₦airaland Forum

My questions are closed and the discussion is concluded against you by dint of your own answers.

You have explicitly acceded that time pre-existed the big bang.

For -

1. You accepted that it is not possible to have a "before" without a timeline

2. You stated that BEFORE the initial expansion, there was a singularity.

Since you are able to have a "before" the initial expansion, and since you yourself stated that the word "before" exists with reference to time, then the direct implication is that for there to have been a state "before" the initial expansion, then there was indeed time existing before that expansion.

This is iron clad logic and is most simply cast as stated.

I thank you for your time.

Good afternoon.

thehomer:
Yes the words refer to events that occur in a time-line.

Thank you very much.

Q. 2 - What existed before the initial expansion that is called the Big Bang.

Dulcet7:
Deep Sight can you please expose your own reasons for thinking Olumba may be true to his claims?

Poof! Please cut me some slack. I don't give a hoot about his claims to divinity. If he makes such claims then he is deluded and belongs in a psychiatric hospital. My issue is this: if we regard such local cliams to divinity as preposterous, why do we accept the claims of foreigners to divinity? Are all such claims not equally preposterous?

Thank you sir.

I have long wanted your input on this thread -

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-443101.0.html

I will be most obliged if you can read the thread (it is only 1 page) and make your comments thereon.

I know the issue discussed there is only of academic interest and does not go to the root of any concern on true salvation, however, I think its an interesting discourse even if only academic. Much obliged.

Lol, i tire for africans. In our view, divinity can only come in the skin of a white man.

A Jewish man is called almighty God, nobody sees anything wrong with that. He is worshipped. But black man come put im own sef, come talk say im be God, na dat time katakata go burst abi.

Lolest!

Each time i read your posts on this issue, i just feel disillussioned and discouraged from continuing. Then a few days later I suddenly feel I can still make you see what I am saying. Maybe I will try a different approach. Cross-Examination. I will ask some questions, you will answer. The truth should become obvious within those questions and answers, I hope.

Q. 1. - True or false - the words "before" and "after" can only be used in the context of time and space - i.e: you cannot have a "before" or an "after" and there cannot be a "past" and a "future" if there is no time - as the whole idea of past, present and future is itself a reference to time.

Please answer, thanks.

I was just reading the Grail Message again yesterday and i went over the Lecture "Gross matter, ethereal matter, radiations, Space & Time."

I came across this and I quote -

". . .both ethereal and gross matter represent coverings only, which must be united with animistic substantiality in order to be animated by it."

- The Grail message, Hardback 3 - in - 1 volume PAGE 489

For me, this makes it abundantly clear as I have said already that the Grail Message does not teach that thoughts are ethereal matter, for you surely would not say a thought is a "covering" - the authour has made it clear that both gross matter and ethereal matter are coverings only.

This, taken together with the other quotes i set out from the Grail Message above certainly rest the issue. For I quoted the message as conveying "the ethereal form of a generating thought" - which makes it clear that the ethereal form is just that - a form - and is not the generating thought itself.

@ M_Nwankwo -

Doing some light research threw up this quote from you on March 4 2009-

It is the spiritual voilition of humans that is evil or good. Thus the spiritual voiltion is the core while motives, thoughts, imagination, words, actions are external shells covering the core. To judge correctly wheather something is good or evil, one has to be able to sense the core (spiritual decision), the motive, the imagination, the thoughts, the words and the actions. Unfortunately, most of us are only able to make judjement based on the the shells particularly words and actions and then we go astray.

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-241816.0.html#msg3543176

I am of the view that these words (especially the bolded in red) are wholly in tandem with my view in this matter, and contradict that which you have set out here, and also also contradict most of your argument in the other thread.

I am still very surprised indeed and taken aback by your view in this matter, which seems to me overly mechanical.

