₦airaland Forum

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?

YoungBlackRico:
They ought to have a floating fuel station in that axis.

They have and even black market sellers along that route, and that's why they were able to refuel on time and continue the journey. I know, because I have lived in Lagos before.

But I don't think the lady has given a true account of what actually transpired. It could be engine failure and not fuel getting finished.

It doesn't make sense a ferry being used
commercially departs a jetty without enough fuel to get to its destination.

Mrtaye:
Will fuel finish inside plane mid air

Yes, it can . It has happened or almost happened in the past.

For instance, if poor visibility due to by bad weather makes it difficult for a plane to land on time, fuel can get exhausted or get so low as the pilot continues to fly round the airport for it to clear up

Engine fault can also cause fuel getting exhausted mid air.

But I only made reference to planes because you said anything could happen.

And airplanes aren't immune to accidents caused by human error. Are they?

So what are you talking about?

Water transportation is the safest amongst the three means of transportation in any part of the world

How often do you hear that a boat, not the rickety ones, has capsized ?

The only reason some persons are scared of boarding ferrys is due to their fear of water and not because it's riskier.

If I live in Lagos and have to choose between going on a ferry or car, I will choose the former. It's safer

papyjaypaul:
Let me analyse your post again

triplechoice:
She wasn't at any risk ,but probably because of her phobia for wild body of water she thought she was .

She was at risk in a body of water. And yes, der phobia can put others at risk. In the early 90s, comedians used road or plane accidents as comedy material until 9/11 and the multiple plane crashes that happened when Obasanjo was in power. What was the joke about? How men or women, Igbo, Hausa or Yoruba react when there is an accident scare? They even used 2face material that nobody wan die but we wan go heaven. There is a risk sir.

---

triplechoice:
The boat wasn't leaking

I am not an expert so I cannot say anything on this but if something preventable like fuel was not checked, I don't trust their quality assurance checks.

---

triplechoice:
It wasn't experiencing any severe turbulence as they waited for fuel

You have a good observation here. This is where customer service works. What is the update? How did the boat operators manage the sutiation to assure passengers that all was well

---

triplechoice:
And moreover, she had a Life jacket on.

Hello sir, a life jacket is a temporary emergency equipment. It's not a life jacket as you think it is. It doesn't mean you can't die with a life jacket on. We don't even know how medical conditions, people can die in water or the fear of water, which is real.

---

triplechoice:
So what was there to be afraid of that she had to record it and post on social media to spoil business for the ferry owners?

Or was she afraid that some "mamy water" would capsize the boat?

Well, Instead of refusing her boarding, the managers of the ferry should have educated her that there was nothing to be afraid of in the situation they found themselves so she could stay calm incase it happens again.

I agree with your last paragraph but if the boar operators were serious, they will also have live recording and monitoring of their operations. It helps in investigations too.
We live in an era of citizen journalism. That's why I put the Delta air crash video on my last post. It was recorded by a passenger who was in the flight despite the fact that it was an accident. Was that spoiling the business of Delta Airlines even though the airports have cameras everywhere?

You don't get yet

I said the fear she expressed was her own personal emotional reaction to the situation which she tried to justify with reason. There was nothing to be afraid of. She obviously has phobia for large water bodies and that was what she focused on and recorded and posted on social media.

If I were on that boat ,I certainly wouldn't react they way she reacted . I'm used to it and know when it can be risky to be stranded.

I have boarded planes in the past that experienced serious turbulence in the air to the extent some passengers cried, said their last prayers, or even fainted, but I wasn't bothered much during those times because it something I have become used to.

So please, don't to use the lady's account
of the incident to judge they were at risk.

You haven't heard from the other passengers or the management of the ferry to know exactly what happened.

JuanDeDios:
At bolded. Na which one we dey talk before?

I believe they endangered the lives of the passengers by taking off with insufficient fuel. There are usually no petrol stations in the water, so once you're stranded there, you rely on luck to find another boat with extra fuel or you call for a refuelling boat which may not be anywhere nearby at the time. If a heavy vessel happens to pass, the waves can capsize the boat. Rain can also start falling, followed by wind, which can capsize the boat. Yes, they had life jackets, but those have been known to fail. Some passengers will even wear them wrongly. Even when worn correctly, they can fail.

Oga

Have you heard from the management of the ferry before concluding on what made the boat to stop midway?

It's not uncommon for boats to stop halfway or any other time on a journey. It happens all the time and people who ply it regularly are used to it

Boats don't just capsize because they suddenly stop due to fuel shortage or engine failure.

Or do they capsize because of strong waves made by other passing boats or vessels.

If the boat is leaking and overloaded when it stops, then there's something to be afraid of.

When it rains, they usually provide something to cover with and sometimes the ferry are built with a covering for passengers to hide .

