daddy daddy you can lie oh!

which time did twitter slash the account and tortoise now cracked back?

mabell:

@KunleOshobi,
why do you always see money making business in everything or are you afraid to spend money.
Pastor Chris is on twitter and a lot of people were signing up to follow him. Via the twitter network, he was sending prayer messages and times for us to pray together with him.
It got to a point he hit 3,000,000 followers and the twitter company(?) was not sure a single person could have that large amount of followers so they slashed the number down to 1,000,000 followers.
After a while the same thing happened again, Pastor Chris' followers exceeded 3,000,000 again and twitter thought it was a spam so they slashed the number again.
This happened a third time and Pastor Chris, at this point, considering the number of followers cut off from the prayers, prophesies, information e.t.c thought it wise for the ministry to have it's own platform and that was why Yookos was introduced.

another lie.

http://twitaholic.com/top100/followers/

top 10 twitter users by follower counts (all more than 4.7 million followers), and twitter never "[i]slashed [/i]their accounts"

1. Lady Gaga (ladygaga) 7,568,740
2. Justin Bieber (justinbieber) 6,498,736
3. Britney Spears (britneyspears) 6,493,422
4. Barack Obama (BarackObama) 6,216,011
5. Ashton kutcher (aplusk) 6,162,218
6. Kim Kardashian (KimKardashian) 5,723,343
7. Ellen DeGeneres (TheEllenShow) 5,648,785
8. Katy Perry (katyperry) 5,101,907
9. Taylor Swift (taylorswift13) 4,915,763
10. Oprah Winfrey (Oprah) 4,779,156

are you serious at all?  do you know the gravity of software theft and copyright laws internationally? as a christian you should be ashamed of yourself.

what is uncultured about stating the truth? i would rather be a [i]barbarian [/i]than tell lies to cover up just because its a christian group.

mabell:

@cogicero
I will make enquiries about what you just said but your approach is very uncultured

this is not fair.   

you guys are destroying the beauty of open source by CHEATING, or rather STEALING.

[list]
[li]"yookos" website by christ embassy is a modified/rip-off version of a sharetronix default theme. I knew it when I saw it.[/li]
[li]sharetronix is an open source social network platform.[/li]
[li]you are allowed to use sharetronix for FREE [/b]in exchange for backlinks labelled "powered by blogtronix" placed in the footer of each page e.g. look at the bottom of any nairaland page to see "[b]Powered by SMF 1.0.12" because Nairaland runs on Simple Machine Forums (SMF) for free[/li]
[li]if you feel [/b]you are a professional and this will deface your site, [b]or you want people to think you own the website or you wrote the script originally by yourself, you pay a STUPIDLY [/b]small fee of $39 (39 US Dollars only) to these hardworking developers for all their blood, toil and sweat. a labourer is worthy of his wages, doesn't the bible say so?[/li]
[li]rather than pay the [b]SMALL [/b]fee as it is legally right to do, christ embassy (the developer they hired, maybe an in-house developer) [b]DECIDED [/b]to comment out the "[b]powered by" information. this is stealing, and it is a corruption of the global open source culture.  [/li]
[li]you would think for a company/organization that makes a lot of money, this will be a small matter to pay $39!  right?[/li]
[/list]

if you people are just and fair and you did not know that yookos is running illegally right now, tell the developer to unhide those backlinks NOW and use it for free or else pay the $39 and stop being tightfisted! 

				<!-- "Powered by Blogtronix" backlink -->

					<!--

					You are required to keep the "Powered by Blogtronix" backlink

					as per the Sharetronix License: http://sharetronix.com/sharetronix/license

					

					To remove the link, please visit this page: http://sharetronix.com/sharetronix/linkremoval

					-->

									<!-- "Powered by Blogtronix" backlink END -->

References:
http://sharetronix.blogtronix.com/Home/13908
http://sharetronix.com/sharetronix/license
http://blogtronix.com/en/solutions/community/

pc guru:

I downloaded one last year still kinda recent send me your mail i can give u a copy.

THANK YOU!!!!

cogi*cero*mail*@*gmail.com <--- remove the stars please

sorry all the words listed there as indecency there should be p0rnographY but nairaland has changed them

JCD: Outside these walls, there are several hundred reporters that wanted to talk to you, and you asked me to come because you had something you wanted to say. You feel that hardcore pornography, and the door to it, softcore pornography, is doing untold damage to other people and causing other women to be abused and killed the way you did.

