₦airaland Forum

Omooba77: May God Almighty forgive you;don't sin against the Holy Spirit.....

Are you alright? I hope you are just a kid reasoning like a kid but with the potential of developing your mental faculty to think critically when you become an adult, and not one of the millions of naive Nigerian adult whose reasoning is permanently set into that of a child. The man that you have raised to a demigod status and made your idol is worse than the evil pharisees of Jesus day that our Lord rejected.

aaronson: Sorry bro,but the bible says God created heaven and earth and you just told me earth has been into existence before God came,that's contradicting secondly who created God or how did he evolve to suddenly start creatinq people my type

In Genesis 1:1-3 the bible started with God having created the heaven and the earth in the very beginning. Verse 2 talked about the condition of the earth after it was created; it was a dark planet covered with water. And verse three onwards was about the terraforming of the earth into a habitable planet.

mojeer678: It's deliberate

The guy and his fellow charlatans failed to see the outbreak of ebola virus.

pesty100: but he exists and what ever exists has a cause ( thou I don't understand your mathematical jumbo)

If we accept the premise on which you made your argument as true, that is; if God exists, there is a source behind his existence, then it will also be true that there is a source behind the source of God's existence, and a source behind the source that is behind the source of God's existence, and on and on indefinitely. My mathematics was just a way of showing that this will lead us back to the idea that God has no beginning.

pesty100: The purpose of this thread isn't to ask for the source but the source of the source itself

Let us suppose that you are right that some entity created the universe, and another entity created the creator of the universe, and another entity created the creator of the creator of the universe,.... and so on and so forth without end.
Using Maths, let E1, E2,E3...En be entity 1, 2,3 to n. Where n is any real positive number.
The sum of this chain of creators will be E1+E2+E3+...+Einfinity. Now if you substract E1+E2+E3+...+En from the sum of the chain, you will have E(n+1)+E(n+2)...+Einfinity.
This would mean that there does not exist a time t =0 that marks the beginning of the chain of creators, because the chain is infinite and by implication God is infinite having no beginning.

ecode1: I know this is not true. I know these are mere fabrications coming from the pit of hell. Even if they were to divorced, i will continue to worship at Christ Embassy because there is where my spirit connect with God, that is where i see God Pastor Chris.

Corrected.

finofaya: I've been wondering what is meant by a good God.




God is good.

fOkay.

The problem here is that "good" is meaningless without "evil". In order for good to exist, evil must exist, since a thing can only be good in relation to another thing.

Christians will say that God is good and man introduced evil after the fall. Or perhaps it was the fall of Lucifer that introduced evil. Either way, what it means is that God became good at the point of the introduction of evil. Before then, he was good in relation to what? Nothing. So he could not have been good.

In orderor God to be good from the on set, there must have been evil somewhere, from the on set. There are four ways this could have played out:

1. God is neither good nor evil, he just is. In this case, good and evil only have meaning because we say they do. What we mean when we say something is good or evil is that we approve or do not approve of it. Nothing is objectively good or evil.

2. Assuming that one thing can be both at the same time, God is both good and evil. Good and evil exist objectively, and they are both embodied in God.

3. Assuming that nothing can be both at the same time, God is good, while another entity exists which is evil. This entity would be similar to God, (eg if God has a good personality, it would have an evil personality) in order to be the antithesis of God. Thus it should be sentient. Here, God is not responsible for the evil being. Instead something higher than both God and the evil being is responsible for both of them.

4. Still assuming that nothing can be both at the same time, God is evil, while another entity exists which is good. And something else is responsible for both of them.

Which one is obtainable? I have no idea. I could even be entirely wrong.

Any ideas?

Can we all go back to discussing the validity of the op's claim that evil has to present somewhere else in order for good to exist? In my opinion, I think his premise is false, hence is entire argument from number one to four is also false.

Image123: Your logic or belief is that if God doesn't want anyone to be poor then why are some poor. Use the same lens to see that some are sinners and not glorifying God even though God wants otherwise. If God's will and want is automatic, Christ would not tell anyone to pray "Thy will be done in earth".

