₦airaland Forum

Righteousness2:
The Power house nations are showing themselves.

Meanwhile there is a serious Massacre going on in Sudan and no one seem to care

is the blood in gaza Redder than the blood in Sudan?

Where are the Emergency Gaza Humanity Experts and Lovers?
Where are the genocide Expert criers?

And you also don't care about the Sudanese people.

What you care about is to use the massacre going on in Sudan as justification for the genocide you support in Gaza.

Since in your opinion nobody is talking about Sudan,the IDF should be left alone to continue the killing of thousands of innocent women and children to eliminate a few deranged Hamas militants.

They can only test but will never dare use it due to the obvious consequence.

The title of the thread is completely different from what Gumi is advocating for.

The Mods should correct the wrong heading.
Cc Seun

Mynd44

Suggested correction

Gumi advocates for Muslim women's right to divorce their abusive husband without paying compensation.

EvilMerodack:
He didn't even mention any tribe in his comment and I wonder how you came up with this conclusion

For your info, many Nigerian footballers with Yoruba or Igbo heritage face ame delimma

Bringing tribe into this says alot about you

No, I didn't bring tribe into this, the person you want to defend did so indirectly to avoid a ban for violating the forum's rules against tribalistic comments. The Mods may have missed it, but his implicit bigotry was clear.


First , he wrongly blamed Nneka's parents for " training their daughters to be non-Nigerians". But the facts contradicts this. According to Nneka herself, when they were much younger, they actively sought the Nigerian passport because they identified with their Nigerian heritage . Unfortunately, they were discouraged in the process and even "scared" by US basketball authorities whose true motive was to force them represent the US basketball team. As an immigrant family it can be understood that their decision to obey the US basketball authorities was a pragmatic one to secure their status and not a rejection of their roots. The early effort to obtain a Nigerian passport is proof the parents didn't train them to be non -Nigerians .

To reveal his tribal bias, he selectively praised Ashley plumptre ( from his tribe) to shame Nneka and her parents ( from the other tribe) His message was very clear: blame the other tribe for lack of patriotism. If you take your time to investigate his profile and check some of his past comments , you will not fail to notice similar pattern of behaviour. I'm also here condemning those from the other tribe who are also involved in the same thing.

Players like Saka, Dele Alli,and Adeyemi ( from his own tribe) also chose other countries over Nigeria. where is his outrage towards their parents. Did they also trained their children to be non- Nigerians ? By his own "spiritual" logic, Saka and the others denied Nigeria, so the land should deny them. But that doesn't fit his narrative. Does it?


And in a dubious attempt to make his story consistent, FreeStuffsNG, even lied, claiming Nneka's sister, Chiney, was also denied to represent Nigeria. This is completely false. Chiney has been cleared to play for Nigeria. If the same parents raised both daughters , and one was approved and the other denied due to technicalities , how does his "bad parenting" accusation stand? It doesn't.

The rhetoric he has used is exactly what has turned this forum into a tribal battlefield. It's driven by hate that contradicts the very patriotism he claims to promote. How can one claim to love Nigeria while actively sowing division among its people


The real issue issue has always been FIBA's ruies, not parenting or patriotism. I called out this toxic, tribal double -standard for what it is. I'm surprised you missed it or pretending not to see it so you defend him, which is exactly what he wanted.

Gerrard59:
A research conducted in the predominantly white West has to be Eurocentric, and there is nothing wrong with that. If the research were to be conducted in sub-Saharan Africa, African features would come top. BTW, the research is publicly available, and there are also studies which show few marriages between Blacks and Asians. Is that also Eurocentric?

You're correct that a study conducted in the Western world will have a Eurocentric perspective. However, the flaw is not in the study's existence, but in your interpretation of its findings. Using a study that documents a pattern of bias within a particular context and universalising it as an objective truth is a misuse of data. This is statistical fallacy and it spreads a falsehood by presenting a social bias as a universal fact of desirability..

