I have not claimed Nigeria's non-development is because it is religious. I would however claim that the sort of religion practised in Nigeria is a factor in our lack of development.
Nations that treat their religions as 'beliefs' tend to be more backward than those that have advanced to 'understanding' their religion. Israel is an 'understanding' nation, while Nigeria is a 'believing' nation.
Vaxx will teach buda about Buddhism. Lol!
Within Japanese Zen, reincarnation is accepted by some, but rejected by others. A distinction can be drawn between "folk Zen", as in the Zen practiced by devotional lay people, and "philosophical Zen". Folk Zen generally accepts the various supernatural elements of Buddhism such as rebirth. Philosophical Zen, however, places more emphasis on the present moment.
The above applies to all religions. There is "folk religion" and "philosophical religion". Even in Yoruba religions you'd find a difference between the lay persons understanding and your's. Nations that predominantly practise "folk religion" are more likely to be more backward than those who don't. And by predominantly, I'm saying not by numbers, but by the leaders. Nations with more philosophically religious leaders progress further than nations where the leaders practise "folk religion".
Israel is an example of a nation that practices philosophical religion, while we Nigerians practise "folk religion". 'Philosophical' nations understand. 'Folk' nations believe.
I have always maintained the stance that a developed nation is the one whose cultural and traditional belief is homogeneous o their religious/ spiritual belief, save for maybe few countries like Brazil, that adopted syncretism, but all this countries are no where developed
vaxx: This is also an incorrect statement. Every truth exist base on their time and event, EXPERIENCE of their time. We are in era of science and technology. Science is also an avenue to explore an alternative truth. And if our new truth now contradict our pre existing truth, it only validate development and so shall the next future truth contradict our today truth If possible.
Contradiction is necessary to human development. Philosophy , science all stems out of contradiction.
Our brain is a matrix, it can process all form of possibilities.
are you saying we will and must explore all possible realities?
johnydon22: Yes, it was in fact religion. Ancient religion and science were inseparable from one another. Take for instance, in ancient Mesopotamia, when administering the medicine for tooth ache, you'd be required to recite a form of cosmological poem, it was short, but it began from recounting how the universe was created down to the worm that causes toothache - You can see how something as simple as curing tooth ache bears a largely profound spiritual, religious and cosmological significance to them.
Science in its raw form is simply a philosophy of nature, trying to understand the world. These ancient sciences did just that. When on high the heaven had not been named, Firm ground below had not been called by name, Naught but primordial Apsu, their begetter, (And) Mummu†-Tiamat, she who bore them all, Their waters commingling as a single body; No reed hut had been matted, no marsh land had appeared, When no gods whatever had been brought into being, Uncalled by name, their destinies undetermined—Then it was that the gods were formed within them.
The Enuma elis
This almost poetic short story up there, attempts to answer the same cosmological question big bang also attempts to answer today, the short comings and limitations around it is from its lack of methodical empiricism.
It is both setting the ground for the fundamentals of their spirituality and answering the question of how we came to be here. Only the priestly class held these knowledges or even studied to find out more, they charted the stars, read the clouds, observed planetary orbits and practiced what you could correctly identify as the beginning of every form of science we have today.
These two only differed in application, while modern science has come up with determined guidelines and methodology, this ancient methods was less methodical. Modern science is an open source pool, ancient science was mystic, assessable only to the priestly class.
Humans have always been reasonable beings - i am finding it difficult to understand what you mean by "moment humans started to employ use of logic and reason"
Well I might be wrong maybe with the wrong use of word " logic" but one word you used above caught my eyes " methodical empiricism " . You also said modern science came with a set of guidelines which was lacking in ancient science. We are saying the same thing, only that I took it further by insinuating that ancient humans who practiced science only knew vaguely what they were doing , maybe that's the reason a cult or secret soceity was built around it, not that they really knew in empirical details how it works. To them, it was like a prizes possession, jealously guarded. Take for example how human discovered fire, might be by accident or whatever means intentional or coincidental, the science behind striking two stone together as a result of friction and heat that produce fire might not really be something they want to fancy to explain. This is why I said in my earlier premise that human beings started using logics and reasoning as a result of evolution of our brain. Don't get me wrong, not that it was not there. It was because part of part of that brain that wants an explanation of how when two stones are striked together to produce fire, was not exercised enough to. Like a consciousness shift. I will say. I hope you get my point
[quote author=budaatum post=78830199]Actually, Genesis 1 was primitive humans' 'scientific attempt' to explain what they observed with their senses, which is what science is. We today, standing on the shoulders of those early primitive giant 'scientists', are just way too arrogant (or most likely too stupid) to understand what they began and clearly informed us to keep on doing.
