₦airaland Forum

O, to hell with that Jihadist.

See what he was defending here -

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-324169.0.html

^^^ Tony - sorry - not every mind can grasp it, i will not force it on you.

Finite minds which are schooled in being breast-fed typically prefer ready made ancient myths (as you admitted prefering) which like children listening to santa claus they can easily absorb.

The genuine mystic is not so easily satisfied.

I must say that you did not address this question AT ALL -

To whom was Jesus praying in Gethsemane? To who did he cry "Eli Eli, La ma sabathacni?" Doubtless to the father. In Gethsemane he makes the crucial statement - "Nevertheless not as i will, but as thou wilt" - making it clear that the Father had a different mind, will and selfconsciousness, because if he were the father himself, that prayer would be moot and paradoxical.

You cooked up an analogy about Jack Bauer in a movie. The analogy is entirely inappropriate given that the character in question is said to be one who has existed above time and space, an omniscient being in human form who is the transcendental almighty God himself. Such a being could not be compared to a movie character, Maven. Don't be having a laugh.

So, isn't it clear that the script-writer knows what could have saved the day, but the SON (the actor in THAT form of acting) does not?

Let me put a question to you. Did Jesus lose his omniscience by virtue of coming to the earth?

If he did, then he was not perfect, not God anymore, and thus not a perfect "sacrifice."

If he did not, then why would he state clearly that there were things that he did not know? - Mark 13:32

Maven. . . it's unravelling very fast for you now. . .

As John 5:19 clearly states, JESUS WAS FOLLOWING A SCRIPT! The only thing he can do is what the script-writer had determined or allowed him to do.

Ha! Yet another concession that Jesus had a boss, who was the script-writer?

Maven, why are you making it so easy for me?

And Peter referred to him as the FATHER of CHRIST. Very true! Because Christ came to do his will, perfectly.

O, so you accept he came to perform the will of a superior?

You should, because he himself accepted that. John 17:3

Thanks for another concession.

The RIGHT HAND of God means the place of assurance, security, hope, salvation, power, might, glory, favour etc. i.e. anything good that one can benefit from God, emanates from His right hand!

Jesus "seated at the right hand of God" means that the benefits of our salvation are to be obtained THROUGH Him IN GOD.

I can only see this as a direct admission from you that Jesus is not God.

You yourself stated "through" him. . . does this not emphaisze that which is written in 1Timothy 2:5 -

To wit - "There is only one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Jesus Christ. . . "

Jesus was clearly saying that the disciples ought to be happier, because he was soon stepping out of that restrictive human form, exiting the MOVIE called Earth-life and going to the Father, going off-stage as it were.

If this was the case he would not have cried out "My God My God why hast thou forsaken me?"

Now do not bring on that old lame line that God had turned his face away from sin which Christ was carrying, because -

IF CHRIST WERE GOD, HE WOULD KNOW VERY WELL EXACTLY WHAT EFFECTS HIS CARRYING SIN WOULD HAVE ON THE GODHEAD -

Accordingly he would not despair that "God had forsaken him. . ." He would know fully well all the divine computations of what was going on. . .

Afterall you say he was the very Father himself who wrote the whole script? How then would he imagine that he had been "turned away from?"

Does the word Omniscience mean anything yto you in relation to this point. . . . ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

So why is it hard to understand that God wrote a script called Eternity, and one of the seasons of that long movie is called Earth, and he decided to feature himself in it? Some minutes into that season, he allows the "himself" character to die (as was planned from the start) and the script goes on?

Really strange then that he wrote the script and also wrote a part in the script where he would address himself begging himself to change the script.

Do you have an apprehension of the word - "Divinity?"

Do you think that Divinity, being perfect, is capable of changing?

Why do you think it is asserted that God is the same yesterday, today and forever?

Does the term "absolute perfection" mean anything to you in relation to this discourse. . .

Right Maven. Here we go.

Well, from what i read above i verily suspect that the Oneness of Infinity may well be too advanced for him. It also seems to me that NL was at an early stage of development and there were not enough heavyweights around such as the Prizms and Mnwankwos and Pastor AIOs to address the issue soundly.

The fellow's argument is actually simplistic and childlike: he cannot see God, he says, and as such God does not exist.

I wonder if he has ever seen a thought.

Or an emotion.

Intangible things that indisputably exist.

I would have come at him from the angle of causation and the law of motion.

Tudor. . . who is this infidel guy? I would have loved to spar with him?

