₦airaland Forum

davidylan:
Does deepsight do anything else besides post on his confusions here?

viaro:
^^ I just wonder!

You folks need to show some respect. Have you forgotten that i am the only begotten son of the Oneness of Infinity sent to Nairaland to be persecuted for your sins? ? ?

Bow down and worship. . .! ! !

viaro:
And no, viaro does not 'hate' your nebulous 'oneness of infinity'. . me - "hate"?? Hahaha!! Dude, your OOI is flat-footed, heavily still in the murky swamps of your perennial excuses dressed up as 'prose' - or you would long have progressed that thread, helped it to breathe fresh air so it survives your mathematical 'dark nights' to see a glorious dawn! English translation: your OOI is D-E-A-D.

Well in all honesty i realized not everything one apprehends in one's mind can be easily communicated in words.

This point must be all the more appreciated when dealing with the ultimate mystery: GOD.

InesQor:
Satan means "the adversary". In the Torah Satan refers to both military (1 Sam 29:4; 1 Kings 5:4) and legal (Ps 109:6) adversaries.

The "assumption" involved is that a perfect creation will exist and function in harmony with its original purposes, but by laws of invariableness and change (such as Newton's first law), if that creation deviates from the harmonious purpose then it must have been the work of an "adversary" offering opposition to that harmonious purpose.

You have said that the principles of good and evil are self-existent and eternal like principles of light and darkness, and this indicates the position here as well. Whatever does not contribute to illumination is an element of darkness, and whatever does not increase darkness is an element of illumination. Darkness would be the adversary of light in the that case.

Satan, then, would be the personification of that force that moves against the harmonious purpose of the prime mover.

If Satan is the personification of Darkness and Darkness is agreed to be self-existent just as Light is, the inexorable conclusion is that “Satan” is self-existent.

Thus not created by God.

This is an important point in understanding the relationship between good and evil.

That darkness and light are self existent.

Accordingly the question of “God” - (the Light) creating evil (or darkness) does not arise.

Now if Darkness is self-existent then evil is a reality which will be permanent.

Many often tend to think of Jesus Christ only as a man, and physically speaking such rationale cannot be faulted. However, I have come to understand that Jesus the man is the physical icon of a spiritual Logos, a "reason and principle of origins, order and knowledge" or Word of God.

Would you care to share the inspiration for this wonderful realization of yours? A divine visitation perhaps?

Why can it not be said that you, me and every other human being is likewise “a physical icon of a spiritual Logos” ? ? ? ?

The Greek phrase you refer to is "θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος" popularly translated as "the Word was God". Here, the subject (Logos) and the complement (God) are in a nominative case, so grammatical clarity would be achieved by stating this as "the Word was God" or "the Word was a god". Note that the insertion of an article before the complement has changed it to lower-case, since there is (as to be assumed) only one upper-case God.

And therein lies a problem: early New testament manuscripts made no distinction between upper-case and lower-case letters. This has given rise to many such non-trinitarian translations as the Jehovah's Witnesses' Emphatic Diaglott and NWT (New World Translation) which translate this as "the Word was a god" and also Moffatt's new translation ambiguously states "the Word was divine".

My own take is that in the consideration of the initial nominative case, without reference to article and/or sentence case, this should have been translated "that which God was, the Word also was".

You thus accede that John 1:1 – when studied in the original language, provides no basis for the supposition that Jesus is the Creator, yes?

Ogaga4Luv:
I have  inquiry into the origins of Christianity begins to-day with the question like: "Did Jesus Christ really live?" Was there a man named Jesus, who was called the Christ, living in Palestine nineteen centuries ago, of whose life and teachings we have a correct account in the New Testament? The orthodox idea that Christ was the son of God--God himself in human form--that he was the creator of the countless millions of glowing suns and wheeling worlds that strew the infinite expanse of the universe; that the forces of nature were the servants of his will and changed their courses at his command--such an idea has been abandoned by every independent thinker in the world--by every thinker who relies on reason and experience rather than mere faith--by every man of free -thinking who places the integrity of nature above the challenge of ancient religious tales.

