₦airaland Forum

kayjordan:
I am going to collapse my last rebuttal to you and neutralize it.

I'm starting this argument from this specific rebuttal you've made.

Main Argument: In my honest opinion, there's no pre-existing principle guiding human behavior - thus, what people refer to as principles are ideological and not biological.

You have straw- manned what I said. No where did I claim that guiding principles are biological. I said humans create guiding principles and adopt them to guide their behaviour to prevent unwise decisions.If you have no guiding principle then the only thing restraining you right now is fear of punishment.

And the question is not whether principles exist in nature. The question is , What principle have you personally adopted to restrain yourself when no one is watching? Instead of answering that you are now debating biology and ideology to dodge

The perspective you see life from is - from the mid-level of "hierarchy of survival", rather than from the foundational level of the hierarchy.

"Hierarchy of survival" is a vague phrase designed to make you sound profound. It explains nothing.

As I have shared this idea with a critic before; I want you to know that in the animal kingdom - there's no good or bad - every animal including "humans", have one similar desire - "food".

The idea of good and bad is subjective - meaning: the Lion chasing the Deer believes she's doing a "good thing" (trying to get food) - and the Deer escaping believes she's also doing a "good thing" (saving her life).

The concept of "bad" becomes subjective when an animal becomes a prey - only the prey would hold onto that belief, not the predator.

It's true that some ideologies are birthed by the human nature such as trust, safety and responsibility - but still, they don't dismantle the foundational integrity for human existence which is - "survival".

If at all a universal principle must be identified - it would be "Nature".

Your lion and prey analogy is inappropriate. You are projectiing human concepts of "good" and " bad" onto animals to justify avoiding moral responsibility for yourself.

A lion does not think it is doing "good" . It has no morai beliefs at all. It acts on instinct, not conscious choice. It is a carnivore driven by its biology to prey on other animals for survival. It must kill to eat. It has no choice.

But you are not a lion. You are a human being with the capacity for moral reasoning. When you lie, cheat or commit adultery, you are not following a biological necessity like a lion hurting. You are making a deliberate choice. And those choices can be evaluated because you have alternatives, you can choose honestly, integrity and fidelity..

In human society, we do not need to be the "prey" to recognise that betrayal, corruption,and dishonesty cause harm. We can see it objectively because we have empathy and reason.

So stop lying to yourself that you are the same as lower animals in the wild.

The symptoms of nature which you describe as "reactions" - are therefore, the reason humans seek internal mastery as you stated earlier - and the reason why people create ideologies (principles) to make life, the complete opposite of the "wild".

Whilst laws are good for discipline - the foundation (nature) as mentioned, should always inform your moral question of "why are people evil?"

Are people evil because they want to - or because they just want to survive?

Why can't people do good things genuinely without first responding to fear or correction?

The universal principle (nature) - answers all!

To re-interate: laws are just applications; humans are the systems. If the system is bad - the application will equally be as bad - or be unsustainable.

Look at life from a computer system analogy - let's address the system before asking questions about "principles".

"Put the horse before the cart"...

I never asked "why are people evil" nor did I describe " reactions" as "symptoms of nature" . You keep answering questions I never asked.

Your computer analogy fails because a human being is not a machine with fixed programming . We have consciousness, choice and the ability to adopt internal principles.

Put the horse before the cart ? Fine. But first give your principle, then we can discuss everything else.

kayjordan:
Hello @ triplechoice!

Your two questions appear to use different standards.

First:

“What principle distinguishes what is not acceptable and what is harmful without saying it depends on the person?”

Then later:

“What distinguishes what is acceptable and what is harmful?”

Those are two different framings, so I’ll address both directly.

The distinction I’m making is this:

An act may be socially tolerated if it produces limited harm - while a harmful act is one that causes serious damage to individuals or society.

For example: flirting may be morally debated depending on context - but it is generally tolerated because it does not automatically produce serious harm

Another Example: fraud, abuse or violent acts are treated differently because they create measurable harm and threaten safety, rights or stability.

