₦airaland Forum

BananaBender: @op: I agree with you.

Any man that cannot cook is also very irresponsible and not fit to be a man.

It is part of the responsibility of a man to learn how to cook as he is growing up either from his mother or his father. So when a man fails to acquire the cooking skills as he is growing up, he has failed in his responsibility and therefore not responsible because he might end up producing children that are also irresponsible.

I get angry when with the statement " Women should teach their husbands that don't know how to cook". That is ridiculous! If a man don't know how to prepare a particular food the woman likes very much, that's a different case but to say he don't know how to cook... he is worth nothing, because he has wasted over 10 to 15 years to learn part of his responsibility...

A man that can't cook clearly shows, he never assisted his father in the kitchen or his father don't know how to cook. That man shouldn't be taken seriously because he will bring up children that are irresponsible as well.

Here, people, is a woman who holds the notion that it is highly inappropriate or demeaning to a woman to know how to cook since men don't know how to cook.

Odilafta: I be woman o
I understand you but shey ashawo wey sabi cook dey responsible?

Irresponsibility comes in many ways,ashawo as you put it is one them,so also is a woman who does not know how to prepare meals.

Going theological,when God created Adam, He wasn't bringing food to him from the tantailizers in heaven, Adam was well fed howbeit by self, infact he was so well fed that God had take some flesh off him and make him an EVE.

All I am trying to say's that Man founded the kitchen, established and only relinquished to EVE when she came onto the scene and bestowed the Kitchen upon her as her Ministration upon which his stomach shall be satisfied!

Hmmm, imaginED a woman who doesn't know how to cut onions, who doesn't know how to select beans, per boil rice to wash,does not know how and when to use the different condiments and ingredients of the ingredients,hmm, I mean if she does not know how to wash single UgU, HOW WILL SHE KNOW HOW TO WASH HER V.IGINA FOR ME TO LICK? Chisoooos! is that not high stench of irresponsibility?

Real man don't beat a woman ma azz...aside my mother or sisters,hmmm, provoke me and you will behold the 8 stars of the heavens as they transcend the galaxy....get physical with me...the velocity of serena williams backhand stroke should reset you to default self while your brain is reeling in its cranium like a cocroach that has been broomed stick...a follow up of 7.1 richer scale magnitude of a maria sharapova fore hand smash...which will send urine licking down from your in between..if you still on your feet, a jet li kick to the chest or better still a two footed john terry tackle should put you to a sound peaceful sleep with eyes wide open and your tongue sticking out like a roasted goat!

Our elders talk say...a woman who chooses to wrestle with a man cannot at same time protect her private parts

Morality comes from a variety of sources, but a supernatural god is not one of those sources. If a modern human were to stone to death an

adolescent for not honoring his/her father and mother, we would certainly think him/her immoral. Yet, these are the prescribed punishments for

such acts, according to Abrahamic texts. Since modern humans do not follow their religious texts to the letter, they must have some method for

determining which prescriptions to follow and which to discard. The reasoning behind this filter is the same reasoning from which morals come.

Aside from this intuitive denial of a divine moral source, we are encouraged to question whether something is good because God tells us it is OR is

it good regardless of God's commands. If you answer with the latter, then religion is irrelevant to morality and if you answer with the former, then

morality is arbitrary (i.e., if God commanded that everyone be serial killers, this killing would be moral) and that seems wrong.

For someone like me who assumes all the law giving gods are man made and so are the religious laws - we have always managed to develop

morality ourselves anyway. Perhaps human morality is a mix of instinct, cultural and experiential programming and reason. I include religion in the

programming part.

But there is still the question would an end to traditional religions remove a pillar in society that improves the human condition.

For the more religious, I guess you had better hope you have the right god and right interpretation and right set of divine laws.

Also if a god gave us a conscience, this seems to work more or less with or without belief in any particular deity or dogma. You may be a good person but might not get to heaven.

So would the decline of traditional religion shift us towards survival of the fittest? No.

1) Atheists can be as good or evil as believers

2) Some religious laws are immoral from the perspective of equality, freedom, and improving the human condition. We would be better without these.

3) Religion had thousands of years to address slavery, race and sex equality, sanctity of life and has not done well. The enlightenment drove these forward.

4) During the reign of religion we have had more wars, murder compared to now - as the grip of religion has decreased.

5) Where we see religious fundamentalism we often see more violence. The most devout are often the most dangerous.

6) We owe much of our more civil societies to enlightenment values of equality, freedom

We have a sound basis for morality without god. We don't need god to value life

Morality comes from a variety of sources, but a supernatural god is not one of those sources. If a modern human were to stone to death an

adolescent for not honoring his/her father and mother, we would certainly think him/her immoral. Yet, these are the prescribed punishments for

such acts, according to Abrahamic texts. Since modern humans do not follow their religious texts to the letter, they must have some method for

determining which prescriptions to follow and which to discard. The reasoning behind this filter is the same reasoning from which morals come.

Aside from this intuitive denial of a divine moral source, we are encouraged to question whether something is good because God tells us it is OR is

it good regardless of God's commands. If you answer with the latter, then religion is irrelevant to morality and if you answer with the former, then

morality is arbitrary (i.e., if God commanded that everyone be serial killers, this killing would be moral) and that seems wrong.

