kilo4sure:

You surely do not want to argue this with me, do you?

Yeah I want too bring it on!! I day here N it's my thread. So now what will be Ur escape tactic??

AmenRa1:

Who told U Socrates didn't pen anything down are U kidding me?? In the case of the Buddha he didn't claim to be God nor was he educated unlike U Christian that claim Ur Jesus was God incarnation But couldn't read or write upon all the Omni titles U gave the imaginative character

I didn't know you were this ignorant, show me what Socrates wrote.

kilo4sure:

I didn't know you were this ignorant, show me what Socrates wrote.

oh now am ignorant well I didn't expect anything less from a Christian

kilo4sure:

It still doesn't answer my question. Socrates perhaps one of the greatest philosophers ever never penned anything down. The rational Buddha also never penned anything down, his disciples wrote about him 500years after. Many great men do not write things down. Why should a living Christ write a book?

Don't get me wrong. Chances are good that Jesus existed. All I'm saying is that it's a little counter-intuitive for an omniscient god to rely on flawed humans to record what he did.

Also, I feel that if a man performed the miracles that Jesus was said to have, then we won't have to wait till 20 years after his death for him to be mentioned in passing in some letters.

I also strongly feel that we won't have to wait for 30 years after his death for people to actually start talking about his life and said miracles.

And I very strongly feel that the stories about him shouldn't be so conflicting in their details.

AmenRa1:

oh now am ignorant well I didn't expect anything less from a Christian

Lol, ok you are not ignorant, but show me what Socrates wrote, he wrote nothing Amen Ra.

kilo4sure:

Lol, ok you are not ignorant, but show me what Socrates wrote, he wrote nothing Amen Ra.

Search Socrates problem on Wikipedia and educate Ur self

Tobitrueman:
Thank God God nor be man. Blasphemy of the highest order. Vulgar words spew sporadically. What temerity, audacity and effrontery? Even man can't take this insult? Well, God is merciful, gracious and loving. Please, if you want to criticize, do so intelligently with well refined wordings.
Even the atheism you people are clamouring for would have your head on platter if such abusive language is thrown at there delusive and demeaning government.

God doesn't exist. So it cannot do anything

ayoku777:
Jesus Christ came into this world to, among other things, show us how to live. And to effectively do that, He needed not to take advantage of His innate divinity privileges.

If He had used His innate divinity privileges, He wouldn't be able to tell us that we can do what He did. Because we would just say, "Well, You're the Word of God and you created all things, that's why you can do all that."

So that was why even though Jesus is the Word of God and the Begotten Son of God, He laid aside His innate divinity privileges, and walked among us as the Son of man.

Philippians 2v6 - (Jesus) Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:

7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, AND WAS MADE IN THE LIKENESS OF MEN:

So Jesus lived and walked among us like a man.

He ate and drank like a man.

Matthew11:19 -The Son of man came eating and drinking, ...

He got tired and slept like a man.

Mark 4:8 And he was in the hinder part of the ship, ASLEEP ON A PILLOW: and they awake him, and say unto him, Master, carest thou not that we perish

He felt pain and sorrow like a man.

Matt26:38 - Then saith he unto them, My soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death: tarry ye here, and watch with me.

He read and studied and increased in wisdom like a man.

Luk 2:52 And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man.

Even the miracles He performed, He didn't do any until after He had fasted and prayed for the power of the Holy Spirit, just like we can.

Luk 4:1 And Jesus being full of the Holy Ghost returned from Jordan, and was led by the Spirit into the wilderness,

14 And Jesus returned in the power of the Spirit into Galilee: and there went out a fame of him through all the region round about.

Jesus Christ laid aside His innate divinity privileges in His earthly ministry and walked among us as the Son of man, seeking and depending on the leading and power of the Holy Spirit for His daily life, like every man should.

He did this to show us how to live and walk. That was why He could tell us confidently that;

...verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father. (John 14:12)

He could say this because He did everything He did by the power of the Holy Spirit, which we can also seek and have.

The only thing Jesus did in His earthly ministry that no one else can do, is His death for our sins. And that's because Jesus alone is the LAMB OF GOD slain from the foundation of the earth.

Rev 13:8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

But aside from His death as the Lamb of God for our sins, we can do the works that He did, because He laid aside His innate divinity privileges, and walked among us as a man. That was why He grew and learnt like a man.

