. Jesus clearly taught this - and you will find that it is a standard piece of truth which is mirrorred in may oriental traditions as well. I thus cannot see that the teaching regarding faith is in anyway heretical or unbiblical.

Quote
From here, its theology just strays further and further from Scripture: It claims that God created human beings in His literal, physical image as little gods. Before the fall, humans had the potential to call things into existence by using the faith-force. After the fall humans took on Satan's nature and lost the ability to call things into existence. In order to correct this situation, Jesus Christ gave up His divinity and became a man, died spiritually, took Satan's nature upon Himself, went to hell, was born-again, and rose from the dead with God's nature. After this, Jesus sent the Holy Spirit to replicate the Incarnation in believers so they could become little gods as God had originally intended.

1. I do not know that the WoF claim God to be physical (like a good friend of yours does, Lol!) - but without contest the bible does teach in Genesis that God made man in his own image.

2. If God did make man in his own image as the bible teaches, then clearly man must have had attributes of the "Godly" nature, which includes the power of creativity. Thus up till today, man actively creates things.

3. The bible teaches that there was a fall of man.

4. The bible teaches that that fall of man placed man within the will of the satan as conceived in the garden of Eden. The Bible teaches that this alienated man from God.

5. The bible teaches that Jesus' coming was necessary to reconcile man with God.

6. The Bible teaches that by his death, Jesus took on the sin of the world. This is exactly analogous to that which is stated in the extract above namely "taking on the nature of satan" - this simply refers to his act of taking on the sin of the world at Golgotha.

7. The bible teaches that by this very act, Man became reconciled to God - and Jesus urged christians to thereby excercise faith to influence reality.

8. Jesus himself referred to men as "gods" - and the NT teaches that by his sacrifice men would become brothers of christ in the kingdom of God. Does this not sync perfectly with the WoF teaching regarding the powers and status of the saved christian man of faith?

All of these, which are contained in the extract, are taught by the Bible. As I said earlier, Jesus himself propounded the thought that by faith men could control reality. I thus cannot see why there is such a mighty furore over the teachings of the WoF movement as expressed herein. Frankly it seems to me that those teachings are derived from the Bible. What I do understand is that different christian sects have different interpretations of scripture. This is only natural and should not lead you to brand them heretical - they simply have a different view of scripture which they are entitled to have, especially when all the things enumerated above are undoubtedly conveyed by scripture.

Quote
Following the natural progression of these teachings, as little gods we again have the ability to manipulate the faith-force and become prosperous in all areas of life. Illness, sin, and failure are the result of a lack of faith, and are remedied by confession—claiming God's promises for oneself into existence.

What is so unscripural about the foregoing? Did Jesus not teach same?

As a post script let me just say this: Scripture and christainity aside, thought, belief and faith undoubtedly influence reality. This has been the vocation of mystics for generations. I cannot see what is evil about harnessing the power of thought to transform belief and positively influence one's reality. That is what this thread is about.

[quote author=Tonye-t link=topic=538749.msg7056007#msg7056007 date=1288613188]* laughing after reading the intro-post *

This story got me thrown back on my experience with a highly respected "Man of God" in Port Harcourt sometime September, 2009. His name(s) is/are Bishop J.M (*used initials for reasons best known*) of the KPPM.

I have lived in my previous vicinity for over 15yrs and so i could atleast give an 80% valid attestation about residents i grew up with in my hood. Bishop J.M as he is fondly called started his livelihood as a simple dramatist playing and writing for schools and the state's ministry of culture then as Jack.

His early days i'll say were like every adventurous guy, he did stuffs and all 'em girls BS. until he "met the Lord" in a vigil meeting where he went his usual gaming. I remember folks use to call him the King Pink an acronym for King Point n Kill".

It wasnt 3months into his new birth that he announced publicly that the Lord had called him to start his ministry and i was like WTH! because i knew this dude was just zealous, poorly schooled and nothing more. I knew his rough/rude and arrogant lifestyle still had dominant trails and traits into his 'new lifestyle'.

Like play. . . like play. . . Jack chose to play the role of the 'savior of the Israelites' hence the addition of 'M' to his name . Before Tonye could say Jack robinson. . .Pastor J.M had begun emassing membership like flies to a rot. goooshh His members were something else. . .they went everywhere intimidating gullibles to come join the pathetic bandwagon. it was a site not to behold!

