₦airaland Forum

mcfynest:
Calm down bro, the creation story is allegorical. We will do another discussion on that another day.

mcfynest:
when the Greeks talk in the coliseum, did they use a microphone?

sukkot:
it matters alot. it looks pathetic seeing a black man worship his enemy lol. gives the image of a subservient mumufied slave. you do know the white man is the enemy of the black man right ? >>> i shall put an enmity between your seed and her seed

plaetton:
Old friend of many incarnations ,
Your cranial dexterity remains above the plaebians.

mcfynest:
when the Greeks talk in the coliseum, did they use a microphone?

Teempakguy:
This a very delicate topic.

Personally, I don't believe it happened. Because,

1, I wasn't there.
2, it cannot be replicated.
3, it is only mentioned in the bible.
4, no other source corroborates the story.

If I believe this, then by intellectual honesty, I must believe that Muhammad split the moon. Otherwise, I'm just being a hypocrite.
However,I cannot believe Muhammad split the moon. Hence, I must disregard this as well.

Perhaps the most shocking miracle Jesus performed was the healing of the bleeding woman. It was unconsciously done. And he said that some power had left him. Now, what does that mean? That Jesus is a power bank or what?

Anyway, let me not say much sha.

johnydon22:
1st Op is a Christian. .
2nd we do understand faith far more than you do because we have once being there.
[b]Faith simply means hold on to your convictions whether it is true or not...just believe it....Isn't that dishonesty? [/b]

The kind of faith Christians are required to have is not what you have defined above.


See you have shown how faith is a dishonest position.

First you weren't there, only read it in a book.

2nd you recognize the tendency of the event happening is improbable and against reason or reality.

but then as someone with "Faith" you just have to believe it did..

Your Faith in anything doesn't make it true, it doesn't even make it probably true. .That you have faith that 5bread fed 5,000 and remained 12 baskets doesn't make this true.

That a muslim have faith that muhammed split the moon doesn't make it true..

So you see, you can have faith all you want, it has no effect on reality neither can it make a lie to become true..

[b]Your faith simply means you believe something against reason, logic or coincide to reality...[/b]

Pidggin:
First off, my faith is based on the supreme intelligent being we call God. The reason why i mentioned faith is because God requires this of us, this is the basis of Christianity for us believers.

That said, reason and logic both support the existence of God. Let me pick a few points based on reason and logic to further stress my view.

Since existence is like a gift given from cause to effect, therefore there must be something which has to exist, which cannot not exist

The fact that the universe displays a staggering amount of intelligibility, both within the things we observe and in the way these things relate to others outside themselves, even nature displays this same pattern of many different beings working together to produce the same valuable, for example, the organs in the body work for our life and health, is this chance or as a result of an intelligent being?

The intelligible universe and the finite minds well suited to grasp it are certainly the products of intelligence not chance.

Our limited mind can discover eternal truths about being, but the nature of the human mind is not eternal why do we perceive eternal truths? surely there must be an eternal mind in which these eternal truths reside as we perceive them.

We have ideas of many things, thinking patterns that arise either from within us or things outside of us. Many of us have the idea of a perfect being, a supreme intelligent existence, but human nature is imperfect and limited so where did this idea come from? Surely this idea comes from something outside of us which has these qualities we perceive. But only the infinite supreme being has these qualities human nature is imperfect, is it not possible that an infinite intelligent being must be the cause of this idea we perceive?

We all know that real moral obligation is a fact, we are really, truly, objectively obligated to do good and avoid evil. Moral obligation can hardly be rooted in a material motion blind to purpose, how possible is it that material motion will make me do good?

It is assumed that we should all go by the rule never disobey your own conscience, why do we attach such authority to our conscience? surely a supreme being is the only adequate source and ground for the absolute moral obligation we all feel to obey our conscience.

