'And remember the Day when the wrong doer will bite at his hands, he will say ,'oh ! Would i have taken the path of the messenger (Muhammad).

Ah ! Woe to me ! Would i have never taken so and so as an intimate friend.

He indeed led me astray from the reminder (Quran) after it had come to me'.

And satan to man is ever a deserter in the hour of need'
Quran 25:27-29

PASTOR - YOU ALMOST ESCAPED IT! YOUR STATEMENT ABOUT THE DEATH AND RESURECTION OCCURING IN ETERNITY - WHAT DID THAT MEAN?

_{Was it perhaps so that even aliens living in the 5th dimension can take advantage of the redemption on the cross . . .}

Chrisbenogor:

you never did reply me pastor?

Chrisbenogor:

Pastor I was borrowing the vague leaf from you, oya make I explain, by conjecture I just mean the supernatural has rarely ever meant and felt the same way to people. I was cool with your explanations and of course there are certain places where I cannot say I agree with you but as this thread was for you to explain your beliefs no wahala. It sounds like you have carefully thought out your convictions about God, about existence and all that but when you veer off into the Son of God, eternity, and every other thing, its just going to be guesses and guesses just like other people before you have done, that's all.

I thought you were just making your own point. I didn't realise that you were anticipating a response. I base everything on my experiences and I do have theories that are attempts to explain the experiences and those may or may not be correct and are subject to revision. I've always said so and I don't see what is wrong with that.

Deep Sight:

PASTOR - YOU ALMOST ESCAPED IT! YOUR STATEMENT ABOUT THE DEATH AND RESURECTION OCCURING IN ETERNITY - WHAT DID THAT MEAN?

_{Was it perhaps so that even aliens living in the 5th dimension can take advantage of the redemption on the cross . . .}

Oh shucks! Can we get into that another day? I'm not in the head space for it at the moment.

'on the day when every person will be confronted with all the good he has done and all the evil he has done, he will wish that there were a great distance between him and his evil.

And Allah warns yot against Himself (Punishment) and Allah is full of kindness to His slaves' Quran 3:30

Abu, must you continue this spamming?

Pastor AIO has declared war with me his thread will be full of islamic quote, hate or like it mr agnostic

Just ignore abusola, the guy is a comic
sometimes an irritant

You know, guys you ought to just ignore the guy. To be honest, I regret my outburst already. Not only because I have now drawn the guy's attention to me but also because it was kinda out of character. Why would I go provoking trouble and mentioning peoples names when they have no gripe with me. It is quite possible that I was projecting issues from my real world unto Nairaland characters. Any how, it is a lot easier to just ignore the guy.

@Abu

So you have become a terrorist in this thread, right?
yet you run away from the vital questions we sent to you on the other thread.

go and answer them before even your allah becomes angry with you!

Deep Sight:

PASTOR - YOU ALMOST ESCAPED IT! YOUR STATEMENT ABOUT THE DEATH AND RESURECTION OCCURING IN ETERNITY - WHAT DID THAT MEAN?

_{Was it perhaps so that even aliens living in the 5th dimension can take advantage of the redemption on the cross . . .}

Pastor AIO:

Oh shucks! Can we get into that another day? I'm not in the head space for it at the moment.

Pastor, you cannot be allowed to escape with your very weighty statement. Please do shed some light, thanks.

Allah is one, he is not 3 in 1.

@dgreat, i did not see ur question, write it again

Like i said over there **** use your PC and you will see the posts

Pastor. . . ?

Deep Sight:

Pastor. . . ?

Speak sir, thy homeboy heareth.

You said something about the death and resurection of christ occuring in Eternity. What do you really mean by that, can you explain please?

Thanks.

Deep Sight:

You said something about the death and resurection of christ occuring in Eternity. What do you really mean by that, can you explain please?

Thanks.

Revelation chapter 13.

8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. 9 If any man have an ear, let him hear.

Pastor AIO:

homeboy heareth.

Lol! Funky Pastor!

