|Join Nairaland / LOGIN! / Trending / Recent / New|
Stats: 1,830,172 members, 3,623,313 topics. Date: Wednesday, 28 June 2017 at 02:50 PM
|Religion / Re: Pantheism by PastorAIO: 1:15pm|
It exists as a way of structuring our experiences, however we conjure it up ourselves and we can also continue to Experience without it.
|Religion / Re: Pantheism by PastorAIO: 1:12pm|
Time doesn't stand still. By it's definition Time is the background against which change/movement occurs.
I'm saying that Time could be invented in our minds. In which case the sense of events passing is also an illusion.
Seeing into the future would also be a part of the illusion. Things coming to pass would be a part of the illusion. Things seeming to have passed are also a part of the illusion. There is no past present or future outside of the mind.
So what are we studying? Illusion? Well, why not? This illusion called existence can be observed to follow certain patterns. So it is not just an haphazard arbitrary illusion. there is a structure to it. That structure can still be studied so we come to a better understanding of this illusion we live in.
|Religion / Re: Pantheism by PastorAIO: 11:06am|
What if there is no big bang origin etc whatever?
What if all that is real is Now?!!
What if all are memories and all our history is an invention created Now?
From Now we create an illusion of a history that seems to be moving, growing more and more, giving the illusion of moving in time. But there is no temporeality. Only an Eternal Moment.
1 Like 1 Share
|Religion / Re: A Simple Rebuttal To One Very Common Argument Made By Atheists . by PastorAIO: 7:00pm On Jun 25|
But objective morals do not exist!
|Religion / Re: A Simple Rebuttal To One Very Common Argument Made By Atheists . by PastorAIO: 5:01am On Jun 21|
Have you heard of egregores?
I believe they exist and I believe that is what you are dealing with when you see christians gathered. Their Yahweh is just a big Egregore. Allah is another Egregore. etc etc
|Religion / Re: A Simple Rebuttal To One Very Common Argument Made By Atheists . by PastorAIO: 6:11pm On Jun 20|
|Religion / Re: A Simple Rebuttal To One Very Common Argument Made By Atheists . by PastorAIO: 6:09pm On Jun 20|
The Gods of these religions are not historical personalities.
Jesus was an historical personality.
From this historical guy many theologies have been developed and they are all very different from each other.
|Religion / Re: A Simple Rebuttal To One Very Common Argument Made By Atheists . by PastorAIO: 6:03pm On Jun 20|
Even the Catholics, from the Presbyterians, to the Burn Agains are all referring to a different entity.
|Religion / Re: A Simple Rebuttal To One Very Common Argument Made By Atheists . by PastorAIO: 6:02pm On Jun 20|
Historically speaking the fellow being referred to is the same. Theologically, Christologically, Mythologically, and any other ology beyond the historical facts, The various cults are referring to a different entity.
|Religion / Re: A Simple Rebuttal To One Very Common Argument Made By Atheists . by PastorAIO: 5:26pm On Jun 20|
Okay, what do I have to do or say to show you that I understand what you've spouted? Is it possible for someone to understand you and yet disagree with you? Or is it only those that sycophantically agree with you that understand you?
Just because I rephrase, parse, and lay out your rubbish points doesn't mean that they are not rubbish. You seem to think that I cannot call something rubbish just because they are 'clearly lettered words posted by me'. Your argument is rubbish if you cannot handle that then I'm sorry but I can't help you.
I have no idea. Even the woman who had a flow of blood tried other things first. But for me to start speculating baselessly would be daft. I don't do that. I'd rather leave such to you.
25And there was a woman who had had a discharge of blood for twelve years, 26and who had suffered much under many physicians, and had spent all that she had, and was no better but rather grew worse. 27She had heard the reports about Jesus and came up behind him in the crowd and touched his garment. 28For she said, “If I touch even his garments, I will be made well.” - Mark 5
Trying other things first therefore has no bearing on whether Jesus will heal you or not. So my answer to your question is that I don't know, and it would be pointless to speculate, and furthermore it doesn't matter.
Who are the God fearers you are referring to? Or is it a name you coined to suit your deception?
God-fearers is a term that anybody who has studied the NT in any depth will be familiar with.
