₦airaland Forum

Don't forget the sex. Also very important especially if she wants it. Some women get very horn'y when they are pregnant.

P.S. No, sex generally can't harm the baby. Consult your doctor sha.

Roon9:
Oga mi u r not getting the point, korede bello as we all know is a secular musician.now immagine dbeer parlour opposite my booming Godwin at a Friday ladies night party and my church at that same time is playing d song as well...during our own Friday night vigil....be not unequally yoked with unbelievers

Okay Oga, I actually agree with you that maybe it should not be played in church - so as not to pass across a wrong message. But my only reason for this, is that there are many more appropriate songs that will pass the same message, so why choose this one?

1 Cor 10:23
All things are lawful, but not everything is helpful.

However, I see nothing wrong with a Christian playing it for his own private jubilation or even entertainment - and without any hypocrisy. I don't believe God will frown at a Christian for jubilating and singing 'Na God win' after he passes an exam or interview.

Roon9:
Jus cos something appears morally ryt dat doesn't mean it is edifying.... How does a pastor sing; as I don pop champagne? How you yourself go feel

LOL I see. So popping champagne is wrong? What about eating wedding cake?

I think Jesus ate cake and drank wine (alcoholic, probably, because preservation of non-alcoholic wine in those days was a complicated problem. Alcohol preserves itself so whenever you read "wine" in the Bible, it's not sweet sparkling grape juice. Besides, the party host was asking why jesus wine was served when people were already drunk and wouldn't know the difference. But let's hold that thought). Paul also recommended some alcohol to Timothy in 1 Tim 5:23.

But that's Jesus and Paul and Timothy. Pastors of nowadays shouldn't ever touch alcohol oh. As per say dem pass Jesus and Paul and Timothy.

For clarity, drinking alcohol is never the problem. Getting drunk is the problem. There is a difference.

The same way eating too much food (gluttony) can be a sin is how getting drunk is a sin. Alcohol itself is never the problem.

plaetton:
No.
I am not referring to individual perceptions of reality, but generally agreed upon phenomena.
For example, gravity.
We can't touch it, feel, see or smell it. But we are all subject to it's effects.
We have come to generally agree that gravity is a PULL.
If in the future we discover that gravity is a PUSH, our perception will change according, but its reality will remain.
Therefore, our senses are all we have ever had to define reality.
I ask again, what else do we have to rely upon ?

Well, the truth is that the effects of gravity are imposed on all and sundry, whether we "sense" it or not - so I feel this is a totally different argument. Even the ancient man who imagined that the world is flat and we can fall off its edges, experienced gravity and he was subjected to it. Gravity is a law that applies to all subjects with its pull, regardless of whatsoever object we're considering.

Correct me if I am wrong, but if your argument is that we can sense the effects of gravity but we can't sense the effects of God then you may be wrong because of this: how exactly do you KNOW that we don't already sense this God-effect in some way or another AND that we have since taken it for granted without understanding it (much the same way our antediluvian man took it for granted that everything must fall right back to the ground after it rises in a trajectory, and he gave it not too much further thought)?

plaetton:
I am glad that we are following this sensibly and logically.

Of course, we know that our senses have limations, and therefore that there are likely many things beyond our sensory grasps.

Yes

plaetton:
But whether through our physical senses or through the agency of instruments, our senses give the final stamp of what is real and what is not.

Our senses remain the supreme arbiter of our reality. In fact, the only arbiter of our reality.
What else is there to rely upon?