The material world we know is a world of change Self-moving things, like animal bodies, are moved by desire or will(something other than mere molecules). And when the animal or human dies, the molecules remain in motion, but the body no longer moves because the desire or will is no longer present to move it. If there is nothing outside the material universe, then there is nothing that can cause the universe to change, but it changes. Isn't it reality that there must be something else in addition to the material universe, something causing it to act? But the universe is the sum total of all matter, space and time. These three things depend on each other. If there is something causing it to act, then this being exists outside the universe, outside matter, space and time. It is not a changing thing; it is the unchanging source of change.

Now, using reason and logic, if there truly is an intelligent being which we Christians believe there is, his power is infinite and his abilities are beyond limit, therefore i believe that there is nothing impossible for him to do, whether i was there or not.

plaetton:
What a contradiction.
This is what we call logical gymnastics.
Stretch it long enough with the hope that it might mean something.

If reason and logic support the existence of god, who just happens to be conveniently invisible, inperceptible, outside of space and time, then what the heck is faith required for?

Faith, by definition, means the negation of reason and logic.

When you accept something by Faith, You automatically negate reason and logic.

Faith and reason are inversely proportional.

1 Faith = 1/Reason

johnydon22:
To do what?

plaetton:
What a contradiction.
This is what we call logical gymnastics.
Stretch it long enough with the hope that it might mean something.
If reason and logic support the existence of god, who just happens to be conveniently invisible, inperceptible, outside of space and time, then what the heck is faith required for?
Faith, by definition, means the negation of reason and logic.
When you accept something by Faith, You automatically negate reason and logic.
Faith and reason are inversely proportional.
1 Faith = 1/Reason

johnydon22:
Am just too tired to start replying the misconception, assumptions and misinterpretations of the workings of the universe..
its just too long for me to start addressing. . i will definitely get to it...

Pidggin:
First off, my faith is based on the supreme intelligent being we call God. The reason why i mentioned faith is because God requires this of us, this is the basis of Christianity for us believers.

That said, reason and logic both support the existence of God. Let me pick a few points based on reason and logic to further stress my view.

Since existence is like a gift given from cause to effect, therefore there must be something which has to exist, which cannot not exist

The fact that the universe displays a staggering amount of intelligibility, both within the things we observe and in the way these things relate to others outside themselves, even nature displays this same pattern of many different beings working together to produce the same valuable, for example, the organs in the body work for our life and health, is this chance or as a result of an intelligent being?

The intelligible universe and the finite minds well suited to grasp it are certainly the products of intelligence not chance.

Our limited mind can discover eternal truths about being, but the nature of the human mind is not eternal why do we perceive eternal truths? surely there must be an eternal mind in which these eternal truths reside as we perceive them.

We have ideas of many things, thinking patterns that arise either from within us or things outside of us. Many of us have the idea of a perfect being, a supreme intelligent existence, but human nature is imperfect and limited so where did this idea come from?

Surely this idea comes from something outside of us which has these qualities we perceive.

But only the infinite supreme being has these qualities human nature is imperfect, is it not possible that an infinite intelligent being must be the cause of this idea we perceive?

We all know that real moral obligation is a fact, we are really, truly, objectively obligated to do good and avoid evil. Moral obligation can hardly be rooted in a material motion blind to purpose, how possible is it that material motion will make me do good?

It is assumed that we should all go by the rule never disobey your own conscience, why do we attach such authority to our conscience? surely a supreme being is the only adequate source and ground for the absolute moral obligation we all feel to obey our conscience.

The material world we know is a world of change Self-moving things, like animal bodies, are moved by desire or will(something other than mere molecules). And when the animal or human dies, the molecules remain in motion, but the body no longer moves because the desire or will is no longer present to move it. If there is nothing outside the material universe, then there is nothing that can cause the universe to change, but it changes.

Isn't it reality that there must be something else in addition to the material universe, something causing it to act?

But the universe is the sum total of all matter, space and time. These three things depend on each other. If there is something causing it to act, then this being exists outside the universe, outside matter, space and time. It is not a changing thing; it is the unchanging source of change.

