₦airaland Forum

Horiolah:
Answer d simple question, why can't we see diz local sun at night with a telescope but galaxies billions of light year away??

At every point during a 24 hour day - the suns orbiting cycle - half the earth experiences sunlight. Because of it's size - small - and distance away - far - and "spotlight" effect, it cannot be seen in the unlit parts. It has set, that is , is out of sight and it's light no longer seen, at which part the lesser light of the moon and stars are in the ascendance. Simples .

Horiolah:
Do u even knw d size of the earth??
If you can't see Tokyo from the top of Burj khalifa with a telescope or binocular, and u believe d earth is flat. I can't help you.

The Lord is mine help . The human high has limited sight. Plus atmospheric conditions also limit visual distances and clarity. Even on a perfectly clear day, the human eye can only see so far. It's not rocket science (see what I did there?) .

Psalm 19:4-6
Their voice goes out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. In them He has set a tent for the sun, which comes out like a bridegroom leaving his chamber, and, like a strong man, runs its course with joy. Its rising is from the end of the heavens, and its circuit to the end of them, and there is nothing hidden from its heat.


Cheers
TV

Oga, good morning sir,

has evidence of the earths movement or shape arrived overnight Any vision of the night with deep revelation there

OpenYourEyes1:
You think like a kid my friend. You really expect the Bible to be technical or scientific on these things, like telling the ancient Jews that water is made of hydrogen & oxygen and has no form? And if water is described as formed in the Bible because it takes the shape of its container, you will yell at the Book that it is false description.

The ancient Jews - ancient peoples in general - were much more intelligent and closer to the divine than people of today. Having said that, how technical does "water finding its level have to be . Water does not curve, nor does it hold to a round object. It would either pool to the bottom or slide off, especially if that object was spinning like crazy in multiple directions .

OpenYourEyes1:
By the way, sphere has no edge yet the modern world still uses words like North, South, East and West for areas on Earth. Can you explain why?

That is ancient wisdom. The truth of flatness has been replaced by the lie of sphericity, but language can be harder to change. Descriptors will almost always accord to observation. The sun "rises" and "sets", we fly in the air over a plane "aeroplane" etc.


Ekú aaro
TV

Horiolah:
Dude both where used and they arrived at the same answer, oh you thought they were looking with their naked eyes?? They're not as dumb as u think.

There is no curve. Spherical geometry on "a planet" of the earths size indicates a curve of 8 inches per square mile. This has never been demonstrated and, is frequently falsified by being able to view objects between long distances which should be under the curve and out of sight.

Horiolah:
I just know say u be troll.

At all sir - I'm a "Flactivist" Any evidence there .

Romans 3:4...Indeed, let God be true but every man a liar.

Best
TV

Horiolah:
Set to where??

Wow, what is this??

Guy u need to fart more, if you don't they'll travel up ur spine to your brain. That's where shitty_ ideas come from.

Bruv truss me, when I fart is the only time the earth moves. Otherwise it's stationary

Ecclesiastes 1:5
The sun rises, and the sun goes down, and hastens to the place where it rises.

Psalm 93:1
The Lord reigns; he is robed in majesty; the Lord is robed; he has put on strength as his belt. Yes, the world is established; it shall never be moved.


Best
TV

Horiolah:
NAT geo wild did a test to check if the earth is flat or not. They placed a big white board with four different colour stripes on a boat, as the boat goes farther, the stripe at the bottom appears to be in the water. That's curvature bro.

No mate, it's perspective and possibly a degree of refraction - water does not curve. It always finds it's level. A telescope or binoculars would bring it right back into view. There is no curvature. The earth is a plane .

Isaiah 40:22
It is he who sits above the circle of the earth, and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers; who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them like a tent to dwell in;

Cheers
TV

Horiolah:
If you think that's funny then you have no idea how big the earth is, let alone d universe.

Let's agree on the motion and shape first. Any evidence .


Best
TV

Horiolah:
If we can see galaxies billions of light year away, why can't we see diz small, local sun you're talking about ??

You can You see it every day as it "rises" and "sets" - i.e. orbits the earth

Horiolah:
Let me just say diz, God said he created two lights for earth. The bigger and lesser light, that's the sun and the moon. That shit_ is incorrect cuz d moon is no light.

Both the sun and moon are luminaries. Giving off their own unique light.

Horiolah:
The crescent is possible cuz the earth is blocking some part of the moon from sunlight, you see crescent or half of the moon cuz that's d only part reflecting the sunlight.

The moon does not reflect the suns light. It gives off it own light.


