Maynman:

Are you a mind or you have a mind?
Who is responsible for capability of rational thoughts, you or mind?

Your mind is defined as that, your mind is not an object.

Who says it's an object? Is joy an object?
Do you have joy? Does it exist?

cornelboy:

Who says it's an object? Is joy an object?
Do you have joy? Does it exist?

Are you a mind or you have a mind?
Who is responsible for capability of rational thoughts, you or mind?

Maynman:

Are you a mind or you have a mind?
Who is responsible for capability of rational thoughts, you or mind?

Who's responsible for your mind?

cornelboy:

Who's responsible for your mind?

Are you a mind or you have a mind?
Who is responsible for capability of rational thoughts, you or mind?

Maynman:

Are you a mind or you have a mind?
Who is responsible for capability of rational thoughts, you or mind?

Asking who's responsible for the capability of rational thoughts is same as asking who's responsible for the mind.

Do you have the capability for rational thoughts?

cornelboy:

Asking who's responsible for the capability of rational thoughts is same as asking who's responsible for the mind.

Do you have the capability for rational thoughts?

No one is responsible for the mind, just like no one is responsible for your brain, they are working on their own.
You can't stop your mind from having thoughts.


Are you a mind or you have a mind?
Who is responsible for capability of rational thoughts, you or mind?

Maynman:

No one is responsible for the mind, just like no one is responsible for your brain, they are working on their own.
You can't stop your mind from having thoughts.


Are you a mind or you have a mind?
Who is responsible for capability of rational thoughts, you or mind?

Yeah you're a decedent of the fish so you can speak for yourself.

The mind is the same as the capability for rational thoughts according to the dictionary, do you have the capability for rational thoughts?
Does capability for rational thoughts exist?

cornelboy:

Yeah you're a decedent of the fish so you can speak for yourself.

The mind is the same as the capability for rational thoughts according to the dictionary, do you have the capability for rational thoughts?
Does capability for rational thoughts exist?

Are you are a descent of the isrealite god, Yahweh.

The mind is not the "same", the mind is
Which dictionary said the "same"?
Are you a mind or you have a mind?
Who is responsible for capability of rational thoughts, you or mind?

Maynman:

Are you are a descent of the isrealite god, Yahweh.

The mind is not the "same", the mind is
Which dictionary said the "same"?
Are you a mind or you have a mind?
Who is responsible for capability of rational thoughts, you or mind?

How did the dictionary define it?

cornelboy:

How did the dictionary define it?

Where did you get this.
"The mind is the same as the capability for rational thoughts according to the dictionary,"

Maynman:

Where did you get this.
"The mind is the same as the capability for rational thoughts according to the dictionary,"

Have you seen it?

cornelboy:

Have you seen it?

What did you see?
Show me
"The mind is the same as the capability for rational thoughts according to the dictionary,""

Maynman:

What did you see?
Show me
"The mind is the same as the capability for rational thoughts according to the dictionary,""

Where did you see "the mind doesn't exist"?
It rather defines the mind as the capability for rational thoughts. The capability for rational thoughts is the mind according to the first definition.

cornelboy:


It rather defines the mind as the capability for rational thoughts. The capability for rational thoughts is the mind according to the first definition.

So it's no more
"The mind is the same as the capability for rational thoughts according to the dictionary"

cornelboy:

Where did you see "the mind doesn't exist"?

What is capability?
Does seeing exist?
Does walking exist?

Maynman:

So it's no more
"The mind is the same as the capability for rational thoughts according to the dictionary"

I'm saying the same thing. The mind is defined as the capability for rational thoughts.

cornelboy:

I'm saying the same thing. The mind is defined as the capability for rational thoughts.

It's not the same thing.

So answer, Who is responsible for capability of rational thoughts, you or mind?

Maynman:

It's not the same thing.

So answer, Who is responsible for capability of rational thoughts, you or mind?

I'm responsible for my mind and my thoughts. Does mind and thoughts exist?

cornelboy:

I'm responsible for my mind and my thoughts. Does mind and thoughts exist?

Who is the you responsible for it?
And who is responsible for rational thoughts?

What is the difference between mind and thought?

Maynman:

Who is the you responsible for it?
And who is responsible for rational thoughts?

What is the difference between mind and thought?

Type it on Google. Or lemme do it for you.

cornelboy:

Type it on Google. Or lemme do it for you.

So what did they say is the difference.
When next you ask me a question, don't forget Google

Maynman:

So what did they say is the difference.
When next you ask me a question, don't forget Google

Keep asking Google

cornelboy:

Keep asking Google

Like you just did abi

Maynman:

Like you just did abi

Who dẹ ask rubbish questions in the first place?

musicwriter:
One good thing that would happen to you if you quit Christianity or any other religion is that your eyes will open wide and you'll see clearly, in fact, you'll actually begin to understand what the bible is saying when you quit Christianity. What an irony!

Many people reading the bible don't understand that nobody in history met Jesus, including his so called disciples.

Mark, Luke, Mathew, John NEVER met Jesus!! Non even existed.

