₦airaland Forum

Merry100:
I knew it; Trump, Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, high-class celebrities home and abroad, politicians everywhere, almost all high-value men in Nigeria and across the world are women in disguise. Because why else would they have so much value, money, and options... yet still go after women who are not virgins? Why not untouched ladies? Why is it only broke and average guys that are obsessed with virginity 😂🤣

Mary's virginity fulfilled Isaiah 7:14 as a prophetic sign, to highlight the miracle of Jesus' birth; not because God avoids "non-virgins". Scripture never teaches that sexual history disqualifies anyone from being chosen or honoured by God.

If virginity were the standard, then why did God use Rahab, Tamar, Bathsheba, Mary Magdalene and even Gomer (unfaithful wife) and many other women that were not recorded as virgins?

It is very clear God doesn't view women through the shallow lens of "body count." He honours faith, humility, obedience, and repentance; not sexual history.

Reducing a woman's worth to virginity isn't Biblical; it's just cultural pride masquerading as morality.

Your virginity concept is just your own personal obsession 😂

Merry100:
Because I'm a virgin, but it is the non-virgins that are driving Lamborghinis😂🤣🤣

MrIcredible:
Lol
Keeping wailing and deceiving yourself

This topic always trigger people like you.
People wey dem don use do table tennis...
You will never see a girl of good morals, a girl that has kept herself well and chaste crying over this.
You go dey alright

Just make sure you don't allow your seeds follow the same path.

RedboneSmith:
So in essence, you believe what you are paying for a woman's hymen? I can't tell you how creepy that is.

Merry100:
It's only in your little community that women with morals are too scared to speak facts; because they rely on your approval to feel 'worthy.'

Your approval isn't needed, wanted, or relevant. I don't roll at people's feet or tremble at their voice for validation.

Delusion isn't a legacy to pass down.

So, instead of obsessing over my seeds, focus on your own legacy😂

Bloodwritter:
What's stopping you?🤷

MrIcredible:
Waste!
If you like, reply and fight all the men in support of this fact on this thread, it won't change anything. You'll only continue to live in your delusions and regrets

Next life in case.... Try to live a decent and modest life.
If you want men to place high value on your, don't let yourself loose...

Merry100:
This one is your community rhyme, it doesn't work real life.

Merry100:
In Scripture, women were treated with dignity; Jesus Himself uplifted and respected women regardless of their past. There isn't a single verse in the Bible where God rewarded a woman simply for being a virgin.

Mary being chosen wasn't a reward for her virginity; it was to fulfill prophecy, align with the lineage of David, and emphasize a miraculous birth.

If your logic held, Mary Magdalene wouldn't have been the first to witness the risen Christ. Virginity has never been presented as a qualification to be valued, blessed, or favoured by God.

Merry100:
Wow, so Mary wasn't chosen to fulfill prophecy? Jesus' birth was a reward for her virginity? What about other virgins; when will they receive their own miraculous birth?😂

Remember, Mary Magdalene😂

Yes, the greatest miracle, Jesus birth; was the fulfillment of prophecy, not because God was looking for a virgin to specially bless just for being a virgin.

aoshea18:
Have you actually read the bible? Your comments show you haven't. I suggest you do deeper research into the subject before responding to every comment here that contradicts your frankly myopic point of view. The interesting thing is that a lot of Nigerian girls in their 20s, 30s and 40s are actually keeping their virginity for their husbands. You mentioned "non-virgins driving Lamborghinis" in one of your comments, it's obvious you think acquiring meaningless material things somehow makes up for your lack of morals.

Virginity would always have GREAT value in our society and before God. It's a shame a lot of ladies lost theirs in dirty hovels surrounded by filth and disease.

A quick bible lesson just to cap this all off, Elijah said to God that he was the only one serving him and that they were after his life, God reminded him that he has reserved 7,000 who were still serving God. It might look like all you see on social media are morally decadent girls selling their bodies in the name of content but that is just an algorithm social media uses. Have you ever wondered why you keep seeing videos from the same accounts you've been watching online even when you're not following them or actively engaging with them?

