₦airaland Forum

wirinet:
I know that the possible number of connections by the billions of neurons in a human brain runs into billions of trillions and each compete connection represent one state of mind. This means that the possible state of mind of an average human is infinite and during our lifetimes and we are only able to experience a few of these states. So i am sure some people are able to experience a state of mind that i have never or will never experience. Maybe that is what you call spiritual. But i believe every possible human experience emanates from the brain.

Now this has always intrigued me: when people say – it’s all about the brain.

I ask you: What is the Brain’s motivation in doing these things? Is the Brain a self-satisfying entity that for its own idiosyncrasies creates these mind states?

To put the question in simpler terms – do those neurons in your brain have a motivation for doing what they do? Because you are making it appear as though true life is all about the neurons and that what we enjoy in the world: love, wealth, pleasure, passion – are only side-effects or residue of the activity of such neurons. You are making the Neurons the only things that have purpose, whereas we, complete beings that we are, are purposeless, and rely on the whims of our neurons, obeying the commands of such neurons in whatever state.

This would mean that we are slaves, and have no will or consciousness, but are mere puppets being controlled by our masters – the neurons. The neurons are now the super race – they control us in absoluteness, and we are irrelevant.

In short, you have made the brain a being all by itself. The rest of you exists only to satisfy that little clump of matter.

Now this to me is just like the statement of that great carpenter: “Is man made for the Sabbath, or the Sabbath made for man?”

Is the brain made for man, or man made for the Brain?

You make it appear as though man is made for the brain.

I would have thought that the brain is a TOOL via which man apprehends the world.

No the atheist mind does not allow for the spiritual but it allows for the unknown

Can the spiritual not also be said to be part of the unknown?

This is a quote from KAG way back in 2006 -

I don't know if it's down to atheism, but I'm a far more content person, more charitable. I've faced several fears and phobias I had, become, what I would like to think, a more rounded person.

It's not all beds and roses though, as I still  battle with things like depression, but despite problems, there's an inner core of happiness within me, happiness that can never be touched nor harmed, happiness that I can only describe as "beautiful joy". there's also a feeling of being, and appreciation for a shortish life

In this rather elegant passage, the gentleman who espouses an atheistic world-view expresses what appears to me to be some appreciation for the existence of his inner spiritual life. He talks about an "inner core of happiness," he states that this is "within him" and goes so far as to declare that his happiness being within him is such that can "never be touched". To emphasize the spirituality of this person, he goes so far as to describe his unchangeable inner happiness as "beautiful joy" and the clincher: he calls it all a "feeling of being."

This is frankly beautiful. I do not know if KAG actually expressly acknowledges the existence of the spiritual, but his verse above was deeply spiritual, up to the point of being poetic.

My question is this - In addition to rejecting the existence of God, do atheists on this forum also reject the existence of all spirituality? In other words –God does not exist, if you like, but does that necessarily mean that you, the individual, are physical only, and not spiritual inside? If you cannot sense God, surely you can sense your own spirituality resident “within” you?

I ask this because in my exchanges with most of the atheists on this forum, I find that their denial of the existence of God also includes a denial of the existence of all non-physical things, including the spirit.

Let’s hear you guys: Does the non-existence of God mean for you that individually you each consist of matter alone, or do you accept that there is a spiritual part to you?

May I step in here.

In this post, I will abandon every attempt to reason, as there has been an abundance of reasoning already, and this has not served to communicate any understanding to those who are yearning for it, in questioning the presence and purposes of GOD.

In this post: I will merely communicate what I believe the truth is, because I perceive that at a point we must per force tire of endless arguments, which in themselves only betray our desperate thirst for the truth.

So I will set it forth: it is neither an argument nor do I invite any arguments in response to it – it is simply that which I believe some here may need to know and understand in order to rest their questions.

Almighty God is a very remote being: the primordial and original meaning of pure existence which we can never approach or comprehend. God simply is the compound of all self-existing laws, and those laws determine what occurs in reality, good, or bad.

So remote and distant from us is GOD, that it may even be said that he did not directly construct this material universe. Rays of energy flowing from him, and immersed already in pre-existing non-material realms coalesced to form this material realm.

We humans who populate this realm are accordingly very remote from the pure perfection of God – thus we are not perfect beings, but developing beings. Everything around you attests to this fact: the fact that we are developing still, learning still, growing still every moment in every way.

We are actually spirit-germs that used to be little sparks of light emanating from the energy of the ultimate oneness – God. Each spark contained within itself either sufficient energy to emanate a desire for consciousness or not.

That bubbling desire within each spark drives the spark down towards the world of matter, where it can become conscious and experience existence and thereby grow into a mature and conscious being. Thus no person should say that he did not ask to be created – deep truth is that before our birth, we each, as spirit-sparks, did bear a desire to come into the world.

