₦airaland Forum

Deep Sight:
Hi Just Cool.

Its always sooo great to hear from you.

Your question is extremely profound, and i verily suspect that no human being can ever come to grips with it, given the fact that it deals with events happening outside this physical universe. Such knowledge probably can only be transmitted through genuine revelation.

Nevertheless, i will attempt the question on two grounds. The first ground will be my understanding of what is set forth within the message, and the second ground will be my honest, most limited, most imperfect, human perspective.

The first ground - I read within the message that God in HIS Divine perfection emitts unimaginably great heat and energy, and that after the first creation, the gradual cooling-off of the radiations from God precipitate the forming of further creations further and further away from God. I understand from this that God therefore only directly spawned the primordial spiritual worlds, and that the continued precipitations/ radiations from these worlds, bearing God's white-hot creative-heat, as they cooled off, formed further worlds, and ultimately, the world of gross matter.

As always, i did not just swallow this hook, line and sinker without thought, and i find that there are reasons why this makes sense to me within my world View. These reasons are -

1. I can clearly sense and even see the existence of non-physical things even in this world: love, thought, dreams, telepathy, pyscho-kinesis, the list is endless. Accordingly i am firmly aware that i am a being that exists and is real even without my physical body, arms, legs, nose, mouth, etc. I have often noted that each human being "hears" the thoughts of his own mind clearly. Now since these are not audible sounds, he clearly does not hear them with his physical ears. This makes it clear that the inner man has ears of its own. The inner mind. The Inner Sipiritual.

2. Thus i see that the world of matter is not all that exists.

3. Given that the physical body dies, i am also aware that the spiritual part becomes disembodied from the material part at death. I do not assert this as proof of anything to anyone, but to my mind it seems clear that the spiritual being will necessarily exist within a realm of its own nature, just as the material body existed in a material world.

4. Thus spiritual realms do exist. And by the very transitory nature of matter it seems clear to me that such realms pre-date and post-exist matter, if i may use such terms. It really is like saying that the world of forms and ideas is eternal, while matter is transitory.

5. If this is true, then it falls into place as espoused by the mesage that the direct creation of God, is primordial spiritual, and not material.

[b]Now there is a little piece of scientifice thinking that crystalizd this very clearly for me a short while ago. Here i dovetail into my human understanding -

I was staring at a block of ice, which i had pulled out of my glass of beer. As i stared at it it began to melt, turning into water in the tray. I know from physics that given time that very water will dry up into the air. It does not dissappear, it changes form, just as surely as if we put the Ice in a heated pan, it will become water, and eventually steam, and the steam will float of airily into the air.

It struck me that Ice represents gross matter - it is hard and tangible, like your physical body. When heated however, it becomes steam, which is like your spirit - intangible and mobile, flexible, and dynamic, able to float, soar, move easily. More importantly, it struck me that since in physics, greater heat causes greater motion, then the intangible (steam in this instance) must necessaily be more heated than the tangible. [/b]

_{(This is why great passion feels to us like heat in our chest, and emotionlessness is described as "cold"}

Thus the spiritual is more heated that the physical - and accordingly, is closer to the ultimate heat - which is God.

I thought - if the spiritual is heated and intangible, just how heated and intangible will the Ultimate heat be? That hints at the pure divinity of God.

When the process is looked at in the reverse, it immediatley bears out that which is espoused in the Grail Message: That the cooling off of great heat, will eventually result in the appearance of hard matter! - Just as surely as if steam is cooled off, it will become water, and eventually, further cooling will result in the hard immovable ice! This thinking led me to see the simple and yet flawless beauty and scientific accuracy in the assertion that the cooling-off of God's radiations precipitates the development of further forms of creation, and ultimately hard matter.

It also helps me see and understand death and the rising of the spiritual towards God, and toward the primordial spiritual, as a journey of increasing intangibility, and thus increasing purity.

It also helps me understand a dream i once had where i was playing a football game in a far world among the stars: and all the motion seemed far more heated, hectic, faster, and more fluid and energetic than in this world. I can understand now that there is greater fluidity in intangibility. Thus greater life in the spiritual. Thus ultimate life, in the ultimate heat: God.

But i go too far, as i believe i have already said that which i intended to say.

@Deep Sight!

Very impressive. Now you completely nailed it!. You are indeed a genuine seeker, and I sensed it even from your very first post on Nairaland.

The reason why I asked the question, is that in your initial reply to Pastor AIO's conclusion(Therefore God did not create the universe), you only scratched the surface and didn't go to the core of the issue. Sensing that you know more, I asked you the question so as to draw more out of you, or force you to draw out more from yourself.

But in your reply(your post quoted above) you went to the core of the issue and answered the question. I am really impressed.

The Truth is that what can actually and correctly be labelled as the creation of God is the Primordial Creation or First creation. In this Primordial creation there is no gap or flaws, no creature in primordial creation can ever be found wanting in any way, the beauty and purity there cannot be improved.  It is the Primordial Spiritual beings that are made after the image and likeness of God, and not human spirits on earth or in subsequent creation.

First creation has three basic divisions1)Primordial planes. (2)The Spiritual planes. (3) The worlds of Animistic.

Any worlds, planes that formed beyond the world of Animistic cannot be correctly labelled creations of God. Subsequent creation is actually the work of the animistic. Thus subsequent creation being further away from God cannot be exactly as perfect, ennobled and as beautiful as Primordial creation.

This clears the puzzle why God created man an imperfect creature, only to throw him in hell at the end. Also explains the mystry behind a very puzzling verse in Genesis: "Let us make man in our image and likeness."
The "Us" in the above verse is puzzling because God is not plural.
The "us" in the verse refers to the Primordial Spiritual beings who in their radiations help the spirit germs to develop and become conscious spiritual beings. Humans on earth, when they reach the hightest level of development and purity that their species can bear, will only be in the image and likeness of the Primordial Spiritual beings.  

Thus Humans on earth are developed or developing beings; developing from spiritual germs or seedlings planted on earth with the help of the help of the animistic beings and developing with the help of Primordial Spiritual beings.

Remain blessed

@ Deep Sight and Pastor AIO

I enjoy you guy's posts. You guys are refreshing! Wonderful exchange of views.

@ Deep Sight
I enjoyed your last post. It really nice. Since you are familiar with the Grail Message, I presume you can easily answer the following questions.

I presume that by therm universe, you mean all the objects, stars, planets and phenomena throughout space; the cosmos; macrocosm. Thus everything in the physical world. Now my question is this:

1) Is the universe a direct creation of God? Or did God create the universe himself?

You are right that God is perfect and perfection precludes changeability; you said "God cannot do unbalanced or imperfect things." Thus you are saying that God cannot create imperfect things, and you are very correct.
Pastor AIO is equally right by demanding that the work of God, the universe should be perfect. He deduced this by following your argument.


But the dilemma is that the universe, arguably is not perfect. Also, we humans on earth, who are supposed to be works of God are definitely and surely not perfect.

Following your argument that God is perfect(which is correct) one will only arrive at the conclusion that Pastor AIO arrived:  "Therefore God did not create the universe."  Although Pastor AIO may have arrived at this conclusion lightheartedly and for the sake of showing your that your reasoning is flawed; but there is definitely more to this question.


So how do we justify this notion that God is perfect and so are everything that issues from Him? Perhaps the solution lies in the answer to my earlier question. Thus I will repeat this question.

1) Is the universe a direct creation of God? Or did God create the universe himself?

Or

Is the universe and everything in it(including we humans) actually created by God?

I wait your answer.

@steve26

Thanks for your questions. My advice to you is to continue reading the Grail Mesage. Since you have already started, make sure that you read the whole book, in the book you will find the answers to all your questions.

About fornication. It is wrong for individuals who are not married to have sexual intercourse. But you don't achieve marriage by wedding or performing traditional wedding; real marriage is love and harmony between a man and a woman. Thus if one weds a woman when is no genuine love between him and the woman, such is not real marriage before the laws of God. Sexual union in such a marriage is a sin before God and thus adultery or fornication.

The prerequisite for sexual intimacy that is pleasing to God is pure love and spiritual harmony between two souls(man and woman) involved. Where there is no love and harmony between a couple, such a couple should not have sexual union. Sexual intimacy between such a couple is a sin, even if they have wedded or performed the earthly rites of marriage.

