₦airaland Forum

^^^ _{E pain me say na derailment of thread i for like ask Pastor wetin dem dey call} THE FOUR NOBLE TRUTHS _{for Buddhism and whether na love wantintin} THE FOUR NOBLE TRUTHS _{dey address, or whether na suffering, rebirth and nirvana.} I laugh.

^^^ Thanks. Ejoo o ti to.

I have a question.

Why was Jesus without sin?

Was it on account of -

- - his human nature or

- - his divine nature.

Since it is not possible for a human nature to be sinless then presumably he was without sin because of his divine nature.

Does this not presuppose that he should be perfect and beyond other human frailties - given that he was beyond the greatest human frailty- sin.

Does this not presuppose that such frailties such as the fear that seemed to besiege him in Gethsemane should equally be alien to him?

Thanks.

nuclearboy:
Interestingly, I was responding to them when I saw a reply had been pasted.

Before that, let me point out your insincerity - YOU state "It is dangerous for you to peddle such an argument because the summation will be that there is nothing that can be trusted in your scriptures, yes?" when it was you that tried to use that argument against me. When turned against you, you now realise that it tends towards "a summation". Physician, heal thyself first!

It appears to me that you do not realise that the credibility of your scriptures is the very reason that you cannot deploy that argument whereas I can.

Let me elucidate –

I state to you that there are grave misconceptions within the Bible. As evidence for this I point to the inference within the Parable of the Vineyard regarding the will of the Lord of the Vineyard. I state that this is at variance with the gospel writers notion that God willed the crucifixion. I thus present what amounts to a valid contradiction within your scriptures which proves my assertion that the Bible contains misconceptions which can be gleaned from its inconsistencies.

Now as a rebuttal – you point me to the very scriptures that I cited and ask how we can be sure that THOSE very verses are not the misconceptions as opposed to the others.

Can you not see clearly? ? ? You are declaring verses I point out in the bible to be wrong/ misconceived notions WITHIN THE BIBLE!

You thus infer that the book is inconsistent and not credible! – Thus winding up agreeing comprehensively with what I earlier stated!

Your accusations of insincerity of all aside yourself, are famous throughout the land. First you suggest, then you assert and finally you conclude it is a given ALL BY YOURSELF. I wonder if you practise in front of a mirror. Me, I have always remained steadfast in my beliefs and claims and would like you to show otherwise. Your NL history on the other hand, shows a tendency to clutch at straws to advance your "current" position.

This is altogether false. You cannot seriously assert that I have been inconsistent in my positions. Can you indicate to me which of my positions I have shifted as yet?

Let us at all times remain fair and truthful to one another please.

The prayer in Gethsemane is something we have thrashed over and over. Here's the flesh and here's the "Spirit" i.e. the person under. The flesh is and always was the limiting factor. At Gethsemane, that flesh cries out. One thing I wonder at - has any of you so called critics ever asked yourself why would the Bible include such an obvious weakness? It doesn't make sense, does it, except IF IT IS NOT A WEAKNESS but rather a confirmation that this was a fully divine human! Think about that!

I feel that you have entirely misconceived the context of my raising the prayer in Gethsemane. I raise it as a reference to the WILL of God in this instance. Please take a moment to understand carefully:

1. Christian dogma presumes that God’s will was the crucifixion

2. Christian dogma presumes that Jesus is God

3. Given the two irrefutable premises above; it should follow that Jesus (God) knew his own will.

4. He would also know very well that the will of God (himself) cannot be changed

5. His expression of a contrary will therefore is indicative that that which is presumed to be his will, was in fact not his will.

6. Accordingly no amount of “human fear” would make him forward such a plea to God (himself) seeking a changing of the Divine Will.

7. This is the more so as being divine a greater degree of inner strength is expected of him that obtains with mere mortals.

8. It emerges as forcefully absurd.

The foregoing contains an incurable internal inconsistency and absurdity which the Christian will labour to explain away under the excuse of “fleshly weakness.” Now I will reiterate what I have said before regarding that hollow excuse being applied to a being who is said to be Almighty God himself –

I stated before that the most spectacular of all Jesus prayers, for me, is the statement in Gethsemane – “Nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt”

This statement shows something cardinal: if Jesus were God, as you lot like to claim, his will, and the will of the Father would be absolutely inseparable! This prayer shows clearly that the Father’s will could be different from Jesus’ will, when he says – “not as I will, but as thou wilt”. For me this is the most damning verse against the idea that Jesus is himself God. Because it shows a clear dichotomy of WILL between the father and the so called “son.”

Now reverse the script: Let us assume that Jesus indeed is God. If this is the case then it would emerge that his will was that the crucifixion should not happen – as he prayed for the cup to pass! Now he is said to be God – so that was clearly the will of God – that the cup should pass!

And you cannot deny this because Jesus is said to be one with the father in essence, will, mind and spirit!

It is interesting that Christians bring up the lame line that it was his “human fear” that was speaking. Even mere mortals have shown great courage at the point of execution, or in battle, and you want to convince me that ALMIGHTY GOD, in human form, was not capable of stout hearted courage (especially when he was divine, and knew the purpose of his mission on the cross, and how sacred it was). Mere men have laid down their lives for their countries, happily and without asking for the cup to be removed from them. Gallantly! Now GOD himself, in human form, is not capable of such courage, to save his creatures?

How you debase the Godhead.

I know very well that throughout history men have endured even worse forms of barbaric and inhumane torture when trying to protect their families or loved ones, without asking anyone to "let the cup pass" over their heads. If you will study in particular the mental aspects of the oriental marshal arts, you will find that it has long been considered a thing of honour to endure pain and death for an honourable cause. There have been many hundreds of thousands of human beings throughout history who have endured such unflinchingly; certain of their cause, and the purpose for which they fight. There have been others who have volunteered outright for such, as opposed to seeking for a "cup to pass over" their heads.

Under Christian doctrine, Jesus was unblemished: without sin - and therefore perfect. This perfection streams from his very divinity - the fact that he is God HIMSELF in human form. God is not capable of sin; and accordingly Jesus could not sin.

The above sentence shows one thing: namely that the attributes of Jesus spring from his nature as God - his divinity, which is perfect. Thus he does not sin because he is God.

I hope you can already see where i am going with this. You accept the above proposition: but when it comes to other patterns of his behaviour you conveniently flip the table. You are happy to ascribe the prayer in Gethsemane to his "human" fear - hello - why can we not also conclude that since he was "human" then he could sin? The truth is this: your line of reasoning, if followed, should also apply to such attributes as fear: namely - he is God, and as such can know no fear. He is perfect, and as such will be stout hearted in facing the sacrifice necessary to redeem his creatures. And if not perfect, he is at least greater than all men, and as such, would not make a request which mere mortals have in many instances risen above.

