₦airaland Forum

lawani:
Let us leave it at that then. I have family that descend from this Benin that you are debating me about.

History isn’t decided by family stories or social media posts — it’s based on verifiable evidence.
The Benin Kingdom has its own distinct origins, language, and culture; claiming it was Yoruba ignores what historians and archaeologists have already established.
There’s a difference between heritage pride and historical accuracy, and it’s important not to confuse the two.

lawani:
Calling it just revelation is too simplistic in my opinion because I know what I went through before getting it. I agree it is revelation but it was gotten by research.
If a Babalawo were with me they would be able to see the codes as they appear on the tray and be able to read it

You’re describing revelation, not research.
Research requires independent verification — others must be able to repeat your method and get the same results without sharing your beliefs.
If that’s impossible, it isn’t research by any academic, scientific, or philosophical standard.

There’s nothing to debate here — that’s just the definition of the word.

lawani:
I was referring to my post about someone defining cult on Quora😊

Exactly. You’re getting your “knowledge” from social media posts and recycled memes, while I’m referencing books and verifiable sources.
You literally screenshot Google results that point back to Facebook — while I sent you direct, credible links you could actually check.

lawani:
It is actually like writing letters to someone and receiving replies then using the data to write a report. No difference.

That comparison actually proves my point.
If you write letters to someone and no one else can see the replies, verify the sender, or confirm the messages are real, it isn’t research — it’s correspondence.

If the “someone” you’re writing to exists only in your belief system, then it’s private revelation, not public knowledge.
Research requires independent verification. Revelation requires faith.
They’re both experiences, but only one can stand up to scrutiny — and it’s not the one that lives entirely in your head.

lawani:
Maybe description instead of definition then

The difference is simple:
I base my points on verifiable knowledge — books, evidence, and sources anyone can cross-check.
You’re repeating claims pulled from social media posts and Facebook memes, then calling it “research.”

lawani:
You can't use the exact rules of material science in spirit science. Spirits are not material people but they are people.
Why do you say the spirit demands obedience?. It will help you as much as it can as if it were your servant but it does not tolerate being unserious and it is not your servant. It will always aid you and it always has a better plan than you which is why it is good to always consult it.
I asked my spirit interesting questions and got interesting answers in detail. I still don't see why it is not a research. When people fill questionnaires for you, is that not a research?

You’re still confusing research with revelation.

When a scientist does research, they gather evidence from independent sources that others can check and repeat. When you “ask your spirit questions,” no one else can access that source — it exists only in your own mind and belief. That makes it personal experience, not research.

Calling it spirit science doesn’t change that; it just means your evidence is invisible, private, and impossible to test. That’s fine for faith, but not for knowledge.

And about obedience — if your spirit “has a better plan than you” and you must always consult it, that’s not partnership; that’s submission.
Even by your own logic, the moment your “research” can’t be questioned, it stops being research and becomes doctrine.

Samantha125:
You're from a completely different world from mine, so I don't expect you to understand.

We have African customary laws together with customary courts in South Africa which are very much recognized by the country's constitution... And I clearly stated that it's in terms of our tribal customs and not just my family customs.

And so far, we've been respecting our customs without any issues.

In countries that recognize customary law — such as South Africa, Kenya, Ghana, and Nigeria — that recognition doesn’t mean everyone is automatically bound by it.

Instead, customary law applies only when the people involved choose to be governed by it, or where the law specifically allows it in limited areas (like marriage, inheritance, or traditional leadership).

1. Federal and State Law Are Mandatory

National (federal) and state/provincial laws apply to all citizens, regardless of background, tribe, or belief.

These are compulsory laws, enforced by state institutions — the police, courts, and government agencies.

You can’t “opt out” of criminal, civil, or constitutional laws.

2. Customary Law Is Recognized — But Conditional

Customary law is recognized by many African constitutions (e.g., Section 211 of South Africa’s Constitution, Article 2(4) of Kenya’s Constitution).

But that recognition is always “subject to the Constitution and any Act of Parliament.”

That means: you can only follow customary law if it doesn’t conflict with higher law.

3. Customary Law Is Voluntary in Application

People generally choose to take their matters (like marriage, divorce, inheritance, or community disputes) to customary courts or traditional leaders.

If they prefer, they can take the same issue to a magistrate’s court or high court under national law — and the state must accept that.

No one can be forced to use customary law instead of the regular legal system.

Example: in South Africa, you can register a marriage as a customary marriage or a civil marriage — it’s your choice.

