₦airaland Forum

musKeeto: Lmao... What a funny thread!!

very funny back and forth BS.

MacDaddy01: Artful dodger, why are you running away from the issue?


Explain how Abraham is not a foolish person (if he even existed). What kind of parent would agree to sacrifice his child? Any good parent would put his life in danger to save his child rather than sacrificing the child

in fact, the Jephtha case is not helped by the fact that earlier on God had asked Abraham to sacrifice his first born another first. It was prolly from this tradition that Paulinist writers of the new testament came up with Jesus being a sacrificial lamb from God as atonement for our sins.

Pastor AIO: What we know is Knowledge. Yes. It might derail this thread to go into it.

It would require looking into epistemology.

What we know is not necessarily what is! that is the matter.

Knowledge is not necessarily equal to truth.

You are right, knowledge is not neccessarily equal to truth, especially when one argues with a preconcieved mindset. It is best to argue with the assumption of ignorance so as to prevent distractions from beliefs and appearances which are illusions of reality.
And the best method to gain true knowledge is through sound experimental observations using the mental instruments of logic and reason.

davidylan: So rather than put your faith on an unproven, unseen supernatural force... you choose to place it in an unproven theory that constantly gets revised at the whim of any scientist? Perfect.

Only a dishonest intellectual pretender will make such a crass statement like the pile of $hit you have up here.
You betray your own claims of being a scientist in whatever field.
What is your understanding of the word, "Theory?"
You seem to suggest that in the science world "theories" are sacrosanct, No?
As used in science, a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena. Any scientific theory must be based on a careful and rational examination of the facts-something that is so obviously lacking in creationist theories of God and a creator.
A clear distinction needs to be made between facts (things which can be observed and/or measured) and theories (explanations which correlate and interpret the facts.
A fact is something that is supported by unmistakeable evidence. For example, It is a fact that fossil skulls have been found that are intermediate in appearance between humans and modern apes. It is also a fact that fossils have been found that are clearly intermediate in appearance between dinosaurs and birds.
Facts may be interpreted in different ways by different individuals, but that doesn't change the facts themselves. Facts are sacrosanct, theories aint.
Theories may be good, bad, or indifferent depending on how much facts that supports them . They may be well established by the factual evidence, or they may lack credibility.
It is the lack of facts to support your god theory that people like me have problem with, you try so hard to pass your vague creationist theories with manufactured facts" or most times no facts at all as absolute truth and expect everyone to be in awe of such mediocrity?
I would rather a theory that is constantly reviewed as more facts emerges thus becoming more established and consistent than a fictional theory that defiles common sense and logic.

davidylan: For someone who labels the christian faith as "stoopid" on this exact thread... shouldnt you hypocrite be taking your own advice first? I wont bother reading the rest of your piffle.

Like seriously Mr,
Do you get some kind of holy rock steel hard-on from being unneccessarily dramatic and talking tough?
Get over yourself Mr, you are not that bright to be acting like some 21st century Jesus Police that seeks to curse out anyone who dares to question the rationale of the christian faith.
Where did I expressly call the christian faith "stoopid" in my post?
That I said I find it incredibly stoopid for anyone to believe with certainty a book whose authors are at large does not neccessarily mean I am positing that the Christian faith is "stoopid" as you so literally put it.
My position is that any belief system that defiles logic and reason is "stoopid" regardless of the spiritual mysticism and conclusions reached through vague or ill-defined spiritual beliefs.
Just as I find any fanatical belief in portions of the bible that defiles common sense and logic as nonsense and "stoopid" if they are shielded from reason and logical scrutiny; Indoctrination is not truth.

Pastor AIO: I think we put too much Faith in Knowledge.

what would you rather we put our faith on; an unproven, unseen, supernatural force that is thought to live up in no certain place called heaven?
What do you call knowledge anyway? Cos what you know is knowledge.

davidylan: for starters, you flatter yourself when you label your "questions" as "logical and reasonable". Its the same cowardly arrogance even macdaddy was talking about on the other thread. The only reason i highlighted your post is for the likes of cyrexx who are quick to jump on christians for being confrontational and YET ignore atheists who spend all day labelling our faith as "stoopid".

