₦airaland Forum

And where is Viaro? We never finished with this. I see my hangover may have lasted some months, Lol.

vescucci:
The reasons why I discount atheism is that matter seems to tend towards disorder and not cohesion let alone life. Life seems to have only one purpose which is continuity. Evolution points to the gradual and continuous process of the improvement of a species to live longer and better.

Professor Vesc!

The bolded words - reading that was better than s.ex!

Sometimes we just need a good ol' prof like your eminent self with your gift of clear and lucid communication to come along and set out clearly that which plebians like myself struggle with. I entirely agree with those words -

- - -Indeed a while back I opened a thread titled "Evolution proves creation" - and what you have expressed is exactly what I was trying to set out therein - but the thread never got off the ground. I abandoned it after a few posts, although I recall viaro vehemently disagreed.

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-393099.0.html

@ Martian -

Are you an atheist?

In answering this, please note the following -

1. The Anti-religionist Atheist. This Atheist is entirely focused on the absurdity of the Religious Theist's Ontology of God. He finds the construct of God as delivered through Religion to be ludicruous and as such rejects them in its entirety. He does not pause to think about God outside the precept of religion.

2. The Pure Atheist - This Atheist is entirely set against the idea of God. The objection of this Atheist is not so much the internally inconsistent ontology of the Religious Ideas of God, but more the fact that a non-material God cannot be proved. This Atheist is often a strict materialist and rejects notions such as an immaterial soul, life after death, etc. This Atheist will beleive only in that which can be physically and scientifically verified, and as such rejects the notion of God since in his mind, God cannot be physically or scientifically verified.

3. The Fvck- All Atheist - This Atheist simply doesn't give a Poo, anyhow.

Now if you are an atheist, which would you say you are? I want to understand you.

@ Pastor/ MyJoe. . .

Reading your posts on the gunas really sparked my interest and having dwelt on those gunas a little, I thought that in addittion to Pastor's brilliant surmise, it is possible to also obtain other interesting perceptions of the essence of these gunas by viewing them as follows -

It is said that in Samkyha philosphy all creation is made up by a balance composed of all three forces. So it seems to me that one could understand this eternal balance as -

<- - - - Destruction     - - -        Preservation     - - -  Creation    - - - - >

Tamas                                           Raja                                  Sattva

ORIGINAL: NON-BEING                     WORLD                              ORIGINAL: BEING

Where Sattva would equate with original being and existence: thus the tendency of GOD - hence its relation to that which is most liberated in totality. This would make sense as Sattva is said to denote order, balance and purity - core elements of the conception of the primordial GODHEAD.

And raja would equate with the air, the firmament - thus creation and all the various possibilities inherent in it. This is related to preservation and has some connection with the eternity of the creations. . .

And Tamas would equate with darkness and non-being and will thus be less mobile, less creative and express itself in terms of force. This will be borne out since Tamas is said to denote inactivity and inertia, and also has a somewhat negative connotation.

This is a contrived reading. Different, but I do not think takes anything away from that which you have expressed, which is another reading that also seems simultaenously brilliant and true to me.

Particularly, since all exist in balance (and I can see some relation here to that which we have discussed in the past on the self-existence of light and darkness) it is possible to view, perhaps not just Sattva, but all three as being inherent in the Godhead, or fountain of existence. This will particularly rhyme with Pastors perception that that all three have a purpose and are beneficial in specific contexts.

Does anybody detect within this a possible resolution of the philosophical question of evil. . .?

[quote author=Mad_Max link=topic=436863.msg6800492#msg6800492 date=1285161301][color=#000099]One quick addition. We don't mean the same thing by the word 'reincarnation',MyJoe. I'd mentioned earlier that reincarnation as Christ taught it is NOT the popular idea of it. Christ did NOT teach successive human rebirths. Although it's possible, under unusual circumstances, for a spirit to be born here a second time, in which case he'd have no memory of the other time, we live this life only once. When we die, we're done here. We're eternal spirits made in the image of God. This life isn't the beginning of our existence,nor its end. When we're here we're spirit beings who take on flesh, and by that, a dual nature; body and spirit. Death is merely us shedding the body and reverting back to our natural spirit form. What happens after we die is between that individual and God. Christ did NOT teach the Hindu/Buddhist doctrines of successive cycles of human rebirths and experience. Reincarnation, as He taught it, had nothing to do with repeat human births, nothing to do with this world, everything to do with the idea that each of us comes here only once and the sum of our choices determine our fate after we leave this life. It has everything to do with the fact, which shocked me, that NO ONE attains Christlikeness (perfection to other faiths)in a single lifetime and so we don't automatically go to be with God after we die. It is a continuous and very long process, and spirits are at different stages of it.

