₦airaland Forum

^^^Could it not be that different people need different spiritual solutions and thus encounter the Divine in different fashions?

As per voice and language. . .we do not need to be Mystics to understand that the voice and language of the spirit transcends words.

Waiting Noetic. Great discussants, both of you, i'm eager. . .

M_Nwankwo - by an interesting coincidence i came across an article on Saturday in Thisday Newspaper which touches on and dwells on some of the things we have been discussing. Please I do beg you to take the time to read it because I painfully typed it all out from the paper just so I could put it in a post to you. I have also taken the liberty of placing in bold the key portions. Nevertheless i plead with you to read the whole article - it is rather short. Here it is -


The essence of God-breathed Souls

It is very unfortunate, deceptive and embarrassing, that thousands of Christians, especially in Nigeria do not know, or pretend not to know the worth of a mystic. They erroneously, time without number, regard him or her as a non-believer in God almighty. Such ignorant people, one would call them, should realize that a true mystic believe there is but one ever-living God, the creator of all created things, the Father of human beings, loving, merciful, just, omnipotent, and omnipresent.

The mystic, imbued with inner spiritual knowledge of real truth and God, has no other God but this God who is the God of the Christians, the God of the Jews, and the God of any other religious group of people. But he agrees that the soul in man and each and every segment of human life on earth, is a part of the consciousness of God and that in this fact lies the manifestation or the essence of the Fatherhood of God and the Brotherhood of man.

It is indubitable that each living being on earth is a living soul, not a mere human being. The fact remains that the soul is incarnated in a body of flesh or is resident within a human form. It is therefore inconceivable to the mystic that God is concerned in anyway with the human, physical part of our earthly existence. A part of God’s soul or consciousness was not breathed into the clay body of man in the beginning of time or now in the present time for the purpose of aggrandizing a lifeless physical form and making it a majestic image. If we accept the idea that God created man in his own image, it can only mean that we are spiritual images of him. Any other interpretation of this idea would be not only incongruous but also wholly unsatisfactory to our spiritual nature.

Since the Divine Purpose of the existence of souls on earth is to permit them to carry out and function in the manner decreed by God and to bring his earthly spiritual image into contact with such experiences as will aid in evolving the soul personality of each individual. It must be apparent that the purely physical part of man – his body – is of no concern in this great scheme. This fact must become even more apparent when we consider that the physical body is constantly in the making: it is forever going through a process of change. There is nothing immortal or permanent about man’s physical body: not only is it true that the man or woman of adulthood, no longer have the same physical cells and elements of the body possessed when a child, but it is also true that every few weeks, the various cells and parts of the body are renewed. We could not expect God to have any personal or sublime interest in this changing, inconstant part of our selves known as the physical body. After transition, this physical body will break down into its primary elements, and lose its form, its nature, its worldly character, it will have no heritage to carry on into the future. The soul within, however, will remain the same; it has been the same for eons. It is immortal and unchangeable, except that it evolves in personality and individual expression or character. After transition, it will still function as a personality anf an individuality, despite the fact that it has thrown off its temporary robe in which it had little or no interest. We can understand therefore, that God’s interest in us is an interest in the evolving self within, and not in the human part or human constitution. If God’s intervention and interest in us were constant and in any way related to the human side of our existence, we would all lead ideal lives, not only in a spiritual sense, but in a mental or physical sense as well. We shall not commit any errors, crimes of any kind, and therefore never suffer any sorrow or pain, spiritually, mentally or physically. We would not become diseased, and we shall not strive to overcome temptation in life, or there would be no temptation that could successfully tempt us.

Conclusively, we shall never seek to attain anything higher, because there could be nothing higher than such an ideal life under God’s intervention and direction, and we would find out that the divine intervention was defeating the purpose for which the soul was incarnated on earth!

Christian Obinali Anyiam

- One of Nigeria’s oldest veteran journalists, who recently passed on at the age of 86, and shall soon be buried in his home town, Nkwere, Imo State.