Ted: I'm no social scientist, and I don't pretend to believe what John Q. Citizen thinks about this, but I've lived in prison for a long time now, and I've met a lot of men who were motivated to commit violence. Without exception, every one of them was deeply involved in pornography - deeply consumed by the addiction. The F.B.I.'s own study on serial homicide shows that the most common interest among serial killers is pornography. It's true.

JCD: What would your life have been like without that influence?

Ted: I know it would have been far better, not just for me, but for a lot of other people - victims and families. There's no question that it would have been a better life. I'm absolutely certain it would not have involved this kind of violence.

JCD: If I were able to ask the kind of questions that are being asked, one would be, "Are you thinking about all those victims and their families that are so wounded? Years later, their lives aren't normal. They will never be normal. Is there remorse?"

Ted: I know people will accuse me of being self-serving, but through God's help, I have been able to come to the point, much too late, where I can feel the hurt and the pain I am responsible for. Yes. Absolutely! During the past few days, myself and a number of investigators have been talking about unsolved cases - murders I was involved in. It's hard to talk about all these years later, because it revives all the terrible feelings and thoughts that I have steadfastly and diligently dealt with - I think successfully. It has been reopened and I have felt the pain and the horror of that. I hope that those who I have caused so much grief, even if they don't believe my expression of sorrow, will believe what I'm saying now; there are those loose in their towns and communities, like me, whose dangerous impulses are being fueled, day in and day out, by violence in the media in its various forms - particularly sexualized violence. What scares me is when I see what's on cable T.V. Some of the violence in the movies that come into homes today is stuff they wouldn't show in X-rated adult theatres 30 years ago.

JCD: The slasher movies?

Ted: That is the most graphic violence on screen, especially when children are unattended or unaware that they could be a Ted Bundy; that they could have a predisposition to that kind of behavior.

JCD: One of the final murders you committed was 12-year-old Kimberly Leach. I think the public outcry is greater there because an innocent child was taken from a playground. What did you feel after that? Were they the normal emotions after that?

Ted: I can't really talk about that right now. It's too painful. I would like to be able to convey to you what that experience is like, but I won't be able to talk about that. I can't begin to understand the pain that the parents of these children and young women that I have harmed feel. And I can't restore much to them, if anything. I won't pretend to, and I don't even expect them to forgive me. I'm not asking for it. That kind of forgiveness is of God; if they have it, they have it, and if they don't, maybe they'll find it someday.

JCD: Do you deserve the punishment the state has inflicted upon you?

Ted: That's a very good question. I don't want to die; I won't kid you. I deserve, certainly, the most extreme punishment society has. And I think society deserves to be protected from me and from others like me. That's for sure. What I hope will come of our discussion is that I think society deserves to be protected from itself. As we have been talking, there are forces at loose in this country, especially this kind of violent pornography, where, on one hand, well-meaning people will condemn the behavior of a Ted Bundy while they're walking past a magazine rack full of the very kinds of things that send young kids down the road to being Ted Bundys. That's the irony. I'm talking about going beyond retribution, which is what people want with me. There is no way in the world that killing me is going to restore those beautiful children to their parents and correct and soothe the pain. But there are lots of other kids playing in streets around the country today who are going to be dead tomorrow, and the next day, because other young people are reading and seeing the kinds of things that are available in the media today.

JCD: There is tremendous cynicism about you on the outside, I suppose, for good reason. I'm not sure there's anything you could say that people would believe, yet you told me (and I have heard this through our mutual friend, John Tanner) that you have accepted the forgiveness of Jesus Christ and are a follower and believer in Him. Do you draw strength from that as you approach these final hours?

Ted: I do. I can't say that being in the Valley of the Shadow of Death is something I've become all that accustomed to, and that I'm strong and nothing's bothering me. It's no fun. It gets kind of lonely, yet I have to remind myself that every one of us will go through this someday in one way or another.

JCD: It's appointed unto man.

Ted: Countless millions who have walked this earth before us have gone through this, so this is just an experience we all share.

Ted Bundy was executed at 7:15 am the day after this conversation was recorded.

In closing, JCD: Outside these walls, there are several hundred reporters that wanted to talk to you, and you asked me to come because you had something you wanted to say. You feel that hardcore pornography, and the door to it, softcore pornography, is doing untold damage to other people and causing other women to be abused and killed the way you did.

