₦airaland Forum

skylane: if you want to know weda its nonsense or not wenever you are alone call out that name you will see 4 ur self,I can't argue

Guy go siddon abeg.You no hold talk

skylane: Please the demonic name I mentioned there is not to be called out loud,for your own good,its a female and male demonic entities responsible. For it and they get attracted to whosoever call their names out,u can say anything but if you doubt try it alone you will give testimony if you will survive it

Mtcheeew!Just read the nonsense you wrote up there again.So these so called demonic spirits even had botanical names?Who knew.
Besides,didn't pastor Chris Oyakhilome once claimed that 'mastvrbation was not a sin'?So what gives?

Another bullshitt story by Republican apologists. Yes they may have issues but how did they know the marriage was heading for a divorce? Nonsensical story. Wasn't it the same smear tactics they tried to introduce during Obama's first campaign for office?
In any event,that does not excuse Obama's flirtatious actions at Mandela's burial. That was petty to say the least

Lol..please make up your minds. Has anyone seen or not seen the face of God? Because this is frustrating

Cool pics bro..it's all good

Lyn,you could remove your pic from your profile for a few weeks. Name the school,LG & LG Chairman. We can't go on like this

Kaysalas: when you were still a Christian.. you said? You left the light for what else if I may ask?

Topic for another day,lest i derail

FrancisTony: hmmm! I don't even understand you.

Like seriously? Is that so hard to understand? A while ago you were using derogatory comments to address my post. Only to reproach someone else for doing same. If you don't get it now,sorry i can't help you

maclatunji: You have been missing it from post one and will continue to miss it until you accept your limitations... #LOL

I have made it abundantly,unequivocally,unambiguously & categorically clear that i do not lay claim to knowing the beginning of the existence of the universe. You on the other hand,claim you know & it is totally in the control of your god. But fall short of telling us the origin of this god. Rather,claim he exists out of time. Thus,could not have originated from somewhere. & you honestly expect me to take you seriously? Are you having a laugh?

FrancisTony: smh! Must you abuse?? Mr. Faraday ain't a christian but kumuyi is using electricity. Only God knows how they made electricity. But to me, it seems idolatory even the car Mr. Kumuyi cruises with around the world.

For the record,i 'liked' your comment. Funny i did that because a couple of minutes ago you were like...

FrancisTony: sharap! It wasn't referring to christmas tree. You're dumb! It was referring to your atheist god.
Jeremiah 10 :5
Like a scarecrow in a melon patch, their idols cannot speak; they must be carried because they cannot walk. Do not fear them; they can do harm nor can they do any good
dude u're too dumb. Is christmas tree scary??!!! Stop reading half of a bible chapter before concluding. Just smh

Some food for thought. When i was still a Christian,there was a verse that always stood out for me..'let your light so shine before men that they may see your good works'. This should be the cardinal principle of every Christian. Why should i be the one teaching folks these things? I don taya sef

maclatunji: Of course, you fail to grasp things. The Atheists' mantra has been what? "We must be able to prove anything for it to be acceptable".

True,but you have not proven anything so far. Or did i miss it?

FrancisTony: you have lost it already. Bye!!

You can't explain it. It's ok,i get that all the time. After all,It's my job to put religious folks like you in their place. Sooner or later,they run with their tail between their legs

@mac,so based on your epistle of the lack of the human mind to grasp everything in the universe..the corollary therefore is..there must have been or there is a god in control of the universe. Or to use your words..'the source of all creation'. I fail to see the connection,correlation or intersection. You're still holding tenaciously to the God of the gaps theorem;'if you can't explain it,god did it'. This argument has been debunked time & time again. But like someone alluded to earlier..if you could reason with religious people,there'll be no religious people

FrancisTony: sharap! It wasn't referring to christmas tree. You're dumb! It was referring to your atheist god.
Jeremiah 10 :5
Like a scarecrow in a melon patch, their idols cannot speak; they must be carried because they cannot walk. Do not fear them; they can do harm nor can they do any good
dude u're too dumb. Is christmas tree scary??!!! Stop reading half of a bible chapter before concluding. Just smh

At least Tendulkay was honest enough to admit the christmas tree has no correlation with the birth of Jesus. You on the other hand,like a typical christian when boxed into a corner resort to insults. Who cares whether the tree is scary or not? The crux of the issue is of what significance is it in the scheme of things

TeNDuLKaaY: Okay this is the height of ignorance; stop twisting the words of the bible to support anything you claim is right. There is nothing suggesting 'DON'T CELEBRATE CHRISTMAS' in the above passage. The whole chapter speaks against the worship of man made crafts/Idols and exults Yahweh as the true God. I don't know how you arrived at the conclusion it is against celebrating christmas. Even if we are to go by your analysis, the chapter condems trees not celebration. Seek help when interpreting scriptures.