Now, using reason and logic, if there truly is an intelligent being which we Christians believe there is, his power is infinite and his abilities are beyond limit, therefore i believe that there is nothing impossible for him to do, whether i was there or not.

johnydon22:
Faith simply means you believe it whether it is true or not. .that you believe there is some being that is called God that seats somewhere in a heaven and created the universe but is concerned with whether you masturbate or not is with FAITH (you don't care if it's true or not or substantiation of such postulation as absurd as it sounds, it's called FAITH. .)

If there was in the first place you wouldn't need faith to believe it, none of us needs faith to believe the sun is real. . . we know the sun is real we don't believe it talk more of believing it on faith..

Even though you dabbled into the existence of a deity when the thread is not even about it, i will oblige and reply this grave yard of words and show you how neither logic nor reason or any empirical evidence supports the existence of a God..

I'd add this to the list of the ridiculous Known unknown assertions..

You see where the first problem starts trying to confuse complexity for design. .

The working of the universe is simply but the effect of gravity and matter in relation to space and time.

Just like every other interactions are as a result of smaller interactions so too is how the universe works ultimately.

Using the organ example, there won't be any organ in the first place if cells did not interact and wort together.

This does not connote design rather it shows the rigidity of natural entities, emergence of larger and more complex entity from smaller and less complex entities. .

If you go to a desert, the patterns of the sand dunes are so finely and beautifully laid out and looks like it was drawn. but this is merely from the effects of wind on the sand.

but according to the murder of logic as you presented here, you would have us think it was carved out by something intelligent when evidently enough its just the effect of wind on sand..

Another unnecessary word salad. . The workings of the universe is only but a dance of unspeculated activities.

A star dies and a supernova occurs, but yet again a star may die and collapse into a black hole, or maybe a pulsar star. .

Show nature do not have one determined way of working but rather results are as a result of the actions of the reacting force. .

Why is this argument presented filled with unfounded and outrightly absurd assertions that are practically meaningless to the subject.

1st what is an eternal truth
2nd what eternal truths have you discovered


[b]This idea stems from ignorance. You cannot grasp the depth of the things around you, disturbing questions that needs to be answered.

And you arrive at a postulation a higher intelligent.. But this intellectual sword slash of curiosity do not answer this question it only postpones it.

If you assume up a designer for the universe (because you lack the knowledge of how the universe emerged or is) you have first of all killed the curiosity to strive to know how it actually happened.

2nd the designer itself becomes a subject of question. . .and this you will be lost in the wonders of your own assumptions.

Ignorance and gap or imperfection as you put it is not to be filled with assumptions reached by a mind yet to discover what there is to discover.

"I don't know how this works, then a creator must have done it" it is outright ridiculous. .

You don't how anything works simply say you don't because a postulation laid out in ignorance is not far from being wrong..[/b]

Right on the contrary this idea comes from inside us, the insecurity in unanswered questions, the drive to fill in a gap that needs to be filled.

But it doesn't work that way, a premise where knowledge is lacked should be a nudge to learn and not assume.


Still swimming in this ridiculous word Armageddon, this is exactly what you asserted above and you keep repeating it.

This assumption of a supreme being stems from your ignorance of what is, it stems from our lack of knowledge of the things we need to know but do not know and so employ a gap filler that not only do not answer the question, but kills out curiosity to really discern how it happened, becomes a subject of more questions and ultimately keep us swimming in the chasm of our own delusion.

This has always being the way of mankind. ."What causes storms at sea?"
"We don't know, then it must be the God neptune" should we now conclude that these people who laid out that neptune is the cause of storms at sea perceived this through cause of Neptune himself?

That is blatantly ridiculous, they were simply acting on their ignorance on what causes a storm which we now know as Hurricane and nobody says neptune did it anymore..

Morality first is a human construct, it is a term we label on actions acceptable to us for the good of the society.

Your morality stems from the interactions and relations of the society. . .If you were the only person on earth, they will be no morality because your actions do not have any perceiver to determine how good it is.

