₦airaland Forum

^^^ Is this all you can come up with? seriously smh. I'm disappointed. I'll be back later (will take several hours probably) to address all you wrote up there. I hope I'll still be in the mood by then.

Ihedinobi: Honestly, I don't want to answer you, but you aren't the only person who'll read this. So, I'll shut my eyes to what I know of you and give my answers.

This is an unnecessary remark. Are you confusing me with someone else? If you're not, I'd advise that you do yourself a world of good by not projecting an image of yourself on me and kindly face the issues presented.

Ihedinobi: Then the king ordered Ashpenaz, chief of his court officials, to bring in some of the Israelites from the royal family and the nobility - young men without any physical defect, handsome, showing aptitude for every kind of learning . . .

That's an excerpt of an historical account. Does it in any way indicate physical contact or face-to-face encounter?

Then again, considering that the "village" Nebuchadnezzar was ruling would rival the United States in size, if he personally selected them, is it even reasonable to expect him to remember these guys?

Imagine that it's not the Bible you're reading but a history textbook or a novel before you answer those.

Fair point. However, since we're talking of possibilities and probabilities here, it is also very possible that he actually DID encounter them face to face after Ashpenaz had brought them in, and also remembered them very well. Unless you're telling us flatly that he did NOT meet with them physically and/or did NOT remember any of them, of which you'd have to point us to the clear and unambiguous evidence backing that claim.

Ihedinobi: So what? How many dignitaries have you impressed who remembered you a week later, to say nothing of years?

Considering the magnitude of the impression they formed on his mind when he met with them, I doubt he would have forgotten them - if at all - so easily. These men were TEN times better than any other in the land. No one fails to remember such men. No one! By the way, that is completely beside the point. Your initial claim was that the king did not know who they were (or at least that was what you implied), NOT whether he remembered them or not. You'd have to do more than conjecturing and "what ifs" to convince anyone here that the king did not remember these guys. Thankfully, you did not deny that he KNEW them at least, which is the main point I tackled in the first place.

Ihedinobi: There's no reason to expect that because of Daniel he took special notice of them to always remember them.

Again, you're shifting the goalposts. The argument is NOT whether he "remembered" them or not. The argument is whether he KNEW them or not, which has been PROVEN already that he did. And let me even entertain your argument for a second: what reason do YOU have to expect that the king could not have had a photographic memory such that he could remember every single person he met, for example? You see, with "what ifs" and appeals to probability, we can always come up with all sorts of possible scenarios.

Ihedinobi: Now, even with all the foregoing, with all the information we have there, what suggests that the king should associate these three with Daniel's God apart from their sameness of nationality? Even with that sameness, would it not amount to naivity for him to imagine that these three were of the same God as Daniel? Was he not man enough to doubt that their faith was anything but a convenient tag or label that they wore as Israelites?

"What ifs" and "what ifs" again. . . I can play the game too. First of all, these three men had previously formed so great an impression on the king's mind (TEN TIMES BETTER than any other person in the land) so much that it certainly would NOT have been out of place for the king to associate the same God with all of them. Now, let's employ your tactic here: what if Daniel whom the king supposedly knew better, constantly talked about his friends to the king? The very mere fact that the king did not hesitate to grant his request to honour his friends with political posts also tells a lot. Certainly, the king must have heard their gist as well (assuming he didn't even remember them as you're trying to paint).

Ihedinobi: Daniel had proved that his faith was the very same as his life, on what grounds was the king to believe that this was the case with these three?

On account of Daniel's words and recommendation, perhaps?

Ihedinobi: See my foregoing answers. @bolded, and he was to have known this how? As for the last question, on what recognition did he make them rulers? Their own personal merit or somebody else's?

Maybe he really could not have known, maybe. But borrowing your own logic of "what if" here, we can safely assume that since Daniel and these guys were very close friends, they most likely walked, worked and did things together and must have shared the same beliefs and ideals and by extension, believed in the same God. The king, surely, must have noticed this.

