₦airaland Forum

Mazaje, how bodi now? Na Denmark you dey now? I think say Finland we dey always see for your location before. You be journey man? 

Anyways, thanks for posting that^. It brings to the table the foremost scripture verses antagonists use to argue the bible 'sanctioned' slavery. Lets balance the table shall we? Here's an article that presents a different, contextual take on those same verses (from both sides btw). I already know you disagree but I'm posting for the sake of others that may be interested in what the other side has to say:

  for those interested, I suggest clicking on the link for a better formatted, easier read. Cheers!

http://ryanreeder..com/2009/10/use-of-leviticus-2544-46-in-slavery.html

The Use of Leviticus 25:44-46 in the Slavery Dialogue of the Antebellum Period
by Ryan Reeder

Lev 25: 44 Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids.
45 Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession.
46 And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour.


It is well known that slavery apologists appealed to the scriptures to justify their position on the legitimacy of slavery. If so, they must have used these verses. In what context(s) were these verses employed? And what was the response of those who were anti-slavery? These verses, which were described as "the strongest passage in the Old Testament in favor of the view" (1) were generally taken at face-value by pro-slavery writers and were usually refuted by their detractors through appeals to etymology and context.

Why were scriptures used to justify slavery? What reasoning did slave apologists use to defend their position? One writer expressed the argument with the following syllogism:

1. Whatever God sanctioned among the Hebrews he sanctioned for all men and at all times.

2. God sanctioned slavery among the Hebrews. Therefore,

3. God sanctioned slavery among all men and at all times. (2)


Following this reasoning, all the pro-slavery writers had to do was to prove that slavery existed in the Bible with divine approval. Many writers used these verses to support this position. William Smith stated "The Jewish Constitution. . .provided for. . .the enslavement. . .of the neighboring heathen in perpetuity." (3) Hopkins declared "the perpetual bondage of the heathen race is too plain for controversy." (4) Rabbi Morris J. Raphall showed that "over these heathen slaves the owner's property was absolute; he could put them to hard labor, to the utmost extent of their physical strength; he could inflict on them any degree of chastisement short of injury to life and limb." (5) And Thornton Stringfellow asked:

if the words of this institution could be more explicit? It is from God himself; it authorizes that people, to whom he had become king and law-giver, to purchase men and women as property; to hold them and their posterity in bondage; and to will them to their children as a possession forever; and more, it allows foreign slaveholders to settle and live among them; to breed slaves and sell them. (6)


However, slavery foes disagreed. Lundy, in a response to Hopkins, claims that an institution's existence does not guarantee its morality: The law also regulated polygamy and divorce; but no one will venture to assert, except a Mohammedan and a Mormon, that polygamy and divorce are Divine institutions. As God at first made only one wife for a man and no slaves, so it was His intention that he should have only one wife and no slaves. (7) In addition, Reuben Hatch claimed that these verses did not constitute a commandment or statute to possess slaves; it was merely a "grant of permission" to have servants. (8

Besides these arguments, an eighteenth century writer pointed out that applying Old Testament slavery to modern times would be like applying other scriptures to "juƒtify Great-Britain[sic] in exterminating the inhabitants of any country ƒhe could overcome." (9) Slavery was not "a new moral precept. . .but for the idolatrous inhabitants of Paleƒtine." (10)

Others pointed out the linguistic problems in the interpretation of the text. Weld showed that the word "forever" applies to the statute and not the term of bondage. He asserts that the word "buy" means that if the neighboring peoples were not willing to sell their people, they could not be purchased. He also shows that the word here translated "bondmen" was the word for servant, used "merely to designate them as the performers of such service." He then claims that if the Israelites actually held slaves, then they should have a word for slave. (11) Hatch confirms Weld's assertions, stating that "Any schoolboy that can read Hebrew, can see this, by examining the passage in the original," (12)

