₦airaland Forum

Lol, aburo! Where've you been? Toy Story can do without you, don't worry. I seek not to make a convert of you.

Deep Sight. Do you speak or understand Yoruba? For I'm confused where you wrote: Au contraire! Certainment!

I believe in God but I don't expect other people to do so. As I always say, you can always prove a lie to be a lie but you can rarely prove truth to be truth. So my spiritual journey is one by elimination. I'm very open. I've recently come to the conclusion that monotheistic religions are the chief reasons for religious bloodshed and strife. Polytheistic religions were/are so tolerant that they border on the absolute. I find it sensible to believe that there's no God at all. But I don't believe this. I find it feasible that there's a host of powerful beings who are in charge of different things but that presupposes that the earth and humans are centre of the universe and they exist because of us in which case, they cease to be god-like. In the simplest refutation: what was Poseidon before star dust coalesced to form the earth? Similarly what were all the plenty gods that were attached to some natural phenomena or the other? They're suitably eliminated from existence this way.

Saying that something is a god because it is being worshipped is putting the cart before the horse. It makes no sense. Something might be considered a god for other reasons but not because it is being worshipped which begs the question why is it being worshipped in the first place. All this god constructs are just human imaginations running amok. It's like asking why Zeus didn't kill Hades. They don't freaking exist. Until one can prove God's existence, all these questions and answers will lead to nowhere but otiose nonsense.

Lol. Oladeegbu is probably the nicest person in the section. Or maybe he has skin as thick as bank vaults. Or both. But he's almost always wrong. To me anyways.

InesQor. The Jewish population is very tiny. The number of pratising Jews tinier still. Any Jew who knows why he's Jewish is not as misled as you think into believing The Talmud predates occurences it is talking about. But you say the talmud is offensive. The Quran is offensive. The Old Testament is even more offensive. The New Testament as a whole is offensive to reason. The Talmud is just being in character of the Middle-eastern people of those times. As for modern day Christians staying away from it, I think contact with it would only strengthen their faith. What interests me is how many Christians cling to the OT and some more sophisticated ones abhor the affiliation because of the difficult part. Christians put themselves into this predicament for no one asked them to take the bible as the absolute word of God. Muslims on the other hand had no choice in the matter from day one. They were literally DOA

JeSoul! You'd be beheaded in the courts antiquity o! Not up to 4 minutes between all the Toy Stories? Sigh. Toy Story is a cult thing anyway. The hyper nostalgic potion that takes an average man back forty years provided you have any semblance of a childhood. It takes me back, to nothingness, yeah, I know. I sound apologetic. This is not a good sign.

This stupid democracy thing sef. No wonder it takes 3 years to decide to build a dam, another 4 years of building, another 3 years of abandonment, another 2 years trying to decide if the project is worth continuing and the decision is usually no. You people should give me veto power jare. Hmmm, veto is and anagram of vote

Ah, Deep Sight. This is between you and InesQor. I've never seen you modify your posts before and I'm not about to take InesQor's word for it cuz I frankly don't care. I was merely telling of the two people I've noticed who modify their posts AFTER the people whom they were directed to have read them AND replied. I'm confused whether that is some sort of posterity induced vanity or just plain dishonesty. Nothing is wrong with modifying a post as long as it's for the right reasons. Some people don't think before they post and come back to remove the embarrassing parts after the passion with which they wrote the first time may have subsided. So, quit playing victim. You're not in my crosshairs

Wow. Did you write this? I'm sorry, but it resonates with me on many levels though I don't have trust issues. I'm fond of leaving myself vulnerable. Anyway, I don't think God is a nancy pansy as some people like to make out but the rest was truly wonderful. Nothing I don't already know but nicely put.

How does God get hurt when we sin? How does our 'sin' affect Him. You make it sound like if we steal, God feels a thorn prick. God may not like evil but He doesn't suffer as a result of it. We can sin against each other and God may take it upon Himself to reproach or reward everyone accordingly but what really does God lose or gain? Abeg, if we hurt him so much, he'd truncate our existence and get a move on with the heaven thingie already. Except if He takes an equal amount of pleasure from the good we do and then He might hope to break even and there wouldn't be much reason for our existence, would there?

All Gods can't be true. They're much too jealous and egotistical for us not to have witnessed several showdowns which won't be mexican standoffs, mind. There certainly a possibility that ALL gods are false, as we know them anyway.

Yup. You go first.

Nuclear. All I'm saying is if there was a suitably advanced lifeform, we wouldn't be able to distinguish it from God. What is is what is. I'm afraid our idea of God is getting more and more fantastic as we evolve. A man 3000 years ago would be content to accept a man as God if he induces an neutron bomb to explode. A grenade even. Now our expectations have evolved as well. The only real when to know God, I guess, is when we die. But that will be too late, no?

InesQor, actually I've noticed two people that are fond of modifying their posts. I am unaware what the reason for it is especially as the posts are almost certainly already read by whomsoever they were directed to. It's a truly creepy thing.

