₦airaland Forum

mazaje:
You addressed God meaning the creator of the Universe as a he, no?. . . .Your evidence that the universe has only one creator which is a he is WHAT?. . . .

It is English that we are speaking here; I didn’t make the rules of English. English is a very gender-specific language, the rule is to address God as “He”; not necessarily because He is male. This is just the rule of the language. Just as you say “father time”, “mother nature”; it doesn’t mean that time is a father or that nature is a mother. You can address time as “He” and nature as “she”; you can even address things that are dear to you, like your country or nation as “she.”  Even boats and etc. are addressed as “she”; it doesn’t mean that they are female. It’s just the nature of the language.

mazaje:
So you see, even the ancients that you are talking about relied on science to achieve some of their greatest feat, not on religion,the principle of erecting the pyramids are scientific. . .No religious principle was applied in its construction and surely no God or Goddess offered any advice to its construction. . .The people relied on the natural principle of science to bind all the bricks together and erect that structure. . . .

I never repudiated the importance of science; I am a chemist/ Engineer. My point is that science is a tool limited to the physical, and should not be used to debunk God which is non-physical. True religionists know the importance of science; and true scientists know the importance of spirituality, and also know that science the fact that science exist does not preclude the existence of God and the non-physical.

My point for mentioning the Egyptians is that atheists here make it sound as if all believers are ignorant fools. There are imminent scientists who are believers too.

The Egyptians employed science in building the pyramids, but it was the urge for the non-physical that drove them to build the pyramids. Science is simply a too that one needs in the physical; being restricted to the physical, it cannot prove or disprove anything that is non-physical.

If one choses to not to believe in the non-physical, he should not attribute his non-belief to science. Such would be deception.

mazaje:
The belief in Santa does NOT affect any body, people do NOT refuse to go to the hospital to get treated for their disease because of belief in Santa, people do not discriminate against each other because of belief in Santa, people do not go to war because of belief in Santa. . . .People do all these things in Nigeria in the name of religion. . . .Its a lie to say that atheist are not persecuted in Nigeria for being atheist, f you think am lying then try to be one fora day. . . .

Let’s not let this deviate us from the topic at hand. Everybody gets persecuted for their beliefs. Christians persecute Muslims and vice-versa. Even among each religion, they persecute each other; some Catholics persecute Protestants and vice-verse. Sunni Muslims persecute other Muslims and vice-verse. If anything the people that are persecuted the most in Nigeria are the ritualists, traditional religionists and new agers or groups like Rosicrucians, Eckists and even adherents of the Grail Message(Cross bearers). The average Nigerian believes that members of these groups worship the devil. This is worse than not believing in God. Yet these people all flourish in Nigeria. I am a cross-bearer and I know the persecution I go through, even in my own family.

You cannot let persecution turn you into a hater.

From my own observation, and being very honest, religionist pretty much leave atheists alone. It is the atheists that are usually very aggressive in their evangelism. Tell me why Hawkings should bring in God in his scientific discovery or speculation? Who is being the aggressor here? How many religionists, after making their religious discoveries claim that scientific laws do not exist?

mazaje:
Sure, it is. . .If it means anything to you then you should admit that you are only guessing when you talk about knowing if the universe has a creator or claiming to know that the creator is a he. . .

If we are only guessing then why do you guys take Hawkings guesses as scientific laws that have proved that God does not exist? At first you guys were treating Hawkins like a God; now do you agree that he is only speculating? If so, then thanks for your honesty. But you should also be honest enough to admit Hawkins was out of place by attacking God with his speculations. He is being unnecessarily aggressive!

You can believe or see my beliefs as speculations, that perfectly okay; you haven’t done anything wrong by doing that. I can also see my beliefs as infallible truths; that okay as long as I don’t force it on people or try to use it to disprove science or radicle another person’s belief.

You can also hold Hawkins speculations as infallible truths; that's okay, you haven’t done anything wrong; you can also share this opinion of yours with others. But you will be out of line when you force it on others or ridicule others because of their divergent opinion.

I never asked you to believe in God, or a creator; you are free to believe what you want to. But when you radicle others who do not share your beliefs, then you are definitely wrong.

You must be honest enough to admit that Hawkins is misusing science. Science is used as a tool for the understanding, comprehension of the physical world; not to prove or disprove what is non-physical.

Thanks

all4naija:
Okay, let's assumed I don't understand what you are trying to pass across to me. There are evidences to prove something really have effects on something or at least it must be observable for you to know what you experienced. In those your experiences which you alone must have felt along the line become meaningful to you where only you can relate it in the physical. Let alone this prove that such experiences must have physical relevance before you as a human can explain them at all. The point from you starting to become conscious of them to the point where of the actual events took place beyond your understanding,it's within this world though not be tangible as such. What I am saying is that these might look supernaturals but they are not cause there is nothing like supernatural that natural can associate with. It doesn't add up, it equates to nothing other than natural. Supernatural is more or less in the term than in the actual meaning of it.

I am not trying to teach you anything here, just that this argument has led us to expository of our different perceptions with regards to understanding our universe, where explanations have to be the order of the day.

Some people are annoyed about god being a myth but, that is the truth after reading those books which postulate it existence and as model to follow before you can have a part in the kingdom(the heavenly realm) and those who will be annihilated. The books are full of errors if what they depicted is what god is then, I needless not to waste my time looking at them. They were just stories which don't add up. Sorry for saying that, which look as insult to your belief.

what actually make science very powerful in quest is that it is continuous discovery unlike religion that has defined everything through a single eye of god, who doesn't exist. If the way god has been depicted in those books is what it is most of those supernaturals professes in them would have materialized by now only to be the opposite.

One thing I have found in religion individuals(theists, Hindus,etc) as well as regionists is that they soon forget what the books profess when science proves them wrong.

My friend,
Thanks for addressing my post; but with all due respect, the above does not make any sense. I too, do not believe in everything in the bible, neither do I believe in the Koran. I don’t subscribe to any religion. But all these things have nothing to do with God.
These religions and books are man’s perception of God not God Himself. The fact that some human perceptions do not add up does not make God non-existent.
There is no point sharing my experiences with, you simply will be unable to grasp them.

@thehomer

Since you know very much about science, I wont spoonfeed you. Do your research about the pyramids and how they are aligned with the stars. Even the pyramids of the Aztecs in south America were aligned with the stars.

Modern science has not built a structure that has lived as long as the pyramids. Indeed modern science does not even know how the Egyptians moved giant stones. Some have speculated that the extraterrestrial aliens helped the Egyptians. Some believed that the Egyptians know enough science to counter the effects of gravity, thereby making a stone that weighs thousands of thorns as light as a feather!

Either way, these men, the Egyptians were believers, they believed in the non-physical gods to which they built temples. Once again we see the deluded foolish believers being better scientists than non-believers!

I repeat theists make better scientists, going by historical record, -- from Issac Newton to Albert Einstein. Weren't these men theists? Please compare them to your almighty Hawkin!

About communication, I will not spoonfeed you either; do your research or subscribe to the discovery channel.

Let me re-phrase my question: If a child asks you, "Uncle homer, whats the science behind a flying airplane?" What would your answer be?
Is this science or law of physics that allow airplanes to fly arbitrary or is it adamant and unchangeable? If its 'may' or 'might' what guaranties that the airplane may not fly today and tommorrow chose to swim or disappear.

I repeat, it is man's observation that changes or gets better over time. That which is observed, the laws of physics or the science behind them remains adamant and exact. If all conditions are met a million times, the same results will ensure a million times. If you cant grasp this then you are not a scientist.

Thanks

@mazaje

You are very funny my friend! You reply did not touch anything that I said, you failed to look at my post objectively. You are trying to make me sound ridiculous to no avail. I never said that the universe was created by "a male entity who interacts with humans , wants to be worshiped and speaks the human language is WHAT?." Why do you lie like that? If you are a scientist you should let facts speak against fact and not make up things or accuse fellow posters of saying thing that they never said.

I never said that the pyramids were not built by scientific principles.  Dude you are just making things up, and it is childish to resort to lying just make your opponent appear ridiculous. About electricity, I would simply have informed you if you are humble. But I will not spoonfeed you.

If you think that the best way to respond to the persecution that you face in Nigeria is by degrading science to a voodoo religion, then you are greatly mistaken. You cant stand up among your people and fight for your right and your beliefs?  I repeat I know people who are atheists in Nigeria; actually one of them is my friend, a very popular guy who is never afraid to let anybody know his beliefs. Every belief that people have affects others in one way or the other, it doesn't make then declare a war against others. My kids believe in Santa clause and the tooth fairy but I don't. Their belief affects me in many ways even financially because I have put money under their pillow when they lose a tooth. I have buy presents during Christmas and pretend that Santa bought them, I even had to dress up like Santa some Christmases. Sometimes during Christmas the mall is packed with kids waiting in line to see Santa; sometimes you cant buy anything at some malls because of this. You see how this affects everybody? But I haven't seen anybody declare a war of lies against kids just because of their belief in Santa.



Honesty is very important.

all4naija:
@Justcool

First of all I want to thank you for those analysis of comments from you. One thing is that your views are from a scientific peripheral and I am glad you did that with what you quite understood.

Yes science is beyond chemistry and engineering you mentioned which didn't touch much on this matter of the origin of the universe. There are branches of science which have dived into this matter in a clearer pictures, which one of them is quantum science. It has gone far to explain a lot about things in our universe that would rather seemed invisible, how they interact, react, etc(explaining in layman terms).

The spiritual matter you are talking about is not a really something about the supernatural but state of man ability to develop inner feelings like love, patience, tolerance,etc and interact with his community. I think is an ability. There's nothing supernatural about it. We all possess that energy to interact with our environment which most people don't know. The metaphysics you made mentioned of is nothing supernatural either but a more concentrated way of using the energy in an entity to communicate with the environment, it more or less like the spirituality you are talking about. There is nothing spiritual there. Remember some of us were once believers or our parents were. We were once beclouded too so, don't think this not believing in god is just based on framed up ideology, were as it is not ideology at all.

Those experiences of yours if well analyzed carefully you find out they are not actually what you think they are. The mother nature is very powerful and full of wonders. These don't meant they are supernaturals. You can see how mathematics can play out in these and living god of religion defenseless in so many areas.It would have be thought god made mathematics.

Science is confined to physical as such because the universe is of physical entities, there is nothing supernatural in what we are living to say the least. I once gave a simple example with a telephone call from a distance country, without proper understanding of how it operates some individuals would deem it a miracle but it is not. These are how the things we don't understand about of universe are - just because they are elusive don't mean the are supernatural or spirituals.

On the final note, science is getting gradually revealing most of these things we don't have proper understanding of - science, by elementary definition, is discovery. It didn't  prove here is no other world neither did it prove there is another world than the physical but, prove all these things are truly not what would be a guess work with infinity's only probable. 


