₦airaland Forum

[size=5pt]Knowledge to weigh pros and cons.

Knowledge to enable you stop regurgitating things read in publications without pausing for one second to pass them through your own thinking processes, like Perito4u has been doing.

Knowledge to stop reigning your thought processes in a box, scared of connecting the dots and admitting the obvious, like RWilliams has been doing.

Knowledge, not necessarily to make you leave the JW faith, if you are a member, but to make you realise some home truths and practise your religion from a position of a realisation of (1) the inadequacies of all religions and (2) the perfection of love - universal love! - taught by Jesus Christ; to stop practising your religion from a position of the naive belief that "any body of writing [or a religion or movement's leadership can be] accepted as infallible and ABSOLUTELY correct in truth." par Deep Sight, 2010.

Knowledge to. . .
[/size]

Actually my contributions are like every other person’s. Read them and make what you can of them as I’m prepared to make of yours.  If you need any clarification on what I have written, ask about that. But back to your question as to what point I am trying to put across, I suggest you read all my posts here, as I stated it repeatedly. Now, thank you, ma’am. Have a nice day.

firestar:
My Joe
What point are you trying to put across please?

My lecture is to provide you knowledge to help you think things through for yourself. In any competition between a professional and a newcomer, the conclusion is foreordained. With aggressive religious proselytisers folks stand no chance. With knowledge you stand a chance. My lecture is free - it's my contribution to world religious literacy.

RWilliams:
As for your quote
[/b]Their willingness to preach the idea that one of these days God’s angels will pass through this way and slaughter everyone, except members of the Jehovah’s Witnesses faith, only shows the size of their mind.[b]




Well, if they just so happen to be “my true followers” (and you would be silly to preach that unless you believe there is such a group), and the bible just so happens to be Gods word to mankind, you are calling the mind of god small, because unless you blind your mind to what the bible says about it, you can’t escape the fact that the bible preaches that there will be “a great day of god the almighty” that many are on the “road to destruction” and few on the “road to life” and that he will “bring to ruin  those ruining the earth”. This is not something that JW’s have come up with, it is there in black and white in numerous scriptures, we are merely preaching the good news of the better system to come, and at the same time warning of and helping people to get out of the system here at present and align their lives with God’s teachings. If people don’t take note, who have they got to blame?
Really, the earth and universe and what is right is so much bigger than us as humans. If mankind in general thinks it knows better than God and goes out of its way to reject his words, and ruins the earth because of such rejection, who are we to call God into account for setting up an organisation who pursue peace with all men, and getting rid of any who reject his requirements, (including those who call themselves his followers but still acting lawlessly). You are a proud silly man if you do.

When did God set up this organization? You see, what you are really talking about here is your interpretation of the Bible. The idea that on “a great day of God the Almighty” he will kill all those who failed to see the truth preached by Jehovah’s Witnesses is something JWs have come up with. [b]You were told that God picked your religion out of the others at some point. Did you ever ask how God communicated this acceptance? Who did he tell? No, you just believed! Why? You do not think that question is worth asking? Probably because you already believed that a religion that quotes the Bible so fluently and teaches that God does not burn people in hell must be right about anything it says. [/b]Yours is not the only religion that claims God is its own founder or member and will punish everyone else who refuses to join. What many find surprising is the arrogance of it all and the willingness of many to believe.

As to God punishing some people and rewarding others, that is a viable idea. But who will he reward and who will he punish? JWs and non-JWs respectively? You wish! Let your Bible answer that question for us:

Matt 25:31-46, NIV
   31 “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. 32 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.
   34 “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’

   37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’

   40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’

   41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’

   44 “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’

   45 “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’

   46 “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”

RWilliams:
My Joe.
If all Christians stuck to bible teachings, in particular the teaching of Jesus, the third Reich would never have happened in the first place. WW1 and WW2 would not have happened. If you go outside Christianity, if the adherents of many other religions stuck to the essence of their teachings, much of the conflict we have on this world would be gone.

A fantastically, horribly, childishly simplistic approach to life! Let me show you how simplistic this approach is. Say, you, Mr Williams, are vegetarian. You are entering a jungle full of leopards and believing that, well, since you are a vegetarian, the leopards will not attack you! Of course, if everyone lived by the Bible’s prophecy about beating swords into plowshares there would be no Third Reich and WW1 and WW2. But are they? What you are saying is that if someone attacks my community with the stated intention of killing the men and enslaving the women and kids I should bring out a Bible and waive it in his face, telling him to go live by its principles! Ever heard of the phrase “real world”? The issue is not whether wars would happen if everyone lived by Isaiah 2:4 (let’s not talk about other parts of the Bible, for now) – they won’t! – the issue is since people are not living like that and wars do happen, what should you do when attacked by someone who wishes to kill you enslave your wife and kids?

RWilliams: Most of the countries in WW1 were Christian, Imagine if every Catholic, Protestant and Church of England member (Including their hierarchy) took the same stand as the Jehovah’s Witnesses. Hitler would not have had an army to go to war with. Just because every other Christian goes against the bible teaching to be peaceable with all men, to turn the other cheek, and to love your enemies, does that mean that a true Christian should join them?

The whole problem with mankind is that "Man dominates man to his own injury" Jesus taught a "way" that is peaceable, making peace. If only everyone had followed it. Now if a JW had gone to war, Could a JW in Germany who killed his own English brother in the battle field in France really be showing the love that Jesus said would be a mark of his true followers? No.

The complexities of the world, Mr Williams! The world in which "man dominates man to his injury". Imagine Claude, an Englishman normally apolitical, doesn’t give a hoot about world affairs, but today he is scared that his country and the world is about to be destroyed and millions killed by a mad man called Hitler, so he decides to join the war and help stop Hitler. Then think of Pieter, a South African of European descent back in the 80’s; he believes that his is the master race which should dominate Africa so he signs up for military service in order to be deployed to Angola or Namibia. Are these two the same? If I am Claude and you asked me why I killed a member of my religion who was fighting on Hitler’s side that would be a very easy question to answer – “I have searched my conscience and found I am fighting a just cause. Now go ask the German what he was fighting for.” I admit that my examples are a bit simplistic, as many soldiers don’t tend to answer to these examples (Rommel fought gallantly “for Fuhrer and country” but then turned around and plotted against Hitler) but my point is that on, a case by case basis, people’s consciences should decide in these matters, not some old men living in Brooklyn and out of touch with day-to-day realities.

