₦airaland Forum

wiegraf: Anyways, interesting. You also think anyone who thinks him intelligent has " catastrophic, and as I said, possibly congenital retardation of his mental faculties. "?

Yes, in addition to being a red eyed rabbit, dwindling away in a corner on account of the very appropriate burden of congenital foolishness.

Logicboy03: ^^^
and yet, Logicboy is abusive and arrogant



lol....the hypocrisy of theists

I have never accused you of being arrogant. It is not possible for one to be arrogant when there is nothing within one's faculties which may invoke the pride that leads to arrogance. As such you cannot be arrogant.

Abusive, neither, I don't care. I have accused you of neither. What I have rather laid upon your very deserving head is the very appropriate crown of idiocy, a crown which I hope you will not pass on to your descendants.

Now you are gravely to be pitied. For who, I might ask, is capable of opening such an intensely and desperately foolish thread as this one?

wiegraf: How you doing oga deep sight? Happy new year? You still marketing $hit as chocolate? No offense.

Do you happen to be some sort of expert on intelligence?

As it happens, kind sir, I am not here marketing anything, as you will do very well to note. The OP rather is very clearly marketing something, but it is not something that should be to the taste of any persons residing outside the walls of an asylum.

One does not have to be an expert on intelligence to read just a few words of Mr. Dawkins and that should be sufficient to observe the catastrophic, and as I said, possibly congenital retardation of his mental faculties.

A happy new year to you too.

Logicboy03: The evidence is piling. Keep on with the arrogance

- - - >

Deep Sight: He is not just da.ft but outrightly re.tarded, even congenitally so. And so is anybody who regards him as intelligent.

Yes, and that includes members of University Councils - even in Oxford.

Every single post you make is sufficient evidence of the most advanced, very rampant, intense, well-settled and alarming idiocy. No offense bro.

Only desperate red eyed cultists would dart this way and that, frantically seeking to evade the very appropriate crown of idiocy which they so absolutely merit.

@ Demdem, please at least quote and comment with the proper tags.

As regards our discussion, just answer me this simple question.

1. There is a coup today and GEJ is removed from office

2. Let us assume for the sake of argument that the majority in Nigeria are happy with the coup

3. Should the military officers involved be tried for treason in future or not?

Answer me.

Logicboy03: 1) Wow, A Phd from Oxford is now comparable to a Phd from Poth harcourt? lmao
2) There are different grades of literary awards
3) The two people you mentioned (Iwu and GEJ) are not foolish. They are corrupt and impotent leaders but it doesnt mean that they are foolish.

The point is that you cannot appeal to authority simply by pointing to the academic qualifications or achievements of a person in order to validate his intelligence on a subject outside his realm.

His deep evangelical atheistic fundamentalism leads him to make astonishingly foolish pronouncements all the time - one such being that contained in your OP - if he actually said that, that is. Perhaps its another one of your intensely foolish and egregiously da.ft jokes, because it is one of the most unintelligent things I have ever read in my life.

He is a biologist and in a better position to understand the the existence of God more than you from an academic point of view.

Yes, a biologist only. That alone does not qualify him re: the existence of God.

Although it is very sad that people like him should actually be in the greatest awe of God haven studied the grand complexity of biological life - and yet they come out - very foolishly, with the pedantic error that understanding the how of a matter obviates the whence, why and wherefore.

Not that the how is even well understood yet.

Not to speak of its origin - something that Dawkins has never addressed - and cannot address.

You see, wide eyed baby atheists like yourself may worship at the feet of academic nincompoops like Dawkins - not for me, thanks.

You have embarrassed yourself with this pitiful arrogance. It is one thing to claim that you think that Dawkins is wrong but another to claim that a man of such intelligence is daft.


Wow, just wow.

He is not just da.ft but outrightly re.tarded, even congenitally so. And so is anybody who regards him as intelligent.

Yes, and that includes members of University Councils - even in Oxford.

I dont need to talk too much. Your comment in bold shows the kind of arrogant and delusional person you are. I have bookmarked this thread to point to whenever you want to praise yourself or someone wants to claim something positive about you.

