₦airaland Forum

Morizo:
Did you watch the complete video? Let them show us the airplane video footage.

There's more rto it.
They prevented her from going out even from that doctored video

Watch it again and again

She was detained because air ibom called the security to take her away. She was meant to wait in the plane for the security.

Chevrolet076:
Is there any law in the airline that states that unruly behavior on the airplane should be punished by stripping the passenger Naked? The way they dragged her along the stairs, hitting her head along, if she had sustained brain damage, who will be liable for that? Or she deserved being killed because of her unruly behavior? The unruly behavior we didn't see the beginning?

See people promoting moral decadence.
That girl should be punished for her unruly and aggressive public behaviour, she should serve as a warning to others like her.

The rule in airplane is very clear. Obey the captain and the hostess, it's for your own safety. Imagine being in a plane where a passenger starts fighting the crew during flight- imagine the chaos, fright and disruption that would cause.

And to imagine she wore such breast exposing crop top without wearing a bra shows how morally bankrupt she is.
Who in her right senses dresses like a harlot during the day. Even with the top on, nearly half of her breast were on full display, Yet she felt no need to wear a bra.
Ironically, the girl knew she was dressing half naked without a bra on, but was fighting in public. What was she expecting? Public fight is always dirty, clothes are torn and sensitive areas could be exposed. Its either u avoid it entirely or u come prepared.

Well if she has a problem with her breast being exposed to the world, she is free to institute a civil suit against ibom air or whatever. That one no concern us.

But she must be severely punished because she rightly committed multiple punishable offenses with her behaviour yesterday.

All these sentiments being displayed is irrelevant. Nigerians must be forced to obey rules and order in public places. Very proud and arrogant bunch especially when they have small money or connection.

U could hear the spoilt brat telling the air hostess 'I will deal with u, U will see' after she was disgracefully dragged off the plane.
Most likely her sugar daddy may be a politician giving her confidence.
Nonsense everywhere.

Exceed15:
China is an atheist state. It's the least religious country in the world yet they value human lives and development more than religious countries

You people don't come with this ignorant talk.

Right now, gulf cities are emerging as the countries that offer great economic opportunities to migrants all over the world. Yet they are conservative Muslim countries.

Europe did very well when they were under Christianity. Now that they have embraced liberal secularism, the continent is turning to a mess.

China has strong spirituality ranging from simple stuff like Yoga to Taoism or Buddhism. Spiritual meditation is very popular and Christianity is growing very fast among the young ones.

Even if Africa abandons religion, it will still have issues with development.
Poverty in Africa has nothing to do with religion

Lucifyre:
Oh, the irony. You guys just can’t seem to do without it, hilarious? 🧇 How’s that waffle tasting?(I love waffles, they tatse great) I actually read through the post, and the funniest part is how you basically reinforced my point at every turn. The bolded part especially — didn’t know the foreskin was supposed to be a god engineered “natural condom.”

So let’s get this straight: in your “perfect” creation, god deliberately designed organisms that cause infections — called them “very good” — then created the foreskin to shield against the very things he made.

Your ignorance is oozing. This one thinks all micro organism are harmful.
Ever heard of commensals, normal flora and symbiotic relationships, have u ever wondered how fermentation occur?

Next time don't skip biology class.

I repeat, everything God created is good including microbes. Corruption made it evil!!!

Lucifyre:
Then sin comes along and suddenly perfectly created microbes — which apparently couldn’t survive there before — gain new abilities, move in under the foreskin, and ruin the plan. And the divine fix? Cut it off, leaving everything exposed to the very infections he supposedly designed it to protect from. Genius.

How's that God's fault? I gave u a brand new car with warranty. U fail to service it and eventually caused an accident. Then u turn around to blame me for gifting u a car.
Pls help me to make sense of it because that was exactly what Adam did.
Blame God after messing up what he gave u.

Lucifyre:
Even better, actual research shows the opposite of what you’re implying — uncircumcised men have higher rates of STDs and UTIs. So if the foreskin really was god’s protective masterpiece, it’s doing a pretty lousy job and confusing your “omniscient” god at every step.

It's obvious u have a comprehension problem. I said God created foreskin for a perfect function. Unfortunately it got corrupted and then started causing problems that I listed...phimosis, UTI, STI etc. This prompted the need for circumcision to prevent this harm.
Personal hygiene was poor in those days, people struggled to keep their foreskin healthy and was causing lots of problems for men.
God instituted circumcision to promote personal hygiene.
Men who are circumcised are less prone to those disease than uncircumcised men. That's my point.

