₦airaland Forum

Kobojunkieee:
Is it equally metaphorical to say then that if one worships Sango, then Sango is a god to 'em?

No, because metaphors compares two unlike things e.g if you have the metaphor "John is a beast", this metaphor is comparing john (a human) to a wild animal, which are two different things.
If you say "this car is a rocket", you are comparing a car with a rocket which are also two different things.

But if you say "John is human", it's not a metaphor because john (a person) is actually human, so, it's literal.

Sango is a diety, so saying that it's a god is a literal statement because god and diety have the same meaning versus the comparison of god and money which are two different things.

Everyday247:
➜No, because metaphors compares two unlike things e.g if you have the metaphor "John is a beast", this metaphor is comparing john (a human) to a wild animal, which are two different things. If you say "this car is a rocket", you are comparing a car with a rocket which are also two different things. But if you say "John is human", it's not a metaphor because john (a person) is actually human, so, it's literal.
Sango is a diety, so saying that it's a god is a literal statement because god and diety have the same meaning versus the comparison of god and money which are two different things.

Why is saying, "Money is a god to those who worship money," perceived as a comparison and not a literal statement by you?🤔

I worship neither money nor Sango here, so please explain the following to me. What makes Sango a deity to those who worship Sango, and money not a deity to those who worship money? 🤔

Kobojunkieee:
Why is saying, "Money is a god to those who worship money," perceived as a comparison and not a literal statement by you?🤔

I worship neither money nor Sango here, so please explain the following to me. What makes Sango a deity to those who worship Sango, and money not a deity to those who worship money? 🤔

Because money is not a deity and Sango is.

A deity is defined as a supernatural entity with supernatural powers.
Between Sango and money which best suits this definition?

Money is not a deity to people that are said to worship money because they don't actually worship money but society made the figure of speech about their desire for money being comparable to religious martyrdom (i.e they can do anything for money in the same way a deeply devoted adherent/religious fanatic can do anything for his/her beliefs.

Everyday247:
➜Because money is not a deity and Sango is.
➜ A deity is defined as a supernatural entity with supernatural powers. Between Sango and money which best suits this definition?
➜ Money is not a deity to people that are said to worship money because they don't actually worship money but society made the figure of speech about their desire for money being comparable to religious martyrdom (i.e they can do anything for money in the same way a deeply devoted adherent/religious fanatic can do anything for his/her beliefs.

1. Who decided that money isn't a deity while Sango is?

2. And these superpowers are mainly as imagined in the minds of those who worship these deities, right? Again, I don't worship Sango and so have no proof that Sango has any superpowers. So, it is only regarded as a deity to me simply because I am aware there are those who worship it.

3. Recall your definition above that a deity is anything that has been ascribed powers that are beyond those of any ordinary human. Well, money is said, by many, to have such powers. Power to do the superhuman. People have been known to go to all lengths to gain access to some of that power, even destroying nations for its sake. If there are those who perceive this power exists in money, why should this society you speak of be the decider for them on whether they can rightly regard money as a deity or not?

Everyday247:
there are problems with this definition:
1. Is the universe aware of itself (conscious)?
2. What is "divine"?

1. Yes, and it is doing that through us...
2. Just another word for "Holy"

sonmvayina:
1. Yes, and it is doing that through us...
2. Just another word for "Holy"

ok

Kobojunkieee:
1. Who decided that money isn't a deity while Sango is?

This question is weird. Imagine a question like this: Who decided that a horse is an animal?
That's how your question sounds. 🤷

2. And these superpowers are mainly as imagined in the minds of those who worship these deities, right? Again, I don't worship Sango and so have no proof that Sango has any superpowers. So, it is only regarded as a deity to me simply because I am aware there are those who worship it.

It doesn't really matter whether they are real or not. What matters is the description. Mermaids are not real but we can describe them.

Are you aware of anybody who literally worships money as a deity or god?

3. Recall your definition above that a deity is anything that has been ascribed powers that are beyond those of any ordinary human. Well, money is said, by many, to have such powers. Power to do the superhuman. People have been known to go to all lengths to gain access to some of that power, even destroying nations for its sake. If there are those who perceive this power exists in money, why should this society you speak of be the decider for them on whether they can rightly regard money as a deity or not?