Bookmark away, baby Dawkins worshipper. As for you, no one needs to bookmark any thread. Every single post you make is sufficient evidence of the most advanced, very rampant, intense, well-settled and alarming idiocy. No offense bro.

Logicboy03: So, in your world, daft people get phds, become professors, write best selling books and gets literary awards?

This is the reality of this world. Is GEJ smart? He has a PHD. Maurice Iwu is a Professor. As per books, there are a gazillion eediotic works by celebrities that win awards and sell millions.

This is the arrogance of a theist. No matter how smart you are, once you dont believe in God, you are a fool.

I do not regard him as foolish for not believing in God - although that is innately foolish. I regard him as foolish for his extremely re.tarded and da.ft arguments in respect of the existence of God.

In a world of eediots, an eediot like Dawkins is very easily celebrated.

Why do you think eediots like Kim Kardashian and Britney Spears are celebrated? That's right - they are being celebrated by the majority population - namely - fellow eediots.

Repeated Post

Demdem: This isnt English class and my highlighting such suggest such. It was a message i was trying to pass from both words. Yes it was Treason but Nigerians wanted it as at then

There is NO such thing as acceptable treason, PERIOD!

And the acceptance of such by the Nigerian population at the time wreaked havoc for 16 years. Period.

Aside from being illegal.

Look, the mood of a population does not justify such brazen illegality. If GEJ was overthrown in a military coup today (albeit impossible and unlikely) there will be vast swathes of the population who would celebrate. That would not make it either legally or morally right. And yes, it would re.tard the progress of the nation.

At all events: the point remains the same: Buhari committed an act of treason and the only reason he has not been tried is the fact that Nigerian Leaders are corrupt, conspiratorial, and fearful.

As such, no sensible person should recommend him for public office; you should recommend him for prison.

Nop, and my post didnt suggest such. Read carefully and understand what i meant. The Buhari takeover was unfortunately acceptable to most Nigerians then because they were fed up with the status quo. It wasnt the best of approach as it is known to us now however it was common then as a way out not only in Nigeria but in the whole continent.
Secondly, Apartheid cant be compared to coup. Dont do that

Do not make me believe you are this dense. The comparison re: apartheid arose from the specific point you made about the support of Western Powers. As such, the question is whether such support validates or exonerates wrongs?

lets be civil please. dont need to bring up ur family to this discussion

Again, you miss my innuendo. Far be it from me to discuss your family who I do not know. My innuendo was simply that a man who shows no respect for his society is embarrassing his entire family, period. No offense meant to your literal family, which I was not referring to.

But Buhari wasnt the first military man that seize power from a democratic government in Nigeria, was he? And by the way does it matter? is that the reason why he should be blamed for the excesses of IBB, Abacha and Abubakar? I dont think so.

He was not the first: but EVERY living person who has done such should be tried, if we have any respect for ourselves. As far as I can recall anyway, the first persons to do such are all dead.

And no; I am not blaming him for the excesses of IBB and Abacha. I am simply reminding you that the coup that brought Buhari to power truncated a democratic government. No matter how corrupt that government was, if democracy had continued un-uninterrupted, we would be the better for it today. And the core point remains that he is unqualified to seek democratic office for that simple act. Much the same way as IBB's annulment of June 12 renders him odious as a presidential candidate under a democracy. If you cannot see this, then like most Nigerians, you have no conscience, judgement or perspective. Period.

By the way, IBB should also be tried for his participation in the coup that brought the democratic government of Shagari to an end. Period.

He may not be our best bet however considering our present challenges coupled with our so limited choices that we realisticallyhave, its politically expedient to bring in this lesser evil that has the capability to break us off from the present status quo. By the way, probably for another day, its on record Buhari wasnt a coup plotter but the primary beneficiary of the coup. Ask ur history teacher and u would be told about what transpired.

Nonsense.

If he wasn't a coup plotter then as Head of State, he should have renounced the coup as an army officer and re-instated the democratic government and had the coup plotters tried; no?

