₦airaland Forum

therealakuko:
I refuse to be used and then dumped like refuse....

Because you are respectable buda bows.

LordReed:
The conversation beginning here: https://www.nairaland.com/1412636/non-christian-chatbox-sticky/181#73052447

Are you sure that was buda my Lord? Or it's you bringing the better out of me! It does sound way above my intelligence level!

Yep! Its definitely your fault, my Lord!

Thanks for reminding me!

raptex:
If you were in the position to choose whether to be born or not, would you have chosen to be born?

I'd very gladly be born. In fact, I very strongly chose to be born, and since you tucked this away here in Romance of all places, I'll tell you.

buda ma was training to be a nurse when buda ma met buda da. buda da looked into buda ma eyes and buda was a bun in buda ma oven!

buda ma was having none of it. "My parents sent me to London to study and not to come here and have some bun in my oven", said buda ma. "We are removing it tomorrow buda da. This bun ain't baking!"

That night as buda ma slept with buda bun in buda ma oven buda sent dream to buda ma and buda ma was afraid such that when buda da did not turn up from the pub that buda sent buda da to get drunk the next day they aborted their action became Mr buda da and Mrs buda ma and months later buda born.

I love life! The thought that tomorrow would come and I would miss it is very inconvenient indeed!

LordReed:
You have...budaatum.

My Lord! You must provide evidence for this your claim!

solite3:
do children begin to walk immediately they are born?. the DNA for walking is already in them but they develop it at different time.

Children do not "begin to walk at different times" because the "DNA for walking is already in them", solite3. Even if you have not taught your own children, did your DNA for walking make you walk?

We teach our children to walk, solite3, that's why they walk.

Eagleeyes would notice my objective photometer reads "One important aspect of the scientific process is that it is focuses only on the natural world, according to the University of California. Anything that is considered supernatural does not fit into the definition of science."

Please note. I very strongly disagree with the University of California!

payosehtor:
some of those books never mate the standard.e.g the book of Baruch (stand to be corrected with the spellings) was a Secretary to prophet Jeremiah, ask yourself if you have a book by the prophet and one by his secretary who's book should be considered authentic or who among the two was inspired?

I'd still like to read both. The Story of Susanna is after all a good lesson against stoning women for adultery, and Daniel and the Priests of Bel might make some poor.

Both are in the "New Revised Standard Version Bible, copyright © 1989 the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of America. Used by permission. All rights reserved" as seen at the bottom of both pages. I wonder why remove it.

IAmSabrina:
We've established that "science" is "using our intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment".

And when i call it the "law that governs the entire universe", i call it the only method by which we establish Objective "truths" that we're aware of. Every action we take and/or decision we make in this universe is based on this "science".


I'm OK with this, Budaatum

So, scientific laws do not govern anything, but are laws we deduce from our observation of reality and which we call objective truths. Or rather, Scientific laws are laws that subjected us deduce from our subjective observation of an objective reality and which subjected us call objective truths. What objectifies it is our competent use of the objective photometer to systematically observe, measure, experiment, formulate, test and modify our subjective beliefs. Its why I don't do "belief" by the way. I keep looking, observing, measuring, experimenting, formulating, testing and modifying so much that I can never hold on to any long enough.

I do not agree however that "Every action we take and/or decision we make in this universe is based on this "science"". Some have wonky photometers!

IAmSabrina:
If you do not agree that ""science" is the law that governs this universe and every millimeter and Angstrom of this universe is filled with it"., then of what purpose is "science"? I mean, and correct me if i'm wrong Buda, but since you say "doing science" is our way of seperating "Objective Universes" from "Subjective Realities", then it has to be a major player in the universe! Or is there any other way we can accomplish this task?

I don't not see how "science" is the law that governs this universe and every millimeter and Angstrom of this universe is filled with it".

You either mean science created the universe in its own right and controls it, or the universe was scientifically created by some science doer and controller. Which is it?

Are you equating the human activity of using "our intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment", to some creating god force!

IAmSabrina:
As for the definition of "supernatural and/or spiritual phenomena", i agree that it needs to be defined. But oops! Even the christians have multiple ideas of what supernatural phenomena consist of and/or what spirituality even means! If it can be defined then it can be falsified, if it can't be defined then it can't be falsified. Thus, does it make sense, Buda, to accept unfalsifiable "truths"?


The name "Christianity" does have many definitions. That explains why we have Catholicism, Calvinism and various other shades of"'Christianity". Once again, proper definition for a subject needs to made for it to be falsified. And if it cannot be falsified....

