₦airaland Forum

I find these discussion quite funny, because every time ethics and morality are discussed many people always bring up the Bible to justify their morality. If you need the bible to behave ethically, go ahead, the better for you, as long as the end result is a more ethical stance.

There is one thing thought that never ceases to surprise me. Do not always use the Bible to support your argument. Almost every possible postion can be argued from the Bible. The Bible has been used to justify civil wars, persecutions, torture, slavery and war - and it has equally been used to justify the exact opposite positions.

Now back on topic. Concerning divorce, just as in all ethical dilemma's, you need to weigh the good against the bad. If you're in an abusive marriage where your partner neglects you, beats you up or is unfaithfull to you, then you better take the route that causes least grief to all parties involved. In this case that will usually be a divorce.
If you are too immature to compromise in your marriage, then seek help and try to salvage your marriage, especially if there are children involved. But above all, get some life experience before you jump into a marriage. To put it bluntly: there should be a law forbidding people under 25 to marry. The risk that they do not have the maturity and/or life experience to make such a commitment is just too great.

The truth of the matter is that there are hardly any cases where divorce is 100% negative or 100% positive. It always causes grief in one way or another, but you should take a choice that causes least people least grief. There are no absolute truths, no absolute rights. these are always relative to the situation and your relation to others.

I consider these indignated moral majority positions immature posturing, in a lot of cases carried out by hypocrites

WesleyanA:
[SNIP]
you know what part of your post made me laugh the most? this part:
"His exit spurned the world to delved into research and knowledge. This had secondary effect on writing as every tribe had to put down sumthing as history. [b]Jesus changed the world Reason why the TIME is recorded wit him as the focal point; AD and BC"

history had been in the making A LONG TIME BEFORE CHIRST. at least do a little bit of research before posting wrong facts.
Jesus didn't have any effective role either primary or secondary in EVERY tribe that put down history (maybe in the religion secton it did).. . keep in mind, there's more to history than religion. there are the political, social, economical aspects of life that have always been recorded that has nothing to do with christ!
his exit didn't spurn any world to delve into any research and knowledge. did you know about Copernicus, Galileo and other contemporary scientists? their pioneer works were secular and even went against what the chistians believed (the earth was the center of the universe) they proved the christians wrong and Galileo was almost put to death by the christians for that. it's from their research and subsequent (improved) ones that we have greater knowledge about how the earth works today and also why we question the existence of God. many scientific findings (prooved) go against biblical contents.
[SNIP]

This part makes me think again about why many Christians have such a self-centered view on their religion's role in history and especially about the infallibility of the contemporary interpretation of the Christian faith.

There are no records of the life of Jesus by any historian of that time, none whatsoever. The only writings we have are the apostolic writings that later became part of the Bible. Writings that had only a propagandatory role within the early Christian communities, for which the scientific discipline of historical criticism has found that those writings were copies of each other and for which no text could possibly have been written by a[b] contemporary of Jesus.
[/b]
Actually one of the few non-christian historical references to Jesus, the account by the famous Roman historian Flavius Josephus, is a later addition to the original text by Christian copyists. Other sources do not even entertain the possibility of a historical Jesus, but only make references to the many Christian sects that sprung up after the destruction of the temple and the banning of the Jewish people.

There is actually no conclusive evidence that Jesus actually was a real person. In view of the religious traditions of that time, it is even more likely that the gnostic interpretation of a transcendental Jesus, a mediator between the sphere of the divine (Heaven / God) and the mortal world. Through Jesus could the people of the world reach a very limited understanding of God, as the divine sphere is beyond human comprehension. In this Christian tradition, there is no and has never been a historical Jesus. These Christian sects were harshly persecuted by the established Roman church up 'till a point where hardly anybody even knows about them today.

To learn more about this, you can always have a look at the following address:
http://pages.ca.inter.net/~oblio/home.htm

Dorcas:
You all have said well and all there is to say concerning this topic but let me add that, you will notice that the reason why there is strong belief in the Bible is because most of the acts in the Bible were right and those that did wrong got their repercussion for it, those that did right were rewarded for it and all these apply to our everyday lives too if you are a good person you are always blessed one way or the other by those that recognise it you stand out anywhere you go or even if someone cheats him/her they do not go Scot free

I don't know if i make sense there but well that is what i think.