This is all the more central when you consider the following (christian doctrine) -

   1. He knew the purpose and reason for the sacrifice even before coming into the world

   2. He loved his creatures and wanted to redeem them accordingly

If Jesus knew the purpose of the sacrifice, it would be grossly irresponsible and cowardly of him to request that it should not take place. And given the fact that he is supposed to be almighty God himself, such a request becomes both paradoxical and demeaning of his inner nature.

Nevertheless the core element of my surmise is not even the fear and courage element: it is the evident dichotomy of will.

If Jesus is truly God, or part of a trinity as you claim, then his oneness with God will cardinally be a oneness of will, even before a oneness in any other respect. It is inconceivable, that we should speak of a divine being who is God, that could have a will different from the will of God. Haba, let's try to be sincere please: i cannot see how his appearance in human form would suddenly destroy his divine will, or the oneness of his will with God.

"Nevertheless not as i will, but as thou wilt."

Recall that he says this in prayer, to a being he considered greater than himself (Jn 14:28). A being he severally addressed as "my God." (Jn 20:17).

This is the damning part: his revelation that his will could be different from, but subordinated to the will of God, hammers down the coffin on any suggestion that he is himself God.

Nevertheless if such a suggestion is forced; then we must clearly accept that his will was for the cup to pass over his head – as he said himself with his own lips – and if he is said to be God; then that is also the will of God! CASE CLOSED! ! ! !!

I know you will have no choice but to revert to the age-old defence. . . "he was only human. . . it was his human-part speaking. . ."

To that i say - give me a break! Almighty God in human form must per force be a cut above ordinary humans! - As is the case with the fact of his being without sin even while human!

Jesus cry on the cross was explained to you by InesQor as Christ reading a prophetic psalm and I remember you saying it was the best explanation you ever heard. Bringing it up here again is of what purpose? To fill white space? Frankly, its saddening and unworthy. Thats a sample of your NL history of "dud targets": anything to get in a word.

Again you miss the specific context in which it is exhumed here. It is the context of the WILL of God – where Jesus himself is said to be God. In that context, Jesus could never begin to recite such a prayer!

How does a prayer for forgiveness for PEOPLE WHO KNOW NOT WHAT THEY DO translate into God not wanting the "death"?

I assert to you that no human being can ever fall foul on account of doing the will of God.

Contradict that if you will.

If the crucifixion was the will of God, it would be absurd to require punishment of people (or forgiveness thereof) for doing the will of God.

The Betrayer was cursed from long before; prior to what you're dancing over. Again, we are looking at Him fulfilling/confirming a prophecy.

Cursed for fulfilling the will of God? Nice.

I should be careful to stay away from doing the will of this Yahweh chap then.

He might just curse me.

Those who studied the scriptures would know this was He that had been spoken of. As InesQor has brilliantly explained so often to you, Jesus was an actor in a role He Himself wrote.

Be careful to associate yourself with that appalling absurdity of Inesqor’s: for it is entirely ridiculous when applied to a supposedly omniscient and omnipotent being.

Your last "point" amazes me as it wipes the ground with your nose. So you know Jesus stated He was not of this world?

Come off it: I needn’t write a dissertation for the objective reader to see the simple logic of this –

1. Jesus is said not to be of this world

2. Accordingly the perfect will of God obtains in God’s spiritual realm (Heaven)

3. Jesus stated that if events were reflected in that realm – the crucifixion would not be permitted as his angels would fight against it.

4. It is thus clear that the crucifixion was not the will of the Light.

This is blatantly clear; and yet you accuse me of duplicity?

Hmn!

nuclearboy:
Again, and in defence of your "preferred" worldview, you see one side and ignore the other.

If it is right as you say, that its human imprint has created many unfortunate misunderstandings, the Parable of the Vineyard and indeed, the other "examples" you offer are eqally guilty of your accusation and could be the mis- "included" (I'm sure you get my drift).

It is dangerous for you to peddle such an argument because the summation will be that there is nothing that can be trusted in your scriptures, yes?

Still, and from the Christian perspective, Christs sacrifice was required. While you choose and pick, did you ever consider words from the first ever conflict between God and man i.e. God's Word to Eve concerning her seed which would "bruise" the serpent's head but would in turn, have the serpent, bruise his heel?

We take it from the beginning, bro, not intepret backwards to suit ourselves!

Lamentably, I did predict in my post that this would happen. I gave you the parable of the vine yard, and you admitted that taken by itself it conveyed the meaning I suggested. You then stated that things must be taken in context. I provided a context by citing FIVE other words of Jesus which support the view that God did not WILL that he should be crucified. Predictably you have entirely ignored those verses and without even the courtesy of addressing them, summarily reverted to you pre-instilled view.

What can i say? ? ?

Just in case you deem it appropriate at some time in the future, here are the posers again - which support my view of the parable of the vine yard.

(i) - Jesus' prayer in Gethsemane

(ii) - Jesus' cry on the Cross (Eli, Eli. . .)

(iii) - Jesus' prayer for the forgiveness of those who had put him to death

(iv) - Jesus' curse on the person who delivered him up for crucifixion

(v) - MOST CARDINALLY; Jesus' Statement that if his kingdom were of this world, his angels would fight to avert the crucifixion.

[quote author=Mad_Max link=topic=369330.msg6335058#msg6335058 date=1278341555]Maybe. So, that many holy books are very similiar in many beliefs and teachings is the same as saying all businesses are similar and all foods are similar? The analogies are funny and offmark. But even if businesses differ, is their aim not the same, even if they take different routes ? Are successful business methods not the same worldwide? That is why any MBA class will have executives from diverse businesses, be it oil or football management or chemical engineering. Why are students from different business fields in the same business class, learning the same things? Don't all those involved in different businesses read the same business textbooks, because those books apply to them all, irrespective of their business route? 

I don't see anything strong there. He's ignorant of the complete teachings of most of the religions as contained in their holy books and has no real basis for comparison, but wants an argument anyway. Anyone who's ever read those books will be astonished at the extent of their similarities. It's perfectly obvious he hasn't. It's amusing but not worth an argument. Continue your debates. [/quote]Let us let this matter rest. I believe I have made my points and you have made yours. It is apparent that you still struggle with the definition of the word "doctrine" as used in this discussion. Either that or we simply use it in different senses. What remains clear to the objective reader is that I did ask you both to cite to me the staggering similarities between the doctrines of 16 sets of contrasted religions. Neither of you was able to take up that challenge.

Nevertheless we derail this thread: let us let the matter be.

nuclearboy:
Let us continue to be simple and factual.

I'm sure you've had breakfast/lunch today. Is the meal you had today (the parable) the totality of the sustenance you've had in life

Remove that parable from the Bible and transport it to say, the Bhavagad and your assertion might be considered right becase it would in that case stand alone and be authority concerning the issue. However, the Bible is ONE story and not a mills and boon library of short stories. This point I have made earlier and I know you are aware of it. Just as you cannot take one incident in isolation as the sum of your life, it would be unreasonable to do same here.

