₦airaland Forum

I was born and raised Christian Anglican.

But might i ask you what is unique to anglicanism?

The fact that it was created as a consequence of the multiple adultery and blood-letting of Henry VIII? ? ?

An ignominous birth, would you not say?

^^^ God sees the heart. . .

So does outward appearance matter?

Is it relevant whether the lady wears a mini-skirt or a booboo - or earrings or none? ? ?

I think its neither here nor there.

toba:
. . . . Except if only theirs are ignorance

Gbam!

viaro:
Are you getting really tired already?
I don't know what three legs has to do with your deistic 'god'. Care to explicate?

You see how foolish y[color=Black]ou so[/color]und. (ooops, disgnosis, remember?). You have nothing to show for your own OOI and then you crawl in and laugh out your ignorance in pretence of making any sense. I don't think anyone would have bothered about your OOI if you learnt to let others hold their belief, especially in Christianity. When you skid here and there and start acting out your fundamentalism, do go back and reflect on your three-legged OOI. That in itself should be no "mystery", no?

Ok.

Just zip it

Zipped!

viaro:
You subscribe to absolutely NOTHING. Your subscription is a duplicity that has long been exposed, that is why you go about like the jerk you are and laughing off your own ignorance. That was a 'diagnosis', remember?

There are so many 'supreme beings' in many worldview. You only subscribe to all of them because any resemblance for you will do, even though you have to steal from them to patch up your rogue religion. If you have something solid, why is your own 'god' such a nameless, faceless, vague and patently evasive? Why does your 'god' exist only in terms of a mathematical prose that has since been rubbished on Nairaland?

It is not my world - you can subscribe to any number of the ones you stole from whatever religion . . . they won't notice. But when it comes to Christianity, please stop trying to impress yourself on your ignorance - that's why you laugh at what you have n clue about and then turn round to complain.

If that is what you want us to believe about your 'god', it's up to you. Hahaha! And you would forever attack the Hindu? Dude, I hope you're not still on "free services" from your psychiatrist friend?

Do I give a flip if your 'god' has three legs as you say?

Hahaha! You're already crying??

I am still very interested in the identity of your own 'god'. Use anything you can conceive of - three legs, whatever. It's up to you. But please give us some identity of your 'god' and stop hiding behind excuses only to come back and laugh off your ignorance.

Well I've given it already: If it doesn't do for you, I will just have to pass.

Hi Toba -

I do not regard the EXISTENCE of God as a mystery.

It is no mystery - it is perfectly logical that existent things require a pre-existing Cause.

So it is not the existence of God that is a mystery.

What might be a mystery is the nature of God.

Unfortunately that simple fact has become an excuse for peeps to describe God as whatever they like and defend the description thus -

"Its a mystery!"

Sir: I have not said that there is a God in Atheism.

I urged you to consider that the lifestyle of the Atheist may be more in consonance with the will of the God that you and other Theists profess.

I believe the parable of the Good Samaritan bears this out.

The back-and-forth on the very same things which I have said already is frankly irritating.

I can't say anything more.

^^^ Is it conceivable that

-  matter = Life?

Does observation of the universe bear this out?

Is it not more likely that  -

- matter + (x) = Life?

^^^ You surprise me.

In every Theistic worldview God is primarily defined that the Supreme Being who created all that exists.

I subscribe to this.

I wonder what else you want me to subscribe to? Perhaps that he has spinach and eggs for breakfast? Or that he has three legs and one eye?

Really what? ? ?

The day will come when you will tire of this.

^^^ I said it all already -

What else is there to add?

I was very specific in everything -

Deep Sight:
^^^ And what does it take to worship God, if not simply be a good person Viaro?

Are the outward forms and rituals, such as Prayer, Praise, Ceremonies etc really required by a Living God?

In all sincerity, let me ask you what you understand by the injunction that one must worship God is Spirit and in Truth?

In my own understanding, that simply means that dead outward ceremonies are not the substance of worshipping God - that the worship of God rather relates to the inward state of the spirit which corresponds to eternal truth.

