₦airaland Forum

JeSoul:
Fast ones are not my style and the discussion is getting muddy so I will ask simply one question again Deepsight:


If it is impossible to please God without faith, how is the Samaritan going to be saved?

---

Romans 1: 16 I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. 17For in the gospel a righteousness from God is revealed, a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: "The righteous will live by faith."

Jesoul - I see you are unable to indicate what particular faith the good samaritan is said to have. Rather you seek to present a contradictory verse from Hebrews as fodder. That will not do.

For these simple reasons -

 1. The parable deliberately mentions a Levite and a priest. does it miss you that these represent men of faith?

 2. For the umpteenth time i must mention that the parable selects a samaritan for a reason; a person outside the mainstream belief system! Is the significance of that lost on you? Because if, as you claim, it was merely trying to show "neighbourliness", Jesus needn't have used a samaritan as an example. Any person would have been sufficient. But he used a samaritan as an example to show clearly that priority is not in belief systems, but in compassion. Note that he uses a person outside the belief system against persons who are in the deepest core of the belief system - Levites and Priests! Surely that nails it!

 3. I do not accept the Bible as inviolable truth, so quoting Hebrews on Faith is nothing to me: but anything i quote to you should mean something to you since YOU accept the bible as inviolable truth. Also i see no reason to take the words of Paul above the words of Christ?

Don't try to play a fast one Jesoul.

Christ had since described love of God and fellow man as being the supreme rules.

In the parable of the good samaritan he showed a person outside the mainstream belief system applying those supreme rules.

In his conclusion he makes it abundantly clear that such a person has done that which God requires.

It amounts to sleight of hand for you to attempt to insinuate that Jesus was not describing the proper path in that parable. Come on! How far will you go on this? Next you will state that the meek will not inherit the earth or that the peacemakers will not be called sons of God - since Jesus again in the beatitudes is not describing the path to salvation, eh?

I will return to your question, but first heer are some of my earlier thoughts on this -

You made it clear that those who hear of Christ must unconditionally accept him.

Might i ask you this: Consider two morally upright men, living in different parts of the world.

Would you not agree that the one who does not hear the gospel will have a HUGE advantage over the one who hears it (according to your analyses). Because the one who hears it is suddenly caught between the devil and the deep blue sea: he must unconditionally accept it (whether it makes sense to him or not), along with the burden of dogma. Failure to do so will, according to you, lead to the torment of eternal hell fire. You have made it clear also that it is absolutely irrelevant that he happens to be a very good person, sincere, kind, generous, charitable and humble. In fact, according to you it is irrelevant if, in addittion to all these things, he actually has a conception of the Almighty Creator (Olodumare, Chineke etc) and actually worships and prays to God.

All of these things (goodness, kindness, love of fellow man & worshipping God) will earn him hell-fire, so long as someone tells him about Jesus, and he does not accept Jesus.

Does this not seem absurd to you? How do you marry this with your vision of a just and merciful God?

Do you really think that Jesus would have reasoned in this fashion?

Is it lost on you that Jesus clearly states that he will welcome people to heaven who did not even know that they were his followers? Yes, people who did good all their lives. . .

By contrast, the man who never heard the gospel, according to you, is free from the burden of dogma, and can live according to his conscience and yet be confident of Salvation. If this is the case, is it not safer for all men of good conscience to avoid ever hearing the gospel, as it will exert upon them a terrible dogmatic weight, failure to accept which, will result in eternal torment in hell fire. I ask you in all good conscience, does this sort of reasoning make sense to you?

Jesoul, you must tell me what peculiar faith the good samaritan is said to have had.

If you cannot do this, your discussion on faith fails.

Particularly tell me why the parable did not simply say - a good plumber - or a good man from Judea?

Why was it so cardinal that someone outside the given belief system was selected to make a parable on.

Is it a coincidence that the parable ends by justifying that person who is of a different belief system.

Matthew 22:36-40 (New International Version)

36"Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" 37Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.'[a] 38This is the first and greatest commandment. 39And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'[b] 40All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."

Now look at the Scripture above and tell me Jesus did not single out Love as the overarching rule for finding the Lord?

