₦airaland Forum

femi4:
lolz

Jn 10:18

No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father.

+
Contradicted by the prayer in Gethsemane -

"And he went a little farther, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt."

budaatum:
Do you understand the above, deepsight?

Stop faking stuff about buda for the traction and propaganda you are looking for, or at least know your doing so is seen and duly noted and will be responded to appropriately and sans other cheek turning!

+
Lol. Grow up.

femi4:
No

Jn 3: 16 describes it as love

Also 1 Jn 3:1

See what great love the Father has lavished on us, that we should be called children of God! And that is what we are! The reason the world does not know us is that it did not know him.

+
Murdering an innocent man is not justice.

Commissioning the ritual human sacrifice of a man in order to supposedly forgive sins is nothing but pagan and barbaric and any "God" that engages in such is nothing but a blood sucking pagan ritualistic deity.

budaatum:
Does your "seldom" imply always, or do you want to claim "often" means always?



I specifically had ono and the cretin in mind when I said the bold, which I've reddened in case you are blind! I never told you I'm perfect.

Do know that you are attempting to diminish whatever respect and regard I have for you. Also know that turn the other cheek is now suspended where you are concerned. I do not turn the other cheek to those who slyly misrepresent one and assume one has a kind of personality disorder just because they are disagreed with.

It is immature and childish, and not dissimilar to lazily inserting an imaginary supposed self-existent or necessary first cause god before you get anywhere close to infinity!

+
Fling any respect you had for me into the loo dear Budaatum. It means toss to me.

judewrites:
Because it was the day Jesus paid the ultimate sacrifice for atonement of sin and eternal salvation of humanity.

Prior to that time, animals were offered for atonement of sin, but only for a season.

Jesus' sacrifice was eternal.

The sacrifice wasn't easy though, as Jesus asked the father if He was willing, to take away the cup from Him.

+
And this does not strike you as a barbaric pagan ritual human sacrifice.

femi4:
Yes

It used to be the blood of animal but the blood of animal wasnt enough. Hence Jesus becomes the sacrificial lamb

+
And this is not pagan and barbaric to you?

DropsMic:
It was the day God’s original plan for mankind was fulfilled.

+
A plan to murder an innocent man in place of supposedly guilty men? Is that not a barbaric plan?

femi4:
Redemption means ability wipe your sin. Only his blood could do that

If you cure headache with panadol, dont you have headache again

+
Is that not ritual human sacrifice?

killsmith:
Redemption from sin? That means you no longer sin or what?

+
Beautiful question.

Your spiritual intuition is alive and kicking.

OLAADEGBU:
What is Good Friday / Holy Friday? Why is Good Friday (GoodFriday) called good if it was the day Jesus was crucified?

+
You ask this question because your subconscious senses that the murder of Jesus was nothing but a criminal act which probably serves to damn and not save mankind.

Nicho118:
because the day u die is better than the day you were born

+
Deep.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

budaatum:
I am very certain you would not accuse buda of deceiving you unless buda has deceived you, because that would make you a liar.

So post where buda has deceived you so everyone may see this deceptive spirit that blind you sees in buda, please.

As for you telling buda what to do. I laugh at you for thinking you are worth listening to or could possibly tell buda what to do or not.

+
But you have been saying you turn the other cheek, and are not rude or seldom so. Nonetheless I have seen you repeatedly unleash on Ono.

raumdeuter:
How many occurrence would you be okay with?

+
None of course

raumdeuter:
Dont let them tell you lies that it doesnt happen. Watch this from CBS


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ky9QOHwy_Tg

+
I know it does happen hence my concerns. Nonetheless Madam cococandy is right that the incidences are exaggerated in terms of frequency.

Some of the cases I have heard also have nothing to do with children but trans women (biologically male) acting inappropriately in women's spaces or in women's jails and I think even one case of serial rape by a trans woman in a women's facility.

cococandy:
I really want them to use that energy to focus on holding people who have actually harmed children accountable

+
Lai lai. Not in this life.

cococandy:
Children are not engaging in sex change in America.

You should know by now that right wingers are nothing if not liars. If there’s nothing you can swear they’re telling the truth on, why would this be any different?

You guys really bought the right wing lies of elementary school sex changes and bathroom debacles. Name one thing the right wingers have been truthful about since you started paying attention to the things they say?

Why would this issue be any different?

Gender affirming surgeries are so rare in minors that when they occur, it’s mainly on straight boys with big chests who want to reduce their feminine appearance but removing excess fat tissue from their chests. They are 97% of the so called gender surgeries the right wingers are lying about.

