₦airaland Forum

AntiChristian:
Everything God created are his servants particularly humans, spirits and Angels.

No servant of God came to die.

John 3:16 did not call him a servant!

Jesus is the second God of your Godhead trinity! If he's a servant then Holy spirit is also a servant and only the father is the master.

So why would the father associate two servants with himself in his godhead lordship? This makes no sense!

Christianity should be a mirror for you to see that there a lot of things in your own religion, Islam, that doesn't also makes sense.

Both religion are the same. The only difference is what is contained in the different religious text.

If Muslims were using the Bible, you would be defending what's contained in it and arguing as you're doing now, that God sacrificing his son makes sense.

You wouldn't see anything wrong in it just as wouldn't see anything wrong in an angel dictating the Koran to Muhammad. You accept without any evidence that it actually happened.

Each time you come up with a thread like this, I always ask myself why can't this man see that he his making a mockery of the same thing he is doing.
Christianity and Islam are abrahamic religions: the same thing but different narratives.

JASONjnr:
It's always their hatred for Christianity....


I've always wanted to dare an atheist...A true one..To go to the North, near a mosque and proclaim his disbelieve openly there....Tell the people that there's no God or Allah...

Just try it....I'd love to see something...

Seun, I dare you particularly...

Can you as a Christian go near a mosque in the core Northern part of Nigeria and loudly proclaim that "Jesus is the only way", and tell them all Muslims are going to hell since they're not worshipping the true God?

HisSplendor:
I think the problem here is that you're unable to draw a parralell between the story and the argument.

As I've said before, the journey they took symbolizes death. That's as far as the story goes. Are we limited to just the story even when reality offers more incidences?

Another confusion here. What is the argument?

The one you started at the beginning which I have responded to or the one you're trying to bring in through the backdoor?

As far as the thread is concerned, we are limited to what the op has offered. You have not been able to defend it and been talking out of point.

I said you misapplied the story and I was correct. Your responses have confirmed that.

If you want to discuss your "experiential and individualistic journey to heaven and back, make that clear or create another thread to discuss that

HisSplendor:
Man, from what you type up there, i can see that there are many things you don't understand.

While you're talking about the OP, you do not seem to understand that we started from the OP and have progressed. You're trying to draw the discussion back again to where we started from.

Please, read up again before replying.

You're actually taking to yourself when you say I don't understand.

I have been responding to the conclusion made in the op which you created.

Everything I have replied is with reference to the story and the point you made from it.

So what is it again I don't understand?

You're the one who has refused to defend what you declared at the beginning, and no longer making any reference to it.

If you want to discuss something entirely different, then make that very clear and not using subterfuge to do so, and when I don't respond the way you want, you then accuse me of not understanding

I understand you and clearly. You have failed and woefully and just trying to save face with what you're doing now.

Stick to your op or create another thread if you want to discuss something else.

HisSplendor:
You can't experience a journey before taking the journey.

Only when you're going there for the first time.

Please answer the question I asked. Don't avoid it with this. The men, have they been there before ? Yes or no

Death is a journey. We're not talking about death right now.

You're really confused. The op discussed what we may expect after death, and since nobody knows, buy " a red cap" . Is that not so? Focus on the op please.

We're talking about spiritual experiences of which death is just a part. You can have spiritual experiences before dieing but you can't die before you die. Hope you understand?

My friend just rest. You don't know what you're talking about.

Everything you replied has nothing to do with the op.

And just look at the confusion you typed.

"You can have spiritual experiences before before dieing" what kind of spiritual experiences? Why can't you specify it and let's see if it relates with the op.

And who has said people can die before they die?

Why did you not make all of these submission after narrating the story to see if it would fit.

You're desperately trying to bring in what is extraneous to the op because you have simply lost it.


Does Christianity teaches that people can experience heaven or see God before they go there?

You're delving into esoterism and no longer discussing Christianity.

HisSplendor:
Even if I didn't say it directly, kindly provide evidences of the indirect statement. I personally have a before-death experience. So, how would I now say "it can only be experienced after death.' Again, you don't seem to have a good grasp of this discourse.

Are you now running away from the story you shared and what you made of it.

The 100 men where embarking on a journey to a place they have never been to before, and were advised to buy "a red cap" due a rumored king on the way

What does this tell you ?

Do they have any previous experience of the far distant land there were journeying to?

