₦airaland Forum

InesQor: Hmm thanks bro. Honestly I only saw a flicker of the Light, but you give me too much credit: I don't have many things figured out yet but I know where I have been, and lies I have believed and how God has shown them all up for their falsehood.

When one sees the truth, one should learn to conform to it. Unfortunately, many people don't want truth unless it feels comfortable for them.

See what Martha Norman said in her 1947 play "Night Mother". It could be a lesson for many of us here:-
“People do think that if they avoid the truth, it might change to something better before they have to hear it.”

Must say I was making observations on your approach rather than the substance.

Perrito4u:
1914 was the beginning of an epoch. After 1914 the following wars where more destructive than ever before. From WWI on, the nations started using airplanes, tanks, subs, poison gas, bombs, etc. Definitely a turning point.

Once people had swords – they used them. Then they had gunpowder – they used them. Then they had warplanes – and they used them. Can you please explain why the last case a “turning point” but the previous ones aren’t?

Perrito4u: Yes there were wars before 1914 but never like this. One of the US presidents even said more people have died in the 20th Century than all of previous war before. Definitely a turning point.

Okay: “More people died in the 20th century wars than all previous wars,” US president living in the 20th century.

How about these hypotheses – “More people died in the 19th century wars than all previous wars,” some president living in 19th century.

“More people died in the 18th century wars than all previous wars,” some president living in 18th century.

“More people died in the 2nd century wars than all previous wars,” some king living in the 2nd century.

Do you have any reason to be certain that these hypotheses are not provable?


You see, ma’am, when you say something and keep repeating it some people are bound to believe you. If you say it from a pedestal – such as that of a religious leader – many people are bound to believe you. But the fact of saying something repeatedly does not make it true. So not everyone will believe you. You say 1914 was the beginning of an epoch, the epoch Jesus came to rule the world – how? That more people died in a war? Have you heard of the Black Death? It was a series of plagues epidemics that lasted centuries during the Middle Ages. Imagine a series of diseases that wipe out half the population of a city, in some cities more than half – one third of Europe’s population may have died! It was horrible and nothing like it has been seen since that time. These plagues started in 1347. Now do you not think that people living in, say, 1400 will look back and say, “Oh, what a turning point, the beginning of an epoch, 1347!”

So how does the fact that a war killed more people (because of technological advancement, obviously) than previous wars mean the beginning of an epoch? Was 1939, the year World War II started also the beginning of an epoch of cosmic significance? George Bush believes September 11, 2001 was the beginning of an epoch – does that have spiritual significance, too? If Mr bin Ladin gets hold of nuclear weapons and wipe out half the earth’s population by 2020 would that be the beginning of an epoch with religious significance?

Okay, ma’am, you have talked about war, deploying old phrases to prove that a war killing more than previous wars shows that Jesus has come. What about the others signs listed as signifying the parousia – diseases, earthquakes, etc. Are they also here killing more than previous incidents?

In a sense, loved ones, precious ones, never go away. We will continue to treasure his memories.

I hope those who did this are caught soon.

InesQor:
@kunleoshob
LOL! You are only partially correct. Nairaland changed mavenbox. InesQor has always been like this <the rest has been edited out>

Right. As a people watcher, I personally find the transformation from mavebbox to InesQor unbelievable. I would guess it takes a highly developed spirit or intellect or both to achieve this feat. Not that mavenbox's spirit has not been sighted hovering around a post occasionally but that is only human and it was always quickly reined in. Bravo!

nuclearboy:
I would call that the "Worshippers of Pastors" (WOP). Wish I could find a way to make that say "WIMPS".

Try Worshipers Initiated by Money Pastors. 

@RWilliams
I understand your point about the Jewish matter. Saying the JWs hate the Jews as a race is ridiculous. Even though there are other points made in that long post, I don't know what LagosShia’s point is posting it here.

RWilliams:
My Joe, How can you not see that 1914,  the year WW1 started, was not a turning point, even many historians attest to this.

Please let us know these “historians”. I can find none. I still don’t know on what basis you say 1914 was “a turning point”.

RWilliams link: It is not co-incidence that the first sign jesus gave of his parousia was "Nation against Nation"

Are you seriously saying there were no wars before 1914? That nations just started rising against nations in 1914? No, I believe not. Relative to population and technological advancement there were similarly destructive wars before 1914. But how about 1938, the year the much more destructive World War II started? Was that a turning point, too?

RWilliams link: if you want too look more into the bibles timeline for 607/ 1914 follow this link

http://thetruthaboutthetruthaboutthetruth..com/2005/11/jerusalems-destruction-587-or-607.html

I read the article in the link. It does provide "bible timeline" for 607/539 link but not "607/1914 link". (These two are different matter, but I will get to that presently.) It seems you didn't read the article. Once he is through with the emphasis on the "70 times", his main argument is that those who say Jerusalem was destroyed in 587/586BC rely on secular history, whereas, we, Jehovah’s Witnesses, who say Jerusalem was destroyed in 607BC rely on the Bible. Of course, the writer of this article would flunk a history class. But I guess that’s not his business. You know, he reminds me of a popular guy on this forum called OLAADEGBU. Here him: Those who say the earth is more than 10,000 years old rely on science, whereas, I, OLAADEGBU, who believe the earth is less than 10,000 years old rely on the Bible alone.

To you, Mr Williams, who believe in an old earth, Mr OLAADEGBU is wrong is ascribing a young earth to the Bible. To him you are wrong is ascribing 607 to the Bible. But none of you can see how wrong he is. Know why? Here is a quote from the merciless Deep Sight, a regular in this section. It’s one of my favourite NL quotes for the year 2010, even though others, including yours sincerely, have said the same thing in different words:

I state my concern again - and put very simply it is a frank worry that once any body of writing [or a religion or movement's leadership] is accepted as infallible and ABSOLUTELY correct in truth, then the person accepting that can NEVER think outside that manual, and can NEVER challenge anything in that manual. (bracket mine).

But there is another problem: the assertion that 607 relies on the Bible is hideously false. Where in the Bible do we read that Jesus was born in 1 BC? The Bible only gives relative dates, not absolute dates.

