₦airaland Forum

jaephoenix:
He is right. Nothing in the video suggested a man magically brought the bees. And just in case you don't know, once you hold a queen bee,you have automatically summoned the colony. All the bees would follow her wherever you want. And they release a pheromone that those bees use to track her. There is a special container for holding that queen bee
Get education for once nd leave these folks

I never said there's evidence in the video the man magically made the bees appear.

Use your education to understand what you read before reacting

jaephoenix:
That guy Truplechoice get as he dey think

You must haves skipped your medications again this evening. Why can't you answer for him?

jaephoenix:
A simple youtube search would have educated you but no, you must display on Nairaland

You have come with your nonsense.

What do you know about what I'm asking him?

geoworldedu:
I see you just want to rant about nothing. I defined to you the type of evidence and this is all you are bringing up. You want me to tell you how bees are summoned? You should better ask the Ugandan man.

I have not been ranting. I questioned your logic. You made a confident claim about "no evidence of summoning " but can't describe what summoning would look like. You can't claim "no evidence of X" when you don't have some idea of what X would look like.

If you had reacted with, "where is the evidence of the man summoning the bees "? that would have been a different matter. But you didn't. You made a positive claim whose burden of proof you are trying to shift to me. " Ask the Uganda man "

TheGift:
He says there is no evidence of any one summoning bees, you are asking Him how bees are summoned. How is that relevant to His assertion? Can you see any evidence of summoning in the video or not?

It's very relevant because he claimed "no evidence of summoning ", implying he knows exactly what summoning bees would look like. I don't. So I'm asking him to describe it. If he can't then his claim is empty.


You can't claim "no evidence of X" unless you have some idea of what X look like. It's basic logic.

geoworldedu:
Evidence that I mean is a video evidence showing when he was summoning the bees by clearly stating his intentions before it happens. Not some random coincidences like: "You this people, you this wicked judge. God will fight my battles." Then coincidentally bees from nowhere flew into the court at that same second. That is called coincidence.

You have moved the goalpost.. Your original claim was "no evidence of summoning", not no video of him verbally announciing his intentions. That's a new requirements you just invented.

But let's accept your definition for a moment, can you describe exactly what a person would do if they were summoning bees? Without using your imagination as the only standardd, how would anyone know what evidence of summoning looks like?

Have you seen anyone verbally summoning bees in your presence?

You still haven't answered my original question. How are bees summoned? If you can't describe it, then you can't confidently say the video shows no evidence of it

geoworldedu:
It's like you don't understand my post. Go back and read it again.

There's nothing in your post that cannot be understood. You made a positive claim: "No evidence for summoning bees ". So I asked what is the evidence of summoning bees since you claim to know it"?

Maybe you don't understand the implication of your own statement. Go and reread again.

geoworldedu:
No evidence of anyone summoning anything in the video. Africans and bloggers will sha make up stories about every normal happenings just for click bait and to uphold African lying beliefs.

How are bees summoned? Can you tell us please?

voiceunheard:
I appreciate your insight.

Talking about "when he broke his promise, he confirmed in your mind your father's voice" there is a difference between when a person tells you "You will be frustrated in life" and "I will make you to be frustrated in life", the second one is the one that was said and he is no more to carry out his plans. What he actually said is that "He will make me to be frustrated in life, he will make me to be useless in life and that I will be born to regret". These are the exact words he use to say when he was alive.

Remembering your late father's exact words is further confirmation of what I explained. His words are still playing in your mind and it is for a reason.

And yes, you're right that he is no longer alive to carry his plans. However, the young girl who heard those threats every day is still inside you. And that's why you still remember his words exactly the way he said them, years after. His threats, when he was alive, weren't just words, they were constant environmental toxin you lived under..The brain doesn't need your father to be alive, the neural pathways are already carved to control your behaviour. This is what trauma therapy is designed to uncover so you can heal and start living the way you were meant to live.

You may not consciously connect your reactions today to your father, but others with experience in matters like this can easily see the disturbing pattern.That is why you have been advised to seek professional help to end the cycle. You are not a toxic person, you are reacting unconsciously to a threat that isn't there anymore. Your mind doesn't know the difference between your late father and any authority figure. I spoken enough.

"Deepsight saw your pain and considered helping, until he felt your energy. He wasn't being cruel." I didn't even thought of him being cruel. But him saying "he will be terrified", "I may report him", sounds somehow. I will report him that he did what exactly?

You misunderstood Deepsight. He was speaking hypothetically, not accusing you of anything, to show why your energy scares away help.

He was saying, "I'd love to help, but after seeing how you've pursued the pastor for a broken promise, I'd be terrified you'd do the same to me if I ever fell short"

Life is up and down. Nothing is certain. Someone may promise you help today, and not able to fulfil it tomorrow if personal circumstances changes suddenly. .

voiceunheard:
When a person makes a promise, he supposed to follow up with his promise. Not follow up with silence.

I have to go to this extent because if I don't, I may NEVER be able to forgive him for what he did as I was told to do.

Again, he asked me not to report the people who threw my belongings out to the police and made the empty promise. Whenever I remember the way my belongings were thrown out and how the pastor's/his promise made me not to collect my full money from the people who threw my belongings out, I feel bad because he still didn't fulfill his promise. The aggression that I am supposed to direct towards them, I have to direct it to the pastor, because he fooled me and left me stranded, worse than the way I was when I came to the church.

