₦airaland Forum

The pastor does not need to share many principles for the listeners to take over the world. He should tell them to simply start doing what he's doing. Basically, stop pumping money and gifts to him; instead invest it in their own businesses and personal development. Use their brains to become creative.

Zikkyy:
Another gospel according to joagbaje This is another desperate attempt by jo to support his crazy theory regarding the effect of negative confession on the life of a Christian.

It was a very bold move. In those days, if the scriptures are not clear on something, the teacher would say that a particular thing might have happened. Today, people just just declare that it happened, sometimes based on logic. Unfortunately, many of these people have no basic training in logic and their assertions cannot stand up to the most rudimentary of logical analysis.

[quote author=Omo_Tier1 link=topic=687866.msg8500636#msg8500636 date=1307809349]This rank among the crest of ignorance I have come across on NL!

Do you sincerely know the meaning of 'church'? Jesus said;"I will build my church and the gates of hell SHALL not prevail against it" - meditate on that scripture abit and ask yourself: Can Jesus or anything He chooses to do be boring?

Now I ask you this; are you a worker in the house of God?

Also, I see how cleverly you have tried to twist the WORD for your gain but let me remind you, the WORD only has an impact when the Spirit of God acts on it, rightly the Spirit you can not manipulate to your vain!

Unknown to you, your first two introductory paragraphs reveals who you are and God will have mercy on you. Daring to compare the way of the rich of the World to that of a Christian! Or have you not heard or read how there was great famine in the Land of the philistines, while the world ran for the greener pastures, God in his wisdom told Isaac to sojourn therein and plant in the same land of philistine where every body-the world- was running away from. Go study the reminder part of that scripture and know God's foolishness is by far superior to man's greatest wisdom ever!

As for tithing, who forces you to tithe? Why call another names because one eats meat sacrifice to idols and another doesn't like Paul said? Thank God I am a tither in God's house![/quote]I'm sorry, you're the one demonstrating ignorance. The path to riches as contained in the Bible has nothing to do with endless giving to pastors and church projects. Why didn't God tell Isaac to give in time of famine? Instead He told him to work hard and invest properly. And He blessed it. That's exactly what pastors do. They do not waste their resources giving to build others always at their own expense. No, they focus on investing in their ministries and growing them. While many in the pews keep on deceiving themselves that they'll get rich by "sowing more seed", ignorantly believing the pastor is doing the same especially when he regals them with testimonies of giving out cars or being the biggest giver in the church. Baloney.

nuclearboy:
^^ Only 50 posts and you've gone head to head with our man Flint in quite a number of threads? The insidiousness/poison will get to you soon.

Lets watch and see how long it is before you're told to "humble yourself and learn" or that you're a baby or asked if you are Christian and have received the HS.

Guess this post may slow it down a bit but then again, not many reasoning marbles (which will help ensure caution) in that brain.

I'm actually a student by temperament. So, I'm willing to learn. Not worried about being called a babe but the person making the charge should at least demonstrate superior reasoning or incontrovertible fact. Not just claim it.

Evil Brain:
To find the answer to this problem, we must trace it back to the origin. When God created man, he was unclothed. He reigned above all the animals in the garden of Eden and everything was perfect. That is until the appearance of woman. She brought sin into the world, she seduced Adam into eating the fruit and ever since then she has been tormenting man with her feminine attributes. Every day, she tempts us into sin.

No dress is baggy enough to protect man from her. Even outside a mosque, I still get a boner when I see the eyes of a woman in hijab. We must not put our faith in wrappers and scarves and burquas. They can not save us. We must find a true solution. And that true solution is also the final solution:

We must kill all the women!

It is correct to say that one can be tempted even by a woman in hijab. That's why it is misplaced to make this more about seduction and claiming that people commit adultery because of their skimpy dresses when people look at them. That is a baseless charge. Otherwise, all the girls that are fully clothe and still get unwanted stares are also adulterers. Does not make sense.

Deep Sight:
You know very well that only God can be the judge of such things.

What you could do is to civilly point out the errors in his assertions, and, backing your views with scripture, thereby educate and enlighten the flock.

The proper analogy would be to say that there are attorneys in my law firm who have different LEGAL views from me on LEGAL issues, and have different interpretations of the law than I do. (Joagbaje has different RELIGIOUS views and interpretations from you). In that event I will simply make my own arguments based on the law and legal principles only. That is what you need to do. Nothing else.

