₦airaland Forum

kingphilip:
you can start by stating your location and all those in that axis who wants to join you to go and plead can meet your up so they can plead on your behalf

You mean you want her to tell you where she is so you people can beat her very well?

Ify no try am ooo!

tot:
Franchas' posts at the very start focused on stating why polygamy was natural, it was full support for polygamy. This was before the Biblical topic came up (that is not what I am debating here).
In any case, we do not have to agree on this.

I think you already answered this:

tot:
Franchas comment you quoted and agreed with was he stating polygamy is natural, which implied it's okay but as you've stated there seem to be 2 different topics that were intertwined.

You initially queried me on a specific comment with a particular context and you are now widening the net to include a previous comment which was expanded upon later to give its full implication.

Its the subsequent comments that explain what the person meant that should be used for reference and not the introductory statement that has not yet been explored.

A reason is not the same as an excuse or a justification. He did not support polygamy or polygamous marriage; he merely asserted that it is a reality (albeit in his usual brash and irritating manner, which we can be tempted to see as support because he is often deliberately antagonistic and hyperbolic when making a point). It was later on when he expounded his initial statement that I tended to agree with him.

Thereafter came the debate about the Biblical legality of embarking upon polygamous marriages, which as we have both noted is a completely separate discussion.

We dont have to agree on any topical issue but telling me that I supported something when I didnt is not going to fly.

tungamaje:
When my son impregnated Amaka, I didn’t reject the pregnancy. I was already used to seeing them together. When it was clear to me that Ibrahim was the owner of the pregnancy, I started taking care of the girl as my daughter-in-law.

Madam, that's not how it is in Igbo culture. If you want to get a daughter-in-law, first approach the parents and pay dowries

You have a point. But would the parents have co-operated with them on a marriage proposal?

Well, whats done is done.

Why didnt the girl abscond to the Ibrahim guys house instead of staying there to die This beating pass beating oh

kayfra:
A Rabbi is a religious teacher. What you call western education now was being birthed in Greece, Rome, Turkey, Iran and in the middle east at that time. There was no such thing as western education as you understand it back in the early ADs (2000 years ago!). So quit with bullshit.

A Rabbi undergoes a formal education (Rabbinical school) before he is accepted as a teacher. You just don't wake up a Rabbi.

And I ask again. What is Jesus's business in this conversation?

We are talking about your kids wasting there productive lives away memorizing something they can literally get on there finger tips

Lol dont mind him! Jesus didnt go to a Western-style secondary school when he was a Jew living under Roman occupation 2 thousand years ago so that means children living in the north of a secular federal nation shouldnt also go to school! Nonsense!

I have never encountered so much rubbish in a thread before smh

tot:
No o, full blown all round lawyer!

Both are justifying/giving reasons why polygamy is normal or natural. The only difference is one is of the POV that it's Biblical /legal (which definitely is not) while the other is not.

But you refuse to acknowledge that a natural polyamorous disposition is not the same as actively pursuing polygamous marriage, which is why you keep conflating the two.

The focus of the conversation is not the Bible's position on polygamous nature but the Biblical perspective on polygamous marriage. Just like the Islamic perspective is that a man is entitled to 4 wives, which you can acknowledge without speculating on whether men feel like doing that or not.

If you read the posts back you will see that their contents are entirely different.

Dextre:
Why does nobody talk about the pilot and the whole staff

the pilot even did very well...he directed the plane to a field and away from the residential areas to prevent more lives from being lost...

After only 2 minutes in the air...the man is a hero...God bless his soul...

AdonaiAluminium:
Iran is a terrorist nation that need's to be cut to size. QED Contact us now for all your roofing jobs, roof repair and maintenance etc

Lol! Why did these outsiders depose Mosaddegh and relegate him to his village in the first place Rubbish people

chigoizie7:
I think, since it is not illegal and shouldn’t be illegal. It should be classified as people’s choice.

