₦airaland Forum

Purist:
LOL.  You're right.  Those of us that know Tudor understand where he's coming from.   He's always been against perceived double standards, even if exhibited out of the context of his preconceived notions.   Sagamite, on the other hand, is just being an "objective police".

Spot on!

And I think "jesus" and toba missed an opportunity to shut up, rather than jump into a fray to settle old spats.

Purist:
haha!  This is a classic.

When two of Nairaland's most pugnacious characters (arguably) engage in a verbal war, all I can do is grab me some popcorn and enjoy the show.  I'm so loving this!

Replace "pugnacious" with "incendiary". Meanwhile, someone please call the fire service!

It's all unnecessary, of course. I noticed the little misunderstanding of a statement in a post that led to it all earlier.

ferari90: slowly IBB is beginning to make a whole lot of sense.Watched him on AIT today and i was impressed

You can't be more than 13.

I like these threads that are coming up. Let's educate Nigerians who have forgotten or are too young to remember.

noetic16:
oight mazaje. . . how do 60 year olds look? are u 60? please post your pictures

Oya, maz, post your pictures!

A ministerial nominee in Nigeria recently admitted he did not know his actual age. Nelson Mandela once said the same thing. That applies to most Nigerians of that woman's generation.

^^^ Yes o! It will be a vote against the vampire.

[quote author=na_so link=topic=498418.msg6586825#msg6586825 date=1282050810]I would rather vote for someone whose name is not even on the ballot paper than consider an IBB (even if he talks from now till eternity) who will finally nail the   coffin of this country.[/quote]If Babangida runs against a cow I will queue patiently and cast my vote for the cow.

^^^ Sorry your thread was derailed. There are certain lies that should not be allowed to reign freely.

OLAADEGBU:
Must you skeptics always have to think the same way in scoring cheap points?  When I said at ground zero does it have to mean on the very spot, can't it also mean in close proximity to the ground?  This how you guys think when we say that the earth is 6,000 years old it does not necessary mean that it is precisely 6,000 years old you should be able to get the point we are trying to pass across without being spoon fed every detail.

That ^^^ is dishonest, Mr Olaadegbu. How can you say building near ground zero and building at ground zero are the same? The first time I heard this story, it was from a fanatic like you who told me a mosque is to be build at ground zero. I wondered if a part of the land the towers used to occupy had been sold to Islamists trying to score some political points and wondered how someone could be that crazy. Then I found that it was a private land quite close to the place. That clarified the whole thing, yet you dishonestly claim here that it doesn't matter how you report it? That clarifying a sensitive matter amounts to trying to score cheap points? There are ordinances governing what type of building can appear where in New York. You want a president to override that, override the right of private citizens to sell their property to whoever they like within the law just to please you?

Sagamite:
All this rubbish deducement.

This guy, you are ready for a career as a police detective. This is typical of the way Nigerian Police present their evidence or investigate issues.

A fair appraisal of the guy as well as the men in black.

OLAADEGBU:
This is not a thread about Obama if you want to know his opinion about muslims building a mosque a few blocks away from ground zero you can google it up or open another thread for it to be discussed.

Now you have spoken closer to the truth. Your earlier post was untrue I just thought I might correct it. The mosque is to be built on a private land near ground zero. While I understand all the sentiments of some Americans on the matter and I am not making this post to express my opinion on it, I fail to understand the extent to which some of you take it. Your intolerance is just as bad as that of some Muslims.

Sorry, Mr ajoguegbe, I had to interrupt to point out something and Mr OLAADEGBU has corrected his error, though not his entrenched position on the matter or his rabid anti-Obamism.

OLAADEGBU:
Obama only got me going because of his socialist's agendas and recently his statement of building the mosque at ground zero.  If you have been around much earlier you would have discovered that I attempted to answer some if not all of these questions about Noah's Flood and the ark by some folks minds have been corrupted by these evolutionary geology column that their minds are made up and as a result they don't want to be confused with the facts.

Highlighted, sir, is untrue. And I wonder what you mean by his "socialist's agendas". Why are you right-wingers so mad at a plan to extend health insurance to the poor?

^^^ I think what is unfortunate is that some of you are too steeped in self-hate to see the whole picture.

JeSoul: Lol, see as the man be sef Toba, I no trust am too much. A true Apostle of marriage suppose glow and shine more than that.

