₦airaland Forum

Franking:
NAFDAC could have fined the entire market so that their union will pay it rather than asking individual marketers to pay 700k each.......so much corruption in Nigeria yet everyone is above board.

NAFDAC doesn't recognize Unions but individual traders.

During my university days, we were all forced to pay restitution for damages to school falicities that occurred during students rioting.

Nobody was exempted. Even those who were not around during the mayhem where asked to pay. The student Union wasn't asked to pay on our behalf from levies we paid to them.

It's the same principle NAFDAC has applied here:The principle of collective responsibility.

And I can tell you this, everyone single trader in that market is aware of what goes on in there. I know, because I live in Asaba which one can say is just a stone throw from Onitsha.

Everyone of them is guilty directly or indirectly, and should pay for the consequences of their action and inaction. Go to Asaba and ask any adult about that particular market and hear the shocking things they will reveal about what goes on in there.

It's a centre for the sales of adulterated pharmaceuticals products.

The worst part is that they keep reclying expired drugs by changing the original expiring date so they can sell it to unsuspecting members of the public

The fine is not enough. Everyone found selling fake and expired drugs should be prosecuted and jailed and barred from ever selling kind of pharmaceutical products.

The fine is a compromise by NAFDAC.

folake4u:
This man shouldn't be allowed close to female children. Where is the indecent dressing please?

You said this because you can't think of any other reason behind his expression of outrage.


Why don't you consider for once that his religious beliefs might be the reason behind his condemnation of those teenager's dressing and not because he's a paedophile?

I didn't quote you because I support what the man said about how those teenagers were dressed,(nothing is indecent in it) but because you said he shouldn't be allowed near female children when you don't know much about him or the actual reason behind his opinion.

What of women who are guilty of the same behaviour of condemning teenagers who they consider inappropriately dressed?

From your reasoning, are they not doing that too because they're paedophiles and should also not be allowed near female children?

purples25:
I think men only care because they fear the loss of pristine virgin vaginas, the scarcity of pure brides for marriage. You know, because they only see women as a commodity to be preserved until needed - not a human being with a sense of style and a beautiful being that just wants to try out so many ways of looking good, enjoying fashion trends until they outgrow them.

I'm afraid your thinking is very faulty. It's filled with too many assumptions about men.

In the real world, not Nairaland where you have been educated wrongly, both men and women in this part of the world are involved in the "busi body business" of condemning young girls whom they see as inappropriately dressed.
And the major reason they do so is religious indoctrination coming from the pulpit and not because they fear the loss of "pristine vaginas" to marry.

If you insist men only do so because of what you imagined, then what of the women, especially Nigerian mothers who also do the same?

Is it because they are obsessed with marrying pristine vaginas or sleeping with them? Answer me.

On the other hand some men promote this kind of thinking, because they need it as an excuse to prey on little girls. Many of these kids just feel cool, they just feel like they’re having adventures and following fashion, but it’s the men crying about it that make all they are doing to be dirty. By the time some of these kids get lied to and taken advantage of sexually, they will face a world that tells them what they never knew - that they were mistreated due to the fact that some sex oriented, sex obsessed people believe that the only reason for that dressing is to seduce them. Some men think you came to this world only for them, if you are dressing with skin showing, it must be to catch their eyes. .

It's not only men. Women are also guilty of the same.

There are some women who erroneously believe young ladies dress that way to seduce their husbands or snatch their boyfriends. You can't tell me you haven't come across such women.

One thing you didn't include up there in your argument is that there are some men and women who believe demons are influencing young ladies to dress the way their religion regard as immodest.

Funny enough, I have nothing against covering up, I even think it protects the body more and protects kids from pedophiles, but these pedophiles exist amongst people who focus unnecessarily on the bodies of strangers, getting aroused and therefore reading sexual and dark meanings into their dressings which match the pedophiles’ obscene fantasies and triggers. .

The word, paedophile doesn't describe men only. There are paedophiles amongst women. Those ones also go about molesting children sexually without anyone suspecting because it's assumed that only men are paedophiles.

