₦airaland Forum

livin:
Sorry but i'm a little confused. U said,
Can you now see why you don’t have to try to obey God first for Him to bless you? Someone obeyed God on your behalf, and His Name is Jesus. Through His obedience, God’s gift, His blessing of righteousness, was bequeathed to you.

Nowhere in the New Testament are we told to “obey” God or “obey” the Law. Rather, we are called His obedient children:


and then u said

isn't it possible its either u don't understand what Chris is saying or you didn't do your research properly before uploading the message. You might work for the guy but he's human and very much capable of mistakes. You don't always have to agree with all his teachings and disagreeing doesn't make u any less a christian or CEC member (which ever u prefer).

Correct. he didn't clear the confusion. He made it worse.

And that message, surprise surprise, may not be Nigerian at all. Creflo Dollar preached a series on that years ago.

Joagbaje:
@Emigma


^^^
I wonder why you keep jumping into conclusions about me instead of asking question. I deleted something that was mistakingly posted because it was meant for another thread. I didn't open this thread so see what you've been saying.

I explained this two posts away. We use the word blessing in generic terms at the level of lesser truth. There is a language for babes , there is a language for the mature. A baby can pray " God bless me " but the mature will rather say"lord I thank you I am blessed already in christ"

What we refer to as blessing in generic term is actually make reference to manifestation of "the blessing" another word is grace . Grace has been given but grace still multiplies, is that confusion? No, I may not go into detail on this because I feel I have cleared issues .

I may not repeat myself here because I explained in the others posts I just sent.

Again, if I understand you well, the people in the OT had blessings but not the Blessing (Grace)? If you're saying that, could you help the immature ones understand how even the Jews alive today manifest blessings that show they have the blessing. Also aren't a lot of the scriptures you'll quote on the blessing in the OT?

Joagbaje:
@NLmediator

Thank you. But there is no confusion. The blessing of God is like a downloaded software. It can be in a folder on your desktop but that doesn't make it work for you. You will have to run it first. Before you can enjoy the benefit of it.
That's how blessing works. They are ours waiting for us in christ . God has blessed us already. But there are spiritual principles by which these blessings works. 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. God is not blessing us on the bases of righteous living or on the basis of giving. But lack of giving can rob a man of laying hold on what God has given him. And living in sin can rob a man of walking in his inheritance and Gods full blessing. The hindrance is not on Gods side.

A good example is "health" God has made provision for divine health for us. But when a christian lives in sin, he may be robbed of the divine health. For example a man who does not for give others, or a man who does not walk in love will definitely fall sick. Satan will have his way with him.

That's what God corinthians church members to fall sick and also die.

1 Corinthians 11:30
30 That is why many of you are weak and sick, and some have even died.

1 John 3:14
14 We know that we have passed over out of death into Life by the fact that we love the brethren (our fellow Christians). He who does not love abides (remains, is held and kept continually) in [spiritual] death.



I believe my post above explains these

So, let me get it right. 1+1 = 2 in the OT. 1+1 = 2 in the NT. The only difference is the language? That is, you do not obtain anything in this life without effort? You sow to reap in the OT and you sow to reap in the NT. The only difference is that in the NT it already belongs to you but in the OT, it doesn't belong to you. Nevertheless, you get the same results, regardless of your starting point? You still have not shown how the blessings are unconditional. Or put differently, what's the big deal about it being unconditional, if I have to do the same thing to get the same results as the guy whose blessings are conditional?

^^^

Can you slow down on this stuff about lesser truth and greater truth. Is there anything in some christians that always seems to give them the urge to say "I'm better than you"? I find it a bit distasteful, especially when it's overdone as you're doing. Funny enough, this access to greater truth only seems to work in Nigeria. When you come to Europe or America, we don't see any use of these greater truths to displace any thing or any one. All Nigerian churches are at the same level of insignificance that even some of their members in Nigeria abandon them abroad. Obviously, they realized that the superiority angle only works in Nigeria.

^^^

Obviously, you're operating at a much higher level than the rest of the people here. Because nobody seems to make sense out of the stuff you're saying. Or could it be that you do not understand the concepts well yourself?

Pastor AIO:
Can you not see that the exotic-ness of 'financial instruments' is just a matter of degree? Cash Money, notes and coins, is simply the simplest of financial instruments. Cash can be traded as an end in itself too, as for example, on the Forex markets.

Further more, I can invest cash in an industrial project, not because I believe in the fundamental or moral value of the project but simply because I know it will turn a profit. For example I could invest money in the Pornographic industry even though I believe it is wrong, however I am just looking at the profits to be gained from investing in it. This brings about a distortion in my values, especially moral values.

My bottom-line, is that 'trading on them almost as an end in itself' occurs with cash as much as with the more exotic forms of money. And the effect is the same. There is a divorce of money from real tangible value, and a distortion.


I said that they used the carrot and the stick and that most politicians succumb at the carrot stage. Politicians get bumped off all the time, throughout history. This is a fact of politics and of history. Ultimately many of these operations require finance to carry out which suggests that they cannot occur without the goodwill of the financiers.
Nobody is forcing anybody to let their guard down in church. People have a tendency to trust Authorities. When you pastor says bring money to get into heaven then you trust him cos he's an authority figure.
When Alan Greenspan encourages home owners to (I paraphrase), ' Tap into your home equity', in other words borrow using your home as collateral, people are going to trust him because he is an authority figure. They will let their guard down. This is the great Alan Greenspan talking, the cleverest man in America.

http://www.gold-eagle.com/editorials_04/chuhran021604.html

Lula did what he did and got away with it because Brazil sits on top of a lot of gas deposits and that always helps, especially when paired with a population who have had it up to their necks with capitalist oppression. This is a general mood sweeping certain parts of South America. Argentina, Brazil, Venezuela (again Chavez knows the power of having an oil rich nation. They are smart enough to ally themselves with nations like Iran and China and thus can play the superpowers off against each other.
LOL! I don't think condemning politicians AND bankers is such a major shift from condemning bankers. Are you trying to be disingenuous? Bankers use politicians as pawns. What you're accusing me of shifting is similar to saying, 'ah, I see you've shifted from blaming the burglar for the crime to blaming the burglar and his crowbar'.

