₦airaland Forum

Okay, you win.

Hi TV01

TV01:
Could someone please show or detail the Apostle Pauls alleged chauvinism . Personally I'm struggling to see it.

Thanks
TV

Downplaying the role of women and forbidding them to speak in church implies what? He may not really be chauvinistic as a person, but that instruction smacks of one borne out of a chauvinistic tendency, IMO. It's the way I see it, but you're a Christian, I don't expect you to see it that way.

Cheers.

As expected.

Naw. There's nothing innocent about your opinion. It's very, very personal. It's definitely someone who's posted on this thread before, in the Pro-Paul league.

Great.  Ladies and Gentlemen, I present to you, The Resident Nairaland Psychic!  "It's definitely someone who's posted on this thread before".  LOL.

Accusations of double identity on this forum is something that has been going on since 2005, so I'm not really surprised you'd accuse me of being someone else.  Once someone appears to echo what others have been saying, that person suddenly becomes "someone who has posted before".  As a matter of fact, I just saw this thread yesterday for the first time.   I really do not see the need for me to respond to this, but just to clear all doubts. . .

but it would be more honest if you'd simply posted your tirade under the username you've been using earlier.

Yes, this is not my original username.   I stopped using my other username (which I'm not willing to reveal. . .  conjecture all you want ) way back in 2007 when I was banned from posting.  That was when I registered this one, long before you registered the ID Mad_Max on this forum. You really don't think if I were disguising as someone else, I'd easily give myself off, by stating so expressly that I've been "nairalanding" for 5 years? C'mon!

How obvious you are.  You do realise you were echoing things you'd said in your earlier posts, don't you? Deceitful, and like most liars, you let little things slip.

Lol.  You really must be feeling so smart and proud of yourself right now for "busting" "another Nairaland criminal".  When I said "Brother Paul", I was only trying to employ the language of Christians.  Besides, calling him "brother" still does not make me his fan.

Don't quote Vesc. He's a friend.

Friend or not, what he said rightly applies to you.   I surmise that he had you in mind when he made that statement.  But being your friend, he didn't want to come out straight so he won't hurt you.  I could be wrong.

hiding behind a  different username for a vicious personal attack

Now, why would I want to do that?  You really must feel yourself so important to believe that I'd take my precious time to register another user name just to attack you.   On the contrary, I actually admire your person, seriously.   I usually find myself in agreement with many of your posts, especially on tithing (I do a lot of reading around here).  But on this one, you just weren't being reasonable, and I felt the need to point that out.

and one of the reasons yours doesn't really deserve a response; it's so silly and personal and miffed and trying to pretend to coolness and objectivity when it's really, really angry at something I'd said

Maybe the coolness and objectivity are actually there after all, but somehow, you've deliberately chosen not to see that, because something in them hit a nerve.  Maybe.

If you were really neutral about Paul you wouldn't get this worked up. I'm laughing so hard my sides are aching.

Well, sorry about your aching sides.  And yes, I really AM neutral about Paul, and I'm not worked up at all.  I was just bothered about the bias which you conspicuously show-cased without even realizing it.  To be honest, it was your own very first post that made me more interested in this topic.  I thought to myself that since you are a Christian and you make these allegations against Paul of all people, then you really must have a lot of proof to stand your ground.  After 5 pages, I was disappointed.   I like it when people are objective, regardless of who's involved.  Heck, why would I get worked up over Paul when I'm not even a Christian?   (Next, you'll accuse me of being Krayola, or some other person).

I know you ladies always love to have the last say, so I'll most likely not respond to your next accusation/insult/what-have-you.

Enjoy.

Wow!! What a thread.

It's been quite a while since I thoroughly went through an entire thread on this section of Nairaland, reading every single post.  I normally get bored after the first two, three pages.

I particularly find the position of Mad_Max here intriguing, and I was really keen on seeing where this would end.  But as with virtually all topics raised in this Religion section in my almost five years of 'nairalanding', it didn't have a happy ending.  I'm not surprised.

It's interesting to note that early in this discourse, Mad_Max made some allegations against Brother Paul which she could barely defend, despite appeals from some quarters to her to present a valid case (On this extremely rare occasion, I find myself nodding to every single one of noetic's posts.  He raised some really vital questions, but all Mad_Max could respond with was "go and and learn some manners".  At some point, people began to question how Mad_Max could possibly reconcile her grouse with the letters & person of Paul with her belief in the Gospels which she so ardently used to antagonize Paul, which themselves are not free of controversy, and which are contained in the same book (acclaimed as God's word) as the letters of Paul, thereby ultimately querying her assumed position as a Christian.  Worthy of note here is that she repeatedly avoided answering to this query, and then finally went on the defensive by referring to some other thread where she purportedly "explained herself already", a thread whose link she for-god-knows-why "didn't care to give".

