₦airaland Forum

vaxx:
I must have offend you to ask something of such as an online buddy. But if it get on your nerve as I see it . I tender my apology.

Yes, you do get on my nerves. You write badly and expect to be understood, and when people respond, what do you say? "You don't understand"! When you claim one does not understand, I suppose you are being emotionless, in your view!

If you don't want to be misunderstood, why not make a little bit more of an effort to write clearly? Or haven't you heard of proofreading what you post? You really need to stop insulting people and then accuse them of getting emotional. Your insults are a clear sign of who is the emotional one here. Though now that you've got me going, emotion is well deserved, from me!

vaxx:
look up sir

I'm not wadding through your bad writing vaxx, looking for an answer to a question you have not bothered to respond to. If you've answered it, you can copy and paste a link to it, or let me just assume you are talking crap and hoping we are too ignorant to see through you!

Glycolysis:
Is that an answer to my question ?

Now,my question again ; as an atheist you are,you certainly don't believe in faith,hence I ask,what is your proof & evidence to show of how the earth was formed ?

Oh maybe I could help after all !

I guess some powerful random moving gases that came from nowhere & collide together to produce the orderly earth & the other planets !

Then another powerful ape that changes from one form to another that came from primitive amphibians that evolve from fish ,which the fish evolved from the coelentrata that evolved from the prokaryotes some 300 million years ago that came from nowhere produced you & your fellow atheist ! Wonderful !!

Isn't that wonderful ?
Atheist are actually the most smartest of people I have ever seen ! They subject there brain to tedious task to unveil the "truth" !

Maybe soon,you & I,& your fellow atheist will go & explode some more powerful gases close to a valley to form another earth ! We shall call it "EARTH-002 " !
What do you think ? We will certainly win a noble prize for that magnificent evention that came from NOWHERE !!

Wonderful once more !

Excuse me! You accused me of claiming the earth was formed out of nothing, now you are telling me about gases colliding! Where did I tell you that the earth was formed out of gasses? Are you just being absurd perhaps, and don't even understand the meaning of your very own words? Did God not form the earth out of nothing? Was God itself formed out of something? So why do you make out like claiming the earth was formed out of nothing is so absurd when that is exactly what you believe?

If you could think, you would wonder how the heck I could possibly know how the earth was formed. Was I there? Or don't you know how long the earth has been in existence? Was anyone there to record it? Yet you are stupidly asking me to provide you with evidence of how the earth came into existence! Perhaps you think I am like you who relies on priests or scientists or one single book to tell me what I should believe!?

If you don't know a thing to be true, it is perfectly okay to believe, as long as you say so, which you do, I guess. Or is it not true that you believe that God created the heaven and the earth, according to you? But going about and making out that what you chose to believe is what actually happened is for the silly people. And assuming that one believes stuff one never told you one believed is even sillier! buda does not do belief, or silly! You sir need to evolve a bit!

tintingz:
Ok, since you have ifa knowledge, what do you suggest the people should have done for the gods to protect them?

Abi now! N'gbo, vaxx. What do you suggest the people should have done so that the superior god did not overwhelm and enslave them?

vaxx:
completely goal post shifting..


The thread topic is where was orisha /olodumare during slave trade and not the similarities between world major religion...


I am not contrasting or comparing the similarities of religion here , I am stating what seems as ignorance when people repeat the same question.where was orisha /olodumare during slave trade.

So if I say you lack the understanding....you yourself should be able to accept it.. It is not insulting. It is obvious. '""See the topic"" " see your reply"


BUT I will like you to create this topic elsewhere.....it been what i wanted to do.even compiling some book on it.

You should just write my response for me then and not bother asking the question or starting a thread! As if you get to tell people what they should write! You said I do not understand, and I have shown you that I seem to understand way better than you seem to.

Regarding the topic at hand. You said Orisha/Olodumare is not separate from the human being, and that they are one and the same thing. So the question posed is simply, "where were the people who were enslaved (or their sense) when they were being enslaved?", since the people and Olodumare/Orisha are the same one entity, according to you.

