₦airaland Forum

carefreewannabe:
One in 25 babies born to over-40s
Number of women over 40 having a baby has risen fourfold in 30 years, and average age of first-time mother now 28.1

http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2013/oct/15/women-over-age-40-babies

4% or so?

carefreewannabe:
“Where there are no tangible medical complications of pregnancy, the risks of childbirth in older women are no greater than in younger women” … Editorial, British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology

"Where there are no medical complications of pregnancy - more likely in older women - this just talks about the actual delivery"

carefreewannabe:
Being an older mum is nothing new. Historically women would spread their births over many years. During the late 19th century, a woman might become a grandmother by the time her younger children were born. In the 1920s, the average age a woman had her last child was 42.

It's not about simply being an older mum - having your last child older - it's about waiting till you are old to actually have children - OP?

carefreewannabe:
Over the last two decades, increasing amounts of women have had babies over the age of 35. Figures from the Office for National Statistics show year upon year increase in fertility and birth rates for this age group. The over-35’s now have the fastest growing birthrates while the number of women having babies in their 40’s have nearly doubled in ten years. Statistics show that in 2010, 27,000 babies were born to women over 40 compared with 9,336 in 1989. In fact around one in five women is 35 or older when she gives birth.

As above.

However, if the trend continues for first-time mothers, society suffers as they fall below replacement birthrate, which is now a major problem in Japan and an issue in most Europena coutries - including Germany. Hence the need for mass immigration - which they ironically don't really like - but na CFW' lucky be dat .

carefreewannabe:
Older mums tend to be better educated, more financially stable, confident and settled in themselves. They have the emotional maturity and life experience that translates well to motherhood. They are more likely to *breast feed and breast feed for longer which helps protect against post natal depression. (*this is no judgement on bottle feeding).

Same again, the issue/problem is with first time older mums - and this says nothing about the issues and costs of concieving or the risks and complications of older preganacy for first timers.

carefreewannabe:
Medical research and subsequent media articles tend to focus negatively on the age related fertility risks and other health complications of delaying pregnancy. Often the underlying messages are that women should drop everything and have a baby before she hits 35 in order to avoid later infertility. If only life was that simple. But it isn’t. It isn’t necessarily the case that women ‘put off’ having children but that their life circumstances influence the best time to start a family.

Utter tosh, their ages dictate the best time to start a family and understanding cultures make this imperative key to their marriage tradition. "Life Circumstances" only dictate where due consideration is not given to ensuring marriage and childbirth happen at the optimal time.

carefreewannabe:
There are well documented mothers who have become pregnant successfully after the age of 50 (and after menopause). Based on ethical opinion, different countries set different age limits on allowing post menopausal women to conceive via fertility treatment.

The point is that older women DO conceive (whether naturally or via medical treatment) and enjoy healthy pregnancies. Having a baby later in life is a gift and should be embraced.

Famous older mum’s include Nicole Kidman (Sunday Rose at 41), Halle Berry (Nahla at 41), Madonna (Rocco at 41), Marcia Cross (twin girls at 44), Jane Seymore (twins at 44), Cherie Blair (Leo at 45) , Susan Sarandon (Miles Guthrie at 45) and Holly Hunter (twin boys at 47).
http://oldermum.co.uk

No one is against "older mums" per se, just noting the implications for older first-time births for mothers, babies and society.

CarefreeWannabee. Are you now so devoid of insight and a grasp of the issues that your only retort is to C&P. And to do so with "off-point" content. Please try harder !


TV

crackhaus:
Lol...

To be honest, my knowledge of the Bible is not at par with that of a Theologian or a more spiritual/religious person, but I do have an understanding enough to detect when someone is misinterpreting scriptures.

As for the thread, if the one you're referring to is on that topic she started on love, marriage, and submission...she's yet to reply a question I directed at her regarding 1Cor 13.

I was mentioned so I went to look see.

But I saw where she snidishly asked for "certain people" to stay away, so I didn't post, just followed.

As ever, she couldn't draw a crowd. As ever she posted some rubbish posts, and as ever, when you asked her a pointed question she couldn't answer, she got all "spiritual", snidish and went on the attack.

I think I should put her on todays menu - chopped liver . What sayest thou?

TV

carefreewannabe:
Do women over 40 have healthier babies? New research shows babies born to older mothers are less likely to be in and out of hospital

Researchers from Birkbeck University of London and University College London found kids of older mums were less likely to injure themselves
And nearly a third less likely to be admitted to hospital by the age of three
The number of women over the age of 40 having a baby has increased more than fourfold in the last 30 years
Gwen Stefani, Halle Berry and Uma Thurman have all had babies in their 40s

(...)

Researchers assessed children of women older than 40 and compared them with those born to younger mothers in their twenties.
While they might tire their mothers out and be harder to catch – the research suggests children born to mothers over 40 are healthier.