RWilliams: Until everyone follows Jesus teaching, there will always be wars, this world will go on its own merry little way, that is why, when he has no choice but to, god will have to bring to ruin those ruining the earth. That is not just a JW teaching, it is what the bible says in black and white, like it or lump it. If your beef is with the bible, then I rest my case, because faith in what it teaches is something you have to be looking for and want if you are going to find it.

I don’t recall having expressed any “beef” with the Bible in this thread. By the way, the invitation I extended you to discuss the Bible is still open.

RWilliams: Yes there are bad eggs in amongst the JW organisation, Jesus even said that there would be “Wolves in sheep’s clothing” but there ways eventually catch up with them and when it does unless they are willing to change them, and they are no longer able to remain in it. But if you look on the whole at the organisation, they are preaching the word in the entire inhabited earth, on a scale without precedence; they preach peace at any cost, especially amongst themselves. They encourage good morals as outlined in the bible, not the “new morality” the world has embraced, even if it labels them as intolerant (more like not permissive in my opinion).

True. The Witnesses pay much more attention to morality and holiness than most other Christian groups. And I used to think they were more moral, indeed. Things I have encountered in recent years tell me this is just wishful thinking. The Witnesses you encounter anywhere along the west coast of Africa are just as “sharp” as everyone. They push “those things” aside and “do what they have to do”. You know religious folk are very good at capitalizing on one particular sin. For brother A it might be fornication – he will avoid that one but he will lie and cheat. For sister b it might be something else. There are some good ones, of course – just as in other faiths. And if you seriously think that what you call “new morality” – the loosening of sexual restrictions – that has swept the world since the second half of the century that ended not too long ago has somehow left your church members behind, you, sir, should open your eyes.

RWilliams: These are the “fine fruits” that indentify a true follower.

Yes. You do preach some fine fruits. But you also preach some bad ones.

RWilliams: I agree that in the early days they had some strange ideas, as did many of the Adventist/ Pentecostal religions that were springing up around that time,

Good. So can you, please, answer me just one question: If your church had false teachings just like the other churches that sprang up at the same time it did, on what basis, then, did Jesus select it among the rest when he is said to have come for inspection in 1918?

RWilliams: but more and more they are moving away from observing times and seasons, leaving that in god’s hands and concentrating on learning about god, examining what he wants from humans, and helping people to put bible principles in their life.

Bravo!
All that’s left is for God to grant them the wisdom to see the arrogance and presumptuousness in claiming to speak for God when God did not expressly speak to you and the courage to admit their horrendous mistakes on prophecies and issues like blood transfusion and tell their members to stop calling other Christians “so-called Christians”.

RWilliams: [/b]Quote:
It is my personal opinion that they are not progressive at all. In fact, I wonder how you can say they are progressive. They are stuck in their old ways, refusing to admit mistakes and carry out a badly-needed re-examination of their teaching, from A to Z. Shifting the dates of Jesus’ coming is brought about, not by rational progression, but because Jesus has constantly refused to show up on the advertised dates. Seems he won’t be pushed by anyone.[b]

JW’s have never shifted the date of Jesus coming or presence, he came in 1914 and they still believe that.

They have. Have you forgotten, Mr Williams? JW’s taught that Jesus returned invisibly in 1874 and would then bring things to conclusion in 1914. This doctrine was officially changed in 1925 to say Jesus returned invisibly in 1914 and will conclude things before those who alive and old enough to be wise in 1914 (the 1914 generation) all died. The 1914 generation was later change to… and then changed to… you know all that.

RWilliams: 1925, 1975 etc were just over-anticipation on some members of the organisation for the time his kingdom would start to “crush and put an end” to the system as we know it (Daniel 2:44). Really that is in god’s hands.

Matters carried by your church’s official journals, written and endorsed by the church’s highest ruling members, the men who formulate policies and doctrines for the church, the men said to be "spirit-directed", the channel God is using to dish out truths to mankind in the end times. You call that “some members”? I understand people go to any length to defend their religion, but this is like a Catholic saying a doctrine deliberated on by the College of Cardinals and issued by the Pope ex cathedral amounts to the opinion of some members.

buzugee:
let me explain what will happen. there are 2 kinds of death. spiritual death and physical death. some people will experience both kinds of death and some will experience only 1 kind. spiritual death is what happens to your soul if you are not saved. your spirit is dead. then physical death is what happens to you when your body dies. now what happens is that those who are still alive and saved during the last-days will not experience the physical death. ISAIAH 26 VS 20 MY PEOPLE, GO TO YOUR ROOMS AND SHUT THE DOORS BEHIND YOU. HIDE FOR A LITTLE WHILE UNTIL MY FURY HAS ENDED. Then this is what will happen to those who are unsaved and alive during the last-days ISAIAH VS 21 THE LORD IS GOING TO COME OUT FROM HIS DWELLING PLACE TO PUNISH THOSE WHO LIVE ON EARTH FOR THEIR SINS. ISAIAH 24 VS 6. THAT IS WHY A CURSE DEVOURS THE EARTH AND ITS PEOPLE ARE PUNISHED FOR THEIR GUILT. THAT IS WHY THOSE WHO LIVE ON EARTH ARE BURNED UP AND ONLY A FEW PEOPLE ARE LEFT (the saved)
             Now this is the ratio of the saved to the unsaved that will be around on earth during the last days. a third of the people on earth will be saved and spared from destruction while two-thirds of the people on earth will be wicked and evil and unsaved and will be prime for destruction. After the destruction of the two-thirds who are evil and unsaved then, physical death will be conquered forever. those left behind will start to experience 'heaven' on earth.
               What happens to those who were dead before the last-days ? well if they were saved, they will arise and join the congregation of saved people on earth and they will not experience physical death again. ISAIAH 26 VS 19  YOUR DEAD WILL LIVE. THEIR CORPSES WILL RISE. THOSE WHO LIE DEAD IN THE DUST WILL WAKE UP AND SHOUT FOR JOY BECAUSE YOUR DEW IS A REFRESHING DEW AND THE EARTH WILL REVIVE THE SPIRITS OF THE DEAD.
                What happens to those who were dead and not saved before the last days the second death (physical death) of the wicked is permanent. they will not rise up again. they are gone forever. no resurrection for them. ISAIAH 26 VS 14 THE WICKED ARE DEAD. THEY ARE NO LONGER ALIVE. THE SPIRITS OF THE DEAD WONT RISE. YOU HAVE PUNISHED THEM, DESTROYED THEM AND WIPED OUT ALL MEMORY OF THEM.

