₦airaland Forum

Trolls try to disrupt, destroy or change discussion groups to fit their own agendas. Trolls are pinheads!

Trolls are pinheads.
These trolls like to visit and try to disrupt our happy forum. Their lowly reason for existence is to post provocative, hostile or annoying messages. They claim they are here to discuss, but in fact are just here to cause trouble.

thehomer:
But the devil sinned in Heaven. How was he able to do this without temptation?

Trolls try to disrupt, destroy, or change discussion groups to fit their own agendas. . . .Trolls are pinheads.
These trolls like to visit and try to disrupt our happy forum. Their lowly reason for existence is to post provocative, hostile or annoying messages. They claim they are here to discuss, but in fact are just here to cause trouble. Trolls have an exaggerated sense of their own importance. Trolls will frequently use a persecution defence when they are asked to cease their anti-social behaviour. When someone asks them nicely to stop posting their negative comments, they claim innocent intent and will scream censorship. They will claim they are being singled out because of their unpopular viewpoints.

Trolls will only stay when they are fed or given attention. So please do not pet, respond to, or feed trolls. Doing so only results in their prolonged stay.

thehomer:
Five days to the rapture. Are you ready?

Martian:
Why do you keep parroting the same terms over and over again. All you ever do is write evangelical atheist, dunning kruger effect,mumus, sussicorn bla bla bla.

Martian:
Here, I'll give you two new terms to add to your vocabulary and repost a thousand times.

Enigma is a christian fundamentalist sanctimonious douche bag who suffers from True Believer syndrome and has frequent episodes of apophenia.

Many atheists exhibit a lack of knowledge of the very theism against which they most often, if not exclusively, argue - the Bible's Judeo-Christianity. Worse yet, they think that they are well versed by claiming that they were "raised Christian" (whatever that means), "went to Sunday School," "was an altar boy," "saw the movie (hyperbole intended)," etc.

I am not one to claim that you must be a theologian to speak on, or against, Christianity nor a scholar to speak on, or against, the Bible. That is to be reserved for scholarly settings. Yet, one ought to be at least somewhat versed on the subject that one seeks to critique and be skeptical enough to double check both what one is being told as well as one's own positions.

I find that many atheists not only lack knowledge of Christian theology and the contents and contexts of the Bible but lack a basic understanding of natural theology / general revelation, which seeks to infer the cause of the universe from nature (nature not meaning biosphere alone but the universe as a whole).

Take a lack of knowledge of natural theology / general revelation - add to it a lack {of} knowledge of Christian theology and the contents of the Bible - mix that with a typically early age rejection of Christianity - blend it with the early, Sunday School, age understanding of theology - and finally bake it in the presuppositional oven of self-professed erudition and what do we end up with? . . . .

Many atheists exhibit a lack of knowledge of the very theism against which they most often, if not exclusively, argue - the Bible's Judeo-Christianity. Worse yet, they think that they are well versed by claiming that they were "raised Christian" (whatever that means), "went to Sunday School," "was an altar boy," "saw the movie (hyperbole intended)," etc.

I am not one to claim that you must be a theologian to speak on, or against, Christianity nor a scholar to speak on, or against, the Bible. That is to be reserved for scholarly settings. Yet, one ought to be at least somewhat versed on the subject that one seeks to critique and be skeptical enough to double check both what one is being told as well as one's own positions.

I find that many atheists not only lack knowledge of Christian theology and the contents and contexts of the Bible but lack a basic understanding of natural theology / general revelation, which seeks to infer the cause of the universe from nature (nature not meaning biosphere alone but the universe as a whole).

Take a lack of knowledge of natural theology / general revelation - add to it a lack {of} knowledge of Christian theology and the contents of the Bible - mix that with a typically early age rejection of Christianity - blend it with the early, Sunday School, age understanding of theology - and finally bake it in the presuppositional oven of self-professed erudition and what do we end up with? . . . .

harakiri:
Er, really? And how do you know this? Because everyone ignored you? Can you bring up anything to prove that? You keep using the word "upstart" like it's going out of fashion. You know, there are some people you can use these cheap feeble outdated manipulative and cunning tactics on and get away with it. I AM NOT ONE OF THEM! Get it? You are way too dumb and daft to play with my intelligence and i mean that.

