₦airaland Forum

LiberaDeus:
1. Islams narration is taken from Judaism, Christianity's own is taken from Judaism. Doesnt that prove that Judaism is the one true religion. Christianity started 2000 years ago. It can be traced, thats when your so called religion was handed down to you guys. What are you even saying?

2. Belief means nothing in the presence of superior facts. For those who believe in the buddha am sure their facts are always true for them so please never argue with them.

3. Buddhism offers being one with God and achieving the state of God. What could beat that? sorry mister but your offer isnt the best. Hinduism
believes spirits inhabit cows and worship those spirits. Christianity believes in a talking donkey and snake.

These are basic things you have to know if you want to enter the debate on religion. Having to explain this wastes my time and takes us further away from the central argument.

1. Islam takes from Judaism but does not acknowledge this, and does not acknowledge it as being true. Christianity is only separated from Judaism by the Jews who do not accept Christ. Otherwise, biblically Christianity traces its roots right through what is called Judaism. Note that these terms originated with men.

If you are still having trouble conceptualizing this, then forget i said Judaism. Christianity traces the relationship with between God and man right through the days of the Law. If do not know what the Law is, then look it up on google.

The Jewish holy book, the Tora, is contained in the Bible. They accept part of what we believe, but reject the major part which is from where Christ came. That is the difference.

2. I have no idea what you are trying to say.

3. a. I hope you understand what i meant when i said we are using a process of elimination? Buddhism has been eliminated at point 2 where i noted the main proponent must have been perfect. Please keep up and stop forcing me to go back to things i have already covered, which should be easily understood.

b. This is painful. I am literally in pain over the fact that i have to reply this. You mean you don't understand the difference between believing that a donkey spoke and worshiping cows? Every religion believes in what non-believing people would call impossible or miracles. I am at a total loss as to how to your mind that is comparable to actually worshiping cows.

lonelydora:
For all those that will come here to bash the men of God listen. Because they are pastors doesn't mean they should look haggard and poor. "Our God supplies all our needs from his riches in glory."

I prefer to worship with a pastor who is rich so that I can tap from his blessings too and get rich THAN worship with one who is poor and make me lose hope in life.

I prefer a medical doctor in Reddington Hospital than a doctor in a rural clinic.

When all blessings in Christ are freely given to all...you are looking for a way to tap from a man's blessings?

NwaAmaikpe:


This shows he is truly a follower of Christ.


Even Jesus rode an unused Colt during the triumphantic entry into Jerusalem..equivalent of todays tear-rubber Ferrari.

Jesus road a donkey, in the days when there were stallions, and chariots. And he returned the donkey after using it!

wedeonline:
Men thats wrong talk. A life is lost you are saying shoot first ask later, do u have the exact understanding how the scenario played out? No regard for human life in Nigeria. I weep for our generation because us who should carry the mantle still reason in line with our leaders. We need to renew our minds to have an impact..

No... you do not know what it is like to know that every single moment of every single day, every second you are breathing you are a target for someone who wants to kill you. That's what these soldiers are facing, in an urban environment where any and everybody could be a threat. Moreover, causing a crash is the typical M.O for staging an ambush.

Now perhaps the boys were too hasty, and an investigation will reveal that. But this is Borno we are talking about... That joint is too hot, so you cannot be too harsh on the soldiers for being quick to fire, particularly if they felt their action would save lives in the heat of the moment.

Every military in the world behaves in this way.

AgentOfAllah:
1) Now you acknowledge that "science and logic offer no explanation". In your first post, you tried to pass the lack of explanation off as some kind of logical operand, so this is a welcome improvement.

2) You speak as though the boundary of human ignorance is stagnant, and your argument seems to be that ignorance should therefore be termed "god". To claim there's a point beyond which human understanding cannot go is hasty and presumptuous. Even if such a point exists, how do you know that the source of life is this point? What makes you believe science cannot decipher the source of life?

3) Like religion, there are several other hypotheses that attempt to proffer an explanation for the things that lie beyond scientific epistemology. There is also simple admission of ignorance. Richard Feynman is reputed to have said: “Some people say, How can you live without knowing? ...I always live without knowing. That is easy. How you get to know is what I want to know.” So what I want to know is how, of all these possibilities, you get to give religion this much preponderance. So no, the question isn't yet whether or not we accept the terms of religion, it is why rule out the other competing hypotheses as well as the easiest and most honest position; admission of ignorance?