                  So Ladies and Gentlemen, there you have it. This burning in hell fire thing for eternity is absolute hogwash. Yes the wicked on earth during the end-times will be scorched and burned and exterminated permanently from earth while the wicked who were dead will stay dead and wiped out forever. The saved who were dead aill rise up and join the saved who are still alive. Then death will be conquered forever. Then earth will be a true representation of the initial garden of eden. a true representation of heaven.

If I were you, I'd keep my distance from Image123. Man won't stand you throw filth on his beloved hot house. Don't say I didn't warn you.

Meanwhile, I nearly burst my sides laughing at this when it came out:

jagunlabi: Sometime after God was done with the creation, a group of very angry looking people who called themselves christians(based on the name of their religion) came looking for God. They came to him to make what they felt was an urgent request;

Christians:
God, we are very sorry to have to disturb your well earned rest, but we need your urgent help.

GOD:
Ooooooooohh!!! What is it, now?  What do you all want.

Christians:
We have a problem that is burning us inside.

GOD:
Problem? When did i create you that you are already having problems? What do you know about problem, eh?

Silence.

GOD:
Okay, fire on with your request.

At the word, "fire", all the christians flinched and trembled seriously.

GOD:
What is wrong with all of you? Why did you all tremble like that?

Christians:
Because of that word you uttered just now. . . the "F" word.

GOD  :
Do not lie against your creator, humans!! When did i utter the word, "FURCK"?!

Christians:
No,no,no! Not that "F" word . . . . the other one . . .

GOD:
Oh, you meant, FIRE?

A great trembling from the christians.

GOD  :
Eyah! You people's problem is urgent, indeed! Hmmm, where did i go wrong with you people? Okay tell me quick!

Christians:
You see, we christians have this belief that only we believe in. . . and we want others to believe in it too.

GOD:
Ehen?

Christians:
You see. . .  we want all of them to believe in what we believe in, so we try to preach it to them, but instead of immediately accepting what we preach to them, they just make fun of us, and tell us that our belief reeks of cow dung. You see, our belief is. . .

GOD:
Stop! I don't want to know what your beliefs are! I am not interested in them one bit! So what do you want of me?

Christians:
We want you to make a little place for them to roast for eternity, because anytime they reject our beliefs, they burn our egos, so we also want them to roast and for eternity to avenge and satisfy our ego.

GOD:
Is that all?

Christians:
Yes, our lord!

GOD:
Mtscheeeeeww!!!! Is that why you all came to disturb my rest? Don't you have a little respect for the wellbeing of ya creator? Mttsssshhhheeeeww!! Don't you all know that you have already created that place of fff. . .  eternal roasting by yourselve?

Christian:
Really? How did we do that, our lord?

GOD:
By thinking it, it has already been created in your minds, and that is all that it takes. I don't need to do anything again! Look at these idiots coming to disturb my resting for something they've already created by themselves and for themselves. Nonsense!!

Christians:
Please, forgive us, o great one. But how do we get them into the roasting place we've created for them in our minds?

GOD:
Keep telling them and yourselves of it day after day after day until it becomes so real in your minds that it seems to start consuming you all from within, that is all. You can then herd them
into the place of eternal roasting that you have created in your minds. That should give you peace of mind again. Now go away and let me continue with my rest!

Christians:
Thank you, our lord! We are truly grateful to you, eternal father.

But God is already fast asleep and snoring. The christians qietly left looking very happy indeed. Their collective ego has just been given a very big boost.

@JeSoul

The way you make the point about moral countries and moral leadership makes it hard to argue against, as that is a view that resonates strongly with me. While no country is moral some do indeed appear to be more moral than others. Someone recently introduced to me Brian Gleck’s book War at Home, a book that details shocking atrocities committed by the FBI, particularly at the time of J Edgar Hoover, the criminologist who ran the FBI, some say the USA, for 48 years, and some of whose methods would make Genghis Khan look civilised. You read and think, wait a minute, these people are just as bad as whose they demonise. But in a more sober moment you recall checks and balances, Nixon and other leaders brought down by their own agencies once these things are found out, things done openly and with impunity in other climes. I think it was Bokassa of the Central African Republic who once had schoolchildren picked up and tortured for refusing to wear a shirt with his picture on it because they thought he was ugly. And His Majesty and Excellency remained in power for long after. An amoral country! I once heard, but could not confirm, that Col Gadaffi did something similar when some kids threw stones at his convoy. Another amoral country.

But those who contend that the West is hardly more moral have a compelling argument. I have no doubt if the UK prime minister were to order the police to shoot unarmed people marching silently through a street his order would not even be carried out. If they are carried out, I believe the PM, the commissioner of the Metropolitan Police and several officers would be looking for a job in a matter of days. Much less order the police to arrest and torture children for declining to wear a shirt! This may also apply to the US. So are they morally superior or do they just operate by a different kind of morality – “us” and “them”? Most people would remember Ariel Sharon’s horrible war crimes in Lebanon. But when you do you wonder why the West would insist (rightly) on the trial of people like Milosevic and Mladic but fete the likes of Sharon who was responsible for the death of civilians including women and children. You would wonder why the United States would throw things at efforts to bring Sharon to international trial for being responsible for the death of children.

But I’m rambling!

Actually, I don’t believe all the countries in the Middle East would matter if peace is to be made. I mean if Israel and the Palestinians themselves, along with Egypt, can agree on borders for a Palestinian nation, what would the rantings of a Jew-hating Ayatollah in Tehran or a Bedouin in Medina matter? The only other countries that will matter in this matter, the countries that need to AGREE, are the countries sharing a border with Palestine – Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon. As for the remaining Middle Eastern countries, I would say that for every pathologically amoral country like Iran or Libya there is an enlightened one like the UAE or Bahrain to lend moral support. That is why I don’t think we need to have a moral Middle East before anything can be achieved. Israel and the Palestinians themselves are the problem, Israel more because they are the stronger party. The greatest obstacle to resolution of that matter is constituted by Hamas wing of Israeli politics and Hamas and the more militant groups on the Palestinian side. I had earlier talked about the Arabs saying “no more war” and then demonstrating a readiness to accept Israel.