Repeated Post

Demdem: It was an "acceptable treason". its on record that the vast majority of Nigerians welcomed the idea unfortunately considering what shagari and his cohorts were doing then. It wasnt the best approach but as at then at least in the African continent considering our level of exposure, it was generally acceptable. Other countries also experienced it. While some may be said to be better for it (Ghana) some werent. its part of our growing phase. The way coups are seen now and treated now at this day and age cant be compared to then so its wrong on ur part to see it the same way. Even world powers were known to encourage coups then, do they now? If Buhari still believe in Coups, why should he still be contesting. Abegii, that time has past. by the way, that wasnt the only reason u gave that made it really petty and ignorable.

There is no such animal as "acceptable treason." That is an oxymoron, sir.

Do you really believe that coups were acceptable because Western Powers supported them then? You are a laugh, kind sir.

That is like saying that apartheid was acceptable in the eighties because western powers condoned it.

Please dont EVER say that again, for the sake of the respect of your family.

And how was he responsible for the 16years? Its even on good record that infact, his government was much more responsive, disciplined and prudent when compared to subsequent military regimes and even the shagari regime he overthrew. Like i said earlier, it wasnt as criminally unacceptable then unlike now that its a taboo even though it was in our law books. It was illegal fine but that exactly was what the majority wants as at then.

The succeeding military governments did not seize power from a democratic government. Buhari did.

Look, considering his numerous enemies that abound out there against this man, what will it take them to go to court to receive an injuction barring him from contesting because he once benefitted in a coup plot?

The only reason it has not been done is the same as I earlier pointed out: our collective lack of self respect - and also corruption. Because taking such a step will open a pandora's box of other necessary steps: other former military Heads of State and their families would be affected and they are too influential in Nigeria today for this to happen. Period. Corruption at play.

This is why I despise every ruler in Nigeria, including GEJ, who fails to dig into Nigeria's scandalous past and bring all of these thugs to book. If I was president, whilst I am being sworn into office at Eagle Square, the SSS would be arresting EVERY former military head of state, their aides, ministers, et al. Babangida will have to explain even the source of his house in minna. Under the Public service rules, and given his legitimate income as an army officer and even as (illegal) Head of State, he has no explanation for that villa. I would ensure that they ALL spend the rest of their pathetic lives in Prison. Nest of killers that they are.

What i said which u refuted wrongly was nothing in our laws presently prevents former coup beneficiaries from benefitting from any democratic setting, if u know of any in our law books kindly fish it out for all to see. What i said still remain.

It is simple: I do not speak simply of coup beneficiaries. I never said so. I said that Buhari has no moral right to benefit from any democratic experiment in Nigeria. Period.

As for the law: the fact remains simple: AT THE TIME OF THE 1983 COUP, UNDER THE LAWS OF NIGERIA, IT WAS AN ACT OF TREASON. HE SHOULD BE TRIED FOR THAT. PERIOD.

Demdem: [b]i respect ur opinion however ur sole reason for nullifying Buhari to me is so petty and ignorable.

Treason is petty and "ignorable" ? ? ? ? ? ?

This alone shows exactly why we have a long way to go in this country.

You actually regard the illegal take-over of a democratic government which leads to 16 years of military rule to be "petty and ignorable" ? ? ?

Wow. Just wow.

Love him or hate him, Nothing in our laws prevents Buhari from beneffiting from any democratic setting.

That is incorrect. Under the laws at the time of the 1983 coup, that act was Treason. Thus, he can, and should still be tried for that act.

[b]logicboy03: [/b]Dawkins was awarded a Doctor of Science by the University of Oxford in 1989. He holds honorary doctorates in science from the University of Huddersfield, University of Westminster, Durham University,[128] the University of Hull, the University of Antwerp, and the University of Oslo,[129] and honorary doctorates from the University of Aberdeen,[130] Open University, the Vrije Universiteit Brussel,[8] and the University of Valencia.[131] He also holds honorary doctorates of letters from the University of St Andrews and the Australian National University (HonLittD, 1996), and was elected Fellow of the Royal Society of Literature in 1997 and the Royal Society in 2001.[8] He is one of the patrons of the Oxford University Scientific Society.
In 1987, Dawkins received a Royal Society of Literature award and a Los Angeles Times Literary Prize for his book, The Blind Watchmaker. In the same year, he received a Sci. Tech Prize for Best Television Documentary Science Programme of the Year for his work on the BBC's Horizon episode, The Blind Watchmaker.[8]
His other awards include the Zoological Society of London's Silver Medal (1989), the Finlay Innovation Award (1990), the Michael Faraday Award (1990), the Nakayama Prize (1994), the American Humanist Association's Humanist of the Year Award (1996), the fifth International Cosmos Prize (1997), the Kistler Prize (2001), the Medal of the Presidency of the Italian Republic (2001),[citation needed] the Bicentennial Kelvin Medal of The Royal Philosophical Society of Glasgow (2002),[8] and the Nierenberg Prize for Science in the Public Interest (2009).[132]