In as much as I am an advocate of one man , one woman. I also think that polygamy is also not morally wrong as long as all parties involved agrees to indulge in it.

It baffles me how the western world see polygamy as wrong and illegal but accepts homosexuality as something right and legal.

Its not "legal" because it's good, its legal because it helps to solve certain social problems.

If women were more able to support themselves financially, less likely to die in childbirth and less likely to be stigmatised for not being married by a certain age (or at all) then there would be less need for polygamous marriages. As well as so many other issues like the fact that men are more likely to die early, etc. This is why polygamy is not justified in developed countries anymore and has been outlawed.

I cant say in a short paragraph that its morally right or wrong because these things need to be put in context. But its not ideal. Thats what I was trying to tell that guy up there. The ideal set-up for marriage is one man and one woman but this is just a temporarily workable solution.

chigoizie7:
What do you think about polygamy?

I think my opinion is in that comment you quoted!

Why; what do you think?

tot:
You should be a lawyer midnighter if you are not already one!
To me, they both essentially are in the same camp.

Hahaha you think so? Anti-polygamy lawyer

You keep repeating that theyre in the "same camp" without explaining why. And theres nothing like "essentially" here. Are they in the "same camp" or not?

Its obvious that the two discussions are not connected in any way; you've only chosen to link them because they both include the word "polygamy" when the actual content of those conversations has nothing to do with each other.

LordAdam16:
It's enough to describe her behavior as controversial. Deliberately controversial implies she did it for a reason other than that being her nature.

No problem, I think Ive already clarified my original position anyway

tot:
Haha @ arrant nonsense

Franchas' comments were focused on giving numerous excuses for polygamy, so I see both guys' viewpoints as one and the same; one just appeared to be cloaking it by saying it is not 'legal'.

Stating the truth of the polyamorous nature of men compared with women which is clear and obvious for all of us to see is not necessarily "excusing polygamy". People sometimes do that, but he wasn't.

Asserting that it's "illegal" in Christianity has nothing to do with cloaking or concealment because he was explaining to the moniker who quoted him why men run around cheating but don't marry multiple wives when both of them involve having an extra partner.

One person is expressly stating that polygamy is illegal while the other is arguing that it's legal. So they cannot be the same.

tot:
Franchas comment you quoted and agreed with was he stating polygamy is natural, which implied it's okay but as you've stated there seem to be 2 different topics that were intertwined.

Anyway, at the end of the day we all make our choices.

If you read what Franchas said, he stated that men are naturally polygamous AND it's the grace and doctrine of God that they use to overcome it BECAUSE polygamy is illegal in Christianity. Correct!

If you read what this guy I'm talking to is saying, he stated that men are naturally polygamous AND there's nothing wrong with pursuing polygamous marriage BECAUSE polygamy is Biblical.

And if you read further, you will see that he is utterly unable to defend that position, because it's arrant nonsense

We know that it's natural but we differ on what should be done about it.

tot:
Well, his comments were justifying polygamy as being natural which you agreed was 'the truth' but your comments here appear to be anti-polygamy.

My comment refutes the idea that Christianity legalises polygamy and so does Franchas'.

Whether a man is naturally polygamous is besides the point of that comment you quoted.

gotnel:
I am not planning or proposing to marry another woman.
The fact must just be put on the table

LOL. Your own facts that you made up in your mind, not Biblical facts bye!

tot:
But I thought you were in support of franchas' comments..

What is contradictory about that?

He stated that polygamy is not legal in Christianity which is exactly what I just said.

LordAdam16:
Margaret was not deliberately controversial.

If you don't call hard partying with rock stars being deliberately controversial then I don't know how to answer you.

I didn't say that he was or wasn't naive or that he was blameless, I said that the ire being directed their way is not (totally) warranted. I think I said this already.

That's exactly one of the reasons why they have almost no political power anymore; because it's not given on merit. I'm not really a royalist either but I recognise their cultural importance.

The prince Andrew stuff is a false equivalence because Ive already clarified that I wasn't advocating for them to misbehave. You are battling a strawman.

