03

Feb

2009

The Child Who Created God PDF Print E-mail
By Adebowale Oriku

 Adebowale Oriku

He sat at the side of his little daughter’s bed, and opened a big book of bible stories which his born-again Christian wife had bought to be read to their daughter, to vary what she believed were mere storybooks which taught the girl nothing, but only made her giggle a bit and then fall asleep. She had felt their daughter needed uplifting stories from the Bible: her mind was pliant now, formative, mouldable, this was the time to show her the difference between good and bad. And of course he could see that all the stories in the picture book were indeed moral ones: perceptive parables told by Christ; stories about the good man called Lazarus; how Jesus chased gamblers and other bad types from the Temple of the Lord; and occasional Old Testament stories, like the one telling how Moses was found in a bulrush basket floating down a river. The pictures were moral too, like the pictures of children sitting on the lap of Christ, in the passage where he enjoined grownups to let children come to him, for Heaven and Paradise belong to the little ones.

Ola had nothing against all this. He was a Christian too, a dozy, chary one, a proud member of the Church of Laodicea, far less committed to the faith than his wife. He often smiled with the wryness of a total unbeliever whenever he remembered that the hottest corner in hell might be waiting for him, being an undecided, a half-hearted Christian. However, he saw some sense in reading stories to children from the bible. Why not? People have often said the bible is a damn good literature book, full of poetry and all that. And some of the bible stories are indeed uplifting. After all, in the children’s version there are no stories like when Jesus cast demons into the bellies of unsuspecting pigs, or when he grumpily cursed the tree that did not give him fruit. Nor Old Testament stories such as how the Prophet Elisha cursed some children who were mocking him because he was bald, and they were killed by bears. Ola was speedily balding too, and since he was certain he would not give a group of urchins calling him a slaphead any notice at all, not to mention cursing them, he would certainly be at a loss how to explain to his daughter why a prophet of God, God’s favourite, had to curse some playful children piping on about his alopecia.

He preferred the attitude of the Danish religious philosopher Soren Kierkegaard, who walked the streets of Copenhagen with a limp owing to the congenital condition of one leg being shorter than the other. Street children had made fun of him, ragging him brutally because of the funny way he walked. Between the either/or of turning nasty and thus risking more ridicule, or ignoring the youths, Kierkegaard had chosen the latter, humorously mentioning the fun the street kids had at his expense in one of his essays. Well, Ola would rather show a child the picture of children sitting on the lap of Jesus than tell them about the children-directed wrath of the bald prophet – although a male teacher in a Sunday School who had the supposedly Christ-like habit of gathering children close around him, and even dandling some of them on his knees, was later accused of abuse by one of the children. He was removed from the Sunday School and investigated. At a different time Ola had attended a church in which a rather tough-minded pastor had expostulated with those who were looking for shortcuts to Heaven, that merely having children come to you would not itself guarantee Heaven. If a child was guaranteed Heaven because of her innocence, that did not mean all of those who had tousled the hair of the child affectionately would follow her into Heaven if the child died young. It was during this time that Ola had to think about another dimension to the matter of bidding children to come to a sin-prone adult: a child could only be guaranteed Heaven if she died young enough…

Rather superstitiously, Ola had to cut off this tortuous trail of thought. Why did he have to think this way – about children dying – when he was sitting beside his own daughter? Not even the notion that his daughter would go to Heaven would be a consolation if he lost her. God forbid! He rebuked the thought as he tucked her under the counterpane of her slender bed. But does God really forbid such things?

Didn’t Charles Darwin lose a child called Mary? That was the first of Darwin’s three children that died before they could reach adulthood. Some of his biographers believe the seed of Darwin’s lack of belief in a sentient God, or even any kind of deity, broke ground when his daughter Mary died less than a month old.

Ola returned to his own living, and rather wide-awake, Mary: “Now, Mary, let me read to you how God made the world in seven days.”

“No daddy, read to me ‘Mary had a little lamb’!” the little girl protested.

Maybe because her name was Mary, the few short lines of the Mary-had-a-little-lamb cameo had not ceased to appeal to her, years after her father had begun reading it to her. Ola often indulged his daughter, and would read the story usually off the top of his head, not missing the girl’s twinkling eyes, and expectant of the question that would always come next: “Daddy, will you buy a little lamb for me?” Not all the Teddy Bears, the Barbies, the virtual puppies and stuffed rabbits would do: his daughter would demand a living lamb even on the day any of these pacifiers were presented to her. She asked again tonight, and her dad fobbed her off with the promise that he would buy it for her tomorrow. “Now let’s return to the story of how God created the world.”

