₦airaland Forum

magoo10:
In this era of increasing insecurity how we want take protect ourselves na even when the government isn't doing much in the area of securing lives and properties of the people. Kole work

You talk as if you currently protect yourself with a firearm. Not many of us need guns for protection, and most who have guns don't have licences. I doubt the nightwatchmen, hunters and Ogun worshippers in my Orolu Kingdom bothered to get one.

Agrogbeide:
Because of wrong religious belief and orientation Africans are now scared of anything or everything that are beyond their scope of understanding. The most bitter part is that the literate who are supposed to be a medium of elevation from these false beliefs are the ones caught deeper in the web. What a mess indeed!!!

"Literate" is just the "ability to read and write", for some, and not necessarily the "acquisition of knowledge and competence".

Shepherd00:
Buda, i'd not care if Buda will stop using Scriptures (the same ones he believes is propaganda) out of whatever he says here.

Stop bearing false witness Shepherd. God does not like liars! You have not read what buda writes, nor did anyone make you the Scripture police!

buda has said, continuously, that buda does not do 'believe', and I wonder why buda quotes Scripture if it were "propaganda" as you claim! Or is "Thou shalt not bear false witness" propaganda that you yourself do not believe in, or better still, know?

Any update?

What happened to my contact the Legal Ombudsman post? They are free.

https://www.legalombudsman.org.uk/

CTPlayer:
Huawei isn't banned you lying loser. Their attempted takeover of 5G telecom is. You know dam well it isn't economic. Move to China where you have zero rights LOL. China won't let you move there. Fucking idiot go move to China.

I didn't know this was about human rights CT. And why the insults? You seemed more intelligent than this!


US ban on Huawei a ‘cynically timed’ blow in escalating trade war, says firm

jesusjnr:
I am not saying that you buda are not getting it wrong in certain areas, but in the area of not just believing in Jesus but to know Him, as anyone who's not blind should have seen, it's actually backed up by Jesus' Words.

For any believing in Jesus without knowing Him, the Truth, through keeping His Words, is a very fake and false believing in Jesus, for it is not the interpretation of belief according to Jesus.

buda is not in any way claiming to know it all so cannot be right all the time. This whole thread however shows the clear difference between one who believes and another who seeks to know, which anyone who reads through would clearly see, and as I've said, will comment on and educate op.

Ain't God just infinitely wise and merciful?

hayoholla:
Exactly vaxx, I agree with you on this one. You see subjectivity makes us unique in our thought. In the end, objective idea or theory exist because of a " consensus agreement" that is why 1+1 may or may not always be equals to 2. But one thing that keeps me confused is, is nature itself objective. Like for example when you wake up in the morning it must never be dark, everything is clear, also at night it is always dark. I can give numerous example of which you and I can relate with. Is the working principle of nature objective regardless of ones subjective view in trying to explain it? Budaatum ,vaxx

It is the person's view that inputs subjectivity into nature. In this thread somewhere we spoke about a tree that falls in the middle of the forest with no one there to witness it. The questions were, did it fall, and was there an objective noise despite no subject observing it?

hayoholla:
Are you an anarchist, budaatum? Your arguments so far leans towards that school of thought. Just asking though.

That's a new label for me based on your subjective understanding. May I ask if its an objective opinion or your subjective opinion of me?

Which arguments would those be that make you think I'm an anarchist?

CTPlayer:
This is all I need to know about them.

Table of high-ranking websites blocked in mainland China
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Websites_blocked_in_mainland_China

So, a tit for tat? And that's ok by me by the way. If China can ban Google, FB, Twitter and many others for no reason except economic, then America can ban Huawei too, and for whatever reason in fact. Why lie about it is what I can't get over. Lying just diminishes one's point.

Oh, I know why. We can't get UK et al to ban them too if we don't lie! Shame!

Anduku:
I never said governor northam proposed any infanticide bill? The fact that he could be brazen enough to make such a comment on radio is scary enough for anyone with common sense. He is the governor of a state, not just any commoner, if he could float such an idea publicly, then how long before we start hearing the same argument from other mainstream politicians?

A governor, Anduku, and not a dictator who can just do whatever he wants. And besides, of a swing state, having only won from Republican William Troy Bolling in 2014.

