₦airaland Forum

incogni2o:
1. The Bible mentioned the Sun, Earth, The Stars and thierconstellations, The Planets aren't more significant than the Stars. we have billions of planets out of which only Earth is known to have Life. Isn't that fare enough to prove the Genesis story?

Let me add some references

1. Job 9:9
Who makes the Bear, Orion and the Pleiades,
And the chambers of the south;

2. Job 38:31
“Can you bind the chains of the Pleiades,
Or loose the cords of Orion?

3. Amos 5:8
He who made the Pleiades and Orion
And changes deep darkness into morning,
Who also darkens day into night,
Who calls for the waters of the sea
And pours them out on the surface of the earth,
The Lord is His name.

4. Isaiah 13:10
For the stars of heaven and their constellations
Will not flash forth their light;
The sun will be dark when it rises
And the moon will not shed its light.

2. The Bible mention the Heavens and the Earth
What do you think Heavens
Why do.you think Heavens is.Plural here but Earth is p~Psingular?
3. God gave us all these puzzles to solve and make.life interesting for us. He knows all already. The Bible is more focused on Man's redemption from the fall to Sin, than telling you how many planets or solar systems are up there.

even see the naive Job when God was answering him

Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.

5 Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?

6 Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;

7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

Comprehension seems to be an issue here 🤦🏽

...So i end with saying again why does Christianity, with its profound theological depth and breadth, divine inspiration lack explicit references to planets and other celestial bodies apart from what was visible to the naked eyes as at then?? Why aren't they featured in the creation story??

Last i checked all those mentioned ( stars and their constellations) are visible to the naked eyes ergo feature in the story but those that aren't visible well, you know... obviously dont. Wheres the divine inspiration.Those examples do nothing to even begin to answer the question.

"The Bible is more focused on Man's redemption from the fall to Sin, than telling you how many planets or solar systems are up there."

Ehmm.. about that. It literally gives a supposed "literal narration" of the creation of the world. Simple question is why were key components left out?? Why remove needed instrumental voices out of a symphony??
Read and comprehend before quoting what proves my point. lol!

In the vast expanse of Christian scriptures, amidst the intricate narratives of creation, prophecy, and salvation, there exists a notable absence – the explicit mention of planets. While the Bible which was divinely inspired to the extents of crafting how everything came to be, the celestial bodies known as planets are conspicuously absent from its pages. Why is that?? Why does Christianity, with its profound theological depth and breadth, lack explicit references to planets? which God also created by the way.

From the Genesis account of creation to the apocalyptic visions of Revelation, the Bible unfolds a narrative that delves into the depths of human existence and the divine plan. Yet, amidst this exploration of the cosmos, planets as astronomical entities remain notably unaddressed. The creation story doesn't tell us when any of the planets where created or why. If it was divinely inspired wouldn't it have featured basicallly how and what time God created the planets?? maybe even the asteroids and black holes. But all these are noticeably absent all through despite the divine inspiration.

The absence stands in contrast to other religious traditions, some even older, where planets, play significant roles in cosmological narratives and religious symbolism. I Was recently reading a version of the sumerian recently, about the aliens( Enllil, Enki) from the planet Nibiru it got me thinking. Even in Greek mythology, planets are personified as gods and goddesses governing various aspects of existence. So once again why does Christianity, with its profound theological depth and breadth, divine inspiration lack explicit references to planets?

Maybe there are theological reasons which could answer this but i very much doubt it. My pov?! These people where simply limited by what they knew and saw at the time and crafted a narrative around it. Heck the writers of the story of babel believed they could use their limited technology at the time to build a tower and it'll reach God. We've built way taller structures and that's putting it lightly and we still haven't reached the skies. Heck we've even travelled past the skies using other means and found way more phenomenal stuff like planets, asteroids, blackholes, solar systems that they couldn't comprehend then due to obvious limitations ergo they weren't part of the narrative or story. If divinely inspired, these limitations ought not to exist and these phenomenons ought to have been added to the creation story. Or maybe there's a theological pov, but i doubt it.

Why the doubt?! Because even when men of science without divine inspiration found out these phenomenons and proposed their theories (heliocentricity) which later became fact, the divinely inspired church which ought to have known by the divine fought against it with its own, now proven wrong theory (geocentricism, where they believed the sun stood still). Even going as far as persecuting and forcing those who found the truth of what we now know today to recant their theories. This was until they finally admitted they were wrong and accepted fact.

