₦airaland Forum

@Idehn

I will answer your question later; please perdon me. I gave all my nairaland time today to another thread. But I have you in mind and I will definitely return to deal with your question.

thanks

Deepsight!
Once again you have amazed me with your brilliance! See, the only problem I have with you here is that you seem to be trying to use science where science cannot reach. One has to separate science from metaphysics or the supernatural.

Deep Sight:
Agreed. Nevertheless do you agree/ disagree with the surmise in Post No. 22 above – to wit – that all energies are really ONE energy.

Yes all energies are one but science only deals with the manifestation of energy in the physical realm. The soul and its energy are not within the realm of science. You cannot use science to investigate the soul, its presence and its absence.

Deep Sight:
Again – do you not perceive that there is but ONE source of all energies: not different energies but different manifestations of ONE AND THE SAME universal cosmic energy for all things. . .

Yes, I answered this question already. Keep in mind that manifestations are different depending on the nature of the matter. The way energy manifests in physical matter is not necessarily the way it does in ethereal matter. So you can’t use scientific laws to predict the behavior of ethereal matter. I.e. you can’t use Newton’s laws of motion to predict with mathematical accuracy, the movement of an ethereal object.

Deep Sight:
In future science would venture deeper and deeper into the non-physical. Its inevitable, ultimately.

The quest for knowledge can never end. Science will redefine itself in the far future. I am convinced of that.

Yes I agree with you and believe me I can’t wait for that day. But at the moment science only deals strictly with the physical. At the moment the soul and anything pertaining to it does not exist in the eyes of science. Science is blind to the non-physical.

Deep Sight:
If it were possible to measure the energy content of the living rat; and then measure the energy content of the carcass: and ascribe an exact value to each measurement, do you suppose that the values measured would turn out to be exactly and precisely the same?

Yes!! Scientifically the energy content of both rats is the same. The physical material content of both rats are the same; the energy inherent in this physical matter are also the same. By this I mean that you can account for, even the tiniest physical substance and energy in both rats. Neither the physical matter nor the energy inherent in the physical matter, of both rats has been lost; rather the energy and matter in the dead rat is undergoing a transition. It is transiting to a different form.

Deep Sight:
That depends on what you describe as work, really. Like you said, degeneration itself is energy in action and that could be referred to as work, no? Even a stationary and inanimate thing such as a stone does have energy: and that potential energy may manifest as movement when kicked, or pressure beneath it. All these things may still be viewed as “work.”

Scientifically speaking, what you described above is not work. The problem is that people confuse the scientific meaning of these terms with the layman’s meaning. What science describes as work is not exactly the same with the everyday meaning of work.

Likewise what science refers to as energy is not exactly the same as what the lay man knows as energy.

Now back to work. In science work is nothing but the product of force and distance. Where one is missing, work has not been done. If I hold a very heavy stone for hours, as long as I have not moved the stone any distance, work has not been done.

But in a lay mans term, holding a heavy stone for hours will be viewed as doing work.

Another example: If I push a wall for years, exerting all my energy, as long as the wall has not moved, scientifically speaking, work has not been done.

Transformation of energy does not always entail work. As long as distance is not involved, work is out of the question. I gave an example earlier in this thread, about heating a pot of water on a stove. Please refer to my reply to Analissa

Deep Sight:
Nevertheless I do not want to dwell at all of these for as you know these are not my chief concern at all: my chief concern is to demonstrate that there is an element in the picture of the first rat which does not exist in the picture of the second rat:

Here I agree with you but that missing element is not scientific. There is no way you can use science to explain the difference in those two pictures. Strictly and scientifically speaking, a rat whether living or dead is nothing but a bundle of energies. Being alive can scientifically be defined to as a phase in the interaction of that bundle of energy --rat; and being dead can be a phase in the interaction of the same bundle of energy. Just like a sun that is burning or alive (a phase in the interaction of the bundle of energies we call the sun), latter the sun will die or stop giving off light (another phase in the interaction of that bundle of energy.

Deep Sight:
and that that element –
1. Is energy

2. Is not the variant of energy which manifests as physical energy

3. But is nonetheless tied to physical energy in its live manifestation as all energies are ONE AND THE SAME energy.

1. Yes but not scientifically speaking. The energy that has left the rat is not physical and thus does not exist in the eyes of science.


2. Excellent! But Science is only limited to the manifestation in the physical realm.


3. Excellent!

Deep Sight:
I agree and disagree.

I agree to the extent that I had tried to state that energy in fact is existence.

What you stated here may or may not be correct but it definitely is not Science.

Deep Sight:
I disagree to the extent that matter = energy = matter. For the simple reason that I believe in non-material variants of energy. The source of all energy, ultimately is God – and God cannot in any terms be described as material, or matter.

I know this is hard to swallow, in lay mans terms you are right; but scientifically no. I already explained this earlier. In science energy and matter are inseparable.

An advanced view on matter is that matter is condensed energy. So in nuclear reaction, when energy is released and matter is seemingly destroyed; matter is not actually destroyed. One can say that in such cases matter changes its state-- it becomes pure energy.

Einstein discovered that the universe's total matter plus energy is constant: energy can be converted to matter, and matter can be converted to energy.

He came up with the equation: E=mc^2

Yes matter can become energy; matter is actually energy. Here is an interesting article that you might want to read:
http://www.worsleyschool.net/science/files/emc2/emc2.html

The truth is that we are surrounded by energy; everything we see, including ourselves is energy. It is only our brain that gives us the illusion of solidity of matter, and etc. Our brain plays a lot in our perception. The reality which we will never see is that everything is energy. This is really very deep; I don’t want to go into it now. Consider the 'wave/particle duality' nature of light.

You are right; God is the source of all energies. The keyword here is 'source'. If I say that cloths cannot exist without pockets; that is not the same as saying that the tailor (the source of the cloths) cannot exist without pockets. You see what I mean.

Deep Sight:
Do you think the values would be precisely the same?

And –

If they are not precisely the same would it be that –

1. All the difference in value would be accounted for by such quantum of energy as may have for example deteriorated and formed a compost or –

2. The deterioration would not account for all the difference in value and there would be a quantum of energy that would still be missing on account of the fact that that quantum has been dispersed to another dimension.

The grim truth however is that it may not be possible to measure such accurately as the energy expresses itself in variegated forms – heat, degeneration, and others which are not measurable. So this may remain a riddle.
.

I guarantee you that nothing is lost, physically in terms of matter and energy, between the dead and the living. There is not intermixing of species in creation. No physical matter no matter how ennobled will be able to cross the threshold of the ethereal. So when the soul departs from the body, the soul takes nothing that is physical along with it.

The only thing that is lost, scientifically, is ability, the ability to exhibit the characteristics of living things-ie moving around, thirst hunger and etc. But keep in mind that this ability in replaced by a different set of abilities that only the dead can exhibit. ie-decaying and decomposition.


Although I get the crux of your augment. But admit that it cannot be proven scientifically. When you talk of energy, matter, and etc; always specify in what terms you are talking about these things.

As always mucho respect my brilliant friend.

Dear Analissa, thanks for replying to my post.

Analissa:
Energy IS the ability to do work but it is also the potential ability to do work. Without doing work or without the potential ability to do work, there is no energy. see dead rat.

You are not very very correct. Your definitions are too elementary. Energy and work are too different things. Energy can exist whitout the ability to do work.

What is work?

Work is the product of force and distance.

Example: When you heat a pot of water to boiling point in a stove. You have transferred thermal energy from the fire to the pot and the water but zero work has been done.

The human brain uses that the energy and it can think, is that work?

Energy is inherent in all matter, and you cant have matter without energy. Only at elementary stage do people define energy as the ability to do work. In advanced science classes, that definition is very wrong.

Also consider that the same amount of energy can result in different amount of work done. A car can go 10 miles with a gallon of gasoline while another car can go 15 miles with the same amount of gasoline. Despite this the amount of energy in the gasoline remains constant as much as the mass of the gasoline remains constant. The amount of work done is more closely related to the efficiency of the system and not the energy. Energy is relative to mass(matter) rather than work.

The ability to do work is more relative to the efficiency of a system and not necessarily the energy.

Analissa:
Energy is not matter. Matter in its most basic is anything that takes up space. While there is energy in matter. When matter is destroyed the energy (or potential energy)is released. Matter is not and can never be energy it can only have energy.

First of all, matter is not destroyed. The notion that matter cannot be created or destroyed still stands. You definition of matter is missing a very crucial constituent of matter: Mass. Matter is anything that has mass and takes up space. But this definition is also very elementry.

An advanced view on matter is that matter is condensed energy. So in nuclear reaction, when energy is released and matter is seemingly destroyed; matter is not actually destroyed. One can say that in such cases matter changes its state-- it becomes pure energy.

Einstein discovered that the universe's total  matter plus energy is constant: energy can be converted to matter, and matter can be converted to energy.

He came up with the equation: E=mc^2

Yes matter can become energy; matter is actually energy. Here is an intresting article that you might want to read:
http://www.worsleyschool.net/science/files/emc2/emc2.html

The truth is that we are surrounded by energy; everything we see, including ourselves are energy. It is only our brain that gives us the illusion of solidity of matter, and etc. Our brain plays a lot in our perception. The reality which we will never see is that everything is energy. This is really very deep; I dont want to go into it now. Consider the 'wave/particle duality' nature of light.

Analissa:
No, one can logically conclude that the moving car is making use of the chemical energy in it (petrol) and changing it into kinetic energy to work and heat and sound energy as a by product while the other either doesn't have the same chemical energy or hasn't been prompted to use it. So it is the energy in the car not some spirit entity

A car filled petrol cannot move by itself. A man has to drive the car. You need to reread my analogy, you definitely did not understand it. What you described is the mechanism of the movement and not what initiates the movement.

A car filled with petrol is like a dead rat as long as the car does not have a driver. Both systems (car and dead rat) have energy but lack a driver.


Thanks

God is beyond definition.

Man canever know God. Man can only know of God.

The closest thing that come to the definition of God is as follows:

"God is  . . . ."    

Try to complete the above sentence with your intuitive perception. Your brain cannever conceive anything that is even remotely similar to God. Only your spirit can, at best, know of God.

@ Deepsight and all

thehommer has a point, scientifically speaking both pictures have the same amount of energy, only transformed or at different phases. However, I do get your point. There is definitely something in the first picture which is not in the second picture-- the life force, soul or etc. But we have to be very careful in labelling things. The life force is not, scientifically speaking, energy; it is not the type of energy that science deals with. Neither is the soul, life force, and etc, made of the same matter that science deals with.

wirenet made a good point. One has to understand that science only deals with physical matter and energy inherent in physical matter. The soul is not physical matter and therefore it's energy is not the same energy inherent in physical matter. I have explained to you in an earlier thread that matter and energy are inseparable. But the type of energy depends on the type of matter. Thus physical matter is inseparable with physical energy, ethereal matter is inseparable with ethereal energy, spiritual substance is inseparable with spiritual energy.

Wherever there is matter, there is energy; and vice-verse. Hence wherever there is physical matter, there is physical energy. Since all the physical particles of that rat are still present, even while the rat is dead, all the energy in them are still there. None is lost. Keep in mind that here we are dealing with the energy inherent in physical matter, which is the only thing that science deals with.

Since science deals with only physical matter and its energy; one cannever, based on science, explain the non-physical phenomena -- soul, life force and etc.

While I sense what you mean, the wording you used is not correct, because scientifically speaking no energy has been lost between the two pictures. All the energy inherent in the physical body of the rat is still present, only that it is transforming; decomposition itself is a type of energy transformation.

The definition of energy that teachers teach at elementry level gives one the wrong impression of what energy is. This erroneous definition of energy makes one think that where something dead, that energy is lost. I remember in secondary school they told me that "Energy is the ability to do work" but this definition is not very correct.

The ability to do work is a characteristic or property of energy and not energy itself. As one grows in science, one learns that energy can reside, be used, exchanged, or transformed, whitout doing any work or without any work being involved.

Energy is one of those things that science finds it very difficult to define. Energy is simply matter; and matter is simply energy.

Here is what authorities have said about energy:

"It is important to realize that in physics today, we have no knowledge of what energy is. We do not have a picture that energy comes in little blobs of a definite amount."

