₦airaland Forum

I appreciate that direct answer.

Now to answer your previous rebuttal that led to this answer, why is this idea of destroying the devil taking so long?

10,000 years of torment and no one in God's government has done anything...

To be frank with you, this is just an ideology and as long as it's an ideology, the idea of destroying the devil will continue till eternity without any visible result of it happening.

MaxInDHouse:
Satan is not his name that was the title given to him after he resisted his maker so if we are to talk about when he was created we will say he is as old as other angels except Michael (Jesus) who has been with his father longer than other angels. But if we are to talk about when he became Satan then that will be approximately 10,000 years or less.

kayjordan:
Why is this idea of destroying the devil taking so long?

I will respond whether you believe or not for the benefit of interested ones following the thread.

The destruction of Satan can't be fully justified until the case he raised is settled. Today 99.9999% of world's population still believe in POLITICS as they continue voting in and out different individuals that appeals to them whereas God wants people everywhere to see that there will never be any human government that could solve mankind's problems you people will continue to think of new system of government which will continue to fail.

But once God has gotten obedient humans in all the nations of the earth who are faithfully obeying His rules the destruction of rebellious creatures both Satan and humans will come! Matthew 24:14🙂

You still write in parables.

This is a secular world where politics and government solves world problems.

People will continue thinking Devil is the cause of problems in the world because they think spiritually instead of practically.

People's personalities are the major causes of world problems.

MaxInDHouse:
I will respond whether you believe or not for the benefit of interested ones following the thread.

The destruction of Satan can't be fully justified until the case he raised is settled. Today 99.9999% of world's population still believe in POLITICS as they continue voting in and out different individuals that appeals to them whereas God wants people everywhere to see that there will never be any human government that could solve mankind's problems you people will continue to think of new system of government which will continue to fail.

But once God has gotten obedient humans in all the nations of the earth who are faithfully obeying His rules the destruction of rebellious creatures both Satan and humans will come! Matthew 24:14🙂

Noted.

MaxInDHouse:
Good so it's OK that you choose never to believe while my brothers and sisters throughout the earth believe.

Everything has benefits so continue enjoying the benefits of your unbelief while we continue to enjoy the benefits of our beliefs!🙂

kayjordan:
People's personalities are the major causes of world problems.

Politics has been the problem from the beginning till today and people having interest in it will continue hating, fighting and killing one another!🙂

What about business, entertainment, sports etc...?

MaxInDHouse:
Politics has been the problem from the beginning till today and people having interest in it will continue hating, fighting and killing one another!🙂

kayjordan:
What about business, entertainment, sports etc...?

Jehovah's Witnesses engage in businesses, entertainment and sports but we don't allow racism or nationality to enter so instead of competitive spirit we see it all as avenues to get to knowing our brothers and sisters better.
None of them could lead to hatred, fighting and killing once we get rid of politics and racism we are all winners?🙂

The funny part is, even with the influence your true religion has on you, you still deem it necessary to spite your challengers on this platform.

Is this what the true religion preaches?

I don't have a problem with it, infact I like more screenshots of my political write ups.

What I want to clarify, is your sainthood or deception, so that people can know if they should follow your true religion or not.


That by the way,


Since you've acknowledged JW members are involved in businesses, entertainment and sport industries, what makes you think your participation in any of them, makes you holy?

What's the difference between politics, business, entertainment and sports? Aren't competitive people and sinners there as well?

MaxInDHouse:
Jehovah's Witnesses engage in businesses, entertainment and sports but we don't allow racism or nationality to enter so instead of competitive spirit we see it all as avenues to get to knowing our brothers and sisters better.
None of them could lead to hatred, fighting and killing once we get rid of politics and racism we are all winners?🙂

kayjordan:
The funny part is, even with the influence your true religion has on you, you still deem it necessary to spite your challengers on this platform.

Is this what the true religion preaches?

That is not a way to spite rather telling you the bitter truth so if you keep on resisting faith in God i'm telling you that politics is your BELIEF so don't think you are free from BELIEFS because POLITICS is your RELIGION!🙂

From the Islamic perspective, a prophet is never the yardstick for Allah's integrity. Rather, the prophet's own claim is what must be examined. Islam does not ask people to believe in Allah simply because a man says so. It asks whether there is sufficient reason to conclude that the man is truly speaking on Allah's behalf. If that case fails, his claim is rejected. If it succeeds, then the authority belongs to Allah, not to the messenger. Nor does Allah revealing His message through human beings imply that Allah is human or a product of human imagination. It reflects a simple reality: human beings communicate most effectively through other human beings. The Qur'an itself addresses the objection of why Allah sent human messengers instead of angels. A human messenger can be observed, questioned, tested, and understood by the very people to whom he is sent.

