₦airaland Forum

Heck, there is no way any person who claims to be a serious thinker can even attribute the composition, functionalities and workings of a single white blood cell to blind chance.

Each of these things is itself a purpose oriented factory with amazing functiuonalitities.

http://www.williamsclass.com/SeventhScienceWork/CellsOrganization.htm

Yes indeed.

What I need to know is -

- What brought about the space into which things are interpolated? That space into which the uiniverse is expanding into, for example?

- what thereafter brings complex and patterned systems driven towards functionalities into existence?

- why should the universe be bothered to evolve such complex living patterns - for what purpose exactly?

- why do the evolutionary forces tend towards such complex living patterns at all?

The robust design evident in living things is much too much to deny.

It is impossible to deny the hand of intricate design in the things around us: particularly in living things.

Any person who claims to be a scientist should recognise this. Eminent scientists such as Darwin and Einstein whose theories form the basis fo atheistic arguments today actually recognised themselves the vast design inherent in the world around us and particularly in living things and severally stated that for such reasons they could not preclude the idea of intelligent design.

Just consider the workings of the eye alone, for example.

Who cannot look at a single strand of DNA and not be dumbstruck by the profound detail.

You cannot consider the workings of the human brain and conceivably conclude that a mindless and purposeless universe led to the evolution of such a precise and intricate purpose-oriented tool for the delivery and experience of conscious life.

You cannot deny the design inherent in a water crystal.

You cannot explain away the migratory instincts of clue-less animals to lands thay have never known before across hundreds of thousands of miles. These things are awe inspiring.

At all events I am not best pleased that this has snowballed into the cosmological argument: whereas I set up the OP as an argument for design.

Mrhomer is yet to explain away the obvious intricate design and attention to detail involved in the design of this naturally occuring water crystal -

thehomer's own arguments have serially defeated him. The contradictions inherent in his surmise are most alarming.

- - -> he states that "universe-like objects may just exist" - - -> If this is not as magical as the supposed claim of the religionist, I do not know what else is.

- - -> he states that there was a state of pure energy "prior to the big bang.' I wonder where his timeline is for such a state?

- - - > And yet he keeps demanding a timeline from everybody else for the existence of anything prior to the big bang!

Mrhomer - where is your timeline for the existence of "pure energy" PRIOR to the big bang? ? ?

It is particularly sickening that he repeatedly uses the refrain "prior to the big bang", without recognising that the very use of the word "prior" already indicates a timeline. Otherwise one could NOT use a word such as "prior."

Notions of "before" and "after" are of course necessarily bound to time - THIS IS INDUBITABLE.

I noted that I did explain to him why self-existent things could not be physical. He asked for an elaboration of the concept of self-existence, which i obliged. He has since gone silent on that one.

It is incredible to define anything material or physical as self-existent: because such things are changeable. Self-existence denotes immutability.

This is tragic. The Ministers of Culture and Foreign Affairs aought to make appropriate demands in this regard.

Ta. I sense you are riled by my persistence on this subject over the course of many months. If so I do apologize - as I have had no intention in that regard.

However I need to remind you that my approach in this respect is not unique to Abd Ru Shin. You doubtless are aware that I have expended far greater energies on this Forum speaking against the idea of the divinity of Jesus himself. So I hope that you will appreciate that it is simply my approach to all human claims of divinity. I personally do not believe in such things as the severance of "parts" of God. In my view it is a construct designed by humans to promote ideas of their divinity. The one immutable and eternal God, is, in my view, indivisible.

I should finally also remind you of something I have always told you. Your tendency to shut-down the discussion each time the identity of Abd Ru Shin is probed will certainly convey an impression to the mind of the general reader that there is something about his identity that you wish to hide: that there are aspects of the teachings of the Grail Message that you are dis-inclined to place in the public domain.

I warn you again that most people will rightfully become and remain suspicious of any teaching that is shrouded in secrecy.

Finally I take in good faith your decision to avoid an email from me: whilst i note that the specific information for which you gave the email has infact not been discussed here. That information was with regard to that which happened to Abd Ru Shin after he had conveyed the message. No matter, as I sense that an open probe of this matter is not to your taste.

Stay blessed too, bro.

justcool:
. . .one can equally say that Parsifal is animated by Imanuel. His innermost core is the Devine unsubstantiate radiation of a part of Imanuel.

This alone I think proves and summraizes that which I am trying to say.

What is the innermost core and animating element of a human being? His spirit. Thus the real-human is the spirit. The body is a mere cloak.

