₦airaland Forum

^^^ o, i am still writing it. I see visions from time to time and when the revelation is complete i will be sure to send it to you.

It will be called the Epistle of Deep Sight to the Davidilanians.

Of particular note will be 1 Davidilanians 1:1. . .

"In the beginning was Davidylan. . ."

Don't worry David. . . I already did. . .

And part of HIS name is REASON AND COMMON SENSE.

^^^ Nah, trust me I 've been there done that. You are not one tenth as fanatical a Christian as I used to be. . .

Christ? Who's that?

I only know of a Yeshua who was a carpenter and latter a spiritual teacher whose words are reported in some unverified writings selected by teh Roman Church. . .

Why are you calling him "Christ?"

That was not his name, no?

davidylan:
You have a serious problem and i will suggest you stop struggling so desperately to push your own confusion around. I am simply sick of running into your nonsensical drivel dressed up in pretended eloquence and scholarship. You simply do not understand the bible and what it stands for.

I have a Serious problem? I am not the one worshipping a late Jewish Rabbi and calling him God, am I?

Nonsensical drivel? I am not the one struggling to seize God's crown and place it on the head of a late Jewish rabbi, am i?

Who looks like the likelier candidate for a Psychiatrists' attention? ? ? ?

davidylan:
If indeed they were 2 different persons then why wouldnt He just send the comforter even while Christ was still around?

^^^ If he was the same person as the Comforter, why didn't he just hang around and start comforting people? ? ? ? ?

^^^ David, so long as you folks worship a Jewish Rabbi and call him ALMIGHTY GOD, peeps will eternally remain shocked and keep bringing up this burnt out subject endlessly.

Because it offends every fibre of Theistic thought to look at a fellow man and render that man the Supreme Deity that caused all existence to be: to begin to worship that man as God.

I dare say there is nothing Theistic about that: that only reeks of human adulation and paganism.

It also blatantly offends the command of God which states that you shall worship none beside HIM.

I can thus see no difference between the Christian Trinitarian and the Ammonites and Phillistines and Edomites who worshipped Baal and other Gods.


Its all pagan Idolatry.

Suhaibu:
And by the way nowhere in the bible is trinity mentioned. The only similar verse is 1 John 5:7 where it says:

"For there are three that bear record in heaven: the father and the word and the holy ghost and these three are one".

Now, this verse is only to be found in the KJV if you browse through your RSV or any other version among hundreds of versions you can't find this verse. Why?

33 scholars, of the highest eminence, backed by 53 cooperating denomination of the Church of England thrown out this verse. In their own words, they said it was an interpolation; a fabrication, an invention that is not in the original manuscript. For that reason, they get rid out of it. They throw it away.

I can talk on and on about the fallacy and non-sense of Christianity but I don't have lot of time.

Wwell said. It amazes me that the very fact of this insertion into scripture is not enough to wake up the Christain Trinitarians from the shocking worship of a fellow human being as GOD

Hi Easylogic –

Thanks again for your comments.

easylogic:
Therefore,when we are looking for the greatest bein,that is a god,we try to think of basic properties in their superlatives whch would entitle this being to be called the greatest being,i.e God.

1.how powerful is he?
- for him to be considerf truly the greatest,he has to be all powerful.
2.how smart or knowledgeable is he?
- for him to be considered great,he has to know alot,infact if there is stuff he doesnt know,then he's not that great afterall
3.how is his moral character.
- he also has to be morally perfect,otherwise if his behavior falls short,then he has failed and he can't be considered great.

I am at odds with the foregoing. I do not believe that this properly captures the conception of God that I speak about.

For the avoidance of doubt, let me state it again –

My perception of God (and this I believe holds true for the generality of deistic thought) is this –

1. That it is obvious that all that exists must per force have a cause or source
2. That the uncaused cause or “un-sourced” source is the One Supreme Eternal God who created all that exists.

Now since God created all that exists, the following also necessarily holds true –

1. Nothing exists that God is not responsible for; God spawns all existence – there therefore cannot be anything unknown to God. God is thus omniscient.
2. The same principle holds true in rendering God omnipotent – namely that everything that exists derives from God. God thus has complete control over the entirety of existence.
3. Since God is uncaused; God is self existent and therefore absolutely eternal and timeless.