4. When Customary Law Conflicts with National Law

If a custom contradicts constitutional or statutory law (for instance, allowing domestic violence or unequal inheritance), then the higher law overrides it.
Courts have repeatedly ruled this way:

Bhe v Magistrate, Khayelitsha (2004) – struck down a discriminatory inheritance rule under customary law.

Mayelane v Ngwenyama (2013) – enforced consent requirements in polygamous customary marriages to protect women’s rights.

These show that customary law only operates within constitutional limits — and that it’s not mandatory.

✅ Summary

In African countries that recognize customary law, it’s a respected part of the legal system — but it’s optional, not compulsory.

Federal and state law are mandatory.
Customary law is voluntary — it applies only to those who choose it and only when it doesn’t conflict with national law.

You can’t be punished under state law for breaking a custom unless that custom is also a crime under national legislation.

And in practical terms, even in matters like inheritance, your parents have the legal right to choose how their property is distributed.
If they decide — through a last will and testament — to give their home to a different child, that personal choice has full legal force under national law, and customary inheritance rules become irrelevant in that situation.

Samantha125:
You're from a completely different world from mine, so I don't expect you to understand.

We have African customary laws together with customary courts in South Africa which are very much recognized by the country's constitution... And I clearly stated that it's in terms of our tribal customs and not just my family customs.

And so far, we've been respecting our customs without any issues.

In every country that recognizes customary law, there’s still a clear legal hierarchy:

Federal (or National) Law – This is mandatory and applies to everyone in the country. It’s created by the national government and enforced by national courts.

State or Provincial Law – Also mandatory within its region. It must align with federal law and the Constitution, but it still has binding force.

Customary Law – This is optional and based on choice or consent. It only applies to people who choose to be governed by their traditional customs or bring their matters before a customary court.

Customary law is recognized, but it’s not automatically binding on everyone. Its authority depends on voluntary participation and it must never conflict with federal or state law.

So, if a custom contradicts a national or state law, the higher law overrides it. Customary law can only function within the boundaries of the country’s formal legal system.

In short:

Federal and state law are mandatory.
Customary law is voluntary — it only applies when chosen, and only if it doesn’t break higher laws.

Samantha125:
You're from a completely different world from mine, so I don't expect you to understand.

We have African customary laws together with customary courts in South Africa which are very much recognized by the country's constitution... And I clearly stated that it's in terms of our tribal customs and not just my family customs.

And so far, we've been respecting our customs without any issues.

You can’t say that customary law automatically takes precedence just because it’s “our law.”

For example, if a customary rule says a husband is allowed to beat his wife, but federal and state laws both prohibit domestic violence, the higher laws take priority. He can still be arrested and prosecuted, because federal and state laws override any custom that contradicts them.

It’s the same with inheritance — a last will and testament carries legal authority and will always override any cultural or traditional expectations.

In short:
The law is the law — tradition is culture.
Culture deserves respect, but it cannot overrule the law.

Samantha125:
You're from a completely different world from mine, so I don't expect you to understand.

We have African customary laws together with customary courts in South Africa which are very much recognized by the country's constitution... And I clearly stated that it's in terms of our tribal customs and not just my family customs.

And so far, we've been respecting our customs without any issues.

In every country that has a formal legal hierarchy — including South Africa — the structure of the legal system places national (federal) law at the top.

Here’s how it works:

National or Federal Law (the Constitution and Acts of Parliament)

This is the highest authority.

In South Africa, the Constitution of 1996 is supreme law — meaning any law (including customary law or even provincial laws) that conflicts with it is invalid.

Section 2 of the Constitution states: “This Constitution is the supreme law of the Republic; law or conduct inconsistent with it is invalid.”

Provincial or State Law

Provinces (similar to states) can make their own laws, but only in areas where the Constitution allows them to.

These laws must always comply with national laws and the Constitution.

Customary Law and Customary Courts

South African customary law is recognized and protected under the Constitution (see Section 211).

However, this recognition is subject to the Constitution — meaning if a customary practice or ruling contradicts constitutional rights or national legislation, it cannot be enforced.

So while African customary law is valid and respected, its power is limited by higher levels of law.
That’s true in South Africa and in nearly every country with a tiered legal system:

Federal/National law reigns supreme.

State or provincial law comes next.

Customary or local law is valid only if it aligns with those above.

Your post mixes a few legal truths with a lot of misleading commentary, and it risks confusing people about what the law actually says. Let’s sort fact from fiction — based on Nigeria’s Matrimonial Causes Act (MCA) and the 1999 Constitution.