The analogy is apt. But I think the reason there seem to be much fighting is that one side thinks it's not just about views, but also about actions. Or more precisely, wrong actions. In which case, it calls for more than a debate and resulting disagreements. I still would prefer we face the views and leave actions that we do not have proof of, outside of discussions here. I think our interactions would be the richer for that.

Joagbaje:
This is the point I have been dwelling upon. Let's dwell on scriptures not personalities. Ogoamka is not a cec member, snowwy is not a cec. Snowwy is not a double of newmi, snowwy has been on NL many years before I ever showed up. We may not agree on all point. And every one who hold similar view with me should not be linked to CEC .let's leave church out of discussion. Deal with me by scriptures and I deal with you by scriptures . Let's leave labelling. Let's give room for correction and acceptance . If you dwell on insult ,if the other person sees he had been wrong ,will the atmosphere created give room for one to admit to be wrong?

This is an acceptable rule of engagement. Does anybody validly object to this?

On the issue of salvation in the OT and NT, I think both sides make some valid points. The only thing I'm missing from this discussion, especially with the vehemence that surrounds it is: of what relevance is it to anybody today? I know that it's always good to know the things of God as much as we can. But everybody on earth today gets saved looking at what Jesus did at calvary 2000 years ago. So, the distinction of whether people got saved before Jesus came is of no import to anyone born since he came. For the people born before he came, they're not here to benefit from this discussion, and their fate has been decided, regardless of who's right. So, is there more to this discussion that some of us need to know? If it's just to uphold Biblical truth, does it warrant the kind of fighting that should be reserved for matters of (spiritual) life and death?

Joagbaje:
Matthew 17:26-27
26 Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. 27 Notwithstanding, lest we should offend them, go thou to the sea, and cast an hook, and take up the fish that first cometh up; and when thou hast opened his mouth, thou shalt find a piece of money: that take, and give unto them for me and thee.


If Jesus could settle tax collectors unjustifiably just to avoid trouble, we should not assume every settlement is based on guilt. We shouldn't get exited at the fall or shortcomings of others.

[color=#990000]Galatians 6:1-2
Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted. 2 Bear ye one another's burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ.[/

We should cross our hands till the outcome of the full truth . Creflo Dollar did right. That's the bible.

You're right that settlement of a case does not always equal guilt. There are a number of lawyers that specialize in such lawsuits, knowing that certain businesses and public figures would find it less damaging to settle than fight, win, but lose a lot of money (profits, goodwill, customers, litigation costs) in the process. However, experience also suggests that in a good number of cases - perhaps the vast majority - people settle because they know they're in the wrong and want the case to go away. They even structure the settlement in a way that the plaintiff does not get all the money over a period of say 10 - 20 years, so that if the plaintiff ever breaches the confidentiality agrement, he loses the money. That way the defendant buys himself a long period of peace and even if it is revealed after that time, the extent of damage wouldn't be the same. It becomes even easier to settle when the settlement money is not coming out of the "settler's" pockets.

Also, I belive you misapplied the scriptures you refereneced. That the term "settled" is used does not mean that they mean the same thing. Just like "settling" a policeman in Nigeria is not the same as settling a case anywhere. Jesus had an obligation to pay taxes and paid it. Settle there means pay. Pay to address a legitimate obligation.

^^^^^^^^^

OK. Like I said, I'm still learning.

^^^^^^^

Many have jobs or businesses, so I excused them. However, even at that, their income and lifestyle cannot be fully explained by their salaries or business income. And even the businesses succeed because they benefit from relationship with the congregation. Who'd print his stuff elsewhere if her pastor has a printing business?

I do not dispute that giving leads to wealth. I just dispute the fact that people should give the way they give before they can be rich. The pastors prove this point with their small percentage of true giving. If members could follow the pastors' approach in giving appropriately, working hard like the pastors (who put unlimited hours to their ministry) and invest in themselves and their organizations, as the pastors do, they'll prosper. Unfortunately, they sit on the pews and believe that the more they give, the more they'll receive. If that's the case, why are pastors not following that formula and abandoning the other steps they're following?

And, btw, I'm not even talking about abuse. I'm saying that the pastors are following the true path to riches, ordained by God. What they should do with the money is a separate issue.

