₦airaland Forum

FRANCISTOWN:
@ PoliteActivist
@ FxMasterz
Hearken unto my voice and absorb thineselves of ignorance.

You see, I read about Einstein in the late 80s from one of the books in a library. I can't remember neither the title nor the author but I can clearly remember few lines from the book.

And I can tell you for free that there are so many streams of information that are written in books that you will never find such informations on the Internet. Same as there are several books you will never even see anything about them on the Internet.

I read from the book that Einstein was a Jewish christian until 12, but he kept his loss of faith to himself.

Einstein in his own words said "I came—though the child of entirely irreligious (Jewish) parents—to a deep religiousness, which, however, reached an abrupt end at the age of twelve. Through the reading of popular scientific books I soon reached the conviction that much in the stories of the Bible could not be true." (Source: Wikipedia)

From the above excerpt, which religion was he really deep into? It simply means he was deep in a religion that believed in the bible(Christianity) because Judaism uses the Torah.

O ye ignorant younger ones who run to Google for even the littlest information. Behold the voice of god: you can't compare your knowledge with those of us who read good books. You only have the internet, we have ancient knowledge+ the internet.

I don't just cap carelessly, I do know what I'm talking about. And BTW, do not drag LordReed for what he isn't guilty of.

Don't come at me with your primitive knowledge.

Find the attachments below for your reference.

Lol.

Do you think you're the only one who has ancient knowledge? If you think so, then, I more. For, I am not a child of yesterday myself.

But, you see, encounters with God is a personal thing, and you can't get it through religion. Both Religion and Science have failed in exploring the essence of a universal God. God is universal and so the medium of discovering God is a universal medium. Scientific knowledge as well as Religion are not universal, hence, they're inadequate as mediums for finding God.

People fail to see and experience God because they do so through inadequate mediums.

We need to know the source of this news.

stunnert:
I'll be praying for Chris.

We should all do.

God bless you brother.

stunnert:
14 years after you posted this, TB Joshua flock has been scattered, his legacy destroyed, his reputation in tatters

So many gullible churchgoers are still clinging unto them.

Chris started well but I've heard so much about him lately.

PoliteActivist:
*Politeness*
Einstein was never a Christian

Yeah, he was never one.

Those churchgoers who have no discernment are the very ones who make false prophets popular.

Raydos:
That is still wrong!!

Even Google is wrong, There are lot of bullshits on Google!


Leopard is Ẹkun
Cheetah is Amotekun

The meaning of "Amotekun" in literal meaning is, "The one who looks like Ẹkun" (Àmọ́tẹ́kùn)

It's because of the striking resemblance between Leopard and cheetah!


Leopard is the Ẹkun
Cheetah is Amotekun (The one who looks Like Ẹkun)


Tiger in the other hands does not exist in Yoruba land, Not even in Africa, So there is no way we will have a name for what doesn't exist on our side!!


But the name given given to Tiger recently is Ògìdán

So
Tiger — Ògìdán


Ọwawa is another animal entirely!

Okay, we I may be wrong about Owawa. But I still maintain that Leopard is Amotekun. You can see that even our Amotekun Corps have the Leaopard as their insignia.

LordReed:
By evidence not by word of mouth.

You cannot have any evidence until you have a subjective experience within the party.

LordReed:
How does that validate his beliefs? Some people were in PDP then they switched to APC so does that make APC the 'true' party?

When you are in the true party won't you know it for yourself?

LordReed:
What exactly is special about the testimony? Someone that found scam artists masquerading as demonologists compelling is what should convince me? LoLz.

He also said these same things about Christians who shared their testimonies of divine encounters until the day he met Jesus.

LordReed:
Nope he doesn't KNOW any better. He believes and may even believe he knows but he doesn't. None of you believers know.

He had also put up such denials as this before he met Christ.

FRANCISTOWN:
And because Einstein believed in the "supposed" god, I should also?


