₦airaland Forum

winner01:
Quick question.

When atheists mention my moniker in threads, does it mean they are trying to prove atheism right to me?

No, not necessarily, unless they have an inflated notion of themselves and think they can possibly come up with some argument that would make you abandon your Almighty God, and there are a few of those. Mostly, they are trying to get your attention to respond to the thread. Rarely, they want to just know your view on the specific topic. Often they want to provoke you for their own silly reasons and engage you in a your god does not exist argument. But you knew this, winner01. You just needed to ask yourself why you begin threads and invite atheists in them. Rarely, they are genuine threads with no obvious motive of provocation (and I wish you'd do more of those since you are intelligent enough to). But often, and especially those with atheist in the topic and peppered with words (the "nothing" in the topic of this one, to mention just one of the numerous in this thread), you just want to provoke atheists, and present a clarion call to your supporters and an avenue for ridicule and a your god is bigger than my god argument.

johnydon22:
I will post 2 pairs of moral enquiring scenarios to see how people would respond to that. Let us understand the intricacies our moral deductions.

Best way for this to work as intended is, you answer each question before even looking at the nexr question


1. A man walks past a pond and sees a young child drowning. He can easily save the child, as the pond is shallow enough that he can stand. But he will ruin his expensive suit in doing so. If he doesn’t save the child, nobody else will, and the child will die.

Is he morally obligated to walk into the pond and save the child?

No, I cannot not morally obligate anyone to save some damn girl drowning in a pond and ruin their expensive suit! No be them put am inside the pond, and I cannot morally oblige anyone to ruin their suit.

If I were walking past the pond, I may conscientiously obligate myself to ruin my damn expensive suit and walk into the pond to save the drowning girl. If I don't, every time I look at the suit after not walking into the pond to save the drowning girl all I'll think about is that I killed the drowning girl because of my expensive suit, and whenever I wear it, "I'd be thinking, buda, you murderer!" My conscience will prosecute me and find me guilty and no amount of whatever it is that I do would absolve me of my guilt. but that's not the question you posed.

johnydon22:
1b. A man plans to buy an expensive suit. With the money he intends to spend, he could instead save the child who lives in some distant country and is dying from malaria. Without the man's money, the child will die.

Is he morally obligated to forego buying the suit and to save the child instead?

No he isn't. It's hs mney and he can pend it however he wants.

Personally tough, I have done this in the past. However, I do it much less now. The story went, "if you want to get money from buda, mention school". At one point, more than a half of my wages went on paying other peoples' children's school fees. I had a hard time myself, and understood the implications of people not sending their children to school. But I do it much less now.

I spent two years in the Orolu Kingdom and found my sympathy for others was making me go hungry. At one point I had lost so much weight that my 85kg went down to 62! And besides, it seems people don't want to do what would ensure they can feed their child and provide proper medical care. Some idiot even stole my cows and sold them while I was being concerned about his child who was severely malnourished. The child eventually died, to my utter annoyance, so I put a spell on the cow thief and he died too for being a waste of space.

Now, my ideology is more of "no be me born your pickin, so why should I starve myself so your child should live?" But having read this op, tomorrow I am going to MoneyGram to send some money for Peter and Blessing's school fees. It will be coming out of my washing machine fund. But my reason is not that I am morally obligated. I just want to, and damn you, you've made me!

johnydon22:
2. You are standing at the point a train track breaks into two ways. 5 men are working on one side of the track, 1 man is working on the other side, each of them has a sound blocker blocking their ears and do not know the train is inbound.

You have the opportunity to push the track lever and direct the train to either of the sides.

Which of the sides would you rather have the traib go?

This one is a classic. And my answer is neither, as in I would rather the train not kill the one nor the five. And I would stand there till the very last moment wondering what to do. And I might, just in time, push the lever to direct the train to the one. But if I am too late in deciding and the five were to die, then c'est la vie. No be me kill anybody. The train did!

johnydon22:
2b. You are standing on a bridge above a train track with a fat man at the point a train track. 5 men are working on the the track each of them has a sound blocker blocking their ears and do not know the train is inbound.

The fat man with you can wedge the train if pushed under the train

Would you push him or not?

And murder the fat man, even to save five? No! I'll save my self a lot of hassle from my conscience by letting nature take its course. I don't think I could live with being the cause of the death of the fat man, and the train is culpable for the killing the five, and not me.

winner01:
But seriously, why do you guys think every theist thread is out to prove anything to you? Are you thirsty?

Oh come on winner01. You start threads, mention us in the title, mention us in the body of the post itself, throw false statements you very well know we would respond to, and you call us thirsty?

You are smarter than you think we now you are but wish to make us think you are dumb. Well, just in case you are not aware, you failed. It's glaringly evident, and you know that means a lot to we atheists. We see right through you! We just need to make you see it too, I guess.

vaxx:
flawed as usual, By definition, you can't prove a negative. That's the funny thing about life - if God exists, it can be known for real, but if God does not exist, it is not possible to know for sure. Note, this is not my opinion, I am stating an indisputable fact - if God exists, it can be known, because then God can verify His own existence. And if He does not exist, then it cannot be known. It is simple

This works very well for me. I'm begging you to come to the shop with me when I go there to spend the imaginary one million pounds that is in my bank account with which I intend to buy that spanking brand new red Ferrari I've always wanted. I'll introduce the negative, and you can tell the salesman that he can't prove the money does not exist! I'll let you ride in the spanking brand new red Ferrari on Fruitday, a day in the week that no one can prove does not exist, because "it cannot be known" that it does not exist since it is a negative. Simple!

