₦airaland Forum

All this and not a single attempt to address the question raised.

Just amazing.

I don't know of a better example of cowardice.

vedaxcool:
Jesus accepted the way of his people and he did not categorically state that you should not stone Alduterers(/ess)

^^^ You miss the point.

He stated that "he who is without sin should cast the first stone."

Since there is no human being without sin, this effectively disqualifies ALL HUMANS from casting such stones.

^^^ So why then did he effectively stop the stoning of the woman?

The law was that she should be stoned: men had always been sinners so sinners had always done the stoning. Why did Jesus prevent the stoning.

Please i do not believe in the divinity of Jesus and all that c.rap, but he certainly was a great teacher who preached high principles of love and brotherhood. And he repudiated that barbaric practice.

nopuqeater:
@Deep Sight: « #59 on: Yesterday at 02:58:23 PM »Moses had a law like that. Jesus said all the laws of Moses, including the least of the jots must be preserved and followed. Though the Bible said Jesus said to a crowd after the skin of a woman accused "who so ever has no sin should throw the first stone". They all dispersed and she was free to go. Note: Jesus did not forgive her, because she did not offend Jesus. Jesus didnt throw the first stone as an affirmation that he was sinless. It may have been that the incident happens, and before they brought her to Jesus, The God WHo sent His servant Jesus to his people revealed the conditions and decision to Jesus, as Al Maidah said of that Jesus was able to tell the children of Israel what they stored in their homes. The point is that the law remained in the Jewish book, the reason the Jews of Madina brought the same case to the Messenger (AS) to decide.

That the practice is contained in the Old Testament is no excuse. The Old testament is a notoriously barbaric and inhuman series which records the primitive and scandalous practices of the Jews, such as stoning women to death.

It is condemnable in the Bible, just as surely as it is condemnable in this instance. I do not hold brief for the bible, or for jews.

Jesus' approach to the matter was however manifestly superior and humane.

Is Tony Blair the standard bearer of morality? Lets look at his role in the invasion of Iraq, with the yellow case from Nigger Republic that never was. To accept this man and his type as your standard is very troubling.

Actually I despise the man. I merely used that quote from him, beacuse it is exceedingly apt.

^^^ Lol. Nice one Pastor, you don hammer me o!

But the guy really is too damn predictable. Ask him a question he doesn't like and rather than any attempt at an answer, you will get the story of your life, and the story of how superbly advanced his knowledge is - and that his great sage-like knowledge and wisdom will not permit him to condescend to respond to you.

Bull!

^^^ Oh please piss off, clown.

A clear and manifest contradiction is lucidly laid before you - rather than address it you revert with that which I predicted you will . . . abuse and condescension. In what way was the question I asked above rude? ? ? Did you not see that I simply raised a clear contradiction? ? ? Why does open discourse frighten and annoy you? ? ? And you revert with all that garbage of personal insult and condesceion and completely ignore the clear and simple poser. Grow up. I have tried hard enough to be polite to you for Christ's sake.

My patience is worn with you: the plain truth is you are not able to string any common sense together to save your life.

Joker.

^^^ Does Allah support stoning women to death and flogging them for having s"ex ?

Enigma:
All of these are evident in his misinterpretation of John 17:22; in John 17:21ff Jesus was praying that His disciples be one, be united i.e. for church/Christian unity. He did not say that his followers were becoming gods or one with god in Joagbaje's sense, rather they should become one in Christ, one in God.

The grand master of royal contradictions at it again.

It is eminently striking how this gentleman can happily insist that when christ says that his followers would be one with him - that this is meant only in a symbolic sense of oneness of accord - (this is actually my interpretation as well) - BUT -

- - - > When the EXACT same word is used in the same sentence by christ - to say that he is one with God - Mr. Enigma CANNOT see that that oneness is also the oneness of accord - and NOT that Christ is God!

Amazing!

Freakish, actually!

Here it is again -

Christ said -

1. His followers would be one with him - in Enigma's interpretation, this does not mean that christians ARE Jesus Christ himself (- I agree with this.)

2. He and the Father are one - in Enigma's interpretation this means that Christ IS GOD!

Why does Enigma have two different interpretations for the "oneness" used in the SAME sentence? ? ? ?

Haba.

Look, Enigma - no need to respond, I know your response already. . . it will go something like this - "I am too exalted to bother to respond to your post, yada yada yada . . ."

^^^ IT IS HARD FOR ME TO FOLLOW: AS IT SHOULD BE FOR ANYONE VIEWING THE MATTER OBJECTIVELY.