Start using your internet access for sensible topics and your world view would change. The algorithm is designed to show you more of what you interact with. And please, Jesus loves you virgin or not but decide TODAY to just stop sleeping around.

Reno is 100% right on this one and with a little research into the scriptures, with the HOLY Spirit, you might learn a thing or two.

Chilipepper:
https://www.facebook.com/share/p/19g626jYVb/




https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1GTRHnp9ni/

Merry100:
In Scripture, women were treated with dignity; Jesus Himself uplifted and respected women regardless of their past. There isn't a single verse in the Bible where God rewarded a woman simply for being a virgin.

Mary being chosen wasn't a reward for her virginity; it was to fulfill prophecy, align with the lineage of David, and emphasize a miraculous birth.

If your logic held, Mary Magdalene wouldn't have been the first to witness the risen Christ. Virginity has never been presented as a qualification to be valued, blessed, or favoured by God.

Merry100:
Pharisees and Sadducees of our time; you are loud in judgment, quiet in mercy. Please, repent of your self-righteousness before the return of our Lord Jesus Christ, whom you claim to serve but clearly do not emulate.

Jesus is not impressed by your culture, your traditions, or your purity checklists; especially the ones obsessively focused on female virginity, as if righteousness only exists in one gender or one condition.

Jesus loves virgins. Jesus loves non-virgins. He calls everyone to repentance.

Heaven rejoices more over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine people who are righteous.

Merry100:
Absolutely not, Jesus forgives and takes away sin completely, He doesn't discriminate. You can't be in Christ and be condemned. If anyone be in Christ...

Why are you using baseless assumptions to disagree? Many of you twist anything just to discredit women; you twist history, the Bible, or anything at all.

You ignored the many Bible translations that say "Do not cling to me" or "Do not hold on to me" and focus only on the one that says "Do not touch me"; just to push a biased interpretation.

The actual Greek phrase Jesus used in the passage literally means "Stop clinging to me." Though, it can also be translated as "Do not touch me" or "Do not hold on to me."

The statement "stop clinging to me" reveals that Mary Magdalene was holding on to Jesus, possibly out of joy or not wanting to lose Him again. But Jesus was gently telling her that things were changing; He was returning to the Father, and from then on, people would relate to Him in a new, Spiritual way, not through physical presence.

If you keep holding on to your ideology, you're indirectly claiming that Jesus lied; because He gave a reason that is not related to your assumptions. He clearly stated: "I have not yet ascended to the Father."

Do you think the same Jesus who clearly told Peter, "Get behind me, Satan," wouldn't plainly tell Mary Magdalene she was unworthy to touch Him because she wasn't a virgin?

Jumbojax:
First of all, any translation asides kjv is a lie.
Second, why would he allow a doubtful touch even the hole of His nail wounds and not a woman.
The answer is simple, principle. Even Jesus said a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump, a little contamination has the ability to contaminate the perfect sacrifice of himself to the Father. And what is that is contamination her impure status a.k.a non-virgin and unmarried.
He did not condemn her, He did not come condemn anyone, but he rebuked the impure when purity was needed

Merry100:
You are mistaken; the KJV is not the only reliable Bible translation.

The KJV is historically significant, but it does have limitations in translation accuracy and readability. That's why the New King James Version (NKJV) was created; to update the language and improve clarity while still respecting the same manuscript tradition.

New American Standard Bible (NASB) is another highly respected translation, it is even widely recognized among pastors and scholars as one of the most accurate word-for-word English translations available today. It is based on earlier and more reliable Greek and Hebrew manuscripts, whereas the KJV relied on later manuscripts that lacked many of the textual discoveries now available to modern translators.

John 20:16-17 showcased a deep moment. Do you realize that the interaction between Jesus and Mary Magdalene in John 20:16-17 is emotionally and theologically rich?

NASB:
16 Jesus *said to her, “Mary!” She turned and *said to Him in [a]Hebrew, “Rabboni!” (which means, Teacher). 17 Jesus *said to her, “Stop clinging to Me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to My brothers and say to them, ‘I am ascending to My Father and your Father, and My God and your God.’”

NKJV:
16 Jesus said to her, “Mary!”

