₦airaland Forum

^^^ Nothing I said as quoted above is of any help to you:

For the simple reason that I was advancing MY OWN VIEW of God and existence and within that view Light and Darkness are self existent.

That IS NOT the view advanced by the Bible -

The Bible claims that God is ALL GOOD and is the perfect Truth.

It also claims that he created satan.

It further claims that Light has no association with darkness.

THIS VIEW IS SUMMARLY AND COMPLETELY AT VARIANCE WITH A GOD WHO WOULD HOB-NOB WITH DEMONS AND FINALIZE PLANS TO DISTRIBUTE DELIBERATE LIES.

SO WHAT ARE YOU ON ABOUT? ? ?

Did you think before your last post?

^^^ Are you here to address the issue or what?

Why dont you address what is clearly written in your scripture -

SINCE you do not have eyes to read, I will quote it again for you -

2Ch 18:19 and the LORD said, 'Who will entice Ahab the king of Israel, that he may go up and fall at Ramoth-gilead?' And one said one thing, and another said another.
2Ch 18:20 Then a spirit came forward and stood before the LORD, saying, 'I will entice him.' And the LORD said to him, 'By what means?'
2Ch 18:21 And he said, 'I will go forth, and will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets.' And he said, 'You are to entice him, and you shall succeed; go forth and do so.'
2Ch 18:22 Now therefore behold, the LORD has put a lying spirit in the mouth of these your prophets; the LORD has spoken evil concerning you."

Please explain why Yahweh is holding a congress of liars and commanding them to go about telling lies/

Is Yahweh not into Truth anymore?

Don't worry, Yahweh is now a politician!

Summoning congresses of liars and instructing them to spread lies.

Amazing!

I cannot help but laugh.

Mazaje, you have nailed it perfectly.

Let me also add that the same book of genocide, lies and myths declares that "The Light shineth in the darkness and the darkness comprehendeth not the light."

Well clearly the agents of darkness coming to consort and conspire with the Light were able to comprehend the Light's instructions to them to proceed to spread deliberate lies and falsehood.

How comical this Yahweh creature is.

Noetic/ Inesqor/ Olaadegbu –

To what ridiculous extent will you guys not go in order to  prop up your collapsed Jewish fantasy called Yahweh?

The eminent truth is that the stories about Yahweh in the bible are just as incongruous and have about as much likelihood as the Yoruba myth of Olodumare sending Obatala down on a rope from heaven with a Cockerel to Ile Ife to create the Earth.

Now in a bout of epileptic and delusional desperation have a look at Noetic’s incoherent words -

noetic16:
So in asking for the deception of king Ahab, God was also convening with spirits who by their very nature are also lying spirits.

So God enters into conspiracies to propagate falsehood?

Chai. Na wah.

Listen to your self. You expressly wrote – So in asking for the deception of king Ahab, God was also convening with spirits who by their very nature are also lying spirits

And this is presented as a defence ? ? ? A straight forward admission that Yahweh holds conspiratorial meetings with demons and requests them to assist him by packaging lies and falsehood? ? ?

Is Yahweh not supposed to be Truth? ? ?

Wonders shall never cease.

3. why would God ask that king Ahab be lied to? what was God's intention/will?
To answer this question, one must look at the vessels used for the lie. God used 400 available prophets, and according to king Ahab in verses 5-7 Micah was the only one who usually tells the truth in terms of God's prophetic revelations. Ahab loved the 400 prophets for their sweet lies and hated Micah for his bitter truth.
The will/intention of God concerning the situation was revealed in Micah's prophecy to imply that God does not want Israel to fight as they are like a lost sheep without a shepherd (verse 16).

Great. What a God of convenience. If truth won’t work deploy falsehood and lying spirits!

What makes him different from a politician then? ? ?

. God intended to separate the false from the true prophets.

. . . By inducing them to lie?

Wow. Listen to yourself. Just listen to yourself ! ! !

InesQor:
Who never knew that eating mashed-beans causes deep shite    

@mazaje / Deep sight: Noetic and olaadegbu have done justice to the matter.

And I will buttress one point: What God says about a matter is the truth. Whatever is not in harmony with it is a lie.

God's intents were for Ahab to fall, so it was the TRUTH that Ahab had to go and fight, and fail.

The spirit who went to lie to the prophets was just serving its own designated purpose to bring the TRUTH to pass.

I think it's plain and easy.

What insult did I offer you to warrant your diatribes? Did i utter one single insulting or derogatory word regarding you? Why must you fling insults simply because we question the words of your own infallible and perfect scriptures which succintly and explicity record that Yahweh convenes meetings with lying demons and reaches agreements with them for the deliberate propagation of falsehood?