Thank you once again.

@all4naija

I know science is not limited to chemistry and engineering; I only told you about my background so that you think that you dealing with a person who knows nothing about science. I keep abreast of the most recent scientific discoveries, and I have actually met some very eminent scientists personally.

Just because you don’t feel, perceive something, or find it within the range of your perceptive ability does not mean that that thing does not exist.

There is no way science can speak about the non-physical; it’s simply beyond science.

There is an old saying that “who feels it knows it!” You cannot make pronouncements on my experiences especially when you don’t have such experiences.

It’s like a dog telling a human that the color green does not exist just because the dog is incapable of seeing the color green.

Or like a human telling a dog that certain high frequency sound, which dogs hear very well, do not exist because the human cannot hear or perceive such sounds.

Everybody most remain within his/her range of perception and should not call others fools or pronounce judgment on the perceptions that he/she is incapable of.

He should simply say that he had never experienced such, or that such experiences are not within the realm of science.

Thanks

LOL @ thehomer and Mazaje

I don’t need to reply your last posts. Your posts speak for themselves!! Be honest enough and admit that you are attacking God, the non-physical, and believer; just stop using science as tool for your attack because in so doing you make a mockery of science.

I am not on Davidylan's side but I haven’t seen him talk down on science the way you guys do on religionists and their beliefs. He never attacked science as a whole; he attacked some scientific hypothesis and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. There are many scientists that don’t believe in evolution too. The fact that he doesn’t believe in evolution doesn’t make him a science hater.

But even if he does, science is supposed to be a field of knowledge not a personal God. You get offended when somebody attacks your god(science) the same as a religionist gets offended when somebody attacks his personal. What then makes you different from a religionist? In so doing you clearly show that you are not scientist. You are just a religionists trying to degrade science into a religion.

You guys said some very funny things! The modern science which was born yesterday had been preserving the pyramids which had stood for thousands of years? Wow!! Talk about anachronisim! Somebody made mention of electricity. Well, it might interest you to know that the ancients discovered electricity. Find out how the Egyptians lighted the inside of the pyramids. The other talked about communicating from side of the glob to another via internet. It might interest you to know that the ancients did such communications and went even further! Please tell me how the ancient cultures were able to align their temples with the stars far far away from the globe?

It is the desire for God, for the supernatural that gave birth all forms of development even science, if you claim you cannot see the connection, I will not spoon-feed it to you.

While would I different which god did what to you guys. You guys simply attack religionist, those who believe in the supernatural; those who you call deluded fools. And I showed the great feats that they achieved, now you want me to tell you which god did what. Does it matter? Didn’t you claim that no gods exist?

If somebody asks “what’s the science behind an airplane flying?” You tell him is ‘may’ or ‘might’. Or ‘might not’. This is hilarious!!!!!!!!!

Your running away from people who want harm you; and your coming here to bash God because of that is simply cowardice.  This is your personal problem which has nothing to do with God or science. I know a lot of atheists in Nigeria living comfortably among the people.

Even if you say that not all great feats were inspired by the desire for God, the fact remains that these foolish religionists have done contributed enough in all field of human endeavour to deserve your respect! After all, the best scientitsts that we ever had were mostly theists. One can actually say that theists make better scientitists than atheseists bassed on histroy.

Leave science alone or at least get the basics before trying to use it as a tool.

@all4naija
Thanks for addressing my post; I will address the issues you raised accordingly.

all4naija:
^^^^
I don't want to respond to your comment before but I am tempted to do so after scrutinizing it with open mind. I think the whole issue is centered around how much reality this god his to the physical perception of what we know the physical universe to be. There is nothing supernatural in the natural - that's true from every evidence of science, because one can't see something with the na.ked eyes or doesn't know how it operates doesn't mean it is supernatural, only right to find out what it entails yet is the best alternative.

Science is confined to the physical and can never rise above the physical into the non-physical. When one tries to do that he deviates from science and ventures into the realm of metaphysics.

Since science clearly defines its boundaries as being within the physical, science has no say in the non-physical! Science cannot confirm that there is no supernatural, neither can it prove that there is a supernatural. Such is simply not science.

Anybody who employs science to prove or disprove God or the supernatural is simply a pseudo scientist.

The supernatural and the natural exist side by side; the physical realm and the ethereal realm exist side by side and not intermingle with each other. It is very misguided to look for the non-physical in the physical world or with physical means.

Just as it is misguided to use science to search for God or the non-physical; it is also very misguided to use the religious books or religious stories as science. The two worlds stand next to each other, side by side.

It is wrong to call all religious stories myths just because they don’t correspond with science. When the story is about a non-earthly or a non-physical event, it simply misguided to use science to voice an opinion on it. If it as an event that happened on earth, then this is a different case. You can’t use science to prove that heaven, God and etc. do not exists; these things are non-physical, beyond the realm of science. No religionist ever claimed that God is physical; if they do that is very misguided.

People experience God with their non-physical perception; this is simply beyond science since its non-physical. Just because somebody lacks this sensing, this non-physical dimension, does not give him the right to claim that it does not exist or the people who experience it are dreamers. At best he can say that such experiences are not physical!!

all4naija:
In my opinion why this religion bashing has become a habit is that the religion individuals used to force this ideology or rather doctrine on people. I really hate it when somebody tries to shove anything without physical evidences on my throat. The truth is not far fetched that the gods or god the religion people talk about is myth. every religion in the world has almost the same story with the same lines, they are full of legendary. Yes! Religion has contributed more harm than modern science. Through out history religion stands on the root cause of almost every war. From WWs to the internal disputes in most countries.

It doesn’t matter what some religionists have done in the past; that doesn’t make it right for pseudo scientists to repeat the same thing. The fact the some people committed murder in the past does not give you the right to commit murder today.

And worst of all, they do this under the false pretense that they are scientists or propagating scientists ideas. This is hypocrisy and very harmful to science. Just as religionists in the past committed atrocities under the pretense that they are doing God’s will.

Today we (whether scientist or religionist) should have learnt from the past and become honest enough to call their personal beliefs what it is.

all4naija:
By far religion is what I wouldn't want to agree with when it comes to the understanding of our universe. We can quite speculate(flipping my two fingers)that what is elusive about the origin of the origin of the universe is a god but not the god the religion people talk about. That's one point which we shouldn't confuse with another.

Yes! the religion books couldn't explain the origin of the universe as well left alone to question their stand too. In the beginning God created heavens and earth, to me that only expresses that the books only talk about the creation of heavens and earth not the beginning. Sorry to say that creating in itself proves that something already existed to create something from. That's where science comes in. science is not all philosophical as that words have trumpeted through out the world but most practical way to observe these evidences in a clearer and more physically important.

Why would you employ religion when wanting to understand the physical universe? Religion is directed to the spiritual while science is directed to the physical! Would you take your wife to a priest when she is in labor? NO! You take her to a doctor. Would you go to a doctor when you want baptism? NO! You go to a priest.

Does the doctor have the right to say that baptism is invalid just because he can’t perform or understand it? NO! Does the priest have the right to call the doctor a dreamer just because he (the priest) does not understand science of medicine? NO!!

Why is this so hard for people to grasp? The religious books do not explain the science of the physical world or physical universe; they explain the spiritual. These books are spiritual not scientific; it would be very misguided of you to use them as science book.

This is the mistake that some religionists make when they try to present the Bible or the Koran as science book. Very Misguided! These books are meant to be absorbed or understood with the non-physical in you, the spiritual not the physical brain. Science books on the other hand are meant for the comprehension of the physical or intellectual brain.

all4naija:
These supernatural and all encompassing god the religion people are talking about is only limited with what we have seen in the books. Please, most of the things there are contradictory and not scientifically proven or rather have observable physical entities.

No scientist is saying that science is almighty but it is the most tangible tool available to have a better understanding of the physical world at the moment or else I would like to know about any other if available. With all exigences, I would like to say there is nothing that proves religion god really exist in the physical universe rather in people's heart and mind without refutations.

The true believers make it clear that God is non-physical. This should be enough to silence science when it comes to the issue of God. Genuine scientists know this and remain within their boundary. Pseudo scientists step beyond this boundary and try to use science to disprove the existence of the non-physical!,  It is these pseudo scientists that are at fault here. By the same token, a religionist would be at fault when he tries to use the bible to dispute the laws of science. He simple has gone out of his element, like a fish out of water he will soon stifle to death.

Also, the non-physical is not limited to the religious book. Some people have experienced them. I have experience some of them; I have had so many non-physical experiences that makes me convinced of the existence of the non-physical. However these experiences were experienced with the non-physical in me, my spirit.

Also, it might interest you to know that while I’m a believer in God, I’m not religionist. I don’t ascribe to any religion. Although an engineer, I have a minor in science(chemistry), and I worked as a chemist for years. So while not an authority, I am not a novice in the field of science.

all4naija:
Thank you!

Thank you too!

mazaje:
Science deals with might, may and may not. . . . . .Probability is an intrinsic part of science. . . . .This is what allows science to grow and for theories to be modified and updated. . . . .Science isn't exact, or perfect, it doesn't have all the answers, and some interpretations of evidence can turn out to be wrong in time, as more data is gathered and a bigger picture emerges, but, for the most part, scientists do try and stick to the facts, in as much as they have them. imperfect it might be, but in the short time relative to human history it has existed, it has done infinitely more for mankind than God or religion has . . . . .

I couldn’t let the bolded part slide by. It is statements like this that convinces me that you guys are out to fight God or religion not necessarily because of science. Why do you guys fight “the allegedly non-existent God” so hard to the extent that you throw anything at Him and His believers? Are you sure that you are not trying to quite or deaden a certainty within you; this may very well be the case since I don’t see you wasting so much time fighting Santa clause and the tooth fairy or disputing their existence.

Also I notice that the religionists, (Davidylan for example) do not insult science or regard it as myths. He respects science but only argues that the notion of the universe not having a creator is not even good science. This is being gentlemanly, educated and gracious. But you guys give no credence to religion or believers or God. You easily call them gullible dreamers, and their ideas delusions.

But keep in mind that the greatest of human achievements all have only thing behind it – the desire for God. Almost in all cultures, the most sophisticated and longest-living achievements all have one thing in common – the desire for this supposedly non-existent God. Look at the ancient temples(from the Incas to the Egyptians) Look at the pyramids.

Science itself was born out of the desire for God. The desire to learn about nature so as to know the creator better. This is what gave birth to all fields of knowledge,-- from philosophy to science.

