₦airaland Forum

Mrsprissy:
Good evening my brothers and sisters in the house. First , I am not a troll . I've been a member on NL since 2008 and am very active, but I prefer using a new account for my story to seek advice and also learn from other experienced people in this great group.

On christmas day hubby and I were invited to attend a special dinner at his friend's house and I picked a nice outfit for him to wear on the day, he wore another outfit, a t shirt and jeans his every day clothes so I asked him politely to go and change, he got angry at me and told me to keep quiet and he went inside.

He was in our room for an hour while the kids and I were still waiting for him, I even sent the kids in their room to play, he later came out he only changed his top but didn't changed the trousers and trainers. I had decided not to say anything for peace to reign, so as we were leaving, I asked him if we could take a family picture, he just snapped and slapped me and started beating me up so badly, he only stopped because my children were screaming and crying for him to stop.

I am so pained because before the incident happened, we were fine, no quarrel at all, I just don't understand his reasons for beating me like this and I swear to God, I didn't say something to make him this angry, he left me there and went out, his friend later called to know if we were still coming because he couldn't reach hubby on the phone, I told him we are coming.

I cleaned myself, changed my clothes and I left with the kids to his friend's house, to my surprise he was already there, we acted like everything was normal and I tried hard to stop tears coming because I was in pained.

For the past 3 days he has been acting as if I did wronged him, he doesn't talk to me, he doesn't eat my foods and he left the room and he is now sleeping in our son's room. I just don't know what to do again

I believe that you have deliberately left out a lot of details.

But, I will act based on the available information (that is, the information you have supplied).

First of all, you picked a nice outfit but he would rather wear something else. What he preferred to wear was what you termed "everyday wear".

Therein lies some of the problem.

Sometimes, in our attempt to help, we become too bossy, too unfeeling to our spouse and what they love. I am very certain that you have been too choosy when he comes to what he likes and he has begun to see you as manipulative.

There is nothing bad in choosing outfits for your spouse but from the little information you provided, it shows that your husband does not approve of your acts and the information also shows that you are someone who would not take a no for an answer. You have chosen an outfit which you have labeled as nice and you expect no one (not even the person who would wear the clothes) to object.

Supposing you don't like skimpy clothes. How would you feel if your husband labels the clothes you like trash and then manipulates you into wearing clothes that you wouldn't feel comfortable wearing?

Marriage is a union. But it doesn't mean your individuality must disappear. If your husband likes his everyday wear, let him wear them as long as they can be worn and are decent. If a man allows you pick his outfits for him, it doesn't mean you should abuse the privilege and start thinking up ideas of rubbishing his own tastes.

Personally, I don't wear clothes because of fashion. I look at different factors. If I am going for a party and it is very sunny outside. Then you, my wife, comes and tries to force me to wear a suit or an agbada because you think it is nice outfit, then I will educate you on what they call relationships. It is not a prison where I have to displease myself all in the name of fashion. How can I wear agbada or suit and be sweating like a goat simply because I want to please society?

And yes, another piece of information that I got from your post and that further buttresses my argument that you are a manipulative person is the manner in which you wrote that you told your husband to go back in and change into what you had chosen for him. You wanted to hide some details to favor yourself and put all the blame on your husband, but for a man like me, I will always find out the salient details even from the polished ones presented.

Madam, if your husband raised his hand to you, then it is a really bad situation for the marriage because violence only aggravates problems and physical abuse is as much of a malaise as verbal assault. But, your husband is not here so I would give you my own piece of advice. Don't feel comfortable as to start putting down your husband's preferences simply because he might have allowed you to pick his outfits. If you could demean his choice of outfits right in front of us strangers, I just wonder how tiny your husband's self worth must be right now.

Please, next time, if he decides to wear his own outfit, try to find out why rather than making it seem like he can't pick wisely. You will be killing his self worth. It would get to a stage that he wouldn't even be able to dress to bed for fear that you would criticize his choice of pyjamas.

Please!!!

luminouzzzzzz:
This got me laughing out loud.
Kids are way more exposed sexually than out time.

I tell you, my brother, they are indeed way more exposed.

The world is so full of iniquities that it is now strange for a girl of even 15/16 to claim to be a virgin. I remembered going for a revival as a visiting pastor. My car broke down. Fortunately for me, I knew some brethren in the nearest town. They offered me a room. During the night, a boy and girl came close to my window and were chatting. The girl was about 16 and yet she was mocking someone whom she said was older than her by 2 months. She was mocking that one for still being a virgin. The Yoruba word she used was kojasi which loosely means not exposed.

I soon got the whole gist. The boy had approached the supposedly unexposed girl and that one refused his advances so the boy approached this 16 year old girl to help him get the unexposed girl. While they were chatting, the boy said mi o ni n fe, mo kan fe debe ni which means I don't intend to date her. I just want to sleep with her

That was when I cleared my throat and they left my window quickly.

