₦airaland Forum

SalC: Please can you just put an end to this already, I don't see anything charitable coming out of it,

Seriously, I wonder what happens here, why is that when something worthwhile is happening here is when we see much ado about nothing just to distract us,
Lent, and you see uncharitable banters, Pentecost, same happened and now instead of facing the novena, we have to argue and counter argue on tribalistic whatever? Smh.

Just let it go please..let's concentrate. Nuf said. Thanks in advance.

*smiles*

actually i hope some good come of such discussion. The issue i'm raising concerns me personally, (it no longer a matter of just different ideas, this is about my person, to correct the erring is still a good work) if i'm guity of tribalism then its a good opportunity for me to come to terms with it and address it....

I'll kindly ask that you tolerate this.

Kamsified: Tag: Ubenedictus, Syncan, Modestdude, Italo

@Davik01 Hopefully they'll have an answer for you cos I know not. But first of all, are you a catholic? If yes,Which parish?

@ davik01, there is no one way of doing it. It depends on the individual communities.

Some communities are poor, they mainly rely of contributions, as an extension those studying for the priesthood are reponsible for their tuition. They usually print some letters and such which the brother take to well to do people to solicit for funds. If your family is rich then then you are lucky. Other share the fee between the candidate and the communities.

Then there are some rich communities where the religious house pays everything. (in these cases the candidates are usually fully professed brother.)

SalC: Tag Uben? *coughs*

Tag Syncan? Lol

Tag Modestdude? That's cool

Tag italo? I can give a resounding No for now, but who knows tomorrow?

salkc...oh sorry salc, welcome back, thank God all issue keeping you away have been resolved.


Take baba blue.

babestell: OMG!!!

am so emotional. This first position is a landmark for me. I remember when I was supposed to be FTC on page 650 before the tsunami and ubenedictus stole my mandat by the fact he was using airtel as against my mtn. But now God has vindicated me. I can sleep in peace. See you all at a decent hour

i've been there and done it. page 500 will be a true landmark.

Enjoy ur victory while it lasts.

SalC: This got me laughing, never knew Uben steals am just hearing this, and thank God for your vindication

hehehehe

i won that one clean and clear, i know she was jealous of my victory.


Infact i have a feeling maybe she has a hand in the nl tsnami, (the thing only favour her).

Kamsified: Uncle Uben how do you plead?

*spreads mat*

PS we only need a yes or no answer.
Thanks in advance. I greet you sir

hehehe...

Na dat kind story you dey like abi?

peppyluv02: Peace be unto you all...

@ ubenedictus, i noticed you to be a tribalist and you don't like the Igbos but who am I to judge you afterall I showed same towards the yorubas but I have withdrawn from that. The only difference is that I didn't pretend about it like you did. Sorry,no offence. Just saying it as it is.
And I guess you know that wole soyinka who is also a yoruba man agreed the North waged an unjust way against the Igbos..
Trust me 40yrs isn't too long ago. You and I know no tribe would have survived nor gotten back on their feet so soon as the Igbos did..no bragging just saying the truth.

just came back after a few days offline an I saw this....

I am suddenly tribalistic because i condemned ethnicity and tribalism..... That is absolutely interesting.

I don't know what to say and I'm not sure I really want to say anything.

This though i'll say...i have mentioned my tribe very few times on nl, it is totally suprising that i'm tribalistic. I'm strangely interested to know the evidence available to you, with which you have built the opinion of me.

