₦airaland Forum

JeSoul:
Why now? this is just getting interesting and you're giving myself and other invisible readers something to think about.

Okay lets let it sleep for now, I'll harass you some other time I need to even ponder and reflect some more on a bunch of what you've already said. Issall good G!

I'd rather you ask now if you still have questions, than harass me later.

Hydrogen Peroxide! 

You are splitting hairs. You want to tell me you don't understand that what I implied is that THAT is my own perspective, and I was not trying to establish a new definition for virginity? Free me abeg.

@JeSoul: True, that word was for the King of Tyrus. But not the entire prophecy, for it is obvious that he is not an anointed chereub that covers, and was created, and iniquity was found in him. This is a strongly typed prophecy, and Ezek 28:1-10 begins by telling what the MAN: king of Tyrus did, and then the next few verses tied him in with his "father": Lucifer, to show that he was repeating an archetype of what Lucifer did in Eden. So, indeed the verse spoke about King of Tyrus, but the highlighted parts were definitely not about the king of Tyrus, since we both know that Adam or Eve were not the king of Tyrus and they were the only men in Eden

My point about Pharaoh was that if the Bible used symbolism to describe the trees of Eden here, how certain are we that the ones in Genesis were herbacious perenial greens? Do you get my point?

As I said earlier, I never said Eden never existed as a physical place. Do you understand me? What I said was that it was strongly and allegorically typed. I can, for instance, write a parable about something in Russia. The fact that it is a parable or allegory does not mean Russia must not exist. What I was trying to say is that WHAT EXACTLY happened in Eden is not clearly defined. Or maybe it was actually a certain fruit that Adam ate by biting into it, in actuality? Maybe so. But there is no clear indication in that direction either, as there are no references elsewhere showing that it was a real fruit from a woody tree that Adam and Eve bit into.

Please lets agree to disagree. I would not like to pursue the matter further. I love you!

H2O2:
I'm perplexed.
You are a virgin because you are not yet married?
or
You plan to remain a virgin until you are married?

Both of the above. Are they mutually exclusive? 

@JeSoul:

1Jn 5:16 If anyone sees his brother [believer] committing a sin that does not [lead to] death (the extinguishing of life), he will pray and [God] will give him life [yes, He will grant life to all those whose sin is not one leading to death]. There is a sin [that leads] to death; I do not say that one should pray for that.
1Jn 5:17 All wrongdoing is sin, and there is sin which does not [involve] death [that may be repented of and forgiven].

Let him who has eyes understand.

SeanT21:
Its harder for men to abstan from sex before marriage. For women, its easy.

In my opinion, SeanT21, it's easier for women to abstain only if they are virgins. If men and women ever get disvirgined (some people will argue that men don't get disvirgined. Whatever. I refer to their first experience of a sexual nature, so to speak), I believe in that case it's generally easier for men to abstain than for women to abstain from further sex. But then, it's just my opinion. After all, I'm a virgin 'cos I'm not yet married (Yeah I'm proud of saying that anywhere ).

We have already established that we are vested with the authority to take charge of our lives, and our vast human experience; and rather by God's Word which brought them into existence and will ably keep supporting them through eternity.

Ecc 8:4 Where the word of a king is, there is power: and who may say unto him, What doest thou?

Heb 1:3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;

Heb 11:3 By faith we understand that the worlds [during the successive ages] [b]were framed (fashioned, put in order, and equipped for their intended purpose) by the word of Go[/b]d, so that what we see was not made out of things which are visible.

The Word of God is like nails hammered home, holding human capital development in all ramifications together, holding life together.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Enterprise development indicates the development of a seed or idea in you to such an extent that it becomes a unique and recognizable public entity, that is, the will of God, a blessing to mankind that ordinarily will generate money as a reward for work well done.

Godly Enterprise development is not just making money, it involves building an enduring structure that seeks to promote the next will of God in commerce, information technology, banking or any other field and simultaneously bless mankind with these inventions. When these two are in place you will never lack money.

Why get involved in enterprise development? Here are some reasons you may consider:
To extend the frontiers of the kingdom of God.
To do the will of God.
To bless mankind.
To occupy the market places till he comes.
To translate the kingdom resource in us to capital on the earth.
To demonstrate industry, excellence and service.
To pay useful offerings, tax and duties to support the church and state.
To bless all the families of the earth as a fulfilment of the Abrahamic covenant.
To show the difference between gold and God, as all the gods of the enterprise world are but silver and gold.
To provide economic management and leadership as a way of translating kingdom principles to the world.
To be an exemplary ambassador for God when the world economic principles come crashing down like it did in Joseph's day.

We will consider the natures of work, jobs, labour, slavery and corporate drudgery, the black market, seeds, harvest, inheritance, etc.

If time permits, as God helps us, we will use the original concept of work as defined by God in the creation experience, and then consider enterprise development in the cases of Joseph, Pharaoh in Moses' day, Daniel in Babylon, Adam in Eden; famines in ruth, david, elijah, elisha's days; economic meltdown in Isaac and Abraham's days; Jesus' teachings and occurrences in the Acts of the Apostles, among others.

I say "we" because it is going to be a discussion . I have been doing most of the talking so far

Lest I forget, I think I will discuss faith on an entirely different thread, it is fundamental to many things involved in Christian Enterprise Development.

LOL! Nuclearboy + Ancel! I sincerely apologize, I will resume the topic after this post. I hope more questions and answers won't cause further derailment.

@viaro: I hope my last post made sense. I just read it again and it seemed I was equivocating. Peace be unto you, brother.

