₦airaland Forum

davidylan:
and why are you interested in doing that? Has anyone forced you to believe these quaint ideas? Cant you just ignore them and move on with your own clearly "superior" ideas?

Do you have anything to say beside this nonsense drivels of yours? Has any one forced you to believe in Allah? Why don't you just move with your superoir arguments and leave the Moslems alone?

davidylan:
Neither does the atheist have any empirical evidence that God doesnt exist at all . . . infact the only argument the atheist has is that the theist has not provided God's home address to him.

I may not be able to prove the nonexistence of your undefined and untestable god but I can damned well show how the quaint ideas of your god have been created by people out of nothing and that they are verifiable false. All the gods have all evolved from ancient ignorant people and their superstitions. But it still depends on which "god" you're talking about. Most "god" concepts are either logically incoherent or cognitively vacuous and don't even require a preponderance of evidence to prove their non-existence.

viaro:
That bold part is false - the atheist is committed to atheism and will not believe anything he or she is shown that contradicts his worldview. Please stop peddling this idea that 'the atheist will believe', that's a crude joke to play on yourself.

No, its your assumptions that are false. I was a theist and when I was provided with evidence to show that my beleifs were false. I accepted. Provide empirical evidence to show that there is a god that exists on its own independent of human culture, stories, societal acceptance and influence as mazaje loves putting it and I will believe and accept.

Why do you have atheists who believe in spirits? Please answer me that one.

So what if there are atheist that believe in spirits? Does that make their beliefs true? There are people that belief in alien abduction all over the place. People believe in Scientology, Hinduism, Islam, flat earth. Does that make their beliefs true?

If you want people to believe that which you believe does not exist but does, you will have to keep pushing that thing into the realms of denials.

Your evidence that god exist on its own is what?

So that you will not be forced to explain it within the matrix of atheism.

If you're willing to discuss philosophically about the metaphysics of non-physicalist realities, please let us know - but be willing to demonstrate that you are philosophically sound to do so.

Actually I am not interested in philosophical rigmarole.

viaro:
I'm cool, thanks.

Did you pay attention to the enquiry I posed? I had stated particularly: "I'm very interested in the philosophical underpinnings behind the conclusions you have reached to make such assertions", not so? And it was based on that same philosophical approcah that I posted my reply.

To be sure, that vid is an elaborate crap if we have to present it as "conclusive evidence" for reality. What you expected me to do was take every line he presented and then argue on endlessly, no?  I'm sorry to disappoint you; but if you were to present that in any solid academic institution of philosophy, you would fail the first class, I guarantee you that!

What did you actually try to counter in the fact that science is not about a reductionist approach but a holistic one? Why did he cleverly evade other dualist philosophies, toneyb? To reassure you, I had seen that vid long before now (it was one of those I viewed when researching for a paper on cosmology and came across Krauss' talk which I have also reviewed on this forum). I also here gave you an example of why philosophers of mind are not goons when it comes to philosophy of mind - and that link I gave about 'predicate dualism' is Philosophy resource at Stanford University.

If you have anything to say that is against the holistic approach for researches about realities of our world, please share the same. That is where that vid completely collapses, and he was clear from the onset that he was adopting the reductionist approach where "only one" fundamental reality is required. Toneyb, that is an attempt to cheat the gullible reader - and we know that any research for a "full description" of the world will involve fundamentals that are "not reducible to physicalistic predicates". Can you tell me why he was violating that very point that all sound philosophers ALREADY know??

Actually I am not interested in any philosophical mumbo jumbo. Philosophy as I have come to understand it is NOTHING other than opinions and counter opinions. I am more interested in empirical conclusions in matters like this and he has more leg to stand on.

Yes, I could point out some studies that are pointers to types of consciousness outside the brain. If you could be patient, I will sort out some sound resources for you, so that I don't give you just about anything that fills the gaps.

I will love to see them.

However, although your use of the term 'mind' is quite limiting, there is no reason why everything about our consciousness should be narrowed to the parameters you listed for the mind. That again is playing to the reductionist who averse objectivity but only seeks physicalist fundamentals.

