₦airaland Forum

I have come to believe that the Prosperity Gospel, (aka Tithing, seed planting planting and hundred folds back principles), is nothing more than an unbiblical heretical tradition of men. Infact, it has no scriptural basis, considering that the new covenant brought about the era of grace through faith.

I must confess i was likewise once deceived by it the prosperity gospel nonsense and the tithing nonsense for quite a while, so much so that i sometimes felt guilty.
Infact, I was once ignorantly alarmed when i heard someone say that tithing was unbiblical way back in 2004 or 2005.

However i have come to understand and observe certain things relative to tithing and prosperity gospel, in relation to the Bible. This my observation and understanding shows part of the reason  why I am against Tithing and Prosperity gospel.

My observation are that:


1. The Creator of Heaven and Earth would always provide our needs but not our wants. Hence the fact that we want to be rich does not mean we have a need to be rich.

2. Miracles occured in the bible, even wen the person in question does not have faith. Hence the miracle or blessing of getting rich is not always a function of faith.
Hence i am disappointed in people that claim that people who don't experience miracles don't have enough faith. One can have enough faith and yet not receive what we ask for because what we ask for is not what the Creator ( יהוה) wants for us.

3. Unbelievers can also get rich, hence being rich does not mean that such a person is a True and Saved Bible. Physical riches and financial blessings are not evidences of Salvation.

4. The Messiah came to fufill the law, to present Himself as a sacrifise for us, hence our salvation and other things added unto us is by Grace, not by right and not by law.




Matthew 6:33
[RNKJV] But seek ye first the kingdom of יהוה, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.



Hence it is clear to see that getting rich is merely an addition, it is not the primary focus and purpose of salvation. Hence whether or not a saved bible believer gets rich (after being saved) or not depends on the will and grace of the Creator ( יהוה) only, it has nothing to do with our selfish personal desires and wants.


5. Tithing as it is being practised today, as become a form of trying to arm twist the Creator ( יהוה) into making us rich by force. This is heretic, we are supposed to do the Creator's will and not the other way round.

6. Anyone that practises "tithing" as a compulsion/law required for prosperity is also being heretic, because it implies that such a person has brought himself back under the law and thus indirectly declare that Grace is no longer enough.

7. Anyone who seeks to obey one of the Laws, has to obey all of them, he/she cannot ignore some and obey others. Hence prosperity gospel believers cannot claim to believe and obey "tithing" as a principle (i.e law) while at the same time ignore all the other old testament laws.

8. Prosperity Gospels Churches or Preachers by enforcing tithing, have essentially handpicked just a few laws from the old covenant (e.g. tithing law) while ignoring other laws, hence are essentially going against the very foundation of the New Covenant which they claim to professing. The issue of greed and lust for money and wordly riches when it comes to money, makes it easy to understand, Why Tithing and Sowing of Seed are the only few old testament laws/principles that Prosperity Gospel preachers have decided to make compulsory,


- why did they not choose that about animal sacrifise,
- why did they not choose that of an eye for an eye,
- why did they not choose other non-financial old testament laws/principles,

9. There would always be rich people and poor people whether or not we pray, confess or try to become rich by our own might or not. Hence tricking people into tithing as a form of getting rich, is heretic. This is because the Messiah Himself said that there would always be poor people.



Mark 14:7

[RNKJV] For ye have the poor with you always, and whensoever ye will ye may do them good: but me ye have not always.




1. The Messiah did not say that poor people would not be amongst the church.
2. The Messiah did not say that the poor people would only be amongst the gentiles.
3. Infact from what the Messiah said, it can easily be seen that the poor can either be a gentile or amongst the church.


Hence all these prosperity gospel nonsense is nothing more than nonsense, is just an heretical view to assume that all saved bible believers are destined to be rich. THAT IS NOT TRUE, CUS THERE WOULD STILL BE POOR PEOPLE.

Its seems somailia is an epitome of what might happen under an Real Black African Islamic Country, unfortunately black africans are always independent minded people hence such an arrangement is already doomed due to the inherent free desire for independence by Africans.

tpia thank you for the useful contribution,

Hopefully more people would contribute before I point out some minor problems with the general answers, by using the bible.

@mazaje, you should not be bothered since you claim not to believe in a creator,

In case you are bothered and want to contribute, can you please provide both historical records and biblical records to backup you responses to the questions listed above in the topic,

I would appreciate keeping to the topic, and listed questions,

mukina2:
too much truth or too much trash?

