₦airaland Forum

Millerz:
Foolish atheist. When have Christians ever prayed for atheists to die? Our battles are not carnal. And you sir, can jump into the lagoon.

You just said I should jump into the lagoon. You just wished death in me.

winner01:
We dont want you to leave us alone. We want you to follow the evidence where it leads. We want you to embrace objectivity.
For this, We will pray for you.

Which evidence? Which evidence have you even provided for yourselves? Look at the various sects in christianity today and tell me.of you have any evidence to show each other amidst the endless confusion you are all marred in. You have not even provided enough evidence for yourselves to determine if the earth is a young earth or not. (The endless back and forth between the YEC and the OEC) you have not even determined if Jesus is a different and distinct person from God or if he is God himself (Many christians are confused about this and there is no consensus) , you have not yet provided evidence for the nature of hell and how salvation can be achieved even amongst yourelves because all of you disagree with each other on this basic things. There is no universally accepted christians doctrine and theology. Each sects just makes up its own along the way. When you finish providing evidence to the various conflicting sects withing christianity, you can then come and show us where this elusive evidence of yours leads. And as for the stories about people going to heaven and meeting God. I post 4 different stories here and you will see that these guys are just lying and making everything up. They all describe very different things that just do not add up. Some will tell you that heaven is this while.others will tell you that heaven is that. Some will tell.you that they meet Jesus and Mary in heaven while.others will tell.you that Jesus told them to tell people when they get back to earth to stop worshipping Mary . Is it this confusion that you call evidence? You guys and your endless jokes.

KingEbukasBlog:
Dalaman at his best , mango picking at its best . Christ was talking of division because of differences in belief . Complete the story . Dalaman oo . Are you this desperate ?

Matthew 10:37–39



Jesus said He had come at this time not to bring peace to the earth, but a sword, a weapon which divides and severs. This is because many who choose to follow Christ are hated by their family members. This may be part of the cost of discipleship, for love of family should not be greater than love for the Lord. A true disciple must take up his cross and follow Jesus He must be willing to face not only family hatred, but also death, like a criminal carrying his cross to his own execution.

Jesus also came to separate families? Interesting. Why should any body love a dead Jewish man that lived very long ago more than his family? Madness.

mrZENographer:
Atheists are like zombies.
Just pray "Father forgive them for they know not what they do'
Genuine working Antidote comes only from God.

Or rather you pray to your imaginary God to come and kill off all the atheist so that they will leave you guys alone.

KingEbukasBlog:
8 or so atheists who were potentates ended the lives of close to 250 million people . Imagine more of these pathetic despicable humans were given power , atheists would have ended human race . Oops ! I forgot you have one in power in Kim J who is fighting so hard with his nuclear weaponry programme with his intention to subjugate or possibly end mankind .

Soulless buffoons , devil incarnates . Atheists are dangerous people . Tufiakwa !

You forgot that this God of yours if we are to believe the bible stories once killed everybody on earth except a drunken man and his family. Went about fighting and killing others along side his chosen men for land and other reasons like them worshipping other Gods and other insane thrash. Hitler is much of a better character the the mad and insane God your believe in whom ironically believe is the source of some objective morality. If I call you deluded you'll begin to take it personal. Recieve sense my brother.

KingEbukasBlog:
You keep repeating the same questions over and again . Atheists are pathetic humans . Which is your favorite atheist ? It has to be Hitler

You keep talking trash about atheist killing people when your bible is filled with God gloating about killing human beings including babies and dashing their heads against rocks. This same action is what you have been trying to justify. You are a pathetic human being. Seriously.

KingEbukasBlog:
At the expense of the lives of 45 million ? atheists are pathetic despicable humans

If we are to go by biblical stories. How many millions did Moses and your God kill because they were living on a land flowing with milk and honey?

thehomer:
Of course you can't but you speak to God who can so ask him and let us know.



Thank you for your straightforward answer. you're one of the few Christians I've encountered who think genocide is a moral command. With this, you've successfully proved that with your God, all is permissible including genocide. Thanks again for your clarity.

Given that you and your God think genocide is a good idea, why should either of you be considered as useful sources for information on morality?

Suprisingly he is one of the few christians that will tell you that genocide is moral under his divine command theory. Other christians will dance around the issues, run away from it and never give clear answers. It's just funny that those that give clear answers always fall short and always end up shooting their selves in the foot.

