₦airaland Forum

RexBrita:
Lol...that got a smile outta moi.
Absolutely No. I do not crave love.
I have more than enough love about me.
Btw, the love I refer to is that preached by Jesus. To do unto other what u would that they to you. It is more blessed to give love than to receive. I am an ardent giver of love actually. To love is to be truly concerned about the progress of other and to invest in that progress in any way one can. It could be by teaching, praying, guiding or offering physical, emotional, psychological or spiritual (I don't know much about spiritual though) inputs in a completely selfless manner.

@ the first bolded line, are you saying you do not presently crave for love because you have enough of the love from your religion? Because if that's case, you are one of those that possibly seek out religion for love.

@ the second bolded line. But what is the entire point of giving love and selfless acts to other people?! Why give at all, what are the merits of it? Especially when you pamper and spoil the people seeking for this love because they actually lack self-love. It is similar to opium and other opiate drugs. The drugs give immediate respite but are destructive and dont build.

CHIAAGRO:
THE QUESTION IS COMPLETELY ILLOGICAL! GOD IS AN UNCREATED CREATOR. HE HAS NO BEGINNING NOR END! HE CREATED EVERYTHING INCLUDING TIME. SO YOU CAN NOT ANSWER ANY QUESTION OF "WHEN" OR "WHERE" ABOUT GOD. GOD EXISTS OUTSIDE THESE LIMITS AND HIS REGION OF EXISTENCE IS "ETERNITY". HE IS A SUPREME BEING THAT EXISTED BEFORE ANY WORK OF CREATION! HE CAN NOT BE CAUSED BECAUSE HE HAS NO BEGINNING. UNDERSTAND DEEP WITHIN YOU THAT GOD HAS NO CREATOR AND THAT MAKES HIM WHAT HE IS!
thanks

But a planet or a solar system or anything of simpler complexity needs to be created but not God the most complex being?

RexBrita:
@ Kay17
I agree 100% that some people's practice of religion (not just Christianity) fits well into your description. They are 'blind', confused and need help. But it is not new: remember that Jesus acknowledged the 'lost', 'blind', people described as seeds sown on rocks, sown among thorns etc. And should the leader of any denomination be 'blind', He/She raises an army of 'blinder' followers who agressively defend their "faith". It is a sad reality.

Do you crave to be loved?

KingEbukasBlog:
When rapture takes place , the atheists be like ...

From my understanding of Darwin's theory, all Life has a single root. But that has nothing to do with theology. God could easily have germinated the seeds of life and they naturally sprout into the diverse branches of life. The focus of the thread was to determine the nature of God along with time. In the absence of time, God must either exist in a single moment or in an infinity. Which do you agree to?

KingEbukasBlog:
walahi I just saw this now , and you still don't make sense to me . EVOLUTION IS A THEORY . And stop telling me to read a science book because you garnered your knowledge from youtube videos and dumb atheists' sites .They way you regurgitated these "facts" from the internet also find their opposite (which will be my response ) ... and wait

-ben carson is a christian and was one of the world's best neurosurgeons(science) ... a hell of other scientists are christians
-google heatwave in europe
-il create a thread on pre-adamic creations
-just like you get immune to diseases like chicken pox, the bodies of the eskimos "got immune" to the cold conditions
-its obvious you don't know what natural selection is all about , keep shut

=What happened before the big bang ?Still no answer to this
Diseases are still threats to the survival of life , natural selection hasn't got any answer to this yet --man should have evolved to withstand =diseases according to natural selection
... more are coming still ...

Its obvious you skipped the parts you couldn't answer ,now go back and do your homework and answer in bits . Am enjoying this walahi

When rapture takes place , atheists be like...

How do you explain the biological diversity of life on Earth?

How do migratory species survive in other environments?

Is there a correlation between a species' design and its environment?

KingEbukasBlog:
My God exists outside them. It simply means God has no beginning and end, the Alpha and Omega , he made space , time , matter.