Going by your statement, it means that a poor christian is a sinner and only the rich christians are truly serving God the right way.

@OLAADEGBU: How can an atheist be in support of islam? Yes I said it. It is naive to think that Obama is a christian and stup!d to think that he is a closet muslim.

OLAADEGBU: This is the proposition before you:

"I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both you and your seed may live" (Deuteronomy 30:19).

Your choice determines where you will spend eternity.

The choices I see here is life and death, I been think say your own belief na heaven and hell fire.

Give 3 and 2 350 bars each and keep 300 bars for 1. The reason as that 5 will always say no since he stands the most to gain and nothing to lose. 4 would have accepted a fair deal since in a head to head vote aginst 5 he would end up being one vote short of a majority. But the fact that 2 and three's vote is enough, it makes sense to cut him off.
Still this puzzle is not objective enough for me.

saintneo: it is there already maybe u didn't understand the code.

G: 16r>> 16r>> 16r>> 10w>> 10w>> 16r>> 16r
B: 12w>> 12w>> 12w>> 12w>> 20r>> 12w>> 12w>> 8w
*** 16r = 16km ride and 10w = 10km walk for girl and 12w = 12km walk, 8w = 8km walk and 20r = 20km ride for boy

each ride or walk takes 1hr only the 8w takes 40mins
***
G = girl's routine
B = boy's routine

I did, my coment was with respect to your first solution. The second one is much closer to the correct answer of 7hr 21.16 minutes. The last part of your second solution is not optimum because the girl arrives at destination ahead of the boy instead of the dame time.

I got it, i would have done it sooner if i work wasn't so busy. It kind of reminds me of the Einstine's puzzle - who keeps fish, only this one is much easier.

saintneo: OK. i hope it won't take one year before you provide the ultimate solution.

I can give you the answer right now, but a mathematical solution would have to wait until much later tonight when I get home, it is kind of akward using the phone to write out a mathematical solution.
Perhaps you will find this hint usefull. When the first rider drops the bicycle, the second rider who has been on foot will continue to be on foot until he/she gets to the point where the bicycle was dropped.
The mistake you made in your model was to not include that part of the journey where the boy and the girl were both walking.

Start by filling up the 3 liter can, then pour the 3 liter can into the 5 liter can. So after first round of transfers, we are left with 5/8, 3/5 and 0/3 liters of water.
Next, you should fill up the 3 from the 8 liter can whic would leave you with 2/8, 3/5 and 3/3 liters.
Then fill up the five liter can from the 3 liter can and empty the 5 liter can into the 8 liter can. You would now be left with 7/8, 0/5 and 1/3 liters in the cans.
Now pour the 1/3 into the 0/5 and fill up the 3 liter can from the 7/8 can, then empty the 3 liter into the 1/5 can to get 4/5 and 4/8.

saintneo: I wonder how many views.....but I must say that the solution is mathematical.....any attempt to do guess work will take ages.
Solution
Let the time taken for the boy to walk on foot be X;
and let the time taken for the boy to ride be Y
Based on this assumptions the girl's time will be Y for walking and X for riding.
Also, speed * time = distance
Thus we form the equations:
Boy: 12X + 20Y = 100
Girl: 16X + 10Y = 100
(X,Y) = (5,2)
Boy walks for 5 hours and rides for 2 hours while Girl rides for 5 hours and walks for 2 hours.
Total time required is 7 hours.....mathematical solution. The physical solution will be a little above 7hours.
G: 16r 16r 16r 10w 10w 16r 16r
B: 12w 12w 12w 12w 20r 12w 12w 8w
*** 16r = 16km ride and 10w = 10km walk ***
With each column representing 1hour activity, this journey will take 7hours 24mins.
The possibility of getting a lower journey time depends on the breakdown of activity schedule.

Nice try, I am impressed, but your answer is a bit off the mark especially the first one, the second one is much closer.
The idea behind your mathematical solution is good and elegant, but you modeling asumption was wrong.

