₦airaland Forum

Do u know any Nigerian citizen of age is free to run for president?

Bjgirl1:
He passed away,I can't just stop crying everyday,every minutes,[every seconds..quote author=ameri9ja post=65849829]

Lost him to what/who?

Oh, so sorry dear

This is US? UNBELIEVABLE!!

Well difference is that everybody affected will get millions. In Naija, nada.

asuustrike2009:
And the madam in question didn't do such as alleged by you. Mama Helen has being doing this kind of gesture for long before the media blew it out of proportion. It is the intention of the heart God uses to judge not what you and I think. Read that same verse of the Bible you quoted and see things for yourself

Bros, that's what she APPEARED to be doing in THIS particular instance - using some poor kids fo grandstanding.

Do u really believe of all the destitute people in Nigeria she must come across everyday she coincidentally ran into those kids. Knowing how the Nigerian church biz is, you really believe so?

I can only imagine how much planning and painstaking preparation went into this "coincidence".

Julieextra:
Thanks bro. Exactly what I have been saying here.

That was why when Jesus healed a man with palsy by saying "YOUR SINS ARE FORGIVEN" the pharisees almost killed him. And he asked them, which is easier to say:

Rise, take your bed and go home

Or

Your sins are forgiven you.

They couldn't say a word.

If it had been a politician that did it now, they won't criticize him. Won't he get reward from God for showing Love.

Now, a pastor did it and they are saying she is wrong. That she should do it in Private to be blessed.

If it had been road she built for poor people in a village or hospital, won't they be conspicuous enough to be seen by "ALL MEN".? So, because all men saw it, she is now making it public and shouldn't be blessed by God.?

Don't mind these hypocrites. They are too scriptural for heaven's message. Which is Love.

Once again, Christ gave us instructions on how to give. He told us not to do it this way. And He never gave this way Himself.

U just buttressed my point: these things get spread around. You don't have to appear to be on pulpit blowing a horn that u just did a good thing.

Julieextra:
Bros, whether you were moved or not is not her business. She is not trying to please you, me or anybody else. What you believe is for you alone sir.

A man once walked up to Kenneth Hagin and told him " hello Pastor, I don't believe any of those things you preached back there "

And Pastor Ken laughed and replied " you see, brother, that is your business and not mine. Mine is to preach the word.and I have done my part" and gently walked away.

The man paused and said " That's true you know. It's my problem"

The point here is that, she has done what he heart moved her to do. Simple

However anybody sees it, is that person's headache.

God doesn't reason the way men do. God may have blessed her in that and we are here debating the scripturality of what she did.

The bible said clearly THAT THERE ARE MANY THINGS THAT JESUS DID THAT WEREN'T WRITTEN DOWN....

Bros, I just gave u MY instinctive reaction to the optics of the whole thing . Did I at any time say it was her biz? How can it be her biz? It was how the whole thing made ME feel. Nothing to do with her.

Edelweiss44:
If this were the times when Jesus walked the face of the planet, you would have made a very good pharisee or sadducee. It's religious and critical people like you who crucified Jesus. It's people like you who would want to stone Jesus for healing on a Sabbath day. Your heart is void of love and that is why instead of rejoicing for the good that was done for those 3 orphans, you are more interested in crucifying the pastor for helping the poor in public. You need to repent, accept the love of Jesus into your heart, stop being a hypocrite and love your neighbour as yourself. without that, you can't see the kingdom of God. this hatred and jealousy in your heart towards men of God will not let you enter heaven if you don't repent. You cannot claim to be a Christian and be interested in destroying the servants of God. Control your jealousy!

Whew! All this because I honestly stated how the optics of situation made me feel.
In case u forget, I also said it was better to do it this way than not to do it at all.

NwanyiAwkaetiti:
You had to copy and paste the whole epistle?

You could read only the intro and the bolded parts

#AMBODE MUST GO

greatnaija01:
I WILL NEVER EVER DATE n MARRY THE WRONG PERSON BY GOD'S GRACE

Your quarrel is not with me. I didn't write the article.

