₦airaland Forum

amaprincess: One thing i like about this section is, there are so many matured minds here.
Some said marriage is sweet, beautiful and all that, but even with all the sweet comments couples give about their marriages, we still see high rate of divorce, violence and separation.
In the society today, you see so many matured men and women due for marriage, but there are not given it consideration at all.
so many are scared. others, lost interest due to horrible heart break experiences and so many reasons.
i know marriage is not a do or die affairs, but it looks good and mystery some how. imagine two people with different upbringing, background. coming together to tolerate each other, Iive as one till the end of time, it looks amazing.
Now to those already in their marriage, pls enlighten us.
1. how do you feel being married? do you feel chain/tied down by one person for the rest of your life, or how do you see it?
2. what are the things that happen in marriage that change everything forever. like sins that cant be forgiven. its common with men once a women cheats, its unforgivable. although i dont support cheating either.
3. what words of advice can you give a young man/lady who desire marriage but scared. based on what you are experiencing now either positive or negative. what can you tell someone who is afraid of entering into marriage, so he/she don't fail (divorce).
pls honest contributions pls
Thank you.

1. I feel united with someone I can travel through life with. Who accepts me as I am and lets me be me - no, she encourages me to be me, and makes me want to be better for her.

2. Don't know/not applicable, but with remorse and repentance, anything can be forgiven

3. First, prepare yourself. Be mature and of sound character. Properly understand marriage for what it is for, what it does. Form a consistent worldview/theology of marriage. Then find someone you fancy like mad, who is of sound character, and who shares that worldview, or who is at least on the same path. Commit to them, marry, them, live happily ever after !

There, proper marriage in a few easy steps.


Best
TV

cococandy: Never mind if it's your call or not. Just wanted to know your position.

No. No inconsistencies per your words.

I will abort if I'm rapped,if the pregnency could take my life or both our lives or if the baby will be born severely deformed.
So I'm prochoice. I think that's consistent.
But if I told a young girl that having an abortion just because is wrong,she might think I'm prolife. Hence giving the impression of inconsistency.

I find people who say they are prolife but will heed medical advice to save a mother's life by abortion as inconsistent.
They will claim prolife but can't accept their wives with a baby she concieved from being rap'ed.

In order words,the right to life shouldn't be pursued by it's advocates selectively. So when next someone is 'prolifing' alongside you,try find out their true position in cases like that.
That message may do them good.

You'd be surprised at how many prolifers are actually prochoice.

No, I get you. In truth, there are probably a number who would act differently when faced with the actual choice. It's not easy and there is a lot of cultural and social pressure. Not to mention the political and media influence that is driven by differnt lobbies and interest groups.

That's why it's good to start from apoint of truth and make sure everything accords with that. There are times I would have been faced with these questions when I wouldn't have known my left from my right.

I genuinely appreciate your willingness to grasp these issues and work through them - at your own pace - and hold on to the integrity of where you are.

I've heard medics give testimonies of how they had abortions due to deformities. All their training and the voices of their colleagues must have been overwhelming. We were all in tears.

God is merciful. I pray it never comes upon us.


TV

cococandy: An opinion I share too.

Problem is,is there enough proof of that to make a law that bans homosex parents from adopting kids?

The last paragraph being the winning line they will have over every argument against them

It's not a winning arguement. In which area of human wellbeing do we take the worst outcome and set it as the standard?

Do we say that because some kids from seemingly good homes turn out bad and some from single parent homes turn out good that we should therefore normalise and champion single parent homes?

Some kids that go to the worse schols or grow up in the worse areas - Ben Carson MD is often touted here - should parents move to ghettos and send their kids to inner city sink schools to prove a point?

It's not a winning argument.

Especially in light of the fact I noted earlierabout the wellbweing of a child being directly related to the knowledge of their ancestry, culture and biological heritage.

Same sex homes cannot provide this and the child will eventually come to realise that a large part of their identity is missing. SSC often delete any reference ot the source of the "missing sex" genetic material. They'll often use an egg form one source and a surrogate from another.


TV

cococandy: Ok. Glad you're staunch in your position.
At least you're clear about that.

One more thing would that still be your stand if it happened to your wife or daughter?

My position remains the same - although I appreciate it wouldn't be solely my call.

And the "right to choose" is not pursued by it's advocates on a selective basis. So there is really no middle ground - however hard you try to find it.

Did you find inconsistencies in my position?


TV

cococandy:

As for homosex - 2 or more parents of the same sex can never substitute for 1 of each.
The sublte differences and input from both parents is key to ensuring a well-rounded individual.
The physiological and psycholigical changes both parents undergo are different, as are the skills and contriburtions of each.