However, you correct to condemn those who read "dark meanings" into dressings.

For me , I believe those teenagers are just following the latest fashion trends which makes them feel good about themselves. Those with "dark" reasons are either perverted minds or religious fanatics.

Imagine many men here saying that these kids are all having sex and doing hookup… kids that watched cool kid shows and just felt like dressing like those they watched…

Men involved themselves in a dirty lifestyle that doesn’t allow them to think straight. Now you men that immersed yourselves into a dirty lifestyle that gave you a dirty mindset will go and inflict these young kids with suffering based on that.

The assumption made on these clothes is a suffering inflicted on children by those with dirty minds and lifestyles. The girls have to hide themselves because of men who chose to corrupt themselves and now won’t let little girls and women live in peace.

Hehehe. I hope you're not a man hater. Too "many men" every where in your comments.

Many women are also involved in the same kind of behaviour you're condemning "many men " for.

Women are the ones who even take it to the extreme in Nigeria. You can easily confirm this yourself by dressing scantily and go shopping in any of the local markets around you, and experienced first hand the reaction of your fellow women to your dressing. You won't be able to stand it . Some bold ones would even offer to cover you with their headgear or anything else as you move around the markets.

Recently a young lady who visited a local market in Nigeria, described how she was harassed and embarrassed by women there who forced additional clothing on her because they thought she wasn't properly dressed. The story was on the front page of this Forum. You can Google it to confirm.

It wasn't men that did that to her but women

.And that wasn't just an Isolated incident. It happens all the time in our local markets and any where else women are gathered. If they are not making attempts to cover you with something, they are eying you with disdain.

So , what are you taking about?

Geometrix:
Is that how your own law and equity work?
No worry you will be arrested in your vicinity or office and be made to answer for what you don't know or a crime you didn't commit.
Your only crime is that are living within the vicinity

It's not my law but how the laws of Nigeria works. It's called collective responsibility.

If you want to be fair, you should be calling for the prosecution of those caught selling fake and expired drugs which has led to the death toll of thousands people.

Indispensable85:
Criminals stop the extortion. So the entire 5,000 shops are guilty of selling unregistered drugs? The entire 5,000 shops don't meet storage standards? But the initial allegations were that of sales of fake drugs by nafdac. Does this store reopening fines now stand as an approval for the resumption of the sales of the so called unregistered drugs with the poor storage facilities? Nafdac una be thief jooor

They're all not guilty of selling fake drugs, but anyone having a shop in that market where lots of traders are selling fake and expired drugs cannot claim not to know goes on in there and report to the appropriate authorities for necessary action to taken against such traders.

If you remain silent and don't report, you're enabling it according to the law.

Franking:
But the impression created is that there are no exemptions meaning that all the markerters flouted the law.

NAFDAC applied the principle of collective responsibility to impose a fine on every trader in the market.

They're all collective responsible for what goes on in the market..

charlsecy:
I URGE PEOPLE TO READ BEFORE COMMENTING.

Yes. most of the people who have commented so far didn't even bother to read the full article or read without understanding it.

The naval chief never advocated for spiritual solution as the only way out or suggested we should use prayers to fight insurgency.



.

dominique:
100% lies. Which country will allow you bring in goods that will interfere with the ones in their markets? They will be sizes at the airport if he landed with them. If he intended to ship them in, did he get an import licence? If he got a licence and paid all the import duties on the goods, there's no way he can sell it cheaper than market value. You think it's easy to take a mega cooperation to court? Those that successfully did had solid cases and the funds to follow through. The story is pure fiction

Which lies?
The case is still in court but you're dismissing it as lies.


https://punchng.com/i-can-go-20-years-more-till-i-get-justice-adebo-man-who-sued-fanta-sprite/

Obiedun:
Give us the link. Don't just tell me to Google it. It will be very wrong to export coke to any country. The amount you will spend on transportation ue even enough to drive you away.

The man is still on the case.

https://punchng.com/i-can-go-20-years-more-till-i-get-justice-adebo-man-who-sued-fanta-sprite/

Kobojunkie:
? You should probably look up the word's application before responding next time. The fact that a function is private makes all that pertains to it private. To move any of the contents from that private space into the public space is to leak the particular content.

