₦airaland Forum

JoeEeL:
All na hustle sha.

By the way, when Nigeria movie industry go do film like prison break or 24? This is what I keep saying. Both in songs, movies, books etc., we only get mediocre stuff. In songs, you'll be hearing lyrics like "Come wetin dey worry you, I get money pass your papa o hmmn".

In the movie industry, you'll be hearing titles like "Heart of Fire", "Lagos husbands"... now see this one: "Lekki housewives". Is everything always all about love, family, relationship, cheating etc? I just don tire. Please engage your brains please. There is a site in Idanre where they tend to hear sounds from a caved rock. You can form a movie around that idea. There is abundance of fulani terrorists and bandits all the way from sahel down to lagos. Think of a movie that sheds light on how ammo runs illegally, espionage, hideouts, upper echelon conspiracy, crime fighting, crisis management, world politics, neo-colonialism, terrorism, unjust detentions, illegal mining / bunkery, even secession. Disguise it in such a way that it would pass the screening test but your viewers that have sense would know where you're going.

There is a current GMO agenda in Nigeria already in the works. Nollywood producers cannot think of a movie that would encapsulate the danger, knock-on effects and predictability of this agenda and how far-reaching its effects could be. No o. Instead at the dead of the night, they will be sending email to oldies like Rita Dominic or mercy Johnson that "Hey, we are about to shoot one movie in Lekki. Please can you play the role of a housewife or sugar-mummy? We estimate between 2 - 4 million for a cameo role if the numbers hit so-so- and so figure"

Oga, na you dey listen to mediocre Nigerian music with wacky lyrics. And the abroad people you are calling equally have artists who release songs having uncanny similarities with these Nigerian lyrics you're decrying.

Change your taste in the Nigerian artists you listen and receive peace.

Have you even seen Oloture which highlights one of the things you mentioned, or Funmilayo Ransome-Kuti.

And, not every piece has to capture a social issue. It is okay and normal for something to just be about anything unserious that won't add a value to your being. It is called entertainment.

Jeje247:
They'd send you away.

Okay.
I see. Thank you.

Lovecode89:
Three years into marriage with a son. he resigned from his job immediately after the wedding, stop making effort to get another job. No business pursuit, no skill.
Left all the bills on the struggling wife. The marriage became so dry, no romance, the wife is always sad and over burden. Yet he wants intimacy from the wife. The wife deprived him for months.

How can she handle such marriage?

Separate from him. It is as simple as that. He'll be forced to sort himself out. If possible, leave the kid with him too. That'll only wake him up all the more.

But I'm guessing that while she can consider separating from him, her maternal instincts might prevent her from living her son behind or want him to experience a divided household. The said husband knows this. And it is enabling him.

Notfogotten:
A man, his wife and two children were invited to a party.
The only form of admission into the party is ID cards.
Children are permitted to go in without any form of ID provided they came with their parent(s).

Unfortunately, the man forgot his ID and was not allowed into the party.

Is it right for the wife to go into the party arena with the children while the husband waits at the car park?

If no, what do you think should happen?

Everyone should go home. That is the best course of action to take. All of them showed up with the intention of being at the party. There is no reason why one person has to stay outside and wait for the party to be over so they can go home.

Besides, what sort of party is it that can't admit both couples with one ID Card?

INomorethief:
Good evening.

Good evening to you too.

As someone said in the most recent page, I think 4 comments up, there's no need pursuing legal action cause this is tradition and falls under customary law. Every ethnic group has the requirements that follow certain ceremonies.

I don't blame you for not making any findings as to what their burial rites are. I'm sure you're aware of what's general and not the ones they are requiring of you. And you acted responsibly by following due process, as you know it to be by your own tradition.

It doesn't have to be a war between them. But I'd advice that as you're dialoguing with them, you stand your ground on the repercussions they are putting their daughter into, plus the said daughter herself, your wife.

Go to them and get to know what it is they said you should have done but didn't do. If it is possible for you to provide restitution, please, provide it.

