₦airaland Forum

obadiah777: JUST A SIDE NOTE, AND A POSSIBLE EXPLANATION, NOT SAYING CHRIST CANT PERFORM MIRACLES, BUT TURNING WATER INTO WINE SOUNDS LIKE PURE MAGIC. NOW SUPPOSE ALL THESE ARE SYMBOLIC ? OK TURNING WATER INTO WINE. WHAT IS WATER ? WATER IS A SEA OF PEOPLE ( BIBLICAL LINGO ), AND WHAT IS WINE ? WINE IS THE WORD IN THE BIBLE. SO MAYBE THAT ACTUALLY MEANS JESUS FED THE PEOPLE WITH THE WORD AND KNOWLEDGE AND MADE THEM FULL OF THE KNOWLEDGE OF GOD

FEEDING THE MULTITUDE OF PEOPLE WITH TWO LOAVES AND FIVE FISHES. WHAT IS BREAD AND MEAT ? THE WORD OF GOD ( BIBLICAL LINGO ) ( ANYTIME YOU SEE HONEY, MEAT, WINE, BREAD, MILK IN THE BIBLE IT IS REFERRING TO THE WORD ). SO MAYBE HE FED THE MULTITUDES WITH THE WORDS OF GOD AND HAD ENOUGH LEFT OVER TO FEED MANY MORE PEOPLE BECAUSE THOSE WHO GOT EDIFIED ALSO BECAME A SOURCE OF BREAD AND FISH ?

I can give these two to you and say yes, they may indeed be symbolic. However you have to go further with that explanation and deal with the resurrection. If this is symbolic too, then the entire Christian faith is based on symbolic messages?
So much for original sin hahaha

exord: Fantastic contribution. I will also call your attention to the fact that taking a single sample for a complete review may not be absolute.
Likewise we have to consider the mentality and definition of 'car servicing' in Nigeria (for an example). People around here hardly check there gear oil (at least), amongst other things to check on a car. I still stand by the V6 as all cars are proned to issues largely resulting from poor maintenance.
Check out how many cars were re-called by toyota and that doesn't stop the 'low-mentality' of saying toyota is one of the most durable cars!!.(False!). Lack of expertise: a virus that has eaten so deep into our automoblie industry (a topic for discussion, I think).....lol.

Well, quite true and I agree with you for the most part. However the stats shown are for cars mostly in the US where they perform those checks properly and still the tranny issue was mind blowing.

Again, on the website there you can have an overall look at top 20 problem cars in the US and hey presto, 2003 Eod is in that list

For me, I will drive no other car in Nigeria asides a v6. My next car as soon as I go back will be a 2008 Acura TL Type S (A spec). The gear box is brand new from that line of acura and the design is even pretier that then new (2009 - date) acura look which I loathe so much

So V6 all the way, but just be careful with 2003 - 2006 accord model V6 that's all I'm saying.
DIY also helps to make sure you know what your car is up to.

There are numerous forums for basically any car you can think of. Register yourself with any these forums and have a general view from people that own these cars and how they perform before you buy.

okeyxyz: This line of reasoning is just fundamentally flawed. You see, if the letters of paul where to the churches within Israel, then we might be compelled to assume they communicated predominantly in Aramaic(even this line also has huge flaws, being that Isreal was under Roman rule and all nations & people were free to move about the Roman provinces). But the churches that these letters were addressed to were not in Israel: the church in Rome(Rome), the church in Corinth(in Greece), in Galatia(Turkey), in Thessalonica(Greece), Ephesus(Greece), Phillipi(Macedonia), Colossae(Turkey), etc, So how is it logical that they communicated in Aramaic? If Israel was a colonial/super power then it might make some sense that they spread the Aramaic or Hebrew language. But this was not the case, Israel has been conquered by one power after the other and naturally these foriegn languages would be the ones being propagated. So, for anybody, let alone an academic researcher like professor Barth Ehrman to insist that predominant language of communication amongsts the churches was Aramaic is just plain fabrication, with no sound logic to support it . The only thing he has going for him and upon which he asserts this theory is that all the first apostles where jews and therefore they must speak & write in Aramaic. Does this make sound sense? Definitely not. Another reason for him to think that Aramaic was the dorminant language of the church is that he'd assumed that christianity was a jewish religion, another epic fail, for we know that paul repeatedly stresses in his letters that christianity was given to and propergated by gentile nations(non-jews). So, this idea of Aramaic simply holds no water when subjected to critical analysis.

