₦airaland Forum

helen4:
Coogar i see u jawe. How u dey

i am fine, my dear

raumdeuter:
Do you have a bet on him? With Robbery out our wingplay has reduced and its more central

no....
FUT15 thingz - wheeling & dealing bayern players on PS4

crackhaus:
Is the arch-angel Gabriel a male or a female?

And if Angelo simply means male, are you implying there are no female angels?

there are no female beings in heaven!
God & his angels are all males. Jesus is male - the bible never documented that he had böobs.

the more i searched, the more i am convinced that females have no part to play in God's kingdom. perhaps they would be kept outside the pearly gates as gardeners.

raumdeuter:
Doppelpack. Two goals. First one a Golazo. He seems to be playing better when Robbery got injured. He has been carrying the offence


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GgBXChNz9S8

nice!
that means he would make FIFA's team of the week tomorrow. i have been waiting for a stellar performance from him all season.

Stillfire:
Oh you agree, we are making progress. There is always epidural.

and the christian women who have no access do such or who are poor to afford such should do what?

When one is cursed, you do everything within your power to break out of such curse.
No sane person would continue to live under a curse.

this isn't a curse placed by a witchdoctor or a herbalist. it's a divine curse by God for the consequences of the disobedience in heaven. the sins of thy father shall be revisited on thy 7th generation.

Now the question is should I live under a curse or return to God's original plan? You guessed right, I am returning to God's original plan!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Woohooooo

God's original plan isn't an option.
even virgin mary nearly died in bethlehem while giving birth to christ. she screamed & grunted cos she had to serve the punishment placed on women by God.

raumdeuter, how did lewandowski fare over the weekend?

Stillfire:
I did not bring the bible into it. But if you people want to debate the bible, I will gladly, gladly oblige.
There were times when Paul spoke by the spirit, and their were times when he spoke by his own volition.
Attending to petty squabbles in the church was one of it. People forget the disciples were men and there were times when the disciples had to debate among themselves!
God is our helper, it doesn't mean we are superior to God.
The bible was translated from hebrew to greek to english. Words lose their meaning after each translation. The English language does not translate the word helpmate very well. It is derived from the root word 'ezer kenegdo', which translates to something of deeper meaning.

It means something far more powerful than just "helper"; it means "lifesaver." The phrase is only used elsewhere of God, when you need him to come through for you desperately. "There is no one like the God of Jeshurun, who rides on the heavens to help you

The case that begins to build is that we can be sure that `ezer means "strength" or "power" whenever it is used in parallelism with words for majesty or other words for power such as `oz or `uzzo. In fact, the presence of two names for one king, Azariah and Uzziah, both referring to God's strength, makes it abundantly clear that the root `ezer meaning "strength" was known in Hebrew.
(R. David Freedman, "Woman, a Power Equal to a Man," Biblical Archaeology Review 9 [1983]: 56-58).

Therefore, we conclude that Genesis 2:18 be translated as "I will make a power [or strength] corresponding to man." Freedman even suggests on the basis of later Hebrew that the second word in the Hebrew expression found in this verse should be rendered equal to him. If so, then God makes for the man a woman fully his equal and fully his match. In this way, the man's loneliness will be assuaged.

God's initial plan was never to create an hierarchy. It was a curse. And all curses shall be broken through the blood of Jesus Christ!

i agree it was never in the plan to create hierarchy. eve's stupidïty queered the pitch for the woman and the man was placed above her.

the curses cannot be broken through the blood of Jesus. there's a consequence for every sin even if it has been forgiven. the curse God placed on man & woman still exists. even pastor's wives go through excruciating labour pains.

Stillfire:
Ohhh, So I should believe the sinful coogar on NL, than bible scholars hahaha! You too you are better than this.
Yes tithing should not apply either, are Nigerians levites?

i may not have a pastor's collar around my neck but i know the bible like the back of my hand. paul was inspired by the spirit to write those chapters. he would never have included church squabbles of individual towns to apply as the general rule.

apostle paul might loved his red wine but he's not silly. in those days, women have no rights than to breed & serve their husbands. they were not given a voice anywhere public - all their protests started & must stop in their husband's house.

njokusboy:
plus, she thinks feminism has got nothing to do with marriage
she also thinks her husband is the head
nd she is a christian

coco would be better off making egusi soup and pounded yam in a small restaurant.......

