There was silence in the hall. Nervously restrained anticipation.

People looked furtively around. The man being expected had haunted their expectations with heady wisps of a compound knowledge. . .

The assembly cut across the boundaries. . . Christians, Moslems, Atheists, Agnostics, Satanists. . .Cosmological Intellectuals, and at least one Deist. . .

The man stepped into the hall. A sea of heads bobbed about. Excited, the thirsty Krayola steadied himself in his front row seat. . . Tudor adjusted his tie. . .Huxley hurriedly flipped through a giant Darwinian text, the sombre Prizm cut a distant figure with a remote stare into space. . . Banom prepared his taunts on Definition. Lost in the crowd, Noetic, a fugitive from Justice hidding from a 16th ban, poured over an old Bible. . .

Only Abuzola did not sit. On a mat at the rear, he muttered unintelligible curses.

The moderator stepped onto the stage as the man walked down the Hall. . .

The Moderator Spoke. . .

"Gentlemen, today i give you a rare gem, and he is here to give us the truth, as he knows and sees it. . .

"I give you . . . Pastor AIO!"

_{*Rapturous Applause*}

Oya, Pastor, summarize your position, you have been confusing us with your recent utterances.

;d ;d ;d ;d ;d

If i am permitted let me give my opinion on pastor's positon. In my understanding pastor has been able to differentiate between religion[which is man made] and true biblical christianity. However in trying to express himself he seems to contradict himself because there are so many man made doctrines in christianity today which many people assume to be biblical facts, the truth is that he is fairly consistent and you need to be able to think outside the box of the "religion" which are essentially church instituitinalized doctrines to be able to understand his position better.

KunleOshob:

If i am permitted let me give my opinion on pastor's positon. In my understanding pastor has been able to differentiate between religion[which is man made] and true biblical christianity. However in trying to express himself he seems to contradict himself because there are so many man made doctrines in christianity today which many people assume to be biblical facts, the truth is that he is fairly consistent and you need to be able to think outside the box of the "religion" which are essentially church instituitinalized doctrines to be able to understand his position better.

I am not yet certain of his consistency. But i am ready to learn his true and comprehensive position and conviction.

Pastor, i still dey wait. . .

Deep Sight:

There was silence in the hall. Nervously restrained anticipation.

People looked furtively around. The man being expected had haunted their expectations with heady wisps of a compound knowledge. . .

The assembly cut across the boundaries. . . Christians, Moslems, Atheists, Agnostics, Satanists. . .Cosmological Intellectuals, and at least one Deist. . .

The man stepped into the hall. A sea of heads bobbed about. Excited, the thirsty Krayola steadied himself in his front row seat. . . Tudor adjusted his tie. . .Huxley hurriedly flipped through a giant Darwinian text, the sombre Prizm cut a distant figure with a remote stare into space. . . Banom prepared his taunts on Definition. Lost in the crowd, Noetic, a fugitive from Justice hidding from a 16th ban, poured over an old Bible. . .

Only Abuzola did not sit. On a mat at the rear, he muttered unintelligible curses.

The moderator stepped onto the stage as the man walked down the Hall. . .

The Moderator Spoke. . .

"Gentlemen, today i give you a rare gem, and he is here to give us the truth, as he knows and sees it. . .

"I give you . . . Pastor AIO!"

_{*Rapturous Applause*}

Oya, Pastor, summarize your position, you have been confusing us with your recent utterances.

I first read the title with a mixture of embarrassment and foreboding.  The I read your OP and it brought a smile to my face.  I really like your writing style.  Then I read your last post on the 'Doctor Angelicus and his straws' thread and it put it all into context. 
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-334136.0.html#msg4710713

Deep Sight:

Ah, Pastor, I give it to you. Your reasoning is really worth engaging with, and i am most pleased.

Although i still believe that we are at odds in grasping what i am trying to communicate. But i agree with you that that is probably the result of lacking the words to express my ideas properly. You see, somethings do transcend words.

I will proceed within a latter post to address the issues you raised in reaction to my post, while i will try as much as possible to focus on the topic: Dr. Angelicus' postulations.

However, before we proceed, please do clear something up for me. I have told you before that you seem to have a very contradictory and hazily defined stance. You denied that, but it has reared its head again. . . Despite being titled "Pastor", you have opened a thread declaring that religion makes people "stoopid". . . In that thread you also said something along the lines of the atheists being right after all. . .

In this, i hope you are not making the fundamental mistake 99% of NL atheists make: namely that they see dubious fallacies within religion and therefore conclude that the Creator does not exist. They do not realize that although their hatred of religion is quite justifiable, this is nonetheless entirely different from the Cosmological Question of the Existence of God.

So please, can you indulge me, and set out your core-convictions on Theological, Spiritual and Religious matters very briefly. It would help me understand your perspective much better.

Better still, i will open a separate thread to address you specifically. Meet me there.

So here we are.  I suppose you could say that my position is complicated due to it's simplicity.  I believe a great many things some of which you might not be interested in or may have nothing to do with religion ( such as my belief that awarding Obama a peace prize makes further mockery of the prize.  Other previous mockeries include giving it to that War monger Henry Kissinger). 

I don't think that Religion makes anybody stupid but I do think that one could justifiably come to that conclusion from reading the contributions of many nairalanders.  In other words if nairalanders are representative of religion and it's effects then it would be reasonably to conclude that religion does serious damage to your cerebral capacity. 

But then again it might not be religion.  It might be due to being African.  A friend once suggested that it was the Hot sun in Africa that does not allow us to think rationally and so we've evolved an irrational culture and way of upbringing.  even after we emigrate to cooler climes we remain stupid because we still have that culture.

Anyway, let's move on to religion.  Without talking about God directly I want to say that I believe that our concepts and our perceptions are some degrees removed from Reality and truth.  Therefore whatever we think, whatever ideologies we entertain, can never be the Truth as it really is.  This applies to everything, not only God.  We can never have an accurate concept of God.  Similarly we can never even have an accurate concept of our own being. 

Huxley has just started a thread asking what Right and Righteousness are which I hope to contribute to soon.  When it comes to the practical application of Religion, ie how do we conduct our lives on a day to day basis, I believe that we ought to strive to do the Right thing.  What's that?
I believe that the Right thing has been articulated variously in various cultures around the world in various times. 

In Arab culture it is called Fitra

In yoruba it is called Ayanmo

In China it is call Tao

In India it is called Dharma

In Igbo land it is called Chi

etc etc

I believe that Striving to do the Right thing is the purest form of worshipping God that there is.  In fact it is the only way to worship God. 

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria?topic=295066.msg4170631#msg4170631

How do you know what the Right thing is?  It is written in your heart. and it accessed through the Spirit.   It cannot be codified into laws and ethical systems.  Such Laws and ethics might help to point you to what is within but they are not it.  Quite possibly they can also become a stumbling block and actually block you from accessing what is within due to an excessive fixation on the Law.  eg.  Parzival's failure to ask Amfortas about his wound because his uncle had given him strict rules not to ask personal questions. 

Just as reality is mercurial and hard to reduce into a human concept, so is the Right thing mercurial and hard to reduce into a rigid Legal system. 


