₦airaland Forum

^^^ Is there a physical throne at all?

Or are there three physical thrones?

frosbel: I do not want links, let's talk about it here.

Of course you will not want links ----- but you will not hesitate to copy and post from erm, well, links, when starting a thread and at other times.

So why were you bringing the Roman Catholic Church into it?

All right let us talk about it here and this time don't run away as with the last time.

frosbel: Besides the only church fathers I know are the early apostles, otherwise my standard in scripture.

And both the apostles and scripture confirm that: the Father is God, the Son is God and the Holy Spirit is God.

frosbel: My question largely remains unanswered though, how many thrones do we have in heaven, ONE or THREE,

Deal with my point about whether there is a physical throne (or three physical thrones if you like) or whether we are talking representative pictures and depictions.

frosbel: surely the bible says let your answer be yes or no , right ?

anything else is of evil.

Do you realise that this means you have been doing evil ---- for a loooong time?

Plenty of rubbish in the article in the opening post!

So 50 years ago, scientists set out to prove Higgs’ theory that the God particle exists.

I imagine 50 years "ago" actually means 50 years later; ok, a forgivable typo.

Last week, after months of analyzing data, scientists announced the discovery of the God Particle.

Again, this may be forgivable but the announcement was not quite in those terms exactly.

If scientists had not found the God particle, everything we know about the universe would have been false. Now that they did, everything we knew about the universe had been false. It is a brand new world. The Dark Ages ended on Wednesday.

Now then what exactly is the Okonkwo fellow saying here?

It will take another 2,000 years to know half of what this discovery means. And that is why you should care. Everything you think you know about life in this universe is on its way out. Not one. Not two - but all. It is so unsettling in scope that it is good that so many people are not even paying attention. It is more important that the transformation will not be overnight but rather in drops, bit by bit. Otherwise the current order will be so disturbed without a ready replacement. The creation of a vacuum with the potential to swallow everything will be so frightening.

More nonsense.

I have always felt that people who clutch their Bible, Koran and other religious books in their armpits need to also pause, every now and then, to read scientific journals. If they do not read, at least pause and watch science programs like “Wonders of the Universe.”

Idiotic. Like the old man in the village or the grandmother who may just have learned to do basic reading in the vernacular and can thus just about read the Bible? Yeah, give them the latest scientific journal or thrust them in front of a TV program in a foreign language.

Let us copy the fellow's own style: I have always felt that people who shout science science science while merely regurgitating claims made by some scientists in the Western world need also to pause to use their own brains to think sometimes.


etc etc

frosbel: ^^

Logical deduction .

1. God is 3 but ONE
2. The 3 are 3 distinct persons
3. Each person will need to have a throne and sit on one , since he is a Person
4. If the bible is consistent with one throne all through scripture, then the trinity doctrine suggests that 3 persons which is equal to ONE sites on ONE Throne.

Of what substance is God the Father made such that He would physically sit on a physical throne?

frosbel: Can you not see how messy the trinity Roman catholic church doctrine starts to get ?

The doctrine of the Trinity is not a "Roman Catholic Church" doctrine! Rather, it is a doctrine of the catholic i.e. the universal church! The doctrine of the Trinity in one form or another or, in other words, the idea of God as Trinity was accepted by Christians long before the inception of the Roman Catholic Church.

See this link that I have referred to a number of times previously: https://www.nairaland.com/497445/trinity-doctrine-invented-council-meeting/2#7181702

or this one http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity_of_the_Church_Fathers

Kay 17: and yet you believe biblical explanations of Creation conflict with scientific explanations of evolution an big bang?!


He doesn't need to explain in great detail why big bang or evolution is true, what matters is if they are scientific theories and why they conflict with Biblical provisions.

Kay 17, you are missing out something or conflating things.

Challenging the theory of evolution is NOT the same thing as saying it conflicts with "biblical explanations"!

Challenging the theory of evolution is NOT necessarily because it may be thought to conflict with "biblical explanations"!

Challenging the theory of evolution does NOT have to be because it may be thought to conflict with "biblical explanations"

The real issue is whether, despite the apparent plausibility of aspects of the theory of evolution, the theory is at all sufficiently proven as to be accepted without question. There is plenty to suggest that it is not to be so accepted ---- too many things not satisfactorily proven at all.


So please do not mislead yourself and others by bringing the Bible into it. The Bible has a creation account, yes, and we are trying our best to understand that account and just exactly what it is meant to portray.

^^^ So do you limit yourself to picturing "God" physically sitting and Jesus physically standing on His right?

