hopefulLandlord:
ilynem let's keep our discussion rolling, you're making sense

Thank you sir.

Ranchhoddas:
Stop feigning daftness. If you were a world leader or the UN secretary-general, how would you tackle the problem of Qatari-backed terrorism?

The bolded is not nice. You asked a question, I gave you my honest reply, it is left for you to agree or disagree. Now I can't assume I am the UN secretary or a world leader because...well...I am not! No one knows the details of the Qatari-backed terrorism claim. If I was the UN secretary or a world leader, I might know everything that needs to be known in detail. It is these details that will inform my solution to the problem. And I am willing to bet that these solutions have their roots in the Bible. But I am an armchair spectator like you. And as an armchair spectator, I will take the "IF" stance. So I will say it again. If the Qatari government knew Jesus, they will know it wrong to fund terrorism. And this is basic fact even you can't dispute.

bennyann:


You know I'm pondering over how a child would feel of he finds out his mother who donated her eggs to have him couldn't carry him in her womb for reasons like celebrity lifestyle and other selfish excuses. What will the child feel towards the one who carried him in her womb and towards the one who didn't.

I'm so sure the disadvantages of such mother-child relationship far outweigh the advantages.

I don't know about others but I will like to care for my unborn child in my womb. Let it hear how my heart beats and I also want to hear his. Let him take nutrients processed from my body. I want to feel it move within me and share all other processes that take place aside just the fertilization of the egg and sperm. I do not want to trade that first bond between mother and child from the scratch for anything.

Then who is a mother? The one who donated her eggs?

God have mercy.

How can you be medically fit and you still ask someone to birth your baby for you? If I should linger more on this topic, I might really get angry.

Hmmm.

You don't have to get angry. Its just very typical. God inspires a new invention to help humanity, the devil high jacks it for his kingdom. Virtually all inventions and discoveries now serve the wrong purpose. From discoveries as early as music to the whole surrogate thing we have been talking about today. So you shouldn't be surprised or angry. The devil has come to kill, steal and destroy. The Bible said it and so It will happen. Until the world ends, the devil will continue to kill, steal and destroy.

Ranchhoddas:
Using the Bible, how do we stop the Qatari government from funding terrorism?

If people in the Qatari government knew Jesus, they will know it is wrong to fund terrorism.

KingEbukasBlog:


You are right . Thanks a lot .

You are welcome sir.

hopefulLandlord:


yes I agree with most of your points but Beyonce drives my point further

did you know that Beyonce was accused to have used a surrogate and used Hollywood prosthetics in place of real pregnancy?

check the video on YouTube, you'll see where she actually "gave herself away" when her pregnancy flopped in a very unnatural way, she did eventually posted naked pictures, but who's to say it wasn't well staged just like "makeup free pictures" we see around?

secondly, during the birth of Blue Bey and Jay actually got the hospital virtually closed down temporarily, there are allegations that they used a surrogate and they just want to cover it all up!

thirdly, they've now built a maternity ward in their own very home! this means they can carry out surrogacy and no one would even suspect

truth is that in these days you CAN'T know if these guys actually used surrogates, they have a team of experts that do the cover up if a surrogate would give birth instead of the celebrity

and there's a huge difference between someone who became popular and gained roles due to her fatness and someone who gained roles for her thin shape but lost it! both can't be compared, the world of showbiz is extremely competitive that they need all the advantages they can get

these people aren't "lazy", if they were they wouldn't be shapely even without childbirth as most of these celebs actually carry out vigorous exercises, diet etc already

Like you said, these are allegations. But I know people who have given birth and gotten their figures back. I have two friends who had children out of wedlock and you wouldn't even know unless you ask. One of then specifically told me that the reason she worked to get her figure back is so she can remain appealing to men because she doesn't want to stay unmarried. She doesn't earn millions from having a nice body, she just wants to stay appealing and she's working for it. So why won't someone who earns millions work for theirs too? If you care about your career in showbiz, you will be disciplined enough to work for your figure. But if you can't do that, then maybe you really do not want children. But if you can't go through that stress, then Bennyann has given a super and more reasonable alternative and that is adoption. Now let me paint a picture for you.
A girl with a nice figure and a big career in modeling earning millions of dollars.
She wants children but doesn't want to lose her figure because it will affect her career.
She has three options.
1. Get pregnant and work hard to get your figure back.
2. If you are too lazy and undisciplined to do that, you can adopt. Adoption even shows what a selfless person you are.
3. Surrogate. What does this tell you? A mother who wouldn't risk her career for a child, a mother who isn't disciplined and hard working enough to get back her figure to save her career after the birth of the child and someone who isn't selfless enough to even consider adoption.
If you pick the third option, it simply means you will be a terrible mother and don't deserve that child.

