₦airaland Forum

pendo89:
dont get it wrong. Spending I said is inevitable, but question remains.Without a cent are u man enough to impress and win over a pretty lady?
Spending makes dating comfortable but it's not 'it'. It aids and takes u places but what u both posess is what keeps the relationship going strong.
Its nice to spend and be spent on but have something better in your persona not wallet.

My comments were tongue in cheek, but on a more serious level, if the money first approach doesn't work for guys, sooner rather than later, they'll stop offering it.

For them to continue, it must mean that it is working for them, at least in the circles they choose to move in. If enough girls turn down guys whose biggest selling point is money then the guys will have to adapt.

Amazing!

First, some guys were getting mad because some girls prioritise money/gifts at the expense of the other things guys can offer.
Now some girls are getting mad because some guys are quick to offer money/gifts in place of the other things they should offer.

If only these two sets can get together and leave the money/gifts people to their own wahala.

Kx:
That is for the court to decide, not Fidelity bank or any other.

Seconded! It's the court that declares a person bankrupt, not the creditor(s).

Leaving the label on the sleeve of your suit is a major NO NO!

blackpanda:
Actually its this your comment that is more shortsighted. For months the british government has been announcing its desire to reduce the amount of nigerians coming into their country, so this recent move should not come as a surprise to anyone. The nigerian govt's position is simple: since u said we should not come into your country, then pls dont come into ours either. So in other words "to your tenth o israel"!
If our govt had kept quiet, its still shortsighted people like you that would have been screaming that GEJ is a weakling!

The British govt has been looking at reducing immigration in general, not just on Nigerian immigrants. If the Nigerian govt want to tackle that, its completely separate from who gets what landing slots at which airport.

You don't know my opinions on GEJ and my opinions about him are actually beside the point.

We've turned an issue about landing slots into one about how many flights their airline can have (bearing in mind the British govt did not reduce the number of flights for Nigerian airlines) and now into talk about immigration.

I called the MOVE by our govt shortsighted, you in turn decided to call ME shortsighted. There's absolutely no need for that and certainly no need for me to carry on a discussion with you.

Take the discussion to whatever level you want to.

I'M OUT!

^^^
That's what's been reported in the news reports where we all got this story from.

Arik were not able to secure their own landing slots at Heathrow due to scarcity. They were therefore asked to lease one from BMI who later decided to increase the rent to an amount that was no longer sustainable for Arik, who in turn decided they couldn't carry on with the route.

That is the information provided to us till date. If more information comes out, then we can make an even more informed judgement about the decisions being taken.

"NIGERIAS - $10 BN IN REMITTANCES (2009)
Tuesday, November 10, 2009

Nigerians abroad send at least $10 billion in remittances to their loved ones at home. This amount makes Nigeria the 6th highest destination for remittances according to the World Bank. That also makes Nigeria the top remittance destination on the African continent.

Top recipients of migrant remittances among developing countries
Source: World Bank Blog

REMITTANCES IN THE NIGERIAN CONTEXT
Nigerians are expected to take care of a lot more than just their immediate family. As a result, the average Nigerian family consists of a mother, father, children and many dependents such as in laws, cousins, and sometimes, neighbors. Once a young Nigerian gets a job, and sometimes even before that, he or she must begin to contribute to dependents. For those living abroad, their foreign currency, when changed to local Naira can be a helpful financial addition."

In the current circumstances, this is positive and should be applauded.

However, it's worth noting that what is remitted is a fraction of the wealth that Nigerians generate abroad. In an ideal situation where our environment is conducive, the Nigerians that went abroad would remain in Nigeria and generate a 100% of that wealth within our borders.

So the $10bn remitted by Nigerians from abroad could ideally turn into $100bn generated by Nigerians locally if the country had the same opportunities as their host countries.

About foreign students in Nigerian universities, while we may not have the numbers, I'm sure we can all guess that the number is insignificant.

I will comment on this based on the info I have and hope to be forgiven if I'm missing something here.

The rataliatory move by the Nigerian govt is wrong! The issue Arik had was that they could not get landing slots at Heathrow, one of the busiest airports in the world. Many other airlines face the same issue and work around it by utilising Gatwick, Stansted etc. Arik is not the only airline that has had problems getting slots at Heathrow.