Our senses being the final stamp on reality - this creates a little problem. We can't all have the same senses fine-tuned to the same degree of accuracy (like the blindness example I earlier gave). This means that based on your sense, your perception of reality might be totally false but you'll have to accept it as the final stamp of what reality is. Remember the "dress is blue/black or white/orange" viral phenomenon that broke the interwebs? i.e. "The Dress (Viral Phenomenon)" on Wikipedia [for some doggone reason, Nairaland won't let me post the link properly] and #TheDress #DressGate on Twitter. Did you follow the conversation? What colours did YOU see? I and my best friend - who each have great eyesight - saw different things.

plaetton:
Therefore, anything that falls beyond the periphery or preview of our sensory observation and analysis SIMPLY does not exist in our reality.
We are free to imagine, speculate and discuss in the abstract terms about what might lie beyond our sensory universe, as long as we keep them in proper contexts as abstract Notions.

It takes faith and magic to automatically convert an abstract notion to real.

This is why we atheists insists that god, an abstract notion, is created in the human mind.
That explains why we are always debating whether it's real or not.

But stuff like the DressGate example just go to show how fickle our sensory perception is. Your reality cannot even be certainly corroborated by another agent, so it cannot be considered objective enough for proper analysis. Thus, I am inclined to accept that sensory perception is not sufficient for a thorough observation of experiences in the universe.

Unless you are saying that each person's reality is independent of other people's perception of THAT reality i.e. reality is malleable and subjective. i.e. anybody can make any claims about their own reality and their claims cannot be evaluated because their reality depends on their subjective sensory experience.

Is this your take?

Bluffly:
Is that how you partake in sunday school or house fellowship? You quoted a verse bolded some text and left the real text addressing the situation which makes you inconclusive. You were asked a simple question and you are forming heady, na wa o. Is that how you spread the word.

Lmao you funny die, walahi

The initial question get as e be, so the answers too must get as dem be.

http://www.christianpost.com/news/prophetesses-who-claim-they-can-predict-the-future-and-heal-the-sick-are-the-focus-of-new-lifetime-reality-show-titled-preach-138740/

'Prophetesses' Who Claim They Can Predict the Future and Heal the Sick Are the Focus of New Lifetime Reality Show Titled 'Preach'.

Lifetime network has announced the premiere date for a new reality show, or "docuseries" featuring four Christian women who believe God has given them powers "to heal the sick, see the future and rid people of their addictions."

As the video indicates, the four women are Charismatic Christians who believe the Holy Spirit is still working today like He did in the early days of the church, when Jesus' followers performed miraculous healings and spoke in tongues. Some prominent modern-day Charismatics include evangelist Benny Hinn and preacher Kenneth Copeland.

http://www.breathecast.com/articles/is-lifetime-exploiting-the-gospel-reality-show-preach-highlights-prophetess-carrying-on-in-church-christians-declare-its-the-end-times-video-27540/

'Lifetime' is receiving a lot of backlash from Christians who are not too happy about their upcoming show titled 'Preach', which will highlight women who are well known by their congregations as a "prophetess."

"The prophetesses are coming..." is the caption on 'Lifetime' about the upcoming show. It premieres Friday June 5 at 10pm/9c on the popular women's network.

The shows description reads:

"With the religious leadership world primarily dominated by men, the show produced by CORE Media Group follows four powerful female leaders who believe God has given them the ability to heal the sick, see the future and rid people of their addictions. Known as 'Prophetesses,' these women speak as the interpreter through whom the will of God is expressed. In order for their legacy to continue, they must enlist a 'protégé' and teach them how to carry on their gift."

In the promotional video, the "prophetesses" are seen charismatically carrying on in the church, yelling, chest bumping, laying hands and breathing on people. What perhaps is the most shocking is that they appear to boastfully be glorifying the gifts, which is something highly discouraged in scripture.

Although the show appears to be targeting Christian viewers many Christians have taken to the Internet to express their disapproval. End Time Headlines says that the show is "more Blasphemous Reality TV headed our way making more of a mockery of the Gospel!"

Both links above show the video trailer for this upcoming reality show. Here is a link to the video on Facebook.

The part where a prophetess chest-bumped one of the congregation made me chuckle, I won't even lie. Disastrously corny and hilarious.

