talk2me006:
I beleive u must worshipping rat or cow

at least, finish your secondary school, before talking to erudites like me. O.k?

ohisola: dis isn't a thread 2 state ur opinion or ur view. It neva asked 4 it. Am sure if u я̲̣̥ as wise as u claim 2 b (Mr philosopher) u wld hav bn able 2 read simple English dat says 'what name do u call God' n snc Mr I too know doesn't hav a god, common sense shld tel u dat dis thread is not 4 u, so u move 2 d next.

I am a little surprised at your post because your mind is made up on some ideology about supernatural being. Don't answers require explanations? Some people who have different names in their various languages explain better and the reason behind the names.Isn't that their opinions to you? You are very myopic to think there is no opinion necessary in this question matter.

I am not a philosopher,guesser!

ORITSENEBUWE(supreme God)

*dhtml:

The key is "Nephilism". Yes, we read the same bible. When the fallen angels came to women on earth before the flood - they had offsprings (Nephilim) - are those offsprings created by God? And do you know that that demons and fallen angels are not the same? And find out what "Nephilim" means. BTW Nephilim and aliens are related. I have distracted the thread enough already - but i have compresssed so many things in this post.

Let us stop distracting the thread, if you want to talk more about this, create another thread.

Don't worry we are going to iron this out but just like you said not on this thread. Have a glorious sunday

Lakayana: Don't worry we are going to iron this out but just like you said not on this thread. Have a glorious sunday

Gracias! have a glorious sunday too!!

Eledumare. "Undefinable" or The highest supreme.

dabriggs:

Wonderful analogy. That is why from place to place on earth there are diverse religions christianity inclusive. Just as I have asked, if the muslim God comes will he punish me in fiery hell for being a christian? And if the christian God comes will he punish all muslims (babies,infants,children,adults etc) for being muslims. He allowed them to be born into the muslim family. And this analogy can go on if we start assuming that hunduism, bhudism, or shintoism were the true religions just to name a few, will they punish others forever in Hell for been born and raised under different beliefs,religions and regions of the world? A fault not theirs? Hmmm.

Logic and philosphy. Love it!

I used thesame logic to explain to one catholic church fanatic in the family house I stayed when I was serving in Sokoto, all he could say was that I should leave them to be judged when their time comes. I told him that the bible is absolute in the way it presents it presents its own truth that if followed to the letters christians will be so intolerant of dissident religious opinion and rights to worship. It shows that after all said and done, the bible is just as falible and unbelievably exaggerated to the point that it defiles common sense.
For instance, I asked him to explain John 3:16? How can God claim to love the world it is claimed he created and then send his only begotten son Jesus to die for it. What exactly was the significance of Jesus coming to die for mankind when God could easily redeem it or do what he likes without sending his only son to be murdered by thesame people it is claimed jesus came to die for just to save them from the wrath of his father, God. Is God an egomaniac that needs his son Christ to die just so he can be appeased or something or is he so powerless that he can make man do the right thing? The whole Jesus died on the cross thing is a copycat fairy tale that has long been the religious traditional believes of pagan gods who existed before romans and Paul invented christianity. Imagine if Africa was not colonized by the europeans, we wont even be having this whiteman Jesus conversation, amadioha, sango and so on still would have been our religious main stay. So much for mind programming and psychological propaganda.

I call Him "Ome mgbe olile anya gwusili".

mshd5: Special name of God is Allah, whch means 'no one like Him'

Sorry bro but Allah is not the supreme God and creator of the universe. Allah is a god, not God

Aleselewi (He do whatever he says)
Alewilese (He says whatever he can do)
Arugbo ojo(The ancient of days)
Onimo (The all knowing God)
The extent of his greatness can not even be imagined by our mortal mind
What we know about him is even the glimpse of what he has showed to us
If beleiving in Jehovah is called stupidity,myopic,illiterates and gullibles,i think i am.

Mine is 'Agidigba GOd'

talk2me006:
U claiming u hav God. who is ur god?
no be human being ur god.

boy, stop derailing the thread...keep reading to increase ur knowledge..

ALLAHU. No other name is all encompassing.

Yaa Allahu

Uko ke ekong

vanstanzy:
Athiest alert, more like virus alert. There's a virus in the house!

Alarm! Alarm!!

mile

trent9002:
And what if Muslims are right, and you die and meet Allah?