The study concluded that children of older mothers were 22 percent less likely to accidentally injure themselves and nearly a third less likely to be admitted to hospital by the age of three.
The offspring of older women are also more likely to have better emotional well-being as the likelihood of conflict between parent and child was found to decrease as the maternal age increased.
And language development by the ages of three and four was also better for the children of older mothers.



Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2713937/Do-women-40-healthier-babies-New-research-shows-babies-born-older-mothers-likely-hospital.html#ixzz3GJ2eM9k9
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook




https://gifsec.com/wp-content/uploads/GIF/2014/08/Praying-for-my-haters-gif.gif

Nice gif !

But you are now resorting to slight of hand.

Women over 40 do not give birth to "healthier" babies. All this is "possibly suggesting" is that they may have more rsource/time to "take care of them". And it's just a suggestion. Further, the cohort of women having children in their 40's is still relatively minor - about 4%, no basis for a true longitudinal study.

You are going to have to try harder. You get praise for gifs, but no points !

She said: ‘It has demonstrated that, while there are many medical reasons why close attention should be given to the physical well-being of older mothers and their infants both during pregnancy and immediately after birth, an increase in older motherhood should not necessarily be a cause for concern in relation to subsequent parenting.

TV

crackhaus:
Lol.
Na wah

I blame you sef
When she claimed you were not "conversant with the bible on that "sickly child" type thread she opened you didn't deal with her well well. Maybe I should go there and continue her rinsing !


TV

carefreewannabe:
And your problem is that you are scared of anything that increases chances for women. I know, I know, it's not easy to lose control.

Au contraire - your problem is that anything packaged as advance for women is swallowed hook line and sinker without the merest scrutiny.

Do you know that there is barely a 15% success rate with frozen eggs? Or that it may take many cycles of IVF to concieve. And the cost is high and the success rate low?

Early birth is still better for mother, child and society. All this does is pressure women into putting of what they want from an optimal time for them, to one that optimises their usefulness (and decreases their cost) to the company. The companies are passing on risk and cost and the women get reduced choice and opportunity.

Putting off having children - even if IVF were 100% perfect - still loses sight of the fact that making you best match is also reduced by sacrificing your time to the company

carefreewannabe:
Now that women marry in their late 30s, 40s and even later and that menopause is no longer a problem, you will have to deal with the fact that playing the age card is no longer a scare tactic that you can use.

Again you errr and do women a grave injustice and mislead? Menopause is a present reality and early menopause can occur from 32.

Even if children were not a consideration - and they often are - being older does not increase you chances of making a good match. Neither are a womans chances maintained the older or corporately/financially more successful you are.

The obvious solution here is to ask for better maternity/paternity conditions to really give families the flexibility and choice that's best for them and society. It's a shame that you cannot see beyond your ideological mantras or at least consider them in an unbiased fashion.

CafreeWannabee says: "Sisters, spend your best years slaving for the corporate machine, freeze your eggs and marry in your forties. You'll still match the best husbands and have lots of fine children".


TV

bukatyne:
First Mr. Christian,

Insulting me in your response is 'unchristian' and very provocative. You could have just reworded your post directed at me or explained yourself like pickabeau1 offered to do

When you are ready to converse with me, kindly reword this post I am quoting.

Thanks

P.S.: We Yorubas have a proverb which can be loosely translated thus 'everybody can be mean/evil, we just decide not to be'.

First, please stop your your whining - it's unbecoming of someone of your advanced years - abi you never come of age?

Second, there is no insult anywhere in my response - and nothing as snide as your initial response;

bukatyne:
Can you please type in English?Thanks in advance

If you didn't understand - which you didn't - or couldn't comprehend - which you also didn't, a response such as; "I don't understand" or "I don't get your point" would have sufficed. Your comment was rude and impertinent, and provocative! In future, don't make war chants if you can't stand the heat of battle.

Thanks for calling me Mr. Christian - or where you being your normal shrewish self ?

And please get over yourself, I didn't post to converse with you, merely to correct you.


TV

^{**and don't think your attempt to dodge the questions by attacking my character instead of addressing the content went unnoticed** !}