However, Smith disputes this claim, saying that "the attempts which are sometimes made to prove that , of the Septuagint, and servus of the Vulgate version, translated indifferently servant or slave, means only a hired servant, need only to be mentioned to be refuted. (13) He also states as an indisputable fact that slavery existed in Israel. To Weld's "no word for slave" argument he shows that servant is a "generic" form of the word-there are also "hired servants" and "bond servants"-this latter being the equivalent of a slave. (14)

Additionally, Josiah Priest in his work, Bible Defense of Slavery makes the point that the "heathen" and "stranger" mentioned in these verses refers exclusively to Negroes. Since the word "Gentile" is not used in the Torah, the Lord could not be referring to white people. Heathen, then "referred solely to the Canaanites and to their race, the blacks or negroes [sic] in general." (15) Finally, to those who would argue that Leviticus 25:44-46 was not an endorsement of slavery, but merely an inclusion of the practice in the record, Priest points out that the Israelites did not even enter Canaan for nearly forty years after this directive was received. What more evidence is needed that the Lord sanctioned slavery in Israel?

Thus is demonstrated the use of "the strongest passage of the Old Testament in favor of" slavery before slavery was officially abolished. (16) Many points were made in the debate. The American South held human beings in servitude-but so did the ancient children of Israel. It may not have been moral, but it did have divine sanction. However, it is fallacious to assume that the command applied to all people equally with the Israelites. While there may be some hair-splitting over the meaning of certain words in these verses of the Law, the fact remains that these verses showed a future condition of Israel. Of course, with the ratification of the thirteenth amendment to the Constitution in 1865 and the later extinguishing of slavery worldwide, the practicality of this dialogue became a moot issue. But it is informative to note how others in past times and places have used scripture to support their arguments

LaNiger, I would very much like that . We're west in Shrewsbury, and I'm sure Mafe's told you he's in Worcester, very close to us. Please do let us know when you're back in town, my husband and I would love to have you over for dinner . Godbless!

---

Shoutout to my sister tsmith here. I got ur email from mafe but sorry I haven't sent you a proper email. I hope you and your whole family are well. Be blessed!

[quote author=pres-elect link=topic=602750.msg7705853#msg7705853 date=1297353219]Yes Dear Jesoul, it is me

I decided to quit politics section for a while, it was full of quarrelling and hate. I find myself fighting with people I don't even know, people who may, in real life, actually be nice people I'll love to be with. I decided to come to religion section where I may benefit spiritually at least, and improve my bible knowledge. Needless to say, I was also dissappointed. People here are just like politics section, perhaps worse.[/quote]My dear 'quarrelling' and 'fighting' is everywhere on NL lol. It just matters how you approach it and what you take away from it. I personally love sparring with you in the FA section . . . you're such an unrepentant Liberal . Don't worry. We'll soon be back. You hear say the constitutionality of Obamacare is going to be the hot topic in the coming months . . . but I digress, this is religion

But I started this reasearch on the bible, sex, slavery, divorce. I'm shocked that slavery was not condemned neither by Moses, nor by Christ. I believe I'm wrong so I needed help. Or is slavery of the bible not the same as the 400 yrs slavery of the USA( for example) which ended in the 19th century.

I'll read your posts and do more research on this issue bc it's worrisome to me. If you have any information about the bible and divorce, sex, domestic violence and democracy pls let me know.

Cheers.

My dear you are not wrong on both counts. As a christian, there is still much in the bible that is 'worrisome' to me as well. On this issue of slavery, I believe the bottom line biblically is this: God permitted it, but it wasn't His ideal. It was part of human culture/tradition, and rather than outright condemn it (which many of us christians wish He did) He chose instead to institute very strict laws and commands on how the Jews (and Christians in the NT) should treat their slaves. One reason for God doing that may be this -

  Another angle to the issue (which you rightly pointed out) that bears considerable weight is that slavery over human history has had different variations. Not all slavery was involuntary or undeserved. For example some were enslaved as punishment for crimes, some because they owed a debt, others willingly sold/submitted themselves into slavery that they may be under the care of a master and then the bad one - those who were forcefully enslaved - like our ancestors.

