₦airaland Forum

jaephoenix:
If you don't believe my stories, why would you believe DrAda's views? Cos it aligns to your narrative? If it didn't align to your own narratives, you'd have chucked it aside like you're doing mine. That's dishonest.
I can't tell you how often those actions by those doctors happens cos I haven't done a poll,so I stick to estimates. But if you choose to ignore them,then so be it.
Those consultants tell them to pray and DID NOT REFER THEM. That's negligent! You don't k ow this cos u ain't a doc

Which "narrative"? I do not hold a narrative. You're the one spreading a damaging narrative that the MDCN is incompetent and biased, and that Nigerian doctors routinely substitute prayer for medicine.

To move beyond your unverified stories, I sought an objective professional perspective. If you believe @,DrAda's professional judgement, that such conduct is unethical and reportable, is false, then challenge her directly. Provide your evidence to her, not me, and let's see the outcome. Until you subject your claims to professional scrutiny, they remain what they have always been: unsubstantiated anecdotes in service of your own ideology.

This is not about whom to believe. It is about professionalism. And the difference is very clear. @DrAda stated a verifiable professional and ethical standard applicable to all doctors: "Any healthcare professional who promotes such dangerous practice... should be reported." This is a verifiable professional norm, a benchmark. You provided unverifiable personal anecdotes. One is a standard; the other is gossip. They are not the same.

Your statement, "You don't know this cos u ain't a doc is a diversion. Medical outcomes are not secret knowledge. If your stories were true and widespread, we would see public outcry, official complaints, and media investigations. The deafening silence and lack of corroborating evidence are telling. This is a faceless forum where anyone can claim to be anything. Your insistence on possessing secret knowledge, like a witchdoctor, while offering zero verifiable details destroys your credibility. He who alleges must prove. The burden is on you.

If you are a doctor and witness negligence, your ethical duty is the report it, not to use it as a rhetorical weapon online. Your inaction contradicts your professed outrage.

You have really failed. You failed to prove your original thesis about religion and national development. You have also failed to prove your anecdotal claim about systemic medical malpractice

When you're ready to engage with verifiable facts and causal logic, rather than stereotypes and incomplete stories, we can talk. Until then, you're only talking to yourself.

Modified: You have moved from a definitive "it is rife" to "not very common", back to "rife" and now to an unscientific guess because you "haven't done any poll". An estimate without a method is not analysis, it is prejudice. You're admitting that your major anecdote, the entire foundation of your medical malpractice claim, is nothing more than a personal feeling presented as fact.

There is nothing left to discuss with you again. You're not arguing with evidence, you are arguing with a shifting sentiment that keeps changing each time it is challenged. This is not how truth is established.
Number 1

jaephoenix:
Yes,suppressing religion grows a country. Lemme explain
As a doctor,if I tell a patient that he should have faith in god and ignore his meds,I could lose in license in the UK. But in Nigeria, it's rife.

Number 2 where you retreated to "not very common" after I challenged the first one.

jaephoenix:
I'm a doctor,trust me. My colleagues take this religious shit serious. Though not very common but they do it.

Number 3. In your reply to @DrAda, you reverted to "rife", again.

jaephoenix:
I did not say it's standard practice. I said it's rife.

Number 4. After I called you out for your inconsistency, the below is your latest position .

jaephoenix:
I can't tell you how often those actions by those doctors happens cos I haven't done a poll,so I stick to estimates. But if you choose to ignore them,then so be it.

A story that changes each time it is challenged is not credible. If you presented this shifting testimony in a court of law, your case would be dismissed for fatal inconsistency and a complete failure to meet the burden of proof.

jaephoenix:
I did not say it's standard practice. I said it's rife. A patient told me her doc told her to come to her church for her subfertility. Another colleague told me that he used anointing oil to guard against covid and he encouraged his patients to do so. I have consultants that have told many cancer patients in my presence to pray,that god is the one that heals and not medicine. In advanced countries these guys would lose their license so fast. Not in Nigeria. Go and report to MDCN and see.Do I go on? You know I'm not lying

You're still missing the critical point through a mix of anecdotal evidence and intellectual dishonesty.

Not only are your stories unverifiable, but you also cannot maintain a consistent claim about their prevalence. You initially called this practice "rife" . When challenged, you retreated to "not very common". Now in your reply to DrAda, you have reverted to calling it "rife" again. This glaring contradiction shows you're using emotionally charged language not to describe reality, but to prop up a failing argument.

Now, you're conflating supportive statements with malpractice. A consultant telling a Christian cancer patient "God is the one who heals" while continuing their full medical protocol is not telling them to " abandon medicine". It is a form of psychological and spiritual support integrated into care worldwide. You're deliberately stripping these statements of their contexts to make them sound like instructions to stop treatments.

Your other evidence remains personal and unverifiable. "A patient told me", "another colleague" in my presence" , these are stories, not data. They prove noting about systemic practice or national policy

Furthermore, you are arguing against a straw man. No one, including@DrAda, claims Nigeria's medical oversight is perfect. The point is that isolated cases of unprofessional conduct exist in every country and are handled by regulatory bodies, not by blaming an entire religion. Your claim that the MDCN is completely ineffective and biased is a cynical generalisation you use to avoid your duty to report factual malpractice. Not reporting it is also malpractice which makes you complicit in the matter.

Honestly, this entire tangent is a deflection and you know it. Your original thesis was that not surpressing religion clauses national underdevelopment. You have failed to provide a shred of evidence for that. Instead, you have latched onto vague doctor stories because you simply cannot prove your main claim.

If you have evidence of malpractice, act on it. If not stop using unverified stories to support a failed ideological argument.


Here are your contradictions. First, your initial statement

jaephoenix:
As a doctor,if I tell a patient that he should have faith in god and ignore his meds,I could lose in license in the UK. But in Nigeria, it's rife.

Later you retreated to "though not very common" when challenged.

jaephoenix:
I'm a doctor,trust me. My colleagues take this religious shit serious. Though not very common but they do it.

But in your reply to DrAda, you have reverted to it's "rife" again.

This evidence is taken from this same page. Anyone following, just need to read from the beginning to confirm..I have also screenshot it

DrAda:
Thank you for taking the time to address and correct the misinformation that is rife on this platform.

Please kindly disregard the claim that it is standard practice for doctors to advise patients to rely on religion in place of appropriate clinical care. This is entirely wrong.

Any healthcare professional who promotes such dangerous practice is acting unethically and should be sued and reported to the Medical and Dental Council of Nigeria (MDCN) for appropriate disciplinary action.

