Ihedinobi3:

You still are. What's the difference between one atheist and another when they are both looking at the Truth? None at all.

That's as untrue as saying all Christians see the same truth!

Ihedinobi3:

You most definitely aren't. I'm not the one who tells bald-faced lies, am I?

Even in the short time between my post and now you lied to IAmSabrina. Who is the bald faced liar? LMFAO

We seriously need to stop calling each other liar! Can't it perhaps be that we just aren't being patient enough to understand each other, or is each's intention to impose each's will on each other or annihilate one another?

It's clear to me we're all here to stay and not as neighbours but living closer in this face to face that Seun built that has no twitter or fb so posts we like can be posted on our feed and advertise Nairaland where we spend a lot of effort and time. Where the search facility is crap and we got to jump through hoops to privately talk to each other. No dislike button for stupid posts. Constant post laters, then that bloody spambot bots you for no apparent reason! I don't like face to face living. Too close to each other's business with little space to grow and poo with the sharing of the kitchen and loo. We must be able to evolve so everyone has more space to glow. Or do we like living in this tower of babel that we have created here? Forgive me imposing my will, I have no right, but those with ears be salts on earth, please.


To the face to face landlord.

Landlord, this your face to face needs to evolve. There must be a committee of us working on it for you since we live here too.

Sqand

Squatters Nairaland Association D

Ihedinobi3:

The Atheist's Prayer is a parody.

In the omniscient ihedinobi opinion....

TheArranger:

1. I'm sorry but i still don't see the "absurdities and inanities" of atheism you're talking about. You can claim overlapping meanings from now till we die, but lack of belief can never mean the same as a belief. 2. Personally, i'm ok with Pantheism (the philosophy that God is the universe as it is. I'm even content with Deism (a philosophy that proposes a supernatural being who after creating the universe, no longer indulges himself in the affairs of the universe). The subject that attracts attention the most and for good sensible reasons is Theism (the philosophy that God created the universe and still involves himself in the affairs of the universe, created two alternate dimensions for the punishment & reward of humans, has an archnemesis etc). There is evidence that suggests that the universe wasn't even designed with human life in mind. This could agree with atheism, pantheism and even deism, but not theism. Haven't you wondered: why A-theism? why not A-deism?

I mean forgive me but you have to admit, theism is the most far fetched philosophy of all, it makes sense for it to be heavily criticized as it is. 3. I'm going to guess you've been a christian all your life, right? Me, i've been a christian, then a deist and now i'm atheist. I've worn all shoes so i know where they all pinch. I think you need to wear an atheist's shoes for once. Don't derive your opinions of atheism from human behaviour alone. I'm pretty sure that's fallacious. 5. Fault them all you want but the likes of Sabrina, Johnydon, LordReed, Martinez, CAPSLOCKED etc are some of the most enlightened atheists i've encountered on Nairaland and they've encouraged me to be more skeptical about my surroundings and not make assumptions and take things at face value.

Call it a eulogy like before but like i said, i like being honest and i'm not afraid or ashamed to express gratitude or distaste where necessary


4. Out of curiosity (cause i really couldnt remember this encounter you keep repeating we both had), i went over all my previous posts on this website till i eventually came accross it. That was my "Christians Of Nairaland, What If You're Wrong?" thread were i was kinda hoping that christians, like us atheists, would try testing the two lenses and see that there is wisdom in Atheism. I don't think too much was said in our conversation. I asked you for evidence and when you mentioned the Bible, i scoffed. That's pretty much where it ended. You never, even up till now, asked me why i rejected the Bible so i could give you my reasons. Not to mention, you never mentioned me again. Correct me if i'm wrong but i don't think you did.

6 & 7. I think you make hasty conclusions a lot. In a way, i can understand your bitterness with atheism, but i think your anger is misplaced. Your anger may not be with Atheism. It could be with the atheists you encounter on Nairaland, not the philosophy itself.


8 & 9. I wouldn't just call them excuses. As attractive as Deism is (which is what the argument @red is for by the way, not Theism), i still argue that it is less logical than Atheism. The difference between the two philosophies is that one is making a claim and the other isn't. Obviously we know who the burden of proof rests on. "This god exists" is a naked claim until proven otherwise


10. "God is a fundamental assumption of life"

Exactly. You hit the nail on the head. God is nothing but an assumption. And the reason there's any assumption in the first place is because of two main reasons in my opinion
1. Our Ego
2. Our Ignorance

Our Ego: Human beings want to feel special, wanted, watched and observed. We like to believe our actions, our decisions count. We want justice (heaven) for do-gooders & punishment (hell) for people who wrong us. Because we assume there's a God monitoring you and me 24/7, we project our ego unto him.

Our Ignorance: Have you ever seen god? I can bet right now you haven't. God is always "beyond our understanding". If he is beyond our understanding, how do you christians understand him so well to know what he likes and what he does not like?

The less important we feel ourselves to be, the more this God can assert itself. In angst and powerlessness, people find comfort in a personal "realisation" that actually everything is ok, they are not worthless, because God cares for them. Some turn to God to fill a hole created in our heads by an impoverished ego, filling them with a sense of importance. This is not hard to deduce. 11. And to prove it, sir, i want you to answer these questions please

1. Would you rather believe that your consciousness is merely the product of an uncaring random process, or to believe that your consciousness is a supernatural phenomenon akin to that of angels and gods?

2. Would you rather believe that as unimaginably gigantic the universe is, it has no aim or purpose, or to believe that a universe of 100 billion galaxies was created 14 billion years ago just so that you can grace it with your presence?

3. Would you rather believe that your mind will soon forever cease, or to believe that your mind is eternal?


No response to this. Okay. I guess that's cleared up then.


I agree with most of this piece.

12. As for the clowning & mockery of christians. It is of course expected. Like i said, i do it too and as a matter of fact, i enjoy it so much. But your reaction to it all just proves that christians mostly take ridicule of their belief as an attack of their person rather than the belief itself. In a sense, i get why but in a sense i also don't. Then again, i'm an atheist and i don't hold Jehovah in as high a regard as you christians do.

13. Also, i think someone pointed that out, and i agree, that besides verbal mockery, religious people do have it easier than atheists in the society.

By far the easiest grounds for gaining conscientious objector status in wartime are religious. You can be a brilliant moral philosopher with a prizewinning doctoral thesis expounding the evils of war, and still be given a hard time by a draft board evaluating your claim to be a conscientious objector. Yet if you can say that one or both of your parents is a Quaker you sail through like a breeze, no matter how inarticulate and illiterate you may be on the theory of pacifism or, indeed, Quakerism itself.

I'm borrowing the following quote from the late Douglas Adams:
"Religion . . . has certain ideas at the heart of it which we call sacred or holy or whatever. What it means is, 'Here is an idea or a notion that you're not allowed to say anything bad about; you're just not. Why not? - because you're not!' If somebody votes for a party that you don't agree with, you're free to argue about it as much as you like; everybody will have an argument but nobody feels aggrieved by it. If somebody thinks taxes should go up or down you are free to have an argument about it. But on the other hand if somebody says 'I mustn't move a light switch on a Saturday', you say, 'I respect that'. Why should it be that it's perfectly legitimate to support the Labour party or the Conservative party, Republicans or Democrats, this model of economics versus that, Macintosh instead of Windows - but to have an opinion about how the Universe began, about who created the Universe . .. no, that's holy? . .. We are used to not challenging religious ideas but it's very interesting how much of a furore Richard creates when he does it! Everybody gets absolutely frantic about it because you're not allowed to say these things. Yet when you look at it rationally there is no reason why those ideas shouldn't be as open to debate as any other, except that we have agreed somehow between us that they shouldn't be."


14. Ok. If you say so. Although, i'd have been very ready to abandon my position if you had provided sufficient evidence for your god. Correct me if i'm wrong, but you'd be "winning my soul" then.

I'm just a skeptic who's tired of listening to far-fetched stories from a book that is as flawed as the Bible.


15. I'm not trying to sway you. Haven't we both established that your crew can never be swayed? I want YOU to sway ME. Unlike you, i can actually change my views on religion if you use the right tool: Evidence.

IAmSabrina

Martinez39

LordReed

CAPSLOCKED

Johnydon22

You're sorely mistaken on very many fronts here.

1. I did not provide or intend to provide examples of the absurdities and inanities I alluded to, so your expectation of that was mistaken. I have already told you that atheism, is as a whole, an insanity. That means that I consider all of its propositions at least suspect, if not outrightly absurd and inane.

2. It's not news at all that an atheist prefers other philosophies to theism. I haven't met a single atheist who does not stack philosophies the way you just did. In fact, I could do the rest of the stacking for you: all kinds of theism (perhaps Islam especially) >> Christianity; all claims of Christianity (perhaps Roman Catholicism) >> Protestantism; all kinds of Protestantism >> evangelical Christianity. Basically, the worst thing to be is a Christian with complete faith in the Bible. Every other thing is tolerable in some degree, but not absolute Faith in the Bible. That's not news at all. Atheism is scripted that way.

Also, did you really believe that I would ever consider it reasonable to admit that theism has any problem? What is the far fetching to be admitted there?

3. I have never been anything but a believer in Jesus Christ, true, but I've never been a perfect believer in my life. Between 2004 and 2007, in particular, I did not identify as a Christian although I still believed that Jesus Christ died for my sins. I just didn't think I could ever be as good as the Bible wanted me to be, so I tried very hard to stop trying to be that good. A pretty strong conscience got in the way of my plans, but I did make an effort.

As for trying on the atheist's shoes, have you ever tasted excreta just because you wanted to know what it's like? Not everything is worth trying. If it looks, smells, and sounds bad, it very well might be. In addition, I have all of you guys to thank for my utter distaste for it. If the way you are is what atheism offers, I could not only do without it, but I would be insane to want to try it.