I also note the response by Mad Max to you in that thread -

You say good and evil isn't sometimes relative, and yet the cold hard reality of our lives is that it is. There are things we would all agree is evil,no matter the spin. A man beating a child to death for no other reason than he could, say. Others things appear to be a matter of perception. All killing except in self defence is murder, you say? What if the above mentioned man were caught and, as punishment for his crime, the judge issues him a death penalty.The guy's killed. He didn't attack the judge and the judge isn't defending himself, and yet he's ordered a man killed, by the power vested in him by the state. Since it isn't self-defence, by your defintion the judge's commited murder,right? What about the men carry out the judges's orders and put the man to death? And I see in the Old Testament God would tell Israelites to kill. And not in self-defence either. By your definition that makes the Old Testament God what?

Which is very well considered.

@ Justcool, thanks for your excellent surmise, but I am surprised that you do not see that everything you have written still actually makes a case in favour of the fact that such things may be justified depending on the circumstance.

Copying my posts will attract a fee, lol!

Interestingly I was going to make a similar request. I realized that I have put in quite a great deal of time and energy writing on this board and I thought it would be silly to waste those writings. So I am collecting all the significant ones that more or less amount to short articles and making them into a book. So far the book is more than 200 pages already, maybe I'll title it something silly, like DeepSightopedia.

So the reason I need permission is that sometimes to put the post in context, I need to include the post from whoever I am responding to. I guess I will contact them one by one.

Lol, Ilosiwaju, hit me an email cheers.

[quote author=m_nwankwo link=topic=582103.msg7509157#msg7509157 date=1294759280]Why is it not possible for a life to be saved without stealing? Why is it not possible for violation to be prevented without murder? The hypothetical cases in this thread makes the assumption that the subjects have only one choice, to lie,steal or murder in order to safe life or prevent violation. My view is that there are several options within the omniscience of God that will save life or prevent violation without lying or killing the criminal.[/quote]This unfortunately shows that you have not ventured to consider the vast array of different scenarios of instant danger that people are thrust into. This also shows that you have not considered that those scenarios very often occur at high tempo, suddenly and surprisingly, whereat the person involved does not have even an instant to begin to do the things you so idealistically suggest, such as "turn his gaze to God" or other such.

Rather what happens is that natural survival instincts placed in him by his creator take instant and swift defensive action and this may indeed be violent.

Now the underlying extra point is that if God is to save life or prevent violation, God will not use lying, stealing or murder.

This surely is plainly wrong - certainly in terms of what actually obtains in fact. For it is recorded by your own transmitted writings that a being emanating from the divine actually commited homicide. This alone makes your own statement wrong, as God in that instance supposedly wished to save lives, and certainly did so through the homicide commited by Abd Ru Shin - a being bearing within him an unsubstantiate light core - note this most carefully please!

If such a being could take such action, I see no reason to hold lesser beings such as humans to a higher standard than that exhibited by a supposedly divine being.

justcool:
In the example that you gave, the man took it upon himself to lie. In the case of Abd-ru-shin; it wasn't a presumption, He was acting on the will of God. All life and all physical bodies are a gift from God; only God can decide when to take away this gift from any creature. God sometimes uses the elementals to accomplish this task, I'm yet to see an instance where God used a human spirit developed from spirit germs to accomplish such a task. In the case of human beings killing another, it is always a presumption that they are acting in the will of God; and hence such killings are not justified. In the case of Abd-ru-shin, consider the people that the man(the man who was killed) captured; they were called ones sent from God for the benefit of the entire mankind. By such an action the man had declared war against the fulfillment of Divine promises on earth, fulfillment that the entire mankind depended on spiritually. When your country is attacked, it is within the laws of God to fight back and protect your country. It would be wrong to sit down and allow an enemy to destroy an entire country. The enemy that Abd-ru-shin freed from his physical body was a threat to the survival of the entire mankind; in that he was threat to a Divine fulfillment on which the spiritual survival of mankind depended on. For Nahome and her mother(the little girl and the woman) who the man captured were called ones. Also keep in mind that Abd-ru-shin gave the man the opportunity to hand over the captives, to set the captives free, but the man refused. Also freeing him saved him from a karma that would may have sealed his fate for eternity.

This post is actually an argumentation in favour of what I am saying.

You cannot suggest that that was the only instance in all of recorded history where the violent action taken was in line with the Divine will and helped to protect divinely willed sequences. If you suggest such, that would be nothing but special pleading.