Ranchhoddas:
You cannot use a 2000-year-old text to solve some 21st century problems.

Yes you can.

bennyann:


That's more reason why we should adopt them young and train them. Besides there are well organized structures for adopting children, just as there are for choosing surrogate mothers. So you will have no problems at all if the origin of the homeless babies are your problem. If we all decide not to adopt because we know not their origination story, then who would take care of them?

But my parents have found a baby in the gutter before, it really pained them because the elders decided for the baby to be given to the barren. My dad had to select a couple he knows will be very wonderful to the baby. Up till now, my dad acts like a father to him eventhough the child isn't in his care. And do you know how wonderful he's grown to be? I don't see the need for seeing all these children and you do nothing to help them but go after finding a child of your seed, whom you don't want to care about the owner of the other seed added to yours.

That doesn't make sense to me. I prefer making other people happier and do for them what I would have done for my kids before I start having kids of my own in a joyful way, in a way that wouldn't bring sadness to anybody not even for some seconds in the future.

Any good person will feel fulfilled that way.

Which one shows more love?

As a Christian if you don't want to get married, then don't insert your sperm into a woman's vag.ina. That's my thinking and yes, I feel so good about it.

Adoption is better my friend. The child should be allowed to grow to a stage he can now make decisions of his own. So it will be left for the child if he wants to stay with the biological parents or not. Whatever the decision, the good you've done will fight for you.

The man can easily see a faithful woman that will convince him to marry because of that good deed done to unwanted children. It's highly possible. We have right to our opinions but I'm sure we know which one demonstrates a higher love and a lower level of selfish fulfillment.

Besides, I thought surrogates were meant mostly for gays apart from those having medical issues. That's another story entirely though

Nice.

hopefulLandlord:


good points, but as a skeptic, I won't call it madness cuz I somehow understand the reason behind the deed for most people

there are people in showbiz who are a loss of shape away from losing their means of livelihood, have you ever seen a fat CNN news broadcaster? how many fat Hollywood actresses do you know? how many fat Nollywood actresses do you know? I'm pretty sure you can count them on one hand, at most both hands and I'm almost certain you don't know them by their real name but remember thee characters they played (talking Hollywood)

as for thin shapely actresses, they're numerous, too numerous to mention, then again most of these actresses have been in showbiz all their lives, that's the only way they know how to make money, many of them are not even well educated and even if they were, there's a huge stepdown between earning millions of pounds for a week's work and earning tens of thousands in a year

so what they're left with is trying their best to make their careers last as long as possible, they perform all sorts of exercises, adjust their feeding habits, sleeping habits, waking habits etc to keep their weight under control; but birth of a baby has ruined a great many careers and they'll never know the effect having a baby would have on their body till they have the baby and sometimes its too late! movie contracts start reducing to nonexistent levels, endorsements start getting cancelled or not being renewed, modelling contracts get cancelled etc


enough of this sermon, I just wouldn't call most of them mad

You have valid points. But having a baby isn't the only thing that can make a woman lose her stature. There are so many of them. I agree with you that there aren't many fat people in show biz but there are people like Jonah Hill and Melissa McCathy who used their "fatness" and incredible acting skills to gain popularity. Jonah has slimmed down and bit and even Melissa but I don't think they will get as many roles as they are getting now if they transformed to a regular muscular guy and shapely girl respectively.
I believe (and it is my opinion) that the only reason a lady wouldn't want to have kids by herself for fear of losing her shape is laziness. There are lots of thin, shapely girls on Hollywood with children. Heidi Klum is still one of the most respected models in the world (and probably the richest), and she has four Children!! Beyonce had blue and even got hotter after that and is about to have twins and I bet she will get her figure back after that. Look at Catherine, wife of Prince Williams and it is hard to believe two children have come out of that woman. I know some of them go to the extreme (plastic surgery) to get their figures back, but it can be achieved through proper dieting and exercises. One my sister's friend has had three kids and you will still mistake her for a teenager. She runs a fitness class specially for mothers. So yes, a girl who cares about her career in show biz can get back her figure after pregnancy. Its all about discipline. Surrogacy shouldn't be a choice.