We thus have a picture of the Supreme being: self-existent, timeless and eternal, omnipotent and omniscient. – and it will be wrong to suggest that the Deist regards God as being any less than this: thus I am at odds with your assertion of “the Deist God”. . . because there is no such thing – there is only God – and the different perceptions that people have of God.

I hope this settles you problems in terms of your ideas of what a “Deist God” is or is not.
________________________________________________________
Now you talked about the general Deist inclination to the belief that God does not interfere in creation. Your summation of this was that this necessarily renders God amoral – uncaring about good or evil.

This is eminently wrong in my view for at least two reasons –

1. Not all Deists believe that God does not interfere
2. Even if held, the belief in non-interference does not in any way connote an amoral God!

I explain –

1. Not all Deists believe that God does not interfere

From Wikipedia -

Deism (\ˈdi:iz(ə)m\[1] or \ˈdē-ˌi-zəm\)[2] is a religious and philosophical belief that a supreme being created the universe, and that this (and religious truth in general) can be determined using reason and observation of the natural world alone, without the need for either faith or organized religion. Deists tend to, but do not necessarily, reject the notion that God intervenes in human affairs, for example through miracles and revelations.

Please note the bolded portion. Thus you may see that the notion of non-interference is not germane to Deism as a whole – it rather is the perspective of some Deists, but not all Deists – not even by a stretch.

What you need to understand is that Deism may be described as a worldview – it is not a specific creed or religion with defined doctrines or extended beliefs. Thus it is entirely inappropriate to select any extended feature of common Deistic thought as a means of asserting the improbability of the existence of God as conceived by the Deist – because the one simple conception is that a Supreme Being exists who is responsible for all other things that exist.

Now in this let me be careful to point out something. Let us say that you and I are both Christians. Without a shadow of doubt, we may not agree on all the features of God – we may have different perceptions of his attributes and workings. I may believe for example that God’s justice functions through karma – you may believe that this is not correct and that justice is simply a question of God’s grace and mercy. I may also believe that God justifies men through works: you may believe that justification is by faith – indeed two of Christ’s apostles disagreed on exactly this subject: James and Paul, I believe.

Now does any of the foregoing suggest that the “God” that either party believes in does not exist? No – it rather plainly suggests that either party may have different perspectives on the nature of God: this does nothing to suggest which party may be right or which party may be wrong. Nor does it invalidate the fact that both parties believe God to exist.

In summary I am trying to say that the belief by some Deists that God does not interfere does nothing to invalidate the central belief in the existence and supremacy of God.

Nevertheless you cannot and should not hand on to the non-interference principle for the simple reason as I have shown above that it is NOT a principle accepted by all Deists. Thus you cannot discredit Deism as a worldview based on that: for that would be akin to discrediting Christianity as a worldview based for example on the fact that many Christians believe that God created Hell, or the Devil, etc.

I do not know if you are a Christian, but if you are a Christian let me ask you this question – assuming you were wrong in one aspect of your perception of God. For example let’s say you believe that God is a Trinity, and ultimately you find out (at the pearly gates) that he is not a Trinity.

Would that mean that you never believed in God properly so called? I don’t think so. It would merely mean that you were wrong in one of your perceptions about God.

And frankly who can claim to have a perfect perception of God?

2. Even if held, the belief in non-interference does not in any way connote an amoral God

This is the second leg of my response to you.

What makes you assume that a belief in non-interference must necessarily invoke an amoral God?

Quite the contrary – The non-interference principle holds that God has set all the laws of creation into such perfect motion that there is nothing he can add or subtract from them. Thus God has no need to interfere because God’s laws by natural operation deliver to each being, each nation, each race, each world, each specie and each universe that which it naturally deserves and the inter-working of these laws serves to build and further creation from a macro-standpoint that cannot be perceptible to the individual human being, but only seen by God from his bird’s eye view of all existence and creation.

This is a view also propounded by many world-views other than Deists.

Non-interference simply means that the created worlds bear the active laws of God and accordingly require no further input from the Creator. If you reflect on it: you may realize that only an imperfect God would actually create a world in which he has to return to tinker with things constantly.

Many worldviews understand these natural laws of which I speak as the laws of Karma. Jesus expressed the same in saying that whatever a man sows, the same shall he reap. This law needs no further interference from God to operate: and no one can suggest that a God who would place perfect laws within his creation to guide its development is an amoral God.