You need to change your church and witness the true God . Stop visiting street churches who have obvious reasons why they spring up !!!

Why does God create time, if time was not necessary for him?

Mattpopson101:
“In the beginning . . .” is when time began! There was no time before time was created!


There was no “before” God created. There was not even “nothing”! There was God existing in eternity.


Baba GOD just dey flex on his own

God is the great “I AM.” He exists in eternity. He was not created.
King James Bible Revelation 1:8
I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.

But you would agree with me that 'before' the Creation and 'during' the Creation, are two separate events, right? If you don't agree with me, then you must believe they are the same event. If you agree with me, then how can you conceive both events without the aid of time.

IS it a coincidence for God to possess both an omnipotent will and a creative mind?

RexBrita:
I guess we share some agreement since you didn't criticize my position.
Your first sentence is a fallacy of generalisation because even if there are such people (it cannot be proved that the set is exclusive to theism), not all theists belong there. All religions have a lot of truly satisfied people as members. If people need to be loved, then they must get it from those who are rich in love. So even by your stance, there are satisfied theists.
God, for theists, is manifest in all creation but bigger than creation. So, for them, experiencing love from other people or circumstances is still love from God. In Christianity for example, showing love to others is the central theme.

I did not say there are no satisfied members of religions, rather I focused on love crusading religions like Christianity and its New Age copies. And more importantly I'm focusing on the their deep craving desire to be loved. They might believe they receive and enjoy such love, my concern such desire is psychological wrong.

RexBrita:
Some people say they don’t believe in God.
But everyone does.
Except that atheism does not approach belief in God in the manner that theism/conventional religion does.

The Higher Being
Every living person knows they have no control over some systems in the world and which no other human being has control of. Some examples will include the planets and their movements; the sun and it’s rising; the seasons; growing and aging; etc. The sophistication of these systems leaves all men curious and marveling. We all recognize that something higher than us is responsible. The grand phenomenon is called by different names. Theism calls Him/It, God, in many languages. Atheism calls It Energy or Force or any such name. But they refer to the same thing.

Like all other religions, atheism claims superiority often attacking perceived/assumed weaknesses of other religions. Like atheism, all other religions have pockets of unresolved questions which binds to the non-stop pursuit to know more.

God, Energy - similarities
It cannot be made nor destroyed.
We obey His/It’s laws whether consciously or not: for example we have no choice but to grow to maturity; food air and blood pass through different track in our body; physical laws like gravity.
We interact with Him/It but cannot see Him/it.
Spiritual laws guide our physical lives too for example religion says "what you sow, you reap"; atheism formulated that action and reaction are equal and opposite (Newton’s law). The similarities are endless if ones avoids the 'temptation' of superficiality.

Seek and you shall find
We don’t understand all of this great Being so we keep striving to know. Religion seeks more in churches and similar organization using faith and inspirational documents passed from generation to generation while Atheism seeks to understand it in labs by conscious observation and analysis using logical processes (SCIENCE).

Conclusion
The conclusion is that God loves everyone. However you seek him, you are welcome.
Theism approaches God as a higher being that human logic alone cannot interpret. Most times, logical reasoning is skipped entirely so that faith takes preeminence. A lot of questions are left unanswered, just like every answered scientific question in Atheism leads to many more questions that need answers. Atheism may not have the structural complexities and peculiarities or conventional religions with worship centers, modes of worship, religious leadership, hierarchies, etc but it is none the less a religion for 'believers' who do not want to adhere to theology without proof.

Humans' continued search will one day lead us to TRUTH. That time, only one Religion will be practiced: LOVE.
So which ever you follow, never stop seeking the Truth.
And you will be free indeed.

I think most people who need God to love them, they lack self-love. They are low in confidence and see themselves as shadows. Therefore, they go around searching for love/attention from other people. They have never experienced God's love, they dont actually need it; what they are really after is other people's attention/approval. In my belief, they are psychologically ill.

