₦airaland Forum

yeanka007:
Hello nairalanders, I Have learned a lot of things from Nairalanders and laugh many times from some funny contributions.

Let me move straight to the point, late I have noticed a strange change in me by the way my dick erect every time I woke up, I knew you would said it is normal but this every time even if I slept for 15 minutes be it night or afternoon. There was a day I was embarrassed in the office. It happened that I fall asleep for just 10 minutes, a lady that comes to our office woke me and I get up, alaaass!!!! My dick was full erected. The lady saw it, she sighs"hmmm" and I asked her why hmmm. She replied me mockingly "How are you having sex in your dream?" Her question got me angry that I reply her mockingly "It's you that am having sex with, rubbish".

Please guys How can I stop this erect or what is causing this.

The bolded part is irrelevant

Ymodulus:
Let me be honest, my reply might sound harsh or inconsiderate


But things like this makes me say to myself why not take the life of such an individual than allow that person go on suffering in life?

It's not worth it. I feel for her but she shouldn't be allowed to go through this..

And someone tells me there is a God.


Qoute me to insult me I won't reply you.

This is how I know that nothing good can come out of an average atheist. These people lack sense of fuckiñg morality.

This guy is suggesting it would be better to kill that woman without considering her own free will and rights to life.

Just look at the smile on that woman's face...and this nigga even thought of..God! I don't even know what to say again

nairaman66:
Everything is down in Nigeria!

My sis schools in UK, she said she experienced the same problem too, so...

TV01:
Please spend more time around these parts - I don't have time I'd like, and they are always trying to slip their poison in. I feel like I know you? And not just from that first encounter. You remind me of someone whose presence I really enjoyed around here. Ihe, where are you?


No you are not, and no you won't. Mindflness, is it not you? Leave it.


TV

Lol that was our first encounter bro

Nawao! Does this guy know they you've posted his picture on NL?

I've never had an F so far oh... God should please help me continue like that till I finish

TV01:
...her religion centres around her happiness and gives leave to any selfish act in pursuit of that - regardless of who is hurt.

It also lacks an objective morality, causing her to have concerns, without really being able to make judgement calls. Hence, she is often confused, which is quite funny to behold .

She loves posing, but not answering questions, and frequently revises her positions. She loves to blaspheme against the God of the bible, as it makes her feel better about her wicked ways. Understand that and you have her cornered.

I'd say this is an apt description of many atheists in general (at least the ones I've met on NL). No need to introduce her character to me; none of these atheist debaters are worth taking note of personally (Apparently, she's given up sef). Unless one of them goes beyond their usual tactic of removing parts of the Bible from their contexts and using those parts as basis for their [pointless] arguments, he/she's not going to make any lasting impression in my memory; I'd probably forget them after this debate. And at least let them just have in mind that some of us Christians are actually [more] educated and knowledgeable [than them].

As for me, I was born to argue

EVA, CAN I SEE BEES IN A CAVE?

Mindfulness:
The laws were made because the same set of people who made these laws considered non-virgins not worth of marrying even when they lost their virginity by force....

Yet they are protecting these non virgins by forcing the rapist/seducer to take social responsibility of what they've brought upon to those girls. It is their culture that gave them the mentality of non virgins being unworthy of marriage, and the law was made to compensate that. What do you see wrong there?

Mindfulness:
Whether the girl had a say in all of this or not is highly unlikely as it is her father who decided about her fate.

Nope.

It is more likely for a girl's father to reflect her decision/opinion in this case. Think about it

Think of any reason why a girl's father would support his daughter marrying her rapist (if/when it wouldn't favour her, I.e. when the father is aware that it would be at the detriment of his daughter)...

Now think of the probability of that reason to happen...

Now compare that probability with the probability of other reasons that would make a father disapprove his daughter's marriage to her rapist (this would be like 1:100000000 if you ask me )

After you do this, you'd realise that you are grossly wrong is saying that "whether a girl has a say in this or not is highly unlikely." Because in more cases, the father's decision will more likely reflect that of his daughter's.

Mindfulness:
Anyway.

LOL, I dunno why this made me laff. Anyway, glad we're through with that

Mindfulness:
Don't worry about me. I am fine.

Ok, cool.

