₦airaland Forum

Indeed my brother. But its way too much.

What is particularly distressing for me is the fact that for more than two decades Nigeria laboured under the burden of debt service regarding its Paris/ London Club international debts. It was said that more than a third of our earnings we used to service our international debt.

In the first coming of Okonjo-Iweala, we bought out of the burden paying NGN 18 billion to walk out of a > 30 billion debt overhang. That should have freed us from debt servicing and freed up about a third of our revenue for infrastructure.

Curiously, a few years after exiting the debt, we are back in the debt.

This is very strange indeed. Now we have the second coming of Okonjo-Messiah-Iweala, and we are told that we need to free up another huge portion of public revenue - this time through the removal of a subsidy that previously cost about 20 per cent of what is said to be currently paid!

This lady is a real magician. Houdini got nothing on her.

^ Guys, that's why the saying goes - attend to the message, and not the messsenger. It's mind boggling where all these funds have gone to?

[quote author=ekt_bear link=topic=838429.msg9891646#msg9891646 date=1325663217]If you are spending 7 billion a year on fuel subsidy[/quote]Here is the thing. the cost of fuel subsidy was actually less than 300 billion NGN previously. How did it become N1.3 Trillion? ? ? ?

Some one is telling a profound lie here.

When President Olusegun Obasanjo was in power we spent 300 billion per year on the fuel subsidy. Under the administration of President Goodluck Jonathan it shot up to 1.3 trillion naira in the last one year alone. Can someone please explain to me how it got so high in 4 years and what exactly they were subsidising with the extra one trillion naira? When the Obasanjo government left power in 2007 the country was no longer in debt and the 30 billion dollar foreign debt that Obasanjo met when he came to power in 1999 was fully paid off. Today, under the administration of Jonathan, our country is back in debt to the tune of 30 billion dollars and we are still borrowing. Can someone please tell me what the loans were used for and whether we will ever be able to pay them off? When the Obasanjo administration left power in 2007 our foreign reserves were 80 billion dollars even though when he came into office in 1999 we only had 1.5 billion dollars.

Today our foreign reserves have dropped from 80 billion dollars in 2007 to 33 billion dollars. Can someone please tell me where all the money went? When the Obasanjo administration left power in 2007 23 billion dollars was left in the Excess Crude Account after he built it up from nothing in 1999. Today we do not have one dollar left in that account because the money has been squandered and the account scrapped. Can someone explain to me who spent that money and precisely what it was spent on? By the time the Obasanjo administration left power in 2007 not one bomb had gone off in Abuja throughout his 8 years in office and neither did we shy away from confronting the evil and dealing a hard blow to the terrorists wherever and whenever it was necessary to do so. Today bombs go off at will all over the north, the President hides in the Villa and churches were targetted on christmas day in Abuja. When Obasanjo was in power we did not remove the fuel subsidy because it would have caused too much pain to the Nigerian people and because there was no safety net in place to reduce that pain. President Jonathan however did not have any such inhibitions or qualms. Just seven days after we suffered the horrendous trauma of the xmas day bombings and probably as a New Year’s Greek gift to the Nigerian people, our President finally removed the oil subsidy. He did this knowing fully well that it will lead to untold suffering and terrible hardship for the next few years for the Nigerian people, most of whom still live below the poverty line. Can someone please tell me why President Jonathan wants Nigerians to cry? Yesterday he not only said that he would “crush Boko Haram” but he also declared a state of emergency in a few local government areas in some northern states. Can someone please tell me why our President could not do this 6 months ago when some of us first advocated it and thereby save many lives? Why has it taken him so long to find the guts to confront Boko Haram and to lead the fight against them with ruthless zeal, strengh, courage and total faith in God? Why has he done so little when it comes to this matter and why has he done it so late? Does he not know that a king is meant to lead his people into battle and if necessary die for them? He has been unable to handle and contain Boko Haram and now he has removed the fuel subsidy which is something that is expressly against the wishes and interest of the overwhelming majority of the Nigerian people.

Can someone please tell me precisely what has happened to this man and what has got into his head? This government is not only weak, it not only lacks direction but it is also insensitive and callous. The removal of the fuel subsidy is the final straw: President Jonathan, the King Rehoabam of our time, has hardened his heart unto destruction, just like Pharaoh once did, and he has fallen into the trap that has been set for him by God and by his enemies. May the Lord save Nigeria from this mess and from this weak man and may the Nigerian people themselves wake up from their accursed slumber and take their destiny into their own hands. The smell of religious war, sectarian violence, regional and ethnic conflict, insecurity, untold suffering, rampant poverty and economic hardship is in the air. Nigerians are divided as never before and our country is slowly crumbling and dying before our very eyes. Who will save Nigeria? Who will stand up and say enough is enough? Who will pull us back from the brink? Who can we count on to take the bull by the horns and do the right thing? There must be a lawful and democratic change. My God let there be a change

http://myondostate.com/w3/who-will-deliver-us-from-this-goodluck-by-femi-fani-kayode/

By Femi Fani-Kayode

Pertinent Questions, i think. Especially on the figures earned and spent.