Look closely, you'll find studies that tell you same-sex parenting is as good (or even better) than mixed sex parenting - it's junk science. We don't have the requisite sample sizes or benefit of historicity of SSM to conduct a comprehensive study. But we don't really need it as stated above. A same sex couple cannot deliver what a miced sex couple can - ATBE.

And I say this knowing that a mixed couple does not gaurantee success and that there will be some cases of ss couples offspring doing well. Just like in single parent homes.



TV

cococandy: So TV are you prolife or prochoice.?

Good morning and thank you too

I'm pro-life.

Take rape - two wrongs do no tmake a right, up to 80% or preganacies concieved in rape are kept. Not that I would force anyone raped to keep the pregnancy, that doen not ever make abortion a morally good or neutral choice. The statistical percentage of abortions for rape is <1%.

Take the risk of death - we keep both alive until we have to induce labour or the mother will die. Unfortunately the baby may not survive delivery. But we don't kill the baby. The termination of life is never the answer to the dilemna of death. Again such abortions are <1%

Take deformity - life is a precious gift from God. Fact is we are all "born deformed" - abi you no see our ways on NL ? - the key is to avoid behaviours or pairingd that may give rise to deformity and treat with humanity and dignity those that suffer from it. It's a reverse argument for euthanasia - do we kill the aged as they start to become deformed. Again such abortions are miniscule

There are no moral or humane arguemnts for abortion. The vast majority of abortions are predicated on selfish lifestyle reasons. And in most, the pregnancy itself should have been avoided - Pro-choice for life - pun intended.


TV

Sagamite: If you want more ammo (which Sagamite always has in reserve to bash fcktards), they were cases of Canadian Inuit/Aboriginal kids taken from their natural useless parents (or where orphans) and then put with white parents.

These white parents were all middle-class (and mostly loving) parents who then raised them and gave them the better lives than they would have got. Despite this, many of these kids ended up being fcked up mentally and had a disproportionate part of them ending up having a police record. This is despite living a more privileged and even loving life.

They all felt out of place and it would have been better to leave them with the people they identify with. There identity meant a lot to them.

http://www.cuckoografik.org/trained_tales/orp_pages/news/news5.html

Even kids with single-parenthood or step-parenthood have a more disproportionate level of troubled life than kids raised with both natural parents, talkless of homosexual parents.

Love is not everything. Identity and personal history counts a lot.

Well said Saga. It's been recently published that the biggest single indicator of a childs well-being is their understanding of their cutural, ancesteral - and dare I say it - biological lineage/heritage.


TV

cococandy: You're trying to make me argue for gay rights.
Sadly I'm indifferent to that ish.

I would be all up in arms against it,if I know of the negative effect it has on anyone apart from the couple.(To me that should be the basis of selectivity)

But I can't find any such reason all the while I've known about it, so I've kept my opinion about it to myself until such a time as when we will have the reason to backed with proof to argue against it.

Cococandy morning, as ever, you make a good fist of it, but much as I try I can’t square the circle you’ve drawn. You’ve clearly stated you agree with a “womans right to choose”. This is not selective. It’s at any stage and for any reason.

You’ve also stated that you are against incest due to the “possible” effects on any offspring – as a direct result of the parents actions. Abortion is the same – there is conflict in your position and it is not resolved by resorting to “selectivity.

Further, your position on homosex is that it’ harms no one except the two involved. But like in the first two instances, there are children involved.

The wholesale acceptance of homosex as moral means they are given the right to adopt and/or procure children via surrogacy. You cannot claim that homosexuality only affects the couple involved when children are part and parcel of the package of rights accorded to them.

At the very least you are saying being raised without a father or mother – and by design – has no deleterious effect on children. Please humour – and impress me – by squaring that circle.


Danke schön


TV

...ha, ha, ha... you and my gonads huh? . If there is anything original here you must have been up all night writing it - and with help! I'll be back to "pieces you" - there'll be no coming back from this for you EfemenaXY. I can't give this my full attention at the moment. But in the meantime, please show us where you got your definition of "gaggle from; http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/gaggle?s=t

As for your list, I've recently responded to or been quoted by 5 of the people on it, and 1, I don't actually recall ever having any discourse with.

Not just a dark mind, also a dirty mouth


TV

^{Damiso, I trust you'll demonstrate your usual class and ignore this bunny boiler. However, if you do decide to respond, make it quick. When I am done with her there'll be little or nothing left !}

EfemenaXY: Oh shut your trap, will you?

