₦airaland Forum

Toba, you're not addressing my question.

My concern is when you say "God is experimenting" or "God was left with no option". You carry out experiments to find out if something works; you're left with no option if you're pushed to a corner or your hands are tied - so to say. That can never be said of an Almighty and All-knowing God.

God never needs to carry out experiments. He knows everything before hand and everything works according to His Perfect Plan.

That's where I'm drawing your attention to.

This guy sure knows his PR!

If he's not predicting football scores of a Youth Championship, he's carrying bags of rice on his head. Amazing.
2011 is around the corner; will the posters start coming? Let's wait and see 

@toba

As at this period God was experimenting with human nature like prophets in which mohammad falls into this category.The names  above are human being&not spirits.U no theres no way impection& human error/mistake will never set in.Moses did,mohammad did&david all made mistakes during their reign.God was left with no option to save mankind than to change plan by not using human nature again.Thats when Jesus came

God was experimenting, God was left with no option?!  I can't believe this.

Is God a man that He will experiment? Is God limited like us humans that He will be left with no option? Questions for you to answer my friend.

Has he been found?

Now this is very serious. The Tribune website is not going through! Or has the FG pulled it down? The only site (I've seen so far) supporting the story is the one at www.elombah.com

The earlier the Senate and the FEC rise up to their responsibility the better for this country

@Abuzola

@ibrahimB- Yes jesus will kill the unbelievers,  mind you he will come at the time of masihu (messiah) dujjal the anti christ,  no unbeliever will remain, it is either they have convert to islam or be exterminated. I have a hadith on it

If you notice, I stressed the word ALL in my previous posts. I'm aware of the hadith you're referring to. When you say Jesus will kill all the unbelievers it doesn't paint the whole picture. There's a thin line between "Jesus will kill all the unbelievers" which was your first submission and what you've just stated (or restated) above. I hope you can see that thin line?


@All

I can see this thread has derailed a bit. (Religious Threads on Nairaland will always derail anyway). I think it will do this thread a lot of good if we keep the our posts objective and keep the religious sentiments a little bit down.

@macayub

Where did you see Abuzola and I fighting? Because I disagreed with him does that mean we're fighting Goodness!

Besides, we were not 'fighting' over the messiahship of Jesus but on his statement that Jesus will kill all unbelievers. Though, Jesus will wage a war (as confirmed by the Book of Revelations), when you say Jesus will kill all unbelievers, it leaves a negative impression.

@Deepsight

And in all of this why did you fail to mention the fact that your supposed "greatest man" was a champion Paedophile, sleeping with 9 year old Aisha? ? ?

Yeah, I know this is your favourite one.  Muhammad to you is no more and no less than his marriage with Aisha.  Unfortunately, it hasn't stopped some prominent non-muslims from appreciating Muhammad's worth

Please can you define who a paedophile is?

@Abuzola

he will kill all the unbelievers and will raise the flag of islam up

Please where is it said that Jesus will kill ALL the unbelievers?! We should be careful what we say, please!

@igbo boy

DEFINITELY NOT JESUS, MOHAMMED? DEPENDS ON YOUR VIEWS ABOUT HIM,


NOT JESUS BECAUSE ALTHOUGH HE CAME DOWN TO EARTH HE IS HIGHER A SUPREME BEING, THE ALPHA AND OMEGA, THE BEGINING AND THE END, SO ITS AN INSULT TO PUT HIM IN THIS CATEGORY,

WHILE MOHAMMED BEING A MAN CAN COMPETE FOR THIS AWARD, WITH HITLER, ISHMAEL, DAVID WHATEVER COS THEY WERE ALL HUMANS, LETS BE COMPARATIVE WITH OUT COMPARISONS,

Relax man!! You don't have to shout - We can hear you

So Trueseeker, here's another view what say you? Since Jesus is not human (sic), he cannot be competing in the "Who-is-the-greatest-man-in-the-world" show

Umm,  but we have a little problem here igbo-boy. The Muslims believe Jesus is human, the Jews believe Jesus was human, the Bhuddists and Confucionists believe Jesus is human. Everybody, other than a christian believes Jesus (if they believe he existed even) is human. Come, even some Christian Denominations and Sects believe Jesus was human. So what do we now do?