^ U gat a Point there.

The man is also mourning his daughter. Allow him to rest.

^ God is God.

Happy new year, Martian.

(o, sorry, it's prolly not new year on mars now)

MyJoe:
Em, a Dec 31 bombing is only as bad as any day bombing - well, for those of us who don't set too much store by days or moons.

Evil Brain:
Also, as someone above already pointed out, a bombing today is no worse than a bombing on any other day.

Permit me to slightly disagree. This is like saying that the assasination of the Austrian Arch-Duke in 1914 was no worse than any other assasination. In human terms of the value of every life, you are of course correct.

But methinks it is sensible to also note that the significance attached to certain crimes hold the potential to vastly escalate the import of the said crimes.

As it happens, the assaination of the Austrian Arch-Duke was the trigger for a nervous Europe to launch into the first world war - which led to millions of deaths - and it can also be said that the result of that war also set the scene for the second world war - many more millions of deaths.

In my view, a blast that occurs against churches, on eminently religious days such as xmas - or during a cross-over night church service, holds a greater potential to ignite ethno-religious tension of a kind that could trigger a wider crisis - even civil war - than a blast against a secular or less sensitive target For this reason I think that given the peculiar alignment of our polity, blasts against certain targets and on certain days could[i] indeed[/i] be significantly more critical for our collective future.

Neverthelss, you are of course right that each and every blast on any given day is indeed deplorable. Personally I feel slightly releived because i sincerely expected to wake up to more bad news of cross-over night blasts.

Evil Brain:
And Boko Haram still have 13 hours left.

Hmmmmmmm! God forbid sha.

hppy nw yr, pastor joe. We thnk God indeed. But be prepared o, i can see some saintly lots charging in here shortly to denounce ur op as another tithe bearing scheme. Lolzz.

Hap ne year!

@ Negro Ntns - You may wish to consider the fact that central trading cities such as Lagos, Kano and Kaduna are not mono-cultural in nature. It would be simplistic, i think, to suggest that an Igbo bussinessman comes to any of these centres to feed off a trading atmosphere created only by the people indigenous to such commercial hubs.

If anything, the very defining characteristic of such cities is the fact that they are a melting pot of variuous peoples and cultures - and this is teh very factor that draws enterprise to such centres. Thus, to put it simply, the Igbo man does not come to Lagos to trade because he is looking for hospitable Yoruba men to sell his wares to: he is rather looking for a market of over 18 million people that consists of people from all over Nigeria - Igbos inclusive.

Further, it is rather obvious, that there are many factors - a great deal of them federal in nature - as to why the central commercial cities became commercial hubs in the first place. The role of Lagos as capital of Nigeria for three-quarters of a century, for example, cannot be over-looked. Ditto, its aquatic location.

But there is no need to quibble on such little matters. Every nation has its principal commercial centres and markets and these centres would naturally attract enterprise from all over the said nation or even region. It's really as simple as that: and forms no reason to punctuate the praise due to our Igbo brothers for their widely acknowledged industry.

Alethia, Alethia, Alethia.

Hoew many times did I call you. Why are you quoting non-existent verses in the Bible? The words you quoted from  1 Jn 5 v 7 have since been expunged from every modern version of the Bible!

In the King James Version Bible, 1 John 5:7 reads:

For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
Using the handpicked writings of the early Church Fathers, the Greek and Latin manuscripts and the testimony of the first versions of the Bible, Newton claims to have demonstrated that the words "in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one," in support of the Trinity doctrine, did not appear in the original Greek Scriptures. He then attempts to demonstrate that the purportedly spurious reading crept into the Latin versions, first as a marginal note, and later into the text itself. He noted that "the Æthiopic, Syriac, Arabic, Armenian, and Slavonic versions, still in use in the several Eastern nations, Ethiopia, Egypt, Syria, Mesopotamia, Armenia, Muscovy, and some others, are strangers to this reading".[4] He argued[5] that it was first taken into a Greek text in 1515 by Cardinal Ximenes on the strength of a late Greek manuscript 'corrected' from the Latin. Finally, Newton considered the sense and context of the verse, concluding that removing the interpolation makes "the sense plain and natural, and the argument full and strong; but if you insert the testimony of 'the Three in Heaven' you interrupt and spoil it."[6] Today most versions of the Bible omit this verse, or retain it as only a marginal reading.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Historical_Account_of_Two_Notable_Corruptions_of_Scripture

O, dear me, I hope there will be no condescendingly enigmatic references to commas from my neighbour Johanna. . . . . .