Yes or no

The correct answer to that is going reveal between me and you who has a thorough grasp of the discourse

I wait.

Maynman:
“I don’t know or believe that the adherents of these thousands of religions have personal experiences.” That’s what they claim, it’s all a CLAIM that they can’t prove to others.

That was also what zeus worshippers thought and they also claimed they had experience, till we found out it was all mythology.

You’re not far from discovering the truth about your religion either.

He's really not far from discovering the truth of his religion.

HisSplendor:
When did I tell you that personal experience is proof?

However, your personal experiences can stand as proof for your own self. Not necessarily for others. Hence, others must find their own proofs.

But at the beginning you used your own personal
experience, which is not objectively proven, to judge others as unwise.


Focus on yourself and let others experience what they may experience or not experience..

You're not even sure of yours to start with.

HisSplendor:
Before I continue with you, first point to me where I said it can only be experienced after death. This shows you don't understand anything we've been discussing.

You have come again. Must you mention it clearly. People can make correct deductions from what you have written.

Your explanation makes us understand it can only happen after death hence the reason you adviced buying "a red. cap" incase..

If there's certainty due to having experienced it personally yourself, you would not speculate for everyone as to what might happen when they experience later. There's no evidence whatsoever from anything you have been explaining that you have had any such experience before now.

Everything you have explained is from the position of a believer of something that you think is true. You have not had that experience you want your followers to accept.
.

Even if you have had it, explain how you were able to validate the experience to be true.

For the umpteenth time, you don't understand your own op.

HisSplendor:
You're not getting it. Everyone can experience it here if they search for it. The experience is personal to those who search. It is a foretaste of what everyone MUST eventually experience after death.

You're the one who's not getting it. What's is it everyone can experience here if they search for it?

You said it can only be experienced after death hence your advice we buy "a red cap" incase.

Why changing the goal post?

I believe you can now see why I said you don't understand your op.

If people can experience it here according to you, then we don't need to buy any "red cap" since we can prove the existence of such a place before we go there.

HisSplendor:
You can't make a point or understand what people write without seeing things from their perspectives.

What you call imaginary is experientially to some people. It's only imaginary to you because you've not experienced it.

The experience is individualistic too. it's you and your life. And of course, death itself is subjective.

If you want to be clear, listen to people who have had a near death experience. Or, go near a dieing old man on his death bed. You'll learn many things by so doing.

If you had made it clear at the beginning that your "experience of heaven " was subjective, nobody would have bothered arguing with you.

But you didn't do that and tried the make it seem everybody is expected to experience exactly the same thing after death, and then further used what's subjective personal experience, not proven, to label every believers as wise and non believers unwise.

What you did was to use what is personal subjective experience to pass judgement on others. That's not reasonable and the sad thing, you want to deny everything.


I still repeat, you don't understand your own op.

HisSplendor:
So, you come to this forum only to sound intelligent and not pass a message?

Let me break it down for you.

It's experiential. You can experience it. It's relational. You can relate with it. It's individualistic, you are the only one who knows what you see or feel.

Now having said that. Can you now prove to me that heaven is an imaginary place? At least, before affirming that to yourself, you must have proved it? Or are you dealing with an unproven affirmation?

It's still meaningless as it concerns the op. Your submission concerns a large group of persons that are expected to act the same way, buy "red cap" because they're going to experience the same thing ; their heads cut off by a certain rumoured king who lives in a certain land "heaven" , and with all of them experiencing it only at death. That's not individualistic or subjective experience in any way.

I keep saying it, you don't even understand your own op.

An imaginary place,"heaven" is a no place because there's no evidence for it. And that's why I affirmed what I have affirmed.its as simple as that.

Why do you find it difficult to understand this simple explanation and keep asking for proof?


Look up a dictionary to learn the meaning of the word, imaginary .You don't seem to know what it means.

What you have been attempting to do is to place the burden of proof on me for what you claimed which I rejected for lack of evidence. This is not smart.

HisSplendor:
We're talking about an abstract and intangible realm that's fully open to research. Meanwhile, it's also an experiential and relational realm very individualistic in nature.

Find your own proofs because I'm not responsible for your life.

And if you can't make the research, then keep on affirming your unverified claims if that's the wisest decision you can make.

You're making me laugh . What's the meaning of "experiential and relational realm and very individualist in nature? You know it's meaningless, but just typed it to sound intelligent.

