₦airaland Forum

bezimo:
Give example? No baseless claims you can't substantiate with real facts.

Running away from answering really simple questions, are we? I earlier asked you for proof that Obama actively frustrated the efforts of Christian refugees and you couldn't give me one executive order or presidential decree to support your assertion. All you gave me were links three quarters of which are extreme right publications (so we're not surprised at their news) and a quarter which only states the numbers that any logical person would expect of refugees from Muslim majority countries. Nowhere was it said that Obama instituted a more stringent vetting process for Christians than Muslims trying to get into the US. As I said, you are being emotional, not rational or logical.

As for proof of people defrauding or scamming others in the name of "doing God's work", dude you're Nigerian. It's happening all Nigeria. You don't need links for me to tell you it is more commonplace in Christianity than other religions in this Nigeria but if you want links, I'll gladly provide.

Just answer the simple question: what do you call a Christian that scams/swindles/steals from someone in the name of doing God's work?

bezimo:
Obama gave priority to Muslim refugees and not Christian refugees who were the most persecuted.Oh you want proves.

https://barnabasfund.org/news/US-government-and-UN-guilty-of-massive-institutional-discrimination-against-Christian-refugees-fleeing-Syria

http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/foreign-policy/228670-no-room-in-america-for-christian-refugees

http://canadafreepress.com/article/obama-actually-committed-more-religious-discrimination-than-any-that-trump

Someone kills in the name of Allah, he is a what?.
He is a demented rat called Islamic terrorist.They are all Muslims.

You are just a typical liberal with skewed and irrational perspective, so the USA should open their doors so they can become like France or Germany who have constantly been receiving their dose of terrorist attacks from the refugees.

I support Trump to say No.You can go ranting for all we care. Trump is reversing all that Obama nonsense.

So someone defrauds people in the name of God; what do you call the person?

bezimo:
http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/nov/17/us-unintentionally-discriminates-against-christian/

https://www.google.ca/amp/www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/11/17/discrimination-2098-syrian-muslim-refugees-allowed-into-america-only-53-christians/amp/?client=ms-android-verizon

Christians were the most persecuted in the Syrian crisis but Obama frustrated their coming and reduced it to the lowest possible.This is not been emotional, this are facts

HOW did he frustrate the attempts of Christian refugees trying to get into America? What did he do to frustrate their efforts? Dude think logically; you're still being too emotional.

I read the links you posted. Breitbart is one of the worst sites to visit if you want to get balanced reporting especially as regards anything liberal or concerning Democrats. As for the first link, there was nothing saying there was a quota system in place to ensure more Muslims were guaranteed entrance than Christians. All they gave us were numbers and the numbers match up to reality. If there were to be some sort of crisis in Anambra state, for instance, it's only logical to expect that you would find way more Christians moving to a safe state like, say, Lagos . It would interest you to know that you are a lot more likely to find Muslims in IDP camps than Christians. Why? Because the affected crisis hit areas had more Muslims in the first place than Christians. It's like if there is a crisis in South Africa and, say, Nigeria accepts more black people than white people and then you accuse the Nigerian president of racism, forgetting that there are way more black people in South Africa than white people. If you still can't get it with this analogy, then I can't help you.

bezimo:
Yes, USA is a Christian country based on their founding biblical values.

Yes, Obama is an unadmitted Muslim, that explains his name Hussein, he brought mosque into white house, the first ever president to do that, he promoted the persecution of christians minorities in Syria and allowed majorly Muslims to get in the US in his initial refugee entrance approval,he never used the word Islamic terrorism to describe the ISIS onslaught in France or Germany, he sugar coated it, these are verifiable facts.

Pray tell, prove this instead of spouting baseless conspiracy theories because you're on the internet and not the law court.

