₦airaland Forum

The very fact that there exists a separate section for Islam is enough evidence for the shameful intolerance and primitive tyranny that the generality of the Islamic mindset discloses. I personally think every Muslim ought to be ashamed of the fact that a separate section had to be carved out for them. It really is a permanent display of the fact that Islam is not fit to co-habit with the rest of the civilized world. Leave them quarantined.

PhysicsQED: What do you mean by "then there was"?

The conclusion to draw from my premises is that it doesn't make sense to assume for no reason that there was existence "prior to" the start of existence.

You keep trying to separate the singularity from the big b.ang and keep trying to place the singularity "before" the big b.ang as if they were separate. When I pointed out how wrong that is, you said it was somebody else's (thehomer's) assertion (as it was), but then continued to argue along that line of thought anyway.

You are being terribly illogical. If there existed no singularity prior to the big b.ang, then from what did the expansion occur? What expanded? Nothingness? So long as it was a somethingness that expanded, then that somethingness necessarily existed before it could be said that it expands. Any less would be pure illogic: voodoo.

And since we necessarily speak of a "before," this then logically translates to pre-existent time. Period.

I really don't have the energy to debate the obvious. That's why I ended up not responding to your very long write ups in the "Speed of Light" thread.

jayriginal: Thats a clever misstatement.

How so? Need i dig up your words?

PhysicsQED: What are you talking about?

What exactly would mean that there was no singularity?

If there was no "before" the big b.ang.

Then there was nothing.

That's the irrevocable conclusion for your faulty premises.

comnsense: Well, yes nature is purposeless; we may want to attribute a purpose to it to link it with an 'intelligent' designer. Evolution is simply about 'what works, survives' full stop. So indirectly, it has a goal to increase the fitness and therefore survival of an organism. But it doesn't 'set' out with any purpose. There is no goal or direction. 99.9 percent of all the species that ever existed are now extinct so where they survived in one era, they were not well equipped in some other. That demonstrates the lack of any direct purpose or design in nature or evolution. It is simply about the survival of the fittest at each point in time.

Please don't task me to point out the baseless assumptions (arising from your obvious omniscience) contained in this post.

So peeps are still creditting the id.iotic Krauss with any iota of grey matter? ? ? ?

plaetton: ^^^^

Why bother to seek answers?
The uncaused cause must have caused it. Its the last cosmic bus stop.

Just ask Deepsight.

And it supposedly makes better sense to assume that said singularities and black holes. . . "just exist"

Voodoo, abi?

Carry on.

Martian: The uncaused cause, the eternal, the sempiternal, the infinite, the immaterial,the unembodied, the force of all forces, the king of all kings, the oneness of infinity....................THE GREAT MUTHAF#CKING LEPRECHAUN!!!.

D.aft. As usual. I am growing accustomed to expecting st.upidity whenever i see your name.

PhysicsQED: Yeah, I've thought of this myself, but I also came across a description of the idea in Kip Thorne's book, Black Holes and Time Warps. In Chapter 13, "Inside Black Holes" he talks about the idea of universes within black holes a few pages into the chapter. It's interesting, but of course, apart from there being no supporting experimental evidence, the theory is also not fully worked out.

With respect to time one could argue that, going in a direction of time considered "backward" in the new universe (assuming the universe that the black hole implosion creates has a time dimension of spacetime that does not run contrary to ours - that is, objects do not run "backward" through time on the macroscopic level, but appear to run "forward" like ours) to the big b.ang of that universe and then to the big b.ang of our universe, one would still not encounter a "time before time" because there would be nothing like a time before spacetime. Even if one wanted to construct an infinite regress of big b.angs started by black holes or one could prove that the number of universes would be finite, the first big b.ang when one goes backward through all spacetimes of all universes would still be the apparent origin of spacetime. So regardless of whether universes are born from black holes or not, one runs into the same situation of there eventually being nothing like "before the (first) big b.ang."

Illogical because this would simply mean that there was no singularity, and as such, no expansion, and as such, no universe.

I was to address your posts to this effect in the Speed of Light thread, but i grew weary of repeating myself.

[quote author=D.A.V.E]if there is predestiny that means God knows this or that persons are going to hell or heaven so why put me through this pain,enjoyment,sufferin,joy of living.Let him take me there where i belong;heaven[/quote]Lol, is that where you belong?

jayriginal: Lol, I remember using the story of the blind men and the elephant to illustrate a point to you.

I was rather thinking about your issues with current scientific laws being "assumptions".

[quote author=israel ben-zion]This is an optional course for those who love Jerusalem.[/quote]Greater foolishness hath no man than he that ignoreth peace in his home to seek peace in another's home.

Olodo.

@ Mr Anony, i have responded to your mail. In order to carry others on the thread along, i would request (as you suggested) that we do a recording and then make available for interested parties to follow your detailed views on the subject.

Cheers.

[quote author=Mr_Anony]Actually, you are not entirely right. Science has faith in order. What science does is to try and provide an explanation for that uniformity i.e. get a better understanding of that uniformity.

