Setfree Apangua Hoja za Atheists

[Thecoder]

Swali zuri sana. Katika nyanja yoyote ya elimu, majibu hupatikana kwenye vyanzo vinavyohusiana nayo. Ukimuuliza mwanasayansi kuhusu fizikia, atarejea vitabu vya sayansi; ukimuuliza mwanasheria swali, atakutajia katiba na sheria. Vivyo hivyo, masuala ya kiimani yanajibiwa kwa vyanzo vya kiimani. Ndiyo sababu mimi majibu yangu mengi nafanya reference kwenye Biblia.

Sasa hii huoni kama inakua infinity loop kwa maana mtu asiyeamini huwa haamini hata yaliyo ndani ya vitabu, kwahiyo mabishano yenu yote yatastack hapo kwa maana mtabishana weee, then mtarudishana na kuendelea kubishana over and over again.

Wakati wewe unajenga hoja zako kupitia kwenye vitabu yeye anakwambia hivyo vitabu viliandikwa na mwanadamu... Wakati wewe unatoa hoja yako inayohitaji kuwa proved akihitaji hilo unamrudisha tena kwenye vitabu na kuanza kumpa Aya😅😅.

 

[Daisy Leaf]

dosho12 wakimaliza nisimulie naona unaelewa kila post

 

[Logikos]

Kwa hyo wewe una imani gani, how did life begin on earth

Sio imani am of the knowledge of the available theories and with their pros and cons and the pursuit is not over still learning day by day... na mpaka sasa kuna Known Knowns, Known Unknowns and Unknown Knowns... The pursuit continues.., Sina jibu ili nijaribu kutafuta ukweli kwahio from theories will come a definite Answer kutokana na kinachofahamika...

Na kabla sijafika huko I always wrap my mind around is there such thing as nothingness (Now that would have been a good question for people to wrap their minds into and not these blah blah blah's without any ending in sight)

 

[Setfree]

Tofauti na Sayansi huku ni fluidity watu wanabadilika hawapo chained.., I might say they are Free Mentally without chains...

Ukizingatia hicho kitabu chako wewe kwa mwingine ni Novel (sio kwamba ni universally accepted) it's mere existence is arguably invalid...

Unasema Biblia ni kama riwaya tu kwa wengine, lakini swali ni hili: Je, ukweli wa kitabu fulani unategemea mtazamo wa mtu, au unategemea kile kilichomo ndani yake? Historia inaonyesha kuwa Biblia imekuwa chanzo cha sheria, maadili, na hata sayansi ya mwanzo. Ikiwa tunakataa chanzo cha maarifa kwa sababu tu watu wengine hawakubaliani nacho, basi tunapaswa pia kukataa vitabu vya sayansi, kwa sababu sio kila mtu anakubali nadharia zote za kisayansi.

 

[Logikos]

Unasema Biblia ni kama riwaya tu kwa wengine,

Sio kwamba nasema nadhani hili lipo wazi ndio maana kuna wewe unayeamini Bible, kuna wengine wanakubishia wapo hapa na wengine wana Quran n.k. kuna mpaka kina Mormons wana Latest Testament.. (Kwahio sio kwamba nasema that is a fact)

lakini swali ni hili: Je, ukweli wa kitabu fulani unategemea mtazamo wa mtu, au unategemea kile kilichomo ndani yake?

Sasa kama kilichomo ndani wengine wanakitafisiri kama Riwaya basi wengine wanasoma ili kuburudika.., pia sio kweli kwamba kila kilichomo kitakuwa ni Uongo (even a broken clock is sometimes right).., Sasa kama kuna kitu ambacho tunaamini kimetoka sehemu tukufu isiyokosea na haiwezi kukosea na ndio alfa na omega ni kwamba hata kosa moja tu.., will deem the whole thing not as true as we might have first envision...

Historia inaonyesha kuwa Biblia imekuwa chanzo cha sheria, maadili, na hata sayansi ya mwanzo.

