₦airaland Forum

This must be so exciting that Africans celebrate wearing European clothes everyday.

Paul Grundy, I can't believe you aren't related to Solomon Grundy(it's in poor taste, but I really couldn't help it). So it's a real name after all.

Take a deep breath and relax.

You seem very bitter/hurt with the Jehovah Witness Organization, especially the Watchtower. I'm not sure if you're still a Christian, but if you are, you need to forgive and leave vengeance to the Lord.

The reason you find yourself with such documentation is because you were in an organization of men run by men. I hardly see the difference between Scientology, Catholicism and JW.

On the other hand, all these things happened to you under the Australian division. Except to expose a supposed fraud, there's precious little it does for Nigerian people reading it.

You need to let your flames burn for something better than hatred for an organization. It must be sad and angering to discover you wasted many years on somebody else's dream, but you need to let it go. Don't let your decades old baptism go to waste (29 years is long) on people who will be judged anyway. Jesus loves you more than your grudge with the Watchtower.

I can now see the reason for some of your posts.

selfdefence:
This is very nice of you... I am really impressed.







Meanwhile (Point of correction) it is STAFF and not STAFFS . Staff has no "S" n its plural form just as Furniture doesn`t have.

Please don`t read another meaning to what I just wrote. I didn`t know too until I was also corrected.

Cheers.

You would do well telling your fellow Nigerians there is nothing such as:

"Stuffs": it's just stuff. What the heck is stuffs?

"Make-ups": it's just make-up. What on earth is make-ups?

" Woods ": it's just wood!


All those above things just irritate somebody reading a post. And it's even done by people who claim to be in America or London or Germany. Very irritating.

Why are you people putting plural forms to words that don't need it?

KingEbukasBlog:
Thank you ! There are atheists who believe in ghosts , spirit but not God (a spirit). How rational .

Christians preach because we are obeying God's behest and sharing the knowledge of our belief in Him . But who/what commanded the atheists , plus does one share the knowledge of his lack of belief

Atheism is focused on Christianity . Can't you see most atheists want Nigerians to go back to the worship of ancestral gods . You don't believe in God/gods but want the worship of gods not God . Makes a lot of sense

Very confused bunch. Lol.

They believe they saw a ghost but cannot scientifically explain it to us. But once it's Christianity they need proof.

I've told them before that they've mixed up intellectualism with atheism.

KingEbukasBlog:
Should be during the exam period + when I was through , I entered with rage and was banned for a week . . But I'm here to enjoy denigrating these irrational ones for a while

Lol. Don't you be getting angry with them. They're jokers, half of them.

Focus on em papers and slay em.

KingEbukasBlog:
Does anyone go about throwing tantrums about not getting Santa's gift on Christmas . Shows that the rebellious spirit in them has always fought and will always fight to repel criticism from we Christians

Later they will tell you they are appraising something.

Question 1. You're an atheist, but why are you only against Christianity? Didn't you read the fine print for ownership of the title "atheist"? It means you should contend with every single last religion, because it's against your belief of disbelief.

Question 2. If you don't believe in God, what are you trying to convince people of about somebody you know does not exist?
They may then tell you that religion (Christianity) is detrimental to the society. How? Tell us exactly how.

The biggest shock of atheists is their mass fraud. They even believe in the supernatural. Isn't God supernatural?

I'm quite certain 99% of atheists in Nigeria are just frustrated Christians. Their modus operandi tells.

winner01:
Imagine you are walking through a field and find a watch lying on the ground. What would your first thought be? Would you think that random factors over time just happened to form a spring with no purpose that inadvertently came across a cog that was formed with no purpose and then were joined accidentally to a number of other gears, springs, and cogs, eventually forming a fully functioning and accurate instrument that could measure time? Of course not. You would assume someone had made it. This is because of its obvious design features. The precision and
intentionality of the mechanism are clear signs of purpose, of a plan. There must have been an intelligent being who conceived of the watch and its workings and then created the watch.

This analogy, which is often used to illustrate the argument from design, tries to show that when we observe nature, whether on a tiny level (like cells or proteins) or on a grand scale (like whole organisms or even the universe), we can see precision and intentionality. And from that
observation we can infer that there must be an intelligence behind it all with a purpose and a plan. Just as fingerprints are the product of fingers touching something, intentionality and purpose are products of a mind acting, not chance.