You want to pretend you don't know that it's the context in which a word is used that determines its actual meaning and not just the dictionary entry of it?

In this instance, leak is not the appropriate word.

If the event, which you have personally described as private, was posted online by the celebrant or other guests for the whole world to view it without her complaining, it wasn't leaked but a public event she wanted announced publicly . Outside this, it was leaked .

If you disagree ,then every single video you have watched online was ", leaked"

Yes, that should be the right word from your reasoning.

BTW, I never said if a party is private everything about it must be private. You were the one who said so

Kobojunkie:
That a photo was leaked into the public space DOES NOT change the fact that it was a private party — paid for with private money and resources and not public funds.

You can only say it was leaked if you have evidence guests were barred from recording the event and posting it online.

Yes , there have been some private parties where guests were prevented from using their phones to capture anything going on .

And if the celebrant was the one who posted it online , would you still call it "leaked"

AmazingELixir:


You lot are impossible to understand.. .shebi you heard her say copies of the communications she had with Akpoti were sent to security agencies both at the US and Nigeria for authentication and verification...
why would she do that if the stories were fabricated, wouldn't that amount to shooting herself on the foot.

Akpabio and Natasha's anticidents might put them in precarious conditions when it comes to trust but fact is fact.

What are the names of the security agenciess in both countries the copies were sent to ,and where is the evidence they authenticated what she sent to them?

Rebelutionary:
Folks like you should have asked Natasha that question when she came to the public to make accusations without evidence.

You seem to forget that she's a LAWYER cum Senator who should know better thank playing all this childish emotional games that some have fallen for.

Anyway to answer you straight: Since she claims to be raving mād, we want to help her get nakêed!

If it's a mere accusation, why is Agbabio and folks like you having sleepless nights over it

Why not dismiss her accusation as false since you are very sure?

BTW , why didn't you answer directly to the question I asked you.

"Is the public now a court of law where she must present her evidences."

Exceed15:
Natasha that we all know will not waste time to release evidence if she a had . Or may she had but might end up implicating her too.

How you take no her?

The case is in court where evidences or evidence if she has any will be presented.

What I think Agbabio wants ,using Duru, is for Natasha to release the evidence she has publicly so that he and his lawyers will find a way to counter it before it's presented in court.
But he forgets the woman is a lawyer. She understands the game very well which must of you don't.

It's only a fool that will reveal his secret to his enemy.

If you're going to war with an enemy you don't reveal your war strategy to them . You keep it to yourself and use it in the battle field.

Bluntemperor:
Mr Man,which one be 'Free the 2- Senators, please'
🥺!
Say your mind on Natasha and leave Akpabio Alone,for this your tricks won't Work- for you and other Opposition have always been there for Natasha ( even when you know she was wrong).
All these Una Indirect Ways of trying to destroy the govt of the Day- Wouldn't Work!
•FOR IT IS ONLY IN NIGERIA THAT PEOPLE'S CONSCIENCE ARE DEAD TO TRUTH AND FACTS- OR CAN YOU CLAIMED THAT YOU DID NOT KNOW THAT YOUR NATASHA,IN THE SENATE ( RED CHAMBER) IS BEING USED AND COMMON SENSE IS SO LACKING THAT SHOULD HAVE TOLD YOU SO!
-See them -Awon Eke( Deceitful Social Media Gaulibles Audiences)- you will think,he is a good Samaritan by his Post here,as we all know where you belong to all this while!
Now,we want the evidence of Natasha, Madam Due Process '- Mrs Ezekwesili and till now ' Mum Is The Word and you expect people to be silent!
Are you Serious at all?
-For don't you know that he that Alleges MUST Prove it in the Court of Law?
-For, is it not written that he that brought an ant invested firewoods,is asking for lizard to show up!
Nonsensical People Are Everywhere!
I beg go rest.

@ the bolded,

Is the public now a court of law where she must provide the evidence to prove her accusation?

