₦airaland Forum

Kobojunkie:
... If he were to come about the news somewhere down the line or from a third party?

Then we would not be talking about the motive of his wife's family telling their in-law, but likely about the poverty that makes them collect from their ex-in-law.

Kobojunkie:
It is, or at least would have been interpreted as such by OP.

Assuming the OP is the in-law, I can't agree that he would have been able to interpret what he is not aware of if they did not tell him.

Roland17:
🤡 RFK backtracks his spurious Tylenol claim.

This is the clown running the health department of the most powerful nation in the world.

Nobody makes such ridiculous statements without facts and extensive research.

Of course, it wouldn’t make a lot of difference with the MAGA population who are already neck deep into the conspiracy.

Kennedy also claims there's a link between circumcision and autism.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/reupping-unproven-claims-about-tylenol-kennedy-claims-a-link-between-circumcision-and-autism

Burgerlomo:
They're irresponsible family 😎

I'm afraid I must agree with you. I feel for their in-law.

emmabest2000:
By not hiding it proved that they have no motive or so I think,

You don't have any right to dictate whom your in-law will associate with just because you married their daughter.

Their motive is not in collecting from their ex-in-law. They must however have a motive for telling their current in-law since it's none of his business.

And note that not telling him is not the same as them hiding it. It's not the business of the in-law whom they collect whatever they collect just because he married their daughter, so there is no need to inform him.

Ourtruth247:
Intentionality in creation

There is an intentional intelligence that governs life on earth.

An intelligence created life on earth, but this intelligence isn't a single person. It's a group of advanced intelligences.

Again, where is the evidence for this your so called "intentional intelligence"?

Would you object to me calling it God?

Ourtruth247:
It is a well documented fact that suicide rates are higher among the wealthy. But why is that?

No it is not a "well known documented fact that suicide rates are higher among the wealthy". And I don't understand why you are asking us to believe you when you have not provided any evidence to support your claim!

Ourtruth247:
I am not an atheist

An atheist by definition is someone who doesn't believe in the existence of a god. Going by the definition, I am not an atheist.

The above is a Christian's definition of atheism. You can tell by the use of the word "believe".

It's like claiming you do not believe you have a million pounds in your bank account. If you bothered to check, you'd know whether you have a million pounds in your bank account or not.

Anyone can not be a bookkeeper! Especially not of a huge country like Nigeria. And considering corruption due to bad military bookkeeping is an issue that has ravaged Nigeria for decades, a bookkeeper is, in my opinion, what Nigeria currently needs.

Now, after the books are in order, we'd need a business person indeed. And perhaps that will be the time for my Peter Obi, or a better person if there is one. And after that we'd hopefully have an engineer who can say "let there be", and there is

I'm an atheist, and to me you sound like you want to play God. Or why else would you think you are knowledgeable and powerful enough to achieve what you've claimed here?

Anyway, I'm booked. And I shan't be on your side.

I'm rather annoyed at how young they all are. It makes me lament the non-teaching of history to that generation.

LordReed:
Read this article and tell me why having a lawyer did nothing for a person with a green card getting deported.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/ice-deported-us-citizen-laos-b2854685.html?utm_source=reddit.com

I'm beginning to think defendants should start suing the judges for not ensuring their rulings are followed!

oridavid:
If I say I have shown you people living in the sun, you just don't see it, does that make my claim true?

Yes it does make your claim true

"Shown" is the past participle of the verb "to show," meaning something has been displayed, revealed, or made visible.

If you have shown me people living in the sun and I don't see them, then I must be refusing to see what you showed me or I must be blind and incapable of seeing what you showed me. Because, for you to show me people living in the sun, people must be living in the sun, or you wouldn't be able to show me people living in the sun.

Now, let's look at what I showed you.

Is it not obvious to you that “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground”, is not the same as, "The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it"?

And if “I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds in the sky and all the creatures that move along the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food” as pay for a job, and later say "but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil", would you not say I cut your pay?

oridavid:
The duties for the man made in the image of God and the one made from mud was the same - which is, to obey God (Ecclesiastes 12:13)

Really? Or are you just trying to confuse yourself.

The instructions given to the Image is very clearly stated in Genesis 1 and that to the mud is in Genesis 2, and they very clearly differ, but if you choose to see them as the same, so be it for you.

oridavid, I asked you 2 simple questions but you conveniently ignored them. And I've found that is what people who cover their eyes so they don't see do.

