₦airaland Forum

@ephisi

In addition to what I wrote above. Consider these facts:

1) Being a crossbearer does not make you automatically a member of any movement.

2) Cult, organisations, movements, churches and etc are only human endeavours to replicate on earth what takes place above. Everything human can fail or be wrong. It will only be right when it is adjusted to the will of God.

3) Anybody who lives in accord with the Will of God will receive the benefits of his righteous living, irrespective of his religion, race, gender, movement, and location on earth.

4) Only living in accord with the Will of God guarantees salvation. Participation or membership to any movement, cult, religion, church, and etc does not guaranty salvation.

Read the lecture "Cult" in the first volume of the Grail Message. There is so much one can deduce from that lecture, if one reads with an alert spirit.

Thanks again and remain blessed.

@ephisi

The correct way is always to follow your intuitive perception. The Grail Message maintains that God alone is Holy, and all forms of deifying some individuals and some movements is wrong. Humans on earth are not perfect, no-matter what movement, church, or organisation, they belong to.

The correct thing is to live the Grail Message, experience it and adjust your actions, words, and thoughts to the Grail Message. Be filled with the longing to do the right thing and exert all your energy in doing the things that you have already recognised as the right thing. This is all you need to do. Once you achieve this, everything that you need will be added on to you.

The Lord had already answered your question approximately 2000 years ago when He said, "Seek the Kingdom of God above all else, and live righteously, and he will give you everything you need."

I guaranty you that the love of God is ever watchfull. Seek to do his will in all things and live according to His will; and if you truly achieve this, then you will be shown a way out of your confusion. You will be shown which faction is correct. The same Love of God that led you to the Grail Message will also lead you to the right movement, if you must belong to a movement.

But don't start by seeking perfection in any movement, organisation or anybody, this is the wrong way to precede; and this will inevitably lead you to disappointments. You have been given all that you need-- The Grail Message. Adjust your life according to it, and all else will be given to you. Humans will fail you but the Grail Message will never fail you. Just concentrate on adjusting your whole being to the Grail Message, and you will be helped out of your confusion.

I hope this helps, and I wish you strength. Remain blessed.

JeSoul:
You could not have said that any better, that is absolutely true. And you're right they've tried to draw conclusions on very shaky and flawed premises.

To me personally and as a researcher myself, good science is leaving the door open to all possibilities, seen or unseen, observed or yet-to-be observed, and definitively dimissing the possibility of an intelligent creator is simply foolishness. Anyone with such a subscription is simply allowing his/her anti-religious bias to cloud the issue and are therefore not true scientists in the purest definition of the word.


I think Justcool's entire response is just brilliant!

Justcool this is fantastic! simply fantastic response! by far the most well reasoned and well written comeback I've read on NL on the subject. I could not agree more and I pray every creationist and evolutionist and those in the middle read the above, ponder and digest. My favorite quote from the above is this:
@the Seeker and Justcool - many many kudos, you're brilliant fellas.

@JeSoul
Thanks. I think yours is equally a very valid point.
Remain blessed.

@all
I am not here to compare Jesus and Mohamed. I hold both in utmost regard. My post is directed to olabowale.

@olabowale
Pardon me but I find you so inconsistent in the issue of Jesus. You, like most Muslims claim that Jesus was a messenger of Allah, you agree that Jesus was sent by Allah. Thus Jesus should be respected like other messengers of Allah, yet you never miss an opportunity to insult Jesus. In your first post in this thread you wrote something to the effect that Jesus could not live up to His words, thus He is lair.

I have never seen you or any Muslim insult other prophets. You always respect Moses, Noah, even Adam, and etc. Most Muslims never forget to out PBH(Peace be onto him) after the name of the prophets, only in the case of Jesus do a lot of Muslims forget include PBH. In your case Olabowale, you never address Jesus with respect. You never put the PBH or whatever after His name, yet you maintain He was sent by Allah.

If you believe that both Jesus and Mohamed were sent by Allah, then you would not get involved in comparing them. You should have utmost respect for both of them. But rather than this, whenever Jesus is mentioned you rain insults on Him as you do with Paul. I can understand(not that I agree that anybody should be insulted) why you insult Paul, it is because you don't believe he was sent by Allah. But in the case of Jesus, you claim He was sent by Allah and yet you insult Him and call Him a charlatan.

You cannot claim to respect Allah while you insult and make fun of His messenger.
Makes one wonder: Do you really care about Allah or do you only care about Islam and using every opportunity to promote Islam(Mohamed) and ridicule Christianity(Jesus). If you care about Allah or your God, you should respect all that you have recognised to be His servants.

What do you have against Jesus??

Are you really a servant of Allah(your God) or are you a servant of Islam (the religion)?


This is how you come across to me, if I am wrong please kindly explain to me.

@ Pastor AIO

Coming to the issue of slavery in our society before the advent of the colonial masters.

I don't think what was practiced in our society(the Igbo society) was exactly slavery. Slavery is a poor choice of words, the use of this word to describe what our societies did is another consequence mixing-up concepts. In the igbo society, for example, there is no word for slavery. We have the word "Oru," which can also translate to "servant." I don't think an "oru" is a slave because an "oru" is never a personal property. One will get punished if he/she kills his "oru." Unlike in some form of western slavery where the slave is a property that the owner can kill without any consequences. Although it is not unusual that an "oru" ends up getting killed; read the story of Ikemefuna in Chinua Achabe's "Things fall Apart." We have a word "Osu" which translate to "outcaste." An "Osu" is a person who belongs to a deity or a god. Such a person is usually excommunicated from dealing with others in certain ways. But such people are not treated like personal properties.

I guess you can say that they are all forms of slavery. I very much agree that all forms of slavery is wrong.

Also, I don't think some of our forefathers knew what kind slavery they sold their brothers to. They were not knowlegable about the western ways and some probably thought the whiteman's treatment of the slaves will be the same as theirs.

Also, some saw selling people into slavery as a milder punishment than killing. A person convicted and sentenced to death may be sold rather than killed.

Sometimes it was also used to frighten people and keep order in the society. A criminal may be sent to an oracle without ever returning back to the society. The people will be told that the oracle, deity or god has taken him or has eaten him; but actually the individual has been sold. This is a way they keep people infear of the oracle and also reduce the number of criminals in the society. Arochukwu and Long Juju are such oracles. Read about them.

I believe that with time, they would have abolished such practices by themselves. Terrible practices like the killing of twins were already arousing disgust in many. Many would gladly put an end to it but the fear of the god's anger restrained them. Chinua Achabe hinted this in "Things fall Apart."

Our societies would have finally evolved out of such practices by themselves, if they were left alone.


I am not writing this to justify any form or slavery."Oru," "Osu," or the selling people. I strongly maintain that all forms of slavery is wrong and against the will of God.

Pastor AIO:
@Justcool, I've been meaning to get back to you on the above. Those are fine points that you raised, some of them I've thought too. But I also think that even prior to the advance of foreign religions that there was something not quite right about our societies. I just cannot fathom how any functioning society can engage in the slave trade on the scale which african societies did. This trade was occurring long before the conversion of many africans to christianity and islam.

@Pastor AIO
I agree with you, our societies had lots of problems before the advent of missionaries and the jihadists. But these problems that our societies had were mostly due to their stage of development. Societies are like individuals; we start from childhood and gradually mature to adulthood. Even the most advanced society of today used to be in a childhood stage; some societies start from a barbaric stage, others practice all sorts of superstitions until they gradually mature to a more refined society.
Many of the European societies we see today used to be barbaric; the Romans called almost the rest of the European societies barbarians.
It is usually fear that brings people together to form groups, which in time grow into societies. Let us speedily observe the stages of spiritual development of societies:

(Stage 1)
Propelled by fear, Societies usually at a very early stage practise entity worship. Their gods are usually very scary, dark, and wicked; and these gods are usually demons which are nothing but forms of their fear. Their general outlook is usually very gloomy; they could barely differentiate between illusion and reality. Societies at this stage could be likened to children at very early stages who are usually afraid of the boggy man. From this they gradually they develop into the worship of the elements.

(Stage 2)
Most societies in time usually burst the shackles of their demon worship and self torment; and open their eyes to the reality around them, their environment. Observing the reality around them or their environment-- sky, earth, water, fire, lakes, rain, forests, bushes and etc; and seeing how these things affect their lives, they develop a worship of these elements. They worship the rain, because they need rain to water their farms; they worship the earth because they plant on it; they worship the sun because it gives them light, they fear the thunder because it roars threateningly on the skies. They usually hold some places sacred, IE sacred forests, sacred rivers and etc. Things, animals, humans and etc are usually sacrificed at such sacred places to appease the god. Is some ancient native American cultures used to sacrifice a man to the sun whenever their was an eclipse of the sun.

(Stage 3)
By worshiping and observing the elements, in time the society matures into actually seeing the forces behind these elemnets. The begin to sense the non-physical beings in nature that work on the elements; the clairvoyant ones among them will actually see these beings that are usually active in fire, water, air, earth and etc. Societies at this stage will regard these beings as gods, and worship them. At this stage, rather than worshiping the earth, water, fire, and etc, the society will worship the earth god, the water god, the fire god, and etc. These gods are the non-physical elemental beings. At this stage the society's sacred placed usually evolve into altars, where one can enter and commune with the gods. Societies at this stage usually start by worshiping the lower elemental beings and in time, evolve to worshiping the higher elemental beings like Jupiter, Venus, Mars, Saturn, Neptune, and etc.

(Stage 4)
In time the society matures beyond the worship of the elementals, and the higher elementals, and burst into the threshold of the spiritual. In some societies, the belief in one God usually starts at this stage. Some societies first learns of this one God from the elementals; others, on reaching the threshold of the spiritual, perceives the oneness that streams from the spiritual plane. From this they decipher the one and only true God. Some of them erroneously conclude that God is spiritual, since they perceive him from the radiation of the spiritual plane.  Others, sensing that their spirits are parts of this spiritual plane, erroneously conclude that the spiritual plane is God and that they(humans) are parts of God or are Gods. Sensing that their spirits can mature and return to the spiritual plane, from whence it once issued from; they erroneously conclude that they will oneday return to God.

