₦airaland Forum

Well there goes Tinubu's direct primaries.

They should better retract the direct primaries bill before Buhari come for dem.

See dem no sell their wares inside shop oo all this ppl they can't change

I place humanity above Gods so I would persuade him not to do it. But I actually believe if he does it's to Gods detriment. Cos they survive on our worship note I am not an atheist but a misotheist.

Most ppl still don't understand that these politicians are using these ppl as fronts to invest their money just like air peace

Being the sperm that fertlized dat egg in the ovary.

BlueAngel444:
Oya show us where it is, since you say it is na

And for ur other words, bro, I said favor. You are typing mercy. Okay o, shebi the requirements for mercy is that you ask God to forgive you, or that blood was shed for forgiveness. Isn't that a common knowledge you should have at least heard or read of.

Eph 2, 8-9

BlueAngel444:
lol bro calm down, I would not say what you claim or assume I would say.

And also, lmao, God said He would be merciful unto whosoever He chooses to be merciful to.
If you say that's partial, ooo, oo, if you say He is unfair or fair, the question is are we better.. As to judge Him?


And who says God has no requirements for those he favors... Or wait.. Is it our stand up pulpit speakers

But it's in d Bible about grace no merit for having it. If he says he would be merciful and not be merciful without a requirement then we are left in the dark.

BlueAngel444:
to you na

He probably is benevolent to His own children

Fantastic it means he is partial. How do u explain a person born handicapped. Born in war regions yea u would say grace but grace is not merited so there is no performance requirement. If no performance requirement what should the disfavoured ones do if u are ready to reason deeply I am game. But u would need to step out of Ur circle.

Because we have been indoctrinated, but while I believe in God there are clear evidence he is not benevolent.

Never for it to happen me given birth to

No fucking one knows

The book basically is about Moses been a soccerer that was how he could perform the 10 plauges and the stuff on the wilderness it's up to u if u want to enter the magical realm. The book states that the angel who slept with the daughters big men reveled secrets which God was not happy with and banished them as demons.

Marriage is the halving of one's rights and doubling of our responsibilities.

Tinubu there goes Ur direct primaries

Since evil presides over all that is corruptible, in other words over all that is alive, it is absurd to try to prove it comprises less being than good does, or even that it contains none at all. Those who identify evil with nothingness suppose they are thereby saving their poor Good Lord. We save Him only if we have the courage to sever His cause from that of the Demiurge. Having refused to do so, Christianity inveterately sought to impose the inevidence of a merciful Creator: a hopeless enterprise which has exhausted Christianity and compromised the God it sought to preserve.

Since evil presides over all that is corruptible, in other words over all that is alive, it is absurd to try to prove it comprises less being than good does, or even that it contains none at all. Those who identify evil with nothingness suppose they are thereby saving their poor Good Lord. We save Him only if we have the courage to sever His cause from that of the Demiurge. Having refused to do so, Christianity inveterately sought to impose the inevidence of a merciful Creator: a hopeless enterprise which has exhausted Christianity and compromised the God it sought to preserve.

I will start this post with a long citation from Emil Cioran's “The New Gods”.

It is difficult, it is impossible to believe that the Good Lord — “Our Father” — had a hand in the scandal of creation. Everything suggests that He took no part in it, that it proceeds from a god without scruples, a feculent god. Goodness does not create, lacking imagination; it takes imagination to put together a world, however botched. At the very least, there must be a mixture of good and evil in order to produce an action or a work. Or a universe. Considering ours, it is altogether easier to trace matters back to a suspect god than to an honorable one.

The Good Lord was certainly not equipped for creating: He possesses everything except omnipotence. Great by His weaknesses (anemia and kindness are partners), He is the prototype of ineffectuality: He can help no one. . . . Moreover, we cling to Him only when we cast off our historical dimension; as soon as we resume it, He is alien to us, incomprehensible: He has nothing which fascinates us, nothing of the monster. Whereupon we turn to the creator, inferior and officious god, instigator of events. In order to understand how he could have created, we must imagine him at grips with evil, which is innovation, and with good, which is inertia. This struggle must have been fatal to evil, which was thereby obliged to endure the contamination of good — thus, the creation could not be altogether wicked.

Since evil presides over all that is corruptible, in other words over all that is alive, it is absurd to try to prove it comprises less being than good does, or even that it contains none at all. Those who identify evil with nothingness suppose they are thereby saving their poor Good Lord. We save Him only if we have the courage to sever His cause from that of the Demiurge. Having refused to do so, Christianity inveterately sought to impose the inevidence of a merciful Creator: a hopeless enterprise which has exhausted Christianity and compromised the God it sought to preserve.