JeSoul:
Exactly what it says and it is in concert with everything else we've been saying. That being in righteous standing is not a matter of words or professions of faith or expressions of the miraculous - But simply in FAITH which results in ACTIONS of love and righteousness. Faith without works in dead as we've been chanting since day 1.

 How does this differ from anything else we've been preaching Deep?

Have you noted that your statement is at odds with the parable of the good samaritan. What peculiar faith did the samaritan have?

Why did Jesus use that samaritan as an example of the right way.

And this -

The Parable of the Good Samaritan -

Luke 10:30-37 Jesus answered, "A certain man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and he fell among robbers, who both stripped him and beat him, and departed, leaving him half dead. By chance a certain priest was going down that way. When he saw him, he passed by on the other side.  In the same way a Levite also, when he came to the place, and saw him, passed by on the other side. But a certain Samaritan, as he traveled, came where he was. When he saw him, he was moved with compassion, came to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. He set him on his own animal, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him. On the next day, when he departed, he took out two denarii, and gave them to the host, and said to him, ‘Take care of him. Whatever you spend beyond that, I will repay you when I return.’ Now which of these three do you think seemed to be a neighbor to him who fell among the robbers?" He said, "He who showed mercy on him." Then Jesus said to him, "Go and do likewise."

Why do you suppose that a "samaritan" is used in this example, if not to show that the leaning of tribe, doctrine and dogma is irrelevant but the leaning of the spirit is all that counts?

@Jesoul, Mavenbox;

What do you make of this scripture -

St. Matthew Cap 25 -

31 “But when the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the angels with Him, then He will sit on His glorious throne. 32 “All the nations will be gathered before Him; and He will separate them from one another, as the shepherd separates the sheep from the goats; 33 and He will put the sheep on His right, and the goats on the left.
34 “Then the King will say to those on His right, ‘Come, you who are blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. 35 ‘For I was hungry, and you gave Me something to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me something to drink; I was a stranger, and you invited Me in; 36 unclothed, and you clothed Me; I was sick, and you visited Me; I was in prison, and you came to Me.’ 37 “Then the righteous will answer Him, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry, and feed You, or thirsty, and give You something to drink? 38 ‘And when did we see You a stranger, and invite You in, or unclothed, and clothe You? 39 ‘When did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You?’ 40 “The King will answer and say to them, ‘Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did it to one of these brothers of Mine, even the least of them, you did it to Me.’
41 “Then He will also say to those on His left, ‘Depart from Me, accursed ones, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels; 42 for I was hungry, and you gave Me nothing to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me nothing to drink; 43 I was a stranger, and you did not invite Me in; unclothed, and you did not clothe Me; sick, and in prison, and you did not visit Me.’ 44 “Then they themselves also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or unclothed, or sick, or in prison, and did not take care of You?’ 45 “Then He will answer them, ‘Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.’ 46 “These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”

Does it perhaps serve to cast some light on the perspective of Christ in terms of those who are really standing with him?

JeSoul:
Lol . . . your powerful scriptures? Acts 10:34?

Yes i know you are happy to dismiss that scripture laughingly and with a wave of the hand simply because it does not suit your dogma. Who's cherry-picking now?

"belief in Jesus" is not just to do works of love

Let me give you a poser. Do you realize that if you go to rural india now and start preaching this gospel of yours to native hindus, your assertion will sound nothing short of bizzarre to them. Occultic, even.

Will you assert to me that honest, sincere and simple-minded individuals amongst them (who according to you lot would have been merrily on their way to heaven since they had not heard of Jesus) would suddenly stand condemned on account of the fact that the word you have brought to them is so drastically alien that it means nothing to them?

If that is the case, you will do more good to such people by refraining from preaching your gospel to them, so that they may be judged on conscience, as your gospel comes with a terrible and draconian weight - to wit - believe that my carpenter died for your sins or guess what - you are going to hell! _{And to hell with the fact that you are a good, kind, compassionate, loving, honest lover of your fellow-man; how dare you refuse to believe that my carpenter is God, and he died for your sins. Oya, staright to hell!}

JeSoul:
Deepsight,

surely you must see a contradiction with you cherry picking only the beatitudes as the criteria for salvation whereas there are tons of other verses that say one must believe in Jesus as the son of God and accept His sacrifice to be saved?