So the difference is not merely whether an act exists as an impulse - because many human impulses are "natural" - but whether the expression of that impulse becomes destructive to others - that is where morality, law, and social order intersect.

Upbringing, personality, culture, and environment strongly influence self-control and moral behavior - although no single factor completely determines human conduct.

This is also why constitutional law tends to produce more consistent behavioral control than religion alone.

Constitutional law operates through visible and immediate enforcement, while religious consequences are often delayed, interpretive or faith-based.

So in my view, the deeper principle underneath morality and law is "human nature" itself - because morality, religion, and legal systems only function through human behavior, interpretation, and enforcement.

That is the framework behind my argument.

If you disagree with any part of it, feel free to address it directly.

You have created a false inconsistency where none exists. You falsely claimed my two questions are not the same. They are the same. The second restated the first: What internal principle guides you when no one is watching and no laws threaten punishment?.

For instance,the guiding principle for members of the Rotary club is the. " Four way test": "is it true? Is it fair? will it build goodwill? Will it benefit all"?

Even witches, Wiccan members, have theirs. "An it harm none, do what ye will"

These are principles. They guide behaviour from within when the individual adopts them. They don't depend on police, courts of fear of getting caught

Your examples of "limited harm" which you struggled to define, " social tolerance" and "human nature", describe society's reactions, not any personal guiding principle. Flirting is not lying, neither is it adultery (cheating)

So I ask again. Give me a clear, consistent internal standard you would follow when no one can see you.

If you cannot, you admit your only restrain is fear of punishment, not conscience, integrity or internal commitment. Without a guiding principle, your philosophy justifies anything. I cannot trust someone whose only break is getting caught.I am not the only one who think this way.

jaephoenix:
Lets assume we dont know the 'evidence of summoning' looks like. Do you know?

Wrong . Your latest question is irrelevant and a deflection. Questioning a claim does not require prior knowledge. What is required is logic and curiousity.

I don't need to know what evidence of summoning look like to ask your friend to define his own standard for evidence . A student can ask a teacher for criteria without already knowing the subject. So your attempt to disqualify me from asking fails .

Abeg rest so you stop replying with absurdity.

Nowayback10:
Forgive me mods for posting on this section as I needed a quick response and enough attention on this issue. Sometime around last week at around midnight 1am precisely, it was raining heavily and I opened my kitchen back door because I have a net that covers the door from outside. While I was standing I felt a sharp pain on my arm and quickly got a flash light to check and I saw 3 sharp finger marks that is almost bleeding, as if I was been scratched by something. Not upto 2 mins again I felt another pain on my lap while I was sitting and its another 3 finger marks , very sharp and it was bringing out signs of blood. I had to quickly wake my wife up from sleep and showed her. Then she called her mum instantly and we prayed over it, and we also called a friend of mine who is a pastor and he said its an attack, usually a marine spirit. Pls how true? Why I remember to bring this issue up is because while passing through the kitchen door this afternoon I just saw the same mark on my kitchen door as it appeared on my body as it happened that day. Please I need advise or any experience on this will really be appreciated. What am I dealing with here?

Please see a doctor first before concluding paranormal.

kayjordan:
I

That's why I mentioned earlier that - you can't change man's nature; you can only regulate it with constitutional laws and the enforcement agencies.

This is exactly what I meant when I said your philosophy offers no mechanism for internal mastery. If there is no law and no policeman watching, your "natural being" will steal , lie, and betray without hesitation. It means at the moment you're being restrained by fear or punishment.

You did not show here that man can choose to do good. You have only shown that man can be forced to behave.

So I ask again: Can you provide a clear principle that distinguishes acceptable impulse from harmful one, without relying on external laws or threats? Because without such a principle your view collapses into "anything goes when no one is watching"

Hello @Kayjordan,

I have read through your arguments about "Worshiping the devil" carefully . You have made some interesting points, some of which I want to address. However, before I do so, I want to state clearly that I am not here to defend Christianity or any religion . I am writing from a neutral perspective concerning the topic keeping in mind the universal values of trust, responsibility, self- mastery and the society we all want to live in.