Tie him up in court instead if he proposes such nonsense in a bill. Campaign against him even and get him kicked out! You don't have to do what you constantly accuse libtards of doing, though, I must admit that misrepresenting the opponents position is 'campaign against' for some. But you're not campaigning here, so why not stick to the facts (okay, I'm laughing at myself for asking those involved in American politics to stick to facts lol!)

Anduku:
And I provided you a verbatim quote by Governor ralph northam to back up my claim. You are yet to disprove that he said the words I quoted or prove that his words don't imply infanticide yet you accuse me of lying?

He made a comment. It was not in a bill.

budaatum:
Fact check: Did Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam state he 'would execute a baby after birth'

Speaking about abortion, Trump said, "we had the case of governor of Virginia where he stated he would execute a baby after birth."

A spokesman for the governor, Ralph Northam, disputed this characterization of confusing remarks he made days ago — and it should be noted that Northam was discussing a hypothetical procedure that would occur only in cases of severe deformities or nonviable pregnancy.

Nonetheless, he caused a firestorm when he responded to a question related to a proposed state law that would have made it somewhat easier for a woman to obtain an abortion later in a pregnancy for medical reasons.

Asked on a radio program what happens when a woman is going into labor who desires a third-trimester abortion, Northam noted that this kind of procedure only occurs in cases of severe deformities or nonviable pregnancy. He said that in this scenario, “the infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother.”

It’s worth noting that the proposed Virginia law — which failed to pass the Republican-controlled legislature — wasn’t proposing legalizing abortions in the third trimester; that is are already legal in the state. The bill proposed changing the number of physicians required for that kind of abortion’s approval — from three to one doctor. It also proposed broadening the list of health concerns that would allow a woman to seek approval for such an abortion.

Anduku:
You better give us a good explanation of what what this words mean before you ever call me a liar again.

I never called you a liar Anduku! Least I hope I never did. (I hope, because I am having a conversation with a liar on another thread and hope I haven't mixed you up with that person).

Anduku:
Can you be kind enough to explain to us what Gov. Ralph northam meant when he said, the baby will only be resuscitated if that's what the mother wishes?

I already did. Read the factcheck I posted on the subject. If you are capable of differentiating between "abort a baby" and "kill a baby", I'm confident you can differentiate between "a comment" and "a bill".

Anduku:
And why did the democrats vote against the born alive Bill?

Politics, probably. You know what you Americans can be like. Though, in my opinion, it's a stupid bill.

In my opinion, abortions should not be happening if the foetus has reached the point of viability except in very extreme circumstances like the life of the mother is threatened. When you decide to fight for that, please call on me to support you.

zendi:
All the people making ado about this post with regards to "aborting already born babies" should note that in english language, the word 'abort' simply means to terminate something prematurely. So what makes it a verb that can only apply inside a womb? The barbaric proposals of "Progressive" Ralph Northam amount to simply a continuation of the effort to terminate the life of the baby, within or without the womb, at the nod of the mother, by denying it rescussitation, by simply neglecting it to death. For good measure, it is also called Post-Birth Abortion.

It's not about whether you abort the born baby or kill it zendi. No one proposed either in any bill is our point here, and not the strawnonsense Anduku is trying to turn it into!

CAPSLOCKED:
BELIEVERS ARE CRAZY. WHEN THEY SAY "THERE'S POWER IN THE TONGUE", THEY ONLY MEAN THAT WHEN YOU SAY TERRIBLE THINGS THEY COULD HAPPEN. BUT NOT WHEN YOU SAY GOOD THINGS.

LIKE A PERSON MIGHT DIE IF A PERSON TALKS ABOUT HIS DEATH, OR ANY OTHER EVIL.
BUT IF A PERSON CLAIMS RICHES OR GOODNESS FOR HIMSELF, THEY LOOK AT HIM AND THINK HIS STATEMENT IS LAUGHABLE.

