₦airaland Forum

@babaearly,

so this concept of sin applies to the believer too? so if i fornicate now its not a sin bt if i don't believe Christ is the sin right? please explain.

No. It applies solely to unbelievers. What sends unbelievers to hell is not that they fornicate or steal, but rather that they do not believe on Jesus. So no matter how much you tell an unbeliever to not indulge in these sins, it does not change their fundamental nature. And hammering on these gives them the idea that they need to stop doing wrong and start doing right, then they'll be qualified for salvation. That can't be any further from the truth. The work of salvation is finished, nothing can be added or taken away from it. I hope I am clear now.

@nwando,

Telling his hearers to repent and turn from sin like his father did.

What sin are we talking about here. It is clear from Jesus' statement in the Gospel of John that the only sin that the Holy Spirit will reprove the sinner of is that of not believing in the Lord Jesus. He won't leave His ministry just because we want Him to. We waste our time when we tell unbelievers don't do this, don't do that. All we are to tell them is Acknowledge you are a sinner and accept what God has done for you in Christ. This is what JO and others do. Trying to work guilt into their hearts through all these condemnation is actually contrary to the Words of Jesus.

So are we encouraging sin? No. The only reason why we should tell sinners to desist from sinful acts and unrighteousness is because of its consequences, not because desisting will save them. This is the reason why the state even promulgates laws because obdience to such laws is helpful to the society, not because it saves the society. We need to make that distinction very clearly lest we find ourselves unknowingly preaching salvation by works.

@ow11,

thanks for clearing that up.

Exactly what is his point? Don't be deceived, God calls you the same way He directs you in your everyday life - the inner witness. Having people tell you it has to be grandiose isn't supported by the Bible. Accepted that may happen, but as Kenneth Hagin would say, "that it is supernatural does not make it God."

@nwando,

Tayo D,be careful the things you support or excuse,
are we here to win an argument or to call a spade a spade?

Thanks for the advise. I mentioned earlier too that I believe that JO could have done better with that interview. But I just refuse to condemn him like David has done because I know the accusation do not fit. We also need to understand that our ministries are different, and so is our emphasis but inall Christ is the one who must be the central figure and I believe this is so with JO.

@4Him,

I would have considered attanding you "Condemnation Gospel Church", but those 2 words in bold are contradictory, or what do you think?

@4Him,

You say the messages of condemnation is not biblical and i wonder, but God condemned the people of Soddom and Gomorrah, God condemned the men of Nineveh until they repented . . . but Paul condemned the sin of homosexuality in romans . . . but the bible says the gospel of salvation condemns us of siin unto righteousness

That is the difference between the Old and New Testaments. That is why Paul says the OT is the Ministry of condemnation while the New is that of Righteousness. You cannot summarily condemn the world because Christ died for the whole world. Their sins are paid for already, though not all will come to accept that gift.

Paul rightly condemned the sin, and no one including JO encourages it. Infact, he said that much in his interview on CNN. However, you will need to understand that whichver road you take, the bottom line is that until people realise that it is sin not to know Jesus, they won't be saved. So if you cut through all the condemnation and go straight to Jesus, you will achieve the same.

Paul rightly said, knowing the terror of God, we persuade men. The unblievers cannot fathom this, we are the once that do, and the knowledge of that constrains us to continually preach Jesus and not keep asking them to quit what they cannot quit without Him.

@nwando,

The above is a part of his apology which I never knew existed till 4Him said so.
having read that,I believe the man has a sincere heart and was just overtaken in an interview while trying to appeal to everyone.
Hopefully he's learnt from it.
If I were him,I'll want to return on Larry King to set the records straight.

That is why I said earlier that his use of the phrase "I don't know" is actually kind of a habit when he speaks. He used it several times in his interview. But of course, the ministry of condemnation will not like to take that into account.

And by the way, what do you have to say about the scripture I shared in John 16 above? I am waiting for 4Him to explain it away.

@4Him,

Let me share with you something I'm sure you do not know. The only sin the world will be judged for is the sin of not accepting Jesus Christ as their Lord and Saviour. Every other sin is irrelevant because that is not what will send them to hell. The only thing that'll send them to hell is refusing the shed blood. So when you go around preaching do not do this or that, you really stand the risk of having people who see their salvation as a work experience because they had to do something to be saved.

Before you say I am preaching this out of my own Bible, please take a look at John 16:7  Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you. 8 And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: 9 O[b]f sin, because they believe not on me;[/b] 10 Of righteousness, because I go to my Father, and ye see me no more; 11 Of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged. Notice that the sin mentioned in this passage is singular. Verse 9 mentions the single sin that they will be reproved of. So you see, many messages of condemnation are actually not biblical.

