₦airaland Forum

@dudu-bobo,

I have just taken some minutes to read some other posts by TayoD. He seems to be absolutely in love with anything that is white or pro-west and quick to denounce anything that is non-white or against western propaganda.

Or am I missing a point?

You are obviously missing my point. I am against racism, be it against a black man or agaisnt a white man. Take a closer look at those who are shouting white racsim here and you will find out that they are actually racist too. That is my point. You don't fight racism with racism.

While in Nigeria, I employed Hausa, Igbos and Yorubas without any thought to their tribe. I even provided scholarships to 2 hausa boys who showed keen interests in education but without the resources to pursue their dreams. The first time the thought of ethnicity came to my mind was when my Driver, who was yoruba, commented that he was surprised how openly, freely and closely I relate with people of different cultures, and even employ them without giving prefernce to yorubas.

It is that same attitude I have here. I do not judge people based on the colour of their skin, their ethnicity or nationality. It is the discriminatory WAZOBIA mentality that many Nigerians have, that they have translated to their world-view and thus think anything or anyone different than them must be evil and bad. It would be good if we can set sentiments aside and deal with issues and facts as they are.

Tornadoz accused me of belittling the efforts of people like Jesse Jackson and Rev Sharpton. that is simply not true. That I criticise Obasanjo does not mean I belittle his efforts. I just feel some things they are doing are wrong and will need to be corrected. I did mention some Black leaders who have the same goals as they do but with different approaches that I believe are much better. So accusing me of being anti-black is simply a slap on the face of truth.

@Ocho cinco,

ocho cinco:
Hehehehe

Tayo-D no mind them.

Your politics might stink
but you be fine boy jare.

You've lost me here o. Are we discussing politics or racism?!

Thanks for the compliment.

@degoat,

I need not dignify you with a direct response to your barrage of insults. Your name already tells me what kind of person you are.

@Mamajama,

What's the fuss about my pixs. I have absolutely nothing to hide. Let anyone eat their eats out. Whatsoever is manifest is light!

Afam,

Why do you assume so much? On what basis would you say I am not speaking my mind? I don't lobby for a living, so I have the liberty to say what I mean and mean what I say.

I would have refered you to go see a pastor or Imam for deliverance, but I guess you will start hollering a religious bigot as you've done before!

@Afam,

What do we now call TayoD, I-man & Davidylan?

Shey you've started again? You choose to get hung upm on personalities and not deal with issues. Dem swear personality attachment for you? Abeg try see your compatriot Orji Kalu, maybe hin go carry you go Okija shrine make dem wash dat curse commot for your head.

@Big B1,

maybe I am a little harsh on you. But go back and check what you wrote and you will see why I am quick to denounce you as racist. Not only did you come out here to tarnish the image of this fine gentle man called O'Reilly, you recently made this statement: "You're absolutely correct, but the different is the fact that whites still represent the powerful majority. And if we are successful fighting for our rights against the whites, trust me, the rest (Arabs, Indians and Chinese) will just be side attractions." This shows that you refer to everyone without a black skin to be racist. Aint you now guilty of that which you are quick to condemn.

In anycase, Prizm did a fine job in bringing your attention to the shallowness of your argument. And the link you provided is nothing short of propaganda with selective snapshots at some of his statements without providing the context in which they were made.

You might call him a racist, but you have not provide a convincing basis for that. If anything, O'reilly has been fighting for and bringing attention to the destructive culture in the Black community which many of the so-called black leaders are ignoring. He may be White, but that does not make him less qualified to talk about the things he's seen and witnessed. Don't judge him by the colour of his skin. I can assure you that the same thing he said has been said by some Black leaders with no one asking for their jugular!

@big B1,

And who is this black racist?

take a look in the mirror and you will find him staring back at you.

@donnie,

That was good reasoning but beg to say that there is more to those verses than has been revealed to you.

I hear you. There is so much more I am yet to say about this topic. I am only taking it one step at a time.

Prov.  30:4.  very well depicts the characteristics of the Word of God.

So is that an acknowledgement that the personality of the Son of God was well dinstinguished, separate and acknowledged even in the OT? Can you now tell lysaa as I have that she was wrong in her earlier submission?

Whereas Acts 2 and Ps 110 which you quoted do not support the point you are trying to put foward.