She turned and said to [a]Him, “Rabboni!” (which is to say, Teacher).

17 Jesus said to her, “Do not cling to Me, for I have not yet ascended to My Father; but go to My brethren and say to them, ‘I am ascending to My Father and your Father, and to My God and your God.’ ”

Jesus did not reject or rebuke Mary; He simply redirected her focus. She was already clinging to Him, and He lovingly told her not to hold on in that way because He was about to ascend. It marked a shift in how His followers would relate to Him; no longer by physical presence, but by faith in the risen and ascended Christ.

What you're suggesting even goes against the central message of the Gospel; that Jesus' death on the cross fully atoned for all sin. Scripture is clear:

"By one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified."
(Hebrews 10:14)

To claim that Jesus rebuked Mary because of impurity implies that His sacrifice wasn't sufficient to forgive certain sins; or that His atonement was incomplete or in vain. You are simply undermining the very power of the cross.

Jumbojax:
I clearly said He did not come to condemn anyone. I'm saying it clearer now He did not come to condemn anyone TO HELL. HELL is the real condemnation that the cross saves us from, but even after believing that if you steal in the market Jesus would not save you from the jungle justice that will kill you, but He will deliver you from HELL. He saved Mary Magdalene from Hell but her flesh still impure from her non-virgin unmarried status would contaminate the perfect atonement for Sins that His flesh accomplished through his death, burial and resurrection.
And those other translations are always going to be falsehoods, cause most of the scriptures you posted proves my point, they were written to massage the egos of unbelievers who couldn't accept the truths that the kjv stated plainly. In fact, here's an exercise for you, post Matthew 17:21 from the NASB or NKJV. if e sure you. You can't, cause they removed it. Because that verse would help cast out the demons that blind people from accepting the truths that only the kjv which is the only word of God that should be trusted.

nnamdi640:
Jesus love non virgin doesn't mean you as a single lady should go and give your body to a man that has not paid anything on your head, beside there are lot of advantages when virginity are appreciated and encouraged and one is to reduce spreading of hiv/aid

Merry100:
I've done extensive research, so I can confidently say that much of what you're claiming is simply not correct. I've even studied the actual Greek manuscripts behind the Bible translations and translated many verses word by word myself.

From our short dialogue, it's already clear that your understanding of these issues is surface-level. I won't go deeper, because it might only confuse or overwhelm you; and that's not my goal.

Let's stick to NKJV, since it is essentially the same as KJV in term of manuscript base. The NKJV was created to update the language of the KJV, while providing more precise translation and improved clarity while still respecting the same manuscript tradition (Textus Receptus).

The NKJV does include Matthew 17:21:

New King James Version (NKJV)
21 [a]However, this kind does not go out except by prayer and fasting.”

So your claim that it was "removed" from the NKJV is false. It's right there, word for word.

In John 20:17, Jesus says to Mary Magdalene:

μή μου ἅπτου

While the King James Version translates this as "Touch me not," this rendering is not precise when examined in the original Greek.

Grammatical Breakdown:

μή = "do not" (used with non-indicative moods to form prohibitions)

μου = "me" (genitive pronoun required by the verb)

ἅπτου = present imperative, 2nd person singular, middle/passive of ἅπτομαι ("to touch," "to cling to," or "to hold on to" )

The verb ἅπτου is in the present imperative, which in Greek conveys an instruction regarding continuous or ongoing action. When used with μή, it usually implies:

A prohibition against starting a continuous action, or

A command to stop something already happening.

So, Jesus is not forbidding a single, momentary touch. Instead, He is more likely saying something like:

"Stop clinging to me," or

"Do not hold on to me."

If Jesus had intended to prohibit even a single instance of touching, He would have likely used the aorist tense, such as μή μου ἅψῃς, which would express a prohibition of a simple or momentary action.

Understanding the verb tense and aspect is crucial for accurate translation. It impacts interpretation: Jesus is not objecting to being touched per se, but likely making a statement about the change in relationship after His resurrection; that Mary should not try to hold on to His physical presence, as His mission is moving forward.

Translation requires an understanding of Greek grammar and verb aspect; not just blind loyalty to tradition or a particular English version.

