₦airaland Forum

Only a being which is the investiture of the 10th Dimension outside all space and time can exist in such a condition.

That is instructive on the true meaning of omnipotence

Hi Deepsight. If this is the true meaning of omipotence, then what happens when a being with the investiture of 10th dimention comes to any of the lower dimentions? Maybe such a being will magically change 2nd dimention to 10th dimension. Any body with a deep knowlege of how the universe works will sooner or later come to the realization that certain things are impossible. In the world of imagination which is a sham world, everything is possible and impossible. I challenge anybody anywhere to demonstrate in real life that human corpses can generate currencies or that a stone can turn to bread. Stay blessed!

OLAADEGBU:
That is New Age doctrine par excellence.

You can label what I said in anyway that you want. What is important is that I have stated what the Grail Message teaches. Best Wishes.

OLAADEGBU:
Adherents of the Grail Message share similar New Age beliefs.

The Grail Message does not teach that Jesus rose from the dead as a spirit. What the Grail Message says is that Jesus did not rise from the dead with a physical body. The Grail Message teaches that Jesus rose from the dead with another body that is not physical. That body is refered to as ethereal body and is much finer than the physical body. Material bodies have three basic species and many subspecies. The coarsest is the physical body, then the astral body and the finest is the ethereal body. All human beings living on earth in physical bodies have both astral and ethereal bodies telescoped into the physical body. The ethereal body is the first material cloak that covers the spirit. Death is simply the separation of the physical/astral body from the ethereal body which cloaks the spirit. Best Wishes.

InesQor:
Thanks for the response, m_nwankwo! I understand that the details of your beliefs on these elemental primeval matters are based on your religious viewpoint so I may not continue expressing its many variances with my own Christian understanding.


But one point nags at me and refuses to go. You said Lucifer became Satan out of free will, but that contradicts your other statement that it was the distance from God that permitted the rise of an alien instinct to the harmony of God's will (i know i have rephrased your statement). It is a little absurd to call it a free will because its like if Lucifer had not been sent far away from God, he could not have had the opportunity to become evil. So it wasnt free will IF it is also true that God knew that at such a distance from him evil COULD be spawned. Comparing to your analogy of a father who sent a brilliant son to study medicine, and the child deviated or dropped out, the EXTRA CONDITION would be that the school Medical faculty STOPPED operating and told all the students to go and join other colleges. In that case, the child has no choice but to quit med school because med school has stopped running. THAT is what the position looks like for Lucifer, if he truly was under the influence of a "reduced intensity of God's presence" NOT because he was a prodigal that ran away BUT he was actually doing the work of his boss! Those two points dont add up, in my opinion. Have a lovely week ahead!

Thanks for your response. With respect to your last paragraph, I do not see a contradiction. I stated that free will can only arise at cosmic distances from God because at such distances the radiation of God has cooled off allowing free will. Thus the arising of an alien voilition is an expression of free will. If there is no free will in a creature as happens with the archangels in the divine sphere, then an alien voilition cannot arise. That means that they have no will of their own but are embodiment or conformation of the will of God. Just as the medical student who failed in his purpose of being a doctor, you should remember that others, even less gifted and with Cs in the sciences went to the same medical school and graduated as doctors. If the medical school is closed in the analogy as you seem to suggest, then no body will be able to graduate as a medical doctor but that is not the case. Just like the analogy of medical school, you may have to remember that other messengers of God, those who are less gifted than Lucifer faithfully fulfilled there mission. Thus if spirtual beings like Moses, Elijah, Buddha, Laotze, John the Baptist etc faithfully fufilled their mission, then a divine being like lucifer has no reason to fail. That he failed where less gifted creatures succeded is a tastement that the reason for his failure is not becuse he was poorly equipped but simply because he choose to fail. Have a great weekend too and stay blessed. It has been a pleasure discussing with you!

Hi InesQor. Thanks for your reasoned response. I offer my perception on your concerns as follows:

These "radiations" in themselves are ALSO "creations" of God, so how can you assert that its the divine radiations that have not "cooled off" that make up the divine worlds?

2b. I sincerely believe that the Light brought into being when God declared let there be Light was a platform, an enablement of being. Physical light enables one to see things, but the Light God declared here enables things to exist (or not). It was a platform that was instituted before the material creation. Thus, the LIGHT (God) established Light (platform of existence), and as such this Light platform cannot be eternal like God. He who established the platform can necessarily eradicate it (The Light platform also defined ITS own existence and possible inexistence. This is like physical light which defines its own path while at the same time showing paths of illumination to others).