This biological life on earth is merely a single step in a long road. It is a very important step; it determines what happens when we leave time (the physical universe) and go back to eternity,[/quote]This really resonates with me: especially the last line in the quote above. However just a quick question: you state that this earth life is merely a single step in the long road and that it is a very important step, and that it determines what happens after we leave time. I could not agree more.

In that event what do you think happens re: human beings who die as infants and who as such are not able to inculcate this earthlife into their experience - do you think that such human  beings are the main ones who will have to be reincarnated on the earth in order to properly inculcate the earthly experience into their spirits. Much like repeating the class.

Now following from the foregoing, do you not think that the analogy can be stretched: namely that any human being regardless of his age who has not properly inculcated the experience of the earth into his spirit will be reincarnated on AN Earth or this Earth for the purpose of firmly completing that crucial step in his development before moving on.

If that is the case how can you be certain that reincarnation does not obtain in the successive and repeatitive fashion as envisaged by oriental religious thought?

Pastor AIO:
It seems that the biblical definition of a God is a being that knows the difference between Good and Evil

5For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
Gen 3

Quote
22And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil:

Well Pastor, thanks for this comment on that which the Bible DOES convey. The way some persons react to that which is in the bible which they find unpalatable, or contrary to their pre conceived notions, you would think it was Joagbaje or Deep Sight that personally inserted the foregoing quotes into the bible.

There, it is; clear as daylight - nothing need be said!

Zikkyy:
Based on your analysis here, are you saying Jo’s godly powers are restricted to harassing goats and chickens as well as bulldozing trees    

LOL! ! ! You are a riot, man!

duduspace:
Quite an impressive first half but I wonder why Le Prof keeps shooting himself in the foot, we can get away with it today but there is no reason Vela should be playing that lone striker role ahead of JET, all those body checks Vela has been given would just be bouncing off him.
Wilshere and Ramsey are the future of Arsenal and its a future worth looking forward to, with each game Jack plays I wonder the more who was better at this age between him and Cesc, unbelievable football intelligence for such a young player and growing with every game.

Duduspace! You have totally abandoned us in the religion section?

@ Nwankwo, you wrote quite a bit. I am reading it and will shortly like to make a few comments thereto. However there are aspects that are addressed in my response to Justcool if you will have a look.

aletheia:
^^That is what men call them. God's Word makes clear they are all false gods no matter how qualified.
For though there be that are called gods [whether tennis or football gods], whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,) But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

Surely you will not by this suggest to me that football, tennis, and s.ex are things that the almighty participates in, so as to be called "god" thereon?

^^This is a weak argument because the Hebrew scripture to which you appeal makes no distinction between god and God in uppercase or lowercase terms. This is just a convention of the English language. The distinction the Bible makes is always between the One Living God and all other false gods. There are no grey areas in between, no points of intersection. They are two mutually exclusive categories. Moreover, you simple refuse to account for the various meanings of the Hebrew word Elohim (translated into god in English) in order to try and sustain your argument.

Let's be fair: Joagbaje did not speak Hebrew: he spoke English. And the fact remains that in English there is a distinction between the upper case GOD and the lower case god.

^^One attribute of the Commander-in-chief is to order soldiers into battle. The Chief of Army Staff has this authority too (delegated to him by the C-in-C). Does this now make the COAS the C-in-C?

Exactly! You come to my point now! Nowhere is it claimed that man is GOD - but it is claimed that he is a lesser god in the earth only, and the example you have given above of lines of command bears this out entirely! The COAS is not the C-in-C; but a lesser commander with commanding powers over the army below him! Note: he is a commander as well - just not the ultimate commander!

Now let me ask you in all sincerity what you understand by man being made in the "image and likeness of God?"

^^Please let me know how I have abused you. I'm willing to apologize.

Noooo, you didn't o, it was Oga Nuclear that used olumo rock on my small head o, helep me warn am o, lol.

nuclearboy:
Liar!

Where's the "fool" issue?
So again I say, Liar!

No lies bros, "fool" was Inesqor's word, not yours. I indicated I was referring to the words you both had used.

But please do drop it, I don't enjoy the rather petty aspect that this seems to be generating.

