₦airaland Forum

goldfish80:
If that's the case, then my bad. Rohr will be a very brave man to hand Success a start on his debut in this sort of game. Lining up with Success, Iheanacho, Musa and Iwobi all under 20.... Hmmm
I don't think Rohr would be starting more than 2 of these guys.
............ Ikeme........
Shehu...... Leon...... Troost...... Elderson
........ Onazi........ Etisi
.............. Mikel ................Iwobi

....iheanacho..... Ideye.........

Etisi will sit in the middle while Onazi bursts up the pitch to try win the ball back and act as a foil for Mikel.
Iwobi will play as a retainer. A role he has played for arsenal this season.
Rohr's games manship will be tested in the second half when he has to react and make changes.

TheGoodJoe:
I propose we go with a 4-3-3 formation. An attacking line up with three forwards.

----------------------------------Carl Ikeme(GK)----------------------------------------
---------------------Ekong(CB)----------------Balogun(CB)------------------
M. Mohammed(RB)----------------------------------------------------Echiejile(LB)
----------------------------------------Onazi(DMF)----------------------------------------------
-------------------Iwobi(CMF/AMF)-------------Mikel(CMF/AMF)-----------------
---------------V. Moses(SS)-------------------------------------------Success(SS)
-------------------------------------------Iheanacho(CF)----------------------------------

Left back is a challenge for me because I do not trust Echiejile's crosses and tracking back. I put his name there because of his experience and I have not watched much of Madu's defending.

A lot of us hurled criticism at V. Moses because of his stingy play. However, he can become an asset with more license to attack. Instead of sticking to the flanks to cross and pass, a combination of three skillful strikers will bring out the best in Moses. We will see them exchange brilliantly close to goal and cause Zambia problems.

Mikel and Iwobi have the duty of disciplined play and key passes to unlock the opponents defence.

Onazi must stick to his disciplined play as he did against Tanzania. The setup is offensive and a stable defensive midfielder is crucial to prevent counter attacks.

Rohr should reduce the forward play of Echiejile to reduce the work he does to track back. Onazi should fill gaps.

cc: Icon4s, tbaba1234, TheSuperNerd, lakesidepapa, safarigirl, Joseph1013, confun, goldfish80, Mickael2, forgiveness, chrisooblog, lexyman, amagunnerfan, zicky, HZwriters, bigblangston etc.

Mybettingtips:
ALL THE INVITED PLAYERS



Goalkeepers: Carl Ikeme (Wolverhampton Wanderers, England); Emmanuel Daniel (Enugu Rangers); Ikechukwu Ezenwa (FC IfeanyiUbah)



Defenders: Leon Balogun (FSV Mainz 05, Germany); William Paul Ekong (Haugesund FC, Norway); Kenneth Omeruo (Alanyaspor FC, Turkey); Jamiu Alimi (Kano Pillars); Abdullahi Shehu (Anorthosis Famagusta, Cyprus); Musa Muhammed (Istanbul Basaksehir, Turkey); Elderson Echiejile (Standard Liege, Belgium), Kingsley Madu (SV Zulte Waregem, Belgium)



Midfielders: Mikel John Obi (Chelsea FC, England); Ogenyi Onazi (Trabzonspor, Turkey); Wilfred Ndidi (KRC Genk, Belgium); Nosa Igiebor (Maccabi Tel Aviv, Israel); Anderson Esiti (KAA Gent, Belgium)



Forwards: Ahmed Musa (Leicester City, England); Kelechi Iheanacho (Manchester City, England); Moses Simon (KAA Gent, Belgium); Victor Moses (Chelsea FC, England); Isaac Success (Watford FC, England); Brown Ideye (Olympiacos FC, Greece); Alex Iwobi (Arsenal FC, England)

safarigirl:
TheGoodJoe

TheGoodJoe:

This is not just conspiracy theory. When it was time to select the African Footballer Of The Year, it was Mikel who stood along side Yaya Toure. Not Moses or Musa or Emenike or Pitroipa.

Mikel was there because of his AFCON performance. That Pitroipa award was fake.

TheGoodJoe:

How can you ask that? One of the criticism I had was the AFCON did not produced stats result. That is something we as Africans can look into.