We agree that one must fully define what one wants to verify or falsify, or we'd be crossing wires.

Let's us now agree to always do so with one another, Sabrina. Define words before verifying or falsifying their authenticity.

IAmSabrina:
Religion is not responsible for your ego, Buda. I never stated that and if you feel Sabrina implied such statement anywhere please let her know.

Religious beliefs are simply worldviews that are subscribed to multiple parties. But it is the human ego (which is completely independent of religion) that makes people to "blindly hold on to their beliefs & worldviews". This leads to dogma and intolerance to any views that oppose said beliefs.

Also, theistic religions consist of certain doctrines and rules that the followers of said religions must abide to (including questionable instructions in the holy books)
=> Determination to conform to these rules without question + dogma & intolerance to opposing points of view due to our human ego= Major disaster (in my view of course)

Of course you never said anything about my ego, Sabrina smarts, though it wouldn't matter if you did. However, the human ego is very much influenced by ones religion contrary to how you stated. Study people carefully and you'd find we grab on to the image of God that suits our ego. That's why the bullying parent worships the God of Moses, and the loving one the loving Christ. We are not so much created in God's image, but our gods are images of us.

We also do not "blindly hold on to beliefs & worldviews", or follow "certain doctrines and rules", or "abide to questionable instructions in the holy books" contrary to your claim. I wonder if you have not been pointing at Christians thinking it was "Christianity"? Do tell where you see us loving one another, which is the most basic instruction in most holy books!

What many Christians do in fact, though many might not admit it, is not see the teachings and worldviews we are meant to hold on to and sin, sin, sin, which is the opposite of the teachings in the holy books!

contigiency:
I am a proud Igbo man. But I can tell you that you and your likes are the problem of this country. The gentle man bashed the criminals that caused this dent on our image as a country and not Igbos. The fact that he bashed the criminals and incidentally they bear Igbo names does not mean that Igbos should take war with him. And for your information, Igbos detest bad characters like every other reasonable ethnic groups in the country. So busy body pack well, we are on the same page with anyone who condemned this evil.

Big like!

Oh, and thank you for your time.

Ihedinobi3:
I have nothing more to say to you about this matter, budaatum, so I must leave the conversation at this point.

You are welcome till we meet again.

Ihedinobi3:
Only submission to a gifted and prepared Bible teacher makes that happen (Ephesians 4:11-14).

Food for "children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive".

That's why the grown ups only submit to the Lord God Almighty, the Lord Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost he sent to minister and comfort, otherwise they'd be feeding on the "manna of the ancestors" and not on bread that nourishes.

Ihedinobi3:
1. I don't really care about what you do, as I said before.

I know. You only care about what you believe.

Ihedinobi3:
3. About John 5:46-47, you mean to teach me the Bible, budaatum? Do you really believe that I have anything to learn from you about the Bible? Regardless, the words on the page are glaring enough. I would be a fool to bother to add anything to what the text itself says here.

I wouldn't deign to attempt to teach you the Bible, Ihedinobi3. You already know it all so why would learning me attempt to teach it to know it all you? Thankfully, we are not the only ones on here learning not just from our words but from the Spirit of our Words too which also glare.

Please know that I teach you not. I just cast my seed and let it fall where it may by the GoG, Amen.

Ihedinobi3:
2. You have the story backward. It was a Jew travelling from Jerusalem to Jericho who fell in among false friends who robbed him and nearly murdered him. This is why you get the lesson wrong. A Jew should have been helped by a Priest and a Levite sooner than by anybody else. But they failed in their duty, and a Samaritan, who was almost a Gentile, was the one who helped.

Jesus tends to stretch his lessons a bit, ihe, this is him, said, "buda, let your righteousness exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees or ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven". I like heaven, see. The peaceful blessing lovely heaven within.

Indeed the "Jew should have been helped by a Priest and a Levite" since they were of the same family who all believed the same things, but the question being answered was "Who is my neighbor?”, and not "Who is my family?" Ihe, it is glaringly there:

“[url=https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+10%3A25-37&version=NIV]Which[/url] of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?”

Imagine! Not the priest or the Levite but the not family non-believing defiling pagan worshipping but doing good Samaritan.

The instruction I get is, "buda, go and do likewise".

You must forgive me allowing myself to be ministered to, Ihe.

Science

Define, "Spiritual", Sabrina. Let's see if it exists.

