₦airaland Forum

LordReed:
You can be anything and be amoral. Your title or position doesn't preclude you from being amoral, it's your actions that suggest if you are amoral. If a god exists it certainly doesn't care very much about human welfare for instance, if it did it would not standby and watch all the atrocities that have been going on throughout human history without doing anything. That is how an amoral being would behave. You would define yourself as a moral being, would you watch any of your loved ones get beaten, raped and killed before your very eyes when you have the power to stop their assailant? You won't standby and do nothing or am I wrong about you?

I'm guessing your point is, an all good God is incompatible with the evil we see in this world.

If I may ask? How would you deal with the problem of evil if you were God?

This piece is one of the examples why bloggers and blogging can be dangerous to the public.
The Title of the thread is very misleading and very different from what the man was actually saying(meaning).

The OP has made a misleading title, that is instigating but totally different in meaning from what the spokesman actually said & meant, all because he/she wants to drive maximum traffic & reach front-page. He/she knows most people would only read the title & react to that.

For all the good bloggers can do in this world, most are just using click bait and misleading tactics to drive traffic and they apparently don't care if the world burns because of the things they write.

May God help us all

Kobojunkie:
That is what Jesus Christ explained to you via the Parable of 10 talents and the Parable of 10 Minas... an initial deposit was made by the Master to His servants before His departure to a distant land.

Could you kindly show where Jesus explained that the parable of the 10 talents must mean an initial deposit of understanding. Or is it an inference you made?
Secondly, how do you understand the parable of the 10virgins from the same chapter?

1. According to the story told us by Jesus Christ, the deposit is made by the Master to all of His servants, so it is not made clear whether it comes before one becomes a believer or afterwards.

If the initial deposit is given to only His servants, wouldn't that imply that it is only given after one has chosen to become a servant?

2. The answer to that question is right there in Matthew 13 vs 10 - 17. What is written down for us in all the 4 Gospels combined are the details of the New Covenant Law and agreement which Jesus Christ came to deliver to Israel, with which the nations of ghe world have in turn been blessed with. What you read of in the Gospels are the terms and agreements of that Law /Contract as it applies to all those who exists in the Kingdom of God. The understanding that one obtains from a download is information that ties up the many loose ends and answers every question one may have or think of pertaining to the Kingdom of God. That information is key in understanding such things as what it means to be a citizen of the Kingdom, how to use the Law and promises to one's benefits, what is expected of one, etc.,.

Fair point but I have a couple of issues with it

Why isn't the terms of the Convenant downloaded into the minds of believers. Why exclude the most vital aspect of this new Convenant. You used to quote Jeremiah 31:31-34 as an aspect of the new Convenant. How does this square with what you wrote above?

If the Gospels were primarily about the terms of the Contract/Convenant, why then do we have the infancy stories, the healing and casting out narratives,the walking on water and so on? Those don't sound like terms and conditions of a contract and are not usually found in one. Of what role do they play in the narratives?

Paul wrote down, this to a mostly Jewish Christian audience mind you, what he obtained from his own downloads. The other disciples also wrote in their epistles the much they could from their own downloads, trying hard not to add to or remove from it in any way or form.

Fair point. But if the apostles expected everyone to get these downloads, why write all these letters to the communities in the first place?

The same data and more is available to each and everyone who follower of Jesus Christ.... we are each able to access the same information that Paul and all the others also had access to... without all the errors and contradiction included over time, straight from the Source Himself. This way we can even compare the Truth as revealed through these downloads with the experiences and views expressed by the apostles in their letters.

How do we objectively compare these downloads to know which ones are true and which ones are made up. 10 different people can have 10 different downloads that are irreconcilable with each other.

For example some people say Jesus is God, some say He is an angel, Some say He was purely a mere man and others say He is something else. Every one of them can make a claim to special revelation and lived experience.
How do we square these radically different views to know which is true and which is false?

Kobojunkie:
1. That's what Jesus Christ said and I can attest to it being the case from my experience.

2. It is like I tried to explain earlier... subsequent understandings are just fed directly into your mind without your needing to first engage your mind or think on these things for yourself or even read these things for yourself first. If He needs to read, He will guide you to what you should read then. Soon long as you obey Him, He will do as He promised.