You state that Imanuel is the innermost core and animating element of Parsifal. This means that it is simply Imanuel in a cloak!

In the same way if Parsifal is the innermost core of Abd Ru Shin, this simply means that it is really Parsifal - in  Physical Cloak!

That is the true being within: we should look within and not without to discern the true inner identity.

Parsifal’s body or cloak is made of the finest of all the primordial spiritual substances and this body came into being through the Primordial Queen. From the radiations of her mantle, the Primordial Queen gave the first-form giving cloak for Parsifal. Thus Parsifal’s core is eternally connected to Imanuel; while, through Parsifal’s body(cloak) Parsifal is connected to the Primordial Queen.

This affirms that it is a mere cloak, while the being within is Imanuel.

A part of Imanuel remained in the Grail castle at the furthest point of the Devine realm; it is this part of Imanuel that is called the son of man. From the Grail Castle at the furthest point in the Devine realm, this part of Imanuel radiated outwards, outside the Devine realm. This Devine unsubstantiate radiation of Imanuel outside the Devine realm received a cloak from the Primordial Queen. This is Parsifal. So in the Grail castle in the Devine we have Imanuel, while in the Grail castle at the summit of creation we have Parsifal. They are two and yet they work as one.

This further shows that there is only Imanuel wearing a cloak, much as a human spirit may wear a physical cloak.

This is why Parsifal is described as “powerful, imperious, invincible unapproachable, the power of God.” Parsifal is not God; and should not be worshipped. Abd-ru-shin never asked anybody to worship or bow down before Parsifal.

The Message is very clear that only God is unsubstantiate. Parsifal is said to carry an unsubstantiate core. What does that infer?

Is your core not you ? ? ?

Abd-ru-shin never said that Parsifal is God; such would be blasphemy.

The Message is very clear that only God is unsubstantiate. Parsifal is said to carry an unsubstantiate core. What does that infer?

Is your core not you ? ? ?

Parsifal does not necessarily equate to Abd-ru-shin, in His entirety. Even incarnations of Primordial spiritual beings on earth does not mean that the entire primordial spiritual being leaves the primordial spiritual plane and incarnates on earth. Only a part of the being incarnates, while the other part remains in the Primordial spiritual plane.

This same can be said for a great many types of spirits and as such changes nothing.

From my description of Parsifal you can already envisage that Parsifal occupies a very important position at the summit of creation. He cannot leave there without creation suffering great harm; thus He remains there. Through Him the Power that sustains creation flows from above into creation. So if He leaves, creation is lost.

From the point of view of creation, he would be the face of God quite literarily.

Now back to Parsifal. Parsifal’s volition to travel to all parts of creation took on form. It was this volition of Parsifal that incarnated on earth and wrote the Grail Message.

This is like saying it was the love of God that took on form and travelled to the earth as Jesus.

Does that mean that Jesus on Earth was no longer the self same personage as the Son of God in the Divine?

Moreso the Message is very clear when it said, which I quoted for you - "It was Parsifal who was on Earth in Abd Ru Shin."

Abd-ru-shin never equated Himself to God!

By inference and implication, he did.

For only God is unsubstantiate, he says. And yet, following the message, it accedes that Abd Ru Shin's core is unsubstatiate: beacause it says it was Parsifal that was on Earth in Abd Ru Shin, and it says that Parsifal's core is unsubstantiate.

Pastor AIO:
What has all this got to do with Wolfram Von Eschenbach's Parsifal? I remember asking this a while back, about a year or 2 ago, and not receiving a response. What is the signficance of Parsifal being a Fool?

Did he really do all those things that legend says he did? Did he despoil the wife of Lahelin's brother? Is it the same Parsifal whose name means "'right through the middle' for a false love cut its furrow through the middle of your mother's heart."

I am really confused by this grail legend message because it sounds nothing like the original grail legend except that the names are the same.

^^^ According to the Grail Message, the Legend of the Grail had been transmitted to mankind in varied forms through writing, visions, inspired poetry and the like in much the same way as you once said to me that all peoples of the world may derive a common truth in that such may simply arise unbidden within their intuitive perceptions. In this way, the Grail Message says, parts of the legend of the Grail have filtered down to mankind.

However, as the message says, the legend has, as with all things human, been distorted, compressed, misapprehended and altogeter twisted in many particulars, such that the pure undimmed and undiluted truth has been quite lost.

The writer of the Grail Message claims to set out the pure undiluted truth regarding Parsifal: in this, towards the end of his lectures (which form the Grail Message) he discloses that he is in fact the incarnation of Parsifal on Earth.