The world is very rotten. May God help us.

budaatum:
It isn't the admins duty to monitor every page, monitoring is every contributors duty. If any one has evidence (or not, for that matter), that Eto is not from Ebonyi they can edit. Disputes would involve admins checking evidence, and only the truth would stand eventually, or wiki would have died by now.

You may all wish to read about malicious editing of Wikipedia pages.

You are getting everything wrong.

Where did I write that the admins monitor the page?

Moreover, Wikipedia pages are not always the same. Pages like Ebonyi can go years without much traffic which is why rate of modifications might be almost unnoticeable.

Be truthful. How many Wikipedia pages of Nigerian states do you visit? These pages can stay unmodified for months.

murphyibiam15:
I get u..but atleast every other information there is verifiable and correct which makes this one to be true, if not it would have been taken down long before now

How sure are you that all the information there are correct? Some of the information may even be outdated. There are Wikipedia pages that have not been modified for many years.

murphyibiam15:
Is not about admins..if it was wrong people would have most likely argued about it and Wikipedia would have taken it down..so far it stays is correct

When last was the page modifed?

As for the bold, I am just seeing the page. Maybe many people have not seen it yet. So, the fact that it hasn't been modified does not mean that it is correct.

I am sure this is the work of a mischievous editor.

murphyibiam15:
Ok.. noted..but the focus should be whether the information is right or wrong , for Wikipedia to leave it open to he edited, it means new information is supposed to be added which isn't a bad idea

It is not entirely a good idea because sometimes someone would come up with false information driven by tribalism, racism. They always get banned by the admin, but what about people who would have seen the page before the admin modify it?

budaatum:
Anyone can indeed edit, but if Samuel Eto is from Ebonyi State and you remove his name from a page that says so, it would be argued, and if evidence for its validity is provided, it stays and the remover would not be able to remove it anymore.

If there is any evidence, the person that last modified the page would have provided a link. But check the page, the references are very few and none seemed to contain a lead to the site where the editor had gotten his information.

Someone merely modified the page and included Eto's name. The admins mostly don't take this seriously since the page is unprotected.

murphyibiam15:
Meaning there is nothing that is correct on Wikipedia if you go by that steewped mentality

The guy is right in some ways. Anyone can edit unprotected Wikipedia pages, and many Wikipedia pages are unprotected and created by people like you and me. Any ordinary person can create a Wikipedia page for Ebonyi or even any state in Nigeria and anyone can edit the page.

That is why it is always advisable not to use Wikipedia pages for school works. I know of foreign universities (lecturers) who don't like quotes picked straight from Wikipedia. When I was doing my master's, a lecturer specifically warned me never to quote directly from Wikipedia ever again.

meeky007:
how can he/she edit without d right information

Anyone can edit Wikipedia pages. However, there are some Wikipedia pages that are protected and have many reliable links (mostly science-based entries).

But entries such as Ebonyi are unprotected and this is so to improve the content. For instance, someone has included Samuel Eto as one of the notable people from Ebonyi. Someone else can remove his name.

But entry such as Ebola which have links to many peer-reviewed articles and books by seasoned scientists and researchers are always protected by the Wiki admins.

adeniyi65:
a bi nah. 44 minutes Nigeria version brought to them live without gate fee.some people can just play with their Life.

Don't mind them.

momove4real25:
some foolish ppl are dre to seperate them

Just imagine how stupid some people can be. Do they think they are about to watch a movie?

You people are still here fighting over irrelevant issues. I am tempted to believe that you people are getting some dough out of this nonsense. Let this thread die abeg. It has served its usefulness.

My sucre wifito sef dey here dey para. I better put a ring on that finger fast before Tacha becomes a problem in my life.

TechCapon:
Shame on those so called celebrities who opened their stinky mouths to rubbish the house of God just because their faces were in the video. They should have counted it as a privilege to even appear in the video in the first place. The church has been hosting successful events in the past and the church will continue to grow and host more successful events whether their faces appear in the promo videos or not.
Truth is the church doesn't need their faces for promo before they can do their programs. Stupid celebrities. God will build his church and the gates of hell shall not prevail

What nonsense are you spewing?

How would you feel if Davido used a part of Biodun's teachings in his video without permission from Biodun or COZA?

DMerciful:
So based on this elephant sighting, you're implying Bokoharam has been elephantly defeated?

The fact is that that place is not what it used to be when Boko Haram reigned supreme.

DMerciful:
They are migrating. They normally migrate thousands of kilometers. Probably going from North to central Africa. They aren't staying there!

