₦airaland Forum

TheArranger:
Don't bother. YOU ARE RIGHT!

Lol... Out of his hole.

You see, you guys are fierce esp when put in the same hole with Abrahamic faithfuls. That is the only moment you pull the gun.

Makes we wonder if atheism is disbelieve in existence of Abrahamic concept of God only.

Or should we assume that is what atheism actually is?

dalaman:
OK Roger. . I'm good, thanks for asking, it's been a while, hope you are good?

I am fine.

You see, religion section is not like it was in 5 - 8yrs ago. Folks like you don't patronize here frequently.

tintingz:
Is energy a concious entity and anthropomorphic?

This question can only drive us into another subject. But I will answer.

Yes.. But it depends on how you define consciousness.

If the ancient people could worship Sol (our star called Sun), does that mean Sun is conscious?

Yes it is... Maybe when you define consciousness as awareness and reaction (not sentience)

tintingz:
Does energy exist outside the universe?

And who said God must live outside universe before it can be God?

tintingz:
And why do you think energy should be worship or care about it?

Worship mean acknowledging worth of something. If people finds it worthy, they should go ahead and worship it.

tintingz:
Before you personify something, you need to see if it fit in the nature, making a personal God/s as energy is absurd in many ways!

Your argument here are just your assumptions.

My argument is centred on the fact that person God/s are personification of impersonal forces. Which mean, people give a personality, human attributes to natural forces and entities. This effort, doesn't in anyway changes the original nature of the forces but rather help people understand it better.

Energy is not essentially Jehovah. That is not my argument. My argument is that, in many religion across the world, it is recognised as God. Shakti is an example. And also, the nature of God of some spirituality is the same with energy and consciousness. Since it is found that what people (some religion) call God is a natural entity, force of nature or nature itself.

TheArranger:
I already did lol. You just want to act like i didn't. One can't help but wonder what ulterior motives you have at play here.

Where and when did you show Energy doesn't fit into the nature of God?

TheArranger:
Exactly! So what has been achieved now?

Proven that since Energy exist, God does exist too

TheArranger:
Are you seriously doubting this? Perhaps, you and your people have your weird fetishes and beliefs, but don't think for a second that you're in the majority. I even gave, as proof, the fact that there are countless theistic religions the world over.

Another baseless tantrum.

TheArranger:
If they are still the same thing, i see no reason for personification or redefinition.

You wouldn't see it but would see reason in given organism binomial name in he science world. Talk of hypocrisy.

TheArranger:
Again. What's the point?!

Better understanding.

TheArranger:
These impersonal forces are unfalsifiable. Thus, irrelevant.

You are in all directions. The discussion is not if impersonal forces are refutable or relevant, it is if they exist.

TheArranger:
No. That is your usual strawman mining at work here because i specified that this was true for a subset of people. As i later discovered, you seem not to be one of them. Get on page.

The fancy word wouldn't make you smart. Who are these people?

TheArranger:
Rotflmao... I should be telling YOU this!


Yawn!!!


You are already limiting the power of money with the bolded statement. For if money is a God, it should acquire ANY and EVERY thing.

That is the view of many cultures nd religion. They view money as God. If you have problem with that, go deal with it

TheArranger:
Can money give you talent? Can money cure diseases like Tay-Sachs? Can money raise back the dead?

Please say YES if you have the guts

Yes

TheArranger:
No. Not really


I think i can search out a lot of things that are more "omnipresent" than money. E.g Water

How old are you? You were thinking money is just currency. How dull...

People worship water as a deity, I don't have problem if water is omnipresent.

TheArranger:
Ehh... Hold up a minute.

We know that energy can be created from mass; how the sun and atom bombs work. (And we can do the opposite, on a much smaller scale, inside particle accelerators.)

And finally, the current hypothesis is that the total energy of the universe is zero, so we know where the energy to create all the stuff in the universe came from: it turns out that space contributes negative energy, leading to a total (space + the stuff in the space) of zero.