@Trueseeker

As I said you're free to agree or disagree with Michael Hart. He's just human like yourself. But that being the case, this work must be mentioned in this discussion. What makes the work particularly notable is that it was the opinion of a non-muslim on the Muslim Prophet.

The tendency is for a Jew to say Moses was the greatest man, the christian to say Jesus is the greatest man, the Bhuddist to say Bhudda was the greatest man and the Muslim to say Muhammad is the greatest man.

So we must look beyond faith in determining who the greatest man is.

If Jesus is a Messiah to Muhammad then Jesus is a Leader greater than him

What do you think "Messiah" means? Ask any Jew familiar with the Old Testament what the messiah means. In its truest sense, the Messiah was a temporal King the Jews were awaiting who will be along the line of David who will deliver the Jews. That the Messiah was sent to the whole world is a christian idea. The Messiah was to be a national saviour and not a king to have world-wide dominion.

Muhammad corroborated the Jews on this aspect.

The story is a hoax. Do you guys just believe anything because it rubs you the right way? A story of such magnitude will surely be carried by major television stations and reputable websites? The other day, another hoax circulated that a girl was turned into an animal (or something) for kicking the Qur'an. Pictures were even posted round, and the gullible faithfuls rejoiced!

It had to take the efforts of a major Newspaper, Weekly Trust, to debunk the claims.

You can read more about the "man-kills-wife-over-bible-in-egypt" hoax here: http://www.hoax-slayer.com/egypt-murder-miracle.shtml

I also use the site to check out the spurious email messages that continually hit my inbox like the worst-virus-ever-even-mcafee-can't-remove or the you'll-receive-a-pleasant-surprise-if-you-send-this-email-to-at-least-ten-people and similar jargon.


PS

--------------------

The most important thing to make you stick with any belief is whether you're intellectually and emotionally at peace with that belief.
Relying on wonders and miracles will only have you jumping from one religion to another, continually seeking for the biggest miracle on offer.

@Poster

It will be very important to mention the book The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History which was a significant work written on this subject. The book was written by Michael Hart a Jewish-American Astrophysist and Historian. Interested readers may visit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_100 for more on this work AND of course you are free to agree or disagree with him.

@flexibu

Is it Not possible for a Husband to Be A father, Husband, Friend, Confidante, Son and so on to his Wife?

Well I'm not sure how one can be a son (or father) to his wife (except in the metaphorical sense)    Unless we're referring to the sinister scenario where a boy married his own mother 

Anyway,

1) If you meant "is it possible for a man to be a Husband, Father and a Son at the same time" I will say Yes. BUT, using this example (or any of the examples your provided) is a bad analogy.

This is because while it is true that a man can be both a Husband and Father at the same time, we cannot, for example, say "The Husband said to the Father". That will be unnatural.

This is because the Husband and Father refer to the same person. Unless to the very dogged mind, Jesus and the Father are definitely not the same person.


2) Secondly, a man being a Father and Husband, exists only due to his relationship with others. i.e. He's a father because there's a son and he's a husband because there's a wife. But without these two, he's just simply him. He is not Father and Husband due to his relationship with himself. That will be absurd.

In the case of the christian Godhead, Jesus and God are Son and Father in the absolute sense, independent of any entity outside them/ him.

Though God is also 'Father' to the rest of us (in the sense that He is our provider), when it comes to Jesus and God, this Father-ship and Son-ship are in a very special sense. Christians stress that the way we're the 'sons' of God is not the same way that Jesus is the son of God.

@toba

The contradiction I'm hinting at is claiming Jesus is God and at the same time regarding Jesus and God as two separate and distinct entities.

Because when you say God elevated Jesus, you're inevitably affirming that they're separate and consequently affirming that Jesus and God are not the same.

@toba

Jesus is more than a prophet. Hes God, hes a prophet, a teacher, a king and lots more than u think.I can authoritatively tell u that jesus will never cease to be called any of the names i mentioned till eternity by all christians.

God almigthy even elevated jesus because of humility see philipians 2 vs 5 to 9. it is clearly written what God did therein

In one sweep you contradicted yourself!

Or was I the only one that noticed this? 

@nuclearboy

ROSSIKE:

If a tree falls and there's no one there to observe it, does it make a sound?