As for your wife that was aware of the customs and traditions of burials rites in her family and didn't brief you about it, I'll leave that to your discretion. I don't know if she always knew the customs but somehow forgot to tell you about it when the death happened, or she was informed for the first time when she travelled home for the burial. I'm hoping it is more of the second than the first. But she should have brought it up to you before the burial rites were completed. At this rate, you might have to even provide a little more for bringing it late.

Explain your situation to them. Everyone knows what the country is saying. Don't talk about them waiving it for you. Talk about a way of making it up to them, something more like if they can reduce the things you'd have to do.

Jeje247:
Don't bother. Even if you try to work it, they'd still send you back home at the camp

Back home where? Oyo State?

Good evening/morning.

I have questions and I need clarification on a few things.

I grew up and schooled in Oyo State but I'd want to serve in my state of origin in the South South region.

Is there by any chance or stroke of luck that this is possible. And if it does work out, the consequences? A friend of mine just told me the million and one consequences they were told at the camp with regards to those who serve in their state of origin.

P.S. I grew up entirely in Oyo State

Bede2u:
To be honest, I try to avoid people like you as a friend. People who believe that wanting them to treat you as good as you have treated them is 'entitlement'. If people treat you badly so that tomorrow they won't feel any entitlement from you, that is when you will understand how counter-productive this mindset is.

As if it's a crime to be good to others. Goodness begets goodness, not something else.

Soft

ibechris:
I am sure now,he will jettison the idea of marrying another woman.

Until he gets another job of the same caliber or something that measures up considerably.

If this is true, it's a classic ogbenutan. Open marriage...party...with your husband's friend and at the said husband's friend suggestion. The Folake and TJ don't have sense. Shey they didn't realize at the point he offered himself for the party that the OP's husband is eyeing Folake for a long time. And now TJ didn't get his consolation prize, party kuku scatter finish. Mtcheeeeeew.

LagBlogger:
Story. Only a judge with low IQ will acquit a murderer with hard evidence to prove it.

As long as his brother was unarmed and not a threat to him, with the evidence found, he can't escape justice even if he hires all the SANs in Nigeria.

'A judge with low IQ' ��.
One of the reasons we have law is so we do not overcompensate or undercompensate for a crime we are charged for/ have committed. And the judges follow this law, even at times when they know a punishment is too small or big, they follow the punishment proscribed in the law. If you have a good lawyer, you'll come out a free man, on probationary terms.

I don't understand the derisive speech and tone I'm seeing here. She's running for Deputy Governorship despite the story that abounds around her hence I freaking like her guts.
We've seen and we know politicians with way more dirty drama than hers under thier portfolio and yet they're leading successful lives in the political franchise and even thier political career, so why stone her?

Besides we know of businessmen and women, lawyers, doctors, successful corporate moguls, actors, comedians, go into politics. So, why can't she?

She did right by leaving the kid with his father. Not everyone can stomach having a living reminder of a love that transcended into hate, which happened not of your own, staring at you in the same space.
She doesn't want to hate her child, she also can't help but not love the said child. Has her anger calmed down now that time has passed? She is the only one that knows. Perhaps meeting her will reveal her current state of mind. Since her husband is aware of this history, then all is well on that side.
While it is clearly unfair to the child, this goes beyond that. There are other variables to be considered.

Albertone:
You might be an ambivert.But introvert?Nah!

Because I'm an introvert I have to keep mute in class? Keep silent even though I have the answer? If that is one of the major criterion for introversion I'd have to do some extra reading. Introversion isn't inhibition, mine doesn't inhibit me. If you do not want to talk in class you won't, be it you're an introvert, extrovert or ambivert. Besides we humans in general have the reasons why we talk or don't talk in class.

Karleb:
Speak for yourself. A lot of comments here are "help me" comments and the senior introverts here just tell them to be themselves mostly.

People change when they don't like the life they live. Extroverts, introverts, ambiverts and whatever vert. But most of you here are so scared of change that you hardly advice others to consider change.

Anyways, you people are keyboard warriors sha. You'd rather attack than introspect.

Everyone is scared of change. Good for you who had the balls to change.

It seems you've not jammed an introvert before IRL and have a conversation hence you labelling them keyboard warriors. And, we do a lot of introspecting. If you read through you'd have noticed that.