I am sure that Daddy G.O Adeboye must be thinking of how he can effectively monetise his two million friends, which shouldn't be too difficult since Africans generally have a pliable mind.

finofaya: Okay. I would have loved to know what determines the goodness of God, but never mind.

I would have gladly told you what determines the goodness of God, but I see your mind is already shut. Anyway, my main reason for joining this thread was to refute your claim that there cannot be good without evil; the basis upon which the rest of your argument stood.

finofaya: You're still not getting it.

This your standard, imagine its a scale from 0 to 1. 0 represents good and 1 represents evil. If either half of this scale suddenly ceases to exist, this scale would no longer be able to measure good and evil anymore.

Now, imagine God before any other thing was created, when he was the only thing in existence. Evil is said not to have existed at this point. Good however existed. What scale was used to measure and arrive at the conclusion that God was good? It certainly can't be a scale that has values for evil, since there was no such thing as evil at that point. And if nothing is evil, what is good?

Only if good and evil existed objectively, uncreated by God, could God's goodness have been measured. Just as there are objectively good and bad bridges and we measure any bridge according to this objective standard. In such a case, good and evil are no more in God's control than they are in yours.

You are so fixated on this scaling idea of good and evil that you fail to see that good and evil is only a measure of how our actions measure up to some standard. Good and evil does not exist objectively in isolation, they can only exist with respect to a standard, of which God is the originator standards.

finofaya: What the politicians and contractors do is abhorrent but it is meaningless to speak of evil bridges. You would have to locate the blame elsewhere, possibly on the politicians and contractors.

So you are in agreement that the politician is evil for building a bridge that can potentially take the lives of others. Would you not also agree that all the politician and the contractor needed to do in order not to be evil was to adhere to building standards?
If your answer is yes, can you now see that good and evil is a measure of how well a standard is met? So contrary to your initial claim, it is possible for everyone to be called good even if no one is bad.

finofaya: That's nice. But if God finds himself existing as a good God, he cannot turn around to determine what is or is not good.

You are yet to show why one cannot dertermine good from bad based on meeting a standard. In fact, good and bad would have no meaning if there is no standard to be met.

finofaya: I wasn't discussing knowledge, didn't mention it.

But even at that, can you know how to be good in the absence of evil? You know without 'evil', you cannot mean anything by 'good'.

Note that I'm using 'good' as the opposite of 'evil', before you come and start telling me about fitness for purpose. In that sense, can a bridge be evil? No, because it is meaningless to speak of evil bridges.
9
A bridge is just a bridge. Not evil, not good. If I am to understand God by the analogy given, then he is also neither good nor evil.

So how would you describe our politicians and contractors that build substandard roads and bridges that contributes to accidents and economic hardship of the people? Good, or evil? If i get you right, your positions is that it is just a bridge, so it doesn't matter.

Forget the lies you have been told before, believing in God does not make our path easier than the unbelievers. Whatever issues you are having, I pray that God grants you the strength to persevere and the wisdom to find a solution, but don't expect magic from God.

Basically, good is when we meet standard set by God and evil is failing to meet the standards

finofaya: For the sake of the majority of God's creation who do not use the bible, we cannot define good and evil based on the bible.

Let's say goodness always means being fit for a purpose. What then is the purpose that God is fit for?

And if as you say, the bible definition of good is different from every other definition, would you go as far as to say that God has no role in those other definitions of good? One such definition is benevolence.

My initial response was to challenge your assertion that one cannot know how to be good in the absence of evil, and I think I was able to make that point by showing that you can build a good bridge without first having to kill people in a bad bridge.
So if it is possible to do good on the basis objective alone, the premise upon which your argument stands is faulty.

finofaya: What I'm saying is that there is no good without evil. If God was good before adam and eve, then there must have been something that we compare him to in order to conclude that he was always good.

The premise of your argument is wrong, something can be seen as good without comparing it to evil.
Without evil you can still tell at what point the ladder you are making will be good enought to scale an obstacle.

musKeeto: Psalm 91:7
A thousand may fall at your side And ten thousand at your right hand, But it shall not approach you.