If u are from southern Nigeria, I can bet u never heard of paraphimosis or balanitis in your life. 99% of Nigerian doctors have never seen or treated these cases of foreskin problems because we circumcise.

That's my whole point u didn't understand only for u to bring evidence that assert my position.
OLODO.

Lucifyre:
As for the incest bit and the rest of the waffle, I’ll skip following you down that tangent — no need to join you in the comedy club of the circus. I’m only here as a makeup artist.

Guy rest. U cannot bring up evidence of any incest in that passage. Incest is only in your head.
U don't have any evidence anywhere that Cain married his sister or blood relatives. That's what I was trying to show u.
Besides, Incest cannot be applied in the beginning because genetic pool was too limited for any diseased genetic mutation to occur. Any genetic mutation at that time is a variance and not a risk.

At creation, human were genetically perfect without the accumulation mutations that cause birth defect we have today.
Because of this, close relative marriage in early human history would not have carried the same genetic risk they do now.

That's my argument I want u deal with. These are facts not waffling.

Lucifyre:
You quoted me for a reason, right? So why consistently dodge the reason you quoted me? Yes or no should be easy. 😏 Anyways, back to my actual point: are you still claiming there’s no evidence for everything I said in my OP? The makeup’s coming on either way. If you dodge (classic hit-and-run), makeup. If you say “yes,” I bring the receipts — makeup. If you say “no,” you played yourself — makeup. Choose your poison. Tick-tock, makeup designer for 🤡’s awaits.

We are dealing with incest and circumcision now. when we done we can move to other issues U raised.

Lucifyre:
Intelligence and scripture? Ha! If we had followed any so called intelligence from scripture, we'd still be stuck in the Stone Age. And yes yes, your classic tangent dodge did not go unnoticed. You completely sidestepped the evidence request and went off into a rant about circumcision. Typical. But fine, let me humor your tangent.



So your "omniscient" god "intelligently designed" everything including man and declared it all "very good". That includes the foreskin, right? He designed it, called it good, then suddenly got pissed about... the foreskin he supposedly designed? So pissed, in fact, that he was ready to unalive someone for not cutting it off? Make it make sense, abeg. 😂

If U had answered my question, u won't be asking this inconsequential questions in the first place.
Is circumcision evil? If it's evil, why did God allow it.
Same reason will lead to the question why God asked women on their period not to come to his presence in the temple. Is menstruation evil?

Your analogy of God's perfect creation and getting pissed is flawed and makes no sense.

God created rain as perfect but yet causes flooding
God created fire as a good thing but can also cause widespread destruction.
What about our nail and hair, why do we cut them all the time? Shouldn't we just let them be and allow it overgrow since God created them perfectly?
Guy use your sense.

Everything God created has a perfect function, however when sin entered the world it got corrupted.

Foreskin was meant to protect against STI and UTI. It's also meant to be a protective cover for the penis until the later reaches full maturity.
Unfortunately, since it harbours micro organism (which is a corruption) it put the genitals at risk of balanitis, UTI, phimosis, and other non infectious problems like lichen sclerosis, paraphimosis etc

This is the reason ancient civilization pre Abraham advocated for the removal of the foreskin to promote personal hygiene.
When Abraham's mind became preoccupied with helping God fulfil his covenant, God kept him busy by telling him to engage in this healthy habit.

God's covenant with humanity has always been the heart and not the flesh.

Deuteronomy 30
6 “Moreover, the Lord your God will circumcise your heart and the hearts of your [a]descendants, to love the Lord your God with all your heart and all your soul, so that you may live.

Deuteronomy 10
15 Yet the Lord set his heart in love on your fathers and chose their offspring after them, you above all peoples, as you are this day. 16 Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no longer stubborn.

Lucifyre:
This confused nature of your so called omniscient Yhwh is actually typical. Claims to hate sin and bans incest, yet starts off by creating only two people and tells them to multiply — how exactly was that supposed to happen without incest?

Here is your answer....
Genesis 4
13[i] Cain said to the Lord, “My punishment is more than I can bear. 14 Today you are driving me from the land, and I will be hidden from your presence; I will be a restless wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me.”
[/i]

When we say we are from Adam, we do not mean direct descendants but the whole world inherited the adamic nature which is the carnal flesh.

