₦airaland Forum

Seun:
Sasuke would have won. The sharingan sees all, and the chidori pierces all! Neji is seriously over-rated!!

I don't remember Sasuke having chidori at the time of the exam. Besides, Sasuke has been beaten - think Gaara or that ninja w/ his brother - so the sharingan isn't a beat-all weapon. As far as the storyline goes, at the time, Neji's preparation is on par with Sasuke's. It's hard to really decide who'd have come out on top.

Keep in mind this is a show where Naruto routinely beats ninja who's skills *should* be way above his.

Another thing, both sharingan and byakugan consume chakra when in use. I think a battle between them would come down to their abilities at taijutsu where they're probably pretty well matched up.

Drugs are the slippery slope to other behaviors. You should drop the guy.

[quote author=Princess-J link=topic=5657.msg589217#msg589217 date=1157238650]I'm against the idea of parents choosing their childrens life partners 99%. the other 1% is reserved for situations whereby the parents are worried and can forsee that what your gettin into is not the best for you, because remember parents are always more wiser as they've experienced some things that even us as children, maybe, cannot even comprehend![/quote]Umm, children should not be getting married.

Niggy:
?why are some people getting hitchy about LINUX. Torvaldo said " if you use or don't use linux you do him no favor, "

Exactly, Linus is right. Do yourself a favor, use Windows.

Memunah:
though am not married but if i eventually get married i can't submit my paycheck to my hubby what does he need it for?i can't!!!!!!!!!!!!!

How do you plan on paying bills? Buying a house? Being fiscally responsible? Whether you directly hand someone a check or the two of you manage a joint account, some way, it has to happen.

BTW - you must have a joint account - spending of money in a marriage must be accountable to both people.

somegirl:
@Allonym: I like your argumentation here in this thread!

What do you think about the "procedure which involves mixing parts of the eggs of two women together to help them have babies"? (http://www.eogn.com/archives/news9841.htm) To me it seems a bit scary but is it actually that much different from "normale" in-vitro fertilization?

Thanks. As for your question - I'm not surprised that such procedures exist. People are biased towards having their "own" kids.

ladex142:
@topic
No, because at the long run these children would start to think that there's nothing wrong with Homosexuality

This is probably the most honest response from those saying "No". I disagree though that there is something wrong with homosexuality.

Seun:
Assuming that God is powerless to prevent hell from becoming a place of torment for human beings, he must at least have known what would happen before it happened. If so, then he shouldn't have created hell or Satan.

Ok - let me clear up a few things.

#1. Foremost in God's plan for humanity is free will. Without that, nothing else that God did would remotely make sense to us.

#2. Hell exists currently as the dwelling place of Satan and his demons. Currently no human beings are there - they only go there at the return of Christ.

#3. The torment that people go through in hell is not of being BURNED - the bible does NOT say this at all. The torment people go through is because they are separated from God. The bible repeatedly states that being apart from God is the worst thing that can happen to a person.

#4. So, because we have free will, we must be able to choose between God. . . and not God. If God did not have an alternative, then we couldn't exercise free will, because there would be no other choice.

This is what the bible says about the lake of fire (which people erroneously assume means burning torment for eternity)

Rev 20:14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.

Rev 20:15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

As you can see, being cast into the lake is death. A second (and final) death. It is not forever. I'm sure if more people take time to read Revelations, they'll quickly see that the bible only mentions three people for torment: Satan, his beast, and his anti-christ.

Rev 20:10 And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet [are], and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

Umm. . .

Yes and No.

Yes - when there is physical abuse involved, the person recieving the abuse should tell their family members, and/or pastor, iman or whoever is of religious authority over them. There should be ZERO tolerance of physical abuse. If someone is beating you, there are immensely serious problems that you cannot resolve on your own.

No - for most other issues, the answer is no. However, if there is a recurring problem that cannot seem to be resolved - a serious thing - ie not being able to rid oneself of the habit of biting nails is not a serious problem, then you can also goto a third party (again family member, pastor/iman or this time a counselor).

Now, if you are called in as a third party, a few things to keep in mind:

1) Make sure you don't take any sides - no marriage issue is 100% one person's fault. It will be impossible for you to ever know all the details, so you will never be in a position to judge one person over the other.
2) Make sure before you get started, you iron out with both people how much authority you are being given over resolving this conflict. If they just want someone to listen to them, then yes, then you should politely tell them that they should be talking to themselves.
3) If you feel that you cannot handle counseling them, then don't. They're better off with someone else or by themselves.

