Welcome, Guest: Register On Nairaland / LOGIN! / Trending / Recent / NewStats: 3,177,905 members, 7,902,922 topics. Date: Saturday, 27 July 2024 at 07:32 PM |
Nairaland Forum / Vooks's Profile / Vooks's Posts
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (of 212 pages)
Religion / Re: Negro Atheists, Show Me Your Works! by vooks: 4:36pm On Jun 14, 2016 |
neoapocalypse:M0ron, you want me to type in hieroglyphics? |
Religion / Re: Vooks, This Is A Call Out by vooks: 4:33pm On Jun 14, 2016 |
absolutism:Wassap my Negro, Go ahead, make my day |
Religion / Re: Seeing Demons, Angels, Fallen Angels, Spirits.. - Hsp's by vooks: 4:30pm On Jun 14, 2016 |
CharlyG1:Hi, I'm back Thank you brethren 2 Likes |
Religion / Re: Negro Atheists, Show Me Your Works! by vooks: 3:55pm On May 04, 2016 |
neoapocalypse:Another serial m0ron. You been bleating about how Africa needs deliverance from 'religion no superstition'. Now that you are delivered from the same, how better are you than the next Negro? |
Religion / Re: Did Joseph Prince Really Say This? by vooks: 3:53pm On May 04, 2016 |
OLAADEGBU:And what is a 'lifestyle of sin'? A quick test: 1. When did you last sin? 2. In what did you sin? 3. Before that last sin, when last did you commit it? 4. Are you a habitual sinner or living a lifestyle of the sin you mentioned in #2? 5. If no to #4, give a practical example of a habitual sinner of the sin you mentioned in #2 6. What is the DIFFERENCE between the example you gave in #5 and yourself? 7. Substantiate #6 with scriptures |
Religion / Re: Did Joseph Prince Really Say This? by vooks: 3:49pm On May 04, 2016 |
OLAADEGBU:If I had time and you had a better IQ, I'd school,you in these -isms |
Religion / Re: Seeing Demons, Angels, Fallen Angels, Spirits.. - Hsp's by vooks: 5:56am On May 03, 2016 |
CharlyG1:Thank you brother CharlyG1, All I may add is , even when circumstances around you don't make sense, please be found faithful in Christ 3 Likes |
Religion / Re: Seeing Demons, Angels, Fallen Angels, Spirits.. - Hsp's by vooks: 5:47am On May 03, 2016 |
KingEbukasBlog:Thank you sir, got really busy in real life and had to shelf my reel life, but I'm fine by the grace of God. 1 Like 1 Share |
Religion / Re: Negro Atheists, Show Me Your Works! by vooks: 5:46am On May 03, 2016 |
neoapocalypse:Now that you are an atheist, what re your personal accomplishments over theists? Idiot. Atheism is as old as man so brandishing it as a sign of accomplishment is quite infantile. Show me your works fool 3 Likes 2 Shares |
Religion / Re: Negro Atheists, Show Me Your Works! by vooks: 5:44am On May 03, 2016 |
MrPresident1:My broda, I'm around, just got bushier lately and I went off the grid 1 Like |
Religion / Re: Negro Atheists, Show Me Your Works! by vooks: 5:44am On May 03, 2016 |
Ayomikun37:Keep 'thoughting' 1 Like |
Religion / Re: Negro Atheists, Show Me Your Works! by vooks: 3:33pm On May 01, 2016 |
Ayomikun37:Bro, atheists are not empty windbags; they're full of something called HOT AIR. 1 Like |
Religion / Re: Negro Atheists, Show Me Your Works! by vooks: 3:30pm On May 01, 2016 |
neoapocalypse:Another m0ron, Let's assume you are into Negro religions. How better are you than a Christian? Buffoon |
Religion / Re: Negro Atheists, Show Me Your Works! by vooks: 3:28pm On May 01, 2016 |
frank317:My negro, None of any of your 'accomplishments' is exceptional; you sound like another negro in this backwater continent. Question was and is, EXACTLY how are your better as an atheist than say a Satanist? ZERO. Militant atheists keep on hallucinating about how religion and especially Christianity had kept humanity especially the Negro down. If there is any truth in this claim, then atheism should be the solution or the key to solutions bedeviling Motherland. But lo and behold, atheists are no better, they are just bitter at what they are not 2 Likes |
Religion / Re: Seeing Demons, Angels, Fallen Angels, Spirits.. - Hsp's by vooks: 3:22pm On May 01, 2016 |
sonOfLucifer:Wassup my nigga 1 Like |
Religion / Re: Seeing Demons, Angels, Fallen Angels, Spirits.. - Hsp's by vooks: 3:16pm On May 01, 2016 |
CharlyG1:Dear CHARLYG1, Been quite busy but I'm back. I'll try and catch up on the thread 3 Likes |
Religion / Re: Did Joseph Prince Really Say This? by vooks: 3:11pm On May 01, 2016 |
OLAADEGBU:Negro, ignorance is expensive |
Religion / Re: Did Joseph Prince Really Say This? by vooks: 3:10pm On May 01, 2016 |
OLAADEGBU:Who is a 'habitual sinner'? Define |
Religion / Re: Negro Atheists, Show Me Your Works! by vooks: 6:09am On Mar 25, 2016 |
MoneypassGod: It's a simple request....Atheists, here are your 15 minutes of fame......take it away 2 Likes |
Religion / Re: If Evolution Was Untrue. by vooks: 6:02am On Mar 25, 2016 |
CoolUsername:Wednesday or Thursday....you have an entire Easter to google. I'm busy with family 1 Like |
Religion / Re: If Evolution Was Untrue. by vooks: 12:55am On Mar 25, 2016 |
CoolUsername:A single topic, a single thread, no trolling, no deviation. Make specific claims, support them. Make my day Negro 2 Likes |
