₦airaland Forum

ogolemati:
which of them do you have

I love this picture you're attaching to every reply 😂😂

erad:
Graphite pencils are majorly for art...

0.5 to 2.0 mechanical pencil is what I know they use most. You can get graphite refills for the mechanic pencils as well.

Absolutely right. The person should ask their coursemates or senior colleagues sef...

@Comfortableme

wumiwumi100:
The funny thing is, if the reason he gave was truly why elders were being removed, then why the sudden change? Does that mean there is no danger anymore in the university? Update 5 clearly stated that it is now a personal decision and no one should interfere if someone chooses to pursue higher education. So does that mean the Governing Body was misled by the holy spirit? And if they truly represent God on earth, why all the confusion? 😂😂😂

I'm thinking of all these too but there's no need for violence sha. 😅🤲

Right now the University is even in a worse state than it used to be and more people are open to skill acquisition over certificate acquisition, it's now that the law will really make sense.

The issue of core doctrines (stuff that affected their members day to day life/activities/beliefs) constantly changing overnight is something else entirely sha, will leave that one for una

wumiwumi100:
If truly it has always been a personal decision, why did they step down men from being elders simply because their children pursued higher education?

BIBLESPEAKS:
An elder who sends his child (who's probably a minor and under his watch) to the university, away from his household may no longer qualify to serve as an elder (his deletion is not a certainty, as a couple of questions will be asked). The reason is that Elders from the context of the bible are shepherds or overseers of the flock which are God's people. Think of it as a literal shepherd with a flock of sheep. The shepherd keeps the sheep within his sight, guiding them for fear the wolves or a lion may attack. This is the role the elders play in the congregation who are the sheep. If the ungodly and immoral dangers of the university are undebated, the decision to send his child to the university where he does not have a spiritual oversight over him, disqualifies him from serving as an elder - 1Tim 3:4

Sorry to interrupt but this is literally the first time I've heard this question being answered in all these arguments.

I'm sure all the people who've been following these conversations like Courz will actually applaud you for finally putting a (seemingly) straightforward answer, e no easy 😅.

But let me make some statements please:

What's the definition of keeping watch over the sheep? You've linked it to 1 Tim 3:4 so I'll conclude that in this case it's all about guiding/guarding your own children children morally, and training them how to guard themselves.

Questions:

1. Who decides the interpretation of "undebated danger"?. And importantly, does this apply to all areas in life, not just University? That's to say if a parent sends a child to a primary school where there's "undebated danger", does that parent get kicked from the elders committee as well? How about parents that send children to places with "undebated danger", or give their children access to phones that bring "undebated danger", or even allow them out in the open where people dress with a covering of "undebated danger"...?

OR

Does "undebated danger" interpret as certain conditions in universities alone?

2. Till what sheep age does the shepherd get punishment for mismanaging his sheep.
That's to say, if a parent somehow leads a 30 year old child to "undebated danger", who pays the price?

3. Most importantly, have you considered the Scripture that talked about training children when they're young, so they'll keep the training till they're old.
Have you considered that the children being sent to university (especially back when these laws were made) were old teens and young adults...
Children that are at the stage where new instructions find it hard to enter their head, the stage where they'll look like saints and do what their parents says but will live a totally messed up life behind those covers.
That's to say if you failed as a parent, you've failed as a parent, no amount of policing and hindrance from University will change that fact as of that point.

This last Scripture Eph 6:4 is a reply to 1 Tim 3:4.

In simple terms, if a shepherd trained his sheep to avoid wolfs, why should he be afraid of sending the sheep to places where wolfs might be?
If a man can't manage his household well, do you think stopping children from going to university is the what will fix his error?
This takes us back to question 1.

PS: I've seen JWs girls going to university here in my area. I know their parents and watched them grow since they were young.
I can predict that there's a good chance university will fasttrack their exposure to immoral stuffs, and everyone will conclude that University spoiled them.
I wonder how many will know that it's their parents that aren't bringing them up properly, or that the exposure started long at home.

I don't necessarily disagree with the explanation you gave sha, just pouring opinions

Forgive that poor alliteration in the title. 😅

But (somewhat) serious thoughts relating to this Christianity section, and nothing new at all:

1. Why do some of these guys like Jiggaz, MrPresident1 keep reviving old posts till the views are like 10k+? 😅
This is stuff I'll see on like tech sections where people are advertising their skills and looking for reach, but Christianity? Did Nairaland somehow start paying for views?

2. Why do people start the same arguments again (actually for the thousandth time), with the same set of arguees, with the same pattern of argument (that clearly didn't work in the past). Is there like some secret loneliness/anger issues you guys aren't telling us about? Maybe NL is the only place to low-key find companionship or maybe pour anger? 🌚
Or again, is there a department in your church that pays y'all to be active here? Ok jk 😅

3. WHY... I mean WHY do alleged atheists (like proper Atheists) take the pain to be active on Christian topics.
Now that's not a problem, but obsessing on something you allegedly don't believe in is [speechless]...
Is there some sort of joy/peace they derive when they see us "fooling" around? Or maybe there's some pain they're trying to attend to?
Or again, tell me someone actually pays them...

*Apologies if my sense of humour is broken... It's a nice happy evening here

Comfortableme:
want to ask about the kind of pencils that architectural students use to draw.
Thank you

Hello...

Not sure, can you provide some more details?

From what I've seen from a family member who studied Architecture, they just use the original version of "Graphite" pencils.
A good brand is Staedler. A pack will contain a set of about 12 pencils or so (each one is called a grade) but each of them have differences the user might find useful.
Then there was something called "Mechanical" pencil at some point, which is just like a pencil with a very fine tip that's sort of refillable too.

The graphite pencils weren't really that necessary asides for use cases in borrowed art courses, that's to say it was literally used for drawing (sketching), not even architecture. I don't know sha

Then for the main architecture-related stuffs, most times there was a particular grade of pencil they'll be asked to use for doing stuff like assignments, etc.

So back to the specific response: To my knowledge, a set of graphite pencils and a mechanical pencil (you'll get fine tip for neat lines at all times without needing to sharpen), both from trusted brands.

Goodluck to whoever is studying btw.

FxMasterz:
Smiling, except that the religion you actually claim to profess does not give roon for polytheism. That puts you in a tight corner.

Like I have explained in my previous post, there are no God calibers. Instead, there are God manifestations.

I have used this illustration severally, let me use it again.

I'm an artiste acting two different roles in a movie documenting the biography of my life. Call me Jones but in my movie, I'm acting Felix and King Kong - an ape.

Jones is the real man. Felix and King Kong are just various manifestations of Jones in the movie. They're all the selfsame person.