My perception is that the direct radiations of God are not created but an inevitable consequence of the existence of God and this is why. If God is the Primordial Light, one can also say that God is the Primordial source of all radiations or also the Primordial source of all energy. It is inconcievable that a source of energy does not produce energy or light or radiations or emanations at any point in its eternity. Thus I do not sense that their is any pont in eternity in which God, the source and origin of all energies does not produce energy. If God the source of all radiations have been radiating or producing energy in eternity, then it is correct in my view to say that this energy is eternal because it is a natural effect of the Primordial Light. This eternal energy that emanates from God is what constitute the divine worlds. Creation started when God, the Primordial source of all energy decided to extend his energy into what I called the cosmic void. This was accomplished by the divine words "Let there be Light". That was the beginning of creation. If divine beigns are not eternal, then one have to give reasons why God have not destroyed a fallen divine being who was known as Lucifer and later became satan due to his fall or rebellion and who also became the antichrist due to his robust opposition to the mission of the son of God Jesus. The only way it can be argued that the divine world is not eternal is to say that the source of energy (GOD) didnot produce energy at a point in its eternity. Although it is a very crude analogy, that will be akin to saying that a sun which is the source of energy on earth does not produce energy at any point in its cycle.

3. You have asserted that darkness is a material creation, AND that material creations were created by servants of God. I have no problem with delegation of authority, and in fact nature is replete with evidence where "creation" is delegated to an entity of nature e.g. an apple tree is inside a single apple seed, the work of replenishment has been delegated. This makes it evident that the same way you can control your body parts to do your bid, God can delegate tasks through his own creation (since they are "parts" of him, and they are his Creation). However, where there is a fault is that it's absurd to say that darkness is CREATED by God's servants IN DELEGATION of God's authority, and IT IS A PRINCIPLE OF OPPOSING THE WILL OF GOD. How can the creation of darkness be done in Delegation of God's authority AND simultaneously be an opposition of God's will? The only consensus we can make here (about what you have said) is that NOT ALL of creation was delegated, OR some of the delegates WERE ALREADY operating in free will (although they had not yet moved any distance away from God) when they were carrying out the creation. Which one is it?

No, I did not assert that darkness is a material creation rather I said that darkness can only be found in material creations and worlds under material creations but never in the divine or spiritual creations. Thus there was never a time when darkness reared its head in the divine worlds as well as the spiritual kingdoms of God. What I said is that darkness arose out of disobedience or rebellion to the will of God, and that disobedience to the will of God is only possible with creatures of GOD that are blessed with free will. Lucifer was the first that introduced this principle of disobeying the will of God. If it will make it simpler, I can also say that Lucifer was the starting point for the principle  of disobedience to the will of God. Just a crude analogy that may help you to understand my perspective. If my son has straight As in the sciences, then I can send him to the university to study to be a doctor based on his abilities. My intention is that he goes to the University and study to become a doctor. If he studies he will certainly be a doctor based on his scientific ability. But if my son has free will, he can go to the university and decide not to study and end up not completing his medical studies, and thus defeat the purpose for which he was sent to the university. Yes I sent him to the University but his inability to complete his medical studies is not my responsiblity, it is a consequence of his free will. I also wish to say that until sin, disobedience entered material creation sometime in the third epoch of the development of the human spirit in material creation, material creation including the earth was beautiful and swings in harmony with the will of God, that is there was no darkness. One day the will of God will once more reign on earth as it once did when the earth was born.

4. There is something very out-of-place about these simple statements above. You say God sent lucifer to teach humanity his laws and the application to brain/mind development, and because of the vast distance, an alien volition arose in him and he became Satan the tempter. It has to be one of three things here:
(a) God did not know that the mission was risky enough to allow Satan fall out of the influence of the LIGHT and become an evil one.
(b) God knew that when you get very far away from him, you can have an alien volition that would cause evil, but he sent lucifer to his doom all the same.
(c) The alien volition did not come as a result of any distance travelled because God, who is eternal, is "equidistant" from everywhere at every time.

