₦airaland Forum

Yes, I can. However, I advise against advertising Agege bread. If you had ever been to the bakeries where it's made, and see how it's prepared, you would never eat it.

Black people aren't inferior to white people. It's a lie you must reject. Life started in Africa,not in the middle East, the supposed birth place of Ham.


The so-called inferiority and lack of progress in some parts of Africa are due to a lack of access to quality education,which is needed for people to become productive and contribute fully to society's progress. When our people travel overseas to study they often excel, even outperforming their white peers in the same schools. This is clear evidence that we aren't under a curse or inferior.

Practices like idolatry and witchcraft aren't exclusive to black people.. White people also engage in them. Involvement in them doesn't make any group of people inferior or unprogressive.

The real curse is to believe that as a black person you are under a curse. Once you believe that, it becomes your reality,making you to think, feel and act inferior in the presence of those you consider superior.

Ok, he said, you may die, not you will die, meaning he isn't sure of what he is saying. But even if he were certain, would it be a guarantee for anyone not to die before the end of the year if they don't mock or criticise pastors?

Destructive cult leaders are the ones known to use curses or any other kind of threat to keep their followers in line .

Jesus whom Adeboye claim to follow prayed for his tormentors and mockers rather than curse them.

"Father, forgive them for they do not know what they are doing". Luke 23:34.

Kingpele:
Thank God that the war is coming to an end if not for the innocent children and civilians that will die, I would have loved to see isreal wipe out hamas ..isreal is not like NIGERIA where hypocrisy is entrenched..tinubu told us that GEJ had no excuses for the insecurity of that time, throughout buharia tenure when insecurity increased, he lost his voice, now he's the president ..somehow the bulk escape his table...the cleric that led protest during GEJ time is now leading a prayer...somehow prayer escape his mind during GEJ time

But Israel has killed more than enough innocent women and children

Apcnewrecruit:
All Hamas apologist here are in deep pains.

Israel will definitely stop the bombing. Hamas have been humbled and defeated as they will be disarmed with this peace deal in favour of Israel

Israel 200

Hamas and terrorists 0

Hehehe,

Trying to use reverse psychology won't help this time around.

Everyone knows Netayanhu wants to continue with the bombing of Gaza to prevent the creation of a Palestine state. His agenda is to take over Gaza by levelling it But Donald Trump already said it will never happen .

The battle is actually between every Palestinian, not just Hamas alone. The goal is to achieve statehood. Hamas as a group is only trying to use terrorism which we condemn

So, stop deceiving yourself with your false talk.

TempleHouse:
Qatar is very smart 🤓 !!

The pact is actually for the threat by other Islamic Countries or States against Qatar and not from Israel.

Could you please provide evidence that the pact is for other Islamic countries excluding Israel?

mikeapollo:
You should be asking Hamas that question. Innocent Israeli women and children were sleeping in their homes and they were slaughtered by Hamas when there was no war at all

Nobody is supporting Hamas. What they did was evil, but their actions didn't happen in a vacuum..

But let me ask you a question that gets to the heart of the issue


If, in pursuing the terrorists who killed or kidnap your child, the only way to find them was to drop a bomb that would guarantee the death of your own remaining family, your friends and their children who were being used as human shields in the same building, would you do it?,

Would you call that action "just"? or would you call it a monstrous, evil tragedy?

This is the reality Israel is imposing on innocent Palestinians in Gaza every day. For every Hamas fighter they target, they're making the conscious calculation that the deaths and starvation of countless innocent civilians, each with a family that loves them as much as you love yours, is an acceptable price.


This is the ultimate failure of their strategy which they whole world is now coming together to condemn. . A just military doesn't destroy an entire people to achieve a security objective. True strength lies in protecting life, not to destroy it recklessly,.

ChiefOloye:
Are you sure you understand what read or you just allowed Sahara to use your head?
The Oba didn't say she is not Iyaloja, "Iyaloja" is a Yoruba word, the Benin variant is "iyeki" which implies that Mrs. Folashade could be referred to as Iyeki General, while she on the soil of Benin Kingdom. That's neither rejection nor confrontation, as Sahara wants you to believe, but a simple call for cultural respect and acceptance.

The person you quoted hasn't said anything wrong.

The Oba didn't reject "Iyaloja" as the Yoruba word for "Iyeki" in Benin language, but rejected the Idea of attaching "General" to the title.

He make it clear that a general market leader, "General Iyeki" ,for all the markets in Benin Kingdom is alien to their culture , it doesn't exist and so won't be tolerated or accepted in Benin.

As if the innocent women and children your army have killed and still killing are terrorist.

DeepSight:
I challenge the idea that the Bible does not teach predestination in an absolute sense.
If this is true, then what do you think the Bible is teaching in the following -

Romans 8:28-30
29 For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters. 30 And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified.

Jeremiah 1:5
“ Before I formed you in the womb I knew you;
Before you were born I sanctified you;
I ordained you a prophet to the nations.”