Thus once you understand that your advent in the world is for the purpose of spiritual growth and consciousness, you will see that it is actually absolutely necessary that each being must go through all manner of experiences, both good and evil, in its journey towards becoming a strong, complete, and rounded conscious spirit being. That is why we are in a place such as this, where good and evil thrive, and this place is called the world.

In the world, every manner of thing will occur, and the underlying purpose of these things is a drive towards growth. You will all agree that bad experiences will make any wild creature more vigilant, stronger, wiser, etc. Indeed, as the saying goes – experience is the best teacher.

Now as many ancient cultures and religions have sensed, man does not become fully developed in one lifetime. He proceeds through a succession of many lifetimes, until he captures a state that mirrors the perfection of God, from whom his original but unconscious spark proceeded. In Buddhist cultures that state is called Nirvana, without reference to God, and in Christian or Islamic Cultures that state is called heaven, or paradise – because it is the state of perfection, which is what our spiritual experience in the world is driving towards.

Any body who reflects closely on the fact that he was not always in this world, but entered at a point in time, and will die at a point in time, must realise clearly that he or she is coming from somewhere and is going somewhere. It is really very simple indeed.

For this reason one must realize that even children who are caught in a conflict, and suffer therein, have a spiritual location and purpose therein, and they proceed out of the world perhaps in violence to the next realm and the next level of their experiencing in growing gradually towards Nirvana, or perfection. In this regard, man has always realized in various cultures and religions that the effects of that thing called Karma, also have a role to play. Jesus captured the teaching of Karma, when he stated – “whatsoever a man sows, the same shall he reap.” Now the effects of the threads of Karma stretch beyond each lifetime, and determine to a good extent the next life. For this reason, no human being can ever state with any degree of accuracy that he understands any event, be it war or a natural disaster, or the compound effects of such events, and how such events figure in the grand scheme of mankind’s spiritual growth. This is why the OP of this thread has got it horribly wrong.

God, being the compound of all self-existing laws, does not intervene in anything to create “good” situations or “evil” situations. Our adjustment and individual actions in the world create those situations based on the self existing laws, such as gravity - and spiritual gravity.

As I said before, this is not an argument, and I will not be defending it in argumentative terms. But I feel it will be helpful for Mr. Atheists and Tudor to try to understand these realities.

Over and out.

bawomolo:
i'm just wondering where your concept of freewill comes from?

could you explain a little bit.

Is Free Will not a self-evident fact?

The very fact that you can ponder at a crossroads which path to take confirms the existence of your free will - God or no God.

Bawo, surely you will not lead me to believe that one requires a belief in the existence of God, to ascertain self-evident facts, such as the fact that the earth revolves around the sun, or the fact that man is a conscious intelligent being with the attribute of free will ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

^^^ Bawo, would you describe yourself as a robot? You make conscious decisions for yourself yes? And yet you are not religious?

Hello o o o o ?  ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

^^^ Very good: let's take it one step at a time:

I dont see or feel the influence of a GOD anywhere

What is Dark Energy?

[quote author=Tudór link=topic=356567.msg4989528#msg4989528 date=1259094329]You said and rightly so that we should assume he was talking about the abrahamic god, so what are you moaning about?

And as done by abrahamic religions God is credited with anything good that happens but evil is banished to the ranks of free will. If they can give credit to god for all the good and wonderful in humanity why can't god take responsibility for the evils?[/quote]I take it you did not read this:

Deep Sight:
For example, God creates the law of gravity. Some people use that law to power water-dams for productive purposes. That is good. Some use that law to jump off a cliff in committing suicide. That may be bad.

God did not create either situation – the good one or the evil one: he created an adamantine necessary law; gravity – and if you are wise you will not jump off cliffs and blame God for your broken spinal cord. QED.[/b]

Ok, later then.

The only worry i have with this is that we are not talking about different wills in different dispensations, but contradictory wills within ONE divine being WITHIN THE SAME DISPENSATION AND AT THE SAME TIME: already said by you to remain divine even while on earth.

Go work, jaare, a man's gotta do what a man's gotta do, de money is important.

You would not believe i was so keen on this debate that when my pals invited me to the bar down the street i left my apartment and took my laptop along and cranked out my last post in the midst of beer and grilled chicken!

Later.

Hey, pls read again - i modified the above post.

I see we now have too many loose ends strewn about.


For this reason let me attempt to narrow down the discussion to a single point, which I believe is the core point.


Before I do this let me reiterate that the extent of my restlessness, impatience and short temper on this thread does not in anyway detract from my admiration and respect for you Viaro. Please pardon all my terrible excesses: this is just one topic that really gets me fired up, apologies.


I said –

You spoke about the “Divine will” being different from the “Divine person”.

.


And you responded -

You can shout in font 100 to the power of a million, I still maintain a clear distinction between His essence (as regards His Person) and His will (as pertaining to His dealings with creation). The question is interesting: "how can you justify your summation that the will is different from the personage?" This is HOW I could do that, if there was a need to "justify" anything here:


(a) In as much as He is the same throughout in His essence,
His divine will is dispensational

(b) Thus, you will find that between the dispensations of the Old and New Testament,
there are varied expressions of His will -
even though all through all dispensations His essence remains the same

Let us now centre the debate on this alone, lest we get bedraggled and scattered across the continent.


