₦airaland Forum

Enigma: I will answer only this question from you on this thread; I was heavily tempted not to answer but have chosen to do so solely for reasons of my own.

1. As for Christians who may be confused about "The Trinity", I will advise them to study the Bible carefully; learn, read up on and understand and not be/remain ignorant of important doctrines of the historic Church.

2. As to the point about "dishonesty" ---- I have referred to three things: (a) ignorance, (b) intellectual dishonesty, and (c) intellectual fraud.

Would like to ask you if you regard "(a) ignorance, (b) intellectual dishonesty, and (c) intellectual fraud" as the only possible reasons that a person may disagree with the trinity doctrine. But I note that you have allotted me only one question and may not be inclined to respond. Thank you, kind sir. Good evening.

^^^ Hi there. Just one question. Lets say you are adderssing a genuinely confused christian. Do you not think that there is sufficient scripture within the bible to suggest to anybody that perhaps Jesus is not God - and as such, become genuinely confused - Or is it your view that anybody who sees verses that suggest that to him, is simply being dishonest.

For example, if a Trinitarian Christian sees a verse in which Jesus says " Do not call me good, only God is good" - and thereby becomes confused or doubtful about the doctrine of the trinity -

1. Would you agree that such a christian can truly be reasonably confused and/ or doubtful about the doctrine OR

2. Would you conclude that such a christian is simply being dishonest.

Thanks, and hoping you will respond. Cheers.

jmoore: Jesus is the son of God

1-Luke 1:35 "angel answered, The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the [size=15pt]"Son of God.""[/size]

2-John 1:34 John the baptist said "I have seen and I testify that this is the [size=15pt]"Son of God.""[/size]

3-Even the demons said so in Matthew 8:29 "What do you want with us, [size=15pt]"Son of God?" they shouted. "Have you come here to torture us before the appointed time?""[/size]

4-voice from heaven declaring the son of God in
Luke 3:22 "And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved [size=15pt]"Son;"[/size] in thee I am well pleased."

5-Matthew 17:5 "While he yet spake, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them: and behold a voice out of the cloud, which said, This is my beloved [size=15pt]"Son,"[/size] in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him.

No one disputes that he is the son of God. We dispute that he is God. Even he disputed same.

And what are we all, if not sons of God?

6-John 20:28-29, "Thomas answered and said to Him, [size=15pt]""My Lord and my God!"[/size]", Jesus said to him, "Because you have seen Me, have you believed? Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed."

Thomas can say whatever he likes. Humans are prone to deifying their spiritual leaders.

8-John 10:30 "[size=15pt]"I and the Father are one.”"[/size]

Jesus himself explained what he meant here. That he was one with the father in the same way as his follwers are one with him. Now, are you Jesus?

From the words of the apostles
Paul said in Colossians 1:15 "[size=15pt]"He is the image of the invisible God"[/size]..."

The bible also says that you and I are the images of God.

John said in John 1:2 "[size=15pt]"He was with God in the beginning"[/size]..."

Being with God in the beginning of creation does not translate to being God.

Even a kid can know that Jesus clearly said He is God but some folks are blind, too blind to see it.
The most foolish thing a false prophet/teacher can do is to use the bible to prove that Jesus never claimed he is God nor desired to be worshiped.

Why did you completely ignore all the scripture I cited simply because you don't like the obvious implication.

below -

below -

Christian scripture discloses Jesus as a man only. Not God. Not half God-Half Man. A man.

The words of Jesus:

John 8:40: “You are determined to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God.”

John 17:3: "Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent."

Mark 13:32:"No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father."

John 5:19: "Jesus gave them this answer: "I tell you the truth, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does”

John 14:28: "You heard me say,'I am going away and I am coming back to you.' If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I."

John 20:17: "Jesus said, " Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them,'I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.”

Mark 10:18: “Do not call me good, only God is good.”

The words of the Apostles:

1Timothy 2:5: "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.

1 Peter 1:3: “Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.”

Acts 2:22 - “Men of Israel, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know.”

Kay 17: Deepsight, reality is caused?? Or causality is a principle of reality?!

I said that this reality - i.e: this universe, this realm, this dimension in which we live: is caused.

Permit me, as I never did, to thank you for the foregoing very illuminating write up.