They can never be right because I'av know the truth and the truth av set me free.

mile what do you mean {doesn't exist} pls explain better

[/quote] hence forth I shall be periodically posting some revealing excerpt from The Christ Conspiracy book that demonstratively proved with historical facts and evidence that Christ never realy existed, he was a myth created by the roman church. Enjoy![quote author=rhymz]
THE BIBLE PROPHECY Many people believe that the biblical tale of Jesus must be true because the Bible itself predicted his advent and because so many other Old Testament “prophecies” had come true, demonstrating that the book was indeed “God’s word.” First of all, much of the biblical “prophecy” was written after the fact, with merely an appearance of prophecy. Secondly, the book has served as a blueprint, such that rulers have deliberately followed to some degree its so-called prophecies, thus appearing to bring them to fulfillment. Thirdly, very few if any “prophecies,” particularly of the supernatural kind, have indeed come true. Fourthly, biblical interpreters claim that records of events centuries in the past somehow refer to the future. As concerns purported prophetic references to Jesus in the OT, Wells says: "Nearly all New Testament authors twist and torture the most unhelpful Old Testament passages into prophecies concerning Christianity". Who, ignorant of Mt. 2:16-9, could suppose that Jeremiah 31:15 (Rachel weeping for her children) referred to Herod’s slaughter of the Innocents? To demonstrate that their Messiah was predicted, Christians have also grabbed onto the brief reference made at Psalms 2 to “the Lord and his Anointed,” a word that in the Greek translation of the Hebrew bible, the Septuagint, is “Christos.” In fact, the Septuagint, allegedly translated and redacted during the second and third centuries BCE at Alexandria, Egypt, contains the word “Christos” at least 40 times. This title “Christos” or “anointed,” however, referred only to an Israelite king or priest, not a superhuman savior. This Christian defense, in fact, proves that there were other Christs long before Jesus, including David, Zadok and Cyrus. The title “Christ” or “Anointed” (“Mashiah”) was in reality held by all kings of Israel, as well as being “so commonly assumed by all sorts of impostors, conjurers, and pretenders to supernatural communications, that the very claim to it is in the gospel itself considered as an indication of imposture . As to the reliability of both Old and New Testaments, Hilton Hotema declared, “Not one line of the Bible has a known author, and but few incidents of it are corroborated by other testimony. Thus, Christianity is based upon a false proposition, and, without the inspired authorship of apostles under an infallible god, the Church is left with little upon which to base its claims. Regarding this state of affairs, Wheless declared: The Gentile Church of Christ has therefore no divine sanction; was never contemplated nor created by Jesus Christ. The Christian Church is thus founded on a forgery of pretended words of the pretended Christ.

[/quote] hence forth I shall be periodically posting some revealing excerpt from The Christ Conspiracy book that demonstratively proved with historical facts and evidence that Christ never realy existed, he was a myth created by the roman church. Enjoy![quote author=rhymz]
THE BIBLE PROPHECY Many people believe that the biblical tale of Jesus must be true because the Bible itself predicted his advent and because so many other Old Testament “prophecies” had come true, demonstrating that the book was indeed “God’s word.” First of all, much of the biblical “prophecy” was written after the fact, with merely an appearance of prophecy. Secondly, the book has served as a blueprint, such that rulers have deliberately followed to some degree its so-called prophecies, thus appearing to bring them to fulfillment. Thirdly, very few if any “prophecies,” particularly of the supernatural kind, have indeed come true. Fourthly, biblical interpreters claim that records of events centuries in the past somehow refer to the future. As concerns purported prophetic references to Jesus in the OT, Wells says: "Nearly all New Testament authors twist and torture the most unhelpful Old Testament passages into prophecies concerning Christianity". Who, ignorant of Mt. 2:16-9, could suppose that Jeremiah 31:15 (Rachel weeping for her children) referred to Herod’s slaughter of the Innocents? To demonstrate that their Messiah was predicted, Christians have also grabbed onto the brief reference made at Psalms 2 to “the Lord and his Anointed,” a word that in the Greek translation of the Hebrew bible, the Septuagint, is “Christos.” In fact, the Septuagint, allegedly translated and redacted during the second and third centuries BCE at Alexandria, Egypt, contains the word “Christos” at least 40 times. This title “Christos” or “anointed,” however, referred only to an Israelite king or priest, not a superhuman savior. This Christian defense, in fact, proves that there were other Christs long before Jesus, including David, Zadok and Cyrus. The title “Christ” or “Anointed” (“Mashiah”) was in reality held by all kings of Israel, as well as being “so commonly assumed by all sorts of impostors, conjurers, and pretenders to supernatural communications, that the very claim to it is in the gospel itself considered as an indication of imposture . As to the reliability of both Old and New Testaments, Hilton Hotema declared, “Not one line of the Bible has a known author, and but few incidents of it are corroborated by other testimony. Thus, Christianity is based upon a false proposition, and, without the inspired authorship of apostles under an infallible god, the Church is left with little upon which to base its claims. Regarding this state of affairs, Wheless declared: The Gentile Church of Christ has therefore no divine sanction; was never contemplated nor created by Jesus Christ. The Christian Church is thus founded on a forgery of pretended words of the pretended Christ.

