₦airaland Forum

Kukutente23:
Take your time. Do you research well. The good man made strong points. The biggest flaw in your argument is your refusal to accept that ethnicity and religious bias are the bedrock of the issues over there. He laid it bare for you in ways that blew you off your perch.

If you dont know something about me, know it now - I enjoyed his treatises very much, I like people who are detailed and I said as much to him. I still think he avoided the key points though - such as my analogy about the Arabs being there for over a thousand years already as compared to the time Europeans have been in America.

PS: I didnt refuse to accept that ethnicity and religious bias are the bedrock. We both agreed to focus on history and leave religion. And I specifically gave reasons why. Because anyone can make religious claims.

So why bring up his existence if you don't doubt it.

I said I still question it. And it can be questioned. It may not have been one single person you know? Also the scarcity of secular records (the Romans were very detailed record keepers) is striking. Beyond a singular or two references by Josephus, there is nothing - which is weird for someone who is said to have been such a significant disruptor.

DeepSight:
Let us discuss.

As a teenager, I veered towards becoming a Jehovah's Witness. I was introduced to their literature by my late father. He wasnt one, but liked the literature. There is literally none of the major literature I have not read and digested, from "Mankind's Search for God" (my favorite) to "Reasoning from the Scriptures," . . . "You can Live forever in paradise on Earth." . . . "Questions Young People Ask (and how to answer them)" . . . .Too many to mention along with the regular "Awake!" and "The Watchtower" magazines.

I was at a point completely convinced of the intergrity and scriptural accuracy of the Jehovah's witnesses. Aside from the dedication to scripture and repudiation of a lot of false and pagan doctrines (Trinity, Hell Fire as well as pagan celebrations such as Easter and Christmas) they had a genuinely humble, simple and endearing style and approach. They were always welcome for Bible Study in our homes and I had already begun looking at which Kingdom Halls I would prefer to worship with.

The things that began to make me drift away were actually simple enough. Such as the blood transfuson issue. Up till today, from a scriptural (and I dare say even spiritual angle) I believe that the JW approach is coherent - as they often said, if the doctor asks you not to drink alcohol, you should not then take it intravenously. So since scipture says dont eat blood, then you should not take it intravenously either. On the spiritual side, the Bible itself says "the life is in the blood" and I also imagine that mixing blood could mix certain magnetic and spiritual vibrations personal to individuals.

Nonetheless I wondered at a point what sort of rigidity could lead the JW to prefer the death of even their children to a blood transfusion. Frankly this was my first hesitation.

Others came with time and were not limited to the views of JWs but rather to my growing questioning of the nature of reality, God and life. I became generally irreligious and began to see God as an impersonal existential force. In later life, the practice of shunning is something I came to understand and detest with JWs. I still find it very cult-like and unchristian.

So there you are. Over to you.

Reference the books - "Life - how did it get here - by evolution or creation" - was also a great work. It devled deep into science and made serious and worthy arguments.

MaxInDHouse:
You called it SARCASM but according to a wise man it's out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks! Luke 6:45

From what you utter we know the type of person you really are on the inside.

You claim you're humble that's why i engaged you, he is interrupting what we are saying not because he has anything tangible to offer that's why i reminded him of his wish something he has in mind when he was going to the churches: worldly riches not righteousness!

Let us discuss.

As a teenager, I veered towards becoming a Jehovah's Witness. I was introduced to their literature by my late father. He wasnt one, but liked the literature. There is literally none of the major literature I have not read and digested, from "Mankind's Search for God" (my favorite) to "Reasoning from the Scriptures," . . . "You can Live forever in paradise on Earth." . . . "Questions Young People Ask (and how to answer them)" . . . .Too many to mention along with the regular "Awake!" and "The Watchtower" magazines.

I was at a point completely convinced of the intergrity and scriptural accuracy of the Jehovah's witnesses. Aside from the dedication to scripture and repudiation of a lot of false and pagan doctrines (Trinity, Hell Fire as well as pagan celebrations such as Easter and Christmas) they had a genuinely humble, simple and endearing style and approach. They were always welcome for Bible Study in our homes and I had already begun looking at which Kingdom Halls I would prefer to worship with.

