a=b. b=c, thus a = c and DeepSight therefore defines God as the "Ultimate form of Harmony". In what context? In relation to His Creation (which limits him) or outside of it? Or both?

My problem with either/both is that you seem to be trying to fit God into a mould you have created. And that mould is sufficiently vague as to remove all personality from the object of discourse - God! Or is this actually what you would have us believe i.e. that God is abstract, unknown, remote, undecipherable etc? I've not been on Nairaland long enough to have read all the threads on this OOI but the more I read, the more it seems you look at God as many would at one of Michelangelo's masterpieces - A perfect (but intrisincally lifeless) work.

Does this OOI have a character? And what does He/She/It mean to you as an individual?

Maven, Nuclear -

Do you both really expect me to believe that the simple statement -

"God's will is harmony within creation" -

Requires further expatiation?

Ok, what would you say his will is - chaos?

No no no, you seem to have missed the point.

[1] "within creation"! Are you saying God is limited and doesn't surpass the limits of what is in existence?
[2] Where is the character/personality of God in this OOI theory? Or is God an abstract remote concept floating somewhere in the universe?

We are saying God is, as it were, an Individual, with a character, likes/dislikes etc. Your OOI seems to suggest an abstract infinity/whatever (forgive me but words fail me here). Can you clarify this issue?

Deep Sight:

Maven, Nuclear -

Do you both really expect me to believe that the simple statement -

"God's will is harmony within creation" -

Requires further expatiation?

Ok, what would you say his will is - chaos?

Yes it does require your gracious expatiation sir, because when I say that P === Q then either Q is in a constant state of transformation to equate to P, control-systems-speaking, or vice versa. Can you help me out here?

And by the way, Nuclearboy has one additional question beyond mine: I think HE is wondering if the OOI has any non-mechanical, non-rigid traits.

nuclearboy:

No no no, you seem to have missed the point.

[1] "within creation"! Are you saying God is limited and doesn't surpass the limits of what is in existence?

No - I am describing the will of God for his creation.

God is One. His innate unity means perfection and thus harmony. And this is also his unchangeable will for his creation.

[2] Where is the character/personality of God in this OOI theory? Or is God an abstract remote concept floating somewhere in the universe?

We are saying God is, as it were, an Individual, with a character, likes/dislikes etc. Your OOI seems to suggest an abstract infinity/whatever (forgive me but words fail me here). Can you clarify this issue?

How can you seek to limit the primordial and transcendental GOD in this fashion. You seek to "humanize" God.

God is ineffable. And yes, God is, in a sense, very very abstrct from the finite dimension in which we live.

Mavenb0x:


And by the way, Nuclearboy has one additional question beyond mine: I think HE is wondering if the OOI has any non-mechanical, non-rigid traits.

Wat does oneness connote if not absolute unity?

What does unity connote if not absolute harmony?

What does harmony connote if not absolute love?

Is there anything "mechanical" about the above?

That i use numbers a s a mirror of logic to describe a theological perception of the existence of the first cause, does not mean that i beleive God to be "numbers" or "mechanical".

@Deep Sight: I see how you have artfully Dodged () my question. That's good, because as Imhotep once noted, it means you found your answer there already but you just want to continue arguing.

^^^ Pardon me missus -

I thought these were answers -

You asked what the word of God is and i answered -

Deep Sight:

^^^ The word of God is the will of God.

You pressed on and asked what the will of God is, and i answered -

Deep Sight:

Well, i hoped to conclude the "Oneness of Infinity" thread with reflections on that, but since you press, let me only say very briefly that -

- God is ONE

- ONENESS is perfect unity

- Perfect unity is the ultimate form of harmony

- God's will, therefore, is ultimate harmony in creation.

And in response to further queries i clarified -

No - I am describing the will of God for his creation.

God is One. His innate unity means perfection and thus harmony. And this is also his unchangeable will for his creation.

So what in heaven's name have i evaded? ? ?

Please do not accuse me of arguing for arguing sake only as i would have thought my lively interest in this section should have shown that i posess a passion for seeking and not "arguing for the sale of arguing".

