₦airaland Forum

pilgrim.1:
@kobe,

Not necessarily. That simply means that we're thinking from pretexts rather than from the text of Scripture.

Then we shall focus on scripture.
I was thinking our brothers in islam would join in the discussion too.

No. I would be enthralled for the agnostic to first shed the idea of "I don't know" while actually in reality he's whistling a "I refuse to be concerned"!! Hehe!

A lot of agnostics do seem to be concerned. Many feel they should live life now, and make generous contributions to it, to better serve the future generations.

Asides, life is not about living "as if" it all ends now. Even for the agnostic, there's something which he or she may not know (and nothing would make sense to such, depending on what grounds they stand); but we can't be that preposterious as to deny that questions about spirituality are as legitimate.

No, we cannot deny their legitimacy, but we can't deny their feelings as well. The agnostics are about as clued on the afterlife as you are. We are all very uncertain about it. It is this uncertainty that haunts the mind. This same uncertainty makes it beautiful. This same uncertainty causes conflicts amongst different beliefs. Drawing from scripture, we can say we know "something", but for someone who believes in a different deity, he also would think he knows "something" that will differ from what you know.

Another legitimate question - and that would bring us by-and-by to the discussion on the functions of each component (spirit, soul and body).

yes, I would like to find out the functions of these three "distinct" omens.

That's a good one from you. However, I would only say that the body "feels" as well (e.g., pain, touch, cold or heat); although it may not be able to decide or think.

How would you qualify this statement? I mean, once the soul departs the body, it renders the body painless; it becomes unable to feel.

This is where I would have to make a statement on the issue of the immortality of the soul. I'm sorry, but I do not believe in the immortality of the soul; but let me qualify this (so that nobody quotes me out of context).

The way people discuss the "immortality" of the soul happens in most cases to mean that the soul is NOT capable of dying - that it CANNOT die. Please note - that is what most exponents of that idea affirm, and that idea is what I reject.

Here is what I'd rather say: I believe that the soul survives the death of the body; but even the soul itself can experience another kind of death!

If you do not believe in the immortality of the soul, then we're back to square one, and we're going nowhere.
There would be no point at all in living.
I can agree with you if you say the soul of the "wicked" will experience another kind of death, and the soul of the "fine men" will live forever. But, if it is uncertain which soul will thrive or fail, we're stuck in the mud.

In Matthew 10:28, Jesus spoke of both the death of the body ('them which kill the body') as well the death of the soul ('not able to kill the soul'). Please notice something here:

~ (a) it is possible for one to kill the body (and that's all the killer can do)

~ (b) it is not possible for man to kill the soul

If both the body and the soul are both killed at the death of the body, we would not be reading of two distinct experiences in Matthew 10:28.

Bottom line is this:

[list][li]the soul of man is not immortal - as if it cannot experience death (albeit, a different kind of death)[/li]
[li]the soul of man survives the death of the body[/li]
[li]the death of the body does not mean that the soul no longer exists[/li]
[li]at death, the soul departs (or leaves or is separated from) the body[/li]
[li]the soul experiences a different kind of existence upon the death of the body[/li][/list]

It's impossible for man to kill the soul, let's say I agree.
Let's say it is possible for God to kill the soul, which souls would he choose to exterminate, and why? I know God is love and does not kill, but which souls would be exterminated, why, and by whom?

pilgrim.1:
Anyhow, @kobe,

I think most of your concerns have been addressed in the other relevant threads seeking to establish answers to some of the present questions. If you permit me, I'd only try here to address tsome other relevant issues that might help us unclutter our discussion so far.

Please see other relevant threads.

Oh. Sorry, I'm too lazy to dig up buried threads.

The reason why I pointed out the above on "eternity" is just so we are clear what ideas we're postulating.

We are told that man "became a living soul" in Genesis 2 v 7. This, to me at least (and carefully gathering the collective testimony of scripture), would mean that man did not exist prior to when he had a beginning to ring as that he "became". In one word, this "beginning" was at creation.

