₦airaland Forum

Deep Sight:
@ Karo93 - Dogma remains a terrible blindfold. It is Like a leech. It clings steadfast over the eyes of the dogmatic, and no reason can unhinge it.

Have you carefully thought about how your own dogma often affirms your blindness? No matter how many times other people try to explicate what they believe, it is your dogmatic leech that blinds you from seeing what they are saying and still keep ranting on your own rigid assertions.

Nothing can prevent a man who is determined to worship a fellow man from doing so.

Did karo93 deny that Jesus Christ is to be worshipped? Please go back and check his posts - karo93 has NOT denied that Jesus is to be worshipped, so what are you snaking up to him about that for?

Okay, here.

DeepSight, I've looked through your post and saw nothing of substance to invite a reply. I've made the salient points needing your attention, but since you provided none I let you be. However, since you're seeking a reply from me (as you said in the other thread), that's why I came here to make a few comments.

^^^ And what does it take to worship God, if not simply be a good person Viaro?

Please give me an identity of your own 'God'.

I've said that this thread cannot be switched on magically to become an platform for discussing Christian issues. From the OP you made clear that you wanted to discuss the merits of Buddhism, and that was why I initially avoided it. besides, I was one of the first to note that Buddhism actually makes reference to 'God' but not in the theistic sense generally. So, it is either you have to sort yourself out on that most crucial point if you want to make any sense, or we just let you enjoy scuttling round your unfounded assertions.

Nonetheless, when you talk about the atheist being a "better worshipper" of 'God', I wondered where you got the idea that any atheist makes any appeal to 'God' in their outlook - and even that one you have never at any time tried to answer. If you keep evading germane issues, how does anyone gain anything from your evasive arguments, DeepSight? Why did you refuse to identify your own 'God' specifically? Why was that a very difficult thing?

When you come here pretending to talk about Buddhism and the atheist being a "worshipper" of 'God', I wanted you to be clear on specifics. As far as we know, atheists do not make any appeal to 'God' let alone be termed 'worshippers'. This has nothing to do with the sleight of hand you introduced about the question of whether people are 'good' or 'bad' - rather, it has everything to do with your identifying that 'God' in Buddhism for the atheist, as well show them how they are 'worshipping' that 'God'. To turn round and dribble in arguments that are not germane to your subject on Buddhism is only showing your tendency to be dubious at every opportunity.

Yes, I am willing to discuss - and I most definitely will reply your post just above. But if you again refuse to oblige, then I might as well conclude that you really wanted to be dubious once again and had nothing to offer in this thread - not even a dot to benefit you, let alone the atheist that you're trying to goon on your fallacy.

So, that is the first question I would ask you to deal with before any other discussion: please identify your own 'God' more specifically and let's see where it stands in all your talk about Buddhism and the atheist worshipping that 'God' which you refused to identify in your deism.

^^ Okay, will comply. I think the thread has seen its fun for now, so let it enjoy the topic for which it was raised.

Deep Sight:
Here's a good one -


https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-389094.0.html

Deep Sight:
@Mr Mayor -

Another memorable mavenbox thread -

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-397803.0.html

Derailing the thread again?

^^ No bother. I just sometimes wonder why such petty issues become so important as to overshadow a topic of a thread.

@Purist,

Purist:
Of course they're not "the same thing". Whoever said they are? No two ideological or philosophical beliefs are ever "the same", otherwise, there wouldn't be any need to term them differently.

Thanks for your concerns, but I was not trying to make a clone out of any combination or comparison of worldviews. I hope that much is clear enough to see.

However, your claim that deism is "not a shadow" of theism is a bit far-fetched, and smacks of a desperate attempt to dissociate yourself from DeepSight in whichever way, even if it means uttering ridiculous statements, such as the one in contention at the moment, and finding every available word in the dictionary to defend that claim.

I didn't need to do any of all that at all. DeepSight came here to talk about his deism specifically, and that was in response to my prodding him on several occasions to do so. He must needs defend his ridiculous arguments by ferreting only those so-called definitions that make any 'resemblance' fit into his arguments, that's why I bothered to pull out other standard definitions for his consideration as well. When it comes to specifics, you will never see this sort of deist characteristic of DeepSight ever be willing to discuss anything further - they know why, because that is where indeed you get to see if their 'deism' reflects anything of theism. I have noted in post #28 why people confuse this particular issue to argue the ridiculous and yet never stand up to articulate anything on their assumptions.

