Swali kwa Viongozi CHADEMA: Kumwombea Mbowe ni sehemu ya ibada kwa Mungu yupi?

[JUAN MANUEL]

View attachment 1897959
Rodrick Lutembeka, mmoja wa viongozi wa Baraza la Wazee Chadema​

Tangu Freeman Mbowe alipokamatawa na kufunguliwa mashtaka yanayohusiana na ugaidi, viongozi wa Chadema Mwanza, Morogoro na Dar es Salaam wamekuwa wanahamasisha maombi katika makanisa mbalimbali, bila kujali Mbowe anamwamini Mungu yupi.

Kuna wanaopeleka matoleo kwenye parokia za Kanisa Katoliki. Wengine wanapepeleka makanisa ya KKKT. Na baadhi wanasali novena barabarani.

Kama mambo haya yangefanyika kabla ya Matengenezo ya Kiprotestanti (Reformation) yaliyoendeshwa na Martin Luther wa Ujerumani, yangeweza kuingia akilini. Wakati huo Kanisa la Kikristo lilikuwa moja. Lakini hali sio hivyo leo.

Swali kuu na majibu yangu

Kwa hiyo, ninawaalika Viongozi wa Chadema kujiuliza na kujibu swali lifuatalo: Kumwombea Mbowe ni sehemu ya ibada kwa Mungu yupi?

Kwa kuzingatia matakwa ya kanuni ya kutambua kitu kimoja chenye majina tofauti, kanuni ya kutofautisha vitu vinavyohesabika, na kanuni ya kutengeneza fasili zinazotaja sifa za lazima na zenye kutosheleza utambulisho wa kitu, binafsi napendekeza yafuatayo:

• Kwamba, Mungu wa KKKT anayeabudiwa na Mbowe ni tofauti na Mungu wa Wakatoliki wanayeabudiwa na wafuasi wa Mbowe ambao ni Wakatoliki;
• Na kwamba, kwa sababu hiyo, Mbowe hana haki ya kuombewa na wafuasi wake kupitia kwa Mungu asiyemwamini.

Mbowe hamtambui Mungu wa Wakatoliki tangu siku alipobatizwa chini ya madhehebu ya KKKT, na hadi leo hajatwambia kama amemkana Mungu wa KKKT na kumkubali Mungu wa Wakatoliki.

Kwa hiyo, Mungu wa Wakatoliki hawezi kusikiliza wala kupokea matoleo yanayopelekwa ndani ya Kanisa Katoliki kwa ajili ya kumwomba Mungu wa Wakatoliki amtetee Mbowe, mpaka hapo Mbowe atakapomkiri kwamba yeye pekee ndiye Mungu wa kweli.

Hivyo, viongozi wa Chadema wanapaswa kuacha maigizo kama yale ya "mitano kwanza" na "mitano tena" tuliyoshuhudia mwaka jana.

Vinginevyo watayafikisha makanisa mahali ambapo kanisa lile lile moja linapokea matoleo ya kuomba mbowe atiwe hatiani na kuyabariki leo; halafu kesho yake, kanisa hilo hilo linapokea matoleo ya kuomba mbowe asitiwe hatiani na kuyabariki.

Dini zitadhalilika sana kwa njia hii.

Nijuavyo mimi, ukweli ni kwamba: Mungu anayewaunga mkono watu wanaotaka Mbowe atiwe hatiani na Mungu anayewaunga mkono watu wanaotaka Mbowe asitiwe hatiani ni Miungu wawili tofauti!

Lakini, tunafundishwa kuwa Mungu wa kweli habadiliki wala kubadilisha mawazo yake.

Kwa hiyo, mmojawapo kati ya miungu hawa wawili atakuwa ni Mungu feki, yaani Mungu wa kuchonga (constructed God), wakati mwingine ni Mungu wa kweli (essential God).

Kanuni tatu za kuongoza mjadala:

Kusudi, viongozi wa Chadema waweze kuelewa msingi wa swali langu hapo juu na kulitendea haki, hapa chini nafafanua kanuni TATU zinazopaswa kuongoza mjadala huu. Kanuni hizo ni:

• kanuni ya kutambua kitu kimoja chenye majina tofauti,
• kanuni ya kutofautisha vitu vinavyohesabika, na
• kanuni ya kutengeneza fasili zinazotaja sifa za lazima na zenye kutosheleza utambulisho wa kitu.

Kanuni ya kutambua kitu kimoja chenye majina tofauti

Mosi, ni kanuni ya kutambua kitu kimoja chenye majina tofauti, yaani the principle of the Identity of indescernibles.

Kwa mujibu wa kanuni hii, kunapokuwa na majina mawili yanayorejea kitu kimoja kile kile, hiyo maana yake ni kwamba, kila sifa iliyofungamana na kitu chenye jina la kwanza pia imefungamana na kitu chenye jina la pili, na kinyume chake ni kweli.

Yaani, kwa kila jozi ya vitu, kimoja kikiwa na jina X na na kingine kikiwa jina Y, jina X litakuwa linamaanisha kitu kile kile kitu kinachorejewa na jina Y, endapo na endapo tu:

Kwa pamoja, sentensi kwamba:

(1) kila sifa iliyofungamana na kitu X pia imefungamana na kitu Y;

na sentensi kwamba:

(2) kila sifa iliyofungamana na kitu Y pia imefungamana na kitu X.

ni za kweli.

Kwa mfano,

• Julius ni jina linalorejea mtu yule yule anayeitwa Nyerere. Yaani, Julius na Nyerere ni majina ya kitu kimoja.
• Na, DOG ni jina linalorejea kitu kile kile kinachoitwa MBWA. Yaani, DOG na MBWA ni majina ya kitu kimoja.

Kanuni ya kutofautisha vitu vinavyohesabika

Pili, ni kanuni ya kutofautisha vitu vinavyohesabika, yaani the principle of dissimilarity of the diverse.

Kwa mujibu wa kanuni hii, kunapokuwa na majina mawili yanayorejea vitu tofauti kwa mujibu wa utaratibu wa kuhesabu, basi, hiyo maana yake ni kwamba, sio kila sifa iliyofungamana na kitu chenye jina la kwanza pia imefungamana na kitu chenye jina la pili, na kinyume chake ni kweli.

