₦airaland Forum

Tamaratonye5:
That actually rhymes, lol

That sounds hot . Are you suggesting a romantic interlude for one, hmmmm?***

Oh yeah, the obligatory stab at the theory of evolution; firmly establishing yourself as a crackpot, lol.

The entire scientific world disagrees with you, as does all the objective evidence. This also includes Francis Collins, head of the human genome project, and a world leader in genetics, and he is a born again christian. Now despite his religious beliefs being based on risible unevidenced guff, his scientific credential are beyond repute, so this rather destroys your dishonest guff here.

That would be nature with untold ubiquitous suffering from disease and predation? Your rhetoric is painfully and obviously nonsensical here as it is elsewhere.

I use a term of reference that is not determined by a "god". Question: If your "god" declared that slavery was moral, would you also accept that slavery is moral?

In the interests of fair play, my position is that any form of slavery, including indentured servitude, is immoral.
My bubble isn't bursted. In fact, this is a compliment of the highest order. Thanks a lot.

Sorry to burst yours though, but that is a theistic claim, not an atheistic one. [MuttleyLaff]

Tamaratonye5:
Oh I think your post has pulled that rug from under every atheist viewing this thread.

Not one word of that is objective evidence, it’s just vapid rhetoric.

Logic is a method of reasoning that adheres to strict principles of validation. You’re making up errant nonsense, and simply tacking the word logic to it, and you clearly haven’t even the most basic grasp of what logic is. Let alone understand it’s methods, including recognising and avoiding known logical fallacies, like the argument from assertion fallacy you seem determined to use to death in your posts

Again you should start by actually looking up the definition of logic, as you’re embarrassing yourself, and faith is utterly useless in validating claims or beliefs, as there is quite literally nothing one could not believe using faith. As I keep asking, if you believe something without any objective evidence, or based on faith alone in other words, then what is your criteria for disbelieving anything?

I don’t believe you, pleased demonstrate objective evidence for your claim.

Scroll up to see response from world leader in the field of genetics. There is no intelligence in DNA, this is another tedious unevidenced assertion. Creationism is naught but unevidenced superstitious guff, there is nothing to throw out.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, about Paul:

"Faith in gods" can enter your life in many ways. It can be ingrained through childhood indoctrination or imbued through innocent wonder, or you embrace it later in life through some epiphany brought on by intense existential turmoil or some desperate circumstance. Once gained it is hard to dismiss. But, like many people experience, as I did, once the "scales fall from your eyes", and you can no longer hold on to the old truths and beliefs, its veritably impossible to return to them. Once you see the old woman in the puzzle picture you can't stop seeing her over the young woman.

YHWH, Jesus, Holy Spirit. It depends if you are a Trinitarian, Unitarian or some merge of the two. For all I know there are still Manichaeists, Docetists, Arianists out there. My brother in law identifies as a Catharist. I try to be politely inclusive, despite my own disbelief.

You already know about the claims made about the contradictions in the Bible. They have been around for centuries. I find many to be the outcome of translations, editings, redactions etcetera etcetera. Contradictions aren't necessarily indications of deceit, just error.

The fact remains there are inconsistencies all through the books of the Bible, from contradictions to glaring editorial conflicts. I would expect such for a publication with a such a long and confused history. I do not consider myself ignorant of understanding divine matters, despite my atheism, that's just more of your prejudice. Though I am no longer in thrall of the supposed universal truths claimed to be in it, I still find the Bible fascinating on many levels. I recognise there are certain passages that contain good advice and considered evident wisdom, so too does the Analects of Confucius and even the Quoran and other religious tomes. But as I value truth, I still feel it my duty to challenge beliefs of all sorts, not out of any animosity but out of hope for better understanding for both parties.

The next verse, Titus 1 16, begins "They profess that they know God". Titus is talking about hypocrites. Yes I am an atheist, but the purity Titus talks of is the purity of faith and belief. I profess none of that. Any other inference is just an intolerant pious insult.

You want me to persecute someone on the basis of their name?

I have evidences of various kinds and from diverse sources that point to the suggestion that Paul subverted the Christian faith and some of his writings reveal his resentments for Peter and the Jerusalem apostles that do not reflect brotherly love, but rather jealousy and bombast. If the two resolved their differences I am inclined to think it would mostly be due to concessions Peter made, as per 2 Peter where he encourages the reading of Paul’s epistles with a passing note on their difficult content. I note Paul makes no mention of Peter in 2 Timothy. That they both were in Rome when they were executed, there is no record I am aware of that suggests they "preached together" as is claimed on some theist site. I admit to no religious faith but that sort of faith is not a reliable tool for reaching the truth, it only propagates determination not to be swayed from the dogmatic concept of "absolute truth".