I was very careful to elaborate and explain what I mean by the mind so that we do not get into a broad argument, that keeps us moving in circles.

If we're going to look at some other kinds of realities that are indices of our consciousness (such as the soul), where would the physicalist reductionist approach stand in such researches? The reason I asked you about the mind is one such indications that the physicalist who has not seen the mind is unwilling to admit that there are dualisms in philoslophies of reality that are NOT physicalist - that is an incontestable fact.

I am not interested in endless philosophical arguments that lead no where at all. The brain exists and there is empirical and objective evidence to show that it exists and is the what controls our feelings, Judgment, memory etc. Its existence does not depend on philosophical arguments and counter arguments. Its existence and how it operates is self evident. Does the soul exists? If it does then there should be empirical evidence that shows that it exists. Its existence does NOT need to rely on endless philosophical arguments that have no empirical evidence at all.

The soul is basically the non-material part of a living being which is not physicalist. If need be, I could expound on that later on.

There are other parts of a living been that are non material, Our feelings, thoughts, decisions, etc are all non material are these things what you mean by the soul?

Yes, I was careful to note 'consciousness'. There is no "conclusive evidence" that the brain controls our entire consciousness - if you do have a peer reviewed paper that asserts that all our consciousness is controlled by the brain, it would be great to see it. As far as I know, I have not come across any such review that says that our entire consciousness is controlled by the brain.

There is conclusive evidence to show that the brain controls our consciousness  the way i defined it.

davidylan:
I think you shld have ended it this way . . .

the theists will not have provided any empirical evidence of a God, because the atheist would never believe anyway.

This is false because the theist does NOT have ANY empirical evidence that any god exists at all, if he did he would have provided it long time ago and the atheist will believe. Actually things that are self evident do not require belief. If you want people to believe that which you believe exists but does not, you will have to keep pushing that thing into the realm of the unknown. So that you will not be forced to provide empirical evidence for it. That is what most of you guys are doing here. Does god exist point to it and show how and where it exist, else don't expect any body to take your special pleadings about the god you imagine exits seriously.

toba:
No sir.  The same pple that doesn't like reality derailed the thread by questioning the existence of God their creator.

Show that a creator exists please. And who are the people that don't like reality?

toba:
A number of skeptics ask this question u asked together with some illogical ones like Who created God? and To whom is the bachelor married?

Sure. It is a very valid argument. So it's absurd to believe that "something came from nothing" (not that any atheist I know believes that), but it's perfectly logical to postulate a timeless, eternal, transcendent being? I think you miss entire point of the question "Who created God? It's a rhetorical question, intended to rebut the "first cause" argument for God. If God is an "uncaused cause," then uncaused existence is possible. Then why can't the universe itself be uncaused? There's no reason to add the additional step of postulating a God. Moreover, even if we accept the existence of a first cause outside the temporal universe, you haven't begun to show that it is the "God of the Bible," you simply asserted it.


My ans

1. Everything which has a beginning has a cause.1

You have NOT seen everything in the universe, You have not seen the beginning of anything in space so on what basis did you come to the conclusion that everything that has a beginning has a cause? Tell me have you ever seen the beginning of the universe? How then do you know that it has a cause?

2. The universe has a beginning.

And your evidence to show that the universe had a beginning is what?

3. Therefore the universe has a cause.

On what basis did you conclude that the universe has a cause?

Its important to stress the words in bold type. The [b]universe requires a cause because it had a beginning, as will be shown below. God, unlike the universe, had no beginning, so doesn't need a cause.

Where is this god, have you seen, touched, spoken to it? The universe requires a cause because of what? Your evidence to show that the universe is not eternal is what?.

In addition, Einstein's general relativity, which has much experimental support, shows that time is linked to matter and space. So time itself would have begun along with matter and space.[/b]Since God, by definition, is the creator of the whole universe, he is the creator of time. Therefore He is not limited by the time dimension He created, so has no beginning in time God is the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity (Isaiah 57:15). Therefore He doesn't have a cause.

