₦airaland Forum

@ OP -

These are discussions you should review.

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-344297.0.html

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-355093.32.html

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-403867.320.html

Justcool you might want to consider that it is very easy indeed to presume that persons who have a different view from yours are always - "using their intellect only and not their intuition."

This is the dictatorship of a perspective that presumes its own intuition to be the only intuitive perception that could be correct or true.

That is no different from the average Christian who considers that any person who has divergent views from him, simply has not been touched by the "Holy Spirit."

I will revert later.

However it is readily obvious on my first reading that you have absolutely elected to change the words written by the authour. Where he writes "thought" you substitute "spiritual volition." Indeed it is apparent to my mind that there is a distinction between "thoughts" and their ethereal forms. Otherwise the authour would not refer to "the ethereal forms of the generating thought." I will revert appropriately when I have the strength though, as your posts always require a lot of consideration both for length and depth.

Aletheia - I am waiting for the last of my Tintin. . . thx

Pastor AIO:
I don't think that it is right or fair on either tradition to be mixing and conflating them.

That is mildly surprising, coming from he of the Boddhi Tree/ Eden-Tree fame.

The logos was not an observer of creation but was the means by which creation was created.

Of course.

He is nevetheless said in Jn 1:2 to have been "with" God in the beginning.

Nevertheless we certainly agree: we should not conflate these staggering differences!

I don't know. You need to first ask the adherents of those 'all religions' whether their supreme God is the same. Please ask the christians whether Allah is the same as their God. Then ask the moslems whether Brahma is the same as Allah. When you have their answer, we can start from there.

In light of some of our recent discourses this is most curious indeed.

I don't know what you mean by those terms, 'holy reverence, sacred beholding ' etc etc. But in any case I don't render anything reserved for God to Orunmila no matter how impressive his presence at the creation is.

Very well said sir.

do you mean like ouija, or necromancy? To be honest I have little to no knowledge of these means of divination.

Well I am not familiar with any form of divination at all, so I cannot say. . .I was just wondering if there are neutral signs to be read in nature, and as opposed to these - outright positive revelations of the LIGHT and negative revelations of the darkness? What do you think?

Aside from all these, and back to the purview of this thread - Ifa, I understand, has since been listed by UNESCO as part of the special heritage of humanity. What do you think its value could be in spiritual terms for the Yoruba people as well as all other peoples of the world.

Sometime ago, whilst i used to work with my former employer, i recall one of my colleagues (fire brand christian) vehemently condemning the fact that the company was sponsoring the 2007 Argungu Fishing Festival. . .he described it as sponsorship of demons. . .i recall being terribly sad and tried to prevail on him that it was rather positive sponsorship of indigenous culture and tradition. . .he would have none of it. I was aghast that a native yoruba man like him could so vehemently disdain his own tradition on account of his adopted foreign traditions. . .

Hello Justcool -

I have mulled over the discourse and finally I believe I have that I may have stumbled upon that which may convince you.

Thoughts can never be considered to be matter: not even ethereal matter.

Knowing as I do that you source your perspectives from the Grail Message, I decided to read again yesterday the Lecture on Thought Forms.

It emerges within that lecture that there is a distinction between thoughts and thought-forms.

Thought-Forms are what you might describe as being of ethereal matter - NOT THOUGHTS.

I believe this is the source of the mis-understanding that you have.

For this purpose, I extract from the Lecture on thought forms as follows [Page 270 of the Hard-Back version; Para 5] -

"The Living Creative Power which flows through man collects ethereal substance through the volition of a completed thought and moulds it into a form which gives expression to the will of this thought".

The foregoing renders it clear that living creative power (which you certainly will not call matter) collects ethereal substance about it through the volition of a completed thought! . It is thus clear that a completed thought (which is not matter) then gathers ethereal substance about it which "moulds it into a form which gives expression to the will of this thought."

Thus I say to you that the thought, as i SAID EARLIER - is a living idea. This idea takes on form as an ethereal mould and this is what is called a Thought-Form! So thoughts are not, and could never be ethereal matter. Rather thought-forms, are what are such ethereal matter!