KingEbukasBlog:
Should we call people who carried out wicked acts against humans Christians ? Christians are people who adhere to the teachings of Christ . Where did Christ command violence. He deplored violence and preached love . Go back to the basics young man

It's understandable when people use religion as a tool to carry out their reprehensible acts . But when there is no religion and these acts are still done it proves it is a disposition , it is innate . There is no hiding this one . These people showed atheism for what it is . Give them power and their true color would be revealed .

Jesus in his own words.

Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. -Mathew 10:34

KingEbukasBlog:
Moses was a good man . The Judges of Israel were good men who fought against the subjugation of Israelities in the hands of their enemies . They were God's executioners - all these acts were justified in that dispensation

Don't argue ignorantly . Here enjoy this piece : https://www.nairaland.com/3031728/reasons-why-god-not-subject

So was Mohammed and all the foot soldiers of Allah fighting against the subjugation of Muslims from the hands of their enemies. They are Allah's executioners. All the acts of Muslim jihadist are justified in this dispensation. They are carrying out Allah's command. Allah is the creator and owner of the universe. He is not subject to his laid down laws.

KingEbukasBlog:
And I answered him . Blame your inability to understand not me

You answered him by quoting words of a man high on cow dung abi? Well done.

winner01:
Is there actually such a thing as objective morality? Are right and wrong real things that all people at all times are obliged to obey or are they just matters of opinion? Was Adolph Hitler evil? If so, why and where did the standard he is judged by come from?

The moral argument for the existence of God tries to show that moral values must be objective and universal to make any sense. And if moral values are objective, the source must be a transcendent, personal being who is concerned with the actions of human beings. This is one of the most powerful arguments for God’s existence because all of us have a sense of right and wrong, good and evil, and the way things ought to be. The question is how to account for why that is.



RELATIVISM
There are two basic ways to view morality: as relative or as objective. The most widely held view in our culture is called relativism. Relativism holds that societies or individuals decide what is right and wrong and that those values vary from culture to culture or person to person. There
are no objective, universal moral truths—just conventions for behavior created by people and that are subject to change. There are three different forms of relativism: cultural relativism, conventionalism, and ethical subjectivism.


CULTURAL RELATIVISM
Cultural relativism is based on the observation that different cultures seem to have different values. And since they all have different value systems, there must be no right system, no objective morality. For example, some cultures, like Mexico, declare abortion to be abhorrent and have passed laws prohibiting it. Other cultures, like the United States, permit abortion as a legal option open to any pregnant woman for any reason. Still other cultures, like China, have actually required abortions under certain circumstances. Cultural relativism says that because
each culture is holding to its own view of morality, and because these views differ, there must be no objective morality.

There are several problems with this line of thinking. One is that observing how cultures behave is just that: observation and nothing more. At best, these observations are simply statements of fact. Morals are not descriptions of the way things are. Morals are prescriptions of the way things ought to be. Just because things are a certain way does not mean they should be that way. When Popeye says, “I am what I am” he is making a statement of fact, not a moral claim. If he said, “I ought to be what I am,” he would be making a moral claim.

Another problem with cultural relativism is its premise that different answers to a given question means there is no right answer. Just because Mexico, the United States, and China disagree on the issue of abortion does not mean there is no right or wrong approach to abortion. If two golfers disagreed on how many strokes one of them took on a hole, it does not mean there is no incorrect answer. Either both are wrong or one of them is right. They cannot both be right. When people disagree about morality, it does not mean that there is no objective morality.

Finally, let’s say someone disagrees with cultural relativism. If the cultural relativist is to remain consistent, they must agree that the fact that there is a disagreement means that there is no wrong view of moral theory. But as a cultural relativist they are claiming there is a correct view of moral theory and that other views are incorrect. As a result, they cannot live their own philosophy.

On the other hand, if the cultural relativist claims that the opposing view is a wrong way to think about the issue, then again they show they are not actually a relativist. Thus, cultural relativism cannot give an account of the basis of morality.




CONVENTIONALISM

The view that each society decides what is right and wrong for itself is called conventionalism. In contrast to cultural relativism, which says that there is no right or wrong answer, conventionalism claims there is a right and wrong, but it varies from society to society. The majority rules and morality becomes simply what is legal.