Every sane person on the planet knows right from wrong without needing a religion to tell them. It's a natural instinct of all animals and probably the

only remaining animal instinct in humans that is beneficial. In many cases religion only alters and blurs what is right and wrong. Killing is wrong,

but killing in the name of god seems to be okay. History and present day prove that to be true. Many religions enforce these altered ideas of right

and wrong with blind faith and self-righteous attitudes, which in turn, creates more problems pertaining to ethics and morals. I firmly believe the

most ethical and moral human beings are the ones who know right from wrong and also have no affiliation to any religion.

.

Truth is sex blocks out love, love grows with time and togetherness while sex is a physical activity, if sex makes love grow then the commercial sex workers shouldn't have any problem falling in love and getting married, a feeling of intimacy is created by a "chemical cocktail" that is produced in the brain during sex and stays with each person for up to 24 hours after intercourse but vanishes quickly away ,statistics have also shown that only 5% of couples who had sex before their marriage ended up getting married while 96% of them later divorced, but 99% of couples who didn't engage in premarital sex stayed married after ten years. Genital sex is an expression of intimacy, not the means to intimacy. True intimacy springs from verbal and emotional communion. True intimacy is built on a commitment to honesty, love and freedom. True intimacy is not primarily a sexual encounter. Intimacy, in fact, has almost nothing to do with our sex organs. A prostitute may expose her body, but her relationships are hardly intimate, premarital sex short circuits the emotional bonding process[i][/i]

Can it fly for 350K?

This shouldn't be happening now

i just bleeping hate it whenever i hear of a member's death.

DEATH I HATE YOU!!

MAY HER SOUL REST IN PERFECT PEACE, AMEN!

Can't remember when last i personally listened to a christian song ...a gradual de-religion process

Serendipity: Please, what if he had died?

I guess the group would have asked that he is buried as a national hero!

The founder of a religion must be able to turn water into wine -- cure with a word the blind and lame, and raise with a simple touch the dead to life. It was necessary for him to demonstrate to the satisfaction of his barbarian disciple, that he was superior to nature. In times of ignorance this was easy to do. The credulity of the savage was almost boundless. To him the marvelous was the beautiful, the mysterious was the sublime. Consequently, every religion has for its foundation a miracle -- that is to say, a violation of nature -- that is to say, a falsehood.

No one, in the world's whole history, ever attempted to substantiate a truth by a miracle. Truth scorns the assistance of a miracle. Nothing but falsehood ever attested itself by signs and wonders. No miracle ever was performed, and no sane man ever thought he had performed one, and until one is performed, there can be no evidence of the existence of any power superior to, and independent of, nature.”

The doctrine that future happiness depends upon belief is monstrous. It is the infamy of infamies. The notion that faith in Christ is to be rewarded by an eternity of bliss, while a dependence upon reason, observation and experience merits everlasting pain, is too absurd for refutation, and can be relieved only by that unhappy mixture of insanity and ignorance, called "faith." What man, who ever thinks, can believe that blood can appease God? And yet, our entire system of religion is based upon that belief. The Jews pacified Jehovah with the blood of animals, and according to the Christian system, the blood of Jesus softened the heart of God a little, and rendered possible the salvation of a fortunate few. It is hard to conceive how the human mind can give assent to such terrible ideas, or how any sane man can read the Bible and still believe in the doctrine of inspiration.”

The doctrine that future happiness depends upon belief is monstrous. It is the infamy of infamies. The notion that faith in Christ is to be rewarded by an eternity of bliss, while a dependence upon reason, observation and experience merits everlasting pain, is too absurd for refutation, and can be relieved only by that unhappy mixture of insanity and ignorance, called "faith." What man, who ever thinks, can believe that blood can appease God? And yet, our entire system of religion is based upon that belief. The Jews pacified Jehovah with the blood of animals, and according to the Christian system, the blood of Jesus softened the heart of God a little, and rendered possible the salvation of a fortunate few. It is hard to conceive how the human mind can give assent to such terrible ideas, or how any sane man can read the Bible and still believe in the doctrine of inspiration.

^^^ Vampires

Have y'all forgotten Adam founded the Kitchen, established it and only relinquished to Eve as her office when she came unto the scene what'u all taking about yes ke, we men can cook. we taught the female folks

don ifez: 45870580

Thanks man.

but the code could not unlock it.
I am having four try left.

Can someone please kindly help unlock my E303 MTN modem?
IMEI is 867648010534491

Thanks

mama-gee:
[color=deeppink]Yes,it was well deserved!!!

He hit someone on the chest with his studs for crying out loud. . .It could have stopped the Arbeloa from breathing.

No one knows how serious it is unless you're in the medical field.

I think the referee made the right decision[/color]

dont be pikinshis.....what do u know about futuball anyway eeh?

The Madrid goalkeeper punching Vidic in the face. He came for a corner, missed, and punched Vidic right in the chops. So it's a penalty, right? And a red card! He could have knocked him out

@ MrBrownJAY

You have been off the radar a while now....trust you are ok

appreciate your analysis...very educative...I am learning.

She was no physical threat to him to warrant what he did to her.....RIP

His hands should be amputated.. then sentence to death.

Me dont eat watermelon.... i drink the melon without the water

even if she caught me on top of the poster above me b.anging away..... i no go kneel beg,cos it wasn't me, no be me.

how much more on a trivial thing as yours?

i beggeee, clear road for me jor make i see wella wella

Her crime should not be embellished under the guise of an "intimate relationship missing the emotional part "!

That's a death penalty for sure!