Cheers
TV

Horiolah:
Lol

Is that funnier than a belief that the earth rotates at 1'000mph on it's axis, whilst orbiting the sun at 67'000mph, with both as part of our milky way moving through our galaxy at over 500'000mph. And it is claimed that the galaxy is moving at 1.3 million mph as part of the universe. Yet none of these movements can be observed or demonstrated.

Meanwhile, a clearly observable sun - and a moon - locally orbiting our earth is derided as not empirical .

Jeremiah 31:35
Thus says the Lord, who gives the sun for light by day and the fixed order of the moon and the stars for light by night, who stirs up the sea so that its waves roar— the Lord of hosts is his name:


Cheers
TV

Horiolah:
If truly the sun orbit around the flat earth, then we should be able to see d sun with the telescope at night.

The sun is not seen at night as it is out of sight - along with it's light. As explained, the sun is local and smaller than the earth.

Horiolah:
Crescent moon is not possible on a flat earth, do you even know why we see crescent ??

Why not? Why??

Horiolah:
What you're trying to say is every other planets are round, but ours is a circular disc.

The bible makes no mention of planets. Only the earth, the sun, he moon and the stars. Sometimes "heavenly bodies and "constellations of stars", which it sometimes calls by name.

Psalm 147:4-5
He determines the number of the stars; he gives to all of them their names. Great is our Lord, and abundant in power; his understanding is beyond measure.

Amos 5:8
He who made the Pleiades and Orion, and turns deep darkness into the morning and darkens the day into night, who calls for the waters of the sea and pours them out on the surface of the earth, the Lord is his name;


Cheers
TV

OpenYourEyes1:
“Have you ever in your life commanded the morning, and caused the dawn to know its place; That it might take hold of the ends of the earth, That the wicked might be shaken out of it? It [the earth] is turned as clay to the seal; And they [the wicked] stand forth as a garment" Job 38:12-14

Earth rotation as described by jobs

Job

12
“Have you ever given orders to the morning,
or shown the dawn its place,
13
that it might take the earth by the edges
and shake the wicked out of it?
14
The earth takes shape like clay under a seal;
its features stand out like those of a garment.

No. Can a sphere possess edges or ends?That is evidence of a flat earth. a seal bore the symbol of the writer (creator) of a document and was impressed upon clay, sealing the document and signifying it's author (maker).

The earth is essentially a flat plain with it's features - land, seas, highland, lowlands etc. - standing in relief. You can deny the flat earth, or resort to alternative cosmologies, but you cannot debunk it using the bible. It is a flat earth book through and through .

https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=clay+under+seal&FORM=HDRSC2


Cheers
TV

OpenYourEyes1:
Weak arguments.
How would you have described the Joshua event? Even modern world still uses the terms 'sun rise and sun set' or "sun moves from East to West"

It is perfectly clear as stated. Yes it does - the sun moves as observed in a circular orbit over the earth plane.

The sun orbits the earth - as does the moon. As it approaches, the viewer has the sense of it rising and growing in size. Likewise, when it is receding, it appears to lower and shrink. Hence the terms "rise" and "set".Basic perspective. Think horizon and vanishing point.

The sun is not 93m miles away or 110 times the size of the earth. The sun and moon are roughly the same size, which is smaller that the earth they orbit. And within the firmament above the earth, as are the stars. The sun acts almost like a spotlight, hence only half the earth plane is lit at any one time.

OpenYourEyes1:
"On the day the LORD gave the Amorites over to Israel, Joshua said to the LORD in the presence of Israel: as it is written in the Book of Jashar. The sun stopped in the middle of the sky and delayed going down about a full day."
Joshua 10:12-13

It delayed going down as it halted in it's movement. So the lighting effect held and the perspective did not change. "In the middle of the sky" because it is not 150m km away, but within the earths firmament .

OpenYourEyes1:
1 Chronicles 16:30:
"Tremble before him, all the earth! The world is firmly established; it cannot be moved."

How is this about the movement of the earth?

Cosmology is a whole. Biblical cosmology says the earth is motionless, flat and is orbited by the sun. The commonly held belief is that it moves, is spherical and orbits the sun. Both positions cannot be right. Simply demonstrate empirically, with proof, that the earth moves and the whole bible position collapses. I stand to be corrected and disabused of my faith.

Genesis 1:14-18
And God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night. And let them be for signs and for seasons, and for days and years, and let them be lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light upon the earth.” And it was so. And God made the two great lights—the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night—and the stars. And God set them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth, to rule over the day and over the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good.

