₦airaland Forum

@toluxa1,

toluxa1:
If also helps us to understand that Christ did not come from the lineage of the Kings of Judag

Does that suggest that Christ did not descend from the lineage of Judah?

oldie:
Did all our ancestors end up in "hell"?
Since they were not christians.
Where did they go?

And why Christianity in particular as measuring your idea of "hell"?

@bawomol,

bawomol:
the kind of proof am asking for is the existence of a "God" and how "God" transformed to the God of peace from the God of war.

You're only asking for the "proof" of the existence of God based on your worries about a transformation which you have not clearly defined. My offer (to which you referred in your quote) was pointing out the type of "logical proof" you were seeking - how have you stated what it is?

One could be bland and blank as a matter of testing the waters because they are not sure what next they would say - which I presume is what you're doing; else I would not be reading such oblique appeals to "proof" where I clearly asked for what type of "logical" proof you were seeking. The field of logic is broad, please make your pick.

bawomol:
in what ways have u experienced God.

In varied ways. And yes, my experience(s) may not tessellate with your idea of "proof", but that in itself does not suppose that you hold ace simply because you deny them based again - on no logical proof or understanding of your own premise in the first place.

bawomol:
at it can, the bohr atomic model can be discussed but that doesn't mean the atomic model is true. anything, real and unreal is open for discussion and analysis.

Either way, those arguing for and against theories of scientific disciplines advance their logical arguments rather than make excuses of denying this, that or the other - as you have consistently done! And then again, I did state that we are dealing with a "being", unless your analogy has a way of referring to atomic model as a "being".

bawomol:
just logic, my science deals with the big bang theory and evolution. lets stay on topic please.

You would see that I have not even delved into any theory for the existence of God, while trying to stay on the topic. The one thing that I've been doing so far is follow your lead and present the fallacy of your own analogy and presentations all the while, just so we can come to a common ground for the discussion that may be of interest to both of us on the existence of God. To open a thread with a psychotic MPD as a starter does not tell me you're asking for a discussion at all - and I've sated that several times already.

bawomol:
it actually does, there is a big difference between a calm person and a violent person. why anyone would deny this is mystifying.

What then is the difference you postulate? That the calm person never at anytime expresses the very opposite of calmness - panic, anxiety, unease as possible alternatives to your static psychiatric display of emotions as earlier? Ever heard of synonyms and antonyms while you quickly sweep these ideas under the carpet?

Dude, opposite emotional display (as you touted yours conveniently) do not lead to the NON-existence of a being! The core issue here is not the personality display, but rather your working assumptions - that God does not exist! I'd be enthused that you clear your grounds first on that, before accusing a "being" of having a personality that worries your thinking. If I'm averse to your personality display, it would be foolish indeed to infer from my dislike of your personality that you therefore do not exist (and it has nothing to do with whether or not I've met you heretofore).

bawomol:
i told u the reason i am unable to do this already. the ball is in your court to show he/she/it exists.

Your inability to do this already demonstrates that your repeated assertions are unnecessary; and it would be almost theatrical for me to humour you on the excuse of that veil behind which you have been hiding your propositions.

That you suppose I could not adduce "proof" for the existence of the God I believe in, should not mean that your inability to "prove" your own premise therefore triumphs over my convictions. At best, you are simply unable to hold[b] your[/b] tuff - not even philosophically - and on which premise you cannot breast the tape on your course here!

bawomol:
actually no, newton sent a detailed explanation to his peers and this was widely accepted. there are only vague descriptions of this "God"

I presume Newton's premises were never put to the test and therefore swallowed wholesale, yeah? That alone tells me what type of phylosophical idealism you're proposing, and I just can't wait to tease you on yours!

In any case, there are a lot of critiques that have been conducted on Newton's Calculus when it comes to applications. I'm not a scholarly mathematician myself; but the few such critiques I've perused thereto really make me wonder that anyone would speak of the idea that Newtn's students must have been so glib to "accept" his theories without question. It was not too long ago that one such works was recommended in our class - "The Principia : Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy". But there again, I've yet to look at John L. Greenberg's critique on applications of Newton's calculus. When it comes to applications, that's when we see the weaknesses, limitations and problems of theories which have been initially accepted widely.

bawomol:
in sociological experiments, kids that weren't exposed to religion, saw no need or having belief in a supreme being. people base their religious beliefs on what they hear and not what they experienced.