^ Yes, Alvinplant has made some very good arguments, but I agree with you and thehomer that the supposed attributes of omniscience, omnipotence and omnibenevolence do destroy Alvin's suppositions on necessary "evil".

logicboy: You are the one that shouldnt be taken seriously. Lets review your illogic.

Oh dear, its quite obvious why the serious minded should not waste their time here.

1) God is not a guess. How is god not a guess, there is no proof of god physically. There is no equation for god. Nothing.

Of course God is not a guess. It stands to every strand of common sense, logic and scientific laws that indeed this reality that we live in must be caused. Arguing the reverse is not only ignorant, but turns both logic and science on their heads. And yes, there is an equation for God. 0 + 0 = 0. That simply means that no agglomeration of nothings will ever amount to a something. As such, a pre-existent something had to exist.

2) The big bang points to an external force. No it doesnt. It is explained without a supernatural being behind it.

Its obvious you dont know the first thing about either science or the theory of the Big Bang. Aas a matter of fact, the impetus for the initial expansion still has no certified explanation.

I am inclined to agree with Alethia. . . a tale, told by an . . . full of sound and fury. . . signifying. . . . nothing. . . .

Below -

^^^ God is not said to be self caused. God is not said to be caused at all.

I did not address the variations, I only addressed that which he sarcastically averred: that God created himself. The fact is that this is not taught by Christianity. You know that the major religions teach that God is eternal in the past and future. So he was effectively making a caricature of the Theist position.

LOL! But seriously, Martian what would you have to say for yourself if someday it was revealed that extra-terrestrial intelligence have been visiting the earth for eons? As in, would you think all your smirking to still have been in right consideration?

logicboy: You expect me to argue with your nonsense? You were trying to make some kind of pseudo-logical argument for god with weak premises.

Surely, you dont expect any serious mind to ever take you seriously, do you? You respond to arguments with this piffle and expect to be taken seriously? You wave away premises as weak without showing how they are weak. Premises which are based on the self same scientific laws which you were ignorantly brandishing as your basis for calling scientists the smartest people on earth. Bro, you have a long way to go. abeg, go siddon joor.

plaetton: The universe could never have created itself. never. how could that ever be.it must have been created by God, who, ofcourse, created himself.


beautiful logic.

If you must mock, at least mock accurately. God is not said to have created himself. Christianity does not teach this. So your mockery must rebound on you: as you have set up an argument not advanced by Christianity and then proceeded to mock your own statement.

^^^ Of course, you know na, ....ancient aliens

^ That's an embarrassingly hollow response to the issues raised. Appears you cannot grasp them. When the chips are down and you are presented with reasoning, you deliver this cop out? Lol, boy, no one takes you seriously, and with such a cheap cop out, no one will. You could not even grasp the pith of that set out above.

Non starter.

logicboy: But the existence of a creator relates to existence of his creations.

The existence of God would not be contingent on its creations. How long have humans been around anyway? We speak about an element that is said to be responsible for the existence of the cosmos - a system about 14 billion years old. As such the existence or non existence of humans or indeed any life on earth could not be the deciding factor for that which is at the root of the matter: the origin of the cosmos.

Predating is irrelevant, what matters is the interaction. There is no evidence of a God interacting with our universe or human beings. His existence is somewhat irrelevant.

Actually, predating is the crux of the matter.

In what ways would you expect a transcendental element to interact with the universe or you? By turning up for breakfast?

Just because science can not 100% explain the origins of the universe doesnt mean we should guess that there is a God. Every scientific theory on the origins of life moves away from a creator. Evolution debunks an intelligent designer because evolution is not intelligent. Big bang doesnt support a God.

You are too funny. Whoever told you that the big b.ang theory negates the existence of God? Nobody is "guessing" that there is a God.

Now the origin of the cosmos is not known till date. Current scientific thinking states that the universe began to expand from the point of a singularity. What exactly that singularity is, why it is, and how it is, is not known. Most importantly, the impetus for the expansion is not known. What is known, is that physical phenomena as we know them occur in causative chains. The cause of the big bang is not known, but laws of motion, thermodynamics and cause and effect suggest that change of state requires the impetus of an external agent.

As such, we cannot state that the GOD notion has in anyway been "debunked" or ruled out by science.

As such, if some scientists do not believe in God, it has nothing to do with science: it is merely their personal view - just as everyone has a personal view.