If conventionalism is true, the results are counterintuitive and very hard to live out. For example, let’s say a law was passed that made having blue eyes illegal and that the penalty for having blue eyes is death. There would not only be nothing immoral about the law, but it would in fact be immoral to have blue eyes!

But we don’t need to invent absurd hypothetical situations to see what a conventionalist society would look like. Conventionalism was the philosophy of Germany in the 1930s and 40s. Thus, when the Nazis declared Jews to be sub-human and deserving of death, there was no recourse for the Jews. The law by definition was “moral.” The large community of countries who protested were ignored. After all, what grounds did they have to critique German society? As a result six million Jews were systematically killed. And the defense given by Nazis tried at Nuremberg was conventionalism. “It couldn’t have been wrong, it was the law,” they said. “We were only following orders.”

One of conventionalism’s problems is that it leaves no room for society to be reformed. If society defines morality, then a person who protests against the laws of that society is, by definition, immoral and criminal. If a society were to change a law it would not change from immoral to
moral or from unjust to just. The law could only change from one rule to another, it would simply be different, not better or worse.

Think about what this means: if conventionalism is true then people like Gandhi, Jesus, and William Wilberforce would be among the most egregious criminals that ever lived! Their crime? They thought society could be changed for the better. The criminalization of such
moral reformers is, of course, wildly counterintuitive and helps show the bankruptcy of the conventionalist view.

Ultimately, conventionalism is about power, not morality. Whichever way the wind blows, the will of the majority is what is moral. Like a gang of bullies forcing into submission those who would dare oppose them, conventionalism forces its preferences on everyone by defining itself into power. And like cultural relativism, this fails to account for morality.



ETHICAL SUBJECTIVISM

The most widespread form of relativism is ethical subjectivism. In this view, individuals decide what is right and wrong for themselves and themselves only. Morality is nothing more than personal preference and opinion. “What’s true for you is true for you, and what’s true for me is true for me.”

One of the major problems with ethical subjectivism has to do with language. Conversation about values and moral topics becomes completely incoherent. No longer could anyone say something was right or wrong with any meaning. The best you could say is, “I choose not to do that because it is wrong for me,” or “I do not prefer that.” An ethical subjectivist could not meaningfully call the terrorist attacks on September 11 evil or wrong. And they could not call the rescue workers good or heroic and make any sense. When an ethical subjectivist makes a statement about the morality of an event or action they are not talking about anything other than their opinion of it, not about the thing itself.

The fatal flaw in this view is that it is clearly self-refuting. Again consider the statement, “What’s true for you is true for you, and what’s true for me is true for me.” The statement makes no sense. It says that truth claims only apply to the person making them. The problem is that if this statement is true it applies to everyone, which, of course means the statement is false!

A very effective way to expose the bankruptcy of Ethical Subjectivism is by using examples of obvious moral clarity that apply to all people at all times in all places. “Torturing babies for fun is wrong,” is a well-known example. When confronted with this statement, an ethical subjectivist
would then be in the unenviable position of having to argue against it. They may not personally think it is right, but they could not say it is wrong and be consistent. Just imagine what kind of people this system produces. In this system an ethical subjectivist must walk past a rape in
action since they cannot condemn it for anyone but themselves. An ethical subjectivist must allow trespassers into their home, thieves to burgle it, and arsonists to burn it as long as the trespassers, thieves, and arsonists don’t believe their acts are wrong. But nobody lives this way. Or do they?

One way to judge a moral system is to look at the kind of heroes the system produces. Take the objective moral stance of the Judeo-Christian view. The heroes are many and mighty: Jesus, Mother Theresa, Martin Luther King Jr. immediately come to mind.

But what kind of hero best exemplifies ethical subjectivism? Lived consistently, it produces moral monsters, people who see no need to care about others, and are unaccountable to anything but their preferences. Jack the Ripper. Ted Bundy. Albert Fish (one of the inspirations for Hannibal Lector). Ed Gein (the inspiration for Psycho, Texas Chainsaw Massacre, and the Buffalo Bill character in Silence of the Lambs). These are the heroes of ethical relativism.