Shouldn't the church have known the right reality of things first since it's divinely inspired?? Shouldn't the divinely inspired texts also have featured these later discoveries. So i end with saying again why does Christianity, with its profound theological depth and breadth, divine inspiration lack explicit references to planets and other celestial bodies apart from what was visible to the naked eyes as at then?? Why aren't they featured in the creation story??

Contriman:
be plain

How do u expect him to be plain when he's literally talking nonsense. That's his m.o.

Dtruthspeaker:
If matters were judged by undertones then it is right for police to arrest you and throw you into prison simply because you look like a drug dealer by your undertones.

😄
Any time you "christains" result to insults, the irony makes me laugh. Don't you think its unchristain like to do that?!😏

Sleekfingers:
Any Nigerian that went to primary, secondary and tertiary institution, and can't speak English fluently. That person need to be beheaded.
That's 6+6+4 = That's 16 years of learning English. That person needs to be stoned to death

Don't mind the m0ron, that's the go to excuse for daft Nigerians.

TenQ:
I know what Exodus said:
I am asking for your own personal understanding of the event


From your post, it seems Pharaoh never wanted to continue enslaving the children of Israel BUT God forced him against his will!

Is this your point?

Read what i wrote and you'd get my point. Pharoahs disposition was malleable, God hardened his heart ergo forced him against his will. Comprende?!

TenQ:
From your post, it seems Pharaoh never wanted to continue enslaving the children of Israel BUT God forced him against his will!

Is this your point?

Exodus 9:12. If you read the whole chapter and 8 befor it you'd see clearly his position was quite clearly malleable.

TenQ:
You ignorantly do not know that God does force ANYONE against his will.

Samson was given warnings and he violated them. He suffered for the cause of his disobedience even though he finally repented

Except you're pharoah where he'll harden you heart to make a specatcle then kill all innocent first born children that knew nothing. Come to think of it, asides for killling generally, god does a lot of killing of innocent children.

FRANCISTOWN:
Yahweh himself was a killing machine. What were you expecting from it's spirit?

An absolute killing machine who actually commands "Thou shall not kill", "its a sin, but please kill these select people and make sure you kill the men, women and children and make sure no one survives, cause they've run afoul of me". " Thou shall not covert your neighbors property" "but pleaze take that nice land of those your neighbors over there fllowing with milk and honey cause i promise it to you" and em while at it, pls kill them all. How is that different from muslim terrorists hiding behind religion.

Dtruthspeaker:
See argument by the tiny. Physically and biologically a man and a woman are not the same, so. I dare to say that their genes too are not the same and will not be the same.

To even remember that a father having small penis gets a son with a long one. Even fathers and their sons are different, so you are talking nonsense.

And this topic is not about disproving the bible creation story, so off point.

If you could not realise that was the undertone and main aim of the write up after all this while then you are truly not bright, basically a twin with ur arguments.

Contriman:
The most important part of our body which is the human genome disapprove the Bible story of creation.
Our genetic diversity wouldn’t have been possible with 2 different human pairs who are related not to talk about Adam and Eve who are genetically the same individual.
Humanity would have been gone far ago.

Apt as fvck. Didn't want to use science as it'll provide an easy cop out, later alluded to the same point to drive home my pov though. The premise of the story itself is contradictory enough to show it doesn't add up, then talk less of science that's hard fact. Water on tissue paper

Dtruthspeaker:
See baby tantrums and noise making.



Off Point!



Your head aint working right boy, where would ten thousand come from when the thousand have already marriied and now they all related if The Law was in place at the beginning?

You have nothing boy just you and your personal wish to Bleep your sister without being burned for it.

😂 TKO!!!

Dtruthspeaker:
See, proof you had nothing but noise making.



1) Because It is His Right tto.

2) Common sense would have told you that the population plan would never work as once the children of the new man and woman marry the first mans children because of The Law and God would always have to keep making a new man and woman forever, which definitely is stupid.

Wtf?!!! no like literally wtf?!!! This is what you could come up with or are you having a laugh?! You keep showing how frigging intelligent you are, brilliant mind. The fact you then used the word common sense is quite ironic. That explanation makes sense to you? Even if it was as big as the sun u wouldn't spot the contradiction and irony of the dross of an explanation.

