haddeylium:


YES! You really don't have anything more to say.
I think this is a new knowledge to you. I think you need the study more than I do.
Go through what we discussed and meditate on it with proper research as Jesus admonished.

Thanks for your time

NL is your voice, I understand.
When a baby start saying blabla, he will be so excited and see it as new knowledge that no one has seen before. This is your case. But much more, you have excitement in dishonesty which a cradle never find excitement in.

I pray you allow your heart to grow right and receive knowledge.

IMAliyu:

I think that's were my problem lays, there are no rules or methods.

It's easy to argue things in an isolated theological framework, like for example how to pray or the existence of Allah in Islam with confidence, because the theology would be restricted by the amount of material available which will be the Qur'an and Hadiths(maybe), and there can be rules governing the place and interpretation of these materials.

But introduction an alternate framework, with just as much depth and material behind it, with its own theologians and everything goes out the window.

TThe human mind is something proven to not be 100% reliable. As we are filled with bias and often hold strongly beliefs we were raised on. So I don't trust that my own independent reasoning, no matter how self critical I could be that I'm not under the influence of some bias.
So a form of determining a truth that is independent of my personal perceptions is something I'm looking for.

Well my response isn't considering religion in isolation. No. It puts into consideration any religion you want to ascertain.

I dont like speaking about another man's religion else I would have given you case study of what I meant.

But the truth is, when the scriptures of various religion are subject to scrutiny and proper examination based on contextual, historical and interpretations, a reasonable reader will come to a decision. If it's done within the confined of their truths.

The key challenge is, it's likely you meet a wrong interpretation that will affect the outcome of your decision. But if interpreted within the limits of its true origin and history, the outcome will be definite.

Workch:
Then why can't you disprove the flying spaghetti monster claim?

If you try to, I'm just gonna shift the goalpost to where you can't reach. It's what you have been doing with your God.

It will strain you logically.

I will await a mature member of your group to comment so as to have discussion. You can hold the feeder till then.

haddeylium:


The same thing it means in Hebrew and English.
Yahweh is Salvation/YHWH is Salvation/ Jehofa ni Olugbala

That is what Jesu mean in Yoruba?

I rest my case for you if you aren't even truthful at this point. You have won with your untruthfulness.

Workch:
Why are you attacking me because you cannot disprove that flying spaghetti monster created your God?

Dude, it's just your logic that I am using against you, don't use it if you can't take it.
You want people who will not hit you with hard philosophical reasoning?

Don't argue with me if you cannot stand logic and reasoning. Stop getting too emotional

Attacking?

I guess you like using sweet words for yourself. Well it's good for you.

But for me, let the one who have the ability to read well and ready for conversation post. You don't have any of the two, hence if left to you, all post will become a joke.

So let people who can handle proper discussing comment.

Workch:
Little wonder 100 people can have 100 different interpretations to one bible verse.
All of them think their critical thinking and reasoning is correct since there is no method to verifiable or test any. It’s explains why we have numerous denominations making unscrupulous claims that contradicts each other.

And this is what you want rational people to take seriously?

Let someone who have understanding of discuss respond, you are clogging the thread.

Even your respond is already away from what he asked. Do you just respond because you feel like or you read properly before responding.

He asked a question on different sect, but your hatred for Christianity can't let you see beyond the false doctrine you have been taught.

Every of your text always make me pity you, because they reveal to me how badly taught you are.

Janosky:

Continue to WAIL,
You call Jesus with a letter 'J', rather than by his actual Hebrew name, you have NEVER said it's "corrupted".
But when JWs call JEHOVAH coined from YHWH, you are in Sifia pains.

You feel everyone is like you?
What is my own with JW. I guess sentiment of where you belong has clothed your eyes not to see the scriptures beyond a sect.

Janosky:


Numbers 6:27 ,2 Chronicles 7:14 & John 17:6, God have his name.
You have zero love for biblical truth.
Go & write your own Bible.