Exactly my point. I do not subscribe to any religion, but take it or leave it, earliest human were scientists the way they can be or biologically put, the way their brain afforded them to be. They set the precedent.
budaatum: Actually, Genesis 1 was primitive humans' 'scientific attempt' to explain what they observed with their senses, which is what science is. We today, standing on the shoulders of those early primitive giant 'scientists', are just way too arrogant (or most likely too stupid) to understand what they began and clearly informed us to keep on doing. Exaactly my point. I do not subscribe to any religion, but take it or leave it, earliest human were scientists the way they can be or biologically put, the way their brain afforded them to be. They set the precedent. Or would you like to argue that "[i]Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground" is not very clear instruction to do science and be blessed?
[/i]. Very well said. Though, I think the religion being practiced today has been kind of watered down, hijacked by whoever or whatever organisation that wish to profit from it and lastly, it has being severely stripped of it scientific side and made into mere work of literature stoically followed by overly religious junkies.
budaatum: Actually, Genesis 1 was primitive humans' 'scientific attempt' to explain what they observed with their senses, which is what science is. We today, standing on the shoulders of those early primitive giant 'scientists', are just way too arrogant (or most likely too stupid) to understand what they began and clearly informed us to keep on doing.. Exactly my point. I do not subscribe to any religion, but take it or leave it, earliest human were scientists the way they can be or biologically put, the way their brain afforded them to be. They set the precedent. Or would you like to argue that "[i]Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground" is not very clear instruction to do science and be blessed?
[/i]. Very well said. Though, I think the religion being practiced today has been kind of watered down, hijacked by whoever or whatever organisation that wish to profit from it and lastly, it has being severely stripped of it scientific side and made into mere work of literature stoically followed by overly religious junkies.
budaatum: Actually, Genesis 1 was primitive humans' 'scientific attempt' to explain what they observed with their senses, which is what science is. We today, standing on the shoulders of those early primitive giant 'scientists', are just way too arrogant (or most likely too stupid) to understand what they began and clearly informed us to keep on doing.. Exactly my point. I do not subscribe to any religion, but take it or leave it, earliest human were scientists the way they can be or biologically put, the way their brain afforded them to be. They set the precedent.
Or would you like to argue that "[i]Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground" is not very clear instruction to do science and be blessed?
[/i]. Very well said. Though, I think the religion being practiced today has been kind of watered down, hijacked by whoever or whatever organisation that wish to profit from it and lastly, it has being severely stripped of it scientific side and made into mere work of literature stoically followed by overly religious junkies.
Johnnydon, I think in my own view, we should ask which started first, religion or science? During mans earliest time, there was a need to form a school of thought, kind of like a creed that encompass the moral, philosophical and scientific view of which earliest man must follow. Hence , the need for religion. But was it really religion, I don't know. Then many concept easily ecplanied away in science today was vaguely understand by them if I am right. The mentality of if it ain't broke, don't fix it. The Pandora box was yet opened. Also, I think the answer to your question may not be far fetched, if we have to consider and study human brain development for reasoning along the course of human civilizations. This makes me understand that atheism and its like are newer or recent concept, the moment human started to employ the use of logic and reasoning.
Yes, majority of anarchist are non coercive even if they agree objectively to be anti authoritarian, aside that all pyjet of their views are subjective with respect to each belief. Mind you, I know where you are getting at Sir. Anarchism is not a religion, neither is it a school of thought sef, and also may not be wholly about being anti authoritarian, anarchist live their life devoid of any central dogma or belief, save for the one they subjectively created for themselves mostly as form of moral compass. The term anarchism is very complex to practice though. But you lean closer to one. I hope you get and understand me.
budaatum: Oh, I agree that rationality is somewhat objective and can be free from bias, and is adequate for accessing one's morality. Except that early this year I had a crisis of rationality (though unrelated to my morals) whereby I began questioning if I was being dishonest and rationalising the irrational.