Thus the laws of God is not a respecter of earthly rites. You cannot change the laws of God by going to the alter with a woman and being wedded by a priest. As long as there is no love and harmony between the a couple, the couple is not married before the laws of God, even if it was the pope that wedded them.

Thus one must make sure the person he or she wants to marry carry the necessary qualities(characters) that compliments with his or hers. Only when the the parties characters complement each other can harmony arise between them. Thus you must find one whom God has already joined together with you. Two people born with complementary characters are in a way already joined together, such couple carry the necessary soil for marriage. But one is not limited only to a particular person, there are so many people with characters that complement yours. You only need to look carefully. One must also allow genuine love of the soul to arise in his/ her soul for the other party before contemplating wedding.

Also, it is very important to keep the heart of thoughts pure, like Ematan2000 mentioned. One can also commit adultery(fornication) in his/thoughts. Thus one who is lusting sexually after a woman is already committing adultery(fornication) even if he didn't indulge in physical intimacy with the woman.

So strive to keep the heart of your thoughts pure, this is the surest protection from fornication and adultery.


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

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

Thanks and remain blessed

@donnie

So you are so sure of your own salvation. You feel so sure of your salvation because you believe that Jesus was crucified for your sins; so you pity the likes of KunleOshob who you called the child of Satan just because he does not believe in your illusory justification by belief in Jesus' Crucifixion.



To the likes of you, who are so confident of their own salvation and look down on everybody else, the bible told this parable: 

“Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector.  The Pharisee stood up and prayed about himself:  ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other men — robbers, evildoers, adulterers — or even like this tax collector.  I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.’

“But the tax collector stood at a distance.  He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, ‘God, have mercy on me, a sinner.’

“I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God.  For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted.” (Luke 18:9-14)

You sound like the Pharisee in the parable. You better stand perpetually in humble supplication to God so that you may be given the strength to overcome yourself. Don't remain in your atitude of spiritual superiority and don't look down on others. Be careful, that day you may see KunleOshob allowed into paradise while you are denied entrance.


Thanks

cocoman4u:
@justcool
What is your religiouse orientation?

@cocoman4u
I do not have a religion. Read my previous posts in previous threads and you will see my stance on issues concerning God; I do not want to deviate from the topic of this thread. You are welcome to open a thread and ask me anything you want to know about me.

@davidylan
Once again thanks. Although I don't agree with you, there is no need going round and round in a circle of quoting scriptures. I believe your mind is made up on this issue, and I wish you well on your path.

With this I dismiss myself from this thread. I think I've caused enough troubles already

@davidylan
Thanks so much for your reply but I completely disagree with you.
In the scripture you quoted:
"This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent." I do not see where it says that one must believe in the murder of Jesus to be saved. To believe in Jesus entails to live according to His teachings, and Jesus taught nothing but the will of God. So to believe in Jesus is to live His teaching, thus to do the will of God.
Anybody who does the will of God will attain salvation, and will in the end come to the recognition of Jesus. It doesn't matter wheather that person while on earth, knows that about Jesus. Thus somebody can read the bible or history and know about Jesus, but as long as that person does not live in the will of God, or as long as that person does not have genuine love in his hearth, that person has not come to the recognition of Jesus.
Genuine love only comes from Jesus; one who posses genuine love is already on his way to the recognition of Jesus, such a person is on his way to heaven, whether he consciously know about Jesus while he was on earth or not.

davidylan:
What is most laughable to me here is the sheer audacity of complete nobodies who stand up to declare that they "disagree" with a gospel that has withstood 2000 yrs of constant repudiation and yet remains a shinning beacon of God's love, hope and undying mercy in the hearts of those who love and cherish His words.

I agree that I am a nobody, and in no way do I seek to elevate myself, I am only being honest. I don't agree with that verse in Hebrews. Everybody is entitled to his own beliefs. Even Jesus who is the son of God, never forced people to accept his teachings. One who does not agree with anything, should be honest enough to declare that he does not agree with it. This is not being arrogant. Accepting what does not make sense to me will not lead me anywhere; that will only make a hypocrite. Blind faith is no faith.

davidylan:
Is he aware that the shedding of animal sacrifice had LONG BEEN the jewish tradition of cleansing sin? Is he aware that the shedding of Christ's blood was a symbolic one-time sacrifice to replace the yearly sacrifice of bulls and goats for sin?

Yes animal sacrifice is Jewish tradition, but God is not obliged to follow Jewish tradition. It is not only the Jews, Babylonians, ancient Egyptians, and ritualistic Africans including the ancient Igbos did animal sacrifice. Animal sacrifice in the view that it washes away sins or that it brings atonement is wrong irrespective of who did it. this is nothing but ritualism. Besides Jesus was not an animal!

Thanks

I was reluctant to post on this thread because I perceive that posters have made up their minds and no amount argument will change any of the poster's mind. Besides, m_nawnkwo has spoken very wisely on this issue, and I completely agree with him. This post is directed to davidylan who quoted some scriptures in his last post.

@ davidylan,
Please would you be kind enough as to explain to us the meaning of the scriptures below(Mathew Chapter 7), especially the parts in red and bold.

It says "Only those that do the will of His father" will enter heaven. Why didn't the verse say, "Only those that believe that His blood was shed for them," will enter heaven.

The thing with scriptures is that almost every verse has another verse that annuls it. This is why in the light of the scriptures below, I disagree with Hebrews 9:22:

"And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission."
(Hebrews 9:22)

I don't know who wrote Hebrews but I completely disagree with him. God does not need to shed blood in-order to remit sins. God is not a ritualist.

Please explain the scriptures below for me.

[Quote]
1"Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.
3"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.

6"Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces.

7"Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. 8For everyone who asks receives; he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be opened.
9"Which of you, if his son asks for bread, will give him a stone? 10Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a snake? 11If you, then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him! 12So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.

13"Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. 14But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.
A Tree and Its Fruit
15"Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. 16By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.
21"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, [size=14pt]but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.[/size]22Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' 23Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'
24"Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock. 25The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house; yet it did not fall, because it had its foundation on the rock. 26But everyone who hears these words of mine and does not put them into practice is like a foolish man who built his house on sand. 27The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell with a great crash."
28When Jesus had finished saying these things, the crowds were amazed at his teaching, 29because he taught as one who had authority, and not as their teachers of the law.[/quote](Mathew chapter 7)

See Mathew 7:21 made it clear that only those who do the will of God will be saved. Thus doing the will of God is the requirement for salvation and forgiveness of sins. But Hebrew 9:22 says that shading of blood(murder) is the prerequisite. The individual is left to choose which scripture to accept as the Truth. I have chosen to accept Mathew 7:21. Whatever choice you make it yours.

Thanks.

Deep Sight:
Thank you Justcool. Well, i suppose it is fair to avert my gaze from the Messenger as you have said.

Going back to the parable. For me it is a very clear indication that the crucifixion was not the will of God. It has always seemed to me bizzarre that people would accept this as the will of God and in fact translate it into the foundation for "salvation".

It seems to me that salvation, or transitting peacefully to a higher realm as opposed to a lower realm rests upona pure conscience and a spirit filled with love. It also seems to me that this has always been the case from time immemorial, and that God neither does, nor can change the rules as HE goes along. I do not perceive the Divine GODHEAD to be so trivial as to shift the goal posts from time to time.

The prayer in Gethsemane makes this abundantly obvious. It never ceases to amaze me that people overlook such clear pointers, and deliberately read them to suit established dogma.

@ Deep Sight
Very wise input.
It is really strange to that people accept such false doctrines, which contradicts very sense of justice. How can God who is Justice and Love send His beloved son to be killed for mankind? Does God love mankind more than Jesus?

By preaching that God sacrificed Jesus to save mankind, they reduce the ALMIGHTY God to the level of ritualists. I remember one man in my town who was rumored to belong to a cult, there was rumored that the cult members sacrifice their offsprings in ritual for money. One day my father asked the man if it was true that they do ritual sacrifice of their children. The man laughed and said to my father, "Didn't your God not sacrifice His son to save mankind?"
It was a joke and my father laughed, but for the rest of my father's life he kept thinking about that notion that God sacrificed Jesus. Towards the end of his life, he confided in me that he no longer believed that it was God's intention for Jesus to be killed. But he was already too engraved in the church to publicly declare this, so he said it to me in secret. We condem ritualists for doing this evil(human sacrifice), yet we ascribe the same evil act to God and still say that God is righteous. This shows the inconsistency of these false doctrines.