This was my question.

Pray tell, what exactly is this "Will of God"? How does it relate to his actions and overall activities?

and your answers are:

^^^ The word of God is the will of God.

- God is ONE

- ONENESS is perfect unity

- Perfect unity is the ultimate form of harmony

- God's will, therefore, is ultimate harmony in creation.

God is One. His innate unity means perfection and thus harmony. And this is also his unchangeable will for his creation.

which may be okay for the first part of my question, but leaves the other part of the question (outlined in red) hanging.

Which was why I asked you to clarify, I asked and you have skipped it artfully:

God's Will is ultimate harmony in creation?

This can be interpreted in two ways:
1. God, who made the creation, depends on creation's harmony to conduct his own actions. i.e. he keeps adjusting to fit creation's harmony, as creation deems fit.
2. God's actions are reflected on creation, and forces it into harmonious concordance. i.e. creation adjusts in continuous harmony with his actions and thoughts and intents.

Which of the two is it, then? If it is neither, can you please expatiate your post, because that means I don't understand?

Which leads me to the conclusion that you have seen my point about how God is bound by his own word and his own will in order to keep the harmony of creation and existentiality in check. 

So why, tell me, is it so hard to believe that God can write a script and feature himself in it, and be bound by the "limitations" required by the role into which he is cast BY HIMSELF? Even YOU can do that, and I used to do it back in my secondary school days when I was the theatre director. 

^^^ I think you are correct to say that God is bound by his own word and will. This is essentially because God is perfect, and his word and will are perfect.

Hi folks. I've been busy . . and so have some of you guys on this thread. But trust me, for some others, I might just reply even though comments directed to me were on previous pages. No matter.

the_seeker:

am i suprised? No! How could i be suprised by a guy who worships a jewish capentar as his God. Like deepsight said, what makes you better than the Hindu that worship cow.

Yes, as far as John 5:23 declares it, the very same honour that we render to the Father is what Jesus says viaro should render to the Son - and that is what I did today in Church as well. In hindsight, I'm sure DeepSight may not understand Hinduism that much, but he certainly would not cast his vote for the pedo Muhammad who was busy dicking a 9 year old Aisha. Go figure.

Now that very perfection of his word and will create serious problems for you Maven -

On the Adamic legend -

  1. If God was omniscient and perfect, he would know all things - including the future

  2. If he knew all things he would know the very result of his creation leading to sin

  3. If in spite of knowing such he could not devise a creation more perfect than that, then he can scarcely be said to be perfect

You must thus see that the Adamic idea of sin is inherently incompatible with the perfection of God, which you moot.

This deals with the Adamic legend.

But on golgotha -

 1. If God is changeless, why would he change the requirements for salvation by introducing the spectre at Golgotha and requiring all men to believe it in order to be saved? This was a clear change from the previous state of Judgment based on law and conscience, no? I thought you said God is changeless? Aha!

 2. If God is changeless, its really rich for you to insist that the prayer in Gethsemane was a script God himself had to follow. What do you make of the words - "Nevertheless not as i will but as thou wilt?" What do you make of the words - "If it is possible, let this cup pass over my head?" Remember that this is supposedly the almighty Deity who knows all things.

 3. Do you realize that your script analogy can only hold water if this world we live in is not real. I;e - It is virtual reality only, as once suggested by Rossike.

 4. "Verily verily i say unto you, whatsoevr a man soweth, the same shall he reap" - what do you make of this statement? Is it not an affirmation of the law of Karma? And if the law of Karma holds true, do you not realize that the sacrifice on the cross is incompatible with it - because we are said to reap whatever we sow: thus - it will never be "washed away" by any sacrifice, but must unconditionally be reaped in the adamantine and perfect laws of God. Do you realize that you are thus suggesting that God put aside his perfect laws of Karma in order to "change the script" halfway? All this coming from a God that you your self have described as "unchangeable"? ? ? ?

Maven? ? ?

Deep Sight:

Besides, the Christian faith transcends logic - it is not constrained within the limits of logic.

Viaro, it might be more apt to state that spirituality transcends known logic.