Let's begin with the Greeks: First they observe a flat earth. A ball rolls on it, people walk on it, Conclusion: The earth must be like a table. All engineering decisions will be based on the order that the earth is flat i.e. a house should stand on it and not slide off, a chariot's wheels should roll on it etc etc.

Next they notice a horizon and ships disappearing over it then they say perhaps we don't fully understand the order of things and the earth must really be a giant sphere but from our viewpoint, it appears flat.

Notice that at no point is the belief that things must conform to a uniformity shaken rather it is this belief in uniformity that drives science to attempt to reconcile apparent contradictions as it observes them. this is how science progresses; It is more of an updating of theories rather than a discarding of them.

Faith is "God did it", Science is "How did God do it?"

It is like the story of the blind men and the elephant. You may grope your way around it to discover the true nature of the beast but you must accept that there is an elephant which you are trying to understand.[/quote]I would strongly recommend this post to my learned brother jayriginal.

Who will save Nairaland from the BigMac Daddy syndrome trolling us with ante-diluvian illogic? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

O, I see. But both sides were just profering mockery and absurdity. Not worth any serious person's while. Apologies, though if i were you I would rather have ignored such than become entangled in such pedantic meaninglessness.

davidylan: does this apply to the likes of logicboy and co on the religion threads? I guess not. Apparently our mods here have gone to sleep.

Addittionally, there is a much stricter standard applied to any comment that criticizes Islam.

jayriginal: So you say. You should understand the thread from which it came and the context it was posted in first.

And as for nerve, you have a lot of it to use words such as "mockeries", "nonsensical" etc, in reference to anything.

Its a funny world indeed.

Can you show me the thread from which it came?

[quote author=m_nwankwo]No, Lucifer is not the "creator" of our physical bodies. Our spirits and various envelopes or cloaks of the spirit were created by God, albeit indirectly. Lucifer was sent by God to help the human spirit to awaken its talents and develop. To do this the new spirit seeds need cloaks or bodies that can absorb the material radiations in full vigor and relay it to the spirit. The physical body that the spirit seeds acquired from ape like animals need a transformation from ape like bodies to the human body that we know today. Part of the mission of Lucifer is to be a mediator in this transformation of the ape like body to the human body via his radiations. This among other things resulted in the upright figure, massive development of the brain and the ability to talk and evolve a language. Lucifer's radiation to the astral bodies of the wandering incarnated spirits activated the "astral DNA" codes that resulted in the biological genetic mutations that underpins the evolution of the human body from ape like bodies. His success particularly with the development of the human intellect made him indulge in the volition that he is the starting point for these changes instead of being just a mediator of Gods power. This was the beginning of his end for whenever a creature or a radiation of God (no matter how exalted) imagines himself to be God, then such a being will loose connection with Life (God) and the loss of the connection ends in the fall of such a being. For a being whose origin is with creation, the fall will result in spiritual death, the cessation of self consciousness and for a being that has its origin outside of creation, ie, a divine being, the fall will result in expulsion from the divine, the spiritual, the animistic and the world of matter. We can not conceive it but there is nothing more terrible for a being who have once experienced the divine worlds to loose the ability to experience in the divine worlds. That is the state that Lucifer has put himself. As always stay blessed.[/quote]Thanks again. Is his condition reversible in the event that he changes his volition?

plaetton: Ya ya ya. the grail message, the solution to the world's problems.
What else is new?

In the course human history, we have seen so many books, so many philosophies, so many prophets, so many saviours, etc.
God government, spiritual government, guardian class, are these new ideas?

Intuition is not new. It has always been with us, we have always had it, we have always used it. so what? How far have we travelled on the road to spiritual eldorado?

My point is that as the universe is evolving, as organic life is constantly evolving, so are our minds and consciousness evolving as well.
What we have today are the sum total of all that has been in the past.

We have arrived at where we are by a gradual process with every soul that has ever lived having contributed to the process.
We are living in much better times than our ancestors, although with much different challanges than theirs.
We have gradually arrived at or may be arriving at universally accepted ideals of freeedom, right and wrong, justice and injustice and the common aspirations of the human family.

The intellect, as the supreme arbiter of this reality(emphasis), has moved human progress very far in a very short time.
let us not forget that the intellect took a dominant position mainly to the dismal failure of the so-called intuitive and revelatory knowledge to advance human thinking and progress for many millenia.

Bottom line, we are evolving and progressing quite fine.
God government,spirit-inspired government, we've been there, we've done that.
They are all fantasies.

Very well, but what's your own suggestion on ideal government? Still democracy?

Do you think that is the highest or most complete and most noble form of government that humanity can conceive?

[quote author=m_nwankwo]Hi Justcool and DeepSight.