Enough of people offending me every time and I will always be trying to act as the good person and later my mind will be full of bitterness as a result of what they did to me/ I didn't react. It is better to react and let the person also feel the pain he/she made me go through, then when it ends, I drop everything there.

@voiceunheard, please read to the end.

You were wronged by the pastor. He made an expensive promise he shouldn't have made, told you not to go to the police because, according to him, "God has intervened in your matter ". That is invoking God' to prevent you from taking action. It is spiritual manipulation. He then ghosted and threatened you. Given his position as a religious leader, that's spiritual abuse and it can cause religious stress trauma. I feel your pain..


But the hard truth is that the pastor is not your real enemy. Yes

Your real wound came from your father who told you you would be frustrated and useless. That curse, that lie, you have carried your whole life. The pastor stepped on that wound. When he broke his promise, he confirmed in your mind your father's voice. That's why you can't let go. Letting go feels like agreeing that you deserve to be abandoned

You said, "It is better to react and let the person feel the pain he made me go through". But revenge won't work here. The pain you're carrying is your father's. No amount of punishment you give the pastor will reach him.

What you actually need is trauma therapy. Not online advisers. A professional who can help you separate your father's lies from who you really are.

The church won't give you justice. The pastor won't give you closure. But you can give yourself peace, not by destroying him, but by turning your energy toward your own healing. You don't need his apology. You need your life back

Stop researching legal terms like. "detrimental reliance ". This is Nigeria, not the UK or the US. You cannot get justice here with legal technicalities like that. And stop seeking validation you were wronged. I believe you were wronged. And I believe you can heal. But not like this


Deepsight saw your pain and considered helping, until he felt your energy. He wasn't being cruel. He was honest about what others won't tell you: you're scaring away help because you fight anyone who doesn't fully agree with you.

Please find a trauma therapist who understands family abuse and spiritual harm. Grieve the little girl who was told she'd be useless. Then build a life where that voice no longer runs the show.

You have suffered enough. Don't prove your father right burning your life down for a fight that will never satisfy you. You're pouring fuel on a fire that is burning you.

illicit:
Thats a statue for god sake, its not even a likeness...

How does that affect Virgin Mary who is no longer around anyway

The issue here isn't whether the statue is literally the virgin Mary, but that the act mocks a symbol held sacred by millions of Christians. Arguing that it is just a statute misses why that action is offensive, it signals a contempt for Christian reverence, regardless of the soldier's intent or Mary's current location .
Catholics and other orthodox Christians should be offended by this.

DeepSight:
It may not make sense to you, but for someone such as myself who even considers that my every waking moment in life may possibly be a dream within a dream within a dream, there is still a window I leave open to question even my very experiences. So greatly limited are we that even when we have what is as the ultimate proof - personal experience - we still, if we are nuanced, are able to question our personal experiences.

Because for example, someone can legitimately say one was hallucinating you know?

I truly dont have the answers and will not be so dishonest as to claim to.

I understand you but please consider this .You claim to be agnostic, meaning you don't know if a creator exists, and doubt we can know. But your entire emotional complaint about old age infirmities is aimed at blaming that same creator for allowing them. You can't rationally blame a being you're uncertain exists or " no nothing" of. That's like being angry at Zeus for a thunderstorm while saying, "well I don't know if Zeus is real"

If you were truly agnostic about this, your response to suffering would be , this is tragic. Let's find ways to prevent, treat or cope with it since we don't know why it's happening. Instead your response is "The creator (who may or may not exist) has questionable mercies"

I have not retreated from anything. Maybe it didnt come across, but your insistence that I am being inconsistent left me exasperated as I didnt know what else to say. Thus I said, well maybe I am inconsistent!

. 1. I never called you an inconsistent person. I said your performance on this thread is inconsistent with your previous post. This is a matter of logic not character. So please don't change it into personal attack.

2. The reason I said you have retreated is because your complain about the "creator" can only make sense from a strictly material view. If a person believes the body is all there is , no soul, no spirit, then old age infirmities can reasonably make them question a "creator"

But you know the other view , which in this thread you have surprisingly chosen to abandon and refuse to consider when I brought it to your attention.. You have written passionately about the soul, spirit, the body as a temporary vehicle, and astral travel. From that position, which you claim to hold or have held, questioning the "creator" for the decay is inconsistent. I asked you what changed in your thinking. You refused to give a direct answer and Instead responded with a sermon about how inconsistency can be a virtue if one admit it as a sign of not knowing anything. No That's not a virtue. It's pretended humility and a dodge.

I have talked not just about old age but about some of the deprivations common to it. And yes, even if not all experience them, many do and I know that those who have observed what I am talking about at close quarters especially for loved ones would be sensitive to what I am saying. .

Blaming a "creator" is not the solution to old age infirmities. It will keep you stuck in resentment toward a hypothetical being. I'm looking at practical solutions for how we can cope with the situation, better geriatric care, pain management , emotional support for families, and mental frameworks like detachment that make suffering lesser to bear. That's what we should be discussing, not anger toward a creator you're not sure exists. That does nothing to help anyone. It's an intellectual dead end dressed up as concern.