According to this article we are destined to marry the wrong person and can't do anything about it. How true? Whatcha think?

(NOTE THE BOLDED)


Why You Will Marry The Wrong Person

By Alain de Botton

May 28, 2016

IT’S one of the things we are most afraid might happen to us. We go to great lengths to avoid it. And yet we do it all the same: We marry the wrong person.

Partly, it’s because we have a bewildering array of problems that emerge when we try to get close to others. We seem normal only to those who don’t know us very well. In a wiser, more self-aware society than our own, a standard question on any early dinner date would be: “And how are you crazy?”

Perhaps we have a latent tendency to get furious when someone disagrees with us or can relax only when we are working; perhaps we’re tricky about intimacy after sex or clam up in response to humiliation. Nobody’s perfect. The problem is that before marriage, we rarely delve into our complexities. Whenever casual relationships threaten to reveal our flaws, we blame our partners and call it a day. As for our friends, they don’t care enough to do the hard work of enlightening us. One of the privileges of being on our own is therefore the sincere impression that we are really quite easy to live with.

Our partners are no more self-aware. Naturally, we make a stab at trying to understand them. We visit their families. We look at their photos, we meet their college friends. All this contributes to a sense that we’ve done our homework. We haven’t. Marriage ends up as a hopeful, generous, infinitely kind gamble taken by two people who don’t know yet who they are or who the other might be, binding themselves to a future they cannot conceive of and have carefully avoided investigating.

For most of recorded history, people married for logical sorts of reasons: because her parcel of land adjoined yours, his family had a flourishing business, her father was the magistrate in town, there was a castle to keep up, or both sets of parents subscribed to the same interpretation of a holy text. And from such reasonable marriages, there flowed loneliness, infidelity, abuse, hardness of heart and screams heard through the nursery doors. The marriage of reason was not, in hindsight, reasonable at all; it was often expedient, narrow-minded, snobbish and exploitative. That is why what has replaced it — the marriage of feeling — has largely been spared the need to account for itself.

What matters in the marriage of feeling is that two people are drawn to each other by an overwhelming instinct and know in their hearts that it is right. Indeed, the more imprudent a marriage appears (perhaps it’s been only six months since they met; one of them has no job or both are barely out of their teens), the safer it can feel. Recklessness is taken as a counterweight to all the errors of reason, that catalyst of misery, that accountant’s demand. The prestige of instinct is the traumatized reaction against too many centuries of unreasonable reason.

But though we believe ourselves to be seeking happiness in marriage, it isn’t that simple. What we really seek is familiarity — which may well complicate any plans we might have had for happiness. We are looking to recreate, within our adult relationships, the feelings we knew so well in childhood. The love most of us will have tasted early on was often confused with other, more destructive dynamics: feelings of wanting to help an adult who was out of control, of being deprived of a parent’s warmth or scared of his anger, of not feeling secure enough to communicate our wishes. How logical, then, that we should as grown-ups find ourselves rejecting certain candidates for marriage not because they are wrong but because they are too right — too balanced, mature, understanding and reliable — given that in our hearts, such rightness feels foreign. We marry the wrong people because we don’t associate being loved with feeling happy.

We make mistakes, too, because we are so lonely. No one can be in an optimal frame of mind to choose a partner when remaining single feels unbearable. We have to be wholly at peace with the prospect of many years of solitude in order to be appropriately picky; otherwise, we risk loving no longer being single rather more than we love the partner who spared us that fate.

Finally, we marry to make a nice feeling permanent. We imagine that marriage will help us to bottle the joy we felt when the thought of proposing first came to us: Perhaps we were in Venice, on the lagoon, in a motorboat, with the evening sun throwing glitter across the sea, chatting about aspects of our souls no one ever seemed to have grasped before, with the prospect of dinner in a risotto place a little later. We married to make such sensations permanent but failed to see that there was no solid connection between these feelings and the institution of marriage.

Indeed, marriage tends decisively to move us onto another, very different and more administrative plane, which perhaps unfolds in a suburban house, with a long commute and maddening children who kill the passion from which they emerged. The only ingredient in common is the partner. And that might have been the wrong ingredient to bottle.