Rather than working on themselves and yielding spiritual fruits, manking accepted the false doctrine that Jesus have paid for their sins, and that all they need to do is believe in this alleged sacrifice. This is making salvation a matter of safe conduct. This I believe is part of the reason why there is so much evil and hatred in the world today. Rather than teaching people to do good works, love others, and become righteous, they came up with the doctrine that ones good work cannot earn him/her salvation. Thereby greately reducing the importance of rigtheousness. If our righteousness is not important for our salvation, I wonder why John the baptise, Jesus and etc spent their lives on earth telling people to repent and strive towards righteous. According to the Bible Jesus said:
"For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven." (Mathew 5:20)
I think it is darkness's way of keeping mankind enslaved in spiritual sleep. By telling mankind that Christ has payed for their sins; thus turning their gaze away from striving to be good. Mankind live in sin with the delusion that their faith in Christ's death has justified them from their sins. If this is true, then I wonder why Jesus said, "Whats so ever a man sows, that he must reap." Yet after reading it people still believe that as long as they put their faith in the false notion that Christ died for their sins, all their sins has been immediately taken away from them.

If it was God's intention that Jesus should be crucified, why did Jesus say, "Father forgive them for they know not what they are doing."(Luke 23:34) Why would they need forgiveness if they were doing the will of God?

@Deep Sight
My dear friend, I didn't intend to brush you up. I didn't even know that I did that so don't take it that way. I am genuinely sorry for disappointing you, also I am sorry if I have said anything to offend you. It wasn't intended.

I am not intolerant about people challenging my convictions. You are welcome to do that anyday, as long as you keep it within the boundaries of my conviction. My conviction is that the Grail Message is the Truth, the book explains the truth about God. You are welcome to question or challenge this anytime. But when you go beyond God and the message and start inquering personalities then I will back away. 

I will give you a simple analogy. I once took an exam in the university where we were not allowed put our names on the exam papers, rather we were given numbers. After taking the exam, I went inquired why the department chose to do that. They told me that they don't want favoritism or racism to interfere with the grading of the papers. They found out that students get fairer review of their papers when the reviewer or the grader does not know them or anything about them. This way the grader judges the paper just based on the contents which is the only thing grading papers should be all about.

Thus one must be able to examine a message and not the bringer. Gold is gold even in the hands of a beggar. I wish not for us to go into inquiring about Abd-ru-shin because this might interior with your judgement or assessment of the message. Remember most of the Jews that rejected Jesus did so just because He was a carpenter. I know somebody who wouldn't examine the message just because Abr-ru-shin was a German.

If your seeking in truly in enerst, then dear friend, lets deal with the message and not the bringer. Afterall Abd-ru-shin brought the Message and not Himself.

Do you spend time seeking to know your post-man rather accepting your mail and reading it? Afterall the post-man is just a messenger.

I hope you understand what I mean. I don't wish to brush you off. I just felt that you are approaching the issue from a wrong perspective.

Thanks

@Deep Sight
I am sorry I cannot continue to talk about Abd-ru-shin concerning the issues you raised. Abd-ru-shin wished that readers of His Grail Message must be willing to examine the matter(The Message and not Abd-ru-shin) objectively. If you have any questions about the Grail Message, I will happily help as much as I can. But to inquire about Abd-ru-shin and His personality in the manner that you are doing is wrong. In no way did He praise or glorify Himself in the message, He gave all the Glory to God and Jesus the son of God; therefore it will be very unfair for us to compare Him with people who deitify themselves.

Please Kindly desist from asking me such questions. Hencefort I will not respond to them.

Lets keep to the parable of the wicked husbandmen, which is the theme of this thread.

As always, thanks and I wish you the best.

@Deep Sight

I wish not be dragged into things, you are dragging me.
My convictions about the personality of Abd-ru-shin stems my personal experiencing, which I will not share here. It is very personal.

Abd-ru-shin never said that He was equal to God. He served God by writing the Grail Message, in which He gave all the glory to God. He never wished to be worshiped or to be considered equal to God. He made it clear in His message that only God should be worshiped and prayed to.

At the end of the lecture, "cult," Abd-ru-shin wrote:
"But God alone is Holy!"

This is all I can say to you.

Thanks and remain blessed

@Deep Sight
Thanks for your contribution. You made some very bold statements towards the end of your post and you accused me of what I did not write in my post. Show me in my post where I said anything about Abd-ru-shin, and Parsifal. I called Imanuel the son of man and that is as far as I went in post.

Imanuel(Emmanuel) is the son of man whom Jesus spoke about. He is the third person in the trinity. He is the Holy Spirit. This is all I have ever said in this forum, and this is what I have been able to draw from the Grail Message.

Any responsibility arising from for the further declarations that you made is not mine.


About not agreeing with my interpretation of the "Lord of the Vineyard." You are very welcome to disagree with me. What I posted was my experiencing of that parable, you are welcome to have a different experiencing of the parable. It is very okay to disagree with me; I have no problems with that.

Thanks and remain blessed.

Please consider this parable reported in (Mathew 21: 33-46)(Mark 12: 1-12)(Luke 20: 9-19)

There was a certain householder, which planted a vineyard, and hedged it round about, and digged a winepress in it, and built a tower, and let it out to husbandmen, and went into a far country: And when the time of the fruit drew near, he sent his servants to the husbandmen, that they might receive the fruits of it.
And the husbandmen took his servants, and beat one, and killed another, and stoned another. Again, he sent other servants more than the first: and they did unto them likewise.
But last of all he sent unto them his son, saying, They will reverence my son. But when the husbandmen saw the son, they said among themselves, This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and let us seize on his inheritance. And they caught him, and cast him out of the vineyard, and slew him.
When the lord therefore of the vineyard cometh, what will he do unto those husbandmen? They say unto him, He will miserably destroy those wicked men, and will let out his vineyard unto other husbandmen, which shall render him the fruits in their seasons. Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?
Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof. And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder.
And when the chief priests and Pharisees had heard his parables, they perceived that he spake of them. But when they sought to lay hands on him, they feared the multitude, because they took him for a prophet [5]

I sense that this parable was actually told by Jesus because it is the pure and unadulterated Truth. Like all parables of Jesus, there is so much one can learn from it. It contains the eternal Truth; it is the entire gospel displayed in such a simple and pictorial manner that anybody can relate to it. I doubt if a human being can exhaust all the knowledge hidden in these parables. Personally, I have experienced that the more I mature spiritually, the more I see in these parables. Jesus is indeed the greatest teacher ever lived!

I will share my experiencing of this parable:

There was a certain householder, which planted a vineyard, and hedged it round about, and digged a winepress in it, and built a tower, and let it out to husbandmen, and went into a far country:

The householder mentioned in the above is the ALMIGHTY Himself, God the Father.
The vineyard that He planted is creation, subsequent creation, or the earth to be more precise. The winepress represents the abundance of the earth. The earth through nature gives its entire inhabitants everything that they need to thrive, but like a winepress one has to work in order to utilize and enjoy the gifts of the earth. The earth barely gives us wine(good things) already made, we have to work on it to earn its riches. Just like one has to work or press the fruits with the wine press before he can make wine. This coincides with what we have been told in another scripture: "Increase and multiply and replenish the earth" which simply means set to work and utilize the gifts that lie hidden in the earth, and also the gifts that lie hidden in our spirits. Only when we utilize these gifts in our spirits, our spiritual abilities, can our spirits grow(increase) and bring spiritual blessings to the earth(replenish the earth). Unfortunately, people think that this commandment is only directed towards physical propagation.

The tower is also another gift that this gracious householder gave. It represents the ability to communicate to distant places. Thus in this vineyard inhabitants are not left to themselves, with the tower they can see what is approaching them and with it they can also send a message across to distant countries, just like the ancients used to do with watch towers, light towers or light houses. In another translation of the verse the translator used the word: "watchtower" instead just "tower". Through this gift of the Tower the inhabitants of this vineyard can communicate with the householder.  This, to me, is a representation of the fact that the creator did not leave us alone, through his laws which is hein into creation from the beginning, we can communicate with him. We can also send Him our volitions in times of need through prayer.

