₦airaland Forum

Hello DeepSight,

Deep Sight:
^^^ Viaro has a great head on his shoulders, and has brought much to the Religion Section in terms of Quality.

I admire his thoroughness.

By way of criticism, i will say that he is excessively stubborn: will not see a glaring or simple point once it is in contra-distiinction to his jewish-inspired dogma, can be rabidly bitter and ranks amongst the most terribly abusive and insultive persons on Nairaland.

Nonetheless he is a valuable asset to the Forum and has enriched the quality of discourse greatly.

_{Not to mention his monstrous vocabulary.}

Well, let me leave it at that - I own the criticisms and value them far more than anything else. Thanks.

dejiariyo:
So cos they dont call him father means anything?

It means a whole lot especially when you make such obviously empty statements in a public forum. I wonder that you who go out to call others to knowledge are the same person who has not demonstrated that you have any knowledge of what you want to assert. You sould learn to appreciate the distinctions between worldviews rather than lumping them altogether for your own ideas.

dejiariyo:
The Fateha [The Opening]

The Qur'an 1:1-7

The Lord's Prayer

Matthew 6:9-13
[The New Testament, King James version]

The Fatheha and the Lord's Prayer are not the same thing. At least we know that Allah is never called "Father" in Islam.

Adegboye's hunger for money is disgraceful! Such things won't hurt him to make available free to all.

Image123:
viaro
Take time o! you opened my teeth, don't open it again.

Hahaha! I apologise, my superior. I only learn under the grace of humble spirits like you, and that is the truth. Afterall, "what you don't see with your eyes, don't invent with your mouth" (Jewish proverb) - and I have seen your good works.

karo93:
By the book of revelation we know that the holy spirit is neither worshiped nor enthroned but the father and son are worshiped and enthroned SEPARATELY.[see earlier post for bib backup]

If Jesus was a mere Man or a created Being, why do you want to worship Him? Why not just worship the Father alone?

You have a serious problem here. Created Beings such as angels do not receive worship from any man. Any angel who seeks worship from man does not stand as a servant of God. Rather, we read that ALL the angels worship Christ the Son of God (Heb. 1:4) - because He also is their Creator (John 1:3).

The only reason that you would acknowledge worshipping the Son of God is because He is your Creator and God - otherwise your own argument that "the Father and the Son are worshipped" is completely useless! We are called to worship the Son even as we render divine honour to the Father, for that is what Jesus Christ Himself stated in John 5:23.

Please sort yourself out of your own conundrum. If Jesus Christ is not Deity Himself as stated in John 1:1, then you have no business acknowledging that He is also worshipped as the Father is worshipped. If you actually acknowledge that Jesus Christ is worshipped, what is your argument then?

TrueSeeker:
@viaro

More accurate translation of Zechariah 12: 10 read like this: “And I will pour out upon the house of David and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem the spirit of favor and entreaties, and they will certainly look to the One whom they pierced through, and they will certainly wail over Him as in the wailing over an only [son]; and there will be a bitter lamentation over him as when there is bitter lamentation over the firstborn [son]"

You can compare it with John 19:37 to attest to it accurateness, where John was quoting from the Zechariah: "And, again, a different scripture says: “They will look to the One whom they pierced"

Thanks for that note. Although John 19:37 is a reference to Zech. 12:10, it does not mean that John was quoting that verse verbatim as it appears in the OT Hebrew. Most often, when the apostles cited OT verses in the NT, they give a general reading rather than an exact 'word-for-word' quotation. An example is Rom. 2:24 and Ezek. 36:22.

However, if we consult Zech. 12:10 in some of the other translations based on more precise rendering, we find that God was speaking of Himself in that verse. If you have a copy of NET Bible, you may find a footnote where the difficulty is explained:

[list]Because of the difficulty of the concept of the mortal piercing of God, the subject of this clause, and the shift of pronoun from “me” to “him” in the next, many mss read אַלֵי אֵת אֲשֶׁר (’ale ’et ’asher, “to the one whom,” a reading followed by NAB, NRSV) rather than the MT’s אֵלַי אֵת אֲשֶׁר (’ela ’et ’asher, “to me whom”). The reasons for such alternatives, however, are clear – they are motivated by scribes who found such statements theologically objectionable – and they should be rejected in favor of the more difficult reading (lectio difficilior) of the MT.[/list]

To assure you, Jesus made statements in the NT that indicate that He was the God that Israel was called to follow, serve and worship. An example ~

[list]Matthew 23:37
O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not![/list]

Compare that with ~

[list]Deut. 32:11-12
As an eagle stirreth up her nest, fluttereth over her young, spreadeth abroad her wings, taketh them, beareth them on her wings: So the LORD alone did lead him, and there was no strange god with him.[/list]

Quite often, many people forget verses like this when they argue only for the Humanity of the Son of God. The Humanity does not negate His Deity - rather, both His Humanity and His Deity are united in Him. Hence, this is difficult for some translators (like the NAB and NRSV) to see that Zech. 12:10 is the LORD GOD speaking of Himself and His marvellous work of Redemption on the Cross. But other translators have no problem letting God speak for Himself - you will find that He actually has spoken in many translations (such as the YLT [Young's Literal Trans.] and the JPS [Jewish Publication Society]) that render that verse in its precise statement, such that God is saying that they shall "look unto Me".