The other part of your statement is irrelevant here. The FACT, according to the bible, remains that the king appointed them rulers which means he KNEW them well BEFORE the fiery furnace incidence. And don't bring the "did he remember them" argument again because even in this case, it would fail. How can a king not remember his own officials? They were not even ordinary officials, they were ADMINISTRATORS (some versions refer to them as GOVERNORS) over the province of Babylon!

Ihedinobi: Let's pray for the miracle of understanding for your mind. If we get it, we probably won't have to stretch this further.

Quit the condescending attitude already, old man. Address the issues and ignore the personality.

pak: Seriously the greatest surprise was not just the fact that we echoed the same sentiments but then the close similarities in the wordings. At some points, I was wondering, did I write this without remembering when I did. Kudos bros.

I have checked your thread and made a comment. I intend to post that thread on my facebook page later in the day.
You are officially my nairalander of the year 2012. People like you give me a bit of hope for this country afterall

I just shot you a mail.

Eerie, eh? Thanks for the compliment. I'll check my email in a bit.

smtx: "95% of Nigerians" pls provide proof!

Please note the context in which I made that statement and don't attempt to trivialize issues. I could change it to "majority" if the number 95 troubles you in any way. As for proof, just search for all Aluu threads and read through all the comments if you have the time. You'll get the proof you demand.

smtx: Nigerians are asking for JUSTICE not JUNGLE JUSTICE! Let the law take its FULL CAUSE!!!

Some Nigerians are asking for justice, and maybe you're among that sensible few. Good on you. But most people here are basically demanding that the same jungle justice treatment be meted out to these suspects. The law cannot take its full course when you have the people vehemently demanding for these suspects to be "planked" and "burnt alive" and the entire Aluu community be "burnt down".

pappilo: If they are found gulity they must be executed.

IF they are found guilty, the law should take its course. Exactly. Funny how you made perfect sense here and then shortly proceeded to contradict yourself in the next sentence.

pappilo: All you morons talking about them being suspects are trying to feel like oyinbo people.

Isn't it quite telling that you find those clarifying their current status as suspects to be morons, and I assume you see those calling for their head without proof of their wrongdoing to be the intelligent ones? Presenting suspected criminals as the SUSPECTS that they are is not exclusively an "oyinbo" tendency. It is basic commonsense.

pappilo: Even the oyinbo people you want to copy send drones to kill suspected militants in Pakistan and Yemen.

Even if "copying oyinbo" is the aim here, it is exceedingly obvious even to the blind that they have a far better judicial system than the travesty we display in Nigeria. Given this fact, how then is it inappropriate to "copy" their style as you put it?

pak: aaah purist, you must be my twin brother separated from me at birth. I need to get your contact details to confirm. I will send you a mail shortly or did you read my previous post yesterday echoing the same very sentiment. If you haven't please click this link
https://www.nairaland.com/1075527/names-masterminds-gruesome-murder-aluu4/1#12576049


And by the way, I need permission to duplicate this your comments in other online outlets. Awaiting your response

lol bro. Who knows? They say we're 'made' in twos, abi?

I just read your comment now and I'm glad to see there are still a few people who can reason rationally. Please feel free to duplicate the comment in as many outlets as you wish. People need to be made to see reason.

Also try to check this thread I made a few days ago:
Five Things I Learnt From The Aluu Debacle
https://www.nairaland.com/1072688/five-things-learnt-aluu-debacle

And the jungle justice mentality is on display here YET AGAIN. With each passing day, I become more and more convinced that the ALUU incidence is just a microcosm of the larger - and sadly prevalent - Nigerian mentality.

These thirteen people, as of now, are only SUSPECTS, but we have over 95% of Nigerians here already calling for their head. "Burn them!" "Cut off their hands!" "Fry them alive in hot oil!" "Skin them alive!", etc. EXACTLY THE SAME THING the Aluu people did to those four boys who were only suspects at the time, but the people were also eager to "plank them", "burn them", "kill them". Whatever happened to innocent UNTIL proven guilty?