He began: “In the beginning there was nothing in the world we live in today. Everything was empty. God was not happy about this, so he turned to his angels and told them, ‘Let us create a world and fill it with things that live, let us create water, trees, animals …’”

Mary had been in her why-fixated phase for some time now, and being a child her father had fancied would grow up into a brainy lass, the question she asked next was a question her father should have imagined she would ask the first day he read the story of Creation to her. It was an obvious question any child would ask, but somehow Ola had not foreseen his daughter blurting it out now. It just didn’t occur to him that she could surprise it on him anytime - which was exactly what Mary did, when she queried: “But who created God?”

Ola was flummoxed, foxed - not so much about the unexpectedness of the question as how to quickly answer his demanding, mildly dictatorial daughter. He had to do, say, something smart and engaging now.

He began, pointing at the bedside light by which he had been reading to her daughter: “Do you know who made that light there, the lightbulb?”

The girl asked again, obliviously; though again, not so obliviously to her daddy: “Was it not God?”

“Not quite,” Ola replied to his daughter, and segued on quickly. “This light was created by a man called Thomas Edison. He was the first man to make a lightbulb. He was a man of science, a man who knew a lot of things, and could do things with a lot of things. He made some other things too, apart from the bulb.”

“Like what?”

“The phonograph record. We can now listen to music because of what he did. He was a hardworking man too, who would forget to eat his food for hours, sometimes for a whole day. You know, there is something interesting about this man’s life. In primary school his teacher thought he was not a bright boy because he started to go deaf early. He was sent away from school, and at home, in his little room, he began to make these things. Later as a grown man, he lived in a place called Menlo Park, so he was called the Wizard of Menlo Park. He was called a wizard because he could make a lot of things.”

“Did he make the telephone?”

“No another man called Bell made the telephone.”

“Did he also make other things, this Bell?”

“Certainly, but I can’t remember any of those things now.”

“These men, were they made by God too?”

“Yes, they were.”

Now the simple if arbitrary law of causality would not make Ola nurse any illusion even for a second that his daughter was going to ask any question but the one she again asked: “So who created God then?”

Now, he was not going to be embroiled with his daughter in odium theologicum, which would certainly conclude, or rather fizzle out, in a moot way. So he began to adlib again. He knew another anecdote would keep the unanswerable question at bay, at least for some moments, “There was another man too, called Albert Einstein. Like Edison, he was not very bright when he was a schoolboy. He would turn his head to the window in the classroom, looking at the cattle grazing in the fields outside. His teacher told his father he would not come to anything, because he was not listening to him while he taught.”

Here Ola stopped. He could see his daughter had fallen asleep: that blameless sleep of children, the magical unthinkingness. She was breathing lightly. Ola tiptoed out of her little room, wondering how he would have begun to explain adult Einstein and his theories to his daughter. The Special theory of Relativity, the General theory of Relativity… Six and half-a-dozen - that was as mathematical as he could get. He smiled to himself. Tomorrow he was certainly going to shirk on his daddying responsibility. He would tell his wife he had a horrendous headache and she could help reading their daughter to sleep for once. He would suggest she read the Creation story to her…

But as he turned round the little girl’s room's  door, Ola had heard his daughter whisper: ‘Did God make himself, then?’ The voice was dream-far, sleep-laden. He didn’t say anything in reply, he could indeed hear his daughter faintly snoring, the slack arrhythmia of sleep. Hadn’t the handmaid of nature fed the girl enough Lethean nectar of slumber? Or had she slipped into dream-state just like that?

The next day, when he returned from work late afternoon, the first thing his daughter showed him as he loosened his tie was a cartoony imagette, eerily redolent of Homer Simpson of The Simpsons, sans colour. It was made of drably unicoloured plasticine, or ‘soft dough’ as colloquialism might have it - modern replacement for real clay of old that Ola remembered using during elementary arts and crafts class, the sort of clod he believed for a long time that God made man from - and woman, from man’s rib-bone. He used to wonder then how the clay became bones, flesh and muscles.