Ted: I'm no social scientist, and I don't pretend to believe what John Q. Citizen thinks about this, but I've lived in prison for a long time now, and I've met a lot of men who were motivated to commit violence. Without exception, every one of them was deeply involved in pornography - deeply consumed by the addiction. The F.B.I.'s own study on serial homicide shows that the most common interest among serial killers is pornography. It's true.

JCD: What would your life have been like without that influence?

Ted: I know it would have been far better, not just for me, but for a lot of other people - victims and families. There's no question that it would have been a better life. I'm absolutely certain it would not have involved this kind of violence.

JCD: If I were able to ask the kind of questions that are being asked, one would be, "Are you thinking about all those victims and their families that are so wounded? Years later, their lives aren't normal. They will never be normal. Is there remorse?"

Ted: I know people will accuse me of being self-serving, but through God's help, I have been able to come to the point, much too late, where I can feel the hurt and the pain I am responsible for. Yes. Absolutely! During the past few days, myself and a number of investigators have been talking about unsolved cases - murders I was involved in. It's hard to talk about all these years later, because it revives all the terrible feelings and thoughts that I have steadfastly and diligently dealt with - I think successfully. It has been reopened and I have felt the pain and the horror of that. I hope that those who I have caused so much grief, even if they don't believe my expression of sorrow, will believe what I'm saying now; there are those loose in their towns and communities, like me, whose dangerous impulses are being fueled, day in and day out, by violence in the media in its various forms - particularly sexualized violence. What scares me is when I see what's on cable T.V. Some of the violence in the movies that come into homes today is stuff they wouldn't show in X-rated adult theatres 30 years ago.

JCD: The slasher movies?

Ted: That is the most graphic violence on screen, especially when children are unattended or unaware that they could be a Ted Bundy; that they could have a predisposition to that kind of behavior.

JCD: One of the final murders you committed was 12-year-old Kimberly Leach. I think the public outcry is greater there because an innocent child was taken from a playground. What did you feel after that? Were they the normal emotions after that?

Ted: I can't really talk about that right now. It's too painful. I would like to be able to convey to you what that experience is like, but I won't be able to talk about that. I can't begin to understand the pain that the parents of these children and young women that I have harmed feel. And I can't restore much to them, if anything. I won't pretend to, and I don't even expect them to forgive me. I'm not asking for it. That kind of forgiveness is of God; if they have it, they have it, and if they don't, maybe they'll find it someday.

JCD: Do you deserve the punishment the state has inflicted upon you?

Ted: That's a very good question. I don't want to die; I won't kid you. I deserve, certainly, the most extreme punishment society has. And I think society deserves to be protected from me and from others like me. That's for sure. What I hope will come of our discussion is that I think society deserves to be protected from itself. As we have been talking, there are forces at loose in this country, especially this kind of violent pornography, where, on one hand, well-meaning people will condemn the behavior of a Ted Bundy while they're walking past a magazine rack full of the very kinds of things that send young kids down the road to being Ted Bundys. That's the irony. I'm talking about going beyond retribution, which is what people want with me. There is no way in the world that killing me is going to restore those beautiful children to their parents and correct and soothe the pain. But there are lots of other kids playing in streets around the country today who are going to be dead tomorrow, and the next day, because other young people are reading and seeing the kinds of things that are available in the media today.

JCD: There is tremendous cynicism about you on the outside, I suppose, for good reason. I'm not sure there's anything you could say that people would believe, yet you told me (and I have heard this through our mutual friend, John Tanner) that you have accepted the forgiveness of Jesus Christ and are a follower and believer in Him. Do you draw strength from that as you approach these final hours?

Ted: I do. I can't say that being in the Valley of the Shadow of Death is something I've become all that accustomed to, and that I'm strong and nothing's bothering me. It's no fun. It gets kind of lonely, yet I have to remind myself that every one of us will go through this someday in one way or another.

JCD: It's appointed unto man.

Ted: Countless millions who have walked this earth before us have gone through this, so this is just an experience we all share.

Ted Bundy was executed at 7:15 am the day after this conversation was recorded.

sin leads to death. Jesus died for your sin. You are in a war. Be a man. Put your sin to death first.

