₦airaland Forum

thinkdip:
Nairaland is messed, you can't watch a live youtube video from here. why? even on whatsapp you can steam live... a site of almost 11years, no improvement.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gfvpN6S3i74

Mobilia:
Which is why you guys have no peace.

Too busy knocking, those atheists. Studying the lost sheep!

Can you see why we must take their tithes? They must pay for their stupidity! And atheists are fools for educating them for free when what we would consider inferior teaching is receiving a tithe!

For their level? A twentieth is cheap! But for love of them, a score.

Anduku:
Errrrrr, you are not under any bans, neither is lordreed, shopkeeper or budaatum, what tied you guys fingers since all these days that you couldn't condemn it the same way you would have rushed down here to lament if it was a Republican that did it? One word, HYPOCRISY!!!

I don't particularly go about shouting "racist". It's just not my thing and you can't blame me as I live in liberal UK where racism is a thing you'd get locked up for! That racist governor though would hopefully be hounded out or voted out democratically as he deserved to be, regardless of party!

And you are right. If maga had painted his face black, I would have had a field day, but don't expect me to go shooting my own foot with my own gun, as ashamed that that stupid governor painted his face black.

An aside, what do we make of Liam Neeson walking “up and down areas” with a cosh, hoping he’d be approached by “some black bastard” so that he could “kill him”? Hear the interviewer here.

Thank you, O Wise Hermes, for continuing to educate shadeyinka. You will continue to be strengthened!

I suggest she read up on spirituality, since she does claim to want to learn despite her resistance, and pay particular attention to the following:

There is no single, widely agreed upon definition of spirituality. Surveys of the definition of the term, as used in scholarly research, show a broad range of definitions with limited overlap. A survey of reviews by McCarroll each dealing with the topic of spirituality gave twenty-seven explicit definitions, among which "there was little agreement." This impedes the systematic study of spirituality and the capacity to communicate findings meaningfully. Furthermore, many of spirituality's core features are not unique to spirituality; for example self-transcendence, asceticism and the recognition of one's connection to all were regarded by the atheist Arthur Schopenhauer as key to ethical life.

According to Kees Waaijman, the traditional meaning of spirituality is a process of re-formation which "aims to recover the original shape of man, the image of God. To accomplish this, the re-formation is oriented at a mold, which represents the original shape: in Judaism the Torah, in Christianity there is Christ, for Buddhism, Buddha, and in Islam, Muhammad." Houtman and Aupers suggest that modern spirituality is a blend of humanistic psychology, mystical and esoteric traditions and Eastern religions.

In modern times the emphasis is on subjective experience and the "deepest values and meanings by which people live," incorporating personal growth or transformation, usually in a context separate from organized religious institutions.

GoodMuyis:
Maybe off schooling.

Or learning what he was taught, and growing.

LordReed:
The German's have the church tax, don't be surprised to see more of such.

Germany has a history that makes it logical that they would. UK doesn't, nor does America and many more countries, so don't be surprised if it takes a while to get to Nigeria. In the meantime, I am of the world and plan to benefit from the lack of one. Praise God, everyone!

(Now, perhaps that thread going A's are Fools!)

LordReed:
Ahh so its payment for services yes? Then it should be taxed yes?

Yes it should be taxed! But you got to get that passed as policy first, and should expect resistance.

LordReed:
I don't think it matters what you earn, tithing is a ridiculous concept in this modern iteration and serves no other purpose than to enrich the church corporations, tax free!

I beg to differ, my Lord! When people come to church, they come to receive something, and as you very well know having been there before, they do receive something, so why should they not pay for what they receive. Even if what they are given is illusion and smoke, is what they receive illusion and smoke?

You atheists should please learn that the people of this world are wise. There is nothing wrong with people paying tithe to them and only those worthy of receiving it is it paid to!

shadeyinka:
And when someone uses the "mind" as a yard stick, you still ask for physical evidence!

You have to make up your mind!

The mind is the yard stick, but some minds are built on sand, is the problem, and not on the solid foundations of evidence. Some even make up foundations and claim their faith is in these unseen things! Is that not a different order of blindness?! The Comforter that Jesus said he would send dwells or is a in the mind thing, but we all know it can not dwell in dim minds and some minds are very, very, dim!

