₦airaland Forum

^^^ Noetic - just a correction, i am not agnostic, i do firmly believe in the existence of God.

Let the Mods, decide, my perception is they may not change anything.

Its all good though. Probably the Forum is more interesting as a battle-field than as a Class Room.

[quote author=m_nwankwo link=topic=335826.msg4725383#msg4725383 date=1255443629]Pastor AIO may not explain his beliefs to suit what discussants suspect of his religious inclination. But my view is that Pastor AIO have not changed even by a hairs breath from his original religious convictions. I also do not think that any argument or debate from any body will change his convictions. I am not holding brief for him but I think that his position is being misunderstood by many. Many of the questioners seem to have a perception of what they think are Pastor AIO convictions and counsciously or uncounsciously expect him to confirm their suspicision. But Pastor AIO gives an answer which accurately describes his spiritual convictions but the answers cannot be put into defined religious boxes. Pastor AIO answers inspite of the clarity and depth cannot be understood as long as discussants want to fit his answers into  defined religious concepts. This in my view is the main reason why he is being accused of not being clear or evasive. I do not agree with some of his convictions for we have had very serious debates where we agreed to disagree. But he is very honest about what his convictions are.[/quote]This certainly cannot explain his reference to the fact that God makes people in a certain way. . .

And then in another breath on this same thread demand a Definition of God, and state that he is wary of discussing God. . .

Certainly, any person who states that "God made [someone] that way" must have a preconception of what the word "God" means, to be able to make that statement. It is odd that the person shortly thereafter demands for definitions of God, and also categorically states that [God] is not a bearded old man sitting in the sky". . . further evidence that he in fact has a fair idea of what the word "God" refers to.

I was mildly surprised that he herein referred to himself as a Christian -

Pastor AIO:
The following is Pastor AIO's very second post on Nairaland. I think it gives a lot of insight into my attitude to christianity and the sort of christian I am.

-

Because when i asked him who Jesus was, despite the fact that Christianity commences with Jesus, he is not inclined to make a commitment on the identity of Jesus. Christians accept Jesus as the "Messiah" and also as "the Son of God" who brought a message of light to mankind. Instead Pastor chose to state only:

Pastor AIO:
This is an historical question and the historical records have a lot to say.

.

You must admit he is a bit confusing, and hopefully this thread will be a chance for him to clear things up. . .

^^^Dudu Space -

In order that this thread is not derailed into another "Proof of God's Existence" thread, i will meet you up on another thread to discuss these. But very briefy, let me point out a few things -

duduspace:
why eliminate the possibility of multiple prime movers or even an entire race of such prime movers?

The words "multiple" and "prime" are an incurable contradiction in themselves. Reflect closely on this.

duduspace:
haven't you ever questioned some things? like why do we have natural disasters? or why do we have people born with mental health issues? why would an intelligent creator create such?

Natural Disasters re-balance the earth's cycles and eco-systems. Predators control cattle populations. . .  etc. Again, reflect closely.

duduspace:
Within a Universal sample space encompassing all things we know and those we don't, the initial energy for the big bang is an event with a probability attached to it which is sure to happen given infinite time.

Come on! I almost had to chuckle at this. Prior to the big bang, what nothingness was there? You seem not able to step out of the bubble of things already existing, within which you input possibilities. . . Let's discuss nothing existing (singluarity/ pre-big bang). What endless possibilities could exist in such? Nil. Have you reflected on the law of motion? Notice how nothing can move without being moved by something alreay moving. . .?

But let's not derail the thread. Rather than do, that, i will revive the old thread on empirical reasonong and continue where it stopped, as i never got to conclude on all the empirical reasoning approcahes i feel are available.

Pastor, where are you?

^^^ Nice One, Duduspace. . . I entirely agree.

Its just that in Pastor's case the contradictions seem to still be inherent in posts even on this very thread. There of course has never been a problem with changing one's perspective.

Pastor has a brilliant analytical mind and that's the only reason i want him to be perfectly clear, such that i am able to understand him, and have a basis for interacting with him.

Let me make a few comments on your post though.

duduspace:
. . .even as an agnostic, my belief system has evolved over time.

