₦airaland Forum

.

VOICEOFTHEMASES:
Last night Dakuku called in channels TV and said governor was on his way to his home town when he saw a situation at omagwa and stopped as the chief security officer of the state and today governor is saying he was called to come there. Now this was what governor ameachi said with his own mouth “I think it is a sham. You noticed what happened in Omagwa, what happened was that somebody called me and said they were been attacked at a particular polling booth and I went there, the thugs were overwhelming until another group of soldiers came before they ran away.
“Don’t forget that the report was that our people were been attacked, so I came to rescue the people who were been attacked. When we came, you saw the thugs yourselves, so how do you stabilize the system when already the system has been taken over by thugs?”

So I ask, why on earth will Mr Dakuku peterside defend governor ameachi when he clearly have no first hand information on the so call matter?

How can Dakuku open his mouth to say governor ameachi was on his way to vote in his home town by 12pm? Haba now.

Was governor ameachi supposed to move around on election day?

Like I said my people, Dakuku peterside is love by Rivers people but the hatred for governor ameachi made rivers people to vote against him.

Ameachi Was moving from place to place on election day in Rivers State, infact, it was reported that he was the one that scattered election material in a polling unit/ward center in Rumuola in port harcourt.

He is the one that ferment trouble and still will be the one that will run to the press first.

Rivers people are jubilating, but he is asking that the result be cancelled.

Even in some areas in PH, Ameachi people refused election to be held, they wish to create confusion and trouble in the state since they know they will lose so that they will short change Rivers people.

[quote author=kilAMEACHI7
post=32364233]I created this thread for all concerned and patriotic rivers people , please is this the kind of Rivers state you Need? See the kind of people vying for political positions for our rivers state house of assembly under the crass PDP. (Check the photo attached , here . N:B all info there are true).
When wike was the chiarman of obio/akpor,( 1999 -2007 ) as everybody present then can tell, this era was fraught with hooligans and louts (who were never in uniforms) harassing rivers people and residents (dispossessing them of their funds and properties under the pretext of various illegitimate task forces , this era was hell for us from obio akpor ).

Also to bring to your knowledge, we (NMA rivers state chapter) had a town hall meeting with the PDP gubernatorial aspirant on tue. 24th, march 2015,where he told us after a lengthy And banal discussion, in his words "My only worry is for Jonathan to win this election, once he does, I can go to sleep, the election will be a work over " this wasn't the first time he made such statement as he has made such boastful statements before now. Thank goodness Jonathan never won.

Now i want to ask you rivers people an honest question, is that the kind of Rivers state you Want? Do you want to take rivers state back to those dark Ages? Won't you want a rivers state, filled with vision and free for all both indigene and residents, , please my good people let us choose right and move rivers state to higher grounds......


Please let's vote right..... this is for very concerned Rivers citizens that have the state at heart.....[/quote]This sort of thread and argument is really unfortunate for Ameachi's Rivers state.

It wont have mattered what had happend in Abuja, who the next governor of Rivers state will be, would have just been whomsoever Ameachi would have picked and all Rivers would have queued behind him unopposed.

But that was then, befor the madness started.(I think the whole fight is madness).

Because, since the madness started, for what ever reason, it has been the innocent masses of Rivers state that have born the brunt. Since this Ameach started his struggle, he has done zero project for PH residence. True!

Go round the whole of PH communities (Ikwere towns in PH) none has passable roads, they are all swampy, i mean really swampy, I doubt the story is different for Etche and others.
This is not to say he Ameachi did not work in Rivers state, No. He did some good work, he dualised the major roads in and out of ph. A good job indeed. This is not to say he hadn't the capacity to do more, no, he does, but, truth remains that he did not fixed the internal roads while Rivers state became one of the poorest states in the country borrowing money every now and then yet this roads for the common Rivers man is deplorable.

Though I feel monorail is a good thing, but they say, cherity begins at home, he should have ensured that we had roads to walk on ground first befor taking us to the skies.

This guy that he Ameachi is putting up for Rivers Governor is said to have started this monorail that some people said gulp the chunk of the state money while a commissioner. To that, I say it is a sign the guy may just continue to let the monorail to prevent the common man to have roads in phc communities, a veritable excussed for him to use it seems.

I feel the roads in Portharcout environs is one of the major issues for the March 11 Election.

