NewStats: 3,261,656 , 8,174,656 topics. Date: Thursday, 29 May 2025 at 11:40 PM 27263m

omofunaab:
Seriously i wish Nigeria could organize a referendum.

Enough of distractions, anybody that wants to leave should be allowed to do so and should be willing to bear the consequences


This nation needs to focus, anybody that is not interested in the Nigerian project should be allowed to leave

Please what is the Nigerian project?

Hello OP,

If you want to be good at programming, don't focus on programming.
Focus on interesting projects, concepts and great ideas you'd like to "conquer". Let your choice of programming language be a necessary means to accomplish the goal - that way, no language will be boring to you.

This is coming from a Multimedia designer/Web developer by day, a Systems Programmer(C, x86_64 NASM) by night.

Kay17:


Saying 'they are laws' therefore require a lawgiver/writer is a convolution of language itself. Laws which we humans use as normative standards are not in the same sense as laws in the physics sense. Besides your analogy is quite convenient but useless. The factory robot is created by the human designer whilst the human designer is created by ? ? ?

But you argued here that whatever gives order must itself be an example of order and therefore designed. You made that generalized argument not me.

You have been effectively nailed and you know it. But of course, you must have the last face-saving words as is customary of you; so please go ahead.

Kay17:


You begin with a starting premise:

If it works like a machine, it is a machine until proven otherwise.
If it exhibits balance, symmetry, pattern, coordination in its operation, it is design until proven otherwise.


That is to say: something that is designed to design can not be said to be a design because it designs.
You can as well say that factory robots are not designs because they design car doors, chassis and engines.
Funny.

And the Logos eventually performs this same role of creating symmetry and patterns, and following your premise, we arrive at the concluison that your uncreated Logos has to be designed. That is the contradiction.

In which case, the factory robot represents physical laws. The designer of the robot represents the Logos.

Their is also a quote where you conflate the Logos and superphysical law(supernatural law). My response to that is: Their are laws, be it supernatural, physical, moral; and their is a lawgiver. Its been demonstrated already.

The causal relationship of Design-Designer is essentially the same as Cause-Effect, the difference is context of usage. Therefore, to expose a contradiction, you must first debunk the argument for the Uncaused Cause, starting with the KCA.

Kay17:


We had a conversation in the a series of connecting replies and responses; and at the culmination where you find yourself stuck in a contradiction, you ask for proof! How ridiculous!

I asked for a proof because no one got stuck in your imagined contradiction.
Your faux bewilderment betrays dishonesty.

Kay17:


In our prior posts.

reference it.

Kay17:


And how neatly your argument falls apart.

Proof?

Kay17:

In the light of your own words --

In the light of sound logic --

There is a contradiction, because the Logos/superphysical/supernatural law is the constraint that effects design and following the above quote, the fact Logos exhibits that, implies itself is a subject of design. And you further say this design is uncaused.

Empty rhetoric.
Unless you have a superior argument against the kalam cosmological argument, their is no contradiction.

Kay17:


Following your arguments that constraint is key to design and such constraints are designs themselves, aren't you confounded with the contradiction that Logos is itself designed?!

No contradiction.
It follows that: If their is an Uncaused Cause, a Prime Mover; then their is an Undesigned Designer.

Kay17:

It seems we are on the same path except where you try to imply that the intrinsic properties of physical laws make physical laws themselves a design.

If it works like a machine, it is a machine until proven otherwise.
If it exhibits balance, symmetry, pattern, coordination in its operation, it is design until proven otherwise.

That will be a convolution of reasoning. Since physical laws function as a source of design to objects etc, they themselves can not be said to be designs.

That is to say: something that is designed to design can not be said to be a design because it designs.
You can as well say that factory robots are not designs because they design car doors, chassis and engines.
Funny.

I suspect that one of the errors of your assumptions is to think of designs only as material objects. Stratagem, tactics, well-crafted words, mode of operation, algorithms, system of constraints, and laws are intangibles. My question for you is: are they designs or not? Also bear in mind that they can be represented in visual forms.

Another question for you. Do you agree with the following:
1. The organization of elements into a complex whole is one category of design.
2. The organization of actions so as to enable them to work together effectively is another category of design.
3. This coherent organizing principles is design.
If not, why?

