₦airaland Forum

Frizy:
As far as am concerned God avenges and says His vengance is awful. So He says: O mankind! Fear Me and transgress not My commandments.

And what other proof do you need that the God of the OT is not a nice guy?
"Fear me and do as I say or I will kick your ass"?

That doesn't really sound like the kind of guy I would want to follow.
It sounds more like the words of a bully.

Dis Guy:
I doubt she'll do upto 3 years in the UK, she will be re-tried when the dust is cleared and the loasian** legal system will be called all sort of name
plus it a shady bla blah country she'll be cleared and released!

She won't be released. The deal the UK has with Laos is that prisoners are transferred and that they will serve their time.
And of course she'll choose to come back to the UK. The prisons are like hotels compared to those in Laos.

This bitch got off lightly. Not only would her drugs have screwed thousands of people, not only has she sentenced her child to a prison term but on top of that, the UK taxpayer now has to pay for her.

She should be left in Laos to rot.

buda atum:
Masonry began in Egypt, some will have it, though it was not called this in its conception and the rules that pertain have changed over time.

Says who? Nobody knows where or when Freemasonry began. There are many theories that hold just as much water as the Egyptian connection. But all are just that - theories.

Masonry has its decalogue, which is a law to its Initiates. These are its Ten Commandments:

Freemasonry does not have a Ten Commandments. It is not a religion. It does not tell a man how to live but offers the suggestion that a moral life is a good one.
You may post whatever literature you like, but if you do, realise that all you are posting is opinion. No one man can write a book and say "This is what Freemasonry is about". No one man has the authority to speak for Freemasonry.

And as I stated earlier, she got pregnant by another prisoner so that she could avoid the death sentence.
Her mother has confirmed that she wasn't raped.

The bitch has sentenced her unborn child to 20 years to save her own skin.

They should shoot her anyway.

LOL @ Satanism.

There are more Jedis in this world than Satanists.

duduspace:
@Bastage

Solipsism is quite weird and I doubt you truly beleive it yourself, it doesn't seem to be a very pragmatic philosophy and has already closed any avenue for reconsideration of your beliefs. It is too self centered for my liking. In the spirit of self preservation I would rather be close to an hypocrite like Davidylan than you (I know I would be safe if I pay lip service to his delusions but I could never feel safe near you since your philosophy denies even my very existence).
But you do owe it to us (the make belief creations of your thoughts) to prove the validity of Solipsism.

On the contrary, Solipsism is the opposite of self-centred and it opens up every avenue.
My philosophy does not deny your existence. In fact you could look at it in a totally different way and say that Solopsism confirms your existence.
The reality of Solipsism is that I could totally discount your existence if I feel the need to do so. Yet I choose not to. I'd personally say that the fact that I believe in you with no absolute proof shows that it's far from self-centred.

After all, I choose to believe in you just as I believe in my God, right?

It would be nice if your post actually made some sense instead of reading as gibberish.

You don't seem to understand that it is not my Bible, even though I've told you repeatedly that I don't believe in the Old Testament god.

You also don't seem to understand the difference between cooking with dung and actually eating it.

The Kings passage has absolutely nothing to do with the god forcing people to eat excrement.
You obviously don't understand it as you're using it as an example. Try looking at it in plain English. Even a buffoon like you may notice that it refers to people being under seige and that it's nothing to do with an order from the god.

English Standard Version

27But the Rabshakeh said to them, "Has my master sent me to speak these words to your master and to you, and not to the men sitting on the wall, who are doomed with you to eat their own dung and to drink their own urine?"

If you actually bothered doing any research before spouting idiocy you would have read Kings26 and seen that the masters he is referring to isn't the god but Hezekiah and the King of Syria.

26 Then said Eliakim the son of Hilkiah, and Shebna, and Joah, unto Rabshakeh, Speak, I pray thee, to thy servants in the Syrian language; for we understand it: and talk not with us in the Jews' language in the ears of the people that are on the wall.

Read am.