Personally, I counsel my patients to beware and always verify the claims of miracle vendors.

Thank you very much for taking the time to provide this clear and professional clarification. Your authoritative input is greatly appreciated and will help ensure accurate responsible discussion on this important matter.

jaephoenix:
I don't need to convince you cos I can't convince you. What you'll do is ask any doctor if Nigerian doctors tell patients to do spiritual stuff. One even went on Instagram saying that childbirth is spiritual and he fights spiritual battles. Its no use reporting to MDCN. There's more Christians there who'll discard the complaint

You're correct about one thing: you cannot convince me. And it's not because I am close minded, but because you have failed to support your original claim and now arguing with strategic ambiguity.

Your argument that religion must be suppressed for development is a popular but historically illiterate talking point among a certain fringe, militant atheists. It confuses correlation with causation and deliberately ignores overwhelming evidence.

If your theory were true, we would expect atheist and secular states to be universally developed, but they are not. North Korea and the former Soviet bloc are telling examples.

If your theory were true, we would expect religious nations to be universally poor,but they are not. The United states, Poland, Italy, Qatar, the UAE and Saudi Arabia are all developed nations where religion is culturally central and often constitutionally recognised.

If your theory were true, development would be impossible without prior religious suppression. History, however, shows the opposite: development through education, science, and strong institutions often leads to increased secularisation , not the other way around.

What you are likely misinterpreting, either willfully or ignorantly, is a universal, ethical practice in palliative and critical care. Medical professionals worldwide may integrate spiritual or psychological support to help patients cope with trauma or terminal illness. This is not " they ask them to pray Instead of medicine", it is ", medicine for the whole person". It is a far cry from your sensational claim of your colleagues telling malaria patients to abandon treatment. No Nigerian doctor anywhere does that.

I have asked you repeatedly to provide one credible, causal link between "not surpressing religion" and "national demise". You have failed each time. Instead you continue to offer ambiguous anecdotes, self contradictions, and deflections. You have moved from ,. " they tell their patients to abandon medicine for prayers" to the vague, harmless phrase, "they ask them to do spiritual stuff" which can be interpreted to mean anything.

Worse still, you first claimed this practice was "rife", then retreated to saying it is "not very common". This contradiction is fatal. If the behaviour is not "very common" , according to you, it cannot possibly explain a national ", demise". By your own admission, most Christian doctors do not engage in it, so why blame Christianity or a religious text for the personal failing of a few? .

Furthermore, you have just revealed the depth of your bias with one final telling statement. You claim there is "no use reporting to MDCN" because " there are more Christians there" who would "discard the complaint"

This is an unsubstantiated and cynical slander against an entire professional regulatory body. For someone who claims to be a medical professional, this statement is astonishingly unprofessional and defeatist. To be honest, it makes it very difficult for anyone to believe you are actually a doctor. You sound less like an insider concerned with ethics and more like an
outsider cynically smearing a profession he demonstrably knows very little about .

The MDCN , like any credible medical board worldwide, is bound by professional ethics and legal standards, not religious affiliation. To suggest they would universally cover up malpractice is not only insulting, but also a baseless excuse to avoid providing the evidence you lack.

If you truly believe a colleague is endangering lives, you have an ethical and professional duty to report it, regardless of who sits on the council. Your refusal to do so, while publicly making the accusation, proves this was never about ethics or evidence, but merely a rhetorical ploy to smear a profession and support a week argument.



The debate is now circular and the sole reason is because you have not proven your point.

Let me state it one final time; Nigeria's challenges are rooted in governance, infrastructure, and economic policy. Scapegoating religion is a convenient, simplistic fantasy that lets the truly responsible, corrupt elites and broken systems, off the hook.

When you are ready to discuss the actual levers of progress, we can continue. Until then, you're merely promoting a prejudiced ideology disguised as analysis. I am no longer interested in reading it.


Modified:
@DrAda, I would appreciate your professional opinion on a concerning claim made in this discussion. The individual I'm debating has asserted that it is a common, or at least not uncommon, practice among Nigerian doctors to advise patients to abandon their medications in favour of prayers alone. When challenged, he modified the claim, stating it was "not very common", but still happening among his colleagues.

More alarmingly, when advised that such malpractice should be reported to the MDCN, he just dismissed the idea in his latest reply, claiming the council is dominated by Christians who would ignore any complaint. As a matter of public health and professional ethics, this is a serious allegation.

Given your standing, I would value your perspective. Could you comment on the ethical and professional implications of such claims, and perhaps pose the necessary questions to him to clarify this matter.

Thank you.

MaxInDHouse:
You are now going to the extreme!


According to that verse no human can live safely without guidance from God that's why the wise man said:

Trust the Lord completely, and don’t depend on your own knowledge. With every step you take, think about what he wants, and he will help you go the right way. Proverbs 3:5-6

A follower of Christ Jesus word says:

We know that we belong to God, but the Evil One controls the whole world. 1John 5:19

This means that there is no one who is completely free from control it's either the person subjects himself to control from God or follow the worldly trends which belongs to Satan according to Jesus no one can sit on the fence:

You can enter true life only through the narrow gate. The gate to hell is very wide, and there is plenty of room on the road that leads there. Many people go that way. But the gate that opens the way to true life is narrow. And the road that leads there is hard to follow. Only a few people find it. Matthew 7:13-14

The guy you are discussing with may not know it deeply as i'm explaining now but the truth remains that something must control a man.
Why?
Because we live in the human society where we try to blend with common trends so only those who are subjecting themselves to God's will can escape Satan's snare! 1Peter 5:8

I suggest you use the word, "guidance" not "control". Using "control" not only makes you sound like QuinQ, but it also renders your argument invalid.

Positive guidance, regardless of its source, is not the same as "coerce control". Guidance consists of suggestions or instructions for acting in our own and others best interests. Coerce control, on the other hand, removes agency and autonomy.

If you equate the two, you are effectively saying God is a dictator who strips us of free will to control us like zombies. There is no evidence this is the case. In fact, evidence points to the opposite: deeply religious people sometimes live troubled lives, while many non-religious people live well-structured, ethical and happy lives without submitting to any god.

This is the puzzle you must unravel, not by citing more Bible verses, but by engaging with observable reality.

Please explain this: How can millions of people who do not follow your religion live happily, act ethically, and contribute positively to society?.

If , as 1 John 5:19 states, "the Evil one controls the whole world" and if Satan's nature is purely destructive ( John 10:10), then how is any good produced by those under his control? . Your church theology creates a contradiction that scripture alone cannot resolve.