@JeSoul: Yes dear, we can gist about that later I appreciate your concern on historical vs. allegorical, darling sister.
The understanding I have of the matters H. vs A. are as follows:
1. The Bible is made up entirely of truth
2. The truth is almost entirely historical, but some few instances are heavily typed in allegory, parables, prophecies and visions.
3. The allegories are as true as the historical accounts, they are not to be dismissed because the Bible is not only a book of history, it is a book of instruction and guidance.
4. The difference between the historical pieces and the allegorical pieces is simple:
(a) the characters in the allegorical pieces are either fictional, or are symbolic in nature, describing real-life characters; while the historical accounts have entirely real-to-life characters.
(b) therefore even if a piece is suspected to be allegorical, the mention of the characters in other scripture, as real-to-life characters; and/or the events experienced, as real-to-life events, will clearly show that it indeed occurred, and is not an allegorical piece.
(c) while taking note of the caveat: some scripture may be falsely considered allegorical just because there is no other reference to the characters or events. This is not necessarily so, because every single character in the scriptures may not be mentioned in other scripture.
(d) and lastly: if at least one character in an event, or an event in itself can be shown to be allegorical, i assume it can follow that the other characters in that event as well are allegorical.

By virtue of the above, I will say that Noah's flood was a historical account, he is mentioned as a man who existed, and the floods were mentioned as existent as well (Heb 11:7, 1 Pe 3:20, 2 Pe 2:5).

The crossing of the Red Sea was historical, although the Egyptians wiped it from their own history books as they often did whenever they faced such a defeat. It's historical because it is mentioned in Acts 7:36, Heb 11:29 as a real event in which God operated.

Jonah's story at first may appear allegorical, and Jesus employed it in a parable, saying that the only sign they would get would be the sign of the prophet Jonah: that just as Jonah was in the belly of the whale for three days, he would be in the earth for three days and nights too (Matt 12:40). This instance is not enough evidence that Jonah actually existed, and I would have said it may have been allegorical but that would be hasty. See the next verse.
Mat 12:41  The men of Nineveh shall rise in judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: because they repented at the preaching of Jonas; and, behold, a greater than Jonas is here.
Here, real human beings are promised to be condemned by the people of Nineveh who had repented at Jonah's preaching. By clause 4b of mine above, it shows that Jonah's story is not allegorical but pure history.

You may recall also the story of Lazarus and the rich man? It was employed by Jesus in a teaching but it's not certain if it was historical or allegorical.

Now to Eden. I'm sure you agree with me that Lucifer is not a limbless scaly elongate reptile, commonly called "snake". It was thus an allegorical type. This is the description God gives about him:
Eze 28:13  You were in Eden, the garden of God; every precious stone was your covering, the carnelian, topaz, jasper, chrysolite, beryl, onyx, sapphire, carbuncle, and emerald; and your settings and your sockets and engravings were wrought in gold. On the day that you were created they were prepared. [Gen. 3:14, 15; Isa. 14:12-15; Matt. 16:23.]
Eze 28:14  You were the anointed cherub that covers with overshadowing [wings], and I set you so. You were upon the holy mountain of God; you walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire [like the paved work of gleaming sapphire stone upon which the God of Israel walked on Mount Sinai]. [Exod. 24:10.]

Also, talking about Pharaoh, a real human being, God said
Eze 31:9  I have made him fair by the multitude of his branches: so that all the trees of Eden, that were in the garden of God, envied him.
which would indicate to me that the trees in Eden envying Pharaoh's splendour (or the spendour of whoever Pharaoh is a prophetic archetype of) were not herbacious green woody perennials either.

In the New testament, the SIGNIFICANCE of Eden was what was discussed, with relation to God's plans for man, and not the exact details. The snake is shown to have been lucifer. The location of the garden is not discussed, neither is the nature of Adam's role in Eden expatiated. The essence of the story is what is related for our purposes, and it is not once drawn as a historical reference, IMO.

So, in my opinion, I would say Eden's story is a strongly typed allegory. I may be wrong, but I am yet to find contrasting evidence from the Bible. I'm honest and sincere, and may God help me if I'm honestly and sincerely wrong.

Thanks for always. 

@viaro: You have little idea how much respect I have for you! At the risk of overflogging the issue, let me say
1. The allegory of partaking in the mind &getting death, may I remind u of Christ's temptation? The devil quoted accurate scripture with a distorted spiritual meaning. So when he said it will make them like God he spoke the TRUTH. Partaking should NOT cause death, but it did BECAUSE that was the punishment for disobedience, and that was God's test of their faith &trust in Him.
2. The two trees. Again u say I directly refer to Jesus and the Holy Spirit but I will further liken it to this: God was in a pillar of fire that led the Israelites out of Egypt but the fire wasnt God. C.f. The burning bush where God appeared to Moses IN the bush. I guess the imbuement (lol) is of that wise. Thanks 4 always!

@No2Atheism: Thanks 4 watching my back, big bro! I will be fine!

@Deep Sight:
Chase the money well bro

But as for me, I'd rather have money chase me

Hehehe. Whenever you're ready we can resume discourse.

God knows that when I was about to post this Eden gist, I had emotional reluctance, but no spiritual reservation. I knew many people will vehemently disagree. I apologize in arrears. 

For the record, I never meant that those two trees in the center of Eden were Jesus and the Holy Spirit. What I meant was that the attributes imbued upon them are found in the persons of Jesus and the Holy Spirit.

@No2Atheism: Please believe me when I say that this is my own personal revelation, and it isn't like I'm trying to fit something into the Word of God. I kept saying "I believe that" and not "It is so" or something like that because the only "proof" I can tender is inside me. But hey, assume its all false, but look on the brighter side:

Assume the Eden story is altogether literal. The nub of my gist here is that Adam's sin by virtue of disobedience with respect to the forbidden fruit caused "thorns and thistles" to come out of the "ground", and that was when Adam handed over the "controls" to the devil.

My express description of Eden the way I understand it, is to dispel the notion that it is an irrelevant mythical story, and has no consequential effect on natural man and the way the world turned out. The interpretation is not as important as the essence of what I'm portraying, I believe. Thanks!