Your point of view might well fit your desired world-view and that of your grail interpretation. However, from a Christian and Biblical point of view, it is insincere and lacking in truth. Find something else to support your desired affiliations

It is refreshing that you do not dispute that the parable by itself conveys the indication that the crucifixion was not the will of God.

Now what you allege is that the totality of scripture when taken as a whole contradicts this.

I assert to you that this is not the case. In this regard I state the following to you -

1. The Bible is not a perfect work of perfect accuracy. Like every work with a human imprint it contains many unfortunate misunderstandings which have crept into its worldview on account of the mistaken and false presumptions of some of its fallible writers.

2. Wherever therefore there has been a misconceived worldview written into the books of the bible, there are several pointers within the text itself that reveal the inconsistency that has arisen and give an indication of what the truth might in fact be.

3. The Parable of the Vineyard is one such indicator of a truth that has been buried and misreprsented by the accounts delivered by the gospel writers.

4. Contrary to what you claim, the Parable of the Vine Yard does not stand by itself: there are several pointers within scripture alluding to the truth conveyed by the Parable - namely that the crucifixion was not the will of God. Some of these pointers are as follows -

    (i) - Jesus' prayer in Gethsemane

    (ii) - Jesus' cry on the Cross (Eli, Eli. . .)

    (iii) - Jesus' prayer for the forgiveness of those who had put him to death

    (iv) - Jesus' curse on the person who delivered him up for crucifixion

    (v) - MOST CARDINALLY; Jesus' Statement that if his kingdom were of this world, his angels would fight to avert the crucifixion.

When all of these, particularly the last one, are taken together with the Parable of the Vineyard, an interesting and compelling picture emerges: namely that there is a giant question mark regarding the crucifixion as the will of God. Indeed it is EXPLICIT within the parable and also within several of Jesus' statements (some cited above) that the crucifixion was NOT willed by the light.

You accuse me of insincerity: and you always adjure me to be honest - I call the same charge upon you now; I hold you to be sincere and honest in this matter, search within your heart and see whether these clear pointers within scripture do not raise a question in your mind regarding that which you have presumed to be the absolute truth. These are clear words, and they emanate from your scripture, I did not write them: they are there in black and white.

Most painfully I already have a sense that all that you will revert with is that which has become standard fare; namely that no matter how many verses i raise from the scripture itself to challenge what you believe to be truth; you will studiously discountenance them all.

Many apologies for the extensive digression.

Back to the issues of this thread -

nuclearboy:
Before my own analysis of the parable, I'd like to say something - You contradict yourself DeepSight, when you say the parable is so obviously true and is Jesus. If it is as you state, you've accepted the status of Jesus in that parable. But I digress!

True, the Householder is the Almighty. He planted "a" Vineyard (earth) and left it in the care of, as it were, tenant farmers. We start to disagree here - God is a Spirit and though He has given us physical resources which we harness to our desires, His Own desire is for what is useful to Him; Spiritual harvests (righteousness, love, joy, peace). While you state there are physical harvests then, I see no use to the Almighty, of physical stuff (I hope you are not a prosperity pastor).

The tenant farmers or husbandmen are, in the Christian context, the leaders of the people, not the totality of the people (remember the servants of the householder are a subset of people). They weed, care for and handle the vineyard. But this again is simplistic - True leadership comes from rulership; guidance or better yet, a guiding spirit or design. The guiding spirit then, for our purpose was that which opposed the desire(s) of the original owner or householder and replaced them with his own. This spirit is what we call Satan or "the opposer". Satan's desire was and remains to frustrate the efforts of the owner and own the harvest.

The people (laity) are the crop(s). Tended as desired, the messengers should have found the crops ready, welcoming, ready to accept "further instructions" (take that as pruning etc) from the Householder who sent them. However, the husbandmen (under guidance from Evil) had turned cashcrops into weeds and furthermore did not have the faintest desire to change. They it was who took the servants and killed them. In one word, I would state the fruit required by the Householder was "righteousness". We all know what was brought forth.

By the time the Son came, it had become a dire situation. He also was slain. And for you, all the deductions to be made from the parable end here. But let us go forward -

"The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes"

AND

"Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof. And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder"

Do you think, DeepSight, that these words were added to remove white space?

Jesus knew the plan of "Evil" was to kill Him. Then what? Evil had WON? No because you cannot win the Almighty. Something else was ahead. But explaining in detail to the people would have alerted (I believe) their guiding spirit to the fact that something "marvellous" was planned and would still happen and infact was "dependent" on that very killing taking place. For US today (using benefit of hindsight), Jesus added those words that we might know He was aware of what would happen, not only concerning His death, but also the "marvellous" following it. Rejecting the Stone then, would be "killing Him" and yet that same stone (dead in their estimation) would again become the chief stone (planned all along). How? We know the History!

I think where the problem comes from is taking the issue in isolation. But the Bible is a synchronized issue with any serious "sincere" study having to take from all of it rather than just one isolated collection of verses. Isaiah 53: 7 & 8 show this same parable summarized. Verse 10 then explains the understanding behind it. That entire chapter in effect handles the issue of "murder" rather than "sacrifice". If you would like more scriptural references, let me know but please take a look at Is 53: 1 - end.

I already feel I may have taken up too much space addressing something a 4 month convert would understand in 2 sentences and don't want to waste more time/space.

I do not feel that there is anything indicated in the foregoing which detracts from the simple fact that as is glaring within the parable, the Lord of the Vineyard DID NOT WILL that his son be killed.

Accordingly describing Jesus' death as the will of God is entirely contrary to the implicit and explicit indications of the parable.

Its that simple. This is more so when it is considered that the Christian claim is that this was in fact the will of God - from the foundation of the world. The parable shows clearly that that was NOT the will of God.

So its a question of the will of God. In this you can make no contrary argument.

Pastor AIO:
What makes one stagger on witnessing similarities? It will not be enough to just point out that there are similarities. The similarities must make one stagger. But in order to stagger . . . there must be an unexpected wobble or rock or bump on the pathway that trips you. That confounding of expectations is where the cause of the staggering lies. So to find staggering similarities you must first be lured into the false notion that there are no similarities. and then upon finding similarities . . . hopefully you will stagger like staggerlee.

So therefore for us to produce staggering similarities you must help by accentuating and emphasizing apparent differences.

There are certain premises to be considered first. I believe that we are building on different premises and this has to be sorted out before we can go much further.

You seem to have as a basic premise the belief that religions are invented arbitrarily by various founders from various cultures. I, on the other hand, believe that they are based on experiential truths that are available to all of us though we may articulate them differently depending on our cultural mindset and era.