Did i forget to say, he had this . . . will i say fear or awe for me. . . till date. and so i visited an elderly friend in that hood where his church shared fence with the old man's little house. And i heard him preaching loud through the outdoor mounted speakers saying. . ."THIS IS THE ENDTIME AND MY MISSION IS TO SILENCE ANYONE WHO WILL STAND IN THE PATH OF GOD'S KINGDOM. . .LIKE I TOLD YOU WE WILL GIVE THEM PEACE FOR PEACE AND WAR FOR WAR *am trying real hard to recall some comments* IF YOU HEAR THEM SAYING EVIL ABOUT ME OR MY CHURCH GO AHEAD AND SLAP THEM".

When i heard this stuffs i was like hmmmmm Pastor J.M, not until my oldie told me he was now a bishop and that just last week he came and literally ordered his 'boys' to slap my oldie. . .at first i didnt believe it, but then this was coming from a man i have never heard him tell me a lie before infact i even saw the site on oldie's face (an old wrinkled face). I became furious and waited for the Bishop J.M's service to close that nite.Dont hate me for what i did. . .becos i know that Bishop was simply F.A.K.E and i pity his followers.

At the sharing of the grace, i walked straight into the premises and stood beside his 2008 Murano, when he came out, he recognised me and was trying to throw pleasantries, gooosh i didnt know how my fist got straight to his collars. . . the last i could remember was a hard rumble on his shirt with a warning. . .dont assault my friends again!

And then i turned around and left, i could hear his ushers and 'bodyguards' saying DADDY who was that man? should we let him go and stuffs like that.

To add:

- Bishop JM has vividly told his members not to come to any service with anything less that 200naira

- They dont put offerings in envelopes, he seats close to the contribution box and inspects the denom. to ensure his subjects follow his words

- He is always on shades. . . wonder if he's prolly high on stuffs. . . like they say "old habits never die easily"

- Donation days are held forthnightly.

gooosh i can go on and on to spit shits about this MOG. . . so i dont doubt anything the OP said.

As christian faithfuls we owe our families and friends the resp. of prayers to keep them away from evil.

Just like the Lord's prayer that says: "Our Father . . . deliver us from evil" - Matt.6:13[/quote]Wow, could it be the same guy? Because the initials are similar and the guy i listened to said he was from Brass LGA in Rivers State. I think he had his first branch there or so. Does this guy you are talking about have a building going up in a Lagos Suburb?

nuclearboy:
@DS:

You are wrong because you are not getting the point. The Bible is not ambigous when it says we were created in the image of God. We all know that is what it says. The point is "that does not make us Gods" in the same way the God IS. At best, we are transient, a passing fancy, so to say. Being a solution provider means acting in the place of God, being LIKE Him and not becoming Him.

OF course you know that we are at a consensus-ad-idem regarding this. This is exactly what I had stated in the Joagbaje "became god" thread.

Thats the naunace you seem to miss. I see myself as created to be as a wife to her husband, to Christ. A Helper. A guy is crying out (audibly or not) to God and I am able to take away his pain by offering the assistance he needs. Thats God-like - I have stood in the breach for God by the Grace of God and with His help. The people I despise claim that they, like God, are able to do things. And they take, then give back some, then magnify the small to seem huge. What do you say to a "Christian" (Paula White) who takes "atonement offerings"?

Again, i agree with this.

When Jesus spoke of faith achieving great things, it was in the context of trust in God, not trust in self. Your "faith" friends will back down at the very last and accede that yeah yeah yeah, Jesus is superior BUT! And they stop with the "but". That is not Christian, not matter how many titles you put before your name! And neither is it christian to do this for profit (couched in any form or other of deception).

Having agreed with this yet again, I still do not see that that detracts from the scriptural basis of the WoF teachings which I articulated.

Count on it, DS, me and Jo do not agree on the "Gods" issue. For him, it is for profit. For me, it is a responsibility. Motive makes all the difference.

Why do you insist on using the capital "G" whan you know very well that Jo used the small "g" repeatedly. Thay have different connotations. Do not be disingenious.

nuclearboy:
I actually agree with DeepSight's reasons.

Thank you.