The moment we understand that man sold man in the garden of Eden, we'll also understand that only man can redeem man, as per the law of Redemption. Read Leviticus from 25 upwards. You'll discover that if a man sells himself into slavery, only his kinsmen can redeem him. To redeem that man legally, you must first become his kinsman one way or the other. Otherwise, that man remains a slave for life.

That was the situation with man. Man sold man, and man was unable to redeem man. Meaning, man will remain a slave of Satan for life. You see, Satan even boasted to Jesus on the mountain of temptation that everything has been delivered to him, and he can give it to whomsoever he likes. Remember? They were rightfully his because Adam sold them. Now, no man can meet the criteria for redeeming what Adam sold. Man was in a hopeless situation.

So, what did God do? He stepped into the earthly realm to become man in order to redeem man. Otherwise, there'll be no.hope for man. Now, that God has come into the scene, we now have a lovely hope - Christ in us, the Hope of Glory. But before Christ paid the price, Satan has boasted that all the glories of this world are his.

So, when we understand the problem. That is, the reason for Jesus' coming. The very problem He came to solve, we would not be confused as to who He is. He is the selfsame God who became man to solve the impossible problem of man. Otherwise, we will be eternally stuck in slavery to Satan. Man couldn't save himself.

So, like the scripture I quoted in Micah 4:2 in a previous post. There comes a ruler of Israel whose going forth is from everlasting.

Just ponder on that. Someone whose going forth is from eternity past. Someone who has no beginning is definitely none other than the Ancient of days who has neither a begining nor an end. Isaiah called Him the Son that will be born, whose name is also called The Mighty God, the Everlasting Father.

Are the scriptures lying? No. They're revealing the mystery of Godliness. How God made Himself manifest in the flesh to solve man's problem of redemption. Jesus is our Kinsman Redeemer. The Word that was God. And that Word that became flesh and DWELT AMONG MEN. These are no mere statements.

I think I've gotten what I wanted... Appreciate the details in each response. 🙏

I'm still seeing misrepresentations of my words or perhaps misinterpretations of what I believe but all is well.

Take it this way:
In mathematics (back then), there was some sort of an argument of whether a number divided by zero should be equal to 0 or equal to 'undefined'. Both were in a sense mathematically accurate and fitted the rules of maths to some degree.

Now you're repeatedly showing me explanations and equations, formulas and all the stuff that lead to your conclusion (which I as a fellow mathematician already understand and believe in).
But also as mathematicians, we can deduce 'proofs' for both sides of the argument if we wanted to. And the fact that this contradiction exists is the reason why it's almost like I can't absolutely dismiss your explanations and vice versa.

Here's the bigger deal tho, there was always one answer all along but when you don't have a good understanding of maths, you can't really know enough to absolutely guarantee you're the right person (or not).

I believe some better knowledge came with growth and conclusions were made that 'undefined' should be the only correct answer later on sha, but even then it was a bit complicated to dismiss the other school of thought.

If I'm wrong, I hope to learn once that growth comes.

One day I hope we'll get to talk about this when there's more knowledge available, possibly when there's a better world available.

Edited for extra context @FxMasterz

FxMasterz:
Thanks for your explanation brother.

However, let me put it straight to you that your explanation brings up a lot of problems because your position leans towards polytheism. Yeah, a Son of God should be God and not man, but God does not beget using the same process by which man begets.


God begets by multiplying Himself like a biological cell does. Just that, He's just 3 manifestatiion. Let me take for Instancce Moses and the 70 elders in Numbers 11. God told Moses that He'll take the Spirit upon Moses and impart the 70 elders so they can support him in leadership. In the end, we had 70 people imbued with the Spirit of God who started prophesying. Did they Spirit of God become 71? No. The Spirit of God is One Spirit.

Infact, the Bible explicitly states that there's One Spirit (Ephesians 4:4), but we see Him indwelling millions of Believers. All those millions of Believers each have a manifestation of the Spirit but there's just one Holy Spirit, not millions.

If Jesus is a separate entity from.tje Father and not a manifestation of the Father HIMSELF, then, we become polytheists if we calm Jesus God. However, the Bible gives no.room for polytheism. There's only one God.

Then, when you search the Scriptures deeply, you'll see many overlapping activities of the Father and Son. For example, who created all things? The Father of course. But the New Testament abundantly tells us, the Son created all things. Is that contradictory? No. The Father and the Son are the same Person. In Revelation 21, we are told that the New Jerusalem shall be lighted by God and the Lamb, then, we hear, and He (Not They) shall be the Light of it. Take a look also at Revelation 7:17. We have only one throne in heaven throughout the Book of Revelation. The throne is occupied by God Almighty. Suddenly, in Revelation 7:17,'we see the Lamb in the midst of the throne. That same one throne is for both God and the Lamb This shows indeed that "The Father and I are One" as Jesus already said.

And conclusively, let's hear what Jesus said to Philp in John 14, when Philip was asking Him to show them the Father.


"Have I been with you for so long a time and yet you have not known Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; so how can you say, 'Show us the Father'?

If I keep talking, it'll almost sound like I want an argument. Meanwhile all is cool here bro. 😅

Asides some points you're making (which I'm clearly understanding), all your main points still back the explanation I gave regarding what I believe personally. Like every single thing you've said would still hold if you apply them to my own version of belief.

The only thing I should clarify is that I didn't exactly say there are three distinct "Gods" (making me polytheistic), rather I said: 'the one we call Jehovah is the God'
Then the rest are: 'in the same caliber'.

It's complicated talk I agree, but then it also comes down to understanding of terms and knowing which definition a speaker is referring to at that moment. That's God as a title, God as a class, God as a placeholder name.

And well, if your beliefs make you "polytheistic" and you haven't been convinced they are false, do you have any other option, than to be a "polytheist"? 🥲

FxMasterz:
Smiling, you're welcome brother.

We have had a brief talk about the Holy Spirit in a previous thread but let me just share a few things with you here.

The Holy Spirit is God. That's why when the Holy Spirit comes to dwell in us, we say God is in us. When the Holy Spirit gives you an instruction, you can rightly say, God spoke to you.

But interestingly, the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God and the Spirit of Christ as well. Both God and Christ have the same Holy Spirit. This makes it even clearer that both God and Christ are the same person. Let's see this Scripture here:

Let's look at Romans 8:9, which states:

"You, however, are not in the realm of the flesh but are in the realm of the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, they are not his."

The Spirit of God lives in you, and that's also the Spirit of Christ. If the Spirit of God and of Christ does not live in you, then, you're none of Christ's.