Cheers
TV

Horiolah:
Ok. So the sun orbit around the earth and nt around the center of the milky way?

That's correct.

God created the earth, the sun, the moon and the stars. Stars I believe are multi-varied in nature - some move, others are stationary, some emit light, possibly some do not. Some are creatures or capable of expression. Nothing about the solar system or a milky way.


"The heavens declare the glory of God and the firmament sheweth His handwork".


Cheers
TV

Horiolah:
Can a star move??

Hi. Yes is the short answer


Cheers
TV

nwabekeyi:
nice write up but your conclusion is faulted. It doesn't matter if you believe in the Bible or not, what matters are the facts presented. From the verifiable facts we have, the bible is totally wrong as regards the shape of the earth...

After all, internet cannot even work on a flat earth, you won't be able to reply this text if the earth were flat

Thank you for your kind words.

I would appreciate your outlining a few of these verifiable facts that demonstrate the bible is wrong regards the shape of the earth. As I started with the earths state of motion - stationary - it would be good if you could present verifiable proof of the earths rotation and/or orbit.

Emusan:
Bible is a book you can make it says what you want it to say.

The message of the Bible is salvation to the world...

The second point absolutely. The first true in a manner of speaking. But what the bible says about the motion and shape of the earth cannot be gainsaid - indeed, one thing you cannot discern from the bible is a sperical axial-rotating and sun-orbiting earth.

Kcgeology:
from mere observation, it seems d sun actually moves, but scientifically proven, it is d earth that moves round d sun. to d eyes of joshua, it was d sun that seems to be mobile, thus his prayer. if god were to reveal to him that it was d other way round, it wud have been impossibl to comprehend. it was actually galileo that debunked the belief that d earth was d centre of d universe via his telescope. man was given a mandate to conquer d world. scientific inovations such as satellite imagery throw more light on our universe. if u are a believer, science will make u acknowledge the power of god, if u are not a believer, science is one sure ticket to madness coz it will strengthen ur belief that god is a fairy tale. cheers

The sun moves as observed, as does the moon. Over and around a circular earth with variations which give rise to seasons. Please show the conclusive and verifiable evidence that the earth moves - in any way shape or form, let alone around the sun.

Acknowledging the power of God - however that comes about - is great. I would also suggest that a) one doesn't need science to do that b) what is falsely called science does not do that and c) denying God in order to affirn things just because they are labelled science could have dire consequences.


Cheers
TV

MuttleyLaff:
TV01, real pleasure seeing you dive in.

At all. The pleasure is all mine. Happy to see versed and enquiring minds discussing .

MuttleyLaff:
The book of Enoch writing are referenced in the Bible by Peter and Jude not as a form of endorsing it but actually the mentioned parts of the book of Enoch in their letters was done to demystify to stories of angels impregnating human beings myths and stories that were going the rounds in and around that time.

I disagree. It appears to me that Jude is actually using the writing of Enoch to buttress his points. Pray tell, where does Peter refer to Enoch?

MuttleyLaff:
Jude and Peter scolded people believing this story and even charged them of slandering the angels, further saying even fellow angels wouldn't think of slandering angels of what they are accused of.

I disagree. In fact I totally fail to see how you arrive at this conclusion from the text?

MuttleyLaff:
I too aside the good book, read the bad and ugly books, that Book of Enoch is one nasty piece of work, that you literally do a SMH every now and then when reading it. No wonder, Paul too, aside Jude and Peter, warned against all these Jewish myths like including this one, doing the rounds back then and still does today.

Like I said, I believe Jude referenced Enoch to make his point. I don't see where Paul or Peter warned against Enoch specifically. I'd be interested to understand why you feel the Enochian writings are bad, misleading or not aligned with scripture?

MuttleyLaff:
Also "sons of God" incorrectly is popularly believed to be about angels and this is woefully untrue.

In the OT I believe all but one of the usages of this term referred to angels. So, even if it was wrong in this instance - which I personally don't believe it was, "woefully untrue" would be reaching to to say the least.

MuttleyLaff:
Another thing is the Nephilim, they were the fallen ones, who happen to be off the lineage of Cain and incidentally were giants.

I see no scriptural backing for this. The first reference to the Nephilim is at the point that the sons of God took wives of the sons of men...."and after this" also.

Genesis 6 King James Version (KJV)
1 it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them - men multiplied and had daughters, as plain as can be, men, human beings, without any kind of categorisation

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. From your reading, this is saying the sons of men saw the daughters of men and married them. Not beings that were not men, saw, desired and took the daughters of men?

