₦airaland Forum

obanikoro2:
@olabowale and KAG

ah-ah!!!
what happened to the two mighty dragons in the house?
una done tire to fight?
who win?
abeg make una continue una show jare
na entertainment for us.

mattymun:
Shut up!!! god is real!! if he wasnt real then we all wouldnt be asking this question. there is some thing called the string theory it proves god is real some where in another demention, there is more than width length and height. they are the three dementions but there are more about 9. so we can't see god even if he was 1 cm in front of us, that means the kindom if god is blocked off from our world. That also means that people who see spirits and ghosts are crazy but how did god communicate with the people in the bible? The same with hell. hell can't come into our world ether. im not a pro but i think im right with the stuff i said with the string theory. look it up on google:

http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=the+string+theory&btnG=Google+Search&meta=

imhotep:
Well, I just used F. Nietzche as an example.

Near death experiences can make you review your outlook on life.

They can also expose the brooding chasm on which atheism rests.

Gamine:
If one could give me the disadvantages of being a christian

i will consider being an atheist

jagunlabi:
Sorry to bust your bubble,but science is now committing the same offence of "orthodoxy" as religion.Gone are the days when science stands for the truth.
These days,no more.A lot of scientists working outside the establishment will tell you that.

smile11s:
Religion is always confusing and not straight. Science is the truth, science can prove the begining of the world and will tell you how this world will end.

Stop decieving yourselves that the world will end soon, The world is just an Atom that will take many millions of years more to burn up from the rays of the sun.

Science has is here to stay for ever. Everything we do today is through the aid of science and life is getting better. You don't need to pray before you get a better life, Just make your money and equip and furnish your life with gadgets and your life will be easy,

Science is the ONLY WAY!!

imhotep:
Science can also be used to create atomic bombs, blow up millions of innocent people, and risk going to hell for eternity.

By the way, you cannot go to hell with all the money you have in your bank account.

imhotep:
He gave them the platform on which to misinterpret him, with catastrophic consequences. That is the point.

Perhaps you should read about Near Death Experiences (NDE). A number of atheists (and theists) have had this experience. What they 'saw' is at variance with the concepts they carry about in their minds.

You can search wikipedia for this.

olabowale:
@KAG: You have not reasonable explanation for anything, it shows!

You truly have no answer, by your evasiveness!

I want to use you as evidence of God, therefore I want you to negate your own existence? I Propose that KAG, does not Exist! Provide prove(s) for or against my hypothesis; Proposal!

Don't just sit there, act on it! You have just met your MATCH, InshaAllah, Mr. Disbeliever in EXISTENCE of any force that acted on that matter/particle at the very initial time, before everything else began to happen and continues, till this day!

When will the activities going to stop; sometime or never?

imhotep:
If religious fanaticism is on the right and atheism is on the left, theism (and many other -isms in the same category) lies somewhere along the line that connects left to right.

You might want to look at Fredrich Nietzche's influence on Hitler and the Nazi movement here -> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Influence_and_reception_of_Friedrich_Nietzsche). You are aware of the level of destruction brought upon Europe by the Nazis.

He was an atheist who did not have Stalin's political and military machinery.

A jingoist can be either an atheist or a religious fanatic (or one of the intermediate -isms). Jingoism (and other -isms in its category) lies on a totally different level.

olabowale:
@Obanikoro2: It works so well, that the Bible did not mention it. No even on any page! At least pain is written in books discussing sensations/feeling. At least wind/air is written in books discussing energy transfers, eg sound, heat (temperature differences).

@KAG: Proof to me that there is no Mover!

See, I did not say movers, which is what more than 1 will be denoted by! I call my MOVER GOD!

Do you believe there is any mover, or you do not? If you do not, don't just through a statement around. Please present your argument.

olabowale:
At least we all agree that there is One God! The hypothesis of 3 godheads in One God is unproveable! Hence any book that contain that idea is the wrong book!

obanikoro2:
If I give you a blinding slap on your face what will you feel?
PAIN?

Good answer! Can you then prove to me or someone else that you are feeling PAIN?
Can you show me the PAIN? Can you describe how the PAIN looks like?

NO?
How can you then prove to me that what you feel is PAIN?

My dear olabowale, you are asking us to prove the Trinity the same way I'm asking you to prove PAIN.