Shalom

God himself came to earth and was unable to give any meaningful or useful information.

It is truly incompetent and mediocre

CoolUsername:


Don't get me wrong. Chances are good that Jesus existed. All I'm saying is that it's a little counter-intuitive for an omniscient god to rely on flawed humans to record what he did.

Also, I feel that if a man performed the miracles that Jesus was said to have, then we won't have to wait till 20 years after his death for him to be mentioned in passing in some letters.

I also strongly feel that we won't have to wait for 30 years after his death for people to actually start talking about his life and said miracles.

And I very strongly feel that the stories about him shouldn't be so conflicting in their details.

With the exception of philo and Josephus how many rabbinic or Jewish writings do you have from the first century? Was it a literate culture and did they place so much value in writing rather than oral teaching? Even Talmudic Judaism did not put their events down for many years until the second century after the destruction of the temple, they never saw the need to write, the apostles also may have thought the kingdom of God was very near, even so not many of this fisher men could have been literate to write things down, when they began to die, the Christian communities saw the need to record these events, especially after the destruction of the temple.

AmenRa1:

Search Socrates problem on Wikipedia and educate Ur self

Socratic problem

The Socratic problem (or Socratic question)[1] is the term for the situation in the history of scholarship with respect to the existing materia pertaining to the individual known as Socrates which scholars rely upon as the only extant sources for knowing anything at all about this individual, but when compared, show contradictions and do not agree. It is apparent to scholarship that this problem is now deemed a task seeming impossible to clarify and thus perhaps now classified as unsolvable.[2][3]

Socrates was the main character in most of Plato's dialogues and was a genuine historical figure. It is widely understood that in later dialogues Plato used the character Socrates to give voice to views that were his own. Besides Plato, three other important sources exist for the study of Socrates: Aristophanes, Aristotle, and Xenophon. Since no extensive writings of Socrates himself survive to the modern era, his actual views must be discerned from the sometimes contradictory reports of these four sources.Socratic problem

The Socratic problem (or Socratic question)[1] is the term for the situation in the history of scholarship with respect to the existing materia pertaining to the individual known as Socrates which scholars rely upon as the only extant sources for knowing anything at all about this individual, but when compared, show contradictions and do not agree. It is apparent to scholarship that this problem is now deemed a task seeming impossible to clarify and thus perhaps now classified as unsolvable.[2][3]

Socrates was the main character in most of Plato's dialogues and was a genuine historical figure. It is widely understood that in later dialogues Plato used the character Socrates to give voice to views that were his own. Besides Plato, three other important sources exist for the study of Socrates: Aristophanes, Aristotle, and Xenophon. Since no extensive writings of Socrates himself survive to the modern era, his actual views must be discerned from the sometimes contradictory reports of these four sources.

Amen Ra, even your source doesn't agree with you.

kilo4sure:


Socratic problem

The Socratic problem (or Socratic question)[1] is the term for the situation in the history of scholarship with respect to the existing materia pertaining to the individual known as Socrates which scholars rely upon as the only extant sources for knowing anything at all about this individual, but when compared, show contradictions and do not agree. It is apparent to scholarship that this problem is now deemed a task seeming impossible to clarify and thus perhaps now classified as unsolvable.[2][3]

Socrates was the main character in most of Plato's dialogues and was a genuine historical figure. It is widely understood that in later dialogues Plato used the character Socrates to give voice to views that were his own. Besides Plato, three other important sources exist for the study of Socrates: Aristophanes, Aristotle, and Xenophon. Since no extensive writings of Socrates himself survive to the modern era, his actual views must be discerned from the sometimes contradictory reports of these four sources.Socratic problem

The Socratic problem (or Socratic question)[1] is the term for the situation in the history of scholarship with respect to the existing materia pertaining to the individual known as Socrates which scholars rely upon as the only extant sources for knowing anything at all about this individual, but when compared, show contradictions and do not agree. It is apparent to scholarship that this problem is now deemed a task seeming impossible to clarify and thus perhaps now classified as unsolvable.[2][3]

Socrates was the main character in most of Plato's dialogues and was a genuine historical figure. It is widely understood that in later dialogues Plato used the character Socrates to give voice to views that were his own. Besides Plato, three other important sources exist for the study of Socrates: Aristophanes, Aristotle, and Xenophon. Since no extensive writings of Socrates himself survive to the modern era, his actual views must be discerned from the sometimes contradictory reports of these four sources.

see Christians O we're did U get this stuff from?

