₦airaland Forum

Viaro, I don't know where you are going with these.

I would have thought that my words were simple and clear enough.

I hope you are not trying to lead me into a whirlpool of endless definitions: because you asked me to define "intangible" - and I did.

Now you are asking me to define "physical."

The definition of "physical" is well known to you, so please lets make progress and not start definition games.

Thanks.

I think its simple enough to say that which is physical is what I am referring to as matter.

Surely we can proceed on that.

Note that not even the finest forms of matter, such as light particles, waves, etc are exempt: they all qualify as part of the physical world and are observable in physics. They are not spiritual, but physical.

Carry on.

Yes, I am aware of that.

The sense in which it has been used in this thread is obvious enough - and I clarified already and do so again -

By Intangible I refer to the non-physical.

As opposed to physical matter.

Carry on?

Viaro - See the definition of "Intangible" above.

Gotta zap for now.

Viaro -

Well since you ask for a definition of "intangible" I lift from the Encarta Online Dictionary -

Intangible - (Adj) Non-Material - lacking material qualities, and so not able to be touched or seen.

^^^ Address the contradiction?

I had also said these earlier in the thread -

1. A physical body is a three dimensional entity that has a spatial construct and thus can only dwell within space and time: spiritual realms such as “heaven” are said to exist beyond space and time and as such a body with a spatial construct cannot conceivably be compatible with such a realm.

2. Physical bodies are material and tangible and as such it is inconceivable that they could “enter” into a realm said to be intangible.

3. Physical bodies CANNOT survive outside the atmospheric conditions that make their continued existence possible: thus a physical body runs on blood, which is fuelled by oxygen which the physical body must breathe - and energized by material food. Since it is inconceivable that such things as oxygen and material food exist in intangibility (wow, are we even discussing this?) - then I directly posit that a physical body cannot survive in an intangible spiritual realm.

4. A physical body cannot function in a spiritual realm: viz – every single function of a physical body is tied to, and works based on the physics of its physical environment: thus the eyes could not see save for physical light waves in the physical world, the physical ears could not hear, save for physical sound waves in the physical world: the skin could have no sense of touch in an intangible realm, and lets not even contemplate the requirement to eject waste (defecate) in intangibility! You see, this is downright comical.

InesQor:
@Deep sight:

Can you explain how you understand that spiritually material beings like angels can appear on physically material planes like earth, but the vice-versa i.e. physically material beings in a spiritually material plane, is impossible?

That;s because the physical is like a vessel for the intangible.

The Physical cannot "enter" the intangible because the very definition of intangibility means that there is no "space" in the physical sense whereat a physical thing may "enter" into intangibility.

That is why we have to shed our physical bodies at death to enter the spiritual realm.

Makes sense?

We are moving on. . . please see and revert objectively on my last two posts. . .

By the way just in case I missed it - can you refresh me on what your response was to Noetic's quote of Jesus in stating that no man had gone to heaven?

Thanks.

And this is the issue also on the existence of spiritiual realms.

Viaro you doubtless agree that such realms are immaterial in nature.

How then could material things be there?

That's a contrdiction, no?

Inesqor/ Viaro –

Consider this.

God is a self-existent being existing beyond all concepts of time and space.

A Self-Existent entity exists in and of itself.

For this reason God is very well understood to be immaterial – that is – he is not a physical material being.

This is enshrined thoroughly in most religions and is supported by any discerning philosophical ontology of God.

For this reason it is absolutely inconceivable regardless of anything written in any ancient text – that the uncaused Cause should be conceived as existing within a physical human body in a realm already said to be intangible.

This really amazes and amuses me. What is intangibility?

How can we coherently insist that a physical material tangible human body is existing in a realm that is intangible?

Is that not a severe contradiction in terms?

viaro:
^^^
I read it, and I have observed that you actually have animosity towards theists for what you cannot agree with them on issues which your fundamentalist deism cannot accept. You have used invectives directly on people in this thread, that tells me that you are expressing animosity towards those who you vilify.

