₦airaland Forum

I repeat -

According to judaic christian myths -

1. God made man naked

2. Man was innocent

3. Man sinned

4. Man became guilty

5. Man, once guilty, required clothes.

Conclusion: unclothedness is purity. Wearing clothes is synonymous with evil.

I can accordingly deduce that one is closer to holiness when in a strip club than one is within a church or mosque.

Traugott:
@Deep Sight:
So what else do you believe? I ask because Krayola sounds like an agnostic and you were grouped with him?

I believe that Harmony is the meaning of God and the purpose of all things.

I believe in Karma.

OLAADEGBU:
Good question asked by Traugott. Deep Sight, what do you believe in? Do you believe in the Deity of Jesus Christ? The infallibility of the Bible? His virgin birth? His death, burial and resurrection? Atonement? Miracles? Man made in God's image? If not why not?

Jesus Christ in my view, was another human being and certainly not God. The Bible is not infallible. This is a historical fact. I can show you verses that have been proven to be deliberate insertions and as such have been left out of the more modern versions. Besides the selection of books was done by a very corrupt institution that deliberately left out dozens of equally qualified writings simply because such went against their dogma. I regard the virgin birth as a myth created to justify Mary's apparently pre-marital pregnancy. The crucifixion of Christ was judicial murder and the only sense in which it may signify salvation for anybody is in the fact that such a good man came to the world and preached love. If you read the parable of the vineyard you will see that God was not pleased at the crucifixion of the good man. Atonement for sins comes through the laws of Karma. Miracles are possible but i believe that there is nothing supernatural about them. They are only phenomena that we do not yet understand.

God is unique. There is none like God.

Maven, wicked you - boasting about beating me thrice at Chess! Chai, i don suffer -

REMEMBER THAT YOU WON TWO OF THOSE GAMES ON TIME BEACAUSE I WAS NOT ONLINE.

I AM COMING BACK TO CHALLENGE YOU TO A DUEL AGAIN.

_{Hope i dont get flooged again}

davidylan:
the cartoon up there reminds me of two posters here - deepsight and krayola. albeit it seems both are still on the agnosticism rung of the ladder

Sir, I AM NOT AN AGNOSTIC.

I firmly believe in the existence of God and i also believe that God is Intelligent, Conscious, powerful, loving and just.

There is no agnostic that believes such things.

[quote author=aloy-emeka link=topic=395954.msg5510664#msg5510664 date=1266111172]Why are the churches chasing women who dress like strippers away, then?[/quote]Because the Churches are hypocritical.

What did the generality of African Tribes wear before colonialism?

Their scanty outfits made them evil and unholy in your imagination, yes?

Even in tribes where women went entirely topless sexual traditions were far more streamlined and chaste than we have today - despite everyone being more covered up! What does that tell you? ? ? ?

^^^ I am afraid i am unable to discuss the subject with you since -

1. You refuse to read the thought development and

2. You pre-conclude, without reading it, that reading it will not make a difference to you.

Sinnequanon -

I think you should distinguish between Religion and God.

The very glaring fallacies of religion in no way obviate the logical consistency of the existence of a First Cause and Prime Mover - which is what God is.

Mavenbox -

No: I am not concerned that persons on this forum may know my name - i hve divulged it to quite a few - men and women alike - i've got nothing to hide.

HIDING YOUR IDENTITY IS YOUR PREROGATIVE AND THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT.

What is wrong is putting up another person's photo on a public forum.

Your expectations border on the bizzare. Has anyone mapped out the exact dimensions of the physical universe?

And you want to talk about a spiritual realm? ? ?

^^^ Have you read the thought development set out in the earlier pages of this thread?

Mavenbox -

I do not believe your story about the friend being a model who gave you permission to use the picture.

But let's assume its the truth. There are still problems with that.

1. Nairaland is a Forum boasting almost half a million registered users: it is ranked among the top 200 forums in the world.

2. A great many people who view threads are not even registered members - in short: everything here is open to a vast array of people all over the world. Most importantly - only regular users come back for updates and new posts.

3. Thus many many people would have seen that photo and gone away with the impression that the person expressing your views was the lady in the photograph. A great many of those people may never return to this site to be informed about this great "confession" of yours.

