₦airaland Forum

bbxxxxxx:
with your 10k per vote or what, who are you mobilising, what reason(s) will you give as a basis for Edo people to vote Buhari, how many people were you able to mobilize for Buhari's rally. You are doing a poor job in mobilizing if by now the average binis want Buhari out.

I stand by my word, if inec prevent vote buying Buhari will not get 10% of the votes in Edo State.

Am happy the level of education and wealth of the Esan people has liberated them from the vote selling disease, thanks to anenih. If only my bini people can do same.

Esan are more wealthy ke? not really, they also do vote buying there, the only reason they are alway voting pdp is because they have a long history there especially with d late annineh.

Lovemaester:
am not sure u live in Benin, the only places PDP will win is esan land, all etsako( oshomole district) and Benin are already on the next level, am on ground as a mobilizer so don't sit in ur mother's house and be talking rubbish

Etsako will go apc, esan pdp but benin has always been and will still be divided.

franchasng:
If PDP and Atiku can block Buhari/APC from massively rigging the election using Nigerian Police & Army + INEC, then below is how the election result will be:

Northeast
- Atiku: 45% (Adamawa & Taraba Atiku will win here)

- Buhari: 50%

- Other Parties: 5%

Northwest
- Atiku: 39% (Zamfara & Sokoto Atiku will win)

- Buhari: 55%

- Other parties: 6%

North-central
- Atiku: 52% (Benue, Plateau, Kwara Atiku will win)

- Buhari: 43%

- Other parties: 5%

Southeast
- Atiku: 79% (Anambra, Abia, Enugu, Ebonyi belongs to Atiku)

- Buhari: 12%

- Other parties: 9%

Southsouth
- Atiku: 62% (Rivers, Cross River, Delta, Bayelsa, Akwa-Ibom Atiku will win)

- Buhari: 25%

- Other parties: 3%

Southwest
- Atiku: 39% (Ekiti, Osun Atiku will win, Lagos Buhari will win with very small margin)

- Buhari: 55%

- Other parties: 6%


You can announce the result

South east is 90% pdp, they hate apc

Bundaweber:
the way you are talking shows you are a paid supporter. buhari will not and i repeat cannot loose Edo by 70%. he will not even loose Edo state period. pls stop carrying your false beer parlour statistics. that was how you guys did similar to ize iyamu and were even giving him false results even through Nairaland and almost caused violence. for the avoidance of doubt buhari will never loose Edo by 70%. the real political heavyweights are behind him. though we might see something different in the senate, house of reps and assembly in edo state

APC can win 2 out of 3 senate seat, they will do well in house of rep and state house, but buhari will lose though d magin wont be that wide.

Chaleso:
Liar!

He is not too wrong. Edo is divided into 3 parts, edo north where oshobaba comes from will vote apc en mass, Esan land will vote pdp all day and every day, but Benin has the largest population and it is always divided almost evenly. The herdsmen crisis also means edo people arent too buhari friendly.
If he get 40% then oshomole performed miracle with his influence.

APC can easily win governorship election in edo but it is hard to market buhari.

artofseduction:
Let me educate you.

In a situation where our laws re not sufficient to deal with a problem.

The best thing to do is to amend them.

The executive should not be seen as an arm of government that chooses which law dey will obey.

The Executives can equally send an amendment to the existing law to the National Assembly. And have that law ammended so that we can have such situations again.

The problem with you lot is that you lack the basic cognizance to understand the implications of lawlessness being brandished by the Executive.

Loophole are meant to be exploited, im not suprised.

emmykk:
The Senate president on behalf of Senate took the matter for determination... The supreme court Judges Judgement will not favour the executive. So president buhari can't remove a CJN.

It is unconstitutional. Please don't quote me follow the judgement on Monday.

The senate didnt make that decision so the leadership isnt acting on anyones behalf.

PaChukwudi44:
the CJN is chosen by the NJC and recommended to the president for appointment.He is an appointee of the NJC and not that of the president.

Should we also say the President is an appointee of the CJN since he is the one that swore him in to office

The CJN is recommended bo the NJC but it is the president that appoints him.

Unless stated otherwise he who appoints has power to suspend and remove. The constitution doesnt say anything as regard suspension which means the president can assume he has that power.
The constitution has a loophole.

capitalzero:
there are loopholes in nigeria law. but that do not mean an independent arm of government should harass other arms?

there are loopholes and unless those are closed they will be exploited

Jonathan exploited the cbn loophole buhari has exploited the cjn loophole, NASS needs to amend it.