✅ FACT 1: Adultery, as a ground for divorce, only counts after marriage

You got one thing right:
Under Section 15(2)(b) of the Matrimonial Causes Act, a husband or wife can petition for divorce if “since the marriage, the respondent has committed adultery” and the petitioner finds it intolerable to live with them.

🔹 This means that only adultery committed during the marriage counts as a legal ground for divorce.
🔹 What anyone did before marriage — even if they had multiple partners — is not a legal ground for divorce under the MCA.

So yes, a woman’s (or man’s) pre-marital sexual history is not in itself a lawful basis to dissolve a statutory marriage.

⚖️ FACT 2: There is indeed a constitutional right to privacy

Section 37 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) states that:

“The privacy of citizens, their homes, correspondence, telephone conversations and telegraphic communications is hereby guaranteed and protected.”

That includes aspects of a person’s private life, and you cannot force someone to disclose personal details without a valid legal basis. However, this right is not absolute — the law can require disclosure in certain circumstances, especially during formal proceedings. So it’s wrong to say “anything she tells you is not acceptable in court” — that’s fiction.

⚠️ FACT 3: The law does not say her past is “wiped clean” or “officially deleted”

That’s pure fiction and misleading.

There is no Nigerian law or court decision that says a woman’s past is “deleted” once she becomes married.
The truth is simply that the law doesn’t treat pre-marital conduct as “adultery.”
It’s not about deleting her past; it’s about what the statute recognizes as a valid legal ground for divorce.

⚖️ FACT 4: Moral conduct and legal grounds are different things

The case you cited, Aoko v. Fagbemi (1961), did confirm that moral or religious offences (like adultery or fornication) are not criminal offences under Nigerian statutory law unless specifically provided by law.
But that doesn’t mean moral behaviour is “protected” — it just means it’s not punishable by law.
The court doesn’t enforce morality; it enforces lawful rights and duties.

🚫 FICTION 1: “You have no right to ask your partner about their past.”

Wrong.
The Constitution protects privacy, but it does not forbid questions. It only forbids compulsion — like physical or psychological coercion to force a person to speak.
A potential spouse may ask anything; the other person may choose to answer or refuse.
If someone lies about something essential before marriage (for example, identity, health status, or other facts that induced the marriage), that could be grounds for annulment for fraud or misrepresentation — which is recognized by law.

🚫 FICTION 2: “Her past cannot affect the marriage once she becomes MRS.”

Also false.
While pre-marital sexual history is not a legal ground for divorce, it can affect marital trust and the viability of the relationship in practice.
The law protects legal status, not emotional reality — and it’s misleading to suggest that marriage automatically erases all past consequences.

✅ Bottom line:

Yes, adultery only matters after marriage under Section 15(2)(b) of the Matrimonial Causes Act.

Yes, the Constitution protects privacy (Section 37).

No, the law does not “delete” anyone’s past or make it illegal to discuss it.

No, forcing someone to talk under threat or violence is not lawful — but asking questions in good faith is perfectly legal.

And no, the MCA does not forbid marriage by a sex worker (former or current) — as long as the marriage was entered into lawfully and voluntarily.

🛑 Final word

Stop spreading sensational, half-true interpretations that twist the law into slogans. Nigerian law protects both men and women — but it does not give anyone a magical “fresh start” clause that deletes reality.
If we’re going to discuss the law, let’s do it with facts, not fiction.

Samantha125:
In my tribe, the house belongs to the last son in the family... Even if you renovate it, just know that you're doing it for him and his future wife.

Tribe means culture, not law. Just because a family chooses to follow a cultural practice doesn’t make it a legal rule. If there were a last will or testament from the parents stating otherwise, the law would override the tradition. Culture is about choice, not compulsion.”

Patiks:
A lot of inconsistencies in your analysis, but I won't be puncturing each, because I have learned to ignore people who are bent on making arguments that lead nowhere

"Many cultures" that differ AKA "cultural diversity" are definitely signs of confusion and not advancement. Moral values or principles have no varieties. It's either you are good or bad, faithful or unfaithful, kind or wicked, etc. Same with different gods/creator being served by the same humans.


"Light-bringer", "illuminate" definitely sound occultic, that's why I will be wise enough to end the discussion with this reply only.

"isn’t purely evil" Is there any such thing as being partially evil? Evil is evil and good is good. Anything in-between is the devil's attempt to masquerade as the angel of light.

"every tradition" Not every tradition is beneficial. If everyone is, there won't be any need for trying to justify their existence in the first place.

