₦airaland Forum

You're right that the thread should not be derailed by injecting irrelevant stuff. But you invited them. I left you alone until you started talking about the US economy, with wrong facts.

"No, I'm not saying balancing the budget is like selling your car. I am saying that if you have to cut essential services, and sell essential national assets then that is like selling your car. Again I am befuddled with the way you reason."

I never said you did. I understood you perfectly. My response is that nobody is cutting essential services, at least the kind of services comparable to an individual selling his car. You need to familiarize yourself better with the suggested cuts and you'll see it has nothing to do with what you're saying. Are they tough choices? Of course, they are. But if I downgrade from drinking a bottle of wine every day to one every week, that may be tough, but that does not mean it's real toughness, compared to what people all over the world are going through. Unlike Greece & Co, US has so many choices for dealing with its debt and deficit that it has not tapped into. E.g., many oil and gas leases that it can sell. Or raising taxes, since unlike virtually everywhere in Europe that has tax rates of 50, 60 % or more, the highest marginal rate in the US is about 35%.

"I never suggested that a balanced budget means that you are worse off than if you are in deficit. What could I have said to have given you that idea?"

Again, never said you did. I said Clinton ran a government without the kind of expenses the US has now, and I gave defense as an example. Spending has increased dramatically over the past few years and people want it reduced. Unless, you're suggesting that spending at Clinton levels means things are tough, I don't understand what else you're saying.

I sugest you look more closely at the debt ceiling talk. That you even think for a moment that the US would be downgraded from AAA to D is puzzling, unless you're trying to pull my legs. The law does not necdessarily say that the US can only borrow 14.3 T. There is no limit to amount that can be borrowed, if there are willing lenders. What the law is is that under the Constituion, only the Congress can authorize borrowing. They do so from time to time, including about 7 times under Bush when they raised the debt ceiling without incident. Under Obama, they're simply saying that there's too much debt and there should be no more borrowing unless some current spending is stopped. Congress could easily raise the limit without such condition. Moody and S&P are talking of downgrade because the stalemate may lead to a default. They all know the US' default would not because of struggle or lack of money. For a country that takes in 200 B monthly, less than 10% of which can pay interest on the debt, there's no cause for alarm today.

Could there be cause for alarm tomorrow? Sure. That's why some of the leaders are arguing for reduced borrowing and spending. That your major point is that debt can overwhelm a country someday is not an excuse or license to claim it is happening to the US TODAY. If you want to be taken seriously in a discussion of economics.

Joagbaje:
We don't tithe because the law say so. Tithing is based on spiritual principles which preceded the law.

For the benefit of those of us still learning, can you enumerate these spiritual principles upon which tithing is based? Thanks in advance.

Pastor AIO:
Yes, I've always suspected that you weren't even reading what I was writing. And you weren't watching the videos either. You didn't even address a single point raised in them. I hope it wasn't arrogance.


I once spent about 6 months on Nairaland arguing over the word 'staggering'. (okay, maybe I'm exaggerating a bit, but it did feel like 6 months). I'm not about to get into a long drawn out thing over the word 'struggling'.
By Law American Gov't cannot borrow more than 15T (or thereabouts). They are fast approaching the ceiling. The only painless way that they can service their debt is to borrow more money. So they need to raise the debt ceiling. Congress must allow the gov't to borrow 2.5T more, right?. But Congress insists on cuts somewhere, abi?

Okay o, but me, If I have debts to service and the only way that I can service them is to sell my car, sell my furniture, and withdraw my baby from school then, in my definition of 'struggling', I would say that I was indeed struggling. Maybe that doesn't seem like a struggle to you, in that case I would have to accept your understanding of struggle is different from mine.

The sheer fact that Obama is actually mentioning that US is nowhere near Greece, spain and portugal should be enough to tell you that something is up. Why mention it unless there are suspicions being raised that it is so?

No, it's not arrogance. More like impatience. Or perhaps laziness. I figured that since you've mentioned what the videos were about, I don't need to watch them, if time is tight.

It's not about the US selling its "cars" and essentials. Take for example, the defense budget. It has ballooned hundreds of billions of dollars annually from when Clinton was in power. Or tax loopholes for the rich, including the inefficient ethanol subsidies. If Clinton was president today, he won't be able to balance the budget. Are you saying that going back to numbers closer to where it was under Clinton is like trekking or selling your car? Do you think America was worse off then?