The perfect religion (if it may be called that) for an agnostic is the pure form of Buddhism. Go and consider it, it's really excellent stuff. I am still flirting with it, the only differentiating area being my Deist inclination which is somewhat at odds with pure Buddhism, which is silent on the question of a Deity.

duduspace:
It is all well and good for you to believe in a Prime mover beyond time and space with attributes of intelligence and power while I keep an open mind about the possibility of the world having come about as a result of randomness and chance in timelessness/infinite time as they are all postulations, the only things we can be sure of is that we came to exist somehow.

This does not get it quite, i mean the randomness bit, because -

   1. Even for the world to come into existence by randomness, matter still had to be there somehow. What was the source of that matter. I ask this, because matter, unlike intangible quantities, cannot be eternal in either the future or past tense? Phaps we may say it is eternal in the sense of continuous change of state. . . But surely, it cannot be an "always been" like abstract entities are. . .? Thus your randomness supposition commences at a point where matter is already in existence. I want to address the cause or trigger of ALL existence.

   2. Recall the argument i amde about the random pebbles and the square. I know you responded to that. But those linear lines of the square will still be very hard to come by even in eternal time given the random principle. Do you know why? Because Randomness by its very nature is defined as haphazard . . . that's why even eternal time would not throw up the sort of lined square that i gave you IF RANDOMNESS IS THE PRINCIPLE reconsider this. . .

  3. Randomness not really likely to throw up the initial energy for the "Big Bang". . . conceptually contradictory, yes?

Prizm:
I agree with the sentiment behind Deepsight's post.

However, I have a funny suspicious feeling that no discussions here (complaints or otherwise) will change the Admin's predetermined resolution.

There is no sense in having a separate Muslim subforum here, if the same consideration will not be given to Christianity. In a Muslim sub-forum, they have dedicated Muslim moderators who sanitize the board and rid that space of comments which they consider inflammatory or unnecessarily disruptive. If anyone wanted to participate there, and seek clarification on points of Islamic doctrines, then such a person must demonstrate an attitude devoid of bias and unwarranted hostility. If a person cannot commit himself to basic decency, he has no reason to whine when his concerns, questions or contributions are axed. He is left with the option of coming to the main discussion forum to engage. He might find like-minded people and have a discussion or he may not. It all depends on how interesting people judge his thread to be.

That same consideration should be given to Christianity. I am sure that moderators can be selected or appointed on a tenured basis to maintain an atmosphere of respect, civility and decorum in an exclusively Christian sub-forum. Anyone who felt like discussing Christian doctrine with Christians in a respectful intellectual atmosphere (devoid of the usual shrill insolent inflammatory rhetoric) will go there and interact. The moderators will reserve the right to axe posts that have been determined to be offensive on purpose (or from characters that have been determined to be vitriolic by design). Of course any person who feels that he was not given the proper treatment, or that his concerns and questions regarding Christian doctrines were not satisfactorily answered there can attempt to raise those concerns in the general religion forum.

What will this achieve?

---It will dispel the appearance of unfairness and anti-Christian bias in the main religion forum. Nigeria is roughly divided between Muslims and Christians. On close inspection, one discovers that the board is littered with tons of anti-Christian thread topics masquerading as attempts at having a rational discourse on Christian Doctrine. These threads (threads on Christian Doctrines or Orthodoxy) can effectively be dispatched to the Christian sub-forums by the moderators of the general Religion forum where Christians may feel free to engage such persons. If in the process of such an engagement, the Christians who participate there, in accord with their moderator/s determine an element of disingenuousness from such answers seekers, they will decide on what further actions to take.

--- it will allow the General Religion forum to be somewhat more focused. This move will have the effect of leaving the general forum for the more academic and philosophical aspects of these Religion discussions. Or for the lighthearted and sometimes, informative (as in news-related) discussions on Religion.

---this will eliminate tons of redundant threads that have been beaten to death already. Just think, every few days, some newcomer to the board raises a topic on whether God exists or not. This is a topic that has been discussed ad nauseam. These newcomers can make their comments in any of the hundreds of related topics out there, don't you think?

---finally if this General Religion forum is sanitized by sending Islamic and Christian doctrinal discussions to their respective sub-fora, it will, as I have already hinted at before, focus religion discussions on the more academic, intellectual or perhaps philosophical. This will create a balanced atmosphere for atheists, skeptics and agnostics alike to participate in an atmosphere devoid of the tiresome Christian-Muslim battles on various doctrinal issues. Non-theists will therefore have a fuller sense of belonging in a general forum where it appears that no faith or non-faith is scapegoated; but where these issues are nevertheless discussed robustly.


