₦airaland Forum

Logicboy03: Another dumbazz that can't tell the difference between "killing" and "death".


I heard you were a lawyer, I hope that isnt true because in the profession, terminology/definition is quite important

I see that some things never change.

Good evening.

plaetton: Your logic is childish, to say the least.
First saying that death is not evil does not automatically translate to it being a good cause.
Death is not evil because it is the natural and inevitable phase of everything that lives.

By Killing someone, on the hand, you are interrupting the process of life, a task for which you do not have the perogative or the permission to do.

This too is illogical. If death is the inevitable fate of all living things, how is bringing about death an interruption? You are only effecting that which must anyhow happen, no?

Secondly answer me these three -

1. Is it wrong or evil to kill animals and please state the reason for your answer.

2. Is it wrong or evil when animals kill other animals and please state the reason for your answer.

3. Is it wrong or evil for a cannibal to kill you for the purpose of consuming your meat as food for his sustenance.

Many thanks.

shinealight: @ Deep Sight

As always I thank you for your comments. You have your views and I have mine. If you have indeed read the Message several times as you claim, then what appears to baffle you should not do so. I suggest you re-read the Epilogue: "How the Message should be absorbed". From there, it should be clear that it is not I or people like me who have stipulated the need to proceed gradually and to follow the sequence in which the Author has arranged his lectures without making jumps.

I would have thought it obvious that in an open public forum, some of the readers might just be going through passages in Volume 1 while others are already grappling with lectures of the Primordial Spiritual Planes in Volume 3. Surely, one would be violating the instructions of the Author if one starts to discuss profusely in a public forum, for instance about 'Od-shi-mat-no-ke' or 'Leilak', information about whom was only given towards the end of Volume 3 of the Message. In fact some people might even think one is trying to show off his knowledge!

However, YOU see this action of trying not to unduly impose on other people as being secretive, snobbish, clandestine or hoarding the Truth.
Well, I am sure many readers of this forum will not agree with you. So, lets leave it at that!
Best wishes.

Okay. I must admit you make sense. Apologies for my earlier impatience.

bingils: What you have up there is exactly the reason why your women are made to look so cheap, exposing every single part of their body for men to see, I will never have respect or feeling for women who don't cover their bo.ssoms, instead walk about na.ked all in the name of some use.less civilisation.

Modesty is pure, keep your body sacred & holy, wearing revealing dresses undermines the woman in you, instead you are regarded as a cheap s.lut with no hope for the future...

A girl on Hijab has fear for her Creator, not to excite a man's lustful desire, whether you like it or not every part of a woman's body is tempting to men, some men might consider just her legs as sexy, not to talk of seeing the her bo.ssom or other tempting parts of her body!

Typical case is when you have a lady fully dressed and covered in Hijab & some lady who is half dressed & exposing tempting parts of her body, both coming to walk by pass a group of hoodlums, which of them to you is more vulnerable to be attacked by the hoodlums? The answer is not far fetched the na.ked lady of course...

Hijab is a woman's right, and every right thinking Muslim woman is expected to wear it as ordained by Allah anytime she leaves the four walls of her home!

SHAT UP. THE HIJAB IS NOTHING BUT CULTURAL IMPRISONMENT. THE SAME WAY IN SAUDI THE WOMAN CANNOT DRIVE, VOTE, OR TRAVEL WITHOUT HER HUSBAND'S WRITTEN PERMIT. ITS A BARBARIC TRADITION ENFORCED BY AN INSECURE MALE POPULATION. PERIOD.

shinealight: @ Deep Sight

You know you make me laugh sometimes . There are no secrets at all but everyone has to bestir himself who seeks knowledge, be it spiritual or otherwise. I have shared with you the source of the knowledge which crossbearers share and how YOU can go about acquiring it yourself. However, you want someone to spoon feed you with everything without any effort on your part. Well, that will never happen, not from me anyway!

If you ever get round to getting yourself a copy of the Grail Message, please do not fail to read the lecture "Indolence of the Spirit". You can glean many things from there!
Best wishes

There you go. Arrogant presumptions upon presumptions upon presumptions. Symptomatic of course, of the same snobbishness in some imagined esoteric exclusivity to certain knowledge. You really need to pause, man.