I want to see what privileges they want and what work they still plan to do before I pass any judgement on it. It may work, it may not but the point is that the people who caused the problem are the ones still complaining.

gotnel:
My deviation from arguing on biblical beliefs is because you made mentioned of the reasons why it was justifiable in the old testament time of the bible.
And the point that those reasons are not forthcoming nowadays.
I am telling you that yes, the reasons why God almighty permitted polygamy in the days of old still remains but not as it was then.
My point remains .
1. It's biblical for man to marry more than one woman. No need to mention names of biblical characters whom christianity story revolves around that were involved with more than one woman.

LOL please, don't make me laugh. So according to you:

- The Biblical reasons don't apply nowadays and the Biblical figures' lives are not relevant, yet somehow polygamy is Biblical.

-You stated that your issue is that people pick and choose which Bible verses to obey, and reject the old testament rules as being "of old", and now that the biblical reasons have been pointed out to you, you have disregarded them as "of old" and started making up your own rules, which is exactly what you were complaining about, Hahahha.

-Your mentioning of adultery and illicit sexual interactions, vulgarities and succumbing to base desires in order for women to get ahead is what God wants for Christians, despite there being no example of this in the Bible and no church on this planet preaching this.

-The people who propagated the religion to Africa are messing up, so you as a black man have to mess yourself up too, just to teach them a lesson or what

-The way a man is wired is different to a woman and that gives you the right to disregard Biblical injunctions and do as "nature" and your body tells you, when that's exactly what the Bible tells us not to do.

So basically the whole of Christianity is irrelevant as far as you get what you want hahahaha oh gosh!

I'm seriously laughing right now, oga go and marry your 10 wives abeg, let's see if any church on earth will agree to conduct the marriage hahaha

LordAdam16:
Well, it just so happened that when he decided to "have a life or mind of his own," he chose to have it with a woman who also had no problem flouting rules or royal protocol. That sounds like double jeopardy.

This discussion is about to come full circle; If you read my original comment I only pointed out that it's likely that other royals would also like to throw in the towel. You've already chosen to frame my original comment from a place of bias, which you then sized upon to segue into what is actually biting you, which is the behaviour of that "strident woman".

Comparisons with Mrs Simpson have already been made but I am ambivalent because Simpson was white. And princess Margaret was deliberately controversial, as in she totally lost it.

Anyway you have a point in pointing out his duty. I'm a traditionalist to some extent but my own Issue was just the way they had been treated. He is no longer anywhere near inheriting the throne so it seemed pointless to keep collecting insults over nothing.

Hahaha

LordAdam16:
I'm not sure what you mean by that sentence in bold.

Harry was raised a royal to further the interests of the same institution that had offered him innumerable privileges. If he chose to start a family with a woman who doesn't buy into that generational way of life. That's solely his business. The British crown will remain long after Meghan and Harry are gone.

If you observe the press coverage concerning their relationship, you will understand what that sentence means.

I'm not referring to their flouting rules or royal protocol. I'm talking about the bullying and haranguing nature of particular elements who want him to remain "fun, silly, happy-go-lucky prince Harry" for the rest of his life, following his elder brother and sister-in-law everywhere like a dog without having a life or mind of his own.

If youve been paying attention to prince Harry in particular before now you will know that that dude has been chafing under the royal stuff for a long time.

Maybe Meghan helped him realise it, but he already had doubts about staying in it for the rest of his life.

Their actual behaviour as regards the throne and British crown wasn't what I was talking about. I am a huge adherent to the belief that you should be realistic about the kind of family you are marrying into so I don't necessarily agree with whatever she/they may have done that irritated the establishment but what I know is that the way that she/they have been treated has been unfair.

gotnel:
;

The system remains as of old.
Nothing has changed. The new system that warrants men to caters for more than one woman has changed from what was obtainable before.