If a Christian sub-forum cannot be created then, I see no grounds upon which to have a different Muslim sub-forum. If the argument is that Muslims often react violently to perceived slights of their faith, I'll have to suggest that this is a call that can be construed as patronizing. It stereotypes Muslims in suggesting that Muslims cannot rationally defend what they believe in. There may exist those types, but more than likely they'll not be contributing in a web-based discussion forum anyway. They can log off anytime they feel they've had more than they can contain. Besides, if we let that argument stand, then we'll have to consider that Christians can also feel victimized by constant assault on their faith. Whether they react as violently as Muslims or not does not change the fact.

This could be a reason why many theists do not waste their time engaging these issues on this board. It just seems like some love to revel in mockery and satire and true meaningful exchanges are lost.

What about suggestions to the effect that sub-forums will have to be created not just for Islam and Christianity but for other faiths as well as non-theists? This question does not arise. Majority of the people discussing here, if they are theists, will be either Christians or Muslims. Non-theists (or the few members of other faiths) will be comfortable discussing in a general forum rid of the noxious polarizing effect of the endless struggle between Muslims and Christians on this board.

Spot on. Manmustwac, please do have a rethink!

By the way Oga Prizm, e don tey o. You vanish, abi u jus tire for the whole gra gra?

Tpia/ Banom - What is the beef please? I dont know why you guys are always at each others throats?

Can you give me the History??

Pastor, the contradictions are too many. Let me elucidate.

In one breath you said -

Pastor AIO:
The Right thing is unique to each person.  It comes from the person's essential nature, the way God made him to be.

Thus expressly acceding to both the existence of God, and the fact that HE/SHE/IT is the Creator. Because you stated. . . "The way God made him to be. . . "

Then in another breath you stated -

Pastor AIO:
To consider whether God exists or not you must first tell me exactly what you mean by God. Do I think that there is an old man with a long beard in the sky? The answer is No. There are so many Gods and so many Jesuses out there that I hesitate to join when people talk about God, or ask me to join in prayer to God. the JW believe that God actually has a physical location somewhere in the universe and he has a body. That is somewhat different from any of the concepts of God that I've indulged in in the past.


Also:

As for the God part, you have to tell me what you mean by God.

- Which suggest that God remains for you undefined. I really cannot understand this and this is what i meant when i stated that your answers are often laced with great ambiguity. It surely cannot be too hard to state, for example, as i do - "I believe in the existence of a Prime Mover existing outside space and time embedded with the qualities of Power and Intelligence, and this i call God". Or to state as the Atheists do - "God does not exist". . . i am fairly certain that from past threads you have a knowledge of what I mean when i use the word "God". So when i ask you to state your position on the existence of God, i am at odds that you descend into a whirlpool of questions on defining God, and as usual, evasively end up not stating your position on the existence of God!

Please help. This is what i have meant in the past when i say you are vague and contradictory. I want you to define a stance, such that i am able to have a firm platform for engaging your very interesting mind. Without this, i will merely be swimming in a sea of fog and mist, lost, when talking with you.

I entirely deny that my questions to you were vague. Who can genuinely state that he does not have an idea of what it means to talk about spiritual salvation, be it in a christian or moslem context! As children, we were all accustomed to ideas of "heaven" and "hell" - whether or not those places exist, the point is that you perfectly well understand what the words "Heaven", "Paradise" and "Salvation" connote, but rather than answer the question, as has become customary of you, you again evasively stated -

Pastor AIO:
I'm seeking salvation from financial catastrophe. I believe it can happen, it exists. What are you seeking salvation from? I believe that mankind can be saved from their conditioned Soul. I believe in all kinds of salvation. I believe healing is possible.

This very strange, if not outrightly dubious, in consideration of your previous expositions on the questions of God, Redemption, Salvation and Grace, as contained in this Post you made last year - (note the parts i have emboldened) -

Pastor AIO:
The word of God, ie the Logos is he by whom and through whom all things were created and have their being.  The Bible is NOT the Logos.  When I refer to the Word of God I refer, not to a text but, to a person.  A person in whom I put all hope, with whom I find all truth, and from whom I get all guidance.  

