₦airaland Forum

Image123:
viaro
Abeg easy on that Deep S guy o! easy.

Hehe[color=Black].[/color][color=Black].[/color]. I haven't even started on him yet.

Viaro, tell me. That Arius guy, was he talking literally? You know, we need to be sure on why one will make such misguided, unguarded utterances.

What can anyone say on his behalf? The controversies surrounding his name even to this day are such a laugh. Arius troubled himself with his own cacophony as all heretics always do. When DeepSight sought to bail out of his confusion by appealing to Arianism, I took him up on it and requested he addressed just one point I left him - up to this day he has not bothered obliging.

Funnier still is that even after appealing to Arianism, DeepSight himself was stupified at Arius' cacophony and then remarked: 'Who in history has ever perceived "Perfect God" as having a beginnning - by reason of having been "begotten"?'  That is one of the highlights I'd been looking forward to Arius' apprentices to reconcile - just how could "PERFECT GOD" have had any beginning when Arius himself asserted (see the Ecole Initiative):

        *  that Christ subsisted before time and before ages

        *  that Christ subsisted as PERFECT GOD

        *  that Christ does not derive His subsistence from any matter

        *  that Christ had subsisted by his own will and counsel

        *  that Christ was of the non-existent

        *  that Christ is neither part of God, nor of any essential being

The same Arius noted that "God is without beginning" - and this despite the fact that he asserted that Christ subsisted by His own will and counsel before time and before ages as "PERFECT GOD". I have long waited for the apprentices of Arianism on Nairaland to please show us the difference between ~

         (a)  'God is without beginning'

                                and

         (b)  Christ who by His own will and counsel had subsisted as 'perfect God'
               before time and before ages, and not deriving His subsistence from any matter??

Just what is the difference between 'God has no beginning' and Christ susbsisted as 'perfect God'??

It so happens that anytime this issue is brought up (on Nairaland and elsewhere), Arius' disciples who deny the Deity of Christ have never been able to defend their discombobulation on the fact that Arius referred to Christ as "perfect God".  Perhaps this was why InesQor saw the 'plain nonsense' of these deniers when I noted that "the question of whether He is 'Almighty God' is quite a subterfuge". How someone in any literal sense of the word 'sanity' would yet deny the Deity of Christ after asserting that He is PERFECT GOD, is just beyond me.

Deep Sight:
How $%&!!?@*?!!!! canyou be to directly contradict the words of your rabbi -

He says God is greater.

You say they are equal.

What's happening?

Whatever. I see you're desperately frustrated at this point. Desperately. Jesus Christ claimed equal worship with the Father in John 5:23, and that is what viaro will comply with. Since there's nothing left for you to steal from here to add to your rogue religion, you could either continue your masquerade dance, or yet display more of your desperation. Your world.

InesQor:
@TrueSeeker: Let me chip in something here for viaro. The question of being God but not Almighty God is subterfuge because God == Almighty God. Trying to distinguish between God and Almighty God is just plain nonsense. Who is God if not Almighty? 

Hahaha[color=Black].[/color][color=Black].[/color][color=Black].[/color] do you want these deniers to faint? I was only trying to engage them in very simple terms that they can follow, but it seems you're not going to entertain their rubbish anymore!

This whole scenario reminds me (I keep repeating) of Arius of Alexander. I mean, how illiterate could any living being be to assert that Christ the Son of God has subsisted before ages and before time as "perfect God" and yet yapping that Jesus is not 'God'?

TrueSeeker:
@viaro
Please make sure you know it.

I don't know - and neither do you. Anything you may rush to cite is mere conjecture - and my own conjecture is as good as yours for denying it. So be content that I have only allowed for simple discussion by not appealing to that verse. Rather, I have cited a more direct verse to show the relationship on the basis of worship - John 5:23 - which I don't see any of you deniers ever calmly discussing.

So you are now saying that Jesus is not Almighty God, but he is a God or more accurately godlike, Case closed. I agree with you. Because he is not equal to his father.

Please don't put words in my mouth, thank you. I have simply maintained that Jesus is God - not some idea of "godlike" translation which the NW argues without scholarship. On the other hand, I have said that "the question of whether He is 'Almighty God' is quite a subterfuge". It pays to read what I have said and not do what the JW are known for - duplicity.

In addition, could I remind you of the post I made earlier in response to you in post #223? Please see it again - it seems that you're deliberately ignoring my answers so you could dribble in your own fantasies into my replies. I'd appreciate very much that you don't misquote or misrepresent me, thanks.

toba:
thats exactly what i told u about d dude&atheists in general.They av no logical proof of their claim of Gods non existence.Chating with atheists makes no sense&thats what d dude has displayed on this thread.He couldnt point out an evidence showing Gods non existence.

Well, please forgive me, my brother. I made a terrible mistake thinking he would be different and reasonable, since not all atheists are stereotypical of most others (I've spoken with quite a few who're sensible). I just regret not having listened to you guys earlier, even after odunni remarked about the same thing. 

sonofallah:
Jesus died, at the age of 2, killed by the soldiers of Herod, as he sought to remove all threats to his position.

Where does it say that Jesus was killed at the age of 2 by the soldiers of Herod?

You this 'son of Allah', it seems your 'shilly-shallying' has been busy! Keep it up!

sonofallah:
Worshippers of Dead-Gods, please, answer my question and stop shilly-shallying.

What is 'shilly-shallying'?

Just tell us since when the Allah of Islam started having a 'son' - then we can put your 'shilly-shallying' in gear to be 'discussed'.

TrueSeeker:
Professor Benjamin Kedar, a Professor of History and Director of the Institute for Advanced Studies at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, said in 1989: "In my linguistic research in connection with the Hebrew Bible and translations, I often refer to the English edition of what is known as the New World Translation. In so doing, I find my feeling repeatedly confirmed that this work reflects an honest endeavor to achieve an understanding of the text that is as accurate as possible."