Who do you think you're dealing with here? Kids? Don't try to cover up your hidden agenda by trying to present yourself as some sort of saint, you two-faced hypocrite!

It's plain as day to anyone reading your post that your question was provocative just as you'd intended. It's no rocket science that you and I don't see eye-to-eye. I keep my distance from you and if you had any shred of self-respect, you'd do the same. What sort of ffool would ask a question in this format:

Excellent question Damiso!

Was there an answer to this by any chance? I couldn’t find it…

Couldn't find what? Where were you searching that you couldn't find "any answer to her question by chance"? Why would you go searching for my response - a response you obviously were dying to read - when you could have simply asked me straight out, you two-faced-lying coward? Felt it was easier to push Damiso forward, while you stand back sniggering in your usual smug, conceited way?

Now the heat's on you, you claim the bolded bit above? Warra joker.

TV01: You purposely weighed in and were out to provoke. So now you've got what you wanted, let's enjoy the ride together, my fanatical Christian Brother.




Really?

Tell that to the birds! Taking sly digs and "pressing" are your trademark. Na today?




For the second time, SHUT YOUR MOUTH!

Are you some sort of i.mbecile or what?? What do you mean by "what did I do to trigger that response?" And whether I chose to answer a question or not is none of your freaking business! If I wasn't discussing directly with you, why drop your muzzle in?

And as far as you're concerned, that debate, which obviously is the root of your vitrol is nowhere near gone. I asked you to go back to the judges and moderators to remark that argument in your favour. Why are you shying out? Isn't it what you truly want? I mean, you did question their honesty and integrity because things didn't go your way, didn't you? Thankfully, all the crap you spewed on that thread is still up for all and sundry to see.

And for the record, I don't give a monkey's about your opinion of me. Like seriously, you think I care? You think it's going to make me loose sleep at night? Or loose the skin off my nose? You better shove your head further up that a.$.$ of yours.



Don't you ever, ever, think you can wow me with your choice of words, you uncouth thing.

Gaggle? Who are my gaggle? For those who don't know the urban dictionary / definition of that word, it means: "A group, preferably of b.!tches. 5 or more"

So who are these b.!tches you're referring to. You used the pronoun "my" meaning the women who agreed with my point of view on this thread, yes? So according to you, you ss.tu.pi.d punk:

~ Jennykadry
~ Ileobatojo
~ Edwife
~ ChilliSauce
~ Greatgod2012
~ Beeevan
~ Peggykorol
~ Soonest

and anyother female on here with an opposing view to yours is part of Efe's gaggle, yes? Interesting. Lemme see you wriggle out of this one, you despicable piece of shy.te!



You wankerous cree.p! Hell will freeze over before that'll happen.

Bring it on TV01. Bring it on, brother!

PrettyPhine: @ Op. That,s a big myth. Though am single, if I get married tomorrow does not and will not make me more successful and responsible than those who have not. Marriage is not a yardstick for success, morality or being responsible, though people think when you are married u now have more responsibilities, but that does not make people in marriage responsible because a lot of couples have abandoned their matrimonial responsibilities while some do not even know the reasons for marriage. It,s true that our society these days has made married seem the ultimate, but that,s bad.

Firstly, if marriage is a goal to anyone and they associate it with success, then if they marry and marry well it bacomes a measure of success for them. You don't have to agree with that, it's just what it is. That does not mean it is the sole measure of success. Success is an abstract and individual thing.

Secondly, you are right, marriage does not make you more responsible. What it does do is give you more responsibilities, moreso if there are children involved. For men, the need and desire to provide for their families means many have to, and will, become more focused and productive. Even for women, the need to care for a family means choices are different from the single carefreewannabe days.

PrettyPhine: Meeehnn! I hate it when family members and friends ask me questions like..." when is MR RIGHT coming", "who,s the current guy now?" "when are u calling us?". It,s so so so annoying. I do ask myself, is marriage everything? I just changed my family surname to my dad's name on facebook, and that's when people rem'ber they will and chat me, asking; are u married, so u didnt invite me, is that ur hubby's name, this, that. What NONSENSE!!! I know I will get married someday, but that,s not the peak of success, and that does not make better or more successful than those who are not married. AFTERALL, THERE IS NO MARRIAGE IN HEAVEN. But am not against marriage ooo. Marriage is a good thing but not the piority in life.

Please don't be upset at your family, they have your best interests at heart - although I agree, the way many go about it could be better. There is usually an optimum window to marry and their concern - even if they don't articulate it very well - is to see that you don't miss it. Afterall you did say you want ot get married someday?