---

Around this time last September, on one fateful afternoon, I suddenly got new information revealed to me about the Kingdom of God - new Understanding was downloaded straight to my mind from Him. It was as though scales dropped from my mind's eyes and i could suddenly see what I had missed for so long - light bulbs went on connecting previously disconnected ideas that seemed unrelated until that moment. It was of course not the first time such a thing had occurred to me, only on this particular reveal shook me at my core. I didn't even begin to imagine anyway I could have known of what was revealed.

The thought of what came on me had never really crossed my mind, nor had i ever wondered about it since the only exposure I had to the topic, up until that point, where the as it turned out, lies I had mostly heard from the mouth of Mogs and Pastors.

Nothing could have prepared me for what was revealed to me on that day and I spent many weeks after, in shock of what it was. I rummaged through scripture looking to find an answer to maybe give me leverage of some sort. I was mad at God for not letting me know of it sooner but at the same time I knew I was to blame for my ignorance. I have come to hate the lies of Mogs, all of them false teachers and prophets, with a passion since that particular reveal.

---

God Himself will prepare you for the understanding He will give you. All he wants is for you to obey and He will take care of the rest. That is really how it works..just as it is written. I can attest to this too.

Sorry, I didn't reply sooner. Was a bit distracted this past couple of days.
So back to our conversation, if you are still interested.

Kobojunkie:
1. That's what Jesus Christ said and I can attest to it being the case from my experience.

Well, that wasn't really what Jesus said but rather what you inferred from what He said, I believe.
Ofcourse that doesn't mean you are wrong but without any methodology for interpretation, there's no way of judging if you're interpretation is correct or not. And once we get down that road of inference, it already means we are engaging our minds in trying to understand the text, don't you agree?

But not to bother too much on that, I find your story quite fascinating. But I have 2 quick questions

1) The initial deposit of understanding, does it come before one has become a believer or does it come after?

2) If God's goal was to primarily download information into our heads, then what was the purpose of given us written documents of the old testament and the Gospels? I mean, we don't have only one gospel but we have four(that's a lot of biography for any historical figure).

.

LordReed:
If anyone that I know personally told me this I will laugh at them just I have done here and also point out just how implausible it all is. My laughter or mocking has nothing to do with how distant we are. If possible I'd meet Franzinni for a drink and still laugh in his face at how absurd his story is, the drinks would make it even more jolly. LoL

We use satire and parody to mock ideas all the time so what is special about mine?

I'm pretty sure you know the difference between using humor to poke fun at an "idea" and mocking a "person".

If mocking people you disagree with is always your go to move, then that says more about you than about them.

Anyways,it is well

LordReed:
Bwahahahahahahaha! OMFD! For centuries the god has been called god but some how he neglected to tell all the many billions of believers not to call him god as it’s pagan in origin except you Johnny Just Come. LMFAO! When you people see that it’s all in your head? Did a voice boom out of heaven to tell you? Did the god call you on the phone. Nope you “heard” a voice in your mind.

It's fascinating that almost everyone on this thread disagrees with the OP but they all disgreed without being condescending to the OP and some were even respectful.

But for some reason you think, it's all good to use mockery and condescension to express your disagreement with OP's "religious expression". What gain is there to derive by trying to mock someone who you most likely have never interacted with before?(atleast it's understandable if it's someone you have a history with)

It is well.

Kobojunkie:
1. Here's an easy one... This same teaching as far as faith, love, giving, Understanding ,etc., - the law in the Kingdom of God.

So you are saying there is also an initial deposit of faith, love,giving, "ability" and so on also right?

2. Subsequent understanding will cause your minds eyes to be opened and engaged so you can better hear and see that which He wants you to and be engaged in the way He desires for you to be, not as you used to engage when your mind was formerly closed to Him and His Truth.

That hasn't still answered the question.
Are subsequent understandings just given without any act of actively engaging one's mind in thinking through what one is reading?
Or is it the case that,one gets a better understanding of what one is actively engaging with,when one as already yielded to Christ?