Moreover God instituted incest as a moral law in order to diversify the gene pool and reduce increased incidence of genetic disease.
Genetic pool was very limited in the beginning thus any form of multiplication is a genetic diversification and variance, without risk of genetic mutation.

Lucifyre:
Then, he wipes out almost all living things - for using the "free will" he gave man - then populates earth again using incest. All this, when he could’ve simply created more people to avoid using the very thing he supposedly hates. Let’s not even get started on Balaam’s story same bizarre logic.

U don't understand the concept of freewill to begin with. And I dont understand how story of balaam came into the picture.
And if u think because u have freewill, U will not bear the consequences of your actions, then I guess u are lost.
Freewill is not the same as carefree. There's a reason God gave us a spirit.

Lucifyre:
And you brought up intelligence near scripture? 😄 Anyways, back to the real point, are you still going to claim there’s no evidence for everything I said earlier? Because ironically, the evidence is like legion—it is many. Or are you about to do your usual hit & run?

There's no book that test your intellectual capacity as the bible. It's an evidence based book not blind faith.

Now as u can see, I answer your questions.
I expect U to answer mine next time otherwise I will ignore U.

It's a very bad habit for someone to ask a question and then ignore it by waffling and bringing up irrelevance.

How will U learn and realise what U believe is wrong if U don't vomit it out!!!!

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

Nobody cares about a woman's hymen.

What men should be paying for is chastity, discipline, morality and virtuousness.

Enough of gaslighting men. Say no to premarital sex.

Jay1jay2:
Custom and tradition demands you do it regardless of virginity . This dude is a big time attention seeker

No U are wrong
Custom and tradition demands U return the bride price if the woman is found not to be a virgin on her wedding night.

Premarital sex is very wrong and should be condemned by all.

Lucifyre:
Ah, the ringmaster returns 🤡. Should I hand you the makeup, or are we still pretending Leviticus is poetry?
Happy to oblige though. You really want evidence? From the same book where the deity floods the Earth, collects foreskins like trophies, and turns women into war spoils — before sacrificing himself to himself?
You sure you wanna crack that book open, or should I grab the paint kit while we prep for the metaphor gymnastics?

Let me test your intelligence outside the scripture.

So u think male circumcision is a bad thing?
Why would u associate male circumcision with evil unless u consider it a bad thing.
Is foreskin removal evil?

Do U think Abraham was the first person to circumcise in history?
Were people cutting off their foreskin b4 the onset of Abraham and his encounter with the deity called YHVH?

No wonder churches are becoming empty in the west.
nonsense.

as someone said earlier, its high time african churches in the west takes over and preach against this evil.

CaseSensitive:
Christianity and Africa in the same sentence is funny. Africa and Africans shouldn't have any business with Christianity. You want to tell me that a European translation of a Middle-Eastern man is my God? Common. I mean you may have been able to fool my parents, grandparents or maybe great grandparents even.

But hypocrisy of organised religion stops with me. It's a tool of control, nothing less than that. Organised religion shapes how you think and that thing is dangerous because it keeps your mind in a prison. We have our religions in Africa before the invasion and it ain't Christianity.

British missionaries came first with the bible, then British armies followed with the guns.

Know your truth as an African.

And no, I'm not Gen Z - You don't have to be in a particular age group to use your brain. I live in the country of the people who introduced Christianity to Nigerians. Less than 7% of them attend churches and less than 50% even identify as a Christian, so it's me - an African man that should be devoted to Christianity, shouting Hallelujah and praying to Jesus Christ? Nope.

The Gospel was already established in Africa b4 it got to Britain.
Christianity predate any British indoctrination or misuse of the bible U alluding to.
There were 4 African kingdoms who embraced Christianity as their national religion as far back as 300 AD, this was b4 britian knew anything about jesus or the bible.
Kingdom of Aksum in modern day Ethiopia, kingdoms of Alodia, Makuria and Nobartia in modern day Sudan were Christian nations as far back as 4th century AD.
These were people of ancient Nubians regarded as black with darker skin tone than yours.

So this idea that Britain brought Christianity to Africa is nothing but outright ignorance.

Father Athanasius, and father Augustine who championed the Nicene creed were African berbers. Father Tertullian the first person to coin the word Trinity was also an African amazigh.