You have talked about His essence being different from his will.


Let us grant that that is the case. It still begs my core question –


“Could the will ever disagree with the personage?”


This is an odd question, but that is the oddity that the Trinity leads us to: I ask again – Could the “Will” of God ever differ from that which resides within the “essence” of God? That is – could the will be of a different or contradictory desire or direction, to the essence


In my view, it certainly cannot, because the will proceeds directly from the person, or, as you put it, the “essence” of God. For this reason the will can only be reflective of the essence, and certainly could not contradict the essence.

Once you accept this, as you per force must, you have conclusively ceded the debate: because as you will see below, God's will could not request of God that God should change God's will to suit the will of God who was on Earth at the tinme.

I dare you to suggest tat the will can contradict the essence, or bear a different desire, and let us see just how far you are prepared to carry this absurdity.


Answer now, and let the issue rest. We have reached a head; with this cardinal question, which will resolve this debate once and for all!


You did answer in the affirmative that Jesus did not become less divine by becoming human, you also naturally agree that he was the perfect embodiment of God’s will (He was God in fact, you say, which ties the noose of wills only tighter).


Given this, the simple question is ask; for the umpteenth time is this –


How could he say: “Nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt?”


Does this not show God (or Christ, who you stated did not become less divine by becoming human - remember that) willing or pleading for something that was AGAINST the Divine will.


Does this not show a possible dichotomy of wills? That his will could conceivably be different from the Father’s will?


Could the son have a different desire from the father? If he does, would that not do sacrilege to the concept of their “oneness”?


Indeed Viaro – I have a second sure plank of victory (not that this discourse is about victory, of course) – your acceptance that he did not become less divine by becoming human nails away all your assertions about his “human” side, showing up such to have been poorly thought-up excuses for absurdities that your dogma presents.


This debate is effectively concluded against you, based on your own responses and now I think some history is apt. If I might ask, do you know anything of the Arian heresy and the Council of Nicea?




_{P.S: I hope you see that your long talk of “dispensations” is absolutely irrelevant to the issues.}

[quote author=Tudór link=topic=356567.msg4987203#msg4987203 date=1259073773]As evidenced by that thread badlee is talking about, a fellow comes and says his mama is critically ill, God saved her life early that morning but she's still in a critical state and therefore asks NL for prayers, . The NL jesus freaks laid the BS pretty thich on how "it is well with her", "we put you in prayers", "its written you shall not die and bla bla bla". . . .only for the lady to die days later.

Now if God is given responsibility for her being lucky the first time, why is he not to be held responsible for her death? Surely if he saved her the first time, how come he couldn't do it again or better still heal her completely? Is that no failure and incompetence on the part of god despite the admonision from NL prayer warriors like Jesoul, vanitt, etc But no, the bible kissers came on with crap like "she's in paradise", "everything works for good to lovers of christ" and every other nonsense they could type

Truth is every good is. . . . Goddidit! but otherwise its our own fault. How convinient.[/quote]Tudor - this is both lame and practically dishonest. Mr Athiests (supported by yourself) was the one who made insinuations about God being responsible for, or negligent regarding the genocide in Rwanda, blah blah blah. . . I DID NOT STATE THAT GOD WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DELIVERY OF MILK TO YOUR DOORSTEP THIS MORNING.

I only said that it is convenient to blame all the evil on an entity you believe does not exist.

For the record, i personally believe that God, the primordial core-egg of all existence, is and remains the embodiment of all natural laws. . . how we adjust to those natural laws is what leads to good or evil.

For example, God creates the law of gravity. Some people use that law to power water-dams for productive purposes. That is good. Some use that law to jump off a cliff in committing suicide. That may be bad.



God did not create either situation – the good one or the evil one: he created an adamantine necessary law; gravity – and if you are wise you will not jump off cliffs and blame God for your broken spinal cord. QED.

Atheists:
Free will ? Where was the free will of the victims of the Rwandan genocide or holocaust ?

I SHUDDER at how stupid and jobless i myself must be, to bother responding to this.

But let me ask you: If you were to pick up a gun, and on account of the fact that you were jealous of your successful brother, shoot him dead - would God be responsible for that? Because that is exactly what happened in Rwanda on a mass scale.

Now you are asking: that brother that you have just killed - "what about his free will?".

This is the daftest question i have ever heard in my life. You just murdered the guy, depriving him of his free will, and you are asking "what about his free will?"

Are you mentally balanced? God is now responsible for your treachery?

Because that's what went on in Rwanda on a macro scale.

People rose up in ethnic jealousy and murdered millions of their country men, and thus deprived those victims of the free will given by God to all men - while you sit here and bleat that God is the one who has been negligent or cruel.

I charge you to give some dignity to your education and stop asking the dimmest witted questions conceivable.