You jump to agree with anything said by a Christian and you fail to read and see that Noetic’s surmise actually contradicts yours. Grow your own mind and stop feeding off others.

Great: goodbye and shut the door behind you. Next!

Alright. I will only urge you to remember that no person has exclusivity regarding mental blocks.

You may also want to ponder who a mental block more likely applies to - a person insisting on knowledge of the Jewish man who founded his religion or a person insisting that all men of good conscience are ok with the Creator.

I cannot add anything further to my post above.

What is the meaning of what you have written above? ? ?

The OP posts a verse from YOUR JEWISH BOOK OF MYTHS clearly stating that Yahweh and his angels conspired to propagate deliberate lies and falsehood to mankind, fully aware of what they were doing.

Respond intelligently to that and quit bandying further threats of other evil acts that Yahweh may think up for us.

Lol! Where is the Christian brigade now to explain away this one? ? ?

No doubt they will declare this "symbolic!"

Olaadegbu, where are you? Where is Noetic? Davidylan? and the VINCLEAR GANG? ([b]Vi[/b]aro? [b]In[/b]esqor? Nu[b]clear[/b]boy)

Why is Yahweh propagating lies as definitively conveyed in YOUR OWN PERFECT AND INFALLIBLE SCRIPTURES?

^^^ I am not able to add anything to my Post #105 above.

^^^ What are the points. Please do tell. Just curious.

I promise not to extend discussion based on what you add.

That is well understood Inexie, but only accentuates the point as you have correctly said that in terms of the NT regime LOVE IS WHAT MATTERS! ! !

Are you online now? Fancy some chess?

jagunlabi:
I can't believe that you guys kept this ridiculous debate up for this long! Physical beings existing in the spiritual realm. . . absolutely nonsensical.

Wwell I must apologise. The debate was kept up for the simple reason that I was losing my mind over the astonishing claims made by some adherents of the christian faith here.

But I guess the points have already been made and the thread should be left to die in peace.

Claims that God wears a physical body in heaven are just out of this world - no pun intended.

So its done with then.

I feel compelled to restate that which I already wrote in another thread sometime ago -

In all sincerity, let me ask you what you understand by the injunction that one must worship God is Spirit and in Truth?

In my own understanding, that simply means that dead outward ceremonies are not the substance of worshipping God - that the worship of God rather relates to the inward state of the spirit which corresponds to eternal truth.

This is why I brought up the parable of the good Samaritan, which I thought should be sufficient to show you from your own bible that the worship of God has absolutely nothing to do with outward ceremonies, rituals or dogmatic or doctrinal acknowledgements.

Now to elucidate the point it is critical that we carefully note the context of that parable -

The Gospel of Luke provides the context for the parable as:

One day an expert in religious law stood up to test Jesus by asking him this question: “Teacher, what should I do to inherit eternal life?”

So it should be noted that the parable was given within a context of salvation – namely that which would be required for one to be accepted with God.

Jesus replied, “What does the law of Moses say? How do you read it?”

The man answered, “‘You must love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, all your strength, and all your mind.’ And, ‘Love your neighbour as yourself.’” “Right!” Jesus told him. “Do this and you will live!”

So it is also clear that the ensuing parable sets forth that which it takes to “love God” and “love one’s neighbour.”

This is all the more emphasized since as you well know Jesus often stated that those who care for their neighbours were actually showing such love to him and to God. “I was hungry, and you fed me . . . whenever you did this for one of those, you did the same for me. . . “

The man wanted to justify his actions, so he asked Jesus, “And who is my neighbour?”

Jesus then replied with a story:

“A Jewish man was travelling on a trip from Jerusalem to Jericho, and he was attacked by bandits. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him up, and left him half dead beside the road. By chance a priest came along. But when he saw the man lying there, he crossed to the other side of the road and passed him by. A Levite walked over and looked at him lying there, but he also passed by on the other side.


Now it is instructive that Jesus selects a Priest and a Levite to demonstrate his point – because the Priest and the Levite as you well know symbolize those who expressly acknowledge God, accept all the attendant doctrines about God and morality, and actively execute the outward rituals of “worshipping” God. The Levites as you know were a dedicated tribe of holy priests within the nation of Israel.

However Jesus has just shown what I am trying to say – namely that all the outward forms of acknowledgement of God which these people subscribed to did not in any way mean that they were really worshipping God – because of their action of ignoring the man who was hurt.

Now note carefully the next verses –

“Then a despised Samaritan came along, and when he saw the man, he felt compassion for him.”

