₦airaland Forum

Anas09:
Hey. Analice got banned. Anas09 has to come out. How have you been?

Been busy like a pendulum clock. But I'm good. Sorry about the ban. Good you had another handle that could suffice.

joey150:
hmmmmmmm...well you seem to have a point.. i think she was dead.. my thought..because she was not spoken of even in that context,she wasnt referenced as been present.

and 1 con 9:5 in my bible reads 1 Corinthians: 9. 5. Have we not power to carry about a woman, a sister, as well as the rest of the apostles, and the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas? no mention of wife...

but surely...peter himself never talked about a wife.

1 con 9:5
King James version reads: Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?

And if you must find a way to argue out the authenticity of Peter having a wife in 1con9:5, what about mat 8:14? You want to argue that one out too?

We skip denomo. Christ is the real deal.

joey150:
nah!
by conspiracy theory i meant you saying PETER WAS MARRIED and your other talks like that.

You see why I told you to go back and stay at the feet of JESUS? You're not even conversant with scriptures

Peter been married is no conspiracy. It was stated twice in the scriptures.
Mat 8:14
1 con 9:5

postmann:
Only if you had picked your choice of words to reflect that which you profess, then you wouldn't have found me.

joey150:
save your conspiracy theories. i dont believe in such.

When you uncleave yourself from the yoke of pretence, then i'll take you a tad more serious.


The second quote above gave you away.

joey150:
i dont know if you have noticed..but look around there are not many kinds of your people here. if you want to trade words this is not the place.

Only if you had picked your choice of words to reflect that which you profess, then you wouldn't have found me.

joey150:
awwwww! I'll say a prayer for you. this hate cannot emanate from a good soul

You didn't take the time to know my handle before rushing to quote me.

Save yourself from spiritual buffoonery. Go back to the feet of CHRIST and learn HIS wisdom. As for now you're tearing HIS house apart with your discrimination and spiritual hollow-mindedness.

joey150:
save your conspiracy theories. i dont believe in such.

Your points got drained like water on sandy soil, didn't it? You're diagrace to christianity. Dividing the sheep that was purchased with the precious blood of CHRIST by your mind of servitude and denominational witchcraft!

Ubenedictus:
now who is selling misinformation.

Good to know you can spell misinformation. But you mustn't stop there. You prove your point by refuting my post with scriptures.

bukatyne:
I can't quote you.

Kindly re-post so I can respond.

Thanks

quote author=bukatyne post=45597137]@postmann:

Stop feeling important

I tagged the two peeps who made me actually start the thread. They felt the culture of women looking up to their husbands as providers was obsolete.

Will get back to your epistle.

#modified:

I was actually expecting more proponents of rigid gender roles.

I think you are mixing up a househusband & a husband who is domesticated.

bukatyne:
@Tiwa: there was nothing wrong with him being a 'househusband' till he gets on his feet.

In as much as I really don't fancy talking about the lives of married couples, let me just say this; from the little I read, Blizz was the manager, getting her contracts and all that. So he was gainfully employed, however bad a manager he was notwithstanding.

But we all know the lives of celebrities. We all know the hardest test for mankind is to successfully manage wealth and fame. So I believed she forgot the Tiwa on stage was only a myth, a stage act with camera rays and lenses projecting a shadowy substance of what she isn't. She forgot she was a wife. Probably.

bukatyne:
I hate to be a parasite and what is my value if I neither contribute money nor domestics? What value was Teeblizz bringing to the table if he wasn't working and expected Tiwa twisting with Patoranking to cook for him? What was his usefulness?

He wasn't a parasite. He was her manager. Managers do a lot in managing their artists. Or maybe you were expecting him to be a Don Jazzy or make his earnings in a completely separate venture from hers.

bukatyne:
If you say that a husband is still the 'head' whether he provided or not, then it implies he is still the head househusband or not.

Was president Jonathan the head of the Ijaws even when he was president? Being arguably the richest and most influential didn't make him the head of the ijaws, rather the head was Edwin Clark.

A child may become educated and richer than his uneducated father, but he cannot usurp his father's role as the head.