Yes, I have been quite expressive in this thread I must admit.

But I directed my expressions against what I saw as unspeakable statements.

Anyhow, you are yourself the master of invectives, and for my part if i have been scathing, I am sorry to all and sundry unreservedly.

viaro:
Hehehe. . . you're actually illiterate - confirmed now.

First, you have no animosity towards any person; but then you actually have animosity towards a theist! Dude, stop deluding yourself on top your lies. You are growing grey hair on your duplicity, and that is bad publicity for your OOI.

^^^ Read again please. I said I have animosity towards SUGGESTIONS from a theist that God is in a physical body in heaven.

The suggestion is just crazy and i REPEAT that i have strong animosity towards it.

I dont know you Viaro, and have no reason to have a personal problem with you.

^^^ He/ She has already stated his/ her views here -

InesQor:
God returned and rose to heaven in the [size=16pt]resurrected human body[/size] that he earlier fashioned for himself to be a vessel for the man Jesus Christ.

Amazing, aint it?

Marlbron:
The whole point of joining the religion thread is for us to learn from each other in many ways. Sometimes you win some and loose some, but I am not happy about the slanging match between Viaro and Deepsight. Can we call a truce and focus on the discussions? Both of you offer great contributions from your different perspectives, but I have an issue when people develop animosity towards each other from their laptops or desktops, when they hardly know each other. You both have overflogged your points, so lets move on, shall we? , And by the way, no winner, no looser!

Thank you. However I need to state that I have no animosity towards any person.

I have definite animosity towards suggestions from a Theist that GOD dwells in heaven in a physical human body.
Its simply insane. I cant get over it.

InesQor:
80 posts and 5 days later, Deep Sight is still hiding his head in Deep Dung like an ostrich that does not want to face reality.

Wow, such charming Christian Solidarity.

The day will come when your mentor will state that that God does not exist or that Hitler was holier than Christ - and continuing with your herd-mentality whereat you have never shown a capacity to think independently of him, you will find your self defending him still.

Viaro -

Son, no amount of invectives will deliver you on this one.

You have made statements which are appalling - and rather than address them (I verily suspect that you are not able to address them) - you waste much time screeching about quotes which have already been given to you five times over.

I have no inclination to tolerate such codswollop as you have offered me on this thread: boldly announcing as you have that a self-existent and transcendental Uncaused Cause of all existence dwells in heaven, an immaterial realm, in a physical human body.

Although that boggles the mind, it is scarcely as terrible as your recent declaration above that physical material things may dwell in immaterial intangible realms and that this does not mean that such realms are not immaterial.

I repeat: you are a professional clown.

nuclearboy:
I will read what you asked me to read but you have solved the problem you presented with this thread already. Let me quote you -

The bolded - wasn't this what InesQor wrote concerning those who do not subscribe to Christ? If you knew this, then why the question?

In terms of this, my difficulty is that Inesqor insists that that applies only to peeps who do not know of Christ.

He/ She insists that once a person knows of christ's mission and does not subscribe to the idea of his deity, such a person CANNOT attain salvation NO MATTER how good such a person may be.

Can Inesqor not also concede that only God knows whether rejecting Christs Deity is an issue?

I won't dispute it or try to be stubborn for one second -

I believe you guys are quite right in what you are saying.

Just try to contextualize it together with what I have said.

Cheers.

^^^ Please read th eextract below and tell me in all sincerity what it tells you about the man Gandhi.