[quote author=m_nwankwo link=topic=582103.msg7507984#msg7507984 date=1294749130]Hi DeepSight. Happy New year. Thanks for your comment and I offer my perception as follows. My view is that there is no justification for lie in all circumstances.[/quote]Sir I really want to implore you to reflect again carefully on what you are saying here. In that regard, may I request that you start from the definition of what a lie means to you morally speaking, and then proceed to the significance it may bear in the spiritual.

Justification in this case means what is in accordance to the laws of God.

What is in accordance with the laws of God is Love and the expression and propagation of love, and certainly not trifles such as the fib that one may have to tell to save a life. I am almost tempted to take the view that if you found yourself in a truly desperate situation where lives were at stake, perhaps you would change your perception of this matter. For only in the instant reality of that moment can one truly understand that what is told is not a lie in the moral sense: only a positive action is taken to deny an evil-minded party the oppurtunity to deliver his nefarious intentions.

Thus the action of lying did not emanate from his spirit but from from his brain.

Where did the love emanate from?

The motive power behind the spiritual volition of love mitigates and in many cases disintegrates the the returning retribution due to physical lying. Is the physical lying justified, certainly not. Is the intention to protect his family justified, absolutely yes.

I have to ask again what you understand by the word "justified." I believe that that which is justified is that which is motivated and propelled by genuine love and acts for the good and against the evil. A person who tells a falsehood inorder to prevent genocide for example, is eminently justified in that regard. I really don't know how anybody can reasonably suggest that that is not justified. It absolutely beats me.

For me, it simply means that you are swayed by the form, whereas you should look to the substance.

If you see the lying and the intention to protect the family as different events that will elicit different reciprocal actions and not the same event elliciting the same reciprocal action, then you may see what I am trying to say.

They are inseparable.

As per your reference to Abd-ru-Shin, kindly examine the story again and particularly how Abd-ru-Shin felt after the incident.

You perhaps have not factored the fact that Abd Ru Shin is said to carry within him an unsubstantiate core out of the divine. That is the highest and strongest light coming into the material realm. If such a personage could yet commit homicide, then I rest my case.

It is in that alone made clear that the black-and-white approach you are taking is an approach that would be alien to the finer discernment of the Light itself. Like I said, substance should rate above form in appreciating these things.

[quote author=m_nwankwo link=topic=582103.msg7495688#msg7495688 date=1294594923]My view is that there is no justification for stealing in all circumstances. A wrong action remains wrong even with the best of motive or intention.[/quote]Sir, I am sorry to say that this time I believe you have got it entirely wrong - and this perception of yours does not seem to me to be sufficiently reflective, or grounded.

Even homicide is justifiable in certain circumstances - notably in self-defence and in situations of war. The lecture "Warfare in Nature" should be instructive in this regard.

Again, as i stated to justcool, i state to you that even the Abd Ru Shin himself was forced into homicide in one of his lifetimes. What would you say about that - particularly when you consider that he was supposedly the highest representation of the Light?

justcool:
@Deep Sight and Ndipe

The process can easily be surveyed. For a man who truly loves his family, this love emanates from his spirit and forms a protective aura around him. By telling a lie to save his family, this lying or speaking is a gross material action which will receive a reaction of like nature. This reaction will be returned to the man based on the law of reciprocal action. This reaction on reaching the man, will be mitigated or completely defused or disintegrated by the protective aura of such a man.

The greatly mitigated karma may end up being redeemed by an unconscious symbolic action. The next day or the next month, this man may meet a stranger asking for direction; by stopping and offering the stranger direction, this man has reaped the karma resulting from his lying. He has balanced the equation without knowing it. At first he told a lie by withholding the truth or misdirecting/misleading another person; then letter he offered a stranger direction by speaking the truth or giving the stranger to right direction. The karma that may have necessitated that he became a victim of a lie or deception, now gets paid without him being a victim. What would have caused him sorrow now causes him joy, for helping the stranger gives him(the man who once lied) joy. Like the Yorubas would say, “what would have severed your head has just knocked off your hat.”