There are several other Scriptures but this one should actually open our eyes as to who the Holy Spirit is.

.

Okay let me try hitting the nail on the head and go straight to my beliefs too.

Maybe it seemed like I was ignorant or disagreed with Jesus and the Holy Spirit being "God".

So, yes and yes, I'd agree with you here (probably 100% sef).

But the question for me isn't whether the Holy Spirit is God, I already understand He is so everything you've said flows.

If we come back to the original reasoning however, the question is whether God is one main God expressing the entirety of Himself as three separate Entities (to which you've said yes).

Here's what I usually say:
A lion is a lion. The child of a lion is a lion. The bones of a lion are still part of the lion.

I somehow believe that they're all in the same caliber of entities, the caliber above everything else.
And that the one we call Jehovah is the God.
But then the Scriptures actually stress a father-son relationship between God and Jesus so I do believe that Jehovah somehow created Jesus as a son of sort and elevated Him so much, putting Him in so much power, authority, control, obligation that He's almost as important as God Himself (if not more), and together they're working to achieve the goals of the Father, which by extension is also the goal of Jesus.
And because of the way they set up their relationship, everywhere you see the Father, you see the Son, and vice versa. Implying that the things that make up Jehovah, that make Him God are also the same things that make up Jesus, making Him God too (in all these, roles stay clear, pronounced. And these roles varied across different times).
Then I believe the Holy Spirit (possibly different Spirits acting in unison) is an actual extension/part of Jehovah Himself, specially curated to dwell with us and all you've said (amongst other things), not much there that I think is worth trying to explain at this my stage of growth.

Which takes us back to where we started at first... Different Entities, or one multi-expressional Entity.

FxMasterz:
Thank you very much for your questions.

God is a very complex Being, there's nothing on earth that we can use to state exactly how God is or who God is. We're limited by language and experience.

However, from what we see in Scripture, God is One Person who manifests in 3 different ways. Some Trinitarians may differ, but, I don't go by popular opinions, I always study the Scriptures by myself to ensure that I do not allow myself to be deceived or misled by another man.

Let me answer the question asked by SarcasticWords here. He has asked me to explain why the Son does not know the time of the end, but only the Father.

I'll also like to ask why the Father is said to be Judge, but eventually we find that the Father does not judge anyone?

The Scriptures call the Father, the Judge of the whole earth, and He's said to do judgement in Righteousness. Now, in the New Testament, the Scripture says" The Father HIMSELF judges no man but has committed ALL judgements to the Son." This Scripture does not say, the Father does no longer judge, and has now transferred the position of Judge to the Son. This is not what that Scripture says. It says, the Father judges no man. He has never judged anyone. It's the Son who judges. In spite of that, the Father is called The Judge of the whole earth.

To understand what's happening, you need to take a look at 1Cor. 12 to see how the Father, Son and Holy Spirit work together by splitting roles. Yet, all the roles are carried out by one Person - God. Not Gods.

God manifests HIMSELF in different three ways, and assign individual roles to His 3 different manifestations. All manifestations are the manifestation of God. One God. Not three.

Now, God is Judge, not through His Fatherly role but through His role as Son. The Judge part of God is carried out through His Son manifestation. That explains the Scripture regarding God being Judge and yet does not judge anyone.

Now, to your question, God is Omniscient through His Fatherly role. The Omniscience of God lies in His Fatherhood. In His Sonhood lies other roles other than Omniscience. The Son does not know but the Father knows the time of the End. That's something difficult for man to explain because it's beyond the experience of man, but God is not man, what man cannot experience can be experienced by God.

God can have a part of Him that knows all things, and another part that does not know all things. It depends on what God has allocated to each part of Himself for His own Devine purposes.

Now, take note. Not that God cannot Judge. God can judge but He has assigned the judgement role to the Son. In the same vein, not that the Son cannot know, the Son can know but the Omnisicient role is assigned to the Father.

If you will dismiss all other Scripture just because of a few Scripture that depicts the Son as being inferior to the Father, you will have a lot of contradictions in Scripture that you will never be able to solve. And if you decide to ignore other Scripture that places the Son as God, you will not be doing justice to the Word of Truth.

Let me conclude with the following Scripture that further tells us who the Son is:

In Micah 5:2, it is written:

"But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting."

The Ruler who'll rule over Israel, which is Jesus has existed from of old, from everlasting. He has existed from eternity past. Like God the Father, He has no beginning.

I studied the Hebrew version of the verse above to find that He has existed without a begining. From an everlasting past. There's no other person who has that type of pre-existence other than God Himself.

So, except we have two Gods, even this Scripture in Micah forces us to agree that God the Father and the Son are the same Person.

Mehnnn... Thank you

Really appreciate this, simple but deep enough. Absolutely understand every point.

I might not necessarily flow with the entire explanation since as you know, there's Scriptural backing to support the other idea that Jesus is separate enough from Jehovah. But there's no issue at all, just wanted to see through your lens...
(I believe something quite close sha, but not exactly similar).

Was just observing zero talk about the Holy Spirit. 😅
Which is exactly what I was thinking about cos omo, that's the one place I have absolutely no knowledge on so if I was typing something like this, I'd likely also talk at length about Jehovah and Jesus and totally avoid the Spirit.

SarcasticWords:
FxMasterz

Please explain this : “But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.”

If Jesus is God The Father Incarnate, Shouldn't he know the day or hour? Why does he not know the day or Hour even though all authority has been given to him in heaven and on earth?

I don't know, this whole Trinity stuff has been trending but I've not really understood their definition of this Trinity.

Let me add a voice to ask:
Does "Trinity" imply God as one personality/entity embodied/represented in Jehovah, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit?
OR
Does "Trinity" imply the entirety of God as three distinct personalities/entities (Father, Son, Spirit) who together come together to be "God".

Or is there more? What's a basic definition we should have in mind when people like you talk about Trinity.

I think this helps sets the stage to answer your question better.

cc: FxMasterz

Uncle I'll tag you when I need your opinion okay?

For now you can stop jumping into my conversations with OP.
I haven't tagged you and see no reason to tag you at all 😅

In the meantime there's people who will value this your attention better, I hear they're looking for you for questioning. 😂

wumiwumi100:
Exactly! Thank you for reasoning critically instead of just throwing scriptures around to silence the conversation. The analogy you gave about a school where children are molested is spot on. If someone experiences harm in an institution, speaking up isn’t bitterness — it’s responsibility. How else will others be protected if survivors keep quiet?