Consider this carefully, if God sent lucifer on an errand, then it should be clear that it's just like my brain sending my fingers on my hand to type out this post. The brain, at the TIME of messaging, is the HAND with the fingers, it's just that the hand is an extension a distance away. In a controlled system of uncorrupted messaging, the hand does what the brain would have done if the brain were physically in position to do so. Sending lucifer on an errand knowing fully well that lucifer was going to turn evil BECAUSE of the errand SHIFTS the blame for lucifer's FREEWILL rebellion to God.

It's like saying someone, by freewill, drank some poison and died; and then you say the poison was already attached to the person's oesophagus inside his body so as he breathed, it dripped into his body system.

The answer to your question lies in free will. Lucifer fail for the same reasons that men and women sin, that is free will. A free will is no more free when the result of a mission is known even before the messenger is sent on a mission. Thus God did not "know" that Lucifer will fail but the possiblity of failure was forseen. Lucifer like the child going to medical school has all the abilities to fufill his mission but he choose to disobey God. Think of yourself as a human spirit, you have all the talents given to you by God to obey his will but sometimes you disobey God. When you or I disobey, it is not because God did not give also the ability to resist sin, it is not because God know before that we will sin, but rather because we are created with free will and we possed free will because we came into existence where the radiation of God have cooled off considerably allowing the manifestation of ego counsciousness or free will,  The alien voilition that came to Lucifer when he decended to the threshhold of material creation is not difficult to explain. If you compare lucifer to a diamond and compare material creations to mud. The mud will be ok for a pig to bubble in and that is fine but if you roll a diamond continually in the mud, the mud will with time cover the luminosity of the diamond that you will not see a diamond anymore but mud. Lucifer allowed his luminous divine nature to be tarnished by natural emanations from material creations, he developed pride and expressed the evil desire to be like God as well eliminating all that is weak through temptation. These two desires contradict the love of God and hence Lucifer fall out of harmony with the will of God. Maybe some day in future, I will offer a detailed description of the fall of lucifer. Stay blessed.

Hi deepsight. How are you? I am fine. Just has been very busy with teaching and research.  My wife and kid are fine too. Thanks for our questions and I attempt to give my perception on them as follows:

I am at odds with the assertion that “contrary volitions” develop “at great distances” from God.

1.   What is the meaning of the omnipresence of God? Although I do not imagine that omnipresence means that God resides in my backyard, I feel definite that the minimum that can be ascribed to an infinite and boundless element such as God is said to be: is that its radiations, magnetism and compound nature must perforce be said to permeate ALL existence in absolute terms. Anything less would make it less than God – less than infinite, and less than an absolute and compound element which it is said to be.

God is omnipresent and infinite but the radiations of God are not omnipresent and are finite. Even a material atom is a  radiation of God and I guess you can see why is not omnipresent. But your question is how a radiation of God that was good then became evil at cosmic distances from God. Your question arises because you assume that I said that the radiation of God is good. The radiation of God is neither good or evil and for a want of better description, one can say that it is neutral. It is the application of this neutral power that determines if it will lead to good or evil. The application involves giving form to these radiations and in the formation lies the union of radiations or splitting of radiations. Each radiation that have not shaped into a form through union is pure and has intrinsic properties determined by the nature of these radiations. If the union of these radiations generated a harmony, then the mosaic is correctly formed as God willed it and this application is good. If however the formation generates disharmony, then the radiations that are used to form the mosaic are intrinsically incompatible and a wrong union has been made that is disharmonious and hence  evil. God and every other being that swing in harmony with the will of God uses its  gradation of the principal neutral power to bring unions that are harmonious hence good. Thus the radiations are neutral but the union formed by these radiations or power can be good or evil. In the proximity of God, there is no possibility of a wrong union of radiations because the inherent magnetic attraction is so powerful that only a harmonic mosaic can be generated. At fabulous cosmic distances from God the radiations have infinite possibilities of combinations resulting in application or unions or mosaics that may or may not be in harmony with the way God himself would have created such mosaics. A crude analogy may suffice. The power buried in the atom is neither good or bad but it can be disintegrated to produce nuclear bomb as well as disntegrated to produce nuclear power generating electricity. In this instance, the radiation of God is the power in the atomic nucleus while the nuclear bomb as well as electricity producing nuclear reactor are applications of the power of the atom and these applications can be good or evil. Again I hope you can understand that at millions of light years from our star the sun, we can experience life on earth and it is easily understandable that some few light years closer to our sun, the planets cannot even exist much less allow life to develop.  Again the sun stuff is a crude analogy but I hope you will see in it why certain things are impossible nearer to the proximity of God while such things are possible at vast distances from the proximity of God. Spiritually speaking, omnipresence of God means that all products of the radiations of God can have access to this principal power of God, no matter where they are in creation if they open themselves to it.