You see the problem here? you keep drawing half conclusions rather than looking at the big picture and the possibilities that exists around it. The modern church as we know it only began to take shape after Emperor Constantine the great adopted Christianity as the religion of Rome. This was after he claimed he got a vision and took an oath with God to help him win the civil war which he did win. Everything else before this was merely a sect, so to claim that the Pauline letters where addressed to established churches at the time is a bit over ambitious in the claims department. It is safe to say Paul lived around the middle of the 1st century since he claimed to know Simon Peter personally and also the brother of Jesus (cant remember his name, James?). At this point, Numerous sects have developed in Palestine at the time and the Christian movement was just one of them.

Now on the Languages you proposed, Lets take a stroll down to your village and see how many people can write the local language they speak, Let alone speak English or further still write English? Same situation here. Yes the Roman empire must have imposed their language on the people there, that does not mean everyone could speak Roman (or Latin as it were). There is no record anywhere (in writing or archaeological) except in the gospels of Jesus and his followers which will lead you to safely say he was a "local champion" if you catch my drift. Neither he nor his disciples were among the Literate elite to write anything and since the language of that region was Aramaic, it is safe to say too that they could speak that and probably only that. Having most of the New testament written in Greek simply assumes that a literate person must have penned these stories down.

Paul on the other hand was not a disciple no, and even he was a so-called "Gentile" (Acts 22:28). Clearly He was actually an Elite and the bible records his story how he became a follower of Jesus' teachings. It is possible to see how Paul could probably speak and write Greek/Latin giving that nearly all the letters were sent to colonies of both empires. He wrote a number of books and was famous at the time as a front-line missionary while fraudsters wrote other books later and attributed them to him in order to gain acceptance. There is no doubt among scholars that he didn't write all of them so I don't see the point of our argument. maybe one of us has to learn Palaeography first before this.

Dealing with the bolded section in your write up, It is indeed silly to think that communication between these early churches was in Aramaic since that was largely a local language and Neither I nor Ehrman have claimed this. Communication must have been in Greek or similar as we can see clearly in the earliest manuscripts found for these letters.

okeyxyz: So the only reason you think Paul could not have written these passages is because of it's "sexist & misogynistic" views ehh? So christianity must now conform to and appease secular values? This is simply western culture and identity at play here. Most westerners in europe and america would identify themselves as christians yet they'd never opened the pages of a bible before, never been inside the four wall of a church(If they do at all, it's only on christmas & or easter) and think santa claus is referenced in the bible. They believe christianity is passed down from ancestory, so if their fore-fathers were christians, then they must be christian too. This is how they hijack christianity and distort it's doctrines into secular values by making women pastors & priests, by performing gay christian marriages, etc. The truth is this: christianity has never promised be one with our secular values, therfore you should not demand so of it, there's no doctrine with women pastors/priests, there's no gay christian marriages. Whether or not it seats well with anybody is not an issue, christianity is not a state mandate, you are not forced to participate, you don't need it to function as a citizen, so all these secular values do not apply. As far as we know, those passages were pauls decrees and has remained consistent in his different writings, whether or not you are happy with them.

