Ihedinobi:

And all of us idiots thought we were Christians! How could we be so misled? O Thou knower of all Christianity, save us from our delusions, we pray.

Dude, you got you a huge problem. And I ain't just saying so.

Actually sir, the purpose of threads like these are for people who have an idea or viewpoint to contribute or to challange the viewpoinst of others with their own arguments.
You have done neither.
Are you afraid?
Who is the ignorant one here.
You had better run back to your sunday school.
This place is for adults only.
We do our very best not get personal. It all about topics and opinions.
Ok?
No disrespect intended.

@plaetton, you know, the thread was addressed to Anony, and I feel obliged to let him make his answers. I don't think I'm out of order. And, oh, I don't do Sunday schools. School is an everyday affair for me. How bout you?

Mr anony, pls help me with d answer to this. Adam and eve bagat cain and abel. Cain killed abel and ran away to another land where i presume he met people. How did these people got there in d first place? #biblibal_inconsistencies

Ihedinobi: @plaetton, you know, the thread was addressed to Anony, and I feel obliged to let him make his answers. I don't think I'm out of order. And, oh, I don't do Sunday schools. School is an everyday affair for me. How bout you?

You left sarcastic remarks on my post without making an argument, did you not, sir?

So I am not out of order.
It's a free forum. Have your opinions, but be equally ready to defend them.
And lets keep it less personal.

lekkie073: Mr anony, pls help me with d answer to this. Adam and eve bagat cain and abel. Cain killed abel and ran away to another land where i presume he met people. How did these people got there in d first place? #biblibal_inconsistencies

Well, like you said, it was your presumption. Once you establish it as fact, you'll get an explanation. It's illogical to attempt to explain a presumption.

Ihedinobi:

Well, like you said, it was your presumption. Once you establish it as fact, you'll get an explanation. It's illogical to attempt to explain a presumption.

Mr, know-it, its not directed at a numbskull dat u я.

lekkie073:
Mr, know-it, its not directed at a numbskull dat u я.

"Well, like you said, it was your presumption. Once you establish it as fact, you'll get an explanation. It's illogical to attempt to explain a presumption."

.......just to show you that I would have answered in more or less the same way as my brother. However, there is are still many possible explanations (but that's even more presumptions)

@DeepSight,
Bear with me, I'll respond to your comments in a bit later

plaetton:

What if, and I repeat, what if there is a 20% probability that jesus neither died on the cross or resurrected and the whole story is just a made up fable similar those of the numerous god-men of earlier religions, which, I am sure you regard as myths?

I'll make it even better for you. It is actually 50%. It is either the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ is true or it is false just like it is a 50/50 chance that you are either male or female.

plaetton: The most important question is how did this truth come to you since it supposedly occured 2000 years ago?

No that is not really an important question. The most important question is whether it is true or not. I propose that it is true because it answers a whole lot of questions perfectly of which if it is untrue will leave us in a very messy position. Hopefully, I will be able to explain properly down the line.

Mr_Anony:
"Well, like you said, it was your presumption. Once you establish it as fact, you'll get an explanation. It's illogical to attempt to explain a presumption."

.......just to show you that I would have answered in more or less the same way as my brother. However, there is are still many possible explanations (but that's even more presumptions)

Gen. 4:16 and cain left and went to the land of Nod where he met his wife....dat proves my presumption to be facual. So how did d ppl of Nod came to be?

lekkie073:
Gen. 4:16 and cain left and went to the land of Nod where he met his wife....dat proves my presumption to be facual. So how did d ppl of Nod came to be?

my guy, the so-called holy book written by the so-called omnicient god is full of many many irreconciliable contradictions. these christians are just trying to defend the un-defendable inconsistencies, however they are sincere and not dishonest, in my opinion, just helpless to defend them.

click on this link to see more contradictory error-filled scriptural verses like the one you posted.

lekkie073:
Gen. 4:16 and cain left and went to the land of Nod where he met his wife....dat proves my presumption to be facual. So how did d ppl of Nod came to be?

Really? What version are you quoting from? because I haven't seen the version of scripture that says Cain met his wife at Nod.

lekkie073:
Mr, know-it, its not directed at a numbskull dat u я.

hehehe......did I piss you off too? I didn't mean to o. But, you see from Mr Anony's last post which is immediately above mine why I said that it's got to leave the realm of presumption before it can be explained. Now, you have presumed that Cain met his wife at Nod too. How can anyone explain reasonably a presumed notion without exciting an unending debate?