Additionally, your comment about this reeks of naïvety, and I don't mean to insult you. I am very well educated in more belief systems than you probably have allowed yourself to imagine about me. That tends to come with experience, at least, in apologetics, so it would have made more sense for you to assume it to be the case rather than the opposite.

4. About previous engagements, I am wondering right now if I have heard a more ridiculous come-back before. First, I have responded to more than one of your threads. Second, I have responded to your arguments on other threads. Third, I should have asked why you scoffed and went away?!

5. Like I told one of your friends, you lot should get a bonfire to dance around. Why you think that your endorsement of each other amounts to anything at all is quite frankly beyond me.

6. Bitterness?! Anger?! It is no secret that I consider atheism ridiculous and all atheists I have debated here as antichristians, but to be called bitter and angry about it is laughable. The bulk of my engagement on here is to answer biblical questions, no matter who asks them. I almost never banter with atheists now. When I do, I call out your dishonesty, but that's it. I never call you names or insult you. There is probably only one atheist or antichristian whom I have engaged here that did not call me names and heap false allegations on me. And I am the bitter and angry one?! Very laughable indeed. If you knew my first two monickers in 2012-2013, and said that, I'd still have laughed at you, although I was certainly far less amicable toward your kind. Right now, I am almost friendly even, except when you lie through your teeth.

7. Again, you make the mistake of imagining that all my knowledge and experience is limited to Nairaland, in addition to your imagination that I don't know atheism. Quite the contrary. I know atheism very well. And I know it very well outside of Nairaland too. I was away from Nairaland between 2015 and late 2018, but I was still debating atheists then.

8. Deism. You think that the argument that there must be a Creator since there is a Universe is a deistic proposition? That's actually hilarious. The reason is that it is a well-known biblical argument shooting through the Psalms, the Prophets and Romans 1. Are you sure you know these philosophies as well as you think you do?

9. Making claims. Suffice to say that you are waging a lost war here.

TheArranger:

1. I'm sorry but i still don't see the "absurdities and inanities" of atheism you're talking about. You can claim overlapping meanings from now till we die, but lack of belief can never mean the same as a belief. 2. Personally, i'm ok with Pantheism (the philosophy that God is the universe as it is. I'm even content with Deism (a philosophy that proposes a supernatural being who after creating the universe, no longer indulges himself in the affairs of the universe). The subject that attracts attention the most and for good sensible reasons is Theism (the philosophy that God created the universe and still involves himself in the affairs of the universe, created two alternate dimensions for the punishment & reward of humans, has an archnemesis etc). There is evidence that suggests that the universe wasn't even designed with human life in mind. This could agree with atheism, pantheism and even deism, but not theism. Haven't you wondered: why A-theism? why not A-deism?

I mean forgive me but you have to admit, theism is the most far fetched philosophy of all, it makes sense for it to be heavily criticized as it is. 3. I'm going to guess you've been a christian all your life, right? Me, i've been a christian, then a deist and now i'm atheist. I've worn all shoes so i know where they all pinch. I think you need to wear an atheist's shoes for once. Don't derive your opinions of atheism from human behaviour alone. I'm pretty sure that's fallacious. 5. Fault them all you want but the likes of Sabrina, Johnydon, LordReed, Martinez, CAPSLOCKED etc are some of the most enlightened atheists i've encountered on Nairaland and they've encouraged me to be more skeptical about my surroundings and not make assumptions and take things at face value.

Call it a eulogy like before but like i said, i like being honest and i'm not afraid or ashamed to express gratitude or distaste where necessary


4. Out of curiosity (cause i really couldnt remember this encounter you keep repeating we both had), i went over all my previous posts on this website till i eventually came accross it. That was my "Christians Of Nairaland, What If You're Wrong?" thread were i was kinda hoping that christians, like us atheists, would try testing the two lenses and see that there is wisdom in Atheism. I don't think too much was said in our conversation. I asked you for evidence and when you mentioned the Bible, i scoffed. That's pretty much where it ended. You never, even up till now, asked me why i rejected the Bible so i could give you my reasons. Not to mention, you never mentioned me again. Correct me if i'm wrong but i don't think you did.

6 & 7. I think you make hasty conclusions a lot. In a way, i can understand your bitterness with atheism, but i think your anger is misplaced. Your anger may not be with Atheism. It could be with the atheists you encounter on Nairaland, not the philosophy itself.


8 & 9. I wouldn't just call them excuses. As attractive as Deism is (which is what the argument @red is for by the way, not Theism), i still argue that it is less logical than Atheism. The difference between the two philosophies is that one is making a claim and the other isn't. Obviously we know who the burden of proof rests on. "This god exists" is a naked claim until proven otherwise


10. "God is a fundamental assumption of life"

Exactly. You hit the nail on the head. God is nothing but an assumption. And the reason there's any assumption in the first place is because of two main reasons in my opinion
1. Our Ego
2. Our Ignorance

Our Ego: Human beings want to feel special, wanted, watched and observed. We like to believe our actions, our decisions count. We want justice (heaven) for do-gooders & punishment (hell) for people who wrong us. Because we assume there's a God monitoring you and me 24/7, we project our ego unto him.

Our Ignorance: Have you ever seen god? I can bet right now you haven't. God is always "beyond our understanding". If he is beyond our understanding, how do you christians understand him so well to know what he likes and what he does not like?

The less important we feel ourselves to be, the more this God can assert itself. In angst and powerlessness, people find comfort in a personal "realisation" that actually everything is ok, they are not worthless, because God cares for them. Some turn to God to fill a hole created in our heads by an impoverished ego, filling them with a sense of importance. This is not hard to deduce. 11. And to prove it, sir, i want you to answer these questions please

1. Would you rather believe that your consciousness is merely the product of an uncaring random process, or to believe that your consciousness is a supernatural phenomenon akin to that of angels and gods?

2. Would you rather believe that as unimaginably gigantic the universe is, it has no aim or purpose, or to believe that a universe of 100 billion galaxies was created 14 billion years ago just so that you can grace it with your presence?

3. Would you rather believe that your mind will soon forever cease, or to believe that your mind is eternal?


No response to this. Okay. I guess that's cleared up then.


I agree with most of this piece.

12. As for the clowning & mockery of christians. It is of course expected. Like i said, i do it too and as a matter of fact, i enjoy it so much. But your reaction to it all just proves that christians mostly take ridicule of their belief as an attack of their person rather than the belief itself. In a sense, i get why but in a sense i also don't. Then again, i'm an atheist and i don't hold Jehovah in as high a regard as you christians do.

13. Also, i think someone pointed that out, and i agree, that besides verbal mockery, religious people do have it easier than atheists in the society.

By far the easiest grounds for gaining conscientious objector status in wartime are religious. You can be a brilliant moral philosopher with a prizewinning doctoral thesis expounding the evils of war, and still be given a hard time by a draft board evaluating your claim to be a conscientious objector. Yet if you can say that one or both of your parents is a Quaker you sail through like a breeze, no matter how inarticulate and illiterate you may be on the theory of pacifism or, indeed, Quakerism itself.

I'm borrowing the following quote from the late Douglas Adams:
"Religion . . . has certain ideas at the heart of it which we call sacred or holy or whatever. What it means is, 'Here is an idea or a notion that you're not allowed to say anything bad about; you're just not. Why not? - because you're not!' If somebody votes for a party that you don't agree with, you're free to argue about it as much as you like; everybody will have an argument but nobody feels aggrieved by it. If somebody thinks taxes should go up or down you are free to have an argument about it. But on the other hand if somebody says 'I mustn't move a light switch on a Saturday', you say, 'I respect that'. Why should it be that it's perfectly legitimate to support the Labour party or the Conservative party, Republicans or Democrats, this model of economics versus that, Macintosh instead of Windows - but to have an opinion about how the Universe began, about who created the Universe . .. no, that's holy? . .. We are used to not challenging religious ideas but it's very interesting how much of a furore Richard creates when he does it! Everybody gets absolutely frantic about it because you're not allowed to say these things. Yet when you look at it rationally there is no reason why those ideas shouldn't be as open to debate as any other, except that we have agreed somehow between us that they shouldn't be."


14. Ok. If you say so. Although, i'd have been very ready to abandon my position if you had provided sufficient evidence for your god. Correct me if i'm wrong, but you'd be "winning my soul" then.

I'm just a skeptic who's tired of listening to far-fetched stories from a book that is as flawed as the Bible.


15. I'm not trying to sway you. Haven't we both established that your crew can never be swayed? I want YOU to sway ME. Unlike you, i can actually change my views on religion if you use the right tool: Evidence.

IAmSabrina

Martinez39

LordReed

CAPSLOCKED

Johnydon22

Continued response

10. It's hard to take arguments like this seriously. I have a policy to engage with seriousness on this platform, that is, with decorum, because my responses are actually written for fellow believers primarily. If I didn't have this policy, I'd be LOL'ing and doing all sorts in mockery at arguments like this one. What makes you think that an assumption cannot be fact? The famous laws of thermodynamics are assumptions because they are observed but unproveable facts of life. Would you think of them as figments of the imagination too? An assumption is merely something we are granting to be true either because it makes no sense that it isn't or in order to pursue a hypothesis and see how it proves out.

In other words, God's being a fundamental assumption does not make Him a figment of human imagination.

Another thing to note is how you can admit that this assumption is universal while appearing to forget that that was exactly what you were claiming to be untrue just a post ago. Obviously, God is a universal phenomenon in human consciousness, and obviously you know that too. This sort of behavior when carried on with no appearance of a willingness to change is what I call dishonesty. It may start out as a mistake, but in time it appears to me to become a point of duty to make obviously false claims without thought, only to add wild bluff to wild bluff trying to cover up an obviously false argument.