@Viaro: Okay, for the sake of clarification I need to say this: Do not forget that from the definition of "knowledge" in the name of that tree, it is all-encompassing and I can refer to it as the all-knowing mind. I know no other such mind. I also strongly believe that "eating" the fruit of a tree, to be allegorically correct, would mean attaining a commanding or condescending position over it (Jesus and the stubborn fig tree?). Think about it. Does that remind you of grievance against the Holy Spirit? Ok, if it does not, suffice it to say that the death that God said man would experience, is not because of eating the fruit per se, but rather due to DISOBEDIENCE. Their act of disobedience was what caused the death, as you know God judges intents and purposes and not only actions. However, I agree to disagree with you. 

And as for the prosperity of the wicked, I hope you realize that any fool can climb a ladder to get into a tower? True success entails understanding the walls of the tower, the ladder and how to climb it. The ladder is the principle, the walls are made of wisdom and the procedure is the active will of the man. When you lean the wrong ladder against wisdom, it will collapse under your weight, but if the ladder is in place, the man may climb. If the climb is improperly done, may the man not also slip and fall? The wicked man has his principles too, and he sticks to them like a postage stamp, sometimes they even do that better than Christians (which was why Jesus said he sent us out as sheep among wolves: wolves are generally seen as much more organized and smarter). And he has his sort of wisdom too. There is no "prospering wicked" that does stuff shabbily, but their end is certain. Remember the parable of the rich fool? Thanks, bro.

@JeSoul: *sigh* Sorry about that, sister. You know what? Everytime I see your posts I remember to keep my posts impactful and pithy. It's just that I hardly have time to organize my thoughts nowadays, so I write as my thoughts form in my head. You just gave me a reminder again: stick to the main topic! Yes ma'am 

Tudór:
BELIEVE ME, If I were seeking attention it'll NEVER be from YOU or the kind of people who are excited and eagerly anticipating pointers on "Gods capital development and Business Enterprise" like its the solution to ALL their problems and grant them riches. . . I'd rather be found partying with brain-dead individuals in a psych ward.

This is a totally unnecessary post, I hope you know?

Tudór:
So sister, DON'T FLATTER YOURSELF!All these RANT because i decided to be REALISTIC and suggest business school?

Na wa for nigerians ooo. . . . They don't wanna fork out money for an MBA course and will gladly patronise any quack who claims to be a professor in havard spirit business school. . .

And where did I ever make such a claim? I never claimed to be an authority, this is a discussion forum for whatever's sake. I'm out.

I may like to wrap up this thread quickly (rather than abandoning it for long and leaving the discussion hanging), unless there are questions that will further elongate the discussion.

I will begin by assuming we all understand the parable of the vineyard described above. Now I will discuss Eden: cradle of mankind.

I do not believe the Eden story is mythical, neither is it entirely historical. I think it is heavily typed in allegory, and I intend to describe, as best as I can, my understanding of that story.

God created Adam and placed him in Eden. When he "made Adam in his image", he empowered Adam to be to this realm, as He is to everything in its entirety. It was a kind of ambassadorial position.

I believe the Garden of Eden was not a "garden", but a metaphysical realm which was the primordial home of mankind. This realm also had a superposition on the physical realm and had direct access into the spiritual, so there were "layers", so to speak, of interaction between physical and spiritual entities. As such, I believe the "trees" in Eden were not necessarily green perenniaal woody plants, but were instead primordial entities of a kind: spiritual beings, if you may. There are many instances in the Bible in which human beings are likened to trees.

Eze 31:9 I have made him fair by the multitude of his branches: so that all the trees of Eden, that were in the garden of God, envied him.

I believe that in Eden, these primordial beings were in control of numerous things, ranging from nature control to insight along the vast dimensions of human experience. In allegory, Adam was allowed to "eat" of any of the trees except one. i.e. he was allowed to utilize the primordial entities, who were subservient to him, in order to achieve his purposes. So, what then was that "tree of knowledge?".

The Hebrew word translated as knowledge is da'ath, and it means an awareness of endless possibilities. In particular, it describes that attribute of God that makes Him do things exactly the way He does them, in His own infinite knowledge. See other instances of the exact same word:

Isa 11:2 And the Spirit of the Lord shall rest upon Him--the Spirit of wisdom and understanding, the Spirit of counsel and might, the Spirit of knowledge and of the reverential and obedient fear of the Lord--

Psa 139:4 For there is not a word in my tongue [still unuttered], but, behold, O Lord, You know it altogether. [Heb. 4:13.]
Psa 139:5 You have beset me and shut me in--behind and before, and You have laid Your hand upon me.
Psa 139:6 Your [infinite] knowledge is too wonderful for me; it is high above me, I cannot reach it.
Psa 139:7 Where could I go from Your Spirit? Or where could I flee from Your presence?
Psa 139:8 If I ascend up into heaven, You are there; if I make my bed in Sheol (the place of the dead), behold, You are there. [Rom. 11:33.]


Job 21:22 Shall any teach God knowledge, seeing that He judges those who are on high? [Rom. 11:34; I Cor. 2:16.]

And the New Testament gives more insight into this, since God is the absolute embodiment of truth:
1Co 2:11 For what person perceives (knows and understands) what passes through a man's thoughts except the man's own spirit within him? Just so no one discerns (comes to know and comprehend) the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God.

1Co 2:14 But the natural, nonspiritual man does not accept or welcome or admit into his heart the gifts and teachings and revelations of the Spirit of God, for they are folly (meaningless nonsense) to him; and he is incapable of knowing them [of progressively recognizing, understanding, and becoming better acquainted with them] because they are spiritually discerned and estimated and appreciated.