A God-fearer or Godfearer was a member of a class of non-Jewish (gentile) sympathizers to Second Temple Judaism mentioned in the Christian New Testament and other contemporary sources such as synagogue inscriptions in diaspora Hellenistic Judaism. The concept has precedents in the proselytes of the Hebrew Bible
In the Hebrew Bible, there is some recognition of non-Jewish monotheistic worship as being directed toward the same God. This forms the category of yirei Hashem ("יראי השם" meaning "Fearers of the Name", "the Name" being a Jewish euphemism for the Tetragrammaton
You obviously don't even have that level of biblical knowledge.
What you do not understand is that every gentile(Namaan, Zarephath woman, the centurion servant, etc) that got healed had to have total faith only in the God of Israel and none in whatever they served before, thereby acknowledging Him as the only true God before they got their desires.
So who told you that the Canaanite woman didn't have faith in God. Even Jesus said she had faith and praised her for it.
15:28 Then Jesus answered and said unto her, O woman, great is thy faith:
Look! More italics!!! Today is a real bonanza day for you and your italics.
Are you not adding figments of your imagination to the passage by saying the woman was called a dog because neither did Jesus say you are a dog nor did she agree she was a dog?
15:25 Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me.
15:26 But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it to dogs.
Unless she was not the dog in question here, maybe she approached Jesus because she thought jesus was a vet and her dog needed healing.
The muslim's quote...like it is from the kuran? grin
you are trying to capitalize on a Greengrocers apostrophe like you are just plain daft or something. By God's grace you are not actually that stupid.
Read it without the apostrophe and please bring it up in your next post if you still don't get it.
I singled out the verse because I was making a point that different people have different perspectives on the syncretization of deities. Someone said Jesus was for everybody and I demonstrated that Muslim s argue otherwise and refer to that verse in their arguments. It's actually quite simple, even 10 year olds should be able to understand it.
|Religion / Re: A Simple Rebuttal To One Very Common Argument Made By Atheists . by PastorAIO: 3:34pm On Jun 20|
Would you extend your pattern of reasoning and say that the Jupiter and Odin are the same as Yahweh?
What about Sango?
This is called Syncretism.
it is my position, since as you have claimed: God is inscrutable, that any theological conception of God is just as false as any other theological conception.
I do believe that the conceptions vary from one another and so are different 'entities'.
That does nothing to change or affect God. If anything, all these conceptions are just obstacles to achieving a true acquaintance with 'God'.
These conceptions, all of them, are man made. They are as varied as man's imagination is varied.
3 Likes 1 Share
|Religion / Re: A Simple Rebuttal To One Very Common Argument Made By Atheists . by PastorAIO: 3:27pm On Jun 20|
I don't need to read your post more than once. I totally get the gist of what you are saying.
This is what you are saying:
1) Jesus didn't answer the woman because she followed other Gods.
2) She repented from following other Gods and committed to Yahweh solely.
3) Therefore Jesus healed her.
These are your points, abi? Or are they not.
And what I'm telling you is very simple. Your points are rubbish.
First, there is no basis in the text for you to say that she worshipped other Gods just because she was Canaanite. It is a known fact that there were many gentiles called God-fearers who were drawn to judaism. Why could she not have been a God-fearer? What about the Roman centurion's servant? He was a roman, does that mean he was a worshipper of roman gods along with helping Jews?
Second, there is no basis for your claim that she subsequently repented from the many gods to worship yahweh. No where in the text will you find that a conversion took place.
My point is that you are adding (as many of you do) figments of your own imagination to the passage.
The woman was called a dog, not to be treated as one of the children.
The woman agreed that she was a dog and accepted whatever she could get as a dog.
The passage that moslem's quote still stands:
24He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”
please note the bold Italics.
|Religion / Re: A Simple Rebuttal To One Very Common Argument Made By Atheists . by PastorAIO: 1:50pm On Jun 20|
Are you talking to me?
Please you need to read what I wrote and respond to it properly, or just leave it alone.
And please, stop smoking drugs.
Where did you see Italics and what has italics got to do with anything I said?
The moslems say that Jesus attested to the fact that he only came for the lost children of israel. You write and write and write all because of a short line and you can't make even one decent point.
The passage says nothing about the woman having numerous canaanite gods. That is your own addition.
The passage says nothing about quitting her canaanite gods, that is just more of your imagination.
She didn't ask to be a child of Israel, she said that even as a dog sebi the dogs can still eat the crumbs that the children spill. So she never converted from being a 'dog'. (look! an italicized word )
What Gods she had or didn't have no bearing on the simple statement that Jesus made.
|Religion / Re: A Simple Rebuttal To One Very Common Argument Made By Atheists . by PastorAIO: 11:45am On Jun 20|
From what I can tell of your argument you seem to be saying that they are the same being because they are both the creator of the universe.
