₦airaland Forum

The5DME:
I was definitely created, that's a fact. I know I didn't just ' pop' into existence. But my question is: if God created me; who created God?

Wrong question!

Perfume can not ask and should not be asking another perfume, who created you.

How can the perfume know? It too is like you.

The5DME:
Who/What is God/god?

The Owner and Builder of this House which we call world just as your perfume, wristwatch in your wardrobe will call you "god" because you created it and put it in its world called wardrobe.

LordReed:
You have the freedom to believe any stupid thing in your head that's your cup of tea. LoL

Yes, Suh!

Permission to step out Sur?

mariahAngel:
That you're afraid of growing old does not mean another person is.

Fear is not on everyone's face, except those without God.

Imagine these:
Most people are afraid of living and of growing old, yet they're afraid of death.
Most people are afraid of being alone, yet afraid of being married. And it goes on....
Do you not see? It never ends.
Fear is of torment, but only God's perfect love can cast out fear.

Let me tell you how to overcome your fears:
Establish a relationship with God, discover what your true purpose is in life, quit worrying about anything and living under pressure (living like life is a race), and watch your fear fizzle out.
You'll begin to enjoy every moment of your life.
You will never be moved by anything.

Sister Mariah, I have indeed most humbly found that place where "God banished from me the spirit of fear, Replacing with the power of Power, Love and a sound mind!

obidevine:
My steering wheel

That your steering no complete, joystick no dey.

"Woe to anyone who causes anyone of these little ones to fall by the way!"

AddictedToTech:
Na person wey never achieve anything dey fear to age.

Me wey to get grandchild dey hungry, thank God my first born is a girl.

fire on!

LordReed:
Not really. What I don't relish is the way the body goes decrepit as age advances. You are no longer as resilient as you used to be as a younger person, it's very off putting.

I believe you are lying about not being afraid of old age but I can not prove it, so I zip up!

For I have searched all over and I see the fear on everyone's face.

Bodyodour:
does Christ exist ? I feel this world has been abandoned if truly there is any higher power.

The Highest is just watching and recording all the things you all are saying and doing for the Prize/Reward Giving Day!

Bodyodour:
Yes, it scares me. But when I see people dying,both the young and old, I will say its my brain that is making me scared. Once we die, we become absolutely nothing. You wouldn't even know you existed before.

You wish! But it's your wish Sha.

Men see wickedness oh, the man has money to build house yet he has refused to do even cheap Registry Marriage?

She should build her own house too, cunny man die, cunny man kill am, cunny man bury am!

Well, I guess it is sensible and profitable for people to buy the world for themselves Only for them to Die and Lose it all to Another!

It's Ok, after all, they think the beginning is better than the end!

budaatum:
It is with immense pleasure that though Dtruthspeaker and I hardly ever agree on anything, he makes total sense to me.

This is a very sweet honour and I do thank you and honour you for it also.

Amujale:
You aren't making any sense.

You made false claim and I merely pointed out to you that the claims you made are false.

One cannot prove the nonexistence of characters that never existed in the first instance.

The onus is on you to provide us with the proof of your false narratives and fiction characters.

To show that you were the one who raised this issues, see your posts below.

Amujale:
Pass me with all that inconsequential gibberish and answer my questions.

Why are you peddling[b] fakery and falsehood [/b]

After alleging "Fakery" and '"Falsehood" which you did not prove, you went on to further allege "History Book" and "Fiction"without proving any either. See below.

Amujale:
The Christian bible isn't a history textbook.

All the characters and stories are based on fiction, assuming you have any proof to the contrary, kindly provide them here.

So, it is you who raised up those facts who must prove the existence of those facts first, thus, "You who Allege Must Prove!"

Amujale:
You aren't making any sense.

You made false claim and I merely pointed out to you that the claims you made are false.

One cannot prove the nonexistence of characters that never existed in the first instance.

The onus is on you to provide us with the proof of your false narratives and fiction characters.

Obviously your strivings all over the place has gotten you confused as to what the issue of contention is with me.

The subject matter of contetion with me was about Establishing How and Why The Bible DID NOT "Enslave" Anybody, to which I answered to the effect that it is wicked persons who enslave other persons. See below the origin.

Amujale:
Explain how a tool that was used to physically enslave innocent people and is being used to mentally enslave innocent people be the best thing.

To which I responded

[quote author= Dtruthspeaker post=99438426]So has your phones, cars, school, your rulers etc so enslave you.

Now did you blame your phone or car or political party? No the proper thing to blame is ALWAYS A PERSON.