For your statement may just as easily be hijacked by a Hindu person worshipping cows - in defense of this he may declare - "the hindu faith transcends logic!"

You might have a point there. But hang on a minute, mate. You understand that viaro is not a Hindu, and rather than make too broad a statement, I contained my initial axiom within the confines of my own experience and worldview - Christianity.

Certainly, spirituality is used to infer or adduce far too many things today that one may just have to be careful about a general statement with that word. If you ask some atheists who also use that word what exactly they mean, you might find that they don't mean to use that word in the way you and I commonly understand it.

Another thing is that the Hindu may not mean the same thing we understand by 'spirituality'; and since I don't understand Hinduism that deep enough to make any authoritative statement on that worldview, I would not be so polarised to make a broad statement as you suggested. That does not prevent the Hindu from hijacking the word and using it in his own worldview on just about the same things; but my comments were particularly in reference to my worldview.

Again, Hinduism is not a static religion, philosophy or worldview - it is dynamic. The reference in Hindu writ that 'cows are God' should be read within the context where that statement appears. Why? Because the one who made that statement was giving his own thought when he said 'I think'. Not all Hindus worship cows, and certainly not all Hindus hold cows as deities even though the bovine is sacred in their worldview.

@Deep Sight,

There's just one thing I was hoping to ask you in your thread about the 'oneness of infinity'. It has to do with clear statement(s) about the Personality of your deistic god/God. I have tried to follow a few of your several discourses in attempts to persuade your enquirers about the same, but it seemed you were being far too abstract in identifying that same god/deity/God of the deist.

It is not so much a matter now about what arguments you lay out from the Christian worldview; but I'm quite interested in your own god/God. He/she/it is said to be a 'zero', 'nothingness', '0', 'infinity', and yet borrowing from the philosophers of yerter-times, you opine that this same he/she/it is the 'first cause', 'prime mover', or 'uncaused causer' of existence (or of all that exists).

Now, now, now. . these things are just floating around my head, so don't take these clichés and clauses as the final or exact quotes of your statements. Perhaps when the time comes, we shall take a look at the god of Deism - whether in your thread on the 'oneness of infinity' or another thread that may please you.

Cheers for now.

Deep Sight:

^^^ I think you are correct to say that God is bound by his own word and will. This is essentially because God is perfect, and his word and will are perfect.

to further affirm ur post.Luke22:42 FATHER IF U ARE WILLING,NOT MY WILL,BUT URS BE DONE&John6:38 JESUS SAID I HAVE COME TO DO D WILL OF D ONE WHO SENT ME.This shows that evrything about Jesus was d will&word of God(his birth,life&death) which was fulfilled&unchanged

@viaro.U dnt have to reply or attach relevance to any post of dis guy SEEKER. hes sick.I ve told him couple of times dat Xtians doesnt worship Jesus except God.D entire gospel of John4 explains how Jesus himself told d samarian woman to worship only God.Dis i posted for him,but his mental imbalanced nature will make him repeat xtians worship Jesus.Engage intellectuals like deepsight&olabowale.Not sme1 like seeker.Jesus is to be honoured&xtians pray through Jesus to God.John14:6

toba:

@viaro.U dnt have to reply or attach relevance to any post of dis guy SEEKER. hes sick.I ve told him couple of times dat Xtians doesnt worship Jesus except God.D entire gospel of John4 explains how Jesus himself told d samarian woman to worship only God.Dis i posted for him,but his mental imbalanced nature will make him repeat xtians worship Jesus.Engage intellectuals like deepsight&olabowale.Not sme1 like seeker.Jesus is to be honoured&xtians pray through Jesus to God.John14:6

Thank you, Toba. I had considered the-seeker a mere chap seeking attention and looking in the wrong places. But just so I don't risk prejudging people, I gave him the benefit of doubt. True, Christians may have varying views of the Person of Jesus Christ, but Muslims also have very divergent views of allah in Islam. There is hardly any worldview where opinions are all the same. . . HARDLY ANY AT ALL. The one thing I shy away from is using every opportunity to castigate people of other religions, faiths or worldviews. I could discuss, but I hardly have the stomach for silly rants from twerps who act like they still suck their thumbs.

