₦airaland Forum

okay o. meeeeeeeery christmas, pastor!

Nuclear - let us move on to the next question:

The Immculate conception.

Is this not another myth?

Does history not show that once a spiritual leader is deified, he is also naturally said to be the child of a Deity, and not a human.

This was said of many ancient emperors and spiritual leaders.

. . . But Moses is a Bible prophet as well, no?

Did he not advocate stoning women to death for adultery?

Who gave Israel the Mosaic Law, complete with all its babaric and violent injunctions. Moses, no?

Pastor, i will be interested in your take here -


https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-371493.0.html

Nor were members of the spanish inquisition and the perpetrators of all the atrocities of the Roman Church muslim.

Importantly, i must also add that if indeed we are all little parts of God, then the direct implication is that every single thing is a direct deed of God, and thus ALL things are predestined.

If this is the case then -

   1. Your talk about souls coming to the "world" to develop, becomes entirely meaningless

   2. Every terrible event in history, including the holocaust, mass amputation in Liberia, genocide in Rwanda, the slave trade, would all be direct deeds of God (since we are God) carried out possibly for his entertainment.

Rossike? ? ? ? ?

ROSSIKE:
Deep Sight said:

The pyramids under another software program could appear to the receivers, not as ''pyramids'', but as a retinue of colors, each symbolizing a thought wave.

Or a mesh of lines similar to the readings on an electrocardiogram.

The Sun could be received as little more than a pesky lightbulb, or not at all.

There is no doubt that the faculties of the perceiver would influence the manner or mode of perception: or what is perceived. Indeed as the saying goes perception is cognitive reality.

Just as surely as some creatures are colour blind, and accordingly will perceive objects differently from other creatures.

So you have missed the question.

The question is whether the thing perceived is actually there or is an illusion.

Since you concede that – “The pyramids under another software program could appear to the receivers, not as ''pyramids'', but as a retinue of colors, each symbolizing a thought wave.” – then you have conceded that the Pyramids EXIST, but will be perceived differently by different observers.

That in itself is a moot point well understood by all.

ROSSIKE:
Absolutely. WE are God.

This is a very misleading statement.

From a broad and generalistic point of view the statement may be allowed to pass, in that God is everything, being the source and creator of all existence: or rather, being the very fibre of existence itself.

I had pointed towards this in another thread some days ago –

Deep Sight:
In my view, creation is nothing but the intrinsic self-expression of the mind of the creator. I believe that the natural outward radiation of the substance of divinity is what emerges as creation.

God being a compound element, comprises an infinite mind that contains infinite permutations of existence.

This infinite mind being self-existent continuously pulsates in the reality of its live nature and that emitts steady streams of creation which is nothing but the replica of the infinite permutations of existence contained in the universal mind.

Accordingly i do not subscribe to the belief that man was created for the purpose of worshipping God per se.

I think that man is a natural manifestation of the mind of God, and in living (and living fully), God's thoughts reach expression and reality through man (and through everything else in existence).

It is therefore fair to state that we are projections of the universal mind in an abstract sense.

However this is not to be confused with the specific nature of the human experience as being distinct from God.

It is apparent even from contradictions in your surmise that you apprehend this as well.

For you stated –

ROSSIKE:
Absolutely. WE are God.

And then contradicted that statement many other statements, a few of which are - 

ROSSIKE:
YOU are a pre-existing soul who decided to play the game as a participant in this VR program for reasons of soul development through experience.

Hereby conceding that individual souls are units that need to develop. . . Ultimate Consciousness, by its very definition cannot be said to need to develop! Thus you concede that we cannot be said to be God.

ROSSIKE:
The idea that we are inherently ''separate'' from God or from each other is what leads to evil.

Evil, fear and hatred are a playing out of the notion that we are separate.

Really? If as you postulate, we are all parts of God, this would not be the case. Ultimate Consciousness would not write a script for itself to experience, which includes separating itself from itself and thereby creating evil, no?

Such a suggestion, you must agree, will be absurd.

And philosophically, it must collapse; for its suggestion, I hope you realize, is that the only purpose of creation was the formation of evil.

This is the direct implication of your surmise: because creation involved bringing into existence “individualized” parts of consciousness – thus “separating” infinite consciousness into parts. You yourself stated that “separation” is the basis of evil, whereas “oneness” is the basis of good.