And I'm not saying suffering doesn't matter. I'm saying there's a way to face it without collapsing into existential blame. That is not me being insensitive, which you are indirectly accusing me of. It is resilience. And it is far more useful to someone watching a loved one decline than any model of bitter confusion aimed at a creator none of us is sure exists.

I conveyed what I experienced in all honesty, And I am sorry but I do not think about "followers" when I write. I write straight from the heart and true from my mind..

I never said you "think about followers when you write". I said "your followers", those who like to read your posts and react to them, may have been misled based on what you have confidently discussed in the past, without knowing that you were being agnostic or that you really "know nothing" about anything., your own words

You sound angry or irritated and thats fine. You are free to be done. I am not holding you.

No I'm not angry. Maybe surprised that you have retreated to a strictly materialist viewpoint. I also decided to end the conversation because you refused to answer, a direct question, and we were going round in circles to the point where you started attacking my character, accusing me of being insensitive to the aged. I respect you enough not to let it degenerate into a quarrel.

DeepSight:
Perhaps I am inconsistent. Perhaps that inconsistency is a sign of not really knowing anything.

But to be honest, I am simply generally agnostic, not absolutely. In other words, I will not say there isn't anything at all that I claim to know for sure.

At the minimum, I know I exist. Corgito ergo sum.

You recently claimed on this board you can astrally travel, leaving your body to explore inner planes, and that these experiences are "very real". That's firsthand knowledge of the soul, not agnostic uncertainty.

Now you say you're "generally agnostic" and don't really know anything ". You have also retreated from "the body is a vehicle, the soul is the real self " to simply "at least I know I exist ". But I never questioned your existence. I asked why the body's decay makes you question a "creator" when you already said the body is temporary, an "illusion " , "not real ".
It's like buying a product whose expiration date you knew in advance, then blaming the manufacturer when it fails after that date.

Your followers have read your passionate posts about the soul and spirit in the"Mind and matter thread " and astral travel experience in the "Simulation thread ". They have shaped their views around what you presented as knowledge. Now you say you're inconsistent because you don't really know anything. That means your earlier claims were overstatements or not based on actual knowledge. Either way, your followers were misled by the certainty about what you were saying.

Old age infirmities are not for everyone. I know, everyone knows too, people over 80 who are very active and enjoy sound health. Yet you present it as if everyone must meet the same fate. This is further evidence that you're not being agnostic about this. You have taken a position against something.

I'm done here. Not willing to continue with this

Thank you

DeepSight:
Being an agnostic does not come with a specific doctrinal creed as to what one believes or does not believe. Indeed there are things I believe, but I still have the overall attitude that we know little to nothing.

You are redefining agnosticism to avoid the contradiction. You have in the past argued passionately for the soul or spirit, and that's a belief, not agnostic uncertainty.

Saying you "know little to nothing" while holding a strong positive belief about the soul or creator doesn't make you agnostic , it makes you inconsistent.

DeepSight:
Not much has changed in my thinking save a much stronger commitment to the admission of knowing little to nothing. A stronger agnosticism if you like.

You seem to say mere aging. No. It is not mere. And your saying that makes me wonder if you have had first hand (close) experience with many of the pathetic conditions that tend to regularly accompany old age. And not just conditions of the body - conditions of the mind.

I think many people who speak lightly of these things have either never come close to them or had a loved one pass through them in close living proximity. Any one who has will be sober about the subject. Extremely sober.

You've misrepresented me. I never called aging "mere" or even suggested it. I asked a logical question: If the body is only temporary vehicle, why would its inevitable wear and tear make you question a creator's mercies and intentions?. I didn't dismiss suffering but only asked for consistency .

Now you say you're a strong agnostic who knows little to nothing. But you have argued that the body is not the real human being, that soul or spirit is what you are. The two positions don't sit together. Agnosticism suspends judgement on the existence of the soul or a creator. It doesn't claim the soul exists while questioning the creator. So where do you stand?

You're wrong that I haven't witnessed the pathetic conditions of old age. I have cared for the aged whose minds and bodies had broken down, firsthand, in close living proximity. The experience didn't lead me to blame a creator. It taught me to pay close attention to my body so it doesn't degenerate from neglect, and when disease strikes to do everything possible to migitage it , without forgetting who I truly am: I'm not a body.

And that's the difference between those who can bear pain and those who cannot. Someone operating from Soul -based view recognises the infirmities, feels them deeply, cares for love ones through them, but doesn't question the "creator" for a body that was always mortal and will surely decay. That doesn't mean berating others who haven't reached that understanding. We should show empathy and share in their pain, just without getting lost in the process.

DeepSight:
Does watching the many extreme infirmities, indignities and vulnerabilities of old age not take away in many cases the joy of living a long and ripe life and lead many to question the mercies and intentions of our creator?

Not sure if you're trolling or being serious, but your post seems to directly contradict what you've consistently argued here on this board.

You have previously declared that the body is just a vehicle, not the real human being. The soul is what you are, the body is temporary instrument to experience life in the material plane.

Now you're questioning the "creator's" mercies and intentions simply because the body decays in old age. But if the body is only a vehicle, why would its inevitable wear and tear make you question the "creator" at all?. (I put soul in quotes because it is not a created thing) .Your post can only make sense only if you're deeply attached to the body as your true self, which undermines your earlier position

A person operating from the position of soul maintains the vehicle while it serves, and exists without blame when it no longer does.