.   If the forgoing holds true, then the constant refrain within the Grail message about the development of “contrary volitions” at great distances from God must necessarily either be wrong; or at the minimum represent a limitation of the compound, infinite and omnipresent nature of God.

This is my first concern.

My second concern has to do with the following logical inconsistency –

1.   Only God and goodness/ harmony existed and nothing else: all was Light, Good and Harmony

2.   This harmony is omnipresent (permeates all existence)

3.    Yet disharmony and elements that contradict the Light have come into existence notwithstanding that the all-pervasive Light is said to be both omnipresent and omnipotent

How then did the darkness or contrary volitions come to exist?

Is it not true as you have asserted that EVERYTHING that exists derives its existence from God?

If this is the case then certainly and ineluctably, the Darkness and so-called contrary volitions derive their existence from God. In this the so called “principles or possibility of Darkness” described by Inesqor can be no exception – for as you have stated: even “non-existence” derives from God.

To suggest the contrary would be to suggest that the God is NOT all that there is to existence: that there are elements other than God which caused these contrary elements to arise.

It seems to me more reasoned to suggest that both Light and Darkness are the necessary and non-contingent aspects of ONE reality as derived from the principle of Duality.

I guess I have already addressed this concern of yours above. Just a further aid. God creates a clay and you can hold God responsiple for the clay if the clay remain a clay. If this clay is moulded into plate, kalabash, pot etc, the clay is no more clay but an application has taken place to create the pot, plates etc
from the clay. This application is the responsiblity of those who moulded the clay into pot or plates. If you look deeply on what I stated about your first concern, you will also see why God permitted the potter to mould the clay which ever way he wants. No, darkness is not self existent and duality is not found in God but in the radiations of God. Indeed some conformation of the divine radiations of God bear both the positive and negative radiations within themselves. God himself stands outside the concept of duality. Stay blessed.