My perception and experience is that the events with Lucifer, the dragon and the queen of heaven did not take place in the primordial or spiritual planes but rather took place in the world of matter (the ethereal plane to be precise). My sensing is that it is impossible for darkness (in this case the evil promptings of lucifer) to penetrate to the to realms of Light which in this context are the spiritual and primordial spiritual planes. At the command of God the Father, volition of Lucifer was radiated out of the divine sphere into creation and this living volition of Lucifer descended until the transitory plane between the the world of matter and the animistic realm. It was at this transitory plane that the living volition of Lucifer have its field of activity and it was from here that it directed the development and evolution of the physical cloak of the the freshly incarnated human spirits especially the human brain. It was here too that he opposed the will of God, and thus automatically severed the radiation link between him and the divine sphere. The fallen Lucifer did send his volition to attack all that is of God including the future son of man, the primordial queen but these evil volition because of their density were held back at this transitory plane and could go no further. It is at this point that the recognition fully dawned on Lucifer that he has indeed fallen and lost connection with God the Father. The evil activities of lucifer have the potential to undermine or entirely prevent the proposed work of redemption by both the son of man and later the son of God because this transitory plane although it is the highest point in the world of matter is the transformation plane of different spiritual currents/energies that streams into material creations from above. Currents that are indispensable for the germination, growth and evolution of material creations as well as spirtual and animistic beings that have incarnated in material creations. Automatically host of angels and other beings were sent to this sphere to battle the fallen Lucifer and his evil volitions and other hosts that succumbed to his evil principle. The fallen Lucifer and its followers lost the battle and lucifer was "chased" out of this highest point in the world of matter into a region under the world of matter. This epic battle have filtered to other parts of material creation through the mediation of servants of God that are called for such purpose. Thus some parts it can be found in the sacred scriptures of religions.

It was impossible for Lucifer to fail even in the primordial spiritual and spiritual spheres. The pressure of the power of God is still so strong that a deviation from the will of God is impossible. It was only in material creation which are cosmic distances from God can alien volition arise in Lucifer. Evil or darkness cannot ascend to the kingdom of God. All battles and temptation between the Light and darkness only happen in the realms of material creation. The fall of man, the battle between Light and darkness as reported in Revelation, the temptation of Jesus, etc all happened in the world of matter. As always stay blessed.[/quote]Thanks for the illumination: but, re: the bold above - does this mean that Lucifer is in fact the "creator" of physical man?

I have always wanted to come back to do a proper discussion here. Justcool do you think humanity can ever successfully implement your recommendations? I would not think so. Especially with the scope of human disagreement on all things religious and spiritual, and the attendant violence therein. There will eternally be universal resistance to such a proposition.

Any takers, any one?

On a serious note, one of the most prominent christian intellectuals on this forum, viaro, once argued extensively that indeed, christ went into heaven, and still dwells in the spiritual heaven, in his physical body and that he is GOD.

When I pointed out to him that he was saying that God lives in heaven in a physical human body, he went beserk and shortly after that abandoned the forum.

https://www.nairaland.com/429593/physcical-bodies-dwelling-spiritual-heavens

justcool: The true owner of the physical body does not incur as much karma as the spirit who forcibly took the reins of the body from the true owner. However the true owner is not totally absolved of Kramer, because she/he is indolent. Only an indolent spirit can lose possession of her/his physical body. Hence reciprocal reaction resulting from such indolence will surly strike the true owner of the body.

If a possessed person commits murder, for example, while she/he is possessed; the reciprocal action resulting from the murder will revenge itself more heavily on the soul doing the possession than the one who got dispossessed of its physical body. However she/he is not totally absolved of this reciprocal action, and must receive a part of it, because if he wasn’t indolent in the first place, the crime would not have been committed.

The departed takes control through the blood radiation which is not suited for the soul of the true owner of the physical body. This blood radiation, which holds the physical body and soul together, does not give this soul a right firm hold on the physical body. Hence another soul in the beyond can take possession of this not-so-firmly held physical body and succeed in pushing the true owner away momentarily and for a long time. Just as any soul wearing a physical body makes an impression on the back brain which modifies the impression and passes on to the frontal brain, which in turn, modifies the impression and sends signals to the mouth to speak, the body to move and etc.; the departed soul makes an impression on the back brain of the loosely held physical body and the rest of the process is the same. The brain responds better to the impression from the departed soul because the rightful owner of the physical is too weak to make its own impression felt by the brain; the blood radiation of the physical body does not offer its (the souls) impressions the right path to brain.

It’s just like a TV that is not properly tuned to the right station. It may end up picking another station's signals or another station's signals may distort its right signals and consequently a distorted picture will be produced.

Also think about CCTV, s. (Closed Circuit TV). This is a system where each camera or many cameras are connected to a particular monitor. Sometimes this connection is wireless, through signals. When the camera or the cameras are turned off, or are faulty, the monitor may start picking up signals from another camera that does not belong to that particular system.

I experience this every day with my car. I have a camera at the back of my car, and a monitor on the dashboard. The camera comes on when I put my car in reverse, so that I can see my back while backing up. And when I’m moving forward, the camera turns off. So sometimes when I’m driving through a neighborhood that have security cameras. My dashboard monitor will come on displaying image from one of those nearby security cameras. Due to homogeneity in frequency, my dashboard monitor, is able to pick up signals from another camera, while the one belonging to it is turned off.