And vice versa is true sababu Biblia ilikuja baada ya civilization (as we know it ni kwamba imetoa pia vitu huku na kule); mfano mafunzo na imani nyingi za Hindus / Wahindi zipo pia kwenye Bible Kwahio kwa one of oldest books in history lazima kilichomo kina akisi dunia ilivyo wakati huo.., ndio maana mfano ingeandikwa leo badala ya kuongelea punda tungekuwa tunaongelea ma V8 na badala ya kuongelea Utumwa na vijakazi hilo lisingekuwepo na mfumo dume ungekuwa umepunguzwa sio kama kipindi kile

Ikiwa tunakataa chanzo cha maarifa kwa sababu tu watu wengine hawakubaliani nacho, basi tunapaswa pia kukataa vitabu vya sayansi, kwa sababu sio kila mtu anakubali nadharia zote za kisayansi.

Hatupaswi kukubaliana na chochote kile will nilly tunapaswa kupinga kila kitu mpaka pale tutakapopata proof na kitu kuwa fact (what is known to be true) na ndio itumike kama template ya Elimu; Hayo mengine hatuwezi kukataza (itakuwa ni dictatorship) hayo kila mtu na kwa Imani yake na aendelee kama anavyopenda (after all tutachukua Imani ipi na tuache ipi)?

 

[dosho12]

Sio kwamba nasema nadhani hili lipo wazi ndio maana kuna wewe unayeamini Bible, kuna wengine wanakubishia wapo hapa na wengine wana Quran n.k. kuna mpaka kina Mormons wana Latest Testament.. (Kwahio sio kwamba nasema that is a fact)

Sasa kama kilichomo ndani wengine wanakitafisiri kama Riwaya basi wengine wanasoma ili kuburudika.., pia sio kweli kwamba kila kilichomo kitakuwa ni Uongo (even a broken clock is sometimes right).., Sasa kama kuna kitu ambacho tunaamini kimetoka sehemu tukufu isiyokosea na haiwezi kukosea na ndio alfa na omega ni kwamba hata kosa moja tu.., will deem the whole thing not as true as we might have first envision...

And vice versa is true sababu Biblia ilikuja baada ya civilization (as we know it ni kwamba imetoa pia vitu huku na kule); mfano mafunzo na imani nyingi za Hindus / Wahindi zipo pia kwenye Bible Kwahio kwa one of oldest books in history lazima kilichomo kina akisi dunia ilivyo wakati huo.., ndio maana mfano ingeandikwa leo badala ya kuongelea punda tungekuwa tunaongelea ma V8 na badala ya kuongelea Utumwa na vijakazi hilo lisingekuwepo na mfumo dume ungekuwa umepunguzwa sio kama kipindi kile

Hatupaswi kukubaliana na chochote kile will nilly tunapaswa kupinga kila kitu mpaka pale tutakapopata proof na kitu kuwa fact (what is know to be true) na ndio itumike kama template ua Elimu; Hayo mengine hatuwezi kukataza (itakuwa ni dictatorship) hayo kila mtu na kwa Imani yake na aendelee kama anavyopenda (after all tutachukua Imani ipi na tuache ipi)?

Do you believe in string theory

 

[dosho12]

dosho12 wakimaliza nisimulie naona unaelewa kila post

Kasoro zile zenye vocabulary nzito, hizo zimenishinda 😆😆😆

 

[Logikos]

Do you believe in string theory

What is Believe and what is Theory...

Believe in Kuamini sidhani kama hapa kwenye muktadha huu wa string theory ni neno sahihi, labda ungesema umeshasikia au kufuatilia String Theory ? Na Theory ni nini ?

An idea used to account for a situation or justify a course of action. Theory inaweza ikawa njia ya kurahisisha mambo au kuweza ku grasp kitu na kukielewa vizuri, kwahio tukija kwenye string takujibu kwamba nimeshaisikia nimeshaisoma its an interesting phenomena na its useful as to go deeply about it siwezi sababu I have neither the time nor the urge to pursue it, am sure nikifuatilia deeply kuna aspects nitakubaliana nazo na kuna aspects ambazo zitachukua muda wangu ku dig deeply na huenda mwisho wa siku nikaboresha au kupinga things which were believed to be accurate but found out not to be....