The U.K. govt did not reduce the number of times that Arik (or any other Nigerian airline) can fly into the U.K. The previous agreement of 21 flights for each country still stands. This is a demand and supply issue. Heathrow is heavily oversubscribed, unlike the Lagos and Abuja airports. It will always be much easier for the British carriers to get a slot in Lagos/Abuja, than for a Nigerian carrier to get a slot at Heathrow. Someone rightly gave the example of how Virgin Nigeria used Gatwick, that is one way around it.

It's NOT the British govt's fault and it is not BA's fault; the retaliatory move is very short sighted.

Well, you gave her the advice that you thought was best (and I agree). Ultimately a lot of people only learn from experience, so going through the experience of not having a job may be the best teacher for your friend.

^^^
Govts can certainly bring pressure to bear even on private companies, but there is a limit. The legal system in the U.K. also means that if the companies feel they are being unjustly treated by the govt, they can take their own govt to court. The U.K. govt certainly won't pull out their cards in order to get a landing slot for a privately owned Nigerian company. It's not a strong enough issue to warrant govt intervention. The govt determines who can enter its airspace and when (and it has allowed Arik to enter its airspace). For them to also be asked to go and negotiate landing slots for Arik is a step too far. If they set that precedent, there'll be no end to who else they'll have to do it for.

Affecting the price of a litre of petrol is a different kettle of fish. The govt in the Nigeria is looking to change it by removing their subsidy. Similarly, the govt in the U.K. can affect theirs by changing fuel taxes. This affects all, and doesn't pick on any particular company.

I'm not entirely sure about the validity of the accusations levied against the British govt. BAA which owns Heathrow and a couple of other airports in the U.K. is not a public or government agency. It is a limited company with it's own Board of Directors who make decisions in the best interest of the shareholders.

Everyone knows that Heathrow is one of the busiest airports in the world. It is not inconceivable that they don't have free landing slots, regardless of whatever bilateral agreement was reached between the British and Nigerian govt.

BMI as well is not a public or government agency.

The government or aviation authorities are not the ones that give out landing slots. Many other airlines face the same issue with the scarcity of landing slots at Heathrow. They improvise by choosing Gatwick or Stansted. I'm not sure there's much the govt on either side can or will do to help Arik.

Without knowing the basis for how some stats are derived, one always has to take them with a pinch of salt.

However, the message behind the statistics is very true, i.e. that many Nigerians are living in poverty. A lot of people look at those in the west and say they appear rich only because of credit facilities. That is not true. The western public indulge themselves in the available credit facilities out of greed and not necessarily poverty.

Back to the Nigeria statistic, it may not be up to 80% living on less than $2. We can't know unless we do a detailed study ourselves. However, the true figure will still shock. I would guesstimate it at anywhere between 50%-80%. If you increase the value to $5 a day, then I would say almost definitely 80% of Nigerians live on less than that a day.

In all the arguments about statistics, we should not lose sight of the message, which is that a majority of Nigerians live in poverty.

Thanks for clarification pendo89.

I would further say that the statement refers to a general rule, and we all know there are exceptions to any rule.

With regards to the marriage angle, having and keeping a good home accords a man a certain level of respect within society, especially in a traditional one like Nigeria. That's for sure.

However, I won't go as far as saying that a male is not a man unless he's married.

I'M OUT.

^^^

Thanks! Well explained in the societal context that you've put it.

Putting that aside for a bit, one needs to highlight that you also used a Bible example and asked that we should search the Bible thereby adding the Biblical context to your argument.

Now for those that followed your instructions and searched the Bible, the issue of the MEN (Jesus, Paul etc) that did not get married came up. You said "I'm not saying they were not men", which one can read as you confirming that they were men.

Wislet:
When u have taken time to read again, understand and see that i've answered that, then comment.

I read through the first time, but decided to follow your instructions and read through again. Perhaps you'd like to help by pointing out specifically where you've answered that.

"Hmmmmm. The measure of a MAN is his ability to successfully manage a 'home'- marriage. A single guy is not a man yet. So the saying is for married folks! For MEN."

Perhaps you'd also like to explain your quote above in relation to the lives of Jesus, Paul etc.