You dont listen do you?

mukinababy, yes i miss you too,

well done with the Arsenal picture on your facebook profile, , yes i know

Can we please have a sensible discussion about:

- who is a Jew

- who is an Isrealite

- who is Jewish

- who is Hebrew

- what is Yiddish language

- what is Jewish language

- what is Hebrew language

- What is the Land of Isreal

- What is the State of Isreal

Meaningful, sensible, polite and fact checked contributions would be welcomed, from True Bible Believers ,

Thank you,

fellis fellis why are u so compassionate like this ,

i was banned temporarily, cus i was saying too much truth for the likings of muslims,

am back,


by the way what's with the replicated thread, there is already one with the same topic, please take note.

bawomolo:
lol rebelling against a parent can be treason.

noetic - you sure say you no be christian talibani

which one is christian talibani again, osama not bin laden, or what.

KAG:
Hey, it's the internet. If you can't be any sex you want on the interwebs then you probably  aren't doing it right.

You know, if you bothered to read the thread rather than assume others are trying to "tag team" and derail, you'd have noticed that this question has been answered in several different ways by a myriad of posters. No, seriously.

Okay point taken,

This two go together. My initial reaction to the question in [2] (I presume it's a question) is what do you mean by the right thing? In any case, shades of biopower, perhaps?


For the third question, the "right thing" might be dependent on the atheist in question. for me, from my perspective, the right thing is often to be evaluated based on the situation and the actions committed (if any).

Like the previous, there is no universal determinant. The right thing, for me, ofetn involve acts of selflessness that don't maim or destroy other humans.


Evolution is not the only thing known to humans. It did and does occur, though. I've covered much of this question in my previous posts so I won't go into it again.

By which i presume you mean morality is relative and personal, (hence you ought not to blame islamic terrorist since by your own statement, doing the right thing as far as they are concerned is likewise relative), as such islamist are justified in killing non-muslims because morality is likewise relative to them.

LOL, what a load of bollocks, LOL

Listen and listen good, morality is not a relative thing, morality cannot be developed from some form of biological process, hence your assertion that morality came via evolution really sounds very ridiculous even for you KAG (i had high respect for you compared to other atheists) , Please i advise you never to mention in public that morality came via evolution (it would cause you to be laughed to scorn).

By the way in case you don't know, morality is not personal, morality is not relative, instead morality is based on a set of unchanging absolutes such as:

1. Do not lies (this not possible via evolution because evolution requires preservation of the species via every means possible, hence lying itself would be a tool for evolution).

2. Do not kill (this not possible to have come via evolution because survival of the fittest requires kill of the so called unfit, hence killing itself would be a tool for evolution).

These absolutes and more have not change for thousands of years of human history since records began,


If you go anywhere in the world now or in the past.

An atheist inherently knows that killing is wrong, A bible believer inherently knows that killing is wrong,

An atheist inherently knows that lying is wrong, A bible believer inherently knows that lying is wrong,

Even atheism based communism societies recognise (to their embarrasment) that lying and killing are wrong, despite that there is no rational nor scientific reason as to the reason why such inherent understanding about killing and lying should be so,

KAG KAG, i am really disappointed by your response, i expected something like that from others but not from you, you are better than such kinds of outrageous responses.

Same way the child picks up the language(s) of its atheist parents.

In its concrete sense, yes.

I, for one, appreciate that.

, lol, lol, u are joking right, LMAO

What frame of reference exactly did the atheist parents have by which they determined what was right and what was wrong.

lol, lol, For example going by your previous statement does it mean right and wrong is relative and personal to the father and also relative and personal to the mother.
, yet by an unexplained process, the child still has an inherent understanding of what it means to lie and why lying is wrong, despite all the so called relativeness,

before KAG and mazaje continue their tag teaming on neotic, can we please get back to the topic of the thread and stop all intended and unintended derailment.

So back to the question of this thread,


1. Is religion necessary for morality.

2. Why is an atheist bothered about making religious people do the right thing.

3. What is the right thing from an atheistic perspective.

4. How does an atheist know the difference between right thing and wrong thing.

5. When does an atheist develop the sense of right thing and wrong thing, assuming evolution is true and evolution is the only thing known to man.

6. Where and how did a new born baby/very young child born to an Atheist Mother and Atheist Father, learn how to do the right thing and/or wrong thing, considering that they are technically supposed to be too young to read or study or learn in the same way adults get to learn new things.

7. Was morality a product of evolution.



I have asked straight forward questions above and thus would be grateful to get straight forward answers instead of name calling or useless rhetoric.

keep on believing in what you believe but don't disparage or write others off for not sharing your beliefs, because it is just what it is a belief and beliefs are not facts. . . . .