Now there is further text that elucidates and proves this point. Quoting again from the message, the next paragraph reads -

"Just as a thought when it arises is simultaneously perceived intuitively, with greater or lesser intensity, [u]so its ethereal form will bear an equivalent life."

- And this conclusively shows "a thought" to be a different thing from "its ethereal form!"

Now finally, on Page 272 [last paragrpah], we read -

"Each fundamental type (of thought forms) has its own particular stamp which has been impressed on each thought-form as the foundation of the characteristics embodied in it, no matter what outer shape each form has taken THROUGH THE GENERATING THOUGHT"

I think this last quote hammers home the point clearly: "the generating thought" - is different from the "outer shape or form" -  - and as such is NOT matter.

Deep Sight:
Would this thus be the Yoruba equivalent of the son of God who is said to have been with God from the beginning and observed the whole creation/ was party to creation?

Staggering similarities. . .

It is correct for me to understand Eledumare as referring to the same supreme GOD that all religions refer to, yes?

I very much like this definition of worship. But worship can also slightly different connotations.

- - -> Worship could refer to adulation - - -> Man worships money - - -> that is NOT giving appropriate worth to money - that is a form of worship that is classed as idolatry - an obsessive adulation which is unhealthy. My worship of women is certainly unhealthy. It almost brings me to financial ruin. . .

- - -> Worship could refer to that which you have defined it as - appropriate worth.

- - -> Worship could refer to a state of enslavement. This is close to idolatry but slightly different in that idolatry is voluntary. A slave could be said to worship his master. However this is forced. . .nonetheless let us not miss the subtlety that some forms of slavery are voluntary, even when the enslaved does not realize this. . .

- - -> Worship could refer to holy reverence, sacred beholding, and humble supplication. . .in my mind this is the worship that I believe is and should be reserved for GOD. . .would you render this sort of worship to Orunmila, for example. . .especially in light of his supposed presence at the beginiing of creation?

This is entirely agreed and appreciated. Nevertheless do you think there are some particular forms of divination which may have evil or untoward undertones?

Pastor?

^^^ There are several, I will try dig them up, but really and truly the best source is Crime & Investigation Channel. I have personally watched several such cases on C & I over the last few years. I'll look around and see what I can source, but best of all, if you give me your number (you have my email) I will scour through teh t.v guide and send you pointers to what times to tune in to that channel and you will have your fill of raw evidence.

Sagamite:
Uhmm. I have come across that philosophical argumentation of infinite time before by one of my closest friends, but I have forgotten the premise. I remember it being an intelligent concept sha, as it knocked my argument off balance. Abeg refresh my memory on the premise.

Well its as simple as already said really: infinite time is a static reality. It cannot conceivably be caused. Accordingly if we speak of an infinite and eternal entity, such an entity is self-existent and of eternity. Such an entity cannot be said to require a cause as under the cosmological argument it is manifest that only things which begin at a point in time logically require a trigger --  cause.

So this will eliminate the problem of an infinite regress at we are dealing with something that self-exists and requires no precedng cause.

That said, I find it hard to believe of things just existing without a creator. Maybe that is the corruption of my independent thought by my known knowns.

Who created Time. Infact, what is time?

And if there is an uncaused cause, why does it have to be only one? Could it not be multiples?

The uncaused cause is envisaged as the Prime Mover of all existence. The idea of a prime mover is inconsisent with and parallel to the concept of multiple causes.

Nevertheless there are several things that may indeed be said to be uncaused. Eternity is one such. Numbers and infinity are another. My perception is that these uncaused elements are the elements of the Godhead.

Ah! This one is the easiest thing you have asked me all day.

I know my purpose in life well well.

I came to Earth to frolic with women.   I came to grab as many ikebes (pear, donkey and submarine size) and bosoms (double D, B, C , D, E, double Gs etc) as I can get.  

Joking! That is what I thought until about 2 and the half years ago when I got bored of all that.  