And like success, marriage may not necessariyl be "the priority", but it is "a priority" for many. And for those who know they want it, but don't prioritise it appropriately, they can find it frustrating if they miss their "marriage window".

Feel you pain, I went through it too. Hope you make the best marriage.


TV

ZERKNICHTER: no i think there is a huge difference betwenn nigeria and europe
in germany the yardstick for success is the car u drive, the house u live in the job u do

Actually, I think koning got it right.

The OP asks if marriage is a measure of success - and yes, it is one amongst many and a successfull marriage can enhance all the others and does not necessarily impair them.

ZERKNICHTER: the peope to associate having a familiy (espcially with 2+ childin) with a boring life without the freedom to do what they want to do and they dont acknowledge the hard work of raising chidren

Success is an abstract value, so if marital success has little or no meaning to certain Germans", it matters not, it may to others.

ZERKNICHTER: if u ask a young german guy how he wants his live to be like he will say: be succesfull in the job, earning much money, having as less commitments as possible, travel a lot , having a nice girlfriend, and go out with her at the weekend
the society there looks down on big familys thats why the birth per woman rate in germany is 1.4

Which proves the point and also answers dasparrow wrong inference about marriage not moving a nation forward.

The replacement birthrate is about 2.2. Germany - even with the immigrations - is below that. It will affect their national success, as they will have to rely on immigrants, who in all liklihood will come from contries with values different to theirs.

And those immigrant can not come from other European countries "like them", because they are all in the same boat - below replacement birthrates. So yes, good marriages are a measure of individual and national success and achievement. Germany will soon come to that realisation and correct their abstract !


TV

TribalEAST: then wetin?

Both...


TV

TribalEAST: so because a wife takes cocaine, the husband should do thesame?it's either you guys are fools or you just want to satisfy your feministic madness.

It may not actually be "either/or" !


TV

As an OP this is quite frankly ill-considered and rather shoddy work

wealthinfos: As a counsellor and as a research fellow I have been opportune to share the secret thoughts of most couples relating to how bad their marriage have degenerated to an internal civil war which will continue forever because of such ridiculous and odeforous wedding vows as "till death do us parth"!

Most? And the marriages degenerated because they took a vow. "Till death do part" is ridiculous? Did you say a counsellor?

wealthinfos: Pls pls pls I feel am in bondage being administerd such spiritual bondage oath/vow by a pastor. Can we repeal that vow so parties can go their different ways when ever they can never be together? Must we die in pretence and silence?

Who is forced to take vows? Are pastors the only ones that can join people or do they force people to be joined. No one forces marriage on anybody. People are free - freer than ever in fact - to content themselves with some other arrangement if they are not up to marriage

wealthinfos: The truth must be said, most marriages are seriously in urgly shape. Most couples are incompartible, they just can't be husband and wife. it won't work!

Where do you get your figures from? And in any case, is the remedy to problematic marriage to facilitate divorce?

wealthinfos: A lady I talked with disclosed to me that she'd look for an oportunity for her spouse to die because the heat is tough on her, and I asked why not file a divorce? Her reply was she can't stand the shame of what the society will say because their wedding was the talk of the town because she came from an aristocratic and well respected family and as such it will be unheard that she left her marriage or divorce! And worse still the guy's dad is a clergy man. Hmmm...now u see the extent of pressure in her? So both are locked in forever heheheheh

Presumably, as a counsellor, you then went on to counsel her how to enhance her marital rerlationship? It doesn't require a counsellor to seek divorce. Are you sure you're not a divorce lawyer trying to drum up business?

wealthinfos: In this discussion, we shall exray the church vow "till death do us parth" even when the marriage won't work anymore
If it's not till death do part, then it's not marriage. But let's see what this "x-ray" will reveal !

[quote author=wealthinfos]Secondly would it be wise enduring hell in marriage or gain freedom from marriage bondage?

Marrage in and of itself has no agency. It doesn't come with a "side helping of hell", and it's not bondage, it's unity. The couple should establish it on a firm foundation and ensure they spend time to maintaining it.

wealthinfos: Thirdly what really causes such pressures and situations that degenerates to a condition for possible divorce?

Biblically just adultery - and that does no tpre-suppose remarriage. Legally, it should never have been made more than Adultery, Abondonment or Abuse (and that's relative). In any event, these do not come with marriage, they are introduced into it by the parties.

wealthinfos: Finally how can we improve our marriages making it blissful and enjoyable?
Again, "The couple should establish it on a firm foundation and ensure they spend time to maintaining it". And that should have been your starting point.

[quote author=wealthinfos]Add your opinion, let's help save our failing marriages!

