Tamaratonye5:
One can not have religion without faith. Religion has not provided one shred of evidence for a god.

Tamaratonye5:
I have been in a helicopter, in a storm, and looked out one window to see the opposite horizon. We were practically inverted. It was fun, but for me not a great concern. I knew the aircraft thoroughly, and the level of competence of the pilots. It was not "faith", but an understanding of the laws of physics, the level of competence of the pilots, and the capabilities of the aircraft.

My trust was not misplaced, those were the very same pilots who managed to set the rear end of their helicopter on the small landing pad of a Russian trawler, flying backwards, in a storm. it was an emergency evacuation of a man with acute appendicitis.

Tamaratonye5:
Actually - faith is already defined by the bible in Hebrews 11:1 "Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see."

Why wouldn’t I have confidence in the Law of Gravity? That’s a dumb analogy.

Tamaratonye5:
There is demonstrable evidence of its existence and it’s explanation or description by science is commonly accepted.

Tamaratonye5:
Ahhh, now the games begin, eh? See what faith gets you when you extend it towards a fellow man, lol. So, you aren't saying you are Christian or that you aren't Christian or that you even believe the bible to be god inspired or anything, right? My reply in response to your bible faith definition to me of: "is heard comes through the message about Christ". My bad for assuming you linked faith to Christ or Christians (tsk, tsk, tsk)

Tamaratonye5:
Do you believe the bible to be God's word? Are you a Christian? Do you believe Jesus is God?I wouldn’t want to assume anything moving forward

Tamaratonye5:
Thank you for the ad hominem attack. Duly noted.

Tamaratonye5:
Paul of Tarsus wrote a lot about faith and redemption. His passionate writing never fails to move the faithful. I use to quote from his epistles when I preached to uncomprehending non-believers and I could not understand their lack of enthusiasm for Paul’s grand writing. There is something ironic about Christians quoting Paul about belief and faith and how both are all you need to come to Jesus.

Paul was a proud Pharisaic student of Gamaliel, the famous rabbi who invoking his usual measure of compassion and common sense, saved Peter and the other real apostles and the future of their brand new Jewish heresy from execution and possible total oblivion (Acts 5). Paul no doubt was indoctrinated in the sacred worth of human life, but none the less, despite his association with Gamaliel set off on a bloody campaign against the heretics of Jesus.

Paul became a murderer. He makes a passing Nuremberg defence about his part in the deaths of perhaps hundreds of early followers of Jesus. His guilt must have been a heavy burden, and it might be, that in a state of denial, attempting to smother his guilt, he doubled down and sought out even more heretics to condemn, as proof of his devotion and the righteousness of his actions, to himself as much as to others. Then he went to Damascus. Paul’s conversion wasn’t a result of his belief or faith. It was an physical mind-shattering event, in broad daylight, on the hard road to Damascus. He believed he experienced the presence, and heard the voice of Jesus Christ himself.

I suspect he suffered a severe temporal lobe epilepsy (TLE), induced by his intense mental anguish brought on by guilt and fear of divine punishment. The TLE would account for his temporary blindness. The noonday Gallilean sun might also have contributed. Yet he came away from Damascus neatly forgiven and charged with yet another religious obsession to prove his passionate devotion to his god, which was now Jesus, rather than YHWH. This was no ethereal spiritual revelation or blessing. For Paul it was a brutally perceived reality. From the evidence of his own deranged senses he had no choice but to believe, if only for the sake of his own sanity. Its ironic that Christians now quote him in the defence of the lofty merits of blind faith and supposedly logical belief.

All of that is for the choir. I realise now my audience of 40 years ago with no sense of guilt or fear or need of redemptions, would have needed a Damascene event, in reality, of their own, to establish a faith and belief in a god. Just like Paul.
Why is it they dont get one and are doomed to eternal punishment? Right, logical.