No! that's not the reason I think Paul didn't write those letters, neither did I suggest that in anyway. I merely pointed out a major flaw in the approach to the bible. Now I'll quote myself so you see how they came to this conclusion

[quote author=Area_boy]Scholars have agreed collectively that Paul almost certainly wrote seven out of the 13 gospels attributed to him. They've done this by studying closely the style of writing, coherence, vocabulary, historical situation and they all represent the same theological view, and they are;[/quote]You fail to realise that this same western culture was what preserved Christianity over centuries, Starting with Constantine the great as I pointed out earlier. It is their ability to distort the original meaning of the bible that managed to preserve it.


More importantly however, you probably need to read about the Protestant movement and see what exactly it is they were protesting against. Ask yourself why does the Anglican Church allow women as priests and Bishops?

Gay marriage on the other hand is another story. It is one of social pressure rather than a religious one. Personally I don't care if gays get married, If for anything I will support it when two people decide not to procreate and rather adopt a child. We have a population crises already for goodness sake, while people still procreate and loads of children are starving out there! it is messed up dude!

The inline 4 is pretty good if you're not a performance freak, I'll advice you to go for it.

Basically it comes down to performance and reliability.

As much as many people here will play down the reliability issues of a 2003-2005 Honda accord V6, they are indeed real. The major problem is with its transmission. I reckon Honda didn't make that gearbox robust enough for the output of a V6 engine. They eventually realised it and ordered a complete rebuild of the box for the later models. So you notice a reduction in tranny problems from later models. Have a look at the pictures below showing common Accord problems for the year range you have given. you can go the website below and look around as well

[img]http://desmond.imageshack.us/Himg268/scaled.php?server=268&filename=2003xb.jpg&res=landing[/img]

[img]http://desmond.imageshack.us/Himg840/scaled.php?server=840&filename=2004sy.jpg&res=landing[/img]

[img]http://desmond.imageshack.us/Himg31/scaled.php?server=31&filename=2005f.jpg&res=landing[/img]

[img]http://desmond.imageshack.us/Himg89/scaled.php?server=89&filename=2006p.jpg&res=landing[/img]

[img]http://desmond.imageshack.us/Himg841/scaled.php?server=841&filename=2007gt.jpg&res=landing[/img]

http://www.hondaproblems.com/Accord/

http://www.carcomplaints.com/ <-- This is a general website for all other cars

I know it doesn't show V6 or Inline 4, but I can bet the V6 is the culprit here


I had a V6 2005 model back in 2009 or so. Enjoyed it and wouldn't drive anything less than a V6 but having had to change my gearbox once and rebuild it completely a second time, I have now become weary of V6 tranny problems. I wont buy without researching a complete history of the car from any source available. At the same time my kid brother had a 2004 I4 and the only problem he had was with engine seating (which he promptly replaced). That car still functions great today with nearly 200k miles on the dial.

My advice is go for the Accord Ex model where u get all the goodies of a V6 but the reliability of an I4.

If I give suggestions on what to do, you best shouldn't follow it since you haven't said what car, model, year, or even a brief history of the car.

just like calling your doctor to tell him you are sick on the phone and he immediately replies "na malaria"

https://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2007/02/pj-mustang---53_450.jpg
mhmmm

afam4eva: Someone just takes a picture of a particular place in Aba and uploads it as a true representation of Aba. Yes, we know Aba is bad but not this bad and not everywhere. When i went to Aba 3 years ago, i was trying very hard to find the dirty Aba i kept hearing and seeing all over the internet but i couldn't find any. Even Ogbor hill that seems like a middle to lower-class neigbourhood is not that bad.

you are a minority!

Aba is something else!! indeed all governors past and present need to be jailed for life

those fists look very massive to be women!!

Do I smell a fish here?

Sam Milla: She is 10 years older than him. Our nigerian girls see no problem with that. - neither do i.

But if a man is 10 years older than a lady in nigeria , its problem.
The girl will natural come to nairaland to ask for advice and below is what she would get as advices from our ladies.

Chaircover: Run girl run, he is too old for you.

Mrs Chima: wtf! He is a peadophile. Dont go near him.

Jennykadri, my sweet friend: What do you see in him, dont you see he is too old for you.