You seem to be making the argument that intelligence begets intelligence. If this is the case, your use of "supreme" as a qualifying superlative is merely a thought terminating device, not a logical deduction. In this kind of construct, a supreme creator can never exist because their intelligence will have to be explained by the existence of another intelligence ad infinitum. Conversely, if a supreme creator can exist by inference, without needing to have been created by another intelligence, so too can intelligent life. Your arbitrary rule aside, you have not even explained why there must only be one supreme creator. Why can't many interdependent creators exist? A wristwatch is equally an intricate device, yet we don't have supreme creators for wristwatches. There was the creator that conceived the design, the creator that made batteries, the creator that made the teeth gears, the creator that made the straps, the screen, etc. Either ways, even if intelligence necessitates deliberate creation as you've claimed, your appeal to a "supreme" creator is still a presumptuous contrivance.


As far as we know, life is composed of inanimate objects, so it is you who has to explain why inanimate objects cannot produce life!


Your belief in the supremacy of a deliberate, single god has many layers of presumptions which I have unraveled! Also, that your conclusion leads you to believe in god's supremacy is also now circular, since you have already defined god as the supreme creator.

Re 1 & 2, I may not have stated all the premises of my various arguments clearly, but one of them is my belief that logic never fails. But it would fail when it comes to the question of where the source of life came from unless there is something we are not considering in the proper logical light - Logic would lead us to believe that (a) Life must have started from something and (b) There could not possibly have been an infinite stream of sources of life So given these two conditions, there is a third logical conclusion: there is one original source, from whom or from which everything began, whose source is in Himself. I say, this is God. Why God?

A second premise for my arguments would be the fact that whatever is created must retain some clues as to the nature of the creator. An auxillary premise to this would be the belief then that inferences about the creator would be best sourced from the highest form of intelligence He created. Therefore if we want to learn about God using logic, we would want to observe the most intelligent being He created, and make inferences about Him. I therefore infer that God must be intelligent since He could create intelligent beings. I also infer that He must be supreme since He alone has no known source.

But what if inanimate things could do that too?

Our study of science indicates that things can only bring forth of their own kind. Birds do not reproduce plants, nor vice versa. Different forms of life cannot create another. It is therefore illogical to suggest that intelligent life could have come from inanimate sources.

But then if an intelligent creator could exist of Himself, then perhaps the intelligent beings on earth are the creator?

If that were so, we would be to explain where we came from and how we came to be. Since we have no idea of this at all, this idea does not hold true. It also leaves unaccounted for, explanations about the origin of the birds, trees, seas and other planets. Supposing the intelligent life one earth exists of itself, what about the unintelligent life? A single intelligent source makes more sense as an explanation for all creation. What about the completely inanimate life? However, we all admit that we do not have much knowledge about the true source of life, and therefore we have to assume that all things are possible with this source of life.

How about just admitting you do not know?

That's not good enough. Once you can accept the strong possibility of their being God, then you must ask what are the potential consequences of not following His dictates?

What about other religions?

That's where my four pronged argument comes in:

1. Does the religion show God's relationship with man from the beginning of time?
2. Was the main proponent of the religion completely faultless, and a time-relevant example?
3. Does the religion offer a connection with God that goes beyond rules of good conduct?
4. How strong is the testimony of its earliest witnesses?

By process of elimination, you will find that only Christianity genuinely ticks all four boxes.

Deicide:
Yeah am serious was he not buried?

Dont be funny Mann...can you even trace your great grand fathers grave??

LiberaDeus:
1. Hinduism traces its beginning to the act of creation by Brahman, islam also traces its beginning to the act of creation. I dont know any religion that doesnt do that, even Ifa religion traces its beginning to when Obatala was thrown down. So try something else, every religion traces its beginning to the act of creation of which it claims its God started.

2. This claim of never sinning doesnt make any sense. They are just religious claims, many religions claim their progenitors were spotless but that is just baseless propaganda. Why should i trust your story over theirs.

3. Islam offers sonship of god and direct access to god. Buddhism offers attaining the state of God(whats better than that). All religions offer sonship of god. SO nothing unique about christianity

4. Guy, many religious people were persecuted for their beliefs. For those who really met Jesus( there is no proof of what they faced), you have pure christian overbloated propaganda on persecution.

1. Every religion has a story. But in that story there has to be a point where God hands the religion to man. For Islam that point starts with Mohammed, even though they have a narration of creation. Which by the way is obviously taken from the Bible.

2. Whether you trust it or not, its a differentiator. Remember, this part of my argument is directed to those who believe.

3. No Islam claims we are all sons of God only in the sense of us being His creation. Christianity offers sonship in the sense of being actually of the nature of God. I also said in the original essay that religious beliefs that are unique must also be logical in the sense of why those beliefs serve a purple. Hinduism fails this test since it believes cows are to be worshipped. Why?