MY DEAR, I have a copy of the Grail Message, and have read it several times, and still do - - - and also several of the author's other writings. I am not concerned about myself in that regard. I am concerned at the utterly unnecessary attitude of secrecy that you and others so frequently deploy. In doing so, you do the Message and its author a great dis-service: you Portray the Message as something Clandestine. I say to you that that is wrong. If you wish though, you are of course free to continue to "hoard" the Truth for yourself and only those privileged others who you consider deserving. I really don't know how anyone can speak of truth and yet continuously make statements such as yours - namely - "inappropriate to share [the truth] in a public forum." ! ! ! ! ! If that is not uncertainty of truth, it is at best cowardice. End of.

shinealight: Hello Justcool.
Or do you consider it inappropriate to go into the subject on this forum? If you think the latter, I will understand!

O, my God. Not again. Secrets upon secrets upon secrets.

Enjoy ya secrets!

justcool: @Deep sight

Who is a real Atheist?

A real Atheist is one who is completely spiritually dead. Who does not perceive any inner vibrations. One who is completely spiritually immobile. Or like people say, “one who has no conscience.”

I cannot really begin to argue anything afresh or anew, as I believe the most salient points have already been made. However I really continue to wonder how on earth anybody can define the above as "real atheism". There is no definition or understanding of the notion of atheism real or otherwise, anywhere in this world which connotes the above.

The above has nothing to do with atheism, real or otherwise, spiritual or intellectual.

However as I have said, this is not something to be debated extensively as all the salient points have been made above by various posters.

Its glaring. But who won't see, won't see.

justcool: You are very welcome to disagree with me; there is absolutely nothing wrong with disagreeing with as I'm only human and can very much be wrong.
Live with what your spirit is willing to accept; that's the only thing that can benefit you. Irrespective of whether you agree with me or not, you will always be my brother and my friend. You can always count on my warmest regards and well wishes.

However, when you quote Abd-ru-shin, make sure you are quoting in the right context. Abd-ru-shin never discouraged anybody from praying or giving thanks to the Almighty; nor did he ever say any word to express that worship of God is unnecessary.

Thanks

Thank you.

Well for the benefit of anyone reading, let me clarify that the Grail Message is replete with admonitions to humble worship and thanksgiving to God. The portion I paraphrased was within the context of karmaic reactions and their precision in delivering to man what is due to him.

I have been thinking about a simple line that could encapsulate my thoughts on this matter without being wordy. I think its this: Even theists have different perceptions of God. Not every theist believes that God requires outward worship or even acknowledgement. The field is vaster when we the speak about atheists. There are many perceptions. The poster called plaetton on this forum calls himself atheist but believes in the existence of eternal 'energy', his understanding of which is roughly analogous to my understanding of what God is. He does not believe that that "energy" requires acknowledgement or worship, just as I too do not believe that the eternal "somethingness' which we call God, requires any special prayer, acknowledgement or worship. I rather believe that the worship of God rests in genuine wonder at creation and the experience and exercise of the love and beauty therein.

At all events the justice of God returns to each his just and meet dues, no more, and no less. Jesus hints at this when he says that whatever a man sows, the same shall he reap. Abd Ru Shin hints at this when he says that therefore man really need neither pray nor give thanks: for all that is due to him will issue forth naturally from his actions or inactions, his thoughts, words and deeds.

It is really as simple as that.

I do not think that spiritual death is the same thing as "real atheism" as justcool has suggested. No, not at all. The concepts are very different indeed: and there are various forms of atheism which are truly atheist but which recognize a common "spirit." Many of these are philosophically well grounded to the extent that they proceed from the point of view that matter is neither created nor destroyed; and as such must exist by default. This is the position of thehomer even though I do not agree with it. I should also note that justcool has blurred the lines of distinction between the so called intellectual atheists and the spiritual atheists with his answer to the last question from shinealight. With that answer, the distinction effectively no longer exists.

justcool: Such love which is the real love embodied and personified in Jesus, an atheist cannot express!

Nor can a Hindu, Buddhist, Taoist, Confucianist, Shintoist, Pagan, Muslim, or traditionalist.

