₦airaland Forum

gohf:
1Cor.2.9 - 10 That is what the Scriptures mean when they say, "No eye has seen, no ear has heard, and no mind has imagined what God has prepared for those who love him." But we know these things because God has revealed them to us by his Spirit, and his Spirit searches out everything and shows us even God's deep secrets.

Stop rambling abeg! 🙄🙄🙄

I asked for evidence of your claim but here you are quoting a text written by a man who himself is recorded to have spoken extensively of his proof of his particular belief even going as far as to display it for all those around him to see. 🙄🙄🙄

ValeeLove:
what do you think?

It is still happening to this day though. So?

Sterope:
➜What speculation? That The existence of life itself dictates there is something higher. Unfortunately for you, many religions across the universe do believe in the existence of consciousness after death.
➜What happens to that consciousness is mainly the bone of contention.
➜I am against folks making definitive statements that dismisses the complexities of this world and folks who haven't experienced death before.

Why is it unfortunate for me that billions of people are hooked on what is possibly a delusion?

2. Well, it could simply mean that the consciously simply dies in much the same way the body does at the end of life. Millions believing otherwise would not change this if it were to turn out the fact.

3. Dismisses complexity or dismisses the possibility of the particular delusion you cling to.

JobZoneNews:
✓ I am talking about God almighty. Maker of heaven and earth. Maker of you and I. Not the gid you described in you comment.
✓ Invite you to consider giving your life to Jesus Christ so that He can help you to know that God intimately.

Which one? Even Allah of the Muslims, Orunmila, and Zeus of the Greek claims to hold those titles?

2. I hope you do not mean the very same Jesus Christ of Israel who claimed He was sent by His Father only to those who are of the bloodline of Jacob?

Blkpanda:
✓ Good try moving the goal posts. This was the original claim I’m mocking you for
“The more we keep getting the government involved in marriages, the more that sacred institution becomes useless and not worth it undecided”
✓ No mention of crime, simply mocking you for your dependence on your owners government
And government is not responsible for crime inside or outside your home, the parties involved are. Government is not your daddy

I didn't move the goalpost. Simply reasserted the place Government has always occupied in the live of people. Before you ever dreamt of marriage, you were an individual in the eyes of the Law. You expected under the Law. Even after marriage, you remain an individual under the Law, only with a marriage tag/status ticked in your profile.

2. Government is the party responsible for ensuring crimes reported are properly investigated and prosecuted. That is the world of Government, not individuals. Rape is a crime; marital rape is equally rape, a violation of the right of an individual.

Jokerman:
➜John 3:16 ...1 Cor 2:9

I asked you for evidence of your claim and you posted a reference to a 2000-year-old text? How in the world does that constitute evidence of your claim?

SadEast419:
➜Are you assuming that all religious beliefs are built on contradictions?
➜Many religious scholars throughout history have engaged deeply with philosophy and reason.
➜Could it be that some contradictions come from misunderstandings or misinterpretations rather than flaws in religion itself?

1. Not assuming. Religion is typically established through the words—opinions of individuals — of men, words that are for the most part personal as you previously pointed out.

2. And many of those same religious scholars have come up with, for the most part, deeply contradictory ideas to describe many of the same entities.

3. But religion is itself founded on those very misunderstandings and misinterpretations — the flaws you refer to.

CallTheCops:
➜Good evening people. Please I'm currently in a dilemma at this crucial stage of my life. I'm a graduate and unemployed but I plan on going into learning digital / IT skills..
The dilemma is that my uncle who works in an oil firm has told me to apply for a safety course so he would help me get a job as a safety officer if I'm successful with passing the course.
I want to ask, is it worth ditching my IT learning ambitions for? How lucrative is the pay?

Why not go for both? First, the safety, then after passing it immediately after, begin working on your IT learning ambitions.

Jokerman:
➜Salvation my brother. The greatest of all

Where is the proof that you have this supposed benefit?

TV01:
➜Perhaps read and digest the snips and extracts you have posted thus far - "conjugal rights conferred by marriage" pretty much says it all.

As usual, you religious folks only seem to pay attention to bits and pieces that align with your particular delusion, ignoring the rest. 🙄🙄🙄

Starzo:
➜You're the enemy fashioned against yourself

Religion is indeed a scam fashioned against the human mind! 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

Starzo:
➜🎼 I'm married to Jesus 🎼
🎼 Satan leave me alone 🎼
🎼 I'm married to Jesus 🎼
🎼 Satan leave me alone 🎼

Religion is indeed a scam fashioned against the human mind! 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

Starzo:
➜I know you're disturbed

All because you were caught in a lie!