The husbandmen are we human spirits. From this Parable we learn that the vine yard(subsequent Creation) is lent to us. Actually it is not ours and neither is it our home, we are merely guests, or laborers in the vineyard lent to us. It is our duty to increase and multiply and replenish this vineyard that is most graciously and generously given to us. Just as farmers are given a yard to plant and cultivate. From the fruits of their labor in the farm they can earn a good living, they are also obliged to pay the owner of the yard from their profits. The same way, the earth is lent to us human spirits; from our labor(experiences) on earth we earn a living (achieve spiritual maturity) but we are also obliged to pay the Creator for this most generous gift to experience. In this case, all that the creator requires as fee from us is our spiritual activity. Therefore we cannot stand still spiritually, the result of this spiritual activity also ennobles the earth(keeps the vineyard in order). But in this we failed.

"And went into a far country"

From this picture of the householder being in a far country, we can deduce that although the creator is omnipresent, He lives in a far country. Thus the ALMIGHY Creator dwells far above creation. God himself is not inside creation which only a work of God. Like an artist stands beside his works so does the creator stand above creation which can not carry or contain Him in His entirety. How then is God omnipresent? His Omnipresence lies in His ability to oversee all in creation through His laws which is hein in all parts of creation. Thus He is reachable from any part of creation; therein lies His omnipresence.

And when the time of the fruit drew near, he sent his servants to the husbandmen, that they might receive the fruits of it.

Like I said earlier, we human spirits failed in yielding spiritual fruits. Rather than making spiritual movement, the effect of which will not only benefit us but ennoble subsequent creation, we made only intellectual and technological movement with the aim of personal gain. Thus rather than yeilding the fruits of the spirit-- love, beauty and peace, we yeilded rotten fruits-- lust, hate, envy, greed, and etc. Such fruits that poisoned not only us, but also subsequent creation, the vineyard most graciously given to us. Therefore like a tenant who reused to pay rent when it was due and who destroyed the rented house, the owner of the house sent us messengers to collect the rent from us and teach us how to live more responsibly. These messengers are the prophets that the ALMIGHTY send to us.

And the husbandmen took his servants, and beat one, and killed another, and stoned another. Again, he sent other servants more than the first: and they did unto them likewise.

And we human spirits maltreated the prophets sent to us; we killed some, beat some, and stoned some. These prophets, i.e. Elijah, Moses, Isaiah, John the Baptist, all received bad treatment from we human spirits. Thus we beat them, rob them and send them back without paying our rent that was already past due. Yet the AlMIGHTY out of His love would not let us parish in the sultry and poisoned atmosphere that we created for ourselves, therefore He kept sending us his servants to call us to repentance. Yet we refused to bear fruits of repentance.

But last of all he sent unto them his son, saying, They will reverence my son. But when the husbandmen saw the son, they said among themselves, This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and let us seize on his inheritance. And they caught him, and cast him out of the vineyard, and slew him.

But when we(mankind) were about about to perish completely from the poison of their rotten fruits, the ALMIGTHY sent us His son, His own flesh and blood. This clears the puzzle whether Jesus was just a prophet or just a man sent by God. In this parable we see that Jesus is something that the previous messengers of God are not. He is God's own son, His flesh and blood. This is a pictorial rendering of the fact that Jesus is God incarnate. Like I said earlier, God in His entirety cannot descend into creation. If so how then is Jesus God incarnate? Jesus is a part of God and not God in His entirety. God severed a part of himself and sent it to earth and incarnated it in a physical body of flesh and bone. Thus "and the word was made flesh and dwelled among us." Thus Jesus innermost core is Devine(God) as opposed to all other prophets whose innermost core is Spirit.
In this parable we also see the reason why Jesus was sent. So many people have asked the question: "why would God send His innocent son to earth to be killed." This parable answers the preceding question. Jesus was not sent to be killed or murdered. Murder or the killing of innocent people is a sin and never permitted by God who is Living Justice Himself. God’s intention for sending Jesus was for mankind to "reverence my son" For mankind to listen and obey Jesus who brought them Divine light, and pay up their overdue rent(bear spiritual fruits). Jesus’ words points clearly to mankind how to retrace their steps and do the right thing. Jesus not only told mankind, He also demonstrated to them how to bear spiritual fruits. He gave strength to the weak, healed the sick, visited the poor, forgive the repented ones, He gave freely to mankind that which flowed from His Divine heart. But rather than accepting these gracious gifts with jubilation and thankfulness to the Creator, mankind seized Jesus and killed him on a cross in Calvary.

"and let us seize on his inheritance"

This is a pictorial depiction of how mankind wanted to seized the kingdom of God. The inheritance of Jesus is the TRUTH which comes from God, Jesus being a part of God; He is a bearer of the TRUTH. But mankind on earth does not like this Devine TRUTH which is pure and unadulterated, so mankind seized it and made it suitable form them. They misrepresented the TRUTH in their religions which serves them rather than God. Making a business from religions and falsifying the TRUTH to attract religious followers, mankind, especially leaders and representatives of earthly religions seized Jesus inheritance and made it their own.

When the lord therefore of the vineyard cometh, what will he do unto those husbandmen?

Who is this lord of the vineyard. It is easy assume that it is the owner of the vineyard. But at the beginning of the parable, the owner was called a householder: " There was a certain householder" Thus the hastily assumption that the householder is the lord of the vineyard may not be correct. Who then is the Lord of the vineyard? For him to be called lord, he must be part owner of sole owner of the vineyard. But we already know that the owner of the vineyard is the householder. The only possibility that remains is that this "Lord of the vineyard" is a part owner of the vineyard. To be a part owner, he is either a son or a relative. It is my conviction that this "Lord of the vineyard" is a son of the householder. Thus the householder has two sons, the one sent to receive fruits from the husbandmen, and the one called "the Lord of the vineyard". It is my conviction that this "the Lord of the vineyard" is the Holy Spirit who like Jesus is also a son(part) of God. It is Him who will visit the vineyard(the earth) in the end to judge the earth. He is the one who is called the "son of man." He is the one who, in other verses is called "the ruler of the world" "the Spirit of Truth", or "the comforter". Consider that the expresion "Ruler of the world" is the same as the expression "Lord of the vineyard" if we understand the "world" and "vineyard" to mean the same thing--Creation. He is called "the ruler of the world" or "the Lord of the vineyard" because He is the part of God through which creation came into being; thus God created the worlds, including the vineyard, through Him, thus He his the lord of the vineyard. The Holy Spirit(Immanuel) severed from God to create the worlds; Just as later Jesus severed from God to save the world(the earth) or to demand the fruits of the laborers in the vineyard. A part of this Holy Spirit is anchored at the highest heights in creation, in the highest plane of the primordial spiritual, and from thence He rules the worlds. It was Him who was described by the writer of the book of revelation as "the one who sits on the throne," while Jesus is described in the book of revelation as "the lamb who was slain."

They say unto him, He will miserably destroy those wicked men, and will let out his vineyard unto other husbandmen, which shall render him the fruits in their seasons.

It is understandable that when the "son of man" comes, His judgment will hit these wicked husbandmen very severely for the injustice they have done on the prophets of God and the for the killing of the son of God. The false and wicked structure set up by mankind shall collapse in the radiation of the son of man. He will bring everything to fulfillment and will balance every check; He shall demand payment from all the tenants that owe His father. Nothing will be able to hide from him. By being on earth, His radiation will speed up everything and shatter all the walls that hides evil. All that is dead(all that is without movement) shall be awakened to this judgment. Perhaps we already live in this era; it is left for each individual to look around him and judge the world happenings with his/her intuition. After this great purification only those that have yielded good fruits shall remain on earth. Only those that are willing to pay their rent and take good care of the vineyard shall be allowed to live on earth. The rest will no longer be permitted to live on earth. Hence: "he will let out his vineyard unto other husbandmen, which shall render him the fruits in their seasons."
and hence: "Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof."

[i]Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?
Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof. And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder. [/i]

The stone that the builder refused is Jesus or the TRUTH that He brought to the world. Mankind on earth refused to use this stone(The TRUTH) to build the fabric of their lives. Rather mankind made vanity the building stone of their lives. But this rejected stone(The Truth) will be the basses of life on earth after the purification. After the purification of the earth, and in the millennium the Truth will be the fabric of the lives of those allowed to still exist. Thus the rejected Stone Jesus, the Holy Spirit and God the father will rule the earth during the millennium. But this does not necessarily mean that will live physically on earth, it only means that the earth will also become the kingdom of God where only the Truth, Purity, Love, and Justice rains.  Then will the Lords prayer be fulfilled, " Thy Kingdom come." During this time, men on earth will be servants of God and not servants of themselves. During the millennium, the will of mankind will no longer rule in subsequent creation, only the will of God will rule. The radiations of the son of man will be so much intensified in subsequent creation that all the laws of creation will speed up in their activity. Then Karma will be instantaneous; if one commits a sin, he/she will receive the karma right away. Anybody that will seek to oppose the laws of God by living in sin will be severely struck by the laws of reciprocal action till such a one bends. Those that will not bend will surley be broken to pieces or grind to dust. Hence: "And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder."
This way mankind will learn to adjust to the will of God. This instantaneous release of reciprocal action(karma) is already happening today. But it will get bigger in the future.

