₦airaland Forum

@javalove, you're one very amusing piece of java with a funny cackle.

The vid you posted in the OP shows the Jew there is a sell out - I made that point clear earlier, and proposed that you search for vids where Jews with sound JEWISH scholarship talk about Islam. Did you? Nope - and we all know why: by the time they go a quarter of the way, people like Harun Yahya will be running from Turkey to Brisbane.

Then enters my ol' pal OLAADEGBU with "another Jewish Rabbi's confession about Islam", and all you could say was what? 'HOLY CRAPP!' Are you not the same java who cackled about others whining about "rubbsih" Oh, I get it - you just can't handle politically [b]in[/b]correct Jewish scholarship about Islam, but you are quite at home with a puppet dressed up with Santa's beard yapping compromises in front of Harun Yahya!

You, my friend, are one very amusing piece of java indeed!

Mavenb0x:
God knows that when I was about to post this Eden gist, I had emotional reluctance, but no spiritual reservation. I knew many people will vehemently disagree. I apologize in arrears. 

Hello Maven. Lol, I don't think there was a need to apologise - in arrears or advance. It was your personal understanding, and we can appreciate what you have posted on that basis.

For the record, I never meant that those two trees in the center of Eden were Jesus and the Holy Spirit. What I meant was that the attributes imbued upon them are found in the persons of Jesus and the Holy Spirit.

Well, I don't know (and I take back any misconceptions that my previous comments might have produced). I just wonder about the highlighted - that the attributes imbued upon the trees are found in the persons of Jesus and the Holy Spirit. It makes me begin to think a lil deeper as to what to make of those trees if they are imbued in the way you described.

@Viaro: Okay, for the sake of clarification I need to say this: Do not forget that from the definition of "knowledge" in the name of that tree, it is all-encompassing and I can refer to it as the all-knowing mind. I know no other such mind.

No worries. The thing for me is that such an explanation again brings several questions to the fore; one of which is whether Adam and Eve knew absolutely nothing or were oblivious of anything around them in the real world before they ate of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. This tree is said to be not just of 'knowledge', but of such knowledge of good and evil. Would that imply that this-'all-knowing mind'-tree would produce death upon Adam's participation?

I also strongly believe that "eating" the fruit of a tree, to be allegorically correct, would mean attaining a commanding or condescending position over it (Jesus and the stubborn fig tree?). Think about it. Does that remind you of grievance against the Holy Spirit?

Nope. The allegory does not fit at all - I'd rather say it's another red statement. 'Eating' of the tree as in Adam's case would produce nothing other than DEATH. However, partaking of the Holy Spirit (or even 'the mind of Christ' or 'mind of God' in allegorical terms) is not said to produce death. .  but LIFE. I don't know of any instance that deviates from that premise.

Ok, if it does not, suffice it to say that the death that God said man would experience, is not because of eating the fruit per se, but rather due to DISOBEDIENCE. Their act of disobedience was what caused the death, as you know God judges intents and purposes and not only actions. However, I agree to disagree with you. 

Yes, I solidly agree with you that it was the act of disobedience that brought about the Fall, and not just 'eating' of any tree. We are not even sure that Adam ate of EVERY tree in the Garden even though God had commanded that he may do so (Gen. 2:16) - yet, not doing precisely so in EVERY detail does not constitute disobedience.

However, the allegory you drew between the tree of knowledge of good and evil and the Divine Persons of the Godhead (Jesus and the Holy Spirit) does not seem to quite hold. But there again, we could just disagree on these red statements even though further light is not forthcoming.

And as for the prosperity of the wicked, I hope you realize that any fool can climb a ladder to get into a tower? True success entails understanding the walls of the tower, the ladder and how to climb it. The ladder is the principle, the walls are made of wisdom and the procedure is the active will of the man. When you lean the wrong ladder against wisdom, it will collapse under your weight, but if the ladder is in place, the man may climb. If the climb is improperly done, may the man not also slip and fall? The wicked man has his principles too, and he sticks to them like a postage stamp, sometimes they even do that better than Christians (which was why Jesus said he sent us out as sheep among wolves: wolves are generally seen as much more organized and smarter). And he has his sort of wisdom too. There is no "prospering wicked" that does stuff shabbily, but their end is certain. Remember the parable of the rich fool? Thanks, bro.

Haha. That's a good one. I was just concerned that some of us might tend to miss the balance and think in linear terms that "NO ONE succeeds without God". That is quite a statement, and it is a n[color=Black]ak[/color]ed truth that the ungodly actually suceed WITHOUT God. Otherwise, why would God judge the ungodly when He is the same One behind their success?

Bless up.

uplawal:
this viaro will never accept defeat cos she loves hellfire

Mrs lala, 'defeat' in what sense? In the sense that your misfooted pallies are finding sell-off Jews who can lie for Harun Yahya? That guy up there was lying through his yellow teeth, end of story.

And oh, lest I forget - I was so 'defeated' by his yellow lies. Please find one where the same sell-off Jew was making the same statements before a panel of JEWISH scholars.

javalove:
[flash=400,400]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kmLhTFcvrxw&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/flash]

Islam is the only true faith!!!

He did not say so. And from the vid itself, it is clear that he was either lying through his yellow teeth, or confused, or a revisionist Jew who sells out rather than a veritable historian. There are very many of them. If he was sitting before Jewish scholars, you would hear him tell another story that is completely opposite to the one you have in that vid where he was seeking the nods of people like Harun Yahaha. Besides, the Quran in Sura 109 openly confesses that Muslims do not worship the same God as do the people of the Biblical faiths, did that sell out Jew forget that. . and he calls himself a 'historian'?

Deep Sight:
Maven, i have enjoyed your ripostes so much thus far: and also Viaro's i must say, you are both making me think better and further.

I crave your indulgence until i post the prosaical explanations, i think that may put some things in perspective, thanks.

No worries, Deep. . no worries. I'd be looking forward to anything more you'd like to post in this thread, especially as regards the intended aim of the thread - explaining the oneness of infinity.

@No2Atheism,

Yes, it's viaro addressing you. I came across to you as a ruffian in the other thread where you sought to know a bit more about me. I apologise, and please don't let that affect or colour your mind about what I'd say with regards to your post above.

No2Atheism:
Why not keep things simple and stick to only what the Bible says . . . other than trying to decipher what you think the Bible is saying

I don't think there's anything wrong with trying to decipher the message of the Bible. Many people (more so Christians) struggle with the message of the first book of the Bible - Genesis; and if one has to carefully think through what we read there, we would find very intriguing things in the very first chapter alone! We should learn to appreciate the perspectives of other thinkers and yet be well grounded in the essentials to know how to weigh the inferences that are being presented to us, don't you think?

Does this metaphysical thingy wingy add anything to the message of salvation . . . personally i don't think so hence its not right to include it to what the bible has already said.

While many of us with an evangelical leaning would always look out for 'salvation' in any Christian post or discussions, it ought not to be the one thing that undergirds our discourses. Salvation is important; but there are many things we read about in the Bible itself that would leave you scratching our heads as to how they 'add anything to the message of salvation'.

Metaphysics is a branch of philosophy, which both in themselves are not evil. As tools to understanding the world, our existence, our faith and/or our salvation, they are indispensable - theology today would rather be so empty without a philosophy of any kind. The one thing that sets them out is that our faith and Christian worldview are not predicated on philosophy - which is why the Bible warns us: "Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ" (2 Cor. 2:8).

Anyways, I hope this will be something for your consideration.

In all the things you said, dear mavenbox, perhaps this one needs a small review:

Mavenb0x:
[center]God's business enterprise project with respect to human capital development[/center]
. .>snip<. .
Wealth means an abundance of resources, the quality of profuse material abundance. Affluence in possessions and monetary wealth are just two examples of wealth. . .

Wealth is the result of creative ideas and truth.
Enterprise development is the synergy of ideas, truth and wealth.

NO ONE succeeds without God, even if they do not acknowledge God as the source.