The beginning of the "living" part of his soul. What about the other parts of the soul that make up the whole?

Okay - which lops off the idea of a pre-existence.

Two reasons why the above:

(a) because that is what Scripture teaches, and I can't improve on what is taught therein.

(b) because what is taught in Scripture shows that the soul exists beyond death in an entirely different kind of experience.

What kind of experience is it? It could shed some insight into what happens after death.
It's no longer a living soul once the body is recycled, it has to transform into another soul.

And we're inviting such brilliant minds (who, perhaps have been watching with the wisdom of the sages) to cough in here be-times!

I will be very fortunate to expand my wisdom at their expense. Hopefully they do come.

please! oprah ain't got no power. she has a lot of influence, and can cause people in power to act, but really she has very limited authority/power. Her influence is the key to her success, as it is with many other blacks.

lol witty

it was for berry, my bad katrina.

pilgrim.1:
Dear kobe,

It should not necessarily be so. The point is simple - more questions are only indices of the fact that people start out with unbalanced ideas before even allowing the Scriptures to speak for themselves.

I am obliged to ask you to establish the scripture.

Which is not a difficult thing to do. However, to quickly assume an "eternity" of the soul without first qualifying what is meant by "eternity" will only drag this issue into unnecessary and protracted debates.

It is not by any means difficult to decipher the meaning of "eternity", so there's no problem there at all.  Eternity is like saying "an endlesss period of time" . Whethere that endless period of time has a beginning we do not know.  If we are dealing with time here, it ought to have a beginning, or so I would think.

I have tried to clear this bit by offering that the soul is NOT eternal as if it never had a beginning - which in other words is saying that the soul of man had a beginning.

Now I think we might be getting somewhere.  When was this beginning?

Could you qualify what you mean by "birth"? It is not clear what exactly you connote by that word - judging from the context you have used it so far.

by birth I mean being born into a bodily existence.  having a physical presence here on earth.

As above. The simple thing here that I'm persuaded Scripture teaches is that the soul is a created component of man.

The soul is a created component of man.  If this is true, then the soul only began to exist when man was born to life.  Why should man be convinced that the soul will live beyond  the destruction of his body?  Why does not the soul die when the body dies?

I would need to ask you pointedly, kobe: does Scripture teach anywhere that man ever existed before he was created? I think  haven't come across such an idea in Scripture - and if you are so convinced thereto, perhaps it would help us if you start out by demonstrating that it is so - from Scripture.

I'm not "too versed" in the scriptures, so the answer to this question is perhaps left to the pators, priests, or any other masterminds we might have on these forums.  Maybe they would be able to shed some light.  In my opinion, I think it would suffice based on the premise of an afterlife, to think there was a "before life".  If my train of thought is wrong, then aren't the agnostics right in believing that "it all ends" when we die, so live your life as if there was no tomorrow?

No, I am not a pastor; nor do I make any claims of nothing so much of Scripture.

Okay.  I suppose we're both fishing in the same water.

Lol. . . it really is one and the same thing, I guess - unless you would like to explicate the difference.   That there is a soul simply points out that the soul exists - as much as to say that if a soul does not exist, then there is NOT a soul! Abi no be so?

Done. Oya proceed.

This is why I asked about the relationship of the soul relative to the conscience.  If man is composed of both the spirit and the body, does the body exist merely to fulfil, as in carryout the will of the spirit?  I am compelled to say that the soul feels, decides, and thinks, while the body acts based on the spirit's preference.

Based on the logic that the soul is immortal, it is sound to ask if you existed before your birth.  Have you never heard of Pre Birth Experiences (PBE)?
Maybe you can qualify your stance that I opined to be, "the soul begins to exist when man is born to the world."

Oh well, as a Christian, I haven't come across the idea that we were pre-birthed before we actually came to earth. That would be quite a task to coherently bring out from the Bible (unless one would rather be incoherent and read their personal pretexts into the word of God).