What I think he fails to realise is that many people here, though assured that these people will as easily do the stated as breathe, wonder if this particular example is not a figment of his imagination and concocted out of thin air.

I would have to be jobless in the extreme to begin to concoct such a story. Nonetheless, it matters not.

The point you wish considered is why would such thrive? I believe it thrives because we have turned all things into an academic exercise - Christianity has become a guy practicing in front of his mirror. Grammar, inflections, timing and delivery, of course accompanied by favorable peer review, have become of more import than the spirit behind Mankind.

My personal musings inform that if created in the image of God, man ought be a solution provider - a homeless child needs a place, give it to him! A deprived young woman requires help to complete education, offer it to her FREE. Feed widows, the orphans etc. These are the tasks God does - answering prayers and providing succour and all for free. The best you can give anyway is to say "thank you". But where the basic message behind Christianity details the above, what we have today is people seeing the belief system as a means to their own glorification - either as tithe-payers (expecting "returns" from God) or as tithe-collectors (I ate my cake and still got it). Which is why your MOGS win and why only a very few of us detest the concept.

Could not be better said.

Sadly, DS is part of the problem when you see the legality and not the motive. You see a guy using language constructs to explain away theft, avarice and greed and you say "His words are scriptural". So why do you have issues with such going the hog and demanding money?

You must know that I do not agree with everything that is "scriptural." That which I did point out, which i believe you refer to, is the simple fact that no matter how unsavoury you may wish to regard many of Pastor Agbaje's teachings as being, you will note that he is always able to quote extensively from scripture to support that which he lays out. I do not agree with everything that he lays out: or the interpretations he deploys - but the fact is that one interpretation may stand agaisnt another - and the fact of differing interpretations is not sufficient to demonise any person.

O, and yes, the bible does suggest that men are "gods." And O, yes, Jesus, [b]did [/b]teach that faith may accomplish great things by the power of belief. I set out the scripture to you here -

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-467772.0.html#msg6587830


- And I note that you declined to respond.

The truth is that the real message has been lost. We were created in the image of God. But how many of us are truly "gods" (solution providers and creators). Maybe that is what we ought discuss - what exactly should a Christian be like?

Implicit in the above, you have reverted full circle to agree with Pastor Agbaje's surmise on "gods."

@ Kunle, my dear and most respected friend -

It is not necessary for anybody to believe that which I shared. Anyone is free to disbelieve it. I believe there are recorded cases of even worse behaviour from the pulpit. Some posters have posted videos on this thread. So if there is any person who imagines it is too dramatic to be true - so be it.

As I stated above - the "name and shame" game will lead to petty recriminations. I am not interetsed in that.

InesQor:
This is just a reminder that we have successfully steered the conversation in other (though related) directions. We are rather waiting on our distinguished Lawyer Deep Sight to prove that this story is not a figment of his imagination (Odunnu's words) by mentioning the name of the church, even as our Nairaland LandLord (Seun) and also Tudor and Nuclearboy have sincerely wondered as well why Deep Sight should be protecting the church's name (moreso Deep Sight has confirmed that the lady is NOT on Nairaland, so his secret is safe). I maintain that the church's name will not only lend credence to the "story" but will also help in further discusssion on the topic.

Deep Sight, we are waiting. It's 5 days now. And the last time you logged in was yesterday. Surely the church name should be easy to remember?

banom:
Eww, see better business ooooo, I am beggining to nurse a thought,

@ deapsight,

You have to understand the only reason we are paying attention to this thread is because of you and the respect you command on this Forum , there is a person that would have started this thread, no one will take it seriously,

it will be funny to think we will continue taking this thread seriously without you mentioning this pastor and the name of the church, every one is beggining to think that you made up the story yourself, and beleive me, if that is what every one concludes, it will adversly affect your respect and reputation here,

i dont have problem with that, but i hope you got my point.

Think what you will: No - remains my answer - I am not certain that I have particularly conveyed the impression of one who is desperate to be in anybody's good books. If I have: that is a false picture of who I am.

My reason for not disclosing the name of the church remains simple: doubtless it will lead to unsavoury recriminations - which in my view is entirely needless. Heaven forbid that I be involved in a "yes he did/ no he didn't" sort of yabbis session with anybody - with the pettiness that cannot be escaped therein. I insist that what should be of concern is how - exactly how - on a psycological level, people could entertain such abuse as worship.