Sheenor:
The complexity of our planet points to a deliberate Designer who not only created our universe, but sustains it today.

Many examples showing God's design could be
given, possibly with no end. But here are a few:

The Earth
, Water, Rock, Mountain, Animals Human being and other creations of his.

We know God exists because he pursues us. He is constantly initiating and seeking for us to come to him.

Does the complexity of our Universe point to the complexity of the Designer?

And does the quality of complexity necessitate a design?

justlove91:
That's why the phenomenon is called MATERIALIZATION. The cloaking of an immaterial entity with material particles to make it temporarily material.

And what if I doubt that. How would you PROVE there is a temporary cloak?! you just cannot.

@davien, I'm good, was busy for a while.

justlove91:
Download and READ these ebooks
https://www.ghostcircle.com/free_book/gambier-bolton-ghosts-solid-form/

https://www.ghostcircle.com/free_book/arthur-findlay-edge-etheric/

https://www.ghostcircle.com/free_book/harry-edwards-mediumship-jack-webber/

Try to read these ebooks, they're not religious books so don't assume what they contain, they might just be the proof of afterlife you so need.
But if you don't read them you can't know what they contain and just might be missing out.
So the deal is TRY to read the 3 books cover to cover, I know you're busy but just try. If after reading the 3 books you still maintain your stance then....
It will be nice to drop comments on the books

It is difficult and doubtful to accept a material proof of anti material phenomenon.

Metaphysics is very volatile, it is backgroundless, therefore material proofs of antimaterials is either false or impossible.

Dapo777:
Being a girl comes with a lot of burden, sincerely I feel for the girls. Is it the menstral pains? Labour pain?inferiority complex? Ectesera .
Okay let's get to the crux of the matter.

There are things guys do that are seen as normal but if a girl tries it, she would be castigated. So lucky I am not a girl.
There are things that are natural to men that girls wish was applicable to them too.

1)Being able to Bleep as many girls as he desires:
Girls secretly wish they could also Bleep as many guys as they desire but because they would be tagged LovePeddler and be treated badly and insulted by people ,they decide to let their desire burn within them. So sad.

2)A man can do any job:
There is hardly any work a man cannot do,but there are so many jobs that are exclusively dominated by men, girls wish they could experience some of this jobs but they would be ridiculed/bullied if the venture into it.

3)A man is physically stronger.
Women hate the fact that they are weaker than men,they hate the fact that they can't defend themselves from the hands of a man without another man's intervention. Even in sports too,men are stronger and more agile.

4)Men have natural beauty.
At least that's what we are made to believe and accept that a woman must use all the make ups and go half unclad before men would consider her attractive,but a man almost doesn't need to do much to be attractive. Women would spend hours correcting their looks to be beautiful but a man wouldn't do any to be handsome. So sad.

5)Men are more intelligent generally.
On an average,men are known to be more intelligent,this pisses women off(sorry dear), if a new game is introduced to a man and a woman to learn,like chess for instance,a man would grab it faster than a woman,which shows higher intelligence on the man's side.

6)Men are easily satisfied and they worry less.
A man's life is so simple and worry free,this keeps girls wondering how they could do that when they themselves worry a lot about so many things with terrible mood swings. A man is satisfied with the simple things of life but a woman always want more and more and get more sad and angry as they get more. Ohhh dear, it is well

7)A man can go outside with just boxers/briefs.
A woman can't do that, but they secretly wish they could go outside with their bare breast and experience the incomperable breeze of nature

Men are friends of each other
Women are enemies of each other, they fight each other, curse each otger , envy each other etc but men generally flow easily with each other with very little friction, women wish this was the case with them.

Those cannot be proven true.