MuttleyLaff:

---

---

---

Your short attention span has stopped your remaining focus only to have your mind wander off from alleged adultery to now "Give me a passage in the old testament where God planed it..." sic

MuttleyLaff:
What does it matter to you, if I am a Christian, huh. Who Christian app? You dont believe the Bible to be God's word, I doubt you believe that Jesus is God, so whats your concern

MuttleyLaff:
I know of Arsenal football legend, Dennis Bergkamp who won't fly. Dennis was put off flying for life after an engine cut out during a flight to the USA 94 World Cup. I am sure Dennis, has an understanding of the laws of physics, the level of competence of the pilots, and the capabilities of the aircraft

MuttleyLaff:
Bravo, encore, you played, the role of judge, jury and executioner, perfectly well

TATIME:


We aren't producing anything here now but just chatting!

When it's time for production, both atheist and religionsists get involved, so what we're discussing now is about common human traits that's affecting our society, so bringing in rules or commandments regarding production is pointless!

TATIME:
@Vic2Ree you can't delete it nah, you can only ignore!

Vic2Ree:
[s][/s]

Maximus69:


ATHEISTS and funny rules!

You want someone to avoid you but you ran up to interfere with his chat!

Tamaratonye5:
Absolutely no concern. I was addressing your contribution/s coming into my thread.

Tamaratonye5:
Unfortunately, it's becoming obvious that you are more interested in playing mind games and don't want to engage in honest discussions.

Tamaratonye5:
Another physical law at work, eh, like gravity? Mechanical failure, humans not "gifted" with foresight to "know" the consequences to everyday life and interactions with our environment. He had confidence and hoped (based on previous safe flights and a knowledge) BUT this particular flight didn't grant him a positive experience…

Tamaratonye5:
Driving to work, crossing the street, taking a shower… risk and reward. Humans are capable of evaluating both.

Tamaratonye5:
Judge, jury and executioner! You thought my post was that thorough? Flattery will get you nowhere

Tamaratonye5:
I presented a short informed critical assessment, not complete of course, about Paul’s life and views, not altogether original, but honest, and your only response is to deride my humble effort?

Tamaratonye5:
I know you were displeased because I didn’t even get a Bible quote this time.

Tamaratonye5:
Your preferred forum style seems to be using powerful rebuttals over minor issues, (‘G’ or ‘g’ for god? It does matter despite what you think.) employing terse derogatory responses, when you apparently lack appropriate Bible verses, and inserting quaint meaningless "deepity" statements (the sun will always set in the west) to promote a false air of wisdom and a puzzling reluctance to reveal the denomination of your professed Christian faith. I cant imagine why.

Tamaratonye5:
Yes, I understand you are a person of profound faith in your god and Bible and that you think I am lamentably hell bound.

Tamaratonye5:
You need to accept that I have quite a lot of personal experience and understanding about belief and religion. We are not going to shift each other’s viewpoint and the effort would be a waste of words and time.

Tamaratonye5:
I’m tired of you already. I can read my own Bible quotes and I can follow theological arguments in profound detail reading Aquinas or Origen et al and for quaint meaningless "deepities" I always have my desk calendar, lol.

Edited for inclusion

MuttleyLaff:
You prematurely seem to be running out steam and/or breath

MuttleyLaff:
"²³Jesus replied, “Why do you say ‘if you can’?
Anything is possible for someone who has faith!”
²⁴At once the boy's father shouted,
“I do have faith! Please help me to have even more.
(i.e. I believe! Help my lack of faith)"
- Mark 9:23-24

MuttleyLaff:
Risk, is a function of faith. Driving to work, crossing the street, taking a shower et cetera are each and/or all stepping out in faith. If you lacked faith you won't step out to drive to work, cross the street, take a shower et cetera. Humans, have different aptitude of evaluating faith

MuttleyLaff:
Smh, your post was feeble, shallow and blathering. Go back to re-read the "Judge, jury and executioner" comment and see that it typed responding to "Why is it they dont get one and are doomed to eternal punishment? Right, logical"

You seem to have a low esteem of yourself because you are under different illusions, if its not falsely crying out about being subjected to ad hominem, it will be about your Paul comment being derided or taking harmless and innocent remarks as "... employing terse derogatory responses". If I should ask, will you be able to provide proof, of me deriding your "... short informed critical assessment, not complete of course, about Paul’s life and views ..." humble effort, hmm?