Perhaps you have missed the more subtle point that if people will accept this - there is nothing that people will not accept - and this has been proven - with recorded cases of certain "churches" even inciting mass suicide. This is what should be cause for mature reflection - and not the "name and shame" game.

If any person has cogent reaosns why I must name the church - please do proffer same: if they make sense to me, perhaps I will change my mind.

One thing I have decided to do though, is to purchase the audio recording of that sermon and perhaps I will be able to share parts of it on this forum - if i get it.

^^^ Well sorry, that is my view. I am not going to change it, thanks. I cannot imagine myself entering a jaw-jaw with people who may wish to defend that church on account of what they may view as slander of their pastor. I just dont have the inclination for such.

What i prefer to understand is exactly how such persons are able to retain and even grow their congregations? Why do people respond to such behaviour? Its a psycological question which will not be answered by any unnecessary yabbis and counter-yabbis session.

[quote author=Tudór link=topic=538749.msg7018233#msg7018233 date=1288104822]So refusing to name and shame the crooked pastor on the grounds of not offending your fu.c.k-mate, in effect shielding the fraud which therefore makes you an accomplice.

Does that not make you Guilty by toto lusting

For someone who accuses others of  hypocrisy, Your double standards are amazing.[/quote]I really don't know what gets you so excited Mr. Man. You need to stop making assumptions. I already gave my reason for not naming the church

Here it is again -

On naming the church, i think that will reduce the discourse to a yabbis session. I rathrr want to discuss the psycological reasons that people could remain spellbound by such

So quit the ch.it chat about "fvck mates" etc. That person is neither a "fvck mate" or even aware of the existence of nairaland.

My reason for not naming the church has been given: and i shall not change my mind on that save if I am given sound reasons for such.

fellis:
@Topic, I don't believe this story. Stop lying.

Well if you don't believe it, i certainly hope it at least entertained you. The man certainly entertained me a great deal.

Jenwitemi:
-Were you a "true son" or a "B.A.S.T.A.R.D"? Did you drop some juicy offerings before you left the church, or you refused?

Twice i was handed the envelopes, twice i turned them down. I could not bring myself to donate a kobo to advance such a ministry. That would make me guilty by association and contribution. I think that is enough to render one a willing accomplice.

-Did you let the lady who invited you know about how you felt about the pastor and his audaciously scandalous preaching?

Of course. We had lunch afterwards and i spent the whole afternoon airing my views. It was quite funny actually, because she was telling me so many stories about several people who have been similarly scandalised by the man's approach, many who were once members have deserted. Maybe this is what forms the man's anger at "b.a.s.t.a.r.d.s." I also recall that at some point he said that "even the prodigal son returned and gave honour to his father, so should you do too. . ." - he was referring to himself as the father.

Although we had a great time laughing about the guy over lunch, what interests me is that she would not give up the church. She insists that the man means well and actually argued that indeed most of the congregation are stingy and need to be spoken to "toughly" in order to "do the right thing."

What is it that makes people spell bound by these guys? And on such a mass scale? Na Jazz?

Jesoul, well when he says 'prosperity people' that gives the impression i hv supported them with regard to prosperity. Not so.

Secondly whats the 'winner takes all' approach. It cannot be right to presume that someone cannot be right on one thing while being wrong on another. So pls do not be persuaded that once a person annoys the generality with his views, then everything he says must be wrong, or that once a person pleases the generality, then everything he says must be right.

On naming the church, i think that will reduce the discourse to a yabbis session. I rathrr want to discuss the psycological reasons that people could remain spellbound by such

nuclear, honesty please. When have i ever supported the prosperity gospel?

honesty please. When have i ever supported the prosperity gospel?

Yesterday I had a truly amazing experience in Church in a Lagos suburb.

What, you might wonder, is your ol' chap doing in Church on a sunday, given his antecedents? Well I cannot really comment on that now: save to very shamelessly note that given the pure gentleman that I am, it is against my upbringing to decline an invitation from a comely damsel, if she be comely enough, and wear high-heels of a certain height.

Now, I will not name the Church. I think there is no reason to name it: suffice to say that it is a rather new ministry with a very large building in a Lagos Suburb.