If at the basis of religion there is a suggestion that all is not well with humanity and a means of solving this malaise is proposed then that is one similarity. If the means of solving this malaise bears some similarity across religions then that would be another similarity worthy of note. If a diagnosis of the malaise bears similarities across religions then that too would be another similarity to add to things. If these 3 similarities are not sufficient to make one stagger then you need to drink more.

If u were a stranger to this forum i would not be surprised that you try to teach me about the council of nicea and about the wellspiring of religious quest for truth. But as someone that has interacted with me quite extensively these are astonishing, and i dare say, staggering, attempts on your part.

Now you point to the essential quest for truth resident within each man as evidence of[i] staggering similarities[/i] in doctrine. I will not bother to respond to this. I would rather conclude that you have taken temporary leave of your previous studies.

Will you just stop the needless long yarn and point me to the staggeringly similar doctrines of Islam and Hinduism? ? ? ?

Or christianity and Buddhism? ? ? ?

What you so shockingly miss is the obvious distinction between similarities in the PREMISE for religion as opposed to similarities in the DOCTRINE AND PRACTICE of religions.

This is comically akin to asserting that since the motivation for all business is profit, then all businesses are staggeringly similar, regardless of whether they are as diverse as football and chemical engineering. Or that since the premise for eating food is hunger, then all foods are staggeringly similar, even if they are as different as hamburgers and water melons.

Good grief.

yommyuk:
A created being, which Jesus would be if He were not God, could not pay the infinite penalty required for sin against an infinite God. Only God could pay such an infinite penalty. Only God could take on the sins of the world (2 Corinthians 5:21), die, and be resurrected, proving His victory over sin and death.

I laugh. Jesus not a "created being?" what then is meant by the words "only begotten?" That which is begotten has a beginning: and it is incontestible that God has no beginning.

Go study the greek word - "Monogenes."

Jesus is termed the first born of creation: that certainly shows him to be a created being just as much as Obasanjo or Guru Maharaji.

[quote author=Mad_Max link=topic=369330.msg6316865#msg6316865 date=1278016062]A chart of world religions? A chart? You're something else. That you think Hinduism is wrapped up in the veneration of cows is very revealing. Hinduism is one of the most complex and sophisticated religious sytem of thought on earth, encompassed by not one, but several holy books. The doctrines of any religion are in its holy books and esoteric oral teachings, not in online charts and what you overhear about the religion. It's those books and teachings that were being compared. Here's a list of some major religions with written and oral traditions:

African Religions, Shinto, Age of Reason,Ancient Near East, Neopaganism/Wicca, Thelema, Theosophy, Zoroastrianism, Basque, Christianity, Confucianism, Baha'i, Book of Shadows, Buddhism,Taoism, Celtic,Theosophy, Earth Mysteries,Egyptian,Esoteric/Occult, Fortean, Gothic, Gnosticism,Grimoires, Hinduism, Zoroastrianism, Islam, Native American, Icelandic, Jainism, Mysticism, Necronomicon, New Thought, Oahspe, Pacific, Paleolithic, Piri Re'is, Shamanism, Sikhism, Sub Rosa, Thelema, Freemasonry, Judaism.

You should at least stop searching for online charts and actually read an assortment of religious holy books and doctrines first before indulging your large appetite for argument. I went through Scientology tenets (I didn't include it up there as there are hundreds of religions), and was very surprised to find that when you scratch away the exotic space-age language, they were actually saying nothing new. The one religion I'm not totally conversant with are African religions, because of the lack of written material. It's almost totally oral. But it's just as rich and deep in lore and thought as the other religious traditions. What you should have demanded are the supposed similarities, which you may then examine. But you didn't do that, you jumped straight into arguing the opposite. Perhaps if one had said all religions are unique and have zero in common, you'd have argued they were similar. [/quote]Can anybody make any sense of this? ? ? ?

Pastor - I do await your furtheresponses.

By "doctrine" i refer to the canonical teachings of a religion which centre on the essential proclamations of truth that form the basis for the particular body of teachings and worldview that such a religion propounds.

Having this in mind, while i await your further responses maybe BOTH YOU AND MAX can share with me what "staggering similarities" there are between these religions in terms of doctrine.

1. Christianity and Hinduism

2. Islam and Buddhism

3. Islam and Hinduism

4. Christianity and Buddhism

5. Christianity and Islam

6. Islam and Taoism

7. Christianity and Taosim

8. Judaism and Hindusim

9. Judaism and Buddhism

10. Judaism and Shinto

12. Christianity and Shinto

13. Islam and shinto

14. Christianity and Confucianism

15. Judaism and Confucianism

16. Islam and Confucianism

If BOTH OF YOU cannot show me "staggering similarities" between ANY of the contrasted sets above, I verily suggest to you thyat you halt right in your tracks and take this discourse no further.

It is blatantly obvious that ALL the religions i have contrasted above are staggeringly DIFFERENT in terms of doctrine such that the one is virtually unrecognisable in any doctrinal matter from the other.

It is thus eminently unjustifiable that you should not only claim that they are similar, but go so far as to support the assertion that they are "staggeringly similar."

It is not sufficient to simply plead that they all preach love; that is a common denominator. What we speak of is their particular doctrines and how such can be said to be staggeringly similar. Its a fallacy.

Now the foregoing is only an extraction. Have a look at this link to see a full chart of world religions and the doctrines/ practices of each.

http://www.religionfacts.com/big_religion_chart.htm

- - >

Pastor/ Max -

I extracted the core beliefs of the world's major religions and have reproduced them here -

PLEASE SHOW ME THE STAGGERING SIMILARITIES ON CORE DOCTRINE.

This table setting out the core beliefs of major world religions should seal the point to Pastor and Max that in terms of cardinal doctrine, it is FALSE to claim that the world's religions have "staggering similarity."

Hinduism can never be said to be similar to christianity, not to speak of staggeringly so. Both Buddhism and Hindusim are completely at odds with Islam. Islam's perception of God is in contradistinction to the christian trinitarian perception of God. Reincarnation does NOT feature in Islam AT ALL. No religion except christianity teaches that anybody must accept a divine sacrifice on a cross to be saved. So while definitely and naturally there exist some similarities, it is false to claim that the core doctrines are similar - not to mention "staggeringly" similar.

Pastor AIO:
I'm with Mad Max that religions have so much in common worldwide that it is staggering. Of course you can find differences. Even within the same religion you will find differences, but there are certain key things that keep popping up.

Nobody has ever denied the presence of similar motifs that appear in many religions. My qualm is with the assertion that the similarities are staggering on issues of doctrine. That simply is not true. Islam is too markedly divergent from Christianity on doctrine for such a painfully false claim to be sustained. Going further, you will find virtually zero doctrinal similarity between Islam and either of Buddhism or Hinduism.