Ahimsa (Non-Violence): The Universal Love

Gandhi described "Ahimsa" to be the law of life; he identified "Ahimsa" with universal love. To him "All well constructed societies are based on the law of Non-Violence that the families are bound together by ties of love and so are groups in the so called civilized society. Only they do not recognize the supremacy of the law of non-violence. Gandhi transformed "Ahimsa" from a passive attitude to an active and dynamic factor by welding renunciation and action into one force. He was therefore able to transform Ahimsa's earlier world-denying expressions into a world-affirming realpolitik and build a bridge principally through action and only afterwards by thought, between its application for social good on the one hand and for individual spiritual development on the other. Even "Satyagraha" is conceived by Gandhi as non-violence in action. Ahimsa being the law of love, it consists not in claiming but in giving. `Love ever suffers, never resents, never revenges itself', it is self-suffering.’ Gandhi used non-violence not only at the individual level but also on the social level for abolition of untouchability, picketing, and non-cooperation. On the political level he brought about liberation without the use of violence. Einstein believed that the problem of bringing peace to the world on supranational basis will be solved only by employing Gandhi's method on a large scale. Gandhi firmly believed that non-violence must be lived in day to day life. "It is not like a garment to be put on and off at Will. Its seat is in the heart and it must be an inseparable part of our being» it should become a creed rather than a policy; and to be a creed, Non-violence has to be all-pervasive.

This is the same man who when younger advocated war.

Is it not ABUNDANTLY CLEAR that his perspectives changed?

Look at the concept of universal love contained in the above.

Come on, lets be honest.

Howdi, commander Nuclear.

Let me be clear: what Myjoe wrote is irrefutable. I did not seek to refute it.

I sought to contextualize it.

At all events we should be clear -

It is possible that Mother Theresa was a closet hired assasin - only God knows.

However when we use her as a refernce point, we clearly refer to that which we observe - the virtues that we see - and that is the real issue.

Ditto Gandhi. The Composite Image we know of, is what we use as a reference point.

Inesqor - Great.

So you too state that -

InesQor:
God rose to heaven in the resurrected human body that he earlier fashioned for himself to be a vessel for the man Jesus Christ.[/color][/b][/size]

I will treasure this.

I am pleased to note that you prove and show clearly that i told no lies on the first statement I attributed to him.

So that is closed now. I will not venture back for now into how ridiculous your statement above is: to wit - God in a physical body in heaven.

Let us just go over the second two statements.

Now I need to ask you what a statement is.

For my training gives me to understand that there are both direct and deductive statements. Viaro’s statements are both direct and deductive. The first statement on God is Direct, and not deductive because he plainly uses Jesus as another name for God. So the statement “Jesus rose to heaven in a physical body” is a DIRECT and not deductive statement that God is in heaven with a physical body.

For his second statement he states that physical things may enter spiritual realms. This is both a direct and deductive statement that those realms are not immaterial – because there are now physical things there. If those realms are not immaterial, then they are not spiritual. No dice, end of story.

His third statement is very direct. He states that Enoch and Elijah went to heaven before the sacrifice of Christ. This very DIRECTLY tells us that they did not need that sacrifice to reach heaven.

Am I missing something here?

Maybe when I state that "Umaru Yaradua is in Aso Rock" -

I have not thereby CLEARLY STATED -

That the President of Nigeria is in Aso Rock.

You are the guys who say that Jesus is God, so please live with the implications of that CLEAR STATEMENT. IF Jesus rose to heaven with a physical body, that is a CLEAR STATEMENT that God rose to heaven with a physical body because we know very well that Jesus is God. Simple.

These folks!

^^^ Yada yada yada. . .

Jesus rose to heaven with his physical body.

God rose to heaven with his physical body.

What's the difference between these statements? ? ?

[size=16pt]IS JESUS NO LONGER GOD? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?[/size]

And I am the one lying? ? ?

These folks.

Frank advice, your reputation is fast disappearing in quicksand and you are too stubborn to make any amends. You

What a world. YOU have the nerve to talk about reputations? ? ?

What gives you the impression that I am bothered about "my reputation."

Have I conducted myself in any way that suggests that I give a hoot what the world thinks about me?

MyJoe:
It is not conceivable that I would offer an opinion, least of all, one contrary to that held by almost everyone, on a subject I am not acquainted with.

Ok.