Kings 13 and 17 even tells you it's a seige:

13 Now in the fourteenth year of king Hezekiah did Sennacherib king of Assyria come up against all the fenced cities of Judah, and took them.

17 And the king of Assyria sent Tartan and Rabsaris and Rabshakeh from Lachish to king Hezekiah with a great host against Jerusalem. And they went up and came to Jerusalem. And when they were come up, they came and stood by the conduit of the upper pool, which is in the highway of the fuller's field.

Are you under seige?, this can explain your craving from anything coming out of assholles.

As illustrated by the shit coming out of your mouth, the only asshole around here is you.

Horus:
Are you running away from your god and your religion now?. Or is it because of the smell of the human excrement mentioned in your Bible?.

I've already made it clear that I have never followed the OT god nor look upon the OT as a holy book.
If you're too much of an idiot to understand that, maybe you should be playing on www.disney.com instead of posting here.

The use of the word idiot, show your level of "intellect" and lack of creativity; Try to make a little effort, I know you can.

Maybe "asshole" would be a better word? My level of intellect and my creativity dwarves yours. I don't have to lie to get a point across.

Why it is illogical?,can you be more accurate in your half-answer?

Are you really that much of a buffoon you need it spelling out? Gods through the ages do not generally help those who are opposed to them. Israel was beseiged by it's enemies as it was opposed to it's god. Learn a bit of history before asking stupid questions.

This contradict what you said, and I quote for everybody to see (Below)[/b]So have a look at your previous post [b]PLEASE, where you said that during those seiges people would starve and literally the only thing they would have to eat and drink would be their own excrement and urine.

It doesn't contradict what I've said at all. God did not command anyone to eat excrement. People ate excrement during seiges because it was the only source of nutrition available. It's a historic fact. It has nothing to do with god - Christian, Buddhist, Muslim, Hindu, Jewish, whatever the religion, when times got hard that is what they did. There are still cases of people being stranded in deserts today and being forced to drink their own urine - does that mean that they are commanded to do so by god?
Get real. Your argument is pathetic.

Horus:
No nothing was twisted at all. If cooking with human excrement would be the only way of cooking during a siege as the beseiging army would not let provisions in, your "god" should have provided food for them by performing a miracle instead of ordering them to eat human excrement and drink their own urine. This is not a way to show love to his followers and by doing this your "god" is showing his limits, he is not omnipotent.

Firstly, idiot, that is not my god.
Secondly, your argument that a god would have provided miracles for a people who were under seige because they had turned away from him is illogical.
Thirdly, he ordered nobody to eat or drink their own excrement or urine. The fact that you emboldened that just shows what a fool you are. Cooking with it as a fuel is totally different to ingesting it. Or do you eat electricity when you cook your food at home?

I am not an apologist for the god of the Old Testament. But I do read the history of the book and don't argue from a position of ignorance as you do. Come back and debate me when you know what you are talking about.

The amazing thing is how someone takes a Bible passage and twists it's meaning.

Ezekiel4 is about preparing for a siege of Jerusalem.
Cooking with human excrement would be the only way of cooking during a siege as the beseiging army would not let provisions in. Animals would die and their use as a supply of fuel would dry up.
Likewise, the beseiging army would have to commit itself to the same method of fuel if it's supply lines weren't strong.

People have been using dung as a fuel since time immemorial - both animal and human. The dung does not touch the food but is used to fuel the fire that cooks it. There is nothing unusual about it at all.

To suggest otherwise is ridiculous.


II Kings 18:27 is also about a seige of Jerusalem. During those seiges people would starve and literally the only thing they would have to eat and drink would be thier own excrement and urine.

A seige is not just a case of attacking a city. It is a case of literally starving it to surrender.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege

You're talking utter shit, Huxley. The passage regarding the oil even answers your own question. Read the bit you couldn't be bothered to embolden.

Annointing oil was an expensive gift and the person annointed with it dedicated that oil to his god.
It's expense was dedicated to the god not the man wearing it.