A more contextually and grammatically accurate rendering would be:

"Do not hold on to me,"

"Stop clinging to me,"

or, less idiomatically, "Do not be touching me."

These reflect the Greek aspect more faithfully than the KJV's "Touch me not."

Mary Magdalene did not threaten Jesus' atonement by her presence or past. The idea that touching Him could somehow defile His redemptive work misrepresents both who Jesus is and the nature of grace.

The gospel is not about what we've done; it's about what He has done.

Your illustrations are incorrect as well. God gives grace, mercy, and favour as He wills; no one can calculate or predict God's evaluation. Jesus already took the punishment for sin on the cross over 2,000 years ago; fully and finally. His sacrifice was not vulnerable to contamination.

What we have now is grace. No one earns salvation or purity by works, behaviour, or personal merit.

Jumbojax:
Well, you have clearly done your research which anyone can do, you have gone deep translationally but you are still shallow in understanding according to Spirit of the text, it is not something I can explain to you cause you have already taken an antagonistic stance. My point of view is what you will see if you want to see it, if not then you won't. You probably checked the NASB and saw no rendering of Matt 17:21 and instead of being genuine in your awe that your version is hiding something from you, you doubled down to defend your aforementioned point. I welcome debates like this because the scriptures declared that for faith that can actually save and change lives, you need to be persuaded. That's why you won't convince of your translational rendering cause I have always been of the opinion that dissecting the Greek to Garner meaning is like dissecting a word into letters to gain the meaning. The whole verse from the kjv if believed and accepted renders a more coherent meaning in line with the whole story, and that's the fact, though at the end of the day. I trust my kjv you trust your research and much reading. More power to your elbow. I'll leave you with this

Ecclesiastes 12:12 And further, by these, my son, be admonished: of making many books there is no end; and much study is a weariness of the flesh.

Merry100:
Virginity is not a weapon. It is not a badge to shame others or a license to look down on anyone. If you truly believe in Jesus, then remember how He defended the woman caught in adultery; while religious men stood ready to stone her. Also remember how the prodigal son was welcomed with open arms, not judged by his past mistakes.

As for HIV/AIDS, it doesn't care whether you're male or female; it's a medical issue, not a moral punishment for women. Conversations about HIV/AIDS belong to Aproko Doctor and other qualified health experts; not keyboard Pharisees posing as moral police.

If you're passionate about culture and tradition, it's fine. Just don't disguise it as "God’s standard" when it's really the gods of your land you're echoing. God doesn't crave or drink hymen blood. God cares more about love, repentance, and truth than about social pride dressed up as holiness.

Christianity is not about controlling people's bodies. It's about revealing Christ's love. So if your entire principle is just about who's sleeping with who, then you would be needing a serious reality check.

My virginity is not my ticket to Heaven. It is just a part of my personal dedication to Christ; not the source of my salvation. If I fall tomorrow, He'll still accept me. Not because I am worthy, but because He is. That's what grace looks like.

Before you point fingers, ask yourself: when was the last time you clothed the naked, fed the hungry, or visited the sick?

Have you ever considered that the "promiscuous" woman or the "prostitute" on your street might just be trying to survive hunger or hardship? Have you tried to feed or clothe her, all you know how to do is judge, judge, and judge.

Self-righteousness will lead many to hell.

Matthew 25:41-46
41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:

42 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:

43 I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.

44 Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?

45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.

46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

He didn't say, "I was immoral and you didn't corrected me."
He said, "I was hungry, thirsty, and sick; and you ignored Me."

Stop using my father's name as front for your culture and traditions.

Enough of the wickedness.

Christianity is more than judgment; it's about compassion, grace, and humanity.

Focus on what truly matters.

Don't be the noise in the temple; be light in the world.

nnamdi640:
I understand the call for compassion and grace, but the message you’ve shared risks distorting the balance of truth and love that the Bible teaches.
Yes, Jesus forgave the woman caught in adultery — but He also told her, **“Go, and sin no more”** (John 8:11). Forgiveness in Christ never means condoning sin; it means giving the sinner a chance to turn away from it.

