Kipindi siamini MUNGU, sikuwa na muda na imani za watu

Kwa hiyo point yako ni kuandika uongo kwa matarajio tuje tupinge?
 
Jielimisheni wakristo.

Hivi mtu mzima kabisa unakubali kuaminishwa kuwa ati Nyoka alizungumza kwa sauti akamdanganya binadamu.
Ni Dunia ipi hiyo ambayo Nyoka huwa wanaongea maneno?

Ati mnaambiwa kwamba Joshua alisimamisha Jua, hivi hata jiografia ya darasa la 5 mmeshindwa kuitumia kuelewa kati ya Jua na Dunia ni kipi kina zunguka mwenzake?

Ati Binadamu wa kwanza alikuwa Adam na Eva halafu wakazaa watoto halafu dunia ikafikisha watu bilioni 7+.
Ati ni mwanaume gani wa kikristo anaweza kumuoa dada yake au mdogo wake wakike, au hata binamu tu?

Ati anakwambia safina ya Nuhu ilimbeba Simba na Swala kwa pamoja kwa siku 40, bila ya Simba kumfanya swala kitoweo?

Enyi Wakristo hamuoni yakwamba mnamfaa kuwa VICHEKESHO VYA MIAKA 10,000 kwa mnayoyaamini.

Ama kweli ndio maana mmebaki kuwa mtaji wa Wafanyabiashara za kidini na wanasiasa.

Ati sisi ni kondoó wa Bwana. Ninyi ni Kondoo wa Wanasiasa na kina Mwamposa, mtaendelea kuchinjwa sana kifedha, na kiakili na YESU hatarudi.
Richard Dawkins "Religion is the Virus of the Mind"
 
Kurudiarudia kunachosha. Last reply.

Achana na Logic za bei rahisi. Tafuta Kweli.

1) Hapa naelezea kuwa: Kweli inapita mantiki. Kweli inaweza kupingana na sheria za mantiki:

Post in thread 'Kipindi siamini MUNGU, sikuwa na muda na imani za watu' Kipindi siamini MUNGU, sikuwa na muda na imani za watu



2) Hapa ni mfano kukuonyesha jinsi ambavyo msioamini mnabisha vitu ambavyo hamvijui kwasababu ya kukremisha Logic za bei rahisi.

Mwenzio huyu alikuwa haamini safina iliweza kubeba mzigo wote ule kwahiyo ni story tu:

Post in thread 'Kama ingetokea watu wakamuamini Nuhu au nusu yao tu je safina ingetosha kuwabeba watu wote Dunia nzima?' Kama ingetokea watu wakamuamini Nuhu au nusu yao tu je safina ingetosha kuwabeba watu wote Dunia nzima?


Nikamuaga kwa Summary hii:

Watalaam wameshatafiti kama ulivyoona hapo juu na kuona kuwa Safina:

i) ilikuwa bora kabisa,

ii) ilikuwa na nafasi ya kutosha wanyama na vyakula vilivyobebwa

iii) na bado ilibaki nafasi tele kwaajili ya maelfu ya watu kwakuwa zaidi ya robo ya uzito ambao ungeweza kubebwa na safina ulibaki wazi.

iv) Watalaam wameshatafiti na kuona kweli kuliwahi kutokea mafuriko dunia nzima, tena maelfu machache tu ya miaka yaliyopita.

v) Wataalam wametafiti wameona kweli binadamu leo walitokana na watu sita miaka 4000 iliyopita.

vi) Watalaam wameshatafiti wameona varieties za wanyama zilizopo leo kweli zilitokana na aina zilizobebwa kwenye safina.

Wewe nishakuaga huko nyuma narudia:

Urudi hapa ukishakubali YESU aliishi, aliuawa, alifufuka karne ya kwanza.
 

Ninakuonya 7 × 70 Wewe pamoja na wenzako wote. ACHENI UPOTOSHAJI MARA MOJA
Dunia tunayoishi ina umri wa miaka zaidi ya bilioni 4.
Dalrymple (2001), Geological Society, London, Special Publications 190 anaeleza jinsi U-Pb dating ya meteorites (hasa Canyon Diablo)
livyotoa umri wa ~4.54 bilioni miaka kwa Dunia.
Hii imehakikiwa kupitia mifumo tofauti ya isotopes (U-Pb, Rb-Sr, Sm-Nd) na matokeo yanalingana (convergent validation). Hivyo ndivyo sayansi inavyofanya kazi: data → peer review → reproducibility → consensus.
Sasa tuje kwenye hoja uchwara za safina:

1) Ni wataalamu gani waliopublish utafiti wa kisayansi unaothibitisha Safina ya Nuhu?​

Hakuna tafiti zozote za geology, paleontology, au population genetics zilizopitiwa na wataalamu (peer-reviewed mainstream journals) zinazothibitisha global flood ya miaka ~4,000 iliyopita au uwepo wa safina kama tukio la kihistoria la kimataifa.

