devayid:

Guys there's no bottom to the pit that you're entering. On so many levels its impossible to be specific as each of those particular words Olodumare, God and Allah are interpretations of various things using the constructs of language.

Perhaps they are the same. Perhaps they are simple aspects of the same being/entity/concept. Perhaps they are completely different.

what I do know is that christian missionaries typically looked and look for any god or entity that the locals and natives believe in that equate the most powerful one with the christian god.

the islamists just killed everyone who said otherwise.

Personally, I don't think they originally referred to the same entities/concepts. Now though, who can say. Language defines so much of your thoughts and thought patterns. eg a gay is a cigarette in england but not the same thing in most other places lol. the word refers to vastly different things depending on the context,location,people using it etc.

The indubitable fact still remains that the people who use the words Olodumare, Allah, YHWH and Brahman, all bear in mind a reference to a supreme transcendental being who is the ultimate cause of all existence.

Deep Sight:

The indubitable fact still remains that the people who use the words Olodumare, Allah, YHWH and Brahman, all bear in mind a reference to a supreme transcendental being who is the ultimate cause of all existence.

I agree! though you have to admit that they DONT* necessarily mean the same being. The descriptions, attributes, attitudes etc ascribed to each of these entities/concepts are not necessarily the same. In recent times huge efforts have been made to syncretize them because it makes conversions easier.

*edit: forgot that word earlier lol

it strikes me that many of the contributors have opininions that they  hold quite tenaciously. i do not think at the end of this exercise many will change their minds.
as far as the question of the thread goes my view is that it depends on the users; speaker/writer and audience.
it is also my view that whilst almost all renderings of olodumare refer to a supreme being or cause of all that exists. that does not answer the question fully.

the nature of this being are also key so
e.g. the jews and some christians believe that jehovah nominated the israelites as a chosen people and thus created a dichotomy of jew/gentile
the muslims believe differently regarding allah
ditto for the yorubas olodumare
some  JEWS see it as a he, as a deity requiring blood sacrifice worship etc. these all relate to the question
what is the nature of this entity?? without addressing this it is difficult to sustain the idea that  it/ they are one and the same.
finally there are those who believe in a PRIMARY cause but do not see this as a being i.e. ANTI anthropomorphism perspective. consequently whilst accepting an original cause do not accept that it is a being which requires worship or in anyway interferes in human affairs.
in other words whilst conceptually there may be fundamental similarities there are huge conceptual dissimilarities too and so it would be a disingenuous compromise to conclude that olodumare god and allah are all the same

they are not.
finally .
this is my perspective whish i just wish to publish here. i do not seek to change any one's mind and so i won't be arguing it with any one.

^^^ People hold different view, beliefs etc about Aribisala. Does that male Aribisala different people? ? ? ? ? ?

Enigma:

Blind Men and an Elephant

Good one. In this case though, the issue is not what does an elephant look like. You see, the blind men in the story already know and agree that it is in fact an elephant that they are each touching. they just differ on what it looks like.

In this case the blind men would not know what animal they were touching, or if they were even all touching the same one.

^^^ Fair point . . . . but as has been pointed out a few times the various people have in their minds a/the Supreme Being; so in your words they are agreed on a Supreme Being in the first place.

devayid:

Good one. In this case though, the issue is not what does an elephant look like. You see, the blind men in the story already know and agree that it is in fact an elephant that they are each touching. they just differ on what it looks like.

In this case the blind men would not know what animal they were touching, or if they were even all touching the same one.

Exactimentifagablelissimo!!!!

I've lost my jacket!  John says, 'Deepsight took it'.   Andrew says, 'Devayid took it'.  Simon says, 'Jesoul took it'. 

These are just claims, not facts.  Therefore it does not follow that Deepsight Devayid and Jesoul are the same people.

Allah is the ultimate.  This is a claim.

Olodumare is the ultimate.  This is a claim.

Jehovah is the ultimate.  This is a claim.

Brahman is the ultimate.  This is a claim.

