Jesus Christ is savior, and he hated religion also.
Religion: Friend or Foe for the black community? (Grapevine)
Mojo Jojo Morpheus
Dap Distributor
Lmao. IONO. I just started posting this week. But I must say, the only thing I find more obnoxious than smug, self-assured atheists is smug, self-assured Christians.@Mojo Jojo Morpheus is dude always this obtuse
As if your belief and worldview is not self assured and smug...Lmao. IONO. I just started posting this week. But I must say, the only thing I find more obnoxious than smug, self-assured atheists is smug, self-assured Christians.
Got to love hypocrites
At least I'm MAN enough to own my position and tell you to your face.
Mojo Jojo Morpheus
Dap Distributor
As if your belief and worldview is not self assured and smug...
Got to love hypocrites
At least I'm MAN enough to own my position and tell you to your face.
You're right. I'm neither smug nor self-assured.
You don't know anything about my worldview because I haven't posted anything alluding to it here.
Granted, once upon a time, I USED to be far more conceited about my opinions than I am now, but I grew out of that and eventually realized trying to force my worldview on others was a waste of time.
I USED to engage in internet apologetics, much like you're attempting to do here, but thankfully, even in my immaturity, I wasn't so oblivious as to make the kind of unsupported claims you're trying to push.
Pro-Tip
1. You're not going to be able to convert anyone that already observes a religion that differs from yours. And that's because no one is going to abandon belief in their god because some guy on the internet told them to. You wouldn't.
2. Focus on developing your logical reasoning skills, because clearly presented logic is the only reliable common ground you can have with people that don't share your beliefs.
I'm not trying to convert anyone. I'm just pointing out a lot of the contradictions most of these cats on here be saying.
You came at me sideways so I responded accordingly.
You're right. I don't know what your beliefs are but trust me I've been doing this for years face to face with people and God has gifted me with shattering the hearts of unbelieving men.
This is light work I'm giving these breh's online because I realize most people ignore basic logic when they are firmly fixed in their beliefs.
Hence why no one has even attempted to deal with the arguments I put up for the testability of Jesus and the historical reliability of The New Testament.
If Christianity is a cac religion and false then these pro militant negroes should be able to make light work of disproving it. But non of these slick mouth negroes have attempted. I brought facts they have brought feelings and opinions.
Furthermore as Paul said
"For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God."
"For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe."
Logic only goes so far with people. It's the Spirit of the Most High that brings people to repentance.
If you have fallen from grace that's not on me
If you want logic sure go listen to William Lane Craig, go listen to Ravi Zacharias, go listen to Christopher Hitchens, go listen to Sam Harris, go listen to Daniel Dennett, Norman Geisler, John Lennox, Lawrence Krause, and Neil deGrasse Tyson. I've watched all their debates.
Logic only goes so far. It's the Spirit that changes.
Last edited:
Mojo Jojo Morpheus
Dap Distributor
What contradictions are you referring to specifically? If you can highlight those and make it plain why they are contradictions, you might make more headway in advancing your points.
Exactly! But can you see and recognize that same trait in yourself and the beliefs you hold dear?
I spent the younger part of my 20's arguing with people online about the existence of God and the validity of Christianity. But debating with several atheists quickly brought me to the realization that you can't use Scripture to persuade non-believers. Christians tend to take it for granted that the Bible is "true"; but non-believers don't think this way, to them it's just another book. Which is why it's necessary to present the logical reasons for the existence of god before you can have the discussion about Christianity.
Another problem, which plagues both atheists and theists, is the rampant abuse of emotional illogic. What I mean is, since most people suck at exercising logic, they default to using emotionally charged and emotionally manipulative points to make their arguments. For example, atheists will say something to the effect of "evil things happen to good people so God can't exist", which doesn't bear a shred of weight to the existence of god one way or another but it works on an emotional level so they keep using it. Or Christians will say: "if I didn't believe in Christ, I would be a sociopathic, serial killer, rapist"; statements like this don't add any validity to the truth-value of Christianity, but ignorant people keep using it because it has emotional appeal.
Breh, like I and a couple other posters have attempted to explain to you: YOU CAN'T POINT TO THE SCRIPTURES AS PROOF OF THE VALIDITY OF THE SCRIPTURES. That's circular reasoning, a logical fallacy that no one in their right mind would attempt to debate. It's a road that leads to nowhere.Here, straight from Wikipedia:
That's what you've been doing throughout this thread.
