₦airaland Forum

Maynmann:
Mention the name of the author, let’s see if it is only you that also knows this author, no other adult has read its book or knows this author.

I've forgotten the author's name. He's an unpopular author but that single volume was a hit, and I thought it should be discovered online by just referencing the book's title.

Maynmann:
Who is the author of the book you mentioned?

The internet does not contain all things, it’s not omniscience.
The internet contains information feed to it by us, how come no one except you as gone online to talk about it.

No educated person that has lived in 1990s has thought of putting it online except you?

It seems You are the only adult that has these informations.

Let's leave this. I don't think we'll get anywhere with it. But you've already said that the internet contains information that are fed into it by us.

Information itself is Intellectual Property. I can feed information online if I own it. A piece of information may not be online if the owner does not deem it fit to put it on the internet.

Maynmann:
Your analogy is flawed, because internet is not a school.

How come the internet don’t contain ALL your claims?

The internet didn't contain only one claim I made. Then the other claims were claims I made to prove that the internet does not contain all things. The claim of the Baby fish is something anyone who was an educated adult in the 1990s can easily remember, that was why I raised that claim to prove that not all things or events have found their ways online. The book I just mentioned now is an example. Some of the things that happened pre-internet are not online. You can only know if you've been an adult in those days.

budaatum:
State those "generally and universally accepted moral laws", and let's see how general and universally accepted they are.

Don't let us deceive ourselves just because we want to hold on to some ideologies.

You yourself know some things you'll do without knowing any government law, but after doing such, you'll immediately run away or seek to cover up your tracks even in places where there are no Governments.

See the images below:

Maynmann:
There are so many information that are on the internet that precede when internet was created.

The example you gave has nothing to do with the discussion about if your claims are true.
You are using another claim to backup a claim.

If you so want people to know you are not lying why don’t you try to find evidence for your claims, have you thought of that?

I'm not using that as backup to defend my point. I was just making a reference. You know that your position about the internet is flawed. It's like saying every child in a community who preceded the creation of a school in that community must definitely have passed through that school.

The internet contains many things. It doesn't contain all things.

budaatum:
What is moral is not universal, and morality has nothing to do with scientific laws. If you throw an apple in the air it will universally, on earth at least, fall to the ground, but there's no universal accepted law to dictate what would happen to you if you kill someone. The law might consider you committed manslaughter or even acted in self defence. The clue is in accepted. Some countries accept homosexuality as moral while some wouldn't mind stoning homosexuals.

As for the existence of your God, sorry but that's irrelevant to me. It's not as if God would do anything to you if you killed anyone or were homosexual.

First off, I never said morality has to do with scientific laws. Moral laws and scientific laws were two separate points I made. Don't muddle things up.

There are generally and universally accepted moral laws. No matter how much you deny them. You and I know they exist.

Maynmann:
I say it again, if you didn’t start the insult i wouldn’t insult you, take what you dish out.

If it was widely publicized incident in Russia, it should be online.
Why are ALL your stories no where to be found online.

Many who have lived adult lives before the proliferation of the internet would agree with me.

For instance, I read a book in 1997 titled Oren Knox. It was a classic. The book detailed a fictional story of how a young orphan boy rose into prominence in America. Starting as a cigarette factory worker at a very tender age, he went on to own a compendium of large cigarette companies including the ones he once worked in, in just a few years. The book contains rich lessons for Entrepreneurs. I was searching online for the book of recent, and to my amazement, nothing about the book could be found.

There's no reason why I should lie to defend a point. I consider such attitudes very demeaning.

Maynmann:
What are the moral laws that are universally accepted.

You know them.

Even kids of 3yrs know that some things aren't right to be done. The more the reason why they'll love to do them in your absence.

That universally accepted moral laws exist isn't something to argue about.

Maynmann:
You can also go through all my mentions with you, i have no reason to abuse you unless you start it.
I deal with knowledge not beliefs.

You'll be the first to call your opponent dullard, illiterate, etc. Even when he has never insulted you. Everyone on this forum knows that. The last time, you were even insulting my elders simply because I asked you to ask elders around about a widely publicised incident in Russia that happened in 1992 which obviously you knew nothing about.

Maynmann:
Why not Gods exist?

Anyway, I've made my grieveances known to you. For the sake of courtesy, let me respond.

Whether a God or Gods. The most important thing here is that Someone or Some entities higher than man set the moral laws that are universally accepted by man to judge between right and wrong.