If you feel other defenders did better than Omeruo does not change my point.

I said, it is hard to say Moses is the best when I feel other players contributed more defensively.

I listed Onazi, Oboabona and Omeruo.

So hanging on Omeruo to compare with other defenders dodges my point.

My point is, I do not place Victor Moses contributions oger players like Mikel, Omeruo, Oboabona and Onazi.

TheGoodJoe:

The point is, you used the Samsung award as a credible criteria. It is not when it was a wrong choice.

As I said before, it is a thing of choice. At the World Cup, a team of experts selected Messi as the best player. Many people liked it and believed Messi was the best.

I had a different opinion. To me, Messi was not even the best player for Argentina, let alone the World Cup.

I believe Mascherano was the best Argentine player and Toni Kroos was the best player of the competition.

When the official stats came out, Messi was not in top ten. Based on stats, Toni Kroos was the best.

So it is a thing of preference. Just like Zidane won the award for the best player in France '98 and the World best that year.

I disagreed because I believe for France, Thuram was the best. In the World, Ronaldo De Lima.

So it is a thing of choice.

TheGoodJoe:


For them to declare Moses the Samsung best player of the tournament, showed bias.

Mikel was better than him. To start with.

TheGoodJoe:

As I said, it is a thing of preference.

Let us look at the case Greizmann scored all the goals and the team conceded double of what he scored, will the team pass first round, talkless of talking awards?

Although, Greizmann was the top scorer of the competition. Moses was not that player for us.

Greizmann as the top scorer contributed a lot in many games.

TheGoodJoe:

Cristiano Ronaldo for about five years now, he scored over fifty goals a season. That shows consistency and importance in keeping Real Madrid on top. No other player in Real Madrid contributes more than CR7.

So Varane can not contribute more than him. Same goes to others like Carvajal.

The closest is Luka Modric.

TheGoodJoe:

Without Omeruo, Oboabona and Onazi, those goals will not count. Those guys cut out a lot of goal scoring opportunities.

I singled Omeruo because he was a youngster, feeling the boots of one of the longest serving Super Eagles players, Joseph Yobo.

He put up brilliant performances over and over again. You can talk of this goal, or this run of Victor Moses. Omeruo did not have that luxury. He had to perform good in every game he played. With lots of blocks and clearances. One poor performance and we would go out.

TheGoodJoe:


As I said, it is a choice of preference, not worth a debate. Without Omeruo, Oboabona and Onazi, those goals will not count. Those guys cut out a lot of goal scoring opportunities.

I singled Omeruo because he was a youngster, feeling the boots of one of the longest serving Super Eagles players, Joseph Yobo.

He put up brilliant performances over and over again. You can talk of this goal, or this run of Victor Moses. Omeruo did not have that luxury. He had to perform good in every game he played. With lots of blocks and clearances. One poor performance and we would go out.

As I said, this takes nothing away from Victor Moses and it is my choice. Another might feel different.

TheGoodJoe:

What made Mikel so special was his all round performance. Defensively and Offensively. His passes made the team tick.

Others were not clear cut as Mikel. That does not mean Moses was not special and brilliant.

Just that, I do not think we can rate his offensive contributions over the work Onazi, Omeruo and Oboabona put in.

PastorAIO:
No there isn't!! There is another logical way. That is the way of ATR, most specifically Ifa.

Eledumare created everything. Including the Iyami (witches), the Orisha, The Ajoguns (evil forces), and Elenini (the Detractor/Obstacle dude) etc etc etc ... all the forces.

He also created Esu who governs the interaction between all these forces.

Esu does Eledumare's will of procurring food for all his children/creations. Witches feed on the wicked people. Witches need to eat. How will they find wicked people? Esu can tempt people to wickedness and thus expose them to the witches. Esu is a helper of all the Ajoguns and Eleninis.
But he is also a helper for the righteous, and he helps them achieve their destinies etc. The entire theatre proceeds under the umbrella of the cosmic Law of Eledumare.


