₦airaland Forum

Very well, i standly patiently waiting.

You'd better get it legally done right here so there ar eno twisted knots in future, you never can tell - do a nice clean divorce in the Nigerian Courts.

Cheers.

Silly plods. If you want to circsumscribe the dressing of free people within a free secular state, you got another thing coming.

Why don't you hypocritical lot all migrate to Saudi Arabia? I can guarantee you holier-than-thou folk your holy eyes will be well protected by the restrictive sharia regime over there. Perhaps you will enjoy seeing women like these everyday -

Thanks Noetic, i am still listening, but please do take some time out to address the verses i pointed out. Note that contrary to what you said, they are not "just one or two"  verses but more than 12! When we have that many clear references within scripture to Jesus not being God, then surely there is an issue to be discussed that goes beyond "twisting" the scripture, which David has accused me of.

Still listening. . .

I will also address your points. . .

Cheers.

bawomolo:
Love is expressed through physical means which could include our "sexuality" .

bawomolo:
nope being aroused by something doesn't mean or necessarily lead to being in love with something. You are making a lot of assumptions here.

BAWO: I HOPE YOU CAN SEE THE GLARING CONTRADICTION IN THESE TWO QUOTES EXTRACTED FROM YOUR LAST POST.

monopolist:
I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ for it is the Power of God unto Salvation

I love the Man's boldness.

The Man did what most christians, saints and alfas are afraid and shy of doing.

You are very foolish.

hafees:
I wonder why people always refuse to address only the issues: He was not suppose to preach inside the plane, nobody is saying he should not preach. I am a muslim and when i use to join public transport, there are always preachers. There are some days I am happy they are sharing the words of God even though i do not agree totally with the doctrines, but sometimes i am so tired, especially returning home in the crazy traffic that i feel like venting all my angers on them.

If i were a christian i would have asked them to shut up especially when they start trying to force every one to sing or collect money, but i guess they will think i hate christianity. On my street alone, i have 4 churches, cant they just merge, there is noise left right and centre on sundays when am trying to prolong my well needed sleep.

They try to shout themselves down, buying all sorts of heavy noisy making instruments. there is this particular one that screams like he was deranged, shouting FIRE FIRE. then when it is time to collect money he tells them will enter hell fire if they dont, only thatman does 4 services on sunday- cool money.

We also have mosque and maybe am biased, but they dont make as much noise, just 2-3 minutes every 2-4 hours. Not bad.
most important thing i think is dont disturb others with your beleive, who tellsyou you are right or the ogun worshipper is wrong

Fantastic post!

^^^ Please now, please. . . help DAVID, he is clearly having an existential and dogmatic crisis now . . . be christian. . . help him. . .

Men, i would never have conceived myself as agreeing with a satanist, but you have to agree there are good questions to be answered in this great post:

Ogaga4Luv:
[size=13pt]The Christians' objection to this argument involves freewill. They say that a being must have freewill to be happy. The omnibenevolent God did not wish to create robots, so he gave humans freewill to enable them to experience love and happiness. But the humans used this freewill to choose evil, and introduced imperfection into God's originally perfect universe. God had no control over this decision, so the blame for our imperfect universe is on the humans, not God.
Here is why the argument is weak. First, if God is omnipotent, then the assumption that freewill is necessary for happiness is false. If God could make it a rule that only beings with freewill may experience happiness, then he could just as easily have made it a rule that only robots may experience happiness. The latter option is clearly superior, since perfect robots will never make decisions which could render them or their creator unhappy, whereas beings with freewill could. A perfect and omnipotent God who creates beings capable of ruining their own happiness is impossible.

Second, even if we were to allow the necessity of freewill for happiness, God could have created humans with freewill who did not have the ability to choose evil, but to choose between several good options.

Third, God supposedly has freewill, and yet he does not make imperfect decisions. If humans are miniature images of God, our decisions should likewise be perfect. Also, the occupants of heaven, who presumably must have freewill to be happy, will never use that freewill to make imperfect decisions. Why would the originally perfect humans do differently?.