Wislet:
Thank you @freecocoa. Some people here pretend not to understand. Even if you like build 100 duplexes, have 50 cars, businesses scattered all over the world, etc. ALL THOSE ACHIEVEMENTS DONT COUNT FOR ANYTHING IF YOU'VE NOT BEEN ABLE TO SUCCESSFULLY MANAGE A FAMILY ALONG WITH ALL THAT. Ask your elders cos it seems most of y'all are either pretending or were not raised with our culture. For those naming all their achievements, You never for one day wondered why your parents, elders and indeed your society do not see it as snuff as long as u're still single? Why do they peek to see if there's a family behind the man or continually encourage you to do so? Why is the wealth insignificant in their eyes? You are seen as complete & a full grown man when you have a home to add to all that. A man is never made a BISHOP UNLESS HE HAS SUCCESSFULLY MANAGED HIS HOME. Search your Bible. And who helps to determine that success? A cantankerous woman? No. Reason why a 'good' woman is behind his success as a man.

Searching the Bible fully would lead us to conclude that Jesus, Paul and a handful of others never became men.

Gaddafi's human rights record is terrible.

You can't claim to love a people collectively, but hate a good number individually (i.e. those that disagreed with him). Gaddafi crushed any dissenting voice ruthlessly and was happy to turn Libya into his family's kingdom, grooming his son to take over.

No matter how many carrots you give them, history has shown that people do not put up with that kind of oppression forever.

I commend him for his socialist policies, they are certainly better than the Nigerian leadership who seemed to just appropriate the nation's wealth for themselves without improving the lot of the people.

However, we are not comparing like with like. Nigeria's population is about 20 times that of Libya, while our GDP is only about 3 times that of Libya. There's a LOT more money to share round in Libya. That's not excusing the incompetence of the Nigerian leaders though.

Calradised:
but it could have well gone the other way and things could have improved and then everyone would have been calling tb j a false prophet of doom
but now what he said has come to pass, we are all saying that anyone could have seen that coming
we always look for every excuse possible because we don't want to accept that tbj is sent of God

My guy, as thehomer said, he made his prophecy when things were already in full swing. By December 2007, many of the U.S. investment banks (I worked in one of them at the time) were already in trouble and at least one (Bears Stearn) had collapsed by early 2008.
ANYONE who made the effort to follow world affairs could see that things were already bad and were very likely to get worse and could have made the same prophecy. In fact, many people did make that prediction, but they didn't claim it was through some divine knowledge.

Whether he is a real or fake prophet is for those that align themselves with him to worry about. My own aim is to rebut this 2008 world recession prophecy. Since things were already bad in 2007, predicting that things would be bad/worse in 2008, at the same time as hundreds of economists and financial analysts, cannot be the basis of a claim to divine information.

Only those that refuse to educate and enlighten themselves on what's going on around them can be fooled by such.

Calradised:
everyone is talking, saying that it doesn't take a prophet to say that the economic crisis is going to get worse
but no one is bothering to pick up on the point that tb joshua prophesied this worldwide economic crisis in 2008, when at that time, there was nothing like that
how many more times does he need to talk before people of nigeria recognize tbj as a true prophet sent of God? it is not once, not twice, not 10 times, that tbj's prophecies have been discussed on this debate and he has been proved wrong in none of them.

The issue of the subprime mortgages that eventually led to the credit crunch and global recession had been there since mid 2007. The signs were there for all to see. If TB Joshua predicted the crisis in 2008, then he was months late.

I was working in the financial sector in London in 2007 and we had started to hear the rumblings by the summer of 2007. By December 2007, it was clear things were going downhill. "Prophesying" about the worldwide economic crisis in 2008 is something that anyone who had been following world current affairs could have done.

For the TB Joshua enthusiasts, please post his prophecies here BEFORE the event occurs. Then we can guage the success rate for ourselves.

We all know the extent of technology these days, so no one is going to buy any post event prophecies from youtube videos.

Tonye-t:
^^^ wrong Sir!

Individuals have the freedom to perceive something as right or wrong. . .If someone says "Jesus Christ" would i be wrong if I insinuate they meant saying "Lord Jesus Christ"? or on a more lame view if i heard someone saying seun's site is "nairaland" would my insinuation be wrong if i say he meant saying "www.nairaland.com"?

com'on?

