₦airaland Forum

highyo:
SAINTS I WILL LIKE TO SHARE SOME OF MY OWN VIEWS. CULTURE HAS GONE
INTO MINISTRY SO MUCH ! THAT IT NOW TAKES THE PLACE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT.
IF YOU TELL A MAN OF GOD THAT EXCUSE SIR THERE IS DUST ON YOUR SHOES!,
CLEAN IT. DOES IT MEAN THAT YOU ARE TOUCHING HIS ANOINTING. AND HE
ANSWERS I BOUGHT IT WITH MY MONEY. DO NOT CORRECT ME !IT IS ONLY GOD
WHO CAN.WILL GOD COME DOWN AND CORRECT HIM ! DONT TOUCH MY
ANOINTING ? BUT THE DUST ON THE SHOE(SIN) HAS ALREADY TOUCH THE
ANOINTING
(THIS IS JUST AN ILLUSTRATIONS )SIN ALSO AFFECTS ANOINTING .
LETS LOOK AT LEADERSHIP. A LEADER MEANS A SERVANT! A SERVANT CAN BE
CORRECTED. EVEN AS PARENTS WE ARE LEADERS/SERVANTS TO OUR CHILDREN .
IF ONE IS A LEADER AND CANNOT BE CORRECTED,.ONE IS HEADING FOR DOOM.
THE ONLY PERSON THAT CAN NOT BE CORRECTED IS THE DEVIL, ARE YOU THE
DEVIL/SATAN/LUCIFER.
I REMEMBER ONE DAY I WAS COOKING AROUND 2004/5THE PHONE RANG AND
ONE OF MY CHILDREN PICKED IT UP, IT WAS A FRIEND . I WHISPERED TO MY
CHILD TELL HER I AM NOT IN . MY CHILD SAID MUMMY IS COOKING BUT SHE
TOLD ME TO TELL YOU THAT YOU ARE NOT IN. I HEARD IT , IN MY HEART I SAID I
WILL BEAT THIS CHILD. I TOOK THE PHONE AND APOLOGISED TO MY FRIEND
THAT I WILL CALL HER LATER. MY CHILD SAID MUMMY YOU LIED AND YOU TOLD
US NOT TO LIE.
,THE WORDS HIT ME LIKE A BULLET .SO FAR A LEADER DID NOT GO TO CALVARY
AND DIE FOR YOUR SINS YOU DO NOT HAVE TO FEAR THEM ,JUST RESPECT GOD
IN THEIR LIFE.
THE HOLY SPIRIT SAID DO NOT TOUCH HIM( THAT IS A BITTER TRUTH ) I STARTED
TO ASK FOR FORGIVENESS AND TOLD MY FRIEND EVERYTHING. LEADERSHIP
MEANS YOU CAN BE CORRECTED .MY CHILD DID NOT DISHONOUR ME ! HE
SIMPLY SAID THE TRUTH. SOME LEADERS SHOUT TOUCH NOT MY ANOINTING ! AS
A LEADER IF PEOPLE CORRECT YOU AND YOU ARE SHOUTING TOUCH NOT !
TOUCH NOT WHAT WILL YOU SAY TO SATAN IF HE TOUCHES YOU
THERE IS NO ANOINTING TO TOUCH! IT IS SIMPLY RESIDUE RESIDUE RESIDUE

SOME LEADERS STAY IN ISOLATION IT IS PRIDE .SOME LEADERS EVEN LOOK
AT CONGREGATION AS IF THEY KNOW WHO WILL GO TO HELL OR HEAVEN ARE
THEY GOD .
SOME PEOPLE FEAR THEIR LEADERS THAN GOD.IF YOU ARE A LEADER AND
REFUSE CORRECTION IN A SILENT WAY BETWEEN TWO OR THREE PEOPLE ! THE
ACT /SIN BLOWS TO THE OUTSIDE WORLD THAT IS ONE MILLION PEOPLE WILL
HEAR IT! THEN SOME WILL SAY IT IS GOSSIPING ! WHEN I WAS VERY YOUNG !MY
GRANDMOTHER WILL TELL US IF YOU REFUSE CORRECTION FROM THE HOUSE
(SILENT WAY. ) THE OUTSIDE WORLD (LOUD WAY ). WILL CORRECT YOU ?
SOME GO TO JERUSALEM/ISRAEL AND PUT JP
IN FRONT OF THEIR NAMES JUST LIKE ALHAJI OR ALHAJA WHAT IS THE BIG DEAL
IS THERE ANY JP IN FRONT OF THE NAMES OF THE 12. DISCIPLES.
THE MOST PAINFUL PART IS WATCHING PEOPLE YOU
PREACH TO WEARING CROWN AND YOU ARE NO WHERE TO BE FOUND