Looking at history one can only conclude that it is the desire for God or the desire for the supernatural that brings out the best in humans. It drives even to feats of such unimaginable greatness. The ancient religionists (who you easily call fools) built structures thousands of years ago, structures the most knowledgeable scientists today cannot rebuild. Look at Egypt, Look at Athens, Look at Rome, and Look at Jerusalem. What do you see?

It is these same religious fools who had run the world for years without annihilating it. Yet today, in the face of your almighty science, the world faces the greatest danger of annihilation. Dude are you kidding me!!!??

The greatest literatures that have always existed did not spring from science but from religion or the desire for God. The greatest art works and etc. Dude look around you before talking!!!! It was these deluded fools that wrote book that have helped humanity survive for years. Look at the Bible! Look at the Koran!

The words spoken by Jesus (a believer in God) had affected mankind, and have changed the history of mankind, in a far more profound way than all the modern scientific discoveries put together.

All the laws of every country in the world today have only thing in common—they all sprang from man’s desire for God. Actually it is this desire that gave birth to civilization.

Granted there has been atrocities committed too due to this desire, but the good that came from it far outweigh the atrocities; as one can easily see today that everything good in the world today sprang from this desire.

Compared to religion, modern science has not achieved anything!!!  Dude look around you!

If only you guys would at least show some respect to believers and their beliefs, the same respect that Davidylan shows science, then you would appear less ridiculous, less emotional, and more educated than you do now.

You guys appear only as religious attackers or anti-believers not scientists, since you  are more eager to attack religionists and call them dreamers than to back your argument with good science.

Thanks

mazaje:
Science deals with might, may and may not. . . . . .Probability is an intrinsic part of science. . . . .This is what allows science to grow and for theories to be modified and updated. . . . .Science isn't exact, or perfect, it doesn't have all the answers, and some interpretations of evidence can turn out to be wrong in time, as more data is gathered and a bigger picture emerges, but, for the most part, scientists do try and stick to the facts, in as much as they have them. imperfect it might be, but in the short time relative to human history it has existed, it has done infinitely more for mankind than God or religion has . . . . .

A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it. Therefore, theories can be disproven. Basically, if evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, then the hypothesis can become accepted as a good explanation of a phenomenon. One definition of a theory is to say it's an accepted hypothesis. As aforementioned probability is an intrinsic part of the scientific process. . . .

I hope you understand that your ideas about the origin of the universe do not even qualify as an accepted hypothesis. Besides you don’t use hypothesis to fight religionists. You don’t use science in the making to fight another field of human endeavor. Hypotheses should speak against hypotheses within the scientific concept. Only when it as confirmed as valid truth can one use it as the way you guys.

What grows and changes is man’s perception of the scientific concept. The concept remains adamantine, unchangeable, and exact. When hypothesis fails or turns out to be wrong, it is the hypothesis that is wrong and not the laws of science(laws of physics) that changed. In the laws of science(laws of physics, laws of the universe) there is no ‘may’ or ‘might’.

Scientists make speculations and hypotheses in their quest to grasp these laws, but the laws remain unchangeable, rigid, and adamant. There is no scientific law that deals with ‘may’ or ‘might’. The same conditions, without any thing changed, will produce the same results. This is how nature , the laws of physics, or the laws of science works; there is no 'might' or 'may'. Only in shamanisim and voodoo do people or things somtimes disappear into the thin air or sometimes appear from nowhere, definetly not in science where every has an explanation.

Next time you are 5+5 =? Can you say that the answer ‘may’ or ‘might’ or ‘might not’ be 10.

You cannot give me one scientific law (not hypotheses or speculations) that contradicts the concept of the universe having a creator.

Thanks

mazaje:
Science deals with might, may and may not. . . . . .Probability is an intrinsic part of science. . . . .This is what allows science to grow and for theories to be modified and updated. . . . .Science isn't exact, or perfect, it doesn't have all the answers, and some interpretations of evidence can turn out to be wrong in time, as more data is gathered and a bigger picture emerges, but, for the most part, scientists do try and stick to the facts, in as much as they have them. imperfect it might be, but in the short time relative to human history it has existed, it has done infinitely more for mankind than God or religion has . . . . .

A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it. Therefore, theories can be disproven. Basically, if evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, then the hypothesis can become accepted as a good explanation of a phenomenon. One definition of a theory is to say it's an accepted hypothesis. As aforementioned probability is an intrinsic part of the scientific process. . . .


The big b.ang does not establish that "the universe had a beginning". t. What it states is that the cosmos - our four-dimensional space-time, if you will - can be traced back to a cosmic singularity. One might thereby assume that said cosmic singularity represents "the beginning", but I would have to note here that this is an assumption on your part: the fact of the matter is that we simply do not know if that really was the "beginning", or whether there exists some as-yet-undiscovered mechanism that generates cosmic singularities, some or all of which then go on to become "universes". The singularity is not a beginning in the normal sense, but rather places the limit on what we can deduce from observation The cosmic singularity represents an event horizon beyond which physics cannot readily penetrate; it does not necessarily entail "the beginning". A "beginning", perhaps, but the beginning? Not established.

I saw you trying to inject some obscured an vague God as well in your post, no?. . . . Is there any EVIDENCE for a supernatural creator controlling things? The answer is NO. There's no evidence that a supernatural creator controls chemical reactions, and there's no evidence a supernatural creator generated the singularity. So there's no point in considering it. There is NO name or signature of any of the Gods that men worship any where in the universe, all we have are mindless forces acting on their own in haphazard or predictable forms most of the time.

Unknown causes are simply unknown causes. Up until now, science has demonstrated itself the best method we have for elucidating previously unknown causes, so science will be what is used to investigate the causes of the singularity which science itself discovered. NO God or religion has any explanation for the singularity and non will. . . .Science discovered the singularity and only science can explain it further.

The discovery of the big b.ang by science as all new scientific discoveries at once both answers many past questions, and presents new questions and gaps. Some religious people stand ever ready to insert their Gods into all newly discovered gaps. It's the same game over and over. . . . .

@mazaje

I don’t need to reply to this. Every line show lack of knowledge of the basic concepts of science. Seeing the way you guys talk down on religionists, I had expected at least a little scientific knowledge from you.

If you think that scientific laws are not immutable but follows the voodoo concepts of ‘might’ and ‘may’ then suit yourself. I will not offer you any help there. Obviously you fail to grasp the difference between, scientific laws, speculations, and Hypotheses.

Also you use the word universe without knowing what it means. Find the difference between the scientific terms, ‘cosmos,’ ‘universe’ and ‘cosmic singularity’

If somebody tells you that a man has a beginning, would you reply by saying “NO! Prior to his conception the man existed as sperm and ovaries in their parents’ gametes.

If somebody tells you that the ice in your fridge had a beginning, would you reply by saying “NO! Prior to the ice the water existed as liquid” This reply clearly shows that you do not know the difference between liquid and ice.

Find out what the world “universe” means scientifically. What are basic elements of the universe? (Space, time, matter, and energy) Do they exist in the comic singularity as separate elements? I will not spoon-feed it to you, get informed! And leave religionists alone.

Thanks

@thehomer and co.

Please stop killing science. You guys make science a guessing game. Science does not deal with "May," "might," and etc. Be honest or informed enough to know that when the word "may or Might" is attached to a theory, that theory is not yet science. At best you might say that it is a scientific speculation. Yet a speculation is a speculation; it carries no more weight than other speculations.

Please show me any scientific laws or theories that say "may." Science deals with the exact. Please consider this statement: "A body at motion May or 'May not' remain in motion unless it is acted upon by an external force" Does this sound scientific?

Another example, consider: "The phenomena that causes day and night 'may' or 'may not' be caused by the rotation of the earth." Or someone can equally say "for every action their 'may' or 'may not' be a reaction." Now tell me are these statements scientific laws or certainties.

You cannot disprove what you consider an uncertainty with another uncertainty. If you consider the religious views uncertain, then in your quest to prove their invalidity you should only use theories that have been tested and confirmed valid Truth. You cannot fight the religious speculations with scientific speculations.

This is just a logical blunder that I find it very hard to remain silent in the face of it.

Consider your statement: “I just told you that it may have always existed.” Is this statement of yours science? How does this statement carry more validity than the statement that “God always existed!” Consider another statement of yours, "It could be that this matter and energy always existed in some form." Is this statement science or voodoo? Somebody can equally say "it could be that this matter and energy existed in some form, and this form was created by God, or this form is in the mind of God, or that this form is the Holy spirit or the power of the Holy spirit." How does the possibility that matter and energy have always existed in some form disprove the need for God or the existence of God? The question remains where did this matter and energy come from? Actually the question shouldnt entail "matter" because matter is energy; so the question is where did this energy that formed everything come form? Somebody can as well assumme that this energy is God or the power of God or what people usually refer as to the Holy spirit. By saying that this energy has always exisited, you are only confirming the same thing that the religionists claim -- that God has always exisited.

You are free to express your personal beliefs, but be honest enough to call them personal beliefs; don’t present them as scientific facts, for in so doing you make a ridiculous religion of science.

If only enthusiast will leave science alone! Today, in their quest to fight the religious they make a mockery of science. A few decades ago there was a scientific speculation that the universe ‘might’ not require a beginning. Hardly did scientists make this speculation than enthusiast picked and used it to fight the religionists who believed that the universe was created and hence had a beginning. Today we know that the universe had a beginning, the big slam. It’s as if science is confused, they say one thing today and another tomorrow. But the fault does not lie with science, the fault lies with enthusiast who would pick up every stone of scientific speculation and throw it at the religionist as facts.

Please let’s separate science from personal views and any form of speculation.


Thanks.

Martian:
They might be a cause that started the universe, no one knows. All they (myself included) are saying is that "God" as depicted by mankind does not exist. The only place these "gods" exist are in mythology. Anyway, about Einstein and "god".

Albert Einstein: God is a Product of Human Weakness
The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this.

2. Albert Einstein & Spinoza's God: Harmony in the Universe
I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings.

- Albert Einstein, responding to Rabbi Herbert Goldstein's question "Do you believe in God?" quoted in: Has Science Found God?, by Victor J Stenger
3. Albert Einstein: It is a Lie that I Believe in a Personal God
It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.

Hawking does agree with Einstein.

@Martian,

Forgive me to say that your bias and enthusiasm to fight religious views makes it difficult for you to separate things. God, Personal God, Religion, Religious dogma, and science are very different things.

If you want to fight religion, then do so but take science out if it because science and religion are two different things.

Forgive me for sounding harsh, but re-read this:

They might be a cause that started the universe, no one knows.

The above can only be born out of bias not science; because the above statement completely disagrees with everything that science stands for. Nothing can be more unscientific. Science clearly shows that the universe has a cause! Turn and twist as you will but the scientific law that 'for every action there is a reaction' is still very valid. The universe is a reaction that an action(cause) must have preceded.