This is why I brought up the parable of the good Samaritan, which I thought should be sufficient to show you from your own bible that the worship of God has absolutely nothing to do with outward ceremonies, rituals or dogmatic or doctrinal acknowledgements.

Now to elucidate the point it is critical that we carefully note the context of that parable -

The Gospel of Luke provides the context for the parable as:

One day an expert in religious law stood up to test Jesus by asking him this question: “Teacher, what should I do to inherit eternal life?”

So it should be noted that the parable was given within a context of salvation – namely that which would be required for one to be accepted with God.

Jesus replied, “What does the law of Moses say? How do you read it?”

The man answered, “‘You must love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, all your strength, and all your mind.’ And, ‘Love your neighbour as yourself.’” “Right!” Jesus told him. “Do this and you will live!”

So it is also clear that the ensuing parable sets forth that which it takes to “love God” and “love one’s neighbour.”

This is all the more emphasized since as you well know Jesus often stated that those who care for their neighbours were actually showing such love to him and to God. “I was hungry, and you fed me . . . whenever you did this for one of those, you did the same for me. . . “

The man wanted to justify his actions, so he asked Jesus, “And who is my neighbour?”

Jesus then replied with a story:

“A Jewish man was travelling on a trip from Jerusalem to Jericho, and he was attacked by bandits. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him up, and left him half dead beside the road. By chance a priest came along. But when he saw the man lying there, he crossed to the other side of the road and passed him by. A Levite walked over and looked at him lying there, but he also passed by on the other side.


Now it is instructive that Jesus selects a Priest and a Levite to demonstrate his point – because the Priest and the Levite as you well know symbolize those who expressly acknowledge God, accept all the attendant doctrines about God and morality, and actively execute the outward rituals of “worshipping” God. The Levites as you know were a dedicated tribe of holy priests within the nation of Israel.

However Jesus has just shown what I am trying to say – namely that all the outward forms of acknowledgement of God which these people subscribed to did not in any way mean that they were really worshipping God – because of their action of ignoring the man who was hurt.

Now note carefully the next verses –

“Then a despised Samaritan came along, and when he saw the man, he felt compassion for him.”

Stop press! Note the words “despised Samaritan?” Why did Jesus not use any other lay Jew or even a non-specified person to elucidate his point? He rather chose to select what? – a DESPISED SAMARITAN!

Now Wikipedia says -

Thus note carefully the context – the Samaritan symbolizes people who are deemed to be “on the wrong side” of correct religious doctrine at the time and people who were accordingly “despised.”

Notwithstanding that, this is what Jesus conveys –

“Going over to him, the Samaritan soothed his wounds with olive oil and wine and bandaged them. Then he put the man on his own donkey and took him to an inn, where he took care of him. The next day he handed the innkeeper two silver coins, telling him, ‘Take care of this man. If his bill runs higher than this, I’ll pay you the next time I’m here.’

Jesus concludes –

“Now which of these three would you say was a neighbour to the man who was attacked by bandits?” Jesus asked. The man replied, “The one who showed him mercy.” Then Jesus said, “Yes, now go and do the same.

In this parable it is critical to note the imagery of the selected individuals –

1. “A Priest and a Levite” – are clearly indicative of people who have formally acknowledged God and are also at the fore-front of all the outward rituals and ceremonies.

2. “A Samaritan” – is considered on the wrong side of doctrine and dogma and is also “generally despised” in religious terms.

However it is easy to see that the man who is supposedly on the wrong side of doctrine – who no indication of God is made about is painted in glowing terms by Jesus because of his kind and merciful deeds.

I need to point out also the Imagery of Brotherly Affiliation. Note this from Wikipedia –

Much may be said – but basically there was this divide existing between the Jews and the Samaritans.

Now In answering the question – “who is your neighbor” – the parable of the Good Samaritan goes the extra step of showing that neighborliness arises not from tribal or religious affiliations but from loving acts of concern for one another.