MissB, teenager who knows about relationship more than adult: No no no, dont date him. Dont even answer his calls again. He will manipulate you and cheat on you.

Mukina2 will naturally say nothing.

Ileke Idi: Girl if he is yoruba, marry him. If Igbo, dupe him. If hausa, run as fast as you can.

Kobojunkie: If he is american or british, then go for him. If he is nigerian, he is no good.

Freecocoa: oh my gawd! What were you thinking going close to him in the first place. If he comes close to you again, call the police.

Where are their names again, someone help me out. Jack Daniels destroys memories.

This should be having 100 likes by now

okeyxyz: @Area_boy, @Delafruita,
If indeed the oldest manuscript is Mark, how does that automatically translate to the idea that Mark was indeed the first account? Yes, the book Mark could be the oldest dated surviving manuscript but how have you guys and the "academics/historians" assumed that it was an original script rather than a copy? since the only way we an categorically state that it was oldest is if we have proof that this book itself and the others are absolute originals. So to draw such huge conclusions through comparing one copy of Mark to other copies of Mathew, Luke & John simply defeats all credibility, and virtually all academics/historians(whom you choose to believe hook, line and sinker) are guilty of this folly, all based on theory and biases which they sell to us as iron-cast facts. But the logic just does not add-up.

Well, you miss the whole point of my write up. I'm not here to put my foot down and say for certain Mark was the first. I merely put forward a generally agreed position. This clearly comes from the fact that the other three gospels copied Mark and did a terrible Job at it. Read the 4 gospels horizontally and you'll make your own conclusion who came first and who copied who. By horizontal I mean read one story in Matthew, flip to Mark, Luke and John to read the same story. Repeat this for a number of accounts and I'm sure you can draw a reasonable conclusion for yourself.

okeyxyz: I have watched this Professor Bart Ehrman on youtube give his lectures and arguments. Since forgery was a booming industry in those days of early christianity, then it is likely that the christian scripts were forged too, but that is not a sound reason to say that these book were not written by peter and his cohorts simply on the basis that they were "unlearned"(another assumption, but let's just go by that line of thought). Have you not considered that an apostle could dictate these letters/scripts to one of their numerous educated converts, does that not validate the truth and originality of such scripts being written at the authority and direction of such an apostle who dictates them and therefore should be rightly attributed to them? Does goodluck Jonathan personally write all his correspondents or does he dictate/delegate to his scribes? where these apostles themselves not figures of authority in christianity? These academics whom you revere and swear by cannot just fabricate "facts" and expect us all to swallow them(though most people would, but that's human nature, we worship titles) simple because they have an office in a university.

You see, what you've just suggested is the best argument out there concerning the authorship of these books. "Maybe they simply had a secretary to dictate to?", The only problem with this idea is that the illiterates where speaking Aramaic and not Greek where as these books are written in sound Greek. For someone to dictate and a secretary jot down, they would have to be speaking the same language (or else tonnes of other problems will pop up). Listen mate, all we can do here is make assumptions to whether or whether not these books are the way they claim to be. I'm not claiming certainty and will like it if no one else does claim that without concrete evidence.

okeyxyz: And on this question of Paul never saying that "women should keep quiet in church" where did you draw your conclusions from? How do you know paul did not write those particular passages? is there any evidence that these passages have been inserted by somebody else? as in the case of 1 John 5:7? Please let us know of these "facts" instead of making a mockery of your knowledge and contributions, or if this opinion of yours is based on some logic, then please let us know.

you have gone too far to be talking about the trinity (another conversation for another day). Maybe read my text again and see how theologians and historians came to this conclusion that Paul didn't write all of the letters ascribed to him. The strict Misogynistic views of these books not written by Paul gives the man a bad name. Eg, Somewhere in 1st Timothy say "women would be saved by having children". This clearly gives women a back seat role in the movement of christianity. Will not go down well with a lot of women.