@ Alethia - Well, now that I have become Agbaje's (incompetent?) Voltron, I might as well take another jump head first into that empty pool.

I do not see contradictions in the quotes above that you have mined.

Let's have a look -

1. "Don't push me, what if I tell you Jesus wasn't there in the beginning?" / "The word was not a separate person" - This is a reference, as I see it, to his perspective that there was no separation between God and Son in the beginning. There was just God. This perspective is actually shared by alot of christian trinitarian groups as well - and also by adherents of movements such as the Grail Message. Thus the view is that the son only became a separate and distinct personality when he was severed from the GODHEAD. . . which is why the pure trinitarian will tell, you - just as Nuclear has often argued in the past - that it reallt is ONE GOD showing as three -  -  - in line with this you can better understand the statement that Jesus is not said to be there as a distinct personality separate from God in the beginning. . . again this is why Jesus is called 'begotten' of God. . .because in primordial eternity, it is just GOD and nothing else. . .this does not contradict the trinitarian worldview.

2. "I am an eternal being" - I presume he means eternal in the future and not eternal in the past, by virtue of attaining salvation and eternal life through Christ.

3. "See your contradiction. Is father and son same personalities? These are two distinctive individual. Don't you agree?" - This I presume refers to the stage where the son is severed from the father.

Just my thoughts on what he's thinking.

@ Inesqor - Let's not mess about with semantics.

It is pretty obvious considering the language deployed in that verse that I quoted. What do you understand by the term - "a god?"

I am surprised that you will find no offense if Roger Federer is called a "Tennis god", or if Maradona is called a "football god" or if Tyson Beckford is called a "s.ex god". . .however when man is called "a god of the Earth," you suddenly see this as blasphemy, forgetting that it is qualified.

It is clear that -

1. Man was indeed rendered a god of the earth in terms of the genesis creation account

2. That godship was NOT GODship (upper case - reference to the almighty)

3. Thus it remained open for man to be tempted with further attributes which he did not have - such as knowledge of Good and evil

4. He was tempted as such

5. God himself confirmed that the man had acquired another attribute of godship in saying "behold the man has become as one of us. . ."

Given these, I cannot see that that which Alethia and the other abusive gentleman have laid out in anyway reverses that which Agbaje laid out!

And this leaves me at a loss as to how it renders me "a fool," and "daft" and "an embarrassment" and deserving to "live in the mud"

You would expect much higher standards from such famed apostles of Christ.

Juxtapose -

Quote from: Joagbaje on Yesterday at 02:02:57 AM -

"Man generally was created to be immortal and a god on the earth"

Genesis 1: 26 - Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

I must be missing something, ehn?

InesQor:
It makes you look like a fool at the end!!

Touche. Gracias. Read.

nuclearboy:
What exactly is wrong with this joker that takes himself so seriously?

You know what esteem we hold Christ and God in and you call one the jewish Carpenter in an offensive manner.
The other you called "jewish landlord". Then you say the Bible is a book of myths YET YOUR repeatedly lying deluded confused arse that has had practically everyone here from A to Z calling you a liar, twister, every-friggging name is what nobody can address as daft when you proffer daftness as scholarship.

Yeah, better to sign out. Please ensure the door hits you on the way out and pushes you into the mud you should live in

Very well, Nuclear. Thanks again.

@ Alethia - Please try to space your paragraphs, it makes your posts easier to read an neater.

aletheia:
@Deep Sight:
You did hasten to post without considering the posts that came before. A central tenet of the "Joagbaje is a god" belief is that Adam was created as a god ab initio before Satan tempted him; a consequence of which was that Adam fell and lost his godhood. Here are Joagbaje's own words to that effect:I responded to this by pointing out that;
This is so simple. But you responded thus:Firstly, what you neglected to consider in your response was the initial premise of Joagbaje's belief that men were originally gods, then lost that godhood before subsequently regaining it. The title of this thread refers to how Joagbaje supposedly regained that lost godhood.

1. After the creation, the bible does record that God gave man "dominion" over the earth and all that was in it. I do not know what that connotes, if not godship over the Earth - Man's particular sandbox. It is rulership - and this is a cardinal element in the question of being "a god" over this world. Your own bible states clearly that that dominion was given to man. So I cannot see anything wrong with Agbaje's surmise that Man was indeed "a god" over the Earth initially.