First, let me acknowledge where we agree. I agree that an absolute "thou shalt not lie" is too rigid and difficult to practice in real life. It does not leave room for emergency exception, life or death situations, such as lying to a terrorist to save an Innocent life, or hiding someone from a murderous mob. I accept that preserving an Innocent life override a general rule, especially when that rule goes against our natural instinct to survive and protect others.

However, where we disagree is your use of this narrow emergency exception, lying to save an Innocent life, to justify a much wider range of behaviours some of which are everyday self-serving deception which you framed as "survival of the fittest".

Procreation does not require adultery. There are countless unmarried people seeking to procreate within committed, honest relationships. Adultery is not just about sex . It is the betrayal of trust, the lying, and the emotional harm inflicted on a spouse.

Policemen taking bribes and framing innocent people is not "survival of the fittest". It is corruption that destroys innocent lives. If everyone follow your logic, no one would be safe.

Lying to a boss about waking up late is not survival. It is avoiding a minor embarrassment. The honest path, apologising, builds character and long-term trust. Lying risks exposure and a damaged reputation .

I'm not saying I am perfect. Nobody is. My point is that we should not "worship the devil", that is , submit totally to our animal instincts or nature, and call that "honestly" while framing discipline or self- control (which religion tries to impose indirectly and rigidly through divine laws) as "deceit".

"He who sups with the devil should use a long spoon" is an old proverb. In the context of this discussion, this means that if you must deal with dangerous impulses, keep them at arms length. Anything less, and you risk becoming the devil yourself, someone nobody would want to do business with.


The fact that we can observe an impulse and choose not to act proves we are more than the impulse. We should not "worship" what we are larger than. To worship the "devil" makes us no different from a brute without self-control.


Finally, apart from the fact your philosophy is contradictory at its core, it offers no mechanism for self-restraint beyond external laws. It lacks the concept of internal mastery, the ability to say "no" to an impulse even when no one is watching and law to forbid it.

So my question to you is this: Can you provide a clear principle that distinguishes when lying or following an impulse is not acceptable versus when it is harmful, without saying "it's up to the individual".? Because without such a principle your view collapses into "anything goes" if one can find justification for it.

jaephoenix:
He didn't make a positive claim. He simply said there was no evidence. If the Op has evidence, he or she would deposit it. Simple. Stop capping
And yes,we all know how conjuring up bees look like. Remember we have eyes

Listen for the last time. I never asked how to summon bees or conjure them. I asked for criteria. I didn't post the video. I'm a neutral bystander.The person who posted it concluded based on belief. And nothing like " here's the evidence of the man summoning the bees" in the video.

But your friend said, "no evidence of summoning" . That is itself a positive claim, an assertion of absence. You cannot assert " no evidence of X" unless you have some idea of what X would look like. It is basic logic. So yes, he made a positive claim, and I asked him to clarify his standard. And he did: . He said, "verbal announcement and coincidence " .But instead of you to correct him, you ignored him to attack me, confirming you are not here for any sincere debate.

" What would the evidence of child abuse look like"? is not the same as, "How do you abuse a child "?. If you continue to miss this clear distinction, I'm sorry, there's nothing else I can discuss with you. You will continue to misrepresent me and waste my time.


I asked a hypothetical question. "What would the evidence look like if the man were to have the power"?. This is not a direct request for evidence, or how to summon bees, but you continue to interpret it literally despite claiming to be highly educated .

CoolUsername:
None of this changes the fact that no evidence was provided. If it was, show me, if it wasn't, then you typed all that for nothing

I'm not trying to change any fact. I never claimed evidence was provided. I asked, "What would the evidence look like"? You have either misunderstood this or pretending not to understand. Just say you don't know if you want to answer for your friend.

I have been asking for criteria, not what you think.

CoolUsername:
If you can't point out the evidence that was provided, then you agree that you have also seen no evidence.

Anything else is a waste of time

You're trying to shift the burden of proof onto me. I never made any claim. I never concluded on anything whether there's evidence or not. So you can't ask me to. "point out the evidence that was provided ". I'm a neutral bystander asking your friend who made a positive assertion, "no evidence of summoning ", to describe for me what would the evidence look like if the man were to have the power. That's an hypothetical question about criteria, not a literal demand for evidence. If you struggle with hypothetical question, you will struggle to answer. And clearly you are struggling .

