Deep Sight:

@ Justcool -

I thank you for your very insightful surmise, which I agree with almost completely.

I would only like us to note very carefully that the so-called "scientific" definition of time does not exist at all - or more precisely, time as defined by teh scientist does not exist, and I am most careful when i state this.

Just stop a moment and ask yourself - the "time" that supposedly "commences" and supposedly "moves" - supposedly proceeding in a forward manner - just where has this time ever been observed - and so observed to "move"?

The reality is that it is events that occur, it is objects that move, objects cover distance - these things happen. Time, by itself, is not observed by anybody to move anywhere - rather events occur, things happen, objects move within the constant that is time.

To be succint about this point - the tardy and lazy thinker may look at a watch or a clock, a timepiece - and conclude that that is evidence of time "moving." He does not realize that the only thing that is moving is the tick-tock of the time piece. It keeps ticking endlessly, and for all we care it may tick and tick and tick. That is an event occurring - the thing that the time-piece is supposed to measure is not itself observed by anybody because it is intangible and cannot be seen. IT SIMPLY REMAINS THERE. A PERMANENT CONSTANT.

Nothing [i]happens to it: rather things happen within it.

If time were in fact what scientists make it out to be, then people would be able to move freely in either direction in time - forwards or backwards as they choose - for time would be a fabric within which people and objects may freely move in any direction.

However calm thinking should reveal that we only proceed forwards for one reason: namely that it is events that are occuring, succeeding one another - and not time that is "moving" - not time that is a fabric of a sort.

When time "passes" - we should realize that what has really happened is that it is we, and objects about us that have moved within the constant that is time. And you cannot return to where you have moved from for the simple reason that the constant is intangible: and as such there is nowhere to return to.

Very true. The bottom line is that what science calls “time” or what I called “scientific time” in my earlier post is not the same "time" that everybody intuitively knows of. This time is what I called the “lay mans time.”

Science just borrowed that term “time” just as it borrowed other ordinary terms like “work” and gives it another meaning. This is why some people struggle with certain scientific terms; some students find it difficult to understand scientific “work” because they keep trying to marry it to or reconcile it to “ordinary work.”

Scientific time is just a measurement of intervals between events or duration of events, this measurement. Thus in science, in the absence of events or objects time does not and cannot exist. So in reality it is the measurement of the movement or the occurrence of the event that science refers to as “time”. This is what commenced with the big bang.

It maybe an overstatement to say that this scientific “time” does not exist; I will rather say that it does not exist as time; it is simply a dimension of motion. Scientific time is a measurement; it is a physical quantity.

In order to understand the universe, science uses the model of time as a conveyor belt on which all events stands. This model is just for understanding and not really a reality. This model gives the impression that time or the fabric of space can be bent just as a conveyor belt can be bent; so that one can travel to the past. This is a wrong conclusion be cause the conveyor belt is just a model; in reality the universe cannot be bent. And in reality there is nothing like the fabric of the universe; the universe does not lie on a flat bendable fabric. You can never go to the future because the movement or occurrence of events which we call the future has not happened. 

The real time stands still, all events happen within time. Time actually is not a physical thing. Every human being intuitively knows or senses this real time, which is very hard to define with words.

But some people have wrapped science around their heads, like a thick blanket it covers all their perception. They refuse to see the difference between scientific terms and ordinary terms. Eminent scientists do not make this mistake; most of them actually believe in the existence of the beyond. Any body that chooses to see beyond the physical most be honest enough to admit that this is his choice which he cannot blame on science.

Thanks

thehomer:

Like I said, all you have is a conjecture until you have sufficient evidence to demonstrate otherwise. Can you propose a method by which we may be able to test this conjecture or aspects of it?

I have already answered this question. It remains a speculation which may never be verified, scientifically, because you cannot put the universe in a test tube and experiment on it or test it.

If one wants to experience or verify the timeframe outside the physical, one has to drop one's physical perceptions and employ the organs of his/her subtler bodies. This is not science because science is confined with the physical.

thehomer:

I already stated that I could understand such a reference to time being illusory, but when we are speaking about the universe and cosmology, we are not speaking about human perceptions, but about something measurable.

OK you are right to a very limited extent. When science is speaking about the universe and cosmology, it is speaking about something measurable; it is also human perception. Science remains confined to human perception, and cannever go above it. Science actually is human perception; it is a physical or intellectual perception of the physical world.

thehomer:

You are making a serious leap here. We do not know that the universe undergoes cyclical events

Like the theory of evolution, its based on the interpretation of evidence, the theory itself cannot be replicated in a lab, or tested in a lab. Like I said earlier, you cannot put the universe in a test tube to experiment on it. As long as the speculation does not violet any scientific laws, it cannot be discredited. Like I said a earlier its left to the individual to accept it or not.

thehomer:

We do not have access to any other time-line or other objects to make this claim of an alternate time.

Physically we do not; but I maintained that the non-physical cannot be investigated with the physical. One has employ his/her non-physical organs; this is not science.

thehomer:

Do you believe in the Christian God?

I do not just believe in the existence of God, I am convinced in His existence. But I do not know what you mean by "Christian God." If by "Christian" you mean the Christian religion, then I have this to say: God is not bound or confined to any religion. God is God. He is not a christian, neither is He a Muslim nor a Hindu.

All religious orientations or persuasions are only perceptions or a view of God, and not God Himself. But I am not here to judge these persuasions; I only offer my humble perceptions, on certain issues, where they are needed or asked for.

thehomer:
If so, how does he fit into this model?.

Behind every process, every law, stands the Will of God. He is the power that drives all the laws of creation, including the physical manifestation of these laws.

In order not to derail this fine thread, I will stop here. If you really want to know my views towards God and where He fits into the cyclic phases of the universe, then open another thread and we can discuss just that.

Thanks

@thehomer,
I just saw your last post. I will treat it later when time permits me. I have to go for now.

In addition to what I wrote above.

I will give an analogy(I know, as usual, thehomer will call it a bad analogy ) Imagine a can in a windowless car, a car in motion. To this man, his environment(inside the car) is motionless; the object dangling on the rear view mirror may appear to be the only motion in the car. This motion is in reference to the rest of the car(inside the car) which appears stationary.  But once he looks out of the window he will realise that the entire car is in motion. This motion is in-reference to the street our side which appears stationary. Then if he opens himself further, or widen his outlook, he will realise that the street is a part of the earth, which is in motion. This motion is in reference to the sun and the solar system which appears stationary. Then the further he goes, he will realise that even the entire solar system is in motion in reference to other stars and etc. There is no end to this.

The movement of the object dangling from the rear view mirror inside a car represents the time within our present universe. The movement of the car represents time in the non physical plane directly above the physical plane(for those who believe in the non-physical). The movement of the earth represents the time in a higher plane(lets just say ethereal plane), and the movement of the solarsystem represents the time in the plane above the ethereal. It goes on till we arrive at the spiritual planes; each movement in my analogy represents the time frame in a different plane of creation.

Observing the time in the universe or the time that started with the big bang is like observing the motion of an object dangling on the rear view mirror of a car. As long as you remain locked inside this universe of a car or as long as you are limited to your physical perceptions, that's the only time you can perceive; but the more you widen your view the more you see.

Just as the motion of an object dangling inside a car is different from the motion of the car itself, which inturn is different from the motion of the earth, the solar system and etc; time very in all planes of creation.

The time-frame, or perception of time in the spiritual plane is different of that of the ethereal, which in turn is different from that of the astral, and likewise the astral time frame is different from the physical time.

Before the physical time frame came into being, the astral time frame existed, and before that the ethereal time frame existed, and etc. Before the whole creation(From the primordial spiritual to the physical) came into being, time exsisted. This time is eternal; it stands still and it has no measure; this is the real time.

What we perceive in creation as time is only a measurement of events, or the speed of events in the particular plane of creation concerned.

Time exists only with God, it has no beginning, neither does it have an end. It does not elapse. It simply is.

Thanks

@thehomer

Thanks for addressing my post; I will deal with the observations that you made accordingly.

thehomer:

It may be a reasonable conjecture but I don't think it's scientific to say that there is some other time-frame we can refer to.

It is a very scientific speculation, and a speculation based on scientific principles. The only problem is that it can only remain a theory that can not be proven because we(including our science) are limited to this particular universe that we live in. Therefore anything beyond this universe is beyond us and science; even if such a thing is physical, it is still beyond science because science is limited to our present universe.

But many eminent scientists have speculated it, even Stephen Hawkings. Read:

Stephen Hawking in particular has addressed a connection between time and the Big Bang. In A Brief History of Time and elsewhere, Hawking says that even if time did not begin with the Big Bang and there were another time frame before the Big Bang, no information from events then would be accessible to us, and nothing that happened then would have any effect upon the present time-frame.[40] Upon occasion, Hawking has stated that time actually began with the Big Bang, and that questions about what happened before the Big Bang are meaningless.[41][42][43] This less-nuanced, but commonly repeated formulation has received criticisms from philosophers such as Aristotelian philosopher Mortimer J. Adler.[44][45] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time

Read "The Beginning of Time": http://web.archive.org/web/20071228050500/http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/bot.html

Time before the Big Bang or time outside our universe remains an open speculation in science. A speculation which cannot be scientifically discredited.

It is left for the individual to go beyond our present limitation of science(what science has proven at the moment) or remain within this limitation in his/her thinking.

thehomer:

I can understand if one says time as we perceive it can in some circumstances be considered a bit abstract or illusory.

Yes. "time as we perceive it" or "real time, layman's ordinary perception of time," which existed before science was born, can be considered abstract or illusory but not "scientific time" or "time as science perceives it". Scientific time is not an illusion, neither is it abstract as such. Rather, it is a physical quantity that can be measured, speed up or delayed.  Science does not deal with the abstract.

thehomer:

From what you've said, you assume that an infinite quantity exists outside the universe. How do you know? I ask because we don't even know if there is an "outside" of the universe.

Quite simple. The Universe, (including its cyclic motion of big bang and colapse) are only events. An event cannot occur without time; all events occur within time; and the time that was born during the big bang cannot be the time in-which the event(the big bang) that give birth to it occurred. It is simply illogical to state that an event occurred without time. Its like saying that an object exists without being in existence.

Every event is like motion; motion is always in respect to another object. You cannot say that an object that exists all by itself is in motion. How can it be? Motion already implies "in reference to another object." Likewise, you cant say that an event occurred without time or in isolation of time.  Here I'm talking about "outside time," not the time born during the event, because the time born during the event(big bang) is part of the event(big bang) itself.

thehomer:

Do you agree with the cyclical universe you mentioned above?

Yes I do.

Thanks.

I believe that Deepsight is referring to "real time" or the layman's time. By "real time" I mean the eternal time, the phenomenon onto which events happen; the time that every body intuitively knows but very hard to define, very hard to capture with words.

But when science talks about time, they talk about duration of events or measurement of events. Thus "scientific time" is different from "real time." Scientific time can be measured; it depends on the event or the speed of events; and hence it is not constant. It speeds up or reduces in speed depending on how fast the object or system in question travels.

The problem is that science uses the same words that the layman uses; but science gives these words a different meaning. People encounter problems when they fail to realize that the scientific definition of certain words is different from the layman's or ordinary everyday definition of the same word. Scientific time is different from "real time" or the layman's time; just like scientific work is different from the lay mans conception of work.

Scientifically, time (scientific time) is a fundamental part of the structure or state of the universe. One can ague that the time(scientific time) in our universe started with the big bang; but this does not mean that time(in general or "real time" started with the big band. It is also very scientific to expect that before the big bang, before the scientific time was born that there was another time frame.

But the "real time", ordinary time or the lay man's times exists beside the universe, and unaffected by the big bang, it stands by itself. It stands still, and cannot be measured because it is eternal. This time existed before the entire creation came into being and will continue if all creation ceases to exist. This time is not physical and hence cannot be grasped by science; but every man senses it.   

Viewed from the perspective of "real time", the big bang is just an event and not really the birth or beginning of anything new. At best, the big bang can be described as the birth or beginning of our present universe. This universe will eventually colapse, decay, and remodel for another big bang. Each big bang is a beginning or a particular universe not the birth of any components of the universe. The same components exist and eternally passes through the cycles of birth(big bang) and decay.

@Krayola
First of all you don't have to apologise to me for anything; I hold absolutely no grudges towards you and neither have I taken any offence due to anything that you have said. You have the right to express your views, and you have the right to disagree with me or label my views wrong.

And its not a matter of winning or losing; because we only exchanging views not fighting a war. So my dear friend, eventhough I disagree with your views in this thread, I still respect you.