4. You call it propaganda but you cannot prove that.

Deicide:
So you mean all those guys in the bible died in the wilderness and their body turned to dust? Weren't they buried in a place? who asked about if their body were preserved all we just want is a tomb stone

A tombstone like we have nowadays? Where it would be written "This is the grave of Peter, the one who was a disciple of Jesus Christ of Nazareth"

Are you serious?

LiberaDeus:
Let me answer your claims

1. Christianity is not the oldest religion. Hinduism is the religion that its beginning cant be traced. So i guess based on that logic, Hinduism is the only truth in the world

2.Buddha was a perfect example who was shown not to have sinned. Muhammad was portrayed as being very noble. Even your Jesus was shown as perfect. But i will not fall into the trap of believing what has been said by the so called propaganda books called holy books. Any one could start a religion and write a fairy tale showing its central character to be perfect. So this method is very flawed. But even if we are to use it, Jesus doesnt still cut it, there were nicer characters throughout history.

3. You talk about a set of rules. But you have rules in christianity e.g You pray most times with your eyes closed, you go to church on sunday, you celebrate easter, christmas and pay offerings. If you claim christianity is the only spiritual religion then sorry to burst your bubble, Islam has its mystical branch, Buddhism and Hinduism are more spiritual. Buddhism is the least rigid, least regimented and most spiritually inclined religion. SO christianity doesnt cut it.

4.Mormons have been persecuted, jews have also been persecuted. Jews have been persecuted throughout the christian era and they never failed to denounce Jesus. Even muslims have been persecuted in the orient and they still hold steadfast to their religion

1. Wrong... i never said Christianity was the oldest religion...I said it traces the relationship of man with God right back to the first created beings. You have to read my words carefully sir. Christianity is not the only religion that does this, but we are using a process of elimination here, so this step simply rules out those that cannot account for the time between creation and the inception of their religion. This includes Islam.

2. A perfect example refers to one who never ever sinned or did wrong. Buddha was already 29 years of age before he went on his search for enlightenment. That he required enlightenment rules him out as a perfect example. Jesus was born God right from birth, and never sinned. This makes Him the only perfect example.

3. I never said a set of rules is not typical of the true religion. I said true religion must go beyond a set of rules in terms of its purpose. Most religions offer a set of rules, however Christianity offers (i) sonship of God (ii) a direct access route to God through Jesus. You may not believe, but these are things that make Christianity different. And that is the point.

4. Persecution is one thing, but i am talking of being at the point where you willingly sacrifice your life in order to spread this message. Now note, i am not talking of the persecution in modern times, i am talking of the persecution that those who met Jesus suffered. If they actually met or knew Jesus, and were willing to suffer and die, then they must have been convinced by what they saw and heard firsthand.

So like i said, using the process of elimination, you might find some religions that can lay claim to some of the points, but none that can match up to all four points.

AgentOfAllah:
25!; the number of times you invoked the word "logic" and its derivatives in you lengthy post. It would seem your excessive use of that word is a Freudian slip intended to mask what your subconscious already recognises as a travesty of that very same word, "logic"! Logical arguments generally do not require any stamp of identification, let alone 25! So, allow me to bring your consciousness to perceptive parity with your subconscious.

I will not attempt to highlight all of your illogical leaps, as it will take too much of my time, but the ones I highlight will amply demonstrate to you, that there is nothing logical about you argument. Hopefully, you'll then go back to the drawing board to map out a more logical argument as to why you are a Christian, or be forced to admit that logic is not at all a compelling factor in your professed faith.


Here, you have not defined what "God" means. All logical terms, including, nay, especially axioms, must be defined. You treat "God" as an axiom without a definition. How can you then hope to make any kind of sensible argument about god?


Here, you attempt to justify the lack of definition of god by invoking infinity or whatever the heck you were talking about! That's just undiluted bunkum! Anything without definition, including infinity, is outside the scope of logic. Logic is a language of precision, not a whimsical appeal to ignorance. Stop trying to redefine it!


The more pertinent question a smart atheist would ask is: "If you believe in god, what makes you think this god cares about religion?"


I'm skipping this because you've mentioned that it isn't relevant to your argument...moving on


At this point, you haven't defined god, you haven't shown that this god is purposeful or, for that matter, is a living thing capable of thought, yet you are already attributing personal pronouns to it, you already know that it "wants humans to relate to him", you already know that this god cares about religion, you already know how it prefers to convey religion to man, you already know when this god would have preferred to contact man about religion, etc. By making these unjustified claims about how god operates, not only have you shamelessly defecated all over logic, you've also directly contradicted your previous "logical" argument that god occupies an "undefined, indefinite" "point of infinity".

Okay, I will stop here because I have given you enough reason to reconsider what your "logical" claims.