[img]http://theoverlookedonlookers.files./2013/11/shock-bird.gif[/img]

Stillfire: We have had this discussion before. Bible scholars say Paul mediated over various matters that may arise in each church and he set guidelines for each church to follow. The book of corithinans, is actually the book for the church in corinthians. If the women of corinth were troublesome, it doesn't mean women in Antioch were. That was the way he settled the matter for the people of corinth. That is why christianity permits both men and women to preach.

permit me to say those bible scholars are fraudulent. what may arise in each church would never have surfaced in the bible as the general laws. maybe loving one neighbour as one's self only applies to the church in philistine - and tithing shouldn't even apply at all for nigerians, it was meant for the church in samaria.

stillfire, you are better than this.

na wa o!

why should she be held responsible for the lootings that started since 1960?

BABE3:
Who was as important to jesus as the 12 disciples?
Beyoncé johanna? Johanna was so important to christ that there is a gospel according to st'johanna in the bible. The book is right after Mathew.

So a man has to say "woman are useless or half-useless" before he can be considered sexist?

permit me to explain this.....

there might have been a chapter for female disciples but there's also a compelling evidence that paul was a lover of red wine.

in one or his binge-drinking, he forgot to add the chapters that included women. writing under the influence can make one forget important things.

Pdizzle:
Why blame uncle Paul, Christains both men and women believe the bible was written under the influence of the holy spirit. Oh wait the spirit is sexist too

they said apostle paul added his own bit.
in a nutshell, any chapter starting from the acts of apostle to revelation has been doctored by apostle paul according to feminists.

Vickybee:
Judas and Eve who was worse?

Mind you, Jesus was perfect and no man or woman can deceive or lure him.

eve was worse!
without eve deceiving her hubby to eat the fruit, Jesus wouldn't have been needed on earth in the first place. the whole journey of Jesus to earth & back to heaven was to erase the mistake of eve's addled-brain.

Stillfire:
Equal opportunity between men? Lol. Look below.

The New Testament presupposes a fundamental equality because all humans are created in God’s image (James 3:9). Yet, an even deeper unity in Christ transcends human boundaries and social structures: no Jew or Greek, slave or free, no male and female, as all believers are all “one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:28; cp. Colossians 3:11).

so why then does the same new testament say no woman should make a sound in church. if she's unclear about any teaching, she should direct the question to her husband.

raumdeuter:
Man Utd starting 11 that season, rank them in their order of importance to United winning the CL.

every player in the XI is important. that is why they made the team in the first place. could we have won with 10 men excluding brown? the defence is actually the only department of the team where if a red card is given, you have to sacrifice a striker/midfielder to bring another defender in.

it's the most important in the team especially when the priority isn't 3 points. our defenders had more importance than the midfielders or strikers. so at worst, brown would be 4th or 5th most important.

Stillfire:
Jesus was for equal opportunity. He told us to treat ourselves as one, love your neighbor as yourself, no be equality be that? , so yes He was and is a feminist.

equal opportunity between men.
women were always in the back seat. how come Jesus never hand picked a female as one of his disciples? was there a scarcity of righteous women?

BABE3:
Abi o? Not once in the bible did jesus, peter and paul carry placards to demonstrate.
If jesus was not okay with the gender status quo then, won't he have said or done something---- something miraculous?
not once did jesus say the woman's place is not in the kitchen.

Jesus was very ok with the status quo. the things he hated, He spoke about them with vigour & sometimes with violence. he scattered the main temple in jerusalem when he saw people trading there......Jesus wasn't tongue-tied. there was never a time he tasked the sadducees to review the rights of women. He was happy with the fact that women were covered from head to feet!