Deep Sight:

Please Mr Annoy, its just a joke, you know where it started. . . don't become MR ANNOYED



Then how could you say the below - -



What does it entail to reject christ? I already posted alot about this question in other threads but I presume you have read them? I believe that rejecting christ means rejecting the teaching of love: and not rejecting notions about his deity (which no one can be expected to know for sure, much less commanded to know for sure in order to be saved) or notions about his death and resurrection.

Surely, christ himself taught as much in the parable of the good samaritan, and elsewhere, no?

Need I elaborate?

well this thread seem private but i hope i dont piss off anyone by adding my response. I think mr annony gave the core of the teachings. *i dont exactly know because im not God and God reserves the right to judge to himself. *God did give hint or sign post, to reject christ is to reject what he stands for and to reject his person, in a word it means to reject that which is ultimate good. *one who rejects this 'all good' is condemn because to reject right is to choose wrong. *non believers will be judge by by how they follow that 'law in their heart' because within everyman there is a soul, a good. *all men shall be judged with justice and love. You may ask for clarifications if you need them.
Peace

Deep Sight:
Please come to it presently.

Yes I agree: and I say to you that there are many verses from Christ himself clearly saying that mere belief in his name is nothing: but even those who knew him not he will call brothers in his kingdom for their acts of love.

@Deep Sight; Sorry I have taken quite a while to answer this question, I've been writing up a lot of stuff looking for a way to best bring this home to you ( if I can get it all together, I'll post it later in the thread hopefully).
The verse you quoted in Acts 10 was from the story of how Cornelius came to receive salvation. The point was that Cornelius was a 'good' man before he heard the gospel and he rejoiced on hearing it. The point I am making is that if you are a good man, it is simply a no-brainer to accept the message from an all-good God, why wouldn't you?

I know that the above is a very simplified way to look at it. I would be happy to talk about it in-depth with you if you don't mind, we can have an audio skype/yahoo messenger conversation or even a phone conversation if you like. What do you say?

I am not averse: I am a notorious picker of real life acquaintances from NL, so no worries there.

However before we do so, in addittion to the scrioture from Romans and Acts, have you considered Jesus' own words on this matter?


^^^ And what does it take to worship God, if not simply be a good person?

Are the outward forms and rituals, such as Prayer, Praise, Ceremonies etc really required by a Living God?

In all sincerity, let me ask you what you understand by the injunction that one must worship God is Spirit and in Truth?

In my own understanding, that simply means that dead outward ceremonies are not the substance of worshipping God - that the worship of God rather relates to the inward state of the spirit which corresponds to eternal truth.

This is why I brought up the parable of the good Samaritan, which I thought should be sufficient to show you from your own bible that the worship of God has absolutely nothing to do with outward ceremonies, rituals or dogmatic or doctrinal acknowledgements.

Now to elucidate the point it is critical that we carefully note the context of that parable -

The Gospel of Luke provides the context for the parable as:

One day an expert in religious law stood up to test Jesus by asking him this question: “Teacher, what should I do to inherit eternal life?”

So it should be noted that the parable was given within a context of salvation – namely that which would be required for one to be accepted with God.

Jesus replied, “What does the law of Moses say? How do you read it?”

The man answered, “‘You must love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, all your strength, and all your mind.’ And, ‘Love your neighbour as yourself.’” “Right!” Jesus told him. “Do this and you will live!”

So it is also clear that the ensuing parable sets forth that which it takes to “love God” and “love one’s neighbour.”

This is all the more emphasized since as you well know Jesus often stated that those who care for their neighbours were actually showing such love to him and to God. “I was hungry, and you fed me . . . whenever you did this for one of those, you did the same for me. . . “

The man wanted to justify his actions, so he asked Jesus, “And who is my neighbour?”

Jesus then replied with a story:

“A Jewish man was travelling on a trip from Jerusalem to Jericho, and he was attacked by bandits. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him up, and left him half dead beside the road. By chance a priest came along. But when he saw the man lying there, he crossed to the other side of the road and passed him by. A Levite walked over and looked at him lying there, but he also passed by on the other side.

Now it is instructive that Jesus selects a Priest and a Levite to demonstrate his point – because the Priest and the Levite as you well know symbolize those who expressly acknowledge God, accept all the attendant doctrines about God and morality, and actively execute the outward rituals of “worshipping” God. The Levites as you know were a dedicated tribe of holy priests within the nation of Israel.