Yaani, kwa kila jozi ya vitu, kimoja kikiwa na jina X na na kingine kikiwa jina Y, jina X litakuwa linamaanisha kitu tofauti na kile kitu kinachorejewa na jina Y, endapo na endapo tu:

Ama:

(1) katika seti ya sifa za kitu X angalau kuna sifa moja P, ambayo haipatikani kwenye seti ya sifa za kitu Y,

Au:

(2) katika seti ya sifa za kitu Y angalau kuna sifa moja Q, ambayo haipatikani kwenye seti ya sifa za kitu X.

Kwa mfano:

• Mipira miwili ya tufe, iliyowekwa mezani, na ambayo inafanana kwa kila kitu, bado tunaitambua kuwa ni mipira miwili tofauti kwa kuwa, kila mpira unayo anwani yake ya kijiografia. Hata watoto mapacha sisisi tunawatofautisha kwa njia hiyo.
• Vivyo hivyo, Miungu inayependa kuabudiwa Ijumaa (Miungu ya Waislamu) na Miungu inayependa kuabudiwa Jumapili (Miungu ya Wakristo) ni Miungu tofauti, kwa sababu hiyo pekee.
• Kadhalika, Miungu inayependa kuabudiwa Jumamosi (Miungu ya Wasabato) na Miungu inayependa kuabudiwa Jumapili (Miungu ya Wakristo bado) ni Miungu tofauti, kwa sababu hiyo pekee.
• Aidha, Miungu inayoruhusu waamini kutumia kondomu (Miungu ya Waanglikana) na Miungu inayokataza kondomu (Miungu ya Wakatoliki) ni Miungu tofauti, kwa sababu hiyo pekee.
• Vile vile, Miungu inayokataza makuhani kuoa (Miungu ya Wakatoliki) na Miungu inayoruhusu makuhani kuoa (Miungu ya Waanglikana na Walutheri) ni Miungu tofauti, kwa sababu hiyo pekee.
• Mungu anayewaunga mkono watu wanaotaka Mbowe atiwe hatiani na Mungu anayewaunga mkono watu wanaotaka Mbowe asitiwe hatiani ni Miungu wawili tofauti!
• Na mifano inaendelea kama inavyothibitishwa na utitiri wa usajili wa taasisis za kidini katika ofisi ya Wizara ya Mambo ya Ndani.

Kanuni ya kutengeneza fasili zinazotaja sifa za lazima na zenye kutosheleza utambulisho wa kitu

Na tatu, ni kanuni ya kutengeneza fasili zinazotaja sifa za lazima na zenye kutosheleza utambulisho wa kitu. Yaani necessary and sufficient definitions.

Ukitaka kukitambulisha kitu kama vile kitu chenye umbo mraba, kwa namna ambayo inatofautisha umbo mraba na vitu baki, lazima kutaja vigezo vinavyomwezesha msikilizaji kufanya mambo mawili.

Mosi, ni kutambua mraba ni kitu gani. Na pili ni kutambua mraba sio kitu gani.

Kazi hizi mbili zinafanyika kwa njia ya kutaja vigezo ambavyo ni vya lazima na vyenye kutosheleza utambulisho wa kitu kinachoongelewa.

Kuhusu vigezo vya lazima, tuchukue mfano wa fasili ya kitu chenye umbe la mraba. Ni lazima kila mraba uwe na pande nne.

Lakini, sifa hii haitoshi kuutofautisha mraba na maumbo baki kama vile mstatili ambayo pia yanazo pande nne.

Na kwa upande mwingine, kuna vigezo ambavyo vinatosheleza kukitambulisha kitu, lakini sio vya lazima kwa ajili ya utambulisho huo.

Mfano, katika mazingira ya shule mwanafunzi anayepata alama ya A anapasi kozi.

Lakini, alama ya A sio alama ya lazima ili kumfanya wanafunzi huyo apasi kozi. Anaweza kupasi kwa kupata alama ya B, C au hata alama D.

Hivyo, kupata alama ya A ni kigezo cha lazima katika kupasi kozi, lakini sio kigezo kinachotosheleza matakawa ya kumpa mwanafunzi sifa ya kuhesabiwa amepasi mtihani, kwani hata wale wanaopata B, C na D hupasi pia.

Kwa sababu hii, kwa ajili ya kueleza mraba ni kitu gani na sio kitu gani kwa mpigo, tunahitaji mambo mawili:

(1) kutaja kigezo kimoja kimoja ambacho ni lazima kihusike katika kutambulisha mraba.

Na (2) kutaja seti ya vigezo vyote ambavyo kwa pamoja vitatosheleza kutofautisha mraba na maumbo baki yenye pande nne.

Kwa hakika, kila mraba lazima uwe na sifa zifuatazo kwa mpigo: pande nne, pande zilizo nyooka, pande zinazolingana, pande zilizoungana katika ncha zake, pale zilizo katika ubapa mmoja, na lazima uwe na kona nne zenye nyuzo 90 kila moja.

Kanuni hizi tatu zilizotajwa hapo juu, zinapaswa kutumika katika kutambua na kutambulisha kitu chochote kama vile mbuzi, kondoo, mti, mtu, miungu, na kadhalika.

Hivyo basi:

Ukweli ndio huo, na hayo ndiyo madhara yasiyotarajiwa yaliyoletwa na Matengenezo ya Kiprotestanti (Reformation) yaliyoaasisiwa na Matrin Luther wa Ujerumani.

Kwa uelewa zaidi soma kitabu: The Unintended Reformation: How a Religious Revolution Secularized Society by Brad S. Gregory (Attached).

Wakati shetani JPM anaomba watu wamuombee,unafikiri alikuwa anaombewa vipi?
Yeye mkatoriki,alienda misikitini,kwa walutheri,kwa walokole kote huko akaomba aombewe!!
Mbona hukukosoa?

 

[Mindi]

Hata sijaelewa unachoandika. Kwamba "Petro, ambaye Authority yake imetumika katika Injili ya Marko, na ambaye ameandika pia Nyaraka 2 katika Biblia, hakuwa mwanafalsafa".