What remains obvious is that the various pretenders are not the same entity because their attributes differ. 

So we cannot on the basis of various entities sharing a claim say that they are the same entity.

So let us look at the subject of this thread again.

Re: Are Olodumare And "god/allah" The Same Entity/concept/word?

1. Word -  No they are definately not the same word.  They are spelt differently with different phonetic sounds and different number of syllables.

2.  Concept - No they are not the same concept.  Allah gets angry, and requires you to worship him in a particular way, ie bowing to a black stone.  Olodumare does not require any specific ritual for worship and he is not subject to various emotions as human beings are.

3.  Entity -  From the above it is obvious that they are therefore not the same Entity. 

I hope we have arrived at a suitable point to put everyone at rest, and also bring an end to this tedious thread.

Deep Sight:

^^^ People hold different view, beliefs etc about Aribisala. Does that male Aribisala different people? ? ? ? ? ?

i am not sure why you are picking on me.
rather specious reasoning i am afraid. the logical corollaries are non existent.

like i said no one will change any one's ideas here. so leave it
i know what i believe and will hold on to that.

i believe that god(s) are creations of man.
if i believed otherwise i would answer your question differently
the question you ask about aribisala cannot in my view be asked about any GOD unless there is initial agreement that there is a god.
iam discussing god here as a character who has appeared in prose and poetry and other writings no differently from any other character in fiction.

so
i might ask you

people hold different views about mammy water does that make mammy water different women

-Olodumare
-Jehovah/Yahweh
-Allah
-The trinitarian God

All of the above are just man-made concepts made for that part of mankind that lies in the lower rung of the societal pyramidal structure to fight themselves over. That is all. They are just words that mean little to nothing. The concepts behind them are just that, empty concepts meant to cause divisions. And like pastor IO has said, they are just mere claims and nothing more. Enjoy wasting your time and energy in debating and fighting over nothing, while life passes on by.

aribisala0:

i am not sure why you are picking on me.
rather specious reasoning i am afraid. the logical corollaries are non existent.

like i said no one will change any one's ideas here. so leave it
i know what i believe and will hold on to that.

i believe that god(s) are creations of man.
if i believed otherwise i would answer your question differently
the question you ask about aribisala cannot in my view be asked about any GOD unless there is initial agreement that there is a god.
iam discussing god here as a character who has appeared in prose and poetry and other writings no differently from any other character in fiction.

so
i might ask you

people hold different views about mammy water does that make mammy water different women

You see the nub and why I referred to parallel arguments and shadow boxing --- a viewpoint which I stand by?

Well the followers of a Supreme Being, whether they themselves make up the being or whether they call him/her/it Olodumare, Yahweh or Allah have a different reference point. You therefore have to make that distinction.

Consider this: are ounjẹ ọsan, lunch and dejeuner the same thing?

If your reference point is in terms of a meal at a certain time your likely answer is Yes. If you choose a different reference point (e.g. the content of the meal whether ẹba, fish & chips or rare steak) you could answer No.

i am afraid i find that last entry unintelligible. the construction is rather complex for me. i am not beeing cheeky. i mean it.

It's not that hard really, honest! 

I will edit my previous post to highlight a part of yours in Red and it will help to see better, I hope.

Pastor AIO:


What remains obvious is that the various pretenders are not the same entity because their attributes differ.

It would have been very comical, if it were not so sad, to see you deliberately leap far above the core and principal attributes of the deity referred to only to base your argument on minor differences in perspective.

It is astonishing how you could ignore the fact that all of these people use those names to refer to a being that is considered the supreme being, an ultimate and transcendental uncaused cause: a self-existent entity which they all ascribe as being the greatest conceivable existent.

It beggars belief that you (especially you!) could toss all these core attributes of the deity concerned into the trash can and then labour over such things as mode of prayer, a black stone, etc (! ! ! !) - which are obviously cultural elements of worship.