Even if scientists discovered the supernatural, with proofs(which of course I'm sure it will never happen)
In the field of science, any discovery that is not useful and applicable to real life situation is simply useless, forgotten and discarded.

We've seen that those of you who believe in the supernatural don't have an edge over us. Therefore scientific discovery will not make a difference.

BTW, the discovery of the supernatural doesn't mean there is a supposed god behind it.
I remember myself and LordReed having this very interesting discussion one time like that, where he mentioned that there are atheists who might believe in the supernatural.

I guess if scientists discovered the supernatural realm(I mean with irrefutable proofs, which everyone can handle). I might just turn to one of those atheists who believe the supernatural.
Until there is a proof of a god, I'm sorry. Scientific discoveries of the supernatural won't make any difference.


Science has never claimed to know everything


Science has a pedigree. Science has proven itself over time to be almost dependable.
Therefore dear respected FxMasterz. I base my life on first "My common reasoning" then "Science" as a body of knowledge. Emphasis on the quotes.


Dey play.
I'm telling you that theists know in their innermost recesses of minds that there is no God in the universe. You guys only wish. You wish.


Yinmu.😜

You'll some day have an encounter. That encounter will change everything for you.

Have you read the testimony of Sixthsense? He was formerly a boastful atheist like you. He shared his testimony and conversion experience here on Nairaland.

The world is beyond common sense. Don't measure spirituality on the scale of religion.

God is not religion and religion is not God. Using the religion of men to measure or discover God is a wrong approach.

LordReed:
Einstein belief is in a type of Spinoza's god and that conceptualization was not considered 'divine'. Spinoza believed that God is "the sum of the natural and physical laws of the universe and certainly not an individual entity or creator". As far as I am concerned this is just unnecessary word play on Spinoza's part, the universe is there is no need to call it god.

You keep talking as if you can read minds. I do not know that gods exist and like I have mentioned the idea of anthropomorphic gods is nonsensical. A whim, a fantasy we like to indulge in as an extension of our own desires for power over our environment. No such beings exist or at the very least have been demonstrated to exist. You can pray from now till the sun grows cold your god will never do anything to contradict the laws of nature because that God doesn't exist.

Have you read the conversion testimony of a former atheist here on Nairaland called Sixthsense? He once talked like you're doing now. Today, having obtained mercy, he knows better.

Aemmyjah:
If you write about someone that lived about me 5000 years ago, quoting what he said
But someone who lived about 200 years ago had written something similar
Does it necessarily mean you copied the one who wrote something similar?
Where did that one get his information from? Could he have copied what someone or other people may have said or written about that person?

If what the person said is the same as what I wrote, and my writings are in wide circulation, his hearers would conclude he's quoting me except he clearly explains his sources. Every information has a source.

FRANCISTOWN:
You make me laugh this early morning.
Einstein was a christian and he later deconverted. As a matter of fact, many religious leader were very angry and disappointed to the extent not writing him series of letters.
Einstein did not believe in any anthropomorphic God, like you christians do.

On that note, there is no authority in atheism as it is in the religious world. Christians follow Jesus, Bishops, Pastors, prophets like puppies following their owners.
Individually, atheist don't follow any one as an authority.

Know that we don't do an appeal to authority.
If Richard Dawkin picked up a religion today? Atheists prolly won't trip. Atheism is a personal thing.

Therefore, whatever Einstein thought about a supposed "god" was only good for his own pocket. It wouldn't buy anyone a cup of coffee.

No, I'm not saying you'll follow Einstein. What I'm saying is that even Einstein a better scientist than yourselves believed in the Devine. If he later deconverted after writing what he wrote, it shows the instability of scientific knowledge. The grounds keep shifting because knowledge is never perfected. If science should develop instruments capable of spiritual investigation today, all atheists would be shocked at what such instruments would discover. And of course, what would be the fate of already dead atheists who based their lives on imperfect knowledge?