Of course it's his right, right to be hypocritical and change his mind according to you when the bible said he doesn't . Comfortable with sin this minute threatening fire and brimstone the next cause of it. Then this 😄 "Common sense would have told you that the population plan would never work as once the children of the new man and woman marry the first mans children because of The Law and God would always have to keep making a new man and woman forever,which definitely is stupid"

Oh so now the law suddenly exists and becomes valid at the beginning... Interesting. The law that didnt exist because the world was empty according to u even though by the time of Jacob when the world was populated, it wasnt still a sin. So common sense didnt tell you about mass production where same way he made one man and one woman, he could simply have made a thousand men to crossbreed with a thousand women, ten thousand of both even, right at the beginning, maybe even play around with the "novel idea" of sonething called different species. They then reproduce and populate earth eliminating the need for incest and interbreeding. Im sure an all knowing God would know about that option nau, even if you were too common sensed to. If not for any reason to avoid something he claims to detest.

That's not even considering the fact that all humans coming from just 2 people isn't feasible as intrabreeding leads to a host of genetic issues that would breed a genetically weaker and deformed species that would easily die off and that's fact. Before even science made light of the story like water on tissue paper, the story had made light of itself from the religious angle by its incoherent and contradictory tale. That's why u had to come up with that brilliant mental gymnastic thought process up there. More mental gymnastics and tangents?! Most likely go on a tunneled vision tangent by focusing on just the last point instead of the whole reply. "Truthspeaker" educate urself and do better, not this mess. Damn!

Dtruthspeaker:
You were the one who tried making omniscience an issue but now after i haveaddressed it, you see its not. So that one is gone.



If you truly appreciated that He set what sins shall be, then you ought to have appreciated what every reasonable has seen which is that He could not have set such a Law at beginning of the world when the world was enpty of people exactly as no one made Road Traffic Laws in Nigeria in 1897.

And that such a Law can only be made only when there were more people on the earth.

So, flowing therefrom every man on the earth will find that his ancestor married his sister for him to exist, so you have no thing here So just say that you want to blaspheme God because you know He hates you and is going to put you in hellfire instead of going round and acting like you have a reasonable case against him, whereas you have No Thing.

For every reasonable and noemal person understands why He prohibited incest later.

Its obvious that you want to Bleep your sister or you are already fucking.ypur sister.hence why you would certainly hate God who you know sees what you are doing even if people don't know.



No one asked about the framework of traffic laws nor its objective but what I clearly laid before you was that in 1927 and backwards let me say to 1897 was there in Lagos and in your state, road traffic laws of eg one way and seatbelt laws right and fire extinguisher laws?

No. And you already knew that the answer was no because you already knew that there were too few car owners and roads back in 1927 and backwards that such a law could not have been in existence.

But in your attempt to dodge my analogy you went raising up what no one asked you since you could not directly challenge it.



You see yourself, i thought you said that "omniscience was never the crux of the issue", Yet, here you are mixing it up in your blasphemous jumble.



Off Point.

The topic is understanding why was allowed in the beginning of the world.and why God later prohibited it.

And not whether where God changes His Mind, He changes His Person. So, off point!

So dont derail your own post because you find that you cannot anawer my reply.

Just awesome, fish has taken worm with hook😄 Im just quoting this mainly so u dont change and edit this ur ludicrous, incoherent and contradictory thought process uv put on display. Love how much uve swerved and contradicted urself, even your bible has contradicted you. As for the ad hominems, hilarious. Hell!! I don't even believe in that. You'd find it before i ever do, which i wont.

Anyways for the nail in the coffin, let me simply spell out the question uve swerved with many words and analogies that hold no meaning and by all means indulge me with a simple reply. No need for going around in circles.
Why didn't God just make more people in order to avoid using what he would later label as sin??😁

Expanse2020:
Alot of contradiction though
You site some questions need to be answer by expert

Agreed. Ive tried to reconcile the differences but it doesn't add up. The other guy has tried to explain them away but instead is making God look incompetent which he's not. Im sure there are more rational defences or explanations.

Dtruthspeaker:
First, A creator is knows everything (all knowing) over his creations which is why if your car gets damaged, when all else fails, the only person who can repair it is its creator knowing all the chemical and physical properties of the materials he used in making it work,.So omniscience is not an issue.