Its so bad that Youths in one of the communities in PH had to block him(Ameachi) from passing through an internal road in their community, insisting he should pass through the major road that he has not fixed. That led to his body guard shooting at the youths(though it was reported that the youths short at him) to clear the road.
They had insisted that he should pass through the major Rumuolumeni road that is so bad that he Ameachi refused to pass, but ordinary Rivers people are suffering there.

Considering that this road is an industrial hub Axis road, it surprises many that it is in the condition it is for the pass 8 years.

The anger in this communities is tangible, the determination for Wike is not about who is better, but that for whatever reason, Ameachi will ensure that this communities remain the way they are for the next eight years should APC wins.

Couple with other reasons like courts and the likes, sums up the reasons why they wish Ameachi's influence must leave Rivers.

It has nothing to do with Dakoku or the sort, but rather, the charater Behind the name AMEACHI.

If APC politicians suffers by losing out in Rivers bounty, the ball should fall squarely on the feet of Ameachi and his extra large ambition and anger.

I have come to observe the use of too many none biblical terms for biblical doctrines, many at times this words are outright pagan words and are not found in the bible Original language.

At the end, to get the understanding of this words people resort to the dictionary meaning that are sure going to be the pagan meaning that owns the word at the first place, and this pagan meaning will then be inputted as though it is and was what the bible writers had in mind when writing the bible.

Most errors we have today 're as a result of this importation.

Philosophers cum theologians (the I too know people) are most often the culprits for this.

Should we close our eyes to this ?

Hanging on to a doctrine that you have found to be in contradiction with the bible does raise the question why ?

Is it due to the fear of men ?
is it cause dady GO approves of it ?

Should one follow what the GO says or one should follow what the bible says ?

take note, lives are at stake on this.

Orunto:
Do not be equally yoked with unbeliever. Also, remember that all Scriptures are from above and they are good for learning.

Welcome, ok.
Your concern is on unbelievers, fine.
but on the above topic, what's your take ?

For one to ensure God's approval, should one not make Hays while the son Shines, by rejecting doctrines that are in conflicts with Bible ?

What do you say ?

What should be the wise thing to do when a doctrine is not supported by scriptures ?

Or not even stated in the bible but propounded by men.

Should it be: manage the doctrine and teaching and tell oneself that it is well or to take decisive action and do away with such doctrines or teachings not consistent with the bible ?

Should the fear of God not push one to take decisive action ?

JMAN05:
If I understand your question, then the answer to it is "translation".

Translator who translated the Greek/Hebrew word thinks "Soul" conveys the meaning of the original word to an English reader. (though its english meanings do not always portray the original language equivalent).

Just the same way God, come, eat, run, pit are not Hebrew nor Greek words, but are used to bring the word to an english reader.

So the word didnt find its way into the autograph, but found its way into translations of the autographs of the bible.

Well, I don't think it is all words that has connotations which are of Pagan origins.

Words like come, it, go, etc. don't embodied doctrines.

Thank you for your inputs.

PastorAIO:
What you are looking for is the etymology of the word. There are many etymology dictionaries online. Check this one out:


http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=soul

Okay, I see.
From the above, it is safe to say that the Word Soul was not used by the bible Original writers since it is said to be an 'Old English word'.

Bearing in mind that this word soul has it's root from English and not Jewish, but the Original bible writers were Jews.
Also bearing in mind the implication of it having it's root in English(made up of Pagan Nations), is it not possible that some of the various connotations ascribed to the Word Soul are also of Pagan root ?
I mean, from the definitions above, it is obvious that it does not pretend to capture the mind and intentions of the Bible writers that made used of completely different words.

If the above is true, will it not make for shrudeness for one to count his step while swallowing the various connotations of such words in terms of bible msg ?

I mean, if the Word Soul carries foreign and strange ideas off what the bible msg is(bearing in mind it is a pagan word and of a pagan root), will it not encourage those using it without this understanding to imbibed strange belief that the bible does not support ?

Well, my 2cent though.

Getting the facts on issues, especially religious issues can never be over emphasised, hence, my curiosity.

I definitely desire your beautiful input.

If in the reality you are also confounded on this, feel free to express your view points.