I think the reasons given in that article for preferring 607BC to 539BC over 587BC to 517BC are not only tendentious but tenuous. When he says 607 accords with Bible prophecy I believe what he means the JW interpretation of Bible prophecy. I have already said something about the danger of this type of approach.

Now, historians tell us that Jerusalem was destroyed in 587/86 BC and that Jewish exiles returned in 538/37 BC. You reject the first date and accept the second. Why? You say the first date agrees with Bible chronology, but the second does not. So I will like to ask you and the writer of that article the following questions:

1.  Is it possible to have a definite Bible chronology?

2.  Since the Bible gives no absolute dates – either by stating calendar years or the position of planetary bodies that could help astronomers calculate them – is possible to date events in the Bible without secular sources?

3. Given 2 above, does it even begin to make sense or isn’t it completely meaningless  for anyone to attempt to cite “Bible chronology” as an independent source of dating?

4. Does the Watchtower quote secular historians and encyclopedias?

5. Is it honest to quote secular sources extensively when they seem to support Watchtower ideas only to turn around and say we believe the Bible over them, particular on a matter that requires “assembling” and is not intrinsically theological?

6. When the Bible is not clear on a matter is it honest for Christians to resort to mumbo jumbo to input their own ideas into it?

7. If the proper course for Christians is to reject secular sources just to stick literally to the Bible why do you not agree that the earth is little more than 6,000 years old, a position that can be easily inferred from the book of Genesis?

8. Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that Jerusalem was destroyed in 607 BC. How does THE BIBLE link that date with 1914? What link is there between the destruction of Jerusalem and the Common Era? Let me make that clearer: the age and years of the reign of the Kings of Israel and Judah from Saul to Zedekiah are given in the Old Testament. Using those ages, it is possible to approximate the years been the reigns of Saul and Zedekiah - about 500, if my memory serves me right. What timelines are there between reign of Zedekiah and the Common Era to help us make computations, using the Bible, and arrive at a 1914?

^^^ The French troops did shoot at the crowd, but that was at a time violent "crowds" loyal to Gbabo were on the rampage in Abidjan seeking out anything French (civilians and businesses) to burn and destroy in retaliation to the French military's destruction of the Ivorien Air Force - which was done in retaliation to the killing of eight French soldiers by the Ivorien air force at a time a cease fire was in place. Those were the same crowds that took on the French soldiers at the urging of Ggagbo's camp. Gbagbo did not need any protection from French soldiers since the same French soldiers had protected government troops in the past.

superboi:
Faeb please get your facts right it was Bedie who is now Quattara ally that barred him from ruuning in 1996 claiming that he is from burkinabe and not because he is a Northern, and in fact he he family has roots in Burkinabe and he was born there in  Sindou, Burkina Faso. I do not support any of this guys Bedie, Gbagbo or Quattara (the are all above 65 yrs age of a generation of african spoilt children that spoilt africa), they are fighting for their own pockets and their own masters.

Right, Bedie is the author of the problems that have coalesced to get Ivory Coast into the mess it is today with his policy of Ivorite. But you need to recall that once General Guei got into power he continued the policy just so he could exclude Quatarra and have a smooth ride in his self-succession bid. And when Gbagbo, the lunatic, came to power after the main gladiators fought themselves out of it, he had the same fear of Quatarra and so urged on by his allies and his powerful wife, Simone, he desperately tried to continue the neo-apartheid policy.

It will be interesting to see how this ends. Unfortunately Gbagbo does not give a hoot what happens to the country as long as he remains in power. Bear in mind also that he is hostage to vested groups within and outside the military who are pushing push him on.

When I heard Mbeki had been appointed by the AU my mind went to Zimbabwe and Kenya - another "power sharing" arrangement. In my opinion, Mbeki is a consensus builder, particularly a peace-of-the-graveyard exponent. If I were Quatarra, I would not accept any power sharing arrangement that lets Gbagbo remain president since (i) these power sharing governments are divided governments which don't work, (ii) as implemented in Zimbabwe and Kenya, they reward the rogue who loses an election and refuses to go. He should instead consider the Ravalomanana option - declaring himself president and staying put until the other guy reads the writing on the wall and is forced to give it up. This is a plausible option since a government that is not recognised by the United States will find it hard to access the country's foreign reserves. But I realise this won't be as easy as it was for Ravalomanana, the difference being that the military in Madagascar was professional and neutral during the standoff between Ratsiraka and Ravalomanana.

But let's see what Mbeki puts on the table. The people of Ivory Coast . . .

Perrito4u:
@MyJoe

    How come you don't back up anything you say with the bible? I don't see you mentioned anything directly from the scriptures? Are you a christian?

I don’t know what to say to that^^^, ma’am. Really, I don’t. But lemme try.

1. It’s not beneficial this mindset that the person that quote scripture after scripture is right, while the person that doesn’t is wrong.

2. It was not necessary to quote the Bible in my last posts because discussants are thoroughly familiar with the issues involved and the Bible citations at the background.

3. If it was necessary to quote the Bible, I would have. Check an earlier post where I used the Bible to clearly show that Jesus did not teach, and it is wrong for anyone to teach, that the parable of the wheat and weeds points to one true religion.

4. The Bible is one of my favourite subjects, so you, ma’am, are welcome to discuss it with me. (i) I have asked someone to supply the biblical basis of 1914. Perhaps you can step up to that and we can start from there. (ii) Perhaps you would also mention directly from the scriptures the reasons for not fighting when attacked?

5. Thank you.

@Joagbaje
Great art! I see you also do illustration. Have saved your contact info, as I have had considerable difficulties finding good illustrators in Lagos.

[quote author=Mad_Max link=topic=436863.msg7245539#msg7245539 date=1291125300]True.
Christianity claims it's the way of salvation. But it's a man-made religion like every other. Every religion makes that claim. Every sect makes that claim, its adherents convinced they alone have found the answer and all other religions toil in vain. All religions, being human constructs to understand the Divine, are full of our human conceits.Christianity is not the way of salvation. Christ is. Christ is one thing, Christianity as we know it is another. That they're two different things is evidenced by the fact that you can have one without having the other. If a particular religion is the way, why didn't Jesus tell the Jews or his disciples to abandon Judaism, since it's not the 'correct' religion? But Jesus told them no such thing.
[/quote]Very well put.

