₦airaland Forum

@naijaway, I like your proposal, especially your opening lines:

naijaway:
Before you cry me a river, please think tribelessly, think hopefully, think prosperity, think dignity and moderate your egos.

So far so good - and yes, we all should try and think objectively whether as Nigerians or others.

But the question that rang up my number was this: is Nigeria ready for a female President?

Now, I beg as in your OP that passionate people try not crying me a river; and no, I'm not being chauvinistic at all. I hope the very best for Nigeria. However, it would be such a great thing to have Nigeria experience the strength of a woman. Oh yes - there are many Nigerian women who have won my admiration and deepest respects, and the number just keeps climbing exponentially. My eyes were opened recently when I listened to a gift CD for this Christmas. . you could imagine my shock when I was told in no uncertain terms that what I listened to was produced 'at home by a true daughter!'

No, it's not the CD that gives me that much hope - but I think that it is plausible to hope and see this 'giant of Africa' say in this regard: we taught America to say 'Yes we can!'

However, I wouldn't like to dampen this hope in commenting on the manifesto below:

-Corruption cut by 75% or more with policies and logistical ways to curb them
-Education being a forefront in domestic polices
-Power supply dependency increased in a thoughtful manner and projects for long term dependency on the ground
-Nigeria in the forefront of global warming innovation and advocacy
-Security infrastructure internally will be way better than anything nigerians are used to because i forsee forensics playing a major role during their terms
-Election fairness under these two candidates can be viewed as 92%legit (i think i can count on that)
-accountability will be in the nigerian lingo (not just talking but actions to legitimize it)
-Respect of Nigerians in many parts of the world
-Different future developments with meaning in place
-a new nigerian psyche, a much respectful nigerians will come out of this.

Looks like these have been the same things that politicians have used in the past. They should be singing new tunes now - whether or not they will sell. One of my friends would giggle at the highlighted above and say: 'looks to me that sounds like another elaborate way to describe "white elephant projects"'.

Anyhow, take no notice of that quip - Mrs Iwela or some other 'true daughter' is on the horizon for President! Will 'she' emerge. .  of fail the prophecy?

[quote author=Aloy.Emeka link=topic=370492.msg5170377#msg5170377 date=1261549247]Oyedepo's university is not a profit making venture, I swear. Maintaining a university to meet world standards is not cheap.[/quote]I don't understand, Aloy. Are you trying to say that Oyedepo's university makes no profit whatsoever, even in trying to meet world standards? How do we separate 'profit' from the high fees - or, how are the 'high fees' meant to be understood?

kristonium:
Abuzola was declared wanted this morning after the plenary meeting of Top Christian Executive Jurists on Nairaland for the following offences:

1.popularization of islam

2.misinformation

3.misqoutation and wrong application of the Bible

4.advocation of Jihad on nairaland

5.arrant disobedience to rules and regulations governing postings on nairaland

6.deliberate denial of truth , and many other related offences

7. his declaration and subsequent defence of THIS!

Deep Sight:
The very existence of any meaningfulness in our lives, such as family, love, ambition or other reference points for meaningfulness, is evidence that life is not accidental, by chance, or meaningless.

I like the idea behind your reasoning; but had waited to see comments that fall on that quote. To me, it seems that the 'reference points' to meaningfulness as highlghted in yours are inconclusive (and that's probably why Tudor seized upon and wasted it). You see, those indices are observable in animal life as well; but even in non-biological phenomena, the idea of 'family' is observable (such as 'group identities' and chemical reactions in elements). Okay, perhaps I was kidding there. . not likely; but please consider it carefully.

However, I would agree with you along the same lines, as in the summary:

Meaningfulness is conclusive evidence of the existence of a creator with a purpose and a personal nature.

Instead of 'meaningfulness', try another word: 'intelligence'.