Although many principled people obtain their wealth through a combination of hardwork, creativity and 'truth', it is not necessarily the case with many, many others. The Bible shows us that very unscrupulous people who do not care about conscience or truth are quite wealthy. For example, there is such a thing as 'the prosperity of the wicked' (Psalm 73:3). That chapter alone (besides several others) quite simply demonstrates the fact that there are many unscrupulous fellows who are quite wealthy: even though they are 'corrupt, and speak wickedly'^v.8, they still have 'more than heart could wish'^v.7. Then on to verse 12 that captures it all: "these are the ungodly, who prosper in the world; they increase in riches". Do such fellows care about a scenario where creativity kisses 'truth' and scruples?

This is not to say that godly people cannot be wealthy, rich or prosperous. What I'm particular about is that there ought to be a balance in this things in order to capture the bigger picture where the essence of life comes to the fore. Presently, I'm quite occupied to make a post on this 'essence' (the 'gist' of life for the Godly); but suffice to say that Luke 12:21 seems to readily hold the kernel - "So is he that layeth up treasure for himself, and is not rich toward God."

There are good points you highlighted in your subsequent post, especially as regards your understanding/perspective on Eden. This one stands out:

Mavenb0x:
I do not believe the Eden story is mythical, neither is it entirely historical. I think it is heavily typed in allegory, and I intend to describe, as best as I can, my understanding of that story. . .

I believe the Garden of Eden was not a "garden", but a metaphysical realm which was the primordial home of mankind. This realm also had a superposition on the physical realm and had direct access into the spiritual, so there were "layers", so to speak, of interaction between physical and spiritual entities. As such, I believe the "trees" in Eden were not necessarily green perenniaal woody plants, but were instead primordial entities of a kind: spiritual beings, if you may. There are many instances in the Bible in which human beings are likened to trees.

Eze 31:9 I have made him fair by the multitude of his branches: so that all the trees of Eden, that were in the garden of God, envied him.

That's fine, no worries - as long as that's the perspective from which you proceeded to set forth your ideas. Although the prophet Ezekiel most probably was speaking prophetically and thus allegorically, we could not from that make the same stretch of application to Eden in Genesis. I don't know; but I have my reasons.

Nonetheless, it was this next one that got me screwed:

That "tree of knowledge of Good and Evil" in Eden is a personification of the Holy Spirit. The "tree of life" is a personification of Jesus Christ in that primordial realm. The two trees were in the "center" of the garden, meaning that they were administratively in charge of the other spiritual entities that Adam was allowed to control.

Oh shooks! The highlighted is what I call a 'red statement' and is exegetically flawed. If we are to follow that idea about 'the tree of knowledge of good and evil' as in yours, my question is this: why would Adam's partaking of the Holy Spirit result in DEATH? Genesis 2:7 says concerning that same tree: "for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die" - was God making allusion to Adam that he would die in the very day he partook of the Holy Spirit? It just screws up the whole thing for me.

These are just my observations. Wish I had time on my hands to settle down and grow this thread, but from another perspective.

Amazing thread with amazing contributions and remarks. . whether good or bad, all things work together for . .? Lol.

Anyhow, let me quickly drop a few lines.

@ancel,

ancel:
Other contributors (especially Viaro, expounder of mysteries ) are also VERY welcome. People, please don't keep us waiting.

What? Who ever told thee that viaro is an expounder??
Anyways, I saw this thread in its inception but was way too busy and could not be online any earlier. I had no clue where it was heading, but it turned out to be delightful and a total surprise to me.


@commander nuclearboy,

nuclearboy:
Mavenbox:

You're doing just fine! Wealth is more the idea/motivating(?) behind the increase rather than the increase itself

Your honour, I concur - mavenbox at one of her finest. However, you made a summary about wealth that is pregnant with more gist than could fill this entire page. It is not just about material and/or other tangible possessions, but has more to do with stability in the inner man. An akin word is 'prosperity' - in this regard, not many people understand why a very prosperous person is not necessarily affected or controlled by circumstances or environment, such as Joseph who was described as a prosperous man whether he was in his master's house or while yet in prison (Gen. 39:2-3 & 23). The wealthy in this regard would be those who look out for the welfare of others rather than their own.

I don't know if I should take this to another thread, or resurrect a similar one to discuss these paradigms - as it seems that my concerns between times would be stultifying your smooth flow in this thread, which is not my intension.

However, . .

Deep Sight:
I beg to differ, bro.

I may state –

½ - ¼ - 1/8 – 1/16 - 1/32 – 1/64 . . .Infinity

Or –

1, 2, 3, 4. . . Infinity

Or –

1⅛, - 1⅜ - 1⅝ - 1⅞ . . .Infinity

Tell me what difference it makes? ? ? ? ?

It makes all the difference in the world, Deep Sight. First, because your graphical representations are quite faulty as they demonstrate infinities on three directions rather than one or two. The idea that a sequence (whatever sequence) tends to infinity in either directions (-ve or +ve) makes us wonder what 'infinity' is doing in the middle of your postulation:

← ← ← Infinity  ← 0 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 [INFINITY]1  2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 → Infinity → → →

. . in what direction is the [INFINITY] in the middle travelling or tending? We cannot just take your statements on these things, nod our heads on them, and then pretend that all is well, you know?

Is it not clear to you that as far as numerics is concerned a sequence OF ANY SORT OR ANY BASE still is infinite?

Could be - but your problem (not mine) is that you still are unable to detect in simple terms what particular direction your 'infinity' tends to. A sequence of some other sort is difficult to identify in simplistic terms as in yours. Take for example, a transcendental number - where do you class such irrational and non-algebraic entities in your |∞| of infinities or 'oneness of infinity'?

This is not a problem. Since every number can be fractionalized infinitely, and since every numeric sequence can continue infinitely, then we see that infinity is imbued everywhere and in everything!

We don't see that - considering that your statement should hold any substance. If I had to take you on that and wonder about infinity being 'imbued everywhere and in everything', where then are the limits in each identity or set? A numeric sequence may tend to infinity in either directions, but infinity is not everywhere or in everything - to maintain that it does, would not be philosophical nor mathematical.

We may start off at a certain point of reference (say '1' for instance) in any sequence; and as such, infinity is not in the particular identity, for the identity in itself is part of 'everything' within that sequence. This, I believe, is what easylogic was referring to by |cardinality|. You only punctuate the infinities between two variables or identities when you consider them in fractions and various bases. For example, what is 1+1+1 in base 10 may yield |3|. . but compute the same 1+1+1 in base 3 and let's know your answer. This is why 0.999999999. . . is NOT 1 and never arrives at '1' until you punctuate that value of cardinality by rounding it off to one decimal place.

Thus all quantities are imbued with infinity.

No. Rather, a sequence tends to infinity (1, 2, 3, . . .∞); but 'quantities' are precise and cannot be said to be imbued with inifinity (which is why 0 is not an infinity in the very same way that 1 is NOT an infinity).  For this reason, we don't yet know the unravelling of the ME (mathematical embarrassment) of '∞+1' as a specific identity or |cardinality|.

Thus all things are infinite. The infinities indicated at either end of the spectrum do not indicate three infinities as you have suggested. They rather indicate the endlessness of the one spectrum.

This is possibly where your postulations would either collapse or be sent back to the drawing board for proper initial ground work.

The '[INFINITY]' in the middle of your sequence in this:

← ← ← Infinity  ← 0 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 [INFINITY]1  2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 → Infinity → → →

. .  does not exist.

You can have the sequence tending in either direction, but not placed at the center - for to make an infinity in the middle of a sequence is philosophically and mathematically meaningless. I'll give you an example to clarify:

If we take 0 as your 'infinity' in mathematical terms, there are two possible ways to go round testing this:

      (a)   0/25,
         or
      (b)  25/0

The first one (a) would yield 0; but in reality, is '0/25' the same as 'infinity'?

In (b) above, the simple answer when computed is not even '0' but an 'error'. Check it out.

Now, my wonder in all this 'mathematico-philosophy' is what you make of the term 'infinity' in its place of identity in that sequence - or any sequence for that matter. If 'infinity' appears in the middle, it is just meaningless quibble. But for me to be persuaded otherwise, please try and demystify this conundrum.

Infinity is in all things. This co-relates to the idea of omnipresence, but please indulge me as I prefer to discuss this when I come to prose, thanks

I look forward to the prose. . . especially as we can never be too certain about these things. Someone has well said - 'the laws of probability, so true in general, so fallacious in particular' _{Edward Gibbon.}

@Deep Sight, I would not like to interrupt you between times so that your ideas could flow more easily until we get your point. The one thing it seems you aim to present is the 'oneness of infinity', right? Good. But as you can see, even at the basic level, your task becomes even more arduous especially because the mathematics at the foundation is not piecing your ideas together.