Honestly you're talking from inexperience. If you go to say the things you have been saying here to those used to boarding boats everyday in Lagos and elsewhere in the country, they would laugh at you to the extent you feel very embarrassed.

papyjaypaul:
When the airplane crash lande



Please don't trivialize transportation risk. Anything can happen even to the best of the best in water

I didn't trivialize anything but put things in the right perspective for others to understand she wasn't any such risk in the situation she described.

Following your reasoning that anything could happen, one could also warned that people don't board planes or even vehicles since accidents happen.

JuanDeDios:
A lot of people would die inside several times in that situation. And some would make videos to pass the time and cope with the trauma.

Those who would die "a several times" are those not used to that kind of situation and have phobia for large water bodies. I know because I have lived in a riverine area where the only means of transportation was boats and sometimes even canoes.

She wasn't the only one in the boat and I don't think she was traumatized as you think if not she wouldn't go there the next day to board again. She overacted based on who she's and you're now joining her to escalate things without mentioning how exactly she was at risk.

But why are you not concerned about the the total irresponsibility of the boat managers and their reckless endangerment of human lives? This was not an act of God.

How did they endangered her life? Tell me please

And have heard from the management of the ferry before concluding they acted irresponsibly.

Don't judge yet until you hear from the other party.

She wasn't at any risk ,but probably because of her phobia for wild body of water she thought she was .

The boat wasn't leaking

It wasn't experiencing any severe turbulence as they waited for fuel

And moreover, she had a Life jacket on.

So what was there to be afraid of that she had to record it and post on social media to spoil business for the ferry owners?

Or was she afraid that some "mamy water" would capsize the boat?

Well, Instead of refusing her boarding, the managers of the ferry should have educated her that there was nothing to be afraid of in the situation they found themselves so she could stay calm incase it happens again.

This is what happens when you refuse to consider the consequences of your actions.

You will end up learning the hard way.

Deepspirituals:
Not Pranks , There are Powers that Performs Magics , It's an Ancient Thing , Go to Indian, Egypt You see Magic.

Read Your Bible Well , Pharaohs Wise Men Performs Magic , If you Believe in Holy Spirit , You are Ignorant if you Don't Believe in the Realities of Evil Spirit

You have conflated two unrelated things.

A stage magician is an illusionists that uses natural means to create magical effects that are explainable. Their craft is magic without the letter "k" and it's for entertainment.

While the ones you are confusion it with is spelt as ,magick ,with letter "k" to differentiate it from those of stage magicians.

Magick with the letter "k" is the one that uses unnatural means to create effects and it's not for entertaining audiences.

Everything the man did is explainable. Anyone can replicate if they're taught how it's done.

Magic and magick are not the same .

Not correct information

For example, Ghana cedi is only valuable on the surface because they have redominated it.

Hussein035:
I don't think you are fine. It's not your fault it's all because you have a job that is giving you over 200k salary

How many people in Lagos has a job paying more than 120k salary even for Bsc holders

This is reality so stop typing nonsense

The person you replied to has issues she's living in denial of.
She's not taking any responsibility for her own life yet she's quick to criticize others for not being responsible for theirs

She's jobless in the US and has refused to engage in any meaningful activity to pay her own bills.

When you call her out for indolence and irresponsibility,the next thing, is to reply that she's happily unemployed and enjoying it .

It's this same refuse -to - work individual with a lot of issues of her own surviving on crumbs from social welfare in the US that's now
taking it upon her self to villify another man, and even the wife lying in the morgue for irresponsibility .

Just imagine the irony!.

Well , I won't be surprised if one of these days Donald Trump turns his attention on individuals like her who don't want to work and contribute their own through paying taxes so others can benefit.

Live is ups and down . The unexpected can happen which can render one's preparedness completeness useless. Money is not everything . We regularly see how sometimes it disappoints those who rely totally on it like a god. Humanity is the only reliable thing that will never fail us in trying times and not the millions or even billions we have in the bank.

The only thing the man did wrong was to take the wife to the unaffordable private health facility where they were refused treatment.

But you cannot really blame him. It was an emergency situation. Mother and child were dying and the nearest place he could think of was the private clinic. But unfortunately, the hospital refused attending to them obviously because of past experience from others who absconded.

If he had the presence of mind to rush the wife to a public health facility which he could afford,and the wife died on the way while attempting that, the same heartless humans some of who aren't even married nor have any experience given birth will still be the ones to blame the him for not going first to a private clinic that's closer .

Who knows? They might have gotten some help that would have save mother and child.
Yes. That's what they would been saying .

So many heartless and mentally unbalanced individual crawling this forum.

GeneralPula:
Love your neighbor as yourself talk is a complete fallacy

Why is it a complete fallacy?

oluwaseyi0:
First question is do most people love themselves?

I see some people drive and I ask this question over and over

Some keep having unprotected sex with strangers, even OS

Some keep smoking what they know their brain can't carry

Some keep using their school fees or even food money to bet

So many atrocities people are committing against their own self

That's why before one can show love to one's neighbour, one must love oneself first.

One cannot give what one doesn't have.