yommyuk:

Are u happy now? So u are feeling cool eh? All you are doing is letting out steam of frustration.
Lost soul. Satan is waiting for your arse in hell rude boy

Store up that steam ok, becos Hell fire is going to be hotter. That thick head of yours which satan has covered with spiritual darkness will burn so tey, mummy and daddy won't be able to help u out. And that tongue that u re using to blaspleme will melt like candle in hell. This is not a curse but a reality check. LOST ONE!

As for me, don't worry I am on the right path.
Not too late bro

yommyuk:

Agnostic Deism, hmmmm, nice!. . . . . .I like this thread. . . . .
Nice
I will call it unfortunate, ridiculous and pitiful

The Christian faith is being challenged and u call that nice? Hmm God forgive u!!!
Do u guys know the meaning of faith at all. Surely not. Even witches and wizards acknowledge the existence of God. Even satan your father acknowledges his existence.

As christians, "Faith" to us is having confidence that what we hope for will actually happen. Giving us assurance about things we CANNOT SEE.
This is not a feel good factor. Nay! Instead Faith to us involves CONFIDENT ACTION in RESPONSE to what God has made known to us by the Holy Spirit. Faith comes into play in a variety of life's circumstances. The results of faith are also various. Some people get rescued, acheive success in life, and get some of what GOD has promised in their lifetimes. Multiple instances. Things that happen beyond ones capability and comprehension.

You may ask me "What does it mean to live by faith?" or is this posting relevant to the topic discussed above. But I put it before you ,We live out our belief "that God exists and that he rewards those who sincerely seek him" Those who live by faith take confident action based on what God has revealed about his character, seeking to do his will in all things.

Whose will are u lot advocating? The truth lies within you and that is the "Breath of Life" God gave u without no charge. 

Sagamite:

And yes I know what faith is. One thing it definitely is not is fact.

Faith is hope. To practice it, you do not have to question it, just hope it is right and have hope it would solve your problems.

It is not assurance, it is insurance. You can pay all the premium but there is no guarantee you will need it.

Nothing people with faith have achieved or can achieve that those without can or have not.

yommyuk:

@ Sagamite

Retarded not, and beef, why?
I did not attack @Mazage. All I said is that this concept "Agnostic Deism" is unfortunate, ridiculous and pitiful. That is my opinion and I have a right to express it. And what did I get for my opinion, this : "Pity yourself and your blind beliefs in the baseless and ridiculous myths and Jewish folklore that you have been systematically indoctrinated to believe in since childhood and not me. 

yommyuk:

Agnostic Deism, hmmmm, nice!. . . . . .I like this thread. . . . .
Nice
I will call it unfortunate, ridiculous and pitiful

The Christian faith is being challenged and u call that nice? Hmm God forgive u!!!
Do u guys know the meaning of faith at all. Surely not. Even witches and wizards acknowledge the existence of God. Even satan your father acknowledges his existence. . . . . .

yommyuk:

When someone attacks my Faith, surely I am obliged to defend.

yommyuk:

In regards to your explanation on "Faith". I can just express my disappointment and try and enhance your awareness. Faith is deep. Faith can achieve the impossible. Surely, there are different kinds of faith. You can express it in different ways. But the Xtain faith is supreme. All this so called Oyinbo theories are just pure "spiritual foolishness."  Do you know what Spiritual Foolishness is? . U are from Sagamu right? and u are thinking like this. Thank God for Oyinboland

Bro, U better wake up from your slumber. You are looking at the world with your unclothed(physical) eye. Look deep within yourself and use your inner eye. Retarded eh? Who know know, no go  know You are from Sagamu right and u are thinking like 'OPE'. OMO TAJI

Jenwitemi:

I hope you guys will not forget to discuss "agnostic atheism" as well.

Deep Sight:

@ Sagamite -

Getting back on track. . .

You had stated at the outset that you see intelligent order and purpose in the universe and that this persuades you of the existence of God or Gods.

You had further agreed with me that there are laws written into creation.

Now these statements evince a subscription on your part to the quality of Intelligence within the Creator.

I feel that that is at variance with agnosticism of any sort, because as you noted the agnostic asserts that he does not know and cannot know anything about God - whereas you have indicated that you believe you do know at least one thing - namely that it (God(S)) has at least the quality of intelligence. That is therefore not agnostic.

On the other hand the very term "agnostic deism" might be considered contradictory. For the Agnostic sets out that he does not know and cannot know. The Deist however recognises the existence of God and even divine laws within creation. In your case, you also recognised the quality of intelligence.