I wonder, what is the recent obsession with Christian reality TV shows that usually end up looking like a joke? Is Hollywood trying to exploit the gospel?

Bluffly:
I asked you a question and you are asking me back. You see confusion

In a religious discussion, after all the back and forth, the best answers always come from yourself to yourself, and there are too many examples of this in the Bible. But nowadays, most people want to be spoon-fed

Cheers mate

Bluffly:
Now what does this song sound like, curse or praise

What do you think?

plaetton:
I am glad that you asked.

Every available sense that I have tells me of the ABSENCE of god in my sensory universe.
There also have been no detection of god,nor even his footprints , with any instruments.
There have been no mathematical equations arriving at, pointing at any extraneous force or manipulator or creator of our universe.

Based on these, I am fully competent to declare that there is no cookie, I mean god, in our universe, in our reality.

Now, I don't know if there are other universes, and certainly not competent to pontificate about who lives there.
God, as far as my common sense observations, does not exist in my universe.
I don't know, and I don't really care what other universe he may live.

Your response is clear, thanks, but I have a couple of other questions and comments.

(1) Do you think the sensory aspect of the universe is the only possible one with which one can appropriate all that the universe has to offer? A loose example; I imagine that a man born blind will have a different perception of things from one who became blind, and as well as from one with bad eyesight and finally one with perfect eyesight. Is there any faint possibility that you may be missing out on some or all of the "kind" of sensory perception at which God may be detected (assuming for a brief moment that this is plausible)?

(2) Detecting objects with instruments is a tricky business because at the end of the observation, we still default to our five senses. Until instruments can make full-blown intelligent deductions by themselves, I think instruments are only an enhancement. Maybe they might even be an obstruction in some cases.

(3) Touche about the mathematical equations, but in my profession I know for a fact that there are very many things in our world that mathematics and physics have modeled successfully and yet they are not at all understood. Thus, modeling a phenomenon does not even mean that it will be understood by the observer. On the other hand, some things have just proven stubborn to model and there has not yet been any success with it - this does not mean that they do not exist.

(4) The part I'm in agreement with you is that within your common sensory perception, God cannot be directly detected. But again, there is a "what if". (See point 1). Is there any chance whatsoever that your sensory perception (the 5 senses as we know them) cannot account for an appreciation of all experiences in the universe?

What do you think?

plaetton:
You keep going in circles repeating the very same false logic.

Let me give another example.
I learn a lot by observing how little children deal with simple issues.

Just last Sunday, I held out my closed palm to my 3yr old niece, and told her that there was a cookie in it.
She quickly pried open my palms, and behold, there was no cookie inside. With a dissapointed face, she looked at me and said, " no cookie".
I insisted that there was cookie inside my now open palm. She looked at it again, then looked at me again , a bit confused, the she shouted " No cookie".

She demonstrated that in as much as she wanted to BELIEVE me, had FAITH in me, yet she saw no cookie in my palm, therefore, she does not BELIEVE that I had a cookie in my palm.

This is basically analogous to the atheist's position on the existence of god.

Now, I want to ask you if you honestly believe that my 3yr old niece needed FAITH to boldly declare that there was no cookie in my palm?

Having used all the possible senses that can be used to check out a cookie (sight, touch and maybe smell; maybe even taste, if she checked for tiny crumbs with her tongue in a desperate bid to believe) in order to ascertain the presence or absence of the cookie, your niece concluded there was none.

To broadly apply your analogy to the atheist's position on the existence of God, we need to agree on what the possible senses are - for detecting God's presence or absence. What have you tried (like your niece did)?

I see that intellectual mastur'bation into old socks of theology is still a thing in these parts.

The real question should be whether something is edifying or not. i.e. does it provide any instruction of positive benefit?

Remember that some secular songs are edifying. E.g. a country's National Anthem, fostering hope, unity, love, peace and togetherness.

In this case, I'll leave you to ask yourself, "Does it pass the Phil 4:8 litmus test?"