When will you stop talking about what people imagined and wrote about a god? You have not even shown or provided any evidence to show that there is a god that exists on it own, You are just equivocating here. You will have to show that there is a god first of all before you tell us about it inhibiting eternity.  Both theist and atheist believe in a brute fact, your "uncaused cause." Secularists like me call it The Cosmos. Creationists and theist like you call it God. The Cosmos is very easy to demonstrate that it exists. God, on the other hand, is not.

viaro:
Actually, it does - pointing to the Universe as evidence for a Creator helps the case for the existence of God.

Discussions like this are in the domain of philosophy, not naturalism. But for now, I would only say this: if you know of any science that shows how matter created all of existence on its own, please share.

This is quite true. Discussions like these are in the domain of philosophy.

how does matter spring into existence entirely on its own?

I don't know, but I thought matter can neither be created or destroyed? If I may ask how did god create matter out of nothing using words?

toba:
U re very wrong, The Bible informs us that time is a dimension that God created, into which man was subjected. It even tells us that one day time will no longer exist. That will be called “eternity.” God Himself dwells outside of the dimension He created (2 Timothy 1:9, Titus 1:2). He dwells in eternity and is not subject to time. God spoke history before it came into being. He can move through time as a man flips through a history book.
Because we live in the dimension of time, it is impossible for us to fully understand anything that does not have a beginning and an end. Simply accept that fact, and believe the concept of God's eternal nature the same way you believe the concept of space having no beginning and end—by faith—even though such thoughts put a strain on our distinctly insufficient cerebrum.

I am also using the same bible and in it the god of the bible says he is the beginning and the end. These are not words i made up but words that are found inside the bible which you believe to be the words of your god in one way or the other. Beginning and the end denotes time. No god spoke any history before it came into being, men wrote down and alleged that some god spoke history before it came into existence, As long as you are yet to provide any god to speak for it self and say anything for it self. I don't think you expect me to take anything you say seriously.

There is no fact for me to accept because you have not provided any fact at all. I know that is is quite difficult to accept that somethings have no beginning and no end, but you do accept that there is a god even though you have never seen, it that exists with out a beginning. There is no reason to believe that the universe must function as a human society where everything must have a beginning and an end. The universe is NOT a human society and there is no reason that it must act like one. It is very possible that it is eternal.

woye77:
the lady and the boy need to go for deliverance at a good deliverance church, preferably mountain of fire. May God help us.

Sure I also will recommend mountain of fire, where their infatuation about each other can be burnt away with the fire of the holy ghost.

viaro:
Thanks, toneyb.

I think the discussion can be found in this video.

[flash=400,400]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WsPn5dXfTvA&hl=en_US&fs=1&"[/flash]

I'm sorry, that vid is NOT any "conclusive evidence" but someone trying to be funny with what he does not understand nor has carefully studied. Did you notice how he cleverly dodges critical issues at the onset? Sample:

* 'Substance dualism is one of a number of different dualist philosophies,
but they won't be the focus of this video'

Why does he avoid that? Does he assume that 'substance mononism' (which requires only one 'fundamental reality' in order to be 'true') is therfore "conclusive evidence"? Oh please.

What has happened in that vid is simple: the gentleman has violated the basics of the philosophy of science (more specifically the philosophy of mind). Any genuine quest for "reality" requires a holistic approach rather than a reductionist one! Let me give you an example particularly in the area of the philosophy of mind with respect to another type of dualist philosophy:

[list]Predicate dualism is the theory that psychological or mentalistic predicates are (a) essential for a full description of the world and (b) are not reducible to physicalistic predicates.[/list]

If one is going to take seriously any philosophical approach to the study of "realities", such a researher should be willing to to avoid the reductionist approach where fundamental elements in such a research are reduced to "physicalist predicates" . To adopt the reductionist approach will not yield results for a "full description" of the realities of our world - and I'm afraid that is what has happened in the vid that you posted. Therefore, one cannot accept that as "conclusive evidence" for anything - that is a shame and will not score zilch in any journal of philosophy of mind.