It is a pity that in our attempts to show concern and anger at this barbarism, we have also inadvertently revealed our true UGLY nature in the process. When next you feel compelled to shout and scream, "burn them alive!", "skin and kill them!", go stand in front of a mirror and you might just notice something very, very familiar.

Interesting thread, and I suspect the OP is not entirely satisfied with the answers she got here. I always wondered about this question too when I was still in the faith; not a single person I asked had an answer. There are many interesting responses on this thread though. I found the following exchange quite interesting and just had to chip in. Hope you guys don't mind.

Ihedinobi: It wasn't Daniel's being a ruler that exempted him, nor was it his seating arrangement. It was Nebuchadnezzar's recognition of his God and his appreciation of the superiority and super-excellence of that God over all the others that he recognized.

Enoquin: No sir, because his recognition of Daniel's God would by as an extension have touched on Shedrach, Meshach and Abednago...but it didn't.

Ihedinobi: Why? Did he know who they were?

Yes, he knew very well who they were. They had had a few encounters before then.

- In Dan 1:7, they were among those selected by the King to learn Babylonian language and literature
- In Dan 1:20, following a personal Q&A session with all four of them (including Daniel), the king himself found them ten times better than all the others in his whole kingdom
- In Dan 2:49, at the request of Daniel himself, the king had appointed these guys administrators over the province of Babylon

All these happened before the fiery furnace incidence, so Enoquin's logic here is very much valid.

How could the king have recognized only Daniel's God and refused to acknowledge the others, even though they practically rolled together and was apparent they all subscribed to the same beliefs? Remember that these were the same guys that had been found healthier and better nourished than any of the other young men who ate royal food (Dan 1:15), and the king himself had attested to their brilliance on all matters he tested them. Sure, they were not interpreting dreams like Daniel, but they were clearly on the same level as he, spirituality-wise. Heck, he even made them rulers in his kingdom.

So you say Daniel was exempted? And your reasons are. . ?

* It wasn't Daniel's being a ruler that exempted him. Agreed. The other three were rulers too.
* Nor was it his seating arrangement. Exactly. He was not "sitting" at the gate as some think.
* It was Nebuchadnezzar's recognition of his God and his appreciation of the superiority and super-excellence of that God over all the others that he recognized. Note quite. In the words of the OP, "his recognition of Daniel's God would by as an extension have touched on Shedrach, Meshach and Abednago...but it didn't."

Sir, your explanation still does not explain how or why Daniel was missing when the whole kingdom was bowing to the king's golden image.

Richfella: @tpia

I respect you a lot on this forum...however, you clearly missed the point of Purist's post.

Bro, even I was quite surprised at the way she took out a very small part of the entire post completely out of context and chose to dwell on it. Well, it appears the bit about critical thinking I mentioned earlier applies here very much.

I agree with eGuerrilla here. Tribalism is hardly a factor in such incidences. (Alleged) thieves are burnt almost daily in Lagos by fellow tribesmen, etc.

[quote author=tpia@]so because you dont believe they did, means they didnt? [/quote]Let's leave it at that then, shall we? You can make your own list of things you learnt (if any) if you so wish.

[quote author=tpia@]you are lacking a vital human quality the absence of which is not good.[/quote]And you know this based on a few paragraphs I typed? Or because I didn't join in the crusade to "burn down Aluu!"??

[quote author=tpia@]and why would you assume nl is the only place aware of this matter?[/quote]Where did I assume such?

[quote author=tpia@]this thing has spread all over the world, and you're talking of nl? [/quote]What else did you expect me to write ON Nairaland? You want me to conform to your expectations of what should or should not be written? It could have spread to even Mars, but this is NL and I chose to express my observations on the same platform. Got a problem with it? Take a hike.

[quote author=tpia@]I wonder why you'd say people do not care.

When so many have been crying and unable to sleep since this incident?


Some of you really need an empathy gene.[/quote]You know they have been crying and unable to sleep because they claimed so on Nairaland?

Also, there's something called 'context'. You should read up on it.

