No DeepSight, what we are unable to face is your embrace of "leading the witness".

A day in the life of DeepSight

DeepSight smiles: "A" is a member of the alphabet, isn't it
witness: YES, it is
DeepSight: I like "A". very lovely design, so algebraic it almost brings on a hard
witness nods smiling (not realising a trap is being set): "I agree. Sort of sexy"
DeepSight: I like "S" too and it is also a member of the alphabet, isn't it?
witness smiling agreeably though wondering what the noise is about: "Ah yes, it is another favorite of mine"
DeepSight: All alphabetic characters come from the arab world. They have that in common, did you know?
witness (ecstatic he at least has not an enemy in the counsel): yes, yes, yes
DeepSight FROWNING: now since you know they have the same source and CANNOT debate that, and both are of lovely design WHICH IS INELUCTABLE plus both are alphabetic characters, a LOGICAL STATEMENT you have allowed credence to, it is THUS LOGICAL AND NATURAL THAT "A" and "S" are the same and nothing but the same and this is INCONTESTABLE
witness (thinking to self and afraid of being bitten in the face) - abeg, wetin this guy smoke wey he near me like this. Says aloud: "Ehm ehm oga lawyer, I fit go piss?"

Worth considering! Kinda strange for you to be the only one who sees yourself as objective, isn't it?

nuclearboy:

No DeepSight, what we are unable to face is your embrace of "leading the witness".

A day in the life of DeepSight

DeepSight smiles: "A" is a member of the alphabet, isn't it
witness: YES, it is
DeepSight: I like "A". very lovely design, so algebraic it almost brings on a hard
witness nods smiling (not realising a trap is being set): "I agree. Sort of sexy"
DeepSight: I like "S" too and it is also a member of the alphabet, isn't it?
witness smiling agreeably though wondering what the noise is about: "Ah yes, it is another favorite of mine"
DeepSight: All alphabetic characters come from the arab world. They have that in common, did you know?
witness (ecstatic he at least has not an enemy in the counsel): yes, yes, yes
DeepSight FROWNING: now since you know they have the same source and CANNOT debate that, and both are of lovely design WHICH IS INELUCTABLE plus both are alphabetic characters, a LOGICAL STATEMENT you have allowed credence to, it is THUS LOGICAL AND NATURAL THAT "A" and "S" are the same and nothing but the same and this is INCONTESTABLE
witness (thinking to self and afraid of being bitten in the face) - abeg, wetin this guy smoke wey he near me like this. Says aloud: "Ehm ehm oga lawyer, I fit go piss?"

nuclearboy:
Worth considering! Kinda strange for you to be the only one who sees yourself as objective, isn't it?

This is neither true nor fair. Actually, it may be true to a certain extent, but certainly not fair. When it comes to religion most people are unobjective, except to themselves. That is, you are "the only one who sees yourself as objective." That applies to you, nuclearboy, but only on certain issues. It applies to Deep Sight sometimes - but it is would hardly get more than a paragraph if I were asked to write a book on him. There would be other matters sticking out a mile.

And maybe someone other than me will say it applies to me sometimes, too, even though I don't see it does.

^^ Agreed in a general manner but I was actually saying "objective" in relation to "leading witnesses", "suggest, assert and conclude" style. He does it ALWAYS and exclusively as a means in discourse

PS: aside this and fornication, what other matters would stand out? I wouldn't have asked (fornication in mind) but you made it "plural" - what others?

@ Nuclear frankly it is 'staggering' that you would attribute such logic to me. It forcefully emerges that i may have entirely failed to communicate anything while on this forum.

I need to emphasize to you something called the quality of contradictory uncertainty or fear: which is what Pastor AIO displays above. I neednt re emphasize that Pastor is my all time favourite Nairalander: the mind i revere most on this forum.

Nevertheless Pastor is so fabulously nervous of being defined - as any definition whatsoever instantly makes him feel boxed in. Sometimes he carries this contradictory uncertainty or fear to preposterous extents: as in this instance: review -

He starts out this thread seeking to emphasize the same underlying truths which gird all religions. in doing so he draws parallels between the Four Noble Truths of the Buddha and the teachings of Christianity regarding worldly detachment. He spins a good analogy deducing several of the major virtues preached by christianity. When i ask him about religious doctrine, he responds saying that religion for him is first and foremost a practice. There is no doubt whatsoever that he refers to practices of virtue which is exactly what he has spent the opening post dwelling upon - virtues. Addittionally it is quite inconceivable that when he said that for him religion is a practice, he meant practices of evil? No: rather as obvious based on his discourse on the four noble truths and virtues of love, he rather meant virtuous practices. Now the minute i indicate to him that he is talking about virtuous practices, in a fit of contradictory uncertainty or fear he shudders and distances himself from the word 'virtue.'