[quote author=Mad_Max link=topic=436863.msg7075975#msg7075975 date=1288860027] Buddhism, especially the Tibetan Lamaist version, has very interesting philosphical doctrines and theories about Jesus.[/quote]And so do the Fulani in their creation story. There he’s called Gueno. Reminds me of what you said about the I-ching. I lost this book that contained the story after a friend borrowed it about eight years back. Then last week I stumbled upon it inside some academic text.

The universe started from a drop of milk, with Doondari directing, no, intervening in the script whenever necessary. The short poem has remarkable depth with evolution and creation going hand in hand.

A Fulani Creation Story

At the beginning there was a huge drop of milk
Then Doondari came and he created the stone.
Then the stone created iron;
And iron created fire;
And fire created water;
And water created air.
Then Doondari descended a second time. And he took the five elements
And he shaped them into man.
But man was proud.
Then Doondari created blindness and blindness defeated man.
But when blindness became too proud,
Doondari created sleep, and sleep defeated blindness;
But when sleep became too proud,
Doondari created worry, and worry defeated sleep;
But when worry became too proud,
Doondari created death, and death defeated worry.
But when death became too proud,
Doondari descended for the third time,
And he came as Gueno, the eternal one
And Gueno defeated death.


This one is the creation story of the Efe, a forest pygmy people of the DR Congo

The Forbidden Fruit

God created the first human being with the help of the moon. God kneaded the body out of clay. Then God covered it with skin and the end God poured blood into it. God called the first human Baatsi.

Then God whispered into his ear telling him to beget many children, but to impress upon the children the following rule: from all trees you may eat, but not from the Tahu tree.

Baatsi had many children and he made them obey the rule. When he became old he retired to heaven. His children obeyed the rule and when they grew old they too retired to heaven.

But one day a pregnant woman was seized with an irresistible desire to eat the fruit of the Tahu tree. She asked her husband to break some for her, but he refused. But when she persisted, the husband gave in. He crept into the forest at night, picked the Tahu fruit, peeled it, and hid the peel in the bush. But moon had seen him, and she told God what she had seen.

God was so angry with humans that he sent death as a punishment to men.

Kay 17:
That [ ] bible supports all the sides in the trinity argument.

A valid thesis.

Yes, tpia. Would you be so kind to restate some of these questions springing up?

nuclearboy:
I think the OP just gave his own view and whist it may seem wrong to you, it obviously seems ok in his estimation 

Yes. Actually all these explanations are unnecessary. What the man did is in perfect order. Sometimes I just can't understand human beings and the things they censure.

Those who are calling opening poster names should read his post again. There is nothing dumb or silly about it, as nowhere does he bemoan the fact the team is composed largely of Igbos. He is only asking an academic question based on an observation he has made: the female team is composed largely of a single ethnic group of the many we have, there must be some reason for this. What is that reason? In the top universities of the world, billions are spent researching similar topics. The answers to the question asked in this thread can help our football planners to formulate policies to develop our football. Fortunately, a few highly informed posts have been made on the matter by semid4lif and a few others.

[quote author=Tonye-t link=topic=542674.msg7110119#msg7110119 date=1289324785]I strongly believe 'something' could be 'wrong' yet not be a 'sin'. Therefore in assertion. . .I'll say marrying more than one can be wrong even though not a sin.[/quote]I am really interested in learning what you find "wrong" with polygamy.

[quote author=Tonye-t]How?

Jesus when asked about the validities of divorce within the law of moses said: Yes, divorce under the law should stand, but FROM THE BEGINNING it wasnt so (matt.19:8. . .), therefore one should ponder: "If marrying two wives was good by design, maybe God would have paraded another 'eve' as second wife for Adam since afterall the first Eve misbehaved (bad wife). . .goes to tell us that FROM THE BEGINNING God expects us to keep to one wife whether she turns out as good or evil  [/quote]Non sequitur. This is like making that statement someone made in a Bond movie that if God wanted man to fly he would have given him wings.

Not as uncommon as it may sound. There have been atheist popes.

Pastor AIO:
The point that I'm trying to make is that the various intelligences are just arbitrary constructs that Gardner has come up with and they are not distinct identifiable entities/functions in their own right (with perhaps an organ each).  If they were then Gardner would have to demonstrate which part of the brain (or organ) is in charge of which intelligence and demonstrate that that part of the brain is attenuated in the person that lacks that particular intelligence.

I'm surprised you would say the above since it's not far-fetched. Neuroscience has told us what part of the brain is responsible for different things - vision, language, logic, consciousness, etc. But I see the conversation's back to Mr Gardner. You believe a list from him would be fine.

Pastor AIO: On the other hand I'm saying that Intelligence is simply the ability to receive and process information regardless of what the information is.  That some people excel in one area of endeavour while others excel in other areas is due, not to have different distinct types of intelligence but rather due to having different inclinations.  There are as many different inclinations, or combinations of inclinations, as there are, were, and will be human beings.  To catalogue them all Gardnerian style will leave us with an endless list of intelligences.  (I might yet regret I said this cos I do think there is a way of cataloguing, not only intelligence, but information and the entirety of phenomenal existence.  But that is another story.  That system as little to do with Gardner's in any case.)

It would have been interesting to see your system. While I am convinced by my own observations about multiple intelligences, a theory first made up by Gardner, his classification is not set in stone. It’s simply a useful classification that has helped many make sense of certain issues in human behavior. I find it excellent for explaining the concept of multiple intelligences. Like I have already said, you can break them further and you can regroup. When I am talking “multiple intelligences”, I am not automatically talking Gardner.

Pastor AIO: You are right that Inclination is not static.  A six year old boy has no interest in girls.  He positively can't stand them.  7 years later something starts to stir and he starts to find them  . . . hmmm, yummy . . . .

The fluidity, at times, of inclinations is observable in situations other than boy to adult transition.

Pastor AIO: I'm not quite sure what you mean by inclinations being stronger than desire.  Please expand on that.

I do accept that Intelligence can be applied to contrivance.  In fact when I was thinking about my previous post I also thought of the possibility of great musicians like Duke Ellington who said that the reason he decided to play piano was because he realised that whenever someone sat down to play a piano there was always a pretty girl at the end of the piano staring at the player with adoring eyes.
However I think that though the initial attraction to an activity may be due to ulterior motive eventually the person has to discover that there is in fact a natural inclination for the thing otherwise his efforts would not bare fruit. 