CoolUsername:
Don't "all sides" this matter. Whether the video is AI generated or not, it is still true that there is no evidence that bees were summoned

I never asked your friend to provide evidence of summoning. I asked what would the evidence look like since he made a positive assertion.

If you can't see the difference no need to reply me again.

CoolUsername:
Whether we know how to summon bees or not is irrelevant. It is up to the person making the claim to provide the evidence that it happened. If there is no evidence that he summoned the bees, then the claim has nothing to stand on.

If I told you that I'm the one who makes the sun rise every morning and you tell me to provide evidence for that claim. It would be extremely silly for me to tell you to provide evidence for what it looks like to make the sun rise and then claim victory.

You still don't get it. I never posted the video. I never claimed the man summoned bees. I'm a neutral bystander questioning the positive claim made by the person you're defending.

The person who posted the video didn't say "here is the evidence of summoning". He concluded based on belief. That's why the correct skeptical response should have been "where is the evidence "'?, not "No evidence of summoning" as if he knows what evidence of magically summoning bees looks like.

You can't claim "no evidence of stealing" if you don't know or have some idea of what stealing is. That has been my position.

Your sunrise analogy fails because you left me out. You reduced three roles ( the person who posted the video, your friend, me) to two ( claimant, doubter). I'm not the one who said "the man summoned bees. I'm the bystander asking the skeptic: "You say no evidence, so what would evidence look like if the man were to possess the power"? That's not a silly question. It's asking you to define your terms before declaring absence.

I never said the man summoned bees magically. So you and Jaephonix should stop inventing a position for me you can easily argue against.

jaephoenix:
I know a lot and I have explained how one can control bees. Its an art that has been mastered by centuries and its in public domain but somehow, you dont know that

You are answering a question I never asked. I didn't ask him how to summon bees. I asked what evidence of summoning would look like because he claimed "no evidence of summoning without defining it.

You have now offered a natural explanation (queen bee). But that undermines the person you are defending who said summoning requires a verbal announcement and called the bees appearance coincidence.

So I ask, Why aren't you correcting him instead of attacking me who only sought for further clarification, not to explain how bees can be summoned magically, but what would the evidence look like. What would the evidence of child abuse look like is not the the same as how to abuse a child. The distinction is very clear. You have been arguing against a question I never asked.

Please stop misrepresenting me. I never claimed the man summoned bees magically . I only asked for criteria. You are fighting a ghost. Next time understand the conversation before jumping in to show yourself. This is not the first time.

jaephoenix:
That guy triplechoice na case. I know him. Just ignore him

Name calling won't help you win an argument.

jaephoenix:
Same way u were capping nonsense about providing evidence. You didn't know

Wrong. I didn't ask him to provide evidence. I asked him what would be the evidence of summoning look like since he made a positive claim
You can't claim no evidence of X if you don't have some idea of what X would look like..

completeskills:
Video caption says contains AI generated media.

Good. I suspected that.

So everyone, the Juju crowd , the coincidence crowd, and the Queen bee expert, Jaephonix and his friends, was just filling gaps with imagination. None of them knew it was AI generated.

That's the whole point: don't speak confidently about what you don't actually know until you have all the facts.

CoolUsername:
Post said the man summoned bees. The guy said there is no evidence of that. How does what you're saying relate to it? You clearly did not understand

You're projecting. I understand perfectly. You and the person you want to defend don't yet understand that asserting absence requires a definition of presence.

Your friend asserted. "no evidence of summoning". To make that assertion, he must know what evidence of summoning looks like. I asked him and he couldn't give a coherent answer, he kept changing his definition. That's my point. I never said the man summoned bees magically.

Let's assume the Uganda man has the power to summon bees, how would your friend know the exact way he summoned them? Whether verbally or through some hidden method, how could he conclude the man didn't summon them?