I do not agree. The passage clearly distinguish between the Father and the Son. Can you recall when Jesus refered to this scripture in the NT, and how He made the people understand that the personality here was not just a human but divine? Jesus clearly made a case for His existence and individuality within the union we refer to as the Godhead from that scripture. This again is in the OT.

The above verses of scripture you quoted from the book of psalms were prophetic writings.

Every Word of God is prophetic.

If you will study the book of psalms you will notice that the pslmist a lot ot times spoke concerning the future, manytimes rejoicing as though he were there already.

Agreed. But He took a glimpse into eternity and not just time. And the fact remains that the personality of the son is clearly recognised in the OT.

With those particular verses, he spoke concerning the victorious resurrection of Jesus from the dead and his assension into heaven; not what you are trying to bring foward. It  talks about his corronation at the right hand of the father as king of kings and Lord of Lords to whom hath been given that name that is above all names.

While what you are saying is true, it still does not debunk the veracity of my claim. Let me explain further. What David witnessed was God the Father prophecying to God the Son. David did not witness the event. he was not trasported into the future to see it, but rather witnessed the Father speaking to the Son on His programme for Him. Read that entire psalm 110 again, and you will see that they are all just prophecies made by the Father to His Son. David only listened in on that conversation at that time.

The father asks His son Jesus to sit  at his right hand of authority and power until His enemies are made His footstool (ie. until they are completely put under the feet of the church).

Like I said before, all these were just prophesies. The sitting down had not taken place then. The Son was yet to become flesh and dwell amongst us at the time these words were spoken. This provides more validation to my point.

Jesus is still there at the right hand of the father ensuring that the will of God is accomplished through us who are his seed, prolonging his days in the earth.

This does not take anything away from my point.

A parallel scripture is found in Acts 13:33 : God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.

You are delving into areas that are much deeper than you can imagine. this scripture is refering to the humanity of Christ and not His deity. His deity has always been the Son of God, his humanity had to be anointed to become the Son of God, which took place after His resurrection from the dead and ascension into heaven. this will be left for another discussion as I wouldn't want to derail this topic.

Jesus was the first to be born again (born from among the dead). He is the first beggoten from the dead. He  was raised up to heaven and we were raised with Him. He is seated at the right of the father and we are there in Him glory!

Again, you are speaking of His humanity here and not His deity.

By the way, did you read Psalm 2 as i requested?

@Big B1,

This topic is about a white racist (Bill O'Reilly), not all racists.

So we should crucify a man for racism based on the accusation by a Black racist. How interesting!

@Burantashi,

If any of you think these three guys (davidylan, I-man and Tayo-D )would see sense, then you are mistaken. Look at  their post and  you will know that these are people with inferiority complex. The white man has been so good to them, these are people with Christian scholarships. These people are different from us that worked hard to get here.

These people are pointless collection of body parts. Ignore them.

Your problem is that you assume too much. This is compounded by your arrogance which you need in order to write rubbish, albeit boldly. You have contributed nothing significant to the argument other than to spew out your ignorance.

I don't know how hard you work, but I work hard too, and I did not get any scholarship from no White man.  I not only work hard however, I work smart and I'm blessed of the Lord, not by any man - black or white. If you choose to see life in black and white, we against them mentality, then I can imagine the poor quality of life you are living.

I am not too surprised however by this posture, it is the same mentality causing the backwardness we see in naija. The local WAZOBIA mentality is the same that is carried over in your world view that has translated to a White-Black dichotomy. Grow up my man. When martin Luther King declared that he wanted his children to grow up in a society where they will not be judged by the colour of their skin but by the content of their character, he definitely didn't want his children, albeit the black race to judge others by the colour of their skin either!

@Big B1,

Nobody is against white or being white; we are only denouncing white racist.

That's the difference between us two. While you are only after White racists, I am after ALL racists.

@Denex,

No! It will not be safe. Because the only reason you'll be saying any such thing about me is because I'm not white.

It is obvious you only see things in black and white. You need to get yourself some Plasma TV. Times have changed men, get rid of that black and white TV you are still glued to.

@Ziddy,

I-man, Davidylan & Tayo-D are 'white men in black skin'

So what is wrong with white men?

@Denex,

And they are not just anti-Arab and anti-African, they are anti-Anything-not-white.