Zach Pooen's views were this [I quote in paraphrase] - 'brethren if you go to a place and maybe they dont have the "correct" pattern that we have. . .I advise you if you feel like still worshiping with them you can go ahead'. . . what does Zach Pooen mean by that phrase - "correct pattern"?

2. when someone uses the term 'pattern' in a church-background, is it not the same thing as saying 'doctrine' as a religious jargon?

3. Why does he feel/think/percieve/believe that his church CFC has a 'correct pattern' and others dont?

4. Now let's just say he was right to assume his church CFC has the 'correct pattern' and others dont. Why would a supposed caring shepherd advice ADVISE  his members to attend a fake church? isnt that hypocritical or maybe he was trying to be perceived as 'good'.

^{so much for the 'self righteous teachers and their seductive tares that grow with the real wheats.}

The above is very flawed.

Examples like "Jesus Christ" and "Lord Jesus Christ"; and "nairaland" and "www.nairaland.com" are clear cut.

It is very unlikely that a preacher would point to another ministry, question their doctrine and then advise people that he pastors to go to that ministry. You refuse to acknowledge the very plausible conclusion staring us in the face, which is that the "correct pattern" he was referring to was something not as important and crucial as doctrine.

Following your numbering:
2 When someone uses the term pattern in a church background, it IS NOT the same as saying doctrine as religious jargon.

3 He uses the word "MAYBE" they don't have the correct pattern, which indicates that he fully recognizes that MAYBE they do. If you listen objectively to the entire message, you'll realise that the intention behind him saying "maybe they don't have the correct pattern that we have", is to let the listener know that the ministry may not do things exactly like the one Zac is in. Their style (a synonym of pattern) may be different. He is clearly concerned about their spiritual state, because he says that as long as the pastor there challenges them to become disciples of Jesus, they should go there.
He is actually being more critical of the "churches" in his own ministry by saying that if the "churches" connected to CFC don't help them grow spiritually and become disciples of Jesus, then they should go to another ministry that does help them become better disciples.

4 Refer in part to my point in 3 above, and also go back and listen to the message objectively. He has not sent them to attend a "fake church". He has instead encouraged them to go to a church that helps them become disciples of Christ!

How can he encourage them to go to a church that helps them grow spiritually and become better disciples of Christ and at the same time insinuate that their "doctrinal pattern" was not correct? It is clear that he is not advising anyone to go to a church with an incorrect doctrinal pattern.

The very term "doctrinal pattern correctness" has been a red herring and a complete distraction from the real essence of the message Zac Poonen delivered. The essence of the message, which in my opinion is about being more loyal to Christ than to a ministry, would be a much better topic of discussion.

I'M OUT!

Tonye-t:
This is a very dumb question  . . . why wont my church have correct doctrinal pattern? Besides this question has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

If you must know so as to retrace your views again, my beef is "why would Zach Pooen advice his members to attend churches that he believes have incorrect doctrinal pattern" is he doing it to look good before them?. . .because why would someone who makes you think he cares advice you to go attend a church that he "believes" does not have "correct pattern". Isnt that trying to be hypocritical? 

Now answer the question 

As I have mentioned many times in this post, Zac Poonen made no reference to doctrine. "Correct doctrinal pattern", "doctrinal pattern correctness" were created on this thread.

Zac Poonen would ADVISE (not advice) his members to attend such churches because in all likelihood, when he said "correct pattern", he wasn't referring to something as important and foundational as doctrine!

The sentences given for corruption haven't been great, but that's not the major issue.

The major issues are the investigation, prosecution and conviction of corrupt officials. Of what use is the death penalty when we know that corruption goes on daily in government offices, yet there have only been a handful of well know convictions.

Anyway, Nigeria is in a catch 22 situation. Is it the corrupt legislators that will vote for the death penalty for corrupt officials? Who in their right minds would sign their own death warrant?

March man:
If it were so all CE members would be billionaires. But I know many that are struggling no job, no food, can't pay school fees or house rents because of money challenges. Yet they are givers, spending their last dime on the church for all kinds of programs, yet their finances are in a terrible shape. They are encourage to continue to give and give as if that's is the fulcrum of the Christian message. It is not.

This is the untold story of CE (I used to be a member) and indeed many other places with an undue emphasis on giving and prosperity.