Can you see the AIR or WIND? You feel it don't you? Prove to me that what you feel is WIND!

oh! You can see it blow trees and your shirts right?

My dear, that's how the Trinity works in us too!!!

You may not be able to see them, may not even be able to prove them, but it doesnt mean they don't exist and are not working in people's lives.

imhotep:
The article is laying the blame of some past misdeeds at the foot of religion. Indeed, bad things have happened in the name of religion.

I am also saying that unspeakable crimes have also been committed in the name of a rationality based on atheism (individual or collective). In this 'rationality', man is god unto himself. God is dead. Religion is opium.

Stalin used his powers to unscrupulously eliminate those who did not agree with him. Other atheists may not have his powers, so they wreck their destruction in another sphere (intellectual/cultural/etc)

This way we see two extremes emerge. I am not aware of any other extreme. Please educate me.

imhotep:
Joseph Stalin was an atheist. He presided over a communist, atheist russia for many years.

He believed in logic and common sense.

He was also responsible for the killing of up to 20 million Russians during his regime.

There are two extremes:

1) Religious fanaticism
2) Downright atheism

BOTH ARE DANEROUS PATHS and should be avoided like plagues.

olabowale:
@KAG; I am going to show how wrong, rather dishonest you are in your responses to me. Watch.

The view of the Islamic religion are in the Qur'an and hadith, hence my only sources of information.

All prophets were Muslims. From Adam all the way to Muhammad (as jami'ah).

All prophets had the same functions, bringing guidance, from God the Almighty to their generations. Those who accepted guidance and followed the prophet of whom they lived under his prophethood, will go to Paradise. Those who did not follow their prophet under whose prophethood they lived will go to hellfire. Let me show you. For illustration of this view, those who continued to believe in Moses, but rejected Jesus, when Jesus proclaimed his prophethood, have really rejected Moses as well, but they just did not know it, because of the ignorance that remained in their hearts. Now, those people are destined for hell. From the time that Muhammad received the first 5 verses of Surah Alaq, the time of Jesus came to an end.

Please give me the view of those who died before Jesus, the obedients and the disobedients among them? And how do you clacify obedience and disobedience before Jesus?

Rubbish you speak Mr. KAG! First you fail to provide us even to buttress your own argument, what is the sin of the "RED SKINNED"Native Americans? They travelled all the way from whereever the 'tribe of Israel' was when their skinned changed to Red, and all of them settled in the Americas! Wow, there is not even a single one that remained within the group of non red skinned tribe of Israel. We may just conclude as well that the red skinned people's punishment must include their separation from the rest of Israel tribe. Yet God of the Israelite (That God is the same that the Christian claimed before the 3 in 1 god concept became the thing under the umbrella of TRINITY), turned skin into red as a means of punishment,

yet He did not punish Aaron for disobeying part of the 10 commandments, by his involvement in the golden calf! A just God indeed, except that it did not happen as theChristian/Jew put it!

You see again, the Prophets are people who do not commit sins like you and me. For example another man would have gone astray in the trial of Joseph from the wife of his master in Egypt. So I will leave you alone to go think about it.

However your retuttal above is very weak. Just the other day, they showed that Ishaq Shemiah is from the Eastern European Jews, which includes the Russian Jewry. It was stated that they are not really Jews, but a convert under the king in the ancient time who converted with all his nation. In that program where Shemiah was discussed, they show the opposite, Shemon Perez, who was not from Eastern block Jewry, to be a true bloodline of what is known as Israelite. Go and do your own research. maybe you should result to google and or widipedia and others. Already you have batted zero for three.

But I will continue to allow you to even remain on the mound. You have not proven the red indians to be from the Chikldren of Israel. There is no evidence of it.

Even the Falasians of East Africa have their evidences. The few who claim Jewry/Children of Israel descendancy in West Africa, have the evidences to proof it. We have not seen the Golbal Jewry or the American Jews accepting the Red Indians about what you present.

Finally, do your own research, you will see that Joseph Smith was not from the Children of Isreal, either. Not the true God the Creator, who I worship. I am talking about your made up god! That god could have been the idol/image or the conceptualised god that you have.