Even further, your argument contradicts reality. If humans really want to feel important, why would they invent a God (an incredible thing to consider, given how much divisiveness is natural to human beings) that basically demands that they either be His lackeys or suffer painfully forever? It's a very weird thing for human beings to do in the face of this ego you speak of. It would make more sense if human beings invented a situation where they themselves are the Gods, and they impose their will on everything around them. That is far more consistent with human nature.

11. Regarding your questions, when you ask someone what they would prefer to believe, how are you not suggesting that we have the ability to create objective truths? We decide whether we want to believe what is or we want to create fictions. As it is, my interest since childhood has been to learn what is true and believe it, so my preference will always be to believe what is true.

As it is, your questions are very telling. You ask them on the assumption that everyone is essentially making up what they believe. That is precisely what atheism is: a fiction that people make up to believe.

It also seems to me that you do not appreciate the logical conclusions of the propositions you propose. So let me unravel them for you:

a. The proposition that our consciousness is accidental, as opposed to the proposition that our consciousness is deliberate.
In the former, we would be responsible to no one, that is, we would essentially be gods. In the latter, regardless that our consciousness would make us like angels and "gods," we would still be responsible to whoever gave it to us, so we would not quite be gods in our own right.

Given the natural arrogance of man, as long as we can make up what we want to believe, it would be very weird if we decided to believe that we are trapped in a reality where we can never be more than the vassals of a greater God than ourselves.

b. The proposition that the universe is aimless and purposeless, as opposed to being deliberately designed for our existence.
The former still leaves us as the gods of the Universe, since we are the only ones who possess the ability to direct its course. The latter again makes us responsible to the designer of the Universe.

Again, human arrogance would not yield easily to the latter - as actual experience and observation readily proves. So, as long as we are making things up, the former is easier for human beings to make up and believe than the latter.

c. The proposition that we are entirely mortal, temporal creatures who will cease to exist at death, as opposed to the proposition that we are eternal creatures.
The former again grants us absolute freedom from consequence from our choices, that is, we have no Eternal Overlord to fear since once we're dead, that's it: we are gods until we cease to exist. What more could a human being desire except to never cease to exist as an eternal overlord? The latter, on the other hand, "traps" us in a reality where we have to deal with an Eternal Overlord to Whom we must answer for our choices in time.

Again, obviously, human arrogance would prefer the first narrative to the second. Therefore, it is only to be expected that as long as we're making things up, we would sooner make that first story up than the second.

12. Your enjoyment of your attacks on Christianity is only proof of my arguments. I'm glad that you are honest enough to agree that there is absolutely no comparison between atheism and Christianity on that count. As a matter of fact, if there were no Christianity at all, atheism would likely be exceptionally boring. Christianity, on the other hand, is actually incredibly exciting by itself, so much so that, for those who actually believe and understand the Bible, atheism and other philosophies and their adherents are actually distractions. So, it is a flat-out lie that atheists are persecuted more than Christians, or that it is nothing special or specific to atheism to attack Christianity.

What you add to this acquiescence here is a red herring, but I'll indulge it. I called atheism a dishonest philosophy and concluded that anyone who held such a philosophy (that is, atheists) is necessarily a dishonest person. Do you remember your complaint that I was being salty? If you really believe that your attacks on Christianity are not personal, then you could not have proceeded to say that I am intolerant of and prejudiced toward atheists. You clearly considered my attitude toward atheism as a personal attack on atheists. Why does the rule change when it is you and other atheists attacking Christianity?

13. As for the claim that atheists have it harder than theists because of all the taboos surrounding religion, let me say again: atheism is a dishonest philosophy, therefore it's proponents are necessarily dishonest people. Your quote by this Douglas Adams person is a very good illustration. Who is unaware of violence and even war that results from political disagreements? During this last election period, Rivers State was pretty bloody for that one reason. Lagos suffered deaths too attributed to electoral violence. These are small examples in a nationwide phenomenon, and they are close to home.

If we decide to talk about the United States instead, they couldn't have an argument about slavery and other issues that led to their Civil War. When President Trump won their last election too, they couldn't argue amicably about it, they punched each other over it, bloodying noses and burning stuff. In one county at least, voters who wanted to vote for Trump felt that it was safer to say nothing to their neighbors about who they wanted to vote for.

Taboos abound everywhere. Atheists tend to protect science with taboos. Just ask your champions here.

Finally, the logical conclusion of this argument is that religion is the cause of wars. It's a popular atheistic argument. It is also an incredible lie. Religion has certainly been an easy excuse and justification for all kinds of wars and oppression, but economics and political power have always been the underlying cause of all wars and oppression. Furthermore, atheism is hardly innocent in this matter. Atheistic regimes in Russian and Red China bothered less with war and oppression and more with systematic extermination of people with "unapproved" philosophies. So your argument is essentially a travesty.

14. I'm the Lord Jesus's sheep, TheArranger, but I'm an old sheep. I have had my run-in's with wolves of different kinds. So, I'm not at all even impressed, much less convinced, by your claim that you are ready to abandon anything. I have no doubt that you will believe anything at all, only it can't come from the Bible. If the emptiness of atheism bothers you that much, Oriental religions might give you the excitement that other Western atheists have sought in them. Whether you believe it or not, I truly don't care what you want to believe. I was not charged to win anybody's soul, only to proclaim the Gospel to anyone who is willing to hear it. Clearly, you are not. So, why don't you do what others atheists do? Go East.

15. You should notice that I have not accused you of lying in this post. I don't do that until I find that the atheist I am talking to does not care what they say in order to achieve their aim. I am getting the vibe from you that you also don't care what you have to say to get your way here, but I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here.

I am referring to your claim that you are not trying to sway me. Perhaps you really aren't, but you are the one that wanted a debate. You are also the one putting up all the typical atheistic moves for evangelism here. Maybe you're doing it for the benefit of readers rather than for me, so I will not make any conclusions here.

You are not here, however, because you want to reexamine what you believe, my friend. You are here for attention. That is why atheists do what you do. Atheism is too empty for you people to mind your own business. You have no business to mind. I am here because my business seemed to slow down a bit, and I wondered what I might do with you people. In fact, it has begun to pick up again very fast, so I might soon be unable to break routine and come joust with you lot just for the sake of it.

You have all the evidence anyone needs, and before you ask me again for it, it is the universe itself, including your own conscience, and the unavoidable reality of Death. If they are not convincing enough for you, really just go East if you feel that you must have something instead of the nothing of atheism.

IAmSabrina:

There's nothing to make up. Or do you want to pretend right now that Christians do not have a better status in the society than Atheists?


I think you really need to learn the meaning of the word Truth...

How am I pretending anything about that? Are laws not being made in keeping with atheistic liberal ideas now? In Canadian provinces where Christians who hold to biblical principles can be jailed for using normal gender pronouns to address or describe people who do not identify as that gender, are they in better standing than atheists? How about Australia and China? Are Christians the cream of society in places where antibiblical laws which favor atheistic leanings exist?

I know the meaning of Truth, Sabrina. I know that truth is not whatever any given person wants it to be.

budaatum:

That's as untrue as saying all Christians see the same truth!

Then, both are true.

Christians are those who believe in Jesus Christ, God and Man Who died for the sins of all humanity so that we can all be saved from the Second Death. Granted that beyond this, Christians don't agree on every single teaching of the Bible, what makes us all Christians is this one Truth that we all believe, and on which all correct Bible teachings are built.

Atheists are people who deny the existence of God. Whatever else may unite or separate them, the denial of this One Truth is what defines them all. Therefore, when atheists look at the Truth (all truths are defined by this one Truth), they may as well be one person looking at one thing. So, their endorsement of each other is essentially meaningless in the question of Truth.

LordReed:


Even in the short time between my post and now you lied to IAmSabrina. Who is the bald faced liar? LMFAO

There is that bald-faced lying I talked about.

Michellekabod1:

In the omniscient ihedinobi opinion....

It's really simple English, high school stuff really.

budaatum:

He never met atheist buda. I think he ran away from me! And he doesn't accept theist buda. But we working that out.

Edit!
Do note that my "Finally, you admit that the faith of the scientist is a different faith to that held by a believer, which is based on no evidence whatsoever", indicates I suffered from spiritual blindness.

The first time I noticed you, let's just say that you didn't seem to want a fight. Since it had become my policy by then to not stir up one, I let you be.

It is always prudent to avoid quarrels and meaningless arguments - what I'm doing on this thread skirts the edge of prudence, but I wanted something to do during a lull in my activities here. Otherwise, my concern here is to deal with biblical questions. I try to not enter fights just to prove myself against atheists, so unless I actually think that what I am going to say in a discussion will be presentable and useful to other believers for them to learn something about the Lord Jesus Christ, I try to avoid getting into one.

I made many mistakes starting out. I still make a bunch now, although perhaps less catastrophic ones. But I think my general policy was set by the time I noticed you, or else, when you made the concession you did on the thread I met you, it would not have stopped me from hunting you (yes, I used to hunt atheists. Now, however, I hunt useful questions almost exclusively).

As for what you are now, it's most definitely not Christian, so I still don't care.

Ihedinobi3:

Then, both are true.

Christians are those who believe in Jesus Christ, God and Man Who died for the sins of all humanity so that we can all be saved from the Second Death. Granted that beyond this, Christians don't agree on every single teaching of the Bible, what makes us all Christians is this one Truth that we all believe, and on which all correct Bible teachings are built.

Atheists are people who deny the existence of God. Whatever else may unite or separate them, the denial of this One Truth is what defines them all. Therefore, when atheists look at the Truth (all truths are defined by this one Truth), they may as well be one person looking at one thing. So, their endorsement of each other is essentially meaningless in the question of Truth.

