₦airaland Forum

Arrrrrggggh!

Mr anony: Yep. Let us do that

Ok, I will do so and the inform you when done.

^^^ Ok, can we have a rigorous go at the issue of the divinity of christ verse by verse?

I will have to open a special thread for that, one, as I want it to be a special academic case, one verse at a time, on everything that scripture says on the matter?

OMG! Talk later. . .

wiegraf: DOHOHOHOHO

Don't be like that. For you, just for you, since you're a sometime ally of justice against the raving crazy bent on shoving their doctrine (or truth, as they call it) down the throats of others, I'll lay off the santa. But you clearly ignore that most santa talk is aimed yahweh and similar gods, not necessarily your deist god. Though I genuinely do not think you have a case, non at all, for various reasons, it is at least a bit more rational. So don't assume talk of santa is directed at your god, it is directed at the crazies. And there are far, far more of them here then there are reasonable theists. Granted my post was initially directed at you, therefore it was your god I referred to as santa, but generally speaking, santa talk is directed at the god of the crazies.

Well I thank Santa that we are done with Santa.

As for the rest, your whargarbl makes as much sense as the other stuff you refer to as whargarbl. Actually, less so imo. God pops out of nowhere and can do 'spiritual' stuff. How convenient. That's whargarbl as well, simple. Opinions for the most part. And you know what they say, they're like $hit. Everyone thinks every other person's stinks. My own views on all these are rather complex anyhoo, and I don't force them down people's throats, I just let it be known when I can that there are other options...

Now, of all your "whargarbl", all that is to be discussed is where you say that "God pops out of nowhere. . ."

You are being inattentive.

If you were being attentive, you would have noticed in my list of atheistic absurdities, that it is many atheists, who in fact argue that things pop out of nowhere and nothing. This argument has been made by many eminent atheist scientists - with much ooohs and aaaahs from atheist supporters! They have referred to virtual particles, radioactive decay and other such; as evidence that things may 'pop' out of nothingness! It is thus extremely funny, that same line of thinking is mocked by atheists!

Now, as for God, it is never asserted by theists that God "pops" out of nothingness. It is asserted rather that God is eternal and self existent.

To get a handle on the matter of self-existence, I will have to ask you first if you appreciate and understand the fact that, for anything at all to exist, something or the other must be self-existent?

Mr anony: Lololol, interesting how in order not to expressly admit that you read your own interpretation into the verse, you try to throw a bit of mud out there in the hope that I'll try to "protect" Jesus' reputation.
Basically all you've really done is play the trick of "if you don't agree with me you are calling Jesus a liar. You had better agree with me if you want to keep Him honest."

The verse still remains exactly what it is. Jesus never denied His deity rather He affirmed it.

Here's a verse for you to ponder.

"Behold, I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me, to render to every man according to what he has done.
"I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end."
Blessed are those who wash their robes, so that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter by the gates into the city.
Outside are the dogs and the sorcerers and the immoral persons and the murderers and the idolaters, and everyone who loves and practices lying.
"I, Jesus, have sent My angel to testify to you these things for the churches. I am the root and the descendant of David, the bright morning star." - Revelations 22:12-16

Till tomorrow, i still wonder how any Christian can read the above and still say that Jesus Christ never claimed to be God.

He claims to be the first and last, obviously within creation - In fact, the the very terms "first and last" connote something that is finite, so that hammers you. God is infinite, uncreated, timeless and eternal, and would this neither be first nor last.

Even the quran ascribes these to Jesus (Isa) and yet says that he certainly is not God!

This would tie up with the whole idea of Jesus being the monogenes - "only begotten" - of God, and as such, the firstborn of creation. That is the greek word used to describe Jesus in the NT - "monogenes".

This is exactly the true and correct answer to your "first and last, alpha and omega" business. God could not be any of these because he is eternal; this only clearly shows that Jesus is a creation and exists within creation.

