₦airaland Forum

No methods were ever discussed for discerning a "true doctrine"....did you fail to ask that question?

And upon all the "revelations" allegedly seen by the op and those before you, neither of you all completely agree with your "revelations" and once again no method was given to discern a real one from one that's not.

millyajay:
before I answer your question..y are u an atheist? were you once Christian? if yes what changed your mind and belief?

Yes I was once a christian....born of two deacons and also worked in the church for a while before studying intensely about the bible, it's history and it's development....along with good schooling.
What changed my mind isn't really one thing but a host of things....if I should label it under a name it would be the "dishonest display of fictional and/or non-demonstrable elements as true without confirmation and demoting critical thinking"...

Anything else?

Maamin:
Were you there during the so called big bang and evolution ?

Yes....my atoms were there...yours too...

roqchiq:
Ermmm.....which video

Video of Jesus's birth? Abegi, if you no dey there wen him mama born am, just keep quiet, nobody go force you to celebrate Christmas. Even you no sabi wen dem born you, except wetin your mama tell you, even your papa no sure say na him born you.

Una own don too much sef.

Well inversely you weren't also there...

millyajay:
do you think all this people that call themselves men of God are true Men of God?

I'm an agnostic atheist, so as far as I can tell....I don't know. What is a "god"(using your definition) and why is it in need of men?

I guess when you also test a Buddhist/Muslim/hindu,etc and he/she passes,that means we're automatically justified to follow them...

Infomizer:
The church messed up...But, let's see this as proof that they're run by humans capable of erring in decision making. My take.

Wasn't it also humans that wrote the bible?

millyajay:
it's really surprising..only God knows his true men

How?

grandstar:
Pls pick up your bible and read Matthew 24. We live in the last days 2 Tim 3: 1-5. Verse 13 tells us things will only get worse

The bible also says this too...

Leviticus 3:17

It shall be a perpetual statute for your generations throughout all your dwellings, that ye eat neither fat nor blood.

Leviticus 11:7

And the swine, though he divide the hoof, and be clovenfooted, yet he cheweth not the cud; he is unclean to you.

Leviticus 19:27

Ye shall not round the corners of your heads, neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard.

Leviticus 19:28

Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print any marks upon you: I am the LORD.

Are all these valid or do you pick and choose?

Rossikk:
You need to study the phenomenon of near death experiences. Such people DID return back to consciousness and relate their experiences. NDEs are very common today owing to advances in medicine, with people certfied clinically dead (this state is actual death but only declared as such after a specific time period of attempted revival) getting revived and recounting their experiences. A good place to learn about NDEs is www.near-death.com. It's a fascinating topic that throws a whole new light on the subject of death and transcendence.

So a website plus a bunch of people who believe it all agree....that's the very same thing that goes for conspiracy theories, alien abductions, homeopathy,etc...does that justify all of them?

naijaboyof4life:
The car example doesn't make any sense cause car is a result of human intelligence, high self awareness and science. A car is not a subject of morality just as shaving, those are commodities.

Again you seem to think mediocre....
Besides the fact that you misrepresented my initial reply to that fellow as a "justification" for homosexuality....you seem to think I was extending morality to objects when I was merely citing actions...I.e "driving"

I am not talking about whether people do it or not. I am talking about the morality of it not the just the action.

Actions and objectives define morality.....you seem to think morality is a standard when it's demonstrably not....
Here's a thought experiment.....if you were in a car about to reverse and you happened to hit someone, are you more liable to account(be held criminally responsible) for that action if you were aware of that action or not?
You caused harm sure....but was that your objective?

That above test would justify actions and objectives towards something being moral or not...

Humans have been murdering but we don't say it is right but when animals do it, we say it is a natural process.

I'm amused by this response.....you're Again confusing two completely different things...

One is that,murder is rather defined as this;

"Murder is the killing of another person without justification or valid excuse, and it is especially the unlawful killing of another human being with malice aforethought."

As you can see,by definition only human beings murder.....if you check any dictionary....the specific definition is for human beings alone.....we only generalize the term to refer to other creatures whenever we see fit.

Secondly, you seem to confuse "natural" with "moral", although I see that you're accustomed to interchanging those words(judging from your replies)...

Something being natural means it occurs in nature....that's it....no morals attached.

Something moral is simply dynamic because there's no known completely justifable right or wrongs..a lot of things play into something being right or wrong....one I've mentioned is the objective....there are also...the actions effect on others....the actions effect on yourself and how that action would help/harm you if done by everyone else....these ideas aren't new....they are just some of the basic things societies figured out.

That is because humans have been subject to a moral standard, animals are not.

As you can see by my above post....you are wrong...
Actions....objectives...it's relation with others....it's benefit and/or harm when done by others are all points that come in the face of your alleged "moral standard"...