Pdizzle:
The bible is sexist, 1st Cor 14:34-35 according to your NLT says:
Women should be silent during the church meetings. It is not proper for them to speak. They should be submissive, just as the law says.
If they have any questions, they should ask their husbands at home, for it is improper for women to speak in church meetings.

they blame apostle paul & timothy for those scriptures. i have heard someone telling me paul would be in hell cos he was a misogynist.

raumdeuter:
WHo was Brown more important in that United Lineup run in to the final. I believe thats a simple question. Was he more important than any of those first teamplayers?

you are wrong for saying brown wasn't important in the united line up to the final. he provided the assist ronaldo scored from. in the absence of vidic in the 2 legs against barcelona, wes brown played inarguably his best game in a united shirt.

ibime is also wrong for saying mata was a passenger. the corners drogba & ivanovic scored from in the finals of UCL & europa league respectively was manufactured from the sweet left foot of juan mata. both of you have no retentive memory.

BlackLeopard:
Actually, the sacred geometry, that of a DNA, is double helix. Straight is a line of heartbeat when a person dies This is whole just language and not telling anything about normalcy, and when you break it down deeper to biology, it wouldn't even work.

this is pure baloney!
i am talking about sexuality here, not the geometry of the DNA.

And just because something is not legal doesn't mean it should be, only that people didn't move to that stage of understanding, yet.

using the technical term consent as a crutch to justify homosexuality is highly flawed. i have given you an incest scenario where 2 siblings of adult age consented to have protected sex. is that moral?

And you're wrong, because HIV broke out greatly due to infidelous straight people and also medical negligence of straight medical community while treating their patience. If we want to get technical. Gay communities are rather aware of the risks, and the reputation you're citing, and are rather paranoid about their health, last I knew. So the risk of spreading diseases is decreased. Who bleeps around are straights.

gay communities are aware of the risks but then why should we assume all of them are law abiding. faggöts have an uncanny ability to be violent. the top 6 serial killers in the USA are faggòts......now in the case of rapë, condoms don't even come into play - they are the major reason HIV has spread to every continent on the planet.

BABE3:
don't mind these people trying to paint jesus as a feminist. every single man then was sexist. It wasn't a sin or crime. The woman's place was in the kitchen. That was the modus operandi.

Jesus never fought for their rights throughout. a woman couldn't even go to the temple during her menstrual flow. she's deemed unclean. a woman couldn't teach or preach the scriptures. her role then was to breed & groom kids.

Jesus was NOT a feminist! I read somewhere that jesus is the unchangeable changer. So therefore, the feminist wave didn't affect jesus or God. He still isn't a feminist! He's still very much sexist.

how can Jesus be a feminist when He's not a flaming hypocrite? one must be hypocritical & 2-faced to be a feminist. feminism condemns men who choose how their women should live.

so who gave feminists the right to choose how fellow women should live? some women don't want to be equal to their men. they like the role of being 2nd in command and they want their husband to rule them absolutely.

BlackLeopard:
Dude stop equating homosexuality with pedophilia, it's tiring. Child abuse is, I think we can agree on, wrong. Regardless of who does it to children.

pedophilia & homoerötica are all subsets of sex deviance. colour it how you like, homosexuality is a sexual deviance. this is why heterosex folks are called straight & the other types deviate from the normal type of sex.

Legitimising homosexuality? Let me see. For one, most of the civilized world respecting human rights moved on. Homosexuality isn't harming anyone, and legitimizing it doesn't really increase sexual abuse cases because plain, abusers aren't by majority homosexuals.

at a point in human history, the entire civilised world legitimised....

•slavery
•colonial rule
•capital punishment
•corporal punishment
etc.

just because something is legal doesn't mean it's right. homosexuality harms everyone....it has the highest risk of spreading the incurable HIV infection.

And in fact, I wasn't calling you either of these. I was just saying it's a thing each should consider on their own when being so strongly against at least one of those issues (homosexuality, the pedophilia is I think we can agree a different basket of fruits.)

both homosexuality & pedophilia are wrong.

BlackLeopard:
I'm not saying SHOULD. There are things that are preferable to be done and that are not preferable to be done. Doesn't change this is something that falls into the individual's own consideration. What two adults do, unless it harms them? Is not my business. People have freedom to do as they please. Saying there is freedom is nowhere near endorsing some behaviors; only acknowledging they may be more harmless than societal groupthink leads people to believe about them.

and it is this negligence of responsibility that has screwed the world upside down. what two adults do should be your business - it's called the communal spirit. love your neighbour as thyself is the most important law in the gospel. posterity shall judge you & any other that has this type of mentality. at a point, the coming generation would question your sanity.

