₦airaland Forum

In other words, 'give me all of your money, fools'.

KidsNEXTdoor:
Organs don go black market


Hungry Filipinos

Have you heard about post-mortems?
It is what they do in civilised countries to find out the cause of death.

Is there anything Ned Nwoko would not stoop to?
Is there any political stunt that shameless individual would not pull?
Is it not the same person who converted to Islam to gain political advantage?

Who is he again?
What has he contributed to the development of the country?
Parasite, conman, liar for christ - just like all other pastors.

What ever happened to 'touch not god's appointed' or other crap like that?
I thought that these charlatans where appointed by the almighty himself. Does the bish have any authority to sack god`s "appointed"?
Who would believe it - betrayal in the house of god?
One laughs in godly language

There is no such thing as blasphemy. It is a made up offence by people who don't want their myths questioned.

So, why is god's will not done?
Why aren't all christians healthy and why do even pastors and so-called men of god die of illnesses and diseases?
Why aren't all christians successful?
Why can't an all-powerful god make his will happen?
Afterall, according to Rev Akinyemi's mythology, he just willed the universe into existence.
It is easy for people like him to sprout meaningless nonsense, afterall he is successful on the back of his flock.
And if it does not happen for you, all it means is that your faith is not strong enough.

This is a woman who believes a fairy tale.
This is a woman who believes in stories told by ignorant bronze age people.
This is a woman who believes in stories about talking donkeys etc.
This is a woman who believes without evidence.
Forgive me if I do not consider anything she says relevant to my life.

9inches:
Jeez! Yet another god-of-the-gaps-plus-yeti-theory straw man! If you actually asked questions for clarification, you would not have embarrassed yourself this way thinking you are making counter argument.

God is a general term used to refer to what (people believe) exists before time and the universe and the source of every other creation. You are at liberty to use a different term. I understand the term "God" triggers folks like you but what else would you want me to use?

I wasn't making the god of the gaps argument at all. God is not "a thing" or "an individual" or some item within the natural world, rather God can be described as ipsum esse subsistens (the subsistent act of "to be" itself). God is that great ocean of existence from which the
world in its entirety comes, not something in the world that has to take worldly attributes for your sake just so you can understand.

This is different from god of the gaps of the ancient Greek and Roman myths or myths of any culture really. Those type of gods we can say legitimately have been indeed eliminated by the modern science. When atheists say the advancement of science pushes religion to retreats to ever smaller bits of intellectual turf, they they are talking about the god of the gaps, NOT the God christians and the likes talk about.

With our scientific equipment and our great scientific spirit scientists have explored the heavens and the mountaintops and the depths of the ocean and indeed haven't found supreme beings around, more to it the modern physical sciences have managed to explain most physical phenomena, so we don't have to appeal to extraneous causes of supernatural divine causes.

God is not some event or phenomena that can be examined by the physical sciences. He's not the subject or object of an experiment. Even in principle, the sciences can't eliminate God nor be able to address the question of God. The advancement of the sciences can never threaten authentic religion. That's why it's so silly for people to say "produce evidence" for God... You only do that for a Yeti theory, the "produce evidence for Big Foot" type of argument... You don't produce evidence like that for the creator of the entire universe. You don't use the scientific method to get at questions of God... it's simply a category mistake!

The true God

Authentic religion often begins in this extraordinary experience of the contingency of the world; this deep sense intuition that the world exists although it doesn't have to exist. Things are, but they don't have to be; they don't carry within themselves the reason for their own existence. Take a camera for example, it exists certainly but it did not exist through the power of its own essence; it exists because of a whole slew of engineers and designers and scientists. It exists because of its molecular structure, its atomic structure, its subatomic structure... If you take those away, there won't be any camera. The point is it's surrounded extrinsically and it's grounded intrinsically in all sorts of causes that bring it into being that allow it to be.