Morality is a construct of human societal evolution, stop confusing yourself..

Now can you hear yourself.

Conscience simply is as a result of empathy and empathy is a human trait that developed as a result of societal interactions.

Your desperate clutch at supreme being brouhaha to lay out foundation for morality is a total flawed postulation.

Look around the society, the diversity of moral norms shows morality is a construct of the society.

You probably think sex is bad because the society you live in make it out to be bad but yet again there is one that sees it to be as normal and good as breathing. . Subjectivity in moral grounds connotes constructs of societal evolution.

Monkeys are known to punish a member of the group who steals from the pack but lions don't.

I wonder how you people wants so desperately to dub emergence of interactive norms to a deity in other to feed your delusion of one, well it doesn't go that way...


[/i][/b]Just imagine the type of ridiculous posts i have to deal with here.

The changes in the universe occurs as a result of the interactions that occurs within the universe not outside the universe.

you forget that the activities of the particles of a dead entity is in relation or reactions to others around it that interact with it.

if there are activities there must be changes and this is a fact, stop employing unfounded causes for things that are too obvious. . just read your post for once.[/i][/b]

No it is reality that these actions are as a result of the interactions of other actions on it. . .and this simply is the way of materials.

interactions and exchange of forces resulting to action. . . . Another failed attempt of assuming up a cause when the cause is within..

[b]And here just killed the whole incongruous word batter.

The universe is the sum of the totality of matter, space, time and you left out one vital part of this [size=20]Gravity[/size] . . maybe you didn't know or was just appealing to your ignorance that every action and reaction in this universe revolves around gravity. .you only wanted to fill it in with an assumptive assertion a deity.

Well bad luck sissy. the effect of matter, the bend of space and time is always in relation to gravity. in fact gravity is the unit of causality.

Every reaction of matter, space and time is in coincide to the effect of gravity. . So yet again i have shown you how the workings of the universe is always as a result of the interactions of the constituents of the universe and not an independent unrelated cause you will like to assume and throw into the equation.

Now i hope you can stop employing a gap filler where you lack knowledge. . Because even though i took time to reply this lay out of unrelated and unfounded paste of crinkum crankums one cannot help but notice that as always this post betrays shows intellectual dishonesty, appeal to ignorance and an attempt to relate unrelated actions and reactions to unfounded and blatantly unrelated causality

This arguement intoto is simply your appeal on your ignorance. you don't know how this happen then it must be this.... that is outright intellectual dishonesty and absurd[/b]

[b]
If there is such a thing powerful enough to create the universe evidently enough you have no idea what it is.

So now a human start telling me that same thing that is big enough to create a universe is as punny as bearing grudges with humans

has a son and has an enemy

loves the smell of burning animal flesh

demands blood

is prone to mundane and disturbing emotions as anger and jealousy.

Has ego and anger issues and chronic narcissism.

Demands that tiny humans worship it or it burns them in a fire.

is concerned whether humans that are merely as large as an atom in the universe masturbates or not.

This postulations have in all ramifications murdered the plausibility of that assumption..

Even though the idea of God is an assumptive assertion, the assumptive characteristics of mundane traits has murdered it.

e.g: God is outside the universe, the same God that is outside the universe can get angry.

Anger in itself is a mundane characteristic of the material beings and for such an alleged supreme being who lives outside of the universe to be a subject of such mundane trait shows it is merely your assumption.

Anger is a product of the material world and if anything is outside the material universe then such a thing must be outside the confines of anger but alas this God that supposedly should be outside the universe is still a subject to anger

Showing how assumptions can lay a foundation in the mind of the one that believes an assumption to be true.. because they won't know when to stop infusing more assumptions into the already laid out assumptions... All in all you succeeded in pouring our improbable and outrightly illogical postulations to feed your imaginations and delusion.

am sure this treats this once and for all... [/b]

emrain:
Whether it happened or not, what are you trying to prove? @ mcfynest

johnydon22:
Faith simply means you believe it whether it is true or not. .that you believe there is some being that is called God that seats somewhere in a heaven and created the universe but is concerned with whether you masturbate or not is with FAITH (you don't care if it's true or not or substantiation of such postulation as absurd as it sounds, it's called FAITH. .)