hopefulLandlord:
but Ilynem, what you described as "surrogacy" is totally different from what we know as surrogacy these days

I.e Hagar served as surrogate to "Abraham" alone NOT both, the child is not Sara's

its only these days surrogacy can be done for both in one child

a sperm can be gotten from husband, egg from wife and both (after some processes) gets inserted into the "surrogate" who then gives birth

here's the kicker though, after the birth if the child, the child is medically NOT a child of the surrogate, a DNA test would turn out negative between the child and surrogate mother but would turn positive for the "Wife" and "Husband"

most people that do these do so to maintain their (wife's) shape while still having children

just wanted to clarify that oart

I think the original plan was for the child to be Sarah and Abraham's because Sarah tried to take the child but Hagar but Hagar refused. So she served as a surrogate to both Abraham and Sarah. Scientifically, the child belonged to Abraham and Hagar, but Sarah planned to claim the child. Scientifically, that is incorrect because the child had nothing to do with Sarah, but those folks weren't Nobel price winners in science.
Now as for taking a sperm and egg and placing it in another woman, I don't know why people do it. But if the major reason is to keep the shape of a wife, you and I will agree that that is just plain dumb. As a Christian, I will call it sin. As a skeptic, you will call it madness.
I believe Surrogacy should be done in the arrangement of marriage for a serious medical reason. Anything outside that is sin.

hopefulLandlord:


truckload of sense!

nice one!!!

Gracias.

KingEbukasBlog:
Is it right in the 'eyes of God' for a single Christian man who has never married before to bear children through surrogacy ? You know just to circumvent fornication which is a sin .

Sorry I am late to the discussion. I think searching the Bible, you will discover there was actually surrogacy. Not the scientific kind we have today. Hagar served as a surrogate to Abraham and Sarah. I don't think God was angry with Abraham for doing that even though God had promised him that he will have a son through sarah. As we know, in Gen 17:20, God blessed Ishmael as well. But the problem was, Abraham was married and couldn't bear children. A young man who isn't married shouldn't be doing that. God created marriage for many reasons and one of them was to multiply and have children. When you start doing it outside God's arrangement, it becomes a sin.

onyenze123:


of course there is

Who is this moral law giver?

Ngo40:


It's a unisex name....or maybe you knew but were joking with him.
Imagine my shock when I found out many years ago....
I was like, "Daddy...out of all the daughters in the family, why did I have to be the one to get a boy's name?"
I struggled a little with that for awhile...lol.

Well, I am not Igbo so I really didn't know that. Every Ngozi I have met is female. This is actually the first time I have heard of guy bearing Ngozi. Wow. Good to know its unisex though. We learn everyday.

onyenze123:


The moral code/law is do unto others as you want them to do unto you. What is innate is what I stated above.

for example. No one wants to be killed even animals. Therefore it is wrong to kill your fellow human being. It's an innate morality

As for knowing who is good or bad: I can't say if a person is good or bad until I have interacted and heard what people have to say about them (I am not a magician)

So if there is a moral law, is there a moral law giver?

onyenze123:


You ask me to how do I define a good person and I answered you. So let's not dwell on "the Jesus quote"

Nobody has an innate ability/understanding of how is good/bad. I don't have that understanding. I use the method bolded in my last reply and from interactions.

So are you saying there is no moral law? If you can tell that someone is good, then definitely it is either someone taught you how to differentiate good from bad or you have an innate understanding of what is good and what is evil. So which is it?

CatfishBilly:
Ngo40? We're namesakes

Doc, your name is Ngozi?? Isn't that feminine?

Ngo40:


Hi brother,
Ummm.....with all due respect.
What? Huh?

I know. That guy confuses me too.

onyenze123:


Good people are the ones who are kind hearted and helpful for everyone, anywhere, anytime. They cares about others more then themselves. And not only their close ones define them as a nice human being but others too.

Funny. I would almost think you were quoting Jesus. But let's not dwell on that.
So are you saying you have an innate understanding of who is good and who is not? You can tell who is good and who is not?

adepeter26:



The Muslims are Christians then abi?

