^^^ According to your last post, this was about what the Bible says. Very legal! But according to all we'd said, it was obvious we were going into the realm of experience to "understand" that same Bible.

I feel I received a sucker punch! No offense meant, none taken - just wish I'd known earlier!

Ah. A befitting and climatic end. I think I've learnt what I sought to learn, thanks to Nuclearboy and MyJoe.

@Vescucci:

If it will help you further, let me state here that arguing based on the written word in the Bible alone cannot prove either sides case. As has often been bandied about, anyone with a mind to it can read anything they wish to into the Bible. It has that singular distinction of supporting every concept, whether noble or nefarious.

Truth however cannot be hidden when you truly want it.

Thanks for the advice Nuke. Trouble is, I can't find anything anywhere completely based on sound ratiocination that is absolutely believable. Best I come across is probable or circumstantial evidence. I have decided to find truth by elimination. Since I have the misfortune of not being graced with an epiphany like some of you, I'll keep on arduosly peeling the onion. I really don't care if God was a tetra-tailed Hydra as long as I'm not accepting second hand interpretations or suicidal leaps of faith,

nuclearboy:

^^ Now you are talking. This thread was legalistic and aimed at proving a point, not geared towards finding truth.

Well, let me state something I deliberately kept back during your thread "Inerrancy of the Bible" - The Bible as we know it became available 1, 500 years ago and only in the last 200 years has it been truly available to society at large. Yet Christians/Believers lived all those years. Seth, Noah, Enoch, David, etc. All those years! Yet you would have us believe that answers to all questions are to be found only in it? No, brother, God is inerrant and His witness is true and when there is doubt as exists now, God (or funnily enough, the Holy Spirit, according to Jesus, is the final arbiter). Where you wish to know the position of truth, you'll find it is not doctored to suit any human and usually might even be uncomfortable. What do we gain from saying God is one yet three? Whats the purpose of saying the HS is a personality? You feel its just an act to mystify, to sound different, important? Or an attempt at self-immolation, a desire to be mocked? Which of us here sounds insecure except the one who would assuage his own (self-perceived) inadequacies by trying to ridicule others?

I just saw another thread I've been alternately laughing and shaking my head to, for a few minutes. Please take a look, MyJoe, then tell me what you think of the mindset behind this thread after reading it. Or check almost any thread started by same poster and see what its about or ends up about. https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-342153.32.html

Anyway, thanks for confirming twas but another attempt by DS to again bring his favorite hammer to bear on his favorite victim - the idea of "trinity". Now we know any slowpoke is "great" as long as he has issues with "Trinity" and even hitherto revered atheists become "disappointments" when they refuse to kowtow.

Sad. Truly sad. I really don't know for how long I will keep repeating to you: please address issues and not people.

Just as I keep saying you're not sincere about any threads you start. You have set your mind to your desired "end" and so all you do is just work towards that. Else, how would you reconcile the fact that you are the only one everyone says same concerning - Chris went so far as to call you double faced and double sided in the other thread for this reason. Another phrase for that description would be "win at any cost against this issue".

And so we see David, Chris, Viaro, Inesqor and who else now avoiding you cos its like givng advise to a piece of granite.

Issues will be addressed yes, but so will personalities, especially when it becomes obvious there's a scam going on!

I'll be waiting for your next Trinity thread (in fact look forward to it seeing I too now know where to come from) and wager twill be here soon and will likely solve the problem once and for all.

nuclearboy:

^^^ According to your last post, this was about what the Bible says. Very legal! But according to all we'd said, it was obvious we were going into the realm of experience to "understand" that same Bible.

I feel I received a sucker punch! No offense meant, none taken - just wish I'd known earlier!

I do not see how I am the monster you are trying so hard to portray. Since I pointed out from the beginning how things stand, I am not liable for the fact you now feel punched. Even if I had not expressly stated my position, or you had missed every one of the posts where I did, the fact remains we were looking at things from the Biblical perspective – at least we were meant to – and not making up things from our own perspectives. That you were already convinced by some “experiences” is your prerogative. But that does not make them the subject matter. The Bible’s perspective was.

You spring on everyone that you were arguing based on convictions fed by your personal sojourn in the paranormal. How do the ancient ones of my clan put it over Schnapp and kolanuts? “You do not dispute the contents of a dream with the slumberer.” You present this rain, paralleling it with passing an exam, and expect farmers who have not had the same experience to plant their maize. I was talking based on what I understand the Bible to say, which may or may not be at variance with my armchair conjectures. I state this from the beginning; I repeat it; I state it again, and suddenly you experience the full weight of a well-aimed sucker punched.

You let on you were disappointed at having wasted time on seeing a post of mine, just because I did not change views to align with yours; you lash out with a statement and claim it was conceived six months ago in another thread; you dig up another person’s post, intermittently laughing and shaking your head at it and asking opinions, in a leading manner, as to the motive behind it; you endorse an egregious post designed purely to make an exhibition of others (referred to as “them”) by asking for “definitions” of guileless English words, fancy philosophical terms, and unruly theological concepts as “starting blocks” on page 5 of thread; yet I am the predator, the bully; and you? The prey, the poster boy of victimhood who is reeling from a nuclear-powered sucker punch treacherously aimed at the jugular, and who smiles in return and magnanimously eschews taking offence.

Maravilloso.

^^ Chei:

See English - all for me alone? And I thought I was literate. Wow!