Psalm 139:15-16
My frame was not hidden from You,
When I was made in secret,
And skillfully wrought in the lowest parts of the earth.
Your eyes saw my substance, being yet unformed.
And in Your book they all were written,
The days fashioned for me,
When as yet there were none of them.

Romans 9:20-21
But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, "Why have you made me like this?" Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor?

Isaiah 46:10-11
Declaring the end from the beginning,
And from ancient times things that are not yet done,
Saying, ‘My counsel shall stand,
And I will do all My pleasure,’
Calling a bird of prey from the east,
The man who executes My counsel, from a far country.
Indeed I have spoken it;
I will also bring it to pass.
I have purposed it;
I will also do it.

Finally -

Jeremiah 10:23 - "O LORD, I know that the way of man is not in himself: it is not in man that walketh to direct his steps."


I urge you to look critically at each of the foregoing and see if these are not teachings of absolute predestination, from the very steps you take, to your final purpose even before you were made. Intricately.

These are on all fours with Islamic Fatalism.

Thank you for the detailed response. I do appreciate it. My apologies for not keeping my word to reply to you after work the other day. I had typed a response but deleted it when I revisited what you said in your initial reply: "I don't know if predestination exists or not," along with your definition of how religious people use the word.

Those statements are the root of the issue and the reason we've been talking past each other. You're arguing from a position of philosophical determinism, employing scripture secondarily to support the view of a fixed cause and effect universe. However, you're doing so by insisting that specific Bible verses can only mean absolute predestination, a theological concept you claim not to know exist , is true or understand.

There's no consistency in defining authoritatively a theological principle for others that you're agnostic about yourself. " You don't know but also know at the same time" .If you don't know what predestination is, how can you be certain that the Christian God must conform to your deterministic interpretation of it

I will come back to this later after tackling the Bible verses you brought in.

The scriptures you cited don't equate Islamic fatalism . Your selective interpretation of them without counterbalancing with other verses in the same Bible is why you believe that.

Romans 8: 29-30, Jeremiah 1:15, and Psalm, 139: 16 speak powerfully of the Christian God's foreknowledge. However, a foreknowledge of someone's path isn't the same as mechanically pre-determining every step . The Christian God knew the entirety of Jeremiah's life in a single glance, but this doesn't negate Jeremiah's own " yes" to the calling .


An analogy may make it more clearer. Imagine a designer who has an ultimate purpose for a device, like a smartphone being used for communication. The designer's will is fulfilled, but not by micro-managing every text sent or calls made . The specific journey is co-created with the users' free choices. This analogy, though not perfect,is the coherent framework that makes sense of the Christian God's sovereignty , meaningful human prayer and actions .Philippians , 2: 12-13. " Therefore , my beloved..work out your salvation with fear and trembling , for it is God who works in you both to will and to work for his good pleasure".

If the Christian God has immutably will it for believers to have salvation ,why then the advice for them to work for it with fear and trembling? please answer that.

The Potter and the clay ( Romans 9) . This is the key text for your position. However, it's primary context is for the Christian God's sovereign right to choose nations for his redemptive purposes , like choosing Israel, then including the Gentiles. It's not the micro- management of every individual's action. The next chapter, Romans: 10, is a conditional statement which emphasizes human responsibility. " If you confess with your mouth...and believe in your heart....you will be saved " ( Romans, 10: 9)

Isaiah 46: 10-11, " My counsel shall stand" .This refers to the Christian God's ultimate,macro- level purposes for creation and redemption. His overarching plan will be accomplished. However, the means by which it is accomplished are the real choices of individuals . The "bird of prey from the east", Cyrus, was a real historical figure who made his own decisions, yet the Christian God used those decisions to actualize his larger will.

Your approach of isolating verses brings to mind a common interpretative error concerning the " Parable of the Mustard seed". Many Christians and non Christians read it and interpret it literally to mean the quantity of the faith: "Small faith" ."just have small faith and God will answer your prayers". But in the right context and alongside Jesus rebuking his disciples for having "little faith, during the storm, it becomes very clear the parable is about the quality of the faith, a faith that like a small mustard seed is certain of its growth when planted in the right soil.

You're applying a similar method. You're isolating verses about the Christian God's foreknowledge, reading them with a deterministic lens, and separating them from the counterbalancing narratives of human agency and changed outcomes. This is not drawing meaning out of the text, it is imposing a meaning onto it to fit your philosophical framework.

This problematic approach is rooted in a deeper, fundamental error. You're attacking a definition of 'destiny' and 'the future' that does not exist outside of pure fatalism.

You insist that 'religious people' see destiny as 'something specifically placed in the future,' as if the future were a fixed, pre-written script or a physical location we are destined to arrive at. You then argue against this simplistic idea. But this is a strawman.

Anyone with a commonsense understanding of time knows there is no 'future' out there as a real place to walk into. The only thing that exist is the present moment, not the past nor the future. The future has always been understood, in both religious and secular thought, as the emerging result of a million present moments The accumulation of past actions, current choices, and their consequences. It is not a destination, but one in the making .