From interaction with many people in CE I had a first hand experience of their financial situation. Many would be struggling with their rent payment and still be encouraged to give and would give only to carry on struggling. Some were secretly in debt (in the U.K. where there's easier access to consumer credit), but outwardly would want to display signs that their giving was working. Yet they would quietly confide in me about their debt problem because they know I work in Finance.

The illusion was too much.

Tonye-t:
. . .recall we've not visited the 1:52 and 3:44

Having seen it all from the feeble attempt to ascribe a claim of doctrinal pattern correctness monopoly to Zac Poonen, to the decision to use a Bible verse about adulteresses, perhaps it really is time to move on to 1:52 and 3:44 to see what further creative entertainment awaits us.

Enigma:
^^ Indeed! Also, I actually wanted to mention that I agree with the post by Claus above that in saying "correct pattern" I do not think the man was referring to doctrine but to styles/mode of/in services etc.

Exactly. What has been ignored by Tonye-t is that Zac Poonen actually said go to that church. It is unlikely he would give that advice if he had issues with their doctrine.

Zac Poonen said "correct pattern", Tonye-t created "doctrinal pattern correctness", tried to ascribe it to Zac Poonen by using quotation marks and even went further to say Zac Poonen was claiming a monopoly of it! I bow.

Kobojunkie:
How can you agree with me there when I never made such a claim. The original Cable was dated back to 2006, and so it makes absolute sense that SaharaReporters would refer to 2006, the date on the memo, which was leaked. That Wikileaks revealed this memo in 2011 DOES NOT change the fact that the memo was created back in 2006, when the allegation was supposedly made against her.

In order to put this to bed, I am saying I agree that the original U.S. cable that Wikileaks referred to was issued in 2006.

After your post, I actually went back to read the cable itself which showed that it was sent in 2006 by the U.S. Ambassador.

Kobojunkie:
The Cable site that hosts the documents was not in existence in 2006, sorry. That spider site came up more recently than that and the documents, that are the source of the leak, came into the hands of Wikileaks after the memos were stolen from the US in 2009/2010. Not before! So it is wrong to claim Wikileaks had it in for Iweala from way back in 2006 when the memos that were stolen, were likely created.

No need to be sorry.

My response was directed at your comments that you believed Wikileaks, the site, was created in 2009/2010, something we both now know not to be true.

If you read my post properly you would also see that I made no such claim that Wikileaks had it in for Iweala from way back in 2006.

Kobojunkie:
Sure we should but I don't think we should expect our personal opinions on issues to trump the need for issues to be thoroughly investigated and the truth made public as it ought to, in every democracy.

No such suggestion has been made. The fact that I would "guess" that she is not corrupt and "believe" that she is good for Nigeria does not preclude the need for a thorough investigation into allegations against her. It is definitely not a suggestion that my "personal opinions should trump the need for issues to be thoroughly investigated".

Kobojunkie:
You are not making any sense at all, my friend. Please step back, review what REALLY happened, and then come back, re-read your post here and maybe you will see why I say "you are not making any sense at all".

**Again, Wikileaks(cable) site which is hosting the document was not, I repeat, was not in existence in 2006. If you need to brush up on Wikileaks and why I would make the statements I made, you may need to look up wikipedia or something to know how it is not possible that wikileaks had knowledge of this particular allegation back in 2006

** Also, the archives which you point to where STOLEN in 2010. Again, consult wikileaks history to learn more of this. I am not certain how in this day and age, anyone would make the sort of claims you are attempting(out of desperation it seems) on this issue.

**An allegation existed, and she confirmed that it did. Regardless of your personal pot of soup, our democracy should not be reduced to what you think or do not think in any issue. We have a situation that needs to be investigated, and if already, the details made public. Simple!

Hold your horses. Perhaps YOU need to re-read what I wrote. My very first sentence said "It DOES make sense that Sahara Reporters are referring to 2006 as the date the ORIGINAL cable was issued".

I was AGREEING with you!!!

However, I was also pointing out that Wikileaks was in existence before the 2009/2010 years you mentioned. If you look at the Wikipedia that you recommended to me, you'll see that they claim Wikileaks was launched in 2006.