The fact that prophets are human does not undermine revelation. Islam distinguishes between the humanity of the messenger and Allah's preservation of the message. A prophet is not believed because he is divine or free from ordinary human limitations, but because Allah safeguards what he is commissioned to convey. This also addresses the idea of a continuous trail of imaginative attempts. That description would make sense only if each prophet introduced an unrelated religion of his own. Islam claims the opposite. From Adam, to Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and finally Muhammad pbuh, the same core message was revealed as worship Allah alone and live in obedience to Him. Later revelations confirmed the earlier ones, while correcting what people had altered or forgotten. Whether one accepts that claim is another matter, but Islam presents itself as a continuous revelation, not a chain of disconnected human inventions.

Then describing Islam as merely a disciplinary course, I see it differently. Islam certainly contains discipline, but discipline is a means, not the goal. It is a complete way of life that brings together belief, worship, character, family, justice, compassion, knowledge, and spiritual growth. Its outward practices are meant to nurture an inward relationship with Allah. Without sincerity, love of Allah, remembrance of Him, and trust in Him, the rituals themselves lose their purpose. In that sense, Islam is not simply a system of rules. It is a way of living that seeks to unite the outward life with the inward heart.

kayjordan:
Fundamentally, why should a Prophet's claim to revelation and his teachings become a yardstick for Allah's integrity?

If a Prophet represents the image of Allah at all times, it safe to assume, Allah is an actual man himself or better still, a product of men's ideological creation for self purpose.

Allah is said not to faulter, but mere men faulter and are entrusted with Allah's word...

In a simplified sense, the concept of Allah cannot be convincing enough with a continuous trail of imaginative attempts.

In short: Islam is "only" a disciplinary course-study and not necessarily a spiritual religion in the actual sense in my candid opinion.

One question I'd genuinely like to ask in return, since you've approached this discussion from a consistently skeptical perspective is what, in your view, ultimately explains existence, meaning, and morality if not a Creator?

From what you've said so far, you seem to question whether religion is of divine origin, whether prophets received revelation, and whether what we call revelation is simply a human attempt to explain reality. That's a coherent position, but I'm still not sure what you positively affirm.

Would you describe your view as agnostic, materialist, deist, or something else? And if there is no ultimate Creator or purpose behind existence, how do you explain why anything exists at all instead of nothing, and on what basis do meaning and moral obligation ultimately rest?

I find something interesting... you mentioned revelations by prophets can be verified and rejected by believers and be determined true or false.

The question is: how can believers in flesh, verify or reject Allah's message through a prophet and distinguish between truth and falsehood?

Your response does not realistically explain the "how" without being imaginative. If believers use their intuition to judge Allah's message, it falls into subjectivity.

If anything or anyone must judge, it must be Allah as you defended in one of your earlier responses, and it should not be a human's judgment to determine Allah's truth in this regard.

To your question on where I stand on existence, meaning and morality: I hold onto the idea of neutrality to answer that.

To your question on where I stand on belief: I describe my view as scientific. Anything can exist on nothing because something you see is observed and easily explained while "nothing", is non-observable and should be treated as such, without further explanation. Meaning and moral obligation rest on human actions rather than supernatural explanation.

My coherent attempt still remain: revelation is simply a human attempt to explain reality.

honesttalk21:
From the Islamic perspective, a prophet is never the yardstick for Allah's integrity. Rather, the prophet's own claim is what must be examined. Islam does not ask people to believe in Allah simply because a man says so. It asks whether there is sufficient reason to conclude that the man is truly speaking on Allah's behalf. If that case fails, his claim is rejected. If it succeeds, then the authority belongs to Allah, not to the messenger. Nor does Allah revealing His message through human beings imply that Allah is human or a product of human imagination. It reflects a simple reality: human beings communicate most effectively through other human beings. The Qur'an itself addresses the objection of why Allah sent human messengers instead of angels. A human messenger can be observed, questioned, tested, and understood by the very people to whom he is sent.

The fact that prophets are human does not undermine revelation. Islam distinguishes between the humanity of the messenger and Allah's preservation of the message. A prophet is not believed because he is divine or free from ordinary human limitations, but because Allah safeguards what he is commissioned to convey. This also addresses the idea of a continuous trail of imaginative attempts. That description would make sense only if each prophet introduced an unrelated religion of his own. Islam claims the opposite. From Adam, to Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and finally Muhammad pbuh, the same core message was revealed as worship Allah alone and live in obedience to Him. Later revelations confirmed the earlier ones, while correcting what people had altered or forgotten. Whether one accepts that claim is another matter, but Islam presents itself as a continuous revelation, not a chain of disconnected human inventions.