And yes, a wife earning more than her husband by no means make her the head. And if you want it in a stronger phrase; women and leadership make a poor couple.

bukatyne:
Stay at home moms have more time to take care for themselves and family if they are inclined to. I am trying to understand why a wife must earn if she & hubby believes in strict gender roles.

Don't allow the modern day working settings becloud you, my dear. From the earliest of times, women have always worked and contributed in small scales to their families. From weaving to light farming. And when they inherited fortunes from their fathers, it became their husbands'.

Women contributing to the homes financially or materially has always been. But until the feminist uprising it was never seen as an avenue for authority usurpation.

bukatyne:
In the grand scheme of things, whose business is it the way my home is run?

Your husband only. And the woman is the manageress of the home. Be her the president of the Federal Republic Nigeria and her husband a stay at home, good-for-nothing retrograde.

joey150:
it is only ridiculous to you protestants. The apostles always upheld the importance of rhe church. It is because of what happened over the years that we have every tom dick and harry.holding the bible and leading people astray.
The church main aim was to unite the sheeps of christ under one flock. So that we nay become one in unity with him. That as christ being the supremen head of the church that as he promised, he would send the holy spirit to guide us in matters of truth. And always lead us to him.
Or now you doubt that peter was the first pope??

Trace your steps..you are all products of thr rebellion of martin Luther, he has set you on the path you are on now. And like it or not, the church WILL ALWAYS guide the WHOLE christianity on matters of faith.

Her teachings her supreme. And is manifest of the work of the holy spirit.. Even the compilation bible is a good evidence of that .

So agree or not,believe or not. Fact is fact. And God has promised us that nothing shall ever prevail agaisnt his church.

Matthew: 16. 18. And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

And here Christ encourages us to listen to the church.
Matthew: 18. 17. And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican.

If you will not hear the church let him be to thee as the heathen and publican.

Happy Sunday friend.

You peddle misapprehensions like hotdogs. May it bemuse you to know that I'm catholic, born and raised. But that's as far as our similarly goes.

You wear your denominational insignia with ignorance. Peter was not catholic and neither was apostle Paul.

Jerusalem and other Jewish sites are the true places for Christian pilgrimage, not Rome.
The seat of the council of elders which Peter was head was in JERUSALEM NOT IN ROME.
PETER MARRIED AND HAD A WIFE. your Pope and priest don't marry
Peter was no priest but a disciple who did apostolic and missionary works.
Your Pope and church patterned their ministries after the priests of old before the time of CHRIST.



You accuse the pentecostal movement of rebellion but I think you have a mind of servitude.

I long left christian threads because of your likes. I don't argue scriptures.

I'll leave you with this:

John said unto HIM, TEACHER, we saw someone casting out demons in your NAME, and we tried to stop him, because he was not following us.

But JESUS said, do not try to stop him, for no one who does a mighty work in my name will be able soon afterward to speak evil of me. For the one who is not against us is for us. Mark 9:38-40.

joey150:
educate me about the "unofficial churches" .
you people never cease to amaze me.

all the hate and the church still has nore faithfuls than all your denominations put together.

remember what Jesus said,nothing shall prevail against it.
not even the trying 16th century when the devil entered the church,and through the best way to destroy it was from within.

anyway educate me still. am always open to new ideas.

Is Christianity a religion of numbers?

Was the declaration CHRIST made on Peter meant for the Catholic Church or for Christianity in general?

Or are you standing on the ridiculous claim by the church that the Pope is the direct successor of Peter?
Hmmm! Look, focus on salvation and save yourself from denominational bondage.

Mamatee07:
If she forgot her role as a husband clearly he forgot his as a husband in Nigeria managers are usually paid 10% yet she was paying him 40% because she appreciated his part in building her career. Is that not enough for a decent human being yet he went ahead to steal her money how can any wife have respect for such a man She had to fire him rather than let him ruin her with debt plus since he was taking money from people saying Tiwa will perform to things she never agreed to. She would have found herself in in legal mess very soon
So a man who earned 40% of a star lik Tiwa's earning for many years had no savings to pay anything for his own child's birth What does that say about such a man. This had nothing with wanting him to be like Don Jazzy but wanting him to be a responsible man. Teebillz had enough opportunity to leverage on a big client like Tiwa and build other stars but no he thought he had found a cash cow.