I've got plenty of interests in robotics. If you want to see one that I've built, check this out:

login to my ftp server: ftp://129.21.251.157 with username: oopic and password: balbot

I know the video is pretty large. . . I'll work on recoding it to reduce the size - but a dsl connection should get it within a few minutes. . . 56k downloaders. . .umm. . yeah, i'm working on a smaller one for you!

My thesis is mostly AI stuff, I've worked on robots for FIRST robotics (a high school competition in the USA) as well as IGVC (http://www.igvc.org) another competition that is held within the USA (though it is an international competition - this past year there were teams from Canada, India, and Japan).

[quote author=mlks_baby link=topic=8421.msg465710#msg465710 date=1151908110]And it was okay for the Egyptians to continue to hold the Israelites in bondage even after several warnings to Pharaoh to let them go? Quaint.[/quote]I never said that. I was responding to someone's assetation that God does not visit things such as disease unto people.

But, for the sake of argument, lets look at your post. You imply that God was justified in KILLING the first born of the Egyptians simply because they disobeyed him. Because he is God. Let us keep in mind, God claims to be a being so great and beyond us, we cannot comprehend him. It is like the intellectual difference between a parent (or a person of authority) and a child. Now, if God was a human being, say a school principal, and he killed all the children in a classroom who were born in january, because the class repeated disobeyed him, God would be in jail, tried, and readied for execution. Am I the only person who sees the irony in this?

TayoD:
Your response to the tithing issue suggests you have not read my arguments about tithing before now. I have stated according to the Book of hebrews that a Priest has two functions: 1. To offer Gifts, and 2. to ofer sacrifices. We see Melchizedek offer Gifts in the form of the tithe, and we see the Levitical priests offer gifts and sacrifices as well. Jesus, being a Priest must necessarily offer gifts and sacrifices as well. If the sacrifice He offered is His blood, which He did once and for all, what is the gift that He now offers? If the gifts we see before and during the law (the tithe) were a tenth of an increase, why would it be different with the High Priesthood of our Lord today which the Bible says is after the order of Melchizedek? I have plainly stated my positions based on scripture, and i'm yet to get a satisfying answer from anyone. If you have any, please be kind to share it with me.

Maybe it's your experience, but I have never known anyone today comparing Pastors to the Priests in the Old Testament. I hope you will explain this further.

Well, this alone illustrates an issue with your posts. On the one hand, you indicate that there is a currently a High Priesthood. Secondly, you say that the High Priesthood is after the order of Melchizedek. Thirdly, you point out that Melchizedek gave tithes and offerings unto God. So, the immediate implication of your words, whether this is what your meant or not, is that the High Priesthood is in the business of presenting BOTH tithes and offerings unto the Lord.

Now, what is the point of your making all of those statements? After all, if none of us humans are a part of this High Priesthood, then it is easy to demonstrate that tithing is not a required (albeit so far an implicit rather than explicit) requirement of our service to the Lord.

So, assuming that none of us are members of this High Prieshood (including our pastors), your post currently does not advocate the required paying of tithes.

This will fall in line with your assertation that you never meant that pastors of today were similar to pastors of the OT. Since you have already attempted to form a strong linkage between the High Prieshood and OT priesthood, this would also imply that you are saying that pastors of today are not of that high priesthood.
-----------------------------------------------------

This is the problem. One or more of those conclusions from your statement, I'm sure you disagree with. However, those are the conclusions I draw from what you've posted, and I'm sure, what many people also see from your post. I'd be interested in hearing where I may have gone wrong.


----------------------------------------------------
Now, for a slightly different issue: I have about 12 days to complete writing up my Master's thesis. So, while I'd enjoy going through and fulfilling some of the requests to give more discussion over the topics I presented in my previous post. . . they may be slow in coming.

[quote author=mlks_baby link=topic=2496.msg465707#msg465707 date=1151907336]I really don't think there's any use playing around this issue. Whatever your persuasions, my rejoinder stands as is, with clear reference to the case in point that non-believers are usually up in arms with the same complaint that believers are 'forcing their beliefs on them', unless you just want to keep ignoring the fact that Reverend made that complaint.[/quote]Again, you are wrong. Reverend did not make that statement. I dare you to quote or link to where he did.

[quote author=mlks_baby link=topic=2496.msg465707#msg465707 date=1151907336]As for the matter of respecting people's beliefs and convictions, you should read carefully your lines again and see that you're the one missing the point with so much concern for the word "bigotry". In the ordinary sense, that simply means intolerance for differing ideas or beliefs. One doesn't have to be deliberately derisive at the beliefs and convictions of others that differ from his/hers, even though the ideas of others may sound like bullsh*t to them.[/quote]There is no ordinary sense for the word bigot any more than there is an ordinary sense for the word racist which means "any intolerance or difference between people of different skin color". If that is the case, then everyone is a racist, a bigot, and many other things. . . and that would further make your point . . . pointless.