Let me start by saying that you clearly have not understood one significant part of my argument. My introduction of the concept of infinity was merely as analogy, an illustration if you prefer. The point, presented in more simple terms simply was: If you trace everything backwards, we reach a point human understanding cannot go beyond. This is the question of where God or any other alleged source of life came from. Science and logic offer no explanation but religion does. The only question we have is whether or not we accept the terms offered by religion. Are we together at this point? I would hope yes.

Now to who is God? For the purpose of this discussion, God to me is the Supreme Creator of all that exists. How did i arrive at this? First i believe all that exists must have an origin. By an examination of the intricacies of the things that have been created, i inferred that the creation is profoundly complicated and highly intelligent, and therefore must come from an intelligent source. Can an inanimate object produce life that is dynamic, intelligent and capable of creating things itself? It sounds highly unlikely. So i assume that the source of all creation must be intelligent, and must have life.
My search for more answers about God, is the subject of my original essay, the conclusion of which leads me to my belief of the other attributes of God such as His supremacy.

it's your go Mr.

okenwaa:
Bros u never even understand the story from my own point of view....
I've bn seeing stories like ds..

And it's either the victim will be drugged,raped @ gunpoint or with a knife...

If na all ds fat ladies , I fit no complain......buh can u see how tiny d look

And u are telling me d@ ds three will over-power a man and rape him..........

He didn't shout, he didn't beat shiit outta dem.....

Bros calm down.......d@ Pastor enjoyed every bit of the sex

If na u,d fit rape u Tell ur inner self the truth








@least they used condom!!

Even the rapists never alleged that the man enjoyed it! And so what if he did?

Why should the magistrate be asking them what they hoped to achieve? Would he ask the same of male rapists?

These women are guilty of rape and must be punished with the full weight of the law.

lilytender:
The two ADCs you mentioned above died while trying to save their oga's lifes. The so called ADC in the pictures posted cannot even save his oga's bag not to talk of his life if enemies struck.

As I remember it, Aguiyi had two bodyguards on the fateful day, one of southern extractions dn the other from the north. The northern one betrayed him while the southern was arrested and later escaped unharmed. He did nothing at all but that is not his fault. There was nothing he could do.

So in fact neither of the ADC's you referenced could save their principal.

This is just Unnecessary criticism

lilytender:
This fool is never an ADC. The ADC is supposed to be alert in case enemies want to attack the governor, instead this mumu is carrying the governor's bag and phones. Now, tell me if there is sound of gun shoot from any side, how would he (ADC) protect and save the governor's life while he (ADC) is carrying the governor's bag and phone? Go and read about what Aguiy Ironsi, Muritala Muhammed, IBB's ADCs did when the enemies struck. An ADC that does not know is job, is that one an ADC?

Aguiyi Ironsi's ADC did nothing...neither did Murtala's... Prove me wrong.

AgentOfAllah:
25!; the number of times you invoked the word "logic" and its derivatives in you lengthy post. It would seem your excessive use of that word is a Freudian slip intended to mask what your subconscious already recognises as a travesty of that very same word, "logic"! Logical arguments generally do not require any stamp of identification, let alone 25! So, allow me to bring your consciousness to perceptive parity with your subconscious.

I will not attempt to highlight all of your illogical leaps, as it will take too much of my time, but the ones I highlight will amply demonstrate to you, that there is nothing logical about you argument. Hopefully, you'll then go back to the drawing board to map out a more logical argument as to why you are a Christian, or be forced to admit that logic is not at all a compelling factor in your professed faith.


Here, you have not defined what "God" means. All logical terms, including, nay, especially axioms, must be defined. You treat "God" as an axiom without a definition. How can you then hope to make any kind of sensible argument about god?


Here, you attempt to justify the lack of definition of god by invoking infinity or whatever the heck you were talking about! That's just undiluted bunkum! Anything without definition, including infinity, is outside the scope of logic. Logic is a language of precision, not a whimsical appeal to ignorance. Stop trying to redefine it!


The more pertinent question a smart atheist would ask is: "If you believe in god, what makes you think this god cares about religion?"


I'm skipping this because you've mentioned that it isn't relevant to your argument...moving on


At this point, you haven't defined god, you haven't shown that this god is purposeful or, for that matter, is a living thing capable of thought, yet you are already attributing personal pronouns to it, you already know that it "wants humans to relate to him", you already know that this god cares about religion, you already know how it prefers to convey religion to man, you already know when this god would have preferred to contact man about religion, etc. By making these unjustified claims about how god operates, not only have you shamelessly defecated all over logic, you've also directly contradicted your previous "logical" argument that god occupies an "undefined, indefinite" "point of infinity".