Nigeria's democracy should not be reduced to what I think or do not think about any issue, however, what we all think about issues should be allowed on discussion forums like Nairaland as long as they are done within the normal rules of etiquette.

Kobojunkie:
HUH?? What tangent again now? the Wikileaks report came out just last month(Wikileaks, the site was created, I believe in 2009/20101). There is absolutely no way the site could have reported anything of this sort back in 2006.

The original memo/leak(stolen by wikileaks from the US Government) was created back in 2006. Since Wikileaks is responsible for this news SURFACING in 2011, it makes sense to suggest that Madam may probably be blaming Assange for this. ROFLMAO!!

It does make sense that Sahara Reporters are referring to 2006 as the date the original cable was issued.

BTW Wikileaks wasn't created in 2009/2010. According to the website itself, it was "officially launched" in 2007, but it also has archives from 2006 to date, suggesting it was in operation before 2007. Therefore the Sahara Reporter's quote could easily be misinterpreted.

The main point I am trying to draw out though is that it is unlikely that Okonjo Iweala is accusing Wikileaks of being one of her detractors. She has clearly said that the people she is accusing were those that tried to dissuade her from taking office in the first place. They are likely to be Nigerians.

I am however surprised that she has used this angle of detractors to defend herself, since this is the same excuse all the corrupt politicians use.

Personally, my guess would be that she is not corrupt and I believe she is good for Nigeria.

deenee:
Why make the allegations 'public' now?, when the 'supposed contract and kickback' for the debt deal was consumated around 2004-2005.

I beg to ask this queation-If Dr. Okonjo-Iweala is not part of GEJ's cabinet and is not at the forefront, advocating for a 'reformed Nigeria' (something that we all desire) , will these 'Wikileaks report' come out? I am not saying that she is a 'saint' but it is high time we begin to critically analyse information before we 'react'.

As one of my mentors would always say- the media is a 'deceptive tool' that has been used to control the 'thought process' of people and with the advent of social media, it is an easy tool used to turn people into 'clones'.


Media-black man's KRYPTONITE

Kobojunkie:
Julian Assange ,  you are wanted in Nigeria ooo!!!! You are now Okonjo-Iweala's detractor oooo. . . .  She is "fighting against corruption", and you are the one fighting her back ooo!!!

Kobojunkie:
So, wikileaks would not have released this leak if Iweala, who was just one of those named in this particular leak, had not been brought back to Nigeria from the WB??  

I think I have my dose of the Nigerian delusion to sustain me for the whole day.

Just so you guys don't go off on the wrong tangent, the Sahara Reporters article goes "yet another WikiLeaks US cable issued in 2006 says".

It appears the Wikileaks report itself came out in 2006, so there is no suggestion that Okonjo-Iweala is accusing Wikileaks as one of the detractors to her current position.

Tonye-t:
Am not with the catholics, methodists, anglicans, pentecostals nor baptists rather am with you the critics.

In :38 of the video, Zac the teacher made this comment . . .if you go to a place and maybe the the church dont have the correct pattern like we have, if you feel okay you can stay.(paraphrased)

Now naturally I hate being judgemental in my views, but since the respected teacher- Zac feels "his church can claim monopoly of 'doctrinal-pattern correctness' [i.e he feels like his church CFC is the only correct church] then I guess we should look critically at points and his teachings

Can one Church really have the power to claim "doctrinal-pattern correctness"? I certainly dont think so

See below:

Just to add to what 2buff has said, how does his quote ". . . maybe they don't have the correct pattern like we have. . ." translate to a claim of having a monopoly on doctrinal pattern correctness. Since he rounded it off by saying people should still go to that church, he is probably just referring to styles (e.g. pattern of Sunday/mid-week service etc) as opposed to the much more crucial topic of doctrine. Surely he wouldn't advise people to go to a place where he has issues with the doctrine.

In addition, your comments that Zac feels "his church can claim monopoly of 'doctrinal-pattern correctness' include quotation marks, which is a bit disingenuous since it is not a quote from his message. The phrase "doctrinal-pattern correctness" originated from you. Please don't ascribe it to someone else.

If the lady wasn't threatening you, the answer would simply be, if you love her and she is right for you, marry her and don't waste her time.

However, I'd be careful about marrying someone who is threatening you in such a way.