Then describing Islam as merely a disciplinary course, I see it differently. Islam certainly contains discipline, but discipline is a means, not the goal. It is a complete way of life that brings together belief, worship, character, family, justice, compassion, knowledge, and spiritual growth. Its outward practices are meant to nurture an inward relationship with Allah. Without sincerity, love of Allah, remembrance of Him, and trust in Him, the rituals themselves lose their purpose. In that sense, Islam is not simply a system of rules. It is a way of living that seeks to unite the outward life with the inward heart.



One question I'd genuinely like to ask in return, since you've approached this discussion from a consistently skeptical perspective is what, in your view, ultimately explains existence, meaning, and morality if not a Creator?

From what you've said so far, you seem to question whether religion is of divine origin, whether prophets received revelation, and whether what we call revelation is simply a human attempt to explain reality. That's a coherent position, but I'm still not sure what you positively affirm.

Would you describe your view as agnostic, materialist, deist, or something else? And if there is no ultimate Creator or purpose behind existence, how do you explain why anything exists at all instead of nothing, and on what basis do meaning and moral obligation ultimately rest?

You are quite correct. Politics is my religion.

One must believe in something at least.

I'd rather believe in Politics that everybody can relate to than believe in an extremist true religion that people can hardly relate to.

MaxInDHouse:
That is not a way to spite rather telling you the bitter truth so if you keep on resisting faith in God i'm telling you that politics is your BELIEF so don't think you are free from BELIEFS because POLITICS is your RELIGION!🙂

kayjordan:
You are quite correct. Politics is my religion.

One must believe in something at least.

I'd rather believe in Politics that everybody can relate to than believe in an extremist true religion that people can hardly relate to.

Of course politics is easy to relate with than true religion because politics has nothing to do with true faith you just have to put your trust in a fellow human believing he or she will make life better for you {Psalms 146:3-4} but we put our trust in the king who has successfully gathered his subjects from all tribes across the globe and made them one big and happy family of peace loving worshipers {Isaiah 2:2-4; Act 1:8} and as one family of faith we don't need to see a physical being after seeing his fine works! Hebrews 11:1

I really appreciate your time so far, thank you for a wonderful discussion!

You're ending the conversation so quickly?

Okay, but I was going to ask, what profession Jesus had in the Biblical times, but I guess you've called a stop to the conversation.

MaxInDHouse:
Finally you understood what billions around the world are blinded to!

There are just two religions:

Jehovah's Witnesses and Politics.
Billions are blinded because many still feels they are worshipers of the true God whereas they are blindly doing the will of the God of politics! 2Corinthians 4:4🙂


Of course politics is easy to relate with than true religion because politics has nothing to do with true faith you just have to put your trust in a fellow human believing he or she will make life better for you {Psalms 146:3-4} but we put our trust in the king who has successfully gathered his subjects from all tribes across the globe and made them one big and happy family of peace loving worshipers {Isaiah 2:2-4; Act 1:8} and as one family of faith we don't need to see a physical being after seeing his fine works! Hebrews 11:1

I really appreciate your time so far, thank you for a wonderful discussion!🙂

I am convinced that verification doesn't come down to intuition alone. We all evaluate claims by looking at things like internal consistency, historical evidence, moral coherence, and whether they stand up to rational scrutiny. That's not subjective feeling; it's reasoned judgment. The same process applies to every worldview, including your own.

I am convicted that this connects to the point you raised earlier about only Allah being qualified to judge. There's an important distinction here. Asking whether someone truly speaks on Allah's behalf is not the same as deciding that person's eternal fate. We make judgments about truth every day. We weigh evidence, assess credibility, and decide what we have good reason to accept. Islam doesn't prohibit that. What it reserves for Allah alone is the final judgment of people, because only He knows every intention, circumstance, and consequence. Our role is to seek the truth as honestly as we can; Allah's role is to judge with perfect knowledge. Those are two very different things.

On your point about being neutral, I'm not sure that label really fits your position. From what you've said, you see meaning and moral obligation as grounded in human action rather than divine revelation, and you argue that what cannot be observed should not be explained beyond acknowledging its unknowability. Whether one agrees with those conclusions or not, they are still philosophical commitments about reality. That's why I don't think either of us is approaching this from a neutral position. We're both beginning with certain first principles and reasoning from them. The real question isn't who is neutral, but which worldview gives the most coherent, consistent, and satisfying account of existence, meaning, morality, and the reality we experience.m

kayjordan:
I find something interesting... you mentioned revelations by prophets can be verified and rejected by believers and be determined true or false.