The reason people want spending cuts or revenue raising to offset the new borrowing is that they think the US has borrowed enough and should keep its debt at about 14T and start paying down. It's not because they're struggling to pay back. In fact, the US is so creditworthy that it has no problem getting creditors to buy its bonds. Some economists like Paul Krugman even think it's crazy NOT to borrow more at this time while rates are so low and the US can get so much money at little interest and pay back later. Greece and co are not in that position. Nobody wants to lend them anything, unless at about 25% interest as opposed to less than 5% for the US. Obama had to mention Greece because a lot of people know little about economics and think the situations are similar.

Simply put, if you earn $220, 000, you'll not be struggling to pay a mortgage of $1.4 million at 4% interest, since your mortgae would be roughly at $6,000. Since you have no taxes to pay (as the government), how on earth can you be struggling to pay it? Then, factor in the fact that you can earn more from other sources (government raising revenue). The only question is do you need to live in that kind of house when you can get cheaper ones or wait till you earn more. But struggle does not come in.

Pastor AIO:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/economics/world-holds-its-breath-as-us-plays-with-fire-on-debt-and-default/story-e6frg926-1226095583583

How can you ask me that? It's been in every newspaper for the last couple of days. Don't you watch the news? What country do you live in?
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/08/us-usa-debt-bondholders-idUSTRE75718320110608
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-14149813
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/Politics/anatomy-debt-default-united-states/story?id=13940811

THIS NEWS IS EVERYWHERE!

To go back to your argument against people being forced to give pastors their money. There are many people who walk away from these churches and the pastors do not 'capture them and slice them into pieces, and they're actually doing better.' And yes, I do wonder why everybody else isn't doing the same.

I did not say that bankers are ALL-powerful and nobody can cross them. I said they were powerful, and that is undeniable. I said that people are afraid to cross them, and that is undeniable. I can see that there is no point getting vexed with you for twisting my words. You won't change, vexation is futile. Besides I need you here to give me a sounding board that I can dialogue with. So I'll be nice.

You see, I do believe that this topic will help Nigeria and humanity. When people better understand the forces around them the reasons why things (their lives) are the way they are, then they are better equipped to do something about it to improve it.

At the moment my people run to fake pastors and Imams and babalawos to pray for them to deal with issues that these so-called spiritual leaders do not understand themselves. What is going on in Greece should have happened in Nigeria in 1981 when Austerity Measures were first introduced. Alas my people have such a high tolerance for pain. And we are much too prayerful. While prayer is good, the wrong prayer at the wrong time is unhelpful.

My People sef dey fear too much
we fear for the tings we no seee eee eee
we fear for the air around us
we fear to fight for freedom, we fear to fight for happiness
we always get reason to fear.

-Fela

The "News Everywhere" has nothing to with ability or struggle to pay the debt. It has to do with raising the debt ceiling. And whether the raise should be conditioned on offsetting spending cuts and revenue increases. That is, Obama wants to borrow 2.5 T, but Republicans want him to cut 2.5 T in spending elsewhere before they'll let him borrow. Obama agrees to some cuts, but wants to raise taxes too or close tax loopholes to get more revenue to attack the deficit. US credit card will be maxed out on August 2 or thereabout and if it is not raised by then, the country may not be able to pay its debts. Reason is that you need approval of the legislature to borrow to pay the bills. Not that the country doen't have the ability to borrow or the means to meet its debt obligations. The US receives about 2.3 T in revenue annually, or almost 200 B a month. Anybody would agree that alone is enough to service a 14T debt. And for a country with annual GDP of about 14 T (which is one-quarter of the world's total GDP), 14 T is huge, but not that huge. As Obama said at a press conference today, the US is not anywhere near the situation of Greece, Spain or Portugal.

As to twisting your words, I have no reason to do that here or anywhere. I need to start reading you more closely, though, so I don't misunderstand you.

Pastor AIO:
Is that really what you despise? Yes, you're right. I was wrong about Bush incurring 14T of debt in 8 years. I said that cos I was aware that Clinton had done much to reduce the deficit (he actually left it at surplus) so when I saw the debt was 14T I thought 'wow! that much!!!'. I couldn't imagine the kind of deficit that could leave the debt mountain that high. However that is why you are here, to make sure that I don't get away with such shoddy research. And this is why I insist that people should do their own research rather than swallow what they are told hook line and sinker.

However your statement that I am writing such rubbish disguised as facts would suggest that all I've written is rubbish, not just that bracketed statement. Can you say that, really?

'May' be true? 'May' be true? Do you mean that if I stretch my imagination far enough it might fit within the confines of remote possibility? Please, it is either true or it is not true.
Secondly, I do not think that Greece's entire financial policy was based on the desire to retire at 55. What kind of idiocy is that? They borrowed heavily in order to retire at 55? Abegi!!