I recall a post by M_Nwankwo way back in march that rang a bell with me.
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-241816.0.html#msg3543176

The part where he says this:
I do not agree that good or evil is determined by what human beings believe to be morally right or wrong. My position is that good or evil arises as a result of obedience or disobedience to the will of God by creatures that possess free will. And man is one such creature that have free will.

and this:
To judge correctly wheather something is good or evil, one has to be able to sense the core (spiritual decision), the motive, the imagination, the thoughts, the words and the actions. Unfortunately, most of us are only able to make judjement based on the the shells particularly words and actions and then we go astray. That means that we rely on the human brain to judge and the human brain in itself cannot recognise the will of God, that is it is incapable of differentiationg good from evil except it is directed by the human spirit.

and this:

I do not rely on books to make spiritual decisons. I rely on the faculties of my spirit and these faculties are capable of looking into the book of life and draw from it events that has happened in the past.

And this response:

Quote
mad-man has tied 4 people to a train track and there is a train coming down the line. The line forks and there are three people on the fork where the train is heading and one on the other fork. You are unable to untie them but you have the power to throw the switch on the tracks. Do you let the three people die or do you redirect the train so that just one dies?
Take that a bit further, imagine the one person is a child. What would you do then?
And then consider the same sort of scenario with a twist. You are on a bridge and there are a dozen people tied to the train track. This time you cannot reach a switch and the train is going to run them over. But just then, a fat man walks over the bridge. Your only way of stopping the train from killing those dozen people is by throwing the fat man over the bridge, onto the tracks and derailing the train. Would you do it?



The scenarious you mentioned are not real. However I will aswer them. I will act as God guides me and if it is according to his will that all we be saved, God will provide the scenarious not mentioned in your hypothetical question that will result in me saving all of them. Thus for me, Life is sacred and a gift of God. No one life is more important than the other.




I sure that you know there is more, but let us start here.

PASTOR - We are at a consensus ad idem on the question of right and wrong. I could not agree more. The pricking of the spirit will tell what is right or wrong. Even the greatest savage will have such a pricking, and it is called in every day terms "Conscience". . .

However, so that this thread does not end on a note whereby you are able to escape with your usual vagueness, please do let us knwo your stand on these:

1. The existence of God

2. The knowability of God (Is God knowable or approachable? Are the Agnostics right?)

3. Life after death? What happens at death?

4. Salvation? Does it exist? If so, for whom?

5. Who was Jesus, the Jewish Carpenter? God? Son of God? Prophet? Or just another street teacher?

6. Who was Mohammad, in similar terms? And the Buddha.

7. Is a knowledge of any of these people necessary for any person on earth?

Much obliged sir.

I don't think "conscience" is the same across the board. I think it is conditioned. A person who was physically and emotionally abused as a child, with little experience of love, could see little wrong in inflicting pain on others. He would see it as how the world is. Is this not possible?

Krayola:

I don't think "conscience" is the same across the board.

I agree.

Krayola:
I think it is conditioned.

I disagree.

The Right thing is unique to each person.  It comes from the person's essential nature, the way God made him to be. 

That which arises from conditioning and environment is not the same as the Right thing. 

It is important to make that distinction between essential nature and Conditioned nature. 

'Same true nature' is Buddha Nature or True Self. We all know our individual selves, our 'me' self. This is a limited and unclear self, one that we have developed unknowingly through our upbringing and conditioning. Buddhism points out that we can access or develop our realized self, called Buddha Nature.

'Second, adapting to conditions. As mortals we're ruled by conditions not by ourselves. All the suffering and joy we experience depend on conditions. If we should be blessed by some great reward, such as fame or fortune, it's the fruit of a seed planted by us in the past. When conditions change, it ends. Why delight in its existence? But while success and failure depend on conditions, the mind neither waxes nor wanes. Those who remain unmoved by the wind of joy silently follow the path.'

Buddha Nature naturally and spontaneously practices the Sila (read moral rectitude -Pastor AIO)or Purities. Sila are not external precepts but the wholesome outpourings of an awakened being. For example, an awakened being is not caught up with thoughts of stealing or not stealing, but effortlessly leads a life of spotless integrity. Giving and charity are done without any thought of 'myself' that is giving. Awakened beings help others but without any concept of helping, thus there is the natural arising of compassion.

Bodhidharma ends by referring to the virtues or Paramitas. The practise of charity or generosity, morality or discipline, patience, energy or devotion, concentration or meditation, and wisdom are done without any concept of 'myself' doing them. Without any sense of 'myself' practising the Paramitas Bodhidharma can say 'they practise nothing at all. This is what's meant by practising the Dharma.' It is the natural and spontaneous outpouring of Bohhicitta.

http://www.buddhistdoor.com/OldWeb/bdoor/0003e/sources/bodhidharma.htm

The core philosophical question that the I Ching oracle addresses is: How can humans live in harmony with the Cosmos? Behind this question lie two profound and true realizations on the part of the ancient Chinese: (1) that a person’s original nature is only good, and (2) when he is in this natural state, he is in harmony with the Cosmos. When a person is in harmony with the Cosmos, his acts have the quality of being spontaneously correct, meaningappropriate and fitting, without any conscious intention. This natural state is described in Hexagram 25, which has been translated variously as “Innocence,” “Without Error,” “Integrity,” and “Without Falsehood.”

These two realizations gave rise to the two basic philosophies of China: Taoism and Confucianism. From this beginning point, that every person’s nature is only good, the two philosophies turn in different directions, each answering the question: how do humans lose their original natures, or true selves? Followers of Confucius said that this happens as a result of man’s animal nature, and that he has the choice either to follow his “higher,” nature, which is seen as good, or his lower, animal nature, which is seen as tending toward evil. Lao Tzu, founder of philosophical Taoism, rejected this view as contradictory, stating that humans lose their original nature through social conditioning.

Actually I don't don't think what Laotse and Confucius were saying were that different. It is the Animal nature that gets conditioned.

Let me end here for the sake of brevity.
http://www.ichingoracle.com/institute.php

Deep Sight:

PASTOR - We are at a consensus ad idem on the question of right and wrong. I could not agree more. The pricking of the spirit will tell what is right or wrong. Even the greatest savage will have such a pricking, and it is called in every day terms "Conscience". . .

However, so that this thread does not end on a note whereby you are able to escape with your usual vagueness, please do let us knwo your stand on these:

1. The existence of God

2. The knowability of God (Is God knowable or approachable? Are the Agnostics right?)

3. Life after death? What happens at death?

4. Salvation? Does it exist? If so, for whom?

5. Who was Jesus, the Jewish Carpenter? God? Son of God? Prophet? Or just another street teacher?

6. Who was Mohammad, in similar terms? And the Buddha.

7. Is a knowledge of any of these people necessary for any person on earth?

Much obliged sir.

I'm not dodging anything. If my answers are vague have you considered that your questions are in themselves even vaguer.

1. The existence of God

To consider whether God exists or not you must first tell me exactly what you mean by God. Do I think that there is an old man with a long beard in the sky? The answer is No.
There are so many Gods and so many Jesuses out there that I hesitate to join when people talk about God, or ask me to join in prayer to God. the JW believe that God actually has a physical location somewhere in the universe and he has a body. That is somewhat different from any of the concepts of God that I've indulged in in the past.

2. The knowability of God (Is God knowable or approachable? Are the Agnostics right?)

The above applies here too.

3. Life after death? What happens at death?

I still coming to terms with what may or may not happen next week.

4. Salvation? Does it exist? If so, for whom?

Too vague. Right now I'm seeking salvation from financial catastrophe. I believe it can happen, it exists. What are you seeking salvation from? I believe that mankind can be saved from their conditioned Soul. I believe in all kinds of salvation. I believe healing is possible.

5. Who was Jesus, the Jewish Carpenter? God? Son of God? Prophet? Or just another street teacher?

This is an historical question and the historical records have a lot to say. As for the God part, you have to tell me what you mean by God.