@4him,

No wonder. How easily are the elect decieved.

Perhaps you are the one deceived. Please examine yourself as well.

The same Christ said he that believeth not is condemned already.

So we should discard the fact that He declared that He did not come to condemn the world? This is where scriptures need to be balanced with scripture, so we don't go off on a tangent as you are doing

The way to save the world is not to refuse to tell them they are already condemned if they do not accept the pure, undiluted gospel of repentance.

Salvation is knowing you are a sinner and accepting Jesus as your Lord and Savior. He does this at the end of every service and people get born again. How many are born again through your ministry of condemnation?

@4Him,

That is why the devil has changed himself into an angel of light. They have a form of godliness but DENY the power thereof.
God is not mocked for He seeth not as man sees . . . while we see the physical gathering of the flock He sees a flock scattered on the hills and mountains with no shepherds.

So you are now the one that sees like God and can see the flock scattered on the hills? Your zeal is surely in the way of your judgment.

@4Him,

Haven't you heard that it is the goodness of God that leads to repentance?
Perhaps that is in your own special bible. Godly sorrow worketh repentance is what is in mine.

You need to read and understand your Bible better. Maybe then, you will not be quick to make such ignorant statements. Here is the scripture you declare is in my own special Bible. Abi KJV is no longer relevant? Romans 2:4 Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance?

@Jesoul,

Tayo I understand your need to not be judgemental or give the guy a break but think about it here brotha, this man fits to a tee the description of a false prophet in sheeps clothes

I assume you meant to say a wolf in sheep's clothing. Please look at the major characteristic of the wolf that Jesus mentioned in John 10:12 But he that is an hireling, and not the shepherd, whose own the sheep are not, seeth the wolf coming, and leaveth the sheep, and fleeth: and the wolf catcheth them, and scattereth the sheep. Do you see that? a wolf scatters the sheep. Is this something you've noticed with JO? Is he scattering or gatheirng? When he was in Minneapolis, he brought a lot of people together and many found a church home. This is not a wolf but a shepherd.

@4Him,

So . . . being Pastor was a decision HE chose to make based on HIS FEELINGS and not God's express instruction?

Trying to dissect the guys words and repaint it dioesn't make you right. Tell me, how many people did god force to be Pastors? Even if God calls you, you have a choice to obey the calling or not. He made the choice to obey and be unique. In all honesty, I admire that a lot. He is not like many of our preachers who seem to be cookie-cuts from the same dough out of the seminary. I so much enjoyed his father's style and preaching, and I just admire that he never tried to copy him. He is staying true to his message the same way Billy Graham stayed true to his. His ministry is diffreent quite all right, and I can undersand if you fail to embrace something contrary to your preconceived notion.

I asked you to mention his fruits and you are dancing around the issue. The clip I asked you to watch includ someone who said his father gave his life to Christ through JO's messages. Another talked about their family being brought together to pray for the first time because of his ministry. He was here in Minneapolis a while back, and some people came to christ through that meeting and are members of our church today. Please share with us how many of such fruits you have through "David's blog" or the regular fit of condemnation you've done through nairaland.

Haven't you heard that it is the goodness of God that leads to repentance? Haven't you read that I have come not to condemn the world but to save it? The truth is people know they are sinners. They've live with their prutrid self for years and need no man to drive that point home. What they do not know is that God loves them where they are and has done something about it. It is this Gospel that JO preaches.

@4Him,nwando,

I just listened to 2 messages by JO on his website, and I have no doubt this is a christian who is fulfilling his calling. He has not and never said anything to minimise the place of Christ. In his encouraement to the body, he was quick to mention that Christ was sent to pay the price for our sins and he does not minimise it in anyway. That he does not do things the way you expect him does not make him less a believer.

Please show me where JO minimises the efficacy of the blood and I'll begin to take you seriously. I am reminded of Jesus' Disciples trying to forbid someone preaching about Jesus because he was not one of them. Remember what Jesus said? Mark 9:38 38 And John answered him, saying, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and he followeth not us: and we forbad him, because he followeth not us. 39 But Jesus said, Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me. 40 For he that is not against us is on our part.

4Him, you can't just pick scriptures and condemn someone with it. Those scriptures absolutely do not fit the guy. Tell me, doesn't jesus say by their fruits you shall know them? Please show us the guy's fruits that are contrary to Christ's.