I never mentioned Muslims. My point is, when you mention Christian sects, keep Jehovah's witness out.

onyenze123:
I expect most of them (Christians) that are "Deeply in Personal Relationship With Jesus Christ" to at least be do what Christ commanded but the reverse seems to be the case.

It's a matter of choice. You can be in a deep personal relationship with Allah but what matters to me is "are you a good person" ?

#nolabels

How do you define a good person?

hopefulLandlord:


true

Jehovah's Witnesses also "Know" they're the only ones that'll make heaven and both Anglican, Catholic, Calvinists etc won't make heaven, they don't even allow Jehovah's Witnesses to marry outside the sect lol

Jehovah's witnesses aren't Christians. They are a cult.

hopefulLandlord:
from my view and from a neutral view, it is meaningless
okay, but that doesn't explain the huge level of differences between you guys

I understand this BUT I think you might be pulling a strawman here unintentionally

I'm not saying there won't be differences, there can be certain things you know about your mother that your siblings may not and vice versa, perhaps your mother confides in you more than she does your siblings, that's understandable; however the BASIC things stay the same regardless, you guys KNOW what your mother does for a living, you guys KNOW her favourite foods, you guys KNOW what sickness (if any) she's usually down with, you guys KNOW when last she was hospitalised and the reason for that, you guys KNOW her friends and family, you guys KNOW a lot of other things that an outsider like me doesn't know but in the case f Christianity you guys can't even agree on the basics, what if my sister tells you our mother is white, works at KPMG and my younger brother says she's black and works at HSBC? obviously they can't both be right meaning one is wrong, the reason for their being wrong is that perhaps my mother lied to one OR one of them is lying, obviously there's something wrong somewhere if basic things are not gotten right about a "deep personal friend"!!! that's the point here

you haven't said anything about why it CAN'T be homogeneous, you only stated that one shouldn't expect such, that's not convincing at all

mind you, you seem to be conflating two different terms here, you're using the word "Jesus" and "God" interchangeably, which even MANY Christians themselves don't agree with!

I disagree that you and other christians are talking about the same Jesus in different ways; some of the details are just too contradictory.
There are Christians who believe Jesus IS God.
There are Christians who believe Jesus is the "Son" aspect of the trinity.
There are Christians who believe Jesus was a human being touched by god, and God spoke through him.
There are Christians who believe that Jesus was a man born with his "eyes opened", or "enlightened", and simply spoke what he knew, but was not God himself. (The phrase "Son of God" is often used to refer to Rabbis in general.)

and ALL THESE GUYS CLAIM TO HAVE DEEP PERSONAL RELATIONSHIP WITH THE SAME JESUS!!!!

isn't it obvious


can't argue against anecdotal fallacies




I'll just drop this bible verse

I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you…that they may be one as we are one— I in them and you in me—so that they may be brought to complete unity. Then the world will know that you sent me…

John 17:20-23

Sir, the Bible is clear. Jesus is God. Jesus is the son of God. Jesus is a servant of God. Jesus is a prophet of God. I know its hard to comprehend how Jesus can be all these things, but I explain it to you. But the fundamental truth of the Christian faith is the Divinity, death and resurrection of Jesus. Any other belief contrary to that is false. That person doesn't have a deep relationship with Jesus. I don't know who he has a relationship with. Muhammad claimed he was hearing from God. At least people could argue he had a deep relationship with God. Didn't mean he actually did.
Finally, talking about Unity. Unity is not uniformity. 1st we are Christians (which is the most important thing) before we are Catholics or Anglicans or winners or whatever. Every other title is secondary. The single most important title is that we are Christians and children of God.

efficiencie:


The equality spoken of in that verse is spiritual. That verse speaks of the new creature which is not bound by the vagaries and differences of the flesh...that is why that verse goes on to say there are no jews, or greeks, bond or free...because these are physical dimensions not reckoned with in the life of a regenerated spirit...but when we come to the natural sphere these differences abound and were recognized by Paul in 1 Corinthians 7:18.

Well, in your judgment my understanding of the bible is poor but do you understand the bible more or have access to the revelation of the word more than Paul who penned down: 1 Corinthians 14:34-35?

My conclusion is that as a woman (after the flesh) you are subject to a man; your father or your husband, but as a new creature (after the spirit) you are subject to no one but God alone!