Even while migrating, elephants would never pass through a battleground. They are highly sensitive animals. They can smell anything even by perceiving the grasses. If they sensed any trouble, they would have passed other routes. Do you know that there hasn't been any elephant sighting in Nigeria for many years now? Why now? You think it is a coincidence? No, elephants are very sensitive, very intelligent.

Beremx:
How would the elephants know that the place is experiencing a crossfire?
You just reasoned like Lai Mohammed.

Elephants are very intelligent animals with super strong senses and memory. They would feel that the place is peaceful, if not, they would have taken another route.

You should read more on elephants or watch NatGeo Wild. They have a lot of programs focusing on elephants.

I showed this post to the Bank of Industry and they said they would fund my research.

sonofElElyon:
In one fell swoop you have questioned the authorship of the gospels and therefore questioned their authenticity and veracity and you say I shouldn’t call you a heretic? You say the gospels ”COULD” have been written after the disciples died”. Why make postulations that challenge the very basis of our faith which you are not certain about You are absolutely wrong. Luke for instance wrote the gospel of Luke and the Acts of Apostles and this is settled fact among “genuine” bible scholars. He may not have been one of the 12 disciples but he was a follower of Christ. The authors of the other gospels were part of the 12 disciples. I don’t know where you are going with this honestly...
Assuming but not conceding that all the gospels were written by eye witnesses (according to you) who were not part of the 12 disciples (which I totally disagree with), why do you still question the truth of writings of other disciples who followed Christ and were eye witnesses according to you? I am sure you are aware that Christ appeared to about 500 people after resurrection but before ascension according to Paul in 1st corinthians 15:6.
As for me, I am convinced that the gospels were written by the people whose names they bear and many genuine bible scholars share this position.
Regards.

Bro, you know absolutely nothing about how the Bible came to be. Hope you know that there are more accounts of the Life and Death of Christ than the texts that were canonized?

I will like to see a link that shows any Bible scholar sharing your position that the gospels were written by the people whose names they bear.

Please, I will give you a million dollars right now if you will show me a scholar who can back himself up that the book of Matthew was written by Matthew himself or that the gospels were written at the time the authors (whose authorship that bear) lived.

Since you think disbelieving the authorship of a book of the Bible makes one also question their authenticity, then you must believe that Moses also wrote Genesis, Exodus and the other accounts, including books that contained stories that happened long after Moses's death.

sonofElElyon:
I will ignore your tantrums. Obviously you are not mature enough to stay with the issues but prefer to throw invectives. If you question the early fathers of the church and the position they took then the simple truth is that YOU ARE NOT A CHRISTIAN BUT A HERETIC! With the exception of LUKE, all the writers of the gospels were disciples of Christ. Christ taught them directly about himself and explained to them the prophecies about him in the Bible.. see LUKE 24:27. So you and all your Bible scholars know more than the disciples who were taught directly by Jesus right? The gospels quoted Isaiah as saying "a virgin shall conceive". That is how they understood it because that is how Christ explained it to them! You are on a frolick of your own and your post is anti-Christ. The visit of angel Gabriel to Mary and their conversation in which it was established that Mary conceived Christ as a virgin should have shown you that that was the meaning and accurate fulfillment of that Messianic prophecy by Isaiah regarding the virginity of the Saviour's mother and thus should have ended your confusion.

You keep saying the gospel writers quoted Isaiah.

Quoted Isaiah in what language?

And mind you, Luke was not the only writers of the Gospel that wasn't taught directly by Christ. Mark, for instance, was not taught directly by Christ.

There are evidences from several studies that Mark's account provided a source for the accounts in Matthew, Luke and John.

Moreover, the accounts in Matthew, Luke, John, and even Mark, could very well have been written long after these disciples died. They must have been written by eyewitnesses who never directly encountered Christ.

The Almah becoming solely virgin in the translation of Isaiah can be traced to the Vulgate translations of St. Jerome.

Call me a heretic all you want. But I am a theologian. Even before I went to theology school and became a pastor, I had taken a divinity course in Cambridge and we had perused many studies and writings from the Church fathers.

Understanding your faith goes beyond reading the English Bible.

What is always the urge to shoot?

sonofElElyon:
You should ask yourself how the disciples in the synoptic gospels understood it! They understood it to mean virgin. Don't be unnecessarily controversial bro

Bro, your naivety is really pitiable

You are behaving like a child. So, you don't know that translations are subject to errors (deliberate or intentional)? All it takes is for the church leaders to agree and anything can change in the Bible.

Read this excerpt:

"Each of these translations has its own sort of sponsoring group, and some are more conservative, evangelical than others,” Coogan says. “The more conservative and evangelical, the more likely they are to have ‘virgin’ instead of ‘young woman.”