[quote author=m_nwankwo link=topic=467772.msg6594621#msg6594621 date=1282147051]@Deep Sight,

Thanks for your reasoned response. I reply to the concerns you expressed as follows:

The analogy to the mirror was not meant to show that man is just a mere reflector of the power of God, rather it was meant to show that man is a receptor of the neutral power of God but transforms this power. In other words, the emanations or the volitions emanating from the human spirit can only take on form or shape in union with the neutral power of God. One can also say that the power of God gives life or activates what man and other creatures have willed. It is thus a question of union of radiations, that is the union of the divine principal power resting in creation and the volitions of sentient conscious beings including man. Without this principal power of God, the volitions of man will be like a car without a fuel. Such a volition will disintegrate for the principal power of God which activates it is lacking.[/quote]Sir, how is it possible for the human spirit to have a volition in the first place? If that volition does not itself contain intrinsic power as you suggest, but draws on powers external to it, would the volition exist in the first place. Most importantly - what makes or renders it a volition - as distinct from  a similar thing which cannot draw on any such powers.

I hope my inquiry is clear. I was of the view that everything in existence is imbued with energy. God naturally is the source and fountain of all energy. For this reason I understand clearly what you mean when you say all power in existence is of God. However I feel that by the very act of creation, powers are donated to sentient beings and other beings within creation: otherwise such beings would be ab initio dead - and not exist.

Thus the very fact of a sentient being's existence renders it apt to regard that such a being has already been donated with powers.

Now given that you accept that all powers are of God, it naturally follows that the powers we speak about are powers of God.

This is my own understanding of the notion that man was made in the image of God: and in no way do I consider it tantamount to equating man to God, for God is the compound of all transcendental reality that man cannot ever be.

A creature cannot be the creator or  minute parts of the creator or individualised pots of the creator. Pure divinity describes the nature of God, just like Holinesss and the nature of the creator is unattainable by creatures. A photograph of DeepSight can enable somebody who have never met DeepSight to recognise Deepsight but that photograph is not Deepsight and not a single portion of DeepSight is in the photograph. If this power resides in man as you seem to suggest, then you are actually saying that man is God or potions of God. When stripped of all the coverings, the belief that we are individualized consciousness that is God is tantamount to saying that man is God. I do not know of anything more egoistic than the desire of the creature to be God.

As I have said above, I do not by my supposition in any way equate man with God. I am much too conscious of the littleness of man in the vastness of the physical universe alone - let alone the whole of creation - to be so intrepid.

What I did suggest - and do suggest again, might read as follows -

1. From where did all beings issue, or proceed? My Answer - God (however long the chain of gradations may be  the ultimate source of all things is still God).

2. Thus all beings bear an imprint of that from which all beings issued from.

3. Thus human spirits as conscious sentient beings, bear some imprint of that which is their ultimate source.

This is what I understand by being made in the image of God - not that men are God: but that men might be said to bear imprints of the nature of God. One such imprint I might say is the very simple fact of being both conscious and sentient: an attribute of many other living things as well - and it is this fact that is absolutely integral in my mind, for the fact of being said to be "in the image" of God - even though the level of consciousness and sentience of the ultimate element (God) of course can never be compared to the level of consciousness and sentience of a small creature. That is well understood.

However there is another thing that I wish to say. . .I often have this perception that the sheer ineffability of God is incompatible with the idea that God is a personal being. I am thus sometimes inclined to feel that the ultimate element, only finds personal expression in individual sentient beings, but is not itself a personal being. It might be on account of the limits of my own human mind, but I often imagine that being personal in any way is a limitation of that which is immaterial, intangible and absolutely self-existent. . .

However I would be deeply interested in your view on this - is God a personal being? Of course it is sufficient to say that one does not know and no one may ever know or describe what God is.
 

As I already said above, the human spirit has free will and thus is capable of personal volitions. The point is that these forms will be dead without the principal neutral power of God. Besides the neutral power simply is, it activates what man wills whether it is good or bad. The free will inherent in the human spirit produces the volitions and the power of God gives life to what the human spirit wills. Again another crude analogy may suffice. Imagine the energy trapped in the atom as the principal neutral power of God and imagine a nuclear physicist as the human spirit.