I still feel very angry, depressed and largely pessimistic about this country when I think about how those 4 boys were ruthlessly murdered. I have been hoping for justice for past 6 days, but knowing how my country operates, that's the best I can probably do - Hope. Nonetheless, I learnt a few things from the whole debacle.

(1) As obvious as it sounds, the Aluu incidence only confirmed that it is very difficult for most people to think clearly when emotions are running high. The Aluu savages were guilty of this, and sadly, many not-so-different supposedly educated and enlightened Nairalanders are equally guilty of this.

(2) Most Nigerians are wild animals in human skin. As someone on another thread aptly captured it, "Aluu is just a random location and Boko Haram + Almajiri killings are just opportunistic events, most Nigerians are capable of these vices." This statement was made very evident here on Nairaland by people who strongly expressed their belief that jungle justice for jungle justice is the most appropriate method to level things out. They saw absolutely no problems with cursing and destroying an entire community for the sins of a few.

(3) Most people here that screamed the most are not concerned about the Aluu 4 per se. Do not be swayed by the cries and shouts of "Burn the village! Wipe them off the earth!", etc. All those clamouring for a reprisal attack only seek to satisfy their own blood lust and nothing else. Outside Nairaland, none of these people actually give a f#ck!

(4) Critical thinking is apparently not our forte in this country. It bewilders me that only a very few people on all the numerous threads about this incidence could put forth decent arguments and look beyond sentiments. It was quite amusing to see that the majority of Nigerians failed woefully to realise the irony of their clamour for the Aluu community to be razed down. Advocating the same thing you condemn in the same breath is the definition of Duplicity. Just like the man who sets a bomb to prove how peaceful he is.

(5) Nigerians are largely hypocrites who practise their religions very selectively. I am fairly certain that the vast majority of those who supported these reprisal attacks all identify strongly with one religion or the other. In fact, I dare say that most of them belong to the supposedly mild Christian faith. However, it was quite interesting to observe how virtually all of them completely disregarded religious injunctions in favour of their own abhorrent desires. Some even desperately attempted to use their religious texts to justify their opinions, despite the very clear positions of these mainstream religions on killing and revenge. In essence, I particularly learnt in this case that when the push comes to the shove, most Nigerians - deep deep deep down inside of them - don't really give a f#ck about the God they all claim to believe in.

In a nut shell, crass animalism, gross stupidity and sheer hypocrisy runs rife in my country. These, gentlemen and ladies, are what I learnt.

Ah, this thread!

By the way, I recently read somewhere in this section that Enigma is a lawyer in real life. That's a joke, right?

jayriginal: Might be the alcohol in me but Lololololol !!!!!

Anony you owe me some wine too !

Anony, you hear that? Make that two glasses, please.

[quote author=Mr_Anony]I think Purist answered in the way I would albeit with a tone of mockery. However, your answer is simple. God did not rest in the sense that humans rest. Rest here signifies cessation from creation. (When we describe God, we ascribe to Him anthropomorphic/humanistic attributes so as to make it make sense to us. That is not an accurate picture of how God is. Compare with phrases like "hand of God", "God remembered" "God looked" etc)[/quote]Damn! You're so predictable!

You still owe me!

musKeeto: Just a basic question first. Why would a perfect ultimate being need rest?

Here, let me attempt to answer that for Anony.

First, I start by writing "lol".

Then I proceed. . .

How would you define "rest"? What do you really understand by "rest" as used in that verse?

You see, "rest" in heavenly parlance does not mean that one is taking a break from tiredness as we humans understand it. It simply means that since he was done creating everything, there was nothing left to create, hence, the writer had to use the word "rest" for lack of a better word.

By the way, do you have any reason to question why he chose to rest? He is God, the Almighty... He does what he pleases!! Not satisfied? Go make your own universe!!

musKeeto: But the intended meaning of "rest" is very clear in that verse. You can only take a rest when you're tired and you need to recuperate.

Mr_Anony: lol [again], you miss the point. Did you read what I wrote? Go back and read from the beginning so you can present a better argument.