@modestdude,brother I never knew you were Igbo,thought you were yoruba. But now I guess tribe doesn't matter,we should strive towards being one. Yea,it won't be easy. 40yrs ago is just like yesterday. I have read and did my research on the war, it was an unjust one but like I said,we can forgive even thou they still taunt, mock and marginalise us but turn around to put the blame on us....they have even brainwashed people to believing Ojukwu started the war but we know better and Gowon does too. His concience hunts him and he knew clearly that the vote of thanks he got from the MC @ late prof Akunyili's burial was pure sacarsm "Gowon,I remember you gave us,the surviving children of Biafra stones to sit on after the war,it shows you really meant reconciliation and we thank you"....he was so restless where he was siting and one could notice the grin on the faces of the Igbo elders there. Sure,Gowon's concience must be hunting him.
The day he comes out boldly to apologise for that unjust war,trust me there will be peace and many wounds will be healed.. I wish he will do that.

@ Francistony, age shouldn't be a form of defence for your ignorance. I might be older than you but I wasn't up to 10yrs of age before I picked interest on the Biafran story neither was I through with primary school before I made up my mind to be a teacher/Lecturer and don't get it twisted I am in my mid twenties! I have a 20yrs old brother,a 4th year medical student who knows much about the war and can speak intelligently about it so you see,you have no excuse for your ignorance.
Even thou you are unrepentant,I still wouldn't withdraw my apologies for insulting your parents but trust me,in life situation,I would have ripped you apart with my bare hands but for the sake of this beautiful family,I leave you to your ignorance.

I apologise for derailing this beautiful thread, just felt we should be real and be truly who we claim to be.
Love you guys irrespective of tribe,race or colour and pls don't stop the good work.

Am on page 5 of the thread.

1st the word "igbotic", i don't know if it is english or francis formed the word...i certainly didn't know it was considered derogatory.

Then the reference to "dieing children", i guess that one will ring a bell. From where i sit i probably find very few things wrong with the OP.

My problem with it is that is isn't factual.

1st i remember the water bottle from my days in school (and i didnt get my lower education in the east), many kids had it, i remember i didn't use it because my mum bought a 2 in 1 feeding pack, with both water bottle and a plate. That was the one i used
2ndly Ojukwu couldnt have fed biafran kids with that bottle becos he was busy commanding an army at the time, kid were starving becos such thing as water bottle didnt reach biafra and the ones that reached went first and foremost to the soldiers fighting in the war.

Apart from its factual errors.....maybe it didn't respect the sensitivity of others.


But i have to say, on another day, at another time, i may have passed his original post without raising an eyebrow

Juvante: @Ubenedictus,the Charter of Race by Mussolini was in 1941. Right? The ground was been prepared for the Final Solution!
Before Pope Pius XI died,he asked the Jesuit icon,LaFarge to write an encyclical letter on anti-semitism. But it was never promulgated by Pope Pius XII,who incidentally was Cardinal Pacelli! Was that also a coincidence? Pope Pius XII is on track for canonisation as a Saint! Who will guard the guards,Juvenal quipped. Only God will save us from men of God!

you are just trying to shift the goal post.

1st u talked about d lateran treaty, in 1929, i explained that it simply guaranteed the independence of the pope.

You talked about the concordat of 1933, i also showed that the concordat is still in force till today and that it only guaranteed that the rights of catholics should be respected.


Now you are talking about the charter of race, i.e the manifesto of race.

1st let me state that the vatican had nothing to do with the charter of race, the pope or church didn't sign any such document. The charter was written in 1938, the lateran treaty has already passed, the concordat had already passed, when italian government decleared the charter of race.


The church immediately rejected it, the pope immediately wrote a letter of musulini where he clearly protested against such dubious document.

Why are you trying to tie the church to issue that it was against.


Anybody reading this can make research, the catholic church and pope protested against the charter of race, the pope even wrote an encyclical condmning such.

You are just trying to insult pope puis xii, he was responsible for saving jews from hitler, the rabbis and leading jew of his day all praised him foe standing with them against hitler, even the isreali prime minister did the same.

The jews honoured him with the title "RIGHTOUS AMONG NATIONS".