Just so you know, I have a high displeasure threshold, my please mode was 10000% intact and unwavering. I could see the sense and/or point to waste needful and appropriate Bible quote, that's going to swoosh jet fighter fly over heads, so I stayed mute. There is the Bible quote that states about Apostle Paul and his letters, as being often misunderstood, so I can only empathise with you misunderstanding Apostle Paul

If you are wise, you'll take my post(s) for what it is and not how it’s delivered.

There is no denomination in the kingdom of heaven. God is denomination agnostic. Protocol, requires the right designation be used God and god. Does it bother you when I used "G" instead of "g" for God, hmm?

How did you compute, I think you you're lamentably hell bound? That, right there, is something straight out of the book of a "Judge, jury and executioner"

Are you always in the habit of making assumptions. Of course you have quite a lot of personal experience and understanding about belief and religion, so the reason why I earlier advanced that, you too daily transact in faith

"If a crooked stick is before you, you need not explain how crooked it is. Lay a straight one down by the side of it, and the work is well done". I cant remember where I read that from, but sure is better than aim to shift another’s viewpoint

Aquinas or Origen must be flawless two headed human beings. The realisation of how hollow a person is, is enough to make such take off and bolt

Tamaratonye5:
Pfft. More like running out of patience.

Tamaratonye5:
Look...

Tamaratonye5:
... you can keep quoting your scriptures till you're blue in the face. That you "live" in your precious bible won't change the fact that it contains arrant nonsense.

Tamaratonye5:
This is a demonstrable fact, so the idea it's inspired by an omniscient omnipotent deity is absurd. If it requires subjective interpretation then the claim of its divine origin becomes meaningless. It's also absurd not to notice that the bible reflects the bigotry prejudice and ignorance of the people and epoch from which it was derived, exactly what I'd expect if it were entirely human origin, not one thing points to omniscience as the source

Tamaratonye5:
Also the deity depicted in the bible endorses slavery, murder rape, sex trafficking female prisoners, ethnic cleansing stoning unruly children etc etc…so the idea it's an objective moral guide is demonstrably absurd.

Tamaratonye5:
Nope. I look both ways before I cross the street. Only a dumbass would not look before stepping off the curb. I do not use "faith", I use evidence, and decide based on the reliability of my senses and other factors.

Tamaratonye5:
My self esteem is fine, thanks for asking

Tamaratonye5:
You admit you only responded to my last question. I could have expected a fuller answer if you had thought it worthy.

Tamaratonye5:
Mine was a humble effort ...

Tamaratonye5:
... considering the many books I have read and discussions I have had with theists on this one topic over the years and it was incomplete mainly due to forum limitations and you pointedly missed my comment that it was not original, you see, the question of Paul's faith and sanity has been a subject for scrutiny for several hundred years; I ride on giants' shoulders.

Tamaratonye5:
You question my low esteem and make a veiled stab at my hubris for suggesting it a "humble effort" all in one paragraph and fail to address anything I actually said about Paul.

Tamaratonye5:
You make a hubristic claim to tolerance, pity me for not understanding your view, fail to establish that view, and then withhold the very Bible quote you seem to think will provide a pertinent answer, judging me unworthy of any such courtesy. Can you not see the pattern? A mix of derision and a failure to address issues about faith

Tamaratonye5:
It doesn't bother me what word or spelling you use to describe your god. It is an issue of how I use the word. "god is the noun, like "unicorn" both of which are myths. "God" is the unoriginal name for the Christian deity. The capitalised G denotes a thing, an entity, and at the same time its supremacy, which I refute. Its a theist convention, which I am disinclined to practice. Its a quirk of mine.