Best part of the video for me

"This one has got a big screen!"
"This one has got a bigger one" <- i died here

CrazyMan: What foundation...if you think that christianity started with slave masters, then you must be a real joker.

Cos I don't need to quote the bible here for you to know that christianity was in existence thousands of years before the slave trade.

You are a joker! big time!

We all know the bible supports slavery and if you doubt it, then read your bible. Them colonials used that as a foundation for their acts. If you can come here and ask me what foundation, then clearly you have refused to think clearly.

I rest my case

CrazyMan: You just confirmed my post which was quoted by you. Therefore, the bolded section is irrelevant...I've already gotten my answer from you.


Stop repeating yourself...I never denied this fact.


You just exonerated the christians with your post...the one I bolded. Therefore every other post you made is irrelevant, cos I've already gotten my answer.


How many recent cases of slavery have you hear that christians were involved in...why do you guys love clinging to the past.

The christianity we experience is totally different from the politically motivated Christianity that was being practiced then.

So cut the crap, and face reality...christianity is a religion of peace whether you choose to believe it or not.

Yes, but born out of it. So if your foundation is bad, do you ignore it and keep building nonetheless?
hmmmmm

Having studied the history Surrounding Jesus extensively, I still find it difficult to believe that a 1st century hippie Jew will have married and still be able to purport his teachings in the way he did. Claiming to be the Son of God and Claiming to be God too? Naaa!I really doubt it and I'm an atheist, imagine what the Christians will do ? lol

Although I would hold my doubts strong until a final publication about this is made.

Delafruita: there is no concrete basis for saying Mark was the first to be written.theologians and historians just believe that Mark was the shortest and the others were developed from Mark and embellished

Actually, the oldest manuscripts of the new testament found is the gospel of Mark so they kinda agree it was the first. Professor Bart Ehrman explains this clearly in his book "Forged. Writing in the name of God- why the bible's authors are not who we think they are".

@topic
The easiest way to look at this is 90% (or more) of the people in that era where illiterates and couldn't read or write. Jesus picked his disciples from the low class (fishermen and the lot) and they definitely weren't among the elite that could read and write. So it is safe to say Mark, Matthew and John didn't write those books

Secondly, Jesus and his mates spoke Aramaic while these gospels were written in Greek. So who ever wrote them must have been a Greek speaking elite probably leaving outside of Palestine who could read and write 40 or 50years later.

It is difficult to know who exactly wrote them since misrepresentation or forgery was very popular at the time. The Greek called these sort of books Sudos and Nothos (lie and bastard). Generally the authors of these books are anonymous but later people reading them decided to attribute them to Matthew, Mark and the rest of them. "Gospel according to Mark".

St Luke on the other hand still runs in the lines of the rest of them, "Gospel according to Luke". From that, if Luke didn't write that gospel, then chances are slim he wrote acts of the apostles neither. Although they still agree that who ever wrote Luke was the same person to write Acts

People rather agree that these books are a collection of memories and stories being circulated around the period (basically like folklore). Until someone who could read and write put them together. How then can we trust their authenticity and accuracy? hmmmm


Pushing this forward beyond the gospels/epistles you proposed, we can go one step further and talk about the writings of St Paul which clearly show Forgery.

Scholars have agreed collectively that Paul almost certainly wrote seven out of the 13 gospels attributed to him. They've done this by studying closely the style of writing, coherence, vocabulary, historical situation and they all represent the same theological view, and they are;

- Romans
- 1st Corinthians
- 2nd Corinthians
- Galatians
- Philemon
- Philippians
- 1st Thessalonians

the fake Pauline epistles will include;

- 1st Timothy
- 2nd Timothy
- Titus

- 2nd Thessalonians
- Ephesians
- Colossians


It is possible that two different people wrote them in the fake group I presented above.

Problem is, the New testament is plagued with these sort of misrepresentations or forgery so much so that the motive of these authors cannot be accurately placed.

