₦airaland Forum

promise101:
Yea! You asked a good question that I have once asked.

Now, for you to understand this, you have to know that Yaweeh is a God of Justice. You have to know that injustice is sin. Then, if God should play injustice then it means that God can sin.

However, God CAN NEVER play injustice(sin).

Furthermore, God REALLY has the power to interfere between our sins and the devil and just forgive us our sins for us to be free from the devil.

But if God should interfere, then it is INJUSTICE.

Now, for God to save us by playing Justice, God had to use this rule:
"MAN lost the glory, MAN must recover the glory"

If God had interfere, it would be: "MAN lost the glory, SPIRIT recovers the glory" and as such is injustice in God's part. Because God is not a man but a spirit.

So now for glory to be recovered, a ransom MUST be paid for us to be saved. And the ransom must be a man. And the man is Jesus.


Note: when we were under sin, we were also under it's penalty.

For the wages of sin is DEATH, but the gift of God(Jesus) is ETERNAL LIFE.


Also, see this, just like the law of karma; you CANNOT avoid the consequences of the bad you do.
You must reap it!

If God should just take away sin, like that, without punishing the sin, it is a sign of injustice.

Supposed, that sin should be punished, then we ourselves will be the ones to be punished. For instance, for a judge to pass judgement on a case of murder, he will be passing judgment on the murderer. And in our case, we were all guilty for the sins we have committed. Then, we had to face the penalty, which is DEATH.


Therefore, john3:16;"For God SO LOVED the world, that he gave his only begotten son(ransom- jesus), that whosoever that shall believe in him, shall not perish but have everlasting life."


So now, being that we were the ones that sinned, God still loved us so much, and to prove it, he gave up his son Jesus for us.

Now, because of God's love, instead of our sins to be judged on us, all our sins were Judged on christ and he was condemned to death and he died in our place.


Just as simple as that!

You just gave a distorted meaning to Injustice. Injustice is giving unfairly or undeservedly. Rewarding the undeserved and punishing the innocent.

The true application of injustice was punishing or allowing the punishment of Jesus despite his innocence. Worse is punishing those who don't have the ability to act freely. Because if man could act freely, he would be without sin if he so wished.

promise101:
Yea! You asked a good question that I have once asked.

Now, for you to understand this, you have to know that Yaweeh is a God of Justice. You have to know that injustice is sin. Then, if God should play injustice then it means that God can sin.

However, God CAN NEVER play injustice(sin).

Furthermore, God REALLY has the power to interfere between our sins and the devil and just forgive us our sins for us to be free from the devil.

But if God should interfere, then it is INJUSTICE.

Now, for God to save us by playing Justice, God had to use this rule:
"MAN lost the glory, MAN must recover the glory"

If God had interfere, it would be: "MAN lost the glory, SPIRIT recovers the glory" and as such is injustice in God's part. Because God is not a man but a spirit.

So now for glory to be recovered, a ransom MUST be paid for us to be saved. And the ransom must be a man. And the man is Jesus.


Note: when we were under sin, we were also under it's penalty.

For the wages of sin is DEATH, but the gift of God(Jesus) is ETERNAL LIFE.


Also, see this, just like the law of karma; you CANNOT avoid the consequences of the bad you do.
You must reap it!

If God should just take away sin, like that, without punishing the sin, it is a sign of injustice.

Supposed, that sin should be punished, then we ourselves will be the ones to be punished. For instance, for a judge to pass judgement on a case of murder, he will be passing judgment on the murderer. And in our case, we were all guilty for the sins we have committed. Then, we had to face the penalty, which is DEATH.


Therefore, john3:16;"For God SO LOVED the world, that he gave his only begotten son(ransom- jesus), that whosoever that shall believe in him, shall not perish but have everlasting life."


So now, being that we were the ones that sinned, God still loved us so much, and to prove it, he gave up his son Jesus for us.

Now, because of God's love, instead of our sins to be judged on us, all our sins were Judged on christ and he was condemned to death and he died in our place.


Just as simple as that!

But HE did intervene by other means. By sending Jesus Christ rather than using simple words. So whatever injustice God was avoiding, is being manifested by forgiving man through Jesus.

Joshthefirst has a valid grouse with the OP, Plaetton expresses a unique perspective.

Someone asked if a car with lots of it's bits out was a car. A similar thread runs through whether a cell with 5000 is same with a cell with 450. It's a tough question though.

I don't think each part of car is a car. The tyre individually isn't a car. A windscreen isn't a car neither is a chassis. Your view might be reasonably different. You might think the fact all the parts need not be present for there to be a car. You can still have a car with only a chassis and tyres or chassis only.