Name kò, Claim ni.
You even speak of bifocal truth

When tenant wants to seize the key from the house owner, na shame go end am.

haddeylium:


You called that theology? .
Your problem is Just the linguistic variation
Yes! They're the same sir.

The name Jesus is derived from transliteration of the Greek Ἰησοῦς(Iesous) and the Greek form is a rendering of the Hebrew ישוע‎ (Yeshua)
And Jésù is the transliterated form of JESUS in English.
They all have the same meaning

What does Jesu men's in yoruba. What kind of answer is this. What does Jesu mean.

Je-su. Give the meaning in yoruba.

IMAliyu:


What are your rules or at least the standards you use in your theology?

Like if for example I was looking at two different conceptual theological frameworks like Christianity and Zen Buddhism. How do I go about determining the validity/truthfulness of either with a degree of confidence?

There are no rules, your intellect and ability to critical reasoning is enough for you to know what's true. That's simple.

Workch:
You still cannot disprove that the Flying Spaghetti Monster created Yahweh.

You cannot because it will reveal the fraud in your argument.
You see?

It's true. I will send it to nursery class and give you a contact. Your argument will be perfect there. Where you can dance in circles with the cradles.

Workch:
i am hitting you with Russell’s teapot analogy.

It’s the best way to make you see how ridiculous your line of reasoning is.
you have been forced to accept that the Flying Spaghetti Monster exist.

You do not have an option because you need your god to exist to stay relevant. So it’s okay for Flying Spaghetti Monster to exist as long as your own god exist.

It’s Russell’s teapot and it rubbishes any religious argument.

The only thing you do is to make jest of yourself in the face of any intelligent reader. A run in circle and avoidance of questions already showed how weak your points are. You only end up rubbishing your knowledge and false post you created. They were oy premised on poor assumptions and illusion.


Remember, when a man go with the wrong tool to harvest, he will labor so much and still be complaining.

Workch:
Maybe next time when you start making bogus claims about your god and then putting it to an unverifiable point, you should note your logic can be applied to just about anything that doesn’t exist.
It will backfire

If you claims are right, the the Flying Spaghetti Monster claim is also right. They don’t contradict, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is only a higher creator, bigger than Yahweh

Like I said, go back to your study of science. You are still in formative year. You have so much questions you can't answer. Alt least I have asked you not less than 5 questions on NL that has no return. It showed gap in your study. You need to revisit your books and work more.

This will make your argument smart and appealing but for now, you are still a learner.

haddeylium:

https://biblehub.com/isaiah/42-8.htm

Aramaic Bible in Plain English
I AM LORD JEHOVAH, and this is My Name

Holman Christian Standard Bible
I am Yahweh, that is My name

The word Jehovah and YAHWEH were translated from YHWH (יְהוָ֖ה) in Hebrew and still has the same meaning


You changed James to Zames and still argue they are the same. What kind of argument is that.
I said word with different spelling can have the same meaning .
יעקב (Ya'aqov or Yakov) in Hebrew is spell as JAMES in English .
Different spellings and pronunciation but the same meaning.
Same with Yehoshua and Jesus


Yes! He did has a name that has been removed in more 7,000 places to hide it from you and it's really working.
King James Version
Psalm 83:18
That men may know that thou, whose name alone is JEHOVAH, art the most high over all the earth.

.. Your theology is funny.

So Jesus and Iesous means the same thing abi?

You need to go and take your study again.

If I may guess, you are likely from western part of Nigeria.

So tell me.

Jesu and Iesous means the same.

What is the meaning of Jesu in yoruba lexicon?

awesonjr:
“Father, forgive them, for they do not
know what they are saying.”

Is this how you will explain to a new convert that need such defence? Christian needs to start doing better than this.

Iyaebe:
He should keep quiet

Christian? This is a defence?

peteregwu:
Pastors like are not worth listening to. The bile calls them false prophet. Even jesus humbled himself and allowed John the baptist to baptise saying, "it is fulfil all righteousness". Which means baptism is part of righteousness which we have been commanded to obey.

