₦airaland Forum

DeepSight:
I see: clearly, we have been very careless thus far. We are not using the word "thing" in the same way (and we probably are not using the words "material", immaterial" and "mind" in the same way either. If we must proceed, we absolutely must each define each of these words as they apply this conversation.

The word "thing" has very broad applicability but my understanding of the word as it applied to this conversation was in relation to the discussion at hand - matter and mind - and thus I have been using the word as it would apply to either a definite material object or, in reference to the immaterial, it would have to be some identifiable element, force or quantity, however described. For this reason I would not have used the word "thing" to refer to an action, a deed, an event or even an effect - even though of course in the very broad usage of the word "thing" you could find such usages. In summary, for the material, it would have to be a definite object - that it is, have mass and occupy space. And for the immaterial, it would have to be real-in-itself, that is to say, existent, identifiable and capable of existing in a causative chain as a cause of an effect, that is to say it must be capable of exerting force in whatever existent realm or dimension it has its presence in. So in this manner, mind, for example, could be considered an immaterial thing, whereas a shadow would not qualify because it is not real-in-itself in the first place: its is not "existent" - it is only the description of absence of a thing (light) on a surface. At all events for me, no description of a "thing" would admit of an "absence" being a "thing." Because if this were the case, we could well call "emptiness" a "thing" as well, we could be drawn into describing an empty pot as being full of the absence of everything that is not in the pot, and in this way we would lead ourselves surely into a pedantic and foolish mess which will not be worth the time of the cheapest clown in town.

Thus, with the above, I hope I have clarified my stance on what a "thing" is - and no, for the purposes of this discussion I would not have included actions, events or effects. However I grant that you obviously do/ did and thence lies the source of our misunderstanding. With this clarification, hopefully we can move forward.

<sub>Post-Script: I set out below an extract from the dictionary of the many applications of the word "thing" - just to show how misguided we were to to assume what particular application either of us had in mind (and this is not even an exhaustive list).

thing
noun: thing; plural noun: things; noun: the thing; noun: one's thing; plural noun: one's things

1 - an object that one need not, cannot, or does not wish to give a specific name to.
"look at that metal rail thing over there"
2 - an inanimate material object as distinct from a living sentient being.
"I'm not a thing, not a work of art to be cherished"
3 - an action, event, thought, or utterance.
"she said the first thing that came into her head"
4 - informal
what is needed or required.
"you need a tonic—and here's just the thing"
5 - what is socially acceptable or fashionable.
"it wouldn't be quite the thing to go to a royal garden party in wellies"
6 - informal
one's special interest or inclination.
"reading isn't my thing"
7 - informal
used to introduce or emphasize an important point.
"the thing is, I am going to sell this house"</sub>

Good

Certain terms were not properly defined from the beginning and it has resulted in misunderstanding

budaatum:
I was surprised, I confess, but felt I better just accept your accusation since one could say the same about me too.

We are discussing complex words here, and we do not always mean the same things by their use. Please forgive us all. You included.

Yes, me included. Thank you.
I just modified my previous post and ask him to modify his usage of that word

budaatum:
I am deliberately using all the words I write, Triple. That's what philosophy and reasoning is about.

Things, are not effects. That I think is what my Lord is teaching me. Though he seems to muddle some things with effects.

Light, for instance, is an effect. Shadow is an effect, and Myers newly introduced, darkness is an effect too. All are caused by different degrees of illuminations.

I will claim they are 'things' too. My light just went out and I can see the darkness. The Sun, the source of illumination, sets early where I live.

Oh. I mistakenly quoted you instead of Lordreed.

It was meant for him not you..

But then, I know things are not necessary effects but he , Lordreed, seems to use that word to "carry" so many things along to make
it easy to change his position when it doesn't favor him.

Or he should qualify the word, effect, so we know exactly what he is talking about

budaatum:
Love the qualification with "interactions".

Your interaction produced the internal non-material effect that caused me to materially smile.

I think you're deliberately using the word , effect, so you can escape from being pinned down on anything.
effects can range from the intangible to tangible.

I rather you used the word, things, instead of effect.

I want to see how exactly the material can produce the immaterial that would be devoid of material substance

LordReed:
Come now, what you wrote hasn't been erased:



The shadow has nothing to do with the wall since even if the wall wasn't there the shadow will still be cast. Even if the is no surface to intercept the shadow it is still cast, you just can't see it.

