mbaemeka:


Brothers, you need to understand the crux of the whole issue that is, if you are unaware. They created a thread to exchange prevarications and conjectures with themselves and nobody gave a hoot. Ihedi (purposely truncating his moniker so he doesn't see the unnecessary mention) tried to give opposing views but they didn't even let him have a say so he took the gentlemanly route and bowed out. In between I would see brother Image's moniker on the end of a page and I'd peep in and see he was trying to redirect their focus but they didn't entertain his "dissentious" views. One time he was pushed to the extent that he rubbished all their ideas on tithes so much so that they asked him to remove his post from their thread which he eventually did. The guy who suffered the most 'wounjuries' is here to testify. He is the same one that makes spurious claims and refuses to retract them even when cornered.

I only decided to make a post on that thread as I was led to and this was when I saw Nanny's post's. Initially they were not receptive of her as they felt she was there to disrupt their flow because she posed tough questions that they could not answer. I remember mentioning Nl and Brother Gombs to come and view the fiasco but you both disobliged . In retrospect, I am happy I posted when I did as until a few weeks back I didn't even know she worshiped where she worships.

The Bipolar disordered cum failed blogger cum multiple moniker owner kept making the same idiotic post's trying to give WOF a bad name and then hang them for it. He could say things like "WOF worship angels", "Paul warned us about worshiping angels. He said it is demonic" therefore "WOF is demonic, bro confused and bro dishonest will add more to this, I rest my case on F35" and then the troop will rush in to click likes. That thread would give BasketMouth comic ammunition for 2 centuries and a half.

With the last drop of commonsense that the failed blogger had, he avoided engaging me and I was happy because he didn't discuss with any ounce of spiritual or natural intellectualism of any sort. One time he developed enough clout and made one of those balderdash-laden posts at me, explaining how Jesus was a pauper who had nowhere to lay his head. Of course, I had him for breakfast and it is because of the whooping he suffered that he redirected his anger to brother Hagin when he saw from the 1st chapter of this book how he explained that Jesus was not a homeless Pauper as they had claimed. Interestingly, Brother Hagin's explanations where from a different perspective from mine but we still arrived at the same conclusions if not they would have called me a Plagiarizer- the last resort, when all else fails.

The few of them (and really I am referring to 1 person) who had some degree of Integrity Quotient didn't bother raising old dust from the previous thread as they silently learnt lessons and made amends but the chief Ignoramus tried to cast Hagin in bad light by even attempting to question his motives for writing the book.

We saw how commonsense again made a fool of him on this thread. On one other thread he said Jesus used the word power twice and never referred to miracles while at it and I and Gombs didn't let him off so easily. He even had to claim it was a typographical error but I can assure you that he didn't misuse any tense or misspell any word. It was what it was- a ginormous goof !(pardon the portmanteau)

I warned him to steer clear off my posts which his old handle did but because he is suffering from Multiple Personality Disorder he created a new moniker to initiate threads on CEC's president.

Of course, the name changed but not the bitterness, envy and ignorance. He quoted a post of mine and responded with the same lies but I spotted him out in a heartbeat without even taking note of his IP address or the etisalat line he probably uses to post. When he was asked to disprove that he managed 2 accounts he "pleaded the 5th" but everyone could tell he was still the same vo.yeur and I am right in calling him so, if not he should explain to us how he saw Rev. Chris "caught pants down" borrowing his own words.

Most of them don't communicate to exchange truth. It is all about "likes"garnered and the overbloated self-importance. One particular day while scouting through the Religion section as a guest, I came about a thread where the new moniker made a post and there was the old one on the side "viewing" it. Seconds later, I let my curiosity get the best of me when I refreshed the page and there it was- Old had liked New's post, as Old was at that point the only viewer and New had gained 1 more like.

Imagine if such a person became a top office holder: He would rig-in his village headmaster to become the President of the Harvard Alumni.

Now imagine him and his delusions. On this thread he expressed his surprise that I responded to his posts which he directed at me, yet he is now telling me not to discuss with him again on this forum as if I enjoy dumbing myself down with his pseudo-intellectualism.

2 men exchanged words and when they were done the first one said "Let's not speak to ourselves again, no hard feelings". The other quizzed "no hard feelings?", and then he concluded insouciantly "no feelings at all". I am the second man.

vooks:

We have many kids here who sad enough have families, kids and wives! Let's love them because love covers a multitude of sins

trustman:


Stalking you? Why?