Before I go any further i think it is important for me to state very explicitly: I have of recent tendered an unreserved apology to such Christians on this forum as may have felt offended by my posts regarding certain Christian doctrines: I plead that no one mistakes this as a diatribe against Christianity of any sort: this is strictly and specifically about the antics of the Pastors at the Church that i visited: and I am certain, as we all are - that not all Pastors could be this way.

Now here was a truly terrible beast of a man: and he had a very clear mission about him - to which end he waged a sure war on the pulpit - a very frightening and dire one indeed.

From the moment he stepped up to the pulpit and commenced I just could not take my eyes off the man. He was absolutely riveting.

The Message

This was a man who knew his mission. O, you'd better believe that - he was not in any way schizophrenic: no split personality at all: he had ONE resolute and clear personality, one resolute and clear mission - to which he devoted his fervent and ultra-passionate energies on the pulpit.

Our man started off with the definition of who a true son is. Not one to be accused of tardiness of any form; he commenced by first making clear who the father was: he himself, given the anointing of God for that special role, was the father of all the members of the congregation - and they were all his children.

Having set the tone, our man plunged headlong into the essentials of "being a true son" to him.

True sons, he boomed in a loud imperious tone, must vigorously ensure that they bring their money to their father - himself. For which true son, he argued, would see his father neglected?

At this point, before proceeding the grand pastor gave a brief lecture on the awe with which he should be esteemed by the congregation. He stated explicitly that any member of the church who criticizes him is "B.A.S.T.A.R.D" and not a true son.

He went further to state that any member of the church who was in any place where he, the head pastor, was being criticized, owes a duty to slap the critic. This, he stated, is not un-christrian violence because Jesus after all, used whips on the stubborn. Our man insisted that it is only right and proper, that any member of the congregation who hears a person criticizing the pastor, should react by slapping such a person. He promised that the church will do everything to protect such a person. He defended this asking - which one of you will stand back if your biological father is insulted? IF you would not, then should you not also fight for me, your spiritual father? Only B.A.S.T.A.R.D.S would refuse to slap his critics, he said. He went further to state that no one should engage the thought as to whether or not the critic was right: that the slap should be delivered first and that the church will resolve any consequences of such slapping.

Now all of this was delivered at a frighteningly harsh pace: our man was literally screaming his head off: he roved frantically about the stage staring down people and demanding if they were true sons, and what they would so for him, their father.

The Core Message

Now the treatise on sonship was but brief: for our man spent the whole of his ensuing lecture of some three hours stressing vehemently that every member of the church must continuously bring their money to him, in order to advance the church and the work of God. I kid you not, this man was panting, and roaming the stage and shouting "BRING IT TO ME, BRING IT TO ME, I WANT YOUR MONEY, BRING IT TO ME! ! !"

I was dumbfounded.

He went on and on. He simply would not let up. He screeched at the congregation, repeatedly calling them, "stingy, wicked and decitful" and constantly shouting - "B.A.S.TARDS! THE B.A.S.TARDS HERE DON'T WANT TO BRING THEIR MONEY! BRING YOUR MONEY TO ME! ! !"

This shouting and terrorizing the audience went on and on and on - and the fellow had absolutely no gospel teaching throughout the three hour sermon save to continue to shout and impress on the people that those who refused to bring their money to him were B.A.S.TARDS.

The church building project, he emphasized throughout, must take precedence over all individual needs. Such was the importance of the project.

He then urged the "true sons" to name go and set up new churches everywhere across the country, but that such churches must remain branches of his church. He emphasized that St. Paul did not even see many congregations, and yet was their "master." He was very particular that any such person who started a new church and gave it a new name and did not place the new church under his authourity is " A B.A.S.TARD" and "damn wicked to be punished."


The Offering

At the end of his three hour diatribe, i was galled to note his words. He said, verbatim - "Before I go, let me collect my offering."

The ushers then began to collect tithes and offering, while be boomed down at the people saying that those who did not give are THEIVES, are stealing from God. He shouted - it is not your money! You have no right to keep it! Bastards! Thieves! BRING IT TO ME!"

"Why are you looking at me like that?"

Now i should note that the entire sermon was punctuated by something very peculiar. At various points he seemed uncomfortable at the way his message of abuse and enrichment was being received. Thus at several points during the sermon he would run down the steps and start shouting "WHY ARE YOU LOOKING AT ME LIKE THAT? ? ? WHAT ARE YOU LOOKING AT ME LIKE THAT? ? ? YOU DON'T LIKE WHAT I AM SAYING, ABI? ? ? STOP LOOKING AT ME LIKE THAT! ! !"