Father Origen who played a major role in choosing the new testament books to be canonised was Coptic xtian from Africa.

Britian on the other hand contributed nothing in the development of Christianity or it's core doctrines except translation of the bible to English KJV which has now become inconsequential due to so many errors in it.
They simply handed it to others the same way it was delivered to them.

U guys will come here and start shouting Africans should know their history but it's so obvious u should be the one learning your root and understanding the role of ancient Africa in the development and advancement of Christianity.

Finally the so called corruption of the people is just the newest route to justify rebellion against God, nothing more.
Despite the noise about unreliability of the gospel books, nobody has been able to produce the reliable copy of the gospel.
All the extant manuscripts we keep discovering everyday continues to point towards the preservation of the core Christian belief.
No extant manuscripts says Jesus is not the saviour or he is not crucified or not the son of God...none.

U guys continued to be misled and misguided by bible scholars into believing the unsubstantiated claim of bible unreliability BUT let me show U what 2 great new testament scholars have to say about the gospel- Bart ehrman and Bruce Metzger.

“Bruce Metzger is one of the great scholars of modern times, and I dedicated the book to him because he was both my inspiration for going into textual criticism and the person who trained me in the field. I have nothing but respect and admiration for him. And even though we may disagree on important religious questions – he is a firmly committed Christian and I am not – we are in complete agreement on a number of very important historical and textual questions. If he and I were put in a room and asked to hammer out a consensus statement on what we think the original text of the New Testament probably looked like, there would be very few points of disagreement – maybe one or two dozen places out of many thousands. The position I argue for in ‘Misquoting Jesus’ does not actually stand at odds with Prof. Metzger’s position that the essential Christian beliefs are not affected by textual variants in the manuscript tradition of the New Testament.”

Bart Ehrman (Misquoting Jesus, p. 252)

Allah is the arabic name for God, same as Elohim is the hebrew word for God. Elaha is the aramaic word for God while the yoruba name for God is Olorun. In english language, a supreme deity is called God; in greek its Theos, in spanish its Dios, in french its Dieu, in swedish its Gud , in italian its Dio, in japanese its kami, in german its Gott, in igbo its chukwu and it goes on and on

These names can be applied to any supreme deity in their respective language, they are generic literary name for God not personal names. Any relgious adherent can apply these names to his deity in whatever language he/she speaks, it doesn't mean they are the same God.

The problem is the muslims colonised the arabic name for God and insist its the personal name of their own supreme deity, that means the name the muslim deity gave himself is Allah. That's his actual name- Allah.

Meanwhile the personal name for the bible deity is YHVH which means I am that I am. The God of Abraham calls himself 'I am that I am'.
When God revealed himself to mankind, he called himself 'I am that I am' In Yoruba this will mean 'Emi ni ti n je emi ni'- I WILL BE WHO I WILL BE. THIS DENOTES THAT U CAN ONLY DEFINE GOD BY HIMSELF AND NOT THROUGH ANY OTHER THING because HE'S THE SOURCE OF EVERYTHING. OUTSIDE HIM, THERE'S NOTHING. THAT'S THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THAT NAME.

Now as we can see, its obvious that the christian God and the muslim God are not the same.
One claimed his personal name is Allah. The Bible God says his personal name YHVH- I am that I am
The muslim deity claimed his name is derived from arabic vocabulary and language, the bible God is telling us his name is underived from any source but his own self.
The muslim deity is telling us he has a created name- derived from creation, the bible God tells us his name is uncreated and cannot be derived from anything else outside of him.

IT'S ONLY COMMON SENSE TO ACKNOWLEDGE THEY CAN'T BE THE SAME GOD.
IT'S NOTHING PERSONAL BUT APPLICATION OF COMMON SENSE.

Lucifyre:
And no evil in xtainity, like there are isn't human rituals & scarifice, cultic rituals, genocide, infanticide, incest, sexual assualt, rape, blood and death magic. Pot meet kettle.

and if I ASK U for evidence of above in christianity, wahala go dey and that's when waffling will start

TRUMP HAS NOW IMPOSED 35% TARIFF ON CANADIAN EXPORT TO THE USA.

Canadians voted for Carney with the illusion that he could navigate Trump's policies. It has become clear that Carney doesn't have the political skillset to navigate us through these trying times.

Sure, Carney is an economist, but that doesn't hold water when you have a president like Trump that is redefining economics: Everything Carney learned through higher education won't help him deal with Trump's version of economics.