Lol. Yeah. Sure thing, mate.

Another one in khaleed voice.
Energy can be created....tell me another thing.


Cc.. Dalaman... Your comrade says energy can be created. He could have done this in his lab. Shouldn't we learn from him?

Cc.. Muttleylatff .. I hve found a genius who can create energy.

Been while Dude. Hope you are fine?

dalaman:
My problem with you is that you know very well that he is NOT talking about energy but the concept of religious God/ Gods. Why you keep bringing this your energy as God is what I don't understand. If he was talking about energy he will state it, energy exist and we know somethings about it.

The problem was primarily from the OP. If he was talking about Christian or Muslim God, he should have streamline his points to a particular God by mentioning it name. I wouldn't have purged if he had said or use Yahweh or Allah.

Energy fits into the nature of God. It is the reality in different religion, spirituality and conception of God. So don't make it appear I am nailing the OP. He created the problem from inception and should deal with it.


On another round, you agreed energy exist. We know that Shakti, a deity, is a personification of energy. Would you accept that deity exist in this case?

dalaman:
He is talking about religious Gods and all the assumptions and claims that are made about them by religious people. He is not talking about energy and when he substitutes energy as God it still don't make sense because energy for example does not speak to people, it doesn't not care about people, it isn't merciful, it does not want to be worshipped, it does not want to be praised, it does not want a personal relationship with people or want people to be it's loyal slaves, and above all it won't burn people when they die in a hot furnace for not believing in it. . Your energy concept has nothing to do with the God concept he is talking about or the one religious people are talking about either. He is talking about religious Gods while you are talking about something totally different.

Those human attributes are as a result of personification and anthropomorphism. You know this. It doesn't mean they actually talk or care about your existence.

Even in the bible, Judges are referred to as God. Human were called God. Money (marmoni) was referred to as God. If money could be recognized as God in Christianity, does this mean money talks, merciful, lives in the sky and literally have the attribute of God?

Money is just a commodity of exchange... It does not talk or care about your wellbeing. But in Christianity, it is a God.

So unless you are playing games, you should understand that personification is just a mere of expression.

dalaman:
Your energy God is NOT the same with the God concept he's talking about do why bring it up in the first place? If energy is God to you fine, but that I'd NOT what religious people talk about, a Muslim or Christian does NOT think of energy when he thinks of Jesus or Allah so stop this your nonsense.

He should mention Yahweh and Allah in his OP then.

The very moment he starts talking about God without been specific, he will be faced with tons of conceptions.

TheArranger:
What will it take to convince you that YOU are looking toward the wrong direction?

Maybe when you can provide a logical and acceptable argument that shows Energy does not fit into the nature of God.

TheArranger:
As a matter of fact yes. Unfortunately, i find them all irrelevant. Sorry.

If you knew what anthropomorphism and personification is, you would understand spiritual people were trying to explain or express their understanding about nature and the universe by giving it a human attribute. This effort, however, does not in anyway changes the true nature of the natural forces.

TheArranger:
Strawman fallacy. Also, it will interest you to know that majority of people view God as a personal force. Proof is the countless theistic religions we have all of the world. Clearly you're not in the majority.

And you made headcount huh?

Personal God is a personification of impersonal forces. They are still the same thing. The only difference here is worldview and expression, but same nature.

When people tends to personify energy, it will have human attributions and become Shakti.

And in a situation where Energy is not personified, we end up with Impersonal forces like The Ultimate, Infinite, The one, and other tags. Impersonal forces are found in many non theistic religion, deism and new spiritual system.

TheArranger:
Why do people go to church?

What is your explanation for religious extremism?

How does the irrelevant question above address my question?

You made an assertion, that "Any entity whose existence does not inspire or motivate us to do something different from that which we would normally do is not, by most people’s view and understanding, God."

The fallacious claim above implies that God is the only thing that inspire and motivate people. Isn't that what you mean?

Can you justify your claim? Who are these people?