But, for the sake of argument, let's continue. Let us suppose that this perfect God did create the universe. Humans were the crown of his creation, since they were created in God's image and have the ability to make decisions. However, these humans spoiled the original perfection by choosing to disobey God.
What!? If something is perfect, nothing imperfect can come from it. Someone once said that bad fruit cannot come from a good tree, and yet this "perfect" God created a "perfect" universe which was rendered imperfect by the "perfect" humans. The ultimate source of imperfection is God. What is perfect cannot become imperfect, so humans must have been created imperfect. What is perfect cannot create anything imperfect, so God must be imperfect to have created these imperfect humans. A perfect God who creates imperfect humans is impossible.

[/size]

,

Just shows some Abrahamic ideas to be fraught with problems!

NOETIC! - Noel, noel, noooeeel, born is the King of Isssrraaaaeel. . .

I hereby invite you to help address the last post as David your comrade in arms has RUN AWAY, finding no answers thereto.

I appreciate your analytical style in the thread i opened for you (even though i did not agree with you) and i believe that that style will better address this thread than David's escapism.

Please help. . .

[*singing*] "Noel. . . Noel. . . born is the king of isssraaeeell. . ."

^^^ Hmmmm. . . thoughtful. . .

That's really really great Krayola, i looked up the Wiki page. . .

Please throw these up for me in your discussion with him -

1. What specific issues did the Nazi Regime have with Abd Ru Shin, the authour, and why was he incacerated?

2. Are there any possible links between his lifetime in Germany and the fact of the two world wars occurring during his time there.

3. Is there any relationship whatsoever between the authour and the Nazi Holocaust.

4. Does the authour have any link with Jews?

I'll tell you later why i'm interested in these. But let's see what he says. Cheers.

By the way - what got you interested in your field of study, why are you studying it, and what do you plan to do after the study?

Krayola:
It would be justified to make those claims if we knew EVERYTHING about how the human body functioned. WE DON'T.

I hope you realize here that YOU TOO have made an absolute assumption that everything resides in the physical body, and that once we discover everything about the body, then, we will see the source of emotions such as love.

bawomolo:
yes it's the brain alone. studies have shown that men and women emitt certain scents when they are "Hot".

I had a specific reason for choosing "Love" as my question. You will agree that love is significantly different from sexuality, which is a definite physical thing.

bawomolo:
what you are making is the "assumption" and not proof that a soul is the responsible cause of emotion while I'd argue the cause of such emotions is stimuli from the brain and our nerves.

I make no assumption. I stated that if you can show me what part of the body love comes from, I will accept that non-physical parts do not exist.

You seem to have missed the part where I talked about beauty. Because I see you here talking about stimuli. I had contended that if the brain truly responds to such stimuli such as to create love, then you will fall in love with every beautiful woman you see, yes? Because a beautiful woman is a stimulus, yes? And yet it is obvious that you do not fall in love with every beautiful woman you see, or even those your brain accepts as beautiful in your own sight. So can you tell me what causes you to fall in love? You are yet to answer this question, and I have just shown that it could not be just “stimuli” received by the brain, as you suggest.

bawomolo:
Our emotions are dependent on what has been previously stored in our brains.   Hence the reason we have dreams  about recent or past events in our life ( which some people to be God talking to them or a "winch" trying to attack them)

.

Really? And if this is so, what about dreams that reveal future events, details of which clearly could not have been stored in the memory (since they have not yet happened!). Or will you deny that people have detailed dreams about future events, which play out in reality in surprising detail? That has been the story of my own life since I was a child. Tell me in what part of my brain such details were stored.

Thanks.

Where is DAVID? Is the last post too much to deal with?

Hurry David, or i will invite the more competent and thorough Noetic to deal with these questions.

davidylan:
Very simple question - pls mention one pertinent thing this thread has taught you?

davidylan:
I can wager my 2 cents that virtually ALL the folks on this thread are relying at least 90% on google at this point, hence the long periods between responses.

GBAM! Evidence that the thread is beyond you. Please back off and stay off!