Appeal to authourity.

Dawkins is one of the da.ftest persons to ever be called a scientist in history. He is a weak re.tarded imb.ecile incapable of any form of logical thought and is only celebrated because the world is populated largely by weak re.tarded imb.eciles, a fact which, given your turn of mind, should not surprise you.

mazaje: Firstly Jesus promoted some pacifist philosophy that are very BAD, even christians do NOT follow them because they are bad. . .

Luke 6:29 If someone slaps you on one cheek, offer the other cheek also. If someone demands your coat, offer your shirt also.

This is pure nonsense and is bad. . .Even christians do NOT practice this at all. . .If I come and slap you and try to take your jacket it either you fight back or call the police on me. . .

Surely you would not be so literal in your reading as to conclude that Jesus meant these in a literal sense. It rather makes sense to think that he was generally advocating non-violence - which is not a bad thing. Mahatma Ghandi employed the same idea to great effect in his battles against Great Britain's colonialism of India. Had he employed a different concept, doubtless, many lives would needlessly have been lost.

It is a very high-minded teaching to be deployed high-mindedly, and not in the foolish sense that you try to read it.

With regards to divorce, Jesus's advice is plain wrong, why should a divorcee not get married to another person until after his/her divorced spouse dies?

Matthew 5:32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.. . .

No forgiveness in his ruling. . .Who considers this to be a good thing, divorce is sometimes VERY good and saves people's lives. . .To say that divorce should be done ONLY on the basis of fornication is to not know what you are talking about, what if you are married to an unrepentant criminal and a psychopath that beats you regularly?. .Divorce is very good in this case, Jesus's declaration here is very bad, many christians do not even abide by it any way because they know its untenable and bad. . .

I agree with you here. He was probably influenced by his Jewish background in saying this.

Threatening people with hellfire for unbelief?. . .What the hell is that, so because people do not believe in your stories the best thing is to threaten them with fire and death?. . .Who considers that to be a good thing?. . .Definitely not me. . .

Agreed again.

For some weird reasons,he even admitted he was violent. . .

Matthew 10: 34 “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.

Now here again you are deliberately reading the text with unnecessary foolishness. These people spoke always in parables and metaphors, even in poetry: and as such you would be a very shallow student to read everything you see in a literal sense. The text above is more likely a reference to judgement and the justice of God.

He said he came to divide families. . .

Matthew 10:5 For I have come to turn

“‘a man against his father,
a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law—
36 a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household

Who will consider such a person a good person. . .A person that claims to set people against each other. . .Not me. . .

Same thing again. This is a most shallow reading of the text of which you ought to be ashamed of your self mazaje.

I will not elaborate!

He asked people to leave their jobs and families to join his little cult group and made them false promises of a second coming within their lives. This makes him no better than Harold Camping, Wayne Bent or Jim Jones (before the mass "suicide" ) as far as I'm concerned and every bit as dangerously crazy..

Well in doing so he created a movement that changed history in more ways than the actions of any other single man have done. I cannot say that I am competent to comment on the propriety of something that massive in terms of the destiny and history of mankind.

However I agree with you on the aspect of the second coming. Pure fantasy to me.

Good I say is relative, some of the good thing Jesus stood for are considered as bad by many others. . .

Without question, correct.

[quote author=Mr_Anony]Noted. I agree that God is love in the sense that God is the source of love and love is God's nature. However (ignoring all the mystic jargon) one mistake M.Nwankwo makes is that he tries to equate Love to God. There is a subtle difference between "God is love" and "love is God" in the sense that one describes the character of a person while the other personifies the character itself and that is what M.Nwankwo has done more or less.