Kobojunkie:
To your first question, I believe so, and this because Jesus Christ taught us so by way of the parable of the 10 talents in Matthew 25 vs 14 - 30 that it is so. I should add that I confirmed it by my experience as well.

Fair enough. But how do you know that this passage about the Talents is infact talking about this "initial deposit of understanding".

As for your second question, you forget quickly what Jesus Christ pointed out in Matthew 13 vs 14-15 ... ... which is that understanding that we get from Him causes our minds to be opened to even more understanding.

Okay. But this doesn't still answer the question though?

Are subsequent understandings just given without any act of actively engaging one's mind in thinking through what one is reading?
Or is it the case that,one gets a better understanding of what one is actively engaging with,when one as already yielded to Christ?

Kobojunkie:
Now, as for where the initial understanding is from, Jesus Christ explained that it has already been given to you - Parable of the 10 talents in Matthew 25 vs 14 - 30

It's my understanding is when even that initial understanding is lost from disuse,one becomes like the people described by Isaiah reference by Jesus Christ in Matthew 13 vs 14 - 15 above - they become close-minded, unable to perceive or trust the very Word of God Himself.

Okay, just to be clear, the initial understanding is bestowed supernaturally by God without any prior knowledge or understanding on ones part. Then once one engages with that understanding, subsequent ones will be given without any act of actively engaging one's mind in thinking through what one is reading?

Is that correct?

Kobojunkie:
Well, what he, like many other churchians out there, consider studying is also a major issue.

How do they consider studying, that makes it an issue?

The above is the dictionary meaning of the word study

Well that's quite a narrow understanding of what it means to study a subject. I doubt you really believe studying is only done with academic subjects.
Right below where you got that definition (the top link on Google I presume), there are diverse definitions of the word "study" covering a wide range uses. Eg " A detailed investigation and analysis of a subject or situation." "Or give serious thought or consideration to.(something)"
Dictionary.com gives " application of the mind to the acquisition of knowledge, as by reading, investigation, or reflection:" as one of its meaning and Webster's new world dictionary gives " To apply one's mind to attentively; try to learn or understand by reading, thinking, etc." as one of its definitions.

In any case not to get rubbled in sifting through the English language, it's fair to say that to study does imply to " Actively engage one's mind in trying to gain knowledge or understanding of a particular subject matter". Basically to learn something.

and many take the same approach when supposedly studying the Bible- what they acquire is knowledge of what is written. And knowledge is no different from what even the Pharisees had about God - They lacked understanding

How does one understand something without knowing it first and thinking through what one knows?

Jesus Christ essential declares to us through His teachings that one does not gain understanding from studying or the acquisition of knowledge but instead by using what one already has an understanding of .

How does one get this initial understanding, if I may ask?

Again I'm just trying to understand what the real bone of contention really is?

Kobojunkie:
The Op created this thread to study with others the Bible...a futile endeavor since nothing in the way of understanding can be gained by that as Jesus explained to us, using the Parable of the 10 talents - Matthew 25 vs 14 - 30 - that the way to recieve more understanding is to put to use the understanding you already have - Matthew 13 vs 10 - 13 and clearly how to use the understanding one has is to simply do what one has had Him say - Mark 4 vs 24

Ok, just to be clear, your bone of contention is the idea of studying with others, right?

So it's not the studying that is the problem. It's the coming together with others to study that is the issue. Right?

Kobojunkie:
What He said is written right there in the Gospels, is it not? You can read using the basic language comprehension skills you have, which I have mentioned several times now, and hear what He has to say and do as He says.

This sounds alot like what the OP is saying.
One can't really understand any piece of writing or information with taking some time to think it through. That's basically one of definitions of the the act " To Study".

So what is really your objection to the OP?
It's kinda hard to really discern your main objection from everything you've written so far.

Near1:
I have no idea why you think the world will become religiously diverse. Non-religious has been rising rapidly recently.