Excellently put. I can't get over the nature of Christian dogma: it appears to me synonymous with a severe form of dislocated derangement. The paganistic fallacies regarding the diety of christ being the most outlandish claims that supposed men of reason can be so bold as to embarrass themselves with.

viaro:
I've not yet examined your shallow deism, worldview

You will have chance to do so shortly: I have been thinking of opening a thread to discuss the Essentials of DEISM - Don't worry, nothing so esoteric as your much hated Oneness of Infinity - Just a chat on Deism.

Later today, i think.

Ciao for now ol boy.

InesQor:
Since nothing can pre-exist God, He must have created Satan, who Jesus said was a liar and a murderer from the beginning (John 8:44).

What is Satan?

Is it not true that the principles of good and evil are self existent and eternal principles in the way as the principles of light and darkness are?

It simply means that "Before the world existed, Jesus the Word was / is God."

Where did you get this notion from?

Since you show an inclination towards studying Greek and Hebrew words i am going to put you a rigorous test of scriptural linguistics.

Have you cared to study the Greek in John I:1? ? ?

Is the word used for "God" in the sentence ". . .and the word was with God" -
the same as the word used for God in the sentence - ". . .and the word was God"

Ansswer me this.

[quote][/quote]

iarm:
As the topic states, could someone give me one piece of significant evidence of the existence of a god?

What is the sum of 0 + 0?

I find that a lot of religious believers are so blinded, that they believe things without pre-conditions. It's been discovered that the bible states nowhere did god make the Earth, with religious scholars translating Hebrew properly, yet, people choose to believe otherwise, if at all.

Why is what the bible states important?

So, this thread is for those people (that don't say "look at the sun", or "look at the moutains" which can give me anything significant that I can measure, proving the existence of a god.

Have you ever studied spiral DNA? Or a snowflake?

Although this might get me banned from this forum (yawn) let's see how it goes.

Clearly you are new here. This will not get you banned. There are millions of more brazen atheists or agnostics on this Forum.

Answer my questions.

bawomolo:
he he i thought you two were deist buddies. take am easy o

Viaro is not a Deist. He is Christian: or better put: he claims to be christian.

Indeed we used to be great friends; but somewhere along the line he arrogated to himself the right to muzzle free speech - the fact that i openly vaunt my disdain for Christian dogma annoys him to the extreme - in return he baths me with a steady stream of the most vile abuses ever heard.

I am not able to mortgage my convictions or my freedom of speech so i guess i must gird my loins and brace up for an eternity of insults from Viaro.

nuclearboy:
@DeepSight:

Lovely poems. Only I wonder where the inspiration for these came from ;Hopefully, another set of trances, ehn!

^^^ yes o!

I hope the mods can now see that the Religion Section is vastly poorer without brilliant minds such as Noetic.

Maybe we can set up a commission of inquiry to look into this matter.

Ilosiwaju you will be the chairman.

viaro:
It's quite laughable that after apologising for derailing the thread, you would not let up on that. You're a very funny character indeed.

Please show me an instance of any other "eternal Being" and what it connotes for such a Being to be eternal as different from an "uncaused cause" itself.

Christ did not deny the fact that many people would come claiming that they were Christs or that they would come in His Name (Matt. 24:5). Funny that Christ did not come claiming that He was Olumba Olumba or Guru whatever, haha! But that any of these folks may be said to have claimed to be Christ or God in the Biblical sense does not qualify them so, in so much that none of them could point to any verse attesting such claims for themselves. We're not on here about your concerns for cults - I earlier noted that you were close to that very thing in the manner you argue this issue.

He did not misguide any fellow. The verse you quoted does not read what you wanted it to read:
(a) yours: {"Mark 10:18: “Do not call me good, only God is good.”}
(b) KJV: {"Mark 10:18: "Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God."}

In that verse, Jesus was not asserting that the enquirer should not call Him good; rather, He questioned the enquirer: "Why do you call me good". Nor does that verse say that Jesus denied His deity - notice He did not say: 'do not call me God', or you would be again lying through your yellow teeth, sorry.

However, that it was a question is in sync with His manner of highlighting a most pivotal subject. In Luke 6:46, He employed that same linguistic device - "And why call ye me, Lord, Lord," - which is not saying that He was denying His Lordship! In very fact, He affirmed His Lordship to His disciples in John 13:13 - "Ye call me Master and Lord: and ye say well; for so I am."