I do not accept the above assessment of the life, times and passions of Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, the one nicknamed “the Mahatma” or Great Soul. It is misguided. Your Gandhi appears to be the Gandhi of movies and story books, including my primary four reader. That Gandhi is a myth. If Gandhi subscribed to the principles of humanism, he did not live it. Indianism, yes. You see, history is a complicated subject. When we are trying to find out the true character of someone, we can only rely on his own words and what others observed him do.

This is an extreme assertion. That he did not demonstrate his humanism? Can we honesty assert that in all fairness?

For example, you can argue that Ahmadu Bello was sectional in his outlook. But we know that is a partial assessment. Consider first his words:

“I prefer to share the little I have with those who have none at all. . . I can’t even hoard things for my children as many people do. For one thing, how do I know that my children, when I die, will not spend all the wealth I have thus amassed through tight-fistedness within twenty-four hours!”

And then his action
Once after buying some items at a supermarket, he collided with some boys loitering outside the shop. He asked them why they were there, at which they told him they did not have money. He told them to go into the shop and pick one item each. One of his aides asked the boys their names. Bello silenced him and remarked that he was asking for their names in order to have them reveal their tribal origins, which was not an issue at all.

There is no incident like the above in the life of Gandhi, so one wonders at the general “delusion” about Gandhi. Ahmadu Bello’s perceived tribal politics can be explained in terms of his fighting for his people in a system where other leaders were doing the same and his people would have lost out he not taken that approach. Gandhi’s racism cannot be similarly extenuated.

Haba Myjoe, Myjoe, Myjoe!

What sort of reasoning is this? ? ?

That you have no record of Ghandi buying sweets for young boys and denouncing his tribalistic aides as Ahmadu Bello did, suddenly translates into the general ideas about Ghandi being “delusions?”

Haba.


Before proceeding, let us note carefully the origin of the word which is littered throughout your quotes – Kaffir.

I source Wikipedia –

[I]“The word kaffir, sometimes spelled kaffer or kafir, is an offensive term for a black person, most common in South Africa and other African countries. Generally considered a racial or ethnic slur in modern usage, it was previously a neutral term for black southern African people.[/i]

Now at the very outset the foregoing should make it clear that the very use of that word does not necessarily connote a racial denigration – but was in many ways a term of general description used in a neutral sense.

Yes, Mr Gandhi was a racist. . . . But Gandhi was a racist of the worst kind, by which I mean a particularly hateful one. He hated blacks.

I fear that this is at best, an overstatement and at worst, quite incorrect and misleading.

I have reviewed the quotes you presented to me and also read up on some of these issues.

I think to be fair to him – just as you have yourself noted – it is important to carfully contextualize the period of time and the social issues he was addressing.

From all that I have read I think that for the most part Ghandi’s references to Kaffirs in derogatory terms were socialy apt descriptions and not racial denigrations.

Socially speaking I may validly describe the state of an extremely poor segment of a given society. In a state of extreme poverty, it is correct to state that people may be very dirty, uncivilized and may even behave like animals.

Such was the derelict state of the generality of the Kaffirs that Ghandi referred to and to my mind the mere fact that he aptly described them as such does not automatically mean that he was denigrating the black race. Rather I think he was correctly describing the state in which they were at the time – and there can be nothing wrong with this.

And in support of this perspective let us look at some of his comments again –

“In Gandhi's opinion, the Draft Ordinance of 1906 brought the status of Indians below the level of Natives. He therefore urged Indians to resist the Ordinance along the lines of satyagraha by taking the example of "Kaffirs". In his words, "Even the half-castes and kaffirs, who are less advanced than we, have resisted the government. The pass law applies to them as well, but they do not take out passes."[24]

Now note the words – “Even the half-castes and kaffirs, who are less advanced than we have resisted the government”

I think that the statement quoted above is one that places things in careful context. He is clearly speaking about the state of advancement of each racial grouping. Remember as you have yourself pointed out that this is a period of history and a place where the society was highly fractionalized along ethnic, racial and cultural lines and each group was desperately struggling for relevance and survival.

