₦airaland Forum

I'm stupified that some people are okay with their continent being trumpeted as one dead, rotting place always clamoring for aid from foreigners. I'm not saying that truths should not be truths, I'm saying that this image of Africa is becoming all too irritating. And the "foreign aid" (AKA financial corporation Inc.) isn't doing much to help either. It's a fact. Ask any foreigners (even some Africans in Diaspora) about the first thing they think of if Africa is mentioned. Africa's problems, are in the truest sense, magnified.

And this stuff about foreign Aid aren't we capable of helping ourselves? Are we so constantly needy that we have to keep on begging all the time for money? Aren't there intelligent people helping out? You know what? As another poster commented, we are the architects of our own poverty. There has to be some low-esteem crap happening if people from a HUGE continent are percieved as the wretched of the earth. 

Sorry for my rant , it's just that things like this enrage me all the time.

Why do most people believe in the western media? When they always do things like this to keep on stereotyping Africa? Here's how I feel:

Deleted

Before I pose my question, is there anyone who is knowledgable about the nuts-and-bolts of film school/training?

demmy:
Black history month is mainly for African Americans in America to celebrate and acknowledge the mostly underrated black archivements and overcoming in racist America. There is nothing double standard there. When you said "we" you're obviously refering to us Africans and most of us have remote idea about what racism really entails.

I don't believe the month is a necessity. For one thing, they aren't the only minority in the US. Yes, slavery was a bad and hurtful thing but they have to just get over it and concentrate on moving forward, integrating themselves with other ethinicities and becoming on par with them. Black History month only encourages the remembrance of pain. Paradoxically, it makes America all the more racially aware rather than otherwise.

But hey, I'm no American, so what do I know?

retro:
I think there should be no months at all. I don't need a month to be aware of what happened in the past or whatever black history month is for. Also it provoques racism, like why isn't there a white history month? Yep.

Doesn't really matter to me, we don't have "[insert race here] history month" in belgium.

Totally agree with you. Black History month is a double standard. We don't need a history month to tell us of our achievement or suffering.

This might make better sense for those who grew up in the nineties, but who remembers the good old days of NTA for kids? Before DSTV came and took over? I remember I couldn't wait for 4 O'clock on weekdays, early morning shows on saturdays, and late sunday evenings, because I loved the cartoons and shows on the air then.

Most memorable week-time shows:

Voltron
G force
Super Ted
Sport Billy
Groovy Goolies
The little prince
Muppet Babies
Sesame Street
Junior Debate
Children's variety

Saturdays:
Anything on Cabdury's breakfast television. I used to wake up VERY early for that one.

Sundays:

Storyland

Who listens to Daft Punk? They're an American Techno group. I'm not really into dance/techno but I love their beats. I recently bought a dvd of an Anime (The name being Interstellar 5555) they created as their album movie. The anime has a storyline and plot, and has characters. The characters don't speak (no dialogue), you only hear Daft punk's song's on the background. The song tells the tale while the characters just act it. The plot is really nice and sad. I recommend the Dvd to anyone who can get their hands on it. It's simply a work of art. I just love the animations and effects, they remind me of those old anime I used to watch on NTA (Anyone remember Voltron?).

Anyways two of their songs "One more time" and "digital love" were hits in 2000(?), so for those who have watched them on DSTV or cable, this post might make some sense. Anyways, who listens to them?

I've been reading this post, and it's really interesting. Kudos to everyone for providing their opinions on this. Nferyn, you have earned my respect in many ways. I find it hard to put aside emotions when in an argument (this being one that elicits emotion), and have always admired people who do. Continue to stick to that mentality, and you'll go places.

I really don't know much about biology and physical sentience to begin with, so I will argue based on what I have read and understood in this post.

We have already established here that sentience and consiousness, in short, life, does not begin in a human structure until after 26 weeks of his/her conception.