The good news is that it doesn’t matter if we find we have married the wrong person.

We mustn’t abandon him or her, only the founding Romantic idea upon which the Western understanding of marriage has been based the last 250 years: that a perfect being exists who can meet all our needs and satisfy our every yearning.

We need to swap the Romantic view for a tragic (and at points comedic) awareness that every human will frustrate, anger, annoy, madden and disappoint us — and we will (without any malice) do the same to them. There can be no end to our sense of emptiness and incompleteness. But none of this is unusual or grounds for divorce. Choosing whom to commit ourselves to is merely a case of identifying which particular variety of suffering we would most like to sacrifice ourselves for.

This philosophy of pessimism offers a solution to a lot of distress and agitation around marriage. It might sound odd, but pessimism relieves the excessive imaginative pressure that our romantic culture places upon marriage. The failure of one particular partner to save us from our grief and melancholy is not an argument against that person and no sign that a union deserves to fail or be upgraded.

The person who is best suited to us is not the person who shares our every taste (he or she doesn’t exist), but the person who can negotiate differences in taste intelligently — the person who is good at disagreement. Rather than some notional idea of perfect complementarity, it is the capacity to tolerate differences with generosity that is the true marker of the “not overly wrong” person. Compatibility is an achievement of love; it must not be its precondition.

Romanticism has been unhelpful to us; it is a harsh philosophy. It has made a lot of what we go through in marriage seem exceptional and appalling. We end up lonely and convinced that our union, with its imperfections, is not “normal.” We should learn to accommodate ourselves to “wrongness,” striving always to adopt a more forgiving, humorous and kindly perspective on its multiple examples in ourselves and in our partners.

Alain de Botton (@alaindebotton) is the author of the novel “The Course of Love.”

Source: The New York Times

blackbeau1:
maybe you will but I won't

It is not me that said so. New York Times did.
Here is the full article:

Why You Will Marry The Wrong Person

By Alain de Botton

May 28, 2016

IT’S one of the things we are most afraid might happen to us. We go to great lengths to avoid it. And yet we do it all the same: We marry the wrong person.

Partly, it’s because we have a bewildering array of problems that emerge when we try to get close to others. We seem normal only to those who don’t know us very well. In a wiser, more self-aware society than our own, a standard question on any early dinner date would be: “And how are you crazy?”

Perhaps we have a latent tendency to get furious when someone disagrees with us or can relax only when we are working; perhaps we’re tricky about intimacy after sex or clam up in response to humiliation. Nobody’s perfect. The problem is that before marriage, we rarely delve into our complexities. Whenever casual relationships threaten to reveal our flaws, we blame our partners and call it a day. As for our friends, they don’t care enough to do the hard work of enlightening us. One of the privileges of being on our own is therefore the sincere impression that we are really quite easy to live with.

Our partners are no more self-aware. Naturally, we make a stab at trying to understand them. We visit their families. We look at their photos, we meet their college friends. All this contributes to a sense that we’ve done our homework. We haven’t. Marriage ends up as a hopeful, generous, infinitely kind gamble taken by two people who don’t know yet who they are or who the other might be, binding themselves to a future they cannot conceive of and have carefully avoided investigating.

ADVERTISEMENT

For most of recorded history, people married for logical sorts of reasons: because her parcel of land adjoined yours, his family had a flourishing business, her father was the magistrate in town, there was a castle to keep up, or both sets of parents subscribed to the same interpretation of a holy text. And from such reasonable marriages, there flowed loneliness, infidelity, abuse, hardness of heart and screams heard through the nursery doors. The marriage of reason was not, in hindsight, reasonable at all; it was often expedient, narrow-minded, snobbish and exploitative. That is why what has replaced it — the marriage of feeling — has largely been spared the need to account for itself.

What matters in the marriage of feeling is that two people are drawn to each other by an overwhelming instinct and know in their hearts that it is right. Indeed, the more imprudent a marriage appears (perhaps it’s been only six months since they met; one of them has no job or both are barely out of their teens), the safer it can feel. Recklessness is taken as a counterweight to all the errors of reason, that catalyst of misery, that accountant’s demand. The prestige of instinct is the traumatized reaction against too many centuries of unreasonable reason.