The Ted Bundy transcript is found on PureIntimacy.org and is taken from the Focus on the Family film Fatal Addiction: Ted Bundy's Final Interview.

Ted: Once you become addicted to it, and I look at this as a kind of addiction, you look for more potent, more explicit, more graphic kinds of material. Like an addiction, you keep craving something which is harder and gives you a greater sense of excitement, until you reach the point where the pornography only goes so far - that jumping off point where you begin to think maybe actually doing it will give you that which is just beyond reading about it and looking at it.

JCD: How long did you stay at that point before you actually assaulted someone?

Ted: A couple of years. I was dealing with very strong inhibitions against criminal and violent behavior. That had been conditioned and bred into me from my neighborhood, environment, church, and schools.

I knew it was wrong to think about it, and certainly, to do it was wrong. I was on the edge, and the last vestiges of restraint were being tested constantly, and assailed through the kind of fantasy life that was fueled, largely, by pornography.

JCD: Do you remember what pushed you over that edge? Do you remember the decision to "go for it"? Do you remember where you decided to throw caution to the wind?

Ted: It's a very difficult thing to describe - the sensation of reaching that point where I knew I couldn't control it anymore. The barriers I had learned as a child were not enough to hold me back from seeking out and harming somebody.

JCD: Would it be accurate to call that a sexual frenzy?

Ted: That's one way to describe it - a compulsion, a building up of this destructive energy. Another fact I haven't mentioned is the use of alcohol. In conjunction with my exposure to pornography, alcohol reduced my inhibitions and pornography eroded them further.

JCD: After you committed your first murder, what was the emotional effect? What happened in the days after that?

Ted: Even all these years later, it is difficult to talk about. Reliving it through talking about it is difficult to say the least, but I want you to understand what happened. It was like coming out of some horrible trance or dream. I can only liken it to (and I don't want to overdramatize it) being possessed by something so awful and alien, and the next morning waking up and remembering what happened and realizing that, in the eyes of the law, and certainly in the eyes of God, you're responsible. To wake up in the morning and realize what I had done with a clear mind, with all my essential moral and ethical feelings intact, absolutely horrified me.

JCD: You hadn't known you were capable of that before?

Ted: There is no way to describe the brutal urge to do that, and once it has been satisfied, or spent, and that energy level recedes, I became myself again. Basically, I was a normal person. I wasn't some guy hanging out in bars, or a bum. I wasn't a pervert in the sense that people look at somebody and say, "I know there's something wrong with him." I was a normal person. I had good friends. I led a normal life, except for this one, small but very potent and destructive segment that I kept very secret and close to myself. Those of us who have been so influenced by violence in the media, particularly pornographic violence, are not some kind of inherent monsters. We are your sons and husbands. We grew up in regular families. Pornography can reach in and snatch a kid out of any house today. It snatched me out of my home 20 or 30 years ago. As diligent as my parents were, and they were diligent in protecting their children, and as good a Christian home as we had, there is no protection against the kinds of influences that are loose in a society that tolerates,

[b]If you are a guy who at this point somehow still considers himself the exception to every rule who’s able to manage his sexual sin, this should get your attention. Former Seattleite and graduate of the University of Washington, Ted Bundy became one of the nation’s most notorious and feared serial killers for beating, despoiling, and then murdering at least thirty girls and women between the ages of twelve and twenty-six. Shortly before he was executed, Bundy was interviewed by Christian leader James Dobson. Shockingly, Bundy admitted that he possessed none of the normal triggers for such sinful behavior, as he was raised in a loving Christian home with five siblings and did not experience any sexual abuse growing up. Rather, he confessed in clear detail how as a young boy he began, as most boys do, viewing common indecency, which grew into increasingly harder and more deviant forms of indecency that eventually led to his acting out his evil fantasies. Quoted below is an edited transcript of the conversation that occurred just seventeen hours before Ted was led to the electric chair. I trust that it will be a sobering reminder to my Christian brothers that the sin of lust is an insatiable parasite that you must not feed, lest it grow and lead to death.[/b]

James C. Dobson: It is about 2:30 in the afternoon. You are scheduled to be executed tomorrow morning at 7:00, if you don't receive another stay. What is going through your mind? What thoughts have you had in these last few days?