Of course,the bible is always subject to whatever interpretation you deem convenient.And as usual,your own interpretation is always the right one...sigh..christians sha
Btw,you still haven't told me the significance of the so called christmas tree to the birth of your Jesus.What is the correlation?I noticed you craftily evaded that part of my question

TeNDuLKaaY: Abeg which verse?

See am here

FrancisTony: dude! There's nothing there! Must you tell lies to get likes? Smh sha.

Keep deceiving yourself.Isn't it funny it takes an atheist to lecture you on what you should already know?Smh for these folks

Jeremiah 10
King James Version (KJV)
10 Hear ye the word which the Lord speaketh unto you, O house of Israel:

2 Thus saith the Lord, Learn not the way of the heathen, and be not dismayed at the signs of heaven; for the heathen are dismayed at them.

3 For the customs of the people are vain: for one cutteth a tree out of the forest, the work of the hands of the workman, with the axe.

4 They deck it with silver and with gold; they fasten it with nails and with hammers, that it move not.

Jeremiah 10:2-4
English Standard Version (ESV)
2 Thus says the Lord:

“Learn not the way of the nations,
nor be dismayed at the signs of the heavens
because the nations are dismayed at them,
3 for the customs of the peoples are vanity.[a]
A tree from the forest is cut down
and worked with an axe by the hands of a craftsman.
4 They decorate it with silver and gold;
they fasten it with hammer and nails
so that it cannot move.

Have you even bothered to ask yourself 'what exactly is the essence of the fir tree to the celebration of your Jesus?' You folks are just too ignorant for your own good

FrancisTony: dude! There's nothing there! Must you tell lies to get likes? Smh sha.

Keep deceiving yourself.Isn't it funny it takes an atheist to lecture you on what you should already know?Smh for these folks

Jeremiah 10
King James Version (KJV)
10 Hear ye the word which the Lord speaketh unto you, O house of Israel:

2 Thus saith the Lord, Learn not the way of the heathen, and be not dismayed at the signs of heaven; for the heathen are dismayed at them.

3 For the customs of the people are vain: for one cutteth a tree out of the forest, the work of the hands of the workman, with the axe.

4 They deck it with silver and with gold; they fasten it with nails and with hammers, that it move not.

Jeremiah 10:2-4
English Standard Version (ESV)
2 Thus says the Lord:

“Learn not the way of the nations,
nor be dismayed at the signs of the heavens
because the nations are dismayed at them,
3 for the customs of the peoples are vanity.[a]
A tree from the forest is cut down
and worked with an axe by the hands of a craftsman.
4 They decorate it with silver and gold;
they fasten it with hammer and nails
so that it cannot move.

Have you even bothered to ask yourself 'what exactly is the essence of the fir tree to the celebration of your Jesus?' You folks are just too ignorant for your own good

Even the bible abhors christmas but most christians will pretend the verse doesn't exist

maclatunji: @Cold, your epistle has already been debunked. It has been established that whatever you are part of, you cannot totally master.

God is not a part of the universe. Hence, your epistle is Useless within this context. All those rules get thrown to the dustbin.

In other words,i have no choice but to accept your postulations as fact..ok

maclatunji: I have claimed that God is independent of the rules of the universe because he created it and cannot rely on it. The science agrees with me.

Another fallacious & nonsensical argument. God cannot be taken out of the equation simply because you think it to be so. Here's something for you to chew on..
The old cosmological argument as a classical ‘proof’ for the existence of God is apparently alive and well. It is used in practically every debate for the existence of God that I’ve come across. They sometimes rewrite it a little, believing to have strengthened its points, but the argument remains the same. The argument seems to require both supposition, and circular reasoning, whilst attempting to seem logical. The argument is as follows:

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

- In essence… you cannot get something from nothing.

I have several criticisms of this classical ‘proof’ for the existence of God that I’ll set out below, point by point.

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
You may have noted several problems with the argument immediately, starting not with its first point, but with its overall premise that an infinite cannot possibly exist. The premise that an infinite cannot exist, in this case is negated by the idea that a creator was uncaused, and thus, infinite. On top of an infinite God, the argument presupposes that the first cause ‘created’ everything…. out of nothing. They attempt to argue that something from nothing is impossible, whilst arguing that something from nothing is possible, as long as an eternal overlord did it. They don’t in any way provide evidence for the presupposition that something – anything – is able to exist prior to time and space, or outside of time and space. And that’s a crucial point. They therefore have no logically sound base for their argument. We try to rationalise with them, debate respectfully, use grandiose philosophical terms on a level that they believe helps their cause, but I think perhaps we give the cosmological argument too much credit, when in fact its very fundamental premise is just a more eloquent rewording of: “Eternal sky man used magic“.