Now, get lost!

harakiri:
. . . The Leopold letter can be found in several online sources including the BBC website and the online catholic encyclopedia. . . .

harakiri:
My friend, SHUT UP! ! !

You came to that thread boasting that you had "facts" and "logical analysis" that could debunk the Leopold letter to the Congolese as being fake. Till now, all you have done is show the dishonesty in Christians by beating about the bush, derailing topics and till date, you haven't brought forward this "evidence" you touted all over the place. The Leopold letter can be found in several online sources including the BBC website and the online catholic encyclopedia. The BBC website (and other websites) describes the horrors committed on the Congolese with pictures. The catholic encyclopedia mentions these horrors as well. Now, even a daft like you should know that if such a letter was fake, the Belgians would NEVER take such a smear campaign on their history lightly. There would be public outcry and a lot of fighting,court cases and libel charges. You even went as far as comparing such a historical letter to the 419 fraudulent scam letters (typical Christian cunning and dishonesty in action). I then told you to go to Google and type either "Fake King Leopold letter" or "King Leopold's letter to Congo is a forgery" and see if you get even ONE hit. Merely typing the words "fraud letter" on Google will bring out all those 419 letters. How on earth can you compare these two? Only a reetard is capable of such odd judgement.

What an ediot! If you think you can derail this thread with such a petty attempt, you'd better try harder next time.

Buffoon! ! !

Gray Beard:
. . .

FOOOOOLISHNESS on the streets of ashkelon! How on earth does the something and nothing argument lead to a conclusion that the universe never existed? It only leads to a conclusion that sometyhing must have preceded it, where ya brain dey?? Inside ya yansh

The second concusion you have up there is c.rap, because what we know about the big b.ang rebutts that s.hit.

Bros, i norr get ya time.

frosbel:
^

Atheism is a religion. The way some of you {i.e. the evangelical atheists} go on about it here, even the Jehova Witensses will be green with envy !
. . . .

Many atheists exhibit a lack of knowledge of the very theism against which they most often, if not exclusively, argue - the Bible's Judeo-Christianity. Worse yet, they think that they are well versed by claiming that they were "raised Christian" (whatever that means), "went to Sunday School," "was an altar boy," "saw the movie (hyperbole intended)," etc.

I am not one to claim that you must be a theologian to speak on, or against, Christianity nor a scholar to speak on, or against, the Bible. That is to be reserved for scholarly settings. Yet, one ought to be at least somewhat versed on the subject that one seeks to critique and be skeptical enough to double check both what one is being told as well as one's own positions.

I find that many atheists not only lack knowledge of Christian theology and the contents and contexts of the Bible but lack a basic understanding of natural theology / general revelation, which seeks to infer the cause of the universe from nature (nature not meaning biosphere alone but the universe as a whole).

Take a lack of knowledge of natural theology / general revelation - add to it a lack {of} knowledge of Christian theology and the contents of the Bible - mix that with a typically early age rejection of Christianity - blend it with the early, Sunday School, age understanding of theology - and finally bake it in the presuppositional oven of self-professed erudition and what do we end up with? . . . .

For nearly two thousand years Biblicists have been lecturing people on the importance of adhering to the Bible’s teachings on ethics, manners, and morality.  They quote Jesus and Paul profusely, with a liberal sprinkling of Old Testament moralism.  The problem with their approach lies not only in an oft- noted failure to practice what they preach, but an equally pronounced tendency to ignore what the Bible itself, preaches.  Christians practice what can only be described as “selective morality”.  What they like, they cling to and shove down other’s throats; what they don’t like, they ignore vehemently  Cheesy .  That which is palatable and acceptable is supposedly applicable to all; while that which is obnoxious, inconvenient, or self-denying is only applicable to those addressed 2,000 years ago.  Their hypocrisy is so rampant that even the validity of calling oneself “Christian” is in question. I see so many people enjoy quoting the Ten Commandments, the Sermon on the Mount, and some of Paul’s sermons, but don’t even PRETEND to heed other, equally valid, maxims.  I’ve mentioned pro-life and conservatism in other sermons. This one is going to sum up the rest of my beefs

just to mention a few,but if you ask me,the whole idea was to put some of you in check and under control.To think in the box and not out of it cos doing so would be a SIN.