This is the same way several of you distance yourselves from the direct inferences of your own words. What could be so suddenly frightening about the word 'virtuous'?

That is contradictory uncertainty or fear for you. So preposterous in this instance because the whole discourse he initiated was about virtues. You see, he is again desirous of maintaining a vagueness that will leave him room to say anything. Whereas he knew very well my objections had nothing to do with virtue. This is exactly why he now seeks to avoid the word. Virtue is neutral of such dogma as the trinity etc.

In all of this, as now customary on this forum, i will yet wind up being the insincere and dishonest one. Strange. Really really strange.

@ Deep Sight,

Bros, too much grammar, you confuse me all the time. Break it down abeg, so that the less learned among us can understand you.

@ Atomic Man,

nuclearboy:


No DeepSight, what we are unable to face is your embrace of "leading the witness".

A day in the life of DeepSight

DeepSight smiles: "A" is a member of the alphabet, isn't it
witness: YES, it is
DeepSight: I like "A". very lovely design, so algebraic it almost brings on a hard
witness nods smiling (not realising a trap is being set): "I agree. Sort of sexy"
DeepSight: I like "S" too and it is also a member of the alphabet, isn't it?
witness smiling agreeably though wondering what the noise is about: "Ah yes, it is another favorite of mine"
DeepSight: All alphabetic characters come from the arab world. They have that in common, did you know?
witness (ecstatic he at least has not an enemy in the counsel): yes, yes, yes
DeepSight FROWNING: now since you know they have the same source and CANNOT debate that, and both are of lovely design WHICH IS INELUCTABLE plus both are alphabetic characters, a LOGICAL STATEMENT you have allowed credence to, it is THUS LOGICAL AND NATURAL THAT "A" and "S" are the same and nothing but the same and this is INCONTESTABLE
witness (thinking to self and afraid of being bitten in the face) - abeg, wetin this guy smoke wey he near me like this. Says aloud: "Ehm ehm oga lawyer, I fit go piss?"

Worth considering! Kinda strange for you to be the only one who sees yourself as objective, isn't it?

You made my day, I just had very good laff.

^^^ What is intriguing is that whereas the story he mocks up shows me presuming things to be the same simply because they share some similarities; the argument I have made in this and the originating thread is entirely focused on pointing out differences in spite of similarities.

Interestingly the mock-up he has drawn of me applies exactly to what Pastor AIO is attempting in this thread: namely concluding religions to be similar on account of some similarities. . . whereas I am arguing the exact opposite.

Jupiter. . . by what other name may misrepresentation be called? ? ?

^^^ Same thing again - I speak of everyday life and you select an isolated incident, suggest, assert, conclude AND determine that as binding on the past, present and future of mankind. Intrigue indeed, befitting a scion of the Borgias but not a religious forum and definitely not befitting one who claims a search for truth.

@DeepSight:

Could you be kind enough to allow me recall those I've seen who accused you of the same tactics on this forum?

Viaro - everyday, everytime  
MavenBox - when you created a thread to box "her" in and titled it "Heaven is in hell" then put in a tiny caveat which noone would notice and which truly pitted the then "her" against Christians as was your desire
Mad_Max - who took it very personal
Pastor_AIO - you now soften it and say he was running from being "defined". What he said was more succint and fits everyone else's belief
Myself - who have at least a half dozen times, wondered AT YOU openly

It was in this context (which MyJoe misuderstood) that I said you are the only one on Planet NL who sees objectively in your argument/discussion pattern. Truth is they are all directed at collecting a white hanky from Mr A and passing a black hanky to Mr B whist passing blame to Mr A. Seeing as I'm in quite a number of company here, maybe you ought slow down and consider why everyone sees sunlight but you see nighttime

I am sorry, but I am not able to make sense of the foregoing.

When people make statements they should be ready to face the direct inferences of those statements. It really would be more useful if rather than point to names, you point to the specific arguments and indicate to me how exactly I was being dishonest in any particular instance.

For Viaro, you might want to explain to me how a statement that Jesus (who he asserts to be God) rose and ascended to heaven in a physical body does not translate into God(who Jesus is) being resident in heaven in a physical body? Logic please?

For Mavenbox, you might want to explain to me how "paradise" only began to exist at the moment of christ's death, despite the fact that the eternal Tree of Life is said to exist in paradise from eternity to eternity? Or how "paradise" exists in the realm of the unseen - Hades - despite the fact that "Hades" resfers to the realm of the dead? And despite the fact that God and Heaven are the prime "unseen" - and as such according to her definitions could all be said to be residing in Hades? ? ? ?

Logic please.

And for Pastor's case I have already elucidated above. Would you care to revert to the second-to-last post I made above and address the ISSUES there and NOT the persons?