Second point.  There are two paths to redemption.  The path of Works and the path of Grace.  If you take the path of Works you ain't gonna make it.    No one will, no matter how morally upright their aspirations or their determination.  We depend on Grace.  However that does not mean that we don't try our best when it comes to works.  We try to do good works but we don't depend on our 'goodness' for salvation.  

I'll put it another way.  I don't do good in order to win God's favour.  I do good because I've had God's favour (however undeservedly).

In this post, you have shown a very personal belief in God, Redemption through faith and grace, as well as an understanding of a concept of salvation??

I am troubled that whereas you once were expounding what you perceived as Truth, now you are content to descend into whirlpools of definitions.

And although i am aghast to say it, but i verily believe that in this respect you have been strongly influenced by the approach of many of the atheists on this Forum.

Think about this.

Go and have a look at your very old posts. Compare them with the recent ones. What is uniform in both is that you have always shown knowledge, objectivity, and a strong intellect. However in the old posts you were happy to expound on spiritual truths even in a christain context (as in the quote above) whereas nowadays it is very difficult to even get you to admit the existence of a spiritual realm.

For example, i asked you what you thought about life after death. Unsurprisingly, the now usual evasive answer -

Pastor AIO:
I still coming to terms with what may or may not happen next week.

You must admit that you have changed a great deal.

Might i ask you what advised your decision to chose the username "Pastor"? Was it at the time rooted in any affiliation with Christianity?

I honestly hope you will not say this too is a vague question.

I am still waiting for you to address the earlier questions i put to you on God, Agnosticism, Salvation, Jesus and Life after death.

Please dont be vague this time, or the essence of this thread would be comprehensively defeated.

Thanks.

Have you considered the interpretation of "the fall of man" offered in the Grail Message?

PASTOR - We are at a consensus ad idem on the question of right and wrong. I could not agree more. The pricking of the spirit will tell what is right or wrong. Even the greatest savage will have such a pricking, and it is called in every day terms "Conscience". . .

However, so that this thread does not end on a note whereby you are able to escape with your usual vagueness, please do let us knwo your stand on these:

1. The existence of God

2. The knowability of God (Is God knowable or approachable? Are the Agnostics right?)

3. Life after death? What happens at death?

4. Salvation? Does it exist? If so, for whom?

5. Who was Jesus, the Jewish Carpenter? God? Son of God? Prophet? Or just another street teacher?

6. Who was Mohammad, in similar terms? And the Buddha.

7. Is a knowledge of any of these people necessary for any person on earth?

Much obliged sir.

wirinet:
To me i like the way the religious section of Nairaland is being run. If you segment and segregate the sections into childboards and sub-childboards, you will kill the very essence of Nairalland that makes it so popular.

People should learn to live with criticism of ones ideas and faiths, we should learn to argue our belief against the beliefs of others. That would make us see the other persons point of view and make us learn to tolerate other people's religion in real life.

You people should learn that the world had left autocracy and embrace democracy, and the main tenant of democracy is Freedom of expression and association. If you advocate for restricting and segregating religious opinions, then you are also advocating for physical segregation of people based on religious views. You should as well advocate for Christian only schools and universities, where other religious faithfuls are shut out. You can then extend it to political views, sexist views, and a whole lot more.

Yes you get the occasional Abuzola and Noetic, that part of life, we have to learn to accommodate them, just like we have to accommodate an errant family member. I think the moderators is managing them as much as they can, besides they bring their own flavour into the mix.

I think a child board was provided for the Muslims because they are much more intolerant to criticism. The ones who could stomach criticisms like Abuzola find the general thread more exiting and spends more time there.  The ones that gets a fit if Mohammad or Allah is insulted restricts himself to the muslim board.

We are living in a religious global village  now (except Iran and a few Muslim states), learn to live in it.

This is very well said, and i am already aware that it is also the view point of Krayola.

But two things need to be noted.

  1. The creation of a Child-Board does NOT restrict freedom of speech, because everybody can post topics still. It only ensures that THOSE who want to fellowship without being heckled or irritated can do so in peace. For the skeptic, he remains free to post whatever he likes in the general section. Why must we insist on a Noetic going over to the Muslim Board to harras them unduly? Cant he harras them in the open section

 2. If the Muslims have people who are intolerant, the truth is there are also some fanatically intolerant christians, and they, just like the muslims, deserve to have their peace if needed. Importantly, this is not about intolerance, but about the right of some people to have an e-fellowship without being heckled. Again, skeptics are free to post anything in the general section.