[quote author=mlks_baby link=topic=2496.msg465707#msg465707 date=1151907336]I've held intelligent discourses with people on this Forum who still disagree with me as a Christian and yet continue to win my respect for not using such disagreements as opportunity to be deliberately derisive to the extent of being bigoted/intolerant. You may not want to listen any further to whatever points they put across, but to be intentionally disrespectful as a matter of course is unethical, whether or not you agree with that . At the end of the day, the discussants may come away disagreeing on loads of issues - but is it therefore necessary to be disrespectful of the other person's convictions simply because you don't agree with them? When you see that as the necessary thing to do, then you'd have to play on a re-definition of bigotry.[/quote]Hmm, well, if somebody tells me " I believe in ghosts" and I respond, "Ghosts are hogwash" and your response is to tell me that I'm a bigot. . . well hot damn, I guess I am. If this is your definition of bigotry, well, crucify me now. There is not much more I can say to you. Like I mentioned in my previous post, one cannot have a discussion without agreement on the ground terms. We clearly disagree on the meaning of bigot. At this point, I cannot see how we can expect to have further discussions, this series of posts on the same topic is proof enough of that limitation.

think up some way to really surprise her when she returns.

I'd say, "hey, this is a private lesson!"

what would you do if your gf went away for 2 months?

I'd say, bring that fiesty cat right here, I've got just the medicine to fix that right up.

what would you do if I told you her pussy wasn't a cat?

Drusilla:
Aids is just a consequence of sin in this world.

No different than drunk drivers.

Not everybody who dies in a drunk driving crash is guilty of a crime.

just like not everyone who dies from aids is guilty of a sin. Just because you die from something, doesn't mean that God didn't cause it. Didn't God have all the firstborn of the Egyptians killed to get the Israelites released from slavery? What sins did the babies that God killed commit? Its not like they chose to be born Egyptian, after all, that is in God's hands.

[quote author=mlks_baby link=topic=2496.msg462620#msg462620 date=1151736201]@allonym,

I'm not surprised that you'd come back and display some prejudice already. "Here, it is always the christians who claim someone is forcing their beliefs on them," you said? Then you assume Reverend is a Christian - just because he goes by that user ID? Please, scroll back and re-read his entries, especially his most recent on this thread.[/quote]I'm not sure if I should bother responding to this given your last post in this topic, but I will go ahead anyway. No, I'm not talking about Reverend here. On the contrary, I'm talking about someone who claimed Reverend was forcing his beliefs onto them, simply because he challenged their view of christianity.

[quote author=mlks_baby link=topic=2496.msg462620#msg462620 date=1151736201]'Holding on to some stupid idea' could also be viewed in the context of what one believes as a non-religious person, because on most occasions when discussing with people on various fora, I find they cannot logically defend their choices. The best they could do is either resort to denial of what they don't know nor understand about religion and spiritualty, and I could respect them for that. However, you may not see a need to respect people's views, choices or persuasions in religious contexts - and to therefore disrespect their beliefs or persuasions is rascally, to say the least. Even when I disagree with you or your views, how should that warrant a disrespect towards you or what you believe?

The problem with bigotry (intolerance of differing ideas or beliefs, prejudice) is basically that it's unethical in all its forms. Even when you don't expand it to include people going out to kill others, bigotry against someone's belief is as unethical as disrespecting them for that - just because they are religious and you are not. Of course, I can't make sense of people killing others for whatever religious convictions they hold - and more often than not, I disavow and decry such tendencies, and try to do so respectfully. Talking to and holding dialogues with people (as you are doing here with me) could and should promote tolerance and understanding across board, as long as we show deference both ways and not resort to unethical means of conveying our views. Big difference, wouldn't you agree?[/quote]Not quite. First, I disagree with what you are attempting to describe as ethical. You are still missing the point. If one time as a child, you stole a piece of candy and your parents caught you, does that justify them calling you a thief for the rest of your life even if you never did anything like that again? NO. It is not bigotry if I think or express my opinion that your idea is crap. That is NOT the definition of bigotry. You see, if you are going to use a word like bigotry, you should use it correctly. You are setting up yourself for trouble by using terms like that when it is not warranted. Just like you wouldn't like it if your parent's called you a thief for the rest of your life for a one time youthful mistake, you should be careful when you attempt to paint someone as a bigot.