And no, I play no trick on you, can you tell me how else Mk 10.18 is to be read? The man was very clear - "Why callest thou me good, only Gd is Good." How n earth do you want to force a strange meaning into this clear rebuke?

And he said same several times, just to show that your forced reading is wrong. He said the Father is greater than I. He said he has a God and Father. He said that Gd is his God and Father in the same way as God is ours. He prayed to God. He despaired about the decision of God both in Gethsemane and on the Cross. The thing is glaring, and on this issue, you can only resort to continuously side-stepping the simple questions, just as you have side-stepped the issue of the dichotomy of wills by making a non-existent distinction between a "person" and a "being".

I won't press you on this though, cos I know you are as locked-in and dogmatic against the obvious on this matter, as the atheists are on the existence of God.

Yes indeed, I blackmail you not sir: you do in fact by your words proclaim Jesus to be a sophisticated and dubious liar.

Mr Anony: Only God has the power to make those statements.

Absolutely not: Gd is anyhow too transcendent to interact directly with humanity and works through lesser created beings in many forms, who would of course have various powers.

Mr anony: Erhm DeepSight, Jesus didn't say that. Go and read your bible again. The verse you seek is Mark 10:18

Verbatim, it reads - "Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God."

If you read this any strange way, such as saying that he was God, since he was called good, or such as saying that it does not question the act of calling him good, since he attributes goodness only to God, then you will essentially be calling Jesus a sophist, con-artist and deceiver with words.

It is even heretical and blasphemous in the extreme, for any person to call a fellow human being (Jesus of Nazareth) Almighty God.

The poor fella said himself -

"Do not call me good, for only God is Good."

This, in response to simply being addressed as "Good Rabbi!"

Go figure.

The truth is that even if Jesus were to descend from heaven today, and say face to face to Anony, Enigma and Co, that He is NOT God, they would insist that Jesus is lying to them, perhaps as an example of humility. That is the extent of how deeply this thing has sunk into the minds of trinitarians: they prefer to call Jesus a liar, than to renounce the doctrine.

And, indeed, by their words, they do label Jesus Christ a complete liar, by insisting that his words on this matter, were false.

Alfa Seltzer: About who to Bleep?! No way! I will never advice anybody on who to Bleep. It's their own genitals, they put whatever they want in it.

Not even your own 18 year old daughter, if she is set to marry a 78 year old Alhaji as 4th wife? Liar.

[quote author=outc@st]Your post above reveals one thing: You did not read my post!!![/quote]Escapist. Enjoy.

Mr anony: I would have thought that by explaining the fact that God is indeed 3 persons, the point becomes clear that there are 3 different wills at play. However, the meaning of Trinity is that these 3 wills are eternally unified. I don't know what else you want.

Its simple. If the three wills are eternally unified, you could never have a statement like ' Father if it be possible, let this cup pass over my head. Nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt'

This shows a dichotomy of wills, where one has a different will, but must subject it to the will of the other.

It's simple really. But in this matter I cannot expect your lens not to be colored.

By the way, what the difference between a person and a being. I strongly suggest to you, that, in seeking to make a distinction there, you are engaging in meaningless grammatical play only for the purpose of defending the incongruous..

Mr anony: Exactly the reason why we say the Trinity is 3 Persons yet 1 Being.

Well, I see you are not interested in answering the question: Is it possible for there t be a dichotomy of wills between the same divine being.

No wahala. I don't think you will really address yourself to this.

Mr anony: Yeah, the doctrine of Trinity is 3 persons, 1 being. Here's a video you might wanna consider:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bUy-H5MmeGU

Tell me what you think after you've seen it.

Thanks, but I did not ask how three can be one. There are all sorts of concoctions that can easily answer that.

I asked a very specific question about the possibility of dichotomy of wills between the father and the son, if indeed they are one.

"Nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt". . . . . . . . ?

^^^^ For any serious discussion on the existence of God, these, I repeat, THESE are the questions that are at play -

- Why something instead of nothing?

- Does the universe exist?

- Did it have a beginning?

- Did something cause its beginning?