The camera represents the soul; while the monitor represents the physical body. It’s the same process. An indolent soul is like a camera that is turned off or one whose signals are too weak. The physical body (the monitor) as long as it’s on, does not stop working on that account; only that now it’s at the mercy of another nearby camera that operates at the same frequency. We can liken the frequency with the blood radiation. A person with the wrong kind of blood radiation is like a monitor tuned to a different frequency to that which its camera is tuned. Such a monitor is at the mercy of nearby cameras that operate at its frequency. Even if these cameras are not designed for it.

This is most illuminating: and the analogy of the cameras really resonated with me. Honestly you are indeed the master of analogies. You make really great analogies that bring happenings home.

However, only a human soul can possess a person. A demon cannot.

What exactly is a demon. My perception (correct me if I am wrong) is that it is an animistic being that has taken on form and life from the volitions of spirit beings (including humans). If this is the case, and the demon came to exist from the volitions of humans, is it not possible that that volition could be so strong as to dominate the mind of the person from which it issued: and thus attract the consequent demon into permanent residence around the life of such a person. Could such a person not be said to be possessed by a demon. Additionally, if such a demon attracts thought forms of similar nature from a large amount of people, could such a demon not become a powerful entity exerting huge magnetic influence on spheres of people and their lives?

Very good question! First, I will throw more light on what a propensity is. This time I will define it with an analogy.

A propensity can be likened to an addiction. The spirits addiction to anything below the spiritual planes.

What brought the spirit germs down to earth is their desire for development or consciousness which can only be achieved through experiencing the radiations in the world of matter. Hence in order to awaken this consciousness the spirit germs nipp on this and that radiation; in so doing their virtues or qualities awaken. And finally to fully enjoy these radiations and awaken their virtues or spiritual talents to greater degree, they incarnate on earth.

Here we notice two very important distinctions: (1) what motivates them to taste or indulge in this or that radiation is their urge for awakening, maturity, or consciousness. What emanates from them is the desire for consciousness. (2) They are not addicted to these radiations, and hence cannot be described as having propensity. At best we can say that they are driven by curiosity.

A man who out of curiosity accepts a pain killer; or a man who out of the desire to numb a headache accepts a pain killer cannot be described as a drug addict. Even though he goes to a drug store to buy this pain killer, the core of his motive is the desire to cure his headache. You cannot say that the desire for painkiller emanates from him or his body at this point. But after taking this or that pain killer over time he becomes addicted, and at this point his body now yearns for the pain killers. This addiction or this yearning from his body is unnatural and it keeps him hanging around hospitals and drug stores!

Hence the desire for gross material activates, like sexual intimacy, is alien to the spirit for the spirit has no need for it. But the spirit, at the stage of being a spirit germ, desires to taste of the radiations arising from these activities, in order to mature and awaken. What emanates from the spirit is the desire for development, gross material experiencing is only a means to achieving this end; and not the end itself.

Moreover the behavior of spirit-germs as they descend into matter or awaken to consciousness should not be used as a yardstick to measure the ideal spiritual behavior. In the early years of school, a child may soil his cloths often, but an adult should not see that as an excuse that it the intrinsic nature of man to soil his cloths. At the beginning of its development, the spirit-germ strives towards the worlds of matter for its development; at a stage in its development, it know nothing other than to strive towards the luminous heights, away from matter. Just as a seed, when initially planted, sprouting, or germinating, grows or extends its root downwards; only to start growing its stem upwards and only towards the light after germination. You cannot say that growing downwards is an intrinsic nature of trees. This is rough analogy though.
I hope this is clear enough. I can elaborate further if you want me to.

The analogies about medication and the plant completely nail away my concerns. Brilliant analogies sir, as always.

To be born with a propensity does not absolve you of any responsibly. It could be a propensity that you developed in one of your past lives. Now that you are on earth and have recognized this propensity is the time to rid yourself of it. You have hitherto failed to achieve this because you considered it, as can be seen from your statement above, as an integral part of your spirit. And you can never succeed in ridding yourself of it if your fight it with your physical body, your thoughts or the might of your brain.
The urge for purity must arise from your spirit. Moreover you should pray with your intuition for the strength to cleave through this propensity. Like I told you sometime age earlier, in another thread, "all genuine healing comes from within."



Here you are wrong, my dear friend. Hence you have not been able to wean this dependency. The urge for physical intimacy is not an integral part of the spirit since the spirit has no need for it. If this urge emanates from your spirit, then it has become a propensity in you. Through wrong and over indulgence, it has soiled your spirit. But even this dirt cannot and can never be an intrinsic part of the spirit. It can only stain the outmost part of your spirit, the core of your spirit remains chaste. For chastity is integral part of your spirit. It emanates from the core of the spirit and hence stronger than any propensity, and only in the strength of this chastity can you rid your soul or spirit of any propensity.

Very well accepted: however the urges I speak of were not se.xual in nature. Perhaps on a Philosophical Freudian level there is some co-relation, I don't know, but it is a far more puzzling thing than mere se.xuality. Anyway we can perhaps discuss that one off line sometime.

And no, i do not feel insulted in the least: I would not have raised it if I was shy on the matter. Yes, I do have a lustful side, I am only human.

