₦airaland Forum

BananaBender:
This is not about your wife, I truly and honestly do not care about her. I'm sure she doesn't need the online validation either. Oh wait, she married you

BananaBender:
I missed the above. My opinion about your wife clearly matters to you. Please, post again.

So let me get this right; you came into the thread denigrated my wife, my wifes parents and my wifes husband (me that is ), without any provocation or reason whatsoever – in fact, you pivoted it off a lame attempt to exonerate CareFreeWannabee from same?

And then, when I offered a show and tell instead of a boring give and take of invective, you ran? Not to say I’m surprised, you have form, having done so in pretty much all our previous encounters.

You first pretended not to have seen the pic – ok, I’ll afford you the benefit of the doubt – you then tried to make it about my wife and my caring about your opinion of my wife !

Good to see that feminists delight in attacking any women who does not necessarily share or give credence to their views.

So just in case there’s been an “innocent” mix-up, here is the offer again;

My wife, according to you, must have low self-esteem, low standards and was poorly parented. Especially since she allowed herself to be wooed and courted by someone who committed to loving and cherishing her and any children we may have together.

I invited you to show a picture of yourself as one who possesses high esteem, was well brought-up and has high standards (even if only in a relative sense). So much esteem, and so well brought-up, that you are able to mate indiscriminately - in and out of season - without any concern as to the commitment or care of those who penetrate and relieve their lust with your body .

Having waited, I even went ahead to post my wife’ pic first. All I could see in response was some obscurantist babble? I am pretty certain of what to expect from you – but let’s see if you’ll surprise .


TV

@BananaBender

I can see you on, so I'm assuming you are preparing a response.

Anyway. I've attached a picture of my wife - clearly dripping a lack of self-esteem.

And why wouldn't she when I crossed the ocean to ask her family to grant me the honour of loving and cherishing her as a husband?

Presumably your side-chick swag and glorified ghetto runs girl glamour knocks that for six? Do any of the married men you purloin know or care anything of your pedigree? I am of course assuming you know it to share it.


TV

^{**I can see some of my votaries here - no doubt wanting to see what they aspire too **}

BananaBender:
I don't think carefree's post was meant to disrespect your wife.

No one said it did - and I don't believe she would or has.

BananaBender:
If she is truly all of this, she lowered her standards when she chose to be with you but then again, a lot of women out there have been brought up to have low self esteem.

...but just in case there was any doubt, you thought you'd dish some to the both of us.

BananaBender:
That's why we need feminism.

We? I never saw a happily married women wrapping herself in that ideology.

But back to my wife, no need for mindless invective, post your picture and I'll post hers. Then you can post a picture and/or resume of the man that has committed to you and any children you may have together.


TV

carefreewannabe:
I have zero respect for religious hypocrites.

And by all means continue to call it out when you encounter it !

carefreewannabe:
Remember that I will be back each time I spot your cheap propaganda that denigrates women and determines their value by age and their ability or disability to push out babies.

Men - mature, strong and possessing understanding - will always consider their marriage partners in terms of their youth, beauty and fertility. It's a basic biological imperative.

Plus, your mish-mash ideology of choice and relativity cannot deny men the right to do so - however much it makes you squirm. Women are free to slut around to the point of needing re-treads, kill their unborn babies on a whim and freeze their eggs until they are 70. Men will respect them and their choices, but we know what ours will be !

Do you have respect for irreligious hypocrites ?

Toodles


TV

^{**flossing feminist remnants out of his pearly whites **}

carefreewannabe:
Interesting that you had to defend yourself against my assumption.

I am good.

And telling, that unable to proffer insightful content and running out of gifs, you resort to perjorative assumptions.

"Good" is clearly an abstract value

Try aboniki - hot but soothing


TV

pickabeau1:
For someone to be so reviled by some females here
His religion, his posts even his wife is not spared
I wonder when his son will become game.

Even the bible toting females can't resist to take dogs at him

Immediately a post insulting him is put up, u see the likes rack up....by default every time

Na wa....


TV01..your positive demeanour is astounding

It's nothing - have I had to resist to bloodshed? They are mere miscreants, slightly irritable. If my master was persecuted, how much more a mere disciple like me?

The exact right word "toting" - anyone can tote a gun, only a few can actually handle it correctly, let alone shoot straight - they are few and far between on the board.

They simply cannot touch Mrs TV01 - not in pedigree, heritage, character, demeanor, graciousness or beauty. My delightful wife epitomises all that deep down they aspire to be, but even deeper down realise they can never attain to.

How can an admixture of desperate and ageing singles, bitter and lonely divorcees, plain-faced lesbians (yes, I know !)low brow, low rent, low class and low bred, damaged & limping, treadless purveyors of slut-ho doctrines even stand

I spare them for the most part, because that's what she would exhort me to do. Did I mention righteous

As for my kids? I'll wait till I see theirs. Chances are their eggs will remain frozen instead of fertilised

I shall contine to speak the truth and stand for the best interest of strong families and a flourishing society. Afterall, it's the family section no?