Tamaratonye5:
I apologise

Tamaratonye5:
but, it has been the assumed majority claim amongst theists I have debated that as an atheist I am bound for hell and the lake of fire.

Tamaratonye5:
I duly note my presumption. You suggest I have hope of redemption?

Tamaratonye5:
We all make assumptions where there is little evidence to work with, its part of the process by which we learn when assumptions are answered. But where is the assumption here? I made a request and then a claim. I know I will not be moved by your comments which also clearly indicate the intransigence of your position. Not an assumption, a deduction.

Tamaratonye5:
The "crooked stick" quote comes from Charles Spurgeon, the celebrated ‘Prince of Preachers' which I find curious because Charles is promoting the scientific method, despite it being a parable about spiritual truth and error. I am unimpressed because it is not an argument and you use it to suggest one of us is "crooked and wrong" simply on mere superficial comparison. I am sure you aren't rooting for me.

Tamaratonye5:
Yes, I confess I have had to make a lot of assumptions here because you persist in avoiding to present anything of substance beyond petty criticisms. You deem me so unworthy you withhold a Pauline verse you seem sure will add to debate. Talk of judges, juries and executioners.

Tamaratonye5:
Your last comments on Aquinus and Origen are unintelligble. FYI both were devout Christian theologians. Aquinus attempted a merge of Platonic and Aristotelian interpretations of natural and supernatural issues into a unified theological whole. Origen debated the academic pagan Celsus on basic Christian tenets. They were all single headed individual human beings, why would you need to make such an asinine comment? Am I wrong to assume the hollow person comment was directed to me? Or is that my hubris?

Tamaratonye5:
A simple quiz for you then (can you answer honestly):

[1] About how many (ballpark figure) of the apologists you've encountered ever admit to the possibility of error?:

Tamaratonye5:
[2] How many confuse theology, biblical hermeneutics and exegesis as lending themselves to intellectual honesty?

Tamaratonye5:
[3] Hollow as I might be, I am persistent if nothing else, so I'll rephrase the important question: How is Paul revered for his faith when it was a physical event that prompted his conversion?

Tamaratonye5:

Which "god?" Which "commandments?"

I know of a god that looks like a unicorn and farts rainbows, and the first commandment from this god is: "Anyone who believes in me is a fool"

That god and those commandments? I am guessing no.

Be more specific.

Vic2Ree:
I'm enjoying this back and forth between Tamaratonye5 and Muttleylaff. So far I'm rooting for Tamara . Your responses are delightful

Vic2Ree:
I'm enjoying this back and forth between Tamaratonye5 and Muttleylaff. So far I'm rooting for Tamara . Your responses are delightful

Dtruthspeaker:


So is Mutley's answers too. And of course no one wins a contest by the plentiness of supporters.

Vic2Ree:

I acknowledged both discussants as having delightful responses, so what are you on about?

I'm simply rooting for Tamara because I empathize with her argument

Number of supporters for a viewpoint has never been validation of correctness. Atheists know this more than anyone else

Dtruthspeaker:


With the direction the argument went coupled with the resource and intelligence both opponents had a stalemate was not far.

MuttleyLaff:
Must have gotten your goat for such negative outburst like this to roll out from you

MuttleyLaff:
BRT crushed Grace to death, a Lagos businesswoman and wife of the Head of Public Relations, Globacom, Andrew Okeleke, when attempting to cross the road after being dropped off by her driver around 7.20pm 2 months ago. Nnodi, the driver of the bus fled after knocking her down. The businesswoman died on the spot. As far as you know, she is a dumbass abi?

MuttleyLaff:
You accrue undue and unmerited importance. I to yourself. I passingly commented on your seemingly low self-esteem and didn't you asked you about the state of it or how you feel

MuttleyLaff:
I will speak for my self and not hold brief for anyone. As I have advanced from the very onset, there are all sorts of errors committed in translation of texts, words et cetera of the Bible.