Believing in God without proof is like building a house on a sandy foundation, when the rain falls it is washed away. Those with Christ build on solid rock, and by solid rock is meant "solid proof". You can identify us by our [url=https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+7%3A16-20&version=KJV]fruits[/url] better and not by the beliefs you think we hold on to in our heads. They are like soil on which seeds fall and produced fruits a hundredfold, sixtyfold, or thirtyfold.

If there is no fruit, there must indeed and most definitely be no gods, but you can't be checking with a faulty photometer you don't know how to use and trust your results! You must first ensure you have done the "science" of it, which is, have the ears to hear the seeds and the eyes to see the fruits it grows into. Otherwise, experimenting is rather pointless!

ochibuogwu5:
It is not the disadvantages of sin/bad-habits that will help a man/woman or scare us away from repeating them again, fear of punishment/consequences of addictions/wrong-behavior/sinful-living can only keep us away for a while as human beings then we will get back to it in a more deadly approach just like someone who was delivered of 1-demon then the demon goes out and later comes back finding the space empty then goes to invite 7-demons more and the last status of that person becomes more horrible than the 1st-time of deliverance. Just ask Jesus Christ to release his mercy, grace and love from His throne of grace to deliver you from this *bad-habit*. This same approach is *applicable* to every lifestyle that is *unpleasant to the Holy Spirit* in the life of every human being and His deliverance/freedom is *instant-certain-consistent-forever* because He is GOD.
Great Grace!!!

Meditate on the meaning and implications of the word too (you likely mean this, ochibu), and your body will not be so full of sinning, by God's Grace.

beatmonster:
Why do you believe in God without proof?

Stupid, isn't it, believing without proof! Would anyone ask me to believe I had a three course meal and that I'm full when I have no evidence of eating?

That's why I do not believe without proof.

Ihedinobi3:
Actually, no, it wasn't the lesson at all. The lessons were that

1. Christians ought to look out for one another in every way, because that is what it means to love your neighbor; and

2. the tax collector, rather than the Pharisee, was the one who understood the Law, believed it, and did as it demanded, because the Law teaches that we are all sinners in desperate need of God's Mercy, and that God is a God of both Justice and Mercy, and is not only willing, but also able to forgive the sinner, if they ask for mercy.

John 5:46-47 is clear that the religious elite of His Day did not believe the Bible at all.

I am looking out for you because you are my neighbour and not because you are a Christian, ihe.
Jesus told me to, “Go and do likewise" when he warned me with the Parable of the Priest of God who for fear of becoming defiled wouldn't look out for the pagan Samaritan not knowing he defiled himself by not doing.

John 5:46-47 refers to their belief and acceptance of Christ, and not about their understanding and belief in their Bible of the day, which they preached and told others to believe but themselves "did not practice". They constantly threw their belief at Christ too with their 'why you working on the Sabbath', 'why you no wash your hands', 'why you eating with those sinners', 'who are you to forgive sin', 'who are you to raise the dead', 'there is a demon in you' etc!

I put it to you that they did 'believe' ihe, just like satan also believes, and that understanding and doing what is said in the Bible is what they lacked.

Ihedinobi3:
Still, your post seems to have answered my question: you don't care at all whether I interpret the Bible correctly or not.

I do care ihe, especially as you are interpreting it on a public forum where thousands will read it and be edified if your interpretation is edifying and die if it is killing!

Ihedinobi3:
Regarding your claims about Jesus Christ, as with nearly everything you say about the Bible, you are also wrong here. The Lord Jesus condemned the Pharisees and the Scribes for not believing the Bible that they read.

I understand him to be condemning the scribes and the Pharisees for believing and for not doing what was written in the bible that they should actually do. Or is that not the lesson taught in the parable of the Samaritan with its very believing but not doing priest and Levite, and that of the tax collector with the 'righteous' Pharisee?

In fact ihe, was it not for the sin of excessive believing and not exactly doing that Christ heaped [url=https://biblia.com/bible/Mt%2023.1-39]Seven Woes[/url] on the scribes and the Pharisees?

IAmSabrina:
Interesting, Buda, very interesting!

For the purpose of clarity and nothing else:
We live in an Objective Universe, built upon by scientific, observable principles;
- IAmSabrina(f): 2:18am on Apr 02

And unobservable things we don't know are there or see yet. Not elephants on Neptune though!
- budaatum: 2:51am on Apr 02

If certain things are unobservable and can't be known at this time, does it make sense to verify it to be true as a fact. If so, how do we arrive at that conclusion?
- IAmSabrina(f): 3:39am on Apr 02

We verify by doing science.
- budaatum: 1:26pm on Apr 02

No. One cannot verify what one sees not nor know of it's existence. You can only verify what you are aware and know of. You touched on this in your following.