Krayola:

haha Na wa o. See as una dey make me out to be devil. anyways. . .  I really can't debate much cause it's too hectic and time consuming so this'll likely be the last one and it'll be mostly quotes. 

To summarize  Justcool's claims --> Countries with more dangers of natural disasters are the most technologically advanced. Nature is gentle to Nigeria hence the people are lazy and don't have good work ethic. i.e Nigerians are lazy because nature is kind to us and we don't have natural disasters.

Here let me clarify something; I dont want to be labelled as being prejudiced rowards Nigerians. You neglected the principle that I was trying to express, rather you held on to the words that used. And also you took my words out of context. When I said "lazy"; I do not mean that the Nigerian is inherently lazy. What I was trying to say is that the Nigerians, especially our forefathers, could afford to be "laid back" because of the climate that they lived in. They did evolve to the dangers in their environment but such dangers did not require them to advance as technologically as the Europeans did. Surviving the Nigerian climate did not require as much technology as the European climate did.

The Nigerian work ethic was good enough for the Nigerian cultures and way of life; but it doesn't suffice to deal with the European cultures and way of life. And today the whole world, including Nigeria, is copying the western system of government which is a product of the European culture. The Igbo work ethics is good for the Igbo civilization; the Hausa work ethics is good for the Hausa civilisation; the Yoruba work ethics is good for the Yoruba civilization and etc. But when we try to copy the western civilisation or set up country Nigeria according to the western style; then we will encounter problems because the system we are following didn't evolve from our culture. This is the major reason why Africa is backwards today. One can equally say that we evolved a work ethics that doesnt suit the western structure that we are trying to set up.

The Nigerian way of life or work ethics could be discribed as "Lazy" compared to the western or European because the European evolved in an environment where he always had to keep track of time; he had only a few months of warmth, then comes the cold period that forced him to retire. Consequently certain activities had to be done only with a certain time frame. So they evolved a culture where one always had to be on the go.


The African, our fore fathers, were more "laid back" because they could afford to; and hence they evolved cultures of slow moving, peaceful, laid back life.

When I used the word "lazy" I mean "laid back, or not needing to be in a haste." The principle is that people adapt to their environments. Today the crumbling economy has added another threat to the Nigerian environment forcing the present day Nigerians to be more innovative and less lazy and more hardworking. We see Nigerians traveling out of the country all over the world doing al sorts of jobs Why? Because they need  to survive, they are forced to do so because of the crumbling economy in Nigeria. A Nigerian in a bad situation will work extremely hard if you give him the opportunity to, so will a whiteman, indian and etc; but when this bad situation is not there the individual, irrespective of where he came from, may not work so hard. It happened that after many centuries of having to be innovative in-order to survive, cultures incoprated this habit of being innovative into thier way of living; it became the fabrics of thier lives. While the people developing in areas where thy neednt to be innovative to survive devoloped a culture that does not value or encorage innovation.

So nobody is inherently lazy and it dosent matter wheather you are Nigerian or American; the bottom line is that people will do what they have to do to survive. The son of a wealthy American may end up being Lazy, while a poor Nigerian in America will work very hard. Our cultres evolved a "laid back" lifestyle, a lifestyle that became the fabric of the African life and made a print the attitudes of Africans; but the present economic crises in Africa is forcing us to let go of this "laid back" way of life. The warmth and confort that our forefathes had is now being denied the present Nigerians forcing them to evolve a different attitude. But nevertheless it will still take time before the we become innovative as Europeans.

The bottom line is that people react to dangers around them. These dangers could be from their Climate, crumbling econony, health issues and etc, it doesnt matter where the danger comes from poeple will react to it by developing means to survive it.

About the example that I gave with NEPA, let me explain further. The NEPA worker can afford to delay fixing a broken wire because "whats the worst that can happen in Nigeria when there is no electricity?" Also, the government can afford to toy with NEPA; after all whats the worst thing that can happen without electricity in Nigeria? Compare it with having no electricity during mid winter!! Lives will be lost; so the electric power suppliers had to be on thier guards always. And the government cannot afford not to give them enough money for the maintenance of ther equipements. Power failur during winter can affect all the sectors of the government whitin minutes.

So when I used the word "lazy" I dont mean it in a bad or demeaning way. Nigerians can be very hard working.

Krayola:

I then proceeded to give a map that illustrates occurrence of earthquakes in the last century to check how valid this claim was. If I could find one that went further back in history I would have provided it.

Chile, Peru, Nicaragua, India, Mexico, Algeria all have more earthquakes than USA and all of western Europe except Italy.  Even Papau New Guinea is on par with the USA as far as earthquakes go. My map was dismissed as not going far back enough in history.

Where is this link between Natural disasters and technological advancement? Let's leave that for now.

The link is in the map that you provided. List all the technological advancements and achievements done in earthqueck prevention and detection and tell me where those advancements were made. See how they correspond to the blue dots on your map above, in the areas where are more earthquacks. Look at all the contries that you listed and that all of them have earthquack detection programs. Look at how many seismologists came from those countries. Does Nigeria have seismologists?

Why single out earthquack; its easier to survive earthquack and than it is to live through other natural phenomonea like winter and etc.

When it comes to arguing what is obvious, I don’t have as much patience as Deepsight does. I commend him for having answered all the questions raised so far on this issue, questions that I might have been too impatient to answer.

But one thing I noticed is that posters have shifted their post; they have shifted from saying that "climate or climatic changes does not affect technology" to "it does affect technology development but it is not the principle factor"; if so why are still arguing then? The argument was triggered by the statement that climatic changes like tornadoes have no purpose and hence does not fit into a universe designed for life. And finally even the posters that held such views have finally accepted that climatic changes do affect mankind’s technological development only that it is not the principle factor.

Whether it is the principle factor or not, the bottom line is that my point is made; "that such climatic changes are not purposeless but fit in very well in a universe designed for life to thrive." And I rest my case.

Actually I never said that climatic changes and natural disasters are the only instigators of mankind towards technological development. While I maintain that they instigated technological developments, and also affected culture, way of living, way of thinking, behavior, and even the color of the skins of humans, other factors did come into play as well.

From the types of arguments I see in this thread, I won’t be surprised if somebody tries to deny that climate has an effect on the color of the skin of humans. And also Krayola kept mentioning Geography as one of the factors, as if he doesn’t know that climate and climatic changes are parts of Geography or are inseparably linked with Geography.

InesQor:

I personally believe technological advancement has more to do with LIBERTY than with any other thing.

Liberty of expression, liberty of thought (mental liberty), of speech, of choice of lifestyle, of anything in spheres related to mankind.

The more the liberty to encourage the human being, the greater the form of advancement.

The argument for climate has interesting points, but if there was no liberty to choose to resist the climate, there would be no technology.

Yes but why do some cultures develop a tradition of liberty while others didn’t?  Liberty is part of the culture; the culture is molded by many circumstances including climate under which the culture evolved.

Posters act as if these factors are isolated, as if I dont acknowlege that there were other factors as well. These factors all work hand in hand and are intricately linked to each other, but the fact remains that climate or climatic changes a is one of them.

The point that posters are not seeing is that cultures in the equatorial regions developed the technology that they needed to survive too; but their climate did not require as much technological protection as was required by those in the temperate regions. Hence cultures in the temperate regions developed more technologically.

Somebody made mention about the need to shelter from heat; he forgot that our forefathers invented the mud house architecture. The mud house was enough to combat the need to keep from heat; it keeps you cool in the day and warm(to a certain degree) in the night. Such technology would not suffice to deal with climatic demands of Europe; the mud house wouldn’t be able to handle the heavy weight of snow deposits on its roof during winter. The mud house wouldn’t shelter you from coldness of winter.

The African had no need to think about supplying his mud house with running water because there was always a river not too far away, and the weather always allowed water to be in liquid form. The European had to think about how to keep the water liquid during winter; he had to think on how to make the water run in his house so that he wouldn’t have to go out in the cold during winter to fetch water; he even had to look for a way to bath and relive his bowls within the warmth of his house. You see his climate demanded a more sophisticated technology than the mud house.

This is just one example, I can go on and on but there is no need. Science has confirmed that climate has an effect on the mood of the people, and also on the color of people’s skin.
If climate can affect the mood, that means it affects the thinking, and disposition too. Things like “liberty, freethinking and etc” can be described or grouped under the mood of the culture; they all constitute to what we describe as cultural mood or behavior.

Every people, every culture responds or reacts to their climate; this response or reaction often leads to great inventions that make life easier. Hence climatic changes are not without a purpose; it does fit in perfectly with a universe designed for life.

Thanks

^^^^^^^^^^
@Krayola
I did not deform your character.

Here is what I mean by attack:

.
1. To set upon with violent force.
2. To criticize strongly or in a hostile manner.
3. To start work on with purpose and vigor: attack a problem.
4. To begin to affect harmfully: a disease that attacks the central nervous system.

Read more: http://www.answers.com/topic/attack#ixzz19XvS1d8h

Consider what I said in the light of the bolded parts. In the light of definition (2); you criticize or oppose the view that human behaviors can be explained by natural laws. If this is your view then you have the right to hold on to it, and I also have the right to hold a contrary view. So why accuse Abd-ru-shin of making Deepsight or Justcool to hold a view contrary to yours? How are you sure that we got this view from Abd-ru-shin? Why must everything I said be assumed as having been taught by Abd-ru-shin?

All these goes to make me think that you are more apt to deal with Abd-ru-shin than the issue at hand. Consider this in the light of definition (3). You are more apt to work (analyze, criticize, or deal with) on Abd-ru-sin than you are to deal with the issue at hand.

The statements that I have made so far in this thread are drawn from my looking around me, my investigations, and my intuition, by employing the principles taught by the Grail Message; but my statements are neither taken directly from the Grail message nor from Abd-ru-shin. Anything wrong in my statements should be attributed to me and not to the Grail message or Abd-ru-shin.

And indeed everything can be explained by the natural laws or the laws of creation, as nothing can deviate from them. The Grail Message maintains this, but the Grail massage did not exactly say that "technological developments are intigated by natural disasters". This is a conclusion that I arrived at by myself and hence anything wrong with this conclusion should attributed to me and not to the Grail message.

The fact that I am a crossbearer does not mean that everything I say or do should be attributed to Abd-ru-shin; another crossbearer may have a different view or perception on the issue of natural disasters/climate and technological development.

Thanks

Krayola:

It seems like Abdrushin has made you think human behavior can be explained by a bunch of "natural laws". It doesn't work like that mehn. . . logic or laws can't explain most human behavior, especially in a social setting. YOu consider their ideologies, their political structure, their geograpgy, their language their interaction with others etc etc without these u have a culture in a vacuum. U can't isolate a culture from other factors and pin a drastic change on one factor. Thats not how it works. Your "isn't it obvious" arguments are for philosophers. . .not for social scientists.  

What has Abd-ru-shin got to do with this issue? Why attack Abd-ru-shin because of what justcool said? Have I quoted Abd-ru-shin in this thread?
Please let facts speak against facts; and don't start attacking other peoples just because you are losing grounds.

Thanks

@Krayola

Krayola:

Why was western Europe not involved in the development of new technology till the 15th century?

Dude you most be kidding!!! Europe was not involved in the development of technology till the 15th century

Please read the following:
Manufacture of silk began in Eastern Europe in the 6th, in Western Europe in the 11th or 12th centuries. Imported over the Silk Road since antiquity. Technnology of "silk throwing" mastered in Tuscany in the 13th century. The silk works used waterpower and some regard these as the first mechanized textile mills.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_technology
There are many others in that sight; I suggest you read the entire sight.

Krayola:

Why did china stop being a hub for technological innovation?

China contributed a lot to technological development and she still does so today. Read about China’s contribution to technology here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_science_and_technology_in_China

Krayola:

Why are countries like Mongolia and Siberia not involved in this tech craze?

Please read about ancient Mongolia! Don’t let country names which are recent deceive you; there was a lot of technological innovation and development in that area called Mongolia today. Ancient Mongolians contributed a lot in the technological development of warfare and weaponry. Haven’t you ever heard of the Mongolian empire, which spread across most of Asia?