Mary thrust the Simpsonesque plasticine figure into his dad’s hand. 

‘That’s God, daddy, I made him myself during art class.’  



Your Comments

Please make The Square an enjoyable experience for everyone by refraining from gratuitous ad-hominem contributions, defamatory comments and off-topic posting. Such posts will be removed.

User Avatar
RobotRobot is offline

 # 1 | 04.02.2009 00:25

Adebowale Oriku He sat at the side of his little daughter’s bed, and opened a big book of bible stories which his born-again Christian wife had bought to be read to their daughter, to vary what she believed were mere storybooks which taught the girl nothing, but only made her giggle a bit and then fall asleep. She had felt their daughter needed uplifting stories from the Bible: her mind was pliant now, formative, mouldable, this was the time to show her the difference between good and bad. And of course he could see that all the stories in the picture book were indeed moral ones: perceptive parables told by Christ; stories about the good man called Lazarus; how Jesus chased gamblers and other bad types from the Temple of the Lord; and occasional Old Testament stories, like the one telling how Moses was found in a bulrush basket floating down a river. The pictures were moral too, like the pictures of children sitting on the lap of Christ, in the passage where he en...Read the full article.

User Avatar
LondonerLondoner is offline

 # 2 | 04.02.2009 06:35

When next you are asked who craeted God? The answer is simple see below

Thou Shalt Not Kill Whom?
by John Hartung (Palestine Times, December 1997)
http://strugglesforexistence.com/?p=article_p&id=10
Zionism comes from the bowels of the Bible. In a display of chutzpah
even more galling than the Balfour Declaration, the first Zionists invented a godwho commanded them to commit genocide. After declaring that their god gave
them land which had belonged to other people for hundreds of years, the
spiritual ancestors of today’s Jews and Christians embarked upon a campaign of
mass murder:
In the cities of these peoples that the Lord your God gives you for
an inheritance you shall save alive nothing that breathes, but you
shall utterly destroy them, the Hittites and the Amorites, the
Canaanites and the Perizzites, the Hivites and the Jebusites, as the
Lord your God has commanded (Deuteronomy 20:16-17).
The Jebusites were the people of Jerusalem, and like the other nations that
were slated for destruction, they had no quarrel with the Israelites.
Nevertheless, there can be no doubt that The People Of The Book were bent on
genocide according to the modern definition of the word:
They should be utterly destroyed and should receive no mercy but
be exterminated, as the Lord commanded Moses . . . Utterly
destroy all that they have; do not spare them, but kill both man and
woman, infant and suckling (Joshua 11:20 . . . First Samuel 15:3).
Indeed, this was to be a Holocaust:
You will make them as a blazing oven when you appear. The Lord
will swallow them up in his wrath; and fire will consume them. You
will destroy their offspring from the earth, and their children from
among the sons of men (Psalms 21:9-10; for additional examples of
the commandment to kill people of other religions, and boasts of
having done so, see: Numbers 21:2-3; 21:34-35; 24:8; 24:19-20;
Deuteronomy 2:34; 3:2-6; 3:21; 7:1-2; 7:16; 7:23-24; 9:3; 11:24-
25; 31:3-5; 33:27; Joshua 2:10; 6:21; 8:2; 8:24-26; 10:1; 10:28;
10:35;10:37; 10:39-40; 11:11-14; 11:21; Judges 1:17; 3:29; First
Samuel 15:8; 15:15; 15:18; 15:20; First Chronicles 4:41).
And as explained by Maimonides, Judaism’s most respected scholar of the Bible,
this Holocaust was a mandatory commandment from the god of Jacob, the
patriarch whose name was changed to Israel:
It is a positive commandment to destroy the seven nations, as it is
said: “Thou shalt utterly destroy them.” If one does not put to
death any of them that falls into one’s power, one transgresses a
negative commandment, as it is said: “Thou shalt save alive
nothing that breathes” (Maimonides’ Book of Judges, 5:4, circa.
1195).
�� But the Ten Commandments and the Golden Rule also come from the
Bible. The most famous of the Ten Commandments is “Thou shalt not kill,” and
the Golden Rule says “Love thy neighbor as thy self.” How can this be? In
order to understand the heart of Zionism, this apparent contradiction must be
understood in its original context. Consider three translations of Leviticus
19:18 -- the biblical verse from which the Golden Rule has been extracted:
• Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children
of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. James Version of the Bible, and the first Jewish Publication Society
translation>
• You shall not take vengeance or bear any grudge against the sons
of your own people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself.

