₦airaland Forum

Really great discussion this was. Inesqor is yet to explain how a reduced amount of water is no longer water. How a reduced amount of light is no longer light, and the several other incongruities in this thread.

Purist:
Trust me, there are times when it's just really necessary to "play along". A girl once began to distance herself from me the day she learnt that I'm irreligious. It's annoying sometimes when people look at you like you've got HIV. More so, families, for instance, react to these kinds of situations differently. I am 101% sure that the day I let my parents know about my beliefs, is the day I begin to kill them emotionally, psychologically and even physically. So why bother? It makes much more sense keeping my views to myself. It's got absolutely nothing to do with being "ashamed" or not being "a man of true conviction". If given the chance, I personally would GLADLY announce at EVERY opportunity, my unbelief. But then, some things are better left not said to certain people, if one still wants to ensure a really blissful relationship with them. Even amongst my tolerant friends sometimes, though with some elements of joviality and an undertone of seriousness, I am not allowed to join certain important discussions just because I'm not a Christian, and that could really be frustrating.

To be fair, this is well considered and I have to accept it as apt.

Chai, MyJoe and Mad Max sef. See epistle.

chukwudi44:
Imagining a mere man bringing himself to same level of our Lord Jesus Christ.

And what was your lord Jesus Christ, if not a mere jewish man, proven subject, as all men are, to death?

Justcool, what do you perceive to be "a complete mind."

God is a Complete Mind.

No human being is a complete mind, to the extent that there are things that are, and will always remain totally outside our minds.

There is however nothing in existence which may be accounted for outside the mind of GOD because GOD is a complete mind.

There can therefore only be "emergencies, contingencies and urgencies" for incomplete minds.

An emergency is an absurdity for a complete mind. For the complete mind that is GOD, it is absolutely inconceivable.

There is a reason that I deemed this an inconsistency in the Grail Message - and the reason is the fact that the Message emphasizes the completeness and accuracy of creation and the laws therein.

How you see inconsistency in urgency beats me. When is urgency incompatible with consistency? The urgency of the Mission of Jesus did not annul any of the laws of Creation. In the mission of Jesus all the laws of creation were fulfilled and none annulled. Speedily passing through a plane does not annul the laws of creation as there is no law that states that an individual must spend a long time in any planes of creations. If Jesus had magically appeared on earth without first traveling down through the planes between the Divine and the physical, then such would be an annulment of the laws of creation. But He did travel through the planes, only that He traveled fast so as to deliver His help to the earth on time.

The Message makes clear that the inflexible Divine Will has already written adamantine laws into creation and as such these laws are complete and suffice to deal with all that rests in creation. Indeed the very idea of further divine intervention can philosophically and logically only point to ONE thing: namely that the work that was initially done by the Creator was not a perfect work.

For you very well know, and this you will not deny - that that which is perfect will not require further intervention, much less "urgent" missions of redemption. Such will only connote a most imperfect work - which I am certain you will not ascribe to GOD.

The coming of the son of man - whom the message claims to be Abd Ru Shin - the authour of the Grail Message, was not hurried. It is described as a step-by-step process which evinces an order and co-ordination of the sort that one might ascribe to the Divine. However the notion that "there was insufficient time" [/b]with respect to the incarnation of Jesus is entirely at variance with the concept of a being such as GOD who is said to rest [b]above and beyond all time and space. Surely, you find this incongruous in the extreme.

For these reasons I find grave inconsistencies in the following from you -

God provided everything through his laws from the very beginning. His laws give everything that minkind need and would ever need, from eternity; actually mankind need no extra help in-other to find their way back to Paradise or save themselves. The Mission of Jesus was an extra help which God gave out of love; and which became necessary due to the failure of mankind.

You state, and i quote verbatim -

1. "God provided everything through his laws from the very beginning." - what then is the need for any further intervention?

2. "His laws give everything that minkind need and would ever need, from eternity" - what then is the need for any further intervention?

3. ". . .actually mankind need no extra help in-other to find their way back to Paradise or save themselves" - How can you state that mankind need no extra help and in the same breadth state that such help was necessary? ? ? Doubtless you know that the word necessary means that which is needed. So it is completely incongruous for you to state that {x} the help was not needed and yet {y} the help was necessary.