Mumusaphire:
and we don't have court of law? Or is it not u people that will say is a fake or photoshopped if she present the evidence to the public? Let both of them kpai themselves for court and stop distracting us from bad governance pls.

Correct talk

[quote author=tctrills post=135196777][/quote]Hehehe

Spiritual reproduction. What's is Spiritual reproduction, Mr spiritual?

Ok , I wouldn't understand it because it's Spiritual. Is that not so?. The spiritual can't be explained but only you can understand it without explanation and teach others .



If reproduction wasn't the right word according to you and you knew it, you would have said so immediately after or placed it placed in quotes and not now after your logic has been exposed.

You forget that what you confidently stated initially is still there for anyone to cross check if what you are saying now agrees with it. It doesn't.

You're swimming in a pool of confusion you created yourself and already drowning it in. Instead of calling out for help, you want to use deceptive arguments to save yourself.

Well, no need wasting my time. You have proven by your responses so far that you're amongst the numerous Christians out there who don't know the difference between what's figurative and literal expression in the Bible.

Begotten son or sons of God is figurative language not meant to be interpreted literally. But you have done so and have been boasting you have access to spiritual insight .

I'm sure someone like you would also interprete having faith as small as a mustard seed to mean literally little faith .

You can continue with Antichristian2

Thank you.

tctrills:
The answer I provided to your first post still stands for this your much longer write up.

Now let's do some science here. .
We know that there are organisms that reproduce with out a mate. And this is physical reproduction.
Now you are claiming to know how spirits reproduce. Don't you see that you have a problem?
We learn things of the physical through science. But when you apply that to the spiritual, it only makes you a fool.
I hope you understand now.

But you were the one who applied the physical, "reproduction", to the spiritual without any knowledge of how God had his sons

So who's the fool?

Last thing, if you applied the verse you quoted
Proverbs 3. 13, you wouldn't have made this post.

I quoted the Bible verse to remind you that wisdom is also needed to know truth. Solomon relied on wisdom to know amongst the two fighting women who owned the child . He didn't ask and wait for revelation from God to know the truth. He applied wisdom.

If you are as wise as you say, you should ask yourself questions like, What if the physical is completely different from the spiritual? What if both don't abide by the same laws?

How are spirits born? Does spiritual birth follow the pattern of physical birth?
My guy you know very little.

1. If you knew very much and had asked yourself those questions above, you wouldn't not have committed the blunder of using the word, "reproduction" which suggested spirits giving birth like humans. If you didn't mean that, then why did your mind went to wife after saying so?

See how you want to lie to defend your falsehood.

2.I didn't claim I'm wise or wiser than you. I quoted that verse to remind you that wisdom which your religious text says comes from God is also used in knowing truth.

FiveFootNinja:
There's a very big difference actually. The word "most" makes your claim sound more absolute. If you're trying to convey a proportional shift in collective thoughts across history, "more" sounds like the better operative word.

I'm fine with the rest of your arguments. Like I told you earlier, I don't have an issue with your core argument. It's just how you were phrasing your words.

Edited for clarity.

At the beginning,I phrased my words accordingly with the word, most, in answering to the op. I said, most people in the past, the ancients, as compared to people of today , operated from low level of consciousness based on what they did, said and believed.


The only mistake was using ,most, instead of more for people of today. More people, unlike in the past, are operating from a higher level of consciousness, but most aren't.

Do you agree to that?

tctrills:
You mean waiting for God's revelation doesn't make sense to you? You will rather draw up your own conclusion based on your very little knowledge.
To me, this is foolish pride. The things we do not know are far greater than the things we know so rather than going about and spreading falsehood, I choose to wait and learn.

You're the one spreading falsehood , or not making any sense by claiming that your God engaged in reproduction just like humans to produce sons, yet you're don't know if he has a wife or sex partner a partner until it's revealed to you.

If he engages in reproduction to produce sons according to you ,then, he has someone he's doing the do with. It's as simple as that

What you're arguing is like saying that you don't know if your parents has ever had sex either for pleasure or procreation since it's not been revealed to you by them or you haven't seen them doing it at anytime .