From your earliest posts on this forum, I had such grave respect for you sir. I still do. Please do preserve that by showing a tendency to address ISSUES and not PEOPLE. For as absurdly ridiculous as anybody can see the ideas of Viaro or Mavenbox above to be; as long as these people are Christians you have since shown that those absurdities will sound like honey to you: whereas the voice of strict and uncompromising logic must perforce continue to appear idiotic, insincere and dishonest to you.

^^ Which is exactly my point - YOU have DETERMINED that YOU and YOURSELF ALONE have right and understanding in "inferring" what the meaning of my words are! How dare you say you are the one to intepret ME? Take that as "speak for me", "judge me", "explain for me when I no send you message" etc. AND EVERY TIME, YOUR INFERENCES SUIT YOUR CURRENT ARGUMENT!

Have you now not seen your folly. Half a million members and only one repeatedly informs a poster the truth of what he is saying - no wonder Pastor strove to truncate you ahead of any serious inferences in his stead.

Of course, being DeepSight, you needs must end with

Deep Sight:

For as absurdly ridiculous as anybody can see the ideas of Viaro or Mavenbox above to be; as long as these people are Christians you have since shown that those absurdities will sound like honey to you: whereas the voice of strict and uncompromising logic must perforce continue to appear idiotic, insincere and dishonest to you.

Suggestion, Assertion, Conclusion

When you have seen me disagree with Viaro on issues touching Christians. How sincere then, DeepSight, is the above?

BTW, you don't fit the role of the bullied geek you're trying to portray. You're too earthy, sensual, depraved like

I warn you two to desist from accusation and counter accusation. . . . . Else i'll report to the moderator. You have been warned

See who wan report.

You, Tudor, should be tied to drums and executed thrice (3ce) for war crimes on NL.

After each execution, you should be buried then re-exhumed for another "death"

Pastor is averse to being boxed in. I noticed that in a thread long ago where the main participants were Deepsight and Pastor. But it is not a crime. One cannot submit to a title one has no control over. You cannot allow yourself to be called a Christian, for example, when you have no control over the connotations the word carries. Or you'll have to be explaining yourself over and over again. It is a sensible position.

Deep_Sight likes to be a lawyer and forgets not everyone double checks the dictionary meaning of the words they use. I have to say some people have been careless with their choice of words and a simple recant or correction might have saved a lot of trouble but they instead choose to illogically defend their position. Curious. But Deep_Sight sort of sees things in black and white. Logic driven. I like that. I'm comfortable with that but that does not go down well with 'religious' people. He doesn't take things personal but people seem to think he does. For instance he might say "that is a stoopid conclusion" and the person he is addressing might think "he thinks I'm stoopid?". Deep_sight is not very diplomatic.

So far, I'm comfortable with Nuclearboy. Rarely if ever, ambiguous. MyJoe doesn't get agitated. A tremendous quality here. Dunno MavenBox except that either he/she and everybody seem incapable of deciding whether he/she is male or female.

Mad_Max is very religious and sensitive to tone. M_Nwankwo is gentle and practices what he preaches, if he preaches. Vesc just likes to learn and ask questions and psycho-analyse people

So let's get back on topic shall we? No offence everybody.

I've just read back again through this and the other thread that prompted this thread. That previous thread (or the latter part of it) was driven by the word 'staggering'. Are there staggering similarities or staggering differences between various religions? Actually it was a rather stupid debate. As JeSoul pointed out, it all hinged on the word staggering. Whether or not one would stagger would be completely subjective.

I feel ashamed that I was engaged for that length of time on such a dumbass debate.

This thread was opened because after denying that Buddhism had any similarity with christianity Deepsight brought up the 4 noble Truths of Buddhism and asked what they had to do with Love. I then tried to show that the 4 Noble truths which are at the heart of Buddhism also feature at the heart of christianity. How arguing over the word virtue came into it, I don't know.

Please if anyone can demonstrate how the 4 noble truths are alien to christianity can they please do so here for us to see. Otherwise forever hold your peace.

This thread na wa. Whoever wants to write JAMB should come and learn English here.



As Mavenbox, I need to speak for myself.

@Nuclearboy: My guy, i tire o. Have you noticed I almost never pursue discussions here anymore? That's one of the reasons: assumptions and conclusions based on flimsy assertions and personality attacks, bro!

@Pastor AIO: I agree with your take in the OP, just saying.

@vescucci: I registered mavenbox as genderless, then female (covert reasons), then finally changed to male. But the ID was eventually abandoned (I broke forum rules by having a multiple ID but i guess I have kinda been forgiven). Im very male, thanks.