It's something I took up years ago with my dad in the form of "lying to oneself" . Having thrashed it out for years, we concluded, that if one lies to oneself, one deludes oneself, and it is a delusion to be mindful of, hence my comment about being brutally honest with oneself, at least.
Not only must one constantly try to be rational in order to maintain objectivity, one must also be honest with oneself and not lie to oneself and be diligent in checking always too.
Let me know the differences you might still see in objectivity. I'd gladly trash it out with you.
Are you an anarchist, budaatum? Your arguments so far leans towards that school of thought. Just asking though.
In philosophy, you will have to go a long way ,like What is "1"? What is "+"? What is "2"?… if “1” is stands for a single object and "+” action is takes both sides, add them and dived by 2 (for normalization) and we will keep the original mining of “=” and “2” will be 2 objects. Then, 1+1=2 is a false statement. Therefore logically we can arrive that 1+1 is not 2 unless in a conventional settings where will want to work with agree axioms( you call it opinion in your earlier definition ) I assume.
Exactly vaxx, I agree with you on this one. You see subjectivity makes us unique in our thought. In the end, objective idea or theory exist because of a " consensus agreement" that is why 1+1 may or may not always be equals to 2. But one thing that keeps me confused is, is nature itself objective. Like for example when you wake up in the morning it must never be dark, everything is clear, also at night it is always dark. I can give numerous example of which you and I can relate with. Is the working principle of nature objective regardless of ones subjective view in trying to explain it? Budaatum ,vaxx
[quote author=budaatum post=66918270]There is a reason why I am careful when I write stuff, especially on forums. Experience has shown me that words can easily be misunderstood, especially by those who are hell bent on sticking to their positions irregardless of opposing evidence.
If I had 100 Naira in my pocket at 2pm on Saturday 21 April 2018, and spent half of it by 4pm that day. It is still absolutely true that I had 100 Naira in my pocket at 2pm on Saturday 21 April 2018 even though I had only 50 Naira by 4 pm that day. And there's nothing relative about it. Time just passed, and circumstances changed!
Prince Harry may one day become the president of Nigeria, but currently (and you may go back and see that I have been careful not to omit that word), it is an absolute objective verifiable truth to claim that Buhari is the current president of Nigeria, and Prince Harry is not. And by current, I mean today, 21 April 2018.
Please note that in my opinion, a person who claims that absolute truth is impossible has no basis on which to claim gods absolutely exist. Such a person would find it difficult to simply cross a road because they would never be certain they wouldn't get run over by the invisible non-existent approaching car! In fact, that person would not live very long at all! What Ogun an Sango above saw is not relative, but observed at different times! Or perhaps the sekete they drank with their dinner went to their eyes![/quote
Vaxx, you should know science itself is not all that unified science which based itself of objective truth aided by empirical data, statistics stem from an individual subjective view. Another thing is you know there are several school of thought on science. This makes it of the view that the seed science of a proven theory started out as a subjective thouhgt. This is the basis of where other theory was laid. Or have you not heard about various theory In science being discarded or not possible. How are you sure we are even practising the right science, is it because it works for us.
To each is own reality, in the end, everything Is a paradox
orisa37: The Book of Hebrew written by Christ Himself during His 40days Stay-on-Earth before His final Departure into The Sky, tells us that 1, Genesis to Malachi are all metaphors predicting the coming of the Son of Man. 2, The Gospels are metaphoric responsibilities of The Son of Man and 3, The Epistles are metaphoric capabilities of the Son of Man to become The Son of God.
The only fact of The Bible is God, The Supreme Spirit and us through Trials and Struggles to graduate from Sons and Daughters of Men to Sons and Daughters of God, The Supreme Spirit.
So if you are looking for a book that is rigid and inflexible about Life, The Bible isn't. The Bible cannot be pinned down into a ridiculous corner for all sorts of accusations and vetuperations of the Atheists.
budaatum: Thats ok. I get you. When I was an atheist though, I never lacked belief in the existence of gods. I just knew they didn't exist in my own mind. They very definitely did exist in the minds of those in whom they existed however. Amazing what one can cook up in ones own mind. I do resent 39 cooking up of stuff in his own head, claiming he does not believe it then making out I do! You trying to spread your crap to my head, 39?