I responded to this question here, and really wouldn't think another thread need be created for it. However, op claims "The burden of proof is on the positor", and while I would have been willing to engage on this basis - prove that God and gods do not exist - I would like op to consider that he is no better than I am when it comes to accepting the evidence, much of which already peppers numerous threads on this site, from the other side.

Take an example he put forward about resurrection. How please does that prove that gods exists, even assuming it actually happened and barring any other plausible explanation? Is it because God was called prior to the resurrection? So, suppose a Muslim tells op that an Imam called Allah and someone resurrected, would he be willing to accept that as evidence for the existence of Allah? I pretty much doubt it unless he is the type who accepts that Allah and Yahweh are one and the same. What then if it is claimed that a stone was rubbed on the dead body and it resurrected, would op accept that as divinity of the stone? Would any sensible person not ask for evidence? And why pray tell would the person who performed such an amazing feat not be able to do it again and again and again? I do say, I am an atheist and I lost someone very dear to me years ago. Does anyone really think I wouldn't take my dead person to this resurrector if I knew he could resurrect this person whom I loved and miss dearly? And if the condition for the resurrecting is that I believe, do you really think I would be so stubborn to not do so? You really must believe I am stupid! Thankfully, what you believe does not necessarily have to be true, it would seem, so I thank God that you are very wrong indeed!

But the entire premise of ops argument is defeated in one swell swoop by his own limitation of his own Almighty God to be honest, a point better illustrated in my response in the other thread of similar topic. If op understood his God as he proclaims he does, then please explain to me why that God would not find a way to get around my so called stubborn ability to disbelieve, and make me know? Is this not the God who formed me in my mother's womb and knows me in and out? Or is op admitting that his God is rather limited in its ability to convince me, a mere mortal, of its very own existence? I am afraid if it can't, then that alone is perhaps evidence that it is in no way whatsoever, almighty, as some would have one believe, in which case, in what way is it even a god?

The only evidence op is presenting for the existence of a god is anecdotal. Op's argument further falls on its ass when he claims the existence of his God is a belief, which he attempts to counter by claiming that the atheist's position is also a belief. But he couldn't get around the fact that some of us claim to know that gods do not exist. A suitable counter to ops beliefs are simply the fact that he is not alone in having beliefs about gods. It was once believed that a god called Zeus existed, and Apollo, and Osiris, and Obatala, and Ogun and numerous others who it was claimed created the heavens and the earth and the human beings in it. Is op willing to accept that if anyone still believes in any of these numerous gods, then they therefore are real? I wonder. And then there is the tiny issue of them all being the creator of the universe and the living things in it. Surely they can't all have created the one earth and the entire human race. Or is op willing to accept that gods, including op's god, are rather parochial and regional and that they created the humans in the societies that believe in their existences and maybe tiny parts of the universe?

The facts truly are that outside what one chooses to believe, not enough is known about the universe for anyone to claim that nothing actually existed at a particular point in time, and then some super powerful being made it all appear out of nowhere. The absurdity of such claims simply lie at the question of time, for unless one wishes to claim it is a recent occurrence, like 10,000 years at best, then one must sincerely ask how we know what we claim to believe. And when one considers that the universe is actually billions of years old, then consider how you know what happened so long ago when you most likely do not have a clue what happened four, five thousand years ago? Because it was written in one single book you read? Well perhaps that's the problem then, for surely there are a thousand more books that offer alternatives which might perhaps increase the things that the op would need to consider believing if he could but read more. He'd at least have to wonder if any of those are truer than the one that one believes in, if he were to be honest with himself.

The more unfortunate fact however, is that that op is asking that the facts of his religious book are what should be believed when in actual fact, that is not really the point of those books, in my opinion. I do not think it matters whether one believes that a fire burned and God spoke to Moses, or that an ass spoke to Balaam, or even that Jesus Christ was born of the Holy Spirit and lives forever after. For if there is anything true about those books, it surely isn't the record of facts that they present, but the truths about human nature that they actually teach and which if learnt, could be of benefit to one and the entire human race. The Gospels teach this fact very well, but it would seem op, and very many others, are yet to understand the fact that the error of the Pharisees whom Jesus Christ was alleged to have argued continuously with was that they believed but lacked understanding. It is a great pity. The person whom op and many Christians claim to revere had this lesson written in his blood so that they could live an allegorical or mystical everlasting life, but they waste that blood and revert to the pharisaic nature in humans and claim believing is what their God wants them to do. I say, if it was, then the Pharisees were doing very well thank you and there was no need to send an only begotten son to come and be killed to save anyone. Just continue to do what the Pharisees say should be done and you shall enter the Kingdom of God. One need ask why they were accused of giving stones instead of bread however. Perhaps the person accusing them was being rather harsh on them. To me it seems that they too, like op and many modern Christians think the stones are not stones but the bread, and in actual fact, they know not what the heck they are doing.

