₦airaland Forum

Ensquare:
Thanks
But I got the line in 2008 when there was nothing like NIN

The first capture was in 2005 under Obasanjo.

Please what is the exact model?

thebosstrevor1:
It is not working from Nigeria

I was in Lagos Island accessing it on my office network. I think it's some ISPs that are involved.

thebosstrevor1:
Lol...endears.com

��� Autocorrect. endsars.com

endears.com is still active.

As much as I appreciate what she has done and highly commend her for her actions, I feel we can all look around us and find similar children who are in need of help. We don't have to wait for them to go viral to intervene.

It does not necessarily have to be taken out. The gynaecologist will determine if it is necessary based on several factors including how many fibroids there are, their locations on the uterine body, severity of symptoms and how the blood supply will be affected. Your age and whether you have children will also be considered. There is also a possibility that it will have to be taken out if they cannot stop the bleeding during the surgery. The surgery may also be done as an open surgery or laparoscopic one (minimally invasive) depending on the findings and what you can afford.

You have to go for an assessment first and if you're not satisfied, you are entitled to as many opinions as you like till you are comfortable with your choice of doctor or procedure.

He has microcephaly (small under-developed brain) so he will always be mentally retarded. He's even fortunate to have lived this long. It's possible that his parents are genetically incompatible or there was some underlying issue like infections in pregnancy that were causing the previous miscarriages.

binghammer:
This is weird, and probably a sign of "Alien" life from outer space?



Instagram Source
Snopes

lalasticlala

Looks more like a science experiment by a secret organization.

Please when will you repeat the kayaking event? I can't make this one because of work.

It has gotten to this now. We won't relent in our struggle for justice. #EndSARS

Octopusssy:
Now that I have your attention:

Last year I created a thread asking for information on the breed of my recently acquired dog, and discovered thence that this cute ball of pristine white fur is an American Eskimo- https://www.nairaland.com/5568612/what-breed-dog

Alas, his cuteness begins and ends with his fur. He has a most disturbing taste for rats. He doesn't just chase them, he eats them.

We have had several dogs in the past and none of them have actually eaten household pests, but White (so named for obvious reasons) eats rats, lizards...and my God, cockroaches

Well, I wouldn't say he actually eats roaches; he pins them down and rips them to shreds. Sometimes he even sneaks into my room in search of rats stuck on the rat gum. He has even mastered the art of eating the rats without having the gum stick to his fur. The first time he stole a rat laden gum from my room, we had to cut the gum and some of his fur away where it stuck. Now he has become an expert and can now consume the rats on the gum without getting his mouth stuck .

How can an animal so beautiful be so unbelievably disgusting? My mum says he is possessed.

file photo. He doesn't sit still long enough to be photographed.

Please, he is not possessed. I own several Eskimos. One of the dogs cross to create this Eskimo breed is the Terrier, a dog specifically raised to be a hunter of small animals. For me, I love that trait because my home is pest free. They only eat their prey if they are very hungry so check if the quantity you're feeding him is adequate.

x

Wow! So glad she got justice.

The Pope is definitely NOT saying that he endorses gay marriage. He is saying that they are human beings who have a right to live as part of a family and part of society whilst they are here on earth. If God their creator doesn't choose to strike them dead immediately then who are we to do so? Even if we wish to get them to change, it is by showing them some love and decency that we can get them to see the folly of their ways. The Catholic Church will NEVER endorse homosexuality as right or support the legalizing of gay marriages. Ultimately, if they don't repent, they are definitely going to Hell but that is for God to judge.

Wow!

What else do you expect from Trump? He'll stoop so low just to hold on to power.

Waste of money. Shadow them on Linkedin first.

JOBgame:
Majority of christains are polythesist some are even pegan due to the lack knowlegde they Have.


The reason why i wrote this not the matter of being religious or tribalical,but want to know the real mythy,fact,legend and stories about the confusion i have been living with.


*They said jesus is GOD
*they said he is son of GOD

How can a whole supreme spirit being(GOD) born himself,does that sound like truth to a good servant of god they keep deciving the society all the way in the name of going to church.these article am writing has been disturbing me since when i was 18 till date,am still wondering

some christains are the sources of their problems because of the way of worship some have been mistaken GOD for jesus,also for not belivng in the almigthy god the creator of that same jesus.