TV

carefreewannabe:
I wouldn't be surprised to discover one day that TV01 is a pastor milking his stvpid church members.

And they will all fall for it because Mr Television knows how to make use of thesaurus and they are all r*etarded.

I can confirm - and my early posting history on this forum clearly shows - that I am anti-mandatory tithe, and believe money should only move within the body of Christ based on "need".

Further, I am not a Pentecostal or denominationalist of any kind. I do not belong to, own or operate any form of religious organisation. You are appearing increasingly desperate and unhinged - a sabbatical would help you re-think, re-group and assimilate the deep truths I have graciously imparted to you !

See you back.


TV

carefreewannabe:
Anyone who follows you and supports you has a one digit IQ.

There are 7.125 billion people and at least half of them are stvpid so it won't surprise me that many will follow you.
See achievement.

No gifs, no content, ad-hominem against me and invective against 3 billion + people .

You are clearly in meltdown -you are close to joining the long list or those I have left with limps, wounds and chronic conditions - time out perhaps ?


TV - Nairaland' leading femnivore

Mutaino7:
u deserved my followership*dico needed*.. I love how u own, dictate and slice arguments..

Appreciated

carefreewannabe:
And the blind are leading the blind.

No Gif, no content ! But lots of soreness because the truth is evident.

You are becoming redundant !


TV

BananaBender:
I have nothing against virginity but no woman should be a virgin because of another person.

You remain a virgin for yourself, not because you want a man to validate you.

You are more than your hymen, you deserve to be respected regardless.

asandigbo:
am not saying otherwise.

I am.

Present 2 women to a man who desires to marry; #1 has had numerous lovers #2 has had none

ATBE he will choose #2 as his wife. And he'd be right and smart to do so - as led by documented research.

He'll still respect #1 though


TV

Merlissa:
The husband looks scared

That's not the husband...(it's his younger brother) ,they did the marriage in absentia thingy...her real hubby had problem with his visa and was worried about losing his early morning cleaning job in "outside London" !


TV

crackhaus:
Obviously something is pissing you off, else you won't be going off tangent like this.

Not really, she's just naturally shrewish !


TV

Shirley07:
I said Paul championed slavery, which is the truth.

No, it's not the truth. It's the mindless cant of feminists and rebellious women

Shirley07:
However, Christ never taught us such and a true christian has christ as his/her role model and his words becomes his/her watchwards.

"Role model" - More gifs please...

You don't have to be a Christian to have Christ as a role model - but that probably explains a lot.
Christ without the cross, makes about as much sense as a saviour without salvation - but like I said...your choice.


TV

pickabeau1:
TV01

https://www.4thletter.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/laughter.gif

Graciás bro


TV

Shirley07:
Of what use is it when Paul constantly contradicts not only himself but Christ? He abolished the law when it comes to salvation and said Christ has freed us from all bondage but hadd no issues bounding women to one. That's basically bullshit and hypocrisy!

Please demonstrate clearly - from scripture - where Paul contradicts himself
Are you claiming that there is a mistake with the biblical canon or error within it?

Shirley07:
If Paul actually knows the true meaning of love, he will know that love comes with submission and that every christians is required to love one another and humble himself/herself like little children, like Christ taught us.

Yawn, more of the unthinking belief that claiming "love" obviates everything else and is unstructered, unthinking and non-discerning ?

Not to mention the confusion around "submission" - if I submit to my boss at work does that mean I love them or that they love me? Or that they also submit to me because of the lorrrf ? Likewise the home, husband/wife. Yes, it will be easier to submit to a man that loves you properlly, but the bible nowhere claims that love is a pre-requisite for submission.

Shirley07:
And all those history you wrote up there are just meaningless bullshit because everyone and his dog knows that without feminism, women emancipation wouldn't have taken place. Female license to education, political right and jobs in the society, liberation from male dominance and justice for women rape/sexual assault e.t.c wouldn't have even surface.

Coogar, Pickabeau, somebody, anybody...please help me with a gif of someone laughing uproarously ! Feminism emancipated women !
It was men with Judeo-Christian beliefs that emancipated women. It was the Gospel - and parts very much written by The Apostle Paul - that shaped their beliefs. Truth hurts. As a feminist why do you feel the need to purloin Our Christ and His Gospel or malign His servants?

Shirley07:
I'm sure Christ did his best in the liberation of women but not Paul. Infact, the Jews state that as one of the reason why Christ was hated, apart from him claming to be the son of God.

You are not sure about anything except your enslavement to feminist ideology !

Shirley07:
The truth is Paul championed women slavery and slavery as whole. If he didn't, why will he say women salvation is only by children bearing stating reason that Eve was the one that got deceived and became the sinner? So, Adam wasn't deceived?

Please show us clearly where Paul did any of the things you claim above. Then it can be confirmed or refuted - not just asserted !

Shirley07:
Not to forget the part where he was addressing christian slave masters. A christian shouldn't even have a slave in the first place but no, our dear Paul didn't think so.

