₦airaland Forum

An examples of those God directly speaks to (and not those merely told by their Bible), are here.

healthserve:
Yes. Extremely big opportunities

Extremely massively big huge opportunity! He can open restaurant and sell cockroach soup.

This should not be presumed to be a scientific answer o! You must listen to the smarter people above me!

Buldozaaa:
Haba when you can divorce him

No! If I can be so stupid to marry him, this one must be till death do us apart and one of us leaves this earth, and since I am arguing buda must not kill in this thread, please let me just remove myself.

You can call me a cherry picking hypocrite when I'm dead.

Buldozaaa:
Sometimes when you start dating someone and then you begin to realize you made a mistake

This one past dating mistake! I married the stupid fool so somebody should sniper me if I don't sniper my stupid self.

Bacteriologist:
And you also turn around and tell me that there was a verse that said "Thou shall not kill" and claim that was specifically speaking to you.

No, I was not saying that was specifically speaking to me. I specifically asked "Did my cherry picking conveniently miss that bit".

It's a big book see, hard to understand at times, so lazy people cherry pick to justify their own doing. They forget that in the same book it is clearly written that "those who pick cherries die of malnutrition!"

Bacteriologist:
No, you missed my point.

You were showing me a verse that said "put them to death" and you said it doesn't pertain to you.

"Put them to death does not pertain to anybody", and if I claim it pertains to me, I'd expect you to say I am deranged! Or do I need to ask?

Ok, I'll ask! If I say the Bible tells me to go and put homosexuals to death, please tell me what you would say to me.

BafanaBafana:
My first reaction is to check the source. There is no sauce in the source.
Verdict: fake!

Well, at least op did not include photo of fake Mercy Johnson in his post!

Bacteriologist:
Yes it doesn't tell you to put them to death.

So how also does it now tell you to not kill then?

Are you seeing your double standards?

Not telling me to put them to death agrees with do not kill, by my understanding. Either ways, I do not kill anyone so how's that double standards?

P.s. I'm not one who buys into "Bible tells". Its a trick some use to input their own [mis]understanding into the mouth of their God! As far as my experience goes, my Bible does not talk (and I say that despite currently listening to an audio version).

I am solely responsible for my own stupidity in misunderstanding what I read in the Bible, or any book, or anywhere, for that matter..

Bacteriologist:
It does says to put them to death.

It does not tell me to "put them to death", bact, and if I claim it does please tell me to have my deranged head checked!

Besides, what happened to the bit that says "buda, don't kill"? Did my cherry picking conveniently miss that bit?

Thankfully, you are not in charge of the school curriculum, and not only will evolution not be expunged from the school curriculum, evolution would evolve over time and be taught in every subject that we'd wonder why we waited so long for evolution to evolve into the entire school curriculum!

https://www.nairaland.com/5238668/evolution-101#79231074

Bact. I know we can't yet see each others point, but kindly consider helping here as it is a thread that seems to do what op alleged some do and might have to do with your ology.

Why The Theory Of Evolution Should Be Expunged From Curriculum Of Biology

I will hit my head against the wall and wonder how stupid I was to marry him.

I made bread.

Bacteriologist:
Expected from a cherrypicker who only reads certain parts of the Bible that suit his bias. Read Leviticus 20:13.

This Leviticus 20:13?

Please show where it "says to stone homosexuals to death"!

Bacteriologist:
Yes...it also says to stone homosexuals to death. But of course let's ignore that and say it permits us to love one another...CherryPickAtum.

I would expect you to be honest and base your claims on verifiable evidence, Bact, and not just pull stuff out of your ass, because I assume your 'ologist' has something to do with science and the scientific method.

Please show me where the Bible "says to stone homosexuals to death"!

Bacteriologist:
Yes! Checkmate buda! I completely agree with you. Pitiable bacteriølogist.Trying to expose your cherry-picking stance... I mean! How could he even think you could be wrong?!

You'll have to forgive buda for having a brain and using it.

The same Bible you claim promotes homophobia, asks you to love one another, and not judge, and remove your own sin before concerning yourself with the sin of others, so perhaps cure your cherry picking before concerning yourself with buda's cherry picking.

Bacteriologist:
Those hypocritical Füčking ignorant Atheists!

There you go pulling opinions out of your ass again. Are atheists the only "hypocritical Füčking ignorant"? Is this thread not against equally "hypocritical Füčking ignorant" theists who rely on their faith alone?

