₦airaland Forum

RamessesIV:
No like i mean i hardly here of a nigerian brother who divorced a white woman and got spousal support or alimony is that Nigerian men are richer than their white wives over there

Which Nigerian man will tell you that his wife is richer? Let's start from here.

Klass99:
Lol, nairalanders and savage responses sef! I like But, to be fair Jesus was and still is, both God & man.

@ Kriss, you failed to answer the question and went on a different tangent altogether.

You know you're the ones who need to use that gbola more than us. And when the gbola rise, una no dey get sense at all that time. I lie

Being gbola free has been one of the best decisions of my life, I like the benefits of it. Meanwhile your gbola swinging people are the ones constantly trying to show me the gbola and use it on me, dem use that thing swear for you people?

But see you! 'Being gbola free has been one of the best decisions of my life.'

What about Gandhi? He wasn't both but the whole world paid tribute when he died. To a 'little man' in linen clothes.

Correct me if I am wrong but wasn't Jesus poor? And if so, was he without value?

[quote author=SegFault post=93895917][/quote]The picture ..

pocohantas:
Kidd is a nice guy, I like him- but the second alfa males started supporting and hailing him for his acts, I knew he would leave SOONEST. Anything alfa males touch would be destroyed and they would hardly ever SALVAGE it. They will just sit at the back, blaming SIMPS.

Alfa males are those friends that will pay hotel bills for you to fck woman, but will never give you that same money to invest or eat. The only thing in their head is dominating women- never your prosperity.

If Kidd had any SIMP-sense, he would have faked a breakdown when Erica left, but nah, he was doing bro-code with Laycon. BBN is a game, Laycon and Ozo are playing it WELL.

Someone mentioned some commandments on this thread which the alfa male is supposed to follow as formulated by some red pillars. I googled them and found a website with comments. It was close to a traumatic experience to read them. I knew that anyone who refers to himself as alfa has an underlying problem but I didn't know it was so pathological. Their stories go like "The girl I fancy slept with all my friends but rejected me, I don't know how to put the commandments to use". "My mama destroyed my confidence when... ." These are the type of men the authors of the movement extract money from.

Simps for me any day any time.

Angelfrost:
You and Dean Burnett should be calming down!!!... It's not that serious!!!

It actually is. People are making money off desperate boys and men and promising them that they can be something they are not. It's so serious that you even speak of the movement like it is a religion formulating commandments and writing a new Bible.

bankulizer:
Okay, let's be calming down. Simps and RedPipllers on NL are sets of jobless people and signs of joblessness.

As neuroscientist Dean Burnett suggested: “Maybe the supposed human alpha male is a combination of disgruntled male wish fulfilment and borderline-pseudoscientific justification for resorting to bullying, intimidation and generally all-round unpleasant behaviour by men hoping to impose their will on a world they find too complex and unnerving so revert to their baser instincts to get what they want, despite knowing deep down they don’t deserve it and shouldn’t have it?”

Angelfrost:
Not at all ma!!! The few of us are just loud and boisterous!!!

Then again... Even if we were many, that's still a tiny fraction of the BBNaija viewing and voting population!... Hell, most of us don't even watch the show!!!

Who says you are alpha? You?

bankulizer:
Hey but that dude ain't a Simp or maybe I don't get your post. He's a well brought up dude.

She is being sarcastic.

Angelfrost:
Nah... We are just in the minority!!!

This generation is weak and lost!!!

But you are many on Nairaland.

Hismasterpiece:
Uhmm... They've read it? And read it over and over? They've gone to seminary? They are anointed to preach? Etcetera..

Besides if not for people's laziness, we are not supposed to be dependent on Pastors the way we are. We all are supposed to know God for ourselves.

If people actually read their Bible's and didn't depend on Pastor's prayers and teachings things would be very different.

I have not said that people should not read the Bible but a pastor should know more about the Bible than the average person and to have a deeper understanding of the Bible it is not enough to just read it over and over again. You must know the context of each passage, the etymology of words, the audience a passage was directed at, the background of the writers and more.