This thread is quite interesting and it raises fundamental issues on the origin of good and evil, even on the origin of creation. I attempt to offer my own perception. First it is important to explain what in my sensing is God, Darkness and Void. God is the source in whose power all existence as well as non-existence came into being. God is Life. In God is Life, Light and Truth. Thus I can say that God is the Primordial Light, or the Primordial Truth. Thus it is only God that is alive and is Light. Every other thing is permitted to live or manifest light because God who is the Eternal Light, Eternal Life or Eternal Truth permitted it. The Primordial Light which is God radiates or produces emanations and these radiations or emanations of God is the source from which existence as well as non existence come into being, either as a conformation of these emanations, cooling of these emanations or development of these emanations, absence of these emanations or side effects of these emanations. Thus in reality, there is only God and his radiations. All existence as well as non existence are simply the radiation of God or a secondary effect produced by the radiations of God. Thus radiations or emanations are the inevitable activity of Primordial Light. Thus, the radiations of God came from God, they are not God but are inseparable from God since being the natural effect of God, these radiations are eternal just like the source (God) that produces them. This direct radiation of God was in existence before God decided to bring creations into existence. It is these direct radiations of God that have not undergone cooling off, that are absolutely pure that constitutes the divine worlds. As these radiations emanates from God and proceed into unimaginable cosmic distances, they reach a point where they cannot procced any further and are held back by the mangnetic attraction of God. Thus one can say that the direct radiations of God is held back by the magnectic attraction of God and that point contitutes what one may call the boundary of the direct divine radiations of God. For fabulous and unimaginable cosmic distances, these divine radiations could not take on form due to the proximity to the source, that is God, and these uninformed radiations appear as oceans and worlds of white light. It is only after these unformed divine radiations came the first conformation, the primordial queen, then the archangels, then the world of virtues, the elders, knowing animals, the temple of God etc. Every creature in this divine world, that is every creature that came into being as a conformation of the direct radiation of God is indestrctible and eternal. Lucifer for instance came from the divine world and lucifer cannot be destroyed because he is eternal. At this time Lucifer was an archangel that absolutely swings in harmony with the will of God. Now the pressure created by mangnetic attraction of all residues that could not form in the divine sphere by the Primordial Light caused "cosmic volume", a void. This cosmic volume is the "infinite" space to which creation can instantly form or develop. Thus although the divine world  came from the divine radiations of God and the cosmic void came from the pressure created by the divine radiations of God, they are inevitable consequences of the existence of God and are hence eternal. That was how it was before God through an act of his will decided to bring creation into existence with the divine words "Let there be Light". With these words the radiations of God moved beyound the boundary of the divine sphere, animating the cosmic void and bringing creations into exitence, first the primordial creations which swings only in the will of God, then the spiritual creations which also swing in the will of God and lastly the material creations where it is possible to either obey the will of God or disobey it. This is possible because material creations are so far away from God and the reduced attraction from the source of all existence  permitted other voilitions apart from the will of God. Only the Primordial creation can be said to be directly created by God and thus perfect. The spiritual creation is an image or reflection of primordial spiritual creation. Material creations  were "created" by  servants or creatures of God whose activities manifest in what we call Nature. It is only in material creation that you find darkness. Darkness is whatever is not in harmony with the will of God or what goes contrarly to the intention of God. Thus darkness is not eternal and indeed an absurdity. It is the principle of opposing the will of God that gave rise to darkness. This principle was introduced by Lucifer who thus is the starting point of this evil principle. Lucifer an archangel introduced the principle of temptation when he was sent by God during the third epoch of human sppiritual evolution. Lucifer was sent to teach humanity the laws of God the Father and how to apply it in material creation, particularly  the development of the human brain. Because he journed from divine sphere to the world of matter, the vast distances from God permitted an alien voilition to arise in him, and thus he introduced the principle of temptation and that caused his downfall for he fall out out of harmony with the will of God the Father. He thus became  satan, and the issuing densification and cooling off as a result of his fall transformed him from an archangel to a spirit capable of his free will. But even this densification cannot eliminate his origin as a divine being, albeit a fallen divine being and that is why he is indestructible. He can only be imprisoned or shacled by the power of God but not destroyed. Thus darkness, is not created by God but came as a result of disobeying the will of God by creatures blessed with the ability of free will. The human spirit is one such specie blessed with the abilty of free will. Unfortunately, this abilty which would have made him to be in harmaony with the will of God has caused his dowwnfal and unlike lucifer who is eternal by the nature of his origin, the human being is not eternal and will die spiritually and cease to exist if he or she does not turn back from the path of opposing the will of God. Thus  before the beginning, and in the beggining, their is no darkness and in the end there will also be no darkness. Never and will there ever be darkness in the divine as well as the spiritual, the last section of the spirtual is what we call the kingdom of God and never have there been darkness even in this kingdom of God. Darkness came into existence in the world of matter and will be destroyed in the world of matter. Best Wishes.

Fossil evidence in my view is not the strongest evidence for biological evolution. The strongest evidence for biological evolution lies in the DNA. If you have the entire genome sequence of several organisms, you can produce a robust phylogenetic reconstruction that gives a fairly accurate picture of biological evolution. That fairly accurate picture still has gaps as biological evolution and the forces that drives it is not just based on natural selection alone. But even with the gaps, it has enough  statistically significant internal consistency to show that species do evolve. But do not expect to find that organism A evolved from organism B etc. In addtion, do not expect the present evolutionary biology to say precisely which organisms evolved from which, which species are evolutionary dead ends etc. What you will get is a prediction that organisms share a common ancestor and such analysis can give an accurate picture of which organisms are old or young in evolutionary terms, as well as phylogenetic relationship between organisms.

Krayola:
@ mnwankwo. How are u? Hope all is well.

In your post above when u talk about the way things were before, and then go on to describe the sexual appetite of modern man as "overcultivated", is that based on your religious or spiritual beliefs, or on some study or research or something of that sort?

Hi Krayola. I am fine my brother. Hope you are fine too. As to your question, I am not aware of any scientific research to compare sexual desires between modern day humans and humans that lived on earth some one to three million years ago. What I state is based on a spiritual recall of how mankind was until sin entered the world and humans disobeyed God. There are a lot of obstacles if one is to investigate scientifically what happened in prehistoric times. But the obstacles are not insurmountable. But even without going into the past, I think that it is possible even today to look at individuals who have mastered the sexual instinct, that is individuals who are biologically normal and yet have absolute control over their sexual instinct, and those who have become a slave to this instinct, that is those it torments leadiing them to continual battle with this instinct. Such reseach will give pointers to what has gone wrong.