What science cannot prove or disprove is whether this cause is a personal being or not.

If you disagree with the God that the religious fanatics propose, then fight them on that ground. But realize that you are fighting a religious battle and not a scientific one. After all the religions all claim that God is non-physical, and even a primary school student knows that science only deals with the physical. So how can you use science to prove or disprove what is non-physical? Anybody who tries to use science in his battle against the notion of non-physical God is a pseudo scientist, who lacks the basics of science. Or perhaps somebody who had let bias blind him/her.

Re-read the Einstein’s quotes that you provided and compare it with Hawking’s claims. Einstein separated the two worlds; he made it clear that he does not believe in a personal God, yet he never tried to use science to back up his non-belief in a personal God. Neither did he ever claim that scientific theories have proved that there is or that there is not a non-personal God. Neither did he ever claim that scientific theories imply that the universe has no cause.

I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings.
-Albert Einstein

I am not religious, neither do I agree with picture of God that the various world’s religions present. But this has nothing to do with science. This does not mean that the universe has no cause.

It’s up to you to decide what to call this creator or cause of the universe. But to say that science implies that the universe has no cause is a blatant lie. For science deals with action and reaction; you can’t have one without the other!

At best you can say that the religious view of the cause of the universe as a man sitting in the clouds is unscientific; but do not try to use science to validate atheism. Such would be deception.

Thanks.

I watched that documentary today; I could not believe the deception!!!! Stephen Hawkins tries so much to use science to prove that there is no God but on the contrary, every proposition of his spoke clearly enough that there has to be a creator. As much as I try not to call names or insult people; I find it extremely hard to prevent myself from calling that guy a trickstar or a charlatan. They trick the uneducated by speaking big scientific words and mentioning big theories, theories that he is sure that the layman does not grasp; then after mentioning these theories, he will conclude that there is no God.

The layman does not know enough about scientific theories to see that these theories have absolutely nothing to do with Hawkins conclusion. I screamed when he mentioned Einstein; the uninformed is deceived into thinking that Einstein shared Hawkins’s very personal conclusions! I know enough about Einstein to know that he was theist.

Honesty is very important! At least Einstein was honest enough not to use scientific theories to achieve or propagate his personal beliefs. Hawkins is taking advantage of his reputation as an intelligent scientist. This is nothing but deception! If he was an honest person he could still declare his non-belief in God, but he wouldn’t try to science propagate it.

I pointed this out in an earlier thread, ( https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria?topic=692886.msg8543689#msg8543689 ), somebody came to his defense by suggesting that perhaps his publishers misprint his words or urge him to say outrageous things in their quest to sell more books. Even if this is the case, it does not justify Hawking’s claims and outrageous conclusions. As an eminent scientist, his love for science should deter him from attaching outrageous conclusions to scientific theories. He is harming science; not to mention the harm he does the masses by leading them astray.

The funny thing in that documentary is the analogy of a man making a mounting by digging dirt from the ground. They showed a man making a mountain by digging dirt from the ground, thereby making a hole on the ground simultaneously. As the mountain grew so did the hole that the man made on the ground, and if you add them together, mathematically they equal zero. They used this to prove that if you add the all the positive mass (energy) in the universe to all the negative mass, they cancel out and equal to zero. The summation of the mass (both positive and negative) in the universe equals to zero. And then they concluded that there is no God! But in the analogy we see a man digging the hole! Could the mountain and the space it leaves behind, (the hole) have existed or taken on that form, if there was no external force? If there was no man making a mountain by digging dirt from the ground, would the dirt have separated itself from the ground and pile up to become a mountain? NO! They completely neglected the most important factor in their analogy—THE MAN DIGGING THE DIRT!

The fact that if you add both the positive and negative matter in the universe, they add up to zero does not mean that God does not exist. If anything it confirms that an external force must have worked or must continually be at work in the universe. Because the positive and the negative matter could not have separated by themselves, if they are all there is!

I wish everybody would watch that documentary. I will set my DVR to record it the next time they show it. It is a mockery of science.

@Pastor AIO

I agree with a lot of what Ravi Zacharias said except on the third video titled "Ravi Zacharias supports the Bible."

I think he made tremendous blunders in that argument; his premises definitely did not lead to his conclusion. But in-order not to start a religious battle, I will not go into it; because I don’t think that there is any way I can expose the error of his argument without appearing to discredit or question a book that many people hold sacred. Many people hold the Bible sacred, and I respect that. The Bible definitely contains stories with high spiritual and moral values, and I very much respect this undeniable fact.

About Stephen Hawkins, Ravi Zacharias is very right. I perceive Stephen Hawkins as always trying to take advantage of his reputation, (this is just my opinion though). This strategy is very common among politicians and the masses often fall prey to it. Stephen Hawkins, I believe, uses the respect and his reputation of being a brilliant scientist to forward his atheist agenda. How does gravity imply that the universe has no creator? Peharps Hawkins realizes that the masses have his confidence due his brilliance in science, he also knows that majority of the people who clamor for his books do not really understand the concepts of advanced science, then after explaining his concepts when he makes the outrageous claim that there is no God or creator. The poor, emotional and ignorant masses cannot see that there is no real correlation between the discoveries about the operation of physical gravity and the existence of God. One has to grasp a concept first in-oder to be able to tell whether it implies that there is a creator or not. The average person would rather go with the general opinion; after all if somebody as intelligent as Hawkins say it then it must be true. Some of them fear that by asserting otherwise they may reveal the fact that they do not really understand the scientific concept of gravity that Hawkins is pushing.

The fact remains that science does not and cannot prove the existence or the nonexistence of God. Science deals with only and strictly the physical, while God is non-physical. Any scientist who claims that he has arrived at the truth about the existence of God through his scientific discoveries is either an ignorant pseudo scientist or a trickster using science to trick people into accepting a world view that has nothing to do with science. I believe that Hawkins does not belong to the former, i.e. he is not an ignorant pseudo scientist.

The fact that a man knows one topic does not mean that he is also right in other topics. The fact that a man knows Chemistry does not mean that he knows fine arts too, and hence such a man should not use his knowledge of chemistry to persuade people to accept his views on fine arts. There are too different things!

Unfortunately even our brilliant friend, Ravi Zacharias, fell victim to this type of reasoning in the third video. The fact that a piece of literature is right in some areas does not mean that it is right in all other areas. Every object should be examined based on the essence of the object. You cannot judge the correctness of a chemistry book based on the fact that pictures on it are artistically very valid. The same way you should not a spiritual book based on the correctness of the historical information on it.

Thanks and remain blessed.

@Deepsight.
This is very interesting; it’s high time we started dealing with these issues, it hinges on the establishment of the Kingdom of God on earth.

The problem with all the forms of government that you mentioned can be found in your statement, “Of all the forms of government mankind has conceived ….” The problem lies in mankind conceiving or thinking out these forms of government. Everything that is "thought-out” or everything that originates from the intellect alone will never suffice to deal with the human condition. Because humans have needs that goes far beyond the realm of operation of the intellect.

Every work of the intellect, not directed by the spiritual intuition, bears the one very clearly visible stamp or limitation. This stamp is the separation of this world from the beyond, from the rest of creation, and the non-involvement of the spirit. Such works do not take into consideration that the earth is only a part of an entire system; that the greater part of existence is actually non-earthly. Since the earth or the physical realm is only a part of the whole creation, and man on earth carries a species of each part of creation, works conceived by the intellect alone can at its best only satisfy a very limited part of mans need, i.e. the needs of his physical body.

Look at the forms of government that you mentioned:

(1)Democracy, in other words government chosen by the majority. But does majority imply correctness? The fact that majority choses a particular thing does not make that thing right. Let’s look back on history and examine cases where majority have agreed on one thing. What do we find? Almost in all cases it turns out that that which majority agreed on was wrong; the general view, in almost all cases were wrong. Look back on the time when almost everybody thought that the earth was the center of the universe, that all the planets revolved around the earth. Only a few rebellious and self-reliant individuals ware strong enough to even consider that this generally accepted view may be wrong.

The fact remains that the masses of people is an emotional entity that stifles all individuality and independence. An individual lost in the opinion of the masses is as good as having lost his personality. This I have observed: that often when people come together, they become an emotional entity. An individual may choose to vote for a particular candidate just because a well-respected and intelligent scientist is an advocate of the same candidate. This individual feels smart by aliening himself with the allegedly smart people. Often this is the reason why people join some political parties, just to belong to same entity that the elite belong to.

Travel with in spirit back to Jerusalem around two thousand years ago when Pontius Pilate, reluctant to crucify Jesus, resorted to democracy in solving the case of Jesus. Pontius Pilate let the masses choose, majority carried the vote, and what did they choose?!!! To crucify an innocent man!!!

Once an idea becomes popular among the masses, it draws their emotions and the idea gains momentum; like wave it floods over everybody, sweeping them off their feet. The Politicians who know about this behavior of masses always exploit it to their advantage, Like Hitler said, “I use emotion for many and reserve reason for the few.” Need I say more?

Even the infamous Nazi party along with its head, Hitler, was to a certain extent democratically elected.

Once a candidate is able to understand the prevalent emotion of the masses, he exploits it by appearing as conformation of this emotion, as pioneer; as a result the masses rally around him and give him their vote.

Even if we are gracious enough to ascribe infallibility to the masses, how do we guaranty that the candidate is not just parading himself as sympathetic to the masses emotions? How are we sure that this leader will not become a different person, or purse a different course the moment he assumes power?

I can go on and on about the deficiencies of democracy but that will make my post very long. The bottom line is that the opinion of the masses, indeed the opinion of the entire mankind cannot change the laws of creation even by a hairs breath. Hence that which is wrong remains wrong even if the entire mankind chooses it.

Despite all these, democracy remains the best form of government thought-out by mankind. But it fails to compare with the Government of God.

(2) An absolute monarchy: I need not waste my time on this; this one is a joke. A King appointed by God? What is the guaranty that this appointment is actually from God? The Truth is that absolute monarchy is nothing but dictatorship in the guise of God’s approval. This makes it worse than ordinary dictatorship, since an ordinary dictator does not claim to be appointed by God. Such a claim makes the government doubly guilty before the laws of God. In reality man can never be a King!! There is only one King! I will explain what I mean here later. God has already appointed a position to man by endowing him with certain abilities; man is endowed with the ability to serve God consciously, to serve the Will of God.

(3) A Constitutional Monarchy. . . the King is anointed of God but the voice of the people is the voice of God?
In other words, the people as an entity are God, since their voice is the voice of God. Need I say more? The major lie here is ascribing to God what has nothing to do with God. The voice of the people has absolutely nothing to do with God, especially when this people do not care about the will of God. It should simply be defined as “The king is anointed by the people (or the elite) but the voice of the people is sovereign.” This is very closely resembles democracy; it is a combination of democracy and absolute monarchy, and hence suffers the ills of both.