If you argue otherwise, then show me where in the bible where Mark or Mathew or Luke or John claimed to have met Jesus.

Nobody in history or in the bible claimed to have had any contact with Jesus.

You know why? Because Jesus is mythology, not a human being, and it was well understood among the ancients that any place "Jesus said" in the bible was an ancient template for anybody, any culture to write their own mythical savior/hero story in their image.

Jesus was never meant to be taken as a human being even among the earliest christians- the gnostics.

Again, Mark, Mathew, Luke, John NEVER claimed to have met Jesus. They simply reported a story as it was already told thousands of years before anybody heard of Jesus. That's why they always said "Jesus said to them" not "Jesus said to us". Even when Mathew who was supposedly a disciple of Jesus was writing, but he wrote "Jesus said to Mathew" not "Jesus said to me". But Christians aren't seeing it!! To be a Christian is to be spiritually BLIND.

If you think you know your bible better than I do, I am ready to take a bet with you.

I'll send N100,000 to your bank account if you show me any place where the bible said any of the quotes below:-

"Jesus told me"

"Jesus said to me"

"I said to Jesus"

"I told Jesus"

"Me and Jesus"

"Jesus and myself "

"We and Jesus"

"I saw Jesus "

"We saw Jesus "

"We met Jesus "

"Jesus met me"

"I met Jesus "

"Jesus gave me"

"I gave Jesus "

"I went to see Jesus "

"Jesus came to see me"

"Jesus healed me"

"I was healed by Jesus"

Mark, Luke, Mathew, John NEVER met Jesus!! Mark, Luke, Mathew, John like Jesus, NEVER even existed! They were all invented by Rome.

The dumbest thing I've ever done in my life was to be a Christian.

When I said it that time that the literal Jesus, as in the physical Jesus never lived. Many people came for me and called me names.

This thing is common sense, let's think about it.
Mark was said to be Peter's interpreter and I believe he must have helped in the writing of 1peter and 2 peter when Paul was in prison but, the first gospel of mark was written after the death of peter.

Why wasn't the life of Jesus written about when peter was alive?

James wrote the book of James at least 10 years before the first gospel(mark). Why didn't James write about the life of his dear master Jesus?

Paul was very learned and he wrote his letters before the first gospel. Why didn't Paul write about the events and the life of Jesus?

Many people believe that the letter of john were written long before the gospel of John was written. Why didnt he write about his master?

The reason is because the apostles were gnostic christains. They only believed in the concept of "Godlike man", "God in man" and the teachings of a supposed "God in human form". (Got from Egypt's ancient believe)

They didn't believe in the physical, bodily Jesus.

If you noticed? Apostle Paul wrote his letters at least 20 years before the book of acts was written, yet he never for once explained his encounter with Jesus, not even to his dearest spiritual son, Timothy.

Also it's important to note that, St. Luke who wrote the book of acts never mentioned that Apostle Paul saw the Jesus in flesh and blood, but that he saw a vision of Jesus.

The acts of the apostles was written after the death of Paul himself yet Paul himself never detailed that encounter in any of his letters.

Like I've said earlier. The historical Jesus didnt live as flesh and blood.

That's the reason the 4 gospels don't have the same exact accounts.

FRANCISTOWN:

When I said it that time that the literal Jesus, as in the physical Jesus never lived. Many people came for me and called me names.

This thing is common sense, let's think about it.
Mark was said to be Peter's interpreter and I believe he must have helped in the writing of 1peter and 2 peter when Paul was in prison but, the first gospel of mark was written after the death of peter.

Why wasn't the life of Jesus written about when peter was alive?

James wrote the book of James at least 10 years before the first gospel(mark). Why didn't James write about the life of his dear master Jesus?

Paul was very learned and he wrote his letters before the first gospel. Why didn't Paul write about the events and the life of Jesus?

Many people believe that the letter of john were written long before the gospel of John was written. Why didnt he write about his master?

The reason is because the apostles were gnostic christains. They only believed in the concept of "Godlike man", "God in man" and the teachings of a supposed "God in human form". (Got from Egypt's ancient believe)

They didn't believe in the physical, bodily Jesus.

If you noticed? Apostle Paul wrote his letters at least 20 years before the book of acts was written, yet he never for once explained his encounter with Jesus, not even to his dearest spiritual son, Timothy.

Also it's important to note that, St. Luke who wrote the book of acts never mentioned that Apostle Paul saw the Jesus in flesh and blood, but that he saw a vision of Jesus.

The acts of the apostles was written after the death of Paul himself yet Paul himself never detailed that encounter in any of his letters.

Like I've said earlier. The historical Jesus didnt live as flesh and blood.

That's the reason the 4 gospels don't have the same exact accounts.

Thanks brother!!
You know exactly what you're talking about.

The early Christians believed in a kind of magico-mystical Christ (not a human being) just as other ancient cultures had believed thousands of years before anybody heard of Christianity. Indeed, that's why no Christian on planet earth can point to any place in the bible where Mark, Mathew, Luke, John claimed to have met Jesus, instead they wrote "Jesus said to his disciples" or "Jesus said to them" even when they were supposed to be the ones being talked to according to Christianity.

