₦airaland Forum

From the creator of souls chamber

Kobojunkie:
A soul enters an unborn child from where?

My Boss, please pardon me.

I want them (religionists) to make it clearer so I can comprehend. They all claim to have a soul.

Maynman:
You are asking a wrong question.

Do unborn babies have souls?

If yes, then;

At what stage do soul enters an unborn child?

Is it at the BLASTOCYST stage?
or
Is it at the EMBRYO stage?
or
Is it at the FETUS stage?

Please oblige me if you know you know.

They would probably use their bible to fight wars

It happens in most public institutions in Nigeria.🤷

Interesting 🤔

They stole Artifacts not voodoo...do your findings well.

Wait a sec. How could they have stolen most of the "VOODOOS" Africans had

DSC7:
Because those colonists manipulative,....
They even succeeded in stealing most of our Voodoos.....


Lemme stop here.....

I meant, it was never said to be spiritual in that bible passage, so it could be various secular activities.🤷

jaephoenix:
How?

Africans have voodoo yet they couldn't secure some of their tangible treasures from colonists. Abeggee.

Multiple businesses could mean multiple activities.

jaephoenix:
The problem about this spiritual realm thingy is you have nil shred of evidence it exists. You were told about it as a child, grew up believing it, reinforced by others around you, yet no data. And what is worse, every Christian denomination/sect have their own version of this spiritual stuff, each clashing with the other's view, each claiming superiority. Same as religion as a whole.
Even the Bible verse you quoted says dreams come through 'multiple businesses' which can be translated to mean absolutely anything. Oh, the beauty of religion

Lawyer Keh liar ni. Even if dey smuggled him to law department in a private institution, I bet you, this guy haven't won any case with this his shallow reasoning.

jaephoenix:
I thought u said you're a lawyer liar. Where is the idiomatic expression u posted?

Mr. English speaker suit your self

Perhaps you're from Albert Einstein's generation I guess

Dtruthspeaker:
Is this how hard English is? O I forgot, you generation had bad education hence you lack good imagination and understanding of idioms.

Meanwhile that is where the point is and it is not meant to be explained.

Interpret all these your gibberish for me please

Your writing skill is obviously appalling

Dtruthspeaker:
And which do you say it is, Mr. Look like like he is sitting in the fence?

We are you leaning towards saying it's physical alone.

These religious folks needs to pick up their writing materials and learn, not some mumbo jumbo they were indoctrinated about.

jaephoenix:
Dreams occur from our brain. Its a connection of synapses between the prefrontal cortex, hypothalamus, hippocampus and probably the limbic system. They utilize our memory and conjur stuff. For example, you watched horror movies. Your prefrontal which handles memory with influence from other centers, serve up a horror themed dream which seemed real. Now if you're someone that don't believe that stuff that happen in horror movies are real(like me), watching such movies won't throw up horrible nightmares since my subconscious mind tells my cortex that they aren't real. And thus I dont have nightmares. My wife would watch the same horror flick and have nightmares.
Dreams coming true sometimes may be a phenomenon known as deja vu.
Also don't ignore chances of luck or coincidences happening

Wow 😲, this is definitely a wide topic, but it's absolutely interesting to learn.

FRANCISTOWN:
Every event that will happen every second has already been initiated by a cause, unless there is another cause to change that event.

I'm dropping this comment because I've sent two different comments ahead and I must complete my points.
The first two comments were the cause for this comment now.

Now what the "sixth sense" does is to predict the expected event that will follow a certain "cause".

Let's say I dream that someone dies, and the person later goes on to really die. My dream wouldn't be responsible for the person's death. There is already a cause to warrant the person's death to begin with.

Mind you, a dream is a series of phantasmagoria. Your brain tries to create scenes from your memory. What you've seen, what you've heard or what you've come across with any of your sense organs including the sixth sense.

That's why blind people only have auditory dreams, because the brain cannot process any image to merge into sceneries.

Dreams are merely predictions, intuitions or feelings that are passed into the brain for phantasmagoria.

Dream is nothing spiritual, the same way clairvoyance, telepathy are nothing spiritual.

Nostradamus was prolly one of the greatest prophets of all time, yet, he made his predictions by carefully analysing the past events (cause and effect)

Oga readwell, That's their reason for saying it's spiritually related.