Please quit jumping around

TheArranger:
Exactly. To some. Not all

Perception. Driving by value and worth.

TheArranger:
Money is a lot of things. Omni-potent isn't one of them.

You are not denying people hold money in high esteem. Thank heavens!!

Let me break it down..

Do you know money is a God? Christians and Muslims agree on this. It is also a God in different cultures.

In your sense, God attribution is omnipotency.

Yoruba people says, oun owo se ti, ile ni gbe. That statement mean money is all powerful. By it value, everything can be done with the right quantity.

On a literal sense, everything has a cost. And anything that has a cost can be gotten with money.

Omnipotency checked!!

Work on omnipresence.

TheArranger:
sigh... I couldn't be bothered less honestly. I can view reality as it is without ever needing extraordinary claims and everything i've ever witnessed or experienced can and has been explained via science. I've never felt the need for "God". Maybe you do, but i don't.

Good night, sir.

This is not the aim of this discussion, you are making all ruse which doesn't make sense.

Allow me to digress to your game...

The religious people held that God is alpha and omega. You held Energy has no beginning or end.

They held that God was not created and immortal. You held that energy cannot be created nor destroyed.

They held that God is omnipresent. You held that everything is made up of energy.

They held that God is omnipotent. You held that Energy is powerful.

I asked OP to replace God with energy in his post and see if it make sense.

When he was asking who created God, have you or him asked who created energy?
Do you ask where the energy from the cosmo bang is from?

You see, hold unto your bullshiit. Let others hold unto theirs. It is the same piece of shiit with different wrap.

The whole world embark on a mission of knowing the truth. The path with which we seek truth is the difference, truth is constant. When you keep ascribing to science, some other people ascribe to spirituality. Findings made us understand spirituality in all honesty birthed modern science. Live with your path.


Goodnight friendAny entity whose existence does not inspire or motivate us to do something different from that which we would normally do is not, by most people

TheArranger:
Not OP but my answer to the bolded is NO. All i see is yet another attempt to obtain permission to use the name God by twisting the meaning such that it loses relevance.

You won't see the picture esp when you are looking toward the wrong direction.

TheArranger:
The general opinion, that is, what most people understand as God is some all-powerful entity who has interest in humans, wants to have a personal relationship with them, and has the power to directly affect human lives and afterlives. Because of this, that entity needs to be obeyed, reverenced and worshipped. Be it due to fear, gratitude or obligation.

Do you know what Anthropomorphism is?

On a literal sense, do you know what personification is?

Have you heard about Impersonal God/forces once?

Only a kid will picture God as a white beaded man sitting on throne on throne in the sky

TheArranger:
But because of God, we have to take some particular actions and decisions in our lives. Any entity whose existence does not inspire or motivate us to do something different from that which we would normally do is not, by most people’s view and understanding, God.

Where did you get this from?

TheArranger:
Ultimately, you are in no way wiser because someone has given a tag to something that makes no difference at the end of the day.

To you, it does not make a difference. To some people, it does make a difference.

You need to look into the reason why people keep money in high esteem and not extend same value to old newspaper.

Spot the difference sir.

Cheers01:
The Christians, the muslims and Jews always tell me that there is one God and that he is powerful. In fact, he is omnipotent and can do anything. He cares for us human beings and all we need to do is follow his commandments. This God also created our universe. He is perfect, he is the almighty creator.

However, I just cannot believe in this God. This God sounds like a fairytale super-alien.

How can a God be so powerful and yet so invisible? How is it that there is no physical or scientific evidence that can prove this God's existence? We cannot hear him but he supposedly answers prayers. We cannot see him but he heals the sick and cares for us. The only other invisible smooth operator is Santa claus. That fat bastard that delivers presents to children all over the world. Yet, we all accept that Santa is a fairy tale.

How can a God be omnipotent? Omnipotence is a ridiculous concept. An absurdity in principle. Being omnipotent means being all powerful without limits. Let's look at how ridiculous the concept is; if God can do anything, then he should be able to create a second God that is stronger than himself.