Yes, I agree that money has power, but it's not supernatural. Supernatural powers are those that are said to be beyond the natural laws of the universe (metaphysics).

Everyday247:
➜This question is weird. Imagine a question like this: Who decided that a horse is an animal?
That's how your question sounds. 🤷
➜It doesn't really matter whether they are real or not. What matters is the description. Mermaids are not real but we can describe them.
➜ Are you aware of anybody who literally worships money as a deity or god?
➜ Yes, I agree that money has power, but it's not supernatural. Supernatural powers are those that are said to be beyond the natural laws of the universe (metaphysics).

1. It is a valid question. Science certifies that a horse is indeed an animal. So, again, who decided that money is not a god while Sango is one?

2. So, we can describe these powers, whether real or not, that is all that matters? OK, then, people can describe the powers of money, so what exactly do you have against money being a god again?

3. Yes! I have encountered folks who would do anything for money.

4. First, I recall using the term superhuman , not supernatural. Second, I also recall that we were clear that proof of ascribed powers was not necessary, as is the case with gods like Sango. So, why pretend that money has to, itself, exhibit any actual powers to begin with?

Kobojunkieee:
<sub>1. It is a valid question. Science certifies that a horse is indeed an animal. So, again, who decided that money is not a god while Sango is one?
2. So, we can describe these powers, whether real or not, that is all that matters? OK, then, people can describe the powers of money, so what exactly do you have against money being a god again?
3. Yes! I have encountered folks who would do anything for money.
4. First, I recall using the term superhuman , not supernatural. Second, I also recall that we were clear that proof of ascribed powers was not necessary, as is the case with gods like Sango. So, why pretend that money has to, itself, exhibit any actual powers to begin with?</sub>

Sorry boss 😔
I'm preoccupied with something, I will continue next time.

Isaiah 46: 8 Remember this, keep it in mind,
    take it to heart, you rebels.
9 Remember the former things, those of long ago;
    I am God, and there is no other;
    I am God, and there is none like me.
10 I make known the end from the beginning,
    from ancient times, what is still to come.
I say, ‘My purpose will stand,
    and I will do all that I please.’

Apart from the one and only true God, YHVH Almighty, no other power can make such proclamations. He is God. Before him, no other power can boast. No other power can boast in his presence; he will humiliate such.

Apt definition from you, Everyday247. I will include self-sufficient, all-knowing, omnipotent and omnipresent.

Apt definition from you, Everyday247. I will include self-sufficient, all-knowing, omnipotent and omnipresent.

Only the Creator of the Earth can influence and control the natural phenomena of the Earth. He created them, he made the rules that govern them and they are, therefore, subject to him and his designated servants.

El Elohe Yahshrael! Hallelu YAH!

Apt!

elated177:
Only the Creator of the Earth can influence and control the natural phenomena of the Earth. He created them, he made the rules that govern them and they are, therefore, subject to him and his designated servants.

El Elohe Yahshrael! Hallelu YAH!

What existed before creation?

Please work with me, I want to establish something.

Kobojunkieee:
Asking me this as though Christian has ever believed in that which is in fact stated.🙄🙄🙄

Ask a handful of Christians out there, irrespective of their denominations, and they will tell you 7 out of 10 times that the human soul was created as an eternal essence.

Pls be mindful of heresy U preach here. The human soul is not an eternal essence except it's clothed with an immortal body.

The bible call human being Elohim because he's a reflection of God and he's suppose to have supreme authority on earth just like God has absolute sovereignty over the universe.

The dead has no remembrance of anything. Anybody calling forth his ancestral lineage is only invoking powers and principalities in familiar spirits.

SIRTee15:
➜Pls be mindful of heresy U preach here. The human soul is not an eternal essence except it's clothed with an immortal body. The bible call human being Elohim because he's a reflection of God and he's suppose to have supreme authority on earth just like God has absolute sovereignty over the universe.
➜ The dead has no remembrance of anything. Anybody calling forth his ancestral lineage is only invoking powers and principalities in familiar spirits.

