₦airaland Forum

RillJ:
What is the benefit of NNPC to Niger Delta?

What is the benefit of NNPC to Nigeria as it is operated today and in recent times?

Akpabio should look for something else to say.

That NNPC is from where we finance our budget.
keep asking stupid question

banio:
Refineries and NNPC are now one and the same thing. All countries must have a regulatory body, so stop confusing yourself. Is he selling outdated and non -functional refineries or NNPC.

he is selling both the refineries and NNPC,

Nobody would have complained if he only wanted to sell the refineries.

They we soon come and say APC are killing themselves.

Benue apc chairman murdered, they said it was apc

imo ward apc chairman murdered, they said it was apc

now a senatorial candidate

who buys that stupidity that a party will start killing its key men days to election? even when there are factions they will wait to win and then go to court.

It is time we stop playing politics with these issues like assasination.

Purej:
Emefiele is running the CBN like a mafia gang tin. He's the lord and his own president. Nobody is checking his excesses. Doing as he likes. Releasing the same recycle $210m into fx market everytime is a scam

there is no scam, that is how the naira has always been kept relatively stable, these injection keeps it a abt 360 to a dollar, if it is done more frequently it will go down to abt 200, if the CBN doesnt do it, it may get towards N800 to a $.

The CBN is keeping it at this rate because it helps them grow our reserve and forces the economy into manufacturing instead of importation.

elonize:
Am watching it now,n somebody said "God u av killed bfor,n u can kill again"wich kind opening prayer b dat
anyway I didn't ask anybody to stat insulting any party,but insult d man dat said at

Who said that?

FAKE NEWS

DeOTR:
Since when has APC started obeying laws and order. Until says otherwise, all campaigns are closed.

INEC doesnt have the power to close campaigns, the law is clear they can campaign till 24hrs of the election

yaki84:
police under the former ig that disresprected the order of thre prresident...
police that tortured n made the criminals to indict saraki...

So police acted independent of the president and you condemn them, when they act under the order of the president you will still condemn them.

who told you the criminal were forced and told to implicate saraki?

MiddleDimension:
who are those who ''see'' into it by demonic power? and like i have been told, you only need to take a comfortable position and become really calm and quiet and then you'll go... now what's demonic about this. it sounds more like a natural process. ''Be still and know...'' (i think you can figure out where that is from)

@ubenedictus do you agree with joagbaje's submission?

I already disagreed with the third eye idea, i know meditation and contemplation, these involve silience and stillness and form part of christian mysticism, i have no idea of a third eye

uzobaby:
stop trying to cover evil..call a spade a spade. .I've been opportune to be very close to some priests and rev.brothers..so I have eye witness info .. .the review of celibacy is long overdue..you can see how difficult it is for non-celibates..how much more when the celibacy issue forced

I actually called a spade a spade, celibacy does not cause sexual abuse, that is like saying marriage causes adultery.

an abuser is an abuser whether married or celibate.
I have also been opportuned to live among priests and brother not just been close to them and their life has been nthing short of an inspiration to me. I also have never met a person forced into celibacy, they usually chose it knowingly.

dlondonbadboy:
Both APC and PDP knew about the postponement. Oshiomole is angry because he didn't expect PDP to know.

PDP didn't give any party agent money on Friday, neither did APC. That was when i knew something fishy was going on...

This election might be postponed again..

actually APC gave out agent money, oshiomole in EDO is believed to have dropped 80mil for agents o. Friday night

wink2015:
The catholic church should amend their laws to pave way for their cardinals, Reverend Father to get married and have children. Above all enjoy a fulfilling sexual lifestyles.

This will reduce drastically incidences of sexual offences, pedophiles etc

Celebacy lifestyle is killing the roman catholic churches of which a review should be put in the pipeline.

Reverend father, reverend sisters are sex starved because of the catholic church traditional doctrine that forbid them from getting married.

This incidences is a reminder to the Vatican and the rest of our orthodox churches that an amendment of the laws is what should be the next step to save the church from embarrassment.