So in other words, slavery as we understand it in modern times is measurably different from what was in the OT. Keeping this in mind will really help understand (to an extent at least) the context (very important) under which God chose to permit the practice of slavery.

If we look at the laws/commands God gave for the treatment of slaves, we see that the relationship He intended was one of mutual respect and benefit - this is very important. For example in the OT, a slave was part of the family, participating in family events and traditions. The master's power over him/her was limited, a master couldn't just do whatever he pleased with them. And the after a certain amount of years, the slave was to be freed and given/paid enough money/gifts to be able to survive on his own until he had gotten on his feet economically. etc etc 

Personally, and from my limited human understanding, I wish God just said "No" to slavery, but hey, what do I know? He is the one with infinite knowledge, so I can trust He certainly knows what he's doing. Hope all ^that helps. Cheers my dear friend!

^why u dey laugh me now? lol

Is this Prez in the religion section? 

The bible does not exactly 'endorse' slavery, but it certainly did permit it and instituted standards by which slave owners should treat their slaves. Here's a quick summary quote from CARM (Christian Apologetics Research Ministry, a fantastic website (along with apologeticspress.org) by the way if you're looking for quality christian apologetics on practically any subject)

http://carm.org/slavery
Slavery was permitted in the Bible because of sin in the world.  It existed before the Jews were formed as a nation and it existed after Israel was conquered.  God allows many things to happen in the world such as storms, famine, murder, etc.  Slavery, like divorce, is not preferred by God.  Instead, it is allowed.  Where many nations treated their slaves very badly, the Bible gave many rights and privileges to slaves.  So, even though it isn't the best way to deal with people, because God has allowed man freedom, slavery then exists.  God instructed the Israelites to treat them properly.

The Bible acknowledged the slave's status as the property of the master (Ex. 21:23; Lev. 25:46).
The Bible restricted the master's power over the slave. Ex. 21:20).
The slave was a member of the master's household (Lev. 22:11).
The slave was required to rest on the Sabbath (Exodus 20:10; Deut. 5:14).
The slave was required to participate in religious observances (Gen. 17:13; Exodus 12:44; Lev. 22:11).
The Bible prohibited extradition of slaves and granted them asylum (Deut. 23:16-17).
The servitude of a Hebrew debt-slave was limited to six years (Ex. 21:2; Deut. 15:12).
When a slave was freed, he was to receive gifts that enabled him to survive economically (Deut. 15:14).
The reality of slavery cannot be denied.  "Slave labor played a minor economic role in the ancient Near East, for privately-owned slaves functioned more as domestic servants than as an agricultural or industrial labor force."1

and if you want to get much more detailed, here is ApologeticsPress.org with a long but solid article

http://www.apologeticspress.org/article/1587

Defending the Bible’s Position on Slavery
by  Kyle Butt, M.A.

Through the millennia, some of the worst atrocities perpetrated on humans have been linked to the institution of slavery. Historically, slavery has not designated one particular ethnic group as its singular victim. The Hebrews were slaves to the Egyptians during the days of Moses. During the reign of King David, the Moabites were subjected to slavery (2 Samuel 8:2). Alexander the Great forced almost the entire inhabited world to cower and serve him. Truth be told, practically every nationality of people that exists today could point to a time in its past history when it fell victim to slavery. Hitting closer to home, the pages of history dealing with the formative years of the United States are despoiled with gruesome stories of ships carrying slaves sold to the Americas by their fellow Africans (and others, e.g., Arabians). These slaves frequently were packed so densely in lower ship decks that many of them died of disease or malnutrition. Those who lived to see the States soon learned that their fate hinged upon those who purchased them. Some slaves were ushered into homes with kind masters, decent living facilities, good food, and freedom to worship. Other slaves were purchased by cruel, greedy people who overworked them, abused them, underfed them, and allowed them no freedom.