As an aside. There is no reason why young people will engage in courtship lasting years. If people are prayerful and spiritually alert, they can pick who is their wife or husband in seconds. One does not need to travel from one end of the world to another in search of a partner that God made for him or her. Just allow your inner being to be open, and you will not be left in any doubt who God made for you. If you chose a husband or wife that God made for you, then the permanence of the marriage is ensured from the very start. The spiritual love  between the couples is like the poles of a magnet, holding the couples tightly together and all earthly trials will strengthen this bond rather than weaken it. But even when their own strength, threatens to fail them, God who joined them together in the sacred act of marriage will reinvigorate them with his power. Joyful and happy married life on earth is not as difficult as many imagine. One of the sure signs of a genuine love for your wife or husband to be is that the sexual instinct is cut to size and strange as it may sound if true love vibrates in intending couples, then sexual intimacy is actually out of the question. IT is also the same genuine love that eliminates infidelity when a man takes a woman as his wife. The pulsating harmony between a man and woman who are joined in marriage according to the laws of God does not permit even a second thought for infidelity, much less a physical act of infidelity.

Any man or woman who genuinely love his intending partner will not molest him or her with unclean thoughts or sexual advances. It is wrong to gain sexual intimacy on the promise that you want to marry. If one find somebody who God made for him or her, then marry instead of promising to marry.

For those that still believe in God, sexual union between a man and a woman is a gift of God. It only remains a gift if it is used for the purpose for which God bestowed us with this wonderful gift. Sexual union has the purpose of both procreation as well as renewal of the cells of the body or to be more precise the animistic currents that animates the physical body. The sexual energy exchanged during sexual intercourse is only healthy and upbuilding if it emanates from a healthy normal body with a pure soul and if the physical union is a a consumation of harmonious relationship between couples and this harmonious relationship is predicated on spiritual as well as psychic compatibilty. To put it simpler, sexual union that is according to the laws of God occures where there is genuine love beween the couples. Only genuine love attracts the power of God and consecrates such a union. Whether or not such a union is blessed by legal, cultural or religious ceremony is irrelavant and of no consequence spiritually. However, there is nothing wrong  in obeying religious, cultural or civil laws in so far as a clear distinction is made between these ceremonies and the act of marriage itself. The act of marriage is only granted to couples whose souls vibrate in pure love and in harmony. Such couples will recieve a consegration of their marriage as well as the power to go through life together in selfless love for themselves, their neighbours as well as love for God who permitted them the sacred sacrement of marriage. Thus some people who by prevailing religious or civil standards are considered unmarried are indeed married in the eyes of God while some who are considered married according to prevailing religious, cultural or civil norms are not married in the eyes of God. Wherever genuine love is the basis of a relationship, love, peace and harmony are the consequence and no matter the earthly trials, the couples go through life with radiant joy that can be infectious. Thus where there is no love and harmony, then all sexual union are immoral even if the couples were married by the pope. We can not judge by the man of today since present humans have an abnormal, overcultivated sexual instinct. That is not the way it was when God first created humans and permitted them to live on this planet. At that time, men and women had healthy bodies that are permeated by the power of God, keeping the sexual instinct natural and normal. At that time there is no need for forced abstinence or uncontrolled sexual desire. Humans can go several months and even years without the thought of sex or sexual desire. Something has gone tragically wrong with modern humans that a natural instinct has turned into a plague that even the pious fights a loosing battle. An abstinence in which the person continually struggle with the sexual instinct is harmful both to the body as well as the finer material coverings of the soul. Such a person is actually dispating large amount of energy meant to enable him or her to be active and creative ion earth. In addition, such constant struggle with the instinct actully strengthens the instinct. Having dispated this energy, he or she may be left with mood swings, unhappiness, over sensitivity and in some extreme cases even depression. If one recognises that he or she has an abnormal sexual instinct, the solution is not in forceful abstinence but rather in seeking help from God. Then he or she will be taught how to permit the spirit to take back the control of the body so that sexual instinct once again becomes natural and does not torment him or her anymore. In this later case an inward purity wells up within the spirit and then spreads to the body. Such an individual have no sexual desire except when the conditions set by the laws of God for sexual union are fufilled. Best Wishes.

@Sinequanon

But you cannot determine if the patient or healer really prayed, rendering the exercise somewhat useless for its stated purpose.