Juvante: @ Ubenedictus, keep blaming Hitler for the holocaust,and not the Church!
Hitler simply put into action what the Church didn't have the guts or reach to do.
Martin Luther's pamphlet,"On the Jews and their lies" states how to treat them. Hitler followed it word for word! Wearing of badges,segregation,seizing of properties were not Hitler's idea.
I will advice you to search for a copy of Luther's pamphlet or Hitler's book,Mein Kampf,or My Struggle!

this continues to show your ignorance.


Martin luther was excommunicated from the catholic church, his book was written after he was excommunicated. He went and founded his own Church, i hope u are aware that luther is the founder of protestanism.


So if that is the book hitler followed that means hitler was a follower of luther's teaching and not that of the catholic church.


The catholic church saved millions of jews in the holocaust.

Juvante: welcome back from your "research". In just one word,name who ordered the dissolution of the German Centre Party! shikena

the german central party fell, the pope didn't order anything.


After the annexing of the papal states, the vatican became politically neutral, that means that all bishops were informed to stop any kind of political activity. The german central party died a natural death there is no historical evidience the any pope ordered its dissolution.

The central party was not headed by priest and bishops so it is imposible for a pope to dissolve a party that isn't under vatican jurisdiction.


Go get your facts straight.

Juvante: @ Ubenedictus, tell us about the part of the Lateran treaty called the Concordat,if it was just "compensation". You can lie to your self as long as you want,but the entire world knows what Fascism stands for. Anelka was banned for giving the quenelle salute! Go to front of the Israeli Cultural Centre and give that salute!

this is only and evidience of your ignorance.


The lateran treaty is different from the riech concordat.


I went to great pains to explain to you exactly what the lateran traety stipulated. The government of italy too over the papal states, the pope became a prisonal insider the vatican. The papal states were lost forever and the treaty was to guarantee to total independence of the vatican city. The lateran treaty is the reason while the vatican city still remains a sovereign state till today eve after all it lands were taken by italy. Go and ask around, go and read historical papers the money was supposed to be compensation for taking over of the vatican states.


The concordat, was under discussion as far back as 1929 it was suppose guaranty the rights of catholics and priests, by 1933 hitler has gain power, the enabling act has been enforced and the first acts of states was to increase the monitoring of catholic priest and to harass them the government also decided to sign the concordat and the vatican believed is was a way out to ensure that priests and the church will nolonger be molested, there was absolutely nothing immoral in the concordat.

Hitler agree on paper to guarantee the safety of priests. But immediately after signing the concordat he went back to killing priests... This led to the papal encyclical condemning nazism, all this happened before the holocaust.


The jew weren't the first victim of hitler, the church and priests were.

I don't know exactly what francistony said, i tried to read the throw back thread, i didn't read past the first page, i may go back later.


That may not stop me from droping me opinion though.



I grew up in a part of the south previously known as middle belt (for good reason), we had a good crowd of ibos, they were farmers, traders, they did all sorts of business, there were also hausas and a good crop of muslims, they were nomads, kunu sellers, educators, clerics among other things, we had the yoruba, the ibiras, some itsekiri, ijaws... We had a good collection, they joked about the hausas living in the bush, their accents and language, the ibos love for money, his eating style and accent, the yoruba tribal mark(esp d oyo one) their accent, style of life...the ibaras were farmer, the itsekiri and ijaws were water people.

But it was hard to hear people talk with real prejudice...few people talk about the brutal tendencies of islamic extremist, fewer people were recounting war stories. For the most part tribalism and ethnicity were the stuff i read of papers, they were not every day real life experience.




All that changed when i went to the east. The war is like a present memory there, ibo are still clamouring for biafra...

The ibos around me HATE the hausas, they will treat then with suspicion. Parents are still recounting war tales with bitterness.

I know many who have similar feelings for yorubas, many will tell you openly that they won't mary a man from the west or north simply becos of their tribe.

The lists goes on and on. 7 or 8 out of 10 time an ibo man will support and ibo man over a nonibo, even when the ibos are clearly wrong.

