General statistics
List of Youtube channels
Youtube commenter search
Distinguished comments
About

Miguel D Lewis
BBC News Africa
comments

Comments by "Miguel D Lewis" (@MiguelDLewis) on "The father who lost all his children to a cult - BBC Africa" video.

“Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.” - Matthew 7:15
253
People are gullible because they don't read the Bible. WE are warned repeatedly not to follow false prophets. 🙏🏾✝🕊
17
@Xcoming2 Without religion, there can be no morality. All evil can be justified without religion. How do we know that existence is inherently good without religion? Why not just destroy the entire universe? Without religion, life has no inherent meaning or purpose.
11
@kamarikucheza No wonder Gen Z's illiterate. Emojis have replaced complete sentences.
6
@youcantmakeclaimsofexisten3898 Yes, I can confirm he exists because you're presupposing ideas that he invented. There's no archeological evidence for the idea that reason is inherently good which predates Isaiah 1:18. You won't find it in any philosophy prior to Judeochristianity. You might not be able to use the Bible to prove the Bible theologically, but you can use the Bible to prove the presupposition of a philosophical idea archeologically. That's not circular reasoning.
5
@ORLt What's your standard of morality?
4
@ariesunicorn8225 "Weak response" you say? Ok.😉
4
@youcantmakeclaimsofexisten3898 You're the one quoting the Bible and you don't even realize it. Where did you get the idea that reason is inherently good? You're presupposing the very philosophy that your reject.
4
@ariesunicorn8225 The same can be said of all people. Beware of any so-called "mother", "father", "nurse", "doctor", "police officer", "soldier", "teacher", "lawyer", "friend", "brother", "helper", "husband", "wife" etc.
3
@youcantmakeclaimsofexisten3898 What's your standard of truth?
3
@youcantmakeclaimsofexisten3898 If reason is your standard of truth, then you're presupposing Judeochristian epistemology. The idea that reason is inherently good is presupposed from Isaiah 1:18. This idea did not exist before Isaiah 1:18. It is purely a Judeochristian invention. So yes, I know why, it's because you're using presuppositionalism. But without God, your reliance on reason is faulty because there's no objective, evidence-based reason for the universe to exist. Reason is useless and even harmful if it doesn't serve the purpose of maintaining existence.
3
@youcantmakeclaimsofexisten3898 Answer the question. Where did you get the idea that reason is inherently good? The Stele of Hamarabi doesn't say that. The Vedas don't say that. Which philosophy originated the idea that reason is inherently good?
3
@youcantmakeclaimsofexisten3898 So, I'll answer the question for you. You know that reason is inherently and objectively good because the Bible says it is. Isaiah 1:18 of the Dead Sea Scrolls predates every codex of epistemology in the archeological record. What you're doing is called "presuppositionalism". It's when you take ideas from a philosophy without acknowledging the origin of the idea. I'm ready for whatever question you have but you should read the Bible first, cover to cover. Make sure you're not quoting the Bible inadvertently. Then ask your question.
3
@ltreylukwesa The Bible commands us to think independently. You're presupposing Judeochristian ethics. "Prove all things." - 1 Thessalonians 5:21 "Let us reason together." - Isaiah 1:18 Without God, there can be no independent thought. We'd just be slaves to our instincts like the animals. 🙏🏾✝📖
2
@ltreylukwesa Then why does 1 Thessalonians command us to "prove all things"? Why does Isaiah command us to "reason"?
2
@cindyhauert2339 You're presupposing Judeochristian ethics, ergo, proving Judeochristianity to be true. Atheism has harmed more people than any religion. Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, and even Dahmer were all atheists.
2
@cindyhauert2339 What's your standard of truth?
2
@cindyhauert2339 Not just corporal punishment; how did the scientific method prove that child offenders are objectively immoral? How can science prove that anything is immoral when morality is inherently metaphysical?
2
@cindyhauert2339 Who says that sympathy and kindness are objectively good? What scientific evidence proves that these things are objectively good?
2
@AnotherYoutubeCommenter Armin Meiwes thought he was being "sympathetic" and "kind" by only eating a man who wanted to be eaten. The same for Detlev Guenzel. What scientific evidence prove that kindness is good?
2
@cindyhauert2339 By your standard, it's ok to offend or harm a child. It's ok for a man to force himself on a woman. There's no scientific evidence proving that existence is objectively good. So, the existence of women and children isn't objectively good either, right?
2
@cindyhauert2339 No answer? I'm not surprised. The scientific method is the same standard of truth that Unit 731 had. We know that child offenders are immoral not because of science but because Jesus said so (Matthew 18:6). Jesus is the only philosopher in human history to ever condemn child offenders. The idea that kindness and even existence itself is good comes solely from him (Genesis 1:31). All of your objective morality and epistemology is presupposed from the Messiah.