My brother, i feel you o! I tell you for a long time I had concluded that the highest purpose on earth was punany! The thing is just damn too compelling - especially when it comes clad in waist chains,  six inch stillettos and all that. . .ah, i'd better not get distracted  

On a more serious note, I ask: "Is it compulsory we have a purpose on earth rather than just live our lives"? "Is this just not one of the religious ideologies thrown to coerce lay-minds to conform to religous beliefs"? "If we must have a purpose in life, then surely every chicken, fish, tolontolo and other animals must have one too. And I doubt they do, apart from just live their lives"?

Indeed every creature does have a unique purpose and function within an ecosystem. Its a grand cycle. The predator ensures control on cattle poulations. The control ensures that the grassy plains are not over-grazed. That allows sufficient greenery to be sustained to maintain the rain cycle. That allows the earth to be watered and that gives fresh life. Just a rough example of the grand cycle of things. So everything has its purpose.

What is your purpose.

As a sentient being, can you contemplate or tolerate the prospect of a meaningless existence? Does that not rebel against your most basic nature as a conscious and sentient being?

ilosiwaju:
Wow! Remote viewing is still an outlandish claim and the evidence is still inconclusive. Let me quote Wiseman:

The answer lies in your OWN QUOTE:

"I agree that by the standards of any other area of science that remote viewing is proven" - Wiseman.

What else needs be said? If it is proven by the standards of normal science, is it fair or credible to begin to demand "higher proof? ? ?"

Whether science will suffice as a means of measuring its validity is something i wont talk about now. Scientifically(biology/physiology/psychology) a lie detector is a machine that has helped solve crimes, used by PDs and so on. As gadgetry as this stuffs is plus its scientific magana magana(talk talk), its results are still not admissible in many courts in developed countries. Why? Now compare DNA evidence. See?

Well the reality is that Polygraph Tests are admissible in many courts as well. This is entirely beside teh fact that I personally do not trust them: for they rely on the nervousness of a human being to determine falsehood - and humans can be nervous for a whole lot of reasons other than falsehood.

I'd like you to clearly explain your own version of belief in the paranormal. Ghosts? Visions? Premonitions? I'd love to hear you deepsight.

This will require a whole thread.

_{On a lighter note, would you cancel your flight(hmmmm. . . .say to ICJ at the hague ) if a professional psychic has remote-viewed the plane going down? Thats what i mean by validity.}

Over to you bro.

I can't imagine why you would attempt to discredit something that your own source affirms as passing standard scientific tests of proof. Especially when whole governments have placed reliance on same for purposes of espionage.

The human mind/ spirit are capable of astonishing things. What do you imagine espoinage would look like 500 years from now? How do you suppose those abilities would be developed? Aha.

Do not lightly discountenance movies like the Matrix and the new one - "Inception" - dealing with espionage through dreams.

We don't even know a tenth of what's possible yet mate. Make no assumptions.

^^^ Ilosi, respectfully, I doubt that you are well informed on the subject.

Cold reading/ psycology cannot explain talents such as remote viewing, where psychics have been used (and are still being used) by espionage agencies globally. It similarly cannot explain investigations whereat psychics make determinations without meeting any possible suspects at all. There is much more I can mention, but it will be best to simply refer you to the Crime & Investigation Channel.

You will be shocked just how much supposedly scientific governments are relying on the para-normal.

And let me just correct one insinuation/ impression contained in your post: I am NOT a materialist. I do believe in the para-normal - difference is I simply regard it as dealing with perfectly natural laws that we are yet to fully understand.

@ Vesc -

We need to be rather circumspect in endorsing to any degree the central precept of the atheistic mindset - or contending that the atheistic sub-set of thought is any more rational than the religionist. My reason is as follows. I perceive three broad types of atheists -

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.

If you will read the posts of an Atheist like Mazaje, for example, you will find that he is largely an anti-religionist atheist. He is always careful to state - "the gods of man-made religions do not exist" - and can scarcely ever be caught to simply say - God does not exist. In this respect he will pooh-pooh Yahweh and Allah alike because he regards them both as gods of man-made religions.

The reason that i say to you that there is no reason to hold atheistic thought in any higher esteem than religious thought, is, with respect to each of the types of atheists indicated below -

1. The Anti-Religionist Athiest - does not make much sense to me beacause the ridiculousness of religious precepts of God does not wish away the cosmological question of how the universe came to be. I am entirely non-religious and do not subscribe to any religion myself,  but this has not prevented me from asking that eternal cosmological question. God therefore, to the reasoned mind, must be a question that is philosophical and cosmological and not just religious. Discountenancing religious ideas of God is not sufficient to discountenance the idea of GOD on a philosophical level.

