₦airaland Forum

DeepSight:
TcTrills, TV01, a delicious snack from the inimitable Christopher Hitchens -

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/irUsUiVDbY4

cc LordRreed

I have seen this before - watched it again
Hitch starts wrong by the number of years 1/4 million to 100,000.
He then proceeds to ramble, mostly spewing his hate for Christianity and God.
Christianity is evidenced. And testified of, even by his own brother .


TV

DeepSight:
Oh like it was eventually set right for Job by ensuring that he had fresh children as though that would wipe away the grief over those who were lost in what was a mischievous and sadistic gambling game between Yahweh and the Devil?

Again, your limited take and desire to cast God of evil. In what sense where they lost. As far as you can tell, only in a temporal sense. Omnipotence doesn't gamble .


TV

NerdCat:
I don't need omnipotence to identify a logical contradiction. Beyond your suspiciously breezy "nope," you've essentially agreed that suffering exists and mercy doesn't explain it. It is what it is.

Why would I deny suffering exists? Your understanding and expectations are yours. I dont see mercy as having to explain in the way you do, or suppoe that any suffering means an absenc eor failing of mercy.

NerdCat:
Allow me to stress-test that thesis with a child's brain tumor, thank you very much. Now, you tell me, whose actions specifically caused that one? Harm and suffering from purely human conduct is one conversation, but metastatic cancer in a seven-year-old is structurally another one entirely. Keep in mind - an omnipotent deity who permits the latter while possessing the power to prevent it is morally indistinguishable from its architect.

Sin and corruption are with us. Literally our inheritance through our first father Adam. That God does not del with things in a manner not to your liking or understanding means nothing. You are literally setting your expectations (based on literally nothing) for Omnipotence that you have no regard for and at once shaking your fist when they are not met.

Why in your worldview is is suffering bad - how do your quantify it?


TV

DeepSight:
Let me confess something. There was a post which TV01 made on a thread long ago that I read, which was so balanced and sensible that i really thought here was a sound mind.

This your unrequited love for me is becoming uncomfortable . Not helped by your positioning and love of canned ideology. Join the queue of my simps and stans - right behind Lord Reed .

DeepSight:
I have since been relieved of that delusion. It reaffirmed my longstanding thought that one should not hastily conclude on anyone no matter how much one may agree or disagree with them in the early stages of an interaction. The seeming devil could be an angel and vice versa.

At all, your broader delusion is still objectly manifest. I have the remedy .

DeepSight:
I thought TV01 would be a knowledgeable chap but it turns out he isnt and makes the most elementary gaffes which tell one he knows very little to start with.

Ey yah, not rcovered from my debunking all your anti-semitic slurs.

DeepSight:
But you see, no one knows it all and we learn everyday so I have no issues with that. What I have issues with is stark irrationality.

Kpele!


TV

^{ps - balanced and sensible is the hallmark of all my posts. Unlike some, if I don't know I listen and learn or go and read. You should try it. You too can be like me when you grow up .}

NerdCat:
...therefore your God is essentially an omnipotent showman who engineered the entire catastrophe of human suffering as an exhibition piece for the heavenly cheap seats, which proves that he is NOT merciful in any definition that humans actually recognise.

Nope. But I don't gainsay your right to position it as you see fit. I'm happy to see you ascribe omnipotence to God. Unless you possess that attribute yourself, you can prove nothing.

NerdCat:
And I don't suppose Ephesians 3:10 lands quite as reassuringly in a hospice ward, or at a child's funeral, or in the mind of someone whose dementia has stolen every dignified thing they ever were - quite the puzzler, isn't it?

Harm and suffering are not from God. They are as a result of the actions of others. Ultimately, everything will be set right for those that put their trust in Him and His salvational work - even if temporal suffering persists for a time.


TV

DeepSight:
This is laughably escapist. The same God that blocked access to the Tree of Life from fear that man would eat of it and become "as one of us?"

The same God that expressed regret and repentance over his decisions several times? An omniscient God cannot do that. That is logically impossible.

Like those He created in His image, God has feelings. Otherwise how would He be capable of Love? If He regreetted\repented as you read, He could have simply uncreated and recreated. Love reigned. . DeepSight, lose your pretensions and vain babbling. Come to Christ. I can't have too many brothers - even spiritually challenged ones .


TV

DeepSight:
I knew it will end with so called free will. But let us examine this.

Ok den

DeepSight:
1. Your God is said to be all powerful.

Yah !

