₦airaland Forum

ogastone:
Na so dem go de do wahala, wahala until na story we go hear if they fail. Why not coordinate themselves and win the game.
First na osimeniyi disagreement with co players, now na money issue, tomorrow na another one, mumu de play

When you work and you don’t get paid, make sure you “coordinate” instead of getting your rightful compensation.

Bukayo Saka somewhere in London thanking all
the gods that the only connection he has with Nigeria is his family name.

sonmvayina:
There is no evidence that Jesus actually lived, so what would a real historian write about him?

It would be like writing a “history” of King Arthur or Robin Hood, about whom nothing is known but their names and some far-fetched legends.

Was the magical sword in the stone historical, or the bible’s “virgin birth”?

A serious historian would know there is no real evidence that Jesus existed.

Just hearsay.

All that we have is a “big fish” story in which a minnow became a whale.

How did that happen?

It happened because the gospels are fairytale book with:

A virgin birth
walking on water
A ludicrous ZOMBIE APOCALYPSE
and so on…
As with other books of ancient mythology, we can’t assume actual events are being depicted.

Thus, we have to seek confirmation outside the bible.

But no one who lived at the time Jesus allegedly lived wrote a single word about him.

The earliest extra-biblical mention we have of Jesus is an implausible blurb in the histories of Josephus, written long after the fact, if there are any facts.

Furthermore, 92.4% of scholars who expressed opinions deemed the blurb a christian forgery, either largely or entirely.

The next mention was by the Roman historian Tacitus, a century after the fact, and he got Pilate’s job title wrong, strongly suggesting that he was quoting what he had heard Roman christians say.

And hearsay is not evidence.

Thus there is no actual evidence that Jesus existed, or any of his apostles.

An honest historian would conclude that he couldn’t write a history of Jesus, only conjecture.

Take the Jew plank out of your own eye before telling others about their eyesight.

Image123:
When people die in Nigeria, they say Nigeria happened to them. Maybe India happened to this person.

Nigeria happened to him but India tried to save him.

Meanwhile, if people from Nassarawa North experience similar ailments, they waste away and die in a nonfunctional hospital in Nasarawa South.

Mirasteel:
Indaboski bahose, the liquid metal.

Indaboski Bahose. Sounds like a cool name!! 😂

Kreesxxx:
This is why sometimes I reasoned along with Gumi. America would need to kill every Muslim to eradicate terrorism. It will be a collateral damage because it will involve killing the good and the guilty. Where this is not possible we may need to negotiate.

Religion has really made you people stupid. See how this one is calling for genocide.

Helinuss:
But Do I also need historical news to find out how Muslim dey kpai others and also kpai demself in the name of Allah. Park one side abeg

Christian, Jew, Muslim. All the same scumbags with historical and contemporary evidence.

runningriot:
That same information that you inadvertently refused to make good use of it objectively.

I do use it objectively, hence my post.

Dtruthspeaker:
The child did what, daddy calls a wrong on the authority, direction and cover of mummy who granted him the permission to take that which daddy said don't take.

Authority. Direction. Cover of mummy. None of these mean anything to the innocent toddler.
The child just wanted candy.

Dtruthspeaker:
And the toddler says it's mummy who said I should eat it. Which is a great defence for mummy is equal to daddy. And of which a correct mumm comes to stand in her authority and rights in front of the child against daddy should daddy seek to prosecute the child.

So the case moves from the child to mummy's rights vs daddy's rights.

So the battle is between the parents because the child did no wrong.

triplechoice:
Your resort to juvenile insult confirms you have no substantive response. My position remains clear and stands unchallenged . You addressed me based on a literalist assumption I do not hold. That was your error.

I have no tolerance for " gotcha" questions followed by incivility when they fail. Engage with someone like Dtruthspeaker who shares your premise.

This conversation is closed. Thank you.

You’re welcome!

Dtruthspeaker:
Sure.

Wheen you are told don't steal, you have also learnt that there is something called stealing. (Deepsight wanted to deny this at first only for him to confess it)

Yes, and i wouldn’t be accused of stealing if stealing if I don’t understand the concept of stealing. A toddler sees candy on the table and reaches for it. The father says don’t eat it and leaves the room. The mother shows up and tells the toddler to eat the candy.

Dtruthspeaker:
Just like they understood the concept of "do not eat the fruit"

They also understood the concept of “eat the fruit”.

triplechoice:
You are still evading.

My very first reply corrected the OP's premise by stating the story is not literal but allegory. That was me declaring my position. From that moment, you knew I did not subscribe to the literal "gotcha" framework.

Yet, you continued to address me as if I did.You ignored my correction and persisted with the questions that only make sense if directed at a literalist. That is your mistake: failing to engage the person actually in front of you.

You are now retroactively justifying this by saying, "The OP was literal". That is irrelevant. Once I entered the conversation to reject that premise, your choice was to either, defend literalism against my arguments,or engage with my allegorical position.

You did neither. You pretended my correction didn't exist and argued with a phantom literalist. This is why the conversation is stalled. You are not debating me , you are debating the assumption you refuse to update..


