Creflo Dollar and Leroy Thompson’s Shuck and Jive

I saw this video over at HickTown Press. Leroy Thompson and Creflo Dollar make quite a pair in this disgusting video…..

These two knuckleheads make a mockery of the Gospel…..wait, no they don’t because they don’t preach the Gospel. Sadly the silly sheeple seen in this video think this is the Gospel.

These two knuckleheads tell us over and over again how they don’t preach “prosperity” and they “don’t love money”……sure they don’t.

Peter describes these idiots perfectly;

2Peter 2:1-3 NASB

But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves. Many will follow their sensuality, and because of them the way of the truth will be maligned; and in

their greed they will exploit you with false words; their judgment from long ago is not idle, and their destruction is not asleep.

See that Creflo and Leroy? Peter called your game out 1960 years ago. You may believe you’re getting away with something but Peter says your judgement isn’t idle and your destruction is not asleep. I’d hate to be you two cats on judgement day.

2Peter 2 :4-11 NASB

For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to pits of darkness, reserved for judgment; and did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a preacher of righteousness, with seven others, when He brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly;

and if He condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to destruction by reducing them to ashes, having made them an example to those who would live ungodly lives thereafter; and if He rescued righteous Lot, oppressed by the sensual conduct of unprincipled men (for by what he saw and heard that righteous man, while living among them, felt his righteous soul tormented day after day by their lawless deeds), then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from temptation, and to keep the unrighteous under punishment for the day of judgment, and especially those who indulge the flesh in its corrupt desires and despise authority. Daring, self-willed, they do not tremble when they revile angelic majesties, whereas angels who are greater in might and power do not bring a reviling judgment against them before the Lord.

More perfect descriptions of Leroy and Creflo from a man that new a thing or two about screwing up. The difference between Peter and the duo of deception? Peter repented when he screwed up. From the looks of the video I don’t see Leroy and Creflo repenting anytime in the near future unless being broke is a sin….wait…these two teach being broke IS a sin!

Geesh. These two are really gone…..

2Peter 2:13-15 NASB

suffering wrong as the wages of doing wrong. They count it a pleasure to revel in the daytime. They are stains and blemishes, reveling in their deceptions, as they carouse with you, having eyes full of adultery that never cease from sin, enticing unstable souls, having a heart trained in greed, accursed children; forsaking the right way, they have gone astray, having followed the way of Balaam, the

son of Beor, who loved the wages of unrighteousness;

Man, this is good stuff. Anyone that doesn’t believe the Bible is the Inspired Word of God needs to read this chapter along with this video. 1960 years or so ago Peter describes these two knuckleheads perfectly. God sure does know what He’s doing doesn’t He?

2Peter 2:16-22 NASB

but he received a rebuke for his own transgression,

for a mute donkey, speaking with a voice of a man, restrained the madness of the prophet. These are springs without water and mists driven by a storm, for whom the black darkness has been reserved. For speaking out arrogant words of vanity they entice by fleshly desires, by sensuality, those who barely escape from the ones who live in error, promising them freedom while they themselves are slaves of corruption; for by what a man is overcome, by this he is enslaved. For if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world by the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and are overcome, the last state has become worse for them than the first. For it would be better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than having known it, to turn away from the holy commandment handed on to them. It has happened to them according to the true proverb, “A DOG RETURNS TO ITS OWN VOMIT,” and, “A sow, after washing, returns to wallowing in the mire.”

It’s like looking in a mirror eh Leroy and Creflo? While you’re out shaming His Name He, through the Apostle Peter named your game. God put your business out in the street long before your lying mouth’s were even born. It’s too bad the silly sheeple handing over their money to you buffoons haven’t read Peter’s words…..until now.

Leroy and Creflo might have more money coming now but judgement WILL come later….they might soar with the eagles now but unless they repent they’re gonna burn with the devil for all eternity….

 

HT To Lynn at HickTown Press

www.hicktownpress.com

 

 

 

About these ads

55 thoughts on “Creflo Dollar and Leroy Thompson’s Shuck and Jive

  1. Phil,

    Yep, you won’t find this charade in the Bible! The whole thing is so baffling, disgusting, and yes – sad.

    Phil: Yes, you are correct. Where are those whips when you need them:-)

  2. Phil,

    The word of faith movement hits close to home. I was a Charismatic from around the mid eighties till around 1990. I remember all those early guys. The Bible, however, cuts through all that jive. It was clear to me, after Bible college, that they had no framework, no systematic theology, and certainly no hermeneutic. The Bible is filled with verses that appear to have no real connection to them. There was no historical context to them. They just lifted verses from thin air (mostly prosperity verses). And, the Book of Job, forget it. Charles Capps, an early and vocal proponent of WoF, stated that Job “feared” and that’s he suffered. He didn’t have faith. “The thing that I fear has come upon me” (Job). Since he had fear, then did not have faith, and thus, was judged. Pathetic exegesis. That’s when woke up to all of that, shucked it out the door, and continued in deeper biblical studies (in short, I earned a Bach. of Theo.). I never looked back to those days, and glad I haven’t. Thanks for posting this.

    Samuel M. Frost, M.A.R.
    http://www.thereignofchrist.com

    Phil: I used to preach some of this stuff Sam so I understand where you are coming from. For me it was the “born again Jesus” teaching that made me RUN from them and back to tennis:-). You know something else. I met some of the strangest people I have ever met in my life when I was involved in that garbage.

  3. Have you noticed how all the people at Creflo’s meetings are so well dressed? They consider proverty to be sin.
    They go forward while he is speaking and lay their offerings at his feet just like pagan worship.

  4. Hey Boyd,

    It is a type of god worship – and we all know gods can’t be poor or sick, don’t we?

    Makes my skin crawl when I see this trash…

  5. Phil

    Im with you on this.But,is it possible that the idea could have been conveyed,with the expletives deleted?

    Phil: I didn’t use any expletives tunji….but I did use strong language. Sometimes, but not always this must be done. The NT is filled with FAR worse then what I used to describe these *cough* gentlemen.

  6. ex·ple·tive
    n. 1. An exclamation or oath, especially one that is profane, vulgar, or obscene.
    2a. A word or phrase that does not contribute any meaning but is added only to fill out a sentence or a metrical line.
    2b. Linguistics A word or other grammatical element that has no meaning but is needed to fill a syntactic position, such as the words it and there in the sentences It’s raining and There are many books on the table.

    adj. Added or inserted in order to fill out something, such as a sentence or a metrical line.