My opinion i sthat you are not enhancing marriage or improving relationships by championing divorce. I won't comment on what I think of you as a counsellor - unless you ask nicely !

Lots of kids are dropping out of school; should we, A. make it easier to do so or B. lower the pass mark? See the paucity of you thinking now?


TV


[/sup][/b]

LewsTherin: There are no two humans on this planet who cannot be civil in their living together. Where there is, it is always because one or both parties choose not to be civil. It is a choice. Even God took his time to listen to Satan and even Satan behaves himself in the presence of God. It is always a choice.

Many people would rather devote their energies into fighting with their spouses than in trying to live as they once promised each other. Self aggrandisement over mutual compromise. Selfishness.

Loving someone is a choice. A good marriage is a choice. One each couple must make. One you should not wait for your spouse to make.

Thank you! Thank you!! Thank you!!!


TV

crackhaus: At least she let common sense prevail before letting stubbornness cost her a marriage.
Wonder what she would have said when asked, 'why did your marriage end?'

Abi?
And then find how painful the stigma & hardship of divorce can be - especially when it's those "bad friends" that would stigmatise her the most.

Well done Idris for ruling your household !


TV

AfricanApple: though everyone has their opinion and thinks differently but to me it is normally no because you can be single, successful and happy. there are lots of people who are married, poor, childless, no peace in the house etc, how successful can u classify them to be

Answered below (thanks again Saga);

Sagamite: I can't see anywhere where he said you cannot be single, successful and happy.

Nor did he say marriage was a superior model.

He just stated how marriage might be a good thing if done right.

Not sure you read and understood my post or gave much thought to your own before responding. But the bar is low, you got 2 likes


TV

^{Saga are you going to respond to everyone on this thread?}

Sagamite: Surprisingly, this is actually the most sensible thing said so far.

Thank you. You do know I'm the "Marriage Man" !
Have you found anyone worthy yet. It would be nice to be able to pencil in a date for next summer !


TV

TribalEAST: gender equality/feminism is actually a spirit that operates in most ladies and makes them lack submission. Most of them don't know they are feminists until they come across the ideology which appeals to that spirit in them, a good reason why they accept the concept readily. The women with pure heart discard every inch of it cos they can see the end thereof.

Ace comment.

In the Bible it says the "womans desire will be for her husband, but he will rule over her". The desire is not desire as in affection, it's desire as in own/or control - in the same manner Cain was warned that sins desire was for him.

I always tell men, never let your feelings for you wife overwhelm you, or give leave to them to the point of neglecting your duty or not standing for what is right.

Letting a wife "rule you" will almost certainly result in calamity.


TV

OLAADEGBU: Thanks TV. I can see that you've abandoned the religion section. Why?

Hi Ola, I always meant to return or at least divide my time between Family and Religion - it's just that Family takes up most of the time I can allocate to NL and in some ways I feel I can give more Xtian witness here.

I always felt we never advanced past level 1 in discussions on religion. We'd talk doctrinally, but never experientially or practically. And oft times, it was just sectarianism or denominationalism - tiring.

Best
TV

OLAADEGBU: What do you mean by a "piss-artist" can you explain?

It's idiomatic speech. It means joker, or a time waster....


TV

...am I right in thinking that the reasoning was - to parphrase - "incestuous couples should not be criminalised due to the disgust about them"?

Anyways, good to see CFW on fine form;

carefreewannabe: First of all, if kids have to suffer for a life time because their parents acted in an irresponsible way, then it's reason enough to make it illegal.

They could simply 1, not have kids, 2, have any pregancies screened, or 3, have them "engineered like homosexuals do

carefreewannabe: Secondly, if in.cest was legalized then it would open doors to child abuse in families. The German government said that families have to be seen as a place of protection for children and the law and societal norms have to do ensure that it is. Leagalizing in.cest would open doors to child abuse in families. It would make it more acceptable as a side effect.

Why would it open the door to child abuse? Or at least open it any further. Are you claiming there are a load of people refraining from child-abuse just because incest is not legal. Does it not happen now that incest is illegal

carefreewannabe: Thirdly, if two consenting adults decide to have s.ex with each other behind closed doors, then nobody will know and they can "pursue their happiness".

That's how the gay one started - now we have to be ushers at their "weddings" or else !

carefreewannabe: Fourthly, the siblings who triggered off this discussion had four children together because they wanted to "pursue happiness." The government can't make sure that such couples won't take it a step further and they cannot be sterilized by force.