Similarly is a cell without 2/3 of its genes still that same cell? If not, then there is an act of creation by reduction. A sculpture is an example of creation by reduction. The old material becomes an entirely different existence from its finished product.

Plaetton finds such to be the handiwork of bioengineering. They have in effect created or recreated life. While you might not agree ONLY you think the cell with reduced parts is still the same.

adewarley099:
Get into it or get the f out u were given a chance to build a family with a guy who has other offers outside bf he decided to choose u only for u to abandon him like spoilt tomatoes, all u cared about is how u will keep cruising parties,and the nigga gat no time for all your bs so he jumped into the next available ship, Moral of my story is choose family over showbiz......

Building a family to you means being a housewife? OR giving a dominant role to the man?

HungerBAD:
Go back,kneel down and hopefully he accepts you navk.

Then ,please change your partying ways and have time for your home.
You cannot make your home work,when you are alway absent there.
Side chicks not smiling.

This proves how faulty traditional values are. Loyalty like morality is universal, it has to apply at all times to be valid. Presuming that the failure to satisfy the husband in bed or family way does excuse disloyalty.

Divorce at times can be redeeming. It gives a fresh start. Human relationships don't always work out, people steal and cheat.

TrueBorn:
It's not being irrational. It's being resolute about something I believe and know is true. Everything d Bible says abt Jesus is true and I am not ashamed to say this.

I pray God will open ur eyes to the Truth cos no matter how much u try to understand it tru human wisdom, u can't. Only God can give u that understanding and He will if only u'd stop fighting it and allow Him to.

The sum total of what you are saying is, you have a very strong conviction that Christianity is a true religion. Same with errors, we have deep convictions in our errors.

elipheleh:
So by your reasoning it is right to kill whomever is a blockade to your education ? So it is right to kill or terminate any person you consider a disturbance to your perfectly planned life.? I see. I guess armed robbers are right in killing bank managers and individuals whomever they consider might plan or attempt to stall their plans? Right? Fool. Be a murderer and just watch how revenge is metres out against you by the whole nature itself. If in doubt then ask cain when the whole system of nature started pursuing him up and down without rest.

I don't consider abortion as murder if I did, I wouldn't support it. Of course who is human, is a controversial question

LaExpert:
My point is simply abstinence is better than abortion in all ways...which you also apparently agree to.

Regards.

Loool!

We both found the woman's actions distasteful and disturbing. Yet we should acknowledge a state of affairs that pushes an ordinary woman with the ordinary heart to commit such atrocity.

Nigeria is hardly a welfare state, it is every dog for himself world. Women who do this, don't do it fun, rather they lack the support structure a welfare state usually has. The babies are expensive and neither are there sufficient orphanages nor adequately funded orphanages. Worse of all, is the interruption in their education and the social stigma associated with unwanted pregnancies.

So I perceive you believe strongly in abstinence and consequently believe those with unwanted pregnancies willingly intended it and deserve the consequences attached to it. Such consequences then serve as a moral punishment for their indiscretion. Because abstinence doesn't solve an unwanted pregnancy.

EDITED

LaExpert:
Everyone can.

You disagree?

My point all along was they don't have, which apparently you agree to. Whether they can, I don't know.

KingEbukasBlog:
Are you oblivious to the fact that the two emboldened texts prove that life requires a creator . Bakers need to know the right ingredients to make bread ? Only intelligence and knowledge are needed to decide the required quantity of ingredients in a mixture .

...


And how the required quantity of ingredients are made to appear by sheer magic!

Plaetton shows an article of bioengineers who created life and yet don't understand how they created it. The elements of creativity and intention are thrown out of the window. If those are out, is what's left intelligently designed?!

I am more concerned with the ethics of this project.

LaExpert:
Everyone can actually have a 'strong will.'
.

So you acknowledge they don't but can, right?

LaExpert:
Burning desires or not; it still boils down you making the choice.

Having sex is NOT a reflex action, it can be controlled.
No one dies from not having sex.

If that same 'chronic' cigarette smoker knows that next stick of cigarette will choke him to death, he likely won't lit it...despite his cravings.
If that gentleman knows he'll contract AIDS from that lady, he will restrain himself despite his 'burning desires.'


If the smoker truly suffers from addiction; Why do you think that same 'chronic smoker' will magically stop smoking when the doctor tells him further smoking will lead to dysfunctional lungs and death?


Must something wrong happen to people before they do the right things?

Don't burning desires becloud our judgments? In some people, they are able to maintain a firm control over these desires while others fail at it. Similarly addictions, most smokers know smoking is bad and injurious to their health yet they can't summon the will to control that addiction.