Speaking belongs to gross matter, words take on forms in the realm of medium gross matter. But spiritual intentions are far stronger and far more reaching in their effect. The volition that gave rise to the lie was a good volition, and hence its consequences will out weigh the consequences of words. Even though the reciprocal effect of the spiritual volition will be reaped by the man’s spirit; it effects is very far reaching, this volition radiates through the aura of the man offering him protection even in the gross material realms. This is why I maintained that the intention is the most important, here by intention I mean that which emanates from the spirit.

The radiation of the spirit permeates everything; hence a man's environment or situations he often finds himself in is often a reflection of his inner being(his spiritual state). Therefore if this intention is really a strongly emanating from the spirit it can affect the man's situation in ways that he may never find himself in a situation where he will have to do something wrong or lie in-order to save his family.

Should ever find himself in such a situation, a way will be shown to him through which he can save his family without lying.

Have you considered that the man could have simply refused to disclose where his family was?  Rather than lying he could have just said, “I won’t tell you where they are.”

Thus the spiritual volition is justified but the lie is not. The ‘lying’ only reveals this man’s inability to anchor his volition in the right in the physical realm or gross matter.

If you are truly earnest in serving God or in doing the right thing, you will never have to lie or do anything wrong to implement a good volition or do the will of God.

Thanks

Well written sir, but i dont agree with you. I don't believe that the falsehood told to protect one's family is a lie in terms of sin at all. Not at any level. This is because for me, when we speak about right and wrong, and when we speak about this in a moral context, then the true definition of a lie is not just a falsehood, but a malicious falsehood, or a falsehood carrying some other negative intent. Accordingly, I do not regard the example i gave as a lie in terms of morals.

Accordingly i do not belive there will be any karma even on the physical plane, no matter how grossly or completely mitigated by the intent.

Have you considered that the man could have simply refused to disclose where his family was?  Rather than lying he could have just said, “I won’t tell you where they are.”

And risk getting shot? Please let's be calmly realistic and not push the boundaries of unnecessary and misplaced idealism.

Thus the spiritual volition is justified but the lie is not.

The "lie" is very justified. I can see no greater justification that could exist. In this I will give you an example. Self-defence and homicide. Under the law, self-defence completely absolves an accused of homicide. And this is a far more serious matter than "lying" one would think - taking human life! Yet there are situations were it is not just excusable, but even unavoidable, and the person doing such is completely absolved of the crime, on account of the imperative of self-defense.

Please note that the technical definition of self-defense under law, extends not just to defending one-self, but also to defending anybody who is in imminent danger.

I believe that if killing another human being in self-defense is justifiable, then talling a mere falsehood to misdirect an assassin and prevent him from achieveing his nefarious objective, is not just justifiable, but even wholly noble.

I advise you to think carefully before reverting on this because i am aware that even Abd Ru Shin in one of his lifetimes was forced to kill another human being.

If that was not spared him, I don't know how you can make an assumption that all good souls will be protected from such scenarios. It simply isn't true.

The ‘lying’ only reveals this man’s inability to anchor his volition in the right in the physical realm or gross matter.

This is very harsh, and i believe simply amounts to thinking in black and white, as Jenwitemi said.

JeSoul:
Please. DS will only continue to argue with you.

Yeee pari pa, you don finish me o, Lol! DS the argue-holic

Dulcet7:
Deep Sight I think I understand your view. But I took an objective glance at the OPs and I beg to disagree with you that Mudley wasn't being intolerant and deliberately producing incendiary posts (as Jesoul said) though they are his opinions.

Well this matter is frankly too inconsequential to warrant any further or extended discourse or argumentation thereon. Let me simply say that I disagree with you and I believe that your reading of those links in comparison to the instant issue is very selective indeed. Selective because you seem to have deliberately overlooked inflammatory comments in those links and similarly overlooked the vast majority of the OP in the mudley thread cited. That vast majority was pictoral and gave posers asking questions which hinged on the contradictory nature of the Judeo-Christian God. I repeat that that is fair game - posers that require honest answers regarding the nature of God. But you seem to have over-looked that and rushed on to see "incendiary" posts where you want to see them, whilst ignoring same in other threads.