"human attempt to turn darkness into meaning" I have no idea what your darkness means here (and I am definitely not interested in finding out more).

You’re entitled to your beliefs, of course. But calling diversity “confusion” is just another way of saying you fear what you don’t understand.

Good and evil aren’t as simple as a light switch. Human beings live in complexity — pretending it’s all black and white has never made anyone more moral, only more rigid.

And if the words light or illumination sound “occultic” to you, that says more about your conditioning than about my intent. Curiosity isn’t evil — ignorance is.

Anyway, I’m not here to convert or be converted. You can keep your certainty; I’ll keep my questions. Let’s end it there.

steadygo:
Why is it the foreigner that has come here to quote us the constitution of the colonizers? The Nigerian constitution is not our constitution, our ways of life was destroyed by the colonizer and these forms of government were imposed on us. We are sometimes to follow it but none of us can truly respect it, per se.

You’re absolutely right that colonialism caused enormous harm across Africa — politically, socially, and culturally. It’s also true that many European nations have profited directly or indirectly from that period.

However, it’s important to clarify Norway’s historical position. During the colonial era, Norway was not an independent colonial power. From 1380 to 1814, Norway was in a political union with Denmark — known as the Dano-Norwegian Union. In that period, Denmark controlled and profited from colonies in Africa (for example, in present-day Ghana, the “Danish Gold Coast”), the Caribbean (the Virgin Islands), and parts of India.

While Norwegians were technically part of that union, the decisions and colonial activities were directed entirely by Denmark, and Norway itself was treated as a junior partner — often economically exploited in the process. When Norway gained independence in 1814, one of the first major political shifts was a rejection of imperial ventures. Norway never established or owned colonies after that point.

In fact, Norway’s later international reputation has been built on peace diplomacy, humanitarian aid, and support for decolonization movements — for instance, through the UN and direct support to African nations during and after independence.

So, yes — Norway’s history was indirectly touched by colonialism through its alliance with Denmark. But as soon as that union ended, Norway chose a very different path, distancing itself from those imperial practices entirely.

Now, let me ask a genuine question:

Can you name one African nation that has a single problem with my country, Norway?

Norway has long-standing, positive relationships across Africa — from development partnerships in Nigeria, Ghana, and Kenya, to peace efforts in Sudan and South Sudan. There’s no record of hostility or exploitation between Norway and any African country.

You’re describing a belief system, not a research process.
When someone says “my spirit owns me and gives me answers from 24 incarnations”, that’s theology, not data collection.

Research has three essentials:

Evidence that others can inspect.

Methods others can repeat.

Results that could prove the idea wrong.

Your model has none of those. No one can test your spirit, verify its 24 incarnations, or confirm whether a “deleted incarnation” was reactivated. That makes it unfalsifiable — like saying “God told me so.” You can’t disprove it, but you also can’t prove it.

And when you say a spirit “owns” you, that’s not teamwork; that’s surrender of agency. It turns you from investigator into messenger.
If your spirit controls both the questions and the answers, then there’s no research — just revelation, and only you can hear it.

So let’s call it what it is: a personal faith. There’s nothing wrong with that — but it’s not scholarship, and it’s certainly not science.

In your own framework:
If your Ori Inu truly seeks wisdom, it should welcome scrutiny instead of retreating behind mystery.
Truth, even in Ifá, is confirmed through iwa pele — gentle character and honesty — not ownership or fear.
A spirit that demands obedience instead of understanding is not guiding you; it’s using you.

steadygo:
What's all this? Did you not see that I asked for posters thought on the methodology, why do you say I do not then ask why the measure falls? We do not need you to fix our country. You are not qualified to be our savior.

I think your question is fair and worth exploring. However, it’s important to take those IQ rankings with a big grain of salt — not because Nigerians (or any group) are “less intelligent,” but because of how such studies are conducted.

Most international IQ comparisons rely on samples that are not truly representative of the entire population. Factors like language of testing, education access, nutrition, socioeconomic background, and cultural familiarity with test formats all heavily affect average scores. In countries where education systems are uneven or where people take the tests in a non-native language, the results can’t reflect actual intelligence — they often reflect exposure and opportunity, not innate ability.

For example, Norway’s average IQ appears high in global rankings, but that doesn’t mean Norwegians are inherently smarter — it reflects consistent education quality, good healthcare, and less economic inequality, which all support cognitive development and performance.

As someone living in Nigeria, I’ve met many Nigerians whose reasoning ability, creativity, and problem-solving skills are outstanding — even without formal structures that support them fully. That tells me the potential is there; the issue is systemic, not biological.