So please let me know what has changed in your thinking?

Lucifyre:
Like I said you clearly don't know what objectivity means. Id help you out.

Merriam Webster : expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations

Cambridge : based on real facts and not influenced by personal beliefs or feelings:

Existing independent of or external to the mind; actual or real.

If you were confused that's a you problem, the title of the thread was literally a claim about objective reality. I don't know why you're foaming at the mouth. Writing wouldn't change fact no matter how upset you are beacuse it seems you can't smuggle what are empty claims about objective reality as truth. Id also suggest you educate urself on the definition of truth, it has facts in there somewhere, then educate urself on what a "fact" is.

1.You said the title of the thread is "literally a claim about objective reality". Please go read it again . It's a question. "Is Christianity the true religion". Questions aren't claims. I expect you to know the difference.

But even if we pretend it's a claim, it's about religious truth, which involves history, morality and personal experience. You are yet to show such claims must meet your standard. You just asserted it

Your original statement said " any claim or preposition"... which doesn't refer to anything special, objective or subjective,. You're now trying to tie it to only objective because your original was too broad and you got trapped by my dream example and the questions I asked you about thoughts which you have refused to answer.

You're moving goalposts, and so, I'm asking you to stand by your original words. Either "any claim" means any claim, including dreams, or just admit you misspoke.

2. You accuse me of "foaming at the mouth" Please show me one sentence I've written that contains extreme anger . Just one. You can't because it doesn't exist. I have been calm, logical and focused in all my replies.

Meanwhile, you accused me of not knowing basic definitions even when I haven't rejected the definition of objective, and now invented an emotional meltdown that only exists in your head. That is projection. You are the one who can't answer a simple question without resorting to insults. If anyone is "foaming at the mouth" and "upset", it's you, your own choice of words betray your frustration. Why would I be upset ? I'm questioning your logic , no emotion involved.

It is not my standard, it is "the standard" virtually everywhere no matter how upset it makes you feel, unfortunately feelings and opinions have nothing to do with truth. It's a good thing I never once mentioned science and it's a good thing even outside of a lab the same properties are used to demonstrate what is factual and what is factual = truth.

Your claim that the standard is used "virtually everywhere" is false. You have a problem using indefinite pronouns correctly. First it was "any" , now " everywhere"

In personal relationships, when a friend says "I'm sad" do we demand falsifiable evidence?. No. We believe them based on trust.

In courts of law eyewitness testimony is accepted despite being neither verifiable nor repeatable. Juries decide based on credibility, not laboratory demonstration.

For child abuse cases, a three -year -old 's accusation is taken seriously without any "falsifiable" proof. Why? Because we recognise that some truths are known through testimony and experience, not through your narrow filter.

And yes, you never mentioned science. But your words, "verifiable, demonstrable, falsifiable" , are the language of scientific empiricism. You are using science's method while denying you are. That's either ignorance or deception.

So no, your standard is not "the standard everywhere ". It's the standard of a laboratory. And most of life, pain, love, dreams, history, justice, doesn't happen in a lab. Your mistake is trying to force all of reality into a box that only fits repeatable experiments.

I'm not here to defend Christianity or any religious belief. The reason I quoted you was because of your claim about what qualifies as truth and your vague descriptions of the standard of arriving at truth.

Lucifyre:
You know what objective means right?! Cause I doubt you do.

For instance, if I tell you, "I dreamed last night that I was flying", you cannot falsify it, demonstrate it or repeat it. Yet it is objectively true that I had that dream. Science confirms humans dream, but the specific content is not verifiable by your standard. By your rule , my claim would be ""not true " which is absurd.


If you did you'd know the above is a clear subjective experience. You dreamt you were flying, did everybody else also experience your dream - that you were indeed flying? Clearly no. An example of an "objective" experience that reflects "objective reality" would be the claim "humans dream" or "humans eat", the kind of food they like to eat or whatever kind of dreams they have are subjective experiences. And the properties of objective truth are as stated - no less. Again pls check the meaning of objective as it differentiates from subjective. Absolutely no claim can be "objectively true" without those properties.

You're confusing objectivity with verifiability. When I said "It is objectively true that I had that dream", I was making a claim about an event in the world, that a specific mental experience occurred in my brain at a specific time, and that is an objective fact like ",It rained yesterday"

The content of my dream is subjective (I never denied that) and not verifiable by others. But the occurrence of the dream, the fact that I experienced it, is as objective as any biological process. I never claimed the flying was physically real. I said the experience was real. That is the subtle but crucial distinction you missed

But who is to say dream content has no connection with objective reality, making them "real" What you dismiss as "subjective" may not be so . A wet dream, for instance, has a biological cause, buildup of sexual tension, and the brain creates a movie which triggers physiological processes to dissipate that energy .

You created confusion at the beginning by not clearly articulating your thought, and now shifting the goalpost after you logic was faulted . You started by saying "any claim or proposition"", without specifying, must be objectively proven to pass truth. That was the reason I brought up dreams, love and consciousness, which are regarded as truth even though not testable according to your strict standard. By your reasoning, one should doubt their own dreams, even their own thoughts since they cannot be measured or falsified. In other words, my thoughts, your thoughts, would not be true by your standard

Abraham Lincoln dreamt of his assassination, and it happened the way he dreamt it. When he shared the dream, it was dismissed as mere fantasy, until it became reality. But to you the dream content is not truth despite the fact the dream has become reality.