1 Samuel 16:6,7 (NIV)

6 When they arrived, Samuel saw Eliab and thought, "Surely the LORD's anointed stands here before the LORD."

7 But the LORD said to Samuel, "Do not consider his appearance or his height, for I have rejected him. The LORD does not look at the things man looks at. Man looks at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart."

Bawo is preparing for second wife. It's Deep Sight you need send an embossed IV to.

Ha, Jesoul! Akwaba!

^^^

nuclearboy:
(i.e., aside the crook Joagbaje).

I do think there is need to avoid these ^^^ around here. For all we know, he may be more sincere than some of us, even if WOF hardly makes any sense - to me.
I'm still laughing at your post above, though. 

nuclearboy:
^^^ According to your last post, this was about what the Bible says. Very legal! But according to all we'd said, it was obvious we were going into the realm of experience to "understand" that same Bible.

I feel I received a sucker punch! No offense meant, none taken - just wish I'd known earlier!

I do not see how I am the monster you are trying so hard to portray. Since I pointed out from the beginning how things stand, I am not liable for the fact you now feel punched. Even if I had not expressly stated my position, or you had missed every one of the posts where I did, the fact remains we were looking at things from the Biblical perspective – at least we were meant to – and not making up things from our own perspectives. That you were already convinced by some “experiences” is your prerogative. But that does not make them the subject matter. The Bible’s perspective was.

You spring on everyone that you were arguing based on convictions fed by your personal sojourn in the paranormal. How do the ancient ones of my clan put it over Schnapp and kolanuts? “You do not dispute the contents of a dream with the slumberer.” You present this rain, paralleling it with passing an exam, and expect farmers who have not had the same experience to plant their maize. I was talking based on what I understand the Bible to say, which may or may not be at variance with my armchair conjectures. I state this from the beginning; I repeat it; I state it again, and suddenly you experience the full weight of a well-aimed sucker punched.

You let on you were disappointed at having wasted time on seeing a post of mine, just because I did not change views to align with yours; you lash out with a statement and claim it was conceived six months ago in another thread; you dig up another person’s post, intermittently laughing and shaking your head at it and asking opinions, in a leading manner, as to the motive behind it; you endorse an egregious post designed purely to make an exhibition of others (referred to as “them”) by asking for “definitions” of guileless English words, fancy philosophical terms, and unruly theological concepts as “starting blocks” on page 5 of thread; yet I am the predator, the bully; and you? The prey, the poster boy of victimhood who is reeling from a nuclear-powered sucker punch treacherously aimed at the jugular, and who smiles in return and magnanimously eschews taking offence.

Maravilloso.

nuclearboy:
^^ Now you are talking. This thread was legalistic and aimed at proving a point, not geared towards finding truth.

I certainly wasn't hoping to make that breakthrough and find "the truth" in this thread. I'd congratulate anyone who has found "the truth".

nuclearboy: Well, let me state something I deliberately kept back during your thread "Inerrancy of the Bible" - The Bible as we know it became available 1, 500 years ago and only in the last 200 years has it been truly available to society at large. Yet Christians/Believers lived all those years. Seth, Noah, Enoch, David, etc. All those years! [b]Yet you would have us believe that answers to all questions are to be found only in it? [/b]No, brother, God is inerrant and His witness is true and when there is doubt as exists now, God (or funnily enough, the Holy Spirit, according to Jesus, is the final arbiter).

Thanks for giving us an insight into what you deliberately held back in that thread until this moment. I don't understand the point you are making, but I certainly didn't try to have you believe the above.

nuclearboy: Where you wish to know the position of truth, you'll find it is not doctored to suit any human and usually might even be uncomfortable. What do we gain from saying God is one yet three? Whats the purpose of saying the HS is a personality? You feel its just an act to mystify, to sound different, important? Or an attempt at self-immolation, a desire to be mocked? Which of us here sounds insecure except the one who would assuage his own (self-perceived) inadequacies by trying to ridicule others?

I just saw another thread I've been alternately laughing and shaking my head to, for a few minutes. Please take a look, MyJoe, then tell me what you think of the mindset behind this thread after reading it. Or check almost any thread started by same poster and see what its about or ends up about. https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-342153.32.html

I don't input motives.

nuclearboy: Anyway, thanks for confirming twas but another attempt by DS to again bring his favorite hammer to bear on his favorite victim - the idea of "trinity". Now we know any slowpoke is "great" as long as he has issues with "Trinity" and even hitherto revered atheists become "disappointments" when they refuse to kowtow.