Purist:
Still - and in addition to my earlier comment - I haven't seen anyone here rebuke frosbel, a well known Christian fanatic on Nairaland, for also creating a thread about Hitchens right here in the Religion section.

Even more, the actual author of the tribute in that thread is a Christian blogger who posted the original article on his Christian blog. There have been a few other religionists who have commented on his death, like Rick Warren on Twitter, like this blogger, like the fool in the video below, who claimed God sent Hitchens to hell because he loved him, etc.

So I see no reason why thehomer is being attacked for doing what even religious people have been doing as well, unless the argument is that an atheist shouldn't pay tribute to a fellow atheist in the Religion section, which isn't a sound argument seeing that even religious people are doing the exact same thing.

[flash=400,350]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8FmIMAA46A8&feature=related[/flash]

I doubt that Hitchen's atheism was his distinguising feature: here was a celebrated writer in many respects. Our own Wole Soyinka is well known to be perhaps atheistic or pagan - and I doubt that his death should elicit tributes on a (largely Christian) Religion Board.

Nevertheless, well put. I concede the point.

thehomer:
Maybe or maybe it is because the ideas being discussed are complex. And from the looks of things, you don't seem ready to learn.

The truth in this matter is actually rather simple, and dodging the simple question posed looks very escapist and lame, and might I respectfully add: cowardly.

I say this because if i were in your position the one-line answer to David's question would simply be as follows -

"From the point of a singularity, the universe following the initial expansion called the big b[b]a[/b]ng has expanded outwards in a flow of matter of energy, the movement of which has resulted in the formaltion of stars and galaxies, and colliding rocks around stars coalesce to form planets such as the earth, which under the right conditions could also harbour life."

There is nothing overwhelmingly complex about that, and claiming as such rather makes the claimant appear as though he is in awe of elementary concepts. It is not necessarily true that either David or I would accept this as a complete answer, but it at least deals with the basics without unnecessary cop-outs. From such an answer, David could then respond appropriately, or was your intention only to brick-bat puerile sarcasm?

I say this because David obviously knows your ideas on this subject: he asked simply to elicit a working answer that he could effectively challange.

^ The word 'origin' has a very definite meaning in these discussions. Please do not be disingenuous enough to deny that in such a lamentable fashion.

Just show me how natural selection pertains to the origin of the first unicellular life form and I will shat my trap once and for all.

^ I opened a thread alleging you to be pantheist and not atheist and you never responded?

thehomer:
It isn't supposed to address the origin of life.

Exactly. Why then do you contradict yourself by asserting that it does address the origin of species? Are there any species that are not living things?

The full title is On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life and not On the Origin of life.

Exactly again. There you go - "Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection" . . . .

Natural selection does NOT describe the origin of species. It describes the continuous development of species, but by NO means does it address the origin. . . . otherwise you will have to point me to what part of natural selection shows how teh FIRST living organism came into being.

Joagbaje:
2 Kings 20:1-2
In those days was Hezekiah sick unto death. And the prophet Isaiah the son of Amoz came to him, and said unto him, [size=25pt]Thus saith the Lord, Set thine house in order; for thou shalt die, and not live. 2 Then he turned his face to the wall, and prayed unto the Lord, saying. . . [/size]

The coup de grâce.

Indeed, prayer is probably most pertinent in the face of impending prophectic fulfillment.

aletheia:
I 've already indicated what was wrong with the OP; and how any Christian ought to pray in these days.

Very well - although the OP did not discuss how to pray. It said - let us pray . . . .

And read again Christ's prayer in Gethsemane. . .there are certain points therein that escape disobedient children.

It does not escape me that he ends his prayer with a submission to the will of God. I doubt that anybody, Pastor Jo inclusive, would not be attentive to that.

The fact remains that he prayed concerning prophesied events - and indeed he specifically asked that "if it be possible" the cup should pass.

thehomer:
Is the theory of continental drift a complete theory? Maybe you need to realize what theories are and that the theory of evolution does what it is supposed to do.