That "tree of knowledge of Good and Evil" in Eden is a personification of the Holy Spirit. The "tree of life" is a personification of Jesus Christ in that primordial realm. The two trees were in the "center" of the garden, meaning that they were administratively in charge of the other spiritual entities that Adam was allowed to control.

What I sincerely believe is that, because of man's absolute power in Eden, he had been warned against the corruption of trying to USE the Holy Spirit the same way he was discretionally using the other spirits to achieve whatever he wanted to get done. The corruption was easy to fall for, because the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil was keeping all the spiritual entities in check. So, if one could control that ONE tree, he would "be as God" himself.

Now, Lucifer, "the serpent".


Eze 28:13 You were in Eden, the garden of God; every precious stone was your covering, the carnelian, topaz, jasper, chrysolite, beryl, onyx, sapphire, carbuncle, and emerald; and your settings and your sockets and engravings were wrought in gold. On the day that you were created they were prepared. [Gen. 3:14, 15; Isa. 14:12-15; Matt. 16:23.]
Eze 28:14 You were the anointed cherub that covers with overshadowing [wings], and I set you so. You were upon the holy mountain of God; you walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire [like the paved work of gleaming sapphire stone upon which the God of Israel walked on Mount Sinai]. [Exod. 24:10.]
Eze 28:15 You were blameless in your ways from the day you were created until iniquity and guilt were found in you.
Eze 28:16 Through the abundance of your commerce you were filled with lawlessness and violence, and you sinned; therefore I cast you out as a profane thing from the mountain of God and the guardian cherub drove you out from the midst of the stones of fire.
Eze 28:17 Your heart was proud and lifted up because of your beauty; you corrupted your wisdom for the sake of your splendor. I cast you to the ground; I lay you before kings, that they might gaze at you.


I believe Lucifer was a primordial being in Eden, and in this allegory, he was likened to a serpent due to the evil and cunning mischief.


Isa 14:12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!
Isa 14:13 For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:
Isa 14:14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.
Isa 14:15 Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.


In Isa 14:14 Lucifer wanted to "be like the most high" (see again Job 21:22 quoted somewhere above), but he wasn't able to do that without help. Yes, help from Adam. I strongly believe that the "eating" of the fruit that Adam and Eve did was to the effect of allowing some evil replicates of holy archetypes to come into existence. Adam and Eve played God by bypassing God's infinite knowledge and applying the "tree of knowledge" to their use. Thus, many good spiritual concepts were "fakened" by Lucifer, and till today there are many evil things that, with careful consideration, you will see, have very similar background spiritual principles, to the truth in God.

When man fell,

Gen 3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
Gen 3:23 Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.
Gen 3:24 So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.


God didn't want man to take of eternal life in his sinful nature, because that would make for an eternal sinner. So he drove him out. And now, here is the crux of the discussion: I repeat v23


Gen 3:23 Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.


To "till the ground from whence he was taken", I understand to mean that man was subjected to those same laws that had been under his control hitherto. Natural laws and necessary insight into hidden things were taken away from him. Now he had to "till the ground" himself.

But as always, God had a plan: he was going to send that same tree of life, but it would be on his own terms. Adam would eat of it again (Jesus did), die and then have access to the tree of knowledge of good and evil. (Note the reversed trend).


Joh 10:10 The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly.



Joh 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.


@Deep Sight: The people you mentioned, definitely have spiritual principles going for them. the question is, is it the pristine spiritual principles fashioned by God, or the mirrored evil copies operated by Lucifer cunningly obtained using Adam's authority?

@Ancel: I hope the questions are also answered.

Phew. Exhausted. Need to get some sleep. Cheers.

@Tudor: Must you really be such an attention-seeking troll? Where's your civility? I bet you would say God does not even exist or maybe has nothing to do with human success or something, so why are you bothering to comment on this thread? Leave it for us deluded people who are reading ancient scrolls and senseless internet forum posts in a bid to get heavenly MBAs. Mumus will always be mumus, and I will gladly self-vilipend as a mumu if that will satisfy you; so please carry your wahala go another thread. We are having a discussion here, and if you think it is of no use to you, you don't really have to say anything. Ptschew.

@Everyone: I apologize for the delay. Been crazily busy. I proceed.

Deep Sight and ancel: the ancel to your questions requires some deep sight. Lol. Ok i will respond when i get to my desk, typing on mobile is a real pain. For starters, my answer is midway between the vineyard parable I mentioned, and the events at Eden (lest you dismiss it as myth, this is not about any tree-fruit). Catch ya!

Gen 1:28 And God blessed them and said to them, Be fruitful, multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it [using all its vast resources in the service of God and man]; and have dominion over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, and over every living creature that moves upon the earth.

The verse above refers only to dominion over fish, birds and other creatures; but those elements of nature are representative of all spheres of natural human experience. God expects a high-yield output from us (and now I do not refer to religious output), and for reference you can recall the Parable of the Sower.

This high-yield result is what the Bible mentions when it says that God has a glorious inheritance IN the saints.

Eph 1:18 By having the eyes of your heart flooded with light, so that you can know and understand the hope to which He has called you, and how rich is His glorious inheritance in the saints (His set-apart ones),
Eph 1:19 And [so that you can know and understand] what is the immeasurable and unlimited and surpassing greatness of His power in and for us who believe, as demonstrated in the working of His mighty strength,
Eph 1:20 Which He exerted in Christ when He raised Him from the dead and seated Him at His [own] right hand in the heavenly [places],
Eph 1:21 Far above all rule and authority and power and dominion and every name that is named [above every title that can be conferred], not only in this age and in this world, but also in the age and the world which are to come.