[quote author=Tudór link=topic=321928.msg5165245#msg5165245 date=1261490674]Everybody wants to write a book these days even the talentless jokers.

I comit a crime i write a book, you escape an accident you get a book deal. . . I had an extramarital affair, i write a book about it.
I lost 10 million in the stock market i publish the story

Geez, we are tired. . . .if you're writing a book it better be good!! else just keep it under your matress or read it to your quadriplegic grandmother.[/quote]Tudor you are a riot! LOL!!!! This had me rolling on the floor.

Please consider a career as a professional yabbist as per Fela Kuti!!!!

Mavenb0x:
@Viaro: I have a private conjecture on aliens and UFOs which is a little bizarre, and if it is true, then it negates my posts on this thread. I want you to consider it with me. I must confess I am not so much of a scientist, so pardon my wrong nomenclature if any.

Assume space and time is continuous, and a certain force (c.f. gravity's downward pull) is what keeps drawing man in the forward time axis. Just like man grappled with gravity for years before aerodynamics was instituted, man will soon discover a way to travel in short bursts through time. Short "backward" bursts in which he can see but can't interact with his past, but he keeps being drawn back into present. Until considerable time-travel is invented and man can travel across time in either direction.

Assume this first time machine invention happens on January 1, 2050.

Thus, January 1, 2050 will be a kind of "terminus" for those travelling from the future into the past. They may travel past that point, but they may not interact with people beyond that point. i.e. say a tourist from the future visits 2009 Georgia. This will be observed in Georgia as a "UFO" but there will be no interaction between the parties, because such interaction will cause the time machine to be built much faster than January 1. 2050 thanks to the transfer of advanced knowledge from the future. (This may be a reason there have not been any recorded exchange with any "UFO".

As from January 1, 2050 when the time machine is invented, tourists from all sorts of future civilizations will arrive to examine Earth, and scientists and tourists from the present will be able to attend to the future as well. This is where my conjecture gets complex. I believe, in this conjecture, that any physical interaction we may have with "aliens" will start occurring from that January 1, 2050. These "aliens" are in fact humans who have undergone varying extra-terrestrial conditions (compare with the formation of diverse human races) such as, for example, a civilization where thanks to some space-wars, the universe became polluted and man had to begin wearing body-suites because flesh will be wasted on contact with the environment. Or civilizations where man had to be modified physically to suit other ambient conditions. Or, say, a group of highly intelligent humans who travelled off into a diverse civilization where only the highly intelligent humans survived, and thus learnt the technology of the future, then returned to the present to implement them, and proceeds to travel into the future to exterminate that OTHER civilization, or something?

My surmise is that if this were the case, from that day that time travel is properly established, there will be all kinds of "aliens" who are spawns of various human civilizations gone wrong (or done right). We can't interact with them yet because there is a "membrane" between us in space and time, and until that membrane is punctured on that hypothetical January 1, 2050, they can only peek through the membrane and see us. They can't come through, and we can see them sometimes if they allow us to (carelessly or voluntarily). In other words, it's still diverse variations of mankind at the end of the day, and not some "aliens", and they would still require salvation. If this was the case, they can return to Adam's point of sin, but they can't prevent it (as I said earlier, they can only observe the past beyond Jan 1, 2050). They would still need the salvation of Jesus in that case.

I hope you understand my case, but it's all conjecture.

P.S. Please this is part content for my upcoming sci-fi novel (excluding the whole salvation gist).

It's (c) Mavenbox 2009. Thanks.

Maven, this is brilliant.

But its is bedridden with problems and assumptions.

Viewing past events to my mind is a definite possibility. Light contains pictures and once we have a machine that can decrypt those pictures we will be able to see the events billions of years ago within the light rays from the stars we see in the sky.

However appearing within a past reality (as a UFO for example) makes the very serious assumption that past events are still happening.

In other words; you assume that for a person living in 2050, 2009 Georgia still exists and events there are still occuring and he can enter into that reality (as a UFO) to view the still-existing reality. This is doubtless a great presumption.

But more fatal is the presumption that events are already occuring in the future as we speak. - That as we speak, things are already happening in 2050 and accordingly 2050 IS A PLACE FROM WHICH A PERSON MIGHT VISIT OR WHICH WE MIGHT VISIT.

This is wholly implausible because the state of affairs in 2050 DEPENDS on the state of affairs now, and on the period between now and 2050. And things are still growing and unfolding.