You cannot pick only one "Jewish dogma" from the entire scriptures and ignore the other ones that don't support and even contradict your position.

It was the same Jesus that taught the Beatitudes that taught in John 3:17 "He who doesn't believe is condemned already".

But he made clear what belief entails. He made clear that belief is demonstrated by obeying his commands of love.

So that's belief, Jesoul. . .

Hang on, i have two powerful scriptures for you on this. . .

mavenbox:
Maybe you have been rolling with the wrong people, so you keep peddling the lies that you have not met any Christian who was the better for it.

Maven: he did not say there are no christians who are the better for being christians. He challenges you to point out ONE who is the better for the dogma of "confessing" Jesus or accepting him as lord and personal saviour.

He means to say that that is not what makes anybody a better person. Love and goodness of volition does.

ToneyB -

Be honest - you really want to be a robot? Oh please!

[quote author=Tudór link=topic=366383.msg5116998#msg5116998 date=1260881003]There is nothing to address.

I thought God was ominipotent?

Saying the name God followed by stuffs like he can only create world A and cannot guarantee bla bla bla does not follow.

Why call him an ominipotent if he can't do? [/quote]Perhaps i will address with you the question of omnipotence with you at a later stage. I have a hugely important teleconference in about 15 minutes so i gotta be brief here. But let me just say that omnipotence does not mean that God can do irrational things. Such as destroy himself for example, or creat ea stone that is impossible for him to lift and then lift it. Omnipotence should be understood within the context of highest power which operates along given laws and precepts. Later i will return to explain so that you will see that all things in existence are rational things only and that illogicalities are not capable of existing. Thus God cannot be illogical.

There is nothing wrong with world B. What is the purpose of existence according to religions if not for the glorification of God, you don't need free will to do that.

Creating a world A is just irresponsible and the creator should take responsibility. According to easy logic, God cannot guarantee people will not choose to do evil.

Faced with such a knwoledge you went ahead and created then blame the creation for evil and throw him into fire for eternity. . .does that not sound silly?

Following on my explanation above, you should see that a creation of freebeings rationally cannot also be a creation where the deeds of such beings are restricted or circumscribed. Pre-programming is a contradiction of freedom, and this is logically impossible even for God!

Thus you must accept that World C is an impossibility.

Will be back.

^^^ Think about it.

Why is the universe expanding?

Why do things grow, and then wither and die?

Just as surely as the universe will die one day when its expansion has burnt up more energy than it can sustain itself with.

It's a self-evident cycle.

It makes sense to view an expansion as a natural protrusion from a centre.

Creation is thus a natural protrusion from the primordial and trasncendental entity called God. Most likely in cycles as observable with the universe.

^^^ Viaro, respectfully i believe it is going too far to ask him to tell what that "something" is. You know every well no human can possess such knowledge.

There are conjectures about other universes, multiverse iof intercoinnecetd universes, people talk about the universe being born from a pre-existing infinite substance, the theories abound.

Will we ever know for sure. . . well, not in this lifetime!

@ Chris -

As an atheist, you do not belive that angels exist, and quite frankly they are outside the purview of any argument so let's leave that aside - we cannot presume that -

  1. Angels exist

  2. They have freewill

- At least not for the purpose of this discussion.

On creation, you ask what teh purpose is.

I say self-expression. Namely that God did not create anything seeking worship but God's nature naturally expands out of God's core thus emitting creations. Kinda like how the universe is expanding. . . just a weak example if you get my drift. . .

Ooops - my bad - sorry i seemed to read that the wrong way like he was saying that was the belief of christians, nothing more.

Vety well then.

You still cannot escape addressing this:

There are only 3 options for God.He wants to create a world,

World A

1. People have complete free will and Evil exists.

World B

1. People do not have Free will and evil does not exist.

World C

1. People have complete Free will and evil does not exist.


Now, no one would want to live in world B,we would be mere Robots,and even good actions could not be regarded as good actions since no one can do otherwise.Why would we say eg Not stealing is a good thing,if stealing is a physical impossibility.