2. The mere availability of a research paper online does not automatically make it reliable or valid. Credible research must meet specific criteria , such as Peer review, methodological rigor and a clear distinction between correlation and causation .Furthermore, no reputable scientific journal would publish a study that explicitly ranks entire races on a "desirability list." Not only would it be unethical, but it would also be recognized as promoting racist ideology, not science. So, it's straws you're clutching at each time you mention those " available" research . They are only available, online, but not where they would pass as evidence .

3. The low marriage rate between Asians and Black women is extraneous to our current discussion. We're not debating the specific intermarriage rates between various groups, but your core claim about the desirability and attractiveness of Black people. Introducing this statistics is a deflection from the main point . Please stick to the topic at hand .

That is an exception, not the norm. Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. Black women are better appreciated in Black dominated environments than in places with few Black people. The phrase "can get too fat" might come across as too harsh, but in reality, Black women have greater body mass compared to women from other racial groups, except maybe those in South America. Steatopygia isn't common to women outside Southern Africa, and we see it in variations across Black women in West Africa, Central Africa, Black dominated areas in the US and the Caribbean.

1. Your dismissal of Fatima Diame as " exception", not the"norm " exposes the fundamental flaw in your logic. You're operating on the premise that whiteness is the default, and that non-white is the deviation.

The real issue is that you have defined the " norm" by a Eurocentric standard, so any evidence to the contrary is automatically classified as an " exception" . Fatima Diame is not an exception to Black beauty, she is a thrilling expression of it. Her global acclaim proves that when beautiful Black women are given a platform, they are widely recognised and celebrated. We see this in Oluchi Onweagba , the super model, ( winner of the M-Net- Face of Africa ), Agbani Darego, ( a former Miss world) , Chidinma Adetsina, ( first runner up miss universe) and the countless Black women in Nigeria and the diaspora whose beauty is undeniable. The problem is not a lack of beauty, but a lack of visibility and a biased lens, which unfortunately, you as an African are wearing, that fails to see it unless it is on a global stage or endorsed by White people. To claim they are "exceptions", is to ignore the vast and diverse reality of Black beauty .

2. Here, you're making a common but critical error by equating greater body mass with being fat. This is scientifically inaccurate , and it exposes your lack of understanding of basic human physiology. Greater body mass doesn't translate to " can get too fat"

Body mass simply refers to the total weight of a person and this is composed of , muscle mass, bone density, water , organ weight and body fat.

The athlete Fatima Diame is the perfect example of why your logic falls flat. . She no doubt has a greater body mass than a sedentary woman of the same height, but this body mass of hers isn't composed of fat . It's composed of powerful, dense muscle and strong bone structure. Her body mass is high, but her body fat percentage is very low.

Steatopygia which is the accumulation of fat in the buttocks isn't the same as general obesity. . The condition a genetic trait not found in every Black woman is often accompanied by a low body mass index. This again confirms body mass and fat aren't the same

" they can get too fat" is a gross generalisation . There are countless Black women with a slender, willowy frames, just as there are countless white women with a higher body indexes with the same tendency to grow very fat.

Historical dynamics? This sounds like the typical lovey-dovey diatribe I read daily. So, what would the fewer marriages between Black women and Asian men be called?

No , it's not "lovey dovey diatribe" . If you understood the reference, you wouldn't call it that.

Historical power dynamics, in the context I used it , refers to how centuries of colonialism, transatlantic slave trade, and Eurocentric media have systematically promoted specific White features as the universal Idea of beauty, while simultaneously demeaning and devaluing African features much as you have done here.

The power dynamics is that one group had, and still has, the global influence to define beauty for everyone else. The tragic result of this is seen in our communities, where our girls and women feel compelled to bleach their skin , which they euphemistically refer to as " bringing out my true colour" , and wear expensive European wigs to conform to a standard that was imposed, not earned.