JeSoul: Lai lai. I wish I shared your optimism, rather, I suspect if the land was given back, they will quickly find something else they want given back. Until they become 'moral' nations, I would not consider making any kind of concessions as I feel they would be wasted on the wrong generation of leadership/people.

That’s why there would be negotiations. 1967 is just one of the issues. During the negotiations all issues would be on the table and only when both parties are ready to make concessions and append their signatures to a document would progress be made. It would not be a case of Israel agreeing to 67 and the Arabs later asking for something else.

JeSoul: Really Myjoe? when did we start taking the word of the MB?

They are not fielding candidates for the presidency in the September election.

JeSoul:
The whole crux of the matter, and a song they continue to sing to whomever will listen.

Ahmadinejad has indeed been saying that to anyone that would listen.

JeSoul: As Negro said, I don't think Obama is naive at all. He is merely an idealist who's read too many utopian books, dreamt too many utopian dreams and discussed too many utopian ideals - while sipping green tea in a buddhist temple in the mountains of the Sichuan province in China. He knows how the world works, but foolishly hopes he can change people with his words, instead of accepting the reality on ground and working within it towards a realistic end.

I think the president was merely setting out an agenda. I doubt even he expected Israel to accept it off hand. But I agree with you peace is not likely to come to that place soon. It's just that I place the blame for that squarely at the doors of the Israelis and the Palestinians themselves.

I'm good. Good to see you back and kicking. I see you've crossed over to Denmark. You must love these blond-haired Scandinavian women!

JeSoul:
I like your positivity, but I think you're painting a far more optimistic situation than actually exists. I'm not an expert on Israeli affairs/history, but as of today, of the what 24? members of the Arab League, only 2 of them (Egypt and Jordan as you mentioned) have ties with Israel- that is a very slim and revealing statistic. Though yes Egypt is a powerful ally, that alone does not begin to scratch at the deficit (not to mention the same Egypt is currently struggling, and the Islamists are smelling blood and want to take over and the future of the nation's political dispensation is still in question).

  As for the change in leadership - I'm not so optimistic about that either. I belive a nation is reflected in their leadership. I believe leaders like Dinnerjacket got into power because they have and continue to have support from the majority of their people. I don't think majority of the ME wants to be at peace with Israel. The hate is too deep and ingrained.

  But hey, I could be wrong. It wouldn't be the first or last time.

Well, it was actually a small coalition made up of the Saudi and a few other Arab states, not the Saudis and the Syrians as I said earlier, that came up with the position I alluded to earlier. The Syrians have always told anyone that thrusts a microphone in front their noses that the only problem they have with Israel is the Golan Heights.

On Egypt the current rulers of the country have stated explicitly that they will honour the country’s agreements with Israel, so no threats there. The Muslim Brotherhood says it is not interested in running the country, so no threats from there.

It’s true a nation is reflected in its leadership, but to what extent do decisions taken by leaders reflect popular sentiments? Whether in democracies or dictatorships, leaders don’t always consider the will on the streets. I have listened to countless people from the USA and other Western countries complain endlessly about the fact their governments give aid to third world countries. They wonder why their government won’t fix their own unemployment, indebtedness and destitution first before giving aid to poor countries. But whatever government comes to power in Washington or London, liberal or conservative, these aids continue. Why? Because the leadership sees things the man on the street doesn’t. They have an understanding of the national interest that eludes the masses. That is why they can take decisions they believe are good for the country, sometimes not minding what the man on the street thinks.

Coming to the Middle East. Those who killed Anwar Sadat may have thought a new government will jettison the agreements with Israel, but what did they get? And now you have another government stating clearly they intend to leave things as they are. The crowds in Egypt and Jordan (not sure of the percentages, though) are opposed to peace with Israel yet successive governments have eagerly kept the position. Why, then, can’t other Arab governments do the same? Ahmadinejad got to power because he had the support of the religious establishment which controls the levers of the Iranian theocratic state. He does not have the support of the majority of the Iranian people. Yes, Iran is a special case, with all those mullahs. It would require a change of the leadership structure of Iran for anything positive to happen – and in spite of Egypt and Tunisia, I doubt that is likely to happen soon.

Also, I’d really like to state that the problem of intransigence in this matter is not the exclusive property of the Arabs. With the coalition currently ruling Israel – Likud-Yisrael Bitenu! – Obama is wasting his time. You don’t tell a government led by Netanyahu and Liberman to give up one inch of anything. In fact, the likes of Liberman would sooner see the Palestinians driven out of Gaza and the West Bank to make way for Greater Israel. Israel will not accept Obama’s position, not because “it is not the solution” as the “conservative” fellow says up there, but because, like Hamas and co, a section of the Israeli society wants everything.

If the ’67 thing is taken serious, I believe almost all the Arab countries that are friendly with the US can be brought on board to make peace with Israel. Oh, yes, there are other issues. But there always are. And maybe a democratic Middle East will also help, since no two democratic states have ever gone to war against each other. Whatever you may think of him, maybe Bush was smart to want a democratic Middle East!

Sagamite:
No, it is not my subjective interpretation. It is a robust interpretation. And, yes, the supreme court judges of America can be wrong. I am not one to see them as right always or some Gods.

Sure. I quoted them to highlight a particular position. It’s just one of positions out there.

Sagamite: All my interpretation requires is evidence of animals that "evince a clear rejection of intimacy with the opposite sex" as well before I can accept the proof that there are Gay animals, not animals that swing both ways and have "gay behaviours". The objective and robust approach is that gay animals need to be gay, not act gay.

Lol. Ok, is see. In human sexuality, there is a spectrum that runs from “straight” to “gay”. That is, there are people who only dig the opposite sex and are repulsed by the very thought of getting down with someone of the same sex, while there are others who only dig someone of the same sex and will not have anything to do with someone of the same sex if they have any choice in the matter. In between you will find those who are “bi-curious”, and those who “swing both ways” everyday and enjoy it. What you seem to be saying is that the fact of bi-sexual animals is not good enough, you want strictly gay boars, cocks and billy-goats. Well, there’s a lot of text out there on the matter but I’m not sure of strictly gay animals yet and I certainly don’t recall any of my granny’s billy-goats which was strictly at the end of the gay spectrum.