I spoke for myself and have confirmed nothing. And undertaking to point out that the Bible appears to present the Holy Spirit as a non-person on my part was not conceived to ridicule anyone or anything. I am not up there with the secret formula to truth and laughing at others below. But I guess anyone is free to interpret things as they deem fit.

nuclearboy:
Enigma's post above though, will likely bring this discussion back to life.

I doubt it, as he’d have to define “starting”, “blocks” and a lot more. He’d have to provide a manual detailing the kind of responses that would not constitute “attacks”, “nonsense”, and the like. While at it, he’d also provide a manual that should be followed to write what he can be bothered to respond to. Not that I do sophistic definitionisms, to begin with.

nuclearboy: On the other thread about the Holy Spirit, I wrote earlier that I'd have to pass exams to become a lawyer. Whether or not I read wider than all the QCs in the UK, this would still be the case. Maybe thats what this boils down to but I took an exam with the infilling of the Spirit. It was a personal experience and I relate to what I received as a personality that speaks, guides, reasons; not an impersonal force.

I thought you would have understood me by now. Your experience is well possible. There are a lot of experiences around, including some revealing the opposite of what you saw. I don’t know the Holy Spirit didn’t appear to you or anyone. Let’s get that straight. What you see is one thing. What is written is another. I am only here talking about what the Bible says on the matter in response to the discussion in the thread – I have made that clear repeatedly. I am not eise-whatever or even stating my own views here. Outside of this discussion, “delusion” on my or anyone's part? Possible. More possible than most of us can imagine, Nuclear.   

nuclearboy:
BTW, your Acts 28:25 & 26 quote that you have translated to Is 6:9 does something you seem not to have considered - it PROVES that the authors of Acts believe God the Father and the Spirit to be one and the same Person. 1 God manifesting in three ways, remember?

If you read both scriptures you will see I have not done any translation. I merely stated what is. I don't think this doctrine is of great importance but am only trying to show that the Bible leans more towards a Holy Spirit that is not a person.

Regular posters and not-so-regular ones like me around here would be quite familiar with your view of the Trinity doctrine: One God who shows himself in three different ways, like Nuclearboy appearing as (1) a businessman (2) a tennis player (3) a loving father of ten kids.  I must say this presents far more problems for me than the classical Trinity, but that is another matter.

nuclearboy: So yes, you are right - when the Spirit is talking, it is God that is talking. Is God then not a personal sentient being? Yet even without that, we have the following

Yes. The Bible does present God as a personal sentient being and that has never been in contention in this thread. (I do note that Deep Sight wasted good time addressing it.) My understanding of the Bible is that the Holy Spirit is the active force of God, that is, God’s power in action, or the means by which he accomplishes his purposes. Paul’s reference to Isaiah confirms that it was God speaking, using his Holy Spirit, not the Holy Spirit speaking of itself. If you are to accept your own explanation that would mean the Bible is unsure whether God said it when he was manifesting as the Father or when he was manifesting as the Holy Spirit. Or when Jesus said “Concerning that day and hour. . .” can Paul or anyone say “And God said, ‘concerning that day and hour. . .”?

nuclearboy: Eph. 4:30, "And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption."

“The Holy Spirit of God.” Well put. That confirms my understanding of the Bible Holy Spirit as the active force of God. Like I did acknowledge, there are verses in the Bible ascribing personality to the Holy Spirit. Eph 4:30 does not qualify. It does the reverse.

nuclearboy: Rom. 8:26, "And in the same way the Spirit also helps our weakness; for we do not know how to pray as we should, but the Spirit Himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words"

Acts 10:19, "And while Peter was reflecting on the vision, the Spirit said to him, "Behold, three men are looking for you."

These verses have been addressed. The Spirit can talk.

nuclearboy: 1 Cor. 2:11, "For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the spirit of the man, which is in him? Even so the thoughts of God no one knows except the Spirit of God."

Please read the above verse again: “The spirit of man”. “The spirit of God.” It appears clear that both are used in the same sense. That encapsulates my understanding of the Bible Holy Spirit. In fact, you can forget everything I have written in this thread and take only 1 Cor 2:11 to the bank. 

nuclearboy: Acts 5:32, "And we are witnesses of these things; and so is the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey Him."