Secondly, i see you touting "empirical evidence of science"... lol you wouldnt know that even if it hit you in the face.

Put your issues here and let us discuss it.

Mr David,
Being unnecessarily confrontational does not add any value to the quality of your argument neither does it make you any smarter than those that see things differently from you.
The point I was trying to make was very clear, you would have seen that if only you were less petty.
Truth is relative and subjective to opinion. The absolutism of the nature of truth lies in its relativity. Your truth is your truth by virtue of the fact that you measured it up to opinions that you have come to accept or see as the standards for arriving at the truth. To others who do not agree with your accepted opinions for arriving at what you termed the "truth" it is not the truth let alone the absolute truth, there lies the dilemma of the absolutism of "Truth".
I questioned the authorship of the bible which obviously is your accepted standard for arriving at "your absolute Truth" because it is rife with inaccuracies and relies so much on a belief system that forces adherents to "play faith" without questioning its claims on what constitutes the truth.
Telling non-christians that the real truth lies in christian doctrines and moral laws is a tad bit close-ended and arrogant. Every society pretty much has set standards for arriving at what is right and wrong-some are laid down laws while some are generally accepted tacit mode of behaviour that society indirectly codefy into people. These things predate christianity therefore could not have borrowed from christianity, instead the reverse is the case. Christianity did not invent morality or the Truth, all they did was nothing different from what mainstream religions like islam and co have done.
Enough of your arrogant argument like you know any better than people that do not agree with you. I don't know what science you call opinions but the end products of science is what determines its truth. You are not the only scientist here my friend, in science, hypothesis will always be what it is until it is subjected to some empirical test and found to be true before it goes on to the next level. In engineering for instance, you don't just hypothesize your way into building big complicated machines, it is all a product of rigorous tests on design models and the use of well tested scientific theories. You will be damned to make any untested assumptions and incoporate them into manufacturing any product, that speculative science is fine in the church not in science and that my friend is where lies the superiority of science to the claims of what constitute the truth.

davidylan: ah i'm sure cyrexx would be quick to castigate such hostile aggression when levied against the bible...

why do you assume that one has to be an atheist to ask very logical and reasonable questions?
Why will anyone use accounts from books that were written almost half a century after the death of christ as a source to measure against what is the truth while accounts from books based on empirical evidence of science are taken with utter levity? Is it because it is not preceeded by the word "holy??
Let us even assume that Jesus's desciples wrote the books; how is it possible that they were able to write everything Jesus says word for word? Is that even remotely possible that one can write verbatim the conversations or teachings of Jesus without any direct effort to cross examine Jesus or get a kind of one to one recorded interview. Unless of course somebody is passing his own truths as what Jesus and God says.

cyrexx: @ Mr Anony,

thanks for your reply, though i still have some objections to it. but no problem. moreso, since we dont want argue on this thread.




but as a side note.
i think i will later create a thread for you to directly address all my perceived absurdities in the christian faith in an educative, matured and non-confrontational manner. i will clearly state my position and assumptions and you will yours and then all the parts of the bible/christian faith that makes no sense to me you will kindly explain and clarify. will you do that, please?

yeah would love to ask some very important questions in the bible that I find incredibly stoopid that anyone will believe and quote with so much alacrity as an irrefutable source when more than half of the identities of the men that authored many of the books are unknown or at best a subject of speculations.
Like for instance, who exactly wrote the books of John? The book of John is claimed to have the best independent account of Jesus's life yet believers can not seem to agree on the identity of the author. And we are supposed to take seriously the accounts given in the books of John. Matthew, mark Luke and Act are obviously work from a source, which is suspected to be Paul who never met Jesus. So much for the absolutism of biblical truth.

okeyxyz: christianity has stated that anybody can attain human righteousness whether or not they believe in christ, they can be atheist, humanist, moslem, Buddhist etc, We are all aware of a sense of right and wrong and capable of adjusting our behaviors to abide by them. The only thing christianity claims absolute propriety over is the principle and significance of Jesus coming to die, in essence putting sin to death and granting god's salvation to anyone who believes in this principle. That is the god-righteousness that christianity claims, not morality. simple.

