₦airaland Forum

^^^ Please look again, Mazaje - the post above was not written by me, so I don't know how Oneness of Infinity Comes into this. . .

noetic17:
As usual, u make posts without thinking twice.

Smile. Life is beautiful.

I am sure I already emphasised in my previous post that it was impossible to construct counter analysis against his notions, [size=18pt]since he does not subscribe to the bible. [/size] So quite unlike your misguided misrepresentation of my response to him. . . .What I laid out to establish [size=18pt]was that his (m_nwankwo) opinions contradict the known ontology of JC and His purpose and mission as stated in the bible[/size].

Eminently contradictory.

I ended up asking him, if he knows that, should his theory be false it might cost him his eternity. So also do I ask u DS, that should u die, do u know that your denial of the sacrifice of JC, might cost u your place in eternity, regardless of how good u are?

Eminently contradictory. The word "regardless" in your question is an oxymoron.

my last post was not hard to understand, even for the least educated. . . . .or was it?

Smile again, Noetic.

@ M_Nwankwo -

I am at odds with your statement that Jesus never stated that John the Baptist was Elijah.

I am aware that Jesus stated in plain words exactly that John the Baptist was the returned Elijah - at least as recorded by the Bible.

Now I am further aware that the Bible is not your creed (nor is it my creed) - thus, your statement (to be true) must mean either -

   1. Jesus did actually say that John was Elijah - as recorded by the Bible, but meant it symbolically or in another sense altogether

   2. Jesus never actually said such a thing - the Bible gives a wrong report of his statement.

Which is it?

noetic17:
@ M-Nwankwo

Thanks for your response.

I am taking a cautious approach in replying u, but can u take a second look at the following.

1. Jesus actually affirmed to the world that unless they drink His blood and eat His flesh they CANNOT be saved. (John 6:53)

2. The only thing that Jesus commanded that should be done in remembrance of Him is the holy communion (Luke 22:19)

3. Jesus affirms that His blood ensures the remission of sins. (Matthew 26:28 )

4. Jesus asserted in more than 5 places in the gospels that His death and resurrection brings Him glory. He rebuked Peter who did not want Him to die. He also prayed that He be glorified at death in His last prayer recorded in the book of John.

5. Jesus boldly asserted that He is the one who has laid down His life and He can also take it back (John 10:17-18)

6. Jesus says that the Father LOVES Him because HE (Jesus) agreed to lay down His life (John 10:17)

---

It is ontologically impossible for Jesus to have been killed without the knowledge of God or by accident (like u proscribed). . . . .unless of course we are talking about 2 different Jesus here. This is because God is supposed to be omni-potent and omni-scient.
Have u ever considered the possibility that your belief in a non-biblical Jesus might be wrong and may cost u eternity?

Nwankwo does not draw his convictions from the bible: just like he has told you: so all the quotes above are no grounds for addressing him.

Nwankwo is a Jewel. Far and above the most esteemed member of the NL Religion Board.

Although I am unable to agree with all that he says: such as his endorsement of the Trinity - a doctrine I am certain I will die still disbelieving - or his perception of the identity of the writer of the Grail Message: I must say that I am always humbled to be addressed by him; and if he were to make a claim to divinity himself, I just might believe it.

^^^ The foregoing is primitive, barbaric, uncivilized, undemocratic, se.xist, discriminatory, reprehensible, appalling, culturally mis-footed, criminal in its entirety, misogynistic, uncultured, ill-thought and altogether an embarrasment for a rational mind.

You propose that a rapist should be rewarded by entitlement to keep the victim as his wife permanently.

I am not aware that I have ever heard such a sinister or anarchic propostion in all my life.

It is all the more deplorable as this proposition comes forth from a supposed Christian.

Who in the world should ever recommend to ANYBODY a man with rapist tendencies as a husband ? ? ? ?

In such a society if I am in love with a woman who spurns my attentions, all i need to do is RA, PE her, and viola! - she is compelled to be my wife permanently.

In whatever age, the fact remains that it was absolutely untenable - especially as female se.xu.al indiscretions were punished by death through stoning.