So if any designer including God, intends to make a creation, he must abide to the structure, symmetry and balance provided by physical laws.

It only makes sense that God will consider the environment (physical laws and space-time) when creating in a physical world just like an Artist must consider the nature of his canvas before and while painting on it. What is important is that the paint, the canvas and the artwork were made.

Again, I agree with you that physical laws act as a constraint.

Yea, but be mindful of the context in which I use 'constraint' : It was was a reaction to someone who was saying that physical laws is not design but constrain. and my argument is, what is designed to constrain is a design.

I think physical laws not only as self regulating but foundational.

Well, it takes an intelligent mind to lay a good foundation.
You can also think of them as environment, 'invisible machine', relationships.... some things in life are multifaceted, it all depends on context of usage.

I wouldn't want to equivocate forces of nature with physical laws, because the interaction between the particular forces of nature you talk about, are themselves ordered and governed by the overarching physical laws.

True, equating physical laws to forces of nature is erroneous. My bad. Nevertheless, physical laws is a subset of the universe- a grand design.

If you read my slightly long post on physical laws, I said we often extrapolate from human creativity and conclude the Universe itself, is not dissimilar from other human creations but I further said a prerequisite was our understanding of physical laws.

We do not extrapolate from human creativity alone, it takes termites to build an anthill, a bird to make a nest, bees to make honeycomb. Understanding physical laws is not a prerequisite to reach the rational conclusion that their is a designer behind a design.

If you really understand me, you would know I do not presume that all things are created.

Only that you have no rational argument to your claim so far.

Now for you to suggest that the platform is created, is entirely unappealing to me.

I am only interested in the truth- not what is appealing to you.

Of course the analogy of the artist and his canvas is apt but not to be taken literally but limited to its expository purpose. Yet contained in every act of creativity, a platform is required. Especially when the question is asked, upon what platform was the Universe created.

Eternity is the "platform".

Yes in your imagination, but such imagination is expressed in the constraint of design.

People find it hard to believe a pig can fly; that to defy laws of physics this way is either a stuff of the imagination or by supernatural means.

Since you believe the Universe constitutes the environment as well and both are created,

Falsehood. The reverse was my statement:
The environment and the objects constitutes the Universe: (The Universe is all of time and space and its contents. The Universe includes planets, stars, galaxies, the contents of intergalactic space, the smallest subatomic ... - wikipedia)

The Universe consists of three constituents: spacetime, forms of energy, including electromagnetic radiation and matter, and the physical laws that relate them. The Universe also encomes all of life, all of history... -Wikipedia

what then are the constraints necessary for design?

First, a Law that transcends this universe cannot be described as 'overarching physical laws' but a superphysical or supernatural law.

The "constraint" necessary for the design of the universe is the Logos and the universe is a Rhema- Spoken Words from the Logos

Kay17:

But the physical laws themselves create the balance and the symmetry because in their absence there will be nothing of balance nor symmetry.

You are describing the purpose of physical laws not defining what it is. We are in agreement on what it does.

The point is: physical laws create and sustain balance and symmetry on objects because balance and symmetry are intrinsical to physical laws; therefore physical laws falls under the category of design. (I have mentioned before that balance and symmetry are properties of design.)

-- forgive my verbosity, just trying to clarify things --

Now, physical laws are simply the forces of nature with balance and symmetry causing constraint - DESIGN.

This forces of nature interact with one another- upsetting the balance and symmetry in space-time in a controlled fashion causing vibrations hence motion - ENGINEERING.
(vibration is a result of forces trying to regain balance consequently generating waves - this is fundamental to physics).

Think of physical laws as invisible self-regulating machine sustaining the universe.

The physical laws are the platform for which any 'who' has to stand on.

The platform was created to be a platform for 'who' to stand on the same way a fine artist must create a canvas to paint is mona lisa on.

Imagine a Universe without any physical laws, humans themselves will be unable to create. Imagine all the laws become void, humans will be incapable of building houses, spaceships and other designs which you so much ire.

I have to be free from the constraint of this earthly body to understand life without physical laws. As long as I am constrained, I can only apply the law of displacement, that is: to replace the laws of physics with my virtual laws in my imagination.

Also note that design arises from the surrounding environment not by the mere wish of the designer like you are suggesting.

You are repeating a claim you are yet to validate.