Parsifal is said to be (according to the writer of the Grail Message), the part of God that was thrust out of the divine and anchored at the summit of creation to convey the creative radiation of God and thereby bring the creations into existence. He is therefore said to stand at the summit of creation as the creative will itself in action.

The Grail Message states that this Parsifal is himself the Holy Spirit - and thus part of the truine Godhead - which is not really triune but simply God the Father working threefold. In my view this amounts to indicating that Parsifal is virtually God itself in Creation. You can thus understand my concerns when the writer of the Grail Message claims to be the incarnation of Parsifal on Earth. It is actually a huge claim, which has huge implications in terms of the supposed origin of the writer as a Divine Being.

The Grail Message is clear on this. It states that God has two sons.

It states that there is the Son of God and the Son of Man. It states that Jesus is the "Son of God" because he came directly out of God and moved speedily to the plane of matter without stopping and thus did not take on the nature of the realms in-between. It describes Parsifal (to be precise: his inner core - Immanuel) as the second Son of God and that this one is called the "Son of Man" because of his extensive journey through the human worlds DURING WHICH he took on the cloaks of the realms in between. It states that all references in the Bible to Jesus as being the "Son of Man" are actually errors and misperceptions.

In short, in my view, the writer claims to be the Holy Spirit himself. Although it is very clear within the Grail Message, Justcool denies this: he will contend to you that it is a process of radiation and as such the writer was not really claiming this, but only claiming that a part of such a divine being was radiated to earth in Abd Ru Shin.

You may compare the following quotes and make of them what you will -

Deep Sight:
"At that time it was Parsifal who was on Earth in Abd Ru Shin. . ."

- - - The Grail Message, Hardbound Three-in-one Volume - Page 1014. para 9.

"Perhaps one should rather say, it is only God the Father, who works threefold as one"

- - - The Grail Message, Hardbound Three-in-one Volume - Page 1013. para 5.

Against what Justcool interpretes -

Parsifal’s volition to travel to all parts of creation took on form. It was this volition of Parsifal that incarnated on earth and wrote the Grail Message.

You may want to play a game of "Spot the difference." Up to you to make your own interpretation.

The comforter that Jesus said he would send. Of course that promise by Jesus has been latched on to by Islamists, Pagans and even latter - day christ-pretenders - all claiming their founders/ teachers to be the promised one. Muhammad is said to be the promised one. Abd Ru Shin is said to be the promised one. Olumba Obu is said to be the promised one. Guru Maharaji is said to be the promised one. Jesu Oyigbo is said to be the promised one. Even the Dalai Lama is said to be the promised one. Haba.

I dont know if you have read the Grail Message and I dont know if you are comfortable with these claims within it. I also dont know if you are interested enough for us to open a thread to discuss "Parsifal."

By their own poll, on their own website, they do not seem all too popular, especially if you consider that in the political space they have over 80 per cent of seats and positions! How can that be the case.

http://www.peoplesdemocraticparty.net/index.php?option=com_poll&id=17:poll

@ Justcool - I will reach you by email regarding the further discussions you offered.

However for the present purpose, and in reference to your description of the process of incarnation by radiation, etc, let me ask you just one question which i believe will help to clarify my perspective to you.

Who was Jesus of Nazareth?

When on Earth, would you say that Jesus was not the incarnated love of God (as per the teaching evinced in christian doctrine and the message?)

Would you say that the process of incarnation by radiation did not apply to Jesus. In view of your explanations, you surely cannot say this. If that process does apply to Jesus, and he yet remained while on earth the incarnation of that self same personage within divinity being the love of God, then surely the process of radiation you have described does not remove the inference that Abd Ru Shin was the incarnated parsifal on earth - whilst he remained in the Grail Castle!

If Jesus remained the incarnation of the love on Earth, then Abd Ru Shin remains the incarnation of the will on Earth. . .going by the Grail Message.

Thus saying Abd Ru Shin is not Parsifal will be like saying Jesus is not the same divine personage of the love of God. . .

Justcool, I have got the email, please delete.

And just to emphaize thehomer's contradiction again.

He states that universe-like objects may simply be the default state.

He then says that he is not propounding an eternal universe.

Both statements are irretrievably contradictory. If universe - like objects are the default state, then ofcourse we have an eternal universe.

nuclearboy:
@thehomer:

That energy you say was present at the big bang, where did it come from? What was its source? If it always was there, then you destroy your assertion immediately above that you are not proposing an eternal universe. That would be lying. If it came from someplace, you destroy your assertion that the energy was present at the big bang. another lie? Well, which lie is preferable to you, sir, for us to consider?

Thank you for presenting so articulately the irretrievable contradiction that thehomer has set out in his surmise.

Such a self-evident and undeniable logical inconsistency. I would like to see him address this one.

Krayola:
So because something is self existent it must be both immaterial and intangible? Please explain.

thehomer:
Please could you run this property of "self-existence" by me again?

Guys thank you for taking the time to ask carefully about this. Let me offer my two cents in this regard.

What do we mean when we say that something is self-existent? We mean that by its nature it inherently exists. "Existing" is core to what it is. It could not but exist because its very nature is existent. Accordingly such a thing does not "come into" existence, nor does it cease to exist, because existence is inherent to the principle of what it is.

Now let us understand this carefully. A self-existent thing is so because the core principle, the very principle of what it is, is inherently existent. So it is what it is for that reason. Since it is what it is, it is not something that can change. It just is. Constant. A constant and non-ceasing reality.

This is why we say that a self-existent thing is immutable. Its existence is predicated on a principle that is inherently existent and could not but exist and accordingly it cannot but be that principle. Thus it cannot be or become something else because inherently it is that principle. We thus understand that some-thing that self-exists cannot change.

Matter and Energy as we observe them in the physical are changeable. Thus they are not self-existent things

I may further indicate that there is a deeper, more subtle reason why it is obvious that self-existent things are non-physical. Without being wordy, and selecting my words very carefully let me simply say that a self-existent thing being something that cannot be created, thus cannot be something of form and mass. I hope this resonates within your mind.

And so a self-existent thing can not have a form or physical mass as it is an intangible and neceesary, non-contingent reality.

An example of a self-existent thing is eternity. Eternity is eternity. No birth or death of physical universes could circumscribe eternity. It is just there: a constant: eternity. It is not to be confused with the finite time that we use our indicators to measure. Eternity is just a constant. It could neither change nor be created. It is simply the constant vacuum into which things are interpolated.

Every self-existent thing that one may discern is a great key and a great help to understand what God is. Because God is the sum of intangible self-existent realities. The sum of all self-existent law.

Quote from Justcool -

Where did Abd-ru-shin describe Himself as “glorious. Imperious, perfect”? Where did Abd-ru-shin command men to “bow down” before him?

Honestly I don’t know where you got the things you referenced above. The Grail Message definitely did not say those things that you wrote above.

Apologies I had not provided the quote from the Grail Message you demanded earlier. My copy of the Messsage has been at my house and I have been away. Nor was I able to find online copies to quote from. I am home now, and we may address this directly.

Extracts from the Grail Message [Three-in-One Hardback Volume] -

Describing Parsifal -

"A luminoius head in the most perfect form, cloaked in the eternal movement of the Living Light, which causes every created one who looks at it to lose consciousness and throws him down. The body enveloped in a radiant cloak which gives the impression of a flexible scaly mail, above the head the wings of the dove spread protectingly, thus can you envisage him, powerful, imperious, invincible, unnapproachable, the power of God embodied, the Radiance of God that has taken on form: Parsifal, Son of the Light, in the Primordial Spiritual, standing at the summit of creation. ."

- - - The Grail Message, Hardbound Three-in-one Volume - Page 1015. para 5.

"At that time it was Parsifal who was on Earth in Abd Ru Shin. . ."

- - - The Grail Message, Hardbound Three-in-one Volume - Page 1014. para 9.

"For the Divine, "Son" means a "part", a part of the father that works specially by itself. Son and Father are completely one and can never be separated"

- - - The Grail Message, Hardbound Three-in-one Volume - Page 1013. para 3.

"Perhaps one should rather say, it is only God the Father, who works threefold as one"

- - - The Grail Message, Hardbound Three-in-one Volume - Page 1013. para 5.

And the message does admonish man to bow down before his God.

Need I say more? Is it not obvious that the authour has deified himself as one and equal to God?

I can quote much much more, which affirms the point if you insist, for the sake of the non-partisan reader.

toneyb:
This is not what science says, it says that energy can neither be created or destroyed in a closed system, i don't know if the universe is an open or closed system.

I seems to me that it is one of two things: either the direct implication of your own words completely eluded you, or you simply did not reflect on the aspect of Justcool's post that you were responding to above.