Kwani uanafalsafa ni kitu gani na mwanafalsafa ni nani? Mwanafalsafa ni mtu yeyote anayefanya udadavuzi wa kirazini kwa kutumia kanuni za fikra makini. Kwa kigezo hiki Petro alikuwa mwanafalsafa.

Habari ya "uvuvio wa Roho Mtakatifu" wambie wakatekumeni. Soma zaidi hapa: Did the Holy Spirit inspire the Bible's authors to write without any errors?

Nimesoma hiyo rejea yako, inaeleza msimamo wa "Liberal Christians ". Kwa kusoma mtiririko wa hoja zako, wewe wala siyo "Liberal Christian" wala siyo Mkristu, sababu unaongea habari ya Mungu wa Agano la Kale, tofauti na Mungu wa Agano Jipya, na unaongelea habari ya miungu.
Sasa wewe ndio wa kuhoji habari ya wakatoliki kumuombea mtu wa K.K.K.T.? of course wala hutaelewa.
Wala sishangai kwamba huelewi habari ya "Authority" ya Petro. Hapo naongelea Kanisa lilivyotambua Injili kutokana na kanuni kwamba sharti iwe na Authority ya Apostle, au Mtume Paulo.

Petro siyo mwanafalsafa, ni mvuvi aliyevuviwa na Roho Mtakatifu. Hizo belief zako ni za kwako. Mkristu anaweza kumwombea binadamu yeyote, sababu Ukombozi wa Yesu ni kwa viumbe vyote.

Kama wewe siyo Mkristu, inakuhusu nini? Wala hulazimishwi kuwa Mkristu

 

[Mindi]

Wakatoliki hukataa kumzika mtu aliyekuwa anaabudu madhehebu tofauti.

Vivyo hivyo, hawapaswi kumwombea mtu anayekataa Ukatoliki kama anavyofanya Mbowe ambaye ni muumini wa KKKT mpaka leo.

Usahihi: Wakatoliki hawampi mazishi ya heshima ya Kanisa asiye mkatoliki, au aliyekana imani ya Katoliki, kama alikuwa Katoliki. Lakini mtu huyo huyo baada ya kuzikwa, anaweza "kuombewa Misa", hata inaweza kuadhimishwa Misa ya Wafu kwa ajili yake. Lengo ni kuto"reward" wanaopuuza imani yao, wakati wa mazishi, lakini kwa kuwa Kanisa halihukumu, mtu yeyote anaweza kuombewa. Usiongelee usiyoyajua

 

[Doctor Mama Amon]

Usahihi: Wakatoliki hawampi mazishi ya heshima ya Kanisa asiye mkatoliki, au aliyekana imani ya Katoliki, kama alikuwa Katoliki. Lakini mtu huyo huyo baada ya kuzikwa, anaweza "kuombewa Misa", hata inaweza kuadhimishwa Misa ya Wafu kwa ajili yake. Lengo ni kuto"reward" wanaopuuza imani yao, wakati wa mazishi, lakini kwa kuwa Kanisa halihukumu, mtu yeyote anaweza kuombewa. Usiongelee usiyoyajua

Your supposed accuracy is denied. And I have two points in response.

• One is epistemological.
• The second is ontological.

Epistemological response: You have not provided authority to support your claims. Why should I believe your claim?

Ontological response: This is about my argument from the principle of individuation. I restate it as follows:

1. The principle of necessary and sufficient conditions for individuality states that wherever there is property difference between two entities there is numeric diversity and that wherever there is absolute property similarity between two entities there is numerical identity.
2. There are property differences between Catholic God, Lutheran God, Islamic God, SDA God , etc
3. Thus, Catholic God, Lutheran God, Islamic God, SDA God, and so on, are distinct Gods, where the existence of each God is practically asserted by its followers and practically denied by its non-followers.

Accordingly:

• For a catholic X, Lutheran God is not.
• A believer in the non-existence of a given God is called an atheist.
• Thus, with respect to Lutheran God, X is an atheist.

Again:

• For Lutheran Y, catholic God is not.
• A believer in the non-existence of a given God is called an atheist.
• Thus, with respect to catholic God, Y is an atheist.

In effect:

• We pray for atheists so that they may be converted from unbelief status to belief status and not otherwise.
• For these reasons, all Lutherans including Mbowe are atheists with respect to Catholic God.
• And all Catholics, including Pope Francis, are atheists with respect to Lutheran God.

Finally:

This is what the elementary metaphysical principle of individuation, properly understood, teaches us.


Volume inatosha au ningeze tena kidogo?

 

[Doctor Mama Amon]

Petro siyo mwanafalsafa, ni mvuvi aliyevuviwa na Roho Mtakatifu. Hizo belief zako ni za kwako. Mkristu anaweza kumwombea binadamu yeyote, sababu Ukombozi wa Yesu ni kwa viumbe vyote.

Aristotle alikuwa mwanafalsafa mwenye cheti kutoka wapi? Yesu Je? Ni vivyo hivyo kwa Petro. Mwanafalsafa ni yeyote aliye na uwezo wa kufikiri kinaganaga na kimantiki. period. Kwa kigezo hiki, Biblia iliandikwa na wanafalsafa. Evidence external to the Bible inathibitisha hilo.

 

[Doctor Mama Amon]

Nimesoma hiyo rejea yako, inaeleza msimamo wa "Liberal Christians ". Kwa kusoma mtiririko wa hoja zako, wewe wala siyo "Liberal Christian" wala siyo Mkristu, sababu unaongea habari ya Mungu wa Agano la Kale, tofauti na Mungu wa Agano Jipya, na unaongelea habari ya miungu.
Sasa wewe ndio wa kuhoji habari ya wakatoliki kumuombea mtu wa K.K.K.T.?

A logically incoherent, theologically primitive and philosophically naïve response.

 

[Mindi]

A logically incoherent, theologically primitive and philosophically naïve response.

Usomi wako ni feki pia. Unalazimisha watu waone kila kitu kama wewe ulivyo narrow minded. Eti "theologically primitive" my foot! Hiyo Teolojia yako ya copy and paste? Sihitaji "msomi" wa aina yeyote, least of all a confused Lady, kunifafanulia ninachoamini. Imani hutoka kwa Mungu, my dear, Neno sahihi huimarisha.