Unlike those obsessed by the viewing of 'likes', trying to search out IP addresses and so on we are relaxed over these issues.
Just enjoying myself.

Note this: There is more to come.

vooks:
Why do these fools obsess and hallucinate over imagined obsession with likes? They are the ones hopelessly infatuated with 'likes'. They can't stomach an opposing post being liked, nor can they understand why nobody 'likes' Oyaks vomit. They get fits and heartburns.
I can bet they arrest and bind the spirit of 'likes' every time they pray
We have many kids here who sad enough have families, kids and wives! Let's love them because love covers a multitude of sins

vooks:
How many verses do I need to prove that Jesus wept? One John 11:35 sufficeth. Or how many instances of the miracle of turning water into wine do you need before you believe it?

vooks:
My heart bleeds. It was an analogy. You don't need multiple scriptures to construct a doctrine if one verse is as clear as daylight

mbaemeka:




Brothers, you need to understand the crux of the whole issue that is, if you are unaware. They created a thread to exchange prevarications and conjectures with themselves and nobody gave a hoot. Ihedi (purposely truncating his moniker so he doesn't see the unnecessary mention) tried to give opposing views but they didn't even let him have a say so he took the gentlemanly route and bowed out. In between I would see brother Image's moniker on the end of a page and I'd peep in and see he was trying to redirect their focus but they didn't entertain his "dissentious" views. One time he was pushed to the extent that he rubbished all their ideas on tithes so much so that they asked him to remove his post from their thread which he eventually did. The guy who suffered the most 'wounjuries' is here to testify. He is the same one that makes spurious claims and refuses to retract them even when cornered.

I only decided to make a post on that thread as I was led to and this was when I saw Nanny's post's. Initially they were not receptive of her as they felt she was there to disrupt their flow because she posed tough questions that they could not answer. I remember mentioning Nl and Brother Gombs to come and view the fiasco but you both disobliged . In retrospect, I am happy I posted when I did as until a few weeks back I didn't even know she worshiped where she worships.

The Bipolar disordered cum failed blogger cum multiple moniker owner kept making the same idiotic post's trying to give WOF a bad name and then hang them for it. He could say things like "WOF worship angels", "Paul warned us about worshiping angels. He said it is demonic" therefore "WOF is demonic, bro confused and bro dishonest will add more to this, I rest my case on F35" and then the troop will rush in to click likes. That thread would give BasketMouth comic ammunition for 2 centuries and a half.

With the last drop of commonsense that the failed blogger had, he avoided engaging me and I was happy because he didn't discuss with any ounce of spiritual or natural intellectualism of any sort. One time he developed enough clout and made one of those balderdash-laden posts at me, explaining how Jesus was a pauper who had nowhere to lay his head. Of course, I had him for breakfast and it is because of the whooping he suffered that he redirected his anger to brother Hagin when he saw from the 1st chapter of this book how he explained that Jesus was not a homeless Pauper as they had claimed. Interestingly, Brother Hagin's explanations where from a different perspective from mine but we still arrived at the same conclusions if not they would have called me a Plagiarizer- the last resort, when all else fails.

The few of them (and really I am referring to 1 person) who had some degree of Integrity Quotient didn't bother raising old dust from the previous thread as they silently learnt lessons and made amends but the chief Ignoramus tried to cast Hagin in bad light by even attempting to question his motives for writing the book. We saw how commonsense again made a fool of him on this thread. On one other thread he said Jesus used the word power twice and never referred to miracles while at it and I and Gombs didn't let him off so easily. He even had to claim it was a typographical error but I can assure you that he didn't misuse any tense or misspell any word. It was what it was- a ginormous goof !(pardon the portmanteau)

I warned him to steer clear off my posts which his old handle did but because he is suffering from Multiple Personality Disorder he created a new moniker to initiate threads on CEC's president. Of course, the name changed but not the bitterness, envy and ignorance. He quoted a post of mine and responded with the same lies but I spotted him out in a heartbeat without even taking note of his IP address or the etisalat line he probably uses to post. When he was asked to disprove that he managed 2 accounts he "pleaded the 5th" but everyone could tell he was still the same vo.yeur and I am right in calling him so, if not he should explain to us how he saw Rev. Chris "caught pants down" borrowing his own words.