Edgar J. Goodspeed, translator of the New Testament in An American Translation, wrote in a letter to the Watch Tower Society: "I am interested in the mission work of your people, and its world wide scope, and much pleased with the free, frank and vigorous translation. It exhibits a vast array of sound serious learning, as I can testify."

Religion writer and editor Alexander Thomson said of the NWT: "The translation is evidently the work of skilled and clever scholars, who have sought to bring out as much of the true sense of the Greek text as the English language is capable of expressing. ,  We heartily recommend the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures, published in 1950 by the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society."

Hehe. .  seems like I gave you some homework - that's good, to know it kpt you busy.

Anyhow, people often run to sources here and there on the net without seeking to engage in critical reasoning for themselves. If you like to make such citations, maybe the following will be helpful as well ~

[list]Ron Rhodes in his book "The 10 Most Important Things You Can Say to a Jehovah's Witness":[/list]

[list][li]Dr. Julius Mantey, author of A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, calls the New World Translation "a shocking mistranslation." (Julius R. Mantey, cited in Erich and Jean Grieshaber, Expose of Jehovah's Witnesses(Tyler:Jean Books, 1982), p.30)[/li][/list]

[list][li]Dr. Bruce M. Metzger, late professor of New Testament at Princeton University, calls the New World Translation "a frightful mistranslation," "erroneous," "pernicious," and "reprehensible."(Bruce Metzger, Theology Today, April 1953.)[/li][/list]

[list][li]Dr. William Barclay asserted that "the deliberate distortion of truth by this sect is seen in their New Testament translation, It is abundantly clear that a sect which can translate the New Testament like that is intellectually dishonest." (William Barclay, The Expository Times, November 1953.)[/li][/list]

[list][li]Dr. Robert Countess, who wrote a doctoral dissertation on the Greek of the New World Translation, concluded that the translation "has been sharply unsuccessful in keeping doctrinal considerations from influencing the actual translation, It must be viewed as a radically biased piece of work. At some points it is actually dishonest. At others it is neither modern nor scholarly." (Robert H Countess, The Jehovah's Witness New Testament (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1982), p.91.)[/li][/list]

Do you want more? Perhaps you quite didn't want to consider others on their scholarly opinions of the NWT? Why so?

These are just few among many who has seen NW as a good translation. Unlike your prefer translations who are bending the rule to put Jesus into a place he never taught of, namely claiming "equality with God"

Actually, these translations which I cited are not bending the rules. The Jehovah Witnesses scholarship has been found wanting on many fronts - never mind that the translators tried to deceive the world about their true identities and educational background. What would have been responsible for such irresponsible behaviour? If you want more facts to be reposted here from various sources, I could oblige you quite simply.

At least we have a genuine translation we can use to refute your claim, with reasonableness.

And you haven't done so? Why the delay? using what - the NWT?? Oh please - just come forward and let's remove all your cosmetic boasts about that and see what remains! You cannot be using a spurious translation to refute any claim, which prolly explains why you didn't even attempt to.

I do not have any religious prejudice to any group or people. If you do that is your choice.

Did I display such a prejudice against your own group that you didn't see what you have said about others? Please pass. It is this kind of pretentious talk from folks like you that make me shake my head in pity on your behalf.

But tell me why did some translators included this statement in 1 John 5:7, "the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one" You can see the extent which trinitarians can go to add to bible in order to support their believe.

I don't know. I have not used 1 John 5:7 to argue anything with you; and even where that does not occur in the body of my arguments, it changes nothing. Do I suspect you quickly appealed to that as a quick distraction, huh?

If I sense the truth in your argument I will not hesitate to accept it. But on this issue of Jesus Christ being almighty God you are yet to convince me.

My consistent position is that Jesus is God and because He is God that is the reason He is to be worshipped. The question of "Almighty" is qite a subterfuge - I said so before now. Rather, I have simply maintained that Jesus is God.

"Make sure of all things and hold on to what is fine" 1 Thessalonians. 5: 21

Which is why you need to "hold on to what is good" - those NW apologists whose quotes you've been waving in our face are just not going to help you one bit, trust me.

Deep Sight:
Wow. All this just because the essentials of your religion are pointed out -

Viz:


SET 1. - Christianity

A. God Exists.

B. He has Jewish Son

C. The Jewish Son was born by a woman who did not copulate prior to that

D. The Jewish son is God

E. The Jewish son was judicially sentenced and murdered by the Romans

F. That murder results in mankind being redeemed - if they will embrace the Jewish son

G. Those who do not embrace the Jewish son will go to a place of Torment called Hell

Looks silly, don't it?

And where is your logic in all that? Repeating yourself after having been addressed is quite a childish game to play - and I don't really have any hopes you would act grown up. So enjoy.

thehomer:
You still did not answer any of the questions I asked. I asked what "non-information" was because our definitions may be different. This would have led to some understanding but you just said information could not arise from it. Well what is it?

And you've simply not answered any of my questions despite the fact that I answered several of yours.
So good luck to you and your belief in the belief of a Christian miracle working physical and metaphysical God.

I have addressed so many of your assertions in this thread. It is time you started addressing questions from others. Not once in countless repetitions have you obliged the one request I made; and if you cannot do so, I won't take any notice of your calls to discuss this subject until you do so.

toba:
Enough deepsight&viaro pls show some respect&lets maintain d topic of discussion

I am willing to do so if DeepSight can learn to respect himself. If he cannot, I won't take trash from him. Enough of his idiocy.

Deep Sight:
Hey, why the long story? Did i tell you i was into propsitional logic? Did i tell you i was using such?