I'm happy to leave Odious Debt aside if it is making you feel uncomfortable. I don't know why you are telling me that you've read 1000s of pages on it though. Is that to impress me? So you obviously work in finance, or you've just studied and you're hoping to get a job in finance. That must be why you are getting so hot under the collar. What has politicians being partly to blame got to do with absolving bankers of Odious Debt? If armed robber and meguard plan to loot your home, does that mean that the arm robber is absolved of crime because the meguard that is supposed to protect you conspired with them.

Obviously, you don't want to discuss this either, or address any of the points I raised. I prefer to address issues rather than just dismiss things with, this is what you think and this is what I think and so let's leave it at that. I raised points as to why I arrived at my own position. What are your points?
Please, Where do the World bank and the IMF get their funds from?
People can get funding to fulfil their dreams without Usury. Some people today have got student loans to study, who only a few years ago had a free education paid for by the state. What role do you think that the 'evil bankers' had in that?

You may be right about my ability to comprehend the beautiful language. Because a lot of what you wrote flew over my head. But the much I was able to understand, I’m mostly in agreement with you. My basic disagreement is the impression that lending with interest – no matter how low - is intrinsically wrong. That some people get by, including financing education, without it, does not take away its important place. Oh, btw, free education – as in Nigeria? I bet many Nigerians would rather have bank financing that go without education waiting for free education that has not materialized.

I also do not see the point in trying to excuse away the failings of other leaders or establish the evilness of the bankers by downplaying Lula’s remarkable qualities that led to his accomplishments. The natural gas angle is simply laughable. In terms of reserves, Brazil is a small boy. In terms of production, Brazil ranks so low as to be almost insignificant. That’s not to say that the reserves are not important to its economy. But if gas reserves or production gives that kind of power against the evil bankers or transforms leaders into Lulas, Nigeria and several other countries would be doing much, much better.

Check out the links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_gas_by_country
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_natural_gas_production

Trying to get a job in finance? Now, that’s funny.

We can politely agree to disagree, in any case.

Joagbaje:
It depends on the context of such preaching, giving cause grace and ability to abound. That doesn't take away the place of other principles of prosperity . When we do other things as Christians and we don't give, it's a life of covetousness . It works against other things we are doing . It tends to a struggle.

When a man make giving a lifestyle , it cause grace to abound upon other things we do. The intellect will function better, the minds xan be opened to better and bigger ideas, favour can abound, even those who don't like you will work for you without knowing why. That's the favour of God. He will cause men to give unto our blossom .

Can you give examples of bigger and better ideas that have emanated from the Nigerian christian community with all the endless giving? Last I checked, even the musical equipment that the churches use and brag about are imported. The cars you drive, the fancy clothes that the big name pastors wear. The social networking sites are a copy. Please stop trying to bamboozle anybody. Some of us may have been born at night, but not last night.

Joagbaje:
Its a lesser truth. We no longer recieve hundred fold in the new testament .when we give, we lay hold on eternal life.  T There is no such teaching . Maybe you're just joking.

There you go again copying Hagin and Fred Price (and even John Avanzini) and calling it greater truth! Or, you're not aware they wrote books years ago saying the 100-fold return is not literal or something to that effect? I think it shows, to an extent, a lack of integrity to borrow ideas and package it as though you got a special revelation that nobody else has.

I guess your friend Donnie was still dwelling on the lesser truth when he declared here recently that while he respects Hagin, he'll stick with the Word of God on 100-fold return. I'm sure tomorrow, now he has heard of the greater truth, he'll abandon it and claim that you are the source of that revelation. And then start belittling other christians who somehow lack revelation of greater truths.

The reality is that 100-fold was not working for anybody and simple common sense would have dictated abandoning such an interpretation of that verse. But with the one-man church structure where only one person gets the revelation, all of you had to go along with it, until you heard from the highest quarters.

Joagbaje:
Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life (Romans 5:18).

Under the Old Testament, God’s blessings for the children of Israel were preconditioned on their obedience to the Law. They had to obey the Law to enjoy the benefits of the first covenant. For example, in Exodus 19:5-6, God had desired that the children of Israel walk as kings and priests before Him, but their obedience was a prerequisite for the blessings to take effect in their lives:

“Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine: And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation.”

However, they broke His laws and couldn’t enjoy the blessings. But this isn’t the case with us today in the New Testament. Colossians 1:12 says

. . .“Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light.”

We’ve been made partakers of the inheritance of the saints in the Kingdom of light. We’re sharers and participators in the blessings and benefits of the Kingdom-life reserved for all God’s children. This happened when you were born again; you were born with an inheritance. You don’t have to try to “obey” the law for God to bless you; you were born blessed (Ephesians 1:3).

Also, you’re the fruit of Christ’s obedience:

“Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous” (Romans 5:18-19).

Can you now see why you don’t have to try to obey God first for Him to bless you? Someone obeyed God on your behalf, and His Name is Jesus. Through His obedience, God’s gift, His blessing of righteousness, was bequeathed to you.

Nowhere in the New Testament are we told to “obey” God or “obey” the Law. Rather, we are called His obedient children:

“As obedient children, not fashioned yourselves according to the former lusts in your ignorance” (1 Peter 1:14). We’re described in scriptures as having obeyed God’s Word of truth from the heart (Romans 6:17).

So our blessings and inheritance in Christ aren’t preconditioned on obedience; rather, they are our birthright!

Prayer
I thank you dear heavenly Father, for qualifying me to be a partaker of the inheritance of the saints in light. I reach forth today and take a hold of all that’s mine in Christ, and enjoy the benefits and privileges reserved for all who are in Christ Jesus. Amen.

Further Study
Ephesians 1:3
Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ:

1 Peter 3:9
Not rendering evil for evil, or railing for railing: but contrariwise blessing; knowing that ye are thereunto called, that ye should inherit a blessing.