How have I ignored personal and national responsibility? This thread is about the Banking system. If you want to discuss politicians and borrowers why you no go open ya own thread na? You're not under duress. At least you are no longer trying to defend bankers. I'm not disagreeing with you that they collude with politicians. They also collude with the Media, big time. That is why the internet is one of the best things that has happened in 300 years for human freedom.

Are you interested in hearing solutions now? Really? Cos we can move on to that soon enough. What brought this whole affair up is the advent of Islamic banking to Nigeria? I have also pointed to the idea of creating money based on Value rather than debt, as discussed in the video above. We can look deeper into these and other systems later on.

At the moment we are still making diagnosis of the problem. No doctor is going to present a solution without a proper diagnosis. So please don't bully us from taking stock of the situation.

You're right that Clinton had a surplus, but that was budget surplus that did not change the already accumulated debt. While the deficits add to the debt, surpluses do not necessarily erase the debt, although I believe Clinton also made some effort in paying down some of the debt. Bush accumulated 5 T in 8 years, while Obama is approaching 4 T in less than 3 years. The wars, effect of 9/11, recession, prescription drug coverage, etc all contributed the huge deficits and debt.

On Greece, they're rioting on the streets because they don't want to lose the generous package they have, including retirement at age 55. If they accept those conditions, some of their fiscal woes would be reduced and their debt sitaution wouldn't be as dire.

Please continue with your diagnosis. I'll patiently wait for the prescription.

Pastor AIO:
[flash=400,400]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WwxzwnpqE4I[/flash]

The reason I like this video is because I want to quote Keiser here:


"yeah, that's right, They call it financial VAN-DAL-ISM, you see they're up-ing the rhetoric, we . . we been talking about financial terrorism for months and months and months now, they're upping the rhetoric, they're going to get to the point where they realise that this is in fact not vandalism, which is a quaint way of saying terrorism. They didn't accuse Osama bin Laden of Vandalism on 9-11, or whoever did that. It was an act of terrorism. Moody's, S&P are financial terrorists. They are purposefully targetting these countries for destruction because they want their assets for nothing. "

The long and short of it is that there are Credit Rating Agencies that rate the credit-worthiness of different countries. Like at the moment USA is rated AAA. Iceland used to be rated AAA but then it defaulted on it's debts and it's rating fell off the scale completely. According to your rating it is determined how much funds you can have access to.

The only problem is that these credit rating agencies are created by the banksters and so can be used by them to manipulate countries. For Instance, due to it's present troubles Greece is rated CCC. US is struggling to pay it's debts. S&P have then threatened that if US defaults on even one payment that they will drop US to D. D is even lower than CCC which is where Greece is at at the moment and there is mayhem on the streets in Greece. What is the rationale behind this? They are just using the credit agencies to manipulate and scare US into keeping up it's payments.

What none of the banks like to talk about is Iceland that refused to pay it's debts. In fact they held a plebiscite and the people decided together that they would rather not pay and the banks can go to hell for all they care. They fell of the credit ratings scale completely. Iceland could not have done anything better for it's economy. It is booming again. The fastest growing economy in Europe at the moment. Portugal though is trying hard to be a good boy and do what they are told and yet Moody's recklessly dropped their ratings. This is what is being referred to in the video as financial terrorism.

US is struggling to pay its debts? And you got this information from where?

On Iceland, you do not even see the contradiction in your own opinions. They got away from the evil bankers and not only did the bankers not capture and slice them into pieces, but they're actually doing better. Yet, you don't wonder why everybody is not doing the same? No, it's better to say that the bankers are so powerful, nobody can cross them. Not even refuse their loans, let alone dare not to pay.

Man, this is becoming tiring. Look for a better topic to post on - one that will help Nigeria and humanity.

Pastor AIO:
^^^ and guess what? The US of A is not far off either. With 14 trillion dollars of debt (incurred by Bush in 8 years) that it cannot possibly pay what is happening in Greece is about to happen in USA. and the biggest joke of all is that most Americans are blissfully unaware of it. A lot of those right-wing red-necks have drunk so much Kool Aid that they'll probably cheer as their lives are being stripped away from them.

What I despise about what you're doing is that your emotion leads you write utter rubbish and disguise it as facts, which the gullible consume, while you smile. Bush incurred 14 T debt in 8 years? FYI, US debt when Bush came in was about $5 trillion. When he left it was about $10 trillion. Obama has incurred roughly $4 trillion. I'm sure you'll come back with a new spin and say that whatever debt incurred under Obama was also under Bush, as though that gives you a license to misstate facts. And the one incurred before Bush was by his father! In financial matters, you either stick to facts or not. Keep your politics away from facts.