One doesn't need revelation all the time to discern certain things. What is needed is wisdom which doesn't make you proud but wise.


" Blessed are those who find wisdom, those who gain understanding"
Proverbs 3. 13

tctrills:
You clearly don't understand the word of God.
Now let me explain how the word of God works.
2 Peter 1:21
For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
The writings of Paul are inspired by the Holy Ghost hence they are just as important as the one you quoted from Isaiah.
Now let's again look at some other verses from the bible to see if God has a family.

Genesis 6:2
That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.
Here we see that God clearly has Sons. Are they also Gods?

Job 1:6 (KJV)
Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came also among them.
Again we see that God has a family. His son's are definitely his Family.

Psalm 2:7
"I will declare the decree: the Lord hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.
I am sure you know the meaning of begotten but if you don't, here is a simple definition.
(especially of a man) bring (a child) into existence by the process of reproduction.

Let's look at another verse in the old testament.
Psalm 82:6
6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.

Here we learn that the Sons of God are also Gods.
Are these not enough to teach you that not only does God have a family, his children are also Gods.
Now we know nothing about him having brothers, sisters, wife, mother, or father so we don't assume either way. We only learn from what has been revealed.

Let's assume that you don't take the inspired words of Paul to be serious, I have presented you with other writings and witnesses. Now, you can no longer doubt.

If God engages in reproduction to produce sons, then, the logical conclusion is that he has a wife.

But you're suggesting he has none ,or you don't want to accept he has one until it's reveal to you.

How does that make any sense?

FiveFootNinja:
Fair enough. Let me rephrase my question then.

What is the evidence to suggest that "most people" today think more independently today than "most people" did in the past?

I mistakenly created a misunderstanding by using the wrong word, " most" instead of more.

I used the qualifier, most, in responding to the op and continued with that when I had to respond to your question about people of today having the ability to think independently or operating from a more higher state of consciousness

If you accept there's no much difference between the use of both qualifiers, most and more, I will provide the evidence for my claim.

That's, do you agree that more people are now able to think independently as compared to most people of the ancient past?

FiveFootNinja:
Our behavior is as a result of our thought patterns, I know that already. I'm not dragging that with you. What I'm highly skeptical about is the idea that the "consciousness level" of an entire historical population can be accurately assessed or measured. That's what I was more interested in.

Please can you show me where I used the word, accurately ,or even suggested anything close to what you accusing me of?

You obviously know how to string up a solid argument, but you don't seem to be aware of the blind spots in them, like the hidden assumption in this statement you made:
You are implying that our present generation is somehow less influenced by collective thought patterns than our ancestors, and I'm not sure what to make of that because according to modern research in fields like psychology and sociology, we are still very much susceptible to unconscious biases. A very perfect example is the internet and social media as a whole. YouTube algorithms are literally designed to create a bubble around users wherein they only interact with ideas molded around their biases.

We're still susceptible to bias in the workplace, in churches, schools, etc. whether we realize it or not.

oh my God. Your misrepresenting me.

I made a comparison and said today is different unlike in the past. A lot of people these days are able to think independently no matter what group they belong.

I never said people of today are completely immune from external influences in their environment.

You trying to make me accept what you're wrongly making from my responses to you.

Is there really any evidence that shows that we are more free to think independently than our ancestors? Isn't it safer or more plausible to assume that we're operating under different forms of social or cognitive influence?

Please try not forget the key word, "most" in your next reply.

You continue to ignore it hence the reason you asked the above begining with,"we"

I was specific about what I explained.

FiveFootNinja:
Let us grant your collective consciousness theory and assume it is correct.

My question is, if it is correct, I'm interested to know what you think are the prevailing thoughts that are controlling all behaviors in our current era.

. 1. If it's not correct that people's behaviour are influenced by their thinking or their predominant thoughts, then tell me, what's influencing it?. Action springing from thoughts has been confirmed to be correct by modern cognitive science . It's the reason we now understand how neural pathways in the brain ,which encodes concentrated thought patterns , control our behaviour unconsciously.,

Have you not observed that certain group of people behave in a particular way without being consciously aware of how they're behaving almost exactly the same?