There is no correlation between whether or not you follow the bible and what befals you. Why else would ther be so many faithfull dying the most horrible deaths?

allonym:
I'm assuming you mean the money used fighting witchcraft is being prevented from doing good in society, not witchcraft itself.

In any case, since witchcraft is such a bad thing, isn't fighting it doing society good?

It's not only fighting it, but also the money spent paying witchdoctors for their spells, etc

[quote author=Hnd-holder link=topic=2412.msg85727#msg85727 date=1130225346]nferyn you are an Authority in this field explain the human motivational aspect of it.[/quote]No I'm no authority. I know some church history, but that's about it. I dont fully understand your question about the human motivational aspect.

Seun,

In the mid to long term, this is a losing battle for the US anyway.

* they are running into gigantic debts
* their trade balance is horrible
* they're going to have to pay the piper once those countries investing in US bonds are going to sell off their US investments
* they're military overstretched, entangled in wars that only deepen the hatred for the US. true, only the US is military capable of waging offensive wars, but they are not capable of invading or challenging either the EU, China or Russia without creating a nuclear wasteland, something they'll never do
* by using the Dollar in a loose fiscal policy to the US advantage, they're undermining confidence in the dollar, the strict anti-inflatory policies of the EU central bank (stability pact) maker the Euro a much safer bet
* the reliance on services in the US is much higher than in the EU. The strict laissez-faire capitalist attitude is undermining their production capacity (less production and manufacturing is shipped from the EU than from the US). This only lasts as long as the economy is growing steadily. Once the real-estate bubble bursts in the US a lot of people are going to get hurt
* Infrastructure is less diversified and less well maintained in the US than in the EU. Urban sprawl in the US is making them very dependent on cheap oil. The EU is more capable of adapting to permanently high oil prices
* there's some more arguments I can come up with, but I'm too tired. Going to hit the sack

Anyway, point of comparison: late British Empire, late Roman empire - Imperial overstretch is the name. Not that the US would become a nation of beggars, far from it, but the dominance of world affairs will soon be over

layi:
Thats d nferyn i know. I understand it easy to get things mixed up since all we all we can see his the writng (and not the motives). Its all good. Apologies accepted. I hope i wasnt insultive callin i Mr know-it-all. I'm sorry.

No, you were not. If I feel strongly about a subject, I can appear to be a Mr know-it-all. Comes with the passion

layi:
First let me go through your links. The seat is gettin hotter but i don't quit. Luv ya nferyn U r sure a brillant fella.
I'll be back after readin through your freferences...we've got scores to setlle.

I'm far from brilliant, I just matured a little
If only I had 10% of the insight I have now when I was studying, life would have been different

My personal motivations in the matter come from the history of what my parents had to go through because of a fundamentalist catholic upbringing. I do respect people that feel strongly and emotionally about their faith. Religion - for those that subscribe to it - should be a beacon of communalism and moral values - something that is sometimes lacking in the more fundamentalist churches.

When religious people get literalist and close their minds for opposing views, especially when they hold political power or have a big influence on politics, it can become quite dangerous. If I think about the way in which embryonic stem cell research has been opposed in the US, i get quite sad. Closing so much promising avenues for medical progress, possibly even cures for Alzheimer disease, other neurological disorders and paralysis brings down my spirits.

That's why I feel so strongly about the matter. It's not religion, it's the fundamentalist, literalist tradition that gets to me.

@ layi

I just re-read your reply to mine again in which you capitalised the way I put my arguments one after the other. You are indeed right, these can come out as insulting. It was certainly not my intention to do so. I hereby humbly appologise for the way i verbally mistreated you. Won't happen again.

goodguy:
What I mean by technologically advanced is not something I feel I should explain. That's self-explanatory on it's part.

I am not relating technology to witchcraft in any way. You said that it is due to our believe in witchcraft that's making us backward; which probably means u are talking of our economic depression, which includes lack of sound technology in the nation.

This exactly is my point.

There are a lot of reasons that cause the economic depression of Nigeria, most of them external to Nigeria. Technological developmet is usually a seeding event where people from different locations build on the development from others. There are no inherent characteristics that prevent any people from helping : participating in that development. The application, use and spread of technology is another matter entirely, that is rooted in economical development.