Nothing written by Socrates remains extant. As a result, all first-hand information about him and his philosophies depends upon secondary sources. Furthermore, close comparison between the contents of these sources reveals contradictions, thus creating concerns about the possibility of knowing in-depth the real Socrates. This issue is known as the Socratic problem,[4] or the Socratic question.[5][6]

To understand Socrates and his thought, one must turn primarily to the works of Plato, whose dialogues are thought the most informative source about Socrates' life and philosophy,[7] and also Xenophon.[8] These writings are the Sokratikoi logoi, or Socratic dialogues, which consist of reports of conversations apparently involving Socrates.[9][10]

As for discovering the real-life Socrates, the difficulty is that ancient sources are mostly philosophical or dramatic texts, apart from Xenophon. There are no straightforward histories, contemporary with Socrates, that dealt with his own time and place. A corollary of this is that sources that do mention Socrates do not necessarily claim to be historically accurate, and are often partisan. For instance, those who prosecuted and convicted Socrates have left no testament. Historians therefore face the challenge of reconciling the various evidence from the extant texts in order to attempt an accurate and consistent account of Socrates' life and work. The result of such an effort is not necessarily realistic, even if consistent.

Amid all the disagreement resulting from differences within sources, two factors emerge from all sources pertaining to Socrates. It would seem, therefore, that he was ugly, and that Socrates had a brilliant intellect.[11][12]

The character of Socrates as exhibited in Apology, Crito, Phaedo and Symposium concurs with other sources to an extent to which it seems possible to rely on the Platonic Socrates, as demonstrated in the dialogues, as a representation of the actual Socrates as he lived in history.[13] At the same time, however, many scholars believe that in some works, Plato, being a literary artist, pushed his avowedly brightened-up version of "Socrates" far beyond anything the historical Socrates was likely to have done or said. Also, Xenophon, being an historian, is a more reliable witness to the historical Socrates. It is a matter of much debate over which Socrates it is whom Plato is describing at any given point—the historical figure, or Plato's fictionalization. As British philosopher Martin Cohen has put it, "Plato, the idealist, offers an idol, a master figure, for philosophy. A Saint, a prophet of 'the Sun-God', a teacher condemned for his teachings as a heretic."[14]

It is also clear from other writings and historical artefacts, that Socrates was not simply a character, nor an invention, of Plato. The testimony of Xenophon and Aristotle, alongside some of Aristophanes' work (especially The Clouds), is useful in fleshing out a perception of Socrates beyond Plato's work.

AmenRa1:

see Christians O we're did U get this stuff from?
Nothing written by Socrates remains extant. As a result, all first-hand information about him and his philosophies depends upon secondary sources. Furthermore, close comparison between the contents of these sources reveals contradictions, thus creating concerns about the possibility of knowing in-depth the real Socrates. This issue is known as the Socratic problem,[4] or the Socratic question.[5][6]

To understand Socrates and his thought, one must turn primarily to the works of Plato, whose dialogues are thought the most informative source about Socrates' life and philosophy,[7] and also Xenophon.[8] These writings are the Sokratikoi logoi, or Socratic dialogues, which consist of reports of conversations apparently involving Socrates.[9][10]

As for discovering the real-life Socrates, the difficulty is that ancient sources are mostly philosophical or dramatic texts, apart from Xenophon. There are no straightforward histories, contemporary with Socrates, that dealt with his own time and place. A corollary of this is that sources that do mention Socrates do not necessarily claim to be historically accurate, and are often partisan. For instance, those who prosecuted and convicted Socrates have left no testament. Historians therefore face the challenge of reconciling the various evidence from the extant texts in order to attempt an accurate and consistent account of Socrates' life and work. The result of such an effort is not necessarily realistic, even if consistent.