^^Hehehe. . what can I do to beg you? Seriously, you know I'm already on my knees!

toba:
I simply think d guy is awesome,be he pilgrim or viaro or 2in1 or twinity,d guy is still awesome&very very intelligent.

Hahaha. . that word "twinity", haha!

I'm not awesome or intelligent, if you get to know me. Just a bit of a braggart who likes to sponge up knowledge from people from various sources. Perhaps nuclearboy saw that about me where I replied in this post.

^^ Your world. Enjoy.

Image123:
Viaro
Na wa o! Abeg, I'm just a little boy/baby/child of God e. Not ya superior. No put banana peel for my domot. lol

Hahaha. . . no, you're one of my superiors, so trying to play shy is not going to help. I have been looking at your thread - quite a lot to enjoy there.

karo93:
give your points and i will answer[if they r in the format] for i have already given mine by using rev.5.7

The points you seek have been given, and repeating yourself without dealing with them does not indicate you're ready to discuss. If you've made up your mind already about whatever you want to believe, good luck. Whatever you argue does not change anything on what have been presented already and which you never once attempted to discuss.

@thehomer,

thehomer:
I didn't mean the subgroups of scientific disciplines. I wasn't using "types" in that sense.

Okay; and even at that, science is not a matter of one-size-fits-all.

From the page you referred me to. http://www.molwick.com/en/scientific-methods/024-reasoning.html#texto
I was using the generic name. It refers to them all.

No, it does not refer to them all without particulars - that is why such things are distinguished.

From prior posts, you seemed open to another way of approaching the subject. But what you said before my post that you misquoted was that I was trying to apply the scientific method to what you on your own had just concluded was a metaphysical question. i.e you had already ruled out all other approaches and I had not agreed to ruling them out.

You got it all wrong there. Let me say it this way:

1. I did not conclude on my own that it should be a metaphysical question based on metaphysical premises. Rather, informed thinkers know that such is the case - and I particularly cited that atheist source that did not argue any different. And because it is such that we all know that metaphysical questions are more suitably discussed on metaphysical premises, there is no other way I would approach it that would have been meaningful and fruitful.

2.  I did not rule out every other approaches. Instead, I discussed why it is particularly a metaphysical question, and also why such metaphysical questions are to be discussed on metaphysical premises. Not only so, I also pointed out how such discussions would proceed - showing why even atheists cannot use just one particular philosophical assumption and call it "science" - at that point, I requested that since you wanted to use "science", please then outline how such a "science" is used to discussed metaphysical questions.

3.  The fact is that atheists who generally try to predicate these subjects on the wrong premise find themselves at a loss soon afterwards and then conclude that the discussion was empty and useless. Because I did not want it to go down that route, that was why I requested that you please explicate the types of science that could be used to discuss metaphysical subjects. I was looking forward to a dialogue and not a monologue where only one side would be making inputs and the other party would be having the fun of contributing nothing but just summarily dismissing the whole discussion.

The emphasis was on the phrase in bold not on "now".

Okay, in that case, I apologise to you for my reaction. You had surprised me there by inferring that I had "now introduced" the metaphysics, whereas I had very early stated and discussed it and then repeated it.

How does the statement demonstrate this? The topic is not just about whether a God exists but also about the evidence for it. Or are you saying this God does not have any effects on humans? Does not interfere in human activities?

My evidence for the existence of God does not have to follow a stereotype. The reasons why I broadened my subject were ~

[list](a) 'the existence of God' is what is known as a "universal" - therefore the question of evidence and proof by whatever means would involve "universals";

(b) the burden of proof in questions about "universals" applies both ways - both on the theist and atheist. The atheist cannot claim that he is not responsible to adduce 'proof' for his negative claim - because that would be something other than metaphysics. This was why I earlier talked about propositional logic.[/list]

On these particulars, I had tried to define and discuss my approach. I apologise if that is not to your flavour.

I did a few times with the examples of the amputee and the sickle cell disease patient. If the God effects a cure, it will be demonstrable scientifically. Or is there a way a cure could be effected without it being demonstrable by science?

Of course, but I have not witnessed every case of a miracle - which was why I did not want to go down the route of 'anecdotal evidence'. I have seen cases of other types of healings; and I could also point to the "science" of such - but here is what I need to ask you pointedly: what would you be thinking of as "testable by science"?

