₦airaland Forum

And for the person asking whether the difference between "love" and "like" is not taught in Nigerian schools - sorry, teachers have better things to do than teaching pupils the right thing to say to a girl you want to date. And if you tell me it's not about dating, then which of the several meanings of love should they teach them, because the dictionary has them in abundance?

Again, even with the so much hullabaloo about using the word "love" for a woman you barely know, doesn't the ENGLISH DICTIONARY affirm that there is something called LOVE AT FIRST SIGHT? Look up the word in the dictionary and see if "love at first sight" is not one of the entries. So what if that's what he feels?

If it gives you so much headache and nightmares, you guys can write to the Ministry of Education or, better still, sue them for not inculcating dating techniques into the school curriculum. As if it's today Nigerian men started dating foreign women and vice versa

No, it's far from pride. It's a profound wealth in ignorance.

Their egocentric thinking is directed somewhere else because ascertaining such a mix up is clueless rather it's used in trampling on a woman's emotions and make her feel like she's got no choice. But then, what do you say to people who equate jealousy with love?

Schools are different in Nigeria. Just like it is everywhere else, there's private and public schools. Private schools are way better and 100% effective than public schools. In public examinations, students from private schools perform exceptionally better than their public school counterpart, they also are confident in representing what they have been taught in school which includes moral education. Not to deviate from your question, proper use of English Language is extensively taught in private schools than it will ever be in public schools. So this depends on what academic world one has been exposed to. Private school, yes! Public school? No!

I sometimes find it hard to understand what some men think they stand to gain when they say things like this. In the first place, are you trying to gain the approval of the womenfolk by making baseless generalisations about men? Some of us mistake being smarmy for being candid. Is it only men that "trample" on people's emotions? Even women that claim to know the real meaning of love, don't they use the word deceitfully? Don't they use it when they don't mean it? It appalls me when we jettison logic and allow sentiments to becloud our reasoning. So not knowing the difference between "love" and "like" makes men take women for granted. Are the women imbeciles? If a man tells a woman he loves her when they barely know each other and she believes him, who is the real slowpoke? Why do we fuss over frivolities and tussle over trivialities. We're making an issue out of nothing. If she feels he's not using the word properly, she's not compelled to respond. It's his right to express himself, however he thinks appropriate, and it's her right to react to the expression the way she interprets it. Simple! Why the much ado about nothing? Haba!

And the comment about private and public school is not totally correct. Some products of public schools are far better than those of private schools. I attended public primary and secondary schools in a real slum. But I performed better than most of my counterparts from private schools in the university. And there many other people like me. So, stop making questionable generalisations about Nigerian men and Nigerian schools.

American men don't come to African forums to say derogatory things about their people. And women don't go about saying nasty things about themselves to please any man. I wonder why ours has to be different - anything to make us look like "learned gentlemen"

If she's so dense and you're so insecure, then get her an armoured nappy, make sure it's properly locked but create a hole for urinating.


PATHETIC!

What is the matter with you that whatever a muslim does he is subjected to criticism. If i promise to bomb  or murder the moderator you accuse me of being a terror, now i want to report him to Allah my God before changing my mind and yet you won't leave me, what have i done, what have i done ?

What you have done is threatening to use the diabolic methods of the demon you worship in the name of allah to "destroy" the moderator. You truly resemble your godfather. PEADO + NYMPHO = TERROR!

i was irated, i wanted to seek for your destruction spiritually

Now that's a true mohammedan talking! No mercy for "offenders" - slay them, kill them, destroy them!

Ride on, Abuzola, keep exposing the familiar similarities between Islam, satanism and barbarism. Your decadent mentor did more than that!

By their fruit you shall know them.

Evil founder, evil followers!

There's a difference between "intact" and "almost intact."

And if we're to be truly sincere and realistic, we'll agree than women tend to lose their physical form faster than men. No one says it's their fault; but that doesn't mean we should shy away from reality

@ iice

That is, if you've taken time to study their way of life - language, culture etc - to the smallest detail

@ Touchmeder

Of course, it seems to be "our way." And it's normal to have OUR way of doing things. That makes us unique

@ sistawoman

Are they given any "guidebook" for that at the airport/embassy?

