₦airaland Forum

Martinez39:
Holy Koolaid tinz

budaatum:
I wonder why I'm mentioned here. Is op intending to masturbate with my bits I wonder.

I smh op!

if any man's seed of copulation go out from him, then he shall wash all his flesh in water, and be unclean until the even. And every garment, and every skin, whereon is the seed of copulation, shall be washed with water, and be unclean until the even.

whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.

And Judah said unto Onan, Go in unto thy brother's wife, and marry her, and raise up seed to thy brother. And Onan knew that the seed should not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in unto his brother's wife, that he spilled it on the ground, lest that he should give seed to his brother. And the thing which he did displeased the Lord: wherefore he slew him also.

It is good for a man not to touch a woman. Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband...Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.

Shelumiel:
...it seems you have lost all sense of what is right and wrong. Why should you be taking sides with what is morally wrong ? When an act (such as murder) is done with premeditation , then it becomes unlawful . The woman the OP presented was not in danger of any kind ,neither was she in any life threatening situation ; she is just an irresponsible woman who does not want to bear the consequences of her actions. Period

IAmSabrina:
You're intelligent? Lol Please, you wouldn't know logic if it came and sat on your face

If i ate a bag of scrabble letters and then puked them into the toilet, the words formed would create a more well thought out and planned argument than anything you've written on this thread.

Now kindly SHIFT +DELETE yourself from my mentions, in case you didn't know, you're talking to XxSabrinaxX and if you're ready for Part 2 of this masterpiece, im down

Cc. Martinez39, CreepyBlackpool, TheArranger

Martinez39:
I went to the RATIONAL THINKING HUMANS ORGANISATION and I got kicked out for mentioning Shelumiel.

Ihedinobi3:
Adam means red.

Joromi12:
Any clues Or can we say the bible story is false

Vic2Ree:
This answer shows that there is a certain level of dishonesty involved in recruiting new actors, and that they are subjected to a level of coercion which makes the decisions they make non-consensual.
Something to ponder on.

MrLankeeee:
No Sense in it

Originakalokalo:
OK.

NnennaG6:
I think you're making a big assumption about whether certain people want to exist or not.

UyiIredia:
Explain what you mean by 'attained all good ends'? How does God rhyme with that?

UyiIredia:
A Creator without needs I can compute with one exception. He has a need to create. Otherwise, what is He a Creator for?

MuttleyLaff:
Why shouldnt there be existence of judgement?
Give me a reason(s) why there shouldnt be judgement please.

Zither:
If you knew how much God has helped you, how much He has done for you, how much He loves you then how do you love Him in return, how do you appreciate all He has done for you, what do you do to acknowledge His mercy, love, and goodness towards you? That is worship — that's why we "bother" to worship.

Zither:
You might want to rephrase your question here as the words in bold ink have no relationship of coherence with the paragraph in plain ink.

Zither:
It depends on your definition of worship. One can worship God just by loving Him, by spending time talking with Him as Adam and Eve did in the Garden of Eden, by thanking Him for His deeds, etc... You can see that none of this is a sine qua non for His existence or soveriegnty or greatness...attrubutes connected to His omni-x nature.

If God really needed worship to exist, He wouldn't be eternal or ageless. Through science we know that the universe is over 10 billion years old while the human race is not more than two hundred thousand years old. If God needed the "oxygen" of worship to survive why did He not create the human race earlier? We don't even have any idea how much time had passed before He created the universe. That is a no-man's land for science or logic. It could be a 100 or 500 quadrillion years or more before He created the universe itself. What is certain is that His creation is a manifestation of His will which He put into effect at His pre-determined timeframe, and not more. Everything we see was called into existence at the fullness of His set time of His will, not in response to His supposed dependence on a need.

Zither:
Yes, if you created a Ferrari it is because you needed it and you would be incapacitated without it. This is why it is a creation of need. Unlike man, God is not incapacitated in the absence of His creation. In the book of Jeremiah 32:27, God asks, "I am the LORD of all flesh. Is anything too hard for me?" If I cultivated a rose garden, is it because I need the rose flower? I do it because I love roses.

In the same fashion Man is a creation of God's love, not need. His love is an act of His will. Look at God's creation and acts as an expression, rather than as a means to an end then you will have begun the journey to know Him better.

NnennaG6:
What need does a CEO have to paint a picture? Yet one might do so.

I fail to see how "for expression" could not be tied to an omni-x being as a reason for its creating. You can try to couch it in "the need for expression," but we're not going to agree that this counts as a real need and thus won't get very far.


Who said He made these beings to worship Him? Maybe He made them because, knowing them prior to their creation, He loved them (the same way an author might love his novel characters), and, knowing it is better to be than not to be, made them to be, since He loves them.


Your number 1 premise here is not fully supported. He has no need to create, sure. No reason? I disagree. Find out the explanation of love.

Zither:
TheArranger, you did not factor the will of such being into your premises? If God had a need He wouldn't be self-sufficient now, would He?

As a being, He has a will which He manifests in creation. It is easy to confuse the manifestation of will with the satisfaction of need. The manifestation of His will is an expression of His sovereignty, greatness and individuality evidenced by His creation. The satisfaction of a need would imply His dependence on external factors, and as such that would be in contrast with His nature as a God who is before all.

In other words, His omni-x nature is not tied to need; it is tied to His will as a sovereign Being.

ThothHermes:
I don't. Why don't you define omni-xness and show verses that show God to fit y our definition.

ThothHermes:
Described by whom?
Can you quote from their scriptures or are you just saying what you've heard?

MuttleyLaff:
God therefore, is, "not-known-number" of person
God, then, is, x-person
and God, in effect is, ∞-persons, as in, infinite or infinity.

God is someone without any bound, without limit, without an end.
God is someone bigger and larger than any specified number, even three or trinity.

ThothHermes:
Whoever said God has to be omni-x

JujuSugar:
Based on what, sir?

I will have to disagree with your claim........

If tomorrow someone would prove that the simulation hypothesis was right , then they would also be proving that creationism is a fact.

shakmati:
I don't see how you did.

JujuSugar:
Not exactly, sir......

You are claiming that a simulation could come into existence on its own. ( Which is another debate ) That's not the simulation hypothesis.

Simulation hypothesis is based on some beings deliberately creating a sim.

Basically the hypothesis says " if we can build computers that can run realistic simulations , then someone else must have been able to do that too, and they may have created us, therefore we could be in a sim".

shakmati:
Are you implying it is possible for BIV to emerge from dumb matter without external interference?

JujuSugar:
Even if we would accept that , that it was possible, its still not the simulation hypothesis .

If the simulation theory is true then creationism must be true as well.

JujuSugar:
So if there is no creator and no god(s) the simulation hypothesis can not be true. This is undeniable.........