Now I will post the parable of the vineyard, which will illuminate the position much better:

Mat 21:33 Listen to another parable: There was a master of a house who planted a vineyard and put a hedge around it and dug a wine vat in it and built a watchtower. Then he let it out [for rent] to tenants and went into another country.
Mat 21:34 When the fruit season drew near, he sent his servants to the tenants to get his [share of the] fruit.
Mat 21:35 But the tenants took his servants and beat one, killed another, and stoned another.
Mat 21:36 Again he sent other servants, more than the first time, and they treated them the same way.
Mat 21:37 Finally he sent his own son to them, saying, They will respect and give heed to my son.
Mat 21:38 But when the tenants saw the son, they said to themselves, This is the heir; come on, let us kill him and have his inheritance.
Mat 21:39 And they took him and threw him out of the vineyard and killed him.
Mat 21:40 Now when the owner of the vineyard comes back, what will he do to those tenants?
Mat 21:41 They said to Him, He will put those wretches to a miserable death and rent the vineyard to other tenants of such a character that they will give him the fruits promptly in their season. [Isa. 5:1-7.]

A lot of my views will be drawn from this simple parable, and backed up by other scripture. I have to leave in some few minutes, but let me say here that this is the simplest view of the answer to the question: Why are we here? We are the tenants on lease in the vineyard (earth) created by God, and he expects fruit from us. More on that later, questions are still welcome. I'm out.

P.S. Ancel or anybody else, if you feel I am not adequately dealing with the subject matter, please call me to order. I have been known to over-gist

Thanks for kickstarting the discussion, Ancel  Everyone, sorry for keeping you guys waiting. We proceed.

[center]God's business enterprise project with respect to human capital development[/center]

One mistake many of us here are making is the assumption that wealth means an immense monetary deposit. This is not necessarily so, although that is a popular example. If wealth were only an accumulation of monetary value without the upholding principles that sustain the value (such as furthermore-viable ideas), it will all come crashing down in a short while. Those guiding and upholding principles are in themselves, the wealth, and not the value. For example, all that Abraham really had was a promise, and the promise kept generating visible wealth for him. That was what he gave Isaac in turn, the root of the wealth, and not the visible wealth (which was what he gave Isaac’s step-brothers).

Gen 25:5  And Abraham gave all that he had to Isaac.
Gen 25:6  But to the sons of his concubines [Hagar and Keturah] Abraham gave gifts, and while he was still living he sent them to the east country, away from Isaac his son [of promise].

Wealth means an abundance of resources, the quality of profuse material abundance. Affluence in possessions and monetary wealth are just two examples of wealth. Indeed, a cursory glance at nature’s abundantly free riches will show us that, contrary to what Tudor said in the quote below, God is the ultimate source of wealth.

Tudór:
God has nothing to do with riches and can never make anyone rich.

You can only attain wealth through a combination of intelligence, hardwork and luck!

Now, I will paddle down into wealth with respect to enterprise solutions and human capital development, which is the nub of this discourse.

[size=13pt]Wealth is the result of creative ideas and truth.
Enterprise development is the synergy of ideas, truth and wealth.[/size]

[b]NO ONE succeeds without God, even if they do not acknowledge God as the source. [/b]At the base of every successful endeavour, God’s principle is always at work. Thus every success is of God, whether directly or implied. God’s principles constitute the greatest strategies of all time, being that the same principles in His mind engendered all that used to exist but are now extinct, all that currently exists, all that can exist but do not yet exist, and all that do not exist and will never exist. His Word is the blueprint for all of them.

Thus if a person pounces upon God’s principle and appropriates it in an instance, by chance or deliberately, the results will be outstanding. But the question is: why stand by the Atlantic Ocean and enjoy the scenery while washing your hands with spittle? If you can operate in accuracy, why rely on chance?

Since time began, God, the master strategist, has engaged himself in investment, real estate, training, consultancy, enterprise development, human capital development, strategy and financing. He is not religious, and he never wanted religion. Religion began because man fell into error and wickedness, and seeing his distance from God, man began trying to get back to God the same way a potted plant in a dark room will extend its tendrils in the direction of the slightest hint of an illumination, a thin ray of light piercing through a tiny slit in the window.

God considered man’s feeble attempts and decided to put an end to religion so that man could face the more important capital strategy, a joint project between God and man. Thus he reconciled us to himself in the form of Christ roughly 2000 years ago and expunged religion. For the potted plant I mentioned, that would be like illuminating the dark room with brilliant sunshine, so that the plant can focus on its photosynthesis and growth, rather than seeking out acceptance by a light source. We cannot continue to expect God to tolerate or favour religion, after he eradicated it in Christ.

Like the potted plant, we no longer have to seek a light source: the light is all around us now, and there are productive expectations that we are to live up to.

Whatever produces a phenomenon is also required to sustain it and prevent systemic chaos. Now, assuming the source is responsible and regular, that initial entity may choose not to tend to the product directly, but rather entrust the sustenance of the product to another entity, and empower it to ensure success.

In that light, I firmly put it to you that the Word of God works. It never fails because it is empowered by the very life of God, which has the unique quality that makes God God. Thus, for instance, it is poised to cause a Word-based and Word-sustained paradigm shift to transform the corporate world.

[center]To be continued. Please be patient. But you can ask questions on what I have posted so far, if you so desire.[/center]

Ancel, don't mind Tudor, whose name is often synonymous with "trouble-maker'.

Tudor, in that case, then maybe you need to ask the Mother. She may be an image consultant or a high-profile researcher

@Deep Sight: Okay bro, I will await the rest of your post before I resume my analysis. Gracias!