@ Theseeker

Try to be more practical. "Love" and "like" in whose language? Are we talking about LINGUISTICS here or FEELINGS? If in his native language, there is only one word for "love" and "like," how do you expect him to AUTOMATICALLY know that it's not the same in the English language? Do the westerners themselves learn so fast when they come here? This our "kolo" mentality sef. Haba!

That's not "miscommunication" dear. It's misinterpretation. And that cannot be avoided. Men and women do not always reason/ interpret words the the same way. Nor do Westerners and Africans always view expressions from the same angle. That's a reality we must learn to cope with

As I said before, anyone can use the word anyhow (based on their understanding, environment, background etc); it's left for the "addressee" to put 2 and 2 together and decide if it's 4 or 40. That's life. Everybody can't be compelled to see issues, concepts and terminologies from one angle

We can be so fussy sometimes. Who cares about syntax and semantics when conveying their feelings? You say it anyhow you feel it and let the recipient decide what to make of it!

I wonder why we always think everybody everywhere (man or woman) should follow a certain rule that we think is the most appropriate.  Must everybody use the word "love" the way people in western countries use it? Everybody is free to use/interpret the word the way they think is proper because even the dictionary has SEVERAL denotative and connotative meanings of the word. And in the Greek language, love also has different meanings and interpretations, depending on who is feeling it, why he's feeling it, and for whom he's feeling it   

Besides, in most Nigerian languages, "love" and "like" have the same translation and meaning. So, anyhow you use the word, you're on course

Learning fast. Thanx guys, keep 'em coming. Working towards becoming the BEST husband and father the world has ever known!


Phemmy, it's not the breastfeeding that does the 'damage'; it's the PREGNANCY! 

romeo4real and gengenius _ ,thank you for your all NL for your advice, anwering your questions,he normally brings her on saturday morning and takes her back sunday morning,so she spends a night with us,  what i dont understand where my husy is that i dont see his actions as wanting me to get close to the child,he whispers to the child most times when he talks to her even if we re in the same room which i dont also get , showers her himself cos d girl is not close to me,the only thing i do for her is cook what she eats and sometimes cos of my condition my husy does makes her breakfast,  for her mother,my husy ve not introduced us formally,she only saw me when i went with my husy to pick the girl,she is 3yrs, how can i just badge into the woman like that when it is my husy whos suppossed to create that environment, thats why i feel that hes not handling things well and thats why it pains me most, as for the girl i understand shes a kid  and do not ve any problems with her at all.I just feel my husy does not want that bond between me and the girl, he didnt prevent me from relating with the child just that his actions tend to say so ,  i was nt expecting the child to call me mother ,i only wrote what i saw in the text , I feel [/b]he doesnt want to pull the strands together,   and [b]i feel thats why the child is still seeing me as an outsider.just last week,he told me that am excluding myself from things happening around him cos i left the sitting room to the bedroom as a result of fever that i was ving and he was in the sitting room his daughter.I didnt discuss anything on that with him cos[b] i feel [/b]he s the one excluding me.I ve not talked to him about this issue.

You're such an interesting person. Did you observe how many times you used the expression, "I feel" in your post? And that's exactly where the problem is. WRONG FEELINGS. You're busy "feeling" instead of THINKING and ACTING rationally. You said your husband doesn't prevent you from relating with the child. Then why don't you relate? You said it's because of his actions. What actions? He doesn't allow you to shower the kid. Why would he when you've not made conscious efforts to relate with the child with maternal maturity, understanding and patience? If he actually felt you shouldn't be close to the child he wouldn't have allowed you to make breakfast for her. And because you're FEELING too much without thinking, it has never occurred to you that the reason you gave for your husband's occasional decision to cook for the child could be the same reason why he showers her himself - being considerate of your condition and disposition!