What I cannot fathom is that it should be valued as nothing more than a toe, or smear of saliva, or phlegm because they are all cell structures and are capable of having life. It might be true, but should we accept it as such?

zygotes/embryos in the womb, unlike other cells such as saliva, toes and so on, are in the process of becoming life--independent life. They fuse (sperm+egg) at first, become one, and begin the natural process in acquiring sentience. The fact that they are not life does not belie the fact that they going to be human beings (and there is a Very very very very high probablity, as we all know, that it can become human being). Stopping the process to life is knowledgable act of preventing something tangible from coming to be as we are, and that, in itself, is wrong. It already has the phyisical bearings to make it whole and it is continuing to do so. Zygotes are by definition, not life, as you all say. But they are established entities HIGHLY capable of being life, and should be respected as such. Zygotes are going to be persons, not trees, or animals. An animal may be of higher importance than a zygote scienficially, but humans share an affinity for another pre-life, half-life, of full-life person. We were all once zygotes. Zygotes became scientists, people, fathers, children--US. Cell structures became the beings that built the civilizations we thrive on. Now, going down a notch or two to static human cells or structure, consider this: why does a limbless person gather more sympathy than a dead monkey? Considering this, What do we now make of cells inherently capable of becoming like us in every way?

Even if they are just a bunch of cells as some of you postulate, why is there a vast consensus here? A deep-seated thought by most that it is not "just right" to get rid of these cell structures?

I don't need to explain it. This is something we know deep down, science or not. A lifeless zygote is a lot more than just a hinderance.

That being said, here's my piece as an observant: Abortion is both a crime and a right. It is naturally a mother's right to abort the cell structure depending on her body for enterance into life.

But it is also crime against that which might grow sentience and acquire different natural abilites or talents that might highly contribute to the human civilization.

An exaggeration? Einstein and Darwin were once lifeless zygotes.

So, when weighing both ends of the deal, I'm leaning more towards the crime hypothesis. It is more or less a right though.

And my piece a woman: I understand what some women go through before taken decisions such as these, and I sympathize with them. But as for myself: If I were pregnant even in the most dire circumstances, I cannot imagine doing away with that which is depending on me for life. That which is a part of me. No matter the circumstances, that cell is my child. Potential life or no, I will not do anything to it. It deserves to live. It deserves to grow and be nurtured and nuture. I might not be the one to do it, but by God, I'll make sure someone else will. No part of me inherently capable of living, deserves to be done away with by ME, of all people.

I've heard of him a long time ago--actually my dad's a crazy fan. But I always thought of Marvin Gaye as a singer of soulish sex songs (Like those kind of songs usually, but he was too much of a screamer at the time). I bought the digitally remastered edition of his 1971 album "what's going on" on a whim (which, suprisingly, wasn't a sex/love song, but a response to the vietnam war), and I've been addicted ever since. I've listened to every single track consistently for over a year, and I've not been bored just yet ( I get bored with songs easily)...they must be that good.

Anyways, who has listened to any of his songs in the album? I'll list them here:

What's going on?
What's happening brother?
Mercy Mercy Me (Ecology)
Save the Children
Inner City Blues (makes me want to Holla)
God is Love
Right On
Flying High
Wholy Holy
Sad Tomorrows

There're songs he recorded with Tammi Terrell in the fifties: Aint nothing like the Real Thing, Your Love (Is All I Need), and so forth. Anyone in the same shoes as I? Which song of his do you like best?

Hey Guys, I really, really don't want to argue anymore, so I'll stop. Our points of view are different, and nothing can change them based on argument alone. I think it's enough for an individual to live a good life and help others to do so, no matter his convictions, I can't change the way he sees things.

The most admired people in history were thiests and athiests. I love George Elliot's books, and she was an athiest. Perceptions are different, religions are different, but what we can do now for ourselves and our children, is what matters.