Perhaps you ought to be careful when citing verses for what they imply rather than trying to make far fetched implications of what those verses do not say, in your attempt to gull your readers. Mark 10:18 does not read Jesus saying "Do not call me good" - rather, it questioned the enquirer: "Why callest thou me good?" Does He also deny that He was good? No, unless you want to again attempt to gull your readers by ignoring His statements in other passages where Jesus categorically referred to Himself as "good" -

* Matthew 20:15 - 'Is it not lawful for me to do what I will with mine own?
Is thine eye evil, because I am good?'

* John 10:14 - 'I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep,
and am known of mine.'

Mark 10:18 does not tell us that Jesus was denying His Deity, sorry.

You need to go over to Revelation where Jesus Himself attested to His Deity on the same basis as the Father. When you do so, then you would begin to understand that your ontological excuses are best left to small minds - which was prolly why you could be so comical as to have referred to His statements in John 5:23 as "his delusions". When the pie suits your gull, you frantically quote it; but when other verses from the same Bible begin to waste your arguments, you turn round and try to write off the direct statements of Jesus as "delusions", no?

Spiritually and ontologically, no where does Jesus deny His deity. That He affirmed His Humanity is undoubted; but we are yet to see any verses where He had categorically denied His Deity.

This is a comical explanation. God saying to a human - "Why callest me good - only God is good."

? ? ? ? ? ?

But enough: i have derailed the thread enough. Another day.

Here's another one i wrote on the same subject. . .



A Serene Naught


At passion’s strenuous height
We’re nearly near the light
When we reach that core
Passion struggles no more
The jerky climax wrought
A serene naught

A perfect beauty one
To light it lost its crown
Mother of being is naught
A serene naught

And serene wrought
The essence of all BE
The bastion of light it brought
For all men to see…

From the woman’s womb
Where we dwelled serene
To the woman’s tomb
Is life’s final win…

jagunlabi:
Deep sight, the women folk are going to love and appreciate you for this very . . . how should i put it . . . "demeaning" description of their gender.Darkness, negative, nothingness, . . . WOW!Absolutely awesome . . .
The threadstarter might have a point here about you being a closet christian fundermentalist because you did sound like one with that horrible description.

Jagunlabi -

I am surprised at your remarks. Associating me with chavinism could not be further from the truth.

Let me just say this - the remarks i made associating the feminine element with "darkness" and "nothingness" are an esoteric philosophical dissection of the nature of self-existent and highly abstract qualities. So far from being demeaning, the initiated would recognise that it places the femine at the summit of all existence. Perhaps you missed the part where i had stated that i sensed the first vibration of all existence to be a feminine vibration.

This is a very very deep subject, but considering my failure thus far to effectively communicate my ideas on other areas i also consider profound (Oneness of Infinity. . .etc) i am hesitant to discuss it fully, as it might just lead to further confusion from those who do not understand it: and even insults from those who hate the fact that one dares to think beyond borders.

"The beginning of knowledge is the discovery of something we do not understand." - Frank Herbert (1920 - 1986)

Knowledge may be grasped within teh mind: but is almost impossible to communicate in words having regard to certain esoteric subjects.

But i will offer you a poem i wrote on this. . .i sincerly hope it tickles some understanding. . .


Origin


A stagnant nothingness of black
No time, no space, just dark
Mother of being is naught
The bastion of light this fought

Perfect, serene and tempered
Beauty unremembered
The bastion of light dismembered
Beauty darkly rendered

From such a state serene
Did commence our being
The force of light to hover
The unseen divine lover

^^^ Like maybe there are some folks who know him outside nairaland, and can at least confirm he is ok and fine. . .

Please any one with information on his whereabouts should please step forward

I cant take his absence anymore. Its driving me crazy. Where there hell are you Noetic? ? ?

I never realized just how much i enjoyed your comebacks.

aletheia:
@DeepSight

You asked for an instance of Jesus claim to Deity
Compare that answer to this
You can imagine the impact of Jesus' words to the Jews. That statement affirmed his preexistence, "before Abraham was" and his Deity "I am"

Any wonder then that they reacted thus:
And that wasn't the only time

The Jews clearly understood Jesus' claim to Deity. Why don't you?

1. At the very best that can only serve as a claim to being an eternal being. That is much different from claiming to be the primordial uncaused cause itself.

2. So what if he said "I AM?" Anybody can say the same: it would not make them God! Guri Maharaji says the same; so does Olumba Olumba Obu and gazillions of cult-like sect leaders thoughout history. Are they all God? Please.