So how will they prove he hasn't eaten her food?

pocohantas:
Simps 1: Alfa males 0

Wouldn’t you rather be a SIMP?

If you wanna go far in BBN, you better appeal to vagina people and simps o. Alfa males no get money to vote. Na only to dey type SIMP upandan...

You are something else.

Skepticus:
To be fair, betas actually contribute the greatest to civilization. They are beneficial to you as a woman because they are the willing pawns in your game of manipulations like the betas of the west are doing.

From male perspective, they are actually shit. Now, see where their simping laws have landed them.

Another alpha male spotted.

daddytime:
Hmmm

No need to litter every thread with the same picture. It is getting stale and I am pretty sure Xi Jinping did not even say that because the Chinese are known to be staying out of everyone's business as long as it does not concern them.

I am also interested in what qualifies them to claim expertise on the contents of the Bible.

Openbusiness:
my fingers hurt more than your eyes from typing all that. And if I can "survive" through the pain, so can you. Small pain u dey complain. Later dem go dey shout "strong black woman". Abeg man up jorrr an grow some balls in your eyes. Am not editing any tin.

If you are not editing it, I am not reading it.

I read the first five lines and the last five lines. Everything in the middle becomes blurry. I wasn't born to suffer on NL.

About your view on why the US and Russia compete, there are many different theories about the dynamics in international relations. It's not always about d**k measuring, sometimes it is fear driven but I agree that too much testosterone can be explosive.

ThothHermes:
How do you practice hedonism without harming someone?

Can't you eat chocolate without hurting others? Chocolate represent pleasure obviously.

There is even a distinction between hedonistic egoism and ethical hedonism with the latter saying that what we do should increase the pleasure of others and reduce their suffering.

Openbusiness:
There's a lot of misconceptions out there about alpha males. A lot of confusion that really sometimes you wonder who is promoting these things. Example, there's this misconception that sleeping with loads of women makes you an alpha male or is a quality of an Alpha. It's not true. Sleeping with loads of women doesn't make you an Alpha, is makes you a womanizer. And there's a huge difference between the 2. An Alpha is not an Alpha for the "act" of sleeping with a woman, it is the "way" he does it that sets him apart. He doesn't lick shoes and kiss ass like the other guy before he gets laid etc! So it is about the method or MO he functions with, the characteristics of his behavior to get the result, and not the result itself that identifies an Alpha or Beta. Any man can sleep with thousands of ladies. You see some relationships, and the lady is in control, you don't need a soothsayer to tell you the man in their life is not an Alpha, because a woman being in charge of a relationship or taking the leadership role and being the compass that determines where the relationship is going and how it is going is not an Alpha setup. The programming is just wired different. An Alpha believes a woman is made for him, but a Beta thinks he was made for woman. So Betas will typically function from the perspective of trying to please women, that's all they are about in a relationship. But Alphas will typically function from the perspective of a woman has to please me and he functions in that way. Being an Alpha is not synonymous to being irresponsible. That's another misconception. But sadly, yes, there are a sub-grouping of alphas that are rebellious alphas, they sometimes deviate from what is the typical norm, because most of them in this category had a dysfunctional upbringing because they were not raised right in terms of either their Alpha fathers were absent and they were raised by Beta single mothers alone or raised by a home with a Beta father + alpha / beta mother. So in this regard, you can say something like, some Alphas are womanizers, but not all womanizers are Alphas. Because womanizing is not a typical trait of an Alpha contrary to that false perception in the public domain of recent. Same thing about this red pillers-ism. Not all alpha males are red pillers and not all red pillers are alpha males. An Alpha may or may not be woke about certain realities depending on his extent of exposure or awareness to the current or prevailing dynamics of society. But no matter how, Alphas won't bend the knee for the female kind, it won't happen, red pill or not, then, now and forever. He doesn't need a red pill to know his position. The red pill is not about making you an Alpha, the red pill is about keeping you woke to present day realities to retain a competitive advantage and not function in life outrightly from a position of weakness. So the red pill won't make you Alpha if you're not Alpha, but the red pill will make you woke enough to function like an Alpha if you're not. The red pill as per relationship will help a Beta guy know that kissing ass is not the right way to win affection, playing the simp with a woman will only end up making her treat him like a doormat to walk over anytime she likes and no woman respects a man that she can control like a toy. But an Alpha doesn't need a red pill for this, it is already natural to him. So d**k measuring conflicts you're seeing really isn't an Alpha thing. It's actually woke guys expressing displeasure at being shortchanged in the game too long cuz they didn't know wassup, but now they know wassup and that's their own way of saying and letting the world (women folk) know it ain't gonna be business as usual around here, where they are mentally enslaved to the whims to women through emotional control. The red pillers are the guys that don't think with their 3rd leg anymore and have gotten a grip and control of their emotions, so the flawed relationship system that has been designed to keep men as Betas can't cheat then anymore. So a Beta can be woke, a woke Beta is a red pillers. A woke Alpha is a red piller. The red pill is about being woke, about enlightenment itself, and not a fundamental characterization of a male composition or make up. When I say d**k measuring contest among Alphas, I mean for example like when the USA builds a Titan missile and then the Russians say, Hell Naw, and build the Satan missile and the cycle never ends. That kind of d**k measuring contest is typical Alphas trademark. And these things give rise to dangerous conflicts sometimes, so ultracompetitiveness among Alphas can be a major downside of Alpha mannerism. I don't mean to be rude but the truth is, not true Alpha views a woman as competition, we don't. An Alpha will just straight put you in your place if you pass your boundary. There's nothing to compete with you about.

