₦airaland Forum

Sonofgod1990:
Which one is anti detect browser please

Message me

Sonofgod1990:
My phone ip don cast. I no fit use Facebook on my phone again. What make I do my good people. Best answer will be giving 3k asap

Use an anti-detect browser alongside a good vpn.

Dtruthspeaker:
Nope.

I am saying any reasonable and right thinking person can see that whatever is called science has it's due place and whatever is called religion has it's purposes.

But like atheists Lucifyre has come to show most people are not right thinking and being reasonable is a task too difficult for them.

😅 Didn't know i'm an atheist.

Dtruthspeaker:
That would be you confirming that you the pot. 😁

As our resident retard its no suprise a simple idiom still can't turn the rusted gears in your head.

Dtruthspeaker:
First science means "To know" while

faith is the use of knowledge.

But shallow people just brainlessly recite the shallow popular definitions.

Secondly, Proof and evidence and demand for proofs and are all matters under Law and not under science but many so called atheists are foolishly ignorant of this.

Thirdly, belief has nothing to do with Truth and Real eyeity for in Rufai Oseni's mind, he can believe today that Peter Obi is the president of Nigeria. And tomorrow it may be Trump. But that is his belief and belief is personal subject to a person's whim and control. So it is not a standard of measurement of Truth.

The irony of you calling someone brainless😄. I literally lol'd, pot meet kettle.

Legal action on behalf of an omnipotent being. 🤣 Some jokes write themselves.

Aemmyjah:
On the highlighted
Is it reasonable to reason with someone with such thinking?

If truth is subjective?
Who are you to argue or convince someone on the issue of faith

Where did i say truth is subjective or you need glasses?!

Nachmonides:
On faith again.
The original Greek text of Hebrews 11:1 is:

"Ἔστιν δὲ πίστις ἐλπιζομένων ὑπόστασις, πραγμάτων ἔλεγχος οὐ βλεπομένων."

Word-by-Word Breakdown:

1. πίστις (pistis) → Faith, trust, belief, conviction


2. ἐλπιζομένων (elpizomenōn) → Things hoped for, expected


3. ὑπόστασις (hypostasis) → Substance, foundation, assurance, confidence


4. πραγμάτων (pragmatōn) → Matters, things, realities


5. ἔλεγχος (elegchos) → Evidence, proof, conviction


6. οὐ βλεπομένων (ou blepomenōn) → Not seen, unseen



Literal Translation:

"Now faith is the substance (or assurance) of things hoped for, the evidence (or conviction) of things not seen."


If you're to be honest or take yourself to be a man of reason, you can't read that and say it is arbitrary belief without reason.


This definition of faith does not mean blind belief without reason but rather a deep trust in something not yet visible. It suggests that faith is an active confidence, not mere wishful thinking.

We must ask, why should one have confidence in something? — that means there's a past action, a premise that demands it. Then we should ask after, what is the past action and how can we prove it is true, using the methods available to us, scientifically.

I'll leave this here:
A scientist has faith in a black hole’s existence based on gravitational effects, even if they can’t see it directly.

A Christian has faith in God based on historical accounts, changed lives, and logical reasoning, even without physically seeing Him.

What does hoped for and evidence of things not seen mean if not exactly what it says. lol Science doesn't have faith in a black holes existence. Its demonstratable even if not seen. It relies on empirical observations and experimentation based on the constants of the universe which leads to testable, verifiable and falsifiable predictive models. Key word falsifiable. Absolutely not the same thing. Religion on the other hand relies on non empirical, unfalsifiable subjective sources with a lot of presuppositions and presumptions. Big difference.

Nachmonides:
Do you disagree?

Man you guys and gpt's. Don't know why you all rely on gpts to form your arguments, every single time. If i wanted to discuss with AI i would just do that on my device. Anyways even your response already shows the several problems with faith and proves what i said. And yes i have read, not even read studied the bible and not just that but the context around it using study bibles like the JPS Tanakh and New Oxford Annotated Bible With Apocrypha and materials from reputable scholars which unfortunately highlights the flaws.