Here I reproduce what Justcool wrote in red:

"Some people claim that the energy in the universe was created by the big bang! Nothing could be more unscientific!! Because science has observed that Energy cannot be created or destroyed; it only changes forms. And since science is confined only to the physical; it logically follows that in the physical world energy cannot be created or destroyed. Thus the source of the energy in the physical world was not created in the physical world; therefore there must be another dimension from where this energy comes i.e. where this energy is created."

Now you stated that - "that energy can neither be created or destroyed in a closed system."

This has one direct implication: that if the universe is a closed system, energy could not be created in it: to wit: there would never have arisen any energy therein. What this tranposes into logically is that there would have been no energy and no universe.

It therefore means that the very existence of energy herein presupposes an open system: or at the very least at the the commencement, an entrance or reception of energy. It logically could not be otherwise.

This rationally leads to the affirmation that the source of energy could not itself be this universe, or the matter from which this universe expanded.

This is firm reasoning: and it speaks for itself.

Nonetheless I also need to urge you to recognise that at all events, matter could not self-exist in the form of a singularity because matter is changeable: and self-existence connotes immutability. There is no means by which a self-existent element can change for the simple reason that it is itself the principle of its own existence and as such could not be something else or otherwise. I do not know if you understand this. But it is absolutely clear and simple.

Anyhow you then went on -

How did you come to the conclusion that what ever created the universe is not physical?

Because the universe is physical and there is no physical thing that can be its own cause. Being its own cause would be self-existence and no physical thing is self-existent because physical things are changeable. Self-existent things are immutable.

It is for this reason that we see that nothing physical could self-exist. Therefore physical things require a cause that is not physical.

How do you know that its only one non physical entity that created the universe? Why can't it be 2 or more entities?

There could be any number of entities but all such entities must logically ultimately derive from an intangible singularity which is itself immutable.

That is what is referred to as God, the oneness of intangible self-existence itself.

toneyb:
This is a fallacious argument and it begs the question, you are only arguing from ignorance since you clearly do not fully know and also do not have any evidence to show that there is a creator and that creator lives outside the universe.

So, as we all know we exist in the universe, can you tell me where god exist? Heaven? Paradise? The spiritual realm? OK.

The specific answer actually doesn't matter. Let's call the place/realm in which god exists "A".

Who made "A"?

God couldn't have made. If he did, where did he exist before he made it? That just pushes the question further back and we end up with the same problem, asking the same question.

If "A" is eternal, then it is something that precedes god or is equal to him when it comes to the divine trait of being eternal. And that contradicts the nature of god.

And if you say god is not in a place, then god isn't anywhere, which means he doesn't exist. Even the bible begins with the statement that in the beginning god created the heaven and the earth.

What an argument.

You seek God's address, God's residence, eh?

It is beyond belief that anyone can attempt to construct an argument or a rebuttal based on an inquiry as to the location of an element that is said to be intangible and immaterial.

You amaze me. Perhaps you hope to locate such an intangible element relaxing and having its siesta in a tent in your back yard?

Chrisbenogor:
Justcool is obviously suffering from defective reasoning.

You have not shown the defective reasoning. Rather it seems to me eminently defective that a changeable thing like matter may be presumed by you and thehomer to be a self-existent thing. Self existent things are immutable. Matter is not immutable. It changes. Ergo, it could not be self-existent. This is so simple it beats me that Mr. Homer over a long stretch of time does not grasp this.

All this merry go round ends in an infinite regress of who created the creator?

The Creator is a self-existent and immutable element. It is not subject to change, as matter is.

. . .and if the creator could not be created then it is possible that the universe could have always been in existence.

Two responses to this.

First the universe could not have always been in existence because matter is not immutable: therefore not self-existent.

Anything that is not self-existent must have a cause to exist: and therefore a beginning.

Second response is a throw back to you: if the universe "could always have been in existence" as you have said yourself, then this shows you accept that some things could "always have been in existence" - thus this eliminates your infinite regress problem in terms of the existence of God.

For in the same way as you state: "Who created God?" - I may also state - "Who created the universe?" Your response to my question would be "the universe could always have existed" and it leaves me dumbfounded that you do not see that that is the same response I give to you: THAT GOD HAS ALWAYS EXISTED.

Now the reason that my answer should succeed whereas yours must fail is the simple reason that the universe CANNOT have always existed because the universe is matter and matter is subject to change: it is thus NOT immutable as self-existent things logically must per force be immutable.

On the reverse that which is self-existent cannot be matter and as such must be immaterial and intangible. This is what the eternal element called God is said to be.