If there was in the first place you wouldn't need faith to believe it, none of us needs faith to believe the sun is real. . . we know the sun is real we don't believe it talk more of believing it on faith..

Even though you dabbled into the existence of a deity when the thread is not even about it, i will oblige and reply this grave yard of words and show you how neither logic nor reason or any empirical evidence supports the existence of a God..

I'd add this to the list of the ridiculous Known unknown assertions..

You see where the first problem starts trying to confuse complexity for design. .

The working of the universe is simply but the effect of gravity and matter in relation to space and time.

Just like every other interactions are as a result of smaller interactions so too is how the universe works ultimately.

Using the organ example, there won't be any organ in the first place if cells did not interact and wort together.

This does not connote design rather it shows the rigidity of natural entities, emergence of larger and more complex entity from smaller and less complex entities. .

If you go to a desert, the patterns of the sand dunes are so finely and beautifully laid out and looks like it was drawn. but this is merely from the effects of wind on the sand.

but according to the murder of logic as you presented here, you would have us think it was carved out by something intelligent when evidently enough its just the effect of wind on sand..

Another unnecessary word salad. . The workings of the universe is only but a dance of unspeculated activities.

A star dies and a supernova occurs, but yet again a star may die and collapse into a black hole, or maybe a pulsar star. .

Show nature do not have one determined way of working but rather results are as a result of the actions of the reacting force. .

Why is this argument presented filled with unfounded and outrightly absurd assertions that are practically meaningless to the subject.

1st what is an eternal truth
2nd what eternal truths have you discovered


[b]This idea stems from ignorance. You cannot grasp the depth of the things around you, disturbing questions that needs to be answered.

And you arrive at a postulation a higher intelligent.. But this intellectual sword slash of curiosity do not answer this question it only postpones it.

If you assume up a designer for the universe (because you lack the knowledge of how the universe emerged or is) you have first of all killed the curiosity to strive to know how it actually happened.

2nd the designer itself becomes a subject of question. . .and this you will be lost in the wonders of your own assumptions.

Ignorance and gap or imperfection as you put it is not to be filled with assumptions reached by a mind yet to discover what there is to discover.

"I don't know how this works, then a creator must have done it" it is outright ridiculous. .

You don't how anything works simply say you don't because a postulation laid out in ignorance is not far from being wrong..[/b]

Right on the contrary this idea comes from inside us, the insecurity in unanswered questions, the drive to fill in a gap that needs to be filled.

But it doesn't work that way, a premise where knowledge is lacked should be a nudge to learn and not assume.


Still swimming in this ridiculous word Armageddon, this is exactly what you asserted above and you keep repeating it.

This assumption of a supreme being stems from your ignorance of what is, it stems from our lack of knowledge of the things we need to know but do not know and so employ a gap filler that not only do not answer the question, but kills out curiosity to really discern how it happened, becomes a subject of more questions and ultimately keep us swimming in the chasm of our own delusion.

This has always being the way of mankind. ."What causes storms at sea?"
"We don't know, then it must be the God neptune" should we now conclude that these people who laid out that neptune is the cause of storms at sea perceived this through cause of Neptune himself?

That is blatantly ridiculous, they were simply acting on their ignorance on what causes a storm which we now know as Hurricane and nobody says neptune did it anymore..

Morality first is a human construct, it is a term we label on actions acceptable to us for the good of the society.

Your morality stems from the interactions and relations of the society. . .If you were the only person on earth, they will be no morality because your actions do not have any perceiver to determine how good it is.

Morality is a construct of human societal evolution, stop confusing yourself..

Now can you hear yourself.