3 And the Lord said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.
4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown. It was this co-habitation between Angels and human females that gave rise to the giants and, the presence of giants persisted after that time.

MuttleyLaff:
Their population alarmingly increased when the the sons of God, who really are human beings who kept themselves originally pure and of a Seth descendant found the beauty of the daughters of men sexually attractive to and so went into them, ending up having burly kids that also are now smart.

The Sethian school of thought is not one I agree with. I actually think it's dangerous - having once held it as taught - potentially leading one to miss whole swathes of events and Gods plan to restore things.

MuttleyLaff:
So TV01, putting your head on the line, you believe that angels have capabilities to have sex with human beings and procreate giving children, right?

Yes, and I believe the Bible says as much.

Here's one for you what sin did those referenced in Jude 6 commit?

^{Jude 6:"And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day".}


Cheers
TV

Ihedinobi3:
Big bro TV!! It's very good to read from you here. Thank you for chipping in. And for your very kind greetings. I have been, by God's good grace. And He continues to open a road out for my feet everyday. I hope that you have been well, sir.

Very well thanks bro. Loved the brief testimony you shared. May you persist in His presence...

nwabekeyi:
I really do not know if the bible has backing for spheroid or flat earth theory.
If anyone has scripture verses that explains the global earth model, you can share.

I really want to know what believers think about the flat and the global model form of earth....


Which do you support based on your belief and what it apparently evident?

In the first instance the bible is explicit in stating that the earth is stationary. That alone contradicts the commonly accepted/taught belief that the earth is rotating on it's axis and orbiting the sun. Indeed the book of Joshua (10:12-13), it talks about the sun and moon stopping in their movements over the earth. This is totally opposite what would be considered the prevailing scientific view of our time.

1 Chronicles 16:30: “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable.”
Psalm 93:1: “Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm ...”
Psalm 96:10: “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable ...”
Psalm 104:5: “Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken.”
Isaiah 45:18: “...who made the earth and fashioned it, and himself fixed it fast...”

Secondly, the first chapter, and not far beyond the first few verses, state clearly that the earth was created before the sun and moon, which are but lights for the earth. That also is beyond the pale in relation what is generally presented as the scientific consensus.

Thirdly, the bible speaks of something severally called the firmament, the dome, the vault of heaven, which suggests a physical hard canopy or tent like covering over, and, to the "ends of the earth" - which the bible also talks about. Inside which the sun, moon and stars reside. This presents all sorts of problems with what is considered current scientific consensus, inter-alia, distances from the earth and the nature of the sun, moon and stars, space travel, moon-landings, the works.

Fourthly, there is nothing to even suggest the earth is spherical or a globe, let alone moving in any direction. Many scriptures allude to the whole being in view form heaven at once, most notable being the devil taking the Lord up to a high mountain and showing "all the kingdoms of the earth.

It is not just flatness here, for which I believe the weight of scripture comes to bear, it's the whole of biblical cosmology. Indeed it's the whole of the bible. If the first chapter is wrong, faulty or erroneous, what value any of it as absolute truth? How can Christ, who referenced the creation event be trusted, or assuredly be whom He claims if the foundational basis is false?

I believe that biblical cosmology and a number of basic doctrines are fundamentally discordant with scientific positions and, there is no clear or honest way to reconcile them.

What do I think about the flat or global model of earth? In the first instance nothing, I believe the bible. I may misunderstand it, misinterpret it, or even misapply it. however, I believe it and I believe God who inspired it. Let God alone be true and every man a liar.


Best
TV

Elder0001:
If you marry men like acidosis ,tv01/tv101 and LordKO no matter how rich you are they’ll try to subjugate you . Because their ego rests on your subservience to them .

Men like acidosis can’t thrive with a financially independent woman who has no need for his self acclaimed protection and provision.

It's TV01 Hope your spouse comes soon. And that your eyes clear first. Or at least the practicalities of your ideology hold true

And no, it's absolutely irrelevant if a woman is financially independent prior to marriage. Indeed, not many men are and, often, it's the combination of income and labour from both parties that make marriage a viable proposition and going concern.

One's financial status will not necessarily speak to their commitment, maturity or vision. All decidedly more important than financial capability, which does have it's place admittedly, but is not in and of itself determinant.

Marriage is not about independence, it's about inter-dependence. Once you get that and are mature and committed this poser eases to exist as a real consideration. Indeed, this thinking is better termed "financial independence after marriage", as that is what it is mostly about isn't it?


