₦airaland Forum

Ogaga4Luv:
[size=13pt]^{where is the thread please. . .hope , you know I'm not an atheist even though , we have share some things in common as free-thinkers .} [/size]

What do you mean?

You say that you are a satanist. How can you be a satanist if satan does not exist.

Please advance your proof of satan's existence, and then we can take it from there.

I state to you that satan is a fairytale of your imagination: just about as real as santa claus.

Does he have horns? A forked tail? Carry a ptched fork?

Are these not childish fantasies?

PROVE THAT SATAN EXISTS, we start from there.

Krayola:
Kinda funny how even the bible details the evolution of the concept of God.

And yet they say he is immutable and unchangeable! Na wah!

Krayola:
All these abstractions are meaningless IMO. God is no mystery. . . God is whatever each individual can conjure up and be comfortable with. For some it is a stone in the yard, and for some it's some complex intellectual abstraction, and for some it's some strange guy that visited Abraham (before he became so strange that no one could see his face, hence the fire ), for some it's a human being that got nailed to a cross. There is no right or wrong answer. It's whatever works for u.

None of these elements approaches the non-contingent element inferred by the words "I am that I am."

Religion is about what u do, what u believe don't mean $hit.

Au contraire, religion is about what you believe, and what you believe dont mean $hit. What you DO - is what qualifies your spirituality and is what remains of value.

People debate belief systems all day, hurl insults at each other, then call themselves believers in God and the vision of Jesus. I laugh in Klingon.

Na so. Won't life be boring otherwise?

InesQor:
@Deep Sight:

I understand that, perfectly well. Here's yet another subtlety that you seem to have missed:

Anselm's argument is that if God is indeed the most perfect being, THEN He must perforce be perfect in wisdom, in other ramifications and thus in EXISTENCE also.

This is an assumption that his argument does nothing to prove and as such he can not use this as a premise.

Perfection in existence? This means He can't exist in our minds.

This is just incongruous. Moving from elements in our thoughts tp presumptions of perfection outside our thoughts. Nah.

I think you summed up how ridiculous this is when you said -

Quote from Inesqor -

My own criticisms of Anselm's argument is that he intends to analyze an entity via its own definition. That's weak analysis IMHO.

But indeed, its an interesting argument and the first of all ontological arguments.

It is a nonsensical argument, first or not. Rene Descartes does not do much better, in my view.

^^^ There is no literal interpretation being applied (save that which was put forward by Tudor):

What I discuss is an existential interpretation that goes to the root of the cosmological question.

Appreciated: but here's the subtlety: he seeks to prove that a real element exists by showing that it can not be the element in man's thoughts. So it still starts with a proof beginning with an element in man's thoughts.

I don't think that it is apt to approach the existence of God with elements from man's thoughts for the simple reason that God is absolutely non-contingent.

I may very easily say as a crude example: if I may think about the spagetti monster - then the thought can not be the reality itself and as such the reality of a spaggetti monster must per force exist. It simply does not follow in any terms: and at all events spagetti monsters may be said to be contingent on the existence of spagetti - God's existence is not contingent on anythinmg but itself - thus an appeal to human conceptions or the absence thereof cannot be a basis for asserting that such a reality must exist.

[Edit:] I think the argument is altogether inapplicable to a correct understanding of God's self existence. The fact the a thing in our thoughts is not the thing itself can not prove that the thing itself must needs exist outside our thoughts. God exists irrespective of what we may or may not conceive.

If followed, ultimately we would reach a place where that argument would mean that if man cannot conceive a thing, a real version of it does not exist - and as such when man could not conceive black holes, black holes did not exist. No, it doesn't work for me at all. An argument for the existence of God cannot start from what man may conceive

^^^ I cannot place too much stock by it for the reason that it places as its starting point a factor that is conceived by or conceivable by the human mind.

In my view God's existence is not contingent on anything that may or may not be conceived by the human mind.

@ Ogaga - I would like to suggest that your first challenge is the very challenge you and atheists pose to the religionists - namlely - you have to prove that Satan exists.

If you cannot do that, the rug has been pulled from your feet.

I say to you: Satan does not exist - he is as imaginary as the "god" of the Religionist.

Start there.

^^^ Please enlighten me as to the difference between "Sons of God" and "Son of God"

"I AM THAT I AM"

The most profound statement within scripture.

Man has often wondered "who created God": or whence, or how, God came to exist.

"I am that I am" - is a statement of self existence.

Namely that God exists in and of itself. It does not require a cause external to it to exist: it is by itself the very rationale for its own eternal self-existence.