Our reason and self control conflict with our desires and emotions. We try to rein the desires to eat and have sex but not always successfully.

So your abstinence policy can only work for those with strong will.

Talent seems to have acquired a meaning contrary to its original meaning.

LaExpert:
As reasonable as what you opined seems, it is still highly flawed.

Someone who is in the motion of abstinence will;
1. Most likely not get trapped in a situation that will make him lose control and;
2. Recognise and avoid situations that will make him 'lose control.'

Ones willpower isn't faltered, if anyone has consensual sex, then it is his/her choice.

Why do you think someone at the verge of a sexual encounter and learns the partner is HIV+, will (most certainly) restrain himself?

Or will you have sex with someone you know has an STD because you have a sexual urge?

It all boils down to choice.

Just the same way cigarette smokers willingly struggle to quit. People don't make logical deductions to have sex, rather it is a biological response. Humans are not cold logical cases.

That's why people have burning desires, don't you think so?

benjibabs:
MrBrownJ & pinceprinz,

Both of you should stop deceiving one another. Because aborting within 12 weeks is legal (wherever) does not make it right. What is the difference between the young fetus and the grown one? It is not the same baby? Without the young fetus can there ever be the grown one? If the young fetuses "WHO" grew up to become both of you today had ended up being sucked out of your respective mothers, would you two be here today to contribute your quota? Do you even know how dangerous abortion is at any point in the pregnancy cycle?

I dare you two to watch the videos in the link below and still remain the same:

AbortionsProcedures.com

And did I mention that the first line of defense is the old fashion abstinence? and it is the only form of "protection" that is 100% guaranteed!!!

The idea is babies develop in the womb. They gain significant attributes and features that make them more and more human. If you concede to this point, it means that there is an early stage whereby the baby isn't sufficiently formed to be regarded as a human with the special features that make it human.

It is at this stage the foetus can safely be extracted without moral consequences.

Abortion has a bad reputation but a careful scrutiny reveals its advantages.

LaExpert:
The abstinence crowd probably don't know its failures...because it has none, and if you think there are; you may go on to mention them.


Can you tell me of anyone that abstinence has killed or probably harmed in anyway.

Abstinence does it better.

Learn to appreciate good things...and reject bad ones.

An individual in the motions of abstinence who loses control of his/her sexual urges and gives in to sex, is often in an unplanned situation without contraceptives or other means. Abstinence is as strong as one's willpower. And once such willpower falters, there is no safety net cos most abstinence crowd believe they will never fail.

Joshthefirst:
Let them have the babies. yes. they should take them to homes and places where they will not die. Value human life and don't despise it.

Life is potential. Life is divine.

Provided there are homes to take them to. You haven't adopted one yourself, have you?

Abortion at the earliest stage cuts out the logistics of establishing homes for these children. The cell is very much in a vegetative state, the surgery if done by a credible expert is relatively easy.

Joshthefirst:
What about banking on other methods of family planning that doesn't leave blood on your hands?

Your words are basically evil. You can explain wars and genocidal killings as helping to keep the population stable also.
Disregard for human life and all the potential life holds, especially unsoiled, unborn life.

What family planning methods did you have in mind?

The abstinence crowd wouldn't talk about the failures of abstinence. When sexually active adults are battered by raging hormones, when Nature has appointed the age when we reproduce, who are We to deny such a natural process?

Besides abortion helps keep the population stable, we can't recklessly bank on abstinence.

HandsomeChris:
Only the nails that went into His hands is enough sacrifice to ponder about. We humans cannot understand spiritual things with the way we think or talk. When you die, then your eyes would be opened to see the things you cannot see now.
That which is born of the spirit is spirit and that which born of the flesh is flesh. Ask God for spiritual understanding.

This so called spiritual wisdom was passed down to you from preceding generations, isn't it prudent to ask questions?

Like why an omnipotent being needs to die for sins when his words are sufficient to wipe out such sins. There are many religions but if there is a true religion, it will be surrounded by many false ones. So there has to be a distinguishing factor separating falsehood from truth.

TrueBorn:
Pls reread the article for more clarity. It answers ur question. Kindly note this: u cannot analyze spiritual matters with human wisdom. We should stop trying to analyze and dissect God because it's impossible and frustrating. All u need do is open up ur heart and believe.

All religions will successfully pass "you can't analyze spiritual matters with human wisdom" test. All religions will be valid as a result.

Besides KingEbuka has introduced the Trinity into the mix. So there isn't just God but Jesus and the Holy Spirit existing in a pseudo unity. The implication is, there lies the possibility of a number of eternal self existent beings existing.