Since you pretend not to understand, a "gotcha" question is designed to trap someone in the logic of a premise they accept. You asked me questions that only function as a trap if one a accept the literal historicity of the story. Since my first reply rejected that premise, your questions became non-sequiturs , a failed ""gotcha"".

So answer directly and honestly; when you asked me those logical puzzles, was it because you take the story literally, or because you assumed I did? If the latter, you erred, as my position was clear. If the former, then defend your literalism and stop hiding behind your finger.


The discussion on "interpretation" was always secondary, a demonstration that even religious traditions support the non-literal genre. You've used it as a smokescreen to avoid the core issue you keep dodging. You misjudged my position from the start and refused the correct course.

The mistake is yours. Own it, or at least stop pretending you don't understand it. If not, consider this conversation closed. I have no tolerance for profoundly deceptive arguments.

Close it then. I don’t know why you are getting your panties in a bunch.

Dtruthspeaker:
Concept of law? Who cares about concept of law?

When your parents told you don't steal or lie, did you ask "concept of law" to understand it? No

But I understood the act of stealing and lying. You can’t fault the kid that has yet to understand the acts.

runningriot:
if you don't have anything to type read comments alone or leave the cyberspace rather peddling fallacies. Who are the Christians fighting? Just tell me one Christian terrorists group moving or hovering around with guns and bombs. Abeg face your atheism without dragging Christianity in it to have an engagement because you will be seriously engaged...

I can but information is at your fingertips and a little effort on your part will yield fruit.

FxMasterz:
Atheist, rest!

Jews have never been known to go cause trouble anywhere except to defend themselves from Islamic terrorists who believe that Christians and Jews must be eliminated from the world so that their Dhajal can manifest.

Christianity has never been known to cause trouble. If you'll talk about the inquisition, it was erring christians imprisoning and executing those whom they thought to be heretic. There was no war against any peaceful country like it's done in Islam.

If you'll talk about the Crusaders, it was an army of Christians who rose to push back the advances of the marauding Islamic terrorists.

Stop being a liar and face your Atheism in peace until.yoir judgement comes.

Christianity has never been known to cause trouble but here you are defending instances of Christian trouble.

Atheists are those who haven’t realized gods are arrant nonsense.

Rest!

Dtruthspeaker:
Is the Law "do not eat the fruit"? Yes

Did, they understand it? Yes, they did..

In their defence, did they say that they ate it because they did not know? No

Or did they say that they ate it out of necessity? No.

Rather they admitted their wrong doing but placed the blame on someone else . In law this is called "confession and avoidance"

(And this is where in American movies you hear the lawyer object that it is you who is testifying for the defendant meanwhile you cannot as you are not a party or witness in the suit)

As, I said read mens rea

How can it be a law when they didn’t understand the concept of law? I mean, they weren’t even aware of their own unclothedness talk less of the concept of law.

They basically obeyed whoever spoke to them last.

BlackViper:
There's no such thing as Abrahamic religion

Of course there is. It refers to any religion that venerate the god of Abraham.

Dtruthspeaker:
This is where you see that they were aware and understood the need to not eat the fruit. See mens rea

What do you mean by “the need to not eat the fruit”?

Also, if they had no understanding, how would they know or judge necessity?

Helinuss:
I dont think you are alright...how many times despite the huge factions among Christians, you see them carry weapons in the name of jesus and killing each other in the name of jesus. You will only see that in Islam. Call a spade a spade

Historical records and contemporary news are now at your fingertips. Avail yourself.

triplechoice:
You are conflating two separate debates to avoid addressing your initial error.

The core argument is about genre ( fiction vs literal history) not theological interpretation. You are trying to shift the goalposts because you are loath to admit your mistake.

You framed the story as a literal, historical report and asked a "gotcha" question about its plot's logic. My response was, and remains; The story is not a literal report. It is a foundational myth or allegory, filled with clearly non-literal elements, a talking snake,a magical tree. Its purpose is to convey truth through symbolism, not to document events. A child who understands the genre of a folk tale doesn't ask how it's possible for a tortoise to fly to heaven with borrowed wings, they understand the symbolic rules of the story.


By asking me your original question, you assumed I had a literalist view. That was your error. You should direct those " logic puzzle" questions to religious fundamentalist who share your literal premise, not to me.

It was only after I corrected your genre error that you deflected to "interpretation". I provide examples ( Jewish,, Islamic, Christian) not to say "pick one you like", but to demonstrate that even the religious traditions themselves largely treat it as non-literal allegory, each deriving different moral lessons from the same fictional or mythic base. This was evidence against literalism, not an invitation to relativism.

Your statement, "the key Jewish interpretation just leads to more questions", is the entire point. Allegories are meant to provoke questions and introspection. Literal reports are meant to yield factual verification. You're demanding factual answers from a parable.

Your deceptive tactic is clear. When your literalist "gotcha " failed, you retreated to vague talk of "interpretation" to pretend the core issue (genre) is unresolved. It is resolved.

