WORSHIP ODU-DU-IWA OMO OLORUN OLODUMARE.

Kobojunkie:
1. Did he need to do all of that before he could employ his power in establishing a religion?

2. Considering the many theological issues that came out of Nicea, I would say they had many many major disagreements, none of which the apostles who were sent out by Jesus Christ, in the beginning, had by the way, because they had their foundation in the Truth of God — the Gospel and Law of the Kingdom of God — as opposed to doctrines and traditions of men — sinking sand— upon which the religion of Christianity is founded upon.

3. Sure, and he used his power to unite a divided bunch of rogue bishops under one flag thereby giving the antiChrist more leverage beginning in Rome.

4. Jesus Christ never commanded nor asked an easter of HIs followers.

5. Constantine was a politician who wanted to be ahead of the religion. He was to stand as a backer so that the power could be behind him and his Rome, and he got exactly what he wanted, and then some. While Rome was eventually toppled by the religion it helped make official, to this day, Rome remains the seat of power as far as religion is concerned.

You obviously don't know much about early Christians. They bickering seriously and had different sects following different teachers. Saints Peter and Paul were at odds about circumcision of gentiles.
Many theological issues did not come out of Nicea.
See the Nicene creed below.
Only ONE issue was resoved.

PoliteActivist:
■ You obviously don't know much about early Christians. They bickering seriously and had different sects following different teachers.
■ Saints Peter and Paul were at odds about circumcision of gentiles.
■ Many theological issues did not come out of Nicea.
■ See the Nicene creed below. Only ONE issue was resoved.

1. Yes, the rogue Bishops whom I kept mentioning.

2. I am sorry, but what does this supposed squabble between Peter and Paul, both of them Israelites, and both well aware that Jesus Christ was sent only to the children of Israel —the Lost sheep of Israel to whom Jesus Christ was sent to — to do with Rome? Did Peter and Paul also bicker about whether Jesus Christ was God in the Kingdom of God or not? Again, the division was created by rogue bishops, all individually hungry for power and control over the movement hence the various different doctrines eventually led up to Nicea.

3. Many theological issues, many of them created by the rogue bishops, led up to Nicea, yes or no?

4. Nicea's resolve to bring all those theological issues under one official banner led to the proliferation of the religion starting under the banner that is Rome, yes or no?

Kobojunkie:
1. Yes, the rogue Bishops whom I kept mentioning.

2. I am sorry, but what does this supposed squabble between Peter and Paul, both of them Israelites, and both well aware that Jesus Christ was sent only to the children of Israel —the Lost sheep of Israel to whom Jesus Christ was sent to — to do with Rome? Did Peter and Paul also bicker about whether Jesus Christ was God in the Kingdom of God or not? Again, the division was created by rogue bishops, all individually hungry for power and control over the movement hence the various different doctrines eventually led up to Nicea.

3. Many theological issues, many of them created by the rogue bishops, led up to Nicea, yes or no?

4. Nicea's resolve to bring all those theological issues under one official banner led to the proliferation of the religion starting under the banner that is Rome, yes or no?

I see you don't know enough about this topic. You are arguing it by the seat of your pants. Why not take time and research it a bit so you'll be talking with some authority. Start with reading the below.
Take good care

PoliteActivist:
■ I see you don't know enough about this topic. You are arguing it by the seat of your pants. Why not take time and research it a bit so you'll be talking with some authority. Start with reading the below. Take good care

I am afraid I don't quite follow at all. Research about what exactly? Why? This discussion isn't about a minor squabble between Paul and peter which Paul himself claimed to have tasked Peter with, but instead about the divisions that led to the forming of the religion of Christianity almost 250 years later.

As an aside, Paul and Peter understood clearly that Jesus Christ was sent to the lost sheep of Israel, but it seemed Peter was confused as to whether those called had to at least been circumcized under the Old Law of Moses before they could be admitted into Jesus Christ, the New Law. It still was not a Roman issue or an issue for Rome to concern itself with.

Kobojunkie:
I am afraid I don't quite follow at all. Research about what exactly? Why? This discussion isn't about a minor squabble between Paul and peter which Paul himself claimed to have tasked Peter with, but instead about the divisions that led to the forming of the religion of Christianity almost 250 years later.