But though we believe ourselves to be seeking happiness in marriage, it isn’t that simple. What we really seek is familiarity — which may well complicate any plans we might have had for happiness. We are looking to recreate, within our adult relationships, the feelings we knew so well in childhood. The love most of us will have tasted early on was often confused with other, more destructive dynamics: feelings of wanting to help an adult who was out of control, of being deprived of a parent’s warmth or scared of his anger, of not feeling secure enough to communicate our wishes. How logical, then, that we should as grown-ups find ourselves rejecting certain candidates for marriage not because they are wrong but because they are too right — too balanced, mature, understanding and reliable — given that in our hearts, such rightness feels foreign. We marry the wrong people because we don’t associate being loved with feeling happy.

We make mistakes, too, because we are so lonely. No one can be in an optimal frame of mind to choose a partner when remaining single feels unbearable. We have to be wholly at peace with the prospect of many years of solitude in order to be appropriately picky; otherwise, we risk loving no longer being single rather more than we love the partner who spared us that fate.

ADVERTISEMENT

Finally, we marry to make a nice feeling permanent. We imagine that marriage will help us to bottle the joy we felt when the thought of proposing first came to us: Perhaps we were in Venice, on the lagoon, in a motorboat, with the evening sun throwing glitter across the sea, chatting about aspects of our souls no one ever seemed to have grasped before, with the prospect of dinner in a risotto place a little later. We married to make such sensations permanent but failed to see that there was no solid connection between these feelings and the institution of marriage.

Indeed, marriage tends decisively to move us onto another, very different and more administrative plane, which perhaps unfolds in a suburban house, with a long commute and maddening children who kill the passion from which they emerged. The only ingredient in common is the partner. And that might have been the wrong ingredient to bottle.

The good news is that it doesn’t matter if we find we have married the wrong person.

We mustn’t abandon him or her, only the founding Romantic idea upon which the Western understanding of marriage has been based the last 250 years: that a perfect being exists who can meet all our needs and satisfy our every yearning.

We need to swap the Romantic view for a tragic (and at points comedic) awareness that every human will frustrate, anger, annoy, madden and disappoint us — and we will (without any malice) do the same to them. There can be no end to our sense of emptiness and incompleteness. But none of this is unusual or grounds for divorce. Choosing whom to commit ourselves to is merely a case of identifying which particular variety of suffering we would most like to sacrifice ourselves for.

This philosophy of pessimism offers a solution to a lot of distress and agitation around marriage. It might sound odd, but pessimism relieves the excessive imaginative pressure that our romantic culture places upon marriage. The failure of one particular partner to save us from our grief and melancholy is not an argument against that person and no sign that a union deserves to fail or be upgraded.

The person who is best suited to us is not the person who shares our every taste (he or she doesn’t exist), but the person who can negotiate differences in taste intelligently — the person who is good at disagreement. Rather than some notional idea of perfect complementarity, it is the capacity to tolerate differences with generosity that is the true marker of the “not overly wrong” person. Compatibility is an achievement of love; it must not be its precondition.

Romanticism has been unhelpful to us; it is a harsh philosophy. It has made a lot of what we go through in marriage seem exceptional and appalling. We end up lonely and convinced that our union, with its imperfections, is not “normal.” We should learn to accommodate ourselves to “wrongness,” striving always to adopt a more forgiving, humorous and kindly perspective on its multiple examples in ourselves and in our partners.

Alain de Botton (@alaindebotton) is the author of the novel “The Course of Love.”

Julieextra:
She shouldn't subtle anything here. Those kids may not have the opportunity to meet her again.

Subtility is not a good thing. It's just like a pastor using a comedian to drag people to church or crusade ground to increase church population. Subtility is bad because later the real motive will be revealed.

What do you term MIRACLE.?
To those kids, that's their MIRACLE. God has answered their prayer for LIFE. If you like give it a name. But their prayers are answered and blessed be the PERSON God used to answer that prayer whether privately or publicly.