Ihedinobi3:
This is obviously untrue. It is a Roman position that the Septuagint is superior to the Masoretic. It is also a Roman position that the Bible was compiled by the Roman Church. You have said these things yourself even, so your claim here is curious at best.

then you are ignorant as usual of the Roman position.

In the Roman Church the text is the Vulgate, not the masoretic or the Septuagint. And as you have been made aware the Vulgate is translated directly from the Hebrew not the Septuagint. There is no Roman council that set any such position but there is ample testimony from the early Christians that they didn't trust the revisions we now call masoretic text.

The Bible was not compiled particularly by the Roman Church as I have earlier explained, it was compiled by the Catholic Church, including the Roman Church, the Alexandrian church, the antiochene church, the Syrian church which includes Jerusalem, the... You can go and check the churches that make up the Catholic Church and their representatives at the council of Constantinople, Carthage and hippo.

That historical argument did not interest me nearly as much as his overall claim that the Bible we have today is nothing like what existed prior to the Septuagint. My response was that, of course, the Bible that existed prior was preserved in spite of the Septuagint in Hebrew texts and manuscripts and was finally transmitted very near perfection down to us in the Masoretic. That is, the Masoretic was no retranslation back into Hebrew from the Greek as he claimed.

all translations of the Bible are very alike, I can set my Vulgate translation that predates the masoretic text by centuries side by side with the Septuagint and the masoretic text and they will pretty much say the same thing in most cases. But as someone said, the devil is in the details, what about the minority of times where they totally disagree, how do I account for the fact that in the masoretic text the prophesy about piercing of Jesus feet is absent even though it is present in all other ancient text or the other messianic prophesies that seem mutilated in the masoretic text completely in the 10th and 11th century.... That is where the issue is in the details.

It was that focus on the lie that the original Scriptures are extinct that led to all of this. Obviously, the Septuagint existed side by side with preserved Hebrew originals. Given also that the Septuagint was notoriously problematic, every Jewish teacher used it only as far as it was correct when they taught. Otherwise, they translated straight from the Hebrew into whatever language they were teaching in.

are you denying the fact that what we have are copies of the copies of the copies of the original text which we believe carries both the letter and meaning of the original text. Because if you may have found the original manuscript of scripture and I am unaware tell me. Are the original manuscript not really extinct and only their copies survive?

As for your idea that the Septuagint be dropped whenever it conflicts with the masoretic text, please explain how come the apostles in scriptures quote and use the Septuagint even when it is totally at odds with the Hebrew the masoretic text give us example Stephen in his defense, the entire book of Hebrew, Matthew in the Alma Vs virgin case?


funny enough in the minority case where scholars used to think that the septuagint translated incorrectly there have today been a change in opinion with the Quram caves discovery where many show that in those minority cases the Greek translator were simply using a Hebrew manuscript that was different from the present masoretic text.
It seem they didn't translate incorrectly, instead it was a variant and most times more ancient text translated correctly.

Greek was the lingua franca of the Roman Empire at the time so the Septuagint was widely known and used but it was also known to be problematic so it was not used alone. Existing Hebrew manuscripts and personal translations were used when the errors were encountered in teaching. These are things I have said before.

and I remember pastoraio telling you how Matthew stuck with virgin even though it is not an accurate translation of the word Alma, what do you say about that?

Please note, it is a fact that after centuries of copying, scribal errors crept into the Septuagint as it did all other biblical text and that it was correct by comparing copies and other translations. That ur point stands. Even the Hebrew text was supposedly corrected that is why we have the masoretic text.

You do have a dog in the fight. You have a vested interest in opposing the Masoretic Text because it is accepted by the Jews with whom you have never been at peace.

I have no issues with the jews ihe, what I have presented is the historical critism of their revisions of the Hebrew text and this critism have been made by Christians for over a Millennium. If you think I am lying, compare masoretic text with that quoted in the New Testament, compare it's prophesies about the Messiah and the prophesies the new testament quoted and see if they tally.