As an aside, Paul and Peter understood clearly that Jesus Christ was sent to the lost sheep of Israel, but it seemed Peter was confused as to whether those called had to at least been circumcized under the Old Law of Moses before they could be admitted into Jesus Christ, the New Law. It still was not a Roman issue or an issue for Rome to concern itself with.

See below

PoliteActivist:
■ See below

Jesus Christ said He was sent only to the Lost sheep of Israel aka the Gentiles — Israelites who were cursed and scattered by God beginning almost 2500 years ago with the scattering of the Nation of Israel during the time of Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon, and then concluding almost 2000 years ago with the scattering of those of the Nation of Judah --the Jewish nation--- during their occupation by the Romans. He is the good shepherd sent to gather the Lost sheep back to God in Jerusalem by way of God's Special Nation of Priests which He, God, made clear, He would build of His Israel. But it seems to me that you believe that Paul created a belief system that was contrary to that declared by God through His prophets and confirmed by Jesus Christ in His Gospels. You seem to be arguing that Paul set up a different kingdom run by himself to which he then called out, not Israelites, but those whom Jesus Christ considered dogs — non-Israelites from Matthew 15 vs 24 - 26 & Matthew 7 vs 6 — is this the case here?

Kobojunkie:
Jesus Christ said He was sent only to the Lost sheep of Israel aka the Gentiles — Israelites who were cursed and scattered by God beginning almost 2500 years ago with the scattering of the Nation of Israel during the time of Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon, and then concluding almost 2000 years ago with the scattering of those of the Nation of Judah during their occupation by the Romans. He is the good shepherd sent to gather the Lost sheep back to God in Jerusalem by way of God's Special Nation of Priests which He, God, made clear, He would build of His Israel. But it seems to me that you believe that Paul created a belief system that was contrary to that declared by God through His prophets and confirmed by Jesus Christ in His Gospels. You seem to be arguing that Paul set up a different kingdom run by himself to which he then called out, not Israelites, but those whom Jesus Christ considered dogs — non-Israelites from Matthew 15 vs 24 - 26 & Matthew 7 vs 6 — is this the case here?

What does “gentile” mean?

Kobojunkie:
Jesus Christ said He was sent only to the Lost sheep of Israel aka the Gentiles — Israelites who were cursed and scattered by God beginning almost 2500 years ago with the scattering of the Nation of Israel during the time of Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon, and then concluding almost 2000 years ago with the scattering of those of the Nation of Judah --the Jewish nation--- during their occupation by the Romans. He is the good shepherd sent to gather the Lost sheep back to God in Jerusalem by way of God's Special Nation of Priests which He, God, made clear, He would build of His Israel. But it seems to me that you believe that Paul created a belief system that was contrary to that declared by God through His prophets and confirmed by Jesus Christ in His Gospels. You seem to be arguing that Paul set up a different kingdom run by himself to which he then called out, not Israelites, but those whom Jesus Christ considered dogs — non-Israelites from Matthew 15 vs 24 - 26 & Matthew 7 vs 6 — is this the case here?

Like I said, you seem to have half knowledge, and like the saying goes, "half knowledge is a dangerous thing".
Did you read the various quotations in that article? God promised the world (the world!) would be saved through the seed of Abraham, not only Jews. "For God so loved the world...". NOT "For God so loved Jews...". Lord Jesus Himself gave a parable where the feast was thrown open to all after those invited did not come. In that ONE place where Lord Jesus somewhat jokingly compared Gentiles to the children's dog, he then went ahead to minister fully to the woman...
Take the bible as a whole stop citing outlier verses that can always be found in the Bible, then build your theology on them!

PoliteActivist:
■ Like I said, you seem to have half knowledge, and like the saying goes, "half knowledge is a dangerous thing".
■ Did you read the various quotations in that article? God promised the world (the world!) would be saved through the seed of Abraham, not only Jews. "For God so loved the world...". NOT "For God so loved Jews...". Lord Jesus Himself gave a parable where the feast was thrown open to all after those invited did not come. In that ONE place where Lord Jesus somewhat jokingly compared Gentiles to the children's dog, he then went ahead to minister fully to the woman...
■ Take the bible as a whole stop citing outlier verses that can always be found in the Bible, then build your theology on them!

