when we say mermaid is it the same as mammy water

do they have the same core attributes

if you buy a recharge card with the number

567850967580067659
it has the same core attribute as

567850967580067658

but only one will give you credit
it is the same with

DNA just one letter is the difference between sickle cell anaemia and normal.
or telephone numbers and countless other examples.

aribisala0:

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

Sincerely, whether God is a fiction is actually beside the point.

The argument should properly hold as per the IDEA that people have in mind when they use these words - 'Olodumare',  "Allah', "Brahman", "Yahweh."

If people have in mind a transcendental self-existent entity responsible for all existence, then it is comical to state that they are not referring to the same IDEA. It is of course only natural that each ethnic group will give the idea its own colorations and flavours.

Thus when you see our Pastor AIO bleating about differences such as the perception that God has emotions, and such other cultural trivia, that is frankly a flavour that only the shallow and pedantic would countenance. Of course the content of his last post gave some inkling of the level of frustration that has been induced by his inability to push an obviously incoherent idea.

Look again at these extracts on Brahman and Olodumare -

In Hinduism, Brahman (ब्रह्मन् bráhman) is the one supreme, universal Spirit that is the origin and support of the phenomenal universe.[1] Brahman is sometimes referred to as the Absolute or Godhead[2] which is the Divine Ground[3] of the primordial Being Hiranyagarbha and all subsequent Creation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahman

Olòrún is the Yorùbá name given to a singular being in theistic and deistic religions (and other belief systems), Who is either the sole entity in monotheism, or a single entity in polytheism. Eitherway, It is regarded as a Self-Existing Being.

Commonly addressed as Olódùmarè, It is often regarded as the infinite ruler of the heavens; all-encompassing, and said to be the owner of all heads. No gender is typically assigned. Hence, It is commomnly referred to as "It" or "They" (although this is meant to address a somewhat singularity). The divine creator and source of all energy, It is often thought to be the conduit through which the thoughts and actions of each person in "Ayé" (the world) interact with those of all other living things, including the universe itself.

Olòrún has also been variously conceived as being incorporeal, a personal being, the source of all moral obligation and the "greatest conceivable existent".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olodumare

I needn't say more.

Deep Sight:

Sincerely, whether God is a fiction is actually beside the point.

The argument should properly hold as per the IDEA that people have in mind when they use these words - 'Olodumare',  "Allah', "Brahman", "Yahweh."

If people have in mind a transcendental self-existent entity responsible for all existence, then it is comical to state that they are not referring to the same IDEA. It is of course only natural that each ethnic group will give the idea its own colorations and flavours.

Thus when you see our Pastor AIO bleating about differences such as the perception that God has emotions, and such other cultural trivia, that is frankly a flavour that only the shallow and pedantic would countenance. Of course the content of his last post gave some inkling of the level of frustration that has been induced by his inability to push an obviously incoherent idea.

Look again at these extracts on Brahman and Olodumare -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahman

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olodumare

I needn't say more.

Well check this out. Please let me know if it is a single entity that bears these three identities or if it is only one.

Deep Sight:

Sincerely, whether God is a fiction is actually beside the point.

The argument should properly hold as per the IDEA that people have in mind when they use these words - 'Olodumare',  "Allah', "Brahman", "Yahweh."

If people have in mind a transcendental self-existent entity responsible for all existence, then it is comical to state that they are not referring to the same IDEA. It is of course only natural that each ethnic group will give the idea its own colorations and flavours.

Thus when you see our Pastor AIO bleating about differences such as the perception that God has emotions, and such other cultural trivia, that is frankly a flavour that only the shallow and pedantic would countenance. Of course the content of his last post gave some inkling of the level of frustration that has been induced by his inability to push an obviously incoherent idea.

