₦airaland Forum

lawani:
So you are assuming he was the only one armed of the thirteen and not that the others just felt they were outnumbered and that resistance would be futile?

lawani:
Are you now saying it's ok for only one of them to be heavily armed? Then why did you say it is wrong when done by others?

lawani:
Police in China are generally not armed. It does not mean they are never armed

lawani:
When Jesus was to be arrested his disciples attacked the soldiers with weapons
Jesus and his followers never ventured out without being heavily armed.

lawani:
Jesus himself attacked people physically in the temple with whips saying they turned his fatger's house into a market

lawani:
So don't say what you dont know. It is like you were blindfolded when you went to China

Roycemadeit:
Understanding a law does not mean every person will obey it, which is why societies have law enforcement.

Roycemadeit:
The mere presence of guns does not explain whether a society is peaceful.

lawani:
They achieved their peace and prosperity by understanding.

lawani:
In a place kike China the police don't carry weapons and your Bible teachings and beliefs can't take over the world even at gunpoint. Some people would rather die than believe nonsense. Your Christianity and it's twin Island tried gunpoint persuasion severally it just didn't work.

Roycemadeit:
If a people can create peaceful and cooperative societies through reasoning, laws, institutions and shared civic values, why must they invoke God or a particular religious organization to explain those achievements?

Roycemadeit:
If a ]people can create peaceful and cooperative societies through reasoning, laws, institutions and shared civic values, why must they invoke God or a particular religious organization to explain those achievements?

Roycemadeit:
Japan, Sweden, Norway and Denmark. Christianity is not what explains their social order, yet they have built highly peaceful and functional societies through human institutions, cooperation and shared civic values.

Roycemadeit:
That isn't the question I asked.
You keep proving that nonviolence is desirable, then assuming that it proves your organization is God's organization.
Where does the Bible establish that nonviolence, preaching, unity and love are an exclusive test for identifying one modern organization?
Your argument is:
“My organization fits the qualities, therefore God chose it.”
But I am asking you to prove the missing step:
“God established these qualities as the exclusive test.”
You haven't proved that. You keep changing the question instead.
That's the deflection.

ifenes:
Humanity does not need another identity to separate us. We need more humanity.

Roycemadeit:
MaxInDHouse, the circular reasoning in your argument is becoming very clear.

Your reasoning is essentially:

1. You interpret certain Bible verses as describing the identifying marks of God's true organization.

2. You find that your organization has those characteristics.

3. You then use the fact that your organization has those characteristics as proof that your interpretation of those verses was correct.

4. You then use that “correct” interpretation to prove that your organization is God's organization.

That is a circle.

The problem is that your interpretation is being used to validate your organization, while your organization is then being used to validate your interpretation.

I am asking you to break that circle.

Where does the Bible independently establish that your particular combination of peace, love, preaching, doctrinal unity and nonviolence is an exclusive test for identifying one modern organization?

You haven't established that. You have simply shown that your organization fits the interpretation you have constructed.

And when I question how you know your interpretation is correct, you point back to the same verses and your organization's “fruits.”

That isn't independent evidence. It is self-validation.

Before telling me that I am “deceiving myself,” establish the missing premise.

Don't use your conclusion to prove your premise, then use the premise to prove your conclusion.

AntiChristian:
Truth is truth regardless of whether it's botanical or not. I asked if these your thought process is a JW-thing or otherwise. Speaking about violence Jehovah is not free from it in the old testament. Don't let me stress that up.

AntiChristian:
Did Jesus create himself? His mother?

AntiChristian:
So truth is false when the audience are ignorant. Is this a JW thing or such is Biblical?

AntiChristian:
No, it won't divert their attention had Jesus said the mustard seed which is (one of) the smallest seed around...Jesus wasn't omniscient as he claim he never knew the hour. So it is not certain he knew this.

AntiChristian:
Okay tell me, do you think the mustard seed is the smallest seed in the world?

AntiChristian:
Do you think Jesus had the knowledge that some form of orchid seed is the smallest seed in the world?

ifenes:
Atheists don't believe in any rewards system. When they help someone, it's not because of heaven or escaping hell...they expect nothing in return. Now tell me, who will god respect more ?

Roycemadeit:
Every religious group can claim the same thing. A Muslim, Catholic, Protestant, or another sect can search sincerely and reach a different conclusion. Your conviction proves that you believe you found the truth, not that you actually did.

Roycemadeit:
[b]God's standard is too high, but it is the believers who become certain of their own righteousness deem their judgment of themselves for God's judgment of them.

jaephoenix:
Show me

jaephoenix:
Bro, maybe I'll stop debating with you. You don't answer questions, but instead deflect it to answer a different question.

Roycemadeit:
Other religious groups can demonstrate the same commitment to their own beliefs.

AntiChristian:
So calling what is not the smallest in the world the smallest in the world is truth to you?
Alright o!

Roycemadeit:
You say your group is the one fulfilling what the Bible says. But isn't that precisely what virtually every religious group believes about itself?

AntiChristian:
In the whole world?
Alright.
Even if Jesus lies that's the truth!

Roycemadeit:
You said the correct attitude is reading, meditating, and humbly asking questions. But how does the reader know his interpretation is correct rather than merely his own?

Roycemadeit:
You also have not shown where Scripture makes peace, love, preaching, doctrinal unity, and nonviolence an exclusive test for identifying one modern organization. Teaching these qualities does not mean they uniquely identify one organization.

Roycemadeit:
Your appeal to Revelation 6:3-4 and Satan “blindfolding” people is another interpretation, not proof. I asked you to establish a premise, but you quoted another verse and asserted a conclusion.

Roycemadeit:
You also said humble people will gather, but did not explain how we know they are genuinely humble or correct.

Roycemadeit:
You left my question about Isaiah 2:3 unanswered: What does “the Law” mean in its original context, and why expand Isaiah’s reference into different books that did not exist, yet?

Roycemadeit:
What guarantees that the person say, MaxInDHouse, answering those questions has correctly understood the verses rather than simply imposing his own interpretation?

Roycemadeit:
How does the reader know that his attitude is the correct one?

Roycemadeit:
What objective standard determines that?

Roycemadeit:
Where does the Bible establish that peace, love, preaching, doctrinal unity, and nonviolence are collectively an exclusive test for identifying one modern organization?

Roycemadeit:
[b]“My organization fits the characteristics” does not prove “God chose my organization.”

AntiChristian:
Yeah he is not teaching botany but he can't teach the truth with a lie. Is Mustard seed the smallest seed on earth? No. It is false!

AntiChristian:
The same seed is not known to us. People can learn about what they don't know. Jesus was a teacher so why couldn't he teach them but instead proclaimed a falsehood in his teachings?

AntiChristian:
I have a 5 year old almost 6. He would never understand what "bread of life" may mean