I will insist to you that the Nuclear physicist could not exist in the first place if he did not bear within him a spark of life from God in the same way as the atom possesses energy.

There is no such disintegration for a mature spirit as Buddhist Nirvana advocates.

I don't think that is what Nirvana suggests.

No, it is not contradictory. A mouse will never become a human being even if it is to live for ever. In a spiritual sense, development does not change a specie rather it continually unfolds the nature of such a species and a journey towards "perfection". Again, although this may again appear contradictory to you, I will also say that the kingdom of God has limits but it can be expanded infinitely. Reflect on why something that has precise limits can be infinitely expanded. As always stay blessed.

This is understood. I personally do not share the philosophy of reunion with God, for as you pointed out that might render the purpose of having lived consciously nurgatory.

^^^ That's sad. I felt alot of germane issues were raised there on the WoF doctrine. And unfortunately, it comes across as though you have really said some far-reaching things about the WoF but cannot be bothered to defend your remarks. I believe I extracted their core teachings from the links you provided and showed those teachings to be bible-based.

Most critically I cannot see how the issue would have been "about personalities and not truth."

Enigma:
The same here, there is even no need to make a defence when someone says he has shown conclusively that Jesus is not God! If again I point out what he will need to do to even make a case I expect the same kind of reaction as on the other thread!

The word translated "only begotten" is monogenes. This same word was used by the scripture writers to refer to human children who were single children. It is thus eminently obvious that the term monogenes contains the connotation of having been brought into existence. We can go onto the etymology if you wish.

Monogenes is a cumulative derivative from the Greek words ‘monos’ and ‘genos’.

The word Monogenes comprises two components as stated above.

Monos (mon'-os) is defined as: sole or single - alone, only.

The Second component is -genos (ghen’-os) which means an offspring or kind. It is translated ‘Born’ in Acts 18:22 and 18:24. It is translated ‘offspring’ in Acts 17:28.

In greek the derivative root of the term Monogenes is ‘ginomai’ - which is defined as; to cause to be ("gen"-erate or to be born)}, and thus is thus accurately rendered as ‘only begotten’.

There is no doubt and no escaping the implications of the root word “gi nomai” – which has a clear indicative meaning as “to be caused, generated or born.”

If Jesus was begotten, then he came into existence at a point. God, by contrast, is eternal and always existed.

P.S: For Alethia please note that "begotten" here does not refer to his earthly birth - that seems to be your confusion on your last post above.

@ Deep Sight

I really was not going to respond beyond my last post. However, because of my response to aletheia's post I will say this to you. See, if you make an extraordinary claim and you do not realise that you would need extraordinary proof for such a claim, you are not making a good presentation of yourself at all.

I make no extra-ordinary claim. I would rather think that it is you who make a most extra-ordinary claim indeed: namely that you assert a Jewish man who lived two thousand years ago to be almighty God. I would think that is a more extra-ordinary claim than anything I have ever put forward on this forum, and certainly requires the extra-ordinary proof that you speak of.

Nuclear, you promised to revert on my comments on WoF in the thread titled Belief & Reality, but you never returned.

PrinceEmek:
That’s what inserts bookends between writers.

Staggering brilliance!

^^^ Can you define "Reality" ?

Is the notion that thoughts are imbued with energy false? Everything is imbued with energy, no?

Certainly people reading that 19th Century Sci-Fi Cartoon would have made comments like yours. Today the Fax Machine is a reality.

ilosiwaju:
First of all, deepsight i really really hope you DO NOT believe people can bend spoons with mental powers.

Can you tell me why it is conceptually impossible/ inconceivable?

If you accept -

1. That thought processes require energy

2. That thoughts are therefore imbued with energy

- - - Then you must see reason with the perspective that thoughts can influence matter.

Now it is is actually a scientific fact that there are already machines in existence that are activated simply by thoughts. Electronic legs and hands which are attached to some disabled people, for example. The mere thought in the brain sends nerve signals to the machines through a tiny electrical pulse. If this is possible today, who knows what else is possible scientifically by harnessing the power of thoughts?