Friction soon arose between those who wanted to maintain slavery, and those who wanted to outlaw the practice as inhumane and unjust. It can be argued convincingly that the American Civil War was fought primarily over this very issue. Politicians raged on both sides of the matter. Interestingly, so did religious people. Abolitionists, as well as pro-slavery advocates, went to the Bible to marshal arguments for their particular view. Abolitionists armed themselves with verses such as: “Therefore whatever you want men to do to you, do also to them: for this is the Law and the Prophets” (Matthew 7:12); or “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you all are one man in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:28). Religious pro-slavery activists fired impressive scriptural guns by quoting passages such as: “Servants, be submissive to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the harsh” (1 Peter 2:18); and “Servants, be obedient to those who are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in sincerity of your heart, as to Christ” (Ephesians 6:5). Can we determine with accuracy what the Bible really says on the topic of slavery? Does the Bible condemn it as a social injustice? Does the Bible condone the practice? And how does the Bible’s position on slavery mesh with the idea of a loving God?

For years, skeptics have railed against the written Word, insisting that its pro-slavery tendencies should alert any reader who has a scrap of common sense to the idea that an all-loving God could not have inspired such atrocious material. Morton Smith and R. Joseph Hoffman, in a book titled What the Bible Really Says, commented:

[T]here is no reasonable doubt that the New Testament, like the Old, not only tolerated chattel slavery (the form prevalent in the Greco-Roman world of Paul’s time) but helped to perpetuate it by making the slaves’ obedience to their masters a religious duty. This biblical morality was one of the great handicaps that the emancipation movement in the United States had to overcome. The opponents of abolition had clear biblical evidence on their side when they argued (1989, pp. 145-146, parenthetical item in orig.).

Following a similar line of thinking, Ruth Green wrote that “it was the Old and New Testaments of the Bible that were the authority for keeping humanity in serfdom for centuries and for legitimizing slavery in America, making a bloody civil war necessary to give slaves human rights under our Constitution” (1979, p. 351).

Has the Bible been responsible for the oppression of slaves in the past? No, it has not. In fact, an in-depth look into the biblical account that reveals God’s attitude toward slavery shows just the opposite.

. . .

click this link for the entire article http://www.apologeticspress.org/article/1587

LaNiger:
I would like to thank all those who contributed in one way or another to Mafe's trip to the U.S. As unbelievable as it may sound, Mafe's story turns out to be very true. My wife and I helped Mafe get a copy of his birth certificate from the hospital he was born in 2006. I also met Mafe two years ago at my sisters wedding in 2009 in Nigeria. Mafe and I are distant relatives and I was completely unaware of his plight and I am very grateful for all your help, words of support and advice.

Mafe and I are very much related and it is amazing how small this world is. I am in touch with Mafe now and he has a good head on his shoulder, I can assure you.

May God bless you all.

Wow. This is awesome. So Mafe has other (real) family here in Mass besides me and my husband? he is our adopted brother and definitely has a great head on his shoulders. God will continue to direct and bless his footsteps. Thank you LaNiger, where in Mass are you? and may God bless you too!

For the sake of clarity, and those who are overly sensitive, the title has been adjusted by me.

^Check out this similar topic:

Is Kissing A Sin? https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-573661.0.html#msg7396567

^thanks for posting that Rastaman. Some people read a title and conclude from there instead of actually reading the details in the article.

chiogo:
This A-40 sef, hater. I don't see your Mavs on the starting teams either. That little win you guys had in Boston is giving you all this new-found confidence.

    don't mind he and Dayokanu jare. That chinchiny win (which is actually more like the Celtics threw away that game) is what is shacking their body now  

[quote author=A-40 link=topic=344420.msg7697385#msg7697385 date=1297257678]Melo for Bynum would not be a bad deal I see Jesoul and Chiogo shaking already[/quote]See this boy. Na you dey shake pass everybody for here. Last I checked, the Lakers are in the western conference and your Mavs have not been able to get past them since the last decade or so

  But seriously, Celtics have the defense to neutralize a Kobe-Melo combo. Lakers cannot and will not give up Bynum because that will leave them butt nekkid in the middle just like Orlando(minus DH of course) and Miami now. Or is it Gasoft that will be their center? Perkins, Shaq, Bigbaby, Jermaine and even Semih Erden will have a block/jam party in there 

^ahh so its true? you want to be the next Fuji sitar? don't worry, we will all vote for you.

v3:
Stopped by to post.
Extremely busy ATM. Lets skip this and allow Viera pick a movie.