I have never quoted the bible even once, because I trust that athiests know what the bible is about (although from a different perspective), and I know what side it is they are from, although it doesn't seem believable now, so I'll just be still. I can argue back again, and someone else will counter argue, and the cycle continues under the assumption that each person thinks he's right.

There's a sense of all-knowing-ness that everyone, including myself, is exhibiting right now, and that's pretty tough to shake by arguing in a cyclical way (i have a feeling that someone is even going to conter-argue everything in this post) So...I think I'm alright for now .

Yes Nferyn, you do get it, belief in God IS a matter of faith, not proof. It is our convictions that determine whatever way we follow: faith, or belief in seen things.There are many theories about Jesus (non-existence, similarity to buddha, madness, dabble in sorcery, you name it) so many that claim that are based on fact, some too convincing that I COULD leave christianity, but I don't. Why? Faith. It's like falling in love. You might not understand it, and think it some desperate way of "holding on" because of the fear of mortality, because (I think) you have never known what it is.

I think I'm going to stop arguing about God and religion finally. I have seen, and come to the conclusion, that there are some things that can never be resolved based on arguments. Take care.

Hey KAG

Seems you're a lady as well as I, awesome! . I'll be offline in a bit, and I'll try to be brief (I hope, although I never get to be brief). Here's what you said:

I'll have to disagree with the above, yes it is the nature of many, to try to prove something, however ther are many atheists who just have no belief in a deity, in much the same way many have no belief in leprechauns. They don't have belief in the non-belief of leprechauns, they just lack a belief in their existence.

It is the nature of all religious and anti-religious sects to try and prove their way as right sometimes, and most of the time they're really just as relaxed as athiests. I know a lot of luke-warm christians and the not-so-devout and open-minded ones who can be as lax and apathetic as some of the athiests you propose. Many religious sects don't even consider their religion a religion, but a proper way of life, just as you athiests see it from your point of view. I don't like to use analogies, and you can take this with a gain of salt, but:

If I were an alien from another planet, and was in classroom studying the ways of earth, do you think athiesm, or any other religion and anti-religion would be singled out as special? They would be all BELIEF SYSTEMS. Athiesm is not a religion, and is the antithesis of conventional belief, that much I agree, but it is a lifestyle as well as every other one, whether athiests agree with me or not (Yes, I know, apathy, some don't care), and the root of athiesm is the belief of God's non-existece. Would you argue that I'm wrong, that athiests believe that there is no God? Seeing that it is true, and the word "Believe" is in the picture (Although it can be substituted often for other things), your argument doesn't make any sense. There different kinds and types of christians, different kinds and types of athiests, but what they (generally) think is right is always the same within their sect. You're thinking of this from an athiestic perspective: generalize everything, look at demographics of belief (some religion, even), and you'd see atheism, agnosticism, secular humanism and so on in the mix. I don't know, but it's part of being human: a belief, disbelief, mis-belief, unbelief, is a still a belief: this is a part of humanity and we'll never escape it. Rational minded people lack a belief in leprechauns existence, in other words, they believe that leprechauns don't exist--even though they don't think of it most of the time. Belief has been portrayed as an imprisoning word and this can be true, yes...but really, what would you and I do if we see a real leprechaun on national television? Wouldn't we want to challenge that, or at least, be shocked or surprised by it? We didn't really care or think about it in the first place, did we? But we can have the capacity to laugh it off as nonsensical or challenge it, or be somewhat relieved if it were found to be false. See what I mean?

I see your point, reality is often a harsh pill to sawllow. However, despite assertations to the contrary, the lives of many atheists do have purposes, the purposes they design for themselves. Many atheists have come to the conclusion that life is only meaningless if you make it meaningles. With no need for an unforseen purpose created by an invisible man in the sky, many atheists adopt moral codes in line with empathy and the accepted laws of the goverment. Sure we can all live as animals, but why do that?