This legacy actively shapens modern dating behaviour in the Western world and their media representation of it. When you ignore this history, you're analysing the world with a major blindspot . You see the result of this bias ( like the research you cite) and misconstrue it for the cause rather than recognising it as the devastating consequence of a centuries- long project of social conditioning.

2. You asked, " So what would the fewer marriage between Black women and Asian men be called? . I will answer that.

They're called counter -evidence .

You argued that the "reality" is that people inherently and overwhelmingly " prefer their own" , and absolute claim that requires 100% consistency to be true. The moment exceptions emerge, your absolute rule is broken.

Therefore, the exact number is irrelevant. It doesn't matter if they represent 1% or 10%. What matters is that their mere existence and growing number has invalidated and continues to invalidates your absolutist statement. These marriages don't need to be majority to prove you wrong. They just need to exist. That's all

Nigerian women in the US have made countless videos relating their experiences in the dating world, and the best places they recommend to find husbands are where there are a lot of Black people or specifically Nigerians, and these places are in the Southeastern and South-central parts of the US.

" Countless videos" by Nigerian women is anecdotal, not data,. Moreover, those recommendations aren't a guarantee for success. In fact, many savvy individuals deliberately avoid such targeted spaces because they know it can be environments where desperate people are easily taken advantage of .

Oh! So we agree that humans prefer those who look, talk and behave like them, abi? We agree on one thing, then.

But not strictly for marriage.

You have simply agreed that humans prefer their kind, yet you are against my statement. If they wish to live amongst their kind, does this not mean they wish to marry within their group and raise families within that same group?

I only agree with you that people prefer to mingle with their kind, but haven't agreed with you that they do so strictly for marriage. I explained that congregating with one's cultural group is a universal human need for community and belonging. But you have you made a logical leap from that to people only want to marry within their race .

We haven't agreed on the same thing as you imagined. A Nigerian woman living in a Nigerian community in the US can choose to marry a man of any race. Your claim that the primary reason for this congregation is to increase their chances for dating and marrying Nigerian men or black men is a reductive stereotype, and you haven't provided any evidence for it beyond the countless videos, which I already said are anecdotal, not proven data .

Honestly, this is the issue I have with lovey-dovey folks - the blatant disregard for basic mathematics and probabilities. No wonder your cohort in the US wanted to ban mathematics in California because "math is racist". These are the issues.

For one, the rate of inter-racial marriages is low and has always been low, whether in the US, Brazil and South Africa, all of which are amongst the most racially diverse societies.

A mere Internet search shows the following:
US: 19% of newlyweds are inter-racial
Brazil: 30% with the majority between Whites and Pardos (mixed Brazilians). In other words, White Brazilians prefer mixed Brazilians over purely Black Brazilians.
South Africa: 11.4% with the majority being between Black South Africans and Coloured South Africans. Whites are the least likely to marry out.
The Netherlands: 10% - 16%.
England and Wales (the subject being discussed): 7%. In fact, the search reveals that often the pairings between White British are with other WHITE PEOPLE from Eastern Europe. England is the most acceptable place for Black people throughout Europe, and where Black people thrive rather than survive throughout the continent. The US is home to African Americans who constitute the wealthiest group of Black people in the world. Common sense means outside these places, the rate of inter-racial marriages between Blacks and other races wouldn't be HIGH or COMMON.

This is basic mathematics, psychology and economics, aka 1 + 1 = 2, not 500 as lovey-dovey folks like to talk.

Your sister marrying an Italian expat is an EXCEPTION, not the NORM. There are many single Nigerian women in Italy who don't have Italian husbands, even though they speak fluent Italian. There will always be inter-racial marriages, but what is the rate compared to the rest of the population? What has the rate been since?

You have once again misrepresented my argument and in doing so, are attacking a point I never made. The issue here isn't about me not knowing basic mathematics, but of you lacking a basic understanding of simple logic.