Richard Feynman

"Energy is inherent in all matter. Energy is something that appears in many different forms which are related to each other by the fact that conversion can be made from one form of energy to another. Although no simple definition can be given to the general term energy, E, except that it is the capacity to produce an effect, the various forms in which it appears can be defined with precision."

Source: Thermodynamics, by Virgil Moring Faires, and Clifford Max Simmang, MacMillan Publishing Co., Inc. (a college text book)

So dear Deepsight, while your argument is correct(I can sense where you are coming from from), the science backing it up is wrong.

Here is a better argument to make:
[b]Since no energy(scientific energy), and no matter(physical matter) is lost between the two pictures, therefore that which made the rat in the first picture alive(the living force) did not originate from physical matter. Hence there is a soul(non physical matter) in living things which is independent of physical matter.

The fact that both the dead and the living body, have the same amount of matter and energy; that which animates the living is definitely not physical matter, otherwise its absence will result in the reduction of physical matter in the body.

An analogy might suffice: If two cars have the same amount of matter and energy; and one car is moving while the other is not. One can logically conclude that that which makes the moving car move is not as a result the  matter and energy of car, rather it is an independent entity that drives the car.

Since a car by itself cannot move around; matter by itself cannot become mobile or alive.

There is definitely something in mobile living things, something non-physical; the soul.
[/b]

Deep Sight:
Intrguing how generations of fanatics have evolved from such. . . conviction derived from deciet.

Conviction?!!
Dear deepsight 'conviction' is a very deep word. I will not ascribe 'conviction' to any member of any religion. What they posses is 'blind faith,' they have been programmed to accept or believe in things that doesn't make sense. They have been intimidated into accepting everything and not questioning anything, otherwise God will throw them into hell.
Conviction can never arise out of fear and blind faith. Conviction arises out of scrutiny, out of questioning, out of subjecting any issue to most unrelenting weighing and examining. Conviction arises from the spirit.
Belief and blind faith, on the other hand, are a suppression of the natural urge in man to question. Suppression of this urge is tantamount to suppression of the spirit; thus suppression of the living spark of God in man.
Contrary to popular opinion, 'belief,' 'faith' and 'blind faith' are not what God wants from us. God wants us to replace our 'faith' with 'conviction.' And conviction cannever arise out of faulty doctrines.

I found this article in the Politics forum, and I decided to past it here since it concerns religions.

by Chinweizu
Posted to the Web: Thursday, October 06, 2005
Letter from King Leopold II of Belgium to Colonial Missionaries, 1883
The letter which follows is Courtesy of Dr. Vera Nobles and Dr. Chiedozie Okoro.
“Reverends, Fathers and Dear Compatriots: The task that is given to fulfill is very delicate and requires much tact.  You will go certainly to evangelize, but your  evangelization must inspire above all Belgium interests.  Your principal objective in our mission in the Congo is never to teach the niggers to know God, this they  know already.  They speak and submit to a Mungu, one Nzambi, one Nzakomba, and what else I don’t know.  They know that to kill, to sleep with someone else’s  wife, to lie and to insult is bad.  Have courage to admit it; you are not going to teach them what they know already.  Your essential role is to facilitate the task of  administrators and industrials, which means you will go to interpret the gospel in the way it will be the best to protect your interests in that part of the world.  For these  things, you have to keep watch on disinteresting our savages from the richness that is plenty [in their underground. To avoid that, they get interested in it, and make  you murderous] competition and dream one day to overthrow you.
Your knowledge of the gospel will allow you to find texts ordering, and encouraging your followers to love poverty, like “Happier are the poor because they will  inherit the heaven” and, “It’s very difficult for the rich to enter the kingdom of God.”  You have to detach from them and make them disrespect everything which gives  courage to affront us.  I make reference to their Mystic System and their war fetish-warfare protection-which they pretend not to want to abandon, and you must do  everything in your power to make it disappear.
Your action will be directed essentially to the younger ones, for they won’t revolt when the recommendation of the priest is contradictory to their parent’s teachings.   The children have to learn to obey what the missionary recommends, who is the father of their soul.  You must singularly insist on their total submission and  obedience, avoid developing the spirit in the schools, teach students to read and not to reason.  There, dear patriots, are some of the principles that you must apply.   You will find many other books, which will be given to you at the end of this conference.  Evangelize the niggers so that they stay forever in submission to the white  colonialists, so they never revolt against the restraints they are undergoing.  Recite every day-“Happy are those who are weeping because the kingdom of God is for  them.”
Convert always the blacks by using the whip.  Keep their women in nine months of submission to work freely for us.  Force them to pay you in sign of  recognition-goats, chicken or eggs-every time you visit their villages. And make sure that niggers never become rich.  Sing every day that it’s impossible for the rich to  enter heaven.  Make them pay tax each week at Sunday mass. Use the money supposed for the poor, to build flourishing business centres.  Institute a confessional  system, which allows you to be good detectives denouncing any black that has a different consciousness contrary to that of the decision-maker.  Teach the niggers to  forget their heroes and to adore only ours.  Never present a chair to a black that comes to visit you.  Don’t give him more than one cigarette.  Never invite him for  dinner even if he gives you a chicken every time you arrive at his house.
“The above speech which shows the real intention of the Christian missionary journey in Africa was exposed to the world by Mr. Moukouani Muikwani Bukoko,  born in the Congo in 1915, and who in 1935 while working in the Congo, bought a second hand Bible from a Belgian priest who forgot the speech in the Bible. —  Dr. Chiedozie Okoro

http://www.africawithin.com/chinweizu/trouble_with_africa.htm

Please take everything you read above with a pinch of salt; there is no way I can confirm its validity.

And even if it is valid, I do not wish to point an accusing finger at Christians, Christianity and etc; neither do I intend to prove that all Christian missionaries were tricksters. There may have been some Christian missionaries who had better intentions than those addressed to above. And not only among Christian missionaries were there fraudsters; there are fraudsters in all walks of life and in all religions. So please Muslims, don’t see this thread as an excuse to point fingers at Christian missionaries; some Jihadists may have been fraudsters too.

And neither does the above prove that there is no God, nor does it prove that the idea of spirituality is based on fraudulency. The above has nothing to do with God or spirituality.

This is intended to be a food for thought, especially for we black people.

Etekpe:
Hi!

I read the work (the grail message) and I have found very interesting. My question is why is adherents do not sing hymns in hours of worship and say prayers concluding with in jesus name.

Regards
Etekpe.

@ Etekpe
Thanks for your questions. A similar question was asked to me, by steve26, earlier in this thread; and the following is the answer I gave him.

justcool: About the bible. Crossbearers do not read the bible during public lectures. During pubic lectures, they explain the principles of the Grail Message.

Cross bearers do not end their prayers with "In the name of Jesus." Consider the prayer that the son of God Jesus taught mankind (the Lords prayer), did He end the prayer with "in Jesus Name"?

Thanks and remain blessed

Hi again sarmy.

sarmy:
1. If everything in creation radiates including the spirit germs, could it have been possible for any of the creations to decide not to radiate

Radiation is a natural consequence of existence. Everything, including stones, trees, animals, mountains, and etc, radiates. Thus it is impossible for anything to decide not to radiate. A stone radiates, for example, but a stone cannot decided to stop radiating neither can it decide to change its radiation; but a human spirit can decide to change its radiation, however it cannot decide to stop radiating. I repeat: Everything that exists radiates and it is impossible to exist without radiating.

I don't know if this helps but I am will to expand if you want me to; and I have a premonition of where you are going with this, but I rather wait till you ask the question that I suspect you have in mind.

sarmy:
2. If change in radiation is likened to petition to develop further, can we likened no change in radiation to no-petition

Radiation is as a result of the motion of the innerconstituents of anything. The motion of the particles of stone causes it to radiate. A human spirit, for example who is filled with lust; this lust creates a disturbance in the motion of the particles of the spirit, and causes its radiation to change. This change in radiation can also be likened to a prayer, a request or a petition. For by giving off this radiation, the spirit makes itself homogeneous or easily assailable by that particular radiation, and consequently lustfull radiation will flow towards this spirit encouraging it to lust more and more.

It is like a radio turned to a particular channel; lets say channel 10. By switching your radio to channel 10, you cause the inner circuits of the radio to vibrate in a frequency similar to the frequency that channel 10 transmits. Though this homogeneity in vibration, your radio picks up signals from channel 10 while ignoring other channel's. Another way to put it is that the tuner of your radio has to resonate at a frequency homogeneous to what channel 10 puts out, and this allows you to pick up the signals.

The human spirit works in a similar way. By having a desire(lust for example), this desire radiates from the spirit and like a radio tuned to a particular channel, it picks up signals from that channel; ie the spirit begins to pick up signal from the centers of lust.

The same way, a spirit filled with desire to be healed. As long as this desire is from the spirit, it causes the spiritual radiation to change; The radiation is now attuned to the healing power centers, and through this connection healing flows to the spirit.

Thus the whole creation is like a very very very fertile soil. Anything that emanates from your spirit immediately receives help from the beyond. If a spirit radiates pure love, the purity of this love will allow his petition to receive help from God Himself who is Purity and Love.

So in answer to your question, every desire, petition, or prayer that emanates from the spirit is evidenced in the radiation of the spirit.

This in turn also causes your other bodies(astral, ethereal) to radiate; because it is actually the spirit that radiates through these bodies. In the olden days, and even up till today, clairvoyant people could see these radiation and their colors. Statements like "He is green with envy" is not just a figure of speech but it was driven from a reality in creation. Enviousness cause the astral body to radiate a greenish color.

I can go on and on about radiations, but this will deviate us from the theme of the tread.

sarmy:
3. If it was the powerful activities and radiations of the primordial beings above that caused the spirit germs to change to a point of maturity where they can make petition for self consciousness, its contradictory to say that they were already making any form of petition before reaching their point of maturity.

Right. The spirit germs makes this petition after they have reached reached a certain stage in their maturity. The ability to make decisions lay slumbering in the spirit germs; overtime the powerful activity of the Primordial spiritual beings causes these slumbering abilities within the spirits germs to gradually awaken.

It's like a seed of mango left out in the sun. The currents of air, the heat from the sun, the rainfalls and etc are all the powerful activities of nature. Over time in the exposure to these powerful activities, the seed may begin to sprout. By sprouting, it is asking the farmer to plant it; for it can no longer remain as a seed.

The spirit germs remain germs(seedlings) and overtime evolved to a stage where they are ready to be planted. If this is what you mean by 'reaching point of maturity,' then you are right, and I never said the contrary. But if by maturity you mean fully developed, then that is wrong.

They reached a point where they are matured enough to be planted. Just like a mango seed has to reach a certain point before it has any chances of surviving when planted. Seeds inside a newly blossomed fruit(unripe fruit) may not be mature enough to be planted and if planted, it will not germinate.

The petition to be created was made by the radiations of God, in the Divine plane. These radiations of God could not take on form in the Divine plane, they accumulated at the outermost part or border of the Divine. Puting it in my own words: This is tantamount to saying that they knock on the walls of the Divine plane, asking to be let out. However these are just unformed radiations seeking to be formed, but could not do so in the Divine plane because of the pressure or heat of the proximity of God; not the spirit germs.

The possibility of these radiations to taken on form, can be likened to a petition to be allowed to do so. Thus in my perception, the petition lay in the possibility. I have already explained that where there is possibility or room for development, the love of God grants this oppotunity for development.

Thus creation became a necessry out the Love of the creator.

These Divine radiations have many constituents--Primordial Spiritual(the strongest), Spiritual, Animistic, and Matter; howerver in the Divine they could not separeate and take on form. Thus one can say that they did not exsist in the Divine, only thier component elements exsisted.

It should not be hard to decipher that it is the strongest constituent of the radiation that reached a point where one can say that it petitioned to be created.

It was the Primordial Spiritual that was directly created(allowed to taken on form) by God. What came after that was a reflection of the Primordial Spiritual folowing the law that 'where there is possibility or room for developement, the love of God grants this oppotunity for development.'

The Spiritual precipitated from the Primordial spiritual, after the Primordial Spiritual had been created.

The spirit germs originated in the lowest plane of the Spiritual.