You have assumed it is purely metaphysical. This I do not agree with.

I did not assume. Please go and ask atheists who are informed and they will tell you no different.

davidylan:
viaro is pilgrim1!!!
Welcome back!

Lol, where did you get this?

@thehomer,

The point I was making there is that he is already biased and his treatment of that topic and his conclusions had been refuted by other non-biased experts in the field. Plus his article was not published in a peer reviewed journal. This information was already presented on the same page. That's why I was referring the poster to the entry.

The case still stands: what examples do you know of 'information' coming out of "non-information"? If the question is based on whether someone is biased or not, it is still an example of ad hominem fallacy as far as the subject itself is concerned.The merit or demerit of the subject itself does not stand or fall on whether someone is an atheist or theist.

However, let's not muddy the waters by appealing to such kinds of fallacies. Most of the critics of Dr. Werner Gitt still do not have any credible example of information arising from non-information all by itself. They may have criticised Werner on his arguements against evolution, based on a "standard misunderstanding that information is not entropy, information is not uncertainty". That is as far as they go in their criticisms; but none of his critics have been able to show where information emerged completely out of non-information on its own. It is not a question of "entropy" or "uncertainty" that we're talking here - and that is how many such critics muddy the waters and confuse the gullible public any which way. At this point, we still wait for an answer to the basic question here: 'what is your own example of information coming from non-information?'

When it comes to issues in science, it is also important to examine who speaks. Some people who make statements about scientific facts may actually not be qualified to do so.

No worries. I may agree with you there - as well as what you argued earlier, that: "one thing about science is that while there are notable scientists, there is no authority". Which, for me, would be saying that the "scientific facts" do not have to depend on whether someone was wearing a badge of authority or otherwise. Rain will still fall, sun will still shine - it matters nothing whether it be told by friends or fiends.

thehomer:
I already said climate was not "non-information".
Data (singular) is not information.

There's actually no need to try to deny the fact that data (whether used as a singular or plural) is actually information at its most basic form. I didn't get that off the top of my head - it is incontrovertibly established that data is information.

Here's an example to illustrate what I mean.
A man walks up to someone and says "3". That is data but not information. For it to become information, he could give more data "14159265". The other person may recognize this as pi.
Or the person may attach some more information. e.g "that is how old my daughter is." Then it becomes more meaningful.

There's no difference between "3" and "14159265" - both are still information at its basic level and therefore data. The reference to the idea of attaching "more information" is simply including more data that tend to a pattern - it is that pattern or form that becomes information at a higher level. Any unit of input one provides is information at its basic level, and that is what is meant by data.

The link I gave http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data#Meaning_of_data.2C_information_and_knowledge already distinguished between data, information and knowledge.
From the above linkFor data to be information, it needs to be grouped and/or processed.

Hang on, mate. Did you not realise that the link you provided was actually saying the very same thing I pointed out? Let me quote you an excerpt:

'The main difference is in the level of abstraction being considered.
Data is the lowest level of abstraction, information is the next level,
and finally, knowledge is the highest level among all three'

I very early noted that "data is actually a type of information at its most basic form", and that is nothing different from what that excerpt from your link says. The fact that the difference is simply a matter of the level of abstraction considered does not mean that it is only at the second level that we find "information" - no.

Information actually occurs at the basic level of 'data', and even the example used in that link is quite simply an allusion to data as a kind of information. That example says:

'the height of Mt. Everest is generally considered as "data", a book on Mt. Everest
geological characteristics may be considered as "information", and a report containing
practical information on the best way to reach Mt. Everest's peak may be considered
as "knowledge"'

Lol, what has happened is that the height of Mt. Everest is actually the most basic information that has been provided - it is not meaningless, otherwise the author would not have been able to identify it as "height". You do not refer to a "height" as meaningless, because it immediately identifies a particular character of Mt. Everest - and this is a clear example where even Wikipedia authors sometimes confuse issues for themselves and the public.

To even talk about "geological characteristics" is still data that is gathered at its most basic form because it is not processed. Actually, the author has confused between the next two levels: for when data has been processed (including height, geological characteristics, etc), then you arrive at a form or pattern which identifies the subject at a higher level of abstraction and distingusihes it from all other such subjects. For instance, how do we know it is a mountain and not rather a "hill", or a "boulder" or a "plateau"?? This second question is what the next level of abstraction ("information" answers.

It is when the basic level of abstraction ("data" is gathered and processed to the next level that yields "form" or "pattern" or "constraints" - and then these are further processed to the third level of abstraction that we arrive at "knowledge". At this level (which is "the highest level", the questions to be answered are those about the historical background and development of Mt. Everest.