Some will argue that it was the personal choice or decision of the Cardinal to take up the profession of Reverend father having been preinformed of what it entails which actually involves celibacy lifestyle of which nobody forced him to.

And that the Cardinal had no valid argument other than to comply with the rules of the church.

But it is of necessity to note here that it is the roman catholic church which is the main body of the church that is experiencing the bulk of the embarrassment and shame not fully the accused cardinal.

Did these people use celibacy too




googleweblight.com/i?u=https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/investigations/article/Southern-Baptist-sexual-abuse-spreads-as-leaders-13588038.php&hl=en-NG&tg=439&pt=38

uzobaby:
It's high time the rule on celibacy is reviewed by the Catholic Church..some church doctrines should be reviewed with realities on ground...

were these people below also affected by a celibacy rule?

googleweblight.com/i?u=https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/investigations/article/Southern-Baptist-sexual-abuse-spreads-as-leaders-13588038.php&hl=en-NG&tg=439&pt=38

Hardebaryor:
This is not an issue of being an arab or not. The prophet prohibited it and the scholars have explained what the entire matter means. I'm not theone that termed it sinful. The scholars who I have no doubt have motmre knowledge than you have spoken. I always wonder when muslims talk about culture.

On the Day of Reckoning, Allah won't ask you about one culture but he will definitely ask about His religion.

and to you a greeting that has nothing to do with worship is a matter for religion?

That is nothing short of cultural colonisation

yaki84:
shud i believe this same police tht said saraki sponsored the offa robbery?

When the robbers fingered saraki why wont the police investigate him? you are hating the police for doing their job?

Or you have some definite reason why the police shouldnt investigte him after his involvement was alledged.

I didnt really think of that at the time but i think i covered it.

I dont believe those places are inherently sacred...let me explain.

For a jew God is all holy, in other word all kadosh, all tabooed anything associated with the divine is also tabooed, my guess is that understanding is behind what you see in the first 5 books.
any where the manifest presence of God was experienced an altar of stone was made and a sacrifice offered. That presence of the all tabooed God sets the place apart.

I dont think the place is inherently sacred, instead because one experienced GOD's manifest presence there, that sets it apart. For a jew it would mean God chose that place to reveal himself. As i said set apart is a function of divine choice.

when the temple was built these places were 'bad mouthed' with the priests making the temple the exclusive place for sacrifice and condemning all others. Also i think heads of families actually officiated sacrifices b4 the priest shut that down the case of gideon for example.

yaki84:
did u hear wht hppened in kano where some apc guys were intercepted with more thn 2million already thumbprinted ballot papers?

And police said they were specimen and not thumbprinted. who told u this false news?

Hardebaryor:
Allah has created human beings and jinns to worship him (religion of Islam) not to come and practice culture

If Allah wanted the whole world to be muslims he would have made it so,

if he wanted us to all greet like arabs, he would have made us all arabs.

greeting is an issue of culture, i dont know why you'll drag it into religion and term it sinful becos it isnt same with arabs.

Hardebaryor:
The recommended way of greeting is As-salamun alaykum warahmatullahi wabarakatu

Ultimately you are saying yorubas must drop their culture in favour of arab culture.

PastorAIO:
A good question would be whether these places are made sacred, i.e consecrated, or Are they inherently sacred?

The issue of sacred and holy for jews is tied to the issue of been set apart and tabooed.

been sacred is not inherent, it is a function of divine chioce, when God says this is my people, he sets them apart and cause he 'name' to dwell with them, a place or thing chosen by God for his worship is also set apart, OR the people of God may set those thing apart for divine worship and call God's name upon them. aka consecration.

MyVILLAGEpeople:
hahahaha
wetin concern ovia and etsako man?? as if no be the same Edo state. abi I no dey go etsako very. well , I have told u What's on ground. it's your choice to believe or not.

Oya tell us what u were told and the babalawo that told u. estako is not benin or esan.