@Deep Sight: You said

For Mavenbox, you might want to explain to me how "paradise" only began to exist at the moment of christ's death, despite the fact that the eternal Tree of Life is said to exist in paradise from eternity to eternity? Or how "paradise" exists in the realm of the unseen - Hades - despite the fact that "Hades" resfers to the realm of the dead? And despite the fact that God and Heaven are the prime "unseen" - and as such according to her definitions could all be said to be residing in Hades? ? ? ?

Can you please show me where I said paradise only began to exist at Christ's death? Bros, must you tell lies to prove a point?

Paradise DOES exist in the unseen realm, every Jack and Jenny (maybe except you) knows that. Who said Hades is the realm of the dead? have you forgotten, or you just feel like misleading the readers again? Hades is the unseen realm, period. From the perspective of some ancient folk, one can only proceed into the unseen realms when (s)he dies. So some people call it the realm of the dead, it does not mean it is ONLY a realm for the dead. I think you should know that, unless you are just looking for trouble. I explained in detail all the words translated HELL in the Bible. I have no time to bring up the thread right now, but if you argue contrariwise I may be forced to do so.

Cheers.

I have followed this thread a little bit albeit without contributing. I just want to point out in relation to the latter dominant points/observations, I suppose rather obviously, that there are some posts and posters that are worth very little time. Personally, I don't bother to reply some posters ---- that is if I could even be bothered to read their posts.

vescucci:

Deep_Sight likes to be a lawyer and forgets not everyone double checks the dictionary meaning of the words they use. I have to say some people have been careless with their choice of words and a simple recant or correction might have saved a lot of trouble but they instead choose to illogically defend their position. Curious. But Deep_Sight sort of sees things in black and white. Logic driven. I like that. I'm comfortable with that but that does not go down well with 'religious' people. He doesn't take things personal but people seem to think he does. For instance he might say "that is a stoopid conclusion" and the person he is addressing might think "he thinks I'm stoopid?". Deep_sight is not very diplomatic.

The Devil's advocate perharps?

^^^

InesQor:

@Nuclearboy: My guy, i tire o. Have you noticed I almost never pursue discussions here anymore? That's one of the reasons: assumptions and conclusions based on flimsy assertions and personality attacks, bro!

@Deep Sight: Can you please show me where I said paradise only began to exist at Christ's death? Bros, must you tell lies to prove a point?

Paradise DOES exist in the unseen realm, every Jack and Jenny (maybe except you) knows that. Who said Hades is the realm of the dead? have you forgotten, or you just feel like misleading the readers again? Hades is the unseen realm, period. From the perspective of some ancient folk, one can only proceed into the unseen realms when (s)he dies. So some people call it the realm of the dead, it does not mean it is ONLY a realm for the dead. I think you should know that, unless you are just looking for trouble. I explained in detail all the words translated HELL in the Bible. I have no time to bring up the thread right now, but if you argue contrariwise I may be forced to do so.

Pastor AIO:

This thread was opened because after denying that Buddhism had any similarity with christianity Deepsight brought up the 4 noble Truths of Buddhism and asked what they had to do with Love. I then tried to show that the 4 Noble truths which are at the heart of Buddhism also feature at the heart of christianity. How arguing over the word virtue came into it, I don't know.

Please if anyone can demonstrate how the 4 noble truths are alien to christianity can they please do so here for us to see. Otherwise forever hold your peace.

Little wonder they say there are no lawyers in Heaven 

So many unfortunate lies from people i respect so much.

This from Mavenbox -

InesQor:


@Deep Sight: You saidCan you please show me where I said paradise only began to exist at Christ's death? Bros, must you tell lies to prove a point?

And here is where you claimed that madam/sir -

Mavenb0x:


Heaven is not part of Hades, but Hades has intersected with heaven [size=16pt]since Christ rose. The intersection is what was called paradise[/size].

And you dared state that I was LYING? ? ?

You went further to state -

Hades is the unseen realm, period.

From which you must not shy away from concluding that God dwells in Hades as well: since Hades is “the unseen realm” and there is no doubt that God and his abode are the prime “unseen realm.”

Abi? Aha. Recant.

From Pastor also – some unpardonable falsehoods – He says - 

This thread was opened because after denying that Buddhism had any similarity with Christianity

Which is ‘staggeringly’ false because I never denied that Buddhism had any similarity with Christianity; the argument was whether the similarities in doctrine were ‘staggering.’ Indeed I specifically stated that all religions do share certain motifs, so why sir would you claim that I denied any similarity? Na wah o, Noetic16 may well have discerned some attributes of yours that I am yet to.

I then tried to show that the 4 Noble truths which are at the heart of Buddhism also feature at the heart of christianity.

Falsehood again. We both acceded from the inception that certain things are common to all religions – such as the adjuration to love and maintain worldly detachment. The argument was about similarities in dogma such as the Trinity, The sacrifice on the Cross, Remission of sins by that sacrifice, etc. You know this very well?