However Jesus has just shown what I am trying to say – namely that all the outward forms of acknowledgement of God which these people subscribed to did not in any way mean that they were really worshipping God – because of their action of ignoring the man who was hurt.

Now note carefully the next verses –

“Then a despised Samaritan came along, and when he saw the man, he felt compassion for him.”

Stop press! Note the words “despised Samaritan?” Why did Jesus not use any other lay Jew or even a non-specified person to elucidate his point? He rather chose to select what? – a DESPISED SAMARITAN!

Notwithstanding that, this is what Jesus conveys –

“Going over to him, the Samaritan soothed his wounds with olive oil and wine and bandaged them. Then he put the man on his own donkey and took him to an inn, where he took care of him. The next day he handed the innkeeper two silver coins, telling him, ‘Take care of this man. If his bill runs higher than this, I’ll pay you the next time I’m here.’

Jesus concludes –

“Now which of these three would you say was a neighbour to the man who was attacked by bandits?” Jesus asked. The man replied, “The one who showed him mercy.” Then Jesus said, “Yes, now go and do the same.

In this parable it is critical to note the imagery of the selected individuals –

1. “A Priest and a Levite” – are clearly indicative of people who have formally acknowledged God and are also at the fore-front of all the outward rituals and ceremonies.

2. “A Samaritan” – is considered on the wrong side of doctrine and dogma and is also “generally despised” in religious terms.

However it is easy to see that the man who is supposedly on the wrong side of doctrine – who no indication of God is made about is painted in glowing terms by Jesus because of his kind and merciful deeds.

Now In answering the question – “who is your neighbor” – the parable of the Good Samaritan goes the extra step of showing that neighborliness arises not from tribal or religious affiliations but from loving acts of concern for one another.

What this shows is that the “groups” of churches, mosques, or other theists, are useless in determining the question of neighborliness. An Atheist or Buddhist could as well be a better neighbor than your Deacon in Church or your Imam in Mosque.

And given the parable of the Good Samaritan, in such an event, we can clearly see WHOM has done the will of God. . . .

So my dear friend, while you edify nobody by talking endlessly about definitions (define this, define that), I assert to you today that which was the living essence of the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ – namely that love trumps all things and is the very essence of Christianity.

Here is further relevant scripture from Christ himself in this regard -

Matthew 7:23 - Jesus made it clear that there would be many who believed in his name even to the extent of successfully working miracles and casting out demons in his name. Yet he states that of these people he would say "Depart from me, i never knew ye". . . What this connotes is that their acknowledgment of his name, acceptance of him as lord, and even investiture with miraculous powers from his name, were all empty and dead in his view if these people could not practice love.

This simply shows that the practice of love is what is far more important and relevant as opposed to merely acknowledging his name, however fervently believed or acknowledged.

Again, here is another scripture which i believe hammers home the point -

Matthew 25:35  - In this scripture Jesus specifically said that even people who did not know him but did loving deeds to other humans were actually doing those deeds to him! Thus this affirms my view that one loves God by loving one's fellow man, for how else will you explain this quote from that scripture -

". . .For i was hungry, and you gave me something to eat, i was thirstily, and you gave me something to drink, i was a stranger, and you invited me in, unclothed and you clothed me, i was sick and you visited me, i was in prison, and you came to me. Then the righteous will answer him and when did we do these things. . . And he responded " truly, to the extent that you did these for even the least of my brothers, you did it for me. . ."

I hope that this scripture is more than enough to show you what i am trying to say. It is not by acknowledging him and praising him, etc, but by living acts of love to one another that you actually worship and love God.

I implore you to address these pieces of scripture objectively. You can give succinct responses - I will not debate them because I have said all I have to say on teh topic severally. In fact the above are extracts from past posts.

So when you comment, then we move on to the next topic.

Many thanks.

Deep Sight, We must have an audio conversation. The answer to your question will be too lengthy and too tedious for me to type into this thread.
Have you got skype?

........By the way, as for the above post, you are quite correct

Okay, send me your details sightdeep@gmail.com

Deep Sight: Okay, send me your details sightdeep@gmail.com

Check your inbox

Okay, I will revert to you offline on that.

In the mean time can we proceed to have your view on the next issue.

Please see the OP here -

https://www.nairaland.com/344297/dr-david-sheds-some-light

What's your take?