- What caused its beginning?

- Does the cause possess attributes of -

i. Transcendence (existing outside the universe)

ii. Pre-existence (Existing before the universe)

iii. Power (having the energy to cause the universe)

- - - And not Santa Claus this, Santa Claus that.

If you address the questions, you arrive at God as defined.

O, and its interesting how you side-stepped all those atheistic absurdities i listed, by referring to Santa Claus. Just for the record, no, even I do not think God or Santa Claus capable of any of that. Its you lot who believe in such voodoo, not me.

Alfa Seltzer: Here you go again. I can't disown something I don't own in the first place. Unlike christian daughters, my daughter is not my property. My "getting angry" is irrelevant. I might as well start hitting my head on the wall because of my love of Satan. All irrelevant. She does what she wants. Her life doesn't depend on my own choices.

So, in the video, they are all bigots, including the daughter. Why should the dad "allow" the lady to make her own choice? What type of nonsense is this? Listen to your self. Who is he to "allow"? You find that normal that a full grown woman should be "allowed"? Maybe that's the norm with christians but glory be to Satan all composants of my family are free. Everybody make their own choices. Don't compare me to christians! Spits!

And you dishonestly wish t state that you wouldnt have an opinion, or even proffer advise, while they remain free to make their choices?

^^^ If indeed you wish to toe the escapist line of claiming that Christians are not subject to the law, then please remember that this injunction against blood was repeated in the New Testament - long after Christ's departure!

So you have no escape.

The verse against blood in the NT does not speak of blood sacrificed to idols. It says 'blood' pure and simple.

[quote author=outc@st]Even the passages you quoted were referring to the use of blood for food.[/quote]What is food, if not that which is absorbed for strength and vigour and life? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

If any Christian is truly bible-believing, then for that person, blood tranfusions should be HARAM.

Mr anony: The day you understand that Trinity is not 3 Gods, that's the day you'll actually begin to understand your bible

Can you please show me how it is not 3 Gods?

If it is ONE GOD, and GOD of course remains unchangeable, is it possible for there ever to be a dichotomy of wills between the son and the father?

"Nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt". . . . . . . . ?

Rings a bell?

Alfa Seltzer: You don't understand me at all.
Unlike bondaged for sale christian daughters, my daughter is mature, free and intelligent enough to choose who to spend her life with and it is not for me to live her life for her or tell her who to Bleep. If being the fourth wife of a mallam is what makes her happy, that's her problem, not mine. I have enough problem of my own to worry about the life choices of adult ladies.

This doesnt say anything of (1) Whether you would have any advise for yur daughter in that regard or (2) whether you would inwardly prefer sme choices to others - e.g, preferring a monogamous free thinker as her husband, to 4th wife of Alhaji scenario.

Just as Outcast said, with the scenario of 4th wife of 78 year old Alhaji, (and the sword of damocles of talaq talaq talaq hanging over her head forever) you WILL be VERY reluctant, even if you still leave her to her choice. No?

Yes, Emeka, it is for "lunch" indeed.

Logicboy03: Guy, please no derailing. The topic is not about your ignorance about science.

O, those were scientific posers in there, which you are clearly ignorant about.

You see son, there is no difference between the religion-follower who laps up everything he is told by Priests, without thinking for himself, and the Science-follower, who laps up everything he is told by scientists, without thinking for himself. Both the Priest and the Scientist are human, and prone to error and mis-judgment, and it falls to the thinking man to discern truth from error.

Indeed, if anything, science teaches us to think, and it is sad indeed, that so called science-followers, then refuse to think, effectively becoming as brain-washed as the religious on the fallacies conjured by a fellow, fallible man.

wiegraf: I have noticed how your posts so far have been filled with substance. Including, of course, your annoyance at us atheists not knowing how many reindeer santa requires to pull his sleigh

It's a very free world, so feel very free to run away, good, kind and noble sir.

Hmmm, early morning sarcasm. Aite, let me indulge you.