Ted: I won't kid you to say it is something I feel I'm in control of or have come to terms with. It's a moment-by-moment thing. Sometimes I feel very tranquil and other times I don't feel tranquil at all. What's going through my mind right now is to use the minutes and hours I have left as fruitfully as possible. It helps to live in the moment, in the essence that we use it productively. Right now I'm feeling calm, in large part because I'm here with you.

JCD: For the record, you are guilty of killing many women and girls.

Ted: Yes, that's true.

JCD: How did it happen? Take me back. What are the antecedents of the behavior that we've seen? You were raised in what you consider to be a healthy home. You were not physically, sexually or emotionally abused.

Ted: No. And that's part of the tragedy of this whole situation. I grew up in a wonderful home with two dedicated and loving parents, as one of 5 brothers and sisters. We, as children, were the focus of my parent's lives. We regularly attended church. My parents did not drink or smoke or gamble. There was no physical abuse or fighting in the home. I'm not saying it was "Leave it to Beaver", but it was a fine, solid Christian home. I hope no one will try to take the easy way out of this and accuse my family of contributing to this. I know, and I'm trying to tell you as honestly as I know how, what happened.

As a young boy of 12 or 13, I encountered, outside the home, in the local grocery and drug stores, softcore indecency. Young boys explore the sideways and byways of their neighborhoods, and in our neighborhood, people would dump the garbage. From time to time, we would come across books of a harder nature - more graphic. This also included detective magazines, etc., and I want to emphasize this. The most damaging kind of indecency - and I'm talking from hard, real, personal experience - is that that involves violence and sexual violence. The wedding of those two forces - as I know only too well - brings about behavior that is too terrible to describe.

JCD: Walk me through that. What was going on in your mind at that time?

Ted: Before we go any further, it is important to me that people believe what I'm saying. I'm not blaming indecency. I'm not saying it caused me to go out and do certain things. I take full responsibility for all the things that I've done. That's not the question here. The issue is how this kind of literature contributed and helped mold and shape the kinds of violent behavior.

JCD: It fueled your fantasies.

Ted: In the beginning, it fuels this kind of thought process. Then, at a certain time, it is instrumental in crystallizing it, making it into something that is almost a separate entity inside.

JCD: You had gone about as far as you could go in your own fantasy life, with printed material, photos, videos, etc., and then there was the urge to take that step over to a physical event.

hello?

mudley313 dont you get tired?

A VERY RICH SORT OF SILENCE >>

MASTER [re-phrasing Aristotle]:  "In the quest of God, it would seem better and indeed necessary to give up what is dearest to us".

DISCIPLE:  "I am ready, in the quest for God, to give up anything: wealth, friends, family, country, life itself. What else can a person give up"?


MASTER: "One's beliefs about God".

---------------------------------
The disciple went away sad, for he clung to his convictions about God.

---

God is like the Pool of Existence out of which everything draws its being . . .

an elephant will sooner fit into the shoes of a rat, than God into our  NOTIONS of Him . . .

---

so you think you know enough about God? try this much simpler exercise.

please put down the fragrance of your perfume in WORDS on this forum so that we may perceive it. . .

^^
if you want proof of supernatural involvement, remember there is no proof that it came by chance either so you can say you don't know and that will be okay. 

@jesoul, to kiss means to touch or caress with the lips as an expression of affection, greeting, respect, or amorousness

in the context of the op's question, it is an aspect of pre-intimacy.

more: romans 12, especially vv. 9-13 ("love must be sincere. . . . be devoted to one another in brotherly love. honor one another above yourselves."; romans 13:8-14, especially vv. 9b and 10a ("Love your neighbor as yourself. Love does no harm to its neighbor."; 1 Cor. 13:4-7, especially v. 5 (love "is not self-seeking".

ask is it sincere? is it in honor? does it do harm? is it self-seeking (ulterior motives)?

nobody can say for you if its a sin or not.

^^^^

this is good stuff

dsgirl:

i would say that courtship is not in the scripture literally, but, if we look at it critically, Joseph and Mary were in courtship, at least, they were not married, but they were seeing each other, communicating and kinda watching each other's behaviours n xters. that was why Joseph wanted to back-off when he discovered that Mary was pregnant (he must have thought that Mary was promiscuous). It might not be written boldly in the Bible, but if we apply wisdom, we'll discover that its not a sin.

funmbi92:

I want to know if its right to allow kissing in a Godly relationship. Am not talking about SEX.

yes you can be in a Godly relationship and not kiss.

difficult? yes. impossible? no. biblical, and therefore beneficial? definitely yes.

i know you are not talking about sex but you said godly relationship so lets see what God says.