Canada needs a seasoned politician who is pragmatic and willing to break free from personal political ideologies. That means letting go of utopian, pie-in-the-sky policies which hinder development of canada key export-- natural resources.

Unfortunately, Carney is not that politician: His personal ideology has proven to clash with the expansion of natural resources, and most importantly, will discourage foreign investment: Canada will not be able to out-compete the U.S. In the meantime, under Carney, Canada will be left playing defence at a significant cost to Canadians.

And for Carney to think his idea of granting Palestine statehood is a brilliant idea in the midst of trade negotiation with america shows lack of tact and high level of diplomatic incompetence on his side. It would seem prudent when negotiating trade deals not to offend the one you are dealing with. Tough Carney is not only not tough but not wise either.

Carney, the Great Negotiator, in reality seems to be the Great Pretender. All the people who voted for Carney because of the propaganda that he would be best to handle tariffs and Trump must be shocked by this outcome. Now we have the same old Liberal debt, immigration problem, bloated government, poor green policy, etc and higher tariffs.

It's like some people don't think at all.
The most dangerous bill to push around right now is any form of indigenization bill.

With Fulani herdsmen running rampant, U want to push for a bill that will make them indigenes and have legal/native right to seize lands!!!!!

U guys better be careful. That's how Ironsi enforced unification decree despite public outcry against it. The aftermath is what Nigeria is suffering today.

WritterNg:
Okay let them pay off their country's debt na. E no suppose hard.

Rich only on computer screen. Something wey be say only one tweet from one influential person fit wipe out 60% of their so called wealth. That one na money?

Can anything wipe off the $100 trillion resources beneath Russia's soil? Diamond, Gold, Silver, Uranium, Lithium, Oil, Gas, Paladium, Zinc and other precious rare earth metals.

Oga rest. 100 trillion dollar of mineral wealth is also an illusion.
If all the minerals beneath Russian soil is mined today, their value will drop. Imagine pumping extra 10 million barrels of crude oil n bringing to an already oversaturated market, oil price will drop to like 20-30 dollars per barrel. Same for all other commodities u mentioned.
That's why we have organisations like OPEC that controls oil price by limiting amount of crude oil available for market.
The value of those minerals in the ground is meaningless, it's their market value on the surface that matters.

RodgersAkpafu:
You can tell from the comments people make, when they don't have A FULL GRASP of what they are talking about

When U are ready to see the reality, let me know.

By the time China finally decimates the European auto industry with their emerging fast and furious EV industry, it will game over for Europe.

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/britain-is-now-broke/

https://www.reuters.com/investigations/how-chinas-new-auto-giants-left-gm-vw-tesla-dust-2025-07-03/

America will not pay back that debt. America has no means to pay back. It's way too late for that already.

America will continue to print the dollar to sustain their debt until the dollar implodes and becomes useless.
This is the reason America is threatening BRICS nation members who wants to ditch the dollar.

The western world imperialistic tendencies have caught up with them, coupled with unrealistic state welfare burden...they are in financial trouble. Only Australia is stable for now.
Europe and America simply do not have the resources to continue living like one wealthy nation anymore. It's high time they face reality and stop behaving like they are rich.

And when u consider they have lost manufacturing to china, a significant part of their pastime economy...it's so obvious the possibility of a comeback is NIL.

Lucifyre:
😄 So wait let me get this straight, you chicken out from a convo cause you couldn't answer simple straightforward questions. Just to come bk to it after a long time, only cause you were called out for been a chicken. Quoted me everywhere and still didn't give any sembalnce of an answer despite the numerous quotes. Time passes again and you quote me yet again, still no semblance of an answer but vague pics from nameless sources.

Anyways humor me one more time let's see if the same scenario plays out. It should be easy to answer the questions from my comment you quoted. So I'll paste it here for you to answer. 😁 4 simple questions, 4 simple answers.

(...why not show us in Isaiah 53:

Where Jesus is mentioned by name as the messiah or even anywhere,

Or Jesus’ children, according to Isaiah 53:10,

Or where he repents of sin,

Or where he dies multiple times, all according to Isaiah 53?

Or is he scared of dying multiple times to fulfill his other failed prophecy about his return? 😂

Surely, you'd be able to point out these things easily from Isaiah 53 if it’s not the typical Christian selective renegotiating retcon. Typical circus act, Tick tock.)