I did not say interracial marriages were more common than intra-racial ones. My point was purely logical: if your claim that people have an inherent, overwhelming preference for their own kind for marriage, then the existence of any happy , successful interracial marriages would be virtually impossible . The fact that my cousin's marriage exists and that of millions of others like it , regardless of their statistical percentage , completely renders your absolutist claim invalid.

You're trying to win a debate about statistics I never started. My position is that your rule that people only prefer their kind isn't a rule at all. A true scientific law has no exception. Your so called natural preference is a social trend,not a biological imperative.

The statistics you introduced has even undermined your position without you realising it.

The selective use of percentage is a common tactics to downplay the significance of a phenomenon. it makes a large number of people seem like a negligible statistics , 1% or 19%. But those percentages when converted into raw numbers represent millions of real lives and real love that directly contradicts your absolute claim . You're using the language of statistics to hide the human reality they represent .So, don't lecture me about mathematics. Your inability to make sense of the simple logical argument I made proves that your understanding of it is superficial. True mastery of maths requires logical thinking, and on that front, you"ve been found wanting.


Finally before you misrepresent me again, let me be clear about what I said earlier concerning my cousin. I stated she met her husband here in Nigeria while they were both staff of an oil exploration company. She didn't meet him after relocating to Italy. Therefore, don't drag her personal story I shared as example into your generalisations about why other Nigerian women' in Italy may be struggling.

I would have skipped this side if not for the "lack of exposure and enlightenment" phrase. What makes you think you are more enlightened or exposed than I am? Why should an overdose of exposure and enlightenment override basic human behaviours? So we should disregard actual inter-racial marriage statistics because of eXpOsUrE aNd eNlIgHtEnMeNt?

No. I didn't refer to you as unenlightened and unexposed. You misunderstood my point . I was describing those with a specific mindset: that of a person who strictly , without exception, refuses to consider a partner from another race, even when presented with an individual they might otherwise find attractive, loving and compatible. My argument is that this unbending,blanket rejection is a sign of unexamined bais.

There's a great difference between having a cultural preference and holding a racial prejudice. .

A person who's enlightened and well exposed might have a preference for their own cultural background, but remains open minded about outsiders. They can meet someone from another race, recognise their beauty and character, and because of this have their natural preference for their own overridden by a sincere and genuine human connection.

A person operating on unconscious programming uses a rigid, racial filter. They quickly and easily dismiss an entire group of people in advance irrespective of individual qualities. This kind of behaviour isn't natural preference, but prejudice .

·
The statistics you continue to mention about low interracial marriages between Black women and other races , especially Asians and white people are actually documents bias, not the truth . Those stats are a snapshot of racial bias in action in highly superficial dating app platforms . It's proof of the societal problems I have been discussing with you, not evidence that Black women are inherently less desirable. A study showing that people are biased against employing someone with a " Nigerian name" doesn't prove those Nigerians are bad workers, it proves instead that employers are prejudiced against hiring Nigerians .Apply the same logic to get my point

Tell this to the hordes of Black women in Europe and the US lamenting the lack of husbands. Tell this to Nigerian women in the UK who say there are no suitable suitors. Tell this to second-generation Nigerian women in the UK who move to Nigeria to find husbands. Challenging what is considered to be beautiful, you say? So you want to challenge and erase basic human tendencies to prefer people like them, the same tendency you earlier supported? Who are you to dictate to other people who they should marry and copulate with?

The Idea that " hordes of Black women" , especially Nigerian women in the diaspora, lamenting a lack of suitable partners represents a problem unique to them is a serious misreading of reality. This challenge also affects women from all races, White, Asian, and Latina alike..