Sagamite: I am sure I have heard of therapy for paedos.

Yes, I said so.

Sagamite: So if they feel therapy might cure paedos, why can't we explore same for gays?

Because there is no consensus that homosexuality is a problem the way there is about paedophilia. But there have been no shortage of what you recommend, since there are gays who consider it a problem to be solved. It has met with very little success yet. Still, I’d like to live in a world where they succeed, as I still don’t know exactly what I will do if my own son were to tell me he is gay.

______________________________________________________________________________________

rhymz:
@My Joe
Most part of this resrarch are based on hypothesis and conjectures not any real fact. Mostly, the research was only based on the assumption that homosexuality is an entirely congenital disease as opposed to whether it can be aquired without any congenital connections.

That is not the impression I get from reading the excerpt.

rhymz: I find most part of the research especially this parts: ( Men with the active and women with the passive form of acquired homosexuality. Such men look masculine and possess male-type sexuality. Correspondingly, the women possess feminine features and female type of sexual behavior. "Their pathological attraction to the opposite $ex forms also on the basis of conditioned reflex, usually at the juvenile age."
Exactly what scientific proof do they have that their homosexual attraction possibly emanated at juvenile age and was on the basis of conditioned reflex and not triggered off by say, the environment or exposure to non-pathological factors that could have triggered off the attractions.

Well, what proof do those who insist on the contrary have? Have you personally spoken to people with homosexual tendencies on this matter? In any case, I don’t’ see any rejection of the possibilities you have outlined occurring in some cases. I was once told of the lady who refused to have anything to do with men. She wasn’t practicing lesbianism in secondary school since she knew nothing about it. But one day, already into adulthood and still shunning men, she looked at her unclothed self in the mirror and felt excited. That was how her exploration started and she wound up a practicing homosexual. Conditioned reflex at juvenile age? Genetic? How do I know. But certainly not environmental. So what is it? Perhaps I should read the whole report.

rhymz: When they say conditioned reflex, they did not tell us if the factors that conditioned their reflexes are pathologically acquired or prolly a genetic disorder that only began to show its effects at juvenile age.

Right. Conditioned reflex during adolescence as a possible cause of homosexual behaviour needs to be expounded upon. Maybe they did, not sure.

rhymz: All these are just conjectural and hypothetic explainations, they leave many questions unanswered.

Yeah. They leave many questions unanswered. But they actually spent time and money carrying out researches. They were not merely conjecturing.

rhymz: My point is while yes, it can be argued that some men have characteristics regarded as typical of a woman(effeminate males) and the women vice vesa(tom boys), that still does not form the basis to argue that every[/b]effeminate male or tomboy female is most likely going to be gay at some point in their lives.

Right, it doesn’t. And I don’t think they argue that [b]every. . .  But what about some? I wrote this earlier:

MyJoe: The congenital nature of homosexuality is backed up by scientific studies which found that the female-type sexual behavior can form in genetic males and the male-type sexual behavior can form in genetic females as a result of hormonal misbalance during a certain stage of embryogenesis. This problem with all the scientific studies that have been conducted on this subject, though, is that they have found no single factor, such as the one above, explains all cases of homosexuality.

If you don’t agree with the highlighted, how about hermaphrodites? If someone can be born with fully developed, visible male and female organs, is it not possibly, in fact, highly likely, that there are others born with… er, invisible ones? I mean, is it not likely there are people born with visible male organs but are possessed internally of those hormones or whatever it is that make women feel attracted to men?

rhymz: That appears to be the argument of this research, they have unwittingly and conveniently avoid telling us wether it can be aquired by mere curiosity and conditioning of the mind as opposed to the fancy "conditioned reflex" they are telling us.
After all, there are cases of people who had hitherto thought they were gay, only to try it and switch back to being heterosexual since they just did not see the point of their sexuality ambivalence.

They are clear there is no single cause for homosexuality. I think that takes care of your argument above. Personally, I don’t reject the possibility there are people who became homosexual out of some gross kind of curiosity.

rhymz: I still stand on my argument, there is no such thing as homosexual genes, may be a dis-order, fine! But the former? That will remain anybody's guess.

Actually, it remains anybody’s guess. We have no proof there are no homosexual genes anymore than we have that there are. But, yeah, I find the idea of physiological malformation more compelling.

JeSoul:
^perhaps there is an Arab leadership minority that genuinely wants peace with their Israeli neighbor - but that's what it is, unfortunately a minority.

We can't be so sure of that, either. Remember Egypt and Jordan already have diplomatic ties with Israel. Morocco, Algeria and Mauritania are not particularly anti-Israel. Egypt is the most important country in the Arab world, followed, probably, by Saudi Arabia. If these accept Israel with the other countries mentioned, that would leave the likes of Libya and Iran in the minority and those can't really influence nada as far as peace goes. Even they can be brought over - all it would take is a change of leadership.

Sagamite:
Nope.

All I have seen is people trying to prove seemingly homosexual acts in animals as proof that animals are homosexuals. That doesn't wash.

There's your subjective interpretation to an act which appears to be sex performed by two animals of the same sex. Fair enough. The US Supreme Court certainly accepted the other interpretation in striking down anti-homosexuality laws in some states.

Sagamite: I have not seen the evidence.

Yet I have seen some Whites that have said they have "experimented" by choice.

Yeah. Like I once experimented with weed at Bar Beach. There are crazy people who try all sort of things. And normal people who try all sort of crazy things at times. But most homosexuals appear to evince a clear rejection of intimacy with the opposite sex. There are married men who abandon their wife and sneak out to seek fellow men.

Sagamite: If there is belief, hope and attempt that a cure will be found for paedophilia, I see no reason why we can not attempt same for gays.

I'm unaware there is much yet beyond "voluntary chemical castration", which the Canadians seem particularly interested in, and the usual psychotherapy. On the contrary, a lot has  been done to try to "cure" homosexuals with no success.

[quote author=ekt_bear link=topic=674518.msg8398923#msg8398923 date=1306430056]Abuja is phenomenal. Never been to Calabar though.

Lagos has its fair share of slums, but the wealthier parts are as good as anything you'll find anywhere in the world.