GOD DOES NOT RESPECT ANY BODY O THE DEVIL ALSO DOES NOT RESPECT
ANOINTING ,HE EVEN WENT TO TEMPT JESUS
GOD DESTROYED! THE WORLD DURING NOAS TIME .GOD DESTROYED SODOM
AND GOMORRA. GOD DID NOT REGRET .
GOD DID NOT REGRET HE DESTROYED MAN. HE REGRETTED HE CREATED MAN
JUST IMAGINE.WHO ARE WE THEN BLUFFING .WHY BLUFFING FOR WHEN GOD
SAID HE REGRETTED CREATING MAN ? SAINTS HMMM HMM IF NOT FOR JESUS ,
GOD THE FATHER HAS NO PATIENCE, HE WILL DO WHAT HE DID IN THE TIME OF
NOA AGAIN. WHO WE TAKE HIM TO COURT NO JUDGE NO APPEAL CASE CLOSE.
LET PEOPLE BE TAKING THEIR GRAMMY AWARD ARE THEY NOLLYWOOD OR
HOLLYWOOD ACTORS AND ACTRESSES
MOST LEADERS THAT FELL TODAY HAVE BEEN CORRECTED IN SECRET THEY
REFUSED UNTIL THE ACT /SIN BLEW OPEN TO THE WHOLE WORLD LIKE A TIME
BOMB

Retype your op in lower case letters, it is unreadable as it is.

johnydon22:
Nope this isn't what i meant - i meant "Not having freewill does not negate the possibility of an immortal soul"

in order words.

An immortal soul can exist whether it has freewill or not...

I said having freewill negates having an immortal soul.

I see life as a gift from God, we did not ask for it. If we can not choose to end it, we lack freewill and no different from animals that are incapable of suicide.
If we can choose to let our soul die but are denied the choice, then God is cruel.
And lastly, if we have the choice and the freedom to cease to exist by letting our soul die, the the souls is mortal.
I go with mortal based on my religious beliefs.

johnydon22:
I do not think lack of freewill necessarily prohibits the existence of an immortal soul.

Could you tell me why you think that having an immortal soul does not rob one of freewill?

AnonyNymous:
Ah. You don resign. I for talk say make dem dey subtract your tithes from am.

No mind the yeye pastor, e no fit leave the money for God, but if na another person money e go sharp sharp tell the perso to use the money test God.
They are all a bunch of hypocrites, very greedy and narcissistic.

seunfape:
Non of them will die

How can you say that when some of them were already dead? The self delusion of some christians is unbelievable.

Instead of thanking God for the car he shoud be thanking the idìots in his church that contributed their money to him.

johnydon22:
I want to know your reasons for this?

I do not think i included resurrection but this is still a good perspective. . . anyway address the first question above bro..

Let me also add another for this ressurrection theory.

-If we die we die and when we resurrect every part of us becomes replaced and the processes responsible for our consciousness starts again thus birthing that our initial conscious self again?



Belief in afterlife can be independent of God(s) existing or orchestrating the circle, so from which ever angle you derive your basis for a belief you can discuss from there but it's not a benchmark that defines the totality of such belief.

So we need not assume God in the picture to infer an afterlife that possibly would digress.

But you may also present an argument from any direction or belief.

One of the reasons why I don't believe that a part of us, that is the immortal soul go on living after we die is because of free will.
Because if you really think about it, you will realise that the ability to choose to continue living or to end ones life irrespective of the condition of the person, be it favourable or unfavourable is the simplest and most fundamental way one can express free will.
Immortality of the soul denies us of that.