My real purpose is to ask how certain professing Christians are that they are following the true teachings of Christ. Can they be absolutely certain Paul did not dishonestly subvert Jesus’s insistence to observe the Mosaic laws. On the face of it Paul's writings only served the purposes of making Jesus's teaching more attractive for the squirmish tastes of Gentile men ("Cut off the end of their what??!!) and Gentile gourmets (but I love oysters!), so how are these concessions are compatible with the god of Abraham and consistent with a imperative belief in him? It just seems like one of the greatest marketing ploys of all time and one of the most successful cons ever. Frankly I think the Essenes, who still exist, are probably a closer fit to what might have been the original teachings of Jesus.

I don't care to comment on whether Paul was damned or not, I've certainly never said I hated him as you suggest. I have describe him a pyschopath (a non judgemental psychological condition, like depression), a sufferer of TLEs (temporal lobe epilepsy, another medical condition), a liar (arent we all? see the plank in my eye?) a manipulator (passive aggressive or just aggressive or both?) and an narcissist (I have dealt with several diagnosed as such, the bona fide ones reject the notion that they are). There’s not much reason there for me to hate him; he hasn’t subverted any faith of mine. I have friends that display these traits, but they've had hard lives and I cut them slack. I see Paul more of a human victim, as much as I see Judas a victim. None the less I maintain Judas betrayed Jesus and Paul subverted his message and for this Christians resent me.

I really do have a friend named Atilla. He's six foot five and an exceptionally kind human being. I feel no need to take anything out on him. He is no Hun
***Maybe I did learn some from MuttleyLaff after all. "hmmmm?.. sounds really sexy lmao

budaatum:
Yada yada

budaatum:
So, you expect buda to go looking for evidence to support your assertion despite the fact buda already posted evidence that disputes your claim?

Please try really hard not to quote buda until you learn not to use the brain inside your head to fabricate baseless lies.

budaatum:
Stop with the yadayada and assertions. You went to school and got a degree I hope, so must have learnt how to cite & reference.

Provide some for your claim please or just say an angle told you or something so we all know where you're at!

budaatum:
You wanna provide source for this claim of yours please?

budaatum:
I hope it is clear as day to you that those who insult buda die and become nobody.

Dtruthspeaker:
I noticed you come out here in the morning, so I am going to raise a Thread just For You, and I'll battle you there.
i give you the option of laying the Rules of Engagement. (Which you will refuse as is your practice)

Should you reverse the choice of the Rules of Engagement to me as you usually do, I thus set and Choose, All the Rules of Natural Truth, the Evidence Act, Natural Law, The Objective Ordinary Reasonable Man and Prohibition of All Fallacies of any kind, And Directly Answering Reasonable Questions put forward to you in a Positive way that Resolves the Question eg what is your name? Answer= my name is Tamaratonye (which you hate doing).

Ehen, no after-thoughts and You Must stay online to proceed with the argument expenditiously.

Put forth your own Rules of Engagement that I may meet you therein. (Even this one, argument go still enter am )

Thank God tomorrow na weekend so she no go get reason to dey talk only once a day like malaria medicine.

petra1:
The gift of God in you is to minister to others not yourself. Thats why Some healing ministers could be using eyeglass to read yet healing others of blindness. Personal healing of a minister is by his personal faith not by the gift he possses

od4life:
Hmm...I agree. But then it is an anomaly for ministers or pastors to sell healing materials or items. Such pastors tend to commercialize the gospel & God's divine power, which should not be so.

pauloskie38:
HOW would you define faith? Some equate it with blind belief. Influential American essayist and journalist H. L. Mencken once called faith “an illogical belief in the occurrence of the improbable.”

The Bible, in contrast, describes faith as being neither blind nor illogical. God’s Word says: “Faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities though not beheld.”​—Hebrews 11:1.

Given the different opinions about faith, let us consider the answers to the following questions:

• How is the Bible’s definition different from what many refer to when they talk about faith?

• Why is it vital that we develop the kind of faith that the Bible describes?

• How can you build strong faith?

A Title Deed and Solid Evidence

At the time of the writing of the Bible book of Hebrews, the Greek term translated “assured expectation” was commonly used. It often appeared in business documents and carried the idea of a guarantee of future possession of something. Therefore, one reference work suggests that Hebrews 11:1 could be translated: “Faith is the title-deed of things hoped for.”

If you have ever bought an item from a reputable company and then waited for it to be delivered, you have exercised that type of faith. The sales receipt in your hand gave you reason for faith in the company from which you bought the item. In a sense, that receipt was your title deed, your guarantee that you would receive what you purchased. If you had lost the receipt or had thrown it away, you would have lost the proof of your claim of ownership. Similarly, those who have faith that God will fulfill his promises are guaranteed to receive what they hope for. On the other hand, those who do not have faith, or who lose it, are not entitled to receive the things God promises.​—James 1:5-8.