LoL where have you seen anything been created that is not a rearrangement of existing things? So how does a fictional character being the rearranging of already existing things mean it is not created? Unless you mean creation can only be done from nothing in which case nothing currently existing was indeed created.

You want to force me to say what you want me to say?

I said what you, I mean , YOU, refer or think is shadow is a phenomenon caused by the absence of light. It is not really a thing on the wall even though it is seen as such. Reread again. The statement is a natural follow up from our previous discussion. It is how you yourself see it I am talking about and not me.



You still don't get .

OK. Let me ask you. Is an echo a real sound?

Yes or no.

Now, look at this. supposing you inadvertently spill bleach on your cloth and images now appear from the bleached parts of the cloth, would you now describe those images as a separate thing and not the cloth that has had some parts of it beached, that is ,would you call the images things and not a part of the cloth that is now bleached?

I think you're stubbornly clinging on to how you have been taught to describe certain things and not willing to see things exactly the way they are.

The true meaning of what it i means to create is to bring into existence something that has never existed before.

I think the conversation should end now. It is your choice and right to view the world from whatever position you want to view it from.

But when one insist on viewing reality from a singular stand point, it may become difficult to understand the certain things.

I am seeing things from your position but you're not willing to see from my side.

LordReed:
How can it be part of the wall of it is not a thing? You are inadvertently saying it is both a thing and nothing at the same time which is obviously impossible.

It seems for you the only acts of creation involves material things so I ask you how do fictional characters come about if they are not created?

I never said it is part of the wall. I only said it is the wall you're seeing devoid of light or reduced light. Please go back and reread what I explained.

I said the phenomenon is what we refer to as shadow.The shadow is not part of the wall ,even if it appears so, but a shape that appears when that part of the wall is blocked from light.


It is all about how you were taught to describe some of these things that might be the problem.

If you doubt this try to convince someone who thinks black is a colour and come back to share your experience. Technically, black is not a colour but most people describe it as colour and you can't convince them otherwise.

Finally, your last statement doesn't apply to me . What comes from the material is still part of the material even though it is described as immaterial.

Fictional characters are created from the already existing if not it won't make any sense to anyone. One is merely rearranging what already exist .using the imagination.

LordReed:
In a manner of speaking yes. Do you agree that immaterial things exist?

The "manner of speaking" is the way you were taught these things.

In reality what you were taught may not be exactly so.

Creating thoughts is not really creating thoughts. The mind actually process thoughts that has entered it but we describe this process as the mind creating thoughts.

So, I still insist that the shape that appeared on the wall just appeared due to the absence of light. This phenomenon of seeing a shape in the absence of light is called shadow. It is not created but scientific jargon tells us so.

What you refer to as shadow is part of the wall devoid of light. It is not actually a thing.

The immaterial as I know it as against what science teaches, means something that is completely devoid of matter and is not, from what I currently know, a product of any material substance

Myer:
It is believed that we are created in the image of God.
That God is a tripartite being popularly called Trinity- the Father, the Son and the Holyspirit. (Though this concept isn't shared by all).
Hence man is also a tripartite being.consisiting of the Body, the Mind and the Spirit.

The Body is responsible for housing the Spirit and Mind. It is the physical part of the human responsible for sustaining our life on earth. It allows us touch, taste, see,, hear, feed etc. It is also referred to as the Flesh responsible for making man commit sin.. Hence the flesh yearnings should be disciplined.lol

The Mind is the seat of intellect responsible for thought. It is the intermediary between the Body and the Spirit. It is where all human experience is stored.
And responsible for what forms our habit.

The Spirit is supposedly the true entity of our being. Since God is Spirit hence when he created man in his image, he actually created a spirit. Hence it is the part of man that God or the devil can commune with.

As I type this, my mind being my seat of intellect and experience is responsible for informing the thought process I'm sharing.
My body is responsible for the physical act of seeing the keypad and typing my though process.
My spirit is meant to communicate something ethereal that my mind has not experienced before depending on how.spiritual I am, either from God or from the devil.

I hope this hasn't further convoluted this discourse though.lol

If man is spirit and God is also spirit as you say, then it means humans are the same with God.