For those of you who are true of heart and desirous of marriage, be wise. Don't be caught up in fallacies, erroneous notions or ill-founded and distracting considerations. Beware the interjections of the ignorant and/or bitter.


Singing "money ain't a thang "


Best
TV

Evening Gents,

Do some heavenly beings, specifically angels in this case, have sexual feelings? A mute point methinks. Sexual capability is more the question I feel. Whether the follow through was based on "feelings" or some other wider ranging desire.

This is detailed in Genesis 6, where the "sons of God, came into the daughters of men", which gave rise to the Nephilim, the fallen ones, who were indeed giants, but much besides.

Enochs writings are referenced in the scriptures and the book of Enoch, while not generally considered canonical, is in at least one canon and, non-canonicity does not in itself render writings untrue or untrustworthy. It goes into greater detail about this angelic incursion which led to mixed offspring, including the motivation, the result, the consequences and the judgement.

Not only does it align with the biblical narrative, but also other 2nd temple era Jewish writings. Indeed, most antique mythologies of that era and region can be traced back to the genesis 6 incursion. Think the Annunaki of Babylon, the Titans of Greece etc. I would heartily recommend other pseudepigrapha, especially those referenced in the Bible. I've also read Jasher - which was a great read to say the least - and aim to get round to Jubilees at some point.

Noah was without blemish. I believe this was more about physical purity than spiritual. The bible recounts how "all flesh" was corrupt. The ultimate consequence of this could have been to derail "the promise to the seed". Enoch could in effect be part of that lineage, as he was not physically corrupt.

I think it's also worth noting that the slander against God for what has been described as the wilfully capricious and genocidal instructions to totally annihilate some of the tribes of Canaan speak to this. They were descendants of the giants, not fully human or redeemable by the Lords sacrifice and, inter-marrying with them would have potentially catastrophic ramifications for the seed line.

All in all good to see that it's not just tithing that is in view and proper discussions still happen here.


Best
TV

^{...Ihedinobi3, I had no intention of posting but was so made up by seeing you here, just had to stop by and extend my warmest regards. I trust you are journeying well. God bless...}

SLOVFO:
I am a 37 years old man that is about to court and marry a 20 year old lady. The lady in question came highly recommended by close friends and she is quite matured for her age. The parents are also willing to let her go. But i am hesitant, as i consider the age difference between the two of us. Moreso, she is just in her year one in a higher institution.

Please I need the opinions and advise of experienced folks.

Hi SLOVFO, good evening, please allow me to say a few words.

the short answer to your question is Yes! It's also no! There is no playbook or necessarily a template. Every relationship is unique and subject to it's own particulars. Ask yourself, what are those of this relationship?

Funny how politics, religion, and discourse generally, tends to take positions of extremity or polarity these days? Some have said a resounding no and explained why, others an emphatic yes, and given their reasons.

Someone said age is a factor. No it is not. It's maturity, it's vision, it's the wherewithal to think long-term and understand the realities of what is important for a flourishing relationship and satisfying life well lived. If one understands that at 20, they are good to go, if they don't at 40, then halt proceedings immediately.

As a rule, I always counsel a decent age gap for men over their wives. I have 10+ years over my wife, and as it so happens, my wife's younger sisters husband is older than me. The gap between them is 17 years in fact and, in as much as I can vouch, they are doing just fine.

I have someone else close to me who married in his mid thirties to a someone a few years younger - they didn't make it past the 1 year mark. Don't listen to those saying "marry your mate". A post like this will always trigger the older, desperately seeking female who suddenly realises what she is up against - it's good you brought this here, but be discerning who you take counsel from.

If she has been well oriented by her family, upbringing and experience, is past the risky "flighty" stage, or will not/never, as some don't, go through it, and you can match that with the requisite qualities of your own, it's a match.

Just the two words of caution. One is patience, you will possibly still have to give her room to blossom in some ways. Well oriented and mature enough for marriage she may be, but she may need additional space and time to explore grow and adapt in some respects. The only advice my BIL gives to intending couples is for the husband to have patience.

The other is health and fitness. You, if you have taken care of yourself, will be just about at or coming off your physical peak. To ensure you prolong the enjoyment of the physical aspects, and not leave her nursing you when she is just about at, or coming off hers, you need to put the effort into maintaining optimal physical vigour and well-being. Like seriously.

Some of those yahoo-yahoo, slay-queen tales are quite disturbing, To forestall any possibility of that, if you believe, honour The Lord in your search for a spouse. I can corroborate the stories to a degree, and it was The Lord who delivered me and set me aright. I personally wouldn't take my own advice without that foundation

I wish you all the best. You sound like a great guy. Humble and mature. Someone who would make a terrific husband.