2. A little Google search will inform you of the prevailing thoughts currently influencing the behaviour of most people today. However, it's not easy to determine that easily because these days ,unlike in the past, most people are now free to think independently.

In the past, before the coming of modern science, the prevailing thoughts were those of superstition. Most people had superstitious thoughts of different kinds which influenced what they did and said.

And what are those blind spots that our future generations might identify in our thinking despite the access to information we have today, which is unprecedented in human history?

If this pattern of consciousness evolution is universal, what are those things we are currently unable to see about ourselves today that will probably be obvious to humans a thousand years from now?

What "our future generations" will know about the human being and the world we live in which will currently don't know is what help them to easily identify our"blind spots"

Despite our unprecedented access to information, we still don't know it all.

papyjaypaul:
The fear of heights.

Last week on the thread where the boat stopped in the body of water, some people were blaming the lady who recorded it and I told them you can't dictate someone's response or reaction to panic.

I didn't say she shouldn't have reacted, but said her reaction was subjective due to her fear of large water bodies.

How is that difficult for you to understand?

FiveFootNinja:
You're not entirely wrong. I just have an issue with your choice of words.

I don't think "consciousness" is a very good term to describe our collective access to knowledge as humans. You might want to write it off as a matter of semantics but words have meanings, and using that word "consciousness" the way you're doing makes it sound loaded and not really clear.

You're right that our knowledge is expanding. Over time we learn new things that make previous knowledge look inferior or painfully primitive. But that doesn't mean people back then were more gullible than us. It just means they were operating within an outdated ecosystem of knowledge, if that makes sense.

I mean, we literally had ancient philosophers and skeptics who questioned popularly held beliefs. So that fact alone debunks any suggestion that people back then were more gullible.

I didn't say everyone back then was gullible. If you read my response to DeepSight, I dwelt on the "most" the public, who weren't as knowledgeable as the few, (religious leaders and philosophers) who had access to higher knowledge with which they used to guide or control everyone else.

And that has not changed. The public, the average human being doesn't know much about what he or she is and the world he or she is currently occupying.

Only a few persons really know, but unwilling to reveal all they know. Sometimes, those who really know, even deliberately suppress the truth for their own benefit. It's happening in religion and even in the sciences.

As for the word consciousness, I have used it they way that's appropriate for the ongoing discussion.

The word, consciousness is not easily defined as it means different things to different people

In the context of the ongoing discussion, consciousness as I have used it refers to prevailing thoughts which controls the behaviour of a group of people at any given time.

In the past, what were the prevailing thoughts amongst most people?

If you could figure that out through research, then, it would be easy to know the level of consciousness from which people of those days were operating from as compared to ours.

FiveFootNinja:
What does this statement really mean though?

How do we objectively measure the "consciousness" of people back then and juxtapose it with the "consciousness" of people today?

The collective consciousness of a group of people is always reflected in the things they do and say.

And what a group of people do and say is based on the knowledge that they possess.

Most people of the past, compared to "people of today" didn't have much knowledge of themselves and the world, and it reflected in their behaviour.

In a thousand years from now, those coming after us would also make the same comparison I made and refer to us as savages.

DeepSight:
Note that the majority still thought it extreme even then.

It wasn't because they, themselves had evolved the consciousness to know what was an extreme religious claim, but because the religious leaders of those times whom they trusted guided them on what to accept and reject.

On their own, they would have accepted anything since their critical faculty wasn't as developed as it's now when most people on their own could easily judge what is an extreme religious claim.

DeepSight:
So if we find these claims ridiculous, does it not stand to reason that most of us would also have found any similar claims in the first century ridiculous if we were alive then?

I don't think most of would have found it ridiculous if we were alive then.

The consciousness of most people, the public, during those times, as compared to now was very low, making it easy for them to believe anything.