(Stage 5)
A thorough experiencing of the stage will lead a society to the recognition of God.


Each society at any stage can and will evolve into the next stage provided that their growth or experiencing is not disturbed or interfered with. There is a reason why some messangers from God forbid their people to teach peoples of other cultures. Every messenger or prophet that is sent to particular society is given a message that accommodates the society's spiritual stage or maturity. This why the biblical statement, "Don't go to the Gentiles or the Samaritans, but only to the people of Israel--God's lost sheep."(Mathew 10: 5-6)
Moreover, if one decides to teach everybody that comes his/her way, he/she should be carefull not force or coercing others into accepting his teaching. If somebody rejects your teaching, you should take it as a clear indication that the person does not have the maturity to accept the teaching, and such a person should be left to his/her believes. Forcing, tricking or coercing people to accept your religious beliefs is never right, it is against the will of God. One must always remember this saying, "Whoever does not receive you, nor heed your words, as you go out of that house or that city, shake the dust off your feet." (Mathew 10:14)

Like I said earlier, a good teacher must be asses his student and know the students level of knowledge before he can build up on it. One who is called to lead a people or society spiritually must know the spiritual level of the people before he can lead them. A blind person cannot lead another person.

I will give an example:
A people at the (stage 1) of spiritual development may know or fear an non-physical entity that lives in the rivers. This entity could be a demon or a phantom that the people created out of their fear of the river. The clairvoyant ones among them sees this entity and they call it mummy-water. Another people who are, missionaries on (stage 3) visits these people and tell them about marmaids which are elemental beings that work in water, thus pure creatures of God. This people in (stage 1) will get confused and mix up mummy-water and marmaid as being one. This is spiritual confusion that can have a disastrous consequence. The consequence is that this people in (stage 1) may never evolve to the perception of marmaid, because they already attach fear to it and they  believe that they already know what marmaids are.
This people in (stage 1) will also tell their stories of dealings with mummy-water to the missionaries on (stage 3). This might arouse fear of marmaids from the people in (stage 3). This fear will create a barrier between them and the mermaids and they will retrograde in their spiritual development. Both peoples ends up getting harmed by this contact and exchange of beliefs.

@ the seeker
This is really interesting; I don't know what I admire most in your post-- the thought development or your articulation.

I completely agree with you about the flaws in the theory of evolution. Real scientists do not deny these flaws, neither do they claim that the theory of evolution, as we have it today, has been proven. But this does not mean that the whole idea of evolution is a myth. Evolution is a reality only that scientists have not yet figured-out exactly how it happened. The major problem, like you pointed out, is that evolution is not a repeatable experiment. We cannot repeat the process in a lab and observe exactly how it happened.

But the people that do most damage to the theory are the anti-God enthusiasts. These are pseudo scientists and people feed up with religion; they use theory of evolution as a weapon against the belief in the existence of God. Hardly did science give birth to evolution did these zealots snatch it and waive it threateningly against the believers as a weapon. If these zealots had waited and at-least understood the basic things about science, they would have realized that science and evolution is not about whether there is a God or not. Science deals strictly with the physical, God is non-physical; thus God is beyond the realm of science. Science can never prove that God exists, neither can science ever prove that God does not exist.

Very harmful are also the religious zealots and fanatics who, starved of all spirituality try to offer the bible or other scriptures as scientific facts. The bible and other scriptures are spiritual books that should not be compared with science books. The bible and religious books should not be taken literarily. Once this is understood then the battle between the religious fanatics and science enthusiasts will cease. Creationism does not oppose evolution; neither does evolution oppose creationism and God. They simply approach the matter from different perspectives.

My perception is that evolution is the physical or biological process through which creatures (including man) were created on earth. Or the rather the physical or biological process through which creatures’ physical bodies were created. Although science is not yet very sure of how exactly evolution happened, but overtime and with serious researches they will someday fathom or decipher how it exactly happened. The theory, the way it is today still is not foolproof.

I think that the major problem that evolutionist have is that they don't realize that evolution was guided and did not just happen by chance. People ask questions like, “Despite all the mutations, why hasn't bacteria evolved into something else?” If one understand that evolution was guided then such questions automatically disappears. Animals (including bacteria), plants and etc on earth today are end products or fruits of a process, not necessarily a stage in a process. Thus the creature dog as we have it today is not just a stage in the journey of evolution but rather an end point or a destination.  With this knowledge one ceases to expect man to evolve in to a different creature in the future. Man is an end product, the fruit of the journey of evolution; the next phase of man’s evolution is maintenance and refinement of man but never a continued evolution towards a different creature or a new creature.

If most scientists understand this, I believe this will greatly help in their understanding of evolution. Some scientists, in the face of discoveries, have arrived at the conclusion that evolution might have been guided.

I believe that evolution was guided by the will of God. The prototypes of the creatures on earth today, already exist in higher planes (Supra-earthly planes). Evolution was guided to achieve physical replicas of these supra-earthly prototypes; and once a replica is achieved, evolution of that creature continues to refine it and maintain it as that creature is, but never a continued evolution into a new creature. I.e., in millions of years to come, dogs will remain dogs; they would not have evolved into a different creature, rather they may be more refined but they will forever (as long as the earth exist) remain dogs. So will man, lion and etc, because these creatures are nothing but physical replicas of creatures that existed in higher planes even before the physical universe came into being.

Mavenb0x:
@Justcool: I read your reply, but I maintain my views. Conception involves the fertilization of an egg by at least one spermatozoon. With the science of fertilization today, if a lab tech can cause fertilization with no humans present, why cant God do it by causing Mary to produce a self-fertilized egg? Or do you know the exact dynamics by which ova are created, since science does not yet know 4 sure? I dont buy that Grail gist. Cheers.

@Mavenb0x
Thanks for your reply. You are entitled to your opinion, in no way do I wish to persuade you or quarrel with you over your views. If what you wrote above fills your void, then stick to it. Eventhough I completely disagree with you, I still respect you and your views.

One should always be allowed the freedom to express one's views.

Thanks and remain blessed.

Mavenb0x:
Superb!

Postscript: Kolaxy, I was just about to say that!

But, Justcool, I have a problem with where you defined Christ's genes as a formative consequence of strengthened genes in Joseph and Mary as opposed to Mary, when the entire purpose of Christ's coming would be negated if the birth was not immaculate. I think that should read "Mary's genes" alone. Cheers.

kolaxy:
@ Mavenb0x,

I concur

@ Mavenb0x and Kolaxy
Thanks for your kind words.

I will address your concerns about Jesus having a biological father.

Jesus indeed had a biological father. God created nature and nature demands that a woman must be impregnated (procreation) for a pregnancy and a child to result. The laws of nature are also the laws of God. Nobody can override the laws of nature, you'll have to stronger than God to be able to do this. We have to accept the boundaries of nature and live within it because nobody can change it. Therefore every pregnancy(Including Mary's) was a result of procreation. Jesus (like everybody) had a biological father.
Jesus had to fulfill all the laws of God which includes the laws of nature. Hence, "I have come to fulfill the laws of my Father not overthrow them." However, Jesus is the son of God because he carries inside him a part of God, His innermost core is divine. Unlike we humans, our innermost core is spirit(the breath of God and not a part of God Himself).

God Himself cannot override the laws of nature because these laws issue out of the will of God which is perfect. Hence the laws of creation or the laws of nature are perfect, and perfection precludes changeability. God does not change, neither do His law change. They are perfect from the beginning and will forever remain perfect, and therefore cannot be improved upon. God is perfect so are his laws, which includes the laws of nature.

But the conception of Jesus was immaculate. Immaculate conception means a conception done out of love as opposed to a conception done out of lust or infactuation. When pure love for each other awakens in the hearth of a man and a woman, physical intimacy between such a couple is pure and done out of love. Such a conception is immaculate conception. It is a pity that man has replaced love with lust; therefore making physical intimacy a mire of lust and passion, this is a sin.

Only the purity of such a conception can pave a path for the Jesus who is Divine love. Divine love only travel in the ray of purity.

The purity and love in the hearth of Mary and the biological father of Jesus prevented sinful lust from interfering with their copulation. This is immaculate physical conception, which preceded the immaculate spiritual conception, or incarnation of Jesus. Incarnation takes place during the middle of pregnancy. And when it was time for Jesus to incarnate, instead of the incarnation of a spirit which may have already defiled itself in previous lives, an immaculate Divine part of God incarnated. This is immaculate incarnation.

All these were done with the power of the holy spirit. Like I said earlier Mary and Jesus' biological father were prepared both physically and spiritually. They were prepared even before their incarnation. They were chosen because they had the prerequisites needed for the mission, they were already servants of God even before their incarnation. The purity of the power of the Holy Spirit guided them and filled them, this allowed their spirits to achieve a purity that stiffled all baseness and lustfulness during their copulation.

This does not mean that the Holy Spirit copulated with Mary. The Holy Spirit is a divine part of God like Jesus, and it is impossible for a Divine being with a Divine body to couplate with a physical body.

Also the strange assumption that it was angel Gabrail that copulated with Mary is wrong and impossible. Angels without physical bodies cannot couplate with the physical body of Mary.

Copulation or sexual intercourse can only be done with physical bodies; it is only an earthly thing, it cannot be done in the higher planes.

I draw my spiritual knowledge from a book called "In The Light of Truth: The Grail Message." In-other to be clearer on this issue of immaculate conception, I advise you to read the Grail Message yourself.

The idea of people not having biological fathers is older than Christianity. The ancients believed that Alexander the great was the son of a god, the Romans taught that Julius Caesar was begotten of a lion. Ancient kings used these rumors to make the gullible and ignorant masses respect them and worship them. The early Christians adapted this concept too and attributed it to Jesus. It made it easier for the superstitious Romans to accept Jesus and worship Him.