Also i fail to see how my reading it or not reconciles the contradictions. Even right off the bat in the very first book you have contradictions. Contradictions that require you to renegotiate the texts in a bid to harmonize it which can be sometimes laughable. A pathway to truth that's not univocal?! Nah!

And no people don't accept the big bang and string theory on faith. They accept it cause it's demonstrable with evidence even if they don't fully grasp it. We have evidence of the cosmic microwave background radiation to demonstrate this. Also i never said faith is exclusive to religion i said it's mostly used in religious context there's a big difference. ALso there's no where else apart from religious context where faith is used to demonstrate truth. That's what i said.

The area where faith is used most is filled with so much confusion. We have at least 10,000 religions all claiming to be the right one. Of which a lot of people subscribe to these religions with faith and even in those religions you have denominations like the 45,000 plus of Christianity with claims where no 2 xtains agree on the interpretation of the texts from cover to cover.

Faith is subjective, Truth is objective, Faith is unverifiable, Truth is verifiable.... so it's flawed, rest is just semantics. Logic leads to verifiable objective truth. If faith is a pathway to truth how come so many subjective views?? Miraculous claims are dismissed from historical sources all the time to get the factual data. A lot of historical figures have mythological elements about them that are filtered out, even your cited sources which im sure if you read would have understood the diff between a mythological figure and a historical figure with mythological elements.

People believe stories about Alexander because he has numerous evidence outside the original claims. From other ancient docs from even people he fought to coins, inscriptions and other archaeological artifacts which same cannot be said for Jesus or 90% of biblical claims which one is meant to take on faith. Instead we find what makes the narrative questionable.

For example the census conducted during Jesus' birth when Herod killed new borns is not true, cause archaeological and historical evidence shows the census was conducted 10yrs after the death of Herod during the reign of Quiniruis. So the fact its based of evidence is mostly not even true lol! What evidence do you have for any of the extraordinarily faith claims in the bible. Talking animals, Exodus, Red Sea, Pillar of fire, Sun stanfing still, Flat earth?! Absolutely zero, instead what we find contradicts em instead.

Also the claim that Jesus' believers were willing to die ergo is true is apologetics 101. Is islam true because people are willingly die for the cause?? The gospels were not written by any eyewitnesses, they were written several decades after the events, and for such extraordinary events, no other sources records any of it save for the little mundane bits, zero detailed extrordinary bits

If faith is a valid method, there won't be 10,000 religions claiming they have the "right faith" and there won't be denominations claiming to have the right faith and killing each other for heresies. [b]How come no consensus or objectivity? [/b]That's why faith debates fact and embraces opinions instead of the other way. And please lay off the AI regurgitated responses, it's doesn't come across well, to put it politely.

Nachmonides:
On faith again.
The original Greek text of Hebrews 11:1 is:

"Ἔστιν δὲ πίστις ἐλπιζομένων ὑπόστασις, πραγμάτων ἔλεγχος οὐ βλεπομένων."

Word-by-Word Breakdown:

1. πίστις (pistis) → Faith, trust, belief, conviction


2. ἐλπιζομένων (elpizomenōn) → Things hoped for, expected


3. ὑπόστασις (hypostasis) → Substance, foundation, assurance, confidence


4. πραγμάτων (pragmatōn) → Matters, things, realities


5. ἔλεγχος (elegchos) → Evidence, proof, conviction


6. οὐ βλεπομένων (ou blepomenōn) → Not seen, unseen



Literal Translation:

"Now faith is the substance (or assurance) of things hoped for, the evidence (or conviction) of things not seen."


If you're to be honest or take yourself to be a man of reason, you can't read that and say it is arbitrary belief without reason.


This definition of faith does not mean blind belief without reason but rather a deep trust in something not yet visible. It suggests that faith is an active confidence, not mere wishful thinking.

We must ask, why should one have confidence in something? — that means there's a past action, a premise that demands it. Then we should ask after, what is the past action and how can we prove it is true, using the methods available to us, scientifically.

I'll leave this here:
A scientist has faith in a black hole’s existence based on gravitational effects, even if they can’t see it directly.