The second expression at Hebrews 11:1, translated “evident demonstration,” carries the idea of producing evidence that contradicts that which only appears to be factual. For instance, the sun appears to revolve around the earth​—rising in the east, moving through the sky, and setting in the west. However, evidence from astronomy and mathematics reveals that the earth is not the center of the solar system. Once you become familiar with that evidence and accept it as true, you have faith that the earth revolves around the sun​—despite what your eyes tell you. Your faith is not blind. On the contrary, it gives you the ability to see things as they really are, not merely as they seem to be.

How Important Is Strong Faith?

This is the type of faith that the Bible encourages​—strong faith built on solid evidence, even if it requires that we adjust our beliefs. Such faith is vital. The apostle Paul wrote: “Without faith no one can please God. Anyone who comes to God must believe that he is real and that he rewards those who truly want to find him.”​—Hebrews 11:6, New Century Version.

There are many challenges to developing strong faith. But if you take the four steps discussed on the following pages, you can succeed.

jamesid29:
Interesting breakdown. Never really taught of James 1 that way.
Well done sir

MuttleyLaff:

---

---

---

"²³Jesus replied, “Why do you say ‘if you can’?
Anything is possible for someone who has faith!”
²⁴At once the boy's father shouted,
“I do have faith! Please help me to have even more.”"
- Mark 9:23-24

If I honestly go in front of my microwave and patiently wait for the Nairaland web page to load up on it. Will my faith be justified? Will I have results/answers of a Nairaland web page appear before me anywhere on the microwave?

There is little faith, there is pseudo/false faith, there is weak faith, there is ignored faith, there is having no faith, there is room for more faith, there is et cetera faith

MuttleyLaff:
Sometimes, it is good to be honest about the sort of faith one has and be humble about it too

MuttleyLaff:
What's your beef with this legitimate usage and akin to a biblical definition here now?

"Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in the Spirit and in truth,
for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks"
- John 4:23

Are you familiar with Hebrews Chapter 11:4-40 heroes of Faith? I am specifically talking about the famous "hall of faith" register book, hmm?Abraham et al willingness and/or preparedness to have a strong belief in God, based not on spiritual apprehension without immediate proof, but just sheer stark nakéd faith, earned him and others, a mention, a place and/or position in the greatly desired or enviable Hebrews chapter eleven "Hall of faith" or "Faith Hall of fame".

The giants in the corridor of the enviable Hebrews chapter eleven "Hall of faith" or "Faith Hall of fame" exercised one kind faith of the other that was taken by God to qualify as a semblance of righteousness acceptable to Him.

These great men and women of Hebrews chapter eleven "Hall of faith" or "Faith Hall of fame" didnt have the benefit of John 4:23 above, that we are enjoying but they saw far, yet none of them before they passed on, received all that God had promised, however the thief on the right hand side of Jesus on the cross saw into the future as well, believed what he perceived, so publicly acknowledged the innocence of Jesus and equally thereafter confessed the divinity of Jesus looking forward to be remembered.

kkins25:
“For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”
Genesis 3:5 NIV
https://genesis.bible/genesis-3-5

... i have a problem with the loquacious budaatum ... Enlightenment is a gradual process, there is no excuse for his misandry speech.
The douchebag thinks i am pained about his speech, why should I ...?
The effeminate buda once called men that dont marry/date soldier women pigs. One should draw the battle line betweeen advocating for equality and bullying men for their choices. How can a man refusing to marry a non feminine woman be called a pig for his choice? To have a choice or spec automatically makes you a misogynist.

Muttley, please advice your effeminate frenemy budaatum that is stripped off of all masculinity and a vagina worshipper ...

budaatum:
[s]First, thank you for taking the time to carefully consider and responding with rather unusual minimal yadayada. I appreciate both and will maintain conversation until both disappear as they usually do with you[/s].

budaatum:
To die, is to pass away, perish, to relinquish life, to become dead from any cause and in any circumstances. It is the simplest, plainest, and most direct word for this idea, and is used figuratively of anything that has once displayed activity: An example would be 'the Ancient Egyptian civilization has died', as has my very own father.

I do not see how any of that happened to Adam and Eve, so perhaps define your "die" or explain the lie the serpent played.


So the book says. A line between the living and the dead. And we can confirm this with our own eyes if we'd ever lost anyone to death, which I can't say happened to Adam nor Eve, not till 100s of years after, at least.

budaatum:
As to the tree bit. I do not think it was just a tree and what they ate was food and I would question anything that sets "boundaries and/or limits" to anything that can be construed to be knowledge because it just sounds like boko haram to me.

budaatum:
I definitely do not think you have the abilities to be setting "boundaries and/or limits set" for buda since buda is not your pikin!

budaatum:
You're saying they wanted to own their own garden and have other Adam and Eves working for them?

budaatum:
Do note that in all that's above, you've said "they died" and "they became gods". Lol.

budaatum:
Hell yes they became small gods with their own little garden which was painful to toil but still provided them food to the end of their days and on it were they buried when they did actually surely die! They even went further and out of very severe painful childbearing labor, and desire, created Cain and Abel and Seth to labour the land for them. They could not have done any of that if they had remained ignorant and enslaved and beholden within the "boundaries and/or limits set" by that which you call God in the Garden of Eden!

kkins25:
I dont remember being taught that satan or rather a talking snake explicitly said the would be exactly like God.

kkins25:
So what half truth did he say? Like God is very different from being God i assume. Unless, i nees to do more studies.