What you're insisting on is scientism: the claim that all truth can only be known through the scientific method. Thiat is incorrect because there are alternative methods for knowing truth. Scientists hardly use the word "truth" because they know science deals with provisional models that survive testing, not capital -T Truth. Falsifiability is a tool for weeding out bad theories, not a definition of what is real

So no, your narrow standard does not get to dismiss love, dreams consciousness, or my inner experience as untrue. You are the one who confused a useful method with the nature of reality itself. Please update your epistemology.

VBCampaign:
Muslims have it written in their scripture that Jews and Christians should destroyed.

Lastly, Jesus did commend two swords to his followers at the end of his life. It was our Lord's way of saying that security is unavoidable in the church. Nonetheless, Romans 13 has given government the power of the sword to punish evil, and Israel is using theirs very well.

You claim Jesus commended two swords to his followers. But let's look at the passage carefully. When the disciples showed him two swords, Jesus replied,, "it is enough", not as an endorsement, but as a sharp rebuke. He was shutting down the conversation because they misunderstood him. The Greek phrase "It is enough" is a likely way to stop a misguided conversation.meaning, "I see you don't understand my meaning, and I shall say no more at present".

How do we confirm this?. Look at what happened next. When Peter actually used a sword to cut off Malchus 's ear, Jesus healed the man and said, "Put your sword back into its place. For all who take the sword will perish by the sword" (Matthew 26:52). He also told Pilate "My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting" (John 18:36)

If Jesus had literally commanded his disciples to carry sword for self -defense or violence, he would be contradicting himself by rebuking Peter for doing exactly that. He wasn't contradicting himself. He was speaking metaphorically in Luke 22:36:38, preparing them for the spiritual hardship and persecution to come, not for a physical war. The "sword " he referred to is the same as the "sword of the spirit " (Ephesians 6:17), the word of God, not a weapon of steel.

So no, Jesus never commanded vengeance. He rejected it with his own actions on the night of his arrest. Romans 13 gives government the power of the sword to punish evil but is not a licence for preemptive religious war, which the Op supports, nor does it override Jesus clear teaching to love your enemies.

If you as a Christian can misread the Bible, how can you be trusted to interpret the Quran correctly, a book you are not even familiar with?. No way.

You say the Quran commands Muslims to destroy Jews and Christians. Then how do you explain the 20% of Israel citizens who are Muslim?. They live, vote, serve in the army and parliament, and use the same Quran. If the Quran truly commanded their annihilation , they would have to annihilate themselves and their neighbours, which makes no sense. Your interpretation is not yours,, but the one used by fundamentalist who have taken the verse out of its historical context, and not by the one used by the majority of peaceful Muslims, including those inside Israel.

VBCampaign:
First, this is Pastor Deji media handler. You can find pastor Deji on textandpublishing.com.

Second, thankfully you did not identify "religious war" in the essay, but you succeeded in insinuating this is a religious war.

On that ground I will concede to you. Except that you cannot see the MIddle East crisis and not conclude that it is religious. Musilms have it written in their scripture that Jews and Christians should destroyed.

Lastly, Jesus did commend two swords to his followers at the end of his life. It was our Lord's way of saying that security is unavoidable in the church. Nonetheless, Romans 13 has given government the power of the sword to punish evil, and Israel is using theirs very well.

No wonder you failed to see the obvious implications of what the essay contained. You're defending something you don't fully understand.

You demanded I point out where the essay explicitly says "religious war" or even insinuate it. That to me, is trying to be clever by half. I never claimed the phrase "religious war" appeared verbatim. I showed you the implicit framing, quotes like "Islam will not co-exist peacefully with the Jews" and "the way Islam flushed out Christianity ", and you've now conceded that I insinuated it correctly. You said "on that ground I will concede to you".

But instead of owning that concession, you shift the blame to me and then defend religious war by citing the Quran. That is a dishonest way to debate. It is either the essay didn't frame it as religious war (your original denial) or it did and you now agree with the framing. . You want to have your cake and eat it too: denying religious war and simultaneously defending it.

I will come back to address the substance of your reply: your claim about the Quran and what Jesus commended..

sweetjohn:
Let me tell this lunatic something they don’t know. You see over the years of completely neglect of the united nation over Israel concerns of constant attacks from Islamic states, Israeli have come to realize that they can no longer listen to tantrums and therefore protect its existence. No matter the bullshit and hate speeches against Israel, they no longer care bc they have come to realize that it doesn’t matter. Don’t blame them blame the UN.

Initially When Israel was attacked by Islamic states, Israel will make a complain to the UN nation and the UN will do nothing. And the attack keep coming. Then Israel decided to start retaliating and bc they are very precise and fatal. The UN came condemning the Israeli and that’s where they failed. They would have condemned the Islamic states that attacked first. And this continues for years until the Israeli lose absolute confidence in the UN. But all those whiles they were only retaliating not until just recent last year June 12 days war with Iran that Israel for the first time in their history attacked first. And ever since then, Israel policy regarding war changed. It says before you attack us we will attack first. It changed last year. So in the coming years. Just be preparing to see Israel attack a country that plan to attack her. All this is not the Israelis fault but that of the UN failure to resolve the conflict at the initial stage and the fault of Quran which keep brainwashing the minds and brains of the Muslims worldwide about Israel being evil and need to be wiped out.