A Christian has faith in God based on historical accounts, changed lives, and logical reasoning, even without physically seeing Him.

...

Bahamas95:
These oyibo people with stories sef.

I wonder why we don't experience these things in Africa.

We experience them but instead attribute it to demons, supernatural and superstitious nonsense.

Nachmonides:
Alright.

Faith, in the biblical sense, is not believing without evidence but rather trusting based on sufficient evidence as I've said. The Scriptures constantly appeal to reason:
1:18—"Come now, let us reason together, says the Lord."

1 Peter 3:15—"Always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you."

As I've said.

Christianity presents logical reasons to believe:

Cosmological Argument – The universe had a beginning; therefore, it must have a cause. Who or what is the cause of this?—Scriptures tell us it is a being, God.

Teleological Argument – The fine-tuning of the universe points to an intelligent Designer. — Scriptures tell us this intelligent designer is God.

Moral Argument – Objective moral values require a transcendent moral lawgiver. Scriptures tell us this moral lawgiver is God.

Are you well versed in these I've mentioned?

Responded to your prev comments which also addresses these. And yes im familiar with the arguments which have been debunked over and over.

Nachmonides:
Before we go into the details, I'll say this and see what you have to say about it.

Alright.
Faith is ll....

Faith is logical because it is based on reasoning, evidence, and trust—just like how we operate in other areas of life. It’s not "blind," but a confident trust in the most reasonable explanation of life, morality, and existence.

Man you just info dumped on me, that's a lot 😅. It's all good though, I'd just try nitpick through. First before making assertions about what faith can be, you need to define what exactly it is and going by the biblical definition alone already contradicts almost all your assertions. Heb 11:1 which you quoted basically contradicts that "Now faith is the confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see". That alone doesn't even support your assertions in the first place.

Now if we take the literal definition(Britannica), it defines faith as "something that is believed without being questioned or doubted ". Another definition from same source states "to accept (something) as true without proof or evidence that it is true". The definitions alone floor your assertions, even the bible. So where do you get your assertions from. You're practically imposing what you want it to be to fit your assertions, like how you guys renegotiate your texts.

The very definitions of faith shows its not compatible with logic. Now i'm not saying faith is illogical but it is a flawed process, it's basically the least form of acceptance and there's a reason it's the least and that's cause it simply can't be used to establish truth whatsoever. It is non-logical. Also there's a reason faith is mostly only used in religious contexts to establish something is true and nowhere else. Logic on the other hand is applied virtually everywhere even computers, because its consistent and non-contradictory which faith is obviously not.

As for the evidence you talk about, anecdotal subjective evidence is not evidence. I'm not sure if you've read up any of the evidence or even the one you cited cause if you study it, it basically contradicts majority of what's in the bible and that's asides from the bible contradicting itself which is impossible with logic. i find it funny when Josephus and Tacitus are quoted by christains cause it doesn't even tell us anything about Jesus' life save for the fact that he likely existed and was killed for been a nuisance to the romans, nothing about his resurrection or miracles or details of his life.

And the refs are very short on the side mentions when discussing something else, so he wasn't even the focus in those sources, a short line or two in the docs discussing something else. Most other evidences(be it historical, archeological or textual) majorly contradicts what's in the bible just as it contradicts itself like i earlier stated. So it's virtually incompatible for faith and logic to coexist. Faith doesn't lead to a creator, it suggests creators of which your particular arbitrarily selected faith settles you on a creator/creators dependendent on if your faith is polytheistic or monotheistic.

Way too kafakaesque to be logical, so it can't be used as a pathway to truth. Truth is objective, demonstrable, falsifiable and replicable which doesn't work with faith at all, no matter the particular faith belief you settle on out of the numerous ones existing and those that have existed. Also you do realise your bible is the claim and not the evidence, so citing the claim as evidence is funny, circular and fallacious.

Nachmonides:
Interesting conversation here.

After a careful study of the Scriptures, one comes to the conclusion that faith in Christ is absolutely logical.