2. The Pure Atheist - does not make much sense to me either because it is beyond cavil that every human being lives his life 90% around notions that are not physical. Time. Hatred. Jealousy. Passion. Love. Happiness. Sorrow. The list is legion. Indeed the reality is that life would be meaningless without these non-physical things which we all recognise in our lives. It is therefore eminently strange to me that any person would expect the fount of all meaningfullness to be a physical thing that he can perhaps encounter parked on the Third Mainland Bridge.

The second reason why the pure atheist still makes no sense to me is simply that he is yet to address the cosmological question as to the origin of the existence of the universe. The Religionist at least ascribes that to a transcendental entity and this makes much more sense that supposing it to be the product of chance (which is meaningless given that such a supposition makes a tragic leap of presuming things to be already existent inorder for a mix-of chance to throw up a construct) or supposing it to be a sudden, meaningless expansion for no purpose, out of nothing. That, I submit, is more ridiculous than believing in magic - and the pure atheist thus ends up with a more fantastical and preposterous supposition than the religionist could ever dream of.

Why something instead of nothing?

3. The Fvck - All Atheist: - Why should I bother with this guy? He doesn't give a fvck, anyway!

Now of course you notice that the title of this thread is - "Why the Christian God is Impossible" - thus it is anti-religionist. We thus should be careful of rendering a wholesale endorsement of atheistic thought on this ground alone, as atheism strictly is not a denial of the christian God, but a denial of GOD.

Pastor AIO:
Orunmila is called enikeji olodumare. Olodumare's second in command. Eleri Ipin - that is witness to creation. Apparently when Olodumare was creating the world he was there observing everything, thereby giving him the knowledge of how everything works.

Would this thus be the Yoruba equivalent of the son of God who is said to have been with God from the beginning and observed the whole creation/ was party to creation?

Staggering similarities. . .

Olodumare does not receive ebo. Ebo literally means nourishment. Like an iyawo can 'bo' her oko. Basically that means that wifes feed their husbands. Ebo omo, nourishing a child. Needless to say, eledumare does not need feeding. Nor does he need any of the rituals associated with any of the orisha. Do those rituals amount to worship?

It is correct for me to understand Eledumare as referring to the same supreme GOD that all religions refer to, yes?

What does worship mean to you? I'd say that it means to give it's worth. Or to value appropriately.

I very much like this definition of worship. But worship can also slightly different connotations.

- - -> Worship could refer to adulation - - -> Man worships money - - -> that is NOT giving appropriate worth to money - that is a form of worship that is classed as idolatry - an obsessive adulation which is unhealthy. My worship of women is certainly unhealthy. It almost brings me to financial ruin. . .

- - -> Worship could refer to that which you have defined it as - appropriate worth.

- - -> Worship could refer to a state of enslavement. This is close to idolatry but slightly different in that idolatry is voluntary. A slave could be said to worship his master. However this is forced. . .nonetheless let us not miss the subtlety that some forms of slavery are voluntary, even when the enslaved does not realize this. . .

- - -> Worship could refer to holy reverence, sacred beholding, and humble supplication. . .in my mind this is the worship that I believe is and should be reserved for GOD. . .would you render this sort of worship to Orunmila, for example. . .especially in light of his supposed presence at the beginiing of creation?

Would I engage in divination for good purposes? Personally, I believe that all instruction can be found within oneself and that resorting to divination is an unnecessary crutch that can serve to block you from accessing the inner instruction. That is not to say that divination is a bad thing. All traditions and cultures have used divination from time immemorial. Whether it is the biblical casting of lots or use of the Urim and the Thummin. Or whether it is the reading of the flight of birds. But ultimately one has to let go of these methods and seek guidance from within.

This is entirely agreed and appreciated. Nevertheless do you think there are some particular forms of divination which may have evil or untoward undertones?

Sagacity!