Religion / Re: If Evolution Was Untrue. by vooks: 12:48am On Mar 25, 2016 |
CoolUsername:Young 2. If anything, what can change your mind about evolution?A single shred of evidence for the same |
Religion / Negro Atheists, Show Me Your Works! by vooks: 12:46am On Mar 25, 2016 |
Now that you are not shackled by medieval mythologies and your 280 IQ brain operate at 120% capacity, could you please share your PERSONAL CONTRIBUTION to humanity over and above theists? Show me your works! [size=1pt] As will be soon clear, Negro atheists are just empty windbags regurgitating Western philosophies that stroke their goes, give them highs but leave them as empty with nothing to show for their imitation. No books, no new thought...just New Age bullshiet, Andromeda and Nibiru tripe and overused cliches [/size] PS Antitheistic rants on NL is not contribution by any stretch of hallucination and nor is imagining that you are a 'thinker' 3 Likes 1 Share |
Religion / Re: Where Did Christians Fetch These Doctrines From by vooks: 12:38am On Mar 25, 2016 |
asalimpo:Learn to quote other posts or don't do it at all |
Religion / Re: If Evolution Was Untrue. by vooks: 12:37am On Mar 25, 2016 |
[size=1pt] CoolUsername:[/size] These topics are quite wide. Pick any topic of your choice, invite me and I will make mince meat of the few neurons that make up your brain |
Religion / Re: If Evolution Was Untrue. by vooks: 11:58pm On Mar 24, 2016 |
CoolUsername:The fact that you call tumors facts and demand they be disproved reminds me m0rons abound on NL. Read a book on homology This is another poorly though out response. There are absolutely no dinosaur fossils after the cretaceous period or mammalian fossils in, say the devonian period. Why is fossil dating suddenly an exception when the dating methods give accurate readings for known objects?Dating is a sham. It is circular reasoning per excellence. One example will suffice; Mungo Woman in Australia. I'm not here to mother you so look it up Once again, you've shot yourself in the foot, this only serves as an argument AGAINST intelligent design, or whatever goalpost-shifting intellectual standpoint that you're arguing from, because why would a designer have foetuses go through these stages (that only stand as evidence to exclude said designer from the equation)?Don't be a m0ron. The point is embryo homology means NOTHING, or rather the conclusions drawn therefrom are arbitrary. Another falsehood from history deniers such as yourself, what exactly drives an adaptation? Isn't it a series of inherited genetic traits that were favoured by natural selection? Wasn't that the case in the Lenski Experiment? Or was it FSM's Noodly Appendage?There is enough genetic variety in any organism to manifest these differences. The information is ALREADY there. can ask you the same question but I already know the answer to that (you're the same guy who can't even think of a better alternative scientific model but yet tries an fails to disprove evolution with falsehood). I'm only responding to your post for the sake of others that you may have misinformed.I don't need to disprove a claim, I only need to critique its evidence for which there is none. I may for instance claim that there are Giants on Uranus. You only need me to prove it. You don't prove a negative. Brush up your logic son 4 Likes 3 Shares |
Religion / Re: Where Did Christians Fetch These Doctrines From by vooks: 11:39pm On Mar 24, 2016 |
asalimpo:Really? Does this apply to beastiality? Are there some valid motives behind beastiality? Murder is usually premeditated and with selfish interest (please dont start debating what 'selfish interest' means)One wise man said there is nothing new under the sun. The question of suicide has been debated for probably centuries, and I'm very familiar with just about every objection you may throw. This idea of probabilities is not helping you. 'Usually' bla de bla. So I asked you a simple question; do motives for suicide and murder EVER overlap? Not everybody has the backbone for torment and pressure. Some have fickle backbone so when the storm of life hits, without intervention of some sorts, they could take their lives in one rash secondThe same can be said of murder. To help you with context, do you think the person who assists the tormented and pressured person end his life guilty of murder? What about the mother who when the 'storms of life hit' their 'fickle' backbone caves in and they smash their newborn to escape pressure and torment say of motherhood and the 'anguish of their heart' at their new status? The point is and remains, any rational you may imagine for suicide has already been finely beaten by countless brains before you. Besides this, any emotional appeal you may use to justify suicide can easily be employed of other acts you would never entertain such as murder. In short, there is nothing unique with suicide motives, or at the very least, you are incapable of articulating the uniqueness of suicide to warrant countenancing giving it a pass of some sort |