Na this verse concern Christians o. If ebola kill you, your faith no reach..



silliness dressed in divinity.

Hello my dear blood sucker in chief, I hope say you dey leave christian blood alone o! What happened to a Man from Mars? Seeing your old moniker made me think for a moment that my time machine is now operational

finofaya: I've been wondering what is meant by a good God.




God is good.

Okay.

The problem here is that "good" is meaningless without "evil". In order for good to exist, evil must exist, since a thing can only be good in relation to another thing.

Christians will say that God is good and man introduced evil after the fall. Or perhaps it was the fall of Lucifer that introduced evil. Either way, what it means is that God became good at the point of the introduction of evil. Before then, he was good in relation to what? Nothing. So he could not have been good.

In order for God to be good from the on set, there must have been evil somewhere, from the on set.

Your problem is with the way you appear to define good and evil, which I think is a bit different in context from the bible usage.
In bible's account of creation in Genesis chapter 1, the word good appeared seven times, and each time the contextual meaning was of something fit for purpose. The light was not too hot; the day and night interval was not too long; and the distribution was just good. Gen1:3
The land mass could have been made bigger or smaller, but God saw to it that it was just good. Gen1:9
Next, God saw to it that the plants , the sun and moon, animals and last of all man that he created was good, or fit for purpose.
Good as used in the bible is not relative to something else, it means to be fit for purpose, and God's goodness is absolute, His will is total and His purpose is certain. Any will in opposition to His will is evil and any purpose not in line with his is not good because it is God that sets the standard of good and evil within which we are to work.
So God and indeed us to some extent can tell if an action or creation is fit for the purpose it was made for without having to be evil at the same time.

I got this from a Jehovah's Witness magazine, I hope it helps in explaining the bible's viewpoint of money. My apologies for the length, I would appreciate it if anybody can do a good job in summarizing the article.

How Can You Keep a Balanced View of Money?

Love of money and a desire for possessions are not new; nor is the Bible silent about them, as if they were some recent phenomena. They are very old. In the Law, God instructed the Israelites: “You must not desire your fellowman’s house . . . nor anything that belongs to your fellowman.”—Exodus 20:17.