Deep Sight:
Okay, I will revert to you offline on that.

In the mean time can we proceed to have your view on the next issue.

Please see the OP here -

https://www.nairaland.com/344297/dr-david-sheds-some-light

What's your take?

The op misses a lot of things and again assumes a lot of things.
I believe the question is: Is Jesus Christ God? The short answer is yes He is.

Dude, I don't want to keep giving you soundbites. Let us have an audio conversation either about now or around 11.00pm tonight. (those are the times when I am free today)
If you so choose, you can record the conversation and put it on this thread so people can respond. By God's grace, I'll be able to give satisfactory answers to these questions and further questions you might ask.

Mr_Anony: Deep Sight, We must have an audio conversation. The answer to your question will be too lengthy and too tedious for me to type into this thread.
Have you got skype?

........By the way, as for the above post, you are quite correct

Listen my friend. there is nothing further to answer and i dont know why you would want to take this discussion private.
Deepsight has nailed everything every thing right on the head.

You either agree wholely with him or you are something else other than a follower of Jesus.

plaetton:

Listen my friend. there is nothing further to answer and i dont know why you would want to take this discussion private.
Deepsight has nailed everything every thing right on the head.

You either agree wholely with him or you are something else other than a follower of Jesus.

Lol, your knowledge of Christianity is zero (the sad part is that you don't know how ignorant of Christianity you are).

I am not taking the conversation private so as to escape or anything of the sort. You can ask deepsight to record the conversation if you like. I'm only trying to be nice to my fingers and save them from plenty typing.

Deep Sight:
I am not averse: I am a notorious picker of real life acquaintances from NL, so no worries there.

However before we do so, in addittion to the scrioture from Romans and Acts, have you considered Jesus' own words on this matter?


^^^ And what does it take to worship God, if not simply be a good person?

Are the outward forms and rituals, such as Prayer, Praise, Ceremonies etc really required by a Living God?

In all sincerity, let me ask you what you understand by the injunction that one must worship God is Spirit and in Truth?

In my own understanding, that simply means that dead outward ceremonies are not the substance of worshipping God - that the worship of God rather relates to the inward state of the spirit which corresponds to eternal truth.

This is why I brought up the parable of the good Samaritan, which I thought should be sufficient to show you from your own bible that the worship of God has absolutely nothing to do with outward ceremonies, rituals or dogmatic or doctrinal acknowledgements.

Now to elucidate the point it is critical that we carefully note the context of that parable -

The Gospel of Luke provides the context for the parable as:

One day an expert in religious law stood up to test Jesus by asking him this question: “Teacher, what should I do to inherit eternal life?”

So it should be noted that the parable was given within a context of salvation – namely that which would be required for one to be accepted with God.

Jesus replied, “What does the law of Moses say? How do you read it?”

The man answered, “‘You must love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, all your strength, and all your mind.’ And, ‘Love your neighbour as yourself.’” “Right!” Jesus told him. “Do this and you will live!”

So it is also clear that the ensuing parable sets forth that which it takes to “love God” and “love one’s neighbour.”

This is all the more emphasized since as you well know Jesus often stated that those who care for their neighbours were actually showing such love to him and to God. “I was hungry, and you fed me . . . whenever you did this for one of those, you did the same for me. . . “

The man wanted to justify his actions, so he asked Jesus, “And who is my neighbour?”

Jesus then replied with a story:

“A Jewish man was travelling on a trip from Jerusalem to Jericho, and he was attacked by bandits. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him up, and left him half dead beside the road. By chance a priest came along. But when he saw the man lying there, he crossed to the other side of the road and passed him by. A Levite walked over and looked at him lying there, but he also passed by on the other side.

Now it is instructive that Jesus selects a Priest and a Levite to demonstrate his point – because the Priest and the Levite as you well know symbolize those who expressly acknowledge God, accept all the attendant doctrines about God and morality, and actively execute the outward rituals of “worshipping” God. The Levites as you know were a dedicated tribe of holy priests within the nation of Israel.

However Jesus has just shown what I am trying to say – namely that all the outward forms of acknowledgement of God which these people subscribed to did not in any way mean that they were really worshipping God – because of their action of ignoring the man who was hurt.

Now note carefully the next verses –

“Then a despised Samaritan came along, and when he saw the man, he felt compassion for him.”

Stop press! Note the words “despised Samaritan?” Why did Jesus not use any other lay Jew or even a non-specified person to elucidate his point? He rather chose to select what? – a DESPISED SAMARITAN!