I could go on and take up this issue in more practical examples; but the point is that data is still a form of information at the most basic level. The idea that data is "meaningless" is patently false - otherwise the example in your link would mean that "height" as an example of data is meaningless - then why is it called "height"? Data is a type of information.

karo93:
@viaro and all others for Jesus is God
Using Rev 5:7
The lamb [Jesus] went and took the scroll from the one who sits on the throne [God].
If Jesus is OF ONE BEING WITH GOD why would he take the scroll from himself?Huh I cant take a scroll from myself

This certainly is of a deeper level than you can handle, that is one reason why I feel that my superiors have not bothered to engage you. But let me help.

The book of Revelation itself is not meant to be read in a literal manner through-and-through. In chapter 5, for example, the Lamb is said to be found "in the midst of the throne" (verse 6) and consequently came and took the scroll. It is not a question of how many 'Beings' but rather one of essence - that God is not limited to a location but is rather ubiquitous. The same is indicated in John 1:1 - The Word was with God and the Word was God.

Let me give you another example of such a construct that demonstrates that the Messiah Himself is God. Turn to Zechariah 12:10 - "And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn."

We notice a few things above -

~ the One who speaks there is God ("I will"

~ the same One who speaks would be pierced:
(they shall look upon me whom they have pierced)

~ the language changes from first person to second person construct:
(they shall look upon me . . . they shall mourn for him)

Could you delineate between "upon me" and "for him" as two different people or the very same One who speaks in that verse? The pronouns "I" and "me" and "him" all point to the same speaker in that verse - God.

There is a plethora of verses in the Bible showing that Jesus is God. Some of us have given a few; but I notice that you have not treated any of those verses showing the fact of the Deity of Jesus, but each time just returning again and again to argue issues away from what have been shown. Are you being fair to yourself?

Lets all answer this post rationally;what do u think is happening here.

I think you're neither being rational nor interested in discussing fairly.

The bible is full of many other points showing that Jesus is not God but if you can explain this away i will think deeply about whatever answer you give before considering accepting that jesus is God or continuing the argument.

It seems you would rather like to continue your own argument rather than consider what others have said. Good luck.

thehomer:
There are no "types of science" science has a clear method of approaching problems.

There are indeed different types of science (please see this page and Wikipedia). You can also find an interesting list of many types of sciences at this page of the Phrontistery.

Further, there are different types "scientific methods" - it is not a case of 'one-size-fits-all'. I recommend this resource (under 'philosophy of science') for your consideration.

No no no. You said you wanted to use metaphysics I said fine.

I don't think you did, or you would not have said that I just "introduced" it after I had mentioned 'metaphysical discussions' long before that reply. The point was that you simply did not oblige me my requests, and beyond that point it did not seem you wanted me to take you seriously.

You asked how and why science is more suited to metaphysical discussions. I'm saying it is not purely metaphysical. The examples I was giving were meant to indicate that the activities of your claimed metaphysical entities influence events here on earth. If they do so, science is the best way to detect their actions here. Their actions should keep violating what we already know.

No, their actions should not "keep violating" what we already know - by that statement you demonstrate you did not have a proper understanding of the subject. Secondly, you argue that it is not a purely metaphysical one, and that was why I requested you to show me why and how. The source from an atheist did not indicate any different from what I stated about metaphysical questions; and I would have been glad if you discussed issues rather than merely saying this and that.

I'm of a different opinion.

That's okay with me, as long as you practically demonstrate the contrary.

I chose to use science because I did not feel it was purely metaphysical the actions of these beings are supposed to affect humans here.

I chose metaphysics because that is the premise on which metaphycal questions are discussed.

thehomer:
No the data from which we get the current weather is the "non-information".

Data is not an example of "non-information", nor is climate an example of "non-information". Depending on the type of area of application, it could be used to generate other types of information at higher levels; nonetheless, data is actually a type of information at its most basic form.

(a)  "The term data means groups of information that represent the qualitative or quantitative attributes of a variable or set of variables" (Wikipedia).

(b)  "Strictly speaking, data is the plural of datum, a single piece of information. In practice, however, people use data as both the singular and plural form of the word" (Webopedia).

(c)  1.  (plural: data) a single piece of information
      2.  (philosophy) (plural: data) a fact known from direct observation
      3.  (philosophy) (plural: data) a premise from which conclusions are drawn
      4.  (cartography)(engineering) (plural: datums) a fixed reference point
      ~   (Wikitionary)

thehomer:
Dr Werner Gitt is a poor source of information on this topic. You can check the wikipedia entry about him. He is already biased and is a Young earth creationist. While he is a scientist, he may simply choose not to apply that to his long held beliefs.

That is an example of the ad hominem fallacy in discourses. The fact that he is a creationist or someone made an entry on him anywhere does not take anything away from the substance of his discussion on information. The fact here is that your example of "non-information" is flawed, and it would have been rather helpful to see what is said rather than the person who said whatever. "Examine what is said, not him who speaks" (Arab proverb).