I responded to your waffling, go and check; but the problem is I'm allergic to claims lacking in evidence and that's what your posts are all about. I may or may not answer.

Demanding that I show U the name of Jesus in the old testament is a desperate attempt at clutching at straws.

Anyway Louis Pasteur greets U.

Lucifyre:
Typical circular reasoning, unverifiable belief, and selective readings which, ironically, all back up my point. Quoting Isaiah 59:2 and then using that to define sin as “separation from God” is laughable. What kind of tautology is that? It’s like saying: “Mosquitoes cause malaria, therefore malaria is a mosquito.” lol! Not that I care anyway, you can define it however you want. It still doesn't change the fact of what I said about what it is, which is why it's applied nowhere else except in religious contexts, thankfully.

Then next, you drop a chart from an unverified, anonymous source (likely lifted from an apologetics site) and call it “evidence,” even though it shows what I’ve said from the start: basically a non-unified, inconsistent, and evolving interpretive tradition — the typical and massive retcon. Even the idea that "no Jew interpreted Isaiah 53 as Israel until 1000 AD" is a popular fat Christian lie that is verifiably false as scholars like John Collins, Mark Smith, Adele Berlin, James Kugel and Fishbane amongst many other scholars - some of which are even xtain - document.

Your source which expectedly shall not be named, shows rabbis as much as xtains disagreeing about whether the servant is Israel, a prophet, the messiah, or someone else entirely, with the dominant view being Israel. So how does that confirm divine clarity? Again tour very own source shows absolutely none of them — zero, zilch, nada — expecting the messiah to be crucified, resurrected, dieing for sins or that it's Jesus. Didn’t your own scriptures say “God is not the author of confusion”? Because what you're citing is pure biblical confusion.

So your weak attempt at a bait-and-switch is a task failed successfully. Even your chart never names Jesus, just like Isaiah 53 doesn’t. But “servant” is clearly and repeatedly named as Israel in Isaiah Ch 41–49: “But you, Israel, my servant.” So for Isaiah 53 to suddenly shift to a Jesus who is named nowhere, not even in the Hebrew Bible as a whole, is the exact type of massive retcon of selectively applying and discarding the text in a subjective manner to renegotiate and reinterpret it only xtainity and its numerous denoms are capable of.

No surprise then that you guys can’t even agree on what you call “truth” or “evidence,” which is quite laughable for something supposedly divinely revealed. Truth must be objective, verifiable, observable, demonstrable, and falsifiable. Truth is truth regardless of belief or acceptance. None of these apply to your joke called “truth,” which is why it’s not widely accepted the world over as the truth and luckily never will be.

There’s only one standard of truth accepted regardless of race, location, belief, acceptance, culture, etc. Christianity will factually never be it, except all xtains can objectively agree which would obviously never happen. So instead of performing mystical dodges, why not show us:

Where Jesus is mentioned by name as the messiah anywhere,

Or Jesus’ children, according to Isaiah 53:10,

Or where he repents of sin,

Or where he dies multiple times?

Or is he scared of dying multiple times to fulfill his other failed prophecy about his return? 😂

Surely, you'd be able to point out these things easily from Isaiah 53 if it’s not the typical Christian selective renegotiating retcon. Typical circus act, Tick tock.

Luciferi how are U
Isaiah 53 greets U......

sonmvayina:
Isaiah 53 is about a suffering servant.
8 times prior to Isaiah 53, Isaiah told you who the servant is. For example in Isaiah 45:1-7, with attention to verse 4 it says

4 For the sake of My servant Jacob, and Israel My chosen one, and I called to you by your name; I surnamed you, yet you have not known Me.

So why will it mean something else 8 chapters later. Why would God lie? You don't seem to get it do you? You really don't want to learn. Isaiah 53 is a soliloquy. This is what the kings of the earth will say when they see the redemption of Israel. It is the kings of the earth that is talking......
You really need to learn it.

Argue with your rabbinical scholars

Osimhen should get the chip of his block and stay humble, for a world class player he's not there yet.

One fantastic season with middle rated club isn't enough. U have to be consistent with winning and U have e to do it with a big team. That guy really needs to work on his character.

Osimhen should get good management team who will handle him both on and off the pitch. And while that's going on, he should learn from Mo Salah

Comparing him to Vinicius jnr makes no sense at all.