What this shows is that the “groups” of churches, mosques, or other theists, are useless in determining the question of neighborliness. An Atheist or Buddhist could as well be a better neighbor than your Deacon in Church or your Imam in Mosque.

And given the parable of the Good Samaritan, in such an event, we can clearly see WHOM has done the will of God. . . .

So my dear friend, while you edify nobody by talking endlessly about definitions (define this, define that), I assert to you today that which was the living essence of the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ – namely that love trumps all things and is the very essence of Christianity.

And if an Atheist or a Buddhist will show such love, then he has certainly met the requirements of the God that Jesus preached about – regardless of whether he accepts that such a God exists or not.

This is so simple and so pure – and should come so naturally to the Christian who is steeped in the ideas of Christ – which ideas tended towards love and doctrinal flexibility: and not towards iron cast “definitions” which you regrettably seem adamantly attached to – at the expense of the simple beauty of the gospel of Jesus. Jesus statements on the observance of the Sabbath and other such – just show the flexibility I speak about – which tends towards –spirit and truth – and not outward forms.

At all events since it is a given that you will yet dispute this simple and lucid example; for the objective reader – I state in simplicity – An Atheist or a Buddhist, if he lives a life of love and charity - certainly does the will of the God that Jesus preached about.

Can't add anymore to it. Its a simple enough statement to make that whereas the Theist may disdain the atheist, the lifestyle of the Atheist may actually be more fulfulling of the will of God - whom the Theist describes and subcribes to.

^^^ The Creator of all that exists.

If I've said once, I've said it a thousand times.

^^^ The appeal to mytery is just escapism.

I have often told you that Hindu Cow worship may as well be justified by that as well. . . "Helllooooo. . . . Its a mystery!"

Quaint.

^^^ I think I have said all that i have to say. I am sure the objective reader can get my drift.

I have nothing to add.

Thanks.

Does an unchangeable God change state?

Does a perfect God take on imperfection?

I laugh!

Can God be begotten?

Can God change state?

Is God not unchangeable?

I laugh.

These guys just denigrate and insult the transcendence and perfection of God everyday!

Let's leave it then. It was clear within my post the God i referred to and what I thought may be relevant to please him - whether the subject belives that such a God exists or not.

I said -

I state in simplicity – An Atheist or a Buddhist, if he lives a life of love and charity - certainly does the will of the God that Jesus preached about.

And I went to great lengths to show how the Parable of the good Samaritan bears this out.

If this is not good enough, I will have to give up and leave it at that beacuse u keep saying "which God? which God" - whereas i have said a zillion times i refer to the God conceived by a Theist such as a Christian as yourself.

And that's why I used that parable to show that that God needs no formal "acknowldgement" to be pleased, but only love and charity. . . simple.

I cant really say more than this.

Oooops sorry! I await your views on my last post in the Buddhism Thread.

Thanks.

@Mr Mayor -

Another memorable mavenbox thread -

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-397803.0.html

Here's a good one -


https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-389094.0.html

I think the issue of "shadows" of Theism or Deism has been beaten to death already, but more importantly I believe it is not relevant to this thread.

Easylogic's questions and inquiries are much deeper and more topical, and I would be interested in pursuing that.

Where is Easylogic? You have not reverted to my resposne above.

No vex.

Lol Viaro! Am not interested in the topic. . . so carry on.

Cheers!

Esp when you consider Mavenbox's bizzarre statement that he/she knows for sure Viaro's gender and name and has "irrefutable proof" that Viaro is male etc etc etc

^^^^ Yes o! It just might be! Maybe Viaro/Inesqor i working overtime!

I AM SICK OF THE JOKERS PRETENDING THAT FORUM RULES AREN'T BEING BROKEN BY THESE MULTIPLE I.D GOONS. . .

Aside from the blatant dishonesty involved.

Its anonymous, alrite, so one I.d SHOULD DO! Why multiple I.D's and multiple lies? ? ? ? ?

