₦airaland Forum

Martian: Whatever you say.

Martian: You say you don't believe in Jewish myths, but, forgive me if I'm wrong, it seems your concept of "Him" is the Judeo Christian one based on the jewish myth of Yahweh,even though you claim it's hard to take it seriously.
You mentioned the bible and the quran as examples of what god is and made no mention of indigenous African ideas of "Him".

Anyway, about the necessity of God

and the pattern. What pattern exactly proves God?

Why is God a necessity?

Why invoke a supernatural cause to explain natural occurences when there is no evidence of the supernatural? If the supernatural exists, is there any way to show that it interacts with this natural world?

You talk about order but you ignore the mounting evidence from research that the universe isn't "ordered" and some parts are what humans will find chaotic and even "hellish". What do you mean by order? Our planet being habitable for humans?

mrmayor: @Deepsight,

Finally, the learned Ex Anglican/Eckist/Grail Message lawyer arrives to the thread to give us his usual "Ambiguous, Could Have, Sort Of" neither here or there opinion.

I would love to know which parts of the Bible are blatant Falsehood, Myths and where it has been altered.

I would love to know which parts of the Bible are blatant Falsehood,

Myths

and where it has been altered.

Deep Sight: Jesoul. Please do not worry about dear old viaro. In terms of our discourses i am sure there are absurdities enough to fill the entire universe. Such as physical bodies dwelling in spiritual heavens and the like. We leave that to himself and myself.

Let us focus our discussion on the matter for today. Before i proceed, I sense a sense of futility about you: namely that you believe i am deliberately playing the Ostrich. Let me just try to assure you that this is not so. Whatever may be your misgivings about me and my antics either past or present, i hope over time it is at least obvious that i sincerely believe that which i try to discuss. If there is no sincerity there is no purpose in these discussions. So please accept my assurances in that regard, for i would very sincerely love to have an open discussion of this, regardless that it has been discussed from other perspectives in the past.

Now you have pointed out two things to me which i will address. The two things you pointed out to me are as follows-

1. That the first requirement is to love God, and i have ignored this by focusing only on the second requirement - love of fellow man.

2. That Jesus spoke severally about salvation and i have ignored his other injunctions on the requirements, focusing only on the parable of the good Samaritan. And that another of his injunctions wa sthat one may only get to the Father through him.

In response to your first contention i say as follows -

- - - That the transcendental nature of God is not so concerned with an egoistic receipt of human praise or human acknowledgment as that would belittle the very nature of God.

- - - That the worship of God in spirit and in truth, the love of God, is manifested through a love of life. By this i do not mean a hedonistic love of worldly pleasures, but a love of that which is living - a love for that which emanates from God - namely, LIFE and LIVING THINGS. In the immediate sense this connotes the whole wonder of existence and the living beings about us, with whom we share our experience, but in the deeper sense this connotes love for such truly living things in an abstract sense such as love for love itself. I hope you get my meaning.

- - - I say to you that the bible itself is replete with many suggestions to this effect.

- That way to love God is not by any acknowledgment of doctrine or dogma, for that would be an empty and dead love.

There is no way that we can conceive of a transcendental God whose obsession is with egoistic praise and acknowledgement of doctrines such as thie identity of this or that person.

Rather i am persuaded that the gospel of Jesus affirms that the acknowledgment of God is in itself empty and quite useless in spiritual terms beside the simple practice of love. He also made it clear that acknowledging his name by itself would profit no man - even going so far as to corroborate his message in the parable of the good Samaritan by saying that what it would take to love him and to love God would be to show love to fellow men.

Here is relevant scripture in this regard -

Matthew 7:23 - Jesus made it clear that there would be many who believed in his name even to the extent of successfully working miracles and casting out demons in his name. Yet he states that of these people he would say "Depart from me, i never knew ye". . . What this connotes is that their acknowledgment of his name, acceptance of him as lord, and even investiture with miraculous powers from his name, were all empty and dead in his view if these people could not practice love.

This simply shows that the practice of love is what is far more important and relevant as opposed to merely acknowledging his name, however fervently believed or acknowledged.

Again, here is another scripture which i believe hammers home the point -

Matthew 25:35  - In this scripture Jesus specifically said that even people who did not know him but did loving deeds to other humans were actually doing those deeds to him! Thus this affirms my view that one loves God by loving one's fellow man, for how else will you explain this quote from that scripture -

". . .For i was hungry, and you gave me something to eat, i was thirstily, and you gave me something to drink, i was a stranger, and you invited me in, unclothed and you clothed me, i was sick and you visited me, i was in prison, and you came to me. Then the righteous will answer him and when did we do these things. . . And he responded " truly, to the extent that you did these for even the least of my brothers, you did it for me. . ."