Contrivance leading to discovery of an INCLINATION (an in-born tendency) but not intelligence (an in-born ability)? Now, I don’t find an ounce of logic in that. But it helps clarify a thing or two about your position. Continuing, does this mean that if due to hardship or whatever a kid decides to go into 419 and he does it better than Ezego, we can conclude that he had a natural inclination for that which it took contrivance to bring to the fore?

Pastor AIO: I do believe that contrivance can sharpen your intelligence for a certain activity however what it cannot do is bring it to a degree of Excellence.

Thus you agree we can talk in terms of “intelligence for a certain activity”. An in-born ability to make a distinction in a certain activity. Our views are much closer than it appears.

Now, this has been a very interesting, I should say intelligent, conversation. 

^^^ That is an A-grade write-up. I agree with almost everything in it. But it hardly, I think, addresses the question of whether intelligence is an amorphous phenomenon given form by inclination. Most of our actions are indeed driven by contrivance. My friend was indeed contriving because he realised he needed to in order to advance and to "fit in". But for the reasons I have already advanced, I believe he was struggling because he lacked a certain intelligence not because he lacked a certain inclination. An important thing to remember is that inclinations are far from static - intelligences are fairly constant. And I don't think inclinations are always stronger than desire, assuming we can always separate the two. Besides, is there a particular reason contrivance cannot give form to intelligence if intelligence were amorphous?

cadanre:
Where did the Trinity come from?

It was invented at a council meeting.

[quote author=Mad_Max link=topic=436863.msg7075975#msg7075975 date=1288860027]
I wasn't bewailing other religions coming here.[/quote]Me, neither. I was commenting on why we never packaged our indigenous beliefs for export. You realise it's not long since our people started to take pride in “native” names? In my time if you or your guardian "mistakenly" mentioned your "native" name after your right hand has successfully passed on top of your head to touch your left ear, the headmaster or the person registering you would say, "no, I mean his oyinbo name."  Consider, then, there was a time when the literate people among us were those driven into the arms of the Europeans by a society that considered them outcasts and slaves and low lives, people who were thus ashamed on their family names and history. Even when “nobles” saw the white man’s “light” the same herd mentality persisted. It then took Western universities’ interest in “African religions” for some literature to start showing up. The fear factor you mentioned is also a big problem. In those early days, exactly as it is now, when someone converts from Ogun worshipping to Christianity, he retains his old mindset.

I agree people ought to bear in mind that Jesus and the apostles were quoting the OT within a Jewish context. But the disciples also used it in their ministrations to the Gentiles. In doing that they were following Jesus’ example, even though Jesus only did so concerning Jews. But then Jesus only preached to Jews. So when Paul wrote concerning the Hebrew Bible in 2 Tim 3:16 that the scripture in its entirety is of God, it is to be expected that Christians will take him seriously. It is these factors that join the OT and the NT at the hips. I think making distinctions in the application of the OT - just as they should with the New Testament – is reasonable. Acts 15 is clear on that matter. Christians do make these distinctions – nobody goes around killing goats today – but only, it appears, where it suits them. And so tithe, which was clearly intended to care for those of little means, has been hijacked by church leadership for personal enrichment.

What mazaje expected to happen to him? I can answer that one. He expected that after fighting the jazzman, he would be struck with some pestilence – think small pox, epilepsy or whooping cough – down to his third generation. But, seriously, he didn’t need to visit a cemetery. When the Europeans wanted land to build churches “evil forests” were promptly donated. The churches stood and members flocked to them. Na today?

You hit the nail on the head about our attitude towards ourselves and things African. In Lagos you will meet someone who traveled to Equatorial Guinea and came back rolling his R’s!  It goes beyond fake accents. It's there in what people eat, wear and how they live. Once at the office back in Ikoyi in Lagos all staff members went to dinner. After dinner a young lawyer remarked to a junior member of staff that since he decided to eat his eba with cutlery he should have done it properly by placing his fork in his left hand instead of the right. Taken aback I asked him if he was aware that while the British, after whose tradition the law school was fashioned (they teach you how to eat eba with fork at the Nigerian Law School), place the fork at the left hand and the knife at the right the Americans do it the other way round. And, while we are aping oyinbos, how come no one informed me when the world reached an understanding that American's don't do things "properly"?

[quote author=Mad_Max link=topic=436863.msg7044209#msg7044209 date=1288427554]You were going to spend your life with an African and you couldn't take the trouble to be born African, abi?[/quote]He actually meant to spend it with a Caucasian. Changed his mind when he saw you. 

nuclearboy:
"The good lord God gave man a hand of Iron, to do his work and not complain,
the good lord God gave man a hand of iron, BUT
with a little bit of luck, with a little bit of luck,
someone else will do the blinking work"

Thanks for reminding me of good old Alfie. I wish they still made movies like that!

Deep Sight: Chessmaster, you aint even scratched the surface.

I just love these quaint titles. Must work hard and get one.

Joagbaje:
If you listen to the series on the missionary christian. Pastor chris explained why he went to Bensu. He was instructed by God to do so.he had passed JAMB for admission into one of the BIGGIE universities then ( I forgot the name)but he was not taken. He prayed , but God said BENSU. He prayed and promised God he wanted to go into the BIGGIE  so as to touch lives with the gospel and hold crusades etc. God told him, "I will still let you hold those meetings in the BIGGIE but go to BENSU. He then asked God to prove to Him that the reason for BENSU was not because God couldn't get him admission in the BIGGIE.

So he got admission in BENSU, But later he was informed that his name came out in the BIGGIE for admission. He quickly began to pack his things when God reminded him. "REMEMBER YOU ASKED FOR A PROOF,YOUR ADMISSION IS ONLY A PROOF, SO , TO BENSU YOU GO" .so there was a divine reason for it. That was where the ministry started. And God kept his promise by granting him ability to still hold great crusades in the BIGGIE more than any person in the history of the school. 
 
I think you should take the advice by putting your effort to reach the world for Jesus than carrying and celebrating evil report about the body of christ.