THAT IS TO SAY,
THAT BELIEVERS BELIEVE IN EVIL MORE THAN THEY BELIEVE IN GOOD.
THEY BELIEVE THE DEVIL WORKS SWIFTLY, BUT THEIR ALMIGHTY GOD WORKS SLOWLY.
THEY BELIEVE THERE'S MORE CONSEQUENCES SWEARING IN A SHRINE THAN A CHURCH.
THEY BELIEVE THERE ARE WITCHES EVERYWHERE, AND THE ANGELS THAT ARE SUPPOSEDLY EVERYWHERE ARE INCAPABLE OF HANDLING THESE WITCHES, SO THEY HAVE TO PRAY AND USE OLIVE OIL AND HOLY WATER AND CHURCH STICKERS FOR FURTHER PROTECTION AND EVEN WITH ALL THAT, THEY'RE PETRIFIED IF A TINY COCKROACH PASSES BY.

EVERY RAT IS DEMONIC, AND THE CATS THAT ARE SUPPOSED TO CONTROL THE RAT POPULATION IS KILLED FOR ALSO BEING DEMONIC.
SPIDERS AND GECKOS ARE DEMONIC, AND THE PRESENCE OF SPIDER WEBS IN YOUR BED PLACE WOULD BRING YOU BAD DREAMS AND BAD LUCK.
LETS NOT FORGET HOW WOMEN TURN TO OWLS.
AND WHEN A BIRD IS KILLED, OR A CAT, BELIEVERS ADVICE OTHER BELIEVERS TO LOOKOUT FOR NEIGHBORS, OR RELATIVES WHO DIED THAT DAY BECAUSE THEY'RE SURE IT WAS A HUMAN THAT TRANSFORMED INTO THE KILLED ANIMAL IN ORDER TO STEAL THEIR DESTINY.
BELIEVERS OF JESUS BELIEVE THESE THINGS.... THEN I WONDER HOW THEY MANAGED TO ADOPT THE WHITE MAN'S RELIGION WHILE STILL HOLDING ON TO THEIR ANCESTORS' PAGANISTIC BELIEFS.

I'LL NEVER UNDERSTAND HOW THE NIGERIAN BELIEVER EXPECTS EVIL MORE THAN GOOD, AND THINKS NEGATIVE MORE THAN POSITIVE.

Imagine! These people will have children and tell them to believe instead of teaching them to use their brains to reason. No wonder the country is in darkness!

Shepherd00:
You Win Buda. You are very sincere and honest. You were never an atheist and do not support Homosexuality, that's okay. You Win.

I'm sure you said "bye"! What you doing back already?I'd ask you to stop the shameless lying shepherd, but I doubt you possibly can. Anyway, and just so it's clear, Atheist. Probably longer than you've lived shepherd, and some even said the only true atheist on here. Now, Jesus is Lord, amen.

And not joining in your unhealthily obsession with homosexuality and gay bashing is not the same as "support homosexuality" shepherd.

Here's a post from April 2018. Learn to read and understand instead of believing the crap in your head and accusing others of it!

budaatum:
No one says it is "automatically morally acceptable". What a verily heavily weigh down phrase that is by the way.

First, there was nothing 'automatic' about the acceptable of homosexuality in societies where it has been accepted as you very well know. In countries where it is accepted, its acceptability came after very many years of the homosexual crime of sodomy for which many were jailed, regardless of whether sodomy actually occurred or not, mind. I recently posted numerous apologies proffered by numerous countries for such prosecutions, and there was quite a lot of protest against, and advocacy for, before it was deemed acceptable. They actually went through the same discourse we are going through in Nigeria, and even moreso, considering homosexuality has been going on more openly in those countries than it has amongst us.

Then there is the issue of its 'morality'. Those countries that have deemed homosexuality as acceptable have decided it is not wrong for two adults to engage in same gender sex provided they both consent. The Church of England held out against it for years after the Equality Act was passed, having been giving a waiver for decades, but even they had to succumb to the immense will of their members who were finding it difficult to condemn homosexual members of their very own families. Goes to show that their view of morality does not seem to be some absolute decree that they have no choice but to obey. Or are humans made for the law, these days? That of course does not mean it is legal for anyone to jump a same gender, or different gender person, for that matter, on the street. Consent is still required or it is rape. But can you imagine how much it takes for a parent to stop loving their child John, when he brings home his boyfriend, Peter? Or dad even, when he divorces his wife of twenty something years and shacks up with his boyfriend, Bob?