1. You keep saying that but you don't answer the questions I ask in order that I better understand your assertion.

2. But God's promise is realized by God through Israel, His only inheritance in the Land of men. This is detailed in the Old Law of Moses. God's plan has, from the beginning, been to curse and scatter Israel throughout all of the Nations of the earth — to every tribe, every tongue, and every nation — after which He would then — by way of His Special Nation of Priests - Exodus 19 vs 6 — gather them all based on the blood of Jacob back to Himself, and His Holy city Jerusalem. All of those who will be gathered back by Jesus Christ will be of the blood of Jacob even though many of them will also be of foreign birth, like Timothy, Paul's friend. So, clearly, it isn't that I am missing anything here nor is it that I have half knowledge as you continue to claim but instead that in order to hold the stance you do, you reject many of the proclamations of God in order to do so.

3. Sure, the whole and I suggest you take this advice of yours to heart since you seem to be under some impression that Paul went rogue — against God and Jesus Christ — and somehow created for the dogs — Non-Israelites— an entirely different Kingdom from that which is God's special Nation of Priests, the Kingdom of God, which Jesus Christ made clear was only available to those who are of the blood of Israel.

By the way, Jews are Israelites of the Nation of Judah and are majorly from the tribes of Judah, Benjamin, and Levi. The other tribes of Israel were cast out by God — cursed and scattered for their unrighteousness—during the time of King Nebuchadnezzar hence the reason for the reproach expressed by their Jewish brethren towards them. Clearly, the other tribes are non-Jewish people but they are all of them Israelites however.

Blake755:

No mind them people that looted Egypt dry and other Africa countries and left them with religion after killing them

And Egypt didn't loot others dry and did those same things abi? You really do not have anything to say.

Rostikol:
I'm just tired of these imported religions.

My ancestors did not worship any white man as their god or ''saviour''.

SO WHY THE HELL should I be doing it JUST BECAUSE some people overpowered my ancestors with guns and bombs to seize their land, and then forced their foreign gods on us?

There is NO REASON I should be worshiping the god of the people who killed and raped my ancestors, and seized/looted their land for a century.

I beg the ancestors for forgiveness for this terrible error on my part.

No wonder we have so many problems in this land. We're worshiping the gods of the people who slaughtered our ancestors.

Speaking their language too.

Dressing like them!

Bleaching our skins to look like them!

Straightening our hair to look like theirs!

Forming accent to sound like them!

Somebody wake me up from this dystopian nightmare!

NONSENSE.

Please, anyone that can suggest a good benevolent deity from ANY ethnicity, whom one can use as his conduit to Divinity, let me know.

I'm DONE with this shit.

Thanks all.

What a mad ravings of a lunatic. Was it nairaland that imposed Him on you? Why did you not go and shout on your direct ancestors who are in your front with you?

Yet, you timidly went behind their backs to stab them.

Kobojunkie:
1. You keep saying that but you don't answer the questions I ask in order that I better understand your assertion.

2. But God's promise is realized by God through Israel, His only inheritance in the Land of men. This is detailed in the Old Law of Moses. God's plan has, from the beginning, been to curse and scatter Israel throughout all of the Nations of the earth — to every tribe, every tongue, and every nation — after which He would then — by way of His Special Nation of Priests - Exodus 19 vs 6 — gather them all based on the blood of Jacob back to Himself, and His Holy city Jerusalem. All of those who will be gathered back by Jesus Christ will be of the blood of Jacob even though many of them will also be of foreign birth, like Timothy, Paul's friend. So, clearly, it isn't that I am missing anything here nor is it that I have half knowledge as you continue to claim but instead that in order to hold the stance you do, you reject many of the proclamations of God in order to do so.

3. Sure, the whole and I suggest you take this advice of yours to heart since you seem to be under some impression that Paul went rogue — against God and Jesus Christ — and somehow created for the dogs — Non-Israelites— an entirely different Kingdom from that which is God's special Nation of Priests, the Kingdom of God, which Jesus Christ made clear was only available to those who are of the blood of Israel.

By the way, Jews are Israelites of the Nation of Judah and are majorly from the tribes of Judah, Benjamin, and Levi. The other tribes of Israel were cast out by God — cursed and scattered for their unrighteousness—during the time of King Nebuchadnezzar hence the reason for the reproach expressed by their Jewish brethren towards them. Clearly, the other tribes are non-Jewish people but they are all of them Israelites however.