The process is very gangantic and I didn't want to go very deep into it.

sarmy:
The creator therefore can be said to be responsible, since all the radiations emanated from him, without those radiations the unconcious spirit germs would not develop to a stage where they can make any form of petition.

All creatures owe their existence to the radiation of God, but God is not the origin of all creatures. In other words: All creatures have thier origin in the radiation of God and not in God Himself. God and his radiation are two different things; God is not his radiation. m_nwankwo has written elaborately on this fact, so there is no need elaborating any further.

You can argue that the radiations of God are an inevitable consequence of the existence of God; but these radiations are not created creatures. It is up to God to create(allow creatures to arise) from these radiation; therefore created creatures are not an inevitable consequence of the existence of God.

I will give you an example. I, like all human beings excrete sweat. Thus the sweats that I excrete daily is an inevitable consequence of my existence in a physical body on earth. If I decide to collect my sweat over years, allow it to condense in a freezer, and then chisel our a statue from it. This is not impossible, I can chisel out a statue from my frozen sweat, just like people create statues from frozen water, ice blocks. Lets just call the statue I produced from my sweat Mr. Jonas.

It is true that this piece of work, Mr. Jonas, owe its existence to my excretion; but it will be very wrong to think that Mr. Jonas is an inevitable consequence of my existence.

If I leave Mr. Jonas in my living room, overtime it will start to defrost. By the defrosting, Mr. Jonas is telling to put it in a colder environment for it can no longer exist as it is in my living room. It is up to me wheather to grant this or allow Mr. Jonas to defrost and cease to exist. Just like it is up to the farmer wheather to plant the seeds that are beginning to sprout or leave them to perish.

Likewise it is up to God wheather to allow creation to continue by providing it with what it needs to continue or wheather to leave it to gradually diminish and finally cease to be.

I can decide to let Mr Jonas perish(melt and become liquid sweat again) without losing any particle of my being. Likewise God can allow creation to cease to exist Without losing any particle of Himself.

I definitely do not need Mr. Jonas, but he most definitely needs me to exist. Likewise God does not need creation to exsist but creation definitely needs God to exsist.

Thanks a lot and remain blessed.

@sarmy
In addition to what I wrote in my previous post and to further elaborate on the issue of the development of the spirit germs, here is what I wrote in another thread.

Please read:

All Life started with God who is life Himself; only God can create life. We humans spirits were created as spirit germs in Paradise which is in the vicinity of God. As spirit germs we could not become conscious in Paradise due to the immense radiation of the Light of God there. But the desire to become concious(know good from evil in bibilical terms) filled these spirit germs; and the only way for the spirit germs to become conscious is by moving further away from the light, in the planes of matter which lie further way from the light than Paradies. Out of love, God allowed His servants to develop or form the world of matter in which the physcal world belongs. The earth also belong to the physical world. At a certain stage in the development of the earth, God allowed some of the spirit germs from paradise to incarnate on earth. Before they incarnated on earth, they had already journed down from paradise to the etherial ream; and when the earth was ready, they incarnated on earth. This is how man on earth was made, and this is how the human spirit was driven out of Paradise. All the spirit germs in Paradise could not incarnate on earth at once; so they incarnated over a long period of time until the earth passed the stage in its development where no new spirit germs from paradise can incarnate. There are so many spirit germs; so it was not only one man and one woman. After each earth life the spirit continues its existence in the beyond(ethereal realm) which is still part of the material world. After living on earth the spirit is trapped in the part of the ethereal realm which corresponds to its weight; thus theives will find themself in the same plane, killers will find themselves in the same plane, while noble ones will find themselves in a noble plane. The plane corresponds to the nature of the spirit; thus a plane where a killer finds himself will be a bad and ugly plane, a plane of suffering. A plane where a good person finds himself after physical death will be a good and beautiful plane. The spirit stays there until its time for it to incarnate on earth again. It is also possible that a spirit(soul) makes progress in the etherial world, ie- a killer in the etherial plane of killer changes and stops being a killer. This change will also change its etherial environmemt; it will find itself in better etherial plane, a plane that correspond to its new state. But all these etherial planes still belong to the world of matter.  A spirit that lives according to the laws of God(the true teachings of Christ) will achieve enough maturity and purity that will allow it to be lifted beyond the worlds of matter. Such a spirit enters paradise as a mature and pure human spirit who will not have to descend into matter again or incarnate on earth again. Therefore reincarnation is not ment to repeat forever.

The reason why we are in the world of mather is to mature and return back to Paradise which is our real home. This world(the worlds of matter, both here and the etherial) is not our home, rather it is a place lent to us for us to live in and mature. The worlds of matter can be divided into two -(1) Coarse, or gross matter, and (2) etherial matter. Each of these two still have many divisions and many planes. Ie the physical world belongs to the lowest part of the of the worlds of coarse matter.

There are always more spirits in the ethereal world than on earth. Everything that is matter passes through the four stages of birth, blossoming, ripeness,and decay(death). Our physical bodies go through this process, so does the earth and the whole material universe. Now that the whole world of matter entering the stage where destruction(decay) sets in, many human spirits who are in the beyond are rushing to incarnate on earth and pay their debts(purify themselves) and be lifted out of matter to paradise before the destruction of matter takes place. This is part of the reason why the earth is overpopulated today.

There comes a time when the worlds of matter enters the stage of decay, it decays; only to be reborn and the process continues. But a spirit that cannot free itself from matter will remain in matter while matter decays. Being drawn into the process of decomposition of matter will make the spirit lose conciousness, the spirit returns to being a spirit germ; and returns to paradise as a spirit germ. This is tantamount to the death of the spirit or more precisely the death of the acquired ago, or personality.


The law of reciprocal action demands that a spirit must redeem its guilt in the same plane where he committed the crime. IE a killer on earth must return back to the earth to pay for the crimes he/she committed on earth. Thus such a spirit must reincarnate to pay its debts. That's why we see people born blind, and people born with terminal illnesses and we wonder why God is so unjust to them. It is not injustice, it is the Karma that they incurred in their past lives on earth, which they must redeem on earth. This could also be why some kids die at birth. But if one repents and does only good, a way will be shown to him/her through which he/she can pay for his/her karma without suffering. IE a Killer who repents might in his next earth life decide to be a doctor, by saving peoples lives as a doctor, he has payed for his karma. Therefore when a man truly repents, all sins will be forgiven him.

People dont usually remenber who they were in thier past lives. This is also a manifestation of the love of God. This makes the individual feel like he/she has been given a fresh start, the memory of the past would not deter it. Ie- if one learns that he was Nero in his past live, this may make him lose all hope of salvation. But in not remembering his past, he is given an oppunity to carry on do good deeds.

I cannot tell you when each spirit will return to earth, the laws of God guide and direct all these things. It depends on the spirits developement, and its Karma. Some of the times, it is karma that forces the spirit to reincarnate on earth.

I will give an example: If you harm sombody on earth and the person refuses to forgive you. You are tied to this person with an invissible cord. As long as the unforginess remains, this cord remains, and you cannot enter paradise when you are tied to somebody like that.  This tie may force you to reincarnate on earth when that person reincarntes. You may reincarnate as his relative and in this incarnation you are given the oppotunity to earn his forgiveness. Ie a man who harms a girl might be forced to reincarnate as the girls son in his next life. By being a good son, he earns the girls love and forgiveness whithout actually knowing it; he is freed from this tie.

The same is applicable to the person who refuses to forgive. If you refuse to forgive, you are tied to the person you refused to forgive, and you cannever enter paradise untill you have severed this tie by genuinlely forgiving the person that offended. Even if the person is in hell and you are on earth, distances doesnt matter. This tie may force you to incarnate on earth in the vicinity of your offender. This is why forgiveness is very important.

There is a law that everything must return back to its origin. Thus our physical bodies which came from the earth( the physcal world) it must at the end return or remain in the physical world. No physical body(flesh and blood) can enter the ethereal realm, and likewise, no ethereal body can enter the spiritual realm. The physical body must be left in the physical world, and the ethereal body must left in the ethereal realm before the spirit enter the spiritual world(Paradise) with its spiritual body. Therefore the physical body which is corruptible can never enter the spiritual world which is incorruptible. It lacks the lightness and consistency of the spiritual. It is the spiritual world that is the kingdom of God.

Paul hinted this when he said:

"I declare to you, brothers, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable" (hebrews 6:18)

What I wrote is a summery of a great and an immense process. I can go deeper into it. Let me know the areas that are confusing and I will elaborate.

Thanks

@sarmy
Thanks for your questions, I will treat them accordingly.

sarmy:
Thanks for that exposition but can you explain more on the need aspect of creation, are you 100% in support of m_nwankwo that even though "the drive or urge for existence is hardwired in the spirit seed" by the creator, it was still the created longing for existence from their state of inexistence. if you agree with him, can you add more inputs.

I agree with m_nwankwo's explanation but not in the words that you put it, and I don't think that your words accurately capture what m_nwankwo was conveying. It is not from their state of inexistance that the spirits germs longed to be created. Inexistance is the wrong choice of words; the spirit germs not only were already in existence before the longing arouse in them, but they had already reached a stage in their existence. Thus they were already in existence, and after a certain degree of maturity or ripeness did the urge for consciousness arise in them.

Replace the word 'inexistance' with the word 'unconscious.' The spirit germs were in existence in Paradise but in an unconscious state of existence.

Now I know your next question: "How can something unconscious develop an urge or a petition?"

The answer to this puzzle lie in the love of God and in the radiation of the spirit germs. There is a law in creation which can be expressed as "where there is room for development, development must be made." The love of God is always watchfull and always gives help where help it needed; it always provides an opportunity for development where development is possible.

Everything in creation radiates, the spirit germs radiates too, and at a certain stage in the state of the spirit germs their radiation changes. This change in radiation can be likened to a petition to the creator to be allowed to develop. The spirit germs carry the ability to develop within them, just as a mango seed carries the ability to grow into a mango tree. And I have already explained in my previous post that in creation every ability is constantly caressed into activity and cannot remain inactive.

The activity of the created primordial beings in Primordial spiritual planes radiate downwards towards the spiritual planes, influencing and supporting the spiritual into activity. It is these radiations that influences the unconscious spirit germs, caressing them to reach to the stage where they are ripe to be planted. At this stage, their colour of their radiation changes and the Love of God notices this change.

Thus it is not a conscious petition per-ser. It can be likened to a mango fruit which on reaching a certain state of ripeness changes colour. The watchful farmer notices this change in color and plucks the fruits. One can say that the fruits asked to be plucked by reaching that stage in their ripeness which necessitated their plucking.

It can also be likened to a child inside the womb of its mother. On reaching a stage in its development the child causes contractions which the woman feels as pains of labour and knows that the child is ready to be born. Thus one can say that the child asked its mother to give birth to it. Prior to birth, the child had existed but in a different form. Prior to birth the child is a developing fetus, but after birth it becomes a child. The same is applicable to the spirit germ; prior to ejection from paradise it was just an unconscious spirit germ or seed.

It is also compareable to an infant in a crib. On reaching a certain stage of hunger, the infant gives out a cry. The watchful mother recognises this cry as a request, petition or urge to be feed, and and picks up the infant and feeds it.

I will summerize:
The spirit germs came into existence in Paradise as unconscious spirit germs. The powerful activity of the primordial beings above has an effect on all that is spiritual, even the unconscious spirit germs. This effect causes the germs to reach a point in their maturity where they develop an urge towards self consciousness. The love of God notices this change in the spirit germs and affords them the opportunity to do so by allowing them to be ejected from paradise.

I hope this helps; you can always as questions.

You can also check out what I wrote in another thread about the development of the spirit germs and why they left Paradise here: https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria?topic=390145.msg5421272#msg5421272
Also check out my next post, immediatley after this post.

sarmy:
Please don't hesistate to go into details on the primordial spiritual realm to the coarsest gross material realm or heaven and earth if you can, seems you and m_nwakwo are of thesame school of thought. Thanks

I offered my perception on the structure of creation, from Primordial to the coarsest gross matter, in following thread as well as many other threads.
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria?topic=443101.msg6013170#msg6013170

Please read it and let me know if you have questions. I will gladly offer my perceptions on any question you may have.