Another classic excuse - blaming your weakness on "kids".   How many others do you know who base their premise and belief in God on what they have read from "books" besides what they read or hear? What about the reference you made to "books" as the mast to post your flag of belief in God?

bawomol:
my assertion that god does not exist is based on the FACT that no evidence has been found of it's existence. it's not that complex.

Your assertion is simply that - an assertion: hiding under an illogical and unphilosophical excuse. You have not presented anything that can pass for "proof" other than asserting this, that or the other and thereby coming back with the ahoy of God's existence "can not be proved or disproved". You can't leave your ideas hanging out on high seas that way and expect to make us believe you have delivered!

bawomol:
u haven't done a great job so far

I don't see what great job you would expect anyone to do on your excuses.

jagunlabi:
"SATAN" does not exist within african religions.That particular entity is a foreign import.So mentioning any african religion that does not seek to appease this imported entity is irrelevant.

Em, it is like saying that those african religions to be mentioned here will be those that must seek to appease satan!

WHY?

Because, according to your statement, mentioning ANY African religion "that does not seek" to appease satan is irrelevant!

You guys (therationa, imhotep, 4Him. . bawomol) are just too great in this thread! I've thoroughly enjoyed my afternoon - and I do wish you all a fantastic evening!

imhotep:
Yes, YOU need philosophy 101 classes ASAP.

Ha! Abeg make una leave this guy to interest us with philosophy! I am a starving to take this bob to task on it!

@bawomol,

bawomol:
logic is backing your assumptions with proof.

True. But not all types of logic adhere to your own idea of "proof" - it all depends on the type of "proof" you're asking for.

bawomol:
logic isn't "the bible says so, then i must believe".

I think we have gone beyond that excuse which has become the classic one for many who reason the way you lead us to believe is your basic premise.

bawomol:
the original topic is the nature of this alleged God. how does it God in three persons and why the change in personalities. God of peace to God of war??

Discussing the nature of any being does not disprove his existence. You (as a real person, not as the hidden "bawomol" also have two opposite reactions: you could be at peace with yourself, or otherwise vexed when you meet with something inimical to your welfare and concerns. But the fact that you may sometimes go through these opposite reactions do not disprove your very existence!

bawomol:
my proof is that u guys have no proof.

Gbosa! And all of a sudden, that is your logic and science! No let me laugh!

bawomol:
no i'm actually criticizing your side of the argument and displaying it's floors. have u heard of an hypothetical question before??

Please enlighten us.

bawomol:
no according to psychiatrists, that is called a display of emotion and not a mental disordr.

A clever way of dribbling behind your tacit "MPD" - but for all that, you're dealing with two opposites! These two opposites do not disprove your existence; rather, they prove your existence and help us relate with you in those clever displays of emotion!

bawomol:
crying or laughing don't lead to a drastic change in personality. why the change from God of peace to God of war. the thread isn't about me but about your "mystical" god.

Peace and/war do not lead to change in personality. To push this idea and make it a personality thing while excusing the very same premise under the psychiatric notion of "display of emotion" does make you sound more mysterious than mystical.

bawomol:
it's the job of u guys to prove to the existence of an abstract concept not me.

Back to "memes"! It's all up to you to crawl out of the facade of an "abstract concept" and demonstrate your own logical "proof" of His non-existence!

bawomol:
it was Isaac newton's job to proof the viability of calculus and not vice versa.

It was up to his students to disprove his premise where they disagreed with his developmental thought on calculus, and not vice versa or hiding under the excuse of trying to deny the premise of calculus.

bawomol:
besides holy books, there is no justification or a need for God.

Not everyone who has a concept of theism and belief in God adheres or resorts to some 'holy writ'; but they would not have to wait to just the narrow thought of some book before they express their theism. Have you ever thought about that?

bawomol:
i won't repeat this again. for the last time, an abstract entity imagined my man can not be proved or disproved.

Which is all the more reason why your psychosis has led to a dead end! If you cannot disprove anything heretofore, do you mind not having to repeat yourself endlessly on the assertion that God does not exist?

bawomol:
may i recommend an intro to philosophy class by the way.

Oh, please flatter me - I just can't wait to dribble you on your own tuff!

imhotep:
How can we help bawomol out of the trap he set for himself

Perhaps when he coherently discusses this:

imhotep:
2) If you accuse God of having MPD, then He must exist.

imhotep:
God does not exist, but He has MPD!!!

