₦airaland Forum

This is the most stupid idea I have ever heard. In a country with non existent rail network, inadequate and horrible road network how do you then hope to move products around? How many days (nights) would a factory in kano or any other northern state need to transport its raw materials and goods from the port in Lagos. And how many days would it need to convey its finished products back to the southern and eastern states, or you people pray that the north should not have any industrys. What about agricultural products, both for export and domestic? How many days do you want the good(most of them perishable goods) to spend on the road. You better be careful what you people pray for, you just might get it, because when you start buying one tomato or onion for N100, you will blame the government. I have not even talked about the effect on the construction industry, it will be a disaster. What of petroleum products, the north including Abuja will be in perpetual fuel scarcity since the pipelines are not functional.

INNO18: mr man you 're a deranged illiterate with enormous ignorance. Niger delta is made up of nine states, while the south south is made up of 6 states. Get that into your thick concrete skull. And the ijaws arent the majority in Rivers state. The Igbo's are

dont mind them, with all their properganda. Ijaws are exactly like the fulanis, who also claim majority, while they are not much in terms of population. How can someone say ijaws are majority in delta state? How many major ijaw towns and villages are there in delta state? Where would you put the urhobos, the isokos, the igbos, are they minority to the ijaws? Same in edo, ondo and rivers states, how many populated ijaw town and villages are in those states. The only state where ijaws are majority is bayelsa state.
The advantage the ijaws and the fulanis have is that they like to employ violence to promote their interest and nigeria rewards violence rather that peaceful mean or diplomatic means.

The US cannot afford not to be involved.

Where is Musiwa aka becomerich when you need him? We need those your satellite photos now to help us know whether the ibaji oil fields is in anambra or kogi.

Prestonvic: ‘...just say a simple...NO‘ James5:12NLT

When you don‘t learn to say ‘NO‘ you end up disliking yourself as well as the people you are trying to please. In some cases we have difficulty saying it because we‘re afraid people won‘t like us. In other cases we believe that to be ‘a good christian‘ we must always say YES. Jesus said, ‘...let your NO be (a simple) NO, so that you may not sin...‘(James 5:12AMP) Only wen you have the courage to say NO will you mature, be able to address your own unmet needs and start respecting yourself. And in time others will too.
So do these 3 things:
1. THINK BEFORE YOU RESPOND; if you need to say, ‘can i get back to you?‘ Dont make commitments without consulting GOD, your calender and your family. ‘if you need wisdom, ask our generous GOD and HE wil give it to you...‘(James 1:5NLT)

2.WHEN YOUR PLATE‘S FULL, SAY SO; responding to so called emergencies caused by somebody else‘s poor planning & sloppy habits won‘t do either of you any good. Limit what you say YES to, then stick with it. Don‘t take on more because you feel pressured, guilty or indispensible. You‘ll discover thatt you‘re only indispensible untill you say NO- or die!

3. GO WITH YOUR GIFTS: God has given each of us unique talents. If you've to choose between singing in the choir or sitting on the finance committee, go to where your talents will be best utilised.

Is this always easy ? NO, but unless you learn to do it you'll end up investing too much time & energy in what seems urgent, & neglect whats important.

Na wa o. Christianity and it gymnastic pastors. One minute a pastor will preach that you should give in order to receive or you should give until it hurts, the next minute the same pastor will do an Olympic style somersault and say you should say no to any giving that is inconvenient.
So Christianity has turn to saying no to those who is needs our help if it inconveniences us. I wonder if that was what Jesus preached or even paul.
I think Christianity should have a body that regulates it core principles because the religion as of today is a mad house of various conflicting doctrines. Outside the mantra of "accept Jesus as your personal lord and saviour", you cannot hold Christianity to any particular doctrine.

Mandelaguy: I cannot get physical on people that engage in activities that distort natural forms of things. Let us call bad bad and stop hiding under the guise of religion,beliefs,and whatever you call it. The natural form if human conjugation is for a man and woman. They should have devised new places to stick their di.cks,instead of in their filthy asses. What do they need holes for? Faggo.ts!

So how where another man decide to stick his dìck affect you? Whether he decides to cut off his dick, stick it into his own àss or jack off, it is non of your concern. Don't you have other things to expend your mental energy on?
You cannot jugde others by your religious, moral, racial or social prejudices.

I think the headline is highly misleading. It is crafted to whip up emotions and sentiments as nigerians like to present themselves as the moral crusader of the world while being the opposite in deeds. The british govenment never advocated for legalization of homosexuality, what they frown at is CRIMINALIZATION of homosexuality which a lot of African countries have done.