I will not call my perceptions 'a school of thought,' I write out of a LIVING conviction in me. I draw my knowledge from a book called 'In the Light of Truth: The Grail Message.' by Abd-ru-shin. You might want to examine the book yourself.

Thanks and remain blessed.

m_nwankwo:
Hi Sarmy. Thanks for your response. The questions you raised are pertinent and I will attempt to address them as follows. God is the Primordial Life or the Primordial Light or the Primordial Power. In other words only God is alive and everything else that is alive derived their "life" from God. One can also say that God is the Primordial source of Energy. A natural consequence of Primordial Life, Light, Power or Primordial Energy is that it radiates or produces emanations. Thus, there is only God and his emanations or radiations. The divine radiations of God is everthing else outside of the unsubstantiate Primordial Source. A crude analogy will be to use the sun and its stellar radiations. The stellar radiations are produced or emanate from the sun but they are not the sun itself.

Now, this divine radiations of God contain all the building blocks of what ever was, is and will take on form. Now, the ability to take on form is dependent on the intrinsic strength of any radiation of God to withstand the enormous pressure or force field that is a consequnce of the Primordial Energy. Now the strongest of all these radiations were able to take on form and became divine confirmations of the radiation of God. Now when everthing that can withstand this force field from God has taken on form, there remained residues of these divine radiations which can not form themselves because they are not strong to withstand the force fields in the "proximity" of God. These residues cannot form but they do have the intrinsic drive or urge or longing for existence. These residues of the divine radiations are hardwired to strive from uncounsciousness to counsciousness and then to self counsciousness.

Just like life on earth is possible only billions of light years from our sun, so is it that these uncounscious residues of divine radiations can only take on form at cosmic distances from God. It is in aswer to this hardwired uncounscious urge for existence that God through an act of his will brought creation into existence. It is only in creation will these residues be able to take on form instantaneously or through development. Now the first cooling off of these residues constitute the first creation or what is refered to as Primordial creation. The Primordial creation is the direct creation of God and it can be described as an image or a reflection of the divine worlds. A cooling off of the unformed residues of the primordial creation gave rise to spiritual creation. The spiritual creation is again an image or reflection of the primordial creation. At the last plane of the spiritual creation, there remained some spirtual radiations which can not take on form in the spirtual instantaneously or by development. To these belong the human spirt germs or seeds. Again just like a seed can only develop into a plant if it sown in a fertile soil, the only possiblity for the human spirit seeds or germs to develop and form is to be expelled from the heaven or the kingdom of God into the world of matter. The world of matter both visible and invinsible was created by servants of God under the command of God so that the human spirit seeds can have the possibility of development from an uncounscious seed to the likeness of the images of God.


Just like sparks fly off from an amber or bubbles sprout from a heated water at a precise temperature, so do spirit germs constantaly get ejected from the last plane of the spirtual into the world of matter. Germs whose drive or longing has not ripened, something analogous to reaching a specific temperature remain as spirt germs in heaven, the kingdom of God. Thus strange as it may sound, we were created because we uncounsciously sent out a petition to God, not in words but by the nature of the emanations that comes from the uncouscious residues. It is in the various planes of the world of matter that they have the opportunity to transform from an uncounscious spirit seed into a personality with a human spiritual form. The step by step process of how the spirt germ sinks into the world of matter, how it is cloaked in the various planes and how finally it recieves a physical cloak or body in the womb of a woman can be explained to the minutest detail but that may not be necessary now and probably will cause confusion.

Thus to answer your question, the human spirit was not in existence before creation. He developed from a spirt germ and spirt germs came into existence only at the last plane of the spiritual world. Human spirts who developed their self counsciousness according to the will of God will return back to the kingdom of God as a self counscious human spirit. Those who developed their self counsciousness in contradiction to the will of God will loose this self counsciousness, and revert back to spirit germs, a process refered to as spirtual death or effacement from the book of life. If you also follow my explanations above, you will decipher that man was in existence before he was born on earth for the first time and that happened around 1.8 million years ago. All human beings who are presently on earth have been here atleast seven times in various earthly incarnations. There are other parts of the the world of matter where fresh huuman spirit germs go for their development. Our earth has already passed its middle cycle and that makes it impossible for new spirit germs from heaven to incarnate here. There are other earth-like planets in other physical universes where fresh human spirits are incarnated. But it is not the purpose of this discussion to give detailed insight into this and I will leave it. Besides, what is happening in other universes have no spiritual benefit to us leaving in our own physical universe. Someday, when a human spirt has developed in the sense of the laws of God, the gates of heaven will open up for him, and from such a hight, he or she can then survey, the incomprehensible magnitude of creations of God below the spiritual creation. He will also percieve inwardly and through higher spiritual guides the vastness of creations above the spiritual creation, and how small he is in comparison to what is above him. His guides may permit him a radiated picture of a primordial being and when he sees that just one primordial beign can hold our entire milky way galaxy in the palm of his hands , then his place in creation will become clearer. The claim by men that are God or can develop into God or are parts of God cannot be taken seriously by one who really knows.

Now I stated that the drive or urge for existencce is hardwired in the spirit seed. You can even in physical enviroment see examples of inherent drive or urge or desire in an uncounscious thing. A mango seed for instance is uncounscious but is hardwired intrinsically to become a mango tree once the appropriate environmet is given. It intrinsically follows the process of germination, growth and fructification without being counscious of it. A human zygote for example is uncounscious but the genetic program it inherited from its parents propels it through the various stages of embryogenesis, birth, cry etc. If you are married, I will advise you to be around when your wife will deliver and watch closely, the instinctive actions of a new born including the instinctive seeking for the mothers n.ipp.le, then certain things may become clear. Stay blessed.

Very nicely put!!!!

m_nwankwo:
Hi Deepsight. Yes, what does the painting is the ability and not the expression of the ability. Thus one who has the abilty to paint or the ability to produce engineering works is an artist or an engineer. But even this remains a very crude analogy for in these earthly examples, the abilty was acquired or developed, presuppossing that at some time the one who is an artist today is not one several years ago. With respect to God, the ability has no beginning and no end for it is living in God. Stay blessed.

The above is really very deep and I completely agree with it. When it comes to earthly manifestations one has to be careful before labeling what the individual making the manifestation is. What is important and what is decisive in setting into motion the laws of creation is the radiations of the spirit and not necessarily the physical manifestation of the ability which resides in the spirit.

I will give an example:
A man who has nourished(in his spirit) the desire to write stories; this desire radiates out of his spirit and attracts stories, but his physical body cannot bring these stories into the physical realm in the form of a book, because perhaps this man does not know how to read and write. Before the laws of creation such a man is a writer, even though he has never, physically written a book.

This man may have contributed, thorough his volition, to the writing of Chinua Achebe’s book without knowing it.

Another example:
An man is filled with the desire to murder, but out of fear of going to jail, he never committed murder physically. Before the laws of creation this man is a murderer, even though the earthly legal systems would not call him a murderer.

Likewise a man may be filled with the volition to make money, this volition radiates from his spirit. He decides that the best way to make money is by becoming a pastor. Filled with this volition he goes to school and learns how to preach and becomes a pastor. Men on earth would call him a pastor, but before the laws of creation, such a man is not a pastor. Before the laws of creation he remains a man lusting after money. As long as his desire to preach did not emanate from his spirit, as long as this desire is merely propelled by the spiritual volition to make money, this man remain a man lusting for money and not a pastor as far as the laws of creation are concerned.

Thus it is not the outward manifestation that determines what a man is, but rather that which radiates from his spirit.

One thing about creation is that that abilities, desires, and volitions never remain inactive. Every desire, ability or volition that emanates from the spirit takes on form and presses upon condensation. Even if the person who produced it did not condense it personally, it can press upon another person of the same nature and gets condescend through that parson.

Every ability that resides in your spirit is constantly being coarse into activity. If it ever becomes inactive in you, you will lose this ability; it will be pulled away from you by one who makes use of it. To him who has little, even the little he has will be taken away from him and be given to him who has more.

No volition can remain inactive, it is constantly evolving, growing, attracting others and being attracted to others; it is constantly affecting others and the person who produced it. It may cause another person to anchor it in the physical, and not necessarily the person who produced it.

The same is applicable to God, only in a higher form. God’s volition can never become inactive. It takes on form and is constantly working. The creative ability of God took on form and is constantly working -- eternally creating and renewing creation. As long as this ability resides in God, God is a creator. Thus what makes God a creator is not what He created but the ability to create which lies eternally in God.

God can exist without creation(From primordial spiritual realm to the coarsest gross material realm or heaven and earth) But God cannot exist without His creative ability; as much as He cannot exist without His love; because these are intricate parts of His being. Even the radiations of God carry these qualities(abilities); and these qualities(abilities) in the radiation of God takes on form and formed the realm of Divine substantiality. I.e. the Primordial Queen is the conformation of the Love of God in the radiations of God; while Jesus is the conformation of the love of God that is in God Himself(within God).

Thus God did not need to create creation(Heaven and earth) to become a creator; He was, He is and He will eternally be the Creator, because the ability to create is eternally living within Him as an intricate part of Him.

Likewise God did not need to create creation(heaven and earth) to become love; He was, He is and He will eternally remain the LOVE, because the Living LOVE(Jesus) is eternally living within Him as an intricate part of Him.


This is my perception though.

@NightLife,
That Randy Jackson, in the picture above, is not Michael Jackson's brother. That is Randy Jackson from American Idol. Here is his wikipeia infor:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randy_Jackson

I have met the Randy Jackson who is Michael Jacksons youngest brother, and he doesn't look anything like the American idol Randy; they are also not of the same age.
Here is Randy Jackson's(Michael Jackson's brother) wepkepia infor:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randy_Jackson_(musician)

If you look at Michael Jackson's burial pictures you will see the Randy Jackson that is Michael's brother; not this guy whose picture you posted above.

The press, especially African press, should be careful about mixing people; obviously they don't know who is who.

Mad_Max:

"I'm not an atheist and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangements of the books, but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God."

I have never read anything so wise, from a human being, in my entire life. If only everybody would be this objective and honest.

I find it impossible to believe that some people do not perceive, not even suspect that there is a mysterious force that guides every process including the process of evolution.

@thehomer,

Thanks again for your replies. But it seems we are now arguing just for the sake of winning the argument therefore there is no need continuing.

Every human knows that he is not just an animal; he is not just his physical body, he is equipped with a conscience that animals do not posses; a conscience higher than the law of survival of the fittest(natural selection law). To argue about it is a waste of time. If you cannot experience the spirit within you, then there is no way I can prove it to you.

You asked for a physical proof but the spirit is non-physical, you need spiritual abilities to recognize it. One who cannot feel or experience the non-physical will never be able to grasp it. There is no way I can convince you of the existence of something which you do not perceive; I don't have any physical evidence because the spiritual is non-physical, and beyond the realm of science. Thus when I am talking about spirituality, I am not talking about science.

There is no need for me to answer your questions about spiritually which you do not believe in. You will only call my answers myths.

But you seemed to have misunderstood what I meant by saying that everybody has the same brain capability and capacity. By this I don't mean size. What I mean is that everybody has enough brain cells to grasp quantum physics, even a mad person have potential. Since every body has enough brain cells for this capability, the question remains why so many people cannot.

You said that variance of intelligence is expected due to the environment and genes. What about two brothers from the same environment, yet one ends up and intelligent scientist while the other cant pass high school. Why is the cause of this variance of intelligence? What about twins raised in the same environment, are they always of the same intelligence?

I never said the the back brain is the origin of ESP and psychic abilities; I only said that the back brain it the sit. Sit and sour are two different things.

If psychic abilities have not been tied to any part of the brain; then how are so sure that the brain is their source or that they are biological. Isn't this manifestation which science cannot tie down to any part of the human body an evidence that humans are just biological entities.

If other creatures could survive with very little brain power, why couldn't humans? You seem to imply that humans could not have survived with less complicated brains; why did dogs, lions, cats and etc survive?

If only you know the implication of the fact that women have a more refined brain. The significance of this truth is great, for one who knows about the spirit and the laws of creation.

You failed to provide the source of conscience which is peculiar to humans. If you cant tell me the organ of the body responsible for this conscience, then you have no right to attribute it to the body at all. Also you can explain it away be just saying that it is a result of our complex brain; as long as you cannot show which part of the brain produces this conscience and its mechanism, it will be illogical of you to label it a product of the complexity of the human.