Are you BLIND? Did I not clearly mention "propositional logic" in my reply to toba before you vroomed into a discourse that was no concern of yours? Next time come with the same idiocy and then ask in hindsight what was going on - you've never done anything better anyways.

You made a simple statement. You stated that Deism is a laugh in serious discourses.

I did - and if you were blind, it is little wonder that you failed to consider what was going on before you entered with your bragado.

I set out the essentials of Christianity and the essentials of Deism.

Which was a fallacy - and I explained how. Want me to repost it or you want to again affirm you're too blind to see it?

I left it at that for peeps to judge which worldview looked more ridiculous.

I spared you on that but only set it plainly for anyone to see why your adventures are quite misplaced. What warranted all that silliness from you following my reply to toba? Just what? You reply without your thinking cap and you get what comes to you. Next time you want to be such an idiot, pick someone else that will easily allow you get away with your duplicity.

Was that too much for you to handle?

Did it look like I could not handle my subject?  

Deep Sight:
Yep. . .10 pages and running. . . and beyond stating that it's a metaphysical subject, not a single tot has he offered. . .that's his style, bear with him - long talk, big grammar and zero substance. Not so much as ONE SINGLE LOGICAL ARGUMENT for God's existence.

Rabid twerps like you just jump to conclusions where they have never ever first considered what discussions have been held previously. Not even here in your bragado have you tried to show any understanding of any point of philosophy. NONE. I actually sympathise with you plight . . .  because the bold in your quote is precisely what happens when you try to dribble and hoodwink the public reader on your deistic OOI.

Where have you ever proffered any sensible substance for your own OOI after several pages and running from thread to thread on the same subject?  Of course, there's none - rather, you only post long redundancies between collapsible "singularities". . to mathematically suicidal "infinities". . . to "nothingness" craftily and magically becoming "somethingness". Dude, please stay on . . you're the best laugh I ever came across!

thehomer:
@ viaro
So please tell me what "non-information" is with examples.

Since you understand your subject so well, what are your postulates about God other than his being a metaphysical entity.

You're also yet to tell us what your metaphysical God does here on earth.
Before you start speaking of reducing him to the physical, you should remember that he reduced himself to the physical by e.g performing miracles, commissioning people to write his "words" and allowing so many inconsistencies in his "words".

And you're yet to present your evidence whether by logic or metaphysics or any other means.

Hello thehomer,

I'm sorry that your discussion has not yielded any fruit and that was why I let you be. Instead of going round in circles between propositions, I would rather discuss with others and grasp some substance from theirs.

If, on the other hand you would oblige me my request, I would be most glad to engage you. I cannot be repeating my request and only coming back to see your non-compliance.

As for the information bit, I can't think of information coming from non-information. Since you were quick to shout a confident "yes" to toba's question, I took you up on that just out of interest to see how you come up with any - ANY - such examples for your affirmation. So far, all the examples you have proffered have not stood for your own arguments, I'm afraid.

So, when and as you may oblige me my request, then I shall be glad to further this discussion with you.

Cheers.

Deep Sight:
Really? What would you consider "serious?"

Let's look at two sets of beliefs; and see which emerges as more "Serious"

SET 1. - Christianity

A. God Exists.

B. He has  Jewish Son

C. The Jewish Son was born by a woman who did not copulate prior to that

D. The Jewish son is God

E. The Jewish son was judicially sentenced and murdered by the Romans

F. That murder results in mankind being redeemed - if they will embrace the Jewish son

G. Those who do not embrace the Jewish son will go to a place of Torment called Hell

SET 2. - Deism

A. God Exists.

B. God is the Supreme Deity and created all that exists.

C. The purposes of God can be discerned from his creation – nature.

D. Reason and rationalism are useful tools in understanding existence

E. The purpose of creation is Harmony.

So! I leave it to the objective reader to determine which worldview looks “Serious!”

Dude, this thread is not about deism. There is a thread you opened on your deism - you should have posted it there and spew all the garbage you wanted to. Even here, your postulations are quite skewed when it comes to epistemic logic: that was what I wanted you to sort out.

Let me sort a the basic nature of propositional logic by reminding you of what I stated earlier:

         *  You have first to determine the kind of proposition made;
         *  and then determine what type of approach to apply in 'logical proof',
         *  and then see which side of the proposition is saying what
         *  before drawing any inferences or conclusions.

Of course, you did not even consider your laughable comparison - it could hardly stand to make a pass mark in any introductory class for logic. To jumble anything together and make them elements of 'propositional logic' is quite simply the biggest laugh going.

So, with particular examples to show whether or not you have the faintest clue of propositional logic in philosophy, let's outline just two from what you compared:

  A: God Exists.

This is a basic question on 'universals' - so it does not matter which particular worldview questions that proposition as a metaphysical question. Whether deism, theism, pantheism, etc., it is a proposition of a 'universal' rather than a comparison of charts on particular modes of beliefs or systems of beliefs. This is the reason why your bragado about epistemic logic is a fantasy - an absolute laugh indeed. You just don't have a clue about the basics of logic and are just yapping about.


  B:  God is the Supreme Deity and created all that exists.

Is that an "exclusive" of deism? You make me laugh. What propositional logic is being postulated in 'B' above - that deism lays claim to 'B' but Christianity does not? You really need to go see a psychiatrist.

Besides, the question is not between 'deism' and Christianity. Even if we allow for your comparison, you have posited two elementals that are on a logical fallacy. Christianity is one type of theism; and deism is not a 'type' of the deistic worldview (such as DeepSight's deism, luciferan deism, dark deism, or pandeism). . . unless you wnat to deny there are different types of deism.