This is precisely why the Christian God, in the non-fatalistic view, incorporates human agency. Your interpretation of the Bible verses relies on first misconstruing the very concept of 'future' and then using that misunderstanding to force a fatalistic reading onto the text. It is a circular and flawed way to reason

Eckankar, the religion of the light and sound of God, is a FAR DEEPER school of thinking than anything to be found in Abrahamic religions. Yes, what you have described here is apt, and karma has a lot to do with it, in Eck thinking, and most Eastern schools of thought if not all.

I was part of the group and can tell your that Eckankar has taken "things" from everywhere , including from the Abrahamic religion to form some of its doctrine. However, this doesn't make it lesser or inferior, it's actually superior to those one in the sense its teachings continue to evolve to meet with the changing times. Eckankar doesn't teach that all of destiny is fixed . I hope you won't have issues with them using that word too? . The religion teaches a blend of fixed and malleable karma:: What one is bound to experience in this life time based on previous life karma and the one that will come based on current life choices. Past life karma is what determines the family one will be born into, the era, county, ethnicity, genetiic and similar others. This what's regarded has fixed karma. You can't change your family of birth through prayers and spiritual exercises. Anyway, I digress.

They really should find another word because its just not the same thing. But yes, I understand the colloquial usage. That usage is entirely informal and has no business in serious discussions.

But how can you, who don't know if the reality of 'destiny' or 'predestination' even exists, presume to dictate the correct terminology for those who live within that belief system? Words gain their meaning from the shared understanding of the community that uses them. You're like a native speaker of English language , with no knowledge of French, insisting that the silent 't' in 'depot' should be removed because it doesn't align with English pronunciation rules. That's certainly ridiculous.

.

I disagree. The "Our Father" is not a prayer to change any divine will. If anything it is an affirmation of it, and a signal of humility and thanks.

And I strongly urge you not to attempt to trivialize Gethsemane. It is a huge example. It shows very well that the will of God in Christianity cannot be changed by any amount of prayer, even by the son.

Yes, you're very correct in the sense that, the word, change, isn't the right one to use.. So, I have replaced, change, with " align" . However, the "Lord's Prayer" is both affirmation and petition; "give us this day" , deliver us from evil"

If God's will immutably provides bread, why are Christians instructed to ask for it?



However , the petitions in the prayer aren't for changing divine will in a manipulative sense, but about aligning human will with the divine while participating in a relationship where prayers are a genuine factor.


I did not trivialize Gethsemane. It seems you used it to score a point that "prayer didn't even work for Jesus." But the real lesson of Gethsemane is that when a higher, redemptive purpose for all humanity is at stake, submission to divine will transcends personal desire. Jesus's prayer was not "unanswered"; it was answered within the context of a greater good.

I truly cannot comment on the antics of every prophet. It could well be that the result was always what was going to happen, and the warning only ensured the result, if you get my drift. Something self-fulfilling. Be that as it may, this cannot stand against the weight of all the verses in red above.

This is where you reveal your biases , confirming you're not debating this objectively. What you try to present as factual statements are actually your subjective opinion disguised as truth. Take no offence please it's also my personal about what I observe you do.

If you distrust Prophet Isaiah's revelation to Hezekiah, why do you accept his other revelations you cited as absolute? The consistency of your critique matters.

The Hezekiah's story is not an 'antic' but a cornerstone of a non-fatalistic theology. It presents a genuine prophetic declaration from Isaiah, no different in form from the ones you cited from Jeremiah or Isaiah 46.

Yet, you apply different rules to them. You accept the prophecies about Jeremiah's calling or the Christian God's ultimate counsel as absolute and fixed, but you dismiss the prophecy to Hezekiah with speculation, suggesting it was a self-fulfilling trick. This is inconsistent talk.

The text gives us no reason to treat Hezekiah's prophecy differently. It was a true proclamation from the Christian God based on his foreknowledge of the current path. Hezekiah’s prayer was then a genuine, causal factor the Christian God in his responsive sovereignty, incorporated into a new outcome. This story demonstrates that not all divine declarations are unconditional decrees; some are conditional warnings intended to provoke a response. To ignore this distinction is to ignore the dynamic nature of the Christian God's interactions with people throughout the Bible.

All this I understand, but in truth, if any Christian believes in God's will, they will not bother themselves. Rest, for it will be done. But there is no rest, because fear of tomorrow is part of that program and part of that will, and it is, in itself, self-fulfilling.

Have you ever heard of the Greek myth of Oedipus? When Oedipus was born to the king and queen of Thebes, Laius and Jocasta, a prophet announced that the baby would grow up to kill his father and marry his mother. The boy did everything to avoid this prophecy and all those actions are exactly what made the prophecy come true. I trust you see the point.

But you haven't shown me you understand what the God will is and how it actually functions. The Bible verses you cited has been misconstrue by you.