Some persons have offered a natural explanation: the man holding the Queen bee to summon the colony. If that is the case, is that not proof that he summoned them himself through natural means, contrary to his claim of "no evidence of summoning?


Since he is not sure, the correct response should have been "where is the evidence of summoning "? not "no evidence of summoning " as if he knows what the evidence would look like.

Now, can you tell me what the evidence of summoning would look like ?

voiceunheard:
The pastor's case is different! He promised to do what he doesn't have the capacity to do and he knows that it was urgent. He also have people he made promise to and he is yet to fulfill, why making another massive promise again?

And another thing that made me report him is what I was going through where I was staying, waiting for him to fulfill his promise, I couldn't have stayed there for long (up till the time they started humiliating me with words) if he didn't made a promise, I would have rented a house and should have left there before the humiliation which I still haven't fully recovered from started.

His promise made me look like a fo*l, as if I don't know what I am doing. That is why I have to report him. Not everything I can say here.

Talking about someone making a promise and something came up, I don't see the pastor as an innocent person who made a promise, I see him as a person who makes reckless promises. If something came up, he could have let me know, he don't have to tell me the full story. But instead, he was watching me to see how I will look for a way out since I stopped calling him.

Yes, the pastor wronged you. I already said so. He invoked God to give you double assurance which prevented you from taking action to solve your own problem. And then ghosted you and threatened you. That is spiritual manipulation and abuse which is traumatic for a believer.

But it's not the same with the person here trying to offer you help. He has not given you assurance similar to the pastor's.

If you need help to pay the overdue loan, announce that openly without shame. Don't use emotional blackmail. That won't work.

Or reach out to the loan app to give you a discount which you can afford to pay.

Focus on yourself and starting building your life.

TheGift:
I

LOL this one is more like baseless logic.

He is telling you X doesnt exist, you are telling h to tell you how X comes into existence. If you cant see the illogicality of that argument. I feel for you.

Also, in basic law of evidence, which i am sure you know little or nothing about, it is the person who alleges that must prove. Therefore;

If A alleges that a man sent bees.
And B says He sees no evidence of any man sending bees
It is A (and all those who agree with Him) that should bring evidence, not B.

You cant ask Him to prove something he doesnt believe in in the first place.

If you still cant understand that, then you are operating below the level of basic logic, Sir.

Wrong. Asking what would evidence of summoning look like? isn't asking him to prove magic exists or how magical summoning works. It's asking him to clarify his claim. If you say "no evidence of X", you must know what X would look like on video. Your friend doesn't know. That's the point you both keep missing.

Let me ask you a simple question. Can someone claim "No evidence of stealing " if they don't know what stealing is? Obviously not. You need to know what you're looking for.


Next time understand the argument before lecturing about logic. This advice is also for Jaephonix who likes to brag about how highly educated he is but struggle to demonstrate it.

jaephoenix:
He is right. Nothing in the video suggested a man magically brought the bees. And just in case you don't know, once you hold a queen bee,you have automatically summoned the colony. All the bees would follow her wherever you want. And they release a pheromone that those bees use to track her. There is a special container for holding that queen bee
Get education for once nd leave these folks

I never said there's evidence in the video the man magically made the bees appear.

Use your education to understand what you read before reacting

jaephoenix:
That guy Truplechoice get as he dey think

You must haves skipped your medications again this evening. Why can't you answer for him?

jaephoenix:
A simple youtube search would have educated you but no, you must display on Nairaland

You have come with your nonsense.

What do you know about what I'm asking him?

geoworldedu:
I see you just want to rant about nothing. I defined to you the type of evidence and this is all you are bringing up. You want me to tell you how bees are summoned? You should better ask the Ugandan man.

I have not been ranting. I questioned your logic. You made a confident claim about "no evidence of summoning " but can't describe what summoning would look like. You can't claim "no evidence of X" when you don't have some idea of what X would look like.

If you had reacted with, "where is the evidence of the man summoning the bees "? that would have been a different matter. But you didn't. You made a positive claim whose burden of proof you are trying to shift to me. " Ask the Uganda man "

TheGift:
He says there is no evidence of any one summoning bees, you are asking Him how bees are summoned. How is that relevant to His assertion? Can you see any evidence of summoning in the video or not?