3. If that was his intention then please explain why he dliberately misguided a simple fellow who called him "good teacher" - rushing to immediately state that such an appellation cannot apply to him and must be reserved for God. Care to also explain at whose right hand he is said to rise to be sitted at in heaven? Care to explain why he states that he is not omniscient, whereas God is? I could go on.

It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you but for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God."

That was the Jews ignorant presumption. Because Jesus made himself pretty clear on what the statement "I and the Father are one" meant.

Jesus himself explained the term "I and my Father are one" severally. He stated unequivocally that he and his father were one in the same way as we should be one with him. Now are you Jesus? No. But you are one with him in spirit as a christian, yes?

Thus the oneness was a oneness of accord, and not an ontological or existential oneness as an entity.

This verse elucidates and proves the point:

John 17:20-23: “My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one: I in them and you in me. May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.”

Its abundantly clear that its a spiritual and not ontological or existential oneness. There. That's Bible proof.

Quote from Viaro -

It is also interesting that some notable personalities were mentioned as among those who believed: Dionysius the Areopagite. Phew! That blew my mind, folks. I've always wondered how someone (especially a philosopher of no meager standing) could come to believe the Gospel of Christ for himself.

What is this? ? ? A concession that it is rare for intelligent persons with logical minds to accept bizzare Christian spin dogma?

viaro:
What happened to you?

What happened to you too, Viaro: You always seemed amiable and decent: of late your tongue competes with Tudor's!

And i quote this from YOUR comments in the thread you referenced above:

Being bigoted and caustic towards others seems to be the inevitable recourse when someone challenges our own belief systems, whatever they are: deism, theism or atheism.

Could it be that you are caustic to me just because i challenge your belief system?

Well Viaro; i have given ELEVEN verses many of which explicity kill off the idea of the deity of Christ. I am not inclined to help you through the grammar as you always expect me to: as any body who reads those verses can see that he denied divinity severally.

@ OP - My sincere apologies for derailing the thread.

viaro:
On my part, I have shown a few verses where Jesus affirmed His Deity.

On my part, I have shown a few verses where Jesus denied his Deity.

I don't see any of the verses you cited as showing that Jesus denied His Deity.

I don't see any of the verses you cited as showing that Jesus affirmed His Deity.

If you have any verse where Jesus said He was not God, please show.

If you have any verse where Jesus said He WAS God, please show

If you were actually an intelligent reader, that should not have been difficult to see.

I have provided proof in to-to. If you were actually an intelligent reader, that should not have been difficult to see.

viaro:
Your problem is quite pitiful. Having run out of steam to show who your oneness of infinity is, you turn round to discomfit yourself with what others believe. Deism is known for stealing doctrines from other worldviews - and even after doing so, you guys yet do not understand your own 'god' and would murder both prose, mathematics and the physical sciences in your attempt to gull or hoodwink the public about your fallacy. Is it any wonder why you have never been able to address your oneness of infinity to anyone's coherence? I have been waiting for you to dribble in your prose as you promised for your thread - you artfully dodged it with an excuse, because you know you have been lying to the public and shaming your deism.

Oneness of Infinity again? Another way in which you call the Bible a book of lies?

Because the bible clearly states that God is ONE and it also states that God is INFINITE or eternal.

So ya bible agrees with the Oneness of Infinity -  each time you deny it - you are denying the Bible.

I already did point out from His own mouth that He made a claim to deity in John 5:23

Joker. What's the import of a verse where he asks to be honoured as against the ELEVEN verses i pointed out clearly debunking the idea that he is God? ? ?

Carry on with your worship of a dead Jewish Rabbi - whatever rocks ya boat.

viaro:
I have asked and still asking: in which of those verses did Jesus ever say that He was not God?

I have asked you and i am still asking: in which of those verses did Jesus ever say that he WAS God? ? ? ? ?

Now please show me where Jesus denied His deity and said that He was not God in any verse - just show the verse.

Now please show me where Jesus affirmed His deity and said that He WAS God in any verse - just show the verse.

Joker.

viaro:
^^^ Where in all of those did Jesus ever say that He was not God? If you had no verse, simply say so and stop making yourself further shallow.

Lol. Why don't YOU show me the verse where he asserts that he IS God? ? ?