What you're falling to accept is the well - documented, broader social trend in Western societies where people of all backgrounds are marrying less, preferring to focus more on education, careers, and choosing alternative family structure . To then put this universal shift solely on a perceived lack of attractiveness in Black women is not only dishonest,but very absurd


The main problem is not that Black women are uniquely undesirable. The problem is that within a dating pool already shaped by racial bias, they face additional unfair hurdles. My entire argument is that we should challenge and dismantle these biases masquerading as natural preferences, not advice the victims of this biases to pack their bags and flee to Africa or the Caribbean where they can be tolerated.

This solution of yours is not only insulting, but spectacularly ignorant of the actual reality.

Are you not aware that women in Nigeria and across Africa also face significant challenges in finding suitable marriage partners. To suggest that Africa is a guarantee paradise for marriage is a complete fantasy.

You accuse me of dictating to others, which is a shocking irony. You're the one who issue the directive that Black women should abandon their lives and opportunities abroad to solve a problem. I haven't dictated a single life choice to anyone. I'm challenging the harmful idea , the ideology, you're promoting, which claims Black women are globally " less than" . I am not telling people what to love. I am telling you that your rationale for their choices is rooted in bias.

And again , I do not seek to "erase basic human tendencies" . I seek to encourage people to transcend base prejudices . The most enlightened human tendency is the capacity to see shared humanity beyond superficial differences.

Finally, let's be unequivocally clear about something. Racial preferences is not, for God sake, a basic human tendency. It's learned social behaviour which can be unlearned . It's shocking that you would label racism, a force condemned by enlightened societies, as a fundamental part of human nature. This bizarre conflation reveals a deep misunderstanding of both history and human psychology.

The root causes of racial or even tribal preferences are basic human preferences for people who look like them. P for Period. Why is this difficult to grasp? Humans prefer those who speak, look and talk like they do. How is this a bad thing? In fact, this is the basis for human survival over the years - mating with those who look, speak and behave like themselves. This is how different groups have survived and lasted without being erased for thousands of years.

It's true that humans have a natural tendency to prefer familiar faces and cultures. However , you're making a critical mistake by conflating this with a preference for race.

Race , as we understand it today is not an ancient tribal division. It's a modern social construct invented to justify colonialism and slavery. Our ancestors didn't have racial preference because the modern concept of race based on skin colour didn't exist in those ancient times.

What existed was a division based on the group one belonged to ; the " civilised" versus the " barbarian. In the ancient world, your status was determined by your language, culture and customs, not by your skin colour. A " barbarian " could become " civilised " by adopting new customs . This is totally different from the immutable biologically justified hierarchy of modern races:


Therefore, modern racism is learned behaviour. People aren't born with racial prejudice. Racism is learnt through conscious and unconscious conditioning. And this is why not every White person is racist, and why people can unlearn these biases

Thank you for your time.

Meedon:
You guys can justify any evil so far it is against your religion. Everyone sees its religion as the right one and they are hundreds of religion across the globe. Since you are born as a Catholic, you can defend catholicism even if the truth stares at you.

Your reply has confirmed my initial concern, which was about the spread of historical falsehood disguised as truth .

First, you assumed I was a catholic from birth, but that's not true. I'm neither a Catholic by birth nor a member of that church. My reason for replying to your post was only to correct a factual error, irrespective of whose beliefs it may align with. Truth isn't a matter of which religion one belongs to.

Second, you failed to engage with any of the historical points I raised. Instead, you shifted from discussing the topic, you started attacking me personally, by accusing me of defending evil. This ad hominem attack does not serve the pursuit of truth. I expected you to critically analyze the information I provided and to come up after that with a reasonable rebuttal backed with evidence, such as names,dates and records of the Catholic church alleged policy of killing " many scientists". You have provided none.

Finally, I still stand by my original points. it is a serious and unsubstantiated accusation to claim an institution killed lots of scientists due to "wickedness and close mindedness" . The burden of proof for such a severe accusation rests with you, not me. And until you can provide that evidence, the historical record, which includes clerical scientists like Big Bang's Georges Lemaitre, does not support your claim.

Thank you.

