₦airaland Forum

alexleo: No friend. I've proved God. Likewise billions of others. The truth is that creation has a source. There's no assumption about it. When I started this discussion I limited it to the source of creation(the creator). I didn't particularise it to christianity. It was him that pushed the discussion to christianity and I had to flow in that line. Cheers.

How did you prove God's existence?

I think the posts in this thread apparently prove that Science and Religion conflict. And always will be. Both describe a different reality.

The OP adopts a readily made explanation common to our society and to his intellect. Common people afflicted with this sort of experience can accept the demon - witch superstition prevalent in our culture, while better educated and exposed people have the luxury visiting neurologists and physiologists etc.

@tbaba1234

You ought to have continued using religion as the basis of identificiation. For example, you should have said the Pagans rather than Greeks, just as you said Muslims rather than Arabs or Turks or Iraqis.

@alexleo
Your problem begins with an assumption. A grand assumption that Order is a product of the mind. When the assumption is seen in its true light, it looks ridiculous. And to even say order is the natural expectation and product of the mind even places order above the mind. Do you understand me?

For some people, they cannot bear to live without God, so are not ready at all to consider the existence of God. Their worlds would come crashing down. It is better to serve a carcass that fall into nihilism.

While for some of us, the nonexistence of God opens up a new chapter in our lives.

rabbinisha: today I want to teach how y o over come temptations. I don't defer you to read scriptures coz I know a few of you will open to read many of you will tell me your busy your tried some of you will tell me you read already.so back to our topic,to over come temptations
1 .u should be a good reader of the bible;
2.u have to be faithfull to god
3.pray whenever you meet a challenge before telling anyonelse
4.distance yourself from anything that may want to tempt you to do evil
5 . always meditate upon god z word.god bless you all.

You are too naïve for this forum.

twoondei: On few ocassions, i have learnt that the physiology and psycology of the male gender is polygamous. Religion tries hard to place restrictions on this and sometimes, succeeeds.
There's also this thing about adventures. The average man is just always reaching for the nect available challenge. He wants a better car, house, shoe....name it. It's boring without troublE you know... So men just want to do stuff! #myopinion

And if it is discovered that a woman's psychology is polygamous, the world would scream out loud about immoralities and adulteries. What is good for the gander is sometimes good for the goose. Sex is sweet, everyone loves it.

alexleo: Its not just a hopeful expectation rather a very sure thing. In my walk with God over the years I ve seen his word fulfill in my life, in my family, in my church and in the world at large daily. I have no double mind towards his words concerning heaven. Heaven is just the perfect place as God's word said and we are yearning to be raptured. May God help us. Amen. Join us in this heavenly journey.

You still lack the ability to see the future, hence you are lying to speak with absolute certainty. You walk with God, yet your knowledge is as fallow as ignorance. You don't know the number of species in the ocean, nor the God particle, nor the number of galaxies in the Universe, nor the number of Universes; yet you walk with God.

Emmalot121: God of Istrael http://biblehub.com/commentaries/guzik/commentaries/0101.htm Check this link,scientists can't even prove the Genesis wrong,if you can't disprove the Genesis as you can easily disprove genesis of so many culture,including yours,you have no point disproving Bible.
If you use this criterion in addition to how violent and how fetish(blood sucking) these gods are,then you will agree with me that only the God of Istrael stands tall.
In olden days,if gods ask for something and you refuse to give it,famine is a sure thing.Now they have become dormant and some almost forgotten.Now that the world is disobeying the God of Istrael,Holy Spirit and Christ the Son of God,you can see how peaceful the world is.
Russia has begun the invasion of Ukraine against the order of western held NATO and the predictions of Christ looks more and more real,as nuclear war looks inevitable.A god even predicted the end of the world last year but our world still exist.
gods are so many because of man's long thirst for God,though some are very powerful e.g. SANGO but the influence of God has deeply injured their influence and power.

Scientists are not necessary to disprove the Genesis. A reasonable minded person can disprove the Genesis. Starting from the 7 day creation claim. The writer of the Genesis couldn't have been an eyewitness and what he recorded is definitely a myth passed down from generation to generation.

I will ignore all you said about Ukraine and Russia, I'd assume you are not serious.

chrisviral: I blinked an eye when I read your post!
There will always be evil the world, there will always be the poor, God blesses some and neglects some, because those whom he neglects are somehow a blessing to others!
Infact everyone is blessed, no one is neglected, it's just that as humans we are too obsessed with what we want from God that we tend to be blind from what he has given us!