For instance when I hear atheists criticizing and insulting Jesus Christ, I immediately know that they are not sincere because no one who claims to stand for good can be presented with the person of Jesus Christ and reject Him in all honesty. What I see in most atheists (especially the militant ones on Nairaland) is the same kind of blind fanaticism I see in cult religions.[/quote]Point taken, but as one well acquainted with the views of M_Nwankwo, let me just inform you that he does not see God as merely free floating love. He also regards God as a definite but transcendental being. As such, his analogy is directed at indicating what he believes it takes to connect with God - that is love, no more, and no less.

Let me add personally that if you really believe God to be transcendental, you would realize that you are belittling God by thinking that he would insist on people knowing of or accepting a particular individual regardless of their cultural, religious and historical differences - whether this individual was God himself or not, or whether this individual was God's son or not - because the mind of God surely transcends such things and looks to the core - the heart.

Now this is not even touching on that which is meant by "acceptance" of christ. For the write-up by Nwankwo above actually shows us that "acceptance" is a mind-state of love and not merely declaration of belief in Christ as Messiah. That is nothing. Surely you know that.

Now I agree with M.Nwankwo when he says that one might think he believes God but if he doesn't have love in him, he isn't really a theist in the sense that his belief does not reflect in his actions. For the atheist/non-believer, I find it hard to believe that someone who has love in him is brought in contact with God who is love and yet the person rejects it.

You know, many non-Christians and even atheists; in fact, I dare say most - accept the generality of Jesus's teachings on love. Except of course misguided people like Martian who say that "love thy neighbour as thyself" is a bad teaching, I can safely say that the generality of people regard it as a sound teaching.

The problem lies with the more specific and cult-like teaching that one must accept Jesus the man in person, as personal lord and saviour, and also accept him as God, and only begotten son of God, and further believe that his death on the cross represents ritual sacrificial salvation and redemption for mankind. I do not believe any of these things: and many a sound man who has love for humanity in his heart would similarly disbelieve these things.

Does this amount to rejecting Christ?

Dawkins? The very well known eediotic reta.rd? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

Oh sorry, thread was opened by his ilk anyway.

So no comments.

[quote author=lanre_front]Did hear you say you voted for because of the lack of a better candidate. Mr. Pastor, that is a big lie and you know it.

There was a better candidate. You could have voted for. But just like most Nigerians, you were carried away by sentiments and the "I had no shoes" campaign of Mr. Jonathan.

You voted not out logic" reasoning, but you voted on nothing but sheer sentiments. You did not even bother to look at the antecedents of the contestants.

As for me I voted for Buhari and I am proud of my decision.

Like a poster said, why not add a little realism to your choice Presidents for 2015. Buhari had a good chance to be President in the last elections. Another one is coming in 2015.

I say Buhari is the most qualified to rid Nigeria of the monster of corruption. He has the willpower, passion, clout to deal with the corrupt big guns holding Nigeria in slavery. After him others will follow to continue the good work, but we need home to lay the foundation for a Nigeria free of corruption and indiscipline.

You only deceive yourself if you think the likes of Fashola can break the back of the monster, corruption, in Nigeria. Is it Fashola who is Tinibu's boy, and together with his Godfather, they are stealing Lagos State bind?[/quote]

Demdem: The only person IMO that can solve this concern of urs to the barest minimum is Buhari. The choice is urs.
By the way, am just being inquisitive here. u said u voted for retardeen earlier because of lack of a better candidate right? what made the retardeen stood out (in terms of acheivement and antecedents) among other aspirants that marvels u to thumbprint for the killer party?

One of the problems of Nigeria is the fact that its people have no sense of morality, justice, propriety and honour. Buhari may be a disciplined figure, but he lacks every moral right to ever seek to benefit from, or participate in any democratic government in Nigeria, much less be a democratic president. The simple reason is the fact that he truncated the democratic 2nd Republic through a military coup: an act of treason which took this country 16 solid years of military rule to reverse.

In any civilized society, he should be tried for treason even today. Secondly, it is unimaginable that we have not deleted the names of ALL former military rulers from the official records as past Heads of State: it is even more mortifying that these persons sit on the Council of State as former Heads of State and even collect a pension from the state, aside from other continuing privileges.