Secondly, the phrase “…that begins to exist” is vital to the flaw. It used to be simply “Everything has a cause”. Well, then, if everything includes itself, then we must say that a creator must also have a cause. This presented problems for the believer, and so the phrase “…that begins to exist” was added. But this addition isn’t free from flaws, in fact it multiplies them. It is clearly intense circular reasoning. It presumes two states of being. Things that begin to exist, suggests there are also things that don’t begin to exist, which suggests they’ve always existed, which exempts them from the entire argument. In turn, this means by splitting existence into two categories a) Things that begin to exist and by extension b) Things that don’t begin to exist, but exist anyway, those who use the cosmological argument defeat their own premise; that nothing can be infinite.

They are also trying to prove God, by exempting God from the argument. To put it a little more simply, it is like saying “Everything…. that is blue“. Everything encompasses itself, there is nothing excluded. But the addition of “..that is blue” suddenly changes the meaning of “everything” by exempting everything that isn’t blue. And so “…that begins to exist” exempts that which is presumed not to have a beginning, by which believers call “God”. The argument already presumes a God, whilst trying to prove a God. To put it simply, Point 1 can thus be rewritten as:
1. Everything, except God, has a cause.
Which means point 2. can be rewritten as:
2. The Universe (but not God) began to exist.
- If an exemption for “everything” exists – and the exemption is that which you’re trying to prove – then your argument is incomplete, and so it is flawed.

Also flawed, is the premise that everything has a cause. Hume argued that we can infer from our experience of houses, that an architect and builders are required for a house to exist. We know this from experience of how houses come to exist. But we have no experience of how universes – the chain itself, rather than the constituent parts – come to exist, and so it is not possible to draw the same inference as we would do for houses. In essence, causation applies to the constituent parts of the universe, but need not apply to the universe (and so, time) itself.

2. The universe began to exist.
This is a flippant attempt to link the beginning of the universe itself, to the beginning of everything within the universe, when in fact the two are separate. Causation requires time to exist. Therefore causation is a product of the universe, the universe need not itself be a product of the laws of causation observed within the universe. The argument “the universe began to exist” places the universe (the entire set, rather than the parts of the set) within itself, subject to the law of the parts of the set that it gave birth to.

There was no “before time“, there was no prior state of being in which the universe hadn’t “begun” to exist yet, and so there was never a possibility for something to exist in order to be the cause of the universe – and therefore time – itself. The word “begun” requires time. The word “before” requires time. The word “cause” requires time. If a cause existed, then time existed, which means the universe had already begun to exist.
To argue “you cannot get something from nothing” is meaningless when discussing the universe itself, because there has never been “nothing“, there has always been “something”.

Causality is linked necessarily to time. So the Kalam Cosmological argument, by including the phrase “…that begins to exist” suggests that something can exist outside of time and so has no cause, without actually providing evidence for that subtly made assertion. This is not a respectable argument for the existence of God, it is not a rational argument for the existence of God, and yet some of the key Theistic public speakers use it constantly. It isn’t in the slightest bit convincing.

3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.
As noted above, this does not follow from the first two points, and therefore fails. It is a meaningless statement. Before making a case for the cosmological argument’s credibility, it seems to me that one must first produce the slightest piece of evidence that it is possible for something to exist outside of the all-encompassing confines of time and space. Which is of course both irrational, and self defeating. Existence requires time. And on that basis alone, the third point is irrational.

We non-believers simply say we do not know. Scientists are working on it. We just don’t know yet. In time, evidence will be gathered, theories formed, and conclusions drawn. It is simply not acceptable practice to notice a gap in our understanding, and place “God” without a significant amount of evidence for such an extraordinary claim, relying instead of horribly flawed philosophical talking points. The cosmological argument is one of those flawed talking points. It is nothing more than an eloquently formed synonym for “Eternal sky man used magic

Ok let's put this argument to bed,i'm a creationist. Hope y'all happy now?

So this minute-old-baby already bears the sins of his/her original parents from 200,000 years ago? Does this even make any sense? I've never been able to fathom this 'original sin' thing

runzlord: its polo by obayuwana. He was in the advert too

Ok thanx. Just did a quick Google search of the name. He's like the Coscharis of wrist watches. I get it now

maclatunji: Awwww... you got beaten at the game. #Sorry

Whatever helps you sleep well at night bro

maclatunji: How would a blind man from birth know colour "blue" if he saw it for the first time? He would not know...