If anything, Nigeria’s development could benefit from a stronger focus on critical thinking and science education. A clearer separation between religious practices and formal learning — for instance, prioritizing study and analysis during school hours while keeping faith a personal or community matter — might help create more time and focus for developing those skills. Education and faith can coexist, but keeping their roles distinct tends to produce better educational outcomes, as seen in many other countries.

So the better question might be: what environmental or policy factors can help Nigerians maximize their already existing potential? That’s where progress starts — not in the IQ number itself.

Tello619
Tello
Tello

You keep calling what you post “evidence,” but if any of it were real, my account wouldn’t even exist right now. Nairaland permanently bans users for proven offences like impersonation, deceit, harassment, or running multiple fake accounts. Those are clear rules, and the moderators enforce them strictly.

So let’s be honest — if your so-called “proof” had any truth behind it, Seun and the mods would’ve reviewed it and banned me immediately. The fact that I’m still here, active under my own name, says everything. You even sent all your “evidence” to the bot topic and nothing happened. That alone proves it isn’t valid evidence — just noise.

Meanwhile, while you were checking for me every day and even asking where I went, I was away for nearly two months on vacation with my wife and child — living life and not thinking about any of this. It’s wild to come back and see you still fixated on me. At this point, it’s more funny than anything — a bit ridiculous, really.

I’m not interested in arguments built on obsession or fantasy. Either bring real, verifiable proof — links, timestamps, moderator confirmations — or stop calling speculation “evidence.” Until then, I’ll let my clean record and the moderators’ silence speak for themselves.

In the end, you block, deflect, and then blame everyone else — nothing more. I offered you a fair, logical debate, but you turned it down. That alone proves who’s really avoiding the truth.

lawani:
If I ask any question, there are 256 possible answers. That is more than a Yes/No session. It is research. Yes/No queries can however come in handy as would be expected.
I don't have spirits. I have one spirit that owns me. If I ask it a question it will check the 24 incarnations it has access to for answer and if it requires reactivating a deleted incarnation it will do so with support from relevant spirits. It can also get information from other spirits
What is research to you?
Yes spirits don't like monkeying around. They want you to genuinely seek.

There’s something I don’t quite understand in your position.
You’ve said you’re guided by the 256 signs of Orunmila and by a spirit that “owns” you — but you’ve also referred to Christian concepts like God, Jesus, and divine punishment in earlier posts.

How do you reconcile those?
Christianity explicitly forbids divination and spirit consultation (Deuteronomy 18:10–12, Acts 16:16–18), while Ifá is built entirely on communication with spirits. The two systems contradict each other at the foundation.

If your spirit directs you, that’s not the Holy Spirit of Christian theology — and if it’s Orunmila, that’s an entirely different framework.
So which one defines your faith?

You can’t logically claim both, because their rules about revelation, authority, and truth cancel each other out.

lawani:
If I ask any question, there are 256 possible answers. That is more than a Yes/No session. It is research. Yes/No queries can however come in handy as would be expected.
I don't have spirits. I have one spirit that owns me. If I ask it a question it will check the 24 incarnations it has access to for answer and if it requires reactivating a deleted incarnation it will do so with support from relevant spirits. It can also get information from other spirits
What is research to you?
Yes spirits don't like monkeying around. They want you to genuinely seek.

You said “I have one spirit that owns me.”
That’s a very revealing statement — and it raises a serious question about agency.

If your spirit “owns” you, then who exactly is speaking when you post here — you, or your spirit? And if your spirit dictates your answers, how can you claim independent thought or objective research?

Ownership implies subservience. It means you’re not the researcher; you’re the research subject. That’s the opposite of what scholarship — or even responsible divination — requires.

In most spiritual systems, a person is meant to collaborate with guiding forces, not surrender identity or autonomy to them. The moment you say you’re owned, you stop being a seeker and start being a spokesperson for something you can’t verify.

So before we talk about 256 signs, maybe clarify one thing:
Are you in charge of your beliefs — or is your “owner” writing them for you?

lawani:
If I ask any question, there are 256 possible answers. That is more than a Yes/No session. It is research. Yes/No queries can however come in handy as would be expected.
I don't have spirits. I have one spirit that owns me. If I ask it a question it will check the 24 incarnations it has access to for answer and if it requires reactivating a deleted incarnation it will do so with support from relevant spirits. It can also get information from other spirits
What is research to you?
Yes spirits don't like monkeying around. They want you to genuinely seek.