An intelligent person who use his brain and wrote the following, Bacteriologist. The only pity is he didn't quite understand the full extent of what he wrote, and he does not have the ability to walk his talk.

Bacteriologist:
Let's discuss this "Faith" thing. Faith is like the single most important thing in religion and theism in general.

It is safe to say that the basis of theism is faith.

I hear Christians for example, talk about faith a lot and they say that once you have Faith a lot of things especially in the Bible begins to make sense.

Same thing with Muslims. "Faith" in Allah makes you believe that Islam is the true religion.

But my main point is this why would faith be required to know the truth?

A lot of things we recognise as facts and truths today do not require any sort of faith whatsoever.

Does anyone need faith to know that 1 + 1 = 2?

Is faith required to make an airplane glide in the air? Or a ship remain buoyant?

Does anyone need faith to know that water + clay makes mud?

Do you need faith to accept that whatever is thrown up gets pulled back down (except held up by an external force/obstacle?)

It looks like faith is needed only when believing something that cannot be demonstrated or shown to actually be true or exist.

And that is the greatest downfall of this thing called "faith." ANYONE can believe whatever they want and CLAIM it as true based on "Faith."

Christians even call it "evidence of things not seen." Then I can claim to have a dragon in my basement/backyard. And believe it on "faith."

Faith is a good way to believe in anything but is not a reliable way of determining the truth. And it is not enough to believe claims: especially those with heavy weight as god claims based on faith alone.

If you care about the truth, Faith is not enough.

What are your thoughts?

Bacteriologist:
Oh yes. The classic cherry-picking Bible apologist who shys away from the parts of the Bible he cannot provide evidence for tells me I should start accepting evidence as being synonymous to faith.

Oh my...Got to love that logic..don't ya
lol

Evidence for what? That a thing is written in the Bible, or that what is written in the Bible is so?Or is there no difference to you?

Bacteriologist:
SO you're like "I accept only the parts of the Bible
that sounds logical to me and that I'm am comfortable with."

Religious inclined people (both atheists and theists) say "accept" and mean "believe". The thought that "understand" has any place is way beyond many. If they actually bothered to read the book they'd know it's not an instruction book. They'd at least know they have the option to obey or not. Or did you miss the bit where Adam and Eve's eyes are written to have opened and they realised they were naked? Who do you know reads the Bible and does the following?

Bacteriologist:
How does outlining the values of your divine infallible book called the Bible translate to me making beliefs up in my head?

Is your book not promoting homophobia? Or was it not written by goat herders who claimed to be hearing from god in the dark ages when for example we didn't know where the sun went at night? Or does it not contain instructions for possessing, owning and treating slaves?

You know...I don't just pull out stuff from my ass. That would be what Christians do.

You do just pull out stuff from your ass Bact! In the post above alone you pulled out that buda "your divine infallible" from your ass! You pulled out the opinion that buda "your book" from your ass. Or did you get those opinions you claim buda holds from anywhere else than from your ass?

I'd suggest you learn the lesson of this thread and stop behaving like those the op condemned, but would rather you see evidence than pull it out of your ass since its a better way to get an understanding of truths.

Bacteriologist:
Oh nice! A Christian who doesn't believe that snakes and donkeys could talk! Finally. Someone in touch with reality!

So what's your basis for rejecting that part of the Bible? Or I'm quoting out of context as usual...

Who told you buda is a Christian, Bacteriologist? You quoted the very wise Bertrand Russell in your op, but does that make you a Bertrandian Russellian?

Funny that you don't want your truth (based on your faith that you know that truth), challenged. Nothing proves your point any better, lol, that untested (unquestioned) faith is most definitely no way to determine truth.

Not believing a thing to be so does not mean one has rejected that thing. One may chose to understand it for what it is instead.

Bacteriologist:
Right! So füćk off then!

Oh and take your ignorance-supporting, homophobia-promoting, mythical, stone-aged goat- herder inspired, slave manual called the Bible with you. Nonsense.

Oops. Seems I'm wrong about you. You do have faith in the beliefs you create inside your head.

Well, let me tell you a secret. Faith is an unreliable way to determine the truth. You need evidence too!

Bacteriologist:
No one gives a shit what someone who believes in a talking snake and a talking donkey believes bud.

