₦airaland Forum

Given the shaky foundations of his initial actions as outlined above, it is hardly surprising that he has emarked on destruction of jobs deliberately.

The fact is that banking regulation does not extend to determining how much staff a bank should have. That does not concern the CBN at all and is a matter for the discretion of the management of each bank. Monetery Policy and Capital movement should be of more concern to the CBN.

Sanusi is on a mission to destroy Nigeria's economy.

I have stated before on this Forum the glaring facts which point ot Mr. Lamido Sanusi as being the worst and most childish regulator ever.

There are two cardinal aspects of this mess that the CBN Governor got disastrously wrong. You see, when laws, regulations and procedures are laid down, the purpose is to avert anarchy. If we continue to act with disregard for regulations, we will continue to be a disjointed and directionless society. That forms the plank for the emergence of a failed state.

The two critical bits that Sanusi got wrong: Regulatory Discretion & Procedure and Approprition of Public Funds.

If you are familiar with the Fundamentals of Regulatory Oversight in any industry, you will be aware that the cardinal function of the Regulator is to guarantee a healthy industry and in so doing, the Regulator has various tools of intervention. The tools are to be excercised progressively in such a manner that correction of anomalies is effected with minimal disruption to the system. The ultimate sanctions are only reserved for irreversible situations and even at that ONLY after the application of intermediary measures which have failed.

Sanusi did not apply any intermediary measures whatsoever before wielding the big stick and he failed to note the likely ripple effects of loss of local and international confidence and run on deposits that attend such public shows of regulatory might.

It is therefore clear that as a Regulator he acted hastily, and without discretion, which is scandalous considering that this is a post he has held for less than two months. Clear measures availed him in taking gradual steps to correct the anomalies.

Furthermore a Regulator must be impartial - and in this he has manifestly failed by implicitly giving the other banks more time to tidy up their books while dragging the first lot into the mud.

The Second major point is Appropriation of Public funds.
Under the Constitution of Nigeria ALL FUNDS - HOWEVER SOURCED, PRODUCED OR DERIVED, accrue FIRST, AND AUTOMATICALLY TO THE CONSOLIDATED FEDERATION ACCOUNT, AND NO FUNDS MAY BE WITHDRWAN THEREFROM WITHOUT APPROPRIATION FOR SUCH PURPOSE BY THE PARLIAMENT (NATIONAL ASSEMBLY).

Accordingly, once monies are printed (which is at all events a questionable approach to creating wealth) such monies accrue first to the Federation Account and must be appropriated before being touched at all.

Sanusi made two infantile arguments in his attempt to evade this. He stated that it was not an expenditure but a loan. This is irrelevant because the Constitution does not make a distinction. It states that ALL monies must be appropriated before being withdrawn. Thus it does not matter what you are withdrawing the money for: it must be appropriated before being withdrawn. Secondly he stated that the money was not from the Federation Account. What a laugh - the law states that ALL monies should go to that account!

His action sets a very dangerous precedent: In future the CBN Governor may print trillions of naira and disburse as he pleases since in his argument, its a loan. So perhaps he can print 100 trillion naira and give out as loans without the proper process of legislative approval? Also, if the other banks he is still auditing are found to need help, what will he do? Go back to his back yard and print more billions?

Aside from the illegality pointed out above, as an economist he should be aware that such reckless printing of monies is a key cause of inflationary trends within the economy.

Recall that both the US and UK effected similar bail-outs last year at the height of the recession. It may interest you to know that in both societies the actions were carried out by the Central Banks through Acts of Parliament.

Its really sad. Just saw on sky news now that another Nigerian who was ill on a plane in Detroit caused a panic simply because he went to the bathroom. The Plane did not take off and police were called in before it was discovered that the poor fellow was simply ill.

Now together with arabs we have become prime suspects.

nuclearboy:
@DeepSight:

Do you agree the books of Isaiah, the Psalms and others that pointed to the future Messiah are factual? My answer is mainly based on these so I need to know your mindset on these issues. I apologize if I seem defensive but you are coming at me using the word "myth" which suggests you already made up your mind.