My advice to you is to for once stop "feeling" and "assuming!" - Take decisive steps to relate cordially with the child. Do it sincerely and consistently and watch if things don't change soon. And as I said earlier, if there are things that are not clear to you, politely bring them to the notice of your husband and he'll explain to you. That's much better than dying in silence and reading disturbing meanings into his every action! Your husband even made you to know that he's not happy you're alienating yourself from him and his daughter. That's why he reacted that way when you left the sitting room. I'm sure he must have been observing your mood and attitude and wondering why you could be acting so strange. If indeed it was the fever that made you leave, you would have politely excused yourself. I'm sure you must have been sulking. Please handle this issue more maturely and act, not feel!

Chaircover, thanks for your contributions.

And I also agree with you on the issue of couples looking alike over the years - I've observed that too!

maybe this is more of the reasons why the few good men marry and still stay/love a woman beyond the "physical" attraction.

You're right actually. But, scientifically, men have been proven to be "visual" creatures. So, while physical attraction may not be a man's primary consideration in marrying a woman, it still matters a lot to him

you can always take for a complete makeover, if her true beauty have faded in your eyes

And what if she doesn't see the need for it? Besides, how do you present the issue to her?

I'm asking a SINCERE question here because I need some tips from EXPERIENCED people, preferably, faithful married men/women.

I know one of the reasons (though not a justifiable one) why some men stray after being married for some years with kids is that some of the physical attributes that used to drive them crazy in their wives would have gone (or almost) after a few pregnancies and all. You know what I mean - the once firm, perky boobs are sagged and lifeless, wrinkles and flab appear here and there etc. Yet the man remains almost intact and there are younger women flaunting their fresh, tempting features and jostling for his attention here and there.

I know women can take solace in their children when their men are becoming something else but I know the case is different with men.

So, as a man, what's the best way to continue to enjoy your woman with all the realities without getting carried away by the alluring attractions around? I'm not there yet, but I know someday I will. I just try to imagine how these noble faithful men cope. Any practical tips?

I still don't know what your problem is

The religious people of Jesus' day were not righteous but claimed they were. One of them was even quoted as saying, "God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican. I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess." (Luke 18:11-12). With that, he believed himself to be righteous. Imagine!

The Pharisees had a brand of "righteousness" that was not according to what God required of them. Paul said of them: "For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge. For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God. (Romans 10:2-3).

It was this same counterfeit "righteousness" that they were teaching the people. They portrayed themselves as models for every other person to follow. Christ therefore told the people: "If the type of righteousness you're depending on is the type the Pharisees possess and preach, you have no hope!" In other words, it must "surpass" (go beyond) mere "mouth" profession. It must be real!

Poster
How can it be normal?
Dont you have a thinking faculty up there?

Who would have thought an old man like you could stoop so low?

You sound so confused and miserable. Instead of admitting your ignorance and begging to be enlightened, you're busy ranting like a possessed man.

The Pharisees practised hypocritical righteousness - righteousness that lays emphasis on outward piety and sanctimonious rituals without inward righteousness or sincerity. All their good works - saying long prayers, fasting, giving alms to the poor etc - were done for show, just to look better than others. But deep within them, they were full of evil, deception and corruption. Christ rebuked them thus:  

Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess.  Thou blind Pharisee, cleanse first that which is within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also. Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness. Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity. (Matthew 23:25-28)

That's why he told his listeners that except their righteousness surpassed (exceeded) that of the Pharisees, they would not be allowed into the kingdom of heaven. In other words, if they were like the Pharisees - pretending to be holy in the public but having evil thoughts and doing immoral things in private - they would not be allowed into heaven. Therefore they must go beyond the Pharisees - they must have both INWARD and OUTWARD righteousness. Simple!

Some questions for a better understanding of your situation:

1. How old is this "rival" of yours - I mean the child?
2. Did you say what's burning up your brain happens ONCE in seven days?
3. How does your man relate with you when this child is not around - is he loving, caring etc?
4. Did your husband ever prevent you from relating with the child, apart from the text message you saw in which he said the child would not call you "mother"?
5. Were you expecting the child to call you 'mother' when she stays with her biological mother all through the week?

Going by your narration, I think the situation in your family can only be resolved through maturity, patience and good communication.