It is disgusting, and shows that we have no respect whatsoever for ourselves as a people or as a nation, or as a State.

Anyway, my two suggestions for a future president of Nigeria would be Fashola - only if he leaves the ACN and the suffocating and corrupt influence of Tinubu; and Pat Utomi.

Neither will happen though. Our next president would likely be someone already circulating in Abuja such as Namadi Sambo or David Mark, or one of the business-as-usual governors, likely a northern one on account of the zoning idea.

THE ONE AND ONLY PERSON WHO NEEDS TO SHUT THE F UP IN NIGERIA IS SANUSI LAMIDO SANUSI.

Central Banking requires deep sobriety and not loquaciousness because markets and economies hang on every word of a Central Bank Governor.

noblezone: Nigeria has never had a National Leader.

Well MKO Abiola came closest to broad national democratic acceptance.

Interestingly one should note the disgruntled response of Nigerians to the first govt effort to honour him! Truly shows that Nigerian are not worth sacrificing anything for!

Anony, what do you make of the following in red with regard to the salvation of atheists and other non-christians -

God is love. One can also say that God is the source of love. All creatures of God irrespective of race, religion, sex, nationality etc can absorb of this love of God and dispense it accordingly. In the case of human beings, what absorbs this love from God is the human spirit. This love will permeate the spirit, its clocks including the outermost shell, the physical body. Thus he who absorbs the rays of love will manifest love including love for all creations of God. Now, the recognition of this love as coming from God depends on the various radiation connection between the spirit and the various shells surrounding the spirit, the last shell being the physical body and its coordinating center, the human brain. In many of us, this radiation connections are not straight, thus the shells enveloping the spirit are not conscious of the impressions that vibrates in the spirit. Thus a man may believe himself to be an atheist because that is what his brain tells him and yet his spirit is in the recognition of God. Irrespective of his brain telling him that God does not exist, the emanations of the spirit including love still permeates his mind and body resulting in expressions of genuine love. Thus although from a human standpoint, such a man is considered by himself and others to be atheist, spiritually the man is a theist.

In a similar vein the brain and the mind may be trained or indoctrinated or programmed to believe in God but their spirit has no recognition of God. In this case, this believer is actually an atheist even though he believes himself to be a theist. However because he, that is, the spirit has no connection with God, he cannot absorb the rays of love and manifest it. Thus, in spite of his intellectual believe in God, he still manifests the works of the flesh including hatred, anger, lust, gossip, avarice, fear, etc. The species of a seed determines the fruits that it will bear. Thus all genuine love and human beings who indulge in it believe in God even when they are unconscious of it while on earth.

Thus, all human beings who indulge in genuine love are of God and all those who indulge in hatred are not of God. By there works or fruits, you shall know those who stand in the will of God and those that oppose it or do not recognize it. This is an infallible yardstick to know who belongs to God and those who are not.

Therefore the love of God manifests in the love of all creations of God. On earth, it is possible for an atheist to love God without being spiritually conscious of it. However if such atheist continues in the manifestation of the love of God, either later in this earthly life or in the beyond on in another earthly life the emanations of the love of God that vibrates in his spirit will also permeate his earthly brain such that he also becomes conscious of the existence of God while in the physical body. What counts is how our spirit is close or far away from the will of God. Religion, nationality, sex, class and similar things that we think are very important while on earth are worthless once we drop this physical body.

In my view, there is no difference between the pope, the Christian, the mystic or an atheists when it concerns the will of God. Murder is murder whether perpetrated by a pope, a theist or an atheist. Genuine love is genuine love whether it came from an atheist, a pastor or an agnostic. Sometimes we think too much and thus think nothing. If we look around even on earth, we should find that the natural laws which are the manifestation of the will of God in nature does not give a hoot about all these artificial constructs. If a bud-hist sows yam in a fertile soil, he will reap yam. The same goes for an atheist and the theist. In an earthquake or epidemic or accident, both theists and atheists are saved and killed. A deeper look on why these things are the way they are may open our eyes to the working of God. Best wishes.