In short, everyone who lived before Jesus time as well, and also those who lived after his time, but lived in far off continents where the gospel never was preached before they died.

Does this make sense to you?

Is this spiritually just?

shinealight: @ M_Nwankwo
An atheist would shut himself off from this help from the Light!

Does the LIGHT work with intellectual belief in entities, or with spiritual justice: i.e: Karma?

[quote author=m_nwankwo]Hi Shinealight. Thanks for asking for clarification so as not to misrepresent what I said. I am aware of the quote you sited. My postion is in agreement with the quote you sited. Abdrushin knows the true state of the spirit and when he speaks of atheists, he refered to to those whose spirit did not believe in GOD or his existence. It refers to people who I already described in my submission as "spiritual atheist". It does not refer to people who I labelled as "intelectual atheists". As I submitted in my penultimate mail, there are atheists (I call them "intellectual atheist) and this group do not "malevolently and wantonly act contrarly to the laws of GOD". Indeed these group of "intellectual atheists" act in obedience to the laws of GOD. It is just that there brain is not yet counscious of what is already alife in their spirits. But the fruits of the seeds that these "intellectual athesists" sow is a pointer that their spirits recognise and know of GOD. Stay blessed.[/quote]Just like my former boss, a Swedish lady. . . an atheist, but a kinder, more compassionate, and more humane person, you can never come across. . .

justcool: @ all

In order to make my self clearer, after reading the most recent exchange interaction between Deep sight and Shinalight, I fell compelled to make this post. I actually had to postpone an important appointment to make this quick post. I have to save my soul, because he who makes the Truth agreeable and easier to men to win their adoration commits a great sin.

I wish to make it clear that the explanation I gave to Speer in regards to the Atheist who has genuine concern for his fellow man, is only in the light of such genuine concern or consideration and must not be confused with love. An Atheist can have genuine concern of his neighbors' physical well-being; but real love goes deeper than that. Real love is directed mainly towards the spiritual well-being of man!


Also when I call m_nwankwo's post, provided by Deep sight, enlightening, I only consider it such in light of the love mentioned there being genuine concern or genuine consideration for ones neighbor.

However, the pure and simple Truth is that an Atheist cannot love! If we mean the genuine love which proceeds from God, intricately and inseparably tied to His power; the love that only the spirit can receive, swing in and pass on, the love that is only concerned to the spiritual condition not physical condition. A man who swings in this love directs it only to the spirit of his fellow man not their physical condition. And this love is so powerful and inseparable from God, that once a spirit makes contact with it, from it this so blessed spirit divines God or perceives his nearness.

Such love which is the real love embodied and personified in Jesus, an atheist cannot express! One who does not believe in the existence of the spiritual and God is automatically distanced from the greatest of all God's blessing.

I know this is very hard to follow intellectual and I may receive condemnation for it; but I cant distort the Truth to make easier.

I absolutely agree with shinealight that an Atheist is excluded from the Power of God.

@Speer. I've seen your post an I will treat it as soon as I can. I have to run for now I'm already late to a meeting. My conscience just wont let me go ahead without making the above post.

Really? So the Parable of the Good Samaritan means nothing to you, sir?

[quote author=m_nwankwo]@all. What a lot of people profess in their day consciousnesses is not in many instances the nature of the soul. Thus it is almost meaninglessness what label individuals give to themselves or believe themselves to be. If you want to know what a man is or is not, intuitively look at all his activities (words, actions, thoughts, imagination, intuition, etc). Creation can only be experienced and it is in experiencing the fruits of the seeds sown by us and our fellow travelers that we will come to the certainty of the state of the soul, perhaps our inner faculties may be opened permitting us to survey the evolution and the present state of the spirit. There are many who today profess to be atheists who are not and there are many who also profess to be theists who are actually atheists. An earthly professed atheists who shows or demonstrates spontaneously or as second nature genuine acts of love is intellectually an atheist but spiritually a theist. The physical body and its brain is quite dense and for some it takes quite some time for the brain to be conscious of this even though such impressions constantly albeit unconsciously permeates the physical body. Depending on each individual, this period when the brain is not yet conscious of that which vibrates in the spirit may take weeks, decades, or yet another incarnation. I am sure that some people have in there own sphere of life come across genuine acts of love by an atheist and these acts of love cannot be dismissed on the basis that the profess atheism.