KunleOshob:
I don't think the problem is only the catholic church, but the catholic church is the first major and biggest christian denomination that started the dilution and distortion of true christianity as inspired by christ and started by the apostles. These distotrtions grew over the centuries and some of their heretic teachings came to be established as doctrine over a long period of time, a good example of this is the false doctrine of tithes introduced to christianity in 585AD and was distorted from the biblical example and used to extort money from believers. This heretic practise has gained popularity in several churches and some are nore arguing wether it should be before or after tax and whether it should include other incomes ot not and even gifts. Of cos these arguments would always come up becos it is not grounded in sound scripture. That apart even as we speak charlatans especially in the pentecostal/ word of faith movement continue to introduce all sorts of heresies into christianity everyday claiming Go spoke to them directly to introduce those jargons. A good example of this is annointing oil popularized by Oledepo a few years ago cand selling it at a premium to the gullible public claiming God revealed it to him. Some sell "miracle handkerchiefs" claiming God directed them to, others insist all members must speak in twisted tongues whether they have the gift or not, others routinely give false/ vague prophesies and of course "prosperity gospel" which people like as been firmly established in christiandom as unbiblical as it is. The rot goes on so that is why a movement must be started to return christians to christ devoid of church establishment who have completely lost there focus.

Lol, I had a premonition that you would not be done until 'tithes' featured in your replies. The Biblical faith is far more than worries over that - and when one subject becomes the bigger issue that defines a believer's faith, something is wrong somewhere.

illusion2:
Probably earthly marriage isn't entirely analogous to the relationship btw the church and christ then ?

Another fine point I had imagined about the analogy earlier: 'There are very many questions about relationships in Christianity that cannot be answered by that comparison.'

Well, thanks - and I'm sorry to have crafted it as above. Here is the rephrase:

Why is 'ability to fly' to be understood as an 'attribute' that the brothers 'bequeathed' to their craft?

The reason I ask this is because it does not seem to me to reckon with the context of discussions of this nature is all about. I can't figure how that should be an 'attribute', because it does not stand to reason that man had bequeathed an 'ability' as such to a craft - just as is to be understood if one were to say that someone bequeathed the ability to fly to birds. In the latter scenario, the birds have received that 'ability' and thus flap their wings and take flight; but a craft (such as you described in your example) does not just take take flight, but relies on still being worked upon in some way by the engineers who crafted it at the time they wish to take a flight. In other words, the craft does not have the 'ability' to fly - and that was why I wondered how you might have drawn the same inference of making it an 'attribute'.

In any case, I don't think that example was a good one for your defence.

Sorry, Tudor. Although I've been trying to follow the gist between you and Deep Sight, let me ask a question:

[quote author=Tudór link=topic=79465.msg5173452#msg5173452 date=1261581974]What attribute did the brothers bequeath to their craft if not the ability to Fly[/quote]But how does that 'ability to fly' become an 'attribute'?

JeSoul:
^^there we go again in classic Viaro style . . . no need to fog the issue . . .

I wasn't fogging any issues. You wanted an answer, you got it.

I was simply pointing out you made a statement and your tone was accusatory not interrogative in nature. You weren't soliciting responses but making a definitive statement of which you had no right to make. And to me, your one-liners were indicative you were unappreciative of my criticism. But if you say otherwise, I have no reason to press the issue further.

I joined this thread with the opening statement: "Proliferation of churches does not have to be a problem" - post #12, first page of this thread. You jumped to conclusions - and rather than join issues with you, I simply let you have it as best you wished: 'if you say so', and that was my way of 'appreciating' your criticisms - as I had done in yet another thread prior to this thread.

No we are not all guilty! Not all of us have "cherished denominations" and want to see them expand and plant at record speed. Personally, I pledge allegiance to any and every church that preaches the unadulterated gospel of Christ.

If you say so.

Don't drag the lovely Maven into this, she expressed dismay at the description in my post, not the way I expressed it. Get it right dude, get it right 

Whatever - as if I was 'dragging' her into this.

Okay, I understand where you are coming from better. In the future you must understand others don't know where you're coming from and the burden in on you to clarify, not toss out dismissive, mischievious one-liner responses.

If you say so. All you needed to do was ask - did you? I don't remember.

If all you're saying is we should look in the mirror ourselves and make sure we're not contributing to the problem and instead try to come up with solutions then I agree 1000% and I'm sure others will. Again my only problem was the tone of your post. Shikena.

If you say so.

But I apologize if any of my posts rubbed you wrong, when I go cavalier, I'm really cavalier.

