₦airaland Forum

Eruditor:
Whose GOAT?

We dey chop Isi Ewu o. Only GOAT I know retired donkey years ago.

na Zedeccus abi na Nictis ZooZorander in GOAT. -32 , holy, holy.

Eruditor:
Yea..Ersan..Mitrik...Nictis..etc

That type of everyone ?

I guess your GOAT got liitle help tonight.

Eruditor:
LOL.

2015?

LOL. I can describe 2005 finals play by play if you want. That is how semi-photographic my memory is.

Just swerve with your sore-losing behind.

Lebron somehow forgot to take his doses today.

Roland17:
Let the "NEEDING HELP" help begin on national TV. . ESPN can take the lead.

Every analyst is preconditioned to assume that, Lequeen can only lose if Kevin Love does not show. I am afraid, the helpee did not show up tonight. I wonder what Max, Shannon and co have to say on Monday. Skip will have another day on monday.

Casey deserved to be sacked. Meanwhile, i still don't understand how Brad stevens got no votes for the coach of year.

Lebron is not leading his team in points today. I don't remember the last time that happened.

Roland17:
This series was supposed to be a sweep for the LeWhine and the Cavs.

I wonder what happened to the "Broom"

That ogogogoro joint wey the basketball gods visit today, i pray they keep finding it for the rest of this series.

Eruditor:
Rozier and Baynes have been the bane for Celts today.

Finally someone calls a travel on LeWhine.

Hahahahahaha.The guy is just clueless in this one. The lead should have been much large.Rozier is having an off night.

The basketball gods are sleeping today ooo.

BarthramLestat:
He has been to 8 finals and his performance in one finals defines him?

Yes it defines him, because he won 3 of 8. If he had won 5 or more, then that would just be a knock on his achievement. He might as well stop getting to the finals, if he will end up losing.

BarthramLestat:
Your GOAT's showing in that first round took him out of the GOAT conversation.

See? It's easy to pick a moment out of a mans whole career and pretend as if that defines him.

Bro it was not in the first round. It was in the ultimate finals. All eyes on the price. If your performance in the finals doesn't define you, then what does?

BarthramLestat:
LeBron James choked in the 2011 NBA finals. Besides that, there really isn't any other wrinkle in his career. It's not loyalty, just bare facts.

Choking is an understatement for the supposed GOAT's performance in the Mavericks' series.Travesty is the better word. Your GOAT's showing in that finals took him out of the GOAT conversation. If you will lose in your prime, playing alongside another prime all star, do it with grace.

birdman:
Dont ever mention Hakeem in d same sentence with this cat again. Are you mad? Dont allow me lasisify u today bro

Well that was not my opinion bro, one moderator for "the Jump" suggested that embiid might become better than hakeem one day, after his 40+ points against the lakers. I was surprised myself.

Brad stevens has arrived, he makes the best out of any crop of talent made available to him. I am now convinced joel embiid is no where near hakeems level. He doesn't seem to have the will to win, alongside another point guard considered ot be trascedental.

Manutd19:
Watched highlight of the Warriors Pelicans again and I see warriors going to the FT line much more than the pelicans in each game. AD should be on that line on almost every play.
Truth is aside from that game 1, Warriors arent playing that great and pelicans could be ahead if the officiating was fare
NBA protects..........

Cavs vs Warriors finals again

No, your assesment is not definitively true. All fouls in favour of GSW were good calls, the pelicans were commiting terrible fouls, the fouls were too glaring.For example that hard foul on Iguodala in game 2.Most of what you considered fouls that should have been against GSW, were not clear fouls. Davis was trying to bully his way through the defence, and the GSW defence spearheaded by draymond were not having that. That's a simple assessment. I don't understand why everyone wants GSW to lose, when they are not, it's either the referee was not fair or they are too stacked. If the Pelicans want ot win this series, they will have to show they want it more.Like they did in game 3.

I would like to see how the Pelicans recover from this loss. The outcome of this series depends on the next game. If it ends up in a blow out, these series will end sooner than expected.Like they say once a champion, always a champion. looking forward to what Max Kellerman has to say on Monday.What audacity, placing AD above KD, one a a proven champion, the other still learning how to win. I hope Curry does not have to play on May 1st, so that he will be ready for the first match on the road.