Do me a favor and make use of paragraphs. I didn't get beyond the first five lines because my eyes started to hurt.

SIRTee15:
Which business partner...
China's eating their lunch, supper n breakfast join..
China has completely decimated the once vibrant manufacturing capability in western country...never to recover.
China is run n controlled by no nonsense alpha men. The weaklings in europe dare not stand up to them.

Watch this video and see how Chinese alpha male tongue-lashed a Canadian citizen while the canadian wimp counterpart looked on and did nothing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qikBsQ1h4S8

As per naija...
Nigeria is divided along tribal, religious and ethnic line. The principle of manosphere do not even apply here. Africans are too ignorant and dumb to organise themselves within any spectrum of whatever principle. That is the problem with Nigeria and not any alpha or beta male.

Oh boy ...
All Europe needs to do is stop buying products made in China and China's economy goes into recession. Last I checked American and European companies choose to manufacture there because of cheap labor so parts of China's economy depend on them for employment.

If being rude as a reaction to questions about human rights is prove to you that China is great, then you are not capable of intellectual discourse.

SegFault:
Friedrich Nietzsche, Jean Paul Sartre, Albert Camus, Sorren Kierkegaard, Fyodor Dotsyovesky (I don't think I got his surname correctly), Simone de Beauvoir, Ayn Rand. Try them I haven't tried all of them though but I've read summaries about their works and it's kind of good.

I know some of them and have a little knowledge on their major works but I really need to dig deeper. Thank you.

SegFault:
I was like this before, the major breakthrough in my life came when I fully embraced atheism and started reading philosophical books, not everyone needs to become an atheist or start reading "Thus Spoke Zarathustra" what we need to do is realise who we are and stop acting for fvcks sakes, when you grow old you'll realise that you've wasted your whole damn life being everyone's idiot.

I agree that religion should not be in anyone's way to critical thinking but it often is. Good to read you stopped being 'everyone's idiot'.
I have wanted to read philosophical books for quite a while now. Any philosophers you would recommend?