As I said before, I'm not trying to convince anyone to follow my train of thought. Everyone is entitled to their convictions of what reality is. My reality is quite different from yours, but to each of us, our perceptions seem very well true. It's good to know that you are living with accordance with the law, and it shows that you have a conscience for things (at least, I hope so), even though words like "conscience" might be sound naive to you. By this, I mean that if there were no laws, you still wouldn't do the things you are not supposed to do. It is even nicer to know that you share the idea of the uselessness of not living with a purpose, no matter the reasons behind them. Good! Very nice, I think I like you. I also hope you help others in any way you can.


I disagree very strongly with your premise. Why is it hard to accept that many atheists have rejected religion because they found it wanting? on another tangent, would you accept that a former atheist/ agnostic turned christian, is only rebelling etc.?

I don't know if just finding something "wanting" (depending on what you interprete as the meaning of wanting regarding this) is enough for you to leave it. There may be some detachment to athiesm, but I still hold my ground. There is not one athiest that I know of that hasn't defended his stance by not resorting to showing "badness" of religion at least once, particulary the one religion closest to him or her. I will concede that an agnostic can be so based on "wanting" alone, but athiesm is an end of the spectrum. I'm still not convinced about this. All the athiests I know have had some distant quibble with religion or God Himself (whether it be the individual or his/her influencial family member or relative),  even if they don't want to admit it and say that they "simply didn't get it" it shows in how they act. The history of athiesm hasn't been the one of "find contradiction and leave." Why do die-hard athiests want proof? if we got the answers to our prayers all the time, would there be athiesm? The so called "logic" of athiesm is a somewhat recent thing, just beginning at the renaissance period (funny, isn't it?) . It's what I see. You can give up all kinds of religion, but saying that God doesn't exist, especially as there is a general agreement that there is no absolute proof for his non-existence, goes down to something other than than finding religion "wanting" and being cynical. Athiesm isn't cynical, it is just as resolute as religion is, no matter how non-religious it is. I don't know, as I keep on saying, this is just how I see it, so forgive me if I sound biased. Likewise, leaving athiesm to join a religion also, isn't just finding one "satisfactory," it is knowing, or the feeling of knowing, that it is what would make him or her happy as a spiritual person, finding athiem wrong for him or her, and in a way, rebelling against it. Rebellion is not just red-faced people violently holding placards. It can be about the smallest thing, in the smallest way, it can mean giving up and finding something invalid and very unfruitful, like loving a husband or even a parent.  Leaving one religion and going to the other isn't as easy as you make it seem. I doubt it if you could be a muslim just because you finally find it satisfactory or not wanting.


...and if after reading the/a religious text, the lack of belief in a deity still exists, what then?

This is a tough one, we're both looking at this from our points of view, and again, you may still not agree with me, but here goes: It can be very imprisoning to think like this. I've explored athiesm and it hasn't worked for me, you might still not believe, but it doesn't deter you from giving it a try to look beyond yourself and see others, if only for a moment. Even though I haven't been an athiest, and haven't been an agnostic for long, I can relate to them, to an extent. My eyes are open, and can I take in other ideas because, to an extent, I can see through other points of view, especially during arguments

As I said, reading a scriptural text might not make you believe in God, but it will give you an appreciation deeper than the ones expressed in literature classes. That's my point, look for the sane in the insane. Don't judge or be like "what if, or if?" try and see through their perspectives. That's all. We both sound like too different people: you overly exact and to the point, me, psuedo-philosphical and indirect, but looking at the other side can change you, if only a little.

I just, just, just might win you over too. Man, I've been typing in one long flurry: so much for being brief . Later.

PS (To Nferyn): No, I'm no physicist (I wish!), I'm actually an English major in my second year in college, who happens to enjoy literature and physics. People don't get it either.

Hey Nferyn ,


Can you give me one instance where atheism requires dogmatic faith? I know of none.