Good thing is you checked the evidence instead of having faith in a baseless belief that buda "believes in a talking snake and a talking donkey".

Bacteriologist:
It is called a "mention" for a reason. If you mention me that means you're calling my attention. And I give it to you or withhold it.

I am quoting you. That does not mean I need your attention. And even if I do, it's your attention. It's your choice to give it or not.

Bacteriologist:
You DO NOT get to dictate what I would do or who I will choose to discuss with or not. If you quote me I have a right to reply and to not reply.

It is called a "mention" for a reason. If you mention me that means you're calling my attention. And I give it to you or withhold it.

Logic. Seems difficult..is it.I bet no.

Of course you "DO NOT get to dictate what I would do or who I will choose to discuss with or not".

You just need to understand that "You DO NOT get to dictate what I would do or who I will choose to discuss with or not" too.

Bacteriologist:
If you care about the truth, Faith is not enough.

The problem is that you can't even see when many agree with you. Go through your thread and see how many people have said that you need evidence for your faith and that untested faith is baseless, stupid, even.

Below is James saying the same thing.

Bacteriologist:
I told you I am talking about religious faith. And the definition of what YOU LIKE to define faith as isn't what I would like to discuss. As it wasn't the original purpose of this post.

The fact that I quote or mention you does not mean you must discuss with me. You can easily not discuss with me by ignoring me instead of thinking you can silence me. You are after all not the only one reading the thread so I wonder why you'd think what I have to say is for you alone. Have faith that it isn't.

triplechoice:
What I learnt from my experience is that it's a waste of time trying to convince a "true believer" to abandon their faith.You will continue to hit your head on the wall.They don't and can never see things the way you see it.

Now, this is where I actually support bacteriologist, and appreciate what he is doing here!

Believing things one has no evidence for is detrimental to society and an individual's existence, and such beliefs must constantly be challenged, even by the individual who has the faith, as even the Christian faith teaches!

If I build a bridge without challenging the assumptions on which I'm building it, there's absolutely no guarantee that it would get you to the other side, which is why I ought to be challenged so I don't waste money and kill people.

The issue I do have with the op is that he judges the entire religion by the observation of an errant - I'd love to say, few, but the truth is - majority. His error however is that he does not separate the religion from those who practise the religion wrongly!

Below are two instructions from the manual advising against blind faith.

AntiChristian:
We don't have groups in Islam like the Churches of Christianity where each Sect has a Church!

Alcohol doesn't throw a Muslim out of Islam but it's sure a great sin in Islam.

So, Anti is pro-Islam and all he's been shouting all along is his diq is the bigger diq!?

It is a great pity that many can't learn what their religions preach.

Bacteriologist:
No. Faith by definition is against evidence. Because it's only thrives in the absence of evidence. In the face of evidence Faith would no longer be required.

No. Faith, by definition, is not against evidence, and I said this at the beginning, but it seems you insist on ramming your own definition of faith down everyone's throat despite many telling you they require evidence for their faith.

Below, is a teaching about the faith of foolish people and that of wise people. Maybe you meet more of one than the other but as they say, all swans are white to those who've never seen a black swan.

Vintax:
I believe your story to be true because i have seen a j 5 bus with a creature like a dragon inside along markudi to abuja road just close to this tiv people villages though it was in the night around 11 to 12 midnight but many people still think i am lying to them

I believe your story too because I once saw a rat jump on to the moon, move it towards the sun to warm it up a bit, and eat it all up - the moon o, and not the rat! - then the same rat ate the entire sun!

Thankfully, it was around 11 to 12 midnight and the Japanese who created the sun on the flat earth and put fuel to make it burn, created another sun which rose in the morning and by night a new moon grew too. You should have seen that rat when the Chinese finally caught it with a Made in China mousetrap. It was bigger than an Ekene Dili Chukwu bus!

Blakjewelry:
You said you heard voices of people jumping and splashes water, then you said see these boys meaning they were many, now on getting there you saw only one man and a woman doing their thing how do you reconcile these sta9

And the mermaids had "her legs raised". lol!

tianshie:
When I emerged on the water, my head began to swell. I mean literally. I saw a woman with reddish skin lying on her back on the bank, her legs raised.

Below is what I think.

tianshie:
I laughed in their faces. Mermaids? Were they sure? I told them off for being idiots...