Would you like another go?

So tell. Is there any evidence the duties and pay of the image differs to that of the mud or not?

And if those two things differ, were they the same creation?

AmazonTopaz:
That's not true he doesn't baby them. He has never ever pretended to love them. They are evil just like him so they resonate with him. It's not about being babied. He insulted them yet they still voted for him. See what he did with Latinos.

You must think "baby them" means treat them well, when it may also mean demean them, which is what he successfully does by insulting Latinos and still getting their votes.

But yes, there are many who are just evil like him and want the evil he wants.

oridavid:
So you won't still show me how you got to know that Adam was created after God had rested?

I have shown you, oridavid, you just don't see it. But that's not unusual. Many don't.

If this were not religion and just an English comprehension test where you had not been told what to believe, and were then asked if Adam was created on day 6, you'd likely say no he wasn't. But because most are told what to believe before they get to read the text themselves, it's hard for them to see beyond what is believed, I've found.

But you keep looking. It's possible to see if you try. And its implications are huge too.

oridavid:
That's another discussion.

I'm just saying your argument for how you saw that the man created by mud was created after God rested is a bad argument that has no falsifiability. You claim you saw it in the Bible and anyone who doesn't see it is blind....that's a silly argument. It's just like me saying I see people living inside the sun and whoever doesn't see it is blind. Wouldn't you call me a charlatan?

I would call you a charlatan if there's no evidence of people living in the sun.

So tell. Is there any evidence the duties and pay of the image differs to that of the mud or not?

And if those two things differ, were they the same creation?

oridavid:
This is a bad argument. Any argument that lacks falsifiability is a terrible one.

Are you denying the image had a different job description and pay to the mud?

Harddiskng:
Oyinbo say “trust but verify”

You can only have a problem with your man verifying if you have something to hard. All these ones you are yarning “a matured man won’t do DNA test blah blah blah” is just emotional blackmail.

No good woman would have a problem with her husband conducting DNA test

I don't have a problem with a man conducting DNA test. What I have problem with is the man having the trust issues that will make him feel he needs to do a DNA test.

If he is that insecure, I can not possibly be the woman for him.

oridavid:
I have read it, I didn't find anything of such in there. This is why I'm asking you know why you're saying what you're saying..

We can show you but we can unfortunately not make you see that Adam was created after God had rested, and was given a job that was less than the images and paid less for it.

Those with eyes see, while the blind see not.

ManknowThyself:
Yes that's fact.
Can never date nor marry a woman against DNA testing.

That, sir, is your choice. And why should I tell you to do otherwise when you are not marrying me?

oridavid:
So you think the man created from mud was created after the seven days?

Read it yourself and tell me otherwise.

https://biblehub.com/kjv/genesis/2.htm

AmazonTopaz:
It's the voters. I will not baby ignorance and bigotry they knew exactly what they were voting for.

It is the voters. And you must baby them if you want them to vote for you. That's what dump does. He babies them, and they vote for him against their own best interests.

oridavid:
So, is it Christ who opened your eyes to see that God had rested before he created Adam from mud?

Call it Christ. Jesus not only fed people fruits of knowledge, he also promised you the fruit of life.

Fact is, my eyes are open and I can read and see that the duty given to the image differs to that given to the mud, and their pays differ too. And I understand the implications of believing one is created in God's image on day six or from mud after day seven, and I know which I'd rather be.

Those who brought you the book do not believe they were created from mud. They eat fruits of knowledge for breakfast lunch and supper and rule and subdue and multiply and are blessed, while some don't eat fruits of knowledge and wail and languish and die.

ManknowThyself:
This trust manipulative time done pass. Talk another one

You should definitely not marry me if you think I am manipulating you.

PerfectStranger:
Why should i trust a woman in the first place?

Why should you marry a woman in the first place?

SPAMBOX7:
See one of dem

Please open your eyes and look well at me.

AmazonTopaz:
Oh please blame the American people. There are times you blame politicians but this time is 100% on the electorate. The difference between Harris and Orange Mussolini was clear as day yet people chose him because of bigotry. This is on the voters.

It may have been clear as day to open eyed you, but "the American people" obviously needed more time to see what you saw, and the Democrat Party did not give them enough time to see what you so easily saw. And if the Democrats assume next time that people see like smart you sees, then expect dump third term, because many very obviously don't have your eyes to see what you so easily see.