Conscience simply is as a result of empathy and empathy is a human trait that developed as a result of societal interactions.

Your desperate clutch at supreme being brouhaha to lay out foundation for morality is a total flawed postulation.

Look around the society, the diversity of moral norms shows morality is a construct of the society.

You probably think sex is bad because the society you live in make it out to be bad but yet again there is one that sees it to be as normal and good as breathing. . Subjectivity in moral grounds connotes constructs of societal evolution.

Monkeys are known to punish a member of the group who steals from the pack but lions don't.

I wonder how you people wants so desperately to dub emergence of interactive norms to a deity in other to feed your delusion of one, well it doesn't go that way...


[/i][/b]Just imagine the type of ridiculous posts i have to deal with here.

The changes in the universe occurs as a result of the interactions that occurs within the universe not outside the universe.

you forget that the activities of the particles of a dead entity is in relation or reactions to others around it that interact with it.

if there are activities there must be changes and this is a fact, stop employing unfounded causes for things that are too obvious. . just read your post for once.[/i][/b]

No it is reality that these actions are as a result of the interactions of other actions on it. . .and this simply is the way of materials.

interactions and exchange of forces resulting to action. . . . Another failed attempt of assuming up a cause when the cause is within..

[b]And here just killed the whole incongruous word batter.

The universe is the sum of the totality of matter, space, time and you left out one vital part of this [size=20]Gravity[/size] . . maybe you didn't know or was just appealing to your ignorance that every action and reaction in this universe revolves around gravity. .you only wanted to fill it in with an assumptive assertion a deity.

Well bad luck sissy. the effect of matter, the bend of space and time is always in relation to gravity. in fact gravity is the unit of causality.

Every reaction of matter, space and time is in coincide to the effect of gravity. . So yet again i have shown you how the workings of the universe is always as a result of the interactions of the constituents of the universe and not an independent unrelated cause you will like to assume and throw into the equation.

Now i hope you can stop employing a gap filler where you lack knowledge. . Because even though i took time to reply this lay out of unrelated and unfounded paste of crinkum crankums one cannot help but notice that as always this post betrays shows intellectual dishonesty, appeal to ignorance and an attempt to relate unrelated actions and reactions to unfounded and blatantly unrelated causality

This arguement intoto is simply your appeal on your ignorance. you don't know how this happen then it must be this.... that is outright intellectual dishonesty and absurd[/b]

[b]
If there is such a thing powerful enough to create the universe evidently enough you have no idea what it is.

So now a human start telling me that same thing that is big enough to create a universe is as punny as bearing grudges with humans

has a son and has an enemy

loves the smell of burning animal flesh

demands blood

is prone to mundane and disturbing emotions as anger and jealousy.

Has ego and anger issues and chronic narcissism.

Demands that tiny humans worship it or it burns them in a fire.

is concerned whether humans that are merely as large as an atom in the universe masturbates or not.

This postulations have in all ramifications murdered the plausibility of that assumption..

Even though the idea of God is an assumptive assertion, the assumptive characteristics of mundane traits has murdered it.

e.g: God is outside the universe, the same God that is outside the universe can get angry.

Anger in itself is a mundane characteristic of the material beings and for such an alleged supreme being who lives outside of the universe to be a subject of such mundane trait shows it is merely your assumption.

Anger is a product of the material world and if anything is outside the material universe then such a thing must be outside the confines of anger but alas this God that supposedly should be outside the universe is still a subject to anger

Showing how assumptions can lay a foundation in the mind of the one that believes an assumption to be true.. because they won't know when to stop infusing more assumptions into the already laid out assumptions... All in all you succeeded in pouring our improbable and outrightly illogical postulations to feed your imaginations and delusion.

am sure this treats this once and for all... [/b]

mcfynest:
The story of feeding 5000 people is allegorical. Jesus indeed preached to 5000 men but he didnt give them raw food, instead the bread stands for the WORD, fish stands for knowledge and the part where they were filled and there was leftover is the reward of the ministration, they were also fishers of men.

mcfynest:
Thanks, but this is not talking about creation. When I am chanced, by God's grace, we will discuss to gather knowledge.