• You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against your
countrymen. Love your fellow as yourself. Jewish Publication Society translation>
�� In context, “neighbor” meant “the children of thy people,” “the sons of
your own people,” “your countrymen” -- in other words, fellow Israelites. Keep
this definition of “neighbor” in mind as we consider the proto-legal portion of
The Ten Commandments (Deuteronomy 5:17-21):
Thou shalt not kill.
Neither shalt thou commit adultery.
Neither shalt thou steal.
Neither shalt thou bear false witness against thy neighbour.
Neither shall you covet your neighbor's wife; and you shall
not desire your neighbor's house, his field, or his manservant, or his
maidservant, his ox, or his ass, or anything that is your neighbor's.
-- and remember that there was no punctuation in the original. That is, the
scrolls from which these words were translated have no periods, no commas,
and no first-word capitalization. Decisions about where sentences and
paragraphs begin and end are supplied by the translator. Accordingly, instead
of being written as five separate paragraphs of one sentence each,
Deuteronomy 5:17-21 could be legitimately translated:
Thou shalt not kill, neither shalt thou commit adultery,
neither shalt thou steal, neither shalt thou bear false witness
against thy neighbour. Neither shall you covet your neighbor's
wife, and you shall not desire your neighbor's house, his field, or his
manservant, or his maidservant, his ox, or his ass, or anything that
is your neighbor's.
Here the question ‘Thou shalt not kill who?’ is answered: ‘Thou shalt not kill thy
neighbor . . . the children of thy people . . . the sons of your own people . . .
your countrymen . . . fellow Israelis . . . fellow Jews. How unconventional is this
interpretation? Not very. The rabbis of The Talmud, Judaism’s most respected
explication of the Bible, determined that an Israelite was not liable for murder
unless he intentionally killed a fellow Israelite. Maimonides put it like this (Book
of Torts 5:1:1 . . . 5:2:11):
If one slays a single Israelite, he transgresses a negative
commandment, for Scripture says, Thou Shalt not murder. If one
murders willfully in the presence of witnesses, he is put to death by
the sword . . . Needless to say, one is not put to death if he kills a
heathen.
�� This understanding of “Thou shalt not kill” allows us to see why the first
Commander-and-Chief of the Israeli Defense Forces was not guilty of hypocrisy.
According to the Bible, Joshua initiated the most successful campaign of
genocide in world history -- a campaign in which over 400 named cities were
“utterly destroyed.” The first city to fall was Jericho, where every man, woman
and child was “put to the sword” because they were not People of The Book.
The second city to fall was much smaller, only 12,000 people, but Joshua took
30,000 soldiers to massacre Ai. After a long day of killing he gathered his
troops and carved the Ten Commandments in stone -- including “Thou shalt not
kill” (Joshua 8:24-25, 30-32):
When Israel had finished slaughtering all the inhabitants of Ai . . .
and all of them to the very last had fallen by the edge of the sword
. . . all who fell that day, both men and women, were twelve
thousand, all the people of Ai. . . then Joshua built an altar and
they offered on it burnt offerings to the Lord . . . And there, in the
presence of the people of Israel, he wrote upon the stones a copy
of the law of Moses.
�� Joshua was not a hypocrite because there is no conflict inherent to not
killing “the children of thy people,” while killing other people’s children with
enthusiasm. In fact, Joshua was greatly dismayed about his conquest of Ai
because unlike Jericho, where he did not lose a single soldier, Joshua lost 3
Israelites for every thousand people killed at Ai. Today’s Zionists are more
pleased by such kill ratios:
According to figures provided by Minister of the Interior Yosef Burg,
in 1980 ten Jews were killed by terrorists and in 1981 eight. In
contrast, we have killed about a thousand terrorists in 1982, and
caused the loss of life of thousands of inhabitants of an enemy
country. If so, it results that for every 6-8 Jews sacrificed, we kill
in return thousands of Gentiles. This is, undoubtedly, a spectacular
situation, an uncommon success of Zionism.” (Aluf Hareven, former
head of the Van Leer Institute, on Israel’s invasion of Lebanon, from
Migvan, October/November, 1982)
�� A proper understanding of “the law of Moses” even makes it possible to
comprehend current interpretations of Israeli law ( New York Newsday
10/15/91, p 14):
An Israeli Justice Ministry official suggested in a letter that a
Palestinian benefitted when Israeli soldiers killed his wife. The letter
was written by Pliya Albeck, chief of the civil department at the
attorney general's office, legislator Yossi Sarid said. Israeli radio
said the Palestinian woman, Safiyah Suleiman Gargour, 63, was
beaten and then shot to death by soldiers in May, 1990 while
working in her garden in Khan Yunis in the occupied Gaza Strip.
��
�� “You should claim that the plaintiff has only benefitted from
the death of the deceased (his wife). He has benefitted, because
during her life, he had to provide for her, and now he does not have
to do so.”