------------
Anony, you owe me a glass of wine.

MacDaddy01: A voyeuristic sky tyrant is an objective description


Facts about Yaweh from the bible


-He knows what we think. He invades our minds- Viewer in the privacy of the mind.
-He wants us to worship him and no other god
-He once destroyed a whole city for being gay
-He once flooded the whole earth just because some people in the middle east sinned.
-He will torture you in hell if you dont obey him


https://drunkwithblood.com/images/drunk-with-blood-300pxh.jpg

Be prepared for the Anony cop-out:

"It's his universe, his rules. Don't like it? Go make your own!"

Deep Sight: You cannot expect to be taken seriously. Pasta and meatballs are processed food and do not appear in nature save by human processing. How you expect that a question which asks why a monster consisting of such is not the cause of the universe, should not be seen for the idle and unintelligent joke that it is, is beyond me.

The Holy Flying Spaghetti Monster is not said to consist of pasta and meatballs. I think that's where you're getting it wrong. The Holy FSM, instead, IS a supernatural creator that closely resembles pasta and meatballs. And the evidence for this is about the same evidence for all religious Gods out there.

Deep Sight: As I have shown in my reverts to wiegraf and pletton above, these arguments should rather address first causality in material phenomena and then proceed to show why the core ontological attributes of God as advanced by Religions is unreasonable.

It does actually. The argument indeed recognizes a first cause, but only goes a step further to describe what this first cause looks like, its properties and its purpose. Furthermore, the FSM has all four core ontological attributes of a creator that you listed earlier. This Holy Monster is the very eternal uncaused transcendental being that is equally imbued with purpose.

Deep Sight: My issue is not deism here: it is the necessity of a cause that makes me wonder how a discussion about such a huge cosmological issue could become about processed food monsters? In the face of such village-clowning congenital id.iocy, it is fair to presume that no serious discussion is intended, is it not?

There is a serious discussion intended. The argument actually agrees with your position by recognizing the first causality. It tells us that the universe was created by a supernatural being (albeit one with a noodly appendage) -- that the universe was caused and that this cause is eternal. Isn't that your position? Where it disagrees with yours, however, is in the description of the attributes of this cause.

If you find the above ridiculous, that's exactly the point.

Basically, the FSM argument in a nutshell is this: What makes Yahweh or Allah or [insert your choice God here] more credible than the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

Delafruita: she didnt get any treatment.dude,its an ulcer.the only medicak option is to amputate

as is common with jishua's church,they showed the clip on TV.it was the usual blabbing in tongues and deliverance prayers.

yes i saw her walk.she started to walk after the visit to SCOAN

Is there a way to access the clip of this alleged miracle? On YouTube for example?

Delafruita: am going to assume you are intelligent.thats why i would propose you read the post again and then you will realise how completely ridiculous ur questions are

I just read your post again and I do not think my questions are "completely ridiculous". If you do not wish to answer them, simply say so.

Here's the part your post that elicited my questions by the way:

till today he doesnt agree with her but a part of him recalls that day and the look on the doctor's face when she said "this is definitely a miracle".who was that person?Me

I'm simply questioning that "part of him."

Delafruita: this makes sense.i dont doubt it because i cant disprove it.

i have another example

i personally know someone who had an ulcer in her left foot.she used to sit on a chair at the bus-stop and some peeps begged on her behalf.her parents lived in the area but they never used to beg along with those peeps but we knew they were her parents.the sore was so bad i could never bear to look at it.then someone takes her to prophet joshua's church,she gets a slappiverance(just kidding) and she's cured.i dont live in that neighbourhood anymore so i dont have the latest update on her but i know the incident caused quite a stir in my neighbourhood around the time.the girls sore didnt vanish,but within a space of few days,it healed up and the girl began to walk.some people said joshua used "juju",others said it was magic.but whichever way,the reality is her sores vanished

This details of this story are insufficient to form a proper opinion. Had she been getting any treatment prior to visiting the church? What exactly did they do to her at the church? Did you personally witness her healing? Did you see her walk after this supposed visit to the church? etc.