I reckon that the real reason the author cleverly dodges critical philosophical underpinings is because those are issues that are the very core of the subject he sought to discuss. So for his own convenience, since he could not handle those grey areas that present serious problems to his narrow ideas, he quickly scuttles round them and proceeds to propound his own idealism. I'm sorry, toneyb, that kind of pretence is neither science nor philosophy - and such reductionist approach to studying reality is not what any informed thinker should present as "conclusive evidence" of anything, unless they simply want to be mischievous.

Viaro my man, How far? The guy's video is very elaborate in my opinion, I did not see you try to rebut any of the things he said instead you went along with your usual approach you fired on with along the usual route of accusing him of violating the basics of the philosophy of science and labeled his methodology a reductionist approach. Since i am not the creator of the video i will just let is pass. If you could make a video that addresses the substance of he has said and your concerns, I will very gladly pass it along to him.(I am a great fan of his and we do keep in touch sometimes).

Thank you for correcting that use of 'everything'. However, I'm at odds with you maintaining that our brain controls our entire consciousness. without descending into long talks here, I leave you an ancillary question: have you ever seen the 'mind'? Yes, it's a reality no doubt, we agree on that; but have you ever seen the mind itself?

I have not seen the mind, but I know that the brain controls all the process we attribute to the mind like reasoning, thinking, feeling, will, perception, judgment etc. There is NO evidence to show that anything besides the brain controls any part of our mind. Do you have any evidence of anything controlling the human consciousness/mind beside the brain? When I refer to consciousness I am talking about the thoughts and feelings, collectively, of an individual. Do you have any evidence to show that there is any other thing that controls it outside the brain?

I understand; but I would say that no one has been able to provide conclusive evidence that the soul does not exist. Anyone who comes to the conclusion that he has evidence for the non-existence of the soul would have been able to arrive at a "conclusive evidence" of ALL realities in our known universe.

No one has ever provided any evidence that humans have anything called the soul, By the way what do you mean by the soul? You will have to define and describe what you mean by the soul before we can move forward with this engagement about it. What is the soul?

That is not a stopper on the subject or enquiry; but I tend to think that philosophers of mind-science are today not making assertive statements about 'realities' for the simple reason that the present paradigm of scientific studies is holistic and reductionist approaches are no longer tenable for any conclusions about "realities". That does not mean there are no answers to some problems of realities, but rather that philosophers of science are seeking new ways of approaching such subjects than they have done in the past.

OK.

Like I said above, there is no "conclusive evidence" for the idea that the brain controls our entire consciousness; so I would not rest anything on just the brain.

I will like to see the scientific peer reviewed paper that says that there is no conclusive evidence that says that the brain controls a persons consciousness, remember by consciousness, I mean the thoughts and feelings, collectively, of an individual.

toba:
Prove its baselessness my brother so i may know.

I will show you just hang on.

That cant possibly be, God whom i said created the universe, couldnt have been a being  like the universe. If he(God) were a being that exists in time and so that came into existence, then it too would have to have been created by something. Nothing comes from nothing, not even God.

Let me begin here, You are only saying that your god created the universe without providing any evidence to show that there is a god, that exists on its own. Does god exists? Point to it and show how it exists or that it exists on its own, pointing to the universe does NOT help your case at all. If you accept that un-caused existence is possible why not accept that the universe is un-caused?  Even the Big bang model does not say that the universe had a[i] beginning[/i]. It simply states that the universe (or more specifically, all the energy/matter composing the physical 'stuff' in the universe) was a singularity.  It makes no attempt to describe what came before.  It could have popped out of 'nothing' (ie, from a quantum fluctuation or the like), it could be the result of a previous 'Big Crunch' as in the oscillating universe theory, it could be part of something else or some other explanation.

My above posts which to u is baseless, tells us that the ultimate cause of the universe must never have come into existence; the ultimate Creator must be a being that exists outside of time, an eternal being with neither beginning nor end.