Short but very clever nuclearboy!

Actually this discussion reminded me of a poem by T.S. Elliot:

We are the hollow men
We are the stuffed men
Leaning together
Headpiece filled with straw. Alas!
Our dried voices, when
We whisper together
Are quiet and meaningless
As wind in dry grass
Or rats' feet over broken glass
In our dry cellar

Shape without form, shade without colour,
Paralysed force, gesture without motion;

Again, u make an error in my view by placing the ''objects that we see'' in precedence to the signals reaching the brain. It is the signals which are converted to ''the objects'' by the brain. There are no ''objects'' until this conversion has taken place, even if 6 billion people have ''seen'' the same ''object'' before yourself.

Your statement that the signals precedes the objects is incorrect. The object precedes the signal. I believe you're aware of the
Light -> Object -> Retina - > Optic Nerves -> Brain diagram that is so common in texts on Optics?

The characteristics of an object determines the signals it generates. I also gave you the example of the acid.

Even in auditory signals.

For example how do we tell the voice of a man apart from the voice of a woman? The voice of the adult apart from the voice of a child? This is because of the physiological differences in the man, woman and child. The ear (and consequently the brain) has no idea of these differences. But these differences, excite the sorrounding air uniquely, and enables the brain differentiate between the voices of a man, a woman and a child.

What I'm just saying is that objects have inherent characteristics that determine how they're perceived. The object comes before the "signals" and not vice-versa.

@Horus

I think it's better if you start a different thread on this topic; it will be easier replying that way. Thanks.

First, it is not the eye which differentiates between a cup and an elephant. It is the brain. All the eye does is read electrical signals which the brain converts into 3d form.

That's right, but at least you understood what I was saying?  

Do you believe in the existence of non-corporeal entities, or non-physical intelligences?

Of course I do! Believe me, I was about asking you the same question  

You've still not disproved the fact that an object does influence the way it is perceived.

The shape of an object determines how light falls on the retina and ultimately decides how the brain interpretes the object. The reason why we're able to differentiate one object from another is because the objects that we see actively alter the signals that reach the brain.


I can cite so many examples. For example how does the brain tell an acid apart from water when poured on the skin?

In the former case, the brain senses pain. Why? Why did it sense pain in one and not in the other?

Very importantly, the scarring effect of the acid itself happens independent of the brain. Just the same way if you poured the acid on a carpet, that is incapable of perception. The same scarring effect occurs in both instances.

This shows that objects themselves, have inherent physical attributes that is independent of any sensory mechanism.

You this guy, you're very funny.

Never knew I was

If you walk into a cathedral and there's nothing in it except a GRAIN OF SAND in the middle, is the cathedral empty or not? lol.

Mind you I read somewhere that the size of the nucleus and electrons in relation to the atom is even LESS than that of a grain of sand in relation to a cathedral. So what are you saying?

Yes and No. Seriously. No matter how small a grain of sand is to a cathedral, it is THERE. And in the very absolute sense of the word, it is not empty.

You're right when you say an atom is majorly empty space, but it's wrong to say an atom is empty space. You can't argue with that.

Can you tell us the constituents of an atom and the amount of space they occupy (by percentage) in relation to the atom?

Don't bother. I'll tell you. Strictly speaking an atom is 99.999% EMPTY SPACE if by empty space we mean that nothing is discernible in it within our range of perception. (How then can empty space form a ''solid'' object?)

Anything else you write here, is misleading, so stop trying.

I mentioned Quantum Mechanics because you introduced it into the discussion. All I did was to give a concise description of what Quantum Mechanics is and what it's not. There's no show-off here.

Please can you tell me what's misleading about my statements?

You still seem hurt from my first post? Come on man! Please don't be, I never intended to cause hurt. Are my apologies accepted?

You seem more interested in impressing us with your scientific knowledge than with discussing the issue at hand. You say ''the electron mass and charge are known and measured'', but this is beside the point if you're not giving us the figures. Is this because electron mass in relation to the atom is so negligible as to be embarassing to your argument?