-pastor chris

To put it simply and politely, your theology is confusing. Only, yesterday you’re telling us that we have our own side to fulfill to see God’s blessings, such as confession. Today, you say that Jesus paid it all and we don’t have to do anything: that’s just for Old Testament folks. It’s the same thing I see with Paul’s message that all things are ours. You use that as a basis for not asking God for stuff, deriding those that do so as babes in Christ. Yet, you turn around to say that to access those blessings, people need to tithe, sow into the pastor’s life, give first fruits and do other things to activate the requisite grace. The only thing this message of non-obedience accomplishes is to tell people that they can continue to sin and be blessed. So long as the sin is not the sin of not contributing financially to ministers and the church.

Joagbaje:
That happens naturally, pastor Joseph prince of the new creation church,in singapore who's mother is Indian and father chinese has more of these people in his church Chinese and Indian . Td jakes who is black has more blacks. Joel Osteen who is white has more whites. It is a fleshly thing but it does happen. But I get your point. Some Nigerian ministers abroad when starting a church goes after nigerians there first and gather their families . It is also fleshly . The greatest impact we can offer to God is to reach the indigenes first .But as the bible says ."let the gospel be preached anyhow."

But this is not the case for every church. Pastor adelaja of Ukraine has more whites In his church than blacks . He is a Nigerian .

You’re an honest man! Thanks very much for acknowledging that the Nigerian churches are acting in the flesh in the way they go about their “missionary” work abroad. I have nothing against these churches, but this has been a major concern of mine. And ALL of them indulge in it – acting fleshly as you described it. Sunday Adelaja doesn’t count: do you know how many blacks are in Ukraine? That is, he had no choice but to reach out to whites. We don’t know what he would have done if he had a large black population to gravitate to. Joel Osteen does not belong to your list. He received from his dad a church that is almost evenly divided as 1/3 white, 1/3 black and 1/3 Hispanic and while the church has grown 10 times since then, he has maintained that balance. It’s actually an amazing story that hardly exists elsewhere. TIME Magazine had a story on this issue, mentioning Lakewood and others, about 2 years ago.

Joagbaje:
We are deviating gradually from course in this new creation thing.we can discuss it under another topic. I dont know why we are dwelling on this new creation thing .I mentioned different kinds of messages ,this is what I said.

OK, let’s leave the new creation issue. But whenever you have a chance, whether in a new or existing thread, I’ll like to learn about the deeper truths or higher revelation that you mentioned about. The messages you have been sharing are generally a regurgitation of Hagin, Fred Price and others. When you have the new ones, I’ll be happy to learn and make my life better.

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

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

No, every American has not received the message. And given the track record of Nigerian churches of hardly attracting any Americans, those who have not heard it are unlikely to hear it from Nigerian churches. But that's beside the point. Your initial contention was that you're bringing a message different from Jakes'. Yet, you can't show anything in your message that's different. If you had made your new point earlier, that the message has no boundary, I would not have bothered with that line of inquiry. This is not the first time I’m hearing somebody from a Nigerian church claim that their church has a deeper revelation or truth, yet is unable to present any evidence of such revelation. You’d think such information is at the fingertips of those making such claims and that they would not miss such a wonderful opportunity to educate the rest of us. But it’s beginning to look more and more like a marketing tool that plays to people’s yearning to feel that they belong to a special group that has what others don’t.

Joagbaje:
The word of God has no geograPhycal boundary.Anyone can be sent to any part of the world.besides I didn't talk about exporting message to America . I only mention the fact that many ministers have different revelations and area of callings and grace. I don't know why you are dwelling on new creation. ?

This is what you said earlier and why I'm dwelling on it:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote from: Joagbaje on Today at 05:31:47 PM
it is carnal to see it that way. Every minister has his area of calling to meet the needs of people. Td jakes is mending broken hearts , reaching out with hope to the wounded etc. Creflo is different , benny is different ,CEC is teaching about new creation realities. Some others are into prophetic, deliverance,holiness, etc, everyone has their grace . They should go to where God send them. If you look at it with business eye, it is carnal
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You said tha above as a basis for justifying Nigerian ministers coming to Dallas where TD Jakes is. So, my response was that if you're coming to teach new creation realities, it's already being taught in America where you're bringing the message by opening branches. Then, you said you teach it in a deeper way. I asked for examples of those deeper and different truths or aspects. Is that asking for too much?

Joagbaje:
@ nlMediatorDon't get me wrong . No one is laying originality on the message of new creation. Before Kenneth Hagin, others have preached it like EW Kenyon . And before all of them apostle paul had taught it. It's a message of the bible . the only thing is that revelation is advancing ,God is revealing deeper truths and the teachings of the apostles becomes foundation for us to build upon.

Sure, Hagin was influenced by Kenyon and mentions that severally in his works. The issue is that you claimed you’re exporting the same message to America that he and his protégés have preached for years in that same America. Now, you’re changing it to say that you’re not teaching just that message, but a deeper aspect of it. Can you just mention 2-3 truths about new creation realities that are different and deeper than what Hagin taught?

dare2think:
You just echoed my long-time observation. Absolutley no effect whatsoever on the communities abroad. Forget the diasporans, look back at home, what positive effect do they have on the nation and surrounding environment- NOTHING-

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

Correcto! I said it earlier: I can understand Yonggi Cho talking of having the largest congregation in the world or something like that. I can see the effect in Seoul and the life of Koreans. You see a lot of honest people. The prosperity there has a basis beyond supplying materials to the government. That's the home of high quality electronic and auto products. I can even understand American churches bragging. You probably can find more honest people in one American suburb than in all of Nigeria! So, when these churches brag about how large their ministry is, the legitimate question is: to what end? If the people that troop to churches on sundays and other weekly activities reflect the true Christian life a bit, then we can see the impact and know they're doing a commendable job. But Nigeria is such a cesspool it's hard to believe we have any church there (there are good christians but they are crowded out by the loud ones). By the way, that's probably part of the reason foreigners do not waste their time with these Nigerians churches exporting their message abroad. They're most likely asking: if your message is so great, why is your country such a mess?

Joagbaje:
@ nlMediator

I wish you could quote what you're making reference to. Confessions are not absolute . They are part of a whole. Confessions on safety surely protects you. But thats as an individual . The thread is about the earth ,restraining evil on the earth. They are all in harmony there is no contradiction.