I wouldn't add into the word of God what was not originally present.  Moreover, the reason why I would raise all these questions is, to explore all possibilities (both biblical and not).  The bible does not touch upon a scenario of "life before birth" (based on what you're saying), maybe it does and I don't know, but it still remains that there might be a component of man before he was born into his body that wasn't revealed in the scriptures .  Unless of course the scripture has already adressed and covered all possiblities.

Actually, I do not have any problems about "retaining/recalling" any information in an assumed "pre-birth" life or existence. The reason?  There are loads of reasons; but top of the list for me would mean that one would be equating himself/herself to a sort of re-incarnated being (which again the Bible does not teach).

So you're saying we're delving into a completely different realm here.  Hmm, I see!


Let me safely say that I tend to regard "separate" and "distinct" as two different things. Please pardon my being particular here, but it is only necessary for the discussion.

By separate, one would be led to believe that body and soul exist in a divided manner while the man is alive - and I'm sure that's not what we would like to project.

However, by distinct, I'm looking at the existence of spirit, soul and body TOGETHER while man is alive, and yet none of the components being misconstrued for the other. Even at death when the spirit and soul are separated from the body, these components are still distinct from one another ('separated' here being the same thing as has been used by others to mean "departed from the body".

Whatever thedefinitions, if I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying though separate they still function together. Sort of intertwined.  It's like the concept of a trinity, except this is a "twinity" lol.  Now, if soul and spirit are different, then it could still remain a trinity, because we have body, soul, and spirit.

If you pardon my attempt to be clear here, you'd understand while I don't espouse the view or idea that the soul remains separated while the man is alive. Once the soul departs (or separates from) the body, death occurs - and a corpse is all that is left to be buried.

Where does it go when it withdraws from the body?  Does it evaporate into space? Does it wait at the gates for judgement? Does it move on to a next life?  Does it rest in spirit until christ arrives?

Oh please, you do not need to apologise! Be encouraged to bring them all the more. I do not claim to have all or many of the answers - and such questions are the very things that stimulate me into seeking to gain an understanding from those more knowledgeable on the subject.

okay, thank you.

Best regards.
[quote][/quote]

berrye:
I have 'fallen in love' with three guys in my lifetime already. I have this one and I am so scared that I may fall out of love with him soon because I am not sure if it's love or infatuation. Someone please tell me it's love this time!

Why are you so scared to fall out of love this time around?  You said it's happend to you thrice before.  I can't imagine it would be any different from your experience before.

katrina, maybe you're a sucker for romance, and it causes your mind to think you're in love

pilgrim.1:
@kobe,

The above (and more) are legitimate questions that we all should be concerned with. However, if the ideas we started out with are quite unbalanced, the inferences will be as unbalanced as well.

Which is why we're left with more questions than we have answers.

One needs to qualify the meaning of the soul being "eternal".

One needs to qualify the existence of a soul before qualifying the eternity of the said soul.

The soul of man is not "eternal" as though it never had a beginning.
God did not "become" a living soul - rather, it was man at the time of his being created that was said to have "become" a living soul.

Was man/soul created at birth? And, did he acquire a "living soul" through birth?  Or, did "man"(not necessarily in this bodily form) exist quite before his physical presence here on earth?  In short, what was man before he became a "living soul"?  dust, sperm, or a "resting soul"? or none of the mentioned?

Second, the core question in discussions like this that many people really seek an answer to is the question of whether the soul continues to live "even when the body is laid to rest".

First, I would like us to validate the presence of a soul.  I would assume you're either a pastor, or a deeply religious person who knows "enough" about the scriptures.  Since I am a christian, it would not take too long to convince me that there is a soul, but how would you convince me that there exists a soul?
After we establish this phenomenon, we can then tackle the idea above.

Put another way, we are saying that the soul survives the death of the body. I believe that the soul does not cease to exist at the death of the body; and following that, I'm persuaded that the soul lives in quite another (or different) kind of existence.

I was forced to ponder this too.  At the same time, I thought it unwise, or as though foolish, that I know not of another life that is in existence.  Earlier I asked the question about where I was pre-birth, and why I am unable to retain/recall that information in this life, can you shed any insight into this?