(4) A Theocracy?. . . Government by divine guidance. . . such as government based on the tenets of a given Religion. . . think Saudi Arabia?

The problem with this is being based on the tenets of a given religion. It carries the lie, “Government by divine guidance,” it should rather be defined as government by religious guidance. No religion on earth today is so refined as to merge completely with the will of God in its practices; hence any government based on any earthly religion should not be viewed on as government by Divine guidance.

Finally what do I advocate?
It is my perception that mankind need not conceive or think-out any government for the earth. For the earth is already a part of a government; the entire creation to which the earth belongs is under the government of God. Creation already has a king—God. It is man’s duty to allow this kingdom to extend all the way to the earth. Thus it is earthman’s duty to voluntarily place himself under the government of God. Man voluntarily, by sinning, placed himself and his environment outside the kingdom of God. Thus to achieve the right governance man must retrace his steps and place himself under the rulership of God. This he can achieve by doing God’s will; the will he knows too well because his spirit, or his true self is nothing but a part bearer of this will.

Thus the right governance must proceed from the spirit, from the intuitive perception and not from the brain. The idea of a man being king as one who is above all and one who makes laws is wrong. No creature is a king as such. A king or a ruler on earth must be the purest servant, a servant of God; he must remain a mediator of the Governance that starts above and not the head or beginning of the government. This is what I mean by “Man can never a King,” for man or any creature by its nature cannot be a real King or the ultimate King. Man as well as other creatures, even in their highest glorification must remain servants! To be of service to God, or to be a servant of God, is the highest distinction that can befall any creature. But when the creature poses as one who makes the laws, who directs the lives of others, such a man is definitely treading a very dangerous path.

Such pure servants , such leaders, (or keeping in mind the limitation of our language let’s use the word ‘Kings’) can only be appointed from above and not from below. Such a person is called by God before birth, and prepared for his mission, before sent to the earth.

Plato who was a real artist hit upon the right thing when he said:

“The leaders selected from the guardian class must be the most virtuous and compromised with the morality of the citizens. Since they are philosophers, they can distinguish between people's real needs and people's illusory needs, which often corrupts the soul, thereby leading to immorality and unhappiness. So, the main role of the guardian class is to make sure all citizens grow spiritually and morally.” http://www.suite101.com/content/platos-ideal-state--plato-and-the-aristocratic-government-a278155#ixzz1PUovklTM

The idea of the guardian class is correct, but this class must consist of those who have special abilities, such as pure clairvoyants, or called ones endowed with the ability to clearly perceive spiritual guidance. Through such abilities they remain connected to their guides in the non-earthly plains, and through a chain of guides connected to the King of all creation – God. The rule of such guardian class should be to pass down the impressions from the highest heights. Thus they should be pure servants of the Light, and not philosophers as such.

The arrangement of people in casts must be ensured; but the basses for this must not be race, material success or education. The bases should be on the qualities that each soul possesses. Hence the cast system, so much criticized today due to lack of understanding, is nothing but man observing and obeying the law of attraction of homogeneous species.

But Plato made a mistake when he said, “Because of that, there must be death penalty for the citizens who infringe upon certain laws and censorship of certain kind of music and poetry. “ http://www.suite101.com/content/platos-ideal-state--plato-and-the-aristocratic-government-a278155#ixzz1PUovklTM

Man need not make such laws as death penalty or capital punishment. But a killer, for example should not be left to roam the streets and continue his vice among non-killers. Such a killer should be removed from the populace and placed in a place of confinement, confined only to the people of the same homogeny, thus thieves. Not necessarily such confinements as modern day prisons, because no man has the right to infringe on another creatures gift of freedom. Thieves should be placed in an island of thieves; all thieves would be sent there where there vices would only fall on spirits of the same kinds. They must be free to live normal lives in that island; they can earn their own living there and not live on the tax of the good citizens as it is practiced today. They must not be separated from nature, in an unnatural confinement as it is practiced today. Such is the way that the laws of God separates creatures based on the law of attraction of homogeneous species. A member of the guardian class in charge of such separation, must be a pure clairvoyant who remains consciously connected with his/her spiritual guard. Such a guardian through his gifts can easily see when a thief in the island of thieves has made a progress, has stopped being a thief, and consequently no longer belong to that island. Immediately such a former thief must be moved from that island to a place, city, or cast corresponding to his inner maturity. This is how the laws of God operate in the non-earthly planes; such automatic manifestation is delayed in the physical realm due to the density of physical matter which causes obstruction. It is man’s duty to make sure that these laws are observed even here on earth. The duration of sentence should not depend on the nature of the crime but on the inner condition of the criminal. And also, all criminals should not be grouped together but must be separated and grouped according to their nature based on the law of attraction of homogeneous species. The freedom of criminals should not be denied them, only the opportunity to harm innocent citizens should be denied them. The gifts of nature – sunshine, streams, sunset, rain and etc which God gives to all creatures – must not be denied them, because these are necessary for a healthy mind and also urges the sinner towards development. Hence an island would be a good place of a confinement that accords with God’s Holy will.


I can go on and on but what’s the point? The bottom line is that man need not rely on his intellect to conceive any form of government; man need not create any new system of government. He only needs to adjust his earth life to the governance of God, the governance that exists in the kingdom of God, a kingdom from which man originated and a part of which he carries within him.

@Pastor
Thanks for addressing my post. For the sake of clearity, I will further elaborate what I said earlier.

Pastor AIO:
@Justcool. Thank you for your contribution above. That is certainly plenty to mull over.

There are parallels between what you say about woman and certain things I've learnt and certain realizations that I've come to.

Especially the trinity. Traditionally in most cultures Goddess is depicted as a trinity. Sometimes as 3 trinities, making nine. As in the 9 muses.
http://www.mother-god.com/triple-goddess.html

The three basic activity of the famine are: Home(Johanna), Motherhood( Cella), and Care for cloaks(Josepha). These activities are very delicate and too refined for masculine beings. And these activities are needed all planes of creation, not only the earth.

Home here is not limited to the earthly concept of home. But Home in a higher sense. The desire to create and maintain a harmonious home belongs to the activity of the feminine. Even the earthly feeling of nostalgia is as a result of this desire for a home. The connection that one feels to one’s native land, and even patriotism. The home is very necessary for development, for we retreat to it for peace and also draw strength for it. As the spirit matures, it begins to feel the longing for its true home Paradise. This longing gives it a grate impetus for maturity and development.

Also motherhood here is not limited to the earthly motherhood or giving birth to a child. Although this earthly activity belong to it, or is a physical representation of the high concept of motherhood; motherhood here implies the delicate and most loving duty of the feminine to care for, nourish all with the light she receives from above, guide, and guard all. Above subsequent creation, women do not give birth to children, but women still function as mothers; so the motherhood mentioned here is not limited to the earthly giving birth to children.

Likewise, the care for cloaks is not limited to nursing the physical body or beautifying it; it reaches further even to the highest heights where physical bodies do not exist. Need I mention the role that the body or cloak plays in the development of inner being?

These three feminine activities are indispensible for the Kingdom of God; for each of these activities is an expression of Love. Since only the feminine can swing in these activities, the feminine or womankind is indispensible for the Kingdom of God on earth.

Today a lot of women has lost connection with the rays from above, and hence only distorted forms of these activities are practiced on earth today. Giving birth replaced the high concept of motherhood, which involves guidance for the developing and not just giving birth to a child. Even the care for cloaks is replaced the vanity of beautifying the body just for seduction or attraction of mate. The fruit of these distortions is lust, sexual immorality and hatred.

Suffice also for me to mention that the goddesses that the ancient cultures saw and knew ware not Johanna, Cella, and Josepha. What the ancients saw were substantiate or intermediary beings in the rays of Johanna, Cella, and Josepha. I mentioned Johanna, Cella, and Josepha because they are the starting points, in creation, of these radiations; below them are so many beings, each standing below the other.  Some ancient cultures were able to see these beings, starting from the ones closest to the physical plane; and gradually as they matured, their seeing went further to higher ones. Some went as far as seeing the lords of the elementals like Venus(Aphrodite), Astarte, and etc. The ancients worshiped these beings as goddesses; but in reality they are not Gods and Goddesses, they were only intermediary beings in the radiation chain.

If the development of these cultures was not halted or disturbed by invaders and missionaries, these cultures would have, link by link, trace these radiations to the spiritual realm and back to the source of all radiations – the one and only true God.

Pastor AIO:
But there is one thing that I would like to say about it. That is that, femininity, or the feminine generative principle, is to be found in all things as is the masculine principle too. However it is just accentuated more in women, while the masculine is accentuated in men. Yet the feminine principle can be found in men too, though in attenuated form. We inherit it from our mothers. Without it we would be totally impotent. We wouldn't even be able to get up to brush our teeth.

Motherhood, or femininity is the mechanism of the Universe.

What man receives from his mother is only the physical. All forms of inheritance or heredity are limited to the physical. Hence men inherit a certain amount of the feminine hormones (estrogens/progesterone) from his mother; and on the other hand a woman can inherit some testosterone from the father. Both hormones dwell inside the physical bodies of man and woman; but in different quantities. Men have more testosterone, while women have more estrogens.

These hormones are actually not the source of our behavior, but their radiations offer the spirit the bridge to operate in the physical world. Thus the feminine soul needs the radiation of estrogen in the physical body in order to fully activate or function through the body. The body produces these hormones more when generative power sets in; only at this point does the body offer the soul the radiation that it needs to fully work through the body or use the body. Prior to this point, the spirit incarnated in the body is like a man in an island with no bridge to the mainland.

The source of the behavior which identifies one as a male or female, is actually the spirit. The radiations of the physical bodies or its hormones only offer the spirit the opportunity to completely make use of the body.

But spiritually man does not inherit anything from its parents.

You are right, to a certain extent, that man possess a certain feminine principle. That which arouses to desire for refinement in a man is as a result of the radiation of the feminine; if there are not such things as women, men would not even care to beautify themselves or become refined in anyway. It is the radiation of the feminine that causes the man, who bears a coarser spirit within, to respect and desire refinement.

Men do not do these thing(shower, brush their teeth and etc.) just to appear good looking to women and hence attract a mate. The inner compulsion to do these things(shower and brush your teeth and etc.) are as a result of the radiation of women, men partly absorb these radiations. Like I said earlier the man is partly dependent on women when it that which comes from above.

And since man carries estrogen in his body, although less than the woman does; these feminine radiations that he receives from women can cause his little estrogen to vibrate, and hence lending him a little refinement even in his physical body and movement of his physical body. This vibration is also retroactively felt by his spirit, lending love for delicacy and refinement. It is this love that that arouses the desire in men to protect woman. The woman lends him that which he lack and which he most definitely need for his refinement, growth or maturity. Hence the woman in a certain sense is his door to the luminous heights.