The things that began to make me drift away were actually simple enough. Such as the blood transfuson issue. Up till today, from a scriptural (and I dare say even spiritual angle) I believe that the JW approach is coherent - as they often said, if the doctor asks you not to drink alcohol, you should not then take it intravenously. So since scipture says dont eat blood, then you should not take it intravenously either. On the spiritual side, the Bible itself says "the life is in the blood" and I also imagine that mixing blood could mix certain magnetic and spiritual vibrations personal to individuals.

Nonetheless I wondered at a point what sort of rigidity could lead the JW to prefer the death of even their children to a blood transfusion. Frankly this was my first hesitation.

Others came with time and were not limited to the views of JWs but rather to my growing questioning of the nature of reality, God and life. I became generally irreligious and began to see God as an impersonal existential force. In later life, the practice of shunning is something I came to understand and detest with JWs. I still find it very cult-like and unchristian.

So there you are. Over to you.

MaxInDHouse:
This is what you (LordReed) typed with your own fingers on October 27/2021 at exactly 5:22pm begging me to make you a member of the Governing Body because you want prominence among faithful people thinking it's all about gathering material possessions.

So from that very moment i know you can't be among faithful people because humility is what God cherish! Zephaniah 2:2-3

You mean the sarcasm missed you?
Na wah oh.

Image123:
That's laughable and unreasonable. So we can say unreasonably laughable.

So Boxer, you dont know that JW witnesses are led by a group called "the Governing Body?"

Kukutente23:
Lol Coach indeed
I see you've gone cold after been well tutored by Unbiased1 on the other thread. Your sanctimonious ramblings and posturing over a matter you have fragile knowledge of has unraveled.

Not at all. Taking my time. He hasnt told me a single thing I didnt know. His problem is the same as most Nigerians - a bias towards defending the atrocities of Israel no matter what and a tendency to accept cruelty so long as it is in favor of the "chosen race." Remember you and your justification of the tearing of children to pieces over a joke? Something like that.

Jesus did exist. If he did not there will be no pilgrimage today. The Jews have never doubted or denied his existence even till today. So rest with your new course you're veering towards

I havent said he didnt exst either.

Kukutente23:
The Jews today are a misguided group
They only accept the Old Testament and their Talmud as sacred text so any prophet not mentioned there is not one as far as they are concerned
So you are now mixing things up. Or you mean jews today do not accept Jesus because he was black? Don't tell me you swallow that crap

Dont be funny. Me that questions whether Jesus existed at all will now be saying that he was black? Of course not. I was only picking you up on your own logic, to train you as your coach.

Kukutente23:
Wrong again. Jesus was generally accepted as one of the prophets by the generality of the Jews. Everywhere he went crowds and multitudes of people followed him. Their text told them that the Messiah will come as one of the prophets. When he entered Jerusalem before the Passover, he was widely hailed as the Messiah the son of David by the multitude. Remember that the Passover is the feast before their liberation from Egypt.

Their disappointment with him happened after he entered the temple when they expected him to start playing the role of Messiah, which is to liberate them from Roman rule. He did not do that and thus they felt le t down by him.

The Jews today reject Jesus as the son of God. That is the part that they do not accept about him and of course that he is the Messiah since he never did what they have believed all their lives that the Messaiah was coming to do.

Be honest, do Jews today accept Jesus even as one of their Prophets? Be honest.
At best an itinerant Rabbi.

Built2last:
Why am i struggling at believing this.

Media must sell papers. They must come up with click bates

Not all countries or leaders are cowards. Some are too big to be bullied. XI Xinping of China blanked Trump and ignored many of his attempts to reach him as well, during the Tarriff thing.

Has SA changed the name of OR Tambo?

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Kukutente23:
Wrong answer
The Pharisees and the Sanhedrin rejected Jesus
Another quiz for you
Why did they reject Jesus?

It was not just them. You know very well there was not a general cceptance of Jesus as Messiah except among his small sect.