My point is that all resources (time, money, other material resources) that are spent on fighting/doing witchcraft, prevent them from being used for society's good, which isn't helping development. I do not like the term backward, because it implies a hierarchy of values.

layi:
Even If you're comin on the board as Mr know-it-all..u could have placed on your points more politely. I've enjoyed debatin wit u until now because you're takin it personal wit them harsh remarks.
I'm going to refuse your invitation. I don't debate when it gets personal(just like Donnie and Vexxy) and remarks born out of ignorance.
I don't think there is any prize at stake here and if u've got sum'n against christians ..u need not call me one of them blindly.

No, I have nothing against Christians per se, I actually like quite a lot of them. I do have something against ignorance and - point taken - I was using a too confrontational style. My appologies. I was fired up because I thought you unjustly brushed aside the arguments from WesleynA, using her age as an argument to dismiss what she wrote. If indeed it was just joking and teasing, I leave you to it and again my appologies for the tone.

I do humbly ask you to reconsider your position and enter the debate nonetheless, I will soften my tone and rest assured, there's nothing personal about it.
Could you point out the remarks born out of ignorance, because I don't find them

layi:
First what i said to wesley was none of your concern. Thats how we tease each other and she isnt complaining. Seun even intervened tellin me to come face him instead and we all laughed it off. Its all for fun.

OK, My bad, I was just trying to defend the poor girl from a frontal verbal assault.

layi:
I didnt come here to win (unlike u). we r only batllin wit points and learnin at d same time. Even if i call myself "winner" 1 millions times. Should that bite u?
No one is claiming to know it all. If u had contrastin views why not place it up politely.

You tellin me how to debate when your post above is full of insults. What a way to correct sum'n.

...u've got nothin on me. Do your thing.

Now here I think you misunderstood my position. I never questioned your intelligence, nor your sincerity. It was a harsh tackle, but not a faul. Anyway, I got a bit carried away by the perceived attack on WesleynA and writing always seems harsher than real life. Sorry

My point is that I like debating strong Christians. It sharpens my ideas and teaches me a lot about the Christian point of view - even if I disagree

layi:
[SNIP]
Go to bed dear..nice debating arguing, chatting wit u. A 15 yr old this sound. U tried. love ya.

Layi, I will excuse myself beforehand if I misread you here, but your tone is very inappropriate when debating someone.

On the one hand you're applauding WesleyanA, but on the other hand you're using her age as an argument to lessen the value of her reasoning and to declare victory by forfait (U tried). Who's the 15 yr old here?

Especially since your argumentation is partially based on changing the meaning of certain concepts and then expanding or limiting the scope where appropriate for your argument. A common debating technique among Christian Apologetics.
(Feel free to start a thread on this, we'll have fun debating arguing, quarreling )

Do not consider yourself a superior debater to WesleyanA if you write things like this:

layi:
[SNIP]The source of the different languages cannot be explained in terms of evolution, though the various dialects and similar languages within the basic groups are no doubt attributable to gradual diversification from a common source tongue. But the major groups are so fundamentally different from each other as to defy explanation in any naturalistic framework.

Care to explain?

Please read some Pinker
(e.g. The Language Instinct - http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0140175296/qid=1130190732/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl/026-6153652-6379612 )
or Chomsky (all of his linguistic works, not his political ones) before you make statements on subjects you know nothing about.

Layi, layi, layi... I just don't know where to start in replying to this post. I am not going to start a point by point refutation, because there are mountains of evidence contradicting everything you put here. I'll just take a few as example and lead you to the sources. This way you can expand your knowledge as well.

layi:
Yes I believe the story of the tower of babel. Archelologists say the tower stands in babylonia/southern mesopotamia in Shinar (a land extending into the persian gulf).

Who did? Sources please

layi:
The event occured shortly after the great Deluge. Believe the deluge/noah's flood too because archelogists have seen fossils of acquatic life on mountain tops -this means the world has once been submerged in water and the mountains became sea beds.

Have you ever heard about plate tectonics? It explains how land masses are formed, and how rock formations that were once oceanic end up on mountain tops. A perfect example are the Himalayas, where the Indian subcontinent collided with Eurasia to form the Himalaya mountain range.
And just look at a world map, look at the shape of Africa and the shape of South-America. They fit nicely together, don't they.

Look up how continents were formed, how that supports evidence of speciation differences in different continents (both on a morphological and a molecular clock level - e.g. molecular clock evidence in the DNA of old world and new world monkeys show that they have a common ancestor at the time Africa and South-America were still attached.
Evidence from genetics, evolutionary biology and geology nicely supporting each other. Not one instance has been found that contradicts the findings of these scientific disciplines.