And why should they be denied that right. As for children, see above. Plus, they may choose to be sterilised - I guess only one would need be !

carefreewannabe: Fifthly, se.x between siblings is not a se.xual orientation but rather a coincidence of two people who feel attracted to one another and see nothing wrong with it. People fall in and people fall out of love. It is not that they can't find happiness elsewhere if they are forbidden to sleep with one another. Many people have to find a new partner if the partner they desire is not available for one reason or another.

An a priori assumption that there is such a thing as "sexual orientation". And then limiting it as you subjectively see fit. You also say nothing about how if sexual orientation is different from undeniable sexual functioning, that something must be wrong. At least a brother and sister are aligning their sexual function with the right orientation

carefreewannabe: Last but not least, the cost of possible kids coming from such unions will have to be carried by the society as a whole. Germany is a welfare state. The kids have to get special health treatment and possibly special education.

So? Kids are born that require State welfare all the time. It's a fact that children from single parent homes take up more welfare spending than those from two parent homes. Yet, for wannabe (see what I did there ) single mums, legislation is moving to enabling them. Should single-mothers not also be legislated against for this same "cost to society" reason?

Likewise for homosexuals. Their lifestyle is more dangerous than smoking, yet we don't stick health warning on it or them. The lives are typically shortened and the health risks and hence the healthcare bill is disproportinally high. Why are they enabled and championed?

carefreewannabe: I knew people would want to discuss homo.sexuality in this context. They are free to do so. I am not taking part in these debates.
If you want to discuss in.cest with me, you know how to find me but without engaging me in debates on homo.sexuality, please.

The parallels have to be made. Advocate will look to what is acceptable and the arguements that made it so to press their case. Trying to make the point without relevent references is indeed "ostrich in the sand" type behaviour.

carefreewannabe: I will ONLY say this much:
If disgust is a yardstick to pass bills, then I also want to make it illegal for old men to marry young girls.
https://gifsec.com/wp-content/uploads/GIF/2014/03/disgust-reaction-gif.gif
I can't stand their view. Honestly.

Agreed.

TV

freshdude2: TV01, Ms. EnlightenedSoul, please.

I don't think my views on this would in any way be unclear. Please call Sis' Carefreewannabe, she resides in Deutscheland !

It's wrong...but still not as diordered as two men or two women. And if two men or two women are allowed children - evenif engineered to a degree - why should an incestuous couple be denied - evenif they have to engineer to a degree?

cococandy: Win win. Everyone's rights protected.

You make an "a priori" assumption of a "right".


TV

damiso: TV01 I do wish you could indeed borrow that leaf and try to realise that we are all different and as such will have different views on issues.I do know our beliefs and in this case your faith colour our worldviews but the Christian thing to do in most cases would be to let go of old issues and resentments and treat each new case on its own basis. I don't think the "plagiarism" dig had anything to do with this thread and if it was about anything in the past I think you need to let it go.

I was involved in and following the discussion like everyone else. I asked for a response to a question that had been asked as part of that discussion. So as not to weigh in or provoke, I asked the question of you;

TV01: Excellent question Damiso!

Was there an answer to this by any chance? I couldn’t find it…

TV

You then went out to EFemenaXY and asked for a response - if you'd decided you were done, I wouldn't have pressed. And once you asked, she was entitled to answer in any way she chose. And she duly chose to respond thus;

EfemenaXY: Read between the lines Damiso. No offence babes, but I don't do second-hand questions.

Anyone willing to take me on in an argument should be bold enough to put their hands down their pants, find their balls and quote me.

I hope you get my drift?

A direct swipe at me - and wrapped up in some pretence about "second hand questions"? What did I do to trigger that response? Answer the question, or don't answer the question, her choice. She chose to answer out of spite. I also had the choice to respond as I see fit. And I did. The debate is long gone, my opinion of EfemenaXY is what it is, and well-founded. I purposely give her - and her gaggle - a wide berth to avoid this sort of thing.

If EfemenaXY is happy to acknowledge she kicked this off and apologise, I'll sheath my sword. Otherwise... ! And I'm not taking appeals on this one.


TV

alutacontinua: As per your first paragraph, I totally agree!

Let me get this right; first you write an epistle, then you agree with me. I'm feeling faint - need to lie down !

alutacontinua: However, how many churches out there today are actually a body of TRUE BELIEVERS?

And your point is? Does God not lead? How many does it take?

alutacontinua: And no, if what I see on a Sunday does not point towards the fact that the elder lives a Christian life, why do I have to wait to watch what happens on weekdays? From the message of most elders, you can certainly deduce that you've missed road. Not to mention other things in a church that just totally makes you to know it's not the place to be.

Again, you are reading me backwards. The life and the preaching are not just in the weekly message, it's daily and experiential.

alutacontinua: Agreed!