Yes , I have read Oedipus Rex. The fictional story is a perfect illustration of pure fatalism which doesn't exist in reality. The prophecy in the narrative is a fixed sentence, and the attempts to avoid it directly cause it. But in the Hezekiah's model, the prophecy is not a fixed sentence. It’s a conditional warning. Hezekiah’s prayer wasn’t an attempt to "trivialize" God's will. It was a plea for alignment. He presented his case, his desire to live, "let me live" and through that process of prayer, his personal will was brought into alignment with the Christian God's merciful will. The outcome was changed not because the Christian God was defeated, but because the relationship between God and Hezekiah or man involved a genuine exchange.

So, when a Christian prays against a dream, he is not trying to thwart a divine decree. He is participating in this dynamic. He is bringing his fear and his desire for protection into alignment with the Christian God's will as a protector and deliverer ," deliver us from evil".He is saying, "May your will to protect me overcome this threat."

You are right that fear can be a problem. But the act of prayer is the prescribed method in Christianity and some other religion for transforming that fear into faith, for moving from a fatalistic anxiety , like Oedipus, to a participatory trust like Hezekiah.

In the end, you see a contradiction where many Christians see a coherent, dynamic relationship. The issue isn't the word "destiny"; it's our starting assumptions about how divine will and human agency interact.

My initial goal in joining this thread was simply to offer a perspective that could resolve the misunderstanding between Westerhoffe and Lordreed. I wanted to show that, from within the Christian tradition itself, there is a coherent framework that views prayer not as an attempt to thwart divine will, but as a dynamic participation in it, a framework supported by scriptures like the story of Hezekiah.

I believe I have presented that case to the best of my ability.

At this point, the discussion has moved into a deeper debate about the core tenets of Christian theology. As someone who does not operate from a Christian worldview, it would be inauthentic for me to continue arguing the intricacies of a doctrine I do not personally subscribe to any longer.

I will therefore leave the conversation here, for the Christians on this forum to continue if they wish. I respect your viewpoint, @DeepSight, and thank you again for the civil and challenging discussion.

Modified. This has cost me my sleep tonight.

DeepSight:
I believe at this point he is afraid of the simple question and doubt very much that he will offer anything tangible.
I have seen your other post and thank you for it, will be glad to respond as soon as I can. You always come with clear thoughts.

Well, at this stage, I'm beginning to suspect you're right. He may be one of those who holds a belief intuitively but can't articulate it clearly or isn't fully aware of its implications.

His reply was indeed a tautology, it stated the obvious without adding any new information. The fact that a 'destined' event won't be known until it happens is true by definition. It's like saying 'the sun will rise in the morning.' It doesn't clarify his position at all. From a human perspective, no one is expected to foresee a destined event until it occurs, so his statement simply circled back to the initial confusion.

In any case, thank you sincerely for your commendation. I do appreciate it. I just saw your reply and will respond to it later in the day.I have some things to handle at the office, so I'll get back to you after 4 PM.

Westerhoffe:
That if that's how you're destined to die, you might never see it coming until it happens.

I believe your reply to DeepSight is lost in translation. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think what you're trying to express is the colloquial idea.." Since no one can be sure how or when they will die, a bad dream serves as a warning to pray for God's protection"


This is different from the theologica concept of fixed " will of God" that cannot be changed. Your practice of praying against negative possibilities suggests you believe more in the colloquial flexible meaning of a potential outcome that can be averted through prayers.


Is that a fair interpretation of your position?

Hello, @ DeepSight. I'd like to address separately here all the points you've raised since my initial clarification which was meant to diffuse the tension between Westerhoffe and Lordreed.

I believe there's a significant misunderstanding at the heart of your argument that I wish to address. My intention isn't to argue for the effectiveness of prayer, that's a task for the Christians following the thread to tackle. I aim to offer a perspective based on things I've learned as someone who has participated fully in both Christianity and another religion.

First , on the nature of "Destiny" in Christianity, your argument rests on a generalisation that " religious people mean"destiny" was placed there by God. This is exactly where the major error lies. What you described is a belief much closer to fatalism or specifically Islamic theology, not mainstream Christianity .

Christianity doesn't teach that every event in life, especially negative ones such as accidents , sickness, or sudden death, is a specific,pre-set " destiny" ordained by God. Instead, at the heart of the Christian worldview is the concept of spiritual warfare. ( Ephesians:6:12). Christians are taught that evil forces are actively operating in the world.

Therefore, when a believer has a dream about death and prays against it,, he or she is almost certainly not understanding that dream as a revelation of God's immutable will. They're much more likely interpreting it as a warning of a potential attack from an enemy and a call to spiritual vigilance.

The prayer against death isn't an attempt to "defeat God's will" ,but a petition for protection and deliverance exactly as Jesus taught his disciples to pray, "deliver us from evil". In this instance, Westerhoffe is asking his God to enact his will over a potential evil outcome.

Furthermore, religion like Eckankar, which I am familiar with, and many traditional and Eastern belief systems teach that destiny is largely malleable "isn't cast in stone:" .It exist as a field of future possibilities , good or bad, based on the individual's karma, and can be altered if one wishes to avoid a particular outcome. Glimpse of these potential paths can be viewed in dreams or through soul travel. If a person sees a future they wish to avoid, they can change it through dedicated spiritual practice and by taking concrete actions to steer away from the path .The shared core principle is that one's present-moment intentions, choices, and actions exert powerful influence on one's future,making one and active participant in shaping one's own destiny.


Now, this leads me to your other point about the colloquial use of destiny. I believe you're creating a false equivalence, either deliberately or unintentionally. In it's true colloquial sense, the word, "destiny" is rarely,if ever,used for logical impossibilities like you becoming "the Pope"or "the"crown prince ". That would certainly be absurd.

" Destiny " is normally used in one of two ways:

1. As a likely outcome based on one's current actions. For instance, " If you never study, your destiny is to fail the exam".

2. As a sense of fitting purpose. For instance, "He is always kicking things as a child, now he has found his destiny as a professional footballer".

When a Christian talks about a dream of death and prays against that"destiny ", he's using it in the first sense. The dream suggests a feared potential outcome, a negative path his life could take. His prayer is an attempt to avert that potential outcome.

While " hope" is a beautiful word, it fails to capture the same meaning. You hope for good things. You pray against a negative destiny.

On the function of prayer, your use of the Gethsemane example is not complete . You isolated Jesus's prayer of submission and presented it as the only valid form of prayer. Yet, the same Jesus who submitted to the cross also taught his followers to pray to change circumstances, "Give us this day our daily bread" , deliver us from evil " . Performed miracles that actively altered the "destiny" of the sick, the hungry and the dead .

Gethsemane was about submitting to God's sovereign redemptive plan for humanity . Praying against a bad dream is about seeking deliverance from a potential evil threat. They are different categories of prayer, but both are validated within Christian practice.

Finally, you ask if God's will can be changed. I will leave you with one clear biblical example.

The prophet Isaiah told King Hezekiah ."This is what the Lord says: Put your house in order because you are going to die: You will not recover" . Hezekiah did not accept this as a "fixed fate" placed by God. Instead,he turned his face to the wall, prayed, and wept bitterly . In response, God sent Isaiah back with a new message."I have heard your prayer and seen your tears ; I will heal you..I will add fifteen years to your life" This is a clear biblical precedent where a proclaimed outcome was changed through prayer.

So, to conclude, the contradiction you see is based on a misapplication of a fatalistic concept of destiny to a Christian who doesn't operate within that paradigm. Within his framework , where God is a protector from evil, his actions are perfectly coherent. He's watching and praying, just as his scripture admonish him to do . However , the lingering issue is the reluctance of him to accept that the initial misunderstanding wasn't due to an inability to comprehend, but rather how both of them perceived the same word, "destiny" . Identifying that semantic gap was the primary goal of my intervention and clarification.

Thank you

LordReed:
People do use destiny colloquially like in the 2nd definition triplechoice laid out. I dunno which definition Westerhoffe is using though. He should enlighten us.

Yes, Westerhoffe should take up the gauntlet.

DeepSight:
Except that we all should know that that definition is a false one. Predestination has a clear meaning in spiritual and theological senses and even in philosophy.

I don't think what triplechoice has tried to negotiate works because the definition offered for Westerhoffe has nothing whatsoever to do with predestination. It only has to do with the entire remit of potentially inherent in all our existence. By that definition anyone could have any destiny whatsoever.

It is false to the extent that it refers not to destiny but all possibilities.

Save where something is already happening. E.g: You have a terminal illness. Or you are a hunchback pygmy who plans to win Mr. Universe. Or a toad planning to be the ruler of the galaxy.

Thank you @ DeepSight for coming in at this point and bringing up this important point. Yes , you're absolutely correct that in formal theology and philosophy, predestination has a very specific and precise meaning referring to a fixed divine plan .

My previous intervention was focused less on formal doctrine and more on observing how people actually employ language in everyday conversations. It's a well-known linguistic principle that the meaning of a word isn't a fixed law from a dictionary entry, but often determined by the context in which it's used and the understanding within a particular group

For instance, the term, ", theory"has a very different meaning in a scientific context, the theory of gravity, for example, than in public discussion, " I have a theory about what I believed happened . Both usage are valid within their respective contexts"

The word, predistination or destiny is a perfect example of this. The meaning can range from the strict theological sense you mentioned to a more colloquial sense of a default outcome, future possibility.

Based on Westerhoffe comments about praying against a dream of death, it seemed he was using it in the,more in the other sense than the one you just brought in.. My point was that if Lordreed interprets the word strictly like you have done, and Westerhoffe continues to use it the way he has been using it ,they will continue to talk past each other.

So, clarifying that usage was timely in resolving their specific misunderstanding.

In any case, your point which is well taken has raised the deeper theological question for Westerhoffe and any other Christians following the thread.

So, to Westerhoffe and others of similar faith, when you pray against a destiny revealed to you in a dream, what's your theological understanding of how the prayer you prayed functions in relation to the will of God?

Is it to change a predetermined plan? or is it as some theological traditions accept, a means of participating in the unfolding of a plan that already includes your petition to God?

I'm sincerely interested in knowing which perspective aligns with the beliefs of the Christians here .

And for Oga DeepSight, what's the correct definition for predestination and how does it work?

Thank you

Hello, @Lordreed and Westerhoffe. It appears both of you might be using the term, destiny , to mean two different things and hence the confusion .

From the way I see it, Lordreed is understanding the term, destiny, as a fate that's fixed and unchangeable , meaning fatalism. From this perspective, praying against it would appear contradictory .This is a logically correct position to take .

@Westerhoffe , your comments imply that you see destiny, not as cast in stone, a fixed fate, but more as future possibility or a path one is on. From this, a dream of death is only a warning of a future possibility, and a prayer or other religious rituals is a means to seek intervention or guidance to change that path. This position is also a coherent and common belief most people have, including me.

The contradiction @Lordreed sees disappears if we use your definition. So the confusion is not one of logic,but the definition of the term, destiny. You both see it differently. that's all

Having said that, @ Westerhoffe, I'm curious about how you take the dreams . For instance, if a dream is a warning of future possibility like death, how does one determine which dreams are prophetic warnings and which are just normal anxiety dreams triggered by the brain?

If a prayer is offered and the event is avoided, does that mean the destiny was changed or that the dream was a warning about an outcome that was never the true destiny to begin with?

An analogy might make it more clearer. If a student dreams of failing an exam, would you say prayer alone prevent the failure,or does prayer provides the inspiration to pick up his textbooks and study?. How does it really work in your view? . I would like to know.

@Lordreed, given the distinction that I already highlighted here about how I think you both see it differently, does Westerhoffe 's position still appear contradictory ,or does it just represent a different set of beliefs about how the world works that you understand but reject or disagree with?

Felicity001:
I watched pitch of the video, yes he said so, we all know human trafficking is real and im totally against it 💯 % reason why I like the fact R-Kelly is still serving jail time for his atrocities. But, why publish an on going investigation when youve not proven the person us duty as accused.

Any accusation not judge by a judge is just false accusation, BBC cant just publish people's faces all over the world just to drive a narrative... you may have facts, yes, but it should ve properly investigated and let a judge pass h/h judgement b4 you document it for the public to know.

That is my point. Anything out of that, I call it defamatory. Totally wrong and should not be encouraged

Seeing the video evidence and still calling it false accusation is the contradiction at the heart of your argument .

You admit you 've seen the part where he confesess to these activities in his own words, yet you still call the report defamatory.

Defamation requires a false statement. The video isn't BBC's opinion about him,but evidence of his own words

You can't dismiss a documented fact based on technicality about the judicial process. The role of a judge is to determine guilt and sentencing, while that of journalism is to uncover and publicise facts, which is exactly what the BBC has done


The public has every right to know that someone in Dubai is openly offering these services. By releasing the investigation, the BBC isn't defaming Mwesigwa, they're holding him accountable to his own statement and performing an important public services by exposing a dangerous network to protect potential victims.

It's too late now. You can't unsee what you saw. To call it defamation is denying the reality of the evidence presented to you.

Thank you.

Image123:
Compassionate pastor, here's my final response to your diatribes. i had no plans to sound coherent to you.

I'm not responsible for your feelings. And I know you will surely reply to this ' diatribe " if not you won't have peace.

LordReed:
LoLz. What can I say haters gonna hate. There was a time I ignored him and he took it as some sort of victory by his god's power so I had to disabuse him of that.

For your own good,just ignore him .

Image123:
Funny, you got free time to go try and study me posts, or you're a burner account.
Now i am so scared 😱, Reed may be dul enough to follow Aithophel's advice. What will happen to me and the reason left of me. Oh God.

Go and rest oga.You're no longer sounding coherent.

It's not about studying you. It's what you do all the time to the extent it has become too obvious for others to see you harassing him everywhere. I believe I'm not the only one to observe this about you.

Honestly it's irrational behaviour that requires professional help to deal with it.

FYI, I'm neither a pastor nor an atheist.

LivingEarthMan:
Nice try at psychology lecturing there.

But you are missing a key point. One thing I have come to discover about life is that in every issue there is always one fundamental fact that supercedes every other 'facts' and story because it is the very root of the issue without which there would have been no issue. In the case of Comfort Emmason (whatever is her name) the fundamental fact that supercedes every other facts and every other story was her refusal to switch off her phone completely when she was asked to do so. I hope you understand that switching off mobile phone while in aeroplane is a law in Nigeria.

In the process of trying to compel her to switch off her phone, one thing led to another and she ended up physically assaulting an airline official which is a punishable offence and you expected her to be allowed to deplane just like that? No. She needed to be arrested by the airport security and charged to court for disobedience of lawful instruction and for assaulting an official who was doing her job! that was the reason she was not allowed to go out of the plane.