Delafruita: there's someone i know who contracted hepatitis B.it so happens that there were 3 guys living in a flat as students and one of them died of hepatitis B.then another one fell sick and was diagnosed of typhoid.after a few weeks,the diagnosis changed to hepatitis B.he was placed on palliative treatment for 6months and was told he'd have to manage the ailment for the rest of his life because there is no cure.luckily,the virus hadnt done too much damage and he quickly got better.he had to maintain a strict diet and keep taking his drugs.2years later he fell ill and the first suspect was the hepatitis.his doctors performed LFT to know what next to do and suprisingly there was no trace of hepatitis in his system.the doctors ran the test again and it was the same thing.then his girlfriend reminds him of the day she forced him to church and he drank anointing oil and she tells him thats what did the miracle.till today he doesnt agree with her but a part of him recalls that day and the look on the doctor's face when she said "this is definitely a miracle".who was that person?Me

(1) So even though you just admitted that you maintained a strict diet and kept taking your drugs, somehow, you still believe that the anointing oil did the trick??

(2) What's the time frame between the period you drank this anointing oil and the time the Hepatitis B disappeared from your system?

(3) So, somehow, this anointing oil could completely clear all the Hepatitis B in your body, but could not prevent you from getting ill again? Or was the anointing oil specifically pastor-made for the Hepatitis B?

Deep Sight: You see, arguments such as that of the Flying Spagetti Monster and Invisible Pink Unicorn are puerile and I must say: very childish arguments. These arguments make a silly mockery of the people who make such arguments and here is the very simple reason: in seeking to make a caricature of sound and serious questions of theological/ cosmological relevance, such infantile arguments entirely side-step the core cosmological question at play in these discussions: to wit: how did the universe come to exist?

Now that is the pith of the matter: and not puerile imaginations of flying food monsters. Any person who approaches the discussion in such a fashion simply has no idea what he is discussing.

The Theists position is that The universe is caused by pre-existent intelligence. Now, if this is true, it would not become less true by reason of such arguments as an infinite regress; or the failings of religious notions of God.

The Atheists position is that there is no reason to accept the existence of a pre existent creative intelligence: or if an agnostic atheist: simply that he does not know and cannot know.

Within these positions there is a simple and clear issue to be discussed: the cause of the universe. It is a lucid and sound issue and in no way should provoke nonsense such as FSM into the discussion. Any person who does so is simply a village clown, a veritable foo.l; and absolutely not to be taken seriously.

Now the initial premises should be simple enough: It should start with causality: If the theist says that the universe is caused, then the first question should be if indeed the universe required a cause. As such we will have to look at the laws of motion in particular, and physics in general. We would also need to contemplate the nature of existence and see if it is a correct position to state that the universe needs no cause. Most atheists I know on this forum have been content to stifle the discussion at this stage: and in doing so they adopt a position contrary to known science; for known science discloses causality for material phenomena.

Nevertheless i do not intend to discuss the pros and cons here. My onlty intention is to show the proper line of argument in this matter, and to show how stupendously st.upid it is to advance arguments such as FSM. Such childishly misses the issues.

Now after the issue of causality, the next question would have to be what caused the universe - if it was caused. The debate would then be about if that cause is a lifeless principle inherent in reality or if it is a principle or entity imbued with life and intelligence as the concept of God suggests. In doing so, it will then be apt to look at what we know of the universe and also discuss the probability and the possibility of the evolution of complex systems and complex life and energy in an unguided universe.

This is the sensible way to debate this issue.

LOL! Bros Deep Sight, calm down abeg.

I've come to observe that you seem to get worked up when certain religious concepts are challenged. I have seen a similar reaction to the prayer concept in the past.

The FSM and IPU arguments are perfectly reasonable arguments that simply seek to expose the absurdity of favouring one wild claim over another equally wild claim. Nothing to do with cosmology or infinite regress.