@4Him,

My words: How can a pastor have NO testimony of his calling? How can a man entrusted with the eternal souls of 30,000 people tell us on national TV that he is a preacher simply because "he just knew deep down he was supposed to step up to the plate"? I read about the calling of great men like Moses, Joshua, Peter, Paul, Timothy . . . this men had specific testimonies of how God called them into the ministry of leading His sheep.

What do you mean he has no testimony? What's wrong with knowing deep down? Isn't that what the Bible says, that the Spirit bears witness with our spirits that we are the sons of God? isn't that the witness he is talking about here? Can you tell us about the calling of Peter, Joshua and the likes?

They did not depend on inner feelings of loyalty . . . Moses did not have it in Him, Paul was busy killing those he would eventually lead . . . BUT when these men met Christ in the burning bush and on the road to damascus, not even the sword of Pharaoh or the floggings, beatings, jails and the wrath of Agrippa would stop these men from preaching Christ!
Joel Osteen . . . where you really called to minister by GOD?

He said he knows he was supposed to pastor the church and you are asking if he was called to minister. What is the job of a Pastor?

for there is no difference. For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;" Romans 3:23. Brother Joel . . . there is nothing like "i have always believed". David said in iniquity did my mother concieve me!
Where is your testimony of salvation? where is your Damascus experience? Where did you meet God?
Eli was a priest in Isreal . . . his sons lay with the women at the gates of the temple. Samuel was a great prophet in Isreal . . . his own sons did not follow in his footsteps. A family friend used to say, God has not grandchildren . . . you cannot expect to go to heaven piggy backing on your father's spiritual experience, you need your own!

How does a man grow up believing? Believing in what?

I grew up in a Christian home where I never doubted the fact that Jesus is Lord. I can safely say that I grew up believing even though I remember the days when I started realising that I was a sinner and I was gravitated to Jesus as my personal Lord and Savior. I am right now listening to one of his messages because of all these criticms, and he is here saying in prayer, "thank you Father for sending your Son Jesus Christ to die for our sins." And by the way, the prayer was said in Jesus' name and not J.O's name.

If you want to know his salvation story, pleas write him and request for one. But if you want to know what he thingks of salvation, he's made it abundantly clear that the way is Jesus Christ, and that he agrees totally with Billy Graham on that.

@all,

Please watch this 2 minute video and tell me this is not about Jesus http://www.dallasnews.com/video/dallasnews/hp/index.html?nvid=192201

@JeSoul,

Tayo-D,
I usually take something away from your posts but I am dissapointed in your responses here  and I can't believe any bible-beliving and reading christian anywhere can look at Joel Osteen, Paula White, Creflo Dollar and co and not immediately point out that they are everything the bible warns us about false prophets!    We have the evidence right in front of our eyes why oh why are we making excuses for them?

I understand the way you feel. And to be candid, the first time I listened to Joel osteen, I felt exactly the same way you feel. I remember discussing it with my friends and expressing concern that he wasn't really teaching salvation nor pointing to Jesus as much as I felt he should.

Some time later when I listened to his message, he actually did request for those who would like to be christians to say the prayer of salvation with him, though he never asked them to come forward. It then occured to me that ministering could very well be taking place much more outside what we see on TV. My church is on TV too, and I know the Pastor tries to keep within an hour for the benefit of those on TV. However, when the hour is up, he delves deeper into ministry with people available. I want to believe that is the case with JO except someone who attends his meeting tells me otherwise. The last time he was in Minneapolis, I know our church provided ministers to help in the work of the ministry. I don't see him working diametrically opposed to the Church, but in agreement with it.

As for his messages, please listen to them and tell us if at any time you find anything he says contrary to the principles in the Bible. While I do not listen to him much, I must confess that the few times I do, I find someone teaching the principles within the Bible without necessarily quoting from it verbatim. Some may not think this shouldn't be so, and I agree to an extent. But the fact remains that he is teaching the principles from the bible and he does not hide the fact that he gets his inspiration from it.

Can I stay under his ministry for long? I don't think so. But then, who know what he teaches on Wednesdays. For all you know that message of inclusion may be just for Sundays when you get all sorts of people. Wednesday services in my church as in most, is where the real teachings take place. Sunday tends to be more of encouragement.

I'm not trying to encourage you to believe in him. Just that I don't think he deserves all these criticisms. Granted, he would have done better with the interview by quoting the Bible directly, but he still made it known that if you ask him, the way to heaven is Jesus Christ, and that is all that saves. And if I may add, the use of the phrase "I don't know" seems to be something he says a lot as a habit. That I think explains why he used it so many times in the interview. And besides, i appreciate someone who is candid and admits his lack of knowledge to those who claim to know everything.