Thus, if God wanted all things to be good, then he would never have created any “individuals.” All would have remained one, indivisible grreat oneness.

I hope you can see that your surmise leads irrevocably to the conclusion that creation was only done for the purpose of introducing “divisions” and thereby evil.

On this ground, your summation must fail in its entirety.

ROSSIKE:
You'll have to ask God Himself why He allowed for this ''quirk''

Here again you accept that “God himself” is entirely and altogether different from we as individual beings, and also that he/she/it posesses exclusive discretion on certain things, to which we will never be privy.

Thus your assertion that we are God (attractive as it is to my mind) is riddled with problems arising from your very own words.

^^^CAN ANYTHING BE KNOWN ABOUT SOCRATES OR ALEXANDER THE GREAT

YES. . .THRU THE WRITINGS OF HUMAN BEINGS. . .

WHO WROTE THE GOSPELS. . . RATS?

_{Although i accept there is also archaelogical evidence of other historical figures, but point is you cant dismiss the gospels as pointing to nothing, because they are so many}

a daniel has come to nl

pastor!!!

viaro:
wait - I'll re-write that!

OOOOOOO ! You are frustrating me o. . . i was already quoting and responding. . .oya, i will wait. . .

Well Wirinet - Like i said, i am sorry to have gone that far. It was silly and presumptuous OF ME.

And i will really hate to lose the privilege of interfacing with you.

You have taught me much science.

wirinet:
As i said, there is now point in explaining any further my beliefs as an atheist, because to you it will be a silly proposition unless i could adopt your deism beliefs or Christianity type Monotheism/Polytheism

What about other forms of polytheism? is it a silly propositions also since your notion of God is very different from their beliefs, can you say it is in agreement with your oneness of infinity?

Perhaps i was heavy-handed and presumptuous too. I apologize.

Meeeeeeery Christmas, Wirinet

Krayola:
Theism positively affirms the existence of God

To do this, the theist must be omniscient

It thus emerges, that the theist is more presumptuous and dogmatic than the atheist.


However to believe that God definitely exists, one must have within one's mind a basis for that belief. The ONLY basis that would be accurate is omniscience. (Therefore, deep sight is omniscient)


Maybe other's find you anti "dogma", anti trinitarian, anti- atheist posts just as sickening.

I don't think it is your views people have a problem with, but the way you express yourself. If u can't handle it, don't dish it out.

I hardly hear the atheists here crying foul when they get shitted on. It's fair game. But just be ready for the crossfire.  

LOL!!!!! i KNEW THIS WAS COMING. . . .


mEEEEEEERY cHRISTMAS kRAYOLA!

Lol. . . Viaro. . .how i go do na?

Meeeeeeery Christmas to you!

<sub>But seriously seriously: God is said to be ONE and INFINITE.

Do you deny this?</sub>

wirinet:
Deep sight, I am highly disappointed by your Above statements, you have dropped several notches in my admiration and respect for you. Your are now beginning to show your distaste and dislike for the Atheist's point of view, which had remained largely hidden until now.

Was it hidden? That is strange. Am I not the self same person who has opened a zillion threads tackling what I believe to be wrong with atheism?

In one breadth you define atheism as a disbelief in the existence of God (or gods) and in another you proclaim "the atheist must be omniscient, since he positively claims to know what exists or does not exist". I call that verbal aggression, or maybe you do not know the difference between knowledge and belief

I accept that there are differences between belief and knowledge.

However to have a belief that God does not exist, one must within one’s mind have a basis for that belief. The only basis that would be accurate is omniscience.

So you define them as silly just because they cannot wrap their head around a less silly oneness of infinity belief.

I really should have just shut my trap and never shared my apprehension of the Godhead with anybody. It is sickening the way every Tom, Peter and Harry reverts to Oneness of Infinity when they cannot defend whatever it is that they are saying.

It particularly strikes me how people cannot see how simple the oneness of infinity concept is in relation to God. Afterall God is said to be ONE by the major monotheistic religions. He is also said to be eternal, or infinite. So what is so strange or new about a oneness of infinity by which I simply seek to expatiate on the Divine nature.