All Christians do not see the same truth, ihe. Your own definition that "what makes us all Christians is this one Truth that we all believe, and on which all correct Bible teachings are built" is evidence of this. You very well know a lot of Bible teachings can be incorrect, and a lot of Christians say they believe and don't. And I would claim believing alone does not make one a Christian because that definition makes satan, who also believes, a Christian, which I don't think you believe.

And "the denial of this One Truth is what defines them all", them all being atheists, is not true either since it is based on atheists seeing that truth when the truth is they look but see not the one truth you claim they deny when they actual cannot see it!

Ihedinobi3:

The first time I noticed you, let's just say that you didn't seem to want a fight. Since it had become my policy by then to not stir up one, I let you be.

It is always prudent to avoid quarrels and meaningless arguments - what I'm doing on this thread skirts the edge of prudence, but I wanted something to do during a lull in my activities here. Otherwise, my concern here is to deal with biblical questions. I try to not enter fights just to prove myself against atheists, so unless I actually think that what I am going to say in a discussion will be presentable and useful to other believers for them to learn something about the Lord Jesus Christ, I try to avoid getting into one.

I made many mistakes starting out. I still make a bunch now, although perhaps less catastrophic ones. But I think my general policy was set by the time I noticed you, or else, when you made the concession you did on the thread I met you, it would not have stopped me from hunting you (yes, I used to hunt atheists. Now, however, I hunt useful questions almost exclusively).

As for what you are now, it's most definitely not Christian, so I still don't care.

I don't fight, Ihe. I discuss, I debate, I challenge even, but I do not fight. And you never hunted me when I was an atheist. In fact, I think you literally avoided me!

You don't have to care what I am now neither, Ihe. You just need to know I live next door and your Christian heart will open up for you to love me unless believing is what makes you the Christian you are regardless of how you treat your neighbours, which you can't possibly believe or do since the Bible truth says you mustn't.

budaatum:

All Christians do not see the same truth, ihe. Your own definition that "what makes us all Christians is this one Truth that we all believe, and on which all correct Bible teachings are built" is evidence of this. You very well know a lot Bible teachings can be incorrect, and a lot of Christians say they believe and don't, and I would claim believing alone does not make one a Christian because that definition makes satan, who also believes, a Christian, which I don't think you believe.

And "the denial of this One Truth is what defines them all", them all being atheists, is not true either since it is based on atheists seeing that truth when the truth is they look but see not the one truth you claim they deny when they actual cannot see it!

Let me explain something I really shouldn't be needing to explain at all: we don't make up the meanings of words just as we please. Words have a meaning. We use them or we don't.

Christian is a Bible word. It was described in the Bible to be a label that mocking unbelievers attached to people who believe in Jesus Christ. That is what it means. It does not mean whatever budaatum or anybody else suddenly decides that it must mean. The word is a synonym for believer, saint, follower of The Way, and disciple in the Bible. If you do not believe in Jesus Christ Who is God that put on humanity in order to die for human sins and save all humans from the Lake of Fire, you are not a Christian. Period. Doesn't matter how sweet or nice you are. If you do believe that, then you are. Period. Doesn't matter how horrid your behavior is, or even how bad your theology is.

Therefore, all Christians are by definition people who believe this One Truth. That we don't all agree on Bible teachings beyond this is merely evidence that we are still in sinful, mortal flesh. In fact, today, the vast majority of Christians are incredibly ignorant of what the Bible actually teaches, so when they talk about the Bible, they basically spew an incredible amount of lies about it. But they are still very much Christians as long as they believe in Jesus Christ. That is what the authority that matters here says. And you, budaatum, are not the authority.

About atheists, really, just find someone who cares. I truly have no desire to repeat things that are clear enough for the simple to understand. It takes insanity or sheer dishonesty to ignore or confuse some things.

Ihedinobi3:

Let me explain something I really shouldn't be needing to explain at all: we don't make up the meanings of words just as we please. Words have a meaning. We use them or we don't.

Christian is a Bible word. It was described in the Bible to be a label that mocking unbelievers attached to people who believe in Jesus Christ. That is what it means. It does not mean whatever budaatum or anybody else suddenly decides that it must mean. The word is a synonym for believer, saint, follower of The Way, and disciple in the Bible. If you do not believe in Jesus Christ Who is God that put on humanity in order to die for human sins and save all humans from the Lake of Fire, you are not a Christian. Period. Doesn't matter how sweet or nice you are. If you do believe that, then you are. Period. Doesn't matter how horrid your behavior is, or even how bad your theology is.

Therefore, all Christians are by definition people who believe this One Truth. That we don't all agree on Bible teachings beyond this is merely evidence that we are still in sinful, mortal flesh. In fact, today, the vast majority of Christians are incredibly ignorant of what the Bible actually teaches, so when they talk about the Bible, they basically spew an incredible amount of lies about it. But they are still very much Christians as long as they believe in Jesus Christ. That is what the authority that matters here says. And you, budaatum, are not the authority.

About atheists, really, just find someone who cares. I truly have no desire to repeat things that are clear enough for the simple to understand. It takes insanity or sheer dishonesty to ignore or confuse some things.

No I am not the authority on Christianity, ihe, Jesus Christ is, along with the Holy Spirit he sent to teach you the Word of God which you read. Below is a sample of that Word:

[url=https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=James+2%3A19-21&version=NKJV]19[/url] You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe and tremble! 20 But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead? 21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar?

Christians, if you think it "Doesn't matter how horrid your behavior is, or even how bad your theology is," if you think you are of Christ when your behaviour is of Satan, I very strongly advice you to consider whether you have received stones from vipers instead of bread that gives life that will allow you into the tabernacle of the Lord. Or consider your delight is in denying the truth of Christ you claim to believe. For it is very clearly stated that a "body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also"!

Do know, Ihe, that I care, a lot, about everything done on here.

Ihedinobi3:

It's really simple English, high school stuff really.

Kindergarten stuffs actually,and you are still ignorant....
No crime in enrolling into a primary school...heed my advice brother

budaatum:

No I am not the authority on Christianity, ihe, Jesus Christ is, along with the Holy Spirit he sent to teach you the Word of God which you read. Below is a sample of that Word:

[url=https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=James+2%3A19-21&version=NKJV]19[/url] You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe and tremble! 20 But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead? 21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar?

Christians, if you think it "Doesn't matter how horrid your behavior is, or even how bad your theology is," if you think you are of Christ when your behaviour is of Satan, I very strongly advice you to consider whether you have received stones from vipers instead of bread that gives life that will allow you into the tabernacle of the Lord. Or consider your delight is in denying the truth of Christ you claim to believe. For it is very clearly stated that a "body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also"!

Do know, Ihe, that I care, a lot, about everything done on here.

Very good. Works have a role here, but decidedly not for Salvation. I already explained that in the first lesson on my thread for Bible Studies.

To be clear, the Lord Jesus does not tolerate bad theology (that is, whether wilful or ignorant misinterpretation of the Bible) nor does He tolerate bad behavior whether wilful or ignorant. The former leads to the latter, so it is even doubly important. Bad behavior is disciplined by the Lord right up to the point of death, that is, when believers sin, the Lord disciplines us. The more grievous and gross the sin, the greater the punishment. The more spiritually mature the believer who sins too, the greater is his punishment as well. If a believer commits to sinning in a certain pattern ignoring discipline along the way, eventually, the Lord will visit upon him the "sin unto death". That is a discipline that puts the believer through agonizing punishment leading straight to physical death unless the believer repents of his sin or gives up his faith in Christ. Either choice will free him from the discipline. As long as he hangs on to his faith even while sinning so foolishly, however, he will be saved even though the Lord kills him for his sin.

As for bad theology, as I said, it leads to bad behavior. So when the Lord disciplines bad behavior, ordinarily it should lead to a correction of bad theology. However, as we mature in the Truth, we are also purged or cleaned as we continue to study under a gifted and prepared teacher, apply, and help others to grow. This is how bad theology gets good.

So, works have a place. Our behavior shows whether we are actually developing in the Faith and bearing fruit for Christ, which is the whole point of our Salvation. Also, bearing fruit for Christ is really the works that James and the rest of the Bible talks about. It comprises only such things as help other believers to grow spiritually and also fulfill their own duties in the Body of Christ. All duties or ministries in the Body of Christ are focused purely on the Truth of the Bible. As we help each other learn it and apply it, we are doing the works that we ought to be doing.

Other good behavior - being nice to people etc - are merely things that happen as a matter of course along the way as we learn the Bible and help each other. This is what the Bible itself teaches.

The Bible does not teach that one is a Christian if one is nice to other people. In fact, it teaches that no one can be saved by "being good" because nobody is perfect. We can only be saved by God's Goodwill toward us which we can never merit. The same way we are saved is the way that we must walk with the Lord: depending on His Goodwill toward us, not on any personal merits of our own.

So, I do not agree with any idea that suggests that a Christian is anybody who acts nice toward other people. A Christian is a believer in Jesus Christ. Good behavior follows a diligent application of oneself to the Truth of the Bible under the guidance of a gifted and prepared Bible teacher.

Ihedinobi3:

How am I pretending anything about that? Are laws not being made in keeping with atheistic liberal ideas now? In Canadian provinces where Christians who hold to biblical principles can be jailed for using normal gender pronouns to address or describe people who do not identify as that gender, are they in better standing than atheists? How about Australia and China? Are Christians the cream of society in places where antibiblical laws which favor atheistic leanings exist?

I know the meaning of Truth, Sabrina. I know that truth is not whatever any given person wants it to be.