IAmSabrina:
We should consider what "unobservable" means though. For example, i don't think we can observe supernatural and/or spiritual phenomena objectively. We should also consider that "science" is the law that governs this universe and every millimeter and Angstrom of this universe is filled with it. Unless you, Buda, may truly believe that the universe will remain in the absence of "science".....

To start with, I do not agree that ""science" is the law that governs this universe and every millimeter and Angstrom of this universe is filled with it".

I earlier defined science as the use of the senses, but here is a more detailed definition:

Science is the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

Science is simply a thing humans do. It is not some sort of doer on its own.

Now on "unobservable phenomenom". Some things we study indirectly by their effect, like the gravitational effect of Neptune on other planets. But lets stick to the examples you posed, "supernatural and/or spiritual phenomena".

If we were going to scientifically verify (or falsify) anything about "supernatural and/or spiritual phenomena", we'd have to define it, set out criteria for our experiment, test assumptions, be honest, and so on, which we haven't done! In fact, I doubt we've even defined supernatural, or spiritual!

IAmSabrina:
Now you imply that "Objective Universes" & "Subjective Realities" can indeed be seperated by "doing science". So Buda, you tell me, can any experiment be proposed in favor of spirituality to falsify its existence?

Yes, we can, to favour or falsify. We would have to define what we mean by terms we use though.

IAmSabrina:
Brilliant argument. Like you said, we seperate objectivity & subjectivity "scientifically". We are encouraged to seek only positive evidence hoping that the reality we perceive in accordance with the evidence presented.

Science, as in doing science, is itself an act of separating the subjective from the objective. We just need to do it right. But no, we do not seek "only positive evidence". We can also seek for opposing evidence that refutes our claims. If we don't, someone else will then egg on our face!

IAmSabrina:
When the evidence opposing theistic religions like Christianity are presented, they refuse to understand why.

Hey! That's a huge leap! We haven't defined Christianity and you are presenting evidence to refute it already, Sabrina!

IAmSabrina:
They try to ignore the counterexamples. Observing objective reality objectively can indeed be painful because it exposes all the errors we have committed, and continue to commit. Its very easy for people to weave new stories around facts. Some "truths" needs to be discarded and replaced with an alternate explanation. Pride allows humans this talent or skill and that's why christians think they have the answer to every question! Shame won't allow them to admit ignorance!

I think I might "ignore the counterexamples" too if we haven't quite made sure that we understand the same thing when we say a word like "Christianity". Or shouldn't we first agree what we mean first? We did do it with atheism and are smarter for it!

IAmSabrina:
Unfortunately, the only truth is that any explanation still could be wrong. It does not serve us well to cling too tightly to anything we want to believe, Buda. Tightly held beliefs will blind you to the truth!

I agree that holding on to beliefs is blinding. Here's me expressing the exact same sentiment to Ihedinobi3

"......covering my eyes and not checking the evidence is like blinding myself, and is, at the very least, an act that would be like filling my own body with sin and while focusing on the speck of sin on the bodies of others" .

But sorry Sabrina, people will do whatever they want to do regardless of what I think or believe.

IAmSabrina:
That is my problem with religion, Buda! When we let the ego convince us to deny certain facts, life gets more complicated for a reason - because our subjective reality is no longer the truth. Why should we live our lives based on assumptions of whether these things are true?....

You blame religion for my ego, Sabrina, or is that an assumption you basing on?

Is it my religion that makes my ego deny certain facts, or is it me twisting religion to agree with my ego, I wonder.

Ihedinobi3:
Second, I have a human body, and I live around human beings. I have found that it is a struggle to "stay good" for any length of time at all. So I have already seen proof in my own self that God did not lie about that. Additionally, I have never met a single person in my life who does no wrong. Every single human being I have come across slips up in some way, if they are not really blowing it in some other way. So, I have even more proof that this thing that God inspired Paul to say is true indeed.

This was the answer to my question, ihe, and all I asked for. Thanks for it.