You may read it in lay mans terms as - "The reason that I exist is because I am what I am" or - "I am the reason that I am."

This means that God could NOT "NOT exist": God per force exists because it could not be otherwise given the oneness of the eternal infinity that is self-existent and non-contingent. That is something that cannot be created beacause it intrinsically exists.

That is GOD.

This is the one and main thing that makes God different and unique from any other existent factor: because God is the only factor that is its own derivative rational: every other existent factor derives from that original and self-existent eternal factor which is called God.

Uyi, this time you ask a good question.

My perspective is that everything is natural.

We call things miracles only on account of the deficiency of our knowledge regarding such things.

Everything in existence must needs have a cause or a rationale. And as such, everything that is observed to happen, being of a cause or a rationale, must be said to thereby be natural.

If you reflect on it carefully enough, you will realise that it is altogether impossible for a pure illogicality to exist in the first place.

For this reason all things observed in this realm, and all things even spiritual, all have a cause and a rationale: and are thus natural.

There are thus no miracles: there are only things that are outside our knowledge.

Reflect: space-age engineering, would look like big time miracles to the man of the Old Testament, yes? Is space age engineering outside the laws of nature? NO!

Nevertherless, at an existential level - when one considers the paradox of the existence of things ab initio - I agree with you that ALL of nature is awe inspiring, and from this stand point, I have always regarded existence itself to be THE beautifull miracle of God.

Why something instead of nothing? - That is the only real miracle.

@ the homer.

You get energy to dey bother long tori sef.

The reason I refused and still refuse to give any time or effort to this thread is simply this. Many people have called me an "argument junkie." My younger brothers say the same all the time. They used to say that it is only when I wake up and come to the living room to join the rest of the family that all sorts of different arguments and discussions start. Pastor AIO even gave me a subtle yabb the other day, saying that what i relish is endless banter to and fro withoutr head or tail.

Truth is, I absolutely LOVE debate. But in taking wisdom from all that people have said about me, I must acknowledge that it is not every discussion or debate that one must per force enter. There is no battle: and even if there were: there is no compulsion to "win" it.

The proposition contained in this thread is far too nonsensical to be entertained. You waste your time.

@ Uyi - My perspective is not intented to disparage you in anyway, so please I impore you to take no offence.

aletheia:
You do realize the above is provocative? Right?

Ya gatta be kiddin me.

The truth as recorded by your own scripture is provocative? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

^^^ deal! ! !

nuclearboy:
Replace the twinkling eyes with sad cruel ones,

You always break my heart when you make these allusions.

The other time you said something about a lonely heart being behind every comedian - referring to yourself.

I hope and pray that you find happiness because I sense that you have a wonderful soul.

The darkness of the past is the substance of tomorrow's wisdom.

edit

InesQor:
Off-topic:

Finally I met and hung out with nuclearboy today

Very very interesting. . .

Next 10 on my NL meetup wish-list are, in no specific order: Viaro, JeSoul, Enigma, pilgrim1, Aletheia, e36991, Deep Sight, noetic, Vescucci, Image123, . . .

Hooray! I made the list. I have consistently offerred you peppersoup at a great joint I know. My offer remains open. I will bring a large Chessboard.

What was Nuclearboy like? I imagine him to be portly, of middle-aged weight, average height, very BLACK, shaven, very yoruba, with twinking mischeivous eyes that show a wealth of rich experience whilst retaining the magic of eternal youth and childlikeness. Is he anything like that?

Edit: Why is Pilgrim1 IN RED? ? ? I am sure you are already well acquianted with him HIM

@Jesoul, I dey land your end next week, though i doubt as an African married woman, you can make time to see a STRANGER.

[Edit]

I firmly believe that the existence of God may be rationally and empirically proven and this has been my crusade on this Forum -

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-315294.0.html

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-357796.0.html

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-328706.0.html

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-329370.0.html

But I positively deny that the idea that God has a "house" of any sort may be either logically or empirically proven.

Indeed God being absolutely transcendental and intangible cannot be said to be "housed" by anything of any sort - much less a "planet" - which is merely part of creation! - Where would God have "resided" prior to the existence of such a "planet."

God is not a tangible entity - and as such we cannot speak of any sort of "house" for God in any terms.

^^^ Reincarnation is a matter involving spirituality.

You do not generally get to prove spiritual things via physical methods.

I should like you to tell me in what empirical way the existence of "heaven" in which you believe, has been proved.