In reading the below try to also read the Bible quotations

PoliteActivist:
In reading the below try to also read the Bible quotations

I would like to suggest that rather than these clippings, which are opinions of others, you read the passages for yourself so you can gain invaluable understanding of your own.

What was the woman's request?

22 A Canaanite woman from that vicinity came to him, crying out, “Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me! My daughter is demon-possessed and suffering terribly.” - Mathew 15 vs 22

She asked Jesus Christ to have mercy on her, and then she told Him her child was demon-possessed. The woman asked Him for mercy to which He responded that He was sent to show mercy only to the lost sheep of Israel.

24 He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.” - Matthew 15 vs 24

We know Jesus Christ did not reserve healing only for the Israelites, since there are examples of Him healing Non-Israelites, including Gentiles (Israelites) before His encounter with the Canaanite woman — In Matthew 8 vs 5 - 13 we read of Jesus Christ healing the servant of the Centurion who came asking Him to heal His servant — so it is wrong to assume then that Jesus Christ simply didn't want to heal this woman because she was a Canaanite. Clearly, Jesus Christ's response to her was to reveal that the mercy/love of God --- God's Law as the Son of David --' which He had to give was only meant by the Father who sent Him for the lost sheep of Israel, exactly as Jesus Christ stated. And, again, Jesus Christ came to do the Will of the Father who sent Him and not His own will, so the statement is not of the will of Jesus Christ but of God's Truth.

As for healing, Jesus Christ said instead, freely we were given and so freely we are to give to all who desire healing, pretty much what He did as far as the Canaanite woman and all other Non-Israelites who can to be healed.

This same Jesus Christ is recorded to have also stated the following in Matthew 7 during the sermon on the mount.

7. Do not give what is holy to dogs and do not throw your pearls before pigs, or they will trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces. - Matthew 7 vs 6

Clearly, that which is Holy is not meant for the dogs aka the Non-Israelites.

So, you have a decision to make here for yourself. Do you accept God's Truth or do you reject it thereby insisting that Jesus Christ much have prevaricated in that situation among several others?

Kobojunkie:
I would like to suggest that rather than these clippings, which are opinions of others, you read the passages for yourself so you can gain invaluable understanding of your own.

What was the woman's request? She asked Jesus Christ to have mercy on her, and then she told Him her child was demon-possessed. The woman asked Him for mercy to which He responded that He was sent to show mercy only to the lost sheep of Israel.
We know Jesus Christ did not reserve healing only for the Israelites, since there are examples of Him healing Non-Israelites, including Gentiles (Israelites) before His encounter with the Canaanite woman — In Matthew 8 vs 5 - 13 we read of Jesus Christ healing the servant of the Centurion who came asking Him to heal His servant — so it is wrong to assume then that Jesus Christ simply didn't want to heal this woman because she was a Canaanite. Clearly, Jesus Christ's response to her was to reveal that the mercy/love of God which He had to give was only meant by the Father who sent Him for the lost sheep of Israel, exactly as Jesus Christ stated. And, again, Jesus Christ came to do the Will of the Father who sent Him and not His own will, so the statement is not of the will of Jesus Christ but of God's Truth.

The same Jesus Christ is recorded to have also stated the following in Matthew 7 during the sermon on the mount.
Clearly, that which is Holy is not meant for the dogs aka the Non-Israelites.

So, you have a decision to make here for yourself. Do you accept God's Truth or do you reject it thereby insisting that Jesus Christ much have prevaricated in that situation among several others?

Gospel of mattew was written predominantly for a Jewish community.
They even used “kingdom of heaven” instead of “kingdom of yahweh” as euphemism.

You case is likened to a rat that fell into a frying pan and after a little struggle to free itself, it fell into fire. You are free from one brainwash and seek to enter another brainwashing. Your African spirituality was the first religion. Many things in Chrislam was copied from them. True spirituality worship only the true God/the God of heaven/Chukwu Okike. Men fell into blindness when they left their Creator and began to worship lesser gods. As it stands all religions are in error and only know a little. All have their day before blindness set in. Since you know that they changed many of our stories from black to white, you should also know that we are the original ppl of that book and only the ones to correct the lies and enlighten the ignorant ones. All religion being in error, worship only GOD true your Chi/light/Ori. For when one becomes one with his Chi, he becomes immortal, a master, a god. That was our first nature before blindness/corruption set in. Worship only Chukwu Okike/God Almighty

Illiterate, first learn what “spiritual” means and don’t be regurgitating the “spiritual concept” that originates from Animism.
When theists are empty they pull out “spiritual” card,ask them what it means they will be describing what it’s not.
Empty barrel!