Ar-rahim(the merciful God)

coolboy234: mile what do you mean {doesn't exist} pls explain better

I meant to say that the God the poster is alluding to doesn't exist.

StewieGriffin: Sorry bro but Allah is not the supreme God and creator of the universe. Allah is a god, not God

haaa take note of u re commenting it's unfair pls.

mileseer: Nothing, since one doesn't exist.

A fool says there is no GOD
Psalm 14 and 54.

THE EVEMERISTS It is because of such irrational beliefs and prejudicial demands that many people have rejected Christian claims as being incredible and unappealing. Nevertheless, numerous such dissidents have maintained that behind the fabulous fairytales found in the gospels there was a historical Jesus Christ somewhere, an opinion usually based on the fact that it is commonly held, not because its proponents have studied the matter or seen clear evidence to that effect. This “meme” or mental programming of a historical Jesus has been pounded into the heads of billions of people for nearly 2,000 years, such that it is assumed a priori by many, including “scholars” who have put forth an array of clearly speculative hypotheses hung on highly tenuous threads regarding the “life of Jesus.” Such speculators often claim that a historical Jewish master named Jesus was deified or “evemerized” by his zealous followers, who added to his mundane “history” a plethora of supernatural qualities and aspects widely found in more ancient myths and mystery religions. This school of thought called “ Evemerism” or “Euhemerism,” is named after Evemeras, or Euhemeros, a Greek philosopher of the 4th century BCE who developed the idea that, rather than being mythical creatures, as was accepted by the reigning intellectuals, the gods of old were in fact historical characters, kings, emperors and heroes whose exploits were later deified. Of these various evemerist “biographies,” the most popular are that Jesus was a compassionate teacher who irritated the Romans with his goodness, or a political rebel who annoyed the Romans with his incitement of discord, for which he was executed. Wells omments upon the theory du jour: As political activism is today à la mode, it is widely felt that a revolutionary Jesus is more “relevant” than the Jesus of the nineteenth century liberal theologians who “went about doing good” (Acts, 10:38). Both these Jesuses simply reflect what in each case the commentators value most highly rather than the burden of the texts. If Jesus had been politically troublesome, his supporters would have been arrested with him. But there is no suggestion of this in any of the gospels. He further states: There are . . . three obvious difficulties against the supposition that a historical Jesus was actually executed as a rebel: (i) All Christian documents earlier than the gospels portray him in a way hardly compatible with the view that he was a political agitator. . . (ii) If his activities had been primarily political, and the evangelists were not interested in—or deemed it inexpedient to mention—his politics, then what was the motive for their strong interest in him? How did they come to suppose that a rebel, whose revolutionary views they tried to suppress in their gospels, was the universal saviour? (iii) If such an episode as the cleansing of the temple was not a religious act (as the gospels allege) but an armed attempt to capture the building and to precipitate a general insurrection, then why does Josephus say nothing of it? As Trocmé has observed . . . a military attack on the temple would not have been ignored by this writer who was so concerned to show the dangers of revolt and violence. Josephus’ silence is corroborated by the positive affirmation of Tacitus that there was no disturbance in Palestine under Tiberius (AD 14-37), whereas the preceding and following reigns were characterized by rebellion and unrest there . . . Of these various “lives of Jesus,” Wells also says: It is now customary to dismiss with contempt many nineteenth-century lives of Jesus on the grounds that their authors simply found in him all the qualities which they themselves considered estimable. But the wide circulation today of books which portray him as a rebel seems yet another illustration of the same phenomenon. Evemerist scholar Shaye Cohen, professor of Judaic and Religion Studies at Brown University, admits the desperate situation of trying to find this “historical” reformer/rebel under the accreted layers of miracles: Modern scholars have routinely reinvented Jesus or have routinely rediscovered in Jesus that which they want to find, be it rationalist, liberal Christianity of the 19th century, be it apocalyptic miracle workers in the 20th, be it revolutionaries, or be it whatever it is that they’re looking for, scholars have been able to find in Jesus almost anything that they want to find. Even in our own age scholars are still doing this. People are still trying to figure out the authentic sayings of Jesus. . ., all our middle class liberal Protestant scholars. . . will take a vote and decide what Jesus should have said, or might have said. And no doubt their votes reflect their own deep-seated, very sincere, very authentic Christian values, which I don’t gainsay for a moment. But their product is, of course, bedeviled by the problem that we are unable to have any secure criteria by which to distinguish the real from the mythic or what we want to be so from what actually was so. . . . These various theories in the end constitute wheel-spinning in a futile effort to rescue historicity, any historicity, in the gospel tale. Because of the dearth of personality in the gospels and the irrationality of the tale, historicizers must imbue the character with their own personalities and interpretations of reality, such as: “When Jesus said, ‘Blessed are the poor,’ he surely didn’t mean that poverty is a blessing but that those who lived with povert