While we wait patiently, I would say that mavenbox  in posts #26 to #28 has expatiated on what I hinted at in #17:

The 'infinite number of infinities' (or 'infinite infinities', which I would pun [∞n]) would tend to pantheistic innuendos (for want of an apt descriptive); but the more interesting thing is that the NL mathematicians could quite easily show the basis for this [∞n] and bring you round what I'm trying to say.

In a couple of things we differ, and one example of very slight consequence is her "∞_∞" where I would rather '[∞_n]'.

However, I don't think you've caught the main gist of these concerns when you stated:

Deep Sight:
No problems here. Let me just make one point: The brouhaha over fractions, number bases, etc is entirely irrelevant to this discourse. For the simple reason that a sequential continuum is all that is sought to be established and nothing more. It matters little if you note it in fractions or whole numbers.

I'm not so sure about your use of 'sequential continuum' . . and number bases are entirely irrelevant to the discourse? Are you kidding us? I think when you consider the case of a sequential continuum, it then becomes absolutely relevant to let us know in what parameters your infinities would apply (I sense already that it would entirely collapse when considered in various bases).

Besides that, your point of reference for infinity does not suggest only one infinity, but at least three infinities:

← ← ← Infinity  ← 0 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 [INFINITY]1  2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 → Infinity → → →

Did you not see the infinity I placed at both ends?

. . . and it would only make sense when you clarify why only one infinity amongst three would be apropos to your thesis. If that point is not demystified, how do others understand where you're coming from, let alone where you're going? Especially so, since even you yourself had pointed out that -

Look this is a delicate philosophical process which will not be helped if we are careless in our observations please.

All the same, please proceed.

@mazaje, this only confirms beneli's oft-referred post about the derailing of threads by atheists who have nothing coherent to present in certain topics. We have been through your drivel again and again and you're still marking time on the same spot - why should I want to feed your ambition to be a troll in this thread?

But here's something I'd would like to throw in your direction anyday:

mazaje:
Your example are anecdotal. . . .And what are the realities that they have experience that is beyond their naturalism?. . . . Pls can you tell us?

My examples are not anecdotal - but that's your world if your horse rides. In anycase, it is not in my place to interpolate subjective experiences for the atheists I talked about who lean towards atheism but with a spiritual clause. This is one reason why I find your attitude so puerile it is gone beyond a joke, because you often have this sense that you know it all while knowing zilch about what atheism actually is for MANY atheists. Have you EVER considered this possible?

While the games lasted, I enjoyed humouring you guys - but your empty talk and determination to derail this thread is very telling indeed. I could take up this subject of such atheists outside your cubicle in an appropriate thread; but at the present we could do better to return to the OP and address its concerns. Let me see how your naturalism explains the ORIGIN of life - let's hear you, mazaje.

Abu Zola:
@viaro- yara man wata guan,

. . .??



^{will somebody please help me translate? I know that is not arabic, nor is it a typo (considering our very articulate and resident 'lala'). . but where do I begin to decode the above?}

No worries man. . salute.

see what I mean? The mathematicians and logicians are  beginning to convene.

easylogic:
Maybe its me,but i still don't see how all this counts as an argument for God's existence.

I wondered about that as well and perhaps was too forward to note the same thing in another thread.

_________________________

Krayola:
Abeg make una break am down to lay man language. Abi is this God only for Geniuses?

This is not even scratching the surface of rocket science.

__________________________

aletheia:
Thanks but. . .no matter how he presents it; his basic premise is mathematically and philosophically flawed

Quite true; and. .

Looking at Deep Sight''s series: you can see that he treats infinity as being equivalent to 0 or 1. But by definition you can never start at infinity or arrive at infinity.

It really all depends. We could start at a certain point within an identity of infinity - any infinity; but we could not nail that very point the 'start' of any infinity, which is why there's so much sense in this line of yours:

Is there a number that is equal to infinity+1?

I don't know. Who knows whether there is a mathematician out there who is lurking around to demystify this particular 'ME' ([b]m[/b]athematical [b]e[/b]mbarrassment). Personally, I think the 'inifinity' identity is one of the 'ME's that falls into what is commonly called transcedental numbers (ie., a number that is not algebraic and is not a solution of a non-constant polynomial . .  blah-blah).

Deep Sight, there are more mathematicians in NL than I could count. I would not have been surprised at the raised eyebrows from various observers, considering that you had an interesting kickoff . . until this:

Deep Sight:
- With the progressive expansion indicated in it demostrates -

  Premise 1 - Progression, Numerics and Mathematics

  Premise 2 - Infinitely continuing order or sequences

Second Initial Conclusion: The source (zero/infinity) posesses an infinite sequential layout.

I just don't know where to start; but did you realise that even in prose, the weight of your statements would raise voices in this thread? I mean, take premise 2 for instance: did you consider that each and every digit in your numerals could quite possibly have a 'sequence' as well in context of 'infinite continuity order'? That being the case, what you might just have opened up is quite another thing entirely. .  which is that there is not just "ONE infinity only", but an infinite number of infinities.

The 'infinite number of infinities' (or 'infinite infinities', which I would pun [∞n]) would tend to pantheistic innuendos (for want of an apt descriptive); but the more interesting thing is that the NL mathematicians could quite easily show the basis for this [∞n] and bring you round what I'm trying to say.

However, I think if you just left out the allusions to numerals and mathematics and present your case for a 'oneness of infinity', you might more easily progress this thread. But the catch22 is that it would seem an insurmountable task to progress on this while leaving out the mathematics at the foundation of it all. So, how do we help?

aletheia:
I think you are murdering mathematics here.
I don't understand how counting in either direction:
0-> 1-> 2-> 3-> 4-> 5-> 6-> 7-> 8-> 9. . .followed by 0?(Not 10?) . . .leads to infinity Come on.
You can never arrive at infinity whether you start counting at one or at googolplex.

I don't think Deep Sight was that gullible. Indeed, he already moved past that simplistic assumption when he posted this earlier:

Deep Sight:
Before starting out, let me be quick to accept the conundrum of the existence of God proffered by the more accurate -

← ← ← ← Infinity ← 0 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 [ZERO]1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 → Infinity → → → →

. . and:

Deep Sight:
Thus the most accurate code should look like -

← ← ← Infinity ← 0 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 [INFINITY]1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 → Infinity → → →

Sure, the '0' at the end of either direction of the 9s are presumptive and wrong. But he's said to propose his explanations in prose. . . in which case, I wonder how he's handled the mathematical progression in such a prose that he proposes. However, we should not be in such a haste . . he might surprise us.

nuclearboy:
I don't believe it. Yisraylite "sensed" true talk from ME? And Abu is now "born again FOR THE MEAN TIME! !"! Where is "Carbonated drinks" when you need him? I need his holy fumes tonight to celebrate this.

Commander. . howdy, your honour. Yours truly has been 'around'. .  only busy between times. I hope to come back later tonight and belch up, if the powers that be would not be 'so kind' as to load me with overtime work tonight. Fingers crossed.

____________

Abuzo-lala, whatz gwan man? Just wanted to salute.

. . >sigh<

Amico mio. . I am around. That your inifinity prose will explode into a black hole when I begin.

But just continue - you seem to be going somewhere with it all, and please be sure those grabbing front seats will get value's worth for their tickets.

I have also seen you deny some of the things in the bible, like the Noah's global flood story and here you are again trying to deny the words of Jesus himself by trying to say that it is not supposed to read as it was written because Jesus did not imply that people should be his clones when the bible passage in john 14 says other wise.

No, I did not deny Noah's flood - and for you to argue that I did is also a LIE. My argument rather was that it was not global but local - not that I denied Noah's flood. Please bro, don't make cheap arguments like this to force yourself into your own confusion. And as far as the miracles of Jesus are concerned, I have explained what I know both from the texts and through firsthand experiences.


____________________________

toneyb:
Ok lets go back to our probability calculus, The probability of all the birds we see around the earth springing into existence fully formed by the magical Hebrew words of an undetected deity is what? .