At some point, Mad_Max said this of Paul, "A different spirit resides in him that is not in the apostles. His work, his teaching, his very person is not of God."  But again, she fails to tell us what spirit then operates in Paul.  Which of his teachings exactly is "not of God"?  What makes Paul a false apostle?  What makes him THE wolf in sheep's clothing Jesus talked about?  The only reasonable thing Mad_Max could offer here was the "handing over to Satan. . ." teaching, which well, I believe was effectively tackled.  It's not a reason to give him all those scathing labels.

At the start of this thread, after reading all the accusations against Paul by Mad_Max, I was expecting her to buttress her points further with a list or instances of his "false" teachings, "constant" warring with the other apostles, "boastful" statements, and other things she accused Paul of.   Instead, she goes on to tell her audience, "I've written enough about Paul. There's such a thing as finding out things for oneself".  Why make a claim that you cannot defend?  I particularly find her accusation of Paul writing in Greek instead of Aramaic utterly ridiculous.  Sounds so "conspiracy theory-ish". Even far more ludicrous is her stating that "Paul is irrelevant" in Christianity.

I must say that I'm thoroughly impressed with Krayola for his brilliant posts, and more importantly for keeping his cool against an apparently cantankerous Mad_Max, who in the long run, began to appeal to sentiments and empathetic submissions to further her already beaten theories about Paul.

vescucci said this on May 6:

On the flip side, some people have such an overly developed sense and taste for the dramatic that almost anything that holds a contrary view to 'accepted' truth must be true almost solely on that premise alone. It is so outrageous it must be true. Most conspiracy theorists are like this. It is my opinion that give a clever guy a starting point and an end, he'll weave plots so profound, so believable, so under-your-nose-like that you'll believe it in a second. Until the next clever guy comes along and have you believe in something else.

This aptly captures the "Mad_Max character" displayed on this thread.

Mad_Max is reminiscent of a certain trini_girl who once used to be active on this board.  So so similar in character.

By the way, I'm not a fan of Paul myself (I don't really have any problems with him either, save for his chauvinistic tendencies) .  It's just that the case which Mad_Max has presented against him is not enough to castigate the poor fella.  It's just untenable.  Plus, I'm not tripped by people who attempt to prove smart by trying to show that they "think differently" from the rest of the world, haughtily proclaiming that others not in unison with their ideas are "wallowing in deception", etc.


P.S. I understand that some posts were erased somewhere along the line.  So please forgive me if I missed some things, plus, this should not be taken personal at all.  Just an innocent expression of opinion.

An excerpt from Dan Brown's The Lost Symbol on The ABC of Religion:

Religions. . .

. . . Assure salvation

. . . Believe in a precise theology

. . . Convert unbelievers

Pray, how does atheism fit in here?

Yahweh (of OT) and Allah are actually similar - both violent beings. Then there's this other God in the NT - peaceful, gentle, loving.

It's a natural human tendency to always want others to see things from our own perspective, whether theist, atheist or even agnostic. And as someone mentioned earlier, it is not even restricted to religious matters alone, but spans across all issues that demand a level of conviction.

However, it cannot be denied that theists (Christians and Muslims particularly) constitute the most nuisance in this act of belief imposition. After all, they're simply carrying out the injuctions that their individual religions have clearly spelt out to them. The atheist that actively attempts to talk others out of their belief is only being human, an overzealous one, perhaps; just like the Chelsea fan trying to make the Man Utd fan believe that his team is the better one. But for the theist, it will probably be counted onto him as a sin if he fails to not understand that people cannot just always see things the same way. I guess that explains the NEED for them to always IMPOSE what they think is true on others. To the theist, it is an OBLIGATION. He just cannot afford to understand the fact that since all humans are unique in their own way, they can NEVER all see the same things in the same way. Funny enough, even within same religion, and worse, same sect in same religion, there's still a lot of overt and covert proselytizing. Shouldn't that tell us something?

Yeah, the marriage part really baffles me too. Christianity in particular claims to preach love, aims to make its adherents Christ-like, but right in its sacred texts, it blatantly forbids a union with those of other faiths - unbelievers they're called - even if they're a Mahatma Ghandi or a Mary Slessor. I find this wholly hypocritical.