Goodness me! Are you people for real? Someone actually said that ^^^ just to apologise for the fact he did not go to Harvard or Cambridge? And an audience not only believed it but took it as a profound thesis worth referencing! I have a word for y'all, but I will refrain from using it.

[size=16pt]Why Salam Fayyad is Israel's public enemy number one[/size]
The Palestinian PM is gradually undermining and invalidating Israel's traditional arguments: He has brought security, but there is still no peace. He will kill us with moderation.
By Yossi Sarid Tags: Israel news Palestinians Salam Fayyad PA Benjamin Netanyahu Mahmoud Abbas

Benjamin Netanyahu marches from victory to victory. After beating the U.S. president, he returned and bested the Palestinian prime minister, who Tuesday skipped a scheduled visit in East Jerusalem.

Salam Fayyad is public enemy number one in Israel these days. We proscribe him, because the world finds him praiseworthy. Fayyad is not corrupt, and that's a problem. He's not even a hedonist, apparently. He is pleasant, his cheeks stubble-free - altogether nicer and less threatening than Yasser, say.

He studied and worked in the United States, and his English is fluent; yet another strategic loss for Israel. There's a rumor that on a recent visit, senior members of the New York Times editorial staff were more impressed by him than by his Israeli counterpart, and gave expression to this in an editorial calling on Netanyahu to stop his dangerous games.

With wise counsel shall Fayyad wage his war against us: He is building the Palestinian state from its foundations, stone by stone. His security forces are imposing law and order, suppressing terror, weakening Hamas. Monies sent to the Palestinian Authority no longer get lost on their way to their destination. Donors trust him because they see the results of their contributions.

Fayyad is gradually undermining and invalidating Israel's traditional arguments: He has brought security, but there is still no peace. He meets PA President Mahmoud Abbas' extremism with moderation. Dangerous he is: He will kill us with moderation.

And now he is casting an eye at Jerusalem, too; his scheming knows no bounds or fences. After mapping Israeli neglect precisely, he leaped into no man's land. If Israel will not build and renovate the schools in East Jerusalem, then he will step in to fill the vacuum. If Israel neglects the roads and sidewalks despite repeated complaints, he orders them repaired and paved.

And as if that provocative and scandalous interference were not enough, he has the chutzpah to openly celebrate the completion of these works. That won't do. Netanyahu and Mayor Nir Barkat and Public Security Minister Yitzhak Aharonovitch will head him off. Fayyad may spend money in our stead, but quietly. The right to noisy celebration is reserved for the Jewish settlers of Silwan and Sheikh Jarrah.

Our right to the entire city of Jerusalem has expired, and not only because half of it is Arab and has remained so despite all the cleansing and Judaization efforts. Our right expired because we never genuinely joined it together. Just the reverse: We divided and governed, stole and inherited, and even the new wall we stuck in its heart in order to divide it, Hallelujah.

One can argue about our historic right, but it is difficult to dispute our natural duty, which comes from above. Through our own stinginess and hardheartedness toward the eastern part of the city, which was never joined to the rest and became an open wound. Unified Jerusalem, a godless city.

Salam Fayyad can still be kept away from the center of the city, but Jerusalem itself can no longer be kept off the center of the agenda.

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/why-salam-fayyad-is-israel-s-public-enemy-number-one-1.322552

OLAADEGBU:
@paris10,

Was this your source?

http://www.modernghana.com/news/216384/1/christ-embassy-concealed-sex-scandal-exposed-part-.html

If that is his source, would it on its own make it untrue?

ogajim:
I don't get your drift dude or what was "absent -minded" about my assertion? You must be from Ewu too LOL

Your boy wrote earlier that driving a "citroen" indicated you were rich in Edo state and now you are speaking for bensu. pele pele oooo

1. You, sir, don't see anything wrong with your assertion there is, or was, any university that no rich people attended.
2. Asserting that something you typed was not properly considered when being typed means I am speaking up for Chris Oyakhilome.
3. It also means I am from the same place as him.
4. You believe Mr Agbaje must be my boy, not because I have supported anything he has written in this thread, or his friend for that matter, but because I tried to point out the error in a particular statement you made.
5. Pointing out an obvious fallacy means speaking up for the subject of the fallacy.

That is your reasoning. Ok.

Pastor AIO:
You would have understood me correctly if rather than say 'decided to apply his intelligence'  you had said 'was inclined to applied his intelligence'.  This inclination that I'm talking about is not something that you decide.  It is a natural inclination.  Ie you were born with it.  Some people from their childhood find themselves drawn naturally and irresistably to sounds.  They grow up to be good at organising sounds which enables them to become good musicians.

I understood what you meant – I guess “decided” was not the right word to use. Inclination is something that takes place at the subconscious level.

I get your point, but this still doesn't find earth with me:

Pastor AIO: Your friend it seems is simply not drawn to what makes people tick.

Not drawn to what makes people tick, even if he has a strong desire to be accepted and treated normally? You will recall his “problem” does not end with greeting people. He would place something down when he ought to hang it up, prompting the next person to wonder if he has any sense at all. He would then feel bad at himself for not knowing he should have hung it up. That is why wanting to cut the chase is insufficient to explain it. There is a pattern of being clueless while thinking he was doing things as they should.

Of course, I’m not rejecting the idea of inclination, even though I don’t think it is of much relevance when we talk of the kind of intelligence my intelligent friend lacks. I believe inclination attunes with intelligence in most people. But that is not always the case since you can find someone who had an inclination for sports, did not do well in it and later found his place in acting. There are kids with inclination to do sports who can't hold the bat properly after trying for years but they draw excellently. A lady I know had to be begged by her friends to stop being a "writer", (her childhood love) and do something else everyone could see she was really good at as her published works would not stop getting horrible reviews.

Intelligence or inclination? But I guess yours is a way of seeing it.

ogajim:
rich people in Edo state didn't go to bensu.

A most absent-minded assertion, but I guess you were just trying to make a point.

@OLAADEGBU
Someone murdered God?
I don't like to scream "blasphemy", but some of the things you people say!

Pastor AIO:
Ooooo . . . I wouldn't say that they dividing line was that fine.  Here are the 3 definitions of the terms as I see them.

Intelligence:  The ability to make distinctions (I would add and to make generalizations). 

Inclination:  A tendency towards.  It can be used to term a bias for one thing over another.