Please reconcile these.

Cheers.

yommyuk:

Omo(@Sagamite), looking at the above, surely u need deliverance.
What a shame

Sagamite:

OK, I agree that I have one expectation of [a] God(s), which is the premise of the differentiator that classifies the unknown as a God. That expectation is "Ultimate Intelligence".

It is like going to a snow filled North Pole area and seeing footprints on the ground in the snow. That is evidence enough to suggest a living thing has passed through that section of recent. One does not necessarily know for sure if that is the case, but a known phenomena of existence and its impact (dent in snow) suggest that that is the case. One cannot know what animal type it is for sure (assuming one is not an expert of footprints or snow/wind have corrupted the prints). One still expects it will be a living thing that leaves footprints.

In regards to contradictory, I think it is not that contradictory. A Deist believes there is a God somewhere, somehow but does not know for sure as he has not seen it/him/her/[new word], neither can the deist prove the existence. An Agnostic fits well within that knowing limitation.

sesman:

This is a fascinating discussion, am subscribing, Sagamite mo gbadun e

SCYLLA:

Sagamite permission to use a quote from you as my status!

Deep Sight:

So we are at a concensus-ad-idem that there are indeed somethings that may be discerned concerning God.

Deep Sight:

I entirely agree with this. However for footprints to be seen, then we can safely conclude that the creature (a) was alive and moves (b) moved upon that surface (c) has feet (d) is not a creature such as a Fish or amoeba which has no feet . . . etc. . .

Now that is already quite a lot to discern, and as such in no event will we be able to say that we are agnostic concerning those footprints, yes?

In the same way I invite you to see that although God will always remain a mystery, there are a few things about God that can indeed be discerned - and rationally so, for that matter.

Deep Sight:

Permit me to slightly disagree with this. I feel that the deist viewpoint regarding the existence of God is based on reason and logic. By this I mean such basic reasoning as the law of cause and effect, the cosmological argument, etc.

So long as we accede that 0 +0 = 0, we can logically infer that given that the universe is a something. then it could not have emerged from nothingness - as no amount if zeros will ever amount to a quantity however described.

Sagamite:

You need a brain wash and scrubbing.

Or, better still, a brain extermination.

All this in the name of being the most friendly nairalander.

Not too sure!

yommyuk:

@ Deep Sight

I am enjoying your flow. Your approach is sound. Give this 'SAGAMITE' some home truths.
I am out of here. Can't stand the bloke. And that's the honest truth

Deep Sight:

Further, regarding your contention that God's existence may not be proved - what do you think of these arguments made by Thomas Aquinas?

"I answer that it can be proved in five ways that God exists.

The first and plainest is the method that proceeds from the point of view of motion. It is certain and in accord with experience, that things on earth undergo change. Now, everything that is moved is moved by something; nothing, indeed, is changed, except it is changed to something which it is in potentiality. Moreover, anything moves in accordance with something actually existing; change itself, is nothing else than to bring forth something from potentiality into actuality. Now, nothing can be brought from potentiality to actual existence except through something actually existing: thus heat in action, as fire, makes fire-wood, which is hot in potentiality, to be hot actually, and through this process, changes itself. The same thing cannot at the same time be actually and potentially the same thing, but only in regard to different things. What is actually hot cannot be at the same time potentially hot, but it is possible for it at the same time to be potentially cold. It is impossible, then, that anything should be both mover and the thing moved, in regard to the same thing and in the same way, or that it should move itself. Everything, therefore, is moved by something else. If, then, that by which it is moved, is also moved, this must be moved by something still different, and this, again, by something else. But this process cannot go on to infinity because there would not be any first mover, nor, because of this fact, anything else in motion, as the succeeding things would not move except because of what is moved by the first mover, just as a stick is not moved except through what is moved from the hand. Therefore it is necessary to go back to some first mover, which is itself moved by nothing---and this all men know as God.

The second proof is from the nature of the efficient cause. We find in our experience that there is a chain of causes: nor is it found possible for anything to be the efficient cause of itself, since it would have to exist before itself, which is impossible. Nor in the case of efficient causes can the chain go back indefinitely, because in all chains of efficient causes, the first is the cause of the middle, and these of the last, whether they be one or many. If the cause is removed, the effect is removed. Hence if there is not a first cause, there will not be a last, nor a middle. But if the chain were to go back infinitely, there would be no first cause, and thus no ultimate effect, nor middle causes, which is admittedly false. Hence we must presuppose some first efficient cause---which all call God.