No it's not beside the point. Yes, electron mass is very small but that doesn't mean it's non-existent. Besides, the electron is just one part of an atom, we also have the densely packed nucleus. I only cited the electron as a case-point. Even if an atom is 99.999% empty, you cannot discount the 0.0001% that is not empty! In a summary, what[b] I'm just trying to say is if something has mass (no matter how infinetismally small) how can it be said that it's empty[/b]?

The reason we say atoms are empty is not because there is ''nothing in them''. It is because what is in them, ie the energy they contain, is imperceptible to our five sense reality

I'm a little bit confused here. Really. So if there indeed is "something in them" what's the whole point? We're not going to strap everything to our five sense reality are we?

I never said the atom doesn't exist. However, everything that can be ''seen'' is illusion, in that it is the observer's ''faculties'' which determine the form characteristics of what is ''seen''. What is seen has no ''default'' shape, size, or density independent of its observance. Meaning nothing exists in form except when it is ''observed'', and the form and shape it takes depends entirely on the observer's ''faculties''.

This is incorrect. Objects do have an effect on how they are seen. If this were not the case how does the eye differentiate between a cup and an elephant? The shape of an object determines the manner in which light reaches the eye, and that's how we're able to differentiate one thing from another. It's not up to our faculties alone. The shape of an object decidedly has a role in the way it is perceived.

Sorry, if I came off abrasive. But I thought the whole argument was wrong - not that it justified the way I replied. I retract my previous statements

The link I provided describes the philosopy of Solipsism which is the 'proper' name for the view that nothing exists. The philosophy has been around for a while.

Interesting point but utterly irrelevant to the discussion. With the emergence of quantum physics, science has had to concede that atoms, the building blocks of the physical universe, contain nothing but empty space. If you disagree with THAT widely upheld scientific conclusion, do let us know, ''my dear''.

1. Quantum Physics does not say that the atom is empty space. Rather what it said is that energy at the atomic level is quantised (i.e. exists in discrete levels) rather than being continuous.

2. Scientists have since estimated physical properties of the atom. The electron mass and charge are known and measured and have been the basis of many electronics device of which the Television falls among. If you're aware of the Electron Gun (Cathode Ray Tube) you'll understand what I'm talking about.

3. From the duality principle (a concept in quantum physics), energy exhibits both a wave and a particle nature. Light is now known to consist of photons which have a particle nature (i.e. solid). Without this, photoelectric effect, for which Einstein received the nobel prize, will be impossible.


The atom does exist. Because it is imperceptible to our five senses, even when aided by the microscope, doesn't mean it doesn't.  Properties of the atom have been known and measured. How is the nuclear bomb possible if the atom does not exist?

What will Nuclear Fusion and Fission mean?

What will the chemical properties of substances mean?

The human perception captures o n l y a fraction of what exists.

Edit

@Gettysburg
Dr Umar Mutallab was born December 15, 1939 and clocked 70 last week and (if I'm not mistaken) is required by law to resign his position. Hence his so-called "sudden" resignation. Please get your facts straight.


@Beaf
I think it's intellectually lazy on your part to post monkey pictures when engaging someone in a debate. Were you trying to prove something? Surely you can do better than that!


Today was a sad day. Everyday I gain more insight into why Nigeria doesn't work. Why our electricity, our roads, our governments don't work. We hate each other. Yes, that's right: We hate and distrust each other so much that cooperation is impossible. It's like a hopeless marriage that is crying bitterly for a divorce.

Suddenly one man's madness has spiralled into names-calling and diatribes! Too bad.

@Nura723 and Kinkinatus

Are you guys not aware that this post was made almost 4 years ago?! Perhaps the poster has since married another woman?
Maybe even has a kid or two!! Your replies are a little bit late, don't you think?

@ Nezan

Dont you know the difference between ONLY BEGOTTEN son and ONLY SON? silly muslim brainz.

So what is the difference between only begotten son and only son? Kindly explain.

Maybe HB, yes. But if the team performs without HB, then I no really care.

Who is HB? Do you mean Haruna Babangida?