This is what my spirit was able to draw from the parable of the wicked husbandman. You are welcome to agree or disagree with me. You are also welcome to shear your own insight. The purpose of this thread is the invoke thoughts on the reason why God sent Jesus to the earth.

Sorry if it's too long, and thanks for reading.

seeklove:
I miss those days when justcool, m_nwankwo, pilgrim 1 and other interesting posters were active on Nairaland.
I go back to threads like this and read it over and over again, since today there is hardly anything intsressting in the religion forum.

I wondwer
Justcool, m_nwankwo, pilgrim 1 and ematan2002 where are you guys? Have guys retaired from Nairaland? I miss you guys please comeback.

Seeklove.
I'm still here but just observing. In most of the threads in this forum, I have nothing to contribute. I try to only contribute in threads that deal with serious and meaningful issues, and why my contribution will have an effect.

I will use this opportunity to say "Hi" to the posters on this thread, especially to "Deep Sight" who asked a very important question to m_nwankwo in another thread: https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria?topic=329171.msg4617627#msg4617627. I could hardly stay away from posting on that thread but I had to because m_nwankwo correctly answered your question. I hope you quest is not just out of curiosity, but genuine seeking. I wish you strength!!!!

Regards to Pilgrim 1, m_nwankwo, enitan2002, olabowale, Pastor AIO, and etc.
Keep up the good work and lets not tire on our quest towards the light.

m_nwankwo:
I think that the OP by Justcool is brilliant. However, I am convinced that logical or intellectual reasoning will not convince even one atheist to believe in God. Belief or rather an irrevocable conviction in God requires something which logic and reason cannot provide. It requires a conscious experience of the power of God. Until a person consciously encounters this power of God, he or she will remain an atheist, an agnostic or be a believer in several of the many conceptions of God that are prevalent in different world religions or movements. Personally, I do not see any problem with whatever view point an atheist holds so long as that is what he or she is convinced about. That is, as long as one is honest with his beliefs and do not perharps hold views that contradict his outward and inward experiences. Thus there is nothing wrong in my view in holding a belief or views that are in synch with your outward and inward experiences. My view is that the power of God is to be experienced. It is not reasoned or thought out. The path to recognising God lies in consciously experiencing the power of God and if need be, one can articulate this experience of Gods power into philosophical, logical or scientific platform. Blind faith in God may be acquired by philosophical, logical or scientific reasoning. Such a faith is blind in its fundamentalsim as well as unreliable when temptation knocks. It is actually better in my view to be an honest athesit than to have a blind faith in God. An irrevocable conviction in God comes from consciosusly experiencing the power of God. Such a genuine conviction brings love instead of hate, wisdom instead of ignorance, sympathetic understanding instead of fundamentalism, serenity instead of anger, truthfullness instead of falsehood, honesty instead of hypocrisy, peace instead of war, etc.

Very worthy contribution. I completely agree.

davidylan:
Only a heart that is unconsciously aware that the God of the bible is real will spend so much time basing his opinions on God's existence solely on the bible.

@davidylan
I personally have sensed something close to the above here in Nairaland. Nobody will waste so much energy or write a book trying to prove that the toot fairy or Santa clause doesn't exist. One who truly believes that God does not exist will only smile at believers and will not waste energy trying to persuade them to give up their belief, after all experience will soon come to their aid.
One who wastes so much time trying to convince others is actually trying to convince himself. He is actually trying to silence something within himself.

huxley:
You can dismiss the claims of religions without referring to their holy books. To refer to the holy books is to dismiss them thoroughly.

@huxley
Very Good! However, dismissing the claims of religions does not mean that God does not exist! The claims of religions have more or less nothing to do with God. God and religion are two different things. Religion supposedly offers a way to God or to the understanding of God.
Many books science offer knowledge of gravity, as time goes no modern scientist found out that some of the claims about gravity are wrong. But this finding does not lead modern scientists to conclude that gravity does not exist.
Therefore, if you think a particular religion or all worlds’ religions are wrong, just throw them away and move on in your quest for God.
I am convinced in the existence of God, but I don't have a religion.

Tudór:
@justcool.
Are you now admitting that the bible is false?

The entirety of what you and I know about God or Gods comes from the so called Holy Books. Hence any flaw or contraditions in the books cast aspersions on the idea "god" revealed by the books in itself.

@Tudór
I am not here to validate the bible or to disprove it. I respect the fact that some people hold it sacred. Read my previous posts on Nairaland and you will see my view about the bible. But let me just give you an answer, for the sake of cordiality. My answer is this: I do not consider everything in the Bible to the Truth. The bible contains some truth, of course, but not in all things. Now this is my personal perception; but I do not consider those who live by the bible to be fools. Any body who find the Bible to be the ultimate Truth is welcome to live by his/her beliefs. I have nothing against this, as long as the individual is honest with himself and not just pretending. If the Bible fills your void, then stick to it. Everybody is entitled to his perception of life.

My belief in God is not based on the bible; neither is it based on the Koran, which I don't hold as the Truth either.
God existed before the Koran and the bible.

Tasma:
Sorry but this argument seems flawed to me. First off i do agree that no atheist can actually argue that a "God" or power does not exist. That is simply outside the powers of perception of any human being. The problem though is that most definitions of "God" only exist within the context of some established religion or the other. There is little of a universal God definition that can satisfy all/most religions across board. Also few Muslims or Christians will agree with the same God concept. So yes until that time the "atheist" can insist that he does not believe in any of the prevailing concepts of "God".

@Tasma
In your post lies the answer to your puzzle. I highlited some parts of your post to prove my point. If somebody does not actually argue that a "God" or power does exist, and acknowledges that it is simply beyond human conception, then that person is not an atheist. Such a person is not a true atheist; such a person is only antagonistic to the doctrines of established religions. Rather than an etheist, he is an agonistic theist. I repeat God and religions are two different things. A true atheist does not believe that there is a God, or a power out there that is incomprehensible to humans, he simply does not believe in anything. I have only seen one person like that, he even questions his own existence,--such is a true atheist.

I have a co-worker who does not believe in the God of any religion, but he doesn't call himself an atheist. He simply calls himself agonistic, antagonistic to all of the prevailing religions and description of God. He simply says, "I know that there is something out there."

@ tonye-t, muhsin, and Nezan
Thanks for your worthy and important inputs.

@All
Remain blessed

From my encounters with the so called atheists, I have noticed that their disbelief is always of a particular god or belief system.

I will give an example: An atheist may spend hours disproving the validity of the bible. At the end of the day he may succeed in proving that some of the stories in the bible are questionable and he will base his atheism on this, But what he forgets is that the fact that some of the stories in the bible are questionable does not mean that God does not exist.

A better conclusion for such a person would be this: "If God does exist, He is definitely not exactly what the bible says He is."
In this conclusion he acknowledges two things; (1) God and bible are not exactly the same. (2) The fact that certain things in the bible fails to live up to the test of reality does not mean that the existence of God is false too.

I will give another example: An atheist may spend hours disproving the validity of the Koran. At the end he may succeed in proving that some of the stories in the Koran are questionable.  From this he will then conclude that since the Koran is questionable, then the existence of God is questionable too thus a fallacy.

But the fact remains that all religions and all secred books are peoples perception of God, not God Himself!
Thus if one does not agree with the biblical perception or the Koranic perception, the individual is left to seek to have his own perception of God. Out of intellectual and spiritual laziness the individual gives up the belief in God without putting it through a thorough and unbiased scrutiny. He takes the easy way out and call himself an atheist. However, he is not really an atheist! He is just opposed to certain perceptions of God.