LOVE of money and possessions was common in Jesus’ day. Consider this report of an exchange between Jesus and a “very rich” young man. “Jesus said to him: ‘There is yet one thing lacking about you: Sell all the things you have and distribute to poor people, and you will have treasure in the heavens; and come be my follower.’ When he heard this, he became deeply grieved, for he was very rich.”—Luke 18:18-23.
A Proper View of Money
It would be wrong, however, to conclude that the Bible condemns money itself or any of its basic uses. The Bible shows that money provides a practical defense against poverty and its attendant troubles, enabling people to procure necessities. King Solomon wrote: “Wisdom is for a protection the same as money is for a protection.” And: “Bread is for the laughter of the workers, and wine itself makes life rejoice; but money is what meets a response in all things.”—Ecclesiastes 7:12; 10:19.
The proper use of money is approved by God. For example, Jesus said: “Make friends for yourselves by means of the unrighteous riches.” (Luke 16:9) This includes contributing toward the advancement of the true worship of God, for we definitely should want God as our Friend. Solomon himself, following the example of his father, David, contributed large amounts of money and valuables toward the building of Jehovah’s temple. Another Christian mandate is to give material assistance to those in need. “Share with the holy ones according to their needs,” said the apostle Paul. He added: “Follow the course of hospitality.” (Romans 12:13) This often involves spending some money. However, what about the love of money?
‘The Fondness of Silver’
Paul discussed extensively “the love of money”—or literally, “fondness of silver”—when he was writing to his younger fellow Christian Timothy. Paul’s admonition can be found at 1 Timothy 6:6-19. He commented on “the love of money” as part of his broader consideration of material things. We do well to study carefully Paul’s inspired comments, in view of the emphasis today’s culture puts on money. Such an examination is definitely beneficial because it brings in the secret of how to “get a firm hold on the real life.”
Paul warns: “The love of money is a root of all sorts of injurious things, and by reaching out for this love some have been led astray from the faith and have stabbed themselves all over with many pains.” (1 Timothy 6:10) This text does not say that money itself is evil—nor does any other scripture. Neither does the apostle say that money is the fundamental cause of “injurious things” or that money lies at the root of every problem. Rather, the love of money can be a cause—even if not the only cause—of all kinds of “injurious things.”
Guard Against Greed
The fact that money itself is not condemned in the Scriptures should not blunt Paul’s warning. Christians who begin to love money are vulnerable to all kinds of problems, the worst of which is that of straying from the faith. This truth is reinforced by what Paul said to the Christians in Colossae: “Deaden, therefore, your body members that are upon the earth as respects . . . hurtful desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry.” (Colossians 3:5) How may covetousness, greed, or “love of money” amount to idolatry? Does this mean that it is wrong to want a bigger house, a newer car, a more profitable job? No, none of these things are evil in themselves. The question is: What is the heart attitude that makes one want any of these things, and are they really necessary?
The difference between normal desire and greed might be likened to the difference between the small campfire that cooks food and the blazing inferno that consumes a forest. Wholesome and well-placed desire can be constructive. It motivates us to work and to be productive. Proverbs 16:26 says: “The soul of the hard worker has worked hard for him, because his mouth has pressed him hard.” But greed is dangerous and destructive. It is desire out of control.
Control is a core issue. Will the money we accumulate or the material things we want serve our needs, or will our needs serve money? That is why Paul says that being a “greedy person . . . means being an idolater.” (Ephesians 5:5) To be greedy for something in reality means that we surrender our will to it—in effect, we make it our master, our god, the thing we serve. In contrast, God insists: “You must not have any other gods against my face.”—Exodus 20:3.
Our being greedy also indicates that we do not trust that God will follow through on his promise to supply what we need. (Matthew 6:33) Greed, then, amounts to a turning away from God. In this sense too, it is “idolatry.” No wonder Paul warns so clearly against it!
Jesus also gave a direct warning against greed. He commanded us to guard against longing for something that we do not have: “Keep your eyes open and guard against every sort of covetousness, because even when a person has an abundance his life does not result from the things he possesses.” (Luke 12:15) According to this passage and Jesus’ subsequent illustration, greed is based on the foolish belief that what matters in life is how much one has. It may be money, status, power, or related things. It is possible to be greedy for anything that can be acquired. The idea is that having that thing will make us content. But according to the Bible and human experience, only God can—and will—satisfy our real needs, as Jesus reasoned with his followers.—Luke 12:22-31.
Today’s consumer-oriented culture excels at kindling the fires of greed. Influenced in subtle yet powerful ways, many come to believe that whatever they have is not enough. They need more, bigger, and better things. While we cannot hope to change the world around us, how can we personally resist this trend?
Contentment Versus Greed