An atheist who without regard to his own safety spontaneously jumps into water to save a drowning child is showing genuine act of love or an atheist who selflessly risks his or her life to protect a woman from being molested by decadent men is showing genuine act of love. Such a Love comes from GOD. The spirit of the so called atheist is aware of it, it is only the brain that is still unconscious and the conscious recognition will someday also penetrate the earthly brain. If one is spiritually an atheist, then it is impossible for genuine acts of love to manifest through and from them. Since in life, many have experienced genuine acts of love from some of these "intellectual" atheists, the correct interpretation is that their spirit have absorbed the Gods love and the spirit is aware of the love of GOD. To deny that some who profess atheism have not shown genuine love is in opposition to the experiences of millions of people who have witnessed or benefited from the selfless love of these "intellectual atheist" who in my perception are spiritually theists. The nature of a seed can be correctly inferred from the fruit that it produces. He or she who demonstrates genuine acts of love is in tune with the love of GOD, in tune with Jesus even when his day awareness is not yet conscious of this connection.[/quote]Excellently said. I would have thought all this was already well expressed in your previous post I provided. Surprised it misses some.

shinealight: @ Deep Sight

Well, I have read the exchange between you and M_Nwankwo and it does not change anything of what I stated earlier.

To be clear; the two posts I provided are not an exchange between Nwankwo and I; they rest in different threads, albeit expressing the same idea. By "Follow up" I meant this thread.

To believe in Jesus is to believe in and practise his Message of Love. However you have to understand what that message of love is. It is not that sensual feeling of affection that human beings call love but the Higher Love which is the same as Justice and is bound up with the Laws of Creation. So basically, Love and Justice are bound together and manifest in the Laws of Creation which are no respecter of persons, be you Christian, Buddhist, Atheist or whatever. So, to understand the true message of Love you have to understand the working of the Laws of Creation. It is the understanding of these laws that the Grail Message sought to explain and guide us into.

And this summarizes my position. Excellent.

Besides the above, there is also Power in the name, whether you believe it or not. Hence the second Commandment of God given through Moses states that "THOU SHALL NOT TAKE THE NAME OF THE LORD THY GOD IN VAIN".

And what about those who have never heard such names?

It is not for nothing that the commandment was given. [b]The name awakens and gathers the concept in man! Whoever dishonours a name and dares to debase it, thereby debases the concept!

What about those who have a similar concept but with different identities and names: the gods and godesses of various ancient religions?

The Grail Message is widely available depending on your location. I suggest you check out the link below and from there you can access the Book Store for your country of residence:
http://shop.alexander-bernhardt.com/index.php?page=index&x77939=dbebd442d61e57b70e115ec80ba82c96

And for the illiterate also?

In addition to this, there are Grail Circles & Grail Centres in many cities of the world and there are helpers who are willing to guide those who are desirous of reading the Message in a language of their mother tongue in a Reader's Forum.

And in all languages also?

And here is the post from myself, following the above. It dwells on the parable of the good samaritan.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jesus then replied with a story:

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


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

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

Now note carefully the next verses –

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

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

Now Wikipedia says -

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

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

Notwithstanding that, this is what Jesus conveys –

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

Jesus concludes –

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And –

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

https://www.nairaland.com/634923/wallace-cannot-good-god-does#8025566

Here is the first post i promised. I call it "The True Meaning of Love" by M Nwankwo. It remains my favorite post on nairaland till date.

God is love. One can also say that God is the source of love. All creatures of God irrespective of race, religion, sex, nationality etc can absorb of this love of God and dispense it accordingly. In the case of human beings, what absorbs this love from God is the human spirit. This love will permeate the spirit, its clocks including the outermost shell, the physical body. Thus he who absorbs the rays of love will manifest love including love for all creations of God. Now, the recognition of this love as coming from God depends on the various radiation connection between the spirit and the various shells surrounding the spirit, the last shell being the physical body and its coordinating center, the human brain. In many of us, this radiation connections are not straight, thus the shells enveloping the spirit are not conscious of the impressions that vibrates in the spirit. Thus a man may believe himself to be an atheist because that is what his brain tells him and yet his spirit is in the recognition of God. Irrespective of his brain telling him that God does not exist, the emanations of the spirit including love still permeates his mind and body resulting in expressions of genuine love. Thus although from a human standpoint, such a man is considered by himself and others to be atheist, spiritually the man is a theist.