In my view, the any person who genuinely understands the idea of Divine Perfection would also understand the concept of non-interference. God has set the laws already – and his laws operate to deliver justice within creation.

That is not amoral in the least: but rather evinces a high and implacable moral standard.


I hope you can see why your assumptions concerning the Deity that we all speak about, as conceived by the Deist, do not hold in proper terms.

Huxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxllllllllllllllllllllleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy!!!!

E don tey o!

Where u been at?

P.S: i think those verses should be taken in context of Judgment perhaps - simply the judgment that TRUTH delivers naturally to each man.

Whatever you might say of Uncle Jeeezy, no one can deny that he was one of the greatest: nay the greatest preacher of LOVE in recorded history.

blackcypha:
deism by definition is free from all the contoversiesbrought by organised religions,

Thank you for this contribution. This really is my personal view. Namely a recognition that God exists and an honest attempt to understand God's purposes through observation of God's works - nature.

I cannot say that anything else is required. It is so simple, so essentially reduced to the minimum: that it appeals to what i might suggest is clarity of mind devoid of pre-imposed doctrinal perceptions. Whether such doctrines are true or false is for me another matter.

What is key is that beyond the recognition of God and the intention of harmony - and living in accordance with harmonious principles - i cannot see that such doctrines are necessary for anybody to know - even if they are true - which supposition; of course, the Jury is still out on.

^^^ While you are at it just go an reflect again exactly WHERE the breath of life comes from: if not from WITHIN God.

It is his very essence that he breathes into us to animate us: Life.

I'm tired.

^^^ But a fellow human being clearly denying omniscience and omnipotence is of the essence of God?

You make me tired. We are not going to convince each other. Let's leave it.

Cheers.

InesQor:
[color=#999900]Biblical proof that the Son and the Father have the same ESSENCE. (Just one of many scriptures)[/color]

@ Inesqor -

I have a question for you.

Do you remember the "breath of life" which God breathed into man, for man to "become a living soul."

You remember? Yes.

From where did this breath of life come?

It came from God, yes? Yes.

It forms the "spirit" and thus is the "essence" of man, yes? Yes.

So the Essence of man came from the immaterial essence of God?, yes? Yes.

Yet would it be correct to state that man is God?

There.
__________________________________________________________________________

One more example - You are the child of your father and thus have the same human essence as him, yes? Yes.

So you are both human, yes? yes.

Are you your father?

No.

__________________________________________________________________________

So please i am not sure you are going anywhere with this "essence" gist.

If you will reflect on it you will see that it is neither here nor there because in truth EVERYTHING THAT EXISTS bears the essence and imprint of God, since everything issued from God.

That does not make the toad in my backyard God.

^^^ So in short Inesqor -

1. Jesus does not have the same essence as the Father as shown above AND -

2. Even if he did: that does not make him God anymore than I am you or you are me simply because we both have a human essence, no?

Simple.

InesQor:
And it seems my illustration of the ESSENCE of man and woman being the same was lost on you, because you mentioned the fact that man is also made in the image of God, and so could be seen in the ESSENCE of God.

The Mona Lisa is the most famous iconic painting in the world. I can create an exact replica if I possess computer imaging devices of excellent resolution. That is an IMAGE of the Mona Lisa, it has the nature of Mona Lisa (triggering off the same sensations of awe, fame and beauty), but it is not of the essence of the Mona Lisa. WHY? Because it was not painted by Leonardo Da Vinci. Talking about Essence, the [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medusa_%28Leonardo_da_Vinci%29]Medusa[/url] has a greater stand in the scheme of things than does MY Mona Lisa copy.

I cannot accept this talk about "Essence being the same" when we all know very well the "Essence of God" to include his permanence (Eternal in the past, uncreated, unchangeable) whereas Jesus was "begotten" and thus had a beginning. He is thus not of the "Essence" of God.

Again unchangeability is part of the "essence" of God and Jesus DOES NOT have that as he is clearly described to go through several changing states in the process of his "work of redemption" - including at least one state of impurity whilst he supposedly "carried the sin of the world" - thereby necessitating the deduction not only of a changeable nature but also of a stained or impure nature at least at one point; all of these ideas are anathema to the "Essence" of God.