    Phil, I don’t see any expletives in your post either. You will find that Tunji simply cannot stomach Biblical use of strong language. It is one of the reasons he left my blog and has been on a drive to portray me as rude, uncultured, uncivil, etc, etc. It is a wonder that he believes in the Bible at all; for almost every preacher in the Bible qualifies to be labelled with those terms too, if we go by Tunji’s standards.

  7. Phil

    If I recall correctly,my comment on this thread was addressed specifically to you,who put up the post.I noted your cmment.I resent my fidelity to Jesus being questioned on the basis of writing syle.

    Different ‘biblical’ situations,you would recall,are given varying treatments.The new convert in Acts who immediately went out to preach publicly,was privately schooled by a more mature Christian couple.On the other hand,Paul pubicly and harshly criticised Peter for his doctrinal hypocrisy in refusing to publicly associate wth non-Jews.To use a hammer to kill a fly on all occasions,claiming that is ‘biblical’,certainly is unbecoming.

    By the way,I have had to apologise on a few occasions,when the tone of my words were inappropriate to the occasion,on furthr reflection.And you,Phil,have apologised to an unnamed lady on this blog,I recall.You certainly have seen good reason to modify the smash-mouth style(that’s the way you call it)you started this blog with.

    Phil: Tunji. These two are hardly flies. They have been corrected privately and publicly by DOZENS of folks over the years yet still they carry on. In this case I don’t think I was harsh enough. Expect more “smash mouth” with these WoF and Signs and Wonders folks in 2009:-)

  8. Phil,

    I am deliberately pushing this button now (with the understanding that you have the absolute right not to publish this comment, of course. And honestly, you won’t be offending me if you do not publish it. So, here goes.)

    That Tunji claims his comment was directed at you is nothing. This is a discussion, and anyone can address whatever anyone else who joins the discussion has contributed. That’s a cop out – an excuse for not being accountable to others.

    Tunji lied in implying that you used “expletives”, when in fact, you used none.

    Yes; Tunji, you lied, simply because you are uncomfortable with a scenario (a very subjective thing).

    Note how in defending his position, he used the absolutely improper analogy of “using a hammer to kill a fly on all occassions“. Phil’s article certainly does not fit into that. And my practice at Yomi Says (and everywhere else) does not either. Where did that analogy come from? To what was he alluding?

    Seeing that he likes to be seen as someone who apologises when he uses words inappropriately, let’s start with an apology about the “expletives” thing, and about the “fly and hammer” thing (except he can provide proof that either Phil or myself are guilty of such). Both were used inappropriately, and that’s plain for all to see.

    Of course, I don’t expect him to respond to this, just as he refused to respond the last time that I scrutinised his comments on another thread. Amazing how he do not seem to mind having the words of others scrutinised, but then chickens out when his are. Yes; I just said that again. The last time was proof.

    Again, I’m hoping against hope that Tunji will make me eat my words this time. Perhaps then, I can begin to consider that he is sincere.

  9. Phil
    Your friend really is anxious to brawl.I am not.And if I may state this,I have not avoided engaging anyone,on any issue,at any time,on this or any other blog.Now,there must be a reason why in his case,I choose to be silent…Hmm.

    Thanks for your comment,sir.

    Phil: Hmmmm. I don’t know tunji. Apparently you have a problem with Yomi….why not spit it out and lets settle this otherwise hold your tongue, ok?

  10. Phil,
    Yes, they are bad, but the folks in the audience look well dressed. They, too, are at fault. They could read the Scriptures themselves. They don’t seem to do so.

    Phil Perkins.

  11. Jyde
    Thanks for reminding the 2 of us of the standard of conduct God expects of us.I will contact Yomi.God bless you.

    Tunji

  12. Ezekiel 14:19

    The punishment of the prophet shall be the same as the punishment of the one who inquired,

    These people are willingly sharing in this sin!

    Phil: Yes indeed my friend.

  13. And Phil N, Tunji is certainly right about the ‘expletives’. You did use them. An expletive is not only an oath or swear word, it is also a word or phrase serving to fill out a sentence or line of verse. When you said “these two knuckleheads”, you are in danger of the fire of hell. Jesus was very clear about it. You cannot call people ‘fools or stupid or knuckleheads’ whatever your opinion of them maybe.
    Also you said “The NT is filled with FAR worse then what I used to describe these *cough* gentlemen.” Kindly qoute a verse where FAR worse are used about a specific individual(s)[i.e where personal names are involved]. I don’t think Jesus would be amused about the little *cough* thing either.

    Phil: Nicky. You’ve seen the definition for “expletive” and I didn’t use one. Try Matthew 23:13 and onward. Jesus was speaking DIRECTLY to folks and they knew who they were.

  14. Phil,
    When you added the ‘knuckleheads’ after the ‘these two’, that is an expletive.
    Based on the verse you quoted you seem to think that calling people hypocrites and snakes are FAR worse than calling someone a fool or knucklehead. But it seems you are in disagreement with the Lord here because I can’t recall anywhere in the NT where Jesus spoke against calling people hypocrites whereas he definitely spoke against calling someone a fool. Jesus seems to regard calling someone a fool far worse and not the other way round since he warns us against it but not what you mentioned.

  15. @ boydmiller.. I suppose the fact that they are putting money on the floor makes you conclude that they are worshiping prosperity and money !! What if there are a few who are giving with a sincere heart to the Lord.
    “No,’ he answered, `because while you are pulling the weeds, you may root up the wheat with them.” MT 13:29
    While you are judging the unrighteous you may be judging the righteous along with them. God WILL NOT take kindly to that.
    ” I tell you that in the same way there will be more rejoicing in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who do not need to repent”
    If this is how heaven feels about a repentant sinner, how would God feel when a child of His, who is simply obeying Him is being called an idolater ?

  16. Nicky,

    Are you certain that you are looking at Jesus’ statement about calling people fools properly? I ask because if you are correct, at least both Paul (Galatians 3:1-3) and Peter (1 Peter 2:15) were also in danger of hellfire for calling people fools.

    Jesus was clearly teaching on personal offences – a different kettle of fish from addressing false teachers and wolves (Matthew 5:21-22).

    Shalom.

  17. An addition/insertion to my above comment: Not just false teachers and wolves alone, but people who follow after falsehood in general.

  18. Mr Yomi
    I am positive.
    You said [I ask because if you are correct, at least both Paul (Galatians 3:1-3) and Peter (1 Peter 2:15) were also in danger of hellfire for calling people fools]. And NO they are not. Do you see any names in these verses. They were not calling any one in particular.
    I’ll make it simple: These are just examples.
    1)Pastors who follow after falsehood are fools.
    2)Mr Yomi is a fool because he follows after falsehood.
    Do you see the difference?
    “Do to others as you would have them do to you.”
    I’ll ask you a question Mr Yomi..
    Do you want to be called a fool or a liar here in this blog ? If not I suggest you don’t call others that either because you are also a sinner just like everyone else.
    Its time we stop trying to use scriptures to justify our disobedience and repent.