You implied that it is easier to examine human intelligence because humans can talk while animals cant. I am sorry but this is an illogical excuse. You don't need animals to talk in-order to know that they are not as intelligent as humans. You can examine their works. When was the last time you saw a dog build a rocket?

And why do you wonder why aliments or damages to the brain affect the behaviour of the person thus afflicted? How does that prove that the person has no spirit. The brain is an instrument which the soul uses; if an instrument is damaged. shouldn't it be expected that work done by the use of that instrument be damaged too? If your tire busts in the freeway, it affects your speed and may affect your plan for the journey. Does this change in speed due to a damaged tire prove that the car does not have a driver?

Anyway thanks for a cordial exchange of ideas.

@thehumer
Thanks again for your replies.
LOL. You links and examples do not help your case. There is no way you can disprove my statement that generally speaking Humans(adult humans) are not comfortable being unclothed in public; and this is peculiar to humans.

You gave links of some people which you called primitive; all these go to prove m point. Questions for you:

(1) Why call these people primitive? If it is due to the fact that they are scantly dressed, then doesn't this prove my point. Humans(including you) consider people scantly dressed primitive. Doesn't this show that humans are not comfortable with nudity? Do animals consider their neighbors primitive because of they(Their neighbors) are not fully dressed?

(2) Why is there any form of dressing in those pictures? I kept saying "any form of dressing," in my post but you seem not to have payed attention to that. At best the people you showed are scantly dressed not unclothed in the way that animals are. In humans terms 'nudity' could mean scantly dressed.

(3) Those people you provided are but mare pockets of humans. In human population they do not even represent 5% How can you use the heavier of a very small percent to justify all humans. Are there not some strange people with strange rituals? There are some primitive people who inflict pains on themselves -- flogging each other, cutting the skin--as rituals of rites of passage. Can one say that humans have no problem with pains, just because a few humans voluntarily inflict pain on themselves?

I do not want to get graphic, otherwise I would explain to you how animals behave; show me any human population that are completely unclothed like animals. Where mothers have no problem revealing themselves to their sons. There is always a form of decency in human societies, no matter how primitive. Decency is peculiar to humans.


Your link about wolfs does not help your case either. It never said that wolves mate in seclusion like humans do. Wolves have no problem mating in-front of  their offsprings. This is not so with humans.
Wolves chose their partners based on survival of the fittest ie-- the stronger Wolf wins the mating rights with a particular female. A stronger Wolf may emerge the next day and take over this right to mate, without feeling any pricks of conscience. This is not so with humans. A human woman can voluntarily decide to marry and unhealthy weakling, this is not so in the animal or Wolf kingdom.

The extremely complex brains of humans is not an ireplacable a necessity for their survival; they could have survived with a lesser brain. Scientists have told us that humans do not even use half of their brains; the brain remains the organ that has not been completely understood by science, it is far too complex.

Every human have the same Brain capacity, yet some humans are intelligent while some are dumb. The range of variety of human intelligence in humans is far greater than the range in any other species. Dogs for example, have a narrow range of intelligence; all dogs fit into this range. So do cats, lions, and etc, but in the case of human's the range is too much. We have humans who can hardly grasp simple things, while other humans can grasp quantum physics. Why?

If all human beings have the same capacity and capability, why do humans very so much in their ability to understand things. This is an intelligent observation that ausch made.

It is an evidence that their is an entity, independent of the body, that uses the body as an instrument.

I will give an analogy: If 10 cars are made with the same speed capacity, and as the cars raced, some go faster than the other. This difference in speed is due to abilities of the driver; the origin of this difference in speed is not the car, since the cars have the same speed capacity.

The same is applicable to human; since humans all have the same brain capacity, the difference in the intelligence of humans lie in their spirits, an entirely independent entity.

Thus the reason why some societies are advanced, with a lot of morality, while some are primitive lies in the spiritual developement of these societies; not in thier brains because the all have the same brain capacity.

This also explains why the primitive societies are more comfortable with being scantly dressed than other societies.

I believe you once asked me which organ does the spirit use to control the body. Now it suffices for me to answer that question. The back brain is designed to receive impression from the soul, the core of which is the spirit. The back brain receives these  impressions, transforms them and sends them to the frontal brain. This is why scientists have a big problem understanding the working of back brain; this is because the back brain works with very subtle impressions. The back brain has been observed to the sit of the subconscious mind; things like ESP and psychic abilities have been linked to the back Brian.

Thanks.

@ausch
Thanks for very intelligent observations.

@thehomer
Thanks again.
There is no need going round and round. It looks like we have at least reached a point. Human are not animals. Humans differ from animals, at least in their behaviour. This is all for me.
I have shered my perception of the reason why humans deffer behaviorally from animals. You believe that it is due to their brains which is far more advanced than that of animals, and which up till now have not being fully understood.

This is an unlikely solution to the problem because the human brain itself is one of those things that distinguishes human from animals. And one of those things evolutionsits have a problem explaining; consider that in the light of just natural selection and evolution, the human brain is excessively too complex. Humans had no need to evolve an organ that complex. The question is why evolve such a brain?

The links that provided do not show completely unclothed people. The young man jumping cows is unclothed but this does not help you at all because he is a young man. The adults people in the pictures are clothed, even if there bosoms are showing, I have already explained to you that the bosom is not a sex organ. You posted pictures of people scantly dressed, and decorated with colorful ornaments; this clearly proves my point! Why is this covering of the privates, no matter how scantly they are covered, peculiar with humans?

I am yet to see societies where every body, including adults, walk around completely unclothed without [size=16pt]any form [/size] of covering.

The other site you provided compares nudity(Which in the human sense means being scantly dressed) with 'primitivity.' This all the more proves my point. Why call it 'primitivity'? Why do humans call it 'primitivity'. Why establish laws where public and unrestrained nudity is punishable? This is only peculiar with humans. Why?

Deciding to be faithful to one partner is not unique to Christianity. Even the ancient pagans, so of them decide to live that way. There is a story in my village about an affluent man who lived before Christianity came to Igboland. He loved his barren wife so much that he refused to marry a second wife. Even after his wife died he remained single for the rest of his life.
Even in Muslim countires today, where many wives are allowed, there are Muslims who wouldn't take a second wife; and its not because they cant afford it. This is peculiar with humans; animals never, when in heat, voluntarily refuse to mate with a healthy member of the opposite gender. They never restrain their sexual activity to only one partner.

The question remains, Was it natural selection and biological evolution that gave humans the impetus to these behaviors which differentiates them from other animals? Especially since these behaviours are a hindrance to some natural(earthly) instincts of the body.

@thehomer
Thanks for your replies; however you did not answer or deal with any of the issues that I raised. You kept saying "human behavior is more complex than animal behavior." And may I ask you why this complexity, please in answering consider how far more complex the human behavior is compared to the animal behavior.

Also people don't go to unclothed beaches unclothed. The go fully dressed only when they get to the secluded area or the area designated for nudity do they take off their cloths. In America, if an adult exposes his or herself in a public street, such a person gets arrested immediately. If you expose yourself to a child, that's a very serious crime that will ruin your life-- ie after going to jail you will have to register as a sex offender, making it impossible for you to get a good job or live in a descent neighborhood.

thehomer:
Ok going through your post, I've noticed several points I do not agree with.

But the fact that it is present in most human societies even societies that were once very separate from others and it also seems to serve similar functions in these societies, seems to indicate to me that it has a common origin outside that of human culture but not human biology.

Okay and this is what I have been saying--these behaviours could not have arisen from evolution and natural selection. It could not have its origin in human biology because in a way it goes against or it checks natural human biological urges.

My perception is that these as a result of the non-physical in man-- a result of the inner life.

It is up to you to accept my perception or not; I am not forcing you to do so. You can also come up with you own hypothese on why humans posses these behaviours that restricts or opposes some of their natural urges.

thehomer:
Animal behaviour is not a good method of assessing what humans may or may not do. For one most animals cannot make clothes. But animals have been shown to make and use tools. They simply do this to aid their survival. In general, animals will do what they need to ensure their survival and pass this on to their offspring. So do humans.

Good! Why is animal behaviour not a good method of assessing what humans may or may not do, are you now saying that humans are not animals. If so, then humans have something in them that disqualifies then as animals; and whatever it is that disqualify humans as animals is not their physical bodies. Science has shown that the human body and animal body are basically the same, in that they are both biological and even related.

Do you realise what you have implied!!!!!!!!

thehomer:
Who says they feel shy? They take pictures of themselves in groups.

They don't feel shy! Okay why do actors/ strippers who expose their bodies make more money? The more of her body a stripper reveals, the more she gets paid; why?
Simply because she is doing something the average person is not comfortable doing--this discomfort is not felt by animals. Why?
I know what your answer will be: You'll probably say that she gets paid more because she is doing something the society frowns upon. Still proves my point; which society frowns upon it--human society. But why?

thehomer:
There you're now getting closer to the answer. Those feelings are taught to the new members of the society by the older members. If a child was taken from that society to one where nudity was more acceptable, you can be sure that that child when it grows up will have no problems with nudity. At least until set upon by members of the society with problems of nudity.

Generally speaking, most human societies frown on nudity. Even if this behaviour is taught to children, the question remains; Why? Why would humans teach their offsprings behaviors that hinder their mating. Why teach your offspring to cover their unclothedness? Is this not unique to humans?

You are yet to show me human societies where people walk around unclothed, without any form of covering their privates.

thehomer:
Huh? Do you have some evidence for this spirit in man that breaks out?

It is my perception that the well known changes in behaviour and attitude around the ages when the generative power sets in are as a result of the spirit breaking through. By breaking through, I mean making complete use of the body.

However this is not science. Science only deals with the physical; the spirit is not physical but its effects can be seen on the physical.

thehomer:
The fact is that some animals mate in seclusion.

Animals mate anywhere and they don't care who is watching, as long as the onlooker does not disturb the mating. Humans don't do these, and its peculiar with them, please tell me why? No human woman would mate in front of her offspring, but animals do this unaffectedly. Please tell me why?

thehomer:
All you have pointed out is simply the behaviour of people in the culture you're familiar with. Humans in many other cultures do not necessarily act that way.

Please show me human societies where couples do not have their private moments.

thehomer:
How are they not sex organs? In many cultures, they are. Mind you, they also do undergo changes when excited and during the menstrual cycle.

Cultures do not decide what is a sex organ(reproductive organs) or what is not. Nature does, and cultures cannot change the laws of nature. One can successfully mate without one's bosoms. Bosoms are for nourishing infants not for mating. The fact that some people attach feeling to them does not change what they are. There are also perverted people who attach sexual feelings to the feet; they get excited by seeing or feeling a woman's feet. Does this make the feet a sex organ?
In some women even their facesand their color go through changes during menstrual cycle; does this make their face a sex organ?

thehomer:
But at the same time, exposure could easily lead to its damage in the early times from conflicts with other groups, and the environment to which it is exposed while upright. I don't think one would want the closest part of their body facing a threat at the general level of animals to be their privates.

I still don't see how fabrics protect them from treats of animals and other humans. Perhaps the tigers teeth cannot penetrate fabrics. Also, if they needed such protection, one wonders why evolution did not offer them natural protection. ie- put then inside a case.

Ohh that reminds me. Nature encased the man's organs in a foreskin, which men remove. Why remove the forskin and then cover it with cloths if we are animals? Why does man have this need to interfair with nature.

Is there a model which man is compelled to fit into?

thehomer:
Animals are not a good indicator of human behaviour.

The question remains 'Why?' Ain't men animals? Or are you saying otherwise now!

thehomer:
This is not true. The concept of a single wife or birth partner and no divorce is more recently a Christian concept. Check out what other cultures practice.

I never said that it did not originate from Christianity; how this helps your argument beats me.

thehomer:
Those clothes would be better than nothing. And they protect from more than just sharp objects.

So does the foreskin and hairs, Yet humans removed them and replaced them with clothens.

thehomer:
You've not shown how they are detrimental to evolution neither have you presented evidence for this non-earthly origin of their behaviours. All you're doing is saying "We cannot currently explain this with science, therefore, some supernatural entity must have done it." Separating humans from other animals does not solve this problem it only magnifies it.