My guy, I would have been surprised if I had read anything short of what you wrote up here. This pro-this, pro-that is just another face of racism that you are guitly of. Now that you have called us pro-white, I guess it is safe to say that you are anti-white.  Doesn't that make you a racist? If you consider us anti-Anything-not-white, will it be safe to say you must be anti-Anything-white? Who is the racist here!

@rookie,

Well, it took an open mind for me to really see that the Blacks are really more racists than the Whites. I mean, I came into this country thinking the other way round. Granted that Blacks have suffered a great deal in this country, but it still doesn't take away the fact that the black community is largely more guilty of that which they condemn in others. Racism in any guise is a bad thing and we must be careful to make sure that we are not guilty of that which we condemn.

But if I may ask, how does this constant shout of racism help our people? If anything, it gives them a victim mentality, and you cannot be a conqueror when you have confined yourself to being a perpetual victim. Bring attention to their inner strength, encourage them to embrace education, change the destructive culture and bring them to the understanding that they cannot hope to build a great community by thinking their neighbour is out to get them just becuase he has a white skin.

@rookie,

Thanks for being so articulate and respectful in making your points. this is what many find difficult to do. let me now address the issues you raised.

In the past I have taken up several arguments like yours, but later on realised that prejudice against black and African Americans in the US was a little more intricate, and it a little more than a naive mind to see it.

I never for once said there is no racism in America. my point is that I believe the blacks are even more racists than the whites. I have dealt with both people and my conclusion is based on both observation and experience!

I can recall a lot of times when I told by different caucacians that I carried myself a lot better than the average black man, I thought it was a complement -- far from it-- This is nothing but a prejudicial statement based on stereotype. It's more like someone telling you that the rest of your sibling are animals except you. Most of the stereotype against black people should largely be blamed on illitracy, ignorance, and lack of orientation etc. People fromany race may exhibit these traits.

You are quite right, but you make it sound as if those guys who complemented you either lied about their experience with Blacks or are just plain racist. You will need to confirm each person's experience to know what what is the case. You shouldn't put yourself in danger of making a conclusion of the entire White race just based on what you perceive as their intentions. I've had very bad experiences with African Americans here as well, and this had absolutely nothing to do with any White man.

Hopefully, this attitude will bring you to a realization soon that racism abound in the US and Bill O'reilly is no saint either.

Like I said earlier, I know racism exists in the U.S., just as tribalism is a menace in naija. However, I am yet to be convinced that the Whites are more racist than the Blacks. Bill O'Reilly is no Saint - who is? But I appreciate his effort at making a difference despite his situation. It's so difficult for Whites to make any comment about the Black community, however honest and sincere that comment may be. you stand in danger of being misunderstood and your words twisted. It seems some just find relevance in reading racism into everything.

NOTE: As long as you are black in the US you are largely part of the black\African American society, regardless of whether you are African or what have you. The sooner you accept this the better.

I have no problem with this. So far, I've not being limited by my colour, but by the content of my character and abilities. Many cry racism these days just so as to cover up their deficiencies in these areas. That's my point.

@ricadelide,

Maybe its another person, this one's name seems to be spelt differently

Yep. I guess it is another one. I just hope it is another one of a different kind, and not another one of the same kind! _{Go figure!}

@Big B1,

Nothing left for me to say; you're right.

If you say so.

@topic,

I see what other kind-hearted preachers like Pastor Adeboye, Kumuyi and T B Josuah do for the poor and needy.

This just isn't right. How can you use these 3 people in one sentence. There is one chaff amongst that wheat!

@Big B1,

Pure juvenile experience!

This eloquently sums you up!

@buruntashi,

Who said your forefathers were sold into slavery? This was what I said "your forefathers sold their forefathers."

Now if your forefathers were involved in selling others into slavery, you do not have to assume the same for others.

I don't think they need lectures from the likes of you, they've been in the race relations industry for over 40yrs.

I am not lecturing them. I am smart enough to know that their approach is not helping the black community at all. other immigrants are coming into the United States and doing far better than the native African-Americans. Why is this so? Doesn't this speak volumes to the fact that those who are leading them are leading them on the path to self-destruction?

@Big B1,

FYI: Most white men (especially in the south) are being very cautious with their actions and how they treat blacks, not because of you Tayo-D, but because of folks like Rev Sharpton and Jesse Jackson.

Americans respect each others not becuase of race, but due to their moral compass whcih most times are upheld by the law. The fear of Jesse jackson or Sharpton is not the beginning of wisdom.