  19. Nicky,

    You said:

    Do you see any names in these verses. They were not calling any one in particular.

    Paul was not calling anyone in particular? The brother wrote to a specific group of people and called them fools.

    Gal 3:1 O foolish Galatians…

    That’s a name… and that’s a particular set of people. I hope you are honest enough to admit to this. This is as specific as it can get.

    My question again: Was Paul in danger of hellfire here?

    God bless.

  20. oh.. do mean that galatians is the name of a person ?
    Jesus didn’t talk about a group. This specific group are the inhabitants of a city. That is a big difference. Do you think Paul would disobey Jesus? He understood what Jesus meant. Therefore the answer again : NO

    Phil: Nicky. Galatia was the town hence they would be called Galatians and Paul, rather then naming every single person individually called them all foolish.

  21. I think I have made my point. If you want to keep calling a Mr. X or Miss Y a fool that is your choice.
    When you call false teachers and wolves fools [a group] in the same spirit[out of love] like Paul called the Galatians, so that they may repent, its one thing. But when you call an individual a fool that becomes personal. You won’t find that in the NT.

  22. Nicky,

    Titus 1:12 is another perfect example of Paul using “Cretans” instead of naming names.

    Titus 1:12-16 (ASV)
    12 One of themselves, a prophet of their own, said, Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, idle gluttons. 13 This testimony is true. For which cause reprove them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith, 14 not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men who turn away from the truth. 15 To the pure all things are pure: but to them that are defiled and unbelieving nothing is pure; but both their mind and their conscience are defiled. 16 They profess that they know God; but by their works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate.

    Cretans are from Crete Nicky. Also. I will repent when you demonstrate clearly that I have sinned. If you can’t then you owe me an apology for accusing me of committing a sin.

  23. Nicky,

    Let me see if I can help you. Those two clowns in the above video are fools, and I really mean that. Its the truth and nothing will change that.

    Now, I didnt name anyone; see? But who doesn’t know who and who I’m referring to? Am I still in danger of hellfire?

    Keep dancing around the issue as you please, but it won’t change anything. Instructions about handling personal offences cannot (and should not) be confused with instructions with dealing with doctrinal matters.

  24. Phil
    You are still missing my point. Cretans are innumerable group of people. Titus 1:12 doesn’t single out anyone in particular. So, at least all Cretans can take comfort in the fact that they are not much worse than the person next door. Likewise they could not point a finger at anyone in particular.
    If this is not clear let’s take the commandment of the Lord to illustrate this point. It is the commandment of love which says “Do to others as you would have them do to you.” If Dollar or Thompson were to call you a fool in their TV programs which is viewed by millions, how would you feel ? While you may not care too much, how would your family feel ? or friends ? or your congregation ? The christian life is very little about self but a lot about others.
    It’s one thing when you expose the errors of false teachings with a sincere heart so that people who are being deceived may know the truth but calling a particular man names which the Lord warned against should be avoided by christians especially when it is not out of love.
    In the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, it is note worthy that only Lazarus’ name is mentioned while the name of the rich man who was condemned to hell is never mentioned. A christian has a lot to learn not only from the direct commandments of the Lord but also from his parables, actions and his interactions with people. Jesus avoided personally humiliating anyone as far as possible… in groups he often did.
    Though it was the truth, when he rose from the grave, he did not walk into the temple to meet the high priest, Caiaphas to say ” I told you, I will rise again. ” What a scenario that would be.

  25. Phil
    I am not the one accusing you so I won’t apologize. I am just showing you what the Word of God says. Jesus said anyone who calls a fellow human being a fool is in danger of hell fire. You did. If you want to justify yourself by saying ‘this man also did,’ .. well its upto you . If you are innocent all’s well and good. But if you’re guilty, may God have mercy because you were warned.

  26. One last thing Phil.
    The best example you will find in scripture on the topic is in Luke 11:40 where Jesus himself called the pharisees ‘fools’. He was dinning in a pharisee’s house when he realized that the pharisee was surprised that he did not wash.
    Jesus began rebuking him but refrained from personally embarrassing him. Instead he shifted to addressing the pharisees collectively and called them fools. While he avoided calling his host a fool personally, he was not afraid to speak his mind in order that his host may come to his senses.

  27. People commenting on this blog are just nit picking.

    Thw Bible says in Luke 6:37
    Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven.

    Who can deny that People are born again at meetings conducted by theae people you are condemning?

    Phil: You think pointing out sin is “nit-picking” Carol? We aren’t talking about people being born again at these meetings Carol. We are talking about people being fleeced at these meetings which isn’t of God.

  28. Nicky,

    You did accuse me and you did it through faulty interpretation of God’s Word. That’s a sin Nicky. Did you know that?

    Nicky. Do you believe that every word that ever came out of Jesus mouth is recorded in Scripture? How do you know He didn’t speak harshly to individuals? You really don’t know do you?

    I believe there is enough Scriptural backing for me to use this type of rhetoric and until someone shows me that I shouldn’t then I will continue.

  29. Nicky
    Like the lawyer Tertullus you have dissected the issue better than I possibly could.
    And,clearly not everything Jesus said is recorded in the Bible.The Bible assures us that if all that Jesus said were to be written down,there wouldn’t be enough books to contain them!God’s revelation is what is contained in Scripture.We are not permitted to speculate on what is not in Scripture,as the basis for our thought or belief.It seems clear to me we are allowing our individual thought patterns and personal temperaments to color our understanding of Scripture.

    Thank you,Nicky.

    Phil: Care to show me with Scripture how I’m wrong tunji? My decision to use strong rhetoric in this instance isn’t because I speculate on what Jesus might have said but what He did say that was recorded as well as the records of Peter, James, John, Paul and Jude…just because you don’t like my use of strong language tunji doesn’t mean I’m wrong.