The impression I got was not that the thread is only about the whole earth. There's a personal dimension to it. See this part of the message:

"Same way, you’re that preventative power against evil today in your home, in your family and amongst your loved ones! The fact that you belong to Christ means His blood is marked on you, and His Name is named upon you! Therefore, when the evil one comes, he passes over you and those of your household. Your presence in a place prevents the devil from dominating and wielding wicked influence over the lives of men and women in the place, because you represent the Body of Christ there."

So, the question is: what protects you and your home: The fact that you belong to Jesus (the blood of Jesus in the heart of every believer) or the believer's confession which creates a force-field? The same way you said that Job was not protected because he was confessing negatively and lost his protection and your point that christians need to confess to have or maintain that hedge of protection (force-field); otherwise, Job's fate may befall them. That's the thread I was making reference to.

Claus:
Spreading the gospel DOES NOT have to be expensive. There are costs associated with it, that is a fact. There were costs in Jesus's time as well.

I believe it's Zikky that has hit the nail by pointing to the branding issue. People are determined to expand THEIR own ministry. This is what brings exhorbitant costs.

You see ministers trying to establish their ministries in cities already full of churches. Ministries creating TV/Satellite channels and programs to be broadcast in cities that already have 24hr Christian channels. Each ministry spending money doing their own thing and duplicating efforts.

Someone mentioned about the missionaries of old and how they came to Africa. What the person failed to point out is that Africa had NEVER heard the gospel before then. Those missionaries weren't bringing the gospel to villages and towns that already had pastors and churches. They were bringing the gospel to idol worshippers.

Today, someone from Africa embarks on a mission to set up a church in Dallas, a city where a big ministry (T D Jakes Potters House) is already established. Then they say that because they have such a wide network of churches, they need a private jet to fly the main man around.

What's the motivation? Global vision right?

Yep, branding (partly) explains it. Ministers also claim their calling is the driving force. But there's another major factor - Money. If it was all about branding and calling, you'll see the churches establishing branches abroad, without taking special care to select mainly cities and states where you have a large concentration of Nigerians, like New York, California, Texas, Georgia and Maryland. Some states like Vermont, Rhode Island, Maine and Alaska are not as churched as these places. But they also do not have many black residents, let alone Nigerians. So, you don't have many people being called to these places, even when going there would not hurt their brand - since they can still go to Nigeria and claim they're in America. Unfortunately, some of these places, especially the small New England states need the gospel more - as they have become so secularized. But going there means few members and little revenue.

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

That would even generate more contributions from members who are so proud to be part of such an exclusive ministry.

it is carnal to see it that way. Every minister has his area of calling  to meet the needs of people. Td jakes is mending broken hearts , reaching out with hope to the wounded etc. Creflo is different , benny is different ,CEC is teaching about new creation realities. Some others are into prophetic, deliverance,holiness, etc, everyone has their grace . They should go to where God send them. If you look at it with business eye, it is carnal
[quote][/quote]Kenneth Hagin started teaching new creation realities before some of you were born! And you do not need to look too far to see a protege of Hagin in the American cities that the Nigerian churches are locating to. So, if that's your excuse for coming to America, that's not convincing enough. That's assuming that I even buy the canard that the teachings of the ministers are that different. Only the delivery is. There's hardly any thing a Nigerian minister has preached - including those reproduced here all the time - that I've not read or heard from an American minister, including those you mentioned. If anybody wants to prove me wrong, I'm ready to hear.

Zikkyy:
Thats what they don't understand. With the problem in Nigeria, people go from one crusade to the other. One night vigil to another. They believe they are wining souls. Come Friday everybody will be at redeem camp, CEC, MFM, Winners, Cele, even boko haram by sunday (or subsequent Friday ) every body is back to their regular place of worship

Correct, my brother. That's why some of these crusades register millions, but when you think of the population in that city, the number does not add up, unless there's some kind of double or multiple counting. It's not limited to Nigeria.

Joagbaje:
If the journey is worth it why not? If after a journey like that you have thousands give their hearts to the lord , who is complaining ? God? No. And what do you say about the expenses of jesus how he hired or chatters private ships for his journeys ? Was it a waste. Jesus never took public boat like paul .maybe I'm wrong you can correct me.

Do you know the extent of the reach of the tv? Is it for a show? Do you know how many got saved through them? And how many testified of healings while a preacher prayed on tv. If we must make global impact , we must embrace technology and it cost good money.

I wish thousands or even millions were getting saved. But every sincere person knows that’s not the case. More like a few dozens here and there. Most people that fill decision cards or answer altar calls at these meetings are people that have confessed Jesus as Lord numerous times. Some of them are the same people that appears in different ministers’ crusades. Wonder why after these meetings, the branch churches still have few members, 99.9% of whom are Nigerians?

Also, the ministers can travel more lightly. But they pack a lot of people because the money is not coming out of their own pockets. Even members and ministers that accompany the senior pastors and pay their way could direct that money elsewhere, if the SP chose to travel with one or two people. The reason I’m concerned is that some of the people sponsoring these trips can barely make ends meet, but decide to give because they believe in soul-winning or because they are asked to.

The reach of the TV ministry is very limited. At least abroad, there is a system for determining the number of viewers. I’ll like to see the numbers. Do you realize that some TV programs of a Nigerian pastor or two have been taken off the air? Obvious reason would be poor viewership, which in turn means no money to support their continuation. Now, if that same minister can convince the members or partners, money would continue to be spent on the program, even when hardly anybody is watching. I agree that we should spend resources to reach people – even one person – but at a point, you ask yourself if it is smart to spend money they way it is currently done.

Claus:
If preaching the gospel is costly, it is because resources aren't used efficiently.

Once classic example is the use of private jets. Let's just assume for this argument that the private jets are necessary, as a lot of people claim.

A pool of 2 or 3 jets can serve many ministries, yet a lot of ministries go all out to get their own exclusive jet.
All in the name of propagating the gospel right

Before praying for wealth etc, Christians should first pray for discernment so they can see through falsehood.

You are right. A lot of money collected for, and devoted to, evangelism is simply wasted. I'm not even talking of the ones not used for evangelism. But as human beings, so long as we think we're spending the money on things of God, we do not feel bad or take time to question ourselves. Traveling abroad to minister for a weekend, several weekends in a year, costs a lot of money. With all the retinue of staff, probably flying first or business class. Buying time to be on TV may not always be useful, but everybody that has a chance jumps at it. Nobody seems to do any cost analysis of the outcome of these expenditures.

