₦airaland Forum

Mr_Anony: Usually, the jet is either bought for the ministry to 'further the gospel' or it is given to the pastor as a gift from contributions of his church members. There is no law against that.
Also, no church I know of claims to offer salvation for money.

Sowing and reaping is clearly salvation, or whatever, for money.

And again, they must justify their claims. They must at the very least publicly show their members how they're money was used. And if it's used questionably they should be investigated, regardless of if members were satisfied or not. That equates to the church lying to government hence they should be punished regardless of what their members think. "Further the gospel"? Ok, but how? Was it really necessary considering their claims? This is from wiki's npo article, which demonstrates my concerns

"Most countries have laws which regulate the
establishment and management of NPOs, and
which require compliance with corporate
governance regimes. Most larger organizations are
required to publish their financial reports detailing
their income and expenditure publicly. In many
aspects they are similar to corporate business
entities though there are often significant
differences. Both not-for-profit and for-profit
corporate entities must have board members,
steering committee members, or trustees who owe
the organization a fiduciary duty of loyalty and
trust. A notable exception to this involves
churches, which are often not required to disclose
finances to anyone, including church members."

So, churches are not accountable to anyone, yet the rest are. Why?

Mr_Anony: True that...they are free to buy private jets in the name of the church and live posh lives as long as it is in the name of the church. I see no reason why anyone on the outside would complain too much. Most of these 'megachurches' today actually have their legal and accounting solid and airtight.

True, but that would depend on what they claim they intend to use the money for. If they claim to be charities for instance, there are very likely limits they are abusing. Buying jets to what end? What justifies such ostentation? That doesn't look like an npo to me. They'd be investigated if they weren't churches. If they claim to offer salvation for money then they are a business and probably both parties should be taxed. They can't just claim to be npo and not expect to be monitored because they're religious.

obadiah777: THIS IS GOOD NEWS. WHEN PEOPLE SAY YOUR DOCTRINE IS CRAZY, THEN YOU KNOW YOU ARE ON THE RIGHT TRACK. MANY PEOPLE SAID CHRIST WAS CRAZY. SEE THE ROAD TO THE TRUTH IS VERY NARROW BUT IS CRAZY TO THE MASSES AND WHATS A NAIJA MAN DOING WITH A NAME LIKE WIEGRAF ? WHAT ARE YA A GERMAN P-IMP ?

Do germans even have pimps? I do remember they had a lot of sw.inger club... err... My bad, one of the 144000 wouldn't know about that, eh? *wink, wink* . I'll be on my way now, pi.mpin' aint easy

Mr_Anony: Oh my bad...of course the church should prove their not-for-profit status but then my point is simply this: Even if it is discovered that the church has made a turnover of $1 billion in donations that year, the government cannot tax that money because to do so would mean taxing it's donors a second time.

They can do absolutely whatever they like as long as it's legal and they're npo, it need not even be charity per say. But they must prove they're npo (usually this means profits etc are not allowed to be distributed amongst individuals, etc) like any other organization that wants the status else tax. The citizens need not necessarily be taxed, the church though should be. Unfortunately separation of church and state is still an illusion.

Affiliated: Yes

I didn't notice you were the op. So, like your op says, how can it be good if it's responsible for evil? Are you accepting it's claims of greater good on faith? Who gets to determine what is 'good' anyways?


Let alone plus omnibenovelent, but we can ignore that. And also that 2 omnixx are impossible in the way most people imagine, the other sketchy, but that's another debate.

Mr_Anony: They are under no such obligation. A religious organization is not a public company having shareholders so it doesn't have to publish it's numbers.
Religious organizations also are not selling any goods and services, they are only receiving donations. It is wrong to tax a person and then tax his donations also.

The state really doesn't have any business with their accounts since it isn't taxing them. All the state would be bothered about at best is the citizen who claims tax deductions for having donated to charity in which case, what the state would be concerned with is if he has indeed paid to a legitimate charity. (personally, I don't believe a person should claim tax deductions for donating to charity, I think it takes away from the selflessness that typifies charitable giving)
As for the charity itself and what it does with the money especially when it is a religious organization, the state has no business since it cannot dictate to the organization what it should do with it's funds.

The only obligation a religious institution might have is to be accountable to it's members and not the state. It is ironic how you campaign for separation of church and state and yet you want to force the state into the church's business.

Give me one non-emotional reason why the church should be accountable to people who didn't donate to it? Mind you the donors have already settled with the state by paying their taxes.

Incredible. Are charities taxed if they cannot prove their not-for-profit status, yes or no? Do charities not receive donations, yes or no? Don't even get me started on 'sowing and reaping' schemes which are not donations. So, other organizations that cannot prove they're npo have to pay tax but religions don't just because you say so? Then you call me emotional?