Mr Okey your arguments are contradictory. You claim that christianity affirms salvation and righteousness whether or not one belives in Jesus Christ; then in another breath you talk about christians' rigid claims to the death and ressurection of christ as a way of eternal atonement and salvation for christians, are you not saying thsame thing?
By the way, I have a little question for you, that is if you are not an atheist by the way;
1. Who was the sole founder of this whole death and resurrection of Jesus christ as a way to attain salvation and atonement for sins; Jesus or Paul?
2. Was Jesus actually God's son in Flesh with thesame nature and power with God or was he like the other prophets or the promised human messiah promised the jews in the prophesies.
3. Since we are talking about truth and what makes a statement the absolute truth; Do you agree that the claims of the bible are absolute truth and not mere written documents by religious men with their agenda.

[quote author=Mr_Anony]Yes I am sure of it.

....By the way long time no see. You left our "Jesus vs Paul" thread and ran away. How far you?[/quote]You are sure of what you think or know to be the truth and you argue that truth is not relative, huh? So tell us what is the truth?
By the way, I did not run away from my own thread, I was tired of going round and round with you in circles especially when you started sounding angry and condescending. Anyway, don't derail your own thread by trying to instigate me on issues from another thread cos I could take you on anytime

[quote author=Mr_Anony]Hmm, It was because I saw your responses and your video that convinced me that you didn't watch the original video or perhaps you didn't understand it at all and just posted what you felt would be an appropriate reply. Anyway that's fine, even more amusing is how you throw in the word "bogus" apparently, you are still nursing some wounds from a previous thread.
I was expecting a better debate from you I was hoping you would question the positions of Michael Ramsden and especially professor John Gray being that he is an atheist who doesn't believe that secular humanism logically follows from atheism.

I was expecting a proper informed and knowledgeable debate from you but all I got was a video that doesn't really relate to the topic and sarcastic reply based on your biases and who you suppose me to be. It is alright, you don't have to debate it or comment but I am afraid that the more I encounter you, the more I see a man who has replaced one version of blind faith with another version blind faith.

Don't be a fanatic I beg you. Sit back and properly reason your position. Search for the truth because when you have found it, no one will be able to take it away from you + you will have a ready answer to anyone who asks you about it....because you will know it deep down to be true.

All the best.[/quote]I guess what you think you know, IS the truth, right?