Regards

KazeKage1

Lol. v3, how can you send out invitayshuns, assemble the parry, bring out the food and music, and then suddenly announce you're supposed to be at work and the party has to be postponed and everyone should find another party to go to?

Talk true. This "busy" you're doing . . . you're auditioning for this ain't you?  https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-600748.0.html

texazzpete:
They didn't 'release' the app. They were consulted during the making and the app itself has been encouraged. But your assertion that the Church was involved at conception is not backed up by any of the facts at hand.

Perhaps 'conception' was not the best choice of words. However,

From the article:

Taking to heart Pope Benedict XVI's message from last years' World Communications Address, our goal with this project is to offer a digital application that is truly 'new media at the service of the word."

Clearly, this was catholic-oriented and inspired from the get-go so I'm not sure what the beef is. The RCC is not complaining and were even happy to officially attach their name to the app.

So this leaves me wondering what the existential difference is between:

- The RCC "released" the app

and

- The RCC was involved in the making of the app, was inspired by the app, approves and encourages the use of the app, and has officially attached their name to the app.

   If you and Peter want to insist the Catholic church did not "release" the app, in the purest of semantics, and in the absence of the obvious - you're both right. Cheers.

chukwudi44:
My madam I hope you are not implying the church will reap economic benefit fro this venture.The patent is clearly not owned by the church though approved by it.

The developer of the application, Patrick Leinen, is from a South Bend, Indiana-based company called "Little iApps". This is the first application that the company has developed for the Apple devices.

Read more: http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/110336/20110209/confession-application-apple-iphone-ipad-ipod-the-vatican-little-iapps.htm#ixzz1DTbV3ftv

Not at all sir. I was just addressing peter's comment that the RCC did not 'release' the app. Apps cost money to make and maintain so I have no problem if the patent owner wants to charge. 99% of free apps generate profit by using advertisements. I guess they wanted to keep this app add-free hence the charge. $1.99 is not much anyways for the average app-user.

Furthermore, everyone knows the Catholic church does not 'need' money, they are already loaded. lol.

petermania:
@ poster.

the catholic church did not "release" the app. They only endorsed it, i found the topic misleading.

Hmmm . . . perhaps you may want to re-read the article?

An iPhone app aimed at helping Catholics through confession and encouraging lapsed followers back to the faith has been sanctioned by the Catholic Church in the United States.
. . .

The firm said the content of the app was developed with the help of Reverend Thomas Weinandy of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, and Reverend Dan Scheidt, pastor of Queen of Peace Catholic Church in Mishawaka, Indiana.
. . .

Taking to heart Pope Benedict XVI's message from last years' World Communications Address, our goal with this project is to offer a digital application that is truly 'new media at the service of the word."
Little iApps said Bishop Kevin Rhoades, of the Diocese of Fort Wayne in Indiana, officially authorized the app for Catholics to use.

. . . going by the above, the Catholic church was involved in the conception and development of content(very important) of the app. Furthermore, the app is titled "A Roman Catholic App". Some might think this is more than just an 'endorsement'.

---

chukwudi44:
I am not in the US,so far here in Nigeria we are still under manual confession,we never go digital shaa,

Lol. I would get the app just in honor of you Chukwudi

calculusx:
Where can one get this app? I'm intrested

If you have an iPhone, just search in the App Store. It comes right up.

Confession? There's an app for that.

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/02/08/church-approves-confession-app-iphone/?test=latestnews

An iPhone app aimed at helping Catholics through confession and encouraging lapsed followers back to the faith has been sanctioned by the Catholic Church in the United States.
"Confession: A Roman Catholic app" is thought to be the first to be approved by a church authority. It walks Catholics through the sacrament and contains what the company behind the program describes as a "personalized examination of conscience for each user." "Our desire is to invite Catholics to engage in their faith through digital technology," said Patrick Leinen of the three-man company Little iApps, based in South Bend, Indiana.
. . .