DeepSight:
2. Your God, being an all powerful creator has created a world and life with set choices. In other words, the spectrum of possible choices is determined by your God. To break that down for you, you cannot, for example, choose to be a rabbit today, or choose to stop breathing and still live. The choices you have are limited to a framework and a world- scenario determined by your God.

Yes there are limits for created beings.

DeepSight:
3. Given (2) above your God could always have created a world scenario with a framework and set choices which preclude the death, disease, natural disasters and evil inherent in his creation.

He could have - if He had taken counsel from god DeepSight - but for some reason He chose not too

DeepSight:
4. But going even beyond all this, your God preaches predestination and says that he in fact determines everything that happens. Do you need me to produce the verses?

Predestination for those who choose Him. Try reading from v28 in Romans 8 for example. 28 And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose.

DeepSight:
​Ephesians 1:11: "In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will."

​Romans 8:29-30: "For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son... And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified."

​Isaiah 46:10: "I make known the end from the beginning, from ancient times, what is still to come. I say, 'My purpose will stand, and I will do all that I please.'"

Proverbs 16:9: "In their hearts humans plan their course, but the Lord establishes their steps."

​Proverbs 20:24: "A person’s steps are directed by the Lord. How then can anyone understand their own way?"

​Psalm 37:23: "The Lord makes firm the steps of the one who delights in him."

​Proverbs 19:21: "Many are the plans in a person’s heart, but it is the Lord’s purpose that prevails."

There you go. Predestination is clear.
So your argument is thoroughly defeated.

But knowing you, you will pretend not to see these crystal clear verses just as you pretend not to see those on slavery and witches.

DeepSight the blowhard .

I have schooled you tire on slavery - will continue tirelessly .

In a closed theocracy with God as ruler, rebellion by consulting fallen spirits, demons or the devil will be rightfully punished by death. As the Israelites agreed too.

Ultimately all unrepented\uncovered sin will bring a punishment of eternal death - the wages of sin is death. There is still time. Join us. Will continue our discussion in the hereafter. I will smash you there too . All welcome.


TV

NerdCat:
Was this corruption foreseeable to an omniscient God? If yes, then why was the door left open?

Foreseeable and foreseen. Planned for and ultimately dealt with.


TV

LordReed:
LoLz! Secularist thinking had no hand in the formation of ToE. Darwin was a Christian when he put ToE together.

Tell us when secular thinking led to slavery.

Keep up - read and reread if you have too.


TV

NerdCat:
The interesting thing about claiming no errors is that it actually makes God even more responsible for the existence of sin and the fall of man. If there were no errors in the creation of mankind, then the fall of man wasn't just a slip-up, but the intended design all along.
...which, you have to admit, raises considerably darker questions than mere human imperfection would.

Nice line of thinking...although ultimately incorrect.
The fall of man wasn't a slip-up by God, neither was it by His design. But, He knew it would happen, and it is dealt with as part of His unfolding plan
Ephesians 3:10
to the intent that now the manifold wisdom of God might be made known by the church to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places,


TV

NerdCat:
Was this corruption foreseeable to an omniscient God? If yes, then why was the door left open?

Yes.

To ultimately demonstrate His power and wisdom. To show forth His glory. It's not just about mankind.

Ephesians 3:10 - to the intent that now the manifold wisdom of God might be made known by the church to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places,


TV

LordReed:
LoLz! Secularist thinking had no hand in the formation of ToE. Darwin was a Christian when he put ToE together.

Tell us when secular thinking led to slavery.

Oga make sense. Darwin was not a Christian. Which is besides the point anyway, as calling oneself Christian does not mean you cannot have thoughts or positions that are unChristian.


TV

LordReed:
If train makers could stop people from being hurt by trains and did nothing then yeah train makers would be bad. Is your god a frail human or the all powerful? Why are you using human frailties to excuse your god? It's because your god is a human invention and cannot but have those limitations as well. LoLz.

Are train makers responsible for the free will decisions of people who throw themselves under trains?


TV

DeepSight:
Are you saying that Darwin came up with the ToE because he was an atheist or humanist?

I hope you know of Alfred Russel Wallace who simultaneously came up with the same theory.

He was a spiritualist and argued that natural selection alone could not account for higher human faculties like artistic talent, mathematical ability, or moral sense. He believed a "Higher Intelligence" must have guided the evolution of the human spirit

I am not saying anything about Darwin. About the historical thinking and notions that informed his position.
Are you trying to make a point about ARW? 'Cos I don't get it Probably me - I am not evolved enough


TV

DeepSight:
Animals are not robots that have no sense of pain. It is wrong to make them suffer for what they have no part in.