Ha! But wait. . . how does one begin to "prove" that someone has an MPD because He does not exist? Bo, this roundabout antics don tire me!

First, God does not exist. Then second, He has an MPD - even though - ??

imhotep:
Now, WITHOUT biblical references, show me that God does not exist. Or, that He exists and has MPD.

This is the same thing that has been stated in a similar thread - and boy-o-boy,  I just simply love the way 4get_me thrashed this issue in another thread (here)!

stranger26:
stimulus, you are completely right. Noticed that pattern of behaviour too; seems they play on the protagonist's mind rather than argue logically.
And the discussion ends in a brawl,,,,original topic forgotten.

My dear, you never see anything yet. It is always the same thing again and again!

samba123:
do you have any book to prove it,

He does not necessarily need a book - any book. Just his rational thinking to be coherent will do for now, if he is willing and able to do so, rather than hide behind the same roundabout excuses we have seen so far.

bawomol:
to be honest, u guys avoid every question by asking for proof while providing none of your know.

We are still waiting for your own proof and answers to the questions that have been offered you guys.

@stranger,

Sorry - was caught up with a few busy stuff and didn't mean to log out on you abruptly. So here:

stranger26:
I don't get that. Could you expand on it?

Actually, I'm quite open and interested in discussing religious issues with anyone - and even though we may not agree on so many things, does it make any sense for me to switch over and then begin to be deliberately uncouth in my expressions? What would that twist be suggesting other than that I'm seeking to stump the discussion (because I know that by being offensive, you would not like to carry on the discourse)?

For instance, my belief in the doctrine of the Trinity does not mean that I have to impose anything on you who does not believe likewise. We can discuss issues, agree on a few basic premises, disagree in a civil manner on some other issues - but for all that, I can be sane enough to be civil to your convictions. There would be no need for me to resort to such kinds of language to "prove" my point; and more than likely, it belittles my integrity to resort to such.

Now, if I don't want to be open or reasonable with you, I then pretend to sound intellectual and seek to stump the discussion by employing brash literary expressions - because I know you will then not want to engage me the moment my verbiage derides your convictions.

This is exactly the same pattern again and again that has been employed in some other fora - and it yields exactly the same effect. When all appeals to invite reason in such discussions seem to be fruitless, I don't pursue the discussion any further, because the discussant using such literary gimmick already knows he or she is seeking to lead the discussion to a dead end and arrive at nothing!

This is why I made several observations thereto in other threads to the OP - and this thread is a reaction to those observations, rather than his seeking to discuss issues.

olabowale:
The Wolves are out in force:

There's no need to address anyone as "wolves" I guess we can discuss sanely without the desperations that have been making the rounds.

imhotep:
I never called anyone 'The Great Prophet'. The administrators of this site know how all that came about.

It is alright for Muslims to be derisive of other religions - and we have seen the effect of the fatwa on Nairaland.

bawomol:
i want answers people. why does God seem to have mood swings and a change of heart.

I need answers, bamowol. Why do you suffer from the same psychosis?

bawomol:
the idea of trinity is an aspect of religious fundamentalism that has not been answer.

What is religious fundamentalism - and how do you relate belief in the Trinity to that?

bawomol:
smarten up, there's a difference between religious EXTREMISM and religious fundamentalism

Don't get so desperate and burst a vein! Could you share your views without being so fumbled up already?

stranger26:
Bawomol, I understand what you are getting at about trinity and all but the title of your thread is rather blasphemous.

This is the catch that always shows up - and I keep saying it: I've seen it in other Fora!

The thing is to be first desperately and deliberately uncouth and blasphemous so that the one who proposes such language hopes to stump the discussion thereby. Anyone can see that.

bawomol:
we are communicating with something called the WWW on something called a message board. behind bawomol is an human being whose identity can be verified. God can't be verified even though he is allegedly omnipresent.

Should I then assume that the link between the "WWW" and "bamowol" is an index of the MPD that you touted?

See? I could as well rest your psychosis with the same mundane arguments you have proposed. Point is that nothing comes out of it either way. But that is not of any interest to me here - I've seen it time and again in other Forum and it got no one anywhere.

lekkimania:
It is not suprising that you folks try divert discussion with cheap psychology.