How arguing over the word virtue came into it, I don't know.

It came into it when (as typical of you) you inferred that religion should be an a virtuous practice but comically began to request that the word “virtue” should not be used!

Can you tell me why that word frightens you?

Is it not at the root of all that you have suggested in the OP?

Please if anyone can demonstrate how the 4 noble truths are alien to christianity can they please do so here for us to see.  Otherwise forever hold your peace.

Falsehood yet again. Nobody ever asserted the Four Noble Truths to be alien to Christianity. I did ask what the FOCUS of those truths are: escape from the cycle of suffering or what ? ? ?

Please Pastor.

Now I have steadily become deeply grieved.

Grieved that people may spout such unmentionable falsehoods such as above and end up smelling of roses.

Grieved that the one pointing out the falsehoods must perforce remain a villain.

Aww.

Everyone is in form. Whose move now? Isn't it a little ridiculous though that we're no longer discussing anything really but instead we're juggling with blames, accusations and wordplay?

@Deep Sight:

I am really amazed at your manner of interpretations!

I said

Heaven is not part of Hades, but Hades has intersected with heaven since Christ rose. The intersection is what was called paradise.

and

Hades is the unseen realm, period.

Now where did I say paradise didnt exist BEFORE Christ's ressurection?

Mehn!!!!

I was saying that Hades contained paradise, since the beginning, since paradise was an unseen realm. But I said when Christ rose, there was an intersection of Hades (which contained paradise) and Heaven, which was the reward for those in that paradise. Thus heaven intersects with Hades and the intersection is paradise; by which, then, the dead could enter into heaven, so to speak. DID I SAY PARADISE DID NOT EXIST BEFORE CHRIST'S RESURRECTION?

This is like saying
Deep Sight = Man + Lawyer,
Nuclearboy = Man + Businessman

The intersection of the two is a Man, and Deep Sight retorts: Men did not exist before Nuclearboy met Deep Sight. How much sense does that make?

Is this how you make your own deductions? If so, it's just too bad!

I wont bother addressing the second point. You don't believe in the God that I do, so it's moot. But this first one? You're either lying or else you are guilty of what nuclearboy accused you of: misleading the audience. Simple!

Deep Sight:


From Pastor also – some unpardonable falsehoods – He says - 

Which is ‘staggeringly’ false because I never denied that Buddhism had any similarity with Christianity; the argument was whether the similarities in doctrine were ‘staggering.’ Indeed I specifically stated that all religions do share certain motifs, so why sir would you claim that I denied any similarity? Na wah o, Noetic16 may well have discerned some attributes of yours that I am yet to.

Okay, I'm so sorry my dear deepsight.  Buddhism does share similarities with Christianity however these similarities are not staggering.  Are you happier now?  

May I ask why in a conversation about the differences between religions you would bring up the 4 noble truths as evidence for their dissimilarity?  

Deep Sight:



Falsehood again. We both acceded from the inception that certain things are common to all religions – such as the adjuration to love and maintain worldly detachment. The argument was about similarities in dogma such as the Trinity, The sacrifice on the Cross, Remission of sins by that sacrifice, etc. You know this very well?

Why would you present the 4 noble truths as evidence of their differences?  Or is christianity not concerned with the suffering of humanity too?  

Prior to the establishment of trinity as a christian doctrine did many christians not live and die as christians without so much as hearing of the idea of a trinitarian god.  
Which doctrines do you consider essential to a religion and which doctrines are just extras?  Please this may be important to the whole argument.

Falsehood yet again. Nobody ever asserted the Four Noble Truths to be alien to Christianity. I did ask what the FOCUS of those truths are: escape from the cycle of suffering or what ? ? ?

Are you suggesting that christians have no desire to escape from suffering?  Or is it only buddhists that suffer?  When Jesus says 'come ye who are heavy laden and I will give you rest'  was he talking to people who were enjoying life or was he talking to people who were suffering?  What makes anyone practice religion?  Is it not to assuage an inner dis-ease?

@Vescucci:

Its not like this is a new phenomenon - many have felt it and I'm sure ended up like my witness. See Enigma's "avoidance" as though a plague!

Even now, compare InesQor's words with what DeepSight STILL INSISTS (on his behalf) he MUST be saying - why does he? EASY, Because that is what advances Deep's position! So its right! How much more simple can it get than that. Even if its not what InesQor said or meant; which is totally irrelevant!

Consider Pastors rebuttal - for indeed, why were the 4 Noble truths presented? Or perharps they were meant as an english lesson for Pastor seeing as he showed himself incapable of counting up to 4

If that is not putting a gun to the witnesses (and his daughter's) head to push lead him forward, I don't know what would be

Lol, Nuke.