You cannot state that God may have infinite manifestations and then ALSO state that God deals with us only through THREE or that those THREE are the only manifestations that we may understand: -

The obvious logical gap being that that implies that God is NOT a trinity, but only shows us THREE parts of his INFINITE nature!

The idea of God being a Trinity is thus dead on arrival with such reasoning. Indeed God being infinite and thus having infinite manifestations is indubitable - and for this reason once Mr. Nuclear accedes as he does that he merely is only able to see three of those infinite manifestations: then this means that he accepts that God's manifestations are not three but infinite - merely that he -  Mr. Nuclear, can only apprehend three - which is fine. Thus under his own reasoning there is no such thing as God being a trinity - rather there is God, whose manifestations are infinite - revealing only three of such manifestations to Mr. Nuclear. This renders his trinity fantasy a clumsy theological patchwork.

Thank you, but I am not having wet sandwiches for lunch today.

It is nauseating that any person can defend this.

Absolutely nauseating.

Persons defending this are the lowest low life conceivable. In the immortal words of Tony Blair - it is doubtful if such persons are sentient at all.

nuclearboy:
@Vesc: Again MY perspective!

We're talking God here not any of us so it conceivable that He does things we cannot do. Remember my God identification mantraa "I AM THAT I AM" - I take this to mean a personage that does as He wishes and because of His position in the scheme of things cannot be queried as a matter of compulsion i.e. He owes us no explanation just as the chicken I ate last couldn't query me!.

3 in 1 would to my understanding mean MyJoe, Vescucci and Myself (all being known to each other) sharing an account here on NL. Of course there would be agreement that whatever I say is your/his position.

But in the Bible, you will find reference to God as being just the one except in transitory verses such as that which say "the Lord said unto my Lord - sit down at my Right Hand till I make thy enemies thy footstool". I call these transitory because they show a starting point (so to say) and reward for something seemingly different - a MAN-GOD. As we like to spout, God is spirit yet here comes this "flesh" who has fulfilled the original Adamic covenant. He gets the reward promised Adam. But the only reason why He could fulfill it is because He does not have the nature of the rest of us - He has the God Nature. Read that as God's mind, Spirit, understanding plus the Bible says He was the Word and was God.

I've said this before - Over a phone, I'm a voice and concerning issues I excel in, I might seem larger than life. I've had that happen a number of times here on NL. See me and it looks like "wow, so this is THAT guy". Why? Were they expecting 2 heads or a tail? It was because the expectation especially concerning such things is usually geared towards our own manner of thinking. I can remember wishing I could be God for 5 minutes; its funny the things I wanted that august position for. Have you too never considered such? The desires we have make us believe no-one could have such capability and not be like us - the idea is a major indictment on us (that we are so below such personage) and no one wishes to pronounce himself guilty and send himself to jail (well, except Pablo Escobar).

Separate the Flesh from the Spirit and what you find then is the essence - Creator, Holy, etc. But it was the Flesh that glorified the "person". what would have been the right to do? Throw it away?

I sincerely believe God has approached "individuals" in other forms. But these 3 we speak about are His trademark (pun intended) for ALL mankind. He could come to you as a voice in your sleep or a stranger that offers advise on the street - that was your own experience. But consider - we understand that satan presents himself even as an angel of light! What then stops him from creating multiple instances of manifestations which would gradually derail his audience? Thus Christianity insists "God is ONE" and Jesus put the seal on how to view Him when He said "Baptise by Father, Son and Holy Spirit" which I believe to indicate Spirit, Body and Soul. No more, AND no less!

Even at that, Bro, life is replete with satan trying to pass himself of as one or all of the three. Truly, it can seem complicated. But repeated true study will take differing portions and provide one whole

This is the result of forcing a square dogma into the round hole of reason. . . pandemonium in every sentence. . .

"Delusion" - Encarta English Dictionary - Noun - "false idea or belief. Formal: an idea or belief that is not true."

Synonyms - Illusion, Mirage, Hallucination, Fantasy, Apparition . . .

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

Quote from: nuclearboy on August 13, 2010, 07:10 AM

"Personally anyway, I still maintain that my true belief is "Hear O Israel, the Lord your God is One God". His manifestations however, may be myriad."

My response then and now -

Excellent. Myriad manifestations. Why limit God to three manifestations. Three is a finite number. God is infinite. Infinite manifestations.

^^^ All true guys.

But lets focus the discussion a bit -

Biblically - the notion that man is made in the image of God - as well as several other references to the nature of man surely support the notion that man is at least "a god" of sorts.

In this, I still await Enigma's response to my question -

Can you please define what the term "god" or "gods" means for you and examples of such entities.

