₦airaland Forum

To wrap up the foregoing, let me ask a series of basic questions:

* are angels 6,000 years old? - were they created 6,000 years ago?

* is Satan the devil 6,000 years old? - was he created 6,000 years ago?

* on what particular day in the 6 days of Genesis 1 were angels created?

* on what particular day in the 6 days of Genesis 1 was Lucifer created?

* is the universe 6,000 years old? - was the universe created only 6,000 years ago?

* when exactly did creation start - 6,000 years ago and nothing at all created before then?

The reasons I ask these questions are twofold:

~~ they would help you think a bit more deeply about your polarised assertions

~~ your answers would provide a good basis for replying to the vids you posted.

If I can help it this weekend, I shall come back and consider your reply. Cheers.

(B). Angels - when exactly?

It won't be educated of me to just pose questions and offer not the slightest pointers to clear the air. So, as to both questions of when exactly God created the angels and Lucifer who later became the devil, my answer is this: we are not told in Scripture when exactly that happened. The questions belong to those issues hinted at in my posts earlier that some events which we read in other passages are not mentioned in Genesis 1. What we do know, however, is that the angels were created by God (Colossians 1:16) - and that happened long before even the earth was created. How do I assume this? Let me explain:

In Job 38:4-7, we understand that the angels had already been created before God laid the foundation of the earth. Verse 4 asks the question: "Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth?" It continues until until the climax in verse 7 - "when the morning stars sang together and all the sons of God shouted for joy?" How would these beings (the morning stars and all the sons of God) have rejoiced to see God laying the foundation of the earth if they were not already created before that time? How long they had been created before the earth, we are not told. The simple fact is that they preceded the creation of the earth - and that is one of the things that we do not read about in Genesis 1.


(C). Your Mistake - Stretching Truth

I'd wanted to come back some other time when I'm less busy and deal with your arguments in post #89. Of all the laughable things one could read from you is this quote:

Jesus made a similar statement in Mark 13:19 when He indicated that man's sufferings started very near the beginning of creation.  The parallel phrases of "from the foundation of the world" and "from the blood of Abel" in Luke 11:50-51 also indicate that Jesus placed Abel very close to the beginning of creation, not billions of years after the beginning.

Let me quote just one verse from your citation: Luke 11:50 -

       'That the blood of all the prophets,
        which was shed from the foundation of the world,
        may be required of this generation'

The simple question to ask is this: was the blood of all (or any) of the prophets shed "from the foundation of the world"? We know that is just not the case; and by that statement, the Lord Jesus Christ did not mean to say that prophets were already existing or had been created at the foundation of the world. That would be stretching truth beyond elasticity and thereby . . .

        . . . making the age of prophets   =   to the age of Adam
        . . . making the age of Adam        =   the angels (Job 38:4-7)
        . . . making the age of angels       =  the age of the universe
        ____________________________________________

             sum total of the age of all above = 6,000 years old

It is clear that Jesus did not mean that statement in Luke 11:50 to indicate the age of the universe or of the earth. In so far as we know that no prophet was existing at the beginning of creation or at the foundation of the world, that verse is clearly not meant to be read in a literal sense of "the beginning of creation", which would mean that both angels and prophets existed before Adam!

@modupe,

Before I share anything with you on the Universe, let me in the following series of posts use example questions to help you reflect deeply on the weaknesses in your arguments. These example questions will be drawn directly from Scripture, so that you won't have to be unnerved by any insinuations of "outside influences" in my posts.

It is not for show or a superior display of anything that you're reading these things from me, modupe01; nor do I wish to embarrass any Christian, no matter how very skewed are their arguments. If anything, so that you come to terms with issues you may never have given much thought to hitherto.

---

(A).  From Scripture: A few things to consider about the age of "creation"

There are a few disturbing assertions in your posts. For instance, it was amusing to read your statement that: "God created the universe (everything) in six days" - for it seems that you either had taken the term "everything" for granted, or perhaps did not actually understand what that term connotes. Even more directly, you had argued that -

     "God created everything in 6 days, 6,000 years ago as the Bible says"
      (post #89, Novermber 23).


From these statements (and let's forget for the moment that you tried to force your interpolations into the Bible), are we to take it from you then that the universe is only 6,000 years old? Not only the 'Universe', but "everything" as well must be 6,000 years old? You surprise me, but let me draw you back to Scripture on this issue, starting out with this question as an example:

      1. When did God create the angels and spirit beings?

Angels are also part of God's creation (Colossians 1:16), not so? Remember I already said in post #86 that 'there are so many other verses that speak of events that we do not read in Genesis 1'? The question above is just one among several others. We know that Adam was created on the sixth day (Genesis 1:26-27); so please point me to any verse in Genesis 1 to show what particular day between the '6 days' when the angels were created. The 1st day? The 2nd. . 5th. . or. . ? What particular day among those 6 days did God mention the angels being created? Huh?

For the sake of argument, let me even grant you that "everything" was created 6,000 years ago - that 'everything' would definitely include the angels. Following from that, are you maintaining that the angels are also 6,000 years old - just as old as your argument of 6,000 years old for Adam?

Or, to follow your precise line of reasoning: "God created everything in 6 days, 6,000 years ago as the Bible says" - then I ask you modupe01, did God create the angles 6,000 years ago?


We could pursue this line of thought and propose an akin question:

     2.  When did God create the angel that became Satan?

Lucifer was his name (Isaiah 14:12); and it is emphatically stated that he also was created ('the day that thou wast created' - Ezekiel 28:13 & 15). That being so, just as we read that man was created on the 6th day (Genesis 1:26-27), can you please point me to the verse in Genesis 1 to show on what particular day between those 6 days that Lucifer was created? Was it the 1st day? . .the 2nd. . 5th. . or. . what day particularly in Genesis 1?

The reason why I'm particular about Genesis 1 is because, even though I reasoned that there are some events that we do not read of in Genesis 1, you had asserted that God 'told us in the book of Genesis that He created the whole universe and everything in it in six days' (post #102). Now, where in Genesis 1 did He tell you that He created the angels and Lucifer in any one of those six days?

You quoted John Calvin as having said that 'the duration of the world, . . . has not yet attained six thousand years' (here). In light of the above two questions and reasoning, Calvin's quote is quite an ignorant statement, and is best retired to the annals of stuporous speculations!

@modupe01,

Please forgive my absence from the forum the past few days - quite a lot kept me busy. However, I see the thread has progressed as others have expressed various concerns regarding how you proceeded to establish your views.

What you do not yet grasp in this simple issue is that your arguments are based on a false premise and very shaky foundation indeed. This is why one should not assume that viaro had no answers to your objections. Actually, I had loads to say, but only left off as it's not my style to force anything down anyone's throat. Be that as it may, here's another attempt to show you from within Scripture itself that you don't quite have a sound justification for your 'YEC' arguments.

However, I should even go so far as to rename your postulations as "Y[/b]oung [b]U[/b]niverse [b]C[/b]reationism" ([b]YUC), in so far as you have repeatedly argued that the universe is no older than 6,000 years old. Please follow the outline below to see the reason why I rename your arguments as 'Y[b]U[/b]C'  -

---

        modupe01 in post #61
        '. . God created the universe (everything) in six days, as outlined in Genesis 1.'
      ____________________

       viaro in post #63:
       'The universe and the earth are far older than 6,000 years old'
       ____________________

       viaro in post #88:
       '. . (the universe is evidently older than 6,000 years).'
       ____________________

        modupe01 in post #102
        '. . that He created the whole universe and everything in it in six days'

---

I initially suspected this was where you were going and only gave you time to develop and very well establish a y[/b]oung [b]U[/b]niverse of 6,000 years old in your arguments.

As the discussions progressed, it seemed you were incessantly forcing the texts to read whatever you wanted them to, in order to favour your '[b]YUC' ideas - which most probably were harvested from other 'YEC' apologists. BUT what if those people (did you call them 'real scientists'?) are proven wrong - yes, proven wrong on three grounds:

             * from Scripture,
             * from their own arguments, and -
             * from science (particularly the geosciences)?

What would you do, modupe01? I know how hard and very disappointing is the experience to discover you had committed far too much trust on the erring interpretations (and interpolations) of men who clearly have an agenda to protect; but would it not be far better to shed yourself of such romanticism rather than try ever so hard to be the hero of a self-defeating YUC apologetics?

wirinet:
Deep sight, you and other theists think too much of yourself.

I guess the very same thing about you and some other atheists - you think far too much of yourself than you realize. That is not a smart way to discuss your ideas, especially where you are only sounding words and making very little meaning, if at all. I just would have hoped that your readers were not that gullible to swallow your musings so uncritically!

However, I should have been silent and not wish to even show face in this thread. Much of what many people are applauding here is awful! The moment I saw the musings about the brain and all its complexities, I sensed many people would just trail off with assertions that are all too often taken for granted, because nobody cares to check them out!

Here is one such awful statement to your credit:

wirinet:
The human brain as i said is very complex and it capabilities are extraordinary, it is common knowledge that we use less than 10% of our brain capacity and the person that can use up to 10% would turn out a genius.

What?!? Where have you been as to make such unguarded statements? The "10% use of the brain" is pure myth - please retire that cheap and redundant tale. Google is your friend - use it, and you may surprise yourself about the 'common knowledge' to the contrary! [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/10%25_of_brain_myth]Wikipedia[/url] states it simply: "10% of brain myth".

And that up there you have about "thought wave hypothesis" may sound interesting; but it is quite another thing from "extra sensory perception", ESP. Many people who talk about thought wave hypothesis tend to see things only in terms of a materialistic spectacle, in which case it is hardly surprising that you would have re-defined ESP to mean 'an extension of the physical'. That just eases things off so that it then becomes even easier to not deal with the original issue (in this case ESP), because no one would have to remember calling your attention back to let ESP be ESP and not what you want to turn it into!

The thought wave hypothesis, while interesting to those who applaud it, has a basic flaw. From what you talked about with mention of electromagnetic waves, it is apparent that you may not have carefully considered the wave-particle duality in light. In the developing technology of neurofeedback/biofeedback and EEG (electroencephalogram), these stuff are often talked about, with all the paraphernalia of electrical activity of the brain. However, (and perhaps this is where you ought to slow down), ESP is a different matter altogether!

ESP, extra sensory perception, is commonly understood as 'perception or communication skills that are beyond ordinary human senses, supernatural insight', in which case some sources (such as Skepdic) extend it to include telepathy, clairvoyance, precognition, and, in recent years, clairaudience. The question that some are wondering about is this: where does your "thought wave hypothesis" fit into what is precisely ESP (and not re-defined as you did with the 'extension of the physical')?? Where does "wave" come into ESP?

People should be careful when they talk in a public forum. You don't jumble identities and meanings so in such a slapdash manner, re-define terms that are far removed from their precise meaning in order to draw unrelated illations upon them. Doing so is to gull your audience - many of who just go along with your hypothesis uncritically.

By the way, I thought I should leave you a link to a popular work by J. B. Rhine which tried to establish ESP as a scientific fact - http://www.williamjames.com/Science/ESP.htm. Enjoy.

Deep Sight:
Hey, pls read again - i modified the above post.

Oh shooks!   This guy will put me in deep trouble!

My pal, I gat to run - don't wanna be late for work (not for the love of extra pay at night shifts, but. .  em, em. .)

Lol, please forgive anything askew in my response, I was trying to be quick and eating at the same time. If it stands, good; if it stirs trouble, don't flog me with the whip until I return sometime during the week!

Cheers.

Deep Sight amico mio, lol. . I understand what you're mad about. Again, I take no offense - sometimes I let my mouth loose and later regret it. Example: the 'promise' you made next to the $1 m USD (you decode?) . . I have been severely reprimanded by my brethren when they read that line! Phew. . bro, how come it is that part that seems to be the biggest thing that viaro posted on Nairaland??   Wonders shall never slow down!

Anyhow, I must beg to take my leave shortly; so excuse the hasty replies and the brevity thereof. If you request, I shall come back to address anything crucial that you feel is an oversight.

Deep Sight:
You have talked about His essence being different from his will.


Let us grant that that is the case. It still begs my core question –


“Could the will ever disagree with the personage?”

No; I do not argue it in that manner. Could I use an analogy?