You need a new astral body for each incarnation, because the astral body and the physical body go hand in hand. Each physical body is suited only for its astral body; indeed the physical body is only a reflection of the astral body. Hence the astral body remains in the vicinity of the physical body after physical death. The decomposition of the astral body precedes the decomposition of the physical body, just as its formation precedes the formation of the physical body.

Hence after physical death, before the soul can incarnate again it must have detached from its astral body, it cannot reincarnate with the same astral body that it used in its previous incarnation.

If the soul didn’t go as far as into the ethereal realm, which would have necessitated it shading its fine gross material body as well, in its next incarnation it will only need a new astral body through which it can incarnate into a new physical body. Hence it still wears the same body of fine gross mater as it wore in its previous incarnation; but for each incarnation it needs a new astral body and a new physical body.

If the soul had shed its fine gross material body after physical death, and hence had stepped into the ethereal realm, and consequently wearing an ethereal body as its outmost body; then for it to reincarnate on earth, it must receive a new body of fine gross matter, then a new astral body and consequently a new physical body. Hence both his astral body and the body of fine gross matter will be different from the ones he wore in his previous earth-life, yet the ethereal body will remain the same.

Had he ascended into Paradise and have to incarnate on earth again, he will have to put on new animistic bodies, new ethereal body, new fine gross material body, new astral body, and finally new physical body. Hence all his cloaks will be different from the ones he wore in his previous earth-life.

Whatever the case maybe, each incarnation requires a new physical and astral bodies. Both bodies are closely connected. Since the physical is a reflection of the astral body, it implies that each physical body is uniquely designed for an astral body, and whatever happens to the astral body manifests in the physical body as well.

I see. Thanks.

I do not see anything binding here; however, it depends on their attitudes towards each other.

A pledge and an oath are not the same thing. An oath is like swearing. Here the individual places his will above every other thing. This is very wrong and unnatural because man in all his promises and pledges must make sure that this promising or pledging is in accord with the Will of God, and will always leave room for the Will of God to take precedence if this pledge he made is not in accordance with God’s all holy will.

A man sees a woman they start dating, he promises her marriage and even does the traditional marriage or church wedding. Along the line he discovers that they are not compactible; they quarrel and break the marriage. Still there is absolutely nothing wrong in this ending of an unnatural union. Such ending will not result in a non-physical bonding; since by ending the disharmonious union, the couple has shown precedence to the will of God. It would be a greater sin to continue the marriage when they both know that they are incompatible. The marriage may survive but as a business deal; such is unnatural before the laws of God. Even if they learn how to tolerate each other or deal with each other, the union remains a sin. For both parties spiritual accent will be disturbed by such union. And there are many such marriages today. They are nothing but prostitution.
Love and compatibility should be the bases of marriage; where any of the two is missing, marriage should immediately be ended.

Traditional rites, especially as it is practiced in the part of Igbo where I’m from, and especially the way it is practiced today, will not result in unnatural binding that will outlive the couple’s earth-lives. Basically the woman is given a glass of wine, from which she takes a sip and gives her husband. The husband takes a sip and gives back to wife. Actually this is a better way or symbolizing what a harmonious marriage should, better than the western way where the couple are told to kiss each other on the altar right after being pronounced husband and wife. This kissing in front of everybody, even children and especially on the altar, is very wrong because it places physical union as the major aim of marriage. However, let’s not dwell on this.

Now back to your question; in order not to give a very long answer here, there is no point treating each different scenario. As long one makes his promise out of pure love, such a person is protected from unnatural ties. Pure love will not allow you to see you wife or wife-to-be as a property or something that belongs to you, which you would rather die than let go off. Such attitude will only be selfishness and not love which is selfless. It is such attitude or unhealthy attachment that can cause unhealthy binding that can outlive the individual’s earth-life, irrespective of what the outward earthly circumstances are.

Also one must place the will of God before all else. The purpose of marriage is to work harmoniously together towards the Light. And to love somebody doesn’t necessarily mean that you can achieve marriage with that person, with marriage compatibility (having complementary characters or behavior) is indispensible. Hence quarrels, nagging, and bickering are sure signs of incompatibility not necessarily lack of love.

In such cases, where compatibility is lacking, the most loving gift to give the woman is to end the marriage.

Profound.

Nobody said that the dead body still feels pain. The pain that the soul feel stems from its attachment to the body which is no longer a part of it, and which was never really a part of it, but only a cloak it wore. Out lack knowledge of the structure of creation and out of spiritual indolence, some people no longer consider their physical bodies as a cloak; they consider it not only a part of them but the only them there is!

This unnatural attachment causes them to suffer when the body is attacked, eventhough they nolonger wear this body. Look around, you will see this phenomenon in different forms. A mother may love her child so much that when the child is sick, the mother feels the pains of the disease! It is this attachment that causes the pain and not necessarily a direct physical connection to the child. Another man loves his house so much that he feels physical pain as he watches his house being torn down. Some people even have a heart attack and etc. It does not mean that the house feels any pain; the pain arises from the man’s unnatural attachment to something that is not a part of him. Any wonder why such a man would be bound to the house after death.