Deep Sight:

Now that very perfection of his word and will create serious problems for you Maven -  On the Adamic legend -

  1. If God was omniscient and perfect, he would know all things - including the future
  2. If he knew all things he would know the very result of his creation leading to sin
  3. If in spite of knowing such he could not devise a creation more perfect than that, then he can scarcely be said to be perfect
You must thus see that the Adamic idea of sin is inherently incompatible with the perfection of God, which you moot. This deals with the Adamic legend.

But on golgotha -

 1. If God is changeless, why would he change the requirements for salvation by introducing the spectre at Golgotha and requiring all men to believe it in order to be saved? This was a clear change from the previous state of Judgment based on law and conscience, no? I thought you said God is changeless? Aha!
 2. If God is changeless, its really rich for you to insist that the prayer in Gethsemane was a script God himself had to follow. What do you make of the words - "Nevertheless not as i will but as thou wilt?" What do you make of the words - "If it is possible, let this cup pass over my head?" Remember that this is supposedly the almighty Deity who knows all things.
 3. Do you realize that your script analogy can only hold water if this world we live in is not real. I;e - It is virtual reality only, as once suggested by Rossike.
 4. "Verily verily i say unto you, whatsoevr a man soweth, the same shall he reap" - what do you make of this statement? Is it not an affirmation of the law of Karma? And if the law of Karma holds true, do you not realize that the sacrifice on the cross is incompatible with it - because we are said to reap whatever we sow: thus - it will never be "washed away" by any sacrifice, but must unconditionally be reaped in the adamantine and perfect laws of God. Do you realize that you are thus suggesting that God put aside his perfect laws of Karma in order to "change the script" halfway? All this coming from a God that you your self have described as "unchangeable"? ? ? ?

Maven? ? ?

I hope I will not be called heretic for this post but I disagree with many of the beliefs implied in your post above, DeepSight.

Omniscient/Omnipotence/Omnipresence were dealt with (I think by Rossike) awhile back. If I recall, He mooted that if God were Omnipotent, there was nothing He could not do. But that suggests God cannot fail in anything which then means We have found something He cannot do. The same could be said for the other attributes in OOO. Which leads me to where I had an issue with your OOI - The ISSUE OF CHARACTER/PERSONALITY. You believe I want to "humanize" God but you forget that the first time we find God speaking about us in the Bible, He decides to create us to be HIS OWN IMAGE. Take that as having His Character (desires, plans, even a need to be worshipped and highly thought of). So I am not humanizing Him. He deified us or put another way, humanized Himself somewhat in that decision. Even where you say you do not believe in the Bible, I think it obvious we have a same general leaning in that direction (to have those attributes which you have yourself stated make you to believe there is a God since its innate that we seek something to worship). Strike OOO.

I find personally, I'd like to be seen as good yet there is a rakish side that even in maturity seems to want to be seen as "a bad guy", "a big boy", "the successful one" etc. This I think to be true of most of us at one time or other. If then God has a character, what is wrong in Him wanting respect. I hope no-one is holding the torch of heresy yet but I believe God deliberately allowed Eden so we "learn" for real, what it could be like after all this is done. Consider the alternative - a world filled with naked "moronic do-gooders" who smile at everyone, lay in the laps of lions and sing Hosanna all day long.

Considered in this light, I think perfection now becomes more than what we've had beaten into us. Same with Unchangeability. Especially when you realise that there is a valid argument against any attribute you attribute to God. Why not GOD IS GOD. I AM THAT I AM. Did you ever consider the total ambiguity in that very simple statement?

My experiences with the occult and many things I played with earlier have made me come to believe God has a healthy humor. Let me explain - I remember a situation  very recently where I guided someone through the aftermath of what seemed a terrible occurence and following my advise, the victim changed what seemed like a disaster into quite a triumph. Had I not these experiences and knowledge, I wonder what would have happened. I believe today that all those things I did were allowed so I COULD BE USEFUL TO SUCH SITUATIONS TODAY. How's that for perfection -looking at the benefits that comes from "evil" after. Another example of this would be Jesus on the Cross. Satan wanted to get rid of Him because He was changing people but in doing what he felt would be a triumph, he lost the keys and control of the world and the events following the Cross have been simply dumbfounding. Over and over, and I think this goes for us all, we have seen good come out of bad. How's that for perfection and humor?