As per reincarnation in the bible, you may want to review the discussion here (though its a thread where i got yabbed quite alot) -

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-385353.0.html

logic1:
. . .freethinking individuals can now accept the existence of YHWH whose nature is very consistent. (pun intended)

^^^ We can accept the existence of GOD.

Yahweh, I do not know.

Please see -

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-434436.0.html

AND -

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-438941.0.html

[quote author=Rhino.4dm link=topic=550146.msg7152744#msg7152744 date=1289885678]how can same people know that jesus is fraud?[/quote]I don't think the blessed teacher from Nazareth was a fraud.

I think humans who followed after him and corrupted his teachings are the frauds.

[size=4pt]That is still surely way past your bed time[/size]

logic1:
Thank you.
No, I am not Easylogic but I would like to go through his posts. I'll appreciate a link or two

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-329406.0.html

And quite alot further down from this page -

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-404066.64.html

^^^ Sorrry. Could not resist. I often feel compelled to "explain" abit what I understand him to be saying, because he seems so misunderstood.

I take the point, though.

_{[What are you doing awake at this time?]}

Logic1 - these are truly brilliant posts above. Might I ask one question please - did you previously go by the username - "Easylogic"?

Beacuse your logic flows as smoothly, as effortlessly and easily as his did.

Further to the above, and still on the power of faith -

This was the opening post of mine in the same thread in which I wrote the above. The thread is titled "Belief and Reality"

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-467772.0.html

I believe that these ideas are resident within Jesus' teachings and have also been the vocation of mystics for generations before and after Jesus.

Much has been said and written over the centuries concerning the power of faith. By “faith”, I must state at the outset that I mean this in both the holistic sense and the specific sense in terms of the religious and spiritual application of the word "faith."

I was reflecting a few days ago and I thought to dwell a little on the connections, if any, between belief and reality.

Jesus of Nazareth, that famous and unequalled teacher of truth once conveyed the teaching that if a man’s belief be sufficient, there is little that he could not do. He famously asked his disciples to walk on water through faith: and urged them to be capable of casting mountains into the sea through faith.

Is there a level of faith – an absolute conviction – which when held – transposes directly into reality? I suspect that there is. The Nazarene was onto something for sure.

Why are some people able to bend metal spoons by staring intently at them? Certainly there are many charlatans about: but the powers of some psychics are simply undeniable.

Now it seems to me that thoughts carry certain powers. The more intense a thought, the greater its magnetic strength and the more compelling its powers. I feel that in this way, a thought which is held in absolute and utterly unwavering conviction, will transpose into reality.

Now I am not out to convey belief in some sort of imaginary arrogation of powers, which seems to be the tendency of a certain group of people, but it seems clear to me that –

1. Thoughts do carry magnetic and other powers

2. The strength/ intensity of a thought may be related to its possible manifestation as reality

Now at this stage it strikes one that absolute and perfect conviction – the truest certainty that comes from full and total knowledge and perhaps omnipotence – is not possible for any human being. In other words, humans are not able to achieve a perfect thought: a state of absolute and unhindered certainty and belief. Accordingly it follows that humans would have a very limited capacity to transpose their thoughts and beliefs directly into reality merely by thinking/ believing such. Nevertheless there is reason to believe that with deep conviction and ethereal meditation, a human being may create realities out of his thoughts.

Something may therefore be said for the value of faith – even in a religious or spiritual context. A sound and firm degree of faith would doubtless naturally attract that which it seeks to itself.

Now I mentioned earlier that perfect certainty is probably impossible to humans. This would only be possible to a being that is an absolute: such as God.

In this it immediately becomes clear that there is a “mental” relationship between the absoluteness of God and God’s creation.

For the simple fact that God is an absolute being, all that God thinks will irrevocably become reality. This defines the nature of creation– whereat the creator brings things into existence: because whatever the creator has a thought of, IS.

This is a process that we can probably replicate on a much reduced and less perfect degree.

Let there be Light.

I honestly believe Jo is the most misunderstood person on Nairaland.

Although i am not christian, I have a Christian background, and I am fairly certain that most of the ideas that Jo expresses are scripturally rooted. Maybe he does not express them in a way that suits the desires of the generality of mainstream christrians, but undeniably, there is nothing that he posts that he does not back up with clear and well sourced scripture.

Perhaps on the odd occassion his interpretations may be slightly extreme. But we ALL fall prey to this now and then.

In my view, I can say without any embarrasment whatsoever that I have often been impressed by his take on things: very original and many times remarkably insightful. Jo is different: and I will never sue a man for being different.