We cannot help thinking that the Creation, had it remained in the rough, neither could be completed nor deserved to be; the Creation is in fact a fault, man’s famous sin thereby appearing as a minor version of a much graver one. What are we guilty of, except of having followed, more or less slavishly, the Creator’s example? Easy to recognize in ourselves the fatality which was His: not for nothing have we issued from the hands of a wicked and woebegone god, a god accursed.

Some doomed to believe in the supreme but impotent God, others in the Demiurge, still others in the Devil, we choose neither our venerations nor our blasphemies. (...)

In order to evade the difficulties inherent in dualism, we might postulate a single God whose history would develop in two phases: in the first, discreet, anemic, retiring, with no impulse to manifest Himself, a sleeping God exhausted by His own eternity; in the second phase, ambitious, frenzied, a God committing mistake after mistake, participating in a supremely blameworthy activity. Upon reflection, this hypothesis seems less clear-cut and less advantageous than that of the two distinct gods. (...)

By inflicting upon the official God the functions of Father, Creator and general manager, we exposed Him to attacks to which He was to succumb. What might have been His longevity if only we had heeded Marcion, of all heresiarchs the one who most vigorously opposed evil’s sleight of hand, who contributed most to the glory of the Demiurge by the hatred he felt for him! There is no example of another religion which, at the outset, has missed so many opportunities. We should assuredly be quite different if the Christian era had been inaugurated by the execration of the Creator, for the permission to abuse Him would not have failed to lighten our burden, and to render the last two millennia that much less oppressive. By refusing to incriminate Him and to adopt the doctrines which would unhesitatingly do so, the Church was to commit itself to cunning and deception. At least we have the comfort of observing that what is most alluring in its history are its most intimate enemies, all those it has opposed and rejected, those who, in order to safeguard God’s honor, impugned — at the risk of martyrdom — His role as Creator. Fanatics of the divine nothingness, of that absence in which the Supreme Good delights, they knew the joy of hating this God and of loving that one without restrictions, without second thoughts. Swept on by their faith, they would have been in no position to discern the touch of imposture which enters into even the sincerest torment. The notion of pretext was not yet born, nor was that quite modern temptation of hiding our agonies behind some theological acrobatics.

Saturn devours his children, by Peter Paul Rubens

Today is Christmas, a day in which Christian tradition celebrates the birth of Jesus, the second person of the divine trinity, also known as the Son, the Logos, the Word (John 1:1-14). For Christians, God became man in order to take away the sins of the world through his own sacrifice — a sacrifice he performed to himself, the first person of the trinity, God the Father. This sacrifice was necessary according to tradition, because the first man and first woman sinned and were expelled from Eden, condemned to live by the sweat of their brows, and die leaving descendants — and these descendants were in their turn damned with the same guilt as their progenitors. The fault of all unhappiness in the world is attributed to the first couple: human evil, suffering and death come from this guilt, which precipitated the Fall.

In the beginning of Christianity, however, there were several different versions that disputed followers. In the first couple of centuries, for example, Gnostic and Marcionists believed that the being responsible for the creation of the fallen world we live in, the material world, was not the same being which Jesus called “Father”. Despite the diverse number of interpretations different dualist groups had, all were convinced of one thing: a good God would never be responsible for our material universe — this creator would necessarily be evil or, at the very least, ignorant. This was the only way to explain — or try to explain — the presence of evil in the world. Christ, according to the dualists, was sent by the good God in order to save us from the creator god, the malevolent Demiurge.

This isn't a modern question. The first Christians already questioned how a good, omnipotent and all-knowing God would be capable of creating imperfect beings (us) who would betray his confidence in Eden and suffer immensely as a result. Man broke the divine command, ate the forbidden fruit, and was expelled from the garden — something the Old Testament God already knew would happen, given his supposed attribute of omniscience. Outside of Eden, men were condemned to suffer all sorts of harms. An all-powerful and all-knowing deity that allows this isn't mysterious, like people use to say, but evil. After all of that, the same God send a deluge in order to kill most of humanity, which by then was corrupted, and even that didn't work in his eyes. He had to send himself — his second person, whatever that means — to Earth, in the form of the Christ, so he could sacrifice himself and save part of humanity, not all of it (Romans 9:6-13, Peter 1:1-2).

Cioran was right when he affirmed that Christianity — that is, the version of Christianity that won the dispute in the first centuries — made a mistake when it attributed to only one God the functions of Father, Creator and manager of the universe. It is impossible to logically justify the presence of evil in the world (both the evil committed by men and the harms that come from nature) when you have just one all-powerful creator that is at the same time benevolent and merciful. If there is a deity that created matter, it is malignant and it does not care about us.

It is always good to give examples.