On Greece, everything you wrote may be true. But let's look at one piece of fact you cleverly omitted. Greece borrowed heavily so that its citizens can retire with full benefits at 55 years of age. In the US, people don't even have that benefit, as they need to get to 65 or 67 to get full benefits. Why should the Greeks get that benefit? Oh, I get it: the bankers have to fund it, even if the Greeks have little they produce.

I won't waste one second defending the bankers, IMF, World Bank, etc. But ignoring personal and national responsibility and looking for someone to dump all the blame on is the kind of pastime that has kept the developing world underdeveloped. Keep up with it, if it makes you happy. And that national serfdom you decry would not be very late in coming.

Oh, before I forget, I have noticed one single solution from you about these problems. It's all about blame and stoking passions, which does nobody any good at the end of the day.

Enigma:
^^^ Except when it comes to giving to pastors when you must practise the law of giving and receiving.


Again: tithing is valid, first fruit is valid etc ----- BUT Jesus' commandment to love is not valid, it is not New Testament. Nice.

That's why I told you earlier that I did not see much room for disagreement. Both of you are saying the same thing, as much as both of you shudder to think that!

The key point is the God could not deal with people before Jesus came on a spirit-spirit basis. So, He needed to give them written rules, which were based on certain principles for their own good. But the rules were imperfect for a number of reasons. One, they created the impression of command, not voluntary response. Second, people could follow the laws without pausing to think of the rationale behind them. Third, the law was written in general terms. In Christianity, God retained the principles; that's why 9 of the 10 commandments are repeated in the New Testament. Other principles also remain, such as giving. The commandment not written, keeping the Sabbath, reflects the weakness of the general approach of the law. God wants us to worship Him at all times and we can do that when and as we choose. Unlike the general rules, God can speak specifically to an individual in his heart about something, which is a better way of relating. For instance, in the OT, God could institute a law against pork or certain types of fish because they are unhealthy. In the NT, He can guide you through your consicience to avoid them or eat them in moderation or eat as much as you want but fix the negative effects with other things - medication, exercise. So, His purpose (your good health) is satisfied without giving you a law because you can meet that purpose if you listen to Him, acquire knowledge, etc.

People who are following God's principles because God instituted them are obeying God, regardless of the term they use. We do that in common usage, outside of the religious setting. And just as people followed the law without understanding, people do the same with principles. Go to any church and ask people randomly why they give, pray, respect their pastors, etc and you'll be surprised at the answers you get.

Joagbaje:
Let us not play on semantics. The issue is the contrast between obeying the law for a blessing and unconditional blessing. You don't need to understand the law to do it. Even though many of them are still based on spiritual principles.

When you offer turtle dove, and sprinkle heifer, you don't need to understand it . It is a command to obey. And if you don't do it punishment follows. But when we do the word of God , it is based on revelation of faith. Every christian love to live right. Because the nature of God is in him. The flesh tries to get in the way. And that's why the fellowship with the Word and Gods spirit is important. We do the word because we love God.

That is why I'm so amazed at those who claim Christianity here , yet they can be so abusive . They lack the simple revelation of Gods love.

When you walk outside love, you walk in darkness . It's based on principle.

1 John 3:14-15
14 We know that we have passed from death unto life, because we love the brethren. He that loveth not his brother abideth in death. 15 Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him.

Your answers on this issue remind of what I read during the recent royal wedding: that Kate Midddleton's vows would not contain the word 'obey'. Well, it's for any adult to tell whether, compared to thse who promised to obey their husbands, she's obeying her husband or not. And any adult would tell you there's no difference.

You give the impression that what distinguishes principle from law is understanding. But that's a baseless assertion. People can follow a principle without understanding as much as they can follow a law without it. You also seem to suggest that principle is different from law because of punishment or reward. Again, failure to keep the law attracts punishment; so does failure to follow a principle. Observing one confers benefits or blessings; same with the other.

So, unless you really want to amuse yourself, I really don't see the point of this long argument. Which is what I said earlier. The differences are mainly cosmetic.

^^^

Thought every writer of the Bible received it by revelation? If it was just man's knowledge or one based on human study, how's the Bible different from any other book of philosophy?

^^^

Didn't condemn anything. Just pointing out that it may not meet the poster's needs at the moment. Or would you prefer we leave her without solutions in order to pretend the system works all the time? As I said, it worked better in school, from my experience. Doesn't mean it doesn't work at all now or that even the school one was perfect. Yes, I was a cell leader. And I've not met a better leader since then!