4. "The Mission of Jesus was an extra help which God gave out of love; and which became necessary due to the failure of mankind" - That it would become "necessary" (despite not [/b]being [b]needed - your words) would have been known by GOD [b]from eternity [/b]no? Why then the "urgency" and "rushing through various planes and realms" because there was "little time?" Could it be that GOD's preparations were tardy? Surely that does not read right in the least.

These incongruities culminate in a further incongruity -

This mission lies completely in the perfection of the laws of God which would not allow anybody to perish who can still be saved;

- - - > which is odd because you know very well that with or without such a mission, any person who can be saved, will be saved if he exerts himself upwards according to the laws of God. . . regardless of any "urgent mission."

Furthermore -

God had already apprehended such things from primordial eternity by making urgent missions of help permissible within His laws. His laws have existed from primordial eternity and His laws permits and even promises help when and wherever help is needed.

This is internally inconsistent because we are made to understand that all the help man needs is already contained in, and woven into the laws of creation. Any help beyond this that needs to come from OUTSIDE creation (as Jesus is claimed to) can only mean that the laws WITHIN creation are not help enough, and as such are not perfect.

if you take time and read it

I do read every word you write. Do not take my disagreement with such words to be an indication that I have not read them. That would be similar to concluding that any person who disagree with you uses "his intellect only and not intuitive perception" or the claim of many Christians that those who disagree with them "do not have the Holy Ghost."

MyJoe:
On the hypostasis of Abd-Ru-Shin, I, too, put that squarely within the subset of rumours, while being mindful of the fact that whenever the subject is raised you often get the same answer, couched in the same words. There are several threads where Deep Sight pursues the matter with methods and vehemence evocative of the Spanish Inquisition.

Lol, @ spanish inquisition.

However the claim regarding the divinity of Abd Ru Shin is no rumour. This is a claim that is to be found within the Grail Message, written by the gentleman himself.

I can produce for you the quotes.

In summary it states that God has two sons - Jesus, who is the in-born son of God, and Imanuel, who is the out-born son of God. Imanuel is the core of a being called Parsifal, who is said to be the anchor of the LIGHT outside the divine realm, and that being called Parsifal is said to be radiated to the earth in the form of Abd Ru Shin.

Thus the man Jesus on Earth and the man Abd Ru Shin on Earth are claimed to be the radiated two sons of God that walked the earth: this is no rumour but the claim of the writer of the Grail message.

As you know, I find all such claims of humans who are supposedly "Divine" or "God' or "Son of God" to be perfectly delusional. Including this one.

Well for those who are too lazy to visit links, let me provide the words of Jesus HIMSELF on this matter and you can judge whether or not he claimed to be God:

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.”

SO" What did Jesus claim? ? ?

^^^ But Pastor (unless I have misinterpreted your post - - - plz correct me if so) - The fact is that there is no threat of violence to be suffered by the atheist for the fact of his atheism in contemporary Nigeria. I am therefore inclined to believe that for the man of true conviction, there is no reason to hide your genuine perspective. I am entirely irreligious and I do not attend any form of religious events. I can tell you the following confidently -

1. My parent is aware that I do not accept religion, go to church or believe in Jesus being God, son of God etc.

2. ALL my siblings are FULLY aware of my perspectives.

3. ALL my colleagues at my previous and current places of work are fully aware. Although my current boss is a female Swedish Atheist, my former place of work was swarming with fire brand Pentecostals who viewed me as the devil incarnate for my views - did I give a s.hit? No! Instead I actively propagated my world-view with increasing ferocity, lol. My current HR manager has described me as an anti-Christ and is aware of my views on NL. Do I give a hoot? Nah.

4. Most importantly, my fiancée is fully aware and informed. Now this is key because in Nigeria it is extremely difficult to find a wife if one denounces religion entirely, especially for the fire-brand pentecostal lot - a man who is hardly interested in Jesus is viewed as demonic. . . . and every Christian woman wants a "God-fearing" husband. At some point in the earlier days when i met her i seriously considered keeping quiet about my views, and simply giving eye service to church attendance at all times necessary. However when I realized i actually wanted to marry her, I felt it would amount to criminal and reprehensible deceit not to inform her. Today she is well aware of my views and and we have no problems. I have a strong conviction that a philosophical conviction that is hidden is NOT a conviction at all (unless of course it is hidden on account of a threat of violence, etc). I would like to imagine that I am a man of strong and clear conviction.