But just takes a lot of money to afford to live in those spots[/quote]Well, I'm not so sure. They have open drainages in Lekki. Forget Victoria Island. Now, there are no open drainages in Pretoria! (Just comparing so you see why I'm not so sure.)

JeSoul:
Yup. When pigs fly & TayoD becomes a Liberal

Well, I'm not so sure. If my memory serves me right, the Saudis, the Syrians and some others have expressed their willingness to accept this position.

Sagamite:
If my knowledge does not fail me, I think most sources for such arguments only offer hypotheses and not scientific facts.

I am yet to see any proven.

It will shock me if anyone can prove it since homosexuality genes will only exist in humans, out of the multi-million of species on Earth.

It does exist in the wild.

Sagamite: Something tells me it is a choice or a biological dysfunction.

By choice, no. Well, not likely. Apart from the fact that the evidence argues against it, it is counterintuitive to think anyone would chose to be branded, despised and rejected. Biological dysfunction? Probably. In fact, highly probable.

Sagamite: Cure it, not accept it.

Cure it? Well, nothing has really worked yet.


Here's an old post I made in some thread:

MyJoe: I did not mean to convey that genes are responsible for homosexuality. I am hardly qualified to make that assertion or any similar one. The point I was making was that we do not know that genes are not responsible – there is already so much militant misunderstanding of homosexuality about. What we do know is that homosexuality is mostly not something you pick up at all-boys school or decide to go into for recreation as many believe. It appears most, if not all, homosexuals grow up to find that their sexual orientation is inverted. There are several possibilities and the gene theory is one of them, though not a particular strong one.

I personally would pay closer attention to the theory that it is a congenital disorder which may, in some, be amenable to drugs, psychotherapy or hypnotism and not be in others. People exhibit signs of homosexuality early in life. To drive home this point, I think we need to consider the case of transvestism. This problem occurs with or without of the sexual orientation. There was a popular story of the kid in, UK, I think, who had this problem – the boy thought he was a girl. (I heard this on British radio over a year ago, so I hope I recall it right.) Growing up he slipped into girls clothes, played with girls and behaved like them. Unfortunately the law in his country did not allow him to have what is called “gender reassignment surgery” until he turned 18 to CORRECT his system. So he was flown to the US where he was given female focal places and he now lives a NORMAL life. I believe it is easily deducible that hermaphroditism is a physical manifestation of a similar disorder.

The congenital nature of homosexuality is backed up by scientific studies which found that the female-type sexual behavior can form in genetic males and the male-type sexual behavior can form in genetic females as a result of hormonal misbalance during a certain stage of embryogenesis. This problem with all the scientific studies that have been conducted on this subject, though, is that they have found no single factor, such as the one above, explains all cases of homosexuality.

So a 1976 study throws more light. Can homosexuality be acquired? That has not been ruled out.

Permit me to quote Dr Antonov:

Basing on examination of homosexual men in 1976, we pointed out different origins of the active and the passive forms of the disease.

The observations of homosexual patients that we conducted during the next several years allowed us to classify homosexual people not into two, but into three groups — by the mechanism of the origin of the disease:

1) Men with the passive and women with the active form of congenital homosexuality. Such men and women felt themselves respectively girls and boys since their childhood; they preferred to play games and wear clothes typical of the opposite intimacy. Many men had congenital feminine features, while women — congenital masculine features. In sexual relationships, the men felt themselves as women, while the women — as men. A high percentage of them have some kind of hereditary anomalies and report pregnancy pathologies or premature birth.

2) Men with the passive and women with the active form of acquired homosexuality. These patients do not have congenital homosexual mentality and perverted feminine or masculine features. Their attraction to the same intimacy forms on the basis of conditioned reflex during the stage of adolescent intersexuality.

3) Men with the active and women with the passive form of acquired homosexuality. Such men look masculine and possess male-type sexuality. Correspondingly, the women possess feminine features and female type of sexual behavior. Their pathological attraction to the opposite intimacy forms also on the basis of conditioned reflex, usually at the juvenile age. Later on their homosexual attraction either a) transforms into regular but then reverts to homosexual as a result of mental traumas caused by heterosexual contacts or impossibility of heterosexual contacts due to various reasons, or b) moves on to their adult life either totally displacing the regular-type sexual attraction or coexisting with it. A significant fraction of patients of this group report hereditary abnormalities, various serious somatic diseases in their childhood as well as pregnancy pathologies and premature birth. Such anamnesis indicates an influence of some injuring factor, which could impair the brain structures that regulate the congenital component of one’s sexual orientation.

It follows from the above stated data that homosexuality represents a disease of polymorphic origin, which accounts for the difficulties that exist in its treatment. This is why there can be no universal method applicable to all those who want to be cured of homosexuality; the specific treatment has to be chosen depending on the etiologic group that the patient belongs to. Apart from psychotherapeutic measures various medications can also be used.

While I have never taken the disjointed and hysterical conspiracy theories surrounding Lady Diana's death very seriously, I will appreciate any new angles if this film has any.

RSA:
,the only people on earth who pretend that all is well when things are falling apart are Nigerians,"happiest people on earth" amid all the poverty,corruption and lawlessness in their country.If that is not "LYING TO YOURSELF" ,then what is it?.

I think you are slightly mistaken. Nigerians tend to be very critical of their country, as you will see when you read threads in Nairaland. The opinion pages of the newspapers are even worse. In fact, it would be correct to describe many Nigerians as self-hating.

As for the "happiest people on earth" thing, it was based on a survey which was conceived, financed, conducted and reported by people who have no links with Nigeria. Social scientists have adduced several reasons why such a finding was made, but I will not go into all that here.

But, of course, there are Nigerians who pretend all is well, mostly those who profit from the bad system or "conservatives" who think only the best should be highlighted and the oppressed left to their fate.

[quote author=Tayo-D link=topic=675298.msg8397392#msg8397392 date=1306416875]@Ikomi,

This is why it is difficult to have an intellectually robust discussion with you. So you are unaware that Gaza was under Egyptian rule in 1967 and that Israel actually took over the territory from an antagonistic neighbor?