If I get your point Pastor, you're asking what is a God as opposed to what is God. I appreciate this distinction because one normally has to come in contact with something before we can ever define it. Quoting a woman, I forget her name: It's a peculiar habit of God's that when he wishes to reveal himself to mankind, he will communicate only with a single person. The rest of mankind must learn the truth from that person and thus purchase their knowledge of the divine at the cost of subordination to another human being, who is eventually replaced by a human institution. . .

In short, it is impossible for us to have a collective definition of what is divine. Recently, I'm come to the conclusion that polytheism (though I don't believe it) is not illogical when compared with monotheism. It is infact a more reasonable position when looked at from some perspective. God or what is divine to me simply ought to be a being who operates under laws which we cannot fathom. In that case, if a suitably advanced alien civilisation were to visit earth, they may be said to be God or divine even if they're not. A definition is just that, a definition and it is relative and not absolute

Anybody who spent money expecting anything more than he or she got should change his investment portfolio.

Uh, I also change my mind even though I hadn't made it up but just in case. Let's do The Departed then. It's not that fresh in my head though. Later, maybe we can do Frost/Nixon, eh?

. . . . . or at least agree to disagree. From the verse in question, it sounds like a dalai lama saying that with which to control the elements is already within you. Gods as used there denotes a measure of command (with God's ultimate will of course) over something. Instead of going around in circles and asking Deep Sight and Jo to explain their positions, maybe Nuclearboy should explain what he understands by the verse and Jo can say if he disagrees, agrees or partly agrees to his meaning and everybody can go eat cookies.

Fabregas was busy making me wonder if I'm not gay and I missed all the mud slinging. I've always thought Joagbaje's position on the god thing was not unwholesome at least according to the verses that prop him and I've questioned the need of this thread at all but I see other people have picked up their toy guns and chosen sides. This makes the thread justifiable, I guess.

We review movies. Not 'the very best of movies'. Great critics don't turn away from a shitty movie. They give it the shitty rating it deserves. Let's pick from Kobe's pool so that my conscience will leave me alone. I just got this brand new conscience for I shot the last one.

What is golden, Jay?

I approve of Spiderman, yessir!

Between boldly stating that you just saw it and that you'd not seen it all this while, I dunno which is more amazing.

Lol, Nuke. You sound like your wife admonished you to be nice. Maybe Seun knows more about that patch you speak of since he equates a certain thing to a 'heavenly feeling'. The infantile crass humour aside, lemme get serious.

Deep Sight, there's no such thing as proof in religion. There are only explanations, most of which is implausible. First off, I don't even believe in the trinity or God manifesting in any way that contains His substance. But my disagreement with people doesn't mean I can't understand them or I have to show them that what they believe is ridiculous. Except they concede two premises that are incompatible, this is impossible anyway. If God has infinite manifestations, He surely has appeared to man in a finite number of ways even if every single human had an imaginary friend aka God's manifestation. Of all of these, if there is to be an assembly of believers, it won't do to have everybody recounting his or her experiences with his or her imaginary friend. There would have to be some common friend for everybody. A trinity would fit ok.

The above is a shoddy explanation and I don't believe a word of it but I'm capable of concocting it. There's an equal possibility that there are infinite manifestations of God and that there are only three. The real question should be: Are the members of the trinity true manifestations of God; are they manifestations at all?

Let me now go back to your post. Forgive me for I might sound presumptuous for I know not how far back you and Nuke go. But the little I know suggests that there's no conflict in your second paragraph and both views in there need not be mutually exclusive. In short I don't see how it's impossible to hold both views. God is infinite but we only see three of him.

The second paragraph. God MAY not be proven to be EXCLUSIVELY a trinity. Assuming Nuke's position is that of an ardent trinitarian, of which I'm not sure, he might be forgiven for dealing with God as exclusively a trinity for it serves him no purpose otherwise. No catholic on earth, I'd expect, except he's some kinda freak, knows all the saints, patrons etc. Knowing God's other manifestations serves what purpose?

Me and you, Deep Sight, share many similar beliefs or more aptly disbeliefs, but you should understand other people's hogwash. You certainly don't have to believe them.

It's Complicated. Lovely. But then, it's got Meryl Streep in it.

Drum, in apoplectic furiousness, storms off into a bonfire.

Deep Sight. You dey find the man trouble. Quit being a wet sandwich.

His response then and now I believe is that he doesn't limit God's manifestations to three but those three are the ones he's aware of or the ones God, for whatever reasons, chose to deal with us. This can't be too hard an act to follow, my good man?

Even if this stuff were true, it's too bleeding long. I didn't read it, sorry. My thoughts about anyone who's seen heaven or a favourable part of the beyond is that they wouldn't be able to wait to die. Again or for the first time.

You can't welcome folks when you're new na. Anyways, have fun. Hope you remain the same after your sojourn here.

Drum roll

Did you mean which one do you detest less?