And what does this one say? That God gave out God [classic Trinity] or that he gave out himself in another manifestation [your version] or that he gave out his Spirit, his active force [my position on the Bible]? Is the Holy Spirit a person in that verse?

nuclearboy: John 14:26, "These things I have spoken to you, while abiding with you. "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you.

This has been addressed.

nuclearboy:
@DeepSight & MyJoe:

Please show us the figures of speech used in John 14:26 and Acts 10:19

Please look at the references to "figures of speech" made in specific cases earlier. They were not random claims, but it was shown from the verse how that is so.

nuclearboy: @Enigma:

Yes I did. Seems very selective yet made to seem all encompassing.

I am surprised you would write this in endorsement of Enigma’s post making a third person reference to selective “attack”. It is possible, of course, that Enigma candidly sees the tenability of his position in this thread. It’s possible.

Is “attacking” the references one by one necessary? My statement was not all-encompassing but addressed several of the verses – God speaks using his spirit. This happens in several of the scriptures, so that single reference covered those. But in response Enigma talks only about “filling”, and lets on that he can produce “poured out”, a claim that does not appear honest since the only “poured out” references he will find are of people dying, which Enigma, or anyone at all, would be too smart to attempt to parallel with the activities of the Holy Spirit.

Have a great weekend!

nuclearboy:
@MyJoe:

Most Deists do not believe God can do all things.

I believe you are genuinely speaking from your perception of things, but I cannot tell whether by “most Deists” you mean the classical deists one can read about on the Internet or the deists you have read on this forum. It’s not a creed. On a general note, though, I am not aware that deists do not believe God can do all things. Perhaps you are aware of the statements credited to some of the foremost champions of deism when asked what they think of the afterlife. They reply that they don't know, but that they completely trust God to take care of it. That is an admission that there is a lot God does that they don't know about.

I think the basic thing about deism is the claim to “rational belief” in God, that is, God is impersonal, does not reveal himself and is not directly responsible for what happens everyday. Some deists believe just one of those items, others believe all three. If that is what you call not believing God can do all things, you can make the charge to any worldview – Christians who don’t believe God can be everything (pantheism/panentheism); Christians who do not believe God can save Moslems; Moslems who don’t believe God can be three or send his son to die, etc.

While “deism” may not completely encapsulate my worldview, it is one label I do not shy away from because it approximates it enough to be useful. I do not believe God deals with us personally, but this is not akin to saying that such things as prayers are not answered. I do not believe God intervenes in human affairs but that is a different matter from intervening on behalf of humanity by, say, sending prophets or even sons. (I don’t know he has, but it’s a possibility I am open to.) That is why you have Christian deists. They attend church and believe God sent Christ to die to save humanity but they think God is impersonal. Personally, I do not see any lie in my position.

nuclearboy: Its one thing to say "God is able" and another not to take the alternative path to Truth if it is offered.

You are losing me. What path to truth that is not a subject of subjective faith and debates has been offered and is rejected by deists? Or should I read the above as:  "Its one thing to say 'God is able' and another not to take to Christianity once preached to."

nuclearboy: Maybe its me but where I see a man that chooses wrong over right because he sees (what he believes to be) "gain" in it, I believe such person to have decided God doesn't have the capability to fulfill such persons hence the choice of wrong. Mouthing it is NOT living it!

I don’t get the above at all. I have tried, but really I don’t.

nuclearboy: Another way to look at this is in our primary beliefs - some here insist light is equal to darkness i.e. God is the good side = Satan which is the bad side. That in another way, is a limit being placed on God!

There may be an issue of inferences here. I am yet to come across a single post equating God and Satan.

nuclearboy: Same is the issue of God being impersonal.

Okaaay. I think I am understanding you, now. I also don't doubt that your concerns are genuine. I have already addressed this. God being impersonal is not a limitation. For one thing, God made the laws that govern creation. Saying he put laws in place to govern everything and so not having to deal with us individually is not limiting him – it just shows his awesome power. Imagine a computer programmer that can write a software to govern the whole universe! Our thoughts, words and deeds are recorded. They hang about us and come back to us. God does not need to personally pick up a pen to write down anything because the laws work out perfectly. That is what is meant by God being impersonal.The grace of God abounds in creation. When anything good happens to me I give thanks to God for it even though I don’t believe he personally looked down from this throne this morning and said, “That is MyJoe down there. What do I do for him, today?” I give thanks because it is what he brought into being that makes everything possible. And all this is not the same thing as saying God cannot relate with an individual should he decide to.