The answer is a simple, the person, and their Orisha, were not smart enough to resist being enslaved. And the people on seeing the superiority of the new god, thankfully abandoned their primitive idea of Olodumare, which was their own archaic thinking anyway, and smartly, adopted the superior knowledge and idea of god that was used to enslave them, as anyone with a brain would do. As we Yorubas would say, a ja wo kuro ninu apon ti ko yo, a lo gbe omi ila ka na, or our enslavement would have been a lot worse than it currently is today, with our pointless human sacrifices et al!

You really should stop throwing tantrums as if you are the only one with a brain. We are not stupid individuals whom you get to educate with what is seeming more like a limited understanding of what you think you might know. If you don't want people to voice their opinion, consider writing it in a book and not on an interactive forum where people would likely respond. I have written my piece and it stands. You are not the only one on here and if you don't get it, those who will will!

Glycolysis:
Oh shit ! How the earth forms from absolute nothing

Hey, yes now! By a God that was also formed by "absolute nothing", doh! Or was God formed by something? And did God use some sort of material to form the earth?

Some people need Jesus Christ in their life, or should just get a goddamn brain! You unbelieving hell bound bloody atheist!

vaxx:
It will mean you are not yet evolve to understand olodumare ""God"" in africa spirituality.

It means Everything that you can sense and yet not sense is an expression of God,

The basic element of GOD is this...

- God is ‘the happening’ itself!
- God is ‘the Truth’ which is always happening.
- God is there, never happened.

Therefore God is source of every creation, when you see man, you just seen his element, when you see tree, you just seen his element, when you rock etc, you are seeing his element.

Some call it Monism, by the way, the "Everything that you can sense and yet not sense is an expression of God" . Amerindians also believed in the divine unity of everything, as did the Aborigines, the Amazonians, and quite a few others.

Judaism introduced the same idea with their 'God', until priests got hold of it and placed themselves between humans and their psyche. It is not some external entity that spoke to Adam in the garden, but the unconsciousness (as it was at the time) in the human which is projected outside ones own being when initially discovered. The serpent is simply the negative aspect of that same psyche, negative in Judaism. It is the idea being conveyed in the Book of Proverbs, where Sophia is given a voice.

Jesus symbolises the same idea, being the embodiment of the "will" in the human being, except by his time it had become the consciousness, as in humans were more conscious of it. It is the entire meaning of the expression "Seek ye first the Kingdom of God". He goes further and tells you where to seek it: "The Kingdom of God is within you" and "Know ye not that ye are gods?, in an attempt to resolve this split and unite the psyche with the 'self'. This same concept is later established in the form of the Holy Spirit that ministers to one. But religion had so much got in the way that they made an external God out of it, tagged it on to the almighty and placed it apart from the person and far away up in heaven.

It is what Christianity expresses in the idea of the Trinity, but which Christians think means the literal "Father, Son, and Holy Ghost", rather comically! When it is said, "seek, and you shall find", it is the realisation of this idea that one is supposed to be looking for, the "unity of all in the concept called God" as embodied in the human being".

Mohammed, in Islam, also discovered the same idea. It is the realisation of an aspect that appears separate from the self that we now read as coming from God through the Angel Gabriel. His struggle (Jihad), in accepting the first encounter with his psyche as his consciousness meeting his unconsciousness is established in the narrative of the Angel telling him to "recite", a struggle that lasted years but which is presented as an act that took a couple of minutes. The rituals in Islam are meant to lead one to this discovery! Their consciousness and unconsciousness has become Allah, and Mohammed is the one who literally makes one aware of it.

The Four Noble Truths - abandoning your Tanhās, and replacing them with Chanda - is the first step in the million or so on the journey to the realisation of Nirvana. Jesus expressed the same sentiment when he told you where not to store up your wealth, advising against the wrong sort of wealth. Nirvana is not someplace like some think heaven is, but a state of bliss that comes after arriving at the destination of knowing that you are God. A realisation that upon encountering, makes some feel so much sorrow for ones fellow beings that one does not enter the Nirvana one has sought for all ones life, but goes down to hell where humans are suffering in an attempt to save them, because "In as much as one does for all those whom one sees, one has done for one's God whom one sees not"!