THAT IS A FACT, MR.

In addressing this I will also urge you to address the question in terms of the core doctrines of each religion. Do not inundate me with peripheral details.

Now i positively assert to you that as far as doctrine goes, your contention that all the religions of the world have a staggering similarity is little short of plain fantasy. You're simply dreaming it up dude. Wake up. Unless of course like Max, you do not know what doctrine is. I verily believe that you do.

I'm ready to bet my toenail clippings that you have not studied islam, or hinduism or any other world religions to such an extent that you can make such pronouncements as you've made above.

This is amusing.

That Jesus was God was not a central doctrine of Christianity till council of Nicaea.

Who are you teaching this, moi? How does this remove from the fact that TODAY it forms part of christian doctrine? And mark you, christians regularly cite pre-nicene scripture to support the doctrine of the deity of christ.

That God is experienced as a trinity is not only confined to christianity. Hindus too have their trinities. So too did the ancient greeks. And so too did the yoruba. In fact in most ancient cultures the Goddess was depicted as a trinity.

Pray tell how this by itself would amount to staggering similarity among religions. Aside from the fact that a great many religions outrighty denounce this teaching: cheif amongst which is Islam - which accounts for well over a billion people.

And as for the idea of a victim dying for our sins (atonement), that is not exclusive to christianity either. It is found worldwide and also found in yoruba religion.

So will you DARE point me in the direction of WHICH ISLAMIC, BUDDHIST OR HINDU doctrine is centred around atonement of sins by the sacrificial death of God. I suppose you should be able to, since you are well read with regard to those religions?

Lol. . .this thread reminds me of one of the most enthralling recent threads i did enjoy. . .

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

nuclearboy:
Aside the personage of Jesus, there are two differences between Christianity and ALL other religions that you both seem to have missed -

[1] Jesus promised nothing physical as gain for Christians. Not health or wealth or position or strength. Not here and not in heaven. Just love (not the type you're both trying to cultivate sha)
[2] Christianity is the only belief system which requires its adherents to study it and criticise it.

This is painfully false. For i know not what else to make of - "seek ye first the kingdom and all other things shall be added unto you. . ." or what believers are expected to deduce from the eventual wealth and prosperity of Job after his extensive travails.

Secondly a great deal of oriental religious thought is centred around mediation, introspection, study, training and self development which actively encourages asking the great questions and raising thoughtful criticism.

BTW, DeepSight, you must permanently have stomach upsets seeing as Christianity is here to stay and is thrust into your face daily if not elsewhere, at least on NL. Pele, dear

What the world chooses to do with its spirituality is its own affair. Christianity may be odd, but there have been odder faiths through history. I am quietly convinced that in another 500 years or so you will struggle to find christians in this same world. People will simply outgrow some of its fantastical precepts. Its already started. In Europe a larger percentage of the population could no longer be bothered about religion altogether.

@DeepSight:

Chei! see as you yap me over ordinary name-calling? I get who I take am resemble O. He called many "hypocrites"

Sir; conscience dey do you? Lol. I actually didn't have you in mind. Though i have seen you are not deficient in that regard i was actually contemplating the yabbis pedigree of two other loquacious gentlemen.

[quote author=Mad_Max link=topic=369330.msg6315255#msg6315255 date=1277996435]Lol.I said they were staggeringly similar in their teachings. I didn't say they were identical. And the teachings of the major religions are very extensive and sophisticated, some covering half a dozen holy books, and are not just about local cultural details like cows or trinity or the other things that grab your attention. Islam teaches that Jesus will usher in the judgement of the Last Day, which is something for two religions that have nothing in common. Sufism in Islam teaches many things similar to Buddhist 'secret' teachings. There are doctrines in it similar to things you'll find in The Tibetan Book of the Dead.

Muslims believe a Madhi (something like a Chosen One) will reign for a while in the last days. Then there will be a false Messiah or False Prophet (the Christian equivalent is the AntiChrist). Then Prophet Jesus will appear and start the last Judgement. On Judgement day the world will shake and mountains will be reduced to rubble and the dead will be resurrected. And so on. And those are just the basics, not the more sophisticated writings and teachings. Many religions have doctrines in common. 'A staggering lie'. 'Incontrovertibly and disastrously false': Why the need to call people names, or turn every discussion into high drama? You can have a meaningful discussion without all that. And you wonder I had no interest in trying to answer your questions. There are no rights or wrongs. It's not an examination. A discussion means people exchange opinions, nothing more. If it's a fight, then we know it's a fight. But there isn't one here, is there? I'll leave you to it. [/quote]^^^ I cannot comprehend what you have written. Its is extremely odd that you start out by claiming that world religions are staggeringly similar - in your specific words  - "in beliefs, thought and doctrine" - and when the fact that that is a plain falsity is pointed out you wind up refering me to small print and side details such as you referred to. Why o why would you jump mountains, leap way above the CORE doctrines of christianity which i clearly set out; only to labour to see "doctrinal" similarities in the appearance of a false prophet in the last days? What is doctrinal about that? It seems to me you do not have a basic grasp of the meaning of the word "doctrine" which you so loosely bandy about.

I find it in better taste to clarify a sense in which a statement is made, or retract it altogether in all reasonable decency - rather than insist on the obviously wrong. I seem to recall that this was the same posture which you adopted when called out on your perplexing claim that claims of UFO sightings are strictly a North American thing.

What you need to do is to take the core doctrines of Christianity (trinity, redemption by sacrifice on the cross etc) and show me in what material terms they are "staggeringly similar"or "identical" to the precepts of Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, et all. If you cannot do that, please quit the chit chat right there.

O, and by the way; I never called you any names whatsoer. Would you care to show me what names I called you? I am not in the art of name calling; you may address (*names withheld*) for that special practice. I stated simply that what you indicated was a staggering lie; and if you believe that to be incorrect, you only need to adduce proof. Period. There is no "fight" there: I am frankly alarmed that you imagine there to be one. Did you ever hear the word "debate"? Does it seem to you to be a synonym of the word "fight"? Haba.

[quote author=Mad_Max link=topic=369330.msg6314170#msg6314170 date=1277986914][color=#000099]

But it's simply amazing what all religions have in common. From Sufism in Islam to Lamaism to Hinduism to Christianity, the similarities in belief and thought and doctrines are staggering.[/quote]The differences are also staggering: especially on matters of doctrine. A common adjuration towards love and universal brotherhood - a harkening unto conscience - are about as much as you will get in terms of central adjurations. This is aside from the cultural ties that may bind some religions in a loose categorical sense. Such as the Abrahamic religions.