Furthermore the very "essence of God" connotes omnipotence and omnipresence, both of which Christ denied having

So this excuse about "the essence" . . .is just that. . , another excuse.

Inesqor - I have made the argument a zillion times. I think its sound but others dont think so. I have no choice but to drop the issue.

1. Either everything came from nothing or –

2. Something always existed which gave birth to everything else that existed

I positively assert that the foregoing is absolutely incontrovertible.

Because –

How did things come into existence?

1. If NOTHING existed before things came into existence, then all that exists arose from nothing.

2. It is impossible that all that exists arose from nothing because 0 + 0 = 0: thus any agglomeration of nothings will always result in nothing – and never produce a “something.”

3. Thus given that things exist; then it is clear that things which exist could not have arisen from “nothing.”

4. Thus such things arose from something already existing.

viaro:
DeepSight, this is not about 'viaro'. I know that all you have been attempting here is simply because I happen to have run out of trying to stomach your [size=16pt]idiocy -[/size] sorry, it's hard for me to pretend not noticing when you display the [size=16pt]arrogant hypocrite [/size] you are! What has what I believe have to do with you [size=16pt]illiterate[/size] deism? Just because you have never once been able to impress anybody (not even yourself) on how you tried to lie your way through with your faceless OOI does not mean all of a sudden you should now base everything on 'viaro' on this subject.

Well sir: If you look at my posts above you will see that I have focused on the subject and not personalities. If i had to mention you inorder to contradict your statements, then my apologies. Frankly i am surprised that my consistent effort to keep the discourse clean and devoid of personal insults is never reciprocated and I sincerely beleive that it has come to it that further discourse with you is injurious your dignity and my dignty and both our sensibilities.

I feel embarrased enough at the fact that some of your caustic and unnecessary insults have here and there compelled me to react similarly - for if there was anything i vowed when joining this forum, it was to keep decent.

I am thus signing off you: I hope that the objective reader can see within my posts the sncere points i have tried to make.

I will not be responding to any such posts from you in Future: unless there emerges some sincerity and civility to redeem what has frankly become an unfortunately and needlessly caustic relationship.

InesQor:
@Deep Sight:

The question you should really ask is "Greater in what respect?"

That was a cool example you mentioned about marriage. A husband and wife will have different roles in a marriage. Wives are to take on the submissive role, but this does not indicate that difference in function requires inferiority of nature. Does the wife have a lesser nature than that of the husband? Of course not. They both are fully human.

Note that (as you noted in your human example below) this does not make the woman the man or make the man the woman. They remain separate distinct beings occupying different roles.

The honest fact remains that even is Jesus is said to have the same nature as God – this says exactly nothing because having the same nature as God is not being God.

I state this with certainty because EVEN MERE MAN is said to be built in the God-Like nature – It is said that man is made “in the image of God.” However it remains clear that while we share certain attributes with God (such as the impulse to create for example, or government, or order etc) we do not share ALL his attributes and as such cannot be considered to be God.

In this instance it is clear that Jesus even if he has the same nature with God, much as man is also said to have, cannot be called God because he does not have ALL the attributes of God – viz – he plainly admits that he had a beginning, that he is not omniscient.

Thus you have to understand that this forms no basis whatsoever for asserting that any similarity in the nature takes away the fact that the Father is said to be greater and pre-eminent: which is in direct and irredeemable contrast to the doctrine of the Trinity which states them to be equal.

The Greek word translated "greater" (meizon) does not mean greater in the sense of a higher type of being, but rather
1. larger, specifically in AGE, literally or figuratively (AGE here would refer to the instance of Christ's incarnation on earth happening after the beginning)
2. more relevant in the sense of position or authority. (GOD has the choice to select whatever role he so desires. More on roles below.)

Nice to see that you concede that the Greek word indicates “larger, more relevant in position of authority. . .what else is to be understood by greater? Your very use of the phrase “more relevant in sense of position or authority” simple seals my point – for the doctrine of the Trinity claims perfect equality whereas your words negate that clearly. . ,

Comparing with John 13:16, 15:20 Jesus is saying that the Father is "greater" because the Father's position in Heaven is one of greater dignity and authority than the one the Son occupies on earth. This is why the disciples should rejoice, because he was returning to his exalted place from which he had stooped to conquer.