 

[Doctor Mama Amon]

Usomi wako ni feki pia. Unalazimisha watu waone kila kitu kama wewe ulivyo narrow minded. Eti "theologically primitive" my foot! Hiyo Teolojia yako ya copy and paste? Sihitaji "msomi" wa aina yeyote, least of all a confused Lady, kunifafanulia ninachoamini. Imani hutoka kwa Mungu, my dear, Neno sahihi huimarisha.

Walimu wangu wa Philosophical Theology walinifundisha kuwa kusudi mtu aweze kuelewa vema Mungu WAKE ni kitu gani na sio kitu gani, yafaa atambue na kuitumia kanuni muhimu: Yaani kanuni ya identity through time isemayo kwamba:

DEFINITION: An Object O2 spatiotemporally located at (P2, T2) is numerically identical with an object O1 spatiotemporally located at (P1, T1) if and only if there exists some space-time path connecting (P2, T2) with (P1, T1) such that for every point, (Pi, Ti), along this path (including P2 and T2) there exists an object, Oi, which is qualitatively similar to each of the objects in the neighborhood of (Pi, Ti ) and which is the same type of thing as O1.

Kwa mujibu wa kanuni hii:

• A disincarnated god is not identical with an incarnated god;
• A contraceptophobic god is not identical with a contraceptophilic god;
• God whose third person comes from the father alone is not identical with god whose third person comes from the father and the son;
• God who prefers to be worshipped in Sunday is not identical with god who prefers to be worshipped in Saturday;
• God who prefers to be worshipped on Friday is not identical with god who prefers to be worshipped on another day;
• Na orodha inaendelea.

Kwa hiyo, mistari ya Biblia inayosema kuwa Mungu ni yule yule, jana leo na milele; na kwamba Mungu tunayemwabudu leo ndiye Mungu wa Mungu wa Musa, Mungu wa Isaka, na Mungu wa Yakobo, ni mistari batili! Wanaweza kuikubali wakatekumeni tu!

Nadhani sasa umeanza kuelewa hoja!

Kwa uelewa zaidi soma nondo hizi zilizoambatanishwa hapa chini:

• Contemporary Philosophical Theology by Charles Taliaferro, Chad Meister
• The Oxford Handbook of Philosophical Theology (Oxford Handbooks) by Thomas P. Flint, Michael Rea

• Beyond Experience: Metaphysical Theories and Philosophical Constraints by: Norman Swartz​

 

[John Manoni]

Mungu yupi?
Mungu wa Wakatoliki anayekataliwa na Mbowe?
Na je, Mbowe akifa leo atazikwa na Kanisa Katoliki?
Haya sio masuala ya kubahatisha, kuna kanuni zake!

Kwahiyo wale mashekh walipoteza muda wao kumwombea Magufuli?

 

[Doctor Mama Amon]

Kwahiyo wale mashekh walipoteza muda wao kumwombea Magufuli?

Walimwombea Magufuli kwa MUngu yupi na walipeleka maombi juu ya nini?

 

[Gerald .M Magembe]

View attachment 1897959
Rodrick Lutembeka, mmoja wa viongozi wa Baraza la Wazee Chadema​

Tangu Freeman Mbowe alipokamatawa na kufunguliwa mashtaka yanayohusiana na ugaidi, viongozi wa Chadema Mwanza, Morogoro na Dar es Salaam wamekuwa wanahamasisha maombi katika makanisa mbalimbali, bila kujali Mbowe anamwamini Mungu yupi.

Kuna wanaopeleka matoleo kwenye parokia za Kanisa Katoliki. Wengine wanapepeleka makanisa ya KKKT. Na baadhi wanasali novena barabarani.

Kama mambo haya yangefanyika kabla ya Matengenezo ya Kiprotestanti (Reformation) yaliyoendeshwa na Martin Luther wa Ujerumani, yangeweza kuingia akilini. Wakati huo Kanisa la Kikristo lilikuwa moja. Lakini hali sio hivyo leo. Ukweli wa leo ukom hivi:

1. Kwa mujibu wa kanuni ya kutofautisha vitu vinavyohesabika kwa kutumia vigezo vya lazima na vyenye kutosheleza utambulisho wa kitu katika upekee wake, kila mahali penye utofauti katika idadi ya sifa za utambulisho wa vitu vilivyo mbele ya mtazamaji kutakuwa na vitu vingi, na kila mahali pasipo na tofauti katika idadi ya sifa za utambulisho wa vitu vilivyo mbele ya mtazamaji kutakuwa na kitu kimoja.
2. Kuna utofauti katika idadi ya sifa za utambulisho wa Mungu wa Wakatoliki, Mungu wa Walutheri, Mungu wa Waislamu, MUngu wa Wasabato, na kila muungu baki.
3. Kwa hiyo, Mungu wa Wakatoliki, Mungu wa Walutheri, Mungu wa Waislamu, MUngu wa Wasabato, na kila muungu baki, ni Mungu tofauti, na uwepo wa kila Mungu aliyetajwa unakubaliwa kwa vitendo na wafuasi wa Mungu huyo na kukanwa kwa vitendo na watu wasio wafuasi wa Mungu huyo.

That is:

1. According to the principle of necessary and sufficient conditions for individuality, wherever there is property difference between two entities there is numeric diversity and that wherever there is absolute property similarity between two entities there is numerical identity.
2. There are property differences between Catholic God, Lutheran God, Islamic God, SDA God , etc
3. Thus, Catholic God, Lutheran God, Islamic God, SDA God, and so on, are distinct Gods, where the existence of each God is practically asserted by its followers and practically denied by its non-followers.

Accordingly:

• For a catholic X, Lutheran God is not.
• A believer in the non-existence of a given God is called an atheist.
• Thus, with respect to Lutheran God, X is an atheist.

Again:

• For a Lutheran Y, catholic God is not.
• A believer in the non-existence of a given God is called an atheist.
• Thus, with respect to catholic God, Y is an atheist.