Stop press! Note the words “despised Samaritan?” Why did Jesus not use any other lay Jew or even a non-specified person to elucidate his point? He rather chose to select what? – a DESPISED SAMARITAN!

Now Wikipedia says -

Portraying a Samaritan in positive light would have come as a shock to Jesus' audience.[1] It is typical of his provocative speech in which conventional expectations are turned upside down.[1]

Thus note carefully the context – the Samaritan symbolizes people who are deemed to be “on the wrong side” of correct religious doctrine at the time and people who were accordingly “despised.”

Notwithstanding that, this is what Jesus conveys –

“Going over to him, the Samaritan soothed his wounds with olive oil and wine and bandaged them. Then he put the man on his own donkey and took him to an inn, where he took care of him. The next day he handed the innkeeper two silver coins, telling him, ‘Take care of this man. If his bill runs higher than this, I’ll pay you the next time I’m here.’

Jesus concludes –

“Now which of these three would you say was a neighbour to the man who was attacked by bandits?” Jesus asked. The man replied, “The one who showed him mercy.” Then Jesus said, “Yes, now go and do the same.

In this parable it is critical to note the imagery of the selected individuals –

1.   “A Priest and a Levite” – are clearly indicative of people who have formally acknowledged God and are also at the fore-front of all the outward rituals and ceremonies.

2.  “A Samaritan” – is considered on the wrong side of doctrine and dogma and is also “generally despised” in religious terms.

However it is easy to see that the man who is supposedly on the wrong side of doctrine – who no indication of God is made about is painted in glowing terms by Jesus because of his kind and merciful deeds.

I need to point out also the Imagery of Brotherly Affiliation. Note this from Wikipedia –
Quote

According to the Jewish version of events, when the Judean exile ended in 538 BCE and the exiles began returning home from Babylon, they found their former homeland populated by other people who claimed the land as their own and Jerusalem, their former glorious capital, in ruins.

And –

Jewish tradition maintains a different origin for the Samaritans. The Talmud accounts for a people called "Cuthim" on a number of occasions, mentioning their arrival by the hands of the Assyrians.

Much may be said – but basically there was this divide existing between the Jews and the Samaritans.

Now In answering the question – “who is your neighbour” – the parable of the Good Samaritan goes the extra step of showing that neighbourliness arises not from tribal or religious affiliations but from loving acts of concern for one another.

What this shows is that the “groups” of churches, mosques, or other theists, are useless in determining the question of neighbourliness. An Atheist or Buddhist could as well be a better neighbour than your Deacon in Church or your Imam in Mosque.

And given the parable of the Good Samaritan, in such an event, we can clearly see WHOM has done the will of God. . . .

So my dear friends, I assert to you today that which was the living essence of the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ – namely that love trumps all things and is the very essence of Christianity.

This is so simple and so pure – and should come so naturally to the Christian who is steeped in the ideas of Christ – which ideas tended towards love and doctrinal flexibility: Jesus statements on the observance of the Sabbath and other such – just show the flexibility I speak about – which tends towards –spirit and truth – and not outward forms.

nuclearboy:
@DeepSight:

Another way of saying the above - The clothes he was wearing were Levite. He was not!  On the other hand, the samaritan clothes were samaritan but his conduct was levitical.

If he were "truly" Levite (christian not a signboard), he'd have done what the samaritan did. And thats what we've been saying from eternity. But the situation is not one you decide/judge yourself

This is eminently misleading.

The Samaritan was NOT in his conduct behaving like a proper Levite should. A proper Levite will be steeped in all the rituals and ceremonies of the priestly cadre and would accordingly strictly observe the protocols regarding uncleanness, etc – which is exactly what the Levite and the Priest did in that instance.

The Samaritan was thus NOT acting in any way like a proper Levite should.

The Samaritan was simply acting out of the pure sympathy within his heart and Jesus showered his blessings on this – making it clear that all outward forms and rituals are useless in the true worship of God.

I wonder what the difficulty is for you especially when you already conceded this point in saying very clearly –

nuclearboy:
. . .  because the Good Samaritan was the one "accepting Jesus" by his actions!

- Thus acceding that actions and a life of love is what it takes to “accept” Jesus and not any recognition of identities or doctrines.

So what is the difficulty here, Mr. Nuclear? Have you been pre-programmed to rebel at whatever I say or what? Because your own words suggest that we have no disagreement or divergence of views on this matter.

Capishe? BTW, I still think you understand but are trying to self justify to stay in your current mindset and not feel uncomfortable!

I will have you know that I require neither religion nor any justification of my views to feel comfortable about anything.

Conscience is all there is for me.