Maybe there are long breaks because the issues are actually thought-provoking and people have to reflect on the depth of what is discussed before posting? In your own realm, you can easily come back with a quick riposte from your sacred Jewish document, beyond which there is no thought.

I know you will be tempted to post a rebuttal or insult as a rejoinder to this, you may do so, but please once done, stay off this thread. There are still magnificent questions waiting for your answer here - https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-344297.32.html

Krayola:
@ deepsight. I think I can now say that the God u are trying to prove is the "God of the gaps"

Whatever science is yet to explain = God, or supernatural.

^^^ Hang on there! That's not fair at all! I have NEVER argued like that.

This is not even about God. We are talking souls here. I said that emotions like love show that souls exist. The basis of my conclusion is that teh physical body cannot explain the cause of an emotion like love. So i reasoned that there must be something other than the physical at play. Bawomolo said no, neuroscience explains that.

Within the context of my last post i demand that you both show me how neuroscience shows what causes emotions.

Because i insist that it only shows the effects of such emotions in areas of the brain.

Viaro -

Thank you so much for the foregoing illuminating intros.

Permit me to make a few initial comments, and i think we need to thrash these out before we can have a constructive discussion.

viaro:
. The interesting thing is that cosmologists and astronomists are of the conviction today that time has not always existed, but began to exist at some point in the history of our universe.

Please let us attempt to define that word "time" before going further. I am of the view that Time is a necessary and not contingent factor, and accordingly cannot be created, or come into existence at any point - it is, in my view, self existent, and i am strongly at odds with the assertions that time was created by the Big Bang. I have attmpted to thrash this out before -

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria?topic=328837.msg4649034#msg4649034


And also to discuss the nature of Time -

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-327706.0.html

viaro:
I’ve always been fascinated by some physicists' inference in explaining the BB singularity as ‘a point of zero volume, but very high mass, with infinite density’. It sounded like a contradition (if we think locally) - how could ‘zero volume’ at the same time hold ‘infinite density’? I only later came to realise that that kind of question is a misconstruction that takes the physics out of the vector space and arrives at a false image of reality.

I would like to comment that i do not believe that matter existed within the singularity that formed the basis of the big bang. Only infinite energy could have existed, and at that, not necessarily a material form of energy. We will discuss this, yes?

viaro:
Some infer that the singularity = 'God'.

That inference, as we have noted elsewhere, is froth with serious problems, which would not be helpful to reproduce here. However, perhaps we should note that the singularity did not create the universe, in as much as that 'singularity' is in itself dependent on a condition.

Viaro, i must say that i disagree with the statement that that singularity itself is dependent on any condition(s). Aat least not within my view of what a singularity is. I would view it as a necessary abstract empty point, and such emptiness requires no cause. I am sure i needn't regurgitate why i believe that that empty point can amount to somethingness. But given its essential nature, i cannot see or agree that it is dependent on any condition as i regard it as conditionless state undefined by the existence of ANY quantity.

I realize that in my thinking I am working against much of scientific thinking, and aspects of the Penrose Hawkin Theorem as well as general relativity. In the thread I cited above, KAG castigated me and was very cutting in his remarks because of this. But please I reiterate that in discussing this matter with me, I would very much continue to wander outside, and indeed in many cases, postulate contrary to scientific thought, and this I will do with reason and philosophy.

Anybody have an email for KAG? I would like him to join this discussion.

^^^ Look just scan the damn pages and post them here!

^^^ Bawomolo - i positively deny that that is a question answered by neurology, and i will put you to the strictest proof thereof.

I contend that neuro science merely shows us the mechanics of the physical systems that SUPPORT thought: and do not by themselves explain the phenomenon of thought.

This is more poignant when it comes to the realm of emotion, because you will only see electromagnetic evidence of emotions being felt, and never an electromagnetic cause of the emotions themselves.

If Neuroscience had anything to do with love, then you would fall in love with every woman who your brain, through your eyes perceives as beautiful. But this is not the case. Many men even fall in love with women that may be perceived as ugly. There are more subtle and finer causes for these emotions within the human being.