I wont waste time showing you evidence. Just goggle it and you will see. Many times have scientists told us that human behaviours have affected our evolution and have checked it. I will give you links later. The fact that we spend so much time making sure that the weak survive, is not in accord with the evolution and natural selection. Natural selection eliminates the weak, man feel an urge and a responsibility to save the weak. Animals don't feel this responsibility; why is this peculiar in humans?
This is why Hitler did the evils he did; looking at the law of natural selection, Hitler justifies his actions(killing the alleged inferior or weak race). But every man knows that this is evil, man does not emulate natural selection when dealing with other living things, man is pricked by conscience he see the need for a higher law, the law of love. Where is the source of this need for a higher order rather than following natural selection?

thehomer:
At least we're clear on these being hypotheses but also consider their plausibility and the possibility of these reasons combining to present us with what we have today. i.e a multifactorial reason for the currently observed relative hairlessness.

The hypotheses that man evolved hairlessnes  to avoid parasites and insects that live in the fur was proposed by a Californian at UC Berkeley, I think.I have heard the guy talk. It is the most recent and accepted hypotheses, but a lot of scientists, including my professor, think that its very unlikely.

Here are reasons:
(1) Why would evolution get rid of something so necessary just to rid man of relatively harmless insects. Absence of furs makes man more susceptible to things like pneumonia and etc.
(2) Furs actually protect from ants and insects. For example-- mosquitoes. If man had furs he will be less likely susceptible to mosquito bites. Mosquitoes will find it more difficult to penetrate furs.
(3) Furs help organism better cope with the changes in the temperature. It helps to keep them warm by trapping warm airs close to the body.
(3) If the removal of furs was a reaction to infestation, then one would expect that the areas of the body where the eyes cannot easily survey will be very hairless, and the areas that are easily surveyed will retain little fur. This is because the areas that can easily be surveyed by the organism is less likely to be infested because te organisim can see them and remove the insects with their hands. On the contrary, it is those ares that are not easily surveyed that retained their hairs--ampit, pubic area; while areas that can be easily surveyed like the hand is relatively hairless.
(4) Ticks and order insects that live on the skin prefer hidden and cozy areas like the arm pits and pubic areas; this is the most infested areas when observing other animals with infestation. Thus it makes sense that if evolution removed furs in humans as a reaction to parasitic infestation, then one would expect the ampits and the pubic areas to be very hairless. But on the contrary, it is those are that retained their hairs.

thehomer:
Human behaviour is quite complex and some advances are being made in the fields of evolutionary psychology and anthropology. I think it would be a good idea for you to be acquainted with some of its ideas.
Also, try to understand that evolution is a slow process and cultures do evolve.

Thanks for your advice but I am not an illiterate. I went to an esteemed American university and I have a degree in Electrical engineering; prior to my bachelors degree, I had an associate in Chemistry.
I know I am not an authority in evolution, but I think I understand the basics about evolution; I am more than acquainted with what the theory actually say. I may be at odds with what enthusiasts add to the theory. I have been in the company of esteemed scientists and I all ways attend public conferences of scientist. I have had professors who are well esteemed and very well decorated, and I still remained friends with then even many years after graduating.
Moreover we live in the age of information. Every information that you need is only a click a way.

Cultural evolution is different from biological evolution. What we are dealing with here is biological evolution.

Thank you.

@thehomer
Thanks a lot for your points; however, I have exceeded the amount of time that I give nairaland everyday. If I stay longer it will interfer with my productivity therefore I cannot reply to your post today.

Please take time and read my reply to wirinet; I think in my reply to wirinet I treated some of the issues that you raised. If you have more issues, raise them and I will treat them tomorrow.

All I can say to you now is this: My perception is that Evolution as the process through which our physical bodies were made. But our physical bodies are only vehicles or cloaks, inside which resides the spirit. The real man is actually the spirit and not the physical body.

Thanks

Hi wirinet
Thanks for your answers, I shall treat them accordingly.

wirinet:
Sorry to say but your examples are at best juvenile, there is no direct connection between evolution and shyness or shame. As i had said shame/shyness are social constructs of societies and vary from society to society. In some societies a stripped woman is a sign of disgrace, in others it is a sign of natural beauty. There are nudist beaches all over europe where the shyness would be in being fully clothed.

Sorry for my juvenile examples. You are right that evolution and shyness have no direct connection. This is the crux of my point-- that humans posses some behaviors that could not have arisen from evolution and natural selection. I even said that these behaviors are to some extent detrimental to evolution.
Okay, in order to get to the point, lets just agree that shame/shyness are constructs of the society; the point still remains that they are peculiar to human societies, and such behaviors could not have arisen from evolution and natural selection.

I am yet to see a human society where stripping a woman in front everybody, including children, is seen as a sign of natural beauty, please if you can be so kind enough as to name such societies, I will appreciate it.

I live in Los Angeles, California and I have visited Europe many times; there is no society where people are shy of wearing cloths, generaly speaking. There are many unclothed beaches here in California; this doesn’t help your point because unclothed beaches are usually very secluded. If a kid ventures into a unclothed beach, people will immediately grab their cloths.

The point remains that humans have a desire to cover their unclothedness, a desire which animals don’t have. If this is not true, why have unclothed beaches at all? Why not make nudity acceptable every where? Why only at some designated places --like unclothed beaches. Animals walk around unclothed, why don’t humans do this.

Even in unclothed beaches people still feel very shy; that the fun of going there, the thrill of being shy. There are humans too who enjoy the thrill of danger; does that mean that humans like danger? No?

wirinet:
Answer same as above. You seem to live in a very conservative society, but in a lot of societies, women walk around in pants and bra.

Like I said earlier, I live in one the freest societies of the world. I have lived in Los Angeles, California, USA for more than ten years now. I am yet to see a society where women walk around in pants(panties in American Language) and bra; women can walk around in their bikinis, and not in their panties.
But even this does not help your point; it actually goes contrary to it. Why wear panties and bra at all? If there is no shyness/shame/decency in such societies, why wear anything at all?

wirinet:
There are many reasons for shyness, a little girl/boy is often very shy on meeting strangers and it has nothing to do with se.x. Even lots of grown ups suffer the same shyness when around lots of people or when lots of attention is on them. In a lot of societies girls and boys before the age of puberty walk around unclothed and bath in open spaces without being shy.

I never said shyness has everything to with sex; actually it was you who said that shyness is a reaction to the possibility of being rejected. 
You are right that little children feel less shy of their bodies than adult. This is actually a confirmation of my point that shyness is a result of the spirit in man. The spirit usually breaks through around the age 18 or adulthood.
The shyness we are talking about here is the shyness related to exposing ones whole body especially the private. The shyness of being unclothed, which is peculiar to humans, or better said, peculiar to adult humans. We are not talking about timidity here; what you described above, about feeling shy when given attention, is timidity not the shyness/shame that we are talking about here.

wirinet:
You sound like a really an inexperienced juvenile. People prefer turning off bright light when having se.x because bright light affects the moods negatively. Low orange, red or even blue light enhances the love making moods. how to you expect to be shy of someone you have se.x with week in week out?

I guess before electric lights were invented, people used to have intimacy infront of an audience? The point that I am making about turning of the lights, is that humans prefer to mate in seclusion, or where nobody is watching them. Humans are never very comfortable when they are completely unclothed in front of orders. This is peculiar to humans; animals can mate in front anybody.

wirinet:
Married couples are shy of each other's unclothedness?  now that is very funny? Don't worry when you get married you will find out the truth instead of using your imagination.

Yes! being married dosent stifle or remove your urge to cover yourself. I have been married for over 8 years, and I have two lovely kids. My wife is as beautiful as they come, so don’t say that perhaps she is ashamed of her figure; she is a liberated American woman, so don’t say that perhaps she is timid; she still have her private moments. In every culture, married people do have their private moments. I don’t want to say too much here because underaged people could be reading. All I can say to you is that married couples still wear cloths when they are alone.
Even strippers(remember I live in America) once their time on stage is over, the first they do is grab their cloths and cover their privates. What does this till you? I will answer for you: Even though they have being stripping infront of an audience for years, they are never completely comfortable being unclothed infront of an audience.

wirinet:
What is brainwashing and inferiority complex have to do with it? Your points are now getting slippery, we were talking about cloths and you are now talking about covering of private parts with leaves and sticks, now how can you define sticks and leaves as clothes. There are still many African societies where ladies leave their bosoms exposed as a sign of purity and virility in order to attract men. Even in the ongoing world cup in south Africa, we saw pictures of lots of topless ladies running the streets and they were not shy.

My point is not getting slippery, the point is that humans have a peculiar need to cover their privates, this covering of privates and feeling shy of raveling their bodies interfere with mating, it is a hindrance which could not have arisen if everything depended on natural selection. I mentioned cloths because that's one of the things that humans cover their unclothedness with; it doesn’t matter what it is, it could be fabric, leaves, sticks and etc; the fact remains that figuratively speaking, they are all clothings.
Bosoms are not strictly speaking, sex organs! So you point about some people not covering their bosoms does not help your argument.

wirinet:
Well my own explanation is that since we do not have natural coverings and protection for some of our sensitive sex.ual organs, we must fine artificial ways of protecting/covering them. First exposing sexu.al organs directly to the elements ie sunlight and cold can be harmful (as they are very sensitive), then the male sexu.al organ will be disruptive to normal activities if not packed or protected properly. Also it would not be a good idea for everybody to notice you whenever the male is sexually excited. as you you enter trouble with your wife, or the other female's spouse.

On the contrary; scientifically speaking the male reproductive sex organs for example, should not be covered because it needs an easy flow of air to keep it cool. Actually that is why it is hanging out -- not to get too hot, since heat is bad for gametes.
The fact that humans cover their reproductive organs over layers and layers of clothing, could not be explained in the light of evolution and natural selection. Evolution should urge them to expose it, since the sight of it arouses the desire to mate in the opposite gender; animals do this, they dont cover thier from the opposite gender like humans do. Since mating is important in the survival of species, creature evolve towards easy mating. Evolution propells them to remove any hindrance to the mating of healthy couple.

Only humans developed sentiments or feelings that check and hinder their mating. You mentioned "wife." Very good! why have wives at all. Nature(evolution, natural selection) urges every male to plant his seed as soon as he finds an opportunity; one can easily observe it in animals, even in oneself(humans). Animals obey this natural urge without hindrance--once a healthy male meets a healthy female in mating season, they mate. But humans on the order hand retrain themselves. This feeling of restrainment that humans experience could not have originated through evolution.

Institutions like marriages, or faithfulness to one partner could not have thier origin in evolution, because they are actually detrimental to natural selection.
Example:- A healthy man marries and unhealthy woman(one who could not conceive) yet he stays with her and would rather die childless than mate with another woman. How can this feeling, that made this man faithfull to an unhealthy woman, be explained in the light of evolution and natural selection.
Does this not show that beyound natural(earthly, physical) compulsions, man have another compulsion that is definetly not natural(earthly, physical).

Sunlight is not harmful to reproductive organs, for some reason that I don’t have time to mention, they actually need sunlight. Cloths do not protect from pricks, sharp things can pierce through cloths.
Why should humans be afraid of being noticed when their organs are excited. This goes back to prove my point. This not wanting orders to notice that they want to engage in intimacy is anti-evolutionary and peculiar with humans. Animals don’t care who knows it.

wirinet:
Now why we did not evolve a natural covering as is the case with other animals - i do not know.

Thanks a lot. I appreciate you modesty and honesty in this answer.

wirinet:
No one said Evolution explains every thing, we are still trying to piece together a lot of mysteries, but we can make informed guesses based on the amount of evidence available.
We most certainly started out with furs and pink skin, but must have lost the hair due to a very important need. Scientist say that it is mainly to enable us process vitamin D, which other animals are able to synthesis naturally but which we cannot without the use of direct sunlight. So most probably we lost the furs to enable the skin get direct contact with sunlight. Then we then need to evolve protection against the harmful ultraviolet part of sunlight.

Thanks again, then what is the point of your argument, if you already know that evolution does not explain everything. My major point is that humans posses certain behaviors which cannot be explained in the light of evolution and natural selection, in-fact some of these behaviors are detrimental to evolution and natural selection; these peculiar behaviors of humans interfere with natural selection and thus such behaviors could not have arisen out of evolution and natural selection. It is evidence that humans posses something in them that is did not originate from the earth or the physical realm.