And fossils can be dated by radio-carbon dating, again, bad luck, modern physics is in full support of evolutionary Biology. Doesn't quite fit the great flood timeline though.

And just think about the logistical nightmare Noach must have had fitting all these millions of species in his ark, even symbionts like Koala Bears and Eucalyptus trees. Noach must have had a nice orchard of Eucalyptus trees on his ark to support his Koala's. Poor Noach. And what an accomplishment of wonders indeed. Building an Ark using bronze age tools in wood, he would have needed more wood than available in from all trees on this planet to make his ark sort of structurally sound and even than it would have collapsed under its own weight, let alone letting it take up the high seas. He must have had some impressive pumps preventing the ark from making too much water and that without combustion engines? What a giant Noach must have been.

Go here for a more thorough refutation of your idiotic flood fairy tale:
http://members.aol.com/darrwin/flood.htm
http://www.atheists.org/evolution/morrisdebate.html (this is actually a debate, you can even find some arguments to use to convince the gullible)

layi:
Back to my point. The story has to sound like a folk tale because its GENESIS -beginning . All folk tales try to explain the beginning of things albeit wit lies just for entertainment purpose. Reason why the tower of babel story sounds like one too.
Same wit the story in Eden which could end in "thats why men and women marry today".
Thats not enough reason to discredit the bible.
Take the book seriously because there's power in it.

Take a look at this, you may not like it, but it could bring some perspective to your beliefs.
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/

And, what doesn't kill you[i](r belief)[/i] only makes you[i](r belief)[/i] stronger, so take a chance, dive in and tell the world about your experience.

allonym:
really. . witchcraft is practiced a lot in India - give me an example. .

I mean, if it is more than in Nigeria - wouldn't it show up in more Indian movies? I'd hear more about it from my Indian friends than other Nigerians? . . .

The funny thing is that there are quite some Indians that want to expose all these guru's withdoctors, etc. as these people prey on the poor gullible underclass and extract the little money they have left from them. I once saw a programme on National Geographic channel about the supernatural in India and the skeptics struggle to expose these frauds.

This is an interesting link:
http://www.indian-skeptic.org/html/rules.htm

@goodguy

Can you come back on my chinese lesson. I'm intrigued by it, I do want to learn the ancient arts

goodguy:
To y'all out there saying it's our belief in witchcraft and alike that's making Nigeria backward, that's so lame. Go to india. It is practised there than in any other parts of the world. Yet, they are one of the most technologically advanced countries in the world.

So who says it's our belief in witchcraft that makes us backward??

That's a gross misrepresentation of my position (if you're addressing me, of course ). I do believe though that the focus on witchcraft and other supernatural nonsense is using up precious resources that could be put to positive use.

Your statement about India doesn't mean anything as it stands. Try to substantiate your position by being precise instead of throwing around generalizations. What do you mean by technologically most advanced? How does that relate to witchcraft? Where is the causal relationship? And even if you could establish that relationship, how does that have anything to do with Nigeria?

If you can elaborate on that , than you have a position to start arguing from. If not, the statement is free of content, redundant to the highest degree.

I think Seun summed it up quite nicely. If you want to have a positive impact both for yourself and for Nigerian society, his suggestion is probably the best route to take.

I do feel a little uneasy with his choice of words though, as they may lead to an unwarranted antagonism:

* Take the white man's money and send it to Nigeria
* Stay over there, earn a lot of white man's money,

It is not the white man's money - whatever that may mean - it is [b]your [/b]money. [b]You [/b]have the qualifications, [b]you [/b]earned it

Now, to get back on topic:

What makes you personaly take the position that the Bible is the unquestionable word of God and how do you relate that to the obvious contradictions we see with the knowledge we gained through science and history?

I would very much like to focus this discussion on how you handle to contradictions

If I remember correctly, during the Council of Nicea, held under the authority of Constantine, the established church decided which texts were to be part of the Bible and which texts wouldn't. The bishops would decide what were divinely inspired writings and what weren't.