FreeStuffsNG:
Ogwumike hopes that her fight to try to play for Nigeria will help shed some light on the process and “how people decide to pick their nationalities when they want to represent their country.”

Ogwumike said that when she was younger, she was told by USA Basketball not to try to get a passport from another country.

She had been trying to play for the country, where her parents were born, since the Tokyo Games in 2021.


Eeya..
I blame her parents and I hope others who raise their children not to identify as Nigerian can see the folly of their actions.

It's a spiritual thing; if you deny the land, it will deny you too and if you bless it, it will bless you too.

While Ashley Plumptre, with mixed race parentage, identified as a Nigerian right from her childhood, her parents got her her Nigerian passport early and she eventually played for Nigeria, Nneka, with 100% Nigerian parentage, both parents born and raised in Nigeria, was raised to be a Non-Nigerian by Nigerian parents, was eventually denied to play for Nigeria. Smh.

Many of you will learn las las that inferiority complex can deny you of a lot of things in life. Your adopted countries know that if you can abandon your own land, you are a rolling stone who will abandon them someday too

I sincerely hope that she will raise her own kids to be Nigerians.

What's your problem, oga?

Tribalism is a disease. Shun it please for the sake of your own mental health.

Gerrard59:
Research into dating life in the West reveals that Black women are at the bottom of the list, while White men are preferred by women of all races. For one, most Black women can get too fat, and this is not the general physique of most White or East Asian women. And as seen across the East and West Coasts of the US, after their women, elite White men prefer East Asian women. There is a reason Nigerian women in the US prefer to congregate in the South-central part of the US to increase their chances of getting married.

It's painful to read you attempting to dress up internalised racism and sweeping stereotype as "reality" and "research" .

1. The research you cited and failed to provide its source was likely conducted from a Eurocentric perspective using a specific cultural standard of beauty. It's improper an strange behaviour for you as an African to universalize that standard and use it to wrongly label your own sisters and brothers as unattractive., the "bottom of the list" . It's like tasting apple to determine the flavour of a rare and exotic African fruit like " Agbalumo"( the African star apple) . You will completely miss it.

2. Your claim that black women " can get too fat" is a harmful and unscientific stereotype. Body size and shape vary greatly within every single racial and ethnic group. To assign a physique to an entire race of diverse women is what prejudice really is. The woman who's currently regarded as the most sexually attractive woman in the world is the Spanish athletic of African descent, Fatima Diame. She combines athleticism, beauty and grace. She is frequently celebrated across social media as one of the most gorgeous and sexeist athletes in the world. People everywhere, both White and Black, gush over her attractiveness. Yet, she's just one example of millions of other Black women with here kind of powerful and graceful physique.


3. The idea of "elite white men" and their preference which you want to present as natural isn't that , but something that's deeply rooted in historical power dynamics, not biology.

4.And where's the evidence or research which supports your claim that the reason Nigerian women congregate in the southern part of the US is to increase their chances of getting married ? This kind of talk is exactly the reason I said you are attempting to dress up sweeping stereotype as " research" But even if marriage were a factor, what's wrong with that?

Or you think the behaviour is unique to Nigerian women?

Don't we have Chinese, Mexicans, Latin Americans, and Indians and countless other immigrant groups in the US congregating in areas where they can find their own people ?

Are the women from these other races doing the same because they want to increase their chances of getting married ?

The desire to congregate in places where you can find your own people is a universal tendency and not something peculiar to Nigerian women.

And let's be clear about something. The real reason Nigerian men and women congregate in certain areas in the US is primarily for community and cultural familiarity. They have moved from a deeply communal society to a country where the dominant culture is highly individualist, "every man for himself.", and so, congregating in a place where they can speak their language, eat their local delicacies and maintain their traditions will make them feel at home in a foreign country. For you to now reduce this complex human need for belonging to a simple strategy for marriage is not only incorrect,but very reductive .