Another misconception is when people say homosexuality is criminalized in Nigeria, that is a lie, what was criminalized in Nigeria is GAY MARRIAGE and not homosexualism itself, which I support. I feel marriage should be between opposite séx.

Na 1990(sorry 2025), dem go give us water.
I want die o.
Give me water drink.

As Fela talk am Na Suffering and Smiling.

UncleJJ: Everybody knows the truth .... and i am not the first to say this

the most succesful yoruba's are in the banking & petroluem industries ( easy money ), they always shout foul and are only strong when in packs like wolves - even then a yoruba man will betray you at the slightest opportuinity to gain. ( Live in Lagos - you know this true !). Yoruba girls get good physical features but "faithfulness" is not their strong point - always looking for the guy with the biggest d...i..c..k

the igbo man succesful in commerce and industry. Are difficult followers cos they all want to lead, which makes them bad for "particular" political positions. Since they have no central leaderships - politics is not their strongest point. These guys can kill their mothers for wealth, yoruba are ritualist too but its not a big deal for them cos their culture is still very much fused with diabolic traditional methods.

the hausa man, typical called mallam. seems to be the underdog - is he? Well, the pride of the ibo and yoruba will not let them see past the cows. So its difficult to say. The hausa man is the least analyzed nigerian at any point - but they make the biggest bang and the biggest bucks. Known for thier folishness and deep respect for thier religious beliefs -these guys have some of the hottest babe's in this country. You never know cos they cover up. Off all three the hausa man is the easiest to trust , but is growing wiser cos the ibo and yoruba in their supremacy thinking are teaching them the hard way - never the less they are learning. Believe it or not the north are the political elites of this country. ( F.A.C.T)

------- This bring me to Ojukwu ---------

Wether or not he is an ibo man, coward , not a first child or womanizer. He is a Nigerian, highly placed military officer ! If the properties have been in his care for all this while why have neither brothers come forward to claim theirs. Is it now he is dead that they come.

Bianca is not his legal wife - but she is his common law wife not so. Living together for such a long period wether married legally or not affords her the luxuries of some part of odumegwu's estate including those kept in trust by her husband. She also has children not so!!

Ojukwu's children must have the lion share in this game so if i was any of them i would not even bother myself. The first son - should have first hand knowledge of his fathers properties - if he does not. He may have forfeited his inheritance along time ago without knowing it.

Odumegwu's brothers have no right to claim any property from his kids. These properties were siezed by the government and later returned to Ojukwu after he "pleaded". These properties all belong to Ojukwu and not his brothers .

I honestly do not understand your logic here. I am a bit reluctantant to comment on ojukwu, because it might earn me a fatwa from Biafrans as ojukwu to them is as infallible and sacred as mohammed.
Having said that isn't it selfish of ojukwu to claim the family fortune if it was not willed to him? Is it not unfair to dis-inherit his siblings because of his war misadventures? Is it not selfish of him to use his enormous influence in the nigerian state to get back his family fortune back without making a case for any other Biafrans who lost property as a result of his war. Does helping to help retrieve the family property make it his personal property? you are saying nigerian government seized the properties from Louis and gave it to odumegwu.

What I thought you should advocate for is for the family to sit together and amicably resolve the issue instead of disgracing the family, afterall there is enough to go round.

Somebody said they should have challenged Odumegwu when he was alive, are you serious? Challenge a whole ikemba! You want Biafrans to give them the boko haram treatment? It was better they waited until his death before they come out to challenge for their share of the family fortune. Even in death some Biafrans are ready to castigate those challenging Ojukwu.

So when are we going to see frogs falling from the sky and the other 7 plagues? For the phenomenon not t cause much panic in china (but in Nigeria instead), it must mean it is not so uncommon. Most probably it is caused by large quantities of red mud entering into the river after a flash flood or mud slides.

I can go back to religion, especially as I grow older. But it can never be the abrahamic religions. These religion lacks any spiritual value, they are too egocentric, selfish, carnal, materialist and pleasure seeking. That is why the stick and carrot method works so well.

I would prefer the more serene far eastern religion like Buddhism is I feel the need to be religious.

What saddens me is that nigeria laws are manipulated to Favour the ruling class and oppress the ordinary citizens. When Theodore Orji was picked up by EFCC and locked up, people said he was still innocent until proven guilty and was put up for governor and was voted for by igbos. He was taken straight from prison to state house and the case has been suspended if not forgotten.
Farook lawan had overwhelming evidence (even audio and video evidence) against him of collecting bribe. But he is still in the house and walking free because he is still presumed innocent. But an ordinary man is accused of kidnapping and oronto he has been punished without recourse to the courts. Meanwhile a boko haram sponsor senator is still walking free.