Now if you keep thinking in that direction, all the things I just mentioned all those designers and scientists and
technicians, all those lower levels of physical reality are themselves contingent - they don't contain within themselves the reason for their being. An endless appeal to contingent causes is not going to answer our question of why that camera exists. We know there is
some reality whose very nature is 'to be'. That infinite source of reality which grounds and gives rise to the whole nexus of conditioned things.

In church liturgy we say, "in you we live and move and have our being..." and that's the poetic expression of this philosophical
intuition... that's God! That's the true God - the non conditioned and non-contingent ground of contingency. In religious language, that's the creator of the heavens and the earth. You see again, that's the distinction between God and anything in the world, between the properly supernatural and anything within nature. It's why the sciences, try as they might, cannot even begin to address this question.

This is not any sort of magical thinking or superstition. Simply start by asking the really vital questions: why is there something rather than
nothing? Why does the world exist at all? Why is there the realm of nature? Why is there the nexus of contingent things. That's the nursing question you should be asking, not trying in futility to score cheap argument points on nairaland.

On a serious note, you are guilty of the things you accusenothers of. You say the gods of Greek and Roman (and indeed, gods generally) of mythology have been eliminated by science. But you exclude the Christian God. Why? Is there any stronger evidence for it than any other God? Do you say that the Islamic God or the Hindu gods have likewise been eliminated? I bet you will. Seems like special pleading to me.

As I said, your evidence for god is intuition. Well, I intuit that there are small fairies living behind my house. I never see them, but I know they are there. When I talk to them, they don't talk back, but I know they hear me and answer my prayers. The other day I lost my car keys and I prayed to them and found them. You see what I have done there. No different from what you do. Yet you will no doubt say I am crazy, if I truly believed that nonsense.

The moment you start talking about Authentic Religion, you begin to lose the argument. What is "authentic religion"? Who defines what that even means? Who are you to claim that your religion is more authentic than someone else's? How much arrogance is contained in that phrase "authentic religion"?

When I accused you of a "God of the gaps" argument, you accused me of making a straw man argument. Guess What? You have done it again. You ask "Why is there something rather than nothing? Why does the world exist at all? Why is there realm of nature?" Legitimate questions to ask, but your answer is ...because God.

My friend, your thinking is seriously muddled.

9inches:
Jeez! Yet another god-of-the-gaps-plus-yeti-theory straw man! If you actually asked questions for clarification, you would not have embarrassed yourself this way thinking you are making counter argument.

God is a general term used to refer to what (people believe) exists before time and the universe and the source of every other creation. You are at liberty to use a different term. I understand the term "God" triggers folks like you but what else would you want me to use?

I wasn't making the god of the gaps argument at all. God is not "a thing" or "an individual" or some item within the natural world, rather God can be described as ipsum esse subsistens (the subsistent act of "to be" itself). God is that great ocean of existence from which the
world in its entirety comes, not something in the world that has to take worldly attributes for your sake just so you can understand.

This is different from god of the gaps of the ancient Greek and Roman myths or myths of any culture really. Those type of gods we can say legitimately have been indeed eliminated by the modern science. When atheists say the advancement of science pushes religion to retreats to ever smaller bits of intellectual turf, they they are talking about the god of the gaps, NOT the God christians and the likes talk about.

With our scientific equipment and our great scientific spirit scientists have explored the heavens and the mountaintops and the depths of the ocean and indeed haven't found supreme beings around, more to it the modern physical sciences have managed to explain most physical phenomena, so we don't have to appeal to extraneous causes of supernatural divine causes.

God is not some event or phenomena that can be examined by the physical sciences. He's not the subject or object of an experiment. Even in principle, the sciences can't eliminate God nor be able to address the question of God. The advancement of the sciences can never threaten authentic religion. That's why it's so silly for people to say "produce evidence" for God... You only do that for a Yeti theory, the "produce evidence for Big Foot" type of argument... You don't produce evidence like that for the creator of the entire universe. You don't use the scientific method to get at questions of God... it's simply a category mistake!