You actually have no background understanding of logic, dude. It might help if you tried to school up a bit before you display any bragado and become a further laugh.

nuclearboy:
Thank you Viaro. Actually, the guy didn't have any sons but he had 3 daughters named idiot, itchy-fingers and round-heels. unfortunately for him, some arabs felt that was embarrassing to him and so abrogated the verses that specified these three.

^^ hehe.
@commander nuclearboy, I almost forgot that one. The 'son of allah' should be able to tell us what happened to his three sisters and how they must have felt about being dropped from their daddy's book. Lol. . . 'discuss'.

Deep Sight:
^^^ The foregoing would not be useful if the "Shade" referred to is a specific human being.

Your remark is absolutely irrelevant, because no one here is talking about "a specific human being". What toba has posited was clear: "If i said shade is a girl", and that is a simple propositional statement in epistemic logic. You only react suddenly without prior thought and end up displaying irrelevance to what has gone before. Please try to read carefully and consider issues before you respond. Thanks.

In the context of this debate the "God" referred to is specific and has certain pre-defined attributes E.g: Omniscience, omnipotence, pre and post existence (Eternal) etc.

It is not "specific" merely by attributes. For any number of 'gods' (which is not a specific 'God') could also be said to have those 'certain predefined attributes' - and yet we know that the worldviews espousing such 'god(s)/God'  are not intoning any specific deity that answers to ALL. This is where the problem of 'universals' come up, and that is why the informed atheists generally asks the question: "which one of the millions of gods should we then focus on?" It doesn't matter that any number of gods out of the millions is/are given any pre-defined attributes - for atheism, the question goes deeper than that. . . much more deeper than that.

This propositional logic would therefore be of no use in terms of this discourse.

You absolutely have no understanding in the faintest about what "propositional logic" is. Go and find out - it may help.

Religion has defined God in terms of perceptions historically and culturally passed down.

Which 'religion'? Which 'God' has been defined? Not all worldviews deem themselves to be a 'religion'; and not all worldviews use the term 'God' in the same reference to mean the same thing. Your postulations are far too broad and have no specifics.

In my view it is this definition of "God" and particularly the need, if any, to "worship" it, that the atheist validly demands proof of.

No. Thrice remakably wrong. Any atheist here may nod his/her head just to amuse you on that statement; but like I said earlier, "for atheism, the question goes deeper than that". The question of worship is one of the least concerns of an atheist. There are bigger questions that the atheist asks today: it is not merely about definitions here and there, but about the ultimate question of existence. 'How do we know that God exists' is the core question - and rather not such questions as 'what is the definition of God'? There are atheists to whom the word 'god' is no problem at all, for in their own philosophy of ideas they use the word loosely. The example of Einstein who appeals to Spinoza's 'god' is a ready reference: it simple comes down to god being nature.

Because if God were simply stated to be "The universe" (poor, in my opinion) or "whatever caused things to exist" (such as an impersonal principle of duality spawning outwards in those terms to create positive and negative quantities) - and the requirement to "bow down" and worship was thereby eliminated: then i doubt that any atheist would demand proof for such.

That is simply because the postulations of any such 'impersonal principle' would be meaningless to the atheistic mind. The 'impersonal principle' could be any reference to any number of naturalistic principle without reference to the question of 'God' or 'worship'.

But when you define God as an Old Man sitting in the sky who has a Jewish son called Jesus (who is also God), and who delights in a painful and unjust world or who will send people to hell for not belonging to a particular religion then I stand with the Atheist in stating clearly that no such God exists and that this can only be a contrivance of the imagination or st.upidity of mankind.

Perhaps your god 'delights' in such a painful world - and that is why deism is quite a laugh in serious discourses.

In short, Russell's Tea pot is about as likely as such a God; and you darn better produce the proof if you expect people to believe in such tall tales.

lol, when someone like you could postulate Russell's teapot to be 'as likely as such a God', you inadvertently knock out any refernece to your own worldview. None of the appealer's to Russell's teapot ever believe in its existence - NONE. That is why your own proof for your own OOI falls within the purview of such a sterile fallacy. If you stand face to face to posit anything for your own 'god'  what 'proof' would you give other than a mathematically suicidal tale? I would be very interested in that proof of yours - without appeal to anyone else. Stand and let's talk about that.

Though frankly people have believed worse.

Yes, if you consider your OOI.

toba:
Viaro we re saying samething.I mean as a theist i must provide proof for my theism&an atheist must do same simple.

Beautiful. That's just it.

Without wanting to be tedious, this line in yours is an example of what I mean by the need for us to 'determine the kind of postulations and claims that are being made' ~

If i said shade is a girl & u say shade is not.The 2 of us must prove our contradictory statements with facts to a logical point

I agree only in part. Let's arrange them again:

       Proposition: what gender is 'Shade'?
       (a)  +ive:  {Shade is a girl}
       (b)  -ive:   {Shade is not a girl}

But here is the problem in 'universals': there's a third position that we have to consider ~

       Proposition: what gender is 'Shade'?
       (a)  + :   {Shade is a girl}
       (b)  -  :   {Shade is not a girl}
       (c)  ¬  :   {Shade is a boy}

What has happened? Simple: the example above all tend to be argued on unnecessary 'discreets'; that is, they have narrowed the elements around 'Shade' as if their own particular values for 'Shade' are "the only possible positions" to take. Initially, neither (a) nor (b) thought that (c) was also possible - but at the end of the day, there's another position (d) that says ~

      "both (a) and (c) are correct without necessarily implying that (b) is wrong".

Phew. Steady on now. . . let me show you why (d) is more sensible.

The proposition (d) has tried to consider all positions [(a) and (b) and (c) for all possible values of 'Shade']. After doing so, he (d) recognizes that within certain "domains", (a) could be correct; and within another "domain", (c) is also correct. Now, why is (b) not necessarily wrong? Simple: it all depends on which "domain" (b) is referring to between (a) and (c).