A Good book in the hand of a bad person will stil not prevent an evil man from doing wicked works. [quote]Therefore, I made no allegation about the "existence or non-existence of the characters in the Bible nor did I raise that the Bible "is an History Book or a Fiction"!

You did them all yourself and it is you who alleged all those things therefore, the burden was and is on you not i. But as I said earlier, I really do not care about your Proof of Same and can not be bothered about it.

Amujale:
No, it isn't, the Christian bible is a combination of fakery and falsehood.

The Law is "He who alleges must Prove". Thus, you have alleged Falsehood, it is your duty to Prove, which is a waste of your time for your betters raised this allegations and sought to prove them, but they were all cut down and burnt.

So, you would not be saying something new, therefore you have lost already.

And if you say something new, you have lost already for it is clearly a Fresh Fabrication, therefore, it is not True. Why?

Because Truth is very very very Old!

So you can leave me alone and enjoy holding your book against a table and turning it left and right, humming/screaming "vroooom, vroooom", while using your Torch to change gears and your legs pressed against the legs of your table as though a pedal.

It is your Natural power to deceive yourself that you are driving a car and going to Lagos meanwhile we see you seated at a table in your house with a book pressed against the table mimicking the noise of an engine!

But it is your inalienable right and power to do so which I do not like interfering with nor do I ever wish to interfere with.

So keep your product (judgement) after all it is your own.

Amujale:
Assuming you have any proof to the contrary, kindly provide them here.

Remember, it's proof that is being asked of you and not inconsequential gibberish.

I am not insulting you but I am only describing what I see, you are blind and you therefore you know nothing about Evidence and Proof and neither can you see them.

so even if someone takes you to Calabar to show you the Atlantic Ocean, you would not see it!

This is the Proof that you do not have "Extra Life" or Eternal life.

All you have is this life (as Solomon also warned) and your soul is warning you that if you do not acquire "Life", you will soon loose this life you have.

That is why you fear getting old or dying suddenly, for you are trying to save this life, but as God has Warned "You will lose it"!

ediko5:
I realized that there's no much unity and friendship among extended family members anymore compare to when I was a little child like 20 years ago...

What's your opinion on this?

We were told "Love shall wax cold" and daughters shall be against mothers, sons against the father".

iamkazeem:
WHAT THE LAW SAYS ABOUT NEXT-OF-KIN IN NIGERIA

Under English Law and the administration of estate laws of various state, the surviving spouse together with the children of the deceased inherit his estate to the exclusion of every other person. The parents of the deceased takes next after the surviving spouse and children, followed by brothers and sisters of the full blood, brothers and sisters of half blood, grandparents, aunties and uncles of full blood relation to the parents of the deceased etc. See Kekereogun & Ors v. Oshodi (1971) LPELR-1686(SC) subject however to contrary provisions under the administration of estate laws of various states...

Therefore, under the Nigerian law of intestate succession, one cannot choose his heir under the pretext of next-of-kin; the law imposes heirs on him.

This is Bad Law! and Alien law!

iamkazeem:
For example it is the surviving spouse and children of an intestate who married under the Act that are his heirs. The intestate cannot therefore, by naming only one of them or any of his other blood relatives his next-of-kin, scheme them out of inheritance as the act of naming his next-of-kin does not amount to testamentary disposition.

As said earlier, NOK is limited only to the place where it is undertaken, it can not cover any other property that is not subject to the NOK!

iamkazeem:
In view of the foregoing, there is nothing special about next-of-kin as far as succession is concerned. Next-of-kin is merely the first contact point if anything happens to you. He is someone empowered to make decisions for you in times of emergency or where you are not readily available or unable to make the decisions yourself. He is someone empowered to provide necessary information about you where needed such as confirming your identity. He is also someone positioned to make medical decisions such as providing consent for a medical procedure. At best, what a next-of-kin can do after the demise of the deceased is perhaps to ensure that necessary steps are taken towards obtaining letter of administration from the probate. The typical Nigerian's conception of the term, "next-of-kin" is therefore erroneous.

A next-of-kin can inherit only if he is named in a Will as a beneficiary or by his status he is entitled by law to inherit but not actually because he is named as the next-of-kin of the deceased in a bank or place of work.

- Oliver Chukkol

Wrong and Lies!

NOK is a type of will, it is A will of A Limited Power in a Specific and Identified Place where it is Undertaken!

iamkazeem:
WHAT THE LAW SAYS ABOUT NEXT-OF-KIN IN NIGERIA
How then do we know the law to be applied in sharing the property of the deceased? The law to be applicable in distributing the estate of the deceased shall be determined by the incidence of marriage of the deceased. If a deceased contracted a statutory marriage, succession to his wealth will be effected in accordance with either the English law or the Administration of Estates Law (or equivalent legislation), depending on the jurisdiction. See Obuzez V. Obuzez (2007) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1043) 430.