Look at Paul. Paul was doing mind when he said, "by faith", but James added evidence when he added "works" to his. But look how highly Paul is regarded than the mightier James and perhaps you might note how the majority look at red balls but see black ones, as the misleader would like most too! And before you think of challenging "works" as is often done, note that Jesus said you'd do more works than even he did, even move mountains, which is immense works, and by your faith.

shadeyinka:
The summary is simply that even physical evidence may mislead us if every surrounding information is not completely known.

One day, a man was led up a mountain to be misled, but since the man knew a lot more than the misleader, the misleader failed and "Then the misleader left Him, and behold, angels came and ministered to Him."

As you might see from the above, it is simply the more reason to increase one's knowledge (and understanding, and wisdom) so one is not misled!

Please note that those who Jesus-spat-on-mud has been rubbed in their eyes can see, and so can not be easily misled.

shadeyinka:
I wish you can educate me... honestly!

Sorry shadeyinka, but I do not think you are being honest here and you are trying to mislead me; the evidence does not agree with your "educate me" but shows a person who assumes to already know it all and so feels no need to become as a child to learn.

Please read through the thread again, your words only, the abundance of your heart, and you might see too that you already knowitall and can not be taught until you become a child again - for only then can you be reborn.

shadeyinka:
Seeing may not simply justify believing!

Not seeing justifies believing even less¡

GoodMuyis:
3=> When the atheist stop asking recycled question e.g. Who Created God?
4=> When the atheist stop imagining that they have superior brain-power

Where is winner01 with his superior brainpower!?

shadeyinka:
You don't get it yet.
If I told you I LOVE you, is there a scientific instrument to assertain the truthfulness of what I said? If indeed I do love you, is there a scientific means of quantifying the love? Is there even a standard of what one can consider as 100% love?

Yes there is! First you need to understand what "a scientific instrument" is however because I don't think you get it yet, or do you understand that the eyes "a scientific instrument" as are the other senses including the mind?

Now tell, can you not use your "scientific instruments" to ascertain whether you are loved or not and to what extent?

shadeyinka:
A scientific research was conducted years ago in an American University that question the way we sense information.
Example:
The fact that we all agree that the colour of the ball in a room is BLACK does not make the information True. The ball could actually be RED in colour and our judgement skewed because of the absence of one tiny spectra of the visible light.

Seeing may not simply justify believing!

That may well be so. There are many reasons why a perceived (or, sensed, to include all other means of seeing), may appear one way but be misperceived, but whether something is perceived or not is of a different order to the interpretation of what is perceived I would think. Imagine everyone claiming the one black ball is ten balls or no balls at all. Surely, they would have to come up with a criteria to determine which statement is valid.

The [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Emperor%27s_New_Clothes]Emperor's New Clothes[/url] is a good illustration.

Two weavers who promise an emperor a new suit of clothes that they say is invisible to those who are unfit for their positions, stupid, or incompetent – while in reality, they make no clothes at all, making everyone believe the clothes are invisible to them. When the emperor parades before his subjects in his new "clothes", no one dares to say that they do not see any suit of clothes on him for fear that they will be seen as stupid. Finally a child cries out, "But he isn't wearing anything at all!"

Might explain why it is written, "unless one become as a child, no KoG for one"!

shadeyinka:
Our senses are subjective. Sometimes what we see is determined by information that is available to us.

Is this the point I order you to accept Jesus into your life, I wonder, for this is the reason why one must ensure one's eye is not dim and polluted by the information available to one. Christ illustrated this with his "Seek ye first the KoG", and why he spat on mud and rubbed it in people's eyes, "for if the senses are dim, all one's sense are probably crap". I'd even claim he shed his blood so that you could be cured of this disease called 'Subjective Senses'!

shadeyinka:
No sir!
These are both subjective...and they just like the spiritual cannot be quantified.

I think your information might be limited. There are ways of objectively determining emotions these days, and many can easily recognise love and fear though I can't say the same about the spiritual until I know what you mean by that word. I can say however that I am using words in a somewhat spiritual sense here and wonder if you notice?

shadeyinka:
Of course, that would surely happen one day!

Amen! Amen!

shadeyinka:
I hope I am not mistaking you for an atheist; you argue like one!

I hope not too. But shadeyinka, my sake. Since you seem to rely on "scientific research conducted years ago in an American University" instead of trusting you very own God given eyes, I can assure you that you are 100% mistaken and should learn to make your own eyes work so that you trust your own senses more.

Your question, translated loosely, is:

"What shall I do to enter the KoG?"

johnydon22:
Jesus fought against hypocrites all his life, then created the greatest hypocrites the world have known after going back to heaven.