Jung called it the Shadow. His work on the [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_%28psychology%29?wprov=sfla1]Individuation[/url] dealt with this dual idea of the human being. He wrote extensively how the lack of resolution appears as a mental illness even in societies. And went on past the Trinity, as discovered by the West, and added a fourth aspect to form the Quarternity signifying completeness.


Say "I don't understand as much as you want!" I understand it's what people say when they themselves are limited in their own understandings, or when one is simply disagreeing with them, so I will ignore it henceforth or perhaps create a thread with that topic just so I can point people to it when they say "you don't understand"!

Buda does not agree that you vaxx, do not have the capability to understand buda if buda is clear enough. You are not stupid! If you ever don't understand buda, please note that it is because buda has not expressed herself clearly enough, and once you make buda aware, buda promises to always try harder to express buda clearer than buda might have done.

tintingz:
The blacks had no choice when the colonials came, either they accept the white culture or suffer and die.

If vaxx could, he'd agree that we, as ourselves, or as our individual Olodumares, were not smart enough, to resist slavery or colonialisation. I would argue that our Olodumare, and ourselves, knowing what was better for us, and how much superior these new comers were to Olodumare and ourselves (which is the same person, mind) advised us (or ministered to us) to abandon our ancient beliefs and understandings and adopt this superior western culture, or suffer and die! It's after all obvious 3 is greater than 2. It probably figured that a person in trinity is greater than a person in duality.

I find this funny vaxx. You should read through what you write and consider how a reader might understand what you've written.

vaxx:
Do you still blame the gods on our fail attempt to breaks this gun down and build a better version of our own.

Take the above, a pertinent question. And now read the response to it below.

vaxx:
Gods are not sepreate beings sitting somewhere in the sky, gods is the power of olodumare living with you and the inability not to use it after it has been giving to you willingly is not the faults of the Gods but rather your own faults.

vaxx:
Olodumare is not some ghost living far off in the clouds, waiting to greet us at your death . Olodumare lives through our godly actions, through the holding of hands and power of encouraging words. And it is not to be found in disunity

vaxx:
In African culture, we are literally gods. Therefore, to just "believe in yourself" and "believe in god" is the same thing in Indigenous African theology.

We agreed, as you've clearly stated in the extracts above that as far as Olodumare is concerned, that "we are the gods". So, in response to your question:

vaxx:
Do you still blame the gods on our fail attempt to breaks this gun down and build a better version of our own.

What difference does it make whether I blame the person or his Olodumare? Are they not one and the same person according to you? And if we, or us through our Olodumare, had done the following,

vaxx:
War is always won by who prepared most in terms of techinicallity and in terms of military troops. That is the way oyo empire was able to submerge most of the Yoruba kingdom even down to dahomey present day Benin republic..

Surely we wouldn't have been enslaved! But because we failed to:

vaxx:
fail to actualize the power of the gods living in them . As it can be seen today . EVEN after the emancipation. Yet we are still where' we are after 400 years of slavery. Some of is a now willing to be slaved . It is choice you made.

The whole idea of projecting an aspect of oneself unto an entity called Olodumare, Spirit, Chi, Psyche, can be seen to not be unique in Yoruba. The Igbos would go as far to say, "if I say 'yes', and my Chi says 'no', I would get another Chi!", a clear recognition of who is in charge here! It is called the conscious, and the unconscious, mind, vaxx. The you inside of you!

As to the following,

vaxx:
We are NOT a sheep for Olodumare like the Christian is a sheep for Jesus. And neither are we a slave of Olodumare like the Muslim is a slave to Allah. And neither are we alone like the athiest .

We are a microcosm of the macrocosm that IS Olodumaré, the Supreme Being.

The atheist knows there is a consciousness and an unconsciousness to the mind. The atheist just knows who they belong to. The atheist goes further by not separating them from their own person. My conscious mind, and my unconscious mind, and hence my Olodumare, as you have used it above is all the same me. So if either is stupid enough to allow me to be enslaved, you can blame me, or my Olodumare, its the same, me, is my point here!