Yet again you entirely overlook context and history in order to get a cheap dig at Christianity.

The message he is preaching is one of charity.

Lagosboy:
It is a known fact that African blacks are more educated comparaed to their carrabean brothers.

Not true.
Most of the Caribbean blacks are second or third generation and therefore have a UK education.
Most Africans are first generation and have an African education.

In politics, Caribbean blacks far outnumber African blacks.
Concentrating solely on MPs is also misleading. Nearly every single authority in the UK has black councillors.

@ image123

You can stick your judgement up your ass.

Personally, if I am invited into Heaven and I run into any blind drones like you, I'm going to ask The Man to send me downstairs.
Either way, Hell would be being stuck listening to your crap for eternity.

LMAO. Solipsism is a crackpot theory? To prove it correct, all I have to do is not believe in you. Instead I can believe that you are just some computer generated reply machine that I programmed for this very instance.
Read about Solipsism, Huxley. It's a philosophy for the individual. Only the individual can prove it to be true. On the other hand, nobody can prove it to be false.

I'm not asking you to prove a negative. Prove to me that you exist.


You see Huxley, the very fact that you cannot prove anything means that Solipsism has you by the balls.

I might as well come up with any other crackpot theory and ask you to prove it wrong.

Like atheism?

huxley2:
There you are - clearly identifying two things, namely yourself [/b]and [b]evolution.  And you say you believe in it.  How can you hold onto sollipsism, and at the same time believe in the existence of something (evolution) outside yourself?  This is a contradiction.

Shallow, Huxley. Very shallow.

You can't prove that evolution is "outside yourself". For all you know it is a theory that you created and then forgot about as you play a computer game in a simulated world. There is nothing to stop you from believing that you are your own god and that everything is a result of the game you are playing - you merely don't remember because you programmed the game so that you don't remember. If you created your perceived material it's hardly "outside yourself" is it.


I can believe in whatever I want to. I can claim any of those beliefs to be knowledge. They are as interchangeable as I want them to be. That is the essence of solipsism. That belief and knowledge may not always hold true in the material world but as the material world cannot be proven to exist, they cannot be proven to be wrong.

To put it another way:

I believe in a material world.
I believe human beings exist.
I believe the scientific evidence.
I believe in evolution.

All are beliefs. None can be said to be truths unless I choose them to be so as I am the master of my own truths (just as you are with yours).


You still haven't answered my challenge.
Prove to me that you exist.

You haven't read a word of the link or anything I've written have you?

How can I say that evolution is true when I can't even prove that anything other than myself exists?
Everything is a belief.




Prove to me that you exist, Huxley.

To put it simply - you can't.

Chrisbenogor:
If a God exists on the other hand why even bother, it will be like a goat trying to learn astrophysics.

If you believe in evolution (as I do), then you will be aware that monkeys have learnt astrophysics.

Are you being stupid on purpose or are you just incredibly shallow?


You emboldened and questioned my statement: "On a philosophical level there is no difference between belief and knowledge."

Solipsism explains that everything is a belief except for I think therefore I am. Therefore all knowledge except for I think therefore I am is a belief. Therefore there is no difference between belief and knowledge on a philosophical level.

Huxley.

Before you start burbling more irrelevant drivel again, read my words.
On a "philosophical" level. Not on a "material" level.

duduspace:
Am I then right in saying that God in this instance could be the evolutionary process that produced man (if evolution turns out to be true), the intelligence that brought about creation (if creation turns out to be true) or any other myriad of possibilities our puny minds cannot even begin to comprehend?

My guy, I do not dispute evolution. But I look at it through eyes that judge on the material realism that I exist in. To me, evolution makes sense. Creationism is a literal definition of the Bible that has no foundation in logic.
Within the reality that we exist in we have choices to make. Not always free choices but choices none the less. I am guided to believe that the form in which I exist was created by evolution. But as I mentioned earlier, I try to look beyond the veil. To me, evolution or creationism are just distractions. The real me (and you) are not bound by their physical meanings. The theories of creationism and evolution are only things used to describe our physical being. We exist beyond them.