Certainly, it is common knowledge that in its philosophical and theological usage, pantheism, for example, varies significantly from theism. But it would be laughable for anyone to assert on this basis that pantheism is "not a shadow" of theism, because in the broad sense, both parties share the same fundamental belief - a belief in the existence of a god or gods. Same argument applies to deism.

It is quite laughable indeed to make such a connection between theism and pantheism and then arrive at such fundamentals for deism. Please read particularly my post at #16 and then expounding on the same in #28. I have discussed why informed authors do not include deism as a "form" of theism. Anyone can just lump them all together and ignore precisely what they are - and when closely examined, one cannot be fooled on this issue unless they have so chosen to do so on themselves.

Even the wikipedia definition, which you chose to capitalise on states explicitly that theism "may" exclude deism, which translates that definition into meaning that there is an exception to that exclusion, perhaps when looking at both ideologies in the broad sense; and so, that already negates your claim that "deism is not a shadow of theism". Even Googler clarified this earlier.

I think when you read post #28 it becomes obvious where your confusion on this issue is. Pardon me if I don't make sweeping generalizations as you suppose, which was why I made clarifications for what I stated.

Deep Sight:
^^^^ Yes o! It just might be! Maybe Viaro/Inesqor i working overtime!

Deep Sight:
Esp when you consider Mavenbox's bizzarre statement that he/she knows for sure Viaro's gender and name and has "irrefutable proof" that Viaro is male etc etc etc

There's no need for all the conjectures. I'm not minding the Ferry Wheel at all. Call viaro by any other ID you want, from Abuzola to toneyb - I am all of them (except DeepSight). Any further questions?

Deep Sight:
Would it be fair to my many friends on this forum if i 2moro registered as Fela1 AND THEN BEGAN TO INSIST AND LIE THAT I AM NOT DEEP SIGHT?

Would it be Christian? ? ?

Since when did you start being a Christian? And as regards lying, DeepSight there's a harvest of your lies on this motherboard alone that the net is already breaking. So, what's new? Please.



Anyways, after you're done with these petty games, can we return to the topic?

hugooh42:
@ viaro you are just beating about the bush and trying to cover your ignorace of the bible.

What in my posts shows you your own 'ignorance'? It makes me laugh when people just jump to conclusions midway without having read what went before.

When I read something that I find questionable, I outline them and discuss rather than just paste a complaint without showing anything. In your case, you showed nothing in my post but just jumped to conclusions.

how about the time of the apostles when they sold their belongings and brought the money to the church.when people like ANANIAS AND SAPPHIRA who represent the poster of this thread tried pulling a fast one.

As regarding the case of Ananias and Saphirra in Acts 5, did anyone solicit money from them? Did Peter or any of the apostles mandate them to give anything? The apostle himself said plainly: "While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not at your disposal?" Does that sound like anyone made selective solicitations for the property belonging to Ananias and Saphirra? Go back to chapter 4 and see what was happening, there you will not find any mandate from anyone about whatever they gave.

All these "special envelope" collections instituted in churches is why the Church is in the mess that we find in many places today. Imagine! It seems people have devised ways of clever taxations in God's House and only used religious names to cover up what's going on -

           Tithe :  
           Worship Offering :  
           Thanksgiving Offering :  
           Free Will Offering :  
           Missions Support :  
           First Fruit :  
           G.O. Partners Support :
           Special Occasion offering :
           Special Project offering (e.g., Rapsody of reality offering) :
           Special Visitation offering (so-and-so is coming to town) :
           Seed-sowing offering :
           Faith offering :
           Building Project/Improvement offering :
           etc.-etc. offering (part 1)
           etc.-etc. offering (part 2)
           Normal Church offering (this is always at the bottom) :

And all the nonsense goes on by any number of excuses. As long as you can shout 'halleluyah-amen', all the boxes will be ticked and the House of God becomes more like a business enterprise.

I'm not against giving, and in other threads I have argued to encourage giving (whether as tithes or any other offering) but it should must NOT be made mandatory in any form. When church leaders behave irresponsibly on issues related to giving, we should not sit dumb and encourage such activities by twisting Scripture to justify them.