Op mentioned that he would not go into the question of the definition of the word 'atheist', but I would. The word 'atheist' used to refer to a person who did not worship the established gods. The great Socrates was killed for this one fact - deriding the gods and the beliefs in them in the society of his time. He however still believed in the existence of the gods, just not in the same way that the Greeks of his day did. If one were to be literal, Jesus Christ too was an atheist in his day, as he too did not believe in God in the same way that the priests of is time prescribed. "Is that not the son of Joseph", they wondered, knowing he had not been taught by them. And just to show he went to a different school is the odd statement, "so that it could be said that out of Egypt I called my son", a rather innocuous statement but one with significance that tends to fly over the heads of many.

I'll end as I began. Op might want to consider that he is no better than I am when it comes to accepting the evidence from the other side. I'm not claiming what I've written above is evidence for there not being a God, or gods. But op, and his sort would very likely claim the entire post is a load of rubbish and not worthy of consideration, just like most atheists would react to his anecdotal evidence for his God. But I am not trying to prove to anyone that there are no gods. I just have no evidence for their existence, and the anecdotal evidence presented for them convinces me more that they definitely do not exist. As to evidence that would convince me otherwise, it really is simple, and I am wiling to set this bar really really low to assist you. You believers would claim that God took mud and breathed life into it and created humans in his own image. And Jesus is written to have asked if you know that ye are gods. When your light shines godly, I'll bow, for their is nothing more godly than a human being who behaves in a godly fashion as if God has indeed breathed into the mud that you truly are, though my bowing does not mean I get to worship that person, as reverence, and probably learning from, is surely sufficient. I just don't sit in the dark and refuse to allow a light to light up where I sit, I suppose. And I am not so stupid (though that's debatable, I am aware!) as to claim that a godly person standing before me does not exist either.

Aaronsrod:
The Bible tells us to kill enemies of God.

We will kill.

it is well.

Thanks for this. Even despite some readings being able to mean the above, we'd still apply reason now won't we, and come up with numerous verses that say otherwise.

We sure wouldn't call a person who takes that single "kill enemies of God" as 'doctrine' and agree that such a person is a Bible or God follower. We'd most definitely not call such a person a Christian! Why people refuse to apply such reasoning to others just stinks of stupidity, or hypocrisy which is even worse, for they actually know what they are doing!

No one is comparing gays and pedophiles with murderers. I am comparing the attitude of yours that makes you jump from one bad egg to them all being bad! It's a silly way of reasoning that I can't adopt, or even condone by not commenting!

And it's not about criticising Buhari either, but criticising him with facts and the truth. Facts are not true just because they are believed! You got to check them and not twist them to suit the narrative you wish to be true. And history is there for you to learn from instead of blindly believing whatever suits your agenda and calling it the truth, or white, when in fact it's black as coal.

Religious doctrine is not what tells Ipobs to kill nor does religion tell Fulanis to kill. There are terrorists, period. And if you were to be honest, you can't tell a Shia from a Fulani, so how you know which Buhari opened fire on amuses me!

Perhaps you should stop reading between the lines and consider every letter and word instead!

Kingspin:
Buhari opened fire on Shia Muslims and Ipobs why not Fulani killers? Even if the whole Christians get killed you will never criticize Buahri. Jonathan is no longer in office, lets face the current recession and deads.

Please stop and stop comparing a gay or pedophile to a hired killers, blood-thirty and massacre. People whose only mission is kill innocent citizen. Do Gay people go about mass killing others? This is how you guys move around justifying murderers. Let put the matter straight there is no way All Muslims can be a terrorist. But there are Muslims terrorist, foot soldiers. I am not against Islam teachings whether is peaceful or not but against bad doctrines and hate ideology which is fueling the attacks and killings not only in Nigeria. Please read between the lines and comprehend. This is my last truth and reply with you. Learn to say some truths. BYeee

chemystery:
It's very stupid to go that way bro. There are thousands of religions and the best bet would be to hold unto the beliefs of all these religions. That way, you will not come short of any eternal goodies if any one of these beliefs happens to be the true one. There will also be nothing to loose if they all happen to be false. Just do that and thank me later.

There are many comments on here that make me want to laugh but though I've chosen to quote your's, it's because I like it more and can't really oppose Otem's

"Hold on to the beliefs of all those religions" says you. Which one's exactly? Does any religion have beliefs? Or is it not actually the case that human beings chose to believe what they read in their religious books or are told to believe like someone attempted to get one do on here. So, you take the first few chapters of say, the Bible. Read the two creation stories therein, and believe both despite the fact that they describe very different processes of creation? I'd love a religious person to explain to me how they accomplish that! But what you suggest is take all the religions and believe them all! Now that's a task!

So lets play a game shall we and take just one thing that one finds in some religious books, "Love your neighbour as you love yourself". I'll call that an ideal. A thing meant for the most perfect of beings to do, or just consider how possible it is for anyone to love their neighbour as much as one loves oneself. Absurd right, for us mere mortals. But then consider the effect, or consequence of believing that one should, such that the statement, "I believe that I should love my neighbour as much as I love myself" becomes valid. And I don't mean valid as in, that is what one does, but valid, as in that is what one believes. You know that's all I intend to do right, believe that I should, and probably that I do, as in, I believe that I love my neighbour as much as I love myself. So, one day, I took the 1000 Naira in my pocket, split it in two equal parts and gave half of it to my starving neighbour so he too can buy some food to eat because, my neighbours hunger is exactly equal to my own hunger, and besides, I believe that I should, or do, love my neighbour as much as I love myself. Aren't you going to call me a liar yet? After all, I only believed that I love, or should love my neighbour as much as I love myself and said nothing about aligning my actions along with what I claim to believe! Oh, the religious person would probably say I have fallen short. But isn't what I describe above exactly what the religious person does do - believe but their actions deviate wildly from what they claim they believe? And that applies to the more thoughtful of them. The more banal would claim their sin of not loving their neighbour as much as they love themselves is forgiven because Jesus died on the cross, and besides, they are only human!