Both the object and its environment falls under the category of design: the environment is designed to constrain, and sustain the object.

Give me matter and motion and I will construct the universe – Rene Descartes
The keyword is 'me' and 'I'.

If an environment is lacking why then the design?!

Who said environment is lacking?

This environment is formed by physical laws and to prove physical laws are designed, you must point out the surrounding environment which necessitated the design.

Here is my earlier quote:

Physical laws is not an imposition on design but a part of what constitute the environment. The other part is space-time.
The environment and all things in it is called the Universe- A grand design; Therefore physical laws is part of the grand design.

Now, lets evaluate my comment in successive order:

Space-time: an environment for physical laws to operate.
Physical laws: environment for objects to exist and operate within space-time.
Therefore: Space-time and physical laws constitute an environment for objects to exist and operate.

Objects are design.
The environment is designed to objects.
Therefore: the objects and the environment is design.

The environment and the objects constitutes the Universe: (The Universe is all of time and space and its contents. The Universe includes planets, stars, galaxies, the contents of intergalactic space, the smallest subatomic ... - wikipedia)

The Universe is a design.
The Universe is in motion.
The Universe has a beginning.

By logical implication, Designer, Engineer, Architect, Prime Mover, Intelligence, Uncaused Cause must suffice.

Kay17:

To sincere, I do not see your objection. You seem to accept the appearance of design is owed to physical laws, which is my point all along.

For the 'bolded', an eye is not an 'appearance of design'; It is a design; so is a fish, cat, termite....etc.

You manage to miss the fact that my argument implies design is governed by physical laws which in itself is design too.
In order words, the forces of nature interact the way they are designed to. If the physical laws loses balance, the universe will be destroyed. Balance, like symmetry is an intrinsic attribute of design.

Where there is coherent design, there is a who behind it. This fact is yet to be disproved; therefore:

He(Logos) is before all things, and in him all things hold together. - Col 1:17

The remainder points you raised are all moot; whether termites are intelligent or not. Assuming the termites are not intelligent and are stupid, and they blindly stumbled upon anthills with cooling system will be interesting and good luck with them.

They are not moot; They invalidate the nonsense you where trying to spin around to discredit the fact that design can only be the product of intelligent mind.

Theists tie design with God's existence as a matter of necessity. Removing that necessity, removes the necessity of God's existence.

Now the serpent is out of its hole. Did you succeed in removing the 'necessity' by appealing to insanity?

Kay17:

I will answer both A and B together. Sorry for the long delay, do manage to relate it with the entire thread.

I think the Universe is governed by physical laws...

Just like a watchmaker:
He makes his watch self-regulate - Physical laws
He made the watch; he is not the watch - Transcendence
He rewinds or changes the battery, and fixes the watch when necessary - Immanence

...which are made known by observation.

That is why we don't have to 'transcend' common sense to know physical laws exist.

Our observation could be wrong at times...

It takes more than a cursory observation to classify it a law.

...but we understand that there is a systemic regularity in the manner things are run in the Universe.

the 'bolded' is a word salad for DESIGN.
To rephrase you word: "...but we understand that there is design in the manner things are run in the Universe"

You have solidly affirm design.

We are so adapted to regularity that we hardly question it.

Any evidence that we adapted to regularity? That we transited from a chaotic mindset(yaba left) to a 'regular' mindset that can sense order?

You're free to question 'regularity' with your sanity. You can try it for 2 weeks... All na scientific experiment, no wan go stop you.

The common regularity and arrangement we find in the Universe is imposed by the physical laws,
and all structural complexities and causalities are governed by it.

What you are describing is Design and Engineering.
Physical laws is not an imposition on design but a part of what constitute the environment. The other part is space-time.
The environment and all things in it is called the Universe- A grand design; Therefore physical laws is part of the grand design.

By structural complexities, that includes man-made complexities as well as complexities we see about. And like Uyi and Davidylan who are able to see the commonality between man-made complexities and complexities we see about, I see that structural complexity binding both.

That is: the mango tree in front of my house- a product of 'nature' and my house- a product of man are governed by physical laws.
Then what?
We Christians believe that man's creative power is subject to the supremacy of God creative power. Isn't that in agreement with your assertion in 'bold'?