Shirley07:
You really love that verse, don't you? But you should be striving to understand that verse instead of quoting it for the sake it. In that verse, Paul said once saved, we're one in Christ'. You're really a disgrace to the christendom.
And At your age, if you don't know the death God implied is a spiritual death, then you're obviously twisted.
The scripture says the soul that sinneth dies and that Christ came to give us life. Obviously, you aint smart enough to grasp that.
Just like I've been teaching you thus far, the garden of Eden was meant to be Adam and Eve's everlasting haven and their souls were living souls which is in tune with God's spirit, until they sinned. After man sinned, the living soul died and they were driven out of the garden. However, through Christ's death, dead soul were renewed and a new earth was promised to us all. The new earth is synonymous to the garden of Eden, where God's spirit dwells and he will be the light for all, just like it was before man sinned.
The truth is, this earth is a sinful world and therefore, not conducive for believers and that's why a new earth will be created for the believers.
Let me also repeat it to you that Deborah wasn't only a judge and a preacher but also, she led the israelites in the right way of God. If you can't accept that, you can as well go and die.
And no, I can't reject the bible. Infact, Christ's words in the scriptures are my watchward. Even Paul said believers should look unto Jesus, the authour and finisher of our faith and like I said earlier, there's nothing Christ didn't preach about. You know what? I know my heaven is sure as long as I adhere to Christ's commandments and accept him as my lord and saviour but you can't say the same for yourself since you follows Paul's bigotry doctrines.
Lastly, Christ made it known that 'Except ye be like little children, ye shall not enter the kingdom of God..'. That answers your question on why all christian should submit to one another in love. Infact, love is a submissive act because without it, Christ wouldn't humble himself to come down to this sinful world and die. Without love, Christ won't stoop so low to wash his disciples' feet. Without love, there won't be salvation, my junior scholar!

Are you going to answer any of the questions or actually quote any scripture? Or are you just going to spew your hallucinatory interpretations of the gospel

Your claim - "Paul championed slavery and the slavery of women to men"

Shirley07:
According to Paul, African are better off being a submissive trembling slave to their white master than fighting for their freedom.

Shirley07:
The truth is, Paul believed women are still bounded to sin and only child bearing can perhaps saved them

Shirley07:
Paul indeed championed slaves and master relationship and he made it known in Ephe 6:5-8 that slaves should submit to their masters in fear and trembling. Infact, he compared husband and wife relationship to slave and master.

Shirley07, it's clear that like CarefreeWannabe, you haven't actually read and understood the bible in context for yourself - even literally, let alone with deep spiritual insight. You probably learnt from the same "theologian"

Look, here's an example of Paul telling husbands to make slaves of their wives - and treat them harshly - sacrificing them even
Ephesians 5:25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her

When Paul gave that exhortation it was ground-breaking. Over 2'000 years ago, women in most civilisations/communities were considered chattel. Property. Yes, in a way as slaves. Paul via the gospel exhorted Christians to something higher, honouring and loving women as equals.

Even today, in many civilisations and communities this is still not the case. And for those were it is or it is more so, guess what? They have Judeo-Christian foundations. And they are probably the same ones that allow the freedon that spawned your virulant feminism .

When people like yourself go around calling Paul a bigot and a champion of slavery generally and husband-wife slavery in particular you do a grave injustice and great damage to those that take this as truth - not just in the present, but for all eternity. And as this aspect of your theology is twisted, so your whole understanding is perverted.

I rarely plead with people, but Shirley07, you need to seek help - of the spiritual kind. You are bound by a very strong spirit of delusion.

God be with us all.


TV

bukatyne:
Except a woman hits a man first, I see no justification for physical abuse.

bukatyne:
Can you please type in English? Thanks in advance

There's nowt wrong with my English or my grammar.

The problem is with you statement, which was both unthinking and unchristian. I'll break it down for those who have comprehension problems;

A woman hitting a man first is already physical abuse. To say a woman hitting a man first justifies (his) physical abuse is to say her hitting him is not abusive - the unthinking part of your statement

To say a woman hitting a man justifies him hitting her is base. Not only should nobody (either sex) be laying hands on anyone else, even if hands are laid on you (and particulalry a man), showing restraint and maturity by not retaliating (leaving if you have to) is much better - the unchristian part of your statement.

Clear?
Or do I have to start providing adult education up in here !


TV

bukatyne:
Except a woman hits a man first, I see no justification for physical abuse.

Obviously no need to justify the woman first hitting the man as that's not physical abuse is it?


TV

Shirley07:
You obviously forgot that Christ's death redeemed and saved us all from every curse and bondage.

Death and sickness were also consequences of the fall no? Presumably you have never been to a funeral or don't understand the concept of a hospital or medicine. Or do they just affect unbelievers.

Your theology is so flawed, it's not even fun rinsing you !

Shirley07:
The fact that Deborah was called to be a judge and preacher already contradicted Paul's doctrine which implies that all men are liars and God is the truth.

Preachers in the OT - The bible clearly states that it is a curse/ill sign when women and the young rule.

Shirley07:
Also, anyone with eyes would know that the scripture you quoted is about freedom from sin. The real truth is Paul championed slavery but you're obviously blind to see it.

Paul championed slavery? Really? Why don't you just reject the bible? Be honest with yourself, your a feminist first and foremost. You just covet the pious feeling that comes from being able to consider yourself spiritual .

Shirley07:
Now, let look at Paul's reason for subjecting women to men.
First, he said man was first made before woman, forgetting that God didn't make such assertion in the beginning. It was after man sinned that God put Eve under Adam. Why did God have to make such curse if Eve was already put under the man?