It's very relevant because he claimed "no evidence of summoning ", implying he knows exactly what summoning bees would look like. I don't. So I'm asking him to describe it. If he can't then his claim is empty.


You can't claim "no evidence of X" unless you have some idea of what X look like. It's basic logic.

geoworldedu:
Evidence that I mean is a video evidence showing when he was summoning the bees by clearly stating his intentions before it happens. Not some random coincidences like: "You this people, you this wicked judge. God will fight my battles." Then coincidentally bees from nowhere flew into the court at that same second. That is called coincidence.

You have moved the goalpost.. Your original claim was "no evidence of summoning", not no video of him verbally announciing his intentions. That's a new requirements you just invented.

But let's accept your definition for a moment, can you describe exactly what a person would do if they were summoning bees? Without using your imagination as the only standardd, how would anyone know what evidence of summoning looks like?

Have you seen anyone verbally summoning bees in your presence?

You still haven't answered my original question. How are bees summoned? If you can't describe it, then you can't confidently say the video shows no evidence of it

geoworldedu:
It's like you don't understand my post. Go back and read it again.

There's nothing in your post that cannot be understood. You made a positive claim: "No evidence for summoning bees ". So I asked what is the evidence of summoning bees since you claim to know it"?

Maybe you don't understand the implication of your own statement. Go and reread again.

geoworldedu:
No evidence of anyone summoning anything in the video. Africans and bloggers will sha make up stories about every normal happenings just for click bait and to uphold African lying beliefs.

How are bees summoned? Can you tell us please?

voiceunheard:
I appreciate your insight.

Talking about "when he broke his promise, he confirmed in your mind your father's voice" there is a difference between when a person tells you "You will be frustrated in life" and "I will make you to be frustrated in life", the second one is the one that was said and he is no more to carry out his plans. What he actually said is that "He will make me to be frustrated in life, he will make me to be useless in life and that I will be born to regret". These are the exact words he use to say when he was alive.

Remembering your late father's exact words is further confirmation of what I explained. His words are still playing in your mind and it is for a reason.

And yes, you're right that he is no longer alive to carry his plans. However, the young girl who heard those threats every day is still inside you. And that's why you still remember his words exactly the way he said them, years after. His threats, when he was alive, weren't just words, they were constant environmental toxin you lived under..The brain doesn't need your father to be alive, the neural pathways are already carved to control your behaviour. This is what trauma therapy is designed to uncover so you can heal and start living the way you were meant to live.

You may not consciously connect your reactions today to your father, but others with experience in matters like this can easily see the disturbing pattern.That is why you have been advised to seek professional help to end the cycle. You are not a toxic person, you are reacting unconsciously to a threat that isn't there anymore. Your mind doesn't know the difference between your late father and any authority figure. I spoken enough.

"Deepsight saw your pain and considered helping, until he felt your energy. He wasn't being cruel." I didn't even thought of him being cruel. But him saying "he will be terrified", "I may report him", sounds somehow. I will report him that he did what exactly?

You misunderstood Deepsight. He was speaking hypothetically, not accusing you of anything, to show why your energy scares away help.

He was saying, "I'd love to help, but after seeing how you've pursued the pastor for a broken promise, I'd be terrified you'd do the same to me if I ever fell short"

Life is up and down. Nothing is certain. Someone may promise you help today, and not able to fulfil it tomorrow if personal circumstances changes suddenly. .

voiceunheard:
When a person makes a promise, he supposed to follow up with his promise. Not follow up with silence.

I have to go to this extent because if I don't, I may NEVER be able to forgive him for what he did as I was told to do.

Again, he asked me not to report the people who threw my belongings out to the police and made the empty promise. Whenever I remember the way my belongings were thrown out and how the pastor's/his promise made me not to collect my full money from the people who threw my belongings out, I feel bad because he still didn't fulfill his promise. The aggression that I am supposed to direct towards them, I have to direct it to the pastor, because he fooled me and left me stranded, worse than the way I was when I came to the church.