Regards
TV

laura8:
You make seem so simple..
But its not
Or?? Is it?

The short answer to that is "yes". The slightly longer answer is "yes, but sometimes with varying degrees of effort".

Best
TV

GreatDad19 good evening,

I applaud the way you’ve laid yourself bare here and, unflinchingly taken the kind of thunderous condemnation that can get hurled around. In all you’ve have remained resolutely focused on your desired, and dare I say the right, outcome – restoration of your home. I sincerely hope that this concludes with your testimony to the same!

Do forgive me if I am a little expansive, I like to address the specific and the more general. I’ve read through your 2 threads and get the sense that in all you are a responsible, earnest and serious guy – looking to do your best for your wife and family. That makes you a leader, as you well should be as a man, a husband, and a father.

Do not let imprecation about your less than perfect approach or manner get to you. None of us are, least of all those that are demanding it of you. Whenever I am asked to say a few words at weddings or to an intending couple, I always say to the groom “whether it’s her fault, or your fault, it’s your responsibility”. I see you taking responsibility here – every comment that does not acknowledge that and seek to deride you is mere gainsaying.

I hear your frustration – loudly! You work hard to provide for your family and sex is a right and one of the main things men typically delight in within marriage. It is more than just physical, although those benefits are myriad. It re-affirms the bond and is the one place only the two of you go.

You should actually have moved faster. I have been there, and will say this much. After tackling the issue head on, things were even better than before. Set your sights high, you don’t just want the restoration of your sex life, you want to elevate it to another level. Beyond mere relief, beyond the perfunctory, to the kind you mentally record and playback with a dopey smile on your face when you should be hard at work

Always take stock of your marriage – all areas - and if anything is slipping or awry, take steps to address it sooner rather than later, lest it become entrenched and nigh on intractable.

I can see why you confided in friends, they have generally got your back – especially longstanding ones. But please don’t. At most, one trusted person, preferably an elder, versed in marital issues, as opposed to a peer. You can’t always tell where friendships are going or will end. Your friends may be objective, but no wiser and, one person is sharing, more is broadcasting.

As to the oversensitivity issue, bro’, that is not atypical for your average woman, it’s one of the main ways we differ. You can praise her all day and make one constructive remark. The remark will override all else that came before and possibly much of what comes after. Dude, that thing will seed and grow fruit you will be eating for a long time.

While most men can shrug off most critiscm or spite, most women internalise and fuel their anxieties or insecurities – all the more if they are carrying past trauma that you may not even be aware of.

But now she is yours. It becomes your mandate to instil that sense of security and joy in her, by lovingly building her up. Be firm, be frank, but never verbally caustic, no matter the provocation. And try to not come across as condemnatory, it will build her confidence in sharing things and communicating with you, as opposed to making her clam up or go on the offensive.

It is that communication that will be the bedrock, and the way this issue has been difficult to address and festered indicates you have much to do here. As you have laid yourself bare here, do so with her. Not in a way that presents you as weak, or even vulnerable – that is dangerous to the dynamic – but in a way that lets her see she is the first port of call and your trusted confidante.

It would be hard for any spouse to think that their personal issues – and really sensitive ones – are being openly discussed. No, no, no, thrice no. It can progress to a point where the elder I mentioned is superfluous and friends are nowhere. All they see is that smile and your sense of uxory.

So you’ve been derided for you non-project management approach to situations. Listen, I’m a qualified coach and often neglect to apply the model in my personal life. Yes you could have been more considered, played a slightly longer game – it has been 2 years after all – and approached more warily, with the scene properly set.

Pick your self up, dust yourself off, learn the lessons and re-engage. Acknowledge your own cack-handedness, and hands up for the unpleasantness, its violence and has no place in a loving home. But do stress that you know things are not right and you’d like a progressive solution.

Allow your wife lead the conversation and take things at her own pace, but be sure to moderate and not let things slip or fade away. Don’t lose sight of the desired outcome – ensuring she knows what this is and is on-board. There is in all likelihood no quick or easy fix here. The first requirement is the acknowledgement, then the joint will to progress.

Before I forget. I know how easy it is to be flattered by the attentions of others. Most men can be distracted even without attention, but please guard your heart. I don’t believe deep down it’s a road you want to travel, but situations like this can open up a pathway – even if unintended. All the more reason to fix-up at home, that is the best preventative.