Also consider, part of Jesus mission is to show mankind that one can live righteously and without sin on earth. If His earth life was changed in any way or made different from the earth life of mankind, then mankind can accuse God of partiality or favoritism.
I will give an analogy: If I set up a school with rules, and the students are not doing well. Now if I decide to show them that one can do well in that school, I may enroll in the school to show them that one can get an A in that school. If I change the rules of the school just for me, then I have defeated the purpose. In other to be fair I will not change any rule just for me, I have go through what other students go through and achieve an "A"

Another example; If I set up rules for a game, I cannot change the rules just for me, to make me win the game. I cannot change the rule for my son, my wife, and etc. This will only be unfair. The fairest thing for me to do is to followe the rules that I set up for everybody.

Likewise God did not change any of the laws of nature for Jesus. By living sinlessley on earth, Jesus showed us that one can achieve righteousness on earth.

I hope this helps. Thanks and remain blessed

@Deepsight
You never fail to impress me. You made a lot of sense your reply to my post.

Deep Sight:
My Dear Friend and Brother Justcool -

Actually i limit my definition intentionally: for the purpose of scientifically engaging the atheistic mind and showing such a mind that something which must be defined as God necessarily exists. However as Tudor has already pointed out, i have at many times also made clear that i believe God to be a being. I will take a few moments in a subsequent post to indicate the reasons for the definitions i gave above.

OK, I now understand. Thanks for explaining, and forgive me for drawing such a hasty conclusion.

Deep Sight:
Well i must say that until very very recently my thinking was this: Even if God may incarnate as a man, why should i regard any particular truth-bringer as God himself? I regard Christ as one of many truth bringers, and there is no reason to suppose that he is God himself, especially as he said quite a lot to suggest that he is not God.

But recently my thinking has developed slightly. I no longer believe that God may actually enter creation as a man. I reflect that the enormity of divine infinity, which is what God is, cannot be borne within material finity. I do not believe that the material world or the human body can support God: in much the same way as an animal body cannot support a human spirit.

No matter how enormous the Divine infinity is, a little part of it can be made finite and incarnated into a physical body. You are right, God in His entirety cannot descend into creation; creation will only incinerate in His presence. This part of God that was made finite and incarnated in a physical body is not God in His entirety; hence we use the expression "son of God." This is why Jesus suggested that He was not God by saying that the father is greater than Him. Jesus is dependant on the father, therefore the father is greater than him. I don't think Jesus ever called himself God, He only said that He is "the son of God"; thus a part of God. His origin is Divine, as opposed to our origin which is spirit.
I will give you an analogy:
The Atlantic ocean cannot be contained in a cup. But a small potion of the Atlantic ocean can fill a cup. This ocean filled cup is not the ocean but a part of the ocean. Eventhough small, it carries all the characteristics of the ocean. Whoever sees and understands the nature of this water in a cup, has seen and understood the nature of the ocean. Hence the biblical statement, "Whoever has seen me has seen the Father." (John14:19)
I used the Atlantic ocean to represent God, while the ocean filled cup represents Jesus.

Coming to the issue of the animal body and human spirit. You are right to some extent that the animal body cannot support a human spirit. But this is not necessarily impossible. Remember that the first human spirits that incarnated on earth, incarnated into the bodies of highly evolved animals which were specially guided and developed for the purpose. Thus our physical bodies are basically animistic. A man cannot for instance incarnate into the body of a lion, the major problem is that the lion's body does not have the form to support a human spirit. The human spirit can only wear a cloak that bears the human form which symbolises self consciousness. Something which is inherent in the spiritual and the divine; lower animals do not posses this self-consciousness, and hence they don't have the human form.

Now let us follow the development closely:
Animistic germs started the development of all physical bodies; after thousands of years, the development or evolution yielded different kinds of animals with different forms, each a coarse or an unpolished reflection of beings that exist in higher planes. Certain animals, in their evolution were specially guided by the elemental beings to achieve a form that resembles the human form as much as can be achieved by the animistic. The highest height of the animistic achievement is the most highly developed animals which bears a form that closely resembles the human body. At this point the human spirit which had already journeyed from paradise to subsequent creation, incarnated into these highly eveloved animals, and continued the evolution of the body to the presents day man.
This is what happened with the incarnation of the first humans on earth. The incarnation of the Divine can also be likened to the same process or is a repetition of the same process of development. The human spirit after evolving their inhereted animistic bodies to the present eveloved human body, set a bridge for the incarnation of a higher specie, just like the animistic germs made a bridge for the incarnation of spirit germs. A few humans with healthy bodies were guided to meet each other and mate to achieve healthier bodies. After centuries of this guidance, a couple(man and woman) were achieved, which had bodies strong enough to carry higher radiations than the average body. This man and woman were Mary- the mother of Jesus, and a man who was the biological father of Jesus. When these two people met, they united physically and produced a physical body that was suitable for the incarnation of a part of the Divine.
While the preparation of the physical body was going on on earth, the part of God that separated from Him was also being prepared. Of cause the Divine cannot be directly incarnated into the physical, the gap is too much, and nature or the will of God does not allow gaps. So this part of Divine unsubstantiality, has to first be clothed with Divine substantiality, then clothed with Primordial spiritual, human spiritual, animistic, ethereal, and finally astral which connects it to the physical body.
The bodies affect this Divine part of God in such a way that with each body the Divine radiation that shines through is reduced, thus making this Divine part of God finite.

There is no gap in this process nothing in it is against the laws of nature.

I will give an analogy: Imagine God in His Divine infinity as an all powerful electric current. This current is so much that if it is connected straight to a simple appliance like an electric bulb, the bulb will burst instantaneously. But after passing this current through many resistors, the current can be reduced enough that it can safely power an electric bulb.

This is what happened with Jesus. The bodies He wore,like I mentioned above, acted like resistors which made it possible for Him to were the physical.

Now let us return to the bulb analogy. Imagine a house lighted with many bulbs that are powered by direct currents. In-other to increase the brightness in the house, an electrician decided to power a bulb with an alternating current like I mentined above. This bulb shines brighter because is it powered by 24 volts of alternating current, while the rest of the bulbs in the house are powered by 12 volts of direct current.

The bulb powered by 24 volts of alternating current represents Jesus, while the rest of the bulbs powered by 12 volts of direct current represent human beings.

One is powered by Alternating current, while the rest is powered by Direct current.
Jesus is animated  or powered by Divine essence, while humans are animated or powered by spiritual essence.

Now you see how it is possible for a part of God to be incarnated on a physical body.


Thanks and remain blessed

@ Deepsight

Deep Sight:
I have presumed no such thing.

I have merely presumed that YOU, Tudor, are not the First Cause.

Capisce?

The above suggests that you are not opposed to the idea that God or a part of God can incarnate in a physical body and live on earth like men. Then what exactly is your problem with the idea that Jesus is the incarnate of a part of God?

Deep Sight:
Have i not made it clear that i have never espoused a big daddy sitting in the sky?

How else can i explain myself?

I have at different times defined God as -

  1. The Oneness of Infinity

  2. The Compound of all self-existent laws

  3. The primordial singularity of all existence

  4. The Universal Mind

How do any of the above appear to you as delusions?

How do they approximate to the jealous and vengeful Yahweh and his injunctions to stone people to death?

Honestly, Deepsight, its very difficult to capture your belief; one cannot safely call you a deist. Deism implies that a supreme being created the universe. You see why I will not label you a deist; you don't believe that the supreme mover or creator is a being, rather you chose to call the supreme "Oneness of Infinity, Compound of all self-existent laws, Universal Mind, and etc." I think the only think I can labell your belief is Agnostic theism.

Deepsight, with all due respect, your definition of God is very ambiguous. I am not sure I understand what you mean, so let me go through your definition and explain the problems I have with them.

Deep Sight:
1. The Oneness of Infinity

What exactly do you mean by "oneness of infinity." If by "oneness" you mean the connection between all that exist. Thus the connection of everything in creation; the connection between plants, animals, humans, physical, spiritual, the infinite giving and taking, the balance between all that exists, etc. In a nut shell: The infinite oneness of creation. If this is what you mean, then my perception is that this "oneness" is not God.
Indeed all creation, all that exists, is one. Only one power permeates and animates all. Indeed the whole creation is one in it functioning, an infinite reciprocality(giving and taking), or symbiotic relationship between all that exist.
But this "Oneness" is not God. God stands above the "Oneness", and God's energy animates or fuels creation which is the "oneness". In a nut shell: everything in existence finds its origin in the radiation or energy of God. In this energy or radiation of God lies the "Oneness." But this "oneness" is not God Himself who is a being and not just an energy.

Deep Sight:
2. The Compound of all self-existent laws

The self-existent laws, or the laws of creation are not God either. What we humans perceive as laws are nothing but the effects of God's radiation in different planes of creation. I will give an example: God's radiations is the source of all "oneness"; thus God's radiation is magnetic and holds everything withing it as one. As this radiation travels away from God, this magnetic effect of it slackens and out of this radiation things, beings, worlds, and etc separate themselves and comes into existence. The stronger and purer ones separate first from this radiation and being closer to the source; while the weaker, denser or heavier ones separate at a grater distance from the source. Similar to the separation of the components of the petroleum. We observe this and call it the law of spiritual gravity--the lighter worlds exists in higher planes closer to God, while the denser ones sink lower. This is an eternal law that operates in all parts of creation, to us it is a law; but in actuality it is nothing but an effect of the radiation of God. So this laws is not God Himself, rather it is an effect of God's power.

Deep Sight:
3. The primordial singularity of all existence

This is a paraphrase of (1)"The Oneness of Infinity" I have already dealt with this. But if by this you mean something else other that "the oneness of infinity", please let me know.