My point is that religions are intended to teach certain things that are meant to improve the lives of the individual and society in general. But trust humans to think the facts, which merely divide and cause strife are what matter, and believing them too. Then again, they were all made up by rather imperfect human beings for very imperfect humans beings, so what else would one expect? I'm sure if there were made up by godly entities, they'd be perfect and they'd all be in agreement, and we wouldn't be arguing about any of it.

Op, become an atheist if you would. The benefits are that you would learn to be sceptical and not just rather lazily believe anything you come across or are told. You got to the stage you are at because your eyes opened and you began questioning your beliefs, and that can only be a good thing, since the alternative is to sheepishly unquestioningly believe what you were told by people who most likely know a lot less than you have bothered to know. You still have to not kill, not steal, and so on unless you wish to go to jail or not be trusted by most decent people. And when you die and there is a god who decides to cast you in hell because you held on to the wrong beliefs, despite living nicely, it is my opinion that that god is a rather silly god to begin with, and you should be glad to be in hell. It would be much better than a heaven where the criteria for getting in is the holding of the prescribed and approved beliefs in your head. But if heaven is your goal, then your best bet is indeed to consider that "There are thousands of religions and the best bet would be to hold unto the beliefs of all these religions. That way, you will not come short". Another version of Pascal's Wager, I guess. It sure made me laugh!

Primesky:
How on earth can someone be denying an obvious truth!. May the light of truth enlighten your heart. Let not pride blind your heart.

God is one! He manifest Himself in three personalities. If you deny this truth, then you don't know God. That's the simple truth!.

Obvious? Like something you perceived with your very own eyes?

All the prophets in the Bible, some of who actually spoke to God, never mentioned a three personality God. Jesus, never mentioned a three personality God, despite being the one who sent down that which you now call the third part of this so called three personality God. Yet you call it obvious truth as if it's more than something you were told and never questioned but just believed, and you have the arrogance to accuse another of not knowing God and being blinded by pride!

I agree. The light of truth will enlighten your heart!

You might easily want to believe what you hear without checking, but I myself am an atheist to such attitudes!

Below is your source for "My president recently told Nigerians to hand over their lands or face death."

Femi Adesina said this when he spoke on an AIT morning programme.

Responding to a question on ancestral attachments to land which would be very difficult to give up to herdsmen for ranching, Adesina said

“Ancestral attachment? You can only have ancestral attachment when you are alive. If you are talking about ancestral attachment, if you are dead, how does the attachment matter? The National Economic Council that recommended ranching didn’t just legislate it, there were recommendations. So, if your state genuinely does not have land for ranching, it is understandable. Not every state will have land for ranches. But where you have land and you can do something, please do for peace. What will the land be used for if those who own it are dead at the end of the day?”.

Do note that Femi Adesina is the special adviser on media and publicity to President Muhammadu Buhari, and not his spokesperson. Attributing what comes out of his mouth while being interviewed on telly as "my president said" or government policy is dishonest, unless you were just being too lazy to ascertain the context and truth, which is equally as deplorable.

Also note that the Cattle Ranching Bill, 2015 was introduced in the previous Senate and never got far. While some claim it is still up for discussion, it's not on record of the current session. And besides, which governor is going to take someone's ancestral land and give it to cattle herders? Or rather, when did Nigeria become land grabbing Zimbabwe?

I think you paint black but see white and then fear. Rubbing some mud that has been spat on in the eye is the cure for not looking properly.

Kingspin:
Haven't you saw the video some Boko-haram fans were openly cheering at them? Nigerians is watching how a Christian girl remain captive after her co-victims(Muslims) were released base on religion cum with abated killing in Jos, Benue etc. yet we have not seen any move or even speech from high profile Muslims pleading for that innocent girl to be release, non.

My president recently told Nigerians to hand over their lands or face death. This is an extremist behaviors.
Remember 2011 election was bloody innocent people women and children murdered only in the North, another election is approaching we keep watch.

An observation, it is only you that don't know some Muslims are terrorist but the rest of the world knows, so take care of that.

For once I don't think your opinion hold any water. Here is my submission to some Muslims CHANGE thou teaching and ORIENTATIONS. As for you accept to criticize wherever is necessary.
I will be glad if the North can go a year without genocide. This is my HOPE. END

[b]JESUS THREAD[/b

You call lies white, but expect us not to notice, enilove? Where did your President tell you to hand over your land or face death?

Many Muslims called for the freeing of girls kidnapped in the North. Many Muslim girls are kidnapped by boko haram but never even get to the news.

If Buhari had done what was done in Jonathan's time, spending the money meant for freeing the Sambesi girls on election and houses in London, don't you think we'd all stone him?