2
@ltreylukwesa That's a mistranslation, my dear neighbor. I made the same mistake of reading from mistranslations too when I was a young atheist. But I love you and care for your moral integrity, so let's break this down together. We have to read the KJV, Douay-Rheims, HPBT, or Orthodox Study Bible. All others are mistranslations. That quote also takes Proverbs 3:5-6 out of context if we don't include 7: "Be not wise in thine own eyes: fear the LORD, and depart from evil." It's saying not to lean on your own understanding in regards to committing evil. Nowhere in this passage is it talking about using reasoning or proof. But I sympathize with why you would say that. This is a common cherry-picking mistake and I don't blame you for the confusion. I was confused by this verse too because those who showed it to me never showed Proverbs 3:7 as well. We have to read the full paragraph. So, Proverbs 3:5-7 aligns perfectly with 1 Thessalonians 5:21. There's no contradiction anywhere in the authorized bible translations. Personally, when my father used to assault my mother and I, he thought he was doing the right thing because he saw his dad do it to his mom. He was leaning on his own understanding towards evil. He wasn't obeying Ephesians 5:25 which commands men to sacrifice their life for their wife, or 1 Peter 3:7 which says to honor women. And he definitely wasn't reasoning as the bible also commands us to do. If men follow Proverbs 3:5-7 and the rest of the bible, we don't commit such evil towards women. Understand now?
2
@ltreylukwesa My goal is not to win or argue. My goal is only to share truth with you. You seem to have quite an interest in makeup. Did you know Sephora is the Greek name for Moses' Ethiopian wife, Zipporah? She's mentioned in Exodus 2:21 and Numbers 12:1 but there's evidence outside the Bible for her. We even have her mummy. Her Egyptian name is Ahmose-Nefertari and she wore braids and had 4C hair just like you.
2
@ltreylukwesa "I am black and beautiful." - Song of Solomon 1:5 Look up Sitamun Karomama for yourself and see that she is black and beautiful.
2
@ltreylukwesa You asked for proof outside the bible. Search Sitamun Karomama, the Egyptian name for Shulumite Queen of Sheba. See that she is "black and beautiful" as Song of Solomon 1:5 says.
2
@ltreylukwesa You asked for proof, right?. Sitamun Karomama also, the Egyptian name for Shulumite Queen of Sheba. See that she is "black and beautiful" as Song of Solomon says.
2
@ltreylukwesa First you ask me for proof. Now you claim I'm veering off topic. That's a moving the goalposts fallacy. If you want even more archeological evidence, try Taharqa, the Egyptian name for Tirhakah: King of Ethiopia. There's proof for everything in the Bible.
2
@MentalFacility-u7o If you're still learning, then ask questions. Don't make claims. And I'm not done with you yet. We have the mummy of Moses. His Egyptian name is Ahmosis (coomonly referred to as Ahmose I in English though most of the scholarly literature on him is in French). You can see for yourself that he murdered an Egyptian from the ceremonial axe he left behind. The Tempest Stele also provides further proof for the parting of the sea by the tempest in Exodus. So you can name any individual or event recorded in the Bible and I will show you the archeological evidence for it.
2
@artisthusnatalal3099 Do you really want 72 Houri to steal your husband in Jannah? Why is it fair that they can take him? Why not spend eternity in Jannah with your husband? Issa died so you and your husband can be in Jannah together forever, not so Houri can steal him from you.
2
@hittingdasauce You judge a philosophy by it's principles, not by it's wolves in sheep's clothing.
2
@ariesunicorn8225 I try. 😉
2
“Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.” - James 1:27✝
2
@cindyhauert2339 What you're doing is called "presuppositionalism". You're presupposing Judeochristian morality in order to disprove Judeochristianity. All of your morality is based on Messianic ethics. How would you know that harming a child is OBJECTIVELY wrong unless Jesus said so? Atheism, like Communism and Eugenics, has harmed more children than any other religion in human history.
1
@maathaimaathai3395 The KJV, Doauy-Rheims, or Orthodox Study Bible if you're an English speaker. The HPBT is good too. All of Bibles, such as the NIV and Amplified are mistranslations.
1
@cindyhauert2339 You're presupposing Judeochristian ethics, ergo, proving Judeochristianity to be true. Atheism is more maladaptive than any religion. The worst dictators and most ruthless criminals in human history all denied the existence of God.
1
@cindyhauert2339 What scientific experiment proved OBJECTIVELY that harming a child is wrong? Shiro Ishii and J. Marion Sims had the same standard of truth and they did unspeakable things to children for the sake of "science".