The sad part of all this is: The part of the bible where "Paul" had said women should be silent in the church. The passages of the bible that say this and attribute them to Paul are actually fake and not written by him. Which is sad when you look at the way the church today treats women. Catholic church for example base their idea of not having a female priest on these passages. Now is this a one of thing or is the entire bible composed in this manner? No one can put a foot down and say this for certain, but you can draw your own conclusion from these

area_boy

[quote author=gree-die]It dates back to d bible days, wen judas betrayed Jesus and handed him to his crucifiers, one of d disciple whyl tryin to save his Master, cut off d ear of a soldier, but Jesus glued it bak on and wat did HE say?

Jesus has clearly pointed out to us dat violence is never d answer. Des fanatics do not know wat dey r doin. Jesus can fight his own battles so why displease Him to please Him? D battle is not and has never bin against flesh nd blood, so why kill?[/quote]And what about the crusaders?


Somehow, most Christians only know history they see in their bible. Although largely misrepresented and adjusted to fit the intentions of the original author (as well as subsequent reproducers), they still regard bible history as fact!. I'll leave this here for now


Sticking to the topic, Christians have had there own fair share of barbarism in the name of religion. Galileo Galilei was freaking arrested for just suggesting the earth revolved around the sun and not the other way around. The pope was absolutely livid when he heard this (now we know Galilei was right). Imagine if Jesus was misrepresented in that era? Some people will be barbecue before the day is over.

Come on guys, Christianity has only followed the trend of change and immense advancement in technology and culture to re-brand itself, Islam on the other hand will rather stay primitive hence all the silly things we see.


Religion is a farce! and they are all the same, all of them, none exempted. The earlier we can see through it for what it really is, the better for us.
nuff said

k2039: You have a point,but even if God still shows himself,those athiest I know on nairaland would still not change,afterall from the knowledge of His work we shall know Him.

Again, a dead end as far as my brain can go.

How do you mean if he "shows" himself then atheists will still not believe? How do you know this? Or maybe he really wouldn't show himself in a clear cut manner but again through possible loopholes and dodgy prophets?

Kinda tricky! I for one am very sure I'll pack my bags and join the religious bandwagon when indeed a "god" does show himself. Problem is, which god?

k2039: I will destroy all atheist within a second

and how will you do this? Send fire from heaven and kill them all?

or

Appear to everyone and clear all doubts (saving them too since you "love" everyone)?


Pick wisely

k2039: [size=14pt]MY PRESIDENT DOESNT HAVE A MIND OF HIS OWN.

YOU ARE NOT FIT TO GOVERN THIS NATION

YOU CANT STAND FOR WHAT YOU BELIEVE IN,WHAT A WEAK PRESIDENT YOU ARE.[/size]

Can u guys shut up for once and let the man do the damn job you elected him for?


Damn!!! you all cry and ask govt to listen to the voice of the masses. when govt does, then he has no mind of his own.?

make up your damn minds what you want for fish sake

aloyzin: 13 laptops una sure say these boko haram people no dey do yahoo?

they probably even have facebook too

so much for haram.

whether Muslims accept it or not, Islam is not a religion of peace. Let me explain

First of all we need to define a term or two

Extremist: A person who holds extreme or fanatical political or religious views, esp. one who resorts to or advocates extreme action.

Muslim extremists as we all know will wrap bombs around themselves and blow other people up all in the name of becoming a martyr. Other Muslims can say "no! this is not the fundamental teaching of our religion". It really doesn't matter what the fundamentals are, as long as it also calls for harming, maiming, and killing other people, this distinction should really be clear. So the consensus normally is: Islam is peaceful but the extremists are the ones giving us a bad name.... WRONG!!


Now lets look at the other side of the coin "Jainism"

Jainism: An Indian religion that prescribes a path of non-violence towards all living beings. Its philosophy and practice emphasize the necessity of self-effort to move the soul toward divine consciousness and liberation.