I will acknowledge this; you understand the biblical perspective better than QuinQ, as seen in your more doctrinal reply. But please do not confuse divine guidance with coercive control. Why would God give humans free will only to forcefully override it? Upon reflection, that makes no sense.


My central question remains unanswered: What observable, non-biblical evidence supports the idea that coerce control ( something must control a man) is a universal necessity?

Until you can provide that evidence, your position remains a doctrinal belief, not a demonstrable truth. You are describing a worldwide you hold because the Bible presents it, not because you can point to independent verification that the world actually operates on a strict " God or Satan" control mechanism. Belief is not evidence.

MaxInDHouse:
‭Jeremiah 10:23

Lord, I know that people’s lives are not their own; it is not for them to direct their steps.‭ NIV‬

O LORD, I know that the way of man is not in himself: it is not in man that walketh to direct his steps. KJV

I well know, O Jehovah, that man’s way does not belong to him. It does not belong to man who is walking even to direct his step. NWT

God supposed to direct us on right and wrong {Genesis 2:17} otherwise we will complicate issues for ourselves just as you can see it happening today.

So if it's not God's word that's controlling someone surely Satan will take over! Matthew 12:43-45

I appreciate the scriptural references you have provided, but they do not support the original claim I questioned. In fact, they illustrate a complete misreading.

Jeremiah 10.23 is about guidance, not coercive control, "something must control a man". The prophet is expressing humility and a request for divine guidance. "Lord, I know I cannot navigate this alone, please direct my path". This is the plea of a believer within a relationship, asking for wisdom, not declaring a universal truth that all humans are mindless Zombies who must be externally controlled.

To equate a request for guidance with the necessity of coerce control is to confuse partnership with a prison.

Mathew 12. 43-45 is a metaphor about habit, not a literal law of spiritual occupancy.The human mind is not a literal house.

The parable is a powerful metaphor for the human psyche. It describes how an empty passive mind, one that merely "cleans house" without filling it with positive purpose, is vulnerable to failing back into old, destructive patterns ( the seven other spirits). It is lesson about the danger of spiritual or moral emptiness, not a literal description of demonic possession. To use it as proof that a non-believer's mind will be " taken over by Satan is to ignore its literary form and psychological insight.

So, none of the passage supports the original sweeping claim, "something must control a man". a state of being acted upon. What you have provided are verses about seeking guidance and the dangers of an empty life.

Guidance is something one can accept or reject. Coerce control removes agency. QuinQ spoke of the latter. You have provided examples of the former.

What we observe in the world are billions of individuals who do not practice Christianity, yet live well-structured, ethical and productive lives, contributing positively to their societies and families. According to the logic you've presented these people must be under the control of the destructive force described in the Bible. This leads to an absurd conclusion, that the kindness, scientific innovation, justice, and love demonstrated by non-believers are the products of Satan that by biblical definition, "comes only to steal and kill and destroy". This is not a coherent or credible explanation for observable human goodness.



Therefore, my question to you and QuinQ is; Where is the observable evidence that humans cannot be Seif-governing agents, and that coercive control is a universal necessity?

SIRTee15:
Society controls u. U do what's expected of u not what u want to do.
U work to make money, u don't go about picking other people's money.
U don't start beating people just because u hate them otherwise u end up in jail.

It's worse in western country. The control is beyond ordinary.

U can't even discipline your child the way u want, govt tells u how to discipline your child.
U can lose your house to your wife in case of divorce and govt will force u to pay the mortgage even when you don't live in it anymore.
U can't say what u want on social media, u could be banned or even jailed. Yes, u heard me- jailed.

U are not even allow to type kill on social media, it's now unalive.
anti-Semitism is not tolerated and recently they have added Islamophobe. Insulting the prophet of Muslims can send u to jail in UK.
In the US, A woman u slept with once 9 months ago can put your name as the Father of her newborn baby without ur knowledge or permission; and the govt will force I to pay child support until that child is 18 yrs.
Even if the DNA proves u not the Father, it changes nothing. Govt will still force u to pay child support even with DNA evidence.

There's no freewill anywhere. U are being controlled - ita a matter of choosing who to control u, society or Christ.

I am not convinced that the sort of "control" you have detailed is the same as QuinQ"s.

In any case, what you have referred as "society controlling the individual" is a complete mischaracterisation.

Firstly, control requires consent and interpretation. Nobody can control you without a degree of your consent. If you live under rules you consider objectionable, you have the choice to relocate, protest, or work to change them. More importantly, as humans, we are always in control of our responses. How we react to external circumstances depends on our interpretation of the situation. Interpreting social rules as "coerce control" ignores this core human agency.


Secondly, societal laws are a cooperative project, not an imposed control. Society is not controling me without my consent when I choose to obey laws that I am also responsible for creating or upholding, directly or indirectly. These laws exist to protect the rights I myself enjoy. Since I would not be happy if someone stole my property. It is not "control" to lead by example and respect the property of others. This is mutual respect codified as "Love your neighbour as you love yourself".

Furthermore, it is not control if I choose to obey laws that encourage treating my partner with respect, thereby avoiding a divorce with painful legal consequences.

It is not control if I choose to obey laws that restrain me from disciplining my child abusively, preventing lifelong trauma I would later regret.

It is not control if I obey laws that encourage me to take responsibility for the potential consequences of my own actions, such as the child that may result from a sexual encounter. If a child is born, and paternity is questioned, a temporary obligation to provide care pending a DNA test is not societal tyranny or coerce control. It is a prudent and ethical safeguard. It ensures an innocent child is not abandoned in limbo. If the child turns out to be mine after DNA test, I will have acted responsibly from the start. If not, I will have committed no crime by providing temporary care and may have done a profound social good for an innocent life. This is not what control is , but the mature burden of consequence.

Finally, it is not control if social media laws remind me to act responsibly, protecting others from harm as I wish to be protected.

I am not the only person in society. Acting without consideration for others is not freedom or exercising freewill. It is unconscious, selfish behaviour that ultimately backfires. Consciously choosing to uphold rules that create order and safety is the height of being in control, not evidence of being controlled. You have confused protection for oppression or control..


What is even worse is that your final conclusion renders your entire argument invalid.

You claimed that "There is no freewill anywhere........ It's matter of choosing who to control u, society or Christ". If there is no free will,. " choosing" is impossible. Your own rhetoric requires the very agency your premise denies. This contradiction alone collapses the logical structure of your argument. You cannot demand people exercise a choice you claim does not exist.