Joagbaje:
The congregation don't make a pastor rich. Why is every pastor not rich. A pastor is first a christian . Every christian live by giving, a pastor live by giving also. The message of prosperity is for all to believe and act upon. If you believe in it ,it works for you. Many people testify how much they have prospered by acting their faith through giving. It's a spiritual law. It is false hood when some say members make a pastor rich and the members are poor. What of all the testimonies in churches of how the word if zgod or giving had caused them to prosper. Some members have given gifts to their pastors in appreciation of the prodpeity that has come upon them through their ministry.

Definitely if a pastor is a blessing to people ,people will give to him. And you dont get broke because you give. Everybody must be a giver. Either it's in church o or on the street. It's a simple spiritual law. you don't give you will lack

Oh yes, it's the Congregation in the vast majority of cases that makes the pastor rich. Where do you think the pastor's money comes from, if he has no separate job? And I'm not talking about salary here. Sure, some pastors are not rich, for a number of reasons. They do not want to. They are not conversant with important wealth-building principles. They do not know how to mobilize the congregation to make them rich. Their conscience or self-respect constrain them from invoking some get-rich tactics. Etc. I do not buy the idea that giving is a major avenue for building wealth or that many people have testified to getting wealthy by giving. While some genuine cases of God-given wealth cannot be disputed, many of those stories of wealth are more complicated than what appears on the surface. I have looked closely at friends and others in various churches to know that it is so. Unfortunately, many keep on deceiving themselves that they'd get rich SIMPLY by emptying their pockets in church. God never said so and they're better off, following His ordained pattern, which many pastors, btw, follow.

Joagbaje:
I don't know who wrote the funny script for the old woman to read. It's really funny.

Why would some people believe that wellbeing is of the devil. She stated she used to know a woman who used to dress in modesty but after the woman began to attend Joyce Meyers meeting she changed in appearance and even wore mink coat ! , for Gods sake, what has that Got to do with salvation, is God against prosperity? Would she had prefers the woman in poverty, if someone discovered other benefit of salvation,like prosperity and healing and dominion, is it not success, does that stop her prayers ?

I agree. Prosperity is not the problem. The narrator said the woman became arrogant in her prosperity. That's the main issue. Some people simply cannot handle wealth and are better off staying away from it. I know a pastor who became reluctant to preach messages on prosperity because as members began to prosper, they stopped showing up in church or reduced their committment. They remembered to play golf on sunday mornings when they ought to be in church. On the other hand, one could still be arrogant or have other terrible habits even when poor. Anybody that thinks that the poor are holier has not met many poor people. Some of the most wicked peeople are poor, while some of the nicest people are rich. I have noticed that both poverty and prosperity can destroy or enhance one's faith. Extolling the virtues of one and demonizing the other is not a fruitful pursuit.

"I asked a question which nobody could answer , if it's possible to be saved or born again without the blood of Jesus, of what necessity is his death, why did he need to shed his blood if men could be saved without it, his death was in vain."

I'm still studying this issue and claim no deep knowledge of any sort. But could a possible answer be that Jesus' physical visit to earth and the accompanying death were to provide the salvation experience already being enjoyed by some Jews to non-Jews?

paris10:
Lately, I found Church going so boring and very predictable. The same old story. Trend continued every Sunday! Choir sing, Pastor calls out those with testimonies, Pastor testify self as a perfect example of those blessings, and so on. At the end of the day, the sermon is gonna end up with either '5 or 10' things you must do to get blessed or get rich.

The funny part is, when you get on the internet, either on yahoo or hotmail page, you see the same "5 or 10" things to do before you get rich. Circular people have always followed the simple steps and are reaping the benefit. But come to think about it, it doesn't even include TITHE. Circular people understand the power behind getting rich. You don't even have to be a Xtian to get blessed or rich. It all boils down to CHARITY (which comes in form of an offering, either to a Church, group or individual).

The difference between a Xtian and an non-believer is the belief they hold. Aside from the belief, all factors, mode,,steps and ways of getting rich or blessed remain same. Christians are not in any way better financially with non-Xtians or unbelievers. Just unfortunate that most of our Pastors have brainwashed many in relation to making money. Is it me or that the reason many go to Church is to be better off financially? I love to go to Church to worship God and sing those beautiful heavenly songs to HIM, that's just me!