Rubbed wrong?!? Buuhhhhaaaahhhaaa!! Girl, you have no clue who viaro is! Nothing you said made any sense, and all I wanted to do was humour you and let your perennial problem stand. But again: if you say so.


HAHAHAHAHA!!

viaro:
The fourth point in the next post.

So here:

4. Even so, in the case of (b) where the word 'here' was used in the wider context of this forum Nairaland, it was due to the fact that I'd seen other threads where issues like in this thread had been raised in various other ways. I cite an example from way back in 2005 where donnie sensibly handled just about the same question in the thread:

      'The Church of Jesus Christ: Object of Mockery or Object of Praise?'

I encourage you to visit that thread and try to understand where I was coming from. Just because I was reserved in returning single-line responses to your previous complaints hitherto does not mean I didn't know what I was talking about. But there are other threads along the same strain of thought/observation:

   *  Dealing With Criticism As A Christian Body
   *  On the Apparent Correlation Between Religion and Social Ills
   *  Is Christianity Truly Synonymous With Truth And Development?
   *  Should Christians Judge Other Denominations While God Says Judge Not
   *  Is Church Part Of The World Problem Or Solution?
   *  American Church Culture Immoral, Says Study
   *  10 Decades - Christian Activity To Terminate!
   *  Why Do Some People Preach Against Other Churches?

The concerns from posters here ('here', as in 'this thread') have been variously expressed in such examples of threads above - and many others. Forgive me if my comments bothered you hitherto - I'd seen such trends far too many times and that was why I just wanted to humour you with those one-liners of 'if you say so' instead of joining issues with you.

Of course, I don't expect my clarifications to make any sense to you at all - and my answer to further complaints from you on this issue would remain the same: 'if you say so'. I just hope you have the nerve to take a hint what that means: not that viaro didn't know where he was coming from (because you didn't care to even find out and discuss anything); but like I said, I've seen the trend in many other threads before now that it worries me that some of us 'Christians' are making things worse off than making good sense of subjects like this.

On my part, in addition to what I posted in #50, I think another way to look at it should be to recommend solutions to this problem rather than just honking at the fact that there is a problem. Another thread that I found to point in the direction of a solution is this one: The Christian Youth Development Center – Nigeria. That was the way I was seeing things in this thread and this subject; but if you considered that to be "entirely presumptous", I'd say again: 'if you say so', although my comments (as you can see) were not birthed from any presumption.

Cheers.

JeSoul:
Lol, Maven my dear the hypocrisy was just too blatant jare. Usually I just carry go and keep my mouth shut, but for someone like him who makes a career of being nitpicky and calling out other people on very minor mistakes, he should be able to take it when he himself is corrected, but it seems his ego is getting in the way.

Lol, Jesoul. . I had no inclination to your perceived ego. If my single-line responses were not enough, then let me address your perennial worry.

Although I appreciate some of your inputs, I don't think it's everything you post that makes sense - which prolly explains why my short answers to your previous highlights. If you felt I messed up in this thread (even without taking the time to ask for clarifications), I just felt like humouring you instead of getting involved in unfruitful arguments. Yes, indeed my comments should have been explained, especially in use of the double appearance of "here" in posts #12 and #29, outlined below:

[list](a) post #12: 'I'm sure some Christians here are a part of that problem while complaining about what others are doing'

(b) post #29: 'The way I see it, many people who complain here are actually part of the problem rather than the solution.'[/list]

Please note in both posts (a) and (b) -

~ 'some' Christians
~ 'many' people
~ 'here' in (a) and 'here' in (b)

Clarifications:

1. In (a) above, I used the word "some" and not 'many'; while in (b) it was 'many' rather than 'some' - it was deliberate.

2. Then in (a), the word 'here' applies to 'this thread'; but in (b) the same word 'here' was used to imply 'this forum', Nairaland.

3. The reason for my observation in (a) - that 'some' Christians are part of the problem - is due to the seemingly negative polarisation the thread was assuming. We all know that in one way or another, as long as we are Christians, we attend one out of the many churches dotting our landscapes - which are included in the number of churches in the 'proliferation' index.

But instead of seeing both sides of the issue as suggested in the OP ('need' and/or 'nuisance'), it didn't seem to me that anyone was addressing the "need" of the topic of this thread, viz: the 'proliferation of churches'. Instead, it seemed that we were more happy to see this trend as a "nuisance" and kept at it along such lines. Even Mavenb0x expressed some dismay directly at yours, Jesoul, in post #10 - "your last post is heart-breaking".

