DelusionKiller's Posts
Nairaland Forum › DelusionKiller's Profile › DelusionKiller's Posts
1 (of 1 pages)
hopefulLandlord:#word |
Emmanystone:I've noticed you react this way whenever 4evergod's issue is being discussed. you get childish and petulant like it really gets to you then mask it with insults and curses. I remember you advocating for people to give their names to Babalawo for this same 4evergod issue. All these lend credibility to the theory that you're in league with him or know him personally He's been caught viewing threads of his accusations, he said nothing but kept viewing time and again. he then deactivated his monickers so he doesn't make the mistake of being caught viewing threads again He refused to defend himself but relies on you to do all the defending, throw invectives and curses for his sake just like your God relies on you to Unless its true that you actually do know this guy personally and are in league with him somehow (perhaps not scamming league) you're better off ignoring his issues whenever its brought up cuz all you do with all these tantrums is lend credibility to the theory that you benefited from his scamming. That no other discussion drives you to the edge like 4evergod is absolutely telling, maybe you have a crush on him or sump'n or maybe you're in league with him or you know him personally because there's no way you're doing all these just because he's "One of us". Its almost as if you feel he's still on Nairaland and you're trying to prove your loyalty to him don't quote me, I won't reply Deuces |
Zahra Buhari is a lazy youth |
First picture looks like a Cumming face |
MrMarvelous:thanks |
KingEbukasBlog: I'm not here to argue, go back and forth like a hamster on a wheel while going nowhere in particular, I'm not here to discuss partiality with you because even if I point out the partiality to you you won't get it I have a good knowledge of psychology and It has been argued, and I would agree, that Christian apologetics are not designed to reach "non-believers", but are meant to reassure those who are already members of the tribe reassuring the sheep is the main purpose of apologetics. I'm guessing that's not even much of a secret among apologists themselves. all these excuses sound good to an insider, someone who already has faith that whatever his god does is just and fair and best for all humanity, that's the starting point for any justification and defense for certain atrocities commanded by Yahweh in the Bible so there's NO way you'll ever see anything wrong in it even https://www.gotquestions.org/Canaanites-extermination.html tried their utmost best to rationalise the genocide of the Canaanites but quickly fell back to the usual dogma when they (perhaps) realised there's NO logical way of doing this but at least they were honest enough to admit they can't possibly rationalise it unlike WLC My thread analyses the tissue paper thin excuse WLC gave for the slaughter of the Canaanites most of what he said as excuses would make sense ONLY to an insider, as an outsider however..... well let's just say he's making as much sense to us as you think he is |
WLC's dishonesty has been analysed and proven on this thread see for yourself |
Name one ethical statement made, or one ethical action performed, by a believer that could not have been uttered or done by a nonbeliever. Christopher Hitchens |
Name one ethical statement made, or one ethical action performed, by a believer that could not have been uttered or done by a nonbeliever. Christopher Hitchens |
"Insanity " "derangement" "dumb kid" do posts like these even warrant a reply? |
promisechuks: discussion posts are welcome, this post of yours Attacking the person and not the posts drive by like you're doing makes you look foolish |
monicker red herring I won't even dignify such posts with a quote |
William Laine Craig also said the below "I have come to appreciate as a result of a closer reading of the biblical text that God's command to Israel was not primarily to exterminate the Canaanites but to drive them out of the land.[…] Canaan was being given over to Israel, whom God had now brought out of Egypt. If the Canaanite tribes, seeing the armies of Israel, had simply chosen to flee, no one would have been killed at all. There was no command to pursue and hunt down the Canaanite peoples. It is therefore completely misleading to characterise God's command to Israel as a command to commit genocide. Rather it was first and foremost a command to drive the tribes out of the land and to occupy it. Only those who remained behind were to be utterly exterminated. No one had to die in this whole affair." This made me doubt he's even read the bible very well |
Richirich713: Its obvious who the smasher would be and its not William maybe you didn't read the link I gave with a clear unbiased mind, remove the frown on your face and read it again if you have before |
jonbellion: guess what? the Muslims believe it fully ![]() there's an article that examines what'll happen if a Muslim is preached to http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/2016/11/the-devastating-muslim-test-for-christianity/ |
jonbellion: you can ignore certain people |
jonbellion: the slaying of the cannanites is something that's heart wrenching Committing genocide against the indigenous people of Canaan was made easier by the fact that they were willing to fight for their ancestral homes. It's easier to slaughter people who are trying to kill you, even if you're the one who started the fight. Had the Canaanites tried to welcome the newcomers and pursue peaceful treaties, genocide might have been harder. Even the most fanatical religious zealot has a harder time slaughtering unarmed, peaceful people. Apparently Yahweh thought of this and took steps to ensure that nothing like this would interfere with his plans: There was not a city that made peace with the children of Israel, save the Hivites the inhabitants of Gibeon: all other they took in battle. For it was of the Lord to harden their hearts, that they should come against Israel in battle, that he might destroy them utterly, and that they might have no favor, but that he might destroy them, as the Lord commanded Moses. ( Joshua 11:19-20) So Yahweh "hardened" the hearts of the Canaanites to guarantee that they would "come against Israel in battle." Had he not done that, some of the Canaanites might have chosen a more peaceful solution and the Israelites might have been tempted to befriend them. Instead, they slaughtered everyone. He also did the same to the Egyptians by hardening Pharaoh's heart, someone who sees his wrongdoing and wants to make amends couldn't do it because Yahweh hasn't slaughtered all firstborn sons This is thus a persistent pattern for Yahweh: order one group of humans to harm a second group of humans, then take away the free will of the second ground and force them to act in a way that ensures conflict can occur. This sounds remarkably like a child torturing small animals and we all know what happens to kids like that. |