There must have been other private good deeds that she and her ministry have been doing. And God has blessed her for them.

If God won't bless her for this, it's between her and God. She may have asked God not to even bless her for this particular one.

I pay my tithe because I love God, not because I need blessings. He has blessed me in the first place for me to be able to pay tithe.

There have been times I did certain alms publicly and just don't care whether God blessed me or not. That's true love. And I think that's what she did. Blessing or no blessing. She saw the kids in the public, took pity on them and blessed them. Unfortunately it was in a crusade and camera and the media picked it.

Let's stop unnecessary criticisms

That's all

Bros, as a christian I am simply and honestly stating my instinctive reaction to the optics of the whole thing - I was immediately put off by it. I honestly don't think ostentatious philanthropy edifies the body of Christ. I'd have been more edified if a heard this a different way, maybe through the kids themselves.

But u really believe of all the destitute people in Nigeria she comes across everyday she coincidentally ran into those kids? Knowing the Nigerian church biz, you really believe so?

Anyway, I'm not judging Madam at all. She is only human, like me.
Remember what I said earlier:
"It is indeed very hard to give a large sum without publicizing it. Even when I give a large amount in church, I want someone to see it."

kpaofame:
Am not a member of the church but i have attended there severally on special programs and have friends and family members who are members...and whether she gauche on this is up to you to judge...The Church have programs they do to empower people, students, widows and all those needy as far back as a decade ago...People change but i am talking based on what i knew then..

It is my prayer that God will save us all from Presumptions Sin as stated in Psalms 19... It is God that judge the intent of a man...

One Thing i do try to do tho is judge when i make comment, if that comment will edify the body of Christ, or bring salvation or others to do better and condemning good deeds whether it was publicized or not do not meet that aim

I hear ya. As a christian I am simply and honestly stating my instinctive reaction to the optics of the whole thing - I was immediately put off by it. I honestly don't think ostentatious philanthropy edifies the body of Christ. I'd have been more edified if a heard this a different way, maybe through the kids themselves.

But I'm not judging Madam at all. Remember what I said earlier:
"It is indeed very hard to give a large sum without publicizing it. Even when I give a large amount in church, I want someone to see it."

Too late.

#AMBODE MUST GO!!!
He and his little arrogant priest-sacking wife!

Don't forget his wife had a pastor dismissed because she had to stand in line to give offering like everyone else!

Edelweiss44:
Were you there? did you witness the even to be able to talk with so much authority about what happened in a place you never were? The people who were there have told you what happened and you want to dispute it just because of jealousy and hatred for Pastors.

Do you even ask yourself serious questions at all? So if Mrs Oritsejafor was looking for a place to get money or influence, you really think it would be in a local market like this? If all those market women and crowd there contribute all their money to give to her, would the money they raised be up to one-tenth of the cost of her husbands private jet? Why don't you reason things well and control your jealousy?

For the umpteenth time, Jesus fed multitudes in public when it was necessary and Mrs Oritsejafor taking care of these orphans in the middle of the crusade is no different from what Jesus did when he fed 5000 men

Stop comparing miracles with alms giving. If Madam had healed a cripple no one would be saying she should have been more private about it.

Be honest, knowing the Nigerian church biz scene, how much planning and painstaking preparation do u think went into this "coincidence"?

#AMBODE MUST GO!!!
He and his little arrogant priest-sacking wife!

Don't forget his wife had a pastor dismissed because she had to stand in line to give offering like everyone else!

Arrogant little people.

kpaofame:
Jesus that healed someone and told him to go and show himself to the priest is a hypocrite i guess...Did she meet the kids in private? was it not in public?

Do you know others who will be encouraged to do same because of what she did? They are role models it is not every time someone announce his good deeds he/she is feeding ego...

U r confusing MIRACLES with alms giving to the poor. Lord Jesus told us how to give alms. Miracles are by God and for His glory. Besides there are ways to subtle and tastefully publicise these things. The way Madam did it is gauche. Call a spade a spade. Grandstanding is grandstanding.

