₦airaland Forum

If I had a penny for everytime I've heard Ben Bernanke . . . him, Tim Geithner and Nancy 'botox' Pelosi

Ikomi:
Nooooo am not dissing anyone.

Why do you think most white women sufer from depression?

Its actually a symptom of a not well edowed white dude.

Conduct your research you would be suprised, what you will come out with.

Lol . . .  no comment  except for this . . . how exactly did you conduct your research?

Woohoo . . . .  so, what did I win? or is this a sign I need to lay off the news a lil bit?

https://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t265/merriamnow/Results.jpg

Ikomi:
Well if you dont have statistics/poll on this you might be very wrong, as well as the Justice of peace.  

<sub>But honestly in my opinion, I dont appreciate it when those white gizzas run after a smooth assed black sister, those small dicked white gizzas cant keep a black sister happy.  

A black sister needs a black brother if only to keep her spirit high</sub>.

Come self, Ikomi why are you dissing white boys eh? abeg leave them alone jor  

RichyBlacK:
Really?

So, how about that White ER doctor who refused to treat that black kid with gunshot wounds because he said he doesn't feel comfortable operating on blacks?

Uhm Richy, he is a justice of peace - not an ER doctor. His refusal to marry them is not a matter of life and death.

I don't agree with his convictions but I will defend his right to have them.

bawomolo:
personal convictions shouldn't be allowed in a government post. this isn't a Las Vegas Chapel!!!
so what? that doesn't give you the right to stop them from getting married. i thought we got past this 40 years ago.

This may be the only valid point in this whole thing but from my understanding, JOPs have a ton of flexibility in what they can/can't do, agree to or not agree to do.

And he didn't try to stop them from getting married, just said that he could not marry them.

JK don't mind us, just partaking of a lil friendly banter, Spiked knows she's my homegirl

lol@opposite. Yes oh only those. I catch the occasional CSI when I'm bored and flipping through. I watch a ton of sports so I'm on ESPN more than 50% of the time.

From what I gather FlashForward is like Heroes?

Nah I'm not. I liked the premise and all but wasn't sure if I was ready to 'commit' to another series lol. Trying to limit the tv time yanno. I follow Law & Order SVU, 24, Simpsons and of course Fringe diligently.

Don't mind them, they are milking us lol they have to play their cards well and keep viewers intrested.

Well, its his perogative and personal convictions - and I don't think this necessarily makes him racist. This is America and he is not under obligation to accept anything that he doesn't want. They've already found someone else to marry them so what's all the hoopla about?

lol seriously. Everything seems to trail back to Him and Bell. Next episode looks like another "filler episode", that is a side story not the main one. We're gonna hafta to wait a bit before this gate opener dude goes buck wild lol.

Could be. I'm really curious as to the circumstances that led to the other Peter's death. Walter is an ocean of juicy secrets! soon we'll find out he had a hand in Astrid's youth too.

spikedcylinder:
At least, Hannah Montana is better than the sob fest one gets from you whenever you watch 7 Lucky Kids.

7 lucky kids . . . hmm now where have I heard that before . . . oh yeah that's right, you recommened it to me!

justkunmi:
You.need .to.seem.'em.all.to.have.the.Godfather.feel. .
ok.ok. . The.first.part.would.do.for.now


I.sent.a.reply. .

Oya.suggest.a.movie. .or.else.we.review.Fight.Club

Good just part 1 for now. If its that good you won't have to force me to watch parts 2 & 3 right?
Replied back
I haven't seen Fight Club yet . . . shouldn't be long before I revisit it.