5. Finance is providing money to those who want or need it. Financialism is a recently-coined term that describes the creation of exotic financial instruments and trading on them almost as an end in itself, instead of as a basis to bring money to those that need them, such as manufacturers, construction industry. Check out these links:
http://www.forbes.com/2011/02/24/destroy-american-dream-leadership-leaders-financialism_2.html
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1655739

[“ This economic system is one in which the financial markets exist primarily to serve themselves. In this system, capital is raised for the purpose of creating, selling, and trading securities and derivative securities that do not finance industry but rather trade within markets that exist as an economy unto themselves. At the same time, those markets have profound and adverse effects on the real economy. This new economic system is Financialism.”]

6. I’m glad you found my comments in another thread useful. Yes, control can be more than physical. But your earlier reference was primarily about physical control (“bankers kill politicians”). Even on the psychological level, my post mentions the control of advertisers. They make you interested in products you may not want and only if they succeed do you get to the banks. But let’s say they’re working in cahoots with each other. My post still makes it clear that people can resist influences, but it’s more difficult in the church where they let their guards down. I don’t know about you, but I know of people propelled by greed to buy bigger homes, better cars they couldn’t afford while their friends avoided such.
7. Lula did what he did. Nothing stops other politicians from doing it. That’s my point. Again, glad to see you shift from exclusively condemning the bankers to jointly condemning the politicians AND the bankers.

8. Let’s leave odious debt for now. I have a lot to say on that, after reading 1000s of pages on that a few years ago. After all, you already admit the politicians are partly to blame.

9. I have little to add on Jesus’ statement. You think He did not say it. I think He did. One of us is right. And seeing the good that lending with interest does, not just the bad, I’m more comfortable in my belief that Jesus endorsed it.

10. The IMF and the World Bank are not truly banks. Stop using them to tar the local community bank, savings and loans bank, and even national banks that are helping people fulfill their dreams. Some people are highly successful today because they got student loans to study. It’s the evil bankers that made it possible.

My brother, I’ll address your points in 2 direct posts – for easy reading.

1. I agree that you have focused on usury and money supply. I have focused primarily on usury. While the money supply portion is salacious and provides good basis for populist agitation, I generally avoid it because it is full of conspiracy theories. Until the conspiracy theorists are bold enough to speak out openly about the people they’re talking about, I do not know enough about the topic to engage them.

2. Your position is that usury means lending money with interest, not just high interest. That’s what I’ve addressed. I’ve explained that there is nothing wrong with that because the alternative you mentioned – trade by barter – is not sustainable in a complex economy. I can see you’re shifting now to: “we can devise a better alternative than usury.” That may be true, but until then, banking is better than barter.

3. I “lectured” you on stocks and bonds, because you clearly stated that there’s a difference between stocks and bonds. In the context you used it, musician-cook restaurant business, there’s a difference indeed. But the difference is not in your favor. Simply, either one can be useful or harmful depending on the circumstances. You’re making it look like one is good and the other is bad.

4. Commercial banking consists of accepting deposits from the general public + shareholder funds and lending it. Investment banking consists of arranging funds for businesses that need them, including facilitating mergers and acquisitions. IBs generally do not take deposits. Usury or even interest is hardly applicable to investment banking. Both of them are capital-facilitating, but the scriptures may not be referring to the type of IB that we know today. IB is of very recent vintage and need not involve lending. Okeke in Imo just invented a short wave radio. Adamu in Sokoto has a lot of cash. Neither knows of each other’s existence. IBanker through his research, vast contacts, coincidence, etc. knows of the two and brings them together. They partner to mass produce the radio and profit from them. The IBanker gets paid a fee for facilitating this arrangement. I don’t see the usury or evil in this. Nor do I see how this work is easy or unproductive. And even if it is characterized as usury, such as any banker, commercial or investment “lending” money, I still do not see how this activity is a net loss to society.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commercial_bank
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investment_bank

Joagbaje:
How many days they went was not stated. For the fact that they didn't go with anything means ,they are to get supplied on the course of their jouneys.

Every giving must be with revelation and faith and not by compulsion . I'm yet to see a pastor that will force anyone into giving. Maybe there is.

Like you, I also have not seen any pastor "force" or use physical weapon to make anybody give. But that assumes that physical compulsion is the only form. No, there's also psychological compulsion and spiritual compulsion or manipulation (withcraft). In fact, if Paul was speaking of physical compulsion, that would have been almost meaningless because there is hardly any history in the Bible or elsewhere of people being physically forced to give to God's work.

Madison Avenue understands psychological compulsion that's why they craft their adverts to influence consumers. Wonder why in some places, cigarette adverts or very glossy cigarette are not permitted or frowned upon. Reason is that kids will be made to adopt certain habits like smoking simply through subliminal messages sent through adverts. Spiritually, we know or hear of people being made to do things they didn't want to do because somebody spiritually stronger was 'remoting' them.

The church should be careful about practices that smell like psychological or spiritual control (in giving) especially because of the special vulnerabilities of people in church. The church is where people let their guards down because we're all supposed to be God's children and the leaders are seen as fathers and mothers. This makes them more susceptible to influences they could more readily resist from TV and forces outside. Some people in church are also wounded and weak-willed, which is partly why they're in church - to get healing and be made whole. Any form of manipulation worsens their plight and many are suffering in silence.

If advancing the gospel means using underhanded tactics, especially at the expense of inflicting hidden harm to people Jesus shed His blood for, the gospel is not worth advancing.

Pastor AIO:
I don't see how this has anything to do with what I am actually talking about.

If the money came through manufacturing and construction then at least we can say that they produced something tangible that people and use. Finance, though, is a totally different kettle of fish. It is a complete and total sleight of hand. Please I don't think you're following my posts or watching the links that I'm posting up. I wish I knew how to embed the videos so it will be less trouble for people. Can someone please show me how to do it (. . again!)?