I hope that this scripture is more than enough to show you what i am trying to say. It is not by acknowledging him and praising him, etc, but by living acts of love to one another that you actually worship and love God.

There is a deep spiritual reason why this is the truth. And that is simply because we are all a reflection, and minute part each of the totality of the being that exists as ONE. This is the reason for the command of love: it is an adjuration of oneness which trumps all things and goes to the gut of who we are and and what God is.

Without having to separately address your second contention where you said that Jesus stated that no man comeS to the father except through him,  i hope you can already see in the scripture quoted above what it really means to " come  through" Jesus. He has made it clear already both in the parable of the Good Samritan and where he describes love shown to fellow men as love shown to him.

You must therefore see that the first command of love of God, is, in Jesus' view, only fulfilled by exhibiting love TO fellow man in the truest sense.

Deep Sight: I reproduce in blue below the post in that thread which sums up my view and the point laboured to be made -

^^^ And what does it take to worship God, if not simply be a good person Viaro?

Are the outward forms and rituals, such as Prayer, Praise, Ceremonies etc really required by a Living God?

In all sincerity, let me ask you what you understand by the injunction that one must worship God is Spirit and in Truth?

In my own understanding, that simply means that dead outward ceremonies are not the substance of worshipping God - that the worship of God rather relates to the inward state of the spirit which corresponds to eternal truth.

This is why I brought up the parable of the good Samaritan, which I thought should be sufficient to show you from your own bible that the worship of God has absolutely nothing to do with outward ceremonies, rituals or dogmatic or doctrinal acknowledgements.

Now to elucidate the point it is critical that we carefully note the context of that parable -

The Gospel of Luke provides the context for the parable as:

One day an expert in religious law stood up to test Jesus by asking him this question: “Teacher, what should I do to inherit eternal life?”

So it should be noted that the parable was given within a context of salvation – namely that which would be required for one to be accepted with God.

Jesus replied, “What does the law of Moses say? How do you read it?”

The man answered, “‘You must love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, all your strength, and all your mind.’ And, ‘Love your neighbour as yourself.’” “Right!” Jesus told him. “Do this and you will live!”

So it is also clear that the ensuing parable sets forth that which it takes to “love God” and “love one’s neighbour.”

This is all the more emphasized since as you well know Jesus often stated that those who care for their neighbours were actually showing such love to him and to God. “I was hungry, and you fed me . . . whenever you did this for one of those, you did the same for me. . . “

The man wanted to justify his actions, so he asked Jesus, “And who is my neighbour?”

Jesus then replied with a story:

“A Jewish man was travelling on a trip from Jerusalem to Jericho, and he was attacked by bandits. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him up, and left him half dead beside the road. By chance a priest came along. But when he saw the man lying there, he crossed to the other side of the road and passed him by. A Levite walked over and looked at him lying there, but he also passed by on the other side.


Now it is instructive that Jesus selects a Priest and a Levite to demonstrate his point – because the Priest and the Levite as you well know symbolize those who expressly acknowledge God, accept all the attendant doctrines about God and morality, and actively execute the outward rituals of “worshipping” God. The Levites as you know were a dedicated tribe of holy priests within the nation of Israel.

However Jesus has just shown what I am trying to say – namely that all the outward forms of acknowledgement of God which these people subscribed to did not in any way mean that they were really worshipping God – because of their action of ignoring the man who was hurt.

Now note carefully the next verses –

“Then a despised Samaritan came along, and when he saw the man, he felt compassion for him.”

Stop press! Note the words “despised Samaritan?” Why did Jesus not use any other lay Jew or even a non-specified person to elucidate his point? He rather chose to select what? – a DESPISED SAMARITAN!

Now Wikipedia says -



Thus note carefully the context – the Samaritan symbolizes people who are deemed to be “on the wrong side” of correct religious doctrine at the time and people who were accordingly “despised.”

Notwithstanding that, this is what Jesus conveys –

“Going over to him, the Samaritan soothed his wounds with olive oil and wine and bandaged them. Then he put the man on his own donkey and took him to an inn, where he took care of him. The next day he handed the innkeeper two silver coins, telling him, ‘Take care of this man. If his bill runs higher than this, I’ll pay you the next time I’m here.’

Jesus concludes –

“Now which of these three would you say was a neighbour to the man who was attacked by bandits?” Jesus asked. The man replied, “The one who showed him mercy.” Then Jesus said, “Yes, now go and do the same.