In a multireligious nation with two predominant religions, it can never be justified to have a Child-Board for one religion and not have one for the other.

KunleOshob:
If i am permitted let me give my opinion on pastor's positon. In my understanding pastor has been able to differentiate between religion[which is man made] and true biblical christianity. However in trying to express himself he seems to contradict himself because there are so many man made doctrines in christianity today which many people assume to be biblical facts, the truth is that he is fairly consistent and you need to be able to think outside the box of the "religion" which are essentially church instituitinalized doctrines to be able to understand his position better.

I am not yet certain of his consistency. But i am ready to learn his true and comprehensive position and conviction.

Pastor, i still dey wait. . .

There was silence in the hall. Nervously restrained anticipation.

People looked furtively around. The man being expected had haunted their expectations with heady wisps of a compound knowledge. . .

The assembly cut across the boundaries. . . Christians, Moslems, Atheists, Agnostics, Satanists. . .Cosmological Intellectuals, and at least one Deist. . .

The man stepped into the hall. A sea of heads bobbed about. Excited, the thirsty Krayola steadied himself in his front row seat. . . Tudor adjusted his tie. . .Huxley hurriedly flipped through a giant Darwinian text, the sombre Prizm cut a distant figure with a remote stare into space. . . Banom prepared his taunts on Definition. Lost in the crowd, Noetic, a fugitive from Justice hidding from a 16th ban, poured over an old Bible. . .

Only Abuzola did not sit. On a mat at the rear, he muttered unintelligible curses.

The moderator stepped onto the stage as the man walked down the Hall. . .

The Moderator Spoke. . .

"Gentlemen, today i give you a rare gem, and he is here to give us the truth, as he knows and sees it. . .

"I give you . . . Pastor AIO!"

_{*Rapturous Applause*}

Oya, Pastor, summarize your position, you have been confusing us with your recent utterances.

Ah, Pastor, I give it to you. Your reasoning is really worth engaging with, and i am most pleased.

Although i still believe that we are at odds in grasping what i am trying to communicate. But i agree with you that that is probably the result of lacking the words to express my ideas properly. You see, somethings do transcend words.

I will proceed within a latter post to address the issues you raised in reaction to my post, while i will try as much as possible to focus on the topic: Dr. Angelicus' postulations.

However, before we proceed, please do clear something up for me. I have told you before that you seem to have a very contradictory and hazily defined stance. You denied that, but it has reared its head again. . . Despite being titled "Pastor", you have opened a thread declaring that religion makes people "stoopid". . . In that thread you also said something along the lines of the atheists being right after all. . .

In this, i hope you are not making the fundamental mistake 99% of NL atheists make: namely that they see dubious fallacies within religion and therefore conclude that the Creator does not exist. They do not realize that although their hatred of religion is quite justifiable, this is nonetheless entirely different from the Cosmological Question of the Existence of God.

So please, can you indulge me, and set out your core-convictions on Theological, Spiritual and Religious matters very briefly. It would help me understand your perspective much better.

Better still, i will open a separate thread to address you specifically. Meet me there.

Please let's convene here to address some basic issues with Seun and the Moderators.

I feel we should take a look at the way the Religion Section is run. I have a few cardinal questions, and i invite others to raise questions and suggestions. Can the Owner & Moderators please participate to advise us as to which suggestions will be accepted and which will not.

My Questions are:

   1. Why is there a separate child board for Islam and none for Christianity?

   2. Why are so many personal insults and attacks permitted and not deleted by the Moderators?

   3. Should the role of non-religious people such as atheists and a deist such as myself within the Religion Section not be defined, properly articulated and adjusted?

My Suggestions are:

   1. A Christian Child Board should be created as well. This is only fair.

   2. Each Child Board should remain exclusively for adherents of the designated faiths. Although i do not subscribe to either religion, i feel that people are entitled to their faith, and have the right to engage within it without undue disturbance from hecklers.

   3. The open Section remains open for everybody to discuss any and all subjects.

   4. Personal insults and attacks should be more strictly deleted, and bans deployed more consistently.

   5. There should be a way thought out to ensure that banned persons do not easily re-subscribe. You may deploy tactics such as screening IP Addresses, or other ideas can be thought up. However, i would suggest that no ban should be permanent, as people do repent of their "sins".