There is absolutely nothing wrong in the above statement – and it shows clearly that Gandhi was referring to the state of advancement of each group which cannot be denied.

In today’s world, the white race is far more advanced than the black race and indeed almost every other race.

Does stating this fact make me racist?

Are you racist if you refer to the “less advanced black world?”

If in today’s world, that would not be considered rascist, then I think it is absolutely unfair to categorize Gandhi’s comments as rascist simply because he gave apt and frank assessments of the level of development of each racial grouping.

Now please do not misunderstand me – I am NOT suggesting that there were not in fact clear undertones of prejudice in some of the things that he said BUT I CONTEND AS FOLLOWS –

1. As you yourself have noted, Gandhi was only human. All great men are only human. Thus they all surfer from failings of character just as much as everyone else does.

2. The society of that time was highly divided, sectionalized along ethnic, cultural and racial lines and each grouping was struggling to define itself and its rights in society. Gandhi was doubtless in his younger years influenced by these tensions.

3. HOWEVER IT IS MOST INSTRUCTIVE TO NOTE that as he grew older and his experience within society improved, he matured into a well-rounded thinker devoid of prejudice. This development of his thinking and perceptions is what I wish to emphasize – to show you that the hot-blooded Mohandas Gandhi GREW AND CHANGED INTO A BROAD-MINDED ACTIVIST WITH HUMANISM AS HIS CENTRAL WORLDVIEW.

Point 3 above is what I will anchor my submissions on.

Have a look at this quote, also from Wikipedia –


“Two professors of history who specialize in South Africa, Surendra Bhana and Goolam Vahed, examined this controversy in their text, The Making of a Political Reformer: Gandhi in South Africa, 1893–1914. (New Delhi: Manohar, 2005). They focus in Chapter 1, "Gandhi, Africans and Indians in Colonial Natal" on the relationship between the African and Indian communities under "White rule" and policies which enforced segregation (and, they argue, inevitable conflict between these communities). Of this relationship they state that, "the young Gandhi was influenced by segregationist notions prevalent in the 1890s."[18] At the same time, they state, "Gandhi's experiences in jail seemed to make him more sensitive to their plight, the later Gandhi mellowed; he seemed much less categorical in his expression of prejudice against Africans, and much more open to seeing points of common cause. His negative views in the Johannesburg jail were reserved for hardened African prisoners rather than Africans generally."[19]

Former President of South Africa Nelson Mandela is a follower of Gandhi,[20] despite efforts in 2003 on the part of Gandhi's critics to prevent the unveiling of a statue of Gandhi in Johannesburg.[17] [/i]

Please note the highlighted portions and I firmly believe that these put the discussion in context because you will note that –

1. The YOUNG Gandhi was influenced by segregationist notions. Note the emphasis on the word “young.” As we said he is not perfect and he grew out of those influences as you will note that ALL of the supposed racist remarks were made in his relative youth, and that as he grew and refined himself, he removed himself from that mentality which evinces a clear improvement, development and laudable change in his mindset. The Old Mohanda Ghandi did not espouse such views. So my friend, we are all allowed to learn from our misguided past and refine our views as we grow older.

2. Note that the professors write that “Gandhi's experiences in jail seemed to make him more sensitive to their plight, the later Gandhi mellowed; he seemed much less categorical in his expression of prejudice against Africans, and much more open to seeing points of common cause.”

3. Note particularly that it is written that –“His negative views in the Johannesburg jail were reserved for hardened African prisoners rather than Africans generally” This is a crucial point as it underscores what I earlier said  - to wit – that he aptly described poor people as being dirty or behaving like animals – he thus attacked a state of backwardness and NOT a race. There is a huge difference.

4. Most telling, is the fact that the champion of black rights, the great Madiba himself –Nelson Mandela – IS A FOLLWER OF GANDHI TILL THIS DAY! ! ! ! !

What does point No. 4 above suggest?