Since the Bible was originally written in Hebrew and then Greek, and the Words ne'phesh and psykhe' were respectively used for both Hebrew and Greek while writing the Bible, i could not help but ask how we came about the word 'Soul' as used today, even in the Bible that has its Originals(prototype) copies in Hebrew and Greek.

So, How did we get here i wish to know.

Is the word 'SOUL' an English language word ? if it is an English language word, how did it come to be a defining word in the Bible considering that the original Bible writers NEVER made use of a word like that(SOUL) in their writings ?

Whichever, if the word Soul is not an English language word, where then did it come from, what origin ? What language is it of ?

Please, i need help here, i hope i have made myself understood, if not, i am open for further clarification on my drift.

Thank you in anticipation of your help.

Even people that dont know Jesus also know it is not over until it is all over at death,.that they can make money still as long as there is still life.

When elementary knowledge that all mankind knew from the start of time turned out to be the msg that Jesus left heaven to earth to preach to mankind, in that case, his coming was a wasted effort, since he brought nothing new.

Even people that dont know Jesus also know it is not over until it is all over at death,.that they can make money still as long as there is still life.

When elementary knowledge that all mankind knews from the start of time turned out to be the msg that Jesus left heaven to earth to preach to mankind, in that case, his coming was a wasted effort, since he brought nothing new.

mbaemeka: The verses he quoted, who made them- Jesus or him?

I was waiting for you to come and show me that the christian msg is to go and preach that "it is never too late".

That gentiles should be told that it is never too late for anything.

That even though they die, it is never too late for them to come back to life in this current world, afteral, Jesus applied it to death as well.

Let his own not only be a promise on money and material things, after telling people that it is never too late to make money, you then ask them to pay tithe and bring money to you to actualised it.

Was such Jesus story line ?

mbaemeka: The verses he quoted, who made them- Jesus or him?

What ?

haibe: If you mean lake of fire, it is really true, a place where all the ungodly will be destroyed eternally. If however you mean the imaginary hell fire like the Greek mythology where Lord hades punishes sinners, then this is unbiblical.

When you die, you remain dead and unconscious until the resurrection, either to eternal life or to eternal death in the lake of fire.

But as Christians, christ has promises us resurrection to eternal/everlasting life. The ungodly will perish in the lake of fire.

So beautifully stated.

Thank you very much.

Anybody that have not heard, justice has not been served.

He falls among the people that will come up though "wicked".

Then, withing 1000yrs, justice will be served.

Thanks.

musKeeto: I've met people who have never heard about Jesus or the Cross. And they died not knowing human, never having that opportunity to have someone share the Gospel with them. Would they spend eternity in hell?


Also do you think rejection of a story for which there's no evidence should lead to eternal damnation? Do you consider that fair?

Find out why the resurrection is for the righteous and the unrighteous.

John 5:28,29.

"Do not be amazed at this, for a time is coming when all who are in their graves will hear his voice
29 and come out —those who have done what is good will rise to live, and those who have done what is evil will rise to be judged".

And again, the bible says the judgement is a 1000yrs judgement.

Am assuming you should have known all this, if you dont and will not "ask" or research it, well.
Thats unfortunate.

Weah96: Yes I am. I don't have children now, and I won't mutilate them when I do.

Ok, you said you will not circumcised your own son.

Ok, good for you.

May you remember this circumcision discuss when the time comes.

But then, HYPOCRITES dont stick to their own standards.

How easy it is for you though circumcised to come out here so fast to state that you "will not circumcised your son" when you do carry one.

Even though you, haven been circumcised have no own untoward experience on circumcision to warrant your objection so fast for your unborn child.

How old are you sef ?

Am begining to wander if I am talking to a kid.

Weah96: Who was the first female to sell her v)agina for cash? This is the same kind of question you're asking. You're not going to a definite answer. The best someone can do is describe the characteristics of that initial person.

Honesty is not cheap.

We have the first reference to circumcision in the bible and it is noted that none Jews were not circumcised untill religion transfered the knowledge to them.

So, it ordinary supposed to be a straith forward thing in the land of honesty to just state that it is not the same source that advocated male circumcison that advised female circumcision.

Well, since the source of female circumcision is not the same with the source for male circumcision, there is no need, and there will be absolutely no need to attempt to cast aspersions on the advocater of male circumcission and on the discussion here, Using female circumcision, an absolutely unrelated matter to the subject referenced personality.