Or perhaps the statements about the throne and right "hand" side of God and the visions in places like Revelation etc are representative pictures and depictions.

This argument about one or three thrones is really no argument at all.

This Federer aka the grandaderer should just stop embarrasing himself!

Pleased as anything for the GOAT.

Murray's day will come.

Another one of which I can only just remember two verses (and bits of others) and perhaps not fully accurately.

Anyhooooos , here goes:

Ẹ jẹ ka jumọ f'ọpẹ f'Ọlọrun
Orin iyin atọpẹ lo yẹ wa
Iyanu n'ifẹ rẹ si gbogbo wa
Ẹ kọrin iyin s'ọba olore wa.

Chorus: Halleluya ogo ni f'Ọlọrun
A f'ijo ilu yin Ọlọrun wa
Alaaye ni o yin ọ bo ti yẹ
Halleluya ogo ni f'Ọlọrun

Ki l'a fi san j'awọn t'iku ti pa
Iwọ l'o f'ọwọ wọ wa di oni
Iwọ l'o nṣọ wa t'on gba wa lọw'ewu
Oba wa aiku Onibu ọrẹ

Hallelujah ogo ni f'Ọlọrun etc etc etc

5/[quote author=Mr_Anony]What can I say, I'm probably more pissed than you are. This thread has made me lose a lot of respect for these guys and has made me doubt their handle on logic. If someone says atheism is a religion or asks them to prove there is no God, they will be the first to start complaining and saying things like "bald is not a hair color" "the burden of proof doesn't lie on a negative" e.t.c. yet they see nothing wrong in defining religions based on this same negative.

I am sorry but in truth atheists especially the ones on this thread are as religious as can be.[/quote]I always knew you would soon realise the "timbre and caliber" we are dealing with. It really wouldn't take long for an intelligent and intellectually honest person to ascertain.

At first, even I took some of them seriously and assumed that they were both honest and intelligent; however, I quickly realised that many (in fact, most) of them are actually neither!

Let me give an example: if you are able to go through this thread https://www.nairaland.com/546562/atheism-religion you will see that up till about page 9 my posts were generally polite and assumed that I was involved in debate with genuine/honest debaters but from page 9 or thereabouts onward and after some time lapse, you will see a change of attitude to at least some of the debaters. The change was informed by the kind of realisation on this thread and worse ---- actual duplicity and deliberate dishonesty.

Also, the 30 Keys thread https://www.nairaland.com/298119/30-keys-being-effective-atheist was hijacked by me to provide a compilation of some of the absurdities that our friends pass for "intellectual/intelligent argument".

^^^ And "further castrated"! https://www.nairaland.com/982965/reasons-why-all-atheists/2#11355765

[quote author=Mr_Anony]. . .
In conclusion, I love this logic in fact, we are all theists I only believe in one more God than you do.. . .[/quote]

[quote author=Mr_Anony]. . .
In conclusion, I love this logic in fact, we are all theists I only believe in one more God than you do.. . .[/quote]Now that is class!

In fact I'm so pissed off I didn't think of it first.

cyrexx: . . . folks who commits ad hominien fallacy which is defined as: insulting or belittling one's opponent in order to attack his claim or invalidate his argument, it means launching out verbal insults that are irrelevant to the opponent's argument. This is logically fallacious because it relates to the opponent's person, which has nothing to do with the logical merit of the opponent's argument

Hmmmm. Just exactly like:

thehomer: Okay so it was Stephen Roberts who made the complete quote. I hadn't gone through the entire thread but I notice that rather than actually offering a rebuttal, you just want to fling your faeces all over the place. You're really manifesting the features of our lowly origins while most of us have moved on.

Next time, at least try to exercise your brain a bit and offer a rebuttal.

thehomer: Okay so it was Stephen Roberts who made the complete quote. I hadn't gone through the entire thread but I notice that rather than actually offering a rebuttal, you just want to fling your faeces all over the place. You're really manifesting the features of our lowly origins while most of us have moved on.

Next time, at least try to exercise your brain a bit and offer a rebuttal.

Mr. Dunce the Mumu is still bitter and bruising from previous sufferings.

Sorry oh!

thehomer: Actually, the analogy is a very poor one. To make it clearer, why don't you consider the quote in full? Here it is below.

Richard Dawkins:
“We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further.”

. . . .

Na so. Who's fooling who? Cf. the Stephen Roberts quote already quoted on the previous page of this very thread https://www.nairaland.com/982965/reasons-why-all-atheists#11345181

I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.