@4Him,

False . . . salvation was SO important to God that He came down in His glory, took on Himself the flesh of man and humbled Himself to the death on the cross.
Why didnt He just sit in heaven and send us psychologists to teach us how to use our minds to get what we want?

Who minimises salvation? That's the exact misrepresentation I've been talking about. There's more to the Bible than just salvation in the sense of people being saved. There are principles there that teaches about how to live in the day to day world. I asked you before, if it is all about salvation, what are you doing in school? And tell me, is the Bible relevant to your studies? What difference does your inheritance in Christ make in your studies if any? When you answer these questions truthfully, maybe then you will see what you are yet to see.

@nwando,

He always said "if it's new,it's not true,and if it's true,it's not new"
and of course the book of Ecclesiastes backs it up by saying

I love Gbile Akani, and he is one of those that got me really serious about developing my walk in Christ. However, this statement you attribute to him is very short-sighted in the sense you have presented it. "New" is relative. The newness of Jesus compared to John the Baptist was a stumbling block to many. Tell me, does Jesus' style being new untrue? How do you balance what you've said with this scripture: Isaiah 43:19 Behold, I will do a new thing; now it shall spring forth; shall ye not know it? I will even make a way in the wilderness, and rivers in the desert.

@4Him,

My brother, that is the LIE of the enemy and much as i respect you as a person i will not permit such misuse of the scriptures. Please can you back up the above with ANY relevant scripture?
Where did Christ water down His gospel just to please and draw the crowd first?

That is where you are wrong. This isn't about watering down the scripture. Every message of the Bible is the message of salvation. If I preach that a man who does not work should not eat, will you call that not gospel? There are unbelievers in the world today who practice God's word of hardwork and the use of wisdom to prosper even better than Christians. These are the principles of Jesus that he preaches. The Gospel is not just about the preaching of spiritual salvation - it entails much more than that.

Did you read Paul's letter to the Galatians? Why werent they turned off when he called them foolish galatians?

Again this is talking to christians not unbelievers. Do you know what Paul did when he came to Athens? He didn't condemn them. Rather, he met them at their level and began his preaching from the inscription he saw on their temple: "To the Unknown God".

John 6:53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.

Again, you go on a tangent. This was to his disciples, not the unbelievers.

Wasnt these people also concerned about challenges in their lives? These people who have NEVER heard the message of salvation, did not have the benefit of Paul's books nor the gospels to make sense of oh such a hard message . . . and YET Christ thought nothing of putting His word across. Even the 12 apostles who ate and slept with Christ murmured that this indeed was a hard saying . . . . did Christ beg them? - Verse 67 Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away?

You talk as if Christ's messages is always like this one. It is not. There are times He preaches to the poor, the broken hearted etc. This are not always messages that speak directly of His person, but of His principles.

The gospel is not about appealing to the feelings and selfish nature of man but to convict man of sin unto repentance.

You idea of the Gospel is so shallow, it makes it difficult to rally discuss it with you. Are you talking about salvation? If salvation, yes, but the Gospel is much more than just salvation.

@nwando,

which of their gods?
Hindus have thousands of different idols and your "main idols" depend on the congregation you belong to.
Did he bother asking?
people should be careful O

The fact is that these people believe they are worshipping God. If they feel otherwise, they won't be practicing the religion. The worst of it is that others might think they have to go through mediums to reach God because they believe He is far off. However, the bottom line is that their hearts is reaching for God even though they are going about it the wrong way. Why else would Paul declare that For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Isn't this an acknowledgement that they are reaching out for God? they may be deceived, but that is a different matter.

@nwando,

All I say is we have to be very careful with this politically correct "Christianity" that caters for all and does not condemn sin.
That is not Christianity

The passage of scripture that continually caliberates me and helps set my foot on that narrow path is
Matt 7 :22  

Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' 23Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'

If you cannot look people in the eye and boldly quote and stand by a scripture you claim to believe,then you've denied faith,it's as simple as that,no ifs,buts,I don't knows

. I understand your point. However, I think we are overlooking something very critical here. We need to consider whose his audience are. The world he is focusing on in his broadcasts is very concerned about the challenges they face. His message is to provide them with principles that will make a diffenrce in their lives. When they notice this differnce, they'll draw closer where they then have the chance of knowing more about Jesus and get saved. When you turn them off from your first statement on TV through condemnation, then you will never reach them. Of what purpose is that?