This cannot be accepted as Jesus is still said to have a God EVEN AFTER he had risen to heaven – 1 Peter 1:3.

Thus we can see that all these excuses about “he was on earth . . .etc” - are just that – excuses.

In revelation it is severally indicated that he receives his authority “from the one who sits on the throne” . . .it is also said that he sits “at the right hand side” of that one.

So who is “that one”, might I ask?

There is only one humanity (Being) but many individuals (persons). Individuals share in the Being of humanity, and that does not mean that I am you, and you are me — we are different persons with the same single Being. We have various careers, various roles with various levels of authority, but if an alien from Mars relates to us, we are all humanity. THAT is our being, and none of us is less than any other.

Great; this only affirms that as you have said – We have various careers, various roles with various levels of authority, – which emphatically shows us to be different beings with different scales or powers.

Ok. . .doing so, now. . .you can read mine in the meantime, and please with an open mind objectively.

In addition to the foregoing let me say that the minimum that the Christian dogmatist MUST UNCONDITIONALLY accept is that there are many contrary indications within the bible which the non-Christian must doubtless be struck by as standing firmly and obviously against the idea of the Trinity. If the Christian wishes to accept the Trinity, he should do so based on faith and not sell a lie by claiming that there are not eminently clear verses within scripture which emphatically negate the idea that Jesus is God.

To claim that these verses do not exist is to be simply dishonest in an extreme degree which is hardly becoming for a Christian.

Thus I cannot see the need for the rancour elicited from Christians on this Forum when these verses are pointed out. Does it annoy the Christian to be referred to things within his scripture that he does not like? If so, why?

Why should anybody get upset simply because verses which obviously deny the Trinity are pointed out?

I would rather have thought that it would behove the Christian to dig deep and seek to see why these seeming contradictions exist – and what can be gainfully absorbed from such. The attitude that returns insults and a circus of irrelevant vulgarities in return for objective reasoning and criticism is honestly and seriously to be deplored.

It is worse when such behaviour is championed on account of the prevailing attitude of “Christian Solidarity” which is so nauseating on this Forum.

Now look again at the undeniable -

1. Jesus categorically states the Father to be greater than him. Jn. 14:28. Why in heavens name would the Christian feel comfortable directly contradicting Jesus’ own words by insisting that they are equal? If at all the Christian feels no shame in blatantly calling Jesus a liar when he said this – at least the Christian should make an honest attempt to explain what that statement could have connoted IF NOT THAT HE IS CERTAINLY NOT EQUAL TO THE FATHER. Come on guys, the thing is written black and white in plain English, so its not easy to deceive the non-Christian by empty platitudes on this one!

2. He would not state that he worships God - in his words "my God and your God" Viaro attempted once again to belittle the words of Jesus by claiming that “That was not a statement of worship.” But that is beside the point – worship or not – God cannot be said to have a God! – Being God HE is the ultimate. If Jesus claimed to have a God then that positively and completely disqualifies him from being considered God! Aside this what is to be deduced from the act of going on his knees in prayer to God – if not worship? ? ? You see, this matter is downright comical.

3. He would not state clearly that as the son, there are things which remain unknown to him - God is omniscient, no? – Now this is one of the strongest planks and I am at a sincere loss as to how any Christain can validly ignore this. It just emphasizes what I have always said – namely that we have Christians like Viaro who have greater respect for their vocabulary than they do for Jesus own words – which are supposed to be their guiding light. He slaps Jesus this way and that every day, denigrating the man and dismissing his statements and yet calls himself a Christian. It is really difficult for me to comprehend such.

Need I explain this one? God is omniscient. Jesus specifically states – “Of that day and hour no one knows – not the angels, nor the son but only the father.

The inference is clear even to a toddler – namely that whereas God is omniscient, Jesus has positively asserted that he is NOT omniscient – unless of course we are ready to do unspeakable violence to the word “Omniscience.”

Jesus states that he is NOT omniscient and as such he cannot be God. Insisting in the face of this alone, that Jesus is God can only smack of a cultish adherence of an obviously false and contradictory dogma that no sane person can rationalize.