In effect:

• We may pray for atheists so that they may be converted from unbelief status to belief status and not otherwise.
• For these reasons, all Lutherans including Mbowe are atheists with respect to Catholic God.
• And all Catholics, including Pope Francis, are atheists with respect to Lutheran God.

Finally:

This is what the elementary metaphysical principle of individuation, properly understood, teaches us.

Sasa swali kuu na majibu yangu

Kwa hiyo basi, ninawaalika Viongozi wa Chadema kujiuliza na kujibu swali lifuatalo: Kumwombea Mbowe ni sehemu ya ibada kwa Mungu yupi?

Kwa kuzingatia matakwa yakanuni ya kutofautisha vitu vinavyohesabika kwa kutumia vigezo vya lazima na vyenye kutosheleza utambulisho wa kitu katika upekee wake, kama ilivyofafanuliwa hapo juu, binafsi napendekeza yafuatayo:

• Kwamba, Mungu wa KKKT anayeabudiwa na Mbowe ni tofauti na Mungu wa Wakatoliki anayeabudiwa na wafuasi wa Mbowe ambao ni Wakatoliki;
• Kwamba, Mbowe amekuwa anamkana kwa mawazo, kwa maneno na kwa vitendo Mungu wa Wakatoliki.
• Na kwamba, kwa sababu hiyo, Mbowe hana haki ya kuombewa na wafuasi wake kupitia kwa Mungu asiyemwamini.

Mbowe hamtambui Mungu wa Wakatoliki tangu siku alipobatizwa chini ya madhehebu ya KKKT, na hadi leo hajatwambia kama amemkana Mungu wa KKKT na kumkubali Mungu wa Wakatoliki.

Kwa hiyo, Mungu wa Wakatoliki hawezi kusikiliza wala kupokea matoleo yanayopelekwa ndani ya Kanisa Katoliki kwa ajili ya kumwomba Mungu wa Wakatoliki amtetee Mbowe, mpaka hapo Mbowe atakapomkiri kwamba yeye pekee ndiye Mungu wa kweli.

Hivyo, viongozi wa Chadema wanapaswa kuacha maigizo kama yale ya "mitano kwanza" na "mitano tena" tuliyoshuhudia mwaka jana.

Vinginevyo watayafikisha makanisa mahali ambapo kanisa lile lile moja linapokea matoleo ya kuomba mbowe atiwe hatiani na kuyabariki leo; halafu kesho yake, kanisa hilo hilo linapokea matoleo ya kuomba mbowe asitiwe hatiani na kuyabariki.

Dini zitadhalilika sana kwa njia hii.

Nijuavyo mimi, ukweli ni kwamba: Mungu anayewaunga mkono watu wanaotaka Mbowe atiwe hatiani na Mungu anayewaunga mkono watu wanaotaka Mbowe asitiwe hatiani ni Miungu wawili tofauti!

Lakini, tunafundishwa kuwa Mungu wa kweli habadiliki wala kubadilisha mawazo yake.

Kwa hiyo, mmojawapo kati ya miungu hawa wawili atakuwa ni Mungu feki, yaani Mungu wa kuchonga (constructed God), wakati mwingine ni Mungu wa kweli (essential God).

Kanuni nne za kuongoza mjadala:

Kusudi, viongozi wa Chadema waweze kuelewa msingi wa swali langu hapo juu na kulitendea haki, hapa chini nafafanua kanuni NNE zinazopaswa kuongoza mjadala huu. Kanuni hizo ni:

• kanuni ya kutambua kitu kimoja chenye majina tofauti (principle of identity),
• kanuni ya kutofautisha vitu vinavyohesabika (principle of difference), na
• kanuni ya kutengeneza fasili zinazotaja sifa za lazima na zenye kutosheleza utambulisho wa kitu.
• kanuni ya sifa za lazima katika utambulisho wa kitu (principle of necessity)
• Kanuni ya sifa zenye kutosheleza utambulisho wa kitu (principle of sufficiency).

Kanuni ya kutambua kitu kimoja chenye majina tofauti

Mosi, ni kanuni ya kutambua kitu kimoja chenye majina tofauti, yaani the principle of the Identity of indescernibles.

Kwa mujibu wa kanuni hii, kunapokuwa na majina mawili yanayorejea kitu kimoja kile kile, hiyo maana yake ni kwamba, kila sifa iliyofungamana na kitu chenye jina la kwanza pia imefungamana na kitu chenye jina la pili, na kinyume chake ni kweli.

Yaani, kwa kila jozi ya vitu, kimoja kikiwa na jina X na na kingine kikiwa jina Y, jina X litakuwa linamaanisha kitu kile kile kitu kinachorejewa na jina Y, endapo na endapo tu:

Kwa pamoja, sentensi kwamba:

(1) kila sifa iliyofungamana na kitu X pia imefungamana na kitu Y;

na sentensi kwamba:

(2) kila sifa iliyofungamana na kitu Y pia imefungamana na kitu X.

ni za kweli.

Kwa mfano,

• Julius ni jina linalorejea mtu yule yule anayeitwa Nyerere. Yaani, Julius na Nyerere ni majina ya kitu kimoja.
• Na, DOG ni jina linalorejea kitu kile kile kinachoitwa MBWA. Yaani, DOG na MBWA ni majina ya kitu kimoja.

Kanuni ya kutofautisha vitu vinavyohesabika

Pili, ni kanuni ya kutofautisha vitu vinavyohesabika, yaani the principle of dissimilarity of the diverse.

Kwa mujibu wa kanuni hii, kunapokuwa na majina mawili yanayorejea vitu tofauti kwa mujibu wa utaratibu wa kuhesabu, basi, hiyo maana yake ni kwamba, sio kila sifa iliyofungamana na kitu chenye jina la kwanza pia imefungamana na kitu chenye jina la pili, na kinyume chake ni kweli.

Yaani, kwa kila jozi ya vitu, kimoja kikiwa na jina X na na kingine kikiwa jina Y, jina X litakuwa linamaanisha kitu tofauti na kile kitu kinachorejewa na jina Y, endapo na endapo tu:

Ama:

(1) katika seti ya sifa za kitu X angalau kuna sifa moja P, ambayo haipatikani kwenye seti ya sifa za kitu Y,

Au:

(2) katika seti ya sifa za kitu Y angalau kuna sifa moja Q, ambayo haipatikani kwenye seti ya sifa za kitu X.