U really believe of all the destitute people in Nigeria she must come across everyday she coincidentally ran into those kids. Knowing the Nigerian church biz you really believe so?

Julieextra:
Thanks bro for that. Now u get my point.

Jesus said:

Give and it shall be given to you, good measure,shaken together, running over shall MEN give unto your bossom.

Christ didn't say GOD but MEN give you back.

For me, reward is reward. Even though eternal reward is best, earthly reward is still something.

At all , at all is the worst.

My point is : Not all giving needs to be done in secret or private so that people that like to say pastors or rich men are stingy should learn to mind their business.

Nothing prevented Christ from raising Lazarus in the middle of the night where nobody will see it.

Nothing prevented him from taking the blind bsthmeaus indoors to heal him.

Nothing prevented him from raising the lame at the pool Bethesda in the private.at least tell one apostle to carry him on his back into a room to heal him there.

......and so many like that.

Let people use Jesus examples with contextual meanings as occasion/opportunities presented themselves.

Good. But u r still confusing MIRACLES with alms giving to the poor. Lord Jesus told us how to give alms. Miracles are by God and for His glory. Besides there are ways to subtle and tastefully publicise these things. The way Madam did it is gauche.

Julieextra:
There was no camera then. If there had been, don't you think camera men will follow Jesus everywhere and still make it public?

Will Jesus ministry not have media unit?

My bros, let's stop criticizing people unnecessarily and encourage them to do more.

U r confusing two things: giving to the poor on one hand and miracles and spreading the word on the other. We know Christ and disciples gave to the poor. They never did it publicly. And they'd never have done it the way Madam did it. Let's be honest. Grandstanding is grandstanding.

asuustrike2009:
You didn't study your Bible. Study the verse you lifted from when buttressing your point to understand better. Don't quote out of context or perceived message

The Bible is to be taken as a whole. That's how u get the true pucture. One of them is: You shouldn't use poor people for grandstanding.

agabaI23:
How does the launch of a TV station necessitate the frying of something?

How else do u celeberate?

gasufri:
chevening doesn't really have a meaning of its own but The Chevening Scholarship is an international scholarship scheme which enables students with leadership qualities from 144 countries and territories to undertake postgraduate study or courses in universities in the United Kingdom. Funding for the scheme comes from the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

Thanks bro

agabaI23:
Fry what you have contributed to humanity

How can I fry invention of reversible bra?

Nooo! God, noooooo!!!!

What?

My girl Tiwa! Ride on baiby!!

arsenal33:
Blame yourself for your failures.
Not Ambode

This has nothing to do with me. Those of us aware know the man has been mindlessly copying America from inception instead if sitting down and comming up with original ideas based on Lagos/Nigeria realities.

talk2percy:
I find it a little hard to digest, she sacked a priest because.... I am sure as that that it won't be a catholic priest because I know why it can never happen. Perhaps it could be all these new generation churches

It was the Anglican priest serving in the church within the state house. It made several
FP on NL.

I honestly don't think Buhari had anything to do with it. I think it is just coincidence.

Julieextra:
You are 100% wrong. Christ said clearly that such person has gotten his/her reward.

Reward is reward. Whether in heaven or on earth. Christ only meant heavenly reward. But earthly reward, she got it already.

Exactly (if u know what u r saying). God will not reward her because she'd already been inferiorly rewarded by men.

She traded God's boundless later reward for the immediate but quite inferior reward from men.

Having said that, it is indeed very hard to give a large sum without publicizing it. Even when I give a large amount in church, I want someone to see it.

Julieextra:
But don't you think if it stayed in public, people like you will still castigate her when somebody writes on NL later that pastors or their wives are stingy.

Sometimes in life, it is better to do some things publicly so that mouthwashers will keep their peace.

At least 70% private and 30% public. Not all Jesus deeds were done in private you know!

Christ Himself gave directions on how to do this type of giving!
Christ and apostles also gave alms to the poor.
How come everyone knew it without them ever doing it in open crusade with cameras rolling?

Stories like these always get spread - the right way. Not like it is meant for publicity, like here.