₦airaland Forum

Blabbermouth:
etrange, this is the practical.

Thank you for this scenario. It actually sheds more light on my question above. (I assume this scenario does not make any distinction between man and the supreme being cause that would only make it useless).

I response, I would say I orchestrated the series of events that would go on to constitute the future. I understand that bit. But even in the scenario above, there was a possibility of my phone button malfunctioning and I not being able to eventually put it. This implies that while I might have willed for all these to happen, anything could really be an impedance, anything I didn't forsee because I can't tell the "non existen" future.

Having heard my response, what's your take on my questions here?

etrange: Let's take a step further to reconcile this bit of knowledge with the idea that only his will will come to pass. Do you agree with that? With what level of certainty can we say only his will will happen seeing that he, himself, doesn't also know what will happen? And does it mean that it is his will that some men (if not all) will perish?

donestk:
Help me explain this once and for all

Its common to hear girls say "you guys are not serious" to fellow girls.

Language is always evolving and the idea of using the same nouns for both genders where gender distinction isn't the crux of the message is what comes along with it.

There was a time the word "guy" was just another word for man. Later, it was reserved for younger men. And then came a period when a collection of males and females would be referred to as "guys". This was primarily for convenience as it would be easier to say "come on guys" than "come on guys and ladies". While many other European languages still follow the pattern of using masculine nouns and adjectives to refer to a group of mixed genders even if it's one baby boy and million ladies, English is moving into the more convenient way of using the same word regardless of gender. The word "guy" is only one of such cases.

Blabbermouth:
Alright, let's not go round with words. There is nothing like "knowing what will happen", because " what will happen" has not happened.
Are we clear?

Blabbermouth:
etrange, perhaps we should borrow a leaf from Logic and premises.

1. God knows all things
2. "Nonexistent things" do not count as "all things"
3. God does not know "nonexistent things" because they do not exist
4. Future is non existent
5. God does not know the future

Yes sir, we are. You are saying that because what will happen has not happened, the supreme being, as understood by man, cannot know or tell it (just like we humans can't). And the conclusion is that he does not know the future (as your number 5 indicates). That is fine. Like I said, for whatever reason, acknowledging he doesn't know the what will happen seems more practical and nearer to reality (as against an image of him most people would like to paint).

Now working on the clear premise of the supreme being, as understood by man, not knowing what will happen, can we use this as a seed to clarify some other areas? Let's take a step further to reconcile this bit of knowledge with the idea that only his will will come to pass. Do you agree with that? With what level of certainty can we say only his will will happen seeing that he, himself, doesn't also know what will happen? And does it mean that it is his will that some men (if not all) will perish?

Thanks for your time.

Everybody here criticising Nigeria, I wonder who this Nigeria is. Lol

benny4wax:
LADIES PLEASE TAKE NOTE!!!!!

Men attend to Women for two reasons, SEX, and LOVE, but in most cases, men do not Marry for Sex or for Love, they marry for STABILITY.

Let me explain:

A man can Love you and not Marry you.
A man can have sex with you for years without marrying you.

But immediately he finds someone who brings stability in his life, he marries her.
What I mean by Stability is "Peace of Mind"
I have seen some guys who made this statement "I love this lady but I don't think I can spend the rest of my life with her."

Men are visionaries when they think about marriage, they do not think about wedding dresses, bridesmaids, anything that most Ladies think is fanciful.

They think whether this woman can build me a home, can she take care of my kids and I, can she give me PEACE of mind?.

Men don't like Ladies who gives them discomfort, This is why a man can stay with a woman for years and meet another in a month, then get married to her.

It is not heartlessness on the part of the guy, it is the comfort of having peace of mind that drives any man. As we all know marriage is a lifetime contract therefore the best should never be sacrificed.

Sex is a pleasure, love is an affection, RESPECT is vital between each other. Be wise

Nice take.

I'd want to make a submission on the four paragraphs in bold:

First paragraph in bold only ridicules the female gender and presents them as a feeble minded. Not surprising cause this is always the case when a man writes about women. We always think we know ourselves and also know them so well. In reality, a woman is actually far more interested/concerned about a stable home than a man is. Yes, such things as beautiful wedding dresses appeal to them more (just like men have thier pecualrities) but that doesn't undermine their desire for stability too. As far as Africa is concerned, a woman has more to lose if the home breaks up and this why ladies would endure almost anything just to stay in marriage. Nobody really wants to endure marriage so it's overreaching to think that women aren't really as concerned about the future of the home as men are.