Last week, a former security guard — that spent three years committed to a psychiatric hospital after trying to kill someone and being diagnosed as schizophrenic — flipped out at the Santos Dumont Airport, in Rio de Janeiro. He was taken to a police station. Once there, he had a another nervous breakdown, stole a gun from a police officer and fired at random, killing an elderly man that had just arrived at the police station to report the loss of his ID. After the shooting, the man tried to run away, but was shot in the head by other police officers. A tragic situation. At the moment he was firing the gun at random and killing the elderly man, his mom was at mass celebrating the publishing of her book — a book in which she described the difficulties she had when raising him. The book was called “Victory Through Faith”. (link to the Portuguese news article)
If there is a good god somewhere, I hope it brings comfort to all of those who were marked by this tragedy — and I hope it comforts all creatures that suffered in the past, and those who will suffer in the future, because pain is something that will last as long as there is life. However, we cannot expect anything from whatever caused the existence of our universe, be that a malignant creator god or some random natural phenomenon.

Merry Christmas.

https://www.metaphysicalexile.com/2020/11/the-evil-god.html?m=1

Simple he his benevolent to those he likes

I thought it was Lagos for Lagos faction buni acknowledge as the authentic APC of Lagos if they dump Apc for PDP den Tinubu has his way.

credon:
Choi, oga try and ask simple simple questions na, this comparison is very hard o

I answered his question now include pixel 6 pro

Half the worlds population needs to go.

Many ppl don't know what this means. It means vio officials can now collect bribe to give u roadworthiness certificate because how many cars are truly road worthy.

Over the last few years some of my friends asked me if the good things weren't enough to justify life, even though they acknowledge that the positive experiences were less frequent then negative ones. I argued that the positive experiences do not justify life. "But what if there is more pleasure than pain? What if positive states were more intense than the negative states?" No and no. Besides, even if we were like the gods, even if we were born immortal and without the capacity to feel physical pain, and could only feel pleasure and positive states, I'd still argue that it isn't worth it coming into existence. And here I mesh together two philosophical perspectives: David Benatar's and Julio Cabrera's.

For Benatar (2006), even if we were like the gods, it would be indifferent whether we were born or not, because if we are not created to experience this immortality and lack of pain, we'd never miss this god-like existence. For Benatar, the lack of a being who never came into existence and therefore could never experience positive states shouldn't be lamented; but the lack of a being who never existed and never went through pain can be celebrated (it is something positive even though there isn't anyone to celebrate; the intuitive example is that nobody laments the non-existence of Martians who wage war and exploit one another like we do). For Cabrera (2018), on the other hand, even if we were immortal and never felt pain, it wouldn't be worth existing, since physical pain, although predominant, doesn't represent the totality of negative states sentient beings go through—and I would add: for beings equipped with intelligence and reflexive capacities, physical pain is just one negative aspect of life among many others.

Things change for Benatar if the being is guaranteed to go through only one pain—like hurting a big toe. In this case, we shouldn't be indifferent, but totally opposed to the creation of this new being. In other words: he advocates that we cease reproducing, since all of us feel pain during our lifetimes—even the most privileged among us. And that pain tends to be much greater than the one produced by a hurt toe. Those who actually read Benatar don't expect that everyone will follow through with his ethical prescription and stop reproducing. His serious readers also don't plan to force others to stop procreating. Even Cabrera doesn't expect people to stop procreating, and doesn't condone forcing anyone. Despite their differences, Cabrera and Benatar agree in a lot of things, especially if we take into account real life and not hypothetical and fantastical wanderings about "immortality" and "capacity of never feeling pain or negative states".

The question of suicide usually comes up at this point: "so you think we should kill ourselves?" Both Benatar and Cabrera are (at first) against suicide, for similar reasons. I can sum them up here: while their philosophies come to the conclusion that it is better never to have been—they get there using different arguments, but they are not incompatible with one another—when we arrive in this world against our will, we have an interest to continue existing, both for ourselves and also for others close to us. It might seem incredible for those who consider this type of life denying ethics to be absurd, but both philosophers believe that the person considering suicide must factor what others around him will suffer besides his or her own suffering.

Having said that, at least Benatar is open to euthanasia in cases where the evil of death isn't greater than the tremendous suffering felt by the moral patient. For Benatar, death is one of life's great evils, the final negative experience. Under no hypothesis does Benatar consider dying the same as never being born, for the simple fact that we experience all of this filth—Cabrera argues something similar regarding death. In the case of Benatar, there is also the approval of abortion, as long as it is performed before the fetus is able to feel pain and before the arrival of consciousness (at a time more or less agreed upon by the scientific consensus). I can't see why I would disagree with euthanasia and abortion as explained by him. Unfortunately, in Brazil, those rights are denied to terminal patients and women for the most obscure reasons possible.