4. He would not be "begotten"

Again this is a very firm plank. I do not even believe that the Christian ignores this. God is eternal is the past – namely he has always existed – whereas Jesus is described as “the only begotten” son of God. It makes no difference if he is described as the “first begotten” – the fact simply remains that he was “begotten” and as such came into existence at a point. In no wise can he be said to Eternal in the past as God is: and therefore once again this is an iron-cast argument that shows that Jesus IS NOT God.

It is ridiculous for anybody to suggest that he only became “begotten” after the resurrection because of course he is severally referred to as “begotten” even before the crucifixion.

So in this there is positively no escape again – Jesus being begotten cannot be God.

5. He would not make the statement in Gethsemane evincing a possible dichotomy of wills within the Godhead ("Nevertheless not as i will but as THOU wilt" - This statement also shows that he is NOT omnipotent as the Father is said to be.

For if he were omnipotent; then his will should not be subordinated to the will of the Father.

Again this is so simple and glaring that I remain astonished that peeps could se such clear subordination to a greater diety: and still insist that Jesus is himself that same diety. It is the greatest absurdity in the history of mankind and it begs belief that otherwise intelligent and supposedly educated persons would passionately subscribe to this, whilst denouncing what they see as the “absurdities” of other religions.

6. He would not speak of being forsaken by the Father: being God he would have known the WHOLE script and what it meant.

This again seals the point. Now we may divide that statement into two parts  -

• “My God, my God” – which again shows that he has a God and –

• “Why hast thou forsaken me” – which shows again that he is neither omniscient nor omnipotent as if he were the former, he would be aware of the whole script and as such know what it all meant – and if he were the latter, he would have had the power to avert it as he willed in Gethsemane.

Now in all honesty, having a look at ALL the above, is there a Christian who can boldly assert that rejection of the belief that Jesus is God is not a position that can be validly taken by the non-Christian? Indeed, is it not clear that the Christian himself must reflect again on all these?

For if you will spurn one ground above, what about the others? And by the time you hectically have to think up ways of spurning all the grounds set out above it should be clear to you that you are swimming against the tide and fighting vigorously to deny the words of the bible.

In closing I will just say that I am at a loss to understand why given the foregoing, the Christian should imagine that someone like me who rejects the Trinity, is merely doing so to “heckle” or “mock” their religion – as it its blatantly clear that there are recondite issues here.

Nuff said.

viaro:
Whatever. I see you're desperately frustrated at this point. Desperately. Jesus Christ claimed equal worship with the Father in John 5:23, and that is what viaro will comply with. Since there's nothing left for you to steal from here to add to your rogue religion, you could either continue your masquerade dance, or yet display more of your desperation. Your world.

Is this a reasoned approach?

Jn 14:28 absolutely contradicts your assertion that the son is equal to the father.

Your response - you ignore it entirely and seek refuge in a verse in which he says he should be honoured as the father is.

If your mother demands equal respect as you give your father, does that make her equal to him? Does that make her the head of the house? ? ?

If a Governor of a State demands as much protocol as is accorded the President, does that make him equal to the president?

The clear answer is no; thus your act of ABSOLUTELY IGNORING Jn 14:28 and seeking refuge in the weaker verse which says exactly nothing is at best comical because -

1. Jn 14:28 is stronger and vastly more unequivocal - It states clearly: "The Father is greater than I"

If you assert that this is not true in contradistinction to Jn 5:23 - THEN:

EITHER -

1. You are admitting that the bible contradicts itself.

or

2. You must explain thoroughly and lucidly why both statements remain true and are not contradictory.

I have already shown above why Jn. 5:23 is NOT topical. A request to honour him as the Father is honoured does nothing to detract from the unequivocal declaration in Jn 14:28 regarding his subjugation to the Father.

The fact remains that you have NEVER even once offered an explanation of Jn:1428. Never! You simply IGNORE it and scamper off to Jn. 5:23 - shockingly forgetting that that either exposes a contradiction in the bible which you must resolve OR as i have asserted - shows up blank given that Jn 5:23 says exactly nothing!

So please lucidly address this and stop amusing me with puerile boasts of "dealing" with anybody.

This ain't your high-school play ground you know?

viaro:
Hahaha[color=Black].[/color][color=Black].[/color][color=Black].[/color] do you want these deniers to faint? I was only trying to engage them in very simple terms that they can follow, but it seems you're not going to entertain their rubbish anymore!