2. Why do you think that the lower case "a god' was used? Please do be honest with this point. This clearly denotes that it is a reference to a lesser than the ultimate "GOD."

3. If this is the case, then it still remains possible to tempt man with greater powers and knowledge than his "dominion" had already given him.

4. God confirmed the words of the satan by stating that the act of eating the fruit had indeed expanded the man's knowledge. Thus he had "BECOME" as "one of us". . . .that was a further expansion of his worldview which included attaining some of the attributes that the ones referred to as "us" already had. This is clear an undeniable.

5. God withheld the tree of Life from man, so that he would not eat and then live forever.

6. To my understanding, that eternal life is what Christ is said to have won back. . .thus adding another attribute to the qualities the man had lost/ gained. . .this again is "becoming" something else.

Bros. . . I see no contradiction on the foregoing.

I believe you should acquaint yourself with WoF doctrines before rushing in to defend them. But then you would particularly find them appealing since they try to undermine the historical uniqueness of the Son of God---Jesus Christ, something that you have consistently striven for.

Bros, please do hesitate to make assumptions regarding my motives. I simply noticed that Joagbaje seems to have become a punching bag for a large number of supposed christians on this forum and it baffles me because a great deal of what he says has scriptural backing and he quotes extensively to elucidate his points from the bible. The mere fact that you have different interpretations is no reason to demonise him as the generality appear to have done.

I could scarcely be bothered otherwise: you know I am not a christian.

nuclearboy:
^^^ daft response,

I'd expect you to prefer to call yourself satan anyway you're obviously closer home there though I wager even there, you're cause for embarrassment

Somehow I never expected us to sink to these.

I will have to sign out at that, thanks. I really don't know what warrants your abuses. Enjoy.

nuclearboy:
BTW, the statement was "become like one of us, "KNOWING GOOG AND EVIL", not "become a God like us"

Knowing good and evil is not why you believe infinity is God, is it OR does your (and Agbaje's) godship start and end with that capability?

Run, twist, hide and distort all you care: those words are not my words, but are taken right out of your own ancient semitic book of myths -

It states clearly - "Behold the man has become as one of us knowing good and evil. . . "

Thereby showing that "knowing good and evil is one of the key attributes of the "one of us". . .this cannot be denied.

There is therefore sound logic in an interpretation which holds that that rendered the man a god, even if a lesser god of the world only.

You seem to forget that your Jewish Landlord was thereafter eager to prevent the man from gaining more powers. . .he was frightened that the man could also eat from the tree of life and live forever, lol, so he placed a flaming sword there, lol.

^^^ So why o why is the thread titled "How Joagbaje BECAME God"? ? ? ?

Did you not quote that directly from him?

Besides it beats me that, even taking your own argument to be true, you do not see that being a god on earth, is different from being like Almighty God - or having the same powers as such. For this reason, even if man was a god on earth, it would still be possible for the satan  to tempt him with being  GOD like the almighty - which connotes greater and absolute powers.

So that does away with Alethia's concern, and ends your rebuttal.

Now can I ask you a question? Why don't you use your intellect for something that supports truth for once rather than exposing the spirit that hates truth in you so blatantly?

Sounds familiar?

Aha.

nuclearboy:
IF THEY WERE ALREADY GODS, WOULD THEY "BECOME" GODS AGAIN? [size=14pt]The argument is IF THEY WERE ALREADY[/size], not what came after! Plus what came after was they had the knowledge without the wherewithal to make "profitable" use of it, thus they became false gods! Is that not what the Word you hate so much says? So what is new that you said?  How difficult is it to comprehend that IF THEY WERE, they would NOT be becoming and the argument is some said they already were BEFORE?

Amazing. Just amazing.

I wonder if you stopped to read before posting at all sir.

I do not know that the argument from inception has been about Mr. Agbaje claiming that he already was something: rather he has stated over and over again that he "became" something - and this is evinced right from your opening post, where you quoted him as having asked if others were interested in how he "became" a god.

Thus, ab initio what you have posted is completely off-centre and appears shockingly as though you were ignorant of the words that you yourself used in your own OP - "How Joagbaje BECAME God." There. Completely different from what you are now suggesting - namely being already god in the first place.

How you can then make a full 180 degree swing and state that the issue is if he was a god already, absolutely beats me and will have to take prize for the most bizzare turn-around in this Forum's history.

So, there, friend - clearly you did not reflect for even a nano-second before posting. So who's filled with hatred for the truth now? ? ?