Virginity is not a “weapon,” but it is a **virtue** and a form of obedience to God’s word (1 Thessalonians 4:3-5). Honoring purity is not about shaming others; it’s about upholding what God calls holy, even if the world mocks it. Dismissing it as mere “culture” is unfair when Scripture itself speaks of keeping ourselves pure in body and spirit.

As for morality and health issues like HIV/AIDS — yes, they are medical matters, but sexual immorality does increase vulnerability, and warning against it is part of loving our neighbor. The Bible repeatedly warns about fleeing sexual sin, not because God is obsessed with controlling bodies, but because He cares about protecting lives, souls, and futures.

Feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, and visiting the sick are indeed commands of Christ — but so is calling people to repentance (Luke 24:47). The Great Commission is not *only* about meeting physical needs; it’s also about addressing spiritual needs. If we feed a person’s body but ignore their soul, we have only done half the work.

Grace is beautiful, but grace without truth is sentimentality. Truth without grace is harshness. Jesus embodied **both**.
So yes — let us be compassionate, but let us also be courageous in upholding God’s standards. Love does not rejoice in wrongdoing but rejoices with the truth (1 Corinthians 13:6).

Merry100:
Exactly, that's the point. Love does not rejoice in wrongdoing, but neither does it rejoice in condemnation. True correction; the kind modeled by Christ is done with compassion and humility, not with pride, superiority, or shame.

Why is the obsession always with female virginity? God's command for purity applies to both men and women. Yet somehow, women carry the weight of shame, while men are excused or even praised. That double standard isn't Biblical; it's cultural. And it's deeply harmful.

And just to be clear; I don't have a problem if someone wants to uphold and teach virginity as a cultural value. I respect culture, and there are certain cultural values I also uphold. But let's not confuse culture with Scripture, or use culture as an excuse to shame and belittle others. What might seem like a joke or just an opinion to us might actually take a toll on someone else. There are actually people carrying real wounds.

Did you partake in the suffering of Christ on the cross? What gives us that audacity and authority to judge others? What is really wrong with people? So many souls have been driven away from God; not by their sin, but by ignorance and harsh judgment.

Condemn the sin, not the sinner. I would rather say "fornication is a sin" than say "virgins are more valuable than non-virgins" or "God only loves virgins." Saying that would mean I've already judged and condemned non-virgins because they can't undo the past or become virgins again.

Forgiveness and purity are not tied to physical status. A non-virgin can still choose purity, repentance, and obedience from the heart; and that journey deserves respect, not ridicule.

The issue isn't about whether virginity is a virtue. The issue is how it's being discussed. Is it being upheld in love, or weaponized to shame and belittle others? Because once it becomes a measure of someone's worth, it's no longer about God's standard; it's about human pride.

Being a virgin doesn't make someone pure if their heart is filled with cruelty and superiority. And a non-virgin is not impure if they have turned to God in repentance. God looks at the heart.

Fornication is a sin; but so is arrogance, slander, self-righteousness, and judging someone based on their past. No one is beyond redemption; except the one too proud to admit they need it.

nnamdi640:
I agree that love must be shown with compassion and humility — but compassion does not mean downplaying or softening God’s standards. Christ never condoned sin to avoid “hurting feelings”; instead, He coupled mercy with a clear call to repentance.

Yes, God’s command for purity applies to **both** men and women, and the Church should be consistent in teaching this. The double standard where women carry more shame than men is indeed wrong — but that’s a flaw in human application, not in God’s Word. The answer is not to downplay virginity or purity, but to call *everyone* — male and female — to the same standard without hypocrisy.

It’s true that a non-virgin who repents is forgiven and can walk in purity going forward — but that doesn’t erase the fact that God calls sexual immorality a sin, and that virginity before marriage remains a virtue worth teaching. If we stop talking about it for fear of offending, we risk raising a generation that sees no value in chastity at all.

Pointing people to righteousness is not the same as condemning them. The Bible commands us to **warn** the unruly (1 Thessalonians 5:14) and to **rebuke sin** (Titus 2:15), because silence can be as deadly as arrogance. A Christian who never speaks about sin in fear of “judging” is like a doctor who refuses to mention a disease to avoid upsetting the patient.