Would it be fair to my many friends on this forum if i 2moro registered as Fela1 AND THEN BEGAN TO INSIST AND LIE THAT I AM NOT DEEP SIGHT?

Would it be Christian? ? ?

Why the bother, since Deep Sight is Largely anonymous, anyway (save the few i have revealed myself to! - by choice) It doesn't bother me - why should it bother anyone - if you are not Osama bin laden or a convicted felon - do you have somthing to hide or are you ashamed of the views you have expressed on this forum? ? ? ?

By the way my saying David is Noetic was jus kiddin . . .i do not really think so . . .but Viaro is DEFINITELY Pilgrim1 - any casual review of their posts, language, style, arguments and even formatting will reveal that in an instant. That is why he is so defensive of the mavenbox/ Inesqor deceit!

@ Karo93 - Dogma remains a terrible blindfold. It is Like a leech. It clings steadfast over the eyes of the dogmatic, and no reason can unhinge it.

Nothing can prevent a man who is determined to worship a fellow man from doing so.

^^^ And what does it take to worship God, if not simply be a good person Viaro?

Are the outward forms and rituals, such as Prayer, Praise, Ceremonies etc really required by a Living God?

In all sincerity, let me ask you what you understand by the injunction that one must worship God is Spirit and in Truth?

In my own understanding, that simply means that dead outward ceremonies are not the substance of worshipping God - that the worship of God rather relates to the inward state of the spirit which corresponds to eternal truth.

This is why I brought up the parable of the good Samaritan, which I thought should be sufficient to show you from your own bible that the worship of God has absolutely nothing to do with outward ceremonies, rituals or dogmatic or doctrinal acknowledgements.

Now to elucidate the point it is critical that we carefully note the context of that parable -

The Gospel of Luke provides the context for the parable as:

One day an expert in religious law stood up to test Jesus by asking him this question: “Teacher, what should I do to inherit eternal life?”

So it should be noted that the parable was given within a context of salvation – namely that which would be required for one to be accepted with God.

Jesus replied, “What does the law of Moses say? How do you read it?”

The man answered, “‘You must love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, all your strength, and all your mind.’ And, ‘Love your neighbour as yourself.’” “Right!” Jesus told him. “Do this and you will live!”

So it is also clear that the ensuing parable sets forth that which it takes to “love God” and “love one’s neighbour.”

This is all the more emphasized since as you well know Jesus often stated that those who care for their neighbours were actually showing such love to him and to God. “I was hungry, and you fed me . . . whenever you did this for one of those, you did the same for me. . . “

The man wanted to justify his actions, so he asked Jesus, “And who is my neighbour?”

Jesus then replied with a story:

“A Jewish man was travelling on a trip from Jerusalem to Jericho, and he was attacked by bandits. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him up, and left him half dead beside the road. By chance a priest came along. But when he saw the man lying there, he crossed to the other side of the road and passed him by. A Levite walked over and looked at him lying there, but he also passed by on the other side.


Now it is instructive that Jesus selects a Priest and a Levite to demonstrate his point – because the Priest and the Levite as you well know symbolize those who expressly acknowledge God, accept all the attendant doctrines about God and morality, and actively execute the outward rituals of “worshipping” God. The Levites as you know were a dedicated tribe of holy priests within the nation of Israel.

However Jesus has just shown what I am trying to say – namely that all the outward forms of acknowledgement of God which these people subscribed to did not in any way mean that they were really worshipping God – because of their action of ignoring the man who was hurt.

Now note carefully the next verses –

“Then a despised Samaritan came along, and when he saw the man, he felt compassion for him.”

Stop press! Note the words “despised Samaritan?” Why did Jesus not use any other lay Jew or even a non-specified person to elucidate his point? He rather chose to select what? – a DESPISED SAMARITAN!

