₦airaland Forum

ruggedtimi:
the book is 100% real. I have read the online version. Back in my secondary school, A senior read the book and he kept having scary nightmares and would scream at night. Later, we found out he had taken a book called The Seventh Book of Moses from his father's library. I’m not sure it was the full version.
The book is full of spells and rituals used to call on both good and bad Angels. Just reading it might not be dangerous, but doing the rituals can be risky. Many spiritualists today still use those rituals from the book.

Stop lying to the OP! 🙄🙄🙄

The only potential dangers are the various delusions people carry along with them when parsing the content of the book.

FeliciaOja:
My roommate was arguing that in her secondary school a teacher ran mad after reading the book at night. Which I doubt I have been hearing about this book for some years but can't find it online. I know I'm a little curious but something tells me it's one of those fake books that are used to scare people. Has anyone seen such a book if it actually exist

The Pentateuch — five books of Moses — are contained in your Bible. However, the sixth and seventh books — you can access free copies online— are not directly connected to the author(s) of the first 5 books in any way or form. The content of the sixth and seventh books reads much differently from that found in the first five books; the contents of the first were definitely created by a different author/set of authors.

okrikaboi:
➜I have paid she can go and marry someone else I just want my kid. I’m going through this right now. Seeing her makes me want to throw up. I need a family lawyer

. Oh! In that case, you are right to want to get a lawyer. I doubt she would want to give you full custody, unless she is sure that doing so would also be in her favor.

I would also suggest you remove yourself from her space as soon as possible. This way, you can avoid regrets of any kind.

okrikaboi:
➜What if I pay bride price and take my child then return the woman

It is a two-for-one deal. You have to take both with you.

Nefort:
➜When I said LOVE I was referring to the dictionary meaning. Any other meaning attached to the word is obviously not the same as the dictionary meaning. The dictionary meaning is the standard definition of love. If love means something else to you then it is not the dictionary meaning and you shouldn't bring it up in discussions that requires standard definitions for clear communication.
➜ Don't pretend you don't know what I was referring to. The problem here is that you are trying so hard to attach the wrong meanings to my statement. When I said "business relationship" I was trying to distinguish it from the relationships where women are paid a monthly salary for dating a man.

OK! Here's the dictionary definition.

love
noun
1. an intense feeling of deep affection.
2. a great interest and pleasure in something.

verb
1. feel deep affection for (someone).
2. like or enjoy very much.

So, which one of the benefits is a woman who is comfortably earning and paying her own bills,

2. Hmm! Is it then your assumption that women who are in love are not to seek or expect any benefits or growth from being in these relationships? Women who are in love should not expect to be leveled up in any way by being in these love relationships?

heysquare:
The shooter will be designated as a lone shooter and not a terrorist because he's not a Muslim!

A serial killer would also not get labelled a terrorist. You probably want to look up the meaning of the word Terrorist to realize why the term would not apply in this case either.

A terrorist is an individual or group that uses unlawful violence or the threat of violence to achieve political, social, or ideological goals by creating a climate of fear and intimidation in a civilian population or government. The acts can be international, influenced by foreign entities, or domestic, driven by internal influences like political beliefs or social causes.
Key Characteristics of Terrorism and Terrorists:
Violence or Threat of Violence: Acts of terrorism involve the use of force against people or property.
Political or Social Objectives: [/b]The ultimate goal is to advance a specific political, religious, social, racial, or other ideological cause.
[b]Intimidation and Coercion: The purpose is to create widespread fear, intimidate, or coerce a government or the civilian population.
Lawful Use of Force is Excluded: [/b]The unlawful nature of the acts is a key component.
[b]Inspiration or Association: The term can refer to a foreign terrorist organization or a domestic group motivated by home-country influences.

Nefort:
➜When it's a business relationship.

But are relationships not meant to be an agreement(business) between two individuals, after all?

Nefort:
➜Have you checked the English dictionary?

Well, the vast majority of people out there would tell you that they instead subscribe to their traditional or individual ideas regarding the very concept.(For example, most couples consider ideas such as gender roles as part of their idea of love, a detail completely missing from the dictionary meaning of the word itself.) So, when you come in to make blanket statements such as the one you made, one has to ask you for the particulars of your idea.

greypencils:
I believe you know what I am talking about. I don't have to explain myself further.

I never know what people who think to compare Nigeria to the U.S in such things are talking about, hence the reason for the response.

Nefort:
➜This is the reason why love is important in relationships. If there is no love then the relationship becomes about "What do you bring to the table?"

What is this love you speak of? Chemicals slushing around in one's brain, or what exactly?

Zouzer:
➜You just accurately summed up your attitude. Thank you for saving me the stress of doing that.
At any rate, I'm glad you learnt something new about the legal system. It gives me joy that I updated your outdated knowledge. Cheers

You are right. I learned that Judicial interpretations/opinions, even in Nigeria, are not absolute— they can be challenged and overruled/overturned, hence the importance of knowing the details of the Law itself.