Discussions like this (as broadly suggested by the topic of this thread) would involve questions of the nature of the spirit of man; the meaning of the body and soul;

the reality of the existence of these components of man in life, at death and beyond death, etc.

Oh good!
If man has a soul, is his soul one with his body while he is "living" on earth?  Does it remain separated?  Are all of these somehow related to our conscience?

As we progress this discussion (as well the on-going discussions in the other relevant threads), I trust we shall arrive at some conherence somewhere.

only time will tell.


I apologize for being all over the place, but there are just so many questions. cheers![quote][/quote]

kobe:
The soul continues to live even when the body is laid to rest. For the soul, I don't think there's ever birth or death.

I don't know about the soul being present since the very beginning. As written in the holy book: In the beginning was the word, the word was with God, and the word was God.

It's been debated and argued that Jesus is the Word and Jesus is God, so, if that's the case, when did the soul ever begin to exist. Are the souls part of the word. Maybe we don't need to have a beginning, or just maybe the soul was also there in the beginning. The holy book did not say that "in the beginning there was only the word."

don't mind michelin89, she didn't learn well in school.


say no to drug abuse! say no to baby-killing! vote "NO" on abortion.

assuming: birth is a continuation
                 death is a continuation
                 does birth = death



since there is a better place a coming, why are we so sad when people die? Is it just selfishiness on our part that we'll miss them?

After you die, your body will begin to decompose just like any other organic material.
One hour after death; the muscles relax totally.
Three hours after death; rigor mortis sets in.
One day after death; the body has fully returned to room temperature.
One day-on after death: the skin shrinks and contracts giving the appearance that the hair and nails have grown.
Within one to two days of death; if flies are around, they will begin laying eggs which will hatch into maggots in available areas of the body.
After two days from death; rigor mortis relaxes.
After two days-on from death; the internal tissue begins the process of decay; starting to turn into gasses and liquids.
Within one week of death; the flesh has become liquid-like under the skin.
Within two weeks of death; the stomach distends due to accumulation of gasses and this can lead to the discharge of a dark, bloody liquid from the nose and mouth of the corpse.
After three to four weeks of death; the body is extremely decayed, hair and nails can be easily pulled out; the trunk has swollen to twice its size; while the face has gone a purple green and the tongue protrudes.
After five to six weeks of death; the body has become soup-like.
If a body is buried in the ground; after a time of ten years all the tissue has turned to liquid and gas and been absorbed by the surrounding soil leaving only the bones.

Do the dead sleepeth forever, for all of what seems, to them, like a day? Basically, all of eternity is rolled into one night of undisturbed, peaceful, perfect sleep.

So there a few glaring issues here.  Death is either a complete state of nothingness and cessation of existence, or death causes the soul to migrate from one world to another.  The latter case forces me to ask: have we died before?  I would be made to think that the soul migrated from a prior base to this earth, and in doing so there was some form of death and a bodily re-birth, which brought it here?  After death on earth it would move on to yet another existence.


To die or to live. Which is better? God only knows.
Why are we so afraid of death? Why do we long to live forever?

I am not afraid of death, but I am a bit worried about my means of dying. If I was going down in an airplane, I'd be scared of pain, but not of the death. Scared of the method of dying. It would be tortourous.

metro:
contribute not correct afterall u know what he meant

the correction is still a valid form of contribution.

Have you ever thought that maybe after we die, there will be nothing? A meaningless existence. Assuming that before you were born, there was nothing. Wouldn't it be cruel and unfair, to build a legacy on earth, to create beautiful memories, leave behind loved ones, build all these graceful bonds, and in the end have nothing to show for it? What about all of those who are wronged, callously murdered, lynched, sent to early graves? What would become of the tyrants who made them mortals? Do they receive no punishments?

We came into the world with nothing, and with nothing shall we return to our resting place. Dust are ye, and dust shall ye become?

What about pre-bodily existence? The soul continues to live even when the body is laid to rest. For the soul, I don't think there's ever birth or death. The soul is eternal, premordial, and everlasting. Since this is the case, what/where was I prior to being present in the body, and why am I unable to retain and recall that information in this bodily form?