This whole scenario reminds me (I keep repeating) of Arius of Alexander. I mean, how illiterate could any living being be to assert that Christ the Son of God has subsisted before ages and before time as "perfect God" and yet yapping that Jesus is not 'God'?

How $%&!!?@*?!!!! canyou be to directly contradict the words of your rabbi -

He says God is greater.

You say they are equal.

What's happening?

But tell me why did some translators included this statement in 1 John 5:7, "the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one" You can see the extent which trinitarians can go to add to bible in order to support their believe.

Which singularly destroys the credibility of the NT.

Lawd knows what was added before the transcription of the scrolls found in the Dead Sea

Noetic! How na?

Yep, looks silly, dont it?

Jewish man is dead so now we can all have eternal life.

Wow!

viaro:
I am willing to do so if DeepSight can learn to respect himself. If he cannot, I won't take trash from him. Enough of his idiocy.

Wow. All this just because the essentials of your religion are pointed out -

Viz:


SET 1. - Christianity

A. God Exists.

B. He has  Jewish Son

C. The Jewish Son was born by a woman who did not copulate prior to that

D. The Jewish son is God

E. The Jewish son was judicially sentenced and murdered by the Romans

F. That murder results in mankind being redeemed - if they will embrace the Jewish son

G. Those who do not embrace the Jewish son will go to a place of Torment called Hell

Looks silly, don't it?  

hymnha:
Well. I think we should be clear about this issue of tattoo.
For that reason i want to ask
1. Can the law of Moses be lower than the law of Christ?

Jesus did not tell us to contradict the law of Moses. Moses said "tooth for tooth" but Jesus raised the standard. Moses said "thou shall not kill" Jesus said you should not even be angry. Moses said don't commit adultery, Jesus said don't lust in your heart. All those ceremonies in the old testament have been replaced by the once for all death of Christ. You can not therefore tell me that because something was said in the old testament for which we find no replacement in the new testament, for this reason, You don't obey it. Can you tell me that Paul was tattooed all over his body to preach the gospel?
i think when people when to please their lust, they begin to find a way of defending themselves.

These are the thing been done in the nations like that of the Canaanites, Hittites, Hivittes, etc and this is why the Lord drove them away.

The Old Testament also adjures you not to cut your beard. Would you recommend that in today's world? ? ?

viaro:
Dude, this thread is not about deism. There is a thread you opened on your deism - you should have posted it there and spew all the garbage you wanted to. Even here, your postulations are quite skewed when it comes to epistemic logic: that was what I wanted you to sort out.

Let me sort a the basic nature of propositional logic by reminding you of what I stated earlier:

         *  You have first to determine the kind of proposition made;
         *  and then determine what type of approach to apply in 'logical proof',
         *  and then see which side of the proposition is saying what
         *  before drawing any inferences or conclusions.

Of course, you did not even consider your laughable comparison - it could hardly stand to make a pass mark in any introductory class for logic. To jumble anything together and make them elements of 'propositional logic' is quite simply the biggest laugh going.

So, with particular examples to show whether or not you have the faintest clue of propositional logic in philosophy, let's outline just two from what you compared:

  A: God Exists.

This is a basic question on 'universals' - so it does not matter which particular worldview questions that proposition as a metaphysical question. Whether deism, theism, pantheism, etc., it is a proposition of a 'universal' rather than a comparison of charts on particular modes of beliefs or systems of beliefs. This is the reason why your bragado about epistemic logic is a fantasy - an absolute laugh indeed. You just don't have a clue about the basics of logic and are just yapping about.


  B:  God is the Supreme Deity and created all that exists.

Is that an "exclusive" of deism? You make me laugh. What propositional logic is being postulated in 'B' above - that deism lays claim to 'B' but Christianity does not? You really need to go see a psychiatrist.

Besides, the question is not between 'deism' and Christianity. Even if we allow for your comparison, you have posited two elementals that are on a logical fallacy. Christianity is one type of theism; and deism is not a 'type' of the deistic worldview (such as DeepSight's deism, luciferan deism, dark deism, or pandeism). . . unless you wnat to deny there are different types of deism.

You actually have no background understanding of logic, dude. It might help if you tried to school up a bit before you display any bragado and become a further laugh.