Notwithstanding that, this is what Jesus conveys –

“Going over to him, the Samaritan soothed his wounds with olive oil and wine and bandaged them. Then he put the man on his own donkey and took him to an inn, where he took care of him. The next day he handed the innkeeper two silver coins, telling him, ‘Take care of this man. If his bill runs higher than this, I’ll pay you the next time I’m here.’

Jesus concludes –

“Now which of these three would you say was a neighbour to the man who was attacked by bandits?” Jesus asked. The man replied, “The one who showed him mercy.” Then Jesus said, “Yes, now go and do the same.

In this parable it is critical to note the imagery of the selected individuals –

1. “A Priest and a Levite” – are clearly indicative of people who have formally acknowledged God and are also at the fore-front of all the outward rituals and ceremonies.

2. “A Samaritan” – is considered on the wrong side of doctrine and dogma and is also “generally despised” in religious terms.

However it is easy to see that the man who is supposedly on the wrong side of doctrine – who no indication of God is made about is painted in glowing terms by Jesus because of his kind and merciful deeds.

Now In answering the question – “who is your neighbor” – the parable of the Good Samaritan goes the extra step of showing that neighborliness arises not from tribal or religious affiliations but from loving acts of concern for one another.

What this shows is that the “groups” of churches, mosques, or other theists, are useless in determining the question of neighborliness. An Atheist or Buddhist could as well be a better neighbor than your Deacon in Church or your Imam in Mosque.

And given the parable of the Good Samaritan, in such an event, we can clearly see WHOM has done the will of God. . . .

So my dear friend, while you edify nobody by talking endlessly about definitions (define this, define that), I assert to you today that which was the living essence of the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ – namely that love trumps all things and is the very essence of Christianity.

Here is further relevant scripture from Christ himself in this regard -

Matthew 7:23 - Jesus made it clear that there would be many who believed in his name even to the extent of successfully working miracles and casting out demons in his name. Yet he states that of these people he would say "Depart from me, i never knew ye". . . What this connotes is that their acknowledgment of his name, acceptance of him as lord, and even investiture with miraculous powers from his name, were all empty and dead in his view if these people could not practice love.

This simply shows that the practice of love is what is far more important and relevant as opposed to merely acknowledging his name, however fervently believed or acknowledged.

Again, here is another scripture which i believe hammers home the point -

Matthew 25:35  - In this scripture Jesus specifically said that even people who did not know him but did loving deeds to other humans were actually doing those deeds to him! Thus this affirms my view that one loves God by loving one's fellow man, for how else will you explain this quote from that scripture -

". . .For i was hungry, and you gave me something to eat, i was thirstily, and you gave me something to drink, i was a stranger, and you invited me in, unclothed and you clothed me, i was sick and you visited me, i was in prison, and you came to me. Then the righteous will answer him and when did we do these things. . . And he responded " truly, to the extent that you did these for even the least of my brothers, you did it for me. . ."

I hope that this scripture is more than enough to show you what i am trying to say. It is not by acknowledging him and praising him, etc, but by living acts of love to one another that you actually worship and love God.

I implore you to address these pieces of scripture objectively. You can give succinct responses - I will not debate them because I have said all I have to say on teh topic severally. In fact the above are extracts from past posts.

So when you comment, then we move on to the next topic.

Many thanks.

OMG. What!

This is probably the very best sermon I have heard in my entire life.
Hey Deepsight, if you do this every sunday, I would gladly come to your church.
We can make a lot of money you know. lol
I am ging to print this and keep it handy for my friends and children. Seriously.
Although the idea is not new, but the way you delivered it was superb.

It is a great irony that a sermon so profound can can come from the mind of a non-religious person(presumed condemned) while the born again warriors are all over the place preaching a lot of nonsense and looking for someone to condemn to eternal hell fire.

Bravo Deepsight.

Mr_Anony:
Lol, your knowledge of Christianity is zero (the sad part is that you don't know how ignorant of Christianity you are).

I am not taking the conversation private so as to escape or anything of the sort. You can ask deepsight to record the conversation if you like. I'm only trying to be nice to my fingers and save them from plenty typing.

I have demonstrated that I know far more about christianity than you do. Christianity is not about quoting verses out of context to suit your whims.