And you dare state that given the context a man who RA.PES a virgin, should receive nothing but the exclusive entitlement to keep such a woman as his permanent wife.

What is interesting to note is that no cognsable punishment is prescribed for the outright rapist.

Ridiculously, in the event that a woman commits a sexual indiscretion, she is to be stoned to death.

Unspeakable double-standards set simply by a patriachial primitive society dedicated to gender apartheid.

Unfortunatley Saudi Arabia, the bastion of Islam, is still at this most primitive stage in terms of its psycological and social development.

Jesus expressly stated that he is not omniscient.

That's supposed to be one of Yahweh's unique attributes.

^^^ Nor will our blood be on the high places or the battlefields where Yahweh commanded that even infants must be slaughtered.

We didn't write it - its right there in your own hallowed Bible.

Bastage:
I disagree.

The Trinity is defined as being three persons in one god.

The persons aren't worshipped, the god is.

Look at it this way:

Say we worship H2O.
Ice, water vapor and liquid water are all H2O. The 3 are all distinct but they all the same chemical formula.
They're not worshipped in the sense that all are different substances. They're all worshipped because they are the same thing - H2O.

Personally, I don't dispute the fact that the Trinity was copied from other, older religions and philosophies but it in no way indicates polytheism today. As Kay17 says, it was adopted only after much debate. The people who adopted it did so on the understanding that it was a monotheistic creed.
Also, an important point: if a Christian believes that he worships only one god, it is impossible to tell him otherwise. If I pray and I decide that I am praying to just one god, nobody can tell me otherwise. You may say "Ah, but the Trinity is 3 seperate people" but if the Christian sees it as the "One", then any other statement about polytheism is irrelevant.

I have to say that it's an argument that annoys me when atheists use it because it has no basis in modern day Christianity. Sure, we can look back to the origins of Christianity and infer polytheism but it's relevance is nothing to the individual believer unless he actually chooses willingly and knowingly to follow a polytheistic belief now.

This is patently flawed for one reason - THE BIBLE ITSELF which is the grund norm of the Christian Faith DOES NOT describe the supposed three persons as being one or the same.

The bible is very clear that they posess different attributes and are not merely different manifestations of the same entity. This is clear as between Jesus and the Father.

As regards the Holy Spirit, this is not a personage at all - or even a manifestation of a personage. In my understanding it is simply the active will of God. Like God's energy.

Given the presentation of the relationship between Jesus and the Father within the Bible it is apparent that the argument that they are the same entity cannot be sustained.

Given this fact, in no wise can the Christian Faith be deemed a monotheistic one.

I really love this thread.

noetic17:
would it not have been balanced if u had highlighted "Pastor" AIO and Bastage offensive words too. But ofcourse u wont, since u both share the same world view. Dude, get real.

Actually i set out to quote all the offensive words from both of you.

When i started with Bastage I found that there were only two offensive words, and those were in direct response to your own offensive words.

Tone it down na?

Edit

I read the full text of the interview.

It was simply disgusting.

What will be more disgusting and laughable will be the Federal Republic of Nigeria - if he is not arrested, prosecuted, jailed and recalled from the Senate.

Quotes from Noetic16 to Bastage -

noetic16:
is this not dumb?

will u SHUT UP? ?

This is lazy, dumb, ridiculous, unintelligent

Are u so daft?

You display your intellectual emptiness

. . do you think at all?

quite evasive and silly.

This is plain silly.

can u read to comprehend at all?

are u this dumb?  

Idiot.

Well, well, well! ! Somebody's getting reeeeeaaaaaalllyyyyy upset about Yahweh's history.

Frankly the level of insults above are entirely unnecessary.

Let's try to build upwards and not downwards.

None of us are kids I am sure.

@ Bastage - well said.

The point of this thread is three-fold.

 1. Cultural: The wholesale adoption  of foreign cultures and religions may not always be well-advised if one considers the origin and history of such adopted worldviews. In this regard it is my view that the natural cultural and spiritual development of a people is retarded as such people would otherwise have progressed along a steady line towards defining for themselves that which is spiritually apt for them.