�� So it is that from a Zionist perspective, when the brains of seven-year-old
Ali Jawarish came “oozing from a hole in his forehead where he had been shot
at close range by an Israeli soldier firing on fleeing young stone-throwers,” it
was not wrong. It did not disrupt “the grand opening of a new fortified complex
encasing Rachel’s Tomb.” It did not dampen “The festivities, attended by
hundreds of strictly Orthodox Jews, Defense Minister Yitzhak Mordechai and
Israel’s two Chief Rabbis.” It did not violate any of the Ten Commandments
while “Women in kerchiefs and long dresses and men in black coats and hats
lighted memorial candles and swayed over prayer-books in separate prayer
sections,” and “Followers of a Hasidic sect hawked religious books and danced
to religious music blaring from loudspeakers” while Yitzhak Mordechai told the
crowd “We have come to this place and we will never leave it, until the coming
of the redeemer” (New York Times, November 12, 1997).
�� No, to Zionists the killing of Ali Jawarish was not wrong. To Zionists the
family of Ali Jawarish has only benefitted, because during Ali’s life, they had to
provide for him, and now they do not have to do so. For more secular Jewish
and Christian Zionists, the killing of Ali Jawarish was not wrong because it was
just one more unfortunate incident in the natural unfolding of history . . . it was
just another day. But for religious Zionists, the killing a Ali Jawarish was not
wrong because he was a heathen.
�� Indeed, for religious Zionists, this killing was more than the natural
unfolding of history. It was supernatural. According to the most vicious and
long-lived delusion that has ever plagued the human capacity for fantasy,
according to Zionism, this oozing of a seven-year-old’s blood and brains was the
will of god.
�� Who are these people . . . these Zionists? In fact, although most Jews are
Zionists, most Zionists are Christians. Remember that Christianity is a form of
Judaism. Christians worship the god of the Jews and an individual Jew who they
believe to be that god’s son. They believe that the Israelites were right to kill
the people of Jericho, Ai, Jerusalem and all the other cities in the land that
became Israel. More important, they believe that today’s Jews have a god-given
right to Palestine. Most important, although Christian Zionism is relatively
dilute, there are hundreds of millions of Christian Zionists.
�� How can Palestinians defend themselves against so many religious
fantasies lurking in the hearts of so many people? The key insight, I think, is
that a fundamental sense of justice also lives in the vast majority of those
hearts. At one end of the spectrum, that sense of justice is overwhelmed by
allegiance to the god of genocide, but at the other end of the spectrum, that
sense of justice can be caused to overwhelm a dimly perceived identification
with Zionist perversions of justice.
�� Of what use is that insight? It leads to the realization that an appeal to
the sense of justice that lives within the most just hearts could have a profound
effect. Those hearts could, in turn, have a profound effect on hearts of
moderate Zionists, and those hearts could have a profound effect on more
ardent Zionists, and so on down the line until only the Zealots would be left.
Fortunately, the Jabotinskys, Meir Kahanes, Baruch Goldsteins, Yigal Amirs and
Netanyahus of this world are such a small minority that they could be
overwhelmed by better people’s sense of justice.
�� How could a chain reaction of justice be initiated? Here the key is to
propose a just solution -- a solution that will appeal the first link in the chain.
Again, I urge Palestinians to propose a new nation -- a final settlement in which
Israel, without the Golan Heights, joins the West Bank and Gaza. This new
country should not be called Israel and it should not be called Palestine. Any
other name would be acceptable, but I suggest New Canaan.
�� All current inhabitants of Israel, the West Bank and Gaza would be citizens
of New Canaan, and no citizen would be discriminated against, or receive
privileges, on the basis of religion. People residing outside of New Canaan who
were born in Israel or whose parents were born in Israel, the West Bank or Gaza
could immigrate to New Canaan with their family and receive automatic
citizenship. Otherwise, immigration policy should be determined by a
democratically elected government in any manner that would not discriminate
by religious affiliation.
�� Because the United States has been critically responsible for creating the
circumstances which require such a major solution, America should guarantee
the security of New Canaan’s international borders for fifteen years subsequent
to its creation and grant expedited U.S. citizenship to any former Israeli citizen
of New Canaan who wishes to immigrate to the United States.
�� Boys throw stones because they do not know a better way to fight for
justice. Zealots kill them and they would gladly kill every non-Jew who lives in
any land that they believe their god gave them “for an inheritance.” For the
sake of the boys who throw stones, for the sake of their courage, and for the
sake of their objective, let us find a better way to fight for justice.
www.StrugglesForExistence.com