Paul offers the alternative to greed, which is contentment. He says: “So, having sustenance and covering, we shall be content with these things.” (1 Timothy 6: This description of all that we really need—“sustenance and covering”—may sound rather simplistic or naive. Many people are entertained by television programs where viewers visit celebrities who live in luxurious homes. That is no way to attain contentment.
Of course, servants of God are not required to live in self-imposed poverty. (Proverbs 30:8, 9) However, Paul does remind us what poverty really is: lack of food, clothing, and shelter adequate for survival where one lives. On the other hand, if we have those things, we have the basis for contentment.
Could Paul be serious about such a description of contentment? Is it really possible to be satisfied with merely the basics—food, clothing, and shelter? Paul should know. He experienced firsthand the wealth and privileges of high rank in the Jewish community and of Roman citizenship. (Acts 22:28; 23:6; Philippians 3:5) Paul also suffered severe hardships in his missionary activities. (2 Corinthians 11:23-28) Through it all, he learned a secret that helped him to maintain contentment. What was that?
“I Have Learned the Secret”
Paul explained in one of his letters: “I know indeed how to be low on provisions, I know indeed how to have an abundance. In everything and in all circumstances I have learned the secret of both how to be full and how to hunger, both how to have an abundance and how to suffer want.” (Philippians 4:12) Paul sounds so confident, so optimistic! It would be easy to assume that his life was rosy when he wrote these words but not so. He was in prison in Rome!—Philippians 1:12-14.
Given that sobering fact, this passage speaks powerfully on the issue of contentment not only with material possessions but with circumstances as well. Extremes of wealth or hardship can test our priorities. Paul spoke of spiritual resources that enabled him to be content regardless of material circumstances: “For all things I have the strength by virtue of [God] who imparts power to me.” (Philippians 4:13) Rather than looking to his possessions, many or few, or to his circumstances, good or bad, Paul looked to God to satisfy his needs. The result was contentment.
Paul’s example was especially important to Timothy. The apostle urged that young man to pursue a life-style that put godly devotion and a close relationship with God before wealth. Paul said: “However, you, O man of God, flee from these things. But pursue righteousness, godly devotion, faith, love, endurance, mildness of temper.” (1 Timothy 6:11) Those words may have been addressed to Timothy, but they apply to anyone who wants to honor God and to have a really happy life.
Timothy needed to watch out for greed just like any other Christian. Apparently, there were wealthy believers in the congregation in Ephesus, where he was when Paul wrote to him. (1 Timothy 1:3) Paul had entered this prosperous commercial center with the good news of Christ, making many converts. No doubt, a number of these were wealthy people, as is true of some in the Christian congregation today.
The question, then, especially in the light of the teaching at 1 Timothy 6:6-10, is: What should people with more than the average amount of money do if they want to honor God? Paul says that they should start by examining their attitude. Money has a tendency to create feelings of self-sufficiency. Paul says: “Give orders to those who are rich in the present system of things not to be high-minded, and to rest their hope, not on uncertain riches, but on God, who furnishes us all things richly for our enjoyment.” (1 Timothy 6:17) People of means have to learn to look beyond their money; they need to look to God, the original source of any wealth.
But attitude is only half the battle. Sooner or later, wealthy Christians need to use their wealth well. Paul admonishes: ‘Work at good, be rich in fine works, be liberal, ready to share.’—1 Timothy 6:18.
“The Real Life”
The thrust of Paul’s counsel is that we need to remind ourselves of the relative worth of material things. God’s Word says: “The valuable things of the rich are his strong town, and they are like a protective wall in his imagination.” (Proverbs 18:11) Yes, the security that riches can provide is in the end only imagined and is actually deceptive. It is wrong to center our lives on them rather than on gaining God’s approval.
The uncertainty of material wealth makes it far too fragile to fix our hope on. Genuine hope must be moored to something strong, meaningful, and lasting. Christian hope is fixed on our Creator, Jehovah God, and his promise of everlasting life. While it is true that money cannot buy happiness, it is even more true that money cannot buy salvation. Only our faith in God can give us such hope.
So whether we are wealthy or poor, let us pursue a course in life that will make us “rich toward God.” (Luke 12:21) Nothing is more valuable than an approved standing with the Creator. All efforts to maintain it contribute to our ‘treasuring up for ourselves a fine foundation for the future, in order that we may get a firm hold on the real life.’—1 Timothy 6:19.

In your original post you gave only one condition for someone to have whatever it is they desire, and that is for the person to pay money to you in the name of seed sowing.
Now, I hope you can understand my concern with your claim and other similar claims from fellow crooks like yourself. If I pay the money and nothing good happens to me, who do I hold responsible? How do I get my money back if the promises you made all prove to be a lie?

If humans are able to find a cure for Ebola through the application of scientific methods, it would imply that humans can defeat the devil through science as they have done many times in the past when such silly claims were made by ignorant religious charlatans about the bubonic plague and small pox.

What guarantee do you have for anybody that failed to receive a miracle after sowing seeds to god/you? That was my question that I would like you to answer.