Una dey make me fear. I think the major problem stems from the use of too many big words. It's easy to get mistaken and to get manipulated with those. I don't think it is anybody's desire to actually lie though there may be a dubious penchant to call other people liars. We should understand each other better. When one is misunderstood, one should explain his position. When a position is explained, one should not contrast it with a previous misinformed position for it makes no sense for anybody to hold two contrary views. There's nothing to gain or lose by lying here. Nothing to gain by misleading anyone. So I don't think anyone deliberately sets out to do this. Our talks shouldn't be competitive but simply informative. I might think someone's view is utterly stoopid but it remains that person's view.

nuclearboy:


Little wonder they say there are no lawyers in Heaven 

Na lie oooooooo! We lawyers have a special pass to heaven. Make you no forget say the Greatest Lawyer of all is in heaven, indeed the owner of heaven - Olorun. "We have an advocate pleading for us . . ." and all that.

mrmayor:

I thought this thread ( 4 Noble Truths )was supposed to be a SATIRE of Religious/Social Life in Nigeria; I thought the aim was to have a laugh? How did it turn into debate between Deep Sight and Nuclearboy 

No sir, you got the entire gist of the thread wrong, I'm afraid to say. It explains your contributions, though I probably shouldn't have played along by adding even more noble truths to the extra truths you threw in. Perhaps it helps a bit if you read a thread before making a contribution.

Pastor AIO,

Well pastor I gone back to read  your original post and my reply, I don't think that I went off the track with my replies, maybe I didn't explain my 3 additional " Noble Truths". My truths cuts across all religious faiths.

5th Noble REAL Truth.

IGNORANCE: Karl Marx was right when he said " Religion Is Opium Of The Masses". Ignorance is the key ingredient for any Religious system to function, the less you know about the Origins of a Believe System, its founding fathers/mothers etc the better. It allows you to accept them as holy men and woman, without blemish who where on the path to heaven.

6th Noble REAL Truth.

THOU SHALL NOT CHALLENGE HOLY BOOKS. This Truth again cuts across all Religions, as all Holy books i.e Bible, Koran preach that what is written in it is Infallible, how can a believe system function and thrive for a long time when its Core Tenets, Ideologies are open to debate?

7th Noble REAL Truth
THOU SHALL NOT CHALLENGE OR QUESTION RELIGIOUS AUTHORITY: All Faith systems hold this as its one of Core Rules, you can't be a TRUE BELIEVER  if you challenge the teachings, rules and authority.

Pastor AIO,

Correct me where I went wrong, this thread has turned into the Definition and Use of The Word[size=14pt] STAGGERING[/size] between Nuclearboy and Deep Sight.

If this was supposed to a continuation of another Thread, you could have given the link to that thread and ask ONLY DEEP SIGHT and NUCLEARBOY to reply to make it a private thread.

mrmayor:

Pastor AIO,

Correct me where I went wrong, this thread has turned into the Definition and Use of The Word[size=14pt] STAGGERING[/size] between Nuclearboy and Deep Sight.

If this was supposed to a continuation of another Thread, you could have given the link to that thread and ask ONLY DEEP SIGHT and NUCLEARBOY to reply to make it a private thread.

Yes, this thread took off on a tangent from another thread. The link was posted above, I think in deepsights first response. However it is not only deep sight and nuclear boy that can reply. Anyone can but it helps if they stick to the topic of the thread.

The topic of the thread is the 4 Noble Truths which are at the basis of Buddhism. Pretty much like christianity has the 10 commandments Buddhism has the 4 noble truths and the 8-fold path. Deepsight challenged that Buddhism's 4 noble truths had nothing in common with christianity. I disagreed and so as not to derail the previous thread I started this new one.

Pastor,

You posted a link where you got the 4 noble truths from, not the previous thread where Deep Sight challenged your assertions on Buddhism and Christianity. Deep Sight did post the link you are talking about.

All the same I ask How is this thread a debate on " Staggering"

mrmayor:

Pastor,

You posted a link where you got the 4 noble truths from, not the previous thread where Deep Sight challenged your assertions on Buddhism and Christianity. Deep Sight did post the link you are talking about.

All the same I ask How is this thread a debate on " Staggering"

Check this link:
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria?topic=369330.msg6342790#msg6342790

Pastor AIO:


Deepsight challenged that Buddhism's 4 noble truths had [size=16pt]nothing[/size]  in common with christianity.

Even after corrected, and accepting the said correction, I do not know how any person can repeatedly continue to deliberately misrepresent another person.

Please retract the foregoing. You know that is NOT what I said.

Indeed I stated thus -

Nobody has ever denied the presence of similar motifs that appear in many religions. My qualm is with the assertion that the similarities are staggering on issues of doctrine. That simply is not true.