But please let's be clear about one thing. The Bible teaches not only about the life of Jesus, but about His principles. It is these principles that he teaches, and he will tell them more about His life when they draw closer.

@4Him,

Tayo-D with all due respect, i don't think you have bothered to prayerfully go through my line of argument at all before accusing me of lack of knowledge. I don't know all things but i'm willing to learn if you do have a different oppinion.

If you believe you have rom to learn why would you expect anything less of the preachers? Do you think they know it all? Absolutely not. We keep learning everyday. Your line of argument summarily condemns, even though I believe you have no clue what the people are really saying. Taking out one line or another is not a true representation of their entire message.

Simple. Because i see no where in the entire gospels where the Lord Jesus Christ talked about the mind being the secret to our destiny.

The word destiny is derived from destination. Let me ask you, do you think what you are learning in school now will have a bearing of what your future will look like? If your answer is yes, then you have no point. Romans 12:2 is very clear, you will be transformed when your mind is renewed. How clear can that be. Arent you transformed by that you are learning in school?

Simply put - Isaiah 30: 9 That this is a rebellious people, lying children, children that will not hear the law of the LORD:
10 Which say to the seers, See not; and to the prophets, Prophesy not unto us right things, speak unto us smooth things, prophesy deceits:

Your use of this scripture is very vague. What smooth things have they told you that is contrary to God's word?

I don't agree at all. When you quote Romans 12:2, like the typical motivational preachers of today you conveniently quote ONLY that portion that fits your perception and ignore the most important aspect. Was Paul talking about renewing your mind to change your destiny? Was it all about US?
Romans 12: 2 And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.

You are vey funny. Of course it is about US. What does it add to God if your mind is renewed? Is it God that Paul said will be transformed if we renew our minds? When we determine God's will and obey it after renewing of our minds, we are blessed for it. I am beginning to think you idea of Christianity is one that just involved getting saved and going to heaven. It appears we are not to be socially relevant here. If our minds are that irrelevant, I wonder why you are wasting your time in school. I'm sure you don't see it, but you are being hypocritical with this stance.

Salvation does not give you the power to change YOUR mind, YOU do not have that power if not we wouldnt need salvation in the first place. John 1:12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave power to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, 13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

Why would Paul ask the Romans to renew their minds after they were saved? Are you telling us these Romans were not yet saved at the time Paul wrote to them?

Sir, again you deliberately misquote 1 John 3:2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.
You only get transformed to a new spiritual body WHEN He appears and not before . . .

What have you said here that is different from what I said earlier. I said the physical change in the body happens when we see Him as He is, even though it is a xconsequence of the salvation we receive today. What is your point?

@4Him,

Again, you have not fully represented his message. His style is obviously different from others. If you ask Joel osteen, what is the way to Heaven. He will not miss a beat to tell you that it is Jesus. However, when you ask him if there is another way, he'll not argue it with you, but decvlare that I don't know. Can't you see the difference?

Now here is another section of the interview.

CALLER: Hello, Larry. You're the best, and thank you, Joe -- Joel -- for your positive messages and your book. I'm wondering, though, why you side-stepped Larry's earlier question about how we get to heaven? The bible clearly tells us that Jesus is the way, the truth and the light and the only way to the father is through him. That's not really a message of condemnation but of truth.

OSTEEN: Yes, I would agree with her. I believe that,

KING: So then a Jew is not going to heaven?

OSTEEN: No. Here's my thing, Larry, is I can't judge somebody's heart. You know? Only god can look at somebody's heart, and so -- I don't know. To me, it's not my business to say, you know, this one is or this one isn't. I just say, here's what the bible teaches and I'm going to put my faith in Christ. And I just I think it's wrong when you go around saying, you're saying you're not going, you're not going, you're not going, because it's not exactly my way. I'm just,

KING: But you believe your way.

OSTEEN: I believe my way. I believe my way with all my heart.

KING: But for someone who doesn't share it is wrong, isn't he?

OSTEEN: Well, yes. Well, I don't know if I look at it like that. I would present my way, but I'm just going to let god be the judge of that. I don't know. I don't know.

KING: So you make no judgment on anyone?

OSTEEN: No. But I,

You can see that he is unequivocal in the fact that Jesus is the way to God, but he will not condemn anyone, because he will not get into individual cases that required a judgement of the heart. That is so simple.