Amid all the disagreement resulting from differences within sources, two factors emerge from all sources pertaining to Socrates. It would seem, therefore, that he was ugly, and that Socrates had a brilliant intellect.[11][12]

The character of Socrates as exhibited in Apology, Crito, Phaedo and Symposium concurs with other sources to an extent to which it seems possible to rely on the Platonic Socrates, as demonstrated in the dialogues, as a representation of the actual Socrates as he lived in history.[13] At the same time, however, many scholars believe that in some works, Plato, being a literary artist, pushed his avowedly brightened-up version of "Socrates" far beyond anything the historical Socrates was likely to have done or said. Also, Xenophon, being an historian, is a more reliable witness to the historical Socrates. It is a matter of much debate over which Socrates it is whom Plato is describing at any given point—the historical figure, or Plato's fictionalization. As British philosopher Martin Cohen has put it, "Plato, the idealist, offers an idol, a master figure, for philosophy. A Saint, a prophet of 'the Sun-God', a teacher condemned for his teachings as a heretic."[14]

It is also clear from other writings and historical artefacts, that Socrates was not simply a character, nor an invention, of Plato. The testimony of Xenophon and Aristotle, alongside some of Aristophanes' work (especially The Clouds), is useful in fleshing out a perception of Socrates beyond Plato's work.

Lol, it seems you are confused here, this source you are quoting says to understand Socrates and his work we must turn to Plato, where in this article did you see that Socrates wrote a thing? Abeg atheist brethren and Christian brothers come and help a brother.

kilo4sure:

With the exception of philo and Josephus how many rabbinic or Jewish writings do you have from the first century? Was it a literate culture and did they place so much value in writing rather than oral teaching? Even Talmudic Judaism did not put their events down for many years until the second century after the destruction of the temple, they never saw the need to write, the apostles also may have thought the kingdom of God was very near, even so not many of this fisher men could have been literate to write things down, when they began to die, the Christian communities saw the need to record these events, especially after the destruction of the temple.

Simply put it Jesus God incarnation saw no reason to write!! Cause he wasn't educated

Read your source well, we need Xenophon, Plato, Aristophanes and Aristotle to learn of Socrates and not his own writings.

kilo4sure:

Lol, it seems you are confused here, this source you are quoting says to understand Socrates and his work we must turn to Plato, where in this article did you see that Socrates wrote a thing? Abeg atheist brethren and Christian brothers come and help a brother.

Did U miss this part that says he did write? Did U also miss the @bolded??

Nothing written by Socrates remains extant. As a result, all first-hand information about him and his philosophies depends upon secondary sources.

AmenRa1:

Did U miss this part that says he did write? Did U also miss the @bolded??

Nothing written by Socrates remains extant. As a result, all first-hand information about him and his philosophies depends upon secondary sources.

It says nothing written by Socrates remain extant which means they have no proof that he wrote anything. I could also say nothing written by Jesus remain extant. It proves nothing.

kilo4sure:

It says nothing written by Socrates remain extant which means they have no proof that he wrote anything. I could also say nothing written by Jesus remain extant. It proves nothing.

It's not new I know Christians just love to lie
EXTANT:
adjective

1. Still in existence.
2. Currently existing; not having disappeared.
3. Still alive; not extinct.

kilo4sure:

How do you know Jesus was unable to read and write? In the book of Luke he came out to read the temple scrolls as was his custom where he found the book of Isaiah 61, also when a woman was to be stoned for adultery he wrote on the ground. It seems you have nothing relevant to say in this thread you opened, you are just angry.

Same thing i said yesterday and i and my post got banned.

AmenRa1:

It's not new I know Christians just love to lie
EXTANT:
adjective

1. Still in existence.
2. Currently existing; not having disappeared.
3. Still alive; not extinct.

Hmmm tired, bros you win.

AmenRa1:

No he didn't use it, how was he able to wake up the dead according to Ur holy book?? But ordinary to read and write was hard for him??

And who told you Jesus couldn't read?

Luke 4:16 And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, AND STOOD UP FOR TO READ.

17 And there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet Esaias. And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written,

Next time, make well informed arguments.

Shalom

hahn:


God himself came to earth and was unable to give any meaningful or useful information.

It is truly incompetent and mediocre

And what's your definition of "meaniful or useful information" ?

This is what Jesus said;

John 10:10 The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I AM COME THAT THEY MIGHT HAVE LIFE (ZOE) and that they might have it more abundantly.

ZOE is the "God-kind" of life.

Jesus Christ came to give us the "God-kind of life" and you don't consider that information useful and meaniful?