This is doubtless the path that creates social pride and dignity for a race of people. In this regard I may cite the development of Eastern thought in the form of Buddhism, Taoism, Confucianism and Shinto - an I can easily conclude that these worldviews represent a better developed outlook than that espoused by the average African for the simple reason that we did not take the time to develop our own spiritual philosophies and nourish them to full maturity.

 2. Historical: The negative history surrounding the evolution of Yahweh is a valuable insight into human nature. It shows us exactly how human beings are able to create dieties and nourish them into being worshipped globally.

 3. Theological - Yahweh as defined in the old testament does not fit with any sound perception of the Uncaused Cause and Pinnacle of all existence which is defined as God; accordingly[b] he could NOT be God [/b] and this means certainly that the Judeo-Christian worldview might be seriously mis-footed.

Judaism

Wikipedia

In the eyes of some, some of the violent actions of the Israelites in the times of the Old Testament were fanatical in nature. Steffen describes the Holy War waged by the Israelites, along with the God of the Old Testament, Yahweh. He describes this "divinely sanctioned use of force and violence", or herem, saying:

In the herem, Yahweh seeks general destruction, as in the conquest of Canaan (Josh. 6:17-18), or even total annihilation, as in God's command to King Saul to include in the slaughter of Israel's enemies ‘man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey' (1 Sam. 15:3; 22:19). [28]

As Steffen says, this war bordered on omnicide.[29] The Israelites dealt with neighboring cities in a way that some would deem fanatical also. Paul N. Anderson says that "nearby cities were to be destroyed completely. . . .If they are not, they will corrupt the Israelites with their religion and detestable practices and will cause Israel to fall away from God." [30] In addition, he mentions that the people were told to obey Yahweh's commands completely, and, for the most part, the people obeyed. The only king that defied Yahweh during the Holy War was Saul, who preserved the flocks of the people the Israelites attacked because he didn't see a point in wasting them. [31] This, as the scriptures say, angered Yahweh, thus proving, in Steffen's eyes, that Yahweh demanded absolute obedience from his chosen people.

We need to ask, as a follow on to the OP's questions in the thread about the lies, if the ontology of the Jewish Deity is something that rational people should be proud to be associated with.

It is ridiculous for example, the amount of matters (some of them quite petty)[/b]for which [b]Yahweh prescribes death by stoning -

1. For touching Mount Sinai  Exodus 19:13

2. For taking "accursed things"  Joshua 7:1-26 

3. For cursing or blaspheming  Leviticus 24:16 

4. For adultery (including urban despoil victims who fail to scream loud enough)  Deuteronomy 22:23-24 

5. For animals (like an ox that gores a human)  Exodus 21:28 

6. For a woman who is not a virgin on her wedding night  Deuteronomy 22:13-21

7. For worshipping other gods  Deuteronomy 17:2-5 

8. For preaching the wrong religion  Deuteronomy 13:5-10 

9. For disobeying parents  Deuteronomy 21:18-21 

10. For witches and wizards  Leviticus 20:27 

11. For giving your children to Molech  Leviticus 20:2 

12. For breaking the Sabbath  Numbers 15:32-56 

13. For cursing the king  1 Kings 21:10 

Does this not reek of a barbaric pagan deity issuing extremist injunctions?

The guy is absolutely notorious.

I know. Just buttressing the point.

So as not to derail the other thread from discussing its specific issue - to wit - the deliberate disemination of falsehood by Yahweh, I am interested in looking also at some of the other interesting attributes of this deity.

A key one is extreme brutality.

Genocide, and brutal injunctions to stoning to death in odd circumstances.

Start with Genocidal Commands -

Wikipedia -

Deuteronomy 7 is notable because it contains one of the most overt instances of God ordering the Israelites to commit genocide against neighboring societies.

1. When the LORD your God brings you into the land you are entering to possess and drives out before you many nations -- the Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites, seven nations larger and stronger than you --

2 and when the LORD your God has delivered them over to you and you have defeated them, then you must destroy them totally. Make no treaty with them, and show them no mercy.

3 Do not intermarry with them. Do not give your daughters to their sons or take their daughters for your sons,

4 for they will turn your sons away from following me to serve other gods, and the LORD's anger will burn against you and will quickly destroy you.