He never used the word Islamic terrorism? That's supposed to be something bad? Are you kidding me? Are all Muslims terrorists? Not even a quarter of the Muslim population worldwide are terrorists or are involved in terrorism in some form. So why call it Islamic terrorism? Terrorism is terrorism. Period. It's like saying Christian scam or Christian fraud when you are talking about pastors and churches that mislead people and swindle them out of their money in the name of doing God's work.

CXLVII:
Sigh.......


The founding father of America were not all Christians and America was "NEVER" founded on Biblical values. Constitutionally, America does not have any religious ties as none was mentioned in its constitution.

Obama is not a Muslim! Baring a name does not make you one. Its like saying Apostle Sulaiman or Amaru Shakur is a Muslim Wikipedia will help you https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_religion_conspiracy_theories

Leave that one. I remember a pastor that once came to my church - I think Ibrahim or Bello by surname. If I were to use his logic, then the pastor was/is and "undeclared Muslim".

bezimo:
Yes, USA is a Christian country based on their founding biblical values.

Obama is an unadmitted Muslim, that explains his name Hussein, he brought mosque into white house, the first ever president to do that, he promoted the persecution of christians minorities in Syria and allowed majorly Muslims to get in the US in his initial refugee entrance approval,he never used the word Islamic terrorism to describe the ISIS onslaught in France or Germany, he sugar coated it, these are verifiable facts.

And apparently you are the one that made him a Muslim. For one, as regards refugee entrance into America, let's do a bit if logical operation, shall we? Throughout Obama's tenure as president, which countries gave rise to the most refugees? If you say Muslim majority countries, then you are an honest fellow else you are just dishonest. If Muslim majority countries produce the most refugees, what religion do you think most of the refugees would adhere to? It's like saying, for instance, a state like Borno where Book Haram is active produces 10, 000 internally displaced persons of which 2000 are Christians and the rest are Muslims. If Lagos state were to create an IDP camp to house all 10000 people, would you then accuse the Lagos state governor of bias because the number of Muslims is more than the Christians? Or you would say he should accept all the Christians and the exact same number of Muslims then turn the rest of the Muslims away in the name of balance?

Apply logic bro and stop being emotional.

nuelzy:
Who the flying bleep is small doctor

A neurosurgeon from laspotech.

Wait o.

All I can see in the background is one bungalow and empty land. Where is the rest I'd the school?

Ayam not understanding.

Why I wouldn't be so quick to tag Islam as a religion of terrorists is the fact that it's not only non-muslims that have been victims of suicide bombings and terror attacks. Think of it: ISUS, Al Qaeda, Boko Haram and the rest have largely carried out fatal terrorist attacks in primarily Muslim areas. Boko haram have mainly been attacking northerners and you don't need a professor or a soothsayer to tell you that you're at least ten times as likely to find a Muslim in the north than the adherents of other religions. Same as explosions in Syria, Baghdad, Lybia and all the other terrorist attack hotspots around the world. Those that end up being killed the most are Muslims. Why would a religion that's trying to exterminate people of other religions then spend most of their resources in killing their own people? It doesn't make any sense. Look at the Fulani marauders. It's not like those ones are doing anything in the name of religion. What that tells me is this:

Terrorism is done in the name of terrorism. Forget the cloak of religion most terrorists throw around them. A violent person is a violent person and would do violent things, then look for something to justify is/her violence. The usual justification? Religion, because nobody can see God in person to ask if he indeed gave such instructions.

MI is right. There are crazy people in all religions as there are sane and peaceful people in all religions. We should learn to keep the distinction clear.

I don't know what the full detail of the law are (not living in the US so I can't really be bothered to), but if this law puts the legality of voluntary abortion into question, then there might be a few consequences beyond that which most people would see.