We're all in this argument together aren't we? And the fact you "believe" in your arguments proves something. Athiesm may be the antithesis of belief as we know it, but it is a belief in non-belief, and does have that human drive to prove to others, whenever possible that this belief in non-belief, is the only way to go. It's really not much different than any other religion in attitude, except that it is a free-thinking one, with no shackles or pressure. Christians, muslims, Judiasts etc try to bring out the "evil" in athiesm, as does athiesm in trying to show the ignorance in conventional religion. Some athiests I know of were brought up in agnostic or athiestic homes (as in any other religion) , thereby fueling their belief. I don't know, that's how I see it. 

All christians, (whether they like to admit it or not), have entertained the possibility of God's non-existence, as am sure, you have entertained the possibility of his existence. But our contrasting convictions have a better stronghold. No one has an absolute proof of God's non-existence, despite what we see. We haven't even used any of our devises to leave the solar system yet. Nor have we dug below 1% of the earth in which we live in. All our findings (in the physics realm) have been based on doppler effects and theories, and since, as of now everything seems to correlate, we are confident in it. Also, (although I don't see it), there might be the possibility that God does not exist because the physicality of it all seems to lean towards that direction, that all we see is all we get, right?

This is paragraph going to show my bias, but, as all religions (as far as I know) believe in the non-physical presence of God or gods, and anti-religions believe in proof, there's not going to be any resolution based on evidence. you're going to look for it and not find it. I've seen strange unexplained stuff that will make you laugh, and even if you saw a ghost that told you about God, you'll dismiss it as a hallucination. It's all faith. Even if there is no God, I think we should all live as if there is one. I still don't see the pleasure of living life without the presence (or, in your eyes, supposition) of God all around. It's pretty depressing thinking we're all just a bunch of advanced egg+sperm/atom+molecue beings that just came by chance when our parents performed the necessary act of reproduction by introducing one body part to the other as a part of a physical mechanism, with no purpose or meaning to life, only to end up dying and rotting into nothingness whenever some phyisical reaction collides with us, and that it all ends there. Or that we wouldn't really leave a legacy because in five million years the sun will darken and become a brown star and the earth will freeze out, and tada! the earth and human love and show is all over, that's all folks! If so, there's no point in restraint. We can all live like animals do, do whatever pleases us and not care at all: we'll all vanish to non-existence anyways. If that is our truth, I prefer to live under an illusion. No offence, I think that the root of atheism is rebellion and pressure and the desire to break free. Most athiests are this way because the church/mosque/synagouge/shrine had infuriated them or their parents in one way or another. There is some grudge somewhere. I really see nothing else at all. I'm not proud of what christians have done in the past: catholics and the inquisition, crusades, and protestants with slavery and witch hunts, because these were not the true foundations of holiness. Christ would not have entertained any of this: he sat with sinners and prostitutes and laughed and joked with them. Being good and showing love to others in God, and being a fanatic are two different things. We love (tough love, just love, just plain old love) and leave the rest to God. And believe you me, this world needs a lot of that right now. No, I don't want to convince or change you. But I think you might want to consider the rationality in the irrationality of the other side. Pick a scriptural book, anyone (bible, torah, zohah, koran etc) , or all of them, and read them without devising arguments and trying to tear them apart. Don't even read them metaphorically. Read them as a coherent whole and as a trustworthy text, no matter how hard it is. Look for sanity in the insane, then you just might understand.

Hell, I might even win you over sometime. I think I like you , and I hope we'll talk some more soon. And no, you didn't sound like you were mocking christianity or whatever, so you don't need to apologise. (gosh, I sound like some *let's kiss and make up* Barney the dinosaur guy ) Later.

I'm suprised that this issue of God's punishment/existence/non-existence/psychosis/powerful-ability is still going on, and heated too. I'm not going to be precise about what I think, because I will be biased due to my beliefs. But please, guys, it's enough . We all sound like elementary school kids bickering over ice-cream. Everyone: believe what you want to believe, and that's it. It going to be very hard for an athiest to change a devout christian, and it's going to be very hard to change an athiest to a christian. Miracles will not convince an athiest, logic will not convince a christian, both believe in two seperate things and will not change even if their counter-beliefs smacked them in the face.