[quote author=Aprime post=26890613][/quote]This is a lazy psycho-analysis of what women want. The very attribute of being 'nice' or 'bad' is hardly a determinant. You are ignoring the wonders of attraction which is much the same for both sexes. Handsome, socially confident, well built men despite being rude, are still well built, handsome and socially confident men. Being nice and handsome is a plus, and it is the same manner in which people hardly pay attention to the flaws of the people they are attracted. It is probably a reptilian function.

By the way, nice people can get all their rewards from heaven if they want.

bamosagie:
covert operation of uncle sam, thats the way they bring down government by creating unrest.
the question is how much did the opposition promise the USA?

It is a civil war not an unrest.

noetic16:
Okay the crux of the debate has been the existence (theism) or nihilance (atheism) of God. You would agree with me that after a long while on this forum, atheists have been unable to produce any credible or plausible evidence to either support their assertions that there is no Jehovah God or to back up their theories with regards to the source and origin of life. This is quite disheartening, considering the level of noise atheists make on this forum.

you would also agree with me, that logically the best way to analyse the God question would be to answer the question of the origin of life. Because if for instance, there is plausible and exceptional evidence or logic which proves that the universe or life has no creator, catalyst or super-intelligence behind it, then it would once and for all assert that there is no God But at the moment, everything logical illustrates the influence of a super-intelligence behind the present material world (universe) and life itself.

The floor is open. There is just one question; what is the origin of life as we see it today?

The thread was not adequately dealt with. There is no sin in rehashing it.

The bolded is pregnant with its suggestions and prejudices. Atheists only need to attack the very idea of the God being. They can prove that by showing it is a psychological conditioning or it is a result of ignorance or comparing it to other similar phenomena (other Gods). Hence the question of the Origin of All Life is not incidental to the question of the God being's existence.

Amongst the suggestions and prejudices Noetic16 raises, is the idea of intelligence outside Life. That intelligence can exist outside life forms, which in itself is an unfamiliar and unpopular concept. He does not devote adequate attention to it, rather sneaks it in into the discourse.

So until Noetic16 can address these, he has not raised any real issue.

Matthewbriggs:
According to Transparency international, Under Jonathan Nigerian in I year we went from 31th most corrupt country to 39th. 8steps forward

What happened? Was there actually a successful fight against corruption or did other countries just become more corrupt.
Well, this is what happened.

There are two sides to the fight. Prevention and punishment . while little has been seen regarding punishment, a lot has been done to prevent corruption. from strict banking rules, to transparent contract award and execution to more professional procurement processes and proper accounting processes. CBN, Ministry of finance and other government agencies have improved their processes to a good extent.
Is 39th most corrupt nation worth celebrating? Not at all. but Rome was not built in a day as they say.

The sad part is that all this means nothing to the Public. proper record keeping is no news. they want someone to be hanged. they want a 'big' man to be humiliated. the people want blood. and in this regard, the government gave them nothing. No politician in jail. no body to ridicule. So all the good behind the scene work has no political value. OBJ administration had terrible processes. Corruption was huge, but he gave the public the ''punishment'' they craved. Even if it was mainly visited on his political opponents, the people loved it.
This government has actually done a lot, but punishment is the only way to show you are fighting corruption. They simply did not ''show working'', thereby exposing itself to the accusation of tolerating corruption. Don't just work, be seen to be working. Its also called ''eye service''.

- A.C

He is also the first Nigerian president to grant complete independence to the EFCC.

In other words, there is more bureaucracy involved. GEJ's government is not the first to try that effort. OBJ equally reformed the public service in a manner to reduce corruption. The strict bank rules merely elongate processes. It might be a useful measure to curb corruption, that only can not deal with corruption. Corruption exists in many forms, and the form strict rules deal with is just one. Bogus contracts can lie undetected by this bank process.

Corrupt public servants are criminals similar to rapists and murderers, they naturally deserve punishment. For GEJ to think prosecuting corrupt public servants is not fighting corruption, is a big misunderstanding of his job.

Hence God is not independent of self glory?

