₦airaland Forum

Mr_Anony: Lol, we really shouldn't go into arguments we cannot find an end to.

My stance is that If the kid has the ability, no one should deny him the position. Note: I am not affirming that the kid has the ability, neither am I saying that he doesn't. All I am saying is that ability is the denominator here not age.

You on the other hand is saying that it is unlikely that the kid has the ability. Note: you are also not saying that the kid has the ability or that he doesn't have the ability. What then are we arguing about?

Unless you are ready to hold the position that merely by being 11 years old, a kid should not be given certain responsibilities irrespective of whether he has the ability or not, then we really have no bone of contention.

Which ability do you expect an 11yr old to have? An 11yr old should just be rounding up his primary education. He is still physically, mentally, emotionally and socially too immature for any responsibility.


A lot of children are exploited into doing seemingly incredible things like memorizing the Koran or bible or other feats, and their parents can then reap the rewards of the publicity. The child is living the dreams and ambitions of the parents/guardian and not his own. As I said this is child abuse. Even Jesus could not have preached at 11 and he would be taken seriously.

To me child preachers, child lecturers, child beggars, child workers and any other child anything is child abuse and be criminalized. A child should be allowed the joy of being a child. A child at 11 should be in school
If a child is not deemed matured enough to drink alcohol, drive, have séx, enter night clubs or even sign legal documents until they are 16 or 18yrs(depending on country), why should a minor be allowed religious/ spiritual authority over adults. How is he supposed to teach the more séxually explicit and violent part of the bible.

Mr_Anony: You would have to show from scripture that the flood was turbulent, you would also have to show from scripture that fish died. I don't want to answer from silence.
Sorry I have already speculated previously but to carry on would be to argue over "could-haves" and things the bible did not say.


Again, I will not argue from silence. If it is true that God can destroy the world via the the flood, then it is equally true that He can preserve the fish He wants to keep alive

If yahweh can simply preserve the animals he does not want to destroye, then why go through the trouble and shenanigans of building the ark in the first place.

Goshen360: The fact is fishes survive in water. There wasn't science to prove what percentage you are referring to now then. The truth is you guys don't believe the bible - the word of God. So explaining how this happened and how that happened will be hard explaining to you guys. Go back to creation and see fishes that were created. We have "suggested" according to the word of God that everything created have what is called "seed" inside them to produce after their kind. It is possible not all species of animals that was created exist now just like God didn't create Adam a dwarf, so how did people like dwarf came to be? You guys just want to be a critics to the bible.

Yes fishes survive in water but fresh water fishes cannot survive 5mins in salty sea water. I have seen the Kuramo beach water from the ocean overflowing into the lagoon waters of the Kuramo and instantly you will see the fishes of the lagoon trying to jump out of the water and within 10mins they are all dead.

So unless you postulate that there were no fresh water fishes before Noah's flood, you will have to explain how fresh water fishes and amphibians survived the flood.

Mkmyers45, let me help you put. The question should be, how did FRESH WATER fishes survive the flood, since 45% of all fishes are fresh water fishes.
You can thank me later.

Now let's see how they wriggle out of this one.

There are Three basic flaws in falana's analysis; 1. The price of crude is not constant, it fluctuates between $90 and $115. The benchmark for the budget is $73 and the excess is supposed to be saved in the excess crude account/sovereign wealth fund. 2. Nigeria does not keep 100% of oil proceeds, it takes 60% according to the joint partnership agreement with the oil companies.
3. The federal government's share is about 55%, the states and local governments take the rest.

Delafruita: there is only 1 god and that is yahweh.there is nothing like a 3-in-1 god.thats heresy and had it not found a foothold in christendom,adherrents of such should have been branded delusional.the trinity doctrine came about at the 1st council of nicea which began in 325AD.constantine was supposedly a new convert to pauline christianity and he wanted to make christianity the state religion of rome principally to ensure peace.however,there was chaos in christendom which had begun to lead to a crisis between those who believed mary should be a co-mediatrix and those who believed she was just the human vessel to bring the saviour into the world and deserved no such honour.followers of aries were the prominent voice against the co-mediatrix proposal and with constantine's refusal to invite them to nicea,it was apparent he was in favour of co-mediatrix as were most of those at the council.take into account the fact that constantine never broke his ties with mithraism and even invited mithran bishops to the council.it is believed that constantine proposed the "of one essence" principle.

it was initially proposed that the trinity be god the father,god the mother,god the son but this was kicked against by most of the 318 bishops in attendance.eventually the settled on god the father,god the son,god the holy spirit and accorded mary the honour of "mother of god.
the trinity is a human invention with no basis in scripture.

