cococandy:
that's where you got me wrong. I never said we believed in God because they said so. I said we dropped our own idea of God and adopted their own.

Yes nah, we dropped our own idea and adopted theirss because they said so... no be so

taiocol:

Two people that have absolutely nothing in common

Okay

njokusboy:


Lol, you cannot deny the fact that some of hiss arguments are deplorable....
Also, I am beginning to question his sex or orientation, something has to bewrong with either.... it's one thing to defend when they are getting bashed, he would only be a captain "save a sket", calling men out and blaming them especially in cases where the topic has got nothing to do with them, however, iss something else...
"The world is polluted", Francis: men caused it, women hate themselves, Francis: men invented the phrase... women menstruate, franciss: men are evil...
A man cannot just hate his sex like this, except he felt that Bruce jenner

Stop saying trash all I said is true but heck you won't admit it because you're blinded with superiority complex.
Anyway, I don't care it.
No need to pretend and form anything.

As one that said I lost my virginity to a man.
Sorry o, i'm a staunch Christian and I don't belong to your awry childhood exprience, I was trained in the direction of God, spent my days in Block Rosary when i'm less busy and proudly a Virgin till marriage.

By the way, read about MissSahara who's a man turned woman - she abuse women.
So, I don't see how a gay/transgender will hate man who have sex with him/her.

Bruce Jenner hate his gender and became a woman doesn't mean he bashed his gender. and supported females.
You are all confused: Women who bash men according to you guys wish to be a man
Sorry! I can't be like you guys just to pretend.....

I'm male and I expose hypocrisy of men.

Just like saying Joe Igbokwe an Igbo, who bash Igbo wish to be Yoruba.

Darkrebel666:

Well, if I i was to answer this as a Christian...I'd say 'Positive'.
why ask? what point are you driving at?

Don't worry!

cococandy:
I'm not naming names o but the hypocrisy on this section is nauseating sha. That the culprits can't see it for themselves is a perfect example of egocentrism;nothing is wrong as long as I'm the one doing it. Hehehehe

I know a certain lady who'd type something in support of a guy in a given scenario and any lady who countered her is a witch and evil and women would be their own worst enemies because of that single incident and bla bla bla.

Why can't guy people do the same thing you recommend others to do? Support francistony even if he's calling the guys out or sit down and learn from him as he's a perfect husband material.

Orisirishi.

Don't mind them.
That's the hypocrisy dude has been pointing out.

Even the female that hate her own gender hasn't been accused of wanting to be a male.
Hypocrisy driven dudes.
Francis, nothing should deter you jor.

coogar:


so the she-male does it for the likes?
when some people are not relevant in the real world, they seek relevance online by posting balderdash to appeal to the brainless bimbos who co-sign such moronic posts. they must be feeling used now that the confession is out....

We are not feeling used.
We all understood his post and what he meant.
Even if he don't mean what he always post, I can see iota of truths there.
This is online - Likes matters.
Offline - Appraisal matters

all4naija:
The number could be more than that. You are on the conservative side.

Don't mind these guys o.
They are hypocrites.
When it favours them, their saying won't be all these.

cococandy:
Arowolo is the one that killed his wife right?
If I were to be afraid that someone will kill my sister or friend, I'd be more afraid of the kinds of men that make excuses for abusers.
If they make such excuses chances are they could do same if they find themselves in such shoes.

"Maybe he was pushed to the wall"
"Maybe she wasn't submissive enough"
"Maybe she insulted him and he hit her and she mistakenly died"
"Maybe she cheated on him"

Many of them here for this profile. That is one reason I would chose him above them.

coogar:


if arowolo was making such excuses for abusers, no one would have married him. he was a staunch christian, a virgin male & a closet feminist.

Proof?
BTW, all men marry no matter his behaviour.

all4naija:
African women love abusive African men a lot. I can vouch for those defending them on this thread.

Hasty generalisation

njokusboy:


Lol, you cannot deny the fact that some of hiss arguments are deplorable....
Also, I am beginning to question his sex or orientation, something has to bewrong with either.... it's one thing to defend when they are getting bashed, he would only be a captain "save a sket", calling men out and blaming them especially in cases where the topic has got nothing to do with them, however, iss something else...
"The world is polluted", Francis: men caused it, women hate themselves, Francis: men invented the phrase... women menstruate, franciss: men are evil...
A man cannot just hate his sex like this, except he felt that Bruce jenner

You are adding salts.