Could be because the body grows old no matter how much we try to fight it.  Regardless of how strong we may think we are, the body wears and tears under duress. If it takes a century of living to wear-out, then you die of old age, but it could take some seconds of crushing and banging, smoking weed, having aids/cancer to speed up the process, thereby taking younger lives.

As soon as the body gives up the ghost, it is time to meet our maker, whether or not we've planned it.

Some believe the body is soul-less, but it is the soul that has a body.  The soul is said to live forever.  As soon as the body gives up the ghost, the spirit begins to live on forever.


Perhaps we die for the same reasons we live.  Either way, without death, there can be no life.  If we don't die, the world would become overpopulated, and then we all die.  We're disposable systems that are designed to fail at a specific time.  Perhaps we die to let others live.

opokonwa:
Post it on Nairaland!

yes, you do need help, and i suggest you seek professional help sharp sharp.

lolliba, haba! I didn't mean to injure your nerve. Forgive me, I didn't know you are one of them.

which kind of women?

if you're talking about the one-night-stand
i would say big boobs/ass

if you're talking about the wife
i would say chemistry/communication/persona

delegirl:
please don't run you have to be very patient, because i have experience such situation before but now am enjoying. )

and now you're at the age of 21? who is the pedophile?

Joey82:
love can't b enough, even d world is not enough

the world is enough! we humans can be so greedy.

How many men here feel they have the right tools/demeanor to captivate the mind of a runs girl and change her life for the better.  I mean specifically pick up a runs girl, knowing what she does, yet still want to love her, hope to change her, and eventually marry her.


I don't think I know of any men who have taken up that challenge.  There might be a few, but I haven't really heard of them.  The majority are too concerned about finding a good girl, getting married to a good girl, or making love to a pristine babe.  I wouldn't mary one of these runs chicks, although I feel that some of these girls are raised in good homes.  Maybe the lifestyle chose them.

I would like to marry a good girl too.  A ready made material.  There should still be some guys out there that would work to earn their keep.  Help the girl make a complete 180 and you get to be proud of your accomplishment.

wth, your only girl? omg negro are you serious? you make it seem as if you just lost a doggone 100-karat gem. is this a january fool's joke or something?

have you any friends? embark on an adventure with them, do silly things, have fun, go clubbing, keep active, play sports, get your mind off this demon that has raped your soul, speak to random girls (start macking again), etc,

Atlanta journals constitution readers have put monica on blast for having a baby out of wedlock.
http://www.accessatlanta.com/blogs/content/shared-blogs/accessatlanta/MusicScene/entries/2008/01/09/atlanta_baby_buzz.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


By Patrice

January 9, 2008 1:41 PM
Monica is not setting a good example for the youth keep having babies out of wedlock that is not cute!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

By Call Me

January 9, 2008 8:10 PM
**Monica, FIRE YOUR PUBLICIST AND MANAGER!!! THIS IS NOT GOOD NEWS. CALL ME AND I WILL BE YOUR MENTOR!

770.777.9311**

By PYT

January 9, 2008 6:56 PM
I am a HUGE fan of Monica. However, when you have young girls looking to you as a role model, you must lead by example. it does not look good for Monica being an unwed mother with 2 children and singing about life and speaking in communities about education and being successful. Monica is showing poor role modeling skills.

By Trojan

January 11, 2008 9:59 PM
Ain’t her step daddy a Reverend? I know one thing, her baby daddy spends all his money in the strip clubs. He better save that money and buy some condoms, diapers and wipes.

By Daisy

January 11, 2008 10:02 PM
OMG! That’s bad. Her step father a Reverend and she is spreading her legs and having babies out of wedlock. That is bad. Not a good look Monica.

By lavender

January 9, 2008 2:23 PM
Monica has two kids out of wedlock and several years back she had an abortion. She’s no role model at all.