Maynmann:
If you didn’t abuse me first, I wouldn’t have abused you.

You can go through all my mentions with you. Even when you abuse me, I don't immediately react until it gets to a point where I can't take it anymore.

Maynmann:
I don’t start the insults, i don’t like it when people can’t take what they dish out.

Imagine calling me son of one character in your storybook but if i also do the same na problem.

I have always been cautious in all my discourse on this forum. I respect myself and therefore respect everyone I have dealings with. But on several occasions, you've abused me for no just reasons. And I've decided to let you be.

Maynmann:
Why not Gods exist?

Maynman, I have had encounters with you in which I have every cause to conclude that you do not engage in mature, intelligent and clean discussions. Your mantra is to cause unnecessary provocation using vulgarity and abusive languages. I do not have the time for such.

Wilgrea7:
I've explained in the past that the existence of a god does not solve the moral problem. I created an entire thread on it.

But okay, for the sake of this discussion, i will agree that a god exists.. so please go ahead to the secondary stage.

Prove god A or B

We're not talking about the moral problem. The existence of a government, presidents, judges as well as criminal laws don't solve the crime problems. But the existent of the laws themselves prove that someone higher than the criminal exists.

The secondary stage is not what we would discuss just because you're agreeing for the sake of this discussion. It's better discussed with someone who strongly accepts the existent of a God but is unsure of which God is the true God. I don't see you at this stage yet.

budaatum:
This is so not true. Just as you would not say please and thank you if your parents never taught you to, so too would you not learn not to lie and cheat and steal if no one taught you not to.

Please and thank you are not the moral laws where discussing here.

You and I know that universally accepted moral laws exist. The universe itself operates on some scientific laws which were not set by man. Someone higher than man set them.

Those universally accepted moral laws and the scientific laws that govern our universe are pointers to the existent of a God.

Wilgrea7:
This thread is about morality, not the existence of god. The reason i asked you to prove god A or B, is because it would help us define the arbiter of the alleged objective moral laws you believe exist.

The thread is not just about morality but the existent of moral laws which were not created by man. I posit that Someone higher than man made those laws.

Aemmyjah:
Oh
My bad
U did not mention scientific laws

Don't mind this atheist
They don't want tk believe in a Creator ao they can pursue their selfish desires and not feel accountable to God
Just as a child delights to do all sorts of nonsense when the parents are far away
Where does it leave them? No guide, nk purpose, no future, no hope. Animal living

Oh, I mentioned that our universe operates according to certain rules and laws. I suppose everyone would understand that my reference was to scientific laws.

And you're very correct. When you present Atheists with strong arguments against their viewpoints, they start to dribble around the point, setting baits to subtly divert the discussion into their
individual areass of strength. Their atheistically induced notions of God is weak because it is based on science which stands on ever shifting grounds. Just one new discovery could make science review a lot of its positions today. Anyone who does not have total, infinite and absolute knowledge cannot make a bold statement that there's no God. The Atheist himself knows that he's deceiving himself.

Wilgrea7:
This thread is about morality, not the existence of god. The reason i asked you to prove god A or B, is because it would help us define the arbiter of the alleged objective moral laws you believe exist.

The thread is about morality and targeted to atheists who say there's no God.

I can't prove God A or B until we first both agree that at least a God exists. This is the right order.

My point is that there are moral laws as well as laws guiding the universe in all its operations. Man discovered those laws, he didn't set them. Someone higher than man did. Laws don't enact or promulgate themselves.

Aemmyjah:
Your point is very logical but i did not agree at all with the highlighted
What has science got to do with moral laws or morality
It is built in
It is like a inner guide
Just as it is wrong to say science discovered love and hate, hunger and thirst.
Moral laws guide a person or community

Please read my post again. I spoke about science in relation to the scientific laws and rules guiding our physical universe in my second paragraph. The first paragraph referred only to moral laws but the second paragraph does not.

Wilgrea7:
Care to enlighten me on how you arrived at this conclusion?



I never tried to use the multiplicity of gods as a way to invalidate anyone's existence. If you want to claim your god is the creator of the universe and thus the arbiter of the moral laws within it, then you need to prove it.

To use your king analogy, prove that person A is indeed the "king" as he claims to be.

My intent here is not to prove that God A or B is the true God. That's a secondary issue. The primary issue is that a God exists.

Wilgrea7:
The issue of morality isn't that simple. Even if you bring gods into the equation, the problem still remains.

There are different religions today, with different gods who claimed to be the creator of the universe, and hence the source of the moral laws, if any, in them.