Carl Lewis vs. Usain Bolt: Was the American Legend Right To Say Jamaican Drug Testing Isn't Up to Snuff? By Natasha Geiling Updated Friday, Aug. 10, 2012, at 6:05 PM ET Usain Bolt cemented his status as history’s greatest sprinter on Thursday, becoming the first man to win the “sprint double”— the 100 meters and 200 meters—in two separate Olympics. After his victory in the 200, Bolt took a moment todenounce another all-time great. “Carl Lewis, I have no respect for him," Bolt said, explaining that he was perturbed by the American sprinter’s past comments about Jamaicans and performance-enhancing drugs. In 2008, Lewis publicly questioned Jamaica’s doping regulations, saying, “Countries like Jamaica do not have a random program, so they can go months without being tested. I'm not saying anyone is on anything, but everyone needs to be on a level playing field.” He’s not the only person to raise questions about Jamaica’s testing protocols. Ina 2011 interview with La Gazetta dello Sport, BALCO founder Victor Conte said he believed the Jamaicans were somehow flouting the rules. (Conte also said this week that60 percent of athletes at the Olympics are on drugs .) Apart from speculation, is there any evidence that Jamaican doping regulations fall behind the international standard? In an article published yesterday by Jamaica’s RJR News, Jamaica Anti-Doping Commission doping control officer Paul Wright refuted claims that the country doesn’t police drug use. According to Wright, JADCO administers tests up to five times a day for 40 weeks during the athletic season. In a direct contradiction of Lewis’ 2008 gripe, Wright also asserts that JADCO carries out unannounced tests. Internationally, Jamaica complies with doping regulations as defined by the World Anti-Doping Agency,an independent body founded in 1999 and partially funded by the International Olympic Committee. In 2003, Jamaica signed theCopenhagen Declaration on Anti-Doping in Sport , agreeing to recognize and implement an international standard of anti-doping regulations as defined by the WADA. The United States was also a signatory, along with 191 other nations. It wasn’t until four years ago, however— just days before the opening ceremony of the Beijing Games—that the Jamaican congress approvedthe Anti-Doping in Sport Act, which created the country’s anti-doping commission. (Prior to that, Jamaican athletes were subject to testing by one of WADA’s regional anti-doping organizations.) When Lewis talked to SI in 2008, the Jamaican Anti-Doping Commission was only in its second month of existence. At that point, there were questions about how much out- of-competition testing was being done in Jamaica . And Frank Shorter, the American distance runner who served a term as chairman of the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency,told the Denver Post that he wasn’t sure how independent the Jamaican commission would be: “When they have a positive test, do they adjudicate it? Do they enforce it? Do they take it to appeal? Or does it go back to the Jamaican federation [to be buried]?" JADCO has now had four years to exert its influence. During this time period, a healthy number of Jamaican track stars have been banned or suspended for drug infractions. In 2011, sprinter Steve Mullingswas banned from competition for life after a banned diuretic was found in his system. (Mullings had previously been suspended for two years after he was found to have elevated testosterone levels.) A year prior, Shelly-Ann Fraserwas suspended for six months for taking oxycodone, a drug that is not considered to be performance-enhancing . The Beijing and London 100-meter gold medalist was the eighth Jamaican athlete in a 12-month period to get nabbed for drug violations. Among those was Bolt’s training partner and double London silver medalist Yohan Blake, who wasbenched for three months for taking a banned stimulant . (Bolt himself has never failed a drug test.) Following Fraser’s 2010 suspension in 2010, WADA’s director-generalDavid Howman defended the country’s program , saying “there was nothing that made the [Jamaican] agency non-compliant with the WADA Code.” Last year, in a report delivered by WADA to its board, the Jamaican Anti- Doping Commission was found to be a WADA-compliant organization. (National organizations must perform a certain amount of out-of-competition testing to meet the criteria for compliancy.) And following Bolt’s 200-meter race last night, London Olympics chief organizerSebastian Coe also assured naysayers that Jamaica’s anti-doping regulations were compliant with Olympic standards. Carl Lewis, who won 100-meter gold in 1988 after steroid user Ben Johnson was stripped of the title, has been the subject of drug controversies himself. According to documents released in 2003 by the U.S. Olympic Committee’s former director of drug control administration, Lewis tested positive for stimulants and bronchodilators three times in the run-up to the 1988 Olympics. USOC, however,decided to overturn the results after Lewis said he had taken the drugs inadvertently.

[quote author=Africa's jolie]I am 100% sure if she were to put heavy makeups and large weaves on her kids head u'll say they too small for that.From what i see here she limited it they dnt even have make up on just lipgloss and their natural hair so wat do u want her to do? dress them up like those girls.Have u seen angelina jolie kids or madonna kid? just like every normal kids oyt there .I knw ur expectation must have been high but they re like every normal 16year old,14year old kids so comparing them to maids is way to far.If u were to follow ur mum out pls nd someone ask ur mum if ur her maid how would u feel tho?[/quote]like seriously, have you seen my sixteen yr old cousins? Their parents are not even as wealthy as Omotola and her hubby yet they look wey finer, fresher and star-like than any of Omo T's kid. None of them even took after her good looks, their dresses are just not it all. Omo T needs to take better care of kids, they always don't look fine every time there is a pic of them. And their Dad is obviously a dark complexioned person, the man's gene is so fucking strong to the point she no even let omo T's beauty show for any of the kid's face or body not even her fine, fair skin.