Do you know what one of the major differences between Plato and Aristotle was/is?  It was in regards to the nature of Universals and Particulars.  What are universals and particulars?  Here is a Wiki definition:

In metaphysics, a universal is what particular things have in common, namely characteristics or qualities. In other words, universals are repeatable or recurrent entities that can be instantiated or exemplified by many particular things.[1] For example, suppose there are two chairs in a room, each of which is green. These two chairs both share the quality of greenness or the quality of being green. Metaphysicians call this quality that they share a "universal", because it can be instantiated or exemplified by many particular things. There are three major kinds of qualities or characteristics: types or kinds (e.g. mammal), properties (e.g. short, strong), and relations (e.g. father of, next to). These are all different types of universal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_(metaphysics)

I actually prefer the terms Generals and Specials.  Whereby I can make a general statement:  Boys only go in the kitchen when they are hungry.  If at 5pm Johnny goes into the kitchen because he was hungry, I can then make another type of statement, a speci -al (or, if you like, a speci -fic) statement: At 5pm Johnny (a boy) went into the kitchen only because he was hungry. 

That special statement was a special instance of the more general statement.  The relationship between Special and General is obvious from the roots of the words.  They are Genus and Specie.  Species are actual instances of Genii.  The occurrence of a Special event is called an Instantiation.  The General event is Instantiated into the Special event.  Or if you like, the Generic event is instantiated into the Specific event. 

So to give an example, greenness exists as a universal outside of space and time.  Through Instantiation we can bring about an Instance of Green, for example on the leaves of a tree.  That instance exists in Space and Time. 

Or better still, to give an example that I know Deep Sight would love, the number 2 exists as a universal.  It exists outside space and time.  2 is not anywhere and neither is it occurring at any time.  However you can have an Instance of 2 when you place 2 apples on the table.  The instance of 2 apples will quickly become an instance of 1 apple because I am feeling quite hungry.

http://books.google.com/books?id=wZfvxgDB3ZcC&pg=PA51&lpg=PA51&dq=metaphysics+instantiation&source=bl&ots=9rKJhqo5XJ&sig=RxQenTVfcgo_DnFJCUT5U6PKdok&hl=en&ei=lpMBS5PjCIjl4Qa2lcX-Cw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CAgQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=metaphysics%20instantiation&f=false


So back to Plato and Aristotle.  Plato and Aristotle had a totally diametrically opposite understanding of the relationship between The Generic and the Specific. 

Plato said that the Universals/Generic are the only things that really exist and that the specific/particular things in the physical world are derived from the Universals.  In other words the Universals are the basis or the foundation of the particular things that occur. 

Aristotle laughed.  If not for the particular things we would have no universals, he scoffed.  Particulars are not derived from Universals.  Universals are derived from Particulars.  It is the Particulars that are real and the generalisations that we make from them are derivative.  If a guy has 2 apples and someone gives him 2 more apples, he will find that he now has 4 apples.  In fact with time he will realise that when he has 2 of anything and someone gives him 2 more then he ends up unfailingly with 4  of the said thing.  From that he now extrapolates a simple general rule.  2 plus 2 is 4.

But he would never have come up with these universal terms if he hadn't experienced the real life particular examples of 2 objects plus 2 more of the same object becoming 4 objects. 

The problem of universals is an ancient problem in metaphysics whether universals exist. The problem arises from attempts to account for the phenomenon of similarity or attribute agreement among things.[4] For example, live grass and Granny Smith apples are similar or agree in attribute, namely in having the attribute of greenness. The issue is how to account for this sort of agreement in attribute among things. There are two main positions on the issue: realism and nominalism (sometimes simply called "anti-realism" about universals[5]). Realists posit the existence of universals to account for attribute agreement. Nominalists deny that universals exist, claiming that they are not necessary to explain attribute agreement. Complications which arise include the implications of language use and the complexity of relating language to ontology.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_(metaphysics)