Thanks for the detail — that helps. But what you describe (256 possible answers, yes/no usefulness, one spirit checking past incarnations) is still a claim, not research.

In practice, research requires at least these things:

A clear method — exactly how questions are posed, how answers are recorded, and how ambiguity is resolved.

Repeatability — others should be able to run the same procedure and get comparable results.

Falsifiability — there must be possible outcomes that would refute your claim.

Independent checking — outside observers must be able to verify the procedure and results (not just accept “my spirit said so”).

Documentation — dated records, transcripts or recordings, and a way to compare answers to outcomes.

If you truly want this to be research rather than personal revelation, propose a test I — or any willing skeptic — can run with you. For example:

Give three specific, time-stamped yes/no questions about verifiable future events (not vague),

Let an independent witness record your answers,

Agree in advance how we’ll judge success, and

If you charge for readings, put that on hold until after the test.

Until someone uses those standards, you’ve got a coherent belief system — maybe important to you — but not an objectively verified divination method. If you’re serious, run the experiment. If not, call it what it is: a private system of interpretation.

lawani:
You are right and right now I am still at the proposal stage because I am not presently affiliated with any body of diviners but you as a person if you believe in divination can even establish a divination system and use yes or no questions and etc to check my claims. Any group of assembled elders will have to do it that way too but only ask sincere and genuine questions because the spirit does not like monkeying around

So the “proposal stage” means no lineage, no verification, and no peers — just a personal system of yes/no questions directed at invisible auditors who “don’t like monkeying around.”
That’s not research; that’s an improv session with your subconscious.

And let’s be honest — when every check and balance still depends on you and your spirits, the only thing being reviewed is your imagination.

lawani:
Can you explain what you mean by peer review in structured divination?
A group of people can't come up with an idea. Ideas come from individuals before they are accepted by the general public whether in the spirit or material sector

Peer review doesn’t mean a crowd invents an idea — it means other qualified people test your claim against shared standards to see if it actually holds up.
In proper divination, that would mean elders or trained practitioners checking your readings and comparing them with the odu and lineage teachings.

It’s not groupthink; it’s quality control.
Without that, anyone could declare themselves a prophet, or even claim to be He-Man shouting “I have the power to piss on a flower!” — and call it divine revelation.
It might sound impressive, but it’s still just one person talking to himself.

lawani:
There is peer review in the spirit sector.
Let's say you want to marry or start a business then you check the prospects with many spiritual counselors and compare the results. That is a form of peer review but how can I help you if you are an atheist who don't believe in such? That is the point

What you’ve described isn’t peer review — it’s consensus-seeking among people who share the same unverifiable method.
Peer review, whether in science or structured divination, involves accountability to shared standards that allow claims to be tested, corrected, or rejected.
Multiple opinions don’t create verification; they only multiply subjectivity.

If ten people throw dice and each claims the numbers came from the spirit world, comparing their guesses doesn’t make the process objective — it just shows they all believe the same premise.

My disbelief isn’t the obstacle here; your framework would remain untestable even if everyone involved believed in spirits.
The issue isn’t faith — it’s methodology. A system that cannot fail a test can never pass one either.

Patiks:
Being thinking recently: why does the human race, have different cultures and traditions? Does one culture or traditions make a particular group superior to the other?

If yes, why do the same group or class of beings (humans in this case need different rules or way of life to live?

There certainly got to be the right way for all humans created by one God to live. This "my culture", Igbo culture", "Yoruba culture", with different rules and regulations that are inconsistent, has to be from a different source or being who enjoys confusion. That being is called the devil and he is the author of tribalism as well as gender, racial and class discrimination.

That’s a fascinating question — whether humanity’s many cultures are signs of divine confusion or something more organic. From a historical and humanist perspective, I see cultural diversity not as evidence of disorder, but as the record of human imagination adapting to circumstance.

Every civilisation — Yoruba, Norse, Hebrew, Chinese — has wrestled with the same timeless challenges: how to live well, how to treat others, how to face mortality. The differences in our customs are not proof that someone “tampered” with humanity, but that human beings are endlessly creative in their search for meaning.

I understand why many people interpret moral variation through a spiritual lens — as the struggle between God and the devil, light and darkness. But I’ve always found it interesting that in some older traditions, even the “light-bringer” isn’t purely evil; he represents curiosity, defiance, and the refusal to live in ignorance. My view is that light itself — understanding, awareness — cannot be the enemy of good.