Perhaps you might agree with me that your 'will'  (in the sense of your dealings with other people) is variously expressed according to any particular 'dispensation' (in the sense of  principles, promises, sets of rules, schemes; economy; etc). Ten years ago, you applied your "will" in a particular 'dispensation' to address and meet particular needs in reference to your interactions with other people. Ten years after, you might meet a different set of people and yet apply your 'will' again, but this time in the course of a ten year gap inbetween, you may wish to express your will in a varied manner to meet and address certain needs in that relationship.

In all the above, nothing has changed in your essence as a person - a human being. You are still 'you', never mind that the appellation 'Deep Sight' may not be as old as ten years now. Be that as it may, your 'will' may be variously expressed according to a particular 'dispensation' and in reference to the people you have exchanges with. That notwithstanding, the various expressions of your 'will' do not change anything about your essential nature as a human being.

Now, that's just an illustration - a poor one admittedly - but one that should be helpful in making you see why I opined that I do not argue this subject in the manner as set forth in your premise. The way I see it, there is a clear distinction between His essence (always the same) and His will (variously expressed) - and that is the reason why I tend to be quite in disagreement with most of what you had expressed.

This is an odd question, but that is the oddity that the Trinity leads us to:

Well, I do not consider it an odd question - and that is why I tried to entertain and discuss it. Maybe in my subsequent posts i might give particular examples in the analogies I use - such as that I hypothesize about you ten years ago.

I ask again – Could the “Will” of God ever differ from that which resides within the “essence” of God? That is – could the will be of a different or contradictory desire or direction, to the essence

It is not a question of contradiction, but one that does not confuse "essence" for "will". In so far as dealing with other beings (people, angels, spirits, etc), the "will" is various expressed according to any particular dispensation. However, there might be several dispensations and several expressions of God's will through those dispensations, yet His essence as 'God' remains the same essence throughout all those dispensations.

I should grant that, perhaps, one reason why many people are quick to see these issues on the basis of a 'contradiction' is because they often mix up issues between His essence and His will. Let me use an example:

             (a) the seventh day is the sabbath - that is an 'OT' expression of His will

             (b) 'another day' is spoken of for rest - that is a 'NT' expression of His will

If we are not careful, we might so quickly argue that God's "will" is contradictory between (a) and (b) above, especially in the face of the fact that both expressions relate to 'His own people'. Be that as it may, would anything about the sabbath, seventh day, or another day, affect His essence?

Or, let me use a common example:

            (a) adultery is punishable by death - that is an 'OT' expression of His will

            (b) an adulteress was not put to death - that is a 'NT' expression of His will

Understandably, the Jews might have thought this was clearly 'contradictory' - but they yet would not hinge that expression of His will upon the essence of His Person.

But let me extend it a bit further: since one expression of His will in the OT was that adultery was punishable by death; was that applicable to non-Jews even during the time of the Mosaic Law? My answer is yes and no. Again, is that contradictory? Not necessarily - so let's look at my context:

         My context is this:

         (a) YES - adultery was to be punished by death within Israel
          for it was to Israel that the Mosaic Law was given as regards a covenant;
          Moses expressly said that the mosaic Law was not given to any of the patriarchs before them
          (see Deut. 5:2-3)

         (b) NO - adultery could not be punished by death in another nation
          in so far as they were not given any such law that made it punishable by death
          (Rom. 4:15 - 'for where no law is, there is no transgression')

[disclaimer: please, please and please, I know how many people have read my post last night at my office and alomst tore me apart on the question of 'testicles'! I apologies. But by the above, viaro is NOT sanctioning adultery under any excuses - rather, I am only stating that the Judaic Law was not given to other nations and therefore could not be used against them, in the same way that putting someone to death for working on the sabbath day cannot be used against a non-Jewish nation in Moses day! That is all I am saying here, so don't go drop your boxers and pants to start "performing" in those toilets  !! ).

Okay, Deep Sight, where were we? aha. .  as I was saying:

The above may make some people see a contradiction and argue hard and long there - but viaro does not see it like that. Admittedly, my views get me into hot water and very deep holes many times; but as you can see - a simple question can validly be answered with a "yes" and "no" at the same time, depending on the dispensation expressed thereto.

In my view, it certainly cannot, because the will proceeds directly from the person, or, as you put it, the “essence” of God. [b]For this reason the will can only be reflective of the essence, and certainly could not contradict the essence.

As you can see, it is not a matter of 'contradiction' there; but of distinctions between what is understood as both "essence" and "will"; which I have tried to demonstrate above.

Once you accept this, as you per force must, you have conclusively ceded the debate: because as you will see below, God's will could not request of God that God should change God's will to suit the will of God who was on Earth at the tinme.

As you can see from my take above, I should repeat again and again that my argument is not on the basis of busily looking for contradictions; but rather seeking to first understand the expression of His will (which varies according to dispensations) and His essence (the same throughout). As long as I can understand that distinction, nothing else would be difficult to grasp. If that distinction is not so clearly delineated in Scripture, nothing I argue here would have mattered - but I have shown how Scripture places the distinction before us.

I dare you to suggest tat the will can contradict the essence, or bear a different desire, and let us see just how far you are prepared to carry this absurdity.

But you see that I have not even argued along such lines - and even now have gone on to use several examples to bring home the point. Unless you want to show from Scripture that His ESSENCE = His WILL, then I can see how your equation balances. I do not see it that way; thus it was necessary for me to distinguish them from Scripture, which I have so done.

Answer now, and let the issue rest. We have reached a head; with this cardinal question, which will resolve this debate once and for all![/color]

Above as requested. That also squares with the rest of your post.

Cheers.

Hi modupe01,

I'd thought there was gist in your replies that would take me more time to respond to; but I can do this in a short time before attending to other things.

modupe01:
I believe that I have refuted your assertions if you look into my response, I feel that I explained how bara and asah (create and make respectively) could be used interchangeably in the OT and in some other places they are used in synonymous parallelism (Gen. 1:26-27; 2:4; Exodus 34:10; Isaiah 41:20; 43:7).

It is interesting that you're missing something essential here. In none of those texts does it appear that those words (bara and asha) are used interchangeably to refer to the very same thing. I'm glad that you quoted Genesis 1:26-27, and perhaps it is one of the best texts I like to use for people who argue that the earth is 6,000 years old based upon the age of Adam. I'm sorry, but you will notice that such an idea is self-refuting; because the first verse there (verse 26) speaks of God saying that He would MAKE man before saying in the next verse 27 that He CREATED Adam in His own image!

Have you ever stopped to think of this? Why would God mention "make" [עשׂה - ‛aśah] before "create" [בּרא - bara']? It is not a coincidence, no; and I believe it is deliberate! Since you have hinted somewhere that 'the Jews should know better', then here is my answer: the Jews actually know better - and guess what? The same Jews do not believe that Adam is the very first human being to be created. Somewhere in this thread (if I remember), I noted that the Jews hold that there are 974 generations before the creation of Adam and Eve. The specie of homos sapiens did not start with Adam - which was why God spoke first of "make"  before going on to speak about "create".

Just to show you this by illustration: we turn to Genesis 2:4 - 'These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens'. Please note the following:

       (a)  the first part states the creation of the heavens and the earth -
             which tessellates with Genesis 1:1

       (b)  the second part states that God made the earth and the heavens -
             which brings in the order of the 6 days from Genesis 1:2

       (c)  in the first part, the "heavens" were mentioned first before earth;
             in the second part, the "earth" was mentioned first before the heavens

These are not confused as to be mistaken for interchangeable usage - no: they are rather deliberate, because the emphasis in such verses are striking at something we often take for granted. God created the heavens and the earth - how long, when, etc? We don't know, because the Bible does not tell us about such things. We gather from other books of the Bible that there was an age that preceded the existence of the earth, though we are not told for how long that age lasted before the earth was created.

But should we examine the other references: Exodus 34:10 interestingly enough does not make use of those key words interchangeably.  The key words there are:

            * כּרת  - karath

            * עשׂה - ‛aśah

            * בּרא - bara'

In the verse, they appear like this in our English translation:

          'And he said, Behold, I make [karath] a covenant:
          before all thy people I will do [‛aśah] marvels,
          such as have not been done [bara'] in all the earth, nor in any nation:
          and all the people among which thou art shall see the work of the LORD:
          for it is a terrible thing that I will do with thee'

Was God using these words interchangeably? I doubt it: for He did not say He would "create" a covenant as if He was about to bring a "covenant" into existence in the sense of His creating the heavens and the earth. A legal agreement is simply a contract binding upon agreed parties - and yes, even MEN can make (karath) covenants as well, just as the one Abraham and Abimelech made (karath) in Genesis 21:32.

What about "marvels" in that verse - that God said He would "do [‛aśah] marvels such as have not been done [bara'] in all the earth"? Certainly, God did not mean again that He was going to "create" marvels as if He was going to bring 'marvels' into creation such as was the case of the heavens and the earth. In almost every other place where we read of the same connotations, the word 'marvels' has the same idea as the word translated as 'wonders' (פּלא - pele). In Exodus 15:11, we read that God is in the business of "doing (עשׂה - ‛aśah) wonders", not "creating" them as if they were part of the 6 days creation.

The same point is made in Isaiah 41:20 and 43:7 - God was not making use of those words interchangeably within the same verses; for that would be odd indeed especially here the statements are connected by a conjunction ("and".

Explanation understood.  I am sorry if I misunderstood you but could you be much clearer in explaining your axiom?  Do you believe in the theory of evolution?

I said earlier: I am not a fan of Darwinism.

and do you also believe that the Flood of Noah was literal and global?

'Literal', yes; but 'global', no.

No one is saying that the universe is the same thing as the earth I don't know where you got this from your assumption is ridiculous!  God was clear as to when He created, how He created and how long it took for Him to create the universe and everything within it, including the earth.  And note that I did not say that the earth is the same size or bigger than the universe.

Please understand. I did not assert that you made the earth the same size as the universe; rather, I pointed out that the argument of the position of 'Y[/b]oung [b]EARTH C[/b]reationism' (YEC) is often based on nothing more than mere calculations of the supposed age of Adam, dating back from the present. As long as the YEC wants to push the idea that Adam was created in day number 6 [b]therefore the heavens and earth must be 6,000 years old, that idea would continue to be self-defeating! Adam is a late comer to the scene; the earth and the universe are a creation that date back to eons which we are not exactly told how long or how old. The "heavens" is much more than the sky we look over our heads in an open field - that term includes the deepest of galaxies, most of which we know nothing about. How come the YEC has been trying ever so hard and yet so failingly to argue for the earth as young as 6,000 years old and forget the "heavens" (which includes the galaxies)? Are the galaxies 6,000 years old as well?

The Jews should know better since the fourth commandment  comes from the basis of the six day Creation Week.  Their sabbath day was considered as an ordinary day and the 6 days of work were considered as ordinary days.  The first century Jewish historian Josephus indicated that the Jews of his day believed that both the first day of creation and Adam's creation were about 5,000 years before Christ.  (See The Works of Josephus, page 850, 1987).
I believe so as well; but I do not believe that the proponents of YEC are letting God speak clearly as He does in Genesis.

Hehe, I doubt you have asked the Jews what they beleive about the 974 generations before Adam - they are not as simplistic as you are arguing for only a minute part of creation. Please consult them again and let's know if they argue for the same thing that the YEC argue.

Your other posts I shall find time to come back and reply. Cheers.

And the one point I will respond to is – you guessed it – your belabored struggle to separate Christ’s humanity from his Deity.

I did not - and yes, write that off as another lie, if you may. If you can't reason out issues as simply as was shown you in my posts by pointing directly from the biblical texts about both His Deity and His Humanity, then you're beyond help! If i was merely asserting things vacantly without any text to support what I say, I would see the point in your self-congratulatory celebrations here. But to miss that and then clap for yourself. . man, you're in a world of your own! Up until now I have not seen you carefully go over what I pointed out several replies ago about what those texts say - and then controvert them all that I had lied by misquoting the Biblical prophets. That what I quoted was not what they had said; or rather, that they did not speak of those matters as regards His humanity but one and all they all pointed to His Deity! What is the struggle there in understanding the simple things I showed in my replies?

Perhaps I should at this point, since I promised to be brief, only throw a few posers, and reserve the thesis for a later post.

Here are the posers –

1. Did Christ lose his perfect Divine nature, by becoming human?

No.