You cannot call yourself a head when you've deliberately shunned your responsibility. You Nigerian like picking Bible passage that suit you. Is it not the Bible that says a man that does not provide for his family is worse than an infidel

So Tiwa should be the one to hustle, pay all the bills including the house he lived in, everything for the baby , bringing home the bacon, breast feeding, taking care of the baby and yet the man couldn't cook himself the said bacon!

Nobody will be happy to carry all the responsibility in a marriage. Why not kuku.say the truth and be a single parent. Its like a housewife who still expects the husband to come and cook when he gets back from work for her while she sat at home all day. In this case Teebillz was the housewife

And you forgot to say where you're from. Botswana?
You also forgot to say which scripture I made reference to in my post.

Even if you're not religious, do you have a custom? Will you get married according to your custom and perform a church wedding.

If the customary and religious role bequeathed to a husband doesn't suit your "enlightened" perception, then you may opt for a court marriage only.

But engaging in a church and customary marriage then deviating from its tenets on which stood your bond and vows is hypocrisy.

nasha1:
I am sorry but i cant help it when a grown up man (educated) reasons like this,then i cant help it.
postmann ur attention is needed.

Hmmm! Let those wallowing in their ignorance remain in their delusions if it helps them feel better.

analice107:
Yea, I know. the Ops wanted or is still trying to stick it into the Bible, like Islam is trying very hard to stick muhammed inside the Bible, they fail at every attempt

You're right. We have people who are more faithful to their denominations than they are to CHRIST.

mimzy:
Ha lol. You should relax at home today. Good morning

Something like that. Good morning, the Queen in waiting.

joey150:
there may be? nobody is gambling with anything here, am not telling people to hope on purgatory. if you Read from the first page.. you get the bigger picture i am painting here.

you all are quick to forget the catholic church was the one and only church,the first christian church. whose traditions where passed unto by the apostles.
for you to say its just a mere catholic doctrine is a very big understatement. even at that,there are still clues all over the bible to point out that a place indeed exists. even if we as catholics do not know all that goes on there.
cheers man!

You might want to spare me those fallacious claims. The Catholic Church was just the first organised church associated with the Roman government. If you read your bible well, you'd see clearly that Apostle Paul set up many small churches across Asia and Greece and appointed leaders therein. These Churches existed long before the catholic church. And Rome was still a pagan nation then.

analice107:
The reason i mentioned you is to have you help out with your well of knowledge in THIS THREAD, the thread about Purgatory. the Ops mentioned me so, i had to contribute, then mentioned you.
Its not because i believe in Purgatory.

Okay. Forgive my hasty conclusion. Thought you believed in Purgatory.

Purgatory is a Catholic doctrine.

analice107:
No.

So how did you come about your purgatory persuation? The scriptures you quoted doesn't suggest that the rich man was in Purgatory.

Rather he was in a fixed place; a great chasm where only the damned go. Hence he never wanted his brothers there.
Lifting up his eyes to see Abraham or Lazarus being comforted isn't suggestive of Purgatory.

There may be purgatory but the Bible doesn't support it with scriptures. So you shouldn't put your eternity on gamble on what you don't have a clear scriptural reference.

analice107:
No sir, use to be.

Does your present church support purgatory?

analice107:
I think the doctrine of Purgatory was derived from the passage below. Lets look at it critically.

Luke 16:19-31 There was a certain rich man who [habitually] clothed himself in purple and fine linen and reveled and feasted and made merry in splendor every day.
And at his gate there was [carelessly] dropped down and left a certain utterly destitute man named Lazarus, [reduced to begging alms and] covered with [ulcerated] sores.
He [eagerly] desired to be satisfied with what fell from the rich man’s table; moreover, the dogs even came and licked his sores.
And it occurred that the man [reduced to] begging died and was carried by the angels to Abraham’s bosom. The rich man also died and was buried.
And in Hades (the realm of the dead), being in torment, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham far away, and Lazarus in his bosom.
And he cried out and said, Father Abraham, have pity and mercy on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, for I am in anguish in this flame.
But Abraham said, Child, remember that you in your lifetime fully received [what is due you in] comforts and delights, and Lazarus in like manner the discomforts and distresses; but now he is comforted here and you are in anguish. And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, in order that those who want to pass from this [place] to you may not be able, and no one may pass from there to us.