I see a lot of people here saying something like "be ready to have the child if you want to have the sex". That's all well and good, but what happens in a situation where the woman or girl in question doesn't even want the sex either? I mean, like rape. What if a raped lady gets pregnant? You would tell her the same story? Let's face it, voluntary abortions favour them probably more than any other demographic. Why? Because of the existence of birth control. You think ladies that want to have sex but not kids want to get pregnant in the first place? What are pills and condoms there for? Most of them, even in the rural parts of America, know how to protect themselves from even conceiving in the first place, how much more needing an abortion. So who does voluntary abortion benefit? Victims of rape for starters who couldn't choose to protect themselves or prevent themselves from conceiving, that's who.

Also for those sanctimonious ones saying all ladies that need abortions are randy women with no self control, it might interest you to know that a large demographic of the people that need abortions are usually youngsters that haven't quite grasped the importance of protected sex and birth control. They don't know any better. You want them to have deal with a mistake they made for the rest of their lives, a good number of them ending up blaming the child for truncating their futures and blaming themselves for a mistake A LOT of people make resulting in goodness alone knows how many cases of child abuse and neglect? Look beyond your nose people; things aren't as cut and dried as we think. It's not like America is suffering a population deficit problem and need to boost numbers. Those new children that could have been ultimately avoided would join the already teeming population to put a strain on the system and, in situations where the mother/parents end up being unable to take care of the child, child support has to - and guess who basically pays for child support services? You guessed it, the tax payers.

There has to be a better way to deal with it if it's really an issue.

And this thread has gone down a weird rabbit hole.

Secondly, gender assignment surgeries are not the kind of procedures a doctor in a backwoods village can perform in his office. They are quite expensive. What happens to hermaphrodites born to poor families? Are they to grow up to eventually live in sin because they weren't born into affluence?

I've seen one or two people here suggest surgery as a way to fix this "problem". However, I think that solution may imply certain other things that don't do religious beliefs a lot of favors. Unlike a lot of surgeries performed everyday gender assignment (not reassignment) procedures are carried out to "fix a problem" the person was born with. Now here's the not-so-great implication - isn't that implying that God makes mistakes? That by saying "oh, this one didn't come out quite right. Let's" correct" this issue." Imagine you bought a brand new car, and, when you get home, you discover that the glove compartment is a microwave oven. Now no other model of the car that you or anyone knows of has a microwave oven as a glove compartment. The people that sold you the car (brand new, remember from the company's dealership) did not tell you anything about a microwave glove compartment. Now if you take it to a garage for them to remove the microwave oven and fix a regular glovebox, aren't you perhaps implying that the manufacturer made a mistake by giving you a microwave glovebox? Now if we're going by this assumption that God does make mistakes, on what grounds can we oppose transgender people who say they are psycho-anatomic hermaphrodites in the sense that the have one the sex organs of one sex but they feel like the opposite sex on the inside. What defense would we have if they claim to be one of God's mistakes that they also wish to to correct by gender reassignment surgery?

If, on the other hand, we insist that God does not make mistakes and hermaphrodites are exactly the way he created them, on what grounds do we disparage homosexuals who claim to be born with a natural attraction to people of their same sex? I mean, if God could create hermaphrodites (who we human beings consider to be abnormal), who is to then say he didn't or can't also have created homosexuals (who we also think are abnormal)?

I must admit, I have considered the position and the resultant questions of hermaphrodites of in conventional and Orthodox religious setups. The very existence of hermaphrodites raises a lot of questions whose answers have a lot of implications for our religious beliefs, so I have been following the thread to see if I can see someone (on the religious side, since hermaphrodites put most religions in a bit of a tight corner when it comes to dealing with them).

Here's the thing: so long as someone born hermaphrodite remains hermaphrodite and starts having se.x , it's inevitable that, on some level, that person is a homosexual (due to to having organs of both sexes). Sure, on one side, the person is straight. But on another hand, the person is gay because of the aforementioned reason. And basically, we humans generally define our sex by our sex organs, not so much by our behaviors (I mean, no matter how much makeup and nails Bobrisky puts on, we all know he's a guy and (at least here in Nigeria) if asked, his sex is male). But hermaphrodites have a bit of both, which, as far as sex and sex organs go, makes them gay and straight at the same time. How does religion reconcile this?