Awon pastor to ti mu gbana ni eleyi na.

Is this a Christian defence to what he preached. If the early church do their defence like this, we will all be in hell by now.

chatinent:
Tell him to talk and justify tithes and offering and see him bite his mouth.


Pharisees!

How do you know. Are you so full of assumptions? Know people before talking about them, that is a good virtue.

Workch:
He is too complex to be described totally in any book, our level of understanding is still very low to describe him.

If we cannot totally understand the Christian god, is the the creator of the Christian god that we will comprehend?
Think about it, we need to properly understand the Christian god before looking to understand the Flying Spaghetti Monster: the creator of Yahweh

It's a perfect one for you. I guess you are short of defence again.

Like I have advise you, don't start discussion you don't have good knowledge about you will end up just moving in circle trying to defend yourself. Your topic is already flawed from the beginning. I presented to you simple questions but you couldn't even comprehend them.

You claim to be scientce inclined, yet you have little knowledge of the limitations of science.


You will do best to take time to do more study before coming out again to discuss about God.

That discussion is not for baby atheist else you will be giving such cradle argument as you did in your first post.

Workch:
The Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn’t need proper documentation, the tools in theology now are too limited to properly describe him. He’s too complex and that’s why he’s beyond the Christian god.

As we improve, we will get to know this truth

Good then, hold unto it and let him hold unto you. It's your God. As the scriptures also presented my God to me.

Workch:
This Flying Spaghetti Monster lives beyond space and time and the Christian god.

It must be true because the gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster said it?

When logic backfires

I guess you are only here to keep awake. There is no logic here you presented.

Christian presented a theology documented. If your God is a rat present the theology and documents to support this. Aside this you are only rolling on the floor in circles.

Workch:
Even if it finds evidence for Christian god, it can’t find for Flying Spaghetti Monster who created the Christian god.

The tools used by theology is very limited in doing that

Present the book the book for your theology, not a roll around. I am not here to disprove even if you say your God is a rat. But present it from your evidential domain. That's simple enough.

Workch:
Hupernikao, come on. You can’t run when I start using a simple Russell’s teapot against you?
I think that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is beyond the comprehension of theology and we need a more sophisticated tool to be able to figure him out. Theology doesn’t know all, it’s improving and still has limitations.

Maybe in few centuries to come, it will find out that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is the creator of Yahweh. I do not have to provide evidence for this, we don’t have the tool to find the evidence yet

Run?
You always think so much of yourself.

I have posed at least two questions to you here that you don't even have an answers. I left them because I want you to have time to think through them. Even if it takes you a decade. I am not in a rush.

And in your assertion.
To have forgotten, that Christian theology is documented, it doesn't give room for unnecessary extended research. It's not finding new things, it's examining what has been documented. Hence it revealed God within its context.

If you know any spaghetti that you can't find in the market, then present a theological book that explains it, let's examine it. Christian theology examine God within the revelation of Christ. You can present to me the book that gave evidence of your thoughts.

Workch:
If the theological tool can’t find evidence for god, I don’t see why we shouldn’t think it cannot find evidence for Flying Spaghetti Monster.

I think as the theological field is improving, it will find evidence for Flying Spaghetti Monster someday, unless you disagree that the theological field is improving

Who told you theology can't find evidence of God?

God is found all through it. Revealed in essence and presence. Well documented and preserved. Like I said, you may be able to find the spaghetti in a supermarket. Theology is for finding God.

Workch:
Same way the theological instrument is yet to find evidence for Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Maybe it will find it in future when it improves more. We all will then know that the Flying Spaghetti Monster created Yahweh.

Theology isn't even looking for that. It's not in its premise. We are sure of what we have and have believed. We are not of such that are troubled. If it is about God o. We dey, our conviction total.