Okay, I will stop here because I have given you enough reason to reconsider what your "logical" claims.

Seen. Busy atm will respond in about an hour

MONEYJOEE:
You're an intellectually dishonest a$$hole. Why are you such a liar. You said Islam didn't start with humanity and that's one of the reasons that made you a Christian. But we know Christianity started 2000 years ago. Are you now implying Christianity and Judaism are a single religion?Aren't you a blissful idiot.




Stop taking away from the Bible. This is Jesus word:

Whoever comes to me and doesn’t hate father and mother, spouse and children, and brothers and sisters—yes, even one’s own life— cannot be my disciple.

That's a condition for discipleship. According to him, you must hate your family including yourself before he can accept you. If that's not hate preach then you're stupid and dishonest. A dishonest buddy is the last thing I'd want for a discourse.



Have you read the whole of Matt 5? It is in the context of secret sins of the heart such as lust and hate... in the context of hate is where it is stated that he who calls [b]his brother fool is in danger of hell fire. the two bolded words are key. They establish that it is not absolutely wrong for us to use the word fool since to be in danger of something does not actually mean to already be in breach of the protection. As i matter of fact, i think you are actually a fool.

Wonderful. You are wrong to think I reply you in order to convince you. No I reply you in order for the neutral viewers to have enough information to judge fir themselves who is making sense and who is not.

That being said, if I have responded to any claim and you refuse to to examine my explanation with sense, I wont touch on it again. Let sensible viewers be the judge.

Remarkably for two pages now you have insisted that I premised my argument in scriptures. I made four arguments and if you can show me where i quoted any scripture to back them up in my original post I would be mist grateful.

As deceitful as you are, you just quoted part of a parable and pretended as though it was a command from Jesus. For the benefit of the reader, the passage quoted in Luke 19, is an allegory.

And I'm glad you posted the definition of bigot. See, lacking discernment you took an instruction Jesus gave without bothering to find out the reason and concluded that it was because He did not like pagans. You failed to do your research properly to discover that at a different time Jesus actually instructed His disciples to preach and teach to all the peoples of the earth. Jesus came for all peoples.

Learn to read before commenting. As for whether this will be your last reply... Who cares?

LiberaDeus:
@OP

Please can you state what makes christianity the more logical religion than islam?

And also explain why i shouldnt see the uncausable causer as Allah who sent his last prophet Muhammad.

Thanks

There you go:

SmartyPants:
Then you certainly did not read what i said at all. Nothing in my argument is based on scripture. I summarize for your sake:

1. Existence from the beginning of time.

Islam cannot claim to have existed from the beginning of humanity since it can point to a founder who was born at some point much later in time.

2. Main proponent must be a perfect example, relevant in all ages.

Islam has as its main proponent, a man who did things that would be considered wrong today. He married a child, and took his son's wife. He also took more wives than the four Moslems are permitted, and told his followers it was permitted for only him.

3. Must provide a link to God that surpasses a set of rules

Islam only offers rules. Christianity preaches Jesus Himself, as the pathway to God.

4. Evidence of witnesses

No other religion has had its witnesses so persecuted, and so willing to suffer persecution for what they believed in. Those who lived with Jesus was so convinced that they were willing to die. Even Mohammed himself was unsure of himself and when he was about to die, he had to ask his followers to pray for him.

MONEYJOEE:
This is a lie. It's not very likely, in fact there's a 1.2 percent chance for you to be a Christian if your parents were Muslims in Yemen.

The truth remains your Christian faith is a result of the indoctrination you had in your formative years. I have not seen a logical or rational reason from you that showed otherwise. All your arguments can be applied to other religions so you my friend are a shameless liar.

Edit your thread title to, "Christianity: the religion I was exposed to in my early years"

I am not responsible for your incapacity to understand simple things. You asked about me specifically, and not about the people of Yemen, therefore that stat you posted there is completely out of place. And add a source to that.

MONEYJOEE:
A typical brainwashed lying Christian. Your earlier post and the thread specifically mentioned Christianity, why on fuckery earth do you bring in Judaism. You laid claim that Christianity is superior to Islam because Islam has a founder and beginning, then I revealed your idiocy by showing you Christianity equally got a founder and beginning, and now you're jumping on Judaism. Are you no longer a Christian? Suddenly a Jew? You really are confused or is that your way of covering up your folly?