Yeah, science is imperfect. It doesn't know everything. And infact, what science knows today is infinitesimally small compared to what science does not know. Why should anyone base his life on science that frequently outdates previous knowledge in the face of new discoveries rather than go on a journey of personal discovery according to the accepted rules and principles of the supernatural. If the supernatural doesn't exist, there would be no such words coined in any language.

In essence, I'm telling you that you atheists know in the innermost recesses of your minds that there's a God in the universe. You don't know who that God is and you have searched for Him using crooked means which brought you no result. In the end, you deny Him. Living in denial would not obliterate reality. It is dangerous to deny an ubiquitous reality on mere personal terms. The consequences can be dangerous.

lordreed

Aemmyjah:
You've not answered my question sir
Why are you dogmatic?

Oh, I never knew you expected a straight answer for the question.

Yes, academically speaking, if any part of your writing is considered to bear a striking similarity with any other part of a prewritten work, you'll be accused of plagiarism.

Aemmyjah:
Let's imagine something similar
I, Aemmy write about someone who existed 5000 years ago and quoted something he said at the time. Let's call him MaxInDHouse
Someone else named FxMasterz who lived about 100 or 200 years ago write about the same person, MaxInDHouse
But MaxInDHouse lived 5000 years ago. Where did FxMasterz and CO get the information of what MaxInDHouse said?
Is it by chance that they received such information or from another source or writing?
Would my writing, though similar necessarily mean that I copied from FxMasterz?

That is my point. Thank you

It's simple.

Jude certainly read that book. Every religious person in Israel at the time must have read that book. Even the Lord Jesus probably read it too. The book was in circulation in those days. It was never blacklisted by the people of those days. They may have better understanding of the source more than we do. We might have lost the source but they knew better than us.

It isn't a mere coincidence that Jude quoted it word for word. There was no oral tradition regarding Enoch. Jude was not writing that verse of Scripture prophetically. Otherwise he would have said it. Rather he quoted it as though he expected his audience to know what he was talking about. He was fully aware that his audience already knew about that prophecy. It shows from the tone and context of the passage. He didn't start explaining to them regarding the source of his words. His audience knew very well about that prophecy otherwise it would have looked so weird, and questions would have been raised about the source of jude's idea.

We do not have any authority regarding the source of the book of Enoch. We can only logically conclude that it's of questionable origin. But that would be as far as logic can carry us. We have no evidence. But even during the days of Christ, the book of Enoch was quite popular. It was a well known book among the Jews.

StormInc:
Lol. That's the point, All the Christians are following Christ who is the Way, the truth and the life. But they are still holding different beliefs about that same Jesus.

All children of the same father can keep claiming childship of that father while having different opinions of the same father. Is that the basis for division in a family?

All christians are in different stages of the knowledge of God. And as a result of different levels of knowledge, there are denominations. Each denomination grows leaving previous doctrines behind and begin to align with new doctrines as new lights unfold. For example, most of what Baptists, Anglicans, Methodists, etc rejected in pentecostal doctrines years ago are now being accepted as scriptural truths. They now believe in virtually the same things because of new lights.

There's no division among the children of God. Even though we may differ in doctrines due to varying degrees of knowledge. We love one another as brethren and see ourselves as being one body in Christ. So there's CAN as well as the the PFN. These are Christian Bodies where the body of Christ come together as one in spite of doctrinal differences.

While you may see sunni and shite Muslims fighting and killing each other as a result of division in their midst, you cannot see such in Christiendom. All religions having various sects fight violently among themselves but not Christians because we are one even though we may have differing opinions about certain things we read in the Bible.

Atheists like lordreed, jaephoenix, maynman, francistown, knownunknown, hopefullandlord, etc would avoid this thread like a plague.

I really pity you guys. May God be merciful unto you.

Aemmyjah:
Oga
Calm down
Jude quoted Enoch
The writers of the book of Enoch wrote the book about 100 or 200 years before Jude
But Enoch himself lived about 5000 years earlier
Where did those writers get the information from about the life of someone who lived 5000 years ago?
Answer

Why are you arguing something no one is arguing with you? Do you enjoy arguing with yourself?