The app is not designed to replace going to confession but to help Catholics through the act, which generally involves admitting sins to a priest in a confessional booth. Catholics still must go to a priest for absolution. Little iApps said Bishop Kevin Rhoades, of the Diocese of Fort Wayne in Indiana, officially authorized the app for Catholics to use. "It has been approved by Bishop Kevin Rhoades," said Weinandy. Leinen said the app has already aided one man in returning to the sacrament after 20 years. "We hope many more will take advantage of this new confession resource," he added.

https://images.smh.com.au/2011/02/04/2166674/th_confession-200x0.jpg
https://a1.phobos.apple.com/us/r1000/011/Purple/c0/ed/e2/mzl.fwqxiheo.320x480-75.jpg

I just tried to download the app . . . but I'm unwilling to donate the $1.99 cost. I know our brother Chukwudi already has his 

justkunmi:
@Jesoul. .
lol. before nko? why should i pay for a movie i'm not sure i'll enjoy?. lol

Spoken like a true free-loader. So is it after you've enjoyed the free movie that you'll buy it? Ever heard of reviews? trailers? videos? previews? NL movie club thread?

And oh Vesc, yes, I will give you a call when I'm orchestrating the next coup. Can you work an AK-47? the tatase powered one?

Latest update in Melo-drama.

Rumor has it the Lakers are in talks with Denver to trade Bynum (and others) to Denver for Carmelo. Although the LA times just released an article where the Lakers denied this. If I were Denver, I would not take Bynum alone for Carmelo . . . unless it was Bynum and Odom/Gasol.

Lakers/Denver in Trade Talks . . . 
http://sports.espn.go.com/los-angeles/nba/news/story?id=6101304

Lakers Deny trade talks . . .
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/sports_blog/2011/02/dont-count-on-carmelo-anthony-coming-to-lakers.html

Invitation Invitayshun!

Event: Overnight Prayer Vigil and Immediate Dry Fasting

Purpose: To bind and cast the spirits behind the Cleveland Cavaliers 25-game losing streak

Date & Time: Immediately

Venue: NBA Thread and wherever you are around the world

men, this is serious oh . . . you people should begin immediate fasting and praying oh, before the thing reach 30games. Kai! Dan Gilbert, which god did you offend?

^Lol. Hmm . . . okay oh Jiraiya lol.

You're downloading free movie and you're still complaining . . . this generation of free-loaders self and if you don't like the movie you'll come back here and be asking for a refund abi? lol

Obinna, me self I see you too.

vescucci:
You're lucky she'll have no idea what you're talking about.

Lol . . . and she indeed doesn't. But just knowing the extremely naughty qualities both v3 and JK posesses, I can fill in the gaps. Bad boys. lol.

Oya, you guys should proceed with your review. I haven't watched the Tourist yet . . . but no amount of bashing can change my mind about Lara Croft, Capitani Sparrow and gorgeous Venice. Go ahead and try Obinna lol . . .

[quote author=A-40 link=topic=344420.msg7684803#msg7684803 date=1297100015]I am sure you would be only satisfied if the entire all star teams where from the Celtics! Too bad all of them are Reserves lol.[/quote]haha. As long as extremely popular guys like Wade, Lebron are in the east, almost anybody else will be a reserve. Pierce has never been a starter I think, he can't compete popularity-wise.

Lol Kevin Love na local champion jare! No Timberwolves player should make an all-star team! It does not matter if he scores 100 pts and 100 rebounds

Ah! Me I will take that local champion anytime anyday! men TB40, you dey look well so? dude had 31 rebounds . . . 31!    the NBA's frist 30-30 game in 30years! if that cannot get you into the all-star ahead of over-fed, just playing alright and always looking high Gasoft then 

[quote author=A-40 link=topic=170354.msg7684742#msg7684742 date=1297099473]Ladies would say anything to bring down a young and successful athlete! Some of em do it for a living[/quote]True. And it may happen once to a player and we can brush it aside . . . however when it becomes a pattern, a recurring thing and woman after woman are filing charges . . . there is no smoke without fire my friend.