Just imagine someone repeating the same thing about Jesus going about to receive money from people in order to promote His ministry - and others who have never read their Bibles are shouting 'halleluyah-amen' to that. When asked to show where such fallacy appears in Scripture, they say it was an 'insult' and their crowd will chorus 'amen' again. Just about anything can be put on the Name of Jesus to collect money, and gullible folks will shout 'praise-thy-Lord' all the more. Enough of the rubbish.

noetic16:
what form of repentance is olumba teaching? repentance from what? that we all become vegetarians?

Hehehe .[color=Black].[/color]. any resemblance is okay for DeepSight.
Nevermind that the same Olumba Olumba Obu is reckoned to have said that "Our Lord Jesus Christ Is Omnipresent". Not that I fancy anything Olumba Olumba teaches, for his theology is often times unbalanced and not even according to God's Word.

and what is the basis of the above statement?. , . .is this another baseless anti-Christ rant?

It has always been - if you've been following his posts on Christianity.

Joagbaje:
Dont criticise a church because people give there. Jesus recieved offerings too.

Jesus did not receive offerings from anybody. The only way anyone could read that into Scripture is to tie unrelated verses and magically arrive at that conclusion.

why didnt he reject them.

That is because He didn't collect any offerings from anyone. His principles in ministry were:

      (a)   'freely ye have received, freely give'  - Matthew 10:8

      (b)   'Provide neither gold, nor silver, nor brass in your purses'  - Matthew 10:9

The reason He admonished them on these principles is so that the Gospel would not be commercialised as many people are doing today with the false belief that the Gospel cannot reach people without money.

The Lord Jesus did not ask any of His disciples to go about receiving money from anyone in order to promote His ministry; rather, He factually said that wherever they went, they should "in the same house remain, eating and drinking such things as they give", specifically adding that they should NOT go from house to house (Luke 10:7). That expression {"Go not from house to house"} is used idiomatically to mean that those called to the ministry were not to focus on soliticing money or gain in one way or another from anyone. That is the reason why we can be pretty sure that Jesus did not solicit for anyone's money, nor did He receive anyone's offerings to promote His ministry.

It is remarkable that even when Judas had the money bag, Jesus did not take from that bag to pay His taxes. Rather, He sent Peter to go fishing and found enough money for both His and Peter's tax/tribute (Matt. 17:27).

He even comended a widow that gave her last.

Yes, but He did not take anything from that treasury for His ministry.

When people give in church , they give for their own benefit, they dont lose by giving, thats the only reason Jesus would commend the widdow.

How many people who give in Nigerian churches today are benefitting from their own giving?

Joagbaje:
I am not offended, I just dont spend time with the kind of people the bible says I shouldnt. Viaro behaves like them, Ignorant and proud, If you prove what I believe wrong by scriptures, i learn from it. Viaro is unteachable, I wonder if he or she is born again, Because the prove of your knowing Christ is walking in love. If its hate you exhibits, it just shows what spirit is onthe inside. Do you score any point by insult? Someone that cant define faith, does not understand , divinity, does not even know the difference between revelations of Paul and james, yet be spewing abuses in the name of Jesus? writing like a female.

Thanks for your own version of insults. What kind of spirit do you have on the inside of you since you could not resist spewing your own insults?

If I were the only person trying to point out how so far gone you are in twisting the Scriptures, you would have made a point. But no, you are never teachable but have always made every effort to continue twisting God's Word to suit your adventures, even when it is obvious to all that you're doing that very thing.

I do not hate you, but I strongly oppose your penchant to deceive the reader with your conceited antics on the forum. It is for that reason that I make my points and then ask you a few questions directly - which you don't try to answer but just evade them by appealing to the excuse of 'insult' and then show how you 'love' others by spewing your own insult in return. If you don't find anything wrong or too hard in my questions, please answer them and save your excuses. You're not obliged to answer them, afterall nothing is new in the fact that you're well-practised in the art of Scripture-twisting.

karo93:
you have not addressed my point on john.3.35

I have addressed it in the last few posts and also buttressed the point I made with John 17:10. You on the other hand have forever refused to see the point nor have you addressed what I said in citing John 17:10. Why are you dribbling round issues.

my point is that there is someone higher up than jesus and that person is the one who gave him all things and this is directly supported by john.14.28 where jesus says the father is greater than him.

I have addressed John 14:28 in this thread in post #260 while you scooted away from this same thread you opened. After I did, neither you nor you supporters said anything about it other than complain here and there - as you always do.