I remember one that happen recently when an igala man was injured by a group of ibomen who were supporting another ibo man who refused to pay his bike fares (the bike fare was N50, the igala man ask for what was his due as every drop is N50 and above).

Tribalism is certainly a reality here, people simply wont answer you becos you don't speak their language, then there is the "us" vs "them" mentality.


I'll stop there.


The war is over physically, but i see it every day. There is no real forgiveness, the non tribaal person is still looked as "the other" instead of "my fellow".



I repeat, i don't know what francis said, i don't know how he put it, but there still remains a civil war in the subconsciousness of many Nigerians.
We didn't really forgive...
We still have evidence of ancient grudges all around us...

The next person reading this may not agree, it may be an unpopular post, But i'll make my point anyway.


Unless grudges give way to forgiveness, unless war tales become lesson for the future and not stories of ligering hate, unless tribal and ethnic fears and prejudice gave wat to a willingnes to see the other as a brother...
Then the precieved tribal superiority going on in this country will remain and we are all on our way to another civil war.


Gud afternoon

Juvante: I dare you to post a single link to any site that says that Pope Pius denounced him. I also dare you to post a single link to any website that denies the dissolution of the Catholic Party by the Pope. I dare you to post the history of the Vatican city!
Opinion is free and facts are sacred!

hehehe....

Did the pope also dissolve the party?

Juvante: 3. On 20th July,1933, the Reich concordat was signed between the Vatican Secretary of State, Cardinal Eugenio Pacelli (the future Pope Pius XII) and Hitler's vice, Von Papen.

i am very happy i am well learned on this topic.

Again i repeat, in 1933 hitler was just like any world leader, he had done nothing wrong...he hadn't started the holocaust...there was no war.
The concordat the vatican signed and ractified didn't support hitler...instead it guaranteed the freedom of catholics who were affected by ancient anti catholic laws made by protestants. The concordat is still in effect still this day.

Again there was nothing immoral about the concordat, it was signed at a time of peace among people who at that time weren't considered dangerous or criminal.


Go get your facts right.

Emmalot121: http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Religions/Roman%20Catholicism/come_out.htm

propagada

Juvante: @ Ubenedictus, this is not a contest between denominations cos from your moniker,you are most likely a Catholic.
Rather, I will like to correct your sense of history.
2. On April 7th,1933, Hitler's vice, Von Papen visited the Vatican.

since you set out to correct my sense of history, let me correct yours.

As bad as wikipedia can be it actuall records correctly when it says
"Between 1941 and 1945, Jews were targeted and methodically murdered in the largest genocide of the 20th century."


the holocaust, that is the government sponsored extermination of of jews occured between 1940 and 1945.

In 1933 germany wasn't in war, there was no holocaust or any such thing. In 1933 hitler wasn't a criminal, he wasn't even thought to be anything.

So my dear von papen been in the vatican in 1933 doesn't make the pope or the vatican complicit. In 1933 von papen and hitler were free to move about and were officially welcome were ever they went. So my dear there is nothing immoral about going to the vatican. That doesn't make the vatican wrong...

Find a new story.

Juvante: @ Ubenedictus, this is not a contest between denominations cos from your moniker,you are most likely a Catholic.
Rather, I will like to correct your sense of history
1. The Lateran Treaty of 1929 was signed to grant the Pope an area of 109 acres in Rome and was paid £30 million. This is now called the Vatican City.

this only confirms that you are ignorant of the topic in question.

The lateran treaty has nothing to do with hitler, it was a guarantee of the political freedom of the pope.

Background:

most of what is today called italy was actually previously known as the "papal states", it was under the leadership of the pope and has been so for over 1000 year. The papal states were always a guarantee of the politcal and geographical safety of the pope, the ensured he wouldn't be coerced into making decisions.