I do not see it as useless for the stated purpose. An investigation of a claim that a faithhealer can cure cancer following faith healing is not the same thing as investigating that prayer cures cancer. Investigation of a claim is not meant to extablish a causal relationship but to establish an association. If a faithhealer claims that he prays and then cancer disappear, what an investigator will be looking at using biomedical tools is the presence or absence of cancer following what the faith healer says is faithhealing. At the end of such investigation, an investigator will report that following what the faithhealer says is faith healing, cancer patients become cancer free or still cancer ridden. No investigator worth his salt will report that prayer cured or did not cure cancer. If people become cancer free, then an honest investigator will have to ask himself why such an association exists. On the contrarly if there is is no significant difference between the treatment and control group, then the claims have no physical evidence to support it . The faithhealer if he is honest may have to re-examine his claims and his beliefs.   Arguing or trying to establish whether or not the faith healer prays when he says he prays is a diversion in my own view. Best wishes.

sinequanon:
How do you measure prayer and faith? Would you agree that they are more than utterance of words?

In reality, prayer and faith are not words but words can be used to give expression to faith and prayer. As I have posted on other threads, only the spirit can pray and have faith. In otherwords the faculties to pray and have faith reside in the spirit. You cannot physically measure faith or prayer but you can measure what is claimed to be the physical effects of prayer or faith. If a faith healer claims to cure prostate cancer for instance, you cannot physically measure the prayer but you can determine whether or not the patient still has prostrate cancer following faith healing intervention. Best wishes.

Some scientists can be dogmatic but science in itself is not dogmatic. I do not think their is a dogma behind the antibacterial properties of antibiotics or a dogma behind the genetic basis of cancer etc. I would rather use the word spirituality rather than religion. Again some spiritual persons can be dogmatic but spirituality itself is not dogmatic. I do not see any dogma behind a pure claivoyant who can make verifiable predictions or a dogma behind a genuine spiritual healer who can heal sickness by prayer. My view is that the difference between science and religion is based on the instument of investigation, incase of science it is the brain and its faculties as well as instruments to aid the brain in its investigation. Incase of spirituality, it is the faculties of the spirit. Whether it is science or spirituality, their should be evidence which others can independently confirm. It is very easy to do this in science but more difficult in spirituality since in the later case one is dealing with vibrations or substances which are undetectable by the brain or its instruments meant to aid its work. But if spirituality makes a physical claim or that it has physical effect, ie, healing of a sickness, accurately predicting future events, etc, then it should provide the physical evidence. Thus a claim of healing brain tumor by prayer should provide the evidence of absence of tumor both at the morphological and biochemical level. My view is that whoever makes a physical claim, whether a scientist or a spiritualist should provide the data for others to independently examine. I am of the view that if all claims are investigated, both science and spirituality will be better for it as charlatans in both fields will be found and shamed. Best Wishes.

@Justcool

You can delete your email. I will send you a mail. Stay blessed.

@Justcool

I hope I have thrown light in your questions. I am happy that you mentioned m_nwankwo. m_nwankwo is mature, honest and also very knowledgeable in issues conserening the Grail Message. He perceptions will also be greatfully welcomed by me. So m_nwankwo, please offer your perceptions.

Hi Justcool. How are you? Thanks for the kind words. Your explanations on the evolution of spirit germs to human spirits is in my sensing according to the Truth. Also your explanation on  John the Baptist is also in accordance with the Truth. Thus there is no point for me to repeat the same thing fundamentally, albeit in different words. Be assured that I am following the thread and if I spiritually percieve a genuine need of somebody on nairaland, not necessarily among those who are participating in this thread to know exactly what happened to Elijah and the soul path of Elijah then I will gladly offer my perception.

As always I admire your insight into spiritual things and may God continue to give you wisdom. Stay blessed.

nuclearboy:
Thanks for the clarification. It just seemed contradictory then. Your clarification has put my mind to rest

As an aside, whist I don't subscribe to some of your stated beliefs, I remain one of those who have a deep respect for you.

And the other sage is now here: welcome Imhotep

Hi nuclearboy. Thanks for your kind words. Stay blessed.

nuclearboy:
One person says God is impartial and thus CANNOT bring some back to life therefore it is wrong that men die once!

