₦airaland Forum

Emmanystone:
Are you all wired this way when it comes to God, or you guys do this deliberately?

Read all i typed and read what you just typed here and see your dishonesty in trying to twist things.

I repeat, God as in YHWH, has no need for man. If He does, you as an individual shd do well to tell me what you do for God. How does He cope with a very little fragment of humanity identifying Him as their Creator?

I said, God created man for man. We are created to love and serve each other. But as an atheists, why will you want to do a thing like that? After man is just a bag of bones held together by skin.

We basically said the same thing. Same gist. Man was created for man. Which is running in circles. And which i thought was dubious and empty.

Glad that Emmanystone finally revealed the purpose of man on earth which is to be for other men. However my suspicions are raised by the fact that this purpose of man goes round in circles. Man, unlike tools, is not applied to a pre-existing challenge or condition. Man is not solution to any purpose other than himself. Man is awkwardly, and to some absurdly, the tool for the tool. Like a hammer serves to repair itself. Or nail to nail itself.

Nonetheless Emmystone has stated the purpose of man within Christianity. Who are we to question it.

Still it worrisome that the creator found no use for his creation.

Emmanystone:
The question 'WHY DID GOD CREATE MAN' or, 'WHAT IS MAN'S purpose ON Earth?'.

Let's see what the creator who created man says.

WHY DID GOD CREATE MAN?=== FOR FELLOWSHIP, FOR RELATIONSHIP. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
Genesis:2:19

And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden.
Genesis:3:8

God created man to have a family of a different specie to do things together with. He created man to have a different kind of interaction, from the one he has with Angels.

Something like this,

YHWH== 'Adam, i will create, you will name".

Adam== Yes, Lord.

YHWH comes in the cool of the day for a visit.

Adam: Lord, this is a beautiful garden, so many fruits. I get confused from choosing which one to eat sometimes

YHWH: Oh, that should not be a problem, you can all of them except that one over there, it is poisoned, and poison kills.

Adam: Okay Lord.

YHWH: What did you call that creature over there?

Adam:, Oh, Lion, i called it Lion.

YHWH: That's great work you are doing here.

Did you See fellowship?

PURPOSE= MANDATE ==Genesis 1:26.
And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

The operative word in that verse is LET. This means allow them, do not interfere with, give them room, right, space, opportunity, power, and absolute authority to rule, dominate, the earth.

The Earth was created for man just like man was created for the earth. Man was put in a garden fully stock with what he needed for sustanance, that's why every human baby is born without the innate ability to care for itself until after a time on earth.

Every thing visible and invisible was already created and functional before man drew his first earth's breath.

God saw this day when men will begin to think they can help and add to Him, or without them He(God) can not function, hence, He made man last.

You can say to me, But, God needs man to fellowship with Him, without which God will be lonely. Man is very important to God.

The question then will be, how was God coping before He created man? And how did He cope after Man declared independence and left?

How is God coping now since very few persons actually fellowships with Him? There are so many so-called Christians or believers actually don't fellowships with Him, has it changed Him in anyway?

Who actually benefits from that time together, Man or God?/


GOD HAS NO NEED FOR MAN, BUT MAN HAS EVERY NEED FOR GOD.

Without his Complacent love, the rain won't fall on you, His sun won't shine on you. You'll plant crops they wont yield any fruits. You'll have sex and not have kids.

Be grateful to God that even when you reject and insults Him everyday, he still loves you. But that love expires the day you draw your ladt breath.

Almost everyone here on this thread has accepted that God needs no one because he is self sufficient however we are all eager and puzzled to know why he created man whom he doesn't need. Your long epistle aside from being repetitive doesn't answer the question

Emmanystone:
You are still at the point of 'Use'. When you use the word 'Use' you'll still be implying God has use for man.

God has no use for man, for God was complete in Himself before He created man.

Man adds nothing to God. We don't improve him. If we do, He wouldn't create and keep us in a different reealn from Himself.

He created us for us. That's why He gave us everything to be like Him in our own realm. But to navigate our realm, we needed to depend on Him, for created the world and us.

Ask yourself this. Why is the human baby the only creature that is so helpless at birth. Every other animal begins fending for themselves right from birth. Even a snake as seeminly vulnerable as it is, begins looking for food immediately it begins to breath, but a human child gets up to two years to know how to care for it self. Why?

The reason is, God has made it so. We are helpless hence; depend on Him for everything.