  30. Mr Yomi,
    When you refer some particular individual, do you not know that becomes personal ?
    In your doctrine it maybe ok to call someone a fool but the doctrine of Christ does not allow it. Do you teach your congregation that they could call anyone a fool if they seem or act like a fool ? You know there may be millions and millions who think you are much more foolish than “these two” but have refrained from calling YOU one. Ask yourself if “these two” went on air, viewed by millions, show on screen a nice picture of you….and say the man on this picture is……etc etc … and make you the laughing stock of your country.. Would you like that ? Would your family like it, or your congregation ?
    And YES you are very much in danger of hellfire not only because you have placed yourself above Christ when you knowingly went against his will, your motive for that being not out of love but a carnal mind to purposefully insult and disparage men just because they seem foolish to you, [Was it your blood that was shed for their redemption ? Are you not a sinner who needs to be saved ? Aren't you in need of a saviour because you are a fool yourself like all of us ? WHO ARE YOU TO CALL ANOTHER A FOOL THEN ?]
    to go even further, [though I have tried to keep quiet on the matter] since you have asked me if you are in danger of hell fire, your outburst against Tunji also truly reveals the kind of man you are. You certainly are not a man who offers the other cheek.. are you ? Or are you going to justify yourself again by saying this man or that man didn’t either.. eh!! You may have had an argument with him before and you were certainly waiting for an opportunity to have a go at him .. weren’t you?[he was not even addressing you] I’d say you’re in real danger man.

    Now let me see ‘if I can help you’ : Its not the names that is important here. Its personal identification.
    By the standard of your last post, if I was to say the Nigerian Pastor on this blog is a fool, its very much OK .. huh ? No names !!
    But its the same thing as saying pastor yomi is a fool.. is not it ? When Paul addressed the Galatians there is or was no way of identifying anyone in particular. Do you see it now ?
    You call people fools because you are carnally minded. Spiritual minded don’t do that because it can hurt people, their family, their friends and many others … above all because it’s not God’s will. Its no wonder many have killed or been killed because some fool called another a liar or a fool [In the wild west, to call another man a liar, more often than not, resulted in a gun battle]. None of your doctrines or anything you say will change that unless you repent.

    Phil: Yomi needs to repent of what Nicky? I’m going to allow Yomi to respond to you because now you are accusing him of sin based on YOUR preferences and certainly not due to Scripture….

  31. Phil,
    your problem is that you consider your interpretation of scripture to be correct while others are wrong. If you interpret Mt 5:22 to mean its ok to call someone a fool and I interpret it to mean you can’t, does it mean its faulty interpretation of God’s word and I sinned ? Don’t you think It should be God to judge that?
    Phil: Ah. I see. If my interpretation is considered faulty in your eyes I have sinned but when I consider your interpretation faulty you haven’t sinned? Yet you have accused me of sin based on your interpretation……hmmmmm.

    You continue to justify yourself by misquoting scripture. You will not find a single verse in the NT where Jesus Paul,Peter,James or anyone called someone who could be identified by name A FOOL with the motive of an insult.
    Phil: I haven’t misinterpreted anything Nicky.

    You said [How do you know He didn’t speak harshly to individuals? You really don’t know do you?] In fact Jesus often spoke harshly to individuals. Only he didn’t call anyone a fool to insult or disparage OR defame him while he most certainly could without misquoting scripture to justify his actions or words. If you assume Jesus may have called someone a fool but may not have been recorded, so that you may have the right to call someone a fool, that would be very unwise. Any way why do you want to call someone a fool ? What good is it to you or anyone else ?
    If you care to listen, no one is accusing you for your ‘strong language’ here [and you've used quite a lot too]. We’re trying to tell you it’s wrong to call someone a fool with a motive to defame,insult and disparage a fellow human being. Calling someone a fool is beyond a ‘strong language’ because Scripture says anyone who does that is in danger of hell fire.
    This is all i will say on this matter. We all have our opinions. Let God be the judge of all.

  32. What does one need to repent from except sin Phil?
    And its because I want Yomi to respond that I asked questions. LOL.
    Also read the scripture [Mt 5:22&39] and tell me if you still think its my preferences and not due to Scripture. Or do you have your own interpretation again ?

    Phil: Nicky Nicky Nicky…..you did notice the word “brother” right before the word “Raca” didn’t you? You see Nicky, I don’t consider those two liars in the video my “brothers”. They may profess Christ but their actions are hardly the actions of a “brother” in Christ. Do you consider those two buffoons your brothers in Christ Nicky?

  33. LOL @ Phil,
    I consider everyone whom Christ died for my brother, even a murderer, you included.
    Yes, even these two.. lol.. though I don’t agree with many of their actions or words. I hope you will continue exposing their errors. Who knows they may realize their errors in time.

  34. This display by “Cabbage Head” Thompson and “Cashflo”Dollar is one of the most foolish and deceptive things I have ever seen,these false ones are making merchandise of these spiritually and scripturally ignorant people.These men,among many others,love money,they will to be rich,they are greedy for filthy lucre,they have gone astray following the way of Balaam the son of Bosor who loved the wages of unrighteousness.If God would once again send a dumb ass to speak to those gone money crazy, donkeys would come to their homes,churches and conferences to speak with them.This is sad.I hope I offended noone by saying “Cabbage Head”and Cashflo.

  35. Boydmiller

    Paul used the term fool in reference to himself in 2 Cor 11 and Rom 9 in a self-deprecating fashion to suggest that we humans cannot depend on our own effort to prevail and overcome the challenges that face all Christians.

    ‘Fool’ is used here in the sense of one who is not dependent on or believes in God(but of course Paul had faith in God),as in ‘the fool says in his heart there is no God’.

    In 2 Cor he is mocking the ‘super apostles’ who are leading the Corinthians away with wrong teaching,and who liked to bast of themselves and ‘their’ achievements.In Romans he is mocking himself and the internal struggle he is going through,whether to depend on the Spirit,or his self effort.In either case can it be said that Paul is abusing himself,in the sense of the word ‘racca’ Jesus referred to.

    Phil: Paul is using a different word then “Racca”….Paul is using the word “aphron which means something totally different. In this instance you are correct tunji.

  36. Walter,

    Well said!

    Nicky,

    Your position is even worse than I had thought. As Phil has clearly pointed out, it seems that by some absurd logic you suppose that if you consider my interpretation faulty, I have sinned, but you are okay if I consider yours faulty. Sad.

    I see that you also have one of those fuzzy, subjective feelings by which you are able to tell what my motives are. Did you know that’s sinful and carnal too?

    And my exchange with Tunji…. I wish you didn’t go there, but since you have, here goes. Tunji, like you, has consistently ignored portions of Scripture that do not fit into his thinking. You may question my motive all you like, but my motive is to show him that his thinking on this subject is wrong, and that it is colouring his interpretation of Scriptures.

    He said Phil used certain terms – though Phil did not. That’s lying. If you argue that by ‘expletives’ he meant ‘meaningless words’, I do not see any meaningless or unnecesarry words used by Phil. To argue otherwise is to submit too that Scriptures contain the godly use of such terms.