The funniest thing about this God is that most of the people preaching about him are not even sensible. If I were a powerful god, I would have sensible people representing me. Jesus and Muhammad were both illiterates by their own societal standards. Moses was literate but not a trained priest.

Going further about people who represent God, every believer is divided on who or what this God is. Some say that God is Male. Some say that God is gender neutral. Some represent him as an old white man in the sky. Some say God is a God of vengeance like the biblical old testament. Some say that he is a God of love.

Then, there is the philosophical problem of creation. Who created the creator? Where does God come from? Did he create himself or he just always existed? If he always existed, what was he doing with himself all those billions of years it took our galaxy to be formed?

Replace Energy with God in your post. Now reflect on it. Does it make sense?

We can start from there.

See ya tomorrow. Goodnight

MuttleyLaff:
Na so we see am, nothing wey Musa, no go see for front gate

We shall know the truth things, and the truth shall make us free things. Issa goal.

I rarely discuss on topic like this. Apologies, I won't contribute anything reasonable here.

LordReed:
Keep arguing with yourself you hear, I have nothing for you.

Run along!!!
Cheers

Are we writing a new book here?

HardMirror:
if you had any sense to made you would have made it not ask me to go find out... You aint making sense currently

Try harder.... Still not making sense.

LordReed:
You just make it clear it is pointless engaging you because you have a preconceived idea you are arguing against and no matter what I say you'll just do your thing.

Goodluck with arguing with yourself.

And you make a mistake if you think I am arguing with you. If your purpose of engaging me is to argue, win an argument from going into an endless circle, you picked the wrong person. You are been schooled and should learn.

You called yourself an atheist but lack full understanding of what atheism is. I believe many of you guys choose the atheist tag because it makes you feel more intelligent. Phew!

You need to know if you do not know before that atheists are people who do not believe in God. That is the simplest definition anyone can have.. Before arriving at atheism, one must have knowledge about God. This brought to two type of atheism we have out there.

Gnostic or strong atheism: The person who belong to this category of atheism do not believe in God because he knows there are no God. This is where the positive assertion show up because it is a form of atheism that assert God does not exist. When you are cornered to prove your assertion, you will run to another form of atheism.

Agnostic or weak atheism: The person who belong to this category of atheism do not believe in any of the God presented, but cannot rule out that some form of God does or does not exist. This form of atheism does not assert there is no God.. It is negative. People that can be categorized into these form atheism are adults who have never heard of the concept of God, and those adults who have not given the idea any real consideration. Also included are agnostics who assert they do not believe in any deities (agnostics thinks God cannot be known) , and children. Many of you take solace in this form of atheism. But when you are drilled further, you resort to rants and fallacy.


All in all, atheism requires knowledge of a god or gods, since to not believe in thing, you have to be aware of that thing. It doesn't make sense to tell me there is no Elephant in my backyard when you don't know what Elephant is.

Carl Sagan said "The idea that God is an oversized white male with a flowing beard who sits in the sky and tallies the fall of every sparrow is ludicrous. But if by God one means the set of physical laws that govern the universe, then clearly there is such a God. This God is emotionally unsatisfying… it does not make much sense to pray to the law of gravity."

This above implies that Sagan concluded logically that if God is redefined as physical law that govern the universe, we can agree that such God does indeed exist.


Due to pride in ignorance, you and your likes refuse to see nature as God even when history have justified Gods are natural forces and elements found in nature. You probably hate the word God....if you tell me that, I will understand.

Years back, people worship planet earth as Gaia. Since Earth is Gaia, and Earth exist, it proves that Gaia indeed exist.

Sol is an ancient God which represents Sun. Since sun exist today, one can logically argue that Sol exist.

Many religion in the world is founded on natural pantheism. The world hold to see nature as a divinity. When you claim divinity doesnot exist, it implies nature does not exist which makes you lot appear like a fool.


Energy has all the Omni attribute of a God.