Deep Sight:
4. The Universal Mind

If by the above you mean the subjective mind, the higher conciouseness; the mind that is universal, truth, infallible, and which people can tap on to if they evelove spiritually or by achieving higher consciousness. My perception is that what people usually refer to as the universal mind, the higher self is only an effect of the human spirit within them. Thus the intuitive perception. The intuitive perception is always in accord with the Truth, and it is infallible because it stems from our spirit. The spirit in us originates in Paradise, a plane far above matter or the physical plane. Our spirit being spiritual is not limited by the physical concept of time and space; so it knows that exact truth about anything spiritual and anything that lies below the spiritual. Our spirit having originated in a world closer to God, is more able to potray the characteristics of God than the physical is able to potray. By characteristics of God, I mean purity, love, justice, kindness, and etc. Within every humanbeing on earth lies the spirit covered with various cloaks, the last of which is the physical body. People who have learnt to listen to their intuition, discover the infallibility of the intuition, and overtime they perceive the connection of their spirit(the source of the intuition) to paradise, a plane which lies much higher and closer to God than the physical. It is the perception of this connection to the paradise, coupled with a faint perception of the purity and oneness that radiates from Paradise, that make people think that this paradise is God, or the universal mind. The erroneous conclusion that man is a part of God, and will one day return to God, stems from this sensing. The sensing of paradise is the highest a human spirit on earth can reach; sensing the purity, love and Justice, that radiates from Paradise and sensing that it is the highest perception that they can reach makes such humanbeings erroneously conclude that this Paradise is God. And sensing that the spirits within them is a part of this Paradise makes them conclude that they are parts of God. To some, it is the intuitive perception that they refer to as the universal mind. The intuition is always the same, irrespective of who percieves it, it is always in acord with the Truth.  I think this is why they call it universal, because the perception of the spirit is always the same and in accord with the Truth, and anybody with an alart spirit can asses it.
But Paradise, and the human spirit which originates from paradise, are only creations, or part of the creation of God. Thus a derivative of the radiation of God, and not God Himself.

God is a being, creation is His work. But like an artist who can only stand next to his work, but never merge with it or become part of it, God stands far above his work--creation.

enitan2002:
For me, love can be defined as the total submission of one's mind, body and soul for the spiritual development of another disregarding the benefits of what one stand to gain in doing so.

@enitan2002
I am amazed. In a few words you captured something so deep. Your definition stems from an awakened spirit.
Thank you so much for sharing that with us.

SCI:
the bible tells us in the book of 1cont 13:4 that love is patient and kind,it is not jealous it does not brag, it is not proud,neither is it rude or selfish.and it cannot be made angry easily, it does not hold grudges,it is not happy with people who do wrong,but always happy with the truth.love never gives up on people, it never loses hope, nor does it sop trusting.it never quits, and it has no end.

Just beautiful.

Almost all the religions of the world hold love in paramount esteem.
The message of Christ is based on love: “Love for God and love for one’s neighbor.”
Almost all the prophets talked about the importance of love.

But what exactly is love?

Since love is very important, we should know exactly what love is. But there is more than a thousand definition of love, some definitions very contrary to others. We here definitions like: "Love is jealous, love is blind and etc" Other definitions say: "God is love, Jesus is love, and etc" Since God is Love and love is blind; does it mean that God is blind? You see how contradictory sayings are.

Is love a feeling or a sentiment?
A man says to his girlfriend, “Honey I love you, I feel nothing but love for you, and etc.”
He says the words to his mother, but the way he feels about his mother is very different from the way he feels about his girlfriend.

Is love a measurable quantity?
A person may say that he/she loves his son more than his/her dog. Loving something more than the other implies that love is measurable. But is this so?

Is love an emotion of kindness, gentility, affection, and forgiveness?
If so, then how are we supposed to love everybody, including our enemies; since we are told to love our enemies? Should we feel affectionate towards murderers, sinners, terrorists, and etc?

What exactly is love? What does it mean to love somebody? What does it mean to love your neighbor? What does it mean to love God?

In a nutshell:
What is love?

Please shear your perception.

we wonder why our country is so backwards. How can a sane person believe such a false story?

@poster, your story is false.

Furthermore:

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-111110.0.html#msg1931675

Personally I think that one of the major causes of the present spiritual bankruptcy in Africa is colonization; spiritual colonization, to be more precise. By spiritual colonization, I mean the advent of the missionaries, jihadists or evangelists in Africa.
In this thread, and in order to get quickly to the root of the matter, I will not question the correctness or the Truthfulness of the religions that they brought to Africa, be it Catholicism, Protestantism, or Islam.
The major problem is their mode of conversion and teaching. Teaching requires an awakened intuitive perception, and I believe that good teachers are called; zeal alone is not enough to make somebody a good teacher. A good teacher first asses the student and completely understands the students level of knowledge before teaching the student higher things. Sometimes an intermediary lesson is required because real knowledge can only be acquired step by step; wherever or whenever a single step is missing, real knowledge will never be achieved.
A teacher sent to teach a stranger calculus must first find out what the stranger already knew about mathematics. The teacher may have to start by teaching the stranger how to count, arithmetic, algebra, or trigonometry depending on what the student already knew. The Teacher cannot tell the student to forget everything he had learned in the past and start learning calculus. This will only yield and unhealthy student of calculus, but never a sound student.
Also, good teacher asses the general demeanor of the student, i.e.- the students hobbies, background, temperament, and etc. The more the teacher knows about the student, the better he can fashion an approach suitable for the student. And any form of manipulating the student into learning or accepting what he/she does not want to learn is wrong and should not be employed in the teaching. Good teachers equip their students with the means to acquire knowledge, and the means to improve themselves. Good teachers don't change people, they only give you what you need in order to change yourself, be it in the form of knowledge or by being  a good example.

All these things are what the missionaries and evangelists failed to realize. They approached Africans who have already developed some level of spiritual knowledge; without understanding the African people’s level of spiritual knowledge and maturity, the missionaries started teaching them Catholicism, Protectionism, Islam and etc. Without understanding the nature of the African peoples, the missionaries sort to make them Europeans. Without understanding that there is a reason why Africans have a different temperament from the temperament of the Europeans; and all peoples on earth do not have to have the same European temperament to be pleasing to God. Verity stands within the will of God; and only in harmonious variety does true beauty lie.
There is a reason why dogs behave differently than lions, each animal’s behavior is adapted to the animals environment and nature. All species of dogs do not have the same temperament, size, and shape; niether do all rose flowers have the same color, fragrance, or shape. Only man in his ignorance tries to make all animals behave the same way so that he can domesticate them for his selfish use, thereby greatly harming the eco system. And due to mans desire to dominate, increase his boundries and wealth, he attacks other cultures and force or trick them into becoming like him; thereby harming both himself and retarding the devlopment of the cultures he invaded.

This is one of the major problems with Africa and Africans today. Not only African but all peoples who have been wrongly colonized. Today we are neither truly Africans nor can we ever become Europeans. It’s like when circus performers raise lions to become docile like dogs so that they can perform on the circus. The result is an unhealthy animal that is neither a dog nor a lion.

The missionaries did not understand anything about the Africans, and neither did the Africans understand the missionaries. Majority of the initial converts in Africa converted either by force, by trickery, by enticement, or by the promise of security.

The result is that Africans never really become Chritians, nor Muslims, they remained deep within them traditionalist and on the outside Christians, Muslims and etc. If you look clearly in the African society of today you will clearly see this. Most Africans today who claim to be Catholics, Protestants, Muslims and etc, when faced with very difficult problems they secretly consult a native traditionalists (Dibia in Igbo). When faced with serious problems, their faith in God or Allah gives way to their real belief; they consult "dibia" or "babalawo" and perform rituals. Thier faith is only a facade, which the slightes puff of the wind blows away; It is not an integral part of their true selves. Reminds me of the Igbo adage: "When the wind blows we see the chicken's skin which is usually covered by feathers,"  thus we see the true chicken.

Most African reverend priest, Pastors, imams are noting but "dibias", and "babaloawos" masquerading in the cloaks of priest, Pastors, and imams. The same worship and fear that their forefathers harbored for their wooden idols; are still harbored by the modern African reverend priest, Pastors, and imams. Only that they replaced their forefathers' wooden idols with an image of an invisible God or Allah. But this is not progress or going closer to God which requires an inward change not such outward changes.   

It is clearly evident that they did not understand the missionaries, and neither did the missionaries understand them. Just look around you and you will see this everywhere.

I will give some examples:
Before the missionaries came to Igbo land, the Igbo’s among other things knew of a bad god called "ekwensu." Ekwensu is an embodiment of evil, or like Achabe wrote, “the bringer of evil.” 
When the missionaries came and taught about Lucifer, both side carelessly concluded that Lucifer is Ekwensu.
But this is not so. Lucifer is Lucifer, a fallen angel. While Ekwensu is Ekwensu, an embodiment of all evil. It became very easy for the Igbo to mix up this concept of Ekwensu with Lucifer. This is spiritual confusion which with time even resurges back to the missionaries, confusing their own beliefs.

Another example is our language. We speak english, and ever since the colonial masters have taught us english, we have excelled in that language. We have great African poets and writes of the english language. But what about our native languages? What has become of the great languages of Igbo, hausa, and yoruba since English became our official language? The answer is simple, eversince we started speaking english our languages have stood still, not improved and refined becuase we have neglected it. And since nature does not allow stagnation, our languages have started retrogressing. And some of our languages may die away in a few decades. Those who know the laws of God in creation and the effect that the language has on the human spirit, know the implication of one's language dieing away. Is it progress that our childeren born in America, Europe and etc cannot speak thier native languages. Every human spirit that incanates in any culture needs the thourogh expereincing of that culture, including the language which helps the spirit mature. Thus we harm a spirit who incarnates in an Igbo society by not teaching it the Igbo language, we deny it somthing that it needs for its growth. It's like denying a child its mothers milk. We are not just obliged to continue our language, but we are obliged to develop it to flurish; we owe this to our creator. You cannot toy with any of natures gift without harming yourself or answering for it.

These are just two examples, I can give many more.