Additionally, if you can manage it, please indicate if such beings which are "gods" are higher or lower placed than human spirits in creation.

Now, the bible aside - is it not philosophically apt to deem the sentient nature of the human being as being a cast-form of the ultimate sentience - God - and as such is it really reprehensible to posit that there are attributes of ultimate sentience (God) which are necessarily reflected in human sentience, thus logically supporting the notion that. . . ye are gods . . .?

Enigma:
Your shortcoming is simple: you are not wise enough to realise that I knew the impact and import of those words before using them ---- even when that was implicit in my post. That should have told you that there is more than meets the eye.

^^^ *sigh*

Much too advanced and holier-than-thou to condescend to offer a simple explanation of what otherwise appears a wholesale concession on your part.

Perhaps I should soon adopt your condescending attitude: for if you will make such blatantly contradictory remarks and consider yourself too exalted to offer a reasonable explanation, then perhaps it is apt that I also decide not to respond to your illogicalities.

^^^ It is amazing that Mr. Enigma is carpeted by his own words and not my words: and yet he reverts with stories about how pointless it is discussing with me? Haba.

These are YOUR words, Enigma - NOT MINE -

It is also true that God breathed life into man and, especially of the Christian, [size=20pt]that man is in a sense a partaker of the divine nature[/size].[/quote]

@ ENIGMA -

This from YOU -

Enigma:
It is also true that God breathed life into man and, especially of the Christian, [size=20pt]that man is in a sense a partaker of the divine nature. [/size]

- - - Conclusively resolves the matter in favour of Joagbaje!

I thus find it incredibly hard to understand why such a large number of chrisrtians on this forum pour such venom on that fellow when the very words that they all quote from their scripture bear out Mr. Agbaje's contentions in some of these matters.

^^^ I hear you. Can you please define what the term "god" or "gods" means for you and examples of such entities.

Additionally, if you can manage it, please indicate if such beings which are "gods" are higher or lower placed than human spirits in creation.

I will be really chuffed to get a response, thanks.

*sigh*

ttalks:
But, the capital 'G' in the body of the thread has got to be a mistake, right nuclear?
'Cos I guess agbaje made mention of 'god' and not 'God'.

Exactly.

It also worthy to note that agbaje saying 'how I became god' is quite different from 'how I became a god'.

This is very well noted. We should await both Agbaje and Nuclearboy to clarify.

However I am not certain that Joagbaje has ever said - "I AM GOD". . . unless of course I am ignorant of such statements and he can freely come here to educate my ignorance.

The Ancient Mystical Order Rosae Crucis is particularly interesting and enlightening. I had some experience in their teachings in the past and was greatly enriched thereby.

However I must say this - I do encourage peeps to be open minded in this matter as knowledge of the occult could expand one's view immeasurably - nonetheless the occult is quite unnecessary for the purpose of a spiritually rewarding life. There is nothing a man needs spiritually that he may not access through a good and pure volition and conscience. Nothing, and I mean NOTHING else is needed.

Hello;

I am a legal practitioner with a telecommunications infrastructure company based in Lagos.

We are looking to recruit a lawyer. We require a fresher and as such we are looking for either a member of the Nigerian Youth Service Corp or a lawyer with at most only one year post-NYSC experience.

Interested candidates please send your CVs to me at xeniboer@gmail.com.

Thanks.

@ Nuclearboy;

You are always rather quick to accuse others of dishonesty and deliberate misrepresentation.

Now let's have a look at what you have done herewith. I looked at the link you provided in the OP. Here is what Pastor Agbaje said verbatim -

Joagbaje:
Wad up?  What of me, you are not interested in my story? Don't you want to know how I became g[/u]od?

Note specifically that he used the small "g" and said "god" [u]NOT "God."

Now in your challenge regarding what he stated you suddenly, miraculously and mysteriously convert the small "g" to a big "G"  - Thereby deliberately misrepresenting him. Here is your deliberate misrepresentation -

nuclearboy:
Hello Joagbaje:

Yes, twill be nice to know how you became [u]G[/u]od. Unfortunately, this thread is for us lowly Christians and not for "[u]G[/u]ods" like you. I'm opening a thread for you to illuminate us on your Godship and how we may strive towards such.

You compounded the deceit by giving a false title to the thread "How Joagbaje became God" - Now if that is not the most unfortunate dishonesty, i  do not know what else is.

It is particularly striking that you could do this whereas you persistently accuse the fellow of being duplicitous, blasphemous and dishonest.

Do you want to revise that? I believe it is apparent to all that this thread is both patently dishonest and in bad taste.