So, let me set them in simple terms:

           (a) is correct for {Shade is a girl} if the 'domain' is in the Nigerian context

           (c) is correct for {Shade is a boy} if the 'domain' is in the American (USA) context

now  (b) could be correct and wrong at the same time!

How is that possible for (b)?? Thanks for asking.   Here's how:

        iff (b) has reference within the 'domain' of (a), then (b) may be wrong!

        iff (b) has reference within the 'domain' of (c), then (b) may be correct!

Why is this so? Well, it is because "Shade" has reference as a name for girls in Nigeria; but the same "Shade" has reference as a name for boys in the USA! So which ever side (b) may have been referring to, it will determine where the evaluation stands for the same (b).

As regards the positing that "Shade" is a boy's name in the USA, please see the website 'NamePlayground' - it gives this summary:

             Shade is represented in the Top 1000 exclusively as a boys' name.
             Total* Population in Top 1000: 41 (100.00% male, 0.00% female)
             . . . . . . . . . . . . .
             Popularity of the name Shade for Girls
             — None. —

So, as you can see, the name "Shade" has absolutely no values as a girl's name in the context of the American culture; whereas, it is "exclusively" used as a boy's name.


So, toba. . . that is the nature of 'propositional logic'. One cannot just have two "absolutes" of a positive or negative claim as regards one proposition. No. These are the steps:

          *  You have first to determine the kind of proposition made;
          *  and then determine what type of approach to apply in 'logical proof',
          *  and then see which side of the proposition is saying what
          *  before drawing any inferences or conclusions.

In your example of "Shade", we first have to ask: is it a question on "universals"? And what we have found is that ~

        - both (a) and (c) and (d) are all correct;

        - but (b) may be both correct and wrong at the same time
          as long as we determine which domain it applies.

I hope this would prove helpful.

sonofallah:
Son Of Allah

Does the Islamic 'Allah' have any 'son'? Discuss.

toba:
Ok. Viaro.Since we accept objectivity as 'non bias& non subjective', the onus of proof still lies with d claimer/counter claimer to objectivly&logically back up the claim/counter claim with evidence&relevant examples naturally,scientifically or supernaturally in order to convince d non deluded souls paying attention to what is being said.

I like the way you put it, but that may present us with a whole range of problems that will take us nowhere.

You see, in presenting 'proofs' of any kind, one has first to determine the kind of postulations and claims that are being made. Either way, depending on the kinds of claims that are being made, each claimant is required to provide 'proof'.

Take an example:
(a)  the universe had a beginning
(b)  the universe had no beginning

The burden rests on either party to proffer 'proof' for what they claim - in this case, a 'universal' question. Consider that neither claimants for (a) or (b) were at the "beginning" of the Universe; nor do they know the extent of the Universe - but then, each one is responsible to proffer 'proof' for what they have claimed.

While at it, other properties will be involved, such as would define the domain and perimeters of their 'proofs'. Examples:

(a)    did the universe create itself in the 'beginning'?
(b)    was there ever a 'beginning'?
(c)     why is there a 'beginning' at all?
(d)    what happened at that particular 'beginning'?
(e)     how do we 'explain' the events from any particular 'beginning'
         . . . . etc.

These questions are not useless in themselves, for they help to contextualise the propositions between either claims.

That is only an example, and does not establish anything. However, the implications of that example is that either way, the claimants are each responsible to proffer proof for whatever claims they have made between (a) and (b).

TrueSeeker:
@viaro
That is your own problem, as far as I'm concerned I do not have any problem with any religion so far they are telling the truth. I as the Trueseeker only seek for where the truth can be found, a lot of scholar do consult NW for clarification and that is not a sin so far it is in accord with the revealed truth, Namely: God is one, God is greater than Jesus, Jesus is Son of God, Jesus is the Messiah and not equal with is father.

Please mention specific scholars who are part of "a lot of scholar(s)" consulting the NW for "clarification". You think you can just come here and blow smoke in our eyes as if we don't know what scholars of repute do with the NW?? Oh please!

It is a known fact that KJ has a lot of grave errors, so I don't constrained my self to any Bible translation, I use all, most especially those who are available online.

Hahaha! Dude, as far as translations go, there is not a single translation that is entirely free from errors. So that appeal is cosmetic at best. The NW has its own errors as well - loads of errors for which it is regarded as a spurious 'translation' by scholars of repute. Ask, and I'll point you to quite a handful of citations.

I only point to it to reveal the error in your reference to Heb 1:8, which is alien to the context, and NW conform with that context, likewise at Philippians 2:6.

The NW 'translation' is quite erratic - I knew you would somehow return with such excuses, and that was why I gave you reasons for the precise reading of those verses. Deny them if you please and are able to do so: but the NW is known to have twisted those verses, so live with it.

'But let God be found true, though every man be found a liar, even as it is written: “That you might be proved righteous in your words and might win when you are being judged.”' Romans 3:4

Amen. The translators of the NW have been found liars on many fronts, and God's Word remains true.

Deep Sight:
[quote author=dmxqo link=topic=403867.msg5642851#msg5642851 date=1267963062]Does it really matter? All this doctrines and dogmas. Wat matters in religion is morals and not articles of faith.

Viaro: Note the highlighted? The gentleman was speaking with reference to morals: basically that knowledge of "doctrines and dogmas" is irrelevant. Thus he asked - does it really matter?

Your response -

viaro:
It does matter - absolutely.

Indicates that such knowledge (as distinct from the morals only position) matters!

You thus infer that without such knowledge salvation is impossible.

Logic.[/quote]That is not logic at all, but a fallacy at its elementary level.

