₦airaland Forum

Kobojunkie:
A disciple or follower of Jesus Christ is one who lives in continual submission to and obedience of the teachings of Jesus Christ, God's Truth and Law in the Kingdom of God.

Okay. So that means anyone who calls themselves a Christian and a disciple of Jesus is tasked with preaching the gospel, as the great commission states, right?

Kobojunkie:
it is the command Jesus Christ , God's Law in the Kingdom of God, gave to all of His disciples instructing them to spread the Gospel of the Kingdom of God to all the world.

Instead many false teachers and prophets have built for themselves businesses and kingdoms here on earth using that one command to dupe billions in the name of God. They catch and fleece God's sheep pretending they do so on behalf of God.

So who is a disciple of Jesus Christ?

Sanchez01:
Most are Christians with little or no understanding of the Scripture. There is the office of the Evangelist (Ephesians 4:11) and there is the Great Commission. What does this mean?

So what is the great commission and who are those called to the great commission?

Make I learn.

Kobojunkie:
Can you provide scriptural evidence of any of what you have claimed above?

Where did Jesus Christ teach you that the fruits He wants of you, a branch on His vine, are the souls of other humans?

Where in scripture did Jesus Christ mandate all Christians to preach and grow folks?

Please go and read on the "Great commission".

Kobojunkie:
So evangelists are sales men then who are meant to fill seats in the churches that belong to Oyedepo, right? How is this not about numbers?

They are labourers. And not just evangelists. Every Christian is to go to the field and win souls. That's what it means to be fruitful and bear fruits that abide.

Bearing fruits that abide means following up on the souls you won so they don't go back into the world.

That's what Jesus mandated all Christians to do. Preach to them and grow.

If you're a Christian, you are a labourer that should win souls. Your aren't a salesman cause the gospel is not for sale.

HedwigesMaduro:
How do they quantify how many souls won? By the number of people in the church?

No. Records are meant to be kept on evangelism, follow up should be done on new converts. If all doesn't come to your church to worship, at least, a small number should.

How will you pastor a church and not be able to boast of one soul for like three months?

What are you and your evangelism department doing?

Know that most of the affected churches are in rural areas. So how much be their offering?

In this present day and age.

BKayy:
Nobody is kidnapping any politician. It is you people that they want.
Person no dey kidnap him oga.
Wait for your turn

E go reach you before e near me.

BKayy:
Nice one.
You fools hiding in Abuja think you are safe abi?
The honorable bandits deserve a medal.

I fully endorse this.
More kotec grease to their elbow

So poor people living on rural villages in Abuja is what you're rejoicing about?

Why aren't these gunmen going to kidnap politicians in Maitama, Asokoro,�Gwarimpa and Guzape?

Isn't this staged?

5.5/10.

It's a movie that should have been made years before Natasha died.

The only good thing about it is that it paved a way to introduce Yelena as the next Black widow.

Belafonte:
So, you really don't consider them to be equally as destructive then

I do. But one is a direct threat to life.

The other can be managed with therapy.

Belafonte:
I have read it and thus my question: "would you advocate taking divorce off the table if physical abuse was a factor, considering you said it is on par with verbal/emotional abuse?" This thing is simple english na

Yes. I'd suggest a separation till the abuser changes.

I'm not an advocate of divorce.

Belafonte:
This is what you said below:



They are equal but you want them to be resolved differently?

You want them to work through verbal and emotional abuse, but divorce is fine as soon as physical abuse is introduced?

Okay

That what all I said in the comment?

Please go and read again from top to bottom.

Belafonte:
would you give this advice if the complainant had been a woman talking about how she was being constantly boxed by her husband?

Like I said in my comment, unless it has led to physical abuse.

I don't know how you missed that.

murphyibiam15:
You're just becoming active here despite registering since 2019.

Nah. Been here since 2006 actually.

I deactivated the account and opened another one.

Your best bet is through a DSS officer. They are the only ones I know have tracked a stolen phone to the gate of the person that bought it.

INTEGRITYA1:
But the option the man chose was that

"The Children have to be within his custody"

Meanwhile, in one of your post you've said if the said ex husband happened to be your blood brother, you will prefer the children are in his custody.

So, what are they contesting?

No. I didn't say that. I said I'd prefer that my brother had shared custody/ co-parenting and not neglect his kids by withdrawing support.

INTEGRITYA1:
You post suggested both loved the kids, that's good observation.

Do you now think the man should be at the mercy of the ex wife and her new find love ? Don't forget the post said the man is financially able and it also shows he cared about those children.

It seems the man patiently waiting for the ex wife to see how far she can carry on with the financial obligations that comes with the children up keeping.

Now she's getting down and the new find love can not meet up as expected with those finances. So, you expect a man with his brain fully functioning to succumbed to their request.

I said it in my previous comment that; you should forget that.

Two options here.

The man is not willing and not ready to be funding the children outside his custody.