We are not much different, I also appreciate Jesus Christ's message which still forms the bedrock of my morality but that is in total isolation from the hog wash jumble of books called the bible and the personalty cult that grew round the person (which he never initiated) and which has subsequently evolved into the confused rabble we now call christianity.

I hear you. Bear in mind though that an individual can also be a rabble if he is confused by the many voices in his heart. Christian churches are just the same but on a larger scale if you don't try to exert control over yourself and let them overwhelm you. Any answer lies with you and you alone. Personally, I see the Bible as the most interesting book ever written. I've stated time and time again that one has to study the context in which it was written to understand it though. But even then, it's deeper message can only be defined by you and you alone.

There is a very big difference between "I think God exists"  or "I believe God's existence is a possibility" and "I know God exists and this is what he says".

On a philosophical level there is no difference between belief and knowledge. Again, you only have yourself to judge as the measurement. If you believe in your own judgement then you have a knowledge.

We are not much different Bastage, you have only chosen to give an unbounded number the label infinity while I've chosen to continue referring to it as unbounded.

What is an unbounded number if it is not infinite? Are you saying that an unbounded number has an end? To me, the number is like Pi - it goes on forever. We know Pi exists and that it is infinite so why can we not apply that same idea to our beliefs?

I will try to answer some of your questions.

duduspace:
1. According to you God is beyond reality right? but we live in reality how then can one relate to something that is beyond reality using reality based concepts like prayer e.t.c.

We live in a concept of reality. Atheists believe that it is all there is. I don't see any logical reason for it being all there is.

2. How can your reality based mind really comprehend a God beyond reality? how then can anyone claim to be speaking for such a God beyond reality? or that anything such a god does is of any significance in reality

Comprehension is a strong word. One can only believe that one comprehends.

3. If god is beyond reality, why bother with him when we live in reality?

Again, I would point out that the material world is a concept of reality. Study the philospopher Descartes. you will see his famous words "I think, therefore I am". What he means by this is that the only thing he can be utterly sure of is that he (and only he) exists. Everything else is a result of material sensory input. There is no way that he can be certain of anything excpet for the fact that he (and only he) exists. Personally, I think, therefore I am, but to me it is logical that I was created or am part of something else. Therefore, the only two certainties are myself and that something else - my God.

4. In a way, can there ever be a single definition/classification of something beyond reality? or in other words doesn't each person/society therefore define this esoteric being in his/their own way i.e. creating their own gods?

Yes, we define our Gods. But we also let religion do that for us too. I personally choose Christianity simply because I like the message. But that's not to say that religion is just a waste of time. We could speculate that your whole reality is the creation of your god, therefore everything in it is put there to lead you forward - including religion.

5. Can't we all just face up to the truth that we are all groping in the dark here?

I wouldn't say groping. "Searching" would be a better word. I look upon it as trying to see what lies beyond the veil.

I would rather say that you have made up or you are making up your god as you go along and that is not necessarily a bad thing. The difference between lunacy and genius is often a thin line.

To a certain extent I would say as my knowledge evolves, so my view of my God evolves. It doesn't mean that I'm making it all up though. I try to base my beliefs in a founding of logic and don't tend to just jump in head first.
The one thing that probably makes me different though, is that I could choose to give my God up. I don't worship because I have to. I worship because I want to. I worship simply because I believe, that just like me, God is.

duduspace:
Can you explain by what you mean by "being able to freely choose" and what it entails?

It's not easy to explain but I'll try and give you a general idea.

Everything we choose in this world is not done with freedom as we may think. Everything. We are coerced in some way by our reality.
I believe that God is beyond reality and therefore using a reason based in the material to choose Him is self-defeating. And as the only reasons we have are material then not having a reason is the logical thing to do.
As Huxley has pointed out in his first post, many people choose for those reasons. When they do, I believe that they are not seeing the whole picture, they're letting material yearnings dictate their choice. It's therefore not a free choice.