You don't need to do that. It wouldn't help you,but instead prove you lack the capacity to express yourself intelligently.

I have not made any unverified claims, I only made you understand that your heaven is imaginary as there's no evidence for it. That was a rejection of your imaginary destination..


You say you have evidence for it, then provide it so I can start making arrangements to buy a red cap" to prevent my head from being cut off,.

HisSplendor:
Even in many cases, deductions could be wrong.

I said "if in case, there's a God out there..." Now tell me how you deduced an assertion in that 'If'?

Would you now prove your assertion?

Please show my where I contested" if there's a God out there"?

Is heaven the name of your God? I only said heaven is imaginary and I have explained what I meant to prove you're imagining it, the destination.

HisSplendor:
Why don't you take responsibility like I did, and find proofs for yourself?

Proofs for what?
Why don't you answer that first?

HisSplendor:
You see, I never waited for anyone to prove anything to me. My own life is my own responsibility.

I searched for proofs and I found. It's foolish never to search and yet make unverified assertions.

You don't need to expressly state something before people can conclude that you have declared something. That's called deductive reasoning.

You can't hide behind "I didn't assert anything" when you obviously did.

You have made your readers understand that there's a place people go to after death, which in Christianity is heaven, but what you're not sure of, is what they would find there, and so the advice they buy"a red cap" Is that not so?

If there's no such destination, and you didn't assert it, why already celebrating that believers are wiser and others stupid. You composed something you don't even understand.

The men in the story where set for a journey to distant land, and if there is no such destination in the first, is it not madness to buy a cap? Why should they buy a red cap if they are going nowhere?

Please answer me?

I have not rejected any God represented by the king in your story, but the destination, which in Christianity is heaven. Or where else are they expected to meet the king?

You just made a vague statement of having found evidence for something without mentioning what for. Is it for heaven or God?

Don't confuse yourself. I am not in a position to prove anything to you. You declared something to be true ,but now denying it .Maybe you don't even understand your own op

HisSplendor:
You're not asked to prove the word. You made an assertion with all authority. It's the assertion that needs to be proven.

Don't run away from what you started.

If you think something is real or might exist and have not found any single evidence for it, then what you think only exist as a thought in your head and the heads of those who also think like you.

This is what it means for something to be imaginary, and that was why I asserted confidently that your heaven only exist as imagination.

The key thing here is evidence. Don't ever make the mistake of ignoring that, if not you would accept as truth any nonsense anybody tells you and end up confused .

And evidence doesn't always have to be scientific evidence, but at least something that can help others to validate your claim.


You're the one, not me, who has to prove that your claims are true or worth considering by providing any kind of evidence that can help to convince your followers.

Untill you do that, your heaven only exist as a thought in your head.

Dtruthspeaker:
There is nothing to prove. Like you, by their speech (posts) we know them.

Balderdash

Dtruthspeaker:
That is trap which caught you. The story is designed to reveal the perspectives of its readers.

Then prove that you know how the targeted audience think, without projecting because that's what you're known for doing here and it's exactly what you have just done.

Dtruthspeaker:
He did not missaply it, the story is designed to catch people like you.

To catch me and use me for pepper soup?

You didn't bother to read my response ,but just reacted emotionally ,apparently due to cognitive dissonance.

If you want to succeed in convincing other people who don't believe in what you believe, then make sure you understand first, how they think, so that you can easily put yourself in their position and from there judge if what you're going to tell them would be convincing.

I only gave him a feedback to help him rethink what he has concluded using that story


But , unfortunately just like you,he is not willing to see things from the perspective of his audience and just assume that his submission from the story must make sense to everyone who reads it .

There's a local saying that" my Mama soup naim sweet pass" ; My mother's soup is the sweetest

If you refuse to taste the soup of others (see things from the other person's perspective ) , how would you know that your mama soup is the sweetest?

I am not an atheist and not against you practicing your religion. I only highlighted what I find wrong in the op's submission.

HisSplendor:
Thanks for your submission.

Would you orove to me right now that heaven is imaginary as you stated above?

What is the meaning of the word imaginary?

Try to know the meaning first before asking for prove

HisSplendor:
There was an old man in this city. The oldest of them all. After the 100 men had departed, he summoned his numerous children and said, 'Do you see this travelling company? Those who have a red cap are wise because, if in case, this rumour turns out to be true, these wise ones would save their heads a million times. And if it's a false rumor, they actually have nothing to lose. But those who journeyed without a red cap are fools, for if this rumour turns out to be true, they'll certainly lose their heads."