Secondly, it is God Who laid what things are sin. That is what LawMaker means.

And it is of course seen that in the beginning, sins we now know where not in existence since people where few. Thus, the LawMaker did not set The Law of incest exactly as Lagos could not set the Lagos traffic law in 1927.since only a few people owned vehicles. But now that there are many vehicles, now the traffic law came.

So, you.have no thing valid here.



And I have answered that He has a Right to.

The usual trope is going on here. When u guys obviously can't defend ur fiction, of which uve not even defended it with anything sensible, you go on a selective tangent, driving away from the point, then you waffle aimlessly non stop like you're doing now, getting tunnel vision on selective parts of the argument ur against. It's expected, no surprise there😄.

Anyways I'll bite as usual so you keep contradicting urself and what you stand for and any sensible person would see it for what it is. Your first analogy point I'm going to ignore cause uve obviously gone on a tangent as omniscience was never the crux of the issue and uve twisted the point ergo u waffle.

I never said it wasn't God who laid what sins are. If not for your comprehension issues and need to go on a tangent ud see that's exactly the point im making and ive spelt out quite clearly. he made it a sin and then used that sin he claims to hate to drive his so called plan. It's either he's hypocritical, confused, delusional or doesn't know what he's doing which is sadly the picture ur painting.

As for your traffic analogy, that's just a sad dissapointing analogy, come on, im sure u are likely educated. The basic framework of traffic laws are the same regardless of time and place. The laws are meant to prevent harm to road users and the basis of that is one that's universal ignoring semantics, so please go educate yourself before spewing ignorant dross dressed as analogies.

Using your faulty analogy, you are saying he changes his mind which means he doesn't see the end from the beginning as claimed, if not the sensible thing would have been to simply make adjustments as seen from the end before even embarking at the beginning, no Kafkaesque bs, quite simple common sense really. But no, he enjoys complicating things according to you, even if it means indulging in what he despises when it could have been easily avoided by creating more persons at the start. Quite brilliant.

Even then let's say he's allowed to change his mind as you said right?! and he does change his mind according to you but ironically your bible states and potrays otherwise😄 as seen in the following verses : Numbers 23 : 19, 1 Samuel 15 : 29, malachi 3 : 6, Hebrews 13 : 8, Psalm 102 : 25 -27, Isaiah 40 :8 and my favorite James 1:17 "Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows."

So what mental gymnastics are we going to participate in now waffle maker??

Dtruthspeaker:
It is His Right to set how things should be and to change it as He deem fit especially at the beginning of a matter. Exactly how the creator of the rechargeable fan said you should charge for 8hours on its first use but after that you may charge as you need.

That is what it means to be a LawMaker!

Wow... Just, wow. Didn't expect any sensible retort and im still left disappointed. Anyways ill bite. First off, wtf is that analogy, and how does it relate or make sense to you. The creator of the rechargeable fan is not all knowing and is limited by the chemical and physical properties of the materials He's working with, which he has to work around the limitations ergo those instructions to charge. He's not limitless and all powerful to do what he wants, so your half baked analogy falls flat. You're saying god condones sin.

Secondly, you are literally stating God changes his mind which contradicts what your bible says, thirdly you're literally saying the god from ur religious texts is narcissistic ,hypocritical and confused going against the spirit and context of his own laws as a lawmaker and I doubt God's like that. "This thing is a sin, I abhor and hate it, don't do it" but im going to use that which i hate to set conditions that'll lead to you doing what i said you shouldn't. Then finally ill punish you for it when you do, even though you were stuck btw a rock and hard place due to my conditions. Please make it make sense.

Then again Its very on brand with the god in your texts though and its not just incest. "Thou shall not kill", "its a sin, but please kill these select people and make sure you kill the men, women and children and make sure no one survives, cause they've run afoul of me". " Thou shall not covert your neighbors property" "but pleaze take that nice land of those your neighbors over there fllowing with milk and honey cause i promise it to you". Please make it make sense. You're practically saying, its not a sin cause its the wrong thing morally and naturally or its just not right, its a sin cause ur god said so and he can commit and use sin which he claims to hate and punishes his creations for committing. Make it make sense bros...

According to the Oxford English Dictionary, incest is defined as "sexual relations between people classed as being too closely related to marry each other." This definition encompasses the general understanding of incest as the engagement in sexual activity between individuals who are close blood relatives and are prohibited by social or legal norms from marrying or having sexual relations with each other. According to christianity and most other religions this act is considered sacrilegious, the obvious focus here is on christanity.