And yes, History has represented many great figures (not just spiritual e.g. Alexander and the Caesars) as self-deified. Jesus on the other hand, was followed but not really deified until (as accounts put it), a sequence of events made disciples who were afraid when He was in their midst, become bold even unto death. I also wondered and would have you tell me - for how many hundreds/thousands of years were any of these you mentioned deified? That is actually an aside. Lets talk Isaiah and books from the OT

This is the answer which I believe might test your proposition –

Culled From Wiki Answers on Prophecy –

The Septuagint (An early translation of the Hebrew Bible into the Greek language) incorrectly translated Isaiah 7:14 to say that a virgin would conceive and bear a child. The correct translation would have been "young woman", and the young woman in question did have a child a few verses later in Isaiah. The author of the Gospel of Matthew relied on this mistranslation to show that it was prophesied that Jesus would be born of a virgin.

---

Hebrew has a specific word, betulah, for a virgin, and a more general word, `almah, for a young woman. Matthew 1:22-23 used the Septuagint translation of alma in Isaiah 7:14 as "virgin."

Note that the “alma” – young woman – referred to in the hebrew actually is recorded to give birth a few verses after Isaiah 7:14 – See Isaiah 8:3.

In the light of the foregoing would it not strongly emerge that Matthew wrongly co-opted that prophecy:

BECAUSE IT CANNOT BE DISPUTED THAT THE ORIGINAL HEBREW WORD IN YOUR ISAIAH VERSE MEANS “YOUNG WOMAN.”

So there need be no talk about a conception without copulation. . .

I make no grand assertion. I state what has been scientifically observed. You are the one with the claim that what we see is actually not there.

Prove it.

It is well.

Just state to me this -

"The Andromeda galaxy and the rest of the universe did not exist until humans invented machines capable of seeing them" -

And we can begin to call in the Psychiatrist to treat you. . .

. . . The Andromeda Galaxy also did not exist until humans developed telescopes powerful enough to see it. . . ? ? ? ? ?

No way, Rossike. . . your assertion is entirely absurd.

Rossike, please!

Be careful. . . you are digging a hole. . .

It is not an object until it is perceived as such.

The sun did not exist until humans perceived it? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

You are doubtless aware that the Earth has developed for millions of years held in place by the gravitational pull of the sun.

Will you make the absurd contention that neither the earth nor the sun existed AT ALL untill humans came along to perceive them? ? ?

THAT IS A FALSE AND ABSURD ASSERTION.

Nuclear. . .i am very sorry about your health. . .I hope its getting better?

^^^ God? God? ? God? ? ?

God would not give us an institution that has a very well documented history of corruption, violence and duplicity.

Can we even begin to quantify it?

Aside all the old atrocities, just look at the role of the Pope and Church in the 2nd world war. . . they could not speak truth to power. . .

WE need a UK style Charity Commission to audit these businesses churches

Absolutely correct, Ibrahim - it has mass, and cannot be defined as empty.

Hell . . . i believe recent science has shown that even outer space is not "empty."

There are waves and energies and vibrations that we cannot naturally see.

In reality: there is nothing like "emptiness" anywhere in existence. . .

chukwudi44:
The prophecies in the scripture were written by human beings under divine guidance and are thus infallible.Likewise the pope can be influenced by the holy spirit to propound an infallible dogma.

Great: so infallibility is not reserved for the Pope then?

I too could be influenced by the Holy Spirit to propound an infallible dogma, just like the bible writers, yes?

In this post you have conceded that infallibility of dogma is not "Papal" . . . but comes from the Holy Spirit. . .

Thus there is nothing like papal infallibility. . . only infallibility of the Holy Spirit. . . Yes?

chukwudi44:
this power has been used only once ex cathedra: in 1950 when Pope Pius XII defined the Assumption of Mary as being an article of faith for Roman Catholics

ol boy,the above quote answers your questions.The clause of papal infallibility has been invoked just once in history

Is it your assumption that if it is used again, the pronouncement thereof would be an infallible one?
Do you think regardless of usage that the term "infallible" can ever be ascribed to doctrinal declarations of ANY HUMAN BEING?

chukwudi44:
Papal infallibility is the dogma in Catholic theology that, by action of the Holy Spirit, the Pope is preserved from even the possibility of error[1] when he solemnly declares or promulgates to the universal Church a dogmatic teaching on faith or morals as being contained in divine revelation, or at least being intimately connected to divine revelation. It is also taught that the Holy Spirit works in the body of the Church, as sensus fidelium, to ensure that dogmatic teachings proclaimed to be infallible will be received by all Catholics. This dogma, however, does not state either that the Pope cannot commit sin in his own personal life or that he is necessarily free of error, even when speaking in his official capacity, outside the specific contexts in which the dogma applies

In practice, popes seldom use their power of infallibility, but rely on the notion that the Church allows the office of the pope to be the ruling agent in deciding what will be accepted as formal beliefs in the Church.[2] Since the solemn declaration of Papal Infallibility by Vatican I on July 18, 1870, this power has been used only once ex cathedra: in 1950 when Pope Pius XII defined the Assumption of Mary as being an article of faith for Roman Catholics

I think that settles it

I find this wholly unsatisfactory.