Oh wow. I guess its okay for me to come out and announce my atheism to my parents and family members then

Thanks Ihedinobi

Michellekabod1:

Kindergarten stuffs actually,and you are still ignorant....
No crime in enrolling into a primary school...heed my advice brother

You're ridiculous. You've just been attacking people since you got on this thread. Someone addresses himself to the OP without insulting her, and you felt compelled to attack him. I explain that his response had at least a justification, and you get all uppity. What is wrong with you?

IAmSabrina:

Oh wow. I guess its okay for me to come out and announce my atheism to my parents and family members then

Thanks Ihedinobi

Oh, is that the problem? Can you imagine how easy it is to have family that thinks that you may be losing it or something because you decided that you wouldn't go to church anymore since nobody there seems to care about what the Bible says? When I was younger and weird, the house was not pleasant to live in, and family was not nice to have. I'm a bit older and even weirder, and having family is still not easy.

Look, everyone has a problem. People generally try to blend in to avoid too much trouble. It doesn't mean that your kind is worse off than others. You'll probably marry a fellow atheist (assuming you decide to bother with that). I doubt very much indeed that any child you have who takes the Bible seriously will find growing up under you pleasant.

Ihedinobi3:
Let me explain something I really shouldn't be needing to explain at all: we don't make up the meanings of words just as we please. Words have a meaning. We use them or we don't.

Yet if any man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed;
but let him glorify God on this behalf.
- 1 Peter 4:16

Let me explain something here too, I really shouldn't be posting and getting in between both of you, but sometimes, regardless of whose ox is being gored, regardless of if it is a dangerous or undesirable thing to say or do, a man just has got to do what a man's got to do. You are completely and totally right that words have a meaning. People use these words and some dont use these words for themselves but might accept others using the words on them. Case in point, the word "nigger". Funnily and by some bizzare curious twist of fate, the word "Christian" or more correctly and appropriately the term "Christi-anos" is no different kettle of fish to the repugnant word "nigger"

"Christian" or "Christi-anos" is just another epithet, similar in import, to the infamous word, nigger

Just, as black people suffered as niggers, before the Civil Rights Act of 1964 enacted by the 88th United States Congress, so the early believers suffered, contemptuous ridicule, mockery and/or disdain.It is very important to note that, Peter, in the 1 Peter 4:16 verse, IS NOT, under any circumstances, calling anybody or anyone a Christian but rather, is saying dont be ashamed, if any gets to be treated like a nigger "Christian" or "Christi-anos", he in effect, is trying to pacify, by advising to keep calm and brush it off, if subjected to this contemptuous ridicule, mockery and/or disdain.

Admittedly, the attachment or commitment to a institutionalised and/or traditional term, especially one like this that one is known to, known as, addressed as or referred to, has to be a hard thing to break from. Certainly, this is a seemingly pious name, to make one, want to bury head in the sand and not want to know the truth about it, as in, like, be hostile to the truth about the tag "Christian" or "Christi-anos"

The fact, that, you refer yourself as Christian, don't mean that's who you really are because the truth of the matter, is, that's not what God calls you, it's what the world calls you or what the world, like Antioch, says you are and/or who you are.

Here are a few parallels any black person can relate to:
Are you a nigger?
Do you refer or address yourself as a nigger?
Do you call yourself, answer back after and/or when being called a nigger?
What would you say if someone, right now, possibly non-black, calls you a nigger?

Ihedinobi3:
Christian is a Bible word. It was described in the Bible to be a label that mocking unbelievers attached to people who believe in Jesus Christ. That is what it means. It does not mean whatever budaatum or anybody else suddenly decides that it must mean.

It is true "Christian" or "Christi-anos" is a Bible word, in fact, it actually originally, is a Greek word. The word Christian, is the Greek transliteration, Christi-anos. It is also true that it is a label, that is mocking unbelievers, and attached to people, who believe in Jesus Christ, but it means more than you simply saying: "That is what it means"

You typed: "It does not mean whatever budaatum or anybody else suddenly decides that it must mean" yet you dont go any further to explain the true sense and correct meaning of the word

Ihedinobi3:
The word is a synonym for believer, saint, follower of The Way, and disciple in the Bible. If you do not believe in Jesus Christ Who is God that put on humanity in order to die for human sins and save all humans from the Lake of Fire, you are not a Christian. Period. Doesn't matter how sweet or nice you are. If you do believe that, then you are. Period. Doesn't matter how horrid your behavior is, or even how bad your theology is.

Now without you at all trying to be grammatically, semantically and etymologically correct, you suddenly decides because of a semantic change, semantic confusion or semantic drift what the word "Christian" or "Christi-anos" must mean and succumbed to say, the word is a synonym for believer, saint, follower of The Way, and disciple in the Bible. I am sorry to be the one, to tell you this is a pure and sheer amelioration. Paul had the chance in the presensce of King Agrippa to admit and be proud to be called or adressed as a "Christian" or "Christi-anos" but he ducked the window opportunity and never commented to King Agrippa's scathing remark. It would have been the perfect opportunity for Paul to thump his chest and in King Agrippa's presence, proudly declare and say, yes, he is a "Christian" or "Christi-anos" but alas, he didnt, he was mute like silence of the lamb and let that window of opportunity to say, I am a "Christian" or "Christi-anos" slide by. No doubt King Agrippa uttered the Christi-anos or Christian epithet, at Paul to offend and rattle Paul, but Paul kept his cool, avoided calling himself a Christi-anos or Christian, instead replied with:
"I wish to God that you and everyone listening to me today would quickly and completely become as I am (except for being a prisoner)

Ihedinobi3, if "Christian" or "Christi-anos" really means "believer, saint, follower of The Way, and disciple in the Bible" etcetera, why, why, why, if the "Christian" or "Christi-anos" term is that so palatable or that acceptable, that neither Paul, Peter, disciples, etcetera ever addressed themselves or each other by it? Also, Paul never carried the notion in his epistles that, he or any of the believers is a "Christian" or "Christi-anos". WHY?

"Christian" or "Christi-anos" is a misnomer for believers, saints, brothers, sisters, disciples. A pig is still a pig, even with lipstick on and ring in the nose. Please teacher no teach me nonsense Fela will say. Call a spade a spade and not a fork, say it, as it is.

Ihedinobi3:
Therefore, all Christians are by definition people who believe this One Truth. That we don't all agree on Bible teachings beyond this is merely evidence that we are still in sinful, mortal flesh. In fact, today, the vast majority of Christians are incredibly ignorant of what the Bible actually teaches, so when they talk about the Bible, they basically spew an incredible amount of lies about it. But they are still very much Christians as long as they believe in Jesus Christ. That is what the authority that matters here says. And you, budaatum, are not the authority.

I have said countless times before and dont mind repeating it here. I don't know how, one will knowingly call self a Christian, cos if you properly read the Bible, you won't yourself, outrightly call yourself a Christian. Neither of the disciples, none of the apostles called themselves Christians. Even Paul, as we saw with King Agrippa baulked at a golden opportunity to proudly do so.

The person, that used that term around Paul, is a hardcore and die-hard Jew who knew what he was doing and saying, by using the Christian term around Paul. Agrippa, not only a Jew but a king as well, deliberately and calculatedly, tried to hurt Paul's emotional state, frame of mind, sensibility and/or sensitivity.

Too bad, many dont discern why and what Agrippa and those in Antioch implied and mean, by calling Paul and the earlier believers "Christi-anos" or "Christian"

Acts 11:26 is not an acceptance verse, rather it is a history verse, informing readers, that the believers, were called this epithet, "Christi-anos" (i.e. Christian) first, at Antioch

Acts 11:26 is not saying, that the believers, called themselves, the "Christi-anos" or "Christian" epithet

By default and custom, the disciples never wrote any letter addressing or calling each other, using the "Christi-anos" or "Christian"epithet. Ihedinobi3, if you find any, bring it to my notice, I will welcome it, but please, in your findings, exclude afterthought bible versions or translations

Acts 11:26, Acts 26:28 and 1 Peter 4:16 are the only three places in the bible where the term "Christi-anos" or "Christian", is found and used. On each occasion, the term was used in a belittling, derogatory and rebuffing context or manner
No where in the bible, I reiterate, will it ever be found, any of the disciples, believers, Paul, Peter, say I am a CHRISTIAN...
Same way, you Ihedinobi3, wont say about yourself: I am a NIGGER, call me one.

In youth we learn, in age we understand. Certain truths, can only be clearly seen or understood with the wisdom of age and grace of God. Let me also add, that, knowledge and/or information isn't free, you got to pay attention

Ihedinobi3:
About atheists, really, just find someone who cares. I truly have no desire to repeat things that are clear enough for the simple to understand. It takes insanity or sheer dishonesty to ignore or confuse some things.

About atheists, I really, have never met any atheists, that I couldn't learn something from. I learn a lot from all my interactions with them all, such like Sêun, the god of Nairaland, frank317, TheArranger, ThothHermes/Ranchhoddas, Hermes019, LoJ, Dantedasz, GreatResearcher, PastorAIO/Sarassin RIP, Michellekabod RIP, JeromeBlack/HappyPagan, HardMirror, HopefulLandlord, Martinez39, Akin1212, BeLookingIDIOT, Goshen360, TVSA, TV01 etcetera

IAmSabrina:

Oh wow. I guess its okay for me to come out and announce my atheism to my parents and family members then

Thanks Ihedinobi

What?! Your parents don't know that you are an atheist?

Ihedinobi3:
Very good. Works have a role here, but decidedly not for Salvation. I already explained that in the first lesson on my thread for Bible Studies.

I saw the thread you mention but decided to wait till you cared about me.