After considering all these things, you see why there is so much moral decline in Africa today. The very thing that makes man a human being, the perception of his spirit, his spirituality, has been tampered with. Africans cut off from that which is real to them, since then have becomes nothing but drones seeking to be like the white man.

If Africans had been left alone, as they experienced life, they would gradually developed. There cultures would have gradually developed and over time would reach its zenith, and become completely pleasing to God. This is real progress, progress made from personal experiencing.

That said, all the blame should not go to the misionaries. Africans today can still retrace thier steps, stop trying to be like the white man, and discover themselves and the beauty of the true African, which is in no way less or inferiour to the European. Progress never comes by coppying others or trying to be what your are not. Man know thyself! In this knowing own's self lies the dawn of progress, self realization, and improvement.

sauer:
Really interesting thread here! I stumbled on it and loved reading thru. When I saw the first posting, and read the poster explain his attempts at seeing the past without "wormholes" I immediately knew he was going the seeing-reflected-light way. Everyone has said the obvious, seeing such reflected light warrants travelling at a speed greater than light's and this apparently isn't physics for now. The speed at which things can travel is apparently limited.
The poster doesn't understand the wormhole theory or folding-space theory. The theory doesn't suggest travelling to the future (that appears to be a bias on the poster's side). Thus it isn't "ridiculous".
The theory is definitely realistic, in fact very. Look at mercury and you will see that it's moving on a rather different orbit, not because it wants to, but it simply has to move the shortest path available to it; and because the sun has seriously bent the space-time around it, mercury has to follow a seemingly strange path which is it's shortest. If space shuttles find shorter routes via bent space-time to farther planets, then they can travel at normal speeds or close to light speeds and get to their destination faster than they would have if they had followed normal course.

I think what bent space and wormholes mainly suggest is quicker travel in space and perhaps faster travel between universes. For now, nature has bent space-time, perhaps in the future man would be able to bend space-time just has he had been able to create artificial lakes and seas. Never rule this out!
About bending space-time to see the future, perhaps you can't. But bending space-time to get to farther destinations faster can enable an astronaut know what will happen at Alpha Centauri before those on earth get wind of it. Is that not seeing the future?
Bending space-time is serious business in the scientific community. Seeing reflected light is probably much more improbable to yield results. For one, the poster cannot tell if living beings are on Alpha Centauri even though we see light from it as it was a little more than 4 years ago. Neither can he tell what colour of plants there are on it, if there plants on it at all. Above all, the poster has not factored in the problem of sound. Sound cannot travel in space because it needs a material medium for travel. If you talk and you have echoes, these dissipate after a while and you can never recover them again. Moreover, astronauts on the moon if they were to talk to one another without the aid of electronic gadgets will not hear each other. Even if one is able to analyse the light (which is still very improbable, because they would be pretty waned and seriously shifted in the spectrum), one cannot get sound.

Another very good solution to this problem of the past as it is (not future) is for man to stop whining about 6000 year ago. This is only for those present now. We are and have been documenting issues on video and tv, recordings are being carried out and good news is these are being preserved. 200,000 years from now when man has seriously advanced and 6000 years means nothing any more, people living then will have concrete information about the past and will be able to posit theories referring to this information. 4,000,000 years from now can only be better!!!

For(e) seeing the future, I'll take a break

@sauser
Brilliant post. However, your explanation of Mercury's obit does not explain the space-folding which scientists talk about when they talk about traveling to the future via a wormhole. What you explained was Einstein's theory on how gravity works. I completely understand that, as much as I agree with Einstein. A large object creates a dent or an indentation on the space-time fabric, this dent traps other objects or bodies. This is how the sun trapped the planets in our soler system. This is well understood.
Also, your conclusion that since Large bodies can bend or indent the space-time man can also bend space time may not be true. Man cannot do everything that nature does; there will always remain many things that nature does which man cannever dream of doing. Just because nature forms stars (like the sun) does not mean that one day man will be able to make stars like the sun.
Also consider the energy and mass of the sun, then consider the amount of dent that the sun makes on the space-time fabric. This dent or bending that our humongous sun made is still very little compared with the amount bending that is needed to make man travel to the future or the past.
Travelling to the future is completely out of the question because the does not exist already made. We make the future as we go along; so how can you travel to a place that does not exist?
But anyway, thanks a lot. I like your explanation of the space-fold theory. But I what you explained is not exactly what the scientists or proponents of that theory mean. They claim that theoretically, via wormholes, man can actually travel to the future if he can bend space-time fabric.
Another thing that, perhaps you haven't considered, is that it may be very impossible for anything to pass through a wormhole and remain intact.

sauer:
Thanks the_seeker. I like this post and would love to make more comments.

One other thing the poster has apparently not considered is that the earth does not emit it's own light source, but bounces of light rays from the sun. Some are therefore absorbed by the earth's atmosphere and also its surface. The fraction reflected is still even smaller.
This will have a corresponding effect on measurement.
Looking at the earth some great distance away, we will be seeing our sun more clearly than we would earth, mars or jupiter at all. Thus, the light we would be receiving will be coming mainly from the sun and not from earth. At least 98% of light we receive will come from the sun. An observer far away may not even see our earth!
Our difficult it will be then trying to extract light information which belongs to the earth.
Moreover, as the reflected light is travelling in all directions and the surface area per unit photon reflected off earth (due to spherical nature of earth) increases dramatically, we would have related photons separated by many light years over the same area of space. I don't know if you understand my explanation here.
One thing is, this theory is highly unlikey for time travel; and that's why it hasn't been considered by scientists desperate for solutions.

I think we should have more threads like this on nairaland, so people can contribute even more. I'd like to throw more into the open. Sadly, nairaland does not have a science forum!!

Another brilliant post. But every concern that you raised was addressed in my OP. I never said that the earth emits lights. What I was talking about was "light that the earth reflected." Also about not being able to see things on earth through this light due to distance, reread my post and you will see that I wrote it in the assumption that scientists invent a telescopic camera. With telescopic camera things that are very far away can be seen to minutest detail. It all depends on the magnification power of the telescope. I know we don't have telescopes powerful enough to see other galaxies yet; but keeping in mind that mankind have invented telescopes, it will not be a dream to expect that someday they will develop telescopes as powerful enough as to see so far away. Afterall scientists have been increasing the power of the telescope every year. You cannot compare the Telescope that Galileo or Copernicus used with the telescope that NASA use today.

But thanks for a wonderful and brilliant contribution. I respect your knowledge of science.

Deep Sight:
Folding spacetime is a scientific kindergarten fantasy.

See the discussion here -

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-362859.0.html

@ deepsight,
I agree with you. One aspect of space-folding idea that people always fail to realize it that space-folding entails or suggests the notion that the future is set in stone, thus predestination. If you can travel to the future by folding-space that means that the future already exists. But this is not so! We make the future as we go along, the future does not already exist somewhere waiting for us to arrive.

I cant believe that the same scientists who are telling us that there is no such thing as predestination are telling us space-folding. Are they now agreeing with some religious fanatics who believe that God has already written our future in stone, and therefore our future does not depend on us. This idea precludes the idea that we human have free will.

Honestly it takes more blind faith to believe in the space-folding theory than it takes to believe some of the ridiculous religions beliefs of today.

Has science finally crossed the boundary of realistic observation and step into the zone of blind faith?

mavenbox:
@justcool: Hmmm now I get what you mean Thanks for breaking it down
But really, justcool, i still think you can't peer into the past of the time machine, or rather the time machine's launch-time, unless

1. the device travels faster than light and thus beats the light to its vantage point of observation and/or
2. it travels slower than light, or as fast as light, and has a means of trapping light rays that have conveyed their information in the past and are still shooting across space

My reasons:

By wikipedia, some estimated durations of distances travelled by light are (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light)
Earth to our Sun (8.3 minutes)
Earth to Alpha Centauri (4.4 years)
Earth to the other end of the Milky Way (100, 000 years)
Earth to the Andromeda Galaxy (2,500,000 years)

So, say we build our incredible history-recorder today, it is tuned up to travel as fast as light (if possible) and we launch it on January 1st, 2010.
After 8.3 minutes of launch, it is as far away as the Sun from the Earth. As such, it can trap all the light rays that ALSO left Earth 8.3 minutes ago, and afterwards. It can't even trap the light rays that left Earth 8 minutes ago (20 seconds before launchtime) because they would have travelled farther than the Sun, conveying the accurate information.

If we allow the recorder to continue travelling after the 8.3 minute distance, after 4.4 years, around the 24th of April of 2014, the history-recorder will have arrived at, say, Alpha Centauri. But the SAME light rays that it can capture are the ones that have travelled thus far from earth in 4.4 years. i.e. the very same ones carrying the earth's information at launchtime

If, however, we could travel say twice as fast as light, the recorder would be at Alpha Centauri in 2.2 years AT THE SAME TIME with normal light rays from earth that are arriving in 4.4 years (i.e. 2.2 years ago with respect to launchtime). even better would be the history-recorder travelling 10 times as fast as light, then we can view events that happened by trapping light rays released from earth 3.52 years ago because our device would be there in 0.44 years while the relatively slower light rays would arrive in 4.4 years.

On the other hand, if our device had a means of utilizing the light rays that left Earth millions (Olaadegbu and other YEC, that would be thousands ) of years ago and are now idly traversing outer space, and after receiving the information they carry, translating it without any error or appreciable loss of value; then the time it arrives in outer space is of no consequence. It may get there to Alpha Centauri in 4.4 years and still capture rays as old as 4000 B.C. and settle the YEC argument forever.

What do you think, Justcool?

@mavenbox
I am happy that you finally got it. And I agree with what you said; what you said completely makes sense scientifically. Our device(Don't call it ours, its mine! ) will have to travel a lot faster than light for it to be able to record light rays that left the earth years ago.

And don't call the device ours, it's solely mine! Just kidding

Anyway, thanks for your contribution, it helped.