The Irony and hypocrisy of Christianity

Jesus did not, in any way, "created the greatest hypocrites the world have known after going back to heaven"! Same way no book told anyone to boko haram anybody!

Some become hypocrites all by themselves, and despite Jesus teaching them not to become 'crites and being nailed to a piece of plank Eloi Lama Sabachthani Eloi so they wouldn't, to boot!

It's not the road that is bad. Some just miss it, or are wearing the wrong boots or just drag their foots as they walk along it. And some just are on deluded roads.

LordReed:
I don't agree that it is a waste of time. For those of us open enough to receive new information it may be the linch pin to transformation. I appreciate all the people I debated with back when I was still a christian. They "forced" me to think and research beyond the things religion had taught me. And thank Zeus for the internet, the greatest repository of our collective knowledge, it is harder to hide information now that everything is being investigated, documented and uploaded.

Now that I am no longer in religion I feel so much freedom to point out some of the rather donderheaded thinking I ignored while I was still religious. If it sparks something off in someone then good and if it doesn't I am still entertained by how the religious must defend their positions by even more boneheaded arguments. No waste of time in my opinion.

I really have nothing 2 say but I'm quoting because I love boneheads. And like*² 2!

I have not seen anything wrong with El Rufai here o! In fact, I think I nominated him for President somewhere on here, though I said Nigeria is not ready for the super hardman a la GMB-plus that I see him as.

If anyone interferes in our democracy, including Buhari, we should send them packing quick quick, is my opinion too, though in a bag is a bit harsh. Nigeria is not some banana republic, is my opinion. I don't approve of external interference in Venezuela either, to put it in context, provided they are following their constitution. And if any external people, including big mouth President MAGA interferes in their internal affairs then they deserve to be body bagged a la Fidel Castro for all I care and wish for! We've seen the consequence of their interference in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, to name a few, and them doing nothing to the murdering crown prince of Saudi Arabia with his interference in Yemen and Turkey!

El Rufai is just saying, in our Nigerian way, that we are not anyone's child anymore.

Olanireti:
Wao, this is highly Commendable. I was serving(NYSC) in Opobo when Wike came to do the Flag off. One statement I made then was, 'I hope it would not be abandoned'. I'm really happy for the people of Opobo. Movement to and fro then was a thug of war. You either use bike from Borí to Òpóbo Town then(1hr plus) at the price range from #1000 or you either go to Ikot Abassi in Akwa Ibom state then use speed boat from there to Opobo. I can not forget the experience in a hurry. Thank God for Preservation of life.

Hope to visit the town someday, now that there's good road.

I like you!

Ubenedictus:
i mean set apart in the sense goldenventures explained.

We are called by his name isn't about deification. And the way christians explain theosis is different from how it is explained in those cultures.

you are gods, deification is a important subject but I don't believe that is the meaning of called by his name.

I think you might mean how you "explain theosis is different from how it is explained in those cultures" , or how it has been explained to you, and I think if op wanted an off the shelf explanation, knowing a bit about op, he'd probably have gone to the shelf and picked one off himself.

I kind of think what op might be doing here is asking us to think about it, exercise the mind so to speak, at least that's what I think op's intention is here, and not just regurgitate what we already know or might have been told. But I guess since my ability to read minds is wonky, PastorAIO, please set me straight, would you.

Martinez39:
Oh yes! Yes! Fvck that sh1t! Tear it! Faster, harder, don't stop. Oh yeah. Awwwn

Lol!

shadeyinka:
Lack of scientific explanation is never an evidence for the existence or lack of existence of God. No!
However, it is a scientific means of saying that the probability of it existing or not is neither 0% nor 100%

Ok, I think you might have gone way above my level little here! By "scientific explanation", I understand, "the explanation of the evidence my senses ascertain", and by that I mean "putting into words what my senses sense".

Now, if my senses tell me something exists, say like I'm walking along and bump into a table, then the table is 100% there. But if I'm walking along and do not bump into anything, then according to my senses, nothing is there. Are you asking me to give a probability to nothing being there when I bump into nothing? If so, probability is not the right word, but since I bumped into nothing, I can safely claim I am 100% certain there is nothing there, since my senses didn't record anything there.

shadeyinka:
Now, it means you are the one playing a Russian Roulette with your soul.
For me, I don't need any scientific validation to believe in God...and I have nothing to loose even if I am wrong. (I am not about discussing Pascal's Wager)

I don't think I'm playing "Russian Roulette" if my senses record nothing there and there really is nothing there. But I would be playing "stupid Roulette" if there's nothing there and my senses agree there's nothing there and then I make out something is there, though. In fact, I'd be playing "stupid buda Roulette", if I did that! "Very stupid buda Roulette", in fact!