The result was that a lot of books that went against the established order and state church were scrapped from the canon and thus wouldn't make it into the Bible. Among those texts that were rejected were the gnostic gospels and the gospel by Thomas. It is important to note that only a very specific interpretation of the life and the teachings of Christ were witheld: those that did not reject the state authority, the hierarchy of the church and the spread of Christianity in the Roman world. Therefore:
* the more apocalyptic texts speaking of the coming resurrection and rapture were rejected (later to be re-added to the protestant Bible) as they threatened worldly (Roman) authority
* the role of the Roman administration in the sentencing and execution of Christ was downplayed, putting the blame almost entirely with the Jews - and later leading to the anti-semitism of the church
* the gnostic interpretation of Christ - where sometimes even the very existence of Christ as a living human was questioned - was complete ejected from the canon (except the Pauline letters that could also be interpreted according to the official doctrine), leading to a fierce persecution of all remaining gnostic communities

The inception of the Bible as an official 'book' was a highly political game that led to the establishment of the church-state symbiosis, where the church gave credibility to the worldly rule of the Caesars. There was very little divine about the whole process.

That's why it always surprises me that some people take the current incarnation of the Bible as the yardstick for all morality, knowledge and questions of life and death. If only those people would know more about the history of the church, they wouldn't have such a fundamentalist interpretation.

allonym:
Wife - you have wasted our money on something which is ultimately worthless. We have worked for five years to save to buy a house and have a financial backing to start our family and you have wasted all our effort. I now can no longer trust you with money because you have shown yourself to be irresponsible. I am hurt by what you did and am very disappointed with your actions. If you care for me and our dreams, please promise not to do this again.

I don't think that is verbal abuse. If my wife loves me, that may be enough to convict her. If she cares nothing for me, I will soon discover it. No need for verbal or physical abuse to get your point across.

That's very reasonable actually, you discuss the matter and try to reach to a common understanding.

Please do forgive me if this whole thing led me to other conclusions regarding how you would settle the matter as you were talking about

* government control on how you [b]discipline [/b]your child
* it is the duty of the husband to [b]discipline [/b]the wife when she goes and spends all their money

of course you also said (which escaped me, I must admit):
* Correcting someone when they do something wrong is called disciplining them even if they are adults

I did have a different take on what disciplining actually meant. The Oxford English Dictionary describes disciplining as (see: http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/discipline?view=uk )
1. train in obedience or self-control by [i]punishment [/i]or [i]imposing [/i]rules
2. [i]punish [/i]or [i]rebuke [/i]formally for an offence
Both definitions imply the use of coercion, something not belonging in a relationship between equal partners. That's why I acted so strongly

layi:
His statement is logical.
Witchcraft is an act. He knows the act exist. But he doesnt believe in joining them. He can't put his faith in such acts. Thats why he doesnt believe in it. Same for me.

If you explain it that way, you're right. That's not what he wrote, though. I don't see any indication that describes witchcraft as only an act.

Now back on topic. Suppose I perform some sort of witchcrafty ritual (an act) and you don't believe in joining me, you don't want to have anything to do with it, you don't believe in it because you know it's bullshit. If that's the position, then OK, I can definitely live with that., but that has not been the position that was defended here;

The problem starts when people believe that those witches actually have supernatural powers, that they can cast spells and the like.

whiteshark:
[SNIP]

Finally, I had a very profitable and fruitful discussion with Sarg Rogers of the Abacha fame and he has promised to join the fold as soon as he his release from his present captors, I hope say una nor mind oh. No yawa my people, More to come …

And you probably need someone with a foreign account to store his funds safely - for which you will extract a meagre commision for the temple

goodguy:
All I know is Witchcraft exists though I don't believe in it.

Capische?

No, I don't understand. You don't believe in something that you know to exist
This statement is illogical

allonym:
well, in your previous post, you mentioned a scale difference between my example and the actual situation.

Now, I think i mean our (my wife and I) not my money.

I'm sorry, but I stil don't understand. What exactly would you do in such a case? Can you be specific?

holyghost:
you can prove that something does not exist if you know how to use its detector, e.g to know if oxygen exist u burn a stick in a close jar if it burns then oxygen exist but if otherwise the its oxygen negative

