bawomolo:

lol this thread is comedy.

you guys better not chase alhaji shakerz away

Oya, Oga Shakerz, since i stuck my neck and reputation out for you please come and destroy these nay-sayers for me, with some more of your good reasoning. . .

Deep Sight:

Your Choice. But its interesting how you've always dropped these scathing remarks without ever providing a cogent line of reasoning to rebutt what has been asserted. Typical. I guess i am coming to see and understand your pattern. It's not very impressive, Chris.

P.S - Davidylan (Phd.) na very harsh Judge o!

Yeah at least I know what to expect from david, you on the other hand will chow with the devil and drink wine with archangel Gabriel if you know what I mean

Chrisbenogor:

Yeah at least I know what to expect from david, you on the other hand will chow with the devil and drink wine with archangel Gabriel if you know what I mean

You are at odds with me simply because i believe in God but damn religion.

Is there someting wrong with believeing in God but damning religion?

haha. absolutely nothing IMO. It's all good fun. If we were all the same this place would be very very boring.

Deep Sight:

You are at odds with me simply because i believe in God but damn religion.

Is there someting wrong with believeing in God but damning religion?

That also depends on your definition of religion cause the way the bible defines religion is different from the way "christians" practise it, you might just be practising your own form of religion. Here is the biblical definition of religion which as been largely ignored by the 'church'

James 1:27:
27 Pure and genuine religion in the sight of God the Father means caring for orphans and widows in their distress and refusing to let the world corrupt you.

KunleOshob:

That also depends on your definition of religion cause the way the bible defines religion is different from the way "christians" practise it, you might just be practising your own form of religion. Here is the biblical definition of religion which as been largely ignored by the 'church'

James 1:27:
27 Pure and genuine religion in the sight of God the Father means caring for orphans and widows in their distress and refusing to let the world corrupt you.

The great Ministers of God, Noetic and Davidylan (Phd.) have severally declared that the quoted above is not sufficient to get to their "Jesus' heaven" and that indeed persons who do what James admonishes above (caring for orphans and widows in their distress) will definitely go to HELL for doing such without acknowledging the Jewish Carpenter who they worship as ALMIGHTY GOD. For Noetic, he says such acts are not symbolic of biblical love at all, because biblical love means accepting Jesus as personal lord and saviour.

Deep Sight:

The great Ministers of God, Noetic and Davidylan (Phd.) have severally declared that the quoted above is not sufficient to get to their "Jesus' heaven" and that indeed persons who do what James admonishes above (caring for orphans and widows in their distress) will definitely go to HELL for doing such without acknowledging the Jewish Carpenter who they worship as ALMIGHTY GOD. For Noetic, he says such acts are not symbolic of biblical love at all, because biblical love means accepting Jesus as personal lord and saviour.

Well in the context of the quoted verse above, i would like to know how you define religion. I think we are all religious, even some atheists are fanatically relgious about their beliefs unbeliefs.

Chrisbenogor:

Yeah at least I know what to expect from david, you on the other hand will chow with the devil and drink wine with archangel Gabriel if you know what I mean

one leg in, one leg out. deepsight is the ultimate hustler

bawomolo:


one leg in, one leg out. deepsight is the ultimate hustler

All i needed to read was this:

This is for recognize or any other so-called Intelligent Chritian why is that your concept of God, of the trinity, of the redemption, of the resurrection and original sin mimic the believes of Mithriasism? Really, look at the history of the Midterrean religion and the similarities, such as Mithra having 12 deciples or that he was part of the trinity, that he came to wipe the sin of mankind or that he died on the cross, it is endless.

It was more than enough to convince me that both shakerz and deepsight are deluded, misinformed, conspiracy theorists who lack the intelligence to factually debunk the bible without copy-pasting the LIES and FRAUD of others.

For the sake of those who do not know - there is NO such claim that Mithra had 12 disciples outside the usual conspiracy websites. It is interesting to note that there are TWO COMPETING versions of the Mithraic claims - Roman and Greek! Not only are we not sure which is correct, neither of the two talk about Mithra having 12 disciples. The most that one of them talk about is 2 helpers!

The only reference to the "death" of Mithras comes from the book written by Firmicus (there are several fact-check websites) . . . who funny enough didnt write about the actual death of Mithras AT ALL!

Sometimes you wonder if these dudes have sawdust for brains.