 

[Tanganian]

Atheis ni kundi kama ilivyo dini nyingine ni kwa vile hawajitambui ,sasa wao wanapinga dini zote kwa hiyo ni yale yale tu.😅

 

[hateeb10]

The complexity of the universe does not necessitate an intelligent designer. Rather, natural laws and evolutionary processes sufficiently explain cosmic and biological intricacies without invoking supernatural causation.

DNA, the vastness of space, and human cognition arise through observable, naturalistic mechanisms, not divine intervention.

Okay let's say you are right by saying the universe does not necessitate an intelligent designer, can you please reply to below questions and enlighten our mind we believer of the Intelligent designs?

Question: Can naturalistic mechanisms account for the existence of something (the universe) from nothing (no space, time, matter, or energy), or is this a boundary where natural explanations break down?


Question: While evolutionary processes explain the diversification of life, they do not address the origin of life itself. How did non-living molecules spontaneously organize themselves into self-replicating, information-rich systems like DNA and RNA? What naturalistic mechanism explains the emergence of biological information and the specific coding required for life?


Question: DNA contains vast amounts of specified, functional information that directs the development and functioning of living organisms. What naturalistic process explains the origin of this information, given that information is not a property of matter or energy but requires an intelligent source?

 

[Gatabhanya]

Mtu akishaanza kutumia kiingereza wakati anawasiliana na waswahili wenzie namuonaga ni limbukeni.

 

[Setfree]

That is what I said from the get go... to each their own.., ila unapotaka kufanya imani / faith kwamba ni facts au ni sayansi, sisi wadau wa pursuit of knowledge lazima tujaribu kuweka mambo sawa kidogo (yaani kusukuma Imani where it belongs)

1. Tofauti kati ya imani na ukweli wa kihistoria
Kuna tofauti kati ya kusema ‘imani yangu ni kweli kwa sababu naamini’ na kusema ‘imani yangu ina msingi wa ukweli unaoweza kuthibitishwa.’ Siyo kila jambo la kiimani ni la kubuniwa tu au la kufikirika bila ushahidi wowote.

Mfano mzuri ni Yesu Kristo: Ukisema ‘Yesu alikuwepo kihistoria,’ hilo si suala la imani pekee, bali ni suala la historia. Kuna vyanzo vya kihistoria vilivyoandikwa na watu waliokuwa hata si Wakristo (kama Josephus na Tacitus) ambavyo vinathibitisha kuwa Yesu alikuwepo duniani na alikuwa mtu halisi.

Hii inamaanisha kuwa si kila kitu cha imani ni kinyume na ‘facts.’ Swali la kujiuliza ni je, imani hiyo inalingana na ushahidi wa kihistoria au la?

2. Je, ukweli unategemea njia moja tu kuujua?
Swali la msingi hapa ni hili: Je, kila kitu lazima kipimwe kisayansi ili kiwe fact? Kuna njia nyingi za kujua ukweli. Sayansi hutumia majaribio na vipimo. Historia hutumia ushahidi wa maandishi na masalia. Sheria hutumia ushahidi wa mashahidi na mantiki ya kisheria.

Tunaposema kuwa imani haina nafasi katika ukweli, je, tunamaanisha kwamba njia zote hizi za kujua ukweli hazina maana? Swali zuri ni je, imani inalingana na ukweli huo au la? Ikiwa inalingana, basi tunaitambua kuwa ni sehemu ya ukweli.

3. Je, sayansi inaweza kuthibitisha kila kitu?
Kuna mambo mengi muhimu tunayoyakubali kuwa ni ya kweli hata kama hayathibitishwi kisayansi. Mfano, tunakubali kwamba maadili yapo—kuwa ni vibaya kumdhuru mtu asiye na hatia—lakini huwezi kupima jambo hilo kwa darubini.

Kwahiyo, mkuu, usiipinge imani eti kwakuwa haiwezi kuwekwa kwenye majaribio ya kimaabara. Kama tunaikubali historia, falsafa, na sheria kama vyanzo vya ukweli, basi ni busara pia kuchunguza kama imani fulani ina msingi halali wa ukweli kupitia vyanzo hivyo. Are you there!!