This is a brilliant exposé, the only problem is this is not a regular Christian world view but the position of a skeptic or an agnostics.

Delafruita: you harp so much on a name and its translation.yeshwa means the same as jesus.just as the yorubas say olodumare and the igbos say chineke.different languages have a different pronunciaton but that takes nothing away from the power in the name.besides till this day,people still bear that name in isreal

I thought I have been able to make it clear to you that Jesus is not a Greek translation of the Hebrew yeshwa. Jesus is not the same as yeshwa. In fact the name Jesus has no corresponding equivalent in Hebrew, whether in meaning, translation or pronounciation.
See this link for further details - http://jesusisajew.org/YESHUA.php

Its is completely false and misleading to equate the yoruba eledumare to the igbo chineke. Just as the case of Jesus eledumare is not a translation of chineke. In this case they are different deities entirely. ask adherants of the religions and stop assuming.

truthislight: the significant thing here is the individual.

Like the word jesus is a name that other people even do answer even in the bible.

But when the word is ascribed to the CHRIST/MESSAIAH it is a reference to a particular person.



The most important thing is t he is the christ/masaiah

Your response here is highly incoherent.

I do not recall reading about any other Jesus in the bible, if there is please provide me with verse and chapter.
The question again is why is the physical sound of the name so powerful like it being able to destroy demons, raise the dead, bring riches and prosperity, etc, while his real name or any of its other translations and transliterations are so powerless even though we are talking about the same personality or character?

Also when you ascribe the name to the messiah, you are not ascribing the the name to a personality but an idea of a personality since nobody knows the physical characteristics of the character, because some people imagine him to be a white Caucasian while to others he is a Negroid and to others still he has latino characteristics.

One major problem with your proposition is that you did not state your denomination and sub-denomination of your temporary Christian status. If you are catholic, I would have taken you up on Mary, Saints, purgatory, etc. If you were pentecostal, I would have taken you up on tithes, first fruits, speaking in tongues, anointing oils and Hankies, etc. Or even jehova witness, Anglican, Methodist, and so on.

So please state your denominations.

My second question is,
As a Christian, how many gods are there in existence? Is there only one God and all other gods are his creations? Ie sub-gods? Or there are three gods Sharing power equally as we were taught in bible class? Or there are many independent gods like baal, posiedon' thor, sango, etc, with the Christian god being the most powerful.

Why does the Christian god like the spilling of blood? Whether animal blood or human blood, whether physical blood or spiritual blood. Why does he demand shedding of blood either personally or on our behalf by his son before he can forgive us our sins?

Delafruita: kristos,translated christ,is a title which means saviour.he wasnt called jesus during his lifetime.he was a jew and went by the jewish name yeshwa.however,the greeks penned down his name as ieseous which became latinized to jesu and anglicized to jesus

Thank you for being honest and accepting that he could not have been called Jesus Christ when he was alive. The question is if his real name could not have been Jesus, why ascribe so much power to the sound Jesus? Why is there power in the name Jesus and not the original Hebrew name yeshwa, yeshowa or Joshua or any of its other transliterations like ieseous, Jesu, or even isa?

Put in another way how come you believe that the sound Jesus is powerful and not his original Hebrew name?

Delafruita: the real name of jesus was jesus.the hebrew name however was yeshwa or yeshua which means "yahweh saves".the name was an adaptation or modernization of yehoshua or joshua and was a popular name of that era.it was translated by the greeks to ieseous and then to latin as jesu before finally becoming jesus in english.by and large,the name means the same thing in all the languages
gabriel specifically told joseph(according to matthew) and mary (according to luke) to name the baby "yeshwa".so it wasnt a title but a name

Typical of a Christian(even if for only a day), you have started employing Misinformation, half truth and deceit to argue your position.

first, you only dealt with the name Jesus, you avoided the other name Christ entirety. That means you agree that Christ was a title and not a name.