Dreaming (Imagination) is the world's oldest profession, and all other professions rose therefrom. Soon it will be time-travelling (because some interesting people will go to the time before men started to dream )

Tudor, I apologize! Pls ignore the reference. And im a rather unconventional typer, i pick the keys slowly. Lol

Viaro, we must have had the same thing for breakfast. I agree that the argument is pantheistic in tendency, by its ubiquitousness it trivializes the concept of that deity being singular. Seeing that every elemental finite number can be expressed as an infinite series of finite numbers (as DeepSight has also affirmed) then the magnitude of (an infinity) is trivial, since it can be relayed into infinite components as well as -27 or 46 or pi. If indeed we are not regarding the concept of infinity based on its magnitude but rather on the unending resolution of its constituent components, then the numbers will have equal relevance in our perspective: each infinite in depth of resolution. A pantheistic view. Every entity birthed by the deity is an equally relevant deity. More complex than pantheism, cos in pantheism the plethora of gods, or numerous manifestations of (a) god(s) are unequal, so maybe its Egalitarianitheism?

@JeSoul: Howdee, darling sis?

@ilosiwaju: thanks dear! Its all of your brilliant minds that keep me coming here.

@easylogic: interesting point about "cartesian depths". I will try and ensure i read something about that

@DeepSight: i heave a Deep Sigh. I have responses to your posts above but I dont know if I should wait for you to unravel the mystery or if I should pre-empt you and reply. Either way im mobile now and if I will respond, it will be in a couple of hours. Cheers

@easylogic: Thanks! At first I was scared that many people won't find any sense in my verbose talk, as often happens !!

@ancel: Troublemaker! LOL

@hotchyk:

Hotchyk:
My guy doesnt fall into any of these categories,yet I am still attracted to him.

Babe, are you trying to find out WHY you were desperate to hook up with him? Or, let me rephrase that question, were you desperate to hook up with him? ;-) The topic reads "The Eight Irresistible Kinds Of Guys That Women Are Desperate To Hook Up With", and not "The 8 guys that ladies fall in love with". I hope you get me. And I already said I was just being naughty.

@baybbootz: Thanks for the compliment, dear. What book? I never read any book, its all a figment of my imagination. But someone on this thread said some of the stuff sounds like something from "The Art of Seduction".

There are only two unknowns (so far) in maths, who are self-aware, and they are the only way of defining themselves . That's ∞ and his pally known as i (the guy who was caught in the act by a mathematical-engineer, Heron of Alexandria, in the 1st century while befuddling his head with the truncates of some solid composites), a really tough guy called "imaginary" by Rene Descartes . It was imaginary just because it didn't fit what his head could process). And then, Leonhard Euler named it later, and thus began the wails of lazy math students.

i and ∞ have no known values, but they have the characteristics of: i = squareroot (-1) and ∞ = limit x->0 (1/x) [i.e. how big a number gets when you get close enough to zero, but never really arrive there, and get yourself divided by one. In the ancient math line, ∞ would mean the number of zeros you need to pack together before you can get a one. You go tey! LOL]

I sincerely believe that mathematics cannot help DeepSight prove whatever he has set out to do here, because human math is terribly flawed, essentially. See the complex plane for instance, the domain of my friend i. Rene Descartes did a lot of work on the number line, and a conclusion he quickly came to was that -ve times -ve is +ve and +ve times +ve is +ve, so in essence if you let any number square itself, it will always be positive, no matter what the number is. Gladly, he sat down and started tweaking his moustache and twiddling his fingers. Then he saw incontrovertible evidence and he had to dismiss the mischevious number that squares to give a negative number, as "imaginary". Kinda reminds me of many atheists on Nairaland

Then Leonhard Euler came on scene, and introduced calculations involving the number i. Suddenly, a vista of opportunities opened, and calculus and trigonometry rejoiced to see the unforeseen i's age. (Ice Age?)

If these men had not done what they did, wouldn't we still be screaming today about how there were no complex numbers? The same way it was once thought that there were no irrational numbers? Sincerely, I believe there are many more planes out there in the field of math. You may be working with their derivatives everyday the same way men had worked with -1 (the father-square of i) for years and never once imagined that there was a number lurking in its loins, that would make math simpler for the addicts and more annoying for the non-enthusiasts That ignored, puny -1, was the progenitor of the entire complex math field. Now, we are searching for the progenitor, the ancestor, of the number line? It's somewhere out there, but not on the same line, be it at infinity or at the oneness of infinity.

So, who knows, maybe sometime in the future there will be a plane along which we will discover ∞_∞ if it exists, but the important thing is that its influence can be felt on the number line: the numbers are frolicking and having a good time. Look around, join the party!

For the record, whoever's reading this, Im a Christian!

Now searching for ∞_∞, please put on your searchlights   

DeepSight has indicated that the mathematical analogy of ∞_∞ is to be found in the centre of the number sequences, and after checking out possibilities of ∞_∞ being represented as 0, then 1, he finally fixed it as ∞.

While we seek the value of ∞_∞, let us sit on the fence and look at the number line from an unbiased view. But I will be biased towards the positive/negative-to-zero number value concept rather than the ancient identity-element-1 concept though. 

I must first confess that I think, to be fair to these numbers, there cannot be only one point of reference, be it zero or 1. I think there are many points of reference in each direction, linking to one another like threads on a 3D ball (as opposed to arcs on a 2D circle). So, just as there is a datum at zero, there are datum lines at other numbers too. I will come to that.

Let's look at the number line from our further biased (in view of a possible multiplicity of dimensions) zero-point of reference.

-∞,, ,-10^{10^10}, -5, -4, -3, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5,, ,10^{10^10},, ∞

and, looking from the other angle, +ve to -ve,

∞,, ,10^{10^10}, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, 0, -1, -2, -3, -4, -5,, ,-10^{10^10}, -∞

Here, we have an unknown quantity, it's called ∞ (infinity), and we are assuming that there is no number larger than it (or smaller than -∞, so to speak). This unknown quantity is the solution to itself, it is self-aware and cannot be defined except by itself, and it is in fact the reason why 1/0 is considered to be ∞ (recall my previous argument about the ancient number system? so it would take infinite zeroes to make a 1, as far as the old system goes  ).