This is where the hypocrisy comes in: when it’s about other religions, Jehovah’s Witnesses freely publish magazines, books, and online content exposing what they call “false religion.” They warn others about “Babylon the Great” without apology. Yet the moment someone who left their organization dares to speak up about what they experienced, suddenly it becomes “don’t talk about the past, move on.” That’s double standards, and it exposes fear, fear that the truth about them being spoken will open more eyes.

At the end of the day, the Bible says in Ephesians 5:11: “Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them.” If former members are exposing harmful practices, they are following that scripture, not breaking it.

Silencing people is not the way of Christ but exposing falsehood is. If your faith is real, let it face examination instead of hiding behind excuses.

Honestly wish I had enough time and energy on my hand to engage all these talks...

But one this is sure bro, you're not the first here on NL, you won't be the last either.
Many old members have spoken up in the past and as tradition, Max has always been there to drop a counter opinion.

If I were giving free advice I'd advise against wasting time engaging him hoping he'll reason on anything you say.
Everyone who knows him can tell you how he handles conversations, he's predictable enough for me to predict that you'll just end up with another unnecessarily prolonged thread with no key takeaways.
Unless of course you're just there to enforce your points and maybe catch cruise with all disagree-ers.

The most in depth informations I got about JW came from people like you boss, carry on. 🙌

wumiwumi100:
Thank you for this. Honestly, I appreciate the fact that you didn’t try to dismiss my experience like how Max is doing. You understood the simple point that if someone has been inside a system, they are in the best position to talk about what they saw, both good and bad.

Even the Bible shows that exposing false practices is not “hatred” but love for truth. Paul himself spoke about the things he used to practice as a Pharisee (Philippians 3:4 to and even warned against the errors of those who tried to mislead others (Acts 20:29–30). So there’s nothing wrong if former members speak up.

And you’re right, former members have firsthand knowledge, so pretending their voices don’t matter is just hypocrisy. Thank you once again for being fair enough to see that and not just trying to silence me.

It's easy to pretend they can't understand a concept so simple.

Who else should talk about the JW problem if there is any?

They'll attempt to silence any non-JW Christian who uses the Scriptures to prove their teaching is false, with the explanation that our understanding of the Scriptures isn't complete (since we're not members) so we won't grasp to some certain depths.

Then the active JW members nko? They'll attempt to silence any internal member who supposedly understand Scriptures from their point of view but argues against what they teach (actually whatever their head office recommends at the time), by first attempting to convince them they they're wrong, then proceeding to "banish" them and tell all their members to avoid them and avoid even listening to the reasoning they present.

Now Max also attempts to silence ex-members by telling them to move on, discover something better and find peace with that.
(And by extension, keep shut about whatever evil they might have found in the system while they were there?)

Absurd stuff. It's almost foolishness arguing afresh. Just lay your points bro and whoever finds it will be informed properly when they read through.
Brand loyalists will always push their brand no matter your argument.

MaxInDHouse:
If you are sincere with yourself there is no need asking people to come and tell you what they experienced in their former religion because we all have what we believe or practiced formerly before our conversion.

For instance Jesus was talking one day and all his disciples left him never to see him again remaining the only apostles. John 6:66

The question any sincere person should ask is: have they found a better religion?

Peter answered that there is nowhere to turn to if they leave Jesus. John 6:68

So if some people are complaining about their former religion i will ask them:

Have you found a better one?

Mr. Maximus oo 😅

Sometimes people give responses as though the world revolves around their thinking process.
Think broad a bit, or better still openly say you choose to reject any knowledge that comes from elsewhere (close-mindedness).

Whichever way, your argument wasn't with me, the question I asked wasn't for you and your answer didn't exactly satisfy me either. Carry on with your thing, I'll have no further response after this one.

For your first paragraph, let me ask this question (rhetorical):
Following your ideology, if someone leaves a school where they molest children, the person shouldn't speak up and raise awareness? They should just carry on finding out a better school and leave the past behind?
Replicate this analogy and boldly convince yourself on flawed reasonings (as usual).

I don't even know why you started including Passages that didn't relate with your point.
Maybe next time, include passages where people are encouraged not to speak up and raise awareness when they leave a former, false religion.

MaxInDHouse:
Please check the screenshot below this guy's post.
This shows you don't have anything new to share ever since you left JWs.

Haba! When will you start living for your future and stop returning to what you left behind?

I was a Muslim but check all my posts on this forum all i share is my new found faith because there's nothing to write home about my former religion but if i have to keep seeking attention over my former religion then why did i leave in the first place?🤔

Hmm, I hear you sir.

Still, I prefer former members criticising what they left, based on their experience, as opposed to random scholars sharing their learnings.

(Both are valid tho).

Someone not doing what YOU would have done, doesn't make them wrong.

MaxInDHouse:
After leaving against God's Organization they want to accuse the group but don't know how to go about it again!

If you are tired of one religion what stops you from joining a better one?

I don't know how to put it to you Max, but if this guy is an ex-JW, then I fully understand why he's making posts against you guys.

I saw the post, saw the similar posts on his profile and just got curious.
Wasn't asking with intention of mockery or anything, unless of course he isn't a former member and was just making posts for engagement.

If there's anyone I'd expect anti-JW posts from, it would be the former members who know what they're talking about.

Former JW?

(More more more more characters needed)

Still looking...

No Dev willing to part ways with his account? 🙁

davidaluu:
What do you think of the added language feature?
https://chatnaija.onrender.com/

It's been a while boss

Your work is still looking so sharp and neat...

What's the final plan na 🌚

Alphabyte3:
Great job bro , Supermod push post to frontpage let's celebrate our guy .

Supermods that are waiting patiently to push one ethnic bigotry or useless political take

GM, GM, GM Nairaland

Anyone here has an old Google Play Console account for sale?

Should come with at least one live app and seller should be open to confirming identity and running checks

Reply with details and your price

Cashme29:
Hello! Sorry, I'd been very busy this past week.
My answer to all these questions will be that asking them in that context already means you are creating the idea for a god already. For me, GOD, if anyone like that exists at all (in the context of a being all-powerful, and all-knowing), should never even be a question. We do not need to create a GOD to have creation. If there is a creator, it should be all too obvious without a possibility of a debate.

I always thought the idea of whether or not there is a GOD should be common sense answer; it should never require a high IQ or some intelligent explanations. If it isn't obvious already, no debate can make it so. A god should not be proven, it should be real, except if this GOD is some impersonal thing; maybe some "all-powerful", impersonal force of creation (like the big bang, or evolution, or universal gravity, or mathematics). Even these forces of nature are all too obvious. They should be open (as they are) for debate though.

So if we talk of a creator as a natural force of nature; Yes! It makes total sense. But as some conscious all-powerful, all-knowing being? NAH!