From even the definition of murder you'd see that something like murder isn't "right/wrong" till a justification is considered before concluding it as "murder"

"a lot of civilizations endorsed such without a hint of any "evil" act done....plus cannibalism also extends to eating dead individuals also."
My point exactly and people thought it was and it is wrong hence moral implication. They endorsed it as some type of ritual, desire but that didn't make it right.

Bring your attention to those bolded words.... and review my post(from top to bottom again)

My posts have been trying to tell you(in the easiest way possible) that "right/wrong" aren't solid concepts....cannibalism might seem bad to you and a lot of people who also share that view, but what now made it right for a lot of people?
First we need a defintion of cannibalism...it is;

is the act or practice of humans eating the flesh or internal organs of other human beings.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannibalism

and there's also a generalized definition in zoology..

cannibalism is the act of one individual of a species consuming all or part of another individual of the same species as food

Okay, now that we have the definition(s), what objectives would justify the action?

How about scarcity of food?....insanity?...you've already offered other things like "desire, ritual"....now if there were a "standard", why do those points make that action justifiable?

I would urge you to think on these few points and also don't rush to think people are either for A or B.

naijaboyof4life:
Just because animals do it doesn't mean it is right.

Funny enough I knew someone would throw this response and I agree, that also doesn't mean it's wrong...animals(apart from us) don't also drive a car....does that make it right/wrong?

That is animals, they have no moral obligation unlike humans.

Humans are animals and belong to a group called "social animals" which share certain traits of which one is moral care for young ones

Animals kill each other and eat each other.

Humans have also been doing that(and some still are)...And if left without a choice we'd still be doing it.

If human did the same, it is considered evil and cannibalism.

Not neccesarily.....a lot of civilizations endorsed such without a hint of any "evil" act done....plus cannibalism also extends to eating dead individuals also.

So people should stop running to animals for their justification. We might be classified scientifically in the same group but doesn't mean we are the same.

If you noticed my comments, you'd see that I merely pointed out the fault in offering justification from animals....
Eitherway I guess most mindsets think you're either for A or B.

adauzed:
Sodom and Gomorrah was in existence before Nigeria and the US.

I'm surprised you can boast of something you don't know.....

brainiac5:
look dude it is too much of freedom that is killing dis planet, without checks and caution gayism will be random. Even if the bill is not effective it shows that we still have an atom of discipline left in africa. The effect of gayism is slowly eating america to crumbs, it will be the replay of sodom's fall. Even animals know that homosexuality is bad.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior

This all-female species even reproduces by mating with one another...

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Mexico_whiptail


Parthenogenesis allows the resulting all-female population to reproduce and thus evolve into a unique species capable of reproduction..

So I guess animals aren't as "smart" as you thought...

jared007:
The stupid boys will tell u nothing wrong with being gay, dat gays are minding their business. That's a bloody lie! A time is coming when little boys and matured men would be raped frequently in the streets like girls.

Ask yourself one thing....the countries that allows homosexuals be.....are such cases often heard of?

And what is more likely to make homosexuals rape you....giving them the freedom to openly express their sexual orientation or forbid them to?

Jambu:
So it takes a guy to be locked up with a bunch of other guys to know his sexual orientation? So you could be gaY now?

No.....you asked a specific question about "many cases" not "every case" and I answered that it might be a variety of things....of which one is an unidentified sexual orientation...understand?
Below is your comment

But there have been many cases where the former inmates turned gays

Many doesn't equate to all...

Now you are confirming the op's fear. That when people are exposed to too much homosexual stuffs they may reconsider their sexual orientations

No, I'm not....you just fail to understand simple tautology and you're misrepresenting your very own question....if you thought about it logically.....you'd ask why many cases or all cases don't also "become gay"(using your term) after jail term is served.

Jambu:
True about the hormones. But there have been many cases where the former inmates turned gays don't go back to being straight or now swing both ways.

Human sexuality is very complex....there are cases where a sexually active individual eventually becomes asexual, homosexual, heterosexual and/or bisexual....it's believed such individuals weren't aware of their sexual orientation....and ofcourse there are thrill seekers and nymphomaniacs..

Jambu:
You mean in proportion to their population?

Besides, jail is where you go in as straight and come out gay. That support the argument that perhaps we all have a bit of gay in us and we just need an enabling environment for it to come out. Lol

No....it's quite typical to insinuate that...

When you cram a bunch of guys with bad intent and raging hormones what do you expect to happen?...Would they not make due with what's available?

It's analogous to priests who are in a situation where sex with women isn't an option so they make due with little boys....

Jambu:
Not just the display but telling us they can't do no wrong, making them the best of the lot just as Jamal is in Empire.

And Lee Daniels is one of the writers of the series. He is a gay black dude, so he as an agenda to push through.