Dtruthspeaker:
What kind of contradiction and confusion is this?

You admit that some dreams come to pass yet you are confused?

Did they say all dreams come to pass?

Hello Fellas,

I have had countless conversations with some of my homies that are claiming that dreams are more spiritually/supernaturally related than medically related. Reasons been that, some dreams do come to pass exactly how it was dreamt.

And I responded that most times dreams occur as a result of stress, obsession or drugs one takes. I further explained that a person who dreamt of an event coming to pass, might later dream and it won't come to reality. Therefore if it was a spiritual/supernatural ability it won't have to fail to occur sometimes.

FRANCISTOWN
Jaephoenix
Maynman
LordReed
Sirtee15
Workch
A001

Please what are your views on this topic

Ride on Boss

Maynman:
Is it time to write Theos 102

No allow over self confidence finish you, always thinking you're right.

Dtruthspeaker:
Why na? Just rest. There is nothing for you to say for you have said all these before and my answers to them are there and in the end everyone saw you had nothing to say after my answer, so, you have nothing.

Provide the proof that Jesus was adopted by Joseph and stop going around in circles.

Show me where the bible acknowledged that Jesus is now from the lineage of David through adoption.

The bible mentioned he is/was from David's lineage but never demonstrated how he is/was from David's lineage, but here you are adding to the bible what wasn't written.

E belike say u know pass your God.

Your logic of adoption was dead on arrival cus Wikipedia and other historic encyclopedia of learning says: Adoption does not exist formally as a practice in Jewish Law (Halacha).

Dtruthspeaker:
If in Truth. I did not give a credible rebuttal then you would not have been complaining

"Busybrain2233:
And yet, you assume you have the best reason for one to be believe the adoption shit."

And me answering
"Its already proven we do as none of you are able to give any reasonable reason why it does not stand."

So this is you just lamenting and complaining because you and your people are not able to raise any counter at all, even though one week has passed.

So, it is settled, Jesus Christ is the valid son of David via adoption as Moses was a prince of Egypt via adoption.

If Davido adopt you today, tell me weda you no go bite anybody wey won talk say.you no be Adeleke?

Just rest. You have no thing here.

Bros, I'm tired of going back and forth with you without any credible rebuttal from you.

Abeg make I use my time do something else.

Dtruthspeaker:
Cept you and the other guy who i have answered and now both of you have nothing, i did not see any other person oppose me

So how about those Xtians contradicting your assertion?

Dtruthspeaker:
Its already proven we do as none of you are able to give any reasonable reason why it does not stand.

So, clearly, it stands unless and until you can show a very valid reason why it does not.



You are the one doing just that in looking for what is not missing all because you have to assert your antiChrist dogma.

And yet, you assume you have the best reason for one to be believe the adoption shit.

You guys keep surprising me, can't you see you're making this assertion to suit your narrative according to the dogma passed down to you

Dtruthspeaker:
He has told me and like you, he does not have any reasonable counter.

Adoption still stands.

Tell him please

MrPRevailer:
Bro. this is not biblical.
Mary never adopted a child.

The correct answer is simple. They two are ONE FLESH.
Also, Mary is not from David's lineage. There is no biblical text that claims she is.

According to Wikipedia:

Adoption does not exist formally as a practice in Jewish Law (Halacha), although rabbinic texts were not uniform on whether or not they recognized the validity of adoption and several examples of adoption take place in the Hebrew Bible and texts from the Second Temple Judaism.[1] The Hebrew word for adoption ‘אימוץ’ (immutz), which derives from the verb ‘אמץ’ (amatz) in Psalm 80 verse 16 and 18[2][3][4][5] meaning ‘to make strong’, was not introduced until the modern age.[5] Jewish perspectives towards adoption promote two contradictory messages towards nurture and nature.[4] On the one hand, Judaism expresses favourable attitudes towards adoption across religious movements and is widely viewed as a good deed (mitzvah).[5] Based on the Talmudic teachings that when one raises an orphan in their home, "scripture ascribes it to him as though he had begotten him,"[6] Rabbis have argued that the commandment of procreation can also be fulfilled through the act of adoption.[5] However, this interpretation raises a number of questions in relation to lineage and biological status, which is a core value in Halacha.