MuttleyLaff:
"¹⁵Consider also that our Lord’s patience brings salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom God gave him.
¹⁶ He writes this way in all his letters, speaking in them about such matters. Some parts of his letters are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.
¹⁷Therefore, beloved, since you already know these things, be on your guard so that you will not be carried away by the error of the lawless and fall from your secure standing."
- 2 Peter 3:15-17

MuttleyLaff:
There you go again on an assumption making trip. What made you think, its going to be a Pauline verse, huh? I had in mind 2 Peter 3:16 from above 2 Peter 3:15-17, when and where I previously typed "There is the Bible quote that states about Apostle Paul and his letters, as being often misunderstood, so I can only empathise with you misunderstanding Apostle Paul." OK.

Dtruthspeaker:

I answered you but I See that you were waiting for this answer and all the other answers that ensued after.

And I see from your statement above, you do have a problem with the Creator, who we call God, maka, why?

Vic2Ree:
I'm enjoying this back and forth between Tamaratonye5 and Muttleylaff. So far I'm rooting for Tamara . Your responses are delightful

Tamaratonye5:

Hi Dtruthspeaker …lol. I actually have no problems with invisible deities. I also have no "problems" with unicorn. Sometimes my garden fairies and I will have issues, but they’re quite reasonable

I am an atheist because theists and religious apologist can't demonstrate any objective evidence for any deity. Also the arguments presented are often irrational and flawed. I can have no problem with deities or creation since I don't believe the universe was created, and I don’t believe in any extant deity. Can you answer these for me;

[1] Which god are you referring to, please? There are many creation myths.

[2] What objective evidence can you demonstrate for any deity?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Thanks.

Tamaratonye5:


Hi Vic2Ree . Nice to see someone rooting for me lol. Either way, I'm really not trying to "win" an argument. Just want to have an honest discussion. Even if I fail to convince my co-discussant/s, I can at least hope to convince uncertain viewers who might be reading the chat. Thanks.

Dtruthspeaker:


Unfortunately a stalemate does not sway anyone, only a win.

Tamaratonye5:
Negative outburst Since when did a fairly damn reasonable and accurate statement become a "negative outburst"? Projection much?

Tamaratonye5:
If you felt your jimmies rustled by my assertion, it's not my problem. Technically, I could claim you are the one getting emotional since you choose to mock my assertion rather than challenge it.

Tamaratonye5:
Your response describes a tragic accident, we were discussing "faith".

Tamaratonye5:
Your response is a classic non sequitur, lol.

Tamaratonye5:
Your obsessive need to always explain yourself to me is very telling actually. And creepy

Tamaratonye5:
Your god desires for everyone to know of it and worship it. This god is described as being all powerful, all knowing, capable of creating this universe and controlling everything.

Yet, the most important message this god sent, this book which is the instructions and word of god, is allowed to contain errors

Tamaratonye5:
2 Peter? Supposedly written about 68 AD, before Peter is crucified upside down at his own request, during the pogrom of Nero, but was more likely written after his death in the popular Christian tradition of pseudographical writings, as is the opinion of most Bible experts today.

This letter contains the final orders, advice, blessings from ‘the Rock’ and a timeless reminder of the imminent return of Jesus. And it does include the comment, "16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their destruction."

Tamaratonye5:
Well firstly MuttleyLaff, at the time this was said to be written, just prior to the irrevocable split between the synagogue and the new religion that Peter led, and it is at this time the majority of the early followers of Christ were still Jewish converts and amongst the things Paul wrote, that were "hard to be understood" were his explanations about how those early followers, while still being Jewish and still being the heirs of the promises God made to Abraham, were not liable to observe Mosaic Law, and were further exempt from the needs of circumcision and dietary restrictions.