The true God

Authentic religion often begins in this extraordinary experience of the contingency of the world; this deep sense intuition that the world exists although it doesn't have to exist. Things are, but they don't have to be; they don't carry within themselves the reason for their own existence. Take a camera for example, it exists certainly but it did not exist through the power of its own essence; it exists because of a whole slew of engineers and designers and scientists. It exists because of its molecular structure, its atomic structure, its subatomic structure... If you take those away, there won't be any camera. The point is it's surrounded extrinsically and it's grounded intrinsically in all sorts of causes that bring it into being that allow it to be.

Now if you keep thinking in that direction, all the things I just mentioned all those designers and scientists and
technicians, all those lower levels of physical reality are themselves contingent - they don't contain within themselves the reason for their being. An endless appeal to contingent causes is not going to answer our question of why that camera exists. We know there is
some reality whose very nature is 'to be'. That infinite source of reality which grounds and gives rise to the whole nexus of conditioned things.

In church liturgy we say, "in you we live and move and have our being..." and that's the poetic expression of this philosophical
intuition... that's God! That's the true God - the non conditioned and non-contingent ground of contingency. In religious language, that's the creator of the heavens and the earth. You see again, that's the distinction between God and anything in the world, between the properly supernatural and anything within nature. It's why the sciences, try as they might, cannot even begin to address this question.

This is not any sort of magical thinking or superstition. Simply start by asking the really vital questions: why is there something rather than
nothing? Why does the world exist at all? Why is there the realm of nature? Why is there the nexus of contingent things. That's the nursing question you should be asking, not trying in futility to score cheap argument points on nairaland.

Others have said it - you need to try harder. What I read from you is word salad.
No matter what you say, your God is the theist God.
Mumbo jumbo does not turn superstitious beliefs into reality.
Your idea of reality is ... intuition!!!!
If I was a believer, I would say "God help us from confused people like you".

9inches:
If something came into existence at a certain point in time, that is, if it had a beginning, then there needs to be a cause, an explanation, for why it came to be. But if something exists outside of time, like God, then it does not need an explanation for its beginning, because it does not have one.

So the question “When, then, did God begin?” is nonsensical, because it amounts to asking “When did a timeless being begin?"

I'm sorry the scientific words made no sense to you. Maybe you could ask follow-up questions for clarifications rather than the dismissiveness.

No, my friend, it's not crazy, even primary school kid. It's simple: It takes faith to believe in everything coming from nothing. It takes only reason to believe in everything coming from something.

Cathechism of the Catholic Church: "Human intelligence is surely already capable of finding a response to the question of origins. The existence of God the Creator can be known with certainty through his works, by the light of human reason, even if this knowledge is often obscured and disfigured by error. This is why faith comes to confirm and enlighten reason in the correct understanding of this truth: 'By faith we understand that the world was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was made out of things which do not appear.'"

Smokes and mirrors my friend, smokes and mirrors. This is a classic god of the gaps argument - we don't know what existed before time, therefore...God. Your apprach shuts down any intelligent enquiry. Why does something that exists outside of time not require an explanation? And why assume that that being, if it exists at all, is god?

Bandying scientific words about does not make your argument sensible or intelligent. In my view, it is intellectually dishonest to misuse terms with view to confuse the uninitiated.

It is amazing the slight of hand you have tried here. First, you appeal to the reasoning of children to buttress a point. Only in religion do we accept the innocent faith of children and magnify beyond what it is. Afterall, children believe in Santa Claus and the tooth Fairy. I an sure that you will not be holding those up as worthy, as they would not fit your narrative. In no other walk of life would you use the beliefs of children to support the unsupportable.

Secondly, I am sure that you did not read what you posted. Having said that belief in god is based on reason, you quote the cathechism, which makes it clear that your beliefs are based not on evidence or reason, but on faith.

As I said earlier, muddled thinking.