I understand clearly that papal infallibillity does not relate to sin. As you have stated, it relates to the formation of dogma: which is then deemed infallible once the Pope’s seal of Divine Revelation is said to be on it.

I ask you the following questions:

1. Has the Roman Catholic Church ever changed any of its doctrines or dogma in History?

2. If it has, what does that suggest about the doctrinal infallibility of previous popes?

3. Has the Catholic Church ever sanctioned any dogma that emerges as outrightly false, unsciptural and as such led to repudiation?

4. If such has happened, what does that say about Papal infallibility on Doctrines?

Let us consider this:

1. Who was the Pope when Martin Luther nailed his questions to the door of the Monastery protesting the sale of Papal indulgences for the forgiveness of sins?

2. Was the sale of indulgences for the forgiveness of sins not a standard practice and doctrine of the church at that time?

3. What does this say about papal infallibility on doctrines?

4. If the Popes have made astonishingly evil doctrinal or dogmatic declarations in history, is there any reason to believe in Papal Infallibillity?

In specific regard to Leo, is his statement regarding the “myth” of Christ irrelevant to this discussion? Can a person who could have made such a remark be said to be infallible when it comes to doctrine on account of supposed Divine Revelation? ? ? How come he had no “Divine Revelation” about the truth of Christ?
.

Do you realize that you describe life as being purposeless and meaningless?

What sort of God would use the above as a game. . .

That the suffering of billions should form nothing but entertainment for God is the most gruesome description of the almighty i have ever come across.

ROSSIKE:
It is all just a GAME.

Do you call THIS a game? ? ? ? ?

edit

Yes, i accept Isaiah is a Messenger of the Light. Let's carry on. . .

Yisraylite. . .what is your position please? I have been reading your interesting views. Are you a Jew (Judaist)?

Krayola:
Not as defined today. Mercy may have meant slaughtering 500 instead of 2000.

LOL! ! !

Since when did you decide what God should permit in what time and space?

Cutting off hands and stoning women in whatever age AS THE LAW seems a tad lower than a Transcendental being sitting above time and space, don't you think?

Or maybe Yahweh was not transcendental. Maybe he is merely a Jewish pagan deity.

It should!! And I've said than several times on this forum. (Except when I'm responding to Abuzola in the only language he understands

Good! This is the point! If any bible prophet can be defended, then there is no basis for attacking Mohams as those same defenses whould apply to him.

Krayola:
Don't worry about chukwudii44. I am here. deal with me

Meeeeeeeeeerrry christmas, Krayola!

I cannot deal with you. You do not subscribe to papal infallibility.

I need Chukwudi44

_{What is this new tactic of yours of reversing my own words aginst me. . .its brilliant}

Krayola:
deepsight. . I would love to believe that u're much smarter that this ^^

2009 is not the same as 1000+ BCE. Some things that were acceptable then would not be today. Life isn't abstract philosophy. , Think in REAL WORLD. . please.

Are you suggesting to me that there was no such thing as human mercy or consideration even at that time?

EVEN FROM A SUPPOSED MAN OF GOD? ? ? ? ? ?

Also - If that defense applies to Moses, then it should apply to Mohammed!

Toba - i know its about Jezy and Mohams. But the reality is that the OP is trying to make bible-chistianity appear higher than quoranic-islam.

So its also about the bible and the quoran.

And the fact remains that there are gazillions of bible prophets who were peddlers of Violence, urged on by the the SAME God, who Christians worship, called Yahweh.

Is it not strange that that God is said to be the same yesterday, today and forever, and yet introduced so many changes between the Old and New Testaments?

Does this not tell you something?

^^^ What do you mean? You are yet to respond to my posts -

Deep Sight:
There is no doubt that the faculties of the perceiver would influence the manner or mode of perception: or what is perceived. Indeed as the saying goes perception is cognitive reality.

Just as surely as some creatures are colour blind, and accordingly will perceive objects differently from other creatures.

So you have missed the question.

The question is whether the thing perceived is actually there or is an illusion.