You are confidently wrong . Name one "Islamic State " that has attacked Israel directly in the last 40 years.

Egypt? No, they have a peace treaty with Isre toal. Jordan? No. Saudi Arabia? No. Iran has used proxies, not declared war. You are confusing terrorist groups like Hamas with sovereign states.

Also there was no "12 days war last June, that never happened. There was no declared war between Israel and Iran. Both countries only engaged in retaliatory strikes and that was all.

And Israel attacked first in 1956, 1967, and 1982., so your claim about first time in history last year is false. Please check basic facts before blaming the Quran, which the 20% of the Israeli population are also subscribe to as Muslims.

omoredia:
How many noble prize winners does Israel have and how many does the entire muslim world have combined again?

Which entire Muslim world are you talking about?. The real one includes the 20% of Israel's population who are Muslim citizens.

So by your reasoning, Israel's Noble prizes are partly Muslim achievements.

Or are you only counting Muslim majority countries? Either way, comparing one small country to 57 nations is silly, and the numbers aren't even in your favour .

VBCampaign:
Where in that whole essay did the write mention "religious war" or even insinuate it?

Yes pastor Deji, you did and even more than insinuating it.

Let me quote your own closing paragraphs back to you:

You wrote, "Islam will not co-exist peacefully with the Jews"

You didn't say "Hamas" or "Iranian regime". You said Islam, a religion of nearly 2billiom people, including millions of peaceful Muslims, and even Muslim citizens of Israel

Another one:

"The way Islam flushed out Christianity from Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Tunisia, is the same way it will flush out Israel from the Middle East"

But that is a medieval religious historical grievance, not political analysis. You're framing a modern territorial conflict as a repeat of religious conquests

Next:

"Israel has learned from the activities of Islam in the mediaeval period "

Again not "from specific terrorist groups", from Islam as a timeless violent civilisation..
You never once named Hamas, Hezbollah, or any actual organisation. You named Islam, the definition of insinuating a religious war. Trying to deny it doesn't erase your own words


Furthermore, you ignore or are not even aware that Israel itself has 20% Muslim citizens who live, vote, and serve in its parliament and army. So, going by your logic Israel should be at war with its own Muslim population, which is completely absurd, but it's the logical result of your "Islam' vs Jews " framing

You claim to be a Christian, yet you endorse vengeance with the sword

"They will continue to employ the sword to avenge evil against their land"

But the Jesus you preach and follow said, "put your sword back.....all who take the sword will die by the sword" . He also said, "Love your enemies"

He never once commanded or praised military vengeance. When his own enemies sought to annihilate him, he died forgiving them ( Luke 23:34)

So, I will ask you directly,

Would Jesus fight a war of annihilation?

Would he tell Israel l to "learn the sword " from medieval Islam?

If your answer is no, then stop mixing Moses law with Jesus reinterpretation of it. If yes, then on what page of the Gospel did Jesus say that?

VBCampaign:
Government and the Biblical Call to Revenge

by: Deji Yesufu

On Monday, 30th March 2026, the legislative arm of the nation of Israel, also called the Knesset, passed a law that mandated the government of Israel to execute terrorists. Prior to this day, the only person who had been killed in Israel, based solely on terrorist charges, was Adolf Eichmann. Eichmann was a Nazi official who had worked actively with Hitler and had been involved in the killing of thousands of Jews in Europe.

After the Second World War, Eichmann fled Germany and was residing in Argentina. Israel’s secret intelligence agency tracked him down, kidnapped him, and flew him back to Israel. Eichmann was charged with his crimes, and after a lengthy trial, he was executed by hanging in 1962. After Eichmann, no one else has been killed by the state of Israel for terrorism. In spite of the fact that Israel has suffered terrorist attacks on its soil constantly since the birth of that country in 1948, the Jewish people held to a theory that frowns against capital punishment by law.

This theory is the idea that killing is primitive, and persons who are charged with capital crimes should only be given long prison sentences. Under this mindset, thousands of Palestinian terrorists have committed heinous crimes against the Jewish state. When the law enforcement agency in Israel arrests these persons, the worst they get is prison sentences. Yahya Sinwar, the man who instigated the October 7th 2023, terrorist attacks on Israel, was first arrested in 1988 for terrorist activities. He was sentenced to multiple life imprisonments. He spent 22 years in jail and was released in 2011 as part of a prisoner swap arrangement. The moment he got out, Sinwar began to plot the destruction of the state of Israel. Sinwar was killed by Israeli forces in October 2024. The lesson of Sinwar’s life showed the Jewish people that some terrorists are better dead than alive, and it appears that the Bible agrees with them.

The biblical position on what should be done to people who commit capital crimes like murder is simple: death. Exodus 21:12 tells us that if a man kills another, he is to be killed also. Numbers 35:33 tells us that the only way to atone for shed blood is by shedding the blood of the murderer. Unfortunately, the more our world regards the Bible and the wisdom it offers as antediluvian, the more it sees the wisdom of scripture as primitive.