Yes, people of nowadays are not farmers who needs battalion to works on the farms but the situation of the world today still demands that one man should be responsible for many ladies if you are comfortable and capable.

The fact remains that single ladies prefers married men as mutual and romantic friends. Particularly the single mothers who are facing serious discrimination from single guys .

Been a second wife doesn't mean being sold to slavery.
Bear with us o yee married women. There are too many women out there that desired and deserved to be married but partners are not forthcoming from the single guys due to economic issues.

The only way to survive is through friendship with the married men who are economically buoyant to care for their needs.

If all the married men withdraw from keeping another lady and been responsible for her upkeep, there will be big trouble in the world.

See? In the first place, you stated that polygamy has Biblical backing. Now that you've realised that it doesn't, you've written a whole post about adultery between single girls and Married men which had nothing to do with your original point.

If you were the biblical scholar you claimed yourself to be when you replied to my post you would acknowledge the difference between the roles and restrictions on women in ancient times as compared to nowadays and realised that polygamy has no place in modern society.

That's one of the first things that Christian ministers and teachers explain to people because it's so basic. it's only when Missionaries stumble upon remote communities with low literacy rates, access to agricultural technologies and antenatal/perinatal services that allowances are made for it in the 21st century.

Like I said, polygamy is not a crime in this country but if you want to do it, you go ahead with your own personal conviction without trying to force Christianity to justify it, because you can't! Have a nice day ahead bro!

gotnel:
Thank you. My problem with the people of today christianity is that they picks the doctrine deam fitting to suit them from the same old testament of the bible, while condemning another doctrine from the same old testament and saying it is of old.

I am a husband of one woman and not proposing for another one. Doe, taking care of another woman who need someone to help her situation.

But any other man who have the courage and willingness to be an husband of two or more women is not derailing , and should not be condemned as the Christians portrays it.

Are you a nomadic agrarian? Do you need billions of children to help you farm your land and gather wealth?

Do you live in a time of war when there are drastically less men available to marry than women?

Is your population facing extinction?

Is there no other option for the woman other than marrying as a second wife, being sold into slavery or entering prostitution in order to stay alive?

Those were some of the reasons that God refrained from banning polygamy, and if you and your Number 2 do not satisfy those conditions then you are to be condemned, shekina!!!

henryobinna:
if you must inherit the throne you must abide by the rules set for the throne. The throne of every Kingdom is not a place every Tom, dick and harry(unintentional) can just walk into because he thinks deserves it. If the throne demands a pure breed then so be it. For the sake of love, emotion and other personal things you can marry whoever you want but you can't just get into any office that you want.

Good luck with their lives but I hope she doesn't divorce him once again as she did previously.
I bet she can't wait to go back to her life that's why he's doing all her biddings

Exactly so why is their decision paining you?

Everybody can see that Harry craved adventure but was lacking in direction which is why he kept misbehaving. You just cant stand to see a lady who can give him those things.

Her divorced status has nothing to do with the matter at hand but you keep bringing it up because you are sentimental.

You want him to be trapped in that dilapidated palace, chewing nonsense salad and squirming in wooden chairs for the rest of his life, but he wont! Sorry sweetheart

henryobinna:
I wonder why you folks like to force your opinion and choice on people. If William wants he would have done same.

Must everyone be a rebel?

This Harry guy is just being controlled by his divorcee wife. I hope she doesn't divorce him the moment he wants to take control of his life.

Stop it my dear. William can never in his life try something like this. He couldnt even marry a mixed-race like Meghan if he wanted to.

He cant do anything! Such is the burden of the first son of the first son. Of the first daughter! Sorry! thats just the bitter truth

They have been spewing that trash about her "controlling" him since they got married because they want him to keep uselessing himself all over and acting like a child for the rest of his life. As soon as he did what is normal for a married guy by moving his allegiances from his parents and siblings to his wife and child, they started their usual drama.

We can see you are one of them. What has her divorcee status got to do with anything?