Now, it would be possible in Greek to tell a person to subject someone else (although Paul never did so); and it would be possible to describe someone as being subject to another. But one cannot tell another to be subjected, any more than one can tell someone to be learned. However, Paul used hupotasso in the middle voice. This way, he was requesting that wives voluntar­ily, willingly, actively be subject to their husbands. This is the form hupotassomai (hoop-o-TASS-o-my). Since it is asking for something that is voluntary in nature, "be subject to" is an awkward translation at best. Hupotassomai means something like "give allegiance to," "tend to the needs of," "be supportive of," or "be responsive to." Perhaps the best meaning of hupotas­somai is found in a German translation of that word, sich unter­stellen, "to place oneself at the disposition of.113

There is, in addition, another meaning to hupotassomai. It also served as a military term, referring to taking a position in a phalanx of soldiers. In this sense, there is no reference to any idea of rank or status-it was an equal sharing of the task for which the soldiers were ordered. If a soldier failed to join the others, or held back during an advance, a captain might use a form of the verb hupotassomai to order him to return to the line, join his fellows, be supportive of them, fulfill his part of the assignment.

In that sense, Paul could tell all the members of the Church to be subject to (hupotassomai) one another, and he could also tell wives to be subject to their husbands. For hupotassomai is not a ranking of persons as ruler and ruled. It is a concise appeal for the Church to have its members live out their call to be "the body of Christ and individually members of it" (1 Cor. 12:27; compare Rom. 12:15; 1 Cor. 10:16-17; Eph. 2:16, 3:6, 4:4,16; Col. 1:18), to be willing to "bear one another's burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ" (Gal. 6:2). What is true of the Church, Paul added, is to be true of a marriage.

Instead, Paul used this word in addressing wives only in its imperative, middle voice form (compare Col. 3:18). By writing it in the imperative mood, he was instructing wives. He was not describing them (as Aristotle did when he claimed that "the male is by nature fitter to command than the female". Instead of describing them, he was appealing to them. And in writing the word in the middle voice form, he was emphasizing the voluntary nature of being "subject to."

This latter point needs an explanation. In English, verbs can be in the active or passive voice. In the active voice, the subject of the verb is acting. In the passive voice, the subject of the verb is being acted upon. Greek has the same active and passive voices. But it has also a third, middle voice, in which the subject of the verb is acting in a way that affects the subject.

It is difficult for English-speaking persons to grasp the subtle yet important distinction between middle and passive voice in Greek verbs just by reading the definition, and yet we think in ways that the Greek verb forms express. For example, a person may teach-an active verb. And, one may be taught-a passive verb. But a person may also teach himself or herself by careful listening, discovering, reasoning, learning. In that sense, the person is both subject and object of the action. That is what the Greek middle voice expresses, a voluntary action by the subject of the verb upon the subject of the verb.

Now, in Greek there is a word that means 'to obey." It can be translated 'be subject to,' but it carries the idea of dutiful obedience. It is hupakouo (pronounced hoop-ah-KOO-o), a word that a parent might use regarding a child or master might use regarding a slave. And Paul knew this word. In fact, he used it a few sentences later in reference to children (Eph. 6:1). But while Greek philosophers would place wives under the tutelage of their husbands, and while the custodianship of a Jewish girl was passed at the time of her marriage directly from her father to her husband, Paul had no thought of wives being like chil­dren to their husbands, so he did not use this word. It is not the word that is translated "be subject to."

Moreover, in Greek there is another word that means "be subject to" and "obey." It is peitharcheo (peith-ar-KAY-o), one of the words built upon arche, "ruler." This word is found only three times in the New Testament, twice in Acts (5:29 and 27:21) and once in Titus (3:1). There, and in other writings out­side the New Testament, it describes obedience to someone who is in authority. When Peter and the other apostles were arrested for disobeying their Judean rulers who had ordered them not to teach in the name of Jesus, they used peitharcheo in their courageous response: 'We must obey God rather than men." But Paul had no thought of husbands governing their wives.

When referring to wives, Paul used a form of yet a different Greek word, hupotasso (hoop-o-TASS-o). It is not a word one would normally use regarding children or slaves. In its active form, hupotasso might be used of a conqueror concerning the vanquished. It means "to subject to," "to subordinate." But Paul did not use hupotasso in its active form to describe any person. He used it only to tell what God does. He did not tell husbands to hupotasso their wives.