And like I said with the aid of statistics, information can be derived from non-information (data)
From wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data#Meaning_of_data.2C_information_and_knowledgeThis is information that we can and do work with.
You see one thing about science is that while there are notable scientists, there is no authority.

Data is not an example of "non-information", as outlined above.

uplawal:
@true seeker,but you know your own god(christian god) is jesus of the bible and hes long dead since,what a dead god to serve.

Have you ever read of His resurrection? Recently I began to be interested in reading a bit about Islam basically from Muslims. It is amazing that Islam teaches that not even Muhammad or the Allah of Islam would be able to do anything on the Day of Resurrection - but they would rather look to Jesus Christ to help them destroy the Antichrist (Dajjal). Why is it that after all your she-jihad, your Muslims will still look to Jesus Christ to help you overcome the most dreaded being in Islam?

ALLAH(swt)who beget not,meaning he does not ahave a child and he was not begotten,meaning he was not born of anybody,hope thats clear to you.

No, it is not clear - it sounds like another one of those Muslim jokes.

or have you forgotten the meaning of begotten,cos youre so daft to have related it to other creatures since you foolishly forgot that begotten has to do with some one giving birth to a human,like david begot solomon.i wondered why you cant think straight,but always thinking foolish

Hehehe. . muslim jokes. The word translated "only begotten" is monogenēs, and it is different from another word used for procreation (gennao). All you guys ever think of under your hood is what your men are doing with 72 virgins.

@ijele,

ijele:
Deity? Human deity? Divine deity? I can't believe the God at a point will restrict himself,even christ parable on his heavenly status, he still mention on a greater force than him, ok when he rose from dead did he still carry human deity? Pls explain this ''at end of time,christ will handover the universe to God and place himself under God'' pls explain this to me like a 6yrs old child.

Deity? Yes. "Human Deity"? I didn't say so. I clearly distinguished between His Deity and His Humanity. Before He became Human, what do you think He was? He was not an angel, because ALL the angels were commanded by God to worship Christ (Heb. 1:4). But When the set time for redemption had come, it is said that The Word became Man (John 1:14 - "the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us". Ask yourself: what was He before He became Man?

ijele:
Pls explain this to me like  8yrs old child, Christ  sitting at de right hand of God? Why separating both deity when they are de same,one sittin at hand of the other?, why are you separating both deity without knowing,  sorry de same deity when u pray and u say say through christ our lord, since they are united and become one God,you should simply end your pray without saying through christ our lord,  Pls explain this to me like 8yrs old child. X

Lol, the question of Christ sitting at the "right hand" of God is not to be understood as a physical geographical location. It is like asking another childish question such as "who is sitting at the left hand of God?"

When the Bible uses such expressions, it indicates dignity and exaltation (see Acts 2:33). This is shown, for example in Matt. 26:64 ('Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven') - if that verse was a question of physical geographical point, where then is "power" located . . north, south, east or west?

In Revelation 3:21, instead of "right hand", Christ said plainly that He is set down with the Father IN His throne; and in Rev. 7:17 He is said to be "in the midst of the throne".

When you read of the "right hand of God", please be careful how to draw your distinctions - go through Scripture and see that what you might be taking in literal terms may actually not have been meant to be read that way. Compare Luke 16:23 where it is said that Lazarus was in the bosom of Abraham - was that meant to be read literally like Lazarus was inside the paps of the patriarch?

Deep Sight:
Bring it on!

Joker.

Lol, DeepSight, this is not a do-and-die affair. I understand you cannot live until you try to fight the Deity of the Son of God. When you do so, how does it affect Deism as a whole? Of what benefit would it be for Deists if (if at all) any Christian denies His Deity - would you then become a Christian? Why do you try to argue issues which are not germane to your own deism?

Yes, on quickly to the points in yours:

Nonsense. There are and remain CHRISTIAN sects that do not accept Jesus as God. Jehovah’s witnesses are one such. Perhaps you will conclude the Jehovah’s witnesses are not a Christian group. Perhaps they are a Muslim group.

Do you want to join the Jehovah Witness group then? Please do, and I have no problem with that. But the JW group do not constitute the totality of Christianity, nor are they the defining icon of Biblical Christianity for anyone. Your pointing to the JW group - does their denial of the Deity of Christ take anything away from Christianity or even add food to your table? What does it do for your deism, if anything at all?

Even in Deism, deists do not agree on all points. There are such groups as "dark deists", "deistic taoist luciferians" and also "Satanic Deism" - and I'm sure that you would categorically deny that such groups define your own kind of "deism", no? So what is the biggy at all that any group under the umbrella of "Christendom" would deny the Deity of Christ? I don't see why you're appealing to these fallacies as your defence for denying the Deity of Christ.