Tamaratonye5:
RE: PAUL OF TARSUS
Ok, lol.

Tamaratonye5:
I know breaking it down in pieces to spoon-feed you will be a thankless effort given your apparent obstinacy and dogmatic idiocy, as well as your penchant for dishonestly twisting basic concepts, but I'll give it a shot anyway for the sake of viewers. This part of the conversation has been dragged unnecessarily long enough already

Tamaratonye5:
Faith: (your usage)
complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
(Synonyms would be trust, confidence, hope, conviction.)

Tamaratonye5:
The problem is in the theists definition:
Strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof. "rather than proof", faith itself is the evidence according to scripture.

Hebrews 11:1
"¹ Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen…"
"³ Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God,
so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear."

In Theism:
FAITH is the proof. It has nothing at all to do with your usage of the word.

Tamaratonye5:
It's just an observation, with a suggestion in tow. No apologies there at all.

Tamaratonye5:
No, it doesn't

Tamaratonye5:
You're trying too hard

Tamaratonye5:
I was making an observation, not necessarily directed at anyone. But since you took offense, please see your doctor concerning your mental state.

Tamaratonye5:
You have no critical Bible exegesist study experience. Your signature is ignorance.

Tamaratonye5:
You have no ammo good or otherwise.

Tamaratonye5:
You are unique alright, you repeat "misunderstood" like a parrot. I seek to know why he is misunderstood.

Tamaratonye5:
History is nasty. It cares nothing for your ignorant judgements. Neither do I.

Tamaratonye5:
Distinct antisemitism there, Muslim prejudice?

Tamaratonye5:
Agreed, history is a bitch, I love to know about it; we disregard it at our own peril.

Tamaratonye5:
Not explanatory enough for you evidently.

Tamaratonye5:
This could be the beginning of a beautiful friendship, lol

Tamaratonye5:
You don’t have the expertise to be dispensing credit.

Tamaratonye5:
He who smells it first…?

Tamaratonye5:
Bitter? Presumptuous of you to say. I’m calling what I see. You have no answer. See above. You have no ammo.

Tamaratonye5:
The questions remain unanswered despite your "good" effort, I mean that honestly.

Tamaratonye5:
Denying the obvious, which anyone here with the slightest degree of honesty and/or objectivity, have witnessed of you, is really a form of admission. Fine. Gloves off.

Tamaratonye5:
You've name-dropped god, of all people, in my conversation with another. I was not impressed.

Tamaratonye5:
I type like this when I am convinced further discussions will profit no-one. I have other things to learn. See you on the other end of this argument.

Tamaratonye5:
FINIS.

Tamaratonye5:
RE: EXISTENCE OF GOD/S

Do the Harry Potter books validate wizards and wizardry? No book, including the bible, can validate it’s own claims, only objective evidence can do this.

Tamaratonye5:
The first humans evolved just two hundred thousand years ago, evolution is billions of years old.

Tamaratonye5:
However this is just an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy you're using, a god of the gaps polemic.

Tamaratonye5:
Even without evolution, creationism us not supported by a shred of objective evidence, and your assertions suggest you don't even understand what the phrase means.

Tamaratonye5:
You have entirely missed the point, that theists assert evolved traits as part of a perfect design by an infallible deity, are demonstrably false. As the examples offered showed. That's what objective evidence looks like btw.

Tamaratonye5:
And we know this isn't true, because humans evolved, this is a scientific fact, supported by all the objective evidence.

Tamaratonye5:
Your interpretation of “red” are all human personality traits and qualities projected on to a simple wave length…
Oh my, Oh my, Oh my!!! Lookie here - demonstrable evidence of "red"…

Something a theist isn't able to provide for their invisible sky daddy of choice…

Tamaratonye5:
I, as most atheists, can't have a definition of any deity, that’s axiomatic. I, as most atheists, only debate the deities theists imagine are real, and of course there are limitless deities and versions, which you disbelieve are real, but can offer no objective difference from the one you choose to believe is real.

Tamaratonye5:
I disbelieve any of them are real, and for the same reason, that there is no objective evidence for the claim, no more or less for Zeus or Apollo, than for Jesus or Vishnu.

LegendAnselm:
u thought hurshpy is not connected at first. Sure he will be set free. Trust america nah. They will suly make use of hurshpupy against crime. Moreover hurshy is in their favour

Nbotee:
If u believe connection will get u freedom wen u have been indicted in the west and US in particular, den U can as well believe APC is a party of saints. Connected kor, elected ni

Rossikk:
Trump that has been 'pardonIng' convicted criminals that are his friends in America. Stay there talking rubbish.