 

[Gatabhanya]

Kiranga njoo huku.

 

[Setfree]

The claims of Jesus Christ’s divinity and resurrection lack empirical verification, relying on theological assertion rather than historical certainty, making belief in them a leap of faith rather than a rational conclusion.

The complexity of the universe does not necessitate an intelligent designer. Rather, natural laws and evolutionary processes sufficiently explain cosmic and biological intricacies without invoking supernatural causation.

DNA, the vastness of space, and human cognition arise through observable, naturalistic mechanisms, not divine intervention.

1. On Jesus’ Divinity and Resurrection
It’s true that belief in Jesus’ divinity and resurrection involves faith, but it is not blind faith. The historical reality of Jesus' life, crucifixion, and the belief in His resurrection is well-documented, even outside of Christian sources. Historians such as Josephus and Tacitus, who had no Christian allegiance, referenced Jesus' existence and execution.

Furthermore, the claim of His resurrection is not based on mere theological assertion but on historical testimonies—hundreds of eyewitnesses (1 Corinthians 15:3-8), the transformation of fearful disciples into bold preachers willing to die for their testimony, and the rapid spread of Christianity despite persecution.

While empirical verification in the scientific sense (lab-based experimentation) is impossible for historical events, this does not mean they lack rational credibility. We don’t empirically verify Julius Caesar’s assassination but accept it based on historical evidence. Why apply a different standard to Jesus?

2. On the Necessity of an Intelligent Designer
The complexity of the universe does not necessitate an intelligent designer, but neither does natural law alone necessarily rule one out. The fine-tuning of cosmic constants (such as gravity, the cosmological constant, and the strong nuclear force) suggests conditions precisely calibrated for life. Some scientists, including physicists like Paul Davies, acknowledge that this fine-tuning is at least suggestive of intentionality.

Even prominent atheists like Anthony Flew reconsidered their stance, concluding that intelligence is the best explanation for the intricate order we observe. If we readily recognize design in complex coded systems (like software), why is it irrational to entertain the possibility of intelligence behind DNA, which functions as an information system?

3. On DNA, Space, and Cognition Arising Naturally
It is true that naturalistic mechanisms explain much of what we observe, but the real question is: Are they sufficient explanations, or do they leave gaps that point beyond themselves?

DNA: The existence of coded information within DNA raises the question of where information originates. Natural processes can modify genetic material, but the origin of information itself is a different category of problem—one that in every other observed instance comes from intelligence.

Space: The vastness of the universe does not negate a Creator; in fact, the precision of cosmological parameters that allow life to exist on Earth makes a strong case for design.

Cognition: Human consciousness and rational thought go beyond mere biological processes. If our thoughts were only determined by natural laws, how could we trust reason itself? A purely materialistic view undermines the reliability of our cognitive faculties to discern truth objectively.

 

[Logikos]

1. Tofauti kati ya imani na ukweli wa kihistoria
Kuna tofauti kati ya kusema ‘imani yangu ni kweli kwa sababu naamini’ na kusema ‘imani yangu ina msingi wa ukweli unaoweza kuthibitishwa.’ Siyo kila jambo la kiimani ni la kubuniwa tu au la kufikirika bila ushahidi wowote.

Je kuna aliyebisha hayo ? Tofauti ni kwamba Imani haiitaji uthibitisho hata bila Imani watu wataamini, tofauti na facts ambazo hata zisipokuwa proven bado ni facts ili kuweza kuthibitisha kwamba ni facts (ni kama sentensi inavyosema kuthibitisha which means they must be proven

Mfano mzuri ni Yesu Kristo: Ukisema ‘Yesu alikuwepo kihistoria,’ hilo si suala la imani pekee, bali ni suala la historia. Kuna vyanzo vya kihistoria vilivyoandikwa na watu waliokuwa hata si Wakristo (kama Josephus na Tacitus) ambavyo vinathibitisha kuwa Yesu alikuwepo duniani na alikuwa mtu halisi.