Perhaps, somehow, you sometimes see these kinds of arguments as an affront to your deist beliefs (I fail to see the connection though), but one thing you should realise is that the deist god remains irrelevant and insignificant to most people here. Thankfully, it is non-interventionist, so most people can't really be bothered. You really should take a chill pill bro.

[quote author=Mr_Anony]your statement x=y may be true or false. If I try to prove it false and I fail, it is either the statement has no logical true/false value or it is true. The best practice would be to accept it as true until I can reasonably falsify it.[/quote]So if you tell me that you can fly, or you can disappear into thin air, or that your God can restore severed limbs or [insert any other wild claims], the "best practice" would be for me to accept your claim as TRUE until I can reasonably falsify it? What happened to you bringing EVIDENCE for your claim first? Are you trolling?

That which can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. - C. Hitchens

tobechi74: i disagree. Atheist also hav faith. They havent seen a monkey chang to a human yet they bliv.

Being an atheist does not automatically translate to being an evolutionist. And besides, scientific ideas are not "beliefs".

Dudugirl01: Each time someone says there's no God, I wonder why someone would boldly claim there's no God! My question then is, how do you butress your point? I need answers,

Depends on which God you're talking about. And yeah, there are so many "Almighty One and Only God" out there.

But the response typically is like "I don't believe there's a God", which is quite different from "There is no God!"

To buttress that point, I'd simply say, "Because there's no evidence." The beautiful skies, trees, oceans and whatnot are no evidence. We could as well talk about earthquakes, tsunamis, diseases, etc.

[quote author=Mr_Anony]But then one of the attributes of God is that He is perfectly good. He is not the kind of "good person that does bad things sometimes"[/quote]He is. Do perfectly good beings regret their past actions? Do they repent of evil? Answer is No! Because there's nothing to regret or repent in the first place.

This is clearly not the case with your God. This is why there's a cop-out for him in Romans 9, where it's claimed that he cannot be questioned, no matter what he does.

Since you have admitted that you do not know the purpose of suffering, I maintain that you are not qualified to tell us that this purpose is good based on some fallacious deductive reasoning. That God is good does not necessarily mean that his purpose is good. Remember, his ways are not our ways, and his thoughts definitely NOT our thoughts.

[quote author=Mr_Anony]The fact that you don't know the purpose of something does not make it purposeless.[/quote]True. But you cannot also conclude that the purpose of suffering is good simply because God (who allowed it) is just. No, it doesn't always follow. Nice people sometimes do bad things as well.

[quote author=emöfine2]I don’t particularly miss anything about my forced upon “faith” (and I use the word “faith” for the sake of communication but in retrospect it was anything but faith)
If anything I felt this indoctrinated dogma was inhibiting me. I was actually wrestling with some of the tenets and my questions were building. I believe one does not need religion to have “faith” in that in which they call “god” and not all religious people have "faith".

That does not mean I don’t believe that there were no elements of truth in my former belief system. Although I felt this thing of a religion was stunting my growth.
But there are certain things that perhaps I look back in my life and breathe a sigh of relief and say thank goodness I had been trained in that “faith” else I may have just invited something injurious in my life because I wouldn’t have thought to be cautious then (which is ironic as now I’m cautious of religion lol) and other times I despair that it had inhibited so much of my personal being.

I don’t feel empty quite the opposite rather and my appreciation for life has soared, maybe because I’m still conscious of a creator as opposed to limiting the span of my existence to the physical senses alone or the perimeters of religion.
I felt empty with religion. I still believe there is light at the end of every tunnel – religion was my dark tunnel. Just before I finally severed all ties with my former belief system I fell into a morbid depression and I felt my spirit was being sapped. But during my dark episode I was being encouraged the more to be dependent on a god I wasn't in love with thus compounding my misery and of course contempt. I mean how dare I not adhere to a god that sees me as second-rate. How satanic of me.
However I would not say that religion was the sole reason for my depression perhaps just a catalyst. But currently I’m happy and thinking back in the past when I was struggling with my unbelief it was pretty tough having to force a smile whenever I bothered to attend church because inside I was crying. I was hurt because I knew nobody would understand and the pretence was killing me. I was extremely conflicted.