Yes, arrogance, slander, and self-righteousness are sins — but so is sexual immorality. We cannot preach against one while staying silent on the other. God looks at the heart, but Jesus also said, **“Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God”** — and purity of heart is meant to reflect in purity of life.

True love tells the truth. Mercy forgives, but holiness calls us higher. The Church must do both — comfort the broken and challenge the wayward — because that is the way of Christ.

Merry100:
I fully agree that God does not condone sin or lower His standard, but He absolutely accepts and restores sinners without condemnation. That is the heart of the Gospel.

The story of the prodigal son shows us that when someone turns back to God, nothing is held back. Restoration isn't partial; it's complete.

Why is "purity" almost always reduced to virginity; and why is it mostly aimed at women? Sexual immorality is a sin. But so is pride. So is lies. So is hypocrisy. So is failing to keep the Sabbath holy. Why is it that some sins are shouted by you people while others are barely whispered?

If you truly believe that all of God's commands matter, why don't we hear more sermons from you on the Ten Commandments, or on Jesus' teachings against anger, greed, and hypocrisy?

Yes, if someone is a virgin, they should remain one until marriage. That's Biblical. But if someone isn't, repentance doesn't make them "less than." God doesn't offer second-class restoration. His grace doesn't reset at 70%; it resets at 100%. Once forgiven, that person is fully called to walk in purity, just like anyone else.

Correction is Biblical. Condemnation is not. There's a difference.

I sometimes fall short of keeping the Sabbath day holy. If my pastor came to me and said, "You haven't been keeping the Sabbath holy," and he lovingly challenged me to repent; even if he raised his voice or gave a stern rebuke; I could receive that as correction. But if he condemned me, acted like I was beyond grace, or implied that God would still punish me even after I repented; that's not correction. That's condemnation.

Yes, the Church should call people to live righteously. But let's be consistent. Let's preach all of God's standard, not just the parts that align with cultural expectations or religious tradition.

Christ came full of grace and truth; not one without the other. The Church should reflect the same.

nnamdi640:
I understand your emphasis on grace and restoration, but I believe your approach downplays an important reality — sin, especially sexual sin, carries lasting earthly consequences even after forgiveness. Yes, God restores fully in terms of relationship with Him, but Scripture is also clear that certain sins have deeper impacts on our lives, testimonies, and the church community (1 Corinthians 6:18). That’s why sexual purity is often addressed strongly — not because other sins don’t matter, but because this one uniquely affects the body, marriage, and generations to come.

The fact that pride, lies, and hypocrisy are also sins doesn’t mean all sins are equal in consequence. Some destroy trust, some destroy reputations, and some destroy the temple of the Holy Spirit in ways that take time and effort to heal even after repentance.

As for the focus on women, I agree it’s wrong to target one gender. God’s standard of purity applies equally to men and women, and where the church fails to enforce this balance, it should be corrected. But removing strong preaching on sexual purity altogether — or softening it because of cultural discomfort — would be failing to warn people of danger.

Christ came with both grace and truth, yes. But truth sometimes means giving uncomfortable warnings, calling sin by its name, and reminding people that while God forgives instantly, the damage sin causes can take a lifetime to repair. Grace doesn’t erase the seriousness of sin; it gives us the strength to walk away from it.

Merry100:
😂Sure, anyone can do research; just like anyone can walk into a gym. But that doesn't mean they're able to lift anything.

So, why didn't you?

🤣Don't confuse dodging accountability with defending the truth. They are two very different things.

Now that you know Matthew 17:21 is right there in the NKJV, you are still dancing around instead of just owning your mistake.

You challenged both the NASB and NKJV, but to avoid unnecessary back-and-forth; especially considering your surface-level grasp of these issues; I deliberately focused on the NKJV. It shares the same manuscript base as the KJV, so there's no excuse, no confusion.

🤣Now you're just diverting and nitpicking, hoping I'll get tangled in a translation argument you clearly can't handle.

Proverbs 1:5 A wise man will hear and increase learning,
And a man of understanding will attain wise counsel

Proverbs 18:15 The heart of the prudent acquires knowledge,
And the ear of the wise seeks knowledge.