Are you a veggie . If so know that plants also feel pain.

DeepSight:
1. Are you sure you can sustain the idea that death was only the consequence of sin? Because to do so, remember you will have to say that man was intended to live in the physical world forever. Do you wish to say that?

Death and corruption. Corruption leading to death for living things.

DeepSight:
2. The spectrum of diseases in the world is such that no one can attribute to sin. Did mosquitoes for example only begin to exist because of sin? Add to them the entire line of viruses, bacteria etc which are themselves also critical and cardinal to the existence of life!

Think more broadly mister. Not begin to exist, but begin to be harmful - corruption! Naija boy you should be fully ware of the effects of corruption .

Keep on making stuff up in your head!


TV

DeepSight:
SHATTTAP!

Atheism / humanism are NOT the wellspring of the ToE.

You are pained abi .
Atheism\Humanism\Materialism, all join. Whatever shakes the fist at God.


TV

DeepSight:
How come animals are affected by death, disease, old age, etc if they didnt participate in sin, or is that just your Yahweh's usual habit of punishing the innocent for the sins of the guilty.

The entry of sin corrupted the creation - specifically the domain of man.


TV

NerdCat:
We will, after you explain how a perfect being can produce such flawed products, and then blame said products for their own malfunction rather than checking the original blueprints for glaring errors.

What was flawed about the creation or mankind in particular? A malfunction? Like in machinery . God is perfect in all His ways - no errors!


TV

LordReed:
Eh no thanks.

Who made it possible for senescence to occur if not the god according to your tales?

Yes now, and trains are bad because some people unfortunately throw themselves under them?


TV

LordReed:
LoLz. BRO! When did Darwin propose ToE?

Oga, learn to read and understand.

I said the wellspring - those same notions also helped form Darwinian thinking. Was also the fount of Nazi thinking. Not even sure why you have a problem with slavery as that is a logical inference if one subscribes to such ideas.


TV

LordReed:
Bro how did secular humanist morality give us slave trade when your Bible tells you to buy slaves? Is the Bible secularist morality?

Atheistic\humanist\materialist thinking reintroduced old notions of natural hierarchy (read racial categorisation), which drove the thinking and justification for the slave trade. The wellspring of Darwinism and the whole TOE nonsense.

This happened as Christian principles of universal human dignity were weakened. This helped drive the re-introduction of slavery, particularly the TAST between the 15th\19th centuries. Christianity had repeatedly made inroads into abolishing slavery from the 11th century, until it finally succeeded.


TV

LordReed:
Ahhh the absolutely marvellous Fry. I wish I could meet some of these people. On the subject though senescence is another baffling aspect of this whole god business.

No it isn't.
Death (and all that is wrong with the world) entered through sin. God's creation was perfect. And it will be restored. Join us .


TV

DeepSight:
I mentioned you because of your claim that there is no such thing as the evolution of morality (as per Christian morality at least).

I maintain my position. It is not a claim I make, it is clearly shown from the pages of the biblical text.

God made man in His image
God made man to commune with Him
The basis for all relationships between God and man and between men is to be love
Love does no harm to another. Rather it seeks their best interest - sacrificially if need be!
God Himself demonstrated that sacrificial love to us and for us.
That's good enough for simple me.

All other religions worldviews or philosophies allow harm. Including atheistic, humanistic and materialist ones. Nothing matches the Christian basis as simply stated above.


TV

jedisco:
You're asking me to guesstimate the future which no one can. I haven't watched Nigeria from afar - it's been my lived experience.

It must be hard. Living in what is a spiralling situation . Knowing what average, good or even great would look like. Knowing that it isn't even new and can't be that hard. But everyday you seem to be moving further away from what shouldn't be too difficult or take too long to achieve.

Nigeria has been your lived experience and yet you have no idea when it will get better, let alone good. You can't say with any confidence when and how it will get better or admit that it is fast deteriorating?

The cope must be painful. The strawman of "white-skin good, black skin bad" gives one a nice out and even the smugness of sounding virtuous, but it doesn't answer any questions.

No one is making the race argument, but the fact remains that societies arising out of the western cultural milieu are altogether better, generally more ordered, better administered and more advanced. The question of why that is and, how and when Nigeria will level up still remains.