Israel has been forced to look again at what the Bible teaches, and to put into practice the wisdom of the Holy Writ. If Yahya Sinwa had been executed in 1988, he would not have been alive for a prisoner swap in 2011. While he was in prison, he underwent surgery for cancer and was treated with radiation therapy by Israeli doctors. Yet, the animal came out of prison and led the incident that killed 1,200 Jews – the worst crime against the Jews since the holocaust. In this essay, I will look not just at the matter of capital punishments, but at the concept of how God has entrusted governments with the sword to carry out revenge on evil.

The biblical position on revenge that most people are familiar with is this: “Vengeance is mine; I will repay” (Deuteronomy 32:35). In other words, God is the ultimate judge in our world. But there is a strange scripture in the New Testament that tells us that God has entrusted revenge into the hands of government: “For rulers are not terror to good works, but to evil… For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil” (Romans 13:3-4). What does this mean?

Christianity was not born as a state religion. Christianity was a minute sect within Judaism. With the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70 and the dispersing of Christians into the then Roman world, Christians became a persecuted minority increasingly within society. Although they were persecuted, their godliness continued to win adherents to them. So that the religion grew in numbers in the Roman Empire. In 312 AD, Emperor Constantine became a Christian.

Even after his conversion, Christianity was still not a state religion, but it was clear that if people wanted to have the favour of the Roman ruler, they would have to be Christian. This is what made Christianity something of a state religion in the Roman world. In the 7th century, Islam was brought to our world by Mohammed. 150 years after his death, two-thirds of the Middle East, which used to be under the Roman Empire, had been conquered by the Muslims. It is clear that Islam made much inroads into hitherto Christian nations because those countries did not understand the powers that God had given the government to use the sword to ward off evil. But by the time Islam reached the shores of Europe, European leaders knew they had to employ the sword. They understood they had to carry out revenge. This is what led to the crusades of medieval times.

Therefore, while scripture commands individual Christian citizens of a nation not to carry out revenge, it has given the government the power to avenge evil. It is simple: if evil is not avenged by the government, people will imbibe the notion that they can get away with crimes. Murder rates are skyrocketing in Western countries because somebody deceived them and told them that capital punishment was wrong. People now kill other people, and then taxpayers would continue to fund these people’s lavish stay in a lifetime in prison. On the other hand, countries like China and Singapore are experiencing a decrease in crime because capital punishment is invoked for serious crimes that include not just murder but also corruption. What is the overall implication of the doctrine I am teaching here?

First, as citizens of a country, we have a duty towards electing worthy persons into our government. We also have a duty to ensure that we have sound laws; such laws that deter evil. Secondly, we have a duty towards ensuring that evil is avenged and avenged very quickly. There is no reason why people who have committed heinous crimes should be kept on death row for long. Such persons must be executed and quickly, too, so as to act as a deterrent to others. Individuals who have been proven to be involved in large-scale corruption cases should be made to face capital punishments, because in many cases their actions have led to the deaths of Nigerians.

Thirdly, the government must equip itself towards punishing evil. The idea of granting amnesty to insurgents like Boko Haram should never be entertained by the government. These individuals have shed blood, and their own blood must also be shed. If not, the land becomes guilty of the shedding of innocent blood. The main argument against capital punishment has always been that innocent people could be killed. It is the reason why our judiciary must be above board. We must have judges who can look at a case and decide on appropriate punishments for crimes. Where the case allows for some doubt, the accused should not be killed. But where the accused is clearly seen to have committed a capital crime, there is no reason why the government should spend money to imprison such individuals for life. They should be put away.

On a final note, I must give a word on recent happenings in the Middle East, particularly the war between Israel and Iran, with the United States of America backing Israel. Israel understands that its survival as a nation depends almost exclusively on the annihilation of its enemies. Israel understands the place of vengeance on those who carry out crimes against its people. This is what informs the country’s war against terrorist groups and countries that support terrorist proxies against their land. It is sad that atheistic and agnostic groups would employ the biblical principles of love for neighbour and use that as a basis to criticise Israel’s commitment to defend its land. But they forget that the same Bible equally teaches justice, and scripture has empowered government to avenge crimes against its people.
[b]
Israel has learned from the activities of Islam in the medieval period, and they know that if they do not employ military actions against Islamic militants, the way Islam flushed out Christianity from Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Tunisia, and many other Middle Eastern nations, is the same way it will flush Israel from the Middle East. There is no peace in the Middle East today because Islam will not co-exist peacefully with the Jews. And the Jews are not going anywhere; they will continue to employ the sword to avenge evil against their land.

You are essentially endorsing preemptive religious warfare as a defensive necessity, a logic that has been used to justify atrocities by every religion.It is shameful .

Jesus command to "love your enemies" directly contradicts this mindset, not as a naive pacifism , but as a radical alternative to the endless cycle of retribution you're endorsing .

Why can't you envision a day when Isreal and their neighbours will start to live together as one? . They were living together as one before 1948.

And how many Jews are Christians to make you frame this as religious war?

"He who lives by the sword dies by the sword" was Jesus direct rebuke to Peter using violence in self defense. You as a Christian pastor should not cherry pick Moses "An eye for an eye" to override Christ who reinterpreted the law .

DeepSight:
+
I don't think they will do it, but if they did, nothing like world war will result.