^^^ Yes indeed, and the best answer is for the Trintarians to simply state that they accept based on faith and "hold their silence and observe without trying to define for anybody what we should believe (or denounce), especially where they are not inclined to holding the very axioms about the Almighty that they might grant unto others"

It surprises me that any Trinitarian bothers to enter into a rational debate on it, considering how manifestly irrational a dogma it is: intelligence, i would think, in such a SITUATION, in attempting to defend something so magical, would rest in simply stating that it is a question of faith, and then shutting up squarely after that!

^^^ Indeed, thanks alot: you are on point, sir.

I think what he meant to say is simply that as humans, the quality of goodness and conscience rests naturally within us and we can accordingly live in such goodness to our fellow man without reference to the existence of a "God."

Or the Abrahamic ideal of "God."

mazaje:
You talk about evidence but you never talk about if your god is detectable. . . Is your god dectable?

What is dark energy in the universe. If you can give a concrete explanation for it, i will accept that there is no God.

The possibility of Dark Energy is a loophole in your assertion that the pulse or energy of a creator cannot be detected in the universe.

Jesoul - this last post of yours was your 3333rd post. That is a lucky number, make a wish, and i along with the ancient spirits of my element: earth - will grant it to you.

@ Tudor -

Let's assume he is in fact talking about the Abrahamic God, who is stated to be good, merciful and loving.

What has that God to do with a situation where PEOPLE rise up and begin to kill each other en masse.

Is that the doing of man or of God?

And if you state that its God's fault since he made man - tell me, should he have made us robots? Would you be here today calling yourself an atheist if not for that very free will to decide what to brand yourself as?

So you excercise your free will, happily, and so does this charlatan called Mr. Atheist - and yet when you see other humans like your selves using that free will in a negative fashion - suddenly - "God did it!"

You will not credit God for the good you see around you, but you will attribute to him the evil you see around you. Can you not see that it is all the making of humans excersining their FREE WILL, and nothing to do with GOD? ? ? ?

@ Nuclearboy = i fear you have misapprehended MyJoe's post.

Pastor - Here is what i am getting from your contribution:

"Since i have been indoctrinated with the trinity doctrine, i must circuituously find ways to make the irrational doctrine make sense!"

and -

"I will not be drawn into a debate about it because i know reason can never justify my worship of a fellow human being!"

Just as i told viaro yesterday on another thread: You are free to worship that dead carpenter as God, just as surely as Olumba Olumba Obu is worshipped as God, and just as surely as cows are deified in India.

Mavenbox, that's an interesting piece.

mavenbox:
I believe the contention has to do with the understanding of the doctrine of the Trinity. Forget about the word "Trinity" for some seconds. A simple analogy that I derived to explain the nature of the Godhead, is:

Consider an Olympic 100metre sprint. Three men (none of them Usain Bolt), of different muscular capacity, size and height, all come in at exactly 8.35 seconds, thus beating Usain Bolt's world record. They are all 1st. At the same time. Although they are different persons. Maybe even Person A taught person B all that he knows about sprinting (as such, person A is GREATER than person B, who looks up to Him). Either way, they are all FIRST, at the same time. Whoever comes next is way down at the 4th position.

That's how it is: the Father, the Son and the Spirit of God are GOD at the same time.

Even though the Father is greater than the Son. The father sent the Son to us, and the Holy Ghost anointed (equipped) him for the work. When the work of salvation was complete in Christ, having re-established a pathway that leads man back to the Father, the Son returned to His Father, and sent the Holy Ghost to guide those same men on their path back to the Father.

TRINITARIAN Nomenclature:
The names Father and Son do not only denote offspring with respect to primogenitor, as it obtains with humans. Rather, the roles that the Father has with respect to the Son: teaching him, guiding him, giving him all things, sending him, etc, is what gives for the nomenclature. As for the Spirit, the name indicates the person of the Godhead through whom one can understand the Godhead and God's overall intents (only the Spirit understands, in a way that humans understand things, the Godhead and can explain such intents and purposes). It's just like saying "The Spirit of Music" or "The Spirit of Football" or "The Spirit of Joyfulness" or "in the Spirit of Nairaland", when we talk about the Holy Spirit, we are talking about the SPIRIT of GOD. The Spirit of the Godhead, that PERSON in the Godhead that can enable an understanding of what/who the Godhead is and all other such mysteries.

@My detractors that like to assume and scream plagiarism, all I have said here about nomenclature came to mind as I typed.

And in arriving at these fabulous analogies, have you averted your mind to the following scripture -

[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].


all of which decisively make clear that Jesus is not God.

Pastor AIO:
Hmmm . . . in the 1560s. But the trinity (3persons in one unity) was believed in over 1000 years before that. If the meaning of the word person has changed then those that still call God 3 persons need to be informed. Early christians didn't see it as 3 separate individuals.

What do you mean by this? EARLY christians did not regard Jesus as God, and certainly did not believe in the paganistic trinity doctrine.