Realism
The realist school claims that universals are real — they exist and are distinct from the particulars that instantiate them. There are various forms of realism. Two major forms are Platonic realism (universalia ante rem) and Aristotelian realism (universalia in rebus).[5] Platonic realism is the view that universals are real entities and they exist independent of particulars. Aristotelian realism, on the other hand, is the view that universals are real entities, but their existence is dependent on the particulars that exemplify them. Realism has been endorsed by many, including Plato, Aristotle, and Bertrand Russell (1912).[original research?]
Realists tend to argue that universals must be posited as distinct entities in order to account for various phenomena. For example, a common realist argument, arguably found in Plato, is that universals are required for certain general words to have meaning and for the sentences in which they occur to be true or false. Take the sentence "Djivan Gasparyan is a musician". The realist may claim that this sentence is only meaningful and expresses a truth because there is an individual, Djivan Gasparyan, who possesses a certain quality, musicianship. Thus it is assumed that the property is a universal which is distinct from the particular individual who has the property (MacLeod & Rubenstein, 2006, §1b).

Plato
Plato, at least during the first part of his life, believed there to be a sharp distinction between the world of perceivable objects and the world of universals or forms: one can only have mere opinions about the former, but one can have knowledge about the latter. For Plato it was not possible to have knowledge of anything that could change or was particular, since knowledge had to be forever unfailing and general.[6]. For that reason, the world of the forms is the real world, like sunlight, the sensible world is only imperfectly or partially real, like shadows. Plato, accordingly, took a realist position regarding universals. This Platonic realism, however, in denying full reality to the material world, differs sharply with modern forms of realism, which generally assert the reality of the external, physical world and which in some versions deny the reality of ideals.[original research?]
One of the first nominalist critiques of Plato's realism was that of Diogenes of Sinope, who said "I've seen Plato's cups and table, but not his cupness and tableness."[7]

Aristotle
Plato's student Aristotle disagreed with his tutor. Aristotle transformed Plato's forms into "formal causes", the blueprints or essences of individual things. Whereas Plato idealized geometry, Aristotle emphasized nature and related disciplines and therefore much of his thinking concerns living beings and their properties. The nature of universals in Aristotle's philosophy therefore hinges on his view of natural kinds.
Consider for example a particular oak tree. This is a member of a species and it has much in common with other oak trees, past, present and future. Its universal, its oakness, is a part of it. A biologist can study oak trees and learn about oakness and more generally the intelligible order within the sensible world. Accordingly, Aristotle was more confident than Plato about coming to know the sensible world; he was a prototypical empiricist and a founder of induction. Aristotle was a new, moderate sort of realist about universals.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_universals

I like this line:

One of the first nominalist critiques of Plato's realism was that of Diogenes of Sinope, who said "I've seen Plato's cups and table, but not his cupness and tableness."[7]

I guess the same could be said for numbers.  We've seen 2 cups and 2 chairs, but how many of us have seen 2 without it being 2 anything.

Aristotle's theory of universals is one of the classic solutions to the problem of universals. Universals are simply types, properties, or relations that are common to their various instances. In Aristotle's view, universals exist only where they are instantiated; they exist only in things (he said they exist in re, which means simply "in things", never apart from things. Beyond this Aristotle said that a universal is something identical in each of its instances. So all red things are similar in that there is the same universal, redness, in each thing. There is no Platonic form of redness, standing apart from all red things; instead, in each red thing there is the same universal, redness.
To further flesh out Aristotle's theory of universals, it is useful to consider how the theory might satisfy the constraints on theories of universals listed in the problem of universals article.
First of all, on Aristotle's view, universals can be instantiated multiple times. Aristotle stresses, after all, the one and the same universal, applehood (say), that appears in each apple. Common sense might detect a problem here. (The problem can arise for other forms of realism about universals, however.) Namely, how can we make sense of exactly the same thing being in all of these different objects? That after all is what the theory says; to say that different deserts, the Sahara, the Atacama, and the Gobi are all dry places, is just to say that the exact same being, the universal dryness, occurs at each place. Universals must be awfully strange entities if exactly the same universal can exist in many places and times at once, or so one might think. But maybe that's not so troubling; it seems troubling if we expect universals to be like physical objects, but remember, we are talking about a totally different category of being. So a common defense of realism (and hence of Aristotle's realism) is that we should not expect universals to behave as ordinary physical objects do. Maybe then it is not so strange, then, to say that the exact same universal, dryness, occurs all over the earth at once; after all, there is nothing strange about saying that different deserts can be dry at the same time. The question is whether this could still be said if the earth had only one biosphere.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotle's_theory_of_universals