2Mekus:
Can't you simply post the code? Must we visit your blog to know what you are ranting about?

ranting about

hopefulLandlord:
so?

Everyone's free to believe whatever they want to believe whether you share in that belief or not. It's not very nice to mock or ridicule people's beliefs, especially when they haven't done same to you.

hopefulLandlord:
What psychological itch gets scratched when someone debases themself like this?

"I'm just a worthless sinner"

"if I were God, I wouldn't let me live"

"I have killed thee, O my Lord. I have smitten thee on the cross. I reject thee and thy word, I never knew I was dross. Take me back"

"I'm scum; God is so fabulous for giving me my crappy life" etc.

Is the mental reward just that you get to curl up in a fetal position and have Mommy take care of you?

Dude, really.

petrov10:
this is illegal

but if it curbs corruption well







thou buhari isn't fighting curruption

It probably isn't. It was a precondition for the States' accessing the FG's loan offer and, so long as the States agreed to access the loan, they also agreed to their fiscal management being audited by the FG. What I'm not clear on is if the auditing is on all the States' finances inclusive and exclusive of the loan or just the States' expenditure of the money they accessed as loan from the FG. Think of it as a bank telling you they will carry out regular audits of your company's finances before they can grant you a loan when your company applies for one. It may sound like a pretty tough condition, but you have the choice not to take the loan in the first place if you don't want your books looked into.

Her chief bridesmaid sat like "I didn't even want to be part of this nonsense set. What kind of emotional blackmail did they use to force me to even come to the wedding".

The guy already looks more pregnant than his wife. ...and she's not even pregnant yet! Imagine when he takes her for antenatal. The nurse would look at both of them in confusion and ask
"sorry, which of you is with child?"

I wish them happy married life jare. It's not the size that counts but the happiness. If they are both making each other happy, who are we to say anything?

And if you opened this thread, just know you gave a f.uck.

histemple:
I don't think they should be fighting over unpaid salaries because it's God's Will that they are not paid. Maybe God is preparing to give them something bigger.

Nothing happens without the permission of God. Maybe God is actually testing their faith by making the Bishop not to pay them.

Money is not everything, so they should rather seek the face of God in prayer instead.

Again, it's not right for the pastors to be accusing the bishop of rituals because the bible said--JUDGE NOT.

More so, the bible said "Touch not my anointed, so they shouldn't disturb the anointed man of God.

And lastly, they shouldn't have WELDED the church gate, rather they should forgive the Bishop as the bible commanded us to forgive those who offends us.

I sincerely hope this is sarcasm.

Nationwide protests over a governor in one state that isn't even one that affects the Nigerian system or national economy. Are these people thinking at all? So long as the governor isn't commiting any crimes against humanity, limit your protest activities to his state instead of going to disrupt activities elsewhere.

So….here we are…the final day of the year 2016. Some of us have already started looking back at the year and planning for the coming year. Some of us just want to forget the whole year happened and just move on to the coming year (let’s face it, it’s been a pretty shitty year).

Either way, you’ll be hearing a lot about new year resolutions.

C’mon, let’s face it, there’s some things we’re not satisfied about ourselves over the past year and we wouldn’t like to carry over into the new. Even those of you that roll your eyes at the mention of new year resolutions have one or two things you plan to do differently this coming year.

Bad thing? Not by a stretch.

Here’s the thing; while most of us would break our new year resolutions before the first week is up (put a stopwatch and start counting), it doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have new year resolutions at all. The great thing about new year resolutions is the fact that you’ve identified something about yourself that you’re not satisfied with – something you want to change. While it’s not necessarily something you have to wait till the end of the year to change (I mean, if you break it in the first week of 2017, would you wait again till 2018 to try again?), it’s good you’ve figured out what you want to change and you’ve resolved to actually change it. Where there would be a problem is if, after breaking it, you think “ah well, I’ve broken it. Might as well return to the old life”. Every day, every moment, every second is a new year. How do I know this? Because in 365 days, you would come back to that particular second on that particular date – just in a different year.