   6. The role of non-religious people such as the Atheists and a Deist such as myelf should be reviewed. The by-line for the religion section states "Share your faith in God or higher powers here". Thus it is clear that the Forum is for primarily for persons who wish to share ideas about faith or "higher powers". For this reason, i would like to suggest that EITHER -

      (a) A Child-Board is created for Theology and Philosophy within the Religion Section OR -

      (b) Outside the Religion Section.

And Threads which are of a Theological or Philosophical nature should be moved to that Board unconditionally.

Alternatively a third Child-Board can be created titled "Advanced Arguments". This way, the sensibilities of people who do not wish to see "blasphemous" titles would be protected. Only persons interested in such "Advanced Aguments" need to go to that Section or Child-Board. This should suit the Atheists and people such as myself just fine.

   7. ALL posts delivering unbecoming personal insults should be immediately deleted.

I recognise that these suggestions are not perfect, and am open to dropping any suggestion which others may reasonably show me to be innapropriate.

Oga Seun, AKO, Manmustwac, over to you.

NOETIC1000 -

For the avoidance of doubt, i really did not mean to speak of the "heaven" of Jesus per se.

I meant to speak of a general state of well-being for a human spirit after this earth-life (i will define that later).

I meant to state, that it is inconceivable, that courageous, righteous, principled, patriotic, and peace-loving men such as Mahatma Ghandi and the Dalai Lama, would have any spiritually negative state post-death (which is what you call hell).

For how can we, of different races, tribes, histories and backgrounds, be expected to dovetail into the same dogma?

Do you think that God requires of any human-being an exact knowledge on advanced theological questions such as whether Jesus is God, or who Jesus is, or whether his death on the cross was a sacrifice, etc?

No open minded person can think such. Even in the context of Religion.

There are two reasons for this.

   1. God can only require of mere man - sincerity and goodness. Nothing more. For what does man know? What can he know? Although you will deny it, if you were born outside a christian context, you would find the claims of Jesus' divinity and redemptive sacrifice entirely absurd.

  2. Even Jesus very own words, severally suggested that what was required was a good clean heart, and nothing more.

I will not attempt to elaborate on the above, because i see that you are so dogmatically inclined that you will never appreciate the point that a Jaja of Opobo, who lived long after the so called crucifixion, could never be expected by God to have any, or an exact knowledge of, or faith in the Jewish Magician. What will be required of him is goodness, and sincerity of heart to his fellow man.

Period.

ANY person, who asserts that only people adhering to his religion can attain spiritual salvation is absolutely deluded. More importantly, such a person is yet to grasp the most basic spiritual laws, such as -

"Whatever a man soweth, the same shall he reap".

So men who sow goodness, will reap goodness.

Regardless of whether they ever heard the word "Jesus" or not.

Bawolomo - that woman on your profile is scandolously attractive. The high heels in particular.

BY THE AUTHOURITY AND POWERS DONATED TO ME BY THE INFALLIBLE POPE I HEREWITH DEEM HER CONFISCATED.

YOU MUST UNCONDITIONALLY SURRENDER HER TO ME LATEST MIDNIGHT TONITE OR BE SUMMARILY GARROTTED AS A HERETIC.

You are warned.

Pastor AIO:
I can extrapolate a number of meanings from that phrase. Infinity is an opposite to Finite. Finite says there is a limit. Finite refers to a quantity. A limited quantity. Infinite then suggests an unlimited quantity.

Let's think about that word quantity. Counting suggests that there are a multiplicity of something. Multiplicity is the opposite of one, or oneness. So to me the 'oneness of infinity' is an oxymoron. If it is one then it has been counted and found to be one. If it is infinite it is definitely not one, but you'll go on counting forever.

By the way, Eternity has nothing to do with passing time. An infinite length of time does not equal eternity. Eternity means No Time. Not a long time.

Change of State suggests that something Exists in Power as well as Act, not that it pre-exists at a previous time.

Your post reminds me how glad i am to have your excellent mind back.

But - ! You have not grasped it yet.

Let us for a moment indulge in a fantasy, for the purpose only of understanding the term "Oneness of Infinity"

Let us imagine a time when nothing existed, no universe,no big bang, nothing.