DeepSight:
There are several religious leaders who claim to be God. Here are details of a few contemporary ones I culled online -



Inri Cristo (born Álvaro Theiss): A Brazilian man who claims to be the reincarnation of Jesus Christ. Since the late 1970s, he has traveled and preached his doctrines and has a following, primarily in South America.

Apollo Quiboloy: The founder and leader of the Kingdom of Jesus Christ, The Name Above Every Name, Inc., based in the Philippines. He has declared himself the "Appointed Son of God."

Alan John Miller (A.J. Miller): An Australian leader of the Divine Truth movement. He claims to be the reincarnation of Jesus Christ, and his partner, Mary Suzanne Luck, claims to be Mary Magdalene.

Jey Rence Quilario (Senior Agila): The leader of the Socorro Bayanihan Services in the Philippines. Ex-members have claimed that Quilario believes himself to be God, the reincarnation of the Santo Niño (Child Jesus), and the Messiah.

Amy Carlson (deceased): The leader of the religious group "Love Has Won." She claimed to be a deity known as "Mother God" and asserted she was reincarnated figures like Mother Earth, Cleopatra, Jesus, Joan of Arc, Harriet Tubman, and Marilyn Monroe.

Sun Myung Moon (deceased): The founder of the Unification Church. While his claims evolved over time, he ultimately proclaimed himself and his wife to be the "True Parents" of humanity and asserted his role as the Messiah or Lord of the Second Advent, sent to complete Jesus' unfinished mission.

It's also worth noting historical figures from the 20th century who made similar claims, such as:

Meher Baba (deceased): An Indian spiritual master who stated he was the Avatar, or God in human form, of the age. He garnered a significant following both in India and the West.

Shree Hans Ji Maharaj (deceased) and his son Prem Rawat: The founder of the Divine Light Mission, Shree Hans Ji Maharaj, was revered by his followers. After his death, his young son, Prem Rawat, was accepted by many as the "Perfect Master" and, for a time, was treated with messianic reverence by some followers. While the organization and Prem Rawat's image have evolved, the early years saw strong undertones of his divinity.

- - - Culled from Google

Here in Nigeria, people like Olumba Olumba Obu and Sat Guru Maharaji have made similar claims.

Here is my question - what do you make of these claims, and why would anyone believe such claims made at any time in history?

nlfpmod

They are all claims made by people who have deluded themselves into accepting they have some special connection with their god.

"And why would anyone believe such claims"?

Well, the straight answer is,

The tendency to believe anything without questioning it.

Hi

Mrtaye:
Ehn but are you saying it's a standard procedure for fuel to finish at the middle of the ocean ni or doesn't the boat have a fuel gauge ni or can't he have extr.a fuel in like 10 litre keg ni.....are you also telling me th if fuel finish for my car on top third mainland bridge dem no go tow my motor away

I didn't say anywhere,"it's a standard procedure for fuel to finish at the middle of the ocean.

Third mainland bridge you're comparing it with is not a river . Boats aren't towed away like vehicles in Lagos when the stop moving. Other people seeing them stranded usually come to their rescue

Someone using a boat for commercial purposes would not deliberately
or foolishly carry passengers in a boat that earns him money without enough fuel.

If he didn't have enough and decided to proceed on the journey, what could be the reason?

Nobody knows yet until we can hear from the boat driver.

JuanDeDios:
This is where I stopped reading. Did we read the same post - where "what made the boat to stop midway" was clearly stated?

You stopped reading because you already made up your mind what you want to believe and not because of what I said.

The lady complained in the video it was fuel. I haven't dismissed completely what she claimed .

But did she confirm from the boat driver why it got finished so early, or why he didn't have enough before they departed from the jetty the left from?.

It was possible he couldn't get fuel on time before they left and instead of keeping them them waiting, decided to proceed on the journey with the little he has until they could get from either black market , or a floating fuel stations along that route.

If that we're the case ,then she should have shown understanding instead of recording a video as if it was her first of boarding a speed boat.

Now after posting her experience on social media for the world to see and join her in condemning the boat ,owner, she still went back to the same people she accused of risking her life to ferry her across .

How does that make sense?