Too many people have been deceived by the faux liberal world. The reality is: humans prefer those who look, talk and behave like them. In an overwhelmingly White country like England, where the majority of the Black population resides in the Southeastern part, Black women are not highly desired. The average South Asian (more South Asians than Blacks in the UK) would not marry a Black woman, and generally, West Africans, unlike Southern or East Africans, have little interaction with South Asians.

Your logic that people prefer their own is flawed. If what you claim is true, then there would be virtually no interracial marriages , and the success and happiness of Black women in such marriages across Europe and in the US, like my own cousin who married an Italian expat she met in Nigeria wouldn't exist.

My advice at this point is that you take your time to investigate the root causes of why some people strictly prefer their own race. If you do this, I am sure you will out that the actual reason is lack of exposure and enlightenment . Often, people, whether Black or White, aren't consciously aware that they're reacting to the unconscious programming which guides them on what to accept or reject as attractive. The truth is , they often aren't thinking for themselves, they're making judgements based on this ingrained programming, which they later try to justify with rationale sounding reasons. This means their racial preferences or rejections aren't based on logic,but on a conditioned sentiment that is ,at its core, inherently racist

Any Black woman in Europe who desires to increase her chances of getting married should move to sub-Saharan Africa, the Caribbean or the South-central part of the US.

.

This is the worst you have said here.
Advising "any Black woman" to leave Europe and return to Africa or the Caribbean so they can find a marriage partner isn't a solution. It's advising them to surrender to a racist status quo. It's advising them to shrink their lives and opportunities rather than challenging a society to expand its definition of what's considered beautiful and desirable .

Honestly , I am encouraging you to investigate the root causes of racial preference so that you don't become an unconscious conduit for harmful stereotypes. The ideas you have expressed here aren't neutral observations, they're damaging racial sentiments that have real world consequences for how people are perceived and treated .

Thank you.

Icon4s:
If you have followed the Nigerian National team well enough you should know that we may struggle with minnows in Africa but we are no pushovers at the Global stage. This team might be struggling with less fancied African teams but they will be hard to beat at the World Cup. I am sure you must be one of those that doubted we could beat Benin by 4:0. WE ARE NIGERIA, WE RISE TO THE OCCASION.

Exactly what I wanted to say. Nigerian super eagles is never a pushover when it comes to playing in the main tournament.

Meedon:
When a telescope was made by a scientist back then, the Catholic priests (pope) called it a witchcraft tool and they imprisoned the scientist. They killed lots of scientist because of their wickedness and close-mindedness.

1. You're not the first person to say this about the catholic church, but from my own investigation of the history by reading it, I have found out the narrative isn't correct. The initial reaction of the church was actually one of fascination and great interest after Galileo demonstrated his telescope to the catholic clergy and the Pope. It was never called a "Witchcraft tool" by a Pope. The real issue he had with the church was his promotion of heliocentrism, which contradicted Earth -centred model backed by Scripture.

For this, he was tried and sentenced to house arrest, not thrown into prison.

2. Your claim that the church killed lots of scientists is contradicted by the fact that many catholic priests in the past were leading scientists themselves. The first person to propose the Big Bang theory was a catholic priest and physicist , Georges Lemaitre.

So, it's illogical to suggest the Church " killed lots of scientists because of wickedness and close -mindedness when the reality was that it employed and celebrated so many of them within its own ranks.

Gabrielshow24:
This is reaching. Foreign objects do not rotate by 180° due to peristalsis 🤔.

I asked a medical doctor, and he said your claim isn't accurate.

According to him, the GI tract is a soft mobile and constantly churning tube, and that there are documented cases of objects like nails or pins rotating or shifting from a dangerous transverse position to a safer longitudinal one to pass through without injury.

And I was able to confirm his explanation was accurate.

@DrAda, your attention is needed please.

Kavara:
Can I send you a mail sir

Thanks for your trust and for asking to mail me. However, I'm sorry to say that I will not be able to read or respond to an email since I no longer have access to the account I used for this site. I have been trying recover the account but this hasn't been possible yet.