5. Most critical of all, when I went for my first interview with a really big law firm, I sat before about 35 lawyers including 5 partners (the deciding partners were all tough fire-brand Christians). Toward the end of the interview one of them asked me if I was a "born again Christian." I responded telling him that that would depend on his definition of the word "Christian" - and that if he meant one who subscribed to the beatitudes as preached by Jesus, I would indeed call myself a CHRISTIAN - but that if he meant one who went to church, believed Jesus was God, etc, then i would certainly not describe myself as Christian. A slew of questions ensued - some bordering on mysticism, and someone even brought up the Grail Movement and Eckankar into the discussion. I have no doubt that I got the job partly because they were impressed that I could look them in the faces and tell them what I thought about their religion.

Although Nigeria is a deeply religious (and oft ridiculously so) society, there are many enlightened minds around, and a society as blessed as we are with brilliant minds cannot remain eternally in the doldrums on the philosophical field.

Things are changing, and a surprising amount of people will accept an atheist in-law sooner than they would accept an in-law from another faith.

These days, I have lost count of the amount of open atheists I have come across in pubs and bars in Lagos, openly denouncing and ridiculing religion.

Olumba Olumba Obu and Sat Guru Maharaji, along with a long line of men throughout the ages have also called themselves God.

Hell, you say a certain Agbaje even does the same.

So what's the big deal.

Any body can call himself God.

Na dem get dem mouth, abi?

@ Vesc. On a phone now so cannot go into details. I believe what you have rebutted only stands if one imagines the earth to be the only world that exists. For if it is not then elements remain eternal forms of which we can only see the physical manifestations on the earth. Thus a physical sea on earth is not required for an intangible element of seas to exist, if you get my drift.

The omniscience of GOD may be said to rest in the nature of God as a transcendental, intangible, omni-dimensional mind.

Is the existence of such a mind compatible with "emergency actions" of the nature described within the Grail Message as per the mission of the Son of God? I ask this because the Message specifically states that the Son of God had to pass through many realms at great speed on account of the urgency of his mission - and as such did not stop to take-on the nature of such realms, before incarnating on the earth. This indicates an emergency - an urgency - a fire brigade action for the purpose of delivering redemption.

Is it possible to speak of an omni-dimensional omniscient mind such as GOD is - involved in "urgencies" . . ."contingencies". . ."emergencies". . .of the sort described?

Would GOD not apprehend such things from primordial eternity already?

This seems to me to be a serious inconsistency in the though development of the Grail Messsage.

vescucci:
It's like asking why Zeus didn't kill Hades. They don't freaking exist. Until one can prove God's existence, all these questions and answers will lead to nowhere but otiose nonsense.

Here. You have often stated that you believe in the existence of GOD.

If GOD, a transcendental, eternal, omni-dimensional mind, may exist - is there any reason to suppose that there may not also exist intangible minds less transcendental - - perhaps given to and of a particular task, realm or element?

Such as Zeus and the pantheon of gods in Valhalla?

Or such as a god which governs the sea. . .YEMANJA. . .

vescucci:
. . . will lead to nowhere but otiose nonsense.

Oti o! O ti to!

Pastor AIO:
I'm soliciting opinions here, not providing opinions of my own.

Well let me provide my perspective. I thought about this for a moment. You have not said - "what is God?" - but - "What is a God?" Nonetheless for the sake of completeness let me give my perspective on both.

From the perspective of mankind, I would very carefully like to say that God would be that mind which is beyond our reality and beyond our mind and is as such considered the ultimate mind responsible for all things.

"A god" on the other hand would be that mind, real or imagined, which we perceive as beyond our reality and our minds, but which is not considered to be the ultimate mind responsible for all things.

@ Inesqor/ Vesc

I really dont know what moves you to presume the worst of me for the simple act of modifying my post. Since when did it become a crime to edit a post. I did so to elucidate my point better and this was done before i saw your response. Please do give me a break on such trifles.

Nor can it be denied that he quotes precise scripture to support that which he has written.