There are quite a lot of people willing to believe Islam preaches terrorism, but that's like reading about God tumbling the walls of Jericho and having all the men killed and concluding God sanctions genocide. Some stupid people might understand their Bible that way, but you would surely claim they are not Christians. Same way some people are indeed terrorists, even yelling allah akbar as they blow themselves and others up. But assuming they are Muslims is like claiming a pedophile priest in a Church is doing the will of God!

MuttleyLaff:
Bud, but what was/were Ken's sin(s) gan paapaa?
Why was Ken suspended and summoned for disciplinary hearing before he eventually jumped off the cliff
instead of waiting to be pushed off the cliff by Labour?

It was after Ken resigned from the party, that Labour early this month, approved this their new Code of Conduct concerning AntiSemitism
With whats in it, Ken can reapply to join the party via this "backdoor"
and not with his past comments be flouting any part of the party's Code of Conduct concerning AntiSemitism

There is a section somewhere on this site, you have to be very careful not to offend certain lot in there or any among them,
You dont do or say anything wrong. Even heard, to comment, you'll sign yourself away
In fact, you dont criticise, to be short.

He was suspended indefinitely for daring to criticise the actions of the Jewish state and can't come back to the Labour Party through any door as opposition against him is way too intense. We just can't have him back under any circumstances. Besides, he'd still fall foul of the current LPs's current antisemitism code as it is.

Below are extracts about him from wiki. It's one of those that not just anyone can edit so I'd give it some credence. The last comment is one I strongly share.

Yes, that section does exist. It's sort of like a quiet place for them, which I reckon is a good idea. They are criticised when they stray away from the protection of that section, so I wouldn't agree that we are "very careful not to offend" them on the site as a whole. Christians should perhaps have a place like that, however, if they keep posting antiatheist threads in it then perhaps they shouldn't deserve one. I do think we don't bombard Christian threads where people are worshipping their God though, or at least not as much as in one they set up specifically for atheist bashing. What NL needs is a Philosophy Section. Then perhaps we atheists would have to find better things than Yahweh worshipper bashing to do. Though, I must say, I've never seen a mod in here!

In January 2009, Livingstone responded to the Gaza War by calling for the European Union and the UK to bring home their ambassadors to Israel to express disapproval for the "slaughter and systematic murder of innocent Arabs".


Livingstone was suspended from the Labour Party in April 2016 after he was accused of "bringing the party into disrepute" following a BBC Radio London interview in which he claimed Adolf Hitler "was supporting Zionism before he went mad and ended up killing six million Jews". Livingstone had been invited to discuss the suspension of Labour MP Naz Shah, after it became known Shah had forwarded a satirical map on Facebook suggesting that Israel should be relocated to the United States. Livingstone described Shah's postings, which were made before she became an MP at the 2015 general election, as "rude and over-the-top" but not antisemitic, adding that he had never encountered antisemitism in Labour. Livingstone defended his claim about Hitler and Zionism by reference to Lenni Brenner's Zionism in the Age of the Dictators, and many commentators suggested that Livingstone was referring to the Haavara Agreement between Nazi Germany and the Zionist Federation of Germany. Livingstone's statements were criticised by historians, although the political scientist Norman Finkelstein said that whilst "Livingstone maybe wasn't precise enough, and lacked nuance", his comments did reflect Hitler's initial ambivalence towards Zionism.


Livingstone said there was a "well-orchestrated campaign by the Israel lobby to smear anybody who criticises Israeli policy as antisemitic".

MuttleyLaff:
You know, it sounds like a classic Oliver Twist twist.
Sorry for the pun.

That link however, is what is Labour's code of conduct concerning antisemitism
but some quarters, the Jewish groups specifically, arent happy over it, as they claim, it's not detailed enough and feel Labour failed to adopt the definition of antisemitism, as set out by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, as in, the organisation’s full list of examples of antisemitic behaviour.

That's why I said, people were saying it gave Livingstone enough room to manoeuvre himself back in to the party, as he wouldn't be falling foul of the party's rule.

If the full list is adopted, that's the backdoor slammed tightly shut and Livingstone forever expelled from Labour.

I think what the Labour Party has adopted is good enough, and would exclude the likes of Livingstone, who can't be accepted back anyway unless Corbyn wants to resign and end the LP in one fell swoop.

I heard on Victoria Derbyshire that the person who wrote the original definition of antisemitism is opposed to the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance's version that some Jews want to impose on the Labour Party now. The claim is that the IHRA one want to silence all critisism of anything the Israeli's do and has already been used for that purpose. It's not the backdoor they want to shut, but the windows, the chimney, the airvents, and everything else that sounds like critisism.

I just wish we too could be as smart and get the same for blackness and racism. Surely more blacks died of slavery than Jews in the holocaust!

MuttleyLaff:
https://www.thejc.com/comment/analysis/jeremy-corbyn-labour-definition-antisemitism-1.466626
I remember when Labour's new code of conduct on antisemitism first came out,
I heard people saying, it was giving a way for Livingstone to be readmitted back into Labour

They want more as they arent happy with Labour's new code

The article does not represent what the code actually demands, in my opinion! The code actually gives them way too much, in my opinion. If the Muslims, or we blacks had half of that, we'd very likely be delighted!

Let me know if I am misunderstanding the code, or the article, which I think has misrepresented the code.

gideonvalor98:
You can all leave.you people are the bad eggs in APC.Who are the Nigerians that asked you to leave?! You better speak for yourselves. Nigerians are wiser and more politically suave,we will all shock you come 2019

I hope you are right. Na! In fact, you are right! They want to limit you to voting day, but here you are exercising that which is way more powerful, your voice!