The type of world that critics of the Free Will Defense advocate for is world C. This isa logically possible world,but not a feasible world.Something is logically possible if it entails no contradictions.Something is feasible if it can be actualized in reality.

For example,it is logically possible that a tea cup is orbiting Jupiter but its too small to be seen.But we know in reality,there is probably no tea cup orbiting Jupiter.

If God were to create a world with Free people,then He cannot guarantee that every person will not commit atleast 1 evil act in his/her lifetime.Remember if people in world C are to remain truly Free,then god cannot interfere with their choices causally.i.e He cannot make them pick good actions.
Therefore World C is highly unlikely, Where there are free willed people,there is bound to be people choosing to do evil acts.

It seems then God can create only World A.Which is similar to our current world.Where people have complete free will and evil exists.

Tell me that this deals with your issues on evil in the world?

Pastor AIO:
I don't think that people would not want to live in world B.

And what will be the point of any existence if all one's actions and thoughts are pre-programmed.

Would that not be a travesty of the word "humanity" and the essence of life?

[quote author=Tudór link=topic=366383.msg5116621#msg5116621 date=1260877840]There is hope in trying to make the world a better place for your fellow man and future generations rather than doing good because you want to be rewarded by a dead carpenter with white robes and the boring job of singing praises for eternity like a retar.d.

A man who does good for the sake of humanity expecting no reward is a NOBLE MAN. A far cry from the selfishness promoted by religions. How many religious people will do good if they learnt there was no eternal reward whatsoever?

We have our very own judicial system right here on earth and its far more effective.

What is so perfect about a judicial system that allows hitler or ethnic hutus to continue slaughtering people. . . . .infact the allied nations and the UN shouldn't have intervened but waited for the judicial system of christ (the best of all) and allow hitler and the genocidal murderers run riot until everybody is dead then christ can come judge us all. . . .how daft is that?[/quote][s]Wwhy the hell did you even bother to quote Easylogic at all? Did he say anything about Christ? Do you take time to read?[/s] (Retracted with apologies)

Now i notice how convenienmtly you skipped over his excellent logic in putting to the sword the silly questions yourself, Atheists and Kay17 ask about evil in teh world.

Address these if you can -

There are only 3 options for God.He wants to create a world,

World A

1. People have complete free will and Evil exists.

World B

1. People do not have Free will and evil does not exist.

World C

1. People have complete Free will and evil does not exist.


Now, no one would want to live in world B,we would be mere Robots,and even good actions could not be regarded as good actions since no one can do otherwise.Why would we say eg Not stealing is a good thing,if stealing is a physical impossibility.

The type of world that critics of the Free Will Defense advocate for is world C. This isa logically possible world,but not a feasible world.Something is logically possible if it entails no contradictions.Something is feasible if it can be actualized in reality.

For example,it is logically possible that a tea cup is orbiting Jupiter but its too small to be seen.But we know in reality,there is probably no tea cup orbiting Jupiter.

If God were to create a world with Free people,then He cannot guarantee that every person will not commit atleast 1 evil act in his/her lifetime.Remember if people in world C are to remain truly Free,then god cannot interfere with their choices causally.i.e He cannot make them pick good actions.
Therefore World C is highly unlikely, Where there are free willed people,there is bound to be people choosing to do evil acts.

It seems then God can create only World A.Which is similar to our current world.Where people have complete free will and evil exists.

I hope you note and are capable of absorbing the fact that teh "world c" indicated above is a rational reverse.

That's a man who uses his brain, not bleating about like some spoilt kid looking for candy-paradise in rwanda.

Interesting. . . Does God factor in your theory? Or is the Universe itself God?

[quote author=Tudór link=topic=365785.msg5115191#msg5115191 date=1260862994]I laugh!

Claiming not to be affiliated with any religion but stealing ideas from the same religions then turning around to call the believers dogmatic and psychotic when you're as dogmatic and psychotic as can be.

You conviniently use this as a fail safe measure. When the silliness of your beliefs are exposed you run claiming not to be religious and just exploring the myth then come around next week with another dogmatic idea of god poached from another faith.