This is how intelligent people reason, but discount for the fact that we count better in modern times.

Who Kills More, Religion or Atheism?
by Brian Dunning

Hide that Bible in your pocket as the guard hustles you down the snowy road on your way to eventual death in Stalin's Gulag, for today's subject is the debate over whether more people throughout history have been killed in the name of religion, or in the name of atheism.

Atheist authors like Christopher Hitchens, Michael Shermer, and Sam Harris are always debating religious authors like Dinesh D'Souza, William Dembski, and Alister McGrath about whether or not God exists, or whether or not religion is good for the world. And, as predictably as the sun rises, these debates nearly always devolve into the argument of which side is responsible for the greatest death toll throughout history. Which is a more terrible killer: religious fundamentalism, or the lack of religion?

Christians charge that the most killing in history has come from modern atheist regimes. Adolf Hitler led Germany during World War II when he executed six million Jews in the Holocaust, three million Poles, three million Russian prisoners of war, and as many as eight million others throughout Europe. Joseph Stalin was the General Secretary of the Soviet Union following the Russian Revolution until his death after World War II. Between 10 and 20 million Soviets and German prisoners of war died under his regime, depending on how many famine victims you count, from Gulags, execution, and forced resettlement. Mao Zedong, who led China for more than a quarter of a century following World War II, created the Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution programs which collectively killed unknown tens of millions of Chinese, most of them in public executions and violent clashes. Pol Pot led the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia during the 1970's, when as many as 2 million Cambodians, or as much as 20% of the population, died from execution, disease and starvation.

History is full of uncounted massacres by armies carrying a religious banner, though most such episodes were in ancient times with much less efficient killing technology and microscopically smaller populations. The number of religious exterminations of entire villages throughout history is innumerable, though most had body counts only in the hundreds or thousands. Alexander the Great is estimated to have executed a million. 11th century Crusades killed half a million Jews and Muslims. Genghis Khan's massacres of entire populations of cities probably totaled a million. The Aztecs once slaughtered 100,000 prisoners over four days. An unknown number, probably in the millions, died in the Devil's Wind action in Colonial India. Up to four million Hindus, Sikhs, and Muslims died in post-Colonial India. The Ottoman Empire massacred two million Armenians over the years. Franco's Spanish Civil War killed a hundred thousand. A million have died in Rwanda, half a million in Darfur. And Christian vs. Muslim violence has obviously dominated our headlines for a decade, totaling somewhere in seven figures.

So who has been the worst throughout history: atheist regimes or religious regimes? Obviously the big numbers come from the 20th century superpowers (China, Russia, Germany) so the answer depends on how you classify those. And this is where the meat of these debates is usually found, splitting hairs on which regime is atheist, which is merely secular, which is non-Christian and thus fair game to be called atheist. Hitchens points out that Stalin's government had all the trappings of religion, including Orwell's totalitarian theocracy, and thus it's merely a play on words to say that it was not religious. Pol Pot was raised a Buddhist monk who grew up to execute Buddhist monks, along with anyone else he could lay his hands on. Whole books have been written on the occult underpinnings of Nazi Germany, the symbology of the Norse gods, to say nothing of the claims that Hitler was a Christian, Hitler was a Jew, and his own writings expressing the kinship he felt with the Muslims. A favorite counterpoint raised by Christian debaters is that these despots practiced Social Darwinism and were thus atheists by definition. In summary, the winner of these debates is the one who can convince the other that the big 20th century genocidal maniacs were motivated either by religion or by a desire to destroy religion. The entire debate is the logical fallacy of the excluded middle.

Here's the thing. If you write a book called God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything, you sell a lot of books. If you write a book called What's So Great About Christianity on the evils of atheism, you also sell a lot of books. If you say that neither extremist viewpoint makes any sense, you end up doing a podcast and working as a greeter at Wal-Mart directing customers to the section where they sell Hitchens and D'Souza books. The truth is less incisive, it's less inflammatory, it raises no ire, and it draws no audience.