If you have an argument against Bokenkotter's authority as a historian, present it clearly.

bokenhotter does have his credentials as a historian, he may very well be an authority in his field, that isn't my argument. History is not unfortunately a science, which means each historian is free to spin it whatever way he thinks best. I argument against Bokenhotter is not his credentials but the truthfulness of some of his claims
As I earlier showed his conclusions contradicts the evidence in the issue of primacy. I am also sure his conclusions contradict several historians who themselves are authority in their fields.

There's that double team I spoke of.

I am not interested in debating history with you or PastorAIO, Ubenedictus. I have stated my reasons. If it wasn't for his pretence to authority on the Bible, PastorAIO would have not argued with me beyond the point where I exited any debates about history. My sole interest is that the Bible IS the Word of God and is recognizable as such by anyone who reads it honestly. Historical debates are worth exactly nothing for recognizing the Word of God. They are merely entertaining.

Here I agree, historical debates are worth nothing and the bible is Certainly God's inerrant word... And you can make both points without trying to sound as though the copies we have are the originals or that errors didn't creep in during copying or the masoretic text is not Jewish centered.... Those are historical points that are correct and your attempt to disprove them were unconvincing.

The idea that the text is recognizable to anyone still begs the question.

1. When you say "recognize what constitutes Scripture", is this anything different than deciding what is Scripture and what isn't Scripture? My point is that God wrote the Bible and He left His Signature on it, that is, His Essence so that anyone who wishes to can recognize it for what it is: His Word. You are insisting that somehow it is the Roman Church alone which possesses the ability to tell what and what is Scripture and what and what isn't.

God's word is recognisable you say... Because God wrote it and anyone who knows me well will be able to tell to a great extent my words.... Is that not your argument? Here comes the kink, some do not even know God, others do not acknowledge him, some have a pretty untrue idea of who he is, if they bring these ideas in trying to discern scripture, they will certainly discern wrongly.... That is why historically there have been several canon of scriptures.

Just a little history, you can go aND verify each point. It was each local church that received the writings of the apostles and the gospels, not necessarily every individual Christian, hence the reason why church history shows that there was a time certain writing were not accepted in certain places.... There were Christian churches who didn't recognize certain books. While most churches had identical teaching, most didn't read exactly the same collection of books. Ultimately it was maicon a heretic who is credited to trying to form a canon from everyone, his canon was constituted by books that he believed supported him, the Arians did a similar thing, it is after them that bishops of churches began to list the books read in the church, athanasuis has such a list I believe.

Ultimately from the beginning every church formed it's canon until it dawned on them that it was better that all who shared the same faith should share the same bible, and as scriptures show us when there are issues to decide it is the church in council who has authority with the assistance of the spirit to make that decision.

I believe the ENTIRE CHURCH IN COUNCIL, as it was before denominations crept did decide those books, not just the Roman Church. You on the other hand prefer individualism.

2. You are coopting plenty from the Bible. Nonetheless, there is nothing in Acts 15 to suggest that a council has the power to decide what belongs in the Bible and what doesn't. Not only are there clear signs of human imperfection on the part of the brethren in that story, there is also no indication whatsoever that we must follow that example ever. If we are to simply repeat everything that the Bible records believers doing in the Bible without thought as to which actions were right and which wrong, we would soon find ourselves in hardened disobedience to God. For example, if we treat each other the way that Job's believing friends treated him just because the Bible records that they did, we would soon find ourselves under discipline from God like they too did.

Act 15 shows us the mechanism by which any dispute is settled in the church, whether it is discipline or doctrine act 15 tells us that the church in council has authority for settling it and that this authority is guaranteed by the Holy Spirit hence the words "it seems good to the Holy Spirit and to us... ".

You may note certainly the human imperfections in the council but that didn't prevent the the apostles and elders from saying "it seem good to the Holy Spirit and to us... " that should tell you that the human imperfections didn't invalidate the decision of the Council. If that isn't an example for church teaching and administration then what is?
The Bible itself tells us that action was right for it records it so.