What does this have to do with Roethlisberger?? Is he the justice system??
How is this his fault? Since they didnt increase his ban should he increase it himself?

You may noticed I shifted to talking about the League in that point. The NFL and Goddell and the media are the ones I'm griping on in that instance. Like Chic2pimp mentioned above, I hate to play the race card, and usually I'll troway face to the other side, but my goodness, its just too glaring to ignore. Can you imagine if someone like TO got accused of rappe? the level of assasination that the media & league will unleash.

Yeye dey smell!

Siddon  when I'll be attending a parade in downtown Boston this time next yr, you go dey siddon look

---

chic2pimp:
No mind dem. Most peeps don't even know that Saint/PosterBoy/Man Can Do no wrong Manning was accused of sexual harrasment a while back. If that was say a Reggie Bush, we won't have heard the end of it. Lol @ Ben Rothliswarreva (don't get me started on that dude's name. I just call him Big Ben end off). I'm with you on this even though I really hate playing the racism card.
No mind Tuberculosis 40 jare . He is letting his love for the steelers cloud his judgement.

Haha  Like 40 said, some women do try to ruin these guys lives with false accusations . . . remember some useless woman like this tried to accuse Randy Moss of sexual harrasment . . . I think he counter-sued and she fizzled off. Can Rothliswarrever do the same? Hell no. Because he is guilty as hell.

Credit where Credit is due, he played extremely well last night unlike some NFL Big Game chokers(*Insert Name Here*). All i'm saying is that the Packers O-line were magnificient. Even you could have played as starting Quarterback and won the MVP Award . Btw while we are still on the subject of MVP Awards, shouldn't they just rename it the "The QuarterBack Trophy"?

Hehe, abi o! but the QB is usually the most important position in the game so naturally most of the credit will go there.

I couldn't see the video. It says "unavailable in your area"    wetin we do them for Boston now? lol.

Anyways,

justwise:
I'm not sure about that, we Nigerians caused the whole thing, i'm worried that decent students might be affected if that proposal goes ahead.

Decent students (and immigrants in general) are constantly suffering from the bad reputation the bad eggs are putting on everyone. That unfortunately is a harsh reality prospects have to deal with. We brought it on ourselves.

rikkyjen:
We did it. hahahahah

We Jinxed A-40! JeSoul is guilty, especially for jinxing 'em STEALERS.

Haha! Congrats comrade  on a jinx well executed.

Ok, tomorrow we go all do the post-mortem of the 2010-2011 season. As usual, different parties go dey bloviate, meskayarn and misyarn about "If not that fumble" "if not for injuries" "if not for the interception" and my favorite of all---"if not for dat silly timeout call".

At the end of the day, nobody's team won and it delights me way more than anything cos if for example if the Steelers had won, A-40 would have sought permission from Al-Gore(the fabled creator of the internet ), to shut down the internet. That we don't want! .

I'm down with that. I have my analysis already lined-up . . .  if not for we Pats got that useless 1Rd bye, na we suppose dey hold that trophy 

In other news, Congrat to my buddy, JeSoul! Your boy won MVP. In the long run, personal accolades and record doesn't mean nada. Ask P.Manning, he has a lot of 'em regular season MVP and a host of personal records. What counts most is that he has a measely 1 SB ring in what is supposed to be Indy's golden generation.

But still, Giesele oops, Brady deserves all the credits for the MVP

I will pass your kind words to King Brady  .

Btw, you forgot to mention, this was the first EVER unianimous vote for MVP  I mean Brady is just breaking records left and right, complete with 3 bling bling and greatest QB season ever.  . While Peyton is still trying to figure out how to grow facial hair 

chic2pimp:
No Mind dem. Substitute the name Ben for Michael, it will become a full blown scandal.