Now, can we move on?

Zouzer:
➜Perhaps, you need to drop off your high horse and read my response, as it clearly addresses this

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 This coming from someone whose language so far more than establishes him as one sitting on exactly that... a high horse. 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

Abeg, waka pass me with your particular issues.

Zouzer:
➜Mister, you can pick up the Constitution, an Act of the National Assembly, a Law of a State House of Assembly, or even delegated legislation made by statutory bodies, and you might understand some of the provisions.
But UNDERSTANDING the law is not limited to just reading statutes. You are still straitjacketing your understanding of what “law” truly entails. Like I said, case law adds flesh to statutes. You can't understand the law if all you do is to read statutes but don't read judicial decisions on how those laws apply

Again, pay close attention to what is being said so you do not keep needing to go off on these meaningless rants.

Kobojunkie:
Yes, Judicial interpretations can have the force of law. However, as you also hinted at there in the last part of your post, they are not absolute and can be challenged.

dom:
➜He cited an authority there; a Court of Appeal decision. That suffices.

Wrong!

PremierDocs:
"A man is told a room is haunted. He enters and sees shadows and hears whispers. He is then told the room is not haunted, and he re-enters to see nothing but an empty room."

The human mind is indeed a powerful machine... most people still do not realize this.

Zouzer:
➜....Let it be known to you today that, whatever authoritative interpretation the courts give to a statute acquires the force of law. The only ways such interpretation will cease its authority is if It's overturned by higher courts (eg Supreme Court overturning the Court of Appeal judgement) or by the same court in future cases (eg Supreme Court reversing its decision on a point of law it had decided in the past) or through legislative amendment.

This is the only part I will bother broaching at this point since I made myself clear in previous comments on why I prefer to focus on learning what the Law instead says.

Yes, Judicial interpretations can have the force of law. However, as you also hinted at there in the last part of your post, they are not absolute and can be challenged.

greypencils:
In Nigeria, you know how to avoid certain deaths.
To avoid death by Fulani herdsmen, avoid farms.
To avoid death by boko haram, stay away from the core north.
To avoid kidnappers, open eye
To avoid death by policemen, cooperate with them
To avoid armed robbers invasion at your home, get beta burglary proof and beta iron door.
To avoid deaths by accident, don't overspeed.

In the U.S, death comes through random, innocent looking troubled souls who can take your life without warning. NONE WHATSOEVER. You can't avoid it, you can't prevent it. You can only pray never to be part of its statistics.

These sort of deaths also happen in Nigeria with many unhinged souls going as far as to murder mother, father, wife, side-chicks, children..other relatives and strangers included. it's not at all unique to the U.S. it is just that we read a lot of the cases in U.S that many of you begin assuming you are somehow immune to it all by your location.

DeDonniesHomes:
.✓I understand you might not be a Christian, or maybe you a Christian fanatic; that's fine. But dropping your submission in such derogatory manner is not okay.
✓ A man's support for his sick mom should be largely financial and emotional. Isn't it shameful that a man will have to be washing his sick mom's privates when he has sisters. What sort of sisters are they! Obviously, irresponsible!
✓ I don't want to believe that's the kind of lady you are.

You created a thread to clearly insult our intelligence by pretending your biased opinion there, which suggests that the burden of care should lie solely on women, is somehow justified, but also sanctioned by a book which says absolutely nothing of what you claimed. How much more derogatory can that get?

2. It is not shameful for a woman to wash a man, but somehow it is shameful for a man to wash a woman? Do you even understand what you imply by this question of yours?

Is it equally shameful for a man to bathe his own daughters?

3. I actually think it is sick that you think a man cannot be trusted --- his third leg can't be trusted --- with handling the body of his own mother and probably his own daughter, given the religious air you intended to create around all of this in your OP.

alphaconde:
✓ WHAT RECORD. THE NWLR WAS QUOTED. HAVE U LOOKED IT UP AND DIDNT FIND IT

If this is the way you lot approach the law... Then the corrupt judiciary isn't the only problem I see here.

yemre:
✓ Do yourself a favour by getting the law report detailing the referenced judgement. The judges would not just pass a judgement without an extensive details and references to the part of the law or constitution that supports it.
You will even learn more beyond what you envisaged .

Your judges are notoriously corrupt yet you utter this nonsense my way for what purpose? To tell me I should trust the judgement of men who are known to defy the very law of the land in favor of that which benefits their course? Are you kidding?

MrDoGood:
✓ Try dey read finish.... W get why

Try to process the reason for a response before commenting next time.

43Ronin:
✓ The Court of Appeal made this clear in Muojekwu v. Ejikeme (2000) 5 NWLR (Pt. 657) 402. In that case, TOBI, J.C.A. held:
Why don't you Google the above judgement to gain clarity

...

gr8child:
✓ He cited a Court of Appeal case.