If the average christain finds you in a relationship deemed incestous, you'd be considered to have committed an abomination and sin against God and rightly so according to the holy book inspired by God himself. And God detests sin (Habakkuk 1: 13). It's cleary stated his hate for incest through the books of Leveticus 18 : 6-18, 20 : 11 -21, Deuteronomy 27: 20-23, 1 Corinthians 5 : 1 amongst otherz.

Cycling back to the creation story, God who is all knowing and omnipotent created a man and a woman and ordered them in Genesis 1 : 28 to be fruitful and multiply and to go fill the earth. The only way to have fulfilled that instruction was through the practice of incest as we know God created no one else and the whole of humanity was to come from and came from these two according to the bible. Why then did God choose to propagate a key part of his design through sin(incest) which he detests so much?? Cause the children of Adam and Eve had no one but themselves to marry and procreate with.

Or maybe he created others after them... but that obviously contradicts the divinely inspired story right?! So why use sin as a key part of the plan when multiple persons could have been created to procreate with each other. Or did he change his mind about incest been a sin further down the line?! This leads to the question, does God change his mind?! if he's the alpha and omega and knows the end from the beginning he ought not to change his mind and know his plans would work from A through Z right?! Then again we have verses stating he doesnt change his mind and verses that also state, well he changes his mind ergo contradicting each other.

The puzzling part is God then decides to use incest which is a sin according to the bible, as a key part of his plans again after wiping the world with the flood, and the reason for the flood was as we all know sin. The story says just Noah and his family survive. In Genesis 9 : 1 God then gives the same instruction given to Adam and Eve to multiply and fill the earth. The grandchildren of Noah had no one else to marry and procreate with except themselves and God knew this. So does he support incest at this time then changes his mind later on as stated in the scriptures... Does God change his mind about what's considered sin?? Or were there others alive then which would then contradicts the story.

Abraham, Isaac, Lot, and a host of others comitted this sin which wasn't even considered as em committeing sin. Heck It was even considered part of Jewish laws and customs that Yahweh even kills Onan for not cumming in his brother's widow to produce a child, meanwhile leveticus 18 : 16 says not to sleep with your brothers wife. If that isn't morally contradictory, i don't know what is. Reconciling the differences on this is something i obviously cannot can. Is incest a sin because God l8r said so after using and accepting it or beacuse its naturally morally wrong?? The bi le is contradictory on this as on many other topics. Maybe bible scholars have answers to this that us ordinary folks cant see, maybe they can fill in the blanks or maybe, just maybe something doesnt add up.

atheistconverta:
If so, you must be a waste of such IQ then.

Lol! The heck is this one saying??😄🤦🏽 Do u even know how to read and comprehend?! Ignorant fvck.

Dtruthspeaker:
You for kukuma abuse the op directly rather than to dey hide dey commit fallacy of blowing big grammar to abuse am.



So this is where you make a point where you admit that agnostics are unstable people and rolling stones.

Ahh i see! This is one that contributes to dragging the mean iq down, lower double digit type. Not worth it.

What an ignorant, shallow and obtuse write up devoid of facts, based solely on anecdotal evidence and stinking bias. An easy way to spot a narrow minded obtuse person is simply by how they think of things in binary. A lot of u christains are just as daft as the atheists you claim to be "smarter" than. There is no fact based evidence to come to the conclusion of the dross of a thought process u spewed up there.

Like with most things in life it's usually nuanced and grey. When u analyse a decent enough sample size you are bound to find all sorts of variations, and never something as linear as you stated representing the whole sample size. Of course there are people that move from belief in religion to gnostism to deism to agnosticism to atheism but you'd also find all sorts of variations of movement, some even go all the way back to religion.

Just as religious people move between sects and denominations within their religion( of which christains have 75000+) or move from monotheism to polytheism and deism and vice versa, movement is never guranteed to be a linear progression to a final stop. There's all sorts of movement and that's what's a fact not the linear dross of a pov you painted that's based on nothing more than your feelings and experiences. Only a narrow minded person uses their pov to paint a picture for the population as fact exclusing nuanced context when there's just so much variance.