The simple point is that given that the TOE does not address the origin of life, then it is clear that it cannot be used to address the issue of origination. Simpliciter. Nothing more than that.

Conversely, the God-debate is centered on the question of Origin - which you admit the TOE does not address.

Just as an addittional point: the very title of Darwin's book is therewith defeated: it cannot be called "The ORIGIN of Species when in point of fact (and as you admit) it does not address the very question of Origin!.

^ His response is rather beside the point  - at least as far as the OP is concerned. There is nothing he has said that proves or shows that it is unchristian to pray against or concerning looming warfare, on the grounds that such warfare represents a fulfillment of prophecy.

Christ himself prayed in Gethsemane in spite of the adverse prophecies lined up against or concerning his prayer.

thehomer:
Actually, it doesn't say anything about the origin of life. Simply look it up.

Which is why it remains an incomplete theory that still begs an answer to the biggest question of all. . . .

chrisj2000:
Bacterias and single cell organisms when exposed to certain climate or environment

. . . . here is the point - where did the first bacteria / single cell organism energe from? The Theory of evolution does not research that. . . .

Joagbaje:
Aletheia said I should have thought of women and children. That's very funny. War is between military personels .mDo women and children go to war?

Aletheia was right on that. There is always collateral damage on civilian populations, and that ought to be the first consideration. I want to assume however, that you do not discountenance this.

dare2think:
@ Deep sight,

I think its Joagbaje's  mention of 'economically' is what stirred up some of the criticism. However, to be fair he did mention ', and otherwise'.

To be fair indeed, he did mention "and otherwise." But even if he didn't unless one has a skewed view of what the world economy is and entails, then one would not jump to assert that it is a reference to filthy lucre alone. Massive world events such as famine, drought, recession etc, are all economic events, because the economy starts with produce, and this also extends to displacement of people, and a torrent of other considerations.

It would be the height of demonization, to imagine that Joagbaje needs to pray against a war in Iran inorder to safeguard his tithes. Only extremist imagination could produce such a comic caricature from a post that simply adjures christians to pray against war.

Having said all that, I took the trouble to read the whole thread, or most of it - and I can clearly say that the economic reference was certainly not the only grievance David, Aleth, and co raised: indeed the vast majority of their posts focused on the idea that such a war would be the will of God given that these are the endtimes, and that for this reason christians who understand the word of God in this respect ought not to pray against such a war. They every clearly stated that "one cannot pray away the will of God." I wonder then why Jesus wasted his time in Gethsemane?

Prayer, from a christian standpoint, is always beneficial, even in the remit of an existing untoward prophecy.

As you well know, I do not subscribe to the idea that Atheism is a religion. I nevertheless state to you that your posts in this thread tend to affirm that argument.

In the tribute you extracted, there is little or nothing said about atheism. Other endeavours of the late Hitchens are focused on. I did not open your link, but at least based on what you posted up there, it was generally about his secular views and contributions. None of those have anything to do with Religion. It thus remains true that the only reason you paste this here is on account that the man was a celebrated atheist.

The atheistic position is one of denial - and as such the athiest has no business invading religious forums simply to make tributes to other atheists - even outside the context of their atheism! This reeks of the very way in which the religionists are accused of celebrating their Pastors and Leaders!

I repeat: this thread exposes you to the argument that your atheism is indeed an evengelical/ militant religion.

Honestly, at the risk of sounding like a broken record and being accussed as ever of defending Pastor Agbaje for dubious reasons, I really must comment on this very preposterous thread.

I have said it time without number that the propensity to overly demonize even the most innocuous statements made by Joagbaje is an unhealthy obsession that leads to absurd discussions. I have really struggled to see the purpose or necessity of the strident denunciations here.

The OP was simple enough. A thing that no religious person could in itself denounce. It very simply averred that war seems to be looming, and urged christians to pray against that. I have racked my brain over and over, but I honestly cannot see how other christians would find such a simple statement so terribly offensive. This is the problem with obsession and demonization.

Have a look at Davidylan's comment. He wrote -

On your question, it is NOT wrong to pray for peace. That in fact is not the premise here. however, it is clear that we live in the end time and if bible prophecy is anything to go by, wars and rumors of war are part of the signs Christ told us to watch out for. Can we pray our way out of the endtime? Can we "intercede" so as to delay it or cancel it altogether?

In his first line he says that it is not wrong to pray for peace. He then says that since in this instance, the war had been prophesied, then christians ought not pray against it - since these are part of the signs of the endtimes.