MyVILLAGEpeople:
I am also from Edo state. Ovia south is my local government. I have been with people who know oshiomole, and I know what Edo politicians do spiritually to fortify themselves. not Only Edo state, but all over Nigeria. All well known today Nigeria politicians are occultists

weytin concern ovia and etsako man abeg?
oya talk what u know

MyVILLAGEpeople:
Oshiomole is From Edo state. Iyahmo precisely. If u know about edo state and it's politicians u won't be asking such questions. infact just ask any confirm Edo person about Oshiomole.

I am from Edo state, I am in Edo state right now.
oya tell me abt the human sacrifice becos i certainly dont know abt it, since u do oya speak.

Nodogragra4me:
Even Jesus that prayed in the night hours was not recorded to have used kindle to even give him illumination let alone represent anything... This father , you don come again with your whining things .... Na so you carry the buy back of sons in the old testament take defend why Catholic church dey do Bazaar

Ignorance is ur problem, did u forget the candle sticks in revelation? is that old testament too?

if buying back is allowed why are u crying when catholics do it?

MyVILLAGEpeople:
lool
I damn know what am talking about bro..
If you don't know, ask who Oshiomole is.

Oya what do you know? where u there? from whom did u hear it?

three:
.


Lol

They wanted to stagger elections so that they could rig...

Remember "pain of rigging" comment by this same fellow....?

Now some of them are trying to sack the INEC chair

Confused malevolent people.


Nigeria and Nigerians are greater than you.

https://www.thecable.ng/trending-video-pain-rigging-oshiomholes-gaffe-osun-rerun

.

So you are happy election was postponed on the very day of election?

Is that any thing to celebrate?

Happiestman1:
Thunder strike OshoGorrilla, strike BUHARI and all APC members

but spare Atiku and all Pdp members abi?


Must you type something even when you have nothing meaningful to say?

SalamRushdie:
Any lie detection expert will tell you he is lying just from the way his gaze is unsteady and refusing to focus on anything when he talks ...I can tell you with all authority Oshiomole was aware of the postponement a long time ago just from his eye language.

the psychoanalizer, Resident doctor Phil

MyVILLAGEpeople:
This demon from the seventh realm of hell. Oshiomole time is up. even the human sacrifices he makes won't save him this time.

it is not good to speak about things you know nothing about.


Did you follow him for the human sacrifice or are you the babalowo?

We should always watch what we say, don't talk any how because of politics, you can disagree with a person with respect instead of hate.

Ihedinobi3:
To be honest, I wonder if there is any real gain in answering this. No honest person who knows my posts would ever say that I reject what antichristians say simply because they are antichristians. Not one. As a matter of fact, right here, I have explained why I have rejected everything that I have rejected. In no instance was it because an antichristian said it. I hold that the lie is far more effective when fitted out with a veneer of truth, so I always acknowledge what truth I see whenever I see it and separate it from the lie hiding behind it.

It is you who consider his arguments good in any respect because of your personal agenda.

This is another problem with you.

You see how you contradicted yourself.
First you claim you accept his claims if true, now you say that I consider his argument good in ANY respect because I have an agenda. So his argument is bad in all respects and anyone who disagrees with you has an agenda.

You have successfully told us that the antichristian is always wrong and whoever finds him correct in ANY respect to have an agenda....

How interesting!

If you note that he conceded his error there, why did you go on to say that it was a straightforward history?

The meaning of straight forward
straightforward
adjective
uncomplicated and easy to do or understand.



It doesn't mean all points are correct, it means uncomplicated and easy to understand, he was happy to concede when in error which in my book is a plus... It certainly beat someone who claims the church sets no canon even though history says otherwise.

This is a potpourri of falsehood mixed with truth.

Yes indeed I came into the thread essentially congratulating an antichristian for making a real argument even if I considered it false. I was expressing respect for the work he put into his thread which put to shame every other experience I had had at the time. Somehow, it seems to me that this is the post you referred to concerning innuendo. What the innuendo was is yet to be seen.