This is hate.
If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children,and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. (Luke 14:26)

Hypocrisy.
Tells people not to call others fool (Whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire. Matthew 5:22.) And then he called his critics and disciples fools (Ye fools and blind. Matthew 23:17, 19
Ye fools. Luke 11:40
O fools, and slow of heart to believe. Luke 24:25)

A bigot.
Do not turn your steps to pagan territory, and do not enter any Samaritan town. Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel (Matt. 10:5-6)

And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words. Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him (Matt. 6:7–

Did he condemned slavery?
That servant who knew his master’s will but didn’t prepare for it or act on it will be beaten severely. The one who didn’t know the master’s will but who did things deserving punishment will be beaten only a little. Much will be demanded from everyone who has been given much, and from the one who has been entrusted with much, even more will be asked. (Luke 12:47‭-‬48 CEB)



"Christianity preaches Jesus while Islam follows rules."

How does this make your religion superior. Jesus a son of god is a biblical claim, is there any evidence to support this. You keep proving me right, you're just some indoctrinated Christian.



Stop hiding behind Tacitus or Suetonius. Quote any of their works where they wrote about the apostles being martyred due to their refusal to deny Jesus. It's always easy to make claims but adducing evidence is the difficult part.

1. A typical brainwashed lying Christian. Your earlier post and the thread specifically mentioned Christianity, why on fuckery earth do you bring in Judaism. You laid claim that Christianity is superior to Islam because Islam has a founder and beginning, then I revealed your idiocy by showing you Christianity equally got a founder and beginning, and now you're jumping on Judaism. Are you no longer a Christian? Suddenly a Jew? You really are confused or is that your way of covering up your folly?

I have already explained this part. This show that you do not even understand either Judaism or Christianity. So i cannot debate with you from your position of ignorance.

2. This is hate.
If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children,and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. (Luke 14:26)

Did you see the bolded? Common sense should tell you that Jesus was not asking anyone to hate anyone but rather to prioritize discipleship over everything else.

3.

Hypocrisy.
Tells people not to call others fool (Whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire. Matthew 5:22.) And then he called his critics and disciples fools (Ye fools and blind. Matthew 23:17, 19
Ye fools. Luke 11:40
O fools, and slow of heart to believe. Luke 24:25)

Have you read the whole of Matt 5? It is in the context of secret sins of the heart such as lust and hate... in the context of hate is where it is stated that he who calls his brother fool is in danger of hell fire. the two bolded words are key. They establish that it is not absolutely wrong for us to use the word fool since to be in danger of something does not actually mean to already be in breach of the protection. As i matter of fact, i think you are actually a fool.

4. A bigot.
Do not turn your steps to pagan territory, and do not enter any Samaritan town. Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel (Matt. 10:5-6)

And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words. Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him (Matt. 6:7–

This requires no explanation. Clearly you do not know what a bigot is. Jesus instructed His disciples to preach and teach and make disciples up to the ends of the earth.

5. Did he condemned slavery?
That servant who knew his master’s will but didn’t prepare for it or act on it will be beaten severely. The one who didn’t know the master’s will but who did things deserving punishment will be beaten only a little. Much will be demanded from everyone who has been given much, and from the one who has been entrusted with much, even more will be asked. (Luke 12:47‭-‬48 CEB)

Go to school and meet any of your lecturers. Ask them to explain to you the difference between a servant and a slave.

6. "Christianity preaches Jesus while Islam follows rules."

How does this make your religion superior. Jesus a son of god is a biblical claim, is there any evidence to support this. You keep proving me right, you're just some indoctrinated Christian


Read the article again for better understanding of what i said and what it means. I'm not here to spoonfeed you.

7. Stop hiding behind Tacitus or Suetonius. Quote any of their works where they wrote about the apostles being martyred due to their refusal to deny Jesus. It's always easy to make claims but adducing evidence is the difficult part.

I've made the point that we do not have sufficient neutral historical records from the period. But you can read the works of those writers for evidence of Christian persecution.

Meanwhile i am waiting for you to show me where Jesus asked His followers to kill anyone.

sekxy:
how does this relate to the post...
spoilt child

Your friend did not develop herself obviously...seems she thought merely having a pu-c is enough to retain any man. It is not. see, he was only managing her as the one he could get, and she too only managed him as the best offer that she got at the time.

Now he can afford a more expensive product but she remains of the same value. Why should he stick with her?

sekxy:
Ithappened to two of my friends but lem me talk about one..

Their relationship started this time last 5years. When this my girlfriend was just in her under 20's. So this guy came to her when he had nothing. Though it took this my gf time to actually accept him. Then I would advice her to at least date when she turns 20 at least to know a lot about relationship but due to her love for the guy she accepted him.

Then the guy graduated from university and luckily for him he went for his NYSC shortly when my gf accepted his proposal.. Then this guy would visit her without giving her anything, they were loved up and she was cool with it..she loved him so much that nothing about him pisses her off..

hmmm, so many times this my gf would go to visit him but because he doesn't have money she would transport herself...the guy then loved her.. Maybe because he was still broke.. I would then ask this bae if she cheats on him but she would say no, even to the extend that she doesn't club or do any social stuff because of his guy, she prays and encouraged him.