Please read about Mongolia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongolia

Mongolian painting began to develop more than two thousand years ago from simple rock drawings. Uighur paintings of the 8th century prove that this art was flourishing in Mongolia and Asia long ago. http://www.nominsky.com/about_mongolia.htm

Read: http://www.mongolzuuch.mn/main.php?page=mongoliancitysites.htm


Also read:
  In 2006, Mongolia celebrated 800 years since Genghis Khan established the unified kingdom that made it a superpower. His successful integration of different political, economic, religious, and cultural systems and traditions of those he conquered was without precedent in history. However he may be viewed as a conqueror, it is undeniable he was a major force in opening lines of cultural communication and trade between Asia and the West. For example, important technologies developed in China, such as gunpowder, the magnetic compass, mechanical clock, and printing press made their way to Europe as a result of his conquests. Scholars even credit the Mongol Empire for spurring the Renaissance in western Europe
http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Mongolia

Now coming to Siberia.
Are you kidding me!!! Don’t you know that Siberia were parts of the Soviet Union??  Do you question the contribution that Soviet Union made to technology??

Krayola:

U have not shown any link between winters and development of new technology. None. And that is indisputable. The rest na story.

Don’t single out winter. We are talking about climate and climatic changes such as natural disasters. Winter is part of the climate/weather, and winter has instigated man towards a lot of technological innovation. Deepsight has shown you enough links, you just refused to see it.  Winter added appliances like the modern heater and air conditioners to technological developments.

Thanks

Krayola:

Why does Europe,  a current tech powerhouse, only start to show up on the technology radar around the 15th century CE. Did the seasons just start to change then? Didn't they have winters prior to this? What triggered this sudden cultural change? Why do China and Mesopotamia / Arabia), which had been world champs when it came to technology for over 2500 years, fall off the radar? What was happening live on the ground.  . . Did the climate change all of a sudden? I don't think so. . . do u?

I'm asking because I want to know how your theory explains stuff like this?

The above, especially the bolded part, shows that you do not know which regions of the globe that are temperate. I gave you a link to a map; I guess you didnt look at it.

China and Mesopotamia belong to the temperate!!

In the map below the parts highlited in purple are the temprate regions.

Pastor AIO:

The North Pole is the most technologically advanced place in the world.

Is the north pole part of the temprate regions? The north pole remains pretty much at the same temperature throughout the year, just like the equatorial areas(sub Sahara Africa). While the poles (North and South) remains cold and frozen through-out the year, the equator remains warm throughout the years. Both parts of the globe are not as seasonal as the temprate regions.

I maintain that seasonal changes of the temprate regions contribute to the peoples awakening, behaviour, and development, or technological development. The most innovative and progressives cultures of the world evolved in the temprate regions; this is a fact that nobody can deny.

Climate no only affects the mood, behaviour and look or color of skin, it also affects the way of thinking.

@ Krayola

I'm not continueing the arguement about wheather climatic changes triger technological advancements, I believe you already know that it does. I just observed a few things in your post that I think its nessacery to bring to your notice.

Krayola:

@ deepsight. come on. We're looking for a link between climate and technological ingenuity. Not between climate and civilizations. All your posts are saying is that harsh climates can make people accumulate in a given area conducive for living. they say nothing about what we are debating here

Sorry I couldn’t let the above go. Don’t tell me that you don’t know that technological ingenuity and advancement is part of civilization! Read the definition of civilization from the dictionary:


1.An advanced state of intellectual, cultural, and material development in human society, marked by progress in the arts and sciences, the extensive use of record-keeping, including writing, and the appearance of complex political and social institutions.
2.The type of culture and society developed by a particular nation or region or in a particular epoch: Mayan civilization; the civilization of ancient Rome.
3.The act or process of civilizing or reaching a civilized state.
4.Cultural or intellectual refinement; good taste.
5.Modern society with its conveniences: returned to civilization after camping in the mountains.
Read more: http://www.answers.com/topic/civilization#ixzz19X28wae9


Please consider the bolded part of definition 1. Is technology not a product of science?  
Okay let’s consult the dictionary for the meaning of technology:

1.
a. The application of science, especially to industrial or commercial objectives.
b. The scientific method and material used to achieve a commercial or industrial objective.
2. Electronic or digital products and systems considered as a group: a store specializing in office technology.
3. Anthropology. The body of knowledge available to a society that is of use in fashioning implements, practicing manual arts and skills, and extracting or collecting materials.
[Greek tekhnologiā, systematic treatment of an art or craft : tekhnē, skill + -logiā, -logy.]
Read more: http://www.answers.com/topic/technology#ixzz19X32Me9D

Please consider the bolded parts. It shows that technology is a product of science, or an application of science.
It’s okay to disagree with me or anybody, but it’s not okay to twist, turn and lie just to win the argument. Pretending not to know that civilization involves technology is just being dishonest.


Also this is what triggered the argument; a gentle man “Mazaje” tried to say that there are things in the universe which has no purpose. Here is what he wrote:
Quote from: mazaje on December 23, 2010, 02:42 PM

Yes and I repeat, I dont know is the most rational position to take, you claim to know that everything that is alive has a purpose, so pls tell me what is the purpose of a hurricane and the purpose of your life here on earth. . . .

And I replied to him saying that

Isn’t this obvious? It’s quite simple. Necessity is the mother of all inventions. Hurricanes, tornadoes and etc gives man the impetus to evolve, to use his brain, to seek out and understand the laws of nature that guides these processes so that he can control them, predict them and escape them…,   

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-570326.128.html#msg7398880

Then you said the following to me:

Quote from: Krayola on December 24, 2010

No offence but I think this is pretty bogus.  Now technological advancement is as a direct result of occurrence of natural disaster in a specific area? Puhleeaaasssee.
Capitalism, greed, curiosity are better explanations for tech advancement than natural disasters IMO. I'm yet to see technology that helps curb natural disasters. A house will keep u dry in the rain, but will collapse on u in an earthquake  

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-570326.128.html#msg7400639

You also said:
Quote from: Krayola

I swear if there is a real verifiable direct link between climate and technological ingenuity, I will pay cash to learn about it. Name your price   . . .but make i sample the product first to make sure say na original . . abeg o. . u no owe me explanation but make u explain this one. I don search tire I no fit find anything wey support your theory and i swear i've really looked hard.

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-570326.192.html#msg7427886

you also said:

Quote from: Krayola
If any natural disaster contributed greatly to it, it was the black plague. . .and even then there was a lot of other stuff going on in the background that influenced the way things turned out.

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-570326.160.html#msg7412815

It is oblivious that in the posts above, especially the bolded parts that you refute the fact the occurrence of natural disaster has in any way instigated people to technological advancement; and climatic changes, which include natural disasters, have no purpose and do not fit into a universe designed for life. This is your main point since in this thread we are dealing with weather the universe was designed or not and whether it has a purpose.

After saying the above quote, when Deepsite had shown you multiple proves you turned around and said this:

Quote from: Krayola

I would be an  heediot to argue that climate has no impact on civilization. I have never made such a statement.

My position has been that any theory that isolates climate, while ignoring other drivers of social change, is IMO bogus.

The claims made earlier are pretty much this. . . winter makes people more technologically ingenious. Countries that are technologically advanced are so because of their harsher weather. Out tropical climate makes us lazy and lack creativity. This is what needs to be argued for. Not that climate impacts people. If u like make snow dey fall make u no run inside.  

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-570326.192.html#msg7428710


You see in the above, especially the bolded part, you told a deliberate lie or you shifted your post.  You claimed that you never argued that climate has no impact on civilization!!! A fact you refuted and called bogus many times in this particular thread! If you believe that climatic changes which inculde natural disasters contributed to civilization then why are that climatic changes have no purpose or do not fit into a universe designed for life? You see how you contra tic yourself!!

Like I said earlier, it’s okay to disagree with me or anybody, but it’s not okay to twist, turn and lie just to win the argument.


Thanks

@Krayola

I don't think there is any more need for me to continue my argument with you, I believe my point has been made; Deepsight has done a marvelous job proving to you that there is a link between the climate and technological advancement of mankind. If you refuse to see it then I can help you; we humans have free will, its up to you to open your eyes or close it.

The funny thing is that your argument is "anti-evolutionary," the theme of the theory of evolution is that humans and all organisms adapt to their environment. And adaptation leads to evolution. Now you are here refuting a well established fact that humans adapt to the climatic changes in their environment; and at the same you are claiming to be a proponent of evolution.

Thanks

Idehn:

The words solid,liquid, gasses are descriptors of our observation of objects. Perceiving an object is not the same as acting object. Perception does not cause an object to go from being energy to a state of matter(energy as defined in Physical Circles can have many forms including matter).

The above is very correct! I never stated otherwise. I am very impressed with your view on matter as a form of energy. I have a lot of problems explaining that to people even in Nairaland. I can see you are a sound student of science.

Idehn:

Colors as defined in the Sciences are categorized by the frequency/wavelength that they were observed at. If a dog sees a 570–580nm(yellow light) then the statement that it has seen yellow light as has been defined is true. However, if yellow were defined such that it was 520–570nm(what we consider green) but it saw light at 570–580nm the the previous statement would be false.

This is correct too. But the point remains that even two people do not see the same color exactly the same way. Thus when it comes to perception, the individual always perceives according to his/her nature. Hence it can only take something entirely aside the system to tell it like it is.  This is where God comes in for those who believe in God. I said spiritual perception earlier because the spirit being higher than matter, stands a better position to observe the entire world of matter; as opposed to the intellect which is bound and confined to matter. But even this spiritual perception is subjective to the nature of the spirit. The only perception that is not subjective is the perception of a being entirely above creation. Only God sees everything exactly like it is; but this is only for those who believe in God.

Idehn:

Regardless, we had to consider the truth value based on each case. However, because this definition is independent of the fact that our eyes(or any other sensory mechanism) can only perceive a small section of the spectrum. Therefore, we can determine the truth value of color for what a human and dog see and come to the same conclusions(that they saw the same color).

Wonderful! The above is not only correct but it makes my point. Our eyes can only perceive a small section the spectrum; indeed with all our organs of perception we can not perceive the entire spectrum; this only goes to show how limited our perceiving is. Surveying the entire physical universe as a whole with our senses is completely out of the question, hence the purpose and meaning is also beyond the reach of our physical senses.

This is where spiritual perception is required; when we deal with meaning and purpose we have to investigate with our spiritual faculties. But this is not science, so you can either accept it or disregard it; don’t ask me for the scientific evidence of the spirit because science is confined to the physical while the spirit is way above the physical.

We can never be sure that the dog perceives the same wavelength exactly as we do; we can through experiments know which wavelengths dogs can perceive, but we can never be sure that the dog perceives it or sees it exactly as man does. Indeed two men do not see the same color exactly the same way.  

Idehn:

I do not think we are really in disagreement here. It sounds you are saying that meaning/purpose exist in our mind along with there affects. This not to different from what I was stating earlier.
Also does saying that we create our own reality and that it not an acknowledgement of the subjectivity of meaning/purpose. It kind sounds like you are talking about confirmation bias.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

It is not confirmation bias. What I am trying to say is that meanings/purposes based on physical perception are very subjective since physical perceptions cannot survey the entire universe.

But this does not mean that the universe has no real and non-subjective meaning/ purpose. This real and non-subjective meaning/purpose can only be perceived with the spiritual faculties and not the limited physical faculties.

The meaning/purpose that exist in our minds are those driven based on our physical perceptions; not the actual meaning/purpose which is not subjective, not a figments of our minds, but stands completely in the will of the creator.

Idehn:

I do not see what is wrong with either definition. The two definition are not mutually exclusive so light can and does accommodate both. For example chocolate is perfectly safe to humans to consume but extremely harmful for canine consumption. The definition of chocolate can incorporate both definition insofar as both are valid. In the same way light can be helpful to humans and harmful to bats.
Nonetheless, we still had to evaluate the truth value of "what is light" on a case by case basis. Each subject specific definition was valid for their respective subject.

Actually both definitions are wrong and neither scratched the nature of “Light”. Both definitions, like all definitions driven from the intellect, only view the object from their own limited perspective. They only deal the object in how it relates to them, in what they use the object for or what it enables them to do. But the object remains what it is irrespective of what each creature does with it. But this analogy is just to show you how limited definitions (intellectual understanding) of things can be.

Idehn:

We do see things as they truly are(or were to be more precise). However, we use our memory of the object(which is distinct from the original) to interpret what we saw and naturally memories are subjective. Thus how we interpret is naturally going to be different at some level. That why we need an Inter-Subjective consensus so that we can come as close as possible to a single interpretation as is possible for multiple observers. What we perceive is not "false" persè. It is only that we use memory of an object and not the original for interpretation. We cannot use the original object in place of our individual memory, and thus we cannot overcome the subjectivity of meaning/purpose that arise because of this.

Here I disagree; in all our seeing, we see mostly ourselves. We perceive things according to our nature.