I will give another example: After putting the theory of evolution through scrutiny, an individual gets convinced of it validity. He will not just call himself an evolutionist, rather he will go too far and declare himself an atheist. He will reason that since man evolved, the idea of creationism is wrong, and if creationism is fallacy then God's existence is fallacy too. Here he makes a terrible error in his judgement. A better judgement would be: "If God does exist then He did not create the world in six days."

I will give an analogy: If I read a book about ZIk, and the book says that ZIK could turn into an fly. As a child I might believe this story. But as an adult I will put the story into scrutiny. From my experiences as an Adult I know that it is impossible for a man to turn into a fly. This will lead me to conclude that, (1) maybe Zik does not exist, and never existed; and the whole thing is fallacy, or (2) Zik does exist or did exist, but the story that I read in the book is fallacy.

Of course the second conclusion is a more intelligent conclusion, especially when I have other evidences that zik existed, IE works that Zik produced when he was alive. The fact that a description of a thing does not accord to reality does not mean that that thing never existed or does not exist.

Thus one should not stop the investigation and just call himself an atheist, just because the stories he read about God are myths. The right thing would be to seek a personal experience with this God. To look around and see if there is any evidence that God does exist. If one looks around and finds none, then such a person is a true atheist.

But if one looks around, one will find the world, plants, man, mountains, stars etc. Then one would ask oneself: "what is the origin of all these things around me? From whence did all these things proceed?" Many answers would come to mind--evolution, the big bang. Then another question: What caused evolution? From whence did evolution drive its power? What caused the big bag? From whence did the power that caused the big bang came? This power that still sustains everything. This power in every plant, every mountain, everything.

Perharps one may not be able to answere this question, but he definitely acknowledges that their is a power that animates all. But what is this power? Tell me has this seeker not found God?

Thus anybody that arrives at this conclusion should not call himself an atheist. He acknowledges that God exist, wheather he calls God a power or wheather he call Him God or Allah. What difference does it make? But one thing is certain, he[b] has seen the evidence of the existence of God.[/b]

Thus the only true atheist is one who believes that the universe, plants, trees, man(including himself), and etc does not exist.

To acknowledge that life (including yourself and everything in the universe) exists, and to see the power that sustains it, and yet still say that God does not exist; It's like seeing a painting hanging on the wall, and yet say that the painting has no painter.

The existence of the universe is enough evidence that the universe has beginning, an external force that keeps it in motion, that keeps it animated, that fuels it -- its creator! This is not just a conclusion, this is also scientific.

However one chooses to imagine this force, power, power of the creator or the creator is his/her personal business.

Mad_Max:
I don't get it. Is speed the sole indicator of sperm cell health? If the fastest sperm cells are conceived because they're the healthiest, shouldn't that mean everyone naturally conceived is born in perfect health? That's almost everyone on earth. But that isn't the case. Babies, who got to the womb first because they're the fastest, are born with birth defects and serious disease every day. I'm not sure speed has a relationship to sperm cell health. Male sperm cells are faster than female sperm cells, but tire easily. Sometimes they flag on the way, and the slower but more steady female cells overtake it. If the male sperm cell can maintain its speed to the womb, then bingo, you have a boy.

Dear Madmax,
Good question, but however you seem to have missed my point. The issue is not speed per se. Lack of speed is not the only thing that makes sperms unable to swim across the fallopian tube. Also speed alone will not guaranty a successful swim across the fallopian tube, otherwise female sperms will hardly ever make it across the fallopian tube. So when a sperm fails to swim through, it does not mean that it lacks speed; or when a sperm successfully makes it across the fallopian tube, it does not mean that that sperm is the fastest.
Speed is hardly the major issue when considering the health of the sperms, and their ability to swim across and survive.
Here are the major things that impare the sperms ability to swim across and fertilize an egg:

1) Sperm count.  This is the most common major probelm. A man with a very low sperm count, even if his sperms are faster than the speed of light, they may be able to make it.

2) Morphology: This is another major probelm. Morphology refers to the shape of the sperm. An abnormally shaped sperm may never be able to fertilize an egg or swim across the fallopian tube even if it is the fastest sperm in the world.  Good sperms have a streamlined shape with a long tail which aids its movement. If a sperm has 3 heads and very small tail this may make it impossible for it to swim. Or if a sperm doesn't have a tail, a very short tail, or 3 tails, and etc all these will make it difficult for the sperm to swim across the fallopian tube and fertilize an egg.

3) Motility: This is also a Major problem. This refers to the sperms ability to move. Sperms are graded by there motility. Some sperms may be very fast but tend to move in a circle. These are called non-linear motility sperms. Such sperms, even if they are faster than the speed of light, they will never make across because they move in circles. They will keep circulating around a sport until they die. Another grade of motility are sperms that never moves forward. They could be very fast but they only move sideways. Some of them have irreguler flagellum beats. The flagellum beat is what propells the sperms forward. Just as a swimmer has to swing his legs to move in water, sperms have to swing their tails. This swing is caused by the periodic beat of the flagellum. The ones with irregular beat may never move forward even though they are very fast. The best grade of motility are those that move forward in a straight line, and very fast. These are the healthiest.

4) Acidity. The female anatomy has a particular PH. A healthy sperm also has a normal PH(Acidity/Base level) in the fluid that comes with the sperms. These fluids help neutralize the woman's PH level so that sperms can swim through. This fluid is the stuff that men ejaculate before or along intercourse. It is not the sperm itself but it paves way for the sperm. Sick people or people with infections usually have very basic or acidic fluids. Such will increase the acidity of the womans birth carnal rather than neutralize it. Such acidity will easily tire or kill the sperm even if it is the fastest sperm in the world.

5) etc. these are the few that I remember but I know that their are many. Ask a physician about semen analysis and you will see that it is not necessarily just the speed that determines whether a sperm makes it or not.  One thing is sure any sperm that naturally makes it across the fallopian tube is a healthy sperm!

Mad_Max:
If the fastest sperm cells are conceived because they're the healthiest, shouldn't that mean everyone naturally conceived is born in perfect health? That's almost everyone on earth. But that isn't the case.

Yes that isn't the case because the health of a child does not entirely depend on the health of the sperm. The sperm contains 50% of the genetic material that make up the child while the egg contains the remaining 50%. But once fertilization occurs other things comes into play. The health of the mother, the condition of the womb, the habit of the mother, the food she eats, and etc. So two very healthy gametes can form a child that may become very unhealthy by the time the child is delivered. If the mother smoked during pregnancy(I see a lot of pregnant women do that) all these toxins that she inhales can interfere with the development of the child. If the mother works in a radioactive lab during pregnancy, or if the mother drinks too much alcohol, or eats to much bad food.  So you see, the health of the child does not totally or entirely depend on the health of the gametes that produced the child.
But it is impossible to have a healthy child resulting from two unhealthy gametes.

I will give an analogy: Imagine the gametes to be bricks or blocks for building a house. With very strong bricks or blocks, a very bad builder may still end up building a weak structure. The weakness lies in the structure(the fault of the builder) and not the building blocks or bricks. But with weak blocks or bricks, even the most gifted builder will not not be able to build a very strong house.
So you see, the structural integrity of a house does not totally or entirely depend on the strength of the building blocks.

I hope this helps.
Thanks and remain blessed.

wirinet:
Like i have said evolution ensures the best and most healthy genes are used to produce offsprings, so tampering with that process might have undesirable consequences.

Let me explain, to produce an embryo requires two healthy gametes, the female releases a egg once a month and the best once are released early in a matured girls life, from teens to mid 20s. The male gamete is more complex The quality of sperm also degrade but only at very old age, but the male releases millions of sperm. So you have millions of sperm swimming across the fallopian tube ( a distance similar to swimming across the Atlantic ocean - relatively) to get to the egg. So at the end of the day you have the strongest and fastest sperm (best genes out of millions) fertilizing the egg, thereby relatively ensuring that high quality babies are produced.

But when you randomly pick 20 sperm cells out of millions and fertilize a random egg, as is done in In-vitro fertilization, it is very unlikely you will get the best set of genes. And subsequently the babies you will get might not be of the best quality. That is why a very large number of eggs is fertilized to ensure a least one good zygote Most of the time a clinical report of the baby is never known, as the baby and parents disappear after conception, and information about the baby being conceived invitro is kept both from the baby and medical records.