After all, he who asserts must prove.

Especially when the assertion is a psycotic claim to the divinity of one Jewish man.

Here - the word's of the Jewish Rabbi you worship - knock yourself out denying each and every one of them: as i stated earlier your favourite pastime seems to be calling your God a liar since you reject ALL his words such as these. . .


John 8:40: "you are determined to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God.”


John 17:3: "Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent."


Mark 13:32:"No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father."


John 14:28: "You heard me say,'I am going away and I am coming back to you.' If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I."


John 20:17: "Jesus said, "Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them,'I am ascending to my Father and your Father, my God and your God.


Mark 10:18: “Do not call me good, only God is good.”


From the foregoing there can be NO DOUBT, that Jesus NEVER, NOT EVEN FOR ONE SECOND, regarded himself as God. Notwithstanding anything the hero-worshipping Apostles will tell you. But even they said a lot to show that they didn’t think so –



1Timothy 2:5: "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.



1 Peter 1:3: “Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.”



Acts 2:22 - “Men of Israel, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know.”



Acts 2:36: “God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ.”



Yep - start the usual o.rgy of thrashing away your Jesus' own statements!

viaro:
* Did Jesus ever anywhere clearly say that He was NOT God?

Did Jesus ever anywhere clearly say that he was God?

If He did say so at any time at all, would it make sense to you that He Himself
claimed the very same honour that men render to the Father in John 5:23?

I cannot account for his delusions in claiming such an honour.

What is clear is that he stated the following -

"Do not call me good, only God is good"

"The Father is greater than I"

"OF THAT DAY AND HOUR NO MAN KNOWS. . .NOT EVEN THE SON , .BUT ONLY THE FATHER. . ." - CLEARLY SHOWING THAT HE LACKED OMNISCIENCE - A KEY ATTRIBUTE OF GOD.

And many many more; including shamefully petitioning himself in Gethsemane to avert an event that he himself (as God) had pre-destined. What comedy.

You can spend your weekend creating artsy somersaults to once again escape the BRUTALLY CLEAR words of your own carpenter God. . . it is afterall your hobby to call him a liar - given that you have never accepted any of his clear words as being true.

As for me I am weary of it all - we have argued this too many times anyway; and it will also amount to derailing the thread.
[quote][/quote]

Give me a break. AT NO TIME ON THIS FORUM HAVE YOU OR ANYONE ELSE ADDRESSED THE GLARING VERSES THAT POSITIVELY CONTRADICT THE PAGAN TRINITARIAN DOGMA TO WIT -

[Mark 10:18].
[1Timothy 2:5].
[John 14:28].
[John 20:17].
[John 17:3].


[Mark 13:32]
[1st Peter 1:3].
[Acts 2:22]
[Luke 22:42]
[John 8:40].
[Luke 23.34].

when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high

Sat down at the right hand side of whom - himself? ? ? ? ?

I laugh.

aletheia:
^^^
Evasive. Pastor Agbaje will neither answer yes nor no to those questions even if his life depends on it. So let me lend a hand.

Jesus' Two Natures

Jesus is God in human flesh. He is not half God and half man. He is fully God and fully man. At the incarnation He added to His divine nature the nature of man. Thus He has two natures: divine and human. He is both God and man at the same time. He is not merely a man who "had God within Him" nor is he a man who "manifested the God principle." He is God, second person of the Trinity. "Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;" (Heb.1:3). Jesus' two natures are not "mixed together," nor are they combined into a new God-man nature. They are separate yet act as a unit. This is called the Hypostatic Union.
This is another mystery we have to accept by faith, but we need to understand its significance or we can end up believing a false gospel.
The following chart should help you see the two natures of Jesus "in action":

[table]
[tr][td]GOD[/td][td]MAN[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]He is worshipped (Matt. 2:2,11; 14:33; 28:9)[/td][td]He worshipped the Father (John 17)[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]He is prayed to (Acts 7:59; 1 Cor. 1:1-2)[/td][td]He prayed to the Father (John 17:1)[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]He was called God (John 20:28; Heb. 1:8 )[/td][td]He was called man (Mark 15:39; John 19:5)[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]He was called Son of God (Mark 1:1)[/td][td]He was called Son of Man (John 9:35-37)[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]He is sinless (1 Pet. 2:22; Heb. 4:15)[/td][td]He was tempted (Matt. 4:1)[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]He knew all things (John 21:17)[/td][td]He grew in wisdom (Luke 2:52)[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]He gives eternal life (John 10:28)[/td][td]He died (Rom. 5:[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]The fullness of deity dwells in Him (Col. 2:9)[/td][td]He has a body of flesh and bones (Luke 24:39)[/td][/tr]
[/table]

When will you stop peddling these unbiblical and nonsensical lies? Can you not see what you have written above merely reveals the unsustainable contradictions within that pagan dogma? Did Jesus not make clear AT EVERY OPPURTUNITY that he was NOT God? ? ?