So let the one with spaghetti go to supermarket to get one.

haddeylium:


Drag me where? You're not making sense at all
What you saying is 'I don't care if you're called Doctor, Father, or James' it doesn't change anything.
Ofcourse it does! Doctor, Father, God, lord are Titles. They're are not God's name. He has is own personal name like you do and he want people to call on his name that appears more than 7,000 times in the bible.

Due to different languages that exist, God's name can have different linguistics variation but they point is they have the same meaning
Yahweh/Jehovah/YHWH means He will become what he will be become/. He will prove to be what he will prove to be
Lord means having power over other person
Lord cannot substitute the above because they have total different meaning and that's desecrating God's word

Now, look at the list of God's name in different languages with linguistic variation but with same meaning
Arabic: يهوه (Yahwah)
Arawak: Jehovah
Ateso: Yahweh
Chin (Haka-Lai): Zahova
Chinese: 雅威 (Yǎwēi), 爺火華
English: Jehovah, Yahweh, Yehuwah
Japanese: Ehoba

Now, do you understand?

Brother making sense.

So I asked you, that Jehovah never meant YHWH. It was never what God gave. You are the one who changed a doctor to James. So if you have issues with it, it starts with you.


You changed James to Zames and still argue they are the same. What kind of argument is that.

Sadly too, trying to fix God in a name shows a gap in Bible study and understanding. Is Jehovah a name or description? God? Has a name? You are really funny.

Workch:
What if I say the theological tools is limited and cannot find this yet?

Then it is not in the domain of such. Find the domain where it exists and can be proven and present it. Theology is sufficient enough to prove a fundamental character of its study, God. The knowing can be extended, but the existence must be evident in such theology.

Workch:
I'm not going to answer a logicallly flawed loaded question.

How are you sure that God exist?

I'm not sure and that's why I don't believe it.

You will need to study more o.

This one that I had time to even drag you into your observatory and instrumented scientific domain, you refused to answer. I hardly even want to talk to that. I won't push you far.

I prefer facing my theology. That's where the full assurance of God is. Unshaken, convinced, immovable, persuaded and assured.

Workch:
So it means that the Flying Spaghetti Monster also exist and I believe his claim that he created the Christian God. We just need the right tool to test this claim

That logic also applies to that right?

Well present the theology for us to examine.

That's the domain where the prove lies. So present it.

haddeylium:

Reason I employed you to think carefully before replying.
Ofcourse! There's is no letter J in Hebrew alphabet but Hebrew names today have letter J because they're translated.
The same way I'll translate JOY in English to AYÒ in Yoruba. They're the same.

Did God give a J. All the places I'm the Bible where you see YHWH, was it Jehovah God gave? No.

So why flog this. You changed the name to suit what you wanted. A Jew will argue with you that his God is not Jehovah and that you truncated God's word. Why because of spelling, translation and change of words. This is the same you are doing now. Which both are very unnecessary. But since you want to tread that path, I chose to drag you there.


So, whether Jehovah, YHWH, Lord, God. These never affect the textual meaning and interpretation of the scriptures when done well. That is the Summary.

Workch:
Dude,

I don't have 100% certaintyand that's why I don't believe it. It's very illogical to believe things you are not 100% sure about.
If you have 100% assurance that he exist then how did you get that complete level of certainty?

The same way you have 100% assurance that electricity exist true scientific rules, same way I have 100% assurance of God's existence through theological rules. That's the right tool for the right harvest

Workch:
Theology must not be confirmed by science.

You don't need science to go to hospitals and grow an amputated limb that has verifiable hospital records.

You don't need science to recreated a man walking on water to prove that it happens. You only need a simple way that it can be verified outside of a book written by bronze age herders that didn't know that earth is spherical.


We don't need science to verify that humans cannot be born without fertilization, it's common sense and unscientific data findings can test that.

You have moved again from the question asked.

Do you use science to prove the love of your friend to you? Or you trust him? These are simple questions.

Love exist, but do you take them to lab to proof this?

Last last, there is still an element of trust in you even without scientific instrument.

See, there are over a million things in existence that science is still yet to know or struggling to know. Knowing God isn't close for now.