1 Tim 5:1-2 teaches how to deal with other members of God's family
Do not rebuke an older man harshly, but exhort him as if he were your father. Treat younger men as brothers, older women as mothers, and younger women as sisters, with absolute purity."

absolute purity!

more: romans 12, especially vv. 9-13 ("love must be sincere. . . . be devoted to one another in brotherly love. honor one another above yourselves."; romans 13:8-14, especially vv. 9b and 10a ("Love your neighbor as yourself. Love does no harm to its neighbor."; 1 Cor. 13:4-7, especially v. 5 (love "is not self-seeking".

1 Cor 7:3 states the exception to this rule: when we are married, our bodies literally belong to our spouse as designed by God in Gen 1:28; paul also instructs spouses to meet one another's sexual needs and to be together regularly so as to protect ourselves from falling into ungodly lust and extramarital sexual activity. God wants us to have great sex!!! but only after we are married.

1 Thess. 4:3-8 has much more to say. please read carefully:
It is God's will that you should be sanctified: that you should avoid sexual immorality; that each of you should learn to control his own body in a way that is holy and honorable, not in passionate lust like the heathen, who do not know God; and that in this matter no one should wrong his brother or take advantage of him. The Lord will punish men for all such sins, as we have already told you and warned you. For God did not call us to be impure, but to lead a holy life. Therefore, he who rejects this instruction does not reject man but God, who gives you his holy spirit.

ok so now that should be clear. God wants us to be different, and sex is a part of the story. lets zoom in on kissing.

sex is everything that leads to the intercourse itself. kissing is a fundamental part of God's design for great sex, it is called pre-intimacy.

[size=18pt]sex is a one-way street on a downward sloping mountainside. you gather a lot of momentum the second you enter it, and according to the Great Engineer's design of that street, there's only one reason to get on it.[/size]

you dont have to accept it of course. but i believe it's true either way.

where is the science?

thehomer: Sorry but this creator cannot be viewed as a black box because all we have is the output but not the input unless you wish to simply make up this input.

okay. the input of any blackbox is the seed that germinates to form the output. for the creator, it is the desire and choice to create.

in the case of the God described in the bible -- who i believe is the creator -- this input was/is his word.

in the beginning the Word already existed. the Word was with God, and the Word was God. - john 1:1 nlt
that's the input i refer to. and since you choose not to believe in God, you can also choose to be content that the desire and choice of that intelligent creator to create is the input of the black box.

sizzlers:

the BIBLE DISPROOF COURTSHIP WITH THIS VERSE:

1 COR 7:2
But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband.

very poor interpretation. does courtship mean you must be involved in sexual immorality? how will each man get to have his own wife and each woman her husband?

proverbs 18:22 tells us how it is meant to be. this is also the way the fathers of faith did it, isaac and moses as examples

he who finds a wife finds what is good and receives favor from the LORD <= proverbs 18:22

how will he find the wife?

Proverbs 18:22 [whoso] findeth a wife; a good one; so the septuagint, vulgate latin, syriac, and arabic versions, supply it; and so the targum, though it leaves out the word good in the last clause; and no other can be meant, even a good natured one, wise, prudent, careful, and industrious; a proper helpmeet, a virtuous woman, as in ( proverbs 31:10 ) ; whoso seeks after such an one, and finds one, especially one that has the grace of God, which he should seek after among his friends, and by their assistance, and by prayer to God: findeth a good [thing]; that will be good for him, both upon a civil and spiritual account.
- john gill

@prince4Christ
[list]
[li]ask God to help you live for him in a way that always pleases him[/li]
[li]study the bible more often to better understand how God deals with his people[/li]
[li]spend more time talking to God, even about things other people will call irrelevant. whether you say it out or not, the more conscious you are of God, the less chances of sinning[/li]
[li]have an accountability partner of the same sex, a great friend you respect and trust and who can also help you watch your back or remind you[/li]
[li]stay away from some places you have been going to[/li]
[li]change all friends and activities that eventually lead you to think about sin, and then lead you to sin (only you know them by yourself)[/li]
[/list]