My point is that the person higher up is THE ONLY GOD while jesus is THE ONLY LORD

I addressed this same issue in post #260 in showing that Jesus is God as to His essence. That is what John 1:1 even in the Good News Bible that you often like to quote from.

stop dodging bullets by claiming that i am twisting verses for i have told you where i quote from

Where did I dodge anything? I have answered every single objection that you have raised, some of them repeated several times. You have never attended any question that have been offered you, even after your complaints have been addressed. What happened to the 5 questions I reminded you are waiting to be answered in post #281? I don't see you even making any attempts, and yet you pretend to be actually answering questions?

You are beginning to sound like a time waster who is not interested in a discussion at all.

karo93:
Viaro

my good news talks about God given power to jesus if you read it well[seeing as u read the version]

given someone sometin and given power over somethin all drive to the same point;the person is not the richest or the most powerful or most supreme- there is someone above the person[which is the point i am trying to drive across] so what is your point in hammering on it?

I was not hammering anything. You were the same fellow who wants to cement your whole career of denials on John 3:35 and that is why I had to point out that your twisting what that verse says is not helpful. That verse does not saying anything about the Father "empowering" Christ. Your quoting the verse to suit your whims may not be much of a problem - but your conclusive twisting of its meaning is factually false, especially where you are ignoring that the same Good News Bible categorically declares that Jesus is God. Why are you ignoring that one as well to argue your own dubious conclusions on John 3:35?

someone else has already explained that john.1.1 and you could do well to find it or if i have time i would tell you the post number.

Please tell me, if you have someone else in mind than TrueSeeker in post #150. The reason why I ignored it is because it was essentially JW dubious interpretation - and we know that JW's scholarship has been exposed for the emptiness it is, as well the fact that they had misquoted other people in their attempt to garner support for their mistranslation of John 1:1.

InesQor:
Viaro, welcome to the Nairaland Ferris Wheel! Myself and Tudor have been having a swell time. Maybe after, we'll all go on the rollercoaster, then we'll play some games at the funfair, and buy some cotton candy. Gosh! So much fun is in store!

Hehehe . . . Tudór is cool. I can't wait to be ferried in that Ferris Wheel, though. So here's viaro aka mavenbox. Any questions?


Guys, let's leave these small things aside. I've been looking at this 'Superhuman Complexity' and trying to wrap my head around it. Would the verse in the topic be 2 Corinthians rather than 1 Corinthians (chapter 5 in the latter ends at verse 13)? Small deal though.

karo93:
For viaro's sake i quote from kingjv
john.3.35
The father loves the son and has GIVEN all things into his hand.

doesn't it point to the same fact that jesus didn't always have all things??
that it was GIVEN to him out of love and not that he owned it?

Where does it say that God "empowered" Christ in that verse? Afterall, your argument was this:

Jesus cannot be God because he was “empowered” by someone which means that if Jesus is to be God there will always be a higher God-the one who empowered him.

. . . you see how your arguments are not following about "empowering" Christ in that verse?

John 17:10 (KJV) - "And all mine are thine, and thine are mine; and I am glorified in them" ::: who is "empowering" who in this verse??


And for your own sake, this is what Good News Bible that you often quote says on John 1:1 - "In the beginning the Word already existed; the Word was with God, and the Word was God". What denials would you next be making to condemn (or "assault" your favourite GNB on that verse??

karo93:
@viaro
Jesus was begotten by God before the creation of the world and he lived in glory with his father

The word "begotten" does not mean that Jesus was created. You guys often repeat this cheap argument about "begotten" because in your mentality it conveys the idea of 'create' whereas it does not apply to Christ in that sense - which is why I have dealt with it and asked that you guys go and answer simple questions about the meaning of that word as used in reference to Christ in Scripture.

(1)   DeepSight opines that 'being "begotten" connotes a beginning' (post #159), which us factually false.

(2)   Image123 tried to answer DeepSight on that word in post #165, pointing out that 'Jesus Being 'the only begotten of God' does not connote a beginning of existence in scripture'

(3)   Not satisfied, DeepSight pointedly asked me in post #189: 'And equally being "begotten" means. . .? ? ?'

(4)   And I answered him briefly in post #190 that 'The word "begotten" does not mean that He was "created".'  I then went on to explain in simple terms what that word means in reference to Christ, and summarised thus: "No other 'being' (angel or human being) is called the μονογενής (monogenēs) of the Father in Scripture."  Now, if you karo93 have searched through Scripture and seen any other being referred to by that term, kindly post the verse and let's see.