Hi Deji, thanks for ur input, it's well appreciated. I've run the services.msc and everything's normal. It's set to automatic and all 3 dependencies are also running well. But no sound still, only with an earpiece or headphone. Some guy told me my speaker's fried, I don't want to believe him.

Thanks so much man! I'll check the link when my system is connected, I'm currently posting this from my phone. Meanwhile, I just noticed in Device Manager that there's this "Other devices" with two "Unknown device" under it. I'm not sure if it was there before. I can't install any driver since the device can't even be detected. I've disabled/uninstalled and enabled/reinstalled, but nothing's changed. Though my sound controller still shows that my "High Definition Audio Device" is working well. The system speaker is set as default and shows that it's working fine, but no sound is produced. Please, how do I check that output stuff in control panel? Thanks once again.

HELP!! I was watching a movie on Windows Media Player when SUDDENLY, the audio stopped responding, but the visuals kept running. I have run an extensive troubleshoot several times already and it keeps saying that there are no problems with my audio device. I have played other movies, played songs, with other players and though they run smoothly, no sound is produced. The system itself makes no sound at all. I also noticed that whenever I restart the PC, there's usually a small, brief notification that says "audio service is not running" or sum'n like that. One strange thing though is that the audio works well when I connect my headphone. I use an HP Compaq 6735s, and my OS is Windows 7 Ultimate. I'll really be grateful if some practical help comes my way. Thanks a bunch, in anticipation!

@davidylan

davidylan:
You've already given the answer. That Christ had a foreknowledge of what Judas would do does not mean Judas had no control over his own actions. Dont confuse foreknowledge with a lack of free will.

If Christ had had a foreknowledge of an event, and that event which he had the foreknowledge of did not come to pass, then he never really had any foreknowledge in the first place, he probably only had an assumed knowledge.  In other words, if he indeed knew that Judas was going to betray him and wasn't just guessing, then Judas was in fact bound to betray him.  If Judas really had any freewill at all, and had exercised this freewill to choose not to betray Christ, then that would have proven Christ's acclaimed foreknowledge to be a farce.

davidylan:
Judas wasnt "predestined" to be a betrayer . . . he chose to do so and die in his sins.

Well, we have reason to believe that Judas was indeed predestined to be a betrayer.  Jesus hinted at this in Matthew 26:24 -

The Son of man goes as it is written of him: but woe to that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! it had been good for that man if he had not been born. (NKJV)

What Christ was saying here in essence was that there was absolutely no way the person could have decided to not betray him.  The only other option was for such person not to have been born at all.

davidylan:
That is why God is omnipotent . . . He created man and reserves the right to determine the course of his life as He wills.

If God reserves the right to determine the course of anyone's life, and he actually goes ahead to exercise this right, then such person does not have any freewill.  Instead, the person is doing only that which God wants them to do.

davidylan:
The bible says that God "hardened Pharaoh's heart" . . . but this was NOT against Pharaoh's will in the first place. Pharaoh was CLEARLY against the jews leaving, never recognised the God of the jews as the almighty anyway . . .

This particular case of God hardening Pharaoh's heart is one that I have special interest in, and is usually my number one reference in the freewill argument (Deep Sight beat me to it).   In fact, it transcends just freewill alone, and also puts to question, the morality of Yahweh.  Why would an all-loving God choose to harden someone's heart, thereby leading them to their destruction, when softening their heart would yield the same desired result (letting His people go), while at the same time, possibly bringing the Pharaoh to salvation?   Well, let's leave that for now.  Freewill.

God hardening Pharaoh's heart may not have been against Pharaoh's will as you said (actually, it WAS against his will. . . no one likes to be manipulated), but it completely ruled out any and every probable iota of possibility of the Pharaoh having a change of heart.  That is, the Pharaoh was now completely left with absolutely NO choice but to go on keeping the people of Israel captive.   His freewill (to decide otherwise) had been taken from him.

@InesQor

InesQor:
Reasoning like Purist did, IMHO, is like saying I will never drink water again because my lab tests show that most water sources have traces of pollution.

The comparison you attempt to draw here is incongruous. Actually, I am in fact saying that I don't drink water anymore, because I have found water very bad for my health.

noetic16:
I will like to know your present belief system. . . . .perhaps I could learn from you. Since u have been able to make sense of the atheist arguments and rationalised it. . .I would honestly like to hear your expression of your belief/disbelief. . . . .