No, I never said one works for one's salvation, though that view has biblical support as I've pointed out with my parable of the non-believing defiling pagan worshipping doing good Samaritan. My position is that one who has received salvation by God's Grace must be producing good fruits with one's work or one is dead which is the exact opposite of being saved.

Ihedinobi3:
To be clear, the Lord Jesus does not tolerate bad theology (that is, whether wilful or ignorant misinterpretation of the Bible) nor does He tolerate bad behavior whether wilful or ignorant. The former leads to the latter, so it is even doubly important. Bad behavior is disciplined by the Lord right up to the point of death, that is, when believers sin, the Lord disciplines us. The more grievous and gross the sin, the greater the punishment. The more spiritually mature the believer who sins too, the greater is his punishment as well. If a believer commits to sinning in a certain pattern ignoring discipline along the way, eventually, the Lord will visit upon him the "sin unto death". That is a discipline that puts the believer through agonizing punishment leading straight to physical death unless the believer repents of his sin or gives up his faith in Christ. Either choice will free him from the discipline. As long as he hangs on to his faith even while sinning so foolishly, however, he will be saved even though the Lord kills him for his sin.

For your "discipline", my understanding is "teach", which means I must learn. And thankfully, the Lord who so loved the World does not go about "punishing" anymore. An Almighty God can't tell lowly me to forgive those who transgress against me seven times seventy times and then punish me one, or even every seven times. The evidence in fact suggests that God is so benevolent and graceful that God forgives me seven million times seventy million times and even sends the begotten Son to die upon a cross for the edification of my soul, and he then sent me the Comforter to assist me to learn to reduce my so many sins or I would be long dead by now yet I live!

Ihedinobi3:
As for bad theology, as I said, it leads to bad behavior. So when the Lord disciplines bad behavior, ordinarily it should lead to a correction of bad theology. However, as we mature in the Truth, we are also purged or cleaned as we continue to study under a gifted and prepared teacher, apply, and help others to grow. This is how bad theology gets good.

I want to agree with this but with two objections. The first is what I said above about your "discipline" being my "teaching" from which I learn, and the second is, my "gifted and prepared teacher", is the Lord God Almighty, Jesus the only begotten Son and the Comforter which he sent to minister to me.

Ihedinobi3:
So, works have a place. Our behavior shows whether we are actually developing in the Faith and bearing fruit for Christ, which is the whole point of our Salvation. Also, bearing fruit for Christ is really the works that James and the rest of the Bible talks about. It comprises only such things as help other believers to grow spiritually and also fulfill their own duties in the Body of Christ. All duties or ministries in the Body of Christ are focused purely on the Truth of the Bible. As we help each other learn it and apply it, we are doing the works that we ought to be doing.

The truth in my Bible does not "comprises only such things as help other believers to grow spiritually and also fulfill their own duties in the Body of Christ". The truth in my Bible is “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you buda, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, [url=https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+5%3A43-48&version=NIV]that you may be a child of your Father in heaven[/url]" fulfilling my own duties in the Body of Christ which is the whole earth and universe and all that is therein. But I do understand that less is expected from those who understand a little.

Ihedinobi3:
Other good behavior - being nice to people etc - are merely things that happen as a matter of course along the way as we learn the Bible and help each other. This is what the Bible itself teaches.

Amen. Though, not "merely", and not just "being nice to people" since my commission is far more than "be nice to people", and includes "be fruitful and multiply and subdue the earth and rule over it" and be the "salt of the earth" that my good deeds glorify my Father in heaven. For if my "eye is dim, my whole body belongs to satan", my sinning being a defilement of the perfect creation of the Lord that I ought to be. I will not be allowed into the Tabernacle of the Lord which by all accounts is not salvation because I would have lost my saltiness and be "no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled underfoot".

The things of the devil will not be our portion, by GoG!

Ihedinobi3:
The Bible does not teach that one is a Christian if one is nice to other people. In fact, it teaches that no one can be saved by "being good" because nobody is perfect. We can only be saved by God's Goodwill toward us which we can never merit. The same way we are saved is the way that we must walk with the Lord: depending on His Goodwill toward us, not on any personal merits of our own.

The Bible does not teach that one must be a Christian neither to attain salvation. The non-believing defiling pagan worshipping doing good Samaritan did not have to abandon his pagan worshipping yet Jesus said "Go and do likewise"!

"Saved", is more of "have the opportunity to be saved" by having the Word et al to learn from and continue to be perfected and not just give up because you believe you cannot possibly get close to perfection, or because you believe God does not care if you tried! Is it not true that God sent the only begotten Son to perfect you? Did Jesus lie when he said "Christian, be perfect like your Father in heaven is perfect"? Did he lie when he said he'd even send you the Comforter to assist you to be perfect? Is you perfection impossible for God? Those who walk not with God walk away from the opportunity to be perfected. And besides, why would anyone want to make a sacrifice of unrefined mud to the Almighty God?

If buda takes the view you propose above, I expect to be asked why I am angry, "Why is your face downcast? If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, buda, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must rule over it.” I should expect my foolish Lord Lordism to lead to a massive dental bill. If I "[url=https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+7%3A24-27&version=NKJV]heareth[/url] these sayings and doeth them not" and shall "be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand.

Ihedinobi3:
So, I do not agree with any idea that suggests that a Christian is anybody who acts nice toward other people. A Christian is a believer in Jesus Christ. Good behavior follows a diligent application of oneself to the Truth of the Bible under the guidance of a gifted and prepared Bible teacher.

I agree that a Christian is not anybody who acts nice toward other people. But I suggest that those who do not "do my will", which is "love your neighbours", and not just 'love those who believe as one does', are not in any way of Christ.

MuttleyLaff:
Yet if any man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed;
but let him glorify God on this behalf.
- 1 Peter 4:16

Let me explain something here too, I really shouldn't be posting and getting in between both of you, but sometimes, regardless of whose ox is being gored, regardless of if it is a dangerous or undesirable thing to say or do, a man just has got to do what a man's got to do. You are completely and totally right that words have a meaning. People use these words and some dont use these words for themselves but might accept others using the words on them. Case in point, the word "nigger". Funnily and by some bizzare curious twist of fate, the word "Christian" or more correctly and appropriately the term "Christi-anos" is no different kettle of fish to the repugnant word "nigger"

"Christian" or "Christi-anos" is just another epithet, similar in import, to the infamous word, nigger

Just, as black people suffered as niggers, before the Civil Rights Act of 1964 enacted by the 88th United States Congress, so the early believers suffered, contemptuous ridicule, mockery and/or disdain.It is very important to note that, Peter, in the 1 Peter 4:16 verse, IS NOT, under any circumstances, calling anybody or anyone a Christian but rather, is saying dont be ashamed, if any gets to be treated like a nigger "Christian" or "Christi-anos", he in effect, is trying to pacify, by advising to keep calm and brush it off, if subjected to this contemptuous ridicule, mockery and/or disdain.

Admittedly, the attachment or commitment to a institutionalised and/or traditional term, especially one like this that one is known to, known as, addressed as or referred to, has to be a hard thing to break from. Certainly, this is a seemingly pious name, to make one, want to bury head in the sand and not want to know the truth about it, as in, like, be hostile to the truth about the tag "Christian" or "Christi-anos"

The fact, that, you refer yourself as Christian, don't mean that's who you really are because the truth of the matter, is, that's not what God calls you, it's what the world calls you or what the world, like Antioch, says you are and/or who you are.

Here are a few parallels any black person can relate to:
Are you a nigger?
Do you refer or address yourself as a nigger?
Do you call yourself, answer back after and/or when being called a nigger?
What would you say if someone, right now, possibly non-black, calls you a nigger?

It is true "Christian" or "Christi-anos" is a Bible word, in fact, it actually originally, is a Greek word. The word Christian, is the Greek transliteration, Christi-anos. It is also true that it is a label, that is mocking unbelievers, and attached to people, who believe in Jesus Christ, but it means more than you simply saying: "That is what it means"

You typed: "It does not mean whatever budaatum or anybody else suddenly decides that it must mean" yet you dont go any further to explain the true sense and correct meaning of the word

Now without you at all trying to be grammatically, semantically and etymologically correct, you suddenly decides because of a semantic change, semantic confusion or semantic drift what the word "Christian" or "Christi-anos" must mean and succumbed to say, the word is a synonym for believer, saint, follower of The Way, and disciple in the Bible. I am sorry to be the one, to tell you this is a pure and sheer amelioration. Paul had the chance in the presensce of King Agrippa to admit and be proud to be called or adressed as a "Christian" or "Christi-anos" but he ducked the window opportunity and never commented to King Agrippa's scathing remark. It would have been the perfect opportunity for Paul to thump his chest and in King Agrippa's presence, proudly declare and say, yes, he is a "Christian" or "Christi-anos" but alas, he didnt, he was mute like silence of the lamb and let that window of opportunity to say, I am a "Christian" or "Christi-anos" slide by. No doubt King Agrippa uttered the Christi-anos or Christian epithet, at Paul to offend and rattle Paul, but Paul kept his cool, avoided calling himself a Christi-anos or Christian, instead replied with:
"I wish to God that you and everyone listening to me today would quickly and completely become as I am (except for being a prisoner)

Ihedinobi3, if "Christian" or "Christi-anos" really means "believer, saint, follower of The Way, and disciple in the Bible" etcetera, why, why, why, if the "Christian" or "Christi-anos" term is that so palatable or that acceptable, that neither Paul, Peter, disciples, etcetera ever addressed themselves or each other by it? Also, Paul never carried the notion in his epistles that, he or any of the believers is a "Christian" or "Christi-anos". WHY?

"Christian" or "Christi-anos" is a misnomer for believers, saints, brothers, sisters, disciples. A pig is still a pig, even with lipstick on and ring in the nose. Please teacher no teach me nonsense Fela will say. Call a spade a spade and not a fork, say it, as it is.