In ancient Egypt Horus is in a perpetual struggle with Seth and this drives history. The struggle has a pattern. Sometimes Seth is winning and sometimes Horus is winning. Even that cosmic pattern called the struggle between Horus and Seth can come under threat from a greater disorder. That of Apophis.. So Horus and Set have to get together to fight Apophis.

A SHORT HISTORY ON BUDDHISM

"The central figure of Buddhism is not a god but a human being, Siddhartha Gautama. According to Buddhist tradition, Gautama was heir to a small Himalayan kingdom, sometime around 500 BC. The young prince was deeply affected by the suffering evident all around him. He saw that men and women, children and old people, all suffer not just from occasional calamities such as war and plague, but also from anxiety, frustration and discontent, all of which seem to be an inseparable part of the human condition. People pursue wealth and power, acquire knowledge and possessions, beget sons and daughters, and build houses and palaces.

Yet no matter what they achieve, they are never content. Those who live in poverty dream of riches. Those who have a million want two million. Those who have two million want 10 million. Even the rich and famous are rarely satisfied. They too are haunted by ceaseless cares and worries, until sickness, old age and death put a bitter end to them. Everything that one has accumulated vanishes like smoke. Life is a pointless rat race. But how to escape it?

At the age of twenty-nine Gautama slipped away from his palace in the middle of the night, leaving behind his family and possessions. He travelled as a homeless vagabond throughout northern India, searching for a way out of suffering. He visited ashrams and sat at the feet of gurus but nothing liberated him entirely – some dissatisfaction always remained. He did not despair. He resolved to investigate suʃering on his own until he found a method for complete liberation. He spent six years meditating on the essence, causes and cures for human anguish.

In the end he came to the realisation that suʃering is not caused by ill fortune, by social injustice, or by divine whims. Rather, suffering is caused by the behaviour patterns of one’s own mind.

Gautama’s insight was that no matter what the mind experiences, it usually reacts with craving, and craving always involves dissatisfaction. When the mind experiences something distasteful it craves to be rid of the irritation. When the mind experiences something pleasant, it craves that the pleasure will remain and will intensify. Therefore, the mind is always dissatisɹed and restless.

This is very clear when we experience unpleasant things, such as pain. As long as the pain continues, we are dissatisfied and do all we can to avoid it. Yet even when we experience pleasant things we are never content. We either fear that the pleasur might disappear, or we hope that it will intensify. People dream for years about finding love but are rarely satisɹed when they ɹnd it. Some become anxious that their partner will leave; others feel that they have settled cheaply, and could have found someone better. And we all know people who manage to do both.

Great gods can send us rain, social institutions can provide justice and good health care, and lucky coincidences can turn us into millionaires, but none of them can change our basic mental patterns. Hence even the greatest kings are doomed to live in angst, constantly fleeing grief and anguish, forever chasing after greater pleasures.

Gautama found that there was a way to exit this vicious circle. If, when the mind experiences something pleasant or unpleasant, it simply understands things as they are, then there is no suffering. If you experience sadness without craving that the sadness go away, you continue to feel sadness but you do not suffer from it. There can actually be richness in the sadness. If you experience joy without craving that the joy linger and intensify, you continue to feel joy without losing your peace of mind.

But how do you get the mind to accept things as they are, without craving? To accept sadness as sadness, joy as joy, pain as pain? Gautama developed a set of meditation techniques that train the mind to experience reality as it is, without craving. These practices train the mind to focus all its attention on the question, ‘What am I experiencing now?’ rather than on ‘What would I rather be experiencing?’ It is difficult to achieve this state of mind, but not impossible.

Gautama grounded these meditation techniques in a set of ethical rules meant to make it easier for people to focus on actual experience and to avoid falling into cravings and fantasies. He instructed his followers to avoid killing, promiscuous sex and theft, since such acts necessarily stoke the fire of craving (for power, for sensual pleasure, or for wealth).

When the flames are completely extinguished, craving is replaced by a state of perfect contentment and serenity, known as nirvana (the literal meaning of which is ‘extinguishing the fire’). Those who have attained nirvana are fully liberated from all suffering. They experience reality with the utmost clarity, free of fantasies and delusions. While they will most likely still encounter unpleasantness and pain, such experiences cause them no misery. A person who does not crave cannot suffer.