Sagamite:
Bruv,

If we go the route of ultimate source then we risk entering an infinity loop.

That may or may not be so. Do you not think that somethings are self existent - such that they simply are - simply exist - without requiring a creator. If God is self-existent, then we evade the infinity loop because there would be no need to look beyond God for that which may have caused God. This, I believe is why God is referred to as "the uncaused cause" - namely that God is a cause of all things which is itself self-existent - it does not require a cause.

There are other things which may also be regarded as self-existent - and this may set the tone for a small understanding of God.

One such thing is infinite time or eternity. A state of timelessness.

Such does not require a creator. Such simply is.

How did this ultimate source itself come about?

As I have said above: it would have to be self-existent: something that does not require a cause - such as infinite time, or eternity. It just is.

When you say "Surely all things must have one primordial and eternal source?", I think naturally, our known known is corrupting our attempt to understand this unknown. You are feeding in what you already know to rationalise what you don't know. I do not know if the rules of the known will be the same for the unknown.

Bro, this is actually a fair statement which nobody can dispute. Nevertheless I reflect that this is the only logical alternative to what would otherwise result in the infinity loop you referred to.

There appears to be a framework. There is an intentional and uber-intelligent set of rules that apply.

Absolutely, this is my perception.

1. Maybe, I am not too sure. It is really hard to know. The question is that: "Is the soul not just the brain as we see it"? That is, is it not our thinking that creates an out-of-body entity we call "soul"?

Do you think there are pieces of knowledge or intuition which humans may have, which is not traceable to the physical brain?

Such as a dream about a future event, which plays out in reality in precise detail. This happens to me all the time, and has been the case since I was a child. I know very well that there is no way my brain could have grasped those pieces of information before they actuallu happened.

What do you make of the work of psychics? Do not scoff: psychics across the world are increasingly being deployed by first world police departments and intelligence services. This is a fact.

2. Nope! I, personally o , did not see life before birth. I am convinced there will be none after death. My philosophy: "No life before birth, no life after death".

So what then would you say is the purpose of your sojourn on this planet?

Sagamite:
Hey,

I have just been notified about this thread.

Howdie, Ol' chap?

The meaning of my Agnostic Deism is that I observe the world I live in, I can spot the marvelous intricacy of things on Earth from the living things (e.g. ecosystems, immune system etc) and non-living (e.g. weather, natural resources etc) that works in such an intelligent systemic way to suggest their is some intentional intelligence in their design and functionality. Hence my belief that their is at least one God and Deism.

I entirely agree. Not just the living world about us: but also the very quality of sentience is such that no sincerely rational person could deny the strong suggestion of a supervening factor: which we call God.

The other day a bird laid an egg on my window sill. I had the priviledge over the next few weeks of watching the birds come and go as they took turns sitting on the egg. One day the egg cracked: and I also had the priviledge of seeing the baby bird, and watching it everyday as it grew in leaps and bounds and took to flight less than ten days afterwards. I can only say it was awe inspiring.

Now that is the least of the wonders about us. The human brain being perhaps amongst the most staggering. The universe itself - the most staggering. So indeed I do agree that there is something - however it may be described - which is quite beyond us and which is teh source of the wonder about us. We call that thing God.

I maintain that my belief is their is at least one God. It could be one or it could be more. I don't know, will never know, cannot know, am not bother to know and could not care less about knowing. Hence I am Agnotistic.

But if there are other gods, then the question will remain - from whence? Surely all things must have one primordial and eternal source?

For me: it is that one ultimate source that i recognise as God. What do you think?

I do not believe anybody in the past, present or future knows anything about God or what it wants, hence I do not believe in any of the so-called scriptures and can pick holes in most in seconds because it is written by medieval people, who despite good intelligence had blatant limited knowledge and display some immense ignorance of their times that betrays their argument that they were writing for God.

This is entirely true.

I am particularly pleased with your use of the word "it." Not that God is to me an inanimate thing - but that just seems to be teh correct pronoun for referring to that which is ineffable, and cannot be qualified otherwise.

I believe there is at least one God but I can not prove it, so I will not force my belief/opinion on anybody about that God or what he wants.