You have admitted you do not know, how would you know who knows? #Ha!

Of course,unlike you, I do not lay claim to knowing the beginning of existence.But your attempt to link existence to your imaginary friend but falling short of telling us where this existential being originated from is not only feeble and laughable,it is ludicrous.Seriously,I don't think you know how pathetic this level of reasoning is you flaunt as intelligence.It would have been funny if it wasn't so painfully disturbing

macof: The main thing preventing tithes in judaism is dat only priest from the tribe of Levi were allowed to collect tithes, today the tribe of Levi is scattered and extinct.
#Jesus came for the lost tribes of Israel
I still wonder wat concerns a Nigerian pentecostal pastor with tithes when he isn't from the tribe of Levi

It's the fraud inherent in the church we keep harping about.It's all about the money,it has always been about the money.
Here's an excerpt to buttress my claim...The ancient Israelite calculated and paid his tithes only once per year, after the harvest. During the year, he bought and sold, exchanged his labour for other men's goods, and his goods for other men's labours; on none of this income did he pay any tithes. All year long, he and his family ate of the increase of the land and of the livestock. What he consumed in the course of the year was not recorded and added to his total harvest for the purpose of calculating his tithes. If he went fishing and caught ten fish in the middle of the year, he ate them all; he didn't save one of them to the end of the year in order to pay tithes on his fish. If he received some gold or silver in an inheritance, he was not required to pay tithes on his inheritance. It is simply ludicrous to propose that the Israelites were required to keep careful records of everything they got during the year, in order to make sure that they paid exactly ten percent of "everything they got" as a tithe.
the Israelite was not commanded to tithe on everything he obtained and used throughout the year, but only on his increase at the end of the year. The same thing is true with a business in that a certain amount of the income is consumed in maintaining the operation. It is notable how the modern tithe teachers expect the ordinary working man to fork over 10% of his every paycheck before his bills or his taxes are paid. While on the other hand, if there is some rich man in the church that owns a large and flourishing business, that rich man is allowed to pretend that a large portion of his total income is not subject to the same law. Let me point out to you how ridiculous is this distinction: The business owner puts his company truck in the company name, and makes his payments with a company check. He has his gasoline credit cards in the company name, and pays those bills with a company check. So also with his insurance. After all these major operational expenses are paid for, he then pays himself whatever he will in a payroll check made out to himself. He is only expected to pay tithes on that check.
The ordinary working man who must have a car to drive to work has all these same expenses to meet, but he is expected to pay tithes on his total income BEFORE he pays for his car, his gas, and his insurance!
The hypocrisy is obvious! Can't you see that the ordinary working man needs his car in order to conduct his own "business"? The only difference between the man who works for a paycheck and the man who owns his own company is a piece of paper. The working man pays a much higher percentage of his total income than the rich business owner, who has all sorts of "deductions" that he can calculate from his "personal" income. None of these tithe-teachers EVER demands that business owners pay tithes on their total business income, because they KNOW HOW FAR THEY CAN GO! It's hypocrisy, and oppression of the poorer people in the church!

maclatunji: Summary: You do not know, you do not want to know and because you do not want to know, nobody else knows.

Your logic is quite sensational. There are billions of things you do not know about and do you know how inconsequential in the grand scheme of things your arrogant ignorance is? Of course, you do not.

By the way, it is funny how self-acclaimed "Atheists" are running away from Atheism in this debate.

Let me even summarize that further for you.You don't know either but only pretend you know because your story book says so.End of!
So much for your new found intellingence

@op,don't worry,you'll make heaven. Even good atheists (aren't all atheists good?)will make heaven too. So you're in good company

Which Polo is this? Who's the manufacturer? What's their pedigree. I know this is not Polo by Ralph Lauren. Anyhoo..cool ad

Creatify: Amazing and crazy Pictures of Ice Prince,Terry G,I Go Die,J Martins at Benue state Youth Fiesta but the talk of all Benue indigence and Nigerian music lovers that came from different state to experience the event was why 2face was not invited to one of the biggest fiesta from his own state

Yeah kinda strange though. You'd think 2face would be the star artiste. Oh well,what do i know

Yaba_Leftist: Hell awaits you Kalashinikov! Satan will be so glad to welcome you home. You have caused the death of millions of people around the world. Hope you get a nice space in the hottest part of hell!

Nigga please