5 This is what you are to do to them: Break down their altars, smash their sacred stones, cut down their Asherah poles and burn their idols in the fire. (Deut 7.1-5)

However, in the cities of the nations the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. 17 Completely destroy them -- the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites -- as the LORD your God has commanded you. 18 Otherwise, they will teach you to follow all the detestable things they do in worshiping their gods, and you will sin against the LORD your God. (Deut 20.16ff)

Later Yahweh admonishes the Israelites for not killing each and every inhabitant in these lands.

^^^

Wikipedia -

Elohim (אֱלהִים) is a Hebrew word which expresses concepts of divinity or deity, notably used as a name of God in Judaism. It is apparently related to the Northwest Semitic word ʾēl (אֱל) "god". Within Hebrew, it is morphologically a plural, in use both as a true plural with the meaning "angels, gods, rulers" and as a "plural intensive" with singular meaning, referring to a god or goddess, and especially to the single God of Israel.

@ Romeo -

Well thank you for your response.

I believe the lines are clearly demarcated as you have said:

 1. We agree that he sent a lying spirit

 2. We disagree on whether that makes him a liar.

You for your part have stated that that does not make him a liar. To buttress this you stated that if I send my PA to deliver a message, that does not make ME a Messenger.

I refute this analogy as being a flawed one: for the simple reason that we have not argued concerning Yahweh's vocation.

I state (and I earlier stated already) that what is significant is the content of the message. The content of the message is doubtless mine.

This you cannot dispute.

Accordingly the content of the false message sent to those prophets belonged to Yahweh.

This logically and ineluctably renders him a liar.

In this regard note the specific words in 2Ch 18:21 - "[the lord] said - 'You are to entice him, and you shall succeed; go forth and do so.'

I hope this reasoing is clear.

As a post-script, let me just emphasize one thing again - I have no particular interest in denigrating Yahweh. As you know, I believe in and worship God. I simply do not believe that Yahweh as described in the OT is God. His Ontology is too inconsistent with the purity that I ascribe to God. And it tickles me that people cannot see that.

^^^ Simple - he did not use these rather offensive words (bolded)-

nuclearboy:
@Romeo4real:

Are you sure you don't answer the moniker "Viaro" on occasion? Whatever, I'm loving you, bro. Big Time!!

DeepSight may end up with only the name the way he's being slapped, kicked, bashed, whipped, assaulted, [size=16pt]gang-banged [/size] etc all over NL. Seems Yahweh has the last laugh on you guy! His children (plenty of them too) seem to find it so easy to [size=16pt]stick ceremonial swords (scabbards and lanyards included) up your behind,[/size] SIDEWAYS! You might want to move over to the romance section.

I am always happy to have fresh blood to interact with.

Sun Tzu:
Fellow Believers,
Gone are the days when we spent time convincing unbelievers, these are perilious times. I think we have more job to do preparing ourselves for the journey ahead than standing by and answering any bystander whose only aim is to slow us down.
Light and darkness do not mix and so how does light explain to darkness what he is or darkness explain to light what he is? IT IS NOT POSSIBLE.

My point? Its not for every rain that falls that you run to bring out bowls to fetch water.

Ha ha. Why is it that you guys just can't get over the lies and hypocrisy of your genocidal Yahweh?

Haba, the Jews created their Yahweh, why don't you create yours - and keep him far from lies and genocide.

You can simply co-opt one of the millions of already existing African Deities and substitute him for Yahweh, since Yahweh has become an international embarrassment to you.

From Bryant's - An Analysis of Ancient Mythology.

"The ancient symbol of the Orphic Mysteries was the Serpent-Entwined Egg, which signified the Cosmos as encircled by the Fiery Creative Spirit. The Egg also reprsents the Soul of the Philosopher. the Serpent Represents the Mysteries. At the time of initiation, the shell is broken and man emerges from the embryonic state of physical existence wherein he had remained through the fetal period of regeneration."

  1. Death is thus a "breaking of the egg" - our physical bodies - which house the soul - and thus the birth of the soul into life.