Now, if proliferation of churches is a 'nuisance', then we are all guilty! ALL - bar none! Why? For the simple reason that everyone's cherished denomination is a part of the equation; and as long as we're happy to complain against others, we should first remove the dirty logs from our own 'Christian' eyes and smart up before complaining against other churches and pastors. But no, Christians these days are far too busy seeing the negative in our fellows than anything else.

The fourth point in the next post.

^^^Bro, I understand that breaking the law (especially in the UK) is a serious crime - and it should be punished where applicable. However, I was just wondering that the Home Office is using this 'driving offence' against Onwubiko to the point of deportation. I'm willing to shut my trap about the matter where it could be clearly established in UK's constitution that such offences merit deportation - not even a fine? . . and what happens to the prison sentence he already had served for that offence?

Some argue the legal theory of 'no one is above the law', and that's understandable. However, is it constitutional to continue holding the man imprisoned after he had served his time for that offence, while David Wood (head of criminality and detentions at the UK Border Agency) tells us that Onwubiko's "human rights are not breached"?? Are we at pains to justify what is NOT justifiable in this 21st century simply because 'no one is above the law'? This is one of the reasons why this story is so embarrassing to read!

JeSoul:
Normally I would walk away but . . . not this time.

No, I don't say so. Your own words say so very clearly and loudly:
It would have been more honorable for you to have simply acknowledged your error instead of the "whatever" hand you're throwing up by saying "if you say so". You made a baseless accusation and I called you out on it as you frequently do with others. You have a rep of being nitpicky with people's posts, breaking down their every syllable and taking considerable effort to argue over insignificant trivialities, over semantics (as you're doing now with Honeric).
But I guess you cannot handle the taste of your own medicine, right?

Again, if you say so.

I think there's a need for churches to grow; but when that growth becomes abnormal and fails to contribute effectively to their community, it becomes a nuisance. Not all types of growth are healthy - cancer is a type of 'growth' that is inimical to the health of a body. While I'm not suggesting the analogy translates in the case of proliferation of churches, it should be helpful for churches to be more co-ordinated in their outreaches.

tbaba83:
There is a constitution that contains all the law of the land and it must be followed by everyone including officers that enforce the law.

Excuse me - 'a constitution that contains all the law of the land'? That's odd, considering that: "The UK constitution is often described as an 'unwritten constitution', but it is best described as 'partly written and wholly uncodified' (Budge et al, 1998)."

tbaba83:
If i disobey the law yes i will be kicked out like how u boot out your faithful houseboy you caught stealing your jewelry.

But hang on, boss. What exactly was written in UK's constitution to warrant deportation on driving offence? That is what I've been trying to figure out. Help, anyone?

True; but that is neither new nor prophetic, IMO. Some of the things he said there have been discussed here on Nairaland already - and those who had the foresight to articulate these worrying political decimals in Nigeria are not posing as prophets and/or prophetesses.

Another thing in particular that gives me sleepless nights is the idea of schools and universities established by some of these Nigerian megastars in mega-ministries (pardon the pun). I don't have a clue what the situation on ground is; but if it is true that these institutions are exorbitant in the fees they charge, methinks that prospective students should boycott them and look to Universities that would give them a sound future.

honeric01:
pls let's drop it and face the issue on ground.

At last.

nuclearboy:
Give a scriptural backing for ANY of the above or else you just accepted that you guys created a new brand of Christianity separate from what the Apostles practiced which is simply what this thread is about. You sought to change the WORD OF GOD, HIS LAWS and THE PRACTICES OF THE APOSTLES. You also brought in DOCTRINES UNKNOWN TO THE APOSTLES.

Lol, nuclearboy, I don't think this is the way to go. I had a hunch earlier that it seems this was polarising towards a fist against Catholics; and (hoping I was wrong) it should not necessarily serve that end. This was why I earlier hinted that -

IMO, I don't think any single Christian (theologian or lay) could give a 'pure' perspective on any subject of the Bible where loopholes are absent

. . and by extension, I'm persuaded that many of us outside the Catholic system have our own problems or areas of departure from what we idealize as the Christianity that the 'Apostles practiced'.