How do you people blaspheme so lightly, calling a goodly Jewish Rabbi almighty God? ? ?

Christ!

viaro:
His analogy with AIDS was off the beat - that much he even agreed.

No Viaro. And I am not concerned with what gentlemanly concessions MyJoe makes to you  - I verily believe that he does such only out of a compound and most mature desire to assimilate all views as well as avoid needless and long-drawn out quibbling – which you are very well known for.

Let us examine again the said analogy.

He stated –

Let’s illustrate this with a story from Africa’s stormy politics.

The immediate past president of South Africa, the dour and cerebral Thabo Mbeki, is universally famous for questioning the causal link between HIV and Aids. Unfortunately, his HIV atheism rubbed off on the officialdom, bringing about lethargy in policy formulation towards an apocalypse that demanded nothing short of a WW II German Fallschirmjäger military-type response.

Enter the ebullient Jacob Zuma. With smiles oozing from the four compass points of his mouth, he met with presidents, scientists, philanthropists such as Bill Gates, and HIV evangelists of various colouring. HIV causes Aids, he declared. His government was going to tackle it. Some heaved a sigh of relief. But not everyone. Anyone who knew Zuma well knew here was the greatest danger to the Aids fight South Africa has ever seen! Here is a man who told the world that he knowingly slept with a HIV-positive woman and promptly proceeded to take a shower to halt the viruses possibly swimming up his penile orifice in their tracks! Now consider the potential effect of those words on the mindset of young South African men; add to that the fact that Zuma has remained the connoisseur of nubile females with absolutely no time for condoms and have sufficient neonatal bundles of evidence to leave Tuface looking a virgin. Now you will begin to see who poses the gravest threat to the HIV/Aids fight between the atheistic Mbeki and Zuma, born again and spirit-filled in speech, but saying in his heart that there is no Aids.

Now as is often the case with you basic and common logic will have to be broken down to its most bare essentials. I will proceed to do this for you, as I always have – not that I carry within my mind the slightest delusion that you will be helped to see reason thereby – I know you will NOT.

First off he said –

The immediate past president of South Africa, the dour and cerebral Thabo Mbeki, is universally famous for questioning the causal link between HIV and Aids. Unfortunately, his HIV atheism rubbed off on the officialdom, bringing about lethargy in policy formulation towards an apocalypse that demanded nothing short of a WW II German Fallschirmjäger military-type response.

Thus indicating without much ado that –

1. Mbeki (Man X; Let us call him) was cerebral
2. Man X questioned the [B]causal link[/b] between HIV and AIDS – mark you: not HIV; not AIDs – BUT the causal link.
3. This attitude of Man X “rubbed off on the officialdom, bringing about lethargy in policy formulation.”

Note the above carefully: Mbeki is NOT said to reject the existence of AIDS. As a matter of fact he never did. He had scientific questions about the process of its development. Now notwithstanding this, such questions “rubbed off on the officialdom, bringing about lethargy in policy formulation.”

Thus: Mbeki – a man who believed in the existence of AIDS, had brought about a scenario where AIDS was not taken seriously enough in government.

Enter J. Zuma, the randy Lion of Africa.

It is well known that he has never taken AIDS seriously. He has in the past made statements suggesting that he thought it might not even exist. He regarded its threat as so trifling that he was able to consider taking a shower as an appropriate remedy.

This is well known to be his INNER belief.

However, what does he do as president? – From MyJoe -

With smiles oozing from the four compass points of his mouth, he met with presidents, scientists, philanthropists such as Bill Gates, and HIV evangelists of various colouring. HIV causes Aids, he declared. His government was going to tackle it.