6. Who was Mohammad, in similar terms? And the Buddha.

These too are historical personalities. I'm not sure what more you want me to say about them.

7. Is a knowledge of any of these people necessary for any person on earth?

Necessary to accomplish what? Be less vague and I'll tell you whether I accept or not.

Pastor, i tend to agree with you 90% that

How do you know what the Right thing is?  It is written in your heart. and it accessed through the Spirit.   It cannot be codified into laws and ethical systems.  Such Laws and ethics might help to point you to what is within but they are not it.  Quite possibly they can also become a stumbling block and actually block you from accessing what is within due to an excessive fixation on the Law.  eg.  Parzival's failure to ask Amfortas about his wound because his uncle had given him strict rules not to ask personal questions.

But do you agree with me that the two world religions - Christianity and Islam as interpreted today had killed the the ability to know what the right thing is. It has effectively killed the conscience, by postulating that you can escape the guilt of doing the wrong thing by a simple proclamation, maybe Asking Jesus to forgive one his sins or shouting Allah u Bakar,. The conscience becomes clear of guilt to commit another wrong again, and the cycle goes on and on. That is why i feel adherents of the two religions engage in  more wrong doing than any other beliefs, including atheists. They are taught another person takes the responsibility for their individual sins.

I find this teaching destructive to the human race.

Tell me what you think

wirinet:

Pastor, i tend to agree with you 90% that
But do you agree with me that the two world religions - Christianity and Islam as interpreted today had killed the the ability to know what the right thing is. It has effectively killed the conscience, by postulating that you can escape the guilt of doing the wrong thing by a simple proclamation, maybe Asking Jesus to forgive one his sins or shouting Allah u Bakar,. The conscience becomes clear of guilt to commit another wrong again, and the cycle goes on and on. That is why i feel adherents of the two religions engage in  more wrong doing than any other beliefs, including atheists. They are taught another person takes the responsibility for their individual sins.

I find this teaching destructive to the human race.

Tell me what you think

I hear you, but it is not the religion per se but the way it is being used and abused by people with political power, and ignorant people too.  Consider this. 

Fitra: A Return to a Natural State
"And so, set thy face steadfastly towards the [one ever-true] faith, turning away from all that is false, in accordance with the natural disposition (fitra) which God has instilled into man: [for,] not to allow any change to corrupt what God has thus created-this is the [purpose of the one] ever-true faith; but [size=18pt]most[/size] people know it not." (Surah Ar-Rum, The Byzantines, ayat 30)

The above quote is a reference to the concept of "fitra", a basic belief in Islam. "Fitra" is an Arabic word that means "innate human nature". Islamic theology contends that we are born into a state of "fitra" and have the innate knowledge of "tawhid" or monotheism, however, we are also susceptible to corruption. Islam teaches us how to rediscover our fitra, and thus by practicing Islam one is always working towards a goal of attaining their original pure state.

this is openly stated in the koran to be the goal of the religion.  The question I then ask of muslims is 'has this goal been achieved and if not why not?'.  Without fitra everything else that they do is reduced to nonsense.  No matter how much foaming at the mouth and allahu akbars they scream. 

The problem is not with Christianity and Islam solely but with any rigidly codified system of conduct.  It will miss the essence of fitra which is something very very subtle.  It cannot be spoken about neither is it expressed through words or text.

Pastor AIO:

The Right thing is unique to each person.  It comes from the person's essential nature, the way God made him to be.

Could God, in your opinion, make someone to be a serial killer? A schitzo? A sexual predator? Would it be the right thing to do just because it comes "naturally" to this person?

What is the "right thing". . . If $10 dollars will save my life, and you, for whatever reason, "valid" or not, give me $5 when you can afford to give me $10, have you done the wrong thing?

Essential nature: Some person may give me $10 even when they can't afford to. He/she may even take out a loan just to help me. Some other person may just give me a bad dose of heroine that will kill me and put me out of my miserable existence. Couldn't they both be sincerely concerned about my wellbeing?

The "way God made him to be": compassion vs survival . Which do you think is universal (or is any really universal, which one do u think is closer to universal). And when shit hits the fan, which one trumps the other (assuming it was possible for one to be in a natural, "unconditioned" state).

Pastor AIO:

That which arises from conditioning and environment is not the same as the Right thing. 

I don't think one can have an attitude towards anything, without experience (conditioning). One would just be indifferent IMO, or maybe curious. Compassion, benevolence, or all these other attitudes that we consider to be "good" or "right" are not indifferent attitudes.

It is important to make that distinction between essential nature and Conditioned nature.  http://www.buddhistdoor.com/OldWeb/bdoor/0003e/sources/bodhidharma.htm

Is one's essential state one's state at birth, or conception? Is getting to your essential nature returning to the state of insecurity, self-absorption and ignorance of a child?

Nirvana (I think that is what Buddhists call enlightenment) is essentially, IMO, a state of emptiness. Some will say that is the real state of reality, but I think that it could be argued that it is an escape from reality. Nirvana itself could be a conditioned state . . . . .a sort of "delusion" of detachment that has to be learned.  I'm also not sure i'm convinced how a state of detachment necessarily makes one more compassionate or happier.

If one's essential nature is one of detachment, what is the point? How would being indifferent to suffering make u want to end someone else's suffering?

Actually I don't don't think what Laotse and Confucius were saying were that different.  It is the Animal nature that gets conditioned. 

What other nature do we have?

Very Nice Intro

How do you know what the Right thing is? It is written in your heart. and it accessed through the Spirit. It cannot be codified into laws and ethical systems. Such Laws and ethics might help to point you to what is within but they are not it.

This is what sends chills down my spine, consider this pastor

I hear you, but it is not the religion per se but the way it is being used and abused by people with political power, and ignorant people too.

I think it is evident that when religion, beliefs, life and choices are reduced to its barest minimum it is about the choices people make, and we can see that deep down inside we are all different one way or the other. My question is if you say the right thing is written in our hearts, would two people who have the 'ability' to access it through the spirit always agree on the right things to do? What if we increase the number to ten or one hundred? Would 1000 people who access the right thing through the spirit all come up with the same decision? That is my problem with that line of thought, I think we are all fundamentally different and we will make choices based on the circumstances we find ourselves.


My take though is that when we reduce most of our decisions to the barest minimum it is mostly about survival, the will the survive to want to live on is stronger than many other things, a lion will have no qualms killing a deer because it has to survive even if it means the life of another animal, a look into the animal world IMO gives us a glimpse that mirrors our everyday life, right or wrong stricto senso IMO is impossible to attain, but fairness and justice can be striven for.