The guy astounds me.

That’s gratifying. I would only hope that some day you will summon the clarity of mind to be equally astounded about claims about physical gods and paradisiacal Hades (however defined).

And then look back and wonder what was so astonishing about my claims that good people will be saved irrespective of their recognitions or non-recognitions of identities and doctrines.

Because we live in a diverse world.

YOU astonish me.

O, and just by the way, its always gratifying to see your fabulous Christian solidarity at work. Let me just quote for you the view of your cohort Inesqor regarding the parable of the good Samaritan -

Quote from Inesqor –

The story of the Samaritan is not about worship of God per se. In fact, the Priest and the Levite could not touch the dying man because he would make them impure at that instance, thus corrupting their own acts of worship.

So, from the worship perspective, the Priest and the Levite were better worshippers though the Samaritan was a better lover.

Enjoy it.

viaro:
How they "subsist" is not something I can articulate here. Why? Because I do not know a definitive answer within physics, biology or chemistry that can explain such spiritual phenomena satisfactorily.

Do you not mean to say that there is no conceivable explanation to such a bizzarre postulation as that physical bodies may dwell bodily in spiritual realms?

nuclearboy:
And yes, its the Spirit that counts and which is why we say you're not getting it - [size=16pt]because the Good Samaritan was the one "accepting Jesus" by his actions! [/size] The levite seemingly "accepted" by word of mouth but denied in reality.

Wow. I am surprised you do not see that you have just perfectly articulated the point I have been making since eternity.

And in the case of the Good Samaritan - who would merit it?

The Samaritan or the Priest and Levite.

Its the spirit that counts, Inexie.

^^^ I cannot imagine that God is interested in anybody recognising him in any disguise.

If Jesus was in fact and in deed God, I cannot imagine that he would be interested for a second in whether or not men knew of this fact.

He would be much too transcendental to be bothered with such trivia.

What would concern him would be how to pass his message of love to all men, no?

Is there not something almost childishly egoistic about Almighty God being interested in being "recognised" as though he were a politician?

What are God's purposes?

InesQor:
Thanks to all the extra evidence that this thread has exhumed on Gandhi, the probability on Noetic's correctness has moved even higher 

Myjoe has sentenced Ghandi to hell, and Deep Sight the lover of Ghandi is unable to alter the verdict.

But seriously, Deep Sight, Jesus said it clearly in the scripture above that people like Gandhi who deliberately refused to acknowledge Jesus as God only because he was not an Indian  have a sure place in hell. No doubt about that.

No he said no such thing, that parable clearly refers to acceptance of the will of God.

Do you think God can expect OF ANYBODY an exact knowledge of such exalted celetial relationships as taught by the Trinity?

Could that be a basis for salvation?

Titobay:
Logically, why would i call an outsider to intervene for me when i have built strong relationship with the Supreme Being. No! Third party is not aloud.

The word is spelt "allowed."

Why? Because in the words of Noetic, he is guaranteed "a front row seat in hell"?

davidylan:
and please the probability that a hurricane passing through a junkyard can assemble a 747 is ZERO. There are no probabilities there.

Too true.

Howdi, Inexie -

How's your day going?

You did not reconcile your quote with the quotes I posted?

The quotes I posted suggest to me that what will be tantamount to "denying christ" as you have put it, will be a refusal to live by the principles of love, no?

Correct. The idea of Christian monotheism is a major fraud in terms of the contradictory concept of the trinity which we are forced to accept as a monotheistic concept. It is NOT.

Thank you Myjoe.

I cannot dispute what you have written and I must add that you have brought alot to my attention that I did not previously know.

In this you have been thorough, well-reasoned and objective.

I have thereby been educated and elightened by your posts. In future I will seek to be more thorough in all things - the example you have given.

I can only urge you to also please give some thought to what I said namely that he did change significantly as he grew older.

These remain true of the man as he matured -

Gandhi took a keen interest in theosophy. He empathized with theosophy's message of "universal brotherhood and consequent toleration", as he put it in 1926.[94]

And although he was a Hindu, note that -

Later in his life, when he was asked whether he was a Hindu, he replied, "Yes I am. I am also a Christian, a Muslim, a Buddhist and a Jew."

- Which shows the inclusive mentality he had grown into.

Let us also not forget that he was a political activist, striving all his life for the interests of his people and nation. This is why he was so india-centric. I don't think there is anything wrong with this.

Thank you for a thorough schooling and enlightenment, it is deeply appreciated.

Fine. Well we are all clear on the terms now.

So here does this leave us?

We are clear that we are talking about physical things entering spiritual realms.