Please keep talking. I need to hear your sort more. And thank you very much in advance, you better person.

Minjim:
Are you ppl not tired of these propagandas?

Everyday, "We'll dump Apc"

They should leave already!
Let's know those that are left.

Moreover, the only governor that I'm sure may leave is that puppet in Kwara State.

And to be honest, he never really left pdp in the first place!

maasoap:
How many years did he spend on power before the IBB's coup? Three years I guess! How many years could it take a corrupt Nigeria president to become a billionaire? It took Abdulsalam Abubakar less than a year!
Buhari's is an incorruptible man, his integrity radiates towards the four corners of the world.
Ruling Nigeria for good 3 solid years without owning a single oil block wasn't a mistake! Serving as a minister of petroleum or PTF chairman was enough make use of the opportunity previously lost. Kid, you are not thinking straight, your thought process is flawed.

I think the relevant word is, "kid". Buhari was Head of State from 31 December 1983 to 27 August 1985. We were proud, for once, to be Nigerians. Those who were around at the time would know that Jonathan's time was like Shagari's, with rampant overspending on white elephants and our money flying abroad. Buhari stopped the yanfu yanfu chopping, but they kicked him out because he no gree dem chop like dem de chop before.

We had the same thing happen in Osun State. Former governor Adebisi Akande told his cooks to stop killing 4 malus for him everyday! They should buy like 4 kilograms, that's way more than enough for him and his wife, he said, so they nicknamed him "baba kilo". Hee lost the second term elections. "Dis man no gree we chop", was the reason he wasn't voted for, amongst other such like elimination of wasteful expenditures. He was replaced by Omisore, Oyinlola, and now Ogbeni Oyez Aregbe, or rather Ogbeni O No Salary, who should just have debloated the civil service in the state and reduced cost, but bowed to the public will and paid half and eventually nothing at all for months. Now people are dying of ohunger!

blazer2018:
Now, I am not ruling out the possibility of this massive defection seeing the light of the day o, but come to think of it...what will then happen to those who stayed behind and suffered with PDP in their early days as opposition and during their court battles...those who are already certain they will clinch d party's ticket without sweat? because i am so sure that these 39 Senators, 135 Reps are planning on defecting to get a smooth and uncontested ticket on d platform of PDP.

I might be wrong at the end of the day o, but trust me, more than half of these Senators and Reps won't port.

Oh, you forget too quick. When dem Saraki et al defected from pdp to apc at the last election, they rented their vacated spaces in pdp to agberos and touts who have kept the party alive but would now vacate those positions back to their rightful owners when they return.

I personally don't think you are wrong at all!

maasoap:
At your age, you should able to know a lie when one is told to you. 135 house of rep members, 30 senators and 5 governors! What will PDP give them? I guess the party will just be handed to them. Lol.

Two oil wells each naow! kmt.

PHILipu1:
.
Use your brain.
If they are defect,are they not going to meet people where they are defecting to?
Are those people too not going to defect to APC and take their place?

Wait and see,there are many people who are waiting for this people to just leave APC so that they can take up their places.
That is Nigeria politics for you.

Not everything you read on social media that you should believe.

APC promise them oil well?
Were you there?

I had to search long for this, someone who knows how ridiculous it sounds. I think when people hear "oil well", they think we are talking about basic konga!

I wish there was some sort of skepticism pill I could give people so they just don't believe whatever suits them. Or perhaps have a bill passed in the houses of reps and senate that makes stupidity and ignorance illegal!

MuttleyLaff:
Budaatum tune in to LBC right now on the internet, to listen to James O'Brien discussing Margaret Hodge and Corbyn

Missed this. Being listening elsewhere. Sounds like the antisemitism def Labour is being asked to sign up to is designed to stop all criticism of Israel and give no regard to the Palestinians!

MuttleyLaff:
Being human means, tiredness will sneak up on you one time or the other
and you soon after bound to make some mistakes,
but when you do find out you've made mistakes, you dont have to be rigid or bureaucratic about it
I simply would have unquoted you, like I've just done

Lol. You weren't the only one who quoted. And you know, from experience, how unrigid and unbureacratic I can be when it matters.

MuttleyLaff:
Yeah, heard it first, in the car last week, whilst listening to LBC
Iain Dale brought in the Israeli Ambassador to talk about it and Hebrew only, deemed the country's official language in the bill.

If any other country had done what Israel did, the entire world would condemn them, but since it's Israel, and against arabs, the attitude seems to be that it's the will of god!

I'm going to research Margaret Hodge's allegation that Corbyn is anti-semitic. He might be the only one with balls.

MuttleyLaff:
Bud do the needful please

I don't edit posts of mine after they've been quoted. I'll hope that if you understand the proper word was "arm" , others who care would too, otherwise, it would hardly make a difference to them either ways. Thanks for pointing it out though. Tiredness must have gotten me!

Did you hear of Israel's new apartheid law by the way?