Maturity demands that (1) You don't see a little girl that comes once in seven days as a "rival" and potential home-breaker.  Seeing her as a competitor will continue to widen the emotional gap between the two of you. (2) You expect your husband to spend time with her - she's an integral part of his life (3) You don't sulk when she's around (4) You don't allow what happens once in a week to make you moody, bitter and hypertensive.

Patience demands that (1) You understand that, naturally, the child might still be seeing you as a stranger and that could be responsible for her attitude towards you. (2) You try to relate with the child like a mother and tolerate her 'excesses' ( as you would to your own child who didn't know you early enough) until she gets used to you. I sense you started having problems with that child from that second week of your stay. That's way too soon!!!

Good communication requires that (1) You don't nag your husband over the issue so he doesn't see you as selfish or immature (2) You share your ideas (not anxieties, worries and fears) with him on how the three of you could get along better without any friction (3) You choose a convenient time and tone to discuss the issue with him - definitely not when the child is around

I think you should try to calm down for the sake of the child you're carrying. And I don't think the situation will get worse as you're envisaging. If he loves kids that much, then you can be sure of what he'll do when yours arrive

Yeah, as simple as. . .

I knew it! I wish Oladegbu too had been perceptive enough. He would have know that the thread starter wasn't sincere. Just a cynic looking for an excuse to start a pointless debate. Wirinet, ride on. Keep wallowing your cesspool of ignorance, confusion and self-ruin. It's your life

Huxley, now I know you're simply being cynical. If I had known earlier, i wouldn't have wasted my time to type what I posted earlier. I'm not the type to try to convince people to accept Christianity. No. I only try to answer questions that people seem confused about. That was what I thought you were doing - asking for clarification - but now I know you have an ulterior motive.

Let me say, this I don't have the time to keep trying to CONVINCE you of anything, especially when it's obvious you're bigoted. If you're truly sincere you would have known that Jesus would never support anybody killing or engaging in any acts of violence. He taught on several occasions that we should forgive offenders, without retaliating. He rebuked someone who tried to defend him with violence. He didn't retaliate or insult anyone when he was slapped in court; and he even told Pilate that if he was interested in seizing power by violence, he would have easily done that but he wasn't interested. Yet you chose to ignore all these by misinterpreting his statement. You even went to the ridiculous extent of saying that the story of the adulterous woman was fabricated. Where is your proof? And to show how bigoted you are why did you choose to believe the so-called "latter versions" (which are non-existent) instead of the former? And even if you claim the story was false, was the story of Jesus telling Peter not to defend him with the sword also fabricated?

As I said earlier, I'm never in the business of persuading anyone to accept Christ. I know what I enjoy being a born-again Christian and I'm satisfied. You can believe whatever you like and be whatever you choose. It's your life. Have I ever started a topic against atheists? No. If you think atheism is okay for you, so be it. So stop wasting your time trying to malign people who believe in God, because only a hopeless Christian will give up his beliefs because of your warped arguments!

I don't usually engage in debates that lead nowhere, and I'm not going to start that now. But I'll certainly tackle the issues you raised one after the other, as much as I can.

@ Tudor.  I was actually expecting someone to mention that. I'll enlighten you on the issue. I know you're not a believer in God or Jesus, but have you ever wondered why Jesus (according to Christian beliefs) had to come into the world to die for our sins? Why did he have to do that when the people were already used to  making atonement with the blood of animals? The reason is simple. Before Christ came and died, there was nothing called CHRISTianity. What the people practised was Judaism. They were given rules and regulations to follow. But most times, the people flouted the rules because it's inherent in human nature to stray. So to make them comply, promises of rewards and blessings were made for the obedient and strict penalties were stipulated for the disobedient. The goal was to make the people see why they should obey and not violate God's laws. If you look at this method closely and the Jewish religious system as a whole, you'll see that it bears resemblance to the Islamic shar'ia system. Stone, punish, kill offenders - not because God was wicked because all they had was the law but they lack the grace of God (the divine enablement) to obey the law. The only way they could be restricted from disobeying the law therefore was to recommend harsh punishments for offenders.