Like I had said initially, honesty is not a virtue available to all, going by your inability to answer simple questions straith forwardly.

Meanwhile, it is noted, your attempted effort to use female circumcision to cloud this discussion, please, desist forth with.

Considering the fact that you are circumcised and still unable to cite from experience the cones of the circumcision you carry but rather, you run to female circumcision, paints your female circumcision brouhaha here as plain dishonesty and laziness.

Face the discuss, which is = male circumcision, its source.

Will you ?

@weah96

This was for you.

loveroftruth: Am trying to get the import of this post.

Are aquating male circumcision to female circumcision ?

Are you saying that there is no benefit of male circumcision over female ?

Are you saying that it is the person that authorised male circumcision that authorised female circumcision ?

Do you have evidence for that insinuation ?

The reason given for male circumcision, is it the same reason given for female own, is it from same source ?

If the directive is not from same source, how did the source of the male circumcision come to know and avoided demanding for female circumcision ?

Your answer please.

Do you think you have answered this questions ?

Pls, go back and answer this questions also.

Thank you.

Weah96: I can't think of any medical benefit of circumcision. Human beings are not laptops or vehicles that can be customized by removing factory apps or wheels. We are alive.

I suggested that the original source of the practice was a mad person. Only a mad person would dare take a blade a start sawing away at the Instruments of a newborn baby. The character Abraham in the bible is an example of a madman. He tried to decapitate his son after hearing a voice in his head.

I think female and male circumcisions have the same purpose. In both cases, the pleasure derived from having sex is reduced by removing valuable and sensitive tissue from the Instruments. In males it's the foreskin, in females it's the c)litoris.

Mad people are all around us. You know some of them as prophets and pastors. These practices must have evolved independently, probably on separate sides of the globe. The point I tried to emphasize was that it only takes one unchallenged mad person to begin a trend this widespread.

Firstly, hypocricy is a disease, and discussing with hypocrite is an excersis in futility.

Hence, befor I address your post above, I wish to ask you some petinent questions. Just to make sure.

1. Are you circumcised ?
2. If you have kids, or, when you do have kids, will you have th em circumcised ?

Pls, your answers to the questions above befor I attend to your post.

Thank you.

Joagbaje: .
Mark 9:23
If thou canst believe, all things are possible to him that believeth.


The story of Abraham and his wife Sarah is a perfect example that there’s no such thing as “too late” with God. The Bible says, against natural hope, Abraham believed in hope that he might be the father of many nations, according to the Word of God (Romans 4:18-21). He was about a hundred years old, while Sarah was ninety years (Genesis 17:17). Yet, God told Him he was going to have a child through Sarah. Abraham believed, and at the appointed time, Sarah brought forth Isaac. Some people often lose hope, wondering why they didn’t get the job, contracts, promotion or money for which they had prayed and fasted.
Some others gripe about the promises of God taking too long to be fulfilled in their lives. Well, both groups of people have one common problem: unbelief. The issue isn’t with God. He’s never late.
Consider the Lord Jesus: a message was sent to Him that His friend, Lazarus, was sick (John 11:3) and He promised to go over to see him. The Master waited four more days, until Lazarus died and was buried. It doesn’t get any more hopeless than that. Jesus had said Lazarus’ sickness wasn’t unto death (John 11:4), but he died. He had said He was coming but didn’t show up until four days later. When the Master eventually showed up, he requested to be taken to the grave of Lazarus, undaunted by the fact that he had been dead for four days. He instructed that the tombstone be rolled away and called out with a loud voice, “Lazarus, come forth!” The dead man came back to life (John 11:41-44).
It makes no difference how hopeless you might think your situation is; there’s no such thing as “too late” with God. Simply trust Him, for He’s the God who gives life to the dead, and calls things that don’t exist as though they already existed. He lives in eternity where there’s no past or future. With Him, everything is in the “NOW”; and He proves Himself Master over all circumstances, no matter how late, dead, or impossible they might seem in the eyes of men.

I see!

This is the msg you use to extort and exploit the hopeless.

Smh.

Is this what Jesus ask you to preach as a christian ? (If Jesus sent you that is).

Matt. 24:14:

And this good news of the 'kingdom' must be preach as a witness to all nations , and then the end will come.

musKeeto: Warning: No generic gods allowed.