So, your argument, that saying some person's idea is unethical or is some form of bigotry, I disagree with. Your argument that we should show some sort of deference to ideas that we don't agree with or don't think have any merit, I disagree with. The only things that should be respected are those that most people will agree is true. If you or I say 1 + 1 = 2, as part of a discussion, no matter which side we are on, and no matter how much we dislike the other person's point of view, we have no choice but to agree that the person is correct. If I start talking about ghosts and aliens, what value is that to our argument? Those things don't exist, or have not been verified to exist, so you have no reason to accept them as a valid piece of an argument. If you don't accept them, are you, for the sake of deference, going to still continue to have a conversation with me, pretending that the crap I was just saying makes sense. I wouldn't. That is just bullsh*t.

If a person wants to have a discussion, then let us discuss. However, whenever you bring up things like ghosts or God, things which no human can positively give evidence of existing, you must be prepared to defend your statements with logic, reason, and solid tangible evidence. Without those things, there is no point listening to you or continuing the discussion. If you pretend deference towards that, then you are just humoring the other person by allowing them to continue to talk, even though you totally disagree with them.

I guess this is out of order, but arguments are supposed to go like this. You are supposed to present point which both sides agree are true. You use those points to show that your argument is correct. If neither side agrees that something is true, how can you ever reach agreement? How can you ever demonstrate you are correct? What is the point of even discussing the issue? Its like giving two students rulers in different units and telling them to measure the length of some object and arrive at a consensus as to what that length is. If both students believe they are using the same metric, they will never reach agreement. If both students believe their ruler is the only absolute correct measuring device, they will never reach agreement. The only way they can do so is to discuss the differences between their measuring devices and AGREE in advance over a conversion factor. THEN, they can make measurements, and reach agreement. Without having a consistent set of ground rules, concepts, ideas, or even rulers for an argument, you will never be able to reach agreement with the other person.

The point of an argument is not necessarily to win, it is more to demonstrate to the other person that not only are you correct, but also, they possessed all the information to know you were correct, it just so happened that they were misinterpreting one critical part.

TayoD:
Drusilla,

I am not a Preacher and I find the need to pay tithe in the New Testament. Concerning the dietary laws, I will advice you go through the Gospels and find out what Jesus had to say about it. Till then, please try to provide biblical refernces to back up your claims. It appears your emotions have run ahead of you in this case.

Cheers.

TayoD, are you seriously suggesting that there are NO dietary laws in the bible. Ok. . .I will provide a scripture here: Ye shall keep my statutes. Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind: thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed: neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woollen come upon thee. - Leviticus 19:19.

So, we don't follow this scripture now TayoD. So, why is it that we must tithe (as directed in the old testament) but we can wear clothing made of linen and wool? The new testament does not say that we should tithe, in fact, according to the new testament, the priesthood of old has been abolished. We no longer need priests as we can directly present our prayers to God. (If you need scripture backing of this, let me know).

Many times I see people attempt to say that pastors today are analagous to the priests of old. This demonstrates ignorance of many things, 1) What priests are and their role in society, 2) What pastors are and their role 3) What the bible says about the priesthood's influence in our lives after the death and resurrection of Jesus christ.

and why can't handsome guys look for sugar mommies? You think sugar mommies grow on trees?

[quote author=*Shentz* link=topic=8421.msg458168#msg458168 date=1151520649]God will not send diseases to harm his children. Its the devil[/quote]funny, God has done it before

what is gay about it?

[quote author=mlks_baby link=topic=2496.msg452195#msg452195 date=1151306966]Exactly - for the one who disagrees with Christianity is usually first to cry "people forcing their beliefs" on them.[/quote]Except, it is the opposite on this forum. Here, it is always the christians who claim someone is forcing their beliefs on them.

[quote author=mlks_baby link=topic=2496.msg452192#msg452192 date=1151306365]In just the same way that when discussing with non-religious folks we respect their convictions/persuasions and not think them classified as hogwash. Common sense should tell one just where to draw the lines between bigotry and deference to the convictions that people hold.[/quote]Hmm, i see. Except there is a problem. If you are holding on to some stupid idea, I don't feel a need to respect it. If you cannot logically defend your choice, I don't feel a need to respect it. Bigotry is definied as: Prejudice carried to the extreme of overt hatred, often carried to the point of violence. I suppose if the more I talk to a person, the more I feel they don't have an ounce of sense in their heads, I will begin to ignore them and think they have nothing worthwhile to contribute to future conversation. But. . . everybody develops those kinds of prejudice. However, bigotry is more than the normal human prejudice to things they don't like or are not interested in. Bigotry includes overt hatred. I don't hate people I disagree with. I don't go out attacking them on the streets. The bigots are the people who go out and kill christians or muslims just because they disagree with them being christians or muslims. I'm here talking to you about it, there is a big difference!