Mr. TV01, this still remains the most formal way to welcome someone to NL

https://www.nairaland.com/1582623/boys-night-out-discussions/148#40689047

Mindfulness:
I am glad we have found some common ground and both agree that these laws were made in a totally different historical context.

Whether they are in different historical context or not wasn't our argument bro (even our modern judicial precedents used in courts were made in totally different historical contexts, but wherever they're related, they coexist)...the issue is whether it is forcing a girl to marry her rapist, and my point is that it is not - fortunately, the girl has a way out. It is the rapist who's being forced and doesn't have a say in the matter. My point.

Mindfulness:
Matthew 5:17
17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

What now?

lol I never said he came to abolish the law. To "fulfil a law" is to carry out that law as it is intended/expected.

Jesus did not abolish the moral and ethical laws that had been in effect from the time of Moses. He affirmed and expanded upon those principles, but He said obedience must be from the heart (Matthew 5:21-22, 27-28, 31-32, 33-34, 38-42,
43-44, etc.).

Jesus came to make sure that people obey God's laws so as to follow the intentions that those laws were made in the first place, and not just technical observance. I.e. for instance so that people would stop raping for the main reason that it is bad, and not just for the reason that if they do it, they'd have to pay 50 shekels of silver and claim responsibility for their actions.

Jesus and His disciples did not observe the strict and harsh scribal rules against doing any work on the Sabbath (Matthew 12:1-14 etc.), just as one of those verses punished someone for doing (if you look at the case earlier mentioned, the violator's intention was different from that of Jesus and the disciples who were healing people on the Sabbath). Heck, Jesus even criticised many of those laws (such as when people wanted to stone an adulterer to death).

It was also pointed out many times that Jesus himself is the fulfillment of those laws. (Matthew 26:28 ,
Mark 10:45 , Luke 16:16 , John 1:16 , Acts 10:28 ,
13:39 , Romans 10:4). Thus, the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross ended forever the need for all those barbaric aspects of the OT's ceremonial law. That's what he meant by he came to fulfill them; by sacrificing himself, he has fulfilled the purpose of those laws and there's no need to follow "an eye for an eye" etc. and all those OT laws.

Mindfulness:
This is a public forum. I can post whatever I like.

Aye, you can indeed

But the thing is you have a 1/1000000000000000 chance of getting anything out of this. Your opinion is only open to..well..me..and the few others who opened this thread (and the fewer who read all our posts..and the fewer who read your post and agree with you). My suggestion was merely a cordial advice to stop wasting your time

Politics section oooh

akpos sha...

Mindfulness:
So seducing a virigin and rap.ing her are the same in your understanding?

And still, where is the virgin's say in this or the other verse?

Back then, girls who lost their virginity would have been deemed undesirable for marriage—and in their culture, a woman without a father or husband to provide for her would easily be subject to a life of abject poverty, destitution, and social ostracism. That law was to protect the girl's future, her child and for the rapist/seducer (whichever) to take social responsibility. The point was that if a man has sex with someone, he's responsible for the girl. Some translations of the first verse does not only cover rape (look at the KJV) - it's sex in general. Cos even if it's consensual, the man has left the girl prone to those problems I stated.

In the case of rape, if the girl would refuse, is it now her father that'd agree?? It's believed that they'd unanimously decide.

BTW, what's the point of whining over a law that it was stated Jesus came in the New Testament to correct if there was any harshness or barbarity involved? Did you see them enforcing that in the NT? At best, these OT laws serve historical purposes; God is not telling anybody to follow those particular laws now. Even back when they were enforced, there were cases where those laws were violated and God had mercy on them due to the context of what really happened...So what is your point??

Stop disturbing us with things that don't even matter joor

Czar01:
Lol EXACTLY. That guy in the picture, aethists go report am to police say him wn beat them

Hehe.. they want to argue with scriptures that they don't even understand

Mindfulness:
28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels[c] of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.
Where in this verse, the one before or the one after do you find any sentence saying that the virgin has a choice in all of this?

Guy...learn to read. It's not in the same verse, but it's pertaining to the same law. And I clearly posted the reference in my first post.

Exodus 22:16-17 New International Version (NIV)

“16. If a man seduces a virgin who is not pledged to be married and sleeps with her, he must pay the bride-price, and she shall be his wife. 17. If her father absolutely refuses to give her to him, he must still pay the bride-price for virgins.

Punishment for the rapist bruh....!