Jesus NEVER existed. Jesus as understood today is a construct of the Roman empire.

cornelboy:

Yeah you're a decedent of the fish so you can speak for yourself.

The mind is the same as the capability for rational thoughts according to the dictionary, do you have the capability for rational thoughts?
Does capability for rational thoughts exist?

Fish pikin

cornelboy:

Asking who's responsible for the capability of rational thoughts is same as asking who's responsible for the mind.

Do you have the capability for rational thoughts?

We are being taught to show empathy and patience when we converse with others and use of thought provoking questions
You are doing well
There are some fish descendants you can teach as well, make I go harvest em?

musicwriter:


Thanks brother!!
You know exactly what you're talking about.

The early Christians believed in a kind of magico-mystical Christ (not a human being) just as other ancient cultures had believed thousands of years before anybody heard of Christianity. Indeed, that's why no Christian on planet earth can point to any place in the bible where Mark, Mathew, Luke, John claimed to have met Jesus, instead they wrote "Jesus said to his disciples" or "Jesus said to them" even when they were supposed to be the ones being talked to according to Christianity.

Jesus NEVER existed. Jesus as understood today is a construct of the Roman empire.

You are very wise! In those days , they built the gospels around the stories of a supposed "God like man" and an adulteration of the story of an Egyptian god called "Horus".

The teachings in the scriptures were gotten from the works of philosophers who lived before the collation of the bible and Torah.

When Constantine became the emperor. He closed down the school of philosophy and he burnt all their works so, people would think wisdom can be found only in the scriptures and that it is divine.

However, the scriptures is a compilation of the works of many philosophers who have lived since time immemorial.

Many books in the scriptures were not written by the supposed people. It is said that Moses wrote the pentateuch. However, how come Moses himself was referred to using the third person point of account.
Lemme use some popular verses.

^{Deut 34: 5 "And Moses the servant of the Lord died there in Moab, as the Lord had said.
6 He buried him[a] in Moab, in the valley opposite Beth Peor, but to this day no one knows where his grave is.
7 Moses was a hundred and twenty years old when he died, yet his eyes were not weak nor his strength gone.
8 The Israelites grieved for Moses in the plains of Moab thirty days, until the time of weeping and mourning was over."}

To the christian, look at verse 5 downward. Aside the fact that the author of Deuteronomy addressed Moses from a third person , which means it wasn't Moses who wrote Deuteronomy. Also those verses up there detailed the death of Moses.

My question is, how did Moses know what happened after his death?
If he knew, how did it get it into writing?
Did he write from heaven and sent it down here?
Don't christians ask themselves these things?

Well! Good for them, let them enjoy their stupidity

cornelboy:

Who dẹ ask rubbish questions in the first place?

Who

FRANCISTOWN:


You are very wise! In those days , they built the gospels around the stories of a supposed "God like man" and an adulteration of the story of an Egyptian god called "Horus".

The teachings in the scriptures were gotten from the works of philosophers who lived before the collation of the bible and Torah.

When Constantine became the emperor. He closed down the school of philosophy and he burnt all their works so, people would think wisdom can be found only in the scriptures and that it is divine.

However, the scriptures is a compilation of the works of many philosophers who have lived since time immemorial.

Many books in the scriptures were not written by the supposed people. It is said that Moses wrote the pentateuch. However, how come Moses himself was referred to using the third person point of account.
Lemme use some popular verses.

^{Deut 34: 5 "And Moses the servant of the Lord died there in Moab, as the Lord had said.
6 He buried him[a] in Moab, in the valley opposite Beth Peor, but to this day no one knows where his grave is.
7 Moses was a hundred and twenty years old when he died, yet his eyes were not weak nor his strength gone.
8 The Israelites grieved for Moses in the plains of Moab thirty days, until the time of weeping and mourning was over."}

To the christian, look at verse 5 downward. Aside the fact that the author of Deuteronomy addressed Moses from a third person , which means it wasn't Moses who wrote Deuteronomy. Also those verses up there detailed the death of Moses.

My question is, how did Moses know what happened after his death?
If he knew, how did it get it into writing?
Did he write from heaven and sent it down here?
Don't christians ask themselves these things?

Well! Good for them, let them enjoy their stupidity

I didn't even know that Moses also wrote as a third person. But I know scholars are already aware that the first 5 books in the bible were written by different people. Not just different people but people who lived in different generations and didn't even know each other.

The third person report in the old testament makes it clear that Moses never existed. Someone was just telling a story as told by every other culture around the world about their mythical hero.

Scholars are also already well aware that most of the New testament books are fraudulent. Example: the book of second Peter is already known to be a forgery. Only Mark, Mathew, Luke are considered authentic early Christian document.

Only five letters from Paul are considered authentic. The rest of the so called letters of Paul are fraudulent intrusion by Rome. So, you're in order.

Maynman:

Who

Ask Google