OBJECTIVE MORALITY

Morals are not opinions or personal, private decisions. And they are not descriptions of behavior. They are prescriptions for behavior and motives that have the force of a command. They have a sense of obligation and oughtness that is universal, authoritative and applies to all people in all places at all times.

One way we come to moral knowledge is directly. We know it through intuition. This immediate knowledge is important because some things are only known in themselves. No investigation of facts or reasoning is required. This is precisely what is demonstrated by clear case examples like, “Torturing babies for fun is wrong.” Nobody has to investigate this claim before they can take a moral stance on it. Our intuition enables us to recognize it as self-evident. Just because we have a moral intuition does not mean we do not have to develop it, however. Even though we have an intuition for logic, we still have to cultivate a reasonable mind to better act on that intuition. The same is true with moral intuition; we have to cultivate our minds to be sensitive to it and to act on it.


There are several ways to show that all people, even self-professed relativists, actually believe in objective morality at their core. As we have seen, one way is through clear case examples. These examples don’t have to be confined to outlandish claims like the torture example. Often
conversations present opportunities to make this point in a much more personal way.

Christian thinker Francis Schaeffer was a master at this. He once had a conversation with several students, one of whom disagreed with Schaeffer’s moral objectivism. The student claimed there was ultimately no difference between cruelty and non-cruelty. Another student who was listening decided to put that belief to the test. He picked up a teakettle full of boiling water and held it over the first student’s head as if he were about to pour it onto the student. He then said, “There is no difference between cruelty and non-cruelty.” The first student realized that in his worldview he could not object to the threat and got up and left the room disillusioned. What makes these kinds of situations so powerful is that they are opportunities to take the conversation out of the abstract and put into the everyday world we all live in. In this light, the force of the objectivist position is undeniable no matter how hard someone tries to resist it.

Another way of exposing objectivism in a relativist is to discover their passion and relativize it. Let us say, for example, a relativist believed deeply in animal rights. A moral objectivist could tell the relativist how he is trying to find a new shampoo and just tested out a couple brands
by rubbing the shampoo into the eyes of a dog to see if there was any adverse reaction. The relativist will betray what they say they believe and object to these actions. And rightly so. But by objecting they demonstrate the reality of moral objectivism: moral laws are not personal opinions.

So, objectivism stands as the only coherent view of morality and the only way that can be consistently lived out.

At this point in the argument, all that has been shown is that there are very good reasons for believing that objective morality exists. Two questions now arise: “Where did morals come from?,” and, “Why should we obey them?” To find the source we should look at the characteristics of morality. Morality is:
• Prescriptive
• A command
• Universal
• Objective
• Authoritative


Prescriptions and commands are forms of communication, and communication happens only between minds. Also, because morals deal with purpose and will, the source of morality must also have purpose and a will. Because morals are universal and transcend individuals, societies,
and time, the source must be universal and transcendent. Since morals are authoritative they must come from an authority, and authority can only be held by a person. Finally, this person must have the power to impose his moral will on us and provide us with an ability to know their moral will through intuition. Thus, morals come from a transcendent person who has the power and authority to impose a moral law on us. And we call this person God.

Another indication of where morals come from is found in what happens when we violate the moral law. We’ve all ignored our moral intuition and done what we know is wrong, and the result has been guilt. Sometimes it is obvious to us whom we feel guilty towards. At other times the object of our guilt is not so clear, like when our guilt stems from our own thoughts or motives.

To whom do we feel guilty then? The answer is in the question: “whom,” not “what.” We feel guilty towards persons not objects. And we do not just feel guilt toward the person we deceived or harmed, but we understand the law came from someone, not something, and we feel guilt towards that person.

But is something good just because God says it is or is there a standard that God is using? If something is good because God says it is then the standard is arbitrary since it could have been something other than what it is. Or if God uses something outside himself as a standard to judge
things, then God is truly God since he relies on something outside himself. Either way is a fatal flaw against the claim that God is the source of morality. However, those are not the only options.
A third option says that things are good because they reflect God’s nature and character. God’s character is the standard of goodness and his preferences are extensions of his character, not arbitrary decrees. Because God does not change the standard does not change. And because the standard is internal God is not dependent on anything outside himself.