2.  Concept - No they are not the same concept.  Allah gets angry, and requires you to worship him in a particular way, ie bowing to a black stone.  Olodumare does not require any specific ritual for worship and he is not subject to various emotions as human beings are.

To say that they are not the same concept simply because of mode of worship and ascriptions of emotion is beyond lame. As I stated before, the core attributes as to what is referred to are what should be cardnal in reaching a determination as to whether they represent a reference to the same entity.

It is staggering that you, who have argued at length for the "staggering similarities" of world religions, would now advance a suggestion that the almost universal reference to a supreme being is a reference to different entities. It is a huge let down that you then base that conclusion on such pedantic differences as mode of worship and emotional appeals! Surely, you are vaster than that, Pastor.

I hope we have arrived at a suitable point to put everyone at rest, and also bring an end to this tedious thread.

Not by a mile.

aribisala0:

it strikes me that many of the contributors have opininions that they  hold quite tenaciously. i do not think at the end of this exercise many will change their minds.
as far as the question of the thread goes my view is that it depends on the users; speaker/writer and audience.
it is also my view that whilst almost all renderings of olodumare refer to a supreme being or cause of all that exists. that does not answer the question fully.

the nature of this being are also key so
e.g. the jews and some christians believe that jehovah nominated the israelites as a chosen people and thus created a dichotomy of jew/gentile
the muslims believe differently regarding allah
ditto for the yorubas olodumare
some  JEWS see it as a he, as a deity requiring blood sacrifice worship etc. these all relate to the question
what is the nature of this entity?? without addressing this it is difficult to sustain the idea that  it/ they are one and the same.
finally there are those who believe in a PRIMARY cause but do not see this as a being i.e. ANTI anthropomorphism perspective. consequently whilst accepting an original cause do not accept that it is a being which requires worship or in anyway interferes in human affairs.
in other words whilst conceptually there may be fundamental similarities there are huge conceptual dissimilarities too and so it would be a disingenuous compromise to conclude that olodumare god and allah are all the same

they are not.
finally .
this is my perspective whish i just wish to publish here. i do not seek to change any one's mind and so i won't be arguing it with any one.

Interesting points, thanks

Pastor AIO:

Exactimentifagablelissimo!!!!

So let us look at the subject of this thread again.

Re: Are Olodumare And "god/allah" The Same Entity/concept/word?

1. Word -  No they are definately not the same word.  They are spelt differently with different phonetic sounds and different number of syllables.

2.  Concept - No they are not the same concept. 

3.  Entity -  From the above it is obvious that they are therefore not the same Entity. 

I hope we have arrived at a suitable point to put everyone at rest, and also bring an end to this tedious thread.

Intersting points thanks

Jenwitemi:

-Olodumare
-Jehovah/Yahweh
-Allah
-The trinitarian God

All of the above are just man-made concepts made for that part of mankind that lies in the lower rung of the societal pyramidal structure to fight themselves over. That is all. They are just words that mean little to nothing. The concepts behind them are just that, empty concepts meant to cause divisions. And like pastor IO has said, they are just mere claims and nothing more. Enjoy wasting your time and energy in debating and fighting over nothing, while life passes on by.

Interesting points, however  you might want to check this thread: https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-636867.0.html#msg8094060 where there is discussion going on about the issues you just raise. It is not fact that a school of thought causes division or offense it is we humans rather that are the both jufge and jury i'm afraid , so i would implore you to stop hiding behind the umbrella of "religion" as the blame for your short-comings it doesnt wash.

Furthermore, i would like to ask you this, do YOU accept the possibility of conscience?

Deep Sight:

Firstly, humanity is more complex and variegated than this. It could very well simply be that the person is ill informed about your relatives. Or that in his culture (African Culture for example) the definition of a sibling extends to everybody from the same village. So perspectives like that abound and could easily create the seeming differences you refer to. At all events even if some people are entirely wrong in their information about you on some, matters, that would not change the fact that it is still you they are discussing, would it?