On Santa Claus, I say as follows (and I was to weary to say it in my earlier post because I have said it a zillion times on this forum.

1. The discussion between the atheist and the theist as refers: the existence of God, is not, and cannot be about any particular religious notion of God (such as Yahweh, Allah, Brahman, Zeus, or even the Flying Spaghetti Monster or, heck, your mocking Santa Claus if you like. The discussion is and remains about the origin of this universe and whether or not it had a powerful, transcendental, and pre-existent source. Note these three terms carefully.

2. However anyone chooses to clothe that source with their peculiar cultural worldview does not have any bearing on the discussion about the existence or non existence of a pre-existent cause[b][/b] of the universe and reality as we know it.

3. As such, it is entirely beside the point, when an atheist argues as follows -

a. Yahweh as described in the bible is blood thirsty and immoral, and so God does not exist.

b. Allah as described in the quoran is blood thirsty and immoral, and so God does not exist.

c. Olympus is a physical mountain and there is no evidence of Zeus there and so God does not exist.

d. I have not seen a man sitting on the clouds and so God does not exist.

e. The description of Brahman in hinduism is logically inconsistent and so God does not exist.

f. Santa Claus is a kiddies fairy tale, and so, God does not exist.

g. I have not seen God, and so, God does not exist.

What these statements have in common is a complete side-step of the pure philosophical questions at play, namely -

- Why something instead of nothing?

- Does the universe exist?

- Did it have a beginning?

- Did something cause its beginning?

- What caused its beginning?

- Does the cause possess attributes of -

i. Transcendence (existing outside the universe)

ii. Pre-existence (Existing before the universe)

iii. Power (having the energy to cause the universe)

You can therefore see that the discussion should be about the logicality or illogicality of presupposing a transcendent, pre-existent, powerful cause of the universe.

Whatever name anyone gives to that idea in their language or culture, and whatever addittional attributes they imagine and heap on it, has no bearing on the core discussion.

This is a philosophical and logical matter, and science should also bear on it.

It is for this reason that I find it hard, tiresome, and bothersome to revert when someone simply casts the matter in a most puerile form: to wit: Santa Claus, Flying Spaghetti Monster, and other such idle forms which just show that the person does not even have an idea of what is meant to be discussed in the first place.

- - - - - -

Now I come to your statement that the word "spiritual" is simply another word for "make believe".

Listen - in several discussions with atheists on this forum, I have elicited admissions that non physical things (like time, thoughts, emotions, ideas) do exist. The best they have been able to insist on is that these are creations of a material brain. That's actually neither here nor there. That non physical things exist, is enough to show that the non-physical is not "make believe".

You may quibble about whence they derive or arise, but you cannot deny that they exist, unless you are willing to state that time does not exist, that your thoughts do not exist (in which case I would not be willing to engage in a discussion with something that does not exist, lest I be considered mad) - and you must also be further willing to demonstrate that a thought (or time) possesses the scientific qualities of matter - namely has weight and occupies space. You should be willing to measure the weight and space as well.

What you can see from the foregoing is that you cannot wave your hand and describe the non-physical as "make believe" unless you are willing to state that your thoughts and time itself, are make-believe.

In actual fact, there was a wonderful post some years ago made by a great mind here (will look for it later) which demonstrated just by our every day activities and actions, that no human being actually lives his or her life on the supposition that only matter exists. Everything, absolutely everything, that has any meaning in the life progression of a human being is an immaterial thing. Time. Thoughts. Emotions. Ideas. I could go on forever.

You see, when atheists talk, they often make terrible statements far worse than any religious dogma. I have had long discussions with atheists on this forum who, in their bid to stay materialist, or deny the existence of God, have gone so far as to say that -

(i) We don't know that the universe had a beginning

(ii) If it had a beginning we dont know that it had a cause

(iii) Using the law of cause and effect in this matter, is an argument from ignorance and also a part-whole fallacy

(iv) Using the laws of motion in this matter is also an argument from ignorance and a part-whole fallacy

(v) something may come from nothing

- - - And also measured the properties of "nothingness" and ascribed it a value

(vi) Since we do not know the cause of virtual particles, they come from nothing - despite the fact that the vacuums in which they are observed are not "nothing" and contain gaseous pressure

(vii) Time commenced at the big b@ng - but - nothing could exist outside time and yet the pre existing singularity existed before the big b@ng,

(viii) Time and Space do not exist outside the human mind

- - - and many more.