And again, your proposed "choice" solves nothing. But let's assume you mean we do have this one stark choice, your entire argument fails to answer the most obvious question:

If I choose Christ, how does that change any of the societal realities you listed?.

Does it nullify U.S divorce law or child support orders? No.

Does it grant a legal exemption to post threats or hate speech online? .No.

Does it permit you to physically abuse your child if you feel it's biblically justified? No. You would still be arrested.


Therefore, you are not presenting a choice between two functional controllers. You are asking me to follow all these societal laws and also submit mine internal worldwide to Christ. This is your trying to scam me. Society governs my actions in the public sphere through laws I have consented to. The religious alternative you propose governs beliefs and conscience.


Ultimately, I do not subscribe to your belief system, and so not under any obligation to make the choice you prefer. True autonomy lies not in rebelling against necessary social agreements, but in consciously participating in them while reserving the sovereignty of one's own mind.


Thank you

MaxInDHouse:
It's written in the Bible!😟

Which part of the Bible teaches that an external system must control a person, and what is the reasoning given there?
And how do you respond to the observation that many humans live structural, ethical lives without subscribing to the Bible .

jaephoenix:
No such laws exist in Lagos,at least to the best of my knowledge. Churches do road parades beside hospital ICUs without restrictions. Even in Ikeja GRA mosques use loudspeakers. Same for my areas.

Your claim that "no such laws exist in Lagos" is simply a statement of your personal ignorance, not fact. Regulations on noise pollution exist in Lagos state and are enforced in specific zones. That you see loudspeakers used elsewhere proves only that not all areas are restricted zones, not that the laws don't exist. This talk is irrelevant. The main point stands: such regulations , whether in Nigeria or the UK, are about public order, not religious suppression, If the intent were to suppress religion, only religious gatherings would be targeted. The fact that these laws apply equally to nightclubs, political rallies, and street parties proves their secular adminstrative purpose.

I'm a doctor,trust me. My colleagues take this religious shit serious. Though not very common but they do it.

You're now contradicting yourself. At first, you stated this practice was "rife" . Now, you admit it is "not very common' .

So, which is it? A widespread, systemic problem ( rife)or an uncommon, individual failing ( not very common)You cannot have it both ways. This double-speak reveals that you are generalising from unverified, personal anecdotes to support a pre-existimg bias..

If it is "not very common" then you are describing the personal unethical conduct of a few individuals. This is a failure of professional oversight and personal ethics, not evidence that "religion" is causing national underdevelopment. It is wrong to blame an entire belief system for the misconduct of a handful of people who also happen to be believers.

If it is "rife" , then you are making an extraordinary serious allegations about the Nigerian medical establishment which you are a part of. The burden of proof is on you. where is the evidence? Where are the official reports, the hospital inquires, the media investigations ?

The truth of the matter is that you have no proof for either clam. You are using vague contradictory, and unsubstantiated stories to smear an entire profession and, by extension to support your flawed thesis about religion.

Furthermore, if you are a doctor and are aware of colleagues engaging in such malpractice, and you are not reporting them to the Medical and Dental Council of Nigeria, then you are ethically complicit in the very misconduct you are complaining about

About prayers in US Congress and the US motto,u r getting me wrong. I said no president has said that they will depend on prayer instead of fighting. Trump is a war monger and resorts to belligerent means and not prayers. Read properly. Even US is not a Christian country, though their motto says otherwise.

You're still missing the point, and now misrepresenting mine .

I never claimed any president,. Nigerian or American, said they would "depend on prayer instead of fighting" I said that references to faith by leaders, whether Trump, Netanyahu , Tinubu or a Nigerian official, are symbolic expressions of culture, identity, or morale. They are not, and have never been presented as , substitute for policy or action.

Finally, to be precise, I never said the US is a "Christian country". I said it is a predominantly religious nation, a demographic and cultural fact. Its development stems from its secular institutions, innovative economy, and rule of law, not from the presence or absence of religious rhetoric.

So please stop conflating symbolic speech with systems failure The failure is not in the gesture, but in the lack of effective follow-up action, a failure of governance and institutions, not a failure caused by either the Bible or the Quran.

Please be honest. So you mean you haven't seen the federal and state governments organize prayers for national security? Which western countries do that?

You asked for honesty. Have I not seen governments in Nigeria organise prayers for national security"? Yes I have.

Have I also seen them in the same context, announce security budgets, military deployments, and policy initiatives?. Also yes,. Your implication that prayer replaces all actions is a straw man. Show me one official policy document that states; "We will cease all military and security actions against bandits and kidnappers, and rely solely on prayer". You cannot because it does not exist..

You're no longer arguing in good faith but deflecting to irrelevances about loudspeakers in the UK , personal stories about doctors and presidential rhetorics which are never a substitute for action anywhere in the world. The reason is to avoid confronting the collapse of your original premise that religion is the cause of Nigeria's underdevelopment or "demise" as you described it .

Nigeria will quicken its development when its leaders invest in education, build accountable institutions and reduce poverty. Whether a leader quotes scripture or not is irrelevant if the state is functional. Our problem is that the state is not functional, and that failure cannot be blamed on a holy book.

QuinQ:
But that's the BIG deception - that you would have been free without Christianity. That's the huge LIE because something must control a man - if it's not Christianity it'd be something else!
In other words it is a question of choosing your "poison"

Please where did you get it from that " something must control a man" ?

jaephoenix:
Yes,suppressing religion grows a country. Lemme explain

Explain what again? This is the same thing you began with. Yet, in your initial explanation, you failed entirely to establish a causal link between the so called "suppression of religion" and Nigeria's challenges. Now, after agreeing with the validity of my counterarguments regarding education and poverty, you're returning to your starting point as if we never had the discussion. Very well. Let's see if you can succeed this time where you failed before

In the UK, preaching in certain areas are prohibited. Same with use of loud speakers. You have seen videos of Nigerians who were arrested for constituting nuisance via public preaching.

The prohibition of preaching in "certain areas" and the restriction of " loudspeakers" in the UK is not "religious suppression" or "restriction" . It is public nuisance regulation. Such laws are common in many nations including some major cities in Nigeria.

I know this firsthand because I have lived in Ghana where similar regulations on preaching and loudspeakers in residential areas exist. These policies are not designed to suppress religion anywhere in the world. A government that actively suppresses religion closes places of worship, bans religious texts, or persecute believers ,as seen in North Korea or the former Soviet Union.