So far, no god has been proven to be the creator of the universe, and therefore, no god can lay a claim to objective morality.

Morality among theists is still highly subjective, but it moves from being subjective among humans, to being subjective among gods.

god A says eating pork is wrong. god B says it's okay. That's the case we have today.

If you want to make a case for objective morality, you need to first prove the source of it, A.K.A, the god, and then prove that the moral laws set by this god are indeed from it.

Because from what it seems, moral laws, are a purely human thing. And rather than seen as subjective or objective, they appear to be somewhat progressive.

The issue is not a matter of what God a or b says. The matter is who is the true God. There obviously one God but there are many impersonators.

Someone set the universally accepted moral laws that man uses as a standard to judge right and wrong.

The universe itself operates according to set laws and rules. Scientists discover those laws. Someone higher than man set them. Laws don't create themselves. They're enacted and promulgated.

The multiplicity of gods is a lame argument against God's existence. There could be two persons claiming rulership over a city. The question is, "who is the true and substantiated king?" It's folly to conclude in this scenario that there's no king anywhere.

MaxInDHouse:
Humans supposed to distinguish between evil and good because we were created in the image of God {Genesis 1:26} but due to sin we have fallen below God's glory {Romans 3:23} hence we need a counselor {Isaiah 9:6} to connect us with our heavenly father {John 14:6} without this our sinful nature will continue to distort our thinking ability no matter how kind-hearted we may be. Romans 7:15-25

POLITICS was introduced by Satan so that those following Satan's idea will always like to rule over others as demigods {Genesis 3:4-5} that's the beginning of mankind's woes.
Satan's agents have set their own standards and infused it in the brains of their subjects.

If you observe carefully you will notice that toddlers from different races, cultures, language whether rich or poor mingle together as ONE but by the time they begin attending schools (Satan's set-up to infuse his standard in their brains) things begin to change, those former toddlers who don't have any reason to discriminate will start accepting prejudice as normal.

Well that's why Jesus of Nazareth said:

"Truly I say to you, whoever does not receive the Kingdom of God like a young child will by no means enter into it.” Luke 18:17

So we supposed to know what is good and what is evil but after growing up under Satan's system i'm sorry billions have lost that sense!

All I want the Atheists to know is that Someone higher than man set the moral laws that are universally accepted by man. Laws are enacted and promulgated. They're never self existing.

This alone is a strong argument against Atheism.

This is also further strengthened by the fact that, the entire universe, not just man, operates according to set laws and rules. Scientists discovered those laws. They didn't set them. Man didn't set the laws of the universe. Someone higher than man did.

budaatum:
The wrongness of murder, lying, fraud, cheating does not depend on individual choice. Before your Yahweh was created, Egypt, Rome, Greece, China and Yorubas along with most societies, all had laws against those wrongs. Most societies figured out for themselves that those things are detrimental to society and are therefore wrong and did not need any gods to tell them that.

Moral laws are unwritten universal laws. Everyone automatically knows what's morally wrong or right. That means, a universal entity who created the space we occupy galvanized those laws into our existence.

Moral laws are not man-made. Therefore, there's an entity higher than man.

kinkonp:
https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3297/3652690702_aa0e962a62_z.jpg

In spring of 1872, noted photographer Eadweard Muybridge devised a method of fast-motion photography that allowed him to see a horse running in slow motion. In doing that, he effectively invented the motion picture industry. One hundred and fifty years later, Muybridge’s moving-picture efforts inspired a curious experiment for me: What happens, I wondered, if I linger among the images of Jesus in the gospel accounts? What unexpected lessons will I find if I risk viewing God in Slow Motion? I decided to find out.

Unexpected Lesson: Humility = Glory. Jesus, in his birth, thumbed his nose at all human expectations of greatness. In that first breath, He redefined what glory is and means. He constructed a brand-new equation that only makes sense if God is truly God: Humility = Glory. Christ chose humility underfoot – arriving as a helpless, reliably incontinent infant – as the most resplendent setting for the opening act of his grand redemptive work. In that moment, God’s reputation in human eyes meant nothing. His saving purpose was all that mattered, and the result has been greater glory than humanity could have ever imagined.

3.Unexpected Lesson: God loves a mystery. If you don’t believe God loves a mystery, just read his book. In chapter one of Genesis you’ll find an eternal, self-existent, all-powerful being – Someone in need of absolutely nothing. And yet, He created. He spoke and everything that exists was formed, from the awe-inspiring, mammoth sun to the mitochondria that inhabit your very cells. Why would God do that? He had no need. He wasn’t looking for a hobby – and He certainly could foresee the heartache and sinfulness that would run rampant in his creation over time. So why create at all? It’s a mystery.