The third proof is taken from the natures of the merely possible and necessary. We find that certain things either may or may not exist, since they are found to come into being and be destroyed, and in consequence potentially, either existent or non-existent. But it is impossible for all things that are of this character to exist eternally, because what may not exist, at length will not. If, then, all things were merely possible (mere accidents), eventually nothing among things would exist. If this is true, even now there would be nothing, because what does not exist, does not take its beginning except through something that does exist. If then nothing existed, it would be impossible for anything to begin, and there would now be nothing existing, which is admittedly false. Hence not all things are mere accidents, but there must be one necessarily existing being. Now every necessary thing either has a cause of its necessary existence, or has not. In the case of necessary things that have a cause for their necessary existence, the chain of causes cannot go back infinitely, just as not in the case of efficient causes, as proved. Hence there must be presupposed something necessarily existing through its own nature, not having a cause elsewhere but being itself the cause of the necessary existence of other things---which all call God.

The fourth proof arises from the degrees that are found in things. For there is found a greater and a less degree of goodness, truth, nobility, and the like. But more or less are terms spoken of various things as they approach in diverse ways toward something that is the greatest, just as in the case of hotter (more hot) which approaches nearer the greatest heat. There exists therefore something that is the truest, and best, and most noble, and in consequence, the greatest being. For what are the greatest truths are the greatest beings, as is said in the Metaphysics Bk. II. 2. What moreover is the greatest in its way, in another way is the cause of all things of its own kind (or genus); thus fire, which is the greatest heat, is the cause of all heat, as is said in the same book (cf. Plato and Aristotle). Therefore there exists something that is the cause of the existence of all things and of the goodness and of every perfection whatsoever---and this we call God.

The fifth proof [/b]arises from the ordering of things for we see that some things which lack reason, such as natural bodies, are operated in accordance with a plan. It appears from this that they are operated always or the more frequently in this same way the closer they follow what is the Highest; whence it is clear that they do not arrive at the result by chance but because of a purpose. The things, moreover, that do not have intelligence do not tend toward a result unless directed by some one knowing and intelligent; just as an arrow is sent by an archer. Therefore there is something intelligent by which all natural things are arranged in accordance with a plan---and this we call God. "

First and foremost, let me say that Thomas Aquinas is a poor writer. Gaddamit, the guy's writing has better effects than valium tablets. 

[b]Analysis of his work

Nah, I will not scoff!

I used to be an Iconoclast on all these belief about juju and the rest until I saw this:

<youtube video>

Now, I find it hard to believe that is an illusion!!!

If these guy has the ability to do this, why can some not have in different spheres?

So some may have powers that are unexplained that we do not have or, if we do have, have not been able to discover and harness.

Or maybe I am wrong, and that was just some perfect illusion.

There are two basic methods ,
1) Clothes are designed for fast removal
2) They are not removed but drop (flap down) to reveal the garment underneath and the inside of the lowered part.

It's a combination of these that makes it complicated, together with the fact that they are specially designed, very very light stage costumes in silk so that when you start with say 10 layers on it appears normal.

An example of each method:
1) The clothes are not buttoned or zipped ,  would take way too long. They have loop and eye fixings and these are held together with a thread that runs through the paired up loops. The thread simply need fast removal and the clothes fall of, drop down ,  whatever. The fastest 'hands free' removal is to have a 'ring' on the top of the thread and this is hooked over something on the 'cover' ie the unmbrella, screen, sheet etc and when you walk away or this is removed it pulls the thread and gravity does the rest. (Note; lead shot in hems would make it drop faster!)

2) Imagine a dress with the top half is a different colour on the inside and you wera a matching top underneath. If the top is separated at the shoulders, it can now flap downwards and become the skirt ,  showing the inside colour and the new top. Instant change.

Combine several of these to change designs, sleeves no sleeves, high neck, low neck ,  and that's it.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

For the glitter trick, they most likely used a technology where the clothes are made with either lcd sensors or small triggers that work like human muscles. For the lcd, a person offstage could simply signal the outfit to change color and design. With the muscle-like triggers, clothes can either be released or--more commonly--draw up or down to give the illusion of a different piece of clothing.

KunleOshob:

^^^
I see the NL bug has caught up with yommyuk the yommyuk I knew used to be very gentle with words and patient. I guess NL has a way of bringing out the beast in us.

Pastor AIO:

me sef, I looked back on some posts and I thought 'damn, that doesn't sound like me'. So I'm in the process of exorcising this NL bug because I don't think that it is spiritually beneficial. In fact I think it is demonic and I believe I know where the demons are coming from but to say it would be succumbing to them once again.