Tamaratonye5:
There was also, for Peter some very awkward things Paul wrote concerning his un-witnessed divine appointment as the 13th apostle, and receiving his very own personal gospel from scripture and exclusive revelations from Jesus, and not from men, especially not those lowly apostles in Jerusalem, of whom he had worked harder and done more, in spreading the word of Jesus. Then, there was Paul's haughty record of the confrontation at Antioch where he publicly denounced Peter as a hypocrite for leaving the Gentile feast to dine with the newly arrived Jews contingent. There was much more Paul wrote about himself which must have been confusing for Peter's Jewish followers to understand. Its all there if you read it. Peter was evidently in a forgiving state of mind, given that he was offering his last advice for the future unity of the faith, either that or the letter was fabricated later to serve the anti-semitic agenda of the Gentile church.

Tamaratonye5:
But at this point I have to say, MuttleyLaff, you are as supremely arrogant as Paul revealed himself to be. You have been bagging me about my assumptions and the impudence of my knowledge and here, after mincing about like a prima donna, preciously withholding from me, and everyone else reading here, the one Bible verse you proclaimed would fully explain my ignorance and answer my question and we find it a complete furphy having nothing to do at all with my question, because you didn’t even have the courtesy or discipline to read or comprehend it. This is not the way to conduct yourself in a forum.

I doubt you read my "Paul of Tarsus post either. You just allowed yourself to react emotionally over its content and petulantly respond with inflated indignation to my first question which remains unanswered. You ignored the content of further posts and simply made snide sarcastic comments without addressing the second question which 2 Peter as we see does not answer.

Tamaratonye5:
You reveal your limited appreciation of the circumstances surrounding the lives and writings of Peter and Paul which serves to provide a deeper understanding of their work. But you are happy to peel off all the pleasing references to redemption, promises of life eternal, and the favours of your god and leave the rest ignored

Tamaratonye5:
Don't bother answering either of my questions, now. As I said, I can find the answers myself reading from the Bible as I have everyday for the past fifty years. And from my desk calendar.

Tamaratonye5:
Hi Dtruthspeaker …lol. I actually have no problems with invisible deities. I also have no "problems" with unicorn. Sometimes my garden fairies and I will have issues, but they’re quite reasonable

Tamaratonye5:
I am an atheist because theists and religious apologist can't demonstrate any objective evidence for any deity. Also the arguments presented are often irrational and flawed.

Tamaratonye5:
I can have no problem with deities or creation since I don't believe the universe was created, and I don’t believe in any extant deity.

Tamaratonye5:
Can you answer these for me;

[1] Which god are you referring to, please? There are many creation myths.

Tamaratonye5:
[2] What objective evidence can you demonstrate for any deity?

Tamaratonye5:
Hi Vic2Ree . Nice to see someone rooting for me lol. Either way, I'm really not trying to "win" an argument. Just want to have an honest discussion. Even if I fail to convince my co-discussant/s, I can at least hope to convince uncertain viewers who might be reading the chat. Thanks.

Tamaratonye5:

I can have no problem with deities or creation since I don't believe the universe was created, and I don’t believe in any extant deity.

Vic2Ree:

I'm curious. What is your understanding of winning an argument? Why do you believe an argument needs to be won?

Vic2Ree:
I'm curious. What is your understanding of winning an argument? Why do you believe an argument needs to be won?

Dtruthspeaker:
The full answer is quite lengthy, but to summarise it, it goes this way.

Because we do not know everything, we are always seeking to learn, and people have a Duty to Share the Truth known to them but they do not always do so or they could be wrong which in times past have put us in varying degrees of danger, so we have learnt to test, probe and ascertain what we have received as True.

Because, when a thing is True, we can rely and act on it.

Therefore an argument does many things which when a proposition is accepted, the giver is pleased and the recipient has Learnt (win/win)

If unaccepted on invalid grounds it is still a (win/lose).

If unaccepted on valid grounds, thus rejected, it is a (win/win) if the giver is smart to know that he has just Learnt what he did not know but a lot of Nairalanders suck at this and rather than be thankful for the Learning, they vehemently fight to reject it and draw blood.