Today we are able to convey communication signals through the air. Why do you imagine that it will not be possible to convey energy through thoughts through the air?

In the late 19th century, a science fiction magazine published a cartoon in which a document was placed into a machine and it was received through a similar machine in another part of the world. What seemed science fiction to them has become today's reality in the form of the fax machine. Do not under-estimate the realm of possibilities.

Secondly, the analogy of the robbery-thinking fellow who got killed in a police-robbers shoot out is a coincidence. Law of attraction adherents will be happy to jump at this but it's not worth it really.

Do you believe in coincidences? You do not sense a weave, a pattern, a rhyme and reason to the things that happen to people?

Even where the activating factor is not thought, there logically will be some other activating factor. It might be spiritual. It might be Karnma. Who knows?

[quote author=m_nwankwo link=topic=467772.msg6589386#msg6589386 date=1282074394]I am certain that this ability does not reside in man or indeed any other creature but do not take my word for it. Keep on seeking and you will find the answers by yourself. A crude analogy may suffice. This principal neutral power of God can be likened to the rays of the sun while the human spirit is like a mirror. The mirror can absorb this ray of the sun and the mirror can generate light spectrum, heat, reflection etc from the rays of the sun. But the fact that the mirror have the ability of transforming the rays of the sun into different things does not make the mirror the rays of the sun or the sun itself.[/quote]Although you had already indicated that the analogy is a crude one, I must say that i very much doubt that a human spirit may be compared to a mirror in any terms. My reason is this - humans live and experience. This renders them more than mere reflectors, but living manifestations of the element that they represent. Accordingly I think it is more apt to view sentient beings in terms of the little pots of consciousness i referred to: each containing a portion of reality: God being the compound of all transcendental reality.

To butress this point, I would like to state to you very carefully the following -

   1. If Human Spirits were mere reflectors of Divine Power then they would always do the divine will and nothing else!

   2. The fact that human beings posess free independent volitions shows emphatically that they are not merely "reflecting" something else, but are actually embodiments of free sentient consciousness with the intrinsic capacity to make decisions and thus affect reality.

I think No. 1 above is absolutely key: namely that if humans did not have the intrinsic power within them, then they would always conform to the divine will as mere reflectors of that will. Clearly that is not the case!

The ultimate reality for a human spirit is to return to the spiritual kingdom. When he returns to the spiritual kingdom, he continues to develop for ever and ever.

Is it really possible to state that the spirit will develop eternally and yet never develop into the state of union with God?

Is such a union not a state where the ego of man will not exist anymore in the finite sense. . .does this not approximate possibly to the Buddhist concept of Nirvana. . .

There are several gradations of the principal neutral power of God and each specie  in creation draws to a gradation of this power that is homogeneous to its origin. Thus for instances, spiritual beings higher than the human spirit draws from a higher gradation of the power of God and bring out forms that are far higher than what human spirits can produce.

Again, is it not contradictory to state that  -

  1. The spirit will develop eternaly AND YET -

  2. It will never develop to the level of species of spirits above it?

How is that possible?

^^^ That's quite a giant conspiracy theory you have up there?

Who might be the conspirators? When you say "they" who are you referring to? When you say a sophisticated game is being played, who are the contenders?

Aliens? Spirit beings? God? What?

Enigma -

It seems to me you are trying to shake off the obvious: a fact which is well known: namely that the doctrine of the holy trinity was not accepted a official and standard church doctrine until Nicea.

Now the fact of the matter is that the council of Nicea was convened on account of the raging controversies that had come to a head as typified by the Arian Heresy.

"The Arian controversy describes several controversies related to Arianism which divided the Christian church from before the Council of Nicaea in 325 to after the Council of Constantinople in 381. The most important of these controversies concerned the relationship between God the Father and God the Son.