Key Word #2: Be Subject To

In the translation of Eph. 5:21-33 given earlier, the words be subject to appear three times. Church members are to be subject to one another, and wives are to be subject to their husbands just as the Church is subject to Christ. Three kinds of relation­ships are defined by a key word that is usually translated "be subject to."

This phrase in English may bring to mind images from chil­dren's fairy tales of medieval settings, with kings and their sub­jects. "Be subject to" may sound like a command to bow before the ruler, who sits on his throne dressed in ermine and holding a jeweled gold scepter. And one might then assume that Paul was telling wives that they are to obey their husbands as a subject would obey the king.

Now, if the word translated "head" meant "boss," then hus­bands are to rule their wives; and the word translated "be sub­ject to" would naturally mean "to obey." But since kephale does not mean "ruler" or convey any sense of leadership (aside from meaning "the first into battle", then perhaps the word Paul used that is translated "be subject to " does not convey a sense of obedience. In fact, the use of that word in verse 21 ("be subject to one another" clarly demonstrates that it does not mean obedience, for it would be as impossible for a group of people to be obedient to each other as it would be for a group to follow each other.

Can one be certain that arche and kephale were so different from each other in meaning? Could kephale not sometimes mean "boss" or "ruler"? One way to be certain is to note how these two words were used in the Septuagint. The Old Testament, except for a few portions, was written in Hebrew. But by the age of Paul, few persons could read that language. Instead, they depended upon a translation of the Old Testament from Hebrew into Greek, which was called the Septuagint. Paul was familiar with this translation and quoted from it.

Now, in Hebrew, just as in English, one word means both "physical head" and "ruler." The word is rosh. If arche and ke­phale were more or less synonymous and could be used inter­changeably, then when the seventy scholars who wrote the Septuagint came to the Hebrew word rosh, they could have used either Greek word as they wished, or instead just used one of the two all the time. However, they were very careful to note how the word rosh was used, whether it meant "physical head" or "ruler of a group." Whenever rosh meant "physical head," they translated it kephale; or whenever rosh referred to the first soldier leading others into battle with him, they also translated it kephale. But when rosh meant "chief" or "ruler," they translat­ed it arche or some form of that word. Every time, this distinc­tion was carefully preserved.

Paul was certainly familiar with both words. He knew the language, he read and quoted from the Septuagint, and he used both words in his own writing. The difference between the two would have been obvious to him. Modern readers, however, may misunderstand Paul, assuming that the word for head that Paul used also carried the figurative meaning of "boss" or "rul­er." Paul in fact took great care not to say that.

Instead, Paul used the word kephale (pronounced kef-ah-LAY). This word does mean "head," the part of one's body. It was also used to mean "foremost" in terms of position (as a capstone over a door, or a cornerstone in a foundation). It was never used to mean "leader" or "boss" or "chief" or "ruler." Kephale is also a military term. It means "one who leads," but not in the sense of "director." Kephale did not denote "general," or “captain," or someone who orders the troops from a safe dis­tance; quite the opposite, a kephale was one who went before the troops, the leader in the sense of being in the lead, the first one into battle. (Like a Pointman.)

Therefore, two words in Greek can both be translated into the one English word head. One word means "boss," the other means "physical head" (or, sometimes, "the first soldier into battle". Unfortunately, an English-speaking person who reads that the husband is head of his wife will normally conclude that this means the husband is to rule over his wife. This is what Aristotle taught and what most Hellenized people thought. The husband is an arche to his wife, head of the household and ruler over all his family. Paul deliberately chose the other word. But people who depend on the English translation cannot know that.

Ephes. 5:21-32 - Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God. [22] Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. [23] For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the savior of the body. [24] Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing. [25] Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; [26] That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, [27] That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish. [28] So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. [29] For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourishes and cherishes it, even as the Lord the church: [30] For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. [31] For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. [32] This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.