Now, Uyi and Davidlyan both think that we can extrapolate the workings and displays of human intelligence to the Universe, because both seem to have a defined structure. And to them, all structures require a foresight.
There must be a guided anticipation to accomplish the function of the structure. So they argue more or less, that we should find the function and then by reverse engineering find the maker.

It does not require reverse engineering to come to a commonsensical conclusion; It takes a sane mind to do so.
a well design structure- complex or simple is a product of an intelligent mind. Any proof to the contrary?

But humans exercise their intelligence by understanding the physical laws in the Universe, ...

My imagination is independent of physical laws. But I must consider physical laws to create an object useful in a physical world.

A game programmer can create his own virtual world, name it Mongos with Mongal Laws. Their is no gravity nor friction in mongos. Mongals are intelligent 'creatures' without legs, they teleport.

Relatively, Anthills are magnificent skyscrapers with cooling systems that puts our modern skyscrapers to shame.
They are built by termites- Ants with well-organized social structure. They gather food during the good days and store for the raining days.

Kay17, Do termites also exercise their intelligence by understanding the physical laws in the Universe? Or is it in-built or both?

...and modelling their structures to align with them. For example, when humans decided to travel every fast, we realized that there is a way things work and there are rules which we have to follow. We cannot build block cars in our F1 races, rather the cars must be streamlined just as fishes are. Similarly with houses, they function as shelters but they need foundations, weight bearing standards etc. Maybe that is why magic does not work.

That is not entirely correct.
Engineering is basically about manipulating physical laws to serve a specific purpose. Alignment is just one aspect of manipulation: when I want rain water in my barrel, I make an object to redirect the water not align with the water.
Their are also vibration, contraction, expansion, attraction, repulsion, compression, diversion ... on and on.

To selectively select 'align' is reductionism. A futile attempt to use an aspect of something to explain the whole.

In another way, the Universe is a platform for human designs.

What should be consistent with your argument so far is: "In another way, the Universe is a platform designed for human designs".

So the Universe is actually influencing our designs and not the other way round.

Nonsense. This is a violation of the Law of Action and Reaction.

Ecological concerns like acid rain aside, how does your argument prove an alternative to the fact that order/design can only proceed from an intelligent mind?

So all extrapolations made regarding the Universe with human designs are wrong. So also, to find the Universe designed, you have to seek for another platform upon whose rules the Universe was designed to align with.

Spaghetti analysis. Spaghetti conclusion.
me a plate of salad.

The obvious question you will ask, the origin of physical laws, and to be sincere I have thought about it but i can only speculate.

What is your speculation?

plaetton:


Laughing out loud.

Gosh!

I read and reread this post many times. The more I read it, the more I realize how ridiculously senseless, false, contradictory and redundant it is.
More funny is that this guy came out swinging, perhaps intending to intimidate with his half cooked, Wikipedia educated, cut and paste I-know-it syndrome.

This whole post is a load of rubbish, and once again, reminds me why I spend time on this forum: to make sure that sunday school scholars Do Not get away with pubkicly parading Bullshytes on this forum.

You have better retract your post before I bring out the spanking rod.
Spanking rod is coming right up.

You are deluded. You know nothing.
-end-

plaetton:


Lol.
You see, this is an example of the problem with bias, not having an open balanced mind. The problem with letting personal bias completely cloud one's objectivity.

What has the mistake of posting a reply to a duplicate quote(redundancy) got to do with "problem with bias ,objectivity, open balanced mind"? It could as well be a result of tiredness after the day's work Mr. Sabinus.

You have read through all the very silly statements posted by UyiIredia.

How did you know I read through all...? Actually, I didn't.

Rather than to gently correct and guide him to better reasoning, as someone who represents your faith and making a fool of it, you jumped head first to his silly statements, even though you dare not say such silly things yourself.

First I agree with the OP.
My only reservation is the use of the word "natural law". I'd rather use "random chance" but I did not see the need to get pedantic since I understand and agree with the substance of his point. Besides, you also made semantic errors with "natural laws" - even as far as coining "word salad" like "natural laws of mathematics".

Funny that you insulted me before even embarking on your task. If you had read your post first, I doubt you would have had the temerity to cast insult.

You crossed the line too many times to clobber the gentleman with insults instead of addressing the issue with civility. After all, you were not forced to address the OP. You even went as far as bullying him with a pseudo-programmer's superiority - This is what piqued my interest. As a programmer, I had to set the record straight.