Secondly, the name Jesus is not a Greek translation of the Hebrew name Joshua as you wrongly stated, it is a transliteration (an alphabet to alphabet substitutions), Jesus has no meaning in Hebrew.

The name Jesus is meaningless because it is a transliteration and not an actual translation. To translate a meaning into Greek from the original Hebrew name of the Messiah, Yahshua, it would translate to Theosateria, meaning god (theos) is salvation (sateria). The problem with transliterations are the fact that they are a letter for letter and sound for sound conversion from one language to another. Because the original Hebrew Name Yahshua has a specific meaning tied to His purpose, the Greek transliteration has no meaning what so ever. A true meaning for meaning translation of the Hebrew born, Hebrew named, Hebrew raised, Hebrew buried Messiah Yahshua would be Theosateria in the Greek/English. Since people don't change their name depending on the country they travel to, there is no reason to change the name of the Messiah. If Jesus is the translation of Joshua, then the book of Joshua that appears in the Bible should also be called Jesus

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_does_Jesus'_name_mean

So Jesus could not have been named Jesus when he was born, beside why should the parent give him a Greek name when they were Jews? If you told me that he was called Joshua when he lived, I would have accepted, but I don't see how he could have been called Jesus when he was alive.
So the question stand, what was the name of Jesus when he was alive?

Please also note; the Arabic transliteration of Jesus is ISA, that does not mean his name was isa when he was living:

As a Christian, I need you to educate me on the real name of Jesus. What was the real name of Jesus? It could not have been Jesus the son of Christ. Because Jesus is a Greek. Transliteration of Joshua which means saviour and Christos is Greek translation of messiah or anointed one. So the name seems more of a title than a real name.
As a Christian you should be able to educate us. More questions to follow before the expiration of the 36hrs.

UYCO: Wirinet, you r a very good lawyer. So ur legal advise is that Ribadu should keep d money for his own use. Read ur statement again

So who should own the money?

Ibori said he did not give Ribadu bribe money.
The courts agreed with ibori that bribe was not given to ribadu.
The delta state government says no money missing from its coffers.
But ribadu found some money which he erroneously thought was bribe money from Ibori.
So since the money does not seem to have an owner? Shouldn't the finder claim it? Because the money is just sitting idly at the CBN.

DELTA BOY: If federal government dont refund d money to delta then EFCC should pay damage to Ibori for false accusation

I am sorry to say, but the above statement is simply stupid. How can you say EFCC should pay damages without a court judgement? Ibori should be the person suing EFCC and not delta state govt.

I honestly do not know the business of delta state govt. In this case, since it decleared that the money was not stolen from its coffers. So it ment the alleged bribe money was ibori's personal cash, so it is left to Ibori to come and explain how his money got into Ribadu's hands. And if Ibori denies any transaction with Ribadu, then the money should be returned to Ribadu as he was the one that deposited the money. After all the rule says finders keepers.

They said the grand price is an aeroplane, they did not specify the type, make, model or size of the plane. They might even be talking of a toy remote control plane or one of those small agricultural planes used for fumigation.

So we need to know the specs of the plane before we can comment on whether the promo is scam or not.

Wallie: I understand your feelings especially since the service is erratic but keep in mind that the rate is just a needed precursor to get investors motivated to come into the power sector. An investor can now say with confidence that it will take X number of years to recoup their investments based on the current rate. The 500 naira is probably a service charge for providing power to your house.

If the N500 is service charge, then what are we paying such high rate for? This maintenance fee if pure 419. Let me give a perspective of the quantum of fraud.
It it is estimated that there are 1.2million houses in Lagos state, with translates to about 1.2million meters, now multiply that by N500 and you would get 600millions monthly, now interpolate this for the whole country and you might approach 2 billions, all without generating a single kw of electricity.