The Scripture states - " behold the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil." - and this is in tandem with Joagbaje's statement using the word "become" and also in tandem with your OP and even your title. How then can you claim its about what they were, prior to that, already? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

I laugh, friend.

Now, in light of the foregoing, your words -

Why don't you use your intellect for something that supports truth for once rather than exposing the spirit that hates truth in you so blatantly? You start to bore with the senseless hatred that flies to err without even considering what is being discussed. Kilode?

- - Leave me flabbergasted as it is obvious that your high and mighty opinion is, in your arrogance, presumed by yourself to be "truth" and anybody in disagreement with that exalted opinion, you have branded as bearing "a spirit that hates truth." That is super-presumptuous and reeks of the most unchristian arrogance that I can fathom.

Especially in light of the fact that you got it all twisted.

For the umpteenth time i adjure you: and I will never tire to adjure you: address issues and not people. It will do you some good.

aletheia:
^In fact, if man was already a god as they claimed, then Satan couldn't have been able to tempt Eve with the words: "you shall be as gods (Genesis 3:5)"
Which ever angle you consider it in the light of scriptures; their claim break down on several levels.

Your reading is incomplete.

1. First and foremost if the temptation was that ye shall become as gods, then eating the fruit fulfllied that, no?

2. Secondly, God himself confirmed the words of the devil regarding the effect of eating the fruit by saying - "behold, the man has become as one of us, knowing good and evil" - Gen 3:22.

CASE CLOSED! GBAM, GBOGA GBOSA!

Edit.

justcool:
Dear Deepsight
First of; I do not know what you mean by "complete mind" and whether it can be attributed to God since God is not a "mind."

Let us not allow ourselves or the discussion to be defeated by semantics.

I am sure you have a sense that when I use the word “mind” in this context, I do not refer to such as the human brain – but simply the quality or state that enables a being or entity to apprehend things.

The emergency did not result from God neither was it as a result of the imperfection of the laws of God. The emergency situation resulted from man's misuse of his free will. While God is perfect, and so are His laws; mankind is not perfect, mankind poses free-will which they use freely without interference from God.

I feel that there are severe problems and contradictions inherent in the foregoing, to wit –

1. You stated that the emergency did not result from God but from Man’s misuse of his free will. It find it very hard to accept that this is not something that God could/ would have apprehended from eternity. Indeed even mere man can decipher that so long as free will exists, the possibility of its misuse will also exist and as such it beats me to imagine GOD who exists outside of all time and space not apprehending from primordial eternity that this would/ may be the case and not already provisioning for such an eventuality such that when indeed the moment of need arises, it is said to be “an emergency. . .”

It can be an emergency from the point of view of mere men, but I feel that it dishonors and belittles GOD to imagine that there can be any such thing as an emergency from the point of view of such a complete transcendental deity. Indeed I feel, as I have already expressed, that the very idea is absolutely incompatible with any enunciation of the nature of divinity or transcendence. . .

2. Secondly, and more cardinally, you stated thus – “While God is perfect, and so are His laws; mankind is not perfect, mankind poses free-will which they use freely without interference from God.” –

THIS IS A MAJOR CONTRADICTION, dear friend, for I am at severe pains that you can state that mankind are to deploy their free will without interference from God[/b]AND YET state again that God [b]had to interfere by sending a part of himself to the earth!

I do need you to appreciate that this is not only a self-contradictory statement, but also belies and contradicts that which is resident within the Grail Message – to wit – that every human spirit bears strict responsibility for its fate and will receive its judgment as a natural consequence of the operation of the laws of creation. It is thus eminently strange to state that  -

a. God will not interfere with man’s free will AND YET –

b. God will interfere to save them from the consequences of the execrcise of that free will DESPITE THE FACT THAT –

c. The laws of God already make full provision for each exercise of will and its attendant results/ consequences.

I hope you can see that the three above – a, b and c – all contradict each other. Why will God not simply leave the laws of Karma/ retribution, attraction to take their flow and deliver the results and consequences? As I said, before, if he has to engage in a process of “severing” “parts” of himself and proceeding into creation personally to set things aright, [/b]that does not speak very well for the adequacy of the existing laws within creation, and this is not something that we can spin away through rhetoric such as “help is part of the law” – for the simple reason that such help would not be necessary if truly, as claimed by the Message, [b]God is strict and adamantine.

Would you attribute imperfection to a car just because the driver fell asleep on the wheel and was about to drive the car off a cliff?