Hello, good morning sir.

Well then?
All is well.

Was a relatively nice conversation. Won't try pushing any agenda

AlbertNewton:
At this point I believed I've abused my privilege by typing extremely long stuff, I hope you bear with me... 😂😂

So one of my main issues with the biblical god is promising the land of other people to the Israelites and eventually ordering the Israelite to murder everyone in those lands. As a believer in a "loving" god, how do you rationalize this act ?

Which parts of the bible have you had to question seriously when you started to study the bible, and which explanations did you come up with eventually that make sense to you ?

Are there still parts of the bible that don't quite make sense to you ?

I won't lie oo, I've not really read the entirety of the Bible enough to qualify as fully going through the whole thing.

The issues I have once in a while are usually vague details, like "Why was this particular choice of words used?" Or "What's the significance of this story they added?" small small stuff.
I didn't really keep track but back in the early days I had much confusion, over time they left, much time has passed.

I keep getting new understanding while reading the same things tho.

If I could lay a hold of my Bible Study notes I'd be able to find some places where I had issues and eventually understood. Unfortunately I'm a bit old in this path 😅

Revelations tho, I have a hard time understanding everything down to the detail. I'd understand one thing, then moving forward I'd start questioning my knowledge. There's still a lot of work there for me, hoping I get help soon enough.

Have skipped one part... Hoping you get to understand why.

AlbertNewton:
.

Hello sir, good evening...

I don't know if it's just me, but today's response looks soo long. Maybe my brain is having a slow day, taking too much time to read through. 😅

I just thought to pause everything and commend you.

There's a feeling you get when you taste good food after eating something you didn't even realise was bad for a long time.

There's a feeling you get when you see people talk like simple logical humans online after being used to erratic conversations (I know I'm also guilty of cause these erratic conversations in the first place, I hope I never go back there).

Trust you're doing well?

Yeah, I get you. You're basically saying some truths are unknowable, so everyone just believes whatever makes the most sense to them. And since there's no ultimate judge for who's right or wrong, everyone just hold on to their own "truth".
I guess you may also be insinuating that the truth about God may fall in this category of unknowable/unverifiable truth.

Yes that was the thought.

And yhh, from the normal physical word's perspective, the truth about God should fall into this category.
But then for people who believe in the supernatural, obviously the truth has to be exactly what the Supreme Being says it is.
So to me, the truth is whatever God says it is.
Then we'd still have the liberty of believing (more like accepting to believe) something else.
So still Objective Truth and Personal Belief, but this time around there's a fixed standard for determining the objective truth.

1. Perhaps if the biblical god were not as tribalistic and murderous as the bible accounts show him to be, I would find him much more acceptable.
2. If he didn't create hell for people to burn in forever as punishment for different petty sins, then I would like him more.
3. If he demonstrates more intelligence and compassion in dealing with people, realising that they cannot be entirely blamed for their flaws (because they are largely controlled by their biology and psychology), he would seem more real to me.

Of what benefit would this conversation be if I don't attempt to address some of the my thoughts on these:
All my opinions here.

1. I think playing the role of a judge comes with the task of deep research. Researching to understand.
A judge would have to understand so many things like personality, backstory, reason, details... Stuff like that.
Some people do love to ask why God allows bad things go unpunished, then proceed to do bad things, and then also proceed to ask God why He punishes them... I think that's one thing you can think about.

After looking into the personality of God, there's some consistent behavioural patterns/character you can start to see.
For instance storytelling, mystery, repeated symbolism, surprise... Stuff like that.
Liberty of choice, after explaining the exact consequences of each.

I think there's a lot to understand before judging.

Then after everything, what is life?
What if He takes life only when He knows the rest of it will be meaningless to Him and to the owner, to be restored back at a time where it will be way more meaningful and full of second chances?

Thought: Does an actual father often take away the lives of their children when they start over abusing it or when he's protecting them from something, etc.? Like restricting the social life of a child who's a nuisance to society, or when there's nuisance out in the society.

Yhh I understand some of the reasons may seem (barbaric), but times change, different generations see different things differently.

2. I won't even go into the details but from the same Scriptures you were exposed to, I've read, concluded and found groups of people who've concluded that that idea is false to large extents.
The vivid picture of hell that's been painted by the church for decades now is not even in the Scriptures. Plenty of those things were conclusions drawn from ancient Greek and Roman mythology. We could dive in, or you could take these cues to do a little research.
The Bible just shows many rough sketches of what judgement would look like and the original words used in the Bible doesn't even translate to the definitions of hell we have now. And just like with plenty other things, there's much symbolic representation of things, doesn't necessarily have to be a literal interpretation.

The summary of what I believe about life, death and judgement as a whole is this:
• God is a just, impartial judge. Whatever you can imagine, that properly counts as unfair treatment or impartiality, God will likely not do that.
• Men do evil, became evil by nature, know the moral status of a majority of their actions.
• God sees the heart, motive behind the actions of every man.
• God eventually rewards every right action appropriately, condemns for every wrong action appropriately.
• This as you'd expect happens after giving everyone a chance to correct their mistakes here.

At the end of the day a just Judge will sentence you to whatever punishment you rightly deserve for your action, after considering motive, influence, disposition (like remorse).

And if God is a just Judge, there's no burning in hell forever for some basic set of wrongdoings. Unless of course there's certain sins that might require that. (Which I really really doubt).

3. Well, I think intelligence and compassion like many other things will be relative. What seems intelligent to you might not seem intelligent enough to someone twice as wise. I get it though, I do ask the exact same questions at times, in other ways.
But I've given things you can reflect on that covers that aspect in the other responses.

No, the Energy I am proposing as the source of creation is completely devoid of personality. Characteristics and personalities merely emerge in the various things the energy transform to: greenness of vegetation, speed of light, gravity around massive bodies, emotions in human beings etc are all qualities that emerged as a result of energy transforming to different things. The energy itself doesn't have those qualities.

Ohhhh I see. Fair point.

Just like white light giving off a whole spectrum of colours that seemed like they weren't there before, if you're familiar with those parts of physics.

But don't you think this Energy has to somehow have a mechanism for choosing what to dispense from itself, and how to change form to give off such elaborately detailed results?
One of the only ways energy can be out to use is when it's "harnessed" so?? Shouldn't there be something harnessing this Eternal Infinite Energy? Whether in itself of independent of itself.

Meanwhile have you heard of the word Yahweh and the concept behind it? The struggle with understanding the original words that translated into it...

The word is what the Biblical God was said to give as His name.
After many people struggled with understanding it and how it should be translated, some people stood to agree that God said something like, "I AM" to Moses in a complex way that makes it sound like "I am that which I am/that which I will be".