Praise and Worship time is getting smaller and smaller, and longer hours for sermon. Half of the sermon is now used in emphasising the reason to pay tithe. In my Church, the Pastor preached for 60 minutes on tithe alone, and that was just part one. The next sunday, part two was preached. I got so bored and irritated. I noticed a lot of my friends and some members of the congregation were'nt pleased as well. The problem is, we have the consciousness that something ain't right somewhere, but we lack boldness and audacity to dare mention it. We were under a kinda spell and shadow. Church obedience and service had consumed us.

The man of God to us then was always perfect and was always getting everything spot on.

To be continued, Need to pick up my sweet heart from the salon

You're right about the secular principles to wealth. It's about the same for christians. And that's what many a successful pastor or minstry follows, knowingly or unknowingly. Giving is only a small part of what what you need to do to get wealthy. My little study has convinced me that pastors truly follow these principles, including little giving - less than 5% (including "tithes", while the flock sometimes gives everything they have, yet making only marginal economic progress. I'm willing to donate $1000 to a charity of the person's choosing, if any person can show me that he knows up to 5 pastors or ministries that truly give more than 5% of income.

About church being boring, I share your pain. It seems to be a recurring refrain. I believe that pastors called by God really have good intentions in emphasizing money. The assumption is that if christians prosper, it'll be a good testimony for Jesus and there will be more resources to carry out the Great Commission. Sadly, the pursuit of wealth has left many unhappy and unfulfilled. Ever wonder why campus fellowship (in those days; don't know if changed today) seemed to be full of joy and gladness? Well, nobody worried about money and how to get it, including the pastors. It was all about serving God and living right in a community in which everybody knew each other. No family responsibilities, so people had little qualms spending a lot of time in fellowship. Well, outside school, there are many responsibilities and being in church most of the week does not sound like a good formula. There are so many building and other projects that neever seem to end. People are burnt out and are not refreshed. True fellowship hardly exists as people rush in and rush out or gravitate toward people of their own socio-economic class. Unsuccessful people are made to feel inferior. At least, in school everybody was a student. Class distinctions, while existent, was not as pronounced. Now, it's a matter of who lives in Lekki or works in Chevron.

My fear is that this sense of dissatisfaction will continue and lead to more problems for everyone. Pastors are far removed from the people and genuinely do not know their problems. When we're growing up, a Catholic priest can drive into your compound without prompting. Greet everybody and people feel good. There is no system in pentecostal circles to have real interaction and dialogue. Members have to accept everything the leadership says. If you complain, the response you hear is that you should find a ministry that aligns more with your beliefs. There is simply no rational basis for the disconnect between the clergy and the congregation.

EarsWide:
@NLMediator

you said
My guy - keep quiet.

What argument is there about Eddie Long ? He is a sexual predator - who settled out of court to hide his crimes.

What are the divergent views ? that sexual assault is fine ? that Dollar chasing people out of his church and back to a sexual predator's arms is fine ?

There are no divergent views in this case - you either think sexual predation is evil enough to warrant Eddie Long standing down or you dont.

Divergent views ?? - such foolishness!

Take my earlier advice: read submissions a little more closely. I was responding to your claim about how people are treated in civilized societies. For you to treat it as a defense or denial of sexual predation, etc is unfortunate.

^^^^^^^

Rush to his defense? Maybe, you need to start reading a bit more closely. I defended no individual. I am defending good manners.

EarsWide:
Creflo Dollar said the church members from Eddie Long's church should ALL go back - his congregation cheered and Joagbaje says it is fine. What if some of the people that left Eddie Long's church were themselves victims of Eddie Long or some other craddle-robber, what message is Creflo Dollar sending to them ? That victims of craddle-robbers have no place in the church ?? And Jo thinks this is correct ? How can he have done a wreck if he claims innocence ?

@Nairalanders in general
I know there is now a trend towards civility and brotherly love for all including liars and frauds like Jo - it is a complete and utter waste of time in my opinion. People like Jo in a civilized society will be despised and reviled outcasts, yet we want to start treating him and similar clowns with more respect - utter nonsense!!

I dont believe Eddie Long, Creflo Dollar or Joagbaje believe in God at all. Anyone that can stand in a pulpit and say what Dollar and Long said - can NOT truly believe in God, equally anyone who supports them is guilty of the same.