Give me a non-emotional reason why they shouldn't pay taxes Because religions are special? Do churches use government infrastructure, yes or no? Are they part of society, yes or no?

Do you understand what separation of church and state means? It doesn't mean treat churches differently you know, it unambiguously means the opposite, regardless of your personal opinion. Like everyone else, they should prove their npos if they want tax breaks. I highly doubt the law you describe holds everywhere (a quick google and it does not seem to, at all) and even if it did, believe me, there are lots of religious people who aren't sheeple that would like to verify they're hard earned cash isn't going to a bombardier fund.

I see admonishment, I don't see any responses...

Mr_Anony: You see my friend, what you are proposing goes against democracy and freedom of religion. I am sure the a very well able to manage their accounts by themselves without. It is not the business of the government to stick it's nose into their accounts especially since it is not taxing them. How far will the government go with it, will they poke their noses into the muslim's finances also? How about traditional religions? Will the government also monitor the number of goats and chickens that babalawo killed for sacrifice?

Trying to control religions is the kind of militant atheism that sprang under Mao Zedong and led to the killing and persecution of many relgious people.

This is disingenuous. If they've nothing to hide, they should prove their tax-exempt status. Seperation of church and state. Other organizations prove themselves, why should religious organizations be exempt? Just because?

Kay 17: Hegel"s dialectics

Marx's theory on superstructures

Kant's categorical imperative

Heh heh heh

Google is my friend...

okeyxyz: You missed the message(maybe I wasn't clear enough). Centrifugal force is a "virtual force", it appears to be on the same plane as centripetal force. The real forces which make up the centrifugal are the inertia forces which are tangential\perpendicualr to the plane of centripetal force. This means that god's ways\values are not like ours, Thus the phrases:

...whoever loses(chooses god's values over his own) his life for My sake...(Matthew 16:25 )
...do not lean on your own understanding...(Proverbs 3:5 )
...Do not be wise in your own eyes...(Proverbs 3:7 )

But the rewards(centripetal force) of keeping god's values are channeled back to our mental & physical realms.

No, that's not what I meant, sorry.

I meant here's an easy one; for every action there's an equal and opposite reaction. Have you tackled that yet?

Actually I want to work through the laws of thermodynamics, I think this is the first one? I'm not so sure

Kay 17: @obadiah

C"mon be clear, let's know where you stand

He's already told he's right just because he says so. He's sees absolutely nothing wrong with that stance. When I spoke of mature xtians earlier I meant the other dudes, not him. He is just crazy, happy crazy though, so I suppose that would translate to eccentric. Personally for me since he's likable, sticks to mostly xtian only threads, and seems to be able to not mix his religion and politics (well, not really, but he doesn't force his views on anyone) I don't see any need to engage him. He's clearly not harming anyone, but he's crazy. The happy, harmless, maybe even good sort of crazy.

^^^
Are you trolling? It's not very good, I'm only mildly irritated. As the 'cool' kids on the internets used to do and assign marks to a troll based on how 'mad' it made them, I'll give you 3/10. Wtf does islam have to do with anything here? Or are you suggesting he's a secret muslim to piss off the op?

fellis: ^ Is there any scientific proof to your theory of docile women being favored over strong ones or is it just an assumption you made? Because if there is I would like to see it, maybe post a link or something.

I remember reading it in an E. O. Wilson (a famous evolutionary biologist) article, but I can't find it atm. Though iirc even in the book he hadn't studied it himself, he just asserted that promiscuous women would be persecuted for these reasons. This would have to do for now I suppose

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_role#Anthropology_and_evolution

Opens with:
"The idea that differences in gender roles originate in differences in biology has found support in parts of the scientific community. 19th-century anthropology sometimes used descriptions of the imagined life of paleolithic hunter-gatherer societies for evolutionary explanations for gender differences. For example, those accounts maintain that the need to take care of offspring may have limited the females' freedom to hunt and assume positions of power."

Gender roles are a cultural universal, studied by evolutionary psychology

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_psychology#Cultural_universals

And quoting that as well:
"Evolutionary psychologists hold that behaviors or traits that occur universally in all cultures are good candidates for evolutionary adaptations. Cultural universals include behaviors related to language, cognition, social roles, gender roles, and technology. Evolved psychological adaptations (such as the ability to learn a language) interact with cultural inputs to produce specific behaviors (e.g., the specific language learned). Basic gender differences, such as greater eagerness for sex among men and greater coyness among women, are explained as sexually dimorphic psychological adaptations that reflect the different reproductive strategies of males and females. Evolutionary psychologists contrast their approach to what they term the "standard social science model," according to which the mind is a general-purpose cognition device shaped almost entirely by culture."

Lots of other articles on sociobiology and evolutionary biology pointing that way. But I don't have the time go through them atm and get more clear cut evidence. So yeah, take from that what you will

fellis: You didn't even mention your own opinion. Do you believe in equality or not?