What could be more meaningful and useful than the knowledge and understanding of how to have the God-kind of life - How to be like our Heavenly Father in power, purpose, principles and personality?

The Father is the most important person or "thing" in all of creation, and teaching us how to be like Him is the most meaningful and useful information anyone can give someone else. And if it's not to you, then your definition of "meaniful and useful" is greatly misplaced and grossly misappropriated.

To me, what Jesus Christ brought is the most meaningful and useful information anyone can give. And that is all that would truly count and matter when all the chips are down.

Shalom

ayoku777:


And who told you Jesus couldn't read?

Luke 4:16 And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, AND STOOD UP FOR TO READ.

17 And there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet Esaias. And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written,
Next time, make well informed arguments.

Shalom

So he Can read but he can't write? U see one thing about the Bible is that it contradict itself U had to cherry pick not going to Mathews or mark or john but oh Luke I finally found something in Luke that doesn't change the fact that Ur Jesus was an illiterate that can't read or write!! #Fact

ayoku777:


And what's your definition of "meaniful or useful information" ?

This is what Jesus said;

John 10:10 The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I AM COME THAT THEY MIGHT HAVE LIFE (ZOE) and that they might have it more abundantly.

ZOE is the "God-kind" of life.

Jesus Christ came to give us the "God-kind of life" and you don't consider that information useful and meaniful?

What could be more meaningful and useful than the knowledge and understanding of how to have the God-kind of life - How to be like our Heavenly Father in power, purpose, principles and personality?

The Father is the most important person or "thing" in all of creation, and teaching us how to be like Him is the most meaningful and useful information anyone can give someone else. And if it's not to you, then your definition of "meaniful and useful" is greatly misplaced and grossly misappropriated.

To me, what Jesus Christ brought is the most meaningful and useful information anyone can give. And that is all that would truly count and matter when all the chips are down.

Shalom

God himself came down to earth and all he could talk about was having "life"? What about the one we already have?

Why didn't enlighten us on how to prevent disease, war and famine? Why didn't he try to gives us ideas on how to live in peace?

ayoku777:


And who told you Jesus couldn't read?

Luke 4:16 And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, AND STOOD UP FOR TO READ.

17 And there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet Esaias. And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written,

Next time, make well informed arguments.

Shalom

Ignore this Amen Ra, don't waste your time, he isn't even worth the stress.

kilo4sure:

With the exception of philo and Josephus how many rabbinic or Jewish writings do you have from the first century? Was it a literate culture and did they place so much value in writing rather than oral teaching? Even Talmudic Judaism did not put their events down for many years until the second century after the destruction of the temple, they never saw the need to write, the apostles also may have thought the kingdom of God was very near, even so not many of this fisher men could have been literate to write things down, when they began to die, the Christian communities saw the need to record these events, especially after the destruction of the temple.

A man who performed so many miracles, caused such a stir that Herod allegedly ordered mass infanticide for his sake, rose from the dead and floated off into the upper atmosphere should at least have an arrest record. All allusions to his miracles and divinity were only gotten from Christian sources
way after the fact.

The gospels are in direct conflict in their details on many occasions. The whole thing is just a cacophony of scribbles from men with an agenda.

CoolUsername:


A man who performed so many miracles, caused such a stir that Herod allegedly ordered mass infanticide for his sake, rose from the dead and floated off into the upper atmosphere should at least have an arrest record. All allusions to his miracles and divinity were only gotten from Christian sources
way after the fact.

The gospels are in direct conflict in their details on many occasions. The whole thing is just a cacophony of scribbles from men with an agenda.

What is your point for crying out loud? Do you just want to prove the gospels unreliable hence completely useless when it comes to Jesus? Sorry to burst your bubble but scholars even though they agree the gospels are not totally reliable, still believe the synoptic gospels and Paul are the best sources for the historical Jesus, what they do is take away those parts that do not align historically, in separating the wheat from the chaff just like they do with that of Socrates and other historical materials they have. Ancient writers usually had their form of bias when they wrote and even the best of them wrote from their own biased point of view. This is no news.
As for Jesus performing miracles and being a healer, this is more likely to be the truth about the historical Jesus even his enemies the Jews who wrote the Talmud between 70-200AD, spoke of Judaism in the first century, when it came to Jesus, they could easily have said he didn't exist and everything was a lie, but this is what they wrote about yeshua (Hebrew name for Jesus)

On (Sabbath eve and) the eve of Passover, Jesus the Nazarene was hanged and a herald went forth before him forty days heralding, "Jesus the Nazarene is going forth to be stoned because he practiced sorcery and instigated and seduced Israel to idolatry. Whoever knows anything in defense may come and state it." But since they did not find anything in his defense they hanged him on (Sabbath eve and) the eve of Passover.