These "militant" negroes are presenting an argument that Christianity is of European/Caucasian origin and therefore is a tool for social and political control of Black people under White Supremacy. While there is some merit to this argument, you can definitely debate it. But you didn't present any cogent counter-arguments in defense of Christianity. Instead you kept demanding that people prove the Scriptures false.
You'd have been better off saying: English is a CAC language that was forced on our ancestors but y'all militant nikkas have no problem using it to communicate your ideas. How do y'all reconcile rejecting the religion these cacs forced on us but gladly accept their language??
Well, I agree with you. But if you believe that it's only the Spirit that can move people to belief, why bother arguing with people online about their belief or lack thereof?
If you want to be even half as succesful as the apologists you've named here, you should exercise the same intellectual rigor they do. They always present strong logical reasoning in support of Christianity. And none of them point to the Scriptures as being self-evidently true when debating non-believers. That's because they understand that the veracity of the Scriptures is the point in contention and therefore, that invalidates the Scriptures from being used as proof of their own veracity.
What contradictions are you referring to specifically? If you can highlight those and make it plain why they are contradictions, you might make more headway in advancing your points.
Exactly! But can you see and recognize that same trait in yourself and the beliefs you hold dear?
I spent the younger part of my 20's arguing with people online about the existence of God and the validity of Christianity. But debating with several atheists quickly brought me to the realization that you can't use Scripture to persuade non-believers. Christians tend to take it for granted that the Bible is "true"; but non-believers don't think this way, to them it's just another book. Which is why it's necessary to present the logical reasons for the existence of god before you can have the discussion about Christianity.
Another problem, which plagues both atheists and theists, is the rampant abuse of emotional illogic. What I mean is, since most people suck at exercising logic, they default to using emotionally charged and emotionally manipulative points to make their arguments. For example, atheists will say something to the effect of "evil things happen to good people so God can't exist", which doesn't bear a shred of weight to the existence of god one way or another but it works on an emotional level so they keep using it. Or Christians will say: "if I didn't believe in Christ, I would be a sociopathic, serial killer, rapist"; statements like this don't add any validity to the truth-value of Christianity, but ignorant people keep using it because it has emotional appeal.
Here, straight from Wikipedia:
That's what you've been doing throughout this thread.
These "militant" negroes are presenting an argument that Christianity is of European/Caucasian origin and therefore is a tool for social and political control of Black people under White Supremacy. While there is some merit to this argument, you can definitely debate it. But you didn't present any cogent counter-arguments in defense of Christianity. Instead you kept demanding that people prove the Scriptures false.
You'd have been better off saying: English is a CAC language that was forced on our ancestors but y'all militant nikkas have no problem using it to communicate your ideas. How do y'all reconcile rejecting the religion these cacs forced on us but gladly accept their language??
Well, I agree with you. But if you believe that it's only the Spirit that can move people to belief, why bother arguing with people online about their belief or lack thereof?
If you want to be even half as succesful as the apologists you've named here, you should exercise the same intellectual rigor they do. They always present strong logical reasoning in support of Christianity. And none of them point to the Scriptures as being self-evidently true when debating non-believers. That's because they understand that the veracity of the Scriptures is the point in contention and therefore, that invalidates the Scriptures from being used as proof of their own veracity.
1. I personally contend that one can look to the scriptures and their internal consistency as opposed to, or against other religions and their text. Furthermore, I personally contend that one can use textual criticism to validate the historical reliability of the scriptures that they are historical documents that precede any cac mistranslation (which many militant blacks believe happened). Hence why I pointed out in an early reply that one should familiarize themselves with the ancient biblical languages, travel to museums where actual fragments of the text are, and using the SCIENTIFIC method of textual criticism to be able to deduce the validity, and accuracy of the surviving ancient manuscripts (texts/Scriptures).
2. If you noticed, aside from my last posts with you, I never used Scripture as a defense for my positions. I laid out actual ways one can contradict objectively the inaccuracies of the text, and if any of it has been forged. Furthermore, I mentioned that one can travel to the actual historical places mentioned in the Bible such as Turkey, Greece, Asia Minor, and see the very places Paul spoke of and other author's in the New Testament. A lot of the coli brehs hold the assumption that these places were made up by cacs and cannot be verified.