A stagnant nothingness of black.

There is absolute nothingness. it is this nothingness that is infinite, because of its "zero" nature. If you conceptualize it aright, you will also see that that very nothingness, because it is vacant, leaves open infinite possibilities.

This is why the figure "0" (zero) is used to represent infinity.

This infinity, is an intangible emptiness, and not something that can be counted in terms of being double or multiple.
It is thus in reality ONE great infinity only.

My idea is that there is power embedded in that great oneness, and i suspect that that is the very foundation of God and Eternity, although i cannot elaborate on that here.

By the way, on change of state, if i see ice, i know that with heat, it will become water - not dissappear. With further heat, it will become stream, - not dissapear. You can't destroy it, you can only change its state. This suggests that the universe is defined by a change of state from Energy to Matter. What Energy was that? I think the Big Bang was the moment of "Let there be light". . . and Divine Energy exploded into matter. . .

noetic15:
3. what does it mean to be a Christian? it simply means to live a life of Christ. . . . .
did Abraham, Elijah and Moses know Christ? . . . . . NO. . . . . . as such they were never Christians.
But the bible states that at death Jesus went to hades to preach the Gospel and all those who had died in the Lord were resurrected. It is as such safe to state that Moses, Abraham and Elijah are in eternity with Christ.

Are you forgetting that Elijah did not die or go to the grave but was presumably taken up in a Chariot of Fire into Heaven?

So Christ could not have preached to him in Hades.

Note that ever before christ died on the Cross, ELIJAH is said to be in heaven already.

So if Elijah did not need Christ's death to get the heaven, why should Mahatma Ghandi? Or the Dalai Lama?

There we go. Your Objectivity Certificate has just been officially and permanently withdrawn.

I recall very clearly that the Jewish Carpenter who you worship as God stated when asked about salvation - that men need observe only two laws - love of God and love of fellow man.

How do you interprete that?

Was Abraham a Christian? Elijah? Moses?

Yes. . . ?

What do you make of this term:

"The oneness of infinity".

Does it mean anything to you?

Can i propose this to you as a counter to the eternal regress argument?

Does not the change of state argument reinforce that things pre-exist. . .

noetic15:
of course . . , is there any reason to think contrary?

1. What will happen to Mahatma Ghandi

  2. What will happen to the Dalai Lama

Note: Neither of them, outstanding in their moral rectitude, principled beliefs and dedication to peace believed(s) in Jesus. Tell me if you consider them headed for hell, on accoubt of - "I am the way, the truth and the life. . ."

Your answers should clarify whether you areobjective or not.

Noetic100, can you genuinely claim to be objective?

Pasor/ Tudor, what do you make of Dr Angelicus' arguments as set out above.

They are very compelling lines of reasoning, and in different words, are basically what i have been trying to communicate.

[quote author=m_nwankwo link=topic=334235.msg4699886#msg4699886 date=1255099535]My view is that fundamentalism is becoming the hallmark of many posts on this religious forum. It cuts across all groups including theists, atheists as well as agnostics. Although better moderation can improve things, the improvement will only be artificial. Our posts reflect our weaknesses as well as our strengths and moderation cannot with a magic wand change our nature. A man cannot claim that he cannot lust, lie, murder, undermine another persons reputation, cheat, use ignoble language or be angered until he or she is presented with a very enticing opportunity to indulge in these ignoble passions such that he or she can yield to his weakness without anybody knowing about it. The heated debates provide opportunity for all of us to recognise our weaknesses and work to eliminate them. We cannot stop others from insulting us or even blaspheming against the very things we hold sacred and true. But we can refuse inwardly as well as outwardly to insult them or blaspheme against their sacred beliefs. We can refuse to be angered, frustrated or indulge in any negative emotions inwardly as well as outwardly. Some posters on this forum are just passing a phase, many of them will not believe what they wrote on this forum 20 to 30 years from now and will wonder how it is possible that they are capable of saying such terrible things about their fellow discusants and their beliefs. Thus even the militants on this forum will change or get destroyed by the very dark emotions the emit. Thus there is no reason in my view to be concerned. Let both the grass and the weed grow until the harvest time. Cheers[/quote]Counsellor Superior.

Pastor - according to the Grail Message, Jesus is the Son of God.

Mr. Atheists, i have a few questions for you.