Further, when Pilate put a choice to the people, they chose Barabas.

The gospels repeatedly use the phrase "the Jews" in fingering those who worked towards implicating Jesus.

Finally, where are the Pharisees and Sanhedrin today and how come Jews still reject Jesus today?

Kukutente23:
You've started showing your ignorance of the bible
who rejected Jesus?

Jews of course, up till today.

Kukutente23:
They rejected him being the son of God. That is totally at odds with the premise I made

No it is not. It would stand to reason that they would reject him if he was black since you argue they hated blacks or saw them as cursed.

Kukutente23:
Lol
Jews were discriminatory against blacks in history
Any Jew who was born black was always deemed cursed due to Ham being black and cursed in the Bible
So anyone saying Jesus was black is simply being ignorant

But Jews rejected Jesus and even orchestrated his execution. So your argument doest fly.

helinues:
Bangladesh, abeg wetin wan carry person go there.. hahaha

Btw, the writer find a way of injecting Nigeria into this category even though there is no facts to back it up

Abeg, what should countries like Ghana, Kenya, Sudan, Somalia say now.

Ghana in particular is ahead of Nigeria in this respect and so are ALL the francophone West Africn countries.
I hope you know the issue is workers rights.

@ thehomer -

Repeating that your co-discussant is ignorant a zillion times over does not equate sound reasoning. It is neither here nor there, so long as you are unable to address the logic of the matter. Let me keep it simple:

Just explain to me -

1. How anything can move without extant space

2. How any event can occur without extant time

Its that simple. No long thing.

PS: If you cannot do this, stop wasting my time by bleating the word "ignorance" over and over again.

Let me just point out to you that I did not say the space-time of Einstein does not exist. I said they have appropriated words to describe something else - obviously a thing that is, as Einstein described it - a fabric.

Please lets keep it simple and just address the red above. if we scale that hurdle (I suspect we will not, due simply to your pompous assumptions) then we can move on to other matters.

Gorem2013:
At this rate, there'd be nothing more for the opposition to campaign with next year.

Security is improving
International diplomacy
Economic stability
Food security and affordable prices
Affordable housing
Abuja transformation
Infrastructural development across the region
Roads linking and uniting region

There's imprint of Tinubu in every sector turning Nigeria to the country of our dream in our lifetime.

The bad news merchants are unhappy pls buy them sugar if they are close to you

Living in la la land.

Kukutente23:
Where did you see sign on fee
Do you know what sign on fee is

Its past your bed time kiddo, run along.

LordReed:
I was referring to dark matter. As for the starting conditions we have no evidence beyond the breakdown of all the physical laws as we know them as we extrapolate mathematically to that start point. To form any kind of coherent framework for that requires what we don't currently have.

To answer your questions:

1. Let's put it like this: If the universe is all there is then it makes sense that it is just expanding, not expanding into something because then that something it is expanding into will also have to be considered part of the universe. So you either need to retool what you mean by universe or explain how the universe exists as separate from what it is supposedly expanding into.

It apears that your definition of the word "universe" is something akin to "everything that exists." If this is the case then we have a problem. It is neither the scientific definition nor capable of any serious use in a discussion such as this.

For it to be said that this universe is expanding, there must be a finite understanding of what this universe is in the first place. Trying to say that anyting outside it, which it may be expanding into must needs be part of the self same universe defeats the definition of "universe" being used by the cosmologists in the first place, and in the second place it actually means that one cannot even discuss anything expanding at all!

2. As far as I know spacetime is a concept to explain how some unintuitive things occur and all action began with the birth of spacetime. If that is the case, then there is no way to coherently express action before there was a spacetime for the action to occur in. This is a limitation on our understanding because obviously the universe is here so there was an occurrence, but we have no way to coherently express what it could have been.

My reasoning is simple, and here it is -

To the extent that the initial expansion which is called the big bang was movement, was an expansion, then there must have been already existing space and therefore space cannot be said to have been created by the bang.