Krayola:
Neither do most atheists. They just believe God does not exist. Believing something and Knowing something are two different things.

I have heard atheists and Christians give their arguments for their viewpoints. U don't recognize them as arguments. . u see them as superstitious. dogmatic nonsense.  . . . and then go on to do stuff, like analyse how some abstract s.h.it is "masculine" and some other thing is "feminine" and make all these elaborate nonsensical analogies that only make sense in your world-view.  Oh, the irony!!  

I differ.

As Viaro has noted, we are not discussing agnosticism, which is a position that no one could quarrel with.

The plain truth is that 99% of NL atheist have no uncerstanding of the word "Atheist" - which is why i consistently pose the question to them.

Atheism is not agnosticism. Atheism positively denies the existence of God.

To do this, the atheist must be omniscient.

It thus emerges that the atheist is more presumtuous and dogmatic than the theist.

viaro:
Actually, I'd been banned from booze

Why? A health issue?

I had a medical bann from booze bout ten years ago when i had a heart problem. I fired on with the booze. . . so irresponsible. . . thank God sha. . .

Krayola:
Are you also omniscient, since you claim to know all that cannot and does not exist, even in the ultimate transcendental dimension?

I make no claims to know it all. I proffer arguments from my viewpoint.

The Atheist positively asserts that an entity that is said to exist outside our dimension does not exist.

That surely means that the atheist has been there to document what is there and what is not there.

OLAADEGBU:
An Atheist is someone who has 100% knowledge of everything and anything that can be known in this universe and beyond. That is, he has perfect knowledge of the past, present and future, and because of this he can accurately conclude that there is no God. You know no one like this exists, therefore, God does not believe in Atheists.

This is a brilliant illustration of the stupidity and gross presumption of atheism.

Truly, the atheist must be omniscient, since he positively claims to know what exists or does not exist in other dimensions, including the ultimate transcendental dimension.

Deep Sight:
^^^ a God that exists independent of the ideas of "man made religions. . ."

Why are YOU deliberately dancing around in circles this festive season?

You keep stating the "gods of man-made religions. . ."

I did not make that qualification - you did. So please tell. . . why do wyou make the qualification - simple!

Atheism is a disbelief in the existence of God (or gods)

Agnosticism is a position that states that nothing can be known about God (or gods) the subject being too abstract for the human mind.

The Atheist states: God does not exist. The Agnostic states: I do not know, can never know, and it does not concern me.

^^^ a God that exists independent of the ideas of "man made religions. . ."

JeSoul:
I like the way you put that, the key word being "all". Do you anticipate or leave room for any time or situation in life where all reason would need to be cast aside and faith alone leaned upon to carry one through?

Yes. . . that happens for example when one is in love. . . bu time teaches even the worst romantic (such as i used to be in times past) that one must use one's head as well in such situations. . . in the same way i think that one must also use one's head in searching for God, and not the heart alone. . . after all, why do we have a brain?

Mazaje, i have noticed that of all the atheists on this forum, only you are always careful to qualify your statement as "gods of man-made religions"

. . . i am just curious. . . do you make this qualification because you accept that there may be a true GOD out there unknown to man made religions. . . .

Chukwudi. . . just as an aside, considering the history of the church can you justify the dogma of papal infallibility. . .

A rational explanation is love, growth and experiencing. . .

Pastor, i need your attention here -


https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-371493.0.html

Pastor AIO:
It could be a whim. God created the universe just for kicks.

Yes o. . . and there's of course the possiblity that its the work of super advanced beings like ourselves toying with an experiment. . .

The developing field of planetary engineering demonstrates this. . . man is already planning how to engineer planets. . . there is no reson to suppose that science cannot develop to the degree that in another 10, 000 years we are engineering new universes. . .

There are a million possibilities. . .

But all the possibilities do not obviate the cosmological question of a first cause. . .

Just as an aside, i find it so strange that many people do not realize that biblical and quoranic ideas of God actually dovetail into a oneness of infinity. . .being monotheistic religins -

They state that God is ONE

They state that God is eternal or infinite. . .

Need i say more. . .

So you see, its you guys who simply resent a term who have not heard before without analyzing it. . .

Mazaje, that was a brrrrriiiiilllliant video!

Noetic my man! Meeeerry Christmas!