Since you concede that – “The pyramids under another software program could appear to the receivers, not as ''pyramids'', but as a retinue of colors, each symbolizing a thought wave.” – then you have conceded that the Pyramids EXIST, but will be perceived differently by different observers.

That in itself is a moot point well understood by all.

This is a very misleading statement.

From a broad and generalistic point of view the statement may be allowed to pass, in that God is everything, being the source and creator of all existence: or rather, being the very fibre of existence itself.

I had pointed towards this in another thread some days ago –

It is therefore fair to state that we are projections of the universal mind in an abstract sense.

However this is not to be confused with the specific nature of the human experience as being distinct from God.

It is apparent even from contradictions in your surmise that you apprehend this as well.

For you stated –

And then contradicted that statement many other statements, a few of which are -

Hereby conceding that individual souls are units that need to develop. . . Ultimate Consciousness, by its very definition cannot be said to need to develop! Thus you concede that we cannot be said to be God.

Really? If as you postulate, we are all parts of God, this would not be the case. Ultimate Consciousness would not write a script for itself to experience, which includes separating itself from itself and thereby creating evil, no?

Such a suggestion, you must agree, will be absurd.

And philosophically, it must collapse; for its suggestion, I hope you realize, is that the only purpose of creation was the formation of evil.

This is the direct implication of your surmise: because creation involved bringing into existence “individualized” parts of consciousness – thus “separating” infinite consciousness into parts. You yourself stated that “separation” is the basis of evil, whereas “oneness” is the basis of good.

Thus, if God wanted all things to be good, then he would never have created any “individuals.” All would have remained one, indivisible grreat oneness.

I hope you can see that your surmise leads irrevocably to the conclusion that creation was only done for the purpose of introducing “divisions” and thereby evil.

On this ground, your summation must fail in its entirety.

Here again you accept that “God himself” is entirely and altogether different from we as individual beings, and also that he/she/it posesses exclusive discretion on certain things, to which we will never be privy.

Thus your assertion that we are God (attractive as it is to my mind) is riddled with problems arising from your very own words.

And -

Deep Sight:
Importantly, i must also add that if indeed we are all little parts of God, then the direct implication is that every single thing is a direct deed of God, and thus ALL things are predestined.

If this is the case then -

1. Your talk about souls coming to the "world" to develop, becomes entirely meaningless

2. Every terrible event in history, including the holocaust, mass amputation in Liberia, genocide in Rwanda, the slave trade, would all be direct deeds of God (since we are God) carried out possibly for his entertainment.

Rossike? ? ? ? ?

^^^ This is an unfair presumption against the Jews of that time.

If your presumption is true, how come there were many good men amongst them, such that God could make some priests and prophets?

Also it needs to be said that the recalcitrance you referred to is inherent in the whole of humanity even TODAY.

So no excuse.

Barbaric laws are barbaric, lets call a spade a spade.

Must you really strive to rationalize every thing within the bible that is unsalutary?

aletheia:
"Solipsism is the philosophical idea that one's own mind is all that exists. Solipsism is an epistemological or ontological position that knowledge of anything outside the mind is unjustified. The external world and other minds cannot be known and might not exist."

Solipsism collapses the moment one being sees or touches something built by another being in another time.

That alone shows that the thing being seen -

1. Was not a figment of the mind of the builder only

2. Is not a figment of the imagination of the viewer only.

But now exists independent of both parties.

Daddy G.O. is a wicked and unrepentant fraudster with the singular life-purpose of stealing money from the gullible.

By the way, his excuse for not healing Umaru will be that Umaru has no faith in Jesus Christ.

Where is Chukwudi44?

Come here now and let us discuss papal infallibility in relation to this Pope.

I am waiting.

Pastor AIO:
I thought the quote was:

'It has served us well, this myth of Christ'

Same difference. Six and Half a Dozen.

What is annoying and perplexing is how enlightened and educated persons can be taken in by the myth that a fellow man is the almighty God who they must worship. And they do not see the cultic aspect of this.

Pooh.

ROSSIKE:
However, everything that can be ''seen'' is illusion, in that it is the observer's ''faculties'' which determine the form characteristics of what is ''seen''. What is seen has no ''default'' shape, size, or density independent of its observance. Meaning nothing exists in form except when it is ''observed'', and the form and shape it takes depends entirely on the observer's ''faculties''.

Accordingly the sun, and the earth were not round in shape before humans arrived to “observe” them.? ? ? ? ? ? ?

Please give me a break.

That is patently FALSE.