Joshthefirst:
I have not made this claim.

Its the other way round madam, with us doing the sharing. But its somewhat true.

I wonder how the fact that God exists as a being changes anything though.

Being is a concretization and presence of existence. There must be a commonality between man and God on this basis

i think the claim God dragged rabbits from an empty hat cannot stand any scrutiny. It is abject rubbish.

God exists as a being, therefore shares a commonality with other beings. Josh and co prove this by articulating God shares emotions, consciousness and intelligence with humans.

kessiah:
Receive SENSE in the name of your god
If he knows that with that single tweet he will win the heart of those that invented twitter, then why use it to win the heart of his citizens,
If has subjected human lives aS opportunity to gain favour, let God help uS

Weigh the effectiveness of this tweet with potential allies and a tweet saying sorry to a corper who died from election violence. The tweet saying sorry is actually useless. Rather than tweet that, why not take a more effective option of ordering the IGP to investigate the matter.

Boko Haram is extremely motivated and dangerous, they succeeded in wasting away an entire state as large as Southwest Nigeria. The fact Lagosians feel isolated from the war (it is a civil war) does not mean Boko Haram doesn't have the will and resources to break a full scale insurgency to their doorstep.

I think Buhari is justified to send out that tweet.

tunergy:
In Summary IT IS ALL ABOUT THE MONEY. and the people at home can die, they will always die anyways, from poverty and hunger. But as long as we can gather foreign currency from oyinbo to fight war, we are allowed to put oyinbo first before our own people.

This is a Genius matter

1. Poverty and hunger in Nigeria can not be eliminated within 4 years or 10 years with government social programs rather through trade with other nations hence China's and Brazil's emergence.

2. The tweet expresses a common grievance with a common enemy. The fact ISIS blows up a place in Europe doesn't wipe out it's sins through its proxy Boko Haram. It is even more hypocritical and shortsighted to condemn ISIS attacks in Nigeria and ignore similar attacks elsewhere.

ISIS is responsible for both the French and Belgian attacks AND also for Boko Haram sponsoring. With such common misery from one single enemy, Nigeria can get massive funds and military training from the EU especially when budgetary funds are tight.

In modern warfares, money wins! EU has lots of it! And anger towards ISIS. So Buhari is playing diplomacy via social media. Of course there are always pressing domestic issues, they will always be and doesn't mean they are not in consideration.

bedfordng:
Just like glo saying their sim is alternative to mtn,mtn can sue them for copyright infringement.

That would go against advertising codes and not really a copyright issue, since they are not reproducing MTN contents.

2sexynet:
Isn't it shocking to see the level ignorance among Nigerians and those cheering the OP on? With WIPO, facebook can file for UDRP and get that domain name. It will only cost them $1500 or $2000 to get that done, which they will surely win. The panel of judges would tell the registrar of the domain to transfer it to facebook.

Simples

That's more complicated, a domain name does not enjoy the monopolistic privileges of a trademark. Domain registration is restricted to competition for an actual domain which is not in this case. Rather Facebook is pursuing the integrity of it's brand to the exclusions of all others.

So Facebook has to resort to an IP jurisdiction that favours them.

@kingebukanaija

This is best explained in robotics , we have humanoid robots who are not conscious . And how do we know they are not conscious because they do not exhibit it , how do we know they are intelligent , it is given to them by us and is exhibited by these robots and then agreed that they are intelligent e. g Turin Test . Same with emotions .

Are you aware of Qualia?

How important is your faith to you? How much important do you think it is to her? Imagine you being forced to kill your faith for marriage

I don't know much about IP.

Nigeria is a large market for Facebook and they will consider any threat to it as serious.

Domain names are labels and identities for web services therefore can be registered as a trademark. Trademark registration is territorially enforceable. A trademark registered in the US covers only US territory. And the IP owner has to register his trademark in every country he wants it enforced. However there are treaties which make a single registration valid for over 100 countries.

Nigeria could be one of them. And if Nigeria is, they have a good ground to drag you to a Nigerian court and nail you, and you would pay a lot in damages.

I can only give an opinion whether you infringed on Facebook's trademark. The pertinent questions are, whether Facekobo can easily be mistaken for Facebook? Both have same letters, supposedly delivering the same services. And Facebook is an international brand forged in the consciousness of millions of people worldwide. And there is an element of bad faith in trying to take advantage of Facebook's goodwill.

The best step is to consult IP lawyers. Not Festus Keyamo.

http://www.bitlaw.com/internet/domain.html