It may not be the only factor. However, it still stands consent is crucial in a variety of situations. Pretending it can be simply ommitted, is endorsing immoral behavior.

the child finally realises his folly!

I don't have issue admitting to mis phrasing However, don't fan yourself, believing you can force feed me anything. (By the way bro, why are you so stuck on these metaphors of force? There is no need for that sort of speech. We're just conversing about human issues, don't be dragging force into this where everyone sees you're doing it only to feel better about yourself. We can be having discussions without this sort of rhetorical bollocks. It's arguments deciding, not force.)

i have been force-feeding kids like you before honest abe signed the paper that freed slaves. you had your opportunity to concede that you mis-phrased your point but you refused to yield.

you are a typical nigerian - "i shan't gree!" rather than admit, they would continue to tie themselves up in tortuous knots of logic to sound intelligent. metaphor is my diet.....so welcome to my world!

elampiro:
I have a 'ritual' I do recently for days before our games and it has been working perfectly. Coogar has to beg me to commence this difficult ritual ASAP, otherwise Jones back pass meets Hazard......

i won't beg you....
the earlier jones screws up, the better for me. i hope his back pass meets hazard so that van gaal can sell him to real sociedad.

SailorXY:
what was he adapting to when he played United & City in the first leg & City in the second leg? his was the red-hot form team yet he found a way to stay defensive 60% of the game. this is just his style - look @ Chelsea against Moyes' United @ Old Trafford last season - what was he adapting to? his team only came up to play football @ Stamford Bridge when Moyes has been shown up to be a biitch.

united were the defendingchampions then....
they had just destroyed a good swansea side 4-1 on the back of winning the community shield. we were still feared as at the time chelsea came to OT. he did the right thing by not getting trounced. he was away from home to the champions.

he has good management skills, I'm not taking nothing away from him, but he's always in shells against teams perceived to have equal or better strength - we shouldn't expect anything else from him this weekend!

so what do you expect?
go gung-ho against a team that have got better strength? how did we play against barca over 2 legs in 07/08? would you have preferred gung-ho football only to get beat 4-0 in both legs?

pickabeau1:
PETA on the loose
If they mark you... u are marked for life

animal rights activists are much worse than feminists. they pelt celebrities with eggs for wearing furred jackets or crocodile-skin shoes.

BABE3:
1) so?
2) so Mary being a single mum means jesus isn't sexist?
3) that was all women were good for to jesus; good for amebo and reporting. Plus, did jesus have control over who saw him first? C'mon now..
4) his job was to perform miracles on earth, innit? Whoever commanded the miracle is irrelevant.
How about you address the fact that the 12 most important people to jesus were MEN. He had control over who he chose to be his discipline. He decided to go with men, why?

after what eve did to adam, Jesus wouldn't let any female have that kinda access. it's not impossible for satan to have possessed a woman to seduce Jesus.........and we all know women of those days had a good understanding with satan.

njokusboy:
Lolzz, is bestiality wrong because it is animal abuse??
What is even animal abuse?
If slaughtering a cow for breakfast or throwing a live lobster into a pot of boiling water I wonder what other assault on the animals "sovereignty" is bigger to be termed so.....
Animals have no rights

some of them do have rights while others have no chance at all. you can go to a stream anywhere and kill a fish. you wouldn't get away with doing the same to a dog or a cat(whether stray or owned)

BlackLeopard:
Quite the contrary, I've been praying for you for two months to wisen up. Alas, what even God(s) combined cannot do, cannot be done.

the phrase defly flew over your head.

They're adults. That it would have possibly other consequences - biological for their possible offspring, societal to strong tabboos, etc, is a different thing. We were weighting in solely the age difference and consent, and for THESE TWO factors pinned, it indeed isn't wrong. What you're doing here is black and white thinking for something that's an issue of all sorts of grey.

forget the consequences - they may be having a protected consensual sex. if you think 2 siblings above the age of consent should have consensual sex then you need deliverance.