But a man must be careful not to over indulge in the feminine radiation or activity. Because like I explained, his spirit receives this retroactively, and may hamper the masculinity he had so far achieved. Such an effeminate man may be forced to incarnate in a female physical body in his next incarnation, making him a distorted soul who is neither masculine nor truly feminine; this is not progress but retrogression.

Women are a great blessing!

M_nwankwo has done a marvelous job on this thread as well as in the earlier thread that prompted Pastor AIO to create this thread. May the almighty reward m_nwankwo abundantly for the explanations that he has given here.

In addition to the explanations that m_nwankwo gave about the alleged injustice of a baby dying at childhood, I just want expand or explore more scenarios that could have been the reason why a baby dies at childhood.

Sometimes it takes a terrible blow of fate to awaken a human soul that is asleep or about to fall asleep. The psychic shock of the death on one’s child is sometimes all that a soul needs to awaken. A woman who has closed herself to the promptings from the beyond or her spirit may already, years earlier, have placed her herself on the path to this accident; even years before she got pregnant, she was already on the path to this accident, which she would not be able to avoid since she has closed herself to the warnings and promptings of her spirit and guide. A few years before the accident this woman becomes pregnant, out of love for this woman, a soul in the beyond is permitted to incarnate; this soul(the soul of the child) perhaps needs to experience death on earth in-order to redeem some guilt.

Now on the fateful day, the accident happens and the woman survives it but the child she carries in her arms does not make it. This woman is hit by a terrible blow of fate, how much she loved this child who the ruthless hands of fate has snatched from her. She cries, men rack their brains asking “where is the justice of God, if an innocent child could be allowed to perish in such an accident?”

This question, as lamentable as it sounds, already implies a great gift of love; for if men would seek the answer for it with their spirits and not just their brains, they will find the Truth. Hence, this accident presents the people around with an impetus to search for the Truth, to search for the justice of God; people who otherwise would have remained like animals satisfying only their physical needs and hence end up in spiritual death.

The great sorrow that this woman feels is also a great gift of love, for such sorrow may force her to seek comfort in the arms of God, if she allows this sorrow to make an impression on her spirit. Sorrow has the power to stir our innermost beings; it stirs our hitherto slumbering spirits, and whenever the spirits is stirred the longing for God is experienced. Sorrowful experiences are often very life changing. Henceforth this woman may never look at a child (whether hers or not) with indifference anymore. For each child would remind her of the one she lost, such a woman may love children more than one who never lost a child. For, by having lost a child, she now knows that value of having one, and the value of love; for like the saying goes, “you never know the value of what you have until you lose it.”

Thus this accident presents this woman an opportunity to make light years of spiritual progress; such progress would only insure if she opens her soul to the experience and let it come to light in her intuitive perception. On the other hand, if she closes her soul to it and seeks only to find the solution in her brain, she may slide down to the abyss of hatred and hence slide further down spiritually.

Thus its up to us, what to do with our experiences.

The soul of the child, on the other hand, is no less blessed, for by dying as a baby, it has redeemed a guilt that had prevented it from ascending spiritually. This guilt may have necessitated that this soul die a very slow and painful death on earth as an adult. But due to its repentance, it is allowed to die as a child, a quick and almost painless death.

There is nothing like bad experience; when it comes to experiences, the concept of good or bad is solely invented by the human mind. If we adjust ourselves aright to the laws of God, we will gain from every experience that comes our way. Even when people decide to harm us, it is up to us to allow it to harm us or derive good from it. When it comes to the laws of God, injustice is out of the question; for Justice and Love are the very fabric with which creation and its laws are made of. To one who lives according to the laws of God, every sorrow means progress.

This is just one scenario; there are countless scenarios that can result in the death of an innocent child. But in each case injustice, as coming from the laws of God, is out of the question. In reality there is nothing like an undeserved fate. Injustice is only done by man, never God or the laws of God; and even when man does you the alleged injustice, it is up to you whether to allow it to harm you or strengthen, mature and purify you further.

@Pastor AIO,
Your interpretation of the “Parable of the leaven” is as interesting as it is enriching. I will offer my own perception of the parable too, perhaps you might find mine as enriching as I found yours to be.

The Leven represents the spirit in man or immortal spark in man which originated from Paradise or the Kingdom of God. This spirit spark left Paradise as an unconscious spirit germ or seedling, in its quest for development. Just as a seed planted in the soil with the right conditions germinates and grows into a full-blown tree. The spirit spark in man, when put under the right conditions, grows into a full-fledged human spirit; it grows from being a seedling to a human spirit with a human form.
Being placed in the right condition means being shielded from darkness, or being connected with the light which comes from Paradise or from God; connection with the light is an indispensible condition for the germination and growth of the spirit, just like water is an indispensible necessity for the germination and growth of seedlings.
It is not without significance that Jesus uses woman in this Parable. Women are guardians of the light that comes from above. The woman receives this light, and passes it on to man; hence, man needs woman for his spiritual growth and survival more than woman needs man. Men can only receive this light partly from above and partly from the woman. Therefore when the woman goes astray, men almost inevitably follows; this is why Lucifer attacked women first. This is hinted in the story of Adam and Eve.
Therefore it is more the duty of woman to create this condition necessary for the germination and growth of the spirit spark in man. If woman fulfills her duty, by being womanly and serving the light, soon the earth will be flooded by light and the spirit spark in mankind will find itself in the right condition for germination and growth. Just as a small piece of yeast (leaven), when placed in the right conditions, grows and fills the container. The spirit seed or spark in man, under the right conditions will grow and mature into a human spirit worthy to be admitted into the kingdom of God.
The woman hiding the leaven in three measures of meal symbolizes how women in their activity protect the human spirits; though her spiritual activity she draws rays of light from Paradise, and consequently dispels all darkness; thus hiding human spirits from all currents of darkness. By flooding subsequent creation with the light which dispels darkness, she makes subsequent creation an extension of the Kingdom of God which no form of darkness can exist.

Another way to look at the Parable is this way: Anything that comes from above, when placed on the right conditions, rightly guarded, or kept pure, will grow and mature. This is based on the law of movement and the law of attraction of the homogeneous species, since the maturity or growth is nothing but a consequence of attracting the other parts of the element until it becomes a complete whole.
I will give an example: One who receives a piece of the Truth. If such a one holds on to this Truth, and not degrade or drag it to the dirt with his intellect; if he lets it come to life in his intuitive perception. Soon this piece of Truth will lead him to more Truth, and gradually, if he remains steadfast and not let vanity interfere with it, this Truth will lead him to the whole Truth. Just as a piece of yeast grows when placed in the right condition; everything that comes from above grows, matures, or attracts the other parts, if rightly guarded or kept in the right motion. I know this is similar to your interpretation, correct me if I’m wrong.

Once again the woman is needed for the reception and maintenance of that (the light) which comes from above. Equipped with a very delicate intuitive perception, women are to receive the subtle currents that comes from above, and pass them on to man, who equipped with a coarser intuition are supposed to go into activity prompted by these currents. But in this the woman failed and consequently man failed too. Enticed by Lucifer, women succumbed to the currents of darkness, and passed these currents onto man, who out of spiritual inactivity offered no resistance. Hence man took the forbidden fruit from woman; the man is as guilty as the woman.
So instead of putting the leaven into three measure of meal for it to germinate; the woman took the currents of darkness and allowed it to germinate and flood subsequent creation.
Also, it is my perception that the expression “put in three measures of meal” is not without great significance. It represents the three cornerstones or basic activity of woman. The knowledge of these activities of woman has been lost to mankind; these activities start from the highest parts of creation. The three Feminine Primordial spirits (Johanna, Cella, and Josepha), in the primordial spiritual plane embody these three feminine activities, each embodying one of the three activities that all woman should swing in. This is will be more understandable to anybody who has read the Grail Message.
In any plane of creation where these three feminine activities are lacking, or where women have lost connection with Johanna, Cella and Josepha, there striving towards the Light or germination and growth of the spirit becomes more difficult.
There is no point going into each of these three activities, as anybody familiar with the Grail Message will be familiar with them. I believe these three feminine activities are what in the Parable were referred to as “three measures of meal”.

Indeed all Parables of Jesus are so deep; there is no end to the Truth that one can derive from them. Jesus is indeed the greatest teacher; with a few words He reveals so many mysteries.


Thanks and remain blessed.

thehomer:
The first question I would ask is which God is being referred to?
If it is the Christian God, then it is a bad analogy because that God is supposed to at least be good, just, omnipotent and merciful. These qualities would preclude evil if that God existed. But, a barber being a human does not necessarily have the ability to shave all humans.

@ thehomer,
Your premises do not lead to your conclusion and hence your argument is not sound. Granted that God has the power to barb or shave all humans. But justice demands that He shaves only those willing to be shaved, or those asking for Him to shave them. If HE forcibly shaves everybody, even those not willing to be shaved, then He would have infringed their free-will; such will make Him an unjust dictator. But you agreed in your premise that He is supposed to be just, and merciful. A just and merciful ruler will not interfere with the free-will of His subjects; such interference would contradict justice, the very fabric that the ruler is made of. For God is justice as much as He is love.

You see why your argument is not sound? The analogy at the OP is not only brilliant and thought-provoking, it is also very sound.


As always, thanks.

Jesus is the son of God; not God in His entirety. Jesus is a part of God; He is the love of God, Divine unsubstantiate love of God. Just as your arm is not you in your entirety; your arm is a part of you. The same way, Jesus is a part of God.

God(God the Father) is completely independent, but Jesus being a part of God is not independent. Jesus is dependant on God; Jesus is not God but a part of God. Hence John reported Jesus as having said, "for the Father is greater than I,'" (John 14:28).

But this does not place Jesus on the same level as we human beings who are mere human spirits. We human spirits are creatures of God not parts of God. The spirit is a specie of the work of God and not part of God who in His Divinity is unsubstantial. Jesus and the Holy Spirit are not creatures, they are parts of the creator.

As with Jesus, so with the Holy Spirit who, as a part of God, is the creative will of God.

Thanks and remain blessed.

Pastor AIO:
Time and time again I keep hearing that Jesus' teachings were referred to Jews who were still under the law and the era of christianity only started after his death. Subsequently very little, if anything at all, that Jesus said actually has any bearing on the modern christian.

If that is the case then I wonder what was the point of Jesus going around preaching. Why didn't he just come, hang out for a little while and then die, leaving Paul and others to then explain the significance of his death to the world?

Considering that the law was soon to be made redundant why did Jesus continue to preach under the law to the Jews? Why didn't he just explain to them that he was going to die soon and once that happens that will usher in a new age and a new covenant?