They can charge any amount they like but it is criminal to charge for power not used. It is like paying N500 per month to telecoms companies whether you make a call or not.

honeric01: You actually believe MEND wouldn't have been taken care of? how many state did MEND operate from again?

I never said MEND would not have been taken care of by the military, what I said was that the cost of militarily taking out MEND would be unacceptably high in terms of civilian casualties, damages to infrastructure and military expenditure, not to talk of the threats to our oil installations which would take decades to rebuild.

born2fuck: But our military cannot take care of boko haram for 3 yrs now

The same reason the military cannot take care of Boko haram is the same reason they could not take care of MEND. They are an internal insurgent group, if the military should use full force, the north would become a desert wasteland, and the civilian casualty would be unacceptably high and might result in a full blown civil war.

Asari is a joker and a noise maker. Does he know what war is? Or he thinks war is the ethnic conflict he led in their fight against the Itsekiris,who were unarmed and unprepared killing defenseless women and children. Does he seriously think a minor ethnic group like the ijaws can take on the nigerian military?

He should stop taking as if the nigerdelta starts and stops with the ijaws.

If the Nigerian military should deploy its might and fury on ijawland, it is the same dokubo that will be playing the victim card and be screaming genocide, like gbaramatu kingdom.

One single ethnic group cannot fight nigeria and hope to win, it has to be cooperation of many ethnic groups with the same goals.

Olu does not mean god, it means king, lord, ruler, etc. Otherwise Olu of Warri would mean god of warri, the Christian god is refered to as king or lord of heaven - OLU-ORUN, in yoruba.

bioda: I think the president's immunity is limited to criminal charges,which does not include cases like this.
I also think that the lawyers would do a better job if the subject of their litigation was ''budget implementation''.but all the same,it is an indication that some learned ppl still follow govt's activities. Cases like this bring to memory, Chief Gani Fawehmi.

If you say the president's immunity is limited only to criminal matters, then what can the courts do if the president ignore court judgements against him? Charge him for contempt? I think this suit if frivolous and a waste of judicial time. It is the national assembly that can effectively take up this issue and not the courts

fankasibe: Trully dis lawyers av got their rights to sue GEJ but he should be respected as president.

The lawyers should be learned to know that GEJ has immunity and so cannot be sued.

The puzzle for me is why is the AGF and minister of justice representing a private organization?

Ptolomeus: It was a war of gods?. I really do not understand your reasoning.
The Judeo-Christian God and Allah can protect Africa from the millions of starving children? The AIDS? ...
"They took the wealth and left the Bible and the Koran"
My respects.

A war between different people is also regarded as a war between their Gods, since the gods are expected to aid and help its worshipers defeat the enemy. In the bible and the Koran most of the victories is attributed to the gods. The conquered people are made to believe that their gods are inferior to the conquerers gods. You can see this phenomenon with all conquered people, the Aztecs, Mayans, and other south American people had to abandon their gods and adopt Spanish gods.

Wars are usually fought for exploitative purposes but the winner will exploit both the mind and materials of the conquered people.

Let me add my 2 kobo to this natural/unnatural debate.

I believe natural means occurring in nature without human intervention or manipulation. For example sand is s natural compound but glass is an unnatural compound as glass cannot be formed by nature. Same way we have 92 naturally occuring elements in the universe but man has been able to create about 10 more which cannot be found in nature.

Now as per homosexualism, since some humans and some animals too are born naturally as homosexuals without any artificial human manipulations, then homosexualism cannot be said to be unnatural in nature. Uncommon yes, but unnatural no.

Rãpe cannot be said to be in the same category because it had not been proven that rãpists were born rãpists. They are most likely that way due to psychological or mental disorders or even acquired behavior. And besides rãpists have a destructive effect on natural human societies not to talk of the victims involved.

Aslo it would be dificult classifying human behavior or even animal behavior as natural/unnatural because animal behaviour is highly unpredictable and is dependent on a lot of other factors and interaction of factors like instinct, sociology, physiology, emotions, intelligence, etc. This is why morality is said to be fluid between societies separated by space and time. In certain societies it is natural to sacrifice babies, in others societies or even the same society at another time it would be viewed as unnatural. Same for death penalty for murderers, to some societies any form of death sentence is unnatural. Even such mandane issues of women voting can be unnatural in some societies.