According to Buddhist tradition, Gautama himself attained nirvana and was fully liberated from suʃering. Henceforth he was known as ‘Buddha’, which means ‘The Enlightened One’. Buddha spent the rest of his life explaining his discoveries to others so that everyone could be freed from suffering. He encapsulated his teachings in a single law: suffering arises from craving; the only way to be fully liberated from suʃering is to be fully liberated from craving; and the only way to be liberated from craving is to train the mind to experience reality as it is.

This law, known as dharma or dhamma, is seen by Buddhists as a universal law of nature. That ‘suffering arises from craving’ is always and everywhere true, just as in modern physics E always equals mc2. Buddhists are people who believe in this law and make it the fulcrum of all their activities. Belief in gods, on the other hand, is of minor importance to them. The first principle of monotheist religions is ‘God exists. What does He want from me?’ The first principle of Buddhism is ‘Suffering exists. How do I escape it?’

Buddhism does not deny the existence of gods – they are described as powerful beings who can bring rains and victories – but they have no influence on the law that suffering arises from craving. If the mind of a person is free of all craving, no god can make him miserable. Conversely, once craving arises in a person’s mind, all the gods in the universe cannot save him from suffering.

Yet much like the monotheist religions, premodern natural-law religions such as Buddhism never really rid themselves of the worship of gods. Buddhism told people that they should aim for the ultimate goal of complete liberation from suffering, rather than for stops along the way such as economic prosperity and political power. However, 99 per cent of Buddhists did not attain nirvana, and even if they hoped to do so in some future lifetime, they devoted most of their present lives to the pursuit of mundane achievements. So they continued to worship various gods, such as the Hindu gods in India, the Bon gods in Tibet, and the Shinto gods in Japan.

Moreover, as time went by several Buddhist sects developed pantheons of Buddhas and bodhisattvas. These are human and non-human beings with the capacity to achieve full liberation from suffering but who forego this liberation out of compassion, in order to help the countless beings still trapped in the cycle of misery.

Instead of worshipping gods, many Buddhists began worshipping these enlightened beings, asking them for help not only in attaining nirvana, but also in dealing with mundane problems. Thus we find many Buddhas and bodhisattvas throughout East Asia who spend their time bringing rain, stopping plagues, and even winning bloody wars – in exchange for prayers, colourful flowers, fragrant incense and gifts of rice and candy."

~ Excerpts from Yuval Noah Harari's "Sapiens: A Brief History of Mankind"

"Dualistic religions flourished for more than a thousand years. Sometime between 1500 BC and 1000 BC a prophet named Zoroaster (Zarathustra) was active somewhere in Central Asia. His creed passed from generation to generation until it became the most important of dualistic religions – Zoroastrianism. Zoroastrians saw the world as a cosmic battle between the good god Ahura Mazda and the evil god Angra Mainyu. Humans had to help the good god in this battle.

Zoroastrianism was an important religion during the Achaemenid Persian Empire (550–330 BC) and later became the official religion of the Sassanid Persian Empire (AD 224–651). It exerted a major influence on almost all subsequent Middle Eastern and Central Asian religions, and it inspired a number of other dualist religions, such as Gnosticism and Manichaeanism.

During the third and fourth centuries AD, the Manichaean creed spread from China to North Africa, and for a moment it appeared that it would beat Christianity to achieve dominance in the Roman Empire. Yet the Manichaeans lost the soul of Rome to the Christians, the Zoroastrian Sassanid Empire was overrun by the monotheistic Muslims, and the dualist wave subsided. Today only a handful of dualist communities survive in India and the Middle East.

Nevertheless, the rising tide of monotheism did not really wipe out dualism. Jewish, Christian and Muslim monotheism absorbed numerous dualist beliefs and practices, and some of the most basic ideas of what we call ‘monotheism’ are, in fact, dualist in origin and spirit. Countless Christians, Muslims and Jews believe in a powerful evil force – like the one Christians call the Devil or Satan – who can act independently, fight against the good God, and wreak havoc without God’s permission.