Mindfulness:
You have just convinced me that the God Christians believe in is not the God I believe in. The Christian God is a sadistic being who created flawed beings he needs to punish by shedding blood and punishing them in the most barbaric way. The Bible is a collection of extremely disgusting stories.

@red

This is the most idiotic justification I have heard in a long time. So a woman was penetrated forcefully and God knows no better than get her to marry her rapist? I am sure it will heal her trauma.

Another soul who has been deceived by the myopic post of the guy I was responding to.

That verse wasn't specific to rape. The point was that if you have sex with a girl (rape or no rape), you must marry the girl. There are some rapists who would desist from that once they realise that they'd be forced to marry her + pay compensation. And for God's sake, stop saying "get the girl to marry her rapist", the other verse I made reference to gives the choice to the girl's family; it's the rapist who doesn't have a say in this. She can refuse joor...stop being myopic and be wise

Read only the first part of this picture and see if you'd understand what that innocent guy is trying to say...

That's what you myopic aethists do when reading the Bible.

zx870838557:
About 6 months ago, I started a quest to read the entire bible. I just could not accept the barbarism in the book. I feel like I have to do mental gymnastics in order to be a Christian.

This part really says a lot about you, and none of it is good..at all.

If after 6 months of reading this, and you still didn't understand the story and context behind those verses, that does not portray an intelligent person at all. It would actually be better if you haven't yet read through them in detail and you're just an atheist who ran across those verses and decided to point out what's wrong in them.

zx870838557:
1. God forces rape victims to marry the rapist.
(Deuteronomy 22:28-29)

The forceful marriage is in order to punish the rapist; if you rape someone, you must marry her. You also left out the part where the rapist has to pay 50 shekels of silver to the girl's father as compensation. Well I won't blame you cos I know your aim was just to prove the Bible wrong. Exodus 22:16-17 further states that the father of the girl can refuse but the rapist would still pay the sum of money + bride price.

zx870838557:
2. Jeptha sacrificed his child because he made a promise to the LORD.
(Judges 11:29-39)

You seemed to have left out the part where Jeptha wept wept and contemplated, but his daughter honoured his promise to God and she's the one who exhorted him to go on with it. The Bible also possibly conveyes that she wasn't even killed, the sacrifice was to bewail her virginity - Judges 11:39

zx870838557:
3. God killed a guy for NOT striking a prophet.
(1 Kings 20:35-36)

The prophet (directed) someone to smite him so he can use the injury as symbolism for God's message to King Ahab. The person refused for that reason (I.e. to prevent the message from going across). In other words, trying to stop God's message by disobeying Him...he was killed. I'm telling you all this cos I know you didn't read those parts, you just read the particular verses you posted and rushed to NL to report inconsistencies.

zx870838557:
4. God stoned a guy for picking up sticks on a Sunday.
(Numbers 15:32-36)

God carried a stone and threw at a guy...mehn, what Bible were you reading??

Again, you ignored the context and decided to pick out only one part you could make a case out of.

If you just read that part (like you did), at first glance, it looks like he was punished for just picking up sticks. However, if you read the context behind that, you'd find out that the violator's original aim for doing that was to violate the law and rub it in God's face.

God had already shown mercy many times about this issue (working on the Sabbath), at the very beginning of that period-- before this stick-gathering event happened . Some Israelites (probably very many--as implied by Ezekiel 20) violated the ban but God spared their lives, and repeated His warning. All Israel knew that subsequent infractions would be judged according to God's repeated instructions.

zx870838557:
5. God says we are blessed by smashing babies against the rocks.
(Psalms 137:9)

That phrase was mere gloating from the author of Psalm 137 (God did not write Psalms..WTF )

God is not telling Israel to smash the heads of their infants against rocks. Israel was taken captive with their children by the Babylonians in several different invasions.
God is pronouncing judgement upon Babylon for its great sin in showing no mercy when it destroyed Jerusalem and led the Jews captive. God is stating that Babylon will be dealt in the same manner that she treated Israel (according to prophecy). The day is coming when an enemy (will rejoice in its triumph over Babylon, and will be happy in the Slaughter). It was the Medes and Persians that conquered Babylon. She was completely overtaken and ruined by these empires. And just as she rejoiced in destroying Jerusalem and Israel, God says her conquerors will rejoice in destroying her, including her innocent infants.