3. Since it seems in doubt, let me state explicitly that I completely believe that the Lord Jesus called out and is today still calling out His Church which is solidly founded and established on Himself and the Sublime Work that He did in sacrificing Himself on the Cross for our sins. I also believe without a doubt that every believer in the Lord Jesus regardless what their cultural heritage or language or even their pet foibles and serious failures is this Church. I believe without a doubt that The Church as a whole is invisible and spiritual, that it is visible only when two or more believers are together. I believe that no denomination including the Roman Church is the true church, rather that each is a mixed multitude not necessarily concerned with Jesus Christ and the Truth that about Him but may in fact (as is actually true in a depressing number) be actively opposed to Him.

if you believe that the church is wholely invisible then I wonder what you make of Act 15 and it's pretense to order Christians everywhere to a particular conduct at the time? If it is invisible then to what invisible entity did Paul advise Christians to take their case to, what invisible entity gathered for worship and had the authority to excommunicate a erring brother, what invisible entity was the book of Roman's, Corinthians, Galatians, etc addressed to. Of the modern current that invaded Protestantism in the last 300 years the most funny is this invisible strain because it very well contradicts to some extent the reformers themselves.

3. As to my claim for identifying Scripture, my actual claim is that every inspired Scripture by definition contains the Essence of God which is apparent to every human being who is willing to recognize it. It is no more nondescript than the personality or character of a writer discernible in their work.

yeah yeah, it just happens that different humans can't see the same recognisable feature, and in the face of such disputes your invisible church certainly has no authority to settle it as the biblical church in acts 15 did. You see the issue now?

4. The Church does not exist to negate free will. Each believer is completely free by God's Own Will to decide things for themselves. Their responsibility is to God, not to any person or institution. That means too that they are free to acknowledge Scripture when and where they encounter it or to deny it. Luther and I are not responsible to agree for the sake of agreement. We are responsible to agree with each other in the Truth alone and to maintain our loyalty to that alone. If either of us chooses to deny the Truth in any particular, the other is not responsible to either join the one or to force them into subservience in that particular. Their disobedience is a matter between them and their Lord. Where necessary and proper, the other may warn or rebuke. Otherwise, we are responsible to mind our own business and be careful to personally walk right with the Lord.

this your idea is foreign to scriptures themselves.

Of course all have free will and no institution or person may take that from him.

But the Christian as scripture says in the exercise of his freewill is not only answerable to God but also to God's church which has been granted the authority, to teach, to admonish, to Rebuke and in cases of serious disobedience to excommunicate and anathematize. This is why scriptures says the elders, aka Presbyter has rule of the souls placed in his care, and give the church power to judge Christians and between Christian, and to excommunicate. It is the church that is the pillar and bullwark of truth, a safeguard of that truth which each Christian must bear witness to.

The idea that each Christian is to believe and act accordingly to his will and the subjective "truth" he accepts, and that he is answerable to God alone not also to the body of Christ, is unbiblical, untrue and antibiblical. It is sad this is a current of thought flowing in Protestantism today... Even the original reformers didn't teach such.

Well, at least, you didn't deny it. That would have been easier to dismiss. This other thing you have done is just the same as what I have had to be doing in this conversation: presenting knots for me to unravel.

Obviously, this is not at all what the Bible teaches.

The Lord Jesus - and later Paul - essentially taught us to stand together as one Family in the world. That was the whole point of everything that they said.

To put it simply, the world is a very hostile place to faith in Jesus Christ. If that is not a reason for Christians to support and help each other, I don't know what is.

But Christians too are sinful people. Our sin natures remain even after we have chosen to believe in Jesus Christ. So, we often stumble and in many cases cause harm to each other for any number of reasons. As one Family surrounded by enemies who will not rest until they have either seduced us away from the Faith or until they have killed us - if God could be persuaded to let them -, it is only for our security that we settle our problems with each other amongst our own selves.

Even so, nobody is compelled to yield to the instructions of the teachers who shepherd the churches. So, when the teachings and judgments of the pastor-teacher are rejected, there is no pressure brought on the dissident to conform. Thus, there is no power exercised over fellow believers in the manner that you have described. Whenever there is dissidence, focus on the Truth on the part of the pastor-teacher has often been demonstrated to be enough to make the dissident break fellowship and leave the church.

Finally, as Paul himself says in 1 Corinthians 5, the church has no business seeking to correct or judge unbelievers who are not interested in the Truth at all. So, the idea of seeking to rule over unbelievers at this time is clearly unscriptural in the extreme.

the church does not seek to judge unbeliever, that ihe is a strawman you have created, the church may propose, teach and admonish in the world but does not judge over the unbelievers, I don't know where you got that from.

Your idea that nobody is compelled to yield to the decisions of the church and it's leaders and there is no pressure on the dissidents to conform strikes me again as untrue and unbiblical.

Hebrews 13:17
Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls, as those who will have to give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with groaning, for that would be of no advantage to you.