Skill:  An ability of any sort.  So obviously Intelligence is a skill as it is an ability to make fine distinctions.  However it does not apply to other abilities such as the ability to pee very high up a wall.

I like the above delineation.

Pastor AIO:
We all have intelligence but, as I said before, what marks one man's intelligence apart from another's is the sphere of life to which he applies the intelligence.  Each of us is inclined to one sphere of life more than another.

If I understand you correctly, what marks Ade Bakare’s intelligence apart from Barth Nnaji’s is that one decided to apply his intelligence – which is amoebic till given form by inclination - to clothes designing while the other applied his to robotics engineering. In other words, if Michael Dell had as a kid decided to apply all his intelligence to golf he could have ended up a Tiger Woods or something in that region.

To help explain why that point of view does not work for me, here’s what got me interested in this subject. I have this friend who is very intelligent. But everyone that knows him well just don’t like him much because they find him a bit obnoxious. The thinking ones among them wonder how so much intelligence and dumbness can cohabit in the same mind. When he was a kid, his mother used to tell him his mind was “upside down”. He would keep quite when you expect him to speak. He would greet when he shouldn’t. Just when he is expected to stand up he would remain seated. He has very very few friends. Even his family members are not very friendly with him even though he is someone you will describe as a nice person. He would never hurt anyone and is one of those few human beings genuinely capable of putting another’s interest ahead of his, yet few people want to really get close to him. Needless to say he is poor at getting the attention of the fairer sex. He has no other close friend – I guess it takes only someone like me who knows, or have a fair idea of what his ”problem” is to be friends with him. By the way, he is not autistic. He’s a regular guy, it’s when you deal with him extensively you will realise how poor he is at small the things you don’t learn from books.

He has improved his relationship with people over the years but he has not changed fundemantally. Having studied him closely I can tell he has improved by going with precedents. That is, if he stands up today, he stands up when faced with same circumstances in five years time. You can guess the limits of going by precedents since situations are often different and thus demand some ability to make distinctions. So while he has improved his interpersonal skills and can relate fairly well in the circumstances he has some familiarity with, he has not improved his emotional intelligence.

He was quite happy with himself but by the time he was in his thirties he had realised he has a fundamental problem relating with people. He realised that his difficulty getting girls was due to a fundamental problem. He began to try to change himself. But you know what? Yes, you guessed it – he can’t! He can’t because he takes the approach intelligent people take to solving problems – the informational approach. He would go online and read articles on “how to relate with people” or something. But these don’t work because there is an inborn ability that he lacks and can’t learn.

I do not find it quite plausible to talk of applying an amoeboid intelligence to a sphere of life to arrive at one’s functional intelligence when considering this guy and many other things. I already mentioned the case of prodigies and autistic savants in an earlier post. This is why experts don't consider theirs to be merely a case of focusing your "entire intelligence" on a single thing. Could the biology genius Darwin have become a music genius like Mozart if someone had talked him into music at a young age? There are people who spend all their life being taught something. They then go to school and get a PhD in it, only to later discover something they just love to do and can do without any effort and so they keep their certificates at some bottom drawer. I find it hard to conclude, for instance, that my friend chose to apply his intelligence in academics rather than in intrapersonal skills. That is quite obviously not the case. What I can see is that he had this intelligence and lacked that one in the first place. He grew up in the same place as other people, including his siblings who cope well in social situations. That is, he had the same opportunity to master the skill of applying his intelligence to social situations as any Average Joe or Plain Jane had. Yet, what he finds monumentally difficult, most people do without making any effort. That applies to other intelligences.

Here’s a portion of the article. There are aspects of it where the professor doesn’t even begin to make sense, but you’ll find it interesting all the same.

He's Rev. Professor Emmanuel Nlenanya Onwu

5.         IGBO TRADITIONAL RELIGION AND CHRISTIANITY

Chinua Achebe (1958:123-125) gave us the first Igbo description of the impact of that encounter between Igbo traditional religion and christianity when Obierika said:


H[i]ow do you think we can fight when our own brothers have turned against us. White man is very clever. He came quietly and peacefully with his religion. We were amused at his foolishness and allowed him to stay. Now he has won our brothers and our clan can no longer act like one. He has put a knife on the things that held us together and we have fallen apart.[/i]


The above words articulate the sentiments expressed by an Igbo elder after realizing how the new religion (Christianity) had gone in terms of winning converts and dividing the members of the clan. And it is true that henceforth things were never the same for the Igbo.


The question that comes to mind is whether the Igbo did misunderstand him? If the missionary had not posed as quiet and peaceable, could the Igbo have been less tolerant with him? How exactly did the missionary manage to win some Igbo over into christianity? In Achebe's Things Fall Apart, Nneka wasted no time in joining the Christian when she became pregnant because she has been losing her children through ogbanje. The outcasts in Mbanta flocked the church. Christianity offered freedom from evil spirits and oppression. There was the case of Nwoye who was shocked because twins were thrown away into the forest to die and about Ikemefuna who was killed for sacrifice by his father Okonkwo. We remember how Ndi Igbo gave out the shrines of their various gods to Christian missionaries who cleared those sites, erected churches and nothing happened to them contrary to the expectations from the people, their gods and shrines. The Igbo are not sufficiently silly to hang on to those failed shrines and gods, even if they had not completely imbibed christianity. The gods were dead and the people became convinced that the white man's God was very powerful. There were those who failed at this time to become part of this dynamic process and they lost out. The priestess of Agbala in Umuofia spitefully called the christians the excrement of the clan and the 'new faith' was a mad dog that had come eat it up (Achebe, 1958:101). Thus when the colonials and missionaries wanted the chiefs and the chief priests to surrender their children for education, these principal Igbo chiefs who were custodians of true Igbo history refused for fear of being treacherously enslaved. Rather less privileged people like the 'osu' caste, outcasts and personal servants regarded as 'worthless and empty' men as described by Achebe were given to the Europeans for education. When this class of people became educated they had no enthusiasm to engage in the collation and preservation of Igbo history in view of their past shameful family background. This negative motivation or social resentment even led many of these educated elites to join in the colonialist propaganda that the Igbo had no common history (Nwosu; 1983:6). Thus christianity and Igbo are weighted for what they are worth and a choice is made accordingly.