Beyond that I can scarely see how staggeringly similar Christianity and Islam are for instance. Central to christianity are ideas such as that its founder (Jesus from Nazareth) is Almighty God himself - a claim categorically denounced by Islam; that Jesus is at the same time the only begotten son of God Almighty; that he is also a Trinity; that he came to die for the sins of mankind, and that his death atoned therefore for the said sins; and that belief in this sacrifice is required for salvation. It is frankly a startlingly bizzarre collection of incongruities which makes for indigestion and regular stomach upsets. Islam contains nothing of the sort, and its core doctrine simply demands submission to the will of Allah. Thus the similarities with these religions are largely cultural and historical: as far as doctrines are concerned they could not be more different.

Nor do we find a place for veneration of cows as sacred beings in the Abrahamic religions - a la the Hindu style.

Thus when you claim that the similarities in[b] "belief and thought and doctrine[/b] are staggering" - that is exactly what i would call a staggering lie; with specifice reference to beliefs and doctrines. That claim is incontrovertibly and disastrously false.

^^^Yes, I am indeed learning the ropes with you: after all said and done you would make a great politician.

Fabulous at ambiguity.

[quote author=Mad_Max link=topic=369330.msg6311571#msg6311571 date=1277932835]Some of Deep Sight's page 1 questions are quite easy[/quote]1. Give us your answers then madam.

2. State clearly what your personal convictions regarding those matters are - for it might be down to my laziness or a lack of interest on my part: but i have noted in the few posts of yours that I have read that you do not commit.

Bite the bullet, dive the cliff: LET'S STRIDE.

@Nuclear - let us be clear -

You know very well that i do not believe in the divinity of christ or biblical infallibility. Nevertheless there are pointers within scripture which reveal the much that has been distorted over time. I regard  the Parable of the Vineyard as one such pointer.

I agree wholly with Justcool's interpretaion of the parable save the reservations i expressed here -


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

The parable of the vineyard emphatically shows that the death of Jesus on the cross was judicial murder NOT willed by God.

I need hardly do teh explaining myself. There is an excellent write-up that Justcool did sometime ago on this -

Here it is again -

justcool:
Please consider this parable reported in (Mathew 21: 33-46)(Mark 12: 1-12)(Luke 20: 9-19)

There was a certain householder, which planted a vineyard, and hedged it round about, and digged a winepress in it, and built a tower, and let it out to husbandmen, and went into a far country: And when the time of the fruit drew near, he sent his servants to the husbandmen, that they might receive the fruits of it.
And the husbandmen took his servants, and beat one, and killed another, and stoned another. Again, he sent other servants more than the first: and they did unto them likewise.
But last of all he sent unto them his son, saying, They will reverence my son. But when the husbandmen saw the son, they said among themselves, This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and let us seize on his inheritance. And they caught him, and cast him out of the vineyard, and slew him.
When the lord therefore of the vineyard cometh, what will he do unto those husbandmen? They say unto him, He will miserably destroy those wicked men, and will let out his vineyard unto other husbandmen, which shall render him the fruits in their seasons. Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?
Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof. And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder.
And when the chief priests and Pharisees had heard his parables, they perceived that he spake of them. But when they sought to lay hands on him, they feared the multitude, because they took him for a prophet [5]

I sense that this parable was actually told by Jesus because it is the pure and unadulterated Truth. Like all parables of Jesus, there is so much one can learn from it. It contains the eternal Truth; it is the entire gospel displayed in such a simple and pictorial manner that anybody can relate to it. I doubt if a human being can exhaust all the knowledge hidden in these parables. Personally, I have experienced that the more I mature spiritually, the more I see in these parables. Jesus is indeed the greatest teacher ever lived!

I will share my experiencing of this parable:

There was a certain householder, which planted a vineyard, and hedged it round about, and digged a winepress in it, and built a tower, and let it out to husbandmen, and went into a far country:

The householder mentioned in the above is the ALMIGHTY Himself, God the Father.
The vineyard that He planted is creation, subsequent creation, or the earth to be more precise. The winepress represents the abundance of the earth. The earth through nature gives its entire inhabitants everything that they need to thrive, but like a winepress one has to work in order to utilize and enjoy the gifts of the earth. The earth barely gives us wine(good things) already made, we have to work on it to earn its riches. Just like one has to work or press the fruits with the wine press before he can make wine. This coincides with what we have been told in another scripture: "Increase and multiply and replenish the earth" which simply means set to work and utilize the gifts that lie hidden in the earth, and also the gifts that lie hidden in our spirits. Only when we utilize these gifts in our spirits, our spiritual abilities, can our spirits grow(increase) and bring spiritual blessings to the earth(replenish the earth). Unfortunately, people think that this commandment is only directed towards physical propagation.

The tower is also another gift that this gracious householder gave. It represents the ability to communicate to distant places. Thus in this vineyard inhabitants are not left to themselves, with the tower they can see what is approaching them and with it they can also send a message across to distant countries, just like the ancients used to do with watch towers, light towers or light houses. In another translation of the verse the translator used the word: "watchtower" instead just "tower". Through this gift of the Tower the inhabitants of this vineyard can communicate with the householder. This, to me, is a representation of the fact that the creator did not leave us alone, through his laws which is hein into creation from the beginning, we can communicate with him. We can also send Him our volitions in times of need through prayer.

The husbandmen are we human spirits. From this Parable we learn that the vine yard(subsequent Creation) is lent to us. Actually it is not ours and neither is it our home, we are merely guests, or laborers in the vineyard lent to us. It is our duty to increase and multiply and replenish this vineyard that is most graciously and generously given to us. Just as farmers are given a yard to plant and cultivate. From the fruits of their labor in the farm they can earn a good living, they are also obliged to pay the owner of the yard from their profits. The same way, the earth is lent to us human spirits; from our labor(experiences) on earth we earn a living (achieve spiritual maturity) but we are also obliged to pay the Creator for this most generous gift to experience. In this case, all that the creator requires as fee from us is our spiritual activity. Therefore we cannot stand still spiritually, the result of this spiritual activity also ennobles the earth(keeps the vineyard in order). But in this we failed.

"And went into a far country"

From this picture of the householder being in a far country, we can deduce that although the creator is omnipresent, He lives in a far country. Thus the ALMIGHY Creator dwells far above creation. God himself is not inside creation which only a work of God. Like an artist stands beside his works so does the creator stand above creation which can not carry or contain Him in His entirety. How then is God omnipresent? His Omnipresence lies in His ability to oversee all in creation through His laws which is hein in all parts of creation. Thus He is reachable from any part of creation; therein lies His omnipresence.

And when the time of the fruit drew near, he sent his servants to the husbandmen, that they might receive the fruits of it.