This post in red above was by M_Nwankwo

https://www.nairaland.com/687376/true-meaning-love-nwankwo

There is no difference. . . . how does an intensely corrupt society throw up good leaders? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

Lovethywilbedon: No! You won't fall again, but you still have to bear the bruises of your first fall which you loving father can help to heal by applying HidrogenperOxide and Iodine.

Lol. Of course you will fall down. The laws of God are not his mere fancies - they are the adamantine laws of creation which could not but be: in this instance, gravity. The iodine you mention still falls within those laws. That is called grace.

But if after you jump up, he comes and catches you mid air so you do not fall down, that is called Divine Intervention - which is a hugely debatable precept when discussing a perfect God.

A human father may do it - on account of his imperfection. Indeed, some human fathers will not do it - on account of wisdom - they will let you fall and learn your own lesson.

A perfect God, hmmmmm, i think, will allow his perfect laws to play. Indeed, being perfect, he would have no other option.

Redmosquito: Nwankwo! Wat da hell! See as ur tory long! I have other things to read na! Oya summarize in two lines.

Well let me help you with a summary. If your Father tells you not to jump up, and that if you jump up you will fall down.

Let's say you disobey him and you jump up. That disobedience is sin.

Now haven jumped up, you confess your disobedience to him and ask for forgiveness.

He forgives you.

Will you still fall down or not?

babagy82: I'm sorry to sya that this poster is either foolish or ignorant of what he's arguing about. What is written is not arabic, its just a form of writing that is adopted by the hausas during pre colonial times.

((The term Ajami (Arabic: ﻋﺠﻤﻲ ʿaǧamī ), or Ajamiyya
(Arabic: ﻋﺠﻤﻴﺔ ʿaǧamiyyah), which comes from the
Arabic root for "foreign" or "stranger," has been
applied to Arabic alphabets used for writing African
languages. It is considered an Arabic derived African
writing system (just as Latin is Egyptian-derived)
Since African languages involve phonetic sounds and
systems different from the Arabic language, there
have often been adaptations of the Arabic script to
transcribe them—a process not unlike what has been
done with the Arabic script in non-Arabic speaking
countries of the Middle East, and with the Latin script
in Africa or with the Vietnamese alphabet.[1]
The West African Hausa is an example of a language
written using Ajami, especially during the pre-
colonial period when Qur'anic schools taught Muslim
children Arabic, and by extension, Ajami. When
Western colonizers adopted a Latin orthography for
Hausa, Ajami went into decline, and today is
employed less frequently than the Latin standard
orthography. However, Hausa Ajami is still in
widespread use, especially in Islamic circles.))

Source; wikipedia.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ajami_script

This is still beside the point. Why is only one tribe given this privilege, period.

[quote author=Akanbi_edu]Solid points.

OBJ sure understands Nigeria very well. He knows his relevance is most likely assured by installing a northerner- most likely an underperformer.[/quote]. . . . . . another Shagari or Yaradua. . . .?

Part of my angst against OBJ. Even if it had to be from the north, there were many great and capable options who would still have been loyal to him!

As a strong leader himself, he is so weak that he has always been intimidated by the prospect of a strong successor. This one thing, is the only good I see in Bola Tinubu. The succession plan he generated threw up a very capable Governor in Fashola - regardless the obviously remaining loyalty.

OBJ, with two attempts, could not and would not do this.

Gbawe: A very good point. It was exactly the same with Shagari before he was toppled by the military. The man simply allowed a lot of corrupt and self-serving minions to lead him astray because he was not a person of strong conviction or principles. GEJ is even worse than Shagari in that regard.

Essentially, it is easy to convince a weak and unprincipled person that he can get away with anything. You are right that Lamido et al should have realised this. I especially loved the conclusion of the article and hope some Nigerian politician take note of this retrogressive and needlessly destructive feud. OBJ deserves every disrespect and treachery he gets from GEJ for his historical practice of shopping for perceived weak-minded stooges he can control instead of just playing his part to ensure competent individuals lead Nigeria.

Gbam!