The question is: how can believers in flesh, verify or reject Allah's message through a prophet and distinguish between truth and falsehood?

Your response does not realistically explain the "how" without being imaginative. If believers use their intuition to judge Allah's message, it falls into subjectivity.

If anything or anyone must judge, it must be Allah as you defended in one of your earlier responses, and it should not be a human's judgment to determine Allah's truth in this regard.

To your question on where I stand on existence, meaning and morality: I hold onto the idea of neutrality to answer that.

To your question on where I stand on belief: I describe my view as scientific. Anything can exist on nothing because something you see is observed and easily explained while "nothing", is non-observable and should be treated as such, without further explanation. Meaning and moral obligation rest on human actions rather than supernatural explanation.

My coherent attempt still remain: revelation is simply a human attempt to explain reality.

The verification of human judgment is scientific. The fact that you rely on scientific methods to validate spiritual judgment, shows religion is not independent of science and require practical steps.

According to you, humans make judgments about truth every day; they weigh evidence, assess credibility, and decide what we have good reason to accept. In my own words: Human reasoning creates judgments, used to create meaning of the world and it's been extended to spirituality. The incompatibility here, is the usage of scientific methods to explain the supernatural. It's acceptable if humans use scientific methods to make everyday observable decisions, but certainly not for spiritual affairs that only require faith. Only Allah can explain true spirituality if it exist in the first place.

World views can be consistent and coherent in their respective explanations, but human bias and ideology always render popular opinions invalid. Consistency of truth does not always equal absolute truth, but rather an accepted truth, and there is a great distinction between both. In my opinion, philosophy is still a neutral school of thought that bridges spirituality and physicality in a way. In other words, I use both philosophy and science to establish a neutral ground in supernatural arguments.

honesttalk21:
I am convinced that verification doesn't come down to intuition alone. We all evaluate claims by looking at things like internal consistency, historical evidence, moral coherence, and whether they stand up to rational scrutiny. That's not subjective feeling; it's reasoned judgment. The same process applies to every worldview, including your own.

I am convicted that this connects to the point you raised earlier about only Allah being qualified to judge. There's an important distinction here. Asking whether someone truly speaks on Allah's behalf is not the same as deciding that person's eternal fate. We make judgments about truth every day. We weigh evidence, assess credibility, and decide what we have good reason to accept. Islam doesn't prohibit that. What it reserves for Allah alone is the final judgment of people, because only He knows every intention, circumstance, and consequence. Our role is to seek the truth as honestly as we can; Allah's role is to judge with perfect knowledge. Those are two very different things.

On your point about being neutral, I'm not sure that label really fits your position. From what you've said, you see meaning and moral obligation as grounded in human action rather than divine revelation, and you argue that what cannot be observed should not be explained beyond acknowledging its unknowability. Whether one agrees with those conclusions or not, they are still philosophical commitments about reality. That's why I don't think either of us is approaching this from a neutral position. We're both beginning with certain first principles and reasoning from them. The real question isn't who is neutral, but which worldview gives the most coherent, consistent, and satisfying account of existence, meaning, morality, and the reality we experience.m

kayjordan:
You're ending the conversation so quickly?
Okay, but I was going to ask, what profession Jesus had in the Biblical times, but I guess you've called a stop to the conversation.

Beginning from June 28th

MaxInDHouse:
It depends on what you are praying for!
God is not related to anyone so before praying/asking Him for anything think about the fact that He is the father of all those living on planet earth whether good or bad He doesn't grant anyone's selfish wish! Matthew 5:45

To July 14th

MaxInDHouse:
Of course politics is easy to relate with than true religion because politics has nothing to do with true faith you just have to put your trust in a fellow human believing he or she will make life better for you {Psalms 146:3-4} but we put our trust in the king who has successfully gathered his subjects from all tribes across the globe and made them one big and happy family of peace loving worshipers {Isaiah 2:2-4; Act 1:8} and as one family of faith we don't need to see a physical being after seeing his fine works! Hebrews 11:1

I really appreciate your time so far, thank you for a wonderful discussion!🙂

For over 17 days!
I believe there's nothing further to discuss than respect each other's decision!🙂

I think it's been established.

I'll end the discussion with this quote:

"It's better to be a child of light and intelligence, than be a child of darkness and crude nature."