LordReed:
Yes the something is the effect. When we talk about immaterial somethings we know they have no substance but we refer to them as things because they exist. Case in point the shadow. It is a something yet it is not made of substance, it is merely the effect of actual materials interacting.

So something can be made without "something" (non substance)?

Myer:
Hasn't he established this already with the light and shadow illustration?

Light is material, darkness is immaterial.
Darkness is simply the absence of light.
Shadow is created when a substance blocks light. A shadow is not matter.

If light is material and darkness immaterial, then shadows are not created but just appear in the absence of light.
If you insist they are created, then what materials are they created from if darkness is immaterial

LordReed:
Some material interactions give rise to effects that are non-material. Most of these effects are unseen, some like a shadow can be seen.

Most immaterial effects are unseen while some are seen?

What's your definition of immaterial?

However, I thought buda asked you what " thing" , immaterial object, can be produced from the material . He is not asking of the "effects" that arises from the material.

"Effects "can be my reaction to watching a comedy show from a material object ,a tele in this case .Others may not react.

So is "something" which you say can arise from the material, the same as the effects from it?

I have gone through all that has transpired between Lordreed and deepaight before this thread was opened and now know enough to understand why the arguments have continued till this point.

It is the fault of deepsight that the discussion has dragged so far. The onus lies one the person that makes a claim to provide evidence for their claims.

I have scanned over and over again all the post made by deepsight concerning a soul that inhabits a human body and not for once did he provide any evidence to back up his claims.

Even though I share the same position with him, I don't think the explanations he has provided is sufficient enough to convince Lordreed or any else following that something called a soul is in control of the human body.

Explanations can't take the position of evidence if the person you're arguing with is not exposed to what you know.

Lordreed rejections of the arguments provided is in order and he has demonstrated honesty because he has stucked to what he knows and what he has experienced. Material
science which he relies on deals with what can be observed by the human eyes or scientific instruments.. Science is yet to observe any soul.

Well, it appears deepsight knows and have experienced what others have not. Now is the time to spill it out. Explanations are not enough because the opposing party will always come up with a counter argument and the circle continues.

DeepSight:
The way that you have addressed the analogy does not go to the root of the example made and only dwells on superficial comparison. As such I agree with LordReed;s response to you on this. You should address the analogy from the very root of its applicability as an example.

I thought I jumped into this. I think I would have to read from how it all began between you two

LordReed:
It's an analogy not a perfect correlation of function. It's almost as though you'd say it's a bad analogy because cars don't have blood. The purpose of the analogy is not to show that driverless cars are like humans but rather to illustrate the point that humans, like driverless cars, are an integrated whole, there is no "driver" or ghost in the machine instead there are systems working together to produce autonomy.

Then you should have pointed this out. Because you committed a fallacy, when you insisted that your analogy was apt when it was not.

And I never concluded your car analogy was bad because of what powers the car , "blood" but by comparing the functions of what both car models are capable of .That's the difference

I actually did a triple take trying to understand your final summission. If you point is not to show that driverless cars are not like human being why use it in the first place. But you still ended up making the comparison after

A driverless car is not really driverless in the true sense of it. A human programmer who from time to time updates the mapping
software which controls the car is by proxy the one still in control.

Cars cannot drive themselves if they are not made to do so by humans. That is it

LordReed:
Hi DeepSight. So this thread will carry on with our discussions from other threads. I will start with the following reply to your comment. I will also subsequently add replies to your other comments.



Oh the analogy is very apt. A driverless car acts just as directed as though a human being was driving it because all its integrated systems work to provide a safe driving experience with all the same features of a human driven vehicle. The car will brake, turn, slow down, speed up, allow for car spacing from cars in front of it, follow lane markings, etc just as well as a human. It would be futile to now say that because you cannot locate the driver inside therefore it is unable to function without a driver.

Also driverless cars do have seats and steering and all the other accoutrements that a "normal" car has so the question would be how do we distinguish between a driverless car and a human driven one? Which is directly analogous to the question how do we establish that a human being is "a machine suited to house and facilitate the experience and activity of a resident "being."" rather than the machine with all its attendant functions as an integrated whole?

I am afraid your analogy is not apt.

Even though driverless cars can operate as if a human being is driving it, they can't, at this moment, operate exactly as human driven ones.

The reason is due to the attendant problems or limitations which comes with such car models..