This argument is simply irresolvable, there is no method available to us which can succesfully say this is what happened and the answer would not come from pages of meaningless arguments but from hardwork in a laboratory.

It is not very probable that you can access the self-existent from a laboratory for as analysed above, the self-existent is also necessarily immaterial and intangible.

For now justcoool sounds like an ancient greek philosopher shouting that the very nature of lightening means its the wrath of Zeus with no evidence to back his claim.

He has done no such thing. It is rather the man who can see the nature of those water crystals and fail to see design in that - such a man is the man who sounds as the bizzarre one, especially since such a man would similarly see a stone tool such as this below - and sees design in that!

Scientific view: designer required -

ach. Blackmail! Am at a weddin. Will contact u shortly

Chrisbenogor:
IF by your experiment you were trying to model the universe then your initial setup is very very wrong, for instance if say the center acted like a centrifuge all objects thrown in would be forced to the edge. Patterns would definitely change, no?

In the first place you need to ask yourself whence the force arises? Why does it exist as opposed to nothingness for example?

Secondly, what guiding principles operate to set out the ornate intricacy of water crystals and how is it possible that those principles are impervious to the resultant patterns?

thehomer:
Yes I have. It was quite long and rambling and was also sprinkled with insults.

What you need to do is address the scientific posers he raised on the cosmological question.

have you been able to review justcools posts above?

thehomer:
@ Deep Sight

What complex pattern showing hallmarks of linear design are you referring to?

Water crystals have those shapes due to physical laws.

And such laws which produce the intricately precise ornate patterns posted in the OP issue purposelessly and meaninglessly from nowhere? Do you really believe these things?

Such laws look products of chance to you? Are you sincere about this sir?

Justcool thank you for the very illuminating essays. I have been educated and enriched thereby.

thehomer:
The spirit world that I'm familiar with is non-physical but the quantum world is.

Huh? You are familiar with a non physical spiritual realm? Wahala, gbaskalada.

What do we suppose is the likelihood then of such things as mere water crystals emerging with their given design from a process of chance?

Check these out -

Deep Sight:
Let's look at it this way.

You have in your hand a clump of fifty pebbles.

You begin to throw them all on the floor such that they form random patterns on the ground. Such as these dots below.
. . . .
. . , .
. . . . .
, . . .
. . .

You gather the pebbles and fling them on the floor over and over again, endlessly. They continue to form scattered random patterns of any description.

I realized this morning, that even if you fling those pebbles on the floor a zilliion zillion times, you will never, not in all eternity, have them form something like this:

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

And yet this is a fairly simple pattern. But it evinces great linear order, precision and structure. If you think this is a wrong argument, you try spending the rest of your life throwing pebbles randomly on the floor. If you ever come up with the square above, i will either give you $200, 000 or have you arrested as a con artist.

You will never get the square above.

This is why very complex patterns which show particular hallmarks of linear design, can scarcely be attributed to chance.

Na yarn wey I yarn one time wey done tey pass. E be like say na last year sef.

Is there any person who thinks that there is any possibility of arriving at the perefct square pattern through a process of chance.

^^^ It doesn't matter. Every human spirit can inwardly intuitively sense what love is if he opens his heart to it. That is the simple truth.

Any other thin na long talk based on say we must sha argue.

Any other thin deserve machete.

How does the sacrifice of Christ combat evil? That is the question. What is the relevance of that sacrifice to the question of evil.

Jenwitemi:
Deepsight, come now! Can't you see that inesqor is starting to grow, to evolve, finally? At least give him some credit and encouragement for that, instead of knocking him.

No thanks: I am a wicked man and I strongly subscribe to the school of hard knocks, which school i attended myself and became a prefect therein in my senior year.

True growth will only commence with this recognition:

that there is nothing required of a man save to live in simplicity through a conscience premised on love.

Chikena, O pari, O ti tan. It is finished.

Any other growth in any other direction no be better growth and should be slashed violently with a machete before it takes root and festers even greater confusion.

InesQor:
For the record, I am not renouncing everything I wrote here as mavenbox. But its a thin line between what I wrote and what really is true in my understanding, its thin but very poisonous. maybe I will post revisions later. I have renounced the attitude though, i guess.

Supreme confusion. If I talk se split personality now, you go vex for me, abi? 

Just keep somersaulting this way and that.

The end to all these somersaults will come when you see that there is nothing required of a man save to live in simplicity through a conscience premised on love.

Chikena. O ti tan. O pari. It is finished.