When we use design to argue for the existence of God we are making a teleological argument. “Telos” is a Greek world meaning purpose or ultimate end. Thus, teleology is the study of a thing’s purpose or design. The design argument has been made far back as Plato and Aristotle
and is one of Thomas Aquinas five ways of proving the existence of God. But in 1802 William Paley made what is probably the most famous version of the argument, which included the watchmaker illustration.

In recent years, the teleological argument has become known as “Intelligent Design” or “ID.” People like Michael Behe, Philip Johnson, William Dembski, and Hugh Ross have used use the latest scientific discoveries and advances to cast the design argument in the most contemporary terms. There are a variety of ways the design argument has been used to argue for the existence of God. We’ll look at three examples of these arguments: the fine tuning of the universe, the nature of information, and irreducible complexity.



FINE TUNING

Scientists have come to understand the universe as having a great deal of precision. In fact, the degree of precision is so great that to alter many of the parameters even minutely would destroy life as we know it. This precision leads some scientists to make an argument based on order that the universe was actually designed to accommodate life. Also called “fine tuning,” the anthropic principle uses two classes of parameters to make a design argument: one set for the features of the universe, the other for the features of our sun-planet-moon system.
In his book The Creator and the Cosmos, Hugh Ross lists parameters that must fall within a very narrow range in order to make life possible. The list includes things like the average distance between stars, the strong and weak nuclear force constants, and the velocity of light.

What would happen if any one parameter fell outside its narrow, life-friendly range? Take the expansion rate of the universe as an example. If the expansion rate was faster than one part in 1055, galaxies could not have formed; if the expansion rate was slower than one part in 1055,
the universe would collapse before galaxies had a chance to form. Without galaxies stars could not form, without stars planets could not form, and without planets there could be no life. The extraordinary balance and precision exhibited by each of the above parameters demonstrates an
order that chance and randomness cannot account for. This order points to an orderer, a designer of the universe..

The second set of parameters have to do with our sun-planet-moon system. These parameters include things like:
• If the gravity on the surface of the Earth was stronger, the atmosphere would retain too much ammonia and methane, which are poisonous. But if the gravity was less, the atmosphere would lose too much water.
• If the length of a day was greater, the temperature differences would be too great to sustain life. But if the day was shorter the atmospheric wind velocities too great to survive.

Again, each of the parameters in Ross’ list cannot vary by more than an extremely small amount without damaging the Earth’s ability to support life.
But is this nothing more than an egocentric view of the universe? Just because humans happen to require the universe to have these parameters in order to live does not mean it was made with us in mind, does it? Not necessarily. But think about the watch we found in the woods. The design and precision was not for its own sake; there was a purpose to it: to keep the time. The universe is far more complicated than a watch and displays far more design and precision. It’s hard to see why such design and precision should be seen as purposeless and life as accidental.
Given the uniqueness of Earth it seems far more plausible to see life in general and human life in particular as the purpose of this design and precision.
But what if there is life elsewhere in the universe? First, we have no evidence whatsoever of life of any kind anywhere else in the universe. In fact, rather than being an average planet, astronomers are beginning recognize just how rare the earth is. Second, if there was life elsewhere it would bolster, not detract from the view that the purpose of the design and precision of the universe is to sustain life. And third, that even if we did find life elsewhere in the universe, it wouldn’t change anything about the nature of human beings or the truthfulness of Christianity – we’d still be sinners in need of salvation.




DNA

In addition to design in the precision of the universe, the existence and nature of information in the universe can be used to show the existence of God. To understand this form of the argument we must first understand the different kinds of order. Specified Order is simply a string of repeating information, CAT CAT CAT, for example. This is a naturally occurring kind of order and can be found in things like crystals, nylon, or snowflakes.Unspecified Complexities are non-repetitive and random. They are also naturally occurring. Things like the sound of howling wind and the shape of a rock are good examples.