For someone like you that has been campaigning against religion , it's surprising you have a casual understanding of it. You cannot ban religious beliefs or " restrict" it by regulating its outer expression. Beliefs exists in the mind of the individual not in public rituals like going to church or affirming God publicly. There are millions of believers in the UK who practice their faith privately, without ever attending a public gathering. The only way a government can genuinely diminish the influence of religion is not by force, but by outcompeting it with better ideas, through education, critical thinking and opportunity, something I already suggested but which you have ignored.

Your example, which applies equally to bars, nightclubs, and any loud public gathering in the UK and Europe, proves these societies manage public order, not that they grew wealthy by "removing faith."

It is therefore illogical to claim that an educated society like the UK, which understands that faith is an internal, personal matter, is "restricting religion" through public order policies you have misinterpreted. You are confusing correlation with causation.

As a doctor,if I tell a patient that he should have faith in god and ignore his meds,I could lose in license in the UK. But in Nigeria, it's rife. You see,UK and many western countries practice religious freedom but it is restricted or controlled from the example I gave.

It is not true that Nigerian doctors habitually tell patients to ignore medicine for prayer. This is a sweeping generalization that is not supported by data. Even if isolated cases occur, they are failures of professional oversight and education, not evidence that religion has crippled national development. In the UK, such conduct would be punished because of strong institutions and regulatory systems the very institutions Nigeria lacks due to underinvestment in education and governance, not because of religion.

And no,there is nowhere they tell you to trust their security to god. If there is,please show me. Any president that says that is impeached.
US motto says 'In god we trust' but yet it's a secular country and not Christian. Have you asked yourself why?
Do you see US or UK holding prayers in senate or urging citizens to pray when they face any invasions? Instead they act. Israel sef is more atheistic than the UK or US. They have more gays. They have gay minister, which is unheard of in the US

Your claim that no Western leader says "trust security to God" is not true. The U.S motto is "In God we trust", sessions of the U.S Congress open with prayer, and Western leaders routinely invoke faith, not as a policy of inaction, but as cultural or symbolic expression. When a Nigerian leader reference God. It is similarly for cultural reasons to boost the morale of the rank and file in the fight against insurgency, not a substitute for policy. Your attempt to link rhetorical statements to national underdevelopment is a false equivalence. Development comes from action infrastructure, and institutions, not from whether a leader mentions prayer.

It is naive to take the public statements of Nigerian leaders who reference faith as literal policy directives. Such statements are symbolic gestures of cultural identity or morale, not blueprints for governance. The real failure in Nigeria is not the symbolism, but the lack of concrete follow -through, a failure of governance, not of belief.

Your deflection to Isreal and "gay ministers" is irrelevant. You want to claim that atheism or social liberalism correlates with development. This is another non-sequitur. There are highly developed deeply religious nations like the United States, Italy, Poland, and less developed secular ones. There are also developed nations with restrictive social policies. A country's development is driven by economic policy, education, innovation, and strong institutions, not by a nation's stance on theology or sexuality. Russia restricts LGBTQ rights but is developed in many sectors.

If "suppressing religion" truly cause development, then officially atheist states like North Korea or the former Soviet bloc would be paradise of progress, but they are not. They prove that suppressing ideas without educating minds only creates new forms of control and stagnation

Until you can provide the causal link between underdevelopment and religion, your argument remains an expression of personal bias, not a viable analysis of Nigeria's challenges.

jaephoenix:
You're right. Critical thinking skills are important for nation growth and unhindered religion is the outcome. However, suppressing religion is a good point, and removing it totally from the state is paramount. You won't see developed countries tell its citizens that security comes from any god
But you're right anways

I appreciate the fact that you acknowledge the importance of critical thinking. However, your conclusion that "suppressing religion" and "removing it totally from the state is paramount" is not only a non-sequitur but a dangerous and simplistic prescription. It ignores the fact that Nigeria is a democratic nation where religious rights and freedoms are entrenched in the constitution. If such rights are removed, the country ceases to be a democratic society.

You are still attacking the symptom, not the cause. The state's energy should be channeled into providing quality education and eradicating poverty, not the futile and authoritarian task of policing belief.

Moreover,it is impractical and harmful to suppress religion. Religion is deeply tied to culture, identity, and the country's economy. Attempting to eradicate it in the manner you suggest would create immense social strife . The goal should be a society where people are free to believe what they want, as long as they do not try to force it on anyone else and function as constructive citizens.

And again, your premise is factually incorrect. You claim, "You won't see developed countries tell its citizens that security comes from any god". This is simply not true. Many developed nations, like the US, UK, and Germany, have robust religious freedoms, and their leaders openly reference it when the occasion calls for it. Their development did not come from suppressing religion but from building strong secular institutions that protect all citizens, regardless of belief. In fact, the American constitution is an intrinsically religious document; it references faith with the phrase,. "In God we Trust".

I welcome your agreement with my diagnosis, but I do not accept your prescribed cure because it is not only wrong but also counterproductive. Build the schools, not the thought police. Empower the people with knowledge, and you will not need to suppress their beliefs, they will be equipped to navigate them responsibly. The irony in all of this is that in Nigeria today, it is the churches and mosques that are doing what the government is supposed to do: building standard schools from elementary to university levels so citizens can have a quality education, yet you want them removed completely.

jaephoenix:
Let me explain why trust in pastors is part of our demise as a nation.
Accountability is a major force in developed countries,and it checkmates corruption. Of course no country is corruption free but it's relatively less in those countries. The bible says you should ask and it shall be given,whether good governance,new car or good health. Just pray. Same bible also says we should obey those in leadership and pray for them. Notice it didn't say we should castigate or hold them accountable.Religion and it's drivers like pastors take this accountability away from the government and places it on god. That's why we say religion is a manipulative tool by the government, who work hand in hand with the religious leaders. Prime example is some top pastors. They tell you to pray for leaders everyday

The major flaw in your argument is that you are confusing the effect for the cause,and the "manipulative tool" for the mechanism.

You diagnose our perceived stagnation relative to developed nations, a perception that overlooks the tangible progress made over the past decades, and based on a selective , superficial reading of Christian scripture, attributes it to a certain Christian mindset, while ignoring the fact Nigeria is not a solely Christian nation. Your implied solution is to remove this "manipulative tool" ( religion) to kick-start progress or make Nigerians demand accountability from their leaders.

This logic of yours is completely flawed. If you want to put out a fire, you don't blow at the smoke.

The true cause is not the tool of manipulation, but the condition of the people being manipulated. What creates this vulnerability is not a holy book, Bible or Qur'an, but a critical faculty left undeveloped by lack of access to good quality education and entrenched poverty.