No: but I will attribute imperfection to the car if the maker of the car has to intervene to stop the car from falling off the cliff despite the fact that brakes have already been provided in the car.

Now when the maker of the car is the same person who is the maker of the driver of the car the level of responsibility of the maker becomes much higher. He is responsible for the car as well as the driver and probably should have installed a radar system which would detect approaching and dangerous chasms and include an alarm system therein – if he has not done this and has to be bothered at the last minute to come to save the car and driver from the pit-fall personally, you must inescapably agree that the whole system he has created (car + driver) cannot in any wise be described as perfect.

The mission of Jesus goes to prove further the perfection of God and His laws; because despite the emergency situation that can arise out of man's misuse of his free-will, God through His laws can still send help to them on time.

Sending help is incompatible with a perfect system.

The day Microsoft creates a perfect computer, all computer maintenance engineers will be out of jobs forever. So long as such engineers are still required, we cannot be said to have reached perfection.

The situation was not an emergency on the side of God and His laws, neither God nor His laws were threatened by the situation; the situation was an emergency only on the side of mankind who were speedily heading towards distruction, a destruction that they brought on themselves.

This does not square with the fact that it is a severed part of God that is said to rush through the planes in haste. . .agreed it was an emergency for mankind, but it is inconceivable that GOD would not have seen mankind heading in that direction from primordial eternity already. I hope you can see that once you accept as you have done that it was NOT an emergency for God, then the question begs – why the haste indicated in the message?

Divine intervention does not mean that the work was not perfect from beginning; it would only mean so, if in the intervention, the hitherto existing laws were annulled, improved, or changed even to the slightest degree.

I think I have explained already that any intervention or help is completely incompatible with the idea of a perfect work. No perfect work can conceivably require any further intervention by the workman – regardless that the workman is said to deploy the same principles in his further intervention. The mere act of intervening alone, even if in accordance with the principles earlier deployed by the workman, is sufficient to show that the workman had not done a complete job. This is clear. What is he returning to do, if the work was already done, perfect and dusted? ? ?

If you consider the entrance of a part of Divinity into creation as an intervention, then you should consider the mission of some of the Prophets intervention too. Because some of the prophets issued from the Primordial spiritual and descended into subsequent creation for their mission. Also do you consider the mission of Lucifer such intervention too? Remember Lucifer issued from outside creation.

I cannot work with this as I have no idea where prophets come from. As far as my very limited understanding permits, I view them as human beings. Ditto for Lucifer – I do not know anything about such a being, or whether it even exists as described. Maybe one day I will know, but for now it will be false of me to say that I do. So sorry, this is not something I can work with.

If you consider every visit an intervention as such, keep in mind that even the laws did not originate in creation; all the laws issue far above Creation, in God Himself who is the Living Law. One can equally say that the laws which issue from God visit creation.

I am surprised you will compare a permanent standing law which forms the basis for existence as a whole (and which is described by the Message as “adamantine”) to the visit of a personal being who enters and then exits creation at a specific time.

When do the laws of creation exit creation, or cease to apply to creation? Never.

The example is not apt.

If I write a perfect text book and give to a school. Some student out of mental laziness may not understand the text book and thus headed to failure. If out of love I decide to visit the school and teach these students, does this mean that book is not perfect? As long as in my visit, I did not change any of the things hitherto written on the book; the perfection of the knowledge on the book remains.

But remember that in this case you are not only the writer of the book, but the maker of the students, and you have provided every possibility within the school for students to learn. If indeed the school is a perfect school, you need not visit. If you are compelled to, the school could not be said to be perfect, this is clear.

You should look to the school – which is the world. In this case you are the maker of the school as well, the book, and the students. I hope you see reason in these terms. In each of the examples you gave - you would be the maker if the ENTIRE SYSTEM - which is what God is - and as such you should look to the perfection of the entire system

I believe this addresses the other examples you gave and as such I will not go through them one at a time.

Reread your question! Because in that question lies the answer already. You said, "that which is perfect will not require further intervention, much less "urgent" missions of redemption." Exactly! You are right! And in this case what required the mission of redemption? I will answer for you--- Mankind.

Whence did mankind arise? The same maker, no?

Coming to your "perfect work," if by that you refer to the earth or subsequent creation; keep in mind that subsequent creation did not issue directly from God, and thus cannot be described as a direct work of God. Subsequent creation, having precipitated from animistic realm and formed by the animistic beings at a greater distance from God than Primordial creation, subsequent creation does not resemble the perfection of the creator as much as Primordial creation does.