Specified Complexities are non-repetitive and non-random. They are not naturally occurring; they are the product of design. In contrast to the howling wind and the shape of a rock, examples of specified complexities would be music or a statue. Even the sentence you are hearing right now is an example of specifically complex order. The way we recognize a specified complexity by its contingency. According to William Dembski, one of the most prominent figures in the ID movement, “Contingency is the chief characteristic of information.” A rock’s shape is determined by the laws of nature that are brought to bear on it by its circumstances. There are no other possibilities for its shape given its nature and circumstance.
However a statue’s shape is contingent on the purpose of an intelligent being – a sculptor. The sculpture could take any number of forms and therefore is not determined, but contingent on the purpose of its designer.

If you were asked, “Is there any information on this screen?” what would your answer be? If you answered “no” then you are correct; there is no information on this or any other computer screen in the world. The only things on this screen are different colored specifically ordered pixels. In fact, you could have exhaustive knowledge about computers and the technology behind screen displays but still not know what was said on the screen. If there was information on the screen, then we would never have to learn to read; the information would just fly off the screen and impose itself onto our minds whenever we looked at it.

So what is information? It is communication between minds. But in order for minds to communicate, there must be a common language. The language must exist and be understood prior to any ability to communicate. For example, music may exist in a composer’s head but it cannot be communicated without the convention of music notation. The language of written music (like staffs, notes, and values) must exist prior to attempting to write or play the music in the composer’s mind. Every language is a set of tokens and a set of conventions for the use of the tokens. A token stands in for something intangible. For example, the number “1” is not really an actual number “1” but a token or symbol representing the number “1” which is a nonphysical entity.
There are no actual letters on this screen, just tokens representing the letters. Because letters and numbers are non-physical entities, they have no location or appearance. That is why we need tokens to represent them. Each token has a convention or way in which to use the token.
When those conventions are used properly we get words and sentences. The point is this: the rules of language were established before we could use it to communicate even on the most primitive level.

Imagine if you were to go to the Grand Canyon and you saw “STEVE WAS HERE” etched in the canyon wall and you knew it was made naturally with wind and water through erosion; you would also know it contained no information. In fact, it would not even be English, just squiggles cut into rock that resemble the tokens and conventions used in English. But this resemblance would be entirely unintentional and therefore communicate nothing.

What about an unlimited number of monkeys with typewriters? Given an unlimited amount of time, could these monkeys ever write Hamlet? The answer is no. Even if at some point they happened upon the exact same sequence of letters as Hamlet, it still would not be Hamlet. It would be a string of letters that resembled Hamlet, but it would be void of any information. This is because there was no intention to communicate behind the monkey’s actions; there was no true use of language, only its tokens. The tokens would be empty.

A great example of how scientists make use of this understanding of information theory is seen in the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI) project. SETI listens to radio waves and searches for a specifically complex string of information. The idea is that specifically complex signals can only come from an intelligent agent wishing to communicate.
Recently, our understanding of DNA has given us a new avenue for the argument from design based on information. That DNA contains information is not in dispute. But, as we have seen, information is not intrinsic to naturally occurring physical objects.

Just as a sound is an agent that carries the tokens and conventions used in speech for communication, DNA is simply an agent housing a set of tokens used to convey and store information that is necessary for the body to develop and function. But before DNA could be useful, a language had to be established. The genetic code had to exist prior to the existence of DNA and come from outside the DNA. Information did not emerge from DNA itself any more than a bowl of alphabet soup can say “I LOVE YOU.” The best explanation for the information found in DNA is that it was imposed on the DNA by a mind.



IRREDUCIBLE COMPLEXITY

A third example of the design argument is based on the complexity we see in living organisms. It says that some things are as simple as they could possibly be and still function. This is called irreducible complexity. These things could not have evolved through undirected forces or chance because the individual parts have no function apart from the whole and the whole has no function in a more primitive state. To illustrate the argument biochemist Michael Behe, pioneer of the argument, uses the example of a mousetrap. Which part of a mousetrap can be removed and still leave you with a functioning mousetrap? The answer is: nothing. It did not start out as a piece of wood that caught a couple mice and then evolved to include a spring, which caught a few more mice, which then adapted to include a hammer, which caught even more mice etc.