Your description of resurrection is basically correct, that is why Jesus likened the process to waking up from sleep.
Only those who are stored in God's memory, or have their name written in the book of life as the bible put it will be resurrected.

HardMirror:
God wants all men to be saved, he does not want anyone to perish. That's what the bible teaches.
BUT it does not make sense that we have to pass through earth to determine our eternal abode. Why?
It only makes sense that we have to come to earth to make choices that would either take us to heaven or hell IF we actually had a life before this earth and we are all condemned sinners based on our lives before this earth and God is bringing us to this earth as a second chance to redeem ourselves.
If you don't agree with this, then how dOes it make sense that God does not want people to perish yet he does not just create us directly in heaven without having to pass through earth were we make choices that would take us to hell?

Only deep thinkers would understand this

The bible makes it clear that God made earth to be the dwelling of man and not as a test bed for his suitability to live in heaven or earth. HE created Adam to live forever in perfection provided he continued to be obedient to his rules and regulations. Unfortunately, Adam decided not to obey and he returned to the lefeless dust that he once was. He did not go to Hellfire for his sin though he was perfect when he sinned. So why should we expect greater punishment of torture from his imperfect offsspring that the bible describes as having a natural propensity to sin as a result of our fallen state?

johnydon22:
Your reasons brother..

If by afterlife you mean an immaterial part of us that survives our death, then my answer is a resounding no.
But if the prospect of a resurrection is included in your meaning of afterlife, then my answer is yes.

Whichever view one holds is dependent on whether we believe in God's absolute justice and morality. If we don't, we will just be talking at each other instead of to each other.
This is why I think that it would have been better if the debate was framed in such a way as to assumes that God exist while questioning the morality and justice of creating immortal souls, hellfire, resurrection, reincarnation, etc

If by afterlife you mean an immaterial part of us that survives our death, then my answer is a resounding no.

AnonyNymous:
I actually do believe in some form of a god, I'm agnostic, but a deist. And I feel that whatever god exists does not interfere with activities in the universe.That's the mindset with which I made the op.
The thread however is not about the existence of god or not, but a rational explanation for the story of the sun. So weve established that using materials already existing to create the effect is illogical. But, I didn't consider the option of creating an item from nothing. So, for excluding that from my initial argument, you could say it was incomplete/flawed, because that's another quality Christians ascribe to their god. However, I still stand on my claim that perfection doesn't need addons, but yes, I accept that that is a totally different argument from what is in the op. Maybe I'll create another thread so I can hear your opinions on that. Nice discussing with you.

It was nice chatting with you too. You remind me of Johnydon22 in the way you stayed calm and respectful all through our discussion, it is one quality that is becoming increasingly hard to find among my religious compatroits.

hahn:
Where in the bible did you get this from? Or did you come to this conclusion yourself?

Sorry for my late reply, somehow I managed to miss this post.
I was only showing the op that there are other ways to make the sun appear stationary beside the examples he gave. I do not claim to know how God did it, but that limiting God's options to his two examples in order to set up a srawman is wrong.

AnonyNymous:
One way it could be done is by using already existing materials and upsetting laws of physics.
Another way it could be done is creating new materials and keeping to the laws of physics.
The boldened both disprove perfection. My main quarrel with Christianity is how they claim perfection, and want to alter it. In the op, I did not think of any way that it could be done without tampering with the laws of physics. I didn't consider creating a material that did not exist before.

As limited and rudimentary as our technology is, we are able to create stuff without breaking the laws of physics. So I would not question God's ability to do even more.

There is really no need to drag this argument any further, it was based on a faulty premise that needed just one contrary example to disprove which I did.
Accepting the fact that the premise of your op is wrong does not in anyway prove or disprove the notion that there is God. Not doing so now that I have addressed all the points in your op would only call intellectual honesty into question.
If I had previously held the belief of the examples you gave and I was unable to find a reasonableanswer to your question, I would have been honest enough with myself to acknowledge the merit of your argument to say that I don't know while being confident in my fundamental belief in God to say that not knowing now does not mean that it is impossible .