According to Islam, if you believe Jesus ss the Son of God and not a prophet, you'll end up in hell. Christianity holds that Jesus is THE only way to heaven, and heaven can only be accessed by those who believe in him, not by good works or deeds.

Take into consideration that the average human will spend around 70 years on earth. Different factors(upbringing, environment, where you are born) influence whatever religious beliefs you are exposed to and hold on to during our sojourn on this earth. Most of these factors are beyond our control(you didn't get to pick your tribe/country/color). This length of time isn't so long when compared to eternity, infact it'd probably be less than a millisecond in eternity time.

If God was to toss a coin and ask you "heads or tails? If you are correct you go to heaven, but if you are wrong then you go to hell", then would you see this as a fair way of deciding who goes to heaven and hell? Of course you wouldn't but when you think about it, you have a much better chance this way since it is fifty-fifty. In real life it isn't fifty-fifty between Muslims and Christians, there are more religions too.

Do you consider God fair? As an aside, why should what I believe in matter to God more than how I treat my fellow humans?

Math 24:14:

And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a 'witness' to all nations, and then the end will come.

From the above, your concern has been addressed already, if you are sincere that is.

All those alive will be given equal opportunity.

Weah96: How did genital mutilation come about? Females are mutilated down there too, in some cultures.

IMO, it is the work of madmen. Sometimes, if people do not speak up quickly, a madman is able consolidate an incredible amount of power over otherwise sane human beings. Mad people should always be checked, or put in their place, as soon as the madness rears its head. If not, then we could end up like this, grown men walking around with sawed off p)enises.

Am trying to get the import of this post.

Are aquating male circumcision to female circumcision ?

Are you saying that there is no benefit of male circumcision over female ?

Are you saying that it is the person that authorised male circumcision that authorised female circumcision ?

Do you have evidence for that insinuation ?

The reason given for male circumcision, is it the same reason given for female own, is it from same source ?

If the directive is not from same source, how did the source of the male circumcision come to know and avoided demanding for female circumcision ?

Your answer please.

Ok, its very obvious that the atheist have nothing to offer here.
Though most of them if not all carry a circumcised manhood, it does not tickle their fancy to enquire how come some one cut their manhood and how it came about first.

Well, I do, and I wish to find out why it is no other person cared to ask.

How did circumcision come about ?

Your answer pls.

Princessfidelis: So many people are going to find out the hard truth that there is life after death. And so many good people are going to hell, being good alone can not take anyone to heaven. Only Jesus can save. Accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior and obey the word of God them will you make heaven. Please dont let you pastor tell you what is right or wrong, only the bible should you listen to because its the instruction book of God. One more thing the bible is not a text book you can just read, you need the spirit of God to teach you so you understand what it says. I pray God open your spiritual eyes and understanding in Jesus name. Amen

You are discouraging people here from reading the bible, you are the one that God has opened her eyes to understand the bible, meanwhile, others are wrong and will not be right unless they come to have the same believes like you. Ok, I see.

Pls, you that your eyes have been opened, can you use the bible to answer the topic in the OP ?

Not just you talking and not showing the usefulness of your "opened eyes".

The wife said he committed ADULTERY.

Now, the above is not a joke.

If Yahweh is the referenced God, you maybe bitting more than you can chew by insinuating that he will accept him being an Adulterer.

Try finding the God that accept Adultery, not Yahweh.

If it was an error of a one time mistake, do you think the wife will have left him ?

Your guess is as good as mine.

Zikdik: I think that, though I can't speak for everyone, atheists are against it.

Yeah! Like Zikdik said Above, "atheist are against circumcision".

Atheist, is the above true ?

If yes why ?

If no, how did you come to know about circumcision ?

You answer pls.

Thank you in anticipation.

Your answer to the question of you being circumcised is:

Zikdik: No

So, if you are not Circumcised, your subjective experience is relative on this matter. It appears that the ones that are circumcised are equipt to do a better Job, ask the female folks.

Zikdik: I think that, though I can't speak for everyone, atheists are against it.

Why should the atheist be against it ?
i hope you are not insinuating that, just their act of being against it justifies your saying circumcision is a bad thing/is not beneficial ?

Zikdik: It is not just atheists who are against circumcision.
The idea of forcing an infant onto a table and
cutting off erogenous tissue from him is barbaric.