"Wait there", I hear you cry, on the verge of pulling your hair out.  "What has this got to do with the simple question asked for you?"

Well could you consider for a moment that the sacrifice occurs outside of space and time, in eternity.  And furthermore that this event may or may not be instantiated into history.  Get my drift?  I hope so.  I get the feeling that what I am trying to say could too easily get misconstrued and misunderstood. 

What I am trying to say is that the whole Fall and redemption plan has occurred/occurs/will occur in eternity before History began.   I hate to use that word before for the obvious reason that it is too intimately bound to the concept of time.  The word I'd prefer to use is Prior to History's beginning.  Priority in this case is not necessarily temporal. [Edit: The term I'm really looking for is SineQuaNon. The sinequanon is necessary to the manifestion but the manifestation is not necessary for the sinequanon to exist].

DeepSight, I always try to please, but sometimes I try to avoid issues that may leave you with more questions than answers.   I dread now that I'm going to be inundated with a deluge of more questions.

According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:

"Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,"

Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,

Read, as paraphrase, but was instantiated in these last times for you.

Revelation 13:8 "And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world."

Hi Pastor, i have read and digested with great delight your excellent write-ups. Once you started out on the path, i could see where you were heading, and i must say that it makes some sense to me.

However i have one cardinal question which I believe goes to the root of the matter, and borders on the very nature of God himself, or is perfection, or the absence of it.

That question is as follows:

Let us assume as you say, that the sacrifice occurs before creation, or before time (like you, i am uncomfortable with the word "before", but what can we do. . .) Let us imagine a timeless state where only God himself in his immutability is.

At this point creation is yet to spring forth from HIM. If at this point, he has already concluded a "fall" and a "sacrifice" to "redeem" that fall, ever before creation, then this irrevocably suggests that neither HE nor HIS work are perfect. If he could have seen such before the world, he could surely have made things such that it would not happen that man would "fall" or that there would have to be such a bloody sacrifice.

So to my mind, the only problem with your proposition is that it per force detracts from the perfection of God.

And God is intrinsically perfect and immutable, so how can this be?

_{It might interest you to explore with m_nwankwo the Grail Message perspective on what the fall of man actually refers to. . .}

@Deepsight/ Pastor AIO
When you guys have the time i would like to to read this article http://www.modernghana.com/news/247818/1/the-jews-lied-against-africa-to-ascend.html makes interesting reading with very strong logic. Even though some of the submissions can be faulted it is a real eye opener. Would like to read your comments on it.

What is the criteria for Perfection?

In what attributes can we say God is Perfect?

Is God Merciful?

If mercy is an attribute of God What are the conditions required for God to be merciful? In other words how can God express or manifest this trait.

What do you Think of Romans 11:32

32 For God has shut up all in disobedience so that He may show mercy to all.

What is the criteria by which we deem an event to be Good or Bad?

'And remember the Day when the wrong doer will bite at his hands, he will say ,'oh ! Would i have taken the path of the messenger (Muhammad).

Ah ! Woe to me ! Would i have never taken so and so as an intimate friend.

He indeed led me astray from the reminder (Quran) after it had come to me'.

And satan to man is ever a deserter in the hour of need'
Quran 25:27-29

Pastor AIO:

What is the criteria for Perfection?

In what attributes can we say God is Perfect?

God IS.

God is the primordial necessary (as opposed to contingent) quantity from which all existence arises.

Some of the ideas I have tried to put across on the oneness of infinity, to some degree, i think, indicate that God is an absolute.