Please go back to the Arian heresy resolved by the council of nicea for the origin of the trinity as church dogma - which people are today ready to kill themselves for; in declaming as truth.

Atheists:
When over a million people died in a period of 100 days where was god ? Why didn't he protect them ?

Of all the atheists on this forum, you have consistently been the most silly.

You see acts of human brutality: acts of man's inhumanity to man, and you begin to bleat about God?

What has God to do with the monstrosities of intelligent beings who are accorded free will?

When will you learn that we have free will exactly so that we can learn and develop over time through our mistakes?

Gosh, you do not inspire thought at all.

Now, i respond.

First: let me say this - do not take my scathing words too much to heart; i only try to give you as good as you give me. In this, let me emphaisze that although the deity of christ is one subject that (apologies to say) i unrepentantly view with absolute disdain, i still appreciate you as a person: for your directness, civility, and intellect.

But i will be absolutely unsparing in this matter, so forgive me in advance.

To reiterate; i did not see much within your last responses to merit a rejoinder from me. 98% of your post seemed to dwell on my personality and not the posers i raised. Indeed when i raised the question of God Almighty requesting of himself the alteration of a DIVINELY WILLED event, you merely scored me a 0/10 without giving reasons.

I will address in spiritual, logical and theological terms why your evasion of that question is unacceptable. And you will see no escapism from me.

But before i do that, i wish to address one personal issue: you seem at odds that i stated that you told a lie.

Viaro; I do not, and absolutely will not retract that statement; you told a lie: and lest you beleaguer the point, here is the simple proof –

This is your lie –

He NEVER at anytime made a "request" that His sacrifice would not take place.

.

And here is the truth:

The Gospel of St. Luke 22: 42 –
“Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me. . .”

And what is this, if not a plaintive plea to evade the events to come?

I needn’t even go into the fact that it says – “if thou be willing” – which shows that the will of the father could conceivably differ from the plea of the “son” – . . .“remove this cup. . .”

Boy, you told a lie, you stated a falsehood, and that is that.

Now do not waste my time in trying to cover up that falsehood with extended grammar about what the cup was, etc, because I have already answered you on what exactly the cup was, which you accepted.

Thus I need it to be clear that my fondness for you will not stop me from pointing out an apparent and obviously deliberate falsehood in your surmise.

Now to the core issue.

In all of your response, I was able to discern only ONE point worthy of responding to. In the rest, you seemed to be entertaining yourself, and I cannot be concerned with that.

And the one point I will respond to is – you guessed it – your belabored struggle to separate Christ’s humanity from his Deity.

Perhaps I should at this point, since I promised to be brief, only throw a few posers, and reserve the thesis for a later post.

Here are the posers –

1. Did Christ lose his perfect Divine nature, by becoming human?

2. If he did lose that nature, then the sacrifice was a sacrifice of an imperfect being, and not that of a perfect being, yes? Out-the-window goes all the talk about a “perfect” “unblemished” savior being required, yes?

3. On the other hand, if he did NOT lose the Divine nature, then he perforce remained perfect – thus fully in tandem with the Divine will; such as to make the request in Gethsemane an incongruity and a paradox, yes?

4. Did Christ lose all his knowledge about the DIVINE plan concluded in heaven with his father, about the redemptive work on the cross?

5. If he did not lose such knowledge (as apparently from scripture he did not); then why would he seek, within human form, to change that which he himself as ALMIGHTY GOD had perfected and concluded in heaven?

Man, I hope you see the point clearly; your “hypostasis” on the simultaneous humanity and deity of that carpenter leaves gaping wide holes. 

It surprises me that each time I repeat these obvious facts, you resort to empty platitudes about Christ being “human”, and then promise to deal with the issue in future.

Let’s carry on . . .

You spoke about the “Divine will” being different from the “Divine person”.

OH MY GOD, WHAT A GAFFE; DOES IT NOT OCCUR TO YOU THAT IN STATING THIS, YOU DIRECTLY DENY THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY TRINITY, FOR IN THAT TREASURED DOCTRINE OF YOURS, THEY ARE ALL SAID TO BE ONE!

AS A FOLLOW-UP: HOW CAN YOU JUSTIFY YOUR SUMMATION THAT THE WILL IS DIFFERENT FROM THE PERSONAGE, WHEN CHRIST SAID A ZILLION TIMES THAT THAY ALL AGREE AS ONE, AND THAT HE WAS “ONE” WITH THE FATHER, AND THAT THEIR WILL WAS IN ONE ACCORD? THUS HOW COULD THE “PERSONAGE” HAVE A DIFFERENT WILL FROM THE “WILL”? YES, THE LAUGHABLE NATURE OF THIS JOKE OF A DOCTRINE IS BEGINNING TO BECOME CLEAR TO YOU NOW?

I HOPE YOU SEE IT’S BEGINNING TO FALL APART IN SENSELESSNESS FOR YOU VIARO – BUT THAT IS NOT SURPRISING: INCOHERENT DOGMA LIKE THE TRINITY MUST NECESSARILY FALL APART. . .