Especially given the plain fact that Joagbaje's words rhyme with the words of your own lord and saviour - Mr. Jesus from Nazareth, whereat he himself acknowledged men as "gods."

SO WHAT EXACTLY IS THE PROBLEM? ? ?

yommyuk:
@ Deep Sight

I am enjoying your flow. Your approach is sound. Give this 'SAGAMITE' some home truths.
I am out of here. Can't stand the bloke. And that's the honest truth

Please I have no idea what you are on about. I have great respect for Sagamite's views. This is no mission to give him any "home truths" but simply to share with him. His views are in many respects very similar to mine.

What I would point out as a possible difference (and not really a difference) is that I wish to show that God, or some aspects of God, can be known, understood and personally appreciated and thereby enrich a man's individual life. I am not sure that Sagamite is entirely averse to that. He simply points out the home truth that there is a great limitation on what we may think we know.

banom:
yes, but the insult was too much

yeah, that is all you have to say, instead of you to say you are sorry and that i should forgive you, you are telling me haba.

I certainly do not think I insulted you: but at all events remember that you raised this before and I told you that if i did; I am terribly sorry. I do not make a practice of such.

Once again if I did, I say I am sincerely sorry, it must have been inadvertent.

haba banom. Not true.

this is unbelievably touching.

[quote author=Negro_Ntns link=topic=505605.msg6686956#msg6686956 date=1283446284]. . . without elaborating deeply, I'd like to say that Adam was Orunmila.[/quote]Please do go ahead to elaborate deeply, I am all - ears.

Pastor AIO:
I thought infinity was represented by an 8 lying on it's side.

No doubt it is: but in philosophical and representational terms zero is the nothingness which is indicative of an infinite void. The concept of zero is philosophically perhaps the deepest thing which a philosopher may contemplate. It has a very direct co-relation to the infinity within God. This is why the co-relation with representational mathematics derives the sequence (at least in our base 10) as follows -

0 - 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 - 7 - 8 - 9 - 0

The zero at either end is indicative of a possible infinity in the sequence.

Further, regarding your contention that God's existence may not be proved - what do you think of these arguments made by Thomas Aquinas?

"I answer that it can be proved in five ways that God exists.

The first and plainest is the method that proceeds from the point of view of motion. It is certain and in accord with experience, that things on earth undergo change. Now, everything that is moved is moved by something; nothing, indeed, is changed, except it is changed to something which it is in potentiality. Moreover, anything moves in accordance with something actually existing; change itself, is nothing else than to bring forth something from potentiality into actuality. Now, nothing can be brought from potentiality to actual existence except through something actually existing: thus heat in action, as fire, makes fire-wood, which is hot in potentiality, to be hot actually, and through this process, changes itself. The same thing cannot at the same time be actually and potentially the same thing, but only in regard to different things. What is actually hot cannot be at the same time potentially hot, but it is possible for it at the same time to be potentially cold. It is impossible, then, that anything should be both mover and the thing moved, in regard to the same thing and in the same way, or that it should move itself. Everything, therefore, is moved by something else. If, then, that by which it is moved, is also moved, this must be moved by something still different, and this, again, by something else. But this process cannot go on to infinity because there would not be any first mover, nor, because of this fact, anything else in motion, as the succeeding things would not move except because of what is moved by the first mover, just as a stick is not moved except through what is moved from the hand. Therefore it is necessary to go back to some first mover, which is itself moved by nothing---and this all men know as God.

The second proof is from the nature of the efficient cause. We find in our experience that there is a chain of causes: nor is it found possible for anything to be the efficient cause of itself, since it would have to exist before itself, which is impossible. Nor in the case of efficient causes can the chain go back indefinitely, because in all chains of efficient causes, the first is the cause of the middle, and these of the last, whether they be one or many. If the cause is removed, the effect is removed. Hence if there is not a first cause, there will not be a last, nor a middle. But if the chain were to go back infinitely, there would be no first cause, and thus no ultimate effect, nor middle causes, which is admittedly false. Hence we must presuppose some first efficient cause---which all call God.

The third proof is taken from the natures of the merely possible and necessary. We find that certain things either may or may not exist, since they are found to come into being and be destroyed, and in consequence potentially, either existent or non-existent. But it is impossible for all things that are of this character to exist eternally, because what may not exist, at length will not. If, then, all things were merely possible (mere accidents), eventually nothing among things would exist. If this is true, even now there would be nothing, because what does not exist, does not take its beginning except through something that does exist. If then nothing existed, it would be impossible for anything to begin, and there would now be nothing existing, which is admittedly false. Hence not all things are mere accidents, but there must be one necessarily existing being. Now every necessary thing either has a cause of its necessary existence, or has not. In the case of necessary things that have a cause for their necessary existence, the chain of causes cannot go back infinitely, just as not in the case of efficient causes, as proved. Hence there must be presupposed something necessarily existing through its own nature, not having a cause elsewhere but being itself the cause of the necessary existence of other things---which all call God.