So when you say changeless, please remember that there are many ways into a market. What seems a change may just not be what you make of it. Suppose I say you'll be a Pastor and over the next few years, we find you doing everything except that. Then at 60, you become a pastor and in 2 years do more good (which is relative) than most pastors could in a lifetime, have I failed? Are we restricted to seeing only the present?

Finally, what you sow, you reap! Fine! But your inheritance from your parents, DeepSight, did you sow that? What we claim here too is that salvation is an inheritance gotten from a father, BECAUSE YOU ACCEPTED HIM AS FATHER.

Deep Sight, I am just seeing this now. Let me address it right away.

Deep Sight:

Now that very perfection of his word and will create serious problems for you Maven -

On the Adamic legend -

  1. If God was omniscient and perfect, he would know all things - including the future

  2. If he knew all things he would know the very result of his creation leading to sin

  3. If in spite of knowing such he could not devise a creation more perfect than that, then he can scarcely be said to be perfect

You must thus see that the Adamic idea of sin is inherently incompatible with the perfection of God, which you moot.

This deals with the Adamic legend.

When you say THE FUTURE, are you not in error? Let me ask you, Deep Sight, do you play chess? I'm actually an excellent (advanced) player of chess, and I know that there is no "FUTURE" in a game of chess. The future that will be obtained is consequential of EACH and EVERY move made by both players. At each turn, there are tens, hundreds, thousands and millions of possible endings and variations. A PERFECT chess grandmaster would know ALL the possible endings even before they are close to being played out. That is how God is. He is OMNISCIENT in that he KNOWS ALL FUTURES. There is no THE FUTURE anywhere!

God created a perfect man and gave him a simple instruction: a la the opening book of the game of chess (In a game of chess the game is not yet lost on the first two moves, but a really bad move on the 3rd move by Black may cause an immediate checkmate for white). If you do not know or like chess, consider a soccer game where the team members scored own goals in the first few seconds of the match, and then they get into a rough free-for-all fight and they are all given red cards and the game ends (Im not big on soccer, but I hope you get the idea).

God, the ultimate and perfect chessmaster, knew exactly what would happen IN ALL cases: Adam & Eve obeying, Adam & Eve disobeying, Adam refusing to sin along with Eve, Eve not listening to Satan, etc. Adam and Eve made the WRONG call. They decided to step out of line, and God knew what their future would be in that case, and in his JUSTICE to Satan and Adam and Eve, he carried out the sentence related to THAT future.

Deep Sight:

But on golgotha -

 1. If God is changeless, why would he change the requirements for salvation by introducing the spectre at Golgotha and requiring all men to believe it in order to be saved? This was a clear change from the previous state of Judgment based on law and conscience, no? I thought you said God is changeless? Aha!

You are wrong, Deep Sight. I think you should have listened more in Sunday School, if you ever attended. Then you will understand that nothing ever changed: the law is fulfilled when one truly lives for Christ, Conscience is no longer free to roam wildly but is now controlled by the Holy Spirit, and Christ's final sacrifice is like the periodical atonements recommended in Leveticus 4. God never changed, not once! It was an improvement to make things better. The OT is fulfilled in the NT, and not done away with, the same way your primary school education was upgraded by the secondary, and that by the university education you got roughly 10 years ago (as you said yourself).

Deep Sight:

 2. If God is changeless, its really rich for you to insist that the prayer in Gethsemane was a script God himself had to follow. What do you make of the words - "Nevertheless not as i will but as thou wilt?" What do you make of the words - "If it is possible, let this cup pass over my head?" Remember that this is supposedly the almighty Deity who knows all things.