My challenge to you was simple: it was not about salvation and all the other yada-yada-yada of Christian dogma – but about your claim concerning the deity of Christ AND HOW you can be so recklessly hypocritical as to denounce others for claiming Deity when you have yourself conferred it on a foreigner – a Jewish Man just like yourself.

Jesus Christ was not a Jewish Man "just like myself". My faith is rested on what the Bible teaches about Him, and that is what makes me a Christian and not a deist. The Deity of Christ is not a teaching which emerged with viaro in the 21st century; so trying to narrow it down to what I do or say or not, is not what sorts our your deism for you. My interrractions with you to such trade-offs is based, not on anything about your deism or any JW groups, but rather on your fundamentalism against Christian beliefs.

Are you perhaps suffering from feelings of racial inferiority to Jews or Whites – otherwise how could you accept their claim that one of their own is GOD – and even begin to worship that man – yet hypocritically slam the equal claims of your African brethren to a non-exclusive divine association? ? ?

The reason why I embrace the Biblical teachings about Christ is because Jesus Himself said that salvation is of the Jews (John 4:22), and not of your own deistic clan. I would rather be a Christian than be a disciple of such likes like Thomas Paine or Voltaire - what 'salvation' did they offer to you as an African that did not have any European oirgin?

Deism denies the supernatural? And you call every-one else illiterate?

What is God, if not supernatural? Did you examine Krayola’s Chart on Deist beliefs? Have you ever read anything on Deism? Joker.

Yes, Deism denies the supernatural - please consult the icons of deism and sort yourself out. If you want to argue this and have the guts for it, please invite me - any thread will do, and then again I may leave you deeply sorry. Try me.

Are you ok today Viaro? What the hell did your carpenter GOD mean when he asserted – “Ye yourselves are gods. . . .?”

He did not by that mean that any one in His audience was "Deity". You can trace it back to the verse in the OT that He was referring to - Psalm 82:6-7. Those verses did not postulate any addressee to be a deity.

Ehen? So I suppose you can explain this scripture to me -

John 17:20-23: “My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one: I in them and you in me. May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.”

Does it not infer what the WoF have been asserting ? ? ?

No. It does not favour or bless WOF doctrines. There is not a single time you question WOF proponents on this issue about their making themselves "Deity" that you will ever find them defend their assertion. Rather, the very same WOF proponents will deny the same things they have asserted - and they know why: because those are the very things that champion their heresies, and they know such exposés are not favouring their "movement".

I am sure you value the above declaration by your carpenter God himself, no?

I value what Jesus Christ declares, and that is enough for me in my worldview.

ijele:
@ viaro, pls read my comments very well and quote me rightly, I did not say ' some words were given or place in christ, hell no! I said categorically that God's word was given,dwelt, and is christ not some or limited,

Whatever. You seemed to have implied that same thing in this quote:

[list]

ijele:
The WORD refereed in the bible is God's spoken words and it dwelt in his Son. Thus the word of God is God himself. It's by God's will that he placed his words on his Son.

[/list]

Yet, that takes nothing away from the fact that "the word of God is God himself" and Jesus is called "the Word of God" (Rev. 19:13).

ijele:
What ever we say here in this thread is as good as spoken words and we all will be judge on this be it internet or otherwise, So let be careful how we quote others, Remember God's law "do not bear false witness against your neighbour, So let's get back to our issues, When jesus said to mary ' I go to my father,your father,my God,your God, which God is refering to? Himself and or 'co-GOD'?

I was not bearing false witness against you - please see above.

ijele:
Have you read a verse in the bible that states that " at de end of time christ will handover the world to God and place himself under God"? Will that clear some doubts if i quote the chapter?

ijele:
Do i convince you from de bible where Christ said that he has limited knowledge or does it mean that he doesn't understand he is God? Should i quote where it's written that it's only christ that has seen God or it means only God has seen God. Should i point out where christ said do not called Good but Father(GOD)alone is good.

Those are passages that do not affect the Deity of Christ one bit. I have tried to point out that there are two things that Scripture often presents to us about Christ: (a) His Deity; and (b) His Humanity.

You cannot use His Humanity to deny His Deity, just as you cannot use His Deity to deny His Humanity. The reason why people have difficulties in these things is because they have emphasized His Humanity to such extremes that they lose sight of His Deity.

The simple answer to such confusion is probably given in 2 Corinthians 5:16 - "though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more". It doesn't mean that the Humanity of Christ is no longer to be taught in Christianity; but it rather points out that we should not be too driven by only His Humanity that we completely lose sight of the fact of His Deity ("To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen" - Rom. 9:5, ESV).

His Humanity is one thing; and His Deity is another - but neither of them cancel out each other; rather, they are united in Him.