1. Either they keep struggling to provide for those children and let the man be.

2. To relief themselves, they should let the man have the possession of those children.

Simple as ABC.

Like I also said earlier, if the man is not showing any concerns before, not caring at all or not responsible; it's a different case.

I also provided option one on my first post.

kneehighbootz:
By all means, carry on. Your data, your stupidity

Exactamente.

I'll be awaiting your stupid replies as well.

Adios.

Simeonjoe1:
Thank I no know why Romanoff no dey use sense for this one. Maybe she's clouded with emotions. Before the woman married op even though she's separated from the ex who is paying the bills. I can bet that the man has been sending money to her to cater for their needs, now she's married why will the man be sending money for another man to raise his own children. Since she don't want to take the children to their father that means she and her new husband are up to the task of taking care of them.

If you can, go through all of my comments. The man doesn't need to send money to the woman or her husband. He can pay the bills himself.

Bills like school fees, health care can be paid for by himself so the woman and her husband can take care of others.

The both love the kids and the kids belong to both of them.

So why deprive the kids of care?

kneehighbootz:
Why not stop talking? Your posts reeks of stupidity and it's headache inducing

You can't stop me from my "stupid" posts, so why waste your time?

You don't pay for my data and you'll see many of such stupid posts. I'm just getting started.

dejol88:
Why can't the man be the primary caregiver?

The mother is always the primary care giver, unless it's proven otherwise that she incapable. And that's when primary care giving is passed on to the father.

dejol88:
Just a quick question, what is your definition of co-parenting?
In co-parenting, does it mean the children must be under the roof of the woman ?
I will like to get your view .thank you

She can be the primary care giver while they shuttle between dad's place and mum's place. Holidays can be split.

Lanretoye:
if the man has custody of the kids,will u be talking about co-parenting?,of course not.the man will be father and mother by any means,so let it be so if the mother wont release the kids.which sane person wants to hold on to kids he or she cant be responsible for.

Even if it's the man holding the kids, I'll still agitate for co parenting.

torqque7:
Wow after 4kids?thats sad..but maybe if u hear his side of the story u would understand y he left..I feel the wife must have been very disrespectful to him couple with the fact that her dad got him a job so she probably looked down on him and he couldn't take it anymore thats y he left after 4kids..

He has no side of any story. They were my next door neighbors. He just chose to live that way.

Legalservices:
Co-parenting is a laudable option. It must afford based on sex, age and circumstances near equal access and custody for either parent.

As a rule of thumb, unless there are concerns to the contrary, both parents have Joint physical custody of the children, whilst mothers have Primary Physical Custody till the children come of age.

This is what I'm suggesting.

torqque7:
No man in his right mind will agree to send money to his baby mama when he is not allowed access to them. That been said I bet u she doesn't let him see his kids otherwise he would gladly support and take care of them and won't give such conditions..Most baby mamas are very wicked and vindictive because the guy refused to marry them so the use his kids to make life miserable for him..sha men don de wise,u can't eat ur cake and have it..if she like make she continue to hide the kids,a time will come when the kids will look for their father by themselves,its just natural and will definitely happen.

No now. That's why I said Co parenting. Of course he'd have access to his kids. They belong to both of them. In the case I mentioned, the man chose to walk away and got married to someone else after having four kids with his baby mama.

Sad thing is it's the baby mama's father that even helped him get the job.

lapazi:
Put yourself in the kids shoes, when your half siblings are being Catered for but you have to wait on your own biological father to do the needful.

Nobody is saying that she can’t have access to the kids, that can always be arranged, but as long as the step dad is not willing to step up, this arrangement is a disaster waiting to happen

They will eventually need to both step up.

It's a sad reality but they will have to just step up.

Legalservices:
This argument is very flawed ....are you saying because of the natural desire for either party to exercise their parental rights over their kids.. they should have married regardless if they were not compatible? What if such marriage was a nesting ground for domestic violence?

This is a very parochial and sentiments informed argument. Marriage isn’t a solution to exercise any parental rights and no one should be blackmailed to live with an intolerable co-parent because of kids.

What about the option of co parenting?

perambulator:
who has taken who away?

presumably husband and wife lived in the same house with the children. Wife left with the children (an assumption that she wasnt kicked out) if thats the case she took the children away. If he kicked her out it is safe to say he didnt kick his children out.

So you women need to be careful the way you women use words. if you leave with the children of your own accord, then they are your responsibility.

That's why I am sayings they should opt for shared custody. They both need to come together and figure out a way to be in the lives of the children.

If the woman want broke, his threats won't go anywhere and she'd still keep the kids. So her brokeness is what he is leveraging on.

There is room for dialogue but I hope they can reach and arrangement cause I still sense resentment in the old couple.

Parizz:
In the first place, is it the man's responsibility to fend for another man's kids.

He knew what he was getting into before he married a woman with two kids.