You tacitly ed everything I have posted without even being aware that you were.

Not at all.
Only a fool will not see that you are attributing the glory of the living God to an abstract idea like "the natural laws of mathematics".

Big laugh.
That's what cut and paste can do to man.

Your wish oh pseudo-programmer.
Everything is from my tired head except the few citations with due attribution.

^ The original post as been 'cleaned up'... something went wrong during editing thus the redundancy. You can delete and 're quote' if you like.

plaetton:

UyiIredia,
Will you please stop writing nonsense?

Computer programming codes don't follow natural laws?
Like, WTF?

Human mind determine them?

What are you smoking ?

I bet you have never written a computer program in your life, you have no idea how they are written and with what they are written.
What a great folly.

What I am not sure of is if you have reached the zenith of human stupidity and arrogance or if you are almost there; What I am sure of is that you are no programmer.

For your education, thank me later, computer programs can ONLY be written using the Natural laws of mathematics.
Ok?

Indeed, you are no programmer.
You seem to have been fooled by the numerous math-like syntax in programming sample codes seen online to assert the word "ONLY".

Apart from the field of numerical analysis, cryptography, financial wares, physics engine(for simulating the laws of physics in softwares like video games), maths is rarely used by most programmers: examples are the use of regular expression (for word processing), database design, server-side and most web apps programming.

Forget "Natural laws of mathematics", its nothing but "word salad":

There are Natural laws - mostly used in philosophy of rights and justice therefore not applicable in this case.

Laws of Mathematics - effects logical consistency in calculations.

Physical laws also known as scientific laws - "a theoretical principle deduced from particular facts, applicable to a defined group or class of phenomena, and expressible by the statement that a particular phenomenon always occurs if certain conditions be present." - wikipedia.
The highlighted in red is the relationship between maths and science.

What you are confusing for your so-called "Natural laws of mathematics" is what real programmers call ALGORITHM - an indispensable tool for solving both mathematical and non-mathematical problems. Algorithm is to maths what maths is to physics.

For all your "laws of maths" worship, It may interest you to know that real programmers in the field of 3D CG/Physics Engine must rely on tricks, hacks and other creative utilization of man-made maths laws in 3D matrix and quaternions to fake a 3D world on a 2D surface(computer screen).

Ultimately, every programming code is decomposed by a compiler to machine code(10110100...) and computed(calculations, bit shifting, looping, storage) by U; but that should not warrant such drivel like "computer programs can ONLY be written using the Natural laws of mathematics."

Now, since mathematical laws are default state in nature, the genetic code is simply a store house of 4.7 billion years of nature's programming code and reprogramming . That is why, from time to time it contains errors, errors of its past ed down the generations.

I like the way you make a case for God.

Is like "nature" is a pseudonym for God.
"mathematical laws" for the Logos.
"default state in nature" — the Logos was with God(John1:1)
"nature's programming code and reprogramming" — Through him(Logos) all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.(John1:3)

"from time to time it contains errors, errors of its past ed down the generations." — The fall of man currupted nature:
For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God.For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope,Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.. (Rom 8:20-22)

The land shall be utterly emptied, and utterly spoiled: for the LORD hath spoken this word.The earth mourneth and fadeth away, the world languisheth and fadeth away, the haughty people of the earth do languish.The earth also is defiled under the inhabitants thereof; because they have transgressed the laws, changed the ordinance, broken the everlasting covenant. (Isaiah 24:3-5).

Pls, do you now understand what genetic code is and what computer programming code is?
I hope so.

Actually you don't.

You really think you understand what genetic code in programming term is?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just think about it for a moment: One gram of DNA can store 700 terabytes of data. That’s 14,000 50-gigabyte Blu-ray discs… in a droplet of DNA that would fit on the tip of your pinky. To store the same kind of data on hard drives — the densest storage medium in use today — you’d need 233 3TB drives, weighing a total of 151 kilos. Extremetech.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The above is for storage alone.

Lets not get into parallel computation, 4bit -as opposed to our primitive 2bit(1,0) computation, data structure equivalent to a DNA with 4bit, algorithms for data sequencing.

Think about the supercomputer power it takes to simulate and decode a single strand of DNA— It can put the fear of God in a sane mind.
But then, you may not appreciate it- after all, you are no programmer.... right?