Could you now consider my rejoinder in post #52?

ijele:
you re yet reflect and answer my owns questions, Sorry my word 'bestow' may not connote a clear meaning 2 u. In other words,i mean God's words given to christ as part of his messiah work. Your inability to grasp this may remains a mystery to you, So unburden yourself and let de yoke fell off your eyes,

Jesus Christ Himself is the Word of God - that is specifically His Name (Rev. 19:13), and so your idea that it was some words given to Christ simply falls to the ground.

ijele:
Part 2: pls let your read de bible without being biased,  From Good News bible john1-15; before de world was created,the word also existed, he was with God and he is the same with God. Through him God made all things not one thing was made without him,   From King james version; In de begining was the word and the word was with God,word was with God.              The WORD refereed in the bible is God's spoken words and it dwelt in his Son. Thus the word of God is God himself. It's by God's will that he placed his words on his Son. (colossians1:19)    the Son was later made man(lower than angels so that he can suffer death (Heb2:9). Note,   remember the   Son was created by God before the creation of the universe(superior than angels). The creation of universe was done by God through his Son. Paul explained this in letter to Hebrew.     Because Jesus is lower than God, that's one of de reason lucifer tempted jesus. GOD can never be tempted!         Jesus was full of holy spirits when he was tempted. His temptation came when God declared him his beloved son luke 4:1, luke 3:21-22  pls hold on,  ,  .

ijele:
I posted this earlier read careful,

^^ I don't see how you have dealt directly with John 5:23. The point was that if Jesus Christ was not God, then it would be meaningless for Him to have spoken those words in that verse (John 5:23) - because the 'honour' He spoke of, was the very same honour that ALL MEN render to the Father. In other words, divine honour is reserved for Divinity and Divinity alone - in that instance, only Jesus Christ could speak those words in John 5:23, for two specific reasons (among several other reasons) ~

(a)  "Thus the word of God is God himself" - that is true. The very divine Logos in that verse of John 1:1 causes a lot of people a lot of trouble and they would argue it this way and that, in order to deny the Deity of Jesus Christ. However, it was not some verbiage of written or spoken words that was bestowed on Jesus Christ, but He is that very divine Logos Himself. This is all the more true in view of the fact that that is His Name ~ "And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God" (Rev. 19:13). So, if the word of God is God Himself, it strengthens the fact that only Jesus Christ alone could have spoken those words in John 5:23.

(b)  Nowhere does any apostle ever declare that Jesus Christ was ever created by God at anytime. Many people only read their own ideas into the Bible to argue that way, but that is not taught in any verse of the Bible. The Bible is clear when it states that the divine Son is the subject and object of creation's worship - "And again, when He bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, He saith, And let all the angels of God worship him" (Heb. 1:4). If angels worship the divine Son, what is the big trouble that puny men make to object that the Son of God is also to be worshipped by men? Is John 5:23 not clear now - that ALL MEN (just like ALL the ANGELS) would worship the Son of God?

There's no need making excuses for John 5:23 in an attempt to deny the Deity of Christ. ALL MEN are to render Him the very same honour that they render to the Father - for indeed, even ALL the ANGELS were commanded to worship Him.

Chrisbenogor:
Viaro,
Yet again I will ask you to re read my replies and see that I was really really interested too, I liked the idea of the question is a metaphysical one and should be discussed as thus and I remember in one of my replies asking you to elaborate what you meant. You referred me to many links and all I wanted was a simple explanation of your stand, because I too was confused.
Anyway I think I lost my interest now so long so well.

I spent the last few minutes going back to re-read your replies. Perhaps I missed your intent somewhere, and admit it would have been an oversight on my part.

If it may not be so much trouble, let me say the following for all who may be interested at any rate to see where I stood on these matters.

1.   First, I tried to understand the nature of the question being asked; and as dealing with 'transcendent' things and 'reality', it was clear that it was a "metaphysical question".

2.   As such, I was requested to define my terms (such as supernatural, spiritual, etc), which I did ("That which is not reducible to physicalist probables"; and then went on to state and demonstrate why it was a metaphysical question, as well how we could make it a fruitful discussion if we all agreed that it was purely a metaphysical question.

3.  Now, some others (e.g., mazaje and tonyeb) nicely opinned that they were not at that time interested in philosophical talk in these matters, and I appreciated that they had politely declined - that did not make me superior to them though.

4.  After I outlined how I intended to pursue this discourse, thehomer objected by indicating that it was one that should be detectable by "scientific means". No worries, my request was that he should tell me "what type of science" he thought could be used for such a metaphysical question, and then I would be glad to lead him in that same means to discover the supernatural  - but from that point (post #74), he never once ever obliged my request and seemed to only have kept cycling round it.

5.  Where I lost it was when he (thehomer) boldly claimed falsely that I had "now introduced" the metaphysics into the whole thing  - like that was supposed to be my escape hatch. I thought at that point, we had had enough of the games, and that was why I was curt with him.