Go and get your wife back and get to work. The peace you crave shall be yours, with joy atop

All the best as you build your home and happy shagging

Best
TV

_{...if you believe drop to your knees, if not I can heartily recommend The Lord Jesus Christ...for the joy that is set before you...}

Timbuktuo:
Wasn't a fan of DJT's before now, but in the last year following him closely has warmed me up to him. Hillary, on the other hand, became repulsive to me. At the end of the day, it's about how they affect the world and I have no regrets pitching my tent with Trump, especially after he won.

His behaviour upon winning reminds me of virtue signalling beta boys here and, in real life I've become impatient with them. People like McCain and Romney are despised for not fighting the MSM and Dems like Trump did. Obviously, they could not lead. They wanted the power but not the responsibility that came with it. Even on twitter, Trump's fans are calling him out on appointing Romney who is a career/experienced politician. That should tell you all you need to know about the dignity o snakes and weasels. I hope he does well though, and doesn't let his voters down.

It was interesting seeing the 'grabgate' incident fizzle out like a wet firecracker. Dude came out quick and sharp and dustbinned the whole thing, and I looked with my mouth wide open. He's a fighter and a scrapper at that.

I also like how he's toying with the media. Dude is a master troll. .

Trust the family's doing good?

He roughed them up good.
Put his hands up for wrongdoing, but never apologised - Alpha
Went hard on the men in the primaries and played hardball - Alpha
Didn't cut the female contenders any slack because they were women - Alpha
Got called a misogynist and paraded his beautiful wife and daughters - Alpha
Called out the threat from Jihadist terrorism when HRC couldn't even name it - Alpha

I wonder about his competence, but If all he does is roll back some of the warped gender ideology Barry put in place, I'll be happy. Don't put my trust in any of them though.

We are all well thanks. Looking forward to the christmas season. Need somedowntime

Hope likewise.

Best
TV

^{...come, where's Cracky?}

...me likely, unabashedly serious about marriage. Highly commendable. as NL foremost marriage advocate, I have to drop in to encourage and exhort.

May all the serious minded singles be divinely paired with their spouses in a timely fashion this year. And, in a manner that elicits awe, wonder and praise. May all the sorrows of singleness, if any, be blotted out, and the myriad joys of marital harmony overflow in your lives.

May The Good Lord Himself set you in, and bless, your homes. You will be elevated, favoured, find good reward and warmth. You will pursue with success, be prosperous and fruitful, and the cynosure of all around you, as you live marriage as He intended.

Can I get an amen or 2! . Love weddings and marriage. May have to post some pix of myself and wifey' nuptials - loff you Mama


TV

^{...sisissoge, don't you dare edit my post this time. If you see the corner, corner eye I dey take look you eh!}

Gracious10:
So everyone complaining, how can Nurses serve you better?

Hearts in the right place, but this problem is systemic. The issues within the nursing profession are mostly symptomatic. A real long-term fix at branch level will be unsustainable without a corresponding one at root. Otherwise they'll be no more than palliative measures really - pun intended.


TV

Timbuktuo:
TV01, I don't know how I missed your last comment here.

Per the elections, I was ecstatic at the result for its implications and also the lessons I garnered along the fantastic ride.

DJT is a breath of fresh air in a world of supplicating, mangina simps. Look at the message of world leaders following the death of Castro, for instance. If anything, the whole cycle just reinforced in me the need to stick to one's convictions and tune out the noise of detractors and naysayers.

Holá T, No worries, bad timing. I knew no one was around, but felt I'd drop it anyway, knowing we could always re-visit.

Not a fan of either personally, and I think it was one big kick against PC gone wild. I think "presentation" was a winner for him. Stridently male, unrepentantly chauvinist and even a little tribal . Presented more as a leader and agent of popular change.

Rather pathetic HRC trying to get elected just because she is female - and the hopes of women everywhere dashed because she didn't win. Yeah, just like saying feminism emancipated women .

I was more interested in some of the Alpha traits he demonstrated - straight from the primaries where he made the other males look like "supplicating, mangina simps" , and the lessons men could take away for their everyday lives.


TV

...not sure why nursing professionals are being singled out here ?

Yes, I'm sure there are some bad apples, and maybe a few rotten eggs . And there is probably no gainsaying peoples individual experiences with some nurses, or even the mien of the "typical nurse".

But in all, there are victims as well. Victims of a failing state, with poor education and healthcare delivery. A state that doesn't make adequate provision or rightly reward the vast majority of it's workers.