Kobojunkie:
It's easy yet you were unable to - not even once - attempt what might at least be construed an intelligent rebuttal to all that was stated from scripture?

Again

Mr Kobo, if a statement of facts are false accusations to you, suit yourself. It's very easy to take the Book, open it and see for yourself. It'd save you a whole lot of face next time, so you don't sound unintelligent, as one lacking good sense, or was spoonfed all what he's saying.

P.S. I didn't want to reply to this till I saw you use the word false accusations. I just had to set the records straight on that.

It was nice having a chat with you, again.

Kobojunkie:
1. Recall, you were the one who leveled false accusations against God in your attempt at using God to justify your stance in this.

2. Submission, the root of your belief in gender inequality, was born of God's curse on marriage in Genesis 3 vs 16

3. Jesus Christ set Himself as only Head/Master, Helper, Teacher, Authority/Leader over all those who belong to the Kingdom of God, declaring them all equals - Matthew 23 vs 8 - 10

4. Jesus Christ refused His followers authority to sit as head over the others, and He never gave any man Authority to seat in the seat that belongs to Him alone over the others.

5. That which is born of a curse cannot be argued for in light of God this since no unholy can enter into the presence of God.

6. You conveniently confuse me of incorrectly using scripture but you never actually pointed out where exactly this I did what you claim..isn't that interesting!

Mr Kobo, if a statement of facts are false accusations to you, suit yourself. It's very easy to take the Book, open it and see for yourself. It'd save you a whole lot of face next time, so you don't sound unintelligent, as one lacking good sense, or was spoonfed all what he's saying.

P.S. I didn't want to reply to this till I saw you use the word false accusations. I just had to set the records straight on that.

It was nice having a chat with you, again.

Kobojunkie:
Bandying the word Contradiction around does not a contradiction prove..

So again, point out the contradicting statements you accuse me of making.

It's seems like you want to have the last word. There, you have it. I have concluded this discussion. Whatever you do with it is up to you. And it's not my job to make you feel whole about what you hold true. So if you want to have the last word, have it. If you have the time, looks for the things I pointed out to you. I can't do that for you either. Whatever you do with your time is up to you, too. It was nice having a talk with you. I hope we see on another thread whether or not we agree on whatever's there.

Kobojunkie:
1. Stop needling and point out the contradictions which you continue to accuse of of!

2. Go back through my comments to you and you will find them featured in most every one of my comments to you.

3. Stop with the nitpicking and get to the point. Where are the contradictions that you accuse me of?

It's of no use. You know the meaning of contradiction. I began this conversation in page 9. You'll see your evasiveness and out of context replys when you should have just been direct. You'll also see your contradictions.

Kobojunkie:

We were having a nice discussion. Not until you used the Scriptures to say things, imply things it didn't say. That clearly reflected a short of knowledge and understanding.

God placed a curse on mankind through Adam and Eve, yes. How does that help us here. Before the curse, God create woman to complement man. Did that make them co-equals? Then how did the curse affect gender equality? Did the curse stop them from complementing each other? Or are you terming complementing equality? How does Christ coming to redeem mankind okay gender equality?

The Head of the Woman is the Man. The Head of the man is Christ. The Head of Christ is God.
Did Christ's redeeming of humans change this? Make everyone equal? All of this goes beyond what you see in front of you. In my Christian belief, everyone is responsible for his own salvation, married or single. The faith of the husband doesn't save the wife, despite him being the head of his household. The faith of an unmarried woman is not even tied to her father. And this fact about what saves you has existed centuries before Christ arrived.

All this doesn't change the fact that the man is the head of his household in a family setting. You can argue this to the ends of the earth and back. You can also argue God making the man the head of his household to the earth and back. You can also argue the fact that God set the standard for marriage, the institution he approved, to the earth and back. The answer to all this is - He did.

If that truth doesn't seem like truth to you, your choice, your freewill.

And for emphasis, next time correct use the Scriptures. Using it to say things it didn't say, imply things it did imply, betrays a short of knowledge and understanding. It shows that you browsed through the pages to fight. There was no open mind to begin with, so how would you have comprehended. It not the job of God to help you understand, when you're not open to it in the first place.