I already gave you an example about a fish in the river; as long as it remains in the river, it will not be able to size-up the entire river. It is bound to its environment in the river, just as our physical perception is bound to a definite section of the physical spectrum. In order to survey the entire we must stand aside it.

Idehn:

I see no reason to introduce new organs into the discussion as it will only accent the issue here. I am not saying that people do not determine meaning/purpose. I am saying that their meaning/purpose is subjective and exist only in their minds. Increasing the ways that they perceive the universe will not change that fact as it is the memory/interpretation that cause for subjectivity(as explained above). Subjectivity, I feel, cannot be avoided as it is the product of our individuality. Just by being in different in place at a different time does subjectivity come about.

Here you are correct. The point that I was trying to make is that in addition to subjectivity, the physical organs of perception a bound, confined and limited to the physical, the real meaning /purpose is not physical. The real purpose/meaning cannot be completely grasped or discovered by the physical senses(the intellect); this can only be grasped by the spiritual perception.

Hence one who does not employ his intuition(the voice of his spirit) in his investigation is bound to maintain that the universe has no purpose.

Idehn:

I do not see how the universe falls under this definition. Neither you nor I created the Universe so what ever purpose we ascribe to the Universe could not be used as the purpose needed in the definition. Furthermore, I do see any evidence that the Universe was created. From evidence we have
cosmic background radiation(Big Bang)
Conservation of Energy/Matter
Conservation of Momentum
it would suggest that the Universe has always existed in some form.

I think you should rewrite the bolded part above; I perceive that it negates what you wished to say.

Your premise above only show the limitation of the intellect which I have been trying to point out. Now you made a statement that not even the intellect can explain, and yet you base your conclusions on the intellect.

Now watch this statement of yours, “the Universe has always existed” You brain(intellect) is not satisfy with this statement because it negates the way the intellect functions. The intellect always looks for a beginning and an end. “Eternity” does not make sense intellectually because the intellect having a beginning and an end can only deal with things in terms of beginning and ending.

“Eternity” should not be in the dictionary of intellect because it just doesn’t make sense to the intellect. Be honest with yourself and tell me “can you easily reconcile eternity with your intellect?” The answer is no!

Eternity is a concept that can be grasped only in the spiritual; it lies only in the spiritual.  

The statement “the universe has always existed” is terribly unscientific!! Science deals with logic and evidence. Please can you give me one evidence of a physical thing being eternal? If you can ascribe that quality to any physical material then why ascribe it to the universe.

Which physical laws give rise to eternity? Or can you explain “eternity” in the light of the laws of physics? If not then the whole concept is unscientific!!!!!

Also eternity negates all the laws of physics. The laws of physics maintain that for every action there is a reaction. Everything we see, including the universe is a reaction of an action that preceded it. I can go on and on in this but I think it will be a waste of time since everybody knows it; denying it is just being dishonest.

Thanks

Idehn:

@justcool
Hello justcool. I am doing fine now that I am on break. I started my graduate studies sometime ago so I have not even had time to even think about having fun. How have you been?

I’ve been very fine; thanks for asking. I wish you good luck on your graduate studies, I wish you success.

Idehn:

How so? When someone some dies does the Universe not continue on even though they had a mind and could perceive it? If so does that fact change when millions of people die as is the case now? If not, why would it be different if all minds ceased? The purpose and meaning ascribed by the millions if not billions of humans that have lived and died has not changed the nature of the Universe save the part of they interacted with. However, the "thing" we call purpose/meaning still remained apart of their mind(in the form of neurons).

The meaning we ascribe to the universe is as good as the way we see the universe. The universe that we see physically can also be argued to be in our mind(in the form of neurons). We see the universe the way we have evolved to see it, and we ascribe meaning to it the same way.

The Truth is that we can never see the universe the way it really is; the way we see it is different from the way lions see it, and the way lions see things is different from the dogs see things.

Everything is pure energy; it is only our minds or organs of perception that make things appear as solid, liquid, gasses and etc. It is also our mind or senses that make us perceived different wavelengths as different colors. In a spectrum where humans see only seven colors, a dog may only see five colors and another creature may see six colors and etc. What we humans see as green maybe what dogs see as yellow and etc.

The same is applicable with the meaning we give the universe; sometimes meaning serves as an excuse for us to live, it gives us the hope to live and etc. But just like our vision, this meaning doesn’t necessarily always correspond to the Truth.

However, the universe remains what it is, irrespective of the way we see it or the meaning we attach or not attach to it. And don’t ever think that these meanings that we attach to a thing are without effect. The Truth is that everything to real, to a certain extent. By attaching meanings to things we create our own reality; and hence the thing becomes what we expect or interpret it to be, at least to ourselves and to a very limited extent. I know this is hard to follow but I can elaborate. If you want to, you can open another thread and we can discuss this issue.

This brings us to the age old question: “Which is more important, the actuality of an event or our realization of the event?”

Idehn:

To say something is subjective and/or to say it exist in their mind is not say it is false. It is only to say that any truth values related to that "thing" must be applied on an individual basis. When some one says the purpose of a car is to go to work that maybe true for that individual. It may even be true for many individuals. But some people will have variations/additions of said purpose such as needing to by groceries or transport other people etc,

Correct, only to a certain extent. And the same is applicable to our perceptions, the way that we see things. Even the things we see and which we call reality is very subjective to our senses; one can equally say that they are no more definite than the purposes or meanings that we attach to the universe.

I will give an example: Light! Light enables us to see, to locate things; but the Truth is that this definition is peculiar to us; it only defines light as it applies to us. There are creatures, like bats, that do not need the light to locate things. And consequently their definition of light would be different from ours. While humans may define light as that which helps us to see things, to locate them, or to hunt; Bats may define light as that which makes it difficult for them to hunt. Now tell me which is right or wrong?

The Truth remains that the purposes or meanings that we attach to things spring greatly from our perception of the thing or the way we see that thing. And since physically we can never see things the way they truly are, therefore in-order to see the things the way they really are and find their real purpose or meaning we must go beyond the physical. If we limit our search for the Truth(the meaning of it all) to our physical perceptions then we well never arrive at the Truth.

Another food for thought: Some scientists say that humans see things upside down because only the inverted versions of the images we see reach the retina. If you buy a set of goggles or glasses that invert things; if you wear this glasses, the first few weeks you will see the world as upside down and if you keep wearing it without taking it off, soon it will become normal to you, the inverted images will appear as normal to you. And then when you take it off you will begin to see the world as upside down, at least for a few weeks till your brain gets used to it. The question is which perception is right?

And that which we claim to see, keep in mind that the rays emanating from it or reflected of it doesn’t really reach our brain; thus what we see, with our physical eyes or perceive with our physical senses is just a construction of our senses.

Here is an interesting video to watch:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HSWzPMLBek0&feature=player_detailpage 

However, the Truth or reality remains what it is, eternal and unchangable; for us to see the Truth, we must look from above the physical, from our spirits.

Idehn:

In order to ascribe truth values to statements of purpose/meaning we must evaluate them on a case by case basis.

As long as you remain in the physical and limit your organs of evaluation to the physical organs you will never arrive at the meaning or purpose; the solution doesn’t lie with how many times you evaluate cases but with that which you use for the evaluation. To find the purpose you deploy your non-physical faculties.

I will give an analogy, a fish in an ocean trying to figure out the size of the ocean. As long as it is limited to being a fish and confined to the ocean it can never arrive at the Truth about the size of the ocean, no matter how many times or cases it evaluates within the ocean. It can only arrive at the Truth when it stands outside and far above the ocean. Only a man in an airplane far above the ocean can overlook the entire ocean and arrive at the Truth about the size of the ocean.

Our physical bodies, along with our brains and our physical senses are like a fish in the ocean of the physical universe.

The Truth remains that our bodies, along with the brains our their intellect and all our physical organs of perceptions, being part of the physical world are hence limited to the physical world. Only that which stands aside the physical world, that which has more dimensions that the physical, can actually overlook the whole physical and the meaning behind it; therefore one should search for the meaning with his/spirit, which is above and beyond the physical. The brain will only lead you in circles within the confines of physical world, a confinement it can never rise above.

I don’t know if you have seen the movie “The Matrix” As long as you are in the matrix, no matter how much and how you evaluate a matter case by case, you can never arrive at the Truth, you can never see yourself or your environment the way it truly is. You have unplug from the matrix first, only then will you realize that what you thought was real life was only a dream.

To some people, only when they pass on, as in physical death, do they realize that they have been dreaming; they will then see the physical world the way it is and all the unnecessary values that they attached to physical possessions while they were on earth will then seem like foolishness to them.

Life or the meaning of should be examined from above, form ones spirit, and not with the brain which is limited to the physical realm.

Idehn:


I agree with you completely and I am glad that you said this. I think people mislabel Science as being objective when it is really more Inter-Subjective.  What I mean is that every one who practices science agrees to a set of norms(the inter part) and follows through with them. In science these norms are to some extent arbitrary(as is the case with BTU/inch/cup/lb) what is important is that they are agreed upon. This helps people make similar observations(the subjective part) of the same phenomenon as other observers. In this way we approach objectivity in lieu of the fact that we can never actually achieve it in practice. 

So saying something is subjective and/or in the mind does not attempt to disregard the mind but to recognize it as apart of human endeavor. That is why I ask that someone state/define their criterion that people are using to ascribe design for use/criticism. If we cannot even agree on a set of norms used to describe "design" their is no point in carrying the conversation further as the natural end would be confusion. For example, how could anyone practice science without first establishing norms for measuring distance, time, mass etc,  The end result would just be much confusion. We need an Inter-Subjective consensus before we can begin discussion.

When we say that the universe was designed, here is the definition of the design that we are talking about:

[I]•  To create or contrive for a particular purpose or effect: a game designed to appeal to all ages.
•  To have as a goal or purpose; intend.
•  To create or execute in an artistic or highly skilled manner.[/I]

(American Heritage Dictionary) http://www.answers.com/topic/design

I think that the existence universe fits into the above definition, hence the universe was designed.

@Krayola,

Thanks for your response, I will treat the points you raised accordingly:

Krayola:

Do you have any data correlating frequency and/or severity of natural disasters to level of technological advancement? 

I don’t need to show any special date, just ask yourself "which race contributed the most to the technological advancement of mankind?" Then ask yourself which part of the glob that their cultures evolved.

It is clear that the people who contributed the most to the technological advancement of the world are people from the temperate regions of the globe.

Just look at the glob, the developed areas and were we have humans with the best work ethics are in the temperate regions. Look at continents like Europe and compare it with a continent like Africa. Even in continents that spread across the equator and the temperate regions of the world, the part extending to the temperate regions are often more developed. Look at Africa, North Africa extends to the temperate part of the world, and North Africa is most developed in Africa. Look at the continents of North and South America; in the continent of North America, the most developed parts are USA and Canada, both of which belong to the temperate region of the globe. In the continent of South America, we see the same picture unfolding; the most developed parts are countries like Argentina which are in the temperate region of the globe.  Look at Asia too. There is a reason why the impoverished countries are clustered in between the temperate regions, around the equator where there is perpetual summer. Today most of the developments we have in such countries are borrowed or invented by cultures from the temperate regions. Please take good look at the map of the world in this link, temperate regions are the regions highlighted in purple:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World_map_temperate.svg

The bottom line is that changes in whether( winter, summer, fall, spring) forced the people who evolved in such areas to develop, use their brains or perish; as opposed to people in the equatorial areas where the weather is always warm and conducive for life, people in these areas can afford to be lazy.

Krayola:

I did some checking and the far East and middle east are historically the worst hit areas for natural disasters. . except diseases which are more evenly spread.  SO far I can find nothing to support your theory. This site has a very very comprehensive, detailed list of worldwide disasters from 1900-2008. It's a file you have to download and I've been going through it like say I no get life for a while but your theory is not supported at all. http://infochimps.com/datasets/disasters-wordwide-from-1900-2008

What you wrote above goes to prove my theory. Here, first of all let me remind you that the Middle East belongs to the temperate regions of the earth; and according to historians civilization started in the Middle East, in Mesopotamia.

Also the time frame that you checked does not suffice because we are dealing with human development, human evolution not the present era. We are dealing with how weather and affected the evolution of man; hence we are with how the time when cultures or races were still evolving. The present characters, looks and behavior of the races of the world are as a result of the period when they were still evolving these features and that the period that we are dealing with in this thread. 1900-2008 does not suffice because the work ethics or the culture of invention that Europeans have was not developed during 1900-2008.