Where the hell is the best playerin the NBA, sometimes i ownder what MAX eats before making wild predictions. Once a champion, always a champion, this is without stephen curry. Meanwhile Holiday is on Holiday. That final 3 point was classic though.

ibtz:
Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
Colossians:1:15 (kjv) king james version
it is one of your biblessss!!! please pick it up

Now choose one. is d verse talking about jesus or is it talking about paul because i think from ur own words "in the ocntext it could mean that Paul was speaking in relation to a consideration that he is a Son of God himself"
u are trying to say that paul is a son of god!!! am not understanding!!!

i guess u wud choose jesus because if u say paul u are now saying paul is the firstborn to reign over all creation

i think english grammar says firstborn is your first child, now u say we shud not take d word of God literally but then why do u christians take literally verses that try to assert that jesus is God or Son of God.
one bible says of, another says over, contradiction in plain sight!!!!

which brings us back to dis !!!
whichever one it is of or over!!! firstborn na firstborn.


if the word firstborn shud not be taken literally den u contradict ur doctrine and ursef which says jesus is the begotten son of God!!! abi reason it well b4 u reply



First born of every creature, frm dat verse it is implied dat jesus is a creature, u are a creature, then why worship creature over CREATOR CREATOR IS FAR GREATER THAN CREATION OR CREATURE AND CANNOT BE COMPARED OR EQUALLED
when the CREATOR himself created evrytin without anybody's help. THE CREATOR does not sleep, eat, drink, die, poo, piss but he has a son?? to take over what when he wud never die, nor tire over his creations.
HE GIVES SUSTENACE WITHOUT ANYBODY'S HELP,
HE MAINTAINS THE HEAVENS WITHOUT ANYBODY'S HELP

The God that destroyed people who worshipped anything other than Him now turned around and said oya worship my son,(according to you ppl)
is dat not double standards

Or your saying that God now fathered his own son from his own creation,(Mary)
is that not accusing God of incest!!!!
Glory be to God, for he is above all that!!!

I am a christian but i do not assume Jesus is God. So can you now think of a deeper meaning of the clause, given the clarity. You do not seem to understand my point too, you should read my text again, And there was no cotradiction in my text. You would have to be a son to be considered a first born. And i never asserted that Jesus is not one of God's creation, if you notice, i used the phrase " it could mean".Be careful to understand the context of an argument before replying. 1st John 3 refers to us as the children of God, In mathew 12 vs 50, Jesus refers to us indirectly as Sons and Daughters of God, so i was alluding to this description of believers, in my description of Paul's statement in collosians. God assumes all glory, and has the authority to confer the status of son on whomever, he does as it pleases him, he can decide to reason with man, likewise he can decide not to.He owes us no justification for his deeds, we are his creation. Just as he commanded light to exist from nothing, he said let it be and he was.The voice of god referred to him as his son, and that we must listen to him.The quran attests to the miracle of his birth, why would the event of his birth be different from that of the prophets before him or after him? Jesus was brought up in the amongst man, but he was not a man.His birth attests to that.

ibtz:
Lol u said "try to divide THEM up like they some several gods"

i believe in English grammar, THEM is used for multiple entities not singular ONE.
IT is christians dat say 1 is 3 and say it is 1. who is doing d division

And i believe dat guy u replied quoted dis
Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
Colossians:1:15

First born of every creature, frm dat verse it is implied dat jesus is a creature, u are a creature, then why worship creature over CREATOR CREATOR IS FAR GREATER THAN CREATION OR CREATURE AND CANNOT BE COMPARED OR EQUALLED

when the CREATOR himself created evrytin without anybody's help. THE CREATOR does not sleep, eat, drink, die, shit, piss but he has a son?? to take over what when he wud never die, nor tire over his creations.
HE GIVES SUSTENACE WITHOUT ANYBODY'S HELP,
HE MAINTAINS THE HEAVENS WITHOUT ANYBODY'S HELP

The God that destroyed people who worshipped anything other than Him now turned around and said oya worship my son,(according to you ppl)
is dat not double standards

Or your saying that God now fathered his own son from his own creation,(Mary)
is that not accusing God of incest!!!!

Glory be to God, for he is above all that!!!

Pls do well to include your translation next time, the quoted scripture does not use "of" it uses "over",
Colossians 1 vs 15(NIV Version): The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation, so the quoted does not necessarily mean he is a creature, neither does it assert that he is the creator, i could interprete that as "first born, who reigns over all creation" now the meaning of the first born is a different thing, in the ocntext it could mean that Paul was speaking in relation to a consideration that he is a Son of God himself. So it is more agreeable to refer to a higher Son as the first born, it does not necessarily have to describe the person of Jesus as a creator or a creation, but it could be in relation to his(Paul's) status as Son of God. Notice i have used several but's there. The owrd of God does not always speak literaly, you need the spirit of God to teach you the truth.

alBHAGDADI:
You are very funny.


Your last underlined sentence is the thoughts of the people around, many of whom didn't know of Jesus deity. That was why they made that statement.

Moreover, Jesus was fully man and fully divine on earth.

If you say God gave him the authority to forgive sins just as the people thought (which he didn't say), then don't you think God was giving him His own responsibility? Why was Jesus so special that God gave him that much power to do things only He Can do?

Even the verse you quoted showed that some of the people said he was blaspheming when he forgave the man's sins. They knew only God can make such statement.

Now, why would God give man such authority when it is clear that many will see that to mean such a person is God?

That was God's aim.