The god that was limited by knowledge to kow the total/complete condition of its subject that he had to come learn their ways, in order to give mercy/justice! Yet, according to you some people will end up in the lake of fire, even after this god learnt first hand how difficult it is to live a life of human. See how weak that god is? A true God knows everything. Thats the God I worship. Your concept of god is not different from the hamandiola (I read it from +osisi's post. I may be wrong about the spelling, but am going to assume it is an igbo religion. Same as Shongo of Yoruba).

I am teaching you your Bible, silly (thats just to say that you should know, duh. I am not saying it as an offensive statement). Unless you are pretending not to know. Maybe you truly do not know. Read how unfair is your god is in the Bible!

Let me even tell you, your bible god said braham should send out his young son and the mother of the son out. Both mother and son did not put up even an argument. Then your god cursed the child that he will be a wild man. Remember it was the little boy who was cursed to be a wild man. This boy turned out to be a descent man and there was no report that he was ever wild or made anybody uncomfortable, throughout his life! Now tell we did the curse come to pass on the boy? No! It is because there was no god cursing the boy! The curse was just a made up argument to bring this man, Ischmael down! It did not work. And if you respond with anything other than Ischmael, expect me to respond in the same manner of your response. I have to warn you first. Stand upon the truth, even if the truth will prove you wrong.

Don't be silly! That I don't agree with the authnecity of your assertation doesn't mean that I can't show that the people I presented meet the standards. For example, an argument could be presented that to be the president of the US, you have to be a White male. I may not agree with the argument, but I can certainly show that several people meet that criteria.
Basically, get real and present a half decent rebuttal.

I do not get your joke here. But I will try to laugh with you, anyway. lol. I do not want to upset you, but explain yourself!

To be a prophet is not just claiming the title it has a tremendous amount of valued/parts/responsibility and proveability. Joseph Smith would never have passed the muster of Prophethood, it any of the core litmus was applied.

You are a Mormon. I see. Just like Mitt Romney. Sorry, man. I am now aware of your reason to argue the case for Mormon, and for Protestants, Catholics, the same people the mormon have a common relationships, vis a vis, Bible, however different, Jesus regrdless of who is doing the talking, and religion, Christianity. Let me ask you this though, is Jesus at least also son of man and a prophet who did not have dignity in his own land, in the Book of Mormon? I smile bashfully, covering my mouth with my hand.

KAG, you are so dishonest, its scary! Are you truly a believer in something or you are just arguing for the purpose of participation?

If you believe in anything at all, you would have known, at least from this board that the Muslims are very consistent it their claims, that God Almighty Allah had sent Prophets and Messengers to makind, starting from Adam, who was aprophet and the first man to be created. His prophethood covered his wife and him, at the beginning and then their children when they began to have them. The generations continues and the prophethood of Adam stopped when the next prophet began his prophethood. This is the chain links of all prophets/messengers, one succeeding the other, until the last that was sent to all mankinds; The whole earth human and jinn. That prophet/messenger was Muhammad (as). So you see God in Islam never left any human group without providing guidance source. And the core message is Always Laa ilaha ilallah! (No god except 'The God').

KAG, what did Joseph Smith? And what didnt Muhammad perfect; any aspect at all, from cradle to grave? Please quiz me and the muslims. This should be interesting. Our answers will not be localized, but universal. Unlike any answer you will provide when we quiz you. That is if you will strong enough to handle the truth.

Are you a cultist? You seem to be so facinated by these cult like groups. Are they like heavens gate of the 80s in America, the group that killed themselves by taking poison?

I am going to find his question. I will answer it if it is true that I dodge it. Or just simply quote it for his own reference to show that i did not dodge it.
(KAG's question which he asked me and I answere him with the one liner below. How old is Islam again?
Islam you said! Not a sect of Old hag, Christianity which is what Mormon fall into! Pych!) Now I will do better I will answer you that Islam started for mankind at the time that Adam became a living soul. See as a living man, he was not a spirit. But his soul is a spirit. Now, up to the time of the receipt of revelation, by Muhammad, Islam was in this developing stage(s), but becoming formented into maturity. So when in the hand of Adam, it was in its earlies infancy. When it got to Ibrahiim, it had taken up the name Muslim for those who pracice it. And Ibrahiim was the first in his generation, afterall he was the prophet. When it got to Jesus, it was a lot advance, call it in graduate school at that time. Finally, during the prophethood od Muhammad, in the time of his only Hajj, in his last year full year on earth, Allah Completed the religion, by perfecting it as a favor bestowed upon mankind and chose that RELIGION, in this perfect stage as the only religion acceptable by Him. There fore if you are talking about its perfect stage it is over 1400 years. If you are taling about when it transferred to Muhammad as the steward then it is hijra plus 13 years. If you are talking about it started with mankind, then you have to go to Adam himself. calculate from there. Definately, it is older than Judaism and Christianity.