I am not sure that Deepsight and other discussants understand what Pastor AIO is saying. The human words and concepts are so limited that when Pastor AIO clothes experential spirituality with words, discusants seem to understand the forms (concepts, words etc) but not the eternal reality that to me is very self evident in Pastor AIO replies. Just an example. Pastor AIO was asked by someone whether is is posssible to be saved without knowing Jesus Christ even though the person have been practing true love. Pastor AIO answered with a question "how come that such a person practice true love?" (put in my own words). On the surface it may appear that Pastor AIO did not answer the question but in my view he answered it in very few short words. Pastor AIO can correct me if that is not what he meant but what I understand him to say it that he who practices genuine love already have Christ for there can be no genuine love without Christ and no Christ without genuine love. Thus if Mahatma Gandi practiced true love, then he knows Christ even if he was not a "christian" in an earthly sense. I will allow PastorAIO to answer Chris question on what he meant by "right thing" and if two or more peaple that have access to the "right thing" will agree if each person is to give form to the "right thing". Cheers.

m_nwankwo:

I am not sure that Deepsight and other discussants understand what Pastor AIO is saying. The human words and concepts are so limited that when Pastor AIO clothes experential spirituality with words, discusants seem to understand the forms (concepts, words etc) but not the eternal reality that to me is very self evident in Pastor AIO replies. Just an example. Pastor AIO was asked by someone whether is is posssible to be saved without knowing Jesus Christ even though the person have been practing true love. Pastor AIO answered with a question "how come that such a person practice true love?" (put in my own words). On the surface it may appear that Pastor AIO did not answer the question but in my view he answered it in very few short words. Pastor AIO can correct me if that is not what he meant but what I understand him to say it that[b] he who practices genuine love already have Christ for there can be no genuine love without Christ and no Christ without genuine love. Thus if Mahatma Gandi practiced true love, then he knows Christ even if he was not a "christian" in an earthly sense.[/b] I will allow PastorAIO to answer Chris question on what he meant by "right thing" and if two or more peaple that have access to the "right thing" will agree if each person is to give form to the "right thing". Cheers.

[size=24pt]^GBAM!!! [/size] The highlighted above is what a lot of people find difficulty in coming to terms with. It's so simple yet so confusing. I guess the problem is religious dogmatism and over zealousness on the part of adherents right from the time the biblical texts were being written. More to come whilst i eagerly await pastor's confirmation or rejection of m_nwanko's submission.

Pastor, the contradictions are too many. Let me elucidate.

In one breath you said -

Pastor AIO:


The Right thing is unique to each person.  It comes from the person's essential nature, the way God made him to be.  

Thus expressly acceding to both the existence of God, and the fact that HE/SHE/IT is the Creator. Because you stated. . . "The way God made him to be. . . "

Then in another breath you stated -

Pastor AIO:


To consider whether God exists or not you must first tell me exactly what you mean by God. Do I think that there is an old man with a long beard in the sky? The answer is No. There are so many Gods and so many Jesuses out there that I hesitate to join when people talk about God, or ask me to join in prayer to God. the JW believe that God actually has a physical location somewhere in the universe and he has a body. That is somewhat different from any of the concepts of God that I've indulged in in the past.


Also:

As for the God part, you have to tell me what you mean by God.

- Which suggest that God remains for you undefined. I really cannot understand this and this is what i meant when i stated that your answers are often laced with great ambiguity. It surely cannot be too hard to state, for example, as i do - "I believe in the existence of a Prime Mover existing outside space and time embedded with the qualities of Power and Intelligence, and this i call God". Or to state as the Atheists do - "God does not exist". . . i am fairly certain that from past threads you have a knowledge of what I mean when i use the word "God". So when i ask you to state your position on the existence of God, i am at odds that you descend into a whirlpool of questions on defining God, and as usual, evasively end up not stating your position on the existence of God!

Please help. This is what i have meant in the past when i say you are vague and contradictory. I want you to define a stance, such that i am able to have a firm platform for engaging your very interesting mind. Without this, i will merely be swimming in a sea of fog and mist, lost, when talking with you.

I entirely deny that my questions to you were vague. Who can genuinely state that he does not have an idea of what it means to talk about spiritual salvation, be it in a christian or moslem context! As children, we were all accustomed to ideas of "heaven" and "hell" - whether or not those places exist, the point is that you perfectly well understand what the words "Heaven", "Paradise" and "Salvation" connote, but rather than answer the question, as has become customary of you, you again evasively stated -

Pastor AIO:


I'm seeking salvation from financial catastrophe. I believe it can happen, it exists. What are you seeking salvation from? I believe that mankind can be saved from their conditioned Soul. I believe in all kinds of salvation. I believe healing is possible.

This very strange, if not outrightly dubious, in consideration of your previous expositions on the questions of God, Redemption, Salvation and Grace, as contained in this Post you made last year - (note the parts i have emboldened) -

Pastor AIO:


The word of God, ie the Logos is he by whom and through whom all things were created and have their being.  The Bible is NOT the Logos.  When I refer to the Word of God I refer, not to a text but, to a person.  A person in whom I put all hope, with whom I find all truth, and from whom I get all guidance.  

Second point.  There are two paths to redemption.  The path of Works and the path of Grace.  If you take the path of Works you ain't gonna make it.    No one will, no matter how morally upright their aspirations or their determination.  We depend on Grace.  However that does not mean that we don't try our best when it comes to works.  We try to do good works but we don't depend on our 'goodness' for salvation.  

I'll put it another way.  I don't do good in order to win God's favour.  I do good because I've had God's favour (however undeservedly).

In this post, you have shown a very personal belief in God, Redemption through faith and grace, as well as an understanding of a concept of salvation??

I am troubled that whereas you once were expounding what you perceived as Truth, now you are content to descend into whirlpools of definitions.

And although i am aghast to say it, but i verily believe that in this respect you have been strongly influenced by the approach of many of the atheists on this Forum.

Think about this.

Go and have a look at your very old posts. Compare them with the recent ones. What is uniform in both is that you have always shown knowledge, objectivity, and a strong intellect. However in the old posts you were happy to expound on spiritual truths even in a christain context (as in the quote above) whereas nowadays it is very difficult to even get you to admit the existence of a spiritual realm.

For example, i asked you what you thought about life after death. Unsurprisingly, the now usual evasive answer -

Pastor AIO:


I still coming to terms with what may or may not happen next week.

You must admit that you have changed a great deal.

Might i ask you what advised your decision to chose the username "Pastor"? Was it at the time rooted in any affiliation with Christianity?

I honestly hope you will not say this too is a vague question.

I am still waiting for you to address the earlier questions i put to you on God, Agnosticism, Salvation, Jesus and Life after death.

Please dont be vague this time, or the essence of this thread would be comprehensively defeated.

Thanks.

Many Great responses that I will address in due course. This might take a couple of days to do justice to everybody's response so please bear with me. I've have been reading them and slowly considering how best to respond to them.

I'll be back.

@deepsight

I think this forum is a place to debate issues one is interested in. I personally, most of the time, debate for the sport. My posts are not necessarily reflective of my convictions. SO that someone PASTOR AIO, or anybody else, has made a post at some point saying one thing, and another post saying something else, means little to me. It depends on what is being debated, and what position the individual, on the day, chooses to argue for or against.

A lot of the time I want to argue for Christianity, against atheists, on this forum, but unfortunately most Christians here are quite cynical, and they use some of my posts to brand me an atheist, even though i'm pretty much everything but. I'm not sure if you see what i'm getting at, but basically it is all about learning both sides of an issue. Not about choosing one over the other. Arguing, for instance, against the existence of a spiritual realm does not necessary mean one dismisses the possibility of such a realm existing. It could just be an attempt to engage someone who is convinced such a realm exists, and may have lots of knowledge that I don't, in healthy debate that will hopefully lead to both parties learning from each other.

It means little (or nothing) to me what someone else believes, or practices. If it helps the person to be happy or to find peace, great. I wish him/her all the best. But as far as the forum goes, it should, when it boils down to it, just be about having a healthy debate. . .abi? how u see am my broda?

@Deepsight

It is definitely a possibility that PastorAIO himself has been changed from his interactions with others in the forum, even as an agnostic, my belief system has evolved over time as I evaluate things I once beleived in and put them to test dropping those that I found wanting.

I think it is a journey everyone has to take, my main grouse with religion is some group or individual taking an absolute and rigid stance on issues as if they know everything which obviously no one does.

One thing I've discovered about religion or any belief/faith is that it gets to a point where its basic assumptions/theories break down just as the big bang theory itself breaks down at the point of a singularity. When adherents of various beliefs, religions or faiths get to this point they become very inconsistent and go into the "By any means necessary" mode rather than owning up to their ignorance because that undermines the basic foundations of their postulations.

It is all well and good for you to believe in a Prime mover beyond time and space with attributes of intelligence and power while I keep an open mind about the possibility of the world having come about as a result of randomness and chance in timelessness/infinite time as they are all postulations, the only things we can be sure of is that we came to exist somehow.

I believe in Science because it starts from an assumption of ignorance proceeding to formulation of theories through observation without holding those theories as being sacred discarding them and formulating new ones when they become inadequate whereas Religion starts from the opposite end, assuming total knowledge and then bending everything else to fit into that assumed knowledge. This is the very reason why it is chaotic, lacks order, divides, causes friction and has not advanced the human race the way science has.

It is a bit of a strange one for me as one of the things that finally convinced me to choose agnosticism was one of Apostle Paul's statements in the Bible in 1 Cor 13:9 because he alluded to humanity/christianity having an incomplete knowledge.

I do believe that if we see religion for what it is, a placeholder for the limits of our knowledge, a means of social control (which our laws have now largely replaced) or working theories as to our origins and how we should live,  then it wouldn't be a cause of so much confusion and friction.

^^^ Nice One, Duduspace. . . I entirely agree.

Its just that in Pastor's case the contradictions seem to still be inherent in posts even on this very thread. There of course has never been a problem with changing one's perspective.

Pastor has a brilliant analytical mind and that's the only reason i want him to be perfectly clear, such that i am able to understand him, and have a basis for interacting with him.

Let me make a few comments on your post though.

duduspace:


. . .even as an agnostic, my belief system has evolved over time.

The perfect religion (if it may be called that) for an agnostic is the pure form of Buddhism. Go and consider it, it's really excellent stuff. I am still flirting with it, the only differentiating area being my Deist inclination which is somewhat at odds with pure Buddhism, which is silent on the question of a Deity.

duduspace:


It is all well and good for you to believe in a Prime mover beyond time and space with attributes of intelligence and power while I keep an open mind about the possibility of the world having come about as a result of randomness and chance in timelessness/infinite time as they are all postulations, the only things we can be sure of is that we came to exist somehow.

This does not get it quite, i mean the randomness bit, because -

   1. Even for the world to come into existence by randomness, matter still had to be there somehow. What was the source of that matter. I ask this, because matter, unlike intangible quantities, cannot be eternal in either the future or past tense? Phaps we may say it is eternal in the sense of continuous change of state. . . But surely, it cannot be an "always been" like abstract entities are. . .? Thus your randomness supposition commences at a point where matter is already in existence. I want to address the cause or trigger of ALL existence.

   2. Recall the argument i amde about the random pebbles and the square. I know you responded to that. But those linear lines of the square will still be very hard to come by even in eternal time given the random principle. Do you know why? Because Randomness by its very nature is defined as haphazard . . . that's why even eternal time would not throw up the sort of lined square that i gave you IF RANDOMNESS IS THE PRINCIPLE reconsider this. . .

  3. Randomness not really likely to throw up the initial energy for the "Big Bang". . . conceptually contradictory, yes?

KunleOshob:

[size=24pt]^GBAM!!! [/size] The highlighted above is what a lot of people find difficulty in coming to terms with. It's so simple yet so confusing. I guess the problem is religious dogmatism and over zealousness on the part of adherents right from the time the biblical texts were being written. More to come whilst i eagerly await pastor's confirmation or rejection of m_nwanko's submission.

It is OK if u have ur own beliefs about love. but it is not OK if u falsely relate them to Xtianity. The above is a FALSE doctrine. It is impossible to have the love of Christ without Christ.
The love of Christ is embedded in salvation. . . . . .how can anyone be saved without the knowledge of Christ?

Krayola:

@deepsight

I think this forum is a place to debate issues one is interested in. I personally, most of the time, debate for the sport. My posts are not necessarily reflective of my convictions. SO that someone PASTOR AIO, or anybody else, has made a post at some point saying one thing, and another post saying something else, means little to me. It depends on what is being debated, and what position the individual, on the day, chooses to argue for or against.

A lot of the time I want to argue for Christianity, against atheists, on this forum, but unfortunately most Christians here are quite cynical, and they use some of my posts to brand me an atheist, even though i'm pretty much everything but. I'm not sure if you see what i'm getting at, but basically it is all about learning both sides of an issue. Not about choosing one over the other. Arguing, for instance, against the existence of a spiritual realm does not necessary mean one dismisses the possibility of such a realm existing. It could just be an attempt to engage someone who is convinced such a realm exists, and may have lots of knowledge that I don't, in healthy debate that will hopefully lead to both parties learning from each other.

It means little (or nothing) to me what someone else believes, or practices. If it helps the person to be happy or to find peace, great. I wish him/her all the best. But as far as the forum goes, it should, when it boils down to it, just be about having a healthy debate. . .abi? how u see am my broda?   

your post makes a lot of sense and I do agree with your notion of a healthy debate. I have been debating with myself about the moral stance of "yahoo yahoo". .  .I chose to debate for the motion. And I realised that morality and human values evolve from generation to generation. . . . . .  .my point is that it is healthy to debate even against our beliefs.

But let me join issues on the "Pastor AIO" debate here.

1. "Pastor" AIO is a FALSE prophet from the pit of hell. I have no problem with anyone expressing their opinion, no matter how disagreeable it is. . . . that explains why I am comfortable with atheistic, agnostic and islamic opinions. But I do have a problem with people who choose to shield themselves with one thing to offer an opinion. AIO has repeatedly attempted to redefine the gospel with his assertions, and just as DeepSight pointed out, the contradictions are enormous and very very disturbing.

2. If u think that there is no God or that Jesus is not the only way to salvation, then u have no business being a Christian. If u think that xtinity is a false religion and that the gospel is untrue then u have no reason to be a christian or a pastor. That is why it is easy to listen and understand atheistic postulations. If "pastor" AIO has any reservations about the existence of God, the ontology of Christ, the genuineness of the gospel, the divinity of God, the salvation of Christ, the merger of IFA and xtianity then why exactly is he a xtian. . .does he know the meaning of xtianity?

3. This is not a conclusion I arrived at just now, this is a conclusion I arrived at a long time ago after observing the trend of his posts. The crux is that the gospel of Christ is very dogmatic and his gospel does not leave room for editing and human "rationality" like the resident anti-Christs want to have us believe.

Krayola:

Could God, in your opinion, make someone to be a serial killer? A schitzo? A sexual predator? Would it be the right thing to do just because it comes "naturally" to this person?

What is the "right thing". . . If $10 dollars will save my life, and you, for whatever reason, "valid" or not, give me $5 when you can afford to give me $10, have you done the wrong thing?

Essential nature: Some person may give me $10 even when they can't afford to. He/she may even take out a loan just to help me. Some other person may just give me a bad dose of heroine that will kill me and put me out of my miserable existence. Couldn't they both be sincerely concerned about my wellbeing?

I think that you are still stuck on thinking in terms of a moral code and are not fully appreciating the subtlety of what I'm talking about.  

You don't need a moral code when you are being led by the spirit.  Like M_nwankwo said in the scenario about the train that would kill people.  The right thing to do in that case is not pre-meditated according to some moral code but rather revealed to you spontaneously at the point of action.  

It might not always seem to make sense to the carnal mind yet the carnal mind does not have all the facts so cannot really judge.

For example, say I had a thousand dollars in my pocket and you came to ask me for ten dollars.  You're my friend, I like you, and I want to help you.  Yet the spirit can tell me not to give you a penny.  So I refuse you.  That is terrible and mean, you might conclude.  But consider this other scenario.
I give you the ten dollars, in fact I like you so much I give you 20 dollars despite the protestations of my spirit.  It so happens that across the street from where we met there is a junkie who is watching us.  We are not aware of him.  I give you the money and we part ways.  You head home but little do you know that you are being trailed by the junkie who eventually catches up with you, stabs you to death and steals the money.  Now you're dead and all because I gave you the money.  
But of course I couldn't have known that when I was giving you the money.  That's the thing.  Without knowledge of all the factors that will play upon a situation it is impossible to make a moral judgement on anything.  Yet as M_nwankwo has stated he has a faculty that can guide straight from the 'book of life' (this is not a term that I would use myself) not on the partial knowledge that the carnal mind has.

From the point of view of the carnal mind certain events might seem wrong or evil yet because it doesn't have the Panoramic view of the spirit it cannot see how the event is actually the best thing that can happen.  

To further demonstrate how hard it is for the carnal mind to properly make an appraisal of good or bad there is this Chinese folk tale that I like very much:

Some upon a time a poor peasant farmer lived on his farm house with his horse and his son.  One morning his horse ran away.

His neighbours came running to commiserate.  'Ah poor fellow, what a terrible misfortune.  This is bad, this is very bad.  How are you going to work your fields now?'

Yet the farmer, being an enlightened fellow simply shrugged.  "Good fortune, Bad fortune, who knows.  I'm just going to remain centered and at peace."
As it happened, the next day the horse returned and following it closely behind was another fine stallion.  You see, the horse had been on heat and now it had attracted this other wild stallion.   Now the farmer had two horses.

Excited, his neighbours came running to congratulate him.  'You lucky lucky fellow, what Good fortune.  If you horse hadn't run away yesterday you wouldn't have 2 horse today.  Chei your luck dey shine oooooo, you dis guy!'  (That's pidgen chinese in translation to pidgen english)

Yet the farmer, being an enlightened fellow simply shrugged. "Good fortune, Bad fortune, who knows.  I'm just going to remain centered and at peace."
As it happened, the next day the man's son was attempting to tame the wild stallion when the horse threw him and kicked him.  He broke his leg.

His neighbours came running to commiserate.  ' you unfortunate guy.  Why now?  If you horse didn't run away day before yesterday and brought back that stupid stallion yesterday your son will still be walking today.  Who is going to help you till your fields now?  Kai this is bad'.  

Yet the farmer, being an enlightened fellow simply shrugged. "Good fortune, Bad fortune, who knows.  I'm just going to remain centered and at peace."
As it then happened, the very next day the emperor's army came into the village to recruit every able-bodied young man to go to that never ending war that they've been fighting against the barbarians.  No one's son has been known to return from that war.  The army took the sons of all his neighbours.  They left his son due to his broken foot (which would take about a month to heal).

His neighbours came running to him in tears.  'You lucky lucky guy . . . . . . etc'


How many times do we mean well and totally mess up somebody else's settings.  Or better example is  . .  . From a child's perspective going to school is boring and negative.  It would be good if he could just play all day.  Surely his parents are punishing him for nothing by sending him to school and then extra lessons.  Yet from the parent's perspective they are doing the best for the child because they can see a bigger picture.  They know that the child will need to learn skills for his adulthood.  There is an even bigger such gap between the viewpoint of the spirit and the viewpoint of the carnal mind.  

Krayola:

The "way God made him to be": compassion vs survival . Which do you think is universal (or is any really universal, which one do u think is closer to universal). And when shit hits the fan, which one trumps the other (assuming it was possible for one to be in a natural, "unconditioned" state).

I don't think one can have an attitude towards anything, without experience (conditioning). One would just be indifferent IMO, or maybe curious. Compassion, benevolence, or all these other attitudes that we consider to be "good" or "right" are not indifferent attitudes.

I don't see what compassion vs survival has to do with what I'm saying.  I also don't think, as you seem to be saying, that compassion is the opposite of survival.  
Again you seem to neglect the individuality of human beings.  Everyone has some measure of compassion and everything has survival instinct.  However in some people compassion is stronger than in others.  It is also possible, as history shows, that humans can be capable of sacrifice which is a suppression of the survival instinct.  

Maybe you can't have an attitude towards anything without conditioning but the essential nature doesn't need to have an attitude towards anything.  It only needs to do the right thing.  Attitudes come from the carnal mind.  Remember the quote from the buddhistdoor site.

For example, an awakened being is not caught up with thoughts of stealing or not stealing, but effortlessly leads a life of spotless integrity. Giving and charity are done without any thought of 'myself' that is giving. Awakened beings help others but without any concept of helping, thus there is the natural arising of compassion.

There is no concept of doing good or whatever but what you do arises spontaneously not from any attitude or opinion about anything.  

Is one's essential state one's state at birth, or conception? Is getting to your essential nature returning to the state of insecurity, self-absorption and ignorance of a child?

Nirvana (I think that is what Buddhists call enlightenment) is essentially, IMO, a state of emptiness. Some will say that is the real state of reality, but I think that it could be argued that it is an escape from reality. Nirvana itself could be a conditioned state . . . . .a sort of "delusion" of detachment that has to be learned.  I'm also not sure i'm convinced how a state of detachment necessarily makes one more compassionate or happier.

If one's essential nature is one of detachment, what is the point? How would being indifferent to suffering make u want to end someone else's suffering?

I believe that you are letting your preconceptions of Nirvana get in the way.  

What other nature do we have?

By the animal nature I understand the aspect that can be conditioned by environment.  Then by the Essential nature I understand a more divine aspect.

There is so much more that you touch on that I'm not going to go into in order to keep it short and streamlined.  I still have to address the other posts too.

Chrisbenogor:

Very Nice Intro

This is what sends chills down my spine, consider this pastor
I think it is evident that when religion, beliefs, life and choices are reduced to its barest minimum it is about the choices people make, and we can see that deep down inside we are all different one way or the other. My question is if you say the right thing is written in our hearts, would two people who have the 'ability' to access it through the spirit always agree on the right things to do? What if we increase the number to ten or one hundred? Would 1000 people who access the right thing through the spirit all come up with the same decision? That is my problem with that line of thought, I think we are all fundamentally different and we will make choices based on the circumstances we find ourselves.


My take though is that when we reduce most of our decisions to the barest minimum it is mostly about survival, the will the survive to want to live on is stronger than many other things, a lion will have no qualms killing a deer because it has to survive even if it means the life of another animal, a look into the animal world IMO gives us a glimpse that mirrors our everyday life, right or wrong stricto senso IMO is impossible to attain, but fairness and justice can be striven for.

You are still thinking in terms of codes and general rules applying to everybody at all times. What is right today may not be right tomorrow. What works for me may not work for you. You are not bearing in mind the individuality of human beings. You are not bearing in mind the uniqueness of various situations.

To use Krayola's example above, My spirit might tell me not to give him a penny though he might be my best friend yet another guy who doesn't even know neither of us, but just overheard our conversation, might feel inspired by his spirit to suddenly give it to him. It would be right for that guy but not right for me. Each situation is unique, each person is unique. What applies to me will not necessarily apply to another person.

I don't get what you mean by survival and how it pertains to this discussion. In the animal world I have seen many examples of sacrifice too. Mothers making sacrifice for their babies etc. It's true that survival is a strong factor in our behaviour but it is not the be all and end all.

m_nwankwo:

I am not sure that Deepsight and other discussants understand what Pastor AIO is saying. The human words and concepts are so limited that when Pastor AIO clothes experential spirituality with words, discusants seem to understand the forms (concepts, words etc) but not the eternal reality that to me is very self evident in Pastor AIO replies. Just an example. Pastor AIO was asked by someone whether is is posssible to be saved without knowing Jesus Christ even though the person have been practing true love. Pastor AIO answered with a question "how come that such a person practice true love?" (put in my own words). On the surface it may appear that Pastor AIO did not answer the question but in my view he answered it in very few short words. Pastor AIO can correct me if that is not what he meant but what I understand him to say it that he who practices genuine love already have Christ for there can be no genuine love without Christ and no Christ without genuine love. Thus if Mahatma Gandi practiced true love, then he knows Christ even if he was not a "christian" in an earthly sense. I will allow PastorAIO to answer Chris question on what he meant by "right thing" and if two or more peaple that have access to the "right thing" will agree if each person is to give form to the "right thing". Cheers.

KunleOshob:

[size=24pt]^GBAM!!! [/size] The highlighted above is what a lot of people find difficulty in coming to terms with. It's so simple yet so confusing. I guess the problem is religious dogmatism and over zealousness on the part of adherents right from the time the biblical texts were being written. More to come whilst i eagerly await pastor's confirmation or rejection of m_nwanko's submission.

From my experience of Christ I believe that knowledge of him results first in a sense of being Loved. The world suddenly becomes more cosy, nothing will harm you. The Love is almost tangible it emanates off everything around. It is out of this feeling of being loved, or love pouring unto you that it gets to a certain level that it overflows and you start to exhibit the love back in your actions. It then seems like the love is pouring out of you.

You're not forcing yourself to love (or act as if you love) because that is what it says in the rule books. It is a part of your nature, you can't help it. Love becomes effortless. Whereas with the carnal mind it is something that you beat yourself up over. "I must be more loving. I must be kind because this is what the bible says I must do. Why didn't I show that other guy kindness, that was wrong of me, father please forgive me, I will make myself a more loving person by force by force by force."

As for the matter of dodging questions, there are some questions that I may not want to answer directly for any number of reasons. eg. I might be unsure about the premise of the question. Or I may just be trying to protect my privacy. I won't deny not wanting to answer certain questions, but that's my prerogative, don't you think?

Deep Sight:

Pastor, the contradictions are too many. Let me elucidate.

In one breath you said -

Thus expressly acceding to both the existence of God, and the fact that HE/SHE/IT is the Creator. Because you stated. . . "The way God made him to be. . . "

Then in another breath you stated -

- Which suggest that God remains for you undefined. I really cannot understand this and this is what i meant when i stated that your answers are often laced with great ambiguity. It surely cannot be too hard to state, for example, as i do - "I believe in the existence of a Prime Mover existing outside space and time embedded with the qualities of Power and Intelligence, and this i call God". Or to state as the Atheists do - "God does not exist". . . i am fairly certain that from past threads you have a knowledge of what I mean when i use the word "God". So when i ask you to state your position on the existence of God, i am at odds that you descend into a whirlpool of questions on defining God, and as usual, evasively end up not stating your position on the existence of God!

Please help. This is what i have meant in the past when i say you are vague and contradictory. I want you to define a stance, such that i am able to have a firm platform for engaging your very interesting mind. Without this, i will merely be swimming in a sea of fog and mist, lost, when talking with you.

I entirely deny that my questions to you were vague. Who can genuinely state that he does not have an idea of what it means to talk about spiritual salvation, be it in a christian or moslem context! As children, we were all accustomed to ideas of "heaven" and "hell" - whether or not those places exist, the point is that you perfectly well understand what the words "Heaven", "Paradise" and "Salvation" connote, but rather than answer the question, as has become customary of you, you again evasively stated -

This very strange, if not outrightly dubious, in consideration of your previous expositions on the questions of God, Redemption, Salvation and Grace, as contained in this Post you made last year - (note the parts i have emboldened) -

In this post, you have shown a very personal belief in God, Redemption through faith and grace, as well as an understanding of a concept of salvation??

I am troubled that whereas you once were expounding what you perceived as Truth, now you are content to descend into whirlpools of definitions.

And although i am aghast to say it, but i verily believe that in this respect you have been strongly influenced by the approach of many of the atheists on this Forum.

Think about this.

Go and have a look at your very old posts. Compare them with the recent ones. What is uniform in both is that you have always shown knowledge, objectivity, and a strong intellect. However in the old posts you were happy to expound on spiritual truths even in a christain context (as in the quote above) whereas nowadays it is very difficult to even get you to admit the existence of a spiritual realm.

For example, i asked you what you thought about life after death. Unsurprisingly, the now usual evasive answer -

You must admit that you have changed a great deal.

Might i ask you what advised your decision to chose the username "Pastor"? Was it at the time rooted in any affiliation with Christianity?

I honestly hope you will not say this too is a vague question.

I am still waiting for you to address the earlier questions i put to you on God, Agnosticism, Salvation, Jesus and Life after death.

Please dont be vague this time, or the essence of this thread would be comprehensively defeated.

Thanks.

This Deepsight guy, you really have some Deep insight. I didn't imagine that you would make such a comprehensive investigation into me. To answer you adequately I need a bit more time. I'm trying to answer everyone's posts today and get it done with but your own needs like at least an hour to properly deal with. I'll be back.

The following is Pastor AIO's very second post on Nairaland.  I think it gives a lot of insight into my attitude to christianity and the sort of christian I am. 

Pastor AIO:

Please I would like to make a little contribution to the 'debate'.  I am writing this peacefully, je je-ly, and respectfully to all parties.  I have found that argument and strife will always exists amongst doctrinal religionist for a very simple reason.  No two human beings can think the same thing about the same topic/doctrine.  [/b]To the extent that we are all individuals then our concepts and beliefs will reflect this individuality. 
Hence as soon as christianity gets [b]reduced to a doctrinal matter it becomes a cat and dog fight. What a lot of new age pentecostalists do not realise is that many of the points that they accept as being christian were argued over by the Catholic and Orthodox churches of the first millenium to the present day. The very divinity of Jesus christ was argued over for many decades before it was decided that yes indeed he was divine, and not only divine but one and the same as God, the father. Every time the church agreed on one doctrine it would then hound those that didn't believe it as heretics.  Many times over the course of it's history various christians kept finding themselves being safe one minute and then excluded as heretics the next only to be reinstated as orthodox yet again.  [size=15]Being Christian is not an intellectual exercise, but rather it is living life with power and authority through grace.[/size]

I would highly recommend that everyone spends some time studying the history of the Church.  Especially the first 500 years from the time of Paul to the time that Rome fell to the barbarians. 

Although I am extremely capable of juggling concepts and doctrines and and engaging in all sorts of speculative religionism, for me Religion (not religionism) is about practical living, based on experience.

Pastor AIO:


From my experience of Christ I believe that knowledge of him results first in a sense of being Loved. The world suddenly becomes more cosy, nothing will harm you. The Love is almost tangible it emanates off everything around. It is out of this feeling of being loved, or love pouring unto you that it gets to a certain level that it overflows and you start to exhibit the love back in your actions. It then seems like the love is pouring out of you.