.The God of the Bible is not like Allah whom the Quran said deceived people into thinking Jesus was killed, whereas he wasn't; Allah lifted him up to heaven. That single account shows Allah messed up cos his action of deceiving the people led to the creation of Christianity, the biggest and only peaceful religion today.

you said: Now, why would God give man such authority when it is clear that many will see that to mean such a person is God? The use of the word clear, only supports a logically acceptable implication of an event, meanwhile the thought of God does not have to comform to man's thought, and the guy you are responding does not assume, those were the words of Jesus, as told. Matthew 28:18: And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me". We cannot choose which words, phrases or clauses in the Bible cna be taken literaly or which words can only be discernible by the direciton of the spirit.

the polish guys are dangerous from set pieces

Shehu abdullahi is defending terribly on the right

this guys should be wary of set pieces by the polish. They seem dangerous in respect.

Nice lob in, ighalo could not connect

Where did that come from, a low cross into the box and lewandowski almost squeezed that one in.

I hope the team keeps the high pressing.

The team is pressing high, the polish players are finding it difficult containing our attack. 4th minute

a half chance in box, ihenacho lobbed it towards the far right. The team is playing at a high tempo now.

kick off

FluidQueen:
In Your Words, Strength is the Standard for leadership?
In scenarios where the Wife Possesses more physical strength than the man, She becomes the higher authority?

You see where your logic is flawed?
Strength should never be Yardstick for leading. Except the word family is now synonymous to a wrestling Arena. Then, By all means, Your logic, however screwed and bias it is, is welcomed.

BTW, Horses Posesses more physical strength than men. I think think they're 'higher authorities' than members of your gender.
... Going with your 'wise' logic
Lol.
Weaker vessel. Lol. You amuse me with your level of mental retrogressiveness. It's topping the charts.




Fair enough. Then, this Topic shouldn't even be debatable. Women could do away with their husband's name if they choose to. CASE CLOSED!

the hyphenated name is a welcomed development but not necessarily valid in my case.
AGAIN, I know a lot of married women that do NOT bare the name of their spouse. THEY DON'T.
Digest that fact, first.

You seem to acknowledge God as the highest authority, i inferred this from the phrase " i haven't even finished submitting myself to sky daddy". Now the following claim assumes that you are a believer. If you are not, then my claims are null. If you do believe in both parts of the bible (New and Old) then you must have heard nth-hand about an instruction by inspiration that the woman should subject herself to the man. If you disagree with this particular instruction, then my argument is null also. Maybe the problem here is semantics. Particularly the use of the word "beneath". In this context, if you understand this as suggestive that a woman is inferior to a man, then you are correct, a woman is not inferior to man. but a subject, by this i mean the man is placed above a woman with regards to authority, so this is a position conferred by God.The book of genesis tells us that the woman is of the man(out of), God could have made the woman out of nothing(non-living), as he made the man,it's not beneath is power, but he made the woman out of the ribs of the ma, what is this indicative of? Again if you do not believe the bible partly or wholly, then my claims are Null.
Back to the main point. The idea of women changing their last names or appending their last names is customary, the law does not dictate that, it has become almost compulsory though, but that's the same for most norms that have come to stay. A woman usually does so out of respect , joy, sense of belonging, or a combination of any number of those factors. When a father gives her daughter out in marriage, he usually hands her out, he customarily transfers some his fatherly authority, now there is the question of which part oh his authority was transferred. Now you can also say why the hell are you using the word "custom", and i would say, both laws and customs model the society in which we live in, i mean why would a group of people come together and decide that certain laws must be obeyed, and that if you violate any you risk losing your freedom. If you again say, hey boy to hell with the customs. i would also say, to hell with the laws, but unfortunately i cannot get away with violating the laws. So hypothetically speaking, if we get married(there is a probability that this can occur, no matter how small it is) you can retain your fathers name, but i would love it if you append my surname to your father's, and any women who changes their surnames are neither stupid nor ignorant. We do different things for different reasons, it doesn't have to be logical, besides your reason for not doing is not logical either, it's a choice(there is another question, what the hell is logical!), and no one should impose a custom on you. I claimed it's not logical because i could stake a claim that your father does not own you, so you can rename yourself or better still bear your mother's surname, which is again another man's, that's fair since she carried you in her womb for 9 months(you practically stole from her for 9 months) , she might as well own you. I could extend this argument by saying your mother does not own you, because where does she get the nutrients you feed on from, who made it, that person might as well hold all rights to your ownership(we believe that customarily, anyway), so you see our society has become really complex modeled by laws and customs, so you won't be helping yourself if you attack certain customs, you will have to go back by centuries. Pen drops.

Gaddafithe2nd:
I will keep on condemning this tradition. I don't know those that brought this idea. Women should keep bearing their father's name. A woman still has right in her father's house, whether married or not. Women aren't slave that you buy off.

It begs another question, why the hell does she have to retain her fathers name? she can rename herself, and i have got a very good suggestion. Isabella Ignoramus