Yes. The most morally upright people I have met are the irreligious. Religion is more interested in control than morality.

Polygamy is not allowed in Christianity because Rome which set the principal doctrine of the religion does not condone polygamy. It allows for mistresses though. Meanwhile Judaism allows you to marry more than one wife as shown by Joseph, Abraham Solomon and David.

plaetton: ^^^^^
Jesus can be seen as a revolutionary in the context of Judaism. Without the Roman adoption of Christianity as a state reliogion, and the establishment of the Roman Catholic Church, it is very doubtful that we would have heard of or be discussing Jesus 2000yrs later, especially given the odd fact that he did not himself write any religious or philosophical treatise for posterity.

I believe Jesus's philosophy would have survived, most probably under a different name, because his teachings was beginning to gain wide acceptance in Palestine. He did not intend to start a religion and that was why there were no written doctrines. Christianity was started by paul, who never met Jesus and whose story of the miraculous meeting of Jesus in the spirit was never collaborated by any other person. It was he in collaboration with Rome that added all the embellishments and changed the message.

A lot of great teachers with revolutionary ideas in the past also did not write anything, their ideas were usually propagated and written down by their students, a good example was plato.

Jenwitemi: The teaching of direct connection to the creator is hardly a christian revolutionary teaching, hardly. This teaching was being taught around the world by other spiritual schools of thought long long long before the existence of Christianity. Your claim is made out of complete ignorance hence totally untrue. Read history of the world more properly, please.

You made a claim without providing us with any example. Why not give us an example of a prior religion that taught the worship of God by the common man without going through any priest or intermediary. Which other teachings made no distinction between classes, sexes, races in regard of closeness to God.

Please add value to the debate as had been done by others by providing us with concrete examples.

If this is true, then Nigerian health officials and Nigerian doctors should cover their head in shame. You mean our health system could not diagnose and treat common appendicitis ? Then what is the use of having hospitals? Are our hospitals only able to diagnose and treat malaria and typhoid?

If a common appendicitis can be life threatening to a whole first lady, then the common man is in trouble. No wonder people go to pastors and babalawos for cures.

Pastor AIO: You should check out the work of a historian/archaeologist called Israel Finckelstein. Although it is highly speculative and I don't buy everything he makes certain very strong points.

Why is there no distinction between the Israelites and the Canaanites that lived in the land before them? The name of the God is the same, El. El Elyon. El Shaddai. etc etc etc.

The construction of the Temple was in the exact same canaanite style. etc etc etc

Why is it that when the plundered Canaanite cities were excavated, that there was no sign of an invasion from the outside?

His conclusion was that the Israelites were Canaanites all along. There was no invasion from without. The Israelites were the lower classes of the Canaanite cities and when they'd had enough of the oppression they rose against their leaders. After the uprising they settled to create a new community and they were open to strangers. That is why in certain early texts of the OT their is much mention of making provisions for the 'Strangers within your gates'.

They had no kings or elite because their ruling classes had been slaughtered. Whenever they needed leadership someone would rise from their midst to take the role for a while. These were the Judges. In the book of Judges their stories are recounted. The Judges could even include a woman prophetess (Deborah) so it was not necessarily a war hero (like Samson).
Slowly with time some Judges started to try to establish a dynastic rule. This can be read between the lines in Judges when the prophet Samuel attempts to start a dynasty with his sons but the people of Israel vehemently reject it. Dejected he moans that the people have rejected him but God tells him that it is not him they rejected by God himself. etc etc etc

King Saul establishes a monarchy but is unable to establish a dynasty.

It is King David that eventually establishes a dynastic monarchy over the Israelites.

I do not think that prior to the destruction of Canaan's cities there was ever such a revolution where so much attention was taken for providing for the poor and disenfranchised, the orphans and the strangers.

This is why I say that Judaism is probably the first sociality revolution that ever was.

From your submission, though it postulate, that the various conflicts in the bible might be a result of a socialist revolution against the ruling class, it is not reflected anywhere in the judaic religion, even at that period. During the time of the judges, obviously there was an interegnum, the cause of which is speculative. But the Jewish religion even at that time did not reflect a socialist revolution. The priestly class remained intact with its hierarchical structure.