Yes, Rev Sharpton and Jesse Jackson are not perfect, but do not let us get things twisted.

I do not expect perfection from anyone talkless of these two. However, their efforts while partially solving some problems is creating another huge one. You need to understand that many upcoming leaders in the black community are breaking ranks with them because of the negative effects of their efforts.

My man, you have a lot to learn.

At least I am learning through reading and experience. I can not say that much about you.

@Buruntashi,

With your intelligence you should remember your forefathers sold their forefathers.

With your intelligence as well, you would know that they never sold my forefathers to slavery. I was born and bred in naija. My forefathers never left the African shore. In any case, do you sold racism with racism?

When the likes of Jackson and Sharpton were fighting racism you were probably in elementary school in Ibadan, now these people have paved the way for you to live a cushy life in America, you're now blaming them for racism. Stop biting the finger that fed you. When African American were fighting racism where were you? now they are your enemies. This is exactly the aim of the racist.

There is a right way and wrong way to fight the scourge of racism. I understand that doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result is sheer madness. these guys efforts keep dividing and not uniting the country. Others like Bill Cosby and Tyler Perry are doing a better job. Please don't misunderstand my criticms of their efforts as a lack of initiative on their part.

@Big B1,

What is your point?
Are you calling me a falsifier?

Any intelligent person only need to listen to the report and discover that Bill O'Reilly was actually praising and encouraging changes in culture of the African-americans. He is not one to shy away from controversial topics and call a spade, a spade. Despite the fact that Rev sharpton was his good acquaintance, he made it clear, and i agree with him that the likes of Rev Sharpton and Jesse Jackson are actually propagating a racially divided America. You have taken his words out of context and twisted it to fit your racial bias.

And who exactly are these people?

Perhaps you need to identify them by first looking in the mirror. Aint you the same one who just called someone here a RED NECK halfwit. He represents pure white American dross.? is your memory that short?

It is clear to me that your American experience is not vivid enough. My man, you have a lot to learn; and I'm sure that with time you will get there.

Don't you think you assume too much? You sit down wherever, and claim to know more than those with experiential knowledge! How arrogant! And by the way, you used the word "vivid" wrongly in that sentence, but in any case I still got experience. What do you have?

@Big B1,

I hope to see his despicable show cancelled.

Dream on brother. It aint going to happen. O'Reilly is one of very few people in the News Business that I believe presents facts and analyse on that basis. Men like him are few and his following is increasing by the day.

In any case, I am sure we will find the report you allude to to be false. Just like all the hype against Ophra that was nothing but lies.

Many of you sit down from afar and say the Whites in America are racist. Well let me tell you my experience. The biggest racists in America today are the Blacks. Ask anyone who has lived in America for a while and who is honest. They'll tell you exactly what I am saying.

@donnie,

According to the MOG, he dosnt have the grace for politics and besides, he wouldnt like such a demotion.

Can you please explain what you mean by the highlighted statement. I believe the statement is yours and not Oyahks. He knows the scriptures better than to make such unfounded statement.

Every calling of God is a High Calling. A person called to be a pastor does not have a better calling to one called to be a business man, or vice versa. The Bible teaches that your government is in authority over you and your pastor, so tell me who is subservient to whom!

@Purist,

This is one relevant question that I once used to ponder on sometimes ago.

I think many of us here are looking at this from an entirely different perspective.  If you understand the poster's question very well, you'll notice that he's not actually asking 'why' animals experience birth pains - in respect of the naturalness of the phenomenon; but he's asking 'why' - in respect of what the Bible tells us on the real cause of Birth pains.  Allow me to expound on his question:

Since the Bible tells us that Birth Pains is one of the woman's punishments for eating out of the forbidden fruit, then why do animals - who did not eat out of the fruit - also suffer birth pains, if we're to really go by what the Bible tells us?

Of course, I understand perfectly the scientific (logical, actually) explanation given for this, which is the most rational explanation for the cause of birth pains.  But this explanation renders the Biblical explanation completely invalid, hence absolutely impertinent, and consequently, making the Holy Book seem unreliable.

So, anyone to elucidate this?

Let me attempt to provide you with some answers. I am surprised also that many have not addressed the core issue raised by the Poster.

I am not surprised by the birth pains experienced by animals. The NT clearly states this obvious facts in Romans 8: 19 For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God. 20 For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope, 21 Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. In other words, the fall of man affected everything under the dominion of man.