Spain won all their matches. Clean.
GD +23, 6 clean sheets out of 10

Holland won all their matches. Clean.
GD +15, 6 clean sheets out of 8

Germany won all their matches bar 2 which they drew.
GD +21, 7 clean sheets out of 10

Nigeria won all their matches bar 3 which they drew.
GD +15, 9 clean sheets out of 12 (Best at 75% with Holland, so the defence is not that horrible, could be better though)

Italy won all bar their matches bar 3 which they drew. But they played 2 matches less than Nigeria, so Nigeria won 2 matches more.
GD +11, 5 clean sheets out of 10

CIV won all their matches bar 4 which they drew.
GD +23, 7 clean sheets out of 12

South Korea won all their matches bar 7 which they drew.
GD +15, 8 clean sheets out of 14

Thank you Sagamite for these stats.

And did Spain, Germany, Holland, Italy, CIV and SK give their countrymen the high blood pressure the SE gave Nigerians?

Secondly did Spain, Germany, Holland, Italy, CIV and SK wait until the last day, only qualifying because the favourite team surprisingly lost their last game?

Amodu should remain as coach ONLY because it is barely 3 weeks to the mundial.

For example while someone may read excerpts of the Qu'ran where the holy prophet asks someone to be flogged for a 'sin'(quote sin). . .another may quote from another verse where the sinner was spared.

I think cases like this arise because of the time factor in the sharia. The sharia was in stages. Take for example, the consumption of alcohol. In the early stages, it was tolerated, then later it was completely banned. Also we should look beyond the physical aspects of the sharia itself and understand its spirit and purpose. That might also explain why sometimes a single thing might be treated differently.

What better point underscores this than the punishment of death for one changing his faith ?  Huh This was applicable during a time of war when 'crossing to the other side' was tantamount to spying for the enemy. They essentially had ONE Islamic Caliphate,which had both religious and political ramifications. . . to now try to apply such situations to a modern world with geo-political rather than religious boundaries,may be treading on the path of confusion. . . . .

Faith and coercion are incompatible. Faith primarily starts from the heart, before manifesting itself in physical acts of worship. Coercion makes faith meaningless and the whole spirit of the Qur'an (and not just one verse alone!) is against coercion. "Verily We have show him the path, whether he is grateful or is ungrateful, "

I do not know what time the punishment came to being, if it was in a time of war, then it could explain it, and even then probably because one's faith also meant one's allegiance (i.e. political). What I know is that during the time of the Prophet, some apostates have been killed and some apostates have been left alone. That takes us back to the spirit of the law. Why were those apostates killed and why were those apostates left alone?

We need to look at these issues.

The fact is 'Sharia law' contrary to what is perceived by most isn't a well-defined set of specific rules and regulations  that can be easily applied to life situations like say the Northern Nigeria penal code,laws enacted by legislature or precedence set in court.

Rather it is 'custom-based' body of law based on the Quran  and related Islamic text some of which are not completely agreed upon by all Islamic scholars (e.g fiqh,ijma,qiyas)or necessarily coherent or authorized by any single body.

I disagree that the sharia cannot be easily applied to life situations. Many of the aspects of the sharia are clear enough or maybe you're looking at the penal aspects only?

I agree that Islamic scholars do not agree on all aspects of the sharia & that is because some of the hadiths can take on different meanings. That is true because we are human beings, and believe me, Illusion2, the way you see an apple is probably not the same way your neighbour sees that same apple.

What I'm against is the enforcement of a particular madhhab on a people or a particular scholar's interpretation of the law. Look at the example of that woman and Umar! These governments shouldn't be repressive, they should allow for a healthy atmosphere where useful debates take place and people are allowed to express their minds freely.

@GL no i'm not encouraging poor hygiene. there's a naturally acquired kind of immunity; people develop resistance to certain pathogens as a result of exposure to them. someone can grow up in a slum, use dirty public toilets, drink dirty tap/well water, bathe in a dirty river, play/walk in mud, and still become a very healthy adult. whereas, someone who grew up with excellent hygiene can use a dirty toilet once or drink dirty water once and fall really ill. this is simply because he lacks immunity to the pathogens due to his lack of exposure to them.

So what type of environment will you recommend a parent to raise his/her child? I mean, do we deliberately bring down the hygiene level or in some way ensure our babies are exposed to germs?

If it's a scientific fact that poor hygiene improves the human immune system then, should we encourage I'm kind of confused. Or maybe "poor hygiene" wasn't the right phrase to use?

@Poster Osaze himself prefers the No. 9 jersey (just as you see in the picture).