Money talks in America. With a good, expensive lawyer you can escape virtually any crime conviction there.

Lorenzop:
He should also dare Reno Omokri....
Sowore seems to be silent on that one....
Challenge Reno as well....selfish bastar.d

MuttleyLaff:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r4Djq3MY2CE
Sowore Passes Reno Omokri Off As An Empty, Grieving Hypocrite


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X6BJCY-TwH0
Sowore Explains Video of Him "celebrating Buhari" Victory in 2015

Dtruthspeaker:
Sorry I did not see this till now,

1/ Since, in your humble opinion, all the examples of faith recorded in the Bible are based on knowledge, please explain how Abraham faith(s) was/were based on knowledge
________________________________________________
One, Abram knew and Understood something about God for him to Pack Up and Relocate to Any Place the Lord would direct him to.

Which I thereafter supplied to be that, Abram was seeking God out and God answered him and thus having found Who he was looking for, he obeyed.

He still maintained that Knowledge and Understanding of God up to where God was testing him on how far and strong and long his knowledge of God was, which is why, He tested the reins of his heart as David would say, and as God would say, "to see what He would do!"

And the Specific knowledge is that Abraham Knew many things about God which includes that He knew specifically that God is Good, God is God and Mighty, He knew that God would not put him into trouble and that if God told him to go to a certain place, that that place would be Good, that God keeps His Word, among other Knowledges he thereafter possessed and took hold of.

This is my humble submission.

Tamaratonye5:
Are you always this nutty? If you're not trying to explain yourself to me, you're trying to explain another irrelevant thing to me.

Tamaratonye5:
Classic Equivocation Fallacy by the way. When are you going to learn? Keep your slime-ball tactics to the echo of the ever emptying pews of your favorite Sunday gathering hole.

Tamaratonye5:
And yet, that is exactly what you have done. Without looking, without examining, without actually reading that messed up book of fakery contradiction and outright lies you have adopted faith as your only guide, and look were it has led you. You spend your time proving you have no idea what you are talking about on an online forum. It’s sad your life is that sad. Perhaps you can get some friends to pray for you, lol.

Tamaratonye5:
Your response is, yet again, a classic non sequitur.

Tamaratonye5:
You managed to post a non sequitur, about your non sequitur!

Tamaratonye5:
Then again, life is funnier than any team of comedy writers can imagine.

Tamaratonye5:
It is not certain what Origen believed in this matter. He mentioned the doubts of others on the authorship of 2 Peter, but he did not make an unequivocal judgement on it himself. Some independent commentators suggest he may not have had enough evidence to able to decide either way. He, at least, was honest.

Tamaratonye5:
Nice evasion. Totally avoided any comment on the unpleasant claims I presented and disregarded my question yet again.

Tamaratonye5:
I think you share some of the less enviable traits with Paul.

Tamaratonye5:
Peter got passed over, along with the original teachings of Jesus, because he was a Jew. Paul sought every opportunity to criticise him because he was jealous of his position as the publicly acknowledged and real life Christ-appointed First Apostle. Paul was an argumentative self-centred psychopath who had nothing more than an unwitnessed conversion on a remote section of the Damascus road as his only credentials to apostleship. It was Barnabas’s misplace faith in him that got him some grudging acceptance with the real apostles. And even then the bonehead had a falling out with Barnabas not long after. He was a disputatious fanatic.

Tamaratonye5:
It's evident in his actions and words if one could step back from the sanctimonious fanboy infatuation of him. Even the rest of the Jerusalem apostles tended to keep him at arms reach. Paul even prided himself that he didn’t really get to meet or even know most of them in happy joyous Christian fellowship.

Tamaratonye5:
The eventual Jewish/Christian split was a violent event. It marked the beginning of overt Christian antisemitism. During the Jewish war with Rome, the Gentile Christians embraced the Pauline doctrine and predictably enough, sided with the Empire, who destroyed the Temple and after the Edict of Milan, militarised the Christian dominionist quest that furthered the persecution of the Jews and the other Greek and Roman religions and culture.

Tamaratonye5:
And still you failed to comprehend it well enough to see 2 Peter was obviously not going to provide an appropriate answer. Unbelievable.

Tamaratonye5:
No, I do not trust you.

Tamaratonye5:
How magnanimously condescending of you. I expect they will be delighted to hear.

Tamaratonye5:
I've never made a secret of this. How observant of you, but, ok, finally! After how many posts? The penny drops. Fine-tooth combs indeed. I have more than reservations about Paul.