^^^

It's a good question but don't you think we're taking things too far? Where does the comparison stop? If Brother A asks Sister B for money and Sister B doesn't have it and tells him so, his response? If your child is sick, won't you find the money to save her: so, go look for the money and give me. I encourage people to go to church, even when it is not very convenient. I still remember, with joy, occasions I went to church in the rain or in un-ironed wet clothes because of NEPA as it was known then. But it doesn't mean I'd encourage somebody to take a huge risk, e.g., passing a street where she's likely to be raped, because if her daughter is sick, she wouldn't think twice about passing that same street to save the daughter. Going to church is important. But it is even more important to know Jesus for ourselves. At which point, you can have church anywhere you are, any time. The church needs to dial back about making people feel guilty to do what pleases the pastor, whether it's contributing money or showing up for church events.

gn4dwnow:
One should not be surprised that many still frown at some new creation truths. I do not blame them. I was once as ignorant. Jesus said that it is easier for the camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God. It made many of us think that it is thus impossible for the rich to be saved. Until a study of the word liberated us when we found out from what Jesus said, a camel can actually pass through the eye of a needle because the needle he referred was not the one for sewing but a gate. Many today still refer to the tailor's tool and so fail to understand. This is why many actually perish (lack of knowledge) and forsake their unconditional blessings. That I give you a brand new Home Theatre is not a guarantee that you will use it well and enjoy it. You have to read the operation manual and follow its directions. When you do this, you are not obeying to get the system, it is yours already. It came unconditionally. Your following or obeying the manual is to enable you enjoy it, and not to receive what come free. If salvation is not free, who can pay for it?

First, the understanding that the eye of the needle refers to a gate has been there for decades, if not centuries. That you only came across it not long ago does not mean that everybody else was as ignorant, so much so that they came by this "new" truth, you're better than the rest. Second, you contradict yourself or should I say, confuse matters, when you talk of "obeying the manual." Several people here not disputing the reason or result of the obedience - to enjoy the gadget, being part of it. The controversy is whether that action of following the manual is obedience. So, to help the rest of us, do you believe that christians obey the scriptures or are required to obey the scriptures?

^^^

Interesting to know there's a church that beleives in tithing but lets people be leaders who don't tithe. Would like to know the names, in case I need them in the future.

Sorry, didn't catch the yieldeness to the WORD part. But I'm not sure how it changes much of what I'm saying. Point is that people are taught the Word, including things they're required to do. They're not left on their own to discover these things. If they're required, they're commandments. If they're not required, there's really no point spending time teaching them, when people can discover them on their own? Like firstfruits.

Which is my point about firstfruits. It may well be a universal principle. But I never heard anybody discover it until they heard some pastors preach on it. Where was their yieldedness to the Holy Spirit and the Word up till that point?

Joagbaje:
I recommended church becausevof monitoring. For example, most churches have cell system or house fellowship . And through these structures someones growth can be monitored . If he gets discouraged again and missing a service, someone will come looking for him. He is not alone.

Ecclesiastes 4:10
. . . woe to him that is alone when he falleth; for he hath not another to help him up.

Church is quite important and if it is a spiritual problem, a pastor may pray with her.

From my experience, the cell groups are not that effective. Yes, when I was a student, it described what you wrote. But what I see outside is different. If you attend church regularly and feel the way poster is feeling, they’re not likely to even ask you how you’re doing. And if you’re not showing up or as often, a cell leader or member may call you. But even a simple excuse would satisfy them. Cell groups seem to be more effective as platforms for distributing church materials and collecting money from the members in return. Christianity is indeed a personal race.

^^^

OK. Sorry if I caused any wahala. It was not my intention.

^^^

Correct. Peter said no such thing. Some people use that to elevate Paul, and perhaps to boost some of their teachings that are not supported by the non-Pauline epistles.

Joagbaje:
You need a church and a pastor. That is why churches have structures, these are in place to help people like you, some one is visiting you or calling you up. But above all things being filled with the holyghost is the greatest solution.

Going to church is not enough. I had a similar experience even when I was regularly attending sunday and midweek services. I got out of it when I followed a sister-friend’s recommendation to listen to praise and worship songs. I got me a walkman (not sure if there was discman then and certainly no ipod or iphone). Started playing these songs even outside the house and I started feeling the freshness of His presence again. I recommend the same for the poster. Note, I’m not discouraging going to church, but noting that even attendance may not be the panacea, so poster doesn’t get discouraged if even after going to church nothing changes fast.

Joagbaje:
Jesus was in between The old and the new. He demonstrated the power of the old and introduced some new things. But he primarily functioned under the old testament to a great extent . The new testament was cut at his death. His death was the beginning of the new. So the writings of the gospels were not Revelations if the new testament. If you want to know what the new contain. Study acts and the epistles.

]

You know there's no scriptural support for this assertion, right?