I am sorry to say, but this above, which I have always read in the Grail Message, only comes across as an excuse: my deepest apologies for having to say so.

I do not believe it is apt to speak of such things as “at great distances from God.”

I tell you that, I view it as an almost insulting excuse – and this is why: GOD is said to be OUTSIDE creation, entirely away from finite space and time which is creation. I do not know by what parameters anybody can begin to speak about which worlds are at “great distances” from God, indeed, I am not even sure that the concept of distance is applicable at all in such a context, once you refer to God.

Secondly, everything within creation is the work of God – directly or indirectly. To state that some aspects of creation are not the direct creation of God, may be fair – as we have agreed in the past – but it is altogether unfair, and I dare say, amounts to shirking responsibility – to claim that GOD does not remain responsible for ALL of creation – direct or indirect – as it all issued from God. Again, this comes across as another unpalatable excuse – we cannot begin to conceive of a perfect God, who issues a perfect primordial creation which in turn begins to issue imperfect subsequent creations. That would only mean that the Perfect God and his perfect primordial creation were not all that perfect if the perfect primordial creation could begin to issue imperfect subsequent creations.

That is going round in circles and is absolutely unacceptable.

I will throw in one more word for you to consider: The son of man is the man in God, the outborn son of God, the God-man; while Jesus is the inborn son of God, He remains in the Divine unsubstantiality plane bearing nothing human within Him.

Unless you will repudiate a great deal of what is in the gospels, it is a hard sell to state that Jesus of Nazareth has nothing human about him.

MyJoe:

Now, why would anyone say this of Philosopher Vescucci, Ph.D., OON, OBE, Master of the Rolls, Viceroy of India, Doctor of Letters?

. . . . . . His Excellency President for Life, Field Marshal Al Hadji Doctor Idi Amin Vescucci, VC, DSO, MC, Lord of All the Beasts of the Earth and Fish of the Sea, and Conqueror of the British Empire in Africa in General and Uganda in Particular. . .

Really great discussion this was. Inesqor is yet to explain how a reduced amount of water is no longer water. How a reduced amount of light is no longer light, and the several other incongruities in this thread.

Purist:
Trust me, there are times when it's just really necessary to "play along". A girl once began to distance herself from me the day she learnt that I'm irreligious. It's annoying sometimes when people look at you like you've got HIV. More so, families, for instance, react to these kinds of situations differently. I am 101% sure that the day I let my parents know about my beliefs, is the day I begin to kill them emotionally, psychologically and even physically. So why bother? It makes much more sense keeping my views to myself. It's got absolutely nothing to do with being "ashamed" or not being "a man of true conviction". If given the chance, I personally would GLADLY announce at EVERY opportunity, my unbelief. But then, some things are better left not said to certain people, if one still wants to ensure a really blissful relationship with them. Even amongst my tolerant friends sometimes, though with some elements of joviality and an undertone of seriousness, I am not allowed to join certain important discussions just because I'm not a Christian, and that could really be frustrating.

To be fair, this is well considered and I have to accept it as apt.

Chai, MyJoe and Mad Max sef. See epistle.

chukwudi44:
Imagining a mere man bringing himself to same level of our Lord Jesus Christ.

And what was your lord Jesus Christ, if not a mere jewish man, proven subject, as all men are, to death?

Justcool, what do you perceive to be "a complete mind."

God is a Complete Mind.

No human being is a complete mind, to the extent that there are things that are, and will always remain totally outside our minds.

There is however nothing in existence which may be accounted for outside the mind of GOD because GOD is a complete mind.

There can therefore only be "emergencies, contingencies and urgencies" for incomplete minds.

An emergency is an absurdity for a complete mind. For the complete mind that is GOD, it is absolutely inconceivable.

There is a reason that I deemed this an inconsistency in the Grail Message - and the reason is the fact that the Message emphasizes the completeness and accuracy of creation and the laws therein.

How you see inconsistency in urgency beats me. When is urgency incompatible with consistency? The urgency of the Mission of Jesus did not annul any of the laws of Creation. In the mission of Jesus all the laws of creation were fulfilled and none annulled. Speedily passing through a plane does not annul the laws of creation as there is no law that states that an individual must spend a long time in any planes of creations. If Jesus had magically appeared on earth without first traveling down through the planes between the Divine and the physical, then such would be an annulment of the laws of creation. But He did travel through the planes, only that He traveled fast so as to deliver His help to the earth on time.