Tamaratonye5:
The unwelcomed psychopath subverted the original Christian doctrine of Jesus and his views on faith are dishonest ramblings of a guy who had a physical conversion, that is, he was convinced he actually met his god, who struck him blind. How does faith play a part in that? You can’t answer, which brings us to your next lie:

Tamaratonye5:
You never answered any question. I would still be waiting had I not dropped the request.

Tamaratonye5:
I don’t find anything remotely amusing about the number of unreasonable insults you've dealt me. It reveals a most dislikable aspect of your personality.

Tamaratonye5:
And then this final Parthian shot, quibbling over the number of years, as if it carried any real significance. Pathetic. Naming dropping? Pertinent references to historical figures? It's not like I claim Origen as my personal best buddy forever. You're an idiot. This sad tawdry reply of yours only serves to illustrate what I had observed of you from the beginning; a penchant to avoid matters of substance and a despicable use of petty criticisms to cover your self-satisfied pious arse.

Tamaratonye5:
Thanks for your "feeble, shallow and blathering" reply, its a shining example of the old adage, "Fawning and fake humility are a lethal combination." I will be looking out for more inane posts from you in the future

Tamaratonye5:
Uh oh, wait a minute:
Why don't you transfer your god belief to unicorns, and garden fairies hmm?
Here - there's even books

Tamaratonye5:
Nope… not even close! Your existence is evidence of your parents having sexual intercourse.

Tamaratonye5:
Trace the line back …and wow! an evolutionary line.

Tamaratonye5:
Cool, I did not know you believed in the Flying Spaghetti Monster

Tamaratonye5:
The human eye is fragile and poorly designed. There’s a blind spot right in the middle, and we have to waste brain power rectifying inverted images. The eye itself is an extremely fragile mess of jelly and is vulnerable to damage from dust, impacts, and even excessively strong light. Have you heard the expression "blind as bat"? Well bats have better vision than us, especially in low-light conditions.

No designer would be satisfied with the many defects and compromises in the human eye. It’s exactly what you’d expect to emerge from chance mutations combined with natural selection. It's evidence of the non-existence of a creator god.

Tamaratonye5:
Plus, MuttleyLaff, let us not forget that other animals have superior eyes. The mantis shrimp eyes have many superior characteristics. Some raptor birds function like telescopes. Cats can see where to us humans it is pitch black. Chameleons can rotate their eyes.

Tamaratonye5:
Of course, all of this makes a sham of the claim we were designed in the image of a god.

Elvictor:
one day we will wake up to this question "can men create God?" then we will realize that we have been fooled by Men of Letters. decipher philosophers...

Vic2Ree:
I'm curious. What is your understanding of winning an argument? Why do you believe an argument needs to be won?

Dtruthspeaker:
The full answer is quite lengthy, but to summarise it, it goes this way.

Because we do not know everything, we are always seeking to learn, and people have a Duty to Share the Truth known to them but they do not always do so or they could be wrong which in times past have put us in varying degrees of danger, so we have learnt to test, probe and ascertain what we have received as True.

Because, when a thing is True, we can rely and act on it.

Therefore an argument does many things which when a proposition is accepted, the giver is pleased and the recipient has Learnt (win/win)

If unaccepted on invalid grounds it is still a (win/lose).

If unaccepted on valid grounds, thus rejected, it is a (win/win) if the giver is smart to know that he has just Learnt what he did not know but a lot of Nairalanders suck at this and rather than be thankful for the Learning, they vehemently fight to reject it and draw blood.

When People say a thing, we listen to act on it, lest we are burned for not taking heed to the warning sent our way before damnation as we have also previously Learnt Also, for no one knows Everything.

Tamaratonye5:
Hi Dtruthspeaker …lol. I actually have no problems with invisible deities. I also have no "problems" with unicorn. Sometimes my garden fairies and I will have issues, but they’re quite reasonable

Tamaratonye5:
I am an atheist because theists and religious apologist can't demonstrate any objective evidence for any deity. Also the arguments presented are often irrational and flawed.

Tamaratonye5:
I can have no problem with deities or creation since I don't believe the universe was created, and I don’t believe in any extant deity.

Tamaratonye5:
Can you answer these for me;

[1] Which god are you referring to, please? There are many creation myths.

Tamaratonye5:
[2] What objective evidence can you demonstrate for any deity?

Tamaratonye5:
Hi Vic2Ree . Nice to see someone rooting for me lol. Either way, I'm really not trying to "win" an argument. Just want to have an honest discussion. Even if I fail to convince my co-discussant/s, I can at least hope to convince uncertain viewers who might be reading the chat. Thanks.

Tamaratonye5:
Negative outburst Since when did a fairly damn reasonable and accurate statement become a "negative outburst"? Projection much?

Tamaratonye5:
If you felt your jimmies rustled by my assertion, it's not my problem. Technically, I could claim you are the one getting emotional since you choose to mock my assertion rather than challenge it.

Tamaratonye5:
Your response describes a tragic accident, we were discussing "faith".

Tamaratonye5:
Your response is a classic non sequitur, lol.