Ulla said: "Do you suppose that Jesus the Nazarene was one for whom a defense could be made? He was a mesit (someone who instigated Israel to idolatry), concerning whom the Merciful [God] says: Show him no compassion and do not shield him (Deut. 13:9). With Jesus the Nazarene it was different. For he was close to the government.[54][65][66][67] source.. (Wikepedia, Jesus in Talmud).

So even his enemies did not deny that he existed or performed miracles, rather they said he was a magician who led Israel astray with his sorcery, while you, 2000 years later claim he performed no miracle.

kilo4sure:

What is your point for crying out loud? Do you just want to prove the gospels unreliable hence completely useless when it comes to Jesus? Sorry to burst your bubble but scholars even though they agree the gospels are not totally reliable, still believe the synoptic gospels and Paul are the best sources for the historical Jesus, what they do is take away those parts that do not align historically, in separating the wheat from the chaff just like they do with that of Socrates and other historical materials they have. Ancient writers usually had their form of bias when they wrote and even the best of them wrote from their own biased point of view. This is no news.
As for Jesus performing miracles and being a healer, this is more likely to be the truth about the historical Jesus even his enemies the Jews who wrote the Talmud between 70-200AD, spoke of Judaism in the first century, when it came to Jesus, they could easily have said he didn't exist and everything was a lie, but this is what they wrote about yeshua (Hebrew name for Jesus)

On (Sabbath eve and) the eve of Passover, Jesus the Nazarene was hanged and a herald went forth before him forty days heralding, "Jesus the Nazarene is going forth to be stoned because he practiced sorcery and instigated and seduced Israel to idolatry. Whoever knows anything in defense may come and state it." But since they did not find anything in his defense they hanged him on (Sabbath eve and) the eve of Passover.

Ulla said: "Do you suppose that Jesus the Nazarene was one for whom a defense could be made? He was a mesit (someone who instigated Israel to idolatry), concerning whom the Merciful [God] says: Show him no compassion and do not shield him (Deut. 13:9). With Jesus the Nazarene it was different. For he was close to the government.[54][65][66][67]

So even his enemies did not deny that he existed or performed miracles, rather they said he was a magician who led Israel astray with his sorcery, while you, 2000 years later claim he performed no miracle.

No, I clearly stated that there was a good chance he existed. Jesus was the most successful among a long line of troublemakers who called themselves the messiah of the Jews.

The epistles of Paul do not talk about Jesus as God. In fact, the earliest gospel, Mark doesn't even talk about the transfiguration.

All those writings you have are written after the formation of the Church.

AmenRa1:
Were is all the knowledge they claim their God have omniscience my foot!! All he knows how to do is fvck a 14 years old girl mtchewww

your own mumu is something. at least back up anything you say.

kilo4sure:

Lol, it seems you are confused here, this source you are quoting says to understand Socrates and his work we must turn to Plato, where in this article did you see that Socrates wrote a thing? Abeg atheist brethren and Christian brothers come and help a brother.

The way most atheists think is TERRIBLY a shock to me. See, I lie not. I am very serious about this!

I have been reading his posts on this thread, and I can tell you that he is dullest atheist after @Hcpaul I have EVER in my life seen on NL. That's I feel so disgraceful when I read their post, because it makes me feel like their sense of thinking is just a total waste, while mad people hanging on the road will really appreciate having some sense.

Ifedayosteven:

your own mumu is something. at least back up anything you say.

Oh When will this homo step out from slavery

promise10:

The way most atheists think is TERRIBLY a shock to me. See, I lie not. I am very serious about this!

I have been reading his posts on this thread, and I can tell you that he is dullest atheist after @Hcpaul I have EVER in my life seen on NL. That's I feel so disgraceful when I read their post, because it makes me feel like their sense of thinking is just a total waste, while mad people hanging on the road will really appreciate having some sense.

This is how we identify them when they can't win argument they result to insulting mtcheww