hopefulLandlord: The two main methods of brain rot for Christians seem to be revelation and intuition as 'knowledge'. Here's a Christian article that gives advice on how to rot your brain: http://www.cwgministries.org/How-to-Receive-Revelation-Knowledge It says: "You do not have a mind to use, but a mind to present to God so He can use it and fill it with anointed reason and divine vision. If you use your mind yourself, it is a dead work." and "Realizing that the revelation came from the indwelling Holy Spirit, give all the glory to God for what has been revealed." Christians also see their intuitions as accurate knowledge from God that does not require any further reflection or inquiry. http://www.wjh.harvard.edu/~jgreene/GreeneWJH/Shenhav-Rand-Greene-JEPG11.pdf "...the extent to which one believes in God may be influenced by one’s more general tendency to rely on intuition versus reflection. Three studies support this hypothesis, linking intuitive cognitive style to belief in God." " Intuitive responses were also positively correlated with self-reported belief in immortal souls, and with reports of experiences that convinced the participant of God’s existence," |
dalaman: Richard Dawkins once said he doesn't want to debate Laine Craig and Christians quickly said he was scared, he had to give his reasons https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/oct/20/richard-dawkins-william-lane-craig |
odysey: William Maine Craig is a theologian who gave an answer that's being scrutinized here, you can provide a better answer if you have it |
hopefulLandlord: Thank you |
dalaman: Pure red herring |
Richirich713: How does this answer the OP? promisechuks: What? I created this account because I'm very active in the business and investment section and feel me using my main monicker can sabotage my business dealings, I've always been just a viewer of this section and avoid meddling but this idea came to me yesterday after seeing the misleading topic of one of you Is this how you accuse every new member of using alternates or only atheist? Are you saying no new atheist are out there not meddling? Its hardly surprising seeing many of arguments devolve into insults and name calling, I'm not yet a day old on this section and I feel like calling you unprintable names already You remind me of the skepticism I faced earlier in the business and investment section with they also thinking I'm a banned scammer using alternate monicker Let's stay on topic pls Seun I hope this is alright, this is an alternate but I created it to protect my business interest, I won't use this monicker anywhere else, you can even ban this monicker from posting anywhere else if that's possible Thanks for your understanding |
There’s a lot of killing in the Bible—the honest and wholesome kind. The God-commanded kind. What are we to make of this violence? Apologist William Lane Craig takes a stab at justifying The Slaughter of the Canaanites.” Craig’s entire project is bizarre—trying to support the sagging claims of God’s goodness despite that deity’s passion for genocide—but he gamely has a go. Craig responds to the question, “But wasn’t it wrong to kill all the innocent children?” If we believe, as I do, that God’s grace is extended to those who die in infancy or as small children, the death of these children was actually their salvation. We are so wedded to an earthly, naturalistic perspective that we forget that those who die are happy to quit this earth for heaven’s incomparable joy. Therefore, God does these children no wrong in taking their lives. What’s this supposed to mean?? Does it mean that Andrea Yates was actually right that she was saving her five children from the possibility of going to hell by drowning them one by one in the bathtub? Does it mean that abortion is actually a good thing because those souls “are happy to quit this earth for heaven’s incomparable joy”? I hope none of Craig’s readers have followed up with this route to salvation. It’s hard to believe that he’s actually justifying the killing of children, but there’s more. Let’s fillet Craig’s next paragraph: So whom does God wrong in commanding the destruction of the Canaanites? Not the Canaanite adults, for they were corrupt and deserving of judgment. I thought that genocide was wrong. Perhaps I was mistaken. Not the children, for they inherit eternal life Yeah, right. Killing children is actually a good thing. (Are we living Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four, where “War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength”?) So who is wronged? Wait for it! Ironically, I think the most difficult part of this whole debate is the apparent wrong done to the Israeli soldiers themselves. Can you imagine what it would be like to have to break into some house and kill a terrified woman and her children? The brutalizing effect on these Israeli soldiers is disturbing. Uh, yeah. That was the big concern in my mind, too. Can you believe this guy? My guess is that he is a decent and responsible person, is a good husband and father, works hard, and pays his taxes. But he’s writing this? It’s like discovering that your next-door neighbor is a member of the Ku Klux Klan. This brings up the Christopher Hitchens Challenge (video). Hitchens challenges anyone to state a moral action taken or a moral sentiment uttered by a believer that couldn’t be taken or uttered by an unbeliever—something that a believer could do but an atheist couldn’t. In the many public appearances in which Hitchens has made this challenge, he has never heard a valid reply. But think of the reverse: something terrible that only a believer would do or say. Now, there are lots of possibilities. Obviously, anything containing variations on “because God says” or “because the Bible says” could be an example. ---“The Bible says, ‘Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.’” ---“Despite the potential benefits to public health, we should avoid embryonic stem cell research because it’s against the Bible.” ---“God hates gays.” Or, as in this case, “God supports genocide.” This reminds me what physicist Steven Weinberg said: “Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you’d have good people doing good things and evil people doing bad things, but for good people to do bad things, it takes religion.” In other words: Christianity can rot your brain. [size=4pt]source[/size] |
1 (of 1 pages)

I won't even dignify such posts with a quote