Nope, its not the physical brain alone: and i put you to the strictest proof thereof using neuroscience: go ahead! I am waiting.

Please stop making noise and bring the source, simple! We are not the ones dishing out the story, YOU ARE. So please prove it and stop making noise!

_{By the way, you know personally i dont like these so called men of God, so i am actually hoping you can provide proof.}

But if you can't provide proof you gotta quit spreading rumours!

Krayola:
The water does not remain the the pot. It turns into steam. Death is not IMO a change of physical composition. . . It just means the system isn't working anymore.


Do trees have souls?

The system not working, yes. . . so you are onto something there. . . what was that system supporting? Is there not an element that was present in the living person that is now absent in the corpse? You correctly call it a system - I ASK YOU, WHAT WAS IT HOUSING? ? ? ?

What part of the physical body feels love? Tell me if you can answer this question. If you cannot, i will assert that love is rooted in a non-physical part of the human being. . . which i call the soul.

Do trees have souls . . .maybe, but not conscious souls (just my opinion o, this one, nobody can be sure of, but i think the Grail Message does a great job on this question - it talks about animistic soul matter, which is different from spiritual matter. . .

mazaje:
Steam is water. . . .

Very good. The soul is the human being in change-of-state.

Yes, Abu, prove your source, or your integrity is dead forever.

1. Do mountains die? Do they exhibit signs of life (Do you remember Mr. Niger-D?)

2. The incident at the morgue was the first time i could practically see what it means to be lifeless, could sense that the core nuance of a human being is not in the physical.

Abuzola, post your source, if necessary, scan the magazine and upload the page so we can see. Without that nobady can trust u or make comments.

_{But if its true, its scandal scandal all over again. . .}

mazaje:
What really is this soul? Does your soul have fingers? as a man does you soul have a penis? does you soul have intestines? does you soul have bones and a heart? what part of the human body is the soul?

What part of water is steam?

You've got to tell us what you mean by "Hell" first and foremost.

But scientifically speaking if it gives off heat, it may get gradually cooler, whereas if it absorbs heat, it may get gradually hotter. I think the tormentors who wrote the scriptures of various religions would prefer the latter option, so it gets worse and worse, and that way they can frighten more people into accepting their religions.

mazaje:
Sorry about your loss. . . . . but hope you know that your father like you is made up off very tiny and uncountable multi cellular organisms. . . .

MAZAJE WHAT HAPPENS TO WATER WHEN YOU BOIL IT? ? ? ? ?

_{Hint: Change of state and the indestructibility of matter is evidence for the existence of souls}

Krayola:
What is a soul? Where and when did you first hear that term, and how did you make sense of it, or who made sense of it for you? If humans can have souls why can't other animals, why can't inanimate matter? And if they can, were ancients wrong in worshiping or revering them? If souls exist, why can't Zeus, or Isis, or baal, or anything else. What argument can you make for the existence of a soul that I can't make for my remote control having one that used it to create the universe?

I was not taught about souls Krayola.

I sensed it directly, logically and most importantly intuitively when in 1995 i visited the morgue to view the corpse of my late father.

The first thing that struck me was that the mass of meat that lay there was not my father.

It struck me forcefully that my father had departed from that mass of meat.

That's what a soul is Krayola.

johnkent:
Did u know that heterosexuals have more anal sex than gays??
Look up the statistics on that u ignorant son of B

And i am sure the statisticians have video cameras in all bedrooms of the world to observe the amount of heterosexuals that have anal sex as opposed to the amount of homosexuals that do so? ? ?

Besides should the analysis not be according to ratio and percentage? Of course pretty much all homos have anal sex, so that should be like almost 100%? ? ? What per centage of heteros have anal sex? Can you guess? Can it be any where near the per centage of homos that do so? ? ?

Abeg think twice before you post.

Is it not possible that we keep reincarnating onto various worlds of matter within this same universe?

Depending on the state of your soul, you may reincarnate into a better world (heaven) or a worse world (hell).

No?