In a similar vein the brain and the mind may be trained or indoctrinated or programmed to believe in God but their spirit has no recognition of God. In this case, this believer is actually an atheist even though he believes himself to be a theist. However because he, that is, the spirit has no connection with God, he cannot absorb the rays of love and manifest it. Thus, in spite of his intellectual believe in God, he still manifests the works of the flesh including hatred, anger, lust, gossip, avarice, fear, etc. The species of a seed determines the fruits that it will bear. Thus all genuine love and human beings who indulge in it believe in God even when they are unconscious of it while on earth.

Thus, all human beings who indulge in genuine love are of God and all those who indulge in hatred are not of God. By there works or fruits, you shall know those who stand in the will of God and those that oppose it or do not recognize it. This is an infallible yardstick to know who belongs to God and those who are not.

Therefore the love of God manifests in the love of all creations of God. On earth, it is possible for an atheist to love God without being spiritually conscious of it. However if such atheist continues in the manifestation of the love of God, either later in this earthly life or in the beyond on in another earthly life the emanations of the love of God that vibrates in his spirit will also permeate his earthly brain such that he also becomes conscious of the existence of God while in the physical body. What counts is how our spirit is close or far away from the will of God. Religion, nationality, sex, class and similar things that we think are very important while on earth are worthless once we drop this physical body.

In my view, there is no difference between the pope, the Christian, the mystic or an atheists when it concerns the will of God. Murder is murder whether perpetrated by a pope, a theist or an atheist. Genuine love is genuine love whether it came from an atheist, a pastor or an agnostic. Sometimes we think too much and thus think nothing. If we look around even on earth, we should find that the natural laws which are the manifestation of the will of God in nature does not give a hoot about all these artificial constructs. If a bud-hist sows yam in a fertile soil, he will reap yam. The same goes for an atheist and the theist. In an earthquake or epidemic or accident, both theists and atheists are saved and killed. A deeper look on why these things are the way they are may open our eyes to the working of God. Best wishes.

https://www.nairaland.com/687376/true-meaning-love-nwankwo

I fully expected an answer such as this; and you have not failed to deliver it.

shinealight: @ Deep Sight
The answer to that question is subjective. There are millions of moslems who would say he is not and even more millions of buddhists and animists who do not accept that he is. Not to mention hundreds of millions of atheists who do not even believe in the existence of God, talkless of His Son. I daresay not all those millions will go to Hell but at the time that is right for them they will come to the recognition of the Truth either here or in the hereafter.

I put the question to you and not any one else; and I had a reason for so doing.

So, if your perception is that he is, then for you he is and you would reap the benefit of his Power when you call on his name. If however you inwardly do not accept that he is, then his power cannot reach you either. It is exactly the same with belief or disbelief in the existence of God.

I strongly disagree with this. What factors enable "belief" to be beneficial to the believer. In fact, what does it take to "believe' in Jesus Christ. I say to you that such belief has nothing to do with his identity - but rather has to do with living in love according to his teachings and commandments. Thus one who believes that Jesus is the Christ and Son of God but does not live in love is lost; whereas one who does not even know of the existence of Jesus, or does not believe that he is the Christ, and yet lives in love, is saved and accesses the power of the love of God, anyway.

What I am thus saying here is that what is cardinal is for each person to live in love. Love should be the guiding principle. If we live our lives in love, nothing else is required. We are certainly not required to "recognize" this or that envoy: that would render God and his envoys egoistic and even petty, if you think on it. Nor is any blessing or power closed to us for such failure to recognize and envoy: for all blessings are routed through love and the simple laws of Karma, regardless of our religion.

To back up this position I would want you to read two posts made in the past. They are quite long and so I will post them separately below. One is written by M Nwankwo and the other by myself. Please take the time to go through them as they are quite important.