@wirinet
Wow! You are so right here! What you said above has always been my argument. I couldn't have said it better.
Nature made fertilization, and even pregnancy arduous in-order to ensure that only the healthiest gametes ends up producing an offspring. This is natural selection. This is evolutions way of ensuring the survival of the human race. The funny thing is that it is the scientists who should understand this process, that end up coming up with procedures that abridge this natural selection.
Although I said that artificial insemination is okay because it dos not involve destroying embryos as is involved in in-Vitro. but it is still not comparable to natural conception. Taking sperms that could not swim across the fallopian tube and putting them straight into the cervix or the uterus is like abridging a natural safety barrier. There is a reason why nature makes the path to the uterus(across the falopian tube) arduous and toilsome for the sperm. It is to ensure that only the healthiest sperms succeed in fertilizing an egg. This way, only the heathiest genes are passed on to the offspring.

I once had this argument with my cousin and I told him that artificial insemination, and all procedures that involve taking a sperm and fertilizing an egg unnaturally--outside the woman, is like taking a homeless man who could not pass primary school and making him a university professor. Or taking a man from the road side and making him the president. Any institution(country, school, and etc) that does that is doomed to catastrophes and extinction.

And one cannot argue that normal human beings have resulted from such procedures because these procedures are relatively new. The offsprings of these procedures are at the most in their early thirties. It is to early to say that they are completely safe and normal.

My apologies to any who was conceived through artificial insemination, in-Vitro fert, and etc, who may be reading this. This post is in no way intended to hurt any body. Remember, you are the victim and not the perpetrator. The fault is not yours.

deleted. refer to the next post for contents.

deleted. refer to the next post for contents

deleted. refer to the next post for contents

wirinet:
@Justcool,

I am highly impressed, with you accurate description of the soul, how and when it enters a fetus. Please can you give us some references where we can read further, so as to understand the anatomy of a soul. Is it in the Bible or the Koran?, or it is in some science journal?. You will be helping in resolving on of the most fundamental questions puzzling mankind and animal kind too.

@wirinet

Thanks. I draw my spiritual knowledge from a book called "In the light of Truth: The Grail Message" by Abd-ru-shin. It is a comprehensive book that answers all questions concerning the entire creation. Including man and everything about man. IE, How man came into being, his origin, the creation of man and how man should live and etc.
If you really wish to know the Truth about the issue, I advice you to purchase a copy of the book and read it. My post stems from my personal experiencing of the book. But one can only get from a book as much as his/her spiritual maturity allows; therefore read the book yourself, so that you can have your own personal experience.

As I said earlier, my knowledge of in-Vito fertilization stems from having worked in a fertility clinic here in Los Angeles. I have personally witnessed the process of in-Vito fert.

wirinet:
Although, i had not fully made up my mind on "designing babies", but the more i think about it the more i get uncomfortable with it.

As an Evolutionist, i believe every trait ( including deceases) has some evolutionary usefulness. I believe species should evolve according to its evolutionary needs. An example i will use is Sickle Cell Anemia. Sickle Cell Decease looks like a curse to the person affected and his/her family, but on the evolutionary scale it is very important to the long time survival of the black race. If a strain of malaria parasite should emerge that deadly and defies all drugs and treatment, then black children would be highly vulnerable, the only once with natural immunity against malaria parasites are the children born with the ss trait. Although there is a tendency for a lot of them to die early, but the surviving once usually live on to their mid 20s, giving them enough time to produce one or two offsprings whereby at least one would be free of the ss trait,before he/she dies out. Remember there is a trade off between immunity to maleria and the number of S traits in the genes, Those with two s traits (SS - sickers) have very high immunity, those with 1 s (AS) have partial immunity and people with no S traits (AA), have very low immunity against malaria.

So if you design babies eliminating the S trait completely, then our Evolutionary Insurance would disappear and if the unexpected happens(malaria-wise), we would be fully exposed.

I just used the SS trait as an example, there are many similar traits in the same category. If we had survived this well and this long with "naturally designed"and adapted babies, then i think artificially designing babies is not necessary

Finally, evolution in the long run knows how to take care of problems of deceases and changes in environment and diet, the reason we are exposed to new deceases we have not been naturally able to cope with, is because we humans have changed our diet radically over the past century and evolution needs time( thousands of years) to cope.

You made a lot of sense in the above. Genetic engineering may not be the right way for humans to go in their quest for elimination of diseases. I think that we humans should start by returning back to nature(being more natural), stop polluting our environments, stop manufacturing artificial food and stop playing around with unstable elements like uranium and etc. If we live like the creator intended for us to live, in a while most of the disease that we have today will disappear. Nature is the greatest healer.

This designing baby issue, I believe is nothing but clamour for attention, superficiality and quest for money and recognition. Such unnatural researches are hardly based on true concern for humanity. Some of the doctors we have today are criminals who deserve to be in jail. How somebody who call himself a doctor implant silicon on a woman's breast just for beauty. Is beauty more important than health? Once they start this designing baby thing, all the stars in Hollywood would clamour for it, just as they clamor for cosmetic surgery. It will hardly be for eliminating genetic illnesses rather they will use it to eliminate physical traits that they don't like. They will use it to create what the world considers today as being beautiful, -- a blue eyed, blond baby with large breasts and thin nose.
The superficiality in toady's world is terrible.

Dear Moderator AKO,

With all due respect.
Why did you lock the thread "Designing Your Baby"?
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-306471.0.html#msg4311440

Posters were cordial and respectful to each other, but just as the thread was getting more interesting you locked it and deleted my last post.
This is not the first time my posts have been removed, eventhough I try to be respectful in all my posts.

Please can you explain to me why you lock threads like "Designing Your Baby" and why you delete my posts.

Feel free to show me where and how I have not played by the rules.

Thanks

Quote from: justcool on Today at 02:34:06 AM
[Quote]
That said, I believe that there is a distinction between eggs fertilized in a test tube and an egg fertilized in the womb. The first is unnatural and only inferior souls can make use of bodies resulting from such fertilization.
I believe that a frozen embryo should not be considered a human being. This is going too far! A certain degree of heat is needed for a soul to attach itself to an embryo. It may not be possible for a soul to attach itself to an embryo in a frozen state.
[/Quote]


Let me throw more light in the above.
For a soul which has an astral covering to be attached to physical matter a certain degree of heat is prerequisite from the physical matter. IE for a soul to be in a physical body, the physical body has to provide a certain degree of heat. This heat is brought about by the biological processes in the physical body. But as soon as these biological processes cease or freeze, the physical body becomes cold and the soul loses its connection.

This is what happens during the process of death. Once the physical processes stop, the blood stops ro circulate; the physical body loses its heat, then automatically the soul which can nolonger remain connected detaches itself.

Therefore even in the case of embryos, there precess remains the same. Once an embryo is formed inside a woman, the biological processes in the embryo gives off a certain heat which is prerequisite for the soul in the beyond to attach itself to the developing embryo.

Depending on how the soul has progressed in its connection with the developing embryo, aborting the embryo will through this connection harm the soul. This deprives the soul of an opportunity to incarnate, and in this deprivation lies the sin: Thou shall not murder.

An embryo frozen artificially is a different case! It is in a state of an unnatural suspension which nature does not allow. In its frozen state, the biological processes are suspended and consequently its heat is lost. Such an embryo cannot remain connected to a soul because the connecting link is missing--the heat.

I hope this is clear. I can elaborate more on this if any questions arises.
This is my perception.

justcool:
That said, I believe that there is a distinction between eggs fertilized in a test tube and an egg fertilized in the womb. The first is unnatural and only inferior souls can make use of bodies resulting from such fertilization.
I believe that a frozen embryo should not be considered a human being. This is going too far!  A certain degree of heat is needed for a soul to attach itself to an embryo. It may not be possible for a soul to attach itself to an embryo in a frozen state.

Let me throw more light in the above.
For a soul which has an astral covering to be attached to physical matter a certain degree of heat is prerequisite from the physical matter. IE for a soul to be in a physical body, the physical body has to provide a certain degree of heat.  This heat is brought about by the biological processes in the physical body. But as soon as these biological processes cease or freeze, the physical body becomes cold and the soul loses its connection.

This is what happens during the process of death. Once the physical processes stop, the blood stops ro circulate; the physical body loses its heat, then automatically the soul which can nolonger remain connected detaches itself.

Therefore even in the case of embryos, there precess remains the same. Once an embryo is formed inside a woman, the biological processes in the embryo gives off a certain heat which is prerequisite for the soul in the beyond to attach itself to the developing embryo.