Yeah, its sure is barberic to force a young child to put food in his mouth, dont you think so ? lol.

you have to do better than that ^ if you wish to be taken seriously. there are sooooooooooo, many things that perants from experience do to their children at that age.

do you really wish that consent should be sorted for from an infants of 8years old ?

Zikdik: You don't have to be an atheist to be opposed to
such an idea.

What idea exactly ? are you of the opinion that there are no advantages for being circumcised ? lol. you must be a very funny dude.

please, say something. is it that you cant see any advantage of circumcision to uncircumcision ?

Zikdik: I do have a contempt towards religious ideas that
demand the circumcision of infants,

We are not looking at it from the angle of it being a religious idea, but rather, a practice that have come to become a norm in the world today.

whats your take On it and forget Religion ?
How did it come about ?
Who initiated it first ?
How did the initiator managed to know that it will turn out successfully ?

those are the questions you are to address here.

drop sentiment aside and face the issue on ground.
your subjective opinion cannot be a fact that i can take to the bank. QED.

Zikdik: but I mostly
have a contempt towards circumcision because of
what has been removed without the person's
permission.

Its very funny if you expect an infant of 8days old to have consent, we mayhave to start asking them to decides on the veriety of food he should be given, why must it be breast milk alone ? are there no other foods (even liquid) that he can be given appart from milk at that age ?

please, your answer.

Zikdik: The foreskin has three major functions.
1. It prevents the glans (head) from becoming dry
and numb.

What about friction and size ?

Zikdik: The glans is a mucous membrane and
is not meant to be exposed to the outside
environment.

the evident facts dont show any side effect like you are insinuating, can you point out What is wrong with it being exposed ?

i can tell you of the obvious protection the foreskin offers in preventing fluid from going into the Pe.nis while in the womb, just like the heymen protects that of the female in the womb, but on coming out, what danger does removing the Foreskin cause ?

Zikdik: 2. The foreskin reduces friction during sex,

Lol

are you a kid or a virgin ?

is friction during sex an advantage or a disadvntage in sex ? your answer please!

Zikdik: increasing pleasure for both partners.

Am sorry to burst your bubbles, a reduced friction in se.x, rather reduces the pleasures of se.x. are you a virgin ?

Well, you said you are Uncircumcised, i guess your wife must have been sparing you this embarasing information, hence your ignorance on this all important issue. you must have miss alot

Zikdik: 3. The foreskin itself contains 20,000+ nerve
endings directly contributing to sexual pleasure.

Tell me, the membren and the skin, which is suppose to be more sensitive ?
Stop embarasing your sef guy.

Ask the women, the surface of their se.x organ(skin) and the inside which is more sensitive, when you have the answer from them, come back here and tell us thank you.

Zikdik: Having these removed permanently removes an
enormous portion of a man's sexual pleasure.

I understand your blissed.

Enlightenment on this will do you a lot of good. the "skin covering the sensitive part of the Pen.is is more sensitive" in your thinking. why not scratch the skin and the Head of your Pen.is and compare the one most sensitive ?
that will help clare your doubts.

Zikdik: It that sense, yes. You have been damaged.

LOL

we are not talking of women Circumcision here o. sort your Facts properly.

Meanwhile, answer the questions in the op.


Who initiated it first ?
How did the initiator managed to know that it will turn out successful ?

Zikdik: I think that, though I can't speak for everyone, atheists are against it. It is not just atheists who are against circumcision.
The idea of forcing an infant onto a table and
cutting off erogenous tissue from him is barbaric.
You don't have to be an atheist to be opposed to
such an idea.
I do have a contempt towards religious ideas that
demand the circumcision of infants, but I mostly
have a contempt towards circumcision because of
what has been removed without the person's
permission.
The foreskin has three major functions.
1. It prevents the glans (head) from becoming dry
and numb. The glans is a mucous membrane and
is not meant to be exposed to the outside
environment.
2. The foreskin reduces friction during sex,
increasing pleasure for both partners.
3. The foreskin itself contains 20,000+ nerve
endings directly contributing to sexual pleasure.
Having these removed permanently removes an
enormous portion of a man's sexual pleasure.
It that sense, yes. You have been damaged.

I will address your post from different angles and at different times.

Meanwhile, for starters, are you circumcised ?

Yeah! He did not commit adultery, I did.

Smh.

Thats why my wife is divorcing me.