I will have to be blunt here, the girls are not anywhere good looking like their mum, walahi. They look too much like kids of middle income parents. Like seriously, have you guys seen Fred Amata's Childrien? Una sef go gree say the kids look too ordinary jor

[quote author=Ki-Katanga]I never claimed you paid as much in bills, I said you pay more for electricity. Anyone using a generator -- i.e. many of the poorest people in the country -- pay more for a unit electricity than I do.

I recommend you read back my posts. You're wrong, you know you're wrong and you're desperately trying to find a way to claim otherwise.

I pay less for electricity than most people in Nigeria. That is a fact. Nigerians do not use electricity like we do, because Nigeria's electricity supply is unreliable and expensive. You have your backward crony culture and your corrupt government to thank for that.

Evidently you think that's absolutely fine, but that's exactly the attitude that will see Nigeria stay a rat infested shithole filled with some good people and a lot of idiots.

Your country has problems. No-one should be paying more for power in a country like Nigeria than a country like Germany, and until you pull your head out of your arse accept the problem and work with your neighbours, irrespective of tribe or religion and solve it, you'll be patting yourselves on the back for generating enough to power a toaster while the rest of the world will be leaving you for dead.

END.[/quote]stop this splitting hair argument that leads nowhere Jare.
Whether the argument was about size of bills or electric bills paid, I still maintain that Nigerians pay nothing in electric bills close to germans, period. Per kilowat hour we still do not pay the equivalent of what they pay in Germany, do the maths. Stop painting fcking scenerios. I know you so badly want to criticise, criticizing endlessly is your own way of contributing to nigeria, I understand, but in this instance, you are groping in the dark.
How much do you pay per kilowat hour in the place you are?

[quote author=Ki-Katanga]You're struggling to understand. I get it.

We have much bigger bills.

But the poorest Nigerians pay more per unit energy.

As I said, it costs more to turn on a light bulb in Nigeria than Germany.

My monthly electricity bill is around ₦15,000, but pretty much everything in my life is electric. Overnight, we pay 15c/kWh.[/quote]

[quote author=Ki-Katanga]You're struggling to understand. I get it.

We have much bigger bills.

But the poorest Nigerians pay more per unit energy.

As I said, it costs more to turn on a light bulb in Nigeria than Germany.

My monthly electricity bill is around ₦15,000, but pretty much everything in my life is electric. Overnight, we pay 15c/kWh.[/quote]It is you who is mixing up things in an effort to make a point. An average Nigerian does not use much electricvity and therefore does not pay that much in electric bill, that has been one of the cardinals of my argument when I said we pay nothing close to the germans for electrric bills. Also, in comparison to the cost of quantity used per hour, again, Nigerians pay far less because the billing system is grosly faulty, that's another point I am trying to ram into your thick skull bro. . Lol. . So the claims of Nigerians paying hugely for electricity than an average person in German is a dumb lie in all rammification no matter how much you try to argue it
Hope I am simple enough in my explanation this time?

[quote author=Ki-Katanga]Any Nigerian paying for a generator is paying more than a German pays for mains electricity. The difference is that in Germany, they are running their fridge, their freezer, the washing machine, their tumble dryer, their computer, their TV, their lights, their hoovers, their broadband, their cooker, their oven, their microwave, their blender, their shower, their stereo, their air conditioning and some, even their cars off of it.

In Europe we pay very little per unit of energy, we just use a hell of a lot of it.

In Nigeria -- you pay more than most Europeans per unit energy, but you can't afford to use it for anything but the bare essentials.

The reason I talk about power per hour is that power per hour is energy.