As I mentioned in my previous replies, it seems you are conflating the rise of the religious unaffiliated or "nones" with a total lack of religion or Atheism.
As I mentioned previously

jamesid29:
What is on the rise in North America and Western Europe is irreligion. What it means is that there's an uptick in people identifying themselves as not being affiliated with any organized religious organizations. This can range from people who hold religious beliefs and practices but do not identify with any church or mosque to people who hold some type of spirituality or cosmic energy without any defined concept of God or gods and of course it can include those who are agnostic on the matter.

Or if you like you can read of the pew report:

However, a new survey by the Pew Research Center’s Forum on Religion & Public Life, conducted jointly with the PBS television program Religion & Ethics NewsWeekly, finds that many of the country’s 46 million unaffiliated adults are religious or spiritual in some way. Two-thirds of them say they believe in God (68%). More than half say they often feel a deep connection with nature and the earth (58%), while more than a third classify themselves as “spiritual” but not “religious” (37%), and one-in-five (21%) say they pray every day. In addition, most religiously unaffiliated Americans think that churches and other religious institutions benefit society by strengthening community bonds and aiding the poor.

With few exceptions, though, the unaffiliated say they are not looking for a religion that would be right for them. Overwhelmingly, they think that religious organizations are too concerned with money and power, too focused on rules and too involved in politics.
https://www.pewforum.org/2012/10/09/nones-on-the-rise/

I think it would be great if you could read through what the data is really stating and what the terms entails. It seems you are filtering it through a particular lens.

Secondly, what I mean by the world is becoming more diverse is that alongside the population growth, religious diversity is also increasing. From Islam to Hinduism to Judaism, to folk religions and so on, the population of adherents of these faith are increasing. Also with the rise of the religiously unaffiliated especially in the west, more people are choosing to define or redefine how they relate to the divine or the metaphysical on a personal level without adhering to the dictates of any organized religion.
To borrow from hellvictorinho's reply

Religion can be shown in different ways
There is no right way to practice any religion

That's a major sentiment amongst the younger population today especially in the west.
This does not mean people are less religious, it just shows that there's an unprecedented diversity in how people chose to express their connection with the metaphysical.

I think the growth in Muslim population will slow because they literally threaten apostates now, that’s not sustainable.

The keyword word here is the @bolded "You think". Its okay to make assumptions (we all do) but that does not necessarily mean our assumptions are true. It is true that some people are still Muslims due to fear for their lives and property but that does not mean the vast majority of Muslims today do not believe that Islam is intrinsically true or that they are coarsed to remain Muslims. It would be hard to make such a case. Also looking at Islam in the west where apostasy laws do not apply or in Asia and the east where there's a concentration of prosecuted Muslims, it's a lot easier to make the point that many people chose to stay in Islam because they believe it is intrinsically true for them.
So would a more religiously free world slow down the rate of Islam's population growth? Probably..

Would it slow it down considerably to make it not the most dominant religion in the world in a few decades? Probably not.
At the moment Islam is projected to grow by about twice the rate of global population growth mainly due to fertility and mortality rates.
If there is to be major shift in this, it would probably come by a plethora of things and not just one thing.

So far, you have not supported your arguments with data or citations.

Neither have you though.

The difference is, nothing I've said so far is hard to check or even remotely controversial. Most of what I've written can be found on the very first page of a quick Google search. From your replies also, it does seem you are privy to these same informations, just that
a) you seem to be misunderstanding what the information is actually stating,eg collapsing the religious unaffiliated with Atheism as one and the same thing. And
b) it does seem like you are filtering these informations through some specific set of assumptions that are not necessarily true. E.g it's possible that the Universe was always here.

Plus, people may currently call themselves Christians, but they wouldn’t pass in a church from just a few decades ago. People may say they are “culturally” a certain religion, but they don’t really practice

I'm no sure I understand what you mean by " they wouldn’t pass in a church from just a few decades ago" though.
But to the crux of the matter, I did make mention of the limitations of these polls in my first reply

jamesid29:
It's worth pointing out that these data mostly show how people identify but doesn't signify if this religiosity or irreligiousity is intrinsic.

This does affect all sides.

Again almost everything I've written above are neither controversial or remotely hard to verify. But I don't think the major issues are the information themselves but it's how you're choosing to parse the information.