And [the man] said, Then, father, I beseech you to send him to my father’s house— For I have five brothers—so that he may give [solemn] testimony and warn them, lest they too come into this place of torment.

But Abraham said, They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear and listen to them.

But he answered, No, father Abraham, but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent (change their minds for the better and heartily amend their ways, with abhorrence of their past sins).

He said to him, If they do not hear and listen to Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be persuaded and convinced and believe [even] if asomeone should rise from the dead.

The above passage posits that this place is a place of waiting. no other thing is done here other than wait for resurrection.
Purgatory is a place of continuous work to make up for what was missed while alive.
It almost like reincarnation.
Its a place of Purging, cleansing, repentance from the sins which were not repented of while alive. what does the cleansing and purging is what i need to know, because the blood of Jesus is not effectual in the realm of the spirits.

If there is room for repentance after death, the rich man in Jesus' Parable would have opted for it, instead of pleading with Father Abraham to pls send someone back to the realm of men to warn his brethren not to come where he was.

If one can make amends beyond the grave, the rich man would switched into action immediately he discovered himself in torments.

But if we should go by this doctrine, we will let Christ go completely. eg
The Finished work of Christ. The efficacy of the blood of atonement.
It'll make Redemption void. As a matter of fact, it will make the mission of Christ on earth useless.
The teaching of Purgatory posits that, the blood of Jesus is not enough to cleans our sins, making void the act of Grace.

There is a very subtile but tacit error enclosed in this teaching, and a careful perusal of it, will lead us straight to the ideologies which by- passes Jesus as the only way to Yahweh or the ideologies which posits that there's no Hellfire at all.

It believes in the act of Penance. Entering into paradise if "Your Good works surpasses your transgressions.
The Bible says we are SAVED BY GRACE AND NOT BY WORKS", Justification is by grace through the blood of Jesus Christ.

You cant believe in Christ and His finished work and at the same time believe in Purgatory.

Cc: Post.mann.
Sch.olar
Lastmess.enger
Ayok.u777

Are you catholic?

bukatyne:
@postmann:

Stop feeling important

I tagged the two peeps who made me actually start the thread. They felt the culture of women looking up to their husbands as providers was obsolete.

Will get back to your epistle.

#modified:

I was actually expecting more proponents of rigid gender roles.

I think you are mixing up a househusband & a husband who is domesticated.
[quote author=bukatyne post=45597137]@Tiwa: there was nothing wrong with him being a 'househusband' till he gets on his feet.

In as much as I really don't fancy talking about the lives of married couples, let me just say this; from the little I read, Blizz was the manager, getting her contracts and all that. So he was gainfully employed, however bad a manager he was notwithstanding.

But we all know the lives of celebrities. We all know the hardest test for mankind is to successfully manage wealth and fame. So I believed she forgot the Tiwa on stage was only a myth, a stage act with camera rays and lenses projecting a shadowy substance of what she isn't. She forgot she was a wife. Probably.

bukatyne:
I hate to be a parasite and what is my value if I neither contribute money nor domestics? What value was Teeblizz bringing to the table if he wasn't working and expected Tiwa twisting with Patoranking to cook for him? What was his usefulness?

He wasn't a parasite. He was her manager. Managers do a lot in managing their artists. Or maybe you were expecting him to be a Don Jazzy or make his earnings in a completely separate venture from hers.

bukatyne:
If you say that a husband is still the 'head' whether he provided or not, then it implies he is still the head househusband or not.

Was president Jonathan the head of the Ijaws even when he was president? Being arguably the richest and most influential didn't make him the head of the ijaws, rather the head was Edwin Clark.

A child may become educated and richer than his uneducated father, but he cannot usurp his father's role as the head.