Accordingly, God is immutable and unchangeable, all the laws of existence springing forth from HIS core principle: which is the oneness of infinity.

An unchangeable being stands outside time, because beings within time change, grow, die, etc.

Outside of time, you have stillness: permanence - this is what God is. He is thus adamantine.

These attributes connote the perfection that i speak of.

Thus God, in my mind, cannot do unbalanced or imperfect things. Which is why we may want to realise that seeming "failures" in creation are really elements of Balance.

None of this is compatible with a sacrifice for sins occuring before the world came into existence?

Pastor AIO:


What is the criteria by which we deem an event to be Good or Bad?

I think we have dealt exhaustively with this question in your discourse on ethics with Krayola and Chrisbenegor.

Deep Sight:

God IS.

God is the primordial necessary (as opposed to contingent) quantity from which all existence arises.

Some of the ideas I have tried to put across on the oneness of infinity, to some degree, i think, indicate that God is an absolute.

Accordingly, God is immutable and unchangeable, all the laws of existence springing forth from HIS core principle: which is the oneness of infinity.

An unchangeable being stands outside time, because beings within time change, grow, die, etc.

Outside of time, you have stillness: permanence - this is what God is. He is thus adamantine.

These attributes connote the perfection that i speak of.

Thus God, in my mind, cannot do unbalanced or imperfect things. Which is why we may want to realise that seeming "failures" in creation are really elements of Balance.

None of this is compatible with a sacrifice for sins occuring before the world came into existence?

I think we have dealt exhaustively with this question in your discourse on ethics with Krayola and Chrisbenegor.

Let me try to follow your line of reasoning. God is unchanging and herein lies his perfection.

The universe is changing, evolving in time.

Hence the Universe is imperfect.

God cannot do imperfect things.

Therefore God did not create the universe.

Pastor AIO:

Let me try to follow your line of reasoning. God is unchanging and herein lies his perfection.

The universe is changing, evolving in time.

Hence the Universe is imperfect.

God cannot do imperfect things.

Therefore God did not create the universe.

Smart Alec, you.

I may approach this in three ways.

First, mark that  i specifically said that things outside time are permanent: unchanging (e.g: the idea of numbers).

But things within time are by that very circumsciption things that grow and change. God's perfection lies in his immutability, and the laws that spring therefrom. These laws govern and sustain created things: which though can never be perfect in the purest sense as God is, nonetheless carry the hallmark of HIS symetry as Universal Laws, and thereon cannot in any wise be described as an imperfect creation.

It is thus normal, perfect, and to be expected that things within time will grow, change and die or transit from one form to another. This does not apply to God, existing as HE does outside time.

I may also approach it from another angle. I stated that God does not do imperfect things, because he is unchanging and immutable. Sparking a creation into existence is not in any wise an imperfect thing. It is rather a limited thing: in that it is not timeless, like God, and therefore it is not God. But given that the universe (or creation) is governed by HIS immutable laws (e.g: magnetism, both spiritual and physical), then although it grows and changes, it remains within and eternally circumscibed by those immutable and perfect laws of God, and as such once again, bears in this sense the attribute of God's immutable laws - and thus cannot be said to be imperfect.

So it should be clear that although the universe grows and changes, its actuating forces, as well as the laws that govern it - are adamantine divine precepts which cannot change. Thus the universe in this respect bears the hallmark of God's immutability and accordingly cannot be described as imperfect.

Finally i may approach it from the concept of duality: light and dark; postive and negative; good and evil. . . If the proposition of duality is held to be true, then perfection only exists in balance, and accordingly elements such as change, imperfection, defects. . . are natural reverses of immutability, perfection and non-defects. . . and holistic perfection can only exist in such balance! Note that i indicated that the supposed "imperfections" which we see are really hallmarks of balance. Many examples can be cited of seemingly evil or disastrous things which are in reality checks and balances for a perfect ecosystem.

@ Deep Sight and Pastor AIO

I enjoy you guy's posts. You guys are refreshing! Wonderful exchange of views.