Tamaratonye5:
Your obsessive need to always explain yourself to me is very telling actually. And creepy

Tamaratonye5:
Your god desires for everyone to know of it and worship it. This god is described as being all powerful, all knowing, capable of creating this universe and controlling everything.

Yet, the most important message this god sent, this book which is the instructions and word of god, is allowed to contain errors

Tamaratonye5:
2 Peter? Supposedly written about 68 AD, before Peter is crucified upside down at his own request, during the pogrom of Nero, but was more likely written after his death in the popular Christian tradition of pseudographical writings, as is the opinion of most Bible experts today.

This letter contains the final orders, advice, blessings from ‘the Rock’ and a timeless reminder of the imminent return of Jesus. And it does include the comment, "16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their destruction."

Tamaratonye5:
Well firstly MuttleyLaff, at the time this was said to be written, just prior to the irrevocable split between the synagogue and the new religion that Peter led, and it is at this time the majority of the early followers of Christ were still Jewish converts and amongst the things Paul wrote, that were "hard to be understood" were his explanations about how those early followers, while still being Jewish and still being the heirs of the promises God made to Abraham, were not liable to observe Mosaic Law, and were further exempt from the needs of circumcision and dietary restrictions.

Tamaratonye5:
There was also, for Peter some very awkward things Paul wrote concerning his un-witnessed divine appointment as the 13th apostle, and receiving his very own personal gospel from scripture and exclusive revelations from Jesus, and not from men, especially not those lowly apostles in Jerusalem, of whom he had worked harder and done more, in spreading the word of Jesus. Then, there was Paul's haughty record of the confrontation at Antioch where he publicly denounced Peter as a hypocrite for leaving the Gentile feast to dine with the newly arrived Jews contingent. There was much more Paul wrote about himself which must have been confusing for Peter's Jewish followers to understand. Its all there if you read it. Peter was evidently in a forgiving state of mind, given that he was offering his last advice for the future unity of the faith, either that or the letter was fabricated later to serve the anti-semitic agenda of the Gentile church.

Tamaratonye5:
But at this point I have to say, MuttleyLaff, you are as supremely arrogant as Paul revealed himself to be. You have been bagging me about my assumptions and the impudence of my knowledge and here, after mincing about like a prima donna, preciously withholding from me, and everyone else reading here, the one Bible verse you proclaimed would fully explain my ignorance and answer my question and we find it a complete furphy having nothing to do at all with my question, because you didn’t even have the courtesy or discipline to read or comprehend it. This is not the way to conduct yourself in a forum.

I doubt you read my "Paul of Tarsus post either. You just allowed yourself to react emotionally over its content and petulantly respond with inflated indignation to my first question which remains unanswered. You ignored the content of further posts and simply made snide sarcastic comments without addressing the second question which 2 Peter as we see does not answer.

Tamaratonye5:
You reveal your limited appreciation of the circumstances surrounding the lives and writings of Peter and Paul which serves to provide a deeper understanding of their work. But you are happy to peel off all the pleasing references to redemption, promises of life eternal, and the favours of your god and leave the rest ignored

Tamaratonye5:
Don't bother answering either of my questions, now. As I said, I can find the answers myself reading from the Bible as I have everyday for the past fifty years. And from my desk calendar.

Vic2Ree:
I'm enjoying this back and forth between Tamaratonye5 and Muttleylaff. So far I'm rooting for Tamara . Your responses are delightful

Tamaratonye5:
Pfft. More like running out of patience.

Tamaratonye5:
Look...

Tamaratonye5:
... you can keep quoting your scriptures till you're blue in the face. That you "live" in your precious bible won't change the fact that it contains arrant nonsense.

Tamaratonye5:
This is a demonstrable fact, so the idea it's inspired by an omniscient omnipotent deity is absurd. If it requires subjective interpretation then the claim of its divine origin becomes meaningless. It's also absurd not to notice that the bible reflects the bigotry prejudice and ignorance of the people and epoch from which it was derived, exactly what I'd expect if it were entirely human origin, not one thing points to omniscience as the source

Tamaratonye5:
Also the deity depicted in the bible endorses slavery, murder rape, sex trafficking female prisoners, ethnic cleansing stoning unruly children etc etc…so the idea it's an objective moral guide is demonstrably absurd.

Tamaratonye5:
Nope. I look both ways before I cross the street. Only a dumbass would not look before stepping off the curb. I do not use "faith", I use evidence, and decide based on the reliability of my senses and other factors.

Tamaratonye5:
My self esteem is fine, thanks for asking

Tamaratonye5:
You admit you only responded to my last question. I could have expected a fuller answer if you had thought it worthy.

Tamaratonye5:
Mine was a humble effort ...