2. If he did lose that nature, then the sacrifice was a sacrifice of an imperfect being, and not that of a perfect being, yes? Out-the-window goes all the talk about a “perfect” “unblemished” savior being required, yes?

See my answer above.

3. On the other hand, if he did NOT lose the Divine nature, then he perforce remained perfect – thus fully in tandem with the Divine will; such as to make the request in Gethsemane an incongruity and a paradox, yes?

No.

4. Did Christ lose all his knowledge about the DIVINE plan concluded in heaven with his father, about the redemptive work on the cross?

No.

5. If he did not lose such knowledge (as apparently from scripture he did not); then why would he seek, within human form, to change that which he himself as ALMIGHTY GOD had perfected and concluded in heaven?

I do not agree with your assertion that He sought to change what He had concluded. Call me liar, no matter. I can choose to disagree with you while letting you play happy with your assertions - if we cannot see things differently, is there any use repeating myself on this matter? Are these the "core" of the big issue you wanted to discuss - or just merely repeating yourself louder on an old issue?

Man, I hope you see the point clearly; your “hypostasis” on the simultaneous humanity and deity of that carpenter leaves gaping wide holes.

Okay, no worries. I shall just tuck it away until when I discuss what I understanding by His hypostasis.

It surprises me that each time I repeat these obvious facts, you resort to empty platitudes about Christ being “human”, and then promise to deal with the issue in future.

Each time I had drawn your attention to the fact from the biblical prophets, you returned accusative verbose and never ever attempted to be reasonable by looking at those texts! Who's being 'empty' when you have one and all refused to say anything about those texts?

Let’s carry on . . .

You spoke about the “Divine will” being different from the “Divine person”.

Yes, I did - and mentioned why that is so. What exactly is wrong with that?

OH MY GOD, WHAT A GAFFE; DOES IT NOT OCCUR TO YOU THAT IN STATING THIS, YOU DIRECTLY DENY THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY TRINITY, FOR IN THAT TREASURED DOCTRINE OF YOURS, THEY ARE ALL SAID TO BE ONE!

This is where I lose respect for your reasoning faculty. Sometimes, Deep Sight, it pays to carefully consider what people are saying and proceed with caution rather than drawing cheap illations that leave you none the wiser! Should I repeat what I said about His essence and His will? Here:

[list]The fact that God is 'the same yesterday, today and forever' does not mean that He is unable to manifest Himself as He chooses for any occasion. There is a difference between His essence (as regards His Person) and His will (as regards His dealings with creation). Please do not controvert the two. In as much as He is the same throughout in His essence, His divine will is dispensational.[/list]

[list]Thus, you will find that between the dispensations of the Old and New Testament, there are varied expressions of His will - even though all through all dispensations His essence remains the same.[/list]

Should I also break that down for you, if you promise to be reasonable to consider it? Of my suspicions might be confirmed in your reply that you won't even bother being man enough to read it at all? Please ask - I don't want to be accused of wasting your time on such a simple matter.

AS A FOLLOW-UP: HOW CAN YOU JUSTIFY YOUR SUMMATION THAT THE WILL IS DIFFERENT FROM THE PERSONAGE, WHEN CHRIST SAID A ZILLION TIMES THAT THAY ALL AGREE AS ONE, AND THAT HE WAS “ONE” WITH THE FATHER, AND THAT THEIR WILL WAS IN ONE ACCORD? THUS HOW COULD THE “PERSONAGE” HAVE A DIFFERENT WILL FROM THE “WILL”? YES, THE LAUGHABLE NATURE OF THIS JOKE OF A DOCTRINE IS BEGINNING TO BECOME CLEAR TO YOU NOW?

You can shout in font 100 to the power of a million, I still maintain a clear distinction between His essence (as regards His Person) and His will (as pertaining to His dealings with creation). The question is interesting: "how can you justify your summation that the will is different from the personage?" This is HOW I could do that, if there was a need to "justify" anything here:

(a) In as much as He is the same throughout in His essence,
His divine will is dispensational

(b) Thus, you will find that between the dispensations of the Old and New Testament,
there are varied expressions of His will -
even though all through all dispensations His essence remains the same

Could I also share some few examples about the above?

____________________

As to His will in the dispensations:

I said: "His will (as regards His dealings with creation)"

(a) "he doeth according to his will in the army of heaven,
and among the inhabitants of the earth:" ~ Daniel 4:35

I also said: "between the dispensations of the Old and New Testament,
there are varied expressions of His will"

(b) the sabbath as one example:

OT: "the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God:
in it thou shalt not do any work" ~~ Deut. 5:14

NT: "For if Jesus had given them rest, then would he not
afterward have spoken of another day" ~~ Heb. 4:8

____________________


As to His Person:

I said: "all through all dispensations His essence remains the same"

(a) "For I am the LORD, I change not;
therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed"
~~ Malachi 3:6

____________________


* The basic meaning of 'dispensation' as used in my post:

a system of principles, promises, and rules ordained and administered;
scheme; economy; as, the Patriarchal, Mosaic, and Christian dispensations.
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/dispensation


From the above, it is clear that the way He deals with creation (ie., His will) is variously expressed according to a particular dispensation. In the OT, the sabbath day was the seventh day; whereas in the NT, we read of "another day" as regards the true rest of God's people. Again, in the OT it was a matter of the Levitical priesthood; but in the NT it is the priesthood of Christ after the order of Melchizedek. These varied expressions of God's will are according to each dispensation. Yet, all through the dispensations, God is God in His essence (His essential Being and nature as God).

These are all clear from the pages of Scripture - which is why I try to leave clear pointers for what I share regardless of any accusations of 'long posts', lying, etc. from you! You may draw all the conclusions you wish to and make all these go over your head without due consideration; but just because you don't see and are not willing to see them does not make you anything close to being reasonable or rational in holding a fair discourse in matters like this.

I HOPE YOU SEE IT’S BEGINNING TO FALL APART IN SENSELESSNESS FOR YOU VIARO – BUT THAT IS NOT SURPRISING: INCOHERENT DOGMA LIKE THE TRINITY MUST NECESSARILY FALL APART. . .

Why don't you take some time and really act your age? If I did not know what I was talking about, how could I have been able to share some explanation between His esssence and His will? People who are in such a hurry to behave the way you do actually beggar intelligence! You have long wished to attack the doctrine of the Trinity - that's okay. But you have always been unnerved by any mention of critical analysis of your own 'god' made up from illogical and incoherent comic that have failed to be convincing to anybody but your own self.

Christ! (No pun intended).

Deal with the five questions above, and then we may take it from there.

As requested - see above. It's a wonder you actually think you're sounding intelligent. Haha!

Finally – Although I did not want to do it, I am going to introduce more scripture that suggests clearly that Christ DID NOT want to be crucified, and that the crucifixion was in fact NOT the will of God. Go and read up Jesus’ parable of the Vineyard, and then we will address that.

No matter. You will ever look for any and everything to attack the Trinity, so no surprises there. When the time comes, I might not be able to resist the comedy of your Deism that you've been hiding with two fingers all along. Dress warm until then. Enjoy.

Deep Sight:
Now, i respond.

First: let me say this - do not take my scathing words too much to heart; i only try to give you as good as you give me. In this, let me emphaisze that although the deity of christ is one subject that (apologies to say) i unrepentantly view with absolute disdain, i still appreciate you as a person: for your directness, civility, and intellect.

But i will be absolutely unsparing in this matter, so forgive me in advance.

I first read through to see how scathing your reply was. However, I didn't see anything to rile me up; so again, I don't take offense there. I would rather still maintain my posture in dealing with issues rather than being reactive.

To reiterate; i did not see much within your last responses to merit a rejoinder from me. 98% of your post seemed to dwell on my personality and not the posers i raised. Indeed when i raised the question of God Almighty requesting of himself the alteration of a DIVINELY WILLED event, you merely scored me a 0/10 without giving reasons.

Let's just consign the claim of '98% of my posts' dwelling on your personality - that's not true, so I'll take it as a joke. In scoring you '0/10', I made clear it was your logic I was looking at - not your person ["Here's my score for your logic: 0/10 (read as 'zero over ten')."]. Please go back and read it - unless you took it personal: and again my apologies there. But no, my posts were not about your personality at all.

I will address in spiritual, logical and theological terms why your evasion of that question is unacceptable. And you will see no escapism from me.

Okay.

But before i do that, i wish to address one personal issue: you seem at odds that i stated that you told a lie.

Viaro; I do not, and absolutely will not retract that statement; you told a lie: and lest you beleaguer the point, here is the simple proof –

This is your lie –
.

And here is the truth:

The Gospel of St. Luke 22: 42 –
“Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me. . .”

And what is this, if not a plaintive plea to evade the events to come?

I needn’t even go into the fact that it says – “if thou be willing” – which shows that the will of the father could conceivably differ from the plea of the “son” – . . .“remove this cup. . .”

Boy, you told a lie, you stated a falsehood, and that is that.

Happy now? I won't be moved to accuse you in like manner. Since our discussion, I made clear that we may see things differently, but being so distastefully assertive" is not what I excel in. I don't see a conflict (or 'dichotomy') of wills in the divine concourse - and I had hoped to take up this very issue at the time I hoped to discuss my views with you on the Deity of Christ and the Trinity.

From the onset I noted that there seemed to be a sort of impatience in your replies; even so, I repeatedly said that I would not preempt certain issues here - if anything, just so that my discussions would not be half-measures. I had hoped to have some time in the near future to commit several pages to this and many related issues; and if that sounds like being escapist to you, I can let you have it your way. For me, Deep Sight, things don't work that way: I'm not given to an argumentative spirit where people make accusative assertions as the premium in their thinking. If someone offers that they would discuss something now or later, it would not matter so much to me as to bend their necks to whatever I 'demand'. But if that's how you like to take things, please allow me to leave you on that road - I often shy away from extremism of any sort.

Now do not waste my time in trying to cover up that falsehood with extended grammar about what the cup was, etc, because I have already answered you on what exactly the cup was, which you accepted.

I said you were close - that does not mean that I made you authority. So, no - please don't bother sounding like an old prof who has missed his dinner! I'm not here to waste anybody's time - especially when someone has made up his mind to think in a linear lane and assume that another's perspective is a lie and falsehood. No matter to me personally.

Thus I need it to be clear that my fondness for you will not stop me from pointing out an apparent and obviously deliberate falsehood in your surmise.

Thank you, sir. I'm quite flattered.

Now to the core issue.

In all of your response, I was able to discern only ONE point worthy of responding to. In the rest, you seemed to be entertaining yourself, and I cannot be concerned with that.

No matter.

@Deep Sight,

It's hard to resist the urge to be detailed in my responses - more so because you're veering off from plain geniality to something other than rubbing minds. I shall try and outline your grievances neatly and deal accordingly.

Deep Sight:
Viaro - i hope you are still online, i wish to respond shortly, in a few short (i promise this time to be brief) posts.

But first off, once again, your response has dwelt far too  long on my personality and approach than upon the debated issues. Go read it again: and you will clearly see this.

On the issue of dichotomy of wills, you keep postponing. Give it to me right now: your answer about dealing with it in a future thread still seems escapist.

Hold, on. . . confirm your presence. . . i am responding in toto shortly.

My apologies - I had logged off in order to catch up with my night shift at work. I often get a wee bit of break around this time from work, and you may have noticed that my appearance on the forum is quite limited in recent days.

[quote author=Indirah? link=topic=355093.msg4985694#msg4985694 date=1259057437]Wow, this is a interstin one, but viaro pls remembr blif is by faith not argumnt[/quote]Yes Indirah, I understand very well that belief is by faith and not established by argumentations.

I shall not waste your time on this: let us assume (and in fairness, I actually accept) that the “cup” referred not just to the impending physical torture, but to the imminent spectre of the gruesome burden of sin – or a sinful nature being cast upon a pure divine nature – which is what Christ supposedly was. I am certain that this is the “cup” which you refer to (correct me if I am wrong) and I wholly agree that we can never begin to imagine what an anomaly, what a sacrilege even, and what an incomparable spiritual horror it would be for a pure divine being, perfect, and untouched by impurity, to be saturated with the noxious nature of the hoary sin of all the world. I clearly understand this.

You're close.