Again, gives the same energy as your Eternal Infinite Energy just casually existing, becoming other things.

Of course anything that can be considered as the creator or source of the universe must be itself "uncreatable" and indestructible. But the idea of a personal God with certain qualities is problematic for being the ultimate source, because it makes us start to question how such specific personalities or qualities emerged in such an entity. Why is he good and not evil ? Why does he have certain emotions? These questions imply that something must have caused the entity to have the specific set of qualities it has, meaning that it is itself subject to something external, thereby invalidating it/him as the ultimate source.

I don't know... The point is seen but still doesn't seem to work well as a point to me.
You're still saying God having a personality would invalidate his God-ness but I still think the fact that the creation and the creator seem to possess the possibility of doesn't necessarily mean anything bad for the creator, just part of the whole mirroring stuff.
Can't really place my head around it so I'll leave it there.

But what if it's the emotions along with independent logic and all that that makes up sentience? So God being God has all that in order to be sentient. Then mirrors all those characteristics into us in order for us to be sentient as well?

And you know every emotion has its own use. The issue would be when emotions can't be controlled, are used wrongly.

Then again, being subject to external influences (not control) isn't necessary bad right?
As a creator I can make a dish that gives me pleasure when I eat it, without it taking away my superiority by claiming it controls me, right?

For the idea of good and bad, I was just trying to compose a thought when I realised all I was saying was an interpretation of something called Divine Command Theory. Looking it up will pass the thought better than I ever could.

But yhh, that'll only apply to people who already believe in the first place.

The simple problem is that our mind simply can't process the idea of something being eternal. Our brain power is just not equipped for something like that. So it will still actually make sense to question the source of this "energy". But since we also know logically that something has to be the ultimate source of everything we see around us, our best bet is just to look for the best candidate that could be the ultimate creator. So to me, based on what is known scientifically (for now), an Eternal Infinite Energy is what makes the most sense to me as the ultimate source of creation. But as I've emphasized before, I'm open to other possibilities and theories.

Actually the thought makes a lot of sense. I've taken it with me already, adding it as another layer of understanding.

And yhh humans by nature are curious beings. Then also sometimes they just feign curiosity to mask other agendas... 😏

I get you now. I agree that if we specifically want to create sentient entities we will most likely take a cue or inspiration from what is already available in our environment and then perhaps make some modifications. So it makes sense to assume that if we are indeed created by a sentient creator, then part of his personalities will show up in us. But the reverse is also true. If we, as sentient beings, want to imagine a sentient entity that supposedly created us, then part of the attributes and characteristics we will ascribe to this entity will most probably mirror our own personalities.

Yhh that was the precise point. And yes the reverse is also true, the argument goes both ways unfortunately...

As for the purpose of the universe (and us), I think if we take religion and religious teachings out of the equation and just observe the universe objectively, there is no real purpose in the grand scheme of things. On some level though certain things may serve some valuable purposes: like the Sun sustaining life on earth, certain microorganisms being essential in the human body to carry out different vital processes, or an individual living his life for a particular cause. But it doesn't seem like there's any specific purpose to it all.

Exactly, we can't see the purpose. 😅
So then what better explanation do we have given the extent of intent, complexity and attention to detail, than to say we're just test-runs of some sort of project, or some pleasure project? Or the answer is beyond our realm, in the hands of some sort of creator...

Actually if I put aside certain events recorded in the bible (especially in the old testament) and some core Christian beliefs (heaven and hell, Jesus dying for our sins), Christianity in its modern form is largely appealing. Far more good than evil have been done through Christianity and Christians generally just want to live good lives and go to heaven when they die. So even though I believe Christianity is based on falsehoods, I think Christianity is good for the world for the most part. It is a great social gathering for people to meet others and have fun (which is part of what makes us human).

What can I say?
We hold similar beliefs on some of these things.

Also looks easy to understand why you'd think in some of these ways.

I still go to church once in a while by the way (I always enjoy the singing and dancing, and sometimes interesting motivational sermons by intelligent preachers about general life matters). And sometimes when I see people in such joyous mood while singing and dancing, I wish I could also throw away my rationality and be like them.

Ahh!! What better way to surprise me? 😂
It's mixed feelings honestly...

While atheism is liberating (you're no longer living under the shackles of religion), but if you ask me if I would rather have the whole world become atheists, I would say no. I'm not too sure about how good it will be for the world if the vast majority of people become atheists. When people realise there's no sky daddy monitoring their every move and who has written some laws they have to obey, I don't know what they would choose to do with that freedom.
So summarily, I acknowledge that Christianity (especially in its modern form) is generally good for the world (if we regard it merely as a social organisation), but I do not believe in the core tenets of the religion.

Ohh, bold statements.
At least you know in detail what you stand for: Not Atheism per se, not anti-Christianity, just something logical.

Back then I used to say actual Christianity shouldn't be called a religion. At its basic form, just do whatever is right and you're good to go. Denomination-based doctrines spoilt things for us.

This is actually a big issue for me. If the bible is the best means the "all-knowing" god could think of to convey the truth to the people, then he has failed very woefully. Many passages in the bible, which are supposedly meant to address crucial issues, are ambiguous and open to different interpretations. This is why it's very easy for pastors to form different denominations based on their own interpretation and understanding of what god wants. And since there is no final judge, everyone keeps believing his own "truth" (as you would say), and the confusion continues!

I'm somehow betting that if there was a book with clear instructions and explanations (there are), people will still twist it. 😅
Takes us back to the gender talk and truth being a personal stuff... Who decides what's a woman and why/how did people leave the hard scientific facts to convince themselves of other stuff?

It'll also be the whole idea of humans just chasing dust... Leaving the instructions and explanations that are obvious and straightforward and looking for meaning in between lines of letters that were casually written without the intention of it being included as part of a Bible.

Thirdly, according to the Scriptures, the God I believe in kinda just loves speaking in riddles and mystery—parables. If He's actually God and that's His own nature, who are we to complain?
According to Scriptures too, humans by nature are somehow referred to as inquisitive.
So wouldn't it make sense that we complement each other? A mysterious God and His inquisitive creation, Him leaving clues, us digging them out. Maybe that's part of His definition of "pleasure".