That's why I labeled the post 'random'. But the last paragraph more or else states my opinion; gender roles are needless, especially in this day and age.

We clearly evolved differently though, but there's no such thing as an overall 'better' person. For some task one person may be better than the next, gender has little to do with it (except of course for physical tasks), but there's no such thing as an overall better person. And women have to make babies so they're overall behavior tends to point in a direction different to men's, but that doesn't mean all women want those things. Or that they can't achieve what the men (the traditional hunters) do if they wanted to.

Random 1

All people are different, so I suppose we should have different rules for all regardless of gender, yes? So, a dude like messi shouldn't be playing football, he's too small. He even needed medication to get to his current size, he should not have been supported and just left to live his life as a mere earthling, like the rest of us. Ronaldo, Heskey, andy carrol, etc are clearly the opposite; excellent athletes that should be given our full support from the get go. This isn't the best example, there are lots of other good short footballers, but you should get the point. Tiger woods played in a club a mere ~10 years after the club started accepting black people onto it's premises, so a few years earlier they wouldn't have let in one of the sports best ever because he was black. Switch race for gender here, it's that simple

Random 2

Women shoot themselves in the foot consistently. Quite a few may have been given equal opportunities but botched them up royally (though society may be a harsh judge). Pushing for equality for women is quite silly at times as they seem perfectly happy. They may even berate you for spoiling their blissful existence.

A few things to consider. For instance, this doesn't mean all women are content sitting on their a$$es tending to their superior masters all day. There were quite a few black people happy being slaves. In fact, they didn't know they were slaves, shades of stockholm syndrome etc. That certainly does not mean all slaves were happy, or that slavery was right.

As for why some seem irrationally against women who don't fit the stereotypes, from an evolutionary perspective it would seem the docile, pliable woman won. The one who demanded her way probably didn't have as many babies as the meek one, who was probably turned into a baby making machine. Her genes spread, her girls inherit her traits.

And the general coyness of women with regards to relationships, they have to find a mate who would stick around to raise babies, hence the shenanigans. Again, evolution favors this breed of woman, they are successful with the baby raising, unlike the s.luts (I approve of sl.uts btw).

For these reasons you find that the trend across cultures is to vilify strong and/or slu.tty women. It's genetic, in a manner of speak, so some people get instinctively disgusted when they come across these, even fellow women. So for these reasons (and probably others) you find quite a few women being their own worst enemies.

But that thinking belongs in the stone age, when life expectancy was roughly 30, ethics were built around kill or be killed, etc. An era where it might have been useful.

You're not there yet, but train some more and your church could have the potential to rival oyedepo's

Easy, for every action there's an equal and opposite reaction

Affiliated: I don't hold that there's is a personality called God in the first place. But religion says God is both omnipotent and omniscient [They don't imply each other]

How can this god, not yours, not be evil? Especially if they hold he's responsible for creation? He would be responsible for having created everything, nazi's included for instance, yes?

Mr_Anony: Lololololol...........here he goes again. wiegraf and his poor thinking.

And here comes the genius at sophistry, here to do your master's bidding. It's alright, it's all part of being deluded

Affiliated: Religion holds it that God is Omnipotent [All powerful] and that Omnipotence isn't subject to anything but God itself

Do you hold that god is omnipotent? And does omnipotency imply omniscience

greatgenius: ^^^^ how is it malevolent.. why would humans be the perpetrator of their own actions and yet blame it on God?( by God im not talking about the God in religions but the creator). do you really think God wants you to be poor or hungry or even killl? do you honestly believe your creator will have any malicious intent towards you or wish to do you evil?.

everything thing that happens to you good or bad you do onto your self. not god or even your so called enemies are responsible. you are the creator of your world my friend

Is god omnipotent?
If so define, is it subject to logic for instance?

greatgenius: calling the creator malevolent means you have no idea who it/she/he is and who you are. awake,take responsibility and stop blaming people or nature for your own choices and actions man.

Hmmm, what does this mean? How is it not malevolent?

Don't expect any of them to come near this problem. Too much work and they will invariably fail.

If it's a troll it's sort of brilliantly designed.
I do hope it's a troll, else che!

cr8v: Sorry I can't continue this discussionn I thought I was discussing with a mature person. Nairaland shd better start displaying peoples age close to their names so we know who to avoid. Somebody on Nairaland doesn't understand what it means to say that God is in need of resources both human and material to further His purpose on earth. Not that he lacks anything but looking for who He will release His blessings to and the person will still be mindful to collaborate with His family the church to defeat the enemy

The hospitals, schools and church buildings u see are not built with prayer alone. Billions went into it ⌣̊┈̥-̶̶̯̥͡·̵̭̌✽̤̥̈̊ơ̴̴̴͡k̤̥̈̊·̵̶̭̥̌-̶̯͡┈̥‎⌣!