Religion / Re: Threatening Children With Hell.. by vooks: 10:52pm On Mar 24, 2016 |
johnydon22: This is another thinly veiled antitheistic rant. The best you can do to your kid is to share your values to them There is nothing like 'good because the world deserves good', teach them right and wrong and consequences of both. But as I always remind atheists,and most are quite moral in fact better at morality than theists, they lack any logical basis for their morality ultimate meaning and purpose. It took several young lives lost in a river and nearly mine before I learnt the dangers of drowning. If mentioning consequences of bad 'instills psychological trauma and prisons their minds', consult your nearest armchair sophist 4 Likes 2 Shares |
Religion / Re: GRACE TRANSCENDS FORGIVENESS! by vooks: 10:26pm On Mar 24, 2016 |
promisechuks:Very true |
Religion / Re: Chris And Anita Oyakhilome: The Truth You Never Knew by vooks: 10:08pm On Mar 24, 2016 |
Gombs:Mighty glad you have outgrown m0ronic gifs. But I doubt you can help yourself for long In Numbers 12:1, Moses' wife became the apparent reason for Miriam and Aaron's rebellion against Moses.All true,but where is the second marriage? you for some reasons beyond biblical truths claims they are same woman, that she is a Cushite dwelling in Midian. You went further to claim that the father was A CUSHITE who became a chief in Midian, your reasons being that Joseph et al did same in foreign lands. I did not want to drag it further with you, as your bible knowledge is slimier than a needle's tip, i held my peace.Not 'some reasons', if the wife is Ethiopian, so is the father. I merely pointed at the plausibility of a Cushite being a leader in Midian contrary to your asinine assertion that his leadership in Midian militates against him being a Cushite To make one last move to edify you, let me point this out. The bible called Zipporah's father a Priest of Midian, and his ancestry is traced to Midian, Abraham's son. He was a full blooded Midianite. HE WAS NOT A MIGRANT. I have already showed you that your Cushite Midianicans theory is complete baloney.Where is 'his ancestry traced to Midian'? Let's separate hallucinations from facts Moses married this midianite, had kids even before he went to set Israel free from Egypt, along with Aaron.He married Zippy during his one 40 years of exile Aaron must have met his sister-in-law, and so must have Miriam.Bros, Zipporah and her two boys were brought to Moses in the wilderness well after they had left Egypt. This means that even if you were right, they met Zippy exactly at the same time as Moses; in the wilderness. Therefore, the Cushite lady in the book of Numbers could not have been Zipporah...for there would be no need for the anger towards the lady he married especially before the law.Don't be a m0ron. Even at this point of their murmuring, there was no Law yet against marrying non-Hebrews. But it was generally thus as seen by Abraham intervention in Isaac's marriage. They basically kept it 'within the family'. What you are doing is wondering why they never murmured earlier. One plausible reason is that Zippy had just joined Moses with her father in the wilderness And, if this reference was to Zipporah, whether in regards to her skin color or ethnicity, it is somewhat remarkable that Aaron and Miriam's displeasure would begin so late. They certainly would have lots of time to have expressed it previously on the Exodus.Again you are assuming they knew of Zippy all along and conveniently forgetting Zippy and her dad had just met them in the wilderness Moses married a midianite before the law, and after the law, he wasn't supposed to marry outside the law.There was no Law at this point against marrying non-Hebrews, if there were please show it. Secondly, their grievance was malicious and baseless. If God had at this point banned intermarriage And Moses intermarried, why would He be wroth for these servants who were zealous for His word? Recall God commended and rewarded Joshua for his zeal for the Law That was Aaron's and Miriam's anger, that he not only broke the law, but married outside the covenant. Miriam and Aaron may not have liked that Moses was initially married to a Midianite but they would have understood the extenuating circumstances that led to that union (it happened before the law). Now, here goes Moses marrying outside of the Israelites again!More nonsense. Which Law did he violate? Quote it and prove it was in place before this imagined incidence. Note, nowhere in Numbers tell you Moses remarried. They just took occasion to murmur against a HISTORICAL marriage and not a new one. As Zipporah is never again mentioned (chronologically) in the text, it is quite logical to assume Moses' Midianite wife had died and Moses had now, shortly after, married another woman who was Cushite.But this 'quite logical' is as dumb as it can get for is the Ethiopian wife mentioned after this? Does it mean she died immediately after this? This is the problem with using Google to copy paste junk and hope