Whatever the case sha, the perceived damage seems to be done and I can see why you say so

AlbertNewton:
At the bolded, I think the "personal truth" you're talking about is what is called belief. But regardless of what everyone believes as the truth at a personal level, objective truth
still exists. But when the objective truth is hard to establish, personal truths thrive, everyone feels their own personal version of the truth is the real truth 😐

Yhh, objective truth is what it's called?
Trying to establish that whatever it is, no one can actually know cos like who decides? For instance just yesterday, a woman was anything with a XX chromosomes (I hope), but now people are pushing that it's just a matter of choice.
Every knowledge that counts as truth now can somehow just get changed (and I mean the useful changes like proper corrections too). So it's like TRUTH in itself is something that's we're not even capable of knowing, we're just able to have the privilege of getting all that context we need, and then we can conveniently choose to believe. Was just pondering there, nothing serious at all, if you understand the thought process there.

You're basically telling me to create a god in my imagination (as people have done through the ages) and tell you what it looks like

Bro, I mean... No. 😂
Not a bad interpretation of what I asked oo but more like adjusting the unliked characters of this "God" you grew up to know, based on the template.
I was trying to see if your acceptable version of "God" is who I already see my God as.

I guess starting from scratch is still acceptable.

Well, I've actually thought about this before. When I considered the insane vastness of the universe (hundreds of billions of stars in each galaxy and trillions of galaxy in just the observable part of the universe alone, keeping in mind that the Sun, which is just an average star, is millions of times bigger than the earth), and the potentiality that each star probably has a planet revolving around it with intelligent lives, the best candidate my mind could imagine as the creator is an Eternal Infinite Energy.
Scientifically, it is established that ENERGY can neither be created nor destroyed (which essentially means it is eternal). Furthermore, we have come to understand that everything in the universe is just energy expressing itself in different forms (heat, light, photons, atoms, living organisms, stars, black holes are all just energy, in different forms). But in this case, the energy is not just "creating", rather it is transforming itself to different forms through different processes.

Any objections on this idea ?

Noooo, not at all. The kinds of things I love to hear.

Does your "God" need an accompanying personality as well, interested in his character too?

But then Eternal Infinite Energy? "Energy can neither be created nor destroyed, but can be converted from one form to another", do you see how it wants to match the same energy as "[The monotheistic] God wasn't created, cannot be destroyed, and from Him everything was created, His words converting to the universe as we know it"?

Meanwhile I'm just learning something new also.
You know how one of our arguments for the existence of God is that from our observation on Earth, everything created has a creator, a source somewhere. And that our creator will ultimately be God.
Their immediate response will be: So who created God.
Even when there's other elaborate ways to try and explain the logic there, what if you've just given the best answer, the exception: Energy. Energy can not be created nor destroyed...

I imagine them proceeding to ask: What if the initial energy was just that dust in the Big?

It is well 😂

Actually humans rarely create things that mirror them. The game example you cited is an exception (a very rare one) in which the developer specifically wants to simulate his world in a game. Look at all of the millions of things humans have created, how many of them are like us ?
But I guess it can be argued also that the creation of the earth specifically is an attempt by the creator (God) to simulate the realities of his realm on earth 🤔.

But this leads to a question : When humans create something (car, phone, bridge, electricity etc) it is almost always to serve a particular purpose. If we assume the creator is also like us in that regard, what purpose would you say he had in mind when he created the universe ?

No I meant like the idea of creating something that simulates sentience.

Like, if God wanted to create stuffs that simulate sentience, the sentient characters themselves will try to reflect the qualities He's already seen over there. Their environment might try to follow some patterns that already happen over there. Same with the humans creating their own simulation of the world in open world games.

And this then would imply that maybe we didn't create God's that think like us, but we think the way we do because a God tried to make us similar to themselves in that aspect.

In terms of creation in general (asides the sentience part), we already know that every intentional creation is made with purpose, not to mirror. (As you've noted).
With "God" for instance you could say He's created some useful stuff in his realm that you've not been aware of yet, just like we create ours here.

The purpose for this "God" creating us?
I would say what I saw in the scriptures, and what makes the most sense so far to me: For His pleasure.

Wish I had other things I believed instead
Most times it perfectly makes sense to me, seeing like the video game analogy or most things that were created by man.

A few times it doesn't... Like mehn, why? (I do get my answers tho, I can live with them)

If you want more details, I think you will have to ask me questions specifically on the kind of details you want or whatever you need me to clarify about my stance which I tried to state clearly in a previous reply.

I'm already seeing a lot...

I actually do like the personality of Jesus especially with regard to how he preached about and demonstrated love, kindness and godly living.
The main issues I have with Jesus' doctrine are the following :
1. The idea of heaven and hell, which by the way seem to me as inventions of Jesus as they were not talked about in the old testament (I stand to be corrected though). The idea that a loving God will condemn people to hell for some petty sins (like fornication or not believing a particular thing) just doesn't make sense to me
2. The requirement for believing in Jesus as the Lord and Saviour for one to be saved is also something that doesn't make sense to me. I consider billions of people that lived before jesus and those that live after Jesus but without getting to hear anything about Jesus, let alone believe. What is the fate of these people ?
3. The belief that Jesus is the son of God or that he is even God himself and that he came to the world to die for our sins is also something I find ridiculous.

Omooo
Sometimes what I try to see is: asides everything that's a concern to you, would you be comfortable signing up for Christianity?

Like in your case, what if in the future you got convinced that the details in these things you believed is quite (far) different from the picture you see.

At the same time there's many doctrines flying around so again, who decides what's TRUTH and what isn't.

1. I can't really check, but what if the representation of heaven and hell that's allegedly in the new testament, isn't even there at all. Just misinterpretations, fabrications?

Then for the rest, it still comes down to the whole beliefs and truths from here.

I see all you're saying sha. Sounds as logical as it can get, then there's always room to introduce more logic, if you want.
At least to fully understand the thing that you don't agree with. So that your disagreement isn't coming from a place of ignorance.

MaxInDHouse:
Well i've made my point and it's clear you can't be a worshiper of my own God if you're not under the umbrella of Jehovah's Witnesses!

Okay oo...

MaxInDHouse:
I can say boldly that you have no religion at all because i ignored your post as you were just trolling unable to make any valid point on what your church teaches.

I can never ever ignore anyone who says what his church teaches and mentions the name of the church practicing it for everyone to be sure of what he/she said.

So if you're still hiding behind the walls of Babylon the great (world empire of false religion claiming Christians) there is nothing further to discuss but be rest assured that you don't have any specific religion that you can't present that's why all of you are hiding behind the anonymous name "CHRISTENDOM"

Okay then.

The point still remains tho...

Peace.

Just had to add: Me giving you the details of my church and pushing to continue those conversations back then was trolling and hiding behind walls? Lol 😂
Maybe it's the opposite oo, the person that stopped replying immediately after I call out my church name and lay all my points at that moment... Maybe that person is the wall bender. 😅

But yhh it's cool. All these are side points.