It suggests very clearly as I said that Ghandi’s remarks were directed at  state of backwardness and NOT a race. It also shows that Mandela is able to tell the difference – unless you are willing to suggest that Mandela – a lawyer and student of history himself – would condone rascism against black people. You know that that is as unlikely as it is absurd.

Gandhi’s comments this ought to be taken in careful context.

Now I have further evidence to suggest as I said that although he was influenced by segregationist ideas when young, he grew out of this mentality.

In fact, the man widely known for his pacifist and non-violent stance once openly advocated war –

Role in Zulu War of 1906
Main article: Bambatha Rebellion
In 1906, after the British introduced a new poll-tax, Zulus in South Africa killed two British officers. In response, the British declared a war against the Zulus. Gandhi actively encouraged the British to recruit Indians. He argued that Indians should support the war efforts in order to legitimize their claims to full citizenship. The British, however, refused to commission Indians as army officers. Nonetheless, they accepted Gandhi's offer to let a detachment of Indians volunteer as a stretcher bearer corps to treat wounded British soldiers. This corps was commanded by Gandhi. On 21 July 1906, Gandhi wrote in Indian Opinion: "The corps had been formed at the instance of the Natal Government by way of experiment, in connection with the operations against the Natives consists of twenty three Indians".[22] Gandhi urged the Indian population in South Africa to join the war through his columns in Indian Opinion: “If the Government only realized what reserve force is being wasted, they would make use of it and give Indians the opportunity of a thorough training for actual warfare.”[23]

Now this was Gandhi at a younger age.

As he grew older, he became famous for denouncing all forms of violence and advocated non-violent means of pressing for change.

It is thus clear that there was a huge paradigm shift within his mind from the early years in South Africa to the latter years when his wisdom had grown and he was virtually an old sage.

Now regarding the war which he had previously supported note this from Wikipedia –

”In 1927 Gandhi wrote of the event: "The Boer War had not brought home to me the horrors of war with anything like the vividness that the [Zulu] 'rebellion' did. This was no war but a man-hunt, not only in my opinion, but also in that of many Englishmen with whom I had occasion to talk."[25]  

Thus he had clearly come to have a different perspective of things.

Whereas in his younger days he saw the war as a chance to assert Indian participation in the society of the time, he had now come to view it as a cruel and unjust persecution of fellow human beings.


So I believe the points should be clear – there is no doubt that he changed as he grew older – and this is recognized by Mandela, and is laudable in a human being.

Ok. With the foregoing, am I free to open a thread announcing that you are not, and in fact have never been a pure athiest, and have merely been deliberately mis-understood by Noetic and his gang?

^^^ If you concede this, then why all the vitriolic bashing of the theistic worldview?

What other words other than "God/ gods" can we use to decsribe a creator.

Mouse/ Mice?

^^^ That is neither here nor there -

Mono[/b]theism or [b]poly[/b]theism - both are oppossing worldviews to [b]a[/b]theism - which is a disbelief in the existence of God [b]or gods.

So if there is ONE creator, or many creators, is irrelevant.

I see again you have insinuated that outside mankind's perceptions and religious fantasies, there could be God or gods, yes?

viaro:
And yes, I genuinely believe that you were making false statements and then ascribing them to me. That was why I repeatedly requested you to please QUOTE ME directly for those two statements (a) and (b) above, that I never at any time made. You only had to QUOTE ME and let this thread progress - but you definitely would not do so because you knew you had lied from the onset, which is what you are known for on Nairaland.

Oh please give me a break.

Can you not read?

The statements you made are VERY clear and most damning.

As I stated above, this thread above all others has exposed the paucity of your thinking, the emptiness of your understanding of scripture and indeed life, existence, logic and has confirmed to what devastating degree you are sickeningly bereft of any degree of insight on even the most elementary matters.