KAG, what is shameful here is that you even deny your own statements! The below is what you said when I responsed to Debosky about his 'remix,' allegation against the Qur'an. I said, in a nutshell,how could the remixed be so better than the original, and I used the Music studio allegory/metaphor to support my argument with him. But you were the one that responded instead. Anyway your response is as noted. Who is not sincere here, putting forward that the New Must be the better? Definately not me. My idea is for certain that Qur'an did not copy a corrupt material text!
(Here is what you said, KAG, which you are trying to forget)If the Koran is that masterpiece, then the Book of Mormon is the super, super, Masterpiece. And the scripture of the Bahai faith, the Kalimat-i-Maknunih? It's totally out of this world.)

You are action like our former Defense Secretary, Mr. Donald Rumfeld.

Repeat a lie so many times long enough, and it be taken as the truth. KAG, there is no Islamic word known as Mohammediansm.

Just as there is no word in Christianity called TRINITY, eventhough you develop an Idea on this phantom.

<Olabowale's statement>Just because a group says it has a religion and a book does not mean that it is authentic.>
<Response from KAG>Good, because I was always had my doubts about Islam/Mohammedianism.>

Your premise of doubt can be applied to every religion by one or more of the others.

Today, Mitt Romney is being flatly rejected by other Christians, who are claiming that Mormon is a cult What do you say to that? Today alone Barack Obama is stating that he is not a Muslim. People forgets that his mother is white, but all they see is the Kenyan in him. So you see we can cancel each other out, all day and all night. But non o that effort will change God's about his religion.

The one who is in a sticky bind is none less than you. In the first place, the Bible (New Testament) is fighting the Toral (Old Testament) Then the New Testament turns around and fights itself. It fights itself by putting up Mark 12 verse 29 up against the concept of Trinity> By the way, which one do you take to be true, because they cannot both be true? It fights the Torah on one hand by its concept of Trinity as well and the agrees with it by Mark 12 Verse 29. What we have then are two fights and 2 agrements! This is confusing.

dafidixone:
GODISNOWHERE

olabowale:
@Debosky, KAG and Jayon: Gentle we have some problems!

Do you how wrong is if Mormon sect is the correct sect one. Therefore, all of the 'humanities,' that had passed away in the all the other are now in the lake of fire.

Unfortunately, foryou and your idea, Joseph Smith happens not to be a 'Native American,' but a white man, 'WASP,' until after he had his Saul/Paul like encounter, which made him leave the Older Christian sect to formulate a new One!

The failure in your theory also, is that God Almighty have confirmed that there will never be another Prophet, because the office of messengership ended with Muhammad.

Finally there 'East European,' Jewry, is a convert to Judaism, but not Jew or 'Children of Israil,' by its ethnicity! That knocks it out the Box; possibility that the 'Red Indian,' are not ethnically Jew!

Finally, your God punishes for all kind of infractions, yet by you, the same God will still have Israil as His people and all of you are praying for her success!

Are you guys, the Christians taking into considerations, all Israil's evil deeds, even killing your god the son? In every case, however you slice it, your God will always be an unfair God, condoning others while he punishes a lot more for even a lesser sin; leaving Aaron alone, unpunished while He killed many in the scenario of the golden calf!

If you do not believe the covenant with Ibrahiim as I provided it, yet you are using it to explain a possible authenticity of Joseph Smith and his sect! See how incredulous you are, flowing with whatever may look good. Your resentation has to 'Backbone!'

Finally, was this not the same as the core of the covenant, from the Jews and christians looking glass? Except they are restricting it through Sarah! Obviously you do not know the history of the Red Indians! You need to go to the Reservations.