[list]
[li]Cc: @krayola; @thehomer[/li]
[li]your arguments are now flying the coop  [/li]
[li]u have failed to show how the universe is the result of a chance and spontaneous cause  [/li]
[li]but u keep demanding to see evidence of inner workings of the so-called black box called the creator (ironic by definition of a black box)  [/li]
[li]how is that for double standards?   [/li]
[/list]

@op
if we [freely] admit that we have sinned and confess our sins, he is faithful and just (true to his own nature and promises) and will forgive our sins [dismiss our lawlessness] and [continuously] cleanse us from all unrighteousness [everything not in conformity to his will in purpose, thought, and action].
1 john 1: 9 (amplified)

@joagbaje
upon all the scriptures you still dey there dey argue blindly. wetin dey more important than scriptures to a supposed christian?

after you read 1 john 1:9 ask yourself if it is said to only "born-again christians". it comes after 1 john 1:8
If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

so why you dey hurt yourself by kicking against the goads?

[list][li]given the foregoing, n = number of creators cannot be zero otherwise the black-box does not exist[/li]
[li]therefore the number of creators is either a non-trivial constant n = c, or in general a variable function n(+)
[list][li]if n = c then it either these n abstractions operated as a unit in that instance of creation, or they acted in some chaos[/li]
[li]if they acted in unity, they will be considered as ONE, no matter how many components formed that whole[/li]
[li]if they acted in chaos like it happens in some black boxes where some parts are the limiting control mechanism of other parts to achieve an overall systemic ataraxis, then on a blackbox scale they acted in unity, for their efforts are complementary and in partnership to achieve the output of the blackbox[/li]
[/list]
[/li]
[li]if a variable, n may not be an explicit function but can always be implictly represented in u(+) = g(n, , , k) where u(+) is an otherwise described "universal" function that is partially derived from n and probably other unlisted variables and also takes to itself some trivial or non-trivial constant k. every variable function can be described in this manner
[list][li]at the instance of creation, this explicit function u(+) defines at least one non-trivial value for n. if the value of n was trivial, once again there will be no blackbox. assume n has (X+1) non-trivial values n0, n1, n2, n3,,  nX where x is a positive integer.[/li]
[li]each of these values n[::] is a constant or a function n[::][/li]
[li]if a constant, apply the logic used in the listing "n = c" above[/li]
[li]if n[::] is non-constant but non-trivial, apply the logic above recursively[/li]
[/list]
[/li]
[li]conclusively, after (a number of) recursive iterations one will always end up with a set of numerical values of n at any instance, given that n, a proposed variable is non-trivial. it has to be non-trivial or else the black box wont exist[/li]
[li]this above cannot be denied, such reasoning as I set out above is the foundation of all numerical analyses in science[/li]
[li]"n" as required is always positive and greater than zero, is not undefined, and is non-trivial, but may have multiple possible values depending on the instance {as set out in the u(+) = g(n, , , k) recursion}[/li]
[li]whatever this value or values of n is, the overall output of the black box is/was A CREATION, which is/was either
[list][li]entirely the universe, or[/li]
[li]some abstraction(s) that eventually (interacted or not, and) created the universe in turn, or else[/li]
[li]an abstraction of which the universe is only a part[/li]
[/list]
[/li]
[li]this/these n creator abstractions are defined in a black-box logical construct as a CREATOR abstraction that led to the birth of the universe directly or indirectly[/li]
[li]n or n[::] (for a set of n values) is thus non-trivial, but any attempts to numerically define "n" compulsorily will make for a trivial argument IMO[/li]
[/list]

i have little patience to make long-winded posts especially in exchange for tenuous one-liner disaffirmations often reeking of intellectual dishonesty

@homer

Your reference to the anthropic principle is irrelevant. The point I'm making is that no one claims that this universe came from nothing but that all the energy was present at the Big bang.

the anthropic principle has a lot to do if you claim something comes from nothing. you should have made your first post clear then.
you don’t get something from nothing
no one claims this
followed by
So your conclusion is invalid based on the problems with all the premises except the first
if now you say no one claims the universe came from nothing then why did you not show that you agree with point 2? you don’t get something from nothing

Do you have evidence for this alternate time-line? Is your only means of solution is by an appeal to special pleading?

can you show where i mentioned an alternate timeline? 
that alternate timeline statement of yours is hardly even coherent in this matter
i simply extrapolated our known timeline into an unknown past!