Therefore the advent of christianity in Igbo land had meant the introduction of a christian world view. Admittedly, christianity made tremendous achievements. They abolished slave trade and slavery, human sacrifices and twin killing, introduced education, built hospitals and charity homes. They destroyed some level of superstition, increased human knowledge that brought about improved human welfare. Igbo traditional religion was incapable of achieving this because it was static as well as looking downwards. Through education and christian religion it was possible for the Igbo to re-shape their faith and world view. Nevertheless syncretistic practices among many Igbo christian show that Igbo traditional religion is still alive. But this encounter with christianity means it will ever be the same again.


The early missionaries saw themselves as social and religious reformers. However, while they tried in their own way to achieve their mission goal, which was the conversion of Africans into christianity, their approach and attitude did not produce a wholesome result. They thought by condemning African religious beliefs and practices, social and political means of control. That they would produce 'a new man' born in a new faith; but this 'newman' produced became a split personality - who could neither totally return to the old nor firmly be rooted in the new. This was made worse by the fact that most of the missionaries were not only ignorant of the Igbo people but also lacked adequate knowledge of the content of the christian message. For instance, one of the listeners in Achebe's This Fall Apart asked the missionary thus:


If we leave our gods and follow your god, who will protect us from the anger of our neglected gods and ancestors? In response, the missionary nastily said angrily: Your gods are not alive and cannot do you any harm. They are pieces of wood and stone.


The impatience and unwillingness of the white missionary to educate the traditional Igbo on WHO JESUS IS and WHAT HE CAN DO for them in relation to their gods marked the beginning of a false start in communicating the christian message to the Igbo. It was a brand of christianity, which did not affect all facets of Igbo life. It was that failure which gave rise to ambivalent christianity in Igboland whereby most Igbo christians resort to their local deities, ancestors, medicine men, divination, sacrifices and use of charms or amulets to seek for solution and protection in their crises moments. Nevertheless the Christian message has continued to challenge Igbo man and his environment.


It is important that we be reminded that the various ethnic groups in the world have their traditional religions as an answer to the reality of their existence. The Philistines, the Babylonians, the Greeks and the Romans, all indulged in idolatrous worship. The Arabs used to worship many spirits (Jinns). Stonehenge in southern England is a living evidence of Druidism, which was the heathen worship of the early inhabitants of the United Kingdom. Human sacrifice was a part of Druid worship and was only abolished in the Roman period, (Kato, 1985:33).


Whatever rationalization we may try to make, the worship of God in traditional Africa and the primitive nations of the world is idolatrous. Idolatry is worshipping God in pictures, and this was thought to be normal, not sin, since in their view, God is always represented in visual symbols, and so there must always be pictures, idols and statues in their shrines or places of worship. True worship must be spiritual, not material and idolatrous. Pictures designed to encapsulate divinity necessarily diminish God's honour, and transcendence and sovereignty. It is impossible to capture God's power and majesty in a visual image and all attempts to do so deteriorate into magic, superstition and idolatry. Images in worship destroy the human spirits; distort God's spiritual identity and they promote the lie of idolatry. The depravity evident in African traditional religion is evident among all peoples of the earth (Psalm 14:2-3). Traditional Igbo ancestor turned away from 'Chukwu' and set up his gods, with Ala as the arch-divinity. The Igbo myth of origin as shown by Nri myth reveals how Nri sacrificed his first son and first daughter. We don't know why Nri could not be patient to be fed by 'Chukwu' as he fed his father Eri and his people. As with Adam the Igbo man's ancestry to search for answers (about his welfare) away from God broke the link between him and 'Chukwu.'


It is important to observe that while pagan worship was a part of the religion of the peoples of the world, they could still change to other religions of their choice. Most Arabs accepted Islam and became Muslims. The British no longer claimed Druidism as their religion, but Christianity. It was the white missionaries who brought the church to Igbo land. Why should this not be the case in Igbo land?


5.1.      RESTORING THE BROKEN-LINK

The question that is being asked today is that of Igbo traditional religion in relation to Christianity. The question has become more urgent today following the explosion of christianity in Africa where the population is more than 300 million people.

The great Apostle Paul categorically points to the fact that the worship of the pagan gods is a distortion of God's revelation in nature (Rom. 1:18-23). In Acts 17:16-34 he told the people of Athens that the 'Unknown God' they worship is Jesus Christ. In the book of Hebrews 1:1, Paul disclosed that the God who spoke to our forefathers in various ways had now spoken in the last days by his son Jesus Christ. The incarnation has made all people savable.


The Igbo people are1ucky people. Our great grand ancestor 'Eri' in Nri myth knew God - "Chukwu". 'Chukwu' has offered the last and final revelation in Jesus Christ, and he is the only foundation for humanity, there is no other. (1 Corth 3: 11), and every veil which had hitherto covered people is destroyed and taken away by him for us to have freedom (2 Cor3:16-18). We are told in the book of Proverbs 16:25 that:


There is a way that seems right to a man but in the end it leads to death.


In acts 14:8-18 Paul made it clear to the people of Lystra that God had never left himself without a witness and had also in time past let all nations go their own way and then wed them in the words of Samuel the prophet (1 Samuel 12:21) to turn from their useless idols that can do them neither good nor rescue them but to turn to the living God who made heaven, and earth and sea and everything in them. It is Jehovah who alone is both God and Saviour (Isaiah 43:11-13).


The Bible makes it abundantly clear that God himself does not give his glory to another or his praise to idols (Isaiah 42: Isaiah 42:17. And whenever people pour libation to other gods, Jehovah's anger is always provoked (Jeremiah7:19-19). Thus in Exodus 20:3-5, God commanded:


You shall have no other gods before me. You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven, above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. You shall not bow down to them or worship them ---


Nri thought he was right in his worship of the Earth goddess and his sacrifices. He saw the created beings as intermediaries. He became a captive of Satan and lost his freedom. In Igbo traditional religion, the concept of Deus Otiosus is explained by appeal to the lesser gods and the ancestors as intermediaries (middlemen). On this the Bible declared in John 14:6: Jesus answered I am the way, the truth and the life.


No one comes to the father except through me.