With your scientific knowledge, I have a question for you: Do you think this idea of ours(Mine) is better than the space-fold time travel theory? What do you think?

mavenbox:
@justcool: No i understood perfectly. I only said what the_seeker said in other words, and I was adding that we can not peer into the time BEFORE the machine was deployed, since the very instrument we are using would not exist at that "time" 

@mavenbox
No disrespect intended, but I think you still don't get yet. You can peer into the time BEFORE the machine was invented, if the machine is positioned at a distance far away enough from the earth to catch up with the light rays that reflected off the earth thousand of years ago.
Just as you can see a star in the night; from the earth you can see this star but the star may have actually died years ago. But you can still see it from the earth because the earth is so far away from the star, and it takes time for light that the star emitted to reach the earth. So the light that you are actually seeing is the light that the star emitted years ago. The star could even have died(no longer in existence) before you ware born, but you could still see it because the light rays that it emitted are still travelling to the earth.
Its much like sound. You can say someting, but the word you said may still be heard as it echos, even minutes after you have stopped talking.
Does it make more sense now?
Many thanks to you.


@tpia

tpia.:
you have some nice ideas about viewing the past, not necessarily travelling in the past.

True, and I even said it here:

justcool:
Before I proceed with my idea, I most warn you that this idea does to propose returning somebody in the present to live in the past, change the past or manipulate the past. Actually I believe that is impossible. My idea only offers a feasible scientific way of how people in the present can watch the past, but not participate in it or change it.

The highlighted part was a typo. Please replace the "to" with "not". What I meant to say was this: Before I proceed with my idea, I most warn you that this idea does not propose returning somebody in the present to live in the past, change the past or manipulate the past.

And I also said:

justcool:
My idea only offers a feasible scientific way of how people in the present can watch the past, but not participate in it or change it

tpia.:
interesting idea.
Time travel may be possible if man could travel faster than the speed of light without disintegrating. Currently thats not feasible.

You completely got it!!! You are very correct. If only one can beat the speed of light, then the idea makes perfect sense and will completely work.
Because the major obstacle to the idea is that it will take a very long time to send the satelite to such far distances; and even if you succeed in sending it, it will take a very long time for the signal it transmits to reach the earth.

tpia.:
but have you considered dark matter and dark holes which actually bend light time, slow it down and "freeze" it?

Another brilliant observation! You are indeed a scientist! This is another major obstacle, and  I considered it. That's why I said:

justcool:
These rays will remain intact if they are not obstructed by another object. The rays that the earth reflected 2000 years ago are still traveling speedily away from the earth; so at a certain distance from the earth, one can see these rays. To put it simpler: If the speed of light is 5miles an hour; this means that the rays reflected by the earth 2000 years ago had only traveled 10000miles away from the earth. So if you look at the earth from another planet that is 10000 miles away from the earth, you will see the earth the way the earth was 2000 years ago.

Many thanks tpia

LOL
@all
Thanks for your responses. I thought of all the things that you said, and I know my idea needs worlds of fine tuning. I only posted it as a food fro thought, and also for it to be compared with popular space folding theory.

The_seeker, ematan 2002,  validator, mantraa, and deepsight all made very scientifically correct observations. And know that my theory is not perfect and I have thought those thing that you said even before starting this thread.

But personally, I believe this idea makes more sense, and is more feasible than the space folding theory. What do you think?

@mavenbox,
I think you didn't get the idea. Reread my OP and you will get a better idea of what I am saying.

@ all
Thanks!

Please, I invite all the scientists in Nairaland to compare this idea with the idea of folding space.

@blackcypha

Thanks for your questions.

First of all. I will not call myself an astrologer. Astrology used to be one of my hobbies, I dabled in it in the past. Since I turned 18, I was on a quest for the Truth, Astrology was one of the things that I read in my search for the Truth. Born in a catholic family and raised a catholic, I rebelled from Catholicism at 18, and I went from church to church seeking to satisfy an unquenchable longing in me.
Finally I found the Truth in the book called "In the Light of Truth: The Grail message." I read it and got convinced of the Truth in it. Recognitions came to me from my experiencing of the book and life around me. I am a crossbearer, an adherent of the Grail message and not an astrologer.

My explanation about the year 2012 stems from my personal experiencing of life and the Truth that I found. My explanation is not lifted word to word from the Grail Message; it is rather my personal conclusion drawn from my personal experiences, and judged in the light of the Truth that I found in the Grail Message. The Grail message did not give any dates, and that particular year "2012" was not mentioned in the Grail Message. Another crossbearer's perception of the matter may not be the same as mine. I have had spiritual visions and experiences that lead me to the recognition that I have about the end times and the year 2012.

I advice you to examine the Grail Message. And have your own personal experiencing of the Truth

You are right about the 19th century being violently erratic. This is because even in towards the end of the eighteenth century, this part of the universe has been receiving the radiation of the Age of Aquarius. Change of Ages does not happen instantaneously, one age gears into another because nature does not allow gaps. Towards the end of a particular age, the radiation of the next age will gradually start being felt. It is like driving from the temperate regions of the earth to the colder regions. As you drive away from the hot zone, the heat from the hot zone will be felt less and less, while the coldness of the approaching region increases until finally you find yourself in the cold region where no heat from the hot region is felt anymore.  It is like the change of wheather from Winter to Spring; Spring doesn't just start abruptly, it comes gradually as winter gradually dies away. I hope you understand this. I can elaborate forther if this is not clear enough. From the feeling the approaching season you can tell what the season will be like.

So the erratic behaviour of the earth has been steadily increasing since the eighteenth century and even earlier, this is due to the approaching age of Aquarius. This violent and erratic behaviour will increase and reach its climax in the middle of the age of Aquarius, then gradually it will start dying down as the next Age approaches. As it dies way, the radiation of the next Age will be felt iincreasingly as that Age approaches. Remember an Age lasts approximately 2000 years. So in the first few centuries of a new Age, the radiation of the past Age will still be felt as it gradually dies away. Just as in the last few centuries of an Age the radiations of the next Age will start being felt increasingly as the next Age approaches.

Eighteenth century and Nineteenth century signified a very important time in the spiritual development of mankind. knowing ones already know about a great light happening that took place in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth century.

The erratic and violent behaviour of nature that is greatly increasing can not be stopped by man. All this noise that we make about global warming is to no avail because it is beyond the power of humans to arrest global warming. Technology can not save us either; just one earthquake can destroy a technology that took centuries to be developed. The surest protection against this violent and erratic behaviour of nature is knowledge of the laws of God and adjustment to the Will of God. The man who has knowledge of the laws of God and lives accordingly will be protected from destruction. It is very easy to find this Will of God; it written in our spirit, it speaks to us through our conscience; it in contained in various books ie- the Ten commandment. And Finally the son of God Jesus made it very clear to us in His words: "Love God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, , and love your neighbor as yourself."

One who live in the laws of God need not worry about what this violent age will bring, because He will be protected.

Thanks and remain blessed.

They people claiming to have tested positive and later tested negative may not be lying. Such things happen even here in America. It happened to a friend of mine. The things to consider are these:

1) What type of test did you do? Is it Elisa test, which is the most popular in third world contries.
2) Could they have given you a wrong result the first time that you tested.

Elisa test is not exactly the diagnostic test for HIV, it is rather a screening test. There are so many other viruses that can cause a colour change(Positive result) of the Elisa test. So it is not only HIV that reacts to Elisa. A Friend of mine tested positive with Elisa in Nigeria only to come to America and test negative in another test. In America, they wont declare you HIV positive just based on Elisa test. If you test positive in Elisa test, they will usually refere you to another test, a more reliable, accurate and diagnostic test for HIV; usually the Western blot test. Testing positive in Elisa test does not necessarily mean that you have HIV, some types of tuberculous(I think), some other easily treatable viruses, and even some harmless viruses can cause an Elisa test to positive.

There is also a strong possibility that the first time it was not your result that they gave you. Mistakes do happen especially in third world testing centers. They could have handed you another persons result.

But this does not mean that the power of God cannot heal HIV. Every disease can be healed, if the afflicted person can tap into the healing power of the Almighty. If unquenchable faith, genuine repentance, humility and genuine prayer for help, can arise from the afflicted person, and if the healing will help in your spiritual accent, the Almighty will send his help to such a person and such a person will be healed.

Genuine and heartfelt prayers do work.  God can heal any disease, but never in a manner that is contrary to the laws of nature. God does not go against nature because in nature lies the Will of God. The laws of nature can never be broken or annulled. So don't expect and amputated arm to grow back because this is impossible and contrary to the laws of nature. Much like some genetic disease, some genetic diseases may not be healed by prayer alone. In such circumstances if genuine prayer arises from the afflicted person, God's help may make him/her come in contact with a knowlegable doctor who can heal him/her through surgery or some other means. Or God's help will afford the afflicted person the strength to endure the affliction. But diseases, especially infectious diseases can be healed. This does not go against nature.

viaro:
Okay, I'd like to be first to travel. How much is the ticket to see the Middle East about 6,005 years ago? Seriously, I need to get there and sort a few things out. . and see what colour all the races of our humanity had back then _{not that I don't like my own, though.}

Hehehe. . just kidding.

LOL
@vairo
You don't need a ticket, all you need is to subscribe to the "TIME TRAVEL Network"(A future network like Dish network, Direct TV and etc) Once you subscribe you will receive a satlite and a decoder box which you will hook up to your TV(Much like Dish Network and direct TV) Once you hook it up, you can tune in to any year you want to view. Your satelight will receive signals from a satelite in deep space far away enough from the earth to view the earth the way it was 6005 years ago.

Since the speed is light is 299,792,458 meters per second, and there are 31536000 seconds in a year; so the rays of light that reflected off the earth 6,005 years ago must have traveled 9454254955488000 meters away from the earth. So the satelite in space has to be positioned 9454254955488000 meters away from the earth for it to be able to record an event that happened on earth 6005 years ago. From that distance the earth will appear the way it was 6,005 years ago.