Gbawe: Yes, it seems ridiculous some 'gladiators' agreed to sheath their sword over a pledge made by a very treacherous man but Nigerian politicians are inordinately power hungry. Many will do anything and make any deal to gain power. There is an element of things that revolves around the notion of "honour amongst thieves". These Northern Governors knew that GEJ needed their help to defeat Atiku. The calculation is that 'one good turn deserves another.

By helping GEJ, they felt Mr.President would be compelled to keep his end of the one term deal - not because he is the most upright man on earth but because even thieves expect other thieves to understand that they must keep helping each other so that their 'activities' can continue undisturbed.

Correcto.

Many thanks Gbawe, and I have read the entire article and I do note carefully that which you highlighted.

Nevertheless, I must highlight the below, in the same article -

Such short spells of harmony between godfather and godson at the beginning of the latter’s walk of the power path come as standard in Nigerian politics these days. In this day and age it’s difficult to find a godson and a godfather that maintain cordiality long into the tenure of the godson.

One significant lesson to pick up here is that it is becoming increasingly futile for incumbents to invest more than is meet, usually at the expense of societal and democratic values, to fix successors in office in the hope of retaining control.

I find it difficult to believe that Sule Lamido, or any one else, would have been naive enough in regard to the foregoing. Especially being aware of the extent to which OBJ lost control of an even weak Yaradua.

None of these people would themselves think that they, in such shoes, would not go for a second term. So they could hardly think it of their fellow theives! They do know much better in that regard than we do, trust me.

I also repeat that which I earlier wrote - I believe even more strongly, that it is [b]unrealistic[/b]to expect a sitting first term president in Nigeria not to exercise the constitutional option to run again. Most unrealistic indeed - and politicians who bargain on such "agreements" are either naive or simply being deceitful to others in their overall maneuvering.

We know, and they ALL know even better, that for now, this is impossible in this country. They could not possibly have placed their bets on that.

Oh, wait a minute. I forgot. They viewed Jonathan as a weak Id.iot. So maybe they made that very naive mistake.

Weak Idiots, as any student of history should know, have always made the worst tyrants.

[quote author=Negro_Ntns]see second prgrph abve[/quote]The point is simply this; even three languages would not suffice in a nation of 250 languages. There is a reason we have an official language, and the point is simply that for that specific reason, we should stick to the official language, End of.

Anything less - worse what obtains currently - where only one tribe has the privilege - is ridiculous.

As to your question as to why it has not been done already - I already told you - years of insidious fear.

Gbawe: @Deep sight.

OBJ essentially carried the one term pledge on his shoulder. It is not really a case of Lamido or anyone else being gullible. Everything is about negotiation with Nigerian politics. Without wishing to belabour the point, because understanding of issues relies on one haven followed events closely at the time, the one term pledge gained GEJ a lot of support and pacified the new generation of Northern leaders who, frankly, understood it was ultimately not a bad thing to sacrifice 4 years if it helps move the old leaders along (IBB,Atiku, Ciroma et al) and they get a clear path in 2015. The obvious attractiveness of the pledge is that Governors, because of how the PDP has unravelled lately, have bright chances of becoming the Party's presidential candidate if the incumbent President will not run.

http://www.vanguardngr.com/2011/03/obasanjo-we-hold-jonathan-to-one-term-vow/

No worries, my dear and respected friend, i just still find it improbable that anyone in Nigeria could believe such a pledge - much less our very cunning politicians - and much less such a pledge coming from such a personage as Obasanjo - in specific light of his own very notorious antecedents, re: such pledges.

[quote author=Negro_Ntns]geez, it should not be about language.

as i said in earlier post, if you write in yoruba, you commit the same violation as hausa written in ajami because the yoruba itself will be written in latin.[/quote]Yes, but ofcourse, why give the Hausa in ajami the exclusive privilege? The Yoruba in latin may need or want the same privilege, no?

[quote author=Negro_Ntns].....if the president had such exclusive power it would have been exercised in past regimes.[/quote]This is not a matter for debate. See the CBN Act, End of.

the south has no such ball power to stand up for political direction. i should not even make it a north/south issue....
.it cuts three ways!

Exactly. Insidious fear over the years is a terrible thing. Now its all about balance and petting, and compromise. Ta! India. . . . Sudan . . . .what was the result, really?