Given the zeitgeist in Nigeria, do you really expect a cohort of people to demonstrate qualities and characteristics atypical to the general populace just because they are badged as nurses?

Even, even, if they joined the professional ranks with their hearts in the right place, do you really believe that the harsh conditions won't over time seriously affect their morale - let alone general well-being?

What of the executive, the judiciary, the legislature? What of your governors, commissioners and LG reps? Are their tragic shortcomings failings somehow ameliorated because they fail you with a smiley face and the occasional act of feudal largesse?

Abeg, free nurses jor. If you think an amiable bedside manner is our biggest problem, you never start.


TV

oaroloye:
My Doctrine is based on Techniques that have been proven to yield results.

May I ask a question please; what exactly are these results?

Cheers
TV

KANTE:
Hello people, I have this thing that has been bothering me of late. I find it so difficult dating anyone that is sluggish or slow and not neat. Not in any way praising myself but I find it difficult coping with such. I have left some relationships cos of this. I can't cope with the slow or sluggish. It's so hard tolerating it even when I try. Pls I will need some advice here. I just hope this doesn't become a problem for me. Even at work, I can't be close to you if same applies. I just hope I am fine.

Excellent, you know exactly what you like and what you can't tolerate.

In your personal life, you are allowed to have zero tolerance for anything you consider palla, palla . Socially you may have to be a tad more circumspect or tolerant. No problem here. Hope life treats you fairly . Get yours.


TV

IAmOged:
what u guys talking here?
off topics...
its like i heard 4 children fathered by different cave men seeds, the husband being a beta....how can cheating be respectful?
what d hell...dats one popoff cockold...lols..

cockolding...open marriage...bla bla....
laugh wan kill me ooo

...me sef, I'm trying to understand

A woman, who by her own admission is average and with no income of her own, is able to secure a high value - economically - man for marriage, yet at the same time, have 3 different - of physical high value - men father children by her.

Her "husband", is about 10 years older, ignorant of the fact that he is being repeatedly cuckolded and raising 3 sons for other men. It means she has "penile variety" and is happy. And, this is the "respectful & intelligent" way to cheat .

Her posts are receiving a degree of confirmation/validation, but no one else has come out to say, "I, my sister, my mother, my grandmother, a friend etc., also worked this model to great success"

I appreciate they are not "touching" her posts because of me , so what I'm after - on behalf of all the women who fantasize about such an arrangement, but don't have the wherewithal - is an understanding of how it works in practice.

It appears my thrust , of monogamous, faithful, biologically intact unions is passé, and not designed to optimise female happiness. So purple3091, the floor is all yours. Please educate [s]the Neanderthal, antediluvian, brutish & slopey foreheaded men of NL[/s] the ladies .


TV

^{...is anyone smelling what I am smelling}

purple3091:
mister,just because of the first post of yours that i quoted,you didn't like what i had typed,you keep calling me a troll....the initial post of yours i quoted was in reference to your last point on that post,which i gave my opinion.As for Toke and Anita,that's up to them,if i knew them i would definetly give them my advice of having the best of both worlds . have a good day/night,am out,for this topic.

You didn't answer a single one of my questions. If this model works, why are you denying a wider understanding of it? I'm sure there would be many takers if they just knew how .

And in as much as I don't believe and think you are trolling, some answers would help me to understand. How much older is your husband? Are the men, younger than you, are just younger than him?

How do you keep yourself in the kind of shape - after 1,2,3,4 children - that attract these "high-value" men? A high prtofile case like yours would contrast against seemingly beautiful and successful women who struggle with a single low value man . See why it's hard for me?


TV

demelza:
Apologies for butting in but please don't.
There is a mental picture I always have whenever I read your posts. It feels like someone pouring water on my head on a very hot afternoon. I don't even know if this makes sense.
If truly your way of thinking is as a result of Christianity, I would pick up my studies again.
This is no flattery Sir.
*goes back to lurking*

By all means...I detest flattery, but a well timed compliment such as yours gladdens the heart. Danke schön

TV

yetseyi:
^{. Its an ilu-oke accent, a lot of peeps may not notice since what he is saying is grammatically correct and even if it is not most who will listen wont even care. Religion section strange things are happening there, I was still telling someone off naira land that one needs to be careful of what one reads there, too many things that can question your faith if your conviction is not strong enough}

^{...I left as I felt we were always talking doctrine - maiinly tithe - and not the practical outworking. It seemed good to move and to tarry here as I acquired a family. I still read and post sometimes, but it appears to be all atheists vs theists. My faith is no longer shakeable like that. By Gods grace I have tasted.}