(5)   DeepSight failed to discuss anything but went on to dubiously try to force his arguments on 'begotten' in post #256 by asserting, 'It makes no difference if he is described as the “first begotten” – the fact simply remains that he was “begotten” and as such came into existence at a point.' The reason anyone would be making such peurile statements is because they have never taken the time to study the meaning of the particular words used in Scripture (μονογενής, monogenēs) and are just going by the sound of the English word .[color=Black].[/color]. which is precisely what you karo93 are doing here.

(6)   Nonetehless, in posts #260, #261 and #274 I addressed this issue once again and showed that the essence of Christ does not suggest that He was a created Being before the Incarnation. Of course, DeepSight could not rise to grasp that point; and even when in post #277 I noted the fact he was not seeking to address the point at all, since that time until now my questions are still begging answers from you guys.

(7)   Please go to post #281 and address all five questions on the issue of "begotten" and let's talk further. If you just dismiss them lazily, I would not be charitable to you if you come back complaining after ignoring the point. If you're unable to handle it, please don't make further reference to the issue - for all intents and purposes, the term "only begotten" (μονογενής, monogenēs) does not mean that Christ was created or had any beginning. Anyone arguing to make it so is only arguing out of illiterate noise and duplicity.

karo93:
MY VERSES ARE FROM THE GOOD NEWS BIBLE[how many times do you want me to tell you]

Did that verse not tell you that Christ created all things? Look at it again. Your problem is that you're forcing your own prejudices into the text and ignoring what it says.

Besides, what does that same Good News Bible say of John 1:1?? Have you read it? Let me quote it for you - "In the beginning the Word already existed; the Word was with God, and the Word was God". Did you skip that verse also in the same Good News Bible? And why?

about my analogy-what's your problem with who makes the goods? my analogy makes clear how God created all through his son so what's up?

Your analogy fails flatly - I would repeat it until you see your attempt to cheat by ignoring the question of creation: 'who made the goods?'  You're more concerned with who delivered the goods, and delivery and creating are not even close. Find another excuse.

What sense are you trying to make through things made THROUGH HIM for i did not deny that

I've made the point already, so please stop pretending you can no longer read with simple understanding. Who created all things according to that verse which you quoted (1 Cor. 8:6)? Did you check with John 1:3 and Colossians 1:16-17 as well? Come back making analogy of delivery of goods - those verses are plain to see, and it's your choice to try not seeing them.

finally your attack on john.3.35 does not flow! are you insinuating that GOD did not give christ power over all?? when you give someone power what are you doing? are you not "empowering" him?

First, I did not "attack" any verse - not John 3:35 or any other. You've been busy "assaulting" any verse you don't understand, and that's to your own loss.

Second, that verse does not say that God "empowered" Christ - please stop twisting the verse, thank you. I have shown an example from John 17:10 to eplicate what is meant - all that the Father has are given to the Son; and all that the Son has are also given to the Father. Who is "empowering" who in that instance? This is why you quickly left a disclaimer that I should not quote other verses - because you want to snatch a verse out of its context and give it your own private interpretation.

i am tired of your allegations about me dodging questions for you know i have answered all that make sense so if you mind you could repeat at least one of them.

Please scroll up - I have outlined them again. You can just jump to post #281 and answer those 5 questions, then others will come up. Dismissing them will not work for you, so please don't try that cheap escapist fantasy with me. Cheers.

ukotmi:
I think you are missing the whole point. What we are doing here is learning and hearing out what the other fellow is saying. You dont know what i believe neither where I worship. I try to tow a middle line-that xtians should avoid insults and discuss issues maturely with scriptural references. No xtian can lay claim to knowing it all.When I notice the only[i]y me knows it all attitude[/i] , off i go. No xtian no matter his level has the power to determine who enters the kingdom of God. I only know in part period.
I enjoy going thru all the posts here but the insults some posters haul here, you will think that special authority is handed over to them.

I think you miss the point yourself if all you want to see is 'insults'. I don't try to pretend myself as a 'know-it-all', but that is not the same thing as keeping quiet when pertinent issues are deliberately twisted out of hand. I have not based my posts or comments on where you worship, so what's all that about?