It doesn't help when we conflate issues in a discussion. I uderstand that you don't believe that God exist, so by implication, any action attributed to God is no better than a fairy tale from your point of view. But when you create a tread where you have conceded for the sake of argument the existence of God, you shoud be polite enough to admit your error before defaulting to your principal position.

AnonyNymous:
Yes, their idea was that God tampered with the workings of already existing creation, while yours is that he added a new creation. But still, adding things means the original is not perfect, you only put addons on your computer browser because it doesn't have the functions you want already existing there. You see my point?

You are continuously changing your argument. Initially your objection was that God would have had to violate his laws to make the sun stand still.

Your analysis of the problem as you saw it implied that your objection was not with God subjecting our realm to his force but with the conservation of energy if it were done the way you cited.
Now that I have shown you one way it could be done, and I am by no means saying that it was done that way or that it could not have been done any other way, you are now withdrawing some of the assumptions that was inherent in your op.
There is no magic or addition in the example i gave if you think of God as having power and technology in orders of magnitude above what we can imagine possible.

AnonyNymous:
Then you might as well say that the earth stopped and god also magically put everything in place. My point is, there's no logical way to explain it, I used the earth stopping as examples here because it's, as ,I said, commonly parroted by Christians here and I had to put an end to that.
Their claim involved tampering with already existing creations but yours involves the creation of a new super lens that somehow magically balances everything out so as not to kill them from the concentration of the sun's radiation sent to a single spot. That's on a whole different level, and my point is that your stories defy logic. Telecommunication satellites in space already do something like that(reflect light), and as large as they are, their light is not even noticed on earth. What you want to do will require ridiculously enormous material, manufactured from thin air (and made to disappear immediately after). An occurrence like that would've left some traces in the modern world, but as it is nothing of such has been noticed so I refuse to believe your justification for this biblical myth.

Your op as I understood it is about the impossibility of making the sun appear still without upsetting the laws of physic and you gave two examples to prove your point.
I responded by showing you that I know of at least one example that this can be done without breaking the laws of physics.

You then responded by questioning the technology that would make it happen.

Now my answer to you is this. If we can theorise that it is reasonable to expect that if a hypothetical alien civilisation should visit the earth from across the galaxy, it would mean that their technology would be so advanced that we would think it is magic, then why would you expect less from the creator of the universe.
Before you reply, you should remember that your op is not about the notion of God but about a God that breaks his rules.

4everGod:
First of all the midnight sun is caused by a slowing down and here is why. Alaska is located at the south Pole and because the earth is spherical their location gives them less spin than those along the equator. So in essence they experience a slowing down.

The event in question happened in Gibeon. Now since you want to school me in geography can you kindly look up the longitudinal and latitudinal relationship between Alaska and Gibeon?

Let me know when you do.

Stop arguing from a position of ignorance, it doesn't help anyone. The reason why the poles experience 24hrs of daylight during summer is because of the tilt in the earth axis of rotation. Not because of any slowing down.

To demonstrate this fact, get a ball representing the sun, an orange representing the earth and stick a rod through it to represent the axis of rotation. Then tilt this axis such that it is pionting slightly to the ball from the top of the orange and away from it at the bottom like this ( / ).
Now the top of the orange will be facing the ball at all points when you spin it, while the bottom will be away from the sun.
When you go to the other side of the ball, everythy is reversed. It is the bottom that will be facing the ball while the top will be away from the ball.

HardMirror:
So at a poin there would be 2 suns in the sky if we are to go with your point

Not if the real sun is blotted out of the sky by the us of an opaque filter leaving only the superimposed reflected image.

AnonyNymous:
Ehen jare. Somebody that knows what he's saying. So if your god happened to provide a reflector to make the sun's light shine only on Joshua's region, its rational, if it were possible but its far fetched. Again it relies on your faith in Yahweh and not on logic.