@ Deep Sight
I enjoyed your last post. It really nice. Since you are familiar with the Grail Message, I presume you can easily answer the following questions.

I presume that by therm universe, you mean all the objects, stars, planets and phenomena throughout space; the cosmos; macrocosm. Thus everything in the physical world. Now my question is this:

1) Is the universe a direct creation of God? Or did God create the universe himself?

You are right that God is perfect and perfection precludes changeability; you said "God cannot do unbalanced or imperfect things." Thus you are saying that God cannot create imperfect things, and you are very correct.
Pastor AIO is equally right by demanding that the work of God, the universe should be perfect. He deduced this by following your argument.


But the dilemma is that the universe, arguably is not perfect. Also, we humans on earth, who are supposed to be works of God are definitely and surely not perfect.

Following your argument that God is perfect(which is correct) one will only arrive at the conclusion that Pastor AIO arrived:  "Therefore God did not create the universe."  Although Pastor AIO may have arrived at this conclusion lightheartedly and for the sake of showing your that your reasoning is flawed; but there is definitely more to this question.


So how do we justify this notion that God is perfect and so are everything that issues from Him? Perhaps the solution lies in the answer to my earlier question. Thus I will repeat this question.

1) Is the universe a direct creation of God? Or did God create the universe himself?

Or

Is the universe and everything in it(including we humans) actually created by God?

I wait your answer.

Why can't a perfect being create something imperfect?

what is "perfect"?

If you believe God is beyond comprehension, why label him, thus limiting him?

Why do we think "perfection" can only be "good'?

justcool:

@ Deep Sight and Pastor AIO

I enjoy you guy's posts. You guys are refreshing! Wonderful exchange of views.

@ Deep Sight
I enjoyed your last post. It really nice. Since you are familiar with the Grail Message, I presume you can easily answer the following questions.

I presume that by therm universe, you mean all the objects, stars, planets and phenomena throughout space; the cosmos; macrocosm. Thus everything in the physical world. Now my question is this:

1) Is the universe a direct creation of God? Or did God create the universe himself?

You are right that God is perfect and perfection precludes changeability; you said "God cannot do unbalanced or imperfect things." Thus you are saying that God cannot create imperfect things, and you are very correct.
Pastor AIO is equally right by demanding that the work of God, the universe should be perfect. He deduced this by following your argument.


But the dilemma is that the universe, arguably is not perfect. Also, we humans on earth, who are supposed to be works of God are definitely and surely not perfect.

Following your argument that God is perfect(which is correct) one will only arrive at the conclusion that Pastor AIO arrived: "Therefore God did not create the universe." Although Pastor AIO may have arrived at this conclusion lightheartedly and for the sake of showing your that your reasoning is flawed; but there is definitely more to this question.


So how do we justify this notion that God is perfect and so are everything that issues from Him? Perhaps the solution lies in the answer to my earlier question. Thus I will repeat this question.

1) Is the universe a direct creation of God? Or did God create the universe himself?

Or

Is the universe and everything in it(including we humans) actually created by God?

I wait your answer.

Hi Just Cool.

Its always sooo great to hear from you.

Your question is extremely profound, and i verily suspect that no human being can ever come to grips with it, given the fact that it deals with events happening outside this physical universe. Such knowledge probably can only be transmitted through genuine revelation.

Nevertheless, i will attempt the question on two grounds. The first ground will be my understanding of what is set forth within the message, and the second ground will be my honest, most limited, most imperfect, human perspective.

The first ground - I read within the message that God in HIS Divine perfection emitts unimaginably great heat and energy, and that after the first creation, the gradual cooling-off of the radiations from God precipitate the forming of further creations further and further away from God. I understand from this that God therefore only directly spawned the primordial spiritual worlds, and that the continued precipitations/ radiations from these worlds, bearing God's white-hot creative-heat, as they cooled off, formed further worlds, and ultimately, the world of gross matter.