Agnostics tend to be fluid... yes, due to the fact that they tend to be the most open minded, so to say and open minded person is guaranteed to follow a linear path of progression to a final stop is just pure conjecture and contradiction. And as i doubt you know in agnostism, you have agnostic theists and agnostic atheists adding even more nuanced context rubbishing ur narrow minded pov.

MisterBanny:
How about the one that can't give u sex for two years of the relationship, claiming she's a virgin and refusing u from verifying her claim of being that virgin?

Don't take this the wrong way but you're an epitome of the word fool.

PinkNature:
She recently did a scene with blackedraw. Who would have know that that was her last scene ever?

Give your lives to Christ. The wages of sin is death. May God continue to empower us.

Guys... This right here is what you call beautiful irony.

finallybusy:
Type something sarcastic, let me see.

Something sacarstic.

kingxsamz:
Go through this thread. It's all there.

https://www.nairaland.com/5558353/countdown-thread#84515956

Thanks for the ludicrous comic this evening.
Ive always seen his posts but simply dismissed him as dellusional without second thought. This just confirms it when confirmation wasn't needed. Frigging clown.

kingxsamz:
I saw this thread, remembered it and laughed.
The guy is on a lost cause.

Pls what happened😁
Wasnt here then.

"A person can be alive in the flesh, but the soul is dead, because the spirit in that person has no connection with God."

"The men and women who wrote Jeremiah, Isaiah, Ezekiel, Esther, Peter, Titus, John, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John etc., are all right now alive and walking on this earth. Thy have changed their body suit a couple of times, but the spirit within them remains the same. That spirit within them can never experience spiritual death, they are connected to God forever."

What refrences preferably one from your bible did you use to infer the nonsenses above??

Arda1000:
bullocks.

Big time bollocks.

The mental gymanastics to come up with vague counter intuitive thought processes that was plucked out from thin air to defend plain contradictions has begun. How does he know he was talking of spiritual death?? The verses he even posted by to support his pov does the opposite. Its obvious its physical cause if considered alongside Matthew 24 and Luke 21, where Jesus said that generation would not pass away until he returns.

Those two verses up there are simply stating the obvious, some of that generation would obviously die before their whole generation would pass away but it doesn't stop those that are dead from joining up with them that are alive when Christ returns, which was supposed to be before their whole generation passed away. But it didnt happen that way, did. it?? Ergo the mental gymnastics here.

When Jesus spoke metaphorically he used parables, everything else was literal. So why twisting it to suit your narrative cause of the contradiction. You guys cant wiggle your way out of all the cotradictions you know, even while using vague biblical drivel. Logic, common sense, occam's razor shatters it all.

GO0dharddick:
I'll rather watch Zootopia, frozen,Coco, Moana, Sing, ant bully, the croods, incredible, etc, than to watch any Nigerian nollywood

Yours is even better. I'll rather watch paint dry than be caught watching Nigerian movies. Overhyped crap, all of em.

Scientheosopher:
It's been moved to number 17 in the Menu.

Thanks my g. I must continue getting that 40gb 4 5k o

yomi007k:
You need to see a psychitrist.

This is visual hallucination.

Obvious schizophrenic.

Kushites:
WHERE ARE PEDESTRIANS SUPPOSED TO WALK?

RUBBISH.

OPEN GUTTER SPECIALISTS.

DON'T BUILD ROADS WITH COVERED DRAINS AND SIDEWALKS LIKE OTHER CIVILISED PARTS OF THE WORLD.

PRIMITIVE PEOPLE WITH NO SENSE.

Kigali, Rwanda (How Civilized People Build Their Roads)
https://www.centreforsustainablecities.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/shutterstock_699139246.jpg

https://blog.tracks4africa.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Johann-groenewald-rwanda-2019-kigali-1024x682.jpg

Apt bro. Nigerians love mediocrity, don't know if its the Stockholm syndrome that's collectively affecting their brain cells. See how the ignorant oafs above you are celebrating mediocre basic amenities. Basic amenities are what's exciting you to sing praises like seals in captivity, when the value of our resources clearly shows we should be capable of solving way more complex issues bedeviling our society. There's really no hope for this country as Nigerians are truly daft, daft beyond measure. Its like taking a child's pocket money of 1000 without his knowledge and then giiving him 10 out of the thousand to buy sweets and he's stupidly excited not knowing its from his stolen pocket money.