This changed in the 18and 19 century when the papal states were invaded and taken over as part of the government of italy. That meant that the patrimony of the pope was stolen...the pope couldn't even guarantee his own safety, this led to a big problem as the pope felt he was exposed to external coercion, deprived of his historical patrimony and open to serious thread, in essence the pope was a prisoner in the vatican.

To solve that problem italy proposed a treaty which ensured the perpetual protection, independence of the pope and allowed him to keep just the small land around st peters basilica, the pope was also to be politically neutral from then on.


The treaty had nothing to do with hitler...it had nothing to do with killing people, infact the vatican was cheated in the treaty, the papal states were taken and the vatican stop every political mediation in italy and they were paid a little as compensation.



There was nothing immoral about the lateran treaty.

texanomaly: It's quite entertaining. Isn't it?

yeah, i'm smiling as i read through, particularly when logicboy was smacked on the bottom

musKeeto: Like you could ever 'handle' me.

seems the word "handle" is heavily loaded....

Banana can you "handle" muskeeto?

BananaBender: You're nice but the name is bananabender



Nah, ubenedictus said he likes me 'handling' u. (whatever handling means)

hehehe...

Bananabender, the username is just too long, i prefer banana.


...and "handle" means anything you think it means.....

JMAN0S: 1. See this guy o, wait! what do you understand by "the gate of hell" will not prevail against it? That no heresy will ever infiltrate?
-- interprete the parable of the wheat and the weed for me.

--- Read Acts 20:29, 30

a. Dont you think that Paul knew very well that heresy will infiltrate the "church"?

b. read Rev 2:14, 15.

^^ after reading, Do you think that Jesus words to Peter indicates that heresy wont infiltrate the "church"?

i believe the phrase is self explanatory, the gate of hell will not prevail against the church. Heresy will not prevail against the church, the heresies will be condemned and expelled, it will not prevail. The church cannot be totally corrupted.

a. why would Peter appoint Linus when John, an apostle, was alive?

because John was in ephesus at the time as bishop.

b. If all knew as you claim, why is such important matter not stated in the scriptures?

because the bible is not a history book, it didn't record everything Jesus did and said, it didn't record everything the apostles did and said, it didn't even record the death of any of the apostles, it didn't record the missionary jorney of thomas, bathlomeu and many others. The bible was never compiled to contain everything.

c. quote all the "Christians" who said Linus was handed over by Peter. Start from the first century to half of second century BCE.

clearly ur sole aim is to waste my time.

-- I hope Augustine of Hippo is among the "every" you mentioned?

i already provided you with a quote from augustine.

I well know you dont know that the list you guys provided as the list of Popes is funny. Dont worry, as soon as I charge my laptop I will tell you more flaws scholars have pointed out in that list that made me term it cork and bull story.

hahahaha, i didn't give you a list of pope, the early christian all recorded it down, go and fight with them.

The bible need not contain everything to be the word of God. The scripture provides things that can make a man of God to be fully competent, completely equipt for every good work. 2Tim 3:16, 17.

that passage says that "scripture is profitable" it doesn't say "sufficient".

The "OT" does not need to tell you when Eve died and at what age before it fulfills that principle at 2tim3:16, 17. Does it?



history you say? Let's see a bit of history:

The Cambridge History of Christianity says: “Probably there was no single ‘monarchical’ bishop in Rome before the middle of the second century.” Not to mention Pope.

your so-called history says "probably", that means it isn't sure... That only underlines its amaturism, those who lived around that time all wrote that rome had one bishop, ur history book certainly wasn't there so it must be lying.

You ve not said how your Saint Augustine latter interpreted Matt 16:18. is he less-apostolic-father?

i just pasted the relevant quote.

i laughed at your post, not because it had wit but because i found it hilarious

Since you seem interested in knowing what augustine said...this is his quote.