'o you who believe ! Enter perfectly to Islam and follow not the footseps of shaitan, verily he is to you a plain enemy' Quran 2:208

davidylan:


It was more than enough to convince me that both shakerz and deepsight are deluded, misinformed, conspiracy theorists who lack the intelligence to factually debunk the bible without copy-pasting the LIES and FRAUD of others.

For the avoidance of doubt I DO NOT subscribe to any of the Mithraic claims AS YET, and i am still looking into the available records.

The pat i gave Shakerz on the back was simply in cognisance of his attempts which he based on common sense and history. I much prefer that approach to raw, uncensored, unedited, gullible dogmatism.

davidylan:


Sometimes you wonder if these dudes have sawdust for brains.

Men. . . ! yabbis full your mouth o.

The mithram conspiracy is an old lie that has since been discredited. No need cheering it up as a new noble idea.

Deep Sight:

For the avoidance of doubt I DO NOT subscribe to any of the Mithraic claims AS YET, and i am still looking into the available records.

The pat i gave Shakerz on the back was simply in cognisance of his attempts which he based on common sense and history. I much prefer that approach to raw, uncensored, unedited, gullible dogmatism.

Unbelievable drivel.

So you think Shakerz based his point on "common sense" and "history"? Devoid of "gullible dogmatism"? Are you yourself not merely revealing the fact that you have no common sense, have no understanding of history and actively engaged in gullible dogmatism?

The fact that Shakerz is basing his opposition to christianity on FALSE mithraic claims alone throw away any shred of legitimacy you may pretend to have.

^^^Again, it seems to have missed you that i myself have not endorsed the Mithraic claims.

What i prefer is the approach, which i think you will do well to assimilate.

Your usual insults are most welcome sir.

Deep Sight:

^^^Again, it seems to have missed you that i myself have not endorsed the Mithraic claims.

What i prefer is the approach, which i think you will do well to assimilate.

Your usual insults are most welcome sir.

This is purely face-saving stupidity. An approach based PURELY ON DELIBERATE MISINFORMATION is not something i am keen to emulate. Again YOU seem to be the one (pretending) missing the point . . . Shakerz starts off insulting the intelligence of christians by wonderiing why we cant see the "obvious" similarities between christianity and mithraism . . . similarities that DO NOT EXIST!

Next he goes on to conclude BASED ON NO EVIDENCE AT ALL, that pauline christianity (the usual muslim claim) mixed the religion of Abraham (another stupid non-starter) with paganism (based again on LIES).

If you consider that a good approach then you have a serious problem with the truth.

damn. Davidylan. .  why are u always so full of insults. Sometimes people just want to have a debate and not fight.

U're a big turn off for anyone considering Christianity IMO. Just my opinion though. Probably won't mean much to u. I understand u being irritated once in a while and letting off some steam, but even when people try to reason with you you just keep up with the insults. You bring out the worst in people, and I think that isn't what Christians should be doing.

Davidylan (Phd.):

I realize the subject of the comprehensive history of Mithraism is much deeper than you and most may have perceived.

We have talked about Greece and Rome, but proper research reveals that the Mithraic legends predate both empires and may be found as far away as Persia. . .

This is from the Encyclopedia Britannica -

in ancient Indo-Iranian mythology, the god of light, whose cult spread from India in the east to as far west as Spain, Great Britain, and Germany. (See Mithraism.) The first written mention of the Vedic Mitra dates to 1400 bc. His worship spread to Persia and, after the defeat of the Persians by Alexander the Great, throughout the Hellenic world. In the 3rd and 4th centuries ad, the cult of Mithra, carried and supported by the soldiers of the Roman Empire, was the chief rival to the newly developing religion of Christianity. The Roman emperors Commodus and Julian were initiates of Mithraism, and in 307 Diocletian consecrated a temple on the Danube River to Mithra, “Protector of the Empire.”

In the Christian era, worship of the Sun spread throughout the Mediterranean world and formed the principal rallying point of paganism’s last years. Closely associated with the sun cult was that of Mithra, the Sun’s ally and agent who was elevated to partake of communion and the love feast as the god’s companion. Sun worship was popular in the army, and particularly on the Danube. Aurelian, one,

Accordingly your research needs to be more exhaustive. We need to see what dogma could be traced or associated with any and all of the ancient Mithraic strains.