Like I said earlier, we human spirits failed in yielding spiritual fruits. Rather than making spiritual movement, the effect of which will not only benefit us but ennoble subsequent creation, we made only intellectual and technological movement with the aim of personal gain. Thus rather than yeilding the fruits of the spirit-- love, beauty and peace, we yeilded rotten fruits-- lust, hate, envy, greed, and etc. Such fruits that poisoned not only us, but also subsequent creation, the vineyard most graciously given to us. Therefore like a tenant who reused to pay rent when it was due and who destroyed the rented house, the owner of the house sent us messengers to collect the rent from us and teach us how to live more responsibly. These messengers are the prophets that the ALMIGHTY send to us.

And the husbandmen took his servants, and beat one, and killed another, and stoned another. Again, he sent other servants more than the first: and they did unto them likewise.

And we human spirits maltreated the prophets sent to us; we killed some, beat some, and stoned some. These prophets, i.e. Elijah, Moses, Isaiah, John the Baptist, all received bad treatment from we human spirits. Thus we beat them, rob them and send them back without paying our rent that was already past due. Yet the AlMIGHTY out of His love would not let us parish in the sultry and poisoned atmosphere that we created for ourselves, therefore He kept sending us his servants to call us to repentance. Yet we refused to bear fruits of repentance.

But last of all he sent unto them his son, saying, They will reverence my son. But when the husbandmen saw the son, they said among themselves, This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and let us seize on his inheritance. And they caught him, and cast him out of the vineyard, and slew him.

But when we(mankind) were about about to perish completely from the poison of their rotten fruits, the ALMIGTHY sent us His son, His own flesh and blood. This clears the puzzle whether Jesus was just a prophet or just a man sent by God. In this parable we see that Jesus is something that the previous messengers of God are not. He is God's own son, His flesh and blood. This is a pictorial rendering of the fact that Jesus is God incarnate. Like I said earlier, God in His entirety cannot descend into creation. If so how then is Jesus God incarnate? Jesus is a part of God and not God in His entirety. God severed a part of himself and sent it to earth and incarnated it in a physical body of flesh and bone. Thus "and the word was made flesh and dwelled among us." Thus Jesus innermost core is Devine(God) as opposed to all other prophets whose innermost core is Spirit.
In this parable we also see the reason why Jesus was sent. So many people have asked the question: "why would God send His innocent son to earth to be killed." This parable answers the preceding question. Jesus was not sent to be killed or murdered. Murder or the killing of innocent people is a sin and never permitted by God who is Living Justice Himself. God’s intention for sending Jesus was for mankind to "reverence my son" For mankind to listen and obey Jesus who brought them Divine light, and pay up their overdue rent(bear spiritual fruits). Jesus’ words points clearly to mankind how to retrace their steps and do the right thing. Jesus not only told mankind, He also demonstrated to them how to bear spiritual fruits. He gave strength to the weak, healed the sick, visited the poor, forgive the repented ones, He gave freely to mankind that which flowed from His Divine heart. But rather than accepting these gracious gifts with jubilation and thankfulness to the Creator, mankind seized Jesus and killed him on a cross in Calvary.

"and let us seize on his inheritance"

This is a pictorial depiction of how mankind wanted to seized the kingdom of God. The inheritance of Jesus is the TRUTH which comes from God, Jesus being a part of God; He is a bearer of the TRUTH. But mankind on earth does not like this Devine TRUTH which is pure and unadulterated, so mankind seized it and made it suitable form them. They misrepresented the TRUTH in their religions which serves them rather than God. Making a business from religions and falsifying the TRUTH to attract religious followers, mankind, especially leaders and representatives of earthly religions seized Jesus inheritance and made it their own.

When the lord therefore of the vineyard cometh, what will he do unto those husbandmen?

Who is this lord of the vineyard. It is easy assume that it is the owner of the vineyard. But at the beginning of the parable, the owner was called a householder: " There was a certain householder" Thus the hastily assumption that the householder is the lord of the vineyard may not be correct. Who then is the Lord of the vineyard? For him to be called lord, he must be part owner of sole owner of the vineyard. But we already know that the owner of the vineyard is the householder. The only possibility that remains is that this "Lord of the vineyard" is a part owner of the vineyard. To be a part owner, he is either a son or a relative. It is my conviction that this "Lord of the vineyard" is a son of the householder. Thus the householder has two sons, the one sent to receive fruits from the husbandmen, and the one called "the Lord of the vineyard". It is my conviction that this "the Lord of the vineyard" is the Holy Spirit who like Jesus is also a son(part) of God. It is Him who will visit the vineyard(the earth) in the end to judge the earth. He is the one who is called the "son of man." He is the one who, in other verses is called "the ruler of the world" "the Spirit of Truth", or "the comforter". Consider that the expresion "Ruler of the world" is the same as the expression "Lord of the vineyard" if we understand the "world" and "vineyard" to mean the same thing--Creation. He is called "the ruler of the world" or "the Lord of the vineyard" because He is the part of God through which creation came into being; thus God created the worlds, including the vineyard, through Him, thus He his the lord of the vineyard. The Holy Spirit(Immanuel) severed from God to create the worlds; Just as later Jesus severed from God to save the world(the earth) or to demand the fruits of the laborers in the vineyard. A part of this Holy Spirit is anchored at the highest heights in creation, in the highest plane of the primordial spiritual, and from thence He rules the worlds. It was Him who was described by the writer of the book of revelation as "the one who sits on the throne," while Jesus is described in the book of revelation as "the lamb who was slain."

They say unto him, He will miserably destroy those wicked men, and will let out his vineyard unto other husbandmen, which shall render him the fruits in their seasons.

It is understandable that when the "son of man" comes, His judgment will hit these wicked husbandmen very severely for the injustice they have done on the prophets of God and the for the killing of the son of God. The false and wicked structure set up by mankind shall collapse in the radiation of the son of man. He will bring everything to fulfillment and will balance every check; He shall demand payment from all the tenants that owe His father. Nothing will be able to hide from him. By being on earth, His radiation will speed up everything and shatter all the walls that hides evil. All that is dead(all that is without movement) shall be awakened to this judgment. Perhaps we already live in this era; it is left for each individual to look around him and judge the world happenings with his/her intuition. After this great purification only those that have yielded good fruits shall remain on earth. Only those that are willing to pay their rent and take good care of the vineyard shall be allowed to live on earth. The rest will no longer be permitted to live on earth. Hence: "he will let out his vineyard unto other husbandmen, which shall render him the fruits in their seasons."
and hence: "Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof."

[i]Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?
Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof. And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder. [/i]

Right. Let's move on to the next question then.

Redemption through the sacrifice on the cross.

I had stated that that is my prime interest.

I will start with the parable of the vineyard.

InesQor:
Yeah, reminds me, please let me know if it is okay to go ahead and send you a facebook request, alright?

That would be a pleasure.

Yeah, I look forward to a good game of chess, thanks!
(I stopped using the mavenbox email so I will create a new account for the chess game with my current email, send you a request and we can take it from there, aite? We can think of it as a fresh start )

I am making my move NOW - and i warn you THIS TIME IS REAL WAR!

