₦airaland Forum

Fake. Look at the picture carefully and the suicide note is computer generated.

Stephen0mozzy:
Na you know the kain problem wey you get with god. My own wey I believe loves a cheerful giver.

The con men who bamboozle you love a cheerful giver.

Stephen0mozzy:
To each one his own.

God loves a cheerful giver, be cheerful in giving. But set boundaries that dem no go even was gaslight you into giving.

Dem don gaslight you already. “God loves a cheerful giver” says the swindler. Meanwhile, god is utterly incapable of saying anything.

Let me give you people an inkling of the Jew nonsense and Arab delusion you are venerating.

Today marks the beginning of the last 40 days of winter. Lent and Ramadan are borrowed superstitions from sun worship where the adherents suffer along with the sun as it battles the evil of winter to bring about spring.

Many moons ago, this clown used to advocate for people, now he has taken a seat at the table and is robbing the people. Tragicomedy.

ZombieDredd:
Continue quoting movies, e go clear for your eyes at the end of time.

At the “end of time”, change ceases to happen so noting go clear for my eyes.

ZombieDredd:
Repent and embrace Jesus Christ while there is time

Follow the leprechaun and grab the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.

ZombieDredd:
Don't worry
When you open your eyes in hell, you will remember this discuss and the demons will laugh at you

There’s a monster under your bed.

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.