Can things exist in my mind alone and nowhere else and still exist? Or do things not exist in my mind?
To each, his own reality. In the end everything is a paradox.
You are looking for knowledge; therefore, I suggest you tone down your approach. Why? Knowledge and debate are parrallel. They never meet.
Debate eventually leads to fight, and I have seen it on your threads. People are beginning to provoke you, and vice versa. It has happened to me countless of times..lol. I am not a saint.
I read where you said no one knows how this earth came to existence. You said you do not fully agree with the big bang theory and religion. However, the big bang theory makes more sense to you. Infact, I agree with you. The issue is I agree with you using logic.
But I think you have omitted one area - reasoning. Hmmm. This is why I said it is knowledge you are searching for.
For you to say you do not agree with the Big Bang theory, then, it means you might agree with me that science itself is flawed. And if sciences is flawed, logic is flawed too. For example, life after death is a topic science is beginning to explore in a different dimension now.
Serious questions you have put forward. If I am going to be honest with you, I have no logical answers to the conception of a virgin, the mystery behind a talking donkey, the ability of a hand to write on wall, etc. But I took another dimension and I reasoned deeply. Knowledge = Reasoning. Logic is just a small part of reasoning. Science itself is a fraction of reasoning in my own opinion.
Does God Exist? A big question. I abandoned science since I noticed that science itself is confusion. Today, it arrives at a conclusion, tomorrow it is refuted, and next tomorrow it seems further investigations are needed. I am sure it is why you too said that the Big Bang Theory is not 100% meaningful to you.
Again, religion does not make sense. I agree. It doesn't; however, it will start making sense with deep reasoning. But let me state clearly here: most religious people are empty barrels. There are many truths in the Bible. It just depends on how you interprete them. For example: Narrow is way to life, and broad is the way to destruction. It does not make sense to many. A simple explanation is even the people (so called christians) who always quote it are empty barrels and definitely are heading to destruction. Is it not so obvious that they are heading to destruction? Yet they never realise it. Now tell me: is this not a metaphor?
Of all your threads, this one interests me the most. My advice is that you do not throw away the metaphors in any book, especially in the Bible. Decoding metaphors = reasoning. This is life to me.
Knowledge is silence. It is not loud. Why do you think you can get answers to your questions with memes and strong debates. Except you want to show your ability to debate and win, and show how eloquent you are. And at the end you need to ask yourself if you grow more in knowledge with such approach.
Naturally, I avoid making comments when it comes to religion, but when critical reasoning is involved, I always participate. Hey! I abuse only scammers. And they are damn too many on this forum. I will write more about these scammers later. Many times, you just must pretend to be naive and play along to get to the root of the issue. You really do not need to debate aggressively if you really want to learn more. Knowledgeable people will move away from you if you appear to be too confrontational. But I am not ruling out writing or speaking many words because it is necessary at times.
Dearest XxSabrinaxX, I do not have much time to go through all your posts, but the ones I went through seem to omit another area. And it is my prayer you heed my advice and retrieve so you can learn more.
Best of luck!
Bro logic is open source, anyone can use logic. Logic does not depends on science. Rather the other way round. Logic can be user to dissect, understand and possibly proffer solution to a problem. By the can u give me the proper definition of science
The theory was one alternative to the Big Bang which, like the Big Bang, agreed with key observations of the day, namely Hubble's red shift observations, and Hoyle was a strong critic of the Big Bang. He coined the term "Big Bang" on BBC radio's Third Programme broadcast on 28 March 1949. It was popularly reported by George Gamov and his opponents that Hoyle intended to be pejorative, and the script from which he read aloud was interpreted by his opponents to be "vain, one-sided, insulting, not worthy of the BBC".[23] Hoyle explicitly denied that he was being insulting and said it was just a striking image meant to emphasize the difference between the two theories for the radio audience.[24] In another BBC interview he said "The reason why scientists like the "big bang" is because they are overshadowed by the Book of Genesis. It is deep within the psyche of most scientists to believe in the first page of Genesis".
bukatyne: This thread is one of the first I am seeing men give concrete advise as regards a cheating wife.
None of the dramatics, we are getting there.