Depending on how the soul has progressed in its connection with the developing embryo, aborting the embryo will through this connection harm the soul. This deprives the soul of an opportunity to incarnate, and in this deprivation lies the sin: Thou shall not murder.

An embryo frozen artificially is a different case! It is in a state of an unnatural suspension which nature does not allow. In its frozen state, the biological processes are suspended and consequently its heat is lost. Such an embryo cannot remain connected to a soul because the connecting link is missing--the heat.

I hope this is clear. I can elaborate more on this if any questions arises.
This is my perception.

Chrisbenogor:
I would like to know how you see the idea of designing your own baby. If your family has a trait you do not want a child to carry that big nose that makes you cringe each time you see it, that big head that seems to stick more than your surname, would you consider doing it? What religious roadblocks would you hit?

I do not completely agree with any poster in this thread. I think both sides are exaggerating. Based on the information we have about “designing a baby,” I cannot say about the morality of it. If a naturally fertilized egg is engineered to inhibit certain traits, what exactly does this engineering involve? Based on what we know so far, it’s not enough to make conclusive statements. Since even adults undergo treatments to inhibit certain genetic illnesses.

If one sees nothing wrong with in-vitro fertilization, then one should also accommodate this idea of “designing a baby.” Also, if one sees nothing wrong with “gender selection” he should accommodate this idea of “designing a baby,” they are basically the same. To agree with one and refuse the other shows inconsistency in understanding.

I personally do not think that the idea of “designing a baby” and in-vitro fert. is right. Artificial insemination is okay because in this case the sperm is introduced inside the woman and allowed to fertilize an egg. But incases where the fertilization is done on a test tube is very wrong. I have worked in an in-vitro clinic and I have witnessed in-vitro fert. first hand. Here are the reasons why I think it is wrong:

(1) There is no way the doctor can ensure that only one embryo will be formed in the test tube. Doctors generally mix many sperms and eggs together in a test tube and allow them to fertilize(Incubation). It usually happens that at the end they will end up with more than 20 embryos; out of these twenty, they will select the best ones and freeze them. The bad ones are discarded.
The immoral thing here is that one who believes that life starts at conception should see this discarding of embryos as murder.

(2) Depending on the age of the woman, five or more embryos are introduced into her uterus. Women above 35 can get up to five embryos at a time. This is done because it is generally believed that not all the embryos will attach to the womb and survive. But there have been cases where all the embryos survived and the woman ended up giving birth to 8 kids.
The immoral thing here is the way the embryos are used as if playing a game. The idea of putting more than one embryo and whishing for only one to survive is tantamount to praying for a miscarriage. This is playing monopoly with life, if we consider the embryos to be humans then each should receive the utmost attention and the lost of any should not be allowed or welcomed

(3) The woman receives injections and drugs to induce her body to produce eggs suitable enough for oustside-the-womb conception. These injections and drugs are very hard on the woman both emotionally and physically. I have seen some women almost go insane from the side effects of such inducement drugs. And these drugs are very cancernogenoius (cancer causing) It happens that with some women, after these inducement, once the doctors collects the eggs, the woman will be told to wait for a long time(up to a year) just to recover from the affects of the inducement drugs.
This is unnecessary endangerment of the life of the woman. I will not allow my loved one to go through this. This is very morally questionable, as the woman may end up later with a terminal cancer. Although some healthy and young women may go through this and end up okay in the end, it is still endangerment.


Thus with in-vitro fert. there is no way to avoid loss or destruction of embryos! Allot of people don’t know this and that is why they argue in its favor. I repeat: It is impossible to do in-vitro fertilization without losing or destroying some embryos in the process! In some clinics, once the woman gets pregnant, they will freeze the remaining embryos. But the woman has to pay yearly to keep them frozen otherwise they will be thawed and allowed to die or donated to research institutes.

If in-vitro fert. could be refined as to fertilizing only one egg (only one embryo) and introducing it into the woman. This one embryo should be given the opportunity to survive, and if it doesn’t the whole process will be repeated. This will be a more moralistic approach.  But they will not do it this way because the process takes time, and in-order to guaranty pregnancy, they fertilize many and allow many to die in the process. This is immoral.

The same should be applied to this issue of designing babies. If in the process there is no mass fertilization of eggs and loss of embryos in the process then it may stand a moralistic chance.

I personally do not consider eggs that got fertilized in the test tube normal embryos. Fertilization should be done inside the woman. This is the way the creator designed the process. Thus if the process of "designing a baby" involves allowing conception to take place in a test tube, then it is still morally wrong irrespective of whether an embryo is destroyed or not.

That said, I believe that there is a distinction between eggs fertilized in a test tube and an egg fertilized in the womb. The first is unnatural and only inferior souls can make use of bodies resulting from such fertilization.
I believe that a frozen embryo should not be considered a human being. This is going too far!  A certain degree of heat is needed from the embryo for a soul to attach itself to the embryo. It may not be possible for a soul to attach itself to an embryo in a frozen state.


Also saying that there is no difference between an embryo, a child, a teenager, and an adult is going too far. There is a major difference! Even a natural embryo in the womb of a woman is not the same as a child, a teenager, or an adult. The difference is that the embryo doesn’t have a human soul inside it . An embryo could be attached to a human soul in the beyond waiting to incarnate, but only at the middle of pregnancy does this incarnation take place.

But aborting an embryo is a sin against the great commandment (Thou shall not kill!). But this killing is not exactly the same as killing a child, a teenager or an adult. In the case of embryo, by killing it you deprive the soul that would have used it of the opportunity to incarnate and live on earth. The killing or murder lies in this deprivation! And depending on how close the soul is to the embryo in terms of connection, by destroying the embryo you can harm this soul. Through its connection to the embryo the soul could be harmed when the embryo is destroyed.
But killing a child, a teenager or an adult, involves destroying a body in which a soul already lives. This is also deprivation. So in either case, it is a sin against the commandment: Thou shall not kill! All forms of deprivation can be counted as a sin against this commandment.

I will give an analogy. Burning a house while the owner of the house lives in it, is not exactly the same as burning the house when the owner is in the process of moving in.  In the first case you burn both the house and the owner; in the second case you burn the house, the owner’s property and deprive him of the opportunity to move into the house.

Both cases are a sin or murder--deprivation, deadening, or killing an opportunity-- if viewed from the spiritual perspective.

Lets look at that scripture in another Bible Transaltion


[Quote]
because this is my blood of the new covenant that is being poured out for many people for the forgiveness of sins.[/Quote]
International Standard Version (©2008)


You see, it was King James version which Davilan quoted, that gave a misleading translation.
Of course you can see that in the international Standard Version it says "is being poured out" which is present tense. Remember at this point Jesus has not been crucified. If He was talking about the future would He use present tense? This shows you that He was talking about His words, the Truth which he brought to the world, which He was giving the world at that time. The blood being poured out is his word or the Truth which was being(present tense) poured out by his speeches.

Another clue is in another scripture where he said that

"So Jesus said to them, "Very truly, I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood have eternal life, and I will raise them up on the last day; for my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink. Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood abide in me, and I in them. John 6:53-56"

Here also He was not talking about His crucification. Here we see that to eat His flesh and drink His blood means to abide in Him.  Not to Crucify Him

@ davylan
I am not here to argue about Hebrews and all those scriptures that you quoted. The issue is "Did Jesus say that by his crucification, he has payed for the sins of the world." Of course you know that I dont believe in the whole Bible as being the Truth, you must have read this in my earlier posts. Don't bring up Hebrew, lets deal with what Jesus allegedly said. Lets deal with the gospel.

I might also let you know that I have read the Scriptures you provided, eventhough I don't want argue about them, still non of them confirms your argument.

davidylan:
God pls save us from these damnable heresies . . . where did the above individual get this lie of the devil? Jesus didnt come to "teach us to strive for righteousness" . . . He came that we may have life and have it abundantly.

Matthew 1:21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.

davidylan
the probelem with you is that you quote a scripture and give it whatever meaning you like without paying attention to what the scripture actually said.

The scripture said " He shall save his people from their sins." Where does it say He is sent to be crucified so as to pay for their sins?
He came to save us from our sins! This is true, He saves us from our sins by bringing us the Truth which if we live by it, we will be freed from our sins.  This is the meaning of the scripture. Only by living according to the teaching of Jesus can one avoid sin, and only by living according to His teachings can one attain righteousness which will open the door of paradise for such a blessed person.

Thanks.