And your Lord/God had allowed a horde of those people in the past before Joseph Smith worshipped Him, under the wrong Christian practices! Wow, a good god/lord he is!

If all of this perfection of aspects ot it, I wonder what happens to the other aspects that Joseph Smith did not perfect?

Somebody will come and perfect it, but somewhre where the 'world power' shifts at that time, say China, India? Take your pick! It can even be Obodo Nigeria, afterall, there used to be The CAC, started the Ijesha man by the name of Joseph Babalola! You see everybody is clinging to be Joseph! The capenter or son of Jacob, which one gongon? I remember Odumosu nicknamed Jesu Oyingbo in the days!

Islam you said! Not a sect of Old hag, Christianity which is what Mormon fall into! Pych!

If your idea is just simply cancel out old by new, then the Nation of Islam or the Ten Percenters of America would be the true religion then, and the rest are lies! See how ridiculous the premise you have put forward?

Just because a group says it has a religion and a book does not mean that it is authentic.

See how many fakes that are around since Creation of Adam? Your thoughts needed to be ignored because it fluctuates between false premises to outright fantasy!

olabowale:
@KAG: Unfortunately, you did not put into consideration that the Mormon is a christian sect; has the same Jesus and all the other thing, then it has in addition Joseph Smith and 'angel' Moroni! Finally, God covenant with Ibrahiim is that all the Prophets after him will come from his bloodline: We see that all of those sects and religions that you mentioned above, none of their, using the term very very loosely, 'Prophet,' is from the Progeny of Ibrahiim. Take for example, the Mormons, their man is Joseph Smith, of Upstate New York.

Joseph Smith, if you take him and try to apply him in the way you are suggesting, you will destroy the total Christianity, both Catholic and Protestant sects. Joseph Smith is their Saul/Paul. Both are less in God's eyes to Jesus.

But a mere deviation of the Mormons from the main stream Christians, the orthodox sects, catholic and protestant put it at loggerhead as it goes against the grain of what it is accepted within Christianity up until Joseph Smith. Say, the difference is nothing less than 1000 years!

Unless you will tell us that your Bible has been a lie until Joseph Smiths. Yet he copied its style. So both of them must be lying! No wonder the Republican conservatives in the USA are declaring that the Mormon is not from the Christian religion. Yet you are using it to malign your own Bible.

The other folks/groups that you mentioned, does any of their main personalities come from Ibrahiim's bloodline?

If not, then you have the same condition of fakery as it applies to Mormon! Now, Islam happens to be a revealed religion. Its Book is from God directly.

Its last and final prophet who received the revelations that the Qur'an is made up of, is directly from the bloodline of Ibrahiim.

You see how your assertions are shredded apart like the lace attire of Ishola Folorunsho during his Bar beach last appearance! Don't worry this is beyond you.

ismailys:
miracles of numbers(repitition

olabowale:
@Debosky; Debosky, etc, apply the same 'whole world,' to the claim(s) you have for Jesus, son of Mary, about salvation, message, absortion of sins, etc! And of course, show me how essentially 'remixed,' version could be so better than the Original? Then I will show you, using Music Studio's metaphor, the original lacks the full flavor, whereas the remixed really had used some latest technology to turn out a Masterpiece. The Qur'an is that Masterpiece, while Torah and Sabur and the Bible (Good News) in total is that production that lacks the full flavor, because of lack of good and genuine efforts, both in the manpower and equipments usage.

ricadelide:
@KAG,Very good actually. Hope you're good as well.

Lol . . . is it about their searching or about what they've found? Heck, what's the purpose of an endless search? There has to be some joy not just in the searching but in the finding as well. And if I may say, some of us are quite frank about what we have found (not that we aint searching for more finds though). However, there's no compulsion (for others) to take our word for it, and sometimes, we can't prove our finds sufficiently over the net.

Re-reading meself: why do i get this feeling that i seemed to place some mumbo up there

Anyways, back to the topic (or side-topic),

Now for a needed DISCLAIMER: @ OP, THIS IS NOT A DIVERSION, at least that's not the intent, its just a point of correction, and my emphasis is particularly on the bible and the God of the bible NOT on evolution

When you (KAG) said this:
I let it pass, 'because it seemed to be a deviation of the topic, and since you mentioned "some diety or the other" I took it that you didn't really intend to have previously said "particularly the Christian ones"; obviously there's some contradiction in there. Except you just meant their being "Christian" only in the nominal sense.