Kwa mfano:

• Mipira miwili ya tufe, iliyowekwa mezani, na ambayo inafanana kwa kila kitu, bado tunaitambua kuwa ni mipira miwili tofauti kwa kuwa, kila mpira unayo anwani yake ya kijiografia. Hata watoto mapacha sisisi tunawatofautisha kwa njia hiyo.
• Vivyo hivyo, Miungu inayependa kuabudiwa Ijumaa (Miungu ya Waislamu) na Miungu inayependa kuabudiwa Jumapili (Miungu ya Wakristo) ni Miungu tofauti, kwa sababu hiyo pekee.
• Kadhalika, Miungu inayependa kuabudiwa Jumamosi (Miungu ya Wasabato) na Miungu inayependa kuabudiwa Jumapili (Miungu ya Wakristo bado) ni Miungu tofauti, kwa sababu hiyo pekee.
• Aidha, Miungu inayoruhusu waamini kutumia kondomu (Miungu ya Waanglikana) na Miungu inayokataza kondomu (Miungu ya Wakatoliki) ni Miungu tofauti, kwa sababu hiyo pekee.
• Vile vile, Miungu inayokataza makuhani kuoa (Miungu ya Wakatoliki) na Miungu inayoruhusu makuhani kuoa (Miungu ya Waanglikana na Walutheri) ni Miungu tofauti, kwa sababu hiyo pekee.
• Mungu anayewaunga mkono watu wanaotaka Mbowe atiwe hatiani na Mungu anayewaunga mkono watu wanaotaka Mbowe asitiwe hatiani ni Miungu wawili tofauti!
• Na mifano inaendelea kama inavyothibitishwa na utitiri wa usajili wa taasisis za kidini katika ofisi ya Wizara ya Mambo ya Ndani.

Kanuni ya kutengeneza fasili zinazotaja sifa za lazima na zenye kutosheleza utambulisho wa kitu

Na tatu, ni kanuni ya kutengeneza fasili zinazotaja sifa za lazima na zenye kutosheleza utambulisho wa kitu. Yaani necessary and sufficient definitions.

Ukitaka kukitambulisha kitu kama vile kitu chenye umbo mraba, kwa namna ambayo inatofautisha umbo mraba na vitu baki, lazima kutaja vigezo vinavyomwezesha msikilizaji kufanya mambo mawili.

Mosi, ni kutambua mraba ni kitu gani. Na pili ni kutambua mraba sio kitu gani.

Kazi hizi mbili zinafanyika kwa njia ya kutaja vigezo ambavyo ni vya lazima na vyenye kutosheleza utambulisho wa kitu kinachoongelewa.

Kuhusu vigezo vya lazima, tuchukue mfano wa fasili ya kitu chenye umbe la mraba. Ni lazima kila mraba uwe na pande nne.

Lakini, sifa hii haitoshi kuutofautisha mraba na maumbo baki kama vile mstatili ambayo pia yanazo pande nne.

Na kwa upande mwingine, kuna vigezo ambavyo vinatosheleza kukitambulisha kitu, lakini sio vya lazima kwa ajili ya utambulisho huo.

Mfano, katika mazingira ya shule mwanafunzi anayepata alama ya A anapasi kozi.

Lakini, alama ya A sio alama ya lazima ili kumfanya wanafunzi huyo apasi kozi. Anaweza kupasi kwa kupata alama ya B, C au hata alama D.

Hivyo, kupata alama ya A ni kigezo cha lazima katika kupasi kozi, lakini sio kigezo kinachotosheleza matakawa ya kumpa mwanafunzi sifa ya kuhesabiwa amepasi mtihani, kwani hata wale wanaopata B, C na D hupasi pia.

Kwa sababu hii, kwa ajili ya kueleza mraba ni kitu gani na sio kitu gani kwa mpigo, tunahitaji mambo mawili:

(1) kutaja kigezo kimoja kimoja ambacho ni lazima kihusike katika kutambulisha mraba.

Na (2) kutaja seti ya vigezo vyote ambavyo kwa pamoja vitatosheleza kutofautisha mraba na maumbo baki yenye pande nne.

Kwa hakika, kila mraba lazima uwe na sifa zifuatazo kwa mpigo: pande nne, pande zilizo nyooka, pande zinazolingana, pande zilizoungana katika ncha zake, pale zilizo katika ubapa mmoja, na lazima uwe na kona nne zenye nyuzo 90 kila moja.

Kanuni hizi tatu zilizotajwa hapo juu, zinapaswa kutumika katika kutambua na kutambulisha kitu chochote kama vile mbuzi, kondoo, mti, mtu, miungu, na kadhalika.

Hivyo basi:

Ukweli ndio huo, na hayo ndiyo madhara yasiyotarajiwa yaliyoletwa na Matengenezo ya Kiprotestanti (Reformation) yaliyoaasisiwa na Matrin Luther wa Ujerumani.

Kwa uelewa zaidi soma kitabu: The Unintended Reformation: How a Religious Revolution Secularized Society by Brad S. Gregory (Attached).

I am very delighted to find brilliant guys who could give a competent analysis of issues of today. Whoever disregard this contribution must be a person whose minds fluid is leaking.

It is the very open secret that the demise of Chadema is very near, since the Party's life is pegged to the life of Mbowe. We now have Mbowe out of scene, so is Chadema.

Keep it up, though you must be prepared to receive negative comments from imbeciles.

 

[Mindi]

Walimu wangu wa Philosophical Theology walinifundisha kuwa kusudi mtu aweze kuelewa vema Mungu WAKE ni kitu gani na sio kitu gani, yafaa atambue na kuitumia kanuni muhimu: Yaani kanuni ya identity through time isemayo kwamba:

DEFINITION: An Object O2 spatiotemporally located at (P2, T2) is numerically identical with an object O1 spatiotemporally located at (P1, T1) if and only if there exists some space-time path connecting (P2, T2) with (P1, T1) such that for every point, (Pi, Ti), along this path (including P2 and T2) there exists an object, Oi, which is qualitatively similar to each of the objects in the neighborhood of (Pi, Ti ) and which is the same type of thing as O1.