Hehehe. . . guys, don't worry - viaro is mavenbox. Let the war begin!

karo93:
MY FINAL ASSAULT

You were only fighting against yourself from onset, so this so-called "assault" you're waving is simply beating yourself and weeping on your exercise.

1 Cor. 8.6
There is ONLY one GOD, THE FATHER, who is the CREATOR OF ALL THINGS and for whom we live and there is only one LORD, JESUS CHRIST through whom all things were created and through whom we live.

Eh, mr karo93, instead of twisting the text, why don't you do the simple thing and quote it directly? Here is what ESV says on that same verse - 'yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.' You owe your very existence to Jesus Christ - for that is what John 1:3 has said already as well.

Such verses present us with a simple question: who was Jesus Christ before His Incarnation?

I asked you that question directly and you dodged it. Well done. After disappearing from this thread, you surfaced again only to assault yourself and yet twist what you're quoting.

The normal saying [though not in the bible] is that
Father [Yahweh] +Son [Jesus] +holy spirit=GOD [trinity]
But this verse as quoted from the BIBLE tells us that, Father [Yahweh] =GOD [1]
And Son [Jesus] =LORD [1]

As this verse shows us, we live for the father [Yahweh] our God because he is our creator and not his son.

The same verse tells you that you were created by Jesus Christ. Compare again with John 1:3; Col. 1:16-17 and other verses. Both the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit were involved in creation, and I don't remember any Trinitarian in this thread saying that Jesus did not create the world - you and your friends are the only ones denying the fact that Christ is Creator by virtue of the fact that creation came into existence through Him. So, making out that only the Father is Creator is quite laughable - it would mean that you're denying Christ had anything to do in creating anything.

[For those confused about how the father made all things through the son I will explain like this; If you send your driver to give some goods to your mother, can it be said that it was your driver that generously gave to your mother??]

The analogy fails flatly. The first question I'd ask is this: who made the 'goods'? Sending anyone to deliver the goods does not tell us anything at all about who made the goods in the first place. In creation, we're not speaking about the Creator sending someone or anyone to deliver creation to anyone else. Colossians 1:16-17 tell us as regards Christ being Creator, that "all things were created through him and for him. And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together." It is not as if Christ came and delivered creation to anyone else and then walked away - nope, for it says clearly that He Himself sustains all things within creation.

Lastly
Jn.3.35
The father loves the son and puts everything under his power.

Jesus cannot be God because he was “empowered” by someone which means that if Jesus is to be God there will always be a higher God-the one who empowered him.

[p.s. you cannot empower yourself but someone else.]

This is why I noted very early that you're a preacher of tritheism, not Trinity. John 3:35 does not speak about the Father giving Christ 'power' or "empowering" Him - that was another sleight of hand you tried there. The divine love expressed between the Father and the Son are encapsulated in John 17:10 - "All mine are yours, and yours are mine", does that sound what you were arguing? It helps to quote the verse (John 3:35) for what it says and not what you want to twist it to read - that verse does not say that the Father "empowered" the Son.

With this I would have loved to pass the verdict that JESUS IS NOT GOD and that THERE IS NO TRINITY, but I would want to see the opinion of viaro et al on this post

That's the only reason why I would reply yours - because you specifically invited me to do so. There is clearly a Trinity in the Bible, and you can choose to deny it all you want. The fact that you're too busy twisting verses from the Bible says a lot about your approach to these matters; not to mention that you never pay attention to anything that others have pointed out. I, for one, do not ignore anything you argue - I address them, buttressing my points with ancillary verses to show the case for my convictions. You, on the other hand, are fond of ignoring what has been said, evading direct points, denying clear statements, and then twisting Bible verses - how are we to take you any seriously at all?

[pls attack my post directly and don’t bring up other post or verses for this will make us continually move in circles and I am tired of playing that game with you guys]

You're running round in circles on your own. If there be a need to quote ancillary verses to show your fallacy, I won't hesitate to do so. After all said and done, you can continue your running around.

Deep Sight:
^^^ All of this stress simply because you cannot accept that there are Atheists who are good people ? ? ?

See how you make every effort to be dubious? WHERE did I deny any atheist being "good"?

The substance of your discourse here that I challenge is the conceited idea that an atheist (any atheist for that matter) is a "better worshipper of God". It was never at anytime simply a matter of people being "good". Now that you have run yourself aground, you resort to obvious lying to top your art. Well done.

ukotmi:
Please as a xtian,is it not possible to discuss issues in xtianity without hurling insults and abuses? I wonder whether we are walking in love or trying to show off our knowledge?