The early history of the controversy must be pieced together from about 35 documents found in various sources. The historian Socrates of Constantinople reports that Arius first became controversial under the bishop Achillas of Alexandria, when he made the following syllogism: he said, "If the Father begat the Son, he that was begotten had a beginning of existence: and from this it is evident, that there was a time when the Son was not. It therefore necessarily follows, that he had his substance from nothing". - Wikipedia

Now the fact that the son is described as "begotten" in scripture evidentially shows that the son did not always exist in the way that the Father always existed - - -> He had a beginning. Now God does not have a beginning and as such this conclusively shows that Jesus, being described as begotten of the Father, could not be God.

This logic is so simple and clear that it unsettled your christian forebears so much that they found it necessary somewhere down the line to convene at Nicea to address this and other supposed "heresies." I wonder why the voice of simple logic such as that cited above must always be "heretical".

I guess logic is heresy.


Now for the avoidance of doubt here is what the First Council of Nicea did -

The First Council of Nicaea was a council of Christian bishops convened in Nicaea in Bithynia (present-day İznik in Turkey) by the Roman Emperor Constantine I in A.D. 325. The Council was the first effort to attain consensus in the church through an assembly representing all of Christendom.[2]
Its main accomplishments were settlement of the Christological issue of the relationship of Jesus to God the Father; the construction of the first part of the Nicene Creed; settling the calculation of the date of Easter; and promulgation of early canon law.[3][4]

The leading item on the agenda of the synod was - The Arian question regarding the relationship between God the Father and Jesus; i.e. are the Father and Son one in divine purpose only or also one in being.

The council ended with the adoption of the Nicene Creed which set out firmly the agreed areas of Christian Doctrine incorporating the finalized understanding and acceptance of the Holy Trinity as Follows -

- We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible.

- And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father [the only-begotten; that is, of the essence of the Father, God of God], Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father.

So there.

Eminence Nwankwo, its been a while! Hope the family and the students are doing good. . .

[quote author=m_nwankwo link=topic=467772.msg6588433#msg6588433 date=1282064444]It is not correct to blame the churches or religions for the problems of humanity.[/quote]Whilst "blame" may not be exactly apt, sir you must agree that the sort of commercially driven evangelism practiced in many parts of the world today is actually detrimental to the honing of any appreciable degree of spirituality.

Man can draw on the neutral power of God to bring forth forms but this power does not lie with man, rather man has the God given ability to tap into this power of God. An enlightened human being will only use this power of God to serve the will of God while ignorant people will apply it to serve one or this selfish purpose.

Are you certain that it is correct to say that this ability does not reside within man. I ask this very carefully for the following reasons -

- I was reflecting on this thread today and it seemed to me that reality itself is enshrined, I might say encapsulated, in the consciousness and sentience of living beings: the ultimate reality therefore being encapsulated in the consciousness of GOD. In this it thus seems to me that each being is therefore as a little pot which contains a portion, or a dose of the totality of reality and is conscious and sentient thereby. Once I reflect that each being is a manifestation of reality, which all emanates from God, then I am persuaded that the capacity to influence reality does indeed reside within each being. I feel it is slightly contradictory for you to state that men do not have that power. I feel that it is given by the creator and is obvious on the apprehension of reality that sentient beings have, the development of thought forms, etc.

Man has enormous potentials and from his standpoint, these potentials are limitless but from the standpoint of a higher specie or spirit, the limitless potential of a human being is indeed limited . Best wishes.

Profound. . .BUT. . .

What is the ultimate reality that a human being may attain. . .

What do you make of the philosophy that - as man's spiritual development is (as i like to put it), a journey of increasing intangibility and purity towrds God - that man would thus, having attained the highest purity and intangibility, end his cycle by returning to be one with the intangible and eternal God.

If this is the case. . .would it be correct to state that there are levels of possibilities open to other sentient beings which are not open to the human spirit. . .Just wondering.

Jenwitemi:
Another very powerful example of correlation between belief and reality, is between the deep desire of billions of christians worldwide for the endtimes and the fulfillment of the events in the book of revelation to finally materialize and the current global upheavals of all sorts, which is our current reality. On this forum alone, this christian fervor to see the "end of the world" can be easily seen through the posts made mostly by christians, almost on daily basis.