If we can catch animals or human beings defying scientific laws at will on camera

This is not a definition or understanding i can relate with or work with.

logicboy: But the existence of a creator relates to existence of his creations.

The existence of God would not be contingent on its creations. How long have humans been around anyway? We speak about an element that is said to be responsible for the existence of the cosmos - a system about 14 billion years old. As such the existence or non existence of humans or indeed any life on earth could not be the deciding factor for that which is at the root of the matter: the origin of the cosmos.

Predating is irrelevant, what matters is the interaction. There is no evidence of a God interacting with our universe or human beings. His existence is somewhat irrelevant.

Actually, predating is the crux of the matter.

In what ways would you expect a transcendental element to interact with the universe or you? By turning up for breakfast?

Just because science can not 100% explain the origins of the universe doesnt mean we should guess that there is a God. Every scientific theory on the origins of life moves away from a creator. Evolution debunks an intelligent designer because evolution is not intelligent. Big bang doesnt support a God.

You are too funny. Whoever told you that the big b.ang theory negates the existence of God?

Now the origin of the cosmos is not known till date. Current scientific thinking states that the universe began to expand from the point of a singularity. What exactly that singularity is, why it is, and how it is, is not known. Most importantly, the impetus for the expansion is not known. What is known, is that physical phenomena as we know them occur in causative chains. The cause of the big bang is not known, but laws of motion, thermodynamics and cause and effect suggest that change of state requires the impetus of an external agent.

As such, we cannot state that the GOD notion has in anyway been "debunked" or ruled out by science.

As such, if some scientists do not believe in God, it has nothing to do with science: it is merely their personal view - just as everyone has a personal view.

If we can catch animals or human beings defying scientific laws at will on camera

This is not a definition or understanding i can relate with or work with.

Well said, Alvinpat -

Honestly, new atheists are the most tiresome and boring sort of atheist that one can come across.

logicboy: Erm, okay. Scientists, especially those in certain fields like biology, archeology, geoloegy etc have a better understanding of human origins than anyone else and they understand human behaviours as well.

SURELY you abundantly miss the question. You have here referred to humans - whereas the discourse - atheism/ theism - refers to the concept of the existence of God.

If at all God exists, it predates the existence of humans - of the cosmos, even.

As such, its hardly apt to address the supposed validation of Theism or Atheism by reference to the mere biolgical origin of mankind only - which, by the way, you must very carefully note that science has no explanation for thus far. Nevertheless, we shall address that further on: the crucial point remains that what is at issue is the existence of a pre-existent element or being responsible for the creation of the cosmos - which idea is called GOD. The question that thus falls is - How did the cosmos come about? - and it is with regard to this question that persons take a position - either that no creator is required or that a creator is required. Thus far, the laws of science as we know them do not lend credence to the supposition of uncaused material things That contradicts every known law of science.

Therefore -

1. The knowledge of the scientist in biological fields has no bearing on atheism and does not form any validation for atheism.

2. The apt question remains the eternal issue of the origin of the cosmos

3. Scientific laws, as far as we know, tend to suggest chains of causality in physcal matters. As such, an uncaused physical universe would be unscientific.

4. This shows that the link you drew between the proportion of scientists and the proportion of atheists is illusory.

Do you have now a faint conception of the issue?

They understand the redundance of a god or an itelligent designer.

This cannot be the case since there is as yet no certified explanation for the origin and particularly the cause of the universe.

Also, the scientists in chemistry and physics also understand this natural world better than anyone else and they have no proof of the supernatural. There is a clear reason for them being mostly atheists

What is the supernatural, and what would be proof for it, if it existed?

The next step for me is to learn as much as possible to develop myself and also earn as much money as I can. I want to have charities and improve my country.

Good.

logicboy: To an extent, it does validate atheism given the tactics christians use. They use the fallacy that they are right because they are the most popular religion in the world with nearly a 3rd of the world being christian. Even here on Nairaland the taunt atheists that we would not be able to be outspoken in Nigeria as we are here on Nairaland.

Can you see the problem here? I asked you a simple question regarding scientists and atheism. How does an adversarial answer directed at the attitude of christians come into that? Are Christians the only theists? Would debunking christianity debunk theism? You have not in the least answered the question. I repeat: what does the fact that many scientists are atheists have to do with the truth of either atheism or theism. Hints: Is science the only discipline in the world? Are there other disciplines that could properly address the question of the existence of God? And finally, what view truly accords with science? What do the laws of motion, and the laws of cause and effect tell us about this discourse.