Kobojunkie:
I would like to suggest that rather than these clippings, which are opinions of others, you read the passages for yourself so you can gain invaluable understanding of your own.

What was the woman's request? She asked Jesus Christ to have mercy on her, and then she told Him her child was demon-possessed. The woman asked Him for mercy to which He responded that He was sent to show mercy only to the lost sheep of Israel.
We know Jesus Christ did not reserve healing only for the Israelites, since there are examples of Him healing Non-Israelites, including Gentiles (Israelites) before His encounter with the Canaanite woman — In Matthew 8 vs 5 - 13 we read of Jesus Christ healing the servant of the Centurion who came asking Him to heal His servant — so it is wrong to assume then that Jesus Christ simply didn't want to heal this woman because she was a Canaanite. Clearly, Jesus Christ's response to her was to reveal that the mercy/love of God --- God's Law as the Son of David --' which He had to give was only meant by the Father who sent Him for the lost sheep of Israel, exactly as Jesus Christ stated. And, again, Jesus Christ came to do the Will of the Father who sent Him and not His own will, so the statement is not of the will of Jesus Christ but of God's Truth.

As for healing, Jesus Christ said instead, freely we were given and so freely we are to give to all who desire healing, pretty much what He did as far as the Canaanite woman and all other Non-Israelites who can to be healed.

This same Jesus Christ is recorded to have also stated the following in Matthew 7 during the sermon on the mount.
Clearly, that which is Holy is not meant for the dogs aka the Non-Israelites.

So, you have a decision to make here for yourself. Do you accept God's Truth or do you reject it thereby insisting that Jesus Christ much have prevaricated in that situation among several others?

I think you may have succeeded in confusing yourself. He healed the woman's child, didn't He?
In his talk about casting pearls to dogs, he was clearly NOT referring to Gentiles but to those who would not listen.. and I suspect you fully well know it!

TakeNigeriaBack:


Christianity and Islam are tools of colonialism and slavery. That's the bottom line. You can slice it which ever way you want, if it makes you feel better about your foreign religion.

These people below were not out to colonize anybody

PoliteActivist:
■ I think you may have succeeded in confusing yourself.
■ He healed the woman's child, didn't He?
■ In his talk about casting pearls to dogs, he was clearly NOT referring to Gentiles but to those who would not listen.. and I suspect you fully well know it!

1. Jesus Christ is God's New Covenant and Law in the Kingdom of God, and He was sent only to the Lost sheep of Israel-- the Jews and the Gentiles all of whom are Israelites.

2. When approached by the woman whom He made clear was a dog, Jesus Christ did not give that which is Holy to her -- God's Law and Gospel.. Rather He allowed her, a Non-Israelite --- have the crumb which fell from the master's table.

3. Rather, Jesus Christ said do not give that which is Holy -- God's Law -- to the dogs aka Non-Israelites. The reference to do He explained in Matthew 15.

Your treasures/pearls- Matthew 13 vs 42 -44-- , He then warned you not to cast to the pigs, most likely a reference to those who have-- you are meant instead to do your giving to the poor.

PoliteActivist:


These people below were not out to colonize anybody

History written by who? The WHITE colonizers.

TakeNigeriaBack:


History written by who? The WHITE colonizers.

They were the ones being colonized by Christianity, why would they write against themsrlves?

Kobojunkie:
1. Jesus Christ is God's New Covenant and Law in the Kingdom of God, and He was sent only to the Lost sheep of Israel-- the Jews and the Gentiles all of whom are Israelites.

2. When approached by the woman whom He made clear was a dog, Jesus Christ did not give that which is Holy to her -- God's Law and Gospel.. Rather He allowed her, a Non-Israelite --- have the crumb which fell from the master's table.

3. Rather, Jesus Christ said do not give that which is Holy -- God's Law -- to the dogs aka Non-Israelites. The reference to do He explained in Matthew 15.

Your treasures/pearls- Matthew 13 vs 42 -44-- , He then warned you not to cast to the pigs, most likely a reference to those who have-- you are meant instead to do your giving to the poor. themselves?