@topic,

Here's the Joel Osteen interview on CNN that you were refering to 4Him. I think you have painted his use of the phrase "I don't know" wrong. You need to be careful with this sinister manipulation of people's words http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0506/20/lkl.01.html

@4Him,

“Why did God take away the voice of Zacharias (Luke 1:11-20)?  Because God knew his [Zacharias] negative words would cancel out His [God] plan.” (Joel Osteen, “Speaking Faith Filled Words,” Tape # 223. Daystar Television, May 2, 2004)

Is that true Joel? How would the words of Zecharias have cancelled out God's plan? Isaiah 55: 11 So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.

I was planning to spend my evening doing some other stuffs today, but you are obviously side-tracking me. I feel the need to try and straighten you out a little bit.

It is obvious that you have no clue of the power of words in our walk with God. You will notice that I highlighted the word walk because it is the key to understanding what I believe Joel Osteen is talking about. Remember Amos 3:3 Can two walk together, except they be agreed?. Well, the truth is that until our words are in line with God's, His will cannot come to pass in our lives.

Please read Malachi 3:13 Your words have been stout against me, saith the LORD. Yet ye say, What have we spoken so much against thee? 14 Ye have said, It is vain to serve God: and what profit is it that we have kept his ordinance, and that we have walked mournfully before the LORD of hosts? 15 And now we call the proud happy; yea, they that work wickedness are set up;  yea, they that tempt God are even delivered. 16 Then they that feared the LORD spake often one to another: and the LORD hearkened, and heard it, and a book of remembrance was written before him for them that feared the LORD, and that thought upon his name. 17 And they shall be mine, saith the LORD of hosts, in that day when I make up my jewels; and I will spare them, as a man spareth his own son that serveth him. 18 Then shall ye return, and discern between the righteous and the wicked, between him that serveth God and him that serveth him not. Can you see here that until the righteous spake to one another (apparaently God's words), evil continued to be the lot of all.

Now let me tell you something very obvious but not so apparent. God's will is that ALL men be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth. Now is that the case? Absolutley not. Salvation belongs only to those whose words are not stout with the Lord's. Those who have confessed Jesus as the Son of God as God Himself has declared. So no matter how much God wants you saved, until you say the right thing in conformance with His words, His will for you to be saved will never come to pass in your life. This is true in every area, and I believe in the situation with Zecharias as well. This I believe, is the context that Joel must be talking. Never isolated a statement from the entire message. You will be misrepresenting the speaker that way.

@4Him,

One thing I can not take away from you is your zeal. I must confess that I admire it a lot. That being said, I truly am concerned about some of your writings lately, which I think shows a lack of knowledge of the whole counsel of God., even though that is what you are in effect accusing the larger body of Christ.

What problem do you have with the teaching about the mind? Accepted, when you are teaching on a subject, it always appears that you are minimising the importance of other issues, which is why you cannot really condemn such teachings until you hang around for long to really understand what the teacher is talking about. It is like accusing someone who declares that money answers all things of non-reliance on God. I'm sure you know this is not necessarily the case.

In order to streamline this discussion, maybe you will have to list out some of the problems you have with today's teachings, and we can delve into the scriptures to address them one after the other. I'll strat by addressing a few of the isues you mentioned above.

Where in the bible are we told that our minds have the power to change our destinies? What is the role of salvation then?

Of course the Bible teaches you will be transformed, and by implication change your destiny when your mind is renewed. Please see  Romans 12:2 And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God. I can see that you have a very limited idea of what salvation is all about. Salvation brings about the instant reborn of your spirit. It gives you the empowerment to change your mind (remember you are giving the mind of Christ), and it promises you that your body will be changed to be like His when we see Him as He is. There are lots of scripture I could point at, but we'll start with these.

Catch phrase 1 - we carry in our hearts a memory of our future.: Really?

I will need you to explain further what she said before making this statement. But I would think that phrase is true in light of the following scripture in  1 Corinthians 2:9 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. 10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. 11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.

Catch phrase 2 - A spirit minded person embraces discrepancy between revelation and situation:   Really?

Again, you need to explain what she meant by that or better still, what you understand by then phrase. But from Romans 12 2 above, when a believer's mind is renewed, such a believer will be able to prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.

Here is an article on cnn. The writer, like a number of us is still trying to find out what the "change we can believe in" is. http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/22/sanchez.latinos/index.html

Several Hispanics I spoke with in south Texas on Friday tell me about Hispanic Democrats who have remained reluctant to commit to Clinton. They are open to Obama's message. But these voters are wondering, as are independents and even some Republicans, what all this talk about "change" really means.

On taxes

Texas is also home to 20 percent of the nation's Hispanic-owned businesses, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. And the family- and community-oriented people who own these businesses, many of which classify as small businesses that pay taxes as individual rates, do not regard the Bush tax cuts as "tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans."