I would like us to stick to the points raised in the op and not branch off to other issues in a bid to win an argument.
The op the not question having faith in God, so why bring that up now? Your issue was with the absurdity of making the sun appear stationary in the sky by stopping the sun's motion when the sun is already fixed, and the catastrophic consequence of subjecting the earth to a sudden decelerating force. I agreed that you are right on both counts, but I also pointed out withe an example that there are other ways of making it happen without contravening the laws of physics.
The fact that my example both feasible and addresses all the issues raised in your op should put an end to your arhument.

AnonyNymous:
So. . . Irritated by people here, trying to justify the 'sun stand still' story, let me give you a little science lesson .
Let's go.
******************
1. The sun stopped moving
As we now know, the sun is the centre and not the other way round, it's stationary(not exactly, because our whole solar system is moving, but relative to the earth it is), and the earth and other planets revolve around it. So the idea of the sun stopping its motion is ridiculous. But wait! The story has to be true right?? Because its in the bible! Its the BIBLE we're talking about here! So lets throw the words the other way round! The earth stopped moving!
******************
2. The earth stopped moving
Say what? Now let me tell you the implications of that. . . buckle your seatbelts. Really. Buckle them.

There are two things to keep in mind:
1. An object in motion tends to stay in motion unless acted upon by an outside force.
2. Everything that is on the surface of the Earth is also spinning with the Earth, which is why we experience day and night.

NB: If you don't completely understand that, let me make the analogy of you sitting in a moving bus. If the driver's driving at a speed of 100km/h (I hope he isn't), you're also moving with the bus at that rate. Have you ever tried coming down from a moving car? Moving at 100km/h?? Please don't. Or maybe you should, if you're a Christian. So when you're in the hospital, you'll be convinced that this story was fabricated by a lunatic.

Ok, back to the explanation. Now that you have those two points in mind, did you know the earth rotates at a speed of approximately 1670km/h?? Wow. Imagine if it stopped. Yikes. We'd all be flying off the earth at a tangent to whatever direction we were facing.

It gets even more interesting.

Among the things that would still be moving (per Newton's first law of motion) is the atmosphere. If you managed to survive flying at 1600+ km/h, you'd still experience a hurricane worse than the world has ever known. Haha. Remember, the water in the oceans would join in on the fun. For context, a category five hurricane has winds of over 249km/h. Then we have the magma inside the earth. It'd create volcanoes at every single opening possible. Not to talk of it destroying the Van Allen Radiation Belt, which would make anyone who survived die from cosmic radiation.

So. . . the earth stopped moving? Please don't say that. Please.

*****************************************
3. But . . . but. . . what if it slowed down?

The speed of the earth is gotten by using this formula: v = 2πr/t
For the earth to slow down, such that a day will take 48 hours, lets calculate the speed the earth would be moving for a day to last 48 hours.

(NB: radius of the earth is 6371km)
v = (2 x 3.142 x 6371)/48
v = 834 km/h!!

WOW. NO F*CKING DIFFERENCE
Basically, you're trying to slow the speed down to about 1/2 of the earth's normal speed.
Have you ever tried jumping from a car moving at 100km/h to a car moving at 50km/h?
Paul Blart the Mall Cop did. lol. He ended up in a hospital
Well, you get the point.
So no. Just no.

NB: Did you know, that the earth is actually slowing down? It takes a century = 100 years for the earth's time to slow down by 1.7 seconds. Thats why we don't feel it. So you can imagine what would happen if we tried to slow it down to make a day last longer by 24 whole hours. IN AN INSTANT. BRUH.

************************************************
Please stop saying your bible confirms science. Please I dey beg
************************************************
CC johnydon22 hahn winner01 malvisguy212 Scholar8200 K9blunt cloudgoddess KingEbukaNaija KingEbukasblog SirWere ValentineMary HardMirror Joshuasbase lepasharon otemanuduno otemdomino otem4eartum HCpaul valentinemary CAPSLOCKED donffd OtemWonyahweh hopefullandlord frank317 OgundeleT Seun lalasticlala et al

You stated two possible ways many people think God could have used to make the sun appear to stand still to Joshua. And you correctly showed that the first one makes no sense as the the sun is already fixed relative to the earth and the second would be catastrophic for the earth and its inhabitants.