Hata Ngw'anamalundi pia ni historical figure katika baadhi ya sehemu ukizingatia historia ya zamani ilikuwa inarithishwa kwa hadithi na nyimbo; na vilevile uwepo wa mtu haimaanishi kila alichofanya ni kweli alifanya kuna exaggarations (mfano tuchukulie Nyerere tu kuna watu walikuwa wanaamini ana nguvu za kichawi na kuna siku alisahau fimbo yake mtu akataka kuichukua ampelekee akashindwa kuibeba), Kuna watu leo wanamchafua kwamba ndio chanzo cha umasikini wetu yote hayo yapo historically kwenye maneno ya watu na kama mmoja wetu angeyaandika yangeweze kuwa ni ukweli...; Kuna watu wanasema Newton aliona Apple inaanguka ndio akawaza kuhusu gravity, kuna wengine wanasema hio ilikuja tu baadae ili kufanya story hii ionekane tamu zaidi...

Na uki base history kwenye Imani yako nadhani ni kufeli hata kabla haujaanza sababu historia haikubaliana kabisa na chanzo ambacho huyu Yesu alikuwa ndio anachotuelezea kwamba ndio chanzo....

Hii inamaanisha kuwa si kila kitu cha imani ni kinyume na ‘facts.’ Swali la kujiuliza ni je, imani hiyo inalingana na ushahidi wa kihistoria au la?

Hata kama haiendani kabisa na tunachodhani ndio ukweli haimaanishi kwamba sio kweli wala wewe kuamini haiitaji kuwa proven at all wala kuendena na wengine wanachoamini..., vilevile unasahau kwamba hata historia inaweza ikawa ni distorted hususan kama historia hiyo ipo based kwenye maandiko ya victors...

2. Je, ukweli unategemea njia moja tu kuujua?
Swali la msingi hapa ni hili: Je, kila kitu lazima kipimwe kisayansi ili kiwe fact? Kuna njia nyingi za kujua ukweli. Sayansi hutumia majaribio na vipimo. Historia hutumia ushahidi wa maandishi na masalia. Sheria hutumia ushahidi wa mashahidi na mantiki ya kisheria.

Hapana ila kwa busara zaidi ni kutafuta na kutumia avenues zote kutafuta ukweli huo.., na ni kosa kubwa sana kuanza na jibu ndio uanze kuthibitisha ukweli badala ya kuanza na blank slate na facts / evidences ndio zikupeleke kwenye ukweli na ukifika sehemu ambapo utagundua umepotea njia utakuwa radhi na furaha kwamba nimegundua hili sio kweli badala ya kutafuta njia ya kuhalilisha uongo sababu tu uendane and what you thought was right....

Tunaposema kuwa imani haina nafasi katika ukweli, je, tunamaanisha kwamba njia zote hizi za kujua ukweli hazina maana? Swali zuri ni je, imani inalingana na ukweli huo au la? Ikiwa inalingana, basi tunaitambua kuwa ni sehemu ya ukweli.

Nani kasema haina nafasi (even a broken clock is sometimes right) ila nachosema hauhitaji proof ili kuamini / imani ni wewe tu uamuzi wako na ku train akili yako (mind over matter) kuna watu huwa wanatembea kwenye kokoto za moto kwa kulazimisha akili zao kwamba hizo kokoto ni za baridi....

3. Je, sayansi inaweza kuthibitisha kila kitu?
Kuna mambo mengi muhimu tunayoyakubali kuwa ni ya kweli hata kama hayathibitishwi kisayansi. Mfano, tunakubali kwamba maadili yapo—kuwa ni vibaya kumdhuru mtu asiye na hatia—lakini huwezi kupima jambo hilo kwa darubini.

Sasa kwanini utumie darubini (kuangalia vitu vidogo) wakati jambo linaweza kuonekana kwa deeds (matokeo)? Utaona vipi kwamba kumdhuru mwenzako ni sawa ikiwa wewe hautaki akudhuru (ingawa kuna kipindi ilikuwa ni sawa sababu watu wali justify kufanya mabaya kwa kusema kwamba kuna matabaka na watu wote sio sawa) kuna the chosen ones (mfano wana wa Israel) kwahio hao ni sawa kuwaumiza wengine wasio chosen..., Lakini Civilisation has taught us otherwise... (we continously learn and evolve)

Kwahiyo, mkuu, usiipinge imani eti kwakuwa haiwezi kuwekwa kwenye majaribio ya kimaabara. Kama tunaikubali historia, falsafa, na sheria kama vyanzo vya ukweli, basi ni busara pia kuchunguza kama imani fulani ina msingi halali wa ukweli kupitia vyanzo hivyo. Are you there!!