I repeat: on the question of similarities of doctrine, the differences are sharply cut: and this is underscored by the very fact that the thrust of the Four Noble Truths is conceptually different from the God-centred thrust of Christian doctrine with its rigmarole of the trinity, sacrifice, redemption and salvation through belief in Christ.

Deep Sight:

Even after corrected, and accepting the said correction, I do not know how any person can repeatedly continue to deliberately misrepresent another person.

Please retract the foregoing. You know that is NOT what I said.

Indeed I stated thus -

I repeat: on the question of similarities of doctrine, the differences are sharply cut: and this is underscored by the very fact that the thrust of the Four Noble Truths is conceptually different from the God-centred thrust of Christian doctrine with its rigmarole of the trinity, sacrifice, redemption and salvation through belief in Christ.

As you argued that there were staggering differences between the core doctrines of religions you said this:

^^^ E pain me say na derailment of thread i for like ask Pastor wetin dem dey call THE FOUR NOBLE TRUTHS for Buddhism and whether na love wantintin THE FOUR NOBLE TRUTHS dey address, or whether na suffering, rebirth and nirvana. I laugh.

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria?topic=369330.msg6342790#msg6342790

Now I could be wrong but it seems to me that you are putting forward the 4 noble truths as core doctrines of Buddhism that bear no similarity to christianity. If not, can you please tell me why you brought up the issue of the 4 noble truths at all.

I suspect that you perhaps didn't really know what the 4 noble truths were or what they entailed but chose to mention it because it sounded all esoteric and eastern and therefore likely to be different from christianity on a superficial level.

I don't know what you mean by thrust of 4 noble truths. Something either occurs in all religions or it doesn't, regardless of the thrust you want to thrust on it.

Pastor preached on forgiveness last week.

Pastor preached on Humility this week.

The two sermons had different thrust so therefore Pastor was preaching the doctrine of two different religions. maybe pastor converted to another religion in the middle of the week.
This is your manner of reasoning?

@ Pastor –

Many of the things that you put forward are quite amusing. “Sounds esoteric and so likely to be different on a superficial level. . .” I must have entirely failed in interacting with you or conveying my ideas or mind . . .and my failure is resounding.

Let’s have a look at it again: and this only for the objective reader.

Perhaps it is apposite before proceeding to set out to you the basic premise I have laboured to convey: and I say it again for the millionth time: all religions do preach love and detachment from worldly things – nevertheless the specific doctrines of major religions show sharp differences such that any claim that such religions are markedly similar in doctrine must perforce fail.

In case you have forgotten: the initial remark from Mad Max which triggered this discussion was that all religions are staggeringly similar in terms of thought, belief and doctrine.

I firmly disagree with that; and I still do.

The fact remains, just as I have said a zillion times already – the broad similarity in terms of the teaching of love and detachment from the world (which is all that you have pointed out by the way) is not sufficient to support the claims that Mad Max made.

In this regard I did set out a number of charts which you most cavalierly dismissed as inapplicable. Those charts very succinctly set out the core worldviews of each religion and I am aware that you were eager to dismiss the chart only on account of that which it made very painfully obvious; the significant divergences in THOUGHT AND BELIEF between religions.

Now revert to the fact that Mad Max’s opening statement talked about thoughts, beliefs and doctrines!

Here we go – what are the core beliefs of Christianity?

1. That God is supreme and must be worshipped in spirit and truth

2. That God is a Trinity

3. That Jesus is God and part of that Trinity

4. That original Adamic sin introduced death and suffering to Mankind

5. That Jesus’ death on the cross was a sacrifice to deliver remission for sins

6. That Jesus’ resurrection was conquest of death for mankind

7. That belief in Jesus’ saving sacrifice is required to attain salvation

8. That the saved Christian must live in tandem with Jesus’ teachings on love     

OF ALL OF THE EIGHT CORE DOCTRINES OF CHRISTIANITY WHICH I HAVE OUTLINED ABOVE, ONLY NO. 8 IS A COMMON DENOMINATOR WITH BUDDHISM AND MANY OTHER RELIGIONS.

I state to you that this is absolutely insufficient to deduce that the religions are markedly similar; for the first seven core doctrines as you well know are VERY VERY VERY central to Christian thought and belief; AND THEY DO NOT FEATURE AT ALL IN BUDDHISM.

Now I talked about the thrust of the Four Noble Truths.