By Deana

January 9, 2008 2:00 PM
I agree Patrice, how great of an example…. What is really going with this generation? BTW notagain, I am dissapointed by the fact that this generation cares nothing about respect for themselves or anyone else for that matter and I don’t care how much her paycheck is, it doesn’t substitute for those children being legally called b******* because their parents aren’t responsible. No amount of money can remove that title.

By Chris

January 9, 2008 9:48 PM
I hate to say it but Monica is looking like she’s just a rich hoodrat from Zone 3… She needs to have a talk with her publicist…

By AN EDUCATED BLACK MAN

January 9, 2008 2:45 PM
It amazes me how the black women here just brush off having babies as a blessing of God. I personally believe God is not pleased with none of this. The evidence of the baby not only shows that Monica is a person of know morals. But it also shows that she is easy, loose, and just a ghetto “hoochie Mama” (x2). I don’t care how much money she has, money can’t buy morals. Monica can’t even at this point say she didn’t mean to get pregnant. THIS IS HER SECOND BABY !!!!. She’s just a Ho with money.

By Angela

January 9, 2008 3:57 PM
I will say this about Monica though, first time shame on you, second time shame on me. Monica, please let this be the last baby you have out of wedlock. You should think more of yourself and want more for yourself than to continue having children out of wedlock!

By Kimmie

January 10, 2008 5:10 AM
another black child born out of wedlock. how wonderful

By JT

January 9, 2008 2:25 PM
Congrats Monica!!!! How unique and awesome of you to have a baby out of wedlock!! That’s so fine! And a boy too? Will you be grooming him to join the Crips or the Bloods? I need to know so I know whether to send something blue or something red…,

Such ghetto lifestyles are the misery of our people.

By flower

January 9, 2008 2:12 PM
When is enough, enough. Please quit glamorizing those in the spotlight who continue make poor decisions. There is no difference between Monica and anyone else who continues to have children out of wedlock, except maybe you continue to publish it. She eveidently is afraid to make a commitment to herself and to family.

By Ihatepoiliticalcorrectness

January 9, 2008 2:19 PM
Just another incident where “money can’t buy class.”

You can take the girl out of the ghetto, but it’s hard to get the ghetto out of the girl.

By Elroy Cohen

January 9, 2008 2:37 PM
“God must be so proud”? What bible are you reading?! Evidently your copy doesn’t mention anything about fornication. In any event, if Monica wants another kid, I’ll gladly give her what she deserves. I can be reached at 281 330-8004. Peace.

By WeedMan

January 9, 2008 3:06 PM
Monica, you are no Britney Spears. However you both need a “HIT”

By Please

January 9, 2008 3:06 PM
IGNORANT GHETTO MESS!!!!!!!!!!!!

By Tina B

January 9, 2008 4:34 PM
This is what I got to say about this situation in general….Too many mamas…not enough wives. No further comments.

By Mark

January 9, 2008 5:20 PM
Man, She’s loose. Maybe I could come down to the ATL after 6 weeks and get some.

By AnotherIllegitimateKid

January 9, 2008 7:49 PM
Is it any surprise that the AJC is spotlighting another illegitimate child of another rapper? Does she even know the Daddy’s name? After all, the AJCs favorite son, TI, has 5 kids with several different women, and he’s only 26 yrs old. Ever heard of a condom TI, Soulja Boy,Monica, Kim Porter, Diddy,so on and so forth…,

By Clark

January 9, 2008 3:40 PM
Another single mom, hardly something to celebrate….keep going Monica, go for three, continue being a role model for the people

By ESR

January 9, 2008 3:23 PM
Another unwed black baby momma. Have blacks ever heard of getting married first? What’s the avergae age a black girl loses her virginity, it must be at about age 10. The jungle has it’s own set of values I suppose.

By Money

January 9, 2008 3:26 PM
* QUit making excuses about having kids out of wedlock. Why do we have condoms* She should use some of that money and buy a pack. If I had her address I would send her a case. But it is too late anyway

By So Sorry,

January 9, 2008 2:39 PM
I see a lot of ignorant black people on here, glorifying out-of-wedlock births like its a good thing.