In this parable it is critical to note the imagery of the selected individuals –

1. “A Priest and a Levite” – are clearly indicative of people who have formally acknowledged God and are also at the fore-front of all the outward rituals and ceremonies.

2. “A Samaritan” – is considered on the wrong side of doctrine and dogma and is also “generally despised” in religious terms.

However it is easy to see that the man who is supposedly on the wrong side of doctrine – who no indication of God is made about is painted in glowing terms by Jesus because of his kind and merciful deeds.

I need to point out also the Imagery of Brotherly Affiliation. Note this from Wikipedia –



Much may be said – but basically there was this divide existing between the Jews and the Samaritans.

Now In answering the question – “who is your neighbor” – the parable of the Good Samaritan goes the extra step of showing that neighborliness arises not from tribal or religious affiliations but from loving acts of concern for one another.

What this shows is that the “groups” of churches, mosques, or other theists, are useless in determining the question of neighborliness. An Atheist or Buddhist could as well be a better neighbor than your Deacon in Church or your Imam in Mosque.

And given the parable of the Good Samaritan, in such an event, we can clearly see WHOM has done the will of God. . . .

So my dear friend, while you edify nobody by talking endlessly about definitions (define this, define that), I assert to you today that which was the living essence of the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ – namely that love trumps all things and is the very essence of Christianity.

And if an Atheist or a Buddhist will show such love, then he has certainly met the requirements of the God that Jesus preached about – regardless of whether he accepts that such a God exists or not.

This is so simple and so pure – and should come so naturally to the Christian who is steeped in the ideas of Christ – which ideas tended towards love and doctrinal flexibility: and not towards iron cast “definitions” which you regrettably seem adamantly attached to – at the expense of the simple beauty of the gospel of Jesus. Jesus statements on the observance of the Sabbath and other such – just show the flexibility I speak about – which tends towards –spirit and truth – and not outward forms.

At all events since it is a given that you will yet dispute this simple and lucid example; for the objective reader – I state in simplicity – An Atheist or a Buddhist, if he lives a life of love and charity - certainly does the will of the God that Jesus preached about.

MyJoe: It's because God is incomprehensible and unknowable. That is the short answer.

When I think of God I pull back. It's hard to take much of the descriptions of him you find in the Bible and Quran seriously. Loving God for me means loving his creation, and nothing more. .

Martian: The teaching I attacked as being silly is the one about loving the so called god of israel. That teaching itself causes the christians to violate the latter one about tolerance(love your neighbor)

How do you struggle with the commandment? Is it because it is a commandment? Maybe carrying it out means being a bigot? Or is it because it's quite difficult to love something you've never had contact with?

Purist: I kind of agree with you here, except for the bold part. Maybe you could list a few examples of acts carried our for purely altruistic reasons and let's examine them critically.

EDIT: Also, I'm not sure that I really suggested that satisfactions to be derived are often pre-thought. As a matter of fact, I believe that many people often do good without any expectations of reward or benefits of any kind. I know that I certainly do. My point is just that at the end of the day, the subconscious? motive may just be that inner good feeling it gives us ultimately. It certainly doesn't take away from the goodness of the act though.

musKeeto: The whole thing tire me o.. Na y i still dey for my small agnosticism(sitting on the fence)....
[s]Nb:suspect you got that story from one of m_nwankwo's posts..[/s]

musKeeto: And Satan?

Pastor AIO: What is the connection between Rights and Righteousness?

Who or What determines our Rights? Is it arbitrary or is there an Authority that determines it?

What is Justice? Why do we feel affronted by people earning more than they 'deserve'? Or by people NOT getting what they deserve?

Where does the sense of Entitlement come from?

Why can't we just look at life and say, 'well that's the way the cookie crumbles, live with it'?

Why do we have a sense of the way things OUGHT to be? Why can't we just accept things the way they are? Yes even with the 'injustice', 'travesties', 'inequalities', and all the various manners of unfairness we see around us everyday.

Don't let me down mate

jayriginal: All quotes taken from "The Grand Design" , Stephen Hawkin and Leonard Mlodinow, Bantam Books, New York, 2010.

jayriginal: That is clumsy logic at best

but as I noted and as should be obvious, we can argue all day and it wont change a thing.

Reality is not determined by our limited understanding.

For all I know, first cause proponents may actually be right, its just that they cannot prove it logically.

As I've said in the past, god cannot be proven using logic.

aribisala0: but no amount of detergent and scrubbing can change a pig to a goat.