For instance, during extreme weather conditions, heavy rain fall, fog, snow etc, when visibility is very low, the cameras fitted into driverless cars to enable it observe road markings as it moves from point A to B becomes virtually useless. During such situations , it takes direct human intervention to be able ro navigate the driverless car to it's destination.


Also,, a driverless car unlike a human driven one, can't decide the correct decision to make between two bad choices.

When a car driven by a human being is suddenly faced with some school kids who have strayed into the road carelessly, the person behind the steering wheel can decide correctly to swerve away from hitting the human obstacle to an electric pole by the road side in order to save lives. The damage to the car can be taken of later.

But a driverless car faced with the same situation would obviously not act the same way as a human driven one. It would not know what to prioritize between the human obstacle and the electric pole. Avoiding the school children would only happen by chance .

There are other limitations too.

But I am sure you can see from what I already explained that there can be know comparison between the two car models and for this I don't think it is necessary any more to answer the question you asked at the end of your post.

Candidlady:
Dad imade it even in your absence


A shade at the dad or what

Don't think it is a shade at the dad.

I believe she is celebrating the fact that she made it through school as a virgin without the monitoring presence of her dad.

Most parents in this part of the world are usually worried when a girl of about 15 is leaving home for university.

And considering the value that is usually placed on virginity by some of those parents, they hope and even admonish their daughters to remain a virgin until after graduation.

I know of a father who promised the daughter a car if she can keep her virginity throughout her university days. She did and the dad kept to his promise.
So I believe for this young lady, her case may not be too different hence the reason for the celebration.

The ref should be withdrawn immediately from AFcon and investigated for this shambolic officiating

Very embarrassing .

Useless coach that made our national team football uninteresting to watch.

Westerhoof had no stars to work with but in the end turned some of our local players into super stars.

hupernikao:
1. Joshua was never wrong with the science and knowledge of their days. Judging a text of 3000 years ago with recent science is like arguing why is Tesla car not mentioned in the Bible. We must stick to the knowledge of their days to judge them..

From the above, what then makes the Bible the word of God if what Joshua knew at that time was common knowledge?

Does it not suggest then, that the Bible was not inspired by God but by ordinary men who during that period had limited knowledge of the world they live in? Besides ,science has not found any evidence that the "sun ever stood still" at any point in time or in any part of the world
.

Even the atheist of their days will say sun moves. The writer used the language and knowledge of their days to explain the events. Knowing years later that it's the earth that moves/stops never make the events untrue. We just read today with better understanding..

If we accept that the event actually happened as narrated, why is the event only recorded in the Bible?
The effect of the "sun standing still" would have been experienced not only by Joshua but also by others very far from his location. Yet we don't have any other sources apart from the Bible or moses referring to this particular incident. Why?

If you have read well the ancient world writings, you will know that a wise writer is the one who uses events, figures, animals etc to unlock hard truth, and express wisdom to his hearer

Moses is not the only one in the ancient times to have used existing stories and legends to communicate truth. In Africa, our ancestors did the same. Do you give equal importance to what our ancestors did to that of moses? Why not if they have done the same thing as moses?

Dtruthspeaker:
The Bible never said that Adam smiled sheepishly and gleefully when he saw woman, yet we know he did.

Same here, Mr. Toyoda need not say that he made the engine first, then the shell, before he put the engine into the shell and thereafter put some fuels and oils before the Camry started working.

Natural living has already shown us that when a person is dying unlike when a car or thing dies, we see him (his soul) "going away", even slowly, hence departing.

We see the body is empty hence we call it remains exactly like the chassis of a car, with no engine.

We see all these things and sound reason and knowledge definitely tells us that everything that lives has a battery when the battery is fully removed from it that thing "dies" but the battery itself still has power within it such that it can still be put in another body as the Owner or Creator may determine.

The soul is merely the living battery which powers the shell called the body or flesh of the man!

Man is a spirit displayed physically because of the use of the flesh/body, unlike like angels and other heavenly beings, man would not be seen as we see him today.

I have not been arguing against the existence of the soul.

If you had read taken the time to read my comments from the very beginning , you would have understood my position better.

I need an explanation of what keeps the soul functioning after the physical body has been discarded at death.

Is the soul self sustaining after death? How ? Explain the processs of what keeps it going.