What you glossed over (astonishingly, or perhaps no longer astonishingly) is the fact that this being is said to be God himself. Accordingly in his immutable and perfect divine will, he had determined and concluded the necessary sacrifice of redemption.

I didn't gloss over that, Deep Sight. Do I have to repeat the lines where I clearly set forth the basis of His sacrifice? Do I have to go back and pluck lines from my previous entries about His Humanity? I have not seen you touch upon that other than endlessly worrying about that point to the point f almost accusing me of laying forth a "very old defense of Christ's human part". You're far too emphatic about His Deity as to arouse a sneaky suspicion that you just live to attack that doctrine. Why has that particular subject kept you so fired up lately? What does it do for Deism?

I hope you have some understanding of what the divine will I said to be, because if you do, you would immediately see the disastrous and very sad quality of your suggestion that GOD in his divine perfection, would seek at any point in time, or for whatever reason, to detract from his will, shelve it, or cause it not to be made manifest.

Say that again? Are you quoting me, or dreaming these wild assertions up from nowhere? Bro, I did not suggest anything disastrous as pointing to God detracting from His will - you have always forced that idea; so why accuse your own misgivings into my post?

I should normally let this point rest as I have stated it, but wary of your escapist gymnastics in this matter, let me go further to elucidate.

Mine was not escapist. What have you actually said about the replies where I pointed to both His Deity and Humanity in clear distinctions? Please tell me that the passages I quoted in reference thereto were not saying what I quoted them as saying? It was for this kind of "escapist" -isms in your replies that I well anticipated you, and thus did not want to just argue blindly without any pointers. Please go back and read them until they sink - and yes, then you can let go and not be bothered any longer by them.

Divinity is the core nature and principle of original existence, or original being. It is eternal, infinite, and accordingly an absolute. It thus is not capable of the sort of whims and caprices attributable to imperfect human beings (or to the Abrahamic God).

What do you understand by the Incarnation and its implication(s)?

You may argue long and hard about divinity - I verily suspect you know not what it actually means in practical terms in your own worldview. Impress me, please.

To draw wisdom from the Bible itself, might I invite you to appreciate that this is the reason why it is stated that God is the same yesterday, today and forever more. The Divine will is inflexible; adamantine. This is also why it is stated that “heaven and earth may pass away, but the word of the lord abideth forever.” I draw these from scripture, in the hope that your escapism will not be so great as to be desirous of evading the unchangeability of God which is something that is enshrined in scripture, aside from being obvious to the deeply philosophical mind.

The fact that God is 'the same yesterday, today and forever' does not mean that He is unable to manifest Himself as He chooses for any occasion. There is a difference between His essence (as regards His Person) and His will (as regards His dealings with creation). Please do not controvert the two. In as much as He is the same throughout in His essence, His divine will is dispensational. Thus, you will find that between the dispensations of the Old and New Testament, there are varied expressions of His will - even though all through all dispensations His essence remains the same.

It is with the foregoing in mind that your response fell way below the mark.

Thank you, sir. The problem here is that my 'prof' in the person od Deep Sight failed his introductory class! Look up there and sort out your confusion, so that you don't make this class difficult either for me, for you, or for readers who are paying the keenest attention.

This Christ is said to be God in human form. He thus had a deep knowledge of the purpose and will of God regarding mankind. From time eternal, being divine, he must know very well the adamantine and unchangeable nature of the Godhead: given its perfection – for that which is perfect cannot be changed.

Careful now, because you're confusing issues and blurring the lines of your arguments. Is it His NATURE ('the nature of the Godhead') that you are focusing on; or rather His divine WILL ('will of God regarding mankind')?? Blurring the lines in such a manner is not the smartest thing to do - and please do play these games and then come back accusing me of being escapist!

It is in the light of this that you can begin to appreciate just how ludicrous it is to claim that a personage (who is himself ALMIGHTY GOD) and is fully cognisant of –

1. The nature of the Divine Will
2. The Purpose of the redemptive work
3. The absolute necessity of that work for the salvation of his creatures

- would begin to petition himself to avert the divinely willed occurrence.

This can only suggest that he was either not divine, or had a poor grasp of the adamantine and unchangeable nature of the divine will – especially in the context of such a historical act of redemption?

Here's my score for your logic: 0/10 (read as 'zero over ten'). Deep Sight, you need (seriously need) to distinguish between His essence (His Person in Himself) and His will (His dealings - which are according to dispensations and thus not the same cloned narrative all through history). You're confusing between both and trailing off to the wrong terminus! If anything is ridiculous, it is the shoddy scholarship you've tried to propose here.

You MUST accept that the foregoing is simply pushing the boundaries of all reason into absolute insanity.

I accept - on condition that such is what you're doing!

If not insanity, it is at the very minimum, evidence of a woefully failed philosophical schooling – nay – it borders on suspected truancy in English Comprehension classes, in earlier stages of the life of anyone who advocates this incomparably outlandish myth.

Yes sir, I concur that is precisely what you have done - given the fact that you have tried to cheat your audience by this puerile and unqualified drivel you're celebrating for yourself up there. M-a-n! You never cease to amaze and amuse me!

Viaro – in this, I demand the most exacting sincerity from you: although I know I will not receive it for one reason: dogma is a terrible blindfold.

Hehehe, amico mio. . I will ever be sincere to you - whether or not you demand it from me. What I cannot offer, however, is my own faculty and capacity to think for myself without being a 'yes man' to every assertion you make; particularly when you're grossly blurring the lines in a simple matter.

Already I have a hint of the fading of your sincerity in this matter as you did not hesitate to tell an outright lie in your desperation to deify the Jewish carpenter whom you worship –

Now, I'm not calling you an idiot, nor being pejorative against your person; but your assumptions are quite cowardly and not man enough to see that He NEVER at anytime made a "request" that His sacrifice would not take place.

How did I lie, Deep Sight?

Please retract this shocking falsehood; I needn’t paste the whole of the prayer in Gethsemane here before you accept that you have definitely lied here.

I will not retract what you call a falsehood; just because you want it to be interpretated so does not mean I should be a Deist wildly accusing people whose doctrines are different from yours! You're not being very clever here, Deep sight, if you hope to just dribble the ground from under yourself and make for an easy slap on this matter! Not particularly so, in the face of the fact that you have often confused issues so grossly and yet not in one instance did I go so far to accuse you of lying. We may see things differently, but being so distastefully assertive is beyond me!

Christ DID request that the “cup” should be taken away from him - yes, that "cup" which we have defined above, which AS GOD, he must have known all about.

Does His prayer then in all intents and purposes mean that He "requested" that the sacrifice not take place? I do not want to belabour you on this matter; but trying so hard to force your own misgivings into the text and draw illations unnecessarily does not present you as a clever chap.

If he knew it was inevitable why in hell would he make that odd prayer in Gethsemane? Was he hoping against the “inevitable?” Just remember that this is almighty God you are referring to.

To be honest, I do not know why He would make that prayer, though it may seem odd to you. However, that He did make that prayer does not therefore detract from His Deity - the very thing you're hard-pressed to attack by all means. Try again, sorry.

And given the analysis of divinity and the divine will that I set forth above, that, dear Viaro, positively affirms that he is not GOD, could not be, unless we speak of an inferior god, than that which is divine and unceasing in its perfection.

What crap are you all about? Where did I "affirm" that He is NOT God? I'm already weary of these childish silly antics of deliberately misreading your misgivings into my post, Deep Sight - perhaps that is what friends do best, and I could do the same when quoting you next time, yes? You're playing far below the level I assumed of your attitude, not nice, my friend, not nice.

It was amazing how you also sidestepped the core issue on the evident dichotomy of wills in the statement – “not as I will, but as thou wilt”. You merely stated –

- And left it at that! Good grief, again I ask you, you can accept a possible difference of wills within the Godhead, after all Christ’s statements about being “one” with the father, and all ? ? ? ?

It is not a "possible difference of wills", as I have stated: and if you can't read before going hay-wire, I could repost that part for you:

There is no grounds to assume a dichotomy of 'wills' - if there was, you have not demonstrated such a grounds but are only yapping. I would like to invite you at a set time to discuss why I believe in the Trinity - the time will come. For me, it is not a matter of additions and multiplications, but of subsistence (you can hold me to that statement when the time comes). And yes, in that discussion I will share many matters with you about the divine hypostasis of Christ being both Deity and Human. I shall not preempt it here; but mark my summations until then.

If that is not helpful (regardless my amicable invitation at a latter date to consider them), I cannot help you further. On the whole, I do not see a dichotomy of wills there; and I shall not preempt here what I had wanted to discuss with you at that time.

I shudder at the way in which dogmatic Christians such as yourself are happy to debase the perfection of God in order to justify dogma!

Okay, that's nice. I already admit my being dogmatic on one condition - as a necessity to showing how dogmatic you are yourself. Just pointing accusing fingers does not mean you possess a free mind like a canvas where anyone can paint their own ideas with airbrush.

What is most terrifying is that you are normally a very reasonable man, but once your dogma is fluttered, you are willing to consign all reason and all obvious truth to the waste bin, in a rabid attempt to justify your worship of a fellow human being, which has been handed to you by your colonial master.

I have tried to be reasonable in discussing with you. Not once do i remember calling you a liar; nor even asserting you're dogmatic until you directly used that several times in your replies; not once did I attempt to define the sort of things you should believe in Deism, just as you're trying to so hard to do for Christians. Not once did I try to recalculate anything for you other than stating the obvious. You have a funny way of pushing forward all this detractions when you can't get your foot into other people's mouths - and that is not a reasonable behaviour to emulate from you, Deep Sight. However, nothing changes here - I shall continue to be as reasonable as I have always been; objective but not gullible; 'dogmatic' in so far as you want to force your own dogmatism to the fore; and gentle when you make room for geniality.

But heck, worship the dead Jewish carpenter all you want. . . you are entitled to do so just as surely as the adherents of the Brotherhood of the Cross and Star are entitled to insist that Olumba Olumba Obu is God. And just as surely as Hindus are entitled to worship cows.

Should that be such a problem to you? I don't want to return the same in accentuating how risible it is for a Deist to talk about a 'god' he does not understand but only hopes to get nods for his fruitless posts under the masks of "singularity" in an acclaimed 'science' that nobody is ware of.

Deep Sight, there should be no basis for looking down on people just because their convictions do not mold unto your own ideologies. To do so is to be pitifully in the grip of a most queer and unqualified arrogance. That is not what I wish for you or any of my friends - and beyond here, we shall see if my hopes will smile.

Deep Sight, you tempt me. I had initially said that a time would come in the near future when I would invite you to consider some of my views as regards this simple subject: the Deity of Jesus Christ. However, it seems you're actually confirming my suspicion earlier that there's a sort of impatience (nay, restlessness) in your rejoinders - which I had tried to calmly endure.

That said, allow me to say this simply: you're too busy chasing your own tails. If I had seen anything fresh in yours, I wouldn't have minded closing early from work tomorrow to come spend time (nay, waste time) chatting with you on the same issues. However, like I often said: one needs to attend to friends . . which is why I'd like to play with yours for the moment.

Deep Sight:
My preliminary remarks are these: that you have left much hanging, and regretably appear to be one of the dogmatic lot prepared to sacrifice even the most glaring scripture in favour of dogma created by the church.

If that was what I had been doing all along (to talk less of being 'prepared' to do so), why has it been too difficult for you to make your case simple and stop trying too hard? I said before: viaro is not a "traditionalist" - I do not necessarily pander to calcified age-old interpretations handed down to anyone while excusing my thinking faculty. On that simple note, I've taken the time to show you that your claims are far too strained and cheat common sense as to force your own views upon the Biblical statements upon which you set your arguments. That was why I decided to walk you through those texts as well show what I was saying by pointing to the relevant texts penned by the Biblical prophets.

I was mildly amused by this. It appears to me that you missed the gamut of the example I was giving.

How so?

Before saying anything else, let me say this: any religion is free to call whatsoever it pleases ALMIGHTY GOD:

Hinduism may call cows God,

adherents of the Brotherhood of the Cross and Star may call Olumba Olumba God,

and the mainstream (indoctrinated) Christian dogmatist may call Jesus of Nazareth God.

None of this was of any concern to my analogy: to wit: that in simple terms, certain things may appear to the neutral observer as being ridiculous.