It's all a matter of faith in both sides (yes, atheism, too is a religion [in a way] and requires dogmatic faith, as christiainity). And it's only when doubt begins in the minds of both that there is change. Nothing more.

And using unrealiable urban legends to prove christianity only makes athiests laugh, so does using scientific proofs too prove cases to a christian--although science is a firm institution, it is never stable. In 200 years, scientists will discard and even mock our theories and findings, the same way we do the ones before us.

But I have a feeling that what I will say will make no difference, and you guys will just keep it up.

Hmm...

I don't know if John Lennon et al did say something bad about God and Jesus and that they died as a result, so I'm not going to butt in and say that they did and God punished them. But even if they did, why would God, in a moment of fury, kill them off, just to prove himself? That god sounds more like a five year old kid to me. There're many other people who have made worse statements and have lived to tell the tale.  There're many christians who join cults and do despicable things behind the veils of  "Jesus Garments." When it is time to die, you die. You get punished in the afterlife if you are an unrepentant sinner or a bad person. This is what we believe.

I'm not saying I know God, but I believe we should not praise the power of God over the tragic deaths of people, no matter what we believe. You also forget that Titanic also inhabited peaceful, God-loving people who died in it, or that john lennon had a wife and friends who would miss him, or that marilyn monroe was suffering bouts of depression that might have warranted what she said (if that was true). So, just don't jump into conclusions. You're giving others a reason to belittle you.

Yes, I know that descecrating holy territories aren't exactly nice, be it in the religious or social sense. (Go on national television and talk loosely about black activists, then see the reaction). But guys, come on! It doesn't really help. We should not rejoice over things like this, and that is even if they are true.

As for those who laugh at us, please know that what you consider as laughable and superstitious are what we hold dear and love. Urban beliefs are laughable but the root thoughts of those, especially as it concerns belief, are not. Sometimes the religious need to be respected for what they believe in as you do. You would not take it if we laugh at your beliefs, so don't laugh at us. It's not nice.

whew!  said my piece!

Purgatory, according to catholic doctrine, is a place of temporary punishment for those who have commited venial sins and cannot enter heaven until these sins are purged (hence the word "purgatory". Venial sins, simply put, are not indulgent sins (serious sins that might put you to hell) but minor, like, say, sins of omission (forgetting to give to the poor when you have more than enough, even though you are sincerely devout, for instance). They are sins, nonetheless, and must be accounted for before reaching God. For in the book of habakkuk His "eyes are too pure to behold evil" (Habakkuk 1: 13)

Although God pardons all sin, he does exert some form of punishment to purge the sinner, even when he confesses before he dies. The proof of this place's existence CAN be found in biblical roots.  When David sinned with bathsheba and confessed, God forgave him, but took away his son because he allowed people to blaspheme in his name (2 samuel 12: 13-14). 

Jesus himself said it that "whosoever shall speak against the son of man, he shall be forgiven: but whosoever speak against the Holy spirit, he shall not be forgiven, neither in this world, nor in the world to come (matthew 12: 32), indicating the possibility of some sins being forgiven in the afterlife, purged in one way or another, since God cannot behold anything evil.

Paul  further provides some proof in the letters to the corinthians (1 corinthians 3: 11-15):

"For other foundation no man can lay, but that which is laid; which is Christ Jesus. Now if any man build upon this foundation, gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay stubble: Every man's work shall be manifest; for the day of the Lord shall declare it, because it shall be revealed in fire; and the fire shall try every man's work, of what sort it is. If any man's work abide, which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any man's work burn, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire."

while this passage is open to many other interpretations, seasoned scholars and theologans hold it as an intermediate state in which sins are burned and tossed away before an individual can enter the kingdom of God.