The Human baby can only cry out of helplessness to get attention, even adults. It is that helplessness that makes you think 'there's no God, for if there is, this and that shd be in place'.

I would rephrase my question what use does God have for man to have use for himself?

Emmanystone:
Lolzzz. No girl. You got it all wrong. I think the question you shd be asking is 'Why did God create man?' He didn't create man because he is lacking something which only man can argument, or is there any other reason or purpose He did? Pls let me know

because, your underlining premise is, 'If God is self sufficient, then He didn't need to create man'. You don't tell Him what or not to do.

For instance, you and your likes, rejects Him all day. You not only reject Him, but proceed to malign Him. He gets nothing from you. Nothing in Him has diminished, (except you'd say it has, then you'd ve to tell me). Yet, His complacent love is still showered on you.

You still freely breath His air, get warmth from His Sun. His rain still fall on you. When you have sex, you'd get pregnant and have a Child. What has He lost by your rejection of Him. It is from this premise you shd ask yourself if God really needs man, and if Yes, what for?

For what use was man created for?

Emmanystone:
Yes indeed, God is all sufficient, that's why He doesn't need man, but man can not do without God, for outside of Him, man has no purpose.

The underlying premise is that God is self sufficient and by that character of self sufficiency man can not add or increase God. Hence man has no purpose to God and God wouldn't bother to create man as a result. God wouldn't need to create anything again for the reason of his self sufficiency.

Emmanystone:
You tacitly agreed with me that you need God or God needs you? Which? Let's not be coy here. Be direct.

God, includes every imaginable creator, wouldn't need humans because of his self sufficiency. Invariably humans would not have a purpose as a hammar does.

Emmanystone:
You didn't answer my question. You and YHWH who needs who? If he needs you, what can you add to him to improve him?

Which was what i tacitly agreed with you

Emmanystone:
If the creator needs us, what can we do or give to the creator to add or improve him?

If the creator is transcendental then it would imply he has no need or use for life on earth hence no utility for man himself

Kotodoctor:
Man has not tempered with 1/3 of his own knowledge. Man's resources is not situational rather dispositional

Since millions already die from resource conflicts droughts and famines your assertion that our resources are dispositional doesn't test successfully with reality because if it did millions wouldn't die from droughts famines and resource wars.

orisa37:
Do you believe in God, The Creator of Heaven and Earth and All there is in them? If so, Life is purely Religious and It's The Breath of The Creator. Life is breathing, seeing, hearing, smelling, talking and moving. Reclassified, Life is AIM, meaning Actions, Interactions and movements. Life is feeling, thinking and reasoning. Life is a Spirit, fathered by Discerning Spirit and mothered by The Spirit of Understanding. Such is Life !!!

This begs the question does the creator need us or do we need the creator?

Perspectives:
A thinker spotted

Plants and animals(man inclusive) is a way to look at life, there are so many other elements of the universe.

Asking about the meaning of life does not compulsorily attach life to anything, for you to have mentioned it means it is in your subconscious that the purpose of life is to an extraneous being. Otherwise you wouldn't have mentioned it.

And the meaning of something does not autoamtically imply that such thing is purposeful or significant.

Lastly, language is only a means of communication, why should it limit the question. In philosophy, a thing is worth investigating, life is a thing. Hence, the question, what is the simplest meaning of life?

I doubt if i was able to pass across my point on language. Language by its use smuggles some unquestioned assumptions and subtle meanings that to the unwary observer, it would lend or obscure a view perspective.

Within the context of the question here on the meaning of life, it is possible that language has obscured and even introduced an additional assumptions on where the meaning of life leads. Hence it is necessary to cross examine the words and context of this important question of life

Our common understanding of meaning is connected to our unique use of tools. We actively manipulate the environment for our use and within this experience we project meaning to be inextricably attached to tools. A bottle of chilled coca cola is to satisfy our thirst, a hammer is to drive a nail into a plank or wherever. A nail is to bind a plank together. An ocean is a means of transport and global resource for fishermen.

Now if animals of the lower intelligence were lent a voice to speak on the meaning or purpose of life they might find such a question nonsensical due to their lack of familiarity with tools. The lack of this human ex experience with tools will colour their and our respective perspectives.

Perspectives:
I would say the simplest meaning is: what you use your life for gives the meaning.

A hammer has a definite meaning or purpose. You are not a hammer. You are a creator. You should be the master of your life, make some high quality meaning. You always mean something, but don’t let all others decide.