Kingspin:
You understood half way. Do you know there are few Islamic terrorists but there are many terrorist sympathizers among Muslims. So there is no amount of convert talk that will change facts. The people carrying out mass killing in the North are Islamic terrorists. There main targets are Christians, non tribal and very few Muslims that challenges their mission/agenda. It will be much better lets Muslims keep all their activities to themselves.
Do you know also that Christians are at the stage of extinct in Syria and that Christians are widely vulnerable whatever there is any conflict even between two Muslims.
Be you atheists or gay make sure you keep it to yourself alone. After-all, all na believe whether atheists or not you a have believe in something and that stand as your god period so leave other people to belive on what they believe. Live and lets other live.

"Terrorist sympathisers"? Do your Muslim friends jubilate when people are killed in the North? I wonder how you remain friends with them then.

Don't you know that where there is terrorism everyone is affected, or do you just want to believe terrorists check people's religions before they blow them up?

What amuses me is why people don't wonder why they aren't coming South where there are more Christians to kill if their targets are Christians! Or perhaps you think your prayers stop them from coming South, or the bombs from exploding?

But of course believe whatever you want. Just don't expect that when you don't keep your false beliefs to yourself and announce them on a public forum where people who know better get to hear them, we wouldn't say so. We will!

Kingspin:
There is no perfect man or society. But how and what you do that affect others is the real story. For me when diplomatic fails they result to force, killing that is the picture of Caliphates.
You can laugh enough but it cannot change the truth.
If the South grew up with bad teachings like the North especially among some Muslims you think there will be Nigeria by now? Or If the Fulani-Hausa-Muslims are the ones been killed daily like what is happening in the North you don't think Nigeria would have been another Syria? Sometime, I wish we are taught the same thing they teaches in the North in Church. The bad teaching/orientation must STOP among Caliphates followers for peace to avail. There is nothing hatred here I have peaceful Muslims as friend too.

Thanks be to God.

So, you have Muslim friends. If so, I am certain you don't go about your day believing your Muslims friends want to convert or kill you. Do you however really believe more Christians are being killed in the North than Muslims? Do you believe those killing people in the North are Muslims? You seem to not think so, since you are guarded enough to claim, it is a consequence of "bad teachings ...... especially among some Muslims". So why tarnish them all with a boko haram brush? Don't you think that an evil doer has won if that is your thinking?

Take Syria, a predominantly Islamic nation, which as you appear to know, is in a state of war with quite a lot of killings. Do you agree that it's of Muslims, and by Muslims? When that conflict began, the west (mostly America and UK) wanted to harm the rebels and help them fight the Assad regime. Its taken them years to quite understand that the rebels they wanted to harm are actually ISIS, the equivalent of boko haram. But their blindness didn't let them see this, so your confusion hardly surprises me.

All that notwithstanding, from your holy book, the standard set for you seems to be way above your level. Either that, or the person who asked you to turn the other cheek lived in cuckoo land and knows not what he's dealing with or was talking about. The question then is, why do you claim to believe in him? Or is it the case that in believing in him, you need not do his will?

"How and what you do that affect others is the real story." What one think in one's head is a large part of that "story" as that is what motivates what one does. After all, out of the abundance of one's heart does one speak. I can hardly say that what I understand from some of the opinions expressed on here has anything to do with the Christianity that I know of, nor does the description of Islam sound anything like the Islam I know of.

You should go read similar thoughts expressed about Christianity by we atheists, especially the ignorant one's amongst us. I'm sure you would notice when we misdescribe what Christianity is and is about. And I'm certain, the word "fool" best describes those amongst us who talk such nonsense. Some might want to guide against being those fools too perhaps, and take your advise to stop the "bad teaching/orientation", instead of joining the ignorants and the stupids on either sides. I just can't say I read anywhere that the kingdom of any god whatsoever belongs to the warmongers. It's more likely such likes are the damned, as opposed to the blessed.

Thanks be to God.

delkuf:
you see the problem with you Muslims is that you are tagging the Holy Bible with Qur'an, that is wrong. we Christian don't believe your Quran. the Bible is different from the Quran. what you study in the Quran, is only in the Quran. it is not in the Bible. so don't tag it together

A Jew once said the following:

"you see the problem with you Christians is that you are tagging the New Teastament with the Torah, that is wrong. we Jews don't believe your New Testament. the Torah is different from the New Testament. what you study in the New Testament, is only in the New Testament. it is not in the Torah. so don't tag it together"

Kingspin:
You are a joker. Imams spend all this preaching to his followers on Christians as a results of his evil sermons Christians became vulnerable to Islamic attacks e.g. Nigeria. By making Christianity as a center of their teachings rather than preaching love to them, Christ followers became easy target. If they can change their teaching today the targets on Christians will reduce.

General, Christians see the devil as their real enemy but some Muslims see Christians are the real enemy.

JESUS remain the only peaceful man

You, actually, are the one I am laughing at. So much hatred wrapped up in wolfskin hasn't quite managed to hide what it really is.

Jesus may be a peaceful man, but that doesn't seem to imply Christians are too, it would seem.

enilove:
Is Islam not enemy of Christianity?

No, Islam is not the enemy of Christianity! Claiming it is is as absurd as claiming "Christianity is the enemy of Islam" , when in actual fact, it is the human being behind both religions who decides, first, who the enemy or neighbour is, and second, whether that enemy or neighbour is loved or hated.

enilove:
Can you pray for Islam , [s]whose agenda is to kill Christianity and force your children to serve Satan[/s]?