The next step is to my country more atheist. Spread it like a virus. If 1 person can be converted by me in to an atheist, he or she can convert 2 more, 2 more can convert 4 more and so one. Read about memetics.

I refer to the next step in your personal mental, emotional, and though you hate the word, spiritual development?

I think the point being made is specifically directed as those atheists who regard religious people to be d.umb people on account that they are religious people. A patently false assumption.

logicboy: I never said that. Putting words in my mouth again?

There. Jumping again. Who said you said so? It was a question. The question is directed at probing exactly why its relevant to mention that most scientists are atheists. How does that validate atheism?

logicboy: I see the problem. You actually find me interesting but you cant admit it. I know, I have that effect on people. Oh, yes, I'm a bit arrogant but it shouldnt turn you off

You simply remind me of many younsters i knew back in school who just discovered it was actually possible to dunk theological convention. If you remain fixated on that happy realization of yours, arrested development will set in. Ask yourself: now that i have freed myself from the shackles of religion, whats the next step in my evolution?

logicboy: Scientists and atheism in US
http://freethoughtpedia.com/wiki/Percentage_of_atheists#Among_scientists

I hope you know that America is a religious country when it comes to numbers of people who are christian


What is special about Nigerian scientists? Do we even have proper statistic on Nigeria? Abeg sharaap


As for around the world, you must be mad. How easy is it to collect such data?

Is free-thinking the sole preserve of scientists?

logicboy: Show me one ridiculous statement that I have made or shut up!

Go to your profile and read your posts. All of them. You spew ignorance and puerile exuberance everywhere. Insults where they are so uncalled for. Someone could literariy say "Good morning" to you and you conclude that he is an i.diotic religionist, with insults to match. Na wah. Just calm down and gently school up. There's alot to be learnt. There are some very fine minds that have graced this forum. There have also been blissfully ignorant dolts who imagine that a rejection of religion alone elevates them to becoming Plato or Socrates over night. You just come across as a kid, and thats sad cos at your age, mid twenties, as you said - you are a man. Put your head down, interact with civility, read more and more, never stop reading. Stop jumping up and down.

With regard to the OP, i believe the discussions here will be of relevance to your thoughts on this matter -

https://www.nairaland.com/577313/thehomer-now-lets-discuss-big

@Logicbiy, your reasoning above is just embarrassing to all common sense. Come on. Even if religion does indeed make people si.lly, such rabid anti-religionism as you display, which has led you to a cocktail of some of the most astonishingly ignorant claims ever made on this forum, is just as si.lly.

As I told you before, you really need to calm down.

I am not religious myself, having abandoned religion in my early twenties. I am mid-thirties now and have never looked back. True, I have done my fair share of religion bashing on this forum, but there is much much to learn. It is a path that bears little wisdom in it. I will give you an analogy. What would you think about a person who forms an opinion about a book without reading it? I personally would not countenence such an opinion. I will countenance the opinion of he who has read the book, and better still, he who has read many similar books on similar matters and can therefore compare between views intelligently.

What this means is that your opinion on religion would be on much firmer ground if you take the time to thoroughly study the deepest tenets and traditions of most of the world's major religions. I would like to see you having a grounding in pure buddhism, and the underlying philosophies of the various strands of Hinduism. I would like to see you study the way of Tao, and other such. You would then at first make a distinction which I will not mention here and now, but which we hopefully will discuss one day. When you do these, your rejection of religion, if it remains, will be on even firmer footing.

Alot of people cannot distinguish between the fallacies of some aspects of religion and the pure question of the origin, meaning and purpose of mankind's inner being. I am sorry if I have assumed you have not studied extensively on these matters: but it just does not come across that way. Frankly you sound like an excited new athiest who just discovered athiesm yesterday. This matter is more profound than that dear.

Please take this in good faith.

Tata.

Pastor AIO: Could you give us any instance of such a war?

What was at the root of the India-Pakistan conflicts?

I really dont like the way very innocuous posts get hidden or deleted by this new NL.

Christianity is summarized in the beatitudes: and no one, not even logicboy, would object to the beatitudes.