I have said countless times before and dont mind repeating it here. I don't know how, one will knowingly call self a Christian, cos if you properly read the Bible, you won't yourself, outrightly call yourself a Christian. Neither of the disciples, none of the apostles called themselves Christians. Even Paul, as we saw with King Agrippa baulked at a golden opportunity to proudly do so.

The person, that used that term around Paul, is a hardcore and die-hard Jew who knew what he was doing and saying, by using the Christian term around Paul. Agrippa, not only a Jew but a king as well, deliberately and calculatedly, tried to hurt Paul's emotional state, frame of mind, sensibility and/or sensitivity.

Too bad, many dont discern why and what Agrippa and those in Antioch implied and mean, by calling Paul and the earlier believers "Christi-anos" or "Christian"

Acts 11:26 is not an acceptance verse, rather it is a history verse, informing readers, that the believers, were called this epithet, "Christi-anos" (i.e. Christian) first, at Antioch

Acts 11:26 is not saying, that the believers, called themselves, the "Christi-anos" or "Christian" epithet

By default and custom, the disciples never wrote any letter addressing or calling each other, using the "Christi-anos" or "Christian"epithet. Ihedinobi3, if you find any, bring it to my notice, I will welcome it, but please, in your findings, exclude afterthought bible versions or translations

Acts 11:26, Acts 26:28 and 1 Peter 4:16 are the only three places in the bible where the term "Christi-anos" or "Christian", is found and used. On each occasion, the term was used in a belittling, derogatory and rebuffing context or manner
No where in the bible, I reiterate, will it ever be found, any of the disciples, believers, Paul, Peter, say I am a CHRISTIAN...
Same way, you Ihedinobi3, wont say about yourself: I am a NIGGER, call me one.

In youth we learn, in age we understand. Certain truths, can only be clearly seen or understood with the wisdom of age and grace of God. Let me also add, that, knowledge and/or information isn't free, you got to pay attention

About atheists, I really, have never met any atheists, that I couldn't learn something from. I learn a lot from all my interactions with them all, such like Sêun, the god of Nairaland, frank317, TheArranger, ThothHermes/Ranchhoddas, Hermes019, LoJ, Dantedasz, GreatResearcher, PastorAIO/Sarassin RIP, Michellekabod RIP, JeromeBlack/HappyPagan, HardMirror, HopefulLandlord, Martinez39, Akin1212, BeLookingIDIOT, Goshen360, TVSA, TV01 etcetera

Quite obviously, I disagree with you.

Ihedinobi3:

You're ridiculous. You've just been attacking people since you got on this thread. Someone addresses himself to the OP without insulting her, and you felt compelled to attack him. I explain that his response had at least a justification, and you get all uppity. What is wrong with you?

Oki messed up,forgive me

budaatum:
I saw the thread you mention but decided to wait till you cared about me.

No, I never said one works for one's salvation, though that view has biblical support as I've pointed out with my parable of the non-believing defiling pagan worshipping doing good Samaritan. My position is that one who has received salvation by God's Grace must be producing good fruits with one's work or one is dead which is the exact opposite of being saved.


For your "discipline", my understanding is "teach", which means I must learn. And thankfully, the Lord who so loved the World does not go about "punishing" anymore. An Almighty God can't tell lowly me to forgive those who transgress against me seven times seventy times and then punish me one, or even every seven times. The evidence in fact suggests that God is so benevolent and graceful that God forgives me seven million times seventy million times and even sends the begotten Son to die upon a cross for the edification of my soul, and he then sent me the Comforter to assist me to learn to reduce my so many sins or I would be long dead by now yet I live!

I want to agree with this but with two objections. The first is what I said above about your "discipline" being my "teaching" from which I learn, and the second is, my "gifted and prepared teacher", is the Lord God Almighty, Jesus the only begotten Son and the Comforter which he sent to minister to me.

The truth in my Bible does not "comprises only such things as help other believers to grow spiritually and also fulfill their own duties in the Body of Christ". The truth in my Bible is “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you buda, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, [url=https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+5%3A43-48&version=NIV]that you may be a child of your Father in heaven[/url]" fulfilling my own duties in the Body of Christ which is the whole earth and universe and all that is therein. But I do understand that less is expected from those who understand a little.

Amen. Though, not "merely", and not just "being nice to people" since my commission is far more than "be nice to people", and includes "be fruitful and multiply and subdue the earth and rule over it" and be the "salt of the earth" that my good deeds glorify my Father in heaven. For if my "eye is dim, my whole body belongs to satan", my sinning being a defilement of the perfect creation of the Lord that I ought to be. I will not be allowed into the Tabernacle of the Lord which by all accounts is not salvation because I would have lost my saltiness and be "no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled underfoot".

The things of the devil will not be our portion, by GoG!

The Bible does not teach that one must be a Christian neither to attain salvation. The non-believing defiling pagan worshipping doing good Samaritan did not have to abandon his pagan worshipping yet Jesus said "Go and do likewise"!

"Saved", is more of "have the opportunity to be saved" by having the Word et al to learn from and continue to be perfected and not just give up because you believe you cannot possibly get close to perfection, or because you believe God does not care if you tried! Is it not true that God sent the only begotten Son to perfect you? Did Jesus lie when he said "Christian, be perfect like your Father in heaven is perfect"? Did he lie when he said he'd even send you the Comforter to assist you to be perfect? Is you perfection impossible for God? Those who walk not with God walk away from the opportunity to be perfected. And besides, why would anyone want to make a sacrifice of unrefined mud to the Almighty God?

If buda takes the view you propose above, I expect to be asked why I am angry, "Why is your face downcast? If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, buda, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must rule over it.” I should expect my foolish Lord Lordism to lead to a massive dental bill. If I "[url=https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+7%3A24-27&version=NKJV]heareth[/url] these sayings and doeth them not" and shall "be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand.

I agree that a Christian is not anybody who acts nice toward other people. But I suggest that those who do not "do my will", which is "love your neighbours", and not just 'love those who believe as one does', are not in any way of Christ.

In so far as you argue that Salvation has anything to do with one's behavior, I do not agree with you. Nor does the Bible, as far as I know.

In so far as you agree that those who believe are responsible to learn the whole Truth of the Bible, and behave in keeping with it, and help other believers (and unbelievers) who are willing to do the same, then I couldn't agree more. The Bible agrees too, as far as I know.

Ihedinobi3:
Quite obviously, I disagree with you.

I expected you to. Like I earlier said, admittedly, the attachment or commitment to an institutionalised and/or traditional term, especially one like this that one is known to, known as, addressed as or referred to, has to be a hard thing to break from. Certainly, this is a seemingly pious name, to make one, want to bury head in the sand and not want to know the truth about it, as in, like, be hostile to the truth about the tag "Christian" or "Christi-anos"

Please list what exactly you disagree with me on

MuttleyLaff:
I expected you to. Like I earlier said, admittedly, the attachment or commitment to an institutionalised and/or traditional term, especially one like this that one is known to, known as, addressed as or referred to, has to be a hard thing to break from. Certainly, this is a seemingly pious name, to make one, want to bury head in the sand and not want to know the truth about it, as in, like, be hostile to the truth about the tag "Christian" or "Christi-anos"

Please list what exactly you disagree with me on

I am not inclined to debating about it with you.

Suffice to say that Paul was not forced to identify himself as a Christian at all. It was most certainly not an either/or moment there.

Peter most definitely meant that if we suffer for identifying with Christ, it is a good thing.

Finally, the original word was Chrestian. It was the equivalent of "goody two shoes people" or "holy holy people". It was slapped on Christians to mock their sober behavior and corrupted to "Christian" after the Bible had already been written.

The first word is clearly derogatory. No believer is perfect, but we do have a responsibility to behave in a sanctified manner. The epithet mocked any commitment to such a behavior, just like its descendants today do too. Granted that it was not flattering, so that believers of that time did not apply it to themselves, if it is a term of convenience, so be it. Its meaning is acceptable as descriptive of the believer and his faith.

The second word, which is a corruption (or a correction, depending on how you look at it) of the first, is better. It means "[a member] of [the household or company] of Christ." That too is very descriptive of the believer and his faith, since all who believe are members of Christ's Body. Of course, being such a member puts a responsibility on us to behave in the sanctified manner that the original epithet mocks.

Personally, I use the term for convenience. Sometimes I use "believer" for emphasis. But I see no real reason to distinguish between the two.

As I said, I'm not going to debate this. I have only described my position on it for your information (and for the benefit of any other interested reader).

Edited.

Ihedinobi3:

In so far as you argue that Salvation has anything to do with one's behavior, I do not agree with you. Nor does the Bible, as far as I know.

Salvation has a lot to do with behaviour, though not as a guarantee of it, as you think I argue, which I don't. In my own words, and as I've said here, "claiming righteousness is arrogance", and the same goes for salvation, in my opinion.

Works are but the product of salvation (and righteousness), the fruit one produces a hundred fold. Those with salvation produce these fruits, and those without produce [url=https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians+5%3A19-21&version=NIV]these[/url], and by the fruit we produces are we known. So one must be fruitful as [url=https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+19%3A1-10&version=NIV]this person[/url] is, and for the glorification of the Father who art in Heaven, and not for the justification of the self as this [url=https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+18%3A9-14&version=NIV]person[/url] erroneously does, not knowing "those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.”

I sincerely appreciate your patience in tutoring me to delve into scripture and not lean on my own understanding alone. Your work, no doubt, to the glory of the Lord.

budaatum:

Salvation has a lot to do with behaviour, though not as a guarantee of it, as you think I argue, which I don't. In my own words, and as I've said here, "claiming righteousness is arrogance", and the same goes for salvation, in my opinion.