EDIT In fact and also compare to opening post:

cyrexx: I submit to you that each and everyone of us are atheists. Yes, its true and I will show you.

I just believe in ONLY ONE LESS GOD than you do. We both disbelieved the same number of many other Gods, I only exceeded you by just a single one of them. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible Gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.

Anyway whether it is the Roberts one or the Dawkins one the statement is as idiotic as idiotic does. It can only make sense if made in jest ---- but the two fools (or their "uncritical" followers) do not seem to be "jesting" --- I guess they are not court jesters.

davidylan: I guess PhD holders have no right to a religious viewpoint even if it sounds crazy?

When people go on about another person's PhD in that kind of manner, there is usually an amount of envy and/or jealousy.

Ah, one post I saw on another thread like that reminded me of this thread.

Jesu N'pe Wa L'Ọsan L'Oru (I can only remember the first two verses clearly, I'm afraid)

Jesu n'pe wa l'ọsan l'oru
L'arin irumi aiye
L'ojojumọ la n'ngbohun rẹ
Wipe Kristẹn tẹle Mi

Awọn apọsteli 'gbani
Ni odo Galili ni
Wọn kọ ile ọna s'ilẹ
Gbogbo wọn si n'tọ l'ẹhin

. . .

Enigma: I feel guilty and that I should provide some assistance. Think 'wordplay' and replace "genuine [b]p[/b]article" in my original post with "real mccoy" and hopefully you will get me then.

PS I could have been even more abstruse by asking: do you think that the Higgs is the genuine particle?

mkmyers45: Well most if not all religions have thier cards all on the table while science still tries to fish out stuff to drop on the table....

I feel guilty and that I should provide some assistance. Think 'wordplay' and replace "genuine [b]p[/b]article" in my original post with "real mccoy" and hopefully you will get me then.

One more "wise saying" (as if ) of evangelical atheists.

"We are all atheists. The atheist only believes in one fewer god than the theist."


Neutered (or castrated) https://www.nairaland.com/982965/reasons-why-all-atheists#11343859

InesQor: This is like saying:

We're all homeless; a tramp only has one less house than you do.

Does this make sense to you?

^^^ I get you; I hope you get me, some time.

mkmyers45: Lets give CERN 3-4 years like the prof said...i believe they will follow understand it and it will the field of mass and particle physics

Are you saying CERN is the genuine particle?

InesQor: This is like saying:

We're all homeless; a tramp only has one less house than you do.

Does this make sense to you?

Inesqor, how bodi now?

I quite like this your refutation of that old/tiresome evangelical atheist saw that I will take the liberty of including it on that "30 Keys" thread.


An aside: I find it quite fishy that a "new" Nairaland poster within about three weeks of registering the new ID goes from "agnostic Christian" to "freethinker" and to full blown militant atheist. Intriguing.

Actually, another case is that of a poster I encountered and took notice of for the first time only very recently who claims to be a Christian but seems to have always argued the atheists' case - initially with some subtlety but in recent times (and by the time of my encounter with him) basically overtly. All quite interesting.

frosbel: Jesus was the express image of God, not a seperate person

Jesus himself said, If you have seen me, you have seen the Father

Is Jesus "spirit" or not?

It is a rather simple and straightforward question!

^^^ But He is not "spirit"?

^^^ Again I ask this question: is Jesus "spirit"?

^^ At the minimum: Creator and Supreme Being.

^^^ The fact that three people have three (maybe even different) perceptions of a thing does not mean that the thing itself is three.

^^ He has been specific to the so-called "Abrahamic" religions. And his point is accurate as a matter of fact.

^^^ Is Jesus "spirit" or not?

Are people still peddling "Courtier's Reply"?

I guess they have not heard of the "Myers' Shuffle"!!! https://www.nairaland.com/298119/30-keys-being-effective-atheist/2#9495918

[quote author=Mr_Anony]. . . If Abraham already knew God to abhor human sacrifice, then he could rightly question God and God will not be able to condemn him for it because He would be contradicting Himself. . . .[/quote]Solely on the point about people who trust God and yet still question Him (God) because they wonder or are uncertain about a proposal or "proposed" action of God, there are quite a number of passages on this but one that I like very much and with quite deep and important theological ramifications is to be found in Genesis 18 and especially verse 25

Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?

Edited

As a follow up to my earlier post, this quote from Nietszche demonstrates the point being made about objective morality:

morality has truth only if God is truth—it stands or falls with faith in God.

Previously posted here: https://www.nairaland.com/810960/god-evil/4#9657776