You cannot use 1900-2008 because at this time the world has become a global village and this prevents people from directly being compelled by natural disasters. I will give an example: If it starts to snow in Nigeria today, you don’t expect this natural change to have, on Nigerian, the effect that it had on the early Europeans. Why? The inventions made by the Europeans are already available and easily accessible to Nigerians. So rather than racking their brains on inventing means to survive the snow, the Nigerians will simply employ or buy the means that the Europeans provided. The Nigerians wouldn’t have to invent the heater because it already invented and available. You see how the present era changes things; it was different in the past eras when people were isolated and had to deal with their problems themselves.

Also in the link that you gave all I see there are disasters that happened in Australia, not the entire world.

Krayola:

For example, the areas most frequently and severely hit by earthquakes are indicated on the maps. Besides Italy, nowhere in Eurpoe even shows up on the radar. California no even pop.  scroll halfway down this page to see the maps http://redmonk.com/sogrady/2010/01/15/earthquake-data/

Look at your link again and carefully please. California definitely popped up. The map deals with countries or nations; California is a state in the country of nation of USA. So the data that you see there corresponding to USA involves California. Read the link that you provided, it made mention of California temblor right in the first paragraph of the article.

You mentioning of Europe in regards to earthquakes does not make your point. The bottom line is that cultures that evolved in the areas of the world frequently hit by earthquakes were pushed to develop means to deal with earthquake. Or rather, countries where there are frequent earthquakes are forced to make technological advancements on how to survive, detect and predict earthquake. California alone has made tremendous advancements in this area.

Krayola:

And based on your theory Africa should have space age flood prediction/prevention technology because flood don dey show us pepper since nineteen gbogboro.

Flood in sub-Saharan Africa!! Really please show me data on how many floods that have occurred in sub-Saharan Africa. I mean real floods that threaten to wipe out an entire population; floods like tsunami. The Ancient Egyptians were among the first mode made progress in flood control because the Nile always flooded and destroyed their farms.

Krayola:

If u can show me some kinda paper or report from anthropologists or any academics or sumn that shows a corelation between natural disasters and technological advancement I will really really appreciate it. I don't want to dismiss your theory until I'm sure it deserves to be dismissed. My own sense tells me it's not valid. . . but what do I know 

To be honest this theory of yours is so out there that I don't even know how to respond to it.

The same old Nigerian or sub-Saharan African mentality, “give it to me on a platter of Gold.” You don’t have to wait for anthropologists or any academics to do your thinking for you. You are an intelligent and educated person, you can do this research on yourself; perhaps you may be the first to develop a theory and that will rank us(Nigerians) higher in the eyes of the world.

But this is as clear as abc; just look at the world map.

But in this case it is not a question of developing a new theory; Science has confirmed that organism, including man, adapt to its environment. The weather, and natural catastrophes peculiar to a place are parts of the environment which the organism adapt to.  Haven’t they said it all; what else do you want academics to say. Fishes adapted to living in water by developing gills; Europeans adapted to the winter by using their brains and inventing heaters, or by developing a resourceful culture of invention; apart from developing narrow noses and etc. Culture is also a form of adaptation, not all adaptations are biological.

Science even went as far as telling us that weather and climate affects our moods and behavior. What else do you want them to say?

But here is chronological list of how the warfare against weather has impacted technological development:

http://www.cuttingedge.org/news/n1206.cfm (Disregard the religious tone of this article; at the end it gives a valid list of technology and weather)

Also check this out: http://celebrating200years.noaa.gov/magazine/phased_array_radar/welcome.html

The existence of bodies like the NOAA is a sure evidence of how weather forces man to develop technologically. Here is NOAA website: http://www.noaa.gov/

Here is how the battle against tornadoes helps in the developments and advancement of the RADAR technology:  http://celebrating200years.noaa.gov/magazine/phased_array_radar/welcome.html

Also here is a good article to read about how weather affected history; even in the science and technology of warfare. http://www.livescience.com/history/top10_weather_history-1.html


Thank a lot.

Idehn:

This debate continues, but still not a single person has offered formal criterion for designating design. I do not think that anyone has even defined the word yet.

@Jenwitemi Probability and statistics are an integral part of physics and engineering. The most direct and well known example would be in quantum mechanics. Phenomenon like quantum tunneling(diodes/transistors), photon scattering(lasers), and photon diffraction(cameras/lasers) are a few examples that you have likely benefited from without even knowing it. Statistics and probability in terms of cosmology and biology should not be treated with any less credibility than it is in quantum physics. If anything, biology is merely a subset of chemistry, which is itself a subset of physics. It is much the same with cosmology.

Purpose and meaning are subjective and only exist within the minds of individuals. Naturally they are differ from person to person. It is hubris for we as humans on a small rock, in a solar system at the edge of the Milky Way galaxy(one of many), to project meaning and purpose onto Universe as if it is for lack of a better word meaningful.

@Idehn
How are you?

Your line of argument wouldn’t get us anywhere. While I agree that everything exists in the mind; in this thread we are looking at the universe from within the mind.

If we go by your argument, then one can argue that the universe the way that we see it doesn’t exist as such. One can also argue that we don’t exist at all as such. Without the mind or perception, the universe has no form, and there is nothing like solidity and etc. Everything is energy we see it the way we do because our senses try to make sense of the impulses they receive from the outside. We can never see the outside the way it really is.

You can’t use the mind where it suits and disregard it where it doesn’t suit your argument. We can either argue from the perspective of the mind or from without the perspective of the mind. You can mix the two just to win the argument.

Also if one can ague that the meaning we see in the universe is false because it only exist in our mind, or because it is only the perception of our minds; then one can also argue that all the premises of science are false because they are just interpretations of the universe as it appears to our mind or our senses or as observed by our senses.

The bottom line it that it doesn’t matter what the universe actually looks like, we will never know this. But as long as we are all humans, our minds have evolved to perceive the universe within a narrow range or perception peculiar to humans; in other words, humans perceive things relatively alike, but still within a narrow or certain range.

Like all instruments of measurement, each is only accurate to a certain extent. But as long as we use the same instrument through out an entire experiment, we are okay; this is a scientific principle.

We should apply the same principle in the argument; as long as we all base our argument from the perception of humans we can arrive at a reliable conclusion.

You can’t mix the two perspectives in the same argument; just as you can’t use two different measuring tools, with different ranges of accuracy, in the same experiment.


Thanks

mazaje:

@ Justcool. . .I really appreciate your rejoinders. . .That was what I expected for aletheia but he just kept running round and round in a circle. . . .

Thank you too.

mazaje:

Don't get me wrong because I never stated that any thing was purposeless, I just wanted him to tell me the purpose since he claimed to have special knowledge. . . .The primary purpose of every living thing on earth and in other parts of the universe if there are any is SURVIVAL. . . . .

Okay I understand where you are coming from and I agree with your premise on the purpose of every living thing.

mazaje:

This is a VERY FALSE statement. . . .Scientists currently believe that 96% of the universe is either dark matter or dark energy, meaning that a scant 4% of the universe is even conceptually accessible by us. Of that 4%, virtually all of it is comprised of empty space some two degrees above absolute zero, which is instantly lethal to living beings. So essentially the universe is almost entirely off-limits to humanity and other living beings, and of that which is not off-limits, almost all of that is trying to kill us or destroy life. Life can not survive out there in space in its natural form, so the nation that the universe was created or designed for life is false. . . . .

The fact that most part of the universe is inhospitable for life does not imply that the universe is not designed for life; all the conditions necessary for the life exists on earth and since the earth is part of the universe, one can say that the universe is designed for life.

The whole part of thing does not have to be hospitable to that which it is designed for. Think about your house, you can only live in the rooms of your house; the others parts of the house like the roof, the walls, the pillars are inhospitable for you. Does this mean that the house is not designed for you? No!

Think about a man in a rocket; the cubicle that is designed for the man, the only place that is habitable for the man in the entire rocket does not represent 4% of the entire rocket, yet the rocket is designed for him.

The whole universe doesn’t need to harbor live or be habitable for life, to be designed for life; therefore I think my premise holds.


Thanks

Krayola:

What about the gun, the printing press, the washing machine, toilet paper, the automobile, air conditioning . . What natural factors led to these inventions and does the world outside Africa have a monopoly on these factors?

I never said that ALL inventions are instigated by natural disaster. Like they say “necessity is the mother of all inventions”. Survival of natural disasters is a necessity for the survival of humans; hence natural disaster gave humans the impetus to so many inventions.

But even the things that you mentioned above are driven by mans urge to deal with nature and natural disasters. Let’s quickly go through the items you presented.

Gun—Part of the reasons why guns are invented was to secure one from threats in the environment like enemies and etc; also included are natural threats like wild animals and etc. It also helps man in hunting wild animals, in dealing with very fast animals. Nature definitely is definitely one of the factors that instigated man to make advancement in weaponry.

Printing Press—Helps man spread the news of an oncoming natural disaster faster than he would have been able to. Men that have survived natural disasters can write a book about how to deal with such disasters and hence preserve their knowledge and also circulate it easier. Natural disasters may not directly be the instigator to the invention of the Printing press but it definitely contributed in the evolution of printing. Some books are printed to survive natural disasters like rain and extreme cold.

Washing machine – Isn’t this obvious!!!! Our forefathers didn’t have to invent a washing machine because they didn’t have as much impetus or need for it as the European had. Rivers always flowed in Sub Sahara Africa, and the sun is always there to dry your cloths after washing them; while in Europe during winter the rivers and lakes are frozen. How do you was your cloths in a very cold water or in a frozen water. They had to invent machine that heats up the water, washes cloths and dries the cloths for them. Otherwise how do you dry cloths in winter when the sunlight is hardly felt?

Toilet Paper – Isn’t this obvious. In Africa due to the perpetual summer and evergreen forests and ever flowing rives, our forefathers had very little impetus towards looking for alternative means to wipe themselves. They can relieve themselves in the next forest and take a bath in the next river. What do they need toilet paper for? Nature gave it all to them. In Europe during winter everywhere is frozen, it is extremely uncomfortable and injuries to health to take off your cloths in the cold weather to relieve yourself. And afterwards you wouldn’t find rivers or liquid water to wash off with. Hence they had to think of a way to relieve themselves inside the warmth of their houses, and invent material in place of water with which they can wipe themselves.

Automobile—Isn’t this obvious!! Have you ever tried traveling in winter? No matter how warmly you are dressed after a while of walking in the cold winter you will start freezing. Hence they had to look for a way to travel in a container in which the temperature is controlled. Even the ancient roman horse driven vehicles, some of them have a cubicle enclosed and protected from the elements. All these contributed in the development of automobiles.

Air conditioning – Here you are definitely kidding!! The temperatures pretty much remains at the same comfortable zone all year round in Africa, hence the African has the least need to control or condition the temperatures of the air in his environment. In Europe during summer it’s very hot and during winter it’s very cold. Europeans in their quest to achieve a relatively stable temperature invented air conditioners. Since they are used to a relatively cool weather, with an air conditioner they can maintain this coolness during summer, and maintain it also during winter. The air conditioner helps to maintain a narrow range of temperature in a room by giving out cold air when the room is hot and giving out warm air when the room is cold.

Moreover even if natural disaster instigated them to only a few inventions; by inventing these few inventions they developed a culture of invention, while the African remained in the state of relying on nature to provide for him.

Nature is too kind to Africans. The harshness or severity of weather in Europe is the best thing that ever happened to cultures that evolved in Europe. Histories have been wondering why some tribes of people ventured into the cold, severe and unmerciful hands of European weather, while some remained in the warm and comfortable cradle of mother Africa.

Thanks

@Krayola

Krayola:

I did not ask for the definition of an ecosystem. I asked u to explain how EVERY species in an ecosystem is INDISPENSABLE and what exactly u mean by the term when u use it. U did not deal with the question i raised. How is every species indispensable? Defining an ecosystem has nothing to do with what i asked u.

Every creature is INDISPENSIBLE to an Eco system because the creatures don’t just contribute to the ecosystem but they are part of the ecosystem. So if any creature is removed that particular ecosystem collapses in that it changes.

Krayola:

My question is that did the stripes appear BECAUSE they helped zebras avoid predators, or did they appear by chance and then helped those that had them outlive those that didn't and pass the genes on. That makes a big difference to your theory

Yes Zebras developed the stripes in as a strategy to evade preys like lions. But your argument here has no bases because even if the strips appeared by chance the fact remains that the existence of lion in the environment affected the evolution of Zebras. If there were no lions then the Zebras that evolved didn’t evolve strips may have survived along with those that did. In the end the resultant of would have been very different from what it is today.