Where those writers copied from is not the question. And I'm saying this for the umpteenth time.

The question is where did Jude copy from since there was no oral tradition about Enoch in Judaism.

Aemmyjah:
The bible does not state
😎

That's the truth.

The Bible didn't state. But when you find the same words in another book by the same person that was quoted, what does that imply? Remember there's no oral tradition about Enoch as a person.

Aemmyjah:
Where did Jude say he quoted from?

He didn't mention did he? All we knew is that he quoted Enoch and we found the same words of Enoch in a certain book that was in circulation in the time of Jude.

Aemmyjah:
Samuel and Joshua made reference to the Book of Jasher
Jude did not mention any book of Enoch
Again, answer me, where did the writers of the book of Enoch get the information of what Enoch said about 5000 years ago?
From the air?

You're attempting a serious digression. How many times would I have to tell you that the source the writers of Enoch is not what we're discussing here.

Jude quoted Enock word for word. There's no other place in the entire universe where the word Jude quoted was written. It's not even in the oral tradition of the Jews. The only place that word has existed is the book of Enoch. Tell us where Jude quoted from without attempting a digression or trying I to play the game of assumptions.

Aemmyjah:
He did not copy any book. Did he?
Where did the writers of Enoch got their information from about what Enoch said and did (Enoch that existed about 5000 years earlier). Who did these writers quote or reference? Or na imagination?

Forget about the writers of Enoch. You should keep a discussion on track without digressing.

Where did Jude quote from ?

Aemmyjah:
Jude could have quoted from a fictitious source and it will be among the books of the Bible?

You're digressing.

I'm not concerned about whether the source is fictitious or not. Where did Jude quote from? Please stop assuming.

Aemmyjah:
It could be under inspiration
Or it was known among the Jews[

Where did the writers of Enoch get information from? Especially regarding a man who lived 5000 years ago

The bolded indicates that you're still based on assumptions.

I have no issue with the writer of the book of Enoch. It's not a special book to me as a person. If you are worried about the source of the writers, you can apply the same logic you're applying to Jude - "They could have written it under inspiration or it was known among the Jews."

Where did Jude quote from if there's in the name of the same person he's quoting which carries the same statements he made word for word?

Aemmyjah:
The book of Enoch is said to have been written at about 100-200BCE... That is about 5000 years after Enoch lived. I guess the writers quote him from the air then. Where did they get the source from?

Wherever the writers wrote from is not anyone's concern. How could Jude have quoted same book word for word? That's the question.

OLAADEGBU:
Why don't you watch the videoclips posted in the OP and educate yourself instead of arguing blindly?

Alright then.

Aemmyjah:
Ezra, Moses, and Luke already wrote that Enoch was 7th in line from Adam while compiling the genealogies. They must have likely known or heard some things that some of those people did or said even though they may not have been part of the sacred scriptures.
Joshua and Samuel made reference to the Book of Jasher
Jude did not
The writers of the Book of Enoch wrote it about 5000 years after the existence of Enoch. Where did they get the information from?

You see the bolded part? Assumptions!!

The Book of Enoch having a fictitious source does not imply that nobody can quote from it.

Please tell us where Jude quoted from with all authority.

OLAADEGBU:
The evidence has been presented in court it is up to you to go there and prove that the evidence is not tenable. Christians are not meant to cover evil and diabolical acts unless you are saying you are just as guilty.

What evidence has been tendered in court? I'm not aware of such evidences. Educate me if I've missed anything.

Aemmyjah:
Where he quoted Enoch from is not significant
. The book of Enoch was written several thousands of years after Enoch death. Where did the writers get the information from?

Where he quoted Enock from is significant. He didn't quote him from the air.

The book of Enoch was in circulation at the time of Jude. Jude claimed he was quoting Enoch in a particular statement of his. Where could he have quoted Enoch from?