When such high numbers of people are holding such belief deeply in their hearts, the chances of such wishes manifesting in this reality is pretty high. This is why i suspect that the bible and koran both serve(among numerous other functions) as some form of "Belief or thought modulators of the masses". The two books force the masses to hold certain thoughts in their hearts true deep beliefs, therefore allowing the manifestation of events already scripted in the two books. These books, in this way, can then be viewed as very very dangerous to humanity. It is a theory worth taking a much closer look at, methinks.

Self fulfilling prophecies?

Like Jagunlabi, you seem to often place your quotes below your text, and not above it. . .this seals the suspicion!

^^^ Jenwitemi, I cannot but duff my hat to you. The above is brilliantly articulated. I particularly agree with the notion that religious traditions limit the inner being, while spiritual traditions free up, ennoble and strengthen the being.

Hello Nuclearboy -

I have had a look at the links you posted. I will like to note a number of things.

I do not believe that there is anything particularly heretical about the WoF teachings. However before proceeding, let me carefully draw a distinction between the personalities behind the movement historically and the teachings of the movement. I say this because it is all too apparent to me that some of these persons, as is common with modern-day commercial pentecostalism, anyway, are simply hawks who may be pursuing their own material and corrupt agenda. This is an entirely different question from the matter of the core teaching of their faith - which teaching is what I beleive is at issue.

I have selected some extracts from the second link you provided and I wish to use this extract to address the elements of the supposedly heretical WoF teachings as set out therein. Here -

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.

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 (like a good friend of yours does, Lol!) - 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.

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.

^^^ My sentiments exactemente.

vescucci:
Many people say many things that are very ambiguous but enchanting but they say it as if it were fact. Deep Sight has apparently a deep sight, lol. He is very introspective and won't believe a thing simply because it is easy to believe or because it is cute and cuddly to do so either. I just had to say that.

As regards your musings, I have thought of similar things and I won't bore you with them but the ultimate bus stop is that it would appear a Hindu or a Muslim or a Christian with sufficient faith juice would be capable of this feat and it is nothing but spirituality (another entry into the esoteric handbook) and has nothing to do with communion with God and that frankly is all I am concerned about.

I remember when I read Foucault's Pendulum. I started to think that the 'supernatural' is not supernatural but just natural that we have not found out or have little control over and has nothing to do with God. In other words, supernatural powers do not necessarily have to come from God or the devil. One can simply attain such a state. I unfortunately am not interested in this.

True that, Vesc. . . the word "supernatural" does not exist for me.

On WoF, please have a look at the link I provided above, your comments will be appreciated there.

Have the WoF taken food from hungry sheep? It seems to me that they have rather tried to show the sheep where to find the plains of grass and boldly walk there themselves through absolute belief in the power of faith? Did Jesus not teach this?

Let's not derail this thread: please comment in the other thread I have cited.

nuclearboy:
^^^ Here's my take, DS! This thread is about the Holy Spirit which is the third member of the Trinity. Any discussion that attempts to separate the Holy Spirit from the Godhead is discussing the Trinity.

I will be absolutely astonished if you can show me any post in which I have attempted to "separate the Holy Spirit from the Godhead." That's absolutely inconceivable, any more than I can separate the inner volitions of nuclearboy from nuclearboy.

Lets suppose for an evil instant, that you were able to "prove" your assertion against the Holy Spirit

I am not aware that I have made any assertion against the Holy Spirit.

- what would that impact on aside the concept, understanding and belief in the Trinity?

So what if it does? Let me ask you a personal question friend. Do you think its absolutely impossible that your conception of the trinity may be wrong? Do you feel you have it conceived perfectly and as such could not conceivably be wrong about it in any circumstances? Would you mortgage a different but possibly correct understanding of the Holy Spirit simply because you are determined to cleave to your current perception of the Trinity?

@vescucci:

I keep using my favorite hammer on that chap just in case someone would sit up, consider what I say and understand that is not representative of what Christ's disciples preached. As you may well imagine, its a joke based on a fact. Apparently, my humor is lost here.

You really have to educate me on exactly what is so reprehensible about the WoF views - in terms of the teachings of Christ as conveyed in the NT.