Makundi uchwara ya vichororoni ya kikristo kama Answers in Genesis au Institute for Creation Research huchapisha kwenye majarida yao wenyewe, lakini hayo si sehemu ya fasihi ya kisayansi inayokubalika kimataifa. Ndiyo yana wapotosha.

2) Walichapisha kwenye journal gani la kisayansi?​

Hakuna publication katika majarida makubwa kama:
  • Nature
  • Science
  • Geology
  • Journal of Geophysical Research
  • Earth and Planetary Science Letters
inayothibitisha global flood ya kipindi cha miaka 4000 iliyopita.

3) Nani alireview na kutangaza kama fact?​

Katika sayansi, “fact” si tamko la mamlaka; ni matokeo yanayorudiwa na kuthibitishwa mara nyingi na tafiti huru.

Global flood ya miaka 4,000:
  • Haionekani kwenye tabaka za miamba kimataifa.
  • Haionekani kwenye ice cores za Greenland/Antarctica.
  • Haiendani na genetics ya binadamu (effective population size haishuki hadi watu 6 miaka 4000 iliyopita).
Hivyo basi huo ni UPOTOSHAJI nitakao upinga kwa nguvu zote.

4) Epic of Gilgamesh imewadaka pabaya😎😎​

Kitaalamu (comparative mythology na Ancient Near Eastern studies), ni kweli kwamba simulizi za mafuriko katika kitabu cha Mwanzo inafanana kwa kiasi kikubwa na simulizi la Epic of Gilgamesh (Utnapishtim flood account), ambalo ni ya kale zaidi (karne nyingi kabla ya maandishi ya Mwanzo).

Hii imejadiliwa sana kwenye tafiti za:
  • Ancient Near Eastern literature
  • Biblical scholarship (mfano tafiti za comparative textual analysis)
Hata wanatheolojia wengi wanakubali kuwa kuna uhusiano wa kifasihi kati ya masimulizi hayo.

Simulizi za mafuriko ya Utnapishtim inapatikana katika Epic of Gilgamesh, hasa katika toleo la Standard Babylonian Version lililoandikwa takribani 1200–1000 BCE.
Toleo la mapema zaidi la simulizi hilo linatokana na Atrahasis Epic, ambalo linawekwa karibu 1700 BCE (Old Babylonian period).
Hata maandishi ya Kisumeri yanayojulikana kama Eridu Genesis yanaonyesha simulizi la mafuriko lililokuwepo takribani 1800 BCE au mapema zaidi.
Kwa upande mwingine, wasomi wengi wa Biblia wanaweka uandishi wa mwisho wa simulizi la Nuhu katika kitabu cha Mwanzo (Priestly source) karibu 550–500 BCE, wakati au baada ya Uhamisho wa Babeli.
Hivyo, kwa mujibu wa uchambuzi wa kitaaluma wa maandiko ya Mashariki ya Kale, simulizi za Mesopotamia za mafuriko ni za zamani kwa takribani miaka 1000 kabla ya maandishi ya Mwanzo katika muundo wake wa sasa.

Sources:​

  • George, A. R. (2003). The Babylonian Gilgamesh Epic. Oxford University Press.
  • Lambert, W. G. & Millard, A. R. (1969). Atra-Hasis: The Babylonian Story of the Flood. Oxford University Press.
  • Carr, D. M. (2011). The Formation of the Hebrew Bible. Oxford University Press.
*********************
Ukristo wa kilokole kwa kiwango kikubwa ni UPOTOSHAJI uliohalalishwa na JAMII.
Ndio maana flat earthers wengi ni Wakristo walokole. Ni kwasababu kirusi cha dini kimenyonya bongolala zenu.

Carl Sagan (1995), The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark.
“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”




​

 
I'm talking about historical Jesus ambaye kuna extra biblical proofs nyingi about his existence. Huko ulikoenda bado nako nakuona huna maarifa. Not every biblical text should be interpreted literally.
 
I'm talking about historical Jesus ambaye kuna extra biblical proofs nyingi about his existence. Huko ulikoenda bado nako nakuona huna maarifa. Not every biblical text should be interpreted literally.
I am talking about the fictional Jesus ambaye kuna existing proofs nyingi about him being mythologised by early Judeo-Christian.
Scholarships from Scholars such as Richard Carrier, Robert Price, and David Fitzgerald, have shown that.

Wakristo mnatapatapa sana na kitabu chenu, haya You tell me and list all that is in the bible that should be interpreted allegorically and which one should be interpreted literarily.
 
Oh! Kumbe fictional jesus!! Ndio kunaweza kuwa na fictional jesus but the evidence of fictional jesus is not the absence of historical Jesus.
 
Kupinga habari za kuwapo kwa Mungu si lazima kuwe kutaka kuwabadilisha wanaoamini.

Kwa sababu, inawezekana mtu akapinga habari hizo kwa.

1. Kukataa kuingiliwa uhuru wake.

2. Kuonesha wengine wenye mawazo kama yake kuwa hawako peke yao.

3. Kuwajulisha watu walio na utashi wa kuelewa kuwa kuna upande huu wa hoja.
 
Logical reasoning ndio mwenye mamlaka hayo.