The only thing I can do for now is to give you my strongest advice I can here.

I recommend you seek out someone you can trust completely who will safeguard your privacy. If it's not financially possible for you to consult a licensed therapist, an excellent and often overlooked alternative is a catholic priest.

Go to a catholic church within your locality and request to speak with the priest in charge. When you meet him, explain that you're seeking guidance and confession. They're trained to offer a compassionate, listening hear, and are experienced in helping people deal with feelings of guilt and the desire for a new start. You don't need to be a catholic person to benefit from this and he's not going to ask you to convert to the catholic church.

Understand that the confessional in the catholic is specifically designed for cases like yours. Within that circle, it's a sacred and completely confidential space. A priest in the catholic church is bound by the seal of confession ,which means he's forbidden by the highest laws of the church to never reveal anything you confess to him. .So, your privacy is guaranteed .

After listening,if he feels your case requires medical or psychological care which only a trained therapist can provide, he will be the first to advise you book an appointment with one .

Good luck, if you choose to try this

Kavara:
Is there a pastor or counsellor I can share my struggles with

I feel your pain because I've been in a similar place of deep distress. it can feel like being trapped in a deep dark hole with no way out.

A word of caution though, please be careful about quickly labeling yourself as depressed or accepting that label from a non-professional. It can make you feel worse . Only a trained mental health practitioner can truly or is in a position to diagnose depression .

The fact that you can coherently post and respond here shows a strength and clarity that's often absent in severe clinical depression. What you're experiencing is real pain and believe me it will go away with time.

Right now , what you need is that one person you can trust; one conversation where you feel heard. This could be a pastor or a priest who's also a trained counselor that can offer you a perspective grounded in faith and hope to enable you come out of it, I give this advice since it's clear you're a believer.

Or book an appointment with a licensed therapist. They have the professional training and tools to help you understand your mind better so you can take control

Also, a trusted friend, a mentor, or even a perfect stranger who has gone through similar experience may be the person to offer the needed advice to help you.


In my own case, help didn't come from priests or doctors. It came from a stranger I discussed with who said something I needed to hear : Something like, " if you were this and that, would you have reacted the way you did to trigger the irrational fear and guilt that's now plaguing your mind? I was completely stunned after he asked me that question, and it was because I never thought of you it that way. Though the perspective shift his words brought didn't solve all my problems immediately , it gave me the first foothold I needed to start regaining control of my mind.

So, trust your instincts and don't limit yourself to one source. Use what works or combine everything that works: pastors and professionals . Finally, don't let anyone dismiss a potential source of help for you based on their own religious or anti religious bias . You know what you want, go for it.

Modified. I have gone through your other comments and now understand better that the problem is of one guilt based on past actions which doesn't align with certain values your religion has instilled in you.

Well, stop judging yourself and reach out to a nonjudgmental person whom you can talk to.

Consider your past actions as mistakes that you will never repeat and find ways to restitute if you can.

judewrites:
Witchcraft and idolatry are practiced globally, not just in Africa.

However, both are more pronounced in Africa, hence the backwardness.

Your claim that these practices cause "backwardness" is purely your opinion. In India, what some of you Christian refer to as Idolatry is a common practice, yet they're currently a leader in space exploration and technology.

Moreover, you can't really tell which region practice more witchcraft or Idolatry since in many societies, it's done in private due to stigma.. The perception that it's more common in Africa exists because such practices are culturally visible and integrated, and not done in secret.

And it's a misrepresentation to call African religions "Idolatry". The physical objects they keep in their shrines are symbolic representation of what they venerate,not the object of worship itself, something you might miss without deeper understanding. It's your religion that calls it Idolatry. Even the so-called witchcraft you criticise is being practiced by most Christians unconsciously through the use of prayer to impose their will on another person to influence them either for good or bad.

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.