This perplexes me on many levels.

x - If a war looms in Nigeria today, would David and Alethia suggest that it would be wrong for christians to pray against it - in light of the fact that we are in the endtimes, and there must be "wars and rumours of wars" as part of endtime prophecy? ? ?

y - I want to assume David and Aleth would not be so sbsurd as to suggest the foregoing. What then could be their problem with a suggetsion that one should pray against a war in another country? ? ? Could it be the identity of that country? Is that country seen as some sort of anti-christ entity? And regardless of the answer to this question, how is prayer against war unchristian? ? ?

Now here comes the real hammer. A post made by Ogajim which in reality, for every open-eyed observer actually nails away the case made by Aleth and David as dead on arrival. He quotes the prayer in gethsamane -

Matthew 26:39
39And he went a little farther, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt.

Here we have someone that these folk all believe to be ALMIGHTY GOD himself - praying and seeking a possibility to avert a prophesied event! Jesus plainly said - "my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me. . ." - thereby clearly making a prayer in spite of prophecy.

What this shows is that from the Christian point of view there could be nothing wrong in being prayerful even REGARDING prophesied events, especially when such events entail great suffering. Prayer always helps, no matter what, at least from the christian point of view. Even where an event is the will of God, prayer can termper it and release grace to help the people in their suffering.

All of this has arisen from a simple call to prayer over impending war. That is very sad indeed. What evil could such a post conceivably entail? Nobody is always right and nobody is always wrong. We should not bring our personal prejudices so heavily to bear on such innocent and innocuous posts such as that contained in the OP.

chrisj2000:
@Deep sight.
I disagree with any proposal that tends to align or rather reconcile Creationist theory with evolution theory.

Why would you disagree? I am sure you are aware that the Theory of Evolution does not address the origin of life: it does not touch on the origin of life, and there is no plausible idea as yet as to the origin of life. The Theory deals with the development of species, when once living organisms already existed.

As such, it makes perfect sense irrespective of the validity of the Theory of Evolution, to still conceive of an origin of life: indeed, in light of the Theory's silence on that point, it is actually strictly necessary to conceive of the origin as well - i.e: the factor I have described as God.

the first question i would ask you is, how long has this entity you call god been in existence?what brought it into existence

I will first have to ask if you are acquainted with the philosophical distinction between necessary things and contingent things. This will form the foundation upon which you will be able to grasp that God is said to be eternal: I.E - God has always existed, and could not have a beginning. God is said to be self-existent.

and what motivated it to cause other things to begin to exist?.

Creation is like a mirror which is nothing but the self-expression of the mind of the creator.

^ You provide Canon fodder for the likes of Uyi Iredia and Enigma, who will insist that your atheism is a religion. For if it is not, just why o why is this tribute in the Religion Section?

Your only reason is the fact that Hitchens was atheist.

Pasting tributes to a late atheist (which tributes have nothing to do with his atheism) on a Religion Board amounts to affirming the arguments of those like Enigma and Uyi Iredia, who state that your militant atheism is indeed an evangelical religion.

chrisj2000:
you're welcome with your proposal as long as it's a rational one

Okay. Let us say that God is the factor or element that created the universe and all that exists. Let us say that God itself is a compound conscious mind behind the universe and all that exists. Let us say that that compound maind has set in motion all the natural processes that bring things into existence such as cosmic movements and processes such as evolution.

Let us also say that this cosmic mind which we call God posesses a quality of oneness; and that this oneness drives it towards harmony and love.

Let us however say that this cosmic mind is also a perfectly balanced thing, and for this reason this cosmic mind is of adamantine balance and justice. It creates balance in ecosystems by ensuring that there is predator and prey, diesease and health. It creates balance on a cosmic scale by ensuring light and darness. Elements of positivity and negativity. It delivers karma in human lives as a function of magnetic attractions. It is implacable, and is not inclined to gentle or indulgent love. It gives out to each that which each one's magnetic balance and place in the cosmos attracts.

What do you think of such a notion of God?

Let us firmly put aside any Abrahamic notions of God, and see if this is not a plausible notion of God?

What say ye?

chrisj2000:
You make mockery of yourself and your god by posting those videos, it's same as quoting bible.
6,000,000 Jews were massacred by NAZI in second world war. More than 1,000,000 children die of malaria every year worldwide. More than 1,000,000 people lost their wealth by paying tithe and other church levies, and you have the boldness to show me what is recorded in a video.
I didn't watch your video but how do you reconcile the presence of omnipotent and loving god in the midst of afore mentioned evils?

Can I make you a proposal? Can I propose to you a notion of God that is separate and distinct from the Judeo-Christian concept of God, and which should satisfy your answers? Are you interested in this?