That's some good programming imbedded in you by your jewish masters. If only you could see through the facade and decipher what you posted right here.

OLAADEGBU: Faith is the evidence of things not seen and the substance of things hoped for. It is having confidence in things more real than what you detect with the physical senses, and of cause I'm biased and lean to the Bible just as you are biased into beliefs that has no foundation.

I think you're too far gone to be reasoned with as far as this is concerned.

OLAADEGBU: Even if I supported Romney what has it got to do with the topic at hand? is this another tactic of atheists at diverting issues at hand?

See

me: What does that have to do with anything? It highlights the hypocrisy of attacking the more zealous of obama's supporters for blasphemy while ignoring the fact that the beliefs of the alternative you support himself, not even those of his supporters as is the case with obama, are considered blasphemy to your religion.

OLAADEGBU: Freedom of speech allows folks to air their views stupid or sensible.

Those who are sensible would know where to draw the line.

It may not be a crime because it is covered by the constitution but I'll call it stupidity.

Many people would recommend you look into a mirror and recite this aloud
Freedom of speech. Senseless victimless crime. This is in no way an issue. At least we've arrived quickly at the LALALALA stage

OLAADEGBU: Your worldview is based on conjectures isn't it?

This statement is an assumption as well, worse than mine as it's based on rather little except maybe a bias against atheism or faulty logic.
I'm not sure why an xtian would tell an atheist his worldview is based on conjecture anyways. You do understand you believe in talking fires, snakes, virgin births etc, simply because a book with no evidence to support its claims says so. In fact. You xtians even proudly declare you have faith, not facts.

Anyways, simple google + olaadegbu + romney

https://www.nairaland.com/1025391/why-not-voting-president-obama/4#12895585

OLAADEGBU: It rather Obama who invited satanists like JayZ for his campaign that is a satanists the choice of Romney even though a Mormon could have been a better choice than Obama.

It's fairly disingenuous to claim you don't support romney even without posts like the quoted either ways, as you do notice he was the only viable alternative, yes? It's not a baseless assumption.

OLAADEGBU: Some sensible obama supporters like those in the videoclip below know where to draw the line.

Victimless crime

OLAADEGBU: I'll rather call it stupidity because I feel Jamie Foxx is talking out of ignorance.

Victimless crime. Completely. In no way near as important as freedom of speech. You're free to your opinions. I find them rather odd is all, so I'm curious in a way.

OLAADEGBU: I'll post one for you as time permits, in the meantime enjoy this one.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FiaB2B5Hcw

Why thank you, but I care not. Victimless crime, and one only fundies would consider a "crime" anyways.

Oops, I posted without even reading the thread, I was just 'following' @kay's posts, lol. My bad. It's the mature xtians in here.

Let me go find people I can actually provoke..

I'm like mindf.ucked at the moment. Or maybe even mindr.aped

I'll be on my way now

Kay 17: Then why test man, if he knows the results already?!

Supposing I had a rabid dog, and knew full well that it was going to infect some people ahead of time, if I let the dog free in the market society would rightly persecute me. If I were hiv positive and knowingly went about spreading the virus, society would persecute me. If I made a gundam and set it to 'destroy the world', same results. God makes hitler, stalin, wars upon wars, natural disaster after disaster, disease, famine, misery and suffering wantonly yet it is still regarded as good.

What sort of omniscient omnipotent feels regret anyways? How stoopid would it have to be to be unable to avoid that? Or perhaps it's masochistic?

/rant

I tire. As for 'reaping'...
Some claim it's selfless, yet they call the process 'sowing and reaping'. And it's not reaping for the benefit of others mind you, it's for themselves. They look you in the eye when they try to sell it as a selfless act as well. It's a bit similar to how we say "no, no I don't personally rob people with a gun, that would be wrong. I steal wholesale government money, it's cleaner that way" without any compunction.

And on another note, what's the difference as far as the reasoning is concerned between 'reaping' and other rituals? Like those which demand human heads and Instruments? They ask for something, claim they would do something spiritual for you, then reward you usually materially, but could be in a variety of ways. Look pretty much the same to me. You're paying for a spiritual service, price just varies somewhat dramatically.

/rant

You like shiny things and are sensitive? There's no hope for you.

Note that even if a person does not explicitly state that they care for you, that doesn't mean they don't. For many talking about feelings and blah blah are a terrible waste of time. What matters to them are actions, not show. So, don't take it personally from these sort (mostly dudes, but quite a few women as well).

Even the emotional ones want to connect and have harmony just as much as you, though it might not look so to you. So it boils down to this with just about every conflict : miscommunication.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions

True, true, should stop procastinating while procastinating