My dear pal, you're not sounding genuine. Not at all. I doubt you mean what you have stated above. If you truly believe that "any religion is free to call whatsoever it pleases ALMIGHTY GOD", what then is your problem with Christians holding to their convictions about the Deity of Christ? You don't seem to have any qualms with Hindus equating bovines to God; but when it comes to the Christian worldview, it must of necessity be coloured with aspersions of "indoctrinated" and "dogmatist" - nevermind that you, my friend, are amusingly as "indoctrinated" and pitifully "dogmatist" as you accuse others.

The one thing that bothers me in attitudes like that is the idea that some people are at liberty to teach others what they should believe in their religion when you are not one of them! Imagine the arrogance of trying to teach you what and what you should believe as a Deist when I am not prepared to deconvert from Christianity to becoming deistic! This, I fear, is the problem I see in the way you discuss with Christians. . and if you can't get your way of swamping them with your own iconoclastic ideas, then you write them off as indoctrinated and dogmatic.

Let me amuse you: yes, Deep Sight, I am a dogmatist . . the only difference is that my flavour of dogmatism is different from yours! If you were not as dogmatic in your calcified ideas that you have been forcing forward, this discussion would have smiled warmly into a thin line and not survived to this moment.

That’s why I used the word “rationalize”, which you so vehemently flew down on.

I did not vehemently fly upon that word: and I have left off pointing to it. If you want to take me up on that word, please open a new thread and let's bleach this risible non-starter out of Nairaland! You may argue far and long in denial, but Deep Sight, whether you like it or not, there is nothing else you did than rationalise and threw that question open.

Guess what – if that word gives you sleepless nights (as it well may, clinging as you do to ancient dogma which can stand no rational test; nay – test of sanity) – then, I free you: let’s drop that word entirely, and face the main discourse: that way, freed from irrelevant distractions, you may see what precious little substance is contained in your surmise.

I'm just waiting to see the professionalism in yours - please impress me! Nothing in yours gives me a blink other than trying to define Christianity through the spectacles of deism. Please let off!

I define God as the primordial uncaused cause and prime mover of all contingent existence: the core egg of all existence: and I definitively challenge you or any other theist to show me why that definition is wrong: if you can do this, I pledge you $1 Million USD in addition to my left testicle.

Haha! I won't even waste my time until I see both your testicles! Allow me to choose . . I like big ones! The $1 million USD is a small price!

Now excuse my french there, but I reckon that you're lifting ideas from others and splashing up here to show off! Nice try, bro. But when the time comes, viaro will waste that laughable fossilized comic out of its illogical grammar. First, Deep Sight, what do you mean by "primordial"? In what context do you want me to read and understand your definition?

Thus no man may preach? Do not advance the impression that my active propagation of my world-view unhinges you? Free Speech, brother.

I love you to have free speech. . and I would be first in line to defend it on your behalf. But that is not to mean that your worldview unhinges me in any way; just as I wonder why you're trying too hard to define what Christians should believe according to your own ideology.

I am certain that a philosopher propounding an uncaused cause which is infinite in its nature, and drawing there-from one great harmony to which all living beings should subscribe, in the singular greatness of all things made by God, makes more substance to steady minds free from indoctrination, and is more bestirring of both the intellect and the spirit than the preposterous, bizarre and outlandish commitment of you, an African foreigner, to worship a fellow human being who lived in Israel a while back as almighty GOD. Have you studied the characteristics of cults?

Yes, I have perused the characteristics of cults and cultism - and you may surprise yourself how steeped you're into that if you're insinuating that upon me or my worldview.

However, both highlighted statement refers:

(a) "to which all living beings should subscribe"
This is where your problem is - making preposterous statements in the idea that "all" living beings should by default subscribe to. And if they don't? Your postulations receive vibrations, no?

Let me leave you something my friends know me for: I do not live my life by another man's definition of the philosophy of life - not yours, neither that of the prescribed philosophers you might have had in mind. Some things 'philosophical' are nice - many are empty. If you drew your own ideas of a 'god' that did not originate from the zeitgeist of Lagos Nigeria at any time, why should I be perturbed that you're concerned about my commitment to the Biblical faiths? Cross a Greek with a Lagosian, what do you get, Deep Sight?

(b) "steady minds free from indoctrination"
Huh? You. . of all people? Puhleease! You have not convinced me in these matters that you either have a steady mind, or a free one, or possessing one completely outside the realms of indoctrination. I'm still trying to figure out (as many people are still doing) what you actually would do if anyone suggests to you to free your mind from the singularity indoctrination that you so passionately like to talk about and yet neither understand nor are able to convince anyone of any sense in what you're saying? You, my friend, have been operating on a queer frequency all along - and no one has been catching your short waves.

Nevertheless with the foregoing, I merely digress, and stupidly feed my restlessness on some of the rather acerbic but non-rigorous contentions that you set forth.

Okay then. . like Macdonalds advert. . 'I'm loving it!' I like to tease my friends between times (Krayola discovered very early). So take no notice of my yapping up there to tease you - it's just me.
_{But I'm still eyeing those balls your pledged alongside the $1 million USD. Deal? Deal.}

Deep Sight:
And as a slight aside. . .  i do wonder why my every criticism of dogma must be met (by you, Viaro) with odd insinuations regarding my attempts to expound the meaning of the origin of existence, as i see it.

Huh?

Not even the fact that i base such criticisms on quotes from the Bible stops your reversion to my cosmological and abstract postulations.

Huh-huh??

I would have thought that the one had nothing to do with the other.

Okay, I decode now. Plenty apologies.

But hang on mate. . why do you like to join issues with Christians on their world view regarding especially the Deity of Christ and their convictions about God, and yet hope to have your own cherished beliefs enjoy a sort of immunity - like those in a military barracks?

Okay, I'm sorry to have probed your cosmological views and persuasions about 'God' in your own world view. In an open forum (I suppose), the sort of illations you make about "singularity" , "oneness" and "infinity" might cause some internal combustion in many readers who think along the same premise that you claim as grounds for your ideas - that premise being "science/ scientific". You see, when people read whatever anyone says and affirms them to be "scientific", they are bound to step into the threads and challenge what they read there.

I concur that we should not blur the lines: "the one had nothing to do with the other" - agreed. Point is that, when you feel that others don't make sense and therefore you must trounce their convictions, they might step up and ask if you're prepared to have yours in the crucible in the same manner.

[quote]The One
The primeval Source of Being is the One and the Infinite, as opposed to the many and the finite

Thank goodness. Can you now find a place and a sense, a reason in that which i had tried to propose: namely: the nature of God as being a oneness of infinity?

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-355867.0.html

Be very well prepared, when you come, Viaro.[/quote]Hehehe. . are you serious? Pal, you're begging for some serious surgery. . and my scimitar is not blunt as yet!

And, i cannot resist pointing out that you entirely made it appear as though Christ never asked for the sacrifice to be shelved. HE DID.

Nope, He did not. I asked you to put on your thinking cap and think carefully about the significance of the "cup". You summarily breezed your way around that to surmise that He was "cowardly" and consequently that He requested to have the sacrifice shelved. That, amico mio, is your own world; but shout as loud as you can about it, it gathers no moss!

Last word: I have noticed, for many years; that it often takes very long essays to attempt to refute simple and obvious truth or logic.

That which is true, need no long words.

Hehe, Deep Sight my man! Do you know the hard work it took for others to read some of your own long posts? Are you implying that 'long posts' are synonymous with 'duplicity'? If that's a yes, then translate on yours first!

No, Deep Sight. . sometimes, answers could be brief, comprehensive, or simply reserved (where one gives none, so that they don't waste their time on non-essentials). I like to use the third when some posts are just going nowhere; the first type are appetizers. The comprehensive answers sometimes are necessary to either prod your fellow discussant to look inwards and check themselves for missing clues that they took for granted; or otherwise to help make much needed clarification.

Hi again Deep Sight,

Deep Sight:
Viaro: your extended reply only amounted to one thing; that which i had predicted in my post - that you would resort to the very old defense of Christ's "human part".

I am terribly unimpressed.

It was not my intension to either impress or dismay anyone, even my dear friends. But sometimes when we attend to friends, one should be both astute as well gentle to meet pressing needs - the need(?) to call our attention to a balance that is all too frequently taken for granted. In this case, you had taken far too many things for granted as regards the hypostasis of Christ in His Deity and Humanity.

It was not an 'old defense' I'd tried to proffer - but if it be read that way, then perhaps you were all too frequently repeating a perennial non sequitur as regards the Life and Ministry of Christ. With particular reference to the very issues you mentioned (unblemished, without sin, and could not sin), my answers were tailored along those same issues to show how you were arguing away from the very things stated by the Biblical prophets. If no one addresses your bewilderments in these issues, you might hop on the mistaken idea that ipso facto the things you argued away stand "as is".

I am very sleepy now, and will try to address you later: but i will just say this for now -

I honestly wonder what you presume the Creator of the Universe to be, that, in any form, he should be subject to fear, or request of himself the cancelation of a predestined event. No matter how long your epistles, you will never make sense on this.

Let me begin by saying that you're pandering to an old and very unimpressive cop out offered by weak minds. If you have already cemented your mind that no matter what someone says, they won't make sense on that subject, it perhaps indicates that you're not willing to even consider what they say - regardless whether anyone else makes absolute sense from that or not. That is not a healthy way to discuss anything at all.

However, there are quite a load of stuff you're mixing up for yourself, Deep Sight. Please bear with me:

(a) yours: "I honestly wonder what you presume the Creator of the Universe to be"
Lol, if you and I are to discuss the One whom we address as "the Creator of the Universe", it definitely would not lead to the same identity of Being. Nada. Zilch. This is why I often allow other people to hold their own ideas without trying to define for them how they should think about their own belief within their world views. As a Christian, what I presume of the Creator of the universe has very little to add to your position as a Deist. We may share ideas here and there of our concepts of "the Creator"; but when it comes to tenets and fundamental convictions in our world views, our presumptions do not matter at all at the end of the day - in as much as we cannot marry both world views at any altar.

(b) yours: "in any form"
No, let us not stretch simple statements to uncategorized innuendos. The Bible is clear and direct on this one - and the collective statements do not lead to the idea of "any" form; but rather specifically the Incarnation of the Son of God in Humanity. For example, Philippians 2:8 bears the simple testimony that He was "being found in fashion as a man"; and that is what He assumed in His Incarnation. To stretch that declaration to "any form", dear Deep Sight, would be asking us Christians to lose our identity and turn to Hindus who assert in the Scripture that 'cows are God' (no offense intended).

(c) yours: "he should be subject to fear"
He was not subject to 'fear' in the context you're forcing into the texts to draw the discussion towards your turf. I may grant you that He made Himself subject to so many things in human experience; and yes, I've already highlighted one among many in my previous replies: He was "touched with the feeling of our infirmities" (Heb. 4:15). Why? For the very simple reason that He took upon Himself our own humanity that He might experience what we experience - yet be "without sin" in all those experiences (see Heb. 2:16 - it was not the nature of angels He took upon Him, but rather our humanity). However, He was not subject to fear in the sense of becoming "afraid", which I sense has been the problematic pointer for you. Quite simply, it implies 'reverence'.

(d) yours: "request of himself the cancelation of a predestined event"
We could take this one in some depth, if you may. I already offered some preliminary pointers to the fact that His collective statements both before and after His prayer in Gethsemane do not lead to that conclusion. But if you're already made up to be disinclined to consider it, I'll forebear.

Krayola:
@ Viaro. . . I salute u. U are a bad guy. . . in fact, u are the baddest guy!! 

I would love to discuss certain things with you as I think you are one of the few intellectually honest religionists I have ever come across (outside of my profs and Pastor AIO). But u seem like someone who will not stubbornly deny something that makes sense, but will carefully consider it thoroughly before drawing any conclusions. I respect that very very much. Add that to the fact that u are not full of urself, parading urself as some sort of intellectual heavyweight (ok, maybe sometimes  ) speaks volumes. I bow. 

HAHAHA!! Krayola, my p-a-l! I wish mavenbox could see this and understand how we tease each other! "Baddest guy". . lol. But "intellectual"? I haven't come close to that as yet!

Viaro, i apologize in advance for this remark: but it seems you are employing unpardonable double standards here.

Maybe, maybe not - and my apologies if that is how you assume my comments. Friends who are honest can tell us the grey areas in our ideas, and that is what I appreciate. So no offences there.