Hehe. . if I gave you calculus in Hebrew, would you know what to do with it? The whole thing that amuses me is that your own naturalism is unable to scratch the surface about the ORIGIN of life - your best shot is 'evolution'; and even on that note when closely scrutinized, atheists will hastily post disclaimers that 'evolution does not deal with questions about the ORIGIN of life! Are you guys so talented you don't really know what informs your atheistic worldview on its own?

Bro, hurry up and give us your atheistic calculus. . in any language. . we aint got the excuse of waiting for 'billions of atheistic years' to observe that calculus. Come forward, produce your calculus, apply the wonder of a billion years, and let's see you begin to scratch the surface of the ORIGIN of life. Just hurry up and stop marking time on the same spot in wasting these evolutionary epochs!

On a serious note now, Its good to talk to you too Vairo. You are truly an interesting person.

Cheers mate. . anyday.

Goodness me! How is it that responding to you guys is so irrestible, especially when you keep turning around and dancing on the same spot? I should just leave off and almost swear to not answer diversionary games again. . they often turn out to just the same thing beneli has aptly pointed out. If you allow me just this once, there's nothing fresh in what you have presented, toneyb.

toneyb:
Vairo my man Howdy.

Very cool and enjoying life. And you?

When I talk about the works of Jesus I was very clear to show that I meant miraculous works of Jesus. I believe mazaje also means that same thing. I was talking specifically about the miraculous works of Jesus and nothing else.

Okay, and I have addressed that meaning within what was given as the 'works' of Jesus - please, please, and please, see post #95. Do you want me to repeat that same post, or there's something about those references that disqualify them from the same 'works' of Jesus? If it helps, please help yourself:

The clause applies to both miracles and demonstrating Kingdom life.

As to the miraculous, they include His 'works' - such as:
[list][li]casting out demons (Matt. 8:16)[/li]
[li]healing the sick (Matt. 14:14)[/li]
[li]healing demoniacs (Matt. 12:22)[/li]
[li]raising the dead (Matt. 11:5)[/li][/list]

. . and very often, people fail to see that the 'works' also include:
[list][li]preaching the Gospel to the 'poor'(Matt. 11:5)[/li][/list]

Now, please toneyb, please show me why these could not also be within your applicable meaning of the 'works' of Jesus?

Do you know first hand of any Christian healing a blind person whose eyes balls have been removed? Do you know first hand of any Christian who has healed any amputee and made his or her body parts grow back to its previous state or walk on water?

No, I don't know any such by firsthand experience. And your point is. . ?

That I don't have a firsthand experience of those things listed does not mean that I have not seen the miraculous in other ways including some enlisted in passages I have cited. YES, I have firsthand experiences of those others, and it does not surprise me that you guys do not ever acknowledge those other miracles as veritably inclusive of the 'works' of Jesus. The only thing I see here is your attempt to narrow down your arguments to a convenient operating station for your atheism, which is no surprise. It seems to me that if no other person could have been found from my own experience to have done any of those things listed above in your quote, then NONE of the 'works' of Jesus would have been done by any Christian at all - is that it? If that is what you're arguing, it would again be patently false and very sad indeed.

As far as His 'works' are concerned, I have set forth some examples from Matthew alone (besides others), and have shown that Christians have indeed done the 'works' of Jesus. I just imagine how far you want to grow this argument from your initial assumption that the Christian cannot do ANY of such 'works'.

Did Jesus do that according to the bible and promise his follower the ability to do greater miraculous works than those? Yes, Do the Christian believers posses this ability today? The answer as mazaje has stated is no.

The answer as mazaje stated is a superficial 'no'. Did mazaje recognize the 'works' addressed in Matthew which I pointed out as reproduced below? --
[list][li]casting out demons (Matt. 8:16)[/li]
[li]healing the sick (Matt. 14:14)[/li]
[li]healing demoniacs (Matt. 12:22)[/li]
[li]raising the dead (Matt. 11:5)[/li][/list]
No, mazaje certainly did not recognize those 'works'; and if he did, I stand to declare his answer as patently false and sad. Christians have done those 'works', and your attempt to whip up a convenient superficiality for your position is simply a non-starter.

Have you seen first hand were Christians performed the type of healing that Jesus was said to have preformed like raising the dead, Healing the blind and healing amputees? Anecdotal tales mean nothing to me personally. Because it has been shown so many times that eye witness accounts are some times useless.

What I have experienced are not 'anecdotal' - and that was why I hinted about naturalists who lean towards atheism and yet speak of 'spirituality' as a compromise for one simple reason: they cannot expressly deny the realities of these things, but they will save face by making recourse to a sort of 'spirituality' without reference to SPIRIT. I know this, because I have spoken with quite a few of them who are deep in their own type of atheism with a spiritual clause - and such folks opened my eyes to the understanding that there are many atheists who are not willing to come forward and confess that there is a reality BEYOND their own naturalism! They rather just want an atheism that is every bit as 'religious' as religion itself could be defined (with the exception, of course, of mazaje's small world for all types of 'atheisms' ). These folks, if they would be bold-faced enough to drop their compromises, would tell you better than I ever could - that they know these things for a certainty and yet would NOT want to believe in God, especially the Christian God. My misfortunate here is that there is a paucity of materials online that would attest to this very thing, although a few of these guys say that this type of 'atheism' is quite recent and new.

What kind of healing did you witness, healing of the blind?

Yes.

Healing of the deaf,

Yes.

healing of an amputee?

No.

Any objective evidence for any of this healing? If No then why should any body believe you?

I already said that my attestation is subjective; but subjective attestations in these matters is not useless or meaningless, unless your type of atheism is so narrow that it knows nothing outside of itself.

No Christian today has done any of the miraculous works of Jesus like walking on water, turning water into wine, healing amputees and raising people from their graves after they have been dead for some days like the case of Lazarus. Even though Jesus promised that those that believe in him will do greater miraculous works than he was said to have done. Has any Christian believer done any miraculous work greater than the one Jesus was said to have done? No.

False, patently false. Look again at the inclusive works of Jesus enlisted in
post #95 - they include "ANY of the 'works' of Jesus" and there are people who have done them as He promised.

Deep Sight:
Ok o, Viaro . . . i accept the part about works being not only "miracles" per se. . .

But undeniably there is the inference in the text that they would perform greater miracles than he did.

That is not what it appears to infer in that verse, sir. John 14:12. It may appear so to many 'superficialists', and if I would gain any understanding of what 'works' He was referring to, then I would have to gather them from other passages - which was what I did earlier. That does not mean that I'm excusing the 'walking on water' aspect away; no, but rather I have said that I don't know of anyone who has done that besides Him.

No raising frrom the dead, etc.

Within the context of the 'HISTORY of CHRISTIANITY' in yours, could we say that what you read in Acts is to be ignored?

Indeed whereas Jesus always went where help was needed, these guys shy away from hospitals, refugee camps and the like where their "holy-spirit-power" would have been put to good use.

Your two cents are quite valid, my bro. . . very valid. And because I wanted this thread to remain healthy, it didn't seem appropriate to divert down that lane - and consequently I just skipped that point.

____________________

Now, this one is one that I have tried to highlight:

Deep Sight:
Besides you guys are derailing the OP. . .back to the question of life out of nothing and the miracle of evolution. . . i ask again - are creation and evolution mutually exclusive?

I would wish that we stayed on topic; but I have to admit being guilty as charged even after beneli tried to point out the tendency to derail:

beneli:
Much as toneyb asks some very interesting questions regarding his interpretation of Christian beliefs, I think that using these questions as a front to avoid the topic in hand is, shall we say, rather disingenuous. Must all atheists really go down that route when cornered with the improbabilities of their assertions?

Perhaps I should just ignore the roundabout diversionary play here and just focus on the concerns germane to this thread. Thank you all (mazaje and toneyb, you guys are good to talk with, cheers).

mazaje:
I repeat Jesus was said to have healed amputees, raised the dead, walked on water, stopped tsunamis and storms, Feed 5000 people with 2 fish and 5 bread and promised his followers the ability to do greater things than this. . . Correct me if I am wrong but NO Christian has ever walked on water or turned water into wine. . .Has any christian ever healed an amputee and made his or her amputated limbs or body part grow back?