The second and third paragraphs are 100% true. However, we always get consumed by what we want the woman to be for us that we pay little to no attention to what we can be to the women. It's always about what men want. Your write-up is about an ideal man who isn't carried away by looks and se.x (as many ladies would assume), on that same note, an ideal woman who isn't carried away by money fears one thing the most - cheating. A cheating husband drives a woman crazy primarily cause leaving the marriage is not always an option for them. Marriage is give and take and until we understand that, we would keep chasing shadows. (I know women cheat too, I'm only saying they want peace of mind too).

Now the third paragraph in bold is where I might disagree with you without reserve. There's no justification for wasting a lady's precious time and leaving her after years to settle with someone else. It's wickedness. You can't tell me you didn't know in the first year if she was someone you could build a home with. We men can marry at almost any age but such is not the case with women so any man that does that without feeling bad is wicked. Let's not sugarcoat it.


Nice one from you, sir.

We've always known it ain't any cure. We just like getting emotional about everything.

Blabbermouth:
I also removed " the future".
It doesn't exist!

Let's not go round with words. You're saying the supreme being, as understood by man, doesn't know what will happen.

Blabbermouth:
If "the future" actually exist (perhaps, as a written script) but God does not know it, then He is not omniscient.
However,
If God does not know "the future" because the future actually does not exist, then God is still 100% omniscient.
[I don't know if you perfectly understand what I'm trying to pass across]

Your point is that the supreme being, as understood by man, doesn't know the future (for whatever reason). I'm not really particular about the word "omniscient". It's just a word subject to different definitions. The important thing thing that you have removed knowing the future from that definition to make it more employable in this context.

IMAliyu:
Well I don't know the Christian explanation, but the Muslim explanation was this.

God is not subject to what he creates and this includes time. So therefore the past present and future are all thesame to him.
And the future is of his own planning and making, just as the past and present.
Before creation he already destined everything that will take place and this is associated with his all knowing nature.

This is fine and all until you try to fit freewill into this rigid equation. Then you get paradoxs and contradictions.

Your explanation removes God's omniscience because he can't know the future as you pointed out and he doesn't plan everything, which would make more sense.

Well, you can't keep both the omniscient part of the supreme being and still try to sell it as a good entity cause someone who knows about an impending doom and still goes ahead to orchestrate it can't be called good. Even the concept of freewill doesn't offer any help cause I assume an omniscient being already knew what men and angels would do with the so-called freewill even before creating them.

Saying that the supreme being, as understood by men, is omniscient is tantamount to holding him culpable. We can't just wriggle our way out of that.

Blabbermouth:
Warning: The following undiluted truth will shock you!

Now let me pan out that I never intended leaving any comment on this thread. I just wanted to skim through and exit (as there have been many many similar questions to yours).
The reason why many atheist (increasing in number) are so headstrong on believing God does not exist, is not in the absence of evidence. No! It's actually because a being like God (with those complicated attributes) lacks a tangible amount of logic.

Over to your question, permit me to be rhetorical and ask you the following questions;

Q: Does God know who can/will kill him?
A: No!
Why? A being that can make God nob-existent does not exist

Q: Does God know who created him?
A: No!
Why? Such person does not exist

Q: Does God know who can dethrone him
A: No!
Why? A spirit or flesh that can overthrow him does not exist...

Now let me ask you a question that holds the key to solving this (and many other) puzzle

Q: Does God know the future?
General Answer: Yes
Real answer: No!
WHY? "The future" does not exist!
Yes, we have "the past" , yes we have "the present", but a fallacious scenario called " the future" does not exist (yet)!

Now I already know this will spurn a lot of uproar, but before you rush to click the "quote" button, answer this question straight-forwardly;

If God knows the future, Who wrote the future?
(In other words, who determined what the future will be?)
Hahahahahahaha haha hahahahahahaha

If anybody can answer that, then...
Cc: Kingxsamz Maximus69 CAPSLOCKED etrange IMAliyu Xmuslim karleb

Ok, so you're going by the logical conclusion that the supreme being, as understood by man, isn't really omniscient.