(a)     First, none of the discussants (apart from you) in this thread has predicated anyone's salvation upon the claim that people "are expected by God to have an exact understanding of celestial relationships such as the Trinity otherwise they will go to hell". Did anyone make such a claim? Has anyone been talking about 'HELL' in this thread so as to predicate the salvation of any soul upon "an exact understanding" of the Trinity? Of course, you know nobody has ever made any such claims - but I don't know what exactly it is that would drive you to such conceited postures as to make that claim and try to hang it upon me.

(b)    However, if anyone has mentioned 'HELL' in this thread, as far as I remember, it should have been ijele who said: "Think deep. St thomas de Aquinas said that ' Faith without reasoning is hell'" - but if you asked the same ijele, does that sound like the same thing YOU had claimed?

(c)     Yet, the far more interesting thing is that the direct question and answer to thise whole drama of yours has been sorted out much, much earlier in this thread.

[list]First, TrueSeeker had categorically posed this question to all readers: "Does belief in trinity necessary for human salvation?" (sic)[/list]

[list]Second, the direct answer to that was proffered by Image123:[/list]
[list]"Actually, I don't 'argue' doctrine cos though important, it's not pivot to salvation. Like for instance, one doesn't on compulsion need to grasp the virgin birth or even the rapture to be saved. Also, one may be 'aware' on issues like lord's supper, trinity, heaven and hell and still not possess eternal life.
So I want it clear that agreeing with Bible doctrine is not what saves us or condemns us."[/list]

That much we know and very well understand. If I disagreed with Image123's answer to TrueSeeker's question to all, then I would very early had tried to counter the former's answers! But because I absolutely agreed with him, there was no need for me to have posted a contrary view.

(d)    So, coming back to fabricate that wicked deceit that you champion on Nairaland to suggest that people  {"are expected by God to have an exact understanding of celestial relationships such as the Trinity otherwise they will go to hell"} and then seek to force-read that idiocy into my post is a very entertaining idiocy on your part! I have since lost all respect for you on account of your penchant to deliberately misread and misquote posters on Nairaland.

You can now take you conceited 'logic' back to your rogue religion and prosaic OOI, thanks. When dubious souls like you prowl public fora looking for where to vomit you[color=Black]r stup[/color]idity, do you please mind aiming elsewhere and not in an arena where you only show your illiteracy?

Deep Sight:
Do i really really have to spell every inference out for you? Abeg, i dey Dubai and running late for dinner with a real hottie. later.

I don't need you spelling any dramatic and conceited 'inference' you dream up - they are fallacies, and very illiterate and gutlessly shameless at that! Just you take care that 'hottie' does not see your duplicity so she can be your next victim in your stodgy conceit.

toba:
As an atheist u belive theres no God,then go ahead to prove your belief,

That's one of the simplest of things to do in propositional logic. Belief or non-belief in what is called 'universals' is subjective. As such, when someone posits that something does not exist within a domain of certain defined perimeters, then they have proven their postulations as far as that belief is subjective. It does not mean that the direct opposite proposition (that such a thing exists) is wrong - it only means that as far as 'universals' are concerned, the negative claim can indeed be proven within a certain domain.

MyJoe:
Discussants may like to read this.

For an adequate understanding of the trinitarian conception of God, the distinctions among the persons of the Trinity must not become so sharp that there seems to be a plurality of gods, nor may these distinctions be swallowed up in an undifferentiated monism.
. . . .

Thanks, MyJoe. . . saw it from other sources citing Encarta Encyclopedia.

Deep Sight:

Did anyone here say so?

Yes SOMEDODY here said so -:

Question was -

Does it really matter? All this doctrines and dogmas.

YOUR answer:

It does matter - absolutely.

So there!

This was what I referred to:

Deep Sight:
Simple childlike saints (such as non-educated but honest people in Haiti or Rwanda for example) are expected by God to have an exact understanding of celestial relationships such as the Trinity otherwise they will go to hell? ? ? ? ?

Now was that what dmxqo had said or implied?? Why are you such a hypocrite? Nobody (as far as I remember) has said anything about the bold in yours - nobody has ever claimed in this thread that people are expected to "have an exact understanding of celestial relationships such as the Trinity otherwise they will go to hell" - between viaro and dmxqo, who has said that precisely?? You're just one serious hypocrite and a very conceited fundamentalist on Nairaland.

Deep Sight:
Rabid rants? Me? Just read the foregoing quote of yours.

Did either viaro or dmxqo ever claim what you are trying deceitfully to force in our post? Yes, you're a rabid hypocrite - and your fundy adventures have been well captured on marble.

Why are you so obsessed with OOI? Is it at issue in this thread? Why not simply face the issue and explain exactly why Jesus stated the father to be greater than him? Or why he stated that he is NOT omniscient? Deal with these and leave my "faceless illiterate desim" to one side jaare. . .because that is not the subject of this thread, no?

Is it bothering you that your OOI is being mentioed in this thread? Oh please. I am not obsessed with your OOI - it is an illiterate doctrine that has long collapsed, and when you say 'God', we don't want anyone to be confused here lest they assume that you're meaning the same thing as Christians do in the Biblical sense. Just so the uninformed reader does not get hoodwinked by your prosaic OOI which you want to dribble here and there for your rogue religion, we should point out the difference. Whatever it is that you're obsessed with about Jesus Christ, at least we know that your deism has no page to hang your 'god' of OOi on.

What does this conversation tell you, son:

Deep Sight  - "Jesus says that the father is greater than him. Viaro says they are Equal."

Viaro:  - (In response)  - "You deep sight, are illiterate, a hypocrite, your faceless illiterate OOI, shallow sighted. . .$%&£!??!$%&!!!! . . .

Rabid rant?