I have head the hypothesis of vitamin D production, but that has been debunked by science. The latest scientific hypothesis on why humans don’t have furs is that pests, ticks, and insects live in furs, so humans lost their furs in-order to avoid infestation. But even this hypothesis, a lot of scientists have a problem with it. It doesn’t really make sense scientifically. I can give you many reason why it doesn’t make sense scientifically; but in-order not to make this post too long, I will not give the reasons here. If you care to know, then I will share them with you.

Thanks for a wonderful and cordial exchange of views.

@wirinet
Thanks for your reply.

wirinet:
It is a pity i have very little time, but all your postulations are wrong.

There is little connection between shame and sex, i know you mean to say shy. Shyness is an egocentric reaction to a possibility of being rejected by the opposite gender. Men being highly egocentric are very adverse to being rejected. If a woman agrees to having sex without going through the mating ritual of mating, i am sure most men would happily mount the female without any feeling of shame or is it shyness.

So when a woman is stripped in the street before the eyes of everybody as a form of humiliation, the shyness(shame) she feels is a reaction to the possibility of being rejected by the opposite gender?

Ha HA HA!!!! This is really hilarious.

When a woman is walking down the street and the wind blows open her clothes momentarily, she quickly covers herself feeling ashamed; so this feeling is a reaction to the possibility of being rejected by the opposite gender?

So when there is no possibility of sex or the rejection of sex, shyness goes away? If so why don't women walk around their homes unclothed? Are they afraid of the possibility of being rejected by their brothers and parents?

So when there is no opposite gender, shyness goes away? HHMMM. So why don't women walk around unclothed in an all women environments?

So you are sure that when consent has been obtained shyness goes away? HHMMM But there are countless couples who still prefer to have the lights off during intercourse.

If shyness is a reaction to the possibility of being rejected, why do so many wives still feel shy being unclothed before their husband. Or better said why do married couples still have their cloths on when they are a lone?

wirinet:
Cloths started out as being a protective covering against the elements, after the homo species lefts its natural habitat and moved into colder regions. That was why the first clothing materials were animal skin from the cold areas. and that was why we Africans only adopted clothing after it was introduced by the temperate dwellers, when it became a symbol of fashion.

The above is tons of presumption. Africans did not wear cloths(cover themselves) until it was introduced by temperate dwellers? Talk about brainwashing, and inferiority complex. Majority of the peoples of Africa have always worn cloths(covered their privates at least). Their colthing may not be as thick or as elaborate as those of the temperate dwellers but they have always covered their privates.

Cloths do not only serve as protection from the environment but it serves as a covering of the private areas. This need to cover some parts of the body is peculiar to humans.

Even the most backward tribes in existence today, who never adopted anything from the temperate dwellers, still cover some parts of their body. Whatever they cover it with(some use leaves, sticks and etc) it doesn't matter; the fact remains that this need to cover some areas of the body is peculiar to humans. Evolution cannot explain this peculiar need in humans.

Please, in the light of evolution, explain this peculiar need in humans to cover certain areas of their body.

If evolution explains everything, one would expect that those who have dwelled in the temperate regions for thousands of years, should by now evolved into having furs(hairs on the body) like animals. Please tell me why humans evolved into having almost hairless bodies. Since growing hairs(furs) on the body is a very effective way of dealing with temprate regions, why did humans evolve or de-evolve to losing their furs. Remember that the primeveal primates from which humans evolved had furs. Even the present primates have furs.

Why would evolution get rid somthing(furs) so nessecery, leaving humans prone to pneumonia and etc.

All these goes to show that evolution was a process used to achieve the physical replica of models that already exist in the supraearthly planes.

wirinet:
have to go for now

Please return when you are chanced; you have a lot of explaining to do.

Thanks

Its funny how in reading the explanation of natural selection one, whose eyes are open, can clearly see that humans are not just products of natural selection. The theory itself testifies that humans are just products of nature, like animals. All animals behaviour can be explained through the theory of evolution and natural selection. But in the case of humans, we find behaviours that did not originate from the natural laws of selection and evolution. There is something in humans that to some extent, even goes contrary to what one would expect from nature. Behaviorally humans have some qualities that could not have been products of biological evolution.

Let just give one example--shame.

Shame is peculiar with humans; and actually, to some extent it goes contrary to evolution because the feeling of shame curtails mating, which is necessary for the reproduction. Since one of the goals of adaptation is to produce offspring, why would humans evolve the feeling of shame which interferes with their mating.
Two healthy animals at the mating period, once they come in contact and once all the prerequisites are met, they mate. This not feeling guilty about mating allows them to mate often and this ensures more offspring. Also, this not being ashamed to show their privates and not being ashamed of who is watching them makes it very easy for them to mate.

But when two healthy humans, of the right age met, they don’t just take of their cloths and mate. Shame comes in to prevent them from doing this. The woman never feels very comfortable walking around unclothed, neither does the man. Why would they evolve this hindrance to mating which is necessary for the survival of their specie.

And actually why wear cloths at all; their bodies could have adapted to regional temperatures like animal bodies. The answer is that humans wear cloths because they are ashamed of being unclothed. But why would this feeling of shame exist, if humans are just biological entities. Why did they evolve this feeling of shame; why be ashamed of your unclothedness when you have to be naked to perform one of the rituals that ensure the survival of your specie? It doesn’t make sense.

It is easy to explain, through the theory of evolution, why creatures evolved the urge to mate, mating is necessary for them to reproduce. But how can you, in the light of the theory of evolution, explain the feeling of shame in humans.

Humans, like all animals, feel the urge to mate( physical intimacy), this is natural, and can be explained by natural selection and evolution. But in the case of humans, this urge for intercourse is usually accompanied by or hindered by the feeling of shame.

To me, this is one of the evidences that humans are not just biological entities. Granted our bodies are biological vehicles which came about through the process of evolution. But inside us resides something else, something that is alien to the physical.  That’s why you cant explain away the behavior of humans, in the light of the theory of evolution.   

Another one is “conscience.”  This is another thing that humans poses that animals do not poses; and “conscience” is not necessary for biological evolution and natural selection. To some extent it actually detrimental to it.

TV01:
Hi justcool,

I trust you are well. Thanks for your responses. I had to take time to read and re-read in the little time I could muster and at the same time try to keep abreast of the thread.

Loads of questions, so will try and synthesize and revert later.

God bless
TV

@TV,
I will be more than happy to share my perceptions on any question that you might have. I know I wrote a lot, but please bear with me; take time and read it all. I will be waiting for your questions.

Thanks and remain blessed.

people relax. We are not doing too bad. Although our boys are a little bit too nervous, too much of giving the ball away.

But Nigeria still has a chance, our boys are not bad at all.

Mad_Max:
To kunleoshob and toba:

I partly understand your outlook, though I wasn't explaining things to either of you and it strictly wasn't any of your business. The hostility of some Christians to evolution is partly being caused by scientists themselves. Instead of simply presenting the facts, some atheist scientists hold up evolution as 'proof' that God doesn't exist, when it proves NO such thing, ridiculing and alienating Christians. Christians are then forced to fight back by rejecting the theory without understanding it. The more the theory is shown to be correct, the weaker the Christians who reject it look. Because some know-nothings have falsely tacked 'God does not exist' to the back of evolution, whenever the theory scores points, it looks like it's the idea that God does not exist that is winning, when it is merely evolution. Very sly and dishonest. Atheist scientists meddle with religion more than religionists meddle with science. What has any scientist ever found in the research field or laboratory that 'proves' God does not exist? NOTHING, and they never will.

The lunatic fringe of atheist scientists are idiots. If the facts of evolution had simply been presented without colouring it with their atheistic beliefs, Christians would have gotten to the point of knowing the bible isn't a science document much faster, and the theory would have been accepted. Scientists complain Christians aren't letting them teach evolution in schools. Why should they, when they know some daft scientists won't stick to the facts, but will dishonestly use the integrity of science, and evolution, as a propaganda tool to spread their own personal, unproven beliefs.

I have to add though that Christians comprise less than 20% of the world's population, so their view of creation is by no means the majority view. Other faiths and other cultures have their own beliefs. The nonsensical belief that the bible is infallible stifled progressive thought for centuries, a belief based on nothing but indoctrination, whose origins can be traced to the Vatican's quest to dominate the monarchies of Europe through the Church and who did not wish their authority and the bible on which it rested questioned.

That God exists is a belief. That God does not exist is also belief. Each side has reasons for its belief and neither has empirical proof of its belief. No position is more 'rational' or superior to the other. For some atheist scienstist to use evolution to spread their own beliefs, when they're two different things, is low and contemptible. But these people don't represent science. There are Christians, Moslems, Buddhists, agnostics, and believers of every faith who are scientists. Atheist scientists do not represent science in any way, and not all atheists in science engage in this irresponsible behavior. Only a few. They're free to spread their own beliefs, other faiths do, but not to use evolution, which is religion-free, to do it. Or label those who don't share their beliefs as 'delusional'. Science is one thing, your personal beliefs are another. Keep them out of science and state only the facts.

The above is just beautiful.

@TV

TV01:
I'm intrigued by your postulating evolution somehow bringing us to an "end point" as it were and would appreciate more on this if you care to indulge. Especially in light of this statement;
And my own thinking that humans beings, being in a fallen state, are if anything, for the most part spiritually and physically degenerating.

The Human form is the end point of human evolution. The prototype of this form already exist in the Primordial spiritual Plane (The Primordial Spiritual beings) The task of forming the worlds of matter and forming  physical bodies, as well as forming physical representations of animals which already exist above, was given to the animistic beings who are servants of God. The souls of animals is a specie of the animistic beings, there also other animistic beings who continually work on matter, forming and building it. These beings are invisible to the physical eyes, generally speaking, because they are not physical. They are called elementals, there are elementals who work in the air, they move and direct air currents. There are elementals who work on the earth(solid things); there are some who work in fire and etc. Each planet in the universe is under the protection of a particular elemental. Some of elementals are small; some of them are so big that they can hold the whole solar system in their palm of their hand.
It is these elementals that control things like the movement of the tectonic plates which results in earth quakes and natural disaster; they continualy work on nature, forming, remodeling, building and rebuilding it. A lot of people used to see them, some children still see them today, and animals not only see them but communicate with them. This is why animals usually leave the scenes of natural disaster before the disasters. The elementals achieved them best that they could, they achieved or evolved the body of the most highly evolved animals, into which the spirits(the breath of God) from Paradise incarnated. From them it became the duty of man who wears the physical body as a cloak to further evolve and refine this body, bringing it closer to the form of the Primordial Spiritual beings. All the human spirits needed to do to achieve this is to obey the laws of God and exercise their spirits; by exercising their spirits, the radiation of their spirits will affect their physical bodies further refining it. The degenerate condition of the human body today is as a result of the failure of man.
　
　

TV01:
To all and regards evolution at large, I am yet to be convinced that any variation amongst humans is anything more than adaptation based on what is contained within the human genome and I guess what I'd describe as phenotypical differences? I also fail to grasp how this variation - whether termed evoutionary or not, could give rise to a whole new species, or even if it did, why (a) the species being evolved from would necessarily have to disappear (to the extent that they are not easily traceable by fossils or some other evidence, or even co-exist and perhaps inter-breed) and how (b) these changes would somehow uniformly transmit amongst a whole population.
Appreciate any thoughts regards my position and concerns
God bless
TV

The above is a very good observation, it in lies the evidence that evolution was guided. The animistic(the elemental beings) affect matter(to which the physical belongs), by their radiations. It is through their radiations that they guided evolution. Just as certain radiations can cause bad mutation(cancer), the radiations of these elementals guide evolution by causing evolutionary mutations. Science cannot explain why these mutations occur, the best they could do it to attribute it to adaptation to the environment; but this is only one part of the picture. Even in this adaptation, the law of natural selection guides it; and even a child can decipher that where there is a law, it had to be as a result of something and where their a law that is strictly followed, chance is out of question.

What I don’t understand is how people could see laws(e.g. natural selection) that guides a process and still conclude that the process is random and initiated by chance.