If you eliminate the need for consent entirely, you're in the lawless society. In which something like free will of an individual means nothing. It's not possible to simply shrug it off as irrelevant and social construct, because to the idea of consent tie in other crucial ideas - like freedom of choice.

this is an idiötic sentence.
you were the one that used the only difference in your comment to separate what is moral or immoral. if anything, you were the one posting from a black & white position.

instead of you to admit using the word only was an error, you are busy dragging the atom of decency left in you in the mud. are you too big to admit you were wrong or is it until i force-feed you?

SailorXY:
I see no wizardry in what he does - Mourinho. just a damage limitation plan whenever he comes up against a team he believes has a chance to beat him. the game against Liverpool last season was a classic example, for all my joy & jumps @ Liverpool being stopped in their tracks - it was a gory sight. we have seen the same against Man City this season even against 10 men @ home.

the ultimate is the points - how you get there is irrelevant. jose is a masterful tactician - to deny him that would be tantamount to a treasonable felony. sometimes, we should be humble enough to give rivals their credits. mourinho is a genius!

you can play poorly & win sometimes, but when the prototype is "play poorly & ensure the others do the same" before the ref's kick-off whistle, then there's nothing genius about it.

it's called adaptation!
his team is not playing too well. many of his performers are fatigued or injured. united are in red-hot form. it would be foolish of him to go gung-ho against us like he would approach hull or leicester.

make no mistake, this is not the same thing as setting up a team for counter-attack football. he can import gorillas from South Sudan to play in midfield & defence by the weekend - it won't change a thing.

his main priority is not to get beaten.
a loss at this stage might start a rot for them like we have seen with liverpool & city. he has to manage the situation by getting draws against the big teams left for him to play & go gung-ho against the smaller sides.

babygirlfl:
Granted feminism and Christianity do not go together but is that the only thing the Bible is against? Christianity is against adultery yet I have read adulterous men say they are Christians. In this section, we read people insulting each other and even use the bible while insulting the other person. I ask is the bible or Christianity in support of insulting each other?

you must be very intelligent!

Vickybee:
Feminism can mix with christianity; if you don't like it, drink an acid.

you are not a christian.

I've come to understand that you men have a warped definition of feminism.

perhaps because the definition keeps changing due to the fraudulent concept the whole movement seems to hinge on.

BlackLeopard:
Because you're only derailing to something that's totally unrelated to our discussion. The talk wasn't focused on peer relations or families, but on wide age caps and if it's possible children can consent. Yet you derailed.

Moralcy is always relative to culture and time and also subjective; speaking in terms of biology and other factors like learning would make more sense if we want to make comparisons. Not subjective assesments. Not religion, either.

you don't have a prayer......
i dònt give a rat about the history of the argument. you said the the difference between morality & immorality is consent. that's the only part i wanted you to defend. the history of the debate is irrelevant to me.

But with those two teens? They're of the same age, assuming they're of similar experience, and both agreeing with what they're doing? Then yes, it's moral. It may seem despicable to some because they're siblings, but from the age/power/consent balances? They're good to go.

so you wouldn't see anything wrong if your kids at age 22 and 20 are having consensual sex? you see - when you people try to be smart, you get caught out.

just because 2 adults consent to do something doesn't necessarily make it right. your point that consent is the only difference between morality & immorality is highly flawed.

pickabeau1:
Hahaha....

I get the sentiments of the piece really but if you look at it really

God held Adam accountable... How did u know you were naked
The seed is counted through the men

I really wonder how feminism and xtianity can mix
confuddlement extraordinaire

christianity + feminism = femistian

BlackLeopard:
You learn to read, Coogar. I was talking about adults/adults, adults/children. Nowhere in the post I talked teens, where so much is blurred, and the only one bringing incest into all of this is you. Derailing for newbies.

don't play smart, kiddo!
you said the only difference between what is moral & immoral is consent.

i gave you a scenario where consent was given & i asked you if its moral & you are starting to choke on your own vomit.

how old are you, 4?