His posts usually say some chauvinistic men

VictoriaBee:
You are adding salts.
His posts usually say some chauvinistic men

Though it portray majority.
I owe no apology.

bukatyne:


Is God a He?

Does He have male sex organs?

Hmmm.... Bukatyne, u like argument o!

God is he, so is christ & all d angels.

FrancisTony:

Hahahaha, there's no benefit of having an uncircumcised dick except that it will adding some inches compared when circumcised.

From what I've read in some forums, ladies find it ugly and eyesore. It contacts STD'S faster according to research.

ha! Fantastic, is that how circumcision differs with prominence of the foreskin.

FrancisTony:
Okay, God isn't genderless. He's a man? Let's go on prooving spree.
God is a woman and my bible says so.


Q: "Can God be a woman?"


"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing."(Matthew 23:37)


Ouch! Who knew this existed!

How did I miss this?

kaboninc:

How did I miss this?

Stop quoting me. Our previous chats on diary section remain null and void.
Bye, Sir!

bukatyne:


Forgive me, I am tired of This back and forth.

We do not see eye to eye and it is a miracle we have been civil So far.

We will keep going in circles even If we are saying the same thing because you are hell bent on proving What is not There.

Bukatyne is a feminist and So bla bla

However it works for you, fine.

My husband and I are both Christians and our marriage is working beautifully. We are also not gunning for your heaven So don't be concerned If our workings is scriptural or not.

I would also appreciate If you don't twist my posts to suit your points next time we discuss. I find it very frustrating communicating with you when you do So or quoting a portion of my posts.

Stop twisting your own words either. If you want to paint a pictures of yourself on NL, write posts that put you in that light.

Keep welding the phantom and detachable veto power you have. Anyways I would say it is better to be a devil on NL and a saint at home than a saint on NL and a devil at home.

Goodnight and regards to your family.

You introduced an interpretation of scripture which attempted to reconcile feminist ideology and Christian doctrine. I disagreed with that and explained why.

This is not primarily about your home – or mine. Nothing has been twisted, your points have been clear and clearly wrong IMO. And I have taken care to outline my points – even when you make reference to prior discussions I can barely recall.

This isn’t about you, it’s about the obviously feminist reading of scripture you present. Through a mix of scripture and your own marriage you have clearly stated as follows;

“A husband leads by submitting, setting an example and loving his wife”
“One has equal rights in marriage and decisions are always jointly taken”
“Submission = love” – with an emphasis on love as the determinant

You have found no place for distinct male leadership, wifely obedience, or differences in authority - all scriptural. You reject all those notions, and usually not in a plain manner, doing so stylishly.

Even more oddly you allude to a husband earning leadership, which is not actually distinct, but a function of submitting, setting an example and loving his wife. Effectively placing the wife as the authority in the home.

Feel free to refrain or quit, but whenever you post what I consider to be scripturally suspect, I retain the right to respond.

Greet Oga


TV

Nonso23:


We understand bro!
It's hard being your level of silly.

Is he silly because he disagrees with the majority?

Btw Francistony, howdy Are you back to Christianity now?

UjSizzle:
Btw Francistony, howdy Are you back to Christianity now?

Yes, since.

FrancisTony:

Yes, since.

Cool

TV01:

This isn’t about you, it’s about the obviously feminist reading of scripture you present. Through a mix of scripture and your own marriage you have clearly stated as follows;

“A husband leads by submitting, setting an example and loving his wife”
“One has equal rights in marriage and decisions are always jointly taken”
“Submission = love” – with an emphasis on love as the determinant

You have found no place for distinct male leadership, wifely obedience, or differences in authority - all scriptural. You reject all those notions, and usually not in a plain manner, doing so stylishly.

Even more oddly you allude to a husband earning leadership, which is not actually distinct, but a function of submitting, setting an example and loving his wife. Effectively placing the wife as the authority in the home.