User Avatar
Olu AffairsOlu Affairs is offline

 # 3 | 04.02.2009 06:45

Brilliant one Chief. I've been asked same question so many times by my four year old and like so many fathers, have yet been able to give any satisfactory answer. Don't know what's going on here on NVS but seems there is a shift in the past few days or so to a week from the doom and gloom stories about our homeland to more refreshing articles. More grease to your elbows brothers and may ink never dry from your pens

User Avatar
charles4ucharles4u is offline

 # 4 | 04.02.2009 07:00


=Olu Affairs;321402>Brilliant one Chief. I've been asked same question so many times by my four year old and like so many fathers, have yet been able to give any satisfactory answer. Don't know what's going on here on NVS but seems there is a shift in the past few days or so to a week from the doom and gloom stories about our homeland to more refreshing articles. More grease to your elbows brothers and may ink never dry from your pens



And I hope you dont find any of the above as a satisfactory anwser to give to your son.

User Avatar
valteenavalteena is offline

 # 5 | 04.02.2009 07:20


=charles4u;321407>And I hope you dont find any of the above as a satisfactory anwser to give to your son.



:D:D:D. Yo charles4u I beg no kill someone with laughter here. That was so funny. What if he finds it a satisfactory answer for his son?. Which one come be your own inside.:D:D.

User Avatar
DeepThoughtDeepThought is offline

 # 6 | 04.02.2009 07:30

Who made God?
A question we've all asked. But an impossible one to answer at this time and maybe forever.

Can be frustating eh?

The honest answer to tell your child is "I don't know"

And then tell her its part of her life's quest to contemplate this and to try and find out if she can. It may even be a part of the quest of life for all of us

User Avatar
Olu AffairsOlu Affairs is offline

 # 7 | 04.02.2009 07:44

Otunba C4u
My reply was meant for or referring to the main article o, didn't even bother reading all that from Mr Londoner.

User Avatar
Prince CharlesPrince Charles is offline

 # 8 | 04.02.2009 14:36

Who made God?? the right answer is God made God. Never use Him or Her to answer that else you will be asked another question you cannot answer.

User Avatar
PalamedesPalamedes is offline

 # 9 | 04.02.2009 19:55

It is best not to feed children with lies. The trick my parents used to play on me when I asked them very difficult questions was to say to me: “What do you think?”

Now, if I met an alien from outer space (with far superior intelligence), my one and only question would be: “How can something be created out of void?” (BTW, this is another way of asking, “who created god?”) But even then, I don't think I (or for that matter any human being) would be able to understand the answer. What we understand; what is given is what Mary Shelley describes in Frankenstein:

"Everything must have a beginning...; and that beginning must be linked to something that went before it.”

Assuming the aliens know the answer, it would still be too advanced for human comprehension. The answer will not only be counter-intuitive, that is, counter to the the notion of, “a beginning linked to something that went before it,” but will drive the human race to mass insanity.
 

Services : E-mail news | RSS Feeds | Podcasts
Links:   About the NVS | Contact Us | Terms of Use | Privacy & Cookies | Advertise With Us
All Rights Reserved. NigeriaVillageSquare.com