Ultimately I want to ask, Does the teachings and works of Jesus have any bearing on the life of the modern Christian?

@Pastor
excellent!!! I wondered the same when I was born again Christian. What you wrote above is exactly the reason why I left my Church many years ago. You took the words right out of my mouth.

Thanks and remain blessed.

m_nwankwo:
Hi DeepSight. Faith in my sensing is not what is defined above. Probably what is stated above is what is commonly refereed to as blind faith as opposed to genuine faith. Genuine faith  is the conviction that comes from experiencing the laws of God in all planes of creation, not just the physical universes. Faith, thus resides in the spirit of man, that is, it is an integral "component" of a spirit who is alive in the creations of God. To be alive in the creations of God is to absorb the rays of love that vibrates in all creations and dispense it accordingly. As a spirit absorbs and  dispenses the rays of love, it is in reciprocity also absorbing the varied and complex manifestations of the laws of God. A time comes when these laws of God or rather the manifestations becomes an integral "part" of the spirit. Such a spirit  has faith as the various strings of the laws of God vibrates in his spirit and  these living strings links him to the living LAW (GOD). It is this spiritual link with GOD that imbues the spirit with faith. At this point, it is important to note that many who are linked in this way may not be conscious of it while in there physical bodies. But whether they are conscious or oblivious of it, the sigh of genuine faith is unmistakable- love, humility, selflessness , contaminating inner calmness, common sense, impeccable logic, infectious joy etc. Logic in this context is the ability to know what is right or wrong, that is, the ability to know in all circumstances what is according to the laws of God.

This link with the living law which  as I stated above imprints the spirit with faith also gives such a spirit a birds eye view allowing it to sense things that was, is and will be. By this I do not mean clairvoyance and similar stuff. The manifestations of genuine faith are the evidence of faith. Thus a spiritual manifestation of faith will have a spiritual evidence and likewise a physical manifestation of faith will have physical evidence. Genuine faith does not justify itself, rather the fruits of genuine faith are the rationale. Genuine faith in God is incompatible with sin in all its manifestation. Those who harm others in words, actions or thoughts in the name of God have blind faith, not genuine faith.

The idea that faith is the conviction that impossible things will be possible by faith is incorrect in my view. Genuine faith provides the  fertile soil for the power of God to be planted and nothing more. Once planted the power of God which bears the laws of God will work itself out according to the laws of God. Thus events that are impossible according to the laws of God remain impossible. But the realm of what is possible within the laws of God is so vast that many a thing presently considered impossible by the human mind and its inventions are indeed possible. But, let me not veer off the  topic at hand.

This genuine faith that resides in the spirit has to consciously envelop the cloaks of the spirit including the physical body and its coordinating center - the brain. Only in such a way will a spirit with genuine faith work consciously within the laws of God. If the radiation connections between the spirit that has genuine faith and the various cloaks covering the spirit are impaired, then such a spirit with physical body or other cloaks will act or expect things that lies outside the laws of God and because they lie outside the laws of God, it will never come to pass. The power emanating from ones connection with God is all empowering that it gives one the impression that anything is possible and this initial experience has been the albatross of many blessed and gifted servants of God. They rushed too fast, yes they are connected with the power of God but the consciousness of the manifestations of this power of God in gross material realms have not broken through. Thus they make promises in the name of God which will never be fulfilled, either because such promises lie outside the laws of God or they contradict the laws of God. If you look around today across all religions, you will perhaps see the consequences of rushing too fast by many a blessed one.

Though it does not directly belong here, I will mention it. When Jesus became conscious that he is indeed an incarnation of the unsubstantiate love of God, a son of God, the divine power that just broke through his envelopes was overwhelming but the omniscience that will permit Jesus to work consciously according to the laws of God, the father have not yet broken through. It was at this turning point that Lucifer who became the Antichrist aimed his temptation. Lucifer believed that the best time for tempting Jesus is when he has become conscious of his divine power but not yet "fully" conscious of the application of this divine power. Lucifer then requested Jesus to prove his divinity by turning stones to bread,  at this point, the conscious application of the divine power broke through and Jesus rebuked the tempter "Though shall not tempt  the LORD your GOD". Lucifer know the laws of God and know that it is impossible to turn stones to bread. By this he wanted to undermine the mission of the son of God at the very beginning because if Jesus have gone to the multitude and commanded stones to become bread, then the command will be of no effect and the multitudes would have declared him an impostor and a fake miracle worker. Exploitation of seeming weaknesses is the hallmark of Lucifer, the Antichrist and his followers. As always stay blessed.

The above is excellent! I completely agree with it. I recommend to every poster/reader of this thread to carefully read the above post.

free123:
do u know how much his wedding cost tax payers in England?

I understand where you are coming from; but does that make him the Antichrist?

Did he make the laws of England? Can he change the laws and the tradition all by himself?

He shouldn't carry all the blames because of the wasteful and flamboyant traditions of the royal palace, and he definitely shouldn't be labeled the Antichrist because of that.

Indeed that custom, which is the tradition in England, of Royal weddings is very flamboyant and should be refined; but I'd rather our leaders spend our tax payers money on our cultural traditions than storing it away in foreign banks. Has Nigeria ever paid attention or spend money on any tradition that was not imported from abroad? What we see in England, although very wasteful, is a celebration of tradition. What happened to our own indigenous traditions? Why are we, two Africans, conversing in a foreign language? What does this say about us? Perhaps we should examine ourselves before we judge others.

This is extremely unfair to the poor prince who just got married. Is this that the gratitude that we should send to the Almighty for allowing the young man to find a companion? Is this the prayers for a happiness and thoughts of joy that should arise in us for the newly weeded couple?

What has this young and his wife done to us that we should accuse him of being the devil? Is it the color of his skin? His wealth? His good health?

There are people who are killing others, despoiling women, and etc, yet nobody ever tries to call them the devil or the Antichrist.

The only thing the false accusation is based on is the fact that the poor man posed for a picture with a lamb. Perhaps he was trying to imitate Christ; but isn't that what Christianity should be about, imitating the saviour Christ?

Please don't spread this unfair hatred and wickedness. The world is filled with serious issues that we should concern ourselves with rather than dealing with illusions.

Thanks

Nelbless:
1: what is the main purpose of Dreams, and is dreams an illusion, considering the fact that i can see my friends in the dream, and yet in the morning , they all wouldn't notice their presence in my dream, are they more like a program in my dream or some sort of borrowed image flashes, ?

What Ogbori said regarding dreams is very correct, but that only deals with a particular type of dream. There are other types of dreams which result from the soul detaching itself momentarily from the body and experiencing the beyond while the body sleeps. It is the radiation of the body that binds the soul and body together; hence during sleep, the body’s radiation changes, allowing the soul to detach from the body albeit remaining connected to the body through the silver cord. The soul then continues to experience, while the body sleeps; and the soul is drawn back to the body on waking up.

Sometimes during the day you see things or people that you are sure that you have met before; yet that was the first time you are meeting that thing or person physically. Perhaps you have met the person or the situation in your dreams (experiencing while the body sleeps), and forgot about it when you woke up.

Nelbless:
2: though this second question might look/sound foolish, but i am not looking for the conventional interpretation, WHY DID OUR LORD JESUS DIE FOR MANKIND, yes i've got some primary answers though, to save us all right (jh 3:16), plz i need an indept reason, cos men like moses, elijah, habakuk etc all lived and worked with God, they also preached about repentance yet the people paid nor listerning ear, even after the Death of the Son of Man (JESUS) , the story of a sinful world continues, so please why did Jesus the word of God Die,

Reply plz

CHEERS!!!!!

Jesus was not sent to die for mankind. God does not send His Holy son to be killed as a ritual for redemption of mankind. That contradicts the Justice of God, and it also reduces God to the level of ritualists who allegedly sacrifice their relatives for certain purposes. Jesus was sent to teach mankind the Truth, “To bear witness to the Truth.” Since mankind had fallen into darkness so deeply that the power of the prophets no longer sufficed to save mankind, God sent His own son, who coming from the Truth carries the Truth living within Him. His radiation, being Divine, was strong enough to penetrate all the spheres and strongholds of darkness and liberate the world.
Only by living according to His teachings can an individual find salvation. He lived among mankind offering His words of salvation freely, but most mankind where too engraved in darkness to understand Him. “And the Light shineth in Darkness yet Darkness comprehended Him not.”
Due to the fact that His words were irksome and disturbing to the leaders of religions, whose hypocrisy He exposed, they set snares for Him to no avail and finally they connived against Him and succeeded in crucifying Him.
His prayer of interception in the cross proves without doubt that His crucifixion was a sin and hence against God’s will. On the cross, out of Love, He prayed for mankind would have been crumbled to dust for the evil they did to the son of God; He prayed, “Father forgive them for they know not what they do.”
If it was God’s will for His son to be crucified, why would His crucifiers need forgiveness? If mankind was doing God’s will by crucifying Jesus, then Jesus would rather have said, “Father bless them because they are doing your will!” Therefore the fact that He prayed for their forgiveness shows clearly enough that what they did (the crucifixion) was evil and against God’s will.

Besides, Jesus told parables that clearly show that He was not sent to be killed, I have discoursed one of such parables in another thread; read: https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-338329.0.html#msg4742782

Thanks and remain blessed

@OP

If by healing you mean the reappearance or regowing of amputated limbs, then that's impossible. With the human body, its impossible for amputated limbs to suddenly or even gradually reappear or regrow; such is a violation or against the laws of nature. Behind the laws of nature stands the Power and the Will of God, hence no creature can annul or violate these laws. God would not either, because God would never go against His will which He placed in nature from time immemorial. Neither did Jesus do or even attempt such a thing. God does not go against His laws, and all miracles fit perfectly within the laws of nature. The difference between a miracle and an ordinary healing is the power involved and the speed of the healing. With high spiritual power, one can achieve a healing that appears almost instantaneously.

It is possible to heal many diseases like, Cancer, aids, malaria, even mental sickness, through laying of hands and prayer; but it is impossible to heal an amputated limb.

Thanks

Deep Sight:
Hello Friend;

I think justcool and m_nwankwo have tried to explain that issue in detail here -

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-429591.0.html

Deep Sight:
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-497445.32.html#msg6636954

This is also another link where Nwankwo x-rays the subject.

@ Deepsight,


Thanks for providing coldwater with those links.

coldwater:
@ Justcool, I was reading a discussion between you and deepsight on a thread. You mentioned about Jesus, Imanuel and Parsifal.

I know Jesus is not Imanuel, is not Parcifal. Is Imanuel, holyspirit the comforter? What about parsifal? Is he the author of ''In the Light of Truth'' the son of man? Please clarify the differences among them for me. Thanks

@coldwater

Thanks for your questions.