6.  As far as I know, questions about "all reality" and the nature of being and existence are philosophical questions of metaphysics. The reason why I kept repeating myself on that same point was to help thehomer (and any other interested atheist) show me otherwise. This is a fact that informed atheists cannot deny, and so many established sources still bear out this fact - that metaphysical questions are best treated on metaphysical premises. For this reason, I excerpted an atheist source (Austin Cline) attesting to this and showing clearly a recommendation, that: "in truth, metaphysics is probably the most fundamental subject which irreligious atheists should focus on". That was coming from an atheist - and I don't know why thehomer was not facing up to that fact. Of course, I was hoping he would show me otherwise - but that was where it seemed the discussion had stalled.

7.  It isn't that I was not willing to discuss at all - on the contrary, I was clear to repeatedly indicate that the question is purely a metaphysical one, and as such should be discussed on metaphysical premises. If my atheist discussant(s) agreed and were more inclined to "science", they should grant me just one request: please give me a specific outline of why "science" is more suitable for them, as well as how science answers metaphysical questions.

8.  If any atheist is able to provide me with such an outline, then viaro would use their own specifics and discuss this question in detail. I was "willing on my part to discuss" . .  I said so in several occasions; but I was hungry for concrete gist, and not strawman fallacies (or reductio ad absurdum).  But if my atheists discussant(s) were not willing to discuss metaphysical questions on metaphysical premises, nor were willing to grant my request, I would not impose anything upon them or anyone; nor would I ignore the metaphysical premise and then appeal to what the atheist had in mind: physicalism.

It was discourteous of me to have lost it on thehomer and then allowed that incident to transfer on to you, Chris. Please let it pass, and take care.

toba:
I beg u viaro not to descend so low/be yoked with unbelievers.I enjoy your philosophical posts on NL.So lets stick to issue.
Atheists denies d existence of God,yet they av not proved it beyond reasonable doubt that what science cant answer d greatest being would.
Where im posting now d wind is blowing&i dnt know it comes from.May an atheist can tell me where its coming from.

Thank you toba.

And Chris, I know you may not be moved one way or another by this, but I still apologise and own my wrong in being abrasive. Indeed, I admit losing my cool there, because I actually was very, very interested in this discourse - but that does not make me any better or more intelligent than anyone else on Nairaland. So allow me to withdraw my ineptitude there and say 'sorry', please.

ijele:
Thanks dear, that biblical injuction is true and sacred! Read my comments careful,, Like i said earlier Jesus is the true son of the almighty God and God's word is bestowed in him Jesus. So if you dishonor Jesus, you ve dishonor God, But that still does not make jesus a God, Now christ said to his disciples whoever rejects you have rejected me.

I don't think that carries weight at all. I don't know what you mean by 'God's word was bestowed on him'; but I do know that many prophets declared that the Word of the Lord came unto them. Yet, none of them ever claimed divine and equal honour for themselves in the way anyone honours God. The claim in John 5:23 was made specifically only by the Lord Jesus Christ - and you may want to look a bit more into that.

Chrisbenogor:
Read all my replies and see if I ever insulted you. . . . .Jesus Christ my black backside mschewwwwww

I read your replies and obliged you a discussion when you called me out, did I not? To both of us, somewhere along the line we seemed to have lost the twang on this subject - you have your reasons, I have mine. That you assume I was playing "silly games" and appealing to innuendos is not true, and that was where I was sharp with you. Other atheists may not be interested in the specifics - they said so, and I didn't try to impose upon them or suggest insulting them.

Chrisbenogor:
Ok this is not I am putting up with your shi.t anymore, w.t.f is wrong with you, your attitude is offensive and abrasive I do not care what others have said to you but I have specifically stooped low to ask that we start afresh and take it little by little, who the fcku is yourselves? huh

And who the piffl[color=Black]ing id[/color]iot do you think you are? Did I refuse to oblige you initially when you called for a fresh discourse?

Look young man if this is what you want us to do talk abeg, we can trade many many of these till this thing fills up to as many pages as you want but it will lead us nowhere. . . . . . .sheesh nairaland finally got to you now your replies are acidulous and filled with frustration, oh might I add that the pungent smell of pride is becoming increasingly difficult to ignore.

[s]For one, you're beginning to get to yourself, no?[/s] [s]Fill the pages with whatever for all I care[/s]. I made clear that I would discuss, so long as we move along specifics. If that was not to your flavour, I would not try to impose. [s]You think your atheism makes you . . . what[/s]?

Chrisbenogor:
I am asking what the difference between slippery slut and complete idiot?

Perhaps you need to consult a dictionary for the difference.

As for the discussion you are not just ready abeg, you just prefer to play these silly games that I am too big for, if you want to know how just look back at your replies ever since I asked you that we start afresh, you are more interested in your innuendos.

I wasn't playing any games - I was willing to dicuss, but you guys are too big and full of yourselves that is why you keep running around with strawman fallacies and never able to settle with anything concrete.