The mousetrap is made of individual components, which, apart from the whole of the mousetrap, are useless. And if any individual component is subtracted from the whole then the mechanism is rendered useless. The mousetrap could not have possibly evolved. It was first conceived of and then created by an intelligent agent with the power and will to act.

The implications of this are huge. If there are examples of irreducible complexity in biology then atheistic macroevolution, the idea that evolution explains life’s origins and that species evolve from one kind to another through random mutation and chance, must be false. Behe’s book, Darwin’s Black Box, looks at some of the most basic biological mechanisms that we know of, such as the bacterial flagellum and blood clotting, and argues that these biological machines are irreducibly complex.

One biological machine often used to illustrate irreducible complexity is the human eye. The eye is made of over forty different components, each of which contains a number of sub-components. If any one component fails, then vision is impaired. Again the economy of parts and the precision necessary for vision betrays a designer.
A common objection to the use of the eye as an example of irreducible complexity is that there are a number of different kinds of eyes found in nature and they exhibit a wide variety of complexity. This observation is used to make a case for evolution. But what we see in nature is not a series of steps in an evolutionary chain. Rather, we see a variety of irreducibly complex biological machines that have the same basic function.

Just for the sake of argument, let’s say the eye did evolve as a result of random processes. What does that give us? An interface with no receiver—like a keyboard that is not attached to a computer. After all, just as there is no actual input without the keyboard being attached to
the computer, sight is not sight without a brain to receive it. The eye must connect to the brain somehow. But how does the eye know where the brain is or what a brain is or that it even exists or that it is required to make the eye useful? And how did the eye then wire itself properly to the brain? Why didn’t it connect itself to the nose or a knee? And even if it did connect to the brain properly how did the eye know how to speak a language that the brain would understand?
Again we need a language created prior to and apart from the existence of the things that will speak the language. And again, an intelligent designer is the best explanation.

It is important to remember, however, that the truthfulness of Christianity ultimately does not stand or fall based on the truth of macroevolution. Even if macroevolution was irrefutably proven to be true tomorrow it would not and could not rule out the possibility of God using it as the agent through which He accomplishes His design. An intelligent agent would still be required to initiate and direct the process. Nothing about human nature would be any different. We would still be sinners in need of a savior regardless of the process God used to create us.

Ultimately, the design argument does not show that Christianity is true and all other religions are false. However, it does reveal a picture of a personal, powerful God that is consistent with the Bible. Used as one part of a larger case it is a very powerful and important argument for the truthfulness of Christianity.




Source; Apologeticbible.com


cc; KingEbukasBlog, Richirich713, thoniameek, anas09, Tufanja, elantraceey, OLAADEGBU, KingEbukaNaija, ceeted, Chidexter, lezz, analice107, bxcode, Topeakintola, UyiIredia, Tellemall, vooks, Ishilove, sukkot, gatiano, mrpresident1, Drefan2, Strawman

What do you want from me?

KingEbukasBlog:
For the Christians who engage in all these , name just one Christian belief/principle that condones any of these depravities . Just one . These Christians know God is against such but go ahead anyway ! Will a switch to atheism magically turn their lives around ? Show/ Tell me with proof .

Hello there. It's been a while I last saw you here. You're still decking it out with them?

Decker:
I love your dragon analogy. Now, I live in a world where people believe that dragons exist and I don't. Of course I won't be bothered by their believes as long as:
1. These people don't force me to believe that dragons exists, or constantly bombard me with the message that dragons exist.
2. If I notice that their believe in dragons is having negative effects on the growth and development of the world in which I live in.

Nairaland is a forum, and this is religious section. More than 70% of the threads here are all Christian threads trying to paint Christianity as the truth and as fact, and to coerce people into agreeing with it's system of belief.
Now, Is it wrong to point out the flaws in such belief? I mean, if you are in a room with a group of people and you were served soured food, you'd be a fool to chew and swallow it. And you will also be doing others who were served same food a favor, by warning them that the food is sour.

Of course I am against every religion, but I am also Nigerian and I live in Nigeria. And there are two main religions in Nigeria, and I have noticed that these two religions are doing more harm than good, and they are hampering intellectual and socio-political development in the country, so I use whatever opportunity I have to educate people on the wrongs of these religions. I also appraise Islam the same way I appraise Christianity and concept of religion in general.