There was no act of deceit here. Again you start your argument from a wrong premise. Israel obtained that territory and others from neighbors that were amassing to wipe them out. If my neighbor builds a tower to take snipe shots at me in order to kill me and my children, it is not a theft if I chase him out of that tower and take it over until he renounces violence against me and mine. [/quote]So you would have Israel withdraw to the '67 borders on the condition that the Arabs say "no more war" and demonstrate their readiness to accept Israel?

Bawss1:
Thats just dandy isn't it? Who wouldn't want to just sit and fold their hands while waiting for the messiah to appear in Aso Rock. A very tempting path indeed. We are talking about the corrupt tendencies in the Nigerian people here. EVERYONE has a part to play in it. The leaders as well the followers. Saying our own efforts won't count is supporting indolence.

[size=14pt]If everyone did the right thing[/size] within their own spheres of influence [/b]then that much desired change that we dream about will most certainly materialize. Don't blame it entirely on the leaders. The leaders agreeably have a wider influence and can effect change on a larger scale but that change will not be complete if the followers don't play their own part.

You are simply not getting it. Nowhere did I say our efforts don't count. Doing the right thing is the only right thing to do. You say IF everyone did their part, I agree. But my point is that [b]everyone is not going to do their part. Going by your model, then, the desired will never come. My model is, get a good leader and we have a shot at that getting change. It is when there a good leader and a good system in place that people like the scum described in op will stop being regarded as "sharp guys".

Leaders lead and followers follow.

Bawss1:
Very wrong. For Nigeria to change for the better, it has to start from its most basic unit - the individuals. And from there, the families then to the society at large. Waiting for change from Aso Rock is just another convenient way of shying away from the hardwork and responsibility required in bringing about positive change.

I disagree with you and I suggest you make better arguments when declaring people "very wrong". You reread koruji's post to better understand this argument.

There are a lot of wonderful individuals in Nigeria as in elsewhere who refuse to participate in any form of corruption, even if they are derided for it by friends and family. There are policemen who do their work diligently and refuse bribes. But these individuals can't change the country, for no matter how they try, they are in the minority. People who are irredeemably corrupt and hellbent on stealing, not matter what, are probably also in the minority. The majority of people go along with the mood of the society - they will steal public funds because everyone does it. If the system was better, laws are enforced, there are good retirement plans, his efforts are not being sabotaged by the system itself, this person would not steal. That is the majority. They need role models, examples, to follow. No, we don't have to wait for Aso Rock, and every individual can do their bit and positively affect those around them. But we know only a few individuals will, others won't. There is no amount of honesty or good work from you, Bawss, that can change the entire system. That does not apply to the man at Aso Rocks. Saying it is the responsibility of leaders to lead the way is not shying away from anything. It is the way things are.

koruji:
@Physicist
Your story actually supports the opposite. It is because leadership is not "corrupt" in the USA that you have a semblance of a clean society. Every, well let me not say every, but most Americans "will slap a face" if they can get away without consequence. Their original founders put in place a set of core principles, and a system of choosing credible leaders that gradually produced a cleaner system.

We forget that the USA was the original land of the wild-wild west - I want your property we have a gun duel. The difference again is there came a set of leaders that were slightly cleaner than the rest of the populace, and with each set of leaders they got better at picking better leaders - of course not without the occasional "Richard Nixon". Those leaders came from the same corrupt populace, but they acted the role of leaders.

Better believe that if their leaders slack off in the USA it will only be a couple of decades of such before the country is indistinguishable from today's Nigeria. It is really a case of everybody watching everybody else, and insisting on enforcing their own rights.

I agree with this. When people on this forum and elsewhere call the Westerners, particularly the British and the Americans, "hypocritical" for holding their leaders to higher moral standards than the masses, a la Clinton/Lewinsky and DSK, I shake my head. Leaders ought to be better than the led. "If you are not better than us, you have no business leading us," this is what the British and the Americans seem to say when they hound a public figure for a "mere" extra-marital affair. Extend that to accepting of gifts by public officials, and from there move on to inflation of contracts and outright embezzlement.

For Nigeria to change, it has to start from the stop. Elite consensus. Someone at the top has to stand up and say enough is enough. Once accountability is enthroned at Aso Rock and the various state houses the people will take note and change will come gradually. By the way, op's assertion that Nigerians are as corrupt as their leaders apply everywhere. There is an old saying that everyone wants less corruption or a chance to participate in it.

Martian:
The old soviet bloc got a lot of things wrong, teaching atheism being one of them. Atheism cannot be taught or need to be taught because we are all born atheists(without gods)  anyway and indoctrination and teaching is what leads to the various beliefs in god.

Some studies have been conducted on this and there is no consensus. There are psychologists who believe we are wired to believe in God, while there are others who say there is no such thing. What we can be sure of is that we are wired to ask questions, and surrounded as we are by things we can’t comprehend it was only a matter of time before we put it all down to a higher “force” or “forces”. (That is, of course, a long way from believing that Forces have human attributes, sends prophets, orders animal sacrifices and demands 10% of people’s income.) Even today there is still far too much that science cannot provide answers to, so we are not done with questioning. It is very farfetched, therefore, to say we are born to reject belief in the existence of God. I think we are born not really knowing but contemplating the boundless universe and wondering how it all came about and thinking something must be behind it.

We are either born agnostic or agnostic-deistic or deistic-agnostic or deistic.

LeoMax: I didn't see the video Victoria Island where I live.

I see mischief.

The experience of the oppressed is the most relevant experience.

The OP has a point once you separate the strong anti-religionism. Children learn the religion of their parents by rote such that by the time they are old enough to start thinking, it is the only reality they know. Where it is a majority religion like Christianity or Islam, the child’s view of reality is reinforced by people he interacts with in the community, at school and everywhere. Where it is a minority religion like the Yoruba Orisa, the Esan Oguese or the Izon Egbesu, it is subjected to relentless erosion once the child steps outside the house. That is why many Nigerian kids raised in families devoted to these worldviews end up adopting Christianity or Islam. In my view, there is something deeply troubling about this, the way religion is taught to children.

I would not support the idea that no one be taught religion till they are age 18 since that would not work. Religion is so ingrained into the family life that it would be impractical to shut kids out of it by legislation. Ask the Soviets and the Eastern Europeans who taught official atheism in schools. Besides, a study would be needed to confirm that separating children from religion will minimize religious hatred this since some of the baddest Islamic fundamentalists are converts to the religion. A more attainable (and preferable, to me) world would be one where kids are introduced to many religions at the same time and taught philosophy and critical thinking to enable them process what they are being introduced to. (I would think that Yoga and Confucianism will do Nigerian kids tones of good.) They would then be able to think critically about these things.