    That Tunji has refused to respond to me shows that he – not myself – has a problem. I have no problem addressing him or responding to him. As long as someone takes an unBiblical position in public, I will challenge his statements. If that person cannot or will not respond, so much for being accountable. His problem; not mine.

    If we follow the drift of both you and Tunji, perhaps we shall have to accuse Jesus and the others of using such terms? We shall also nail Paul for instructing that preachers use such terms.

    Also, you asked how I would feel if someone were to call me a fool on TV. I would go on living. He is free to call me that. You see, the question is not how I feel; its about whether it is proper or not.

    No; I have not put myself above Jesus by calling two fools “fools” in contending for the faith. Paul called an entire congregation “fools” in defence of the Gospel. Not one brother, but many. If a man would be in danger of hell for calling one brother a fool, Paul just secured himself an express one-way ticket to hell for calling an entire congregation fools.

    But you don’t see that; do you? Somehow in your faulty thinking, his calling many brothers fools is right; but calling one isn’t?

    I would be putting myself above Jesus if I called you a fool for offending me personally. But if you were to get on stage tomorrow and do what Leroy and Creflo did in this video, I would call you a fool outrightly. Nothing personal. This is the kingdom.

    Here’s a brief lesson in Bible study. Back under the OT, God commanded, “Thou shalt not kill”. Blanket commandment; right?

    Wrong. It was for personal relationships. You see, God also commanded false prophets to be killed and approved of those who did so. He commanded witches to be killed. He commanded nations to be wiped out.

    There’s this guy, Phinehas I believe, who was so greived by the audacity of a man’s sinful attitude, that he took a spear and pinned the man on top of the lady he went in with. God commanded, “Thou shalt not kill; right?”

    If you have studied this, you must know that he was commended for his action.

    Point: instructions concerning personal relationships are not to be confused with issues pertaining to keeping the sanctity of truth and righteousness in the kingdom.

    If you are sincere and your eyes are open, this is easy to see. This pick and choose attitude that you display is plain and simple rebellion. You are saying you are smarter than God. Breaking news: you aren’t.

    You may be my brother, but you certainly need to clear up your thinking. Its still got a bit of the world’s way of thinking in it. And honestly, you need to repent of the different faulty accusations and assumptions you have made here.

    This has been a long one, so I’ll go take a shower.

  37. I will not say anything more on the topic on fools. I have said enough.
    But one last thing I want to say is that Tunji did nothing wrong. All he did was mildly suggest to Phil if it wouldn’t be better without his ‘ strong language ‘. Its for all to see if one was willing to take heed.
    Mr Yomi,
    About your motives, didn’t Jesus teach us that words clearly reveal the motives of the heart? By your words, any discerning christian will see that yours were not out of love.And there are no half measures.. either it is out of love or hatred. You may think you can hide your motives but no.. the spirit reveals everything. In this case, your own words exposed you. You have no right whatsoever to condemn Tunji. He is a perfect example of a christian in this case. Has it ever occured to you that he didn’t reply to your outburst because he wanted to avoid a fight which you tried to start ?Instead you accused him of being a coward. You ought to be ashamed. If it had been you, I won’t be surprised if you had struck back without offering the other cheek like Tunji did and then try to find all sorts of excuses in scripture to justify yourself. Instead of condemning and try preaching the word to him, why don’t you start learning from him. You have a lot to learn from him as do I.
    God bless all.

    Phil: Yomi and Tunji have a long history so it might be better if you stayed out of that. Also, Yomi didn’t address you with hatred….just because you don’t like what he had to say to you doesn’t mean it was done out of hatred…or that he was wrong either.

  38. Tunji

    You are correct, even though you may have missed my point, you did an excellent job of making it. Context is everything.

  39. Nicky said he considers everyone Christ died for his brother,Christ died for the sin of the world but that doesn’t make every man in the world your brother.When Jesus was told his brethren were standing to see him,Jesus said, he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven is my brother,John 8 Jesus told one group,you are of your father the devil,1 John 3 states, in this the children of God are manifest and the children of the devil.The children of God, and the children of the devil are not brothers.

  40. Nicky, dear Nicky, you speak of matters you know very little of. That certainly doesn’t portray you as a wise man.

    So, telling a man that he lied is condemnation? And now you are lying along with him. Using strong words is not the same as using “expletives”. There is nothing profane, obscene or vulgar in using strong words Biblically.

    Here’s my response to your lame defense of Tunji: its hogwash. Tunji was wrong to try to turn a man away from what is biblically sound. Strong language in describing false teachers is Biblically sound. Phil used strong language within the bounds of Scriptures. Tunji was attempting to turn Phil away from Scriptures. Tunji was counselling Phil to disobey God’s word. That’s a gross sin. You, however, say Tunji did nothing wrong.

    Whether said mildly or strongly, turning a man away from God’s commandment is sin. And both you and Tunji need to repent of that. Back under the OT, you would be guilty of a crime punishable by stoning.

    Honestly, like I said earlier, you need to get a lot of old stuff out of your thinking and sit down with Scriptures again. If you and Tunji were given the role of the Holy Spirit to play in inspiring Holy Writ, three quarters of the sermons and words of God’s messengers in the Bible would be missing. Afterall, by your definitions, they would contain “expletives”.

    Sigh. Come, Lord Jesus.

    Phil: Yomi, didn’t you know that people like Nicky are always right even when they are wrong? Didn’t you know that Nicky believes when we are wrong (at least in his opinion) we are sinning yet when he is wrong (which is most of the time) he isn’t sinning? Yomi, where I come from we call folks like Nicky a hypocrite…..but I thought you knew all that dear Brother:-)

  41. Nicky

    I thank you for the the detailed,balanced perspective you have brought to this matter of ‘Biblical’ manner of addressing persons or issues.

    The turn the matter has taken would be amusing,if not for the fact that persons choose to hide their personal propensities under ‘Scripture’.I would beseech you not to be put off blogging by the wrong attitudes and wrong actions you see on display here.I recall that this was all started off by a a rather mild rebuke I gave to Phil Naessens on his deployment of choice words,and not directed at the specifics of what he chose to say,which I was silent on.
    Phil: Thanks for the rebuke and for being so mild….of course God’s Word and the written methods contained within said Word run contrary to your rebuke but thanks anyway

    All

    I believe it is obvious that I have tried to avoid a confrontation with this new internet religious Chief of Police called Yomi.Like the Catholic Church’s Magisterium on doctrine he seems to have set himself the task of ‘enforcing’ doctrine internet wide.
    Phil: You’ve made little remarks like the one above about Yomi ever since you arrived here….I think it’s Yomi that has shown great restraint

    When my person or integrity is questioned the way he has just done I have to break my silence,and speak clearly,now.