Also the fact that the fossils of transitional species are hard to find goes to prove that these transitional species did not live long enough to leave as much fossil as end products. Transitional species only exist for the transformation from one specie to another. Once a specie is achieved, the transitional ones become extinct. I will give an example: If you go to a car factory, you can observe cars in different stages of completion, from parts lying around to fully made cars. You will also see more fully made cars in existence and cars in the making, because cars in the making are not preserved and maintained, but once a car is fully made, it gets maintained and persevered the way it is.

Also you can clearly see that nature not only removes the transitional species, but creates barriers between species. Otherwise fishes would be able to successfully breed amphibians. Each specie is only able to breed with the same specie, generally speaking; only closely related species(within the same family) having the same genus can breed. And closely related species man that force mate or reproduce by artificial insemination often produces a sterile creature. Eg mules.

The sterility is a barrier that nature creates because such bridging of species is not in nature's plan in the first place. Each specie is an “end product” which must continue the way it is; further adapations only refines it the way it is and not towards a new species. Lions will always be lions, because the lion is the product and not a transition; it is an earthly representation of the Lion in Primordial Spiritual. And even when their offspring is not sterile, within a few generations all evidences of the mixtures can longer be seen. Here we see nature following a strict order.

Scientists tell us that creatures like the horseshoe crab has been on earth since the ordovician period--445 million years ago; and yet no one can answer why it had remained the same for such a long time. Despite all changes in the envirnment.

The odds of all the creatures on earth today being evolved by mere chance are less than one in a million.

Tell me why trees have remained trees, glued to a point. This immobility endangers their existence, why haven’t they evolved to mobile creatures?

Also, nature follows a very strict order that can be observed; the laws of nature never fail, and are always regular, i.e. the laws of gravity do not change, neither does natural selection. And how regularity can came out of chance. They very thought is very unscientific. Science does not deal with chance, rather they look for a strict uniform law; one can say that in ‘science’ chance does not exist. Yet people claim that the immutable and uniform laws of nature are as a result of chance.

I know my post is very long, please bear with me.


Thanks.

@TV

TV01:
@justcool, I must say, you've pretty much "owned" this thread - IMHO & thus far anyway - and the merits of your position apart, your very concise posts and patient unfussed responses has been great. You have my regards.

Thank you so much for the above. I will not take all the glory; I think almost every body in this thread has been very cordial, including you.

TV01:
From your first post (#4), its seems to me that you believe in both creation and evolution, indeed it appears that you consider they are somehow part of the same process. Apologies if I misascribe anything too you, but if I have, I expect the same deliberate rebuttal that has been your hallmark on this thread.
My position is pretty much what you'd call the"default" Christian one of creation, not by revelation or even study, but primarily because I haven't heard anything to convince me otherwise.

You are very correct, you don’t have to apologise. It is my perception that Evolution and Creationism are not mutually exclusive. Simply put, evolution is the process through which physical bodies are achieved on earth. Thus you might say that I believe in the creation of our physical bodies through the process of evolution. Every form of creation is achieved through a process, and evolution is the process through which our physical bodies where created. This does not contradict the creation story in Genesis, which never said that man appeared instantaneously on earth. It is unfortunate that some religionists misunderstand this story and wrongly conclude from it that the universe was created in six earth days(24 hour period).The creation story in Genesis is not a myth, it is a pictorial rendering of the making of the entire creation(including paradise), and not just the earth. I will explain further as we go.
Each day in the Genesis story represents an epoch, which could last millions of earth years. It is not difficult to figure out that Genesis days could not have meant 24hour period, if you consider that at the beginning of creation, the sun and the earth, the rotation of which causes the 24hour day have not even been created.
The writer of Genesis was seeing with his spiritual eyes, and the spiritual time frame is different from earthly time frame. Remember the expression, “A thousand years are like one.” The time frame of the Divine is even bigger than the time frame of the spiritual. So in the eyes of God, a day may correspond to millions of years on earth.
This is not hard to understand, you must have even experienced it. You must have had a dream where you experience an entire lifetime, only to wake up and find out that you have only slept for an hour. This shows you that perception of time is different in different planes of creation. The writer of Genesis was shown a Devine happening in a pictorial form and from that perspective, the process which took seven great epochs appeared like seven days to him.
Also keep in mind that your brain has to interpret visions shown to you so that you can grasp it and be able to write it down. The human brain could hardly handle large time frames (like eternality), so the brain had to reduce it to time frames that fit within the confines of the earth or the physical, because the brain, being physical, can only understand the physical. The time it took for God to create the entire creation(not just the physical realm) will appear as eternity to the human brain. Because, the brain being physical cannot grasp spiritual things and spiritual time frame, only the spirit and beings above the spiritual can grasp the spiritual. This is also why the Genesis story of creation can only be understood by the spirit, but unfortunately people examine it only with their intellect. The story of creation in Genesis is spiritual rendering, and a person that is not spiritual will never understand it, if he/she is a pastor or a pope.

If you read the Genesis creation story, you see that it contains two accounts of the creation, each one containing a different account of creation of man. In first account, “So God created man in His own image.” and in second account, “And the Lord God formed man out of the dust of the earth and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.”
The first account does not to refer to the earth; also the man created in the first account was not man(human) on earth. Rather they are the Primordial Spiritual beings who exist in the primordial Spiritual plane, the highest plane in creation. The first account of creation refers to the creation of the Primordial creation, and not subsequent creation to which the earth belongs. When the word ’earth’ is used in the description of the first creation, this is only used to convey the concept of dry land, and does not refer to our planet earth. In the Primordial creation, we have the ideal prototypes of everything in subsequent creation, thus there we have, land, seas, creatures, angels, animals, and Primordial spirits. It is these Primordial spirits that are made in the image of God, not man on earth. The Primordial spiritual beings are created directly by the God and thus are perfect from the beginning of their existence and will remain perfect. In such proximity to God, it is impossible for imperfection to exist because God Himself is Living Perfection.
It is the second account of creation in the Geneis story that refers to the creation of man on earth. Subsequent creation, to which the earth belongs to, is only a reflection of Primordial creation. While the man(Primordial Spiritual Beings) in Primordial creation is made in the image of God, man in subsequent creation is modeled after the Primordial spiritual beings. Subsequent creation, being further from God, could not take on form immediately but had to gradually develop. Thus when it says “And the Lord God formed man from the dust of the earth…, ” This “formed” refers to the gradual formation and development on earth which yielded man’s physical body. Evolution is only the formation of the physical body of man, or a process through which the physical body of man was achieved on earth. The words “out of the dust of the earth” refers to the fact that man’s physical body came out of the earth--through the gradual process of evolution on earth. The purpose of human evolution is to achieve a physical body in the human form, which is the form of the Primordial spiritual beings. Then after the formation, then God “breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.” This explains how after the human form was achieved by the animistic, God allowed the human spirits which originated in Paradise to incarnate into these animistic bodies. Only at this point did they become humans (a living soul). Prior to the incarnation of the spirits, it was only animistic beings. Thus to sumerise: The our spirits(the breath of God) originated in paradise, while our physical bodies orininated from the earth through the gradual process of evolution. Only after this formation of man's physical bodies, did the spirits incarnate into the bodies, and the bodies which used to be driven by animistic now became driven by human spirits. Let me explain further. The bodies which were besically animals, becuse thier animating core is animistic, evolved and was guided over millions of years to achieve the most highly evolved animals which had a form that closely resembled the human form. When the two nobelst pair of these higly evolved animals, which resembled the present day primates, breed, into thier offsprings were incarnated human sprirts. These highly evolved animals were only trasitional species which went extent soon after they gave birth to humans.
So the major difference between man and animal in not in thier physical bodies but in thier animating cores. The animal caries animistic as its core, while man carry spirit(the breath of God) as his innermost core. Actually it is this spirit inside us that is the real man, the physical body is only a covering which man wear on earth. And when he departs the earth, he leaves his physical body behind on earth.
I know this is very long and may be hard to follow but I will explain further as questions arise.

Wait for the next section

@TV
Thanks for your question, I will take time and shear my insights. I will answer in sections, in different posts. Before I proceed, I will advice you to take everything you read in this thread about evolution with a pinch of salt. Out of enthusiasm to prove that there is no God, people add all sorts of things to the theory of evolution, thereby making theory very weak. We live in the age of information, it very easy to get the right information on any scientific theory of you really seek. Adaptation is a fact and can easily be observed. Adaptation is not evolution per-ser, rather a step in the great journey of evolution. Just as not all steps lead to a journey, not all adaptations lead to evolution. Here(in this thread) we are dealing with evolution of species, how entirely new different species emerged from others. You are right in pointing out that adaptations which we observe on creatures do not result an entirely new species, this is a fact that nobody in his right mind will refute. But keep in mind that evolution(emergence of a species) takes a very long time-millions of years. I will deal more with why some adaptations are evolutionary and while or others are not and why I said some species are 'end product,' as I answer your questions in this thread.
Before I proceed; Let me give an analogy to help us better put things in place.
Imagine 'evolution'(in the context of this thread --the emergence of new species of another) as an international journey. And imagine adaptation as steps as 'travels.' Somebody can travel all his/her life and still stays in one country; such a person has not made an international journey. Thus not all travels lead to an international journey. Somebody can travel everyday from Lagos to Enugu and back, he may spend his lifetime traveling, but as long as he has not stepped out of Nigeria, he has not made an international journey. So when one argues that creatures adapt(which is a fact) as long the adaptation still remains within the confines of that specie it does prove that the origin of that creature was evolution and not creation. This is where creationists corner in pseudo evolutionists and make fun of them. I said pseudo evolutionists because authorities in evolution would not let themselves be cornered like that. So you are right in implying that adaptation has not been observed to yield a new species. But this fact does not debunk the theory of evolution. What evolutionists theorize is that a certain type of adaptation accumulated over a long period of time(millions of years) can yield a new specie.

Wait for the next section of my answers.

@KAG

As I await your definition, let me give a definition from Answers.com.

A reversible adaptation to changes in a single environmental factor (e.g. temperature). Acclimation is applied most commonly to physiological experiments conducted in a laboratory under controlled conditions. Compare acclimatization.

http://www.answers.com/topic/acclimation

@KAG
I believe that my post above(which is directed to mad max) answered all your subsequent questions; there is no need repeating the same thing.

There are many types of adaption. I gave two types in my post above. Please take time to read my post above. And yes, not all adaptations involve the genes.

Also, if you will be kind enough as to give me your definition of 'Acclimation,' I will appreciate it.

Thanks.

@madmax
I have stated many times in this thread that not all types of adaption makes an imprint in the genes; thus not all forms of adaptation are inhereted or passed onto the offspring. I even gave an example --Acclimation. But it seems that no one is reading my posts.

About adaptation, if you don't believe me check out these sites:

For example, tanning is a process of phenotypic adaptation -- a way for lighter-skinned individuals to adapt (phenotypically) to intense sunlight by building up protective pigmentation in their skin

http://courses.washington.edu/anth457/adaptatn.htm

Examples of physiological adaptation are tanning of skin when exposed to sun over long periods, the formation of callouses on hands in response to repeated contact or pressure, and the ability of certain organisms to absorb nutrients under low oxygen tensions.

http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Physiological_adaptation


I repeat: Not all forms of adaptation are evolutionary adaptation. These is something called physiological adaptation adaptation, which happens in a lifetime of organism and is usually temporary.

Also about the sun having being there a long time, this does not mean that creatures on earth including humans have stopped adapting to the rays of the sun. There is no standstill in nature, nature keeps refining itself. The goal is not just to survive the challenges of the environment but to thrive in it and make the best use of the environment.

There is a law of creation, "wherever their is room for improvement, improvement must be made," this law lies in the will of God, and it is also a manifestation of the will of God which drives everything onward, unceasingly towards perfection. Everything in creation, including nature, obey this law; only humans sometimes refuse to obey his law which is necessary for a continuous existence.

Nature is not wasteful and clearly shows guidance but I will return to that later when I have time. Perhaps on the weekend, I will bombard you with a long post on the issue of design, guidance in natural processes, and wastefulness of nature. As for not my dear mad_max, all I can say to you is wait for me. And pray that Nigerian beats Argentina on Saturday, so that I will be in a good mood to discuss.