Look again at these extracts on Brahman and Olodumare -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahman

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olodumare

I needn't say more.

failing to see things your way  attracts the adjectives shallow and pedantic hmm. does not reinforce your argument though
i,too, happen to think those qualities are quite important.
if god is a fiction or not is at the centre of everything. if god is a fiction as i claim and there are several you cannot arbitrarily unite them in one whole. clearly you are not listening to that point. that is what the mammy water metaphor is all about. that is the crux of what i am saying. if you dismiss my view as not relevant why should i listen to yours
now a very liberal assumption  WHEN PEOPLE have in mind and you know this how did you ask them.certainly me and my family are not part of the community of PEOPLE HAVING IN MIND 
another quote from you the argument should  properly, ,  meaning it should go your way. leaving words like pedantic comical shallow and all that nonsense to one side i really do not perceive any intellectual commerce here just an indignant monologue. we shall,like i predicted,end up where we started. how soon will we cut our losses

Now, I guess.

@Thehomer; the author of the piece on wikipedia knows little or nothing about What Allah means to the muslims.


Allah is not 'god', but The [Al] God [Ilah].

Deity is Illa. This is why we have 'Laa illa ha ilaAllah' to mean 'Noo deity worthy of Worship as God except Allah, Alone'.


This statement negates all possible gods, expressed or implied, overtly or covertly, subtly or flaunted. The Quran says whatever the mind can conjure up, it is not Allah The Absolutely beyond Imagination.

sweetnecta i think this may result from a different understanding of the english language. the word deity definitely means god . it may mean other things but it means god too. and a god is anything that is worshipped . therefore ALlah is a deity which you will  no doubt represent as the Deity.now my understanding of islamic teaching is that there is the belief that there is no god but Allah  which translates in english to THe GOD

in arabic  al = the

as in al-baqara for example
i think the arabic word is lah meaning god or deity not illa the i is a grammatical nuance .
you will observe that 
AL
is dropped in expressions like hamdullah  or bismillah or wallahi
if you believe i am wrong that is okay let us not get distracted[b][/b]
i am just trying to clarify the semantics and NOTHING else

Sweetnecta:

@Thehomer; the author of the piece on wikipedia knows little or nothing about What Allah means to the muslims.


Allah is not 'god', but The [Al] God [Ilah].

Deity is Illa. This is why we have 'Laa illa ha ilaAllah' to mean 'Noo deity worthy of Worship as God except Allah, Alone'.


This statement negates all possible gods, expressed or implied, overtly or covertly, subtly or flaunted. The Quran says whatever the mind can conjure up, it is not Allah The Absolutely beyond Imagination.

What I understand from this is that there are indeed other Gods but they are not worthy of worship and Olodumare may just be one of these others. You're then left with claiming that your particular God is the best one.

thehomer:

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.

Like i said, its simple enough. You admit that something is a possibility. If so, you have no business quarreling with those who say likewise unless you have evidence that that possibility certainly is not the case.

Where is your evidence?

You cannot use the differing attributes you have mentioned as evidence for the simple reason that you your self acceded that such differences are not necessarily pointers to a different person.

So you need fresh evidence, simple.

I'm sorry that you do not consider evidence as evidence. I think lots of analogies and example have been given to show this.

Lots of analogies have equally been given to show that these are references to the same entity. It is absurd that Yoruba man speaks about a creator of all existence, transcendent, self-existent, eternal, an uncaused cause and a Hindu man speaks of a creator of all existence, transcendent, self-existent, eternal, an uncaused cause, and you can yet conclude that they are refrring to different entities simply on account of obviously cultural flavorings. What's your evidence for that? Your assertions are bizzarre in the extreme.

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.

It has already been shown to you that these could not be.

1. Your floating castles analogy showed that it could not be zero: because therein you inferred that there must be a cause for things as we know them to exist.

2. It could not be twenty or any multiple of numbers because that is inconsistent with the logic of an ultimate cause. Ultimacy denotes singularity. The Universe itself is said to commence from a singularity. I could just as well ask you what proof you have that it did not commence from twenty tiny singularities all tightly packed together. You could never disprove that, could you?

the onus here is to prove that they are the same not the other way round.

thehomer:

Well check this out. Please let me know if it is a single entity that bears these three identities or if it is only one.