More on the Persian origin –

Mithraism was one of the major religions of the Roman Empire which was derived from the ancient Persian god of light and wisdom. The cult of Mithraism was quite prominent in ancient Rome, especially among the military. Mithra was the god of war, battle, justice, faith, and contract. According to Mithraism, Mithra was called the son of God, was born of a virgin, had disciples, was crucified, rose from the dead on the third day, atoned for the sins of mankind, and returned to heaven.

Before proceeding further, one thing which i will definitely suggest to you is the likelihood that the scarcity of documentation on such a wide-spread religion may not be unconnected with the drastic activities of the Roman Church in proscribing and burning anything that it considered "contrary" or "heretical"

This is from About.com’s section on Ancient and Classical History

Among the recorded possible similarities between Christianity and Mithraism are the following:
• Virgin birth
• Twelve followers
• Killing and resurrection
• Miracles
• Birthdate on December 25
• Morality
• Mankind's savior
• Known as the Light of the world

Although I accept that these similarities are indeed debatable, i limit my case for the purpose of this discussion to the fact that the issue exists historically, thus giving rise to the debate. Thus Shakerz capitalizes on an existing historical debate. He did not create any of these issues in his kitchen, if you search on-line you will see it’s a popular historical debate.
The existence of the issues (debated or not) is affirmed in this quote from About.com’s section on Ancient and Classical History:

Studies in Mithraism
Cumont and Ulansey on Mithraism - The Roman soldiers religion
By N.S. Gill, About.com
Many elements in the story of Jesus' life and birth are either coincidences or borrowings from earlier and contemporary pagan religions. The most obviously similar of these pagan mystery religions is Mithraism. Most of the information available about this ancient religion, the favorite of Roman soldiers, comes to us from the two volumes by Belgian scholar Franz Cumont, "Textes et monuments figurés relatifs aux mystères de Mithra" (1896 and 1899). More recently, David Ulansey has added to the discussion with his "The Origins of the Mithraic Mysteries: Cosmology and Salvation in the Ancient World."
Roman Mithraism was a mystery religion with sacrifice and initiation. Like other mystery cults, there is little recorded literary evidence. What we know comes mainly from Christian detractors and archaeological evidence from mithraic temples, inscriptions, and artistic representations of the god and other aspects of the cult.
In an EAWC (Exploring Ancient World Cultures) essay entitled "Mithraism," Alison Griffith explains Cumont's theory of a Zoroastrian origin for the Roman Mithraist religion. While this theory is disputed, there was a Mitra in the Hindu pantheon and a minor deity named Mithra among the Persians as well. Cumont came to believe the religion spread westward from Eastern Roman provinces. However, as Griffith explains, there is little evidence of a Zoroastrian Mithra cult and most evidence for Mithraic worship comes from the western portion of the empire from which Cumont correctly deduced that "Mithraism was most popular among legionaries (of all ranks), and the members of the more marginal social groups who were not Roman citizens: freedmen, slaves, and merchants from various provinces, " No women were allowed.

Thus I stand by my assertion that his approach stemmed from a historical issue, and the mere fact that debates persist does not change my perception of the choice of approach especially as I also stated clearly that he may be right or wrong, but he had at least chosen history (even if some parts are debated) as the platform for making an argument.

What I despise is the platform you use: which is a reverse-self-validating platform. In other words, to validate the bible, you will seek quotes from the bible itself. That makes no sense and proves nothing, and I would urge you not to write your doctoral thesis in such a manner, that’s if you haven’t already completed the doctorate, which I understand you have?

I am hoping you will stick to your statement above indicating that you have “noted” Viaro’s adjuration to be more decent in arguing, and stop hurling insults as though the onset of maturity is still far in the distance.

Krayola:

damn. Davidylan. .  why are u always so full of insults. Sometimes people just want to have a debate and not fight.

U're a big turn off for anyone considering Christianity IMO. Just my opinion though. Probably won't mean much to u. I understand u being irritated once in a while and letting off some steam, but even when people try to reason with you you just keep up with the insults. You bring out the worst in people, and I think that isn't what Christians should be doing.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion. Christianity isnt a flimsy decision you simply "consider" by weighing its pros and cons. It is a decision regarding the circumcision of your heart and understanding that you are a SINNER and need the blood of Christ for the redemption of your soul. It has nothing to do with how i debate with many of you who have proven impervious to reason.