Enough of people offending me every time and I will always be trying to act as the good person and later my mind will be full of bitterness as a result of what they did to me/ I didn't react. It is better to react and let the person also feel the pain he/she made me go through, then when it ends, I drop everything there.

@voiceunheard, please read to the end.

You were wronged by the pastor. He made an expensive promise he shouldn't have made, told you not to go to the police because, according to him, "God has intervened in your matter ". That is invoking God' to prevent you from taking action. It is spiritual manipulation. He then ghosted and threatened you. Given his position as a religious leader, that's spiritual abuse and it can cause religious stress trauma. I feel your pain..


But the hard truth is that the pastor is not your real enemy. Yes

Your real wound came from your father who told you you would be frustrated and useless. That curse, that lie, you have carried your whole life. The pastor stepped on that wound. When he broke his promise, he confirmed in your mind your father's voice. That's why you can't let go. Letting go feels like agreeing that you deserve to be abandoned

You said, "It is better to react and let the person feel the pain he made me go through". But revenge won't work here. The pain you're carrying is your father's. No amount of punishment you give the pastor will reach him.

What you actually need is trauma therapy. Not online advisers. A professional who can help you separate your father's lies from who you really are.

The church won't give you justice. The pastor won't give you closure. But you can give yourself peace, not by destroying him, but by turning your energy toward your own healing. You don't need his apology. You need your life back

Stop researching legal terms like. "detrimental reliance ". This is Nigeria, not the UK or the US. You cannot get justice here with legal technicalities like that. And stop seeking validation you were wronged. I believe you were wronged. And I believe you can heal. But not like this


Deepsight saw your pain and considered helping, until he felt your energy. He wasn't being cruel. He was honest about what others won't tell you: you're scaring away help because you fight anyone who doesn't fully agree with you.

Please find a trauma therapist who understands family abuse and spiritual harm. Grieve the little girl who was told she'd be useless. Then build a life where that voice no longer runs the show.

You have suffered enough. Don't prove your father right burning your life down for a fight that will never satisfy you. You're pouring fuel on a fire that is burning you.

illicit:
Thats a statue for god sake, its not even a likeness...

How does that affect Virgin Mary who is no longer around anyway

The issue here isn't whether the statue is literally the virgin Mary, but that the act mocks a symbol held sacred by millions of Christians. Arguing that it is just a statute misses why that action is offensive, it signals a contempt for Christian reverence, regardless of the soldier's intent or Mary's current location .
Catholics and other orthodox Christians should be offended by this.

DeepSight:
It may not make sense to you, but for someone such as myself who even considers that my every waking moment in life may possibly be a dream within a dream within a dream, there is still a window I leave open to question even my very experiences. So greatly limited are we that even when we have what is as the ultimate proof - personal experience - we still, if we are nuanced, are able to question our personal experiences.

Because for example, someone can legitimately say one was hallucinating you know?

I truly dont have the answers and will not be so dishonest as to claim to.

I understand you but please consider this .You claim to be agnostic, meaning you don't know if a creator exists, and doubt we can know. But your entire emotional complaint about old age infirmities is aimed at blaming that same creator for allowing them. You can't rationally blame a being you're uncertain exists or " no nothing" of. That's like being angry at Zeus for a thunderstorm while saying, "well I don't know if Zeus is real"

If you were truly agnostic about this, your response to suffering would be , this is tragic. Let's find ways to prevent, treat or cope with it since we don't know why it's happening. Instead your response is "The creator (who may or may not exist) has questionable mercies"

I have not retreated from anything. Maybe it didnt come across, but your insistence that I am being inconsistent left me exasperated as I didnt know what else to say. Thus I said, well maybe I am inconsistent!

. 1. I never called you an inconsistent person. I said your performance on this thread is inconsistent with your previous post. This is a matter of logic not character. So please don't change it into personal attack.