However, not many can articulate how faith is logical.
As an apologist, this is a crucial defense when engaging intellectuals who highly value reason and evidence.

After all, if God is, and is truly God, he gave us the ability to reason and be logical, therefore, he himself is a Mathematician of a very high order, as Paul Dirac would say.

Faith is not blindly following, it has a very heavy logical base as to why you should follow.
The scriptures say that God is not the author of confusion, and I agree.

How is faith logical or not blind following as you put it?

Truthseeker10:
Taking the bolded as fact has nothing on me. You can't even prove to me that a daily activity of a human or animal can be regarded as good and bad. So why should I take you seriously?

Lol! So as expected, no you can't. Anyways thanks for trying to demonstrate your fictional god and subjective contradictory bible and failing woefully at it. Hopefully your fictional incest loving deity helps you out next time.😁

Truthseeker10:
You've refused to tell me experiments that define what good and bad is in man and animals?

What Is your morality objective with yhwh?

Like i said you suck at this. Id take the bolded as fact😄

So I ask again:, can you demonstrate the existence of your particular god and satan, out of the thousands of gods and their adversaries (over 18,000)? Can you prove that your particular iteration, interpretation and translation of the texts given to you by your colonial masters, which you base your undemonstrable beliefs on, are factual and serve as the basis for this so called objective morality or frame work of good and bad😏?

Or are you only capable of repeatedly asking questions like a simpleton.

Truthseeker10:
The problem you have is that you are not being objective. I never told you that I believed in morality. You talked about where morality came from and I simply used your logic. You argued that good and bad are simply ideas of instinct even in animals. So what exactly is your morality objective when it comes to yhwh? Even if yhwh has committed genocide, on what basis can you call it bad?

What exactly in those experiments proves that good and bad exist? What is good and what is bad?

So I ask again:, can you demonstrate the existence of your particular god and satan, out of the thousands of gods and their adversaries (over 18,000)? Can you prove that your particular iteration, interpretation and translation of the texts given to you by your colonial masters, which you base your undemonstrable beliefs on, are factual and serve as the basis for this so called objective morality or frame work of good and bad😏?

Or are you only capable of repeatedly asking questions like a simpleton.

gohf:
real psychosis is thinking you can be wicked threat people badly and get away with it

Nah! Real pshycosis is taking subjective, undemonstrable and contradictory myth and fiction and treating it as objective reality. That's real psychosis right there and it's quite sad.

Truthseeker10:
Can you also demonstrate the particular iteration of beliefs in good and bad exists and the particular texts which you base this belief on are factual?

It's amusing how bad you are at defending your imaginary god, Michael. This is a new year, a new account, and yet the same old stale persistent questions and m.o persists. Nevertheless, I'll indulge you to demonstrate the shallowness of your thought process and educate you.

Firstly, faith & belief is what delusional people rely on. It's the least form of acceptance applicable to the least common denominator of people. For us, we focus on facts, facts which are observable, demonstrable, and replicable. Facts dont care of you believe ot not. Take note.

Moving on, you've admitted that morality is indeed subjective and contextual, as evident in the actions of Yhwh, the genocidal, infantile, sexual assulting and confused manaic. There are several studies that support this conclusion from observing humans and even animals to show its instinctual and contextual:

A. Nietzsche's Moral Relativism ("Beyond Good and Evil," 1886)
B. Existentialist Morality (Sartre, 1943)
C. Social Contract Theory (Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, 17th-18th Century)

These theories, along with several other works and journals online, outline the details. However, I'm aware that delusional individuals rarely engage in reading.

Some of the demonstrations carried out to make these observations and test the analysis include:

1. The Norm Formation Experiment (Muzafer Sherif, 1935)
2. The Capuchin Monkey Fairness Experiment (Fragaszy & Visalberghi, 1996)
3. The Trolley Problem (Foot, 1967; Greene, 2001)
4. The Infant Morality Experiment (Hamlin et al.)