Either God must be outside the laws of the universe, or he must- at the minimum- have preceded the rest of the 'stuff' in the universe, in order to have a hand in its creation.  The second option leaves the possibility that such a being is not actually omnipotent or omniscient, even if possessed of vast power. But even the bible which talks about your god does not say that he exists outside of time. In the bible god is alleged to have said that he is the begging and the end, This alone denotes time and the god the bible talks about exist within time. The bible does NOT say that the god it talks about exists outside of time. The begging and the end denotes time.

Lady Tudor.

toba:
if we trace this series of events back in time then what do we find? There seem at 1st glance to be 2possibilities either we eventually reach the first event in d series,d cause at d beginin of d universe dat sets evrythng going,or theres no 1st event in series&d past stretches back to infinity,which is definitely impossible.Even your life didnt cause its self,it was started by a process

You have not said anything that is factual or true. You just make baseless claims and that's it. If we are to go by your assertions then we also have to accept that some thing created your god also.

viaro:
Hello toneyb,

Been quite a while. Howdy?

It really has been, traveled out but now back in town, Missed you guys.

Please could you discuss the "conclusive evidence" that shows that nothing survives bodily death?

I think the discussion can be found in this video.

[flash=400,400]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WsPn5dXfTvA&hl=en_US&fs=1&"[/flash]

Second, could you show that it is the brain that controls "everything"?

Sorry for making such a blanket statement and the use of the word "everything", Everything is really a big word to use.  In context when i say everything I mean both voluntary actions and involuntary actions. As you know, the brain controls out thoughts, emotions, moral judgments, memory and other things like heart beat etc. That is what I meant by everything. By everything I mean our entire consciousness.

I'm very interested in the philosophical underpinnings behind the conclusions you have reached to amke such assertions.

You don't know for sure if a soul survives bodily death; nor would you already draw the conclusions about what is 'necessary' without showing how you arrived at that conclusion.

Actually i don't even believe or accept that the soul exists because no body has been able to show or provide any conclusive evidence that it does. If the brain controls all our thoughts, emotions, moral judgments  and our entire consciousness etc then which part of our consciousness survives bodily dead after the brain dies off completely? Lets assume that the soul exist, Are memories stored in the brain or the soul? Some people partially or completely lose their memory when their brain is injured. This implies that the brain stores memories, in which case how does your soul remember anything after brain-death?

toba:
d universe consist of series of events stretched across time in a long causal chain.Each1 of these events is d cause of d event dat comes after it&d effect of d event dat comes b4 it.d world came 4rm d world as it was,which came 4rm d world as it was before.

Your evidence to show that this theory of yours is true so that it should not be discarded as the drivel it is is what?

Mavenb0x:
I think we need to stop searching for significant evidence of God and focus on the implications of Pascal's Gambit (or Pascal's Wager)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_Wager

                                                                   God exists (G)                                                                       God does not exist (~G)
Living as if God exists (B)             +∞ (heaven)                                                            -N (none)
Living as if God does not exist (~B)      ?? not specified perhaps -N (limbo/purgatory/spiritual death)                  +N (none)
                                                            or −∞ (hell)

By probabilistic theory, Pascal's Wager (from the outlined table above) shows that a life lived believing in God has everything to gain and nothing to lose. The values in red are estimated values of gain due to the decision.

Pascals wager is a silly theory that starts by begging the question. This assumption does not even provide any evidence at all to back it up. There are so many evidence to show that it is false. What part of the human consciousness survive bodily death? So far there is no evidence to show that any part of human consciousness survives bodily death. There is conclusive evidence to show that there is nothing that survives bodily death, once the brain(Which controls everything dies off). Brain damage (depending on the nature of the damage) results in loss of intelligence. Memories can be completely lost because of damage to our physical brain. Skills can also be lost. Even one's own personality can be altered permanently because of damage to the brain.

Worse yet, our brains are quite easily damaged. They are composed of very soft tissue that damages easily if disturbed. They are positioned in a vulnerable place atop our body where a projectile could hit it easily. They are vulnerable to cold and to overheating. They are vulnerable to oxygen and sugar deprivation. They are so physically large that mothers and babies often die in childbirth due to the size of the head.