And yes, a wife earning more than her husband by no means make her the head. And if you want it in a stronger phrase; women and leadership make a poor couple.

bukatyne:
Stay at home moms have more time to take care for themselves and family if they are inclined to. I am trying to understand why a wife must earn if she & hubby believes in strict gender roles.

Don't allow the modern day working settings becloud you, my dear. From the earliest of times, women have always worked and contributed in small scales to their families. From weaving to light farming. And when they inherited fortunes from their fathers, it became their husbands'.

Women contributing to the homes financially or materially has always been. But until the feminist uprising it was never seen as an avenue for authority usurpation.

bukatyne:
In the grand scheme of things, whose business is it the way my home is run?

The woman is the manageress of the home. Be her the president of the Federal Republic Nigeria and her husband a stay at home, good-for-nothing retrograde.

blazex24:
Beauty queen Mimzy, biko u n' ur fans shld disembark from ds thread wit ur Miss NL matas sharperly. We tlkn KD and Selection board, Y'all tlkn....

No vex!

mimzy:
Better to be divorced and alive ..
Domestic violence is getting too rampant




Postm.ann. Where have u been
Saw your mention. Don't wana derail that thread.

Mostly outdoors today. Baked by the sun, pursuing the next naira.

mimzy:
lol. I think I get you now . cos of my signature.

the voting thread will soon be open , I'll be sure to mention you. thanks a lot . I appreciate

_{Muva, smelly.mouth , postm.ann, iamleg.end1, firste.va, evathy.st, hurricanemi.mzy}

We got your back, baby!

bukatyne:
@postmann:

Stop feeling important

I tagged the two peeps who made me actually start the thread. They felt the culture of women looking up to their husbands as providers was obsolete.

Will get back to your epistle.

That's only a little tease. A little knock on your hard shell.
I like your response.

analice107:
I think the doctrine of Purgatory was derived from the passage below. Lets look at it critically.

Luke 16:19-31 There was a certain rich man who [habitually] clothed himself in purple and fine linen and reveled and feasted and made merry in splendor every day.
And at his gate there was [carelessly] dropped down and left a certain utterly destitute man named Lazarus, [reduced to begging alms and] covered with [ulcerated] sores.
He [eagerly] desired to be satisfied with what fell from the rich man’s table; moreover, the dogs even came and licked his sores.
And it occurred that the man [reduced to] begging died and was carried by the angels to Abraham’s bosom. The rich man also died and was buried.
And in Hades (the realm of the dead), being in torment, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham far away, and Lazarus in his bosom.
And he cried out and said, Father Abraham, have pity and mercy on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, for I am in anguish in this flame.
But Abraham said, Child, remember that you in your lifetime fully received [what is due you in] comforts and delights, and Lazarus in like manner the discomforts and distresses; but now he is comforted here and you are in anguish. And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, in order that those who want to pass from this [place] to you may not be able, and no one may pass from there to us.

And [the man] said, Then, father, I beseech you to send him to my father’s house— For I have five brothers—so that he may give [solemn] testimony and warn them, lest they too come into this place of torment.

But Abraham said, They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear and listen to them.

But he answered, No, father Abraham, but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent (change their minds for the better and heartily amend their ways, with abhorrence of their past sins).

He said to him, If they do not hear and listen to Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be persuaded and convinced and believe [even] if asomeone should rise from the dead.

The above passage posits that this place is a place of waiting. no other thing is done here other than wait for resurrection.
Purgatory is a place of continuous work to make up for what was missed while alive.
It almost like reincarnation.
Its a place of Purging, cleansing, repentance from the sins which were not repented of while alive. what does the cleansing and purging is what i need to know, because the blood of Jesus is not effectual in the realm of the spirits.

If there is room for repentance after death, the rich man in Jesus' Parable would have opted for it, instead of pleading with Father Abraham to pls send someone back to the realm of men to warn his brethren not to come where he was.

If one can make amends beyond the grave, the rich man would switched into action immediately he discovered himself in torments.

But if we should go by this doctrine, we will let Christ go completely. eg
The Finished work of Christ. The efficacy of the blood of atonement.
It'll make Redemption void. As a matter of fact, it will make the mission of Christ on earth useless.
The teaching of Purgatory posits that, the blood of Jesus is not enough to cleans our sins, making void the act of Grace.