Bros, can't you see that this your "Jesus is only for Jews" you've been preaching makes no sense. Different if these things just happened last month. These are things that happened thousands of years ago and Christ has been working wonders in Gentiles' lives and communities throughout the centuries, yet here you are still debating "Christ is only for Jews". You should know when an argument is moot.

PoliteActivist:
■ Bros, can't you see that this your "Jesus is only for Jews" you've been preaching makes no sense. Different if these things just happened last month. These are things that happened thousands of years ago and Christ has been working wonders in Gentiles' lives and communities throughout the centuries, yet here you are still debating "Christ is only for Jews". You should know when an argument is moot.

1. Wait a second... why do you keep insisting that I am the one preaching it abeg? I mean anyone reading your post might think I actually shoved the claims in to the mouth of Jesus Christ or something. Again, carefully process what He said to you.

He said, I was sent by the Father ONLY to the Lost sheep of Israel

There is only one possible meaning to the statement above, no matter the attempts to read different meanings into it. So, I guess my question at this point is why you keep searching online for posts to explain away a simply statement Jesus Christ spoke to lay people during His time?

2. As for the text you copied from Google to explain away the words of Jesus Christ in Matthew 7 vs 6, since your teacher of choice is Google and not Jesus Christ Himself, does this mean you also reject Jesus Christ's insistence that He alone is only Teacher to those who belong to Him?

Kobojunkie:
1. Wait a second... why do you keep insisting that I am the one preaching it abeg? I mean anyone reading your post might think I actually shoved the claims in to the mouth of Jesus Christ or something. Again, carefully process what He said to you.

He said, I was sent by the Father ONLY to the Lost sheep of Israel

There is only one possible meaning to the statement above, no matter the attempts to read different meanings into it. So, I guess my question at this point is why you keep searching online for posts to explain away a simply statement Jesus Christ spoke to lay people during His time?

2. As for the text you copied from Google to explain away the words of Jesus Christ in Matthew 7 vs 6, since your teacher of choice is Google and not Jesus Christ Himself, does this mean you also reject Jesus Christ's insistence that He alone is only Teacher to those who belong to Him?

How do you know Lord Jesus' exact words? Were you there writing them down or did you do the various translations? Words have to be interpreted. Google does not do interpretations, it only refers you to ones done by authoritative bodies.
We can see from DIRECT EXPERIENCE over centuries that Lord Jesus is indeed also for Gentiles, and here you are, still arguing an extremely dead point!

PoliteActivist:
■ How do you know Lord Jesus' exact words? Were you there writing them down or did you do the various translations? Words have to be interpreted. Google does not do interpretations, it only refers you to ones done by authoritative bodies.
■ We can see from DIRECT EXPERIENCE over centuries that Lord Jesus is indeed also for Gentiles, and here you are, still arguing an extremely dead point!

1. So what you are saying is none of what is presented in scripture can be trusted as the true word of God rather we need sources like Google to tell us instead what we are to believe? I guess I would ask if this is what God said --- that interpretations from third parties are needed--- bit since you don't trust any of what is written of Him, I guess that would be futile.

2. So regardless of the fact that it is indicted in Scripture that what we see today is the world awash with the lies of the antichrist, you rather interpret it as direct proof that somehow that decreed by God and confirmed by Jesus Christ in text does not hold any true meaning? I guess it is futile attempting to argue with someone who does not consider the contents of Scripture to be of any real worth.

No God exist.there is no God.

You're looking for a god to worship? It was these gods your ancestors worshipped that couldn't save them from being destroyed by the white men.

Well, I wish you good luck in your search.

People did things in his name doesn't mean his endorsement, it's their culture not his
And remember he was Jewish, he didn't introduce a religion ☯️
What he brought is way bigger than a religion

TakeNigeriaBack:


Christianity and Islam are tools of colonialism and slavery. That's the bottom line. You can slice it which ever way you want, if it makes you feel better about your foreign religion.

tools have been used wrongly but that's not the point
What Jesus Christ brought isn't a religion
Religion is man made and is a tool
The real thing would blow your mind

Go and do your research.

Maynmann:

Lol, it was yorubas that they took as slaves to portugal brought along the worship of olokun.

jaytimeo:
Go and do your research.

I have done it, is “olorun” also from portugal according to your own research?