Here is my reason. Under Christian doctrine, Jesus was unblemished: without sin - and therefore perfect. This perfection streams from his very divinity - the fact that he is God HIMSELF in human form. God is not capable of sin; and accordingly Jesus could not sin.

The above sentence shows one thing: namely that the attributes of Jesus spring from his nature as God - his divinity, which is perfect. Thus he does not sin because he is God.

Er, Deep Sight, my understanding has always brought me into deep trouble with my Christian brethren - many times. I'm not one who is a 'traditionalist', in the sense of holding on to the calcified interpretations of many theologians. However, I do not draw my understanding of Jesus' perfection on the summations you gave above:

* His very divinity

* the idea that He (Christ in flesh) could not sin (ie., incapable of sin)

No, that is not how I see things - for the Bible does not teach me so. The factors you mentioned (unblemished, without sin, and could not sin) are all matters of His Humanity, not His Divinity/Deity.

Not many people realise this, but there was a question asked long ago in Job 14:4 - "Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? not one." The doctrine of the Biblical prophets is that humanity was held captive in sin - 'we are all as an unclean thing,' says Isaiah 64:6; and many other instances of the same truth. The question here is that those qualities (unblemished, without sin, and could not sin) are issues which point to the Humanity of Christ, issues which hold their merit and veracity in the life and demonstration of His Humanity.

If they were a question of His Divinity/Deity, we could not speak about them while looking at Him in His Humanity. On the one hand, it is said that 'God cannot be tempted with evil,' James 1:13. Sin is not the same as being tempted; the latter (tempted) is a necessary factor for the former (sin) to occur - see James 1:15 ('when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin'). Now, if the "sin" you're speaking of was a matter of His Divinity, then you would have to deal with the first equation ('God cannot be tempted with evil') before going on to talk about the resultant effect - 'blemish'.

But how do the prophets speak about these qualities in Christ - in His Divinity or His Humanity? I think as you search the Bible, you will find that such are spoken of as regarding His Humanity - He was tempted in the flesh:

* For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched
with the feeling of our infirmities;
but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.
Hebrews 4:15

It was not a matter of His Deity by which one could argue that He was without sin; for as regarding His Deity, 'God cannot be tempted with evil'; but only in the flesh could it be said that He was "in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin". What was the point of recording the fact that He was actually tempted if not to show that such an experience was only possible in His Humanity? It was in His Humanity that He was "touched with the feeling of our infirmities"; it was in His Humanity that it could be said that He was "without blemish" (1 Pet. 1:19).

In all of this, the idea of the "perfection" which you assumed upon His Divinity is a non-starter, because those factors are spoken of on the basis of His Humanity. It would be practically impossible from a theological perspective to assume that He was "unblemished" if that quality had not been demonstrated in His Humanity - just as well it would be useless to speak of His "temptation" if it was not predicated on His Humanity. It was in His Humanity that Job asked the question: "Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? not one"; and it is in His Humanity that Christ answered that very pivotal question.

I hope you can already see where i am going with this. You accept the above proposition: but when it comes to other patterns of his bahaviour you conveniently flip the table.

I do not accept your proposition, and consequently did not flip the tables. As shown above, one has to view issues of His life on the basis of His Humanity, and not misconstrue matters which are not founded upon Divinity to then make unjustified inferences.

You are happy to ascribe the prayer in Gethsemane to his "human" fear - hello - why can we not also conclude that since he was "human" then he could sin?

I knew that's where you were going - and I anticipated you well enough to explain just above that you're making illations that confuse between His Deity and Humanity. It was in His Humanity that He could experience "temptation"; in His Humanity He was "touched with the feeling of our infirmities"; in His Humanity He was "without blemish"; in His Humanity He was "without sin". I have just walked you through your assumptions, and hope you can easily decipher where you got it all skewed in your arguments.

The truth is this: your line of reasoning, if followed, should also apply to such attributes as fear: namely - he is God, and as such can know no fear. He is perfect, and as such will be stout hearted in facing the sacrifice necessary to redeem his creatures. And if not perfect, he is at least greater than all men, and as such, would not make a request which mere mortals have in many instances risen above.

For the very reason that your own reasoning is without substance, I cannot answer roll-calls on your behalf. If anything in my reasoning, I have shown how issues are presented by the Biblical prophets between His Deity/Divinity and Humanity. You can choose to disagree and put words in their mouth, no consequences to me at all, as long as you cannot controvert my reasoning by your misapplications.

This is all the more central when you consider the following (christian doctrine) -

  1. He knew the purpose and reason for the sacrifice even before coming into the world

  2. He loved his creatures and wanted to redeem them accordingly

Viaro, if Jesus knew the purpose of the sacrifice, it would be grossly irresponsible and cowardly of him to request that it should not take place. And given the fact that he is supposed to be almighty God himself, such a request becomes both paradoxical and demeaning of his inner nature.

Hahaha, this is the most idiotic assumption I could ever consider from any one of my friends. Now, I'm not calling you an idiot, nor being pejorative against your person; but your assumptions are quite cowardly and not man enough to see that He NEVER at anytime made a "request" that His sacrifice would not take place. If anything, not only did He frequently tell His disciples that such an event was inevitable (Matthew 16:21; 17:21-22; 20:17-18; John 12:24); but also He remonstrated Peter to not prevent this very "cup" from occuring as predetermined - 'Then said Jesus unto Peter, Put up thy sword into the sheath: the cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it?' (John 18:11). He also stated: "But I have a baptism to be baptized with; and how am I straitened till it be accomplished!" (Luke 12:50). No, Deep Sight, you're letting off gas and not substance - Jesus did not that His sacrifice should not take place, else you might have ignored the other verses that showed His willingness to betake Himself to that event.

Besides, what are you arguing now? Because I notice a subtle switch. . was it a matter of His "courage" or rather His "request" about your postulations? However, even if we grant your own persuasions especially about your second point ('He loved his creatures and wanted to redeem them accordingly'), what is stopping you from embracing the finished and accomplished work of His sacrifice? The question is not that it is still pending - no, rather it is accomplished! What are you waiting for?

But your unwillingness to embrace what you acknowledge yourself is what is most pitiful! This was why I said earlier: "you may hold your silence and observe without trying to define for them what they should believe, especially where you're not inclined to holding the very axioms about the Almighty that you might grant unto others." Sure, you are willing to grant unto Christians that Christ both loved and came to redeem us - but even in that acknowledgement, you're not inclined to embracing the very thing that you acquiesce to. Which is why I wonder what fruit you truly expect to have from this religious game tweezers you're playing? I just can't wait to have time enough after the coming months to draw you out to a discussion and trounce your cherished 'singularity god' - however philosophical you may try to be. Patience, the time will come!

The above regardless, most shocking is that you missed the core element of my post:

There it is: the core element of my surmise is not even the fear and courage element: it is the evident dichotomy of will.

And your point still is. . .? Lol, you're trying too hard, Deep Sight bro. . damn too hard! But I shall go it easy with you for now.

If Jesus is truly God, or part of a trinity as you claim, then his oneness with God will cardinally be a oneness of will, even before a oneness in any other respect. It is inconceivable, that we should speak of a divine being who is God, that could have a will different from the will of God. Haba, let's try to be sincere please: i cannot see how his appearance in human form would suddenly destroy his divine will, or the oneness of his will with God.

There is no grounds to assume a dichotomy of 'wills' - if there was, you have not demonstrated such a grounds but are only yapping. I would like to invite you at a set time to discuss why I believe in the Trinity - the time will come. For me, it is not a matter of additions and multiplications, but of subsistence (you can hold me to that statement when the time comes). And yes, in that discussion I will share many matters with you about the divine hypostasis of Christ being both Deity and Human. I shall not preempt it here; but mark my summations until then.

To that i say - give me a break! Almighty God in human form must per force be a cut above ordinary humans! - As is the case with the fact of his being without sin!

You have your deserved break; and yes, He is above "ordinary" human beings - including the question you expressed as regarding His "without sin" which I have discussed. You may not be inclined to what Christians believe. . just as you might find Hinduism repulsive in making cows or bovines into God. I may not find your 'singularity god' repulsive either - but I shall find it hard to resist making your arguments for your own 'god' reprobate when the time comes. Enjoy.

So please leave off on the word 'rationalize" - as an aside i can tell you that my perception of God is via intuition and the Spiritual: i "rationalize" only for the purpose of discussion and philosophy.

But can you ever do anything else? Whether for the purpose of a discussion ([b]p[/b]olitical, [b]p[/b]hilosophical, [b]p[/b]arabolical, [b]p[/b]aradoxical, or any other [b]p[/b]aradigm that comes to mind) or otherwise merely making statements, you can't seem to help yourself to 'rationalize' - but there, I acquiesce to let off on that word, never mind that I've tried to show why I used it to help you there.

I have no idea if i can endure such. However I know very well that throughout history men have endured even worse forms of barbaric and inhumane torture when trying to protect their families or loved ones, without asking anyone to "let the cup pass" over their heads.

There again, you're trailing off on assumptions. You may wish to qualify the set of "worse forms of barbaric and inhumane torture", but what do you understand by the "cup" that Christ spoke of? You assume that was a lack of "courage", no? Deep Sight, you're making me feel sorry for you.

If you will study in particular the mental aspects of the oriental marshall arts, you will find that it has long been considered a thing of honour to endure pain and death for an honorable cause. There have been many hundreds of thousands of human beings throughout history who have endured such unflinchingly; certain of their cause, and the purpose for which they fight. There have been others who have volunteerd outright for such, as opposed to seeking for a "cup to pass over" their heads.

There's NONE I have ever come across who understood what the "cup" meant and stood unflinching in the face of the torture they were to endure. Please, amico. . try and define for yourself what that "cup" actually was, before making irrational assumptions about others in history. I know, you might come back asking me to do so. . but no, I would rather request that you do so yourself and let's discuss further, since you already are drawing conclusions about the "cup" as to suppose that there have been "have been many hundreds of thousands of human beings" who endured the "cup" unflinchingly! Christ was well-aware of the physical sufferings that many people have had to endure before that point of His Cross, and also how many more would have to go through more severe physical sufferings. He knew all that, and yet had spoken of His death as something He looked forward to, not one that He lacked courage to endure.

Let us in this briefly and sincerely return to the first point i made - namely that God is perfect, or very great indeed.

Phew! Could I ask that we save this interesting bit until another time, huh? Not that I'm shying away from discussing it; but more because I may not have the time during the next few months to do so and keep up with it. Besides, the "perfection" and "very great" you're assuming do not mean that every world view cannot preserve these two properties in however and whatever way they speak about 'God' in their world views - I gave the example of the cow/bovine in Hinduism. But I shall only grant you a few comments thereto in my subsequent reply.

@Deep Sight,

Lol, I sense some impatience in your response. .  but a friend sometimes needs to be attended. I already said that I would invite you to a discussion on this subject in detail at some point in the futute, but only posted some observations about the way you drew your conclusions on "rationalizations". Be that as it may, I'll make a few comments to respond to your rejoinder.

Deep Sight:
So don't worry about my articulation of God: as far as this discussion is concerned, we may limit ourselves to the foregoing: namely that he is perfect; but if that is disputed; then let us at least say he is great: much greater in every respect than any human being. Happy? We proceed!

Slow down, dude!   Don't cheat with such inconsequentials in as much as I was not arguing the perfection or greatness of God. If I was looking at those properties, at least they were not drawn from your previous comments - and that would be discussion for another day, in so far as both properties are relative. Neither perfection nor greatness stand on their own without some reference to other standards against which you measure such ideas. So, I'll just tuck it away for another day.

Don't worry about the word "rationalize." You seem to be placing too much emphasis on that word.

Okay, if you say so. However, I wasn't placing that much emphasis on that word; at least, it wasn't intentional. I zeroed in on that word specifically because that is the foundation of your comments - for if thou did not try to "rationalize" anything thereto, your inferences would not be factored around comments of His being "capable" of the courage you sought in Him that you envisaged in humanity. So again, I shall be happy to contain your request to play down on your "rationalize".