charlsecy4:

A fool says there is no GOD
Psalm 14 and 54.

Who wrote that ?

I call him the 'Unchangeable changer'.

THE MYTHISCIST This missing core to the onion has been recognized by many individuals over the centuries who have thus been unable to accept the historical nature of Jesus Christ, because not only is there no proof of his existence but virtually all evidence points to him being a mythological character. As stated, this “Mythicist School” began to flourish starting a few hundred years ago, propelled by archaeological and linguistical discoveries and studies, as well as by the reduction of the Church’s power and vicious persecution of its critics. This group has consisted of a number of erudite and daring individuals who have overcome the conditioning of their culture to peer closely and with clear eyes into the murky origins of the Christian faith. Massey elucidates the mythicists’ perspective: The general assumption concerning the canonical gospels is that the historic element was the kernel of the whole, and that the fables accreted round it; whereas the mythos, being pre-extant, proves the core of the matter was mythical, and it follows that the history is incremental. . . . It was the human history that accreted round the divinity, and not a human being who became divine. While the mythicist school has only made real inroads in the past couple of centuries, and even though its brilliant work and insight have been ignored by mainstream “experts” in both the believing and evemerist camps, the mythicist arguments have been built upon a long line of Bible criticism. Indeed, this controversy has existed from the very beginning as is evidenced by the writings of the Church fathers themselves, i.e., those who founded the Christian Church, who revealed that they were constantly forced by the “Pagan” intelligentsia to defend what the non- Christians and other Christians (“heretics”) alike saw as a preposterous and fabricated yarn with absolutely no evidence of it ever having taken place in history. As Rev. Robert Taylor says in The Diegesis, “And from the apostolic age downwards, in a never interrupted succession, but never so strongly and emphatically as in the most primitive times, was the existence of Christ as a man most strenuously denied.” In fact, as Taylor also states: Those who denied the humanity of Christ were the first class of professing Christians, and not only first in order of time, but in dignity of character, in intelligence, and in moral influence. . . . The deniers of the humanity of Christ, or,in a word, professing Christians, who denied that any such man as Jesus Christ ever existed at all, but who took the name Jesus Christ to signify only an abstraction, or prosopopoeia, the principle of Reason personified; and who understood the whole gospel story to be a sublime allegory . . . these were the first, and (it is not dishonour to Christianity to pronounce them) the best and most rational Christians. Again, this denial of Christ in the flesh is found numerous times in the writings of the day, including the New Testament itself, yet it is ignored by historicizers, believers and evemerists alike. Indeed, in their “exhaustive” research into this all-important subject, historicizers have either wilfully and unreasonably ignored the great minds of the mythicist school or have never come across them. If we assume that the historicizers’ disregard of these scholars is deliberate, we can onlyconclude that it is because the mythicists’