4. Has it occurred to you that some people who saw that photo might know the lady in question - and then go off assuming that she is the person using the psuedonym Mavenbox and bandying about odd dogma such as intersections between heaven and hades.

Basically, taking permission does not remove the damage that may have been done to the privacy of that lady.

This is all the more so when you consider the fact that your reversion about haven taken permission is FALSE and a blatant AFTERTHOUGHT.

I strongly suggest you abandon all of this as it makes you come across as rather unbalanced. In the alternative contact a psychiatrist urgently.

Maven -

Just one question.

You stated that you used the picture of a female friend on your nairaland profile inorder to further hide your own identity.

Is that fair to the friend? Pasting her picture on a public forum in a bid to hide your own identity?

How many persons may have seen that picture and attributed your statements to that innocent person whose picture you callously posted as your own picture on your profile?

Thus in addittion to being a consumate liar you also recklessly abuse the privacy of other people by impersonating them? Did you have her permission to do that?

I do not believe your tall tales for one second. It is either -

  1. That picture was YOURS and you are as such female and trying to pull the wool over our eyes here

  2. That picture was NOT yours and you are as such callous by pretending to be someone else and callously posting that person's picture on an online public forum, passing it off as a picture of you.

Neither inference is salutary to your character or integrity.

Both stink.

Krayola, u dey go white garment church?

^^^ Which is contradictory: given that everyone remains perfectly entitled to hide their identities on an on-line forum.

Thus there should be no feeling of guilt in doing that.

Accordingly your talk about "a release in your spirit" is certainly another falsity - because there was no guilt in the first place.

I see with David on that one.

And I see with Ogaga in that nothing you say (including the claims you have made in this thread) can ever be believed or taken seriously again.

@ Agathamary -

Einstein was not an atheist.

He had a perception of the FIRST CAUSE or PRIME MOVER which he regarded as impersonal. He did not believe in the Judaic idea of a big daddy sitting in the skies flinging down manna.

My perception of the Godhead has been said to be vague by many people: this does not make me an atheist.

Crucially, you should note that Einstein in all the quotes you presented qualified his statements -

   -he said he did not beleive in a personal God

   -he said from the point of view of a Jesuit priest, he would be seen as an atheist.

Clear now?

Iyineda:


I must admit, OP lost me with that sentence. "Logical reasoning can prove the existence of God". As far as I, an agnostic, is concerned, God is merely the representation of a supposedly superior being generated by Man.

In terms of this thread GOD is defined as the FIRST CAUSE or PRIME MOVER.

Can you describe man as such?

viaro:
You did not make that statement, no?

You do not understand the difference between positive and negative statements do you?

What in the name of Gawd is this? ? ?

More spin, Mavenbox?

Frankly after such a glut of deception i am not given to believing anything you say. Including this fresh yarn. I did tell you that you are very imaginative and that is exactly why you could have come up with bizzare spin such as "intersections" between hades and heaven.

_{But i shoulda guessed: afterall not many women are interested in chess.}

^^^ Word! Word!! Word!!! Say it again!!!!

mazaje:
Deepsight. . . .Where have you been? Missed you. . . .Hope you are good out there?. . . . .

Big bros! I dey chase moni, wetin i go do?

_{But on a serious note, how dare you address the holy prophet of the Oneness of Infinity without bowing down? ? ?}

Yes; i left this off at the point of discussing how the principle of duality is another proof of the existence of God. . .

Let's go . . .

viaro:
I don't find lap dancing in the Bible.

Do you find sun-bathing in the bible?

Is it therefore correct to state that sun-bathing is a sin?

Can you show me the verse in the bible that states that sunbathing is pleasing to God?

I hope you can see how ridiculous your question is.

viaro:
Since you said that "there is no basis on which unclothed dancing can be considered wrong in the sight of God", I requested you to show me the verse that says unclothed dancing is considered pleasing to God.