I'd wager that many of us do not even know what 'Apostolic Christianity' actually is - and we can only be content with what has come down to us today. Let me even go as far as to say that we should sometimes have respect for the Catholic institution today: there's no denying the fact that Catholic scholarship has proven to be immensely beneficial to many of us who would have been groping aimlessly in our faith without such invaluable heritage from them.

Let's no turn this thread into another 'us versus Catholics' saga - there are several threads already where such wrestlings have been staged ('staged' - perhaps for the entertainment of bemused onlookers who wonder how the 'children of God' could drop all grace and trade fists on one another's faces). Instead, we might share on the subjects you had highlighted about relationships. What do you say?

Hehe. . was that even a theory?

honeric01:
I didn't exaggerate, it was you who didn't read me well, i said if the trend continues, we might end up having 50 million churches in Nigeria (i.e if every churches have 5 branches each on every street like redeem),

You didn't suggest a 'trend' or present your case as a hypothetical one. This was what you said:

Let's put it this way, each churches with at least 5 branches on a street like Redeem, we have more than 1000 denomination of churches in Nigeria, multiply that 1000 in 5 places, what would the answer be? remember that we haven't brought the numbers of street in lagos into consideration, if we have to do that, we should be having more than 50 million churches in Nigeria. and more than 5 thousands churches on one street (though not possible)

You made it sound like that is what the situation actually is - and where you placed your 'if' does not make it sound like a hypothetical one: you made the case as though we should be having 50 million churches in Niegria 'if' we 'have to do that' - that is, if we had to bring the number of streets into consideration. That was simply an OTT (over the top) kinda of exaggeration; and since it was of little interest to me to entertain such kinds of illations, I passed over it silently.

i hope you understand me not. i used the word IF.

I saw it, and it does not help your case. next time drop the exaggeration and unnecessary stretch of imagination in your calculations.

Then if something is not done quickly, even banks and insurance companies might start losing their lands to churches.

Something will definitely be done about it. . you just watch. We don't have to shout about it, for such trends will not continue for very long. We just should hope that the sensible ones are not punished along with those who present these problems for us in the first place.

skfa1:
You see now where dem even wound themself, why would they even allow him to represent their country when he is not a citizen? I believe strongly the reason is to achieve the glory and after that they just pushed the guy away

I was just wondering about that. If they're going to be honest and fair, the British Government should deny themselves of the glory of the medals Onwubiko brought them. This case is just too embarrassing to read.

honeric01:
I am not exaggerating, if you think i am lying, then just go and make a research yourself, i have seen a street with 5 branches of redeem, mind you, they are not the only one and its not like i have a person issue with them but i can't pretend to be blind to all these. my elder brother's even a deacon in redeem so i know what i am saying. we had a conversation not quite long and he revealed one thing to me which also got us into a heated argument, he said the vision of redeem is to have a branch each at every 5 minutes walk. please can you calculate how many branches that would be? they keep buying residential houses, turning them to church buildings rendering alot of people (tenants) homeless.

I'm sorry; but I didn't imply that you were lying. What I found odd and a bit of an exaggeration is your calaculation to the extent of "having more than 50 million churches in Nigeria" - that is a bit of an exaggeration that I didn't feel necessary to comment on, and that was why I passed over that silently.

mind you, my church has been existing more than 20 years ago so i don't see them having more than one branch each in each of the states in Nigeria.

That's your church, and it suits them fine to adopt that 'method' - which should not be the standard for all other churches, whether more or less than two decades old.

Cele is also guilty of that but then they are always owned by different pastors, owners unlike redeem assemblies of God e.t.c

No bother.

Sorry, Deep Sight - I was looking at another Board/Section, so my delay explained.

Deep Sight:
Good. But you should reflect on that Viaro, when you imagine that in his severity, he would permit an innocent one to bear the sins of guilty ones (Golgotha).

Yes, that is not strange to me.