I hate religious gobbledegook so much, ehn! 🙄🙄🙄

Powers and principalities, as used about 2000 years ago by a man named Paul, were in regard to the political governments and military lords and rulers of his time. Why una come transform that for us to the absurd is beyond me.

A principality (or sometimes a princedom) is a type of monarchical state or feudal territory ruled by a prince or princess. It can be either a sovereign state or a constituent part of a larger political entity. The term "principality" is often used to describe small monarchies, particularly those in Europe, where the ruler holds the title of prince or an equivalent.

Historically, principalities emerged during the Middle Ages as part of the feudal system, where local princes gained significant power within a king's domain. This led to political fragmentation and the creation of mini-states. Over time, many of these principalities consolidated into larger kingdoms and empires, while others retained their independence and prospered.

Thanks to King James for the particular introduction of the term Principality into this religious script. However, the term was used regarding human affairs and not this nonsense of a familiar bullsheet you posted of.

Kobojunkieee:
I hate religious gobbledegook so much, ehn! 🙄🙄🙄

Powers and principalities, as used about 2000 years ago by a man named Paul, were in regard to the political governments and military lords and rulers of his time. Why una come transform that for us to the absurd is beyond me.
Thanks to King James for the particular introduction of the term Principality into this religious script. However, the term was used regarding human affairs and not this nonsense of a familiar bullsheet you posted of.

Ephesians 6.12

12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.



So Paul had politicians in mind when he said we wrestle not against flesh and blood!!!!

So Roman officers are spiritual wickedness!!! Paul is using spiritual terminology for govt officials according to this heretic?

Sonmvayina, how do you mean?

elated177:
Sonmvayina, how do you mean?

I mean, before creation appeared, what things existed ?

1. Only God
2. God and .......list them...

Sonmvayina, just go ahead and teach what you want to teach.

elated177:
Sonmvayina, just go ahead and teach what you want to teach.

Ok..

I am of the opinion that before creation, the only thing that existed was ONLY God. Nothing else, since he has not spoken them into existence.
Secondly, Whatever was created, was created within God. So I would not be wrong if I say human are part of God. And God is part of us. It means that God is omnipresent, meaning everywhere. So this point destroys all of maxindhouse and JW idea that God has a location.

elated177:
Neither is such spirit the spirit of any dead ancestor, zaheertyler.

Your ancestor were you in the past, you will be them in the future.

The mistake you keep making is that you keep thinking we are this body. We are not this body. This mud toy see. No we are not.
We are the God's spirit living within the body. Each of us, we are that one spirit of God experiencing life in multiple ways.
That's why I still maintain that death is an illusion. Where are you dying to? You are still in God. The spirit returns to God and becomes one with it. That is his default setting. That spirit is pure, it does not need to be saved from anything. That why when the Tanakh speaks of salvation, it is always from physical danger.....
Our ancestors is us, we are our ancestors. There is no me or I, that Is the ego speaking.

SIRTee15:
Ephesians 6.12

12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

➜So Paul had politicians in mind when he said we wrestle not against flesh and blood!!!!
➜ So Roman officers are spiritual wickedness!!! Paul is using spiritual terminology for govt officials according to this heretic?

1. Religion is politics after all.

2. Who said anything about Roman officers being spiritual wickedness? Did Paul tell you this, or did you make this up on your own?

Kobojunkieee:
1. Religion is politics after all.

2. Who said anything about Roman officers being spiritual wickedness? Did Paul tell you this, or did you make this up on your own?

Who was Paul referring to when he said spiritual wickedness.

Who did Paul had in mind when he said ' we wrestled not against flesh and blood'.

elated177:
El Elohe Yahshrael!

I had to ask that question because the issue of people advising others to worship their ancestors is becoming something else.

What impact or influence do the dead have on the living?

Who/what is a god?
What separates a supposed god from a human being?
What are the factors that make such god worthy to be worshipped?

Can those who call for ancestral worship answer and explain without sentiments?

El Elohe Yahshrael! Hallelu YAH!