1. Does that mean it is a fact when Atheist say there is no Creator.

2. Does that mean it is true that Atheist can prove the fact that they believe a creator does not exist

my dear mazaje, please answer the above questions and other asked earlier, in case you are able to help out duduspace,

convert to islam after GITMO, ahahahahahaha, muslims would believe anything so long as it supports allah,

assuming the story is true (considering islamic[b] al taqiya[/b] and all)

1. Do you realise that GITMO is meant for intelligence gathering via every means possible.

2. Have you ever heard of good cop, bad cop interrogation technique,

3. How the heck do muslims know this guy is not just playing the good cop in this case,

4. If this guy is sincere, I am really waiting for the day and time when his eyes would be opened and he would realise that he is not permitted to reconvert away from islam, without being subjected to death penalty.

goodluck to muslims even as they deal with possible spies trying to infiltrate them for their future ass whopping

dominique:
the chapter's is just calling for Allah's wrath on the enemies of Islam. though i've never used the chapter in solat (and i'm a huge fan of short surahs) cos the contents seem a little harsh, i feel we should recite it especially when offering Nofla prayers for countries who are being oppressed by the enemies of our Islam.

noetic:
like which countries? and what does oppression in this context mean?

I guess there is no prayer to allah for those infidels;

- who are native to islamic countries or muslim dominated countries (Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, Turkey, ,Egypt,Yemen, Bahrain, Qatar, Pakistan, UAE, Indonesia, Malaysia etc),
- who are living in those islamic countries,
- who are unwilling to convert to islam and who are thus discriminated against by islam and their muslim country men
- who are sometimes killed or discriminated against for no obvious reason except that they are not muslims, e.g. Original native egyptians, non-muslim iranians, non-muslim lebanese, native non-muslim saudi arabians, native non-muslims pakistanis etc,

, that's my mukina baby, let the dodging, weaving and al taqiya begin

1. If muslims shout allah akbar in india, nigeria, united states and uk while either protesting or killing an infidel, does allah hear them shouting allahu akbar during then.

2. if allah hears them shouting allahu akbar, during those times, does allah realise that they are most probably not facing the east or kabaah or any particular direction during those times and process of protesting or killing the infidels.

3. why then does allah still want muslims to bow towards kabaah or mecca or east during their normal period of praying to allah, does it mean their prayers and praise are only heard while facing towards the east.

Any one who believes there is a Creator is stupid, because I know they cannot prove the existence of a Creator.

I am an Atheist because I believe there is no Creator, even though I know I cannot prove it.

--- Typical Generic Atheist

There is probably no God, so go ahead and enjoy your life.

- UK based atheistic bus advertisements.

duduspace:
I do appreciate your honesty but I must point out to you that in your narrow mindedness, you are blind to the fact that the bar has been raised (by you religionists of course) and belief in the bible no longer covers all your bases. If you would pursue your reasoning to a logical conclusion, then you should be a believer of all religions and not just a christian.

1. what is with the name calling, is it not possible for u to make a point without name calling.

2. Is narrowmindedness always a bad thing and broadmindedness always a good thing, please explain.

3. what bar has been raised and how (please explain).

4. I think you are confusing me with some other people you might have encountered.

5. I am not a politically correct bible believer, hence I believe there is only one way to the Heavenly Father and that that one way is the Messiah/Saviour as detailed in the Bible. By the way, I know there is only one way because the Messiah/Saviour said it Himself that there is only one way.

- Islam is not part of the way,
- Talmud based Jewish believes is not part of the way,
- Kabbalism is not part of the way,
- Atheism is not part of the way,
- Deism is not part of the way,
- Polytheism is not part of the way,
- Agnosticism is not part of the way,
- Environmentalism is not part of the way,
- Humanism is not part of the way,
- Catholic Church is not part of the way,
- Apostate bible believers is not part of the way,
- Buddism is not part of the way,
- Hinduism is not part of the way,
- Get rich quick prosperity gospel is not part of the way,
- Billy Graham is not part of the way,
- the Pope is not part of the way,
- Mary, Peter, Paul, John and others are not part of the way (they themselves must be saved),
- Pastors, Bishops, Elders and Deacons are not part of the way


Only the Messiah/Saviour in the Bible is the ONLY WAY, pastors, elders, bishops and other Saved True bible believers are only there to give directions to that only way.