Tamaratonye5:
... considering the many books I have read and discussions I have had with theists on this one topic over the years and it was incomplete mainly due to forum limitations and you pointedly missed my comment that it was not original, you see, the question of Paul's faith and sanity has been a subject for scrutiny for several hundred years; I ride on giants' shoulders.

Tamaratonye5:
You question my low esteem and make a veiled stab at my hubris for suggesting it a "humble effort" all in one paragraph and fail to address anything I actually said about Paul.

Tamaratonye5:
You make a hubristic claim to tolerance, pity me for not understanding your view, fail to establish that view, and then withhold the very Bible quote you seem to think will provide a pertinent answer, judging me unworthy of any such courtesy. Can you not see the pattern? A mix of derision and a failure to address issues about faith

Tamaratonye5:
It doesn't bother me what word or spelling you use to describe your god. It is an issue of how I use the word. "god is the noun, like "unicorn" both of which are myths. "God" is the unoriginal name for the Christian deity. The capitalised G denotes a thing, an entity, and at the same time its supremacy, which I refute. Its a theist convention, which I am disinclined to practice. Its a quirk of mine.

Tamaratonye5:
I apologise

Tamaratonye5:
but, it has been the assumed majority claim amongst theists I have debated that as an atheist I am bound for hell and the lake of fire.

Tamaratonye5:
I duly note my presumption. You suggest I have hope of redemption?

Tamaratonye5:
We all make assumptions where there is little evidence to work with, its part of the process by which we learn when assumptions are answered. But where is the assumption here? I made a request and then a claim. I know I will not be moved by your comments which also clearly indicate the intransigence of your position. Not an assumption, a deduction.

Tamaratonye5:
The "crooked stick" quote comes from Charles Spurgeon, the celebrated ‘Prince of Preachers' which I find curious because Charles is promoting the scientific method, despite it being a parable about spiritual truth and error. I am unimpressed because it is not an argument and you use it to suggest one of us is "crooked and wrong" simply on mere superficial comparison. I am sure you aren't rooting for me.

Tamaratonye5:
Yes, I confess I have had to make a lot of assumptions here because you persist in avoiding to present anything of substance beyond petty criticisms. You deem me so unworthy you withhold a Pauline verse you seem sure will add to debate. Talk of judges, juries and executioners.

Tamaratonye5:
Your last comments on Aquinus and Origen are unintelligble. FYI both were devout Christian theologians. Aquinus attempted a merge of Platonic and Aristotelian interpretations of natural and supernatural issues into a unified theological whole. Origen debated the academic pagan Celsus on basic Christian tenets. They were all single headed individual human beings, why would you need to make such an asinine comment? Am I wrong to assume the hollow person comment was directed to me? Or is that my hubris?

Tamaratonye5:
A simple quiz for you then (can you answer honestly):

[1] About how many (ballpark figure) of the apologists you've encountered ever admit to the possibility of error?:

Tamaratonye5:
[2] How many confuse theology, biblical hermeneutics and exegesis as lending themselves to intellectual honesty?

Tamaratonye5:
[3] Hollow as I might be, I am persistent if nothing else, so I'll rephrase the important question: How is Paul revered for his faith when it was a physical event that prompted his conversion?

Image123:
i thought he threatened Coronavirus the other time with who born you, who you? It is unfortunate that any human being thinks or says this businessman is a man of God too.

johnw47:
@bold, laugh
and as for me, i don't like you fatty because i don't like liars
simple

StubbornGENIUS:
Rozz I know it's you. Was wondering why you deactivated though.

Acehart:
What is “letter”?

ThothHermes:
It is the spirit that gives life my brother, una too like letter for this Nairaland.

Acehart:
Now it came about at the lodging place on the way that the Lord met him and sought to put him to death. Then Zipporah took a flint and cut off her son's foreskin and threw it at Moses' feet, and she said, "You are indeed a bridegroom of blood to me." So He let him alone. At that time she said, "You are a bridegroom of blood"-because of the circumcision. (Exodus 4:24-26)

It’s a very difficult part of the scriptures to interpret - verse 26. However, to understand it, we need to focus of Moses and God, not Zipporah’s reaction. The right questions to ask are:

1. Why did God want to kill Moses?
2. What made Moses so incapacitated that his wife took on the responsibility of circumcising her son, a man’s responsibility?

The answer to number 1 lies in number 2: God caused Moses to be very sick to the point of death because he didn’t carry out his responsibility - to circumcise his son. Someone said: This was probably the effect of his being unequally yoked with a Midianite, who was too indulgent of her child, while Moses was too indulgent of her.

So one lesson we can take out of this is: don’t be EQUALLY yoked with an unbeliever in anything including marriage, because our fondness for an unbelieving person will supersede our Love for God.

Another lesson is this: know that God is not pleased when a man tries to undervalue His covenant, and derelict in their responsibilities, just a Moses did. We must learn that: when God discovers to us what is amiss in our lives we must give all diligence to amend it speedily, and particularly return to the duties we have neglected.

Acehart