However, this statement:

To keep with the theme of the thread though, Christians that believe God is/was responsible for it all, believe, he started the process and is letting it run its course.

AND:Now this got me going, because since you decried someone else of ignorance, I think you have not been fair in that regard. While Cgift might have better qualified his statement by restricting it to the Judeo-Christian God, the fact still remains and I seriously wish you'd consider.

Looking at it, which is really ignorant, 'Christians' who read the bible and realize (albeit with some concern for some; who knows) that a cursory reading does not support nor allow for the main themes that characterize yet again a cursory reading of the TOE, or those who with some high degree of intellectual dishonesty, try to reconcile two ends that can never meet? In a very odd way, this kind of assertion reminds me of that weird "atheist Christian" thread and notion.

I'm sure at this point you'd be bracing up to argue that they are not "biblical literalists" but rather take the bible figuratively. That might account for why they'd dismiss the literal biblical account where the flying creatures (birds et al) came BEFORE (at least one day before) reptiles as opposed to the reverse by the TOE. It would account for a dismissal of the earth's creation BEFORE the sun, moon, stars et al, again in CLEAR contradiction to the TOE, the water bodies being created before the land, yet again, as opposed to the reverse propounded by the TOE - I could go on and on. I guess those clear contradictions aren't obvious enough for one to make a categorical statement of an impossibility to reconcile both.

To such assertions (of non-literalness), my question then would be do such people actually accept anything at all as being literal in the bible? Is the WHOLE of the bible merely figurative? Where my concern grows is where it relates to the theme that runs throughout christianity and ties the whole (from Genesis to Revelations) together. I'm talking about death. I'm talking about man. And I'm talking about sin. In other words, in all that dismissal of "literalness" I wonder how such a one would not have dismissed Christianity as a whole and the message of Christ's death on the cross. The whole point of Christianity is that man sinned and death came as a RESULT OF man's sin. This event was so serious that God Himself had to send His Son to DIE as a sort of payment for that sin.

How, if I may ask, would one reconcile that with the TOE, where man's coming unto the scene is as a consequence of long-existing death(s), rather than a harbinger thereof?

How do TE's profess a Judeo-Christian God who, on the one hand, causes (or is it allows) the animals to die and perish, yet on the other hand, let's man know that the consequence of his own action is the death (that was to have existed before he came)? Isn't it a tad redundant, if not plain foolish, for Jesus to come down from heaven to remedy man's sin and the allegedly consequent death when the very said mechanism of death and survival was his means of creating the said man?

Furthermore, what sort of a God uses a merciless means such as struggle, death, survival of the fittest, and 99.9% non-beneficial mutations as his means of creation and at the end of the day have the audacity to call it "very good"? Is there anything "godly" about the TOE, I'm talking about the process that has been advocated as the mechanism, NOT the beautiful claimed result that we see on the "PLANET EARTH" series I saw last year on Discovery Channel. My arguement isn't that there are no bad things (evil, death etc) in the world, it is AGAINST the notion that such could ever have constituted a mechanism of creation by THE Judeo-Christian God whom we know in (our) experience, furthermore clarified by a written documentation.

Political correctness may be desirable for some. However, intellectual honesty is better. Some other 'gods' and some other religions might allow for such inclusions, however, count the Judeo-Christian God out. The mere existence of any such book called 'the bible' precludes any claimed adherent from sneaking in another account of creation, not to talk of one as diametrically opposed to the whole theme of christianity as evolution.

Anybody has the right to believe whatever they want. Theistic evolutionists can believe whatever they like. I can believe that 2 + 2 is equal to 3; perhaps a three year old would take me seriously. In the case of so-called 'christian' TE's, neither true christians nor evolutionists ought to take them seriously.

Like cgift said, it is a fraud and, might I add, a high degree of intellectual dishonesty to claim that the Judeo-Christian God CAN or DID make use of the TOE as his "mechanism of creation". I'm aware that many Christians who haven't really considered the issue in-depth could be shaky, I believe to a certain level Rom. 3:4 is apt and sufficient, a more detailed study of both claims and an examination of the evidence (if one is so priviledged) would however IMO be better.