My last word on this is the same concern i first spoke about: we cannot muzzle free speech on a board that is meant for open discussion.

^^^ I would urge you to review the reasons given for locking the thread.

The Mod wrote -

Mudley opens a thread (and subsequent posts) pretty much insulting the Christian faith (call it satire if you want).
^^^ this is how Mudley plays the victim card. You open a thread that is insulting, don't you think is incendiary? and provokes bad responses from others? does he expect people to come and pat him on the back? Some of his threads may be "offensive" to christians but within forum rules - but does common sense not teach one to be resfectful of others?

- Which clearly infers that the topic itself was considered insulting and offensive by the mod. That should not be the case because the topic simply set out internal inconsistencies in the judeo-christian ontology and world-view of God. That's fair game. If people have a problem with it, they have two options - intelligent rebuttals or they can simply ignore it.

If you read the links i provided you would see that the allegations we set out against "Yahweh" in those links were even more damning than Mudley's were, and provoked insult as well.

I am no atheist: and all are aware that I regard the atheistic world-view as a sham - my simple and frank worry is that the approach of the mod in this instance severly militates against free speech - which is integral to the success of a board such as this one.

Madam it is easy to see wisdom in posts that agree with you. I would urge you to take a step back and be entirely objective in this. Calmly note that i have not defended mudley or his antecedents. Note that i specifically spoke about the locking of a particular thread. I state again to you that that was unwarranted because the op merely set out contradictory elements within the view of God. If you will be truly rational pls tell us why the two threads i set out above by myself and mazaje were not locked.

what if i tell a lie to protect my family from an assassin. Such as telling him they are not at home when in truth they are hiding under the bed. Will you state that this is wrong under the laws of God?

Really Jesoul's my buddy, but her actions regarding the Mudley issue were overly high-handed and showed gross personal sensitivity and bias.

I cannot imagine that in the 21st century, there is something wrong with opening threads questioning the ontology and consistency of a particular world-view regarding God. That is fair-game, and there is NOTHING wrong with the posers raised. If people have a different view, then the reason that this board exists is that they can post their views, and react intelligently to such posers by giving reasonable answers. It is scandalous for a mod to deliver knee-jerk reactions by locking such topics and taking other such high-handed actions.

I have myslef opened a number of threads deconstructing Yahweh, the Jewish tribal deity. Nobody banned me. Same with Mazaje.

See here -

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-434436.0.html

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-438941.0.html

It is thus mind-numbing to see Jesoul taking such unwarranted Gestapo action against threads opened querying the consistency of the nature of God. It is an assault on free speech, and shows a level of personal sensitivity and bias which is unnaceptable for a moderator of a board that is supposed to accomodate varying views.

A small question to prickle your mind.

Is a unit of measurement of something the same as the thing being measured itself?

Is a unit of measurement of temperature, the same as the thing whose temperature is being measured.

Is a unit of measurement of time the same as time itself.

Really I had severally contemplated responding further on this thread, but was absolutely disillusioned. My disillusionment arose from the realization that there will never come a time that thehomer will recognize the contradictions that i point out. Perhaps the terms that we use are simply chasms apart.

However, some of the contradictions are so unbelievably simple, obvious, and self-evident, that I just cannot resist pointing them out again, in some vain and surely mis-placed hope that mr. homer would see that which even the blind would surely see.

thehomer:
I already addressed this with my proposal of a universe-like object.

You say "universe-like objects may just exist as the default state of existence."

How is this possible sir?

You are therewith stating physical things to be self-existent. How can you substantiate this claim sir?

And, comparing objects and events within the universe to the entire universe especially when it comes to a condition such as the singularity is simply inappropriate. This is an example of a part to whole comparison flaw especially given our current knowledge of the universe.