The strips made Zebras what they are today, it helped them survive some of the threats of being eaten by lions; weather this strips came by chance or not does not matter here. What matters is that the danger presented by lions affected the evolution of Zebras.

Krayola:

You said the universe is designed for the life in it to thrive. I'm saying how did u come to this knowledge of the universe. Not just our planet, not just our solar system, but the whole universe. . .

Is our earth not part of our universe? The fact that there are parts of the universe hostile to life does not disprove that the universe is designed for life. You car is designed to accommodate you, but you can only be accommodated in a small potion of the car, in the seats; the fact that other parts of the car, like the engine, the tires and the roof, are uncomfortable and inhabitable to humans does not mean that the car is not designed for humans.

Also some scientists believe that the chances of earth being the only planet in the universe that harbors life is very slim.

Krayola:


They are just words. context is everything. why is nudity in classical art considered beautiful, but an exotic dancer considered obscene by many? I was expressing myself in a way that comes naturally to me. They were not insults nor were they meant to ridicule anybody. I also think under aged kids have no business on a public internet forum. I get your point tho and i will tone it down.

You didn’t insult anybody, that not what I mean by obscenities. You used the “F” words. Arts that involve nudity are usually restricted to children and usually came with a warning. Even rap music that contains such words is labeled, with a warning.

I believe that it is wrong to display classical arts involving nudity to the full view of under aged people. I know this is done in some places but I think it is wrong.

Thank you

@Krayola

Krayola:

No offence but I think this is pretty fukn bogus.  Now technological advancement is as a direct result of occurrence of natural disaster in a specific area? Puhleeaaasssee.  


Capitalism, greed, curiosity are better explanations for tech advancement than natural disasters IMO. I'm yet to see technology that helps curb natural disasters. A house will keep u dry in the rain, but will collapse on u in an earthquake

Here you are kidding right? I will give you a few inventions: weather Doppler, weather raiders, earthquake dictators, earthquake warning devices, accelerometers, seismology and etc.

How many cities in Nigeria have a sound fire department? Not many. Why? Because they can afford not to, since natural fire disasters hardly occur in Nigeria.

Places like California cannot afford not have a very very very sound fire department in all cities. Have you ever heard California wild fires?  How much advancement have our scientists in Nigeria done in understanding fire and how to prevent them? None.

How Seismologist does we have in Nigeria? Places like California cannot afford not have as many sound ones as possible. The threat of earthquake has instigated them to develop that field of knowledge called seismology. And yes technology helps in dictation natural disasters before hand; it helps in communicating to the people of the approaching disaster; it helps in preventing a lot of deaths and etc. I can go on and on and on.  In downtown Los Angeles they have skyscrapers that have pliers of shock absorbers so that during earthquake they never fail. What gave the engineers the urge to develop this technology?

Part of the reason why Africa is backwards technologically is that nature is too kind and gentle with us. While the ancient Europeans were racking their brains trying to figure out how to survive the next winter; our forefathers were happily basking in the all-year-round warmth of sub Sahara Africa. The Europeans had to invent thick clothing, they had to invent heaters or the winter will kill most of them. I can go on and on but I hope you got the gist.

Thanks

@Krayola

Krayola:

I think this is just your opinion. If you have credible data to back this up I would love to see it. I don't think the ecosystem's health hinges on the survival of any one species, or even any several species. Certain species survival might hinge on the ecosystem continuing in a specific state, but I doubt it's the other way around. IMO there are lots of disposable creatures. Creatures may serve some "purpose" in the ecosystem, but that does not equate to them being indispensable. If you can elaborate on this "indispensable" part it would be great. I think it just sounds nice to think we are all special pieces of one puzzle. If a species becomes extinct. , others that need it to survive may be threatened, but this may just be an opportunity for others to thrive. The composition of the ecosystem may change, but thats about it IMO. I ain't no biologist or scientist tho so I could be wrong. I just don't buy that indispensable stuff.

IMO, wipe us out and neither the ecosystem nor universe would give a flyin fukc!!

What is ecosystem? We live in the age of information; why don’t you type in ecosystem on your search bar and read the definition.

The eco system comprises the entire organism in an environment, if you remove one organism the ecosystem changes, the environment changes. Creatures evolve to survive their environment; in a different environment the evolution of creatures takes a different course. That’s why species that evolved in isolation, like islands, look different and behave definitely than their cousins in the mainland.

Please read the definition of the ecosystem here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecosystem

Krayola:

Is that really how it works? do species develop features to a specific end, or do the features occur by chance/accident and when beneficial, help those with the features to thrive? What I mean is, for ezzampul did zebras develop stripes in response to a threat, or did some just happen to develop stripes which helped them to outlive those that did not? Maybe someone that understands how this stuff works can explain to us. This explanation u have given seems too convenient. Nature isn't that neat/tidy. At least not IMO.

Yes that’s how it works. Creatures adapt to their environments by developing traits that help them survive the dangers of the environment. Adaptation is a single step in the journey of evolution, although not all adaptations lead to evolution.

Zebras developed strips as strategy for their survival. Some scientists believe that it is a camouflage because a lion cannot make out one zebra from a herd of Zebras owing to the strips which confuse the lion. Do you ever watch National Geographic channel, discovery or science channel? A lion hardly ever chases a herd of Zebras, but when one ventures away from the heard that’s when the lion chases it.

But don’t take my words for it. Goggle it or visit an evolutionary biologist. You can start by reading this:
http://whyzz.com/why-do-zebras-have-stripes
http://whyzz.com/answer/detail/search/why+do+creatures+evolve/qid/133/subcategory/48/category/7

Krayola:


How much life is in the universe? WHat sort of data is this your theory about the universe based on, Life on earth? or have u access to some other life elsewhere in the universe that we do not? I don't think what happens on earth, or in our solar system, is enough to make any inferences about the universe as a whole. Earth may be in a slightly ordered part of the universe. . . doesn't make the entire universe that way, and could also just be a chance occurrence. What I'm saying pretty much is that even if the universe may not be a chance occurrence, the earth very well could be. How do u argue from a created universe (not that u have shown that, but we kinda need to move on from that) to a purposeful earth. One does not follow from, or even remotely suggest the other.

Honestly I have no idea what you are talking about here.

Also it is not a good idea to use obscenities, like in a forum like this where under aged kids have access to.

Thank you.

@mazaje

Everything that exists has purposes, actually not just purpose but many purposes. The fact that some people do not know the purpose of a thing does not mean that that thing is purposeless. At this point science has evolved to the stage that it can tell you, at least one purpose, of every physical thing in the universe. Lets us quickly go through the things you listed as being purposeless.

mazaje:

It is a fallacy because you are just begging the question. . . . .

I only asked you to tell me the purpose of the life of a mountain lion. . . .Whats the purpose of the life of a a rattle snake some where in the Arizona desert?. . . .Pls tell me. . .

I want you to tell me what their purpose is. . . .
. . .[

Every creature on earth is an indispensable part of the eco system; every animal, even those invincible are of multipurpose.

The danger that the mountain lion presents in its environment helped in guiding the evolution of other creatures, creatures like man. In the presence on such dangers, the creature can only follow these routes: (1) Evolve towards being almost invincible to the mountain lions; (2) evolve a more sublime body to aid its speed so that it can out run the mountain lion; (3) evolved larger brains so that it can out smart the mountain lion.

Here we have identified 3 major purposes that the mountain lion served in the preservation and evolution of life. Creatures like Zebras followed route (1), they evolved strips which makes them difficult to make out by the lions; lions have poor vision in the day time.
Creatures like humans followed route (3). The dangers presented by creatures like the mountain lion and the rattle snake it one of the impetuous that made prehistoric Homo sapiens develop huge brain; and we humans are products of this evolution. With our huge brains we are equipped with a greater intelligence which enables us to easily outsmart a mountain lion.

Some creatures are immune to the venom of the rattle snakes; some creatures like pigs have thick layers of fat on their skin that prevents the penetration of venom into the blood steam

I can go on and on; but the fact remains such dangers, as those presented by the rattle snake and the mountain lion, helped in making so many creatures what they are today. This danger causes creatures to be on the alert, to move, and their by preventing indolence; this alertness, this movement is very necessary for a healthy life. For where there is lack or movement, lack of exercise, the creature easily.

mazaje:

I never said the universe was designed,I only said that I believe it was created rather than it appearing as a result of chance. . . .The universe does not look as if it was designed for anything. . . .If you thionk it was designed, then what was it designed for?. . .

The universe is designed for the life in it to thrive; for the creatures in it to evolve, or come into being. Everything in the earth is so precisely geared to accommodate life.

The question is whether this life evolved as a result of the conditions or whether the condition is put in place so that life can thrive.

The possibility of these conditions coming into being by chance is extremely slim; I chose to believe that it was purposely planed to accommodate life.

mazaje:

This is a fallacy. . . .Lets just start with our solar system. . .What is the purpose of the 12 planets surrounding planet Jupiter? What is the purpose of asteroids, comets, and the asteroid belt that exist in our solar system? What is the purpose of all the dwarf planets in our solar system? What is the purpose of planet Venus?. . . .What is the purpose of all the billions of stars in our galaxy alone that are just moving away from each other and expanding into space?. . . .The mounting lion is part of the universe and its purpose is what? or is it everything in the universe that has a purpose? What is the purpose of some gas giants(big stars) that have no planets orbiting around them? They are just there(kind of dead but still part of the universe), what exactly is their purpose?. . . .

Have you ever taken a look at the night sky? The stars and planets add to the beauty of the night sky.

Every planet has a radiation which it sends out to the entire universe; these radiations also help life on earth.

The gravity of each planet, each moon is important in that it helps to maintain the order of the movement of the solar systems. I will give an example, if you take away our moon, this will cause the earth to revolve and rotate slower; this consequence of this is that the earth will no longer be able to maintain its distance from the sun. The earth may plunge into the sun or collide with Venus or Mercury. The same is applicable with Jupiter and her moons.

Every planet in our solar system help life on earth in a way, i.e. the gravity of the moon help plants to grow and tides to arise in the ocean. Venus helps life on earth too in that her radiations reaches the earth. Also it adds to the beauty of the night sky, and it has inspired men as long as man has been on earth, to seek to understand what it is. In this way it helps men to grow in knowledge. It has inspired many poems and many art; all these help in the development of the language and the mood or man, which in-turn will affect or change his physical look.
The asteroids help in shaping the planets or building the planets; they hit planets and change the shape pf the planets; sometime they hit a large planet causing it to split into two planets or resulting in a moon for the planet. Some scientists have speculated that this is how our moon was formed. Asteroids also impact the evolution of live on a planet, the asteroids that hit the earth long time give caused the extinction of the Dinosaurs, allowing Homo sapiens to evolve. Also some scientists have speculated that live on earth or the basic building blocks of life was deposited by an asteroid or a comet. This is called transpermia.

mazaje:

Yes and I repeat, I dont know is the most rational position to take, you claim to know that everything that is alive has a purpose, so pls tell me what is the purpose of a hurricane and the purpose of your life here on earth. . . .

Isn’t this obvious? It’s quite simple. Necessity is the mother of all inventions. Hurricanes, tornadoes and etc gives man the impetus to evolve, to use his brain, to seek out and understand the laws of nature that guides these processes so that he can control them, predict them and escape them.

Look at countries where there are a more dangers of natural disasters; these countries are the most technically advanced countries today; as opposed to Nigeria where nature is always gentle, and hence the people are lazy and don’t have good work ethics. Compare California, where there are always earthquakes with Nigeria. Three days ago a huge tree fell and destroyed the power lines here in California, within minutes Edison(Electricity Power supply company) was already there fixing it; I remember in Nigerian if such a thing happens, you have to go beg and bribe NEPA before they will show up, and they usually show up after days or weeks. The constant danger of natural disasters has caused the western world to learn to always be ready, to advance in technology and etc.

The purpose of all life is to survive or to thrive, to survive; the purpose of every man's life is to find supreme happiness and security. Man never finds supreme happiness in material or physical things, only in spiritual things. Hence the purpose of our lives to find ourselves spiritually. In the every human spirit there is the knowledge of the existence of God; the spirit can know of God and it only finds happiness in utilizing this knowledge, which means following the promptings of one's spirit; thus one can only find supreme happiness in following the promptings of his/her spirit, which is tantamount to living according to the will of God.

Everything that exists has many purposes.