God is not commanding such barbaric behavior but stating what the future will be for Babylon..

zx870838557:
6. Jesus says we have to hate family members in order to be a Christian.
(Luke 14:26)

In all honesty, I'd see you as an unintelligent person if you can't comprehend this. "Hate" wasn't used in the literal sense, but in the figurative. In the ancient Hebrew language, there wasn't any exact comparative/superlative words for "like", so " hate" was also used to imply "to like less than another". Bottom line: people should love family members less than they love God when necessary.

zx870838557:
7. Jesus sends demons into pigs and drowns them.
(Matthew 8:31-34)

It would have been better to leave the demons in the body of the man they possessed and tortured for 3+ years, right? And spare the pigs who were probably going to be slaughtered soon anyway..right?? Oh, and it's not wrong when humans kill pigs, goats and cows, but it's wrong now because it's Jesus who did it...haha...WOW

Anywaaaaaaaay.... there's still the New Testament, where it was clearly stated that Jesus came to correct the harshness of whatever "barbaric" laws were in the OT, so this just eliminates how many of those shitty attempts you've made in pointing out inconsistencies. Wailing over something that was put in the Bible for historical purposes is just trying too hard...please just stop

zx870838557:
How do you justify this list. I got dozens more.

Dozen more myopic points? Nigga puuuhlease

Waiting for Arrow, Flash and Gotham to continue on January

CharlesPhc:
This little girl is missing.

She was last seen in Cocain village Port Harcourt, Rivers State where she lives with her Aunty.

Any useful information on her whereabout should be sent to the nearest Police Station or call Gloria on 08032726072

Thank you

Release her name please. Someone may see her somewhere looking a little different from she is in the picture and would have to confirm her name from her.

If, upon your death, someone were to take your journal or personal memoirs and add a short description of your death, you would still be considered the author of the biography.

At the time of the writing, Books of the Bible were contained on scrolls. The ending of one Book and the beginning of the next were not clearly delineated, i.e. the end of one Book could appear as the beginning of another Book in a different scroll without hurting the integrity of the text. In modern translations there are many instances where the last verse is considered the first verse of the next chapter in the Jewish text.

Thus, the last chapter of Deuteronomy could as easily be considered the first chapter of Joshua without harming the integrity of the text. It's plausible that Joshua filled that part since God transferred authority over to him after Moses, it could also be someone else - the author has been disputed to be certain others (Ezra, Eliazar or another for different reasons), it wasn't explicitly stated who exactly (Joshua being more plausible tho...because of the reasons stated earlier). However, whoever it was, it was actually implied that another writer completed the story of Moses after his death; 2 Timothy 3:16-17 (where it was stated that the scriptures were subject to divine inspiration, correction and reproof) and Deuteronomy 31:9 (where it was stated that Moses handed over his works to the Levitical priests before his death) + whatever reasons those other writers I mentioned were thought to have recorded it instead of Joshua.

Bottom line is that a different author filled in the part of Moses' death in Deuteronomy 34, but it's not sufficient enough to discredit Moses from being the author of Deuteronomy. Just as the first poster said, it's a theological take and not a historical one to put Moses as the author of the entire Deuteronomy (since it records his death )

BTW, menesheh...if this question was to learn this information, here's your answer. But if you're an aethist who's just trying to point out "inconsistencies" after looking at a single Chapter, just know this isn't going to take you anywhere..trust me

WHAT THE FUÇK!

Did you say Texas Chainsaw Massacre was scary? I watched that movie and I was laughing.

One Missed Call is the scariest movie I've watched oh, I don't care what anyone says.

And yes...it is scarier than SAW I - V

Ok beating up his pregnant wife was too far oh..this may be a lie sef
But actually I would beat anyone who flogs my dog

Nawao..the guys are big nau, so even a large dick would look small compared to the rest of their body

This Vivian...
How are you sure that was her first time?

Fire fighters showed up without water. What were they expecting to do??

OP please stop lying!

Sperm can only survive outside the body for AT MOST an hour. Unless when the guy cums, the woman immediately gets up and runs to a lab to do all those procedures under an hour, it's not going to work.

Where did you ever see the devil as a black guy??

Modified: the guy I quoted, it was a mistake. You said "quote me anywhere" so I did so unconsciously.

I just have 1 msg for you sha...

YOU ARE GOING TO HELL!!