Secondly, and more importantly, it is actually not possible in this case for you to use such an example because the core defining qualities which i referred to are very unique and not to be found in any random person strolling down the street. They could only possibly refer to one thing - - - the cause of the universe.

Remember the qualities i mentioned which they all share: a self-existent, eternal, absolute element which is the origin of all things.

These are qualities that are unique to that entity percieved as teh eternal creator, and as such you cannot realistically assert that they are all referring to different entities.

Interesting points, thanks

Deep Sight:

Mr. Homer already expressly accepted the possibility that all the references to a supreme being are references to the same entity.

Thus, he wastes time with any further argument.

No no no. Deep Sight. I am disappointed. And it's been stated around that you are a lawyer by profession. Please tell me. Does the possibility that a person committed a crime mean that the person actually committed the crime?
Come on.
Please tell me are you unfamiliar with the tactic of granting certain premises to show that a conclusion still would not follow even if the premises were true?

Amujale:

One cannot hardly blame me if i am to suggest that it seems you're a little confused on what the thread reads, and i will reiterate for the sake of those that may have misread; Are Olodumare And "God/Allah" The Same Entity/concept/word?

If there is any other thing that is bugging you, ask it to the thread and if you are not satisfied with our answers you are free to post it as spanking new thread.

Really? I wonder what he has to say for himself about this?.

I have said they aren't and I've presented some evidence to support this. If you think I'm confused or derailing the thread, please clearly point this out. Or you could do better by telling me what it is you think I'm saying.

devayid:

Guys there's no bottom to the pit that you're entering. On so many levels its impossible to be specific as each of those particular words Olodumare, God and Allah are interpretations of various things using the constructs of language.

Perhaps they are the same. Perhaps they are simple aspects of the same being/entity/concept. Perhaps they are completely different.

what I do know is that christian missionaries typically looked and look for any god or entity that the locals and natives believe in that equate the most powerful one with the christian god.

the islamists just killed everyone who said otherwise.

Personally, I don't think they originally referred to the same entities/concepts. Now though, who can say. Language defines so much of your thoughts and thought patterns. eg a gay is a cigarette in england but not the same thing in most other places lol. the word refers to vastly different things depending on the context,location,people using it etc.

Thank you. This is what I've been saying and the act of missionaries was what I was pointing out as being syncretism for easy assimilation of the new religion into the society the missionaries find themselves.
About the islamists? I think I'll keep my mouth shut before another group starts burning buildings in Pakistan.

Deep Sight:

The indubitable fact still remains that the people who use the words Olodumare, Allah, YHWH and Brahman, all bear in mind a reference to a supreme transcendental being who is the ultimate cause of all existence.

They bear one in mind but is it necessarily the same one? You have still failed to address why they cannot be zero, twenty or two hundred.

that is wise we do not want any beheadings or anything like that. which goes to emphasize the point that olodumare is different,on the one hand from allah and jehovah on the other who were quite keen on stonings to death and generally slaughtering infidels and unbelievers. i think olodumare is more tolerant

thehomer:

No no no. Deep Sight. I am disappointed. And it's been stated around that you are a lawyer by profession. Please tell me. Does the possibility that a person committed a crime mean that the person actually committed the crime?
Come on.
Please tell me are you unfamiliar with the tactic of granting certain premises to show that a conclusion still would not follow even if the premises were true?

Its very simple. If you grant that there is a possibility that the references all refer to the same entity, why exactly would you begin to argue that it in fact is not the case.

You could only logically argue against it if -

1. You stated it to be impossible

2. You stated it to be possible but have evidence that it is not the case.

- - - Since you stated it to be possible, you should have no probems with those who say likewise.

- - - If you insist it is possible but NOT the case, produce evidence to back that up. In this regard, merely poining out differing attributes is useless. Like you already agreed: differing attributes needn't be a reference to differing persons.

So once you accede the possibility, you then have to show why your position (which is a possibility) is right and the other position (which is also a possibility) is wrong. Remember that both sides have similarities and differences that they can point to: and the core attributes favour the simnilarities.