Man was first. Woman was always created first and foremost as a helpmeet to man

Shirley07:
Secondly, Paul said Eve was the deceiver and the sinner, not Adam. However, the bible made us know that both Adam and Eve were sinner and it's a known fact that Adam had his own share of the curse because he was disobedient and allowed himself to be deceived.

Nope,Paul said the woman was "deceived". They both sinned, but it was the womans nature - and she never recieved the commandment direct from God, which is also saying something - .
1 Timothy 2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.they made her more susceptible

Shirley07:
For this purpose, Christ came to deliver us from this curse and sin. So, if Christ has delivered all, why are women still under sin?

Be quiet woman. You are out of your depth and know not of what you speak. Does your statement above even make sense

Shirley07:
The truth is, Paul believed women are still bounded to sin and only child bearing can perhaps saved them, when Christ made it known that Salvation is meant for all.

Child-bearing is salvific? And Paul preached this? Or are the following not from Pauls epistles?

Galatians 3:28 - There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

Colossians 3:11 - where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcised nor uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave nor free, but Christ is all and in all.

Shirley07:
And if you're truly a Paul's disciple, you shouldn't find it difficult to tell your wife that she's not yet saved and perhaps, her childbearing will save her.

You are not even funny. Pauls disciple?

1 Corinthians 12 Now I say this, that each of you says, "I am of Paul," or "I am of Apollos," or "I am of Cephas," or "I am of Christ." 13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?

Shirley07:
I'll always say that Christ's teaching touched everything applicable in this world. He talked about salvation, leaders in the church and society, marriage, commandments e.t.c. There was nothing he didn't talk about and he affirmed it on the cross by saying 'it's finished'.

Say what you like. The epistles of Paul are inspired and very instructive parts of the biblical canon. You are confused. Badly.

Shirley07:
After his ressurrection, his last commandment was 'go ye and preach the gospel'. So, Paul had no right to be making any commadment/law.

He didn't

Shirley07:
You know what? You're neither for Christ nor Paul because if you're for Paul, your wife should be made silent and should have no role in the church or society and if you're for Christ, you won't be championing women slavery.

Now you are just ranting - people who accept the Pauline epistles believe women should have no role in society and champion women slavery? Do you think about what you believe or consider what you say? Do you hate being a woman so much? We know what your desire has been from Genesis 3 - but we rulin' over you - learn to live with it and be at peace !

Shirley07:
Lastly, Christ said two shall become one, no head nor tail. If you still don't understand what Christ meant by this, let me tell you, both husband and wife are one body and should treat each other like themselves.

Your grammar is quite painful too. "Treat each other like themselves" !

Shirley07:
Nevertheless, every christians is required to submit to one another like little Children, not with the fear and trembling which Paul was commanding women to.

You are so blinkered. So everyone submits to everyone else? How often is that trotted out to try and obviate the clear "wives submit to husbands" instruction. First, was it not Paul who wrote both? Second, why take one out of context to render another null. Feminianity - because female emotions, lusts, desires and confusion like holy too .

Shirley07, please for the sake of the easily impressionable drop the mic and vacate the pulpit. Not only is it wrong, you are not gifted !


TV

carefreewannabe:
I see, it bothers you.

@bold
Thousands of women marry in their late 30s and their 40s and even later in the West. ;

Your main problem is that you see everything that seemingly increases women' choices as great and every purported advance as progress. Mainly because you view things from through a narrow perspective as opposed to a considered whole.

1. At what point, and why, would a woman need to consider freezing her eggs? (and I don't mean exceptions like illness etc - this is being sold as an everyday employment perk).

2. What is the pursuit or endevor, that would be considered a higher priority than, and worth missing a womans optimal pregnancy/birth window for?

3. As suggested, why can companies not work alongside this natural window with better mat/pat benefits, rather than subliminally put pressure on them to prioritise work?

Who said thousands of women of any age don't marry in the West. East sef pah-pah ! Like the hordes of single and frustrasted, unmarried and bitter women on NL, they are also legion in the West. Keep selling yourself and others fairytales.

Like Coogar said, the capitalistic machine is just making it easier and putting more pressure on woman to sacrifice their lives for it. Your choice.


TV

coogar:
welcome to the 21st century.
as usual, the capitalist slaves would jump at this singing kumbaya.

Leave them. The quality of a womans eggs can start to deteriorate as early as 26 and early menopause can happen from 32. It's the older 35+ ones who will be taking this offer up - erroneously thinking this a good thing & that it extends their "marriageable shelf lives".

In the end, it won't make them more attractive to men - the key to that has, and always will be youth and beauty. Thinking about it, they'd be best served freezing their faces !


TV

Shirley07:
I do feel unsettled around preachers like you because you don't actually study the bible in the context it's used and majority of you are the reason there's a lot of confusion in the christedom.

Yawn, I'm a male, at least I have the biblical writ to be a preacher - you don't !
And I'm not a preacher, my faith and beliefs are personal, feel free to ignore them. There's no confusion in the Church of Christ, although yours is palpable !