When you consider that some people say that The Big Bang is the creator of the universe, would you accept that Yahweh and allah are the big bang?
Or to put it another way. We all know that we have fathers, right? I know I have a father. If someone tells me that my fathers name is Thomas Nwagbodo and he comes from Anambra, while another person tells me that my father's name is Jeremy Williams and he is in fact an englishman, then would you say that Thomas and Jeremy are the same person simply because they are both said to be my father?
The creator is a Role, a function, or perhaps we should call it An Office.
Like in a company you have the office of the CEO aka Oga patapata. Now this CEO can be Chief Olurin from 2010 to 2013, and then after that the office can be taken by a Chief Azikwe from 2013 to 2017. These are two different people even though they have both played the same role within the corporate structure.
Similarly, the Ultimate Cause of the universe is a Role that can possibly be taken by any number of beings.
The issue becomes even more complicated when we allow for the fact that some of the beings that can be called God may be totally imaginary beings, or if not totally imaginary then based on part imagination part fact.
I would therefore agree that on some level Yahweh and Allah are the same, but on many other levels they are totally different. Not just Yahweh and Allah. It could argued that the Yahweh of Abraham is a different being from the Yahweh of Moses. And they are both a different being from the Yahweh of Jesus.
In fact this is not a new view. Marcion in the first century went as far as claiming that the Yahweh of the OT is in fact an evil demiurge and Jesus came to free us from his clutches.
3 Likes 2 Shares
|Religion / Re: A Simple Rebuttal To One Very Common Argument Made By Atheists . by PastorAIO: 6:10pm On Jun 19|
muslims disagree with this. They say Jesus was only for the Jews and it is Mohammed that was sent for all mankind.
To prove it they quote Matthew 15:24
24He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”
3 Likes 1 Share
|Religion / Re: The Falsehoods Of Paul by PastorAIO: 8:44am On Jun 16|
you mean like, Luke tried to legitimise the Paul movement by connecting it with the christians in Jerusalem but in actually fact Paul was just doing his own thing.
|Religion / Re: The Falsehoods Of Paul by PastorAIO: 7:36pm On Jun 15|
Further more in the same chapter of Galatians Paul says the following:
22And I was still unknown in person to the churches of Judea that are in Christ. 23They only were hearing it said, “He who used to persecute us is now preaching the faith he once tried to destroy.” 24And they glorified God because of me.
Compared with Acts 8:
3But Saul was ravaging the church, and entering house after house,
26And when he had come to Jerusalem, he attempted to join the disciples. And they were all afraid of him, for they did not believe that he was a disciple. 27But Barnabas took him and brought him to the apostles and declared to them how on the road he had seen the Lord, who spoke to him, and how at Damascus he had preached boldly in the name of Jesus. 28 So he went in and out among them at Jerusalem , preaching boldly in the name of the Lord.
Naturally the question on everybody's lips should be, 'Did the christians in Jerusalem know Paul by sight not not?'. He said they didn't but the writer of Acts said he was moving around in and out among them. Or were they blind? Holy God please don't let us suffer from this kind of blindness that you will not recognise what is presented right before your eyes.
|Religion / Re: A Simple Rebuttal To One Very Common Argument Made By Atheists . by PastorAIO: 12:16pm On Jun 07|
Divine Law, we are told, is unchanging.
Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
|Religion / Re: A Simple Rebuttal To One Very Common Argument Made By Atheists . by PastorAIO: 12:11pm On Jun 07|
The difference is that Evil/Justice was already being meted out.
If ye will still abide in this land, then will I build you, and not pull you down, and I will plant you, and not pluck you up: For I repent of the evil that I have done unto you.
|Religion / Re: A Simple Rebuttal To One Very Common Argument Made By Atheists . by PastorAIO: 12:05pm On Jun 07|
What! Are you suggesting that different part of the Law contradict themselves?
Okay. And so you are resolving the contradictions by saying the later part of the law supercedes the earlier part. Or is it the earlier part that supercedes the later part.
|Religion / Re: A Simple Rebuttal To One Very Common Argument Made By Atheists . by PastorAIO: 11:26am On Jun 07|
I don't see what this has to do with anything. I asked a simple question because you claimed that in the era of the Laws children must pay for their parents sin like they are property. You have directly and blatantly contradicted the prophet Ezekiel. Ezekiel is considered part of the law. So I asked you a rhetorical question. Is Ezekiel not part of the law?