There is a very subtile but tacit error enclosed in this teaching, and a careful perusal of it, will lead us straight to the ideologies which by- passes Jesus as the only way to Yahweh or the ideologies which posits that there's no Hellfire at all.

It believes in the act of Penance. Entering into paradise if "Your Good works surpasses your transgressions.
The Bible says we are SAVED BY GRACE AND NOT BY WORKS", Justification is by grace through the blood of Jesus Christ.

You cant believe in Christ and His finished work and at the same time believe in Purgatory.

Cc: Postman.n.
Schol.ar
Lastmessen.ger
Ayoku777

Analice107, pls I'll respond tomorrow. My day been one extra busy

Bukky, why didn't you tag me? Was that a ploy to control bashing or my seemingly controversial view?

If not for Joe whose following brought this thread to my notice, it would have escaped me.

Okay, let me see what you're all about this time:

bukatyne:
I wanted to create this thread during Tiwa/Teeblizz's saga however, it slipped. MRBrownJ's views on another thread reminded moi.

So here we go...

In Nigerian society, there has always been strict gender roles in marriage

1. The husband provides (which was/is the major reason he is the 'head') everything or almost everything whether the wife earned or not. He is also the 'sole' decision maker.

It is very important that the husband be the major provider, but his headship doesn't actually depends on his ability to provide or otherwise. His headship is divine and irrevocable. If he fails in his role as a provider, it says alot about his person, but still doesn't take away his divine role as a head.

"Sole decision maker" You make it sound like the interest or desire of the wife doesn't matter.
The better way to put it is; he has the last say of all major decisions concerning the family. And his wife is his best adviser.

If a woman is intelligent, yet humble and pleases her husband, she could easily influence her husband's decisions. Men in love normally yeild more to their wives than to their own mothers.

bukatyne:
2. The wife took care of the home aka cooked, cleaned, cared for the kids etc. with little or no assistance from the husband.

Good domesticated men with a healthy sense of family bonding will engage in the above. Esp with the kids. Cooking can be ignored or over looked if he's poor at it.

bukatyne:
Strangely, we have a lot of guys complaining of 'gold digging' ladies and several threads has been opened to encourage/chastise women to earn and contribute/'assist' at home with the home front still largely managed by ladies.

It is healthy when a woman within a reasonable extent, expect financial security from her husband or husband to be. But this must have come after other physical attributes which should endear him to her. It is different from gold digging where she sees her husband or suitor as a cash cow.

bukatyne:
In recent times, we have women handling all the finances due to no fault of the husband and she is still expected to handle most/all domestics even when the husband is home all day. (E.g. Teeblizz accusing Tiwa of not cooking)

Are you expecting them to switch roles? She is the breadwinner and so he should be the househusband!!!

Well, studies have shown that men are 10times more likely to cheat when they are the stay at home dads. Women are paying the prize already in places like the UK and other developed countries. These type of men are easily winning custody battles of their children and taking half the savings of their wives in cases of divorce.
It's a sick world out there with its head turned upside down.

It takes a man with zero ambition and purpose to sit at home and become a househusband.

bukatyne:
Now to the questions:

1. What makes the husband the head/ sole authority if he expects the wife to contribute to the upkeep without necessarily compromising in domestics?

Firstly, we should come to a basic understanding that the headship of a husband is unquestionable and irrevocable. It is a divine. Having said that, life is give and take. Most working class women will compromise one way or another in her matrimonial obligations. It's unavoidable. But if she puts her family's interest before any other including career, and if she gets her husband's blessings, he would most likely return the favour with his loyalty and support.

The issue of constant neglect of home meals by a wife is a grave error. One with serious negative consequences. No matter how much she contributes to the family coffer, she's most likely to leave her husband grumbling and unsatisfied with serious potential consequences. Home cooked meals set the stage for a happy atmosphere. Many things follow when a wife feeds her husband from her own palms - gratitude, praise, appreciation and good sex are taken for granted.

bukatyne:
2. Why is the average woman who wants to marry/date a financially ok man called a gold digger considering that she is still expected to play her own part?