Oh and I've been on the ground and have family in Germany, Nigeria, Ghana, Senegal, Jamaica and the UK so I'm pretty well placed to compare them.[/quote]hahahaha. . . You just want to argue for the heck of it, I bet you have been infected by the kobo syndrom. You are a bonafide lier, you even contradicted your own argument by listing all those appliances, most of which Nigerian households do not use. Now tell me how it is possible for a country whose majority households use all those aforementioned appliances to use less energy and spend less energy than an average Nigerian household? Where is the logic in your argument Mr?
How can you say because Nigerian households use generators, they pay more for electricity than their german counterpart, how? To begin with, the premises of your arguments is greatly flawed;
1. Not every household uses a generator set, infact, a majority do not.
2. Even amongst the ones that have generetor sets, again, the majority do not use theirs every time there is power outage, the use is rationed and mostly used at night to power mostly non-heat equipment. So what's point again?
Let me give you a shocker, in Nigeria, many afluent households with equipments and appliences that sap power yet if you compare the bills they pay with some average house holds with just basic equipments and appliances, it is usually not much or almost thesame.

[quote author=Ki-Katanga]No, do the maths.

Tariffs:
Germany: 27c/kWh
Nigeria: 8c/kWh

-- However a lot of people use generators...

Honda EC2000 Generator - pretty much the best budget generator in the world.

2000W for 2.8 hours from 3.6 litres of petrol.
that's 5.6kWh from 3.6 litres of petrol
3.6 litres of petrol @ ₦97 = ₦349 = $2.16 = 216c

216/5.6 = 38.6c/kWh

That's 42% more per kWh than Germany (plus the price of the generator, plus collecting petrol, plus maintenance and repair) - for one of the more efficient generators available.

People should stop defending Nigerian politicians and start fighting for a better Nigeria.

[u]Sources:[/u]__________________________________________________________________________________________________
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_pricing#Global_electricity_price_comparison
http://www.justgenerators.co.uk/pages/HondaEC2200.htm
http://www.punchng.com/business/business-economy/new-tariff-fg-abolishes-uniform-pricing-for-electricity/[/quote]muhehehe. . The more you try the dumber your attempt, all that mathematical calculations only work in organized billing systems in the europe and Americas not Naija where you are billed on the whims and caprices of NEPA officials which most of the times is not commenurate with the power used or supplied. Why do you think the GEJ administration had to overhaul the tariff system and are now trying to use pre-paid billing system. You should argue less and take your time to understand issues before ranting and comparing non-existent stuff. You don't even live in Nigeria yet you argue blindly with people on ground and paint scenerios that are do not exist in Nigeria. We will start talking about power used per hour when there is a level of power stability but currently NEPA officials barely use the readings in your metre to bill you. Like I said, an average Nigerian does not pay anything close to what an average German pays for electricity, so stop the rants and be reasonable.

[quote author=Ki-Katanga]Germany paid less in subsidy (30 Naira per kWH) than Nigeria ever paid in petrol subsidy and the total cost per kilowatt is far less than a petrol or diesel generator. Nigeria has some of the most expensive energy in the world, because government isn't doing its job, and people don't hold it to account.[/quote]Seriously dude, by now, you should get tired of this pointless round and round argument , it is trite and uninteresting. If Nigerians pay half of what Germans pay for energy, we go riot. Stop quoting and making unsubstantiated claims just so you can win an argument that you are obviously losing.

[quote author=Ki-Katanga]http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/blog/post/2012/08/follow-germanys-lead-streamlined-permitting

Germany generated 22,000MW from the sun alone (in a country far from the equator and one third the size and still only half of what they generated). 5,000MW is pathetic, Nigeria cannot develop if people are happy to be treated with contempt.[/quote]You are a bonafide clown, Mr. Do you understand the economics of powering a system using photovoltaic cells. Do you know how much it cost to install a full solar system in a home? How many Nigerians can afford it? You are so quick to talk about Germany without stating the fact that the whole thing is heavily subsidized, left on its own harnessing solar energy for power production is still an expensive venture whose advantages fades in the face of generation from hydro, gas and fossil. So shut up and stop pointing expensive experiments in europe that is still largely not feasible in large scale. Afterall, We were able to increase generation from the 2000MW to 4000MW in a space of just two years try the equivalent in solar and see how much it will cost to do such in Nigeria.