WRONG. I DID NOT MAKE THE INITIAL ASSERTION. THE INITIAL ASSERTION IS CONTAINED IN THE OP WHERE THE POSTER SUGGESTS THAT THERE IS SOMETHING WRONG WITH RECEIVING THE DONATIONS OF A STRIP CLUB. HE THUS MADE IT CLEAR THAT HE BELIEVED UNCLOTHED DANCING TO BE EVIL IN THE CONTEXT OF HIS RELIGION WHICH IS WHY HE ASKS WHETHER CHRISTIANS SHOULD ACCEPT SUCH DONATIONS. HE IS THUS THE ONE WHO HAS MADE AN ASSERTION - A POSITIVE ASSERTION.

The rule of law states that - he who asserts must prove.

Now because you love to dance around in incoherent circles when things are explained to you let me regurgitate an earlier explanation i have proffered regarding the application of this rule –

In a sentence, the principle states - "He who asserts must prove".

However it is worth noting that this refers to a positive assertion as opposed to a negative assertion. In other words if i were to make the positive statement: "Michael Jackson is standing on his head in a cave inside Mount Everest" - the burden of proving that would rest on me, and not on the person who makes the negative assertion - "Michael Jackson is not standing on his head in a cave inside Mount Everest."

It is for this reason that in criminal trials, the burden of proof rests with the prosecution who are making the positive statement - "He did it" and not with the defence who are making the negative statement - "He did not do it."

Thus the burden of proof rests squarely with you and the OP who are trying to make the positive assertion that – “Unclothed dancing is displeasing to God” - and not with me who makes the negative assertion that – “Unclothed dancing is not displeasing to God”

So I await your proof, sir. The burden rests firmly with you.

For now, the balance rests in my favour, given that your book states that God created and left man unclothed. Only sin introduced a need to be clothed.

So unclothedness is purity. Beat that.

Excellent.

Throw a tantrum.

Hurl insults.

Make libelous claims.

Do ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING -

Except address the question.

So who's not interested in proper discourse now?

No: You show me the verse that says he is NOT pleased with it.

C.rap! Laugher! You cannot show me where your bible makes it a crime and you revert to me with this starved thought?

That I should show you were it is pleasing to God? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

Let me indulge you:

God MADE man NAKED. So your own book of myths says!

And he surveryed all that he had made - and he thought that "it was good!"

THAT's where it shows unclothedness to be pleasing to God.

So what's your problem now - the fact of dancing? ? ?

Holy cracker-moly!

Epele sir - many apologies for my "i.diocy."

We are however, firmly aware that -

1. Empty barrels make the loudest noise and -

2. It is usual that persons respond with unsolicited insults when they have nothing sensible to say.

Awaiting the next round of vulgarities, Viaro.

Now that's eloquently put, Arte.

Wonder why it was so hard for Viaro.

Maybe he's hiding from something?

The truth, perhaps?

No: I simply made the point that there is no basis on which nude dancing can be considered wrong in the sight of God - such only amounts to hypocrisy.

I dare say that those afraid of nude dancing are the very ones unable to keep their libidos in check, hence their apprehension.

Viaro, dont make me laugh.

There is only one reason why you evade my query: and that is the fact that it shows up a very simple truism - namely -

That there are shades of supposed giving which in both degree and direction are eminently, manifestly and unquestionably unchristian.

i thought so. escapist.

[quote author=aloy-emeka link=topic=395954.msg5484527#msg5484527 date=1265775891]

Lap Dances For Haiti? Ohio Strip Club To Donate To Relief Efforts

Marilyn's On Monroe, a unclothed dance club in downtown Toledo, Ohio, is raising money to send to the Haiti relief efforts, CNN reports, though they're not yet sure which organization will receive their donations.

"You know, just like everyone our hearts went out to Haiti and we were thinking 'What can we do?" said manager Kenny Soprano.

When asked if he thought organizations would refuse the aid based on its source, Soprano shrugged it off. "Charity's charity. Who's to judge who and where it comes from?"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/06/lap-dances-for-haiti-ohio_n_452273.html[/quote]And what the bl.oody hell is wrong with a strip club, thou hypocrite ? ? ? Can you show me a single verse in your bible which asserts nude dancing to be displeasing to God? When God created Adam and Eve in your mythical Garden of Eden - did he not create them and leave them naked - in a state of spiritual purity?!!!

Which is better: the robber who donates to the poor and needy or the pious perfect christian who does not? ? ?

^^^ Please indulge me: my queries needn't be tied to his.