    Phil

    1 I have on at least one occasion questioned your neutrality on matters involving your professed friend Yomi.I do so again.
    Phil: I’m not neutral when it comes to Yomi….he’s my friend and we usually agree so yes, again you are correct. Hey, that’s twice in two days.
    With what Yomi has said,you find that I have an issue with him,but suggest by your silence that he has no issue with me.Can this conclusion reasonably be reached from what each of us has written above?
    Phil: Actually, I remember when Yomi gave you da boot. I post over at his site and have done so for two years or so and I remember what went on

    You moderate this blog and have chosen to make it interactive.The justification for an interactive blog will exist only if it is evenly,correctly moderated.

    Phil: I only moderate to keep “expletives” and porno links from appearing on site and I can do and administrate this site any way I like, but thanks for the advice

    2 Yes, Yomi and I go back a ‘long’ way,all the way back to 6th September 2008 when I contributed to his blog for the first time.Contrary to your suggestion,there is no long standing relationship or interaction between us.I have never met him face to face,do not and have never done business with him(unlikely I would do business with anyone with his kind of temperament),there is no personal interaction or personal quarrel between us.I affirm,as I did in a phone conversation with him a few days ago,that it is all and only about contending for the faith.I phoned him and tried to have a meeting with him,specifically because the tone of his comments might suggest that there was something ‘personal’ about the whole matter.Nothing of the sort.I see that meeting him will not be necessary any longer,given his last comment.

    Yomi

    1 I recall that I spent not more than 6 or 7 weeks on your blog.It indeed was the first blog I would contribute to.I found the discussion stimulating.Excited,my contribution was voluminous in a very short time.

    But I soon started to have great disquiet about the sheer volume of abuse directed at bloggers by you.Why do you think there are many people who have vacated your blog,and have hard feelings about how they were treated.It is because they were subjected to insulting abuse,which you choose to defend in the name of maintaing the ‘biblical’ pattern of behavior.Even at the close of the long debate on Richard Warren on this blog,Richard Abanes was treated with great dignity and respect.He was not dismissed as a ‘heretic supporter’.You cover up bad manners,crudity,disgusting incivility with ‘parallels’ from the Bible.

    2 I recall that you called me wolf,false teacher,heretic,within a few weeks,and asked me to vacate the blog.I did.You indeed encourage your bloggers to freely use abusive words-I suspect many of them are your parishioners.Interestingly,your friend has not called me such names on this blog,but I have contributed much longer on this blog.

    As Nicky has patiently pointed out,referring to categories of persons is not the same as referring to one person.But you pretend to be deaf,sadly.

    3 Sit down and learn a simple Bible lesson-the Bible is contextual.It is the same Bible that tells you to turn the other cheek,tells you to meekly settle matters with your creditor,that asks you th give a man your coat if he asks for your shirt.But it is the same Bible that asks that you now get your sword,that gives an example of open rebuke among brethren,that asks you to correct one another openly,but also gives a several stage process for settling disputes among brethren,but also asks you to allow yorself to be cheated,rather than take a brother to court etc.

    In seeking to deploy a a hammer at all times,you are simply revealing your temperament and character,not what the Bible says.

    4 And I repeat that you lied,Yomi.I do not know,never met, and have not personally interacted with Femi Folorunsho.Also,show me where on your blog I refused to defend my position.You lied a second time.

    5 I see an infantilism here here.The infantilism of the relatively new convert who supposes he has all the answers on all matters scriptural.You don’t.I see the infantilism of a youth who does not yet recognize the importance of relatioships,in and out of the Church.

    6 But I will not stop praying for you.Perhaps the Spirit will convict you of the truth.

    Phil: The last word is yours Yomi….ooops there I go again being biased:-)

  42. Phil,

    Good to see that finally Tunji has spoken up.

    To Tunji,

    It is good to know that youu have called off our meeting, as it is now clearer than ever that it would have been an utter waste of my time.

    It is not my prerogative to wonder why people come to or leave my blog. My blog is open, and everything I have ever said to anyone (and what anyone has ever said to me) on that blog stands unedited, so anyone can follow the trends.

    You came to my blog changing definitions of terms that are clearly defined in Scriptures. That makes you as bad as the WoF and emergent guys! I wouldn’t (and still won’t) have any of that.

    You said:

    In seeking to deploy a a hammer at all times,you are simply revealing your temperament and character,not what the Bible says.

    Again, you lie – and you seem to have quite a habit of doing that. A number of my rebukes to you on Yomi Says were mild. As a matter of fact, and as you have said, we had quite some discussions (its all out in the open for anyone to verify), but you persisted, and I read you the riot act.

    I told you (as I will continue to tell people) to hold your peace if you would keep spewing forth unBiblical thoughts. Paul would have had you thrown out of a congregation for some of the things you said on that blog, and some of the things you are still saying now.

    That is the Biblical thing to do. It is not Biblical to allow people keep repeating unScriptural ideas (in the name of freedom of speech) in a setting of fellowship. You can spew it anywhere else – that’s freedom of speech. But not on my blog, at our church meetings, or at my house.

    I repeat that it is no issue to me that men are pleased or displeased with my presentation of Scripture:

    For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ. (Gal 1:10)

    You also claim that you defended your position (on my blog), yet everytime I pointed out the flaws in that position and presented Scriptures, you ignored the Scriptures and went on with your own definitions of terms already defined by Scriptures. That’s no defense; that’s playing the ostritch game.

    Here’s more unsound reasoning from you:

    Sit down and learn a simple Bible lesson-the Bible is contextual.It is the same Bible that tells you to turn the other cheek,tells you to meekly settle matters with your creditor,that asks you th give a man your coat if he asks for your shirt.But it is the same Bible that asks that you now get your sword,that gives an example of open rebuke among brethren,that asks you to correct one another openly,but also gives a several stage process for settling disputes among brethren,but also asks you to allow yorself to be cheated,rather than take a brother to court etc.

    You started well by mentioning that the Bible is contextual, then you ignore the context of everything you present after that. Everything you have mentioned in the above paragraph is in the context of inter-personal relationships, not that of contending for the faith and maintaining soundness of doctrine.

    I am not obligated to turn the other cheek when you throw error my way. I am commanded to rebuke you and refute your error. Contending the for the faith is not a private or personal dispute between brothers.

    I am commanded not to allow you to cheat me of the truth of the gospel. If you were to steal my shirt, I would let you have it (and probably give you another for the road). But if you seek to twist Scriptures, you will have me to contend with.

    Tunji, you claim to be a theologian; yet you ignore context so blatantly. You can claim to see infantilism all you want; yet you do not see the things that are written in black and white for all to read.