I choose to have faith in people myself. I check the evidence on their body and do not take Paul's word for it that their body is full of sin because Paul never met the people I meet so isn't exactly in a position to be telling me what fills their body. I do not ever think people are being dishonest, lying, deceiving or have bodies full of sin, unless I see sin in their body myself, because once I make the assumption that their body is full of sin it affects how I behave towards them. I'd likely find it difficult to love them if I assumed their body were full of sin already, so I always check their body first and not just assume their body is full of sin.

If I do not check their body first to see if it is full of sin, it's like I'm covering my eyes so I don't see the evidence because the preconceived belief Paul put in my head is the absolute truth and its not possible for me or Paul to be wrong! But covering my eyes and not checking the evidence is like blinding myself, and is, at the very least, an act that would be like filling my own body with sin and while focusing on the speck of sin on the bodies of others. Paul is no excuse to make me fill my body with sin like that!

In my checking first, and not just taking Paul's word for it, I have found lots of unsinful bodied people too. Perhaps because my thoughts of them is they are unsinful they live up to my unsinning expectations. This might be because I live amongst people who don't sin so much because they been learning to not sin for close on 2000 years, but even in Nigeria, I don't tend to find most people I meet have bodies full of sin. I know my body is not full of sin so why would I go about thinking everyone else's body is full of sin?

You are correct about buda, ihe, buda has not got faith in the Bible. Jesus met a lot of people who had 'faith' in the Bible of his day and some of the names he called such people were not exactly those that promote a behaviour I should emulate so my faith is in the Lord God Almighty whom I see not and in my fellow human beings whom I do see, because how
I treat the least of my fellow humans whom I see, "ye have done it unto me". I do not focus on the body because my focus is on your mind.

Obasanjo lost his marbles

raumdeuter:
See these Senate Robbers

This is why we voted sai bubu, people. And we got 4 years Inshallah before we return to Daura!

We are going #NextLevel!

Mindfulness:
I know that when a document completely exonerates ME, I go to incredible lengths to make sure no one can read it.

#Metoo

Ihedinobi3:
As I told you on your thread, I don't consider the video of much value.

As for whether what I said is true or not, Romans 5-7 is enough to help anyone understand. In Romans 5:19, we are told explicitly that we all became sinners because of one man's sin. In Romans 6:6, we are told explicitly that our bodies are bodies of sin. In Romans 7, Paul teaches us through the Holy Spirit that while our spirits are pure and incorruptible, our bodies are outlaws that seek to disobey God at every turn.

That is where I stand: on the Scriptures, not on any human ideas.

You read in Romans that "your body is a body of sin" and without checking whether your body was a body of sin did you just takes Romans word for it, or did you check your body and find that it was a body of sin like Romans said? I ask because it's your body, Ihe, but here is where I'm confused.

You have not checked other peoples bodies but you seem to have decided that "their bodies are bodies of sin" too because Romans said so.

I don't get how you did that

solite3:
I solite3 I am the very righteousness of God.

I get you, righteous solite3. I will pray.

solite3:
you don't even know what original sin is.
who taught a child how to lie? why are people attract to sin more? can you stay a month without lying? why?
answer this questions and you will have glimpse of what original sin is.

If a child lies when it comes out its mother, you might have a point, so, do they?

No inherited original sin teaches babies to lie! A child learns to lie by observing its parents lying. You yourself said one can't stay a month without lying and some can't even last a day you know that, and children don't start lying till they are older than a year old by which time they'd have been around their two lying parents for 12 months each. That's a year of lying tutoring from each parent and more if they have siblings, and God help child if it lives next to extended family and close neighbours or it would catch lying from them like it was the plague!

For your information, I go years without lying. There is not a living being on planet earth that I am so afraid to tell the truth as I know it to!

Guest007:
I recommend you read the book... it's genius, he is a genius. I don't subscribe to the idea of free will... is it by force

I'm absolutely certain it's a good book 007. And for fear of patronising, I'm glad you read it. Love the way you resist me too. The signal in your brain is powerful!

You will be in charge of it yourself one day though, I promise. I know because you read and reading is gym for the brain. The signal in your brain will make you. And you will come here to tell us.

Ihedinobi3:
I would rather not debate with you about this. As I said, I am sure that what I said is correct, and I do not agree with you. If you prefer to believe what you do in spite of the witness of the Bible, I have nothing to say in the matter.

You are my friend whom I love with all my heart and all my soul and all my being and emojis and all but you sure are no child!

The Bible did not witness here, Ihe! You did. With your understanding and interpretation of your own reading of the Bible. And not everyone agrees with you. I have to say.

The rest though. I agree.