How can a monotheist adhere to such a dualistic belief (which, by the way, is nowhere to be found in the Old Testament)? Logically, it is impossible. Either you believe in a single omnipotent God or you believe in two opposing powers, neither of which is omnipotent. Still, humans have a wonderful capacity to believe in contradictions. So it should not come as a surprise that millions of pious Christians, Muslims and Jews manage to believe at one and the same time in an omnipotent God and an independent Devil. Countless Christians, Muslims and Jews have gone so far as to imagine that the good God even needs our help in its struggle against the Devil, which inspired among other things the call for jihads and crusades.

Another key dualistic concept, particularly in Gnosticism and Manichaeanism, was the sharp distinction between body and soul, between matter and spirit. Gnostics and Manichaeans argued that the good god created the spirit and the soul, whereas matter and bodies are the creation of the evil god. Man, according to this view, serves as a battleground between the good soul and the evil body.

From a monotheistic perspective, this is nonsense – why distinguish so sharply between body and soul, or matter and spirit? And why argue that body and matter are evil? After all, everything was created by the same good God. But monotheists could not help but be captivated by dualist dichotomies, precisely because they helped them address the problem of evil. So such oppositions eventually became cornerstones of Christian and Muslim thought. Belief in heaven (the realm of the good god) and hell (the realm of the evil god) was also dualist in origin. There is no trace of this belief in the Old Testament, which also never claims that the souls of people continue to live after the death of the body.
.
In fact, monotheism, as it has played out in history, is a kaleidoscope of monotheist, dualist, polytheist and animist legacies, jumbling together under a single divine umbrella. The average Christian believes in the monotheist God, but also in the dualist Devil, in polytheist saints, and in animist ghosts. Scholars of religion have a name for this simultaneous avowal of different and even contradictory ideas and the combination of rituals and practices taken from diʃerent sources. It’s called syncretism. Syncretism might, in fact, be the single great world religion."

~ Excerpts from Yuval Noah Harari's "Sapiens: A Brief History of Mankind"

"Polytheism gave birth not merely to monotheist religions, but also to dualistic ones. Dualistic religions espouse the existence of two opposing powers: good and evil. Unlike monotheism, dualism believes that evil is an independent power, neither created by the good God, nor subordinate to it. Dualism explains that the entire universe is a battleground between these two forces, and that everything that happens in the world is part of the struggle.

Dualism is a very attractive world view because it has a short and simple answer to the famous Problem of Evil, one of the fundamental concerns of human thought. ‘Why is there evil in the world? Why is there suffering? Why do bad things happen to good people?’

Monotheists have to practise intellectual gymnastics to explain how an all-knowing, all-powerful and perfectly good God allows so much suffering in the world. One well-known explanation is that this is God’s way of allowing for human free will. Were there no evil, humans could not choose between good and evil, and hence there would be no free will. This, however, is a non-intuitive answer that immediately raises a host of new questions. Freedom of will allows humans to choose evil. Many indeed choose evil and, according to the standard monotheist account, this choice must bring divine punishment in its wake. If God knew in advance that a particular person would use her free will to choose evil, and that as a result she would be punished for this by eternal tortures in hell, why did God create her? Theologians have written countless books to answer such questions. Some found the answers convincing. Some don’t. What’s undeniable is that monotheists have a hard time dealing with the Problem of Evil.

For dualists, it’s easy to explain evil. Bad things happen even to good people because the world is not governed single-handedly by a good God. There is an independent evil power loose in the world. The evil power does bad things.

Dualism has its own drawbacks. While solving the Problem of Evil, it is unnerved by the Problem of Order. If the world was created by a single God, it’s clear why it is such an orderly place, where everything obeys the same laws. But if Good and Evil battle for control of the world, who enforces the laws governing this cosmic war? Two rival states can fight one another because both obey the same laws of physics. A missile launched from Pakistan can hit targets in India because gravity works the same way in both countries. When Good and Evil fight, what common laws do they obey, and who decreed these laws?

So, monotheism explains order, but is mystified by evil. Dualism explains evil, but is puzzled by order. There is one logical way of solving the riddle: to argue that there is a single omnipotent God who created the entire universe – and He’s evil.

But nobody in history has had the stomach for such a belief."