The argument from morality for the existence of God can be made in a couple of ways. A modest case uses it along with other arguments as only one part of a whole case. Others have made transcendental arguments with it. This approach asks what the necessary preconditions are for objective morality and argues that only the God of the Bible can account for it. This is obviously a more ambitious take on the argument, but it can be extremely effective. Both methods rely on the same claim: that objectivism is the only coherent view of morality and the only view of morality that can be lived consistently. And it points very strongly towards the existence of a transcendent, powerful, personal God.




Source; Apologeticbible.com


cc; KingEbukasBlog, Richirich713, thoniameek, anas09, Tufanja, elantraceey, OLAADEGBU, KingEbukaNaija, ceeted, Chidexter, lezz, analice107, bxcode, Topeakintola, UyiIredia, Tellemall, vooks, Ishilove, sukkot, gatiano, mrpresident1, Drefan2, Strawman

Part of the articles states that only the God of the bible is the source of objective morals. Yet when we read the bible we see this same God issuing out injunctions and doing things that are objectively immoral. When wi christians stop lying and face reality instead of hiding behind apologetics to deluded themselves?

KingEbukasBlog:
Eh na . So in your eyes , is Mao Good or Evil ? If you are trying to circumvent ridicule by being reticent , your cup of tea . This is just a simple question

Was Moses in the bible a good man? What about prophet Mohammed? Was he also a good man?

HardMirror:
We cannot continue to tolerate Muslims trying to force their believes on everyone!
Notice how even on Nairaland here Islam has to be given special treatment probably because seun osewa is scared of them.

Anyone who has ever discussed religion or life principles with muslims will know many of them are intolerant. The use of the word INFIDEL cannot be from a mind that is civil in anyway.

What qualifies an ordinary human to call another human INFIDEL?

I remember when I stayed at Akindeko in The Federal University of Technology Akure, Muslims attacked Christians at least 5 times of which I was a victim twice!

They mobilize at the mosque and try to oppress any christian gathering or attempt by a christian to preach in the hostel. YET they blast the hostel with the noise from their own mosque which was right beside the hostel!


Muslims claim it is the western media that is painting them as barbaric animals (not just animals) but;
is it the western media that stoned a woman for supposed blasphemy?

Is it the western media that is terrorizing the North east?

Is it the western media that is beheading innocent women in Saudi Arabia because they are suspected to be witches?


is it the western media that chants deat to the Infidels at every given opportunity?

Christianity and other religions are evolving to become more humane, while islam remains primitive and barbaric. A religion built on blood and lust!

I am Hard Mirror, Look into the mirror, what you see is the truth, can't break me because you don't like what you see.

Islam is simply an intolerant religion. There is no way round it. If muslims had the power the western countries had they would try to forcefully convert people to Islam.

KingEbukasBlog:
And the obsession with the non existent God continues . Why give this thread an exciting headline when is its the same old boring question

Satan is bound

Revelation 20 : 2-3

2. He seized the dragon, the ancient serpent who is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years. 3. And he threw him into the Abyss, shut it, and sealed it over him, so that he could not deceive the nations until the thousand years were complete. After that, he must be released for a brief period of time.

Satan is then vanquished and will never return again

Revelation 20:10
10 And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

You might consider asking Satan that question during this period though because

Revelation 20 : 12 -15

12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.

13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.

14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.

15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

Dalaman 'd be asking the question to ridicule now , you won't get a funny reply when the answer to that question would be given soon

The OP asked a simple question, instead of answering you are busy spewing thrash written by someone that was clearly high on cow dung when he wrote those things down.

sonOfLucifer:
Said Jesus.

People said Jesus said it.

malvisguy212:
alright, you are an atheist, right ? And you believe evil exist, and can be created, right ? I return the question to you, the viewer has read my explanation. Let us hear from an atheist, how does evil came into being ? Since you beileve, evil is created, who create it ? Thank you.

What is evil? Was goodness created?

KingEbukasBlog will come here and be talking trash.

KingEbukasBlog:
Dalaman , no digressions please . Let the atheists focus on disproving these miracles

I am an atheist but I've never claimed these to be atheistic miracles, so what exactly are you talking about my brother? Will you get sense or not?

Please can you show us how your God allegedly created life from non life? How did your God use Hebrew to speak plants into existence? Detailed and well explanations with evidence will do.

Islam as a religion belongs to the stone age. What the hell is this?

laribari:
If success is only down to Education those school drop outs who became great men wouldn't have succeeded.