Nobody doubts that some things Jesus said were not for christians. Even champions of the 4 Gospels here make clear that when Jesus spoke about tithes in Matt. 23:23, He was not addressing christians. So, I don't think there's any controversy about that. The issue is how many of Jesus' words are you willing to dismiss simply because they were not recorded in the Epistles? Those that disfavor you or do not fit into your devised and revised theology?

mabell:
Our giving triggers the blessing of God upon our lives
Whether to the pastor, music director or the children church teacher.
[b]Your giving determines your blessing and how far you will go[/b]It works, even for unbelievers, it's a ( let me borrow your words) principle, a law

You know the bolded is plain rubbish, right? And cannot be supported by the Bible, the lives of christians and the lives of non-christians?

Joagbaje:
These are spiritual principles and not commandment. Commandment were not based on revelation or relationship. They may be a form of instructions to babies. They may look like law to some others. That's Why people should not be fed with baby food. Law was not given to reveal righteousness is was given to reveal mans inability and failings.

And on what do you anchor these baseless assertions? I'm sorry, you seem to be confusing commandments with THE Law. Anything you're required to do to get a result (reward) or avoid punishment is a commandment. And all the things I mentioned are ones you agree are required.

Joagbaje:
The kingdom of God is based upon principles. And these principles are based on revelations. We pray, not by a command, we give, we worship.not by a command.
It's children that are looking for  rules and regulations. As you yield yourself to Gods spirit and Gods word. His will is worked out through you. Not by struggle. It's natural . It's your nature. I pray because I love God and I fellowship with him . Same thing goes for my study , giving, helping others etc, it is not by a command . It is a life within.

Philippians 2:13
13 For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.

If you truly believe the above, especially the bolded, you'll not spend one second mentioning tithes, first fruits in church. Just teach members yieldedness to the Holy Spirit, and voila, they'll discover first fruits. I can assure you that nobody probably knew anything about first fruits in your church, until it was taught from the pulpit. Meaning that even after these many years, you don't have yielded people in the church. Oh, not only does the church believe in tithes, offering and first fruits, but they keep a record of these. For instance, nobody can aspire to leadership in these churches without being a consistent tither, giver of first fruits, etc. Yieldedness is defined by obedience to the pastor's beliefs.

Enigma:
nlMediator, what do you think?

I have answered him. I also think his position on the words of Jesus is based on the erroneous, illogical and legally inaccurate belief that the New Testament was written only after the death of Jesus. The Bible says no such thing. And the law - that is the law today, not Bible law - that they claim supports such belief says no such thing about wills and testament. While appearing to be legal experts, or sophisticated thinkers, those espousing such views show themselves of little training.

Finally, is it not sad that people rush to Genesis to support tithing but reject the teachings in Matthew, Mark, Luke, John (and Acts). No wonder, Christianity today does not reflect much of Jesus or His teachings.

Joagbaje:
Ok I get your point. This is an issue of semantics.  Different uses of a word. Consider the context of the post. I'm talking in terms of old testament obedience to commandment. God deals with us through a love relationship . We love the brethren . Nit as a command . It's a revelation.

I thought as much: that it is about semantics, not substance!

But Paul functioned in the New Testament and you said he obeyed. Your reference to obedience in Post #66 was to us - christians. So, you can see why I think you're adding to the lack of clarity.

In the other posts, you asked what the commadnments are. Simple, based on the ones you believe:

1. Thou shall pay your tithes (otherwise, no grace for propsperity).

2. Thou shall give genrously to the church and pastors (otherwise, you'll be poor).

3. Thou shall confess the word constantly (othersie, you'll have no force-filed of protection, making you vulnerable to Job-like attack of the devil).

4. Thou shall direct your life with your tongue (as James said).

5. Thou shall not forsake the assembly of one another.

6. Thou shall submit to a pastor (otherwise, you are a spiritual vagabond).

7. Thou shall exercise your faith (otherwise you and your innocent children may stay or die sick).

^^^

From Post # 66:
“The will of God may not always come to pass if we don't do our part .That's where giving, living godly life, obedience, faith etc all come in.”

From Post # 74:
‘Don't mix up the context. The Israelites have to obey God to bless them. Jesus has obeyed on our behalf, we are blessed already . So we are not obeying any law to be blessed. But that doesn't take obedience out of our dictionary.it depend on the context.   When the Holy spirit told paul not to go to Asia  did paul not obey? . It's a different context. Yieldedness to Gods spirit is obedience to his leasership. But paul himself said " I was not disobedient to that heavenly calling"’

In addition, you’ve made other statements like “when we sow into pastors’ lives, we reap.” Such statements are based on your understanding of scriptures such as Gal. 6. If you’re following what those scriptures say, are you not obeying the instructions contained in the scriptures?