Near1:
While I appreciate the detailed rebuttal of the OP, there's still not a lot here. You allude to “array of reasons” towards the end of your post, but don’t name them. I'm sure anyone who is conversant with these discussions has been over these major themes. Maybe pick one of these “reasons” and back it up with some data and draw some conclusions from your experience.

I'm not sure what you mean by there's not alot here sir. As I've pointed out; The central and core premise of the OP is in fact incorrect. The world is not becoming less religious but rather it is becoming more religiously diverse.

But if you are more interested in having a conversation on why people walk away from religion or religious affiliation, I'm happy to have a conversation on that.

@ojeysky good evening bro.
Do You mind if I send you a msg via the number on your profile. I would like to run a proposition by you.
Thanks alot

1Sharon:
What is the actual reality then?

As I mentioned earlier ma'am many countries you listed can easily fall into a different group than the ones you placed them. For instance United States can easily fall into almost all the different groups you mentioned and France has been a hot bed of systemic and economic problems for decades now, which culminated in the 2005 riots and subsequent ones. Compared to other European counterparts, the average French lives a life of pessimism and fear of the future
When you couple that with distrust and immigration issues, the entire nation is sitting on a hotbed of frustration.
The people who bear the brunt of these mostly are blacks and young Arabs from poor areas who tend to be the first victims of racism when looking for a job and renting an apartment ; they have a life of constant frustration and humiliation.
When you start looking at the full socioeconomic dynamics, it's a not hard to see how some people can be lead to believe that violence and a tribal mindset is the legitimate recourse to their problem. This is not just a matter of numbers.

Taking another example, Afghanistan and the Taliban. In the 1960s Afghanistan was a bubbling country that was peaceful and was even the hippie center of the region, with hippis from all the west trooping in , in numbers. But due to a political chess game between the west and the Soviet Union,the whole region was distabiliesd. The Soviets in an act of desperation bombed the whole region and displaced over a million women and children from the region. The Soviets made toy bombs that were specifically targeted at children. These bombs were designed to maim the kids but not kill them
These displaced children grew up in refugees camps on the border Pakistan and all they ever knew was pain and hate. It's not had to see how they could have been easily radicalised. Even the INR that was instrumental in their radicalisation actually lost control of the kids.
By the time this kids(now young adults) came back to Afghanistan, they( now called the Taliban) were just as foreign to native Afghans just as the Soviets and all the previous western powers were.

There's a lot more on this issues ma'am and each country has its own dynamics but the point is that, it's not just a numbers game. And simplifying really complex issues like this can tend to have very adverse effects in the long run.

whether Islam is a peaceful religion at its core or not, that's a separate conversation in my opinion.

Ps: I'm pretty sure there are tons of typos in my reply cos I'm kinda in a rush. My bad on that

1Sharon:
So what's the actual reality?


If Islam is peaceful why is it CORRELATED with bloodshed, when Muslims become the majority?

I wasn't commenting on whether Islam is a peaceful religion at its core or not ma'am.
My statement was that; your statics only fits a preconceived narrative but does not reflect actual reality.
The realities in those countries are way more complex than that.

1Sharon:
Adapted from Dr Peter Hammond's book: Slavery, Terrorism and Islam:

As long as the Muslim population remains around or under 2% in any given country, they will be for the most part be regarded as a peace-loving Minority, and not as a threat to other citizens. This is the case in:

United States -- Muslim 1.1%

Australia -- Muslim 1.5%
Canada -- Muslim 1.9%
China -- Muslim 3 %
Italy -- Muslim 2.5%
Norway -- Muslim 1.8%

At 2% to 5%, they begin to proselytize from other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups, often with major recruiting from the jails and among street gangs.

This is happening in:

Denmark -- Muslim 2%

Germany -- Muslim 3.7%
United Kingdom -- Muslim 4.7%
Spain -- Muslim 4%
Thailand -- Muslim 4.6%

From 5% on, they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population.


For example, they will push for the introduction of halal (clean by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing food preparation jobs for Muslims.
They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature halal on their shelves -- along with threats for failure to comply.