Most of them don't communicate to exchange truth. It is all about "likes"garnered and the overbloated self-importance. One particular day while scouting through the Religion section as a guest, I came about a thread where the new moniker made a post and there was the old one on the side "viewing" it. Seconds later, I let my curiosity get the best of me when I refreshed the page and there it was- Old had liked New's post, as Old was at that point the only viewer and New had gained 1 more like. Imagine if such a person became a top office holder: He would rig-in his village headmaster to become the President of the Harvard Alumni.

Now imagine him and his delusions. On this thread he expressed his surprise that I responded to his posts which he directed at me, yet he is now telling me not to discuss with him again on this forum as if I enjoy dumbing myself down with his pseudo-intellectualism. 2 men exchanged words and when they were done the first one said "Let's not speak to ourselves again, no hard feelings". The other quizzed "no hard feelings?", and then he concluded insouciantly "no feelings at all". I am the second man.

Gombs:


Mba, that was how I knew vooks and shedemidemi are same. I noticed if vooks made a post, in split seconds shedemidemi is online and vooks has 1 like, take few pages back, you'd see that even posts about nothing has a like. This was aside the other evidences I have, there was one time vooks made reference to a thread that fat outlived his monickers lifetime on NL, question was how did he know about the discussion? Was he viewing as a guest? certainly not, he spoke as shedemidemi did in that thread. Coincidence? Nah...... but it's ok for them to keep deceiving themselves.

shdemidemi:


And what is the moral behind the long sermon? you are an emotional, proud and egoistic man. All I see here is 'I, I, I', You just can't stand being challenged or chastised, yet you see yourself as the pinnacle of spirituality and an embodiment of God's knowledge. If the Word of God does not subdue the spirit of 'me, myself and I' in you there is problem.

Winsomex can't be entirely right and he can't be entirely wrong either, and the same applies to you so stop painting a picture of a perfect Man here.

WinsomeX:



You, mbaemeka, occupy the latter in all these statements. You are not a Christian, you are a liar. You are not hearing the Holy Spirit, you are hearing demons. Your eternal destination is not heaven but hell. You are a son of perdition. Those who listen to you do so at great peril to their souls.

I have nothing else to say to you on this forum until you repent; and that is if you have capacity to.

BabaGnoni:






I shall lift my eyes to the hills; from where will come my helper?
- We all need help
Don't gang up on WinsomeX, please release and leave WinsomeX alone.
If at all WinsomeX was angry, WinsomeX was angry at the statement (i.e. how it was twisted)

shdemidemi:


And what is the moral behind the long sermon?

you are an emotional, proud and egoistic man. All I see here is 'I, I, I', You just can't stand being challenged or chastised, yet you see yourself as the pinnacle of spirituality and an embodiment of God's knowledge. If the Word of God does not subdue the spirit of 'me, myself and I' in you there is problem.

Winsomex can't be entirely right and he can't be entirely wrong either, and the same applies to you so stop painting a picture of a perfect Man here.

Image123:
The association of palongo dancers, NL chapter. Yuck, that's pretty nauseating.

Image123:


Sorry, can't it be a one off like Abraham tithe theory?

shdemidemi:


And what is the moral behind the long sermon? you are an emotional, proud and egoistic man. All I see here is 'I, I, I', You just can't stand being challenged or chastised, yet you see yourself as the pinnacle of spirituality and an embodiment of God's knowledge. If the Word of God does not subdue the spirit of 'me, myself and I' in you there is problem.

Winsomex can't be entirely right and he can't be entirely wrong either, and the same applies to you so stop painting a picture of a perfect Man here.

mbaemeka:


Thank you for your very kind words even though my 'long sermon' was not directed at you nor did it mention you in any way, shape or form. You are the non-hypocrite who advised others not to take panadol for my own headache. I can see how you practice what you preach. Now please live me to learn from those I can learn from instead of condescending to discuss with non-egoistic, non-proud, non-hypocrite men who have nothing to offer.

Thank you again.

trustman:


That Jesus turned water into wine does not translate into an instruction for his followers to begin to do so. Right?

In the same way, that Abraham was recorded to have tithed does not make it a command for anyone else to tithe. Do you get it?

Bidam:
What's the correlation between tithes and a miracle

Bidam:
Epic response!

Bidam:
What's the correlation between tithes and a miracle

trustman:

This: The recording of an event in scripture does not NECESSARILY make it a command to be followed or even a thing to be emulated by believers.
Where there are clear directives on an issue, it is better to go with such instructions rather than make a 'command' or 'doctrine' out of a recorded event.

trustman:


This: The recording of an event in scripture does not NECESSARILY make it a command to be followed or even a thing to be emulated by believers.