An astute observation you made right there. Every notion, even in its most inchoate form, of male dominance is opposed by feminist ideology so you will see a blatant reinterpretation of clear scriptural texts to support the feminine imperative.

Male dominance offends the sensibilities of today's modern woman. The world in which she lives in affords her improved economic agency and this forms the basis for today's woman to challenge the systems developed from our biological and cultural heritages.

Equalism is the cover story which the feminist ideology needs to gain its way to gender dominance... and so to lead is now reinterpreted to mean submission. The husband is now to submit to the wife. The end game here is male subordination and female dominance!

UjSizzle:
Cool

Yaay!

TV01:


You introduced an interpretation of scripture which attempted to reconcile feminist ideology and Christian doctrine. I disagreed with that and explained why.

This is not primarily about your home – or mine. Nothing has been twisted, your points have been clear and clearly wrong IMO. And I have taken care to outline my points – even when you make reference to prior discussions I can barely recall.

This isn’t about you, it’s about the obviously feminist reading of scripture you present. Through a mix of scripture and your own marriage you have clearly stated as follows;

“A husband leads by submitting, setting an example and loving his wife”
“One has equal rights in marriage and decisions are always jointly taken”
“Submission = love” – with an emphasis on love as the determinant

You have found no place for distinct male leadership, wifely obedience, or differences in authority - all scriptural. You reject all those notions, and usually not in a plain manner, doing so stylishly.

Even more oddly you allude to a husband earning leadership, which is not actually distinct, but a function of submitting, setting an example and loving his wife. Effectively placing the wife as the authority in the home.

Feel free to refrain or quit, but whenever you post what I consider to be scripturally suspect, I retain the right to respond.

Greet Oga


TV

1000000000 likes....

ApexTitan:
An astute observation you made right there. Every notion, even in its most inchoate form, of male dominance is opposed by feminist ideology so you will see a blatant reinterpretation of clear scriptural texts to support the feminine imperative.

Blatant doesn't even begin to describe it It's an ideologically led form of scriptural miss-appropriation presented as profound insight. Only it's profoundly wrong and easily demonstrated at every point. I hadn't - is there even a need? - really begun to dissect it.

Even the introduction of a term like "equal rights" into a discussion about biblical marriage is a dead give-away. It's so clear that feminism has infected everything even the church.

ApexTitan:
Male dominance offends the sensibilities of today's modern woman. The world in which she lives in affords her improved economic agency and this forms the basis for today's woman to challenge the systems developed from our biological and cultural heritages.

Which is the real rub. The biological imperatives that shape those cultural morés will not go away - regardless of the whole new orthodoxy designed to deny those very realities.

ApexTitan:
Equalism is the cover story which the feminist ideology needs to gain its way to gender dominance... and so to lead is now reinterpreted to mean submission. The husband is now to submit to the wife. The end game here is male subordination and female dominance!

It's clear to anyone who takes the time to give it the barest scrutiny, that it's a grab for power and privilige - or rights without consequences or responsibilities. A husband "earns" his "leadership", which is actually "submission, service and love" - and his wife is the arbiter of how and when he has earned it. Can you make this up?

The real funny things are;

1. Male authority (even in the form of benign leadership) is normal, and what most women prefer
2. Except those with the spirit of "desire to rule over him", which is what feminsim essentially is anyway. Around since the garden !
3. Once a woman can usurp authority over a man she quickly learns to despise him
4. Except as an extremely rare exception, there cannot exist a purely egalitarian relationship anyway - there is always a power differential

Wierdly enough, for #4, even two men or two women do not typically exhibit egalité, both relationship types which are many times more violent than male/female ones, hence my belief that feminism and gayism are closely twinned.

mikkyphp:
1000000000 likes....

Cheers


TV

FrancisTony:

Stop quoting me.
Our previous chats on diary section remain null and void.

Bye, Sir!

Sharrap!

You this piece of shitt.t

See how childish you are? Yet you refuse to accept the fact that you're just a boy.

So you think I'll stoop so low to drag 'sweets' with you?

You must think snow falls in Lagos.

Run along boy!

UjSizzle:

Is he silly because he disagrees with the majority?