That is precisely the point - I thought I was the only one reading the detractions.

bawomol:
my idea that God doesn't exist comes from the notion that theists are unable to prove the existence of their mystery God. this isn't an original proposition but a response.

Your idea does not prove anything - it ducks behind a classic excuse, which is that you stand to deny the other's proposition, but have not proven yours.

bawomol:
God can't be seen,felt, touched,communicated with or experienced. do u have any substantiated physical accounts of God??

And that constitutes the non-existence proof? The entity "bawomol" cannot be seen, felt, touched, communicated with or experienced - and it would be great to see that entity substantiate its physical account.

Already so desperate from this thread now, are you? I knew it would inevitably lead to that, and you're only proving what I said earlier.

bawomol:
u proposed the idea, now prove it.

Ha! You have also proposed an idea, dude - that God does not exist. That is as much a proposition you have made - and it would be interesting to see you prove it as well.

bawomol:
i am serious, does God have MPD.

You don't sound it. Perhaps if you invite a discussion without resorting to such antics, you'd find people willing to enter a discussion and offer answers. Constantly referring to such ideas proves to me that the person using them is not really going anywhere - I know because I've seen this happen time and again in other Forum. Of course, you could be as evasive - nothing new from the same pattern I've observed. Convince me.

bawomol:
the idea of trinity is part of religious fundamentalism and bible literalism

In which case I haven't taken to the street to behead anybody, nor do I intend to do so. One can accuse all they so wish, but there is a line between being hysterical and being reasonable. How many people around the world today who believe in the Trinity fit your idea of religious fundamentalism?

bawomol:
why ask jesus to reveal himself when he can talk to God directly. or are jesus and God the father different people. does God have multiple personality disorder.

God does not have multiple personality disorder; and we are quite familiar with people using such mundane expressions to kill a discussion. Do I suspect that resorting to such derogatory verbiage is a pointer to your uneasiness in seeking reason in discussing this subject?

therationa:
Is this a touch of desperation or what?

Perhaps you should be thinking of your desperations by now - it shows so conspicuously that one does not need a magnifying glass to observe it.

What's with all the desperate moves to deliberately spell Jesus with a small 'j' when it costs you absolutely nothing to carefully spell others like Jacob with a capital?

therationa:
Shouldn't there be some semblance of veracity in the stories of the bible?

There is a semblance - and when you trace the lineage in their respective descents, it doesn't prove difficult to see who is being represented between Matthew's and Luke's accounts.

@stranger,

stranger26:
@stimulus: that's why I said I'm not sure of the wording. I haven't read that hadith in a long while and I don't have my book with me so, even though the wording seems a bit different, I cannot correct it.

Okay. Actually I wasn't suggesting that the wording should be corrected.

stranger26:
That's funny, I thought I was the only one who yawns through the nose,,,ase I get partners

I've been sitting down here waiting to yawn so I could pass it through my nose. In order to get me yawning, I had to go visit some very boring posts - and then the yawn came. O'boy. . . I try no be small - but the experience left me thinking seriously! How do you do it again?

IDINRETE:
is the bible from god?

There are threads already discussing that - what have you said about this one?

@stranger26,

stranger26:
No actually that means cover your mouth when you yawn; as in don't leave your mouth open.

The hadith does not project that idea. It says to either say 'Ha' (and give Satan a comic relief to laugh at the yawner), or one should try to stop it! It does not even suggest that one should pass the yawn through the nostrils - unless you wan become Sufi innovator!

stranger26:
Its cool, though,,,because it doesn't show when I'm bored of someone's monologue and I'm saved the embarrassment of an open yawn in the speaker's/lecturer's face.

I know a few English babes who do the same (wonder why it is only when they are approached by an African that they pass their yawn through the nose!)

abdkabir:
It's baseless to take sides in this affair.

You can keep your apologies. How many times have I expressly said the same thing about not taking sides, UNTIL Muslims went too far to think it is their birthright to be constantly derisive to Christianity?


edited.

abdkabir:
Long time. How are u doing. Infact Happy New Year. Just stumbled on Nairaland today.

Bo, my bros, I just dey! Happy New Year to you as well. I also vamoosed from the Forum due to the uncanny attitudes of so many of us who have trumped up these unsocial problems. I just dey vex for the hypocrisies - I don't mean to extend the vex to you. Sane man o jare!

Enjoy!