Wow, sometimes you can really be amusing. I went through the link you gave in your effort to show that the references are references to different gods. Look what I found within that very same page -

_____________________
Brahman is the eternal, unchanging, infinite, immanent, and transcendent reality which is the Divine Ground of all matter, energy, time, space, being and everything beyond in this Universe

Allah (Arabic: الله‎ allāh) is the Arabic proper name of god whereas "ilah" (Arabic: إله‎ ellāh) is the Arabic word for "god" or "deity". Muslims consider God to be singular, unique, eternal, self-sufficient, omnipotent and omniscient.

Judaism, Christianity and Islam see God as a being who created the world and who rules over the universe. God is usually held to have the following properties: holiness, justice, sovereignty, omnipotence, omniscience, benevolence, omnipresence, and immortality. It is also believed to be transcendent, meaning that God is outside space and time. Therefore, God is eternal and unable to be changed by earthly forces or anything else within its creation.
______________________

It is either you did not read the link at all or you were just trying to crack a joke or so.

just ignore any information you do not like and carry on doggedly.
and of course malign or discredit any dissenters
time tested technique as old as many gods

if you buy a recharge card with the number

567850967580067659
it has the same core attribute as

567850967580067658

but only one will give you credit
it is the same with

DNA just one letter is the difference between sickle cell anaemia and normal.
or telephone numbers and countless other examples.

when we say mermaid is it the same as mammy water

i know a husband and wife in nigeria, when gsm phones first came out they chose phone numbers that follow each other. the only difference is one number. the numbers have very similar attributes but they are different and so any time you call them you will speak to different people

please try another approach that particular logic is redundant

aribisala0:

the onus here is to prove that they are the same not the other way round.

No sir! Quite the contrary! The burden of proof rests absolutely, squarely and resolutely with he who asserts these to be references to different gods. This is because the statement made by each tribe is clear in terms of that which is referred to.

The Muslim says - "I believe in the Ultimate Creator, transcendent, eternal, self-xistent God, origin of all existence."

The Hindu says - "I believe in the Ultimate Creator, transcendent, eternal, self-xistent God, origin of all existence."

The Yoruba Man says - "I believe in the Ultimate Creator, transcendent, eternal, self-xistent God, origin of all existence."

If YOU now declare these to be references to different gods, brother, it is you who must prove that: because the essential element in what they all declare evinces a reference to the commonly understood being.

It seems to me that you would not be satisfied untill and unless they all use the same name for that entity. Which of course is culturally, ethnically and linguistically impossible.

haba,
there i am in okitipupa minding my business  me sango, ogun and olodumare
and you come from wherever and tell me there is no god but allah and muhammad is his messenger and i should pray five times daily and go to mecca and shango is an idol but olodumare and allah are the same
thing. when i disagree you say i should prove it

guess what

i am laaving gaan

olodumare does not have a heaven or hell,
olodumare is fully in support of sacrifices to multiple deities and of divination practice.
olodumare brings about reincarnation and permits sacrifices to ancestors
olodumare permits consumpyion of pork/alcohol

allah is opposite to these

to all these so even by the attribute theory they have many more differences than similarities
but i note again you ignore the inconvenient posts.
like i said we can do this till next year we will still be at the same place.absolutely nothing will change.

Aribisala.

Your husband/ wife example is not apt for this case. Also if i may say so without causing offence, all the talk about heaven/ hell, sacrifices, et all are mere cultural nuances that have little to do with the essential idea of a supreme being. In particular your mention of eating pork demonstrates what I have been saying that these are mere cultural nuances. Even the Jews at some point had that same cultural nuance about pigs and a host of other animals that they considered unclean. I expect that this pork issue might be one of the things that Pastor AIO will perhaps consider a 'core' issue in the ontology of God. Good grief!

Now please let me tell you a few things that I believe will show why we must indeed appreciate the oneness in all of this.

This matter is simply the universal question with every man, every tribe, every race, and every nation throughout history have all troubled themselves with -

Where did we come from? What is the origin of this world?

This is the question that people deliver an answer to when they speak about a supreme being. This is why virtually every culture throughout history has always had a conception of God, a conception of the ultimate being, the ultimate cause of all things. Thus it is a very specific answer to a very specific question, and this is why it is not to be confused with instances of similarity negated by the existence of differences.