I simply meant in general terms that which seems to approach common sense, or the obvious. For example, if Mr. X were to state: "that goat in my yard is almighty-God in goat-form" - i might reply - "can anybody rationalize the almighty as an animal - less than a human being?". There would be no need to fly down on the word - "rationalize" here, because the hardened anti-rationalist can easily argue: God is omni-potent - accordingly he may take the form of a goat if he pleases."

Lol, you're still circling around the drama of "rationalizations", dear amico mio. If you may, I could take up that idea with you at another time and show you what you're essentially missing. Suffice to say here that your analogy is stretching things too far. Some cultures indeed believe that divinity permeates all things, including bovines - in which case the cow is held sacred in Hinduism. I don't have a firsthand knowledge of their scriptures, but secondhand sources have quoted the ancient Hindu scriptures in Rig Veda 6:28 as saying, "Cows are God they seem to me to be Indra, the God of Heaven". On that grounds, you may apply your "hardened anti-rationalist" argument without any concerns to draw forth any comments from me. What you should understand here is that, while you are unable to envisage Christ as God (which is what pertains to the Christian faith), there are other religions that see bovines as God - that is where your analogy should apply its argument, and not transferring allusions of Hinduism to Christianity.

It is for this reason of the Hindu example that I'm not quite confident that this part of your quote is balanced:

One thing which is per force agreed among all persons and institutions who sucscibe to the idea of God, is that He is very great indeed - certainly much greater than human beings in all respects - yes?

I would have let that pass without a comment; but Deep Sight amico mio, you may not have reasoned out your premise quite well. What would you have said, therefore, to the Hindu who reads the statement in Rig Veda 6:28 that "Cows are God" and still has no qualms holding that the idea of God's greatness? Between the human being and the cows, you may have deep troubles with the Incarnation of Christ who the Biblical prophets declare to be God; but you might as well scratch your head for a while and lambaste the Hindus for declaring a bovine to be God - either position does not evade the idea of the "perfection" and "greatness" of God in making such statements, even where they are in strict disagreement in their distinct world views and belief systems.

Your problem, dear Deep Sight, as I said previously, is that you're trying to define who 'God' should be for other people in their belief structures; whereby if their views hold differently from yours at any point, your own belief system receives a vibration.

In such issues, my attitude is sometimes the one I recommended to you earlier: "you may hold your silence and observe without trying to define for them what they should believe, especially where you're not inclined to holding the very axioms about the Almighty that you might grant unto others." This was the very reason why I didn't want to take you to task on the singularity that you defined sometime as your own 'God' - an idea that I could so very easily waste in minutes and consign to the waste bin of Nairaland!

However, my soft-ball approach towards your 'singularity' god was to let you hold your own views if they make you happy, without flogging you into my own belief system through the back door. I would much rather invite you (and I'm actually inviting you) to consider embracing the Gospel of Jesus Christ, which by far is more signal and rational than any 'singularity' project that you might betake yourself to.

It is not as if your arguments make for substance that could be sustained if I were to call you out to discuss your own 'God/god'. It is far easier to trounce the beliefs of other people, than to talk about and rationally defend yours. This kind of religious game-tweezers are often used to draw out unnecessary arguments in the Religion Board, and there's hardly anyone who has not used it at one time or another - Theists (Muslims, Christians, Grail Messengers, etc), Deists, Orientalists, Agnostics, Atheists. . or self-acclaimed satanists. And should that same tweezer be used to pluck your deism apart, you might be surprised to find it was all feather and no flesh. That is something I shy away from doing. . unless you'd be thirsty enough to see your cherished beliefs thoroughly excoriated and reprobated. Viaro is at hand to help do that very thing _{but he is not willing to go there . .  at least, not now}.

@olabowale,

olabowale:
@Viaro: « #28 on: Today at 09:42:31 PM » And this is your best argument about God, and then the Trinity, making Jesus more important than what he really was?

Lol, did you even take the time to think at all? My comments were not the best argument about God - I was not responding to an atheistic argument about God or any deity. Sometimes it pays to look carefully at what people are saying and not interject with your own polarisations. As for the question of the Trinity, I already hinted Deep Sight that I would invite him to consider some of my views in an amicable discussion. I really don't see what sense your tales are bearing other than making illations that are far removed from my comments.

Who would know Jesus better, you or Jesus?

He knows better than anyone, and Muhammad has no clue.

Howdy, Deep Sight. Quite an age that we both rubbed minds on a few topics/subjects. This one as regards your concern about the Deity of Christ is one that I hope to discuss someday with you. .  if for nothing else than to show that your inferences are misplaced and strained. Let's see your quote here:

Deep Sight:
Can any one rationalize God Almighty in human form not being capable of the virtue of courage, which many mere mortals have shown in abundance even at the point of death in battle?

There are a whole lot of things askew in your summations, Deep Sight. For one, I wonder how you of all people proceed to talk about God Almighty when you have not been able to articulate just Who He is to you in your worldview. If others are speaking about God Almighty, you may hold your silence and observe without trying to define for them what they should believe, especially where you're not inclined to holding the very axioms about the Almighty that you might grant unto others.

Second, there is no need to "rationalize" God Almighty in any form. To have a need to do so is to open up many doors to box Him up in certain ways that may be polarised towards your own ideology as distinct from the persuasions of other people. In this case, you're hoping to set constraints and limitations for the Almighty such that you tend to react to whatever goes beyond the perimeters of your own assumptions concerning those constraints. It's okay to "rationalize" if that helps you - but the results of such would best serve your own constraints and limitations, where nothing else could be possible.

Following the second point above, the third thing is to begin to make undeserving, unfactored and unnecessary inferences to twist certain assertions to your zone. That is not enlightening or balanced. If one has to arrive at the busstop you led them to, the question would be whether or not the Almighty was "capable of the virtue of courage". Capable? Dear Deep Sight, it is disappointing to read that from you! You drew hasty conclusions there that completely evaded the question of His actual death - that is where you see the "courage" you are seeking, and not in the that utterance of prayer. His demeanour at the Trial; the excoriation He endured; His demonstration of forgiveness to His accusers. . these are all points of reference to ponder for yourself and come to ask simply: can you, Deep Sight, envisage any "capabilities" of the same "courage" if put in His place?

It's easy to put others on spotlight and trail off about what we have no clues. You seem to have drawn quite queer conclusions and are glorying too loosely on how you have used that idea to discombobulate davidylan. For starters, the Christian faith does not rest on davidylan's ability or inability (should I rather say 'willingness' or the lack thereof) to answer any queries; nor does it stand or fall on viaro's or anyone else's declarations.

Bro, the God of Whom we speak does not need human "rationalizing" - not yours, not mine, not anyone else's. Yet, I shall someday invite a discussion to help you see something about the Deity of Jesus Christ beyond this rationalizations you're holding forth.

mavenbox:
And, yes, I am ignoring you and viaro for a purpose that you (both?) know. If these constant waves of accusation constitute a way of keeping me in conversation, trust me I will soon keep quiet to you on this entire matter.

Dear mavenbox,

I'm sorry that my commendation (or anything I said) would have irked you in that manner as to draw me in that quote. It was indeed silly of me to have teased Krayola in your thread (he knows me. . I often tease him between times, regardless the thread where I find him online). That said, I do not change anything about what I said earlier in commending your efforts; I was just wondering what I might have done to have drawn your disapproval in that manner. But to reassure you, there's no 'purpose' behind the scenes up my street to derail your conversation or clog the flow somewhere and somehow. Please forgive any inconveniences I might have caused you; and I shall promptly withdraw from this space.

Many blessings.

Now, back to our discussion on YEC.

When I read the Scripture that was inscribed by God Almighty, it tells me all that I need to know about how long it took Him to create the universe and earth. He said in Exodus 20:11 and I quote again; "For in six days the LORD made the heavens and earth, the sea, and all that is in them,"  This verse mentions the creation of the universe and all that is within it including the sun and seas.

Okay, that's cool and good for you then. I don't need to say anything differently from what I already said in post #24 about the difference between "create" and "made". God did not create the universe in 6 days - He didn't say so, nor did Moses. We are not told HOW LONG it took Him to create the universe, and Exodus 20:11 does not tell us how long either. For all intents and purposes, we have been through this point where I showed that there are events in the creation of the heavens and the earth in other verses which we do not read about in Genesis 1. There is a deafening silence between verses 1 and 2 of Genesis 1; and it was only afterwards that we begin to read of the 6 days.

Peter, here tells us that the scoffers in the last days will be willingly ignorant of how God created the heavens and the earth and that they will also be ignorant of Noah's Flood.  Peter had no doubt of the Genesis account of Noah's Flood and he went on to warn us of the impending judgment.  He said nothing of the premordial scum that evolutionists assume of today.  You can now see that the gap theory does away with the evidence for the historical event of the global Flood.

Lol, you seem to be so much in a haste to draw unfounded conclusions. For one, please read carefully what I say, and not what I do not say. As such, let me hint you as I've done to others: viaro is not a fan of Darwinian evolution. Even then, my mention of "the primordial condition of the earth" does not suggest Darwinism.

What did I mean by 'primordial'?

[list]"formed when the Earth or universe began"
[MacMillan Dictionary Online][/list]

[list]"existing at or from the beginning of the world"
[Oxford English Dictionary][/list]

[list]"1 a : first created or developed : primeval
1 b : existing in or persisting from the beginning (as of a solar system or universe)"
Merriam Webster Online[/list]

These are the examples of the simple sense in which I used 'primordial', and they do not suggest a leaning towards darwinism, no matter how some Christians tend to react because they flinch anytime they read particular words or terms. In that case, I clearly made mention that what Peter was giving us in the statement 'the earth standing out of the water and in the water' was a primordial description of the earth (it has nothing to do with darwinism).

God left us in no doubt as to when, how, what and how long it took Him to create.  He said in Psalm 33:6,9 "By the word of the LORD the heavens were made, And all the host of them by the breath of His mouth.  For He spoke, and it was done; He commanded, and it stood fast"

God does not tell us anything about "when and how long it took Him to create" in your quote of Psalm 33:6,9. He made no mention of when (not 6 days dating back 6,000 years ago), nor for how long (the universe is evidently older than 6,000 years). Please note carefully that the "universe" is much bigger than the earth. . because it seems to me that many times this is taken for granted in your posts.

I believe and affirm that Genesis chapter 1 is clear enough on what and when God created.

I believe so as well; but I do not believe that the proponents of YEC are letting God speak clearly as He does in Genesis.

If you read without the need to include the billion of years into Gen.1:2 you will see what am talking about.

I do not "need" to include anything; and YEC proponents should have no "need" to reduce the universe to 6,000 years old either! Evidently, and more importantly, YEC should help themselves to distinguish between "man" and the "earth" - you cannot use the age of man to define the age of the earth!

Many sincere Christians have invented reinterpretations of Scripture to avoid intellectual conflicts with popular scientific ideas.

That's precisely what YEC has been doing for eons. There's nothing one can present to them that they would not find some clandestine way of squeezing it into their 6,000 years model.

These theories are designed to fit in with scientific concepts that arose in the 1800s and are still popular today.  I hope to come back with more reasons why this position cannot be sustainable in this day and age, even the evolutionists know that it doesn't add up.

My discourse is not on 'evolutionists' or 'evolutionism' - and if you want to see an example of why many Christians use "creationism" to argue breezily against evolutionism, please see OLAADEGBU's thread, Questions For Evolutionists And Atheists. In that thread, I excitedly waited for OLAADEGBU to show me "how Creation Design falsifies the evolution theory" - need I say he did not show me 'how'. not in the least way possible.

It is not as if I argued for evolution in that thread. In fact, let me remind you: I'm not a fan of Darwinism. However, my concern there was to help Christians sort out their confusion in arguing aimlessly between science and teleology. I urge you to see my posts in that thread as you consider coming back with the "reasons" you have in mind as regarding the scientific concepts of the 1800s.

Thanks for your replies and observations. I may be away for quite some time; but I shall consider your further replies whenever I'm back on NL.

I didn't want to reply to, or comment on, your second post; but I'd spend some time just making reminders that we've been through this part of the scripts and there's no need belabouring the point.

modupe01:
That is what it appears to me, the fact that you are looking for excuses from outside influences to stretch the days and nights into billions of years.

Lol, but have I appealed to outside influences to strengthen what I discussed? What influences, really? Sometimes, when people make such statements, I shake my head in amazement. . because it tends to make me feel that these folks suppose that absolutely NOTHING can be known outside the Bible! I dare say that even the Bible points us many times to events and instances where knowledge and understanding came from other sources than the sacred pages of any canon. Oh dear me. . just ask and I shall be too glad to open a thread and walk you through that subject.