I have answered this before, and I will not start repeating my posts. Christ's life was a PATTERN for us to follow, and if he never approached the matter in that manner, how would MAVEN IBIDUN [surname redacted] understand what to do whenever her own will clashes with God's will? He asked the disciples to come along with him so they can learn for posterity, but instead they were sleeping (which is exactly what many people do nowadays when they are supposed to be placing God's will above theirs). It doesn't get simpler for one who ought to have Deep Sight.

Deep Sight:

 3. Do you realize that your script analogy can only hold water if this world we live in is not real. I;e - It is virtual reality only, as once suggested by Rossike.

There is a problem with Rossike's theory because it says the physical is physically virtual. This is not true, but rather the physical is spiritually virtual, because it is malleable by the spiritual realms, the spiritual realms control it. The same way I can influence the position of a virtual image in a lens by adjusting the real image. So, this world is not virtual reality, it is real, but ONLY real to the physical realm, which in itself is the creation of an infinite and timeless God.

Deep Sight:

 4. "Verily verily i say unto you, whatsoevr a man soweth, the same shall he reap" - what do you make of this statement? Is it not an affirmation of the law of Karma? And if the law of Karma holds true, do you not realize that the sacrifice on the cross is incompatible with it - because we are said to reap whatever we sow: thus - it will never be "washed away" by any sacrifice, but must unconditionally be reaped in the adamantine and perfect laws of God. Do you realize that you are thus suggesting that God put aside his perfect laws of Karma in order to "change the script" halfway? All this coming from a God that you your self have described as "unchangeable"? ? ? ?

Yes, Deep Sight, whatever a man sows he shall reap. Before Christ, men were sowing death and reaping death. Some few holy ones sowed life and reaped a form of life (a promise of life, like a title deed of a valuable property, by faith). When Christ came, he came to validate the title deed, to sign the blank cheque. The rule still holds: what a man sows he will reap. Christ came and did his own bit, he sowed ONE life, and he has reaped millions and millions. I am one of them. I also sowed my life into Christ, and I have reaped eternal life. Its easy! That's karma if it ever existed.

I must clarify, however, that God is not a "magician" so, it's very much like getting your wounds healed. There will be some few [i]scar[/i]s for a while, depending on how fatal the wound you allowed yourself to sustain by flirting with the devil is. For instance, a prostitu'te is apprehended by the Gospel and she comes back home to God through Christ. She will still have to deal with the societal stigma of prostitution, and she may still see some of her previous customers on the streets jeering and winking at her, and she may have to deal with her STDs. It doesn't change the fact that she now has an everlasting home in God. After all, it is better for one to enter into God's rest as a scrawny skeleton than not to enter at all. If you are looking for "karma", there is an example.

Deep Sight:

Maven? ? ?

Can I further help you?

@toba

Going through all your posts, I presume you support those that says Jesus is not God (Creator)?

, just wanna be sure!

Once again, thanx for your clarity.

God bless!

Hi all!

Having carefully gone through most of your posts, I conclude that everyone contributing to the thread is intelligent or on the other hand knowledgeable in the things God.

I would that we could just be more sincere to ourselves and use our personal relationship with God to decipher who Jesus truly is.

There is no need for us to start ambiguating the ambiguity. And if we chose to, latent ambiguity (language that means [b]one thing [/b]but also clear and intelligible) should be used. Hence, I do crave your indulgence to give a straight forward answer to the topic.

, Yes, Jesus is God, , No, Jesus is not, with our reasons or evidence (s) to support the arguement.

Thank you all

God bless

toba:

@viaro.U dnt have to reply or attach relevance to any post of dis guy SEEKER. hes sick.I ve told him couple of times dat Xtians doesnt worship Jesus except God.D entire gospel of John4 explains how Jesus himself told d samarian woman to worship only God.Dis i posted for him,but his mental imbalanced nature will make him repeat xtians worship Jesus.Engage intellectuals like deepsight&olabowale.Not sme1 like seeker.Jesus is to be honoured&xtians pray through Jesus to God.John14:6

toba, the origin of this comment is obvious. I have been kicking your a** all over NL and exposing your confusion and hyporisy all over the place. Your lack of intelligence has made you very easy meat for me. Al least viaro and the likes have taken a stand, even though they resort of lies and nonsensical analogies to defend it. You on the other hand are the most confused individual on NL.
You and i agree that jesus is not God. But beacuse of your hyporisy to chose to insult me and side viaro who believes that he is God.  So who is confused here?

It is quiite interesting that Toba believes jesus is not God and not to be worshiped wheras viaro thinks jesus is God. But somehow they both agree because they both subscribe to the same sickness called christianity

The_seeker, can you FOR ONCE start making religious posts outside the Islamic boards AND NOT attack other people's views and beliefs?

Yeah I was like that the first couple of days I joined Nairaland because I saw Abuzola and others making atrocious posts against Christianity, so I created threads making mockery of Islam (a kind of retribution) but I saw the futility in it all, so I quit the Islamic board and focused on defending my own faith and helping others to understand it better, rather than ATTACKING other people's faiths!

Tell me, what do you intend to gain by your attacks on the person of Christ and the influence of Christianity? I thought you should know better, it's a worthless effort: you have been on NL for long now. Well, just my 2 cents.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

@bee444: The answer is YES, if you consider the TRUE nature of Jesus before he came to earth, and the nature he returned to AFTER earth. But others may say the answer is no because they consider him only in the flesh, when he put aside divinity and came into human form. The bone of contention is: are you referring to Jesus that walked the earth as the son of man; or Jesus the WORD in heaven, in his essential nature?

By my analogy, is Jack Bauer an Oscar Award winner? No he isn't, but Keifer Sutherland is. So, within the movie, you can say Jack Bauer deserves no awards (since the Oscars are given to "real" human beings), but everyone knows that he is in truth Keifer Sutherland and he did a good job acting. It would be short-sighted to say that Jack Bauer does not exist outside of the "24" series movie. And as Viaro also pointed out in John 5:23, equal honour is to be given to Christ as is given to God. The word honour is the Greek timao, which means to "fix a valuation upon", i.e. the value that makes God God is the equal value that makes Jesus Christ. And you still tell me He is not God?

Yes Maven, i play Chess, and since you boldly assert that that you are "excellent" and "advanced" at playing chess, if you can find an on-line tool, let's have a go at it.

Quote from Nuclearboy -

Finally, what you sow, you reap! Fine! But your inheritance from your parents, DeepSight, did you sow that? What we claim here too is that salvation is an inheritance gotten from a father, BECAUSE YOU ACCEPTED HIM AS FATHER.

Do you believe in reincarnation? In Karma from one lifetime to the other?

Please in your answer do not be coloured by Hebrews 9:27 - because it is clear that both Jesus and the Jews accepted the reality of reincarnation.

Quote from Viaro -

It is not so much a matter now about what arguments you lay out from the Christian worldview; but I'm quite interested in your own god/God. He/she/it is said to be a 'zero', 'nothingness', '0', 'infinity', and yet borrowing from the philosophers of yerter-times, you opine that this same he/she/it is the 'first cause', 'prime mover', or 'uncaused causer' of existence (or of all that exists).

Now, now, now. . these things are just floating around my head, so don't take these clichés and clauses as the final or exact quotes of your statements. Perhaps when the time comes, we shall take a look at the god of Deism - whether in your thread on the 'oneness of infinity' or another thread that may please you.

Let me be clear: the fact that i use numbers as a logical mirror for explaining the existence of God does not mean that i believe God to be numbers.

God is a THE self-existent reality that is truly real: everything else is a reflection of some sort: God is the Living Light, the I AM THAT I AM - THE TRUTH.

But if i were to speak for the generality of deists or the deist worldview (of which there are many - there are even christian-deists) - i would simply say that God is the almighty transcendental being that created all that exists: his existence can be logically inferred, but he remains incomprehensible and inapproachable almost in the sense that the agnostic may suggest. Most deists reject religion.

Deep Sight:

Yes Maven, i play Chess, and since you boldly assert that that you are "excellent" and "advanced" at playing chess, if you can find an on-line tool, let's have a go at it.

LOL! Nice!! Really nice!! Seriously? I should have known you play chess! LOL. But you see, the problem here is that due to the nature of my work, I may be required at ANY TIME to leave the PC, and that might translate to a loss for me if I don't return to the game on time, I guess. So it's either we play a correspondence game, or I will remind you when I know I have a very free schedule (or I am at home), and then we will take out some time to battle it out

Maybe later today or something! Rubs hands together in glee.[

^^^ I can't wait for the trashing you will dish out to me. O well, its just as well that i'm a masochist.

maven, thanks for the advice, sincerly.
The fact that you choose to stay out of the muslim section does not mean i should do same. Is deepsight a christians? So why are more comfortable with him than me (who has more stake in the topic).  My post are not meant to offend anyone. If you want to see offensive posts go and see what jcross, toba et al are doing in the muslim section. My posts are more of queries thank attacks

the_seeker:

toba, the origin of this comment is obvious. I have been kicking your a** all over NL and exposing your confusion and hyporisy all over the place. Your lack of intelligence has made you very easy meat for me. Al least viaro and the likes have taken a stand, even though they resort of lies and nonsensical analogies to defend it. You on the other hand are the most confused individual on NL.
You and i agree that jesus is not God.

When ever i read ur post i laugh cos its makes no sense at all.U were among the list of meaningless posters of 2009, but this year i assure u, u will win the award. U are a fellow that seeks relevance which u can never get. All ur posts are mostly off topic and points. I noticed on the islamic board u av never made any meaningful contributions. Well i pity those that trained u

the_seeker:

You and i agree that jesus is not God But beacuse of your hyporisy to chose to insult me and side viaro who believes that he is God.  So who is confused here?

U are d confused fellow.

Who told u that i agreed that Jesus is not God? Thats another blindness from u. I ve always maintaind a stance on the issue of Trinity virtually on all threads that i av contributed to. Jesus is God in image, by powers and by the will of God. What i ve always affirmed is what paul said in 1corinthians15 that Jesus is God on all things, i repeat on all things minus God. Becos God gave Jesus power to oversee all what he (God) created in heaven and earth. To be God over all things but hes never a God on God almighty. That i ve always maintained and will continue to maintain. So where ever u got ur nonsense from that i said jesus is not God, its better u retract it back there

the_seeker:


It is quiite interesting that Toba believes jesus is not God and not to be worshiped wheras viaro thinks jesus is God. But somehow they both agree because they both subscribe to the same sickness called christianity

Its still part of ur blind sickness that i believed Jesus is not God. I will repeat that Jesus is God over all other things minus God, becos God is jesus' father So get that now and forever from me. The powers God granted jesus(Matthew28:18) is limited only on God who is the Grantor and Jesus the Grantee(1corinthians15 :20-30). God remains God over jesus and things created, Jesus remains God over Things created living or dead in evry Planets and Continents.

Sicker u are the sick one, How becos u will still find something to challenge after these explanations. Lets wait and see

the_seeker:

My post are not meant to offend anyone.

Indeed they arent offensive but they are always insultive and meaningless

the_seeker:

. If you want to see offensive posts go and see what jcross, toba et al are doing in the muslim section. My posts are more of queries thank attacks

When u and ur fellow moslems attack christianity, we go the other way in defense of our faith

Hi Deep Sight,

Deep Sight:

Let me be clear: the fact that i use numbers as a logical mirror for explaining the existence of God does not mean that i believe God to be numbers.

I didn't infer that at all. Infact, in another thread where you had started out in your attempt to set forth the existence of God by mathematical imperatives, I very early noted that such a maths does not 'prove' anything about His existence or non-existence.

God is a THE self-existent reality that is truly real: everything else is a reflection of some sort: God is the Living Light, the I AM THAT I AM - THE TRUTH.

Okay, I shall note that and tuck it away for relecant discussions.

But if i were to speak for the generality of deists or the deist worldview (of which there are many - there are even christian-deists) - i would simply say that God is the almighty transcendental being that created all that exists: his existence can be logically inferred, but he remains incomprehensible and inapproachable almost in the sense that the agnostic may suggest. Most deists reject religion.

That again will resurface at an appropriate discourse. Cheers.