Kwa mujibu wa kanuni hii:

• A disincarnated god is not identical with an incarnated god;
• A contraceptophobic god is not identical with a contraceptophilic god;
• God whose third person comes from the father alone is not identical with god whose third person comes from the father and the son;
• God who prefers to be worshipped in Sunday is not identical with god who prefers to be worshipped in Saturday;
• God who prefers to be worshipped in Friday is not identical with god who prefers to be worshipped in another day;
• Na orodha inaendelea.

Kwa hiyo, mistari ya Biblia inayosema kuwa Mungu ni yule yule, jana leo na milele; na kwamba Mungu tunayemwabudu leo ndiye Mungu wa Mungu wa Musa, Mungu wa Isaka, na Mungu wa Yakobo, ni mistari batili! Wanaweza kuikubali wakatekumeni tu!

Nadhani sasa umea nza kuelewa hoja!

Kwa uelewa zaidi soma nondo hizi zilizoambatanishwa hapa chini:

• Contemporary Philosophical Theology by Charles Taliaferro, Chad Meister
• The Oxford Handbook of Philosophical Theology (Oxford Handbooks) by Thomas P. Flint, Michael Rea

• Beyond Experience: Metaphysical Theories and Philosophical Constraints by: Norman Swartz​

Imani yangu, namshukuru Mungu kwa hilo, iko juu ya hayo yooote uliyoandika. Nisomapo Biblia, napata Revealed Message. Hizo rejea ulizotoa ni tafakari za watu ambazo zinaweza kurekebishwa with new developments. Tupo tofauti kabisa na naishia hapo katika mjadala wangu na wewe. Nakuombea kwa Mungu akupe Mwanga wa IMANI

 

[Shing Yui]

MBOWE hajatiwa ndani na Mungu. CCM mna MATATIZO makubwa sana, Mzanzibari mnataka mumpe uungu, duh

Hao wapumbavu wasikuchoshe mkuu... Hawana tofauti na kalamagamba kabudi

 

[Doctor Mama Amon]

Revealed Message

This is where yo behave like a robot! Ngugi wa Thiong'o REVEALED the life of the GIKUYU people in his THE RIVER BETWEEN. So did Chinua Achebe and many others in their respective works. What Ngugi and Chinua did recently was done by similar authors in the remote past--the authors of the Biblical books, etc. The Bible is a literature like any other, except for their respective contexts. It is subject to exegetical analysis like any other literature. The so-called divine inspiration is a thesis for catechumenates. It is wrong to grant superior status to the works of European authors and grant an inferior status to African authors. To do so is to succumb to colonial brainwashing. Period!

 

[mafutamingi]

Umetaja sifa zifuatazo za Mungu unayemfikiria:

• Mungu wa wakristo wote na Mbowe akiwemo ndiye "anatajwa na kitabu kimoja yaani biblia takatifu,"
• Mungu tunayemwabudu wakrito wote ni "mmoja katika utatu mtakatifu Baba, Mwana na roho Mtakatifu,"
• Hivyo, sisi wakristo wote "Mungu wetu ni mmoja."

Hitimisho nalikataa.
Kabla ya kulifikia, unapaswa kutaja necessary and sufficient attributes za huyo Mungu "mmoja".
Hujafanya hivyo.

Mwendazake ambaye kila kukicha alikhwa anataka aombewe, nilikuwa in sehemu ya ibada ipi?

 

[Doctor Mama Amon]

Mwendazake ambaye kila kukicha alikhwa anataka aombewe, nilikuwa in sehemu ya ibada ipi?

Ulikuwa ni usanii wa kisiasa chini ya uratibu wa kitengo cha TISS kinchotumia dini kisanii. Hata DG wa TISS aliyeteuliwa na JPM umemsahau?

 

[Mindi]

Walimu wangu wa Philosophical Theology walinifundisha kuwa kusudi mtu aweze kuelewa vema Mungu WAKE ni kitu gani na sio kitu gani, yafaa atambue na kuitumia kanuni muhimu: Yaani kanuni ya identity through time isemayo kwamba:

DEFINITION: An Object O2 spatiotemporally located at (P2, T2) is numerically identical with an object O1 spatiotemporally located at (P1, T1) if and only if there exists some space-time path connecting (P2, T2) with (P1, T1) such that for every point, (Pi, Ti), along this path (including P2 and T2) there exists an object, Oi, which is qualitatively similar to each of the objects in the neighborhood of (Pi, Ti ) and which is the same type of thing as O1.

Kwa mujibu wa kanuni hii:

• A disincarnated god is not identical with an incarnated god;
• A contraceptophobic god is not identical with a contraceptophilic god;
• God whose third person comes from the father alone is not identical with god whose third person comes from the father and the son;
• God who prefers to be worshipped in Sunday is not identical with god who prefers to be worshipped in Saturday;
• God who prefers to be worshipped on Friday is not identical with god who prefers to be worshipped on another day;
• Na orodha inaendelea.

Kwa hiyo, mistari ya Biblia inayosema kuwa Mungu ni yule yule, jana leo na milele; na kwamba Mungu tunayemwabudu leo ndiye Mungu wa Mungu wa Musa, Mungu wa Isaka, na Mungu wa Yakobo, ni mistari batili! Wanaweza kuikubali wakatekumeni tu!

Nadhani sasa umeanza kuelewa hoja!

Kwa uelewa zaidi soma nondo hizi zilizoambatanishwa hapa chini:

• Contemporary Philosophical Theology by Charles Taliaferro, Chad Meister
• The Oxford Handbook of Philosophical Theology (Oxford Handbooks) by Thomas P. Flint, Michael Rea

• Beyond Experience: Metaphysical Theories and Philosophical Constraints by: Norman Swartz​

Unanukuu maelezo yanayomweleza Mungu kwa kutumia SPACE and TIME! Wakati Mungu ameumba SPACE na TIME. Mungu yuko nje ya SPACE and TIME.
Sina tatizo kama wewe unayaamini hayo.. Mimi pamoja na mabilioni ya Waamini, kwa nyakati zote tangu Ibrahim mpaka Musa mpaka ujio wa Yesu na mpaka leo, tunaamini katika Mungu Mmoja aliyeumba Mbingu na Dunia, na vitu vyote vinavyoonekana na visivyoonekana. Aliyenena na binadamu kwa njia ya Manabii. Na ambaye amejifunua kikamilifu kwa njia ya Mwana [Waebrania 1:1,2].
Hayo unayosema wanaamini Wakatekumeni tu, ndiyo tunayoamini.