UyiIredia may not be a programmer in a conventional sense, but anyone with an intuitive understanding of the nature of code and an elementary knowledge of computer science is capable of comprehending genetic coding.

JuanDeDios:

I think they've got used to the rot. So when you come talking about cleaning up the system or doing things right they react like someone who's been kept in a dark cell too long and can't stand sunlight.

Words on marble.

davien:
lol!
That deduction still follows mathematical guidelines....the only thing different is that 0 could be defined as 1 and vice versa...

You could say 1 x 1 x 1 = 0
And 0 x 0 x 0 = 1....

You're imposing a false analogy....nobody has accepted that "god" could make such a thing(except for you),...because "god" unlike mathematical carries baggage with it's definition...
If you really wanted to represent that question in a mathematically similar way...it would go like this...

Infinity / > infinity (infinity divided by greater than infinity)

Which begs the question of what would be greater than infinity because the axiom of infinity has no defined range....therefore nothing could be concluded about the question because the axiom is useless in getting any meaningful information...

So one could also say that since the axiom of "god/gods" cannot be defined within a meaningful range to estimate things like their capabilities then they are useless that have no quantifiable basis....

That was it, but you missed the question and the point!

dude, that's garbage you have up there— not an argument.
You should try to expand your one-tracked mind.

-end-

babyosisi:
Please we don't want to ally with terrorist places

El Sisi is an enemy of the Muslim Brotherhood- a major financier of global terrorism. He is also a courageous advocate for Islamic reform.
I think this is a good development.

davien:
And you missed the question as usual...
Can "god" create a stone it couldn't lift?...

And you said if it could create such a contradictory thing and it can also somehow lift it contradictorily negating the stone being created immovable even by itself.....
so then "god" didn't make such a stone then if it could be moved...

This is evident that you actually missed the point.

Let me help you:
Descarte's satirical analysis makes a mockery of a nonsense question— If you'd accept 0x0 = 1, there'l be no logical justification to reject 1x1 = 0.

davien:
Then it wouldn't be a stone it can't lift....

You miss the point as usual.

" For why should God not be able to perform the task in question? To be sure, it is a task—the task of lifting a stone which He cannot lift—whose description is self-contradictory. But if God is supposed capable of performing one task whose description is self-contradictory—that of creating the problematic stone in the first place—why should He not be supposed capable of performing another—that of lifting the stone? After all, is there any greater trick in performing two logically impossible tasks than there is in performing one? " — Rene Discarte

edwife:
This was his speech while addressing the press.

In the three years of the war, necessity gave birth to invention. During those three years of heroic bound, we leapt across the great chasm that separates knowledge from know-how. We built rockets, and we designed and built our own delivery systems. We guided our rockets. We guided them far, we guided them accurately. For three years, blockaded without hope of import, we maintained all our vehicles. The state extracted and refined petrol, individuals refined petrol in their back gardens. We built and maintained our airports, maintained them under heavy bombardment. Despite the heavy bombardment, we recovered so quickly after each raid that we were able to maintain the record for the busiest airport in the continent of Africa. We spoke to the world through telecommunication system engineered by local ingenuity; the world heard us and spoke back to us! We built armoured car tanks. We modified aircraft from trainer to fighters, from enger aircraft to bombers. In the three years of freedom we had broken the technological barrier. In three years we became the most civilised, the most technologically advanced black people on earth.”

What a speech.. ...I forever love this man.

Demmzy15:

How is that? They have their armies which is carrying out airstrikes against the huthis in Yemen and ISIS in Iraq and Syria! Engaging in military drills with the USA doesn't mean they protect you, you're sounding as if the US does it for free!

Every country has a standing army.
It is beyond military drill: If not for the US, Saddam Hussein would have overran Kuwait and later extended his reach to Saudi.
US presence in the middle east is what is keeping Shia Iran in check.

Of course its not for free. abi you no dey pay vigilante fee for your community?

-edit- The "great satan" protecting muslims from muslims for a fee

Demmzy15:

The South has 'oiyel', just like many other countries. How is it possible that Qatar is richer, safer and better than USA?! Ever thought of that?!

If those punishments are stopped, then you have a lawless society!