Look at Nigeria as an example! I don't know what you see Nigeria as an example of, but I see Nigeria as an example of why bankers must be curbed. Look at what they did to Nigeria, look at how they destroyed our lives, our prospects, our society with Odious debt. I don't know how old you are, but I was there when it all happened, when they drop kicked us with Odious debt, then head butted us with Austerity measure and then finally sodomized us with SAP (structural re-adjustment program). By them I'm talking about the international banking cartel, such as World Bank and IMF. Our leaders have been nothing but tools in the hands of these people.
Fela sang about them in his tune, Chop And Clean Mouth (like say nothing happen na de new name for stealing)

S.A.P
suck african people
suck dem die
with babangida's help-i o
Suck dem die
with Mobutu's help-i o
Suck dem die
S. A. P o
Suck African People

Actually this is so untrue. Yes the bankers force people to borrow. That is how they get you into their trap. The lure whole populations through politicians into Odious Debt and then destroy the country for their own greed. If you believe that the major culprit is the politician then you have been fooled. The politicians are only pawns in their hands. Any politician that tries to resist will find himself dead. There are many dead politicians. Look at the pressure that they brought to bear on Woodrow Wilson. That is the American president that pretty much handed the fate of America over to the bankers.

1. Sure, the Bible quote has everything to do with your point about Woodrow Wilson complaing about control. My point is that whoever has money will control others, whether that person is a banker, manufacturer or something else, even criminal.

2. The bankers forced you to buy a house, finance a car, take out student loans? No, they generally do not force people to borrow.

3. Bankers connive with corrupt politicians to borrow. It's not just about the IMF. State governments in Nigeria are owing billions because bankers arranged with governors to float bonds. So, you believe that Zenith forced Ohakim to borrow, as opposed to Ohakim being corrupt?

4. You truly believe that SAP ruined Nigeria? Nigeria is far worse today than the 1980s days of SAP. Besides, Obasanjo paid off most of the loans. Why are Nigerians still suffering?

5. So, how many politicians will the bankers kill if they refuse to take the loans? Ultimately, you get a politician ready to sell his people for a mess of porridge. That's who you blame. Were there no bankers when Lula won elections in Brazil just a few years ago, transformed the country, and in 8 short years lifted millions out of poverty? The bankers need not kill anybody to find a bad politician. The local example in Nigeria today confirms that.

6. Bankers are asking Obama to speed things up, I guess, is your point. With 14 trillion dollars in debt, you want the debt holders to keep quiet? BTW, China also holds a lot of American debt and is complaining.

7. I do not doubt that bankers wield a lot of power in the world today. I do not need to watch a video to know that. Greece plays out in our eyes because the bondholders are putting pressure. But you're discusssing one kind of banker and using it to condemn every kind of banker. That's strange.

Pastor AIO:
Of course, my blacksmith and carpenter example is a simplification of an economic system and I am aware of the complexity of trade and commerce in a society. that is why I said:
A common medium of transaction is necessary for the complexity of transactions that make up a society's economy. While I think there are dangers inherent in having such a common medium, it has it pros and cons, that is not the point I was making. I was talking about the right and ability of the banks to create money out of nothing in our present day economic system. I am talking about the banks controlling the MONEY SUPPLY, not about money itself.
You are mixing up having a common medium for storing and representing value, ie money, with the need for banking itself. I can not acknowledge that modern banking is necessary for a complex economy.


I think you misunderstand what I mean when I say do nothing. If I carry a heavy rock from Lagos to Ibadan and back again and return it to the same spot I have expended a lot of energy but I have done nothing. I have not made a difference anyhow. I have produced nothing. The fact that something is hard does not make it productive. Armed robbery is not easy work, but it is not productive work.
I wonder what you mean by 'real banking' since quite a considerable effort on the part of bankers goes into manipulating politicians.

1. I think you're conflating 'finance" with "financialism". A lot of what's going on in the markets today is not finance and is rightly condemned.

2. You've not explained to me how a modern complex economy can run without finance or banking.

3. Finance or banking is not only hard work, it is productive. You probably wouldn't be on the internet today without investment bankers arranging the finance for many many manufacturing and internet businesses. If you have a great idea or business model, finance experts can help match your ideas with capital. Not all owners of cappital want stock in your company for sundry reasons. But the loan you get from them nevertheless is the source of vibrancy of many big firms today. If you think arranging those loans and ensuring these businesses continue and thrive is not productive, I don't know how to respond.

4. A lot of banking work, in more advanced societies, has nothing do with politicians. There are thousands of kids and entrepreneurs with great ideas in Silicon Valley, Research Traingle and other places that are looking for somebody to match them with capital. I think you're using the misdeeds of international finance to tar the terrific work being done by bankers in general.

For a business, it may sometimes be a good idea to issue equity securities (shares) instead of debt securities (bonds, debentures). Looking at the musician-cook example, bringing in a third investor who gets shares in exchange for his investment means the business has more capital, without worrying about repaying it back or making monthly interest payments even when the business has no money. It also means that if the business collapses, everybody is in the same position in terms of sharing the remaining assets. If you had a debt holder, he'll have priority and it's only if something is left that the equity holders get anything. The debt holder can also push the firm into bankruptcy if there's a default in loan repayment. Also, if the business failed within those 5 years, the debt holder may have gotten some money back (monthly payments with interest), thus minimizing his losses. Whereas a shareholder would have lost everything. So, all these sounds like equity is better for the business and its existing owners and debt is better for the investor who chooses to be a debt holder. But not exactly!

Issuing shares to the third man dilutes the equity of the existing owners. Instead of 2 people sharing the benefits (say at 50-50), 3 people now share it at 33.3%. Debt has no such dilutive effect. Also when you pay off debts, the debtor is gone and the shareholders enjoy anything left. E.g., the restaurant business was started with 1 million naira contributed equally by musician and cook. They borrow 500,000 naira from C to be repaid in 5 years at 10% annual interest. In 5 years, they pay back 500,000 + 250,000 + compounding. In all, most likely less than 1 million naira. The 6th year the retaurant gets a big contract to cater at Abuja Sheratons. The annual profit is worth 1 million naira. In the next 5 years, the business makes 5 million from that alone, shared equally by musician and cook. C is not in the picture. If C's money purchased shares for him, he would have shared in this and it would have been better financially for him. Musician and Cook would have fared worse under this arrangement than taking a loan from him. C is worse off because only equity holders share in the upside potential of the business. When you add the fact that only shareholders can vote (to elect directors, etc), and that debt allows the business managers to gamble with other people's money (OPM) to the detriment of the suppliers of that money (debtholders) , you see equity's additional attractiveness.