All of these experiments are replicable and demonstrable, having undergone rigorous observation, analysis, and peer review. See how complex the verification process is?! And its this complex process that has established them as factual, rather than mere beliefs or "Trust me bro". 😁

So I ask again:, can you demonstrate the existence of your particular god and satan, out of the thousands of gods and their adversaries (over 18,000)? Can you prove that your particular iteration, interpretation and translation of the texts given to you by your colonial masters, which you base your undemonstrable beliefs on, are factual and serve as the basis for this so called objective morality or frame work of good and bad😏?

Or are you only capable of repeatedly asking questions like a simpleton.

gohf:
Like I wrote If you kill people children, God will kill your children one by one, he may even keep you alive and watch your grandchildren die one by one. It's will be so painful because you won't realize and will forget He is the one who gave life. You don't own life, not even your own.

If you think God is evil because He judges your wickedness and punishes you for it. Yes He give evil to the evil. He has no mercy or goodness towards them. You refuse to repent or change, you will suffer for the evil you enjoy.

When i say these christards are schizophrenic it sounds like a joke. Is this not full blown psychosis on display.😅

Truthseeker10:
So tell us how to prove that there is good and bad.


But don't you also think that the idea of good and bad is also superstitious? Don't you think it is just an idea created by humans to regulate other humans just like the God and satan superstitious concepts? If good and bad exists, then what are they?

For the second part common sense would have told you, you cannot disprove what hasn't even been proven to exist in the first place ergo my outlandish analogy to show you how dumb that is. You do not shift the burden of proof for outlandish claims without first demonstrating em. Common sense 101. Also pls outline where i said there is no good and bad?! So can you demonstrate your particular iteration of belief in god and satan exists and the particular texts which you base this belief on are factual??

Truthseeker10:
following your logic, I can say it is morally right. Since animals can kill themselves for food, and we have the same instinct as them, it can be morally right. Are you insinuating that it is morally wrong to kill because yhwh contradicts himself according to you?


If you cannot prove that there is no good and bad, neither can I disprove the ones that you've listed above since they are also result of instinct. I am simply following your logic. Do you agree?

Lol! Good. So morality is indeed subjective?! Thank you very much.

For the second part common sense would have told you, you cannot disprove what hasn't even been proven to exist in the first place ergo my outlandish analogy to show you how dumb that is. You do not shift the burden of proof for outlandish claims without first demonstrating em. Common sense 101. Also pls outline where i said there is no good and bad?! So can you demonstrate your particular iteration of belief in god and satan exists and the particular texts which you base this belief on are factual??

"Do you agree that God and satan are also results of instinct including the 25 headed snake of a lion that flies faster than a peregrine falcon? "
It seems you dont read or simply don't understand what you read anyways let me copy paste again.

"Yes the the ideas of god and satan are still based on same instinct. The instinct of knowledge, to understand and make meaning of the world around us. We tried to explain the world and how it works ergo initially came up with these concepts alongside other superstitions which could not even be demonstrated and you had to take it on "trust me bro".

Truthseeker10:
Oga you are funny oo....I simply asked you where good and bad came from and you gave me an answer. I asked a question that would make you confirm your answer. So why are you running away from your answer now?

Are you saying that good and bad does not exist? Is there a scientific way to prove that good and bad exist? If good and bad are products of instinct as you claimed, why Is God and satan and your 25 head snake not also a products of instinct that should not be laughable?

Lol! Ok! So let's turn your question back to you since you stand on the fact morality's objective. Is it morally right for humans to murder and slaughter scores of men, women, children and babies in the name of Yhwh like animals even when Yhwh commands not to kill thereby contradicting himself several times.

Can you prove that there's no 25 headed snake with the head of a lion that flies faster than a peregrine falcon?? 😁

Truthseeker10:
Lol....I gave you your cake back. You claimed animals and humans are alike in instinct. I asked you if it was 'good' for humans to murder other humans just like the animals. You dodged the question and expected me to answer yours?

You claim there are new ways of explaining things. So why have these new ways not explained what is actually bad and what is good? Why have these new ways not provided evidence to show that there is no God or Satan?