Shirley07:
The first and the last sentence underlined actually mean to be made free from sin/no more a slave to sin. The second means there's no discrimination before God almighty irrespective of what you are.

Yes, that is one of the over-arching themes of the Gospel, and as it is clearly outlined in the gospel, those verses can be used as metaphors for that. But to claim that's what they are saying in context - you know you are hell-bent on reading the scriptures to satisfy your own desires.

Shirley07:
As you can see, it doesn't correlate with whatever you're trying to say here.

I laught. CareFreeWannabe claims that the bible/Christianity does not condemn slavery to her satisfaction - thereby condoning or championing it. I replied that Christianity does not only not prescribe slavery, it frees us from the very condition that leads to slavery and all other societal ills. Must you comment by force or for mere commenting' sake?

Shirley07:
Paul indeed championed slaves and master relationship and he made it known in Ephe 6:5-8 that slaves should submit to their masters in fear and trembling. Infact, he compared husband and wife relationship to slave and master.

Feminianity writ large. Paul championed slavery? If you want to hate on Paul, please feel free to do so. Because he clearly stated the headship roles of men huh? E pain you so tay, you feel the need to assasinate his character. Pele. We not only agree with Paul, Pauls agrees witht he gospel as a whole.

Paul was committed to spreading the gospel. He wasn't primarily a SJW. The gospel is what sets men free - and in turn rids men of their evil desires. You might as well charge him for not campaigning against FGM, or prostitution or war - all extant before, during and after the advent of Christianity and till today.

Shirley07:
I once told you that if your wife has any role she plays in the church or society, then she's a sinner according to Paul. Not to forget that Paul believes a woman's salvation is only by child bearing, implying that Eve was the deceiver and the sinner, not Adam.

Oh such angst, from an avowed feminist wanting to be a Christian. Please choose one. It looks odd and you are neither fish not fowl.

I told you before and I already outlined in my earlier post on this thread that the husband/wife, male/female roles prescribed in the bible are for the home and church - not wider society. Paul is not here to defend himself - not that he needs too or to be - but do you think you can twist my words and go unchallenged?

Did Paul say this? Genesis 3:16 - Unto the woman he said , I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forthchildren; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

Shirley07:
The funny thing is Paul rejected the law as a means of salvation but had no qualms binding women to such law because his ego overruled him. In the end, Paul didn't only contradict himself but also, Christ.

So because Paul rightly rejected the written law for salvational purposes, roles and responsibilities - not to mention civil laws - are now to be done away with.

Shirley07, you really need to find a righteous man to take you under authority .


TV

abeautifulchick:
@

So let me get this right, this guy is all but perfect. Your soulmate and one you can discuss anything with on any level? He lavishes money on you and provides everything you need? He makes provision even before you articulate the need? The only problem is that you need more attention?

Let me advise you;

I appreciate that you are young, and perhaps not quite ready for marriage – even as everything seems to suggest you have landed on your feet if you want it.

But so is he, and by all accounts very focused and successful at a relatively young age. If he is the soulmate you claim, you should be able to work with this.

Become invaluable to him and a source of wise counsel, comfort and rest. That’s all you have to do – that and perhaps demonstrate a little patience. Be wise, why does he spend so much time with his friends/contacts. Is it because he is driven or because you don’t provide the same stimulus?

If your main driver is your neediness, I’d wager that not only are you not ready, you are probably not right for him. I shudder to think how you’d react if times got tough?

Your call. All the best


TV

Sophyrocks:
I wonder. How can a man who is an adult not know women love attention apart fom other things? Such a man needs to be schooled on womanology all over again. And yet they complain when women cheat.

Sophyrocks:
If you are a man and up till this moment, you dnt know women need attention the same way everyone needs oxygen, then you need to be schooled all over again about women. Lack of attention is another reason women cheat. Take it or leave it.

No Sophy, women cheat because they are incontinent, lacking self control, promiscuous, take their vows lightly and are probably not God-fearing. Just like men.

You wor-wor reasoning above is exactly the same as a man claiming justification for cheating because a woman puts on weight. You need a reset and a re-think.

Women will be taken more seriously, when they take responsibility for their actions. Not blame society, feign madness/illness/provocation or blame men.

Like seriously?


TV

carefreewannabe:
[img]http://2.bp..com/-qiqj0vdHylU/U0WrdIx34II/AAAAAAAAAQE/ShvKVGxHp7I/s1600/gandhi_quote.png[/img]

Oga TeeFee, pliss sir, take fotopic, I haff no answers !


TV

MarvellousGod:
We cherish attention and the op's guy seems not to be giving her that.....

..."wool over eyes alert" - guys don't fall for this - Women do not base their marital choices on the level of attention - in fact the opposite.


TV

coogar:
this is a brilliant point!
in a nutshell, you have to "western-test" a woman before marrying her.....especially if there's a future plan to settle in the west.

some environments are fatty-friendly.
a woman who has eaten all the eateries western societies have to offer and she still manages to be very fit are the jewels.