It would not be enough to respond that the soul does not need the breath of life after death because I would ask you why?

Also, Bible verses would not be accepted except they contain the exact explanation of how the soul functions after death.

If you can't provide the explanation ,then it means you don't know exactly what the soul is. So don't bother because I am not ready to repeat the same conversation

NNTR:
I dont do argues and I never typed that body =soul and soul = body



Pay a circus, to go see a clown You clowning

You for a start, is a soul and vice versa

The enemy is the 'inner me', you, yourself

Matthew 10:28
And do not be afraid of those killing the body, and are not able to kill the soul,
but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in Gehenna.

triplechoice, your blind religious indoctrination prevents you from seeing in Matthew 10:28 above that souls can be destroyed. Smh

It is because it belongs to you. It is because the soul, is the intrinsic part of you formed that came alive and would remain alive and intact after death

The soul is you and vice versa
You are a soul that has a visible part called the body. Your soul vibrates and reverberates to all parts of your body. Check your body for its pulses, loll.

Please dont mention me again because the meaning of NNTR, has come into force and you wouldnt get any response from me

_{Personal text: Jesus is not a theologian. He is God who told stories.}

Anyone who interprets the genesis account as literal and not as an allegory ,will certainly end up creating a mental pit fall for himself because it will become frustrating to explain or understand how after death an aspect of our being called soul continues to live on.


The genesis account, gives a description of how man (Adam) was created from dust.And after the breath of life was introduced into this body of dust , man became a living soul. The Bible never talked of man having a soul before the body was created from dust or before the breath was introduced. So , from a surface explanation, it is the body plus breath that makes up the soul which is the same as the person or vice versa according to NNTR.

Now death, according to the same Bible is when the body returns back to dust while the breath back to God. So, death( of the living soul) is the reversal of the process that made man a living soul in the first place.

The implication from the above,means that death should be the end of it all. Nothing should remain.

So ,the question now is, from where or from what material do we now have a soul which continues to exist after death?

I have never for once, not exaggerating, gotten any reasonable answer from Christians who still believe that the genesis account actually happened as narrated. The only thing they are quick provide as answers are Bible verses from the new testament which describes the soul facing judgement after death. Such verses, we know, are nothing more than theological proclamations that are only meant to achieve religious conversion.

When the average persons is told that an aspect of himself can be sent to hell fire or destroyed for eternity, he is instantly gripped with fear and would do anything he is told to do to avoid this fate.This is the deceptive conversion tactics used by most religious groups, Christianity especially, to recruit new members. Some other groups will threaten pontential recruits to join them or they face the prospect of endless reincarnation.

But anyone who has a proper interpretation of the Genesis story can never be threatened by anything like hell fire or eternal damnation.


The genesis story is an allegory with important symbolic representations that are not understood by Christians or believers who take the accoun as literal . It has nothing whatsoever to do with current Christianity.

There's is no connection between the old testament and the new testament. It is through sheer humbug that Christians have succeeded in connecting the two parts of the Bible. Any Christian who is not afraid to admit it, can sense that the God of the old and new testament are not the same. One is vindictive and blood thirsty while the other is more benign.


So, @ NNTR as long as you continue to take the Genesis account as literal , it will be difficult for you to give any reasonable response or really know what the soul is. So don't brag and please keep your response to your self.It is not deserving of anything.

Keep to your words and don't respond. Thank you.

This person below made a comment concerning the soul.

KNOWMORE56:
When the Bible says man is a living soul... soul is not = flesh...( a lot of explanations but let's go gradually)

Your response to the above was this;

NNTR:
Awesome

The above is evidence of confused thinking. You already argued before now, that the body =soul and soul = body. But suddenly you have changed your position to accept that the body(flesh) is not the soul. It is obvious that your religious indoctrination is a huge barrier preventing you from understanding what the soul is.

NNTR:
Life is a circle. It goes round and round
Mine's not a circus and I am not your clown
Some people with us Some wear their frown
Still I know my purpose. Is to share what we've found
Some people insist. To wear others down
But all will bare witness. Unto who wears the crown. Jr. Gong. loll.

Still clowning.

Your greatest enemy is you, your soul, inside your own bosom. You're doing yourself and not me, inflicting wounds on the soul.