Three words: (1) “Head” –(2) “Be subject to” (3) “Love”

Even in the English translation, one may note that the scope of this passage is limited to husbands and wives (except the first sentence, which is directed to all members of the Church). Moreover, although this scripture is often lifted up in reference to women, more of it is written to husbands than to wives (in the Greek, 47 words are directed at wives while 143 are directed at husbands).

Now, there are three key words in this passage that embody the concepts within the new model Paul presented for Christian couples, words that are easily misunderstood when translated into English.

Key Word #1: Head

"The husband is head of the wife," Paul explained, "as Christ is head of the church." In English, the word head means literally the physical head of one's body and figuratively the leader of a body of people. The two meanings are intertwined.

Not so in Greek, where two different and distinct words are translated "head." One of these is arche (pronounced ar-KAY). It means "head" in terms of leadership and point of origin. It was used to denote "beginning" in the sense of the first or point of inception (and we use this Greek word as a prefix in such words as archaeology, archetype, and archives, all relating to old or first things). just as it was used to denote point of origin, so we use head that way in the word headwaters (of a river). Arche was also used to denote "first" in terms of importance and pow­er (and we use it as a prefix in such words as archangel, arch­bishop, archenemy, archduke, and so on, all relating to the head or a group in terms of leadership). Forms of arche are used throughout the New Testament, including the writings of Paul, to designate the head or leader of a group of people. These forms are translated "magistrate," "chief," " prince," "ruler," "head," and so forth.

Now, in the Bible we find many puns, not as a form of humor so much as a form of wisdom, where a word was used that meant two things, both of which were true and were intended to be understood by the one word. For example, Jesus told a woman in Samaria that he would give her "living" water (John 7:10), and the word translated "living" also means "running." Another time Jesus "breathed" on his disciples and told them to "receive Holy Spirit" (John 20:22); in Greek (and also in He­brew) the word for "spirit" also means "breath."

Therefore, if Paul had believed as Aristotle taught, that hus­bands should command their wives and rule over them, then Paul could have made a pun out of the word arche. He could have written that the husband is the arche (head) of the wife, and in that one sentence he would have meant that the husband is to rule over the wife and at the same time have reminded his readers how man (Adam) was the source of woman (Eve, who was formed of Adam's rib). Both senses of arche (ruler, and point of origin) would have been invoked.'

However, Paul did not choose to use the word arche when he wrote of how the husband is head of his wife. He was well aware of that word, but he deliberately chose a different term.

SegFault:
That is the problem sister, ahn ahn most of them are so dumb and empty, the ones they call simps are trying to find their worth and meaning while they are trying to mould themselves after some narrow minded horseshit. This generation just dey weak person. No productivity, most of us have an inner start but we refuse to let it out, chai man just tire. Sha that one no their busi

It must be exhausting trying to be someone you are not. The energy could be used in more productive ways and being yourself is the only way to find someone who loves you for who you are and not who you pretend to be.

I have had a very interesting encounter with a Bible scholar last week who told me so many things about the Bible I didn't know. We were discussing the passages on homosexuality in particular but it sparked an interest in me which led me to do some more research, some of which I am about to share with you.

I also opened a thread asking what qualifications Nigerian pastors have to be teaching the word of God because I was most grateful for having had the pleasure of interaction with someone who was able to tell me so much more about the Bible than I knew and most Christians normally like to quote (out of context and without any background knowledge) and I realized how hard it is to come by Nigerian pastors whose knowledge extends our own. How much more interesting Church would be if we were taught more about the Bible than we know from self-study.

I am aware I have chosen a controversial passage from the Bible and I am aware that it will spark controversy which is welcomed. My main intention, however, is to demonstrate how much more it takes to interpret the Bible than just read it. I don't want to discourage anyone to read on but I do hope that it will encourage you to look for different meanings, etymology of words, historical context, source/identity of the writer, addressee of a particular passage and the possible intention behind it.

Ready? Let's go ...