No it it very relevant because this creator has to be somewhere to create this universe. Also, the way by which you arrived at the number of creators is also important for us to be sure you're not just making stuff up

the creator is somewhere truly but it's superfluous to attempt a physical description of a non-physical abstraction. you must surely know this. the number of creators is not important and i will soon show why in reply to krayola. i thought the argument was about intellegent creation versus chance occurrence? 

I'm not proposing an eternal universe. You, on the other hand, are proposing an eternal entity.

good to know you are not proposing an eternal universe. if you disagree on an eternal entity then you must agree on an eternal pre-universe abstraction otherwise you must explain where the energy came from since you said in (2) that something cannot come from nothing

---

@krayola:

You said something exists. Not that something was derived, or "gotten". I think those are different things. IMO your second premise has nothing to do with the first.

i assumed a non-eternal universe in my first premise. if the existent something was not derived or gotten, then it must be eternal. you can jump to point 3.

If u can show that the universe was "created" out of nothing, this could fly. But simply asserting that means little IMO. From my experience something can not come out of nothing, so based on that I have no reason to believe the universe did.

you are shooting your own foot. you just said the existent something was probably not derived. does this not show that it is either eternal (always was, and thus uncaused) or else was caused (by another caused or uncaused abstraction ad infinitum until an uncaused one is reached)? and then i never said the universe came out of nothing, so can you show where you got that from?

Or three creators. Or a creator that created it for amusement and committed suicide. or a universe that grew out of a preexisting something kinda like a plant goes from a seed. I can keep going. Why are those u stated the only 2 options? That IMO is another faulty premise.

this is poor reasoning on your part, krayola. you are so quick to try to put me in a box like im saying the creator is human, alive and was only one. this is plain logic. the number of the creators doesnt matter. whether the creator is dead or alive doesnt matter (in the context of this argument). if the universe was an offshoot of a pre-existing thing "like a plant from a seed", then its creator is the seed abstraction it grew from. the argument is that it is not a chance occurrence.

as i said, the universe must either be eternal or else by definition it is an upshot of an abstraction. this abstraction in turn is eternal or else also an upshot of another abstraction (here is where your seed-plant fits) but when you recursively follow through you must reach a first cause or abstraction and that is the ultimate creator, whatever form it takes, or whatever the numeric count.

the creator (ultimate creator, if the universe derived from a non-eternal abstraction) is NOT a white-box logical construct
the creator of the universe is a black-box logical construct.

Wikipedia:

In science and engineering, a black box is a device, system or object which can be viewed solely in terms of its input, output and transfer characteristics without any knowledge of its internal workings, that is, its implementation is "opaque" (black). Almost anything might be referred to as a black box: a transistor, an algorithm, or the human mind.

The opposite of a black box is a system where the inner components or logic are available for inspection, which is sometimes known as a white box, a glass box, or a clear box.

as such asking for the number of creators inside a black box makes no sense. even if they were a billion in numeric strength, they are the Creator still, and the output of the black box is evident in the universe.

thehomer:

Ok.

yeah

thehomer:

No one claims this.

in order to believe matter == energy is uncaused, one has to discard known laws and principles of science. no reasonable person is going to do this simply to maintain a personal atheistic position. i wont do your homework for you. read of the anthropic principle in science. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle

thehomer:

Wow this is a huge leap. How do you know something eternal exists? Why must this thing be necessary?

it is necessary that something must have started it all (considering points 1 & 2). it is beyond time because time as we know it began at the big bang. it is eternal because if it isnt, it must have risen from another finite abstraction which in turn rose from another, leading back into an eternal abstraction. that first eternal abstraction began the process in that case even if it did not begin the big bang and or the universe

thehomer:

How do you know this creator is eternal?

see above.

thehomer:

How many are they? Where is this creator?

this is of no consequence to the argument presented. where is the bachelor's wife? how does color blue smell? what is the procedure required to weigh a tonne of fire?

thehomer:

Yes we know that it began expanding from a point but at the time of its expansion, all the energy within the universe was present.

does this make the universe eternal? even world-reknown scientists like hawkings (atheists nonetheless) explain how the general theory of relativity and the discovery of the expansion of the universe have provoked conceptual changes, which means the idea of an ever-existing, ever-lasting universe is no longer tenable.

thehomer:

So your conclusion is invalid based on the problems with all the premises except the first.

show me how