But you know what? God wasn't really after killing or destroying anyone (Ezekiel 33:11). All he wanted was for them to live righteously and responsibly. But even with the strict measures, many of the people could still not obey God's laws. Hence the divine promise in Jeremiah 31:31-34:

Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake,, But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.  And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.


The idea in the passage is that since despite all the harsh measures that were in place, the people continue to stray from the written law, then a new method (covenant) will be put in place that would ensure that God's laws were not just read, memorised and recited, but would be IN THEIR HEARTS. In other words, they'll no longer have much difficulty obeying it.

That was what the death of Christ was to accomplish. It was to mark the beginning of a new covenant, not a covenant of forced compliance through harsh laws, but a covenant that will ensure that as many as are willing to serve God get the divine enablement (grace) to do so from their hearts and not just for fear of punishment. When you receive Jesus and become born again, you're able to serve God NATURALLY because His power helps you; not something you have to FORCE yourself to do because you're afraid of being killed or stoned. This is why Christianity is different from Judaism and Islam. Christianity ensures that you have the grace to live for God without compulsion. Romans 8:2-4 explains it better: "For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.  For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit."

Christianity began after Christ had accomplished his mission, making the ultimate atonemnet and paying the ultimate price so that the power for righteousness will be imputed in us, once and for all, instead of sinning everytime and making atonement with the blood of animals. Hebrews 9:13,14 says: "For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh: How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?"

I hope my explanations clarifies the issue you raised, Tudor. If you have any more questions on the issue, feel free to ask (I'm very calm today for expository theology lol).

Now that you've started the topic properly, you can get a proper explanation.

If you were not desperately looking for an excuse to discredit Christ and Christianity, you would have realised that Christ wasn't calling for the killing of children but for sincerity on the part of the hypocritical Pharisees. The law they claimed to practise and interpret told them that children should honour their parents and to prevent any child from disregarding the law a strict punishment was specified for violators. But to satisfy their personal interests, they perverted the law and interpreted it in such a way that children could freely dishonour their parents. Now, they came to Jesus and complained that his disciples were not washing their hands (ceremonially) before eating. Appalled by their hypocrisy, Jesus told them that they were doing something far worse than what they were accusing the disciples of. And what were they doing? Giving children the right to insult their parents. That was what he was condemning them for - not their refusal to stone children!

If Jesus were pro-stoning or pro-violence, you would have seen it in his actions and decisions. Did he ever approve of anyone being stoned or killed. NEVER! Take for example, when the same hypocritical leaders brought a woman that was caught in adultery for him to approve that she should be stoned. Did he give his approval? No way. Please take time to read the full account for a better understanding (John 8:3-12)

[b]And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst, They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act. Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou? This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.  So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground. And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst. When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee? She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more. Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life.[/b]

At another time, when Peter was trying to defend him (Jesus) with a sword, Jesus told him, "Put up thy sword into the sheath!" (John 18:11).

Isn't that amazing? Try to imagine what someone like muhammed would have done in such a case! Jesus was against violence all the way because he is the PRINCE OF PEACE!

Here is the answer to your question:

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-292827.0.html

Huxley, you're free to start another topic on that issue and it'll be clarified. Why not let the issue here be tackled first? Gosh - bigotry can make people act so senselessly!

I'd like to answer your question. But first, let me point out that you sound sarcastic in your post. So, do you really want to know and apply the knowledge or are you just interested in starting a debate (I have better things to do than debating all-day)? Second, are you a Christian, a muslim or an atheist?

Seun, this is what you said in one of your posts:

"the Religion section is for all religions except Islam"

Is Islam not a religion? Why the preferential treatment by way of creating a special forum for muslims? Or are we saying all religions can be lumped together but Islam is more special?

You're just rambling, probably because you've spent too much time "tighing" your nieces and other little girls around you

The question is, is Islam not a religion like all other religions? Why does it have to get preferential treatment above other religions? Is Islam superior to other religions THIS IS SO SO RIDICULOUS!!!