@OP: You married your husband for money hence the 20yr gap while you desire a young guy sexually.
So far, your husband has been good to you, doing his own side of the bargain. Still you found a side bobo and after round 1, you want more (naturally).
These facts tell me that you are currently not capable to think long term or deep enough to match actions with consequences.
If you were, 1. You wouldn't have married papi when it is a young man that sets you on fire.
2. After sleeping with the young man, you would have cleaned mouth because you know that long term is destruction.
That side, except you have a mind shift, you will sleep with the young guy again and again and when he is done, you will pick someone else.
It is good that you did not lay the blame on him however on yourself so the solution is not him changing or gyming but your mindset has to change.
Unfortunately in sexual matters, the intended heart wants what it wants.
So you need to retrain that heart to desire your husband and learn styles that make up in charge so you tell him what to do.
You would be shocked that your husband also desires to flip you but is scared you might not like it.
You can also initiate role play where you are his girl and ask him to do whatever he likes.
Again, older men marry younger women for their youth. Have you brought youthfulness to his life or are you waiting passively for him to initiate?
Worst case, get good dildos and fvck yourself to stupor if that would satiate you.
Need I say you should go and sin no more?
However, if you want to destroy your marriage and future of your kids, you can ride on with the dude.
Another wisdom filled post. You hit it right there, on spot. Love isn't enough for a long lasting marriage. Most times, we need to know in details what your heart really needs, not just what we desire. She Prolly went for financial security and also being that she's Prolly naive too relationship wise, (I doubt if she's had enough experience being in a relationship), maybe she wanted a protection sort of, maybe that's why she went for a man way older than her, maybe she only loved her man because, they pursue the same goal careerwise, while ignoring other salient but important aspect of her marital life. But whatever the case maybe, she needs to reorientate what she wants in her man. She needs to build him up with his support to her sexual taste.
virgoquin: Why don't you encourage your hubby to enroll for gym classes.
You didn't find him sexually attractive and you still went ahead to get married to him.
sleeping with another guy outside your marriage doesn't worth it at all. Highest fifteen mins pleasure and the rest days you live to regret it.
You have to take a bold stand to let go of the other guy outside how sure are you sef that you are the only one he is sleeping with. with all the kind of disease flying around town
This response is unarguably the most honest and sincere of all response. No string attached, but honestly I love you for your comment, more to the fact you are even a Virgo like me, madam you deserve an applause
ifyalways: Emma, im short of words at your situation. Im not religious so im blind to whatever religious undertones(if any) in your write up.
What about the investment you made with part of the loan? Ypu were not a novice in car hire/driving business so im truly surprised you invested part of that loan into town service.
You seem to be too trusting. . .and have very little business acumen. Can you take a break from all business and just look for a job, work,collect your salary, flex and save. No be all of us go be CEO or business man.
You could even look for an established church that will employ you. I assume Pastors are paid monthly
Edit: Why do you need a pastor or fellow man to help you pray/conduct deliverance etc ,if at all theres any spiritual undertone to your wahala? MFM pastors are human too . . Just like you. You made bad choices and decisions,C'est finis. I see nothing spiritual with your problems. Who works and saves his salary with his boss? Pray, bind and cast all you want, if you dont wisen up as a man and face the street headstrong, nothing will change.
I will love to take you for a treat for this wisdom filled response. But distance constraint will not allow me. Anyways, so much wisdom is in your reply. I love it.
budaatum: I'm going to laugh at your mention of Odysseus. If anything, it should have been included in your dead gods, at least the ideas about gods in Odysseus should be. A comparable god I can think of is the God in the first six books of the Bible. And in my opinion, if that God had not evolved into Jesus Christ, we'd have killed it off too as Jung advised we should all our gods. I wonder if you know what he meant by that? Least be said, Odysseus is a far less complete description of whatever God may possibly be.
Jacobniegowski is referring to Jung's God. Jung derived a lot of his understanding of God from his study of the Christian God and how it evolved from pre-Christian ideas. He also wrote about the similarities of gods since his focus was in understanding and treating the psychological effects of people influenced by religion. To be honest, if you understood Jung, you'd very likely understand what I'm saying which tempts me to ask you what Jung's you've actually read.