Don’t give up trying to get better just because you don’t believe in new year resolutions or you’ve broken yours. Let the beginning of the year be like a check mark for a start point not the edge of a cliff. If you fail to keep it, get up, dust yourself and start again from that moment. Remember, every second begins a new year – so you have a new opportunity every day to start on your new year resolution.

Get better. You deserve it if you work for it.

https://completelytier./2016/12/31/are-new-year-resolutions-pointless/

felixomor:
Not when d.robot has the intelligence to make decisions on its own.

Still on computers/robotics, no matter how intelligent a robot is to male decisions, it cannot act outside it's source code - kind of like how you can't play candy crush on a tabletop calculator, no matter how hard you try ,except it's a hidden part of it's source code (placed there by the programmer knowingly or unknowingly) or the source code is modified by someone else. Either way, if you find candy crush on your calculator, you can't blame the calculator for "developing" the candy crush. And again, if someone else tampered with the source code, then you probably didn't do enough to prevent he code from getting tampered with.

There's a reason why game development studios and software developers release patches and updates to fix glitches. It's a way of admitting they are at fault for the glitch and they are taking responsibility for it.

Damianmarley:
I don't even understand the op

Try to read the whole thing then the last line. It would tell you where the op is driving at

felixomor:
Quiet, dont be in a hurry.

Now, if u make a robot to follow your instructions and then it starts to follow other instructions, what will u do to the robot?

Asides that, do you know many of the people that were killed by God in the OT were using their kids as human rituals to baal?

Are u aware?
Is that how God designed man to function?
Besides, u just said sentencing a murder criminal is not murder.
So what is your problem?

Aaaaaactually, speaking from a pure computer/robotics perspective, if you programmed a robot and it starts following other instructions, it could mean two things: there was an unforseen side-effect from the code you wrote that you overlooked while programming the robot OR there is some external or alternate body tampering with the source code. Neither outcome lets you off the hook though. In the case of the first outcome, it shows you were not careful enough to make sure that the robot acts as programmed. In the case of the second outcome it tells that you did not do enough to protect the program the robot runs on from external influence - like making sure there are no backdoors or loopholes and possibly installing anti-malware.

If a robot you programmed is not acting the way you expected, the choice is on you to reprogram the robot or destroy it. Neither would, however, mean the robot is at fault for it's malfunction.

MrPresident1:
Everyman gets what he deserves in relation to his judgment. A person who has judgment debt is placed in atheism and satanism for example, put in darkness until his time to be punished is mature.

I see you are also labouring under the delusion of atheism, or am i wrong? my brother you are being placed in darkness until your judgment is mature.

When we see your choice in God, we know who you are and the manner of your 'transgression'

Atheist, no. Religious skeptic, yes. I know you probably bundle all in the same boat but we have our differences. Either way, I don't have to defend my choice of religion same as I don't expect anyone else to. Just be good and treat others how you would like to be treated. Everything else is personal and should be respected and I mean that for everyone across the religious and nonreligious divide.

Well I think I understand the process. It's most likely to male sure that those involved in the distribution don't shortchange the government either by selling only to their friends and family or arbitrarily increasing the price of the rice and pocketing the difference (if they were collecting cash. With the bank and teller system, no matter how much the distributors increase the price by, all the money would still go to the government because none of them would actually be handling cash). Of course, I believe there has to be a better, more seamless way to do these things but this is their first try at this so it wasn't expected to go exactly smoothly. Hopefully they would work out the kinks in the current system or come up with a better, more efficient system of sales and distribution. Those of us on social media need to pressure the government too to make sure they understand that this current format is not efficient or effective.