The Adam and Eve story is a work of profound fiction. Accept that you misjudged my position from the start and that your initial question was a category error. Next time as ascertain if someone reads Genesis as history before asking them to defend its historical logic.

What mistake? The op is based on the literal angle, and my questions were based on that and your response to it.

You approached it from the allegorical angle and presented interpretations including the one you referred to as key.

Where is the “gotcha”?

triplechoice:
A key Jewish interpretation sees the "serpent" not as a devil, but as the yetzer hare, the human inclination towards selfishness or immediate desire. "God' in the context of the story represents our higher moral conscience or divine spark. The story, therefore, delineates the internal human condition, when we succumb to our lower impulses, " we "transgress" against our own higher nature and introduce suffering into our lives. It is an allegory for the birth of moral consciousness and its consequences.

“the key Jewish interpretation just leads to more questions“ and you said allegories are supposed to lead to more questions. So, how is that a “gotcha”?

I thought you would ask what questions it leads to, not take offense!!!

TruthHurts1:
The situation in Yemen is essentially like this:

Before 1990, there were two countries called Yemen:

1. The Yemen Arab Republic (YAR), also called North Yemen, which had its capital at Sana'a.


2. The People's Democratic Republic of Yemen (PDRY), also called South Yemen, with its capital at Aden.

These two states officially unified to form the current Republic of Yemen on May 22, 1990.

A separatist group called the Southern Transitional Council (STC) was created in Yemen on May 11, 2017 because the people of Southern Yemen no longer wish to be in a united Yemen and they want to go back to the independent status they enjoyed before the United Republic of Yemen was created in 1990.

To further complicate matters, you have a religious dimension with the Houthi Rebels who are Shiites.

Most Yemenis are Sunni Muslims, however there is a significant Shiite minority population led by the Houthis who are backed by Iran which is the largest and most powerful Shiite country in the world.

The Houthis are essentially fighting a Holy War against Sunni Muslims in Yemen in order to impose Shiite Islam on them, something which the Saudis who are staunch Sunnis have vowed will never happen.

So Saudi Arabia is essentially fighting on 4 opposing fronts:

They're fighting against the STC separatists;

They're fighting against the UAE who are backing the STC separatists;

They're fighting against the Houthi Shiite Rebels; and

They're engaged in a cold war with Iran who is backing the Houthi rebels.

Iran will probably want to drag its other regional puppet, Hezbolla into the conflict and things could get very messy, very quickly.

2026 is shaping up to be a frightening year for the Middle East with the way things are going.

Abrahamic religion, the disease that will end the world. Sunni vs Shia, Christian vs Jew, Jew vs Muslim, Jew vs everyone, Christian vs everyone, Muslim vs everyone.

On one hand, he should have thought of the suffering he will impose on his loved ones.

On the other hand, he had every right to quit this inherently meaningless bullshit if he was tired of making any sense of it.

DeepSight:
+
Long time, Mr. Man.
How you dey.

Well, sad as it is, let us bear in mind that that was an inter-state high way and along such high ways you cannot really expect the same emergency reaction you would expect within an urban area. Even in a developed country such as the US there are interstate highways where emergency reaction will be well delayed.

Before you bite my neck, I am not saying there should not have been suitable emergency frameworks in place oh.

Hey man. I dey kampe!
The interstates should have ambulances even before residential areas due to the traffic, road conditions, and distance to hospitals. On remote American roads, there are ambulances.

triplechoice:
No. it is not "pick your own interpretation" That's a serious or deliberate misunderstanding of what I said.

I explained the historical and textual context, not personal preference.

I said the story is a Jewish text that was composed and compiled within the Jewish tradition centuries before Christianity existed.

I further explained that within that originating tradition, for thousand of years, it has been essentially understood as theological allegory and myth, a story about human nature, not a historical report.

But thousand of years later , when Christianity emerged it developed a different theological framework (original sin) and reinterpreted the story to fit that new doctrine. This is secondary interpretation and it is what most people like yourself are familiar with .

So my point is not that all interpretations are equally valid. I never said so or even suggested it. My point is that to understand what the story is , its genre, its purpose and its original meaning. You must look to its source. The Christian literal and doctrinal reading is not an " alternativ,e". to the Jewish allegorical reading. It is a later theological adaption of it.

Ignoring the originating context and judging the story by a later foreign interpretation is to guarantee misunderstanding. I am not asking anyone to pick an interpretation. . I am asking anyone reading this, apart from you, to research the source of the text so they know the primary lens through which the story was meant to be read by those who created it. That's all.

It is a pick your own interpretation situation. You even gave an Islamic interpretation, Christian interpretations, and a key Jewish interpretation, which can be varied based on the school of thought. Also, I am aware of another interpretation that’s said to be based on the originating context and different from the one you presented.

Also, the key Jewish interpretation just leads to more questions.

Truthseeker10:
You can do exactly what you're asking me to do here. Argue with the chatbot and convince it that gods do not exist because you said so.

I’m not brain addled so I don’t need chatbots. You are the one dependent on it and copy pasting whatever it regurgitates.