Love in Christianity will point out what is dubious in clear terms. There is no need for anyone who seeks that 'love' to deliberately be twisting God's Word, and that is why such behaviour should be challenged without treating the matter with kids glove (Eph. 5:11).

Joagbaje:
with your insults and abuses,You are are as childish as ever, I wont borther to respond to you again .
Advise to you , let InesQo teach you how to discuss in a forum , I have great respect for his mature discussion yesterday.

I notice when your gimmicks and lust for money is being exposed, you scream that you're being insulted. You've tried that trick before and I let it pass. This time you won't get away with it.

Ignoring your own insult of 'you are as childish as ever', please address the questions. Or simply own up on your sleight of hand - it has never paid you to try deceiving the public.

Joagbaje:

Luke 8:2 (God's Word Translation)
Also,some women were with him. They had been cured from evil spirits and various illnesses. These women were Mary, also called Madgalene, from whom seven demons had gone out, (3) Joanna, whose husband Chuza was Herod's administrator,Susanna; and many other women. They provided financial support for Jesus and his disciples.

And what about the same verses from the Amplified??

Luke 8:2-3, Amplified:
²And also some women who had been cured of evil spirits and diseases: Mary, called Magdalene, from whom seven demons had been expelled; ³And Joanna, the wife of Chuza, Herod's household manager; and Susanna; and many others, who ministered to and provided for Him and them out of their property and personal belongings.

So, why is it that you're more inclined to paraphrased versions that seem to support your lust for money?

Joagbaje:
huparchonta: is used in generic terms for giving; either financial or material. This is not an issue any way. several translations gave it to either way. But primarily financial, and if materials, it should be something portable enough to take and sell in exchange for money such as gold, necklace,precious and things which was common in their days,

(1) In the first place, anyone who's seeking the gold, necklace and precious belongings of other people in order to do the work of the ministry is a thief. See 3 John 1:7 - is that example of Christian ministers what you read about taking people's gold, necklace and precious things? Paul could say, "I have coveted no man's silver, or gold, or apparel" (Acts 20:33) - and does your recommendation sound similar, huh?

(2) How many places in the New Testament did you read that the Greek word 'huparchonta' (̔πάρχοντα) was "primarily financial"?!? I have tried to check, and I'm checking again - it refers to "possession" (the goods and property that people possess), and not money. If you find one single verse that indicates it is "primarily financial", please post it. I can guarantee you that the paraphrased version (God's Word translation) is misleading - and that prolly explains why you were happy to quote it.

Joagbaje:
That was why peter could ask for the woman's perfume to be sold.

Sorry, sir - it was not Peter that asked for the perfume to be sold; rather, it was your predecessor JUDAS the thief who piped up about such merchandising in John 12:3-6 ~~

[list][quote author=John's Gospel]Then took Mary a pound of ointment of spikenard, very costly, and anointed the feet of Jesus, and wiped his feet with her hair: and the house was filled with the odour of the ointment. Then saith one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, Simon's son, which should betray him, Why was not this ointment sold for three hundred pence, and given to the poor? This he said, not that he cared for the poor; but because he was a thief, and had the bag, and bare what was put therein.[/quote][/list]

Are you following in the steps of your predecessor, Judas? I guess that if there ever was any WOF expounder, it was Judas. Well done, Joagbaje.

Deep Sight:
Ok! Enjoy ya hypostasis!

No worries. As long as you mind your own business when it comes to Christians, there'd be no need for me to recommend any 'diagnosis' for you.

^^Ditto, DeepSight.

Deep Sight:
I will NOT oblige this request -

The only reason you would not oblige it, is because your OOI is a piece of fiction that never even impressed you in the first place. You have lied so many times with mathematical suicidal 'prose' in your attempt to hoodwink Nairalanders on your OOI, tried so many other gimmicks, stolen concepts for your rogue religion, and now came here to try and steal some concepts from Buddhism .[color=Black].[/color]. nothing has worked for you. Is it any wonder you're a frustrated, gallivanting jerk? Go about and open another thread on another religion so you can steal from them to patch up your OOI rogue religion that has long disappeared into its doomed super blackhole.

Deep Sight:
Where in the beatitudes does it say anything about acknowledgement?