   1. Does the number "1" exist?

   2. Who created the number "1?"

   3. Does "Space" exist?

   4. Who created "Space?"

   5. Does "Time" exist?

   6. Who created "Time".

Frankly i am tired of this intellectual laziness. Is it not obvious to you that the fact that you do not know the maker of something is not sufficient to conclude that that "something" does not exist. I have told you before that if you cannot point out Leonardo Da Vinci's parents to me, would that mean that Leonardo Da Vinci did not exist?

Come to think about it, you don't know me or my parents. Maybe i do not exist. This is sickening.

What you need to concern yourself with really is this:

Are there observable elements within the universe that suggest the possibility of a Creator being existent?

If there are, we need not trouble ourselves with your question as to who created that creator, because frankly, for you it might remain a permanent mystery, but for the esoterically initiated, its easy to see that he IS as a direct and permanent quatity based on the oneness of infinity.

Mr Atheists - you need to distinguish between the fallacy of religion and the cosmological question for the existence of God.

You seem tragically unable to spot the difference.

You also seem to have taken the following as your general argument: "Since human religions are flawed, then God does not exist!"

I hope you recognize the intellectual laziness proffered within such a proposition. It is similar to stating: "Since human ideas about the Andromeda galaxy are wrong, then the Andromeda Galaxy does not exist." There you go, that's how clever you sound to me.

You need to task yourself more. Go and find and study the Cosmological Argument, lay it out, and consider its merits and demerits. A simple wikipedia search should help.

Once you are familiar with it, you can begin to argue intelligently, instead of repeatedly coming up with threads like this, which really and truly only show your (justifiable) frustration at the dogma of religion, but do nothing to discredit the core question of the existence of God.

ilosiwaju:
so according to atheism, purpose is not all about having to conform to some stereotype celestial masterplans but to take charge of your life and be responsible for whatever happens to you.


Atheism is a pro-life concept if u ask me and not a pro-death-thus heaven one.

Ilosiwaju -

Although i am impressed by the quality of your post, and although i tend to agree with most of what you have written, i must state that in the excerpts highlighted above, you have mis-stated Atheism, or at the very least, you have extended its borders intolerably.

Atheism is a positive denial in the existence of God or gods (all or any deities). It is without doubt a gross exaggeration to characterize Atheism therefore as "a pro-life concept. . ." The Atheistic idea does not venture into the question of life or what anybody does with his or her life. Atheism is not concerned with that. It is simply a point of view that states: ("God(s) do not exist." Period. Whatever any person wants to do with his life is not, and has never been the concern of the atheist.

Atheism advances no dogmatic or doctrinal positions. For this reason, it is a entire contradiction in terms to state, as you have done, "According to Atheism. . ." save with respect to the strict matter of denying Deism or Theism.

Might i add a footnote. God, properly understood, is life itself, the living power of the Universe, the source of that power. Denying his/ her/ its existence therefore, can never in any event be "pro-life."

I state this because most atheists i have come across on this forum are tragically unable to distinguish the cosmological question of the existence of God from the fallacies of human religious dogma. They tend to argue along the line that since human religion is obviously flawed, then. . . God does not exist! I hope you are able to see the inherent intellectual laziness reflected by such a statement. Because "God" refers to an uncaused cause, and prime mover of all existence, and has nothing whatsoever to do with the veracity or stupidity of human religious dogma.

?

Mantraa, you keep saying this thing about stars falling down to earth. I hope you know that it's a very poor view for you to take.

Meteors and Meteorites have fallen on the earth for billions of years. These falling objects light ablaze from energy upon entering the atmosphere. That's why they are called shooting stars up to today.

So why are you so amazed if ancient minds could have referred to such as "falling stars"? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

Give me a break.

^^^ Yes thanks.

However we should note that the substance of the spiritual is altogether sooo different from the substance of gross matter that even the finest material energies do not necessarily have any technical link with the spiritual. . . this is admittedly conjecture at this stage of investigation though.

To elucidate. Sensors can be placed on a persons head able to detect the slightest flicker of thought. Thoughts are immaterial things, but the nerve cells involved in "thinking" give off physical indications of the thought processes. Those physical indications remain purely material. The thought itself, is an immaterial abstract thing, which exists in real form within the astral plane.

That plane, i doubt if physics can access.