This is Bad Pronouncement of Law for first by The Law of Marriage, The-Ceased and his Spouse are One

Therefore, upon the death of a Partner, the Surviving Spouse Automatically steps into his place (if there is no reasonable disqualification of same) and continues as though he were alive for "Equity Does Not Allow Waste!"

So all valid Surviving Spouse or Spouses are Automatically appointed by Law to administer the property of the-ceased, since they would be aware of his Personal Laws and can Rightfully Execute them before the other Laws I mentioned above come in effect.

iamkazeem:
WHAT THE LAW SAYS ABOUT NEXT-OF-KIN IN NIGERIA

In law when a person dies leaving behind a will, he is said to have died testate. In such a circumstance, Issue of next-of-kin becomes useless. The reason is that the wealth of the deceased will simply be shared in line with the contents of the will.

A Will is an A Declaration of NOK and a NOK is A type of Will!

iamkazeem:
The position is still the same even where the deceased dies without leaving a will. The position is that when a person dies without a will, the question as to who to inherit his wealth is determined by law, that is to say, customary law, or Islamic law or English Law or the Administration of Estates law (or equivalent legislation) not whom the deceased mentioned in his bank or place of work as next-of-kin.

Not entirely correct yet not entirely wrong.

When a person dies in absence of a will the Applicable Law should be first, The Personal Law of The-Ceased which is known by the members of his immediate family.

If this does not resolves the issue, then it transmits to The General and Collective Law of The-Ceased's Immediate and Direct Family.

If this still fails to resolve the issue then it would go to The Natural Law Courts And Not Administration of Estate's Law which is a man-made law made to steal the properties/goods of dead people!

And here is where you find the Limitation of the NOK Declaration which is limited only to the place where the NOK is undertaken.

NOK can not cover any property that is beyond the Reciever eg Bank/Office of the NOK to give because it is The Law "No One Can Give that which He Does Not Have!"

iamkazeem:
WHAT THE LAW SAYS ABOUT NEXT-OF-KIN IN NIGERIA

Are you among those that think by giving a name to financial institutions (bank for example) as next-of-kin you have chosen that person to automatically inherit your wealth in the event of your demise? In other words, do you think by merely picking someone as your next-of-kin you have made that person a beneficiary to your wealth or entitlement(s) in the event of your death? Let us attempt a little legal analysis based on two factors: whether the deceased has a Will (a document written by a deceased when he was alive that prescribes how his property is to be shared when he dies) or whether he dies without a will.

And this is where you have begun your error for what is the difference between "A Will" and A Declaration stating that in the event of Demise, the Person so Named in this Document shall step into my place as the name implies, Next of Kin, to wit, Next-of- Kindred (NOK)?

None, I say for they are both Written Declarations Appointing A Named Person to Take up the Possession (and may be ownership) of properties/goods previously belonging to The-Ceased (Now called De-Ceased).

They are both Clear Written Declarations and Instructions made by The-Ceased in his lifetime.

The-Ceased expected them to be obeyed and carried out at his ceasure and the Receiver of his Declaration Promised to Undertake and Abide with his instruction, so wherein is the difference between NOK and A Will?

None, I say, None Whatsoever!

budaatum:
Thanks and praises to all those that did whatever it is they did through the ages to make a copy available to an insignificant person like me!

I follow add to the Thanksgiving oh!

People do not know how lucky we are to have a Textbook to pass the exams of this wicked corrupt world!

Amujale:
The Christian bible isn't a history textbook.

All the characters and stories are based on fiction, assuming you have any proof to the contrary, kindly provide them here.

The Bible is a Documentary Evidence so it Speaks and Must Speak for itself! And the Proof of its contents is seen all around the world eg Egypt and Israel, the Major players in the Bible are there for all to see.

Thus, when you were in school you were told about the stories of the Tortoise and the Hare, why the Tortoise's shell is cracked, why the tortoise is bald, the good son vs the bad son, the good wife vs the bad wife, and other stories.etc

What was the point or gain of those stories? To guide our way so that we do not make the same errors or mistakes they did on one hand and to obtain the similar Goodnesses they obtained on the other hand.

So whether it is a History Book or a Scary Fictional Novel, the most important thing is whether you use the information contained therein to improve yourself (and others) or destroy yourself (and others) or you can ultimately discard it as when a teacher was teaching in front of the class.

For me the lessons in the Bible are as if I eat Life giving Fruits and Foods everyday, keeping me refreshed, strong, healthy and wealthy!