MaxInDHouse:
Beginning from June 28th


To July 14th


For over 17 days!
I believe there's nothing further to discuss than respect each other's decision!🙂

kayjordan:
I think it's been established.
I'll end the discussion with this quote:
"It's better to be a child of light and intelligence, than be a child of darkness and crude nature."

Exactly!
I have something really precious to me that's missing in the life of faithless people that i'll never trade for anything not even worthless, hopeless and useless arguments! Matthew 7:6 compare to Titus 3:9
🙂

There's an important distinction here. I'm not using science to prove or explain the supernatural. I'm using reason to ask whether a claim to revelation is credible. That's a philosophical question, not a scientific one. Interestingly, your view that revelation is simply a human attempt to explain reality also comes from reason, not science. And philosophy isn't neutral either; every philosophical approach begins with its own assumptions. So we're both reasoning about the unseen, just arriving at different conclusions.

kayjordan:
The verification of human judgment is scientific. The fact that you rely on scientific methods to validate spiritual judgment, shows religion is not independent of science and require practical steps.

According to you, humans make judgments about truth every day; they weigh evidence, assess credibility, and decide what we have good reason to accept. In my own words: Human reasoning creates judgments, used to create meaning of the world and it's been extended to spirituality. The incompatibility here, is the usage of scientific methods to explain the supernatural. It's acceptable if humans use scientific methods to make everyday observable decisions, but certainly not for spiritual affairs that only require faith. Only Allah can explain true spirituality if it exist in the first place.

World views can be consistent and coherent in their respective explanations, but human bias and ideology always render popular opinions invalid. Consistency of truth does not always equal absolute truth, but rather an accepted truth, and there is a great distinction between both. In my opinion, philosophy is still a neutral school of thought that bridges spirituality and physicality in a way. In other words, I use both philosophy and science to establish a neutral ground in supernatural arguments.

Let me complete the message in the image you posted:

"They both enjoyed getting dirty for one month; both the dirty one, and the one that proved clean".

###

MaxInDHouse:
Exactly!
I have something really precious to me that's missing in the life of faithless people that i'll never trade for anything not even worthless, hopeless and useless arguments! Matthew 7:6 compare to Titus 3:9
🙂

You are correct to mention, reason is philosophical - and it is also correct, my view is a product of reason however, science sprung out of philosophy - and the foundation of philosophy is present in scientific inquiry through methodologies such as: "asking questions" and "hypothesis". The fine difference between philosophical reason and religious reason, is philosophy never concludes, but religion concludes.

Philosophical reason leads to an educated guess of uncertainty; religion defies that rule and turns reason or a guess into an absolute truth.

Philosophy is not neutral in the complete sense because it's got a divided opinion. Nevertheless, the body of philosophy is more appropriate for human reason, due to it's similarity with scientific approach.

Philosophy reasons about the unseen with objectivity, and religion reasons about the unseen with cognitive bias.

honesttalk21:
There's an important distinction here. I'm not using science to prove or explain the supernatural. I'm using reason to ask whether a claim to revelation is credible. That's a philosophical question, not a scientific one. Interestingly, your view that revelation is simply a human attempt to explain reality also comes from reason, not science. And philosophy isn't neutral either; every philosophical approach begins with its own assumptions. So we're both reasoning about the unseen, just arriving at different conclusions.

Indeed science grew out of philosophy and also involves questioning, reasoning, and testing ideas. But it's not accurate to say philosophy never reaches conclusions while religion always does. Many philosophers arrive at firm positions on morality, free will, or God's existence. It's skepticism, not philosophy itself, that withholds judgment.

You're right that philosophy isn't completely neutral because different schools reach different conclusions. But the same is true of religion across its traditions and denominations, so that doesn't really distinguish one from the other. And sharing some features with scientific inquiry doesn't make philosophy better equipped to answer questions science can't test. The real issue is whether the starting assumptions are justified and which worldview offers the most coherent explanation of reality.

kayjordan:
You are correct to mention, reason is philosophical - and it is also correct, my view is a product of reason however, science sprung out of philosophy - and the foundation of philosophy is present in scientific inquiry through methodologies such as: "asking questions" and "hypothesis". The fine difference between philosophical reason and religious reason, is philosophy never concludes, but religion concludes.

Philosophical reason leads to an educated guess of uncertainty; religion defies that rule and turns reason or a guess into an absolute truth.

Philosophy is not neutral in the complete sense because it's got a divided opinion. Nevertheless, the body of philosophy is more appropriate for human reason, due to it's similarity with scientific approach.

Philosophy reasons about the unseen with objectivity, and religion reasons about the unseen with cognitive bias.