You only deceive yourself my guy.[/quote]Tudor remove the " f " from ya profile will you? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

Its annoying me.

Now: That which is transendentally supreme remains what it is: irrespective of religion - and irrespective of what you, a tiny mere mortal, may think or believe. What you need to do is to stand in awe and appreciation at the wonder of creation.

Anything less is callous ingratitude.

Keep waiting, keep hoping, no slackin, we mugus. . .

Is that your pic in your signature link. Nothing ugly about it.

Tpia, are you ugly? Cos i had this image of you in my mind as some hot devil-may-care sista, given your diatribes with banom. . .

P.s: An ugly face is fiery hot in my opinion. . .

mazaje:
Why is deepsight all over the place? How can you say that the garden of eden existed and claim that adam and eve were myths deepsight?

The garden of Eden, for me, is metaphorical for the spiritual home of mankind.

Adam and Eve could have been gorrillas for all i care. Original sin as described in the bible is a myth. or at best a metaphorical tale.

[quote author=Tudór link=topic=365785.msg5113422#msg5113422 date=1260830602]^^
You now claim the lucifer story about war in heaven is a myth but moments ago you were blabbing using the SAME story as basis for your crap theory about "proximity with summit of all thought".

Several times on this forum this guy has claimed the garden of eden did exist now he's here ranting Adam and eve were jewish myths.

You are a confused fake. Pick a religion and stick to it, stop boring us on NL with your psychobabbles.[/quote]YEP, ITS EASY TO SEE YOU ARE SO BOXED IN THAT A MAN WHO BELIEVES IN GOD BUT REJECTS RELIGION IS UNFATHOMABLE TO YOU.

I AINT CHOOSING NUTHIN. LIVE WITH IT.

p.s: ok, the joke has gone far enough, you can remove the "f" in your profile, we all know you are a guy, not a babe!

wirinet:
The proposed Noah's flood is said to have added almost three times the volume water to the earth's surface and i asked, where did the water come from and where did it go thereafter, and you mentioned seismic shifts. Do seismic shifts create water and make water disappear? Please read up on terms before you throw them into an argument.

Are you seriously suggesting to me that massive siesmic shifts cannot rearrange the entire water configuration on the planet?

AND NO - I am not talking about the amount of water on the earth. I am talking about its placement.

When i talked about siesmic shifts did you consider ocean-bed contraction which must be virtually apocalyptic if occuring on a large enough scale and which must squeeze the oceans upwards as available space beneath the deep contracts?

And yet this is just one little suggestion from an ignorant non-scientist such as myself.

I repeat: i dont give two hoots about any flood: but i am amazed that you dare claim absolute knowledge of all the possible geological configurations that could occur on this planet.

You must be omniscient.

No we haven't for you have offered me nothing that will contradict the beatitudes.

For it is explicitly stated -

The meek. The text says that they will "inherit the earth".

The merciful. The text says that they will "obtain mercy".

The pure of heart. The text says that they will "see God".

The peacemakers. The text says that they will be called "the sons of God".

Thus making very clear indeed the sort of qualities required for salvation - all of which Ghandi scores very highly in, certainly much more highly than the plethora of Pastors in Nigeria who many may preseume are "heaven bound."

I strongly dislike it, and it makes me shudder that people can be so ritualistically dogmatic as to imagine that men of sincere hearts and minds, of compassion and goodwill, cannot be accepted by God on account of some Jewish ritual.

You debase and dishonour God.

^^^ Maven, the Lucifer story about war in heaven and rebellion against God is probably a myth. Even if it's true, which i strongly doubt, it is no concern of any human being. The Adam and Eve story could be a tribal myth of the Jews as well.

What i have tried to set forth is a possible explanation for how or why a being may divert from the pure will of divinity.

Pure Divinity is not something that can be captured within the material realm. For this reason beings living in the material realm are not perfectly attuned to divinity. That's why we are imperfect: and that is why we are capable of change.

Note that change is synonymous with freewill in this respect: a divine being is perfect, and perfection cannot change: that is the absence of freewill in a certain sense.

I hope you are able to draw a parallel between the idea of perfection and immutability.