You don't know what the soul is. Soul has no enemy. You religious indoctrination makes you think so.And soul cannot be inflicted with wounds neither can it be destroyed because it is part of the divine. If I am soul, why do you still attach the possessive pronoun, "your" to the word, soul. ? How can I still possess a soul if I am soul.

You don't know what the soul is.That is it.

NNTR:

---

---

---

You might have responded to that initially, but you equally, missed all what I had earlier typed since the incept of the thread, as you only jumped at page 4

loll. The Bible says, Adam became a living soul, after God breathed into the nose of Adam, implying that without the breath, Adam already was a soul albeit was a non living soul. Smh.

No what you typed is incorrect because what it means is that the soul already existed here on earth when God fashioned Adam, be that as it may, the soul became alive after it received the breath of life.

That was your problem. It was you, who said, you didnt understand now, loll, so I tried to calm you down with those soothing and encouraging words

E choke you, loll

This is too much for you to grasp.

Review what I typed and try hard to see how you keep overlooking the comic book character used to illustrate Adam before he became a cartoon reel character

Go back to re-read my contribution, where I already forwarded that, you continue to exist in order to appear before God, to explain your sojourn on earth, for Him to weigh everything you've said, thought and done, to then after, judge you and pass sentence that will say where you finally will end up at

In your rashness to dismiss, you foolishly ignore that I illustrated with two characters, namely one on a comic book and the other in a cartoon reel. Comic book characters dont move, as meaning, are not in motion, as cartoon reel characters move.

Thank you for vote of confidence

I guess you'll just have to wallow in ignorance, as I am not going to rise and bite at your bait

Are you deliberately being obtuse here. Hmm?

Souls exists in the land of the living and in realm of the dead. The consciousness of the soul are not transferable in the two realms, meaning, once the soul crosses over from the land of the living into the realm of the dead, it is only conscious of where it presently or currently is

The breath of life, aka ruach is what made the soul to exist in the first place on earth or the land of the living, but at the end of life, the breath of life, aka ruach is not required for the soul to exist in its next temporary abode in the realm of the dead

Aside your selective reading and weak assimilation, its because all you've been doing is pandering to your ego is reason behind why you have not noticed me harping that Adam is a soul and vice versa, housed in a human being tabernacle aka body.

Matthew 7:6
Don’t waste what is holy on people who are unholy.
Don’t throw your pearls to pigs!
They will trample the pearls, then turn and attack you.

It really is so true the instructive in Matthew 7:6 above, loll. I can only tell you the truth. I cant make you believe it.


_{Personal text: Jesus is not a theologian. He is God who told stories.}

You're just clowning.
Good for you if you think you have made sense.

Soul ,according to you is the body and not the body at the same time.

Complete nonsense

NNTR:
Man after creation was unanimated but the moment God breathed into his nostrils, he jumped into life (i.e. became a living soul)

Remember I earlier shared that human beings are trichotomous, meaning they have body, spirit and soul. Well, the life of the flesh aka body is in the blood, while the life of the soul is in the spirit aka ruach aka breath of God.

When some is clinically dead, as a result of brain death, the spirit aka ruach aka breath of God, leaves the body, as it returns back, to its Owner, God, the Creator. The body returns back to being dust, while the soul leaves the body enroute to a departure lounge area, to wait for Judgment Day date and the soul's departure destination

The above was what I responded to initially.

No where did you mention that the soul was existing some where else before it was enlivened by the breath of live.

Which means that the soul only started to exist here on earth after it received the breath of live.

NNTR:
Sorry if it isnt clear in your mind, after today, then one day, everything will make perfect sense to you because life's a circle, it goes round and round and things goes round with it.

Now what is it that is not clear?

Genesis 2:7
'And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground,
and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life;
and man became a living soul.'

Again

Genesis 2:7
then the Lord God formed [that is, created the body of] man from the dust of the ground,
and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life;
and the man became a living being [an individual complete in body and spirit].

Do you think you understand what you typed in the above?

When growing up, who was your favourite comic book character?
When growing up, who was your favourite cartoon character?

When Adam was fashioned by God, he was just like a comic book character (i.e. inanimate) meaning, he had no sign of life and so, not moving, but the moment God breathed into his nose, he became a cartoon character (i.e. animated) meaning, he got infused with life force, that made come alive and so able to move.