You are right, Jesus is not Imanuel, neither is Jesus Parsifal nor the Holy Spirit.

Jesus is the Love of God; He is the son of God. After his mission of redemption He left creation and retuned back to God the father, albeit still remaining personal. He is the inborn son of God.

God created the worlds with His creative Will, Imanuel. Creation cannot exist or come into being in the Divine plane because of the enormous power of God’s nearness; hence God had to place a part of His creative Will (Imanuel) at the outermost point of the Divine plane. This part of Imanuel had to be anchored outside of God, otherwise based on the law of attraction of homogenous species, He will be drawn back to God.

This part of Imanuel stands, analogically speaking, with one foot in the Grail castle at the outermost point of the Divine plane, and the other foot in the Grail Castle at highest part of the Primordial spiritual realms or the summit of creation; thereby forming a bridge between the Divine sphere and creation. One can equally say that a part of Imanuel in the Grail castle at the Divine realm has an anchorage in the Grail castle at the summit of creation. This anchorage or, to speak analogically, this foot of Imanuel in the Primordial spiritual realm is Parsifal. This anchoring of Imanuel outside of God makes Imanuel the out-born son of God. Imanuel is the Holy Spirit; He is the creative Will of God, or the Living Justice of God.

Parsifal can be likened to a gate or a bridge, He is the pure Gate that leads to the Divine, He is the pure bridge that leads from the Primordial spiritual plane to the Divine plane. He is the first to come into being in creation; his core, having come from Imanuel received a cloak of Primordial spiritual body from the Primordial Queen Elizabeth. Hence He can also be likened to the Primordial Spiritual cloak or vessel of Imanuel; or the anchorage of Imanuel. The Light of God that flows from Imanuel, enters creation through Parsifal.

Parsifal is linked to Imanuel by an unbreakable cord of radiations. They(Imanuel and Parsifal) are two, yet they are one in their working. Creation took on form in the radiation of Parsifal, or the radiation of Imanuel passing through Parsifal. This radiation is the creative source of Life and power which issues from God Himself, or which Imanuel recieves from God.

Imanuel is the son of God through which God created man; the son in whose radiation mankind and creation developed.  Hence the name “Son of Man.” He is the comforter.

When mankind failed and was heading towards destruction, out of Love God sent His Love Jesus to redeem mankind. Like I said earlier, after His mission Jesus returned back to God, as the inborn son of God. He is the son that remains with God; hence “the son of God.”

About Abd-ru-shin the author of the Grail message. It is my belief that Abd-ru-shin does not wish any unnecessary attention to be drawn to His personality. He was opposed to all forms of personality cult. A thorough experiencing of the Grail message would afford one the knowledge of the personality of Abd-ru-shin.

And besides drawing unnecessary attention to the bringer of the message, rather than the message would interfere with people’s objectivity in examining the message.

Please read what m_nwankwo wrote in the links that deepsight provided. And also read this https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-173782.0.html#msg2830536

After carefully reading those links, if you still have questions, feel free to raise them.

Thanks and remain blessed.

bladeliger:
hi again

thanks for your reply

i understand most of what you have written and i accept it as being true

i guess im coming from the angle of now ( living in today -2011 the clock has struck 12 so to speak and the time for ripping has pretty much completed in the larger scheme of things) -
i feel so much is going at the moment and see it in day to day life - so many are blind to it - one way or another massive changes are about to happen mankind rushes towards it so fast the pull is strong- it is although im being crushed slowly between them both. they say all that is dead will awaken and i fear that i have left my final decision so long that i have backed my self into a corner. a bad dream maybe and soon ill awake. but time is up - is it not - ye or na salvation or destruction. i see the waves of filth all around me and i feel have still have strength to fight but even if i won life does not change the masses will continue to spread the darkness and until this thing is played out and man really changes as a whole there is always going to be ,

any help here would be good -

@bladeliger

Thanks for being patient with me. I guess I now have enough time to drop a few lines.

Indeed the clock has struck 12 but one must never give up or feel that it is too late for him. The Love of God is ever watchful; as soon as a man genuinely repents and prays for help, the Love of God will afford him all the help that he needs.

Indeed majority of mankind today still sleeps spiritually, but one should not let this situation depress him. You can never tell for sure, who is going to make it and who is not. Many that are alert today may go to sleep tomorrow and many that are sleep today may waken at the last minute.

The individual should employ all his strength and free himself from all forms of darkness, and not worry so much about the situation of the world. You can give your neighbor a lot of help by just working on yourself or striving spiritually, because in so doing you will draw purifying rays from above and pass it on to your environment. You need not even say a word to your neighbor or try to change him; just by working on yourself you give your neighbor a lot without knowing it.

Rest assure that in the end justice would prevail; nobody would be lost that didn’t bring it onto himself. Therefore you need not be depressed about the situation of the world.

I hope this helps.

Thanks and remain blessed.

bladeliger:
hi again

thanks for your reply

i understand most of what you have written and i accept it as being true

i guess im coming from the angle of now ( living in today -2011 the clock has struck 12 so to speak and the time for ripping has pretty much completed in the larger scheme of things) -
i feel so much is going at the moment and see it in day to day life - so many are blind to it - one way or another massive changes are about to happen mankind rushes towards it so fast the pull is strong- it is although im being crushed slowly between them both. they say all that is dead will awaken and i fear that i have left my final decision so long that i have backed my self into a corner. a bad dream maybe and soon ill awake. but time is up - is it not - ye or na salvation or destruction. i see the waves of filth all around me and i feel have still have strength to fight but even if i won life does not change the masses will continue to spread the darkness and until this thing is played out and man really changes as a whole there is always going to be ,

any help here would be good -

@ bladeliger

Please I will get back to you at a later time, as I have exhausted all my time in another thread.

Thanks for your consideration.

coldwater:
Thanks Justcool! May God bless you abundantly.

@coldwater

I am happy that my words helped you; thanks for your prayer. Send your gratitude to the Almighty, as I am not worthy to be thanked.

Remain blessed.

Deep Sight:
Just as a summary. The premises for the purpose of strict logic are as follows.

You will find my answer to all your premises in my last post; I will quickly repeat them here; and expend my answer to your premise #1. I can see that your premise #1 requires a little explanation on trinity.

Deep Sight:
1. The Argument of God's transcendence. A Transcendental God logically does not begin to descend into creation. Transcendence itself contradicts such a notion of descent into creation, even if you are speaking about "parts" of God being severed and descending into creation. If God (or "severed parts of God" descend into creation, then this logically negates God's supposed transcendence.

Perhaps you should define what you mean by “Transcendental.” Here is the Mariam dictionary definition:

1
a : exceeding usual limits : SURPASSING b : extending or lying beyond the limits of ordinary experience c in Kantian philosophy : being beyond the limits of all possible experience and knowledge
2
: being beyond comprehension
3
: transcending the universe or material existence — compare IMMANENT 2
4
: universally applicable or significant <the antislavery movement … recognized the transcendent importance of liberty — L. H. Tribe> http://mw4.m-w.com/dictionary/transcendent

None of the definitions above contradict the notion of descent into creation. On the contrary a descent into creation would actually suggest transcendence, because that would out of the ordinary.

However God does not descend into creation.

Concerning Jesus and Imanuel, “Severance” is just a word that we use to convey something that human words cannot convey. You must approach trinity with your intuition; otherwise it will remain a perpetual mystery to you. Leave the wrappings or cloak alone; words are only cloaks or packages that carry an idea. Hence you must not hold on to that word “severance” when it comes to trinity.

Jesus and Imanuel never severed from God as such, they remained one with God; God is one and will forever remain one. He is a whole that cannot be divided. Consider, God has no form, He is not made up of any substance, He is Divinity unsubstantiate. For something to be divided into parts or a part of it severed, that thing has to have a form made of substance. And since God has no form, and since He is unsubstantiated, He is indivisible.

While Jesus was on earth, Jesus was also in the Divine unsubstantially with God as part of God. While the Son of man was on earth, Parsifal was also in the Grail castle at the summit of creation, while Imanuel was in the Grail Castle at the Divine substantial plane, and also in the Divine unsubstantiality with God as part of God.

You already know from the Grail Message that Parsifal came from Imanuel; Parsifal is the primordial spiritual cloak of Imanuel. Yet Imanuel never didn’t step beyond the boundary of Divine substantiate plane into creation. Parsifal is a volition of Imanuel, who in turn is a volition of God.

Jesus and Imanuel are like volitions of God. But this is not like human volitions; it’s not the same way that we humans have volitions. Our relationship with our volitions is not the same with the relationship between God and His two sons.

Our Volitions only carry animistic substance within their core, as their animating core; they do not carry any part of our spirit. Otherwise in time we will dissolve as we make many volitions daily.

The volition of God carries Divine unsubstantiality as its animating core. This is the difference between our volitions and God’s volitions. A Divine being and his volition can function as one, tied together by an unbreakable chain or cord of radiation; it’s like being two different places at the same time. This is an ability that the human spirit does not possess and hence may never fully grasp. An Intellectual grasping of it is totally out of the question.

Jesus is the volition that God made out of Love to save mankind, a volition of the Love of God; while Imanuel is the volition that God made out of His creative ability.

The Love and Creative ability of God remain in God as one. God is One.

Deep Sight:
2. The Argument of God's Adamantine Nature. An Adamantine God with Adamantine and perfect laws will allow those laws to address every scenario that may arise within creation. It is illogical to speak of an ADAMANTINE GOD with ADAMANTINE LAWS who then begins to enter into creation to give special help. That is not adamantine.

In the incarnation of Jesus there was no deviation from the law. Neither was another law or different laws introduced. It was within the same laws that existed from time immemorial that the mission of Jesus was accomplished. And Jesus is the Living Law Himself in a human form; so there is no question of employing the help of an outside law. The help can from the law, from Jesus who was and will forever remain the Living word or the Living law. Both God and His laws remained ADAMANTE.

Deep Sight:
3. The Argument of God's Omniscience and Pre-Science. Every example about sending help which you have given, contemplates limited beings such as ourselves. An Omniscient being could not be found in such a situation as to create a world with adamantine laws to take care of the world, and yet still has to descend into the world to proffer help. Such a being is neither omniscient nor pre-scient in its creative acts.

Same as above. He created adamantine laws to take care of the world; and when the world was in trouble, He employed the same laws to rectify the situation. I repeat Jesus is the law of God in a human form. The laws which effect is felt in creation originated partly from Jesus.

This is the difference between the sons of God(Jesus and Imanuel) and mare prophets or called ones. The Prophets are sent to teach mankind the laws of God; while the sons of God(Jesus and Imanuel) are the laws themselves in human forms.

As always thanks and remain blessed.