Permit me to explain it the way God helped me understand it because I pondered this question a lot as a child till I got a revelation.

I'm going to use the example of water that is frozen. At any point in time that you have a bottle of frozen water, some of it is rock solid, some of it is melting liquid and some of it is in gaseous form which we see as vapour. Even within us as human beings, all three forms of matter exist and are changing at all times to build the physical bodies we live in. All three forms are also present at all times (omnipresence).

God is like that in the sense that He is capable of existing in many states at all times and can manifest as He pleases. We believe in the 3 manifestations of God as revealed to us by the scripture. God the Father is the creator and the law giver. He is the dominant presence in the Old testament.

After man had sinned and seperated himself from, God, He manifested His glory into a physical being who is Jesus Christ. That is why we say "God became man and dwelt among us". He subjected His glory to human form in order to experience human temptation and suffering so as to set an example of how to lead a pleasing holy life, and to become a second Adam for redemption of our sins.

After Jesus Christ had died and resurrected thereby conquering the grave and ensuring us eternal salvation, another manifestation of God came to comfort, instruct and interceed for us. This is the Holy Spirit.

Each manifestation of God differs in personality but they are the same God existing at the same time. They have always existed and will exist till eternity.

MuttleyLaff:
Have I done anything untoward or typed anything inappropriate to warrant this comment. Of course I know Emary and ggirl4real are ladies

Wearing opposite sex clothes, ordinarily in itself is not wrong, evil, sinful or bad, but the motive, is a game changer. That motive is what God finds detestable, what God hates, what God doesnt like, lmso

I'll throw you another beam light to assist understanding the verse Deuteronomy 22:5 with, which is, list six or seven pet peeves of God, as banded together in a verse or two verses from the Bible. Meaning Esau or divorce, obviously are off limits, lmso

You have said what I have been saying here earlier, God did not design clothing and therefore, it is humans that put intentions behind what they are wearing. A woman wearing loose fitting trousers with a long top covering her hips and not displaying her curves is more decent than a woman who is wearing a tightly fitted dress. Also, a man wearing skin tight jeans and fitted shirts is just as indecent.

Looks like a burning vehicle.

Image123:
There you go again, you're roaming. Women don't dress for true Christians, do they? Jesus said true Christians are so few and the road so straight. So if your dressing don't care about the majority and what you do to them, it shows that you don't care. . The OP's pastor preacher has warned you, don't follow Amazon warriors.

Let us all work out our own salvation. I wish you well.

Image123:
You've not said anything at all. What i said in the quote is the plain history of women popularly wearing trousers. It has nothing to do with Bible or religion or myself. It's just what happened, what made trousers become popular among women. You don't fight the facts, you either research to confirm them or use them. Roaming about concerning other clothing is a cheap distraction and fallacy. The discussion is about trousers. Normal women just began to wear trousers openly less than 100 years ago. Get your facts straight and stop roaming.

"Normal" women wore trousers centuries before Christ and they've started wearing them again. The fact remains that there is nothing biblical against trousers. Only your prejudices.

Image123:
i laugh in Naira. What you females don't understand is that the trousers expose you more than any decent skirt will. The average man has seen you already in his imagination. He just has to throway face and focus

The perverted men who think in this manner will imagine whatever they want to even if a woman is dressed in a tent. Even women in purdah are raped if perverts are given the opportunity. As a true Christian, one should focus one's thoughts or other things or divert one's gaze. Do you really think it is only men who are visually tempted?

Image123:
i don't even know where i left off with this.
Your argument states categorically that Amazons are the females who wore trousers earlier. We all know many women just started wearing trousers about 50 to 70 years ago; Basically after the World War, when poverty drove women out to do men's work. Coupled with the Industrial Revolution.
If we rest on your argument, amazons were either myth or the very people Deut 22:5 says not to copy if we follow the interpretation of the pastor in the OP. So any of the ways, it is still not For but Against.