You, or course, would want Crossbearers to come out and announce who Abd-ru-shin, the Author of the Grail Message is, his spiritual identity, his relationship to the Almighty, etc. Of what use would that be to you or anybody else.

Well Christians daily proclaim publicly who Jesus is. If their claim is true, that very declaration I am sure has nudged many people out of curiosity to draw towards the church and seek his succour. I can see no reason why Crossbearers on the other hand are terrified of stating who Abd Ru Shin is. I verily suspect that the only reason Cross Bearers have this great reticence is the fact that they know it is an astonishing claim: and one that will be received with mirth by most people. That, if we are to be severely HONEST with ourselves, is the real reason for the secrecy, excuses and reticence.

If you are truly seeking, pick up the book,

Just how widely available is this book? I have a copy here in my study, but I know for a fact that this book is not exactly the most widely available book out there. Thus in proportion to the amount of humans and indeed seekers, it is unrealistic to ask everyone to get the book. It simply is not that widely available.

As such, it would make sense for those who have read it to be willing to share some of the fundamental thoughts in it.

Perhaps you should also think about the illiterate, and persons who speak languages that the book has yet to be translated into! Christians do not hesitate to evangelize to such people in a way suited to their own understanding, do they? They boldly share their message of salvation nonetheless, no? Will the crossbearer withhold the message from the illiterate and the man of a different tongue?

Now I will post below the two posts from Nwankwo and myself and these posts are meant to task you on the question of belief in any God, any name whatsoever, and if there is any benefit in such, as opposed to the simple principle of just living a life of love.

shinealight: Thank you for your comments Deep Sight. Please note that the Grail Message cannot be taught. No Crossbearer sets out to teach anybody the Grail Message. Every serious seeker takes from it what s/he is able to inwardly identify with or leaves it alone if s/he finds nothing in it.
Best wishes

Okay.

Lets put two direct questions to you. But I will advance them one at a time. Can you help answer me this -

1. Is Jesus the SON of God?

I am sure you understand why I have the word "son" capitalized and bolded.

shinealight: Hahahahahaha! I actually find your own comments quite funny as well. Anyway, I would refer you to a statement which Justcool gave in response to Speer's question above, which sums things up quite nicely:

"Therefore be careful with what you teach your descendants. You will be held accountable for whatever you teach people. Even everything you write in the Nairaland forum; you must one day face the consequences".

I do not want to misguide anyone on this forum, neither do I want to overload anyone's faculties as I do not know who is reading the posts and how far they have gone in their reading of the Grail Message. I therefore think it better to err on the side of caution!
Best wishes.

O I get that. . . perhaps I just wonder if truth is harmful. . . and if truth is simple.

I know that THE truth is simple and always beneficial.

When you talk about overloading people's faculties, you presume that they do not have the faculties for such. More importantly, it emerges from such a presumption that that which you seek to teach is in fact not simple, and also carries the potential for harming those who are in fact simple.

You would not be hesitant to teach openly the simple and most important truths, would you?

But you will of course be hesitant to teach advanced "truths" which involve deifying the Author of the message as Parsifal himself: the radiations for whom are said to originate in the divine: and other such "recognitions" the importance of which are, of course, only obvious to the initiated.

If I were to ask you who Jesus was, his deeper identity, you would not hesitate to openly respond according to your conviction. However if I were to ask you the same question regarding Abd Ru Shin, you would begin to talk about overloading my faculties, the need for me to come to recognition via my own effort, and such other. Do you not think that the hesitation to identify who is who bespeaks that which does not rest in truth?

[Edited: Some text removed for goodness' sake!]

shinealight: Hope this is of some help.
Regards.

LOL, this is actually funny. Very helpful it is indeed, when you snobbishly decide not to "go to far" and not to say too much "in an open forum" and then talk about "the last most sacred fulfillment", which of course, must also perhaps be kept a secret from the public who are knaves, no?

Very helpful indeed.

What did the Rule 17 say please, can anyone inform me?

shinealight: Hello Deep Sight. Thanks for your comments. I understand perfectly what informed those comments but I wish to disabuse your mind about the motive for withholding certain information being to maintain secrecy for the sake of it, or to be condescending towards seekers.