That does not mean other people who do that - imagine something is there when there really is nothing there - are stupid like I'd be if I do it though, since there's many reasons some people see invisible things that aren't there.

Danhumprey:
Hallelujah.

Amen!

shadeyinka:
Wouldn't the bacteria just see you as nothing but natural habitat.

It might. But I still wouldn't be a nothing nothing since it knows there's something there or it would be dead if there was nothing there and it believed there was.

shadeyinka:
Wouldn't the Scientists among the bacteria study the "garden" in which they live. Everything if they could see, would they know the difference between food from your body and you?

"The Scientists among the bacteria" ? You mean the bacteria that is capable of using its senses, including its mind? Then it might probably know the "difference between food from your body and you". And if it went to science school, it might even be able to determine I am buda too, or poison, even.

shadeyinka:
You'll agree with me that the disparity is too much for bacteria to be able to draw a man eating on the dinning table

Only as much as it is agreed that it didn't go to art school too, because if it did, it just might be "able to draw a man eating on the dinning table", and a woman beside him too.

shadeyinka:
Like why believe in Love when you can't quantify it.
Why control fear when it cannot be measured
Why should words of an order be obeyed

Before you start screaming that these are emotions and not personalities! No one can prove the spiritual!

Love and fear can be proved!

shadeyinka:
What if you discover that God really exist, what would be your reaction and response?

I know you ain't talking to me, but if I discovered God really exists (as opposed to believing, which is the holding of some alt reality in my head that I have no evidence for and which could be wrong though I wouldn't know because I'm perhaps too lazy to check or deluded), I, buda, would be screaming around like a mad person going, "Shadeyinka, look at the existing God!" And when I show it to you, I'd expect you to say, "aha, buda! I see it", if there truly is something there to show to you, and your eyes work.

CAPSLOCKED:

TODAY I CONCLUDE THERE'S NOBODY AS DUMB AS A CHRISTIAN.
CHANGE MY MIND.

Depends what you mean by "CHRISTIAN". And what you mean by " change your mind". If you explain, I will gladly take up this challenge. In fact, I'm dying to, soon as I find someone with a capable mind!

Are you capable? How about a thread?

Martinez39:
Carry go.

E pain you?

Jesus, enter Martinez39!

Jesus, enter Martinez39!

Jesus, enter Martinez39!

There! More pain!

shadeyinka:
I could talk of the gaps if I wish but not like you think not as a proof of God's existence but to show you that there are many things that defy scientific explanation.

So anything that that defies "scientific explanation", is evidence for the existence of a thing?

How does that work?

.

shadeyinka:
Really?
How do you think a Bacteria can communicate the reality of the presence of human beings who walk on two legs, with height (relatively to the size of a bacteria 22million kilometers, weight like 100million megatons and with liquid rain than can wipe out a continent of bacteria consisting of more than 800 million precious bacteria souls!

Pls answer the above question based on what we know about bacteria.

Depends on the bacteria, of course. But when it tries to feed on you and can (feeding on you being it's sole reason for being concerned whether you exist or not, and how it determines if you do or not), it would stay on you and thrive, knowing you most definitely must exist, because if you didn't exist it would likely jump somewhere more sustaining or die. And if you could ask it afterwards if you didn't exist, (provided you speak and understand bacteriumba, or bacterianglish, depending which it speaks), it would most likely say, "I thought you existed. But when I tried to eat you I found you didn't, and look now, I'm dead!" Whereas, if you existed, it would say "look at me, I multiplied. Ergo, you most definitely must exist!" In bacteriumba, or bacterianglish, and "based on what we know about bacteria", of course.

GerogeI:
Crap.
Anybody could have gone to court. Any xyz group in the senate or in my village could have gone to court. There was absolutely no need for senate resolution to go to court.

Of course anybody can go to court, in their personal capacity, and Saraki could have done so too, and so can you. But 'anyone' cannot go to court in the name of the Senate of Nigeria without a resolution, majority carried, by the Senators in the Senate!

Danhumprey:
I'm not interested in pleasing anyone, whoever they may be.

Another atheist finds Jesus.

Say haleluya, somebody!

shadeyinka:
Can Bacteria prove that I exist?

Yes now! Using it's criteria of existence, it can.