Relax, I have not used outside influence to share my points; and I don't need to make appeal to such. From within the pages of the Bible itself, it's easy to show how the position of the YEC is misguided, presumptive and deeply flawed.

When I read the Scripture that was inscribed by God Almighty, it tells me all that I need to know about how long it took Him to create the universe and earth.

That's just what I thought - many of us read the Scriptures and assume there's no other source to understand the works of God in creation. I apologise, but that is not what I find in Scripture itself. Even in other matters, the saints (or men of God) studied other books to get some understanding about what God had declared. Two examples:

[list][li]In the first year of his reign I Daniel understood by books the number of the years, whereof the word of the LORD came to Jeremiah the prophet, that he would accomplish seventy years in the desolations of Jerusalem. ~ (Daniel 9:2) [/li][/list]

[list][li]The cloke that I left at Troas with Carpus, when thou comest, bring with thee, and the books, but especially the parchments. ~ (2 Tim. 4:13)[/li][/list]

Outstanding men of God, and yet they loved "books" and gave themselves to seeking to understanding issues without a religious spirit we often take today of seeing 'only the 66 books of the Bible' and nothing more.

And yes, they used the knowledge gained from their study to minister to others. Paul, for example, used his knowledge of the poetry of the Athenians in his preaching to them. For how else could he have known that certain of the Athenian poets have also said: "For we are also his offspring"? (Acts 17:28). What the Athenian poets said as quoted by Paul was not written by the finger of God as was the case with Moses' Law in Exodus - and yet, Paul did not rubbish the Athenians by claiming: "Oh, you superstitious lot. . forget your poets, I know all that I need to know about being the offspring of God!"

Hehe, just imagine what the Athenians would have done!! This one is familiar: "Get lost! We Athenians cannot be bothered by self-satisfied Jews from Tarsus!"

Okay, jokes aside. I only wanted to lay this idea to rest that we often mistake as superior to understanding issues broadly, even if it means we read "books" such as in the example with Daniel and Paul.

By quoting from both chapters 1 and 2 of Genesis, Jesus shows that these chapters are not contradictory, as some may claim.  Chapter 2 merely gives the details of chapter 1 just as Genesis 1:2 gives the description of Genesis 1:1.  A sports comentator is not in error when (after a game) he gives in-depth analysis and fails to repeat every detail in chronological order.  He is merely reviewing the completed game by mentioning the highlights.

As above, Genesis 1:1 ('in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth') is not to be confused as the beginning of the creation of Adam and Eve! One cannot use Genesis 1:27 to bracket Genesis 1:1.

This is a verse commonly quoted by the JW's when they claim that Jesus was "made" of the seed of David (that Jesus was a god "created by Jehovah" to die for our sins), they point to Proverbs 8:22-35 for their justification.  However, the Bible is speaking here of the personification of "wisdom" (verse 12).  Jesus had no beginning and He was not created but was begotten as the only begotten Son of God when He was incarnated 2,000 years ago.

I don't think my reference of Proverbs 8 was to argue the timeless existence of Christ. Please re-read my point #5 in post #62 and you'd see precisely what I stated:

[list](5) Now, the point in (4) above might startle many of us Christians - but that is only if we have been thinking that the phrase "in the beginning" always refers to the creation that occurred within the time frame as interpreted to support YEC. That is not true - because if that were true, it would mean that even John 1:1 translates into an idea that the Divine Word was 6,000 years old! Afterall, that verse also mentions 'in the beginning' . . "in the beginning was the Word". Is that clause there ("in the beginning" also pointing to a YEC? Clearly not - rather, in harmony with Prov. 8:23, it was a "beginning" that was much, much earlier than our traditional YEC-6,000 years old![/list]

Quoting again Proverbs 8:23 - "I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was". There was a time known also as "the beginning" even before the earth existed! I did not use Proverbs 8:23 to argue anything about Christ's existence in eternity. Rather, I was concentrating on the doctrinal position of 'young earth creationism' - Y[b]E[/b]C.

If you read it in context and without any predetermined bias you will realise that Jesus was quoting Genesis 1:27 and 2:24 respectively as other animate living organisms do not marry.

There was no predetermined biases up my sleeves. And I have tried to explain that Genesis 1:27 and 2:24 are late arrivals on the scene and cannot be used to bracket Genesis 1:1 for the "beginning" of the creation of the heavens and the earth!

Let's make it simple: you cannot use Genesis 1:27 and 2:24 for "the beginning" of the creation of the heavens and the earth. That is where the proposers of the YEC have woefully failed. Read verse 1 in Gen.1 - "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth"; and reading it without the predetermined biases of the YEC, we cannot use verse 27 ('God created man') to determine the age of the EARTH in verse 1.

This is where you need to separate between these two properties:

* earth

* man

They are not the same, as we all know. That being the case, we cannot use the age of man to assert the same thing for the age of the earth. God did not do so, nor did His Son our Lord Jesus Christ. Infact, Job 38:4 asks a pivotal question: "Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth?" This should help us understand that the age of man and the age of the earth are entirely two different things altogether!

Further, several verses in the NT also point to the OT about the creation of the earth. An example is Hebrews 1:10 which quotes Psalm 102:25 -

[list]Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands[/list].

This is no doubt talking about "the beginning" of creation separately from when man arrived on earth. In all this, you cannot use Genesis 1:27 and 2:24 to bracket Genesis 1:1 - there are so many other verses that speak of events that we do not read in Genesis 1.

So, I'm sorry to skip the eisegesis of the JW stuff you were talking about; as I'm not a JW, nor did I try to argue their position in any of my posts.

I believe that I have been able to point out that the Bible says what it means and means what it says without any foreign interpretation needed.

I doubt it. From what I see in yours, it seems as though you had used the age of Adam to wrongly infer the age of the earth - which is not what the Bible says or means.

With time I may be able to provide reasons these are so and why your standpoint is a dangerous stand to take.

I do hope it is not dangerous; but even so, I might be scared to note that your interpretation is far too strained on the phrase "in the beginning" to use Adam to determine the age of the earth. That kind of thinking is what is most dangerous - because it would also mean that "the beginning" is 6,000 years old for John 1:1.

@modupe01,

modupe01:
I also thank you for taking the time to painstakingly respond to some if not all of my objections.  I have been expecting you to respond to the rest of my points or rather open another post to address them, hence my late posts.

My apologies. Somehow a lot of things came my way and my remembrance might have been clouded. It would be nice if you could point out the other points I missed earlier in yours.

You are entitled to your own opinion on these matters I still believe that God did not leave it open for any private interpretation, the text and contexts speaks for itself.

While I appreciate the right of people to have their own opinions on anything, there's an undeniable fact that people tend to interpret anything they read from the Bible. There is not a single verse that anyone can just read and not seek its meaning - and it is in finding meaning that interpretations are employed. Even the Lord Jesus Himself made that point so very clear in Luke 10:26 -

He said unto him,
~ What is written in the law?
~ how readest thou?

It is not enough to see "what" is written, but we should care for "how" we read the written statements. But notice also that the question rests upon the reader - "how readest thou?" That does not mean we are at liberty to make "private interpretations" of our own (as Peter warns against in 2 Peter 1:20); but it also does not mean we should always adhere to calcified traditions handed down through the ages by others who have made up their own biases as the final doctrine - in this case, the doctrine of a "YEC" ([b]y[/b]oung [b]e[/b]arth [b]c[/b]reationism).

If you read Mark 10:6-9 you will see the context in which Jesus was talking.  He was quoting Genesis 1:27 and 2:24 respectively.

Hehe. . what do you think you're doing just now? Are you not the same person who said that 'God did not leave it open for any private interpretation' . . and yet you're doing the same by mentioning "context"?

In any case, while I might grant you that simplistic assumption, the bigger question you might need to address is this: what is meant by 'the beginning of the creation'? We often tend to think that it all happened within six days, so that the age of the earth can be neatly boxed into a convenient doctrinal position of YEC's 6,000 years old.

Put this in its proper context and you will find that neither Mark 10:6-9 nor Genesis 1:27 and 2:24 define what is actually "the beginning of the creation". Nada. Zilch. We do not know exactly how long ago was 'the beginning of creation'; nor can we say that Mark 10:6 defines that very instance. All we can say is that the intended meaning of Jesus' statement in Mark 10:6 ('from the beginning of the creation') applies to a time epoch based on a relationship - the relationship between a man and his wife.

You certainly are entitled to disagree; but you would have a hard time squeezing pre-Adamic existence into Mark 10:6. Good enough that you quoted Genesis 1:27 and 2:24 as cross references, which are all the more pointing to a time long after the actual beginning of creation.

I noted much earlier in post #62 that the phrase "in the beginning" has reference to various applications and meanings, and they do not all refer to the very same instance in time! If they did, that would mean that "in the beginning" in John 1:1 is also 6,000 years old! I gave at least seven points there to consider the meaning of that phrase - all to the point that the age of Adam and Eve (however that may be interpreted) cannot be used for a doctrinal position of 'young earth creationism', YEC. The earth is much older than Adam and Eve - and that is fact! Therefore, one cannot use the age of man to draw unnecessary summations for the age of the earth. In simple outline, one might say:

(a) YEC:
'age of man' = 'age of earth'

(b) the Bible:
'age of man' ≠ 'age of earth'


What people in YEC are doing is to make the age of man equal to the age of the earth, thereby making both man and earth stand at 6,000 years old. However, one does not have to hold the calcified interpretation of the YEC in order to see that 'the age of man' ≠ (is not equal to) the 'age of the earth'. This may sound silly, but the 'Y[b]E[/b]C' as the name implies argues for a 'young EARTH creationism' by basing the weight of their presumption upon the age of Adam and Eve! This is all wrong-footed and presumptive, for Adam and Eve only arrived on the creation scene eons after Genesis 1:1 ('in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth'). Man was not created in the cosmological "beginning" of Genesis 1:1, but only arrived at another "beginning" that was eons away from the "beginning" of the first verse!

mavenbox:
@Pharoh: LOL thanks! Your advice has been taken like wholemeal! LOL

@mavenbox,

Where do I begin to commend your effort? My goodness! I can only stand silent in admiration of your insight on many issues. . most of which opened my eyes to quite a lot that I hitherto had not given careful consideration. Be increasingly blessed.

delete [post #99]

@A_K_O
[quote author=A_K_O link=topic=352909.msg4960978#msg4960978 date=1258671588]Please re-read my post. You will notice that I spoke of a "thread", and I see a separate childboard as unnecessary and unrealistic.[/quote]I read your post the first time and got what you said. Nonetheless, I followed your advice and re-read it - still found nothing new. I'm not trying to be funny here; but I think perhaps you didn't get my gist at all. In a nutshell, I was following from tpia's and stated that "I'm with tpia's opinion" on the one hand, while questioning the grounds of your tacit "Exactly" in quoting tpia's. It was not matters about a 'childboard' that is of concern, be that as it may: it's a given that won't happen.

However, while I think some of the mods are doing a great job, this deference towards Buddhism raises some wonder. I don't know if any of the mods expressed similar sentiments as "we (mods) will try our best to keep it clean for you guys" towards Christian threads - it just seems as though everyone was happy to help them get bogged with all sorts.

That's just by the way. Muslims have a childboard, but Christians don't have that privilege. And if others clamour for their exclusive childboards at some point, where's that going to lead? I think the first mistake Nairaland made was make this unnecessary dichotomy of an exclusive childboard for Muslims and damn the rest into one ocean of "Religion" section.

dexmond:
What do you say about this link. http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/mokele.html

Quite an interesting read. However, let me remind you here of the salient point: the question of 'evidence' and the 'relatively young earth'.

Again, there doesn't seem to be any pointers in that article to the idea of a 'RYE'; and the anecdotes about 'Mokele-Mbembe' do not exactly establish much, other than the recurring decimal that 'it is believed to be' a sauropod type of dinosaur. It would remind me of the effort to find the Loch Ness monster (speculated to be from a line of long-surviving plesiosaurs), and other species like elasmosaurs and Cryptoclidus.

Accounts like this happen between times; but are they the "evidence" for a 'relatively young earth'?