9inches:
Einstein's general theory of relativity says that all time is relative to matter. And since all matter began 13.7 billion years ago, so did all time so there's no time before the Big Bang and even if there is time before the Big Bang, even if there is a multiverse that is many universes with many big bangs as string theory says is mathematically possible, that too must have a beginning. An absolute beginning is what most people mean by God. Yet some atheists find the existence of an infinite number of other universes more rational than the existence of a creator, never mind that there is no empirical evidence at all that any of these unknown universes exists, let alone a thousand or a gazillion.

The conclusion that God exists doesn't even require faith; atheism requires faith. It takes faith to believe in everything coming from nothing. It takes only reason to believe in everything coming from God.

When, then, did god begin?
There is so much wrong with the post above. Just because you use scientific sounding words does not mean that what you say makes sense, because it does not.
And as for your last sentence, are you not a bit confused? It is crazy to conclude that belief in the supernatural does not require faith, but that a lack of belief in that which is unprovable does.
Muddled thinking aplenty.

Again
Another fake prophecy from another conman.

What a stupid question.
Why anyone bothers this stupidity with a response defeats me.

Man suffers injury, man goes to hospital, man is treated by doctors, man gets better, man thanks God. The God that did nothing, the God that did not prevent the injury in the first place.

Why don't you guys just get a life?
Everything is spiritual these day!!!
No wonder the country is in a mess!!!
Spiritual dance, spiritual warfare, spiritual music, spiritual everything.
Na wa oh ... man don tire for this God nonsense.

annyplenty:
I cannot answer why He did not create man circumcised but I know that He asked us to circumcise.

Circumcision has purpose it serves .

Did God ask us to pierce our ears, nose and tongues and if we pierced them what purpose do they serve?

That is the difference.

Please, tell us what purpose circumcision serves.
Medically it is unnecessary.
Why did god want it done?

Why did he not create man circumcised?
Did he forget to do that, or was it too dirty for him?

Eh .. there was no church is Jesus's time.
Another Christian who knows nothing about his faith.

God always wins. If you pray, God wins if you survive illness and get well.
If you die, God wins because it is his will.

At least, that is what the believers think to excuse their no-action ineffective and ineffectual god.

Giving back a small part of your ill-gotten gains is not charity.
It is cynical and hypocritical.

maxweb:
Guy you need a job.

And you, my friend, need a brain.
You inability to think for yourself is quite obvious.

The bible is a human construct, full of the fears and prejudices of the various authors and writers of the different books that make up the collection.
It has some inspiring parts, but by and large, it is contradictory and shows the state of knowledge of those who wrote it.
It was written in times of ignorance, when man wanted explanations for things not understood.
It has encouraged slavery, racism, the suppression of women, wars, homophobia and other kinds of evils.
It promotes ignorance, greed and a do nothing culture in the hope that god would come to the rescue.
It is further abused by pastors, bishops, GOs and whatever fancy titles those conmen want to give themselves.
The definitions of faith in the bible suggest that knowledge is not important. It is false, and in part, responsible, together with other so-called holy books, for the dire state mankind finds itself in today.

Brainwashed morons.

They would, wouldn't they. Anything that reduces their undeserved privileges has to be squashed before inception.
They don't mind milking their sheep, praying brimstone and fire on those who challenge them on tithes and any other ways they make money.
But ask them to contribute something to the community, they cry foul.
Hypocrites and parasites, the whole lot of them.

From one deluded man to another. Conmen all, to whom the truth matters not.

Meaningless word salad, like most of the teachings in the bible.

Will someone ask the fool to shut up.
He is pretending that the country will be better if christians ruled the roost.

Very tiny, to the extent of being non-existent.

Liar, liar, pants on fire.

It did not take long for someone to be offended.
I bet the poster is not pissed off with Catholic priests sexually assaulting children and committing all sorts is sexual acts they should not be involved in.
But when it comes to a celebrity wearing sexy nun attire and smoking, the perpetually offended come out in force.
Hypocrites all.