MaxInDHouse:
Before you can say "this or that is what Jesus taught" you must be prepared to present a group practicing it which definitely should be your own church or group but when you claim Jesus taught something yet you can't point to any group practicing it that is delusion!

So tell me what Jesus taught that i said the opposite and the group practicing it!

For the first line, I'm not sure that's a valid point, seeing that the teachings have already been documented.

However, this were the exact same things you said back then, and when I followed through, it ended with the good ol' redundancy.
Won't be repeating that.

Might want to go back to some of my messages you never responded to back then if you want to know anything else.

What matters was the point I made just now. Glad you get it.

All calm here.

MaxInDHouse:
I don't want to say you are lying because the essence of pointing out what you said tthat's incorrect is to make you know so you won't say it before someone who will tell you:

"You are a liar, that's not what Jehovah's Witnesses teaches"

So please correct me in whatever i have said about your religion that's incorrect so i will never repeat it again because to me you don't have any religion!

Was rushing to type.

Meant to say:

If we try to follow this idea of everyone being "sure" of what they were pushing about the other's religion, then to me you've said many wrongs about my religion, and I've said many wrongs about yours too.

That aside.

Let's focused on the bolded you typed.

The point I'm trying to pass is that if everyone follows that idea of being sure, then anytime you speak about Christianity, everyone true Christian will tell you:

"You are a liar, that's not what Jesus Christ teaches"

Just the same way to you:

"I am a liar, that's not what Jehovah's Witnesses teaches"

I don't know if you get the point now?

As for my religion and your conclusions, I don't even know what's the basis for concluding but we talked about all those in the past. 😅
I pushed to continue those conversations back then but I think you didn't reply as I expected so the conversation eventually ended. Some of those comments and replies I made on that thread, I later deleted them at some point and you got to know it later, if you remember.

I even went as far as inviting you to a new dormant thread to continue this talk about my religion (and people's religion in general) but you never responded.

These days I have only enough strength to say I'm a Christian. That's all. 😌

So yhh, back to the points we were making:
I misrepresent your religion. No offence but you can't really complain seeing that you misrepresent mine too.
That's been the norm for a while. It's awful.

(I took note of the correction you made sha).

AlbertNewton:
Yeah I am well aware of this paradox.
I think one of the reasons for this is because any sufficiently complex situation is open to being analyzed from different perspectives , and each perspective may lead to a somewhat rational/sensible conclusion.

True

An analogy for this is the popular story about the blind men who were asked to touch/feel an elephant and to describe it afterwards. And because of the size of an elephant, it has many different sides (perspectives) so each blind man ended up describing the animal (drawing conclusions) based on the part of it that was touched/felt.
But I always have some respect for anyone who has come to form their belief or disbelief after honestly, carefully and rationally considering the plausibility/sensibility of such a belief, rather than blindly holding on to a belief because you are born into it (which is the case for the vast majority of people).
While getting to the ultimate truth might be very difficult or at least open-ended, I do believe that when we examine the evidence for a belief honestly, carefully and rationally enough we will learn some truths. But the problem is who is going to be the ultimate judge of what the truth is ? 🤔

Exactly... 😅

Emphasis in bold, What's the definition of TRUTH.
Me I sha know that TRUTH might also be considered as "relative". As you've said with the elephant analogy, all blind men carefully acknowledged the elephant, concluded, were all right, but to each, the other wasn't telling the TRUTH.

There's something I've been focusing on lately, Point Blank Fallacy.
The fact that what my point is valid doesn't mean other people's points are invalid. Many arguments assume that their points must stand—point blank.
Politicians loot money so we conclude: All politicians are wicked.
True but first of all, not all. Secondly, humans in general have natures, humans tend to be wicked.

A majority of the time, people who speak with point blank assertions just do so with more of emotions and less logic.

I think TRUTH in itself exists, then truth at a personal level of acceptance exists too, so everyone ends up choosing for themselves what is true and what isn't, even after seeing what the assumed 'Judge' dictates as true.

For me personally, while I'm open to the possibility of a supreme entity capable of creating the universe, I simply can't see the biblical god [ a god who reduced itself to a petty tribal deity (God of Israel) in a tiny portion of the universe and commanding genocide on other tribes just so he could give some land to his chosen people ] as the mastermind behind this universe. No matter how I consider it, it doesn't make sense to me that the biblical god is the source of the universe.
So while acknowledging that I may be wrong and other people may be able to see the biblical god in a whole different perspective that makes it make sense to them, I think the best I can do for now is still to hold on to what makes sense to me personally.

Well well well... What then fits your acceptable definition of God?
Specs, character, measurements..? 😏

All is well... always and ever will be
To each a right to his own beliefs after all.


I'm sure people that completely discard the idea of the possibility of a god will have there reasons too. Particularly, almost all gods are largely human-like, either in their physical form or characteristics, suggesting that they could all just be a product of our imagination, creating beings in our minds who are like but with much greater abilities.
But to me personally, I see this universe as a very strange place and there's no telling what could be out there.

At the bolded, sure.

Then you say something about the assumed personalities of God seems too human-like, therefore it's easy to dismiss the assumptions as imaginations.

But what if the conclusion you make there should actually be the opposite?

Think of game devs creating game world's, characters, features, stuff like that... Isn't there much of a striking resemblance between them and their creations? And rightly so. Cos I couldn't imagine anything less.

Like what entity should be capable of creating emotions, if he doesn't have emotions himself?
Or capable of creating sets of interconnected functionalities, if he doesn't have things like that going on in his realm?

It's always right to assume creations mirror whatever their creator already had. Not to 1:1 levels, not to perfection at all, but just enough to count.

At the bolded, yeah we could just discuss stuffs without necessarily trying to debate. And I even don't have much energy these days for religious debates because I've come to realise the futility of it. I've come to realise that nothing really matters after all, whether you believe or not in a god you die eventually and that is the end. So I'm just trying to enjoy the rare privilege I have to exist temporarily as a conscious being on this tiny planet in this insanely vast universe.

Is there anything in particular you would like me to say ?

Ehhh, who won't be tired of aimless arguments 😅😅

Was hoping to see details of what lead to your conclusions. You've said a bit about God's assumed character falling below your expectations from a God. Asides that?

Mind you, this exact reason is why many people don't believe the religion next door. Like Christians saying that the kinds of things Allah allegedly said and commanded are the exact reasons why they can never believe. So yhh that's fair point.

Asides that, how about the good sides?
How about the picture of Christianity that Jesus and his early followers pushed?
Any objections there?