My Doctor friend will wake up in the Morning and ask God to bless his bussiness( translate that prayer, he just said God make people sick)
My carpenter friend that builds coffins will say God bless my day (God cause people to die)
A mechanic will say, God bless my day (God cause accidents and people's cars to spoil)

Do you not get it, Humans are the cause of their problems, God created us same, we brought education, we brought profession and other things, and yet somehow we still blame it on God, God does bless everyone, we are just too blind to see.

A friend of mine once said, Why do Earthquakes happen and I asked him, Do you know the importance of Earthquake? And he shut up.
Even Ebola has its own blessings in disguise, believe me it does!

If I followed your philosophy, I can safely perpetuate evil because I endorse the belief that all evils have a good end?! How is it possible for you to believe Ebola and earthquakes have an ultimate good end when you do not know it?

The truth is, you can not prove that all evils lead to good ends. You cannot prove that humans are the cause of evil, in fact it is absurd to say humans cause natural disasters at least. And it is equally absurd to believe a God of Good is the creator of Evil. It is plain stupi.d.ity to believe so.

italo: "God" is specific enough.

Christian God is more appropriate in order to avoid confusion.

Emmalot121: They are always referred with "g".Or you no go school?

Come to think of it, it is inconsequential whether it is in capital letter or small letters. What matters is who they are; and they are Gods. All Gods must be treated equal for all discussions unless when the contrary is proven.

italo: "God" is specific enough.

It doesn't disqualify Zeus, Baal and others from being referred to by this word. How then can you say it is specific enough?!

MrAnony1: Lol, I'll explain it to you in a nutshell:

The universe is believed to have started because of the big b[color=#000000]an[/color]g which is said to be the origin of space and time. Usually when a theist argues the that if space and time began to exist, then the cause of space and time must be one that transcends space and time.(Kalam cosmological argument)
The atheist usually disagrees saying that it is impossible to make sense of any being that is spaceless and timeless.

The next argument that a theist presents is that the fine-tuning of the universe in the sense that the universe follows a very specific order is an indication that the universe has a designer.
The atheist usually counters by citing the multiverse theory which is that the universe is not alone but is part of an infinitely large number of universes ordered in many different ways.

I believe that the big b[color=#000000]an[/color]g theory contradicts the multiverse theory because if space and time started locally in each universe, then whatever is inbetween any two universes cannot possibly be space so what is it?

It seems to me that on one hand the atheist denies that a spaceless and timeless realm exists but on the other hand indirectly admits spaceless and timeless realm when he/she cites the multiverse theory (which by the way has no scientific proof/evidence whatsoever). I am really interested in finding out how his/her explanation for reality works.

Do you follow?

Probably the boundary between two universes is infinite densities, Stephen Hawkings suggests an imaginary time prior to the Big Ban.g; there are rich speculations nonetheless. However what does not make sense is the timeless, spaceless talk. Because it is of negative connotation and points to no particular direction, it is a host of confusion.

^^
You omitted "supposed".

The truth is the representation of things as supposed to really be.

What does good mean?

@OP

What's your interest in saving infidels and unbelievers? Is your salvation hinged on ours? Do you suffer from our actions and be condemned to hell by our sins?!

italo: All Atheist arguments against God are based on flawed premises. All.

Be specific on the God

rabbinisha: today I want to talk about getting to the. how many of u don't give tithe. tithe is getting a tenth of what you get.the more you tithe the more you receive more than what you tithe in.am not saying that you only receive money but also other blessings

Is this the explanation for the evil in the world? Is this the explanation why God blesses some and neglects the remainder?!

rabbinisha: the has promised us that the lam Will walk, the blind shall see the poor will be rich those who feel low will be high.people believe and you live to tell others.i great you all in jesus' s name amen!

They are mere promises which do not have an impact in our modern world. Today we rely more on science and human knowledge. We want to use science to open eyes, to eliminate poverty, to make the lame work. Science has overtaken Christianity in importance.

@Op, don't you think if one pries his ear to hear a sound one badly wishes to hear, the mind will conjure up a sound. And why believe the maker of all communicates with sounds? Or maybe you believe in the God you have created.

The 1200 Africans died because Adam and Eve sinned$

alexleo: Its not just a hopeful expectation rather a very sure thing. In my walk with God over the years I ve seen his word fulfill in my life, in my family, in my church and in the world at large daily. I have no double mind towards his words concerning heaven. Heaven is just the perfect place as God's word said and we are yearning to be raptured. May God help us. Amen. Join us in this heavenly journey.

You are not there

alexleo: God has told us that there shall be no sorrow, pain death, tears etc in heaven and that it is FOREVER. His promises to us about heaven are eternal as he said it. What you are thinking is different.