Fast forward to this time last year, the guy started making money ..bought cars and started building ..he has many investments.

Just last two months she called and was crying that the guy had broken up with her and I was like ...please calm down and tell me what transpired. .she said that the guy chatted her up to tell her that he likes light skinned ladies...and that he doesn't love her enough to marry her because of her skin colour..

I called the supposed bf and the guy was actually telling me he Will cheat on her if he eventually marries her...but this bae suffered with him all this while for 4years and he didn't notice her dark colour until he started making money.

Well thats what happens when you fail to realize that your pu-c is not enough.

MONEYJOEE:
That's dishonesty from his end. The way he's about the Bible shows he'd be another raghead had it been he was born in a strong Muslim environment like Yemen.

Arguments from the Bible or any holy book is a sign of indoctrination. I don't expect our lying OP to nod to this.

I said lots of Moslems convert to Christianity. Kindly point out the dishonesty and butress your assertion with legitimate sources.

Secondly, do be kind enough to show me where i made arguments from the Bible.

I'm lying because i do not kow tow to your infantile logic? You are a funny person.

The posts are all here for everyone to see, so it is your own credibility that is at stake.

MONEYJOEE:
What the f'u.ck are you saying dude. This is outrightly silly. Christianity started 2000 years ago.


Another nonsense. Jesus preached hate and bigotry. Jesus did not condemn slavery. He was a hypocrite. He also approved killing others for Yahweh. I can list you 20 reason why like Mohammed, Jesus was a flawed man




There he goes again. Mentioning Jesus. It doesn't amount to anything.



Absolute poppycock. Other religions has martyrs. But somehow Christian martyrs are special. Lol

Pease provide the independent source that wrote about the apostles being martyred for refusing to deny Jesus. Good luck with that.

1. If you had read the article you would not say this. Is it too much to ask that you read before you begin to comment wildly? Christianity started with Judaism. It is not a separate religion but is the worship of the same God in a new disposition, brought about by the death of Jesus.

2. Jesus never preached hate. Show me the scripture where Jesus preached hate and bigotry.... I am patiently waiting on you. Jesus never condoned slavery either! And he never ever ever approved killing anyone. Show me the scripture... you are displaying your ignorance on a massive scale.

3. I was making a comparison of the teachings on religions, not using Jesus as a reference. Think!

4. Historical records from the time are not detailed, and you would not expect them to be. Yet writers of that time did make mention to Christians being persecuted. Look up the writings of Suetonius and Tacitus in connection with this.

Martinez19:
if God answers prayers all his faithful followers, at least, would be cure of cancer, hiv and be restored if they are amputees. There is no justification for God refusing to heal his faithful followers except if we should kid ourselves.

Given that God does not answer prayers, coincidence is the suspect in you receiving your roller blades.

Are you confused?

1. We have established that God does not grant all prayer requests.
2. We have no way of knowing why He does not grant certain requests

Since there is no requirement that God must answer all prayers, it is expected that some requests will not be fulfilled, and therefore there is no rule of thumb. Thus, what you attempt to call coincidence, could really be selective answer to prayer, which God, being the Almighty, is well justified to do.


I further put it to you, that if we do not know all, but God does know all, certain things which may look bad at first may actually be for the better. Dying of cancer may seem bad on the surface for example, but spending an eternity in heaven is incomparably greater.

Martinez19:
It's God's will to grant someone a roller blade but not to heal cancer. If you didn't have that roller blades and you told someone that God didn't answer your prayer, they will tell you it's God's will or any jargons to defend God.

I don't understand what point you are trying to make... if i didn't get the blades, yes one very possible answer is that it was not God's will. Are you of the opinion that we believe God answers all prayers?

Or that we know all things about God?

hopefulLandlord:
those are exceptions though

we all know overwhelming majority that are born in a particular religion live and die as its adherent

Yes, but i only made that argument in order to establish my own credibility.

But then the number of islam-to-christianity converts is actually substantial

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/752551/Muslim-Christian-convert-Islam-church-Iran-Europe-religion

MONEYJOEE:
I do not see anything in your OP that a moslem can't equally say about his religion given your argument is underpinned by your scripture. Jesus this, Jesus that. Anybody can cite his/her scriptures too.

It's all indoctrination dude.

Then you certainly did not read what i said at all. Nothing in my argument is based on scripture. I summarize for your sake:

1. Existence from the beginning of time.

Islam cannot claim to have existed from the beginning of humanity since it can point to a founder who was born at some point much later in time.