Yes, rabid rant - because I've made my point and you keep repeating the same idiocy like you never saw my replies, and yet reposting the same lunacy all over the place. Did I not note that you would come back repeating the same thing to confirm your idiocy in this thread? And so you have.  So come back yet again and repeat it in confirmation of your incurable malady. Yes?

toneyb:
You have just displayed your ignorance about things you know absolutely nothing about. If you don't know anything please keep quite and stop displaying your ignorance.

@toneyb, how much of what others know do you know? When atheists make noise the way you do, I feel very sorry for them. If you have no clue what they are saying, just zip it - or you yourself would actually be showing your own ignorance.

Deep Sight:
^^^ Gosh.

Simple childlike saints (such as non-educated but honest people in Haiti or Rwanda for example) are expected by God to have an exact understanding of celestial relationships such as the Trinity otherwise they will go to hell? ? ? ? ?

Did anyone here say so? You see why you're a hideous arroga[color=Black]nt i[/color]diot? Why do you go about trying to force words into other people's posts?

Let me ask you: where is your OOI? What does it do for you? How do you worship it? Of what relevance is your OOI to the Haitians or the Rwandans? What has it ever conveyed to anyone here on Nairaland, the Haitians (if they ever heard of such idiocy) or the Rwandans (if they would not laugh loudly at the idea)? Where is your celestial OOI that has continued to be a source of your mathematical suicide and its own prosaic redundancy? Do you miss very much that no one else but you in your 'shallow sight' have forever cried boohoo for your OOI and yet never made any sense at your very best to impress yourself? We know there are other deists on Nairaland and beyond here - but where have they ever tried to steady this faceless OOI of your deism??

DeepSight, your rabid rants are not helping you - that much should be clear by now. It's not about viaro, at least you were doing fine fooling yourself around Nairaland until I joined the forum. So, you can indeed show your duplicity and all else . . . afterall, you've ever tried to steal from all worldviews for your rogue religion.

Ya gotta luuuuuuuuuv these Christians.

You shouldn't be disturbed about that if your OOI has no love to show you for all your propaganda. You must terribly miss 'it'.

dmxqo:
Does it really matter? All this doctrines and dogmas. Wat matters in religion is morals and not articles of faith. So, wateva way the deity exists it shouldnt be a matter of human enquiry.

It does matter - absolutely. If it doesn't matter, I guess you can bow down to a faceless illiterate OOI that even its propagandist cannot explicate, no? That is why he was waiting for someone to come up and say that it doesn't matter - since his rogue religion absolutely does not matter.

mabell:
the first question is for joagbaje to answer but if you want my opinion, Jesus had not died when he showed them that prayer and the holy spirit had not been given. but jesus told them that the holy spirit would lead them to all truth. mark you the church had not being born by that time, it was the holy ghost that had to teach them to pray. rigt now we pray by the power of the holy ghost. can you go before a demon possed person or a sick person and say lord may your wll be done. will God heal him?

Even after the death, resurrection and ascension of Jesus Christ, Christians filled with the Holy Spirit prayed according to God's will and taught others to do the same:

1 John 5:14
And this is the confidence that we have in him, that,
if we ask any thing according to his will, he heareth us.

What 'spirit' will deny what is taught in Scripture and committed to the Church? Is it not "another spirit" as we were warned by the apostle (2 Cor. 11:4)?

It seems that the WOF bug has done a thorough job with you guys so that you can't reason anymore from God's Word.

Joagbaje:
[quote author=viaro link=topic=408368.msg5640155#msg5640155 date=1267902443]@Joabgaje, a few questions:

(a) what is the meaning of "only begotten" in reference to Jesus Christ?

(b) what is the meaning of "firstbegotten" in reference to Jesus Christ?

(c) do you find anyone else described as "only begotten" in the same way as Jesus is?

(d) do the terms "only begotten" and "firstbegotten" mean the same things to you?

(e) when was Jesus Christ called "the only begotten" - before or after His resurrection?

If you can answer these simple questions, then your problem will come to light. If you cannot, then perhaps your choice is to remain in your dark arguments.

Where did you read these from the Bible?

Where in the Bible did you read that?

Where in the Bible did you read such things?

Childish babyish questions as usual, Well I wouldnt mind answering to help you anyway if your questions were honest and sincere but the maggots you stored inside of you are already spilling out and giving you away.[/quote]Babyish questions or not, do please oblige me simple answers to them. I would very much like to sort out your confusion for you - perhaps that is why you don't want to answer them. WOFers often decline dealing with serious issues when they sense their game is coming to a close; and because I did not want to complicate anything for you, I thought making them simple to digest might be to your favour. So please oblige me answers to them . . . and then watch what happens to your WOF propaganda. Cheers.

^^ DeepSight,

If it takes long stories to explain anything and therefore it becomes a lie, have you not done that same thing so many times? Did TrueSeeker not try to hoodwink you with that same thing by telling long, unfounded stories denying the Deity of Christ?

Why is it that you must demonstrate this idiocy of your hypocrisy all over Nairaland? Take heart, son - viaro is not a deist, and I know that just because I happen to have touched you where it really hurt, that is why you would ever seek to react to anything viaro says. The thing is that, in doing so you demonstrate a further damage to your CV by spouting lies and all sorts of duplicities. Yes, people whose OOI has categorically failed them and crashed with such redundancy often tend to go about repeating their idiocy on the forum.

No worries - I only said that your deism will be exposed again. . . that should not have scared you into reacting with such hypocrisy. But it's your world, if this is all you can show for your legal profession, I'm very, very sorry indeed that you have caused your company a huge loss! I had some hope you would be reasonable, but now the 'Deep Sight' I knew only turns out to be so shallow.

So, go ahead - repeat your idiocy and confirm to readers that you have nothing better to show for your career. When the time does come, no prayers sent to OOI will turn things around to prevent my sending your deism into oblivion. Enjoy.