In 2050 I will be in my seventies. Do we presume that a seventy-something year old Deep Sight is already pottering about somewhere in the future?

What if i die before then? This shows that 2050 is conditional upon passing time, and is not a point already existing ftom which visitors or viewers may come to 2009, as is implicitly suggested within your surmise.

Creative thoughts though.

You are a writer? Great! Am putting together a novel myself. Writing is my life-long passion.

Even if she knew, how come she stood at the podium leading the congregation
of God with her knee & navel showing?

Don't mind these hypocrites.

So knees and navels are now the equivalent of devil's horns?

Let me ask you; before the white man, how did you africans dress? Tell me Knees and navels were not always on display in most african societies? ? ?

Deluded hypocrites.

Are you ok? Did God create anybody with clothes? ? ? ? ? ? ?

What's wrong with nudity? Ehn? Ehn?

She didnt suggest that Tudor.

^^^ That's expected. The word "Esoteric" which i used naturally means that those philosophies are not meant for the masses.

Gnite.

viaro:
while forcing your own dogmatism upon the worldviews you don't subscribe to.

Duh. Did you not read this -

Deep Sight:
Nobody needs to know my "singularity" - that is a theological abstraction for philosophers to play with.

? ? ? ?

You are bored.

Or struck with some bizzare obsession.

viaro:
I quite understand it, and if you have a different meaning that we never have heard before, please share.

I find that another one of your huge gaps with the previous quote from you: "For me it is sufficient that a person knows that there is a supreme being to whom he owes his existence" - did I read from two different people?

What I am talking about is your penchant for drawing unrelated illations and making huge gaps in your own gaping theory of a singularity while forcing your own dogmatism upon the worldviews you don't subscribe to.

I'm indeed bored with recycled non-starters, apologies.

No response required.

toneyb:
I agree, but there are so many things that you have to accept based on faith and not on reason

Yep - like a Jewish man is GOD.

That's not even faith. It's psychosis.

Hangin in here Maven. . . Finish up, and i will have a word.

I can only assume that despite your considerable vocabulary you do not know the meaning of the word "Esoteric."

What i stated is clear enough: Nobody needs to know my "singularity" - that is a theological abstraction for philosophers to play with.

Recognition of a superior being is what i said is enough. And virtually all tribes of the world have such in their traditions, so what are you talking about.

Looks like you are bored or something.

Correct, Horus. Also there should be a UK style Charity Commission to regulate funds.

"Singularity" is simply an esoteric definition of the Almighty meant for the initiated.

It needn't be accepted or even heard by anyone at all.

For me it is sufficient that a person knows that there is a supreme being to whom he owes his existence.

This knowledge is widespread amongst virtually all tribes of the world, and for millenia has been assimilated by stark illiterates.

So no problem there.

It might be slightly more difficult however to press on people of all tribes of the world, that a man like themselves from one tribe, is almighty God whom they must acknowledge. Not to talk about ritual sacrifices of redemption through the judicial murder of that man. In that, Chrisbenegor's concerns are very real indeed.

LOL!!!

One bottle of Big Stout should do for Dinner.

Viaro you are talking about denominations. This is different from 3 Redeemed church parishes in a single short street.

Redeemed is a franchise and new pastors pay a fee to be given the commercial rights to open new branches. They remitt a percentage to the centre. This is a FACT.

Viaro - what does it take to believe in Jesus Christ? Does one need to know of him first? i.e: that such a man existed at all?

But in all of this do spare a second to reflect if you are coming up with ingenious explanations that negate that which is obvious within the scripture i quoted. In other words i hope its not a situation of - no matter how clearly scripture negates your ideas, you will find a round-about explantion that suits you.

Be honest with yourself in reflecting on if that is the case. In doing so one good parametre will be to ask yourself if ANY scripture that has EVER been presented to you contradicting your views has ever changed your perspective, or if you have rather found ways to explain such sciptures to suit your perspectives.

This demands self honesty.

I am still listening. Ride one.

^^^ That was a very short write up, common . . .

Look let's settle this confusion speedily. Jesoul is first wife. Mavenbox is second wife. Maven's alleged "hunnybunny" is forthwith given marching orders. On pain of. . .

Jesoul will cook Mondays, Wednesdays, Fridays, Sundays. Mavenbox Tuesdays, Thursdays Saturdays.

African Man.

Gbam.

Is Krayola attempting to leave Nairaland? I will go on permanent hunger strike o.