I believe there is abundant rational proof for the existence of God - neverheless I agree that it is simply pointless trying to prove this to anyone - especially because most people have made up their minds already and would reject even the most compelling proof or argument.

Furthermore, I don't believe in all those rubbish about God interfering in day to day lives or the other famous one of destiny. Most that believe in such are just demonstrating their application of superstition to anything they do not understand and that bothers them and wish there is some kind of influence (be it supernatural) in controlling it. I believe the only force baring on your fate in life is Existentialism.

I see with this. However do you believe that even if God does not interfere, there are divine laws which guide creation?

For example: the laws of gravity, magnetism, attraction of homogenuous species, karma. etc?

Finally I need to ask you a few questions regarding the spiritual aspect of your agnostic deism?

1. Do you believe in a spiritual/ immaterial part to man - the soul?

2. Do you believe in life after physical death?

3. Do you believe in worlds beyond this world?

Thanks so much for your time.

Pastor AIO:
Not really. It is one of two possibilities. Orunmila is a totally mythic character. Or he is an historical character? actually there is a 3rd possibility. He is an historical character that has been developed into myth.

In Ifa terms is Orunmila to any extent equated with Olodumare?

Orunmila is 'worshipped'.

What do you make of that practice? Do you think it is consistent with a conscientuous worship of God (ya, the uncaused cause and all that, that's the one i'm referringf to!)

Is Fire harmful or beneficial?

Certainly, I get your meaning. Would you therefore engage in divination say perhaps for good purposes? Or to protect yourself and your destiny?

Pastor, awaiting your comments.

toba:
^^^ You cant be serious. You once opened a thread on Parley at least to ease off the too much seriousness on NL.

I think we really need to have our contacts exchanged. I dont know why i really like that guy viaro

^^^ He's a terrific dude. I have just opened a thread to invoke him.

I desperately miss Viaro. Where the hell is he?

Viaro, for all our somersaults, i read again some of our past debates and i found them absolutely exhilarating. Even your yabbis sef, na special yabbis. I will never forget the debate where after making a point you wrote to me -"Get lost now and get back to your day job of a lavatory cleaner!" That really had me in stitches!

There is no doubt that you are obstinate as hell and will refuse to see a plain point when it is starkly obvious. However I reflect that -

1. That can be said about everybody - especially me; and -

2. On reading some of our discussions with a cool head months later, its easier to see where the other party is coming from!

This does not mean I accept some of your more outlandish propositions!

Anyhow what struck me most is the fact that it is ridiculous that I could share so much and so extensively with someone and not even know who that person is! Someone asked me where you are and I responded saying I don't even know who Viaro is or his name.

I want to thank you for the fantastic times and wonderful knowledge you have shared with us and absolutely beg you to grace us once more with your space-age vocabulary ("linear tarradiddle," etc), scholarly approach, and grand yabbis arsenal.

In short, let me just say the simple words - I miss you!

^^^ It might surprise you that inspite of our extensive discussions and debates, I do not know who Viaro is. I have neither his name or contact.

thehomer:
How difficult is it to comprehend? Here let me spell it out for you.
Your handle here is "jesus." (Check your posts it's right next to them).
The name of the Messiah in the New Testament was "Jesus". Do you now understand the reason for the comparison?

I tried to explain it to him, but he wouldn't listen. Frankly I don't think you should bother responding. He has it all mixed up and absolutely will not listen. I suspect he is actually the same person as another poster whom I will not mention. If you respond further you only drag yourself into an incoherent discourse.

Can you give me your reasons for "not thinking so."

For time, is afterall, incontestably an intangible.

This renders it per force non-contingent, self-existent and permanent.

I need you to define 'time' first: then we can have a basis for discussing the issues.

Right.

Q. What is Time?

Have you considered the possibility that our universe exists within ONE time dimension along with other universes/ entities in much the same way as planetary bodies exist within this universe in the SAME time dimension?

If that could be the case is there any reason to suppose that "time" only came to exist at the inception of the universe.

Is time not a permanent, non-contingent and self-existent precept?

@ Krayola, ha ha! Representational mathematics is representative of a logical process only! In other words - I do not believe God to be numbers! I have only used numbers as a representational process, thanks!