You have said above again that you regard this as possible.

Might I ask exactly how it can happen in your view - by what process -

Please answer in light of -

1. The fact of physical things having a specific dimensional construct which is at variance with the intangibility of a spiritual realm.

2. The fact of the functionalities of a physical body and that which it requires to subsist; e.g physical bodies need to breathe in other to survive.

Is there oxygen in spiritual realms to facilitate such?

Please read my last post.

I believe we are clear; Gravity is non-matter.

I explained that non-matter exists in light of and in relation to the physical universe and the interaction of physical things within the universe.

So for heaven's sake items of non-matter ARE NOT what we refer to - as the thread title indicates we refer to the spiritual intangible.

We are looking at physical things as opposed to spiritual intangibles.

Non-matter are phenomena within the physical world caused by th interaction of physical things.

E.G; Your shadow is non matter but is caused by the interaction of light particles with the mass of your physical body. Etc.

So please stop confusing the issues.

At all events with all this hocus-pocus on definitions you are yet to address the core questions.

Stop moving around in tangential circles that do not address the question of this thread - namely -

Can physical things dwelll in spiritual realms?

Viaro - To clarify for the third party reader –

Matter comprises physical things.

When energy acts on physical things there can be physical movement or reactions of varied kinds and this may result in phenomena which may be classed as non-matter.

Such as -

• Wind can be felt on your skin and you can see the wind move branches of trees. But wind itself it not matter. It is the movement of air, which itself is matter.

• Electricity is similar. You can see the result of electricity at work - a light bulb lighting up for example and you can feel electricity  as an electric shock. But electricity is just the the movement/flow of an electric charge - it is not matter itself. It is the movement of matter (electrons).

• Sound is the result of air movement against your eardrum and not matter itself.

• Your shadow

• Gravity.

• A flame or fire can also pose difficulties. The smoke that rises up from the fire or flame contains vaporized gases and small particles and therefore contains matter. But the fire and flame themselves, the light and heat emitted, are energy, not matter.

(The above list is sourced from wiki-answers).

Now in all of this we have to state very clearly that ALL these things are the direct results of the effect of one physical agent or the other.
Thus, your shadow is non-matter and it is NOT a physical thing – however it COULD NOT EXIST, AND EXISTS ONLY AS A RESULT OF THE INTERACTION OF PHYSICAL THINGS. DITTO WITH WIND.

We need to be very clear that none of this has anything to do with this thread for the simple reason that the things classed as “non-matter” are results of the interaction of physical things.

On the contrary what we refer to as the reverse of ALL physical things and physical phenomena – including ALL phenomena observable through the interaction of physical things is the intangible spiritual – which is why this thread is titled – “Physical bodies dwelling in spiritual realms.”

So since the spiritual-physical dichotomy is what is at issue here, non-matter is a non-issue and has nothing to do with this thread as non-matter is still the result of interactions or properties of physical (material) things.

Conclusively let me make it clear that in direct answer to your question, what I refer to as non-physical is NOT non-matter because non-matter still obtains within the physical universe, and is the result of physical interactions or properties of other physical things.

What I do refer to as non-physical is the intangible spiritual or metaphysical.

I hope that is clear enough.

CAN WE PROCEED NOW?

^^^ You know very well that the term "non-matter" has a specific scientific definition and has nothing to do with this discourse, so please lets stay with the issues.

Wow. You are really drawing this diversion out aren't you?

Your question -

Please let me know precisely what you are dealing with when you mention stuff like "non-physical" - is that synonymous with 'non-matter' or not?

My answer -

. . . . that which is physical is what I am referring to as matter.

Thus in this context what is not physical is not material - because by "physical," we refer to matter, material things, the material world.

Its simple enough Viaro.

viaro:
I am not leading you into definition games. I also stated my reasons why I needed you to be clear - because you are using terms very loosely and articulating absolutely nothing; for which I gave examples. You acknowledged that you are aware of the loose use of these terms, and rather than proceed along such lines, I needed to be clear from you. Is that not acceptable, and why?

Please let me know precisely what you are dealing with when you mention stuff like "non-physical" - is that synonymous with 'non-matter' or not? Within the matrix of whatever ontology you may wish to apply you terms, please be clear and articulate so we don't go back and forth unnecessary.

If you are not going to be distinct, I don't see what use there is in attending you further.

Well it seems to me you are looking for a way to dodge the very simple questions I raised.

I defined "Intangible"

I defined matter by saying that I refer to that which is physical.

What more would you have me say?

If it will help let me add that which wikipedia says - "Matter is a general term for the substance of which all physical objects are made."

I hope we can proceed on that.