Which leads to the issue of 'acceptability', and I ask, 'by whom'? Indeed you can ask two grown up adults to not have sex with one another, but if they refuse to obey you, what exactly do you do? Throw them in jail? This has been done already, and for centuries, but go read those apologies again to see where we are now! Also consider how you would police what two consenting adults do it in the privacy of their bedrooms. And then consider how such a case is dealt with in court where even the judge is a homosexual. Can you perceive any difficulty here? Add to that one's child, John, or husband and father of twenty something years. Do they stop being ones loved one because they are homosexuals? And no, one does not have to accept them, but it would not be the first time members of families have gone their own separate ways never to relate with one another again now would it.

Now I note that you claim homosexuality is similar to beastaphilia, paedophilia, and necrophilia (for which you give spurious evidence claiming some countries do not deem it legal when in fact the article you posted does not claim it is not illegal, and in fact, it is a crime to defile the dead!). All the same, the people have decided that they do not find these acts to be acceptable at all, which just goes to show the non-absolutism of laws, at least by those who have pens with which to rewrite them. Of course you may think they arbitrarily decide which is acceptable and which is not, but the objective evidence for the debates for and against is available for those concerned enough to want to consider it.

And finally, though you never mentioned it, how does all this affect the individual? I guess if I don't want to be poked by a same gender person, I can say "no thank you" , or "fuq off" even, if the poker is insistent. But what exactly is one supposed to do if two grown up people decide to be the poker and the pokee, do I, and can I, insist they mustn't? Well, that would depend where I live I suppose. I guess in Nigeria, I can call the police and have the individuals arrested, but I would be hard pressed for evidence unless I had access to where they were committing their crime in order to gather said evidence, like video recording it (though I do expect any sensible person to wonder why I'd go to such lengths! In UK however, I should not be surprised if the police arrest me for the crime of homophobia, for it is a crime to discriminate against same gender pokees in UK. In fact, if I were to refuse to employ a homosexual person and it is found that my refusal to employ them was because of what they poke, I should expect to go to prison for my bigotry just as I would if I discriminated against others because I don't like their colour or gender or race! Just goes to show how different societies make laws for themselves, don't you think? Doesn't stop me slamming my door in their face though if they ask to come in my house and sit at my table in my dinning room. And I bloody can't be arrested for any bigotry thoughts I may hold in my bigoted head, or can I?

And another from a month later:

budaatum:
Hey, its ma bodi naw! If me want take off mi clothe and dance in di market, se na ur bodi I de take dance?

Call me animal, or unintelligent, if you wish but a persons poker is a persons poker and if they wish to poke it in poo its really none of your poking business, in my opinion, least as long as I'm not breaking any laws, and you can't catch me!

Some people have to learn to not go overboard in their attempt to save others from going to hell!

Understand both as I don't give a fuq what you poke. It's your poker that will stink if you poke it in poo!

hayoholla:
I think there time is relative sire

First, how much of the thread have you read?

Time I don't think can be relative, except it be by location hayoholla. 2pm on Saturday 21 April 2018 in a particular place is 2pm on Saturday 21 April 2018 in that same place regardless, though 2pm on Saturday 21 April 2018 is indeed relative to where one is or one's own time measuring instrument. One's clock could afterall not be working properly.

But perhaps I don't understand what you mean. Mind elaborating please?

[quote author=budaatum post=66918270][/quote]

Anduku:
If you are not dumb as a rock, where in that post you quoted did you see me using the words "aborting already born babies" like your Half witted friend accused me of doing? You lamebrained liberals are just a waste of time. If you can't comprehend simple English, how is one supposed to carry on a sensible conversation with you? Someone accuses me of mentioning "abortion of already born babies", I ask her to show me where I said it and you foolishly jump in to bring up a post that doesn't even mention abortion as your evidence? Good lord!!! You mean you can't differentiate between the words "abortion" and "infanticide "? SMH

Only a fool would argue whether you want to "abortion of already born babies" or "kill an already born child". Below is what I said you said.

"The current talking point among the lunatic liberals in the US to give a mother a right to kill an already born child"

And no one proposed such nonsense! You must be one of those libtards you're always ranting about. You sure lie like one!

Eberejesus111:
Dear brethren, Jesus is God. If you don't believe in Jesus you as well do not have believe in God. Let me give you some scriptures in the Bible to throw my light.