Energy is infinite, has no beginning or end. God is the Alpha and omega.

Energy is everywhere. God is omnipresent

Energy is all powerful. God is omnipotent

Energy was not created and cannot be destroyed. God is immortal.

Sounds, emotion and sentience are formed by energy.




You and lot of your fellows are atheists to monotheism, just like Christians are atheists to Zeus or Baal. It is foolishness to hold fast onto atheism when other concepts of God are presented

johnydon22:
He could find out from you, couldn't he?
Why not tell him?

He doesn't appear like he want to know

LordReed:
I gave you an illustration which you refused to answer. Lemme answer it for you. No, saying I have not seen the elephant is not the same as saying it doesn't exist. Similarly saying I have seen no clear demonstration of any god or gods is not a positive claim that no god or gods exist. Is that clear enough?

You should rather stop confusing yourself. I didn't say anywhere that not seeing elephant is same as it doesn't exist. That is a fallacy you made up. What I said is that claiming you do not see an elephant means you have prior knowledge of what an elephant is. This implies that before one can reject or deny a claim, he must be able to identify the character been discussed.

And secondly, in your words, "I have seen no clear demonstration of any god or gods" clearly exposes that you have a picture of what god or gods is at the back of your mind. Outcome of every demonstrations will be gauged by what you picture in your mind. In such case, you should tell us what your expectations are which would make you accept a thing is actually God.

LordReed:
As for definitions, it remains imperative each god claimant defines the god they claim exists because it happens that the claims have as much difference as the people who make the claims. Take gensteejay's Gaia, it no long exists on this earth so possibly it is beyond our investigation. Yours on the other hand seems to have an active presence but that's me presuming it is different so you would do well to clear that up.

The emboldened exposes another fallacy. Atheists reject existence of anything known as God. Like I said earlier, ignostism requires well defined and clearly understood definition of god As a matter of fact, you are an atheist not ignostic. An atheist knows what God already is...asking claimant to define God again is a weak attempt at hiding your shallowness.

Gensteejay viewpoint on Gaia does not contradict my claim. That some people do not worship a deity like in the past does not mean it existence has ended. For thousands of years, people worship Sol, the fact that people don't worship it today has not stopped Sun from been up there.

Adding, people worship a deity through idol. Same way soldiers honor flag which represents Nation.

LordReed:
I don't claim to be unable to understand any god concept but I also do not work in the presumption that I know the god or gods you claim to exist, it is why the question is always asked which god?

You will need to take steps back and make sure you understand your stance before putting on tag on your chest.

I told you the particular God I was referring to. I narrowed my description of Gaia to the society where it is been worshipped. I also told you what Ikale people know Gaia as. Yet you are still asking me which God.

If you don't know what God is, you shouldn't be jumping around claiming it doesn't exist.

For example... When I tell some folks there is a Cup on the table. And suddenly, you show up and tell those folks there is no cup on the table. Your claim shows that you know what a cup is.

If you don't understand what atheism is, maybe you should quit giving yourself that tag.


A language points to concept. You can't just reject the existence of God without knowing what God is and understanding the concept of God.

HardMirror:
only ignorants reference Gaia. What is gaia when the earth is not even 1/10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 of the whole cosmos?

You actually know what God is. Your problem is what makes Earth a God. Go find that out... You aint making sense currently

gensteejay:
Student is more appropriate. I am a student of history and an ardent seeker of knowledge.

Ok.

Spambot imprisoned me unjustly.

gensteejay:
Yes, our existence is infinite because we are all body parts or aspects of the Almighty, who is infinite.

According to Hermetica, all things in existence are mental images of God, who is called The All in that particular philosophy.

I can only state what I read on Otem's main thread that answers this question: He says when people die, their spirit goes to the valley of shadow of death, where their life is reviewed and they will choose whether to seek experience in a new world or reincarnation back to earth. Whichever option they choose, their consciousness will pass through the river of forgetfulness, where they will lose most memories of their past life.