Most people seem to want to believe they were forged in the fires of creation and equipped with a meaning, and are ‘here’ to find and fulfil this meaning, haplessly looking for it. They often end up in the hands of a charlatan or a religious system claiming to have answers - to know the truth. How sad.

Source: Quora

Life as it covers plants animals and man?

Asking about the meaning of life suggests some purpose usefulness or utility of that life to either itself or to an extraneous being. The significance of purpose in the sense of use should be under scrutiny

Eventually our language and it's limits might be the hindrance and obstruction in redefining the meaning of life. Maybe there should be no such question.

Kotodoctor:
Man cannot run out of resources. It's almost in impossible. God always show us new ways.( some may be offended by my my use of God, but this is a christian forum so permitt me).

Man just has to concentrate on how to distribute resource evenly. Cus now it's mainly concentrated in few hands.

Despite the droughts and famines and resource conflicts that plague the globe? Your assertion that man cannot run out of resources can stand in the face of these challenges.

But at some point the procreation has to stop otherwise overpopulation would out run the resources available wouldn't it?

Besides who would be ultimately responsible

Obudupikin:
The Doc made a lot of sense.

These herders will be much more prosperous with the ranching system than this outdated nomadic system of rearing cattle.

Also,with ranching they will have more time to engage in other important things in live,get an education etc. And their existence will not only revolve around their cattle.

They can ask Buhari.

There is concern of westernized way of doing things which is often made out as modernization and the traditional way. People support nomadic cattle rearing because it is seen as the traditional way working again and again for over 1000 years.

Aside from that there is a cultural identity crisis at play. These herders believe that they lack the modern expertise and skills of animal husbandry and they would me useless in this new world

It is a surprise that the cartridge is attached to a supposedly spent bullet.

BALLOSKI:
right of appeal against the provisions of the constitution and ACJA?

I didn't say the right of appeal is against the Constitution. Rather the right of appeal was created by the Constitution. It's unconditional as well.

docadams:
"the duty that a senior counsel owes by the privileges bestowed on him is to help the accused person or company clear their name through due legal process and not to create the impression that his duty is to erect roadblocks to frustrate justice from running its course"
Panel of judges with their senses and dignity still intact.. While a club of compromised SANs headed by the moronic Ozekhome are sworn to frustrate the anti corruption war

The Supreme Court got this wrong because every Nigerian has a right of appeal regardless of the frivolity of the suit. The Constitution confirms it. There are many times that a litigant sweeps again the current of adverse laws and authorities yet in a landmark decision the entire law in that area is changed in a ground shifting manner by this same Supreme Court.

If the Supreme Court does not want frivolous suits coming up to it then it should remove all rights of appeal and make them conditional. But not strike fear amongst other members of the bar. Such a fear might inhibit a proper representation of their clients.

ayagha:
I think Nigerians don't care so much about these technical jargons as it relates to subsidy.They just want fuel available at a reasonable price instead of the 240per Litre

This depends on what you consider reasonable. If your cost of production is much higher than the revenue you generate with a huge loss margin, 145 is hardly reasonable. Somebody is bearing the loss.

ayagha:
How did Jonathan manage to sell fuel at 97/litre when crude oil was selling at 100dollar per barrel

There was a subsidy that ballooned to over a trillion naira. Also the value of the naira relative to the dollar was lower than right now. Compare 150 naira to a dollar then and 350 to the dollar right now

seunmsg:
Eboue's grace to grass story is very sad. It is even more pathetic when the source of his problem is a lady who once claimed to love him so much. This should serve as a good lesson to every man out there. It is not in our African culture for a man to work and make money and then give it to the woman to manage it. Don't ever entrust all your assets to a lady no matter how much love you proclaim for each other. The idea of a joint account or joint ownership is nonsense. Let there be a delineation. An African man is not expected to declare all his earnings and assets to his wife for a reason.

Our African male stars also have to stop this silly trend of marrying white women once they become rich and famous. Go back to your country and marry a girl from there. Don't ever marry under any stupid European or American law. Marry under the law of your country. If things go wrong, get elders from your respective places to intervene and when reconciliation is no longer possible, you can divorce quietly without her clearing you out. If you must marry under European or American law, fvcking sign a prenuptial agreement.

Ahmed Musa divorced his first wife without losing anything significant. He probably wouldn't have gotten away easily with the divorce if he had married a white British woman initially.