Unexpected Lesson: Sometimes, we don’t listen to His voice … thinking we do. How? Because the sick need a doctor, and – often really – we refuse to admit we’re sick. I hear Christ calling and I say to myself, He’s talking to someone else. After all, it’s the sick that need a doctor, and surely I’m not sick, am I? It’s a mistake of vision – and the reason we Christians are so often un-Christlike in the way we live, the way we love, and the way we represent our master to the culture in which He’s placed us.


Unexpected Lesson: Jesus is one scary dude. In case you didn’t notice it last time you read “Jesus Calms the Storm” in your Bible, you should know something the disciples obviously recognized: Jesus is (in the best sense possible) one scary dude. After Christ stilled the deadly storm, the Bible says of his disciples: “They were terrified…” That used to confuse me, but as more and more gray hair appears in my beard, I’m beginning to understand. It is both terrifying and exhilarating to serve our mighty God. How awesome is that?


Unexpected Lesson: Christ’s compassion is bigger than my vision. Our job is not to define God’s compassion in miracles or specific blessings. Our job is to trust fully in the complete working of his compassion – to trust Jesus with the keys to our lives even when his vision for us appears to be radically different from our expectations of Him. The Woman with an Issue of Blood desperately wanted healing. But she desperately needed: Restoration. Acceptance. Affection. Belonging. And Jesus refused to let her leave until her heart got all it needed – even though it scared her nearly to death.

Unexpected Lesson: Sometimes God Refuses a Miracle! Did you notice that in all the fuss of Matthew 11:1–6? John the Baptist’s disciples asked Jesus if He was indeed the hoped-for Messiah. Jesus responded with miraculous, incontrovertible evidence: Miracles abound, dripping freely from Christ almost like sweat on a workman’s brow! And yet there is no miracle for John. No miraculous prison break. No relief. Nothing…but faith. A literal reminder that hardship will invade our world, that miracles may or may not come. But in every circumstance Jesus will always be Christ. That truth is enough to create faith to withstand anything.


Unexpected Lesson: It is no sin to feel sad. When her brother died, Martha fell weeping at Jesus’ feet. She actually blamed Him for the death! Yet, Jesus never scolded her for this. Instead, He reached into her grief with a promise of comfort. Why didn’t Jesus rebuke her for lack of faith? Tell her to stop blubbering and start living? I’d guess it’s because God’s not threatened by honest emotion; because it was no sin for Martha to feel sad at the loss of her brother – even when that sadness was multiplied by a perception that God had let her down.

Unexpected Lesson: Greatness is the DNA of Service. Jesus washed his disciples’ feet. There have been great men and women throughout history. There have been great deeds as well. But only One was able to take the ultimate insult of his time (washing feet!) and turn it into an image of everlasting greatness. Only Jesus could do that – embody greatness of service – because only Jesus is truly great. As for you and me, then, we must learn: One is not great because he serves; one serves because He is great.

Unexpected Lesson: The Cross means we are not safe. The enemies of God are not happy about the freedom Christ created for you. Like wicked slave masters, they want to see you returned to helplessness under the influence of sin. Spiritual and physical forces alike will seek to treat you like they treated Jesus, to mock you, to condemn you, to discourage and abuse you. This is simply the way of life, especially for a Christian. But you must also know that, because of the love that Jesus displayed on cross, you will never be helpless in the face of hardship. Not ever again.

Unexpected Lesson: Joy waits in wounded hands. You might think that upon seeing a deity returned to life, the devoted would be trembling in awe, or hushed to silence, or scared out of their wits – any number of sober, serious responses. But the disciples were overjoyed. Seeing Jesus alive again was both a miracle of resurrection and a happy family reunion. And why shouldn’t it be? Great joy is the fruit of great love, and Jesus’ return from the dead delivered them both. Amen

http://aimtoget.com/board/Others/10-Things-You-Really-Dont-Know-About-Christ.287.html

Highly inspired writings. I'm blessed beyond measure.

LegalWolf:
Lol, yhwh is a true god ehn 🤣🤣🤣🤣💃🏽

Again: do you think you made sense to reasonable thinking humans ?

You just remembered what I said to have made a reverse to ask a question on the basis of the same post that you claimed made no sense to thinking humans? Since you drew out your question from there, do you consider yourself a thinking human according to your own words?