The Bible itself is merely an image of God as conceived by those who wrote it. Yet even they managed to convey the fact that their image does not adequately describe God and warned of the error of making images of God because they would never completely describe whatever God may be. Christ sure is written to have warned against thinking God is whatever you may have read or thought God may be when he is written to have said "humans should not live by bread alone or they'd die of malnutrition." John too made us aware that the Bible is not a complete description of God with his "[url=https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+21%3A25&version=NIV]Jesus[/url] did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written". And the Quran, which you mention, also claims to be incomplete when it is written in Luqman 31:27 that, "If all the trees upon the earth were pens and the sea [was ink], replenished thereafter by seven [more] seas, the words of Allah would not be exhausted. Indeed, Allah is Exalted in Might and Wise".
All this suggest that one should read every word that proceeds from God if one wishes to know God, a daunting endeavour no doubt, which is why most just simply believe. But even if one can read all that God wrote, one still has to work out what books these would be. Knowing this, how you can possibly claim any one book adequately describes God in books which clearly say otherwise amuses me. And you've failed to mention way more detailed expositions of God like that of pre-Christian Plato - writings which influenced the understanding of God in the Bible and likely made it necessary.
So that leaves us with your unknowability of God. I suggest you speak from your own view and your own knowledge and opinion of God obviously gathered from what has been religionised into you. This I say because you mention a "God of religion", as in an understanding gotten from a "particular system of faith and worship", which to me is bread alone and not every word that proceeds from the mouth of God. You also show this inadequacy in your claim that "The Gods of religion is an invention to control people", when the evidence suggests the exact opposite. Or do you seriously think humans would be freer without the religious texts they read? Is it not true that one who knows is less likely to be controlled? Is it not true that those who do not read get enslaved and controlled by those who do read? I put it to you that you perhaps have not read!
Those who assume they cannot know God are the sort whom when God is said to have said to Moses, “Come up to the Lord, you and Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel. You are to worship at a distance, but Moses alone is to approach the Lord; the others must not come near. And the people may not come up with him”, don't say what buda says. Buda be like, "What the fuq, Lord! Has Moses got two heads?! Is it not you who created buda also? I'm coming up too. And I'm coming near you!" Those who do not go up with buda and Moses, Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel will most surely be controlled by those who do go up the mountain.
I'm going to suggest to you that God is very knowable, or at least, one can know quite a lot about God. One can study every book said to have been written or inspired by or about gods to gain a better understanding, at least. Then there's that which in Christianity is called the Comforter, which Christ is said to be sending back to minister to one when he's returned to the Father. He might have meant one's own ability to comprehend and reason, but I assure you that dim eyes would have a hard job understanding unless they become as children who have no preconceived ideas, opinion, dogmas, or beliefs. It is this inability to reenter your mother's womb that makes you insist on your dogma that religion is a means of control. I'll leave you with anecdotal evidence that it isn't.
Christianity in Europe in medieval times was a means of education. Humans were brutes in those days and needed it. That same religion is what Europeans have used to free themselves as we can observe today. They have killed their Gods and moved on as they rightly should since its just a boat used to cross a river. Boats becomes useless and weigh one down if held on to after crossing the river. You'd find they weight would determine how far you walk and would act as a controlling influence. You are blaming the boat instead of the fools who can't let go and free themselves from it's unnecessary burden, I'll have you consider.
Budatum, I must confess I love your write-up above. But my question is are you arguing from a philosophical angle. Because, your argument lean in that direction. Musicwriter might have a vendetta against religion. But I think he's arguing for the necessity of doing away with our culture in favour of religion that does not concerns us, I think that his where he is right. Do we really need it. What happened to us going back to African spirituality, is there any crime in that. And from your write up, I can deduce you are a liberal man who believe there's truth in every school of thought. But why must it be the status quo. And we should ask ourselves this question too, has religion been found worthy to achieve spirituality, has it been found worthy to be a moral guideline to live a morally upright life.
Naijaguy123: An honest and industrious Yoruba man wines and dined with ambassadors while crook Atiku the Ibo worshipped can not even get a visa to leave Nigeria without the help of Obasanjo, Sarahi and America lobbyists. This is another industrious son of Oduduwa doing wonderfully well. Kalu is the richest Ibo man but only this mans cars collection is equivalent of Orji Kalus worth .Well done sir, Oduduwa a gbe wa and don’t forget to do some charitable works.