Lol! Ok! So let's turn your question back to you since you stand on the fact morality's objective. Is it morally right for humans to murder and slaughter scores of men, women, children and babies in the name of Yhwh like animals even when Yhwh commands not to kill thereby contradicting himself several times.

Can you prove that there's no 25 headed snake with the head of a lion that flies faster than a peregrine falcon?? 😁

Truthseeker10:
What do you think? Do you think it is also morally right for countries to fight wars and murder other humans?


So have these these new ways of explaining things helped us to agree on what is good and bad? Have these new ways of explaining things also proved that there is no God or Satan?

I like how you side stepped the question cause it virtually check mate's you. Anyways can you prove that there's no 25 headed snake with the head of a lion that flies faster than a peregrine falcon?? 😏

Truthseeker10:
So what you are telling me is that it can also be 'good' for humans to murder other humans just like animals right?

Why do you think that the idea of a God or Satan is laughable when the basic idea of good and bad is based on instinct according to your explanation? Don't you also think that the idea of a God or Satan is still based on the same instinct that creates the idea of good and bad?

Ok! So let's turn your question back to you since you stand on the fact morality's objective. Is it morally right for humans to murder and slaughter scores of men, women, children and babies in the name of Yhwh like animals even when Yhwh commands not to kill thereby contradicting himself several times.

Yes the the ideas of god and satan are still based on same instinct. The instinct of knowledge, to understand and make meaning of the world around us. We tried to explain the world and how it works ergo initially came up with these concepts alongside other superstitions which could not even be demonstrated and you had to take it on "trust me bro". Fortunately we found better ways to explain stuff by observing, analyzing and demonstrating what has been observed. And this new method basically shatters the old one at virtually every turn. So yes.

Truthseeker10:
Where does good and evil come from?

Good and evil are simply subjective conceptual frameworks shaped by our basic instinctual responses to the environment and influenced by social and cultural norms. The basic human instincts for survival, reproduction, self preservation, social connection, territoriality etc basically drives us to act the way we do and is context dependent which is why morality is subjective. You see the same thing in animals. Its not from some lord Yhwh battling some lord Satan, that's laughable and undemonstrable.

johnydon22:
In the Bible, you could find instances of Yahweh being many things, often times contradictory. In one instance, he would be a vengeful, jealous, anger-prone, and downright vindictive deity yet on the very next book, he'd be described as merciful without bounds.

In another, he would be hateful to those who don't worship him, recommend death for heresy and apostasy and command genocide for nations that worship other Gods yet on the very next book, he would be described as loving without conditions.

These features may be confusing as they in fact contradict each other, but it begins to make more sense when you understand the evolution of Yahweh as a character. The Yahweh of Peganic Yahwehism is different from that of Apocalyptic Yahwehism and that is also different from that of Talmudic Judaism and eventually different from Christian Yahweh.

The reason why Yahweh possess so many contradicting traits in the old testament is because they were describing completely different Gods.
Yahweh was a storm and war God initially, not unlike the god Ba'al - they were youthful deities. No other God had as much influence in the Yahwehic cult through antiquity like Ba'al - Yahweh ultimately assimilated feats of Ba'al like in Psalm 29 which is originally an old Canaanite poem for Ba'al that the Hebrews repurposed for Yahweh.

When Yahweh is described as this compassionate fatherly figure in the old testament, such a person is likely describing a later conception of Yahweh that had incorporated the characteristics of El the chief God of the Canaanite pantheon.

Yahweh the strong wrathful storm God is an older idea to Yahweh the fatherly compassionate wise God.

So, most often when these features contradict, the writer of these respective parts were imagining a Yahweh that was different from the other. The hot-headed storm deity that theologically competed with Ba'al or the fatherly compassionate El elevated to the Chief amongst every other God.

In this very evolution of the Jewish religion from Pegan Yahwehism to Aocalyptic Yahwehsim to Talmudic Judaism, you could see how the bible went from admitting the existence of other Gods, to admitting that Yahweh would defeat and judge them to ultimately denying their existence entirely.