Nigeria is the rated has the poverty capital of the world, with the highest number of out-of-school children, many of whom may never learn to read or write. This is the root cause. An uneducated populace grappling with survival is vulnerable to control regardless of the ideology used.

If you ban religion, but leave the people uneducated and powerless, the ruling class will simply replace it with another, often insidious, tool. Look at North Korea, it has banned religion, yet the population is ruthlessly manipulated by state sponsored propaganda and personality cult. In this instance, the tool changed or was removed, the mechanism of control did not.

This is precisely why access to quality education is strategically denied by those in power, whether corrupt politicians, extremist leaders, or controlling sects.

Boko Haram understands this perfectly. They are literally. "against Western education" because enlightenment threatens their control.

The Jehovah Witnesses discourage higher education ( like studying medicine or law) under the guise of it being unnecessary for the "new world" . The unspoken reason is the fear of losing members who become rational independent thinkers capable of questioning authority.

Therefore, the problem was never religion itself. The problem is, and has always been, a ruling class that perpetuates a lack of critical education to maintain a pliable populace.. Yes, Religion can be one vehicle for this, but it is not the engine. The engine is deliberate disempowerment .

You are focusing on the smoke ( a religious interpretation) and blaming it for the burning building, while ignoring the raging fire, a system that produces uneducated, desperate citizens. Ignore the smoke and put out the fire and the building will be saved.

Akinpedia:
Good day, Great Nairalanders.



My Question to You: Is this total trust in religious leaders the reason why we aren't progressing as a nation? Or is the Pastor simply filling a gap that the Government and Professionals left wide open?

Let’s take some time to discuss this topic in more detail and explore all the relevant aspects thoroughly.

Trust in pastors or religion is not the primary reason for our nation's lack of progress.

The major factors for the country's underdevelopment are the widespread lack of access to quality education and endemic poverty.

Europeans did not progress by banning religion. Their approach was to open wide the doors to quality education for all citizens, thereby training their critical thinking skills. The results of that investment are what they enjoy today. Historically, it was often the church, particularly the Catholic church that led the way in educating people and encouraging their contribution to societal development.

We can do the same here. However, our government officials are products of the same society where many have not been taught how to think critically. Consequently, they often do not know what to do beyond using public office for personal gain.

Also, we should be aware that only a small minority engage in the behaviour you described, ignoring medical advice or avoiding legal counsel. If most Nigerians did this, lawyers would go hungry, doctors would lack patients,and hospitals would be deserted.


Many Churches are actively contributing to Nigeria's development in certain critical areas like healthcare and education. They have built and run quality schools open to both their members and the general public. They have also established hospitals,staffed them with qualified doctors,and provided scholarships for students to study fields like medicine and law, directly investing in the nation's human capital.

Therefore, the situation is not quite as you have portrayed it. In fact, these days, only a few believers place complete trust in pastors. Most are wary of them because of past experiences. Some no longer attend church due to encounters with pastors who duped them with fake prophecies. Those who still attend after such an ordeal usually say the pastor is not the reason they go to church, but rather their faith in God.

KnownUnknown:
Close it then. I don’t know why you are getting your panties in a bunch.

Your resort to juvenile insult confirms you have no substantive response. My position remains clear and stands unchallenged . You addressed me based on a literalist assumption I do not hold. That was your error.

I have no tolerance for " gotcha" questions followed by incivility when they fail. Engage with someone like Dtruthspeaker who shares your premise.

This conversation is closed. Thank you.

Dtruthspeaker:
Figures of speech are always based on the real natural conducts and behaviour of humans therefore, it is always literal

Your statement is a direct contradiction and demonstrates a basic misunderstanding of literary terms.

A "figure of speech" is by definition not literal. That's what makes it a "figure of speech". If it were literal, it would be a straightforward description, not a figure.

KnownUnknown:
What mistake? The op is based on the literal angle, and my questions were based on that and your response to it.

You approached it from the allegorical angle and presented interpretations including the one you referred to as key.

Where is the “gotcha”?



“the key Jewish interpretation just leads to more questions“ and you said allegories are supposed to lead to more questions. So, how is that a “gotcha”?

I thought you would ask what questions it leads to, not take offense!!!

You are still evading.

My very first reply corrected the OP's premise by stating the story is not literal but allegory. That was me declaring my position. From that moment, you knew I did not subscribe to the literal "gotcha" framework.

Yet, you continued to address me as if I did.You ignored my correction and persisted with the questions that only make sense if directed at a literalist. That is your mistake: failing to engage the person actually in front of you.

You are now retroactively justifying this by saying, "The OP was literal". That is irrelevant. Once I entered the conversation to reject that premise, your choice was to either, defend literalism against my arguments,or engage with my allegorical position.

You did neither. You pretended my correction didn't exist and argued with a phantom literalist. This is why the conversation is stalled. You are not debating me , you are debating the assumption you refuse to update..


Since you pretend not to understand, a "gotcha" question is designed to trap someone in the logic of a premise they accept. You asked me questions that only function as a trap if one a accept the literal historicity of the story. Since my first reply rejected that premise, your questions became non-sequiturs , a failed ""gotcha"".

So answer directly and honestly; when you asked me those logical puzzles, was it because you take the story literally, or because you assumed I did? If the latter, you erred, as my position was clear. If the former, then defend your literalism and stop hiding behind your finger.


The discussion on "interpretation" was always secondary, a demonstration that even religious traditions support the non-literal genre. You've used it as a smokescreen to avoid the core issue you keep dodging. You misjudged my position from the start and refused the correct course.

The mistake is yours. Own it, or at least stop pretending you don't understand it. If not, consider this conversation closed. I have no tolerance for profoundly deceptive arguments.

KnownUnknown:
It is a pick your own interpretation situation. You even gave an Islamic interpretation, Christian interpretations, and a key Jewish interpretation, which can be varied based on the school of thought. Also, I am aware of another interpretation that’s said to be based on the originating context and different from the one you presented.

Also, the key Jewish interpretation just leads to more questions.

You are conflating two separate debates to avoid addressing your initial error.

The core argument is about genre ( fiction vs literal history) not theological interpretation. You are trying to shift the goalposts because you are loath to admit your mistake.

You framed the story as a literal, historical report and asked a "gotcha" question about its plot's logic. My response was, and remains; The story is not a literal report. It is a foundational myth or allegory, filled with clearly non-literal elements, a talking snake,a magical tree. Its purpose is to convey truth through symbolism, not to document events. A child who understands the genre of a folk tale doesn't ask how it's possible for a tortoise to fly to heaven with borrowed wings, they understand the symbolic rules of the story.