If it helps, move away from Nigeria, Africa even. Indian nationals run Mag7 companies. Have high ranking operators in all the western nations where they have a significant presence. So it's clear it's nothing about them as humans beings, or their skin tone. But their home nation is still relatively backward.

"Why" is not an unreasonable question to ask? How India will level up should be in view. Especially when Indian nationals are flocking to the West. Because if those questions are not asked and Indians continue to migrate, what is that saying exactly?

jedisco:
To insinuate that we had no history or would have amounted to nothing without colonialism is frankly absurd and belittling.

On the contrary, no one said you had no history , culture or traditions. The question is "what in that culture, those traditions or the history suggest what Nigeria may have developed into in lieu of slavery, or absent colonialism.

I have heard all sorts. That left alone, Africans would have been launching satellites. The science "white" people used to advance, was stolen from "black" people. I hear it casually mentioned in black settings that black people have "better genes" or superior intellects - to nods of agreement.

Listen carefully. At the time of slavery, Africans were trading people for beads, mirrors and umbrellas. Nothing near the apex technologies or innovations the west had even then. Does that suggest an advanced technological society? Or one that would have produced automobiles before the west - if at all?

jedisco:
If you're asking for a when i.e guesstimating the future, you'd get better luck gazing at glass crystals. Just like lots of societies had peaks in the past, Nigeria would have hers and recent history has shown tremendous development can be achieved quickly- even in a single generation.

That's not true though is it? "Guesstimating" is not required. Modern developing economies can project, model, track indices, map strategies, set goals and objectives, review metrics. No guessing required sir.

"Nigeria would have hers" - when, how on what basis. Your whole spiel is assertion. Mere hope as best. Like I noted in my earlier response, you say a lot but make no cogent points. Nothing that is actionable or can be pinned down, tracked or reviewed.

Your point about "tremendous development being achieved in a single generation" makes the case against Nigeria, not for. The nations that "achieved" development of this nature, did it simply happen for them spontaneously, or out of nowhere? No roadmap, no vision, no blueprints?

All the developed nations had an upward trajectory. SA reverted to black-majority rule barely a generation ago. Is it as good today? Is it better? What is its trajectory?

jedisco:
It's quite telling that you belive a group of people lack the inate ability to build a functional society.

I'll give you double for your money. If you admit people from less-developed nations into a functional society at scale, it will experience
rapid deterioration - whatever their colour.

jedisco:
I'd end by saying one great impediment to our progress is sadly a group of people who think like you- folks who think others are inately better than them.

Yep, if TV01 says Jedisco can't progress, and Jedisco doesn't progress, it's TV01's fault for being a naysayer. Listen to yourself.


TV

DeepSight:
TV01, basilico, ono a very short clip

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/MYoqBRdH0S0

cc: LordReed

You caught me at a good time - I simply cannot keep up with the pace here. Watched the clip 2ce.

Qureshi' argument was not actually responded too. He is correct in stating that atheistic morality cannot be absolute.
Dawkins proceeded to create a few strawmen, conflate religions and then assert secular thinking is what drives current day morality.

I have repeatedly stated the biblical writ giving love as the basis for all human interactions. Secular humanist morality gave us the slave trade and a brethren evil - abortion (amongst others). And humanist\secular\material morality will always prove inferior to the biblical basis of love for your fellow man as created in the image of God.

Most of what is claimed to be secular morality (Western style, as it is not universally accepted) has its basis in the bible.

And he couldn't help but liken it to "Intelligent Design" - God that is !

Any more for any more?


TV

jedisco:
By 'we' and 'our' you mean?

I mean
those who live here ancestrally, by birth-right or a regulated migration pathway, who love this nation and appreciate its history and traditions. Who strive for the nations good, and contribute at a minimum by being law-abiding and being or adopting the courteous, polite, warm and welcoming nature that is the hallmark of everyday British life. We are British and Britain is ours .

I do not mean
I don't mean the passport ho's or the papers tarts, or the grifters, the mercenaries, who are only here for what they can gain. Who care not for the traditions, the history or the sacrifices that built this nation. Who don't really give a toss about continuing or building on that legacy, and the ongoing flourishing of this country. Those who could not care less what direction the nation goes as long as they prosper personally.

Not those who seek to introduce or impose inimical practices from alien lands, or insist that regressive foreign behaviour can be normalised, or that backward religious legal codes can or should be enforced over our native jurisprudence.