I really do not see the point in insisting that you’re not obeying, when you are. Saying that you’re acting out your nature does not change the fact that you’re obeying. It just means that your nature enables you to obey. Look at Paul’s example that you gave above. Why is it obedience to the Holy Spirit in the case of Paul but not obedience when we do it? Couldn’t Paul have said that he was acting out his nature of love? You also ask about commandments. Isn’t everything God tells us to do a commandment, including sowing, preaching, honoring our parents? Must the C word be used before we know it is a commandment?

Enigma:
^^^ I hear what you say but I'm afraid, "nowhere in the New Testament are we told to obey God . . . " is more than mere semantics.

You may be right that it's not semantic but their own way of equating themselves with God, in which case they need not obey Him or pray to Him but can have what they have by their own abilities, including by making declarations. But I choose to give them - any christian - the benefit of doubt, until I hear direct, definitive statements to the contrary. Or maybe naivete is my problem?

Joagbaje:
@enigma

You are the one trying to use your skill to confuse us on imple statements . I asked you what are the christian commandments for us to obey? You didn't answer rather you went on and on twisting everything.

My brother, don't you think you're adding to the lack of clarity? You spent some time convincing us that christians are called to obey, in order to receive blessings (fruits), but not the blessing(grace) . What was it they're expected to obey? Don't you think both of you are saying the same thing about obedience being a pre-condition to receiving blessings like long life, prosperity, etc?

Enigma:
Thanks a lot nlMediator. Hopefully, all of us can learn something from these threads --- actually even from the "other" side. It is not as though everything that the CEC people are saying is untrue ---- the problem is that the poison that has been infused ultimately destroys or nullifies or makes impalatable the little bits of truth in their position.

I hope for example that people from the CEC side will look into what we are saying and see if they (in particular by supporting that Oyaks' statement) have taken things too far. Actually, there are some of them that I like --- in particular, to be honest, I have always had a soft spot for nuella2 from my very first interaction with her on this Board.

For the sake of people like her, we need to make these arguments and try to keep things simple; due to the arrogance of the likes of Joagbaje and quite a few others of them (including Oyaks himself), we have to put them in their place which means we too sometimes sound arrogant or harsh.

Thanks. A few points in response.

1. I agree that we all should be able to learn from these threads. Nobody knows it all. I just wish that folks would be open to learning, without necessarily allowing themselves to be misled. That’s why we have the Holy Spirit and the Word.

2. I don’t really see things from one side or “the other side”. Becoming a christian was such a big deal for me that I was so happy to belong to this wonderful family. Because of that, I like to see every child of God as my brother and sister, regardless of denominational affiliation. Sometimes, I lose sight of this fact, but I feel more comfortable treating everyone with love and respect.

3. Although I don’t think I’ve mentioned any church by name here, I believe there’s a lot of good things to say about Christ Embassy. Their zeal for evangelism, interest in studying the Word, desire to showcase the beauty of the Lord are all things I admire. Even though I think they go overboard sometimes or spend too much money to accomplish what they want, including soul winning. Some of the finest Christians I know are Christ Embassy members.

4. That said, I may not always agree with everything they say or how they go about it. I wish they can relax a little and see that they do not have all knowledge. It’s like when the church charged a gate fee for end of year service. As many of their objective members can tell, they knew it was not the right approach. That alone is enough to convince them that anybody can make mistakes and nobody needs to be followed blindly.

5. I encourage all of us to walk in love and see each other as brethren. Most of the times, the things that divide Christians are very simple things or the language chosen or approach adopted. Deep inside, you find there was no major disagreement. Even on this issue of obedience, there’s much more agreement than it appears, e.g., if we take away the idea that obedience always stems from fear. I think that sometimes churches engage in this semantic warfare to distinguish themselves and give members reasons not to stray to a ‘rival’ church.

Enigma:
@NLMediator

Yep, balance is important --- but this thread has been about more than balance.

Most of us challenging Oyaks and Joagbaje accept that some of God's blessings are unconditional --- moreso for the Christian and even some for non-Christians. I said that much in my very first post on this thread (and even repeated it later).

There are two main bones of contention on the thread:
1. The suggestion that obeying God does not bring any blessing
2. The statement (really, the lie) that "nowhere in the Bible are we told to obey God , .

Correct. Point well taken. I learnt some good stuff from this thread, especially from you.