Bila ya logical reasoning ambayo ndio msingi wa sayansi, hata mimi nawewe tusengeweza kuwasiliana kidigitali.
Watu wanaong'ang'ania maswali ya nani, kwenye mambo yaliyo broad, mambo ambayo pengine yamepita level ya nani, wanafanya kasumba ya ku overpersonalize mambo, kasumba hii inaitwa anthropic bias.

Mtu anauliza nani kaumba ulimwengu.

Anajuaje hili ni suala la kuuliza "nani" ?
 
Oh! Kumbe fictional jesus!! Ndio kunaweza kuwa na fictional jesus but the evidence of fictional jesus is not the absence of historical Jesus.
That is where science comes to the rescue to show whose evidence leads to truth.

Mainstream scholars now agrees that Adam, Eve, Abraham, Noah, Moses, Cain, Abel were all fictional characters and they never existed physically, this is a milestone in Academia, but it took many centuries for scientific researchers to prove that and convince the intellectual religious community of this reality.

With time the works of Richard Carrier, Robert Price, and David Fitzgerald who are exploring the mythological aspects surrounding the figure of Jesus of Nazareth will likely be accepted within mainstream scholarly debates.
 

Sayansi haithibitishi Ukristo wala Uislamu—inaelezea jinsi ulimwengu unavyofanya kazi, si kwa nini upo.
Quantum physics, Gödel, au “trans-logical” hazivunji mantiki; zinaonyesha mipaka ya sayansi, si kwamba contradiction ni ukweli.

Katika Uislamu, Allah habadiliki na haingii kwenye uumbaji; ni Kiumbe wa Lazima aliye juu ya muda, nafasi na maada—tofauti kabisa na madai ya Yesu kuwa Mungu.

Kwa hiyo: ukweli haupingani na mantiki; kinachozidi sayansi si sawa na kuvunja mantiki.
 

Science doesn’t decide history by consensus or prediction—it follows evidence.
There is no mainstream scholarly consensus that Adam, Noah, Moses, or Abraham are ‘proven fictional,’ and claiming future acceptance of mythicism (e.g. Richard Carrier, Robert Price, David Fitzgerald) is speculation, not science.

Absence of archaeological proof is not a proof of non-existence.
 
Quantum physics, Gödel, au “trans-logical” hazivunji mantiki; zinaonyesha mipaka ya sayansi, si kwamba contradiction ni ukweli.
Zinaaonyesha kuwa sheria za mantiki zina mipaka! Kuna kweli zipo haziwezi kuthibitishwa na sheria hizo! !

You gerrit?
 
Zinaaonyesha kuwa sheria za mantiki zina mipaka! Kuna kweli zipo haziwezi kuthibitishwa na sheria hizo! !

You gerrit?
Kuwa na mipaka ya kuthibitisha si sawa na kuvunja mantiki; Gödel na quantum zinaonyesha mipaka ya proof na models, si kwamba contradiction inakuwa kweli
 
Kuwa na mipaka ya kuthibitisha si sawa na kuvunja mantiki; Gödel na quantum zinaonyesha mipaka ya proof na models, si kwamba contradiction inakuwa kweli
Sio wewe uliyetoka kusema

"infinite and finite are mutually exclusive definitions—something cannot be unlimited and limited in the same respect at the same time."

Sasa how comes kitu kuwa "juu na chini kwa wakati mmoja" sio mutually exclusive?

Kitu kuwa "point mbili tofauti kwa wakati mmoja" sio mutually exclusive?

Unatumia sheria za logic kama chombo tu cha kukufaa. Yani unaniambia navunja sheria, halafu na wewe unavunja sheria ku prove kuwa navunja sheria.

Sebene la mkana MUNGU limekuwa sebene na KOBAZ
 

Logic in human terms ni chombo cha kuelewa ulimwengu wa kawaida.

Ulimwengu wa mwongozo wa kiroho unaweza kuzidi mipaka ya logic ya kawaida bila kuikataa; hii si contradiction, ni transcendence.

Kusema 'superposition' au 'miracles' vinavunja logic ya binadamu si sawa na kusema ukweli haupo
 

Scholarly consensus about the biblical patriarchs (such as Adam, Noah, Abraham, and Moses) was not reached by voting or ideology, but through cumulative research in archaeology, textual criticism, and comparative Ancient Near Eastern studies. Excavations in the Levant and Egypt—analyzed by scholars like William G. Dever and Israel Finkelstein—have not produced independent material evidence confirming the patriarchal narratives as described. Literary and source analysis further indicates that these texts were composed and edited centuries after the periods they depict, reflecting later theological concerns. In addition, the flood story of Noah closely parallels earlier Mesopotamian traditions such as the Epic of Gilgamesh and the Atrahasis Epic, suggesting that elements of the narrative were adapted from older regional sources, and similar comparative patterns are observed in other patriarchal traditions. When these independent lines of evidence converged, scholars gradually concluded—not that the patriarchs are “proven fictional,” but that their stories function primarily as theological and literary constructions rather than independently verifiable historical biographies.
 
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…