Pastor AIO, If I may jump into the mix . . . I believe Deepsight is particularly curious about your belief on the person of Jesus Christ. So point blank,

- do you believe Jesus Christ is/was the son of God?
- do you believe He died and rose again for the salvation of the souls of mankind?
- do you believe men can be saved by believing in Him and living like Him?
- do you believe in hell or heaven? (hell and heaven as the bible describes)
- do you believe the bible (some parts or all) is from God?
- do you see the bible (some parts or all) as an authority on supernatural matters?

just some basic questions that are not meant to be confrontational, but should you decline to answer, that'll be fine.

spikedcylinder:
Great! Are we reviewing Fight Club then? I can feel Jesoul seething.

lol . . . girl, I know being the tween that you are, you were just barely able to take your attention away from the Hannah Montana show you were just watching confess, we are very accepting and loving people in here 

justkunmi:
JS
Many.people.didnt.like.Slumdog.Millionnaire.
They.said.it.was.aimed.at.Playing.on.people,s.emotions. . especially.with.those.little.kids. .
I.kinda.agree.sha. .

Something is wrong with anyone who doesn't like Slumdog. Even me with my anti-mushiness I enjoyed it much.

OK.O. A.week. .
hope.you.know.you.are.watching.all.the.Godfather.installments. ?

Wayo man. How does 3 = 1? lol

JS
Any.Bond.movie.would.cause.wahala.here.o.
cos.there.was.a.thread.dedicated.to.Bond.vs.Bourne. . and.there.was.chaos. .lol

I.saw.the.paper . .errrhhh. . .lol

I was present on that thread lol. and uhm yes oh, that paper is what I does for a living, which is why I need NL to provide comic relief.

lol@Walter . . . the part where he told Peter he would try to keep his shorts on all the time so as not to embarras him in front of any young women he might bring home hilarious! Honest Walter makes this show go.

and yeah Peter's nightmare is def real . . . what evil, unspeakable thing did Walter do to his son?

Inspite of my aversion to all things Jamie Foxx, I think I'm going to see 'Law Abiding Citizen' because King Leonidas is in it. Any other takers or leavers?

[quote author=Mad_Max link=topic=262653.msg4746068#msg4746068 date=1255704200]With its themes of repressed masculine rage and self-hatred and its violent expression, revolt against vapid consumerism and junk accumulation as measures of human worth, societal definitions of roles for men and passive conformism,you might not like it any more than you did the first time. I totally agree! Norton was amazing in Primal Fear. He often is. Only movie I didn't like him in was The Italian Job; very poor material for him.[/quote]I'll take your word for it and let you know after I see it again. And what's wrong with the Italian Job? I liked it - only becos I like Charlize Theron

You want to review a Bond flick? I know you wanta tear it to pieces.

You know me so well Max lol . . . I watched Casino Royale again recently, solid movie. Quantum of Solace? very forgettable. You can only ride the Craig rage train for so long.

^^^ You haven't said anything new and are constantly shifting the proverbial goalpost. And at this point, I'm taking LightWalks advice and throwing in the towel.

justkunmi:
The.Movie.Club.Movie.reviews.Summary

Just.thought.we.should.see.how.the.club.has.fared. .

so.far. . we've.reviewed.(or.tried.to.review ).20.movies.

Here's.the.list.of.movies.and.corresponding.review.summaries. See.if.we've.done.a.fair.job.

Slumdog.Millionnaire - 68%
The.Curious.Case.of Benjamin.Burton - 69%
The.Dark.Knight - 93%
Revolutionary.Road - 78%
Angels.and.Demons - 60%
Terminator.Salvation - 53%
State.of.Play. - errhh. For.some.reason.I'm.not.sure.of. . .this.movie.didn't.get.any.review. .
Transformers.2 - 87.3%
Obsessed - 18.3% Who.suggested.this.movie.for.review.sef? lol
The.Knowing - 42%
The.International - 45%
District.9 - 75% How? this.movie.shoulda.been.100%. but.Obj.lovers.didnt.rate.fairly
The.Matrix 1 - 93.6%
Matrix.Reloaded - 61%
Matrix.Revolution - 45%
Bourne.Identity - 95%
Bourne.Supremacy - 80%
Bourne.Ultimatum - 75%
Sango - errrh. . . . coming later.


Watyathink.bout.these.results? Fair? Outrageous?

And.plssssssssssss. . .Suggest.a.movie.for.review.next. .

How did Slumdog get only 68%  and District 9 should be in the 90s (these sensitive Nigerians sef)
Other than that I think we did a good job overall. I reviewed State of Play . . . on the wrong thread lol it's somewhere on the Hollywood thread, I'll try to find.

Lets review a Bond flick next . . . *hehe rubbing her palms together in anticipation*

justkunmi:
Hey JS. .
My. 2.Monkeys'.download.is.complete.o. .
Hope.Godfather's.cooking?

and.where's.the.stuff.in.my.inbox?
are.you.typing.it.ni?

lol the deadline is still a week away. My bad jare, I've sent you holla back

muhsin:
That answers nothing, JeSoul.

Au contraire, it answers everything.

Countries whose moral compasses are either broken or non-existent should not be allowed to go nuclear. Simple.

^^^ mischeivious.
I accept[b] both Moses and Paul's versions as truth[/b] and explained in detail why.

You brushed aside Exodus 8 insinuating the NT version is superior to the OT, essentially saying "Paul had access to the true meaning and not Moses" - that don't sound absurd to you? Isn't this your position?

ttalks:
The pharaoh situation which u explained is based on how u feel it ought to be and not how the bible says it is.
We know what happened during the old testament; what the new testament says about what happened is what we take cos the apostles said it as thus.
If Paul says it was God that hardened Pharaoh's heart, then that is what happened.

I believe the apostles were given access to the true meanings of stuff that happened during the old testament and that their explanations of them are what is supposed to be.

I can't believe you actually typed the above.

It seems in an effort to argue your position as credible you're venturing into the absurd. Scripture does not contradict scripture. Romans says God hardened his heart, Exodus says Pharaoh did it - you're saying we take the Romans version and ignore Exodus because the "Apostles were given access to the true meaning"? Moses who recounted the [b]actual events [/b]did not have access to the "true meaning"? 

So by your rationale, Paul's word is superior and takes precedence over Moses? is it not all God's word? isn't it God who wrote the bible? why would God contradict Himself? Please I kindly ask you soberly reflect and re-think your position.

I will refrain from responding to the rest of your post for now until we iron out the above creases that are at the heart of this entire thread.

I just read this on CNN . . . see the portion in red . . . may God bless this gay dude! 

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/10/15/granderson.limbaugh.civil.rights/index.html

Commentary: Don't blame Limbaugh for our faults
(CNN) -- Things ain't what they used to be.

That sentiment harkens back to a simpler day in which innocence was not met with sarcasm, a man's word was his bond and yadda yadda yadda. What a bunch of crap. I would like to know which time period in this country's history that phrase is referring to -- during the witch hunts? Trail of Tears? Television's "Happy Days" would lead you to believe life in the '50s and '60s was all about high school dances and hot fudge sundaes, but many of us know that was hardly the case.

No, if we take an honest look at this country's 233 years, what we will find are moments of brilliance and triumphs, moral bankruptcy and hypocrisy and a great deal of denial and revision by everyone. It is because of our tendency to rewrite unpleasant aspects of our history that we struggle to make the kind of significant social progress we need to truly realize the American Dream.

In other words, ignoring the ugly of the past can stifle the beauty of today.

Typically when blacks talk of the past and about how "things ain't what they used to be," it often is a reference to the civil rights movement and the time in which my community rallied together for a common cause -- equality. We saw remnants of that synergy this week as Al Sharpton, the NAACP and several black NFLers openly opposed Rush Limbaugh's inclusion on a team trying to purchase the St. Louis Rams.
And it is true, we were more willing to be our brother's keepers 40 years ago. But if we're being honest, not all of our brothers and sisters were worth trying to keep back then. Not every black person was willing to sacrifice self-interest for the better of the whole. Quite a few of us sold out and were more than willing to be puppets or manipulate racial tension to keep crumbs of power or money. We still had black-on-black crime, gambling, theft, prostitution, murder.

We still had some version of Kwame Kilpatrick to contend with and it's important that we talk about that. It's important that we understand that even during the more triumphant times in our history, there were still plenty of blacks who were agitators profiting from the status quo and that the community had to overcome their self-destructive behavior in addition to systematic racism and violence.

I know, I know, we don't like airing our dirty laundry. But by not talking about the uncomfortable parts of the civil rights movement, we have forgotten that the self-inflicted wounds we face today are nothing new and can be overcome. We were not a nobler people during the civil rights movement. We just had more vocal citizens willing to make sacrifices. But we seem to have romanticized the civil rights movement so much that we have convinced ourselves we were a perfect people then. We keep following voices that remind us of that era because we have convinced ourselves we still need a black leader to follow. We keep talking about how "things ain't what they used to be" and we haven't taken a close enough look at our history to understand things ain't never been that way.

For example, we chastise today's black athletes for not being Muhammad Ali or Jim Brown, as if every athlete of color from the 1950s and '60s was on the social justice front line, which we know is not true. Still, that doesn't stop us from romanticizing, and those blinders are one of the main reasons why today we do disempowering things like respond to violence in our community based on the race of the perpetrator, not the crime itself.

Limbaugh tried to become a minority owner of a professional football team and some of us behaved as if he was one of the young men caught on video beating Derrion Albert to death in the streets of Chicago. I'm not a Limbaugh fan but I'm not upset over him being involved in purchasing a team either. I would simply give his squad the same amount of support I give his other projects -- none. There are just more pressing things to focus on.

If the NAACP or NFLPA speaks with NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell on societal or image matters, I would rather they talk about new ways to improve the public education system in cities where NFL teams are located than give an opinion on who buys a team.

Limbaugh may be a racist, but he is not the reason there are more black men in prison than in college. We are.

Our issues did not germinate in a vacuum, but I believe the best way to get out of our socioeconomical malaise is to spend less time looking at what white people like Limbaugh are supposedly doing to us and more time looking at what we're definitely doing to ourselves. More time charting a new course based on personal responsibility, not victimhood and the retelling of stories, because let me tell you, some of those stories have been touched up so many times it's hard to know what's true anyway. After all, somewhere along the path someone deleted the significant role gay people played in organizing the famed Montgomery bus boycott in 1955 and the 1963 march on Washington. Somewhere along the path someone Photoshopped out all of the adultery committed by some of the movement's religious leaders. Somewhere someone shredded the mug shots of those who were arrested for real crimes, not protests.

Making those, and other uncomfortable topics, talking points in the overall discussion does not negate the good that was done. But it does remind us that life isn't black and white. It reminds us that sometimes you have to peel back a few layers to fully understand what you're looking at. It reminds us that to err is human, and not wanting to deal with err,  well that may be the most common human trait of all.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/10/15/granderson.limbaugh.civil.rights/index.html

. . . by far the most sensible piece I've read/heard on this whole limbaugh deal. I have a dream - that more and more black people will begin to think like this fella.

bawomolo:
ha see hating. The Cubs just got sold recently. they are filing bankruptcy so the new owner wont be responsible for the Gbese that brought no results !!!!!.

. . . so una go take Boston money? I can't even believe they're having tough times . . . storied franchises rarely struggle. No matter how bad the Redsox play Fenway will still be sold out and the drones will still be dressed in sox gear all around the city.

most of these players would play for the highest bidder regardless of their political views. The fact the NFL had to be forced to interview minority coaches says something about the owners.

Infact eh I don't have enough "gbams" to give you for this one.

bawomolo:
i see no reason why he can't be a MINORITY OWNER in an NFL team.

people just overreacted. There are lots of closet racists in sports that nobody talks much about.

Gbam. and money is neither Liberal nor Conservative. But I understand anyways, Rush is too much of a divisive figure.

Anyways I hear your Cubs are in dire financial straits the chapter 11 kind, will they take Boston money?

ttalks:
There's not much to say as regards the seemingly contradictory verses.
Exodus's presentation was a narrative of actual events taking place while Romans presentation was a "behind-the-scenes" look at it.
Romans was actually telling us why what happened did happen

Oh dear. ttalks, this is weak and you know it.
Even if we were to go by your standard here, which version would be more 'accurate'?: the "actual narrative"? or one that's been handed down through several centuries?

Scripture does not contradict scripture. Romans says "God hardened Pharaoh's heart" while Exodus says "Pharaoh hardened his own heart" which is correct?

  Let me offer my own view.
In situations where it appears scriptures are standing on opposing sides, the logical method of approach would be to find a scenario where both would be right. Pharaoh hardened his own heart - and God allowed him by not restraining him. This is why Pharaoh's hardening is attributed to God, because God is sovereign and whatever He allows He uses to work towards His ultimate plan of man's salvation. Infact it a style of biblical writers in many portions to attribute practically everything to God, because He allowed it. This in itself doesn't mean God did it.

---

- Let me give an illustration:
I have a wayward friend who's always falling into sin so one day I get him and I keep him tied and locked in the basement so he won't sin. Now if I take off the ropes and let him out and he goes on to commit sins - is it my fault? No. Each man is responsible for his own actions. Could I have prevented it by keeping him locked up? yes, but what is the long term feasibility of such an action?

So while he is responsible for his own actions, in a way I am responsible too because I allowed it to happen - but am I to blame for his actions? did I cause his actions? did I determine his actions? not at all.

---

My position on Adam and eve is that God created two humans that were capable of sinning(not perfect humans) and placed the temptation and tempter with them for it to happen.

You were doing okay until the highlighted part

The verses i've been putting up all this while which have been showing that God does affect or influence our wills make me take such a position.

I have no problem with the idea God can sometimes influence or affect our wills - you have been saying He "determines" "controls" and "causes" it - this I have major beef with.

Also, it doesn't seem to make sense if we say God knew how we would act and work his will around it and then later say or admit that he influences our wills.

As christians the Holy Spirit walks with us, teaching us what to do, say, think etc He affects our choices and our lives - this is the influence I'm refering to.

Suggesting that God only works his will around how we would act implies that his will is subject to ours instead of the other way around.

Not for a millisecond. It suggests God is sovereign, and that in His sovereignty has given man the power to make his own choices, and God having the foreknowledge of what sinful men will do had already laid out His plan in the midst of it all.

I know we have wills, but my position is that they are not free(that is; are not free/independent of God's will or purpose).
Our wills(both ours and that of those that aren't saved yet) are brought about by what God has put into motion or in place; they are not independent/free of these things.

I don't necessarily disagree with that. You will recall the major point I've been rehashing is your position that God "determines or controls or causes" our will.

ttalks, you still side stepped the main issue here. Thus far I have avoided posting counter-attack scripture verses that teach the opposite of what you assert because that would be chopping at the leaves instead of the roots.

Please see this previous post of mine, consider and take it to heart

JeSoul:
ttalks,
don't you think its unbalanced to pluck a verse here and there that say "God controls everything" but yet ignore the other verses that say we choose, we decide to believe or not etc and walk the path of our own lives?

What we need to do is bring both sides together and come up with the help of the holy spirit an answer that includes both sides - because the scripture does not contradict scripture.

ttalks, I gotta sign off for tonight but I promise I will be back to tackle your last post.

ttalks:
While some of us are trying to give possible explanations to those verses I gave, i think we should do some checking up on Arminianism and Calvinism.
That is where most of our Christian theology falls between.
Normally, our proper Christian faith faults those two in different ways.

Already aware of these positions and I fall firmly with the Arminians . I'm guessing you're a "predestination" guy right?

ttalks:
A little thing to look at:
If there was no evil in this world, we would not know what good is.
So, if there was no wrong, there would be no right.

If there was no wrong doing, there would be no doing right.

So, if God did not will for evil to exist in this life, he would not have it in his will that we do Good and shun evil.

God wants us to be able to face evil and evil times so as to be able to learn how to resist such,stand fast and be faithful; and ultimately, to realize that without him we can do nothing; that is, for us to be humbled and to know that he is the all in all.

So, evil or wrong that we see and face is still part of God's will.

That makes it easy to say that God is still behind all the evil that manifests itself one way or the other.
if(evil) by any man;saved or unsaved,all through the will of God for the benefit of man at the end.

I agree with the meat of this quote, but the conclusion is flawed.
That God permits and allows and even wants us to face evil and hard times does not equal God is responsible for evil.