Adoption that is practiced in modern secular society derives from Roman Law. The secular procedure for adoption involves the removal of all rights and responsibilities from the biological parents, which are then transferred onto the adoptive parent/s. Judaism contrasts to Roman Law, in that the adoptive parents do not entirely replace the role of the biological parents.[5] Jewish Law aligns closer with British Common Law, within which the importance of royal bloodlines and class meant that an adoption procedure was never introduced.[4] Similarly, in Judaism, genealogy determines the status of the child, which cannot be removed by a legal procedure.[4]

If you're sure of what you said about adoption, kindly present it just the way I did, because Wikipedia is contradicting your claim.

You can verify below.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adoption_in_Judaism#:~:text=Given%20the%20importance%20of%20lineage,role%20of%20the%20biological%20parent.

Dtruthspeaker:
I said adoption here.you are saying abduction, shows how your soul is full of evil and that the only thing you see and think is evil.

Evil causes blindness.

Which is why I am very much shocked that you asked this question for everyone knows that we all have a right to adopt any child or person.

Pharoah's daughter adopted Moses and therefore he became a prince of Egypt.

Sorry it was a mistake, I was type walking.

Dtruthspeaker:
I said adoption here.you are saying abduction, shows how your soul is full of evil and that the only thing you see and think is evil.

Evil causes blindness.

Which is why I am very much shocked that you asked this question for everyone knows that we all have a right to adopt any child or person.

You that have the ability to present reasonable counter, can you please present this law of adoption in regards to Joseph the carpenter and Mary his wife with proofs?

Dtruthspeaker:
I did answer that He was adopted and you had no further reasonable to say.

My laymen Christians will argue based on blood connection not know that there is also a Law connection what you people call "legal". Aside: But legal is not Law and meanwhile Law is greater than legal.

Which is why i said " Law connection" and not legal connection.

And your inability to present a reasonable counter just shows that the bible was not wrong in saying Jesus was of the lineage of David.

Okay, can you now show me with evidence where a Jew in the bible has his/her ancestry traced through the mother's lineage

Kobojunkie:
You are missing the major point here which is that there is no truth to the claim that a Jew's or even an israelite's ancestry is only traced from the father's side and not the mother's. That law, along with others highlighted there, clearly shows you that it can be traced from the mother's side too.

Secondly, given what is written in the Law itself, it follows that the account given by those who were servants of God--- Zechariah, John the Baptist, Anna, the Prophet, and even the Angel who made the announcement to Mary -- were of Jesus Christ being of the blood of David as stated in the prophecy of the Forever King

Why would I find error when it's boldly erroneous for even the blind to see?

You guys keep contradicting each other, some sects would say the connection is through Mary, another sect would say it's through the law of abduction, haba nawa o.

vdestro:
I have already shown you that there is no error in it because the connection is based on the Law of Adoption.

So, this is just a case of you God rejects, (anti-God), desperately trying to find errors so that you can feel better about yourselves.

Okay sir

captainbangz:
(x)=d/dx( 5y^2 + 4y - 8 )
(1)=(10y)dy/dx+4dy/dx-0
(1)=(10y)dy/dx+4dy/dx
1=(10y+4)dy/dx
1/(10y+4)=dy/dx
Therefore: dy/dx=1/(10y+4)

Oh my bad, person don dey forget things small small sha

Yeah, it's implicit function;

Modified:
d/dx(x)=d/dx( 5y^2 + 4y - 8 )
(1)=(10y)dy/dx+4dy/dx-0
(1)=(10y)dy/dx+4dy/dx
1=(10y+4)dy/dx
1/(10y+4)=dy/dx
Therefore: dy/dx=1/(10y+4)

Corrected

captainbangz:
I know what you're thinking, but this is implicit differentiation sir...
Do you know that the 'y' in a function with only X as independent variables doesn't magically turn to Dy/dx?
For instance, if y=x², d/dx of y will give you Dy/dx(product rule) and d/dx of x² will give you 2x.
Therefore making Dy/dx=2x?

Which results to Dy/dx=2x?

Since you would be differentiating with respect to X, simply make Y the subject of the formula from the giving equation, then u differentiate with respect to X.

Busybrain2233:
With respect to X not respect to Y.