Try to see what I am saying: the universal conception of a supreme being is a very specific answer to a very specific question: the question being the origin of our existence. In light of this it becomes tenuous for anyone to assert that the answer delivered by all the various people of the world: to wit - that the world came into being on account of the existence of a self-existent, eternal and transcendental God - is now a reference to different entities.

Clearly, the same idea is evisaged by all: but it is only too obvious that in expressing that idea, various cultural norms, fancies and idiosyncracies will color the idea. Such as pork, for example -

This does not mean that the idea of a transcedental cause is not still fundamentally the same.

See the OP here -
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-404066.0.html

you say it is not i say it is , you say it is not i say it is , you say it is not i say it is , you say it is not i say it is , you say it is not i say it is , you say it is not i say it is , you say it is not i say it is , you are right i am wrong, you are right i am wrong, you are right i am wrong, you are right i am wrong, you are right i am wrong, you are right i am wrong, you are right i am wrong, you are right i am wrong,

say something else we have a long way to go till christmas

your logic seems perfect to you it seems absurd to me, your logic seems perfect to you it syour logic seems perfect to you it seems absurd to me, eems absurd to me, your logic seems perfect to you it seems absurd to me, your logic seems perfect to you it seems absurd to me, your logic seems perfect to you it seems absurd to me, your logic seems perfect to you it seems absurd to me, your logic seems perfect to you it seems absurd to me, your logic seems perfect to you it seems absurd to me,

THe essential idea?
what you mean is MY essential idea
i do not remember sending a representative to the conference where it was agreed what THE ESSENTIAL IDEA AGAIN IT IS your idea not THE IDEA

THe essential idea?
what you mean is MY essential idea
i do not remember sending a representative to the conference where it was agreed what THE ESSENTIAL IDEA IS
AGAIN

IT IS your essential idea not THE   ESSENTIAL IDEA

Lol, my essential idea? I did not do the write-ups on these wiki pages, you know. And you are well aware that the ideas herein are the ideas that these different people in fact do express.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahman

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olodumare

These are not my ideas, son.

Anyway, you repetitive posts -

aribisala0:

your logic seems perfect to you it seems absurd to me, your logic seems perfect to you it syour logic seems perfect to you it seems absurd to me, eems absurd to me, your logic seems perfect to you it seems absurd to me, your logic seems perfect to you it seems absurd to me, your logic seems perfect to you it seems absurd to me, your logic seems perfect to you it seems absurd to me, your logic seems perfect to you it seems absurd to me, your logic seems perfect to you it seems absurd to me,

- - - Are more than enough to show just how tired you are of me. I get the message. I go leave am. Ciao.

if what you say is so obvious why are we here, why are we not disputing whether people see with their ears.or arguing about whether humans fly like birds.
the fact is what is logical or obvious to one logical mind can appear absurd to another that is the nature of abstraction which any notions about god are.
as i said earlier i believe god is a fiction. you dismissed that as irrelevant perhaps you will see how relevant it is because you continue to state premises which i am not persuaded of e,g.

i do not subscribe to the theory that there must have been a cause to it all some do and some don't

Deep Sight:

Lol, my essential idea? I did not do the write-ups on these wiki pages, you know. And you are well aware that the ideas herein are the ideas that these different people in fact do express.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahman

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olodumare

These are not my ideas, son.

Anyway, you repetitive posts -
- - - Are more than enough to show just how tired you are of me. I get the message. I go leave am. Ciao.

True talk Jare!

Deep Sight:

Anyway, you repetitive posts -
- - - Are more than enough to show just how tired you are of me. I get the message. I go leave am. Ciao.

Well that was a short mile!!

Deep Sight:

Like i said, its simple enough. You admit that something is a possibility. If so, you have no business quarreling with those who say likewise unless you have evidence that that possibility certainly is not the case.

Where is your evidence?

I've presented them.

Deep Sight:

You cannot use the differing attributes you have mentioned as evidence for the simple reason that you your self acceded that such differences are not necessarily pointers to a different person.

They are necessarily pointers in this case.

Deep Sight:

So you need fresh evidence, simple.