Yet if the there is a soul that survives bodily death I think none of this would be necessary. No physical injury would be sufficient to turn a decent person into a psychopath. No damage to the brain will affect the "soul" that is alleged to exist.

toba:
d universe consist of series of events stretched across time in a long causal chain.Each1 of these events is d cause of d event dat comes after it&d effect of d event dat comes b4 it.d world came 4rm d world as it was,which came 4rm d world as it was before.

According to who? Your evidence to show that this theory is true is what?

toba:
Mazaje+others.Do u beliv dat there is a begining for evrything? Also dat there cant be a cause without it being caused? The universe didnt pop out without it been caused by a force powerful than d universe.

How do you know that the universe popped out of something? No body knows that for sure, No body really knows what it is. it could be a multiverse, we just know very little about it. The universe could be eternal and there is no reason to think that it is not.

Most of the gods take the sex of those that invented them. . . .Most gods of African traditional religions are the peoples ancestors.

mazaje:
Because the people who constantly re-invent and manufacture god change all the time. According to the hypothesis there's this god guy who is alleged to be omnipotent, all powerful, all knowing all good, in fact all everything who according to the people that subscribe to this hypothesis we can't know anything about it because according to them he is everyuthing and nothing at the same time. They said he appeared to a VERY few people long long ago when they were living in complete ignorance and told them what he demands, ate their food, fought against their enemies with them, lived with them told them what he wanted from them and told them to tell others after which he completely disappeared when men became extensively knowlegeble about this planet the universe and how the forces of nature operate. . . .Very intrersing hypothesis I must say. . . . .

I know, I as always wanted to hear the rationale of the believers of the god hypothesis. To me it seems that the personality, power, and influence of the gods is always simply a reflection of the human needs of the time and place the gods are prevalent in. Fertility gods/goddesses for example were very powerful in pre-/sub- agricultural societies. Rain gods were the leaders of the pantheons in agricultural societies. War gods rose to prominence in times of war and raiding, usurping the old leaders and becoming the new leaders of the pantheons or the people at large in time of wars. As societies settled more later on, population density rose and the people began to specialize in some things the gods began to representing laws, contracts, and of course social ethics and that became the standard.

The gods have always changed to meet the people's standards not the other way around. Examine the Indian god Indra/Varuna. He started off as the rain god, became the war god, and then transformed into the lawgiver god of wisdom. Tracking his personality change over time is an indicator of what the people needed most at that point in time. The same is seen in Yahweh. When warring against the neighboring tribes, his followers new him as a war god. When cramped tight in their new cities or settling down (or when living in the cramped cities of others), he became the lawgiver. When ethical and philosophical competition arose from the Greeks and Persians and other neighbors of the Jews, he became meek and mild.

Modern day Christians see their god in their own image which is a post-Enlightenment era social and ethical thinker, not the bloodthirsty war god he originated as in the bible, despite the fact his exploits are clearly written into their favorite but selectively read book.

Abu Zola:
Hope the xtrian will come to their senses

The Christians despite being out of their senses still have much more sense than the Muslims in my opinion. When will the Muslims come back to their senses and stop worshiping the Arabian myth and Idol?

KunleOshob:
He is surely coming back, probably sooner than you think 

Matthew 24:30-31:

   30 And then at last, the sign that the Son of Man is coming will appear in the heavens, and there will be deep mourning among all the peoples of the earth. And they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. 31 And he will send out his angels with the mighty blast of a trumpet, and they will gather his chosen ones from all over the world—from the farthest ends of the earth and heaven.

According to the same book of Matthew(26:63-64) Jesus promised a high priest called Caiaphas and those around him that they will see him come in the clouds of the heavens during their life time. Almost two thousand years have passed since Caiaphas has no longer been alive and still no return of Jesus. Verdict = FAIL!!

chukwudi44:
@mazaje st Augustine was inspired by the holy spirit to enunciate,the just war theory,

mantraa:
Its probably the same reason that you dont hear reports of ufos flying around now that everyone has video cameras on their mobiles.

Now we don't see no "manna" falling from heaven to feed those that are hungry and without food to eat. But back in the days when men were busy writing their different myths we have them saying that the stars from the sky were busy fighting along side men. I wonder why all these things suddenly changed and the christian god suddenly has been relegated to a deist god.