3. With reference to why I continue to challenge or engage non believers if only the Spirit can change them, I believe that we are all called to plant seeds, later someone else will come and water. If I can challenge one coli negro to at least ponder on his hypocrisy or faulty logic to me that is a seed that has been planted.
4. Let me ask you a question, do you believe that the Scriptures cannot be logically, and objectively (scientifically) demonstrated that they are a work of men from antiquity through the process of textual criticism. The reason I ask is because I've actually had some people say the text has been corrupted and changed, blah, blah, blah. But, when I point to the ability to validate the historical reliability of the Scriptures through textual criticism negroes go silent.
Therefore, some may think that I am using circular reasoning in asking people to invalidate or falsify The New Testament, but to me it is not a logical fallacy, but that's just me.
5. With a lot of these guys I know they have not done their homework so I try to meet them where they are on the same playing field. And, usually you have to use the same method of fuc'ery that they do, and pull their card on their bullshyt.
6. In another thread I actually had one cat try and tell me that the name of Jesus was never used and was a forgery. I pointed out and provided the Hebrew, and Greek transliterations of the name of Jesus with the historical language of the text (Scriptures). However, this guy still was adamant about Jesus name never being used. Hence there is a legitimate reason in certain circumstances I asked people to invalidate or falsify the text. This negro was so militant he went as far as to say that the Hebrew, and Greek used in the Bible were not real Hebrew, and Greek but made up languages
. I'm sorry but that is beyond foolishness and basic logic. So there is a reason why I point to the ability for one to falsify the text and it not be circular reasoning. One can trace language through the more than 35,0000 manuscripts we have today and see the language is consistent with the translations in the Bible.7. And, as usual, it's noting but crickets when nikkas are really challenge to defend their positions. It's similar to when you box an atheist into a corner concerning the irrationality of atheism. They resort to name calling, smug remarks, and so forth...
These are just my experiences
Last edited:
Grano-Grano
The Bando
Christianity is bullshyt compared to Judaism and Islam.
Menelik II
I wanna see receipts!
1. Jesus and God are real, it says so in the bible
2. The bible is true because Jesus/god said so
101 presuppositional circular reasoning.
2. The bible is true because Jesus/god said so
101 presuppositional circular reasoning.
1. Jesus and God are real, it says so in the bible
2. The bible is true because Jesus/god said so
101 presuppositional circular reasoning.
1. In reply to your first statement. All philosophical systems start with axioms (presuppositions), or non proveable propositions accepted as true, and deduce theorems. Therefore Christians should not be faulted for having axioms as well, which are the propositions of Scripture. A proposition is a fact about a thing.
Your very statement that Christian beliefs about Jesus, and God is circular reasoning is a proposition within itself but you have not provided any response to defend your position. In that, because @Menelik says Christians use circular reasoning then it must be true, but you don't see your own circular reasoning and hypocrisy in your own statement.
Proposition 1
Christians believe God is the best rational explanation for the existence of the material universe.
Proposition 2
Christians believe that God has reveled himself through the person and work of Jesus Christ of Nazareth.
2. I have said before, and will repeatedly say again that the Torah (Old Testament), The Gospels, and The New Testament are valid historical documents written in antiquity (ancient past). FACT
There are over 35,000 manuscripts (documents) ranging all the way back to the 1st century that verifies this through the scientific method of Textual Criticism. FACT
3. Any axiom that is a fact should not contradict itself and must demonstrate internal consistency.
For example 1 + 1 = 2.
The proposition that all bachelors are married is INCONSISTENT because a bachelor by definition is a single man who is unmarried.
These are examples of simple logic.
As I have stated before WHICH YOU AND THE OTHER SLICK MOUTH DENIARS WILL NOT RESPOND TO IS out of all of the religions in the world only one of them can be true and the others necessarily false. Truth is exclusionary and basic logic demands this.
Sense you appear to have a problem with the claims of Scripture please demonstrate where and how the Torah, Gospels, and New Testament are internally inconsistent in and of themselves, and in harmony with one another.
Furthermore the idea that the material world is all there is (metaphysical naturalism) is also a proposition that you would need to adequately defend if your position is that no God exists.
Last edited: