@ Viaro -

I am at a loss.

You have stated that I did not mention which God I had in mind.

I thought i did -

I said -

So my question should be interpreted thus -

"Do you think that it is possible for the Atheist to do the will of YOUR CHRISTIAN GOD - without knowing of or recognising HIS existence at all?"

And if you were Muslim then I will simply replace the word "God" with the word "Allah" to make it clear that I am referring to God as the Muslim perceives him. Thus I would ask an Abuzola - "Do you think that it is possible for the Atheist to do the will of Allah - without knowing of or recognising HIS existence at all?" And I would ask a Deep Sight - "Do you think that it is possible for the Atheist to do the will of OOI [   ] - without knowing of or recognising HIS existence at all?"

So i hope the question is clearer now - namely that the Atheist ab initio has no conception of God: thus the only conception we are working with is that of the Theist - thus we are inquiring if it is possible that an Atheist can unknowingly live his life in a manner that is pleasing to God as conceived by a Theist - such as yourself.

I dont know if I am speaking gibberish, but what i am trying to put across is that a mind that rejects God's existence may still be capable of doing many things that you as a Christian or Abuzola as a Muslim would describe as God's will for mankind.

So i do not understand what you mean when you say I have not mentioned what God i refer to.

I explained in the above that I mean to ask if the Atheist may do the will of God (as conceived by a Theist) - without acknowledgfing that such a God exists.

Basically if you see a man who loves his fellow man and yet is an Atheist, would you say that in the act of loving his fellow man he is actually in line with the will of God as YOU understand God to be?

I think its that simple. I cant see a confusion there.

@viaro I also tried to repost the info you posted (I got it from your recent posts on your profile). Of course it was filtered by the spambot again. Maybe it has to do with those links and the way you wrote out your ideas.

ilosiwaju:


Deepsight, very wonderful topic. If there is any religion that deserves my respect and admiration, it is buddhism and i even kinda practised it for a while. I can claim not to be a buddhist but i learnt so so many things from buddhist text and i still read them though.

That's really great and nice to know that peeps at this end of the world can actually take to its fundamentals.

To me, buddhism is a religion of the individual and his environment and is a more humane religion than christianity and islam combined. While the four noble truths are indeed noble, while peace is so much a virtue, the emphasis on mind development/meditation(which i still manage to squeeze out some 10minutes for daily) and so on. Some things that puzzle me as a life's student about buddhism are:
1. Reincarnation, which to me is not so distant from the heaven and hell concept. I will understand if someone, say a zen buddhist monk now explains to me that the whole reincarnation thing is like the yoruba concept of "eewo"(taboo- not exactly intended to fool but protect you and so on). I am yet to come to grasp of reincarnation.

The assitant to our legal team is a Finnish lady who practices deep Yoga daily. She is currently in India for a Month of such rituals.

In her view reincarnation is nothing but a definition of the well known law that energy cannot be destroyed but merely changes state. Something to think on.

2. An almost unreasonable respect for animals. For one, i am a vegetarian but for health reasons only. I could sneak a hot dog once a year though but thats how much i'll consume meat. Fish i dont like at all so i stick to my favorites (indomie, beans) and unfortunately, i dont eat fruits. yes! i dont. Now, buddhism does not exactly prohibit meat eating but the buddha said not to eat an animal that was intentionally killed for your meal. So a tsunami victim cow is better to be eaten than one from, say abattoir. I understand but dont fully comprehend. Animals are not to be killed, sure but there is silence when it comes to nuisances like vermin. Some monks even carry brooms while walking so as to avoid stepping on insects(a noble sentiment, quite easier in some mountains in malaysia and co. Try it in oshodi) Some of these issues have proved quite tricky for the dalai lama.

Wwell it does seem an extreme. But I am certain it is not a fundamental principle of pure buddhism, which is anchored around the Four noble Truths.

@ Inesqor. if u wanna post something long and are worried the spambot will eat it up, put it in quote form. . . as in [quot e]    the long post [/ q uote]

It should work then, I think. i do it and it seems to work 

Deep Sight:

_{^^^ You called Mavenbox Inesqor? So you too are aware of the fact that they are the same person. Ehen!}

Why does it matter.? This is an (anonymous) internet forum isn't it . . I think dwellin on stuff like that is kinda petty tbh. It's about the contents of the post IMO, not the poster. Besides that has been flogged into the ground.

Deep Sight:

@ Viaro -

I am at a loss.

You have stated that I did not mention which God I had in mind.

I thought i did -

I said -

So i do not understand what you mean when you say I have not mentioned what God i refer to.

I explained in the above that I mean to ask if the Atheist may do the will of God (as conceived by a Theist) - without acknowledgfing that such a God exists.

Basically if you see a man who loves his fellow man and yet is an Atheist, would you say that in the act of loving his fellow man he is actually in line with the will of God as YOU understand God to be?

I think its that simple. I cant see a confusion there.

If only the filter had allowed for the second half of my post, I explained in detail why you cannot make this vacillation from Buddhism, past your OOI, and then on to a narrowed position that zeroes in on "only" the Theistic conception of God.

If you could go to my profile, check the second half of my post - and you will see that your arguments are quite unnecessary. This is why, I suppose, even mavenbox did a most brilliant thing to go check it out and tried to repost it.

I don't know if I could edit or re-arrange my second post here or in a new thread. The turn of discussion so far has heightened my interest, because it is most important that you see how your dangle is neither here nor there. One might as well apply the same specifics to your own deistic 'god' and see if the results match. Please don't try to make broad generalisations on matters like this - it may otherwise tend to a most serious disservice on all fronts and stakeholders.

@ deepsight. haha. i just noticed that post was made by mavenbox.  For some reason I saw it and made the connection. I see what u're saying now. Still don't think it matters though.

Krayola:

Why does it matter.? This is an (anonymous) internet forum isn't it . . I think dwellin on stuff like that is kinda petty tbh. It's about the contents of the post IMO, not the poster. Besides that has been flogged into the ground.

I really wonder why DeepSight often makes recourse to very petty issues like that.

viaro:

I really wonder why DeepSight often makes recourse to very petty issues like that.

me sef.

mavenbox:

@viaro I also tried to repost the info you posted (I got it from your recent posts on your profile). Of course it was filtered by the spambot again. Maybe it has to do with those links and the way you wrote out your ideas.

My deepest appreciation. I'm quite between two thoughts about it now - because I don't know whether re-posting it within quotes as Krayola suggested might work for me ... or otherwise earn me a ban. It's a habit with me not to just make statements here and there without trying to back them up with attested sources. I may let that reply rest for now, tucked away in my profile - maybe some other time I'd test out Krayola's goodly recommendation.

Krayola:

Why does it matter.? This is an (anonymous) internet forum isn't it . . I think dwellin on stuff like that is kinda petty tbh. It's about the contents of the post IMO, not the poster. Besides that has been flogged into the ground.

viaro:

I really wonder why DeepSight often makes recourse to very petty issues like that.

Oh come on guys, cut me some slack!

Aside from debating issues we are also here to catch some fun dont you know?!!!

Just trying to catch my fun!

Besides if I registered as a new user and began to interact with you guys insisting I was a different person, there's no biggie in your trying to unmask me. No biggie at all.

viaro:

If only the filter had allowed for the second half of my post, I explained in detail why you cannot make this vacillation from Buddhism, past your OOI, and then on to a narrowed position that zeroes in on "only" the Theistic conception of God.

YOU SIR - love to complicate things unduly. Especially when you are shying away from answering a dead-on simple question.

Simple question I asked was - and I will rephrase it yet again to please your eminence -

Is it possible for an Atheist to live a life that is pleasing to the God that YOU believe in?

Haba. Simple question. Stop running around and screaming define this, define that; when that which should be defined has been clearly defined already. If the question is so frightening for you, just say so and pass on jaare.

Remember the parable of the good samaritan?

Deep Sight:

Oh come on guys, cut me some slack!

Aside from debating issues we are also here to catch some fun dont you know?!!!

Just trying to catch my fun!

Besides if I registered as a new user and began to interact with you guys insisting I was a different person, there's no biggie in your trying to unmask me. No biggie at all.

Your constant harping on irrelevant issues is boring - not fun. You can go ahead and create a new ID to catch all the fun in your deep end; but you have turned aside on this issue to very petty complaints as if that is the real biggy at the end of the day. Please.

Deep Sight:

YOU SIR - love to complicate things unduly. Especially when you are shying away from answering a dead-on simple question.

What and which questions have I not addressed, mr deep duplicity? On the contrary, after I'd addressed your miserly pretences here, I left you a simple enquiry which I would have to wait forever to see you address.

Simple question I asked was - and I will rephrase it yet again to please your eminence -

Is it possible for an Atheist to live a life that is pleasing to the God that YOU believe in?

Does an atheist believe in ANY 'God'? What is wrong with your OOI?

Haba. Simple question. Stop running around and screaming define this, define that; when that which should be defined has been clearly defined already. If the question is so frightening for you, just say so and pass on jaare.

The question I left you - would it send you to your mortuary? Why are you damn too scared to address it?

Remember the parable of the good samaritan?

Yes. I knew you would try something else when your attempt to pull the rug from under readers here does not work.

^^^ Abeg, you just dont want to admit that there are atheists whose ways are actually more godly than some theists.

And that's what this boils down to.

In relation to the Buddhist discourse (so others are not flung off the subject) the emphatic point is that a person practicing the essentials of Buddhism may very well live up to all the expectations of even your own christ as nobly encoded within the Beatitudes.

What manner of chicanery will prevent you from admitting that simple fact: preferring to dribble about on definitions!

Deep Sight:

^^^ Abeg, you just dont want to admit that there are atheists whose ways are actually more godly than some theists.

There are atheists I know who live far more credible lives than deists - no gainsaying that. However, please show me any atheist who predicates his living or ethics on "godliness". Please just show me. Your penchant to lie to the public on any "resemblance" is magically amazing!

And that's what this boils down to.

No, it boils down to an exposé on your duplicity. Nothing more than that.

In relation to the Buddhist discourse (so others are not flung off the subject) the emphatic point is that a person practicing the essentials of Buddhism may very well live up to all the expectations of even your own christ as nobly encoded within the Beatitudes.

Matthew 5:8-9 is an example - "Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God. Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God." What is the 'God' that the Buddhist believes in, when you have openly tried to goon the atheist in your OP by stating: "Buddhism as a religion does not make reference to God"?? You DeepSight are a very funny conceited fellow.

What manner of chicanery will prevent you from admitting that simple fact: preferring to dribble about on definitions!

It is your own chicanery on display here, if after you had openly told readers that Buddhism does not make reference to God, but at the same time you're loking to recruit atheists to be better worshippers of 'God'. A forked-tongued underhandedness was on display right from the onset of your OP, you didn't notice?

Let me ask you, DeepSight: what exactly is your 'God'?

I really don't know much about the Eastern religions. I saw a documentary about hindu rat worship long time ago, The documentary is also available on youtube.

[flash=400,400]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Eejioa_iz8&hl=en_US&fs=1&"[/flash]

viaro:

Let me ask you, DeepSight: what exactly is your 'God'?

The Creator of all Existence.

Deep Sight:

The Creator of all Existence.

I'm sorry, that is vague. There are so many worldviews that could make such simplistic quips, but it is not an identity. Do you care to give us an identity of your 'God'?

viaro:

There are atheists I know who live far more credible lives than deists - no gainsaying that. However, please show me any atheist who predicates his living or ethics on "godliness". Please just show me. Your penchant to lie to the public on any "resemblance" is magically amazing!

No, it boils down to an exposé on your duplicity. Nothing more than that.

Matthew 5:8-9 is an example - "Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God. Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God." What is the 'God' that the Buddhist believes in, when you have openly tried to goon the atheist in your OP by stating: "Buddhism as a religion does not make reference to God"?? You DeepSight are a very funny conceited fellow.

It is your own chicanery on display here, if after you had openly told readers that Buddhism does not make reference to God, but at the same time you're loking to recruit atheists to be better worshippers of 'God'. A forked-tongued underhandedness was on display right from the onset of your OP, you didn't notice?

I am surprised you do not see clearly within your own post tht the pure in heart, as well as the meek and the lovers of righteousness are the folks who will be acceptable to God, regardless of whether they know of his existence or not!

This is clearly indicated in scripture when Jesus says that he will turn back those who "know" him claiming to have worked miracles in his name. . . depart from me. . . . i know thee not. . . .whreas he would accept those who may be of a differnet world view but practice kindness of heart.

Why is this so hard for you ? ? ? ?

viaro:

I'm sorry, that is vague. There are so many worldviews that could make such simplistic quips, but it is not an identity. Do you care to give us an identity of your 'God'?

I will NOT oblige this request -

Because i am all too aware that the ONLY further definition that will satisfy you is a definition that states that God is an entity that has a Jewish son called Jesus and that that same Jesus is the same Almighty God and that he died for my sins.

And in this you farcically imagine that all commonsense is thereby contained and resolved.

YOU are a clown.

I am not inclined towards such spiritual and theological nonsense.

Deep Sight:

I am surprised you do not see clearly within your own post tht the pure in heart, as well as the meek and the lovers of righteousness are the folks who will be acceptable to God, regardless of whether they know of his existence or not!

I am sure you failed to see that Christ was not predicating His statements on evasive cognisance as you want to force yourself to believe. His statements in those verses are connected and founded. It does not just stand as "pure in heart" - but that the pure in heart shall see God. It does not just stand as "righteosuness", but that the peacemakers shall be called the children of God.

In Biblical theology, "peace" is given a particular sense rather than a general sense - an example is in John 14:27 ('My peace ... not as the world'). So, here it is not a matter of any resemblance will do, but of specifics. To ignore these issues is why you are too busy dribbling around and trying to fool yourself on simple issues.

This is clearly indicated in scripture when Jesus says that he will turn back those who "know" him claiming to have worked miracles in his name. . . depart from me. . . . i know thee not. . . .whreas he would accept those who may be of a differnet world view but practice kindness of heart.

I laugh in supersonic boom.   You're known for twisting the words of Christ, so no surprises there. The only reason why some would be denied by Christ is because they qualified themselves as workers of iniquity who would not do the Father's will (Matt. 7:21-23) - it was a conscious choice they made! Now where does the Buddhist acknowledge the Father in their theology?!?

You are just here dribbling into statements that you never for once tried to quote directly or even consider their context - any "resemblance" for you will do the magic, as long as you try to blow smoke in people's faces.

Now where does the Buddhist acknowledge the Father in their theology?!?

Where in the beatitudes does it say anything about acknowledgement?

At all events what is acknowledgment?

The man who screams praises to God in Church every sunday does not necessarily acknowldge God any more than the Atheist who is committed to Charity and love of his fellowman.

So far as the definition of "Christian" is " Christ-Like" - then the latter might actually be more Christian than the former.

Ditto the Buddhist.

Deep Sight:

I will NOT oblige this request -

[size=14pt]Of course you will NOT![/size]  

Are you not the same conceited fellow who ignores the answers offered to your cacophony and then turn back to whine that others are not addressing your complaints? You don't fail to amuse me, no - never. . . after all your empty charade.

Because i am all too aware that the ONLY further definition that will satisfy you is a definition that states that God is an entity that has a Jewish son called Jesus and that that same Jesus is the same Almighty God and that he died for my sins.

Which demonstrates you're a hypocrite and a consummate schmuck. That's a 'diagnosis', by the way. Did I not state categorically in post #23 that "I've noted earlier that worldviews have very diverse and different denotations of the term 'God' (as in the case of Buddhism)"?? Did that suggest to you in anyway that no worldview has any right to define 'God' howsoever they choose within their own matrix? Not only are you a conceited liar, you bore me with you heinous theatricals.

And in this you farcically imagine that all commonsense is thereby contained and resolved.

YOU are a clown.

False - I did no such thing. To insist I did is to fall flat on your face on your own duplicity. It was because I wanted to make sense about your drama, that was why I carefully and several times pointed to SPECIFICS - which you have forever run away from!

I am not inclined towards such spiritual and theological nonsense.

Ah, you never were able to handle it, nor are you able to think at all. I never was hopeful that you would address that question, because you are more of a cowardly hypocrite than anything else.

Deep Sight:

Where in the beatitudes does it say anything about acknowledgement?

At all events what is acknowledgment?

'God' - are you so blind you didn't see 'God' emboldened twice over in the quote?  Do you forget so easily that in your thread on your deism, Krayola's chart pointed out the same thing, that the ethics of the theist is grounded in 'GOD', that of the atheist is grounded in 'man', and that of the deist is grounded in 'nature'? Dolt.

The man who screams praises to God in Church every sunday does not necessarily acknowldge God any more than the Atheist who is committed to Charity and love of his fellowman.

The Bible shows that there are hypocrites who go about claiming to worship or acknowledge God in their lives (Titus 1:16) - so no biggy there. On the other hand, ask an informed atheist and he/she would tell you they live their lives consciously ruling out any appeal to 'God'. So your fallacy of trying to dragoon and hoodwink the atheist into "better worshippers" of God is factually circular and illiterate.

So far as the definition of "Christian" is " Christ-Like" - then the latter might actually be more Christian than the former.

Hahahaha!! You are singing a soprano that won't sell!   Where are the atheists or Buddhists for Christ? Please show me!

Deep Sight:

I will NOT oblige this request -

The only reason you would not oblige it, is because your OOI is a piece of fiction that never even impressed you in the first place. You have lied so many times with mathematical suicidal 'prose' in your attempt to hoodwink Nairalanders on your OOI, tried so many other gimmicks, stolen concepts for your rogue religion, and now came here to try and steal some concepts from Buddhism ... nothing has worked for you. Is it any wonder you're a frustrated, gallivanting jerk? Go about and open another thread on another religion so you can steal from them to patch up your OOI rogue religion that has long disappeared into its doomed super blackhole.

^^^ All of this stress simply because you cannot accept that there are Atheists who are good people ? ? ?

Haba.

Deep Sight:

^^^ All of this stress simply because you cannot accept that there are Atheists who are good people ? ? ?

See how you make every effort to be dubious? WHERE did I deny any atheist being "good"?

The substance of your discourse here that I challenge is the conceited idea that an atheist (any atheist for that matter) is a "better worshipper of God". It was never at anytime simply a matter of people being "good". Now that you have run yourself aground, you resort to obvious lying to top your art. Well done.

^^^ And what does it take to worship God, if not simply be a good person Viaro?

Are the outward forms and rituals, such as Prayer, Praise, Ceremonies etc really required by a Living God?

In all sincerity, let me ask you what you understand by the injunction that one must worship God is Spirit and in Truth?

In my own understanding, that simply means that dead outward ceremonies are not the substance of worshipping God - that the worship of God rather relates to the inward state of the spirit which corresponds to eternal truth.

This is why I brought up the parable of the good Samaritan, which I thought should be sufficient to show you from your own bible that the worship of God has absolutely nothing to do with outward ceremonies, rituals or dogmatic or doctrinal acknowledgements.

Now to elucidate the point it is critical that we carefully note the context of that parable -

The Gospel of Luke provides the context for the parable as:

One day an expert in religious law stood up to test Jesus by asking him this question: “Teacher, what should I do to inherit eternal life?”

So it should be noted that the parable was given within a context of salvation – namely that which would be required for one to be accepted with God.

Jesus replied, “What does the law of Moses say? How do you read it?”

The man answered, “‘You must love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, all your strength, and all your mind.’ And, ‘Love your neighbour as yourself.’” “Right!” Jesus told him. “Do this and you will live!”

So it is also clear that the ensuing parable sets forth that which it takes to “love God” and “love one’s neighbour.”

This is all the more emphasized since as you well know Jesus often stated that those who care for their neighbours were actually showing such love to him and to God. “I was hungry, and you fed me . . . whenever you did this for one of those, you did the same for me. . . “

The man wanted to justify his actions, so he asked Jesus, “And who is my neighbour?”

Jesus then replied with a story:

“A Jewish man was travelling on a trip from Jerusalem to Jericho, and he was attacked by bandits. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him up, and left him half dead beside the road. By chance a priest came along. But when he saw the man lying there, he crossed to the other side of the road and passed him by. A Levite walked over and looked at him lying there, but he also passed by on the other side.


Now it is instructive that Jesus selects a Priest and a Levite to demonstrate his point – because the Priest and the Levite as you well know symbolize those who expressly acknowledge God, accept all the attendant doctrines about God and morality, and actively execute the outward rituals of “worshipping” God. The Levites as you know were a dedicated tribe of holy priests within the nation of Israel.

However Jesus has just shown what I am trying to say – namely that all the outward forms of acknowledgement of God which these people subscribed to did not in any way mean that they were really worshipping God – because of their action of ignoring the man who was hurt.

Now note carefully the next verses –

“Then a despised Samaritan came along, and when he saw the man, he felt compassion for him.”

Stop press! Note the words “despised Samaritan?” Why did Jesus not use any other lay Jew or even a non-specified person to elucidate his point? He rather chose to select what? – a DESPISED SAMARITAN!

Now Wikipedia says -

Portraying a Samaritan in positive light would have come as a shock to Jesus' audience.[1] It is typical of his provocative speech in which conventional expectations are turned upside down.[1]

Thus note carefully the context – the Samaritan symbolizes people who are deemed to be “on the wrong side” of correct religious doctrine at the time and people who were accordingly “despised.”

Notwithstanding that, this is what Jesus conveys –

“Going over to him, the Samaritan soothed his wounds with olive oil and wine and bandaged them. Then he put the man on his own donkey and took him to an inn, where he took care of him. The next day he handed the innkeeper two silver coins, telling him, ‘Take care of this man. If his bill runs higher than this, I’ll pay you the next time I’m here.’

Jesus concludes –

“Now which of these three would you say was a neighbour to the man who was attacked by bandits?” Jesus asked. The man replied, “The one who showed him mercy.” Then Jesus said, “Yes, now go and do the same.

In this parable it is critical to note the imagery of the selected individuals –

1. “A Priest and a Levite” – are clearly indicative of people who have formally acknowledged God and are also at the fore-front of all the outward rituals and ceremonies.

2. “A Samaritan” – is considered on the wrong side of doctrine and dogma and is also “generally despised” in religious terms.

However it is easy to see that the man who is supposedly on the wrong side of doctrine – who no indication of God is made about is painted in glowing terms by Jesus because of his kind and merciful deeds.

I need to point out also the Imagery of Brotherly Affiliation. Note this from Wikipedia –

According to the Jewish version of events, when the Judean exile ended in 538 BCE and the exiles began returning home from Babylon, they found their former homeland populated by other people who claimed the land as their own and Jerusalem, their former glorious capital, in ruins.

And –

Jewish tradition maintains a different origin for the Samaritans. The Talmud accounts for a people called "Cuthim" on a number of occasions, mentioning their arrival by the hands of the Assyrians.

Much may be said – but basically there was this divide existing between the Jews and the Samaritans.

Now In answering the question – “who is your neighbor” – the parable of the Good Samaritan goes the extra step of showing that neighborliness arises not from tribal or religious affiliations but from loving acts of concern for one another.

What this shows is that the “groups” of churches, mosques, or other theists, are useless in determining the question of neighborliness. An Atheist or Buddhist could as well be a better neighbor than your Deacon in Church or your Imam in Mosque.

And given the parable of the Good Samaritan, in such an event, we can clearly see WHOM has done the will of God. . . .

So my dear friend, while you edify nobody by talking endlessly about definitions (define this, define that), I assert to you today that which was the living essence of the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ – namely that love trumps all things and is the very essence of Christianity.

And if an Atheist or a Buddhist will show such love, then he has certainly met the requirements of the God that Jesus preached about – regardless of whether he accepts that such a God exists or not.

This is so simple and so pure – and should come so naturally to the Christian who is steeped in the ideas of Christ – which ideas tended towards love and doctrinal flexibility: and not towards iron cast “definitions” which you regrettably seem adamantly attached to – at the expense of the simple beauty of the gospel of Jesus. Jesus statements on the observance of the Sabbath and other such – just show the flexibility I speak about – which tends towards –spirit and truth – and not outward forms.

At all events since it is a given that you will yet dispute this simple and lucid example; for the objective reader – I state in simplicity – An Atheist or a Buddhist, if he lives a life of love and charity - certainly does the will of the God that Jesus preached about.