I find it shocking that a supposedly intelligent man like you is faulting Very Dark Man's insistence that the so-called 'eye witness' should proof that he was actually in the plane as he was claiming he was. You seems to forget we live in a world where AI can generate fake audio, fake video, and fake picture. And off course anyone can just come out of nowhere and make any claim. So a wise person must always demand to see evidence before swallowing any story, in that light, Very Dark Man did the right thing by asking the 'eye witness' to produce evidence of him being a true eye witness and was not fabricating the story.

Lastly, I hate lawlessness as much as I hate injustice. And by principle I have zero sympathy for anyone who is facing the consequence of his or her lawless behaviour. Hence, my lack of sympathy for whatever happened to Comfort Emmason in that plane.

@LivingEarthMan, thank you for responding to the topic. I appreciate you declaring your position clearly. This is exactly the kind of discussion the article is meant to provoke .

You' ve mentioned the refusal to turn off a phone as the "fundamental fact". However , the main argument of this article is that this very fact, the basis for the entire airline's story ,has been publicly contradicted by multiple eyewitnesses and official governing body.

The Nigerian Civil Aviation Authority (NCAA) which enforces the laws you mentioned,has officially announced that the pilot didn't call security because " the issue seemed resolved during the flight". This is not my opinion, it's a matter of public record from the chief press officer of the NCAA.

This official statement alone renders invalid the need for any arrest in Lagos. Moreover, multiple eyewitnesses on the the flight, including a barrister who showed his boarding pass on Channels TV as evidence he was on board, have testified that at no time did Ms Comfort' refused to switch off her phone and that the issue was a minor misunderstanding which was resolved before take off in Uyo with the assistance of a fellow passenger. The altercation didn't happen in Uyo. It was triggered by the crew upon landing in Lagos as the passenger attempted to depart peacefully from the plane.

Therefore , the "fundamental fact" isn't that she refused to turn off her phone. The new fundamental facts confirmed by evidence are the following;

1. The phone issue was resolved at the point of take off.

2. The pilot, the captain- in -command, considered the matter closed.

3. The physical confrontation was started in Lagos by the crew member, Juliana Edwards, blocking Ms Comfort' exist without justification.

Yes, you're correct to ask for evidence. That, in fact is the entire point of my article. I'm not asking you to believe me ,but asking you to believe the evidence provided by the NCAA and the testimonies of independent witnesses over the initial now debunked PR statement from the airline now facing liability.

You say you detest lawlessness. I also do,and that's why I wrote about the lawless breach of protocol by the the crew member, Juliana Edwards, who took unauthorised enforcement action against an innocent passenger, which is a severe violation of safety rules. The crew member's action turned an already settled matter in Uyo into a new physical confrontation in Lagos .

I encourage you to re-read the article, not as a " psychological lecture" but as a presentation of these evidenced facts. It already answers the very points you' ve raised . If you still have questions after reading again to engage with the evidence it presents, I would be genuinely interested to discuss them further with you.

Thanks

LordReed:
This is the same guy who had no sympathy for a fellow Christian who unalived himself. No hate like Christian love.

I have them around me. So, his behaviour isn't a surprise .

Pretending to care about you,but secretly wishing your downfall so they can laugh like witches in a coven.

@Lordreed, What did you do to this man?

I noticed that for years he has been hounding you about. Nearly every time you post something here, he's sure to respond negatively to it.

I honestly don't know of anyone here who has been facing this sort of harassment.

I advice you stop responding to him no matter what he says. He has been vamparising on your emotional energy for years. Cut it off and let him go look for someone else.

He's not who he claims to be. His mask has slipped off on this thread, exposing him.

Image123:
You didn't discontinue?
Therapist customers await you, my compassionate friend. Go for the jugular. Stop these cheap talk. Ask around, engage the right set of people, they've been praying for you.

It's because you don't understand what's written in simple English language .

I was specific about what I said. I said I was ending the "conversation" that has do with me appealing to your humanity and conscience. I didn't not say I won't respond to your personal attack.

So, at the moment,I'm responding to the nonsense you have been saying outside that conversation. You didn't engage directly with the " conversation", so no need wasting my time .

Hope it's clear now ?

And praying for others to change them is witchcraft: the attempt to impose your personal will on others to change them.

Image123:
You said it earlier, kindly discontinue what you consider conversation. i have no desire to engage in meaningless discussions based on assumptions. You'll be of more profit demonstrating your great advice to the grieving parties. You are on a very long thing my compassionate friend.

The only "grieving parties" I see here is you. You're entangled in bitterness and hate, two things that negatively impacts on one's mental health.

LordReed:
I commend you for trying to reason with the unreasonable.

Thanks . Sometimes you have to make some effort even when you know it's probably a waste of time.

Image123:
My dear compassionate friend, leave the sermons for the obvious. We're not having a conversation here, take up pastoral care of these flock and show you really care. Where have you been all these while, are you not the one they've been praying for?

It's obvious you have no desire to engage in a reasonable discussion. You have resorted to sarcasm and personal attacks instead of directly addressing the point that celebrating someone's struggles is not a loving way to behave.. Your Bible has even made it clear that such behaviour will never go unpunished..