Karleb:
Many of you here are just wasting your lives.

The fact that you came with a default settings does not mean you have to live with it for the rest of your life.

You're talking as if we do not lead successful lifes and lifestyles. It's not our fault you cannot comprehend a quiet mind in the midst of chaos. How about your own default setting, has it sent you to an unsatisfactory life. Why should you assume the same for introverts. Just live your life and let us live ours.

Kobojunkie:
1. Open your eyes and mind so you can clearly comprehend what is being said to you.

---

In the very same context of Genesis 3 vs 16, God also placed a curse on woman(irrespective of marital status) in child pregnancy and childbirth. Yes, the same God who commanded, "Be fruitful and multiply" in Genesis 1 vs 28, in Genesis 3 vs 16a cursed childbearing, so that every child born into this world is born via God's curse.
Can that which is born of God's curse be of God's blessing?

---

God cursed everyone born into this world as a result of the above(and all the other curses in the context of Genesis 3 vs 16 - 22).

2. My emojis as my thing. They are sort of markers to guide my sight through my statements .

3. Point to the contradictions - I challenge you.

1. Read your comments again and check if your statements are not contradicting each other. To avoid that next time, try to be clear. There's a reason why the word 'however' exists. Ands it's even as if 'however' helps to write your contradiction.

2. Your emojis didn't begin this discussion at least for a good length. Besides you being using one particular emoji more - the one on confusion. I wonder what brought the emojis in-between all this.


3. I'm not doing that. You're intelligent enough to know where you contradicted yourself

Kobojunkie:
I answered your questions in detail. Only you don't seem particularly pleased with the answer instead..

If you answered my questions, I wouldn't recall them back even if I'm not pleased with the response. There's a difference between a direct answer and an evasive one. You weren't only evasive but at times out of context. You know what I'm talking about.

Kobojunkie:
1. LOL..... God's curse as written in Genesis 3 vs 16 - 22 is without exception. Every man born into this world is born unholy from birth.

2. Who told you God did not place a curse on single persons?

And where do you get that God encouraged single people to go into marriage?

Did you not read in Matthew 19 vs 11 - 12 that the same God created some Eunuchs from birth, allowed some to be made Eunuchs in this life and permitted others to live as Eunuchs for the sake of His Kingdom?

2. Read your comments above.

Also I do not understand your use of emojis in replying me. Why do you have to hide behind a facade of mockery of you were so sure of what your saying. No need for the emojis to do the talking for you after the words you typed. If you've been so sure of yourself you would not have began adding those to your replies.

In addition, stop contradicting yourself. And learn to follow a thread of reasoning instead of dumping it when it is working for you again, that's not how you have a meaningful discussion.

Kobojunkie:
1. Yes, God did in Genesis 3 vs 16 - 22. And just as that same curse rendered man unholy, so also it rendered marriage unholy.

---

Marriage, according to Genesis 2 vs 24 is simply an agreement between a man and woman to become husband and wife(marriage). The very same husband and wife on whom the curse in Genesis 3 vs 16 is placed on by God..
Implicated are the very same husband and wife(one) that is a marriage.

God didn't place that curse on single women or single men, but on men and women in marriage(husband and wife) .I.e. on marriage itself.

---

2. That boy had to live His life in continous submission and obedience to God's Law in order to attain God's righteousness by God's Law, same as He continues to command that we all do in order that we might also be redeemed from God's curse.

You did not answer my question. Stop going through the back door.

Kobojunkie:
1. I didn't label it a curse, God did that.

Marriage, according to Genesis 2 vs 24 is simply an agreement between a man and woman to become husband and wife(marriage). The very same husband and wife on whom the curse in Genesis 3 vs 16 is placed on by God..
Implicated are the very same husband and wife(one) that is a marriage. :-



God didn't place that curse on single women or single men, but on men and women in marriage(husband and wife) .I.e. on marriage itself.