The Bible says both to obey and submit, how come in your own ecclessiology you imagine there is no pressure to yield?

1 Timothy 5:17
Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching.
1 Thessalonians 5:12
We ask you, brothers, to respect those who labor among you and are over you in the Lord and admonish you,
Here the scriptures say the elder has rule over the community he deserves double honor and respect.


“Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven” (Mt 18:18);

What is the use of the above authority in the church if no one is expected to yield to it?
Edicted

fantasy2018:
It won't eliminate pedophilia but it will expose it at earlier stage. Many young men recruited into the priesthood without knowing or identifying their sexual identity. Their psycho-sexual maturation has been put on hold . So they take it out on young boys.
Trust me, having a wife will put an end to it. Atleast, the priest will not have that much time to prey on young boys. Beside, people that are living double life are more likely to be caught if they are married.

Many people are attracted to priesthood because they want leave all things to serve God in a radical way, i know many such people.
The issue of sexual identity is the reason why since 2002 all who want to be priest undergo psychological tests to screen out those with baggages.
celibacy does not put sexual maturation on hold that is unscientific, it isnt castration unless u mean to tell me that all who didnt marry are deviants.
Have u never heard of parents who sexually abvse their own kids?

Dantedasz:
Guy, I tire for your matter. You have an excuse for everything....

That is not an excuse it is a fact. marriage does not stop pedophile nor does celibacy.

Dantedasz:
Look you can only fool your fellow Catholics and not me.
I suggest you goggle Hitler's pope, in order to know more about the atrocities committed by your pope during the Nazi era. Before the world war and after the war.

Hitler's pope is a book by British author John Cornwell detailing the actions and inactions of Eugenio Paccelli who became Pope Pius XII during Hitler's era.
He was so interested in retaining power of the Catholic church that he failed to speak out against the Holocaust and gassing of the Jews by Hitler and Mussolini during the second world war.

I suggest u google hitler's pope myth because the man who wrote that book withdrew his conclusions and the book has been thoroughly debunked by a jewish rabbi.
the pope was the director of the effort that rescued the greatest number of jews.

Dantedasz:

Just how you are debunking Catholic paedophilic priests raping choir boys here?

The evil of the conglomerate called the Catholic church did not start today.
Goggle the Catholic secret archives . Which are archives hidden in the Vatican containing all the evil atrocities committed by your infallible pope and his henchmen over the ages.

actually you are a liar. i have no defended any abuser through out the thread. You are entirely dishonest.

vaticans archive isnt a secrete thing, if u are a historian and there are documents u want to see, u simply write a letter, and wait for approval.

Dantedasz:
See how he is defending EVIL.

I did not defend any evil. pedophilia is found among married people too, that is a fact.

Dantedasz:
Look you can only fool your fellow Catholics and not me.
I suggest you goggle Hitler's pope, in order to know more about the atrocities committed by your pope during the Nazi era. Before the world war and after the war.

that myth has long been debunked. i suggest you google hitler's pope myth debunked.

The pope did not commit a single atrocity.

Syncan:
Just sing your song de go, I no want interfere.

na so u dey dodge abi?

fantasy2018:
This is just sad. Maybe they should start getting married.

The same thing happens with married men. a pedophile is a pedophile marriage doesnt change anything.

Dantedasz: All I have to say to you is Archbishop VIGANO.
VIGANO has written series of letters and exposes showing that your Pope knew about the serial and unrelenting abuse of children in the Catholic church for decades. The predecessor to the present pope knew about the abuse in fact that is one of the main reasons he resigned from the post expecting the present Pope to handle issues but he has been dilly dallying since last year when this crisis blew up.
The Catholic popes ha e always had a policy of supporting EVIL in capital letters from Hitler and Mussolini to the present day perverted priests.

you are back again with your accusations, the pope prevented the police from investigating crime abi?

the pope who was against both nazism and facism is now to blame for hitler! you need sleep.

And vigono wrote that pope benedict knew of 1 particular person who was accused and that person was disciplined and pope francis didnt uphold it. not that story of lies above.

Dantedasz:
Those animals/priests need to be put in a 4×4 cell for life after being castrated. Rubbish.
Of course the Pope who is the head of the conglomerate which is the Catholic church has been shielding and protecting the perverts by delaying since last year hoping the allegations will go away.