Sijapinga Imani (on the contrary) nimesema to each their own.., wewe amini unachoamini ila tusijebadilisha teachings / education ambazo zinatoa wigo wa inquisitive minds ya watu kuhoji bila kuambiwa wanakufuru kwa kuleta indoctrination ambazo majibu yote yapo kwenye kitabu chenye kurasa 1.200 mpaka 1,500

 

[dosho12]

What is Believe and what is Theory...

Believe in Kuamini sidhani kama hapa kwenye muktadha huu wa string theory ni neno sahihi, labda ungesema umeshasikia au kufuatilia String Theory ? Na Theory ni nini ?

An idea used to account for a situation or justify a course of action. Theory inaweza ikawa njia ya kurahisisha mambo au kuweza ku grasp kitu na kukielewa vizuri, kwahio tukija kwenye string takujibu kwamba nimeshaisikia nimeshaisoma its an interesting phenomena na its useful as to go deeply about it siwezi sababu I have neither the time nor the urge to pursue it, am sure nikifuatilia deeply kuna aspects nitakubaliana nazo na kuna aspects ambazo zitachukua muda wangu ku dig deeply na huenda mwisho wa siku nikaboresha au kupinga things which were believed to be accurate but found out not to be....

Well some scientist do not believe in string theory, sababu haiwezi kufanyika experiment ili u apply string theory inabidi huongeze another spatial dimension which as far as we know their are only three spatial dimension and one dimension of time, there is know single formula of string theory, kama ni hivyo basi scientist kuna muda wanasema vitu bila kuwa na exact proof ya kuwepo, then how can they know for sure God doesn't exist

 

[Logikos]

Well some scientist do not believe in string theory, sababu haiwezi kufanyika experiment ili u apply string theory inabidi huongeze another spatial dimension which as far as we know their are only three spatial dimension and one dimension of time, there is know single formula of string theory,

Theory zinasaidia kuweka ku grasp idea fulani string theory as it is depicted sio kwamba ipo kwamba kuna strings ila ili uweze kufanya hesabu fulani lazima ufanye hivyo.., ni kama tunavyoassume kwenye Physics kwamba a gas is ideal (but a gas does not behaev ideal)

kama ni hivyo basi scientist kuna muda wanasema vitu bila kuwa na exact proof ya kuwepo, then how can they know for sure God doesn't exist

Tukianza kila tukipata changamoto basi tunachukua shortcut kwanini tuishie kwenye Mungu pekee ?, Tukipata magonjwa tushukuru kwamba Mungu ameamua.., likija jambazi likapiga hodi tulikaribishe sababu Mungu ameridhia..

Pili ndio maana nikasema mara nyingi najikita kwenye mada ambazo sio za Imani sababu mwisho wa siku they can be proven kwamba you are wrong or right hizi hazitakuwa proven ni kama mtu kafunika kikombe alafu anakwambia ndani kuna nini na wewe unawaza patakuwa patupu au kuna maharage (mbaya zaidi mtu huyu wala hatafungua hicho kikombe) ingawa mimi ninayejua kwamba maharage hayapatikani kabisa kwenye mazingira yetu lakini ni vigumu kukwambia wewe unayeamini kwamba hata yasipopatikana huenda huyu mwenye kikombe anayo....

Ndio maana nikasema I would rather have a debate about nothingness (and does nothingness really exists) hapa watu wote watakuwa kwenye same page wala hakuna atakayekuja na machale aliyochanjwa na Babu yake kwamba ametokewa kwenye ndoto na kuambiwa nini ndio nini

 

[Setfree]

Kama kweli kilitokea unachosema kilitokea na sio wadau kupeana stori za gahawa za enzi hizo (unataka kusema walikuwa hawawezi ku fake harufu au ku swap maiti na huyo Lazaro ambayo alikuwa sehemu amejibanza / jificha ?