When People say a thing, we listen to act on it, lest we are burned for not taking heed to the warning sent our way before damnation as we have also previously Learnt Also, for no one knows Everything.

MuttleyLaff:
I made an observational remark that was went something like "You prematurely seem to be running out steam and/or breath" but you responded with "Pfft More like running out of patience" Now tell me if "Pfft" is a negative or positive outburst. Or if that wasn't an abuse of pfft. I saying "patience, the ability to remain calm without losing it, is a virtue, it is a great and valuable character trait" that right there, is a fairly damnable, reasonable and accurate statement that, you lack that virtue.

I am of the stuff, steel is made of. You'll have a tough and hard time unrustling/rustling my jimmies

MuttleyLaff:
Of course, we are discussing faith and so why I typed that "Risk, is a function of faith. Driving to work, crossing the street, taking a shower et cetera are each and/or all stepping out in faith. If you lacked faith you won't step out to drive to work, cross the street, take a shower et cetera. Humans, have different aptitude of evaluating faith"

MuttleyLaff:
Only a dumbass would not look before stepping off the curb

MuttleyLaff:
Familiarity of the phrase "non sequitur" does not necessarily mean understanding when to rightly or how to correctly use it

MuttleyLaff:
If you can follow theological arguments in profound detail reading Aquinas or Origen et al, then you would know that your fav Origen believed that Peter wrote the letters

MuttleyLaff:
I am pleased that you know you at least these "hard to be understood" side of Paul's theology and revelation he received

MuttleyLaff:
I am vindicated then, for earlier typing that Apostle Paul was a misunderstood man.

MuttleyLaff:
As for Apostle Peter, he had the first serve, but when he was being busy rationalising, shuffling his feet and dilly-dallying, he got passed over.

MuttleyLaff:
I apologise, if this is how you see or imagine things, but trust me, I read, and went through with a fine-tooth comb, every alphabet letter, text, dotted "i", crossed "t" commas, full stop and sentence(s) you wrote about Apostle Paul.

MuttleyLaff:
I am pleased with both Apostles and their works...

MuttleyLaff:
it is you having reservation about Apostle Paul, not me

MuttleyLaff:
Too late, I already had.

MuttleyLaff:
You can find the answers yourself reading from the Bible, you say, but why wasting your time reading a book you dont believe in, why read a book that is littered with errors, huh?

I find it amusing to the point of even liking how you drop names, how you drop years, switching from "40 years ago" to "many years" and now to "fifty years" You are fantabulous. You are doing well. Hinn.

MuttleyLaff:
Why not transfer the believing in unicorn and your garden fairies to a belief in the existence of God, a supreme and self existing being, hmm?

MuttleyLaff:
Your existence, as a starting point, is an objectively supported fact or evidence that the deity, God, a supreme and self existing being, exists

MuttleyLaff:
God, the supreme and self existing being

MuttleyLaff:
You are an objective evidence, that demonstrates, for any deity. You're, to start with, the first exhibit. With can move on, to examine the human eye and its complexity to take as part of an objective evidence you can use to demonstrate for a Designer, Inventor, Creator, Coder, Maker, Scientist, Prime Mover, Planner et cetera Deity

Dtruthspeaker:
Before I proceed to answer your questions...

Dtruthspeaker:
..Laws Providing for Conclusive Proof of Truth..

Dtruthspeaker:
what is your measurement and standard of Proof of Truth?

Tamaratonye5:
What objective evidence can you demonstrate for any deity?

jamesid29:

Really not trying to derail the thread, just want you to quickly clarify the bolded. What do you mean by the universe wasn't created?

Tamaratonye5:


Well I might ask the same of you, since it is your belief, but let's start here…

Tamaratonye5:


I beg your pardon, what is it about "created’ you don’t understand?

jamesid29:

Really not trying to derail the thread, just want you to quickly clarify the bolded. What do you mean by the universe wasn't created?