You are missing the point. I am not in a war with your God. Of course he isn't real, but there is no way I would appraise a belief system without appraising the bedrock of that belief. The foundation of Christianity is the believe in the bible God, and I am trying to show you how laughable and ridiculous such belief is, and how contradicting the biblical description of God is as well.

And you seem so pained. Why? Am I saying the truth? Why didn't you counter the comments I made? Why do you guys always get so worked up when someone appraises your beliefs? If your beliefs are true and valid and devoid of loop holes and self contradictions, then you'd be confident and defend it, instead of resorting to evasive tactics like you are doing.

I'm glad you like the dragon analogy. But you're still not getting it. You don't have to believe it and you don't have to try and disprove it if you don't believe it, because it won't stop people from believing. You're actually in the minority worldwide by being an atheist (compared to the religious people).
Nobody has forced Christianity down your throat, it's always still a CHOICE to believe it. If you can provide a true story or some sort of proof of you being "forced" or being put under duress to listen to put become a Christian, we will believe it.

And most theist nations are actually world powers, so I can't see how religion is detrimental to the world as you think.

Pained? No.

Just wondering why you're out for something you don't even believe in.

I'm not worried about you appraising Christianity. You can appraise it and all the other religions despite your 70% claims. Though, if you appraised Islam as actively s you appraise Christianity here on nairaland, you should be a member of their group.

And please, tell me of my "evasive tactics"? I'd really like to hear about those. You want me to make you believe what you don't believe in? Am I the concept of choice in you?

Decker:
Actually, my life is a lot better now. I don't have to live my life in fear anymore. I am now free. Free from religious deceit and free from the bondage of ignorance.

Lol. Everyday you Christians try to force your belief down everyone's throat. Everywhere. On the streets, in the market place, in buses, in traffic, in the work place, in schools, you even bring it down to our doorsteps. And day and night, you sound it loud from your speakers, so everyone would hear, not minding the fact that you are disturbing the peace of others. But when someone tries to appraise those beliefs, they turn to people who are hating on your God. Do you know why people concentrate on your God so much, it's because you Christians are so loud about your beliefs. You expect everyone to accept your beliefs by force. And only a fool would accept a belief system without appraising it to evaluate it's validity.



What war?



Did you read my introductory post? If you didn't, please do.

Christians aren't the only ones who have a God, so your war/beef/freedom speech is vague and inconclusive. It seems to be only an attack (though you say it isn't) on Christianity.

If you believe there is no god, it's pointless talking about something you don't believe in. If it doesn't exist, why give it so much attention?

That's the puzzle of atheism.

People who don't believe in dragons don't go about trying to out think people who do, they don't spew about them all the time, they don't get embittered when they see that others believe in dragons and they don't need to to that because when people don't believe a thing, they don't bother with it.

But why waste so much time on non existent beings? Who has ever tried to force Christianity on you? Did any holy warriors come to ensure you accept Christianity out you die?

And honestly, if you're condemning or demystifying Christianity, do the world the favor of doing the same for all other religions. Otherwise it looks like a personal war. What war? The war on everything Christian that is disguised as pointing out flaws.

As I said, disprove all the religions and you will have my respect. Otherwise you're flogging a dead horse.

Hyinkar97:
Can you unravel this mystery?

No.

Decker:
To all you guys commenting, I will come back to you. But let me first finish my expose.

There's nothing to expose. You're flogging a dead horse.

After many years of disbelief, what has it put in your life? Everyday you wake up hating the Christian God, but you forget there are other God's to hate out there.

Your war is always going to be inconclusive.

Firstly, you fight an entity that exists on so many different planes.

Secondly, it's not good for you to vent at imaginary beings. That's unsound.

Thirdly, for you to strongly fight against something that doesn't exist, it means you believe in its existence. If it doesn't exist then what are you exposing?

If you believe there is no God then why bother talking /raving/pointing out things real or notabout him? It's like talking about the bogeyman. Pointless.

Israel5:
lol. That's huge o. Thanks. But you never said your name...