The majority of thee old testament and part of the new testaments were written in codes. So it is left for kings to decipher the hidden fact. it is meat bro and not milk.

I always tell people, it is easier to be without faith than to be a man with faith(believing what you don't see or understand). Faith s a higher level of logic.

mcfynest:
The story of feeding 5000 people is allegorical. Jesus indeed preached to 5000 men but he didnt give them raw food, instead the bread stands for the WORD, fish stands for knowledge and the part where they were filled and there was leftover is the reward of the ministration, they were also fishers of men.

johnydon22:
[b]The bible just like others is just an ancient antiquity of a set of people and that is just what it is.

If you are going to bring up discussion of biblical texts then i will have to bring much older texts some of which influenced some biblical texts.

This your code interpretation is just another way of you to heap your own interpretation on a clear text of which i am not interested. .

First you were not one of the writers to determine that the text was written in codes.

Second the antiquity was plain and clear what ever interpretation you tag to it is your own doing.

third the biblical creation story (the first one found in genesis 1) borrowed style and motif and theme from an older creation story the enuma elish, you wouldn't know this people you think it is an original coded text.

I am not interested in your own idea of what the bible says because as far as i know there are thousand other ancient antiquities and sacred texts far more eloquent.

more over i am an African, i have no business believing the myths of the jewish people. . . what ever happened to the myth of my own people..[/b]


[b]I wonder if you people ever read what you write. . Faith a level of logic..seriously..

Faith is logic reversed, it is a murder of logic and reason in order to hold on to emotional stoic convictions.

If science worked like Faith "I can't verify the radioactive decay of this compound, but well i feel it in my heart that it is real, i have faith"

will anybody ever take science serious if it talked like this? Compound "NO"

FAITH simply means you believe it true or not and this is against logic, it is against reason and can never bear any weight on reality.

That you have faith that you can fly doesn't make it true, you are simply being bolted in your delusion by an act of faith (stoic conviction against evidence)

Faith keeps you in your delusion because it shuts out reason or enquiry and encourage belief without questions or thinking, if you ever looked at the things you believe from the point of view of the believer of an another Faith, you would find it plain ridiculous.

But Alas every religion clings to their own share of irrational beliefs by FAITH...[/b]

mcfynest:
must confess that i was wowed by your "knowledge'. However, we all have a
path we have chosen. I have chosen to belive in the Christ even if someone tells
me it is wrong. you know why? Cos I have experienced first hand what he is
capable of doing when you pray to Him

johnydon22:
[b]We have all read the bible. . . when Jesus preached, it was written in plain text that he preached. when Jesus raised someone from the dead, it was written in plain text.

when Jesus fed #5000 it was written in plain text, first of all he was preaching in the first place before people got hungry. . .

The small child that brought Fish and bread is the holy spirit i suppose. . Imagine the nonsense.

if that is allegorical then every part of the new testament is allegorical. .meaning mary was not actually human but something else, means there was no giving birth, no walking on water and no death or resurrection. all of them were allegorical.

You cannot choose the part you want and dub them allegorical and leave other parts (Cherry picking according to plausibility) it doesn't work that way. .it is either you are dishonest or just stupi_d. . . . i would say both.

This is how nonsensical interpretations arise from a simple text, when someone cannot relate to the events on his holy book or reconcile it with reality when someone lacks what it takes to agree an event found in a story implausible.

he pulls out a defence "it is allegorical" well we have heard that enough. . what ever you can't explain is allegorical so you fill it in with your own stuporous explanations. .

[/b]

mcfynest:
you are right in the part of trying to explain some stuffs. Yes, we all try to understand our existence. We all question life after death, we all want to understand reincarnation, humans are thinking being. it is normal.

What pulled me to this story is not just the story(or parable), I believe it shouldnt be taken literally in totality. Look at the number there. 5000 people, 5 loaves of bread. Why the emphasis on the number 5?