Firstly, from my experience, the key thing that makes the Grail Message unique and special is that nobody tells you what to believe or what you must accept. The Message simply states the Will of God in Creation and it is up to each person to weigh and examine what has been given and see if it strikes a chord of truth within him or not. Everything has to do with the individual's personal recognition and the individual is encouraged to use his God-given intuitive faculty to inwardly perceive what is true and what is not. He thereby comes to recognition gradually through inner experiencing. What he then accepts as being true, he is able to hold on to with unbending conviction.

This is not the case when everything is handed to you without any effort on your part. Most people do not appreciate things unless they have to expend some effort to acquire it. This applies to information, knowledge and what have you. Also, when you have to figure things out through inner experiencing, there is a certain joy that comes with it when recognition finally dawns on you. No one should be denied the joy that comes from such personal recognition!

Secondly, the Bringer of the Message himself has arranged the Work in such a way that knowledge is diffused to the spirit of man gradually and progressively so as not to overload him through premature exposure which may end up straining his delicate faculties. The lectures are arranged in sequence and are meant to be read in sequence in order to facilitate clear understanding as well as spiritual absorption. If your friend sees you trying to jump lectures or to read Volume 3 of the Message before you have even completed Volume 1, it would be right for him to caution you or even deny you access to it. Such action is only to help you and not to be secretive for the sake of it.

In the quotation you cited, I simply used the word 'Prince' because I considered that mentioning his name would be a premature release of information concerning his identity. The information is there for the earnest seeker but the seeker needs to find what he is seeking by expending some effort of his own. Only then will he appreciate what he has found and be prepared to defend what he has laboured to find with everything he has. It might sound hard but it is the best help for the spirit!
Regards and stay blessed.

Only the bold in your quote above makes sense to me.

I feel that recognition of identities of this or that envoy or personage is neither here nor there in the matter of individual redemption/ salvation. Only the individual's karma/ inner volition/ spiritual standing matter. As such, i still do not see the point in the great secrecy surrounding the identities of this or that personage or envoy. In fact I will go so far as to say it is a sure sign of the development of personality cults amongst adherents / crossbearers. The Authour preached personal responsibility - so it should be - and no one should begin to hold personalities (no matter how exalted) as some sort of secret icon that only the "eleveted" can "recognize".

[quote author=m_nwankwo]Abdrushin was arrested and prohibited by the Nazi from continuing his work. It is one of the main reasons why he issued the statement.[/quote]As such, the remarks in question should not be taken as any censure of associations, don't you think?

The other reason is also the massive failure of called ones, a failure that shocked Abdrushin to the core. The context is that Abdrushin did revise some of his statements based on prevailing situations as well as the spiritual state of mankind. As always stay blessed.

Does it not seem unlikely that the existence or non existence of such associations would affect the mission of a called one such as to warrant such a strong statement from him? It therefore seems that it was wholely the Nazis behind such a statement from him.

"It is necessary to avoid even the appearance as if the Movement is continuing in any form whatsoever."

What made this "necessary"? - - -> even to the extreme of being necessary to avoid even the appearance of any continuity of the movement - - -> from whom, or from what institution, was it necessary to avoid such appearance?

[quote author=m_nwankwo]Hi Shinealight,

In another context Abdrushin literally dissociated himself from the Grail Movement and directed that the movement should not continue in whatever form. In 1938, Abdrushin reportedly wrote:
[b]"I serve notice that all subsequent and existing foreign organizations, which are built upon the Grail Teaching, must restrict any subsequent continuation of their activity to a responsible manner within the laws of their land, so that I myself have in no way anything to do with these organizations, and that every mandate given by me in this direction - whether business or of an organizational kind - is to be regarded as expired. No one is authorized to appoint a commission of any kind on my behalf:

- All mandates issued by me of a business or private nature are terminated. Only the full power of attorney for attorney Dr. Karl Polaczek remains intact, which is to be considered authorized decree, keeping with the spirit of my intent.

- I demand that all my former adherents discontinue every community, every collaboration and every activity that could be interpreted as a continuation of the Movement led by me.

- It is my particular wish that all former members of the Grail Settlement in Vomperberg leave that settlement or its vicinity as soon as possible.