At all events what is acknowledgment?

'God' - are you so blind you didn't see 'God' emboldened twice over in the quote?  Do you forget so easily that in your thread on your deism, Krayola's chart pointed out the same thing, that the ethics of the theist is grounded in 'GOD', that of the atheist is grounded in 'man', and that of the deist is grounded in 'nature'? Dolt.

The man who screams praises to God in Church every sunday does not necessarily acknowldge God any more than the Atheist who is committed to Charity and love of his fellowman.

The Bible shows that there are hypocrites who go about claiming to worship or acknowledge God in their live[color=Black]s (T[/color]itus 1:16) - so no biggy there. On the other hand, ask an informed atheist and he/she would tell you they live their lives consciously ruling out any appeal to 'God'. So your fallacy of trying to dragoon and hoodwink the atheist into "better worshippers" of God is factually circular and illiterate.

So far as the definition of "Christian" is " Christ-Like" - then the latter might actually be more Christian than the former.

Hahahaha!! You are singing a soprano that won't sell!   Where are the atheists or Buddhists for Christ? Please show me!

Deep Sight:
I will NOT oblige this request -

[size=14pt]Of course you will NOT![/size]  

Are you not the same conceited fellow who ignores the answers offered to your cacophony and then turn back to whine that others are not addressing your complaints? You don't fail to amuse me, no - never. . . after all your empty charade.

Because i am all too aware that the ONLY further definition that will satisfy you is a definition that states that God is an entity that has a Jewish son called Jesus and that that same Jesus is the same Almighty God and that he died for my sins.

Which demonstrates you're a hypocrite and a consummate schmuck. That's a 'diagnosis', by the way. Did I not state categorically in post #23 that "I've noted earlier that worldviews have very diverse and different denotations of the term 'God' (as in the case of Buddhism)"?? Did that suggest to you in anyway that no worldview has any right to define 'God' howsoever they choose within their own matrix? Not only are you a conceited liar, you bore me with you heinous theatricals.

And in this you farcically imagine that all commonsense is thereby contained and resolved.

YOU are a clown.

False - I did no such thing. To insist I did is to fall flat on your face on your own duplicity. It was because I wanted to make sense about your drama, that was why I carefully and several times pointed to SPECIFICS - which you have forever run away from!

I am not inclined towards such spiritual and theological nonsense.

Ah, you never were able to handle it, nor are you able to think at all. I never was hopeful that you would address that question, because you are more of a cowardly hypocrite than anything else.

Deep Sight:
I am surprised you do not see clearly within your own post tht the pure in heart, as well as the meek and the lovers of righteousness are the folks who will be acceptable to God, regardless of whether they know of his existence or not!

I am sure you failed to see that Christ was not predicating His statements on evasive cognisance as you want to force yourself to believe. His statements in those verses are connected and founded. It does not just stand as "pure in heart" - but that the pure in heart shall see God. It does not just stand as "righteosuness", but that the peacemakers shall be called the children of God.

In Biblical theology, "peace" is given a particular sense rather than a general sense - an example is in John 14:27 ('My peace .[color=Black].[/color]. not as the world'). So, here it is not a matter of any resemblance will do, but of specifics. To ignore these issues is why you are too busy dribbling around and trying to fool yourself on simple issues.

This is clearly indicated in scripture when Jesus says that he will turn back those who "know" him claiming to have worked miracles in his name. . . depart from me. . . . i know thee not. . . .whreas he would accept those who may be of a differnet world view but practice kindness of heart.

I laugh in supersonic boom.   You're known for twisting the words of Christ, so no surprises there. The only reason why some would be denied by Christ is because they qualified themselves as workers of iniquity who would not do the Father's will (Matt. 7:21-23) - it was a conscious choice they made! Now where does the Buddhist acknowledge the Father in their theology?!?

You are just here dribbling into statements that you never for once tried to quote directly or even consider their context - any "resemblance" for you will do the magic, as long as you try to blow smoke in people's faces.

Deep Sight:
The Creator of all Existence.

I'm sorry, that is vague. There are so many worldviews that could make such simplistic quips, but it is not an identity. Do you care to give us an identity of your 'God'?

Purist:
The claim that deism is "not a shadow" of theism is at best, ridiculous.

They are not the same. To claim they are is factually demented.

Let me ask you, DeepSight: what exactly is your 'God'?