You will find that in all socialist revolutions, the priestly class and the religion itself is often consumed along with the political elite. Examples are the french and the Bolshevik revolutions.
Christ's teachings had both political and religious implications.

Pastor Olaadegun, I thought you people hate the Catholic so much, and now you end up using their argument to support your argument for church, I hope you accept their argument for pope also as they say peter was the first pope.

Believe me the bible can be translated and twisted to mean anything the person doing the translation wants, remember the original copies have not been found, so what we have are copies of copies of translations of translations. try watching an English subtitle of a yoruba movie, you will most times be unable to correlate what is being translated to what is being said.

Obviously the verse you quoted above cannot mean that peter should build a church and be the head. His name was already peter before he was called peter(rock) by Jesus, so it shows some manipulation by the translators. And besides peter never build any building call church and claim to be the only access to Jesus.

The person that set up churches and its organizational structure was paul and not peter.

Pastor Kun: Bros I thought you were an atheist.

Bros I am, but that does not mean I should close my mind to any source of knowledge. There are a great deal to learn from teachings of Christ, Buddha, confucious, pythagoras, etc.

The problem with humans is that we love to dietify great men - kings, priests and teachers. Even today people dietify their spiritual leaders like sat guru marahaji, olumba olumba, bishop oyedepo, pope, etc. Even maradona has worshipers, so I can understand, the dietification of Jesus.

Pastor AIO: Actuall;y I think that the first socialist revolution that we have on record is Judaism, and the establisment of the people of Israel.

I beg to disagree my dear friend. Judaism as established by Moses was highly autocratic, racist and class based. First the religion put the Jews as being closer to God and a special class of people, then it has a highly structural heirarchy of priests with high priests, levitical priests, order of Aaron, etc.

Meanwhile according to christ's teachings, no separation between Jews and gentiles, rich or poor, priests and laymen, sinner or saints(everybody is a sinner), etc

What people fail to realize is that Jesus did not intend to set up an organization that meets only on Sundays to worship God and be told how to live their lives by “rulers” and then go home.

Jesus organization was one that lived together and doing public charity works of teaching, preaching and healing. Jesus and his disciples were not after starting a massive church, they were more interested in helping the population lead meaningful lives. Jesus was satisfied with his 12 disciples and only attempted to add one more person.

If Jesus wanted to start a church, he would have said so and set out the organizational structure and a written code.

Deep Sight: Ok. I see. There was a wonderful series on History Channel talking about how much of a revolutionary activist Jesus was against the norms of his time. It was nice, but I don't know when it will show again.

Can you please tell me what they said the revolution was. Does it agree with my conclusion that it was a socialist revolution? And did it conclude that the revolution was hijacked by Rome?

Deep Sight: You watched that series on Jesus this weekend, didnt you?

I honestly do not know the series you are talking about. I hardly watch T.V. If you tell me the series, the station and the time, I would look out for it.

My views of Jesus was as a result of studies I did way back at the University, when I was researching on comparative religion. Abraham brought one God, Moses brought laws and Jesus brought socialism

plaetton: I agree with everything, except that, long before jesus, Buddhism had taken root in parts of India and neighboring regions.
It has been argued, that perhaps Jesus may have travelled to India during his youth, where he encountered and an embraced the Buddhist philosophy. That is was this Buddhist philosophy that he tried to incorporate into and reform the Yahwehist custodian religion of his people.

You might be right about Jesus encountering Buddhism, but Buddhism was more concerned with the question of life like how to live a successful life and how to avoid sufferings, and not how to relate with god. Buddhism did not exactly threaten the existing social order.

But Christ doctrine was almost as revolutionary as communism, no master, no class distinction, everybody was equal before God. Everybody eat and drank together. The rich were told to sell their property and join the common purse. No body enjoyed any special privilege. No body wore any special cloth. Even Jesus was not worshiped or revered as master but simply refered to as rabbi(teacher). Jesus discouraged calling anybody father, papa, pastor, bishop, leader, etc, everybody was simply brethren (brother).

Christianity (teachings of Christ) was supposed to be a social, economic and spiritual revolution. before Christ, philosophy of life centred around exploitative capitalism and despotic monarchy - both socially and religiously. God was at the apex of the herarchy, then you had a pyramid of priest in order of importance until you get to the common man at the base of the pyramid. So for the common man to reach God, he has to go through his local priest or religious leader, who takes his prayers to higher authorities until it gets to the supreme priest who then takes your supplications to God. The governments was also modeled in this way. To reach Caesar, you have to pass through a pyramid of representatives. That was how the pharisees and saduccees were structured.