I guess I will stop here, we are arguing and not really helping one another. Let us not try to confuse others.
You are sure of your path, I am certain my path will give life. Not Hebrew gibberish but fact.

johnydon22:
[b]The bible just like others is just an ancient antiquity of a set of people and that is just what it is.

If you are going to bring up discussion of biblical texts then i will have to bring much older texts some of which influenced some biblical texts.

This your code interpretation is just another way of you to heap your own interpretation on a clear text of which i am not interested. .

First you were not one of the writers to determine that the text was written in codes.

Second the antiquity was plain and clear what ever interpretation you tag to it is your own doing.

third the biblical creation story (the first one found in genesis 1) borrowed style and motif and theme from an older creation story the enuma elish, you wouldn't know this because you think it is an original coded text.

I am not interested in your own idea of what the bible says because as far as i know there are thousand other ancient antiquities and sacred texts far more eloquent.

more over i am an African, i have no business believing the myths of the jewish people. . . what ever happened to the myth of my own people..[/b]


[b]I wonder if you people ever read what you write. . Faith a level of logic..seriously..

Faith is logic reversed, it is a murder of logic and reason in order to hold on to emotional stoic convictions.

If science worked like Faith "I can't verify the radioactive decay of this compound, but well i feel it in my heart that it is real, i have faith"

will anybody ever take science serious if it talked like this? Compound "NO"

FAITH simply means you believe it true or not and this is against logic, it is against reason and can never bear any weight on reality.

That you have faith that you can fly doesn't make it true, you are simply being bolted in your delusion by an act of faith (stoic conviction against evidence)

Faith keeps you in your delusion because it shuts out reason or enquiry and encourage belief without questions or thinking, if you ever looked at the things you believe from the point of view of the believer of an another Faith, you would find it plain ridiculous.

But Alas every religion clings to their own share of irrational beliefs by FAITH...[/b]

menesheh:
This is the peak of ignorance in the topic logic. "Faith is higher logic = mcfynest "

He is trying to apply known unknown in inferences and induction.


Some people takes special joy in vagueness.

johnydon22:
[b]I know what it is to have a belief before because i have had one before.

The same way you think you are experiencing Christ is the same way a Muslim thinks he is experiencing Allah and a Hindu knows for sure he is experiencing Brahma. . These are simply emotional attachments towards your convictions.

If these feeling means something is real then every religion in this world is real because it is simply an emotion towards the belief.

You and i are not disputing the existence of the sun neither are you telling me you have experienced the sun personally. No we are both here on earth and so we both know for sure the sun is real, none of us need to believe it by faith neither do i need you to quote a holy book for me to show me the sun exists .

No, we both evidently enough know the sun is there so there is no need for faith. . Faith is simply an act of a mind that wish to reject evidence for emotion.

Personal experiences are psychological tilts..

These profound religious experience boils down to excited dopamine and depleted serotonin level induced by excited religious belief and these emotions are what you feel.

You cannot tell me you feel your mother in your heart or have a personal experience with her if i ask you to show me she is real, you would simply take me to her and show her to me..

Belief bears no weight on reality. . . FACT.[/b]

kevoh:
So 5000 silly people decided to follow jesus without going with their own lunch pack except for the little boy. Clap for yourself!  This can only happen in the era were there were no cameras, no twitter nor facebook, no Linda Ikeji  , no smartphones, no James Randi, heck Criss Angel performs better magic tricks and the only back up to the story is the bible. So little or none of this ''wonderful miracle'' is mentioned by the great rulers and historians except the bible. Yeah, spiderman and thor exist, check marvel comics  for proof!  

On a realistic discussion level, I will go with it just being an allegory.

voltron:
the gospels were written at least 50 years after Jesus died.. go figure

kevoh:
2months or 50 years after, it still does not help its case that the feeding of 5000 with just 5 loaves and two fishes is pure illogical crap.