He shares stories of few people in history that didn't lose most of their memories or regained them through meditation and dreams.

When they (remaining majority) get to back to life in the world they choose, they would occasionally get glimpses of their past life or lives in dreams, but most will not understand what they saw.

He says we can recollect events in our past life through meditation.

That's the most satisfactory answer I I have come across on this issue so far and it's what I feel it's the truth or close to it for now.

You are a great disciple of Otem. Thanks for your input

gensteejay:
Did you create any threads or know informative threads on Ifa philosophy and other related things like Ori (hope you understand the particular term I meant here as the word is not accented) in Yoruba. My knowledge of that subject is not so deep.

Read this thread

https://www.nairaland.com/135166/ori-head#2274041

LordReed:
When I or you say elephant I have a reasonable expectation of what we are referring to however with the god concepts there are so many differing definitions, it is always prudent to ask the person proposing a god to define the god.

If you are proposing a Gaia, define Gaia and how we may know Gaia exists.

I would have defined Gaia to you if you were an ignostist. Ignosticism requires a good, non-controversial definition of god before arguing on its existence.

You are but rather an atheist. According to you, We hold that no god/god have been sufficiently demonstrated to exist. Your statement indicates you know and understand concepts of God, and buttress a positive assertion that God doesn't exist.

Someone asked you to read about Gaia instead of asking me unnecessary question. I have already told you what/who Gaia is. General understanding of Gaia is that in ancient Greek culture, they worship it as a deity. If you claim deity do not exist, that simply mean Gaia does exist. Isn't it?

LordReed:
If you tell me you have an elephant in your backyard and I say, ah I have not seen the elephant, am I saying the elephant does not exist?

Before you can conclude you do not see Elephant there, you must be able to identify what Elephant is. Coming into conclusion without prior knowledge of what Elephant is is foolishness.

Where do you have issue, you can't see Gaia, don't know what Gaia is, or hold it doesn't exist?


Gaia in Ikale tribe is Aiyelala.

gensteejay:
Most of us feel that way in varying degrees. I used to fear death a lot when I was still a religionist (a Muslim).

Death, as you already know, is a transitional phase to a new life. Our spirit (the real us, our consciousness) is a part of the Almighty God and never dies, and after our death on this planet, it will seek new experiences in new worlds using a new instrument (body) or get reincarnated back to this planet.
Just as our existence on Earth now is basically that spirit seeking experience in the physical world using our body as a tool.

After exploring life in different worlds, we will ultimately return to our real home and reunite with God. Every human, animal, and other conscious entities will experience this: Muslims, Christians, atheists, etc.

The concept is what has been stolen from ancient religion/spirituality by Abrahamic religions and other religions of today and they call it different names, like Aljannah, paradise, Havana, Valhala, etc.

This is the sort of ignorance and deceit in today's religions that birthed atheism and other prevailing issues.

In the beginning of time, before God/the First Cause/Existence created time and space, it is said that It (God) disintegrated to form our individual spirits with the aim of seeking experiences in worlds using our bodies as tools. And ultimately, our spirits will reunite with God (go back home) after experiencing multiple lives and deaths in different worlds.

These religions have abused this concept (heaven) and described it in a superficial manner as places reserved exclusively for believers of their god. Which is not true.

On leaving religion, I have strived to conquer the fear of death by reading various articles and books in philosophy.

In that regard, I find Otem's threads very helpful. Even though I just got to know of him about 2 years ago, his teachings about death and other life issues are quite very old since a number of philosophers, both modern and ancient ones, have explored and documented them. As I later discovered.

He's a guy I have a lot of respect for. Hope his book of universal history does not get hijacked as a tool of religion.

P.S.: This is entirely my opinion on death and neither is it authoritative nor perfect. I have drawn inspiration from Otem's threads, Hermetic teachings (the Kyballion), Billy0naire's threads, Jungian philosophy, and philosophy traditionally as a field.

This is deep. Many of what you have up there correlates with Ifa philosophy on journey of life. Thanks for sharing your thought.