If the cartoon character (Adam) became (a living soul) animated after it received the breath of live, what then kept him animated after the breath was withdrawn?

You see, triplechoice, what you really are is, you are a soul. You dont have a soul, but you are a soul and vice versa.

Ok.I am soul and exist because I am animated by the spirit of God. So why should I continue to exist or function in any way after the breath has been withdrawn?

You're called a spirit being housed in a human being body because technically speaking you're incorporeal. Remember corporeal there, is speaking in terms of, you're a soul.

How does the above relates with your cartoon analogy.So cartoon characters have spirits or soul that is housed inside them. I think one thing is clear. You don't understand what you're talking about. You are engaged in double speak. One minute, the body is soul another minute, the body housed the soul that can leave it after death. Do cartoon characters function that way?

The moment the breath of life aka ruach that God infused into Adam hit his heart, it jumped started him (i.e. the soul) to start a heartbeat, which essentially is how Adam, synonymous with soul in this context turned or became a living soul.

If the above was what happened at the beginning, then it is nonsense to still talk of a soul existing( animated) after the breath has been withdrawn.

There isnt anything like a 'magician performing a magic trick, who surprisingly brougt out of the thin air a soul' because Adam is soul and soul is Adam

The magic is you making Adam (men) to still exist after the essential thing which made him soul had been withdrawn.

Hebrews 9:27
And just as it is appointed and destined for all men to die once
and after this [comes certain] judgment,

How can men receive judgment after death if they can no longer function after the breath has been taking away? Either your Bible is not correct or you don't understand it.

There's no two ways about it. Dying, at least once, is unavoidable, then at the appointed time, we each will stand to give account of all our thoughts, deeds, actions and words

. Death from your explanation means the absence of the breath of live. So what would now make it possible to still be alive to stand judgement? The Bible never said man can continue to exist in another realm without the breath of live. If there's any such passage where it is stated that man can survive without the breath of live, quote it .

I've explained immediately above where the soul came from

No you didn't. The soul according to you didn't come from anywhere but started to exist when the breath of live entered the body created from dust.

2 Corinthians 5:10
For we [believers will be called to account and] must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ,
so that each one may be repaid for what has been done in the body, whether good or bad
[that is, each will be held responsible for his actions, purposes, goals, motives
the use or misuse of his time, opportunities and abilities].

Considering all the explanations you have given before now about the soul, you should be concern with this obvious contradiction in your Bible. What is contained in the above cannot happen if what you have said about the soul is true.

It is the soul, who and which is, what you are, that is expected to see stand to face judgment

How can the soul face judgement when there's nothing to keep it alive. The breath of live is what made the soul to exist in the first place.

Souls, housed in a human body, need the breath God in order to exist in this physical realm and live in the land of living short part other side of eternity, but as for the land of dead, souls in there, do not require the breath of God for existence and implies that the soul in this setting, is able to continue to exist after the breath of life, has expired and returned back to God and the body back to dust

The above is your own imagination. The Bible never gave any such explanation. And it is another evidence of your double speak. Here , you are now saying that soul is housed in a human body whereas at the beginning you never made such distinction. Adam was a living soul when it had the breath of live. You never said that Adam (soul) was housed in a body. Or you don't know what it means to be housed?

What you know about the soul is founded on the theology of your religion. It is the reason you struggle to explain it for anyone else to understand. If you want to know what the soul is ,you need to look outside your religious text.

LordReed:
Dem never talk true for this matter. 59year old slumping and dying is not normal.

No medical report to let us know cause of death and yet some persons want the public to accept he died of natural causes.

Well ,I heard through the grapevine that he died of sudden heart attack.

NNTR:
The soul comes from being created by the Creator

You read correctly. Perhaps you dont understand the implication. Never mind, I'll clear you up

Man after creation was unanimated but the moment God breathed into his nostrils, he jumped into life (i.e. became a living soul)

RememberI earlier shared that human beings are trichotomous, meaning they have body, spirit and soul. Well, the life of the flesh aka body is in the blood, while the life of the soul is in the spirit aka ruach aka breath of God.

When some is clinically dead, as a result of brain death, the spirit aka ruach aka breath of God, leaves the body, as it returns back, to its Owner, God, the Creator. The body returns back to being dust, while the soul leaves the body enroute to a departure lounge area, to wait for Judgment Day date and the soul's departure destination

The above is confusion

Man, according to you, became a living soul after the breath of life entered the body at the beginning.