Letting the Bush tax cuts expire, as both Obama and Clinton have pledged to do, will be seen by these voters as a massive tax increase, not the restoration of fairness in the system.

Neither Obama nor Clinton spent enough time on this. Increased trade will certainly result once U.S.-Cuba relations are eventually normalized -- meaning more jobs for Texas -- but neither seems to have a plan.

And if, as both Clinton and Obama suggest, though Obama does it better, the election is about "change," both candidates continue in their failure to explain in any meaningful way what that means.

@topic,

While I have read the first few pages of this thread, a lack of time restricts my going through all the pages, so I apologise if the points I will be making hereafter are already discussed.

Central to this debate is a determination of who owns the currency in our pockets. Once we determine who owns the paper, then we can begin to rub minds on what rights others, including the goverment have over our use or otherwise of the paper.

It is my understanding that after putting in my 40 hours of work in a week, what I get in return does not belong to anybody but me. What the government could lay claim to is what they've already deducted - taxes. So while the governemt has a share of my gross income, they governement has no business with what I do with the Net because the money is MINE. In essence, this debate is all about determining how far the government lcan egislate what I can do with my property which I own fair and square.

I would understand if the legislation is about the misuse of our roads and public utilities. These infrastructures are not mine. That is why I pay taxes, which is a fee for the services received through these public infrastructures.

Money is quite different. The government does not own the money, I do. The only money owned by the govt, is what it receives in the form of taxes. The money in my pocket is mine because I earned it, and I can do with it whatsoever I please including defaecating on it. If you don't like what I do with it, you can reject it if I offer it to you as a gift or as an exchange for goods or services. And you know what, I can even burn the money for all I care. It is now my property and no one has a right to it until I offer it as gift or a means of exchange, after which I can no longer lay claim to the money. Until then, let the government or anyone for that matter stay out of my pocket.

@away4real,

@ tayo let me attempt to show you the economic implication of your tax cuts.

And I will attempt to show you the gaps in your arguments in brevity.

The reason for the support of the current bush tax cut is because of the current situation of the economy, consumer confidence is at an all time low so to avoid the economy going into a recession aggregate demand has to be stimulated and one way of doing this is cutting taxes.

The economy will always be stimulated when people have more money, either in times of economic uncertainty or otherwise. this is the reason why the economy of the US has continued to grow since 911. The tax cut ensures people have more money in their pockets to invest.

The paradox is that more money has its problems as well which is inflation but in this situation since the risk is recession, lowering taxes could be a useful fiscal policy.

The recession is primarily due to the housing market slump and fueled by outsourcing. Recession is having 2 consecutive negative growths of the econmy. Don't you find it funny that the economy didn't experience this recession for almost 7 years of Bush presidency?

Now back to why i asked the differences if any between the 2 tax cuts, i was actually referring to the economic pecularities surrounding both as it is usually a lay mans arguement that tax cut is good since it puts more money on the table. The Implications on a macro level is not as simple.

I have told you the bottom line. It is wealth redistribution, plain and simple. It is the Government playing the role of a philanthropist when it shouldn't be doing so.  

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/08/washington/08tax.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
I read this article a whileago and had it as a favourite read it, the introduction is shown below.
"Families earning more than $1 million a year saw their federal tax rates drop more sharply than any group in the country as a result of President Bush’s tax cuts, according to a new Congressional study.
Skip to next paragraph The study, by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, also shows that tax rates for middle-income earners edged up in 2004, the most recent year for which data was available, while rates for people at the very top continued to decline.  
Based on an exhaustive analysis of tax records and census data, the study reinforced the sense that while Mr. Bush’s tax cuts reduced rates for people at every income level, they offered the biggest benefits by far to people at the very top — especially the top 1 percent of income earners.

Can you see how hollow your logic is from the bolden statement above? The fact is that Bush's tax cut affected everyone and is credited for creating more millionaires in the US than anytime in history. These are the same people who reinvest in the economy to help those in the lower bracket make a daily living for themselves and their families. But of course, they get punished for their industry by the socialist party of the Democrats.

Though tax cuts for the rich were bigger than those for other groups, the wealthiest families paid a bigger share of total taxes. That is because their incomes have climbed far more rapidly, and the gap between rich and poor has widened in the last several years."

This has nothing to do with the policies. The world is changing and if you choose to remain in one place, you will grow poor. These same poor people have the opportunities that the rich guy have, but why should they work when they are sure Obama and Co will pay their rent and provide them food and allowances?