Maquiptarepzy:
What if juju wer real,will dat prove d existenc of a suprem being?...and if it doesnt,were do u tink dos powers come from?...pls assume dey wer real..wer do u tink d powers should come and will dat convince u about d existenc of some supernatural powers?

It depends on how the supernatural is defined. The most common definition of supernatural is "that which is beyond our reality". By being beyond our reality, the supernatural cannon exist within our reality, we are incapable of experiencing what it would be.

Hence juju is unprovable.

sinequanon:
I can find a REASONABLE explanation for such behavior, and I am not even religious. So, I would say that the main folly is trying to apply common logic to things transcendental.

From my own perspective, I would say that the word "afterlife" is a misnomer. The transcendental life is here now if we care to pay attention to it, and to within whatever limits we are able to while encumbered with our physical concerns. Implied is the insight that consciousness does not require the physical body, and the physical body does not entirely block transcendental experience.

In order for your words to have a clearer understanding, describe the underlying assumptions in your belief that human consciousness in the absence of the human body, is capable of existing on its own in a transcendental level; that is a level above the physical level.

sinequanon:
A couple of posts ago, you were talking about fear of the future. Now you suddenly want impossible "guarantees". Guarantees cannot be given for such things. There were no guarantees when they started large scale farming. Obviously, there was no precedent when they started large scale farming.

Why don't you choose your words more carefully? They become empty, not strong, when you talk in extremes.

What we do know is that current large scale farming methods are not sustainable and yield inferior produce. Large scale farming was a commercial decision, not a necessity caused by demand.

All you have to do is read properly. I have said..

Famine is more a result of war and population displacement for economic purposes, than of lack of technology.

Persistent famines are almost always caused by war, not the other way round.

In other words, there is no guarantee nor precedent that the methods you advocate for will feed a modern population. Excellent!

Persistent droughts and diseases do cause persistent famine.

sinequanon:
That is a silly appraisal of the situation. Leave those sorts of comments to Plaetton.

Farming methods do not stay static. The fact that you persist on evading the statement about reviewing what our predecessors did, coming from seasoned farmers at the cutting edge of UK Government policy, and sponsored by LLoyds TSB Bank, proves that you are locked in denial.

It is a complete straw man argument to assume that local farming would have remained as it was 50 years ago. A lot of knowledge has accrued since then that would have developed local farming to cater for current demand. And it is foolish to disregard the fact that dangers like soil erosion, deforestation and climate change were not understood by the people proposing large scale farming, which they now know is unstainable.



Stop being lazy and go and watch the videos. They are about sustainability. The whole point is that modern farming methods are not sustainable. In fifty years they have damaged the soil and environment, and you are talking about feeding 7 billion people with that.

We now have UK farmers understanding the importance of, and supporting, crop rotation, planting trees, reducing pesticide use, etc.

Africa needs less of your follow follow attitude, and to enhance the tried and proven methods that other nations are now having to return to.



ok enough of your stupidity.

Learn to read. The Nile not flooding was not a persistent famine. Those types of famine occurred once in several decades.

What is the guarantee that these traditional methods with small scale farming that they can keep up with the mass production levels of our times? None. There is no precedent. Hence why so much faith in it? Lloyds Bank and co might sponsor them, but there will definitely be critics with equal weight. If you want me to trust them by watching videos ok then!

Note I am not saying the present practices are flawless or not dangerous.

Now, you acknowledge the various causes of famine other than war, especially in the distant past?

sinequanon:
You can keep pretending to yourself that it is me, when you have heard farmers making the statement on video.

This is mainly your imagination, probably due to images of African starvation that charity organizations propagate. Famine is more a result of war and population displacement for economic purposes, than of lack of technology. Persistent famines are almost always caused by war, not the other way round.

The advancement in farming should have been added on top of the wisdom of our predecessors, not instead of it, which is why they now find that they have to go back and rediscover it.

Irrelevant.

In this case, it is admission of error.

It becomes follow follow when you end up forgetting the wisdom of your own culture and calling it nostalgia.