Thanks

akacoded:

, i wonder why the adherents of the grail message think they know 'truths' to the extent that they contradict themselves, my grudge with you guys is that you have taken your so called 'book of light' or 'truth' to the extent that you hold it in high esteem even more than the Holy Bible, if i ask 4 a reason for this i know your reply will be that the Bible does not contain all truth and i bet the grail message by abd du shin contains all truth , Jah help!!!!!

@akacoded
Is your question supposed to be a rhetorical one? What’s the point of asking a question when you think you already know the answer?

We are not here to compare the Grail Message with the Bible, neither are we here judge the Bible; we only offer our perceptions on the questions asked based on our knowledge drawn from the Grail Message.

People have the right to hold whatever view or book, that they are convinced to be true, sacred. People have the right to hold the Bible, the Koran, the Bhagavad-Gita, and etc sacred; everybody has a freewill given to them by God.

Trying to force anybody to hold a particular book sacred is interfering with the individual’s God given freewill; the choice on what book to hold sacred should remain with the individual's and not yours. You can only offer your convictions to others but don’t demand or force them to hold your convictions in high esteem or live by it, the choice should be theirs not yours.

And please what contradiction are you talking about? Do you mind pointing it out?

Deep Sight:

Thank you sincerely justcool for taking the time to explain. I suppose all the notions of 'unsubstantiate core' etc were problematic for me. I sincerely appreciate your elucidations.

Thank your too! It's always a pleasure to dialogue with you.


@all

Here is a program, on American radio, sponsored by The Grail Movement of America; The program deals with Abd-ru-shin and His Grail Message. Click the following link to listen:

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/grail-publications/2010/12/06/the-work-of-abd-ru-shin-author-of-in-the-light-of-truth-the-grail-message


Thanks

@Deepsight

To futher explain to you why I don't want to spend all the time assessing Abd-ru-shin rather than His message.
Please consider this excerpt from the Grail Message:

“Any inwardly free man will always assess a matter or a teaching according to what it brings, not according to who brings it, . . . ,  Gold is gold, whether a prince or a beggar holds it in his hand.” Abd-Ru-Shin.
(Elipsis-used to convey omition of a sentence- are mine)


Below is a preface to the Book "Question and Answers"; a preface written by Abd-ru-shin:

"I often receive letters of genuine gratitude, which arouse joy in me. The serious seeker, however, who through the lectures has become a finding one, can express his thanks for that only to God Himself. Although I was able to become the mediator, the gift is not from me. I am nothing without God, nor could I give anything without Him.

As an example I would only like to cite the following: When a gift is brought to a man by a servant, he does not thank the servant, but the giver himself. It is no different here. If I am permitted to draw from sources which are closed to others, then surely I myself have the greatest cause for thanking Him Who grants me this!"  
Abd-ru-shin

In the above the humble and modest Abd-ru-shin compared Himself to a mediator, a servant permitted to draw from sources which are closed to others, and who have the greatest cause to thank God. He clearly stated, “I am nothing without God, nor could I give anything without Him.”

Does this sound like a man deifying himself?

I can also show excerpts from the Grail Message where He expressed concern because the newspaper referred to him as “the messiah of Tyrol”; but since you are familiar with the Grail message I assume that you have come across that part of the message.

One must investigate a case very well and be very sure before he pronounces judgment on another person. Abd-ru-shin does not deserve to be grouped among men who deify themselves. Abd-ru-shin never claimed to be God, neither did He ever try to deify himself.

Deep Sight:

This alone I think proves and summraizes that which I am trying to say.

What is the innermost core and animating element of a human being? His spirit. Thus the real-human is the spirit. The body is a mere cloak.

You state that Imanuel is the innermost core and animating element of Parsifal. This means that it is simply Imanuel in a cloak!

In the same way if Parsifal is the innermost core of Abd Ru Shin, this simply means that it is really Parsifal - in  Physical Cloak!

That is the true being within: we should look within and not without to discern the true inner identity.

This affirms that it is a mere cloak, while the being within is Imanuel.

This further shows that there is only Imanuel wearing a cloak, much as a human spirit may wear a physical cloak.

The Message is very clear that only God is unsubstantiate. Parsifal is said to carry an unsubstantiate core. What does that infer?

Is your core not you ? ? ?

The Message is very clear that only God is unsubstantiate. Parsifal is said to carry an unsubstantiate core. What does that infer?

Is your core not you ? ? ?

This same can be said for a great many types of spirits and as such changes nothing.

From the point of view of creation, he would be the face of God quite literarily.

This is like saying it was the love of God that took on form and travelled to the earth as Jesus.

Does that mean that Jesus on Earth was no longer the self same personage as the Son of God in the Divine?

Moreso the Message is very clear when it said, which I quoted for you - "It was Parsifal who was on Earth in Abd Ru Shin."

By inference and implication, he did.

For only God is unsubstantiate, he says. And yet, following the message, it accedes that Abd Ru Shin's core is unsubstatiate: beacause it says it was Parsifal that was on Earth in Abd Ru Shin, and it says that Parsifal's core is unsubstantiate.

@Deepsight

The point that I am trying to make which you refuse to see is that to carry an unsubstantiate core does not make the person God.

Granted Jesus and Imanuel, while they were on earth carried unsubstantaite cores; but this only makes them sons of God and not God Himself.

For the sake of understanding, let us define God. God is that which is completely independent! This definition already shows that it is wrong to call the two sons of God, Jesus and Imanuel, God.

While on earth Jesus still depended on the father, so did Imanuel. Jesus made it clear that His father is greater than Him.

Calling Jesus and Imanuel God is like calling a man Paradise or the spiritual realm. A man carries a part of Paradise or a part of the spiritual realm within him. This does not make the man Paradise or the spiritual realm. Just as a cup of water gotten from the ocean is a part of the ocean and not the ocean itself.

This does not reduce Jesus and Imanuel to mere human beings or Spirits, for even though they are not God they are Divine unsubstantiate beings; they are animated by Divine unsubstantiate cores, or by God; while human beings are spiritual beings animated by a spiritual core.

Both sons of God prayed to God and served God with every fiber of their beings. They never asked anybody to worship them. They maintained that only God should be worshipped or prayed to.

How else would I make you understand this? I repeat: The two sons of God are Jesus and Imanuel; these two sons of God are not God but sons of God.

I will leave you now with three excerpts, one from the Bible and the other two from the Grail Message. Please examine these two quotations with your intuition and tell me what comes to live within you, in the way of realization, after reading them.

“You heard me say, ‘I am going away and I am coming back to you.’ If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I.’ (John 14:28)

“In your small thinking you will then no longer ask to [I]Whom[/I] you shall and may pray. There is but [I]One[/I] to Whom you are allowed to dedicate your prayers, only One: GOD!”    
Abd-ru-shin. (From the lecture “ASK AND IT SHALL BE GIVEN UNTO YOU!” Volume III of [I]In The Light of Truth: The Grail Message.[/I])

“Turn [I]only[/I] to [I]Him[/I] when you pray; for it is to Him alone that gratitude is due and to Him alone you yourself belong, Oh Man, because only through His great Love were you able to come into existence!”  
Abd-ru-shin. (From the lecture “ASK AND IT SHALL BE GIVEN UNTO YOU!” Volume III of [I]In The Light of Truth: The Grail Message.[/I])

Do these excerpts sound like men who deify themselves? No! I heard some of the men who claim to be God talk, I will not mention their names; but they often ask their followers to pray to them. Some of them ask their followers to bow down before them, kiss their feet and etc.
I find it very shocking that you compare such men with Jesus and Abd-ru-shin.

As always, remain blessed.

Deep Sight:

Ta. I sense you are riled by my persistence on this subject over the course of many months. If so I do apologize  - as I have had no intention in that regard.

However I need to remind you that my approach in this respect is not unique to Abd Ru Shin. You doubtless are aware that I have expended far greater energies on this Forum speaking against the idea of the divinity of Jesus himself. So I hope that you will appreciate that it is simply my approach to all human claims of divinity. I personally do not believe in such things as the severance of "parts" of God. In my view it is a construct designed by humans to promote ideas of their divinity. The one immutable and eternal God, is, in my view, indivisible.

I should finally also remind you of something I have always told you. Your tendency to shut-down the discussion each time the identity of Abd Ru Shin is probed will certainly convey an impression to the mind of the general reader that there is something about his identity that you wish to hide: that there are aspects of the teachings of the Grail Message that you are dis-inclined to place in the public domain.

I warn you again that most people will rightfully become and remain suspicious of any teaching that is shrouded in secrecy.

Finally I take in good faith your decision to avoid an email from me: whilst i note that the specific information for which you gave the email has infact not been discussed here. That information was with regard to that which happened to Abd Ru Shin after he had conveyed the message. No matter, as I sense that an open probe of this matter is not to your taste.

Stay blessed too, bro.

I understand where you are coming from here. My refusing to make Abd-ru-shin the center of my discussion does not make the Grail message appear mysterious. The Grail Massage speaks in a very simple and clear terms allowing no room for mysticism or mysteriousness.

The center of the explanations in the Grail Message is God; and this should be the center of our discussion.

Every reader of this thread can pick up the Message and read it him/herself. So my refusing to examine Abd-ru-shin's personality rather than the Truth He brought does not make the Grail Message mysterious in any way.

I try to avoid misrepresenting the Grail Message; there is a reason why the lectures are arranged in sequence. I believe that it is the writer's wish that the message should be read in this sequence. One lecture builds into the next; each lecture is a foundation or a prerequisite to the next; therefore taking things out of sequence is tantamount to misrepresenting the Grail Message.

If you introduce a child to mathematics by teaching him/her calculus, this may make the child to hate math and consequently this child may never be good in math. Such introduction is tantamount to a wrong representation of math.

This is why in forums like this, it better to deal with the basic things first. I believe this is conforming to the wish of the author.

But for you who have read the entire message, I will not hold from discussing anything with you, as long as we both remain objective, and our reason for discussion is not born out of vanity but out of an inner urge to grasp the Truth.


Also, I understand that you oppose all claims of Divinity by humans; but you are overlooking one very important point. The men who deify themselves always claim that they are God on earth. Hence that God is nowhere else; that they are God in His entirety. I don’t want to mention their names but you know what I am talking about. A claim that, not even Jesus, made; for Jesus made it clear that the Father is greater than Him.

I guess this is what made the claims of Jesus, as well as the explanations about the son of man given in the Grail message different from the cliam of the men who deify themselves.

Another very fine distinction which carries a lot of weight is that in that case of Jesus and in the explanations about the son of man given in the Grail message, each individual is left to come to the perception of recognition of the identity himself.

Jesus never forced people to accept that He was the son of God; neither did He speak for Himself as such. God speaks for His sons. They carry signs which no prophet, magician, or etc has been able to carry. This sign is the Living cross that radiates from them and the Dove above their heads.

A lot of people saw these signs with Jesus. Jesus’ father, Joseph, saw it on his death bed, although this is not recorded in the bible. John the Baptist also saw these signs, and that was how he recognized Jesus.

These signs(the Cross and the Dove) were seen with the son of man too.

So in the case of Jesus and Imanuel the son of man, it was not just a claim but a reality, a reality authenticated by the signs(insignia) that they carried.

There is no way I can teach you to recognize the sons of God; this is done only with the intuition. It can also be given from above as a special gift from God. As happened with Peter, hence “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven.” Mathew 16:17

God speak for His sons, my words are of no avail here. We will only argue eternally, because my words are not enough to grant you recognition.
Their (the two sons of God) words also speak for them or bear witness to their origin. Examine the true teachings of Jesus with your intuition, you will only arrive at the fact that who ever brought those words was not a mere human being or a mare prophet, your intuition will grasp that the words came from God. The same is applicable to the word brought by the son of man.
"My sheep know my voice, and I know them, and they follow me" (John 10:27) Anybody who still pay attention to his intuition, is like the sheep; for he will recognize the voice of God in the message of Jesus and Imanuel.

Not to mention that usually natural phenomena happen in nature whenever Divinity visits the earth in the two sons of God. Things like the star of Bethlehem and etc bear witness to the arival of a son of God.

Deep Sight:

That information was with regard to that which happened to Abd Ru Shin after he had conveyed the message. No matter, as I sense that an open probe of this matter is not to your taste.

Actually I forgot about this when I said there is no need writing to me anymore. I take back my words. You can write to if you want, I will gladly reply.

I am not upset with you in any way; neither have I taken offence at anything you have said. I am only considering others who may not have read the message. This consideration of others is the love that Jesus spoke about when He said "Love thy neighbor as thyself." The Grail message is the greatest book I have ever read in my life; I will never do anything that may prevent another person from reading the book, and thus deny the person of a life changing experience. Such denial or prevention would be tantamount to harming ones neighbor. And also I am trying to comply with the wish of the author who never claimed He was God, and who never wished to be worshiped or regarded as God.