Anyway, you seem to be deliberately taking this a bit too far. DeepSight started this thread, not you. I accused him, not you. My "unhappiness" (if anything on NL can actually make anyone truly unhappy) came from him and the idea that you seemed to understand what I had not - that it was based on legalism. If indeed I made you out a villain in your understanding, I apologise - I intended that DeepSight alone, my favorite villain on NL (i.e., aside the crook Joagbaje).

Mehhhhhnn! This your english lesson reminds me of a teacher who eventually felt he had to show me he was better than especially me at vocabulary. That was high school 30 years back. I wonder if the dude is still alive. I intend to go report you to him - maybe he'll come damage you with some of those words he used on me without mercy then.

Take awhile before replying please. I intend to spend the next 2 weeks in libraries finding out what your words mean then another week discovering if Odu---- still is alive to come defend my honor. Cos now, I feel ra.ped!

^^^

nuclearboy:

(i.e., aside the crook Joagbaje).

I do think there is need to avoid these ^^^ around here. For all we know, he may be more sincere than some of us, even if WOF hardly makes any sense - to me.
I'm still laughing at your post above, though. 

My Oyibo Oga:

Allow me. I actually had a few other and I think, more apt descriptive terms for the dude but I wager NL servers would likely collapse under the weight of such. Sincerity is not a word in their language. Its all about the moolah and the adulation of men. I wager you'd have a different view of Christians if you could bring yourself to mentally remove such people.

As I keep saying, the prophet of Islam must be very happy the dude is not a muslim. Imagine the good he has done for that religion just by not being one of them.

And there was a time I wouldn't be caught dead in religion section. MyJoe, people take religion a tad more seriously than they ought to. Most times, enough to go from 'preaching' to condemning.

nuclearboy:

Just as I keep saying you're not sincere about any threads you start. You have set your mind to your desired "end" and so all you do is just work towards that.

You insist that my purpose was really to discuss the Trinity. That is not the case as i already told you.

Just to demonstrate the strange nature of your persistent allegation, i did a count of all the posts I have made on this thread.

I found that I have made 36 posts on this thread. Of those posts only 3 discussed the Trinity - and two of those were in response to comments by Aletheia.

So the facts simply do not support that which you have imagined and frankly, it tires me.

^^^ Here's my take, DS! This thread is about the Holy Spirit which is the third member of the Trinity. Any discussion that attempts to separate the Holy Spirit from the Godhead is discussing the Trinity.

Lets suppose for an evil instant, that you were able to "prove" your assertion against the Holy Spirit - what would that impact on aside the concept, understanding and belief in the Trinity?

EVERY post on this thread except our last few "jokes" were about the Trinity, brother!

@vescucci:

I keep using my favorite hammer on that chap just in case someone would sit up, consider what I say and understand that is not representative of what Christ's disciples preached. As you may well imagine, its a joke based on a fact. Apparently, my humor is lost here.

nuclearboy:

^^^ Here's my take, DS! This thread is about the Holy Spirit which is the third member of the Trinity. Any discussion that attempts to separate the Holy Spirit from the Godhead is discussing the Trinity.

I will be absolutely astonished if you can show me any post in which I have attempted to "separate the Holy Spirit from the Godhead." That's absolutely inconceivable, any more than I can separate the inner volitions of nuclearboy from nuclearboy.

Lets suppose for an evil instant, that you were able to "prove" your assertion against the Holy Spirit

I am not aware that I have made any assertion against the Holy Spirit.

- what would that impact on aside the concept, understanding and belief in the Trinity?

So what if it does? Let me ask you a personal question friend. Do you think its absolutely impossible that your conception of the trinity may be wrong? Do you feel you have it conceived perfectly and as such could not conceivably be wrong about it in any circumstances? Would you mortgage a different but possibly correct understanding of the Holy Spirit simply because you are determined to cleave to your current perception of the Trinity?

@vescucci:

I keep using my favorite hammer on that chap just in case someone would sit up, consider what I say and understand that is not representative of what Christ's disciples preached. As you may well imagine, its a joke based on a fact. Apparently, my humor is lost here.

You really have to educate me on exactly what is so reprehensible about the WoF views - in terms of the teachings of Christ as conveyed in the NT.

These are my views. . . and I see nothing terribly reprehensible in what little i know of the WoF doctrine of faith.

Please see this thread: https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-467772.0.html

If you prove the Holy Spirit is but the "force" or "energy" of God as you would have us believe, the concept of 1 as 3 collapses to 1 as 2 (following which of course, your next target would be what you call the carpenter). Forgive me but it seems somewhat daft that a few Billion of us waited this long for you to come let us know that "fact".

If that is not an attack, please tell me what you'd consider such?

I am a Christian, DeepSight, and I would rather model my life on that of Christ and His Apostles rather than that of the joagbajes of this world. What is reprehensible about them is what separates them from what they claim to follow. One easy hint - show where the Apostles of Christ took "food" from hungry sheep rather than fed them

On WoF, please have a look at the link I provided above, your comments will be appreciated there.

Have the WoF taken food from hungry sheep? It seems to me that they have rather tried to show the sheep where to find the plains of grass and boldly walk there themselves through absolute belief in the power of faith? Did Jesus not teach this?

Let's not derail this thread: please comment in the other thread I have cited.

Perhaps Nuke meant tithing.

Anyways, I just wanted to say my comment to MyJoe was made without you in mind, Nuke. You're the most humorous poster in nl section and thus hard to say you take anything on here too seriously.