Works are but the product of salvation (and righteousness), the fruit one produces a hundred fold. Those with salvation produce these fruits, and those without produce [url=https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians+5%3A19-21&version=NIV]these[/url], and by the fruit we produces are we known. So one must be fruitful as [url=https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+19%3A1-10&version=NIV]this person[/url] is, and for the glorification of the Father who art in Heaven, and not for the justification of the self as this [url=https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+18%3A9-14&version=NIV]person[/url] erroneously does not knowing "those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.”

I sincerely appreciate your patience in tutoring me to delve into scripture and not lean on my own understanding alone. Your work, no doubt, to the glory of the Lord.

Obviously, I disagree that Salvation has anything to do with behavior. I also disagree that behavior is any kind of proof that anyone is saved. The Bible does not teach either thing, as far as I know.

Sanctified behavior is a responsibility that believers have to their Lord. Whether they fulfill that responsibility or not will determine how He responds to them. But it does not say anything about their salvation. This is what I have learned from the Bible.

As for works, the works which were prepared for us to walk in from the foundation of the world are works of Faith, just like Abraham's sacrifice of Isaac. That is, they are things we do in response to what we learn from the Bible. Such things are always things that help other people who want it to hear the Truth, believe it, apply it to their lives, and also help others in turn. Abraham's obedience, for example, is till today inspiring believers to trust completely in the Lord no matter what He may put them through, and what He may require of them. Otherwise, clearly, Abraham would not be considered a very good man for trying to cut up his son and burn him as a sacrifice just because God said so.

The works are not what the world makes so much of.

Ihedinobi3:

There is that bald-faced lying I talked about.

Your talent for weaving tales even in the face of glaring evidence is remarkable. If there are any story writing headhunters they'll hit a gold mine with you or even propagandists would need your services.

Saw this response hours ago and i thought long about it. Seeing as today was a free day for me and i had the whole day, i decided to take my time and examine this response as critically as i could possibly can. This response has revealed a lot to me and has now given me new perspective on this whole religion issue (your last post especially made up my mind on the kind of person you are). Can i just point out how hilarious it is that the only part of my post you didn't respond to is the part i agreed with you? I was watching out for that. Speaks volumes if you don't know. I also notice you're very hostile in arguments even when i tried my best to be polite. Also speaks volumes.

Suffice it to say, i'm not holding back from this moment on.

Ihedinobi3:

You're sorely mistaken on very many fronts here.

Of course i am

Ihedinobi3:

1. I did not provide or intend to provide examples of the absurdities and inanities I alluded to, so your expectation of that was mistaken. I have already told you that atheism, is as a whole, an insanity. That means that I consider all of its propositions at least suspect, if not outrightly absurd and inane.

Well, until you demonstrate the said "absurdities and inanities" of atheism, you in particular, really can't talk. As a matter of fact, i'll be doing same to Theism just below so keep your eyes peeled. In the meantime, please do same for atheism.

Ihedinobi3:

Also, did you really believe that I would ever consider it reasonable to admit that theism has any problem? What is the far fetching to be admitted there?

I didn't believe so, I know your type very well to know you will never admit flaws in Theism. which is why i was expecting the question @red

But let me just show you a few reasons Theism gets a lot of flack:
1. Pretty much every holy text ever written can be shown to be self-contradictory, therefore describing something that's quite literally impossible.
2. In all of Earth's history, there have been about 100 billion humans who have inhabited our planet, and there have been about 3,000 creator deities that they believed in. Since only one could be the real creator (each making claims to be the only one) that means that the great majority of all humans who have ever lived were theists who were wrong.
2b. Do I know all theists are wrong? Hell no. Given there have been over 3,000 creator deities worshiped and there are now 41,000 different Christian denominations -- each with their own claims -- knowing what all of them believe and debunking it can't possibly be approached in a single lifetime. I just hold all such claims to be equally unproved.
3. Logical inconsistency e.g If salvation is grace, why does any have to do anything to get it?
4. Consequences of Theistic beliefs: war, murder, death, cruelty. No one expects the Spanish Inquisition.

Ihedinobi3:

3. I have never been anything but a believer in Jesus Christ, true, but I've never been a perfect believer in my life. Between 2004 and 2007, in particular, I did not identify as a Christian although I still believed that Jesus Christ died for my sins. I just didn't think I could ever be as good as the Bible wanted me to be, so I tried very hard to stop trying to be that good. A pretty strong conscience got in the way of my plans, but I did make an effort.

As for trying on the atheist's shoes, have you ever tasted excreta just because you wanted to know what it's like? Not everything is worth trying. If it looks, smells, and sounds bad, it very well might be. In addition, I have all of you guys to thank for my utter distaste for it. If the way you are is what atheism offers, I could not only do without it, but I would be insane to want to try it.

Additionally, your comment about this reeks of naïvety, and I don't mean to insult you. I am very well educated in more belief systems than you probably have allowed yourself to imagine about me. That tends to come with experience, at least, in apologetics, so it would have made more sense for you to assume it to be the case rather than the opposite.

No one is questioning your knowledge of belief systems or how many you know. That's not the point of my last post. My point was to state that you've never departed from theism to any other philosophical position, which even you kind of admitted @red & @blue. And like i said, i'm a young student, so no offence taken @green.

Basically what this post concludes to me is that you're not open minded at all. And its funny because you accuse people a lot of being dogmatic. So correct me if i'm wrong but you have absolutely NO right to point to people and accuse them of being dogmatic when you yourself can't even bring yourself to see from other points of view. You can hold on to your views as tight as you want to. That is no business of mine. But please do remember to clear the forest in your backyard before you cut down the tree in another's.

Ihedinobi3:

4. About previous engagements, I am wondering right now if I have heard a more ridiculous come-back before. First, I have responded to more than one of your threads. Second, I have responded to your arguments on other threads. Third, I should have asked why you scoffed and went away?!

Yes actually. Funnily enough, i started going through my topics one by one and saw a good number of comments from you (although most weren't mentions and i have this "bad" habit of not revisiting topics after i create them), so on that note, i apologize

As for the part where i scoffed, YOU went away! I specifically told you "The Bible is flawed. Try again". There was NO response from you!

Ihedinobi3:

5. Like I told one of your friends, you lot should get a bonfire to dance around. Why you think that your endorsement of each other amounts to anything at all is quite frankly beyond me.

Just to clear a few doubts i think you may be having but if you think i'm trying to impress you here, you're sorely mistaken.

The only reason i'm even exchanging words with you is because i've noticed you in a lot of threads calling atheists dishonest and all that crap. So here i am, an atheist trying to be honest to the best of my ability (i'm not flawless). And now i'm just discovering that you're probably the most dogmatic individual i've ever encountered on Nairaland.

Ihedinobi3:

6. Bitterness?! Anger?! It is no secret that I consider atheism ridiculous and all atheists I have debated here as antichristians, but to be called bitter and angry about it is laughable. The bulk of my engagement on here is to answer biblical questions, no matter who asks them. I almost never banter with atheists now. When I do, I call out your dishonesty, but that's it. I never call you names or insult you. There is probably only one atheist or antichristian whom I have engaged here that did not call me names and heap false allegations on me. And I am the bitter and angry one?! Very laughable indeed. If you knew my first two monickers in 2012-2013, and said that, I'd still have laughed at you, although I was certainly far less amicable toward your kind. Right now, I am almost friendly even, except when you lie through your teeth.

One needs not insult someone to infuriate someone. You've not insulted me but so far i have to say this conversation has been a bit aggravating because of your stubborness, closemindedness and habit of making lies about people & making false generalizations. If one atheists insults you, that doesn't automatically make ALL atheists insultive. I have encountered foul christians like anas on Nairaland but i never automatically lumped you all in and called you insultive. When it comes to losing my cool, i'm a very long fuse but when i spark, my anger seemingly has no end. If you're thinking you're friendly now, i don't even want to know you when you're hostile

Ihedinobi3:

7. Again, you make the mistake of imagining that all my knowledge and experience is limited to Nairaland, in addition to your imagination that I don't know atheism. Quite the contrary. I know atheism very well. And I know it very well outside of Nairaland too. I was away from Nairaland between 2015 and late 2018, but I was still debating atheists then.

I don't see how debating atheists makes you know atheism. Call it deductive reasoning or whatever you like, but one thing you should understand is that when it comes to arguments, people commit a lot of fallacies, even going as far as employing ad hominems along the way. That's the atheist's fault. Not the fault of atheism.

Ihedinobi3:

8. Deism. You think that the argument that there must be a Creator since there is a Universe is a deistic proposition? That's actually hilarious. The reason is that it is a well-known biblical argument shooting through the Psalms, the Prophets and Romans 1. Are you sure you know these philosophies as well as you think you do?

Deism: the philosophical belief which posits that although God exists as the uncaused First Cause – ultimately responsible for the creation of the universe – God does not interact directly with that subsequently created world.

Theism: belief in the existence of the Supreme Being or deities. In common parlance, or when contrasted with deism, the term often describes the classical conception of God that is found in monotheism (also referred to as classical theism) – or gods found in polytheistic religions—a belief in God or in gods without the rejection of revelation as is characteristic of deism.

Compared with the Bible's psychotic delinquent (yes, i went there), the deist God is a grander being: worthy of his cosmic creation, unconcerned with human affairs, aloof from our private thoughts and hopes, caring nothing for our messy sins or mumbled contritions.

Correct me if i'm wrong. I'm here to learn, and you, being the well-experienced scholar, are supposed to be the teacher.

Ihedinobi3:

9. Making claims. Suffice to say that you are waging a lost war here.

I don't get it. What war?