1Sharon:
We can disobey our husbands along as his request sounds stupid? Got it 👍🏽

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

TV01:
➜Again, not true. Legally and religiously (biblically in my worldview), married couples are not simply treated as "2 individuals" - as though not married. In some instances, maybe, criminal offense, voting etc, but in many, and the most meaningful, inheritance, kinship rights, child custody, they are not. And by now you should have grasped that the very act of marriage means you agree that your spouse has conjugal rights, which includes the right to physical intimacy. That is not something that is discussed after the fact of marriage, it is inherent in entering into the estate of marriage. If you don't get that, you don't get marriage, or, are speaking of a different form of marriage.
Legal divorce is the end of a marriage and with divorce the mutual rights and privileges are voided.
No, they are not forced. There is an á priori agreement by entering into a marriage union, which confers mutual privileges, rights and responsibilities on the spouses. Agreeing to marry means you accept the conjugal rights of your spouse. Not the possibility of intimacy after the marriage.
You appear unable to distinguish between mutually agreed sexual intimacy and rape. Conjugal rights permitted during incarceration are not forcing couples to have intimacy, or forcing one against their wishes. It is allowing the mutual agreement to persist despite the situation.
Marriage is the agreement - and confers mutual rights, privileges and responsibilities, including sexual intimacy. To infer one can "marry" and then decide never to have physical intimacy, lacks an understanding of marriage, legal or biblical - as in both instances it is not completed\can be voided if not consummated.
Yours sounds more like an ideological position. You are free to it, but it doesn't change the particulars of marriage. Certainly not biblically and not legally as it currently stands.
There are limits to government intervention and quite frequently we have bad governments and bad laws. They are not infallible and their reach should not become overreach. That's all.

There is no need to go around and around with this. The Law is clear on the fact that the individual retains his/her fundamental human right even in a marriage situation — that right is retained until even death. Your personal religious delusions cannot strike this out or nullify it in any way.

Also, the law makes clear provisions in the case that a person feels that his right is being denied him. In the marital case, you can file for restitution of conjugal rights through the courts or better yet divorce. There is no reason why anyone should think it makes sense to force their will on another human being, no matter the familial/marriage bond that may exist between them.

Definition: Conjugal rights refer to the rights and privileges that come with being married. These include mutual rights of companionship, support, comfort, sexual relations, affection, joint property rights, and more. If these rights are lost, it can also mean a loss of consortium. The term is often used in reference to incarceration, where some states allow for "conjugal visits."
When two people get married, they have certain conjugal rights. For example, they have the right to live together, share property, and make decisions together. They also have the right to have sexual relations with each other.

In some states, if one spouse is incarcerated, they may be allowed to have conjugal visits with their spouse. This means that they can spend time alone together in a private room and have sexual relations.

These examples illustrate how conjugal rights are the rights and privileges that come with being married. They include both emotional and physical aspects of a relationship, such as companionship, support, and sexual intimacy.

Starzo:
➜Thunder faya you....carry your madness from where I dey

So, you knew you were lyinG!

SadEast419:
➜So where do you stand? Do you think science and faith religion should be completely separate, or do they have a meaningful intersection? I love it when I encounter high intelligent people.

How or...

SadEast419:
➜...Science, in its purest form, is about acquiring knowledge, while faith religion—depending on how one defines it—can be seen as applying or interpreting that knowledge within a personal or spiritual framework.
➜...Science doesn’t "prove" things in an absolute sense but builds models based on observation, experimentation, and repeatability...
➜And belief—yes, it’s personal and can change based on perception, which is why it isn’t necessarily a measure of truth. Truth, in a scientific sense, is about what is consistently observable and testable, while in a philosophical or theological sense, it might be about ultimate reality beyond human perception.

...where does one begin locating the intersection between that which is wholly non-personal and that which is completely personal?

SadEast419:
➜Science and faith have often been seen as opposing forces, but many argue they can coexist. Science relies on empirical evidence and testable theories, while faith is based on belief and spirituality.
Some people see them as complementary—science explains the how of the universe, while faith addresses the why. For example, someone can believe in evolution while also believing that a higher power set everything in motion. Others argue that faith can inspire scientific inquiry, as many historical scientists were deeply religious.
On the flip side, some say science and faith are fundamentally incompatible because science demands proof, while faith requires belief without evidence. What do you think? Can they work together, or are they at odds? Can science and faith coexist?

I don't believe science and religion can rationally coexist mainly because religion is built on a foundation of contradictions. How can an arm of human knowledge that builds on facts be said to be complementary to ideas that build on falsehoods/contradictions? How or where does this complementary connection begin or end?

Odin13:
➜Everything.. Totally everything .. most importantly.. salvation . Thank you

Where is your proof of this?

Starzo:
Eternal life...I hope and pray

Proof? Your pastor said so?

kppo:
A spot in heaven.