If peeps despise scripture, they should simply say so.

It is undeniable that some of these ideas have some scriptural basis.

^^^ Frank fact is that it is meaningless to talk about God if there aren't some pointers as to what is referred to.

Inesqor makes a strange case of stating that God has no attributes and cannot be defined  - and yet proceeds to define God's personality as a singleton.

Bizzarre.

InesQor:
God's persona is a SINGLETON.

Chuffed. When did you wake up and realize this? Over breakfast?

Because you have laboured so hard to argue against the simple thesis that God is ONE and INFINITE.

Conversely you have labelled God a Trinity.

So how does an ineffable singleton split up into parts? O, I forgot, hypostasis!

In summary, there are no divine attributes.

Chuffed again. I thought you stated that God's personality is a singleton. Now you state that there are no divine attributes.

Make up your mind.

InesQor:
There are thus no attributes you can find that will enable you to tell if an object or entity is divine, because an object or entity cannot be divine.

OOOOOOOOO LA LA LA. . . . _{and yet the jewish entity called Jesus is God? I laugh.}

^^^ Which is in staggering contradistinction to your summation that God entered creation as a man.

How enjoyable YOU FELLAS ARE.

nuclearboy:
Is it dominion that gave God His status?

I can only laugh at this.

What gives God his supremacy if not his absolute dominion.

Please the level of dishonesty you are regressing into is disturbing.

nuclearboy:
^^^ Be quiet!

Is it dominion that gave God His status? I dominate my market - does that make me the "market's god"? Are you god over your clothes?

Why not tell me then why the One who gave man this "dominion" said He is the ONLY God! O N L Y! For if you would that the Bible is wrong or corrupt, then you needs must agree Jo is with you on that else whats his "locus standi" to stand against the Word?

Can anybody make sense of this? ? ?

Why is an elementary distinction between "g" and "G" so hard for you? ? ?

Good grief.

nuclearboy:
Put the whole thing together then and what you get is this -

[1] The Almighty is the true God
[2] Everyone else is a false "god"
[3] These include Satan, men and likely even cattle. Based on the logic presented by DS, cattle defecate on grass and grass "worships" them by bringing forth - a power granted also by the Almighty, thus making them also "gods of their world" which is this world.
[4] Joagbaje and Cattle are the same

Clearly you have no perception of the significance or relevance of sentience in a being. That's why you can so carelessly equate the standing of human spirits to cattle. In another vein, you would demand honesty from others. How honest is it to equate humans with cattle, in terms of sentience, or any other terms for that matter.

What does it mean to you that the bible states that man is given dominion over the earth?

Would you care to define the word "god?"

I am fearful that the centre of this relationship has lost any purpose of moment.

nuclearboy:
@DeepSight:

Going through your rebuttal, I agree my reading of the first part was mangled. However, lets suppose Faith allows me "control" the elements which then you would wish to suppose are worshiping me. That, friend, would be patently false. Faith is not developed, its not a course of study, it is a "gift" and as stated above, is NOT your property. Thus your elements would "worship" the owner - God!

Thank you.

But please I need to make something clear - I am not trying to advance to you that elements are engaged in active worship of man per se. I agree that all the activity of all the elements renders ultimate worship to God, there is no doubt about this.

However what I was trying to communicate by using that example in that fashion is the simple teaching of Christ that the elements are indeed subordinated to the human spirit - and this is evinced by man's dominion over the physical world - which is granted by God.

I was trying to show that this is sufficient to render man " a god" of the physical world - for you inquired in what wise man may be said to be "a god."

It is instructive that Agbaje specifically qualified "godship" by stating that he was a god of this world.

The second part! I did not post falsehood - WOF believes in THEIR own confession. They say it often enough here that they control events by word of THEIR mouth! They say you bring things into being by confessing what you want - not what God wants (but then they are god, no?). They negate the God factor. And this started out so insidious that it gradually brought up other issues which are why they are being called out so often today - like Paula White taking "atonement offerings" which negate the sacrifice of Christ OR Copeland saying he could have done what Christ did!

No, haba, in all things they still make reference to God as being the grantor of such. You cannot dispute that. I can produce quotes, you know.

nuclearboy:
@DeepSight:

Please STOP - This is High Treason and I wish I could sentence you myself. Elements worship Joagbaje? And who else? That infers they worship all men and your goat too! Please! ! ! ! ! ! !