2. Main proponent must be a perfect example, relevant in all ages.

Islam has as its main proponent, a man who did things that would be considered wrong today. He married a child, and took his son's wife. He also took more wives than the four Moslems are permitted, and told his followers it was permitted for only him.

3. Must provide a link to God that surpasses a set of rules

Islam only offers rules. Christianity preaches Jesus Himself, as the pathway to God.

4. Evidence of witnesses

No other religion has had its witnesses so persecuted, and so willing to suffer persecution for what they believed in. Those who lived with Jesus was so convinced that they were willing to die. Even Mohammed himself was unsure of himself and when he was about to die, he had to ask his followers to pray for him.

MONEYJOEE:
You did not address my point. Let's try and keep it simple.

Would you have been a Christian if you were born to Muslim parents in Yemen?

Any sense of dishonesty and I'm outta here.

I am not obliged to give you the answer that would make you feel warm inside! If you don't like it, by all means get out of here.

How would i know what i would have done in a completely different set of circumstances? However it is very likely i would have because that religion is too questionable.

I also can tell you for a fact, that there are people born to moslem parents in the staunchest moslem countries, who have decided to become Christians. My father was born to a staunch moslem family for instance. He converted. So my being born a christian and my firm belief that chrisitanity is the only way are actually a coincidence.

Take it or leave it.

Martinez19:
Research before you comment. The app is a very popular app what are you saying? Even if Google references it, it doesn't change the fact that oxford advanced learner's dictionary is no match for the app in terms of depth. If you have used both, you will prefer the app.

I see you shaking and running

Sorry what? the dictionary app is more reliable than the Oxford Advance Learner's Dictionary?

Are you high?

Can you confidently reference the dictionary app in your academic work?

This would be the second thread of yours i am reading where you have made a significant error in stating facts.

Of course some things happen in life that are not attributable to an act of God. But there are certain things that are beyond coincidence.

In the late 90's i was a pre-teen living in Ibadan. One night, my parents gathered us around and asked us to pray and ask God for any one thing that we wanted. I asked for a pair of roller blades. Now this is the 90's we are talking about, in Ibadan. Roller blades were not exactly found everywhere you looked.

I forgot about the prayer, but the next day a certain family that were our friends came over and gave us some roller blades.

Was that a coincidence? Or an answered prayer?

No one has given me any roller blades since then o.

MONEYJOEE:
Thousands of gods out there but his parents god just happened to be the true god. Lol

@OP you'll make similar argument for another god depending where you were born.

Maybe something did cause the universe, but the first cause argument doesn't tell us that that thing is conscious or still alive. A dead or inanimate god is useless to theism. Plus how do you even leap from that thing to the one in your babble that loves barbecue and wants you to cut your penis skin. Your argument is terrible IMO

Can we agree that it is pointless to use language that is considered offensive? How does this logically reinforce your argument in anyway? I appeal to your sense of reason, kindly desist.

Contrary to what you believe, my father was a moslem and i was initially raised that way. My elder brother does not believe in God. I do not agree with my parents on a lot of doctrinal issues, and they do not agree with some of the places where i worship. I left church altogether for a good long while and only recently returned. I am not under environmental influence, though i must admit it obviously played a part. I have always used my mind and asked the relevant questions to the point where in fellowship i am labelled Mr. Skeptic. In the theology course i took in college, i almost caused a riot. My presentation is the result of careful, circumspect thought.

Now, if we want to be logical, in the absence of religion, we have absolutely no idea how the world came about. None whatsoever. To therefore postulate, and then project such postulations as being probable is highly illogical. Without religion, we have nothing to go on, so any suggestions are moot and far out of place in a logical discussion.

The question on religion is simply a question of whether or not we can trust religion and why. My first argument is that we can trust religion because the first question as to the existence and nature of an original source of life shows us that there are possibilities far beyond the realm of our current understanding. Therefore, to preclude the authenticity of all religion on the basis of current thought processes is illogical.

Would you dispute this?

ScepticalPyrrho:
Your argument is rendered illogical when you made that incoherent leap. That's all I'm saying.

Have we accepted the bible as authentic or true? You just had to drag it in somehow as if it makes your point valid. A muslim can as well introduce the Quran in that same manner.

The mistake you are making is you have not observed that the point i used the bible as reference for, was not a part of my argument at all. It was an aside, obiter dicta, simply an encouragement to religious folks to not exclude the application of logic. I would have thought this conclusion is one we can both agree with.

Other than that, i have not referenced the bible to butress any of my arguments, which are all based on logic. If you take out that paragraph or skip over it as you read, the write up will still flow perfectly.