As far as I know, the essentials of the WoF doctrines for which Jo is so heavily castigated are as follows - and I have previously provided my views as to the extent to which those teachings are scriptural -

TEACHING 1 - Quote

At the heart of the Word of Faith movement is the belief in the "force of faith." It is believed words can be used to manipulate the faith-force, and thus actually create what they believe Scripture promises (health and wealth). Laws supposedly governing the faith-force are said to operate independently of God's sovereign will and that God Himself is subject to these laws. This is nothing short of idolatry, turning our faith—and by extension ourselves—into god.

I do not see that this is at variance with Christian teaching.

1. The power of faith is a key teaching of the New Testament. As i stated in the OP, Jesus himself famously taught that if men would have sufficient faith, they could walk on water or lift mountains into the sea. Whichever way you read these statements, either literally or symbolically - the connotation is clear: that by faith all things may be accomplished. Indeed in terms of walking on water this was actually literal as the scripture records that Jesus walked on water and urged Peter to do the same (and he actually did), but faltered, lacking sure conviction. If this is not a wholesale endorsement of the WoF teaching that faith accomplishes all things, I do not know what else is.

2. The extract talks about laws operating in the universe. Do you deny this? Does scripture deny this?

3. The extract talks about the laws being independent of God's will and that God himself is subject to those laws. Really this is just another way of stating that that which God has established is unchangeable in terms of the laws that govern creation: as such God is not to be seen changing his laws - and Bible teaching bears this out when it states that God is unchangeable. Understood right, therefore, this extract simply means that God will not change the laws of creation beacause those laws are perfect and eternal, as they proceed from God. For this reason there is nothing to change, and this is why it is said that God himself is "subject" to those laws. I believe this is mirrorred in the biblical teaching that heaven and earth may pass away but the word of the Lord abideth forever. That word, simply is the law of God, and this is what is said to abide forever.

4. It is thus not a question of turning faith into God: it is simply a question of realizing that there are latent laws within the universe and that the bible does teach that through faith one may key-into those laws and reach a desired reality. Jesus clearly taught this - and you will find that it is a standard piece of truth which is mirrorred in may oriental traditions as well. I thus cannot see that the teaching regarding faith is in anyway heretical or unbiblical.

TEACHING 2: Quote

From here, its theology just strays further and further from Scripture: It claims that God created human beings in His literal, physical image as little gods. Before the fall, humans had the potential to call things into existence by using the faith-force. After the fall humans took on Satan's nature and lost the ability to call things into existence. In order to correct this situation, Jesus Christ gave up His divinity and became a man, died spiritually, took Satan's nature upon Himself, went to hell, was born-again, and rose from the dead with God's nature. After this, Jesus sent the Holy Spirit to replicate the Incarnation in believers so they could become little gods as God had originally intended.

1. I do not know that the WoF claim God to be physical - but without contest the bible does teach in Genesis that God made man in his own image.

2. If God did make man in his own image as the bible teaches, then clearly man must have had attributes of the "Godly" nature, which includes the power  of creativity. Thus up till today, man actively creates things.

3. The bible teaches that there was a fall of man.

4. The bible teaches that that fall of man placed man within the will of the satan as conceived in the garden of Eden. The Bible teaches that this alienated man from God.

5. The bible teaches that Jesus' coming was necessary to reconcile man with God.

6. The Bible teaches that by his death, Jesus took on the sin of the world. This is exactly analogous to that which is stated in the extract above namely "taking on the nature of satan" - this simply refers to his act of taking on the sin of the world at Golgotha.

7. The bible teaches that by this very act, Man became reconciled to God - and Jesus urged christians to thereby excercise faith to influence reality.

8. Jesus himself referred to men as "gods" - and the NT teaches that by his sacrifice men would become brothers of christ in the kingdom of God. Does this not sync perfectly with the WoF teaching regarding the powers and status of the saved christian man of faith?

All  of these, which are contained in the extract, are taught by the Bible. As I said earlier, Jesus himself propounded the thought  that by faith men could control reality. I thus cannot see why there is such a mighty furore over the teachings of the WoF movement as expressed herein. Frankly it seems to me that those teachings are derived from the Bible. What I do understand is that different christian sects have different interpretations of scripture. This is only natural and should not lead you to brand them heretical - they simply have a different view of scripture which they are entitled to have, especially when all the things enumerated above are undoubtedly conveyed by scripture.