And that truth, as I've said time and time again, is that people are people. No matter what segment of society you look at, you'll find good people and you'll find bad people. You'll even find, as has been said, that the line between good and evil cuts through every human heart. Certainly there are people in the news who kill in the name of religion, but just because they kill in the name of religion doesn't really mean they kill because of religion. The Islamic militants who cut off Nick Berg's head are not nice men who would have otherwise been his best friend, if it weren't for their religious convictions forcing them into this grievous act. They are base murderers, and they should be punished accordingly, I don't care whether they go to church or not. Killers don't really kill because of their religion. Neither does a lack of religious convictions cause one to run wild in the streets with a bloody axe and a torch. Religion is a convenient banner for many to carry, but there are plenty of other banners available as well, and if it wasn't religion, they'd do their deeds under some other justification, if they care to even have one. The real reason they do their evil deeds is that they're human. Humans are very smart, very capable; and when we want something, we generally find some way to get it, even if that means killing someone or committing genocide.

By doing this episode, I'm going to be called an apologist for atheist genocide. My dismissal of the entire argument as pointless and fallacious will be interpreted as a dodge from advocating a weak position. So go ahead and post that as a comment on Skeptoid.com, if you're still convinced that this is argument that can ever have a useful conclusion. I'm convinced that arguing either side is merely an opportunistic way to tingle sensitive nerves and sell a lot of books. And, I'm convinced that any discussion of the religious causes of genocide is a divisive distraction from the more worthwhile investigation into the true cultural and psychological causes. We are human beings, and we need to understand our human motivations.

So I am no longer going to participate in the childish debate of what religion has killed more people in history, because it doesn't matter. The way I see it, you might as well debate what color underpants are worn by the largest number of killers, and try to draw a causal relationship there as well. Religion does not cause you to kill people, and it certainly doesn't prevent you from killing people. Let's stop pretending that it does either.

Educate yourself by going though this List of wars by death toll.
Work out how many of the wars had atheists on either side. Then tell me which has religion as a reason for the wars, and the deaths.

winner01:
I think you miss the point. I wasn't referring to my God or any god.

To make this clearer, I challenge you or any atheist here to provide even the smallest of evidences that any other country have democides that magnitude of atheistic countries that have ever existed. I appreciate any evidence provided.

Stop claiming one misses the point when one merely disagrees with you! I told you in the beginning that this thread was pointless since it was just another 'your god is better than everyone else's god' thread. You protested at the time, but here you are with your true colours exposed trying to engage me in such an argument! The reason I said it was pointless was that any evidence that either side provides would be called crap by the other. And trying to prove anything to a person who is willing to believe things based on their faith regardless of the evidence, is stupid.

Do you know how many people died in Latin America when the Spaniards landed there? Or would you claim the Spaniards did not go to Latin America in the name of God, or were not religious? How about the many people carried away as slaves from the coast of Africa by Christians? How about the numerous purges and crusades in Europe, specifically in the name of God? How about the human sacrifices in what became Latin America? You did after all claim you didn't mean your god, so do they count towards deaths caused by religion too? Lets also add deaths in China during the periods when Taoism and Confucianism was their religion, and the deaths caused during the Arabic slave trades, they after all did have a religion; and the numerous deaths during the expansion of the Roman Empire and those between what became the Greek states. They too had religions with gods, so shall we say religion or god killed people then too? How about the numerous deaths in even Nigeria during the wars between the Muslim south and the Southern pagans, or those amongst the Yorubas, who all had religion? Do those count? Or are the numbers not big enough for you? I bet you would claim those terrorists killing people all over the world today are Muslims, and that they are killing people in the name of Allah, but you would likely point out that those who kill in the name of God are not true God followers. Go to any prison in any nation today and count how many religious people you would find in jail for murdering someone. Would you not find more people who believe in a god in prison than atheists? Even a simple record of killings of other human beings done in any country on any day of the year would have been committed by religious people if only for the fact that religious people out number those who are not religious by a significant amount. Yet you are quick to believe what religious apologetics have presented to you are deaths caused by atheists because it suits the narrative you wish to believe!