Relax. I don't know what you mean by civilized society. But everywhere I know, that is generally considered civilized, divergent views are tolerated. You win over by superior arguments, not by throwing bombs.

free123:
NlMediator
I think so and i strongly believe in exposing lies irrespective of how that is achieved

You're missing the full picture. The exposure hurts the "EXPOSER." It's not good form. You may choose to disagree, especially as you have nothing to lose.

EarsWide:
@NLMediator
People's salvation is not some board game with rules. Jo is a known liar and fraud - he should be exposed by any means possible.

@Nuclearboy
You should publish some of the emails if you can - maybe it will stop this fraud from spewing out rubbish.

If he's a KNOWN liar and fraud, how's divulging private communication EXPOSING him? I hope you see the contradiction.

And, btw, "by any means necessary" reflects Malcolm X. Is that where you stand on the political spectrum, as opposed to say, Martin Luther King Jr.'s?

nuclearboy:
Joagbaje ignored my posts and stuff - others did not. If you think his perception of me means a jot to me, you're mistaken.

He made me out to be like some sort of demon - ask around to find out if that is the general perception

It is precisely for that reason that him coming privately was "funny"

I meant the general perception of you, not one person's perception. You indicate you enjoy a good repuation around here. Don't ruin it by continuing with this reference to private communication. I'm giving a sincere advice, as I have no dog in the fight. You may be the only one that has something to lose. It may not be readily apparent now. But it'll be clearer as time goes.

^^^^^^^^

Do you know any pastor or ministry that truly gives more than 2-5% of income? Even mere anecdotes would suffice.

I agree that giving plays a part in prosperity. 2-5% is still giving. Or is it not?

Azibalua:
The church is not for perfect people but a place to perfect people

Correct. Problem is that this truth has been hijacked and abused by christians and non-christians. If somebody has been attending a church for years, he needs to show progress in that journey toward perfection. He cannot continue to live like he lived before or even worse and hide under the aphorism that the church is not for perfect people. An ideal church should show young christians that still display traits of unbelievers and more mature ones showing that they've left the old ways. Unfortunately, many older christians are showing terrible examples and I don't believe your expression justifiably provides them the needed cover to continue in wrongdoing.

nuclearboy:
@NLMediator:

Thanks for your response. Maybe you should ask yourself then - what made the communication private?

I expect that the maxim "it takes two to tango" still applies to humans. Or are you saying that the fact he decided to hide his true nature from others is binding on me? Do not forget that I did NOT initiate the contact and remained mainly belligerent through it. If I had initiated it, I would understand your point and see my disclosure as being possibly interpret-able as "entrapment". But I did not initiate and thus remained free of encumbrance!

Interestingly, I did ask him one thing - I would name someone IF he promised non-divulgence. He refused to give me that. Turn it around then - for he wanted freedom to do whatever he wished with whatever he learnt from me whist wishing my silence in the same instance. How apt and descriptive of the manipulative pulpits we see today - "do as I say but not as I do!", ehn?

I am not a spring-chicken, NLMediator and I do understand your point. But you are working with very very VERY little understanding of just who I was portrayed to be by same person. The fact such would come quietly speaks volumes.

Finally, I am not bothered about perception. I stand to gain nothing from my stance. I actually likely stood to gain more from "joining" the establishment. But this for me, is about truth and the countless people out there who see these people as spiritual leaders and follow without understanding that they will come to Satan (or is that not what they called me) to bargain to move ahead.

If my meaning in and the significance of, that last statement slipped by you, I'm afraid I don't know what else I can say. For that is my PROBLEM here!

I have no doubt that you mean well. I just do not think you've adopted the best approach. Also, I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss other people's perception of you. Without it, the efficacy of your communication comes into serious question. In essence, of what point is it to carry out an action if the objective is not achieved because people ignored your point, based on disagreement with your methods?

free123:
Oh Nuclearboy
you don't know how glad i am to watch u expose this guy named Jo. This has really put a big question mark to the person of Jo and buttress the very fact that Jo is actually not working for God but his belly.

And you truly believe the only or best way to expose his character and motivation is to divulge private communication? Please.

"No SEEING IS BELIEVING at all, that is for the world because its not scriptural rather BELIEVING IS SEEING."