So , from your explanation what we get is that it is the combination of the breath of life and the body made from dust which resulted in the soul.

Then, you further explained that at death , the breath of life returns back to God while the body to dust where it came from.

But like a magician performing a magic trick , you surprisingly brougt out of the thin air a soul ,which should no longer exist at this point,( at death) now leaving the body to exist somewhere until judgment. Where did that came from?

How can it be possible for the soul to continue to exist if the two components which makes it up at the begining have been removed or dissolved after death?

Remember you said the blood is what keeps the body alive while the spirit is what sustains the soul.

So how can the soul continue to exist after the breath has been taken away by God and the body back to dust?

Difficult to believe those stories.

If they actually happened, the news would have been everywhere before now.

Crystyano:
Who are you to state the intention of people


How did you know that bastard that asked for my exact address which doesn't really exist since I sleep anywhere possible in the place I have mentioned before wanted to help after saying WE WILL GET YOU?

He called me a scammer without asking the right questions.....but what's the use..... You said I didn't make it possible for anyone to know more about me....... another useless allegation......all you've said including the one that has to do with our WhatsApp and phone conversations are useless allegations.....


The truth is the only thing you have in your head are useless accusations!!!!!


I think you have to stop repeating the same thing except you're less intelligent than a confused baboon!!!!!


Life doesn't make sense and your sewage can't change that!!!!


Damn!!!!!!!!!!!!



Go on with your sewage!!!!!




Damn!!!!





Furrrk the universe!!!!!!!!




Damn it!!!!

Nobody owe your lazy ass anything.

Go and work and feed yourself. You're not disabled.

Crystyano:
I never threatened to commit suicide


I said I might die but you never asked why...


Those guys accused me for no reason but if you want to use that as an evidence,I will not be surprised.



Why won't I deactivate it?


It's because you don't know how terrible it is to be accused and be struggling with family issues at the same time

It is your fault that you're being accused.

You have not made it possible for anybody to verify your stories.

Someone who wanted to help you, demanded for your exact location so he can come to verify before giving you money. You didn't take the opportunity.

Aoart from the things you say here and elsewhere, you're not willing to reveal much about yourself even to those who have contacted you privately. So what do you expect them to think especially when most people know that this forum is crawling with a lot of fraudsters.

I have contacted you privately( through phone calls , on WhatsApp and emails) and not for once did you make any attempt to let me know much about you. Of course I should have asked but I wanted to respect your privacy.

Now the little information I gave you about myself, you're now creating threads to broadcast it to the world and you think it would not work against you ? People have with that judge the kind of person you're


Nobody likes to be deceived. Tell the truth and don't hide yourself

.

If you want people to trust you and not call you a scammer, don't hide.

Nothing will change except you change it. Don't blame me for what I think about you. You caused it

Crystyano:
Trying to help by calling me a scammer



Alright,

The scammer is telling triplechoice that he will still understand.

I already helped when you threatened to commit suicide. You forgotten? So it is not only trying to help


What did you do to this person who accused you since last year?

2cribz:
Ive been in this game since 2010. In fact i started street wen i dey 300 level and na badoo i be dey do den,i chop naija men tire both in card and transfer. I never did this scam story shiit bro. U are a bastard scammer and no one will give u 1 naira. Bastard thief.
Hahahahahahahahaha.
Hahahahahahaha.
U dying to live and live to die. Hahahahahahahaha.
Bich ass niggi.


Am dat niggi am dat niggi.

BTW why have you deactivated that account?


And this one too

Uyi168:
.

I know this FMT..
Nobody will fall for it..

Ask your fellow yahoo Boys for more recent updates.

Crystyano:
You will still understand


I am not done with you

Be done with your own life first.

You want to bite more than what you can chew?

Crystyano:
triplechoice!!!!!!



This won't end here!!!!



You will still understand!!!!



Keep mocking me!!!!!!

Where did I mock you?

If I wanted to mock you, I wouldn't have provided any assistance to you in the first place.
You're the one who has been dragging me all over the place for trying to be of help.

Do I know you before?

Even the person you where asked to call to get employed has blocked you because you have been calling her to complain and ask for help for your brother.

What connects you with her? You think you can play your games with her.