I just replied Deep Sight and showed some of the works that are recorded as having been done by believing Christians. I did not include examples of some we have today for just one reason: many people are given to controversies and all the 'pimping' going on in Christendom, and I'd not like to go down that path. However, I know firsthand that many Christians have done the miraculous, and that is incontrovertible. That I have no record of anyone who has walked on water does not mean that no Christian has done ANY of the works of Jesus - that is a patently sad lie.

You keep running around yet refusing to address the question and explaining NOTHING. . . .Did Jesus promise his followers and those that believe in him the ability to do greater things than what he was said to have done? Yes. Are those that believe in him doing greater things that he was said to have done today? NO. . . . .NON of them is even doing what he is said to have done talk less of doing more.

I have not run around but addressed the question precisely as they were formulated from yours to toneyb's and then Deep Sight's. The one thing I have not seen you guys do is act grown up and stop this dancing on ice of quibbling over non-starters as 'Paul's words'. If exegesis is tough for you, please accept my sympathies. . you're not alone: others still have issues with context and deixis.

Exegesis card again. . . Did Jesus promise his followers and those that believe in him the ability to do greater things than him? YES are they doing such things today. . .NO. . . .You can not run away from that fact. . . .exegesis or not will not help you here.

NO - absolutely NOT. 'Greater things than these' - not 'greater things than HIM'. You're a funny character of sorts. John 14 does not even record the particular miracles that you guys are quick to rush unto, but even so we cannot say that NO Christian has done ANY of the works of Jesus, could we?

What is all these long writing that explains nothing at all. . . .This is quite very simple. . .Believe and it will happen the verse even explain the reason they were unable to cast out demon which was unbelief. . . .Jesus says believe and you will do greater things than I did

All these long writing is a neat way to say the obvious - 'your atheism is bereft of good scholarship'. I have no other way of noting your complaint, because I anticipated that when someone addresses the atheist's superficiality in simple things, they cannot stand up to face what has been addressed.

What was the reason that Jesus gave for their inability to perform magic? unbelief. . . .believe and you will do greater things than Jesus was the promise.

What does Matthew 17:21 say? 'Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting.' You can 'believe' all you want and still find that there are certain cases that are not dealt with in the realm of just 'belief'. The 'unbelief' of verse 20 does not mean that they had become atheists who no longer believed in Jesus or in the miraculous; but verse 21 shows just what He meant as reason for why they could not handle that case.

Your exegesis so have have failed to explain anything so far. . .It was only able to cut and paste and exlplain things away without addressing anything a all.

If I had not directly cut and posted those verses, you would still complain. Those who complain that someone's exegesis have 'failed' are themselves confirming that they have no clue about their own arguments. You can accuse as vacuously as you may wish, but such rants are not new to me, honestly. Rather than complain in such a simplistic manner, what have you said or pointed out in the other verses I showed? Zilch! That is what you guys often do - scuttle round and whine all day and say nothing when your artifical arguments are sorted.

I one verse it is said that belief alone is what is required and in another it says belief alone is not what is required eh? In all the verses that I quoted believe was the only criteria.

'He that believes' does not take anything away from the fact of other contexts - as in Matthew 17:21. Even when you apply that verse, you do so while still believing. Did we earlier talk about the 'subjectivity'  of the miraculous? well, there - you have an example.

Vairo the la-la. . .Where Christians believer not praying to go to stop the katrina storm? Why was their prayer unable to stop it?

Are you such a sport or just talented at making such noise? Did you not read what I said earlier: "I have also seen such a downpour after much prayer - in more times than I could count"?? What did you take away from that? My guy mazaje, you're beginning to sound quite puerile these days. .  whatz gwan?

Why do we always "hear" about healing but never see any objective one that will keep every body quite like healing of an amputee? We always here lalala tales about this or that. . .When will any believer in Jesus heal an amputee like Jesus was said to have done? I can go on and count the number of times that such miracles have been exposed to be a sham or number of times Christians have prayed for miracles in my presence while quoting the very verse in JOHN TO HELP THEM MAKE a case in their plea and nothing happened. . .But i will not

Like I said earlier: "I have seen people miraculously healed in precisely the way that some of the apostles did in Acts 19:12, and in some instances some who had the power to heal had not been able to manifest them." What was difficult to understand in that? NOTHING. But yes, I have seen firsthand where Christians have actually healed the sick - that is subjective, but again I owe no atheist any submission for not being able to experience what I or any other Christian has. The fact is that none of these atheists themselves know what their atheism is, and that is why I noted that some atheists today just speak about "spirituality" as a compromise because they have nothing in the matrix of their naturalism to explain what they can't handle.

Any body ever seen a christian heal an amputee or walk on water?.

Any if you've not seen one, that is enough to conclude in your drivel that no Christian has done ANY of the works of Jesus? You're not even in grade yet.

It is very valid and you have addressed NOTHING so far.

Where have you ever addressed anything?

I knew that this was going to come up at the end, Its either people should not take the bible as it reads or that the bible was not really saying what it was saying. . . . . . I have seen a debate where some apologist said that the verse in John 14 12-14 could have been an interpolation by one of the over zealous scribes and that Jesus might have not said those words at all . . . .Any thing that can rationalize the Christians faith . . . Nothing do wuna make wuna carry go.

Oh c'mon! I have seen debates from 'Christians'  who deny everything in the Bible, so what's new?    Their denials are nothing to go by, because most often you ask them why then do they still retain 'Christian' in their worldview, and the answer? More excuses than their initial denials.

Deep Sight:
^^^ Viaro. . . you cannot deny that NO PERSON IN THE HISTORY OF CHRISTIANITY has worked miracles even at a par with those reported to have been done by Jesus, not to mention surpass such. . .

That is not the gist of my discussions with the atheists 'marshalls' in this thread, my dear sir. The 'history of Christianity' is way too much for you to handle, and please don't scream that clause if you don't know what you're about to get into. Observe and discuss your points within the grand scheme of the arrogant assertions that appear from the atheist superfluity that informed my replies, and I may be able to show you one or two things. It is not a question of surpassing the 'works' that Jesus did as if anyone would be greater than Him, but let's look at your concerns in the next line:

Nor can you deny that Jesus did state that his followers would do greater works in that regard. . . Can you point to even one such person?

Yes, I could. 'Greater works' in my understanding do not just mean the few miraculous things in John 14, and here again is the quote (KJV) - 'Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father' (verse 12). Delineated as such:

[list][li](a) 'the works that I do shall he do also'[/li]
[li](b) 'greater works than these shall he do'[/li][/list]

In (a) above, what is meant by 'works'? While many people may take the view that they apply to 'miracles', for viaro it does not always point to that. This is not an excuse, but look carefully at other passages at what Jesus would have meant in addressing His disciples with 'the works that I do'. The clause applies to both miracles and demonstrating Kingdom life.

As to the miraculous, they include His 'works' - such as:
[list][li]casting out demons (Matt. 8:16)[/li]
[li]healing the sick (Matt. 14:14)[/li]
[li]healing demoniacs (Matt. 12:22)[/li]
[li]raising the dead (Matt. 11:5)[/li][/list]

. . and very often, people fail to see that the 'works' also include:
[list][li]preaching the Gospel to the 'poor'(Matt. 11:5)[/li][/list]

Why is this important? Because Jesus did not intend to narrow His 'works' by merely what we take for manifestations of the 'miraculous', but preaching the Gospel is as important in His 'works', and that is why Matthew 11:5 includes them - 'The blind receive their sight, and the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, and the poor have the gospel preached to them.'

Please tell me: could the arrogant assertion that no Christian is said to have done ANY of the 'works' of Jesus stand in the face of the above? No Christian in your screaming 'HISTORY OF CHRISTIANITY'  has worked miracles as Jesus did, no? No Christian has -

[list][li]cast out demons (Acts 5:16)[/li]
[li]healed the sick (Acts 9:33-34)[/li]
[li]healed demoniacs (Acts 19:12)[/li]
[li]raised the dead (Acts 9:37-40)[/li][/list]

No Christian - NONE in the 'HISTORY of CHRISTIANITY' - has done ANY of those works of Jesus? Do you even read at all?