LegalWolf:
Said so much without saying anything. Or do you think you made sense to reasonable thinking humans ?

The same form of rhetoric the defenders of false gods are known for when hit with hard truth.

LegalWolf:
Sweet! We are getting there

At least, you could swallow your world shameless and accept that Arabic is not based on Aramaic, contrary to the initial fabu you dropped on the timeline.... Hahahah future thief!



Yes, I am very empty of the knowledge of aramaic, hebrew and arabic. But I was not the one shameless lying that Arabic is based on Aramaic, or was I? Ehn potential thief

And which of these languages being the oldest is irrelevant to the conversation. Completely irrelevant. I never said one language is older thanthe other or one did not influence the other... So it is your own problem whether Aramaic is older than Arabic ooo not mine! It is your wahala whether Hebrew influenced Arabic not mine...




Dumb, stup1d and an ignorant buffoon! Because they are pre-fixed by the qualifier automatically means the qualifier translates to 'God', ehn? So because I call myself Al-Kwarawiyy, I am god kwara? Or Al-Fulani, I am god Fulani? Ehn TenQ

cc: FxMasterz is this the dumbo you look up to? And stray advocatejare is the imbec1le you expect me to be rating highly and having a conversation with?

You're still expending all your energy in defending Islam in spite of its numerous red flags?

Going by the violence, (Even in your writings, you exhibit the same violence your religion is known for), Mohammedian facism, paedophilia, flawed science, unacceptable logic (or you believe that Satan enters your mouth when you yawn except you cover the mouth, or that Satan sleeps in your nostrils when you sleep as said by Mohammed?), etc. The red flags are too numerous to mention.

Most times, when I read your comments and the violent languages you love to use, I can conclude that it's better to be a Buddhist than to be a Muslim. Buddhists actually have better human relations and more logical explanations for physical events than does Islamists. Meanwhile, they're also serving a false god.

Someday, your eyes would open, and if it never does, I wish you safe journey to your phantom Islamic paradise made solely for your sexual aggrandizement.

AntiChristian:
I shouldn't bother to ask but you have been asking us these asinine questions too?
Plank/speck dey your eyes o!

I have answered all your questions. The only thing I didn't do is to help you differentiate between true disciples and and the synagogues of Satan. You're not a member of Christ's body, so you don't need the answer. It's of no use to you.

Meanwhile, you've not answered a single question I asked you.

Keep deceiving yourself.

AntiChristian:
I shouldn't bother to ask but you have been asking us these asinine questions too?
Plank/speck dey your eyes o!

But, you never answered me. Did you?

AntiChristian:
So which of those Churches have the disciples? Which are Satanic temples?


Na una they talk am among yourselves! You call them non-Christians just like JW call you same!

Yeah! Even those who predicted and failed from election period get temples!

Since you're not a member of the body of Christ, you have no part in the matter of true disciples versus temples of Satan. So, don't bother to ask.

You want to change the topic? Prophetic declarations are words of command in prayers. They're not prophesies about the Future. Prophesies about the future always start with "Thus says the Lord," Or the prophet says "This is what the Lord is telling me right now ". Except there are words like these two above, there are no failed prophesies about the last election.

Men of God can pray their wills or declare their desires but God is sovereign. His will and His counsel will stand at the end of the day.

Now, have you found the solution to the many sordid revelations about your religion on this forum, or have you found a way to reunite the 73 Islamic sects?

AntiChristian:
No be wetin i ask you be this na?

I worship wherever the disciples are. I don't worship in synagogues of Satan that pretend to be the temples of God.

And mind you, you have no right to tag all those denominations you listed as synagogues of Satan because I never said so.

There are disciples even today. It didn't end with the 12. Get my point please.

AntiChristian:
Which disciples Does that include Saul who became Paul after Jesus was no more on Earth? Which Shephard did Paul feed from? Even Peter wey feed with Jesus 24/7 still deny am three times not to talk of Paul wey no meet Jesus!
So what was the quoted verses about?



This is funny! Sect or no sect. I can still pray in many mosques in Lagos depending on where i am at Salah time!

Can you worship with Catholics, Anglicans, Celestial or Cherubim and Seraphim?

Jesus is the One and only Shepherd. The disciples know themselves and are known to the Shepherd.

Have you found solution to the sordid things about your religion for which you always require the help of the mods to help you repress? Have you united the 73 Islamic sects you have around you?