Of course, the TIME TRAVEL Network will be owned by me. I will charge subscribers only $ 50,000 a month. Ladies will only be charged $45,000 a month. And if you ever disagree with me on Nairaland, you will lose your subscription. LOL.

This is my personal idea of how one can physically go back in time and witness events that happened millions of years ago. I have problems with the idea of folding space and traveling through a worm whole. This is a popular idea that scientists are toying with; but a critical analysis of that idea makes its feasibility improbable. Perhaps, it's due to my little knowledge that makes me think the idea of folding space does not hold any water. Any body who can really explain that theory is welcome to explain it to me. So far I haven’t had an explanation of the space-fold theory that makes sense to me.

Before I proceed with my idea, I most warn you that this idea does to propose returning somebody in the present to live in the past, change the past or manipulate the past. Actually I believe that is impossible. My idea only offers a feasible scientific way of how people in the present can watch the past, but not participate in it or change it.

Here I go:

We all know that the visibility of things depends on how much light they emit or reflect. I.e. you can see the light bulb because of the light rays that it emits, You can see your brother, your sister, your room, or any object because the light rays from the sun or other light source(electric bulbs perhaps) reflect off the object and goes into your eyes. Thus if something emits no light, or reflects no light, that thing cannot be seen.
Se we arrive at a well known conclusion: Visibility depends on light rays.

Now the light ray that is emited or reflected off things takes time to travel. Vision appear instantaneous to us because light(rays) travels extremely fast. It also follows that the further a thing is away from us, the longer it takes the light rays from it to reach us. Every body must have experienced this with sound. You can see a man sounding bell far away but the sound doest reach you the moment he strikes the gong, it takes a few moments. The same thing happens with thunder, which claps and it takes a few seconds for us to hear the clap; while the lightening that happened at the same time is seen by us almost instantaneously.

Looking at is critically, one can conclude that we can hear the past. Because the lightening that we hear may have already concluded before we hear the clap; the clap that we hear actually happened seconds ago. So this is a form of hearing the past. We can also experience the same with light; after all light( rays) and sound are nothing but waves which typically behave the same way. 

Lest just assume that the speed of light is 5 miles an hour. From an object that is 5 miles away from a light source, it will take an hour for light to travel from the source to that object. So if the light source goes out at 5pm; from this object, you can still see the light up till 6pm.
So when we look up to the stars in the sky, some of the stars that we see could have already died years ago; but from the earth we can still see them because the last ray of light that they emitted or reflected has not reached the earth.  So when we look up to the sky, to some extent we are actually seeing the past.

Now imagine the rays of light that the earth reflected 2000 years ago, from this ray we can see the earth the way it was 2000 years ago, irrespective of what the earth looks like now. The rays that light sources emit or objects reflect, travels perpetually away from the object or the light source. These rays will remain intact if they are not obstructed by another object. The rays that the earth reflected 2000 years ago are still traveling speedily away from the earth; so at a certain distance from the earth, one can see these rays. To put it simpler: If the speed of light is 5miles an hour; this means that the rays reflected by the earth 2000 years ago had only traveled 10000miles away from the earth. So if you look at the earth from another planet that is 10000 miles away from the earth, you will see the earth the way the earth was 2000 years ago.

Therein lies the time machine. If scientist can send satellites, with very powerful telescopic video cameras, so far away from the earth; and if from that distance, the satellites can video the earth and send the signals back to earth; then we can watch the past from the present time.

This means that from a TV screen or a computer screen we can watch what happened on earth 2000 or more years ago. 

Imagine watching the dinosaurs as they roamed the earth from your TV screen. Imagine watching the beatitude from your living room. Imagine listening to the actual Jesus on Sundays, during worship, from your TV screen. Imagine watching your favorite historic figures come alive again on your TV screen. Wonderful!!!!!

Anyway this is just an idea. But critically analyze it scientifically and tell me if it makes sense.

I know that the speed of light is actually 299,792,458 meters per second. I only said 5miles an hour just to make the math easier.

Suffice also to say that this idea of going back in time through a wormhole, spacefolding, and etc is just a misguided speculation, it is very impractical. Apart from the fact that no living thing can survive the enormous pressure of passing through a wormhole, the very idea of passing through a warmhole to be in the past is based on a very wrong assumption, the assumption that time passes. This assumption is very wrong because in reality time does not pass, time stands still. What we call the passage of time is only a duration of an event, and not TIME itself.

The idea that time passes, ie that time pushes us along as it passes, makes one look for ways to bridge the speed of time and thus travel to the future or return to yesterday. The idea that time passes as the picture of space-time depicts makes one think that time is like a conveyor belt, and we stand on it and it pushes us forward. As it pushes, it pushes us into today, then today passes and continues moving away from us while tomorrow approaches us. That means since I was a boy yesterday, if can return to yesterday I will be a boy again. This idea is wrong. My going from boyhood to manhood is not as a result of time passing me by per-se, rather it is as result of me moving(changing) while time stands still. What I call the movement of time is only the duration it took my biologicall process to go from boyhood to manhood.

This is why to scientists, time is different in various parts of the universe. What they call time is only a reference to the measurement of the speed of light. One must understand that this is only a measurement of a duration of a process. If we imagine light to be particles, it logically followes that in areas of extreme gravity light can only pass slower. To scientists, time is slower in such areas. But all these measurements are within the universe. The real time which existed before the universe has to be independent of the measurement of duration which we call time.

The real time is outside the universe and its independent of what we humans call time. it is eternal. The very fact that scientists are talking about how long the big bang took and how long the universe might last, while at the same time talking about time as being a dimension of the universe, thus formed at the formation of the universe; shows that there are two different things. You cannot meansure the duration of the life of the universe (the time it took to be formed and destroyed) with the time that is formed by the universe because this time is relative to the universe, ie it could be faster at the beginning and slower at the end, and besides it different in various parts of the universe. So when one talks about the duration of the life of the universe (the time it took to be formed and destroyed), one must be talking in relation to the real time. The time that stands outside the universe.

I really don't know who to explain this. It is very much like motion. Consider a man on an airplane, he can get up and walk 50feet to the restroom. In relative to inside the airplane, he had walked 50feet. lets say that this man walks 50feet an hour, so in relative to inside the airplane he had travelled 50ft. But in relative to the outside world he could have travelled 1000 miles because the airplane travels 1000 miles an hour.


So the real Time does not move. It is the same time that saw me as a boy, the same time today sees me as a man. The time remained the same, only my biological process and my form had changed from the form of a child to the form of a man. So even if I reverse my biological process and return to childhood, I had not travelled in time. The Truth is that time remained what is was.

Let us return to man in an airplane; Lets assume that the airplane is going southward, the man can walk northward within the airplane in the false belief that he is actually walking north. But all the while he was speedily heading southwards. If he cannot look out of the window to use stationary and outside objects as reference he will remain in the delusion that he had actually walked northward. He can also live in the delusion that he is siting situationalrily, just because in-reference to his immediate environment(inside the plane) he is stationary.

We in the universe are like the man in an airplane with no view of the outside. Any reference we make with objects within our universe only gives us a false idea. Conclusions drawn from such observations may be true in relation to our immediate environment, but such conclusions remain limited and does not apply to all. So when we try to describe the whole exsistance in the light of such limited conclusions, we could be dead wrong. Our scientific perception of time is only draw from the observation of our universe, this perception is very limited. Mankind still do not know enough about time to manipulate it. At this stage the most truthfull thing to say is that mankind does not even know what time is. Wheather we have the ability to know what time is, or wheather it is possible to manipulate it is a different thing altogether. I believe that at this point in our development, toying with this idea is a waste of time.

Only from a spiritual (or nonphysical) view can we see the physical universe better because we will be at a point of reference not within the physical universe. Lets say that the spiritual time or spiritual perception of time is closer to the real Time. But as long as we are humans, even in the spiritual, we may never really see from the real time. Because the entire creation is only a process that took place in time, thus time existed before creation. Only God (if you believe in him) knows what the real time is. We creatures in creation, our perception of time is only limited to our perceiving organs(be it spiritual, ethereal, or physical) and relative to our position(be it physical, beyond, or spiritual) with creation. Much like the man inside an air plane with no windows to the outside.

Time is like the the Truth. They are both eternal and stand outside creation. They are one and only found in the creator.

Honestly the first time I read about the idea of folding space I had the same questions that Deepsight have. I struggled with the picture before I arrived at a conclusion that satisfied me only a little.

That picture presents many problems:
1) The Universe does not lie on a flat time-carpet like the picture showed.
2) Even of it does, you cannot fold this carpet without disrupting many bodies in the universe. Such folding will cause a catastrophic chain of event that can possibly destroy all the bodies(Planetry bodies) in the universe.
3) If the universe lies on a flat carpet, like the pictures depicts, then folding a part of it will raise the folded part to a height or depth where the universe may not be able to function. Think about it, if the universe operates on a flat carpet, then that height or range is the height most comfortable for the formation and functioning of the universe. Raising any part of the universe into foreign heights may result in catastrophe. I will give an example, imagine a yeast that is growing like a carpet on the surface of a body of water. The surface of this water provides the best environment for the yeast to grow and function. If you fold the yeast, thereby raising a part of the yeast above the surface of the water, the yeast usually dies.
4) In that picture, the carpet depicts space-time, notice that it has arrows pointing to a direction. This is understandable because the carpet moves, representing the passage of time. Now notice that the folded part is moving in the opposite direction to the unfolded part.  How can this be!! So the wormhole has to have one mount in the normal forwarding moving time(Carpet), and the other mouth in a backward moving carpet, ie a place in the universe where time moves backwards. 