Proof? Your imagination?

Drella:
➜The analogy explains concept of authority, not object. I never supported forcing sexx.
➜ What I am saying is a wife shouldn’t turn down her husband unnecessarily.

What authority? Who you be wey you be authority abeg?
2. Because she loses her right to be a human as a result of having a husband? Are you people OK at all?

horlus:
➜Everyone's journey is different and people might have different reasons to start all over.

All the more reason why one needs further clarification on what starting over in the particular case would imply.

TV01:
➜Then you fail to understand what marriage is - it has to mean "abdication of bodily autonomy" to a degree, as a marriage has to be consummated to be in effect. Taking vows is but the first step. If not consummated, a marriage can be deemed void
➜No it does not, as entering into a marriage confers "conjugal rights" on both parties - more in the next response. You clearly did not read or understand what you posted - it's by definition! Marriage confers the mutual right to sexual intimacy. One partner can't simply unilaterally refuse access to the other without being in breach.
➜ Not to say force should come into play either. Hence my point about discussion, understanding, and mutual agreement .
➜Conjugal rights are considered such that even when one partner is incarcerated, the right should be accommodated. Why should one party suffer due to the offence of the other? And the state acknowledges that allowing this will help maintain the union, which is beneficial to society - conjugal rights being used in conjunction with incarceration doesn't mean they are derived from it - back-to-front thinking.
➜The very act of getting married means the spouses understand that sexual intimacy becomes a mutual right and it is a violation to wilfully withhold it without cause and\or agreement. Sexual intimacy is not violence and violence should not be used to access it - I make no reference to peoples kinks.
➜Yes, it is. But you agree to mutually vary\share that right with another when you get married. You didn't respond to this -
➜ The government is to serve the people and are themselves fallible. There should be checks to ensure that they don't conjure up rights and crimes that violate relationships and institutions - especially those that existed before any government.

Look up your Legal code to see that it does no such thing the reason being a fundamental human right is what that is. Even in marriage, both remain individuals in the eyes of the Law.

2. That isn't true since divorce from marriage is also legally recognized.

3. If you state that one partner CAN NOT unilaterally refuse, then what you are insinuating is that both partners are forced into this conjugal rights agreement due to being married, are you not?

4. Well, non-incarcerated people know to seek divorce if not happy with the state of the marriage, not force themselves on the other partner. Incarcerated individuals on the other hand are typically limited in what they are capable of hence the reason why the term is typically used in connection with the incarcerated.

5. Marriage exists as an agreement between the two parties involved. This means your mutual sexual rights are dependent on the agreement between both individuals (unforced consent is necessary) in the marriage. You can only claim that right if and only if both parties agree (unforced consent is necessary).

6. Yes! A man or woman's body, regardless of marital status, is his/hers to give to whomever or not.

7. That is why you have your legal code, the compendium of laws that everyone including those in government is to abide by.

dhiqson:
✓
This is why i tell my guys. Go for hijabis. Go for muslim women. Most woke bastards are of Christian fold
Meet hijabis man. What is martial rape edakun? Sex in marriage was what the bible wanted from us. If you're bringing rape, then the purpose of marriage is defeated. As a single guy, i shag more. But i get married. Ya telling me it's only when ya in the mood u do? When payin bills I pay REGARDLESS HOW I FEEL. I DON'T FEEL GOOD I PROVIDe. I FEEL DOWN I PROVIDE. But somehow, women have coined another term rape Thank Jesus for hijabis abeg
Alhamdullilah

Violence hidden behind religion can go both ways.

verminnel:
it would'nt be so easy for me to pull that lol. The few times I tried hanging out , I didn't really find it enjoyable I get bored up outdoors but I'm the life of the party indoors

There is a lot to finding something enjoyable; that has more to do with your mind and mental health than anything else.

I used to struggle with anhedonia, a condition that made it almost impossible to enjoy anything. I was able to, by way of behavioral modifications, accomplish a lot without necessarily enjoying any of it as it was all to fit in. Fortunately, for me, I find help for the condition and now accept that it is ok to do whatever one wants to do without really having to enjoy it.

dominique:
Is that not the submissivemess you people are always expecting of women?

🤣🤣🤣🤣

Drella:
✓ If you don’t have authority over a car in your possession, it means you can’t tell me when to drive it and when not to.
I can drive it when I wish!

And this is the core of the delusion that rapists dwell in...the notion that a women or wife is a possession one obtains authority over. -- a property or even slave.

Baronthecelebri:
If she refuse to give you sex divorce her

Simple!🤔

Gotocourt:
Nothing like marital rape in Nigerian law. Spit on it, drill it and cum like a Boss. Zero apologies

😔😔😔

Drella:
1Corinthians 7

The opinions of Paul are just that, opinions.