Gbam left right center. Tank you jare. Vick killed a few dogs, and he's treated like Hitler. Pacman visited a few strip clubs and he got 15yrs to life, Plaxico shot himself in the foot, they want to lock him up and throw away the key. Ricky Williams smoked a few joints, dem was crucify him. Even model citizen Ochocinco made the most hated athlete list, for what 

But then flip it, Ben Rothliswarrever is accused of rapee at least 2 times - and he gets only 4 measlely games suspension? he's treated with respect and grace all through the media? He's a role model? While they're demanding Vick should not have been let back into the league? and he should not have gotten the award for comeback player? *insert hiss* I dunno how this is not a glaring case of racism.

What more proof do you want? . How many more ladies do you want to come out and say so so before you finally believe it?

No mind the guy jare  he's just supporting his team.

To be fair, My 90+ year old Grandma woulda won the MVP too if she had the type of protection Aaron had last night.

Haha! The O-line def did themselves good favors with the protection. But Rodgers made awesome throws that were on target and he managed the game very well and wasn't reckless (like some ppl we know) and he deserves the nod for that.

vescucci:
iice and JeSoul. Just the two people I expected to find here.

Hehe . . . why now?   

[quote author=tpiah! link=topic=278291.msg7684302#msg7684302 date=1297095728]down home with the neelys is also good.[/quote]Diners, drive-ins etc is a good one. Seeing the different food spots all around the country . . . but ehn, the food  extremely unhealthy. See Guy Fieri's stomach alone - it shows I watch the Neely's often . . . though I love their on-screen chemistry, their food is also not very healthy. Yesterday they did "snack attack". The menu was potato chips dipped in chocolate syrup, deep fried chicken slobbered in bbq sauce/glaze, whipped mayo cream with all the mixings dip, and chocolate cocktail  . . . dayum. They're black so we know they do soul food, but omo, talk about artery cloggers and bloodpressure uppers and calorie bombs    I still love them tho . . .

. . . *sigh* do you guys pay attention?

V3 is picking now. Vieira is supposed to pick after him.

[quote author=A-40 link=topic=344420.msg7670892#msg7670892 date=1296899793]How e no go correct when all your Celtics dey there?[/quote]So who was 'snubbed' and who should they replace? Carlos boozer instead of KG?  abeg talk true jor. The EC stars are a hunnit percent right.

The Lakers have not played too well this season they are just doing enough to get by which is what champs do but Gasol should still be on that list Jesoul Laker beef aside.

No o, no laker beef at all. I'm not saying Gasoft is not good, I'm just saying he did not deserve the nod ahead of Kevin love - who though plays for a bad team, has put up astronomical numbers I haven't seen in my lifetime.

semid4lyfe:
Damn! So Lakers lost. . .well

Guys, forgive my ignorance but I gats ask. . .how does the NBA work?

As in, is it like football (soccer) leagues where the bottom teams (a pre-determined no) at the end of a season get relegated to a lower tier league and some teams from the lower tier league get promoted to the elite division or do the same teams play in the NBA year in year out?

Nice question. Nope, the NBA (and pretty much all American sports) do not work like the EPL. There is no "division 2" or "Serie B" per say.  For the NBA there is the NBDL (National basketball developmental league) which is actually owned by various nba teams, where players are sometimes (rarely though) called up to join the pro team. Players generally get into the NBA by being drafted out of college. The draft happens once a year.

As for the teams that finish at the bottom of the league - nope, no relegation to a lower league. Its 30 fixed teams. Infact, the worse your record is, the better your chances are at getting a higher draft pick (its a lottery process) during the draft. Some teams do this on purpose and the league is trying to correct it - this is called "tanking".

In other words, if the bottom looks like this:

27- Memphis
28-Toronto
29-Sacramento
30-Cleveland

  Cleveland will have the highest chance to be the #1 to select in the draft - meaning they can get the best player available. This is supposed to help make them better so they won't be at the bottom next yr - this is how cleveland became a great team in the first place. They had the #1 pick and selected Lebron James.

^I hope all that makes sense