Please stop !

alutacontinua: As per the woman in op's story, I cannot really say, as Winners church, I believe is all over the country. However, I hope the real gospel of Christ does not get that scarce but if it does and I have to drive 6 hours to get spiritual nourishment, I'll gladly do it! People drive 6 hours every week cos of work, no?

Spiritual nourishment? I can see we have shall we say, different perspectives. But even taking your point, someone mentioned we are in the digital age no?

alutacontinua: As I said earlier on, spiritual immaturity!
Which also has a place in Christianity. There would always be newborn babes in Christ.....does not make them bad, it means they are immature. Even in the Corinthian Church, some people preferred Paul, others Apollos! This was a church Apostle Paul established himself! Paul only had to correct their mindset, not criticize them!

And pray tell, what did Paul say to them about venerating men?
And it was the church at Corinth - a congregation of Corinthians - not "travellers to fellowship" from Colosse !
And I'm simply seeing I don't see that narrative in scripture. Do I know them to criticize them? The outworkings are clear for all to see - and I don;t mean this particular instance - but this type of "church".

alutacontinua: A few years ago, one of my uncles was transferred from his church branch to another branch as a Pastor. There was a particular woman in that church who was his convert that decided to also move to his new church with him (even though it meant more distance, and of course, money). All efforts to convince her otherwise proved abortive, she actually told him if she doesn't follow him, she'll stop coming altogether. Apparently, at that point, he left her alone and she actually did start attending his new branch. Fastforward almost 10 years later and this woman does not even belong to his denominatiom again, and yes, she's still in the faith (I believe). I'm sure if she even remembers now, she'll prolly laugh at her ignorance then.

Story. That attitude comes from what people are taught. What those kind of churches model, with concepts like spiritual daddy, MOG authority, being fed and the like being taken to extremes - not that they are necessarily right in the first instance.

The Ethiopian whop Phillip preached to. The first in his country. Did he return to where he met Philip or to sit at Philips feet every week to be spiritually fed? Yet the Church in Ethoipia grew from that un-followed up convert? This discussion pains me.

alutacontinua: My point? Such acts of clinging towards sentiments are acts of ignorance and immaturity, something about behaving like a child when you are a child, not reasons enough to criticize such people. It is almost natural for a woman to believe the person who gave her the miracle of a child after many years of trying and maybe places is her closest link to God. It takes maturity to get rid of such sentiment.

I believe I've answered this with the above

alutacontinua: I AGREE!

Maybe, but I not sure it's for the same reasons.

May God be with us all.


TV

Stillfire: Submission ko, sobolation ni. This has nothing to do with submission abeg but the mental IQ of the wife. The woman must be a person of low mental assimilation to not have weighed the consequences and detected the rationale behind her partner informing her of the risks and endangerment she places herself. When they tell you people to marry intelligent wives, una no go gree.

Someone, anyone - I'm interested, why is that when a woman does something wrong the stock responses are

1. It's societies fault for pressuring her or;
2. She must be mad/deranged/psychotic/bi-polar/provoked beyond measure.

But responsibility is never in view? And it's always women, usually avowed feminists? Willing to denigrate other women or throw them to the wolves, rather that to take the responsibility that's twinned with the equality they supposedly demand?

Kindly let me know if there are any "policies" in force that prevent a response to this question!


TV

ileobatojo: I'm going to assume neither of these refer to me.

And you certainly don't need my permission to do that. Assume away !


TV

EfemenaXY: Aww...he finally found his balls to confront me!

You know, I started typing out a long epistle for you but decided you aren't worth it. You never are, and you never will be, as far as I'm concerned.

A liar and a plagiarist you say? Over what? A debate supposedly dead and buried months ago? A debate where every single reference I used was documented in my write up?
A debate where the judges voted my argument superior to yours? It still hurts you, doesn't it? Why don't you request the judges andmoderators to remark the whole argument on your favour? Or better still, come take my 2nd place position, if that will help you sleep better at night, you despicable man?

Listen, I don't go back to vomit, but you obviously do. Now with all due respect, my fanatical Christian brother, be my guest and go fück yourself slowly.

I'm so done with your bile, but hey, feel free and have the last word(s). The dance floor is all yours. Mtcheew!!

*** Thread Unfollowed!***

So, this policy of not answering "second hand questions", how does it work? ?

There were no second hand questions....you were asked once...skipped away like a petty thief on bail..and then started forming policy when you were reminded of your court date .

You are low rent. You simply don't have the breeding, education, intellect or experience to contribute in any meaningful way. I typically give you a wide berth because your noxious presence is quite sullying. Admittedly I just wanted too see you squirm here as you thoroughly deserved.