Again, God will never allow anything that will rubbish his sacrifice for our redemption. If there would be such a thing then God wouldn't have needed to make this greatest sacrifice. Even Jesus wouldn't have accepted it. The cross is our strong hope.

What I see here is nothing but hopeful expectations.

The ever raging internalised battle between good and evil. The truth is; the battle rages in our heads, not with demons or angels or Gods. It is within us and hence expressed in superstitious terms.

We know well enough that the use of talismans and rituals in general are useless in the face of an omnipotent being. Even for a priest to claim to represent an omnipotent being is one of the vilest forms of superstition.

The goal of accumulating wealth is to secure happiness. It is to stave off powerlessness and poverty. While spirituality is after the same goal to be happy and also render one to be insensible to the pains and sufferings of this world. For me, I believe they are equal in as far as they service the same end - happiness -

Come to think about the holy spirit and the tongues drama, the tongues were actually languages at that time, and the ability to speak several languages was indispensable to the early Christian evangelist. I think one of the tongues was Egyptian.

The relevance and usefulness of ancient tongues in today's world and evangelism is null. Neither can these tongues be the Heavenly language because we know they were languages of earthly peoples.

MrAnony1: If you decide to change the word from "imposed" to "percieve" or "expect" that's fine but bear in mind that it would destroy your idea that the rights of women are denied to them because they are women or that men are given more rights because they are men.

Let's consider these two statements.

1. Society expects men to play the role of bread winner. Notice that here the rights and duties of the bread winner are allocated to whoever is playing the role therefore if a man doesn't play the role, he won't meet this expectation and therefore will not be accorded the accompanying rights and responsibilities.

2. Society imposes upon men the role of bread winner. Notice that here the man has no other choice than to play his role as bread winner and hence he is accorded the rights and responsibilities of bread winner whether he plays the role or not.

See the difference?
Compare to this.

1. Society expects East Africans to be marathon winners. This means that Kenyans usually win marathons but if East Africans lose a marathon, they would have failed to meet the societies expectation and therefore doesn't get the benefits of being a marathon winner.

2. Society allocates the position of marathon winner to East Africans. This on the other hand means that the position and the benefits that come with it are given to the East African independent of whether he plays the role or not.

Or this....

1. The Nigerian society perceives that suya sellers are Hausa/Fulani men.
2. The Nigerian soociety imposes the role of suya seller upon Hausa/Fulani men.

Words have meanings my friend. Those two statements mean very different things, If you really can't tell the difference in our positions after all the examples I have provided then that's just too bad.

and you ignored all about the social construct aspect and devoted your attention to pedantry.

biological gender traits are those traits by which one may characterize males and females based on their biological make-up. e.g. the presence of male or female reproductive organs in the individuals.

sociological gender traits are traits typically exhibited by the male or female genders e.g. Men generally tend to be more agressive and reckless while women generally tend to be more emotional and easily moved to tears.

what's sociological in that?!

Hope that has now been cleared up for you.



I just told you already. WHO's definition which you provided is leans feminist.




And this is what I was responding to when I said that:

If you want to hold that your article contradicts itself, I guess you are free to do so.

I have not been decietful in any way. I think you are still annoyed at how I exposed your dishonesty here: https://www.nairaland.com/1835324/adichies-feminism-vacuums-fallacies-gonzaga/23#25510581

This seems to me to be an attempt to hit back. It failed

Good night. I'm done with you.

Doesn't the Quran suffer the same handicap??

MrAnony1: Remember that the contention is not about the traits/roles associated with the sexes rather it is whether these traits/roles are imposed upon the sexes. That's the point

Would you be alright the word "perceive" or "expectation"?? Does impose sound too forceful to you?? The WHO definition, WIki's, John Money's and the feminists have a convergent definition on Gender. Basically as a social construct, a sociological concept built around the biological sexes. What this social roles would be are not biological neither did they come from Heaven. They are from earth and a product of society. Just like one of the websites I provided said, Gender in primitive societies was;

n the old days, it was so simple: Men hunted and women raised the kids.

Remember that I am not contending an attempt to distinguish between biological gender traits and sociological gender traits. I am contending against the feminist suggestion that these traits are distributed/allocated by society because that would mean that they are imposed roles rather than traits.

You just introduced/invented the bolded, and I do not know what biological gender means. And what could you possibly mean by sociological gender?