And what about the other meaning of His 'works' - preaching the Gospel? Could we say that in the 'History of Christianity' no Christian has done ANY such works as 'preaching the Gospel', no? You guys just amaze me with your superficiality.

Anyhow, I don't know of anyone who has walked on water apart from Jesus - but I do know that many Christians filled with the Holy Spirit have done the 'works' of Jesus as delineated above. That walking on water has not featured among them does not mean that no Christian has done ANY of such 'works' of Jesus.

Pardon me if i missed something o. . . i must admit i have not fully read the thread yet. . .

Okay, thou art pardoned. Forgive my mood, bro. . I am yet to recover from the aftermath of the festive season. Happy New Year.

mazaje:
Having an ability to do things greater than what Jesus was said to do does not sound like something that is subjective to me. .  .That was the context I was talking about.

Fine, and there's no problem with your context. However, Biblical miracles are subjective - and I explained my context earlier.

OK. . .Who amongst  those that are able to perform miracles have done anything close to what Jesus was written to have done? How many of the said miracle workers around have ever healed an amputee, walked on water, raised people from the dead or feed 5000 people with 2 fish and 5 pieces of bread? Remember Jesus said that those that believe in him will do greater things than he was said to have done. . .How many amongst those that have the ability to perform miracles today are able to do greater things than what Jesus did as he promised his followers even if we are to agree that it is not every body that is supposed to have that ability?

I don't know how many today have done or are doing what you enlisted, nor would I begin to make up stories to fill gaps. Often, I go by hard facts (whether they are broadly braodcast or subjective). However, the atheist assumption that no Christian could do ANY miracle is an open lie, and I have used the example of Mark 16 to point that out very simply.

They are NOT superficial readings they are the words of Jesus himself if we are to go by what the bible actually says. . .Why should people accept the words of Paul over what Jesus himself is alleged to have said?

There is a difference between Jesus' words and superficially reading His words. It is His own words that I drew from and explained the context using 1 Corinthians 12, and that is precisely how the collective picture for exegesis is given in Scripture - both OT and NT. You don't just take a verse and give it a private interpretation on its own as if that is all there is to say about any particular subject, and 2 Pet. 1:20 points it out lucidly in the NT, while an example of this exegesis could be found in Daniel 9:2. It is not a question of the words of Paul over the words of Jesus, and every student of the Bible understands the simple meaning of 'exegesis', and it amazes me that that is the one word that accentuates the atheist's superficiality.

Here are the words of Jesus whom the people are very right to believe, because his words are greater than those of Paul whom only claims that Jesus appears to him in visions. . . .Here is Jesus in his own words .

Again, I would repeat this: 'It is not a question of the words of Paul over the words of Jesus, and every student of the Bible understands the simple meaning of 'exegesis', and it amazes me that that is the one word that accentuates the atheist's superficiality.' The point is that Biblical exegesis is very well know to Biblical characters, and there are several examples where the disciples did not just take a literal view of what they heard from Jesus. I'm sure you obviously missed such examples in your quest to be so legalistic in your superficiality.

Matthew 17:20
Matthew 7:7
Ask, and it will be given you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. For every one who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened. Or what man of you, if his son asks him for bread, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a serpent? If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask him!

Thank you for quoting Matthew 17:20 (besides the others cited) - does it not have a context in the whole passage?

Prior to this passage, we read in chapter 10:1 that Jesus called the twelve disciples and 'gave them power against unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all manner of sickness and all manner of disease'. The people among whom they ministered would have seen such power manifest in the disicples . . and that was why this 'certain man' first brought his lunatic son to the disciples and yet said: 'I brought him to thy disciples, and they could not cure him' (Matthew 17:14-16). When Jesus healed that man's son, the disciples were baffled and asked pointedly: 'Why could not we cast him out?' (verse 19) . It is remarkable to read Jesus' answer in verse 20 to their question: 'Because of your unbelief', even though He had given them power against unclean spirits. And after He explained that nothing shall be impossible unto them if they had faith as a grain of mustard seed, then He went on to reveal something to them in verse 21 - "Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting." (see the parallel in Mark 9:29 - 'This kind can come forth by nothing, but by prayer and fasting').

It is not only by prayer and/or fasting that certain seemingly impossible situations are dealt with. However, the point to note here is that even though the apostles had been given such power over unclean spirits and over all manner of sicknesses and all diseases (Matt. 10:1), they still found yet that there are certain unclean spirits and sicknesses that they could not deal with by just possessing the gift of 'power' to do the miraculous (Matt. 17:19). This is one very important thing that should be taken into account when reading any text - and 1 Corinthians 12 provides a good context to understand the situation between Matthew 10 and 17.

This has nothing to do with the superficial argument or wranggling over 'Paul's word'; but it is important to see that when you take any verse of the Bible and just plaster your superfluity on them in abject ignorance of their contexts, deixis or exegetical foundations, you won't see what any verse is trying to say at all.

Again and again we see Jesus using the believe as the only criteria, You believe in him you will have certain powers supposedly. . .Why should any body take Paul's words over those of Jesus?

Even if you leave out your nightmare of 'Paul's words' from the whole passages, take a look at the one thing you are yet missing: context. Jesus did NOT use 'belief' as 'the only criteria'; for we have just seen that your assumption is quite puerile. Matthew 10 shows that because they believed in Him, they were chosen to be His apostles and power were given them over ALL manner of sicknesses and diseases. Yes? Yes. But what happened in Matthew 17? They could not heal a lunatic son even though they had such power to do so. They asked Jesus why that was so, and He explained that certain spirits require MORE THAN 'belief', for 'belief is NOT the "only"' criteria. This is a fact that prophets of both the OT and NT knew and understood, and yet only mazaje would fail to grasp these simple things because he has a problem with 'Paul's words'. Ha.

We will always disagree over these things, But again I ask how many amongst those that have the ability to perform miracles today have ever done anything like turning water into wine, walking on water, healing amputees, feeding thousand of people with one plate of food, Raising dead people and calming down storms and tsunamis? Even though Jesus promised that those that have that ability and believe will do greater things than he was to have done? I have never seen any Christian that calmed down a storm and stopped it from causing havoc or walk on water.

I have seen some Christians pray over gathering storms that gave way to clement weather - not once but on three different occasions in three different locations. I have also seen such a downpour after much prayer - in more times than I could count. I have seen people miraculously healed in precisely the way that some of the apostles did in Acts 19:12, and in some instances some who had the power to heal had not been able to manifest them.

Again, this has nothing to do with my own subjective experiences, for there are others who have witnessed far more in the miraculous than viaro has. You may not have seen any of these, and using your atheistic complaining to validate your atheistic arguments is a huge joke - especially when considered in light of your superficiality and disregard for context in the verses you argue about. But yes, we will always disagree over these matters - not because you have any substance to your arguments, but because you're trying to use your atheism to argue what you don't even have a clue about.

It is a VERY genuine statement, and has NOT been answered in any valid way at all.

It is genuinely superfluous - and has been addressed.

Again why is it that those that have the ability to perform miracles are not able to do the ones Jesus was said to have done even though he promised them that they will be able to do greater things than he did? I am yet to hear or see any Christian walk on water or turn water into wine.

My straightforard answer is this: Jesus never implied we are supposed to be clones. The fact that there are Christians who have and continue to manifest the signs and wonders enlisted in His promises shows that your argument that they have not done ANY of such is not only patently false but also patently sad. True, we may not all have done precisely those same things such as walking on water; but does that mean that no Christian has demonstrated the miraculous in ANY way or form? It is not even your denial that counts, but that you don't even have a grasp of what you're arguing.

You just keep bringing 1 Corinthians 12. . . . Even though it addresses nothing IMO.

Even if I left out 1 Corinthians 12 and pretend it addresses 'nothing', the very essence of what I talked about previously still stands by comparing Matthew 10 with Matthew 17.

mazaje:
Abuzo- la-la. . . . .

Hehe. . you're shopping for trouble, the 'abuzo' brand!
Didn't you and I agree to let the 'la-la' chap a wee space??

ancel:
JeSoul, its schadenfroh and yeah I know I shouldn't be doing it, but I couldn't resist it!