Sorry, i no longer have the time to waste trying to "debate" with you or your ilk. I long realised that is not really what you are after.

^ Just when i though Daffidi has taken an early christmas break. . . .
Where you comot from

We are back to the nauseating rigmarole again.

Deep Sight:

Davidylan (Phd.):

I realize the subject of the comprehensive history of Mithraism is much deeper than you and most may have perceived.

We have talked about Greece and Rome, but proper research reveals that the Mithraic legends predate both empires and may be found as far away as Persia. . .

your own wikipedia link made mention of the Persian link to mythraism, you shld have paid better attention. The mere fact that the mithra mythology (the very words used by the encyclopedia britannica you quoted) does not seem to have any coherent story is enough of a red flag to tell you it may not even be a historical fact at all. I'm sure if the bible was this inconsistent it would be a major weapon employed by conspiracy theorists like you.

Deep Sight:

Accordingly your research needs to be more exhaustive. We need to see what dogma could be traced or associated with any and all of the ancient Mithraic strains.

This is absolute rubbish:

1. My "research"? What a nerve! You claimed Shakerz post (using mithraic claims) was a historical fact devoid of gullible dogma, why didnt you do your own "exhaustive research" then before making such bogus claims?

2. If you need to see or trace any similarities between mithraic myths and christianity then YOU DO THE RESEARCH and tell us.

Deep Sight:

Before proceeding further, one thing which i will definitely suggest to you is the likelihood that the scarcity of documentation on such a wide-spread religion may not be unconnected with the drastic activities of the Roman Church in proscribing and burning anything that it considered "contrary" or "heretical"

This again is your own opinion and a fraudulent attempt to white-wash the fact that there is barely ANY credible historical evidence for mithraism which you call a "wide-spread" religion (based of course on no facts at all!).

To claim that Roman catholic church is responsible for destroying both greek and persian versions of the mithraic myths is just laughably ridiculous. Please come up with better excuses.

The bible has tons of documentary and archeological evidence . . . and yet you despise, dispute and castigate it. You on the other hand you so easily believe mithraic myths with a scarcity of evidence? Your bias is sickening.

Deep Sight:

This is from About.com’s section on Ancient and Classical History

So i went back and copied the dross you lifted from About.com WITH NO SHRED OF EVIDENCE OF COURSE . . .

Among the recorded possible similarities between Christianity and Mithraism are the following:
•   Virgin birth
•   Twelve followers
•   Killing and resurrection
•   Miracles
•   Birthdate on December 25
•   Morality
•   Mankind's savior
•   Known as the Light of the world

The first thing to note is that this website says this are "recorded" possible similarities . . . but are they REALLY recorded?

1. Virgin birth - I'll just quote from your wikipedia source . . . Joseph Campbell, who was not a Mithras scholar, described the birth of Mithras as a virgin birth, like that of Jesus.[77] He gives no ancient source for his claim.
Mithras was not thought of as virgin born in any ancient source. Rather, he arose spontaneously from a rock in a cave.[78]. In Mithraic Studies it is stated that Mithras was born as an adult from solid rock, "wearing his Phrygian cap, issues forth from the rocky mass.

Not only so, carvings show Mithra as being born from a rock. Yeah . . . "recorded" indeed . . . if only deepsight would be honest enough to provide us this "recorded" proof.

2. Twelve followers - Roman tradition RECORDS Mithra as having 2 companions (Cautes and Cautopatres), Hindu (again the 4th source of Mithraic myths apart from Greek, roman and Persian - what a "consistent" myth) sources claim Mithra had just one companion (Varuna).

Where is the "recorded" evidence that Mithra had 12 disciples? Of course About.com doesnt have to provide any verifiable proof.

3. Killing and resurrection - There is no recorded evidence that Mithra ever even died, one wonders how we can talk of a resurrection. We do know that Mithra sacrificed a bull though . . .

4. Miracles - This is actually true . . . but Moses, Elijah, Elisha, even Pharaoh's magicians are performed "miracles". So what is new?