This is just silly. Are you suggesting that the way to distinguish between the female and male genders is by such things as who gets paid less vs who pays more, or who smokes less vs who smokes more, or who is allowed to drive vs who isn't or who does more housework vs who does less? Surely you can clearly see that the so called characteristics of gender are not characteristics at all as they don't tell us anything about how to distinguish the categories it is supposed to be describing. All it does is sound off popular feminist soundbites.

The whole definitions Mr Anony! What do you understand by all the definitions I have provided, which the WHO approves??

But John Money's meaning is not the same as yours because where he makes a distinction you and other feminists go further to claim that this distinction is enforced by society such that it leads to people being treated unfairly and given less rights than they deserve. That's the point you need to prove....and you haven't yet made any attempt to back up the claim.

This was what you said:

mranony1: Clearly, we can see that outside feminist influenced contexts, gender is still very synonymous with sex and has always been so until the 1980s when the meaning was changed by the influence of feminism

Does John Money use Gender synonymously with sex? NO! Was the original word used to mean sex? NO! Mr Anony you have been unfairly deceitful.

Let's have your view on the definition of Gender. Whether it is abandoned in the colloquial meaning (biologicAL sex) or social dimension on the sexes.

TV01: Gender is a ruse. A neologism in the vein of "gay" or "homosexual". Created and/or used as part of the aim to normalise deviancy and dysfunction.

Human beings - the human binary - are male and female. Apart from a few unfortunate instances of case such as intersex, that is it. No other categorisation is required.

Gender has now morphed into ove 50 odd categories at the last count. With orientation an alphabet soup, starting from LGB, and at last count somewhere at LGBTIQRSTVW...and increasing !

Orientation, which we are told is a spectrum - including hetero, homo and bi, but not other paraphillias such as attraction to animals, babies or the prepubescent?

If your sex, gender and orientation do not align, if the way you present is at odds with the way you feel, and not dovetailed with your "attraction", which is again different from your biological functionality there is something wrong.

And whilst we do not deny people the right to "self-identify" in whatever way they choose, we are not overturning thousands of years of anthropological evidence, cultural heritage and social norms just to justify the idiosyncrasises - or downright perversions - of a disordered minority.


Yeye de smell.

Morning everyone !


TV

^{Sex = male, Gender = masculine, Orientation = striker , Functionality = normal}

MrAnony1: Or are they? Let us consider what you have put forth...

First let us remind ourselves of the dictionary definition.

Gender:
a : sex; the state of being male or female e.g. the feminine gender
b : the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex

The dictionary meaning is hardly sufficient, too general and lacks in the sociological context yet touches behavioral and cultural] traits associated with a sex.

Now compare that to the definition on Wikipedia.



Notice that the definitions are similar i.e. traits [b]pertaining to (NOT "allocated to" nor "imposed upon" ) masculinity and femininity.

But Wikipedia isn't done yet, it continues.... [quote]I will reproduce what Wiki said on that; Gender is the range of characteristics pertaining to, and differentiating between, masculinity and femininity. Depending on the context, these characteristics may include biological sex (i.e. the state of being male, female or intersex), sex-based social structures (including gender roles and other social roles), or gender identity. So in effect, you amputated the coloured to deliberately mislead.


[quote]So basically, the meaning you are harping on about was in fact created by feminist ideology. Yet you can't see how this is circular?
Essentially you are admitting to changing the normal meaning of a word in order to conform it with your theory and then you turn around and accuse those who disagree with you of not understanding the meaning of a word which you are using differently from how it has normally been used. C'mon now, surely you can see the problem here.

This is another attempt by you to mislead. The term was employed by a sexologist John Money in an attempt to distinguish between biological sex and the social construct around biological sex. It is only natural for feminists to harp on this clarification for their purposes. So it is not a creation of feminists, rather it is an apt sociological concept.

Apparently feminists succeeded they even got to the WHO, as Wikipedia continues...


Let us hear how the WHO defines gender shall we?


http://www.who.int/gender/whatisgender/en/

I didn't fail to notice that the what the WHO defines as the "characteristics of gender" read like a feminist campaign. It teaches us nothing about differentiating between masculine and feminine genders.

Obviously for the purposes of your argument, the definition is not suitable and favourable to you. Hence the witches of feminism must have poisoned the WHO.

Continuing with Wikipedia...

Clearly, we can see that outside feminist influenced contexts, gender is still very synonymous with sex and has always been so until the 1980s when the meaning was changed by the influence of feminism.

How you can't see the circularity in redefining a word and then trying to use your redefinition to prove your redefinition is truly amazing.

Prior to 1955, the word was merely used in grammar. John Money reused it in a sociological context, and ever since then people have found the biological sex no different from the social construct. So the original meaning is still for Grammar and thenafter John Money's meaning.