@Ilosiwju - For me it is sufficient to know that there is logically a source of all things: all existence. I call that source God. If the source brought matter into existence, then it could not itself be matter. Thus the source is intangible or immaterial. If the source brought finite things into existence, then it could not itself be finite. The source thus is infinite or eternal. It thus seems logical to me to suppose the existence of a source of all things which is both intangible and eternal. This I call "God."

Beyond that, all that could concern man is the purpose of this life - to decipher that purpose and live accordingly. In this, religious dogma is of very little use to me, and for this reason I find it entirely unnecessary to clutter my mind with specific pieces of dogma - who is a prophet, who died for sin, we must believe this, we must believe that. . .its all a freaking rat race and I don't need to be part of it.

I dont know how else to find you, please meet me up here -

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-505643.0.html

Brilliant, keep it coming Max, I am downloading already.

I am an Agnostic Deist (note: Not Atheist).

The above is a quote from Sagamite.

This very much interests me as I describe myself as Deist as well.

@ Sagamite - let's discuss the meaning and implications of agnostic deism?

Do you not feel that there are somethings that may be discerned about God - even while God remains a mystery?

May I offer, what may seem to me to be seven things about God. [/i]I do not source these from any religious text, and they might seem like garbage to whomever may so suppose, but just my two cents anyway, and these I will see as what may be [i]seven spirits of God, if, by the word "spirit" we are to understand "essence of the nature of a thing."

GOD IS ONE.

Understood aright, that oneness is really all that is or all that exists eternally.

Oneness connotes a singleness - and this is the root of Love - for Love is a oneness.

The first spirit of God is therefore the spirit of Love.

Oneness is Love. And in love springs singleness - togetherness. This is the root of Harmony.

The second spirit of God which I may discern is therefore the spirit of Harmony.

Harmony presupposes balance. Balance is indicative of Justice.

The third spirit of God I may speak of is thus the Spirit of Justice.

Now we did say that God is one. And oneness is Love. And there is harmony denoted therein.

Harmony strikes a balance and a denotes a pattern. A pattern striving towards oneness is beauty. God is thus beautiful.

The fourth spirit of God I may speak of is thus the Spirit of Beauty.

Now God is infinite or eternal.

Infinity implies endlessness. God thus has endless manifestations.

God's endless manifestations emerge as creations in reality.

The fifth spirit of God I may speak about will thus be the spirit of creation. The Creative will and power.

Thus all things within creation will continuously strive towards the origin: and thus towards oneness, balance, harmony, beauty. . . this is and remains a striving towards - which many worlds are in different stages of achieving. . .

Now we did say that God is infinite - this translates into an endlessness of all the things of God - in a manner of speaking we may therefore say that God is and possesses an endlessness of being - this renders God both sentient and omniscient.

The sixth spirit of God I may speak about is thus the spirit of sentience - that spirit giving consciousness and awareness to all things.

Finally the oneness of God presupposes one thing which should perhaps have been the very first thing I should have mentioned: oneness presupposes truth - indeed oneness is truth. God therefore is the truth.

The seventh spirit of God which I may this speak of is thus the Spirit of Truth.

In traditional Yoruba culture, Ifá refers to a system of divination and the verses of the literary corpus known as the Odú Ifá. Orunmila is the deity associated with Ifa diviniation. In some instances, the name Orunmila is used interchangeably with the word Ifa. Orunmila is claimed to have brought Ifa divination to the world.

The Yoruba divination system enabled diviners to invoke the teachings of Orunmila, the Yoruba deity of wisdom, prophecy and ethics. Esu (Eshu), who is seen as being in charge of justice and the transportation of ebos, is said to lend his authority (ase) to the oracle to clarify the issues and provide direction. Ifa divination rites are claimed to provide an avenue of communication to the spirit world.

Can you please shed light on the identity of Orunmila.

Does the practice of Ifa divination involve any form of worship of this deity. I observe that there is said to be worship of the philosophy of Ifa.

Do you think that these practices could be harmful/ beneficial.

@ thehomer - you regard time as a fabric? Did you read the links i directed you to?