By asking me your original question, you assumed I had a literalist view. That was your error. You should direct those " logic puzzle" questions to religious fundamentalist who share your literal premise, not to me.

It was only after I corrected your genre error that you deflected to " pick your interpretation". I provide examples ( Jewish,, Islamic, Christian) not to say "pick one you like", but to demonstrate that even the religious traditions themselves largely treat it as non-literal allegory, each deriving different moral lessons from the same fictional or mythic base. This was evidence against literalism, not an invitation to relativism.

Your statement, "the key Jewish interpretation just leads to more questions", is the entire point. Allegories are meant to provoke questions and introspection. Literal reports are meant to yield factual verification. You're demanding factual answers from a parable.


Your deceptive tactic is clear. When your literalist "gotcha " failed, you retreated to vague talk of "interpretation" to pretend the core issue (genre) is unresolved. It is resolved.

The Adam and Eve story is a work of profound fiction. Accept that you misjudged my position from the start and that your initial question was a category error. Next time as ascertain if someone reads Genesis as history before asking them to defend its historical logic.

KnownUnknown:
So, it’s “pick your own interpretation”. Fair enough.

No. it is not "pick your own interpretation" That's a serious or deliberate misunderstanding of what I said.

I explained the historical and textual context, not personal preference.

I said the story is a Jewish text that was composed and compiled within the Jewish tradition centuries before Christianity existed.

I further explained that within that originating tradition, for thousand of years, it has been essentially understood as theological allegory and myth, a story about human nature, not a historical report.

But thousand of years later , when Christianity emerged it developed a different theological framework (original sin) and reinterpreted the story to fit that new doctrine. This is secondary interpretation and it is what most people like yourself are familiar with .

So my point is not that all interpretations are equally valid. I never said so or even suggested it. My point is that to understand what the story is , its genre, its purpose and its original meaning. You must look to its source. The Christian literal and doctrinal reading is not an " alternative" to the Jewish allegorical reading. It is a later theological adaption of it.

Ignoring the originating context and judging the story by a later foreign interpretation is to guarantee misunderstanding. I am not asking anyone to pick an interpretation. . I am asking anyone reading this, apart from you, to research the source of the text so they know the primary lens through which the story was meant to be read by those who created it. That's all.

KnownUnknown:
If they didn’t have understanding or moral awareness before eating the fruit, how can they be faulted for eating the fruit?

The god told them not to eat the fruit, they agreed but they did not have any understanding or moral awareness.

The serpent told them to eat the fruit, they agreed but they did not have any understanding or moral awareness.

So, what is their transgression?

I never mentioned "transgression" because I am not a Christian and do not subscribe to the doctrine of Original sin. The concept of "transgression against God" is a specific Christian theological interpretation .

The story originates in Judaism, where it is essentially understood as an allegory. In that tradition, "Adam" does not refer to a single historical man, but represents humankind from the Hebrew word, adamah , earth.

A key Jewish interpretation sees the "serpent" not as a devil, but as the yetzer hare, the human inclination towards selfishness or immediate desire. "God' in the context of the story represents our higher moral conscience or divine spark. The story, therefore, delineates the internal human condition, when we succumb to our lower impulses, " we "transgress" against our own higher nature and introduce suffering into our lives. It is an allegory for the birth of moral consciousness and its consequences.

In Islam, the story is similarly seen as a moral lesson about human weakness, error,and repentance, not as original sin that corrupts all future generations. That doctrine of inherited sin is uniquely Christian theological development, one that many, myself included, find logically problematic, as your question rightly highlights

I am not here to defend any specific doctrine. I am explaining the story's purpose as a foundational myth or allegory. It was never meant to be taken literally. The very elements of the story, a talking snake, a magical tree, signal its genre as a symbolic narrative meant to convey a moral and existential truths.

Unfortunately, debates about Genesis are often dominated by two groups who insist on a literal reading; religious fundamentalists and the militant atheist who argues against them. Both sides are trapped in the same literalist framework and completely miss the story's deeper literally meaning.

Everything I have explained here regarding the Jewish perspective is standard mainstream interpretation. You can confirm it by visiting any authentic educational resource on Judaism. You don't need to take my word for it and continue to question me about what is contained in the narrative.

Thank you

Arda1000:
so it was moonlight tales ?

Calling a foundational myth, an allegory, or a profound piece of anceint literature a " moonlight tale" is simply a refusal to engage with its meaning. It's like calling Homer's Odyssey a "fish story" or "Plato's Allegory of the Cave "shadow puppets" and thinking you have made a point.

You've substituted a dismissive label "moonlight tale" for understanding. I'm not arguing about the label, but how we read an ancient text literally or literarily. You've made your choice very clear.

Arda1000:
so it was moonlight tales ?

However it's described, moonlight tale, fairytale or allegory, the literary category doesn't change. It's not a literal report even though some religious fundamentalist have interpreted it as that.

The purpose of the narrative is to convey truths about human consciousness, morality and relationship with what the ancient perceive as the divine or God.

"Eyes open" is a universal metaphor for gaining understanding, in this case, moral awareness and shame.

So to focus all your attention on the biological optics is to reject the story's own terms and purpose.

Arda1000:
Saw after Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit their eyes opened and they saw that they were naked.
My question is if they were naked all the while before eating the fruit,does it mean their eyes were not functioning?

The Genesis story is an allegory not meant to be interpreted literally.

The " eyes open" is a metaphor for gaining moral awareness and the knowledge of good and evil, not physical sight.

MaxInDHouse:
The OP spoke his mind regarding what is evil in the churches of Christendom and i showed him what Jesus said about title bearing outside the church it's you that came quoting me out of context talking about politicians when i never mention politicians in my post all because you have a soft spot for self righteousness title bearers who has bribed you.
This is what the scriptures say:
Self righteousness is worthless before the true God {Isaiah 64:6} so to worship God acceptably we must obey whatever His son declares {Matthew 17:5} many are pretending with their gifts so they can make a name for themselves before you {Matthew 6:2} the reason is to gain attention from gullible onlookers but even if they die in the process it's not the love for God they had but hidden agenda! 1Corinthans 13:2-3

So to be a real Christian there shouldn't be anything like title bearing outside the church of Christ so only his disciples will recognize you for the way you are serving your Christian brothers not creating public awareness.

That's why Jesus condemned it!

You have now accused me of having as "soft spot" and being "bribed" . You continue to preach your specific interpretation of scripture as if it is the only possible one.