Exactimondo! The West is deadly - weight wise - to any Naija fresher who is not disciplined. Especially those that are at that point were the metabolism slows down or likely to give birth in the near future.

I went to a birthday party recently - if you see the parade of gbo gbo big girls - and they are hungry. Wifey said she couldn't tell if they were eyeing me or my plate of rice, moin-moin and pepper stew

Avoid like the plague.


TV

...I had to like this simply because I couldn't fault it. I must also confess to feeling rather cool, as I live it !


TV

Tallesty1:
What do women want?

...to be led by strong men. Fact about female behaviour and human nature!

@OP, if you meet someone who has all you want in a husband, what will you do?

TV

Sophyrocks:
What has God to do with gender?
Chimoooooooooooooo!!!!

Biko Mr television, end of discussion.

That's it, scurry away - or please tell us God's take on "gender discrimination". Please try not to be overly long or befuddled !


TV

carefreewannabe:
The Bible is free to interpretation. Even theologians disagree on how to interpret it so please do read it as you wish and let me read it for myself.

It doesn't take a theologian to read and understand the bible. Not unless you really want to butcher it !

carefreewannabe:
This is not a reason to NOT condemn it and call a spade a spade.

Like I said, you are limited by your capacity - Christianity deals with the root of all human issues - the fallen human nature

carefreewannabe:
I never relativize crimes against humanity.

CFW the SJW - more pious than any Christian !

carefreewannabe:
You though wrong. This is your black and white thinking, not mine TV.
And if I had a choice as to what you accuse me of, I would much rater be accused of relativism than of fundamentalism.

Please tag me as a fundamentalist - all day, everyday. Faith that is relative is merely an euphemism for lifestyle - but deep down you know that don't you? !

carefreewannabe:
To NEVER submit to any "master" but to strive for freedom.

How visionary, how deep and how totally humanitarian...ah! And how would telling non-Christians to stop slavery make them do so? Does my railing against SSM make any difference to those who don't believe?

Philemon 1:15 For perhaps he departed for a while for this purpose, that you might receive him forever, 16 no longer as a slave but more than a slave--a beloved brother, especially to me but how much more to you, both in the flesh and in the Lord.

In Christ there is no bondman or free - all are Christs.

Colossians 3:11 where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcised nor uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave nor free, but Christ is all and in all.

1 Corinthians 7:21 Were you called while a slave? Do not be concerned about it; but if you can be made free, rather use it.

Tell us CFW, what would happen to a Roman slave - or even centurion - who on becoming a Christian tried to escape? Have you really read the bible, or are you listening to what the theologians say ?

carefreewannabe:
If all people reasoned like you, you and your family would still be at the mercy of some white people.

Like it wasn't Christians who strove top abolish slavery? You are too funny! Besides I'm sure CFW the SJW would have set us free!!!!

carefreewannabe:
Your wife would push out mixed babies made by your white master and you would be separated from your son as soon as he would be old enough to be sold off. I would love to see your support of this Bible passage in this scenario.

Please detail them to us - I see no such prescription for Christians, indeed, I've posted contrary ones above.

carefreewannabe:
Maybe. I have never met him, you know.
Maybe just the medieval men who wrote the Bible made things up.
Who knows?

You can meet Him, many have - He Lives

carefreewannabe:
Something is terribly wrong with this book, whatever the cause is.

Could it be you CFW - in a relative sense of course !


TV

carefreewannabe:
And people like you call themselves Christian.

^{Unsettled ? Why the saltiness? Is it wrong to be a hairdresser? Or to joke about someone being one?}

coogar:
but is it ethical & moral to check the size of one's potential mother-in-law before proposing? was it really foresight for you or you got lucky?

i used to know a chic that was size 8 way back in naija in her early 20s.....then her family moved to the US via visa lottery. 3 months after arriving in america, she became size 18.

i am 100% certain she would have maintained her size 8 if she never traveled out of her comfort zone in lagos. what i am trying to say is - "other factors" get in the way of these things sometimes.

It falls under "due dilligence" - and plain ole' common sense

There's a old Ukrainian saying "before you marry a woman check out her mother" - paraphrased somewhat.

You are spot on about environment change - and that must be factored in ! I once met a girl fresh from Naija. Fabulous figure, but within 3 months she had rolling flesh everywhere - even at the knees

My wife was born and bread in the UK, not up to 3 years in Nigeria in total. Exposure to KFC won't make a difference ! Diligence must be manifold .


TV

Sophyrocks:
Sincerely, are you a christian? You dnt talk like one. Are you trying to say God almighty is in support of gender discrimination simply because he made husbands heads? When God himself tells you to honor your wife and love herrr her as you love your own body, what is he trying to tell you? you dnt like the fact that the bible says you should honor your wife?