So, either one has its strong points and weaknesses for everybody. Touting one as better than the other has no basis in finance theory or practice.

Pastor AIO:
Thank you NL Mediator, for your contributions. It gives me a sounding board to talk with so it doesn't feel like I'm talking into a bottomless pit.

I know what investment banking is, and in fact I am not against investment or shared concerns in an enterprise. What I'm against is the lending of money on usury. There is a difference. A Musician and a Cook can decide to go into business together and open a bar/restaurant. They both have skills they can bring to the project. The Cook will supply the meal while the musician entertains the client as they eat. If the business does well they share the profits, if it doesn't then they both sink.

A money man can invest into a business. He has a shared concern in the business. If the business prospers he will share in the profit, if the business fails he will share in the losses.
Usury is different. The money man says I'll lend you, (not invest in you), 1000 dollars, and I want 1200 dollars by the end of the year whether or not your business concern prospers or fails.
There is a big difference between Bonds and Shares.

Thank you for the example of Jesus' statement. I wanted to bring it up earlier but I thought it might distract from the main thrust of my point.
I share the opinion that it is an insertion into the gospels. Remember Jesus was a Jew and his audience were largely Jewish. And Judaism ban usury. How would Jesus say a thing like that to a Jewish audience, being Jewish himself. 'But ahhh . . .', you may argue, ' . . .maybe he meant that the money could have been used to lend to non-Jews upon usury'. However that flies in the face of everything else that Jesus taught. He didn't make a distinction between Jew and gentile, but gave us the parable of the Good Samaritan to show us who our neighbour was. If Jesus said that then he would be recommending that the money was lent upon usury to gentiles, and I do not see Jesus saying something like that.

The insertion angle is interesting. But I don't buy it. One, there are many things not in the Bible that I'm hearing these days. So, I'm not eager to focus on taking out the ones there. Also, Jesus being God knows that an advanced society like the one we have today needs banking. Rejecting it outright would have made many question His omiscience.

I'm sure you know what investment banking is. I was only saying you're mixing it up with commercial banking.

You also said that there's a big difference between stocks and bonds. Your suggestion is that bonds are bad and shares (stock) are good (correct me if I misunderstood you). But in reality, neither is better than the other - for the business or investor. It all depends on the needs and situation of the investor (creditor, shareholder), the businesss and its exisiting owners.

Joagbaje:
^^^
giving loans without any interrest may not be a the best idea. Firstly how do we sustain such institution . And secondly how can more people be helped.

Our present banking system is terrible. The interest on the loans are so high. Interest is not wrong in itself but excessive interest is bondage. Jesus himself endorsed interest in banking.

Luke 19:23
23 Then why did you not put my money in a bank, so that on my return, I might have collected it with interest?

A christian bank won't be a bad idea if the interest can be minimised. Maybe to 10% or less. But I wonder if our ores sent banks will not fight it. Banks worked with policemen to shut down some of these " quick money" banks that came up because it was affecting the big banks as customers were pulling their monies out to invest in these quick ones.

I'm with you on the Jesus example (and did bring it up earlier in the other thread). But the church can still set up bank to lend money at no interest to its members. It's simply a form of charity that they're already engaged in. This only formalizes and makes it bigger. Established banks will fight it, but if the church is serious, it can fight back.

On high interests, I have 2 points.

1. It is true that interest rates are too high and should be reduced. But it is also a function of the nature of the society. Money is a bit scarce and therefore should cost more (demand and supply). Institutional inadequacies are a major problem. Apart from poor electricity delivery that raises the costs for everyone (banker included), the banker also has to price into the loans the costs of default. There's hardly any system in place to track defaulters without going to court. And the courts are a big joke. In more advanced societies, people are assigned social insurance numbers that every bank demands before they make a loan. If the debtor defaults, the consequences are severe even without going to court. The person may never be able to borrow again or do so only at high costs. That reduces the rate of default and therefore the rate of interest. Also, the courts are for more efficient and generally corrupt-free. The bank does not need to bribe any judge to recover the loan. In Nigeria, one can borrow 10 million and reserve 1 million to bribe the judge to fight the banks. All of that pushes up the cost of capital.

2. High interest rates are not always bad. They can attract capital to the country. Instead of getting a mere 2% on my money somewhere, I can pack it in Nigeria at 10%. The more more money pushed into the country that way, the more capital would be available for lending, thus pushing down interest rates for borrowers. Also high interest rate is useful for checking inflation. Brazil just raised its interest rate to about 11% to cool things down. It's a good thing for them to do so, as inflation may be devastating for everybody, including the borower that wants a cheaper loan.

Frankly, the core problem with Nigeria is a lack of visionary leadership.

Enigma:
Western financing (an aspect of Western banking):

Trader Ltd wants to buy a generator worth 10 million naira; it approaches Greedy Bank for finance; Greedy Bank says we will lend you the money but our interest and fees etc will amount to 2 million naira, so you will repay 12 million naira in 12 monthly instalments.


Islamic finance (or in legal jargon "Sharia-compliant" financing) ---- (an aspect of Islamic banking):

Trader Ltd wants to buy a generator worth 10 million naira; it wants to do it the Islamic way; it approaches Filuus Bank for Islamic finance; Filuus Bank says ok we will use an Islamic finance technique called Murabaha; we will buy the generator for the 10 million naira; then, we will resell it to you for 12 million naira, so you will repay 12 million naira in 12 monthly instalments.

Accurate description. Similar one applies to (home) mortgages. I have experience with some form of Judaism-compliant lending (but wouldn't want to derail the discussion with that). Bottomline is that thinking of a functional economy in a society that goes beyond relatives or close-knit communities without finance - for personal and business solutions - is ludicrous. And cost-free finance is a joke. Taking aside the cost of money, you still need money to pay the employees that administer the loans, rent for banking offices, etc.