5. Dec 25 birthdate - Again from your own wikipedia source - Clauss states that t[b]here were no public ceremonies of the mysteries of Mithras: "the Mithraic Mysteries had no public ceremonies of its own.[/b] The festival of natalis Invicti [Birth of the Unconquerable (Sun)], held on 25 December, was a general festival of the Sun, and by no means specific to the Mysteries of Mithras."[82]

6. Mankind's saviour - Again your own wikipedia source - According to Robert Turcan[84], Mithraic salvation had little to do with the other-worldly destiny of individual souls, but was on the Zoroastrian pattern of man's participation in the cosmic struggle of the good creation against the forces of evil [85]

7. Known as the light of the world - No such documentation exists.

8. Morality - what does this mean? Ghandi was moral . . . did he copy from Christ too?

Deep Sight:

Although I accept that these similarities are indeed debatable, i limit my case for the purpose of this discussion to the fact that the issue exists historically, thus giving rise to the debate.

It does not historically exist, it is simply a figment of the really vacuous imaginations of those desperate to undermine christianity. If it truly exists one wonders why there is such a paucity of documentary evidence. You can of course accuse the Roman christians of destroying such evidence though.

Deep Sight:

Thus Shakerz capitalizes on an existing historical debate. He did not create any of these issues in his kitchen, if you search on-line you will see it’s a popular historical debate.

Again i repeat - THIS IS NOT A HISTORICAL DEBATE! There is NOTHING historical about these despicable lies.
If you search online you will find that Obama was born in Kenya!

Deep Sight:

The existence of the issues (debated or not) is affirmed in this quote from About.com’s section on Ancient and Classical History:

What is most troubling about this hypocritical and utterly disgusting deliberate attempts to misinform others is that you say that the "existence" of these issues is AFFIRMED by a baseless quote from someone who provides no HISTORICAL context to his claims?

Deep Sight:

Thus I stand by my assertion that his approach stemmed from a historical issue, and the mere fact that debates persist does not change my perception of the choice of approach especially as I also stated clearly that he may be right or wrong, but he had at least chosen history (even if some parts are debated) as the platform for making an argument.

I also stand by my assertion that you sir, are an unintelligent conspiracy theorist and an inveterate liar.

Deep Sight:

What I despise is the platform you use: which is a reverse-self-validating platform. In other words, to validate the bible, you will seek quotes from the bible itself. That makes no sense and proves nothing, and I would urge you not to write your doctoral thesis in such a manner, that’s if you haven’t already completed the doctorate, which I understand you have?

What i however despise is the fact that you dont even provide any validation for your own baseless claims.

Deep Sight:

I am hoping you will stick to your statement above indicating that you have “noted” Viaro’s adjuration to be more decent in arguing, and stop hurling insults as though the onset of maturity is still far in the distance.

I only noted Viaro's comments . . . they by no means form the basis of my future responses to such horrible castigations from the likes of you. I reserve civil discourse to those who at least are credible.

The christian God was slapped, beaten, struct and spat, see mathew 26:67,

Abuzola:


The christian God was slapped, beaten, struck and spat, see Matthew 26:67,   

Prophet Isaiah foretold it before it happened

Isaiah 53:4-5 New International Version - UK (NIVUK):


⁴Surely he took up our infirmities and carried our sorrows, yet we considered him stricken by God, smitten by him, and afflicted.

⁵ But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed.

davidylan:

You are certainly entitled to your opinion. Christianity isnt a flimsy decision you simply "consider" by weighing its pros and cons. It is a decision regarding the circumcision of your heart and understanding that you are a SINNER and need the blood of Christ for the redemption of your soul. It has nothing to do with how i debate with many of you who have proven impervious to reason.

Sorry, i no longer have the time to waste trying to "debate" with you or your ilk. I long realised that is not really what you are after.

Would it be wrong for someone, say a new Christian convert, to think that his conduct should be an example for others. I mean say I was some new Buddhist kid that u just got interested in Christianity, would this be the side of it u want me to see and emulate?

I call it the sniper approach.  The lack of argument makes it hard to take anything of value from the posts.

Is it a prerequisite that every post will be an argument? I only stated a personal opinion, I will rather have david at my trial than deep sight simple! what is there to argue about? What line of reasoning should I put behind it again? I stopped arguing with deep sight ever since the whole cosmic argument thread, so it is now a crime if I read threads and come up with my own thoughts again? Na wa oh

You are at odds with me simply because i believe in God but damn religion.

Is there someting wrong with believeing in God but damning religion?