Phil 4:8
Summing it all up, friends, I’d say you’ll do best by filling your minds and meditating on things true, noble, reputable, authentic, compelling, gracious—the best, not the worst; the beautiful, not the ugly; things to praise, not things to curse.

Nice piece to remember how the Mongols don't play.

Religion involves man's interaction with the known and unknown aspects of the universe. Certainly, if a pagan experiences success in these interactions, then as far as he/she is concerned the gods are (or the supreme God is, if they believe in any) in agreement with their religion.

sagewonders:
I was in a bible Study a question Came Is Marriage biblically mandatory.

What does "Biblically mandatory" mean to you, and can you give examples of some things that you believe are "Biblically mandatory"?

ihedinobi2: They are as much my opinions as any arguments you make are yours too.

Funny you're the one continuing a conversation by force and yet you say this. Seems sarcasm is obviously lost on you.

ihedinobi2: I honestly don't know what to make of your rancour.

In simple language for the heaven-knows-how-many-times-I've-said-this stop mentioning me with your misplaced notions on this topic as I am not interested in discussing them. Can you leave well alone or you want more rancour (sic)?

@DrummaBoy: Thanks, but I am neither interested in - nor qualified to discuss - the subject matter, so you may remove my handle from the list. Many thanks.

ihedinobi2: Children are not eggs, my brother. They will not die from flogging or automatically turn into criminals because you beat them. I have two kids I watch everyday currently aged 2 and 5. The two year-old has not developed full verbal communication and can be pretty naughty. You will certainly talk to him about his behavior but you will often need to drive home the lesson with administered pain. That aids his learning. This is the most flexible period of his development. What you do not etch in now will be harder to form in him later.
The saying is true that if you spare the rod you will spoil the child. Both pain and talk can be acclimatized to, this is why you should be imaginative and creative in how you educate children. If a child gets used to pain, pain will no longer be a deterrent. If they get used to talk, talk will no longer be a deterrent. The thing is to make sure that they learn the right associations.
That is what Mr Anony has been trying to get through to you.

These are your opinions and you are entitled to them.

ihedinobi2: It also does no good to keep making your disagreements so personal. People have the right to disagree with you and where you feel that they employ underhanded methods to do so, you can just show how they did and leave it at that. Personal attacks are very bad sportsmanship, they prove that you are an unethical debater.

I will make my disagreements personal wherever I wish. As long as I am not being disagreeable or disrespectful, you can like to leave me alone as I am not interested in getting accolades for good behaviour from you.

Bad sportmanship? Unethical (do you even KNOW what that word means) debater?

Guy, this thing is never by force and I am not here to coddle anyone or lick anyone's boots, or to seek worship from anyone. I am not of any hive-mind. I speak my mind and I stand by it.

Avoid my topics or posts or replies if they bother you so much.

Oh of course you cannot. As you have once again proven again by resurrecting THIS thread from the dead and aimed in my direction.

Abeg abeg.

MissMeiya: God bless our admin.

Too many fools with Internet access.


P.S. Your own post was edited, Seun Can we please remove the censors and converse like adults? At least some of them...

Those words, if left uncensored, can over time tend to give Seun's site a bad trust rating on the internet as Google (and other search engines) will rank it as unsafe for general family usage. I guess this is one reason for all the censoring.

Haven't played chess in so long, such that my chess games have gone to the dogs.

See as small pikin just dey woz me on top chess.com and my rating is dropping like mad. I don tire.

My solution above rightly assumes the children are not adopted and are not from any earlier marriages, without which assumption the riddle is trivial and unsolvable.

MoyoGENERAL: PUZZLE THREE;
Mr and Mrs smith and their two children form a typical american family. If exactly two of the following statements are true, what is the first name of the father, mother son and daughter....
Statement 1: George and Dorothy are blood relative
Statement 2: Howard is Older than George
Statement 3: Virginia is younger than Howard
Statement 4: Virginia is Older than Dorothy
time to solve guys......roll in the answers

Statement 1 is either True or False. Only 2 of the statements are true, and only 2 are false.