TrueSeeker:
Did Jesus ever claimed to be God Almighty? No
Did the Father ever call his son his God? No
Did Jesus acknowledge his Father as greater? Yes

Did Jesus claim equality with the Father in John 5:23? YES.
Did Jesus ever deny His Deity in Scripture? NO.
Did Jesus declare He is the same as God (Alpha and Omega)? YES.

No matter how many times these issues are pointed out, you guys just cleverly ignore them and then come back with the arguments of folks who also have a career of denying the Deity of Christ. Well done.

Jesus was in form of God just as man is in image of God. Though Jesus being the last Adam reflect God's attribute more perfectly than any creature.

What "attributes" were those?

It is you people that are making Jesus to be almighty God, He never claimed to be such.

None of us here on this forum wrote Revelation 1:8-11 or Revlation 5:13. We only cited those verses for people like you who are too busy quoting denials here and there.

@viaro
Hebrews 1:8:
RS reads: “Of the Son he says, ‘Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever.’” (KJ, NE, TEV, Dy, JB, NAB have similar renderings.) However, NW reads: “But with reference to the Son: ‘God is your throne forever and ever.’” (AT, Mo, TC, By convey the same idea.)

Hahaha. .  I was actually waiting for this. Of all things to market on this forum is the NW - the New World Translation of Jehovah Witnesses! I shoulda known. Dude, I'm not a JW, nor do I take my reading from them. There is no basis for them to have twisted either Hebrews 1:8 or Psalm 45:6 to read as they have so twisted it; so if that is where you base your arguments, I'm sorry to note that you already failed to make any substance.

As far as I know, Hebrews 1:8 clearly is the Father's speech reported in addressing the Son: "But unto the Son He saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom". The Father in that verse was referring to the Son as "GOD" to show that the Son in divine ESSENCE is God. This follows smoothly from a reading of verse 7 and verse 8 together, as in -

[list](a)   verse 7 tells us the nature of the angels - 'And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire';

(b)   and then in verse 8 by contrast, the Son is shown in verse to be more than an angel, more than just merely a spirit - but absolutely 'DEITY' in His ESSENCE: 'But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom'.[/list]

There just was no basis for the Jehovah Witnesses to have twisted that verse to read what it did in the NW translation (as do so many like them). What that chapter shows is the very essence of the Son - that:

       *  the Son is not an angel (v. 4, 5)

       *  the Son is not a "created being", which is why the angels worship Him (v. 6)

       *  the angels are spirit beings in essence (v. 7)

       *  the Son by contrast is Deity ('God') (v. 8 )

       *  angels are ministering spirits (v. 14)

       *  the Son Himself is precisely what the Father is in ESSENCE (v. 3)

These are the things the NW transl. will not tell you before dramatically twisting that verse to deny the very essence of the Son of God.

If you enjoy footnotes of theologians on that verse, I could recommend some (seeing that you did the same) -

[list]Adam Clarke's commentary on Hebrews 1:3 ~

The brightness of his glory -
Απαυγασμα της δοξης The resplendent outbeaming of the essential glory of God. Hesychius interprets απαυγασμα by ᾑλιου φεγγος, the splendor of the sun. The same form of expression is used by an apocryphal writer, Wis. 7:26, where, speaking of the uncreated wisdom of God, he says: “For she is the splendor of eternal light, απαυγασμα γαρ εστι φωτος αΐδιου, and the unsullied mirror of the energy of God, and the image of his goodness.” The word αυγασμα is that which has splendor in itself απαυγασμα is the splendor emitted from it; but the inherent splendor and the exhibited splendor are radically and essentially the same.

The express image of his person -
Χαρακτηρ της ὑποστασεως αυτου· The character or impression of his hypostasis or substance. It is supposed that these words expound the former; image expounding brightness, and person or substance, glory. The hypostasis of God is that which is essential to him as God; and the character or image is that by which all the likeness of the original becomes manifest, and is a perfect fac-simile of the whole. It is a metaphor taken from sealing; the die or seal leaving the full impression of its every part on the wax to which it is applied.
From these words it is evident,
[list]1. That the apostle states Jesus Christ to be of the same essence with the Father, as the απαυγασμα, or proceeding splendor, must be the same with the αυγασμα, or inherent splendor.
2. That Christ, though proceeding from the Father, is of the same essence; for if one αυγη, or splendor, produce another αυγη, or splendor, the produced splendor must be of the same essence with that which produces it.
3. That although Christ is thus of the same essence with the Father, yet he is a distinct person from the Father; as the splendor of the sun, though of the same essence, is distinct from the sun itself, though each is essential to the other; as the αυγασμα, or inherent splendor, cannot subsist without its απαυγασμα, or proceeding splendor, nor the proceeding splendor subsist without the inherent splendor from which it proceeds.
4. That Christ is eternal with the Father, as the proceeding splendor must necessarily be coexistent with the inherent splendor. If the one, therefore, be uncreated, the other is uncreated; if the one be eternal, the other is eternal.[/list][/list]

These are things which such interpreters as those of the NW completely ignore when dealing with Hebrews 1:8 and Psalm 45:6. Not only do other scholars understand that Christ is the very same IN ESSENCE as the Father is in ESSENCE, they do not confuse the Father for the Son nor the Son for the Father. It is the same thing with John 1:1 - the Father is not the Son, nor is the Son the Father: yet, IN DIVINE ESSENCE, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are one Deity.

So stop pointing to Heb 1:8 as your support.

Oh verily YES - I will point to Hebrews 1:8 rather than the illiterate arguments of NW translators. If you want more commentaries, just call on me - there are things you never considered before rushing to Jehovah Witnesses spurious version.