Also to the extent that it was an event, and events can only occur in an already existing timeline then time could not be said to have been created by the bang either.

Summarily, whatever the scientists are referring to as space-time is actualy something else. They have simply appropriated that term.

Conscisely: I am saying -

1. There cannot be any movement without existing space - and -
2. There cannot be any event without existing time

Therefore -

Since the big bang was an event and involved movement, both time and space must have already existed.

thehomer:
You're demonstrating the fallacy of composition

https://fallacyfiles.org/composit.html

The fact that within the universe, an object like a balloon expands into surrounding matter doesn't mean it applies to the universe as a whole.

Saying that the special state of the universe in the first few seconds can't be demonstrated today therefore all the calculations that went into understanding and explaining that special state must be wrong is an example of extreme hubris. You seem to think your ignorance of physics is as good as the expertise of physicists who have studied and explained these phenomena.

Except this (especially the bold) bears no resemblance to what I actually said. If we are to have a discussion, please try not to misquote or misrepresent me.

You're being self contradictory. I'm not sure if this is deliberate on your part. If the universe is expanding into something, then material has to be pushed out of the way.

It is very unlike you to make assumptions. Because here you are assuming that the space must be of such a solid nature that it must be pushed away. How do you know it cannot be permeated?

Secondly, even if it is in fact pushed away, how is that an issue? Yes of course in that event it must move on into some other space. And then how does that become an issue. Do you know or do you want to circumscribe the limits of all infinite space in extant reality?

In cosmology in reference to the expansion of the universe, "expand" means that bodies within the universe are moving away from each other. Not that there is some extra material outside the universe being moved out of the way.

It still befuddles me that you imagine bodies moving away from one another does not imply that they must be moving into existing space of some sort or the other. Anything else is so beyond illogical that it is worse than any voodoo thinking you can ever accuse any religionist of. Tell me, how does the fact that it is "bodies" moving away from one another change the fact that they must move somewhere?

How is movement even possible without space to move into?

Does this make any sense to you?

It seems to me that just the way the religious will believe absurd "miracles" because their pastors claim them, you will also believe any absurdity you read from the priests of science.

Frankly I am not going to go back and forth on this eternally. It is clear that there can neither be movement nor expansion of any kind without space.

If you wish to delude yourself in such an illogicality, that is your business.

Can you clearly state what your model of the existence of the universe is? And how do you explain the observed expansion?

I am no cosmologist or physicist and I dont have any special model of the universe of my own - I am just telling you something which can never be logically controverted, that any movement of any kind requires existing space.

Therefore, to the extent that the initial expansion which is called the big bang was movement, was an expansion, then there must have been already existing space and therefore space cannot be said to have been created by the bang.

Also to the extent that it was an event, and events can only occur in an already existing timeline then time could not be said to have been created by the bang either.

Summarily, whatever the scientists are referring to as space-time is actualy something else. They have simply appropriated that term.

Conscisely: I am saying -

1. There cannot be any movement without existing space - and -
2. There cannot be any event without existing time

Therefore -

Since the big bang was an event and involved movement, both time and space must have already existed.

Beat this logic.

To be clear, you think a brain isn't needed for consciousness. What organ would you say is necessary for consciousness?

Why would a brain be needed for consciousness, even plants are conscious. What do you understand by consciousness?

You're demonstrating that you don't understand the theory of evolution. Again you think your ignorance is as good as the expertise of millions of actual scientists.

These kinds of responses are insufficient and quite tiresome.

Unbiased1, thank you for your detailed responses. I have digested them and will consider what parts I may wish to respond to in time. Whilst I strongly disagree with your views (and I mean very very strongly) I am pleased to at least be discussing with one who has taken the time to be detailed with the events he wishes to discuss.

PS: I noticed you were silent on Netanyahu sponsoring Hamas.

omoredia:
This is the same white people that they said took black people as slaves. Big lie. The white man came to save black people from other black people

You must be a joking.