Perhaps what divides us isn’t culture or belief, but fear: fear of difference, fear of being wrong, fear of letting others illuminate what we don’t yet understand. For me, progress begins not in rejecting culture or sanctifying it, but in recognising that every tradition, every moral code, is a human attempt to turn darkness into meaning.

That, I think, is the real light worth following.

lawani:
Then I can't help you in your childlike innocence

Resorting to condescension isn’t a substitute for explanation.
When someone’s argument collapses into “you’re too innocent to understand,” it usually means there’s nothing left to defend.

You claim to offer spiritual knowledge, yet recoil the moment that knowledge is questioned. That’s not enlightenment — that’s evasion dressed as superiority.

Real teachers don’t hide behind mystery or mock curiosity; they welcome scrutiny because truth remains intact under examination.

lawani:
The only way to verify is to ask your own spirit. This is non material or spirit academics. If you consult a diviner they will still have to ask their own spirits. You can even establish a divination system and ask your own spirit right away

You clearly don’t understand what “atheist” means — it isn’t someone who refuses to ask questions of the unseen; it’s someone who withholds belief until there is verifiable reason to grant it. That’s an intellectual position, not a spiritual disability.

If the only method of verification is to use the same untestable process, then nothing is ever truly verified — it is simply reaffirmed.
That is the problem with self-contained systems: they protect belief, not truth.

When you say “everyone must ask their own spirit,” that is the equivalent of saying “everyone must use my language to prove my point.” It ensures agreement, but eliminates independent evaluation.
A process that cannot be questioned from outside itself is not a discipline — it’s a closed loop.

In Ifa, diviners indeed consult the spiritual realm, but their readings are checked by peers, elders, and corpus. That communal cross-reference is what distinguishes a tradition from a personal cosmology.
You’ve removed that safeguard and replaced it with personal interpretation — and then attached a fee to it.

Calling that “non-material academics” doesn’t make it academic. It makes it a belief economy, where conviction is traded as knowledge.

lawani:
I did not have a vision. Did I ever mention that? I interviewed my spirit and my spirit liaised with other spirits to give me the answers most of the time.
IFA is a spirit language. It is very audible if you understand the 256 signs

If you genuinely have doubts about any of my conclusions then ask other diviners that you know to peer review me. That is the only way in the spirit sector

The distinction you’re drawing doesn’t change the underlying point. Whether you call it “a vision,” “spirit liaison,” or “interviewing your spirit,” the entire process occurs within your own internal experience. There is no method for independent verification, replication, or cross-examination by others.

When communication happens solely through one person’s unseen intermediaries, the information remains non-verifiable. It can be sincere, but it cannot be treated as evidence. That is the difference between experience and knowledge.

If your spirit “liaises with other spirits,” that still depends on you as the interpreter of what those spirits allegedly say. Therefore, the conclusions are yours — entirely mediated through your perception, language, and bias.

So, whether it’s called vision, inspiration, or interview, the category remains the same: private revelation.
And private revelation, while often meaningful to the individual, acquires authority over others only when presented by someone seeking belief rather than understanding — especially when money is involved for access to what are, in essence, personal interpretations.

lawani:
You will be wrong to say they are my personal positions. What you get by interviewing someone isn't your personal position

I interviewed my own spirit

The comparison doesn’t hold.
When you interview another person, you are engaging with an independent, verifiable consciousness. Others can meet that person, repeat the interview, and confirm or challenge the responses. That’s what makes it evidence rather than introspection.

When you “interview your spirit,” there is no such external witness. No one else can access that conversation or test its reliability. It exists entirely within your own perception, interpreted by you, and mediated through your own expectations. That makes it, by definition, personal.

The difference is not subtle — it is foundational.
An interview produces information that others can examine.
A private vision produces belief that only you can hold.

There’s nothing inherently wrong with personal revelation — it can be meaningful and transformative. The issue arises only when personal revelation is marketed as objective truth or used to instruct others as if it carried communal authority. That is when spirituality stops being guidance and starts resembling persuasion.

lawani:
It is still research because many of my findings surprised even me. Divination is communication with the spirit world, my spirit. Many times the spirit refused to give me straightforward answers and asked me to check later.

Being surprised by your own conclusions does not make them research — it only means the outcome differed from your expectations. In every field, surprise is the beginning of inquiry, not its validation.

You say your spirit sometimes refuses to give straightforward answers. That perfectly illustrates the problem: the entire process depends on your internal dialogue. There is no independent witness, no repeatability, and no peer verification.
By definition, that makes it private revelation, not research.

