₦airaland Forum

^^^ Abeg joor. Make I no start.

Your faith will render even a write-up by a false prophet as such. You would equally say that the writer is not important so long as there is faith. Little do you recognize this to be an open declaration of a willingness to believe anything, even if not written by the persons so claimed. . . so long as you have faith. . .

It surprises me that you do not see how patently false and defeatist this is.

Don't worry. . . . faith. . . .

Any objective consideration of the Parable of the Vineyard should make it clear that the death of Jesus was nothing short of murder: and certainly NOT willed by the LIGHT.

See the brilliant OP here -

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-338329.0.html

And also remember that Jesus had remarked that if his kingdom were of this world, his angels would fight that he should not be handed over to be crucified.

That says ALOT!

Perhaps we are all a part of Divine Self-Expression.

If that is the case, then it is the divinity within YOU that takes free divine volitions. Not necessarily a divinity outside of you.

LagosShia:
[size=18pt]Jeremiah 8:8[/size]

"'How can you say, "We are wise, for we have the law of the LORD," when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely?

I think this summarizes it all: and being from scriture itself, gives a lie to the presupposition of the OP.

^^^thats a confederacy

Moderator, can we have this referendum on the front page? In light of recent events, I figure it is quite topical to know the mind of the public on these issues.

^^^ Cool. Do you mind sharing your reasons?

Well it is true that Nigeria is badly fractured in terms of ethno-religious loyalties. I could have included more options in the poll such as Confederacy. However the poll is designed to test the preference of Nigerians as between a single union and a North/South divide. No one should mistake me as advocating a division of the country on this account though. This is part of a three part online research into the sovereign yearnings of the people of the Niger Area particularly in light of the recurrent ethno religious violence in some Northen States such as Plateau State.

The post election violence in Nigeria has brought to the fore of my mind a question that claws at the root of the peculiar Nigerian combination of ethnic nationalities. That question gnaws at my mind on every occasion of ethno-religious political violence, of which this country has sadly seen a lot.

If Nigeria were to undergo a Sudan-style referendum concerning whether or not the union should remain or be divided along a North-South divide, what do you think will be the result?

Cast your own vote in the poll above.

Just as a summary. The premises for the purpose of strict logic are as follows.

1. The Argument of God's transcendence. A Transcendental God logically does not begin to descend into creation. Transcendence itself contradicts such a notion of descent into creation, even if you are speaking about "parts" of God being severed and descending into creation. If God (or "severed parts of God" ) descend into creation, then this logically negates God's supposed transcendence.

2. The Argument of God's Adamantine Nature. An Adamantine God with Adamantine and perfect laws will allow those laws to address every scenario that may arise within creation. It is illogical to speak of an ADAMANTINE GOD with ADAMANTINE LAWS who then begins to enter into creation to give special help. That is not adamantine.

3. The Argument of God's Omniscience and Pre-Science. Every example about sending help which you have given, contemplates limited beings such as ourselves. An Omniscient being could not be found in such a situation as to create a world with adamantine laws to take care of the world, and yet still has to descend into the world to proffer help. Such a being is neither omniscient nor pre-scient in its creative acts.

Hello Justcool,

I thank you for your post above, which i have taken the time to read in detail. We have already within this thread been over and over the core issues raised and as such I feel that it would not be fruitful for me to belabour the issues yet again. Rather than do that, let me simply assure you that I very much appreciate your viewpoint, and I must in that regard specifically note that that viewpoint of yours is hinged upon the notion of a personal God; an interventionist, and therewith personal God.

My view is different and that is why I have said some of the things that I have said. I  believe that God is transcendent, and that that very quality of transcendence is diametrically opposed to the notion of a personal, interventionist God.

There are certain things contained even within your own last post that hammer home this point.

Example: -

You said -

The Laws of God in creation, and even subsequent creation, are enough to deal with the situation; everything that is not in accord with the will of God, including majority of mankind, was headed to destruction. Left alone the laws of God are sufficient to deal with this dissolution of all that is wrong.

- - - Which bears out the fact that the laws of God are sufficient to deal with all circumstances.

You also said -

What I'm trying to say is that even if Jesus hadn’t come, (1) the laws of God would have in the end rectified the situation justly by separating all spirits from matter and allowing all the worlds of matter to pass through the funnel of disintegration, in-order to be born new; thus recreate or reform anew.