Qatar, UAE, Saudi Arabia are under the protection of the USA - A country with an overwhelmingly christian majority. Also, their wealth is not due to hard work, discovery or innovation but to free oil from the ground- extracted by the US and partners.

Truckpusher:
[b]Shut your smelly trap.

Right now it's Putin that has been telling America what to do in the Middle East.

After Obama threatened Syria with crossing the red line, Assad went ahead and used the chemical weapon and America talked and talked yet Russia made it very clear that any attempt to invade Syria is a provocative action that won't go unnoticed.America deployed their Middle East fleet in the Mediterranean sea Russia did same and America did nothing only to agree to a deal of removing the chemical weapons.

Russia annexed Crimea and all your almighty US could do was to resort to sanctions.

North Korea has been carrying out a lot of provocative actions against their Southern neighbors and all the US does is to give them more aid with a t military exercise with the South and it all becomes all smoke with no fire

You can now see that No one takes America seriously these days.......Go figure.

Just in case you don't know - Washington is afraid that their so-called axis of evil is planning something dangerous for them and how dangerous it is they don't still get it.

How about starting a war on three major different fronts in volatile regions for the US with Russia and China as allies, with Iran holding sway in the middle East ? ...I guess you are too dumb to see that happening.[/b]


Lest I forget: They are still begging Iran to drop their nuclear weapon program

Obama is a foreign policy disaster- perhaps worse than Jimmy Carter. Hawkish nations have seen through his weaknesses and are taking full advantage to maximize their respective agenda.
The US needs a 'strongman' in the mould of Ronald Reagan at this time - not a 'utopian' airhead like Obama.

Okeikpu:
Americans trying very hard to protect their selfish interests.... OIL THIEVES ⊙︿⊙ Most Nigerians don't really know y the Americans secretly backed Buhari...... n rejected Iweala n Gej... Its very easy to deceive those cattle from NORTH ,as for the South West, those one no get say....just anywhere there's party, there they all belong. Their own Mumu no get level...

1. Buhari is muslim; Obama is pro-muslim:

"I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.” - Barack Obama - Audacity of Hope, page 261

2. Okonjo Iweala and GEJ have a republican(right-wing) mindset and are capitalist; Obama and Tinubu are progressives(progressivism is not the same thing has making progress from an ideological perspective, its just a deceitful word for a variant of socialism). Buhari is a socialist.

3. Obama, Cameron(British prime minister), Angela Mikel(German chancellor) hate GEJ for his anti-gay stance (Obama is known to be petty and vindictive).

Ifeann:


Beautifully explained.. remain blessed my friend.

God bless you too my dear sis.

First, gospel means good news, tiding.

Greek: euggelizo - to announce good news("evangelize" ; declare,bring, show glad(good) tidings, preach the good news.
matt 4:23 (euggellion)
mark 1:14-15(euggellion)
luke 4:18(euggelizo)

"Gospel" is usually used in 2 ways in reference to the bible:

M1. The message of redemption: the good news that God is reconcilling the world unto himself through Jesus Christ: whether its a prophetic text that falls within this category in the book of Isaiah or Jesus proclaiming it from town to town or paul or malvinguy,ifeann evangelizing it....etc; its the gospel.

M2. The 4 canonical books of the NT: Matt, Mark, Luke,John which are about the life, works, death and ressurection of Jesus Christ from different.


When Jesus read from the book of Isaiah, He was reading a prophetic gospel which His works will be a fulfilment to.

When we say malvinguy is reading from the gospel, it means he is reading from matt, mark, luke, john (M2).

If malvin is preaching the gospel, then its (M1) regardless of which OT and NT books he is referencing.

Its all about context.

malvisguy212:
you are the one need to be worried caused Allah has already promise you hell when you die.

You guys did not say anything but throw insult on everyone,for the number of time I have chatted with atheists and Muslims, Muslims insults more than atheists. am very disappointed at you guys.

I am surprised you're dissapointed.
You think its easy to sell a psychopath as a "most noble prophet" especially when the facts are now easily available?

It should be the most frustrating "business".

parisbookaddict:


U and 9jaforlife can not chat without insults..

Oh well...!

Anyway U can't ban me.. u can only ban my s..

I am happy because several people have thanked me for the enlightenment and education via my posts. .Several have mailed me to even ask for reading resources...

Ban one ifeann and 2 will take its place..

Peace

Nice one. Thats the spirit.