Your claim that atheists nations have killed more people than religious ones is false and relies on spurious uneducated evidence. The truth is that people have instigated killings for their own selfish ends and blamed their gods or no-gods for those killings. A classical example of this exists in the Bible itself. Despite it being written that God told people to kill others, the truth is that no god told anyone anything of the sort and people have simply attempted to justify their own actions by claiming God told them to kill people. When Bush and Blair said God told them to invade Iraq, we treated them with the derision that they deserved and should treat such historical claims with the same derision that they deserve.

Go read some history winner, and stop believing things you have no evidence for.

The disunity of Nigeria is in the minds of it's people. You can't have a united Nigeria if you all hate and distrust the tribes and religions of others.

Clean your hearts and minds of the bigotry in them and you'd all be united. Only you can unite Nigeria!

You might understand better if it were preached to you by a non-atheist. So read it here.

Creation science is indeed a pseudoscientific attempt to map the Bible into scientific facts. It is an unscholarly, dishonest and misguided sham with extremely harmful educational consequences. Anyone with an ounce of sense knows the invisible and undetectable Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe after drinking heavily.

Down with the bi-assed wikipedia!

solite3:
there is no contradiction, if you love God you would keep his comandments and that includes loving your neigbour.

And if you had bothered to read the thread from the start, you would read where I stated that if one obeys God's commandments, which is, loving one's neighbours, one loves God. This lesson was clearly taught in the parable of the Good Samaritan, unless you are not aware that the Levite and the Priest thought going to worship their God was more pleasing to God than helping their robbed and beaten neighbour.

Please do not make the error of thinking whatever God told you is what it tells everyone else. Some may have worse, or better, ears to hear and eyes to see than your's. It is specifically said that in as much as buda has done for those here on earth whom buda sees, it, buda's God, who is not seen, is being done for.

Buda's God does not require any more worshipping from buda than that, and as buda has stated in this thread. But when it does, it would get off it's Almighty ass and come and inform buda itself.

Abdulgaffar22:
You believe that God almighty can have another God? Honestly no amount of logical and biblical evidence can convince you. It is only God that can do the work. Don't you see the contradiction; God almighty can have another God. It is like you are saying there is a certain number that is greater than infinity. If a number can greater than iinfinty, then infinity is no longer an infinity. Similarly, if God almighty can have another God, then it is no longer Almighty God. This is an issue of common sense

One of the amazing feats of Jesus Christ was in healing people of blindness. It was so amazing that some equated him to the same level as God. But blindness is not completely cured unless one becomes born again, which is as difficult as a camel entering through a needle's eye.

There is nothing common about sense. So never ever again insult it by claiming it is 'common' please! One has to work really hard to overcome non-sense, which is a condition caused by being in darkness and hence blind to sense.

Glycolysis:
Lol....
Then do you have an evidence of how the earth formed ....Simple question ..

Do you have any evidence of how the earth formed?

Glycolysis:
Like the processes ..I want to see it !!
I don't want any theory probably written out by drunk men who lives by ASSUMPTION of how the beautiful earth was formed.....

So no Bible then, or what I might believe?
You bloody atheist!

Glycolysis:
YOU,DO YOU HAVE EVIDENCE OF HOW THE EARTH WAS FORMED ?

Stop shouting! Do you have evidence of how the earth was formed?

solite3:
to love God is not just doing Good to your neighbor but to obey all his commandments without feeling burdened.


when someone fornicates, commit, adultery, lie,steal and covert
it does mean he/she does not love God neither his/her neighbor.

I hope you see the contradiction in what you have written above. The first statement says one loves God when one "obey[s] all his commandments". Yet the second statement says it does not mean one does not love one's God if one breaks all those commandments! Then, look at those commandments, "fornicates, commit adultery, lie, steal and covert" , all things that one does to one's neighbour but which God commands one not to do!

solite3, it would appear to me that your God has rather different commandments for you than buda's God has for buda. If buda were to accept what your God seems to be saying, buda's God would be very very annoyed at buda's stupidity. And buda's God has only one punishment for buda if buda is stupid. buda would be thrown into hell!