Some Nigerians are filled with bile and so greatly want GEJ to fail just to prove themselves right. . Lol
It is apalling to see how Nigerians criticize destructively without common sense. I am presently in Lagos now and mehn, there has been a very remarkable difference in Power supply. We go on for days without any power outages and when it goes off, in no distant time they restore. Obviously, the generation of power has increased and let us be fair to Jonathan, no government has ever achieved this feat, not even OBJ that wasted more than 16billion dollars in claims of trying to provide power.
People should be fair to give GEJ and the minister of Power their fair share of congratulations and encouragement. If Fashola with the billions that acrues to him daily can get praises for doing his Job, Nobody should shift the goal post because it is GEJ.

Sirniyeh: Sweetnecta
What does religion has to do with issue of God's authenticity? Whether I am a muslim or not should not be a barrer to define God. It will even be an advantage for you to establish your religion by describing the God you worship. Inability to do that indicates that you serve the God you dont understand!
A pry two child will tell you God is the creator. A pry six will say God is a spirit. A class three will tell you God is the originator of human life. SS 3 student will say God is the source of all possibility. An undergraduate of psychology said God is the embodiment of human thought. A PHD holder said God is the neutron in human brain.
A professor said every human being is a God.
Who is correct among all?

And I say God is man's mental creation to answer to answer questions that expose the limitations of his knowledge.
It only exist in the figment of his imagination, he exists in the mind of those that believe he does and does not exist in the mind of those that do not believe. That's why he can neither be proved nor disproved.
I like to pretend like he does just to get all these indoctrinated averages off my back but in my solitude, I blieve he does not exist.

Sweetnecta: Never will there be any intention to dictate to you or force you to do what you feel uncomfortable doing.
all i have done is to agitate your conscience to live a bit.

your case remind me of when i wanted to be a soldier because it was the in thing among young people.
my cousin was smart enough to put a dent on the idea, reminding me that there was no war that nigeria needed defense personalities on.

and i could defend nigeria in many other ways, academics and or wealth are defense options he mentioned.

he also told me about the possibility of being in the officers mess as some crazy ideas are being discussed and someone may count me part of it, even though was not even aware of any discussion.

i took his advise at the end and thank God i am here and not a 6 ft under, while i am just discovering islam now!

lets put a scenario in place: say you manage to keep this awful thing as your secret forever. you are now married to this muslim woman and you have children.

oh, there will be islamic ceremonies. what will you say about name and religion of your children from a devoted muslim mother and grandparents? no religion or you will continue to live a lie?

and the children are now learning to recite Quran. You are a wealthy surgeon and hajj time i here. the children are old enough to pray and they love it. You still have your parents until you are about 85 years old.

what are your rights over the rights of others that you continue to lie to them while you can just get it over with now?

bad news does not get better with time, if nothing is done to rectify the condition. what you would be doing is letting your lie eat up your heart until when they know, they say your are the most heartless person that ever walked the face of the earth. You will let a muslim woman marry a chronic kufar, without her having the choice to say yes or no in the deal. how different are you from the alfa who is telling her lies?

and by the way, i asked you to show me in either Quran or hadith where women are told that they are second class to men.

dr., you need to drop some benjanins in the box of any masjid of your choice for asking you to make your heart up instead of allowing it to sleep hard or sleep walking denying reality.
while you deserve to be happy, so do others who you are not telling the truth. they deserve much happiness that you deserve under the circumstances because you are the cause of the chaos that the effect will be worse the long you them not know who you truly are.

Needless Gibberish! Just Give us a concrete proof of God, simple.