"For if the lineal succession of bishops is to be taken into account, with how much more certainty and benefit to the Church do we reckon back till we reach Peter himself, to whom, as bearing in a figure the whole Church, the Lord said: 'Upon this rock will I build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it !'
The successor of Peter was Linus,
and his successors in unbroken
continuity were these: -- Clement,
Anacletus, Evaristus, Alexander,
Sixtus, Telesphorus, Iginus,
Anicetus, Pius, Soter, Eleutherius,
Victor, Zephirinus, Calixtus,
Urbanus, Pontianus, Antherus,
Fabianus, Cornelius, Lucius,
Stephanus, Xystus, Dionysius, Felix,
Eutychianus, Gaius, Marcellinus,
Marcellus, Eusebius, Miltiades,
Sylvester, Marcus, Julius, Liberius,
Damasus, and Siricius, whose
successor is the present Bishop
Anastasius. In this order of
succession no Donatist bishop is
found. But, reversing the natural
course of things, the Donatists sent to Rome from Africa an ordained bishop, who, putting himself at the head of a few Africans in the great metropolis, gave some notoriety to the name of 'mountain men,' or Cutzupits, by which they were known."
To Generosus, Epistle 53:2(A.D.
400), in NPNF1,I:298

EvangSDKalu: I don't think any one should be surprise about this, was it not the Vaticans who said few months ago that Jesus is not coming again, that maybe he was drunk when he said that. Sometimes some of us doubt the very foundation of this great church and what their stand for. Peace to all Christians...

seem you have already been answers, the article is a satire.



Anyway, i believe at one point or the other a christian must test his foundations, he will present his doubt. I'm not suprised that the archbishop at some time at some point had doubt...doubt allow our faith to grow and at times it differentiate faith from fanatism.

musKeeto: That's cool. Thank my lame jokes for the distraction.

Iirc, we began a discussion prior to nl's data loss/deletion. Maybe we need to move to some other thread. This thread's derailed enough already.

Sorry oga @ubenedictus

no need for the apology, i'm actually having fun watching banana handle u all.

logicboy01: True talk. An atheist can be intolerant and arrogant.

The truth is that a christian is more prone to fall into intolerance and arrogance due to the innate exclusivist nature of the religion. Same with islam

really?

damerry: I give up!

yeah i win!

dragunov: another false teachings from these folks is the assumption that peter was the first pope. There was nothing like pope in jerusalem after the gospel started to spread. The favourite scripture these dudes use to confirm the popeship of peter is that in which jesus said: 'niether flesh or blood has revealed this......you are simon peter which means rock....... And upon this rock I will build my church....... Jesus was not refering to peter as the foundation of his church, but he was referring to the revelation that peter saw and uttered in reponse to jesus' question:who do you say I am. It is upon the revelation of christ that the church is built, not on any man or institution. Jesus was not endorsing the institutionalization of peter. He was basically referring to himself, the eternal rock. Rcc is false.

the bible says,

"simon bar jona flesh and blood didnt reveal this to you but my father in heaven.... You are peter and on this rock i will build my church.... I give you the keys of the kingdom..."


so since you have lied and said that the church wasn't built on peter, let me ask you, who did Jesus give the keys of the Kingdom

Tell me!

OLAADEGBU: Not only Mary, it included all those who believed in Christ during His earthly ministry.

"While he yet talked to the people, behold, his mother and his brethren stood without, desiring to speak with him. Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee. But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren? And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren! For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother" (Matthew 12:46-50).

so all were saved even before Christ died. That is interesting. I thought your friends say that salvation only started after Christ died.

So now you are saying mary already had a saviour before Jesus was born.

OLAADEGBU: Studying the Scriptures or the tradition of your church? You should be more concerned with what is written in Latin, was that not the language of Rome?

incase you are not aware the language of the church in rome from the 1st cent to the 3rd cent was greek.

So we still study the language of scripture, unfortunately u and you pastors are totally ignorant in this respect.

Ukutsgp: pls mary is nt a virgin. and she had other sons and daughter. pls i have better things to do with tym now.

pls show me a passage that says "these are mary's children"