To those whom less is given, less is demanded. Much more is demanded from buda!

winner01:
Cool

Its been about 3 years I posted that assertion here, backed with proof. No atheist has come forward to refute it considering the way atheists like to refute my "points". There are many atheists who have attempted to counter my threads by creating theirs. But, I not surprised no atheist has taken on that one point. I searched online and through some atheists websites too, nothing! Its unfortunate but the available evidence favours my stand on that point.

I'd like you or anyone else to counter it, with valid evidence too. I'd like to read a different narrative. .

I told you your sole intention on opening this thread was to "my god is better than yours", or didn't I? And I repeatedly said that it is difficult for you to accept evidence that opposes your position. You fail to accept any evidence that refutes your claim and have concluded your assertion is therefore valid. Kingebukasblog tried doing the same in a thread where he would be the defendant, judge and jury and we treated his stupidity with the scorn he deserved. Expect your thread to be treated the same way. Or read the counter narratives already presented to that claim. Those with eyes see.

winner01:
This is not a valid point. Religious beliefs in itself do not build societies. Religion is only likely to shape individual outlook to reality. And Europe prospered when it was religious, I'll open a thread on this and back it with proof once I have some free time.

You are incorrect in thinking religion shapes outlook. Your error stems from the biggest lie you Yahweists have bought into, that "God created you in it's own image". It is actually the other way round, your outlook defines your religion and builds your society.

Human societies have always created their gods in their own image, and according to their very own understanding. And religion is created to align you, the masses, to that created image of god. That's why some call it opium!

Europe was alway religious, winner, even now! Those who rule need religion to control their masses and would hardly abandon that control. But they allow their religions to evolve, which is why they progress. When their religious beliefs become rigid beliefs, and do not evolve over time, the dark ages is the result and death and decay sets in. That is the current situation in Nigeria, and which will only change when an reorientation of the contents in people's head occurs. A 4000-2000 year old understanding cannot be superior to current understanding. Societies that dwell in the past and refuse to evolve, die!

Please be aware that you are free to believe whatever you want to believe, and no one has a duty to educate you. That duty is your's and you don't have to take it on if you don't want to. You seem to not have sufficient knowledge of the history of certain aspects of development of societies and nations. If I'm not wrong, I think you already have some sociological knowledge. Though, I think it's rather of the basic sort, but it will be adequate for you to understand the sociological aspect of history, which I advise that you immerse your head in. It is my opinion that you are intelligent enough to have your eyes opened if you but want them to open. Though, I could be wrong.

sassysure:
As per UK, let me reserve my comment abeg.

Ordinary any capital in Europe I go to and and shame catch me for Britain. Conservatism, the one we call small 'c', one severely holds us back while we delude ourselves we are of some significance.

bloodofthelamb:
budaatum, you are depending in your strength. Let me ask you, can a branch be fruitful on it's on without the enablement and support of its vine?

Is it possible? This is what you are trying to do. You are trying to do and be all these things without Christ.

Do you might "succeed" for a while, but you will surely fail. "By the arm of flesh shall no man prevail."

Trying building a house without a foundation. Though it might stand, but for how long? Mankind lost his foundation in Adam, but have the chance to regain it back freely in Christ.

That is what you believe, blood, despite quite a lot of evidence to the contrary. Do you not, with your own eyes, see lots of people who are fruitful without Christ? Have you not read of any?

I told you about my "foundation". Years and years of learning to be buda. Very many many years indeed! Yet, out of the abundance of your supposed Christ filled heart, you boldly proclaim that buda "will surely fail", a statement completely devoid of love!

You make me wonder what the point of your 'Christ' is, blood. You appear to not love me! The 'Christ' I know of would not accept such behaviour from me. I would be condemned to the most fiery depth of hell if I but think it.

Thanks for your time. I enjoyed the conversation.

Ovamboland:
I think it will be good for our democracy to let the court pronounce if any member or members of a political party can unilaterally declare a division in a party. Can that be the intent of section 68g?

The intention is clear. The defector would have to provide evidence to the court of a division.