1. Kigezo cha "Kufeki"
Unasema huenda waliweza kufeki harufu au kubadilisha mwili wa Lazaro. Hebu fikiria mazingira ya tukio: Lazaro alikuwa amekaa kaburini kwa siku nne (Yohana 11:39). Kaburi lilikuwa la mwamba, limefungwa kwa jiwe kubwa, na lilifunguliwa mbele ya umati wa watu, wakiwemo wapinzani wa Yesu. Je, inawezekanaje mtu aliyejificha humo kwa siku nne bila chakula, maji, au hewa safi akatoka nje ya kaburi kwa ghafla akiwa fresh?

Halafu, ndugu zake, majirani, na watu wa Bethania walimfahamu Lazaro. Kama ingekuwa maigizo, mbona hakuna hata mmoja aliyesema, ‘Huyu sio Lazaro, huyu ni mtu mwingine’? Watu wa karne ya kwanza walikuwa na akili timamu na walijua maiti ni nini na kwamba mtu mzima hawezi kujificha kaburini siku nne bila kufa.

2. “Stori za Gahawa”
Kama tukio hilo lilikuwa stori za gahawa, kwanini stori hiyo ilienea haraka kiasi cha kwamba hata maadui wa Yesu (Wayahudi wa Kisanhedrin) hawakuweza kuidhibiti? Badala yake, wao wenyewe walikubaliana kwamba muujiza huo ulifanyika na wakapanga njama za kumuua Lazaro ili kufuta ushahidi (Yohana 12:10-11). Kama ingekuwa stori ya kutengenezwa, suluhisho rahisi lingekuwa kuwafichua waongo, si kupanga mauaji ya mtu aliye hai.

3. Kufeki Harufu ya Mfu
Mkuu, unafikiri watu wa kale walikuwa wajinga kiasi cha kushindwa kutambua harufu ya mfu? Maiti, hasa katika joto lililopo Mashariki ya Kati, inaoza kwa haraka sana. Watu wa wakati huo walikuwa na uzoefu wa vifo na mazishi kuliko sisi wa leo. Hawakuhitaji ‘kujifanya’ wananusa harufu mbaya; walijua jinsi maiti inavyooza na inavyonuka.

Zaidi ya hayo, familia yake ilisema wazi: ‘Bwana, ananuka’ (Yohana 11:39). Ikiwa walihisi harufu hiyo, unataka kusema walikuwa wakishiriki katika njama ya kudanganya? Kwa nini dada yake mwenyewe (Martha) alisita kuamini kuwa Lazaro atafufuka kama angekuwa anajua ni maigizo tu?

Mkuu, inawezekana unakataa tukio hili kwa sababu hutaki tu kuamini, lakini kukanusha na kudai ‘labda walifeki’ bila ushahidi wowote ni hoja isiyo na mashiko. Ikiwa watu wa wakati huo walikubaliana kuwa Lazaro alikufa na akafufuka, kwa nini sisi wa leo, walio mbali na tukio lenyewe, tunajiona tuna ufahamu zaidi kuliko mashahidi waliokuwepo?

Shetani anatafuta kutupotosha ili tuangamie pamoja naye katika moto wa milele. Tumpinge kwa Jina la Yesu Kristo. Amen

 

[Setfree]

Sasa hii huoni kama inakua infinity loop

Sio lazima iwe infinity loop. Hata mimi nilikuwa mbishi huko nyuma. Nilifanya ubishi tu lakini ndani ya moyo nauona ukweli. Baadaye niliikata hiyo loop ya ubishi nikakubali kuokoka. In addition, hawa atheists tunawapa habari njema kama Yesu alivyotuagiza; siku ile ya mwisho ikifika hawatakuwa na udhuru. Hawatasema: "hatukuambiwa, hatukujua."

 

[Sax]

usilazimishe tutumie 4WD wakati hakuna matope.
wasomi wakibongo ni source of problems they normally act as barriers other than problem solvers.