If these people cared about kids the way they claim to, they would stop scapegoating trans people and focus on exposing the Epstein club!

+
Thank you m'lady. I know already you are correct in this. It still leaves me with concern because of a few cases I have come across which are very disturbing.

budaatum:
There you go again peddling your belief that I "would have difficulty understanding the argument that an infinite regress of causes is impossible", when the truth is I do understand you. I just do not agree with you because a regression can go at least one single step further than where you decide to stop and insert your imaginary self-existent or necessary first cause god that you have no evidence for.

+
Do you understand the definition of a necessary thing in philosophy?

budaatum:
So, do you object to my they/them?

+
I find it absurd and I think it borders on one having a kind of personality disorder.
I also find it a crude abuse of the English Language.

budaatum:
Sorry, but I'm not buying your special pleading of "properly understood".

There is no reason to stop an infinite regression at a self-existent or necessary first cause god after claiming "certain things must necessarily exist for anything else at all to exist".

It leaves you open to the question, what must necessarily exist for a first cause god to exist?

Your special pleading of "certain" to justify your "infinite regress of causes is impossible" is not selling because you have no reason to stop regressing where you place your "self-existent or necessary first cause" god which you have no evidence for its existence apart from you being tired of infinitely regressing and therefore filling the gap of your unknowing.

It's what humans have always done when they claim a watch can not exist without a maker, ergo, the universe must have a maker. Then they create one in their own image and choose to believe it made them.

P.s. I'm rescinding my promise about beliefs. It is far too innocuous and underpins your reasoning for me not to flag it to you despite your attempt to disguise it.

Your self-existent or necessary first cause god is a belief that you are very free to hold on to and presume buda does not "properly understand" if you can not accept the simple fact that buda is simply not buying your evidence lacking belief. You can not logic an imaginary self-existent first cause god into existence and claim it is necessary and expect buda to pay you for it, because it is not necessary for buda, and is not how buda is or reasons.

And on checking, you and I have already been here, so know what you are persistently repeating! (I found it after my response).

I knew very well you would have difficulty understanding the argument that an infinite regress of causes is impossible. I am of the view that you have not reflected deeply on the question.

But how shall I convey it to you?

Well the simplest I can put it is this - with an infinite regress, the entire principle belies causality. There simply can't be an infinite in the actual world of causes. Let's use the Actual Infinite Paradox.

It says -

-----------
In mathematics, you can have an infinite set, but in the physical world of causes, an "Actual Infinite" leads to absurdities.

The Argument: If the past were infinite, we would have had to cross an infinite amount of time to reach "Now."
---------------
*Culled

This necessitates an Impossible Traverse.

You cannot reach the end of an infinite path; therefore, if the path to today were infinite, today would never have arrived.
---------
*Partly culled

This is the simplest I can make it. With an infinite regress, there would be no today. There would be no now.

The process to get to "now" would last forever - and never end.

Its therefore only an abstract concept and can never exist in reality.

Now let me say this - I know ahead that you will instinctively reject this obvious and clear logic. Its fine. I will not press the point. That was not the purpose of this thread. The purpose was just to hear your "truth" and your views, not to debate them.

raumdeuter:
I personally support abortion. You should only bring to the world children you can afford to(financially, mentally and emotionally) care for

I support the right to bear arms but there must be a restriction on size and minimum back ground checks

+
Phew.

The first sensible post I have ever seen from you.

nateevs:
To put it mildly, he's a disgusting, lying, fat-faced dishonest, abusive, child-defiling, morally- bankrupt, low-life ninjah....

+
GBAM!

Thank you.

And yes, this is putting it very mildly.

Given what is publicly known of him, heaven knows what unspeakable monstrosity will emerge if one had a peep into his private life.

raumdeuter:
We currently have a supreme court judge who cannot define what a woman is. Its now anyone who feels like a woman is a woman even you can feel like a woman today

If you cannot tell what every 3yr olds know then why should we trust you on other complex policies

+
I agree. I find it embarrassing myself.

So what exactly do you agree with the left on?

1. Immigration
2. "Stronger Together" - A multicultural outlook of unity as opposed to the obvious white Christian Nationalism of Trumpism
3. Abortion'
4. Women's Rights
5. DEI
6. CRT
7. Non discrimination against the LGBTQ Community (This is different from the crazy wacko stance of the extreme left on these issues as I have mentioned above re: issues such as children engaging in sex change, use of bathrooms, participation in particular sports for women, use of gender pronouns, etc.) - I am also opposed to gay marriage or a gay couple adopting children.