Spiritual dimension you say? But the spiritual controls the physical. It is as clear as day in that passage. All beings in Christ are equal. The Jews used to think they were still a special people but Paul made them realise Christ changed that and all are seen as equal in his site. Also that passage is also clearly against slavery and misogyny. Those in Christ are to see everyone as equal whether race, gender or status.
Knew you would throw 1 Corinthians 14 at my face. Again, stop trying to quote a book you don't understand. The church is Corinth was a disorganized one. Paul wanted orderliness in that church hence that passage. That verse was clearly meant for that particular church. Try reading the whole chapter sir. You will get a clearer perspective. That verse in no way suggests that women are inferior to men.

frank317:


Why would Jesus tell u something that's doubtable?

I don't think my God is in doubt of when he created the earth. I am willing to birth He knows the exact number of years.

dalaman:


You'll have to do that with some evidence na.

And what evidence is good enough for you sir?

efficiencie:


It is funny you mentioned GOD! You really should not involve GOD in your clamor for gender equality because clearly this same GOD never agreed or agrees to it. Genesis 3:16 literally came out of the mouth of this same GOD and it clearly says "...and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee". So if you an ally of GOD you should not bring HIM into gender equality...you should probably ally yourself with the largely atheistic stance of evolution and you might have a moral backing for your gender equality position.

Hmmmm. I think you should stop quoting a book you don't understand. I already explained this here. Help yourself.

The Bible doesn't say women should be submissive to men. It says a wife should be submissive to her husband. That doesn't make women inferior to men. When Adam fell, God cursed the woman in Gen 3 that the man shall rule over her. That's why in the old testament, women were seen as inferior. Their place was to be ruled by men. Men could have as many wives as possible because women were like property.
Jesus death restored woman to her original position. That's why Galatians 3 verse 28 talks about men and women being one (equal) in Christ.
So why should a wife be submissive to her husband? As beings, men and women are equal. But in the context of a marriage, the husband is considered the head while the wife should submit to him, that is meant for orderliness in the home. That doesn't make the wife an inferior human being to her husband. For instance, we are to respect our parents even when we feel we are old enough to make our decisions, we still respect and submit to our parents. That doesn't make us inferior human beings to our parents. It only means in the context of the family, our parents are higher than us. The day we decide to act as the head of the family when our parents are still alive, what will that cause? Chaos. Disorderliness.
So Christianity actually supports gender equality my sister. Its unfortunate what happened to you. Tradition and Religion has deceived many men and unfortunately, women to believe that one gender was made above another. We have to be free of this mentality.
And as for Churches? I don't look down or discriminate any church as long as they preach the word of God. Like a pastor used to say, you will only flourish where you can grow. Apple trees don't grow in the south. So you need to find where u will grow and you will flourish. If that is Catholic, fine.

dalaman:


Yes pls.

Lol. So if I did that and I told you, would you believe me?

dalaman:
Can anybody that is in this personal relationship with Jesus who is allegedly the creator of the universe tell us exactly what the age if the earth is? Those of you that claim.to be in a personal relationship with Jesus and communicate with him should help us pls.

I don't get you. Are you saying I should confirm from Jesus the age of the earth?

NigerianScholar:


Men and women are not equal. Biology and statistics prove this. In short, human beings are not equal

You cant say these people are equal. Usain bolt, lim kardashian,dwayne johnson,michelle obama.

Both genders generally have their strength and weaknesses.




And according to the bolded. Imagine if all humans were of the same gender. Are you saying there wont be violence? If there was gender equality therll still be violence among us. Its simply human nature
If its not gender based violence. The violence would be based on sth else like height ,complexion etc.



My point is.... this world is bleeped up and we all have to deal with it. We cannot change it

I know where your confusion is. You confuse a person with a being. As persons we have different but as beings we are equal in the sense that we are all humans. Bolt is probably a bigger person than me (that is still up for debate ) but he is NOT a bigger human being than I am. God made all of us equal. You are right we all have our weaknesses and strengths and these qualities complement each other nicely. You weren't made above any woman sir. This reasoning can only be detrimental to women around you.

hopefulLandlord:


never said so

Ok

hopefulLandlord:
even the Catholic church accepted the big bang and evolution

So the Catholic church is now the standard for Christians?