I know that some people in my life were disappointed with my departure from that “faith” and whilst I never intended to cause deliberate grief for anyone, leaving my former belief system was one of the best decisions I’ve ever made.[/quote]Wow! so eloquently put, and I can TOTALLY relate.

I was going to ignore this post since it wasn't directed at me, but seeing as three people "liked" it (I can bet my left testicle that they're all men), I'm here to correct your misconceptions.

pro01: I really wasn't my intention to argue over nonsense with kids who shy away from the truth.

Typical Nigerian - call your opponents "kids" in a debate, it sure helps you feel better. It's also funny how you keep bandying words like "truth" and "fact" around, when in reality, you have failed to provide any so far. You're arguing based on what you think is commonsense (big fallacy) and easily deducible by discerning minds, but commonsense is never truth or fact. Fact or truth would demand that you provide statistics or at the very least, demonstrate a recognizable pattern to buttress your point, something that is severely lacking in your argument.

pro01: Promiscuous women more likely to give in to räpe attacks than die fighting.
Me: How so?
pro01: Come on, stop trying to be clever with me, you fool. It's commonsense, kiddo!

pro01: The fact remains that it would take a certain kind of woman of extreme virtue and nonnegotiable honour to fight with ARMED men and die in the process rather than allow herself to be raped.

Wrong. She doesn't even need to be virtuous at all in order to ward off her assailants and die in the process. Moral excellence has barely anything to do with a woman's decision to blatantly refuse a brutal violation of her body and dignity -- yes, dignity! Why you keep linking virtue with räpe is beyond me. You really will have to do better than presenting commonsensical arguments to prove your points. Have you not heard of pröstitutes being killed because they refused to yield to the demands of their attackers? Were those pröstitutes of "extreme virtue and nonnegotiable honour" too?

pro01: This is NOT something our average naija babes (who are already promiscuous with illicit premarital sex) would consider sensible or worthwhile. After all, why die 'protecting' something that I consider no big deal anyway?

I think that in the mind of many Nigerian men, räpe is just a euphemism for "rough sex", hence, the reason for this type of comment. Again, you display your awesome omniscience by telling us what our average Naija babes consider sensible or worthwhile. In your twisted logic, they are already loose anyway, so they are more likely to give in to räpe than their saintly counterparts. How did you arrive at this conclusion? Oh, I know -- why die 'protecting' something they consider no big deal? And right there is the problem. You keep assuming that it is "just sexx" anyway and is "no big deal" for them, and since they already engage in it illicitly, they wouldn't put up as much resistance against armed men.

But you know what? Räpe is NEVER sex. Try to understand that, try to wrap your mind around those words, and you will begin to see why even the most promiscuous of women is capable of doing anything - anything at all - to prevent the evil from befalling her, even if it means she'll lose her life in the process.

On the flip side, we've heard and seen cases of extremely virtuous virgin women who, for the fear of their life, simply allowed their assailants to have their way. Since they did not fight back, would you say that these women were not virtuous enough? Your logic says 'Yes'. I believe that such decisions to hold your ground even in the face of death tells more about the victim's courage and strength of character, rather than the "extreme virtue and nonnegotiable honour" you keep harping upon.

[quote author=Mr_Anony]It is all about God's will mate, not ours.[/quote]I agree with mazaje on this one.

There are numerous examples in the bible where God acted according to the will of man. The story of Hezekiah readily comes to mind here (God extending his years after his supplications). Also, Joshua (Sun stands still), Elijah (fire from heaven), Moses (made God to repent of evil - Exodus 32:11-14), etc.

By the way, if you insist it's all about God's will, where does man's freewill come into the picture then? After all, we all end up doing God's will one way or the other. If God doesn't want it to happen, it simply wouldn't happen. If it happens, it's because God allowed it. There are also some cases where God essentially forced his will on people. The most famous example is that of the Pharaoh.