This is occurring in:

France -- Muslim 8%

Philippines -- 5%
Sweden -- Muslim 5%
Switzerland -- Muslim 4.3%
The Netherlands -- Muslim 5.5%
Trinidad & Tobago -- Muslim 5.8%

At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves (within their ghettos) under Sharia, the Islamic Law. The ultimate goal of Islamists is to establish Sharia law over the entire world.

When Muslims approach 10% of the population, they tend to increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions.

In Paris, we are already seeing car-burnings. Any non Muslim action offends Islam, and results in uprisings and threats, such as in Amsterdam , with opposition to Mohammed cartoons and films about Islam.
Such tensions are seen daily, particularly in Muslim sections, in:

Guyana -- Muslim 10%

India -- Muslim 19.4%
Israel -- Muslim 16%
Kenya -- Muslim 10%
Russia -- Muslim 15%

After reaching 20%, nations can expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad militia formations, sporadic killings, and the burnings of Christian churches and Jewish synagogues, such as in:

Ethiopia -- Muslim 32.8%

At 40%, nations experience widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks, and ongoing militia warfare, such as in:

Bosnia -- Muslim 40%

Chad -- Muslim 53.1%
Lebanon -- Muslim 59.7%

Nigeria 50% Muslim

From 60%, nations experience unfettered persecution of non-believers of all other religions (including non-conforming Muslims), sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Sharia Law as a weapon, and Jizya, the tax placed on infidels, such as in:

Albania -- Muslim 70%

Malaysia -- Muslim 60.4%
Qatar -- Muslim 77.5%
Sudan -- Muslim 70%

After 80%, expect daily intimidation and violent jihad, some State-run ethnic cleansing, and even some genocide, as these nations drive out the infidels, and move toward 100% Muslim, such as has been experienced and in some ways is on-going in:

Bangladesh -- Muslim 83%

Egypt -- Muslim 90%
Gaza -- Muslim 98.7%
Indonesia -- Muslim 86.1%
Iran -- Muslim 98%
Iraq -- Muslim 97%
Jordan -- Muslim 92%
Morocco -- Muslim 98.7%
Pakistan -- Muslim 97%
Palestine -- Muslim 99%
Syria -- Muslim 90%
Tajikistan -- Muslim 90%
Turkey -- Muslim 99..8%
United Arab Emirates -- Muslim 96%

100% will usher in the peace of "Dar-es-Salaam" -- the Islamic House of Peace.. Here there's supposed to be peace, because everybody is a Muslim, the Madrasses are the only schools, and the Koran is the only word, such as in:

Afghanistan -- Muslim 100%

Saudi Arabia -- Muslim 100%
Somalia -- Muslim 100%
Yemen -- Muslim 100%

Unfortunately, peace is never achieved, as in these 100% states the most radical Muslims intimidate and spew hatred, and satisfy their blood lust by killing less radical Muslims, for a variety of reasons.


It is important to understand that in some countries, with well under 100% Muslim populations, such as France, the minority Muslim populations live in ghettos, within which they are 100% Muslim, and within which they live by Sharia Law.

The national police do not even enter these ghettos. There are no national courts, nor schools, nor non-Muslim religious facilities. In such situations, Muslims do not integrate into the community at large. The children attend madrasses. They learn only the Koran. To even associate with an infidel is a crime punishable with death.

Therefore, in some areas of certain nations, Muslim Imams and extremists exercise more power than the national average would indicate.

Today's 1.5 billion Muslims make up 22% of the world's population. But their birth rates dwarf the birth rates of Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, and all other believers.


Muslims will exceed 50% of the world's population by the end of this century.

Correlation does not equate to causation ma'am.

The narrative you painted above, though exciting, does not really square with the actual reality.
Many of the countries you listed in one group can easily fall into a different group than the ones you placed them in.

Near1:
We are basically left with (1) where did the Universe come from and (2) what happens after we die.

The answers so far are (1) we don’t have a full understanding on time. We know that time passes at different rates depending on the force of gravity or the speed we travel. That has been proven by experiment. When we fully understand time, we may be on the way to knowing if in some fashion the Universe was always here. Maybe time slowed to a standstill in the distant past. Maybe it is circular. We don’t quite understand it yet. Whatever the reason there is no need for a God to explain it.