The fourth proof arises from the degrees that are found in things. For there is found a greater and a less degree of goodness, truth, nobility, and the like. But more or less are terms spoken of various things as they approach in diverse ways toward something that is the greatest, just as in the case of hotter (more hot) which approaches nearer the greatest heat. There exists therefore something that is the truest, and best, and most noble, and in consequence, the greatest being. For what are the greatest truths are the greatest beings, as is said in the Metaphysics Bk. II. 2. What moreover is the greatest in its way, in another way is the cause of all things of its own kind (or genus); thus fire, which is the greatest heat, is the cause of all heat, as is said in the same book (cf. Plato and Aristotle). Therefore there exists something that is the cause of the existence of all things and of the goodness and of every perfection whatsoever---and this we call God.

[b]The fifth proof [/b]arises from the ordering of things for we see that some things which lack reason, such as natural bodies, are operated in accordance with a plan. It appears from this that they are operated always or the more frequently in this same way the closer they follow what is the Highest; whence it is clear that they do not arrive at the result by chance but because of a purpose. The things, moreover, that do not have intelligence do not tend toward a result unless directed by some one knowing and intelligent; just as an arrow is sent by an archer. Therefore there is something intelligent by which all natural things are arranged in accordance with a plan---and this we call God. "

Sagamite:
OK, I agree that I have one expectation of [a] God(s), which is the premise of the differentiator that classifies the unknown as a God. That expectation is "Ultimate Intelligence".

So we are at a concensus-ad-idem that there are indeed somethings that may be discerned concerning God.

It is like going to a snow filled North Pole area and seeing footprints on the ground in the snow. That is evidence enough to suggest a living thing has passed through that section of recent. One does not necessarily know for sure if that is the case, but a known phenomena of existence and its impact (dent in snow) suggest that that is the case. One cannot know what animal type it is for sure (assuming one is not an expert of footprints or snow/wind have corrupted the prints). One still expects it will be a living thing that leaves footprints.

I entirely agree with this. However for footprints to be seen, then we can safely conclude that the creature (a) was alive and moves (b) moved upon that surface (c) has feet (d) is not a creature such as a Fish or amoeba which has no feet . . . etc. . .

Now that is already quite a lot to discern, and as such in no event will we be able to say that we are agnostic concerning those footprints, yes?

In the same way I invite you to see that although God will always remain a mystery, there are a few things about God that can indeed be discerned - and rationally so, for that matter.

In regards to contradictory, I think it is not that contradictory. A Deist believes there is a God somewhere, somehow but does not know for sure as he has not seen it/him/her/[new word], neither can the deist prove the existence. An Agnostic fits well within that knowing limitation.

Permit me to slightly disagree with this. I feel that the deist viewpoint regarding the existence of God is based on reason and logic. By this I mean such basic reasoning as the law of cause and effect, the cosmological argument, etc.

So long as we accede that 0 +0 = 0, we can logically infer that given that the universe is a something. then it could not have emerged from nothingness - as no amount if zeros will ever amount to a quantity however described.

@ Sagamite -

Getting back on track. . .

You had stated at the outset that you see intelligent order and purpose in the universe and that this persuades you of the existence of God or Gods.

You had further agreed with me that there are laws written into creation.

Now these statements evince a subscription on your part to the quality of Intelligence within the Creator.

I feel that that is at variance with agnosticism of any sort, because as you noted the agnostic asserts that he does not know and cannot know anything about God - whereas you have indicated that you believe you do know at least one thing - namely that it (God(S)) has at least the quality of intelligence. That is therefore not agnostic.

On the other hand the very term "agnostic deism" might be considered contradictory. For the Agnostic sets out that he does not know and cannot know. The Deist however recognises the existence of God and even divine laws within creation. In your case, you also recognised the quality of intelligence.

Please reconcile these.

Cheers.

^^^ There is a very good hospital opposite the bustop at Yaba in Lagos.

vescucci:
For two millenia, nobody really knows

Why say ye that no man knoweth?

How seemeth it to you that men may call one of their own number almighty God?

Dost thou not reflect that men of all ages and all climes have always made this same claim of their leaders - spiritual and political - that they be divine?