In a less contemporary and more speculative note, but still philosophical, we have Schopenhauer and Cioran. For Schopenhauer, existence is permeated by a metaphysical force he calls the Will. This force is irrational, erratic and wants to perpetuate itself regardless of the amount of pain it may cause. Schopenhauer was also against suicide, but like Cabrera and Benatar, his reasons weren't emotional or religious. In fact, he states that we should never judge a suicide as a sinner or a coward, firstly because sins don't exist, secondly because we all had terrible nightmares from which the only escape was waking up—and for many, life is such a terrible living nightmare that they can only escape through death.

The problem of suicide, for Schopenhauer, is that it only destroys the individual (the phenomenon) and not the Will (the thing-in-itself). The right thing to do, according to him, is try to starve the Will inside us, denying it.

Cioran, on the other hand, didn't have a systematic philosophy like Schopenhauer, and he was extremely skeptic when it came to metaphysical questions, be them transcendental or immanent. He agrees that existence is irrational and chaotic, but he doesn't see the need to formulate systems and speculate about forces that exist behind the veil of reality. Even if they did exist, we'd never know. What we know about life is that it is suffering. Both Cioran and Schopenhauer argued that, even though life is a vast ocean of misery, it brings us sublime moments, be it through pleasure or through some other kind of positive state—but those moments are deceptive. Basically, life gives us enough scraps so we can believe it is worth continuing indefinitely. Cioran is even less emphatic in his condemnation of suicide than Schopenhauer and Benatar, but he still writes that we don't need to commit the act, at least not for now. One day, perhaps—he is in favor of keeping the idea of suicide in reserve. The idea of suicide by itself can alleviate our suffering, according to him.

At this point it is possible that you might be questioning the title of this post, since I didn't present enough evidence that life is very bad—I only presented a brief and (very) incomplete summary as to why life isn't worth starting when we consider the possibility of a hurt toe. Yes, I admit it. I did not present any hard evidence that life is very bad. The reader is right to question this absence here, but for the wrong reasons. That life is very bad should be self-evident at this point in the story of our lives. It is an entanglement of pain and negative situations (and if we include boredom, these increase exponentially) punctuated by a few wonderful moments that are fleeting and hard to obtain. Even the best lives are so bad that it leaves little doubt that the phenomenon of life in general is a mistake. The best lives only seem incredible to us because we don't have them; envy is, after all, one of the most basic feelings of mankind. I'll leave you with an aphorism from Confessions and Anathemas:
At every age of our life, we discover that life is a mistake. Only at fifteen is this a revelation that combines a shudder of fear and a touch of enchantment. With time this revelation, degenerating, turns into to a truism, and thus we come to regret the period when it was a source of the unforeseen. (CIORAN, 2012)

https://www.metaphysicalexile.com/2020/11/life-is-very-bad-and-never-worth-it.html?m=1

It's been said we pay for our sins either in this life or the next. This is a widely held belief by all religions even African traditional religion. It means the disabled, those who the present life does not Favor are paying for a sin committed in d past life. Although many are also suffering from wrong choices in their present life.
The purpose of reincarnation is to give a chance for correction through karmic punishment. But what is punishment without awareness of the sin committed. U are basically given a Karma but made to forget the sins u committed in the past life. This is injustice and such God should be rebelled against. The correction is done through evil of this world. Can we then blame the evil doer. For example a man is born handicapped meaning the spirit should feel the pain of being handicapped in dis present life. But the pain is created by humans around him how can the humans around him be blamed when he was meant to feel the pain of their actions towards him. How are we supposed to help others if they are to pass through pains the creator is Purley manipulating we humans. I feel the creator just needs our worship. If ppl killed in the Bible for the creator then Boko haram is also worshipping him. All God thrives on worship. No desgin that was not created for the benefit of the desginer.
No desgin is also perfect. If we were made in his image and likeness then he has our characters. In the Bible he is a jealous God. It's also stated that he is slow to anger which means he can get angry. His creation is not perfect if not how does the spiritual realm sometimes manifest in the physical. If they are 2 separate realms. How did the fallen angels sleep with the daughters of men. If we are distinct. How can stuff like spiritual wife and husband exist if it was never meant to be. It's shows a crossing over of realms he was angry when angles slept with men. It means his creation can be corrupted.

My lady speak for Ur self

No how u look at it God is the source of evil

God himself is the problem. He made us unequal which is what has brought trouble in this world

Ogbeni u are the fifth generation. Deuteronomy 5:9

Any sane individual know that Nigeria is in need of a new sea port. That's why the Chinese are positioning themselves to control that sea port. Well it's time for Lagos to have a serious competition

Luc

My guy they can't just report him if they don't have evidence