One thing we are all agreed on, is that insecurity does not favour a mass majority of the populace, save for those benefitting from it.

As part of the majority, we MUST all be concerned about peace in our land. Nothing thrives, flourishes or blossoms in times of crises...

If

only we can all spare at least 5mins to pray for our nation...

To those benefitting from insecurity; God says..

Nahum 2:13 MSG
"Assyria, I'm your enemy," says God-of-the-Angel-Armies. "I'll torch your chariots. They'll go up in smoke. 'Lion Country' will be strewn with
carcasses. The war business is over - you're out of work: You'll have no more wars to report, No more victories to announce. You're out of war work forever."

And for our nation, we pray;
Psalms 107:7 MSG
He put your feet on a wonderful road that took you straight to a good

More from Pastor 't.O.s.I.n. Olunuga

More from Messagethreadreaderapp unroll

You May Also Like

This is a pretty valiant attempt to defend the "Feminist Glaciology" article, which says conventional wisdom is wrong, and this is a solid piece of scholarship. I'll beg to differ, because I think Jeffery, here, is confusing scholarship with "saying things that seem right".


The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.


Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)


There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.


At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?