Instead of wasting time talking about interest-free loans, religious folks - Christians, Jews, Muslims - should consider:

1. Charity lending. This is not a business. You lend money to members of your church, etc without interest. The capital comes from contributions by members and even beneficiaries whose ventures succeed.

2. Business banking. With "humane" interest rates. For instance a Christian or Islamic bank could choose to charge an interest rate of 5% while other banks are charging 15%. If properly organized, this would actually give a good competition to the established banks and drive rates down for everybody.

But looking for free lunch is part of what drove the global economy into the current mess.

Pastor AIO:
Please there is this nice video on youtube that explains how banking works very simply. I like the part called the allegory of The Goldsmith's Tale.

What is obvious that society needs is a medium that everybody trusts and can be used to trade Goods and Services.

What is not obvious is that banks, knowing that we have come to trust the paper that the print, use this trust to create money out of nothing and thereby when they charge us interest on this 'money' they are basically making us work for them for nothing.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D0IJCGuNtqk&feature=related

This is just the basics. It is what emerges out of this later that really smacks of diabolism. Please also notice the quotes at the beginning of the video. They are very important to understand the war that has been going on for centuries against these bankers.

"Some of the biggest men in the United States, in the field of commerce and manufacture, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organised, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so pervasive, that they had better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it." - President Woodrow Wilson.

(Woodrow Wilson was the president who finally lost the battle to protect the US against the European Capitalist banking system.)

"The Process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled" J K Galbraith

(J K Galbraith was one of the most respected economists of his time if not the most respected. His most famous book was The Affluent Society)

That's the nature of life. The Good Book tells us: 'The Rich ruleth ver the poor and the borrower is servant to the lender.'

The first part has little to do with banking. In a society, those who have money control and the rest, including politicians, bow to them. It doesn't matter if the money came through manufacturing, construction or finance. Look at today's Nigeria as an example.

The second part relates to banking. What you forget is that the bankers do not force anybody to borrow. The politicians borrow to finance their projects and maintain power. Accordingly, they became slaves of the bankers. IMO, the major culprit here is the politician. Does that mean we should abolish politics as a profession because some people abuse it? Ditto banking.

Pastor AIO:
Money and Banking.

we need to take a look at what banking actually is (and money too which is part of the problem). Many people are not aware of it. It is the single biggest con in the history of mankind. It is so blatant that when you explain it to people they still do not believe you, cos 'how can ojukoroju stealing be so blatant', yet it is.

Without a doubt human being need to trade and buy and sell from each other.

Imagine I am a carpenter and Honeric is a blacksmith that makes hammers. Honeric needs my chairs and tables, I need his hammers. We could easily trade by barter.
"Please Honeric supply me with 10 hammers and I will give you a table and 4 chairs at the end of the month. "
This is a fair deal, he does something for me, I do something for him.

But imagine that transactions in society had become so complex that we could not trade by barter any more. Instead we trade using money. So I go to buy 10 hammers from honeric for §100. Then at the end of the month Honeric comes and buys 1 table and 4 chairs from me for §100.
It is the same deal as before only that we have done it using money instead.

But is it the same deal. Imagine that there is a guy who actually supplies the money. Let's call him Frosbel. Frosbel says to me, 'I know that you need §100 to buy hammers from Honeric, I'll give you the money but I want it back by the end of the month with 10% interest. You see, just as I make tables and chairs and Honeric makes hammers, Frosbel makes money. I mean literally makes money, he has a fine printing press and he prints off as much money as he needs to lend out.

So I buy the hammers, at the end of the month I have to come up with §110 to pay Frosbel back. One of two things can happen. When Honeric comes to buy tables and chairs I'll sell the formerly §100 worth of tables and chairs to him for §110. This is what we call Inflation.
Or, I keep the price the same and I still owe Frosbel §10. Now I'm in debt. For the rest of my life I'll keep having to find the extra money to pay Frosbel . In other words I've been reduced to Slavery.
Please also remember that Honeric, in order to buy the table and chairs, also needs to get money which he probably takes out a loan for too, so in the end he took is reduced to perpetual slavery.

Whoever is controlling the Money supply of a monetary society is the Lord and master of the society and everybody else is their SLAVE.

When I say slave, that is what I mean. The Money supplier is not working. He doesn't need to move a muscle. He reaps from the labour of everybody else in the society. He is a form of parasite. That is the relationship of the Slave owner to the Slave. I toil to produce Tables and Chairs, Honeric toils to produce Hammers, and Frosbel chops inside simply because we are operating under a system that uses his money that he just conjures up out of the air.

Question: Who tells the President of the United States of America to 'speed it up'?

A thing should be separated from its abuse. Mixing them up does nobody any good. Your backsmith-carpenter example is good. But runs into a number of problems. The carpenter may be able to barter with the blacksmith, but he needs a whole lot of other materials to build the table. He may also decide to barter with the suppliers of those materials. E, g., fetch water for the timber owner in exchange for wood. Cut grass for the nail owner in exchange for nails. After a while, he'll run out of strength and time to engage in these exchanges. Besides, if he were to monetize his time, it would be obvious the worth is far more than the $10 he's paying in interest. By the time, he's done building that table, he's not only so exhausted, but the product would be far more expensive or take much longer time to get to the buyer (end user). You cannot sustain a society for long that way.

Also, the modern approach (banking) is preferable and better suited for the complex economy, which you probably acknowledge. So, Mr X gets a job 50 miles away and needs a car to get there. He has no savings and nobody in his circle of friends or relatives has enough money to purchase the car outright. He approaches a bank for a 5-year loan. Every month, he pays a little with interest and in 5 years owns the car. He also gets to keep the job. I don't see how this is bad for the individual, society, christianity or God. Now, if the bank charged him too much interest (abuse), that's a different kettle of fish. He may never be able to get out of the transaction better off. But we shouldn't mix the two.

The idea that the suppliers of capital do virtually nothing while others work very hard is also largely incorrect. I don't know how much of a finance background you have. But the work is hard! (Even the Nigerian system of sending girls to prostitute or making friends with politicians so they can support their corruption through your bank is not easy - though that's not real banking).