And here's my first red herring.  How sure is anyone that ∞ exists on the number line? Personally I don't think it does, because then ∞ + 1 would exist as well, it's just a step further away from zero, however inconsequential that step is. More on that later (not to worry, all these "more on that"s point to the same point I will soon make). ∞ reminds me of its friend that, unfortunately, was caught in the act by a mathematical-engineer, Heron of Alexandria, in the 1st century while befuddling his head with the truncates of some solid composites. More on that very soon.

For the sake of argument, let us leave ∞ on that number line.

When we combine the two number lines outlined in red, we get interesting results:
Upon addition, everything becomes zero. Each component wipes out the other. Talk about total annihilation! All default to zero.
Upon subtraction, every component becomes doubled, except for three components: ∞, -∞ and 0.
[s]Upon multiplication term-by-term, once again, only three components are left unchanged: ∞, -∞ and 0.
Upon division term by term, all receive a unity magnitude (i.e. -1), except zero, which becomes a singularity: undefined.[/s]

So, if ∞_∞ exists somewhere, anywhere, on that line, be it 0 or 1 or ∞ or something, then being the source, it has considerable influence over the entire number line. (Sorry, I have switched to it, I couldn't keep up with typing he/she/it/ )

On that number line, every other number, spanning in either direction, derives from the source by progressive additions or subtractions in tiny quanta, in leaps, in bounds. The relationship of the sourced numbers with the source ∞_∞ is essentially one of addition and subtraction, as offshoots of the source. As such, I assume it will not self-destruct by the same simple rules of addition and subtraction by which it generated the other numbers. Unless of course, ∞_∞ is the one number that did not self-destruct. i.e. zero.

So unless zero is the ∞_∞ that is the source from which all derives, we must be forced to say that the transcedental ∞_∞ will eventually crush itself and all its creation. And then all will go to waste as it it never existed. Or maybe we can say it is not transcendental, and cannot have the influence over the "creation" to enable operating on the future from the past? Maybe that may not be okay with a definition of ∞_∞ as representing a deity, so let us assume that ∞_∞ is represented fully by zero.

If DeepSight tries to proselytize this mystery to old timers, it will be a little funny to them, because there was never any zero in the ancient numeric system and they were doing fine, so how can you tell them that the singularity, the source of all, is likened to the number-line zero? What they had was one. And what made ONE unique was that it was individual, and unquestionably so 

The ancient number system worked with division and multiplication with respect to 1. So, let's outline the number system below
, (1/  ↨), , , 1/5, 1/4, 1/3, 1/2, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, ,  (↨),
where once again, we assume that  ↨ is a large number that is numerically workable in this number system. ↨ would be a really large number, either way  (and we assume again that ∞_∞ exists on that plane). ↨ in its largeness will help us to unravel the mystery-that-is ∞_∞ in this number system.

If the ∞_∞ is transcendental and exists on the ancient number line, then definitely all the fractions and whole numbers are derivative of it, since ∞_∞ is the source. Multiply throughout the number line by ↨, and we obtain

, 1,, ,↨,, ↨,

since ↨/5, ↨/4, ↨/3, ↨/2, ↨, 2↨, 3↨, 4↨, 5↨ all the way to ↨ are all equal to ↨. Someone may be quick to observe that this is wrong, that one cannot multiply throughout a sequence of numbers using infinity, but this is not infinity, its just a really big number (infinity is a concept that exists on the positive-negative-ordered-around-zero number system). In this number system, there is no "final large number" idea. They keep accumulating 1s to get bigger, or they keep tearing themselves up in tiny pieces as splinters of 1.

Let us divide by ↨ as well and see, similarly

, (1 / ↨) , , (1/ ↨), 1,

Thus, unless ∞_∞ is ↨ or (1 / ↨), it gets annihilated by its own creation, using the same rules of multiplication and division that define size and relevance, and make the numbers derive from the source in varying magnitudes 
But ∞_∞ cannot be 1 / ↨ because in this number system, it means it has been, by continuous division, derived from 1. This can't be so, since ∞_∞ is the source. ∞_∞ may be ↨, however, but I will not be hasty to say so. This is because 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 are each ↨ in their own rights, with respect to the amounts of  1 that they have accumulated. Since  ↨ is not bounded, what will be the supremum of this mystery?

[size=13pt]Will the real  ↨ please stand up?[/size] (come to think of it, it kinda looks like its standing up, see it here:  [size=18pt]↨[/size])

And for those that doubt my last observation, see for yourself: if you take the ancient number line back to back like we did for the modern one i.e. smaller to larger, then larger to smaller, and multiply them all out, they ALL give ones since each cancels out the other. No singularity. So is the ∞_∞ dead or what? 

And finally, in a third post, I bring my views to a conclusion. (@Tudor: LOL sorry those effective communication books you recommended never helped me. I still enjoy my long posts.  )

Let me start by saying one of the most intriguing equations I have ever seen is [size=13pt]e^iπ + 1 = 0[/size]. It's so cute! LOL. Lumping together the five (possibly) most esoteric and omnipresent symbols in Maths (e, i, pi, 1 and 0), if you look closely at that divine expression you will see the utmost paradise there: Shangri-La!  (but you need to look really closely like I have, and I guess I should try not to explain it too much to you guys joo, you won't understand me).   

Okay, enough jokes. Down to business. 

Since the mathematical principles we will employ assume that numbers are not disorderly and out of wack, but they have ordered, relative sizes (magnitudes) with respect to one another; it appears mathematically evident that there must be a source that patterned the orderliness and produced the relative concept of sizes in the numbers. So I will start by assuming that there is a Source, and that Source is the one DeepSight is attempting to apprehend as the Oneness of Infinity. We will then try to see if an understanding of that Oneness of Infinity helps throw any light on the said Source, and with respect to DeepSight's opinions, if in fact the Oneness of Infinity can be apprehended in that manner of approach that he thus attempts. 