While the USCCB has embraced young woman in its revised New American Bible , that text is only intended for study and personal prayer. Catholics attending Mass will still hear virgin when Isaiah is read, since this new translation has not been approved for liturgical use. It may one day, but change, God knows, can be slow.
http://newsfeed.time.com/2011/03/04/controversial-bible-revision-about-that-virgin-thing/

You think the disciples in the synoptic gospel wrote their accounts independently, and in Latin or English? They all copied one another, and the best bet is that Mark was the original writer while others copied from him.

sonofElElyon:
All the Bible versions translated that word as virgin. Even in the new testament, especially the gospels, it was translated as virgin. Meaning that was the original understanding of the passage. Your own translation is an aberration and misinterpretation.

What do you mean by original understanding? Which version made the first translation? And were each of the translations made in isolation?

femi4:
I ve addressed that in the previous posts. Take your time and check thoroughly

If you would be kind, you could just modify that post and mention me in it so that I can find it easily.

Merci

femi4:
You don't understand that

The no 1 KEY God was looking for was a righteous UNMARRIED woman.

And an UNMARRIED woman that is yet to have sex = VIRGIN

First of all, there is no proof anywhere (except in translation) that Mary was a virgin.

And second, you are a man. So, just like the Jews who thought the Messiah could not be born to a carpenter, you are also thinking that the Messiah could only be born by a virgin. Many Jews rejected Jesus Christ because they felt they knew God's plans. Their thoughts were that Jesus was going to be born into either a royal family or an influential family. They thought He would help them drive away the Romans. So, when Jesus was born to a carpenter, they concluded that He could never be the Messiah they were told to expect. They were thinking like men just as you are thinking like a man.

But God's ways are not our ways.

femi4:
yes, cos you didn't understand that its a miracle for a Virgin to be pregnant

Far wonderful miracles have happened.

We are not to dwell on the miracle of a virgin getting pregnant. That is not the essence of Christmas or of our salvation. Nor does it answer the question of the OP.

Whether Mary was a virgin or a prostitute would not have mattered. What would have mattered is the Son of God incarnating in the womb of a human being. The womb could have been the womb of a prostitute or a thief or the worst sinner.

Remember the Savior of the world was born in a manger. Does the manger matter in our story of Salvation? Who knows maybe the owner of the manger was not even a believer in God. The only thing that matters is Christ.

So, the question of the OP is "Would God Have Chosen Mary If She Were Not A Virgin"?

The simple answer is: It doesn't matter what Mary was. What mattered was that the Savior had to come as man. Mary was only lucky to find God's favor. She was not the only young woman. She only found favor.

femi4:
That's the point. The Adamic nature reside in the sperm and not Mary's virginity

But you wrote that Mary's virginity validated Christ's non-Adamic nature?

I hope you have not had one too many?

femi4:
Olodo, Virgin doesn't give birth without penetration.

No human being gave birth in those days without penetration. So, what really is your point?

However, my own point is that Mary's virginity is insignificant in the whole story. That was why it was never mentioned in the whole of the Bible. The only thing Mary enjoyed was God's favor. She was not the only young woman or even virgin in the whole of Israel.

Omuneizzy6:
the neighbors helped him with the malt... no money.. simple matter o the wife asked him how about our children clothes for the Xmas boom the man provoked.. the beating stated around 9pm to 12am... no food in the house..

You call that a simple matter? No, that is not a simple matter. Never trivialize issues such as that simply because they appear so to you.

First of all, there are certain material needs that are very significant, and there are others that are not as pressing. In the case were you don't have much, Christmas clothes can wait. Or better still, any clothes available (and presentable) can be worn on Christmas day.

Then food. In the case where there is not much, Christmas chicken can be forgone for some other delicacies that are affordable. You would be surprised that there is food in the house but because the food is neither rice nor chicken, it is unsuitable for Christmas. At least, I know of a woman who has this mentality. I must do Christmas by force.

There are millions of extremely poor people in Nigeria, and yet we always have the knack to show off.

And as for the OP, I do not in anyway support violence. We humans need to always find common grounds for solving our differences without going violent and aggravating issues.

femi4:
Being a virgin is part of the sign

It validate the non Adamic nature of Jesus

Are you saying that virgins do not inherit the Adamic nature?

Listen, bro, the virginity or otherwise of Mary had nothing to do with Jesus's sinless nature.

Everyone was a virgin at one time or the other, but we were all born with Original Sin, even Mary.

The Roman Catholic Church try to change the narrative by claiming that Mary was also born immaculate (that is, without Original Sin), but there is no basis for this in Scriptures.

On the contrary, there is a verse in the Bible that counters this false teaching.

And Mary said: "My soul glorifies the Lord and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior..." (Luke 1:46-47)

If Mary were sinless, why would she need a Savior?

In summary, Christ is sinless not because He came through a virgin, but because He is the Son of God incarnated in the womb of a human being. The womb does not matter. It could have been any womb.