Nor those who hail from backward countries, but are ungrateful, entitled and demanding. Those who expect everything to bend to suit them. I don't mean those who arrive here from places were lawlessness is widely accepted and cry foul and play the victim when there is pushback, who can't accept that their lawlessness in not at least winked at, if not outright celebrated.

Neither those deluded, who keep telling us there is nothing here, but won't return to the utopias they fled from . Who deride what they find, but can't point to anything worth mimicking back home.

Hope that's clear. I'll be back to respond to your earlier mewling cum tap-out later.

Toodles.

TV

Zahra29:
As expected, but good to hear nonetheless.

Please explain the bolded...curious why the rampaging yobs wouldn't be motivated to attack you, but would attack the mixed heritage Kenyans?

The 2024 riots were ignited in Stockport after 3 young girls were slaughtered and a number of others brutally attacked and injured. People on here claim the riots were motivated by racism. Please ask them how many ethnic or religious minorities were harmed during the riots. What were the casualties. Ask them what the response would be if that happened back in their homelands

"Inherency" - you can't escape it.


TV

Zahra29:
I understand the thrust of your argument, however it's a tricky one as there are some who will never assimilate or see Britain as their home, even though they are an nth generation immigrant,

Ultimately the question is do we want this country to retain and advance on it's received traditions? The morés that engendered the liberties, freedoms and prosperity we enjoy today. Behaviours and practices from many of the incoming cultures are alien and regressive and will change what we have for the worse - given the large numbers being allowed in.

And please, don't get me wrong, I believe a deleterious unmooring from these historical roots and the subsequent malaise had already begun. Mass untrammelled immigration and the attendant issues are just symptoms, accelerants, not the root cause.

Unassimilable migrants should never have been allowed in. More broadly compatibility, loyalty and patriotism is a rightful expectation of anyone who moves here. My positions are all in the best interest of the country. And in that regard, everything should be on the table.

Zahra29:
while others will be a 2nd, and perhaps even 1st gen immigrant but will be fully integrated, contributing and loyal.

I did acknowledge that, but needs must. Sorry, not sorry. Because if not, we will be. Why on earth do we have sitting MPs who are running on foreign issues, councillors who are dual hatting in foreign countries.


TV

Zahra29:
Even after becoming a British citizen?

Yes.

We permit entry to people from diverse backgrounds and with dffering beliefs - in large numbers. It's quite clear, that for many of those, politically at least, conduct and participation vary in ways that are inimical to our long-held tradition and practices. Even if that wasn't clear previously, it is now.

And, I accept, there are some that would fit right in. But the protection of our institutions and systems is paramount. A few generations to settle in and understand won't hurt .


TV

Lexusgs430:
And where did I say this........ 🤔

Apologies if I mis-ascribed a position to you.

Where this started, was a Nigerian national who committed large-scale fraud in the UK possibly being deported. No?
There was a question about that possibly happening even if he had dual - British - nationality.

My entry point was "not possible" - unless in cases of treason or terrorism and statelessness couldn't be in view.
You raised cases that are outliers and involve treason and\or terrorism. The case in question was debateable, which I agreed.

I am actually happy that the default position for serious crime by immigrants should be deportation - not just terrorism or treason.

Lest I make the same mistake, what exactly was your point by introducing those outliers? What is your position on the whole? At the verry least it seems to suggest, that "certain" UK Govts could proceed to do something illegal\questionable against minority immigrants if they could get away with it.


TV

Lexusgs430:
But according to you, the UK government CANNOT render someone STATELESS...... 🇬🇧😂😊

The UK Govt made the case that she had not been made stateless by them - she had been made stateless by her refusal to take up the Bangladeshi citizenship which was her birthright.

Arguable I agree. Debateable, certainly. But I am happy that the greater interest of this nation and its citizens was served by the decision. I would also argue she had pledged allegiance to the terrorist state of ISIS, they can have her.

I actually think the law should be varied to strip her of her citizenship rights even if it would render her stateless. To me that sounds perfectly apt for offences of terrorism or treason - as would the death sentence. Add to that the right to strip her immigrant parents of their citizenship rights as well. Also stripped, should be any immigrant that commits a serious criminal offence.

Funny how you are agueing against revoking citizenship for terrorists. A true patriot huh? Further, I don't think 1st generation immigrants should be able to vote or hold political office. Second generation the vote only.



TV

Lexusgs430:
If you are aware of her case, and still ask me to explain...... I go dey explain tire........🤣😂

I was of a mind no too, but someone has kindly offered this - https://www.nairaland.com/8656177/nurse-branded-risk-refusing-use#139149339


TV