Martian: You friend is kinky as hell. Lmao. Most sailors, soldiers and the likes use Indecency magazines and movies but your friend expects you to believe s-x dolls are the norm?? Your friend is awesome.

Of what use is porn magazines and movies when you are away on a monotonous labour intensive trawling expedition that lasts up to 4 months at a stretch?

Deepsight,

You are one person who I follow on the religion section because a lot your posts are deep(as your ID implies, thought provoking and cerebral, but you sometimes allow your Christian sympathies to becloud your jugdement.

How can you equate an anomaly to being unnatural. If homosexualism is unnatural then is it supernatural? If a rate genetic trait appears in a family after many generations, would you call that unnatural? What of a female with full male characteristics like broad chest, hair chest and beard (not an hermaphrodite), would you considered it uncommon or unnatural?


What pains me is that Nigerians like to speak authoritatively on issues they have no clue about, and cover that ignorance using their idea of religious morality. Sexuality is a far more complex subject than what is between ones legs or chest. Sexual orientation is a factor of hormones, environment and instincts.
The examples deepsight gave concerning his dog in heat also applies to humans, if you deprive a man or woman from séx for too long, he or she would not make much distinction regarding the object of their sexual attention. That is why your will find many homosexuals in prison and lesbian in strict female only schools or even child (boys) abuse in catholic seminaries by priests. A sailor family friend used to stay with us when he is off the seas and one day he brought home a life size séx doll they use on their long trips at sea to relieve their urges, it has nothing to do having a desire for the doll.

What some people fail to consider is that our instincts are controlled by hormones, deepsight can be made to feel like a woman and grow breasts and hips and even have séxual feelings towards other men by the injection of estrogen. That is why men who desire séx change is injected with female hormones
for up to six months prior to cutting of the díck.

Yoruba people and indeed black people generally abandon their indigenous gods for foreign gods because they were conquered. When a people is conquered by superior power, the conquered people usually see their conquerors gods, culture, language and everything else as superior.

The yoruba people abandoned eledumare for yahweh and Allah because they were conquered by Yahweh worshipers from the coast and by Allah worshipers from the dessert, and Eledumare was unable to protect them.

8 threads long and Biafrans have not answered the very basic questions of the whole thread. Was Ojukwu interested in ruling Biafra or Nigeria? What were the boundaries of his biafra? And what will he have done if he had taken Lagos - Nigeria's seat of government?

Then talk about this passion of succeeding from Nigeria. When did the Igbos decide that they wanted to leave Nigeria? Was it pre-independence or after independence? As far as I know, the only people that opposited one Nigeria pre-independence were the hausa/fulanis.

When did Ojukwu himself become a believer of succession? Was it before he joined the Nigerian army having been born and bred in the north or after he joined the Nigerian army? How long was he an advocate for Biafra? Because after his exile from ivory coast I never heard him talk of biafra. He was more Nigeria than Biafran and was buried as a Nigeria soldier.

Why did ojukwu not write down his own side of the story for posterity? After all he was highly educated.

I hate to think that the succession idea was a spontaneous reaction to the igbo massacre in the north as a fallout to the coup in January 1966 and the inordinate ambition of Ojukwu.

This is the most stupid thing I have heard.
First how do you define a corrupt person. A person can only be defined as corrupt only by a competent court and not the government.

Secondly an adult siblings of a confirmed corrupt person cannot be punished for the sins of his father, unless he or she is proven to be part of the corruption.

Third and most importantly, most political elites in Nigeria have double citizenship, both nigerian and US or UK citizenship, and most of their children is either living legally in UK or is married to a UK citizen, so how do you deal with them.

The proposal would not pass through judicial scrutiny.

If the British government is really serious about helping Nigeria curb corruption, they should reform their banking system to scrutinized cash transfers originating from Nigeria to ensure it is not stolen funds. because the stolen funds have to pass through British banks.