@WesleyanA
@nferyn : God exist or not, i said that you meet a house empty doesn't mean it has no builder, a pot by the sea doesn't mean it has no owner?
the world was created By God and we must give Him his dues
this is one experiment for u
get a complet Bible (old and new testaments. divide the bible in to two equal parts and and get a lager key that can be handled by two fingers e.g that in lock key of 1980s now tie it in the middle of the bible, with red or black tread make sure it is firm.( the key should have it tail well in the bible while the head can be hold by two fingers of two people sitting opposite. if someone did somethin and deny it we use this method to find the person out. by holding the key with the index fingers of the holders then begin to call the names of the suspects e.g If it Mr A took this money bible turn forward, hallelujah turn, hallelujah turn, hallelujah turn, and if it turn ask it to turn back, try out one by one all the names of the suspects and see for yourself. In fact do this and ask if God exist turn and see the result then use any other book and see if u will see it turn,

now we will know if it is a trick or for real from u guys do it and let us know

I have absolutely no idea what you're trying to say here. Can you break it down in understandable chunks? This is chinese to me - and no, I don't speak chinese

goodguy:
No matter how much we all scream, nothing's going to be done.

It was just a group of people from no where that burnt the boy. How do u all expect the government to arrest people of unknown faces? No one knows where these people came from or where they stay.

There is video footage and lots of eyewitnesses. they can find out who was there if they want to.

goodguy:
I believe it's the boy's fate. If it hadn't happened that way, who knows, the boy might have become the Adolf Hitler of tomorrow.

Only God knows why HE allows things to happen to humans. Or will you tell me God was sleeping when the whole thing happened? HE definitely has the power to have prevented what happened to the boy. Let's blame no one for the death of the boy. I believe that's his fate.

Sorry goodguy [/b]if I have to cut in here, but this here is [b]making my blood boil.
So if I'm understanding your position correctly, we should do nothing if terrible things happen to people, after all, God could prevent it and he didn't, so who are we to judge?

Here you're using religion to justify inaction in the face of a terrible crime. You know, when the crusaders were sacking Montségur in the French Languedoc, they used exactly that kind of reasoning. When they were about to enter the fortress, a knight was asking the question to his superior: How can I recognise the heretics from the true catholics? There was a simple reply: Kill them all: men, women and children. God will recognise his own
These are the ethics of a medieval ignorant barbarian, I hope they're not yours.

allonym:
I've never said the husband should beat his wife. I may just be dumb . . but if your husband or wife does something wrong - you would just say nothing? Correcting someone when they do something wrong is called disciplining them even if they are adults. I still don't see what is barbaric about a husband disciplining his wife or vice versa. If my girlfriend wastes all our money on some ridiculous thing, you can be sure after i'm done it will NEVER happen again. All this can be done w/o any hitting of anyone.

Sorry here, I thought you meant using physical force. I really don't know how you would do that though, can you be more specific? One thing I wonder : why would she use [i]your [/i]money. Can she not provide for herself?

allonym:
I can understand that you may say there is a scale difference between allowing two people with genetic defects to have a child and directly putting a child in danger. In this case, the chances of a child contracting AIDS from an HIV infected mom is about the same as the chance of a child being born with genetic defects from two parents who have it. So, there is no scale difference in this case.

Is it? Based on what are you concluding this?

allonym:
But then again, our argument has been the more general case of (say the mom has AIDS as opposed to just HIV)

I don't think that makes much difference as far as transmission of the virus in concerned

allonym:
so i will address that. This approaches the gray area of government control. On one hand, the government has some responsibility to protect its people - on the other hand. . .the goverment is very big and influential compared to the average person. It is my worry that in giving government more power over decisions like this, we invite more problems in the long run. I personally feel that the person's family should be enough to resolve this problem. I don't think government aid is needed past the point of some other family member getting custody of the child through court to keep the mother from continuing in her quest to breastfeed the child. Further, if the mother believes the child should be breastfed, there are alternatives to her being the one doing it. So, I see this as a problem that could be (and should be) fixed in a small community unit that requires minimal intervention by government.

The government - at least in a democracy - represents the collective interests of the population and is not the big bully around the corner;
The best solution would obviously be if the woman were to come to her senses herself. The government still has the duty to protect the community interests.

Scorpio:
You already know my take on your proof thingy, all this discussions and arguments still won't change the views of about 80% of nigerians out there, but i'm loving it so far

Well, at least there's no burning at the stake involved. I only hope few people will act upon their beliefs.
I'm interested though at the witchcraft taking place at the Oba's palace. What's that all about? My wife told me that you can only visit some area's there and if you go somewhere you're not supposed to go, you just disappear

Scorpio:
Y'all are still on this topic?

Still waiting for proof

Honestly, I very much enjoyed our discussions here. Maybe we should start talking about the negative impact of a belief in witchcraft on Nigerian society?