So back to the question of this thread,


1. Is religion necessary for morality.

2. Why is an atheist bothered about making religious people do the right thing.

3. What is the right thing from an atheistic perspective.

4. How does an atheist know the difference between right thing and wrong thing.

5. When does an atheist develop the sense of right thing and wrong thing, assuming evolution is true and evolution is the only thing known to man.

6. Where and how did a new born baby/very young child born to an Atheist Mother and Atheist Father, learn how to do the right thing and/or wrong thing, considering that they are technically supposed to be too young to read or study or learn in the same way adults get to learn new things.


I have asked straight forward questions above and thus would be grateful to get straight forward answers instead of name calling or useless rhetoric.

davidylan:
i dont think your problem is the "arrogance" because you are equally if not more arrogant about your "belief" that those of us who KNOW God exists must be delusional intellectual midgets.

The problem is your conscience to be honest.

welldone davidylan, You just hit the nail on the head,


1. Atheists can choose to ignore Biblie believers, since they claim to be completely sure that there is no creator.

2. Yet for some unknown reason, atheists do not ignore bible believers. Instead, atheists get confrontational and try to either prove to Bible believers the non-existence of a Creator or make Bible believers prove the existence of a Creator, despite that they still can't answer the simple question of the "origin of everything" i.e how everything (life and non-life) came into existence.

3. Yet logic tells us that Atheists should not be bothered about Bible believers, since they already claim to know the answer, yet they still give evidence of being bothered.

I think the simple explanation is that:

Secretly, Atheists need to prove [/b]to themselves the [b]existence or non-existence of a creator, however since its basically impossible to scientifically prove or disprove the existence or non-existence of a creator with 100% certainty, then it becomes simple to understand why the conscience of Atheists might be a big problem for them.

mazaje:
Do you just believe in these things because you were told to believe in them since childhood or do you know them to be facts?  , pretending to know what you don't is indeed the life blood of religion. . . . . .

duduspace:
Yu can choose to beleive what you will, no one has demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that an after life exists and you are the sucker for beleiving what has not being conclusively proved. What has been conclusively proven however is that your body decomposes when you die. Any other assumption(s) amounts to claiming to know what you know nothing about, but wait a second, that is the life blood of religion isn't it?

1. No, i don't just believe what any one tells me about life and death, instead I check what the bible has to say, irrespective of what other people tell me.

2. Saved True Bible believers base their "faith" and/or "believe" about life and death, only on what the bible says.

3. No, I don't know about what happens after life and death as a form of fact that can be proving scientifically, i.e I cannot prove it to you scientifically and no one can prove it, just as no one can scientifically prove the existence or non-existence of a Creator.

4. Yes I believe there is life after death (i.e eternal life as promised in the bible), because I believe and have faith in what the bible says.

5. Yes I know that the confirmation of what happens after life and death according to the bible is possible and true only by faith in the eternal truth of the Word of the Creator Himself (i.e. The Bible), it cannot be proved scientifically, nevertheless that still does not bother me because not being able to scientifically prove the existence of something does not confirm the existence or non-existence of such a thing.

6. Fundamentally, there is only two options, either a Creator of Heaven and Earth exists or a Creator of Heaven and Earth does not exists, hence in consequence, either Heaven exists or does not exist.

7. Hence based on this two option above, A Saved True Bible believer is always assured no matter the outcome and thus[b]would always have nothing to lose[/b] no matter the outcome.

8. However based on this same two options, An Atheist would always never be assured of the outcome and thus would always have something to lose based on the fact that there are two possible outcomes. That explains why an atheist is always apprehensive, worried and eager to try to find a way to convince him or herself about the existence or non existence of a Creator.

mini mini minimo , who went to the temple that was not there. , and people defend him for it.

mini mini minimo, who was it that shagged a 9yr old girl, and people defend him for it.

, ,

mini mini minimo ,  who went to the temple that was not there.

davidylan, i see that dem muslims are still dancing around the issue of Al Aqsa and Mohammed,

1. First they claim Mohammed went to the Temple of Solomon, we show them the temple of solomon was already destroyed at least 1000yrs before mohammed was born

then

2. they claim the Masjid that Mohammed went to was not a building but a location, yet Mohammed himself claimed to have gone to a building called Al Aqsa mosque, chai, who do we believe, Mohammed or the Muslims


, funny that the same discussion was completed locked and then deleted by mukina (who is a muslim) ,  hmm i guess why that was so may it was because the fowls yansh was becoming to exposed in public.

ahaaaaaaaaaaaa mukinababy,  , did u just delete everything, just like that.


Do you realise that you are discriminating against a fellow gunner