I went on after that to point out what I believed to be the most important falsehood in his post and post quotes from Britannica demonstrating small and great departures from the true situation. This is the challenge you meant, isn't it? The funny thing is that you consider the quotes a challenge. The quotes were ordinarily conclusive in themselves. Any interpretation I offered may have been debatable but in so far as a historical authority had been presented, all that was left was for him or anyone else to provide more reliable authorities. But until now you have been debating the authorities in question insisting on others which take their legitimacy from the same church which makes such crazy claims. He, on the other hand, conceded what he did and debated what he chose and I explained my interest in the discussion.

The history wasn't my interest. The argument that the Bible is unreliable as God's Very Word was. And I did not believe that history had anything to do with that argument. That was why I argued from the Bible itself.

Interestingly, PastorAIO understood what I spoke of about recognizing a personality in a writing. You instead have not ceased from obfuscating it until now. Your most recent effort at confusion is to call it "a theory of visible feature". You decided on your own that it is a theory. You decided on your own that it is visible. These things have nothing to do with my own arguments. My position was consistently that God's Personality or His Essence is recognizable in what He has written. This is not at all strange because it is true of every other person. But if you ever admit it though, it will destroy the claim of your church. So you have done your best to confuse the issue since.

You of course have made this claim consistently.... You also have added that this doesn't always happen because each man has freewill and may recognise who he likes and not recognize others.

The question is, if Mr A recognises ABC, Mr B recognises BCD, MR C recognises CDE all in the same Christian community, who decides what is read on Sunday in church?
If maicon in one church has his canon, Arius in another with his canon, Jerome in another with his and Augustine with his, how does the church tell the books to be read?

That is a concrete case.

Why also would you ever admit that there was anything antichristian in an argument that you piggyback on to uphold your church's false claims? Even PastorAIO mocked me for pointing out that he was actually saying that the Bible is unreliable because it had disappeared from existence and the Septuagint which was pretty much a human invention was left in its place and from it has come everything we believe today to be the Word of God. He mocked me, as he said, for stating the obvious. But this does not qualify as antichristian for you. Either you are greatly deceived or you are an antichristian yourself.

Do you always tag people with names when you disagree with their points that you believe are wrong or do you prove them wrong and hopefully they never fall into your name categories.

Names are the boxes we create to put people in.

LOL. The Roman church isn't all that was happening for 2000 years, thank God. If it was, all hope would have already been lost.

And, yes indeed, I am biased against the Roman church and not merely because I don't like it but because of the deep arrogance in her which seeks to steal away the Lord's sheep and lead them into apostasy and condemnation like herself.

The Catholic Church, cannot steal the Lords sheep, it is the Lord's sheepfold. So the idea of the sheepfold stealing the shepherds sheep is nonsensical.
The church is commissioned to continue the work of Jesus for all times, she is his Body and bride, his masterpiece built on the prophets, apostles and continues today with their successors. That isn't arrogance to state who you are. The church always points to the bridegroom, her head, her cornerstone and her builder... Not to herself.

I wonder from hence you got these thoughts.

Such a terrible lie.

show me the lies

The Vulgate is enough proof in itself, isn't it? Did you not mention the riots involved in that translation and the duress under which Jerome had to work to produce it? And, let me assure you, I WILL NOT argue the point with you. I really don't care what you choose to believe. Your own words in this regard and the quotes I presented from Britannica are enough.

the Vulgate was not doctored in any sense to change scriptures, that is a sad lie that I'll hold you to.

The Vulgate was made when the Roman Church was changing her liturgy from Greek to Latin which was the language of the people as Greek was quickly fading away in the west, Jerome who was the scholar commissioned for the work lived pretty far from Rome in Palestine and frankly had a very cordial relationship with the church of Rome and it's bishop, there was hardly duress in that relationship as pope And Jerome esteemed each other. His relationship with Augustine in Africa was a totally different affair, the riot occurred there not in Rome. Jerome used the best manuscripts he had and translated in the best way he knew how. I don't know how that in anyway puts him under duress or show that the church changed, doctored or corrupted scriptures using the Vulgate.