This is really a very nice way to escape the need to answer a clear question regarding physical things. Because we are not speaking of a factor such as motion within the universe for example. We are speaking of the very implicit nature of that which is physical. Thus you are being entirely disingenious and deliberately and fraudulently so. For when I ask -

Can anything physical exist without time or outside of a construct of time? -

The clear answer should be "no," - especially as you have acknowledged that yourself by demanding from me a timeline for things outside the universe! You could not make such a demand if you did not accept that anything material must have a timeline. You thus absolutely cannot argue that the "whole" universe is "exempt" from a requirement from a timeline! Indeed, this is directly contrary to everything you yourself have said.

To make it clear again: you state that the singularity was physical. I ask you under what timeline it existed - and then you state that that is a part-to-whole flaw. Jesus Christ, I am yet to come across a more dumb-founding escapist attempt.

Because i do not even speak of a part or whole. I speak of the singularity. If it was physical, then it could not exist without or outside any time.

And if this is the case, then following your own logic, no singularity existed.

Besides this, even under your part-to-whole argument you cannot conceivably claim that a part of a thing must exist in time, but that the whole thing itself exists without or outside time. That is an impossible logical reverse and is quite simply the height of absurdity because given that the "whole" is physical, it must naturally also have a context in which it exists.

Your argument is just plain logically warped - for the explicit reason that the question is begged - in what does the whole exist? ? ?

Thus if you state that your cells exist within your body, we must naturally wonder what your body exists in. It exists in the atmosphere of the earth - and this by analogy forms its own environment. What is the "environment" for the universe. In what "environment" does it exist? I hope you catch my drift.

It's not the same because you are proposing a causal mechanism which requires a time-line for it to be meaningful I am not.

Don't make me laugh. Son, go and revise this statement before i respond to it. FYI, science does not propound a causeless universe. It states that it is still investigating the cause. Science is not as voodoo-istically inclined as you are - as to suggest that motion may magicallyy occur without a trigger. You well know the laws of motion: i set them out to you in a previous thread - and the point was made abundantly clear.

Your suggestion of causelessness is eminently and irredeemably unscientific.

It's getting tiresome presenting the same concept over and over again.

It is already tiresome responding to illogical voodoo-istic pseudo-science which does not scratch the surface of any logic or research whatsoever.

Pseudo-science which appeals to magic and voodoo, such as motion without a triggering factor, self-existent physical things, and physical things existing outside time! Your suggestions are worse than the most fabulous tribal myths and religious dogma!

You really need to try to understand various concepts. Consider this, my proposal is that universe-like objects may just exist, justcool made a proposal of the universe undergoing cyclical changes of expansion and contraction, there is also a proposal chaotic inflation. All these proposals may be wrong but, if one were to consider that one of these among others were to be correct, then the answers one gets would be different. So, we do not have enough information to answer such a question.

I am certain that not even you can derive any sense from this above.

What does the phrase in bold mean? Is the God-factor God?

Yes. I state it that way to make you recognise that I am not referring to Santa Claus.

And, "outward radiation" of the God-factor does not change this God-factor?

No it doesn't because the outward radiation is intrinsic to the nature of the eternal light which is God.

Let us use a simple though limited analogy. Let us imagine a fire. Can the fire exist without emitting light?

Does the fact that it emits light change the fire?

I hope that is simple enough for you to grasp.

I've addressed this above and in previous posts. If you do not agree with my conjecture, that is fine. But, you're yet to point out the contradiction if one agrees with the conjecture.

I laugh. I did not point out contradictions? Such as your space created by or at the moment of the big bang, which is contradictorily expaning into some already existent space? That is not a contradiction? Such as your singularity which is physical and yet exists outside time - notwithstanding that you go about demanding a timeline for everything? That is not a contradiction? Like your "parts" of the universe which need to exist within time, but were all contained in a singularity that existed without time? That is not a contradiction? Friend, ALL of these are starkly IMPOSSIBLE logical reverses.

Remember that not all physical properties are bound with time e.g the kelvin is not bound by time.

The Kelvin is a unit of measurement of temperature. Stop being preposterous.

Which ones are blind dogma?

O, such as your magical "just-existing" universe-like objects, no?