I am at odds with you for very many reasons, there is nothing wrong in believing in God and damning religion, what I do not understand is what version of God you believe in. It seems your God metamorphoses every time you come up with one issue or the other, one day you are saying that job was inspired and another day you are discrediting the bible, you cannot eat your cake and have it, I find the criteria  you use is choosing what was inspired or not to be very wanting. It just seems you are playing the best of both sides "believe in God but choose the version you believe in" and this is just a tip of the iceberg, if I need to know what david will do I would simply dash to the bible you on the other hand , whatever *sighs*

Oga Krayfish how far? Why are you hassling david like that na lol

David WELCOME OH!!! where you dey since? abi you go accept amnesty?

Chrisbenogor:

I am at odds with you for very many reasons, there is nothing wrong in believing in God and damning religion, what I do not understand is what version of God you believe in. It seems your God metamorphoses every time you come up with one issue or the other, one day you are saying that job was inspired and another day you are discrediting the bible, you cannot eat your cake and have it, I find the criteria you use is choosing what was inspired or not to be very wanting. It just seems you are playing the best of both sides "believe in God but choose the version you believe in" and this is just a tip of the iceberg, if I need to know what david will do I would simply dash to the bible you on the other hand , whatever *sighs*

LOL. Interesting. Well i must say that this is useful feedback, and i admit i must come across as confusing. Don't worry, you will get to understand me with time. For now, let me just say this: Ancient Religious texts are not useless: but some have been corrupted, mistranslated, misinterpreted, and even adjusted outright. Thus the rational theist must know how to weigh and balance, and see what is dogmatic crap, and what is spiritually useful.

DAVID - (Sorry having to post this here again, we seem to be having this same discussion in two threads)



It seems to me that you are so far gone in your dogmatic ecstasy, in the craze to defend the foreign myths introduced to you by Colonial Masters, that you have lost all sight of the written word.

Because you should have seen within my post my several references to the fact that the claims indeed remain debatable and are still debated till this day. Thus 99% of your egoistic and insult-ridden write up was completely irrelevant and needn't be responded to by a rational debater.

Singularly, you seem spectacularly incapable of digesting the grammatical difference between "a historical issue" and "a historical fact".

For a man of your supposed learning, this is depressing. I will make certain not to judge all PHD holders by the shocking limitations of mind that you continuously exhibit.

The core fact remains that your dogma is singularly the most outlandish myth in the known world and it begs belief that men of education could wolf it down without questions. There is absolutely no difference between you and the adherents of the Brotherhood of the Cross and Star, who regard their leader, Olumba Olumba Obu, as God. You could similarly be compared to those who accept the teaching that Guru Maharaji is the re-incarnated Christ, and therefore God.

Could you tell me at what point in your theologically deficient development you convinced yourself that a first century Jewish Carpenter is almighty God?

I certainly hope you are aware that such a presumption is as bogus as it betrays a slavish adherence to your Colonial Masters, because only such a slavish adherence could entice you to accept such ridiculous dogma. Can you tell me if you know anything about the Council of Nicea, presided over by Constantine the Great of the Holy Roman Empire, at which the doctrine of the Trinity was formally decided upon as official Church Dogma?? Are you aware that the sitting Pope refused attendance in protest on account of the fact that he thought the dogma to be bunkum?

I would urge you to begin to think for yourself, and cease to permit the thoughts of other men, decided centuries ago in the most corrupt circumstances to become your guiding "light".

O, and as for the insults, you can keep raining them on; they only confirm to all viewers what a childish and petty mind you are bedevilled with. It also begs belief on the sort of Christianity you so valiantly defend, because most people can say for certain that you will be the last person to enter the so called "Jesus Heaven" that you and Noetic have dreamed about. There is nothing even remotely Christ-Like about your continuous insults.

Anyhow, it's probably in tandem with your avowed conviction that Christianity is a religion without ethics.

Gosh, what a little mind!

Deep Sight:

DAVID - (Sorry having to post this here again, we seem to be having this same discussion in two threads)



It seems to me that you are so far gone in your dogmatic ecstasy, in the craze to defend the foreign myths introduced to you by Colonial Masters, that you have lost all sight of the written word.

Because you should have seen within my post my several references to the fact that the claims indeed remain debatable and are still debated till this day. Thus 99% of your egoistic and insult-ridden write up was completely irrelevant and needn't be responded to by a rational debater.

Singularly, you seem spectacularly incapable of digesting the grammatical difference between "a historical issue" and "a historical fact".

For a man of your supposed learning, this is depressing. I will make certain not to judge all PHD holders by the shocking limitations of mind that you continuously exhibit.