Except a lady prioritize financial security above all other attributes that makes a man a gentle and lovable partner, she would be judged a gold digger.

Though there's no denying the fact that most modern men are siting on their butts, idling away with the expectation that a woman will share half or even more of his financial obligation.

bukatyne:
3. Why do people frown on a wife who expects her husband to provide all (even women programs emphasize this and call them lazy esp. stay @ home moms) while the wife is expected to handle the domestics majorly?

No woman should be idle. An idle woman is prone to obesity, mental fatigue and can experience intellectual retrogression. And her sex life can hit a setback.
Though raising infants is a full time job, if situation permits, she can get a job that doesn't compromise her maternal and matrimonial duties.

bukatyne:
4. Why is a wife expected to handle the domestics alone when she becomes the breadwinner working outside the home and her hubby is largely at home?

Whatever works for a couple. But because she brings in more on the financial plate, doesn't mean the man should take up the house chores.

Lets be sincere here; How many African women would be proud of a househusband? How many will boast before their friends and tell them hubby babysits and cook and run the errands while she works and bring in the money?

She knows that would be fastest way to humiliate her husband before the public like Tiwa did Blizz.

analice107:
goodnight.

Goodnight!

analice107:
I hardly saw any typos. Besides, i got the message. The worst typos comes from me. My phone is so wonderful, when i type and space a different word entirely comes up, i have to keep going back and forth to correct, but i still have typos, ant it punctuates itself. I have tried resetting it, couldn't.
Don't worry yaself bros.

We'll continue tomorrow. Bedtime

analice107:
As one of Eve's daughters, am not greedy
As one of Eve's daughters, am not greedy.lol.

Have you for once, considered what would have happened if Adam had rebuked his wife fiercely and cast off the fruit from her hand?

Please re-quote my post. I had to do some major editing. It reeked of typos and error.

analice107:
Okay, but no speak your big grammar for me oo. i no want bite my mouth. come down to our level.

You quoted someone and said sin entered into the world through the woman, but i said, no, it was through the man, because according to the Bible Eve was deceived, but Adam was not. Adam being the man, the head, the Voice, the control, the power and authority, the custodian of the woman, was not deceived, he Willingly sold out and plunged the entire human race into this mess with his eyes opened.
God never called Eve into any Board Meetings, Adam always attended those meetings then furnished the wife with whatever information or instruction which came from the DG. That's why, when she dipped her hand in the Cookie Jar, the DG never frowned, until Adam went on to do same.
If you noticed, when Eve sinned, she was still covered, but when Adam sinned, both of them discovered they were naked. Why was that?

I don't use high sounding words unnecessarily. And when I do, I do it moderately.

Your notion that Eve didn't sin, I believed stemmed from loosed biblical scholars who have subjected the scriptures to human psychological interpretations instead of being led by the SPIRIT of GOD.

1 Tim 2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

You're right about Adam been in charge. And he received instructions directly from GOD unlike Eve who was taught by Adam.
Fact is both transgressed. Adam been soft with Eve, while Eve been a typical woman was led by lust and greed.

I don't have the luxury of picking your post line by line, but if it was just Eve who aye of the fruit, her eyes would have been opened all the same. She would have seen her own unclothedness and that of her husband. Eve wasnt immuned to the fruit's potency and neither was it dependent on Adam eating it. GOD simply waited to see if they both would disobey.

Adam was punished for his sin and the earth was cursed because of him. But Eve was cursed as well. If she didn't transgress she would have been free from curse. She was the first human to taste of the fruit of death and the first sinner and she didn't stop there, she took some to her husband.

Read up the conversation between Eve and the snake again. You would see she was a deliberate, willful sinner. The snake asked "did GOD really said....." and she concurred, repeating all the warnings of GOD regarding the fruit. Scripture said she wanted the fruit seeing it was beautiful and she wanted the knowledge it would give her.

The same greed, curiosity and lust still plague her daughters even to this generation.

Ishilove:
I and pos.tmann cannot date. He wee use his sharp tongue to finish my life

You make it sound like I'm too dangerous or a smooth talker. I live my own sermon.