If they and the mad man in the white house starts the booming tonight to erase "an entire civilisation", some countries would intervene and things would escalate.

israelmao:
Why Would the superpower Iran use human shield to safeguard its power plant with all her military might.Lest I forget where is her 1million-man army she claimed to have made ready?

If the power plant is destroyed, it will affect everyone in that country, not only the Iranian government. So they are doing the right thing protecting it.

DeepSight:
Oya, Satanic Israel, go ahead and bomb them under the normal Gaza excuse that they are using their people as human shields. Go ahead na.

They dare not. They know what would result from it: third world war.

RaptorX:
This is what American lawmakers think of this sick demented man threatening to erase a 6,000 year old civilization, but little children here on NL are jumping up and down beating their empty chest calling on destruction of Iran as a nation because they hate Muslims in Nigeria, because that can be the only reason they support this illegal war. Let me tell you for free any attack on Iran's infrastructure will lead to you kissing the world today Tuesday April 7 2026 goodbye as you know it.

Thank you for this comment. The world would not seat and watch him destroy and entire civilisation. Other countries like Russia , China and even North Korea and even some European countries will come join in the fight. That would be goodnight for everyone on earth.

AntiChristian:
How is the rule stupid when you said you are neutral to Christianity then come chuck mouth into this discussion about Christianity! Na hypocrisy be that o!

You keep inventing rules that don't exist. The forum has no rule saying only Christian can post in a thread about Christianity. I'm neither a Christian nor a Muslim, and that doesn't disqualify me from observing and commenting. Being neutral means I can criticise both sides without contradiction and bias. You, on the other hand, attack Christianity while hiding your Muslim identity, pretending you are above the very thing you accuse others of.

The real "hypocrisy" is you, criticising Christianity for contradiction and "mystery" , yet refusing to acknowledge that Islam has its own unresolved issues.

You don't want me to participate because the thread, according to you,is for Christians only, yet you a Muslim is very free to participate. Please listen to yourself for once so you can make sense of what you keep repeating.

Lucifyre:
Well, that’s the standard for truth when we’re talking about claims concerning objective reality. There’s a reason the bar is high — otherwise every random claim could just be asserted as truth. Virtually all areas that deal with objective reality operate with that same standard. If we lower it here, then any claim can simply declare itself true without meeting any real criteria rendering the wors truth meaningless.

No. I disagree. Your standard is not "the standard for truth about objective reality". It is the standard for empirical science . Objective reality doesn't work the way you assume. . Most of what we consider true in life, dreams, consciousness, the past, love, doesn't meet it. That doesn't make those things "random claims". It just means your bar is set for the wrong job.

You fear that without your high bar every "random claim" would be asserted as truth. Apart from this being a false dilemma, it's strange you think you must accept every claim made be others, hence your worry. You can simply ignore claims you find unconvincing.

There's a middle ground. We can evaluate claims by different standard depending on the domain. Science's falsifiability standard is for repeatable, measurable phenomena, not for singular past events, inner experiences or metaphysical claims

You can only demand scientific demonstration if the person making the claim declares it scientifically proven truth. But when they have not said so, it is wrong to to demand scientific evidence. The only thing you can do is to ignore them or take them at their word if you trust the person


For instance, if I tell you, "I dreamed last night that I was flying", you cannot falsify it, demonstrate it or repeat it. Yet it is objectively true that I had that dream. Science confirms humans dream, but the specific content is not verifiable by your standard. By your rule , my claim would be ""not true " which is absurd.

That alone proves your standard is too narrow. You need to widen it so you don't miss out on certain things in life which are true but don't meet those criteria

Lucifyre:
For any claim or proposition to be considered true in the first place, there are certain requirements it must meet; otherwise, it’s just an empty claim. Truth, as we understand it, is objective. Truth is verifiable and demonstrable. Truth stands regardless of belief or acceptance.

Truth is falsifiable and consistent. Truth is non-contradictory. And Christianity quite clearly falls short of these criteria, making its claims anything but established truth. In fact, no religion meets that standard— they all make assertions and label them as truth. That’s a big difference.

Your definition for truth is so narrow that only physics and chemistry survive. Apart from these two, nothing else can be true for you since it simply cannot meet the standard.

AntiChristian:
Hypocrisy is you coming into the religious thread when you're not in support of any religion. The thread is for Christianity and not otherwise. The first rule is never to detail the thread.

An atheist should at least understand rules!

The discussion is not about me or my religion! The thread is contexted on is Christianity the true religion?

You keep saying "the thread is about Christianity", but you, an "Antichristian" were the one who jumped in to add criticisms of christianity beyond what Seun asked. If the thread is only for Christians to answer, why are you here ?

You want to eat your cake and have it too?

There's no rule banning me, an irreligious observer, ( I'm no atheist). from participating and using the opportunity to respond to your hypocrisy. If you insist only Christians should speak, then you should leave first .

You came here to judge Christianity as false, implicitly comparing it to Islam. But when I asked you to defend Islam's own contradiction, ( Allah's justice vs mercy without atonement) you run to hide behind "this isn't about Islam".

You either answer the question I asked about your own religion, or admit you also rely on mystery, and then stop mocking Christianity for the same. If you refuse both, then your contribution here is just anti-christian noise to derail the thread.

Yes, you' came in to derail the thread. The Op highlighted the contradictions in the New testament, but you choose to attack trinity. They are not the same.