I suppose one can pray for Islam. Praying for Islam though, is like praying for a table or stone, they are equally as lifeless. (I'm ignoring the bit I've stricken off because it is false justification for the abundance of hatred in ones own heart!)

One might rather consider praying for Muslims, but perhaps asking one's god to remove the hatred from one's own heart might be more appropriate. It is what I think the op meant but which seems to fly over the heads of so many people on here.

I am not aware that Moses mentioned a messiah, love. I'd go as far as claiming he didn't need to since he himself was a messiah in his day. He after all did save the Israelites from the Egyptians. Educate me please.

The Gospel of John which you've quoted was written way after the fact, and using it as evidence of a foretelling as you've done here is like claiming a report of an incident reported in the Daily Times is a foretelling of the reported incident before it actually happened. One just need look at the date on the front of the Daily Times to know it was written after the fact, and for a purpose for that matter, which was to provide a narrative for the claim that Christ was the Messiah, which was being disputed at the time of writing. If one called it propaganda, they wouldn't be far off the truth, though that would be for looking at it myopically.

As to the "ALL THAT THE WORLD NEEDS IN TERMS OF HOLY BOOK" etc, I wonder. I guess if one sees holy books as accurate reports of what actually happened, to be accepted as true in their literal sense, and hence to be believed, then one can't help but create silly threads as this one, since its measure is 'What do you believe?' and ' Are your beliefs the correct ones?'

A person who learns from them though, as opposed to a 'believer', would understand not to wallow in the "Thank you Lord that I am not like that Muslim over there". Which brings my wondering to an end I suppose. For in as much as simple lessons as these have not yet been learnt, then the "blood" can not have done it's supposed job, and more 'holy books' are required to fulfil that role of salvation. Those who gnash their teeth, after all, as op has done in this thread, can not be said to have been "REDEEM[ed] BACK TO GOD", in my opinion. Perhaps op is just not "MAN", or my measuring scale is sort of different.

Anyway, I am sure there'll be more contributions to this thread. There are two sort of threads that get 'believers' going and this thread has one of them.

Oh, and thank you very much love for the nice response!

enilove:
There exists actual date as mentioned above and historically written.

My calculation was based on my rough estimate which I did intentionally as a least gap between them.

As per the topic of the thread and from your own reasoning that Jeremiah did not mentioned Micah and that should not be a yardstick .

Jesus Christ was mentioned by Moses and other Prophets because he is a Messiah unlike other prophets.

No prophet made mentioned of the coming of other Prophets.
Right from the time of Moses , all the Prophets kept talking about the coming of the Messiah.
All the prophets after Moses were only given for the guidance of the Israelites pending the coming of the Messiah.

That was why the Pharisees asked in :

John 1:20-25 KJV
And he confessed, and denied not; but confessed, I am not the Christ. [21] And they asked him, What then? Art thou Elias? And he saith, I am not. Art thou that prophet? And he answered, No. [22] Then said they unto him, Who art thou? that we may give an answer to them that sent us. What sayest thou of thyself? [23] He said, I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness, Make straight the way of the Lord, as said the prophet Esaias. [24] And they which were sent were of the Pharisees. [25] And they asked him, and said unto him, Why baptizest thou then, if thou be not that Christ, nor Elias, neither that prophet?

ALL THAT THE WORLD NEEDS IN TERMS OF HOLY BOOK , LAWS ,INSTRUCTIONS ,MODES OF WORSHIPING ETC WOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN TO MOSES ONCE AND FOR ALL.
BUT THAT COULD NOT SAVE EXCEPT THE BLOOD THAT HAS NO LINK WITH THAT OF THE CHILDREN OF ADAM IS SHED AS A SACRIFICE , TO REDEEM MAN BACK TO GOD.
THIS CAME THROUGH DEATH OF JESUS ON THE CROSS.

MEANING , THERE IS NO NEED FOR OTHER PROPHET OR PROPHETS TO GUIDE MANKIND.

JESUS SAID "IT IS FINISHED". ANYTHING BESIDES JESUS IS A FAKE AND A LIE.

enilove:
WHAT WAS THE YEARS BETWEEN ABRAHAM ANS SOLOMON , ACCORDING TO THE BIBLE ?

If we take 50 years between each generations, this will amount to 700 years gap between when Abraham lived and the time Solomon was burn.

If we make it up you mean. And once they start being made up, don't they just lose credibility?

Date given for Abraham's call is circa 2160BC with Isaac born a 100 years later in 2060BC. While Solomon becomes king about 971BC.

And dates from genealogy of Jesus in the two gospels that list them hardly add up since both contain omissions.

Just thought I'd mention while I await more credible submissions pertaining to the question posed in the thread. Though, why Jesus should have mentioned Mohammed, eludes me. Isn't that like asking why an earlier prophet, i.e. Jeremiah, didn't mention a latter one i.e. Micah? One would hardly use that fact to discredit Micah, or would one, op?

Ferruccio:
It was Senegal vs Colombia.

They wear green too. Thanks. I'm glad he wasn't Nigerian. I was wondering why I hadn't heard he'd been shot!

[url=https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+6%3A1-11&version=NIV]Luke 6:1-11[/url]

“Why are you doing what is unlawful?”

Seems like this Jesus dude gets to do whatever he wants even though the laws, according to the understanding of some, says one shouldn't!

Seems actions that involve the welfare or benefit of other's is exempt!