Well, I'm not sure I'm willing to drag myself into any debate right now.  But as I said before, I haven't even defined my belief system yet, I instead label myself, a seeker.  But put simply, I'll just say that I've come to realise that when you subscribe to religion, you're in a "box", you're confined.  Your reasoning ability is limited, and your thinking faculty gradually becomes eroded - no matter how educated you are - because you're now expected to hold on to dogma; just have faith - blind faith.  You're expected to believe everything in your religion, hook, line and sinker - no questioning!  Suspend common sense!  Dismiss logic!  Even when it's clearly nonsense, you cook up so many bizarre, unthinkable nonsense to further explain the nonsense.  The moment you begin to think outside of this box, and you express these thoughts, you're labeled a heretic - a backslider.  All these, I'm afraid, I've got a problem with.

P.S.  I saw the thread where toneyb declared he'd be leaving Nairaland due to personal reasons, perhaps, he perceived his posts were having negative effects on fragile minds here.  I don't think that would be solid enough a reason to quit, if that's actually why @toneyb.  Personally, my change of belief started some 3 years ago, and it wasn't entirely triggered by the atheists' posts here, though I won't deny they had quite an impact.  I've always been very skeptical and inquisitive, even as a kid. . . "God" made me that way .  The atheists here probably just made me bolder in my skepticism.  I've seen so many threads here where atheists engaged theists in debates, and theists could only offer ridiculous explanations for what they believe in.  Even as a Christian then myself, I found the logic of the non-religious really biting, and the theists (Christian) responses only just begged many of their questions.  Most recent very good example I can remember is that of DeepSight's "The Noetic Interview. . .". It was of course difficult for me to accept that there are loopholes in what I've been brought up to believe.  But I refused to allow some nonsense dogma overshadow reason.  It was really depressing facing some harsh realities, like knowing that the basic characteristics (omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omniscient etc) we humans have attributed to God (which are logical by the way) can barely be reconciled with the whole concept of freewill, and worse still, predestination.  Funny enough, there are pointers to these discrepancies even in the bible, but somehow, we choose to overlook them, or pretend that they're inconsequential, even though we're usually quick to capitalise on them when they suit us.

Again, just to make myself clear, I do not shape my belief with the compelling logic of atheists/agnostics/etc here on Nairaland.  I only just seem to find a reinforcement of many of my personal, innate beliefs from these guys.  You'll probably come here now to tell me that I was never a true Christian and similar stuffs.  But really, I was genuine, at heart.  I still honestly want these things to be real.  You know, like having some "Jesus", "Holy Spirit", etc that I can constantly commune with; like dying now and be so sure I'll literally be spending eternity in some utopia.  The world is so insecure after all, so who wouldn't relish the thought and reality of having some supreme, benevolent spiritual aid?  But then, I realise they're things that I've been brought up to believe, and somewhere in my subconscious, I'd created that "sense of reality" that made everything so real to me.  Right now, somehow, all these things do not just add up anymore.

chinedumo:
If @tpiah theory is true then @jagunlabi  according to him hate and love are part of the same coin ,u jagunlabi  concurred. you called it human emotion and ego. then thefore this egoless state u are talking about is the absence of both love and hate. so your opinion of the ideal/perfect state called Egolessness is is to do away with both hate and love  and not just the hate. I wonder where u are getting to?

That's an astute point there.   Jagunlabi, care to expatiate?

noetic16:
the kind of lies u tell urself every night just to make u feel good. .  ,  , 

Actually, toneyb is quite right.  I am a living testimony to that fact, though I'm not an atheist, yet. . lol (I still don't know how to define my belief system).   I used to be very active on this Religion board (I've been on Nairaland since 2005), and fellows like shahan, syrup, m4malik, bari_kade, stimulus, tellyb, and a host of others used to be my "brethren in Christ" .  If I tell you my former Nairaland ID - before I got banned (I'm not willing to tell, so don't ask ), you'll be shocked (you must have seen some of my old posts around here).  I've been cool on this forum ever since though.

Well, I don't think the writer is trying to "show off". His write up appears to me to be more of a Patrick Obahiagbon mimicry. This is evident in his insertion of the big words in quotes. Those big words have been used by Pat at different times.

noetic16:
if according to u self-defence constitutes moral bankruptcy . . . . , dont u think u need urgent re-education ASAP?