You should also remember the very words of your carpenter-God: "Whatever a man sows the same shall be reap"

That quote appears in Paul's epistle to the Galatians: 'Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap' - Galatians 6:7; and we should not snatch it out of its context. Reading the subsequent verses explain easily the type of 'sowing' that was meant - it was a 'sowing' of either to the flesh or to the Spirit, and a believer reaps accordingly: thus verse 8 - 'For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting'. As you can see, it has no bearing on karma as in your suggestion.

- and thereby understand that no man's sins are washed away by any "sacrifice" - but that each man must unconditionally reap what he has sown (Karma).

There are sacrifices that were not meant to wash away or take away sins; but there is only One sacrifice that effectively does that - the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the Cross. What you're doing is quite queer, because you're trying to take something from the Bible and peddle it for concepts they do not apply to.

[quote author=Vortex™ link=topic=349791.msg5168404#msg5168404 date=1261516452]That's Love and Justice working hand in hand. One without the other fall short of the Perfect standard of The Lord Almighty![/quote]You remind me of Romans 11:22 - 'Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God. . .'

Deep Sight:
It is important in secular terms to reach such a determination because these organizations are exempt from tax on account of their supposed non-profit status, and if it is found that their purposes include private enrichment then this amounts to tax evasion which is a crime.

Capisce?

Io capisco. I second that.

JeSoul:
I wasn't trying to be brash. You made a sweeping, accusatory and completely unwaranted statement about the posters on this thread - considering how you chastise generalized statements, I saw it to be my NL civic duty to indict you on the matter.

Like I said, if you say so.

Deep Sight:
Yeah yeah yeah, but that is the default line, Viaro, everybody seems to be called of God to do so: including all the three Redeemed Churches on a single street not far from my house in lagos!

To be honest with you, if we all assume just that linear and pessimistic ideology about these issues, there would hardly be any church at all. Indeed, many who are called are not actually called - and we know how to identify them. But these folks who are not called should not becloud our sense of judgement as to fail in recognizing those who are called of God in various ministries.

TV01:
So point 1, no matter how genuine or deep your desire to serve God - in Christ Jesus - you can't start a church.

Yes, he could - if called of God to do so.

manmustwac:
dose it really matter which christian denomination u belong to arn't they all the same?

You're kidding, right?

JeSoul:
Perhaps "the way you're seeing it" is entirely presumptous.

Okay, if you say so.

nuclearboy:
That was my intention, Sir. To point such as I was before in the right direction so they could understand and defend their faith.

A sort of apologetics? Okay, let's keep the thread going.

honeric01:
Let's put it this way, each churches with at least 5 branches on a street like Redeem, we have more than 1000 denomination of churches in Nigeria, multiply that 1000 in 5 places, what would the answer be? remember that we haven't brought the numbers of street in lagos into consideration, if we have to do that, we should be having more than 50 million churches in Nigeria. and more than 5 thousands churches on one street (though not possible)

Please allow me to pass silently over that exaggeration.

Now, let's come to 1 branch by state method, an average of 1 branch in one state by any church should give us 1000 churches in each states if calculated the way i did in my previous paragraph and it will give us an average of 37,000 churches (branches) in the whole of Nigeria (all denomination of churches included in this).

How do you arrive at the idea of this 'method' in your Christianity?

if this is not curbed, with redeem already having 5 branches on one street of Lagos, we might end up having more than 2 million branches of redeem in Lagos alone. where would the members be living or doing their businesses from?

Let me guess: do I take it that you have an axe to grind with Redeem (RCCG)?
You see, most of these large denominations started in just about the way you guys started: the 'method' of small branches . . until they mushroomed into iroko trees with many branches. Don't be surprised to see yours going that same 'method' when the time comes.

honeric01:
We all know the churches guilty of this and until they are stopped, the smaller ones won't stop either. i would want a law be passed stopping any church from having more than 1 branch in any particular city/state or maybe start by stopping them from having more than 1 branch in a town or local government.

Your proposed law is asking for trouble from heaven. What if someone else proposes an alternative 'law' to ban churches (like your own) who like to stop others from branching out?

The way I see it, many people who complain here are actually part of the problem rather than the solution. Perhaps one would have hoped for a situation where positive things result from the proliferation of churches - but that is a far cry from reality on ground (and that is what seems to be the main reason why many people frown at the many churches springing up here and there).

Instead of complaining about any particular denomination, is there a way we could look at this subject differently?