The Message makes clear that the inflexible Divine Will has already written adamantine laws into creation and as such these laws are complete and suffice to deal with all that rests in creation. Indeed the very idea of further divine intervention can philosophically and logically only point to ONE thing: namely that the work that was initially done by the Creator was not a perfect work.

For you very well know, and this you will not deny - that that which is perfect will not require further intervention, much less "urgent" missions of redemption. Such will only connote a most imperfect work - which I am certain you will not ascribe to GOD.

The coming of the son of man - whom the message claims to be Abd Ru Shin - the authour of the Grail Message, was not hurried. It is described as a step-by-step process which evinces an order and co-ordination of the sort that one might ascribe to the Divine. However the notion that "there was insufficient time" [/b]with respect to the incarnation of Jesus is entirely at variance with the concept of a being such as GOD who is said to rest [b]above and beyond all time and space. Surely, you find this incongruous in the extreme.

For these reasons I find grave inconsistencies in the following from you -

God provided everything through his laws from the very beginning. His laws give everything that minkind need and would ever need, from eternity; actually mankind need no extra help in-other to find their way back to Paradise or save themselves. The Mission of Jesus was an extra help which God gave out of love; and which became necessary due to the failure of mankind.

You state, and i quote verbatim -

1. "God provided everything through his laws from the very beginning." - what then is the need for any further intervention?

2. "His laws give everything that minkind need and would ever need, from eternity" - what then is the need for any further intervention?

3. ". . .actually mankind need no extra help in-other to find their way back to Paradise or save themselves" - How can you state that mankind need no extra help and in the same breadth state that such help was necessary? ? ? Doubtless you know that the word necessary means that which is needed. So it is completely incongruous for you to state that {x} the help was not needed and yet {y} the help was necessary.

4. "The Mission of Jesus was an extra help which God gave out of love; and which became necessary due to the failure of mankind" - That it would become "necessary" (despite not [/b]being [b]needed - your words) would have been known by GOD [b]from eternity [/b]no? Why then the "urgency" and "rushing through various planes and realms" because there was "little time?" Could it be that GOD's preparations were tardy? Surely that does not read right in the least.

These incongruities culminate in a further incongruity -

This mission lies completely in the perfection of the laws of God which would not allow anybody to perish who can still be saved;

- - - > which is odd because you know very well that with or without such a mission, any person who can be saved, will be saved if he exerts himself upwards according to the laws of God. . . regardless of any "urgent mission."

Furthermore -

God had already apprehended such things from primordial eternity by making urgent missions of help permissible within His laws. His laws have existed from primordial eternity and His laws permits and even promises help when and wherever help is needed.

This is internally inconsistent because we are made to understand that all the help man needs is already contained in, and woven into the laws of creation. Any help beyond this that needs to come from OUTSIDE creation (as Jesus is claimed to) can only mean that the laws WITHIN creation are not help enough, and as such are not perfect.

if you take time and read it

I do read every word you write. Do not take my disagreement with such words to be an indication that I have not read them. That would be similar to concluding that any person who disagree with you uses "his intellect only and not intuitive perception" or the claim of many Christians that those who disagree with them "do not have the Holy Ghost."

MyJoe:
On the hypostasis of Abd-Ru-Shin, I, too, put that squarely within the subset of rumours, while being mindful of the fact that whenever the subject is raised you often get the same answer, couched in the same words. There are several threads where Deep Sight pursues the matter with methods and vehemence evocative of the Spanish Inquisition.

Lol, @ spanish inquisition.

However the claim regarding the divinity of Abd Ru Shin is no rumour. This is a claim that is to be found within the Grail Message, written by the gentleman himself.

I can produce for you the quotes.

In summary it states that God has two sons - Jesus, who is the in-born son of God, and Imanuel, who is the out-born son of God. Imanuel is the core of a being called Parsifal, who is said to be the anchor of the LIGHT outside the divine realm, and that being called Parsifal is said to be radiated to the earth in the form of Abd Ru Shin.

Thus the man Jesus on Earth and the man Abd Ru Shin on Earth are claimed to be the radiated two sons of God that walked the earth: this is no rumour but the claim of the writer of the Grail message.

As you know, I find all such claims of humans who are supposedly "Divine" or "God' or "Son of God" to be perfectly delusional. Including this one.