The core fact remains that your dogma is singularly the most outlandish myth in the known world and it begs belief that men of education could wolf it down without questions. There is absolutely no difference between you and the adherents of the Brotherhood of the Cross and Star, who regard their leader, Olumba Olumba Obu, as God. You could similarly be compared to those who accept the teaching that Guru Maharaji is the re-incarnated Christ, and therefore God.

Could you tell me at what point in your theologically deficient development you convinced yourself that a first century Jewish Carpenter is almighty God?

I certainly hope you are aware that such a presumption is as bogus as it betrays a slavish adherence to your Colonial Masters, because only such a slavish adherence could entice you to accept such ridiculous dogma. Can you tell me if you know anything about the Council of Nicea, presided over by Constantine the Great of the Holy Roman Empire, at which the doctrine of the Trinity was formally decided upon as official Church Dogma?? Are you aware that the sitting Pope refused attendance in protest on account of the fact that he thought the dogma to be bunkum?

I would urge you to begin to think for yourself, and cease to permit the thoughts of other men, decided centuries ago in the most corrupt circumstances to become your guiding "light".

O, and as for the insults, you can keep raining them on; they only confirm to all viewers what a childish and petty mind you are bedevilled with. It also begs belief on the sort of Christianity you so valiantly defend, because most people can say for certain that you will be the last person to enter the so called "Jesus Heaven" that you and Noetic have dreamed about. There is nothing even remotely Christ-Like about your continuous insults.

Anyhow, it's probably in tandem with your avowed conviction that Christianity is a religion without ethics.

Gosh, what a little mind!

The problem with all these hubris is that NO WHERE have you taken up the fact that you and Shakerz have simply produced horribly distorted and patently false claims as FACTS with which to disparage christianity.

Rather than waste your time making irrelevant points, why dont you start with providing evidence for the dross you copied off About.com?

I'm starting to think you're just another waste of energy like Huxley . . . all literary bluff but very little intelligence.

It seems each time your limited cranial capacity is outed, you trot out cliched lines like "limited, narrow mind". I might have a little mind but i know enough not to be taken by false claims on the website simply on the basis of popularity.

Like i said earlier, if we were to just believe the internet then Obama is a Malaysian terrorist born in Kenya. I wager that claim is way more popular than your hillarious claims of Mithraism being similar to christianity despite the fact that we dont begin to see any Mithraic documentation until at least 200 AD.

What a small brained idiot.

Chrisbenogor:

I am at odds with you for very many reasons, there is nothing wrong in believing in God and damning religion, what I do not understand is what version of God you believe in. It seems your God metamorphoses every time you come up with one issue or the other, one day you are saying that job was inspired and another day you are discrediting the bible, you cannot eat your cake and have it, I find the criteria  you use is choosing what was inspired or not to be very wanting. It just seems you are playing the best of both sides "believe in God but choose the version you believe in" and this is just a tip of the iceberg, if I need to know what david will do I would simply dash to the bible you on the other hand , whatever *sighs*

When an atheist starts to describe deepsight in such succint terms, you just have to shake your head. At least i'm not the only one who has absolutely no clue what deepsight's stand is. Confusion or delusion is a better way to surmise chris's point.

Chrisbenogor:

Oga Krayfish how far? Why are you hassling david like that na lol

David WELCOME OH!!! where you dey since? abi you go accept amnesty?

Bros, i got disillusioned by much of the knee-jerk idiots the religious section has spawned. We seem to have a whole lot of noise-makers who think constant but unecessary use of verbose grammar is cover for their total ineptitude and inability to think logically. I decided to go get a life.

LOL. Interesting. Well i must say that this is useful feedback, and i admit i must come across as confusing. Don't worry, you will get to understand me with time. For now, let me just say this: Ancient Religious texts are not useless: but some have been corrupted, mistranslated, misinterpreted, and even adjusted outright. Thus the rational theist must know how to weigh and balance, and see what is dogmatic crap, and what is spiritually useful.

So what criteria do we use in knowing what is dogmatic crap and what is spiritually useful?

Bros, i got disillusioned by much of the knee-jerk idiots the religious section has spawned. We seem to have a whole lot of noise-makers who think constant but unecessary use of verbose grammar is cover for their total ineptitude and inability to think logically. I decided to go get a life.

Hehehehehehehe david david you no dey change lol.