 

[Tulimumu]

Kwani kuna miungu wangapi?

 

[Mindi]

This is where yo behave a robot! Ngugi wa Thiong'o REVEALED the life of the people in his THE RIVER BETWEEN. So did Chinua Achebe and many others in their respective works. What Ngugi and Chinua did recently was done by similar authors in the remote past--the authors of the Biblical books, etc. The Bible is a literature like any other. It is subject to exegetical analysis like any other. The so-called divine inspiration is a thesis for catechumenates. Period!

Robot! Wakatekumeni! Mbona una dharau sana? Hili ni suala la Imani. Nikisoma Genesis, najiona niko kwenye hali tofauti kabisa na nikimsoma Ngugi. Kama wewe unaona Biblia ni kitabu cha kawaida tu kama Hekaya za Abunuwasi, good for you, but not for me.

Robot? I don't think so!
Kwani Katekumeni ni nani? Mwanafunzi wa dini. Akiamini, anabatizwa. Kuamini ni hiari. Ukiwa na imani. Huna imani? All the best

 

[Doctor Mama Amon]

Unanukuu maelezo yanayomweleza Mungu kwa kutumia SPACE and TIME! Mungu yuko nje ya SPACE and TIME.

You seem to be uncritically rehearsing and dropping illusory words you crammed during your school years in order to pass exams and qualify for a graduation certificate without education.

Admittedly, if God created space-time, then it is logical to assert that, in the beginning God WAS outside this space-time we know, since, etiologically speaking, the antecedent is always prior to the consequent.

It is here assumed that God created this space-time while located in the presumed outer space.

The latter is not empirically knowable to us since we can only empirically know what is located in space time.

However, logically, it seems that, no longer is today's God wholly located outside the four-dimensional space-time (x, y, z, t) we know.

To maintain otherwise is to carelessly confuse the past tense with the present tense, and to ignore the fact that God is immanently omnipresent, from which it follows that He is both within and beyond space-time. This position follows from the following argument:

• If God exists, then, in terms of attributes, he is transcendent (i.e., exists outside space-time) and immanently omnipresent (i.e., exists anywhere in space-time). (P1)
• A transcendent being cannot exist anywhere in space-time and an omnipresent being must immanently exist everywhere in space-time. (P2)
• Thus, it is impossible for a transcendent being to be immanently omnipresent (from 3 and 4). (P3)
• By definition, a set of propositions entails a contradiction if it simultaneously asserts and denies a given position (P4)
• Therefore, the existence of a transcendent and immanent God is a contradiction (from P1, 2, and P4). (P5)

This contradiction is undeniable. And to deny this contradiction is to concede cognitive incompetence on the part of the denier!

If so, how can we still make sense of God as a being that is outside of space-time, and yet has created it, interacts with his creations that are confined to space-time, and at one specific point in history entered into space-time in the person of Jesus?

We can circumvent this contradiction by adjusting P2 so that, a transcendent being can exist anywhere in space-time and beyond.

So, if God is everywhere in space-time and is unchanging, then, he would be expected to be at such points as (P1,T1); (P2,T2); ...., (Pi,Ti), ......, (Pn,Tn); where the locus running from (P1,T1) to (Pn,Tn) is occupied by the same God.

Thus, it is OK to describe such God's Identity in terms of spatial and temporal variables, as I did. That is, to describe God's Identity in terms of time-indexed variables and space-indexed variables. Our philosophical theology allows it.

Thus, concerning space-indexed properties, we can say that God-at-Dar is the same as God-at-Dodoma or vice versa; or that, God-in-the-Mosque is the same as God-in-the-synagogue or vice versa.

Similarly, concerning time-indexed properties, we can say that, God-of-1514 is the same as God-of-2021 or vice versa; or that, God-of-the-Old-Testament is the same as God-of-the-New-Testament or vice versa.

The key assumption here is that, one of the key attributes of spiritual substances is penetrability, as opposed to the attribute of impenetrability. The latter is usually possessed by material substances.

As a rule, every material body must have weight, volume, occupy a particular location in space, and it is impossible for two bodies to be at the same location at the same time. The latter property is called impenetrability.

Just as one body can not be simultaneously occupy more than one locations, so too, two bodies cannot occupy the same location simultaneously.

It follows that each body must occupy a particular location, inaccessible to any other body, as long as the former is not ejected from it.

Generally, if at times it appears that a body completely enters another body, there is even then no penetration; instead the pores in one body accept particles of the other, after the ejection of any matter that might previously have occupied the pores.

Whatever is impenetrable belongs to the category of bodies, and therefore the essence of bodies is their impenetrability, on which therefore all their other properties must be founded.

Since bodies through their essence are impenetrable, no force, however large, is able to compress two bodies such that, even in their smallest parts, a real interpenetration can occur.

By definition, then, impenetrability is the name given to that quality of matter whereby two bodies cannot occupy the same space at the same time.

For example, you cannot sit on the chair which is already occupied by another person.

The opposite of impenetrability is penetrability, hereby defined as, the ability of two types of substances to occupy the same space at the same time.

Examples of penetrability are common in the physical world. It is by reason of the attribute of penetrability, as their intrinsic property, sound energy and magnetic energy can cross walls from one room to the next without any hindrance.

By the same logic, given the divine attribute of penetrability, God can be inside the wall and outside the wall, below the ground and above the ground, inside our bodies and outside our bodies, and so on.

This way, we are capable of describing God in terms of world-indexed properties, and time-indexed properties, without any hesitation.

Professor Alvin Plantinga has been very useful in elucidating this concept of world-indexed properties.

He is the inventor of the concept of world-indexed properties. These are properties such as being speculative in possible world W.

What these properties are to possible worlds is what time-indexed properties such as being careless at time T are to instants of time.