He thus gives the veneer of belief – and to the inattentive; nay, the dense – it would appear that he has taken a more proactive approach against AIDS than his predecessor did – and that his presidency would therefore be a greater light against AIDS than the previous administration was.

However this is not the case! Because – From MyJoe –

But not everyone. Anyone who knew Zuma well knew here was the greatest danger to the Aids fight South Africa has ever seen! Here is a man who told the world that he knowingly slept with a HIV-positive woman and promptly proceeded to take a shower to halt the viruses possibly swimming up his penile orifice in their tracks! Now consider the potential effect of those words on the mindset of young South African men; add to that the fact that Zuma has remained the connoisseur of nubile females with absolutely no time for condoms and have sufficient neonatal bundles of evidence to leave Tuface looking a virgin.

Despite his posturing – and even if it may be argued that he accepts the existence of AIDS at a conscious level (he had to accept it at a conscious level to be bothered to take a shower) the definite and irrefutable fact remains that no rational person can ever state that Zuma’s subconscious accepts the existence of AIDS.

Accordingly –

1. He would not act as above if in his heart of hearts, he believed in AIDS
2. Despite his anti-AIDS posturing, BY HIS ACTIONS he has actually become an icon for the AIDS disbelieving-community!
3. Thus the cardinal point is that his ACTIONS SHOW GREATER UNBELIEF IN AIDS THAN MBEKI’S WORDS DID!

To any other person, getting this point across would have been as simple as stating the age old axiom – ACTION SPEAKS LOUDER THAN WORDS! ! ! But for you even that simplest of sayings requires special and extended explanations.

You should thus see that the example is perfectly on-point in proving that which it set out to – namely – that the ACTIONS of so called “believers” speak louder than words in unveiling that which rests in the deepest base of their hearts - - - viz:

THE FACT THAT THEY DO NOT REALLY BELIEVE IN GOD.

“The fool says in his heart . . . there is no God . . .”

I hope its become clear now for you: that this is what such people have said IN THEIR HEARTS. . . that there is no God!

So who are the fools?

I did not argue about actions or inactions always connoting belief. He saw my point quite simply, made no disagreement thereto (because that analogy suffered an inferential limitation); and then also stated that his point was "to underscore the fact that action can belie belief without the author noticing".

Moot point. Because the subconscious is mostly unnoticed anyhow - especially by hypocrites.

False. If that were ever the case, it makes such a person a classic hypocrite. You don't go out of your way to make repeated assertions about an issue and then come back yapping that such assertions were not expressions of what you hold in your heart.

Of course they are hypocrites. What else could they be? Your point is ? ? ? ?

If I were to follow your style, I could as well turn this topic into a discussion about the fictitious and illiterate 'oneness of infinity' that has forever NEVER convinced anyone on Niaraland with commonsense - not even when you tried to hoodwink some with the attempt to dribble it in 'prose'.

What’s your obsession with the Oneness of Infinity Theory? Why are you never able to address any posers I raise without rushing back to that? What does it do to help your argument here? ? ? Is that being discussed on this thread ? ? ? Of course you only rush back to that on account of a complex you need to hide from!

Please focus on the issue at hand jaare.

Viaro - as usual you quibble over words and split hairs as though you were a tailor kniiting up a cloth from the hair of Samson.

MyJoe's analogy about Aids was simple, clear, lucid and intelligible - for the commonsensical, that is.

It simply asserts the following -

1. That Action does not always connote belief

2. That inaction does not always connote unbelief

3. Thus that affirmation within the heart is the true affirmation

4. And consquently that a person who through his actions and thoughts belies a truth he espouses; really does not hold such a truth.

I urge you to consider that the terrible myths of hell and the wrath of God which are held by the so-called religious - are so replete with terror that any person who GENUINELY believes in such can scarcely belie it within his actions. In this it is expected that the notion of God is no less compelling: and it cannot be hard to see that no genuine apprehension of his existence would dovetail into the sort of hypocrisy and wickedness characterized by the majority: in this i may cite the example of the many who express belief in heaven - but do not wish to die so as to leave this world and then go there - it emerges forcefully and irrefutably that such people do not IN GENBUINE TERMS believe in "heaven." As such we may agree that those whose actions desperately belie the principles of God; cannot be said to GENUINELY believ in his existence in the deepest recesses of their hearts:

There is nothing to argue with in the foregoing, but i expect that you will devote your energies once again to form and not to substance