As a black man born out of wedlock, and as someone who is aware of the disadvantages of being raised by a single mother,I say shame on you for your pathetic ignorance.

That kind of pathetic mindset is why 65% of black kids are now born out of wedlock…and the social consequences are ENORMOUS.

By TEE

January 9, 2008 2:28 PM
I agree- although motherhood is a beautiful thing- continuing to procreate outside of wedlock is unacceptable. We are accepting anything in this day and age. I am glad that my mom taught me to first be able to have a real, sustainable relationship ( as in marriage ), with a good man BEFORE I started popping out his babies!

By Mommyto2

January 9, 2008 3:18 PM
CAN YOU SAY BIRTH CONTROL, PEOPLE?

By ESR

January 9, 2008 3:23 PM
Another unwed black baby momma. Have blacks ever heard of getting married first? What’s the avergae age a black girl loses her virginity, it must be at about age 10. The jungle has it’s own set of values I suppose.

By LTS

January 9, 2008 4:25 PM
Why spotlight this kinda garbage? UGH!!! How about some POSITIVE news? Having babies - being unmarried - is not a positive thing and sets a poor example for our youth!

By Kinsman Redemmer

January 9, 2008 2:23 PM
Planned Parenting at it’s worse

rufai, sorry for what i'm about to say, but you, my friend, fit the epitomical definition of a male bitch; you're Fucking weak, whiny, submissive, and soft.  I'm glad you shared this because you clearly need help. your post is infuriating, you're almost a disgrace to manliness - in fact, you are a nincompoop, and this girl clearly sees it.  You are the complete opposite of an alpha male, this girl knows it, she knows you're a softie, and she's going to gnaw at you with her filthy paws.

I don't know how long will it take for her to just leave him for god sake! - A friend of mine said I should let her do what she wants, treat her good, buy gifts and just show her I still care,  With time, she'll get to know what she did was wrong and things will end good

An axe murderer just killed your mother and you're asking if buying him a gun will cause him to repent?  Are you this brain-dead?


What a damn pity, o ma seeee o.  I wish I could give you a life-changing igbarun - I'm hoping it would normalize you.

bros before hos

it's not that complicated. here's the unwritten code : men generally like to flirt.

almondjoy:
No one has any right to slap the other for any reason.

Once again, verbal agreements have very little significance in any relationship. Most people do not honour a written contract as in marriage, so do not expect them to honour a verbal agreement.

does not the verbal agreement let you know you're with them?

YOU CAN NEVER BE CERTAIN OF ANYTHING NO MATTER HOW MUCH IT IS CHANTED TO YOU!

this is a stretch. you can be certain you have a boyfriend/girlfriend can you not? you can't be certain of their faithfulness to your relationship, that's where trust comes into lace.


I'm in agreement with the things you've said here. Given you're in a relationship already, a verbal agreement will only go so far, or only have so much of an impact.

The real question here is, are you in a boyfriend/girlfriend relationship with somebody, just by sharing some moments of intimacy with them, sleeping with them, kissing them, etc. Or, is a verbal commitment that lets you know you're with them needed first.
I feel that many girls assume this to be the case, and a lot of guys tend to disagree with that notion.

The slapping issue came about, because supposedly a girl has the right to slap a guy (she said), if he failts to honor her feelings, by for example, cheating on her with another woman.

I ask, how can it be considered cheating, if he doesn't feel that he is with her.

Is it not better to be certain, than to be uncertain? At least in this scenario I would prefer the former over the latter.
While I do agree with you logically speaking, that our commitment shows in our actions and values, why should he feel committed to a woman he slept with ? His intimacy with her might have very little bearing on her value to him.

At least with a verbal agreement, you will know that you have done wrong, when you trespass with another woman, defile your matrimonial bed, cheat on your spouse, and what have you. Without a verbal commitment to another woman, it becomes a clouded scenario, because you have little feeling about doing right or wrong.

Note that, a verbal agreement does not entirely mean you will not do wrong to that woman. It does however let you know what you've gotten yourself into (for the most part).