Deep Sight:

Its very simple. If you grant that there is a possibility that the references all refer to the same entity, why exactly would you begin to argue that it in fact is not the case.

You could only logically argue against it if -

1. You stated it to be impossible

2. You stated it to be possible but have evidence that it is not the case.

- - - Since you stated it to be possible, you should have no probems with those who say likewise.

- - - If you insist it is possible but NOT the case, produce evidence to back that up. In this regard, merely poining out differing attributes is useless. Like you already agreed: differing attributes needn't be a reference to differing persons.

I stated your example was possible i.e your analogy was possible knowing what we do about humans but about some entity that various people conceive of in various ways?
I have presented evidence and the different attributes is the core reason for the evidence.

You did not present any evidence sir. You simply stated mentioned differing views and opinions that people have about a SUPREME BEING SAID TO BE THE CREATOR OF ALL THAT EXISTS.

And you acceded that it is possible for people to have differing views and opinions of one person.

So what are you arguing against?

The fact remains that the core attributes are similar: - - -

Deep Sight:

. . . a being that is considered the supreme being, an ultimate and transcendental uncaused cause: a self-existent entity which they all ascribe as being the greatest conceivable existent.

Deep Sight:

It would have been very comical, if it were not so sad, to see you deliberately leap far above the core and principal attributes of the deity referred to only to base your argument on minor differences in perspective.

It is astonishing how you could ignore the fact that all of these people use those names to refer to a being that is considered the supreme being, an ultimate and transcendental uncaused cause: a self-existent entity which they all ascribe as being the greatest conceivable existent.

Did you actually read anything I wrote?  Or is it that there is yama yama in your brain?  Why haven't you addressed any of the arguments I've made but instead tell me how disappointed you are, and how my post would be comical but is sad, and how you are staggering.  

Minor differences?  Why don't you go and tell Sweetnecta that the difference between Allah and Jesus is a minor difference in perspective, and leave me out of your lunacy?

Who said any of the hi4lutin' grammar that you're blasting up there is 'core attribute'?  If it is a core attribute then The Creator didn't have a core before he created the world.  Until he created the world then he had a core attribute.  You think like an igbo smoker.  

Deep Sight:


It beggars belief that you (especially you!) could toss all these core attributes of the deity concerned into the trash can and then labour over such things as mode of prayer, a black stone, etc (! ! ! !) - which are obviously cultural elements of worship.

What do you know about me that you are saying 'especially me'?  I don't think you even read my posts.  Or maybe you did but just failed to understand what I was getting at.  Same way I guess that you fail to get Islam, at least as espoused by the likes of Sweetnecta.  Their claim is that it is not just cultural but the way in which Allah must be worshipped if he is to be worshipped properly.  They claim that Jesus worshipped the same way and abraham worshipped the same way too, all the way back to Adam.  So it is not just culture to them, it is an integral part of what Allah wants and what Islam is.  ( I am certain that all this that I'm saying is going right over your head).  

Deep Sight:

To say that they are not the same concept simply because of mode of worship and ascriptions of emotion is beyond lame. As I stated before, the core attributes as to what is referred to are what should be cardnal in reaching a determination as to whether they represent a reference to the same entity.

It is staggering that you, who have argued at length for the "staggering similarities" of world religions, would now advance a suggestion that the almost universal reference to a supreme being is a reference to different entities. It is a huge let down that you then base that conclusion on such pedantic differences as mode of worship and emotional appeals! Surely, you are vaster than that, Pastor.

Not by a mile.

So it is lame to say that one entity that experiences anger and another that is said not to be subject to ibanuje (upset)  cannot be the same entity.  

When I Spoke of staggering similarities in world religions which aspects of world religions did I say were similar?  Did I say that the God concepts were similar?  I think you are actually not balanced mentally.  Or you hallucinate.  Where did I make emotional appeals?  I said one experienced emotion and the other didn't.  How is that an emotional appeal?  