I can't resist stealing that word to add to my vocab list!

beneli:
The ‘gods of religion’ you say. The fact that you are always qualifying these ‘gods’ (gods of religion, man made etc) suggests to me that you probably want to tell us some thing about the gods you DO believe in. Perhaps you believe in ‘gods’ that are not ‘man made’ or ‘of religions’? Is that what you are trying to tell us? Why not come out and say it!

Hehe. .  Just leave mazaje alone. He actually 'knows' it all and deems it his prerogative to be a 'marshall' over these things. He alone 'knows' how atheism works and no other atheist could be an atheist other than his own understanding of atheism.

Anyways, here are a few things that caught me in yours - you made so much sense that I wondered where to begin:

beneli:
Much as toneyb asks some very interesting questions regarding his interpretation of Christian beliefs, I think that using these questions as a front to avoid the topic in hand is, shall we say, rather disingenuous. Must all atheists really go down that route when cornered with the improbabilities of their assertions?

At the risk of derailing this thread, let me just say that a lot of the things written in the holy books (the bible for instance) should not be read literarily. When you do so, you lose the meaning.

But that’s not the issue here. The issue here is not about biblical metaphors and misunderstood meanings. The issue is about whether life came out of dust as a random process. Mathematics (or statistics, if you will) says it’s improbable.

Pardon me for trying to contain our friends in this thread - actually I had begun to feel that we had derailed (or almost hijacked the thread) somewhere. One gets so easily carried away in these things that the topic is often lost before we realise it. What amazes me in it all is that the atheist/naturalist/materialist has yet to come up with his own Mathematical framework that persuades us about the Origin of life - how life is supposed to have come about completely on its own. This is the atheist 'miracle' that we have been waiting to see - and we aint got evolutionary 'billions of years' to wait!

mazaje:
Let me jump in here, I have always stated that the Christian god hypothesis is structured in such a away that some of its claims can be objectively observed according to the hypothesis. . . .

You are very welcome to jump in.

Why does it have to be subjective? The bible does not promise subjective miracles does it?

This, my dear friend, is where you get it ALL WRONG, and it would do you some good to have a good grasp of what you attempt to claim before even type the first letter. Translated: YES, the Bible does make a case, a very strong case, for SUBJECTIVE miracles. It is not a question open to willy-nilly showcases, but of one addressing an exclusivity that is simple and straightforward in what it presents.

If we are to go by what the bible says every body that believes is supposed to be a miracle worker and do greater things than what jesus was alleged to have done. . It say any one that believes in  jesus will have the ability to perform magic that all can see like jesus did. . . .

John 14 12-14
"Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes in me will also do the works that I do; and greater works than these will he do, because I go to the Father. Whatever you ask in my name, I will do it, that the Father may be glorified in the Son; if you ask anything in my name, I will do it.


These passage is very clear and simple, it says any body that believes is supposed to be a magical miracle worker doing even greater things than those that Jesus himself was written to have done. . . .Amongst such things are raising people from the dead, healing amputees, walking on water, turning water into wine, feeding 5000 people with 2 fish and 5 loafs of bread etc. . . .

There are many such verses that could be examined in the case presented in my previous reply exemplifying Mark 16:17-18, and John 14:12-13 is yet another example. As noted earlier: "Any careless or superficial reading would produce the assumption that we find in your query where all Christians are supposed to be doing all those things without exceptions", and that is what again has shown in your reply, especially when you ignore 1 Cor. 12:27-31 which was cited earlier to help you see the mistake in superficial reading of those texts.

I also pointed out it is due to these misplaced superficial readings that some churches have tried to use them as a sort of 'standard' for who is a believer or not - and according to them, if a Christian does not do any of those signs, then such would not be considered a 'believer', a very said case of fundamentalism and its attendant results. These same folks never get to see what was given in such other passages as 1 Cor. 12:27-31, especially where verses 4-11 already laid it out clearly: there are 'diversities of gifts,' and 'dfferences of administrations', as well 'diversities of operations' even though they are given from the same one Lord through one Spirit to each believer.

Indeed, such passages as Mark 16 and John 14 under review present us with interesting questions, some of which you reiterated. However, 'them that believe' and 'he that believeth' are not to be taken to mean that all shall perform exactly the same things, nor that every one is supposed by necessity to be a miracle worker of sorts. The prophecies of the OT that directly relate to the charismata of the NT era do not even suppose this 'cloning' that you had supposed from a superficial reading of those texts. An example of such OT prophecies would include Joel 2:28 - surely, such a verse does not suppose that every one of the 'sons and daughters' were to prophesy; nor does it mean that everyone of 'your old men' were to be given divine dreams, etc. The point is that these signs were to be manifested in the Body of believers from individulas who are so gifted with each one of those gifts from the Spirit. If believers and unbelievers alike would see this simple case, it would be unnecessary for me to point out anything here and the grounds for superficial reading of those texts would not even be there in the first place - especially where the whole scenario is explicated in 1 Corinthians 12!

Toneyb's question to me is still valid why are christians unable to do any of the things Jesus promised? I have never seen any christian heal an amputee or turn water into wine.

Yes, toneyb's question was valid and has been addressed in a valid way so that the idea that Christians are unable to do ANY of these things is not a genuine statement.

These things or signs are said to follow any one that believes. . .No qualifier of any sought was made believe and you will have the ability to perform such magic.

You make such assertions from a superficial ground, especially ignoring the deixis of Biblical narratives as well as the context of 1 Corinthians 12 already cited.

Same old excuse. . . .There is no where in the passage where it says that they are not supposed to be taken literally.

The real excuse comes from you trying to force literalism into those texts. There is not a single line where any verse there said they should/must be taken in a literal manner either - and the simple way of understanding such Biblical texts is to compare them with other verses and look out for contexts and connections. This I have done, citing 1 Corinthians 12, and you can shout all your excuses till day break and be blue in the face!

The bible does not make a qualifier or make an exception you are the one that is making the exception for reasons best known to you. . . The bible is very clear believe and you will be able to do greater things than those attributed to Jesus. . . .i.e walk on water, turn water into wine and all the other magical stuffs.

I did not apply my own reasons as if it is only in John 14 we ever read of the miraculous or of 'signs'. There is a specific reason why they are called 'signs' and not magic as they atheist superficialist likes to believe. Why 'signs'? Because they point to something other than themselves; and where they appear, we should look out for context by gathering a collective picture. The one who is doing the shouting of a simpleton here is none other than you, where you have chosen to ignore the 1 Corinthians 12 citations for reasons best known to you.

If can come in here I will say that it is not about denial but about what I see, I have never seen any christian doing any thing close to what Jesus was said to have done despite the promise which was passed unto any one that believes. . . . .Jesus was said to have healed a man whose ear was amputated, He promised those that believe in him that ability too, I have never head or seen any Christian heal any amputee before. . . .So toneyb's question is still very valid IMO.

Again, I have no problem with your objections; the area of concern for me is when you make your own objections to be applicable to a sphere wider than your own subjective experience. I noted earlier that my own subjectivity may not go down well with the atheist/naturalist/materialist, but even so I owe them zilch for my own subjective experience - for precisely the same reason as you bear your objections, viz: "about what I see".

There are many things I have heard but have not seen; and I'm not one to gullibly applaud one and every case. Even so, I do not go about trying to narrow all such experinces to my own subjectivity of 'what I see' or not see. Outside of my Christian worldview and experiences, there are reports of things that I have no basis to counter-argue - not because I did not 'see' them, but more so because even my own worldview does not deny them! An example happened recently: a Hindu friend recounted an experience where he had a vision of something about to happen - and even though he is not a Christian, sure enough what he had already told two days before came to pass. Just because I did not 'see' it all for myself from start to finish and empirically investigate every single stage of the event, should not mean that I should begin to deny it out of hand.

Are you talking about casting out of demons, speaking in tongues , and miraculous healing?

I was talking about spirituality.

nuclearboy:
Viaro:

I was following my style of court. No jury. Just my Lordship!

I shoulda known! No wonder there's no appeal after your verdict!

I hope it wasn't one of Abu's fans (I think you know who) that held (bottled/held you down/locked legs around you/climbed over you) you up in traffic ? BTW, never heard it called traffic before. Must be getting behind the times

Oh shooks! Your lordship. . the highlighted has caused me a lot of trouble already!
Fortunately, there were no 'climbing overs' or 'legs locking' anywhere sir. I happened to have taken too much shwepps, woke up late and ran off to an official appointment . . usually happens this time of year. Sadly, the lady at the office must have fallen out with somebody prior to my arrival, and I took all the hell that broke loose. So glad that my salary was not affected thereby, although getting booked by a warden was no small 'gift' for parking on the wrong side of the street!