BassReeves:
You clearly know with that your silly grin that you are being disingenuous

Another Work and Power of Nature!

BassReeves:
There must be a deep seated and long standing reason why you singled out homosexuality and not mention heterosexuality in the same breath of you introducing adultery, fornication and paedophilia into the conversation.

homosexuality is the subject matter on this thread.

In another thread it was money and I spoke therein. In another it was adultery, I spoke there, in another it was about, immorality Lawyers, I spoke there.

When I see a post about anything which is Not-Good, I am likely to challenge it!

BassReeves:
Why are you finding it difficult to openly and directly say that adultery, fornication and paedophilia, does occur in heterosexuality, just as it can be in homosexuality?

Why specifically single out homosexuality alone and not feature or mention heterosexuality when you are doing your condemnation?

I will tell you why. It is because you want to continue to live in your cocoon of ignorance and world of delusion.

As I said earlier,
"I always speak against "All" forms, faces and features of immorality and not particular to homosexuality alone."

BassReeves:
I punched you in the jaw, only that you know you have a glass jaw and so why you refused to directly reply back to the innocent and harmless questions at you.

Ok, thank you for breaking my face!

I have done the best that I can humanly do in the circumstance to explain to you but I do not have power to give you understanding.

BassReeves:
So you accept and agree then that adultery, fornication and paedophilia, does occur in heterosexuality, just as it can be in homosexuality?

So when you accept and agree then that adultery, fornication and paedophilia, does occur in heterosexuality, just as it can be in homosexuality, why single out homosexuality alone and not feature or mention heterosexuality. It shows that you are biased, not well informed and inept

I always speak against "All" forms, faces and features of immorality and not homosexuality alone.

Ayo13945:
First of all i am not a moralist; I am a
pragmatist. I don't believe in good and bad;
i only judge something based on its
usefulness. So from my point of view sex is
neither good or bad but it is only useful for
one purpose and one purpose only and that
is reproduction.
It doesn't matter if 90% of humanity believe
otherwise.
If you doubt me ask yourself what other purpose could it have.

So from my own point of view both the
Homosexualist,Heterosexualist and every
other person that has sex without the aim of reproducing are in the same group.

Thank God no one appointed you judge oh for your first error is you do not know The Law.

For a judge exist because there is Law

Secondly, since you have No Ground (Law) on which you lay your judgement, thus, your judgement is "Emptiness" like (hunger) and emptiness requires "Filling up".

So consider, if you gave "emptiness" to the hungry, shall they thank you?

Nay, a curse is what ye shall get!

Therefore, you have done a nullity and a vain thing.

Ditto: I am not insulting you only raising up the flaws in your judgement!

BassReeves:
You dont think the questions are for you, because you can see that it will open you up, will betray your ineptness, show your lack of aplomb and leave you subjected to ridicule.

Why are you not adding heterosexuality to the list, if you can add homosexuality? Doesnt adultery, fornication and paedophilia, not occur in heterosexuality, just as it can in homosexuality? This is what happens when you read the bible out of context and wrongly understand it

Thank you for the "blow below the belt!"

I have already said "All"!

All means All, whether sexual offences, thieving, murder, lying, bodily harming, forgery etc.

Ejusdem Generis, "All!

I always stand with and by my words/posts, and I can not be Moved!

BassReeves:
You have done nothing like answer what exactly is the evil, in acceptable, harmless, innocent and permissible homosexuality.
1. What is the exact evil nature allegedly points out?
2. Where did nature point out evil in acceptable, harmless, innocent and permissible homosexuality?
3. No decent and right thinking people have sex in public places, they might do PDA, but not have sex in full glare of the public, so what are you going on aimlessly about?

I have answered you but in exercise of your power, you do not wish to hear and neither can I or will I compell you to hear.

As a last attempt to explain to you using the things in nature which we all have agreeably called wrongs or evil., you yourself have just truly declared that "No decent and right thinking people have sex in public places,".

Thus, the same reason of Nature which makes you say this is Wrong, is the same hand of nature by which we say homosexuality is wrong.

BassReeves:
You are right that it is your opposition, as nature does not oppose same sex attraction, which is normal and natural in ecosystems and the biosphere.

Now you are Using Nature against Itself! (Not Wise).

Anyway, I never comment on this matters and I will never, after All it is the same Nature Who Made All things, that is Coming to Judge All the things He Created, For He has and knows the Blueprint/Redprint (as we use in Nigerian Survey plans).

All who claim Nature will present their explaination to their Creator, I have No Jurisdiction to Comment on these matters.