You're not forcing yourself to love (or act as if you love) because that is what it says in the rule books. It is a part of your nature, you can't help it. Love becomes effortless. Whereas with the carnal mind it is something that you beat yourself up over. "I must be more loving. I must be kind because this is what the bible says I must do. Why didn't I show that other guy kindness, that was wrong of me, father please forgive me, I will make myself a more loving person by force by force by force."

As for the matter of dodging questions, there are some questions that I may not want to answer directly for any number of reasons. eg. I might be unsure about the premise of the question. Or I may just be trying to protect my privacy. I won't deny not wanting to answer certain questions, but that's my prerogative, don't you think?

why did u evade the question?

Deep Sight:

^^^ Nice One, Duduspace. . . I entirely agree.

Its just that in Pastor's case the contradictions seem to still be inherent in posts even on this very thread. There of course has never been a problem with changing one's perspective.

Pastor has a brilliant analytical mind and that's the only reason i want him to be perfectly clear, such that i am able to understand him, and have a basis for interacting with him.

I think that is probably because Pastor himself is still in the "By any means necessary" mode I mentioned earlier in my post. But I think he is well on his way to true enlightenment which is when you are able to own up to the limits of your own knowledge.
He has already started questioning the postulations of organized religion and he is coming to his own conclusions as he goes along but he has never allowed himself to question the inconsistencies of the god concept yet, rather blaming human beings(organized religion) as being responsible for the inconsistencies while overlooking the obvious fact that god is yet to reveal himself to everyone (in a general or consistent way that is) thereby making those inconsistencies a sure outcome (even if he truly exists).

Deep Sight:

The perfect religion (if it may be called that) for an agnostic is the pure form of Buddhism. Go and consider it, it's really excellent stuff. I am still flirting with it, the only differentiating area being my Deist inclination which is somewhat at odds with pure Buddhism, which is silent on the question of a Deity.

My sister has recommended the same for me and I might study it someday but at present I'm quite content living as an Apathetic Agnostic.

Deep Sight:


   1. Even for the world to come into existence by randomness, matter still had to be there somehow. What was the source of that matter. I ask this, because matter, unlike intangible quantities, cannot be eternal in either the future or past tense? Phaps we may say it is eternal in the sense of continuous change of state. . . But surely, it cannot be an "always been" like abstract entities are. . .? Thus your randomness supposition commences at a point where matter is already in existence. I want to address the cause or trigger of ALL existence.

   2. Recall the argument i amde about the random pebbles and the square. I know you responded to that. But those linear lines of the square will still be very hard to come by even in eternal time given the random principle. Do you know why? Because Randomness by its very nature is defined as haphazard . . . that's why even eternal time would not throw up the sort of lined square that i gave you IF RANDOMNESS IS THE PRINCIPLE reconsider this. . .

  3. Randomness not really likely to throw up the initial energy for the "Big Bang". . . conceptually contradictory, yes?

1.
A very interesting and quite a worthwhile objective but will always come with the fallacy of the first cause.
Even if we cast the fallacy aside and proceed, then how can you really be definite there is only one such prime mover  responsible? why eliminate the possibility of multiple prime movers or even an entire race of such prime movers? and why exactly must it be intelligent? possibly because we are intelligent and so must have been created by someone also intelligent right, but in all honesty, do you consider everything about our existence intelligent? haven't you ever questioned some things? like why do we have natural disasters? or why do we have people born with mental health issues? why would an intelligent creator create such?
My basic point is, we are the ones making gods for ourselves (in our own image) to resolve the inconsistencies in our very existence, no surprise then that all such gods come with their own set of inconsistencies.

2.
I think you are going with the very basic description of randomness and random processes. A random process is a repeating process whose outcomes follow no describable deterministic pattern, but follow a probability distribution, such that the relative probability of the occurrence of each outcome can be approximated or calculated.
If you consider our existence as such a random process, anything (every event or combination of events) that can happen has a relative probability (no matter how minute) and when you combine this with infinite time or "eternity" then anything that can happen is sure to happen somehow someway. So, if you take our very existence as a combination of events, it has a probability which you might consider to be so small as to be totally impossible but which when put in the context of infinite time becomes a sure outcome.
I am however not saying that this is exactly how we came to be in existence but I can't fault the logic behind such a view and it is one I strongly tend towards these days because it accounts for all the inconsistencies I find in other theories.

3. Within a Universal sample space encompassing all things we know and those we don't, the initial energy for the big bang is an event with a probability attached to it which is sure to happen given infinite time.

Pastor AIO may not explain his beliefs to suit what discussants suspect of his religious inclination. But my view is that Pastor AIO have not changed even by a hairs breath from his original religious convictions. I also do not think that any argument or debate from any body will change his convictions. I am not holding brief for him but I think that his position is being misunderstood by many. Many of the questioners seem to have a perception of what they think are Pastor AIO convictions and counsciously or uncounsciously expect him to confirm their suspicision. But Pastor AIO gives an answer which accurately describes his spiritual convictions but the answers cannot be put into defined religious boxes. Pastor AIO answers inspite of the clarity and depth cannot be understood as long as discussants want to fit his answers into  defined religious concepts. This in my view is the main reason why he is being accused of not being clear or evasive. I do not agree with some of his convictions for we have had very serious debates where we agreed to disagree. But he is very honest about what his convictions are.

^^^Dudu Space -

In order that this thread is not derailed into another "Proof of God's Existence" thread, i will meet you up on another thread to discuss these. But very briefy, let me point out a few things -

duduspace:


why eliminate the possibility of multiple prime movers or even an entire race of such prime movers?

The words "multiple" and "prime" are an incurable contradiction in themselves. Reflect closely on this.

duduspace:


haven't you ever questioned some things? like why do we have natural disasters? or why do we have people born with mental health issues? why would an intelligent creator create such?

Natural Disasters re-balance the earth's cycles and eco-systems. Predators control cattle populations. . .  etc. Again, reflect closely.

duduspace:


Within a Universal sample space encompassing all things we know and those we don't, the initial energy for the big bang is an event with a probability attached to it which is sure to happen given infinite time.

Come on! I almost had to chuckle at this. Prior to the big bang, what nothingness was there? You seem not able to step out of the bubble of things already existing, within which you input possibilities. . . Let's discuss nothing existing (singluarity/ pre-big bang). What endless possibilities could exist in such? Nil. Have you reflected on the law of motion? Notice how nothing can move without being moved by something alreay moving. . .?

But let's not derail the thread. Rather than do, that, i will revive the old thread on empirical reasonong and continue where it stopped, as i never got to conclude on all the empirical reasoning approcahes i feel are available.

Pastor, where are you?

Pastor AIO:

To use Krayola's example above, My spirit might tell me not to give him a penny though he might be my best friend yet another guy who doesn't even know neither of us, but just overheard our conversation, might feel inspired by his spirit to suddenly give it to him.  It would be right for that guy but not right for me.  Each situation is unique, each person is unique.  What applies to me will not necessarily apply to another person.  

How then do you explain the spirit of an insane person? or what exactly is it that makes a psycopath kill without compulsion or an iota of guilt? are you saying that killing innocent people is not right for the rest of us but right for such people?

What of those who have been brainwashed from when they were impressionable? does that suggest a link between the brain and the spirit? if that exists to what extent do they affect each other and which one is dominant over the other?

If this spirit exists as you say, and every individual has one, just like every individual breathes air and ejects waste, why then is the experience so different for the individual (or virtually none existent in some) besides, at what point exactly do you stop using your brain and start using your spirit?