Well statistically speaking gay men are underrepresented in jail...

Jambu:
Trust me, I have nothing against them. I have worked and interacted with them. Apart from their sexual orientation, they are just like you and I. But Hollywood is doing more than telling, they are actually selling them to us. Like they have an agenda to promote.

Of course if I have an agenda to promote and have enough cash to back me up, I could the same thing with Nolllywood. What better way is there to promote an agenda than through media?

Why are you against the display of homosexuals in the media If you have nothing against them?

killercute16:
Gays get married and then adopt children born by straight pple......what do we call that?

Adoption...and it's a very humanitarian thing to do...
Perhaps if straight parents didn't abandon them they'd have a home...
Besides,surrogate mothers and/or stem cells are also an option.

Infomizer:
Ignore who wrote what. Focus on what was written.

Dogma threshold reached...

That Christianity was true...

malvisguy212:
no one will agree with the children of God because of freewill and choice,but I will advice you to read and study the bible then provide a verse that encourage religion in the bible, let us study it.

Have you read the Aramaic bible?
regardless of that, religion doesn't have to be mentioned in the bible for Christianity to be a religion....

malvisguy212:
I will not go into argument with you, mithraism has no similarity with Christianity, they say mithra was born 25 of December but unfortunately there is no verse in the bible that say Jesus was born December 25.
the Dec 25 issue is of no relevance to us--nowhere does the NT associate this date with Jesus' birth at all." This is something the later church did, wherever they got the idea from -- not the apostolic church, and if there was any borrowing at all, everyone did it, for
Dec. 25th was "universally distinguished by sacred festivities"

Reading the bible with a teachable spirit,you will understand that Christianity is a relationship with God.

Funny enough I didn't say Christianity is similar to mithraism.....yet you've spent a whole lot of time trying to say it isn't...
What I merely said was that mithraists also referred to christianity as a cult....

johnydon22:
And now malvisguy suddenly know the thought of god towards religion (he hates religion) ever wonder how this malvisguy's god stance against religion is in coincide with malvisguy's recent views on religion.

lol god's view on religion suddenly changed because malvisguy's view on religion changed..

[size=20] I greatly distrust those who know so well what god wants cus i noticed it was always in coincide with their own opinion[/size]

meanwhile :Good start

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-j8ZMMuu7MU

malvisguy212:
But the cults such as Islam easily fall precisely under the premise of “God hates Religion”; after all, I observe no one more committed to their religion than an Islamic Fundamentalist. Although the Muslim serves a different god (Allah is not the God of the Bible), he too is seeking to appease his god by doing. That is “works based theology” no matter how you slice it.

You know, "cult" I'd what the big religions call the little ones...Christianity was also a cult in rune when mithraism was the order of the day.

chiedu7:
The facts are clear, gay guys themselves said homosexual marriage is wrong.
The same gay guys rejected gays having kids.

If being homosexuals is right how come they can't kids on their own?
[size=14pt]
EVEN CHILDREN OF HOMOSEXUALS WILL TEL YOU THAT HOMOSEXUALITY IS WRONG[/size]







BOY JESUS IS COMING AND HE IS GONNA JUDGE ALL gays

[color=#990000]

1 Corinthians 6:9
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God?

Please don't post rubbish posters against people of different sexual orientation, it's very juvenile...plus isn't it oxymoronic what you claimed they're against when in actuality they only felt unnerving about IVF children? Or perhaps this is another special case of lying for "jesus"?

So if I said heterosexuality is wrong,because a notebook filled by anti-heterosexual people said so,would I be right?


"The pair said they respected how people chose to live their lives, including the use of IVF, and said others should also respect differences in opinion."

"Gabbana said they could have expressed themselves using better language to the Italian magazine, but appeared taken aback by the social media backlash."


"We love gay couple. We are gay. We love gay couple. We love gay adoption. We love everything. It's just an express of my private point of view,"

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/03/18/world/dolce-gabbana-ivf/

KingEbukasBlog:
If there was no evolution , would there be a universe?

How does biological evolution remotely account for the universe?...It doesn't claim to buddy.

KingEbukasBlog:
lma ... that was then na ... I just enjoyed it ... but now atheism is getting out of hand ... a christian in this thread said dinosaurs became extinct after the flood and am like dude !!! ... So my points are stronger like I asked DProDG at what stage of evolution did humans develop the teeth ... how is that trolling

Because you're making a mockery of basic knowledge....here's the follow-up..
If human distant relatives have teeth, then wouldn't they still inherit that structure? or does heredity go out the window?

KingEbukasBlog:
Come on dave stopet ! When I troll , you'll know ... when am serious , you should know

After your record in the religious section....I think it's your signature trait..

Even above that signature trait is fully realised, as you're asking when teeth evolved first in human beings...as though our distant relatives were all toothless primates....