Everywhere in humanity you have shining stars. There were white people who fought apartheid in South Africa and even went to jail for it. There were white people who fought slavery as abolitionists. That's humanity for you. That doesn't mean that either apartheid or slavery were not real. And that doesn't mean that the overwhelming evil the white man did and still does to Africa is not real.

Ttalk:
Venezuela and Saudi Arabia are badoo when it comes to oil reserves, yet Venezuela is not doing well compared to Saudi Arabia.

Resource without proper management is a curse to the citizens

sagitariusbaby:
And all Venezuelans have gotten is poverty and death all because of ridiculously bad leadership that has kept them in perpetual bondage since God knows when.

It's not really an issue of proper management. The imperialist USA has deliberately isolated Venezuela internationally and thus castrated it economically.

BabaAduras:
He even slept with the wife of his son.

It seems the proper story is that that young lady was already OBJ'smistress long before his son Gbenga took a shine to her and married her. So the relationship simply continued: the son ought not go after the father's meat. I also understand that the lady in question was damaged goods having been sexually abused by her own father.

9jatriot:
Pairing Yar Adua and GEJ was his greatest undoing in terms of a successor plan but then what were his options? Odili was one of the hopeful, but to me not a good choice, Donald Duke was another hopeful, but being from the South, replacing another southerner was not going to work and Obj knew that.

Next was Atiku but he had fallen out of favor so Obj was not going to support him. I cannot remember who the nortrhers that were in conntensions were but for some weird reason, he went to recruit Yar Adua who was not even nursing any ambition and not particularly impressive as a governor. of Katstina state.

Reason not weird and is well known. Umaru Yaradua was younger brother to the late General Shehu Yaradua, who was easily the single Northerner or I dare say Nigerian who OBJ loved and respected the most. Giving it to Yaradua was almost lke giving it to family.

WizardOfNG:
Whatever. I know your type. What you have blinded yourself from seeing you never will. It is really troubling what drives you people so primordially to the extent you can never give credit where due.

Whatever. I also know your type. What drives you to praise hardened criminals in leadership positions is befuddling but no longer surprising. That you can never criticize the criminal leaders of your country just tells why we are where we are.

In life, decent, upright and principled men don't deny others of the credit they deserve even those are their worst and sworn enemies.

That you and virtually all your people do that, as clan default behaviour, says a lot about you guys.

How do you know my people or what clan I belong to? There we go again. And that shows you just belong to the crowd. Anyone who criticizes the govt must belong to one tribe. How does that makes sense to you guys? ? ? ? As though only one tribe in this country can criticize! As though the current president himself was not a lead critic and activist! But now, accordng to people like you, only one tribe criticizes, right? In a country of over 350 ethnic groups.

Know one thing for sure: decent people do not worship hardened criminals in leadership.

Softmirror:
Those who are afraid are those who don't want to be held responsible for what they come to do on social media such as spreading fake news, promoting bigotry, scam and e t c, e t c.

The truth is that with such a regulation, many of you paid pro govt posters will not even dare post most of what you post anymore. The shame will be too much.

Secondly it is absurd to insist that people must expose themselves on social media. It is also very very very dangerous.

Softmirror:
Fear really catch. It is the right thing to do. Why are you afraid!!!

Dont worry, when you leave the service of govt and find yourself desirous of speaking out against a new govt which doesnt pay your posting allowance of 30k, you will change your mind.

Therock5555:
This your talk no follow at all.

As a lady, if I'm single, I have no business staying in like a 3 bedroom flat, except she's never planning to marry or maybe siblings are staying with her.

So what's the house help for?


How does making millions stop you from cleaning your own house, furthermore, why get a full time house help when there are cleaning agencies everywhere...


Na laziness dey worry all of una.

You presume too much into other people's lives.

aswani:
(though to be fair on President Tinubu, he is seemingly doing a good job).

This exposes you. He is the worst president in the history of this country. PMB was far better.

WizardOfNG:
Okay. We agree to disagree. Good day.

Besides lamenting corruption as your reasons for pitying BAT is just like saying it's so unfortunate that Lawrence Anini cannot perform because of the insecurity in the country. We all know BAT is a don in the matter of looting himself.