Well, my "sermon" ,as you call it, was just about basic human decency,and that shouldn't be a controversial idea

I've said all I need to say on the matter .I won't be responding again. FYI, I'm not a pastor and nobody is praying for me. That comment of yours is very vague. Unlike your friends, there's nothing you know about me outside this forum.

Thank you

Image123:
i am not his pastor, he can go and find his pastor in his church. All the while he was not an atheist; he didn't need therapy. Few years out, he's battling mariJ, and the other one alcohol, and needing therapy and celebrating one week wins. i should actually be rolling on the floor laughing like them if no be say God dey exist. See, just be his pastor offering 'support' and leave me alone. If he cares for his mental health, let him disturb me. When these fellows mock us for believing God or serving God for years and pages, you didn't ask them to show compassion, people would have assumed that they were living in Aso Rock or White House because they stopped believing God, while those that believe are the dregs of the lowest earth.

Hmmmm. Your reply confirms exactly what I was explaining.

You think you should be "rolling on the floor laughing" at his struggles. You also regard is bold decision to seek therapy and his celebration of "one week wins" as a joke, not as the difficult, praiseworthy effort of a friend trying to improve their mental health .

My friend , that's not concern, love or compassion. It's called, schadenfreude, deriving joy in another's pain and struggles.. Proverbs 17.5 warns heavily against this kind of behaviour you're displaying. You're using his struggles not as a reason to offer support, but a weapon to laugh at him and validate your beliefs .

Your claim he didn't require professional help when he was a Christian is an assumption or more correctly put, a lie. Many Christians struggle silently with issues they're afraid to face.. It takes huge courage to finally face them with or without religion . It's clear you're seeing correlation and assuming causation to fit your narrative.

Genuine faith isn't proven by mocking someone else's struggles and saying, 'I told you so ' . It's proven by demonstrating the grace,love and compassion you claim your religion provides. Unfortunately, you have chosen the former instead of the latter

I will discontinue the conversation at this point. I'll just leave this here for others following this thread to consider what true compassion really looks like.

Thank you

Image123:
Thank you sir/ma, i have known muskee for over a decade. i repeat again, i keep saying it. It's a place of experience and knowledge, not assumption.

Ok. I see you've known him for a long time. But that doesn't change the fact about what he has written here about his current actions,which are, taking a break from marijuana and pursuing therapy to find peace. Those are commendable steps towards responsibility, not away from it .

If you've known him for over a decade and sincerely concerned for him, the loving and friendly thing to do would be to reach out to him privately to offer support,and not call him out publicly like an enemy,. Nairaland is where we discuss ideas,true friendship and pastoral care happen in private with compassion. The way you're engaging him here seems more about being right, ' I keep saying it ', than helping him like someone you have known for long.

Image123:
Lolz, sorry muskee. So you left God for mariJ. Unfortunate. i keep saying it.

Comments like 'I keep saying it' often come from a place of assuming the worst about people who abandon religion. But consider what he actually shared. He's working on his mental health and making positive changes in his life. That's courage and self awareness. Instead of assuming he left to sin,I think you should listen to his experience. He's now on a different path, seeking peace and responsibility. A little understanding goes a long way.

Felicity001:
Investigative journalism should ve well documented after prosecution has been carried out, not in this manner. To me it's see this as tatafo... false accusations.

It's investigation first to gather evidence and then prosecution. That's how it works.

And BTW, which 'tatafo... false accusations ' are you refering to? Did you watch the video? I doubt you did.

While being secretly filmed by an undercover BBC reporter, Charles Mwesigwa described how he could easily provide girls' to do 'crazy stuff' for one thousand Us dollars . This recording has already implicated him.

Felicity001:
Evidence without prosecution is waste of evidence.

I regretted spending my data to watch that episode. Total rubbish! If I were that man I'll sue BBC for character deformation. The guy clearly said he only helps out in connecting the girls to his rich contacts. The deseased girls so sad, can't speak from their grave. Didn't tell anyone or leave any trace of who took them to Dubia for prostitution.

How about the Dubia police, they know these things are happening in their country, what have they done to stop it?

Why don't BBC go and arrest them? Funny.

What BBC should do is create awareness to our young ladies of the so called promised life abroad. Another thing is most of these girls know what they're going there to do but what they dint know is that things can be so unlucky for them, they dont imagine that the Arabs see blacks as animal... they can tell their snakes, dogs to make love to them in a family party in front of everyone while they video and watch the play and have fun about it. The girls would have been drugged heavily b4 they present them, so they dont even know what they're doing.

So most of these girls know its prostitution they're going there for but they don't know its to the extreme.

The whites in general are devil's, and they identify a black person to carry out their evil doings.

BBC should do better.

R-kelly was investigated and was prosecuted... so its not abiut just investigating, what happens after then.

Now, is there justice for the deseased girls? The answer is a big NO!

What the BBC did is called investigative journalism. It's not their job to prosecute the perpetrators. Those who would do so have received the report already .So, it's now left for them to act on it or not.