1
@cindyhauert2339 What scientific experiment proved objectively that harming a child is morally wrong?
1
@cindyhauert2339 No answer?
1
@cindyhauert2339 No answer? If we keep going this route, you'll have to prove to me using scientific evidence that existence itself is good. What sceintific evidence proves objectively that existence is good?
1
@cindyhauert2339 But you just beg the question with every answer, which is a logical fallacy. What scientific evidence proves objectively that kindness/ sympathy/ existence itself is good?
1
@cindyhauert2339 Ad hominem fallacy aside, what scientific evidence proves that existence itself is good? How do we know that anything is objectively good?
1
@ltreylukwesa Answer my question first, please. Why does 1 Thessalonians command us to "prove all things"? and why does Isaiah command us to "reason"?
1
@ltreylukwesa Go to Google Images and see for yourself. You can research anybody in the old testament and find statues or their mummy. You'll definitely love Sephora (Ahmose-Nefertari).
1
@ltreylukwesa Go do an Image search and see for yourself. You can research anybody in the old testament and find statues or their mummy. You'll definitely love Sephora (Ahmose-Nefertari).
1
@ltreylukwesa Did you look up Ahmose-Nefertari?
1
@ltreylukwesa Want more proof? Look up Sitamun Karomama, the Egyptian name for Shulumite Queen of Sheba. Then look up Taharqa, the Egyptian name for Tirhakah King of Ethiopia. There's proof for everything in the Bible.
1
@MentalFacility-u7o You make a lot of points so let's address the first one. When I was a young atheist, I believed exactly the same things that you believe now. If you admit yourself that you "don't know s*** either", then you've just invalidated all your claims from the start. Maybe, it would be better for you to humble yourself and ask questions instead of making claims, right?
1
@MentalFacility-u7o BTW the BIble doesn't condone slavery. It says anyway who enslaves another will get the death penalty: Exodus 21:16.
1
@MentalFacility-u7o How are you able to explain a verse when you said yourself you don't know anything? It's interesting how you all always post Leviticus 25:44-46 but skip right over Leviticus 19:34. “But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God.” - Leviticus 19:34 You have to read the whole book, not just cherrypick. The same goes for Ephesians . You post 6:6 but conveniently exclude 6:9: “And, ye masters, do the same things unto them, forbearing threatening: knowing that your Master also is in heaven; neither is there respect of persons with him.” - Ephesians 6:9 By the way, the word "slave" is only used once in the entire Bible: in Jeremiah. But you wouldn't know that if you've reading mistranslations. Stick to the KJV, HPBT, Douay-Rheims, or Orthodox Study Bible. Those are the only official translations.
1
@MentalFacility-u7o How are you able to explain a verse when you said yourself you don't know anything? It's interesting how you post Leviticus 25:44-46 but skip right over Leviticus 19:34. “But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God.” - Leviticus 19:34 You have to read the whole book, not just cherrypick. The same goes for Ephesians . You post 6:6 but conveniently exclude 6:9: “And, ye masters, do the same things unto them, forbearing threatening: knowing that your Master also is in heaven; neither is there respect of persons with him.” - Ephesians 6:9 By the way, the word "slave" is only used once in the entire Bible: in Jeremiah. But you wouldn't know that if you've reading mistranslations. Stick to the KJV, HPBT, Douay-Rheims, or Orthodox Study Bible. Those are the only official translations.
1
@MentalFacility-u7o The algorithm is malfunctioning so I can't respond fully. You're reading from mistranslations. Read the KJV, Douay-Rheims, or Orthodox Study Bible. HPBT is ok too. Your quotes exclude Leviticus 19:34 and Ephesians 6:9, key verse in those passages. The word "slave" is only used once in the official translations of the Bible in Jeremiah.
1
@artisthusnatalal3099 Mary never said that she's Jesus' mother, yet the Quran says she is. Also, Jesus did say he is God in John 10:30 and Revelation 1:8. Thomas also called him God in John 20:28 and Jesus agreed.
1
@artisthusnatalal3099 I assume English isn't your native language. You make many grammatical errors and it's difficult to understand you. What's your native language, Husna?
1
@artisthusnatalal3099 What's your native language Husna? Is it Arabic? I ask not to tease you but to understand you. I'm an ESL tutor and you speak like many of my Arab and Rohingya students.
1
@artisthusnatalal3099 What do you mean by "changed"? The KJV, Douay-Rheims, Aramaic Peshitta, and Orthodox Study Bibles all align with the original Dead Sea Scrolls. The same can be said for the Greek Septuagint. Your Quran even confirms this in Surah Al-Baqarah 2:40-44. The only "change" is in mistranslated versions. Your Taqiyya will not work here.