It was simply obvious that many people were befuddled as to his violent, insulting and demanding message and were staring at him in an odd fashion. This made him angry and uncomfortable . "WHY ARE YOU LOOKING AT ME LIKE THAT? ? ? STOP LOOKING AT ME LIKE THAT! ! !"

At some point he confided in the audience that his rent in the united states was about to expire and he had to find the money within the next one month.

After he descended the pulpit, a succession of three pastors followed, each demanding more money for the church building project, the church television launch, and others. The tone was very clear and strict: and small amounts were explicitly discouraged.

I was amazed that the pastors all spent the entire day demanding money and preached not a single word of the gospel.

After the service had ended, as the congregation dispersed, he went back to the pulpit and began to say - "Any personal gifts for me. . .i will accept personal gifts. . ."

Amazingly quite a number of people approached him with envelopes.

More than ever before I was taken aback by the entire service.

The reason I was so taken aback was that I have always presumed that many of these guys actually believe in their ministry as the work of God. When I saw what happened in that Church, I began to understand more clearly that some persons have perfected and mastered the art of manipulating forcefully mass psychology. And they could be in no doubt or illusion, regarding their purposes.

Uyi Iredia:
u misinterpreted my post >>> Heraclitus was a male philosopher who made the famous quote

"There is nothing permanent except change."

My word! His wonderful play on words really went over ya head completely

Oooo, thou shall not offend thy prophet of infinity,

nuclearboy:
^^

Surely you meant "creative/logical" rather than mathematical

I meant oneness of infinity, lol.

nuclearboy:
^^ Wow. Thanks but sincerely, SINCERELY, I didn't expect a believer in Jesus could be seen as intelligent in your estimation.

Maybe then, the Jesus factor is what lowers us in your reasoning.

Now then Nuke! Haba na? Be a good man! You know there are far too many brilliant religionists for any person to ever suggest such. I would never be so presumptuous as to compare my mind, for example, to the absolutely brilliant and super intelligent minds of some of the world's all time genuiuses - many of whom have been christian, muslim, hindu etc.

^^^ Ah, Leonardo Da Vinci. . .in my humble opinion the most brilliant man that ever walked the earth.

The perfect union of scientific and artistic brilliance.

What a man.

[size=4pt]Retracted with apologies[/size]

vescucci:
Would you advocate something of a hierarchy of these intelligences?

Would you say Albert Einstein was more intelligent than William Shakespeare?

Absolutely different sorts of expression of intelligence, but in my opinion, it is altogether impossible to begin to rate the one sort as superior to the other sort.

Not let me contradict myself directly.

What do you suppose is the element of intelligence expressed by the founding principle of existence.

I maybe wrong, but in my view it is first a mathematical principle. That principle devolves into a succession of principles which unfolds as the multifaceted creation.

Pastor AIO:
@ MyJoe,
While you're answering the above questions could you also tell us what exactly are the logical-mathematic and verbal-linguistic intelligences and why they are different from each other? Thank you.

People do have different sorts of minds. Some minds are more logical and mathematical in their thought construction than others. Some minds think more creatively, intuitively - in a random fashion which could often be the well spring of genuine brilliance.

You yourself have hinted at this when you described in a recent thread something about the gunas and how people could have different approaches to resolving a problem. Some are logical, mathematical and others are creative and intuitive.

In the same way there are people whose intelligence factors are rigidly mathematical and people whose intelligence factors are more fluid and creative. In this regard you may also have people whose intelligence is better expressed in words and language (verbal linguistic) and people whose intelligence is better expressed in figures and mathematical equations.

Think Albert Einstein vs William Shakespeare.

^^^ O, now that's an intelligent description. Bang correct man.

Kay17 -

Do you not see contradictions in these -

Kay 17:
Intelligence is the element for creation.

Does the above not starkly contradict these -

Kay 17:
Thus, intelligence, a byproduct of life is as insignificant as life is to the universe.

Kay 17:
The cold reality is life seems more and more like an accident, we more or less dominated by an inanimated world.