And the answer is because ancient people first worshiped the sun, which they conceived as sitting in the center of the universe. They called the sun the light of the world. It ended up in Matthew 5:14-16. They called it the bright morning star. It ended up in Revelation 22:16.
They were able to calculate the suns life rotation and they realized the sun passes through 12 constellations (star systems)- Aries, Taurus, Gemini, Cancer, Leo, Virgo, Libra, Scorpio, Sagittarius, Capricorn, Aquarius and Pisces. See attached image.
They divided the time into 12 ages; just like the Chinese still say they're in the age of dragon and later they'll enter another age according to their calculation. By the way, that's how the 12 disciples later emerged.
The sun is permanently in the center, so they believed the sun had crucified itself at that location to save humanity. See attached image.
Its not difficult to see how the idea of a cross could drift into the mind of an artisan to use a cross emblem as the representation for all the crucified saviors- see below how I cut out part of the image. That's how they arrived at a cross. This video throws more light.
Note: Nobody died on the cross, ancient people didn't understand it that way, rather they understood it symbolically as I explained with the sun. In neighboring Benin republic, the voodoo initiate still die for 3 days and resurrects on the 3rd day. Till today, they still symbolically commemorate the death and resurrection of an initiate!.
Imperialist Europeans are the ones who harnessed these ancient myths and anthropomorphized it to control the world. And the reason they made it that way is so they can say they witnessed the resurrection of Jesus and, therefore, should sit on the top hierarchy of the belief system they created- which is how the catholic church was born. It remained the only one universal church until about 1054 AD or thereabout when it began to disintegrate.
See below image, and do watch that video for more information.
Allow me some input in this. The ancient sun worshippers believed the sun to be the centre of the earth, therefore they divided it into twelve circles or houses through which the sun passes. just like your Jesus in between the two thief each houses exhibit unique characteristics. that is, the twelve constellations, aside that each of this houses are grouped under four basic elements. This elements are what makes up the being we are and the planet we live in The elements of air, water, earth and fire we all know they the roles of each of these elements and how they behave. each of the house or constellations must posses each of this characteristics. Libra is an air sign, Virgo is earth, cancer and Pisces are water sign, Aries is an air sign Leo, I think is a fire sign and so on. each of the twelve disciples exhibit different characteristics and this gives us the four cardinal point of the earth . everything is freaking interwoven and tangled to explain, only if we are patient and willing to connect the dots.
I swear, most people commenting on this thread are gold diggers, wanting to take a rip off that guys discovery. it is laughable, some are even putting down their numbers, while some has turned to overnight archaeologist. naija people I hail oo. if you can mind read most people commenting on this thread, you will be surprised some of them are after what they gain. They be like sweet talking and coercing the guy. I will only advise the guy to stop any further excavation and contact credible people who has authority in line of archaeology and collection of artifact, I am sure they will compensate you. But you having any intention of selling like some people here are advising you to do is very wrong. This is the problem of a typical black man, selfish and after his own gain!
we sit on an acres of diamond, but we will rather sell it for a penny to gratify our lustful desire for the moment and when the wise buyer put to good use what he bought, we say he looted us, when we looted our heritage to him. a Yoruba adage, says Kokoro t'on je'fo inu efo lowa.
Shepherd00: You mean hear say as in people telling me they met Him in person?
I have had several Spiritual encounters with Him that I know beyond every reasonable doubt that that was Jesus. In person, tho, flesh and blood, standing and talking to me with a human voice, no, I have not met Him. But anytime I get confused about a thing and I need direction, I ask Him to point me through, He does it. He even did 2 days ago.
we cant say he's right or wrong, but my personal conviction tilts towards the premise that he might be right, but because you let your hands think faster than your noggins. therefore, we all leave you to spit trash from your mouth and think from your anus like a turtle, save for Loj who choose to entertain your dissent and have got the patience to boil you like boiling stone. but since we know they cannot soften. then we can't help but put you back to where you belong. among your fellow stones, stonehearted fellow. Loj, would you please continue?
Christianity Etc › Re: What Actually Happen After Death? Black Emptiness Or New Dimension Of Life by hayoholla(m): 11:00am On Jun 18, 2019