This is a regrettable reading of what I posted. Joagbaje is not the issue. I rather tried to show that it is within Jesus' teaching that the elements are subordinated to the volition of the man of faith. And that connotes godship of a sort - to the extent that man is given dominion over the physical world. This is so simple I do not know how you could have mangled it.

Whist we bring God into it, they say it is exclusive of God and dependent on the person in isolation.

You are happy to admonish others to be honest, and yet you do not shrink from this patent falsehood.

Neither Agbaje nor the WoF Movement have ever said aything is exclusive of God. Please let us remain fair and honest. That has never been stated.

nuclearboy:
Inesqor and Aletheia have stated explicitly that "gods" are so named AND worshiped. Who worships Joagbaje?

The elements. That is the answer.

Now take this in careful context - what really is worship? I am certain that in a sense I worship my fiancee. She would tell you I am the most responsive person ever. If she crooks her finger, I jump. If she has back-ache, I will spend the night massaging her back to relieve her muscles long after she is fast asleep. And in the quiet of the night I am awestruck at how much I love her.

That is worship - and that certainly renders her a goddess of a sort to me.

Now if the elements will pander to the command of the man of faith, a good construct can be built to assert that the elements revolve around conscious sentient beings - in the same way as all elements ultimately revolve around the ultimagte sentient being - God.

It thus follows that when Jesus says - if you will have faith, you may command mountains - that clearly, his teaching is that the conscious human spirit has dominion over the elements. What is that if not godship?

Again  Jesus said to the storm - "be still" - and it was so. He also taught that the man of faith could exceed his works - which implies clearly that the man of faith can do the same and command the elements - that is - under Jesus' teaching.

So if the elements are set below the human spirit . . .is that not godship of a sort?

And if they will do the bidding of the man of faith, is that not worship of a sort?

InesQor:
Chei this V.I. Traffic jam is terribly on point tonight

Why would you be so suicidal as to enter the traffic. I can actually see it from my window right here in the office.

I would urge you to make a detour for guiness stout and peppersoup. I know a great joint off Awolowo Road with excellent catfish. You can meet me there in an hour.

Congrats, Jo! You have won DS over!

I REITERATE: This is not about my beliefs - but juxtaposing one christian perspective against another.

Now add to all that the fact that earlier in this thread, Mr. Enigma himself (peace be upon him), stated in black and white that "man bears imprints of the divine nature." You then wonder who is contradicting who, and how Enigma (peace be upon him) could say such and yet disagree so vociferously with Agbaje?

This is not about my beliefs - but juxtaposing one christian perspective against another.

On another thread, I had asked Nuclear what exactly he found so appalling about the teachings of the WoF Movement.

He provided a link for me, and I took the words in the link and addressed them one at a time to show that the so called heretical teachings were actually founded on scripture.

Now mind you, as you all know, scripture is not my creed, but I have read scripture, and I am aware that these teachings actually spring from the scripture.

Here are the so called heretical teachings and my responses to each allegation of heresy - showing that these teachings are actually rooted in the words of Christ. Now everyone is entitled to his interpretation of those words, but the words are there -

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.

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.

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. That is what this thread is about.

^^^ I don't feel that that is fair or correct, bro.

If he says "a god" - that is not the same thing as saying, GOD - and we all know this.

He further qualifies this by saying "in my own world."

So there are two strong qualifications. You may not like the guy, but let us be honest as per what he has said and what he has NOT said.

Cheers.

. . .Not having accepted TRUTH as YOU define it, Nuclear. . .

Do you not see that that is a two way street? You are yet to accept the prophet of infinity, no? That means you are yet to accept truth!

So you see, that's a claim EVERYONE can make about ANYONE who does not share their perspectives.

@ Alethia, I still have not seen a place where Agbaje said that he is GOD (Capital G, note please).

A poster called newmi, said that categorically - but reading Agbaje's posts, i did not see that. What I saw was an argument for the imprint of the divine in saved souls - thus rendering them "gods" - note - small "g".

If I missed it where he said he is GOD, please someone post it in a quote so I can see it, thanks.