That hardly works again. Certain legal aspects of a marriage done in an African country under customary laws can be dismissed in a court's consideration. Fernandez case is one of such instances. Despite the fact he married his wife in Ondo under customary law, she still got half of everything

Mynd44:
The judgement says if you agree to be a member of a voluntary organisation, some of your rights can be forfeit andthe court cant interfere because you have the choice of leaving

Besides it is possible for some of one's rights to be forfeited? Like right to life? Of course not. There is a limit somewhere.

Mynd44:
The judgement says if you agree to be a member of a voluntary organisation, some of your rights can be forfeit andthe court cant interfere because you have the choice of leaving

Is she a member yet? No she's not.

But that aside, the call to bar is to enroll into the Supreme Court and practice there or at other courts. Now if she is not treated equally in the like of others especially in her unique observance of her religion then she is being discriminated against.

Thats an infringement of her human rights.

omogidi234:
These are valid points you have made. I assume you are looking at the lacuna of the CLE, in that it did not state categorically that no one wears hijab to call to bar ceremonies. However, I think the court would have to make pronouncement( probably up to the Supreme Court), because, the Rules says you must appear in your wig & gown & suits, so she would have to argue that she can wear something underneath the wig & that would not amount to disobedience to the Rules.

There are actually no formal rules on dressing. It's more of tradition

Mynd44:
Wrong. According to the judgment, if you agree to be a member of these association, your constitutional rights can be shifted and is not binding.

Being a lawyer is a privilege and not a right

Upon what basis doesn't your second paragraph stand on?

Mynd44:
There is a difference between laws of an association and crime

You omitted to address whether voluntary associations can violate human rights without hindrance

Mynd44:
https://mobile.facebook.com/ylfikdbranch/posts/1338720136235551?_rdc=1&_rdr

Law doesn't work that way.

BlueRayDick:
Am happy you were able to dish the bastar..d some good hood slap. Those SARS are the most useless security outfit with no regard for the law they are supposed to up hold

I remembered when they arrested a church uncle who happens to be a transporter. They stopped him and wanted to use his bus for their useless raid they go for without buying him fuel nor compensating him for the man hours he will lose in the course of their useless raid of innocent people. So he declined and politely told them he was on his hustle and he has a target to meet in order to feed his family and remain a law abiding citizen.

They changed it for him, threatened fire and brimstone and said they want to search his vehicle. That was how they planted a bullet shell casing in the vehicle and called each other to come and see what they found. They said he was a thief and his vehicle is usually taken on robbery expedition.

They took him in to their office at ikeja and it was a serious case. He spent several months in cells like cage. I mean cells so small they couldn't sit upright in it. He narrated how people would be asked to go and pick something in the corridor and they are used as target practise by trigger happy daredevil sars officers. He recounted numbers of his fellow inmates that died in such fashion.

We prayed and prayed, got him a lawyer and forced them to take him to court after several months. The judge just threw the case out of court for lack of evidence, ordered his bus be returned (the bus was now in a bad shape cos they keep using it for raid without maintaining it since the owner is in their custody).

He had to be admitted in the hospital after his release and the daredevil sars guys just walked free. Smh

You have a touching story.

Why didn't you pursue a law suit? You clearly have a basis for doing so. If Nigerians regularly enforce their rights it would force these SARS to be rights conscious.

NOC1:
You've not stated how he raped you all I am seeing here is relationship gone sour.

Tactical blackmail to get the normal lady sympathetic Favour in sexual related cases.

Maybe she was taken the man for a fool, collecting goodies from him and keep on postponing pay back time. Every worker is hoping for his wages at the end of the day, people should know that there is nothing like free gift, for every gift a price is attached to it.

Invariably the wise men collect their "dues" in sex from women for the dinners cinemas and ice cream they buy for women right?

tosyne2much:
I believe there are some hidden truths in this one-sided story

When will ladies ever admit they actually had sex because they wanted it and stop blaming it on men for coercing them into it

Do you suggest that for every rape case the police gets, they should adopt your view that the women's stories are one sided and untrue?? And therefore do nothing about it in turn forcing the women to social media for justice?

When answering, consider if your mother was raped and she was subjected to this treatment.

Sterope:
Actually no. Law school grading is very unusual. You are graded with you lowest grade, so;

5As-first class; 4As and 1B+ is a 2:1; 4As and 1B is a 2:2 and 4As and 1C is a pass.

Basically a 2:2 could be 5Bs and a pass could be 4As and 1C or 3As, 1B+ and 1C.

Can you prove it? Do you have any document showing the law school's policies openly grading students with their lowest scores?