Permit me to ask you sir...if we are here to experience, that mean our existence is infinite. Changing form after an experiences. But how come we don't recollect our experiences of the past?

LordReed:
Where in my post did I say that?

In your words bro

We hold that no god/gods have been sufficiently demonstrated to exist.

That above simply means God/Gods do not exist. Correct me if I am wrong.

What if you meet someone that worship Gaia (a Greek Deity), with that position you hold above, would you tell the person Gaia doesn't exist?

gensteejay:
That's Otem opinion or prediction as well. And I am optimistic of that, too.

What is your opinion on death?

That topic scares me alot. And it is fascinating too

LordReed:
If that is what gives you pause then it is easily resolved. We hold that no god/gods have been sufficiently demonstrated to exist. In the case of deistic gods which are said to not interact with the universe, there is no further discussion to be had. Every other postulated god will need to meet it's own burden of proof for its existence.

*smile.

How would you tell a pantheist who see God in nature that God doesn't exist?

gensteejay:
Interesting argument.

Personally, religions, especially Abrahamic ones, create more problems than solutions. Though that doesn't mean I would prefer a world without religion.

A world without religion is simply not realistic. So I would prefer not to answer OP's question.

However, I am averse to development of a new religion. That's simply creating more problems. There are already hundreds of religions in the world if not more; I don't see what a new one will offer, which is not in the existing ones.

Abrahamic religion, esp Islam is horror to peaceful coexistence. Christianity and other religion in the world breeds hatred, intolerance and segregation among people.

Yoruba traditional religion too have it dark side. There was human sacrifice in it in the past. Don't know if there is now, but civility and evolution has dramatically kicked that practise out of the public.

I think over time, with religion evolving, it will die off naturally. And the only bud that will survive more after is spirituality. And the world will be one.

gensteejay:
I doubt that. But if it's true, he must be a genius or spiritually gifted.


I feel there are lots of truths in the book he is compiling.

What he is doing is nothing dfferent from what Mohammad (saw), Josehp Smith, Paul Twitchell, and many others did.

No doubt, there are lot of trust in his thought.

gensteejay:
And it's very plausible that a new religion will be designed, based on his teachings. What is unclear is he would develop the religion personally or others will hijack the history and create a religion out of it.

In any case, there are already too many religions in today's world, and they always create trouble, violence, and disrupt world peace.

The risks far outweigh the benefits.

I once met a doctor who claimed the food we eat kills us. Even when food is beneficiary to the body, it kills the same body at another view. Should we scrap food because of this?

Yoruba people would say, water that serves as abode of fishes ends up boiling it. That is one of those mysteries of good/evil.

gensteejay:
Do you have any specific reason for saying this?

He makes up those stuff he write. They are all from his head. Probably on the path of creating a new spiritual society.

My opinion though

LoJ:
Of course. The choice is yours and I am not blaming you. I was responding to a post of yours that sounded like a complain.

Sure maybe it is a complain, I see it more as a fear more from ignorance.

The initiation thing makes it a bit occultic and the picture of occultism in my head is scary. Let me blame the media and societal belief for that.

Most of my knowledge is from books and listening to words of wise ones. Even when they ain't sufficient, the pieces helps alot. When i grow pass my fear, I may decide join these circle one day.

gensteejay:
That's the same problem I currently face, which is why I conduct my research about these things online. Though that could be tedious, time-wasting, and may lack some depth. But that is better than belonging to a religion or a circle.


This is Otem's account of Ifa: https://www.nairaland.com/2938907/doctrine-ufos/75#65046723
He also said something about AFRIca here: https://www.nairaland.com/2938907/doctrine-ufos/75#65019156

If you have time, I would like you to go through the thread and, if possible, tell me your evaluation of the history, especially as regards African spirituality. Thanks

I have seen some of the guy post. Even when his posts make sense, I do not buy it. Maybe we see things differently. I will try to decipher the meaning of is message when next he post.