Conclusion
The company of those who wore a red cap are the believers. If there's no God out there in death, they have nothing to lose.

But the Atheists who are taking a godless journey into the unknown eternity are simply being reckless. If in case there's a God out there. They're losers.

Interesting story which anyone can learn from, but unfortunately you have misapplied it .

You have simply ignored the fact that the story is set in a physical location and that the men were journeying to another part of it that's expected to exist even if they have never been there before.

This is unlike your imaginary non physical heaven which even you yourself doubt exist.

Since the 100 men were embarking on a journey to another physical location they expect should exist, the men who bought a cap to save their heads incase the rumor turned out to be true acted wisely.

But in a situation where somebody advise another to buy a life jacket and wear it to bed to save their life incase they have a dream of drowning and the advice is heeded to, then both the person who gave the advice and the person who obeyed it ,have acted unwisely and need their heads examined. This is exactly how you have misapplied the story.

Heaven is imaginary or is created by the imagination of those who believe in it.

It's not a known physical space that exist somewhere. Even if we accept it exist somehow in a non physical location, there's no single verified story of anyone who has gone there and back to convince everyone that such a place exist.

Dtruthspeaker:
You keep saying unmanned, unmanned, unmanned when we are talking about manned landings.

And all I am saying is that their silence has not gone unnoticed exactly like when politicians go in for a meeting and come out silent definitely makes us wonder what is wrong.

It's because you don't know what those unmanned space missions are for. It's almost the same thing.

Why continue to send humans to the moon all the time with all the attendant risks when robots can easily serve the same purpose and get them what they want?

Before humans are sent to the moon there must be a valid reason. They're not sending them there for sightseeing or to live there as it's not inhabitable .

After more than 50 years they're now attempting to send humans there again. Go through the first link I shared to know why.

And they have not been silent. It's because you're insulated in your own little world you can't "hear" what is going on outside.

Since 2013, the Chinese robots, Yutu 1 and Yutu2 have been on the Moon exploring it and sending feedback.

Are you aware of this?

MaxInDHouse:
Old Covenant was between YHWH and Israel so there's no business a none Israelites who lives far away from Canaan (Jerusalem temple) has with YHWH in the Old Covenant. Matthew 15:24

But with the New Covenant {Jeremiah 31:33} people from other nations can become friends of YHWH because geographical location doesn't count in the New Covenant! John 4:22-24

So who connected you with YHWH when you're not an Israelite neither a citizen of Israel living close to the temple in Jerusalem?

Does it mean then that Jesus didn't die for the sins of the Israelites,?

43Ronin:
So China, Russia are also photoshoping. Bros don't be silly in this 21st century..

They're not even aware other countries are involved in the same thing. They think it's only America.

Dtruthspeaker:
You look at it na, this is a very stupid reason. Is 1 or 2 chairs and oxygen tanks so expensive to attach to the space vehicle?

Or are 6 humans heavier than a satellite?

Their conduct is suspicious. It is now 50 years since they said they went to the moon and no man has gone there. Why? What are they not telling us?

You never disappoint. 2 chairs and oxygen tanks to attach to what? What can anyone make of that ?

What do you really know about space missions to land a human being on the Moon. I doubt if you know anything.

I already mentioned that there have been unmanned space missions to the Moon, which can still get them the same results if they were to send humans. There's no much difference. It appears that information is lost on you as you have not made anything of it from you latest reply.

The Japanese, the Chinese, the Russians,the Koreans and some other countries have all sent unmanned space craft that has landed on the Moon to get samples after the Apollo space mission. Google this right now to see the names of all of the countries and the date. You have data.

BTW,what part of the universe are you living in right now not to be aware of all these unmanned space missions? You live in Mars or where.?

My friend, please use your phone and do some research or throw it away and get a phone without internet access. You certainly don't deserve the phone you're holding.



See, if the Americans did not succeed in landing any human being on the Moon for the first time, other countries such as the old Soviet Union who were also in the "competition" to be the first, would have challenged it and helped the world to know the Apollo project failed..

Or do you believe all these other countries I already mentioned are in a conspiracy of silence to deceive the world?
How is that possible?

Dtruthspeaker:
The question was why did they not go since, if they in truth went the first time.