Christ! (No pun intended).

Deal with the five questions above, and then we may take it from there.

Finally – Although I did not want to do it, I am going to introduce more scripture that suggests clearly that Christ DID NOT want to be crucified, and that the crucifixion was in fact NOT the will of God. Go and read up Jesus’ parable of the Vineyard, and then we will address that.

Viaro - i hope you are still online, i wish to respond shortly, in a few short (i promise this time to be brief) posts.

But first off, once again, your response has dwelt far too long on my personality and approach than upon the debated issues. Go read it again: and you will clearly see this.

On the issue of dichotomy of wills, you keep postponing. Give it to me right now: your answer about dealing with it in a future thread still seems escapist.

Hold, on. . . confirm your presence. . . i am responding in toto shortly.

Nezan:
@olabowale;Jesus is presently sitteth at the right hand of YHWH, so this can never be my archilles heel. What can a rejected and condemned soul be doing by YHWH's right hand? This alone marks out your ignorance!

He is sitted at the right hand side of YHWH? Haba, Nezan, but you have argued previously that he is YHWH himself! So which one is this "sitting at the ride hand side of HIMSELF?"

davidylan:
and here we go again . . .

Davidski. . . long time. . . how's the thesis coming along?

_{P/S: Don't worry about all this grammar wey we dey blow here: i doubt that God requires from anyone an exact knowledge of such advanced theological matters, but sincerity of heart and simplicity of faith in HIM. . .}

The walls of the box have been knocked down the moment u stopped believing in religious dogma. So your reasoning has no boundaries, there are no walls

I can think of at least one boundary that your reasoning has: the boundary of the possibility of the existence of a Deity.

If you are truly open minded, you will accept that that is a possibility, just like all the other possibilities that you accept.

But dogmatically, you insist that all other possibilities may exist, EXCEPT THAT ONE.

Isn't that contradictory?

Now Viaro, let us go through your response with a fine comb.

My preliminary remarks are these: that you have left much hanging, and regretably appear to be one of the dogmatic lot prepared to sacrifice even the most glaring scripture in favour of dogma created by the church.

Let's have at it -

Deep Sight amico mio, you may not have reasoned out your premise quite well. What would you have said, therefore, to the Hindu who reads the statement in Rig Veda 6:28 that "Cows are God" and still has no qualms holding that the idea of God's greatness? Between the human being and the cows, you may have deep troubles with the Incarnation of Christ who the Biblical prophets declare to be God; but you might as well scratch your head for a while and lambaste the Hindus for declaring a bovine to be God - either position does not evade the idea of the "perfection" and "greatness" of God in making such statements, even where they are in strict disagreement in their distinct world views and belief systems.

I was mildly amused by this. It appears to me that you missed the gamut of the example I was giving. Before saying anything else, let me say this: any religion is free to call whatsoever it pleases ALMIGHTY GOD: Hinduism may call cows God, adherents of the Brotherhood of the Cross and Star may call Olumba Olumba God, and the mainstream (indoctrinated) Christian dogmatist may call Jesus of Nazareth God. None of this was of any concern to my analogy: to wit: that in simple terms, certain things may appear to the neutral observer as being ridiculous. That’s why I used the word “rationalize”, which you so vehemently flew down on. Guess what – if that word gives you sleepless nights (as it well may, clinging as you do to ancient dogma which can stand no rational test; nay – test of sanity) – then, I free you: let’s drop that word entirely, and face the main discourse: that way, freed from irrelevant distractions, you may see what precious little substance is contained in your surmise.

Let’s go. . .

Your problem, dear Deep Sight, as I said previously, is that you're trying to define who 'God' should be for other people in their belief structures; whereby if their views hold differently from yours at any point, your own belief system receives a vibration.

I define God as the primordial uncaused cause and prime mover of all contingent existence: the core egg of all existence: and I definitively challenge you or any other theist to show me why that definition is wrong: if you can do this, I pledge you $1 Million USD in addition to my left testicle.

In such issues, my attitude is sometimes the one I recommended to you earlier: "you may hold your silence and observe without trying to define for them what they should believe

Thus no man may preach? Do not advance the impression that my active propagation of my world-view unhinges you? Free Speech, brother.

It is not as if your arguments make for substance that could be sustained if I were to call you out to discuss your own 'God/god'

I am certain that a philosopher propounding an uncaused cause which is infinite in its nature, and drawing there-from one great harmony to which all living beings should subscribe, in the singular greatness of all things made by God, makes more substance to steady minds free from indoctrination, and is more bestirring of both the intellect and the spirit than the preposterous, bizarre and outlandish commitment of you, an African foreigner, to worship a fellow human being who lived in Israel a while back as almighty GOD. Have you studied the characteristics of cults?

Nevertheless with the foregoing, I merely digress, and stupidly feed my restlessness on some of the rather acerbic but non-rigorous contentions that you set forth.