Thanks and remain blessed.



“With my Word I lead you back to God, from Whom you gradually allowed yourselves to become estranged through all those who place their human pseudo-knowledge above the Wisdom of GOD”
Abd-ru-shin

@Pastor AIO

Welcome on board!

I already explained that everything that happens in creation sends ripples of waves throughout creation; sensitive spirits absorb these ripples and from it decipher the happening. This happening is often passed down in various cultures across the earth as legends, visions and fairy tales.

It happens that during the absorbing of the event, the maturity of the spirit or the purity of the subtler body through which the individual absorbs interferes with the absorption. One can absorb only as much as his/her inner maturity allows him or her. This is quite natural, even in earthly classrooms each student can only learn as much as his intelligence allows him.  Also the purity, the health or the condition of the subtler bodies, through which the event is absorbed also interfere with absorbing of the event. Just as it happens with people who have unhealthy ears; a man's bad hearing may interfere with his hearing of an event and consequently he will fail to hear certain things or hear them exactly as they were said. Thus some of these non-earthly happenings were not absorbed or received purely.

Then after absorption or reception comes passing it down or understanding it. This already implies a narrowing because such non-earthly events have to be narrowed or made tangible for the brain to understand them. Here again the event suffers another possible misrepresentation. The brain only uses what it is familiar with to represent rays arising from an event.

I will give an example: Two people an Igbo and a Yoruba perceives a supra-earthly happening where an evil figure kills a man. To the Igbo who by his culture has been taught that "ekwensu" is the embodiment of evil; to make the event more tangible, his brain will interfere and he will see the evil figure shown to him as “ekwensu”. And consequently, in his perception, the evil figure shown to him will talk, walk and behave like he has known "ekwensu" to behave. The Yoruba man on passing down the same event will identify the evil figure as "Eshu"; and consequently in the Yoruba’s version this evil figure will exhibits the characters of “Eshu”.

You see how the same event can give rise to differing stories or mythologies across cultures. But despite these differences, one who perceives intuitively will easily see beyond the different cultural cloaks, the true event; and consequently such a person will know that the two different myths are actually the same.

And finally in passing down these myths from generation to generation, more distortions are unintentionally added. The nature of the language, how developed the language is, the proficiency of the language, influence of other cultures and etc; all these in the long run add to the evolution of the myth. Finally the myth may take a completely different nature from the actual even that gave rise to it.

Also writers would come along, story tellers, who in their quest to achieve distinction, would intentionally add things to the myth in their representations of it.

Pastor AIO:

What has all this got to do with Wolfram Von Eschenbach's Parsifal? I remember asking this a while back, about a year or 2 ago, and not receiving a response.

Wolfram Von Eschenbach’s was one of the poets who wrote about Parsifal. The legend of Parsifal had existed among mankind for centuries before Wolfram, so Wolfram did not invent it; neither did Wagner invent it.

They all portrayed their own versions of the legend. The legend itself was based on an actual happening in creation.

This happening is found in the legends of many cultures across the earth; even in the Bible, especially revelation, only that the names of the characters are different due to transmission or passing down as I have explained above.

Even when a called one, a prophet equipped with spiritual vision, is called or sent to earth to receive some events and transmit to mankind; it often happens that the events received are misinterpreted by mankind. In there quest to make these things intelligible to the intellect they misinterpret certain things to be symbolic when those things are tangible things that exist in the planes above. Some people have resorted to regarding the Holy Grail as a symbolic idea; this is the only way they can make sense of it. But the Holy Grail is not symbolic; it is an actual vessel that exists in the Grail castle in the Primordial spiritual plane at the summit of creation.

The event that give rise the European legends of Parsifal actually happened in creation. In the highest point of the sphere of the human spirits who have developed from spirit-germs, where there is a replica of the Grail castle, and where Amfortas was the guardian, priest or king of the Grail. This Grail Castle is a replica of the actual Grail Castle in the Primordial spiritual plane at the summit of the entire creation.

At the summit of each of the planes of creation there stands a Grail castle, and inside the castle a replica of the Grail through which power from the plane above enters. Each Grail castle is a formed according to the nature of plane, and each Grail castle is a replica of the actual Grail Castle in the Primordial spiritual plane at the summit of the entire creation. In this Grail castle at the summit of the Primordial spiritual planes or at the summit of creation is where Parsifal resides as the King of the Grail.

The Grail castle where Amfortas was the priest is the lowest replicas of the actual Grail. Although this castle is not on earth, it is the one closest to man on earth; hence mankind received of the events that happed there, although these events were not passed-down accurately like I already explained. Amfortas succumbed to the temptations of Lucifer, and consequently could no longer perform his task of uncovering the Grail at the right time so that the energy that sustains subsequent creation can flow through the Grail into the worlds below.

The Knights at this lowest replica of the Grail castle prayed to God for help. Had God not helped, the whole world(subsequent creation) would have disintegrated and died from the starvation of power that flows from the Grail.

In answer to this prayer, and to save subsequent creation, Parsifal incarnated into this ethereal plane. At first with His spiritual eyes closed, He did not know His origin. But Lucifer recognized Him, and sent his own volitions (Klingsor) to destroy Parsifal. In his struggle against Lucifer, Parsifal’s spiritual eyes opened and he remembered who He was. He vanquished Lucifer and wrested the spear from Lucifer, the spear which Lucifer had used to injure Amfortas. This spear is nothing but the power of God which was given to Lucifer when he was sent to help men, before he became the tempter.

Parsifal then was able to save subsequent creation, by uncovering the Grail and letting the much needed energy flow into subsequent creation. After appointing another person as Guardian of the Grail, in place of Amfortas, and restoring order in that plane Parsifal proceeded else where, He even later arrived on earth.

Of cause Parsifal remains at The Grail castle at the summit of creation, in the Primordial spiritual plane; it is through His volition that He appeared at the plane of the lowest replica of the Grail castle and fought Kundry and Klingsor (Lucifer).

This event sent ripples across the entire creation, and men across different cultures of the earth absorbed this event.

Pastor AIO:

What is the signficance of Parsifal being a Fool?

This is an excellent question! The “Pure Fool” arose out of error in absorbing a supra-earthly happening as I have explained above. When the knights prayed to God for help, they heard a voice from above promising them: “Wait for the Pure Gate,”
“I will send you the Pure Gate.” And etc.

The earthly person absorbing this event made it earthly in order to be understood. The German poets or the sensitive spirits among them who absorbed this happening thought that the voice said “der reine Tor” instead of “das reine Tor”. “Der reine Tor” is German which translates to “the pure fool”; while “das reine Tor” translates to “the Pure Gate.”

Parsifal is the Pure Gate and not the pure fool. It is understandable, like I explained above that the German absorbing these non-earthly happening will hear the words in German language; while the Jew absorbing the same happening will hear the words in the Jewish language.

The expression [I]“der reine Tor”[/I] apart from sounding similar to [I]“das reine Tor”[/I] is more intelligible to the German absorber who already knew Parsifal as innocent and naïve. Since when Parsifal appeared on that plane(in the ethereal realm), naturally His spiritual eyes were covered at first; just as when a child is born on earth, at first it cannot see very well. The child has to learn and mature first before the spiritual core can burst forth; this happens usually at onset of generative power, usually around 18.

So at first Parsifal’s spiritual eyes were blindfolded; yet His inner core shined forth; making Him a very innocent and naïve person. He knew no guile or deception. Naïve to the nature of this material plane which He was not used to because He came from the Primordial Spiritual; naïve, also to everything that is dark(evil and wicked), since coming from the Light, He bore light within Him and Light knows no darkness.

Parsifal had to learn first about how darkness operated before He could fight darkness. Although He learnt how darkness operated, He can never understand darkness(sin, wickedness, evil, weakness and etc) because being from the Light, He was Light. Light can never know darkness. He can only “know of” darkness (or have knowlege of it) but He can never understand it.

Putting all this together you can easily see how the error of describing Parsifal as “the Fool” or “the Pure Fool” found its way into the German legends of Parsifal.

Pastor AIO:

Did he really do all those things that legend says he did? Did he despoil the wife of Lahelin's brother? Is it the same Parsifal whose name means "'right through the middle' for a false love cut its furrow through the middle of your mother's heart."

Some of the things attached to the personality of Parsifal arose from faulty transition, like I already explained. Parsifal did not do any evil for He was Pure. The Pure Gate from God to man. The Jews called Him “the son of man”; this is correct because Parsifal is identical to the son of man. The son of God, through which God created man; hence the son of man. All these expression means the same thing, if you examine them it your intuitive perception. Everything about Parsifal always deals with “from God to man.”

Even the name Parsifal roughly translates to “from God to man.”

Pastor AIO:

I am really confused by this grail legend message because it sounds nothing like the original grail legend except that the names are the same.

Abd-ru-shin did not draw His Grail massage from the ancient Grail legends. He explains the event concerning Parsifal exactly as it happened, free from all errors of translations.

I advice you to read the Grail Message yourself.

Thanks and remain blessed.


I apologize for not offering you my perception on this issue two years ago when you asked of it. Now I have offered it to you; feel free to ask questions where I wasn’t clear enough so that I can clarify.

@Deepsight
I will deal with the issues that you raised but henceforth on this thread I will no longer deal with Abd-ru-shin. Abd-ru-shin wished that the reader of the Grail Message should examine the message objectively. He never wished to create a personality cult; neither did He ever say that He was God.

When a mail-man brings you your mail, you readily pick up the mail and not concern yourself about the personality of the mailman. This is how one should proceed. Abd-ru-shin is just a servant of God; an apprentice or a mail man. Even His name says it all; the name Abd-ru-shin roughly translates to “servant of the Light”

Spending a lot of time on Abd-ru-shin would give readers the wrong impression of the Grail Message, a book which glorifies nobody but God.  

Let each reader examine the massage and have his/her own perception, opinion, or conclusion. You have no right to give non-readers your own conclusion thereby baring them from reading the Grail Message themselves, or examining it objectively.

I will gladly and readily deal with the issues concerning Jesus and Imanuel; as I have pointed out that mankind needs to ‘know of’ God including His two sons: Jesus and Imanuel.

Deep Sight:

@ Justcool - I will reach you by email regarding the further discussions you offered.

However for the present purpose, and in reference to your description of the process of incarnation by radiation, etc, let me ask you just one question which i believe will help to clarify my perspective to you.

With all friendliness, at this point I don’t see any need for you to write me any more. Haven’t we said it all in this thread?

Deep Sight:

Who was Jesus of Nazareth?

Jesus of Nazareth is the incarnation of Love of God on earth. Jesus was and is a part of God. He is a part God’s love incarnated in a physical body. He was animated by the Devine Unsubstantiate Love of God, or His innermost core was Devine Unsubstantiality.

His innermost core is Pure Divinity and hence after casting aside all His material, animistic and spiritual cloaks, He returned to the plane of Divine unsubstantaility, or in biblical terms, He reunited with the Father.

Deep Sight:

When on Earth, would you say that Jesus was not the incarnated love of God (as per the teaching evinced in christian doctrine and the message?)

I have already answered this question.

Deep Sight:

Would you say that the process of incarnation by radiation did not apply to Jesus. In view of your explanations, you surely cannot say this. If that process does apply to Jesus, and he yet remained while on earth the incarnation of that self same personage within divinity being the love of God, then surely the process of radiation you have described does not remove the inference that Abd Ru Shin was the incarnated parsifal on earth - whilst he remained in the Grail Castle!

If Jesus remained the incarnation of the love on Earth, then Abd Ru Shin remains the incarnation of the will on Earth. . .going by the Grail Message.

Thus saying Abd Ru Shin is not Parsifal will be like saying Jesus is not the same divine personage of the love of God. . .

In order not to draw an unhealthy attention to Abd-ru-shin and hence deviate any seeker from reading the Grail Message, I will not deal with Abd-ru-shin’s case on this question.

Such fascination with the bringer of the Truth will interfere with the individual’s objectivity; when examining the Grail Message, the individual should remain objective.

Abd-ru-shin warned that irresponsible enthusiasts and religious fanatics should hold aloof for they are detrimental to the Truth.

If I spend my time explaining the personality of Abd-ru-shin in the manner which you want me to; then I will be counted among the irresponsible enthusiasts.  

Let each seeker examine the Grail Message objectively. Anybody who genuinely seeks shall find.

As always thanks and remain blessed.