- - - Which is in keeping with the adamantine nature of God.

These parts of your posts are more than enough to ground that which is my belief: namely that the laws of God will work justice in every scenario unnassisted by any need for a special ambassador from the Light - because the laws themselves are an emanation of the Light!

Finally let me just say one more thing. You talked about the great love of God facilitating "extra help." Think about this carefully. Do you really believe this. What do we mean when we say that God is "Adamantine?"

It simply means that God cannot be bent. God cannot change. God remains uniform and steadfast in what IT is and IT is absolutely unwavering. This is simply and absolutely incompatible with the notion of interventionist missions based on love. God is strict LAW, and as such the strict law of God will take course in every scenario, without exception and deliver immaculate divine justice to every being and every creature in accordance with the adamantine LAW of God.

Interestingly, the Grail Message uses this word repeatedly in describing God and ITs laws.

Definition of ADAMANTINE

ad·a·man·tine
adj
\ˌa-də-ˈman-ˌtēn, -ˌtīn, -ˈman-tən\

1: made of or having the quality of adamant
2: rigidly firm : unyielding <adamantine discipline>

Synonyms: adamant, hard, immovable, implacable, inconvincible, inflexible, unbending, uncompromising, unrelenting, unyielding.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/adamantine

"Verily verily I say unto you: whatever a man soweth, the same shall he reap" - That is an adamantine LAW of God: and it bepeaks no special need for any 'help' beyond that.

Justcool just think about the unimaginable number of realms and spheres of existence that must exist. What you are suggesting would mean that the transcendental God would keep descending into creation to rectify this or that condition of this or that set of sentient beings. To render help here, there and yonder. There is nothing transcendental about such a God. Such a God has descended into creation and that alone in terms of strict logic destroys his very transcendence.

I also repeat that a truly perfect creation will not require its maker to descend into it to give any help. I note all your examples concerning help, but i simply feel that they are not apt as in this case we are discussing an omniscient and pre-scient being. That makes all the difference in the world. Your father came to your school to give you addittional money because he was not omniscient or pre-scient. Such limitations of knowledge and circumstance cannot possibly affect an omniscient and pre-scient being.

I leave you with this poser -

1. Is God Transcendent?

2. Is it logically posiible to remain transcendent whilst descending into creation to participate therein?

I seem to recall that this same Bakare prophesied that OBJ would die before being sworn in as president.

What a guy.

^^^ Poor Jesus. In fact one day like dat, one guy bin approach am, call am "good teacher' - - - Jesus come hala say make nobody talk say im good, say na only Baba God dey good.

Chei. . . humble person like Jesus wey no even accept small praise like dat one, people come dey talk say im go like for people to dey worship am.

Chei!

Jenwitemi:
Maybe the world is not meant to be a "perfect" system of existence. Or maybe it's perfection lies in it's state of imperfection. That allows for evolution at all levels of the system giving it(the system), as it moves from a state of chaos(high entropy) to a state of more order, harmony and love(low entropy), LIFE. The universe isaliving organism meaning that it must continue toevolvefromone state to another. My view.

This is an excellent thought. However the thread concerns -

1. The idea of the perfection of the laws of God for creation vis-a-vis -

2. The idea that God in spite if (1) above, caused himself or a part thereof to personally incarnate within the material world for the purpose of rendering help therein.

- - - Specifically as both ideas are set out within the spirit and letter of the Grail Message.

This was a truly rewarding and enriching  thread , although the question still remains: is the idea of intervention compatible with the idea of a perfect system? I still think not.

When i consider all the worlds that must exist, it beats me to imagine God severing parts of itself to proceed into a material world to personally render assistance within such a material world. It just doesn't sound right in terms of the conception of a transcendental God.

What about Guru Maharaji and Olumba OLUMBA Obu, are they not divine beings worthy of worship as well? ? ? ? ?

Bashiru.

You seem to have placed a lot of emphasis within your write-up on discussing the bible and seeking to prove that the biblical perspective should not be a basis for condemning homo-se.xuality.

I do not place much stock by the bible or any religious book either as infallible canon. Absolutely not. So let us calmly leave the bible aside and ask ourselves a simple question -

Is homose.xuality the intendment of nature, or is it a distortion, an abberation?