It seems again you are speaking from a standpoint of ignorance, prejudice and bias.

Whatever you say, Ubenedictus.



I actually do not fully accept Bokenkotter's authority. I presented him as a Roman authority who may present a more correct official position than you yourself. Regardless, note that you agree with him in the fact that claims to primacy are much later than the apostles. The 2nd century was well after the last apostle died. Yet, claims to primacy are offered on their authority.

I am sure that bokenhotter DID NOT claim in his book that he was offering the official catholic position, his book is his own academic work with contradicts the work of others and even the early Christians he is commenting on. Frankly in academics catholic priests have been known to speak accordingly to whatever persuasions they like many times close to heresy, the church doesn't police that and doesn't translate to church position.


The 2nd century is actually pretty early, the last apostle John died about 100, the first time we hear that the is a prime ministers office in the church is
In Matt 16:15, the next time a Christian tells us that the church of Rome now presides over the churches was about 107 in the letters of Ignatius of Antioch who was on his way to martyrdom, that isn't late because the was a guy who lived in the Apostolic age pretty much passing Apostolic tradition, 7 years after John is not late. Ignatius was bishop of a pretty big church in Antioch which had held the apostles, Irenaeus the guy I provided next was bishop in France when he made the statement.

This is all academic anyway. It matters very little to me what you believe. My job is done once I present the Bible's teachings. Everything else I do is just to protect others who are troubled by the lies that unscrupulous men spread.

Another tag, unscrupulous men... Can you leave the tags and name calling out?

As my further comments stated, I have no reason to listen to someone who will not countenance an authority - having none themselves - clearly because he considers it opposed to his pet views.

As for my interest in historical authorities, this is a waste of my time. I do not reject the Roman interpretation of Irenaeus et al, I simply do not care very much for what Irenaeus et al have to say except as it concerns what was happening at the time that they lived and as it concerns what they themselves believed. I do not consider them equal in authority to the Scriptures, so I subordinate all they say to what the Bible says. I do not consider them necessary examples to follow. I will learn from them in so far as they, in turn, followed the Bible. My rejection of their evidence in discussions like this is entirely because even where they are correctly interpreted by your ilk, you only use them to further your private interests even up to the point of contradicting the Bible where they failed as Christians.

If you accept them as witnesses of their times then we wouldn't have had the problems we had in the other thread. Because we presented the witness of the witnesses of the time and you decided to go with bokenhotter even when the witnesses show his submissions as incorrect.

In that case you are the person who refused to countenance authority simply because it destroys your pet views.

Talk of the having an agenda

My appeal to any authorities like Bokenkotter is just to show you that unless you too are a history expert, there are other peer-reviewed and accepted ways of interpreting what you so dearly cherish. My own personal position on all Roman claims is whatever the Bible has to say about it.

And the bible tells you how it's canon was set right?

I don't understand. You are reading a book in Spanish? Or you are reading an English translation of a book originally written in Spanish? Are you then trained in Classical Greek and Latin? That would be pretty awesome.



I don't understand. Are you saying that they are inspired but only a little? How is such a thing even possible?

I am reading an English translation of a Spanish work... My knowledge of classical Latin and Greek is rudimentary, I can manage ecclesiastical Latin better... In the coming years though I hope to take in course in both languages... I'll like to read scriptures in the original languages.


I am saying, they are Christians witnesses, transmitting the faith as they themselves received it from the apostles and their successors.

As St Paul will say, what you have heard me say teach to trustworthy men who will in turn teach others. That is the ordinary way in which the faith is to be transmitted in the church. From apostles to the next generation and then the next for all times.

I have wearied of this discussion, Ubenedictus, so I am not going to have yet another back-and-forth with you. If the discussion up to this point does not demonstrate what I have said, why should anything more that I say?