Please, Mr Man, I have asked a lot of questions above, but let me hasten to add that they are only rhetorical questions.  I do not want any response from you whatsoever.  

Not by a mile.

'Not by a Mile.'  Oya, see your road in front of you.  Dey Go!!  Enjoy however many miles of stupidityy you mean endure without me.  I'm done.

Pastor AIO:

Did you actually read anything I wrote? Or is it that there is yama yama in your brain? Why haven't you addressed any of the arguments I've made but instead tell me how disappointed you are, and how my post would be comical but is sad, and how you are staggering.

Minor differences? Why don't you go and tell Sweetnecta that the difference between Allah and Jesus is a minor difference in perspective, and leave me out of your lunacy?

Who said any of the hi4lutin' grammar that you're blasting up there is 'core attribute'? If it is a core attribute then The Creator didn't have a core before he created the world. Until he created the world then he had a core attribute. You think like an igbo smoker.

What do you know about me that you are saying 'especially me'? I don't think you even read my posts. Or maybe you did but just failed to understand what I was getting at. Same way I guess that you fail to get Islam, at least as espoused by the likes of Sweetnecta. Their claim is that it is not just cultural but the way in which Allah must be worshipped if he is to be worshipped properly. They claim that Jesus worshipped the same way and abraham worshipped the same way too, all the way back to Adam. So it is not just culture to them, it is an integral part of what Allah wants and what Islam is. ( I am certain that all this that I'm saying is going right over your head).

So it is lame to say that one entity that experiences anger and another that is said not to be subject to ibanuje (upset) cannot be the same entity.

When I Spoke of staggering similarities in world religions which aspects of world religions did I say were similar? Did I say that the God concepts were similar? I think you are actually not balanced mentally. Or you hallucinate. Where did I make emotional appeals? I said one experienced emotion and the other didn't. How is that an emotional appeal?

Please, Mr Man, I have asked a lot of questions above, but let me hasten to add that they are only rhetorical questions. I do not want any response from you whatsoever. 'Not by a Mile.' Oya, see your road in front of you. Dey Go!! Enjoy however many miles of stupidityy you mean endure without me. I'm done.

I don't think any of your insults above address any of the issues. Perhaps you are reeling out these vulgar expletives simply because a little nagging feeling tells you you haven't made any sense whatsoever here. That is no reason to become so heated up.

Enjoy sir.

deep sight whilst i do not agree with abuse you seem not to read other peoples views. i am wondering whether you are a programme. like i said we will not change anyone's opinions here

gods are fictional characters and cannot be the same because they have different authors.

^^^ You seem not to read mine either.

Yes, clearly we will not convince each other. Pastor AIO is free to postulate the core attributes of God as being concerned with a black stone in mecca or whether some people think God gets angry etc. Whatever floats his boat.

god is a fiction. there are as many gods as there are authors
you can only talk in terms of core attributes after you establish that god really exists

Deep Sight:

You did not present any evidence sir. You simply stated mentioned differing views and opinions that people have about a SUPREME BEING SAID TO BE THE CREATOR OF ALL THAT EXISTS.

And you acceded that it is possible for people to have differing views and opinions of one person.

So what are you arguing against?

The fact that it is possible does not mean that it is the same person. A possible perpetrator is not necessarily the actual criminal. You still have to tie the perpetrator to the crime with evidence. This is what you're yet to do.

Deep Sight:

The fact remains that the core attributes are similar:  - - -

Deep Sight:
. . .  a being that is considered the supreme being, an ultimate and transcendental uncaused cause: a self-existent entity which they all ascribe as being the greatest conceivable existent.

I'm sorry that you do not consider evidence as evidence. I think lots of analogies and example have been given to show this.
But please, this God that you agree with your "core attributes" it simply appears that you are trying to define your God into being. Please note that you are yet to present your logical proofs showing that it is only one because like I said, it could be zero or a committee of twenty.

i see my question on mammy water was not convenient