Humans develop unnatural attachment towards many things, even sports. What about the people that becomes sick when their favorite team loses. Or the people that actually feel PHYSICAL pain when a goal is scored against their favorite team? Surely you must have observed this phenomenon.

I can go on and on about this. Indeed I watched scientific experiment where people feel pain that was not real just because they had expected it. Such an indolent soul, who still feels the pains of autopsy, simply does not know that the physical body is not him but only a cloak he had just taken off.

The analogies nail it again. Excellent sire.

The above tells you everything! If only you realize what you said here! Those that you hardly feel sexual to are those that you actually love! The love you feel for them will not let you attach anything dirty, even the smallest dirty thought, to them. Towards them you are selfless although unconsciously.

How love teaches us everything!! And the confession you made above just showed that you are still capable of genuine love! Hence you are not spiritually dead!!

This love clearly shows you that sexually, you are not as you should be yet! Hence you will never try to become intimate with such a loved person because you are still lustful. And this is not only you, don’t take my explanation personal, don’t take offence; I’m just explaining a phenomena to you.

It’s like a cook who knows that she has not perfected her cooking, and hence would rather give her food to her dogs than her children, out of fear of poising them. This love in your hearth clearly points out to you the road to the luminous heights; it clearly shows you which path to thread. It shows you three major things: (1) You are still lustful (the cook hasn’t learnt how to cook in the right manner), (2) You don’t love those ones you feel sexually attracted to as much as the ones you would rather not have sex with (the cook does not love her dogs as much as her kids)(3) It also shows that this lust, which claimed to be an intergral part of your spirit does not emarnate from the core of your spirit, otherwise it would easily unite with the love that emarnates from your spirit. It is only like a dirt that hands on your spirit. If it came from the core of your spirit as an integral part, you would only gladly share it the people you love and will not feel an inward desire not to. Since that which comes from your spirit is the highest and the most loving you can give; you will naturaly feel compleled to share it with your loved ones.

If you can only purify your cooking, i.e. free yourself from lust. And strive to love everybody equally. Once you rid yourself of this lust, first the urge for sexual union will reduce, and will only arise when there is perfect harmony. If your free your spirit from this dirt that is attached to it, your unhealthy lustfulness would cease; then only a healthy desire for intimacy would arise from your physical body, at the right time; a pure desire that will only set in when there is parfect spiritual harmoney between you and your partner. Such physical intimacy would not only relieve your physical need but will also further your spirit and strenghten the harmoney between you and your partner, producing greater power.

In other words, once the cook has learned to love her dogs as much as kids, and most importantly, when she has learned to cook very well without the fear of poisoning; she would only cook clean meals which she would feel compelled, by love, to share with her children! And such food would only nurish this children.

Just as now, you would rather not aprroach those you love sexually; when you rid yourself of this lust, you would rather not aproach the "worldly woman" sexualy anymore, in fear of geting contaminated again or becoming lustful again! Nobody would share his clean house with a pig! He would rather open his door to only worthy and clean(non-lustful) people who would not soil his clean house. Nobody cooks a clean meal and shares it with a pig!

I will give another analogy: When a man is dirty and sweating, after hard physical labour. In such condition he wouldnt let his kids hug him or come close to him; he would not even go into thier room or sit on thier bed; but he may not mind playing with his dog when he is dirty, niether would he mind going into his pigs shelter. But after showering and becoming clean again, he would not go and play with dogs, neither would he go into his pigs barn, nor would he feel any desire to prevent his kids from hugging him. When he is neat, he would rather go into thier room, sit on thier bed, play with, carry them on his back and etc.

Please relate this analogy to the way you feel towards women.

And when I say that you lust, please don’t take it personal or as an attack; I personally have experienced what you just described above. Believe me; I’m not better than you in this.

This is VERY useful, and many thanks for your honest perceptions. No, I do not feel insulted in the least, why would i? I am what I am and truth cannot be shied away from. Indeed I have always said I have a problem with lust. . .but who doesn't? These are things we battle with, and I only hope I am even battling at all.

In terms of what you said about purity, that has always been my view. However it is not always easy to live through that, or explain that to a beloved one. Indeed, it is often impossible.

Thanks! I appreciate this.

As always, remain blessed.

[quote author=justcool]The appreciation is all mine.

justcool: @Deep Sight.
Thanks for your articulate questions, I will reply as follows:

Definitely not within Divinity or in Divine substantiate where failure is impossible. The enormous pressure, resulting from the power of God, in the Divine substantiate makes it impossible for any being, even the most powerful, to deviate from the Will of God. Simply put: In such proximity to God, Who is the Living Power, failure is impossible.
Lucifer failed at cosmic distances from the Divine substantiate plane. When it was said that Lucifer was sent out to aid the developing human spirits in subsequent creation, one must not think that Lucifer incarnated into a particular planet in the world of matter, like we humans incarnate on earth. Lucifer remains outside material creation; but, naturally his volitions took on different forms and worked in all the seven parts of material creation.
It was through these different forms of volitions of Lucifer that he was able to approach the human spirit and deal with the human spirit one on one. In reality, no human spirit can behold Lucifer due difference in specie.
Neither is Lucifer’s working limited to subsequent creation. Even after his failure, he attacked all the planes of creation, even the Primordial spiritual plane. The event which was passed down pictorially in the book of Revelation about a dragon which was waiting for the woman clothed with the sun to deliver a baby so that it (the dragon) can devour the baby, actually happened in the highest heights in creation. The woman clothed in the sun is the primordial Queen; the child that the dragon wished to devour was the son of man; and the dragon, a volition of Lucifer. Only after this struggle against the primordial queen was Lucifer’s influence forcibly limited to subsequent creation by a host of angels who battled his volitions and drove them below the Primordial, spiritual, and animistic spheres. This is also reported in the revelation, when it was said that the dragon was thrown from heaven to earth by arch angel Michael and his host of angels. However this is going too deep into the mysteries of creation and too far away from the topic at hand. I just mentioned it to show you that Lucifer stands outside creation, and not limited to earth or subsequent creation. Since we human spirits are accustomed to view ourselves as the center of all events.
About “places outside creation that are not within Divinity.” Definitely! Being accustomed to seeing ourselves as the center of all events and places, the human spirit often erroneously thinks that he is capable of knowing the extent of existence, and its opposite, non-existence. Indeed it is absurd to think that this particular creation (from the primordial to coarsest gross matter) is the only creation of God. God could have uncountable number of such creations! However all that we need to know and can fully comprehend is limited within this our particular creation; we can also faintly comprehend how this our particular creation relates to the Divine substantial realm, when this knowledge is passed down to us. But knowledge of other creations of God is not necessary for us to have. The human spirit, along with other creatures in this creation, originated in the creation, its fate and path starts and ends in this creation. It cannot ascend further or above than this creation, neither than it sink below this creation. Even in his thinking and intuitive perception, this is impossible. However, the path of Lucifer is different, for Lucifer does not belong to creation.
Therefore, the fact that man thinks that he knows or can know all the places in existence only shows the arrogance of man and his always thinking in reference to himself.
You have to understand that the idea of “place” or “where” in itself involves a limitation. Limited to the creatures ability to conceive. I have heard where people try to philosophize that God is the totality of all that exists; hence all existence and all that can ever exist is part of God or God manifesting Himself; and since existence is infinite, God is infinite; that there is no place outside of God. Perhaps you hold this view too, (correct me if I’m wrong, and if so, I apologize beforehand)
It is my perception that this view is wrong. One must separate God from existence and non-existence. God is not limited to existence; neither is He limited to non-existence. God in not within the realm of existence, neither is He within the realm of non-existence. Both existence and its opposite (non-existence) are human concepts; and no human concept can come close to the nature of God. Both existence and non-existence are the radiation of God, or consequence of the radiation of God; they both relate to the radiation of God and not God himself Who stands above all.
You can apply the same to the concept of “place” and “where”. Both the “place,” “where” and “no place,” “Nowhere” that we can conceive even with our highest intuitive perception, remains within this creation. Whatever lies outside this creation will remain a perpetual mystery to us. We humans must accept our limitation.
We must also accept that even our highest conception of God must remain a belittlement of God.

Back to Lucifer, saying that Lucifer fell below creation is as good as saying that: with his faliure Lucifer, distanced himself further away from his origin,(or from God)than the entire creation can. No creature in this creation can go that far away from the Light and remain in exsistance; such would be imposible. The deepest depth any creature can fall has to remain within this creation. Hence only Him(Parsifal) who came from above creation, could descend lower than creation, into the realm of Lucifer to bind Lucifer. No creature in creation could have achieved this.



Your assumption is wrong. The lower regions and higher regions are the non-physical parts of this part of the world of matter. You already know that there are seven parts of the worlds of matter, and each part has a physical plane, and in each physical plane there is a planet harboring human life. It is impossible to go from one part of the seven parts of the world of matter to another. I have explained this many times. I have explained this already in this thread too; read my earlier posts in this thread.


You already know that this impossible. What’s the point if an “if an impossibility happens” question? If it happens, and if I’m sure that the scientist is not lying or making a mistake, then I would cease to regard the Grail message as the absolute truth. Since such will be dogmatism and blind faith which the Grail message warns about.

As always, Thanks and remain blessed.

Thanks for these interesting clarifications.

Jayriginal: Back to balancing the equation.
More fundamentalist mantras

Did you really post all that nonsensical garbage?

Honestly, I expect better from you. . . unfortunately you hold so firm to your belief that it is impossible to logically infer God, that you tenaciously reject even the sensible arguments for God's existence that there are. . . and there are several. But you would descend to culling and posting nonsensical mockeries of arguments, eh. Well done. Carry on. So long as it makes you sleep better at night.

None of the mockeries you culled up there are even faintly as nonsensical as your own position on the issue of causality alone. Plain irrational harry-potter voodoo; and yet you have the nerve to post mockeries. What a funny world.

mkmyers45: Sir, is it wrong to attempt to understand? The whole analogy wasn't made by me so i brought it up incase someone who sees or doesn't see a correlation can do justice to it.