There has always been poverty and it will always exist. Women have also done a lot of so called men's work over the centuries. A lot of women have not only gone to war, tilled farms, fended for their families jwhen their husbands were dead, incapitated or away but lead battles over the centuries in all the continents. You can interpret the bible verse as you please but there is no reference to trousers as male garments in any scripture at all. If you consider trousers unholy for women, men should also not wear tunics or kaftans which are gowns. God did not design clothing. Man (both sexes) did that to cover his shame after eating the forbidden fruit.

Image123:
The BOLD is the truth you should focus on.

The only thing to focus on there is the word "Preferred". Preference implies comfort. Before the 20th century, there were no modern toilets or proper feminine hygiene products so a woman who had to pee or was menstruating in transit would have a very hard time getting off her trousers to go to toilet. That would inform the need to wear something she could lift easily. Today, a woman is less likely to have that challenge. She may also prefer to put on clothing that would be less likely to expose her private parts and undergarments. Many girls have had some men try to put their hands up their skirts or have been molested simply because they were wearing gowns or skirts, no matter how long or shapeless they are.

Image123:
The Amazons you seem to be banking on are myth. That on the side, the point remains that the term "Amazon" refers to strong women, uncommon women like men. That is the matured class of tomboys. They are people that do things that most women do not and would not do. They do things that men do. So if we take the OP's video serious, they are wrong. The woman should not be an Amazon(female warrior/soldier) is the translation the pastor is suggesting. So you cannot use them as the religious or christian example. They were not the standard of women dressing, past or present or future.

Your argument does not remove the fact that trousers were designed as unisex garments and as such, there is nothing wrong with a woman wearing trousers. Human beings set standards according to what they find suitable or comfortable at the time. In biblical days, men wore gowns. In the time of Jesus, it was a tunic which was a gown. Are you saying it was wrong for men to put on what is perceived as female clothing today?

The problem of many Christians today is that we are a lot like the Pharisees looking for trivial outwardly signs to fault our Christian brethren rather than focusing on the heart and true intentions.

Image123:
In your study, you quoted that the first recorded trousers worn by women was by amazons. Anyone knows that amazons are like tomboys, they do what boys or men do. The inference is clearly that trousers were originally mens garment. Period.

You are just inferring to make it seem like you are correct. The quote is that it was originally worn by both sexes. Also, please educate yourself properly. Amazons were not tomboys but an elite group of very well trained warrior women.

Image123:
Exactly. Anyway one looks at it, it backfires on the argument for trousers. Even the preacher in the youtube video described the word "man" as soldier. So if they are saying trousers was soldiers clothing, then the woman still should not wear soldiers clothing, Amazon or Alibaba.

It is very simple. Trousers were designed for comfort during horseback riding, right? For centuries, mostly men went to war while women stayed at home nuturing their offspring so women preferred to wear feminine flowing clothing. Today, both men and women go to war and horses are hardly used as means of transport. Women are however far more active and mobile than before moving long distance to work then come back home to do other activities, They will require clothing that makes them move freely with comfort. Trousers do that.

For me, as long as trousers are not too form fitting (this applies all clothing) and a woman cannot be mistaken for a man and vice versa, there is nothing wrong with them. Let every man work out his own salvation.

Image123:
From your link, it clearly showed that trousers belong to the masculine gender. A few quotes.

"Despite being worn by both sexes in ancient times, trousers were a “masculine” garment for hundreds of years. Instead, women wore long, voluminous skirts.

But, in the nineteenth century, women started wearing a form of trousers again. These were worn only for horse riding, although they wore full skirts on top of them to keep them hidden.

By the 1880s, women in the West finally started wearing trousers for leisure activities. They were safer to wear when cycling, as the trousers were far less likely to get caught in the wheels. They also allowed greater freedom of movement. Additionally, they were considered healthier to wear than the cumbersome skirts they usually wore.

Yet, despite their increasing popularity, trousers weren’t considered acceptable women’s attire until the 1970s."


BTW, trousers were worn in the Bible far before your link dates.

The question is whether trousers were designed originally for men or women. They were originally unisex garments. Period.