Let me put such firmly aside: and move speedily and strictly to business.

There again, you're trailing off on assumptions. You may wish to qualify the set of "worse forms of barbaric and inhumane torture", but what do you understand by the "cup" that Christ spoke of? You assume that was a lack of "courage", no? Deep Sight, you're making me feel sorry for you.

There's NONE I have ever come across who understood what the "cup" meant and stood unflinching in the face of the torture they were to endure. Please, amico. . try and define for yourself what that "cup" actually was, before making irrational assumptions about others in history. I know, you might come back asking me to do so. . but no, I would rather request that you do so yourself and let's discuss further, since you already are drawing conclusions about the "cup" as to suppose that there have been "have been many hundreds of thousands of human beings" who endured the "cup" unflinchingly! Christ was well-aware of the physical sufferings that many people have had to endure before that point of His Cross, and also how many more would have to go through more severe physical sufferings. He knew all that, and yet had spoken of His death as something He looked forward to, not one that He lacked courage to endure.

I shall not waste your time on this: let us assume (and in fairness, I actually accept) that the “cup” referred not just to the impending physical torture, but to the imminent spectre of the gruesome burden of sin – or a sinful nature being cast upon a pure divine nature – which is what Christ supposedly was. I am certain that this is the “cup” which you refer to (correct me if I am wrong) and I wholly agree that we can never begin to imagine what an anomaly, what a sacrilege even, and what an incomparable spiritual horror it would be for a pure divine being, perfect, and untouched by impurity, to be saturated with the noxious nature of the hoary sin of all the world. I clearly understand this.

What you glossed over (astonishingly, or perhaps no longer astonishingly) is the fact that this being is said to be God himself. Accordingly in his immutable and perfect divine will, he had determined and concluded the necessary sacrifice of redemption.

I hope you have some understanding of what the divine will I said to be, because if you do, you would immediately see the disastrous and very sad quality of your suggestion that GOD in his divine perfection, would seek at any point in time, or for whatever reason, to detract from his will, shelve it, or cause it not to be made manifest.

I should normally let this point rest as I have stated it, but wary of your escapist gymnastics in this matter, let me go further to elucidate.

Divinity is the core nature and principle of original existence, or original being. It is eternal, infinite, and accordingly an absolute. It thus is not capable of the sort of whims and caprices attributable to imperfect human beings (or to the Abrahamic God).

To draw wisdom from the Bible itself, might I invite you to appreciate that this is the reason why it is stated that God is the same yesterday, today and forever more. The Divine will is inflexible; adamantine. This is also why it is stated that “heaven and earth may pass away, but the word of the lord abideth forever.” I draw these from scripture, in the hope that your escapism will not be so great as to be desirous of evading the unchangeability of God which is something that is enshrined in scripture, aside from being obvious to the deeply philosophical mind.

It is with the foregoing in mind that your response fell way below the mark.

This Christ is said to be God in human form. He thus had a deep knowledge of the purpose and will of God regarding mankind. From time eternal, being divine, he must know very well the adamantine and unchangeable nature of the Godhead: given its perfection – for that which is perfect cannot be changed.

It is in the light of this that you can begin to appreciate just how ludicrous it is to claim that a personage (who is himself ALMIGHTY GOD) and is fully cognisant of –

1. The nature of the Divine Will
2. The Purpose of the redemptive work
3. The absolute necessity of that work for the salvation of his creatures

- would begin to petition himself to avert the divinely willed occurrence.

This can only suggest that he was either not divine, or had a poor grasp of the adamantine and unchangeable nature of the divine will – especially in the context of such a historical act of redemption?

You MUST accept that the foregoing is simply pushing the boundaries of all reason into absolute insanity. If not insanity, it is at the very minimum, evidence of a woefully failed philosophical schooling – nay – it borders on suspected truancy in English Comprehension classes, in earlier stages of the life of anyone who advocates this incomparably outlandish myth.

Viaro – in this, I demand the most exacting sincerity from you: although I know I will not receive it for one reason: dogma is a terrible blindfold.

Already I have a hint of the fading of your sincerity in this matter as you did not hesitate to tell an outright lie in your desperation to deify the Jewish carpenter whom you worship –

Now, I'm not calling you an idiot, nor being pejorative against your person; but your assumptions are quite cowardly and not man enough to see that He NEVER at anytime made a "request" that His sacrifice would not take place.

.

Please retract this shocking falsehood; I needn’t paste the whole of the prayer in Gethsemane here before you accept that you have definitely lied here. Christ DID request that the “cup” should be taken away from him - yes, that "cup" which we have defined above, which AS GOD, he must have known all about.

If anything, not only did He frequently tell His disciples that such an event was inevitable

.

If he knew it was inevitable why in hell would he make that odd prayer in Gethsemane? Was he hoping against the “inevitable?” Just remember that this is almighty God you are referring to.