Given a inarticulate simpleton with archaic ideas and you're all over them. ....now they ask you one small kweshun and you are writing policy documents are calling for back-up. Are these policies original by any chance?

Long epistle my foot. If it's any good, it certainly won't be original and if it's original, it'll be crap.

The benighted EfemenaXY. I'm going to enjoy toying with you. I'm sure I have evidence of your fraud somewhere...


TV

^{Damiso apologies for involving you - even if tangentially. I know you're too polite to say and that you don't do rofo-rofo. I'll try and take a leaf out of your book. But some people just ask for it. !}

TribalEAST: Pls I need to know.

The first rule of being a man; Don't ever ask a woman to define manhood or dictate how you articulate your manhood.

TV

EfemenaXY: Sorry Damiso, only just seeing this in my mentions as I'd already unfollowed this topic. In response to "your" question, what do you think?

Yeah right

Which is why you made a number of responses to Saga afterwards? And then tried to craftily deflect the question back to Damiso when expressly called out?

I didn't butt in as I wanted the conversation to progress and reach it's natural conclusion. When you thought you were making a point, you continued with your usual low-brow smirking and high fiving with the rent-a-like crowd, your posturing was palpable. And Damiso wasn't the only one who sensed your "na me first born pikin" attitude.

Then bereft of answers - not easily cribbable this one hey? On the spot, no long neck possible! - you tried to make it about me with that sly remark. No problemo, we are all here together.

And then you breathed an audible sigh of relief when Ileobatojo posted what was at best a distractionary rejoinder. Had to be rescued again huh?

Pray tell, what's the difference between a liar and a plagiariast?

Damiso I doff my hat, well articulated, not intimidated and presented with a style EfemenaXY couldn't display if we sprinkled it on her grits. Please show some more of your class and ignore her.


TV

alutacontinua: You talked about people having 'preference' as regards church as odd and if I read well, unbiblical! I tried to point out that with the no of churches springing out left, right and centre these days (most especially in our beloved country), one cannot be too careful!

The Church is the Body, the only preference should be to worship with other believers. There simply shouldn't be a preference.

If an elder in the church is indeed fraudulent, you'd be more likely to know that if you all worshipped in the local community - also a lot less likely to venerate him if you saw him in his daily travails, instead of only splendidly decked out every Sunday !

alutacontinua: If the church were to be who I am, I can as well lie down on my bed and call it my church!
For an introvert like moi, I'll probably even prefer that arrangement!

I am not saying you make the church on your own, but your presence along with other believers is what constitutes church. I don't see how you could have misread that? Does one fellowship alone?

alutacontinua: I'll rather see the church as who WE are, 'we' being the people, beliefs, faith, doctrines and God of a particular congregation!

For the former, it's as above, for the latter, biblically congregations were always by geography/location. You gather with believers in your community. Denominationalism is just part of the larger error and distraction. And even if one is a denom A and prefers to not worship with denom B, you willl still be able to do that locally - 6 hours drive? Why not make the round trip to Rome just to be sure - if you are a Catholic of course !

alutacontinua: Don't get me wrong, if your reason for going to a particular church is because of the Pastor that is there or not there, or your friends that are there or not there, or the food you eat or don't eat, or the position you hold or don't hold-then, that'll be a huge sign of spiritual immaturity.

Which is what obtains for most - I have a relative who is devoted to church and will only worship at HQ because GO is there. If you read with understanding...you willl see that that model of church keeps you immature by design. True liberty in Christ will not make you a devotee of any man or tied to any church.

alutacontinua: Truth however, is we feel more comfortable in some places than the other (largely based on our spiritual convictions and doctrines, and even sometimes inspiration by the Holy Spirit).

As above..."true liberty in Christ and a walk with Him will not make you a devotee of any man or tied to any religious institution...perhaps it's time to question those doctrines and convictions.

Christianity is not religion...and an arduous weekly round trip sounds very much like a pilgrimage.


TV

Nashville: Do those people really seek the face of God or the face of man? Do they believe God ga?e them the child or do they think it was the prayer of a Pastor.

Most people worship man and not God!

I so detest the veneration these so called MOG's engender.It's nothing short of idolotry. Add clinging to certain places as well. Nobody receives their miracle "in", you receive it "From"...and like edwife said, He is Omnipresent.

Well, the scriptures clearly reveal that the delusion is part of the plan. And God shows people that these people are not of Him by exposing their evil ways. Will they listen? Those who love the lie rather than the truth and are under the "strong delusion" will not.


TV