THE “BIG WHOLE” PICTURE


Here we are. We find ourselves on Earth. In a material world, surrounded by Material things. We look up, and see the vastness of the heavens (material universe; stars) and we are humbled with wonder.

From the moment we are old enough to think, we begin to ask those ancient questions: "What are we, and what are we doing here. . . what is the purpose of all this. . ."

From the most ancient civilizations till date, man has come to recognise that although he lives in a material world, the things that matter most to him are entirely immaterial. To give the prime example - Love.

You can't touch it, you can barely see it, but you feel it in your heart. You know it is there.

Accordingly, men recognized the spiritual - the ancient pang within them for something that transcends this sphere. I should state at this point that the enigma of the spectre of death is crucial in the development of man's thinking in this regard.

If we accept the existence of the spiritual, then it is but a short leap from there, to the natural conclusion of most of humanity - namely that there is a core within man, that survives material decomposition at death. We know this, because we have felt it in our bossoms, at moments when we felt love, or a communal or patriotic spirit. . . Also the fact of visions during sleep (dreams) has always hinted at a deeper sub-conscious, which in many cases actually performs feats such as seeing the future. . . this again assures man that the spiritual is real.

Thus the question should properly read: what happens at death? What happens when the MATERIAL PART is set aside at the moment of death?

Man senses the existence of many possible realms of existence. Indeed, without the need for proof, he has actually experienced such realms within his inner life right here on this earth, in one faint form or the other.

In simple terms, the spirit is a spark of light emanating from the light of the Divine Oneness - God.

It has properties like a magnet. It can draw things to it, or repel things from it.

This simple secret is conveyed in all the ancient writings, and many people do not undertand the basis thereof.

"Whatever a man sows, the same shall he reap" - The words of Jesus. Here he was conveying the eternal truth that magnetic vibrations sent out by the human spirit will always return to it. It is the law of attraction of homogenuous species. It is a universal law, and the orientals have always known it, through their Karma-based religions.

Thus it is manifestly clear that, rearding the question of what happens at death, the human spirit will be naturally and magnetically attracted to that realm of existence which corresponds with its inner state.

A pure spirit will gravitate towards a pure realm. A dark spirit, towards a dark realm.

God is the cynosure of Divinity, and thus of purity. Thus the realms closest to HIM are the pure realms.

Those realms are what i understand by the word "Heaven".

As i have explained above, gravitation to those realms will only depend on the inner state of each human spirit. The inner state is a function of pure or dark thoughts, actions or volitions.

This is the same reason it is stated in Acts 10: 35 that "God is no respecter of persons, but in every nation, he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is acceptable to him".

Again, The Revelation of John the beloved, is replete with statements regarding judgment according to the works of each spirit.

Thus although Faith is good, each spirit must strive towards purity. Once the volition is right, the grace of God will help such a spirit attain the luminous heights of "paradise".

It can never be asserted with any degree of objectivity, that God in his perfection, would provide different criteria for salvation at different times, or to different peoples. And believing that each person must personally know Jesus of Nazareth is entirely absurd given that millions died without knowing of him already. Also millions more will die having heard of him, but entirely unable to believe anything about him on account of their different cultural backgrounds. God in HIS perfection has only ever required one thing of men, and that is LOVE.

Again note that when asked about salvation, Jesus himself stated that if a Man would love God and love his fellow man, all the law would be complete therein.

I verily believe that his commandments to believe in him, thus referred to obeying his commandment of Love, and nothing more. I can state this because he himself described what it entails to believe in him. HE said - "If you love me, you will obey my commandments." Thus a Mahatma Ghandi (a hindu) who goes through life spreading love and peace and brotherhood, already has "Christ" in him, much more than any person who proclaims belief in Christ, without those acts of love.

I also hope that i have been able to paint a composite picture of existence on Earth, transition to the luminous realms (heaven/ paradise) and the reasons therefore. In this, there is much scripture to support what i have written, aside from the few i quoted above.

Regards,
Deep Sight

thehomer:
Again this confusion of meanings.

Agnosticism and atheism address different concepts.

One can be an agnostic theist or an agnostic atheist among others.

And you, thehomer, what are you?