But you believe Jesus DIED, rose and went to heaven exercise power. What is the difference between you and ancestor worship? Nomenclature?

SIRTee15:
✓ Who was Paul referring to when he said spiritual wickedness.
✓ Who did Paul had in mind when he said ' we wrestled not against flesh and blood'.

1. Did Paul who not only boasted of his Roman citizenship but also submitted himself to the Romans to be tried by them rather than his own people inform you that in so doing he submitted himself to this spiritual wickedness he mentioned?

2. He clearly said he wrestled not against individuals --- flesh and blood.( There is no report of him singling out individuals as his enemies in any of his letters.) So, who do you think?

Kobojunkie:
1. Did Paul who not only boasted of his Roman citizenship but also submitted himself to the Romans to be tried by them rather than his own people inform you that in so doing he submitted himself to this spiritual wickedness he mentioned?

2. He clearly said he wrestled not against individuals --- flesh and blood.( There is no report of him singling out individuals as his enemies in any of his letters.) So, who do you think?

Your case is beyond be careful. It's now confirmed U read the bible upside down.

This is the preceding verse....
Eph 6.
10 Finally, be strong in the Lord and in his mighty power. 11[b] Put on the full armor of God, so that you can take your stand against the devil’s schemes[/b].

Paul is admonishing fellow brethren to put on the armour of God against the devil!!!
That is a spiritual armour and not physical.

In subsequent verses he explained why....
Our adversaries are not mortal men with flesh and blood but spiritual wickedness!!!

Thereafter Paul now listed other weapons needed to fight the enemy

14 Stand firm then, with the belt of truth buckled around your waist, with the breastplate of righteousness in place, 15 and with your feet fitted with the readiness that comes from the gospel of peace. 16 In addition to all this, take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one. 17 Take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.


This heretic will come here to tell me Paul wanted to put on armor of God and sword of the spirit to fight the Roman officers.

SIRTee15:
➜Your case is beyond be careful. It's now confirmed U read the bible upside down.
This is the preceding verse.... Paul is admonishing fellow brethren to put on the armour of God against the devil!!! That is a spiritual armour and not physical.
In subsequent verses he explained why....Our adversaries are not mortal men with flesh and blood but spiritual wickedness!!!
Thereafter Paul now listed other weapons needed to fight the enemy
This heretic will come here to tell me Paul wanted to put on armor of God and sword of the spirit to fight the Roman officers.

See desperate attempt to deviate, abeg! 🙄🙄🙄🙄

Again...
1. Did Paul, who not only boasted of his Roman citizenship but also submitted himself to the Romans to be tried by them rather than his own people, inform you that in so doing he submitted himself to this spiritual wickedness he mentioned?

2. He clearly said he wrestled not against individuals --- flesh and blood.( There is no report of him singling out individuals as his enemies in any of his letters.) So, who do you think?

---

P.S. The only one capable of, in fact, putting on the armor of God as described in that same book of Books is the Lord. The insistence that Paul's statement, put on the armor of God carries some spiritual connotation, which then applies to spirits and whatever else you imagine for yourselves there is ludicrous. Jesus Christ of Israel never sent His followers out to fight or battle spirits or demons.

Kobojunkie:
See desperate attempt to deviate, abeg! 🙄🙄🙄🙄

Again...
1. Did Paul, who not only boasted of his Roman citizenship but also submitted himself to the Romans to be tried by them rather than his own people, inform you that in so doing he submitted himself to this spiritual wickedness he mentioned?

2. He clearly said he wrestled not against individuals --- flesh and blood.( There is no report of him singling out individuals as his enemies in any of his letters.) So, who do you think?

---

P.S. The only one capable of, in fact, putting on the armor of God as described in that same book of Books is the Lord. The insistence that Paul's statement, put on the armor of God carries some spiritual connotation, which then applies to spirits and whatever else you imagine for yourselves there is ludicrous. Jesus Christ of Israel never sent His followers out to fight or battle spirits or demons.

If I should say what's on my mind, nairaland auto will ban me.
We talking Ephesians 6, he's talking what I don't know
Ewu