~ Excerpts from Yuval Noah Harari's "Sapiens: A Brief History of Mankind"

zoboizee:
I noticed that most of you guys tend to concentrate on iheanacho but what of the whole team. if he plays 9, hope you know that supply might be short coming because that will leave him either isolated or ending up in the midfield. We need a very mobile attacking midfielders with guile, stamina & precision. who can quickly initiate attack & equally close spaces in midfield. Moses tend to play to gallery by dribbling & no end result. And Mikel is best suited for the role of defensive midfielder. He is better at shielding the centre-back than Onazi and his understudy should be Ndidi. Players like Iwobi or Etebo are more mobile in midfield. And can quickly release the ball. Ahmed Musa is just too unpredictable. To me, we are better off with:
carl, musa, echiejile, omeruo, balogun, mikel, musa, etebo, iheanacho, iwobi & simon

"Two thousand years of monotheistic brainwashing have caused most Westerners to see polytheism as ignorant and childish idolatry. This is an unjust stereotype. In order to understand the inner logic of polytheism, it is necessary to grasp the central idea buttressing the belief in many gods.

Polytheism does not necessarily dispute the existence of a single power or law governing the entire universe. In fact, most polytheist and even animist religions recognised such a supreme power that stands behind all the different gods, demons and holy rocks. In classical Greek polytheism, Zeus, Hera, Apollo and their colleagues were subject to an omnipotent and all-encompassing power – Fate (Moira, Ananke). Nordic gods, too, were in thrall to fate, which doomed them to perish in the cataclysm of Ragnarök (the Twilight of the Gods).

In the polytheistic religion of the Yoruba of West Africa, all gods were born of the supreme god Olodumare, and remained subject to him. In Hindu polytheism, a single principle, Atman, controls the myriad gods and spirits, humankind, and the biological and physical world. Atman is the eternal essence or soul of the entire universe, as well as of every individual and every phenomenon.

The fundamental insight of polytheism, which distinguishes it from monotheism, is that the supreme power governing the world is devoid of interests and biases, and therefore it is unconcerned with the mundane desires, cares and worries of humans. It’s pointless to ask this power for victory in war, for health or for rain, because from its all-encompassing vantage point, it makes no difference whether a particular kingdom wins or loses, whether a particular city prospers or withers, whether a particular person recuperates or dies. The Greeks did not waste any sacrifices on Fate, and Hindus built no temples to Atman.

The only reason to approach the supreme power of the universe would be to renounce all desires and embrace the bad along with the good – to embrace even defeat, poverty, sickness and death. Thus some Hindus, known as Sadhus or Sannyasis, devote their lives to uniting with Atman, thereby achieving enlightenment. They strive to see the world from the viewpoint of this fundamental principle, to realise that from its eternal perspective all mundane desires and fears are meaningless and ephemeral phenomena.

Most Hindus, however, are not Sadhus. They are sunk deep in the morass of mundane concerns, where Atman is not much help. For assistance in such matters, Hindus approach the gods with their partial powers. Precisely because their powers are partial rather than all-encompassing, gods such as Ganesha, Lakshmi and Saraswati have interests and biases. Humans can therefore make deals with these partial powers and rely on their help in order to win wars and recuperate from illness. There are necessarily many of these smaller powers, since once you start dividing up the all-encompassing power of a supreme principle, you’ll inevitably end up with more than one deity. Hence the plurality of gods.

The insight of polytheism is conducive to far-reaching religious tolerance. Since polytheists believe, on the one hand, in one supreme and completely disinterested power, and on the other hand in many partial and biased powers, there is no difficulty for the devotees of one god to accept the existence and efficacy of other gods. Polytheism is inherently open-minded, and rarely persecutes ‘heretics’ and ‘infidels’.

Even when polytheists conquered huge empires, they did not try to convert their subjects. The Egyptians, the Romans and the Aztecs did not send missionaries to foreign lands to spread the worship of Osiris, Jupiter or Huitzilopochtli (the chief Aztec god), and they certainly didn’t dispatch armies for that purpose. Subject peoples throughout the empire were expected to respect the empire’s gods and rituals, since these gods and rituals protected and legitimised the empire.