Judge for yourself these ludicrous statements, and see if they are logically consistent in any form.

Then please contrast them with how I must feel, when some one comes along idly talking about believing in Santa Claus.

Dawkins and co. have stated that there is no evidence for god....they have explained the world without God- evolution, big bang etc

You must be having a laugh.

Evolution? Where more numerically successful organisms through natural selection which depends on survival of the fittest, evolve into less numerically successful complex organisms?

The Big B@ng? Where, for no known reason, and no known cause, (a situation entirely unknown and heretical to science) an entire universe explodes into existence - the singularity that it explodes from, also remaining a mystery?

You call these explanations?

Please go and have breakfast.

Justcool: Why aren't there life forms striving towards death or evolving backwards towards simpler life forms?

Especially as, numerically, the simplest life forms have been, and still remain the most successful.

As such, the claimed evolutionary impetus towards more complex, less successful life-forms, is just non-existent, contradictory, and nonsensical.

^^^ I wasn't able to discern anything in your post above worth responding to.

Lol, *just like that, just like that, just like that, just like that.*

You are tooooooo FUNNY!

Your surmise is worse than suggesting that Boeing 747s pp out of thin air.

Well, one day I will have the energy for this thread. Maybe it will pop out f thin air.

mkmyers45: No Sir, im not..if you view the mind as anything more than neurological activities then the whole convo will heavily contrast with yours...just like ancient aliens vs non-ancient alien proponets

Lolz, enjoy yur jokes. Cant take you seriously on this one.

Uyi Iredia: I'll be 23 this years ending. Funny though, cuz people say I'm appear older than my age.

You certainly think and write beyond your years son. Keep it up.

wiegraf: You're angry someone told you that santa doesn't exist? Bravo

You minimize the discussion into absurdity. I will ignore that.

Bold claims, considering trends in the developed world over the last few hundred years. Also considering the nature of atheism, this isn't say.. one claiming the aether exists.

Atheism does say that there is not an intelligent and living source of the universe and life. That's bollocks, looked at from every direction.

And even if these were true, at least the atheism as always a minority bit (the rest is a bit too nonsensical to hold), what of it?

It might be beyond your atheistic azz to understand or accept this, but in spiritual matters, the intuition of the overwhelming majority is not something to be overlooked, even if it is not perfect in all respects.

Most of the world will always be heterosexual

Does it strike you that nature purposed it any other way?

(actually bi, but I'll ignore that), so what?

This is a Freudian slip.

But don't worry, it means nothing to me.

Just reflect on the "most" that you applied to this statement.

On another note, what's the point of being a deist if one prays?

There are many different schools of deist thought. There is even Christian Deism, just so you know.

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

As for me, I believe that the self-existent and natural laws of the creating element take effect with or without prayer. I do not believe that those laws preclude the concept and reality of help within creation.

Not familiar with the topic, but wouldn't one who prays be a theist?

A deist is a breed of theist.

Logicboy03: I was addressing your BS psychology not your comment to Anony.

Well you didnt, and you cannot.

Logicboy03: Guy, Shut up


If someone has the right to say that there is god with no scientific evidence, another person has the right to say the opposite. There is no justification for the theistic rage.

Freedom of beliefs/disbeliefs. There is no justification

God is not your mother, relative or a human being,- he should not be protected by any human law. A secular country should never have blasphemy law.

O I agree, as you would have seen in my revert to Anony, had you bothered to read. I was simply explaining some of the deeper psychology in the matter, which, of course, I had no doubt would be lost on you.