...

Zouzer:
✓ The OP cited a landmark case law where the Supreme Court made the pronouncement. That forms part of our laws and all lower courts must apply it as it is. Laws are not only recorded in statutes. The court's pronouncements(case law) forms part of law too

Knowing what I know of Nigerian judicial decisions and how they tend to violate/contravene even the Law of the land from time to time, I rather focus m learning what the Law in fact says.

And no, your court decisions are not intended to form part of the Law. Rather, Court decisions are meant to comply with the Law. Otherwise, they violate they are in direct violation of the Law and ought to be done away with. That is why any right minder person should insist on knowing what the Law says before investigating other opinions.

DeDonniesHomes:
➜Last week a story trended where a man complained that his wife refused him to bring his mother home for proper care. His wife insisted that his mother should be cared for by his sisters. This poses a question, "who should care for an aged parent?"
AGED MOTHER - Anyone can care for an aged parent if the sickness is mild. But if it's so serious that she (aged mother) messes up herself, her daughter should care for her. It will be very [b]unfair for a man to have to clean up his sick aged mother, when there are daughters in the family. [/b]
➜It's also unfair to his wife if he delegates the care to her, because he has sisters that should be responsible for that. If he doesn't have sisters, the next best option should be to get his mom a female carer and put the carer under strict supervision.
➜It's only if he can't afford a carer, and he doesn't have sisters, that we can see his wife as being unfair for refusing to care for his mother. In short, if he has sisters, that's actually an act of gross irresponsibility on their part.
➜This is what the holy book meant when it said, "anyone who cannot care for his/her household is worse than an infidel." "But those who won’t care for their relatives, especially those in their own household, have denied the true faith. Such people are worse than unbelievers" 1 Timothy 5: 8. We know that many people are in the habits of making this quote in relations to men providing for their wife, but that's completely out of context.

You pretend you care about fairness when you decide that even when a woman has sons, it should be the daughters alone caring for their mother. How come? Do you somehow not understand the concept of fairness or something?

2. Why should a man delegate the care of his own mother to a woman he does not intend to adequately compensate for such labor? Who will care for her own mother if and when she is busy caring for another person's mother —supposing her husband does not pay her enough to ensure she is at least able to hire good care for her own mother?

Even in the case that he has sisters, he should not be able to get away from taking care of what is his own mother. There are daughters out there caring for what are their own fathers. Why then can you pretend sons should not be allowed to care for their own mothers?

3. Stop trying to use religion to mask what is clearly unfair and biased treatment as fairness!

The verse you conveniently lifted out of context from a book directed at a bloodline that has nothing to do with the Nigerian one you pretend to argue in context says absolutely nothing about the crazy judgment you made here. 🥱🥱🥱

GenFunction:
The thing wey she no want make e cast don over cast now. Make the right decisions,just try... But wait o,6mnths belle na em she wan spoil? Not a smart girl.

She for hand am to you, abi?

Gotocourt:
➜Naiveness, cheaper misp*****l at 2/3month would have stop this. Six months na better baby oOoOO 😥

No be hospital dem talk say be wan do the abortion for her? The doctors abi na nurses no know wetin dem do do?

Melagros:
➜COMRADES are speechless, sometimes I ask myself what pushes some ladies into this dreadful act?

Nonsense question!

Profezzor:
➜Why won't you keep the baby and live your life.
➜ The shame of having a child outside wedlock will not be there forever

Na you go feed and raise the baby for her in that case?

2. So, you know say shame dey, yet you wan make she bear am instead of make she try all she can to spare herself of it entirely?

SolaOmoniyi:
....

Hopefully, in her next life, she will remember not to let any werey get her pregnant at all.

yemmit90:
➜You never address the subject matter ..., perhaps I should put it in a simple term. You need fundamental knowledge about nature to fully understand the basic tenet of human nature.
➜If religions/traditions were not part of the fundamental principle that shaped the formation of societies, how did humans became homosapien capable of creating societies?

1. You are busy making spurious claims that have no relation to the subject matter, though. 😣😣😣

2. Your life may revolve around your particular religion/tradition, but you forget that the human race—behavioral science in particular — is not subject to your religions/traditions and their various delusions.

kiddaz:
➜Lol rich? Hmm. I know I'm not poor and I'm physically super fit by every standard, dress and smell nice, always sharp and still very up to date mentally, intellectually and otherwise with a vast knowledge on almost everything and anything. Plus my experience with life. So yeah you can say I'm rich, but not necessarily financially.

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

mecuries:
➜That little piece of meat or fish that she eats is the only way she would get protein and it's more essential than all the carbs that you feed her with.
NB: Beans is more carbohydrate than protein

Make you help us tell them oo!