Because immutability is what suggests to me that a being in the Divine Sphere cannot change, is eternal in all its components, and thus cannot be posessed of freewill in the sense we use the word.

Again a reflection on intangible self-existence should accentuate this point.

I hope this crystalizes what i am trying to communicate.

I am sure you can assess it unlike some clowns who may imagine that omnipresence means that God lives in their boxer shorts.

Maven, that's a whole epistle you wrote there.

I am entirely disatisfied with your points.

Rather than pick them to bits, for the sake of brevity i will focus only on a few at a time.

mavenbox:
I must outline a profoundly striking difference between the Old Testament and the New Testament, since you have made reference to a "salvation" of the OT folk. The OT folk lived in different eras with respect to God's relationship with man, so you cannot generalize. Each OT era had a definition which man kept failing to live by.

Each era had its own definitions, penalties for sin, and a plan for restoration of the God-Man relationship.

Ever since Moses delivered the Law, there was only one expectation to be in God's good books: a healthy fear of God.

Remember that man was still in the era of choices based on conscience?

Have a look at the bits of text i have selected above from your epistle.

Do you realize that your very clear surmise is that God routinely changes the criteria for communion with him?

Is that noit suggestive of imperfection? Is pure divinity capable of such?

Do you not debase God with this suggestion?

Do you realize that when you talk about an era of choices based on conscience you insinuate that God has only made things far more difficult today: to wit: whereas the ancient man living in your so called "era of choices based on Conscience" only had to follow the disctates of his conscience to be saved, the arrival of christ on the scene has complicated things by introducing a fresh requirement: namely that all men, regardless of their cultural backgrounds must believe that a carpenter who lived in Galilee 2000 years ago is their lord and personal saviour. Barring this, no salvation for anybody.

I hope you realize how bizzarre and ritualistically dogmatic this sounds.

Besides are you not able to sense that God can by no means expect all men to dovetail into the same religion or culture. He can only provide conscience as a guide.

I positively assert that your characterization of Divinity as an element that changes is theologically, scripturally and philosophically wrong: as Divinity being perfect is incapable of change, much less the sort of change whereby the criteria for salvation is constantly changed. I state to you that you dishonour and insult God by making this suggestion.

Might i ask you what you might think if there happen to be intelligent beings living in other parts of the cosmos. Would you suggest to me that such beings must also accept the carpenter from Israel in this world to be "saved". . .? ? ? ? ? ?

Broaden your thoughts.

How can Gandhi really walk in love if he did not keep Christ's commands?

With this statement i am certain that you are not familiar with the life and times of Mahatma Ghandi. I will therefore urge you to do some research online about him before reverting to me.

I will also urge you to compare his life and disposition to the commands Christ set forth within the beatitudes.

And as an aside, maybe you should also ponder on the beatitudes. Because they set forth very clearly the qualities required to be saved.

All of which Ghandi had in massive amounts.

tensor777:
A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump. There is no need whatsoever for a Christian for instance, to engage in face or fingernail painting or drinking alcohol.

So in that wise it makes no sense for some posters here to keep going on about moderation. Simply abstain.

Abstaining is your personal decision. Leave the rest of us to enjoy our corrupt, immoral sexy lives of extreme decadence and debauchery.

Afterall, you will not be in hellfire with me, will you?

@ Atheists -

Let us assume that God has an evil side. How does that presuppose his non-existence?

Its a dense argument, as David has stated. The principle of duality infact suggests that all good and all evil may well be sourced from God - to wit - that the origin of all things has a negative as well as positive element: this can be inferred from a philosophy of dualism and even the masculine abstract and the feminine abstract.

So the existence of evil in no way detracts from the existence of God in a puristic sense. That is if you understand what we mean by God - we are not talking about that Jewish Old man sitting in the skies.

In my personal life however, i have come to a living conviction that evil has a purpose within the scheme of things. One such purpose is spiritual growth. WE can for example remember the saying that the finest gold is forged through fire.

^^^ Let's leave particles aside. Particles cannot consciously experience time.

Do you believe that beings (intelligent conscious beings) exist outside spacetime (as defined by you).

If they do, do you imagine that they have a perception of a past, a present and a future.