My understanding of the Bible suggests that before the fall, animals could speak and were all herbivores. The fall of man caused things to change such that the animals are now against man and some eat flesh. All this will be corrected in the millenial kingdom where the Bible teaches that lion and th lamb will lie down together with none eating the other. So you see, Adam's fall reached and affected a lot of things, even in heaven. That is why we are told in scipture that the blood of Jesus was needed to purify things in heaven as well. Hebrews 9:23 - It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.

@Jen33,

'Jesus' promised in several places that he would return before the end of the lifetimes of those he was addressing.

Several places hen? Please provide more refernces to butress your point. Abi na lie you dey float?

''Truly I say unto you. Many standing here will not taste of death before the son of man comes in the clouds, ''

That was over 2000 years ago. I can imagine many who dropped all they were doing back then to follow him based on that promise must have felt sorely disappointed and let down (and lied to) as they clocked 95 years and still no sign of ''the lord''.

You will need to understand what the Bibl;e refers to as death before you can appreciate what Jesus said here. He does not mean just physical death but spiritual one. Any christian who dies does not experience death as use in this scripture. So get your understanding straightened out.

@debosky,

debosky:
sad, sad story. This is one issue I agree with the Catholic Church about, there is a war on the family unit from all sides because it is the foundation of a good society.

While your statement in bold is quite true in the social sense, it grossly underestimates what is going on. From a spiritual perspective, we are sure the affront against marriage is nothing but a manifestation of the spirit of the antichrist. I'll explain.

You see, God created marriage mainly to provide a physical representation of the union between Christ and the Church. In other words, every time marriage takes place, 'Christ" is being propagated and mimicked. Now that the full manifestation of that evil one that opposes anything Christ is near, you can expect war on anything and everything that represents Christ - marriage inclusive. The truth is the more the Christ is present, the more difficult the anti-christ can manifest, and that is why we are told in the NT that it will take the taking away of the restrainer before the anti-christ can fully manifest.  That is one of the reasons why I believe every Christian must be raptured for this event to take place - never mind those who preach that your rapture is dependent on your works. Anyway, I digress a little bit but I believe you get my point.

@topic,

Okay I am back, albeit with a new user name. No thanks to the Obatanlapitipiti of nairaland. I was banned for bringing attention to his hypocrisy on the topic about King David.

@lysaa,

There were manifestations of Christ in the OT but the person of Jesus, separate from the Father, was revealed in the NT. And yes again, there are places in the bible where Christ was not used in reference to the person of Jesus but to the anointing. I made this clear when I said Christ was interchangeably used giving few examples.

I want to be careful in response to your statements so that we do not get bogged down with semantics. In that regard, I think you have provided a good basis for this discussion to progress. The question is this: "Is the person of Jesus (not his humanity) clearly dinstict from that of the Father and the Holy Spirit in the OT? The answer to that is absolutely YES. And if that is the case, your statement in bold above is very, very wrong. Once we can establish the dinstict personality called the Son of God, we can then go on to determine if He is the one refered to as the Angel of the Lord in the OT.

There are many scriptures in the OT that clearly dinstinguish the person of Jesus (I use that name loosely to refer to the second member of the Godhead). The appropriate title I believe, should be the "Son of God". We find a lot of that in the Psalms, but I'd like to start with the reference in Proverbs 30:4 - Who has gone up to heaven and come down? Who has gathered up the wind in the hollow of his hands? Who has wrapped up the waters in his cloak? Who has established all the ends of the earth? What is his name, and the name of his son? Tell me if you know! This scripture clearly refers to 2 personalities which I'm sure you'll agree are the Father and the Son of God (Jesus).

There are so many references in the Psalms. Perhaps you want to start with Psalm 2 which is very clear about the personality of the Son. Maybe the most famous reference in the Book of Psalms is the one that reveals the conversation between both personalities. This I already referenced before now with no rebuttal from your end. This scripture clearly indicates that David enjoyed the priviledge of listening into a discourse between the Godhead. This discussion is recorded in Psalms 110:1 The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool. Again it is clear that the personalities here are the Father and the Son and Peter confirmed this in the NT also by claiming that this personality is actually the Jesus that was crucified and risen - Acts 2: 34 For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, 35 Until I make thy foes thy footstool. 36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.

How clearer can this be?