Where there are clear directives on an issue, it is better to go with such instructions rather than make a 'command' or 'doctrine' out of a recorded event.

trustman:


That Jesus turned water into wine does not translate into an instruction for his followers to begin to do so. Right?

In the same way, that Abraham was recorded to have tithed does not make it a command for anyone else to tithe. Do you get it?

Gombs:


Good question bro!

Now see the answer given below...

trustman:


In your bid to be deceitful you refused to show the entire trend of the discussion.
The posts DID NOT START from where you posted.

You are continuing your dishonesty.

Bidam:
Clap for your intelligent response, mr logic.

Image123:


You do know that His followers are free to follow His example and principle as much as lieth in them? And from one verse, it can be safely proven and believed that Abraham gave tithes instead of dismissing or belittling it as a one off. For sure, you get it now.

mbaemeka:
Hebrews 11:8-9 KJV

By faith Abraham, when he was called to go out into a place which he should after receive for an inheritance, obeyed; and he went out, not knowing whither he went. By faith he sojourned in the land of promise, as in a strange country, dwelling in tabernacles with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise:

Abraham, Isaac and Jacob lived together. That's how Jacob must have learned about tithes. If it was a one time event both Isaac and Jacob won't have known about it because they weren't born when Abraham tithed to Melchizedek.

mbaemeka:




I only decided to make a post on that thread as I was led to and this was when I saw Nanny's post's. Initially they were not receptive of her as they felt she was there to disrupt their flow because she posed tough questions that they could not answer. I remember mentioning Nl and Brother Gombs to come and view the fiasco but you both disobliged . In retrospect, I am happy I posted when I did as until a few weeks back I didn't even know she worshiped where she worships.

WinsomeX:
The most consise article on tithing I ever read. From John MacArthur ministry website.

Does God require me to give a tithe of all I
earn?

Two kinds of giving are taught consistently throughout Scripture: giving to the government (always compulsory), and giving to God (always voluntary).

The issue has been greatly confused, however, by some who misunderstand the nature of the Old Testament tithes. Tithes were not primarily gifts to God, but taxes for funding the national budget in Israel.

Because Israel was a theocracy, the Levitical priests acted as the civil government. So the Levite's tithe ( Leviticus 27:30-33 ) was a precursor to today's income tax, as was a second annual tithe required by God to fund a national festival ( Deuteronomy 14:22-29 ).

Smaller taxes were also imposed on the people by the law ( Leviticus 19:9-10 ; Exodus 23:10-11 ). So the total giving required of the Israelites was not 10 percent, but well over 20 percent. All that money was used to operate the nation.

All giving apart from that required to run the government was purely voluntary (cf. Exodus 25:2 ; 1 Chronicles 29:9 ). Each person gave whatever was in his heart to give; no percentage or amount was specified.

New Testament believers are never commanded to tithe. Matthew 22:15-22 and Romans 13:1-7 tell us about the only required giving in the church age, which is the paying of taxes to the government. Interestingly enough, we in America presently pay between 20 and 30 percent of our income to the government--a figure very similar to the requirement under the theocracy of Israel.

The guideline for our giving to God and His work is found in 2 Corinthians 9:6-7 : "Now this I say, he who sows sparingly shall also reap sparingly; and he who sows bountifully shall also reap bountifully. Let each one do just as he has purposed in his heart; not grudgingly or under compulsion; for God loves a cheerful giver."

www.gty.org/resources/questions/QA144/does-god-require-me-to-give-a-tithe-of-all-i-earn?Term=Tithe

trustman:




Let me put it this way; we need more than a NARRATIVE of an event in the Bible to want to make it a command that all successive generations of believers must follow.

For example, in the book of Nehemiah, Ezra read the Book of the Law of Moses to the people. It is recorded there that ‘the people all stood up’ and also that ‘they bowed down and worshiped the LORD with their faces to the ground’.

This recording of the people’s actions and reactions does not, by its very fact of occurrence make it a RULE that all believers MUST henceforth do as these ones here have done.

So, that a thing HAPPENED in scripture does not make it a COMMAND for everyone else to do likewise.

On the other hand, where there is a clear instruction or directive in scripture on a subject matter, it is obligatory on those it is directed at to adhere to such a command.

Gombs:


Ah! DB goes for his favorite topic in Christianity! I'm thrilled