Mathematically speaking, and for the sake of ease, I will hitherto refer to the Oneness of Infinity (the Source) expressed in DeepSight's apprehension of God, as ∞_∞. Now, let us carefully consider DeepSight's ideas. I didn't read any of this anywhere, and neither have I published any theses  on the ideas, so feel free to fault them if my reasoning is fallacious.

I followed Viaro's link above and saw this post by Pastor AIO, and that's where I want to start from 
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-343779.0.html#msg4815562

(infinity/infinitely small)  . . . ,1/7, 1/6, 1/5, 1/4, 1/3, 1/2,1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7,  . . . . (infinity/infinitely large)

and https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-343779.0.html#msg4818646

That's the way it was done back in the day.  Long before those pesky Hindu philosophers invented the concept of Zero. 

Yes, Pastor AIO, you are kinda right in saying the numbers start from infinitely small to infinitely large, but that's just the same as saying a spectrum leading from infinitely negative number to an infinitely positive number, i think, and I want to prove my rationale below. Stay with me.

In the ancient numerical system, when we say a number is large, we are considering the fact that it is made up of multiple "1" units: unity in multiple places. But when a number is really small, then it is such that multiple units of THAT number will be required to form a "1". i.e. 5,000,000 is made of 5 million observed ones, but 50 million parts of 1/50,000,000 are required to add up and give 1 (50 million REQUIRED parts). So the ancient number system revolved around the identity element "1", and all other numbers were either OBSERVED multiples ( > 1), or REQUIRED sub-multiples (< 1) of 1. In this case, the observed multiples were "building upon" 1, so they were positive, while the required sub-multiples (or fractional factors?) were negative to 1 because they were obtained after "tearing apart" 1, and were thus individually deficient.

But then the Hindus came along with a new identity element that didn't work with multiples (i.e. frequency of occurrences), but worked with distances. So, they established a reference point, called it zero, and then all other numbers were considered POSITIVE or NEGATIVE with respect to their distance from zero. Those that got bigger by being independent of zero (getting farther away from zero) were positive because they had considerable influence regardless of their distance from the reference point. Those that got smaller due to their independence were negative because their influence reduced as they moved father from zero, and whenever they moved closer they had more influence with zero. They were sort of dependent on zero to have a sort of relevance, so they were negative, just like the sub-fractions of 1 had to bee very many before they had any relevance. Thus, I think the two ordered systems are equivalent, it just depends on who's the gatekeeper: 0 or 1? (Having toyed with 2 of the 5 members of that divine equation leading to Shangri-la, let me move ahead  )

So, going by the modern zero-identity-element, I will start by saying that DeepSight seems to have neglected the fact there is not only one infinity, but its at both ends of the continuum, equally counterbalancing one another in magnitude.

One can never reach ∞ on either side of the numerical scale. One can only tend in that direction, as one's magnitude of relevance to that ∞ increases. e.g. a trillion rather tends towards +∞, and so, since a trillion is larger than, say, 100, we can say a trillion is more relevant to +∞ than 100 is. i.e. a trillion has more numerical properties in semblance of +∞, than 100 does, so it is more relevant in understanding +∞ than 100 is.

For the reason above, one may not totally rationalize or explain away DeepSight's ∞_∞, since it/he/she/ is "unapproachable", but one may examine some of ∞_∞'s characteristics by carefully considering the hypotheses he has offered using large numbers in the stead of ∞, as large as one can surmise, but never forgetting that we are considering an unapproachable infinitum.

I think a major assumption, and fallacy, in DeepSight's argument is that whatever interactions occur within the entire number line stretching between the infinities (be it infinitely small to infinitely large, or infinitely negative to infinitely positive, please be my guest) are adequately weighted in the (either) infinities. It appears that DeepSight assumes that the numbers are only acting, to a relatively good or relatively poor extent, as descriptors of the (either) infinities. i.e. when you continuously combine two or more numbers in a vector space, the result will lie in that contained spectrum between ∞ and -∞, or, similarly, the phenomenon of the source, the ∞_∞ can be established in the domain that also established ∞. This is not so, and I will return to this point presently.

I am continuing this gist in the next post.

Tudór:
I was merely trying the help steer the word of the lawd to those who need it most. . . . If that dozn't get me a front seat in heaven then by gawd whatever will?

@Tudor: LOL nice try there, nice try!

@JeSoul: Great! If you want to email it, please use that email (the one I used to forward pictures to you yesterday). Knowing you, this should be fun!

@ancel: Thanks for this, I was actually going to post something like that.

But the thing on God's heart, I believe, is the REASON WHY the person wants to be rich.

Tudor, I knew it. You never disappoint! I knew where you were gonna go.

@Pastor AIO: Yeah! And as usual, JeSoul has taken the core of the message and expressed it in just few words!

@JeSoul: Dear sis, I think we should write some stuff together sometime. ;-)

@Tudor: LOL I'm not really answering you cos I guess you are looking for trouble. But if you wanna make billions, please get involved in business enterprise. The great and wealthy people (like Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Solomon) that many modern Christians (esp gospel ministers) try to emulate, did not get their immense wealth from the gospel or from the people of God. Rather, they were given insight by God to unlock wealth in hidden places, stored up in previously-inaccessible places. They were billionaires in their own right, but not by getting money from their congregation. Voila! They were not even really gospel ministers, and they even had no such congregation (maybe except Solomon, so to speak, but I think Solomon made Israel rich, and not vice versa). God seeks out people who will control immense wealth and use it to improve other people's lives, but they need not be mainstream preachers or something. Maybe i will make a post about business enterprise later when I have time.

@toba: God bless you too, sir

LOL@Pastor AIO's feeling much better.

Thanks, dear sister!