Aha, the other thing! Did you notice the smell that just came into this thread or am I the only one perceiving that rank odor? What kind of pesticide does one use for gay skunks?

Honestly, your honour, s[color=Black]hi[/color]t smells these days on NL, and the best we could do is just take no notice.

nuclearboy:
Defendant Viaro:

Judgment Time: It is the opinion of this court that you do not have a right to match that level of brain power against these young people. That is aberrant to the laws of fairness and highly irregular. You are sentenced to 15 minutes E-Jail. But because this is your first conviction, the sentence is suspended and the record destroyed.

nuclearboy:
Chairman, where art thou? ? ? ? ?

_>hiccup!<

Commander Your honour, I was locked away observing the 15-minute e-jail before I realised it was a suspended verdict!  I should have presented myself earlier, but a certain lady from the jury held me up in traffic and I ended up getting booked by the mean-looking warden!
^>hiccup!<
For now, I think I may be needing an elixir of sorts. . . all these guys chasing me with sirens, I can't begin to explain! I almost forgot. . it's January, and things happen after the new year celebrations subside!


I promise your honour to stay off the carbonated drinks for a while. .  after a couple of 'em 2nite!

toneyb:
Do you truly agree that a person survived inside a fish for 3 days? Can this phenomena be replicated?

If such a phenomenon could be 'replicated', by what means do you expect anyone to do so?

Let's take the story of exodus for example and lets assume its true, If the people living in Egypt during the time of Moses can turn their sticks into snakes what is stopping the Egyptians of to day from throwing their sticks and turning them into snakes today? If stars can fight along side me as recorded in the bible what is stopping stars from fighting along side men today? If a donkey can speak the Hebrew language in the past what stops a donkey from speaking Hebrew language now? Why do we get to read about such fantastic stories in the pages of paper and never see them happening before our very eyes?

Many times when atheists make super-fantasies like yours, I often leave them to rant all they want. The things you exemplified are not said to be the 'norm' in nature, and perhaps that is what you're essentially missing (not to mention the 'stars can fight alongside me'. . are you kidding?). But be that as it may, even in our own experiences there are many, many other examples of happenings that naturalism cannot answer and people do not care to be concerned about them. I know, because I have tried to ask about why naturalists do not try to replicate these things before asking for them to 'happen before our very eyes', but what answers do I ever get from them than the usual rants? The point is that there are many 'anomalies' that occur within our ordered world that we cannot explain; and they do not have to be contained only in religious books before we can note them. Yet, although we note some of these things, my statement may need repeating here: "I did not claim to be in the position of verifying them empirically; nor am I aware of any atheistic materialist who has a philosophical and scientific paradigm to know the details of every occurence in the history of the Universe".

What has naturalism got to do with any of these fantastic claims and stories?

Because you often argue like a naturalist who sees things narrowed down to your materialist cubicle without the slightest hint that there are many occurences of events that cannot be explained within the matrix of naturalism. That is one of the points of this particular thread on the issue of the ORIGIN of life - which up until now you have not been able to adduce from naturalism.

The Christians here on NL make fun of moslems for believing that their prophet once divided the moon into two and also made a tree to cry but the christian forget that their own bible also contains similar stories like stars fighting along humans in battles, Talking bush, Virgin birth, talking donkeys and on and on, Why do some christians mock moslems for having such beliefs when their own belief system is full of such Mythologies?

I don't know if my worldview makes fantastic claims of the moon splitting into two (pardon me for not knowing such a thing); but I think it's quite jejune to draw such illations between the Christian worldview and Islam. That is why I shy away from answering for them, or even trying to 'mock' them. I could as well make the same illations between your own worldview and some strands of atheism that you never heard anything about and make you think deeper than this blubbery superficiality you're trying to make here; but would that serve you any good in respect of the topic of this thread?

Here is what I mean, The god of the bible(Jesus) is said to have done so many fantastic and incredible thing when he was alleged to have lived amongst men, he healed the blind, walk on water, turned water into wine, heal an amputated ear and many other incredible feast. It did not end there because he promised his followers that they will be able to do all these things that he did and more. So the question is why is it that Christian can not do any of these things? Why can christians heal amputees and make their amputated limbs or ears grow back asjesus promised? Why can't christian magically turn water into wine? Why can't chriatian magically walk on water? Raise the dead and do all the things that Jesus was said to have done and promised those that believe in him the ability to even do greater than him? Why do we ONLY get to read about these fantastic events but NEVER see them happening reality? There are christians living amongst us who TRULY believe in the words of Jesus but are unable to do any of these thing after trying, so why do we only get to read but NEVER see. Even though it was promised?

Is it because the whole thing is a myth?

No, it is not because 'the whole thing' is a myth, because I have experienced the miraculous for myself. Yes, I know that is quite subjective; and I do not owe any atheist or materialist any submission otherwise.

I often get into trouble with my Christian brethren for my views and understanding of certain things in our Biblical worldview. The example here would be on the one highlighted above in your quote: 'So the question is why is it that Christian can not do any of these things?' First, the Bible does not argue that every Christian is supposed to be a clone of another - and when we read 1 Cor. 12:27-31, we see that it is superfluous to try to imagine that every Christian is supposed to be a miracle worker.

However, if we take another example in Mark 16:17-18, we find there a list of phenomena as well:
[list][li]they shall cast out devils[/li]
[li]they shall speak with new tongues[/li]
[li]they shall take up serpents - it shall not hurt them[/li]
[li]if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them[/li]
[li]they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover[/li][/list]

What's the point I'm trying to make? Any careless or superficial reading would produce the assumption that we find in your query where all Christians are supposed to be doing all those things without exceptions. Why? For the reason for which those things were predicated:
[list][li]these signs shall follow them that believe[/li]
[li]'In my Name'[/li][/list]
It therefore would suggest superficially that these signs would be operating in the lives of every Christian ('them that believe') as long as it is done in Jesus' Name ('in my Name'). I know there are some denominations that stress this point and make it look like if a Christian is not showing these signs, then such a person is NOT a believer!

However, tonyeb, there are a few things to understand there:

(a) those verses were given in a general form and by no means were they intended to be taken as literally applying to every believer at all times. This is especially the case when mirrored against the backdrop of how Biblical prophecies were given - it was simply showing that some would manifest one or some of those signs, some would not, and some would manifest all of them and more. This is quite clear in reading again 1 Cor. 12:27-31.

(b) we know today that some of those signs have been actualized in the lives of various believers, such as speaking in tongues, laying on of hands for healing, casting out demons, and being unhurt by deadly things - tonyeb, I have seen and experienced these things myself! I do not have the gift of tongues, but have spoken once in tongues; I have also prayed and laid hands on a friend who got instantly healed; I have not seen the case firsthand where someone drank a deadly stuff and was unhurt (but heard missionary reports about it); as well the case of casting out demons have been clearly demonstrated again and again.

If we throw the atheist jokes of just denying stuff aside, I'm sure that some of these things would be self-evident to you if you dared to check for yourself. There's hardly any sense in sitting down in a corner and claim that the Christian cannot do ANY of these things. I wonder sometimes that if the naturalist would be willing to be objective for himself/herself, they would see these things before their very eyes - and that was why I asked you: 'What do you mean 'never recorded in reality'?'

Often, it comes down to a case of the fact that the naturalist does not care so much for the attestation of these phenomena because he has no way of explaining them within the matrix of naturalism. However, I should note that not all naturalists who lean towards atheism actually deny spirituality - they just can't explain some of these phenomena by naturalism and that is why they just exclude them from their worldview.

[quote author=the_seeker link=topic=375092.msg5249555#msg5249555 date=1262646165]thank you. I now rest my case. The context has shown you quoted the verse incompletely to suit your arguemnt. Enough of the carbonated drinks![/quote]What in the exhibits differs from the case I made earlier in post #17?

You're just lucky. . if it was not for Abuzo-lala and my carbonated drinks, me and you would have had a separate case pending before his superintendent honorific honour tonight!