The truth is dat I do not have a problem with at first and I approached you different, showing ur some respect but you came at me first because I was trying to defend my own faith. Hence, you told me you don't like soft landing. That was challenging like you don't care how it comes after I said I will come hard.

Decorum, maturity etc. Do u know u guys crossed the line too? I have read a lot of insults on God and normally with maturity you talked about, you are supposed to respect other people's belief.

This thread was created to mock christianity and some of us are no nice. Sometimes u take violence by force according to scriptures and Decorum will not even be an issue any more.

I do not believe in Allah but I don't challenge Muslims because I leave my Muslim colleagues to their belief and we are good friends. I don't start up a fight. I think that is maturity enuf, but if they play reggae then they shall dance to the tune themselves.

Everyone have what they believe in.

Now I'm claim like the first time I spoke with you

No shaking!

So if people insult God it is you that will fight for him by insulting them back? You claim you have this God that created the universe,A God who is so powerful and can do all things yet it is you that he relies on to insult those that insult it. Isn't that enough evidence to show you that such a God only lives inside your head? No God that is alive will rely on a failure like you to even do anything on it's behalf. Only a God that lives inside your head will do that.

KingEbukasBlog:
Yeah . Let me ask one . Can you provide proof the universe needs no creator ?

What has the creation of the universe got to do with any of the Christian claims of Jesus dying for 3 days and coming back to life for example? You haven't even shown that the universe was created by the Christian God and not the pantheon of Hindu God's. Why do you always talk senslesly my brother? Recieve sense please.

Anas09:
Wow, this is a compliment. Do I sound like I know anything at all. Oh yea?
Thank you man.
By the way, am not a dude OK? Am a girl.

So you have two monikers? You are the same person as
laribari. Good for you.

laribari:
You are indeed a classified fool! You are so confused. You said it yourself that reincartion is REAL



You are truly foolish becos you do not know you are confused. You can't even defend yourself.

Someone talked about raising the dead and you countered with the issue of re-incarnation and mentioned a certain Dai Lama and further confirmed that such a thing is real. How can something u don't believe in be real? You see that you are so stupid? Ok, so you know God is also real but you just don't wanna believe ba?

When we say something is real it technically means we believe in it. So I asked you wise questions. Where does the souls that fails to re-incarnate goes to? And if u say re-incarnation is real then what is transmigrating? Isn't it the soul/spirit (though these are 2-in-1 entities).

Technically, you are saying you know ghost, spirit and soul exist because that which re-incarnates from body A to Body B has to be a spirit or the soul right? So you believe in spirituality but not in God?

So you know that Hindus and others believe in incarnation and does not matter whether I believe it or not and as far as they are concern it doesn't concern them. Why don't you think Christians have same right too? Why are u trying to disprove God by asking for healing etc.

You are quoting Da Lima (a lunatic) to me as a countering point to prove ur re-incarnation point and you even said he is a public figure, trying to justify you claim.

Let me ask you again. How can you say something is REAL



But you do not believe in it



Then how can you give me evidence of something you don't believe or cite it as an example to play down miracles of raising someone from the dead, yet u claim it re-incarnation is real but you do not believe in it. It means you are a fool. You see what I said?

Saying you are a fool is not an insult but I'm just describing your actions. I asked a simple question and a wise one, you dey shake dey talk up and down.

If you know something is real, then why don't you believe in it?

Is it dat you are sick or just a trouble maker or what?

You are the idiotic fool here because you are confused and ignorant.
I will wait for ur response because I got ur time plenty...

No shaking

You are a very slow block headed idiot. You don't even know what sarcasm is. I was just being sarcastic when I said reincarnation is real. That was a direct response to to your foolish statement. You said

"Go to google anything you want or check youtube and you will see video proof. Why do you guys act like fools here?"
You further stated that there are people that had near death experience and you also used that as proof of what ever it it you were saying. Near death experience is no proof of the after life because it's your brain being deprived of some key stuffs. It has very easily been induced in the lab and the results have basically been the same for most people.