You, a person supposedly schooled in the essentials of biblical thought, embarrassingly and comically posit that –

----- ---- ALMIGHTY GOD, YOUR JEHOVAH NISSI, YAHWEH, ADONAI – DWELLS IN HEAVEN IN A HUMAN PHYSICAL BODY

This would be laughable if it were not so farcically tragic.

This statement bewilders me all the more for the fact that it issues from the hand of a person I imagine to be an adult.

I have observed that you have CEASED to deny making this statement – concentrating your energies instead on the other two statement which I attributed to you. This is a mark of progress. We will try to guide you out of the embarrassing cesspit of juvenile thinking which could lead you to posit that the Almighty and transcendental uncaused cause of all existence dwells in heaven in a physical body.

Christ! Am I even having this conversation at all ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

Let me offer you a piece of advice – when you have blundered your way into such unspeakably asinine conclusions about God, such as that he lives in a human body in heaven, then it is time for you to take up the virtue of humility, quietly retrace your steps and own up to having got it disastrously wrong.

Pride goeth before a fall, and in this instance, the fall has been gargantuan.

I am not sure that many of your disciples on this forum would be willing to back up this fabulous supposition of yours – that God is currently in heaven in a physical human body. What a rib-cracker.

1. I posited my case simply - and anyone who can read understands I based my answers on Biblical verses. Elijah went up into heaven (2 Kings 2:11), whereas you and noetic16 disagreed and denied that verse. No worries.

Of course there are no worries: for it is comical the extent you which you have decided to REJECT the plain words of Jesus (God) himself in his declaration that NO MAN had been to heaven.

'I'm persuaded that the physical body can enter into the realm of the 'spiritual'
(if that's what you meant by 'intangible').'

Sorry, but this is simply to st.upid to warrant a response.

By making such a statement, did I STATE ANYWHERE that "Spiritual realms do not exist"?!?

Slap! Focus young man! Are you asleep or something?

Is a spiritual realm not intangible ? ? ?

If material PHYSICAL things are resident there, what is so intangible about such a realm anymore? ? ?

It simply means DIRECTLY that such a realm as you call “spiritual” does NOT exist.

(and yes, I have examples where you have done this to others as well).

Yes? Such as the disgraced Mavenbox when I called her out on her CLEAR statement that Paradise is in Hades? ? ? Do you need me to fetch the quotes again? I will happily oblige.

Look, Monsieur Pilgrim 1. (“f”) – given the id.iocy of Mavenbox’s assertion about paradise, and your assertion about God dwelling in heaven in a physical body, I am inclined to believe you are both the same person.

justcool:
But just for the sake of further clarification, in-case another reader misconstrued your post just like I did, I wish to state further that:
Indeed the human spirit uses an ability which resides within the spirit to make decisions. He uses parts of his spirit to make this decision just like we use our brain(which is a part of our physical body) to think. But these earthly decisions and the forms resulting from them do not carry any particle of our brain, otherwise our brains will intime cease to exist as it losses a particle of with every thought that we produce. Like wise the spiritual decisions do not carry any particle of our spirit, otherwise our spirit will intime lose all it's particles and thus cease to exist.

This is very well said.

God being Divine and Infinite however -

Can it not be said that everything that exists is a manifestation of HIS infinite mind.

Accordingly that everything is a personification of one aspect or the other of Divinity.

If this is the case then there is no requirement for "severance" of any part of God (which still appears rather incomprehensible to me) and further on no need to view any particular being as being a "part" of God in any special way that all other beings are noit.

Alright.

Question -

Does an Immaterial Realm remain Immaterial when there are material things in it?

Can it still be called "immaterial" when physical material things are there?

Thanks.

Odunnu:
Deepsight,your thread hz been hijacked all bcz of arguements that make my head ache.
U guys say same thing ovr and ovr again and nobody is makin any new claims.Tot u started ths thread for d info and nt d insults.

Regrettably i can hardly state that I expected much better from you. Are you not Viaro's student? Yes, I'm sure I remember that.

How are your classes coming along?

Excellent, I hope.