Well this is largely inaccurate.
There are many things we still have no clue about and some we would probably never have.
And secondly, we do know to a high degree that this universe has not always been here. It does have an ultimate origin

I would say that people believe in the supernatural because they fear death and losing touch with loved ones who have died. If we did not fear death, there would be no reason to still believe in God.

It's fascinating that humans as far back as recorded history have always been obsessed with some form of immortality.
Just something to ponder about, though.

So, secularism has been increasing as the world becomes more understandable. The gaps in our knowledge are just that - gaps that we will fill. Not reasons to believe in God. So religions have declined.

Ok, so this is one of those sayings that are popular on the internet, but are in fact incorrect.

For starters, secularism is not on the rise. That is, if we are defining secularism has having a naturalistic atheistic worldview, as your write-up seems to allude to.

What is on the rise in North America and Western Europe is irreligion. What it means is that there's an uptick in people identifying themselves as not being affiliated with any organized religious organizations. This can range from people who hold religious beliefs and practices but do not identify with any church or mosque to people who hold some type of spirituality or cosmic energy without any defined concept of God or gods and of course it can include those who are agnostic on the matter.

Irreligious or nones should not be confused with materialistic atheism.

Secondly, if we are to define secularism by its more rigorous secularization theory (basically, the historical process in which religion looses it's cultural and social significance), this trend, as alluded to above, only holds true in North America and Western Europe. They are the exception, not the rule.

For the rest of world, religiosity is on the rise.

Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world, mainly due to birth and mortality rates, while Christianity is still holding steadly with world population growth. Other world religions like Hinduism, Buddhism, folk religion etc also have upward trend with world population.

Even in countries that have tried to stamp out religion or are fundamentally Atheistic, the steady rise in religiousity or religious affiliation still holds true. For example, China has been undergoing a religious revival in recent years and might hold the world's largest population of Christians in a few decades to come, by some estimates.

It's worth pointing out that these data mostly show how people identify but doesn't signify if this religiosity or irreligiousity is intrinsic.

Finally, the idea that the world is going to be more secular as we better understand how the world works is just wrong. Humans are complex emotional beings and people lose religious affiliation for a vast array of reasons.(ranging from trauma experiences to the rise in individualism and self-autonomy and everything in-between).
In any case that's a longer conversation on its own.

haekymbahdx:
Am I right if I say this

Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος

En arkhêi ên ho lógos, kaì ho lógos ên pròs tòn theón, kaì theòs ên ho lógos

In the beginning existed the Word, and the Word existed with the God, and a God was the Word.

Emm, @bolded is not a translation of the Greek text but a translation of a specific Coptic translation from the 3rd century sir.
And it has nothing to do with whether Theos & theon mean the same thing.

I think its best not to use a language you don't understand how it works(atleast on a base level) to make your point sir.
I wouldn't try using Arabic to make a point with someone, since I don't even understand the basics of the Arabic language.
Just my opinion though

The meaning of the Greek article
The meaning of the Greek article is slightly different, which can make it difficult for English speakers to grasp.

"The primary function of the [Greek] article is not to make a word definite.

When the article is present, it is emphasizing identity

When the article is not present, it is generally emphasizing the quality of the substantive."

-Mounce, BBG, p. 334

This part doesn't mean what you think it does though.
Which edition of "BBG" did get this from?

olopan:
About the Smart home, you can integrate the inverter with smart appliances like socket, washing machine, AC, toasters etc most appliance that can work using IoT

Oh, that sounds nice. Didn't know you could integrate the inverter directly with smart appliances. Will look into that more.

Thanks alot boss. Really Appreciate your inputs

ojeysky:
I think Valto said the one he has was not delivering to the rated charging capacity

Oh ok, that's bad. Maybe that's one of the reasons they've been relegated to the background,I guess.