It is not by accident that the left has produced the only "black" president, female vice president, two female candidates for president while the right has never even attempted this.

raumdeuter:
When you are extreme left, a centrist will look extreme to you

+
Are you trying to say you are a centrist?

raumdeuter:
You have to be insane to be a leftist in this current climate, A party that cannot even define what a woman is

+
The LGBTQ matter is the one matter I generally agree with the right on. Especially the matter of Trans issues such as children engaging in sex change, use of bathrooms, participation in particular sports for women, use of gender pronouns, etc.

raumdeuter:
At least you can recall that I didnt support Trump till recently.
When I considered the alternative left I saw that Trump was the better option. I supported Biden and he became the biggest let down in history

Unlike you, I change my opinion based on the facts available to me, I dont stick to it. I hoped Biden would be a better president would rule from the center but he was a big disappointment

I can acknowledge that Jan 6 was a terrible day in the countrys history and still see that the left are insane people who should never be in power. If a centrist Biden can be that bad, then there is no trusting any leftist

+
At least you should have arrived at a somewhat balanced, centrist position rather than become a MAGA Cultist who sees no wrong in anything Trump does and defends racism.

nateevs:
Are you serious bro?

We were side-by-side on Jan 6th on this same platform, criticising the hell out of Trump. He even thought that was the end of Trump in the Conservative Party at the time, when I told him Trump was going to make a comeback.

He was mentally healthy.

Then he became the greatest MF'ing shape-shifting ninjah I know.

+
Are you sure someone else has not taken over the moniker.

raumdeuter:
US came to bail out our European friends in 1945 who were getting run over by those screaming Death to UK, France Netherlands etc

+
Know your history. For World War 1, the USA joined due to Germany's unrestricted submarine warfare and the Zimmerman Telegram. For World War 2, Hitler declared war on the USA after the USA declared war on Japan for the attack on Pearl Harbour. This is was because of the Treaty Germany had with Japan and Italy.

Go school, you no gree. I keep telling you.

raumdeuter:
They are smart enough to recognize that these are the inconveniences to get a greater America where Iran does not have weapons to wipe us out nor trade partners take advantage of us

+

I swear you should try a career in comedy.

budaatum:
I do very much dispute this your "perfect reasoning" indeed, though I do understand the human rationale for it. It is generally presented as the Watchmaker Analogy, and is a popular argument against atheism

+
As I mentioned above, the watchmaker analogy has nothing whatsoever to do with the philosophical principle of self existence, which is an argument for the existence of necessary things as opposed to contingent things. The watch maker argument is an argument for intelligent design from complexity, purpose and form.

The philosophical argument for necessary things is different. It postulates that certain things must necessarily exist for anything else at all to exist and these we call necessary things, as opposed to contingent things. Contingent things are existent based on the existence of some other thing, but a necessary thing is by nature self existent.

If we start from the presumption of causality which we observe around us in our world, we come to understand that whatever begins to exist has a cause. This would lead us to an infinite regress of causes if we proceed with this and properly understood, an infinite regress of causes is impossible. This leads us to the first cause argument, and such a first cause must be a self-existent or necessary thing.

Please see here for an intro into necessary vs contingent things in philosophy -

https://pathofmystics.com/existence-of-god-avicenna/

seunmsg:
fergie001

There is no need for any long post. Status quo ante bellum is the situation of things before the hostilities started. In this case, the situation of things before the David Mark group attempted to takeover the party. In addition, the court also ordered all parties to cease all activities till the FHC decides the matter. So, why should the David Mark group be allowed to continued carrying out activities in violation of the court orders?

+
You don't even know the meaning of the word "bellum" in that phrase.

Pretending to know a subject way above you.

AMINDA:
Nigeria is a nation of over 200 million people. It will be disingenuous for any one man to think he can impose himself on the people by being the only candidate on a ballot. International pressure groups are already paying attention to the matter. We all now understand Obasanjo when he tried to prevent INEC from declaring Tinubu as president.

https://x.com/batten_von/status/2039806668351906006

+
As things stand, it may be only the International Community who can pressure the govt to remove its boots from the neck of the opposition.

gabbasin:
Status quo: the situation currently
Status quo ante bellum: the situation before the war. Anyone who's claiming INEC's interpretation of the Appeal court decision is wrong is either playing the ostrich or just being mischievous. If the Appeal court wanted the current ADC leadership to be at the helm pending the determination of the case at the High Court would have just said the parties should maintain status quo.

+
But the Status Quo Ante Bellum was INEC recognizing and interacting with the David Mark Leadership.