Enigma:
Oh I can give you "poured out" alright but I won't bother.

Oh, yeah.

Enigma:
As I have said before even if I say nothing more on this thread, I expect to be vindicated ----- because I do not see you or Deep Sight being able to prove that the Holy Spirit is not personal and sentient especially at the same time as proving that the Father is personal and sentient.

Enigma:
Refer to answer above: even if I say nothing more you will not be able to prove that the Holy Spirit is not personal and sentient especially at the same time as proving that the Father is personal and sentient.

In fact I will probably not post again (subject to some exceptions) until I see anything even approaching such proof.

Great!! Great!!!

Enigma:
^^^
Do you notice so far how many they have "attacked" of the things mentioned in the list in the link?

Link again: http://www.carm.org/christianity/christian-doctrine/verses-showing-identity-ministry-and-personhood-holy-spirit


PS EDIT @nuclearboy I need to reply an email, sorry about lateness.

I am surprised you see an attack in thought out responses. So until every Scripture is dissected one-by-one will an impact be made? I see, but that gives you a huge task in this thread.

@nuclearboy
Got to leave here right now. Will respond when I get back - maybe in a day or two.

Enigma:
^^^

You can have it in whatever version you like really.   

Certainly it wasn't the Holy Spirit said to be doing the filling in that instance!

Right. Still you have no record anyone's being filled with God the Father, or with Christ (to say nothing of being poured out), so my statement stands.

In any case, I don't see what this red herring ("filling", the one point you carefully picked out of the many others to address) proves. Remember God and Christ can dwell in your heart, an obvious figure of speech since your heart is way too small to lodge God. God is the universal sovereign, intangible, infinite, incomprehensible. So, of course, he can fill the universe. And Christ is Godlike, according to the Bible.

^^^ Pavlovian.

There is nothing to "work out" in that verse, Enigma. Nothing. 


Ephesians 4:5-12 (New International Version)

5one Lord, one faith, one baptism; 6one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.

7But to each one of us grace has been given as Christ apportioned it. 8This is why it[a] says:
"When he ascended on high,
he led captives in his train
and gave gifts to men."[b] 9(What does "he ascended" mean except that he also descended to the lower, earthly regions[c]? 10He who descended is the very one who ascended higher than all the heavens, in order to fill the whole universe.) 11It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers, 12to prepare God's people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up

toba:
^ no pun or insult meant what do u believe in?
My joe

God.

But the subject of this thread is. . . Well, you can see it.

It has been shown that:
- The Holy is ascribed qualities not usually associated with persons, like being poured out, filing things, overshadowing.
- The Father and Son cannot do the above.
- There are no records of the Holy Spirit interacting with anyone, debating, or deliberating.
- Where the Holy Spirit is ascribed personal qualities, such as comforting, this is clearly a figure of speech.
- There is nothing abnormal about the Holy Spirit being ascribed personal qualities, since the Bible does the same with grace, sin, death and love. And we do same in speech.
- The Bible is full of instances of the Father and Son personally reaching out. But not the Holy Spirit.

But Enigma still wants the “burden of proof” activated. It’s an enigma! 

In addition to Deep Sight’s post above, here is another of the scripture references provided in Enigma’s link in an effort to show that the Holy Spirit speaks and is therefore a person:

Acts 28:25-26, "And when they did not agree with one another, they began leaving after Paul had spoken one parting word, "The Holy Spirit rightly spoke through Isaiah the prophet to your fathers, saying, ‘Go to this people and say, "You will keep on hearing, but will not understand."

What scripture was being referred to in the above? Isaiah 6:9. Here (NIV):

8 Then I heard the voice of [i]the Lord [/i]saying, "Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?"
And I said, "Here am I. Send me!"
9 He said, "Go and tell this people:
" 'Be ever hearing, but never understanding;
be ever seeing, but never perceiving.'

Which erases every sliver of doubt anyone still has as to who is actually speaking whenever the Holy Spirit of simply “the Spirit” is said to speak or, in fact, do anything.

mazaje:
Na wah ohhhh. . . . . . . .This guys no wan rest ohhh. . . . . . . . .

There's a more urgent matter. You wan do pilot? 

nuclearboy:
@MyJoe:

could you please list 10 things you believe God cannot do?

No. I cannot list 10 things I believe God would intend to do and cannot do.

nuclearboy: I'll [b]answer [/b]your question with one of mine -

You have not done so. You have not provided the insight I sought.