Lots of analogies have equally been given to show that these are references to the same entity. It is absurd that Yoruba man speaks about a creator of all existence, transcendent, self-existent, eternal, an uncaused cause and a Hindu man speaks of a creator of all existence, transcendent, self-existent, eternal, an uncaused cause, and you can yet conclude that they are refrring to different entities simply on account of obviously cultural flavorings. What's your evidence for that? Your assertions are bizzarre in the extreme.

It has already been shown to you that these could not be.

I don't see anything bizarre with what I've said. Yes I can because the two entities like different things.

Deep Sight:

1. Your floating castles analogy showed that it could not be zero: because therein you inferred that there must be a cause for things as we know them to exist.

2. It could not be twenty or any multiple of numbers because that is inconsistent with the logic of an ultimate cause. Ultimacy denotes singularity. The Universe itself is said to commence from a singularity. I could just as well ask you what proof you have that it did not commence from twenty tiny singularities all tightly packed together. You could never disprove that, could you?

Why do you do this? I explained to you the basis of that analogy yet you persist in misusing it. And now you're telling me to disprove your own absurd claim? Recall that you were supposed to logically demonstrate that this entity was one. I have demonstrated that it is not one if I grant your premise.
I already pointed out to you that the word singularity does not mean one but is due to the mathematical features.

Deep Sight:

Wow, sometimes you can really be amusing. I went through the link you gave in your effort to show that the references are references to different gods. Look what I found within that very same page -

_____________________
Brahman is the eternal, unchanging, infinite, immanent, and transcendent reality which is the Divine Ground of all matter, energy, time, space, being and everything beyond in this Universe

Allah (Arabic: الله‎ allāh) is the Arabic proper name of god whereas "ilah" (Arabic: إله‎ ellāh) is the Arabic word for "god" or "deity". Muslims consider God to be singular, unique, eternal, self-sufficient, omnipotent and omniscient.

Judaism, Christianity and Islam see God as a being who created the world and who rules over the universe. God is usually held to have the following properties: holiness, justice, sovereignty, omnipotence, omniscience, benevolence, omnipresence, and immortality. It is also believed to be transcendent, meaning that God is outside space and time. Therefore, God is eternal and unable to be changed by earthly forces or anything else within its creation.
______________________

It is either you did not read the link at all or you were just trying to crack a joke or so.

It seems you were looking in the wrong place. Did you miss the totally different conceptions of Gods? Read it below.

Wikipedia:
The God of monotheism, pantheism or panentheism, or the supreme deity of henotheistic religions, may be conceived of in various degrees of abstraction:

* as a powerful, human-like, supernatural being, or as the deification of an esoteric, mystical or philosophical category;
* the Ultimate, the summum bonum, the Absolute Infinite, the Transcendent, or Existence or Being itself;
* the ground of being, the monistic substrate, that which we cannot understand, etc.

Now tell me. Do these features refer to the same entity? This is the general basis of the various conceptions of God. Keep in mind that there are more religions than Yoruba religion, Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

you are right i am wrong, you are right i am wrong, you are right i am wrong, you are right i am wrong, you are right i am wrong, you are right i am wrong, you are right i am wrong, you are right i am wrong, you are right i am wrong, you are right i am wrong, you are right i am wrong, you are right i am wrong, you are right i am wrong, you are right i am wrong, you are right i am wrong, you are right i am wrong, you are right i am wrong, you are right i am wrong, you are right i am wrong, you are right i am wrong, you are right i am wrong, you are right i am wrong, you are right i am wrong, you are right i am wrong,
you are right i am wrong, you are right i am wrong, you are right i am wrong, you are right i am wrong, you are right i am wrong, you are right i am wrong, you are right i am wrong, you are right i am wrong, you are right i am wrong, you are right i am wrong, you are right i am wrong, you are right i am wrong, you are right i am wrong, you are right i am wrong, you are right i am wrong, you are right i am wrong, you are right i am wrong, you are right i am wrong, you are right i am wrong, you are right i am wrong, you are right i am wrong, you are right i am wrong, you are right i am wrong, you are right i am wrong,