Case A: Statement 1 is True and George is Father, Dorothy Daughter. This means Virginia is Mother and Howard son. Thus Statement 2 is False. Also false is statement 3, while statement 4 would be true. Case A is feasible.

Case B: Statement 1 is True, and George is Son, Dorothy Mother. This makes Virginia Daughter and Howard Father. Thus Statement 4 is False. But statements 2 and 3 would be true in a typical family, which makes 3 True statements. Case B is not feasible.

Case C: Statement 1 is False. This means George is Father and Dorothy is Mother, as they are not related by blood. This makes Virginia Daughter and Howard Son. Statement 2 is also False then. Statement 3 is inconclusive; we cannot tell who is the older child. However statement 4 is certainly false, which makes 3 False statements. Case C is not feasible.

The only feasible case is Case A.

Therefore, their first names and family designations are:

George : Father
Virginia: Mother
Howard: Son
Dorothy: Daughter

jayriginal: Sounds good. I use an android as well. Amazing apps!



Now that doesnt sound so good. Ill join the train soon though. Have memory issues that I need to sort out first.

Yay! I can already tell you're a good player so I look forward to our games sometime soon.

MissMeiya: I changed my username

Now it's PrincessMeiya. I have a theme, can you guess what it is?

Clue:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z2aTU1hQJRE

Lol i've never used any of the chess.com themes

Easy! Star Wars

jayriginal: Certainly. My username will almost certainly be jayriginal.

One question though. Do you have any experience with the chess.com mobile app? Does it lag or something?

Okay.

The chess.com mobile app is better than the site on the same Internet connection irrespective of lag. It is highly optimised for live games. So if you have a touchscreen device, it's way better than clicking and dragging pieces with a mouse. I personally enjoy playing using my android phone. I tried on my Q5 blackberry - and even though it's touchscreen as well, it was a frustrating experience.

One caveat though is that when using the chess.com mobile app you can't invite a friend to a game, or join in the online tournaments. You can only accept a friend's invitation to play, or play random people of varying strengths within the ratings you specify.

@MrAnony1

Let me spell it out for you one last time so you can stop whining in my mentions.

I am no longer interested in discussing with you.

I hope you really can understand this time.

Happy birthday Seun Osewa. Hope you had a good one!

Yes, please. Then you can add me as a friend there, or tell me your own username so I can add you. My account username is "Nesqor".

P.s. Yup, grammar geek! And I luveet

all4naija: Okay! I concur on your decision to continue the narrating of your personal life story here. I would gladly read it and comment on it accordingly.

No way I am going to log-out of this forum in a life time.

Eres bienvenido

LOL! Spoken like a true Nairaland addict.

Eres buena gente!

MissMeiya: This is so exciting! Absolutely I still want to learn! Sensei, teach me

I'm no Sensei sincerely - no tongue twister intended - but I'm always chuffed about chess.

What's the best way to go about this?

And to start with, what's your level of knowledge of chess? Have you ever played the game, or do you know how the pieces move, or the names of the pieces? If yes to at least 2 out of the 3 questions then we can go straight to chess.com but if not, I can create a detailed "Learn to play chess" thread or something.

What do you think?

all4naija: Not in the detail of using your personal life experiences to define others. It is preposterous to say the least! You can as well create a thread for that if you thought it is right to talk about your personal childhood activities in a public forum.
Thank you.

Are many opinions not based on "personal life experiences"?

If you don't want to hear opinions on a topic that is based on opinions and personal experiences, then you can log out of Nairaland or go to another thread. Right?

Gracias.

sisqology: Isn't it obvious that the person that quoted my post is a beginner? How many PROs will have time or a challenge like this?