Read the thread please before you throw your light.

Shepherd00:
Bye Buda.

Bye Shepherd, and try to make sure you learn to read and understand instead of believing the nonsense you make up in your own head.

Shepherd00:
I most have missed that post. I didn't see it.

So you are saying that Paul knew Jesus before he set off to Damascus? As in, He knew who Jesus was (As the Messiah) before he heard His voice? And, yet he asked 'Who are you?'

Sorry Shepherd, but I am going to have to insult you because you appear not only to be blind to what I wrote way back on page 3 but for even misrepresenting the post you've now responded to. How does what you responded to mean, "Paul knew Jesus before he set off to Damascus? As in, He knew who Jesus was (As the Messiah) before he heard His voice?"

I suggest you stop wasting my time and go back and read from page one without your blinkers on to see what else you "missed", "didn't see", and clearly misunderstood.

Shepherd00:
You said all.sorts of things against God.

Where? Liar!

LoJ:
I am not the one who brought it up here. The mention of the GWB was initiated by my bro up there. Kindly read the conversation again. How do I respond to him without mentioning it?

Apologies! I've found Baba's post on the subject, and if I'd seen it at the time I would have informed him that the knowledge of Rosicrucianism is not from some gwb. He mentioned "the days of Pharaoh Akhenaten", and he was not exactly 'white'.

But let me.

Babacele:
The Great White Brotherhood from the days of Pharaoh Akhenaten who brought monotheism .

The knowledge you speak of is from way more sources than the two you mention here Baba. You'd be amazed what was written in Hindu philosophy as well as Buddhist and Jainist philosophy for instance, but like the River Niger, some things don't appear to exist until Mungo Park says they do.

Aside, if you both could, perhaps see my input here as adding to and not making out I know more than anybody else. I don't. But if we all contribute our small loaf and fish perhaps millions will be fed.

Shepherd00:
Shouldn't you show were Jesus says you shd not believe in him but know him?

Do you think your audience is as dense as you who allows your beliefs to stop you considering the evidence laid before you?

Here's buda on page 3 saying what buda has been saying all along but which your 'belief' appears to blind you from seeing and understanding and knowing. Your lying fruits are rotten shepherd!

budaatum:
I did not tell anybody not to believe Shepherd. I said, believe if you have not yet asked. But if you "Ask it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you and then will you know. God wants powerful people see. Not just sheep to be shepherded!

And I never told anyone not to worship God! To worship God is do my will, to love your neighbour and to do unto others as you will have them do unto you, to forgive them their trespasses so that your trespasses can be forgiven, to feed the poor and to be “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.” I specifically said that anyone who understands this will even beg God to permit them to worship God!

Shepherd00:
I opened this thread to find out from you how one can know Christ who is a Spirit without believing in Him first as you claim.

And I've repeatedly shown you one can know Christ without believing in Him first. I even gave you the example of Paul, who "heard a voice saying to him, “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me?” without first believing. Or did he believe before his encounter on the way to Damascus? But, alas, since believing is of more importance to you than understanding and knowing, I could hardly expect you to consider it can I, since it's not one of the things you've been taught to 'believe' despite it being clearly shown in the book you claim you believe in.

You've, thankfully, allowed me to fully express my position here which is, believe, please, but those who can should seek so they can know and understand that Jesus Christ is indeed the Son of God.

CAPSLOCKED:
MUSICWRITER SAYS THAT CHARMS ONLY WORK ON THE PEOPLE THAT BELIEVE CHARMS WILL WORK ON THEM.

THERE'S NO MISTAKE IN THAT STATEMENT.

These believers self. If its that simple why don't people become billionaires just by believing it? Oh my bad! Perhaps it's because they just don't believe enough!

Believe harder, people.

Shepherd00:
You cannot be a follower of Jesus if you are not a Christian, and you say you are not. So, mind your Buddhism or whatever you believe in, and stop summersaulting scriptures hoping you'd mislead someone. this sin is unpardonable.

It seems to be a great concern of your's what buda does or says so go on and throw buda in Shepherd's hell and let us know who cares what you think.

Meanwhile, Jesus Christ the Messiah is Lord.