Here is a bout of illusion, expecting traditional farming methods to feed 7 billion people! Absolutely unrealistic. Even the economics does not support it neither does the history. I doubt if there is any record proving productivity that surpasses our times. Modern farming methods vastly increase productivity compared to the traditional methods, the very purpose of modern methods was to create a dramatic increase.

There are many reasons for famine. To believe war is the only reason for famine is heightened naivety. For the ancient Egyptians, all that was needed for famine was for the Nile to fail to flood its banks. For many ancient civilizations, poor rainfall was enough pressure for devastating famine. Compared to our times, whereby advanced irrigation reduces hardship of droughts. Another reason is diseases. Little understanding about diseases did not help matters, famines would erupt as a result of crop diseases.

I will not dismiss the reality of a denigrated environment but the solution does not worth it.

sinequanon:
As the farmer in the video said, "we have to go back to what our predecessors did and find out how they coped."

Anybody who still thinks that large scale, centralized farms and long shelf-life technology is progress, is out of touch with the reality.

I have outlined some of the issues they have encountered in the UK, from loss of habitat of species key to healthy ecosystems, to loss of focus on health.

We are not talking about idealism, here, but raw experience. In fifty years, large scale farming has taken its toll on the environment, quality of food and on health. Now they are realizing that they have to change.

What is preventing the switch back to small sustainable organic farms and local markets is self-interest and half a century of warped economic and social infrastructure, developed during the failed experiment called large scale farming.

The curious thing is that Africans already knew about soil erosion, habitat loss, deforestation, drought etc. before their follow follow mentality took over.

You overlook the difficulties and hardships of the farming practices our predecessors had. They had persistent famines, and their productivity cannot sustain a huge population as we have right now. Nostalgia is a case of bad memory. A call for a return to the past is a fear of the future. Africans are not follow follow idio.ts, it is only a racist that would think that up. People ordinarily accept and adapt to cultural innovation around the world. It is a human behaviour.

Sinequanon's moral logic has hidden within a selfish purpose.

For whose purpose is the environment preserved for, if not for mankind. The moral obligation owed to the environment is in fact owed to mankind, and masked as wisdom.

And isn't this some sort of domination over environment?

A moral system that does not accommodate domination is a stagnant system. And innately destructive. Technology is the epitome of human power and domination and like power, it is double edged. It can both be useful and counterproductive.

Don't look at technology as dead metal piled together, rather it is a realization of human creativity. We should endeavor to push on the borders of what we can do with technology. The human ability to dominate nature, allows us to feed ourselves inspite of our immense population, fight diseases and even go beyond basic survival to ponder about existential issues.

The type of society sinequanon wants is unrealistic and dying one. A society fuelled by small farms, will be exposed by its weaknesses.

Emmalot121:
If God is not self-existent, then we have to trace our source to infinity, which is impossible because everything has a start, every element has an atom, an initiator, which created but wasn't created.

It only proves time has a beginning, because an infinity as we understand it, is an logical absurdity hence it can not exist. As a consequence time must begins. I don't think we should presume beyond what's necessary. The problem left is conceiving of a causal regime without the motion of time.

Emmalot121:
God is self-existent

That only is not satisfactory, do all self-existent entities exist? We all can conceive/imagine a self existent being, but how do we justify its existence.

Emmalot121:
Kay17 Ifeness xcapist cold I'm sure ya all won't disappoint.

I don't remember giving away my credentials as a biologist or that kind, hence I wonder why i am roped into a thread about biology?

I often wonder why the Nigerian leaders get all the blame and responsibility, whereas the followers and the voters are absolved from any blame. If the masses to whom the leaders are held accountable to, do not assert their power, then they deserved the leaders they have. It is that simple.

In this economic 'crisis', other problems are bound to follow, but the available solutions are not immediate. Nobody can industrialize overnight, it is almost impossible. For the mean time Nigeria is helpless.