Now Wikipedia says -

Portraying a Samaritan in positive light would have come as a shock to Jesus' audience.[1] It is typical of his provocative speech in which conventional expectations are turned upside down.[1]

Thus note carefully the context – the Samaritan symbolizes people who are deemed to be “on the wrong side” of correct religious doctrine at the time and people who were accordingly “despised.”

Notwithstanding that, this is what Jesus conveys –

“Going over to him, the Samaritan soothed his wounds with olive oil and wine and bandaged them. Then he put the man on his own donkey and took him to an inn, where he took care of him. The next day he handed the innkeeper two silver coins, telling him, ‘Take care of this man. If his bill runs higher than this, I’ll pay you the next time I’m here.’

Jesus concludes –

“Now which of these three would you say was a neighbour to the man who was attacked by bandits?” Jesus asked. The man replied, “The one who showed him mercy.” Then Jesus said, “Yes, now go and do the same.

In this parable it is critical to note the imagery of the selected individuals –

1. “A Priest and a Levite” – are clearly indicative of people who have formally acknowledged God and are also at the fore-front of all the outward rituals and ceremonies.

2. “A Samaritan” – is considered on the wrong side of doctrine and dogma and is also “generally despised” in religious terms.

However it is easy to see that the man who is supposedly on the wrong side of doctrine – who no indication of God is made about is painted in glowing terms by Jesus because of his kind and merciful deeds.

I need to point out also the Imagery of Brotherly Affiliation. Note this from Wikipedia –

According to the Jewish version of events, when the Judean exile ended in 538 BCE and the exiles began returning home from Babylon, they found their former homeland populated by other people who claimed the land as their own and Jerusalem, their former glorious capital, in ruins.

And –

Jewish tradition maintains a different origin for the Samaritans. The Talmud accounts for a people called "Cuthim" on a number of occasions, mentioning their arrival by the hands of the Assyrians.

Much may be said – but basically there was this divide existing between the Jews and the Samaritans.

Now In answering the question – “who is your neighbor” – the parable of the Good Samaritan goes the extra step of showing that neighborliness arises not from tribal or religious affiliations but from loving acts of concern for one another.

What this shows is that the “groups” of churches, mosques, or other theists, are useless in determining the question of neighborliness. An Atheist or Buddhist could as well be a better neighbor than your Deacon in Church or your Imam in Mosque.

And given the parable of the Good Samaritan, in such an event, we can clearly see WHOM has done the will of God. . . .

So my dear friend, while you edify nobody by talking endlessly about definitions (define this, define that), I assert to you today that which was the living essence of the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ – namely that love trumps all things and is the very essence of Christianity.

And if an Atheist or a Buddhist will show such love, then he has certainly met the requirements of the God that Jesus preached about – regardless of whether he accepts that such a God exists or not.

This is so simple and so pure – and should come so naturally to the Christian who is steeped in the ideas of Christ – which ideas tended towards love and doctrinal flexibility: and not towards iron cast “definitions” which you regrettably seem adamantly attached to – at the expense of the simple beauty of the gospel of Jesus. Jesus statements on the observance of the Sabbath and other such – just show the flexibility I speak about – which tends towards –spirit and truth – and not outward forms.

At all events since it is a given that you will yet dispute this simple and lucid example; for the objective reader – I state in simplicity – An Atheist or a Buddhist, if he lives a life of love and charity - certainly does the will of the God that Jesus preached about.

huxley:
This is not a concession in the way you mean. I don't think I have ever held or expressed the view that they were otherwise. Yes, the mind is an emergent "property" or phenomenon of the brain.

WHICH EXISTS FIRST?

^^^ All of this stress simply because you cannot accept that there are Atheists who are good people ? ? ?

Haba.

Deep Sight:
Huxley:

1. Is there a difference between the mind and the brain?

huxley:
Yes, of course.

Great: You have conceded that Brains are different from Minds then.

You thus accede that the mind is an element that exists and is expressed through and by the physicl brain.

This is an irreversible concession you have made.

These are non-physical concepts that can only exist in minds.

Is a thought a "concept"?

^^^ Worever rocks ya boat Viaro!