    To the extent that you keep changing definitions of terms as used in the Bible, and keep lying about the words, character and person of others, your credibility stands shrouded, and I cannot see that you are a sincere fellow.

    You accuse me of “deploying a hammer at all times“; yet any follower of this blog or mine can see clearly several situations in which I have so couched my rebuke and corrections such that the person being addressed did not even seem to have noticed that he or she was rebuked.

    Thanks for calling off the meeting. You probably would have come away from it telling more lies about what I said or did not say.

    I do not remember saying that you have ever met or personally interacted with Femi Folorunsho (please correct me if I my memory is playing me games on this). The term I believe I used was “accomplice” (again, correct me if I am wrong there), and I used it in the sense of “one who aids or abets another in an act, either as a principal or an accessory“. This was because the two of you towed the same line of thoughts. If that is an inappropriate use of the term, here’s my public apology. But I have never meant to say or imply that you know yourselves.

    You said:

    The infantilism of the relatively new convert who supposes he has all the answers on all matters scriptural.

    Again, your eyes are lying to you, or you are lying inspite of available evidence. On my blog, on other blogs (including this one), and via email, at church meetings, and other media, there’s enough evidence to show that I do not consider having all the answers.

    However, unlike you who keeps redefining terms and who stubbornly refuses to look at certain Scriptures, when I do not know, I ask, instead of arguing blindly. I will leave it at that.

    You also said:

    I see the infantilism of a youth who does not yet recognize the importance of relatioships,in and out of the Church.

    And again, I ask, how come I am able to relate with so many people as I do on Phil’s blog and elsewhere? How come I am able to relate with the several bloggers on my blog from around the world, whom like you I have never met, and who do not fellowship where I do? Have you had a discussion with any of my neighbours over the last 8 years? Have you questioned my colleagues at work? How about members of my family, nuclear and extended?

    You are a pathetic case, Tunji. You make assertions based on extreme ignorance and prejudice. You really have no idea of what the Bible says about what to judge and what not to judge – or even how to judge and how not to.

    By the way, Mr. oluyemi, relationships are important. But at the expense of truth? Please perish the thought.

    Keep praying for me, Tunji. At least that will be one Biblical thing you would be doing.

    God’s blessing!

  43. Phil

    The party spirit in your comments is quite plain for all to see.You highlight my comments,but fail to mention what they are a reaction to.Your fidelity first and foremost is to your friend,and your friendship.
    Phil: My fidelity is first and foremost to Jesus Christ and His Word.

    Perhaps you would wish to give me da boot,like your friend,as you put it.Afterall,this is Phil’s blog,which he moderates according to his whim,as you say.
    Phil: According to my whim? You want me to ban Yomi for telling you the truth? Don’t hold your breathe waiting for that to happen because it won’t.

  44. Nicky said in comment 31 above:

    One last thing Phil.

    The best example you will find in scripture on the topic is in Luke 11:40 where Jesus himself called the pharisees ‘fools’. He was dinning in a pharisee’s house when he realized that the pharisee was surprised that he did not wash.

    Jesus began rebuking him but refrained from personally embarrassing him. Instead he shifted to addressing the pharisees collectively and called them fools. While he avoided calling his host a fool personally, he was not afraid to speak his mind in order that his host may come to his senses.

    If this isn’t an absurd idea to submit, it would be hilarious.

    Let’s see. Phil invites me and a couple of other Nigerians to dinner at his place. So at this dinner, Phil doesn’t want to embarass me, so instead of addressing me personally, he addresses all Nigerians collectively as “thieving nitwits”. I can imagine that such a thing wouldn’t be embarrassing to me or to any of the individuals from Nigeria who are present.

    Nonsense! That would escalate the issue! Instead of offending one Nigerian, Phil would have offended a whole bunch!

    This scenario by Nicky is so faulty, it is bewildering. Guess what was the results of Jesus’ discretionary rebuke (according to Nicky, that is):

    Luk 11:53 And as he said these things unto them, the scribes and the Pharisees began to urge him vehemently, and to provoke him to speak of many things:
    Luk 11:54 Laying wait for him, and seeking to catch something out of his mouth, that they might accuse him.

    Instead of one “embarassed” and offended Pharisee, Jesus now had the whole bunch of ‘em after Him!

    Nicky’s theory of relationships falls flat on its face. No-one even needs any theological sense to understand that. Much ado about nothing.

  45. Tunji,

    You said:

    The party spirit in your comments is quite plain for all to see.You highlight my comments,but fail to mention what they are a reaction to.Your fidelity first and foremost is to your friend,and your friendship.

    Were you not the individual harping on the importance of relationships a few comments earlier? :lol: Honestly hilarious!

    Kidding, guys; just kidding :-D

  46. Phil

    1 Contrary to your assertion,you did speculate on what the Bible did not say,and suggested that what Jesus did not say could well be a basis for our beliefs and actions.Please go back to check your own words.What the Bible did not say cannot be the basis by which Phil reaches a position.

    2 As I said in a comment you did not put up,if you consider the deployment of such words as ‘knucklehead’ and ‘buffoons’ as not being expletives or abuse,what more can I say about that.Both words are profane.
    Phil: Those words are profane to you tunji.

    3 Thank God you say you are not and cannot be neutral in matters concerning your friend,Yomi.You have made your stance very clear,irrespective of your assertion that your primary loyalty is to Jesus and His Word.
    Phil: I never said I “can not”. Stop putting words in my mouth and my loyalty is to God’s Word and contrary to popular belief Yomi and I do disagree on some things. He thinks I let people natter on too long but he also respects my decision to do so

    4 The reference to ‘da boot’ was in relation to me and no other person.Go back and read what I said please.

    5 Perhaps,the reference to the brother schooled in doctrine privately,and the one rebuked publicly,are also matters of inter personal relationships.

    6 Concludingly,I note,as you have said,that you are entirely at liberty to continue to moderate Phil’s blog in any fashion you like,including the smash-mouth fashion,as you call it.Afterall,this is Phil’s blog.
    Phil: Thanks for the permission to continue with the way I’m doing things around here. I feel much better now

    Yomi

    1 I have to thank God that I may not be stoned in this day and age for my theological standpoint.It seems it is something you are not above attempting,in misguided zealotry.I have to thank God I cant be thrown out of the Church either,by you or your likes.
    Phil: You’ve been shown repeatedly that your “theological position” is contrary to God’s Word yet you continue nattering on and on.

    2 The relevant issues have been well exegeted by Nicky.I don’t need to reinvent the wheel.
    Phil: Why not? Nicky re-invented the wheel so to speak. Nicky is a clueless anonymous hypocrite as he has proven with his own words. I suggest you take your eyes off Nicky and put them back on Christ.