Self defence? Against feeble women and harmless boys? Are you kidding me?!

@davidylan

Purist:
[quote author=davidylan link=topic=338624.msg4754078#msg4754078 date=1255813868]Your last statement clarifies things . . . of course i know that "heaven" AS A WORD was not invented by the bible as it wasnt originally written in english . . . the concept however was!

@davidylan

Just for educational purposes only, I'm not really looking forward to a debate, can you prove the bolded statement?[/quote]5 months, and no reply!  Anyway, I was actually hoping you would reveal some "new truth" that would enlighten us all. But your deliberate evasion of my demand has already proven that you have nothing to back up your ridiculous claim that the religious concept of heaven is "purely biblical".

Au contraire mon amie, it is YOUR claim that is horribly false and is an example of the subtle but malicious attempts to adopt alien terms into your own religion, while claiming that they were originally yours.  If you had ever taken the time to read about Mithraism or even Zoroastrianism, you wouldn't have made such a laughable claim.

@topic

Sure He did!

Never mind that the Tower of Babel story is far-fetched anyway. Cock and bull, if you ask me.

@viaro:

I'm browsing from my phone, so I can't check those posts you referred me to right now, neither can I offer you a befitting rejoinder. One thing I noticed though (I may be wrong), is that you seem to be more pre-occupied with DeepSight's version of deism, that you fail to pay attention to the very fundamentals of the ideology in itself. Basically, theists believe in god(s). Basically, deists also believe in god(s). The "which" and "why" questions are quite irrelevant in this basic sense. So how would anyone, knowing these basics, then conclude that both ideologies are unrelated? Anyhow, I will like to respect the O.P's wish that this thread be not derailed any further.

Regards.

@viaro:

Of course they're not "the same thing". Whoever said they are? No two ideological or philosophical beliefs are ever "the same", otherwise, there wouldn't be any need to term them differently.

However, your claim that deism is "not a shadow" of theism is a bit far-fetched, and smacks of a desperate attempt to dissociate yourself from DeepSight in whichever way, even if it means uttering ridiculous statements, such as the one in contention at the moment, and finding every available word in the dictionary to defend that claim.

Certainly, it is common knowledge that in its philosophical and theological usage, pantheism, for example, varies significantly from theism. But it would be laughable for anyone to assert on this basis that pantheism is "not a shadow" of theism, because in the broad sense, both parties share the same fundamental belief - a belief in the existence of a god or gods. Same argument applies to deism.

Even the wikipedia definition, which you chose to capitalise on states explicitly that theism "may" exclude deism, which translates that definition into meaning that there is an exception to that exclusion, perhaps when looking at both ideologies in the broad sense; and so, that already negates your claim that "deism is not a shadow of theism". Even Googler clarified this earlier.

The claim that deism is "not a shadow" of theism is at best, ridiculous.

@noetic15

noetic15:
The love of one's neighbour as directed by the bible is preceded by the love and acknowledgement of God. how then can u show "LOVE" without knowing God (Jesus)?

You sound as if people had not been loving their neighbour until Jesus gave this commandment. Okay, let me simplify this.

[center]Love: feel tender affection for somebody; to feel and show kindness and charity to somebody.[/center]

The above is a dictionary definition of love. (Please don't come here and tell me that the love Jesus preached is different from the one defined in the dictionary).

So based on the above definition, are you implying that it is practically impossible for those who have never heard of Christ to show love to others? Are you saying that those who have never heard the name "Jesus" are incapable of feeling tender affection for somebody
or showing kindness and charity to somebody?

noetic15:
2. It is IMPOSSIBLE to practise the teachings of Christ without acknowledging the divinity of Jesus.

Did you actually make this statement?

@noetic15

I can't believe I'm doing this to myself again.  Engaging you in a debate could really be frustrating.

noetic15:
1. why dont u educate me? what does it mean to love ones neighbour as directed by the bible? is this commandment alien. . . .does it stand alone as an absolute?

Your shenanigan will not work this time.  I asked a simple question, a very perspicuous one at that, and you're attempting to dribble around with words by questioning me in return?  In case you missed it, here's the question again:    How about those who show love to their neighbour, despite the fact they have never heard the name "Jesus"?

noetic15:
2. what a dumb assertion Ghandi employed Christ's teachings but refused to accept Christ's salvation what rubbish is this?