You are weary and frankly I am smiling at your bias and prejudice and I just hope one day you will drop those dim lenses and search for the truth even when it doesn't square up with Protestantism.

Every single time I debate antichristians especially atheists, I do my best to avoid quoting the Bible until they actively raise the Bible either by quoting it themselves or attributing something to it. Yet I always argue from the Bible with them. I never present an argument to them unless it is biblical. In the same vein, I don't expect quotes or links or explicit appeals to the Vatican but I fully expect - and have received - Roman arguments from you.

since you have constantly continued with the term "Roman Church " despite corrections, let me state clearly that it is not acceptable and frankly it is in the same category as terms like papist, romist etc.

My church is not the Roman Church, it is the Catholic Church.

In case you didn't know, the Roman Church refers to the diocese of Rome, the immediate diocese of the Bishop of Rome, Francis. I am NOT a member of that church. Pope Francis is a member, so too Catholics in Rome and cardinals.
The Holy Roman Catholic Church is the part of the Catholic Church that uses any of the Roman rites, it covers western Catholicism.
The Latin Catholic Church refers to the part of the Roman catholic church that uses the Latin rite.

The name of the church is the Catholic church, that is the name of the 23 self governing churches that makes up the church in union with Peter, the Roman Catholic church is just one out of the 23 churches, and the Roman Church is just 1 diocese located in Rome and frankly I am not a member of the Roman Church.

It is both inaccurate and pejorative to use the term with me.

The arguments you have received are largely mine, you won't find a Catholic official document with those historical points, though you will find many scholarly articles and books from many protestants and Catholics with those points... My general arguments on nl certainly sprinkles catholic arguments but most of my points here will stand proudly even with protestant scholars.

blueAgent:
Give examples.

Because Abel had faith, he offered God a better sacrifice than Cain did. God was pleased with him and his gift, and even though Abel is now dead, his faith still speaks for him.

5 Enoch had faith and did not die. He pleased God, and God took him up to heaven. That’s why his body was never found. 6 But without faith no one can please God. We must believe that God is real and that he rewards everyone who searches for him.

7 Because Noah had faith, he was warned about something that had not yet happened. He obeyed and built a boat that saved him and his family. In this way the people of the world were judged, and Noah was given the blessings that come to everyone who pleases God.

8 Abraham had faith and obeyed God. He was told to go to the land that God had said would be his, and he left for a country he had never seen. 9 Because Abraham had faith, he lived as a stranger in the promised land. He lived there in a tent, and so did Isaac and Jacob, who were later given the same promise. 10 Abraham did this, because he was waiting for the eternal city that God had planned and built.

11 Even when Sarah was too old to have children, she had faith that God would do what he had promised, and she had a son. 12 Her husband Abraham was almost dead, but he became the ancestor of many people. In fact, there are as many of them as there are stars in the sky or grains of sand along the beach.



the list of men praised for their faith continue in Hebrew 11

Ihedinobi3:
Completely untrue. YOU were the one who said that each man is a determiner of truth. I never said anything of the sort.

so you can't see the end point of your thought?

When each man discerns for himself what is scripture according to a subjective recognition of the divine essence in a text... Then each man will have a canon that speaks of his understanding of God not necessarily who God is.

It has happened before, the heretic maicon had such a canon. You can go and read it up.

Great. So we maintain our fundamental disagreement.



Something funny about free will?



Of course not. But that Church is different from the Roman Church - or indeed any of the many other churches out there.

And if you would read you will see that that same first century church is still church in the 2nd century and 3rd and every century after that. one same church.

Or YOU don't understand what the 66 books teach and that's why you think Tobit is of the same origins as them.

then enlighten me.

What does the 66books you accept teach about angels and how does Tobit 12 contradicts that? what do the jews from whose tradition we get the scriptures say about angels?

It's not enough to say "you don't understand because you don't agree with me "