They have not stopped going. They still "go" but only with unmanned space craft which is far less expensive.Unmanned space craft doesn't carry any human being.

The major reason the Apollo space mission was significant and celebrated was because it gave the Americans, the bragging rights of being the first super power in the world to land a man on the surface of the Moon.

The iconic image of Neil Armstrong and Edwin buzz planting the American flag on the Moon was an important milestone for NASA and the Americans as a whole

And what was the cost?, $20 billion dollars ,fifty years ago. What do you think it would cost now to make them want to repeat it again and again to satisfy people like you who doubt the first Moon landing?

The article below, if you go through it ,has provided further reasons why we have not had a similar repeat of what happened the first time.
But don't forget what said at the beginning. They have been going,but with unmanned space craft.
https://www.rmg.co.uk/stories/topics/why-did-we-stop-going-moon



.

HantaVirus:
Of course it never happened..

Only few human beings like us are enlightened enough to know that shit was staged in Area 51.

I have a lot to say but nairalanders will come for me so let's just keep it locked.

NASA have the greatest Photoshop experts on their payroll.

Why haven't anyone gone to the moon since it last happened in the 70's? At least we have better technologies now.

They're almost set to go back again and this time with a woman as a crew member.
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20220927-artemis-i-a-giant-rocket-to-set-new-space-records

Lance008:
Let me tell this to those saying this just stories
Kindly remember am not paid to do this
Only sharing this out of experience for others not to make mistakes because i believe experience is the best teacher

Witches go extra miles to hurt you
Always know this and be safe always
Trust none but your family members I repeat trust none
Witches get some people most commonly in rural areas
Don't take cash gift from people you don't know their source of living it very dangerous
Witches sometimes control someone to steal huge amount of money after stealing the witches control the person to be generous to you and give you some part of the money after been given some part and the witch already aware spiritually then he lay a course on the thief
The main reason for doing that is to get you and not the thief because the thief is already useless

Oh

KnownUnknown:
I didn’t say you were a Buddhist nor do I care if you are. I’m not an atheist but I was addressing Lordreed’s opinions and posted the violence to point out they can be just as violent as the Abrahamic ones..

And I ask, is there anything in that religion that you know of that has caused those monks to behave that way?

If you can find it ,please post it here.


Buddhist as a group have never in their history gone on any "jihad" or Inquisition(mass killings) to forcefully convert anyone into their fold.

If the group as a whole was never guilty of the above in the past and even in the present times, what then is your point of using and isolated incident involving some Monks who were obviously acting on their own to declare that Buddhism encourages its members to be violent or the religion makes one prone to violence.

Buddhist are not covered by special grace or holy spirit that's expected to make them have good behaviour.

You're on your own from what I know of the rellgion.

In Buddhism, even though they have certain moral codes which guides behaviour, there are no strong restrictions of how members are expected to behave at any given time.

You're free to act as you deem fit, but made to understand that the responsibility for anything you do is yours to bear alone: your karma.

Every religion is they same as they are all certain people’s opinions at the end of the day.

Every religion is not the same. You have used what you know about the two Abrahamic religion to generalise.

Yes , both Buddhism and the abrahamic religion have sprung from the opinions of people, but that doesn't make them the same kind of religion.

You're comparing apples with oranges. It doesn't work.

KnownUnknown:
Yeah, no true Scotsman. Same ol’ song.

Lol. I'm not a Buddhist. What you picked out from that article doesn't address the op and I think it was an attempt to look for something anywhere as support for one thing, "every rellgion is the same'.

"The danger of a single story" chimamanda Adichie

KnownUnknown:
Monks incited a deadly four-day rampage against minority Muslims in central Myanmar, Reuters found. The killings come amid the rapid spread of an apartheid-like movement known as 969.


The Buddhist monk grabbed a young Muslim girl and put a knife to her neck.
“If you follow us, I’ll kill her,” the monk taunted police, according to a witness, as a Buddhist mob armed with machetes and swords chased nearly 100 Muslims in this city in central Myanmar.
https://www.pulitzer.org/files/2014/international-reporting/reuters/04reuters2014.pdf

I don't think anything that happened in that story has anything to do with the rellgion.

Buddhism advocates for the sanctity of human and animal life and for this, they are mostly vegetarians.

The monks and the other adherents , in the report, are humans who reacted under immense pressure . The story says a monk was killed first and I think they couldn't control their emotions in such circumstances and went amok.