Thanks for the heads-up boss. Really Appreciate it

@Valto can you share any input with SMK hybrid. Thanks alot

olopan:
It all boils down to personal opinion for those who needs it personally, as we know money moves the Nigerian customers demand

Many are concerned about basic functionality and since they both look the same, they go for a cheaper available option

Personally/professionally for me I will pick a Growatt over SMK based on

1. Two year warranty over a year of SMK

2. Remote monitoring - this feature is very handy for pro installers

3. Wide online community

4. Out of the box - lithium battery comms

5. Smart home ready, right out of the box

With many installation sites running Growatt we can run diagnose problems in real time

thanks alot boss.
I agree that wide community aspect does make quite a lot of difference.
The person I even first about growatt was from one of the american DIY youtubers. And there are tons of DIYers doing review and videos of growatt so it's easy to get up to speed with it as opposed to SMK where there's almost nothing of it online.

I'm not sure I understand about the smart home ready out of the box part. I might be missing something on that though because on paper they both seem to be identical in functionality except for the remote monitoring out of the box.

Thanks boss �

Good morning all.
A question has been bugging me for the past couple of days now.

Recently stumbled on SMK inverters and they seem to be reasonably priced.
Looking at the SMK specs against Growatt's, they seem to be almost identical in terms of what they offer(aside from the follow come WiFi stick and capability).
But yet one seems to be a darling in the market while the other one rarely features in conversations even though it has almost identical features ,even to the battery less function( atleast on paper) at a lower cost.

Is it that the SMK's are of a lesser quality in terms of build or perculiar issues (maybe charging)? Or is it that Growatt has just been better at branding themselves in the Nigerian market?

I know, what is written on paper does not always translate into the real world and I'm still finding my way in this renewable energy universe (just started this year), so I say make I ask those that have far more experience in the group and from marketers who deal in these products.

I'm not trying to knock down any of the products, it's just a question that has been in my head for some days now.
Any input is very much appreciated. Thank you

Kobojunkie:
The Bible did not do any such thing since Jesus Christ never asked you to congregate in the churches of men as you do today.

Jesus Christ instead made it known that His Church is not of this world and hence not built of your pastors and their Mogs, neither is His Church built on the doctrines and traditions of men which your churches are founded upon.

If I understand you correctly, you don't accept Hebrews as part of the words of God to his people.

Why? If I may ask?

[quote author=Pelecius post=104289407][/quote]Well done sir/ma. We might disagree slightly on a few points (which is normal,we all disgree on one or two things), I truly applaud you for defending your position adequately with grace against arguments that are mostly ad hominem and evasions without concrete substance behind them.. Kinda makes one question workch's pedigree as an advanced degree holder with the types of arguments he's making.

Anyways, for what it's worth, well done sir/ma and Happy new month.

Funkybabee:
Praise the Lord, hallelujah

Means


Eyin oluwa, oluwaseun

In Yoruba.

Interestingly "Eyin oluwa" better captures the meaning of "Hallelujah" than even the English translation.
Pretty interesting

Workch:
As long as organisms are concerned, everyone is equal in the ecosystem. We all have a role we play

That wasn't my question. My question wasn't about roles in the ecosystem


You said both dogs and humans would essentially be images of God if they share similar building blocks, right?
For that to hold true, dogs and humans not only have to share similarities in some part, there has to be a one-to-one equivalence between dogs and humans in all other parts, for you to make such a sweeping claim, going by our conversation thus far.
Is that the claim you are making? Or are there differences

Workch:
That means he also made dogs in his image

So I do not misinterpret you.
Are you making a one to one equivalence between humans and dogs?

Workch:
dont you think you need to work on English comprehension?

Maybe...but that's irrelevant to the question at hand.

Workch:
What kind of God creates his people with similar compositions of dogs and rats.

This sounds like you are repulsed by the idea that a creator would use similar building blocks used in creating dogs and rats to also create people.

Why is that such a repulsive idea to you?

Workch:
I don’t understand, when did I say humans are better than rats.

I use god beg you, don’t ask me irrational questions

Workch:
Damn, it’s hilarious that you can’t differentiate your cells from that of a rat, you both share common ancestry. What kind of God creates his people with similar compositions of dogs and rats.

@bolded implies that there's something intrinsically inferior about rats and dogs that makes it's somewhat wrong for a creator to use similar building blocks with them, in building his own people.

If that's is not what you were implying, would you mind stating what you were really implying with your statement.