Actually, both are for the christian. In some natural (not necessarily the same as worldly) things, christians are expected to walk by sight; to see before they believe. That's what you do everyday when you cross the road. That's what you should do when you look at your bank account and know the amount in it, so you don't mislead somebody selling an item to you. It also applies to some spiritual matters, which may include the context it was used in the earlier post, inviting somebody to see the manifestation of the Spirit. You can believe God that a miracle would manifest even before you see it. But after the miracle manifests, it is alright, especially for others, to want to see it before one believes it truly happened. That's why christians should not shy from presenting healings and miracles wrought though their hands for independent evaluation.

nuclearboy:
NLMediator:

you obviously have a good head on your shoulders - maybe you ought go through more threads in the past to understand where we are coming from:

This dude has told the whole world I am NOT worthy of conversation
He has said I am not a Christian
He has ignored everything I say or post
His gang follow me around casting aspersions on anything and everything I say even when not directly related to them
In effect, I am an enemy

Suddenly,

I get a phone call saying this same guy called someone and asked him to plead with me to "back off"
I laughed and said "Me? Impossible and can't happen = impossicant"
Later that evening, I check a mailbox I opened ONLY because of NL and to my amazement, he had written me "MY APPEAL"
As at the timing of stated email, he was saying I was effectively "satanic" openly on NL
So I replied, telling him what I thought of him etc in plainer words than I use here
He responded "courteously" INSTANTA though he had been ignoring everything I say on NL
We've written say, 12 - 15 mails to each other
I always insult (deliberately) particularly, Chris Oyakilome (just to see what he would say)
There, he finds excuses and says nothing but try that on NL (where Chris & co can see it) and watch the hackles rise & defense come out
Comms ceased only when it became obvious NO level of gist would get me to "become" a friend to their cause

What do you make of the above considering that the same guy is [1] ignoring me HERE on NL, [2] I didn't ask or even wish for communication (in matter of fact, my attitude is obviously that I despise his style and beliefs) [3] he is fawning in private conversation.

Me: I was disgusted! And so I refuse to apologize to anyone who thinks I should be decent with a deliberately cruel unfeeling schemer.

@DeepSight:

You were human before becoming a lawyer. Surely, you have not lost your natural human aversion to filth? If you have, Pele!

Thanks for your kind words.

I still think you're going about this the wrong way. Divulging private discussions reflects poorly on the "divulger." And it does not make the other person any worse than he was in your eyes. So, you're the one, in the aggregate, that loses. My personal advice is that if somebody's private mail to you shows he's a different character from the one portrayed in public, your relationship with him openly should be against that backdrop. But it's not the same as revealing to the whole world, not only that he wrote to you but also what he wrote about.

aletheia:
^
These are extraordinary circumstances and and lives are at stake. It was good for nuclearboy to so expose them so that the world will see just what sort people these are:

Apparently, your bar for extraordinary circumstances is quite low. I'm not persuaded.

[quote author=Anti-scam link=topic=687772.msg8495550#msg8495550 date=1307731874]Tb Joshua has no single house of his own,imagine d only house he has is an uncompleted building
in Akoko yet he runs d biggest charity organization in Africa touching many live everyday while his counterparts
would rather by Jets,fleet of cars,mansions all over d world!
only for them to turn round and tell us his fake despite d fact that he wrought more miracle than them!
The most amazing thing about him is that he doesn't criticise these fellow men of God who are always calling for his head! for
letting us know dat it is not all about jets & mansions and expensive universities![/quote]Posts of this nature asre simply useless, since they're founded on gross ignorance.

[quote author=JeSoul link=topic=687483.msg8495464#msg8495464 date=1307730635][/quote]All these plenty donations account for why many christians remain poor. They operate a different financial model from the pastors and the ministries themselves, which is why the latter are usually successful while the flock wallow in poverty or live in Barely-Making-it-Ville. Interstingly enough, the pastors have it right. Does it occur to anybody that there's hardly any financially successful pastor in Nigeria or elsewhere that truly gives more than 2-5% of their income, unlike the members that give upwads of 30%?

^^^^^^^^^

It's OK to preach against drunkenness or even against alcohol. But equating the two shows a major lack of understanding of the concepts you're discussing. Why don't you look for a scripture that speaks against alcohol before you conclude that being against drunkenness contradicts being in favor of alcohol? Or you've not come across anyone that drank alcohol and was not drunk?

Joagbaje:
Dressing has nothing to do with salvation. Salvation is not by appearance . I'm not advocating for indecent exposure but let's get our fact straight.

I think he's saying that a person's salvation should reflect in how the person conducts him or herself - an indisputable fact.