Yet they were not required to give up their local gods and rituals. In the Aztec Empire, subject peoples were obliged to build temples for Huitzilopochtli, but these temples were built alongside those of local gods, rather than in their stead. In many cases the imperial elite itself adopted the gods and rituals of subject people. The Romans happily added the Asian goddess Cybele and the Egyptian goddess Isis to their pantheon.

The only god that the Romans long refused to tolerate was the monotheistic and evangelising god of the Christians. The Roman Empire did not require the Christians to give up their beliefs and rituals, but it did expect them to pay respect to the empire’s protector gods and to the divinity of the emperor. This was seen as a declaration of political loyalty. When the Christians vehemently refused to do so, and went on to reject all attempts at compromise, the Romans reacted by persecuting what they understood to be a politically subversive faction. And even this was done half-heartedly.

In the 300 years from the crucifixion of Christ to the conversion of Emperor Constantine, polytheistic Roman emperors initiated no more than four general persecutions of Christians. Local administrators and governors incited some anti-Christian violence of their own. Still, if we combine all the victims of all these persecutions, it turns out that in these three centuries, the polytheistic Romans killed no more than a few thousand Christians. In contrast, over the course of the next 1,500 years, Christians slaughtered Christians by the millions to defend slightly different interpretations of the religion of love and compassion.

The religious wars between Catholics and Protestants that swept Europe in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries are particularly notorious. All those involved accepted Christ’s divinity and His gospel of compassion and love. However, they disagreed about the nature of this love.

Protestants believed that the divine love is so great that God was incarnated in flesh and allowed Himself to be tortured and crucified, thereby redeeming the original sin and opening the gates of heaven to all those who professed faith in Him. .
Catholics maintained that faith, while essential, was not enough. To enter heaven, believers had to participate in church rituals and do good deeds. Protestants refused to accept this, arguing that this quid pro quo belittles God’s greatness and love. Whoever thinks that entry to heaven depends upon his or her own good deeds magnifies his own importance, and implies that Christ’s suffering on the cross and God’s love for humankind are not enough.

These theological disputes turned so violent that during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, Catholics and Protestants killed each other by the hundreds of thousands. On 23 August 1572, French Catholics who stressed the importance of good deeds attacked communities of French Protestants who highlighted God’s love for humankind. In this attack, the St Bartholomew’s Day Massacre, between 5,000 and 10,000 Protestants were slaughtered in less than twenty-four hours.

When the pope in Rome heard the news from France, he was so overcome by joy that he organised festive prayers to celebrate the occasion and commissioned Giorgio Vasari to decorate one of the Vatican’s rooms with a fresco of the massacre (the room is currently off-limits to visitors). More Christians were killed by fellow Christians in those twenty-four hours than by the polytheistic Roman Empire throughout its entire existence."

~ Excerpts from Yuval Noah Harari's "Sapiens: A Brief History of Mankind"

goldfish80:
Chikeluba was just too good. To be candid, I have never seen a more ambidextrous player all through my years watching the Nigerian league. He has skill, pace, power and sheer cutting edge like anyone you can mention.
I remember a particular game against Enyimba, whenever chikeluba was on the ball, enyimba fans sitting close to me on the terraces were shouting Obia o! Obia o! Obia o! Obia o! Meaning, he's coming oh! He's coming oh!

That young man destroyed many defences within the short period he played for Rangers.

He made an error jumping to sign for a 2nd division team in Turkey. I believe he would have been picked by Keshi for the Chan or even the confederations cup had he stayed another year in the NPFL.
Whoever his agent was deserved to be flogged.

Orkpekyandega:
Joseph1013 I suggest we create a special thread for our youth teams, a plat form for the discussion and follow up of all our youth players both home and abroad.

CC: Sir Icon4s, TheGoodJoe, TheSuperNerd, Forgiveness, Safarigirl, tbaba1234, zoboizee, Mickael2, Napoleon55, Lordabas, goldfish80, enomakos, Daninya11, zuchyblink, CFCFan, Blackalbino6, bigblangston, lexyman, Terzurum5, Confun, irondome, Pavarotti, OdenigboAroli and all stakeholders, sorry if I missed your name pls.