However, I'd be surprised if this gets to court, or if it does, that it would be resolved before the next election. I would love to be wrong though.

FarahAideed:
Nonsense ....The case of Tambuwal and APC has set a precedence so don't expect a differnt outcome here

The Constitution is not set by precedent. If some people abuse it, the abuse doesn't stand as an amendment for the future!

Still, I don't expect a different outcome here since Nigeria no de follow law.

Ovamboland:
If he's no longer a member of the Senate he can't be senate president. The majority party should find a way to trigger this provision and let Saraki go to court to prove there was a real division in APC

Nigerian Constitution too de get wowo! I can see them arguing that there is division in the party despite 'division' in this case meaning 'split'!

Provided that his membership of the latter political party is not as a result of a division in the political party of which he was previously a member or of a merger of two or more political parties or factions by one of which he was previously sponsored

bloodofthelamb:
Everybody needs grace.

As to the grace though. I could have not had the opportunity as stated below, or not taken, or even be capable of taking advantage of the opportunity as I have done.

AlexRi:
..... if you wonder how I came to the conclusions above, it is by learning done by reading books and observing people, my environment and whatever else I happen to have the opportunity to observe and learn from.

So, O but for the grace of God go I.

bloodofthelamb:
The heart of men is desperately evil. This is a divine declaration.

I am an atheist so it is against my nature to believe things I have no evidence for! Even if divinely declared.

I assume by 'men' you mean human beings, of which you are one. I cannot honestly claim you are desperate, or evil, because you have not given me any reason that you might be. And if I were to assume you are, I would be defensive, and probably attack you first and before you can attack me. And that would be contrary to loving you.

I do not share the opinion, divinely declared as it may be, that "The heart of men is desperately evil"! If I but think it were true, I, buda, would burn in hell.

bloodofthelamb:
budaatum, can an evil man do good deeds sometimes? Yes he can. But can his good deeds change who he is? No it can't. This was the case of king Amaziah.

Do human beings not do evil things sometimes? Are they evil because of their actions? Do you not do 'evil' things sometimes? Are you evil?

To err, they say, is human. But even gods err sometimes. So I'd hardly go there, to be honest.

It is why one strives, if one cares, to live up to, at least, an ideal godly standard. If one's focus is to love, one is less likely to do evil, or the evil one does would be much less than if one did not strive at all.

AlexRi:
Now, how can you be strengthen to do all things(including loving your neighbour in the God kinda love) through Christ that you've not believed in?

Easy! By understanding that we are human beings first and foremost, regardless of the beliefs held in one's head. By knowing that whatever I believe makes me no more special than anyone else, and not thinking I am superior or inferior to anyone because of the beliefs I may or may not hold in my head. By understanding that there is a huge reward in loving others, being that I am more likely to be loved since I reap whatever I sow, and have a peaceful mind since I do not clutter it up with the efforts of hatred. By not being easily offended or quick to offend. And by generally treating others as I might wish to be treated while recognising others are not me and may want to be treated differently to how I may think fit or desire for myself.

This is a short summary, which I hope would do. But if you wonder how I came to the conclusions above, it is by learning done by reading books and observing people, my environment and whatever else I happen to have the opportunity to observe and learn from. It is these that all mean 'Jesus' to me.

I might however be lying, that I have learnt, that is. So do go through my history and let me know where I erred. It would help me in my striving harder, which I constantly aspire to do. But ignore my history with an individual I refer to as sc, and the ape. He constantly makes me backslide, and no amount of striving has allowed me to overcome. Perhaps the gods have placed him in my path to test me, I often wonder. Or to perfect me, I hope.

hopefulLandlord:
May his Holy Noodly appendage keep touching your life

R'Amen

For thine are Meatballs, and the beer, and the strippers, for ever and ever

Al Dente

hopefulLandlord:
This is exactly why I live like FSM exists.

You get to eat pasta and mark it up as worship! In fact, I'm going to cook some for my dinner tonight.

Long live the Flying Spaghetti Monster!

Humchi:
are an atheist?

Non comprende!