Now I honestly do not know what you are on about.

But I will use a VERY simple example to make it clear for you: since you are so challenged.

A man comes to me to tell me the whereabouts of President Umaru Musa Yaradua.

He thus says to me –

“Umaru is in the clinic at Aso Rock.”

Now we all know that Umaru is President Yaradua as referred to there.

The same man now denies that he ever stated that President Yaradua IS IN THE CLINIC AT ASO ROCK.

Like a hungry charlatan he will insist that we “quote him” ever stating that “President Yaradua is in the Clinic in Aso Rock.”

That is plain ridiculous. HE DID SAY IT ALREADY – WHEN HE SAID THAT UMARU IS IN THE CLINIC IN ASO ROCK.

BECAUSE UMARU IS A REFERENCE TO PRESIDENT YARADUA.

Thus when this clown states that “Jesus went to heaven in a physical body” – he has made a VERY CLEAR STATEMENT THAT GOD WENT TO HEAVEN IN A PHYSICAL BODY – SINCE HE STATES JESUS TO BE GOD.

So please do not dare impugn my integrity or mouth off about what you do no understand – this denial is absolutely SICKENING.

HE SAID IT.

That’s a fact.
“Jesus went to heaven in a physical body” is the SAME statement as

“God went to heaven in a physical body” –

SINCE JESUS IS GOD.

If Viaro has any integrity, why don’t you ask him to deny that he stated that –

“Jesus went to heaven in a physical body”

Then in your next mentorship session with him, sneak him a question – “Is Jesus not God?”

Simple.

10, 000 pages repeating the same plaintive plea will NOT save you son.

Others have already seen through this joke of yours.

I once had a househelp who loved to steal fish from the kitchen and nibble on it. Even when caught red handed with the fish still stinking in his mouth, he would keep denying the fact.

The fish is stinking in your mouth, Mr. Pilgrim.1.

For you HAVE MADE THE VERY CLEAR STATEMENTS THAT I ATTRIBUTED TO YOU.

I am happy to note that you are only limiting yourself to contesting No. 2 and No. 3 now. I take it that it has become beyond even you to deny that you made the clear statement in No. 1 - to wit - that God dwells in heaven in a Physical body. Thanks for conceding the OBVIOUS on that one.

Now here is your VERY CLEAR STATEMENT THAT JESUS DEATH WAS NOT NECESSARY FOR MEN TO OVERCOME DEATH AND PROCEED TO HEAVEN -

Quote from Viaro on April 14 2010/ 08:24:17 PM -


Quote
(a) Enoch
The simple testimony of Scripture is that Enoch did not experience death - "Enoch was taken up so that he should not see death, and he was not found, because God had taken him" (Heb. 11:5, ESV). For those who wish to argue endlessly to the contrary, my simple request is that they provide me any verse where Enoch is said to have died - death being defined Biblically as 'the body without the spirit' (James 2:26).

(b) Elijah
"Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven" (1 Kings 22: is an oft-quoted verse to this point, from which we understand that he was taken up bodily into heaven just as was reported of Enoch. There is not a single verse that declares Elijah's death anywhere in Scripture -

Do we need to help you read your own statements, son? ? ?

Had Jesus died on the cross at the time above where you claimed that TWO men vanished into heaven without dying?

Listen: if you genuinely believe that I am making false statements, then you have no need to worry: the objective reader will read the thread and see clearly that you are right: and that I am indeed a liar. So there is no need for you to return to this thread.

Rather it is obvious that the ONLY reason that you keep returning to bleat the same inanity is simply the fact that you KNOW very well that there is substance to my claims and you are afriad to let the issue rest on this note: because you know it does not favour you.

This thread above all others has exposed the paucity of your thinking, the emptiness of your understanding of scripture and indeed life, existence, logic and has confirmed to what devastating degree you are sickeningly bereft of any degree of insight on even the most elementary matters.

Physical things dwell in spiritual realms indeed.

How d.aft.