For more on purgatory, you can read the works of St. Ambrose and St. Augustine, which are available in many christian bookshops.

Hey,

This is for all christians and other religions interested in learning about catholicism. All types of questions (provided they are not posted in any form of harsh criticism) are welcome. I also wanted to put this in to clarify many misunderstandings about us. I will try to answer as much questions as I can , and invite all catholics to help out. Discussion flows are welcome.

What do you all think?

Hi!

I'm a born and bred catholic, and it's nice meeting my fellow brothers and sisters in christ.

Hey all,

I find subjects like this really interesting. I'm a catholic and happy that way, although frequent trials makes me question the role of God in my life and why he has to make good people suffer if he exists. I haven't been to church in a while and don't feel good about it, but I've been so depressed. Some christians past and present commited atrocious acts that I am not proud of as a sister in christ. And I've heard theories about the absolute humanity, or non-existence of christ.

I place trust in the big bang and the evolution, and they, believe it or not, are proofs for God's existence, in my opinion.

Why, you may ask. How did the big bang begin then? What started this powerful thing 14 Billion years ago? Something the size of an atom expanded into what we know as the universe. Our "observable" (not the whole thing) universe consists 100 BILLION galaxies. Our Galaxy is the milky way, which has 400 BILLION stars, including our sun. Nine planets (Actually, it's ten now, from what I hear), orbit the sun. God knows how many planets circle the other billions of stars in the Milky way, and how many trillion stars and quadrillion planets orbit inside the other billions of galaxies. the funny thing is, there's more space than matter in the universe. If we somehow made the milky way smaller by 1/1000000000, and the sun was the size of a grapefruit, the nearest star to the sun (in the milky way) would be about 2,500 km (about 4000 miles). If I decided to manually count all the stars in the skies (with a strong telescope), it would take me over 3,000 years to do so. All of these astronomical things came from something the size of an atom. I could go on about the big bang in itself, but let me tell you that the amount of protons and electrons taken to make this happen was so exact that any small nuance would have caused nothing to happen, and we wouldn't be here. Chance? I don't know. Sometimes I feel agnostic, but the big bang is an assurance that someone or something, is carefully and systematically building and organizing things. Not in the way the bible puts it exactly, but in a beautiful, creative and aligning method. The Logic behind all this is too intelligent.

I took astronomy in college last semester, and there's a theory in the Big Bang called "inflation," in which an entity the size of an atom (the tiniest thingie ever) would expand into the size of the solar system in a very small fraction of one second. Imagine that for a sec. We all can't imagine this because our measure of sight and mind isn't up to it.

Let's look at the earth, apparently insignificant when compared to the galaxy. Forget the "miracle of life" crap for a moment, but really, how did all of this happen? How did we, as humans, evolve from single celled organisms to be like this? Intelligent, advanced, and AWARE THAT WE EXIST. Trees, ants and whatnot don't have the awareness that we have. Religion and philosophy are things we use to find out why. Why are we here? How did we get this way? Are we alone? Are there others in the other planets like us or better? Believe it or not, everyone has some connection to God. Athiests say he's not there and try to prove it, Theists say he is, and use whatever tool they have, be it religion or not, to say so. Everyone comes up with theories: "God is non-personal" "He's a force" "the atom in the big bang is God" " We are all connected as God" "Let's leave God out of our affairs" "God is the supreme maker in the bible" "There're many gods who supervise things." I don't think everyone would totally get it though. God is so beyond our comprehension, so powerful, that we'll never know him until his real truth comes out. God is beyond time or space or our conception. Remember, before the big bang, there was no time or space, so we can't find out on our own, some one beyond the confines of time and space might know. Science would never know God because it has ruled him out and taken "logic" instead, Religion can be so self-centered, Philosophy can be worse.