Showing deference to people's beliefs comes from us living in a world where if you are not careful who you are speaking to, you could end up dead for speaking contrary to some person's religion.

so cool:
Ajisafe

I know pastor Abiara very well, and its a lie," no 419 guy came to him taking money from him at the time naira was more than american dollars" he is one of the most humble man of God out there. Pastor Abiara has been around for over 40 years, and I can tell you, he has only been rich for the past couple of years talkless of the time( when naira is more than dollars), Please people and even all other pastors you are talking about, you need to just cut it off, because The sin against the hollyghost is the only sin thats not forgiven, who are you to judge this man of God? If you pay tithes in a church and you don't want to pay, no one forces anything out of your pocket, God shall reward everyone. SO please for all of this pastors to be rich they have been through alot, I know much about Pastor Abiara when he used to walk the streets in the 80's ringing bells from area to area, no one said anything then, now he is a big man of God and wealthy one too, why the rubbish gossip? I met this guy before he is soo humble and gentle please name any other pastors but i will stand up for him anyday, even though he might not know who I am, But I know him very well.

Men of God are just people who say, "I am a man of God". They are not immune to the judgement, scorn, or praise of any person. I don't need special license to criticize them. Neither does anyone else.

Oh, you mentioned that it was a sin cthat cannot be forgiven. In case you didn't know, #1 criticizing a person is not a sin, #2 there are no sins (according to the bible) which cannot be forgiven.

ajia23:
@ Donnie
I told you to tell me what the live miracle was, you said I should read my bible? That's queer.

Maybe the miracle was they taught a man how to read.

the only times i need to close my eyes to concentrate is when i'm listening to many people talk at the same time and I want to keep track of all the conversations. If my eyes are open, I tend to focus only on the people I can see. If I close them, I can concentrate on all the different conversations. Every other situation requires my eyes to be open for me to fully concentrate - there is almost no other situation which does not benefit from my visual observation.

Romancing - A specialized form of depanting usually performed by males on females though in decreasingly rare occasions, female on male. Typically, romancing involves specific speech designed to separate the target from their pants in the least amount of time. Good practitioners of the art can effect what is known as a panty drop - where the clothing seems to come off of its own accord. Others well practiced usually can pull it off (no pun intended) by interlacing manual attempts with the words the target wants to hear. One is considered a genius at this practice if the target depants themselves without any effort on the pursuers part based soley on the reputation of the pursuer alone.

Reverend:
Maybe God was punishing the Green Monkies?

maybe so. . . i'm looking over this now. . . I think i must've been very tired the last couple times I posted in this topic. . . lol

[quote author=mlks_baby link=topic=2496.msg394331#msg394331 date=1149152686]In anycase, Rev, try another approach: show some more deference to the beliefs of people, particularly Christians and peace-loving Muslims, and let's see if anyone would come back with the invectives you decry. If they do, it'd be sad. As far as I've offered my reaction to your post here, would you still consider me a persecutor fit only for the gallows?[/quote]I see this a lot on this forum, especially in religion posts. I'm not going after you mlks_baby, I want want to put it out there for everyone:

Why should we show deference to religion beliefs, especially in a forum to them, to the point where we must veil our issues with them in nice nice language? I can understand wanting people from refraining from saying idiodic things like - so and so ate dogshit. . . but should we need to censor ourselves that much?

When people have a discussion over politics or sports, there is no such caution every issued. Why should we treat religion with kid gloves? If I already think your point of view is hogwash, how can I be expected and why should I be expected to be ultra nice and attempt to avoid "offending" you?

It is sad that some people feel that expressions of disagreement constitute people forcing their beliefs.

lol, its always the same:

A: Yeah, christianity is mostly crap

B: Oh yeah, prove it!

A: Ok. . . long list follows

B: Damn you trying to force your ideology onto me!

A: but. . you asked me to. . . and i didn't really force anything. . .it was a list. . .and you don't have to read it. .

B: Damn you heretics, infidels, heathens, etc, if you disagree with my view of religion, you should shut up, not post!

A: Huh, doesn't this defeat the purpose of a FORUM or DISCUSSION?

B: No, the word of God is absolute, there is NO discussion.

A: ?? . . . and they say I'm crazy. . .