Hey, why the long story? Did i tell you i was into propsitional logic? Did i tell you i was using such?

You made a simple statement. You stated that Deism is a laugh in serious discourses.

I set out the essentials of Christianity and the essentials of Deism.

I left it at that for peeps to judge which worldview looked more ridiculous.

Was that too much for you to handle?

You see when you guys barge out stating that this or that does not add up I patiently wait for you to adduce your reasons.

When you do, you just expose the fact that you have not taken even a second to think things through AT ALL.

Nimshi:
Too little time. . . I'll stick only to the first minute; life is too short to waste time on nonsense like this . . .

1) Who created God; the Question is a fallacy; it doesn't make sense.
My question: what kind of fallacy?

2) He always existed.
The inclusive term "always" exposes this statement; where's the proof?

3) "He wouldn't be God if he was created"
This proposition (of a God) is unproved; this is argumentun ad ignorantiam, or, an argument from ignorance.
Even if no one has succeeded in proving God does not exist, that doesn't mean he does.

These are opening remarks. Please watch the whole of the Video to see what it sets forth as the basis for these remarks. Then revert to me.

4) There's a general principle that says
a) either everything came from nothing (which is impossible), or
b) something always existed and created everytthing that is created
Voice over says there're no other choices, you have this either, or situation.
This is called the Either/Or Fallacy, or a False dichotomy; it ignores other possible outcomes.

Now I will take you up most seriously on this:

You have talked about an Either/ Or Fallacy and you have asserted that it ignores other possible outcomes.

You failed to examine if that supposed fallacy applies to the statement above.

The statement reads –

1. Either everything came from nothing or –

2. Something always existed which gave birth to everything else that existed

I positively assert that the foregoing is absolutely incontrovertible.

Because –

How did things come into existence?

1. If NOTHING existed before things came into existence, then all that exists arose from nothing.

2. It is impossible that all that exists arose from nothing because 0 + 0 = 0: thus any agglomeration of nothings will always result in nothing – and never produce a “something.”

3. Thus given that things exist; then it is clear that things which exist could not have arisen from “nothing.”

4. Thus such things arose from something already existing.

This is iron cast logic and I challenge you to controvert it.

You see, I knew this would happen. I knew that when asked to show what was wrong with the logic in the video I would just hear such elementary incompetence.

thehomer:
And you're yet to present your evidence whether by logic or metaphysics or any other means.

Yep. . .10 pages and running. . . and beyond stating that it's a metaphysical subject, not a single tot has he offered. . .that's his style, bear with him - long talk, big grammar and zero substance. Not so much as ONE SINGLE LOGICAL ARGUMENT for God's existence.

@ thehomer -

Come have a look at this video and see if it offers you some substantive thought on the logical and necessary existence of God.

I refer to the third video in the third post of this thread -


https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-409321.0.html

viaro:
. . . and that is why deism is quite a laugh in serious discourses.

Really? What would you consider "serious?"

Let's look at two sets of beliefs; and see which emerges as more "Serious"

SET 1. - Christianity

A. God Exists.

B. He has  Jewish Son

C. The Jewish Son was born by a woman who did not copulate prior to that

D. The Jewish son is God

E. The Jewish son was judicially sentenced and murdered by the Romans

F. That murder results in mankind being redeemed - if they will embrace the Jewish son

G. Those who do not embrace the Jewish son will go to a place of Torment called Hell

SET 2. - Deism

A. God Exists.

B. God is the Supreme Deity and created all that exists.

C. The purposes of God can be discerned from his creation – nature.

D. Reason and rationalism are useful tools in understanding existence

E. The purpose of creation is Harmony.

So! I leave it to the objective reader to determine which worldview looks “Serious!”

And this. . .

Most deists saw the religions of their day as corruptions of an original, pure religion that was simple and rational. They felt that this original pure religion had become corrupted by "priests" who had manipulated it for personal gain and for the class interests of the priesthood in general.

According to this world view, over time "priests" had succeeded in encrusting the original simple, rational religion with all kinds of superstitions and "mysteries" – irrational theological doctrines. Laymen were told by the priests that only the priests really knew what was necessary for salvation and that laymen must accept the "mysteries" on faith and on the priests' authority.