Cheers .

DISCLAIMER #2: again, I'm sorry if some might see this as a diversion - I kind of think it is related in a way. And If you think otherwise, I'm sorry. I won't drag the issue beyond this. Cheers all.

ricadelide:
Hi Kag,Lol . . . how're you doing? Been a while _{even nferyn seems to be MIA}

I can see your search still continues. Hmmn, hopefully one day, one very day . . . .

Cheers

_{Had to greet an e-friend, back to topic}

cgift:
I want to believe your choice of "neither" in this case means your "opposition" to Creation - That mean you disagree with the claim that Someone took His time to create things literarily.

Ok. If that is the case, can you then tell us what the first created (may be evoluted) entity was and how it came into being?

Ok. The reason why this proposition is unfounded is that you are neither here or there. You talk of some deity? Do you know him? What are his attributes? How do you relate with him? How are you even sure he created or "chose evolution" as the process? You then go ahead to advocate evolution:

My question is this: has evolution stopped? What are humans going to evolve to in i don't know how long a time? Do you have answers to these? What trends have been seen or what proofs have you that evolution continues or has the "deity" in question stopped evolution from continuing?

You only being presumptious here. For decades and centuries, they have not being able to explain how the first cells came about?

Even the simplest of cells like the Mycoplasma Genitalium among others, have not been able to be unravelled.

Now tell me, if evolution or phylogenesis advocates sequences that culminated in the basic fundamentals of all living beings i.e., the cells, why is it that they have not been able to create a cell even with abiogenesis? By my understanding, abiogenesis means A hypothetical organic phenomenon by which living organisms are created from nonliving matter - i hope you saw that in red? Hypothesis! That is what it remains - and I think that means soomething that is based primarily on surmise rather than adequate evidence.

My friend, you need to do some more work in convincing me that evolution is real.

kingsikaz:
some believe that the Biblical line, " In the beginning God created heaven and earth. And the earth was without "form' and 'void', Gen1 vs 1-2. was a CREATION ,others believe that it was a RE-CREATION. what's your own view?

cgift:
Jagunlabi,

Only a fraud will advocate CREATION and also EVOLUTION.

Where do you stand. If the former, then what books/guide do you have from him detailing whom he is and what hedoes? If the latter, can you tell me why evolutionists (seeking scietific solutions) have not been able to create a single cell with the scietists agreeing that it is impossible for the cell (even the simplest of them like the Mycoplasma Genitallium) to evolve.

Get your facts right and don't come out confused.

baby4u2:
KAG abeg no bi only u sabi. they are different i don't need to be explaining things to mature people like u.

baby4u2:
yes KAG and having elephantiases is thesame as being a rapist, and having six fingers is thesame as being gay. shekena.

jagunlabi:
Nigeria moral/ethical decadence demonstrates quite explicitly the vast difference between being religious and being spiritual.

namdo:
how did all these come up? maybe the world and all in it just appeared or evolved , emmmm from nothing

baby4u2:
rapist, pedophiles, gay, lesbians, other sexual deviants all fall under abnormal human characteristics. therefore in nigeria we might say demonic possession.

Bosegirl:
Hello, can some one tell me the meaning of gay? because this will be the first time i will heard about this case. But as for me i would have add my own comment assuming i know any thing about it.

N.B. Can male or female became Gay? Please i need your attention.

i will be very grateful, if i can get quick answer.

olrotimi:
@ poster, thats not what the bibl says, God made the woman to be a companion of the man.recall what happened to the gays and lesbians in the bibl.

Kobojunkie:
LMAO!!!! I noticed that too, People are "open Minded" as long as the person who is gay is not a close member of their family or just a friend, but as soon as a sister/brother or parent professes to be gay, BOOM!!!! The whole changes. I have seen this happen over and over and I can not help but laugh each time too. The same persons who claim others are being close minded on the issue become worse themselves when they are affected. LMAO!!!

imhotep:
Claiming that God made somebody gay is a dangerous path to follow.

It would imply that RAPISTS, PEDOPHILES (and other sexual deviants) were made so by God and should not be prosecuted or held accountable for their actions!!!!

We should all find out what Jesus meant when he said:

"Truly, truly, I say to you, every one who commits sin is a slave to sin." (John 8:34)

Who Created God?