When you created that thread to apologize, I knew well enough that it was just another sanctimonious display that I'm quite familiar with on this forum.  I've been on Nairaland long enough to know the kind of games people play here.  About 2 years ago, it was osisi apologizing to the Muslims "for her harsh words".  Barely a week after her "apology", she resumed her Islam bashing.

Now back to your question.

It's not a dumb assertion.  Heck, it's not even an assertion.  It's a fact.  You may do yourself some good by reading up on the biography of Gandhi.  He acknowledged the messages of Christ on LOVE and PEACE MAKING, applied those teachings to liberate his country from British rule, but he refused to be a Christian.  It's just like me accepting some of Buddha's wise teachings, but refusing to be a Buddhist.  How is that a dumb thing?

noetic15:
There is no love outside of Christ.

How about those who show love to their neighbour, despite the fact they have never heard the name "Jesus"?

The kind of love Mahatma Ghandi had for his people can only be next to the love Jesus showed and preached while on earth. Mahatma Ghandi himself admitted that he employed the teachings of Jesus in the peaceful stuggle that led to the independence of India, as exemplified in his constant insistence on non-violence. But of course, according to you, because he didn't die a Christian, he's currently burning in hell.

Nigerians can really be funny at times.  When the government isn't doing anything, we call for their head.  When they decide to do something, we rubbish the idea.  Not surprising though, I really don't know of any brilliant idea that wasn't first rubbished by supposed "intellectuals". . . of course, they too had their "strong reasons" as to why such ideas were "rubbish".  Seems lots of people have short term memory.  When BRT idea was first proposed then, lots of people called it a white elephant project, and they all had very sound arguments to back up their stance.  Today, they've been proven wrong.

Do you guys honestly think that those who proposed this idea haven't thought of all you're arguing here?  Or you think all there is to the project is what you've read in the newspaper article?  Do you really think that they are oblivious of the electricity problems in Nigeria?  I expect all of us to be asking meaningful questions about this project, instead of condemning it outrightly.  Some are even calling Fashola names already.  Certainly, this is beyond contempt for the seemingly "ridiculous" project.  It appears lots of people are envious that Lagos (Fashola) is perhaps the only state in Nigeria making positive headlines.

I think it'll be wise if we just ask the right questions, and probably give our own suggestions to make it work, rather than list a thousand "sound" reasons why the project cannot work, as if you have all the details concerning the project.

@ Deep Sight

His so-called educational achievement is probably nothing more than having started studying for a PhD at a relatively early age (24 or 25 I think), and he's currently 28.  Not many Nigerians have such priviledge, so you can imagine how big a deal it is to him.

By the way davidylan, I'm still hoping you could shed some light on how the concept of heaven is "PURELY biblical" as you claim.
Here's the link: https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-338624.32.html#msg4756316

@davidylan

davidylan:
Jude 1:23 And others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh.

I had no intention to post anything here, but this quote caught my attention.  David, did you really reflect on this quote before reeling it off the Bible to post it here on Nairaland?  I'm actually very much aware of the fact that this thread was created out of an existing thread and it was Seun who changed the title of this thread 2 years ago because of the perceived "hate" he saw in your comments to the Muslims.  But I find it very absurd that you will now come here to defend this alleged "hate", 2 years later, with a randomly quoted verse of the Bible.  I expected that you would have taken the time to explain to Deep Sight why the title of this thread is as it is, unless of course, you indeed hate Muslims.

@Krayola, EARLMAGIC

Krayola:
Just saw the replay of Bent's goal. Ref shouldn't have given it. Ball deflected off a beach ball that had landed on the pitch.

EARLMAGIC:
about the Sunderland goal.

The rule of the game says that if there is interference by a foreign object then there should be a "drop ball". Thats the rule, but football will not be the beautiful game that it is if there are no controversies.

Well, reports say that the balloon was thrown into the pitch by a Liverpool fan.  Talk about living in a glasshouse and throwing stones.

@Deep Sight

Deep Sight:
@ Purist. . . Are you just meeting Davidylan? He is the Christian Soldier - Brother of Noetic. It appears he may have been on Pilgrimage, hence Noetic has been fighting all the crusades alone.

Lol. . . I know davidylan very well. Arguably the most aggressive Christian on Nairaland. Believe me, he has really cooled down a lot now, compared to the davidylan of 2006/2007.

@davidylan

davidylan:
Your last statement clarifies things . . . of course i know that "heaven" AS A WORD was not invented by the bible as it wasnt originally written in english . . . the concept however was!

Just for educational purposes only, I'm not really looking forward to a debate, can you prove the bolded statement?