Before you got married, you had expectations of your wife. Everyone has expectations and as long as they are realistic, why bother? what is wrong with following biblical standards in marriage?

Your confusion is partly the reason for your angst. What has God or HCristianity to do with gender?

I am a Christian and married

Try and be among .

TV

...as long as there are women willing to steal men, there will be women ready to fight for them. Accept that fact about female behaviour and the natural order.


TV

nikky5:
Femi lost his amiable wife four years ago.He has two kids aged 6 and 8years respectively. Two years he found another lady who loves his kids dearly and promised to take good care of them.The challenge Femi is facing now is that the lady is bloating or rather growing too big for his liking.Initially she weighed 45kg and slim but now she weighs 97kg with very big tummy.He never liked fat ladies. They have a baby now but he is contemplating a divorce cos she sometimes snore heavily at night which is very embarrassing to Femi. He confided in me that when he saw stretch marks underneath her armpit and questioned her about the likelihood of becoming fat she denied that her mother was never a fat woman.The baby also took after her in size as she weighed 5.00kg after birth.Though the woman has embarked on dieting but it seems not to make any difference.Please advice my friend because they are Christians and his wife loves him dearly.

As a Christian, he can as readily divorce his wife as he can dis-father the child they have together. No, capital N.

What was he looking as she ballooned? He should have intervened way earlier - even, and especially if the condition is medical.

Nothing to do here except to support his wife. She also should be willing to work at it. You can lead a horse to water...


TV

^{**thank God got foresight & discernment - I checked out my wife' mum and made sure WTB was a little below the ideal size when I married her. Everyone shine eye wella before marrige. Shut am tight after !**}

pickabeau1:
I still get nightmares when I remember Roberto baggio, donatelli and dino baggio

.

Toto Schillaci...


TV

carefreewannabe:
Yeah and your reading of the Bible is the right one.

Eeerrr...and yours is ?

carefreewannabe:
Please, let me not quote more dubious and shocking passages.

Please, carry go

carefreewannabe:
I don't want to hear more excuses.

I have given none, and have none to give. What you want to hear is your own truth and prejudice.

carefreewannabe:
If all the men who wrote the Bible had been sane and human, they would have written that no man / woman should make another human a slave.

Slavery was extant prior to the bible, the coming of Christ and Christianity.

carefreewannabe:
It is that simple. No need to complicate things to justify something that is obviously wrong and evil.

I thought your notions were all relative? Why is something "obviously" wrong or evil to one who relativises everything?

carefreewannabe:
I do condemn what I perceive as injustice. I don't understand the second part of your question.

As above, it's what you percieve. And as one who percieves relatively, who are you to say?

carefreewannabe:
It justifies slavery by telling people / slaves to submit to their masters.
This is inhuman.

What would your advice to slaves be?

carefreewannabe:
For me, he is God's son.
We are all God's children.

So Christ is a liar, delusional or madman?

carefreewannabe:
Since when do you know what I do for a living?
Never mind TV, my bosses trust me.

^{Ah, I thought you did some high-end cerebral job? Are you a hairdresser?}


TV

Sophyrocks:
My presence everywhere seems to frustrate you. I like that.

Au contrairé - I feel the angst crying out loud and feel more sympathy than frustration !

Sophyrocks:
Yes, men and women have their different roles they play. no doubt about that.

So why go to great lengths to say that in an inconclusive manner?

Sophyrocks:
The bible is never partial when it comes to laws governing christians. Thats all i know. God has never been partial. His laws covers every human, male and female.

No one has said anything to the contrary. So why write a lengthy episdtle with caps lock about laws and conflate it with notions of gender, power, equality etc.?

Sophyrocks:
I expect my husband to understand how a woman should be treated according to God's word and not according to human traditions. God's word and that of human traditions are not the same just as God's wisdom remains unmatchable to that of human wisdom. I am sure you have read in my comment where i specifically pointed out that husbands are heads.

How does that make God aginst "gender discrimination". Indeed, if God was for "equality" in the sense of "non-partiality" as you define it, wouldn't men and women treat each other exactly the same way? So why do you have expectations of your husband?

Sophyrocks:
Showing Honor to your wife shows you love her as you love your own body. It shows you understand what doing unto others what you would like them to do unto you means. The same bible says whoever loves his wiife loves himself.

As above, why are you making distinctions?

Sophyrocks:
As regards 1 corinthians 11 vs 3, that portion still correlates with other portions talking about Husbands being heads of their wives just as christ is head of the congragation. But the difference in this portion when reading further from verse 4 down, is that there is an emphasis on women covering their hair when praying or prophesying in order to show respect for the Headship of the man. Therefore, apostle paul was trying to explain why women need to cover their hair in the presence of a male, when praying or prophesying. The act of covering her hair is a sign of authority on her head because of the angels. inspite of all of that, we are still told as christians to submit to one another. So i can add that the headship role is exercised in a famiily and in a church but not anywhere else.