So God placed a curse on Mary's parents, whose child was the vessel that birthed Christ. Do you see the sense in what you're saying. Do you see the lack of logic in what you're typing.
God did not place a curse on single people but he encouraged the said single people to go into marriage. Keeping on cursing what caused your being.

Kobojunkie:
1. I asked you tell me where in the OT your claims come from, didn't I? This since God never did any of what you claim..

2. What God defined in Genesis 2 vs 24, the same Las repeated in Matthew, Mark and Luke by Jesus Christ, defines what is the unit of marriage as stipulated by God. God didn't indicate any duties or privileges for men or women by His declaration as far as marriage is concerned. And that very same law allowed for a man/woman to enter into more than one marriage as is seen in the Old Testament, same as it does every to this day.

Jesus Christ never changed God's Law as stipulated in Genesis 2 vs 24 .

If only you know what the Holy Book said about the bolded. And if he approved of polygamy and polyandry, why did Genesis and Matthew speak of one man, one woman, one flesh.
Perhaps you choose to be blind to reason, or you do not want to humble yourself to read the Holy Book in all honesty and see the errors in what your uttering.

Go ahead and do what suits you. Marry 10 wives and let the wives you marry have 9 husband's added to you each. If there's anything you benefit from him, it's the freewill he have you, and he has no biz what how you use it.

Kobojunkie:
If these laws and postulates and principles you cling to are based on God's curse aka judgement against sin, then what it means is that these laws and principles you hold to are just as unholy to God as the curse is to God.

Inasmuch as you agree with just one those postulates and sayings and principles that I mentioned, including the ones I did not, of which they are at smallest 4 centuries older than you some up to 2 millennia, I find it ridiculous that you label a curse, an institution God sets millennials ago. What makes you any different from me. And it's of no use saying you do not agree with any of the principles and postulates and sayings. I know you do.

Kobojunkie:
1. I don't know what you are talking about. Where exactly is this found in the Old Testament?

2. Jesus Christ never established monogamy. He never changed God's Law as far as marriage is concerned.

3. Again, Jesus Christ neve instituted monogamy. He did not change any of God's Law to far as marriage is concerned.

Also, Corinthians and Ephesians both quote from God's curse on marriage, a curse which Jesus Christ came to redeem His followers from. And we both know that nothing that it is impossible to submit to God and that which is unholy at the same time.

You need to do some homework, a little reading should suffice so you can speak with solid authority henceforth. And I said re-established not establish.

A man will leave his father and mother and stick to his wife and they will become one flesh, is this monogamy or polygamy? Genesis and Matthew made this same exact statements.

And you said God cursed marriage. That is a joke of the century. Read the Holy Book on what God cursed. And if he cursed marriage as you claim, isn't it so funny that the woman who birthed his son was soon to be married. The woman who birthed his son on earth was born from a marriage, an institution God himself cursed. Are you saying God is fighting against himself.

Kobojunkie:
God's original plan, the same plan He sent Jesus Christ to restore in the lives of those who will accept and obey Him, is that of equality in life and in marriage for all.

I am waiting on your reply to the 4 out of the 5 questions raised. And I am also waiting on your response on the need to decry the laws and postulates and principles we know academically.

Kobojunkie:
God's original plan, the same plan He sent Jesus Christ to restore in the lives of those who will accept and obey Him, is that of equality in life and in marriage for all.

I guess you're pointing fingers at the old testament because it was the first to state the duties and privilege of the man and woman in a marriage.
Perhaps you're confusing something. All humans have the same value, worth and are equal before God. A man is his own head,likewise a woman is her own head as she handles decisions for herself, even when in her father's house. She decides to make a vow to God today, I assure you it would be deemed authentic.

Well, Christ re-established monogamy. Why?
A good number of the people of Israel were given in to polygamous lifestyle and maltreatment of thier women. The Old Testament decried it. The New Testament did the same. Did instituting monogamy make the couple co-heads? No. Corinthians and Ephesians clarifies this question. Perhaps because it wasn't Christ who uttered those words, it might not seat well with you. However, don't forget that Ephesians and Corinthians are a part of the New Testament. Also , keep it in mind that the person who wrote Ephesians had a direct contact with Christ, after Christ had ascended to heaven.