Please show us where Paul addressed a Christian slave master condoning there practice of slavery

Shirley07:
And I don't blame you because if our fore fathers didn't fight for their freedom and you were still a slave, feeding on crumbles, you won't have the mouth to be spitting out gibberish.

I know feminism and the hordes of SJW would have secured our liberty no ?

Shirley07:
Whatever, I'm not stopping you from imbibing Paul's doctrine as long as you don't come here spouting rubbish why women should submit when my Christ said two shall becomes one and he's in the best authority to state such because he knows what it means to be one with God and the Holy Spirit.

So two becoming one means there are no roles and responsibilites for husbands and wives. It means this is not authority and structure in marital relationships. It means all Christians must submit to one another in love? Lemme ask my son if he would like to go to school or watch TV and eat cookies and ice-creram all day - and then submit in love

Shirley07:
And before coming here with your nonsense, practise what you preach with your wife first.

Ephesians 5:25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her
I'm practicing and Wifey is not complaining - any joy in locating a properly feminised husband? Let us know how you get on with that, and how happy you are when you do - there may be lessons to be learned !


TV

carefreewannabe:
self-deception

https://old.shareasimage.com/service/quotes/pro/01-14-13/for-everyone-who-exalts-himself-will-be-humbled-and-he-2.png

Gif Meister

Please let us know when you have some insight to share.


TV

Misogynist2014:
In one word, they are not Christians. CONGRATS!!!






It is very föölish to compare 2000 yrs ago, when little was known of Africa, when slaves were normal and Rome reigned supreme to 21st century. I think the bible was fair enough to instruct Christians to treat their slaves well. Did Jesus or his disciples own slaves?

They want you to prove Christianity right, you are a loner.

I think you misunderstood my post.

Carefrewannabe and Shirley07, both believe that Christianity condones slavery. Shirley07 additionally claims that Paul sees the husband/wife relationship as akin to a slave/master one.

I solidly refuted both errors !

As to comparing Africa 2'000 years ago, I actually compared the Christian exhortatio of 2'000 years ago to most non-Judeo-Christian based countries of this present day. And am bold to declare that many of those countries, even now, do not match up to that ehortation.

Am I clear, or are you of a different opinion?


TV

^{...or perhaps I misunderstood you?}

.

Peggy,

A mens sexual health is often tied to other things;

Stress is a big one – the stress of being a married man – especially a responsible one who wants to provide the best for his family – can be huge, and bear on a mans libido

Feeding into this are lots of other things, work situation, finances, family life events etc. Your job as his wife is too help him manage his stress levels – even if they are not articulated or plainly apparent.

Exercise & Diet – When I coach men who wish to improve their marriages – even if there is no problem – I always touch on this. It’s very important.

Physical wellbeing doesn’t come in a bottle. It’s takes continuous endeavour and a systematic approach. He needs to maintain an exercise regime that brings gains, but also takes into account your circumstances and environment.

Long-term the benefits are priceless. Improved health – may also help with his other conditions. Better, feeling, better looking, more enrgy and enthusiasm, and an increased libido – which all the other benefits actually feed. Double fo’ yo’ money! Seek medical clearance that he’s fit to exert himself.

Exercise should be combined with a good diet. You should be able to take charge here. But work with him, as wholesale changes may be required and he may resist to begin with.

And of course see a doctor. A good, competent one. But as he’s been “potent” in the past, I shouldn’r expect anything structural to be the issue?

Please try to stay away from, or only consider medication as a temporary fix. At age 35 – there is no reason why he shouldn’t still be functioning at his peak. I personally do not like medicine as a long-term solution.

Hopefully exercise and diet together with managing his stress levels should do it. Draw on your faith if you have any and deal with any past hurt/wrongs first. Forgiveness alone is a great healer..

Work with him. Work together. It’s something you can overcome if the will is there. All the best.


TV

Good effort Wonlasewonimi, Sagamite and Coogar'

Contracting definitely has it's merits. I sit next to two at work. And both cinsidered their positions and actually gave up perm roles.

In addition to those mentioned, they also avoid most of the politics and get to keep it fresh, building more extensive networks. Wonlasewonim actually has a point about benefits though. Lot's of firms are still cutting back and those he cited sound eye-wideningly juicy - and probably not to rare at worker-man level !

However, even lower down non-contributory pensions of 20% and bonuses of around 15% still make a difference. Not to mention paid holiday, family health insurance cover and a number of other - albeit - small - ones - all add up.

Security is often cited, but that's not a big seller in the current market. Although If you are a perm, a 4 figure pay-off is always likely.

I didn't cause the derailment, only helped it along !


TV

bukatyne:
You think you are the only one good with insults eh?

No, not by a long shot - but I'm way better at it than you !

crackhaus:
Yesterday was her birthday so maybe just put her on a waiting list or something.

Really? Happy birthday Bukatyne. Many happy returns. What would you like?

1. Anti-wrinkle cream
2. Middle-age spread reducing juice
3. Attitude adjustment pills
4. An extended deluxe rinsing
5. Peace

Choose wisely !


TV

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