No, its nothing to be ashamed of, if one disagrees with the majority. The majority can even be wrong.

However, your logic or ideas or opinions must be reasonable and original and real.

Not to pander to the wimps of others simply because you just do not want to hurt their 'ego'

That's the problem with FrancisTony.

kaboninc:


Sharrap!

You this piece of shitt.t

See how childish you are? Yet you refuse to accept the fact that you're just a boy.

So you think I'll stoop so low to drag 'sweets' with you?

You must think snow falls in Lagos.

Run along boy!

Which thread have I claimed to be an adult or kid?

cococandy:


Pls don't be basic.

If the white men didn't come, which God would you be worshipping? Amadioha? Chukwuegu?
Wouldn't you make sacrifices to Ani the female goddess to bless your farm and make your wife/wives fertile?
Wouldn't you make sacrifices to oshimili the goddess of the river to grant you safe pass any time you traveled on a boat?

You would be worshipping the gods your people worshipped. The gods you'd have been told to be what they were by your ancestors. Who was inspiring them then? Or you mean they didn't have the Holy Spirit until the whites came and gave them the Holy Spirit inspired version of who God really is? Don't dig a pit for yourself
You're really saying the black race didn't have a Holy Spirit inspired version of God until the whites came and handed it us. Racismmmmmm.......

Now you've dumped for them for Jesus because you've been taught to.
Everything you know about the nature of God you were taught. And all of it human invention.

I can't get myself to believe there's no God. The wonders of the universe are too magnificent to be dismissed as happening by chance. I am Christian because I was born into it and I like to refer to God as a HE because I've become used to relating to him as a father. (A different place, a different time and it may not have been the case for me.
Same as you even if you're not honest enough to admit that.)

But it would be shallow to not recognize that the various versions of God is just our humanity trying to make sense of something bigger than our brains are capable of.

This just caught my attention.

Actually, Igbos (and humans at large, I think we'll find) tended to depose gods and their whole religious system from time to time. So there's a likelihood that if the white man did not come, we would still not be worshipping many of those gods. As a matter of fact, if they didn't come, we may have gone to them eventually and brought Jehovah home to Igboland, or Allah, or Buddha. Humans have always experimented like that. We've been looking for God a long time. It's locked into our nature to do so.

We don't create versions of God really. Not exactly. What we do is try to account for various experiences of him. Is it weird that peoples worlds apart like the Igbo and the Romans agreed that fertility was a feminine expression of life? The Romans had a female fertility god just like the Igbo. The Hindu recognize female gods as well. With that elevation to the pantheon of the female, and even the tendency to yoke the kings of each pantheon with a powerful queen, don't you think that it is not exactly a male idea of female suppression to eventually bow to a single unaccompanied God who is addressed with male qualities? Is it perhaps just simpler to look at him that way?

I don't think religion puts women down at all. Well, most religions anyway. Islam does. But Christianity? The idea that Christianity does is so ludicrous. In Christian philosophy or thinking, God made it clear from the beginning that the woman was made for the man, not the other way around. And yet, that very fact proved that man needs woman and cannot take her for granted. Before she existed, God said about her absence in the man's life, 'it is not good', the only thing about his work of creation that he found unacceptable.

The agitation for equality with man is, from a Christian perspective, very puzzling. It makes no sense because apart from the fact that you can never equate different things, woman is in an incredibly privileged position. She is made so important to the man that it is instinctive for him to forego his life and comfort for her to have both for herself. As a matter of fact, the man is always under a pressure to make her as important as God to himself. That makes it so weird that women want to be more. What more can you become? Men have broken old friendships and alliances over women, gone to war over women, died deaths - sometimes foolish, shameful deaths, over women, given up their pride over women. What more do women want then?

Is it the right to a career? The right to pick up guns and go to war too? The right to stand up when you pee? The right to knock back as many cans of beer as you like? The right to sleep with as many men as you like? The right to proposition men you find attractive? I really don't see what is being fought for here. *shrugs*

VictoriaBee:

Proof?
BTW, all men marry no matter his behaviour.

....which further proves the male is the superior gender.

coogar:

....which further proves the male is the superior gender.

If that makes you sleep well at night.