Even though I agree with the op, I think your conclusion that God could not have made the sun to appear to be stationary is wrong because the options you provided are not the only ones.
Take for example, and it is important to stress that it is just my opinion, God could have used any number of ways to superimpose a reflected image of the sun to a fixed spot in the sky.
Using reflectors in space to superimpose the sun unto Joshuas location would not interfere with the earth's relative motion and its effect would be as localised as the size of the reflectors.

I do enjoy a good debate and listening to the opinion of people who I may not necessarily agree with provided their argument is well reasoned, logical and respectful even when I think their premise is wrong from my point of view. And there are posters of this kind from one end of the religious spectrum to the other end.
But while this number is increasing on the side of those who are irreligious with some notable guys like johnydon22, Weah96 and cloudgoddess. The same is sadly not true about my compatroits on the religious side of the debate where the quality of debate is on the decrease. Except for PatorAIO whom I frankly don't know which class he belongs to and a few standouts, the theist are becoming more of a burden in terms of their propensity of scoring own goals when having a conversation with those who are irreligious.

Nusaf:
And that is what u want to go back to.

My point is that it is disingenuous to say that scanty clothing is an invention of western culture that is alien to African culture.

Before the influence of western culture on Africa most women looked like this.
If you go to some villages even now you find some older women who have no problems with exposing their breasts

nkemjacob2:
These westerns dey hv spoilt africans wht sort of pant and bra is dat, is there no sport wear @ least a short and a shirt is ok dan showin us dried bra and breast

You mean the same westerners that brought full clothing to Africans? Perhaps you should take a look at pictures of African women in the early colonial era before spouting ignorant rubbish.

Kxngstein:
I rather believe in it and finally find out that it doesn't exist than to deny it's existence so I can live my life anyhow and find out that it exits

If you were certain that hellfire does not exist how would life choices have been different?

If you still have any doubt about miracles you should watch this video.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-NwKD9laZw

AlphaCentauri:
puhleezeeee in choosing the kin she celebrates is how we know she is as materialistic as oritsejafor. you only celebrate people who create things you worship. tell me why she did not celebrate the creativity of her kin who is a great farmer ? or who has opened a house for orphans and widows etc etc ? lolzzzzz you only celebrate people who create things you lust after. CONFIRMED. that girl is no better than oritsejafor. CONFIRMED

Your claim that people only celebrate what they long for is baseless, what if I a person chooses to dispay the picture of the world's longest brdge in celebration of human ingenuity, would you say that the person is materialistic?
As for celebrating a farmer, maybe she is yet to see one that is ingenous enough to to invent or adapt existing technics to increase food production in Nigeria.

AlphaCentauri:
thats my point exactly. you are worse than oritsejafor. your determination of someones selfworth is what they have created for you. you are more materialistic than oritsejafor. those people i mentioned died trying to free their people from oppression. they did not create benzes or iphones ( which is only when you will value them ) but they died trying to liberate their people from oppression.

Old boy, why are you trying so hard to be judgemental of ehie despite the fact that she has given you her readon, which in my opinion is a good one for having that picture on her profile?

If she was day dreaming to own the car l, then you would have had a point. But not when she is just celebrating the creativity if one whom she sees as kin.

Yahbas83:
Read on a unilorin page that some actually died. Maybe the news was not complete. Below is the sent pix.

Can you share a link to where you got this update?

Kaybee14:
We thank God no life was lost. May God grant them quick recovery.

It now appears that the initial report of no life lost is wrong.

JerryQ:
K
So why did Jesus pray the cup of death should pass over him? He never sinned and should have no wages. Death here means eternal seperation from God. Jesus did not want to experience death/seperation from God on the cross but He had to for Him to take the sins of the whole world. The wages of sin is seperation from God (death) not physical death.

That is why his death is called a ransome. He paid for our sin with his perfect life.

wexyee:
Hehehe die first ur eye go clear

How you take know, abi you don die before?

Okite15:
Jesus d same yesterday, today and forever. Modernity cannot change Gods standard.

Jesus while on earth did not put on trousers, what he wore looked more like a gown. So should I, a man be wearing a gown as well since in your view modernity has no effect in what we wear?