Similarly in reacting to the great tendency of elaborate sacrifices in Igbo traditional life, Christ offered
himself as sacrifice once for all (Heb. 10:10, 14). Salvation is found only in Jesus (Acts 4:12, John 3:16). Jesus is the only foundation for humanity. The foundation laid by Igbo ancestry in their purest contact with 'Chukwu' has yielded fruit right from the time the first missionary set foot on Igbo soil. Christianity is not a white man's religion. It is the religion of those who have accepted faith in God through Jesus Christ. The Igbo christians have joined the list of noble African church leaders like Origen, Athanacius, Tertullian and Augustine. Recently Reverend Father Tansi is canonized as Saint in the Roman Catholic Church and again Cardinal Arinze is the first black to be elevated to the 4th powerful position in the Roman Catholic hierarchy and by this he can even become a Pope. Great developments can come to Igbo land andNigeria, if we commit ourselves to Jesus Christ as Lord. Jesus Christ alone is the answer to Igbo spiritual and material needs. According to Acts 17:28, we hear:


For in him we live and Move and have our being.


In him alone we find satisfaction and meaning for our life in this world and hereafter. This kind of choice, faith commitment has tremendous developmental implication for us as a people and as a nation. No one can deny that looking upwards to Chukwu has been more beneficial than looking downwards to our ancestors. They were men who lived and died in their time. Where we are today has been the fruit of Christianity and western education.


The 21st century challenges the Igbo to take a leap of faith and be properly restored in our relationship with God first entered into by Igbo earliest ancestor, A.O. Anya {2002) recently has rightly drawn attention to the demand of the 21st century marked by a transition from a resource-driven economy, society and culture to the new and emerging economy and culture which is knowledge-based, technology driven and responsive to environmental concerns. Igbo Christianity and spirituality must respond to this new demand. Because we must not allow our culture to retard our development as a people, we must let our culture be judged and transformed by the word of God as contained in the Bible. The Bible makes it clear that people perish for lack of knowledge (Hosea 4:6) this we can avoid by engaging in aggressive education of ourselves and our people. Igbo religion can accelerate economic development of the Igbo nation, and the nation at large. This education can emphasize knowledge and character formation that comes through changing our general orientation in terms of values and attitudes, knowledge that would include acquiring skills and idea that can change the mind.  You change man and his environment when you succeed in the mind. Ignorance is one of our destructive hindering forces in our society. With sound knowledge of God, man and society, we will appreciate the danger of superstition, idolatry, caste system and sacrifices to their idols and with good character formation whereby we imbibe christian values, we become major resource for economic and spiritual growth which will minimize corruption, improve human relations and increase our productive capacity for personal growth and social development. This religious demand of the 21st century demands risk, choice and commitment. Risk because once you put your hand on the plough there is no more looking backwards. Choice because it is a matter of life or death. Commitment because it involves vision and mission. The dominant Igbo religious and philosophical ideas require those three dimensions, which constitute Igbo man's identity, vision and mission rooted in our faith in Chukwu who not only creates but sustains and protects. Christianity and education which act as source of empowerment will equip us with character and knowledge that- can transform us into agents of change in our time.

Here is the full article:
http://ahiajoku.igbonet.com/2002/

[quote author=Mad_Max link=topic=436863.msg7044209#msg7044209 date=1288427554]
Still, we make no effort to export our religions. I wonder how many people from how many corners of the world would be practicing African religions now, if we had bothered to put it in an accessible medium. We don't do enough. My biological son is half-European, still very little, just beginning to talk, and I scream blue murder if I hear only English from his mouth. I don't talk to him in English. What for? Took a while to forgive my husband for being European sef. You were going to spend your life with an African and you couldn't take the trouble to be born African, abi? Though peple who think all Africans must practice African religions are silly and irritate me no end, we don't export our religion. I keep wondering why that is.[/quote]Lol.

I recall Susan Wenger, the late Austrian lady who was called Iya Adunni Osun or something. I don’t seem to recall this American scholar you speak of. Someone said a scribal culture is superior to an oral one. To many purposes, I believe it is. I guess that’s why things have turned out this way. I once read an article where Professor Onwu of UNN’s Religious Studies department proffered some more reasons – something about the early beneficiaries of literacy being people who were not particularly proud of their backgrounds. I will find the article and paste it.

You see, when the Europeans came and told us our gods were worthless we said, no, it’s yours that is worthless. To “prove” they were right they went into the shrines and made jest of the sacred stuff there. When nothing happened to them we said yeeeee, they are right! That was it. Everything else they said found a place in our minds.

While our myths as not as elaborate as those of the Jews and some other ancient peoples, they do exist. I believe you are familiar with the Yoruba one about Oduduwa descending from heaven at Ile-Ife with eighty servant-spirits in tow and founding the world from there. The Igbo say Chukwu sent Eri and his wife Nnamaku down to the earth. They found the earth so watery and had to perch on an anthill. This prompted Chukwu to send a blacksmith with fire to dry up some earth after which Eri and wife then settled at Aguleri in Anambra whence humanity originated. Somewhere in the story Nri sacrifices his first son - and first daughter, if I recall things correctly.

The Fulanis, too, have an elaborate creation story that is told in poetic form. It must be over twenty years since I read it but I recall evolution is thoroughly woven into it.

But I agree with you the Jewish tradition is quite unrivalled by any in depth. People have been talking about some others, such as the Gilgamesh Epic for a long time, yet they don’t come close to what you have in the Bible. The enduring legacy of the Hebrew Bible was sealed when Jesus and his apostles quoted from it. That, plus the fact it dovetails into the Gospels, brought it into Christianity.

This I-ching stuff sounds interesting. What with Pastor_AIO’s elaboration on it above. Two beings, one unknowable the other a more knowable manifestation. The two merge into one at a certain level and all that exist must return to It. Being and Becoming! I intend to look at it sometime.

This JeSoul! See doctorate questions.

[quote author=Missy ★ B link=topic=421426.msg7041022#msg7041022 date=1288372092]Remember to do this, when next I give you the thigh. [/quote]_{Hurriedly arranges the tables and sits waiting for the dish.}

^^^ Gen 1 (NIV)

11 Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds." And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.

20 And God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky." 21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them and said, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth." 23 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fifth day.

24 And God said, [b]"Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. [/b]And God saw that it was good.