That's an interesting take.

Canada has a faster citizenship route. They both have good quality of life and strong passports.

Please o, good people of Canada, how can I watch BBN from Toronto?

How can we watch the show from Canada?

Everybody be shouting freewill. What is freewill? Do I really have freewill if I'll still get punished for going against your will? How's the fact that the punishment is not immediate equal to freewill?

And how is freewill even an a answer to OP's question? Freewill or no freewill, an omniscient being who can tell what will be went ahead to create the angel Lucifer knowing fully well he would revolt with his 'freewill' and still went on to create man knowing man would fall for Lucifer's temptation out of his 'freewill', and then he got angry when man did fall (as if he didn't know it would happen) and decided punish him.

Logically, there are three possible conclusions here:

1) That being didn't really know things would turn out this bad. That means he is not really omniscient.
2) That being knew all these would happen and still went ahead to orchestrate it just to amuse himself. That means he's not really as good as we think.
3) The story we have is not even true. That means religions based on this story are fallacious and no one really knows the real thing.

OP's question is, which of these is the case?

kryptochats:
Pitbull mtcheeeew

Lol... calm down nah. It's not a fight.

OP, I don't know much about dogs but I think it's only logical to assume they'll produce a rotten local dog.

Now, that's not good.

EngineerBode:
Why did she pay? Abi she no get sense

Very quick to blame the victim

That's obviously to provide easy road access to more people near the area marked with a question mark.

Why calling him a fool just because you don't like the song he released? This is why I disagree with those saying one should take their kids to Nigeria for a better upbringing. Nigeria is never a model for raising kids cause even the supposedly respectful teens there have more vices than we can ever imagine; always attacking, and what is considered smart there is simply one's ability to chouse.

So much love on this thread. I was smiling reading each comment.

Imagine if it was an unmarried lady with kids from different men celebrating her 30th birthday today. New swear words would have been birthed here today in addition to the formulaic 'go and marry'.

PAGAN9JA:
Very nice and cringy.

Shows how slutty our African women are.

No brains only B00bs and A$$ets.

The senselessness of this video is mind blowing.


Meanwhile I would like to Thank the ^GODS and ^SPIRITS worshipped by my ancestors for bringing me to this position in Nairaland Society.

0 thanks for jesus and as for allah,.... forget about it.

Wow! Everything leads to insulting women here on Nairaland. The chauvinism is getting worse than racism. Y'all should tone it down a little...

We need more marriages like this!

donstan18:
Perfect definition of a reasonable and successful actress.

Mercy Johnson should be a role model to list of young actresses and career-prone young ladies too.

Talent--> Fixed!
Marriage--> Fixed!
Career--> Fixed!
Male Child--> Fixed!
Pro-Family--> Fixed!
Beauty--> Fixed!
Connection--> Fixed!

No unnecessary scandals or social media shenanigans. I love her a lot.


Truth is; Mercy Johnson further disputes the fact that career isn't the real reason behind the unmarried state of these old single cargos in the Nollywood industry, but their bad character and attitude.

I love her too but I feel it's not fair to judge a woman's character based on whether she's married or not. A lot of people still love Don Jazzy and other single male celebrities but regardless how successful a lady is, she is always expected to have a man or she's considered a LovePeddler. A lot of people (especially guys) love Mercy just cause she took time off acting to play the wife role (which is not bad at all) but it doesn't necessarily make her a better person than the single ones. Recall that when she was single and acting all those s.ex scenes, many tagged her a harlot. Even when so got married, people called her a husband snatcher. Then she started bearing children and doing what the society expects of women, she became a role model.

People will always judge one into living a lifestyle that conforms to the society even if one isn't happy with it. I'm glad Merci seems very happy and contended but that's her choice. Others have theirs.

#JustMyOpinion #NoOffenceIntended

Lol.

WHO amaka !

If his claims are true, both himself and the senior officer will be punished.

Well, to be fair, when flights are blocked and special provisions are made for people of certain origins to leave the country, it's still evacuation. The US citizens that were evacuated were also asked to pay for thier flights. Charity wasn't the idea, passage was.

Wow! Just when she was about to kick off her new life. Who would have thought she'd die in a road accident.

RIP dear fighter.