If you are not able to make a free choice you are choosing for a reason. That reason is for yourself. I don't follow God for myself, to me, that would be self-serving and not really following Him. Therefore, the only reason I can have for following him is no reason thus meaning that I freely choose.

I hope that makes sense.

I don't care wether David thinks I'm a Christian or not and arguing over the subject is a waste of time.
All you're trying to do is score points over each other.

duduspace:
there is nothing in Bastage's original statement that suggested a conscious decision unless you prove to me that choosing without a reason is a conscious decision.

Believe me. Choosing without a reason is the whole point of it. It's the most conscious decision I believe one could make.

duduspace:
No offence meant but this doesn't sound totally sane, can you also kill another person just because you choose to kill? you sound like a law unto yourself and I find that a bit disturbing.

Why would you find it disturbing?
The fact is that I am a law unto myself but that I am also bound by my moral values.

To understand what I mean when I say I choose to be a Christian, you really need to understand the meaning of being able to freely choose and what it entails.

None of your answers fits me, Huxley.

I'm a Christian simply because I choose to be.

Agreed.
But don't forget that the system was created by themselves. Therefore the argument that the MPs are using by blaming the system is a hollow one.

They had chances to take pay rises but have turned them down because they knew that the expenses system was easier to milk.

Thor:
Just because Nigeria is a rotten failed state, you can not tar the UK with the same brush 

It's not a case of Nigeria is worse or better. The subject is regarding the UK parliament and the trough they have been sticking their nose in.
Nigeria's problems have nothing to do with the UK.
But the similarity in corruption is there however you would like to under-state it.

As for not making false declarations? I believe that you'll find some of the MPs in question have done just that.

I must admit, I am suprised at your attitude. You're just about the only person who lives in the UK who would defend their actions. The vast majority of the populace is damning them with utter condemnation.

[quote author=Tayo-D link=topic=273680.msg3900885#msg3900885 date=1242908765]So let us try and reconcile the two by saying I am pro-choice and anti-abortion.[/quote]That is a paradox.
Unless of course, you mean that the only choice that matters is your own.

Thor:
The comparison is stupid as no crimes have been committed in the UK. They were just taking liberties with the expense system, not stealing money.

When you make the law, you decide what is a crime and what is not. The UK Parliament is just smarter than it's Naija counterpart in that respect. If one were to take a moral stance on this issue, I don't see how it can be viewed in any other way but as theft.

It is principle and morals on trial that during the current worldwide downturn whether it was morally right to claim certain expenses.

I don't agree. Although the global downturn probably has jaded the view of the issue somewhat, I feel sure people would feel just as outraged if this issue were to occur in a time of plenty. The UK people pride themselves on their Mother of All Parliaments being incorruptable. This is clearly not the case and the reaction would probably be the same whatever the economic climate.

You can not compare the UK with Nigeria 

You can compare anything with anything else. It's how you compare it that's important.

Even homeless Africans living in the UK have a better future than most Nigerians 

I don't really dispute that. But it's not really the issue here.

You know as well as I do that the biggest problem with Nigeria is that the British are not running the country

Now? I doubt that they would do a much better job. They would be skimming off whatever they could get. They'd just be a lot smarter on how they go about it.

That's partly my point.

These MPs are not accountable.

They operate in a world where they make the rules and laws and where they decided what is right and wrong.
You think any of them will go to jail for fraud? I sincerely doubt it. One or two will be forced to resign as appeasement to the tax-payer but the majority will just happily go on their way.
In the case of whistleblowers, this whole subject was unearthed by a UK newspaper. Sure, government said it was going to publish some figures, but in what form? And let us not forget that it tried everything in it's power to stop those figures from being published in the first place. With all these leaks, why has it still not published?

Nigeria is not the only country that is rotten at the centre and where it's peoples' representatives are unnacountable. As you say, humans are greedy and where-ever there is money they will be attempting to screw it. UK politicians are only restricted by the laws already in place. You can bet your ass that if they were as lax as Niaja's they would be up to the same thing.