    3 You will recall that after exiting your blog,I avoided dialogue with you.This was because it was obvious to me that you were not willing to moderate your brawling style.Perhaps unwisely,I have allowed myself to be goaded into engaging you.Not wise on my part,as you only seem only interested in brawling,not upholding God’s Word or Church.My silence was not due to non accountability,as you suggest,but due to a wish to avoid pointless brawling(the Bible warns against engaging in meaningless controversies).
    Phil: You have made references about Yomi ever since you arrived here. You can dish it out but you can’t take it?

    I think that in addition to the title of internet religious Chief of Police,you deserve the title of internet Brawling Champion.
    Phil: What you call brawling I call earnestly contending for the faith. You know what tunji? I award you with the “internet bawler award” because all you ever do is bawl like a baby whenever you don’t get your way.

    4 In shifting positions,it seems you forget things you earlier said.’Sidekick’ and ‘Associate’ are different words,Yomi.Stop telling lies.Dont you know that habitual liars wont enter heaven?

    5 You and I agree on the proposed meeting-no need for it.We do agree on that.

    6 You have by your own words confirmed your infantilism-at both levels.No need for further comment by me on this.

    7 It is your brawling temperament that is showing through,not God’s Word.You are setting a new standard of ‘Christian’ conduct by saying you are unconcerned by the reasons anyone left your blog.Even Jesus was concerned with public opinion-‘Who do people say that I am’.But then, this is Yomi.

    I will continue to pray for you.As with God nothing is impossible,even you may yet develop a better temperament and character.

    8 I am sure you were refreshed after your shower the other day.I certainly do need to have a bath right now.Reading your comments I feel like I have, in the words of a late British Prime Minister,been savaged by a dead sheep.

  47. Tunji,

    You claim civility (and want to be seen as a champion of it), yet you cannot even be gracious enough when a man has made room for a lapse in memory. I commend your hypocrisy.

    In my comment above, I did ask to be corrected if I got the term I used wrong, but you had to rub it in; shey? So much for accusing another of brawling.

    Similar to what Phil has said, you are a bare-faced hypocrite. You keep preaching civility but practice it selectively. At least I practice what I truly believe and preach :-D

    Yes; sidekick:
    – a close friend
    – a confederate or assistant
    – a person closely associated with someone as an associate or partner

    Like I said above, I used the term to refer to you and the other guy as partners (because you argued along similar lines on the same issues). I did not use it to mean that you had known yourselves personally from anywhere. Again, I apologise if my words conveyed the wrong idea.

    As for habitual liars, you’re kidding; right? You mean you realise you won’t get in through the pearly gates?

    Thanks for the awards. But its funny that you’re awarding those to someone else. Have you considered that your “mild rebuke” to Phil on the issue of his post above is “policing” too? Have you even stopped to consider that what you are doing with me is “policing” as well? If you could think straight, it would have occured to you. But your prejudice won’t let you see that.

    At this point, I’ll let it drop. I am tired of going back and forth with a you on this. Enjoy your hypocrisy while it lasts, because I’m hoping it won’t and that someday you’ll come to your senses. Now, you can have the last say if you so want. Note however, that this internet religious chief of police is very much around, and if you submit more man-made garbage, I’ll be after you in a jiffy.

    God bless.

  48. I know I said my previous comment was the last, but I have had cause to change my mind, and honestly I wish I didn’t have to do this.

    Tunji Oluyemi’s style of discussion as seen above shows how he ignores issues raised about him and arguments that give clear answers to allegations he previously raised, only for him to point the searchlight from issues raised about him and also to continue to repeat statements that have been answered to be false. So when he says he always responds, take it with a pinch of salt.

    I’ll also like to say to Mr. Oluyemi that it is evil of him to keep casting aspersion on my character when there is ample evidence that I am not like that. Evidence is clear that I do not wield the “hammer all the time” as he continues to claim, and as such it behoves him to stop portraying me wrongly as he seems bent on doing.

    I have asked him if he has interviewed the people I relate with daily e.g. my neighbours, colleagues, and family in determining that I do not treasure relationships and to determine the type of person he claims I am. He has ignored this and continued to insist that I am a certain kind of person.

    Of course, those who do not know him may think he is an angel, when nothing could be further from the truth. Up till now, I have refrained from responding beyond the Biblical soundness of his words on this blog and on mine. But he must not suppose that it is because I do not know who he is.

    In speaking of me in point number 2 under comment number 47 above, Tunji said:

    I have never met him face to face,do not and have never done business with him (unlikely I would do business with anyone with his kind of temperament),…

    Emphsis mine. If this bold-faced hypocrite thinks it is proper to go this length, he must count the cost. Tunji is not quite the civil, proper image he wants everyone to believe he is. Here’s a news item about him:

    Again, Mr Tunji Oluyemi, managing director, Royal Exchange Assurance Plc who responded in harsh voice said “No comment. I don’t want to comment on it.
    Source: Operators shun comments on Court order to stop recapitalization

    Tunji Oluyemi really has a problem with accountability. He has proven himself averse to being scrutinised. He did it on my blog, has done it here, and the link shows that even in the business world, he is very much the same non-accountable, above-everyone-else fellow.

    Royal Exchange Assurance mentioned in the article is an insurance company in Nigeria and Tunji’s last place of employment before his present. It is interesting that he now heads an insurance brokerage firm (not an insurance company, as he claimed in an earlier comment). Insurance brokerage firms are much smaller entities to insurance companies and are really middle-men between insurance companies and individual customers.

    What was it about the reporter’s question that provoked a harsh response? Who knows? But Tunji is certainly not qualified to be talking about anyone’s temperament or business dealings.

    As I keep pointing out, he preaches “civility” but applies it selectively (same way his application of “context” is selective).

    He says he’s unlikely to do business with someone of my temperament. Why would I want to do business with a liar and a hypocrite, and someone who cannot even answer a simple press question with decorum?

    Perhaps Tunji Oluyemi cares to tell us as well why his last employment at REAN was short-lived? His temperament? His non-accountability? Who knows?

    But enough of that.

    While I have even apologised if my use of a certain term in referring to him conveyed the wrong impression, till now, he has refused to accept that it was wrong of him to have accused Phil of using “expletives”, even when the clear definitions of the word shows that Phil’s post contained none.

    Tunji Oluyemi needs to get some honesty, integrity and accountability under his belt if he wants to be taken as a serious-minded person.

    By the way, this comment and the train that follows by the same commenter on that very discussion serves as an example of infantilism.

Comments are closed.