I just mentioned reincarnation to counter your foolish claim of using videos as evidence and proof of things. There are so many videos of people of all races and nationality on YouTube claiming to have reincarnated but you do not believe them despite their video evidence and proof. You then concluded that miracles are real based on the Christian claims and it matters not if atheist do not believe in them,that was why I also stated that reincartion is real and it doesn't matter if you believe in them or not. After all there are many video evidence and proof on the Internet since video on the Internet is your evidence and proof for things being real. I was just trying to show you how idiotic your claims are but being a slow man you failed to understand it as expected.

laribari:
Oh boy!! do you know what it means to be deluded? You dey vex ba? But your word is moronic naa and you just made another mumu comment.

so you believe in re-incarnation? Oh i see!! let me ask you, is it a spiritual act or a physical act to re-incarnate? If you believe in that then you must believe in spirits and Ghost ba? because they work side by side.

How can a man re-incarnate? It means he has to first die, leaves his former body and enters a new one. So who is the he that transmigrate from body A to body B? It has to be a spirit or a ghost ba?

So you believe in spirits and ghost (re-incarnation) and you do not believe in God?

You are indeed the deluded idiot here and confused indeed.

re-incarnation means to be reborn right?

where does souls that does not re-incarnate go?

Mumu.............

YOU DEY TELL ME NEXT, YOU DON'T KNOW WHO YOU ARE TALKING TO.. I will expose your mumu here because some real wise CHRISTIANS ARE HERE. I have you time plenty......... i will wait for your response.......


no shaking

You remain an idiotic fool. I do not believe in reincarnation. I just brought that as am example of a thing billions of people (Hindus, Buddhist, Taoist etc) the world over believe in but you do not. It doesn't matter to them whether you believe it or not. As far as they are concerned it is true. There are living witnesses who claimed to have reincarnated. One is even a public figure. The Dai Lama. Just wanted you to know that believing something an pointing to people that adhere to it and say it is true has nothing to do with its reality or accuracy. That is the line of argument you have been using and it only ensures that you remain an idiotic fool.

laribari:
I laugh when I read moronic statements. Me nor get time for paparazi o, so I will tell you as it is.

We all use the Internet and even access to NL is via the Internet. You nor dey browse?

Go google anything you want or check youtube and you will see video proof. Why do you guys act like fools here?

Asking stupid question when u can check it on the net: go and read up, enlighten your self.

Not like you don't know but you just wanna talk because people like you do not belief even if you see it.

Do you know how many people who had near death experiences and we're revived? Someone close to me had experienced it and told stories of what she saw.

You dey here dey find proof when you have Internet connection.

Shut up you deluded idiot. The Internet is also filled with stories and videos of people that died and reincarnated. The Dai Lama is a public figure and an example of a person that claimed to have reincarnated. He has millions of followers. There are other videos of others that reincarnated as well. Reincarnation is real. It doesn't matter if you believe it or not.Next! !!

Most people are ignorant and superstitious so you shouldn't blame them.

Anas09:
I was raised from the dead. Just yesterday, Damaris Amarachi Grant-James, was raised from the dead. Just yesterday, 25thMay 2016.

I created the universe.

Anas09:
You are more concerned about Amputee than being raised from the death?

How many of your dead friends and relatives have been raised from the dead?

laribari:
The reason why I'm going to answer you is because you questioned quoted the bible by twisting it.

Obviously you do not understand it that it is contextual so let me school you on it.

1. Jesus didn't promise Christians a better ending or most peace in the world He said Christians are haters of the world and that is evident but u do not get it and twisted it. John 15:19


2. Jesus said signs shall follow dem dat believe and He mentioned some of these signs. a. Speak in new tongues b. Casting out devils c. Drink poisonous substance and won't be hurt d. Take up serpents.

This is Mark 16: 18-19.

Don't people speak tongues today? Same tongues you still criticize. Don't Christians cast out devils during deliverance section? Same one u called fake or u think the devil or demons are entities you just approach anyhow?

Why now it is dat u pick two and abandoned two in ur assessment of a Christian? Didn't that same Jesus tell you people have different level of faith? But if ur faith is great enuf nothing will be impossible. Does that not tell you everyone can operate at same level?

Now when the bible says serpent, it doesn't always refer to a snake.... the pharisees were called vipers, are they real snakes? The bible called Satan the old serpent does it make it a real snake?

Your ignorance nor be here ooo!

Poisonous substance? Well you donot know how many people have truly been saved so don't judge blindly.