Oh, ok, i thought you were making a definite assertion.

MacDaddy01: I give up.

Who the hell defines energy as uncreated?

OMG, another display of illiteracy on the scale of his former "Israel is in Europe" da.ftness.

mkmyers45: Entropy: the ability of the universe to follow a path to lowest energy with maximum complexity. The implication that things start simple and end up more chaotic and disorganised. There are several examples, life being one of the classic ones that superficially seem to contradict this law, but in retrospect obeys it completely. The long and the short of it is simply that not enough time has passed to make something as complicated and complex as a god. The universe may eventually form an intelligence of omnipotent power but we have many billions of years to go to get there.

Entropy implies we started simply ie low information (no where near enough for the hypothetical religious entities eg gods, that so many describe on this forum) when in fact the universe gets more complex and in the process handles more information. Religion implies the reverse of this law and is therefore totally false.

Let's Discuss.

A little learning is a sad and terrible thing. You display gross mis education here. Please its not by force. If these concepts are beyond you, e sha fi le.

[quote author=Mr_Anony]Just wanted to highlight something in your post. Do you mean that Jesus was formerly mortal then became immortal at some point? Please clarify what you mean by "...now that He is immortal"[/quote]I hope u are aware that your post here poses questions on whether the so called "laying down his life" was any sacrifice at all. If I am an immortal divine being that has existed for all eternity, coming here to die and then return to my divine majesty (knowing beforehand that I will be resurected in three days) is hardly laying down any life, is it?

If I may jump in without permission -

MacDaddy01: -Did God cause the big bang?

Yes. What else could?

God, properly understood, is not a grey bearded man in the sky. God is the ultimate cause of all things. Simple.

-Did christianity/the bible support slavery

Christianity as I know it is essentially comprised of the teachings of Christ. As far as I know, Christ did not advocate such. There are a trillion issues in this world and it would be ridiculous to expect him to have commented on every single issue individually. His general teaching of love however, surely negates the practice of slavery.

However the old testament is another kettle of fish. In it, there are hordes of barbaric and primitive injunctions which any man of conscience ought to be ashamed of.

-Isnt christianity destroying our culture?

Short answer is yes - Christianity - the commercialized hype as known today, is definitely a social and cultural parasite. But the simple Christianity of love thy neighbour cannot destroy any culture. It uplifts.

-Is christianity no sexist?

Pauline teachings are indeed se.xist.

Pick any question of your choice or even pick all, I am ready to debunk you, if you are ready for a debate!

I have scarcely ever seen you intelligibly debunk anything on this forum so please don't get ahead of yourself, Mr.

Okay, I will revert to you offline on that.

In the mean time can we proceed to have your view on the next issue.

Please see the OP here -

https://www.nairaland.com/344297/dr-david-sheds-some-light

What's your take?

Okay, send me your details sightdeep@gmail.com

I am not averse: I am a notorious picker of real life acquaintances from NL, so no worries there.

However before we do so, in addittion to the scrioture from Romans and Acts, have you considered Jesus' own words on this matter?


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

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!

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.

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.

Here is further relevant scripture from Christ himself in this regard -

Matthew 7:23 - Jesus made it clear that there would be many who believed in his name even to the extent of successfully working miracles and casting out demons in his name. Yet he states that of these people he would say "Depart from me, i never knew ye". . . What this connotes is that their acknowledgment of his name, acceptance of him as lord, and even investiture with miraculous powers from his name, were all empty and dead in his view if these people could not practice love.

This simply shows that the practice of love is what is far more important and relevant as opposed to merely acknowledging his name, however fervently believed or acknowledged.

Again, here is another scripture which i believe hammers home the point -

Matthew 25:35  - In this scripture Jesus specifically said that even people who did not know him but did loving deeds to other humans were actually doing those deeds to him! Thus this affirms my view that one loves God by loving one's fellow man, for how else will you explain this quote from that scripture -

". . .For i was hungry, and you gave me something to eat, i was thirstily, and you gave me something to drink, i was a stranger, and you invited me in, unclothed and you clothed me, i was sick and you visited me, i was in prison, and you came to me. Then the righteous will answer him and when did we do these things. . . And he responded " truly, to the extent that you did these for even the least of my brothers, you did it for me. . ."

I hope that this scripture is more than enough to show you what i am trying to say. It is not by acknowledging him and praising him, etc, but by living acts of love to one another that you actually worship and love God.

I implore you to address these pieces of scripture objectively. You can give succinct responses - I will not debate them because I have said all I have to say on teh topic severally. In fact the above are extracts from past posts.

So when you comment, then we move on to the next topic.

Many thanks.

MacDaddy01: Lol...your comment is as foolish as ever. An immaterial god does not exist in a material world. Simple.


how is that statement contradictory?

Lol. jumping head-first into an empty swimming pool, are we?

No: an immaterial God is not said to exist in a material world: nor was that what was said or argued. You said that there was no material evidence for God. So, I pointed you to all the matter about you, in which you live. So please think before you type.