TEACHING 3: Quote

Following the natural progression of these teachings, as little gods we again have the ability to manipulate the faith-force and become prosperous in all areas of life. Illness, sin, and failure are the result of a lack of faith, and are remedied by confession—claiming God's promises for oneself into existence.

What is so unscripural about the foregoing? Did Jesus not teach same?

As a post script let me just say this: Scripture and christainity aside, thought, belief and faith undoubtedly influence reality. This has been the vocation of mystics for generations. I cannot see what is evil about harnessing the power of thought to transform belief and positively influence one's reality.

The generality of responses on this thread simply reveal that which must be common knowledge in the world today namely: that the generality of Nigerians are bare faced id.iots.

Y'all are ignoramuses. You would not recognise sattire even if it hit you in the face with a thud at the speed of light.

Please read these posts below and get a grip:

Deep Sight:
Pastor is driving at something more subtle, friends.

The reputation of the man alone should move y'all stop and think.

When a man of such a vast mind and such depth of heart and perception writes such things. . . satire is eminently afoot.

I am not sure I have struck at the base that he is driving at but off the top of my head it looks like two things -

1. The mentality of restricting oneself to ideas that were prevalent at the time of the bible and

2. The mentality that that which is associated with the cultures of fairer races is also more spiritually uplifting than ours.

This, it turns out, is a brilliant sattire against spiritual colonial-mentality, other wise known as KOLO-MENTAL!

Bravo, Pastor.

Krayola:
hehehe. See as pastorAIO start nuclear war because of Amala. I think what he is trying to get at is how people use the bible as a guide for everything, and at what point this exercise may become silly. People have asked questions about all types of practices but hardly ever get the kinds of hostile responses this thread has. I wonder why that is.

How should the Bible guide believers? Are u allowed to do only what the bible explicitly endorses? Are u forbidden to do only what the bible forbids? Is whatever has not been commanded by the Bible forbidden?

e.g. If the Bible does not explicitly condemn/forbid pedophilia does that mean it is allowed?

If someone asks "is Pedophilia unbiblical"? what will an adequate, bible supported, response look like? I've seen some Christians give a lot of Muslims stick for this and I don't think I've ever seen a biblical quote supporting their rejection of the practice.

what about beatiality?


What about the cruel murder of animals for sport?

What about the environment?

What about eating amala?

When can we use our own "best" judgment to decide our conduct, and can this ever take precedence over what the Bible says?

Purist:
With the way many have lashed out at Pastor AIO here, it is obvious Nigeria and Nigerians still have a long way to go in Critical Thinking. It is a reminder that not many people are capable of reading in between lines. And we wonder why we're so backward. Some are even quoting bible to "prove him wrong". It's just a satire, damn it! smh.

LEARN, DOLTS.

If any of you bursting your veins can read, read the above quotes and derive some understanding to save your lives.

I should seriously recommend that you take the time to review the historic posts of the OP and see just what a spectacular mind he has.

Jokers.

If na to dey listen to your naija pastors dey abuse una and sh.it on your heads with your own money, una go dey scramble.

At least some peeps can think clearly and see these obvious incongruities. Cheers.

Purist:
@InesQor

Okay, I won't descend to the level of calling you a liar but it really does appear to me that you seem confused, and I'll advise you take some time to peruse page 2 of this thread to see where your confusion started. It's funny that you try to turn the table around. It's a poor attempt, really.

I'll break it down.

You said first: If Atheism is not a religion, pray tell, what are all these dudes doing in this section?
My response: And every ardent contributor in the politics section is a politician too.

Your statement seemed to support the notion that atheism is indeed a religion, 'evidenced' by the number of atheists that flood the religion section. My response, in effect, was my sarcastic way of telling you that this was a baseless conclusion since 'all those dudes' in the politics section cannot be said to be politicians either just because they discuss politics all the time. It is not my fault that you failed to sense the sarcasm, so it isn't nice that you'd label me a liar.

Then you went ahead to supply a definition of 'politican': Politician: A person active in party politics. Having said this yourself, how then did you turn around to begin making the erroneous claim that "actively discussing politics ALONE makes one a politician", when even your own definition contradicts this claim? Even the link you put did/does not contain, or even suggest that claim. Need I go further? Put 2 and 2 together, and see where you got it all mixed up.

Cheers mate.

I do not know which was more embarrasing: the self evident contradictions or the poor attempts to redeem them. The scandalous definition related to discussing politics in particular is just a tendergarten sore thumb.

^^^^ brrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrriiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilllllllllllllllllllllliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiaaaaaaaaannnnnntttttttttttttt! ! ! ! ! ! !