Delaying what abeg? these issues have been on since 2001, that was since when this has been addressed... nobody in his right mind will imagine all those cases going away, the pope has a conference on it this year, why do u think he is waiting for it to go away.

budaatum:
You called them "commentaries", and they seem to change over time, so I am going to heed your warning against them and go up the mountain with Moses and Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel to get my own interpretation directly from God as I stated I would here, with the one guiding principle that whatever I get must be godly. Amen.

I got my Quran from the Metropolitan Cathedral of the Precious Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ, by the way. They did a course over 9 weeks on understanding Islam which I appreciate them for. Their objectivity on the subject was commendable.

Good for them at the cathedra, did u look at the painted crucifix at the place.
d bible was writen so u can climb that mount with moses. The notes are profitable, just invent in the text

Buda i did note it. you have argue for subjective and also noted objective.

My dear, there truly is a subjective sense to scripture, you are certainly right.

it is also a text given to a community which means a specific thing to that specific community, if u like call it a dogmatic sense. the shema for a jew can mean something personal but it has a dogmatic, specific sense for d jew, the oneness, uniqueness and exclusivity of God.... the same is true of entire new testament and the church, it has a specific rendering.

SO if a catholic or an orthodox or oriental christian is directing you to one interpretation he actually means this is the sense this has always been understood in the church for every century.

I think you should consider politics, i have a priest friend who spent long periods on the news, he is a person i admire, i asked him what facinated him about the who politics thing and he replied it has the power to create something good for everyone, i agreed.
you can create something good for ur people.

God didnt create anyone a Christian, for most people Jesus seem like a great guy, for me he is either a mad man or the Son of God, no one makes those kind claims he made and deserves the title good man.
God draws us to the good, that is what i believe, if u search u will find. "i have not said to the sons of jacob search for me in vain"

you may be suprised the type of bibles believers read, one of my bibles have notes that the author thinks the prophesys were writing after the event had already happened. many thinks the some prophesy we interprete was actually meant for a different time. some pastors now teach that prophesys are fulfilld 2ice to account for the fact that the current interpretation may not be d jewish interpretation....
believers can be a wild bunch, mind u the bible that think prophesies were written after the even is approved by a church body.

Many christian simply filter those note, i certainly do.

Syncan:
Aha, ok. Thanks.

ANswer the question na

It may suprise you to know that i also agree with 9 on the objectivity of the bible.

for instance, the bible say God is merciful, objectively it is talking about divine character or attribute, that stuff that is in God that makes him always give beyond what justice demands, subjectively, i may make committed a terrible sin and that verse for me simply means do not dispair, in a moral sense it means i must be merciful myself.... the meaning make be much but it has an objective interpretation ie mercy is a divine attribute.

The goodnews for a catholic is that each of those different interpretation is acceptable in different context but if i were discussing doctrine i will give priority to what that text means exactly and how that has always been understood from ancient time.

Jn 6 for instance can mean for me Jesus wants faith in him but that is not exactly what the text says, the text says Jesus wants us to gawn his flesh and that has been understood since the 1st century as communion

Syncan:
Amen Amen, me Lord spiritual. Thank you very much. God bless you. Why are you repeating one question na?

IT IS PART OF THE HAPPY BIRTHDAY SONG.
I sang the first part in my mind.

helinues:
How?

Same EFCC that has been frustrating Olisa Metuh's foreign medical trip

I thought they seized his passport when he was invited?


Who knows, may be he has secretly joined Apc. His looting sins have been washed away

He was invited and he ran away, how will they collect his passport if he cant be found.

budaatum:
He hoodwinked everyone, and they were happy with his returns. His fall came 3 months after they made him an overseer of two other churches, and even then his superiors tried to defend him until I threatened them with the law.

that is a lesson to me as a christian.
the bible does say "it is because of you (me) that my (GOD's) name is blasphemed among the gentiles".

budaatum:
Didn't you see the link? I gave all my books to a local government library and begged others for their's to give too, and just yesterday did ma deliver my last shipment.

Are u kidding me? that is nice, i know it will be hard to part me from my books.

SalC:
Happy birthday Syncan dear, may your new age be graced by God's divine upliftment and guidiance. Let the Lord cause you to shine forth always.

Once again, happy birthday.

Let me add my voice to mama's.

may God shepherd all that concern u in this ur new age.

How old are u now? how old are u now? how old are u now syncan? how old are u now?

#No lem me hear u say +1