The windier you get the less sense you make . I particulalrly noted family and church regards headship in my original response to you.
From your write up is male headship not essentially gender discrimination? I pointed out that the two halves of your post were contradictory?

Sophyrocks:
Of course, a father has authority over his daughter. Is he not the Head of the family? Perhaps because i didnt mention a man being the head of his family, you jumped into conclusions.

One cannot actually draw conclusions from your babble - please forgive me for even trying - you were quite absolutist in your statement about the headships of husbands over wives only.

Actually, you have a point - it's not your presence, rather it's your prose that is particualrly frustrating. It just sounds like you are on one long and bitter rant. Chill woman.


TV

carefreewannabe:
The problem is that the Bible even justifies and supports slavery instead of condemning it.

The bible does no such thing.

What the Bible does is show us the fallen state of the human nature - from which all such ills as slavery etc. emanate - and details how it should be and how to get there.

From your limited view and proccupation with what you "believe" the bible should say, instead of understanding what God via the biblical narrative has set out to do, is where you go wrong.

So do you condemn and are you going to personally right every injustice in the world?

carefreewannabe:
Both. And because of some of its contents (e.g. slavery)

Where doe sthe bible prescribe slavery?

carefreewannabe:
He was a man, will you deny it?

I never said he wasn't. I specifically used the word "incarnate".
He is God, will you deny that?

carefreewannabe:
Thank you.
But what does it have to do with malingering?

^{Summon strength, if you can make it to NL, you can remote access your desktop} !


TV

carefreewannabe:
The Bible should condemn slavery.

Aren't you such the SJW?
If you are not personally activist for - and condemning - every single injustice in the world, should I find fault with you?

carefreewannabe:
Not really. The more I see how people use the Bible to support injustice and inequality, the more I read it, the more distance and dislike am I developing for this religion created by medieval men.

Is it because of "how people use it", or "your reading of it"?
You are not the only one who likes to use the disparaging term "medieval". Even if we place their era as medieval, does that make their intelluct, thinking, morality or spirituality in anyway inferior to those of contemporary times?

carefreewannabe:
It's just that I love some of Jesus Christ's teachings. I think he was a revolutionary men, way ahead of his time.

But Christ did not declare himself a man did He. You either judge His claim to be God incarnate true - and Him along with it - or false and His works as well.

carefreewannabe:
Not doing a good job at all today. Feeling sick, staying at home.

^{Get well soon - the German economic machine needs all hands on deck . It's not Naija or even the UK, where such malingering is celebrated.}


TV

Sophyrocks:
Do you notice that God did not designate adam to be head of Eve in the begining? It was until adam and eve sinned that God told Eve since she decided to sin against him, therefore she would go through pregnancy pains, her husband would dominate her, her cravings will be for her husband and that they were going to grow old and die. This means that all of these consequences including men being heads were not meant to be in the first place. This shows that in the sight of God, all humans, male and female are equal. God detests any form of gender discrimination. Which was why it is written in 1peter 3 vs 7 that Husbands need to show their wives honor since both of them are heirs of the kingdom of God. There would have been a special preference for one gender over another by God. But No, God is never partial. when God gives laws, he gives to every human, male and female. The way he handles both gender shows he views them equally. It is selfish humans who like to dominate others to their injury that created partiality. If men and women are not equal, then Jesus would not have told us that we should DO UNTO OTHERS WHAT WE WOULD LIKE THEM TO DO UNTO YOU. .

Sophy, Sophy, Sophy, how far? As ever you are all over the place !

Firstly - the fact that men and women are equal in worth before God, does not preclude different roles and responsibilities and leadership/headship by men - especially in the Family and Church (which is esentially a para-family).

Secondly - The bible has no notion of Gender, so it's prety pointless you co-opting God inot your gender-politics. You also do good job of conflating equality, roles, responsibilities, power and domination to little or no effect

Thirdly - When you get married (big amen I'm hearing ), will you be after a husband that is "gender correct"? Or "demand equality" in every respect from him?

1 Corinthians 11:3 - But I would have you know , that the head of every man isChrist; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.


Ephesians 5:22 - ves, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.

Colossians 3:18 - Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord.

Sophyrocks:
One thing people do not understand is that it is only when a Man becomes a HUSBAND that he becomes the head of his wife. If you are not a husband, you are not the head of anybody. Note that the word 'Husband' was repeatedly used in the bible when talking about Headship. A man is the HEAD OF HIS WIFE, NOT OF ANOTHER WOMAN/EVERY OTHER WOMAN ON EARTH, NOT OF HIS MOTHER. And inspite of being the Head, 1peter 3vs 7 says you are still to show your wife HONOR. This tells you God almighty is against any form of discrimination.

Does a father have authority over his unmarried daughter?
Does showing someone honour mean "equalising" in every regard?
And if indeed a husband is the head of his wife, haven't you discredited everything you said in the first half of your post ?


TV