Mazaje “hit the nail on the head” by situating religion within culture. That is why it would be impossible to hatch a world where children are insulated from religion. Thus, there is little or nothing anyone can do about this problem. But it is an important issue worth talking about.

[quote author=Ileke-IdI link=topic=674844.msg8395683#msg8395683 date=1306399974]If you have any "iota of respect" towards yourself, you'll be more concern about this ethnic-bigoted ediot! below:[/quote]I think you have misunderstood his post completely. Please read it again.

cap28:
errors in my claims??  why then have you failed to point out what those errors are and why have you refused to answer any of the questions i posed to you?

Not sure what questions Cap is talking of, but I ain't answering. If it's the UN report, I read it when it came out in 2002, its factual and I agree with all the FACTS it presents. But Cap can continue singing "UN report, UN report" hoping it has anything to do with his arguments, while expecting me to respond to this:

cap28:
pray tell, who are these respectable media houses?  is it the BBC that is controlled by the British govt or Al Jazeera that is owned by US ally qatar?  or is it CNN that is owned by Time Warner who donated  millions of dollars to Obama's presidential campaign?

[quote author=Tudór link=topic=440441.msg8358479#msg8358479 date=1305889809]Hahahahah, I'm back from the dead. I was Shot several times in a car jacking months ago. I'm home with ma folks started physio 3 weeks ago now I can move better.

Just decided to log on with my cousins blackberry and check what's up. Where is everybody? Hope you are great![/quote]Omg! That must have been traumatic. Glad you are alive and recovering. I'm wondering where, too? Hope it's not that you came to Naija for Christmas and ran into em boys! I'm doing good.

pleep:
All cap28 was saying was that it is unfair to look at one side of the story. And he simply pointed out what he belives are the root causes of the violence in Congo.

All he was being told is that there were errors in his claims.

pleep: He's right mainstream media only chooses to show one side of this story ( silly  ungovernable Africans despoiling, killing and stealing for no real reason)

What media have you been giving your time to? Respectable media houses report things as they happen on a daily basis. Then on occasions deeper analysis are made and root causes are addressed. The root causes of the problems in the Congo - from the unspeakable atrocities of King Leopold II to Cold war high politics which saw the US and Belgium backing scumbags to subvert the will of the Congolese - have always been highlighted by respectable media houses.

pleep: And everything that doesn't support this veiwpoint is labelled a conspiracy theory.

You are wrong. Conspiracy theories are just that, conspiracy theories. Saying the head of INEC was incompetent is a fact, even though that fact may be right or wrong and may not support the view of the media. But saying, without anything concrete to point to, that since Nigeria is rich is oil it was the US that caused a shortage of printing materials on the day the printers were to purchase items to print election materials so that the elections would not hold and the country would be plunged into chaos and they can then move in and steal the country's oil, is pure conspiracy theory and thinking people are bound to challenge that! Conspiracy theorists don't think. Or their minds are too twisted to so properly.

pleep: I understand that many people are offended by criticisms of the west (and white ppl in general) but ask yourself : when your Hausa, A.A , or Igbo brothers ate attacked or insulted on this forum do you rush to their aid the same way you diligently defend the west?

Please bring out a single post where I have diligently defended the West. How does calling someone out on wild ideas amount to defending the West? Actually it's best to just ignore these theories, but as JeSoul said, I think one should respond occasionally, so some non-Nigerians reading wont' come here and conclude that Nigerians are a bunch of brainless clowns who see white men chasing them whenever they close their eyes.

GODSON2009:
let me intimate you with a few 'facts' from that fat book which you are at liberty to find out yourself
did you know that
ijebu was originally pronounced as ije-ibu  in yoruba meaning food for the water/ocean? the paramount king then needed a wide expanse of land to keep the slaves destined to be offered up for the river godess as human sacrifice and they settled on where ijebu is presently situated when it was time they just plucked as many as they wanted and sacrificed them in the river.

did you know that the yoruba kings had to step over the blood of a young male when going inside the inner sanctum housing some gods and when coming out another slave had to be killed this time female for the king to step on the blood?

did you know that in some parts of youba land,human blood was used with other ingredients and applied to kolanut trees in order for a more bountiful yield?

i could go on and on about sacrifices made on behalf of kings,specific times of the year,on behalf of the war generals prince and princesses e.t.c

Right. These things did happen. But the point you seem to be missing is that you are only looking at one side of the story. The very foundation of your religion is human sacrifice. Why can't you seem the similarity? When it failed to rain, the Ijebu king concluded that his people must have offended the gods and sacrifices were made to appease them and obtain forgiveness for such sins so it might rain. Your religion teaches you exactly the same thing!
________

Seems Tudor's back from sabbatical!

[quote author=tpia@ link=topic=670342.msg8348641#msg8348641 date=1305753003]Look, yall cant eat your cake and have it.

If you're bent on marrying outside your faith, then please stop hounding people for not doing this or that.

If you feel your religion is important to you, then date and marry people who share your faith.

This is a general post not directed at the op alone.

Someone calling himself jesus was also making noise in the muslim section, wanting people to pat him on the back for his attempts to pounce on a muslim lady.


You people shouldnt start running mouths anyhow just because osama is gone.[/quote]

[quote author=tpia@ link=topic=670342.msg8356150#msg8356150 date=1305854722]Divinereal

kindly reread the original post properly before talking anyhow.

The poster is worried about the marriage not being blessed by God if nikkah isnt performed.

Try to digest that instead of being quick to trot out worn comments which have been posted millions of times.

No need for a crusade, thanks.[/quote]You know, this lady is fast becoming one of my fav posters on this forum!

^^^ The Pavlovian response mode! Your comment, sir, shows you have been programmed like a computer. Few people here will understand the significance of what you wrote above. You respond in a certain way when certain things are said. Your delusion is amazing. Because I say a certain thing you imagine I am one of those who waited for Jesus to show up on certain advertised dates and he failed to show up. No, I wasn't. I wasn't even born then!

Apostate my foot! Do you even know what the word means? See im mouth like apostate.