As always, i did not just swallow this hook, line and sinker without thought, and i find that there are reasons why this makes sense to me within my world View. These reasons are -

1. I can clearly sense and even see the existence of non-physical things even in this world: love, thought, dreams, telepathy, pyscho-kinesis, the list is endless. Accordingly i am firmly aware that i am a being that exists and is real even without my physical body, arms, legs, nose, mouth, etc. I have often noted that each human being "hears" the thoughts of his own mind clearly. Now since these are not audible sounds, he clearly does not hear them with his physical ears. This makes it clear that the inner man has ears of its own. The inner mind. The Inner Sipiritual.

2. Thus i see that the world of matter is not all that exists.

3. Given that the physical body dies, i am also aware that the spiritual part becomes disembodied from the material part at death. I do not assert this as proof of anything to anyone, but to my mind it seems clear that the spiritual being will necessarily exist within a realm of its own nature, just as the material body existed in a material world.

4. Thus spiritual realms do exist. And by the very transitory nature of matter it seems clear to me that such realms pre-date and post-exist matter, if i may use such terms. It really is like saying that the world of forms and ideas is eternal, while matter is transitory.

5. If this is true, then it falls into place as espoused by the mesage that the direct creation of God, is primordial spiritual, and not material.

[b]Now there is a little piece of scientifice thinking that crystalizd this very clearly for me a short while ago. Here i dovetail into my human understanding -

I was staring at a block of ice, which i had pulled out of my glass of beer. As i stared at it it began to melt, turning into water in the tray. I know from physics that given time that very water will dry up into the air. It does not dissappear, it changes form, just as surely as if we put the Ice in a heated pan, it will become water, and eventually steam, and the steam will float of airily into the air.

It struck me that Ice represents gross matter - it is hard and tangible, like your physical body. When heated however, it becomes steam, which is like your spirit - intangible and mobile, flexible, and dynamic, able to float, soar, move easily. More importantly, it struck me that since in physics, greater heat causes greater motion, then the intangible (steam in this instance) must necessaily be more heated than the tangible. [/b]

_{(This is why great passion feels to us like heat in our chest, and emotionlessness is described as "cold"}

Thus the spiritual is more heated that the physical - and accordingly, is closer to the ultimate heat - which is God.

I thought - if the spiritual is heated and intangible, just how heated and intangible will the Ultimate heat be? That hints at the pure divinity of God.

When the process is looked at in the reverse, it immediatley bears out that which is espoused in the Grail Message: That the cooling off of great heat, will eventually result in the appearance of hard matter! - Just as surely as if steam is cooled off, it will become water, and eventually, further cooling will result in the hard immovable ice! This thinking led me to see the simple and yet flawless beauty and scientific accuracy in the assertion that the cooling-off of God's radiations precipitates the development of further forms of creation, and ultimately hard matter.

It also helps me see and understand death and the rising of the spiritual towards God, and toward the primordial spiritual, as a journey of increasing intangibility, and thus increasing purity.

It also helps me understand a dream i once had where i was playing a football game in a far world among the stars: and all the motion seemed far more heated, hectic, faster, and more fluid and energetic than in this world. I can understand now that there is greater fluidity in intangibility. Thus greater life in the spiritual. Thus ultimate life, in the ultimate heat: God.

But i go too far, as i believe i have already said that which i intended to say.

Krayola:

Why can't a perfect being create something imperfect?

what is "perfect"?

If you believe God is beyond comprehension, why label him, thus limiting him?

Why do we think "perfection" can only be "good'?

Krayola - note that i indicated that Perfection may be manifested in duality. See here -

Deep Sight:


Finally i may approach it from the concept of duality: light and dark; postive and negative; good and evil. . . If the proposition of duality is held to be true, then perfection only exists in balance, and accordingly elements such as change, imperfection, defects. . . are natural reverses of immutability, perfection and non-defects. . . and holistic perfection can only exist in such balance! Note that i indicated that the supposed "imperfections" which we see are really hallmarks of balance. Many examples can be cited of seemingly evil or disastrous things which are in reality checks and balances for a perfect ecosystem.