These are my views. . . and I see nothing terribly reprehensible in what little i know of the WoF doctrine of faith.

Please see this thread: https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-467772.0.html

nuclearboy:
"1/8", "1/4" etc. My bad!

Lo! You really are a riot, Nuke!

nuclearboy:
Just as I keep saying you're not sincere about any threads you start. You have set your mind to your desired "end" and so all you do is just work towards that.

You insist that my purpose was really to discuss the Trinity. That is not the case as i already told you.

Just to demonstrate the strange nature of your persistent allegation, i did a count of all the posts I have made on this thread.

I found that I have made 36 posts on this thread. Of those posts only 3 discussed the Trinity - and two of those were in response to comments by Aletheia.

So the facts simply do not support that which you have imagined and frankly, it tires me.

Agreed that God is God.

Also agreed that "infinite" is a word we use in describing God's attributes.

If God is agreed to be infinite then -

1. We cannot claim that he "may" be infinite. We are certain that God cannot be limited and as such is indeed infinite and eternal.

2. Since this is the case there then can be no reason to limit God's manifestations to a finite figure such as three.

nuclearboy:
@DS:

Please I said -

MAY!

MAY!

[size=15pt]MAY! [/size]

[size=18pt]MAY! [/size]

[size=24pt]MAY BE MYRIAD![/size]

"May" is good. Very good. You thus state that it is possible that God is infinite?

Is this your statement? Although your words are clear, i must confess i now live in mortal fear of being accused of having misrepresented you.

So if God "may" be infinite -

1. Is there any particulat reason you would limit his manifestations to three?

2. Why do you say "may"? Is there a possibility that he is not infinite, but finite?

And that doesn't mean He is "infinity"

God is not to be defined merely as "infinite" - however God is surely eternal and infinite as part of his attributes.

Again - is there a possibility that God is finite?

nuclearboy:
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.

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

Thus unified (ONE) and yet INFINITE.

nuclearboy:
^^ Now you are talking. This thread was legalistic and aimed at proving a point, not geared towards finding truth.

Well, let me state something I deliberately kept back during your thread "Inerrancy of the Bible" - The Bible as we know it became available 1, 500 years ago and only in the last 200 years has it been truly available to society at large. Yet Christians/Believers lived all those years. Seth, Noah, Enoch, David, etc. All those years! Yet you would have us believe that answers to all questions are to be found only in it? No, brother, God is inerrant and His witness is true and when there is doubt as exists now, God (or funnily enough, the Holy Spirit, according to Jesus, is the final arbiter). Where you wish to know the position of truth, you'll find it is not doctored to suit any human and usually might even be uncomfortable. What do we gain from saying God is one yet three? Whats the purpose of saying the HS is a personality? You feel its just an act to mystify, to sound different, important? Or an attempt at self-immolation, a desire to be mocked? Which of us here sounds insecure except the one who would assuage his own (self-perceived) inadequacies by trying to ridicule others?

I just saw another thread I've been alternately laughing and shaking my head to, for a few minutes. Please take a look, MyJoe, then tell me what you think of the mindset behind this thread after reading it. Or check almost any thread started by same poster and see what its about or ends up about. https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-342153.32.html

Anyway, thanks for confirming twas but another attempt by DS to again bring his favorite hammer to bear on his favorite victim - the idea of "trinity". Now we know any slowpoke is "great" as long as he has issues with "Trinity" and even hitherto revered atheists become "disappointments" when they refuse to kowtow.

Sad. Truly sad. I really don't know for how long I will keep repeating to you: please address issues and not people.

^^^ What! We are still on about the sentience of the Father? ? ?

^^^ Enigma, I needn't go through each single verse therein to show you that figures of speech are what are at play. I have said before the the spirit does indeed teach, guide and comfort: this does not make it personal, anymore than your conscience would be a personal sentient being because it teaches and guides you?

It is emphatically obvious in every verse in that link that simple figures of speech are at play - the example of the bride speaking I gave above is sifficient to show this.

Also there is no "attacking" anything - there is only each person's view of scripture.