If Ezekiel is part of the law then you told a plain faced lie on the head of your God.
Chronology has nothing to do with this point.
|Religion / Re: A Simple Rebuttal To One Very Common Argument Made By Atheists . by PastorAIO: 11:22am On Jun 07|
Mercy is to forgive transgressions.
You said God is a judge, so what? The bible has God saying he repented from evil. You called the evil he did justice. Is the evil God did justice or not? If it is then God repented from justice. If it isn't then you have a case.
Really? I thought Justice was to set things to right. To make things right. My mother used to tell me that 2 wrongs don't make a right. It seems to me that you God has human limitations if the only way he can bring about justice is to use Evil.
Okay, so God repented from the 'Evil that he used to repay another evil'. God repented from Justice.
Can you give us an example of this?
Please read this and comment:
There are two words for repentance in the Old Testament Hebrew. One word is “nacham” which means “to be sorry” or “to regret” but the overwhelming majority of the time it is used (391 times) it means “turn” or “return” (“shuwb”).http://www.patheos.com/blogs/christiancrier/2014/05/29/what-is-repentance-bible-definition-of-repent-and-repentance/
|Religion / Re: A Simple Rebuttal To One Very Common Argument Made By Atheists . by PastorAIO: 10:58am On Jun 07|
Was Ezekiel part of the law?
20"The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father's iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son's iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself.
Ezekiel Chapter 18
|Religion / Re: A Simple Rebuttal To One Very Common Argument Made By Atheists . by PastorAIO: 10:52am On Jun 07|
Mercy is NOT repentance from Justice.
Yahweh repented of the evil he did.
You said the evil he did was justice.
Therefore Yahweh repented of Justice.
Now to repent means to turn back. That means that Justice/evil had already been meted out. So where is the mercy when the evil/justice had already been done.
|Religion / Re: A Simple Rebuttal To One Very Common Argument Made By Atheists . by PastorAIO: 10:49am On Jun 07|
Could you please show me where you read that in the bible?
|Religion / Re: A Simple Rebuttal To One Very Common Argument Made By Atheists . by PastorAIO: 10:49am On Jun 07|
My house and my property belong to me, they are inanimate possessions, they do not have souls. They are not autonomous entities. two human being however are 2 different autonomous entities. One person should not pay for the crimes of another. I think this is simple, but perhaps not to you.
|Religion / Re: How Should Philosophy Impact The Study Of Theology? by PastorAIO: 9:50am On Jun 07|
So according to you the OP is dead on arrival.
"How should the undefinable Impact the study of Theology"?
|Religion / Re: How Should Philosophy Impact The Study Of Theology? by PastorAIO: 9:06am On Jun 07|
Why is that? What do you understand by the word philosophy?
|Religion / Re: A Simple Rebuttal To One Very Common Argument Made By Atheists . by PastorAIO: 9:05am On Jun 07|
The babies were killed because of the agreement between who and God? Did the babies have agreement with God? Or their parents?
So if I make an agreement with Johnny and use your head for collateral that would be okay abi? If I tell Johnny, 'It's okay I will pay you tomorrow, if I don't you can hold Felixomor and send him to prison.' Does that make sense?
Is that fair to you if Johnny comes to grip your neck tomorrow because I didn't pay him?
|Religion / Re: A Simple Rebuttal To One Very Common Argument Made By Atheists . by PastorAIO: 9:00am On Jun 07|
ooo, I love it when I run into another bit of made up doctrines. Please, what is the basis of this claim?
|Religion / Re: A Simple Rebuttal To One Very Common Argument Made By Atheists . by PastorAIO: 8:58am On Jun 07|
So God repented from justice.
|Religion / Re: How Should Philosophy Impact The Study Of Theology? by PastorAIO: 8:51am On Jun 07|
I can help you rephrase your OP.
How should having an inquiring mind impact the study of Theology?
|Sections: politics (1) business autos (1) jobs (1) career education (1) romance computers phones travel sports fashion health |
religion celebs tv-movies music-radio literature webmasters programming techmarket
Nairaland - Copyright © 2005 - 2017 Oluwaseun Osewa. All rights reserved. See How To Advertise. 276