Here are the Four Noble Truths again –

1. The Nature of Suffering (or Dukkha):
"This is the noble truth of suffering: birth is suffering, aging is suffering, illness is suffering, death is suffering; sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief and despair are suffering; union with what is displeasing is suffering; separation from what is pleasing is suffering; not to get what one wants is suffering; in brief, the five aggregates subject to clinging are suffering."[3][4]

2. Suffering's Origin (Dukkha Samudaya):
"This is the noble truth of the origin of suffering: it is this craving which leads to renewed existence, accompanied by delight and lust, seeking delight here and there, that is, craving for sensual pleasures, craving for existence, craving for extermination."[3][4]

3. Suffering's Cessation (Dukkha Nirodha):
"This is the noble truth of the cessation of suffering: it is the remainderless fading away and cessation of that same craving, the giving up and relinquishing of it, freedom from it, nonreliance on it."[3][4]

4. The Path (Dukkha Nirodha Gamini Patipada Magga) Leading to the Cessation of Suffering:
"This is the noble truth of the way leading to the cessation of suffering: it is the Noble Eightfold Path; that is, right view, right intention, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness and right concentration."[5][6]


No logical person can look at the foregoing and insist that these truths are not centrally about suffering and escape from suffering. And not conceptually about the non-contingent love of Christian doctrine.

What I overwhelmingly need to emphasize is the fact that the entire concept and thrust of the Four Noble Truth and indeed the generality of Buddhist thought derives from the philosophy of avoiding, or growing past suffering. Suffering is the central idea which these truths strive against; and it is without doubt that the central plank upon which the cessation of suffering is based is the cessation of craving.

Everything within the Four Noble Truths and any knowledgeable enunciation of those truths points ineluctably to this. Indeed this is the very soul of those truths – they proceed from the point of view of suffering, and then devolve onto the source of suffering: which is identified as craving. Ultimately they wind up prescribing a death to craving as the solution; and it is instructive that the ultimate state for the Buddhist – Nirvana – is a state wherein the ego is virtually removed. Self as known to man, barely exists anymore.

Pastor – you cannot but agree, unless wilfully stubborn, that all of this in concept, origination, thrust and delivery is markedly different from Christian thought and doctrine: for Christian doctrine proceeds from the point of view of a fallen nature of man; which must be remedied by a divine sacrifice; which sacrifice forms the central basis and plank for Christian salvation.

I think it is important that I add that the Noble Truths as I have explained above do not centre around a non-contingent teaching of love. They are not built up from an imperative of love: they are built up from an imperative of suffering and elimination of suffering. It is true that ethical behaviour is therein prescribed: and there is no doubt that ethical behaviour will lead to a reduction of communal suffering: and this is and remains the thrust of the Four Noble Truths and Buddhist philosophy.

THIS IS THE REASON I MADE THAT STATEMENT TO YOU: THOSE TRUTHS DERIVE FROM THE CONCEPT OF SUFFERING AND ARE CONCEPTUALLY DIFFERENT FROM CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE AND BELIEF WHICH ARE CENTRED AROUND SACRIFICIAL REMISSION OF SINS AND NON-CONTINGENT LOVE!

Now taking apart the Noble Eight Fold Path, we can see the further construct that I try to convey to you: namely that the thrust of these truths centres about suffering and seeks to ameliorate these through the path of moderation through ethics –

[Souced: Wiki] - The Noble Eightfold Path is sometimes divided into three basic divisions, as follows: Wisdom (Sanskrit: prajñ ā, Pāli: paññā), Ethical conduct (Sanskrit: śīla, Pāli: sīla) and Concentration (Sanskrit and Pāli: samādhi)



All of these are suggestive of a meditative approach to ameliorating the problem of individual and communal suffering.

1. Moral law of karma: Every action (by way of body, speech, and mind) will have karmic results (a.k.a. reaction). Wholesome and unwholesome actions will produce results and effects that correspond with the nature of that action. It is the right view about the moral process of the world.

2. The three characteristics: everything that arises will cease (impermanence). Mental and body phenomena are impermanent, source of suffering and not-self.

3. Suffering: Birth, aging, sickness, death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, distress, and despair are suffering. Not being able to obtain what one wants is also suffering. The arising of craving is the proximate cause of the arising of suffering and the cessation of craving is the proximate cause of the cessation of the suffering. The quality of ignorance is the root cause of the arising of suffering, and the elimination of this quality is the root cause of the cessation of suffering. The way leading to the cessation of suffering is the noble eightfold path.[22] This type of right view is explained in terms of Four Noble Truths.

Everything above emphatically proves the point I tried to make regarding the FOCUS of the Four Noble Truths as SUFFERING AND THE AVOIDANCE THEREOF: which thrust is divergent from the core of Christian Doctrine which in many degrees actually embraces suffering in pursuit of salvation – AND AT ALL EVENTS is motivated by salvation based on the sacrifice of Christ – which is a doctrine you will not dare to equate with Buddhism’s Four Noble Truths!

In all of this let me remind you that it will not be useful if you inundate me with details of the positive and agreeable results of all religious lines of thought – including such as are applicable to Christianity and Buddhism: that is a common denominator which is not at issue, thanks.