that you will look clever. You look more stupid. Think through whatever Oyaks belches enforce regurgitating it here God's subsequent vindication of Moses, in the face of Miriam and Aaron's displeasure, implies that Moses had done no wrong in the circumstances leading to their actions. As can be seen throughout the Old Testament, God is normally quite willing to call out leaders for the wrong actions, either directly or through those around them. Zipporah's death can be reasonably assumed.But if there was already a law against intermarriage, why would Moses be vindicated for bypassing millions of Israeli galz and marrying a non-Hebrew? Remember in the midst of their journey, as they were at an "encampment" (KJV says "inn", God struck Moses with a very serious illness for failing to circumcise his son (likely the younger one Eliezer). It appears that he was so sick that he was unable to do it himself, so Zipporah did it.Bro drop those psychedelic mushrooms. This was not in the 'midst of the journey', it was BEFORE Moses got back to Egypt from Midian, from the burning bush, before the plagues, before Exodus, before splitting the Red Sea! Her words that followed to Moses were "Surely you are a husband of blood to me!" (Ex 4:25). Most believe that she was opposed to infant circumcision (as were her Midianite people), so Moses did not perform the circumcision in order to please her. However, when she saw that God would take her husband's life for failing to do so, she did it herself, but the ritual disgusted her, thus her words to Moses.This is baseless speculation but most importantly, it was BEFORE Moses got back to Egypt from Midian After this event, we see Moses meeting up with Aaron and heading for Egypt (Ex 4:27-31). We do not hear about Zipporah and the two boys again until (Ex 18:1-7).Which means Zippy never met neither Aaron not Miriam! Blowing off both your hooves In all, it is clear Zipporah and the Cushite were two different people!How? [b]Miriam and Aaron were angry he married outside the law, God vindicated him because, he should have paid dearly for breaking the law, but for the record, the Law only banned Israelites from taking wives of "those who live in the land," namely the peoples/nations who were under God's judgment in the land of Canaan (Exodus 34:15-16; cf. Genesis 15:16). Moses therefore did no wrong in taking a subsequent wife who was a Cushite. Amateur theologian, Exodus forbade covenants with Caananites. Midian was not Canaan and not was Cush. Let me paste the entire verse for you. Exodus 34:11-16 (ESV) Observe what I command you this day. Behold, I will drive out before you the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites. 12 Take care, lest you make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land to which you go, lest it become a snare in your midst. 13 You shall tear down their altars and break their pillars and cut down their Asherim 14 (for you shall worship no other god, for the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God), 15 lest you make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land, and when they LovePeddler after their gods and sacrifice to their gods and you are invited, you eat of his sacrifice, 16 and you take of their daughters for your sons, and their daughters LovePeddler after their gods and make your sons LovePeddler after their gods. The 'land' in question is Canaan. So there would have been no occasion for Aaron and Miriam to get mad. Secondly as I told you, if Moses breached or apparently breached any Law, God ought to have corrected their overzealousness instead of punishing them for attempting to obey Him. Thirdly, I'm still waiting for the record of Moses REMARRYING. Once gain, the grievance against Moses was 100% unfounded. This you got right, but not because of Exodus 34, but rather because God had used Moses to wrought wonders despite marrying Zippy the Cushite/Midianite yet it grieved Aaron and Miriam. When Zippy was reunited with Moses by his father in the wilderness, God was indifferent to her. Why would they seize that to murmur against Moses' leadership? It is quote probable that Miriam was annoyed by Jethro's system of delegation and she projected this on his daughter hence the sudden wrath Where is it recorded that Moses remarried? |
Religion / Re: Seeing Demons, Angels, Fallen Angels, Spirits.. - Hsp's by vooks: 9:32pm On Mar 24, 2016 |