Now that he has refused to be your entertainment, you people are angry. But you cant do them anything! Meghan and Harry are too smart for all that so stay pained baby

At times its better to win second prize than first

Im sure William would like to do something like this but he's stuck there shaking hands and defending his crumbling Imperialist kingdom for the rest of his days smh

Harry own better abeg...the royal stuff looks extremely boring and plus hes not even getting anything out of it apart from harassment

DeeMain:
His life was being threatened by agberos and cultists. Who needs all of that danger and complications?

I understand. But couldnt he check out the claims first for running away?

I think their relationship was already getting weak in the first place and the OP just broke the final straw

MiddleDimension:
i get it. but she brought it upon herself. if she hadn't allowed her emotions to get the best of her (i am not judging her anyway, since we all sometimes allow our emotions to get the best of us) and gone out to attack the suspected mistress with whom, in all fairness, she has no business with, this whole thing wouldn't be on the social media now and some people would not be calling her names.

take it out on your husband. he is the one going out. he is the one asking the ladies out. many times, they don't tell these ladies they are married.

i honestly don't think anyone in this world should be fighting for anyone who doesn't choose them on their own. if you are with me and you are cheating, the only thing i will do is ask you if that's what you want, if it is clear, i will leave you alone. yes, people will laugh at me and call me a loser. others will look at me with an eye of pity which is not an inspiring, uplifting or comforting thing at all. there also will be so much gossip flying around in the neighbourhood about me. but as time passes by, i will bounce back and no one will believe i have ever gone through such kind of experience before. it works!

Yeah, you are right.

99% of the time, its a waste of your precious time and energy. But so painful! Ahn..

gotnel:
I don't want to start elaborating on this religion call christianity.
I want you to study your bible very well and understand it very well also.
Let us leave religion out of bible for now.

Lol you better go and study it very well yourself o, and please elaborate more because it will never be said that God wants people to be polygamous except the person is a charlatan and a liar.

Biblical quacks spreading wrong info everywhere smh

gotnel:
You admitted that bible gives allowances for cultural reasons. What made it more acceptable than this.
There is no where in the bible where God says it is not a good idea.
Yes , in new testament, there are instances where Paul mentioned it in his epistles that man should be husband of one woman.
This does not mean the people of old testament that practiced polygamy are not on the good book of God almighty.
Let us know that every religion on earth today is a tradition and custom of certain people.

I didnt say God said it was not a good idea. I said that God has illustrated why it is not to be done with levity. When Solomon, Abraham and David married their extra wives, what now happened?

Just because it is culturally allowed or is "acceptable", it doesnt mean it is to be encouraged.

Cultural allowances were also made for slavery; does it make it acceptable

See, when an evil is taking place that is very entrenched in society, is it realistic to ban it completely or to put parameters in place to protect people as much as possible until your main purpose has been achieved?

Stop talking out of point to justify something that is not defensible. If you want to be polygamous then be it and stop trying to drag God into it to console yourself.

God did not construct the institution of marriage for polygamous purposes, deal with it! He only let people do that in the context of their social systems but always points back to His original plans for a man and woman in marriage.

MiddleDimension:
no one is condemning her for being angry. people are condemning her for confronting the lady, and that's more sensible.
look how you have passed judgement on the lady already as if you are sure she did it. haven't you seen where people are falsely accused? haven't you seen where out of jealousy people gossip others and go behind their backs to tell terrible lies against them? and for the lady to just come out and behave the way she is behaving only shows she is from the bush.
she has no business with the other lady. she only has problems with her husband.
even if it is true the lady is actually going out with her husband, has it ever crossed your mind the husband lied to her he doesn't have a wife? imagine you are going out with some one who did not tell you he or she is married, and someone from no where comes and begins to insult you, would you think it is a fair thing against you?

You also have a point. I was also wondering whether that babe was even guilty. but the way people are going off point and saying how ugly, dirty, etc the woman is is not really too good

Its really annoying when they hide their marriage and their wife/girlfriend comes to start giving you evil eyes smh