But Christ's revolutionary teachings knocked down the structure, he teached that you do not need any intermediary to connect to God, that as far as God is concerned, no one is closer to God and everybody is at the same level.

This was a revolutionary teaching never seen before in the history of the world. The religious leaders were in an uproar for fear of losing power, privilege and control. The political leaders were afraid of such revolutionary thinking entering the political sphere: something had to be done to maintain the status quo. The new movement was first brutally suppressed, but when the revolution seemed to powerful to contain, Rome decided to modify, assimilate and adopt it, but in a control manner. Gradually they were able to kill the Christ revolution and build a new pyramid of new heirarchies. This became the new template for the Christian religion. The pope, bishop or G.O is said to be closest to God, while those under him derives authority for the head, while the masses at the base of the pyramid needs to go through the heirachy to get to the G.O to be able to reach God.

That is why I call Christianity the first socialist revolution that never was.

Christianity (teachings of Christ) was supposed to be a social, economic and spiritual revolution. before Christ, philosophy of life centred around exploitative capitalism and despotic monarchy - both socially and religiously. God was at the apex of the herarchy, then you had a pyramid of priest in order of importance until you get to the common man at the base of the pyramid. So for the common man to reach God, he has to go through his local priest or religious leader, who takes his prayers to higher authorities until it gets to the supreme priest who then takes your supplications to God. The governments was also modeled in this way. To reach Caesar, you have to pass through a pyramid of representatives. That was how the pharisees and saduccees were structured.

But Christ's revolutionary teachings knocked down the structure, he teached that you do not need any intermediary to connect to God, that as far as God is concerned, no one is closer to God and everybody is at the same level.

This was a revolutionary teaching never seen before in the history of the world. The religious leaders were in an uproar for fear of losing power, privilege and control. The political leaders were afraid of such revolutionary thinking entering the political sphere: something had to be done to maintain the status quo. The new movement was first brutally suppressed, but when the revolution seemed to powerful to contain, Rome decided to modify, assimilate and adopt it, but in a control manner. Gradually they were able to kill the Christ revolution and build a new pyramid of new heirarchies. This became the new template for the Christian religion. The pope, bishop or G.O is said to be closest to God, while those under him derives authority for the head, while the masses at the base of the pyramid needs to go through the heirachy to get to the G.O to be able to reach God.

That is why I call Christianity the first socialist revolution that never was.

Mr_Anony: Lol.........and who said the child pastor is not in school or is being denied an education?

You are just reading your own meanings into a very simple situation. The case I am making is very simple. "If the child can do it, let him do it."

does that apply to preaching alone or does it apply to all other facets of life like voting, driving, marriage, se.x, drinking, etc.?

Mr_Anony: Interesting. . . .You are making a claim here that a child is immature simply because of his age. You are equally making a claim that even if the child has the ability, it is child abuse for the child to bear the responsibilities for which he is able. According to you the motivations are not the child's but the parent's.

I put it to you that you cannot objectively show that in all cases of child-geniuses that the child is being forced to perform against his/her will.
I put it to you that it is equally child abuse to deny a child the use of an ability that he is capable of if he is able to bear the responsibilities thereof.

I put it to you that denying a child the right to do something that is morally good and he is both able and willing to do solely based on his numerical age is discrimination much like racism and sexism.

The only criteria that should matter here is if the child truly has the ability to carry that responsibility.

Honestly you are just arguing blindly for argument sake. In the Uk if you put your child through any off these stunts, instead of putting him in school, you will probably have the child taken from you. In the uk, a child is not even expected to be in secondary school until the age of 12. So I do not understand the abilities you want an 11yr old child to have to be able to take on adult responsibilities. A child is not legally responsible until the age of 18.

Billyonaire: This morning, I was in conversation and I heard myself say humans are the most advanced of God's creation. I think I am wrong, Are humans actually the highest of God's creation ? Ponder. We know of Galaxies; Andromeda and Milky way etc, but we are yet to invent time machines that could take us to other universes to witness other creations. My Question is; Are humans, the highest of God's Creations ?

It depends on the criteria you use to define advanced. if you are talking in terms of intelligence, then humans are the most advanced. But in terms of sight, eagles are the most advanced. In terms of sound, whales or bats are the most advanced. In terms of smell, dogs are the most advanced. In terms of speed, cheetahs are the most advanced, in terms of versatility (ability to change quickly), viruses and bacteria are more advanced.

Each advanced characteristic have each specie an advantage to survive in its surroundings.