And given the analysis of divinity and the divine will that I set forth above, that, dear Viaro, positively affirms that he is not GOD, could not be, unless we speak of an inferior god, than that which is divine and unceasing in its perfection.

It was amazing how you also sidestepped the core issue on the evident dichotomy of wills in the statement – “not as I will, but as thou wilt”. You merely stated –

There is no grounds to assume a dichotomy of 'wills' - if there was, you have not demonstrated such a grounds but are only yapping. I would like to invite you at a set time to discuss why I believe in the Trinity - the time will come. For me, it is not a matter of additions and multiplications, but of subsistence (you can hold me to that statement when the time comes). And yes, in that discussion I will share many matters with you about the divine hypostasis of Christ being both Deity and Human. I shall not preempt it here; but mark my summations until then.

- And left it at that! Good grief, again I ask you, you can accept a possible difference of wills within the Godhead, after all Christ’s statements about being “one” with the father, and all ? ? ? ?

I hope it is now not lost on you that beyond attacking my cosmological theories (which have nothing to do with this dogmatic issue) you made absolutely no sense, and not a single valid point at all in all your responses: because you did not address the issues, but evaded them in favour or absurd taunts.

I shudder at the way in which dogmatic Christians such as yourself are happy to debase the perfection of God in order to justify dogma! What is most terrifying is that you are normally a very reasonable man, but once your dogma is fluttered, you are willing to consign all reason and all obvious truth to the waste bin, in a rabid attempt to justify your worship of a fellow human being, which has been handed to you by your colonial master.

But heck, worship the dead Jewish carpenter all you want. . . you are entitled to do so just as surely as the adherents of the Brotherhood of the Cross and Star are entitled to insist that Olumba Olumba Obu is God. And just as surely as Hindus are entitled to worship cows.

And as a slight aside. . .  i do wonder why my every criticism of dogma must be met (by you, Viaro) with odd insinuations regarding my attempts to expound the meaning of the origin of existence, as i see it. Not even the fact that i base such criticisms on quotes from the Bible stops your reversion to my cosmological and abstract postulations.

I would have thought that the one had nothing to do with the other.

[Quote]
The One
The primeval Source of Being is the One and the Infinite, as opposed to the many and the finite [/Quote]

Thank goodness. Can you now find a place and a sense, a reason in that which i had tried to propose: namely: the nature of God as being a oneness of infinity?

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-355867.0.html

Be very well prepared, when you come, Viaro.

Viaro: your extended reply only amounted to one thing; that which i had predicted in my post - that you would resort to the very old defense of Christ's "human part".

I am terribly unimpressed.

I am very sleepy now, and will try to address you later: but i will just say this for now -

I honestly wonder what you presume the Creator of the Universe to be, that, in any form, he should be subject to fear, or request of himself the cancelation of a predestined event. No matter how long your epistles, you will never make sense on this.

And, i cannot resist pointing out that you entirely made it appear as though Christ never asked for the sacrifice to be shelved. HE DID.

Last word: I have noticed, for many years; that it often takes very long essays to attempt to refute simple and obvious truth or logic.

That which is true, need no long words.

We go talk later. Gnite.

[quote author=Okija_juju link=topic=355592.msg4977817#msg4977817 date=1258936708]YES!! Yes it self-exists. Sometimes it requires a cause but it has nothing to do with any supernatural being.[/quote]Read this line again. Just blatantly self-contradictory. I iwll not respond to this untill you adjust or redress the inherent contradiction yourself.

[quote author=Okija_juju link=topic=355592.msg4977817#msg4977817 date=1258936708]The fact that there isnt a shred of evidence that he exists.
The fact that that shit that goes on in our everyday lives happen at all.
The fact that he created such a shitty place like earth and resides inn the coulds/heavens.[/quote]It appears to me that you may not have taken any time out to reflect on these issues.

You state, flagrantly, that there is not a shred of “evidence” to suggest that God exists. In this you seem to lose sight of the following:

1. What is the world around you? Perhaps it does not amount to a “shred” in your view. But if you were lucky enough, or rich enough, to have a ride aboard any of the Apollo Missions, perhaps you would begin to reflect on the meaning of your word – “not a shred. . . “


2. Cosmologically, you just lose the plot entirely. You speak of nature all around you, and you declare it to be “self existing.” It seems to me (no insult intended) that in cosmological and theological arguments, you are rather young. This is because you do not seem to grasp the difference between “necessary things” and “contingent things.” Do me a favour – before you respond to this, do a wikipedia search, or some other research: because matter, and material or physical things COULD NEVER BE NECESSARY THINGS – Or “self existing” things.


3. You talk about “shit going on in our everyday lives”. I am sorely tempted not to respond to this at all. I will only ask you to go and review the effects of wild-life predation on the exo-system of the natural world. From the point of view of the hunted creatures: it’s cruel; from a global point of view; we see population control, balance, etc. What do you think a universal mind will be interested in? Do not disappoint me with your response on this one.


4. You described the earth as a “shitty” place. I can only assume you are not well travelled.