Many atheists exhibit a lack of knowledge of the very theism against which they most often, if not exclusively, argue - the Bible's Judeo-Christianity. Worse yet, they think that they are well versed by claiming that they were "raised Christian" (whatever that means), "went to Sunday School," "was an altar boy," "saw the movie (hyperbole intended)," etc.

I am not one to claim that you must be a theologian to speak on, or against, Christianity nor a scholar to speak on, or against, the Bible. That is to be reserved for scholarly settings. Yet, one ought to be at least somewhat versed on the subject that one seeks to critique and be skeptical enough to double check both what one is being told as well as one's own positions.

I find that many atheists not only lack knowledge of Christian theology and the contents and contexts of the Bible but lack a basic understanding of natural theology / general revelation, which seeks to infer the cause of the universe from nature (nature not meaning biosphere alone but the universe as a whole).

Take a lack of knowledge of natural theology / general revelation - add to it a lack {of} knowledge of Christian theology and the contents of the Bible - mix that with a typically early age rejection of Christianity - blend it with the early, Sunday School, age understanding of theology - and finally bake it in the presuppositional oven of self-professed erudition and what do we end up with? . . . .

Ogaga4Luv:
[size=13pt]<sup>If u read my name clearly You'll notice i am from the southern part of Nigeria and our people are Christians mostly~ I mean , my name would have tell u i was a Christian and even then i wasn't an empty Christians just like u or some others who didn't care to search the Bible very well . I read the bible carefully with my brain understanding the whole Contradictions and deep secrets i realize '' Christianity ''- is just one confused and twisted side entirely . I have to quit very fast before it ruins my whole life-- indeed ,Christians are hypocrites for  obeying ignorance all these many years .

For nearly two thousand years Biblicists have been lecturing people on the importance of adhering to the Bible’s teachings on ethics, manners, and morality.  They quote Jesus and Paul profusely, with a liberal sprinkling of Old Testament moralism.  The problem with their approach lies not only in an oft- noted failure to practice what they preach, but an equally pronounced tendency to ignore what the Bible itself, preaches.  Christians practice what can only be described as “selective morality”.  What they like, they cling to and shove down other’s throats; what they don’t like, they ignore vehemently   .  That which is palatable and acceptable is supposedly applicable to all; while that which is obnoxious, inconvenient, or self-denying is only applicable to those addressed 2,000 years ago.  Their hypocrisy is so rampant that even the validity of calling oneself “Christian” is in question. I see so many people enjoy quoting the Ten Commandments, the Sermon on the Mount, and some of Paul’s sermons, but don’t even PRETEND to heed other, equally valid, maxims.  I’ve mentioned pro-life and conservatism in other sermons. This one is going to sum up the rest of my beefs.</sup>  [/size]

Many atheists exhibit a lack of knowledge of the very theism against which they most often, if not exclusively, argue - the Bible's Judeo-Christianity. Worse yet, they think that they are well versed by claiming that they were "raised Christian" (whatever that means), "went to Sunday School," "was an altar boy," "saw the movie (hyperbole intended)," etc.

I am not one to claim that you must be a theologian to speak on, or against, Christianity nor a scholar to speak on, or against, the Bible. That is to be reserved for scholarly settings. Yet, one ought to be at least somewhat versed on the subject that one seeks to critique and be skeptical enough to double check both what one is being told as well as one's own positions.

I find that many atheists not only lack knowledge of Christian theology and the contents and contexts of the Bible but lack a basic understanding of natural theology / general revelation, which seeks to infer the cause of the universe from nature (nature not meaning biosphere alone but the universe as a whole).

Take a lack of knowledge of natural theology / general revelation - add to it a lack {of} knowledge of Christian theology and the contents of the Bible - mix that with a typically early age rejection of Christianity - blend it with the early, Sunday School, age understanding of theology - and finally bake it in the presuppositional oven of self-professed erudition and what do we end up with? . . . .

“The above speech which shows the real intention of the Christian missionary journey in Africa was exposed to the world by Mr. Moukouani Muikwani Bukoko, born in the Congo in 1915, and who in 1935 while working in the Congo, bought a second hand Bible from a Belgian priest who forgot the speech in the Bible. — Dr. Chiedozie Okoro

muyoto:
Benny Hinn, Hagin, Kenyon, etc heretics?

@frosbel, just wondering, exactly what [/i]church do you attend?