₦airaland Forum

NDprudent: Now let's face d truth. I'm a christian, so don't say "he's one of the atheists". D major reason for the non-believers being wealthier is that christians are generally lazy, always lookin up to God to help dem wit every little problem. They hardly think with their brains for solutions, all they do is pray and blame unexisting forces for their failures. A man of God once said : God gave us brains so we won't disturb him with every of our little problems ( we should also think out solutions). When I was a student my dad always told me" pray like it depends only on God, but work like it depends only on you". Even though my prayer life was very active, I was always working so hard to achieve success (which I did achieve).

My point is this: we christians need to use more of our brains to think out solutions even while we pray for divine grace.

This should be another question on its own.

Does being logical contradict having faith?

Why do christians fear logic so much? Thereby elevating logical reasoning to a status comparable to God.

is logic supposed to be practiced only by non christians and lapsed christians?

why exactly do christians assume once you are logical, you will automatically lose your faith? What the bible says is let God be true, but every man a liar. Romans 3:4.

Any man who has to depend on others to tell him before he knows and practices the biblical standard of marriage which essentially states love your neighbour as yourself, will soon know what's up.

Nice.

Did he plant a US flag or what kind of flag

Well, its up to God.

Didn't read the article.

Here we go again.

One thousand of ten thousand


Psalm 50

10 For every beast of the forest is mine, and the cattle upon a thousand hills.

11 I know all the fowls of the mountains: and the wild beasts of the field are mine.

Psalm 144

That our garners may be full, affording all manner of store: that our sheep may bring forth thousands and ten thousands in our streets

in the first passage, God says He owns the cattle on a thousand hills. And all the wild beasts, birds and animals in the forests and field.

Why was a distinction made between domesticated and non-domesticated animals as per ownership? In other words, why does the passage specifically refer to "the cattle on a thousand hills" instead of "all cattle everywhere"?

imo, the cattle on thousand hills are a form of non-monetary "tithe", meaning the hills or cattle being referred to, are a tenth of a total. The overall figure would be ten thousand hills (of cattle), of which "one thousand" are the overt property of God.

Where are the other nine thousand hills of cattle? They are to be used to conduct the regular world's business, including buying, selling, finances, whatever constitutes a society's basic infrastructure.

The reason why domesticated animals are distinct from the wild ones, includes the fact that cattle (ie domestic animals used in commerce), belong to human beings. They are used to mark where civilization begins and primitiveness ends. Kingdom building.


The second passage refers to sheep (also domesticated animals) bringing forth thousands and ten thousands. Once again, thousand is used as a marker- its a tenth of ten thousand, a non-monetary tithe.



In an interesting sidenote,

Gen 1

25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

man was given (dominion over) fish, domestic animals, and every creeping thing, but curiously, wild animals were not specifically mentioned in this directive. They could of course be included in "over all the earth" and "every creeping thing", but the cattle (representing civilization) were an important marker which man was to use to establish his authority (dominion) on earth.

do you think that the bible teaches that christians are supposed to be wealthier than non christians?

the topic is deep, here is a write up where i expressed an opinion on the subject:

The Role of Money in the World


Who owns money, or the concept of money?

Where did money originate from?

Is the world's wealth controlled by God or satan?

Who owns money, or the concept of money?

Matthew 6:

24 Ye cannot serve God and mammon.


here is a "this or that" situation. It implies serving God and mammon are mutually exclusive, meaning you cant do both things together at once, you have to choose one or the other.

Is money a deity to be worshipped? Jesus said money (or serving money) requires a type of commitment or dedication which undercuts a believer's service to God. It does not mean money is bad in itself, however, serving money is a choice, just like serving God is also a choice which a believer decides whether or not to make.

So, who actually owns money? If God created all things (including money), then He should be the owner of all money. However, to cut a long story short, there is a phenomenon known as "the Prince of this world", who is firmly in charge of everything pertaining to it, including commerce and the cash flow. Serving mammon (the created), means you are serving this prince who usurped authority and diverted it to himself.



The modern concept of money, originated in the garden when adam and eve took something for nothing, eating the fruit for benefits which were not tangibly defined.

dorox: What is your opinion the poster's question,

he asked a valid question, its quite true unbelievers control vast amounts of wealth.

link to original question:

https://www.nairaland.com/1807901/questions-tithe-tithing#24600562

finofaya: OP. It would be nice if you could link to where you got your figures from. Also, what do you mean by unbeliever? Non Christian? non Muslim? Atheist/non religious? If you mean atheist/non religious, then given that they are outnumbered by more than 5 to 1 by believers, (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_atheism), it is hardly likely that they form the majority of the wealthiest people.

Maybe you mean "why are unbelievers rich at all?".

The question was asked by a poster on another thread.


He wondered why unbelievers are more prosperous than believers.

Will search for the link

carefreewannabe: I once said something to defend chubby ladies and everybody started calling me fat when I am slim and sporty,

but the way she is typing these long epistles in defence of the woman's right to seduce the op, is not ordinary nah.

sounds a bit too personal to be overlooked.

lets face it, when a woman gives an intentional breast display (IN CHURCH) knowing full well a man is sitting beside her and other people are even looking, it cant just be because of the baby alone. Maybe she felt he didnt see the first one properly, so she brought out the other and polished it for emphasis as well.


it didnt occur to me before say na maybe konji dey hold the lady, women can literally do anything when they are determined to get a man.

just theorizing here, efemenaxy should inform us if my suspicions are wrong.

.

Has to be ogun idile.


How could her proposed husband not only be 70 years old, but also absentee since the ceremony?

unuane1: lf true i don't think their airports would be able to accommodate the number of flights that will be coming into UK every day from Nigeria. They should be expecting a total of 50 million Nigerian to come into UK between now and December.

December is too far.

Its interesting to note however, in haruna, the h was not dropped ( could be because there is no prefix of abdul).

Another name like saheed, which sounds like a formal arabic one, is the yoruba version of sa' id ( or more common among the yoruba I should think).

So, the h was inserted before the i and the resulting name actually seems more arabic than even the original version.

You're quite right.

weigh what you are calling "investments" and see which is wiser.

.

.

The yoruba translations of those names would probably sound closer to the muslim versions, hence keeping the english form would be considered more expedient.

.

.

Nice one.

.

Why exactly is a nursing mother with a baby, sitting in the front or middle of church to begin with?

Does she need to be told where she should sit?

lord have mercy, dont know what is going on these days.

.

.

Konmight: I know. But some Muslims who used to bear Abdulrahman or Rahman usually change their names to Raymond when to convert to christians. I've seen some.

.

i've never seen any.

years ago on nl, some guy posted a picture of his bentley continental which retails for like N20 million or so?

i doubt lamidi is the same as lamido.

it could be abdul hamid, but that explanation doesnt answer the question of why the L at the end of abdul, was retained in this one instance but not in others.

it could also instead of dropping the h in hamid, it was simply replaced with l from abdul?

still very puzzling and not really a satisfactory answer, sounds like guesswork but is the only theory which seems to apply.