1
@artisthusnatalal3099 Why does Surah Al-Baqarah confirm the bible if it was changed? Your own Quran confirms the Bible.
1
@cindyhauert2339 You sure have been quiet lately. You seemed so outspoken before. Maybe now you realize you have the same standard of morality as Unit 731. The scientific method, without Jesus, is just Nihilism.
1
@youcantmakeclaimsofexisten3898 If reason is your standard of truth, then you're presupposing Judeochristian epistemology. The idea that reason is inherently good is presupposed from Isaiah 1:18. This idea did not exist before Isaiah 1:18. It is purely a Judeochristian invention. So yes, I know why, it's because you're using presuppositionalism. But without God, your reliance on reason is faulty because there's no objective, evidence-based reason for the universe to exist. Reason is useless and even harmful if it doesn't serve the purpose of maintaining existence. Yes, I can confirm God exists because you're presupposing ideas that he invented. There's no archeological evidence for the idea that reason is inherently good which predates Isaiah 1:18. You won't find it in any philosophy prior to Judeochristianity. You can't use the Bible to prove the Bible theologically but you can use the Bible to prove the presupposition of a philosophical idea archeologically. That's not circular reasoning.
1
@youcantmakeclaimsofexisten3898 If reason is your standard of truth, then you're presupposing Judeochristian epistemology. The idea that reason is inherently good is presupposed from Isaiah 1:18. This idea did not exist before Isaiah 1:18. It is purely a Judeochristian invention. So yes, I know why, it's because you're using presuppositionalism. But without God, your reliance on reason is faulty because there's no objective, evidence-based reason for the universe to exist. Reason is useless and even harmful if it doesn't serve the purpose of maintaining existence. Yes, I can confirm God exists because you're presupposing ideas that he invented. There's no archeological evidence for the idea that reason is inherently good which predates Isaiah 1:18. You won't find it in any philosophy prior to Judeochristianity. You can't use the Bible to prove the Bible theologically, but you can use the Bible to prove the presupposition of a philosophical idea archeologically. That's not circular reasoning.
1
@youcantmakeclaimsofexisten3898 Yes, I can confirm God exists because you're presupposing ideas that he invented. There's no archeological evidence for the idea that reason is inherently good which predates Isaiah 1:18. You won't find it in any philosophy prior to Judeochristianity. You can't use the Bible to prove the Bible theologically but you can use the Bible to prove the presupposition of a philosophical idea archeologically. That's not circular reasoning.
1
@youcantmakeclaimsofexisten3898 Yes, I can confirm God exists because you're presupposing ideas that he invented. There's no archeological evidence for the idea that reason is inherently good which predates Isaiah 1:18. You won't find it in any philosophy prior to Judeochristianity. You might not be able to use the Bible to prove the Bible theologically, but you can use the Bible to prove the presupposition of a philosophical idea archeologically. That's not circular reasoning.
1
@youcantmakeclaimsofexisten3898 The question isn't stupid. You just lack the intellectual capacity necessary to comprehend it. You haven't read the Vedas. You haven't read the Hamarabi Code. You have no scholarly knowledge of epistemology or eschatology. You haven't seen any of the archeological records documenting the development of modern philosophy. And now, you're claiming that reason is human nature without providing any evidence to back up that claim. So, I'll answer the question for you. You know that reason is inherently and objectively good because the Bible says it is. Isaiah 1:18 of the Dead Sea Scrolls predates every codex of epistemology in the archeological record. What you're doing is called "presuppositionalism". It's when you take ideas from a philosophy without acknowledging the origin of the idea. I'm ready for whatever question you have but you should read the Bible first, cover to cover. Make sure you're not quoting the Bible inadvertently. Then ask your question.
1
@youcantmakeclaimsofexisten3898 The question isn't stupid. You just lack the intellectual capacity necessary to comprehend it. You haven't read the Vedas. You haven't read the Hamarabi Code. You have no scholarly knowledge of epistemology or eschatology. You haven't seen any of the archeological records documenting the development of modern philosophy. And now, you're claiming that reason is human nature without providing any evidence to back up that claim.
1
@youcantmakeclaimsofexisten3898 Here's a list of things that exist that don't have any evidence to back up their existence. Your question is not a trick question: - Gravitons - Dark Matter - Conscience/Consciousness - Quantum Superposition - Electromagnetic fields - Wind - Proto-Indo-European language - Monocellular biophotons - Synesthesia I could go on. However, your question is based on the false premise that there is no evidence to back up the Bible. There is.
1