All manner of perversions exist. Some men have the hots for squirrels and goats. Can you sincerely tell me what is wrong with such men? Whatever argument you make against bestiality can be defeated by the very same defences you set up for homose.xuality. And yet it is all too apparent to any right thinking person that bestiality is most unnatural.

In the same way, it doesn't take a genius to recognise the mutually complimenting nature of a p/enis and a v/agina. It does not take a genius to see that the rectum is not designed by nature for the purpose to which it is deployed by the homose.xual.

Ying and Yang. Positive and Negative. Right and Left. Up and Down. There is a law of duality inherent in nature. That law of duality is expressed in se.xual creatures as the divide  - male and female. This natural law of duality is what i assert to you as the basis for the obvious fact of the naturalness of heterose.xuality and the very obvious perversity of homose.xuality.

Now this does not mean I seek to denigrate the homose.xual. I do not. I simply state that he is a purveyor of an unnatural tendency.

Please do not be unduly wordy or lengthy in your response. Already the grea length of your last post is very serious cause for concern.

Aribisala. There is no need to spam the thread. I have left the discussion alone, have I not.

But this is what Christ rode -

Here is what the rich and powerful would have ridden -

phxc:
Yeah but there're some people that would argue that a donkey was the biggest most expensive means of transport in those days, therefore, the Bishop is justified in acquiring jets for the propagation of the gospel.

Anybody that argues as such is simply ignorant. There were horses and chariots for the rich and important.

The Donkey was a sign of humble simplicity.

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.

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

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.

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.

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?

Now, I guess.

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.

^^^ You seem not to read mine either.

Yes, clearly we will not convince each other. Pastor AIO is free to postulate the core attributes of God as being concerned with a black stone in mecca or whether some people think God gets angry etc. Whatever floats his boat.

thehomer:
This is why I preferred to say it had a physical basis. Consider this. What physical things interact to create space?

I don't believe that space is created.

Otherwise you will have to answer that age-old question - into what is space expanding?

You can feel magnetism? You must be a special fellow.

Of course. Have you ever worn magnetic-sole shoes? Or placed your little finger in between two repulsing magnet ends. Of course it is felt.

Do you not feel the passage of time? Have you noticed your sleep wake cycle? Your watch? What you need to realize is that time is "detected" by events that occur at regular intervals.

I feel events happening. That is not the same thing as time.

Pastor AIO:
Did you actually read anything I wrote? Or is it that there is yama yama in your brain? Why haven't you addressed any of the arguments I've made but instead tell me how disappointed you are, and how my post would be comical but is sad, and how you are staggering.

Minor differences? Why don't you go and tell Sweetnecta that the difference between Allah and Jesus is a minor difference in perspective, and leave me out of your lunacy?

Who said any of the hi4lutin' grammar that you're blasting up there is 'core attribute'? If it is a core attribute then The Creator didn't have a core before he created the world. Until he created the world then he had a core attribute. You think like an igbo smoker.

What do you know about me that you are saying 'especially me'? I don't think you even read my posts. Or maybe you did but just failed to understand what I was getting at. Same way I guess that you fail to get Islam, at least as espoused by the likes of Sweetnecta. Their claim is that it is not just cultural but the way in which Allah must be worshipped if he is to be worshipped properly. They claim that Jesus worshipped the same way and abraham worshipped the same way too, all the way back to Adam. So it is not just culture to them, it is an integral part of what Allah wants and what Islam is. ( I am certain that all this that I'm saying is going right over your head).

So it is lame to say that one entity that experiences anger and another that is said not to be subject to ibanuje (upset) cannot be the same entity.

When I Spoke of staggering similarities in world religions which aspects of world religions did I say were similar? Did I say that the God concepts were similar? I think you are actually not balanced mentally. Or you hallucinate. Where did I make emotional appeals? I said one experienced emotion and the other didn't. How is that an emotional appeal?

Please, Mr Man, I have asked a lot of questions above, but let me hasten to add that they are only rhetorical questions. I do not want any response from you whatsoever. 'Not by a Mile.' Oya, see your road in front of you. Dey Go!! Enjoy however many miles of stupidityy you mean endure without me. I'm done.

I don't think any of your insults above address any of the issues. Perhaps you are reeling out these vulgar expletives simply because a little nagging feeling tells you you haven't made any sense whatsoever here. That is no reason to become so heated up.

Enjoy sir.