1 Corinthians 15:32 (KJV) If after the manner of men I have fought with beasts at Ephesus, what advantageth it me, if the dead rise not? let us eat and drink; for to morrow we die. Beloved, Look at this verse closely. First, Paul is correcting the Corinthians' error of believing there is no resurrection. To this end he poses a series of rhetorical questions meant to drive the point home. The point is, most of what Christians do and the risks they take are meaningless if all there is to life is this life. In this particular verse, he wonders what value it adds 'fighting beasts' at Ephesus if there is no resurrection. Obviously whatever Paul means here, it includes some serious risk on his life as well as sacrifice. But the question is, what does he mean that he fought with beasts at Ephesus? Beasts are (wild)animals but Ephesus is a city and we know animals are displaced by human settlement. There certainly were no wild animals roaming in the city of Ephesus, at least not any that is recorded. Some think the beasts were wicked men who persecuted Christianity. But again, Paul never fought back. It is hard to imagine Paul fighting physically with men whereas Acts present him as one fully meek. My opinion is that of all his ministry tours, Ephesus is where Paul experienced the most intense and unrelenting spiritual warfare. It is my humble belief that what he is describing here as beasts are demonic entities, and fighting them is spiritual warfare. Maybe this is what inspired him in his epistle to Ephesus to dedicate some portions of it to spiritual warfare; [b]Ephesians 6:11-20 (KJV) Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. 12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. 13 Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand. 14 Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness; 15 And your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace; 16 Above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked. 17 And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God: 18 Praying always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit, and watching thereunto with all perseverance and supplication for all saints; 19 And for me, that utterance may be given unto me, that I may open my mouth boldly, to make known the mystery of the gospel, 20 For which I am an ambassador in bonds: that therein I may speak boldly, as I ought to speak.[/b] Good night saints of the most high 4 Likes |
Religion / Re: GRACE TRANSCENDS FORGIVENESS! by vooks: 9:00pm On Mar 24, 2016 |
promisechuks, Ever wondered why Pharisees and Legalists are super scared of this simple question, 'do you sin?'? The reason is simple; They spend a better part of their waking life condemning others for not embracing legalism as themselves but they have never thought out the implication of their beliefs. Possible answers to the question 1. The radicalized 2. The rational double-minded Legalist will tell you they are hairbreadth away from sinlessness...with a few prayers, carefulness, crucifying the flesh they should be there. This is hopefully by their deathbed some 80 years from now. 3. The confused Legalist will tell you that they sin occasionally. OCCASIONALLY here means, 'way too less than those filthy wicked sinners out there heading to hell. Those are CONTINUING in sin but the Legalist is just an occasional sinner. In fact they are not sinners as such, just that they sin occasionally 4. The semi-baked Legalist will tell you that they do sin, but they sin unconsciously, NEVER deliberately, and as such, their sins are way more forgive able that the vile sinners out there who sin deliberately. He is closely related to #3 When you look at #2-#4, there is sin in the Legalist's life. The Legalist embarks on an impossible task of diminishing this sin, rounding it off to the nearest nothing. To help them along, they MAGNIFY the the sins of others. Another thing is that while the Legalist threatens everyone with eternal damnation, they are not any better assured of their eternity; Christ may sneak on them just after they sin and before they repent! Some to cope with this frightening possibility of missing heaven theorize that somewhat before Jesus lands, He will quickly and spontaneously quicken all believers of all sins, give them some time to repent, hold them sinless for a few more moments, and then before those moments lapse, He will quickly fish them before they are again tainted with sin! Others theorize that these 'minor and infrequent' sins won't determine their eternity; it is the 'major sins' that matter. The problem is the distinction between 'minor and infrequent' sins and 'major and frequent' sins is arbitrary. The The rational Legalist ought to tell you whether he is saved now that he is yet to attain sinlessness or he will be saved once he attains it The confused Legalist ought to define occasional what frequency of a sin makes it occasional and habitual? Once in a week, month, year? The semi-baked Legalist is a pathetic liar. Pray tell me what one sin he did unconsciously that is without knowing it? As such, you can see why the question of sin in the Legalists is a scary one. They will avoid it at all cost because it condemns them! Cc Muafrika2,Scholar8200 1 Like |
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (of 212 pages)
(Go Up)
Sections: politics (1) business autos (1) jobs (1) career education (1) romance computers phones travel sports fashion health religion celebs tv-movies music-radio literature webmasters programming techmarket Links: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) Nairaland - Copyright © 2005 - 2024 Oluwaseun Osewa. All rights reserved. See How To Advertise. 117 |