An extremist Jainist cant kill a fly, cant kill an ant, drinks water with a sieve over his mouth to prevent swallowing any flying insect. Much more harm another human being?. Clearly we can see the distinction between a religion of peace and one which isn't


Take the veil of deceit away from your eyes and accept the truth on what Islam really stands for.

Roon9: Monfo! Wen ur ppo şäƴ al sort ☀̤̣̈̇f trash abou christianity n our bible does any1 şäƴ notin or instigate violence? U̶̲̥̅̊ nno γ̲̣̣̥ we ddont? because our ĞőƋ fyts his battles. Oya am commandin U̶̲̥̅̊ n som oda suya man 2 run 2 D̶̲̥̅̊ french embassy n strt chantin war songs. Bugge!

y dont you type properly so everyone can read??

yankidelta: Arrange area boys to assist

did someone call me?

Oceemo: mr i knw pazz all.. Do u tink diz whit or chinko pepu givs a f**k abt d black man.. U better start knwing where u belong.

That sort of mindset is the same reason we cant get rid of racism. That's all good. more grease to ur joints. Thumbs up


I can bet you will be in church or any form of religious activity come weekend!!

So much for the golden rule

miteolu: If naija could move against this chinko as they did for the Japanese

and when a white person calls u the N word you will cry foul.

Racism is not only against Africans, and we need to completely eradicate the use of such slurs from our society. I'm ashamed of you



@Topic, there is very little evidence to go by. Some proper investigation is needed before we point accusing fingers

This ought to be good..

I'll sit by and wait for a response

^^


Still doesn't prove rain making though

[quote author=PAGAN 9JA]starvation and drought has not been very consistent among African societies in past years. it is only now that we here the problem escalating so drastically. what about the Mayans they had one of the most thriving agro-based economy compared with all other american civilizations.



i have seen this on many occassions. the last one i saw as when i went on a business visit to India and a tribal friend of mine informed me about this rain ritual. so i went there in a day-long journey and i wtnessed this act where they marry 2 frogs to each other as part of the ritual and they sacrifice animals (fowl birds to be precise) and do some chanting, mostly involving apeasement of Spiritual forces and pleas f forgiveness.

and it did rain the next day in showers. <-------

another one was the Kilumi rain ritual near Embu Kenya which is much more complex than the one done by these Indian tribals. this one i more structured and there are more elements in it.[/quote]Come on man, don't dissapoint me.

It rained the next day and you can attribute it to the silly rituals made?

A sound meteorologist can make it rain too (given that he chooses the date)


Abeg! the whole thing is rubbish. Similar to charms to resist gunshots. Simple Black and white hogwash

Tony Spike: The Chinese have been militarily humiliated by the Japanese in war conflicts at least twice in the past 150 years. The first and second Sino-Japanese wars is an example of the strength of Japan. The Chinese might be taking advantage of Japan's military principle of neutrality adopted since the end of the World War II. If it would take China's aggression to wake up and activate 'sleeping' Japan, then I forsee a great Asian-Pacific war in the coming years.

LOL.. there will be no such. you're looking through the wrong lens mister. China is a super power in that region just as the united states is a super power in the Americas. No one sh1ts until china allows.

Japan was completely neutralized after the second world war by American occupation which lasted for years and until this day, american military bases are still in Japan. Japan is a shadow of itself now and they realised soon enough that war isn't the way towards development, rather advancement in technology is and we all can see the result of that

Defeating the soviets in the early part of 20th century and having the best navy in the pacific region, all that is gone now. China will scoop them up in weeks if they want.

BlackPikiN: If there's anti_Japan protest in China, then [size=20pt]there will/must be a massive anti-China protest in Africa![/size]

Nonsense Chinese..

Are you ok? protest for what? do you have a reason or a cause? or you wana behave like the Islamic extremists that will protest and kill for a video they haven't seen?

Nonsense blackpikin. use ur head

[quote author=Sisi_Kill]Ooooookay, so we've seen the baby and his grandmother. . .where is the mother? [/quote]HAHAHAHHAA you guys are evil