^^^ Frightening. You are a stalker. Thank God a benevolent one!

[quote author=Tudór link=topic=467743.msg6301787#msg6301787 date=1277801315]Dude, you'll be suprised how much I know about you. . .its pretty easy to find anyone these days. I just did a little research thats all.[/quote]Now I'm curious.

Pls be careful bro, dont be so nonchalant. . . I was once hacked n attacked and had a quran sent to my home address by one pakistani I had an online spat with concerning islam. If he had sent a dangerous substance then what?

Thanks o; I must take heed then. Truth be told, when you did mention the name of the company i used to work for, i concluded that one of the persons i did reveal my name to must have leaked. At that time there were only two people on NL i had communicated externally with and naturally i suspected one of them had been indiscreet. But I wasn't worried beacuse as tough and brutal as you come across i still imagine you a decent person in some odd way

BTW, be careful who you disclose your personal info. With the way things are you can never be sure if the schitzo Inesqor isnt the same as Abuzola on NL.

Yes, o, thanks again.

When yawa gass, oneness of infinity no go help you ooooo

Na wa. Heaven help me and the day i uttered those words on this forum.

^^^ Go easy please.

JeSoul:
Lol. Pastor, he is already picked. Was picked many years ago and the real certificate will be signed and sealed in just a few weeks.

I'm so tired of the modern era with women who are no longer submissive.

Did i not specifically instruct you not to disclose the details of our wedding online ? ? ? ? ?

If you could not obey this simple instruction, i may have to call the whole thing off.

I think i could sell the ring and that should make the cost of that Porsche i've had my eye on for a while.

Haba.

InesQor:
@OP:

Some of you won't like what I have to say because of the mavenbox fiasco, but I will say it anyway. There's even more debacle from the past in fact.

I have very good reason to agree with Davidylan and JeSoul that you may be hasty in your conclusions.

I strongly doubt that Telly B is pilgrim.1 but I think they are very closely acquainted, and know one another outside NL, together with some other poster for whom I will not mention the name here.

@TV 01: Viaro was not Traugott. I know enough to swear about that.

@Chrisbenogor: As for viaro, one thing I noticed about him really fast when I joined NL is that he has a strong penchant for adapting to people's styles of expression; the way a robot "learns" in a new environment (refer to Neural Networks).

If you carefully consider the posts of the mentioned people, you will see marked differences in intelligence. I don't think they are the same person.

I am not emphatically saying that viaro has never had any other previous ID, but here is my inference: I think he picked up some styles from a couple of other NL posters over time. And I have very strong reason to believe that these people are all very familiar to one another in reality, like close friends or maybe family members; it's not a multiple-personality thing, IMHO.

---

About all this multiple ID gist,

@Deep Sight, as someone who has been there, I will like to say that the reason for holding multiple IDs in some cases may have to do with the protection of privacy when it gets compromised. This is meant to be an anonymous forum for Gilligan's sake. Assume you mistakenly get your anonymity compromised, it may just make sense to restart. So for you to say you would like to hold two differing IDs so as not to get caught is a little puzzling. You make it sound like the primary intentions of those who ever had multiple IDs was to deceive others, but objectively that does not look so to me; even when it was their secondary motive, if at all.

Speaking for myself, I am consistent in my ideas, whether the name you see beside it is mavenbox or InesQor or some other name before I got my ID compromised and registered as mavenbox in November. The ideas presented in the discussion are the main point of interest so many times I do not even consider WHO is talking as much as what they are saying (I am not thereby saying it is right to have multiple IDs, I know it's wrong). With this consistency, those who are bothered enough to dissect multiple IDs can see through the fine grain that it's one and the same person.

Yes I had an ID before mavenbox but at that time I got chatting via Yahoo messenger with a friendly person from NL. She asked me a torrent of questions, and answering her questions, I told the person almost everything about myself in the process, and got nothing in return (she said she had to leave right then) and then "she" disappeared for weeks. I was alarmed that a stranger (male or female) was watching me and knew me on an anonymous forum (I had an eerie feeling of being stalked), and I abandoned the ID, I even deleted the yahoo email account, and re-registered as mavenbox. I kept up with mavenbox and made sure I said nothing about myself to anyone until, as InesQor, I stumbled upon her again (she too had a new ID cos she forgot her password shortly after we chatted, explains her disappearing) some weeks ago and found out she was really a she, and quite harmless in that regard. Sorry I'm not telling what my original ID is, it's very irrelevant. But be assured the ID never came to this religion board i.e. I never posted. When at all I came here in those days, I was just a reader, bemused at the rabid fights between religion discussants

My point is that, besides such things as technical mistakes (that made me register InesQor out of impatience when mavenbox was locked out, fueled further by my desire to detach myself from ***insert name here*** who was always picking on me), one can also make mistakes with such things as revealing too much information and needing to cover your tracks. Maybe a new ID may not be the best foot forward, but it could work.

Cheers, bro.

Fair enough.

But all the same, much like Facebook, what really is the hullaballo about anonymity. . .so long as one is not advocating terrorism in one's posts, its really is neither here nor there if people do know who you are. If a person is not ashamed of the views that he or she expresses on this forum then there is no reason to be paranoid about anonymity.

Several people on this forum who i have never met actually know my real name . . .Jesoul, Krayola, M_Nwankwo, KunleOshob and your eminent self, amongst several others all know my name and email. And the sky has not fallen yet. So i think its all a tad bit exaggerated. I was once taken aback when Tudor correctly mentioned the name of my former employer - as i do not recall disclosing either my name or that to him/her - except that i work in telecommunications. That he/she knew that, and may or may not know anything else does nothing to harm me or my life.

Now think of all the politicians, entertainers, writers, TV personalities, radio personalities, businessmen and other public figures whose real names, real addresses, real line of work, and daily comments are known to virtually the whole world. Has the sky fallen on their heads? Just what percentage of them have been bothered by stalkers? I hope you see what i mean. Its really not a big deal for people to know who you are. That is, unless you have something to hide, or are ashamed of the views you have expressed.

By the way, when you do have some time do let me have another stab at redeeming my reputation at chess.

I strongly doubt that Telly B is pilgrim.1 but I think they are very closely acquainted, and know one another outside NL, together with some other poster for whom I will not mention the name here.

@TV 01: Viaro was not Traugott. I know enough to swear about that.

@Chrisbenogor: As for viaro, one thing I noticed about him really fast when I joined NL is that he has a strong penchant for adapting to people's styles of expression; the way a robot "learns" in a new environment (refer to Neural Networks).

Your thorough knowledge of these folks and definite pronouncements regarding them is startling. Perhaps the affinity runs so deep as to suppose that you are all actually resident within one human body.

Lol. . .a bit of weed back in school but that's been many years ago.