2. The reason I said you have retreated is because your complain about the "creator" can only make sense from a strictly material view. If a person believes the body is all there is , no soul, no spirit, then old age infirmities can reasonably make them question a "creator"

But you know the other view , which in this thread you have surprisingly chosen to abandon and refuse to consider when I brought it to your attention.. You have written passionately about the soul, spirit, the body as a temporary vehicle, and astral travel. From that position, which you claim to hold or have held, questioning the "creator" for the decay is inconsistent. I asked you what changed in your thinking. You refused to give a direct answer and Instead responded with a sermon about how inconsistency can be a virtue if one admit it as a sign of not knowing anything. No That's not a virtue. It's pretended humility and a dodge.

I have talked not just about old age but about some of the deprivations common to it. And yes, even if not all experience them, many do and I know that those who have observed what I am talking about at close quarters especially for loved ones would be sensitive to what I am saying. .

Blaming a "creator" is not the solution to old age infirmities. It will keep you stuck in resentment toward a hypothetical being. I'm looking at practical solutions for how we can cope with the situation, better geriatric care, pain management , emotional support for families, and mental frameworks like detachment that make suffering lesser to bear. That's what we should be discussing, not anger toward a creator you're not sure exists. That does nothing to help anyone. It's an intellectual dead end dressed up as concern.

And I'm not saying suffering doesn't matter. I'm saying there's a way to face it without collapsing into existential blame. That is not me being insensitive, which you are indirectly accusing me of. It is resilience. And it is far more useful to someone watching a loved one decline than any model of bitter confusion aimed at a creator none of us is sure exists.

I conveyed what I experienced in all honesty, And I am sorry but I do not think about "followers" when I write. I write straight from the heart and true from my mind..

I never said you "think about followers when you write". I said "your followers", those who like to read your posts and react to them, may have been misled based on what you have confidently discussed in the past, without knowing that you were being agnostic or that you really "know nothing" about anything., your own words

You sound angry or irritated and thats fine. You are free to be done. I am not holding you.

No I'm not angry. Maybe surprised that you have retreated to a strictly materialist viewpoint. I also decided to end the conversation because you refused to answer, a direct question, and we were going round in circles to the point where you started attacking my character, accusing me of being insensitive to the aged. I respect you enough not to let it degenerate into a quarrel.

DeepSight:
Perhaps I am inconsistent. Perhaps that inconsistency is a sign of not really knowing anything.

But to be honest, I am simply generally agnostic, not absolutely. In other words, I will not say there isn't anything at all that I claim to know for sure.

At the minimum, I know I exist. Corgito ergo sum.

You recently claimed on this board you can astrally travel, leaving your body to explore inner planes, and that these experiences are "very real". That's firsthand knowledge of the soul, not agnostic uncertainty.

Now you say you're "generally agnostic" and don't really know anything ". You have also retreated from "the body is a vehicle, the soul is the real self " to simply "at least I know I exist ". But I never questioned your existence. I asked why the body's decay makes you question a "creator" when you already said the body is temporary, an "illusion " , "not real ".
It's like buying a product whose expiration date you knew in advance, then blaming the manufacturer when it fails after that date.

Your followers have read your passionate posts about the soul and spirit in the"Mind and matter thread " and astral travel experience in the "Simulation thread ". They have shaped their views around what you presented as knowledge. Now you say you're inconsistent because you don't really know anything. That means your earlier claims were overstatements or not based on actual knowledge. Either way, your followers were misled by the certainty about what you were saying.

Old age infirmities are not for everyone. I know, everyone knows too, people over 80 who are very active and enjoy sound health. Yet you present it as if everyone must meet the same fate. This is further evidence that you're not being agnostic about this. You have taken a position against something.

I'm done here. Not willing to continue with this

Thank you

DeepSight:
Being an agnostic does not come with a specific doctrinal creed as to what one believes or does not believe. Indeed there are things I believe, but I still have the overall attitude that we know little to nothing.

You are redefining agnosticism to avoid the contradiction. You have in the past argued passionately for the soul or spirit, and that's a belief, not agnostic uncertainty.

Saying you "know little to nothing" while holding a strong positive belief about the soul or creator doesn't make you agnostic , it makes you inconsistent.