Let's assume for this discussion that there is a god. Has anyone noticed how strangely different the god of the old and new testament is from the god that Christians claim exists today?

Why did the god of the old, new testament show interest in humanity and was very quick to show or display his anger, sadness, happiness and other emotions for all to see. This god was all over the place communicating with some people here and there and even showing some of them his body parts, addressing them through public speech and performing incredible miracles all over the place, but that god is nowhere to be found today at all? Has anyone seen any emotion at all or heard any god communicated with a group of people through any public speech? In  thousand years It's just very very odd to me that the god described in those books can't be seen anywhere  even though the god described in those books was never described as subtle, indifferent or silent at all.

There is a personality to "Yahweh" if the bible is accurate that hasn't been seen in a very long time. Why would a god change personalities? Also, how convenient that your supposed god was popping out miracles constantly in the OT(Making the stars fight along side his chosen men, Dividing the red sea for his chosen men to pass, Fighting along side his chosen men with his great sword of slaughter against their enemies etc), but now that we have the means to analyze miraculous claims they seem to have stopped.  Why do you think that is?

teeroy:
A man parading himself to be a pastor with the name, Dr. Paul Ruby Borngreat and formerly with the Believers Loveword Ministry is currently being hunted by the Nigerian Police Force for the theft of a hefty amount of foreign currency. The public and churches in particular are warned to be at alert as this man moves from one church to the other with the intent of defrauding and stealing fom innocent indivioduals.

He was last seen in Abuja in mid- January 2010 but is currently believed to be in the Lagos metropolis. Any member of th public who sees him should either report to the nearest police station or call the following numbers; 07036761985, 08059261828 and 08067713196. There will be an apprecable reward should such information lead to his apprehension.

Find below a recent photograph of him.

And you believe that the pastor can be found here on NL religion section?

OLAADEGBU:
Where is the picture of your brain if it exists?

It's clear you have ran out of gas.

Why should bible verses be engraved on guns sold to Muslims? Isn' that asinine?

Pastor AIO:
The reason that i believe that many 9ja people die inexplicably young has nothing to do with God, or witchcraft or all that. I believe it has to do with our diet. 9ja diet is rotten. so so oil, pomo, red meat, starchy foods etc etc. If you offer them salads they will say that they are not Goats.

I don't understand how supposedly educated people can eat such nonsense. And they think it is enjoyment.

Me too I had a cousin that died. believe or not, right after prayer. His mother woke him up early in the morning for their regular morning prayers. They prayed, he stood up, and straight away he collapsed to the ground and that was it.

I've heard other stories which were explained away that 'he was tired', or 'it is the stress of the country'. 9ja people don't even go for medical check up to ascertain the state of their health. unhealthy hearts, defunct livers, etc etc are plaguing my people. Some guys I know cannot eat a simple meal without washing it down with a gulder. On the streets people don't even drink water. Na so so soft drink with the high sugar content. How will you not just collapse and die.

Then they will lynch one house girl and say she is a witch. You people are barbaric. You are animals. And the biggest joke of all is that you feel that you are enlightened. To be honest, though most of the time I'm proud to be nigerian, every now and again nigerians disgust the hell out of me. You all went to school. You know what is called a balanced diet, do you not? Aaaaah, o ma se o! What a wretched lot.

Most Nigerians are educated illiterates.

Mavenb0x:
@manmustwac:

Pro 3:1 My son, forget not my law; but let thine heart keep my commandments:
Pro 3:2 For length of days, and long life, and peace, shall they add to thee.

Psa 91:15 He shall call upon me, and I will answer him: I will be with him in trouble; I will deliver him, and honour him.
Psa 91:16 With long life will I satisfy him, and shew him my salvation.

They are God's promises to whoever believes and walks with it.

And the evidence that this "promise" is true and not a wishful thought is what?

Garry T. Ansdell (D.D.) made a case out of this when he stated that "The resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead is evidential:

the empty tomb still exists,

Where is this empty tomb that still eixts?