Divination, even in traditional Ifa, involves community, oversight, and interpretation within lineage. Once it becomes a solitary exchange between you and your own “spirit,” it leaves the realm of divination and enters that of personal mysticism. There is nothing wrong with that — but it cannot claim the authority of a tested system.

A researcher submits findings for review.
A diviner submits readings to communal wisdom.
A mystic keeps revelations for contemplation.

Which of these do you actually wish to be? Because right now, you’re attempting to hold all three roles at once — prophet, researcher, and priest — while answering only to yourself. That is not spiritual depth; it is self-reference mistaken for evidence.

And if I may say this gently — when someone builds an entire doctrine that depends solely on personal authority and demands others simply believe, it begins to look less like revelation and more like a performance meant to sell conviction rather than seek truth.

lawani:
Someone gave an excellent definition of cult on Quora. Easy to join, get killed if you try to leave.
I agree that JW does not really fit the bill but their ideas are against humanity's progress.

I prefer using a dictionary and thesaurus for definitions — you, on the other hand, proved this morning that Facebook is your go-to for history lessons.

lawani:
My research entails asking questions with prayers and answering them with the 256 signs of Orunmila. What is required is to know the right questions to ask and to be able to read the signs. That is all about the research.

The maturity of spirits is part of what I found out about with my research. I found out that a spirit has eight levels of God like managerial ability which determines how they will treat what is put under their care and six levels of empathy rank which determines how they respond to emergencies concerning others. You can drop in rank in the second but not in the first. If you drop from the last rank in the second you die both on Earth and in heaven

On payment truthseeker asked how he can confirm the authenticity of my claims and I told him he should consult diviners but they will charge him. There are many diviners of different creeds not only ifa and many have good reputation

Ori inu I translate as higher self. It is the spirit that own your incarnation who will take the food you harvest after dying. Purpose of incarnation is to harvest food for sustenance in heaven according to my research

Nobody has confirmed my positions. I taught myself. I have no Oluwo but I found out via divination that I am the incarnate of Orunmila.

I agree with you that truth never fears question and I am ready to take on more questions

Thank you for elaborating. What you’ve described confirms that your framework is entirely self-derived — you ask your own questions, interpret your own answers, and cite your own conclusions as evidence. That process may be personally meaningful, but it cannot be described as research or divination in any serious sense. It is simply private belief.

In Ifa, as in every disciplined system of knowledge, verification is communal. Claims are tested, cross-checked through lineage, and anchored in recorded odu. When you say no one has confirmed your findings but still declare yourself the incarnation of Orunmila, you’re moving from spirituality into self-appointment.

Your descriptions of “spirit hierarchies,” “food farms,” and “managerial levels” read more like personal mythology than inherited tradition. That doesn’t make them automatically false — but they are yours, not Ifa’s. The honesty would be to call them your own revelations, not ancestral wisdom.

You frequently use the word “research.” But in both academic and spiritual contexts, research implies a system that others can reproduce or verify. Yours cannot. You alone control both the method and the interpretation. That’s not research — it’s assertion.

When spirituality removes all external checks — elders, peers, scripture, even reason — it becomes indistinguishable from imagination.
That doesn’t mean it has no personal value; it simply means it cannot claim public authority.

So, before presenting these ideas as truths about God or Ifa, I suggest you decide whether you are speaking as a seeker, or as a seller. Because the difference is not in words — it’s in accountability.

lawani:
The most noble work is to join hands in making your community better. There have been many individuals on Earth that distinguished themselves by transforming their nation or community for the better but the Jehovah witness are preaching that all these people are condemned by God for their effort.

To be worthy you must remove yourself from nation building and join in being a witness

Is there any cult more dangerous for humanity than the Jehovah witness?

People are quick to call Jehovah’s Witnesses a cult for refusing to take part in nation-building, but if we’re being honest, every major religion started as one. Small groups with strict beliefs, close communities, and rituals that set them apart — that’s how most faiths begin. When they grow larger and society gets comfortable with them, we stop saying “cult” and start saying “religion.” Give it enough time, and that religion becomes part of the culture itself.

It’s funny how those three words — cult, religion, and culture — are really just different stages of the same thing. They all come from the same root, cultus, meaning care or worship. A cult is simply a belief system that hasn’t gone mainstream yet; a religion is a cult that survived; and culture is what happens when enough people build their lives around it.

So maybe the real question isn’t “Is this a cult?” but “Does it help people think freely, live decently, and add something good to humanity?” That’s the line that matters.

But hey, I’m just an atheist.