Enigma:
And if they say all blessings are unconditional or that obeying God does not lead to blessings, well let us see some grappling with 1 John 3:21-22

Somebody said that truth is like a bird with 2 wings and the problem with the Body of Christ is that often somebody lays hold of one wing and runs with it, ignoring the other. Sure, the wing is part of the truth, but it is incomplete. That's what's clear with this topic. Some people believe in unconditional blessing but also impose conditions that nullify the 'unconditionality'. Others believe in conditional blessings and convert christianity into Judaism or some other work-based religion.

Salvation is by grace or more precisely faith in what God has given us free - the gift, Jesus Christ. A christian should manifest fruits that evidence salvation. But nobody is saved by the works they have done, even after becoming christians. And nobody will go to hell because they failed to keep every bit of God's Word.

The same rule applies to other aspects of the salvation package - health, wealth, peace, safety, in short, what we call blessings. We should obey God's Word (or do God's Word for the more pedantic folks). But that's not why we are blessed or see material blessings. The Bible makes it clear that promotion comes from God, not from the South, West or East; He brings down one person and lifts up another. Rom. 9:16 explains properly why Jacob was blessed. He did what people do today to succeed - put in effort, bring a gift, follow the boss' instructions, disguise, lie, etc. But that's not why he succeeded. Rom. 9:11 says he succeeded because God chose to bless him at a time he could not have done anything to qualify for the blessings - including obeying any commadments. Paul then adds in verse 16: It's not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy. So, one person may not even do or obey and see huge blessings. Another person can will, do or obey, and still fall short; and even if he succeeds, it's not because he willed or did. In fact, his willing and doing come from God: It's God that worketh in us but to will and do of His good pleasure.

Realizing this truth will restore the church to humility and a reverence for God and His sovereignty that are sorely lacking today. You see people bragging about their blessings on the basis of their holiness, or that they have deep knowledge of God's Word that others lack., or a minister explaining that the only reason some people were not healed in his crusade is because they lack faith. I have seen enough in the church to know that all of that is false. There are many faithful, holy-living, knowledgeable christians that are very poor, whose innocent children suffer from some sickness or disease. At a major meeting of a popular ministry recently, I watched as people gave testimonies, but not ONE of them came from the people that are most qualified in the eyes of man: these are leaders in the church, big givers, always in church, can quoote scriptures or use the lingo of mature believers, etc., yet their children were not healed.

In summary, christianity is not a work-based religion. It's a call to a closer relationship with God. If you have the real susbstance, you won't even bother about the small things.

I think the people that talk about doing God's Word and obeying God rely on this verse: James 1:22

But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves.

What is not properly explained is the conclusion that doing God's Word is different from obeying God. I thought God and His Word are one? If you're doing the word, are you not obeying God? Saying that obedience is automatically based on fear is baseless. What of children that obey their parents? Are they doing it out of a lack of love? I guess they should stop obeying their parents and start doing them? What of those that quote the scripture about obeying pastors ("those that have the rule over you"? Are they doing it out of fear and not love? I mean, the fact that many people in the OT and elsewhere obey God out of fear means christians cannot obey God out of love?

I John 5:3 says to love God is to keep or obey His commands. That's the NT. What's wrong with that?

For years, I'd listen to pastors without much thinking. But after a while, I started using my mind, especially if things didn't add up. I may still end up agreeing with the preacher, but I want unclear issues cleared up. This topic is one of those that set me thinking years back.
My position remains that the christian is unconditionally blessed. All our good deeds and following formulas, while alright in many cases, cannot guarantee us anything. Be it salvation, health, wealth, etc. Look around the churches and you'll see this everyday. I only wish pastors can give that more thought.

"This is simple. The old testament folks were bkessed o account of their obedience, individually and as a nation. How much they keep the law. We are blessed on the basis of christ obedience. He had obeyed for us. when they sin, they had problem with God.

But we are hid in christ. Either we sin or not we are still blessed , righteousness grant us access into inheritance. When we sin ,God does not withold blessing from us as in the old testament. So our sin problem is not with God. Our sun problem is with Satan,our conscience and our understanding of righteousness or righteousness consciousness."

Cool! So, a non-tither is as much blessed as a tither? So, what's all this point you've been making for months that if one does not tithe, he does not enter into the grace reserved for tithers? I assume the grace comes from God and you made it clear above that God does not deny access into inheritance even if we sin, which I believe, includes, failure to tithe?

I believe you have it right that christians are unconditionally blessed. But you also seem to want it both ways. Conditionally blessed and unconditionally blessed cannot go together. It's either of faith (grace) or it is of works. But I guess making that clear is scary because many self-centered christians will stop paying tithes, giving, obeying their pastors, etc. The solution is to raise real christians, not take them back to the law in the guise of distinguishing between blessing and blessings.