- It is necessary to avoid even the appearance as if the Movement is continuing in any form whatsoever.

He who acts against my expressed wishes, acts against me and on his own responsibility.

Innsbruck, July 19, 1938

Oskar Bernhardt (signed by hand)"[/b][/quote]What was the motivation behind this reported statement? Was it or was it not due to Nazi harrassment? Did it, or did it not originate from security intimidation by the Nazi Regime? Is it possibly the case, or not, that such a statement was made on the express insistence of the Nazi regime? Was Abd-ru-Shin arrested, or not arrested, by the Nazi regime at any point in time with regard to any matters associated thereto?

Look particularly at the line I have highlighted in red. What was that "necessity" or "imperative"?

I would be interested to know.

Also, the answers may have a bearing on your discussion with shinealight.

shinealight: We also learned about the Seer who was shown clearly the danger that was to befall the Prince[size=16pt] (name withheld)[/size]

Why are you doing this? Why are you withholding any names? I have, for years on this Forum from time to time advised other adherents of the Grail Message against this curious practice of unnecessary secrecy in certain matters and withholding certain information.

This is a VERY bad practice because it besmirches the Message and its key spiritual history with the toga of secrecy, and this toga of secrecy in turn gives the public to rightfully and reasonably regard it as a secret cult, secret association, occult movement or other such clandestine or unwholesome conglomeration of people and ideas.

You are thus doing a great disservice to the great work of the Author when you seek to "withhold" information regarding him, his work, or any incidents or people in the key spiritual history of his work on Earth.

I know many people who refuse to ever touch the Grail Message because of just this. Whilst I agree that the loss remains theirs, I feel that there is no need to adopt such an attitude which leads people away from, or renders people averse to an invaluable spiritual guide book such as "In the Light of Truth".

I was first given "In the Light of Truth" by a friend of mine back in university and it changed my life. However same friend took it upon himself to adjudge my spiritual readiness for other works by the author, and as such went to great lengths to prevent me from accessing them from him - until I managed to start procuring them myself. I think it is presumptuous for you or any adherent of the Message to take it upon himself to determine who you will disclose information to, and who you would not.

Are you keeping anything secret from the public?

WE ARE ALL FIGHTING TO UNDERSTAND REALITY.

Mazaje,

I see that you have been in spectacular form on this thread.

plaetton: That matter is mutable is an accepted truth. But how does that fact negate the possibility that matter itself is self existent?

A self existent thing cannot change.

Since matter is basically condensed energy, and matter and energy are convertible to one another, why can't matter be said to be self-existent just like energy?

Self existent things are intrinsically permanent in nature. That is the very quality of self existence.

Besides the duality of matter/energy, what else do we have in existence?

Permanent intangible self existent things. Such as infinite time, infinite space and infinite permutations.

The idea that there must be an inmutable self-existent god that begat matter is actually illogical. The notion of an inmutable god creating a super dynamic universe, presumably from nothing, is glaringly contradictory.

The reasoning is that -

1. At all events, some thing or the other must self exist for anything to exist.

2. This is because something cannot emerge from nothing.

3.That which self exists can only be that which is permanent, non contingent, intrinsically necessary, and could not but exist: and as such, exists by default.

4. It is not reasoned that this factor is mutable: it is reasoned that this factor is the permanent somethingness which is the seed of reality as we know it.

5. As such it is the effects from the cause that infinitely change and not the the cause that changes.

It negates all our scientific understanding of the universe.

We have very little scientific understanding of the universe as yet.

The only metric to define existence is motion. In otherwords, mutability. All that exists are in motion.

This is very well said and profound. I will have to ask you however if time and space exist, and then I will have to ask you if they move: or if we move in them.

But in simpler terms, if the immutable( state of permanent stasis) god exists outside the universe, then we can easily infer that god does not exist in the universe. And if god doesn't exist in the universe, the universe should not care.
That is the atheist's position.

That is the agnostic's position.

thehomer: Huh? How do you know that your God isn't dead or didn't die with the beginning of the universe?

Self existent necessaries are instrinsically eternal.

They're still physical but aren't matter.

Then should not matter to you; aside from the fact, of course, that the point remains the same with this answer.