^^I really wonder who the "us" were in the statement "let us make make man after our own image and likeness."

Such "us" that could come down and "stroll with man in the garden. . ."

Such "us" that became worried that "behold, the man has become as one of us. . ."

Sometimes these myths have a real hidden meaning which may be pointing to a staggering truth.

If mankind can be involved in human and animal cloning as well as planetary engineering today already, it is not inconceivable that other more ancient civilizations built this world. Not that I say it is certain: I say it is not inconceivable.

Kay 17:
Intelligence is the element for creation.

I do think the universe should begat things essential to its continual existence, to which there is no thread of connection between that and life itself. Life is a tiny tiny fraction of the universe, located in a most obscure part of it. Thus, intelligence, a byproduct of life is as insignificant as life is to the universe.

You are not in a position to state what quantum of life may be in the universe, given that you, like the whole of humanity, have yet to step a single inch outside our own galaxy alone, not to speak of the hundreds of billions of galactic systems in the known universe alone.

In light of this, humanity is not in a position to make the judgement that life is insignificant to the universe.

What if future developments and advances in knowledge reveal galactic civilizations who have been engaged in the galactic engineering of the universe long before we ever knew? What if our planet and our world is a mere experiment - a laboratory, being used by such civilizations as a test case? The possibilities are limitless.

Do not think the propositions above to be outlandish: even scientists on earth are already studying planetary engineering: in a few decades scientists will be practicing engineering distant planets to suit human habitation - and from such studies entire manipulations of larger cosmic systems may become possible.

We are living in a bubble and we simply do not know and should not limit what may exist outside the bubble: i repeat - for all we know, we are lab rats.

^^^ That is simply selfishness.

Kay 17:
@deepsight, good question

But at what purpose is the universe aiming at?

What do you think? What's your own view - Do you think the universe is purposeless?

1. Do you think the universe does things that are inessential to its existence?

2. If not; in what regard is the presence of sentient intelligence essential to the universe's existence?

MyJoe:
I can think of a case right now - the protesters currently shutting down France and intimidating their government. Along with their backers in the Socialist Party, they are, in my opinion, very very unintelligent. What we have here is a deplorable inability to make a distinction. The government wants to extend retirement wage by making workers work two years more, the workers want to retire early, the students want workers to retire early so there will be more vacancies for graduates. Why the government wants to do it – to save the pension system and by extension, the civil service, does not matter to the protesters. They are unable to make a distinction between elitist government policies and those that will be benefit the people in the long run. The government is unpopular, so anything it does must be opposed. They are unable to tell when an unpopular government does something good.

It may not necessarily be unintelligent. I think what you are referring to is more the sort of wisdom and vision which statesmen should have.

People on the other hand, have many very selfish reasons for doing the things that they do: and those selfish reasons are not necessarily unintelligent by reason of being short-sighted only. Sometimes people deliberately deploy intelligence to achieve a limited, short-term, selfish interest: and this is done with full awareness of the bigger picture.

Pastor AIO:
Sir, you might as well ask why the universe should exist at all.  I do not think that intelligence is something that the world does not need.  Far from it, it is at the very essence of phenomenal existence.  This whole universe can be said to be made up of Intelligence and Information.

Exactly what I am trying to drive at. Forgive my penchant to make everything about proof of the existence of God: but I believe that the presence of intelligence in the universe is evidence of the existence of the ultimate intelligence - or better still i should very carefully say - the intelligence that permeates all things. . .which is God.

Advance Intelligence?  What is that?

Well again I beg your forgiveness in advance but it seems to me that some of the qualities of intelligence that you pointed out could be present in a little creature - such as a Beaver that constructs a dam, or the collective intelligence of ants that cultivate livestock and create air-conditioning systems in their ant-hills.

There however seems to be a degree of sentience that makes it possible to recognise and contemplate more advanced or abstract concepts and this is what I referred to as advanced intelligence.

Needless to say, for all the dams it may construct, a beaver is most unlikely to be able to contemplate further mathematics, quantum physics or philosophy. I feel that this is not just a question of brain size - it is, in my view, also a question of the degree of sentience that a creature is capable of. Its like addressing different operating systems with different capacities altogether.

Anyhow, the reason i brought up the question of intelligence being evidence for the existence of God is simply that if not related to that question I cannot see that this is a thread for the Religion Section.