Yahweh as a deity has gone through tremendous evolution and as a matter of fact is still evolving

Damn! That's one apt, factual and well researched comment that stands up to scholarly scrutiny. Rare around here. Just to add a tidbit of info that i found recently that you didn't mention, the name and characteristics of the Shadday gods which were also conflated with Yhwh and El whence comes El shaddai. Found it reading an excerpt of Mark Smith's Early History Of God & History of Biblical Monotheism. The material on the Shadday gods is pretty small though. Anyways to buttress your point, there is no god of the bible, different depictions for different audiences at different time periods, especially as you said affected by the evolution or as some say revolution from polytheism to henotheism/monolatry to monotheism.

Christards and their funny obsession with sex and what people do with their genitals, not even children are spared. Almost like a mental disorder. For a people who proudly claim to be exclusive products of concentrated incest, its no surprise there's an obsession there.

LoneSoldier:
I don't seem to understand how people get to worship and revere a God that doesn't love his creation, you serve and pay allegiance to a wicked God who you ignorantly think is loving...?

How do you leave with this kind of pretence, it's an irony to be sincere, let's take this country called Nigeria as an example, The most religious in the world and also the most poor and most corrupted country in the world with failed economy and bad leaders but the God you ignorantly pray to everyday is busy watching how men and women in the country die of starvation and poverty even you so called christians die in persistent sicknesses but you tame it as "He has gone to be with the lord in his heavenly bossom" and "He has made heaven finally" like what da hell, Your God that doesn't care one bit about your fûcking existence, is the same person you are glorifying for leaving you to die tragedily, is really a shame that your God is just a joke....!


The other less religious countries in the world are all developed, less crimes and corruption and good leaders, these countries knows that God is a big joke.... They know that he can't help them, so they work on themselves to ease a little bit of the suffering your so called loving God has placed on them, imagine a God that started a punishment on innocent humans, as if that is not enough also created hell for innocent humans to burn and rot in there for eternity....

A loving God indeed


Today is Sunday, everybody is in church praising and worshipping a murderer all in the name of serving God, and will also be given shit as a message of how God is good and that mentality goes into there brain day in, day out.... Preached by business men and women in the name of (prophet, prophetess, pastor, bishop, apostle) of God..... Is really a pity that so many people fall for this asshole called a God and his miscreants....!

All I'd just tell you to do is read and study the bible and context of it for yourself. Then you'd know not to conflate reality with outright fiction. It's all just fictional mythological stories about one tribal storm god deity. Somehow most people conflated this mythological fiction with reality. With some even indoctrinated by their slave masters which is pretty ironic. An omniscient being that has regrets and makes mistakes and contradicts itself, very funny. Yhwh is one of the most confused deities in mythology, maniacal, genocidal and throws tantrums on a whim. My fav story depicting his confused nature is that of Balaam. You can't come from a pov of reality to delve into fiction and expect it to make sense. Even those who've adopted this fiction as their reality can't come to a conclusion on what their objective relity entails.

englishmart:
HOW DO WE EXPLAIN THIS?
Matthew 2:23 And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the prophets, he shall be called a nazarene.

There are 17 books of the prophets in the Bible:

ISAIAH, JEREMIAH, LAMENTATIONS, EZEKIEL, DANIEL, HOSEA, JOEL, AMOS, BOOK OF OBADIAH, JONAH, MICAH, NAHUM, HABAKKUK, JEPHANIAH, HAGGAI, ZECHARIAH, MALACHI.

that prophecy that Matthew 2:23 talks about doesn't seem to exist in any of the above listed books, nor anywhere in the old testament. Where did Matthew come about that prophecy?

It's either the writer of Matthew, manufactured that verse, or the reference in the books of prophets was expunged.

Matthew is the most imaginative gospel. It had a set narrative it wanted and went around bending and fitting things into that narrative not minding the sources context or just straight up maufactured em. linguistically its the mist poorly written as well.

Dtruthspeaker:
Now you have shifted post to making accusations.

And the gymnastics is as a result of your own making in your deny the obvious evidence and Truth which you ended up admitted and confessing that it is indeed True.

So, as I said before you do not have any reasonable counter to give.

Still nothing 🥱