I personally think that that picture is just a form of giving shape to an idea, thus a figurative picture that does not necessarily comform to reality. Its like when you paint a picture of a straight street. Parallel lines(two side of the street) are drawn in such a way that at infinity they meet. This helps to fool the brain into seeing perspective or dept on a flat surface of the picture. But when you take this picture literally, then you might be expecting that there is a place in reality called infinity where parallel lines meet. This does not comform to reality because in reality parallel lines can never meet.
So that's the way to see the pictures of space-time: It is only a rendering or a depiction of an idea on a picture. Imagine the idea of time as a forth dimension is very difficult to depict on a two dimensional picture.
The idea of using a carpet with arrows to represent the passage of time is very understandable; but the idea of folding this carpet to appear as if one layer is ontop of the other is very missleading because actually, no layer is on-top or above the other. At first I thought that the folding into a circle represents the idea that time passes eternally. It is folded to us because we observe it on a two dimensional picture. Imagine a planet that revolves around a star, when depicted in a picture the circle of revolution becomes small. To the observer of the picture it appears the planet goes on two lines, one on-top of the other, and in opposite direction. But the truth is that to a small creature who cannot observe the circulation of the planet from afar; to such a creature, the planet only moves forward and never in a opposite direction or in a circle. Imagine if no stars or planets can be seen from the earth, then there is no way men on earth could know that the earth is in circulation. The best conclution that men can arrive at it that the earth move perpetually in a staight line. All I am saying is that you need an object outside a particular movement as a refrence in other to be able to tell correctly the nature of the particluar movement. That's the problem with dipicting the universe, we cannot see a universe outside our universe to use as a refrence to the movement of our universe.

I will give an example: Imagine a tire spinning on its axis. If you put a red mark on the circumfrence of the tire. You will observe that as the tire turns, the red mark starts from east to north to west to south then back to east. Representing this in a two dimensional picture, the movement from east to north to west will appear in opposite direction to the movement from west to south to east. It appears on a picture, as if one movement in on-top of the other and in opposite direction.
Now imagine an ant on this tire, to the ant, the tire just goes perpetually forward. If there is a worm whole with a mouth on the north side of the tire, and the other mouth on the south side, then this ant can be transported from north to south via this wormwhole in a split second faster than the rotation of the tire. Then such an ant has travelled in time. Because in a while at the south(Today) it has journyed to the north(Tomorrow).


I thought this is what the picture is trying to potray. This is the only way I can make the spacefolding issue reasonable to me. I have a lot of problems with space folding. I dont think humans can fold space and I dont think space can be folded without catastrophy.


@ Deepsight,
I don't know if what I wrote above throws any light. What do you think? I don't even know if I was able to express what I have in mind. This issue is very difficult to express by writing. I don't know how to upload personally drawn pictures to this forum,(like you do) other wise I would have tried to express by drawing.

Anyway what I wrote is my humble opinion, I could be very wrong.

I have my personally invented idea of how one can, scientifically travel through time(I don't mean spiritually or non-physically), and atleast percieve the events that happened millions of years ago.  I think my idea is better that the one in question. If you guys want to hear my idea, I will share it so that you guys can analyze and tell me what you think of the idea.

12/2012 represent a very important date in the spiritual development of mankind. It is indeed the endtime; but endtime does not mean end of the world or distruction of the world. It only means the end of a great epoch in the spiritual development of the earth. 12/2012 represents the end of the age of Pieces and the beginning of the age of Aquarius.

I will share my personal perception of this Age:

Imagine the universe like a cluster of stars that spin around a circle of 12 equal segments. Each segment symbolises an age. Each segment carries a different radiation. So when the universe enters a particular segment, the universe receives predominantly the radiation of that segment. Each segment is called an age, an epoch, or an astrological age. The all-wise Will of the creator designed it in such a way that these radiations help the universe and its inhabitants of grow. I.e, our part of the universe exited the age of Aries and entered the age of Pieces at the time that mankind needed the radiation of the Piecian age most.

In the age of Aries, Light incarnated on earth the first time. In this age mankind received so many light messengers-- Moses, Elijah and etc. The impetueouse radiation of this age impelled mankind to seek the light. It gave them zeal, passion and the ability to conquer. But rather than concaring themselves or thier faults, mankind conquered each other. With the courageous radiation of the age of Aries, mankind became warlike, empires arouse. Mankind made great development in the fields war and bravery. Only a few, like the Jews, used the impetus of this radiation to seek the Light--God.

With the birth of Christ this part of the universe entered the age of Pieces. Pieces radiates unconditional Love and sacrifice. Christ who embodies this Love incarnated on earth at a time when the earth entered into the age of Pieces. The radiation of this Age of Pieces paved a path for Christ to incarnate on earth. In-order to help mankind who had made themselves to rash, warlike and brutal, God gave mankind a great help of love. This help is Jesus. The birth of Jesus intensified the loving radiation of Pieces because Jesus is Divine Love, and the age of Pieces radiates love. This radiation impelled mankind to be more gentle, and peaceful. In this age, Christianity was born which was supposed to be a religion of Love. Mankind saw the need for brotherhood; the old way of brutality gave way to the modern way of libration, and love. But most mankind did not adjust themselves the right way to this radiation; wrong adjustment to this radiation brings things like escapism, indulgence, weakness, and the escapism. This is part of the reason why their are so many drug addicts in this age; and the erroneous religeous belief that belivers(Born again Chritians) don't have to pay for their sins, this is a form of escapism. At this age Mohamed was also sent, with his message he taught the arabs love, the libration, and respect even for women. Hitherto to his coming arabs treated women like posessions. But hardly did he leave, than mankind turned his teaching into a religion. They overdid the respect he taught for women, they started covering women up, even to the extent of covering her completely, from hair to toe. This is wrong. Rather than changing, they adopted another form of enslaving women, and turned Muhameds teachings to the violent religion we have today. The pure message of Christ was also turned into a religion of escapisim, instead of a religion of Love.

Now are at the end of the age of Pieces and the beginning of the age of Aquarius. The coming of the Son of Man initiates the age of Aquarius. This is the age of purification of this part of the universe, with the water from the fountain--The Holy Grail. Aries is symbolized by fire or the impetuous ram, Pieces by the two fishes swimming peacefully in opposite directions, and Aquarius is symbolised by the water bearer -a powerful male figure puring water from a vessel. This male figure is the Son of man, the vessel is the Holy Grail, and the water being poured is the power from the Holy Grail that is being radiated into the Age of Aquarius. Although spiritually, the age of Aquarius had already been initiated a few decades ago. But it is my personal experiencing that 12/12 is the date that makes the beginning of this age physically. In this age mankind will experience predominantly the eratic radiations of Aquarius. This is a purifying radiation but it does not purify peacefully. In this age there will be earthquakes, tsunamis, tonados, and great fires in many places. Everything that is wrong on earth will be violently consumed in this purifying radiation of the age of Aquarius. Those who have adjusted themselves aright or those willing to live aright will receive the living water straight from the fountain of the water bearer- they will be given strength to make it though the purification. This is the age that was described pictorially in the revelation of John. Those who know about the erratic behaviour of some people born under the sign of Aquarius will get the idea of what I am trying to say; nature will become violently erratic. But all this will not happen in a day; each age takes approximately 2000 years to be completed.

Mankind had been warned of the coming of this age for a long time. The Mayans knew about it and recorded it. The ancient Egyptians, and so many ancient civilization knew about. It was also given to mankind through the Revelation of John. And so many individuals even up till now have been shown some of the terrible things that will happen in the age of Aquarius. I have personally seen many visions concerning this age. Almost every human spirit senses that something is amiss; but to some, this sensing is buried under the trivialities of modern everyday life. They can bearly percieve it. But everybody is subconsciously tensed.

That particular date 12/21/2012 may pass without any major event but it marks the physical conclusion of the age of Pieces and the beginning of the age of Aquarius.

enitan2002:
Creation is divided into many segments, and the world we are in belongs to the part of creation known as the World of matter, also the so-called beyond, its just that it is of a different nature.The world we can see and feel with our physical senses even with instruments can be regarded to belong to the "world of gross matter", while the so-called beyond is called the "ethereal world", it is not even paradise, paradise is still vey far away from it.
As we are in this world with the physical body, so also the ethereal body is embodied within us and is reffered to as the soul, that is when we leave this physical garment through death.
As we are now any sins we commit is also anchored in th ethereal world, that is why the bible says for their works shall pursue them, wherever they maybe.
As it is in the law of circle, which is the circle must end at the point it began, for it to be complete.So it is only in the "world of matter" both gross and ethereal, that mankind can only commit sins it cant be possible in the animistic realm not in the spiritual realm, so also forgiveness must also come into being only in that region where the sins have been commited, forgiveness can come in the beyond or even here on earth, if it is not possible in the beyond then the soul have to be re-incarnated on earth to make amends.
That is simply why when a man dies he doensnt just go to heaven straight, cos there's no man without a blemish and also not holy, but GOD alone is Holy.So a place is prepared where mankind is being prepared for the spirtual realm.

So my dear friend as forgiveness of sins is possible here on earth so also it is possible in the beyond.But it is much easier on earth than it is over there.

This is correct

It depends on what you mean by grave. If by "grave" you mean after physical death, then the answer is yes.
Repentance is repentance, it does not matter where it happens. It can happen here on earth or in beyond(hereafter).

Keep in mind that there are two types of death: (1)Physical death -- the death of the physical body, and (2) Spiritual death -- the death of the spirit, the true self.

After spiritual death all hope is lost, and there is no repentance.

True repentance occurs in the spirit. It is the spirit that repents, and not the physical body. This is why there can be no repentance after spiritual death, which is tantamount to the individual's name being erased from the book of life.

@ enitan2002
LOL at your situation with your wife and kids. Your mailman must be very handsome, that's why your kids are good looking. Just out of curiosity, do any of your kids look like me? Just kidding.

@ poster

The right question is:

"Where was I during the Rwandan Genocide?"

"Where was mankind during the Rwandan Genocide?"


It lies withing the power of each individual to do something that contributes to the prevention of such Genocides.
It lies within power of mankind to prevent such genocides.

What has God got to do with this? Hasn't He already given mankind the ability to live peacefully? What you do with your abilities is your business.