I'm the angel in disguise, the rain to the desert, the smile of a thousand nations, the delightsome brewing greatness, the tornado of man's divinity, the jet that jettisons across life leaving a steam trail of inspiration. I am interested in the freedom of the soul. I dance on stars and set ablaze the sun; I am an inferno waiting to consume, to devour, to salsa with the fuels of ignition.

I. Am. Me.

Call me Tellemall.

You forgot to add how pools are green (no CFCs and other ozone devouring radicals) and produce their own chlorine from users. It also carries some beautiful enzymes that will work on your skin and give it that lovely tone reserved for starches. Sometimes they are sited with natural geysers that belch warming air that is useful in harmattan.

But seriously, Nigerians need to learn to swim. It's an important life skill. They instead like circling pools and wearing shower caps (not swimming caps) and sleepwear to pools. Though that's just a black man thing. All black people are scared of water.

**shudders at the thought of blacks in a public pool**
**so very gross**

Israel5:
True. Thanks for your contributions.

It's been fun.

Your name is beautiful, one of the most prized on earth. The one who flourishes by the river side, the branch that doesn't cease, the one who God himself loves.

Anybody with the name Israel is already fortunate, just by that name.

Israel5:
i didn't mean that Marys live a bad life. Mary was bitter seeing her innocent son die like a criminal. She lived with that! That was her name playing out. She wasn't the only/first Mary, but the grace to shade the bitter experience of a mother and dead innocent son was given to her. Calling yourself Mary doesn't automatically make you holy and favoured. I was tryng to remind you of the fact that every individual still has a part to play in the destiny drive. Well, my name is not offensive to me sir! My name is just not for every tom and west to bear. Same could apply for yours; and this has been one of the points i've been trying to make from the onset. Is there a perfect man on earth? NO! Is there a perfect name? NO! Only good and bad people, good and bad names. The former is better than gold(riches). Those were God's words by Solomon. Jabez was honourable(well to do) yet his name polluted his honour. (I dnt knw your definition of Perfect tho). Are you saying that names play no part in Destiny? Then you're ridiculing God. He could have called Jesus; John instead. You said, "unless you choose to look at the origin of the first person with a name, it's pointless" good! I know one name with an origin, Israel! First man: Jacob and then A nation. I'm not negative about the name but if the name is perfect then was it all rosy for Jacob and the Israelites? I have a goodname but it'll be perfect when i fulfill my destiny. I get it, you don't believe in the power of a name and You don't believe in Jesus(saviour). Oooh, i love my name and I thank God no man named me. To whom He names, He gives grace.

Okay. Whatever makes you sleep at night.

However, you lay too much importance on the name, and less on the individual. A name cannot define you, but your choices and actions in life do.

When it gets right down to it, your name will not save you or make your life easier. Grace will.

How true is this? One moment they say one thing, the next moment they change it to another.

News has become something else nowadays. They can't even agree on who they rescue and on who is the husband/exploiter.

Nigeria needs a good dose of truth. The propaganda machine needs to go offline for a while.

Israel5:
do you know about the jews? They describe/judge a person by their names being that jewish parents named their children by divine knowledge and circumstances around the birth. Rachel called her baby Benoni, why did Jacob change it? Because the name would spell doom for the child who was renamed Benjamin. Ask Jabez to tell you more. Israel is my focus but since you're broadening the subject, i'll tell you that bearing Good names saves no one from trouble too. Joshua/Jesus are hebrew and greek names for saviour, now compare their lives. Grace was available to them towards bringing salvation to the people. Mary means bitterness bt people look at the character(Jesus' mum) around the name nd nt the meaning. How many were/are virgns b4 marriage or now? What do u take on that? Don't refer to people that name their children anyhow cos some parents can be foolish enough to have such people as role models. Refer to yourself! Will you name your dot Jezebel? No. Why? There is somethng you fear and that's where your believe lies only you fail to acknwldge it. Man was given a chance in the garden to name when he ruled the world bt nw the prince(satan) of ths world rules. If you dnt take names seriously, demons do. Man is helpless. Let God lead!

You just twisted yourself round by mentioning Mary. Was Mary the first Mary? Do all women named Mary live rebellious lives? Wasn't Mary a fulfilled woman at the end of it? If she were true to her name, she would've rebelled against her divine pregnancy, rebelled against marrying Joseph still, just gone about her eat rebelling, because the origin of her name would lie with the first woman named Miriam. Was that Miriam the first Miriam? No.