See the fraud highlighted above, the average marginal tax rate for the middle class increases while that of the rich reduces.

Your summary is faulty. The tax rates for both groups fell, though the diference in the rates vary.

This is one of the change Obama is talking about, no one is TOTALLY against tax cuts but when the bulk of the income gain is by a certain income bracket, the stimulation to the economy is non-existant.

Do you know what happens when you tax the rich? They take their investments elsewhere. NWA and Delta Airlines are about to merge, and Minnesota is going to lose out becuase the headquarters will be relocated to Atalanta. You know why? Minnesota charges a whooping 7.5% tax on NWA profits over and above that which the FG does. Now why won't they relocate to a more frindly place? the truth is, taxation kills investment because it is more or else a penalty for industry. The change Obama should make is to reduce the size of Government, but he aint gonna do that. The Govt should only be involved in governance and not social welfare.

Obama proposes tax cuts that will put more disposable income in the pockets of the middle class, the working America and less to the extremely rich. Secondly he proposes incentives to companies that will grow and build the American Market against those that take jobs abroad (this is another arguement).

The middle class gets enough tax breaks. Chevron is taxed 48% here in the US, and who do you think bears the brunt of it - of course the consumers. What incentive can you give a company to remain in america other than tax break, and when the govt gives you a tax break, it will take the money elsewhere unless it reduces its size. That is the whole truth.

Furthermore, the most ridicolous aspect of Bush is that in a time of war, the bush govt has kept on reducing taxes from the $1.6 trillion tax cut to this (which as i have shown above is different), the effect is that you have rising Government Expenditure, but reducing Revenue/Income, the effect is you start driving the level of budget deficit so high it can't be sustained, it is at level almost 4% of GDP (almost), that my friend is an economic disaster.

The country had a deficit too during world war 2. Why should you increase taxes in a time of war? What that will do is to make people not invest without wich there'll be no jobs, and the few who have the jobs will be taxed more to sustain the government spending.

Finally the effect of this can be seen on the US exchange rate, interest rate and Inflation, the credit crunch has helped distort the analysis hence its not that simple but on the average the tax cuts has led to economic slow down, i really don't see the wisdonm in that.

Are you for real? You can never go wrong when the people have money to spend. The economic slow down is not because of the tax cuts. Look elsewhere for somethin to blame. If the tax cut is the problem, the Democrats won't agree to provide more as witnessed with the economic stimulus plan. It is their interest in a bigger, welfare driven government that is making them ask for more of your money. Let them cut the programmes and there'll be less deficit.

Now this is my debate, First, OBAMA is a complete change from BUSH, the tax gain from any cut would be higher for the middle income than the high income. BUSH and by extension republicans seek to protect the interest of the rich through aggressive tax cuts that give the little top 1% more, that are damaging to the economy as a whole.

The top 1% you are talking about are the investors and enterpreneurs without which there will not be the economy we are talking about. Believe me, the middle incomers are fairing well and have a significant tax break. This is tax period and I will be getting a check of almost $15,000.00 in tax returns, which of course I'll invest again in the economy. That money in the hands of the government will likely go to doing more welfare work which will be a burden on the economy.

@Mckren,

Kudos to you. I am at a loss as to how to brand this your style. Is it the Babangida's style of stepping aside form the topic, or is it the Obama's style of all rhetoric with no substance. Either way, we still have no clue what Obama plans to do differently than anyone on the campaign trail right now, or better still from what George bush stands for.

As for the things for which we know the differences, I will be ready to debate anybody on such issues.

And has anybody noticed how Obama either abstains from voting or is missing in action during many key votes on the Senate floor. this is the guy we are supposed to believe in?

@Mckren,

I have no reason for backing Obama. Ever seen a virgin girl fall in love to a thug?? Thats how I feel right now.

I'm glad you could make this admission. the truth is virtually all Obama supporters are in the same boat. They do not know what he stands for beside the rhetoric of change. To me, Obama is no more than a celebrity in politics.

@away4real,

@ tayo, let me start by asking you a small question, what is the difference if any between the recent tax incentives and the tax breaks previously granted by Bush.

It is the same thing, except for the fact that the Democrats arm-twisted Bush into giving some tax incentives to people who don't even pay tax too. In other words, Bush still believes in putting more of your money in your pocket, unlike the Democrats who are into wealth redistribution. They tax my hard work and enterpreneural skills to take care of people who have the same opportunities like I do, but never took advantage of it. In other words, the Democrats tax productivity and reward unproductivity.