The very fact that you think Jesus is god, while ignoring that very fact that he was promoted so by IMPERIAL FIAT at the Nicean council, is evidence that you practice one the numerous variants of fantasy or voodoo christianity.
I call it mediaval churchianity.

If you take time to understand Jesus, you would be a much better christian.
Deepsight has just demonstrated that he has a far better grasp of Jesus and his message than you do.

Just admit that you still have a lot to grasp and and all will be well. That is the kind of humility that Jesus encouraged.

plaetton:

I have demonstrated that I know far more about christianity than you do. Christianity is not about quoting verses out of context to suit your whims.

The very fact that you think Jesus is god, while ignoring that very fact that he was promoted so by IMPERIAL FIAT at the Nicean council, is evidence that you practice one the numerous variants of fantasy or voodoo christianity.
I call it mediaval churchianity.

If you take time to understand Jesus, you would be a much better christian.
Deepsight has just demonstrated that he has a far better grasp of Jesus and his message than you do.

Just admit that you still have a lot to grasp and and all will be well. That is the kind of humility that Jesus encouraged.

Lol, Please don't consider it arrogance when I say that I know God personally. Because of this, I also know what God isn't.

It is just a fact that I happen to know Christ. If I say it in any other way, it will not be humility but lying.

Mr_Anony:

Lol, Please don't consider it arrogance when I say that I know God personally. Because of this, I also know what God isn't.


It is just a fact that I happen to know Christ. If I say it in any other way, it will not be humility but lying.

Ofcourse, my dear friend. You know god personally. I would be surprised if you did not.
He lives in your head, your mind.
That is the core of all my arguments.

It may surprise you to know too that I know god, I know Jesus and I know the Christ.
The simple test is that if we cannot agree on what is god, who was Jesus and what is Christ, then surely surely, there is something profoundly wrong with this picture.

plaetton:

Ofcourse, my dear friend. You know god personally. I would be surprised if you did not.
He lives in your head, your mind.
That is the core of all my arguments.

It may surprise you to know too that I know god, I know Jesus and I know the Christ.
The simple test is that if we cannot agree on what is god, who was Jesus and what is Christ, then surely surely, there is something profoundly wrong with this picture.

Yeah the problem is that it is either one of us is lying or both of us are lying.

Mr_Anony:
Yeah the problem is that it is either one of us is lying or both of us are lying.

I am not a liar and I would definitely not call you a liar.
Its about dogma.
Its about knowledge and understanding and the humility that should follow them.

plaetton:

I am not a liar and I would definitely not call you a liar.
Its about dogma.
Its about knowledge and understanding and the humility that should follow them.

My friend, I believe truth is one, there cannot possibly be two truths on the same issue. It is either one account is true or both are lies.

Humility has nothing to do with knowledge. If you know something, you know it. If you don't know something, you don't know it.

Mr_Anony:
My friend, I believe truth is one, there cannot possibly be two truths on the same issue. It is either one account is true or both are lies.

Humility has nothing to do with knowledge. If you know something, you know it. If you don't know something, you don't know it.

Humility is about acknowledging how much you know and how much you do not know. Claiming something as true presupposes absolute knowledge about the subject.
Should I go on a lenghty enumeration of why there are too too many holes in your bible that renders it unreliable and far far from truth!


That is why emperically derived scientific knowledge if far far superior and reliable than knowledge derived from religious scripture.

If your knowledge is derived from your bible, then you should know that your knowledge is not only porous but does not even meet the minimum threshold of what can be classified as knowledge.

The knowledge that you have is what you use to reinforce the dogmas that you have created or has accepted to lodge within your mind.
Your knowledge has no validity outside of your mind.

Again this is the crux of all my arguments.

plaetton:

Humility is about acknowledging how much you know and how much you do not know. Claiming something as true presupposes absolute knowledge about the subject.
Should I go on a lenghty enumeration of why there are too too many holes in your bible that renders it unreliable and far far from truth!


That is why emperically derived scientific knowledge if far far superior and reliable than knowledge derived from religious scripture.

If your knowledge is derived from your bible, then you should know that your knowledge is not only porous but does not even meet the minimum threshold of what can be classified as knowledge.

The knowledge that you have is what you use to reinforce the dogmas that you have created or has accepted to lodge within your mind.
Your knowledge has no validity outside of your mind.

Again this is the crux of all my arguments.

For without faith, it is impossible to please God..
Fatih, substance of things hoped for, evidence of things not seen...

And someone tries to defend this with reason, laughable..