There were some children called snake-like or snake. Did that in anyway affect them, simply because t heir mother thought them rather pallid at birth?

Your theory of names is strongly revoked in the Bible. Somewhere in Isaiah it said something like, " never in the land of Israel shall the saying be heard, that the teeth of the children were set on edge for the sour grapes their fathers ate ". This means unless you wish to look at the origins of the first person with a name it's pointless doing so.

Jabez was called Jabez, it doesn't mean that his name bright his woes. His name meant sorrow, but you and I don't know what prompted his mother to call him that. If you dish by know the history of Jacob, you would try and read meaning into the origin of the name. Bed cause there are many names with no attached origins that you can see to draw any meaning from whatsoever, and it means nothing but what the name says.

Jewish people, like all ancient customs, named children by circumstances but that doesn't mean the child must live up to the evil of his name. What do you say about those whose names are not evil? Their names don't affect their lives because they're not evil? I've pointed out the name Jezebel before.

You need to stop being negative about the name Israel. If it offends you so much, like Jacob had a name change, change yours to an" easier " one.

Greatness is not by name, but by grace.

This seems a bit funny.

If you can't preach to people, it's because you're unchanged. Even a wallpaper will get it's respect if it does not behave like a lion.

Let your life do the preaching.

What's the man waiting for? Divorce is not a crime.

If he disrespects himself in a bid to disrespect his wife before strangers, he needs no reprove. The shame is on him.

What a strange and troubled man. I pity the car he's driving. He's bound to abuse it from time to time too, regret buying it, and even overload it with strange passengers to spite it.

He actually went on the whole "why me" bend on international news channels?

That's very serious. And he should really be embarrassed by his utterances. Is there any time he tries to be diplomatic? Perpetual foot-in-mouth-syndrome.

The worst part is that his supporters(I see they are called zombies) will always say he has said the best thing and try to rationalize his irrational outbursts. Diplomacy and action will go a long way for this president, Buhari.

That's a lot of "poor" he has going for him. Any remedy?

When your bonnet flies up while driving, it's time you bought a new car.

Vinshu:
Thats Privet(Hello)

Nice try.

Oh, I got banned. Are you back from yours?

Ya lyublyu chitaeyu Rossii v knigu. Ya NE govaryu I nravit-sya Rossii.

Gde vas/tvoi zhivut? Ty rabotet?

Does that make any sense? I'm learning for now. I'd peg myself at 15%/

Vinshu:
Its Russian. Sometimes i view it in English(its hard) if its just for some minutes. But if i would be logged on for a while, i'd translate it to Russian.

Even i write in Russian and have my browser translate it to English before posting.

Привет

herald9:
How about the Viking's Blood Eagle?

“The offender gets down on his knees, and his back is opened with knives. And then, with axes, his ribs are chopped away from his spine, and then his lungs are pulled out of this huge bleeding wound and laid upon his shoulders so they look like the folded wings of a great eagle. And he must stay like that — suffering — until he dies. If he suffers in silence, he may enter Valhalla. But if he screams, he can never into its portals.”

Watching this scene in the movie was a gruesome experience!

That sounds beautifully devastating. Now that is a real execution.

Scandinavians have always had these barbaric, yet constructive, means of execution. I can really see the allure of conquering those flaxen haired barbarians.

But Vlad's means were pretty torturous. His deserves the award for Agonizing Pain.

Flaying would come next - how to separate living skin from flesh. It would take a very sharp knife and steady hands. Imagine peeling flesh from nerves and arteries. That medical diagram of a skinless human would become real. Very practical anatomy.

And that Chinese method. Just wow. A real Shylock method. Pound for pound.

.

Funny how the past repeats itself.

PaulkillermanAg:
my dear good you know, the blacks are a curse to humanity, the savagery version of humanoid existence, perpetually created to treat themselves like pigs, no value for humanity or human lives, abusing themselves at will...


**the black race is a curse the humanity. Crude animals in human skin, still living in dark stone ages****

I spit on them animals....

Sorry, but are you 100% white?