Let's even look at other paranormal phenomena: Ghosts, near-death experiences (people actually floating from their bodies and seeing visions of "intelligent" light that profuses love, or extreme images of suffering and hell), visions of demons and angels, psychic abilities unexplained by science. There's just too much proof to dismiss the possibility of God and the other side.

Sorry if this seems confusing, but that's just how I see it. We say bad stuff happens, but we also forget about the good things. It's the human stain, I guess: when we get so wrapped up in Good we forget about Bad, and when we get so wrapped up in Bad we forget Good. But there is good and bad.

Majority of us Africans believe blindly in God, forgetting "awareness" and "liberation." whether he exists or not, we don't know and for some reason, the "blindness" makes us happy, even in the saddest times. It's a good feeling to be "ignorant," because according to science, theists and the religious live healthier lives. Sometimes, I want to lash out at God when I feel bad, even want to rule him out as non-existent, but I know others worse off. I hear of people who relish in the idea
of doing the evil things which normal people like us dread. Things we would never do. We have a conscience, they don't. That should mean something, shouldn't it? Everyone has an "inner" tenet of what is good and bad, despite what we think about cultural brainwashing. Babies and children exihibit this.

There is evil in the world. Forget "openmindedness." There is evil in the world. Bad things, synonymous with what our forefathers associated with devils and such, still happen. Things that makes you wonder why. Things that make you question God. There is good too, remember that. We should be strong. And strength means not having to blame anyone, including God, for suffering, or deny his existence. We don't know the other battles taking place "up there", or the real reasons for what happens here. Things above our understanding will always be above our understanding.  We should stop looking at the Bad and try to look at the Good. That is strength. That is why we are here. It's hard. Even I feel hypocritical saying it, but this is what we need sometimes.

As for giving up on God. You can give up on christianity or whatever you see as organized religion, but don't give up on God. This is against what catholicism and all of christianity stands for, but there may be other belief systems out there that might bring you better peace and reconciliation with Him, whatever your grudges might be. Religion divides, but belief can unite. Don't say he doesn't exist. I'm happy with being a christian because it makes total sense to me. The concept of love and forgivness are certainly what we as humans need. Science makes it clearer. Find whatever belief that suits you.Sorry if I sound preachy, but some people who posted before must have had some relationship with God at some point. It's a beautiful thing, despite what doubt is trying to tell you. You can find it again, if you so wish.

I've watched numerous movies with Africa as a setting, (Dogs of War, Out of Africa, Mister Johnson, Tears of the Sun, etc), and they always have that thing to them...you know, Africans as the suffering ignoramuses, waiting for their foreign heroes to rescue them from the throes of oppression and poverty . Even the supposedly shown "cultural parts" depict a sort of primitive tinge to them--There's no traditional richness, and no pizzaz, just a facet of sub-human unintelligence. In hollywood movies, Africa is the suffering, war-mangled, and hungry country, either naively waiting to be taken advantaged of by money seeking conspirators, or dying and crying for freedom from oppression.

Not trying to sugar-coat our real problems, because Africa has issues. But is that all we're really made of ? Why do the movies potray us like this--we all know we're made of sterner, more brilliant and lovely stuff also.

Anyone feeling my annoyance over this wahala?

There's a game I saw in another site, in which everyone contributes a sentence/phrase/paragraph as they visit the board, building  up a story of some sort.  It's really cool and I thought I should bring it here. Feel free to have fun and take the storyline to a new level. (Edit: Was going through topics and I found out that someone else too has this! Oh well...)

Okay.. let's start.


Akin knew this was it. He had to tell her he loved her, and that he didn't care what she thought. For days now she avoided him like the plague, and it filled him with torment. Now was the T-time, the point of no return. The mahogany door stood patiently before him, and his heart jolted with a hardening force as he lifted his knuckles and knocked. In his other hand: a handfull of artificial roses already drooping with incoming raindrops. He moved a little closer to the door until the overhang shaded him from rain, and knocked again.

Then the door opened slowly, its cardinals creaking....

(Someone take it from here!)