The reason Jesus advised against titles like "Rabbi and "Father" was to ensure humility and equality among his disciples, to prevent hierarchy of pride. It was not a declaration that titles are the root cause of financial corruption or exploitation in the church. That is your personal interpretation, not the plain meaning of the text

And this confirms my point entirely. You're not here to debate the thread's topic. You're here to preach your doctrine. You're here to attack anyone who doesn't immediately agree with you

No reasonable discussion can happen under those conditions. I have addressed the logical error in the OP''s statement. You're welcome to your theological opinions. I'm done

MaxInDHouse:
Your bad intentions is what's giving you a problem.

There is no single Christian bearing titles outside the church if you find any person whatever righteousness they are trying to claim with their works is unchristian as long as they don't adhere to Jesus' command.

No disciple of Christ should bear religious titles outside the congregation simple as ABC! Matthew 23:2-10

So even if the person share food with you in your house and pay your hospital bills as long as he doesn't adhere to what Jesus taught he is not a Christian!🙂

You arguing in bad faith. I'm not the person who created the thread. So why accusing me of having bad intentions concerning a debate I did not start?

I'm focus on debating the OP's claim about pastor being a position in a Religious Business company while you are focus on debating if it's Christian to bear the title, or who is a true Christian.

MaxInDHouse:
That's why i said you often misplace the comments of others.

OP said the title PASTOR is just position within the religious setting and i said it's even unchristian.

So if you don't know what to say stop quoting others out of point.

You are the one guilty of what you're accusing me of.

OP did not say the title "pastor" is just "a position within the religious setting" He said ," pastor is a position in a Religious Business company"

Go and read it again so you don't derail the thread.

Here below

essentialone:
A Pastor is just a Position in a Religious Business Company RBC. Nothing more than that.

MaxInDHouse:
There is nothing like public titles in true Christianity no Christian is expected to hold any title recognisable outside the church.

I did not say a " Christian is expected to hold any title recognisable outside the church "

I said it is not true that the title "pastor" is the root cause of corruption in the church.

MaxInDHouse:
You are misplacing what i said.

In politics you have the right to bear whatever title you hold since it's not by faith that people must recognize you rather it's by force as your attendants carry weapons to intimidate whoever look down on you but in Christianity we are submissive to those taking the lead among us because we respect Jesus who is the head of the church.

So if Jesus commanded that they should not take their office to the public we in the congregation gives them double honor even though those outside don't know who they are or what service they are rendering to God's flock.

I'm not "misplacing" what you said. You are the one "misplacing" it by shifting the goalpost.

You just said the title , "pastor" is the root cause of corruption in churches. Now you're arguing that such titles disobey Jesus. Those are two different debates. The first is a logical claim I've addressed. The second is a doctrinal one I'm not having. This discussion is over.

Thank you

MaxInDHouse:
That's why i go straight to the root cause of the problem: failure to adhere to what Jesus taught!

You are arguing that if we simply remove the word "pastor", exploitation would vanish. By that logic, remaining, "corruption" would end corruption, or remaining "Nigerian senators" would end corruption in the upper chamber.

No. This doesn't make sense. Corruption resides in individuals and systems, not in titles . If the title itself were the cause, then every single person bearing it would be doing the same thing, operating a "Religious Business Company". That is plainly false.

MaxInDHouse:
Who cares what you think?

I'm talking about what Jesus taught which if not strictly adhered to will lead to problems that warrants the topic of discussion now.

So if nobody bears titles in Christianity do you think such could be a topic of discussion in the first place?

Topics of discussion arise from reality, not from ideal world. We discuss corruption among politicians because politicians exist. Arguing we wouldn't need to discuss it if the role didn't exist is trivial and avoids the actual discussion about the people who do fill the role of "pastor".

MaxInDHouse:
When a man or woman is addressed in the public with any religion title such a person is not a disciple of Christ Jesus!



“The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach. They tie up heavy, cumbersome loads and put them on other people’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them. “Everything they do is done for people to see: They make their phylacteries wide and the tassels on their garments long; they love the place of honor at banquets and the most important seats in the synagogues; they love to be greeted with respect in the marketplaces and to be called ‘Rabbi’ by others. “But you are not to be called ‘Rabbi,’ for you have one Teacher, and you are all brothers. And do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. Nor are you to be called instructors, for you have one Instructor, the Messiah. The greatest among you will be your servant. For those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted. ‭Matthew 23:2-12 NIV‬


Why do people carry religious titles out to the streets?
Jesus answered: To be highly respected and greeted in the public with their titles.

So Jesus commanded his own followers never to be addressed with religious titles rather we all address one another as "BROTHERS" and "SISTERS"

Satan is crafty he may refer to what Paul wrote in the Bible book of Ephesians 4:11


So Christ himself gave the APOSTLES, the PROPHETS, the EVANGELISTS, the PASTORS and TEACHERS, ‭Ephesians 4:11 NIV‬


Does this negates what Jesus taught his disciples?

The answer is NO.

Each disciple who is diligent with his or her discipleship will be given the spirit to serve others in the congregation (church) in different ways but then it's only among the disciples that such ones are recognized due to their activities not by the general public who has nothing to do with the faith.

Your comment introduces a different issue that is irrelevant to the ongoing discussion.

The topic is not whether it is right for Christians to bear the title of pastor according to one's scriptural interpretation. The topic is whether it is factually accurate to claim that every single person who currently bears that title is necessary holding a position in a "Religious Business Company" , or is inherently corrupt.

essentialone:
Even the best scientific researches in the world are all based on Sampling. Call it generalizations and it becomes your headache.

No. It's not my headache. It's yours that you aren't even aware you made a fallacious statement about anyone bearing the title "pastor", .

Instead of acknowledging your mistake, you want to double down on it due to ego.

Your declaration is an unscientific claim. It's based on your personal observation, which is not supported by any valid scientific research. So, don't hide behind science, a methodology for arriving at truth you have shown, by your own comments, you don't even understand

FYI, scientific truths are conventional truths, not absolute; that's why they leave the door open for further research. In your case, you have shut that door firmly, leaving no room for anyone to question your absolute claim; "Nothing more than that"

Sample sizes in the sciences are subjected to rigoruos testing before conclusions are drawn from them. But you know nothing of that. Your "evidence" is merely the anecdotal claim that something is "loud" and therefore true.

You made reference to the " best scientific research". But what valid scientific research have you carried out on this matter? None .

I already stated the discussion couldn't continue, and you have given me further reasons why that decision was a good one.

Say whatever you like. I have made my point clear, which you haven't been able to engage directly, let alone debunk.