  2. When we were born into this life, it thus stands to reason that we were emerging from another embryonic stage. A previous life.

Could it be that your soul is being developed in an "egg."

When the egg hatches, your body dies.

And your soul is born into life.

nuclearboy:
DeepSight may end up with only the name the way he's being slapped, kicked, bashed, whipped, assaulted, gang-banged etc all over NL. Seems Yahweh has the last laugh on you guy! His children (plenty of them too) seem to find it so easy to stick ceremonial swords (scabbards and lanyards included) up your behind, SIDEWAYS! You might want to move over to the romance section.

I will urge you to review issues, and not personalities.

For my part I do not have, and will not be persuaded to have, a negative view of you.

Mr. Romeo4Real (under suspicion) -

You stated that the issue is whether a Principal and his messenger are the same person.

That whas a ghastly mis-perception.

That has never been the issue - just as I pointed out -

Deep Sight:
What do you mean by saying – “The argument is not about whose letter it is; but if the sender, and the messenger are the same” –

The argument is, always has been, and will continue to be about whose letter it is for Christ’s sake. Exactly because we are trying to uncover whose lie it is. I am sure you are not so befuddled as to fail to see that that is EXACTLY what the discussion has been from the point you entered right up to this very millisecond.

How dare you state that the argument is about “if the sender, and the messenger are the same? ? ? ? ? ?” Are you for real?

Is there any person on this thread that asserted that Yahweh is the same person as the spirit that came up to him? ? ?

Haba, did you not see my several references to a Principal and an Agent? ? ? ?

Did I for ONE SECOND state that the Principal is the Agent? ? ? ?

Did I not repeatedly state that the Principal remains responsible for the acts of his agent: indeed those acts are his own acts so long as he instructed the Agent to act in that regard!

This is comical.

I am sure you can now see how dreadfully you have confused the issues. Frankly I am aghast that you could assert that the issue is “not whose letter it is.”

Wake up son! That is, and always has been the issue.

Unless you are hallucinating NO ONE here EVER argued about God and the messenger being the same entity. Where the hell did you get that from? ? ?

Kindly do some study on the law of Agency and the relationship between Principal and Agent.

I positively assert to you that it is ridiculously absurd to claim as you have that the actions of an Agent who takes command from his Principal are not the actions of the Principal. For what you assert to me is that no General in history has ever fought a war – given that they issue instructions to others regarding the wars. Or that no Head of State has ever taken an action – given that they simply give orders to other people regarding such.

I note that rather than address ANY of the issues I pointed out to you: namely the reality of a Principal and an Agent - and my rebuttal of your claim that the discourse centred on "if they were the same person" - you have responded by asserting that I am a fool, amongst other things.

Since you have made no response to the points I raised above, I summarily conclude that you agree with them: but are strangely compelled to insult me for offering my perspectives.

Smile. Life is beautiful.

Just inquiring - Is this permissible under Islamic Tenets?

I am aware that its a criminal offence under the Child Rights Act.

Just inquiring, cos I heard an Islamic Scholar this morning on TV saying that although legally its wrong, there is nothing wrong with it under Islamic Tenets.

Is this the case?

No, they will tell you that the poor fella was Almighty God.

Delusion pass delusion o.

Very interesting, Pastor.

davidylan:
Interesting that the Lord here CLEARLY STATES that the prophets in question are NOT His but Ahabs'.

So its very good for your Yahweh to tell lies to people once they are not "his people. . ."

You guys are still not getting it.

You fail to see that a God who would descend to the level of falsehood simply because he is dealing with people who are in themselves false, has simply reduced himself to their level of zero morality

You continuously debase God with every argument you make.

Romeo4real:
As I said before, using your logic above, which i have laid out so you can follow easily, - If you send out a letter via your PA, your PA then becomes a messenger. By your logic, you are also a messenger. You should have no problem accepting this statement. Quite clearly, you have not read up on Invalid Deductive Arguments, otherwise we wouldnt be still debating this point.

It is clear that is it is the CONTENT of the message that is mine - not the timberland boots of the messenger, his predilection for candies, his laziness or any other thing about him.

So no dice. Try again.