All this based on your own definition of impartiality, your attempt to put God into a box (where He cannot do some things you decide) and all because Jesus raised someone back to life! Could you please then discuss Elijah and Enoch? And let us know your own TRUE knowledge of what actually happened to them since they did not die according to the Bible and that would again make God 'partial"?

m_nwankwo says Jesus is the Incarnate Word of God - what does this mean? He was the Word and re-incarnated as the Son or what? I ask because I remember reading that a man cannot re-incarnate as a dog etc or is it okay if the shift is from Word to Flesh? I'm not being "funny", just confused at the moving goal post

Hi Nuclearboy. I will reply to your last paragraph as that is where my name is mentioned. I have offered in many threads who I percieve Jesus to be. I have also said some where in this thread that Jesus is not a reincarnation of anybody but an incarnation of God. Simply put, Jesus is the incarnate living word of God. Jesus is the son of God. Jesus is God the son. All these designations are correct and in reality mean the same thing and those whose spiritually faculties are open will clearly see that all these designations are identical. No person in the past, present and in the future can be Jesus and so all claims that this and that person is Jesus is nonsense. There is only one Jesus, the son of God and he was incarnated for the first and last time on earth about 2000 years ago. He accomplished the mission that God the father sent him to do and after his death, he  went back to his father. Stay blessed.

Mavenb0x:
@m_nwankwo: Thanks for the clarification. I didn't know that whatever a Grail Message adherent says is not necessarily a pointer to the Grail Message. I was thinking like a Christian, we believe that we drink from the same waters. Have a great day.

Hi Mavenbox. Yes what an adherent of the Grail Message says is not the Grail Message. Each adherent of the Grail Message gives an explanation that corresponds to his or her own level of spiritual maturity or insight. That means that in his explanation, he or she is only giving expression to what he or she is capable of drawing from the Grail Message. Depending on how pure an adherent is, his or her explanations will be closer or further apart from the Grail Message, and incases where an adherent is impure, his or her explanations will actually be contradictory to the Grail Message. Purity in ones being is what gives the spirit the mobility to sense the Truth and live accordingly.To attribute something to the Grail Message, one must be able to show exactly where it is in the Grail Message. That is, one must be able to cite the lectures or sentences where such is stated in the Grail Message. My view is that anybody who wants to know what the Grail Message says should read the Grail Message and make his or her own judjement.  Besides each adherent of the Grail Message is only accountable to God for all his words, actions, motives, thoughts and intuition and not to any other adherent of the Grail Message. For me it is how each person stands with respect to the will of God and not how a group, a movement etc stands with respect to the will of God. Simply put the Grail Message is addressed to each human being and not to groups, movements, etc. Thus what I or anybody says is not important spiritually to another person except if what is said is in harmony and resonates deep within another person. Then in this case, he or she is not agreeing with me because I said it but is agreeing with what is said because his spirit percives it to be the truth. Nobody should accept what is not in absolute harmony with the vibrations of his spirit. Stay blessed.

@Seeklove. Hi. Thanks. You captured exactly what I said. Stay blessed.

Hi again Viaro.

That's fine - but that still does not verify any claims to having lived 'past lives' as far as 'scientific' investigations are concerned. There could be other explanations that could as well sufficiently address such claims without establishing any scientific veracity of your having lived in the past. That was why my concern on what exactly you might mean by 'science' in these phenomena.

Your concern in my view is valid but I am of the view that they can be addressed at leat to some extent in such an investigation. Yes, there could be an alternative explanation but part of the investigation should include examination of alternative explanation. The investigation may end up confirming that what I told them is true but they cannot say whether such information that they have confirmned is evidence of reincarnation or not. To me, that is progress and a step in the right direction.

What correllation would that have on the specific example of reincarnation or having lived in the past? Of course, there are many people today who experience or manifest such types of 'see-throughs', but again that is a different matter from being able to diagnose ailments through such 'seeings'. I do not mean to stretch your analogy, but I'm just wondering about one thing in particular: how does anyone begin to make a case for the "science" of spiritual things? In other words, what type of 'science' investigates 'spiritual' phenomena, and how does such a 'science' report its findings in spiritual diction?

I have not said that science investigates spiritual things. What I said is that if a spiritual phenomenon have a physical manifestation, the   physical manifestation can be investigated scientifically. Scientist can verify the physical manifestation but refuse to link it to a spiritual cause. That is a problem for the scientist and not for the one whose claims have been verified. If one is medically diagnosed of prostrate cancer and he is prayed upon by one bestowed by the power of God and science confirms that their are no cancer cells in the prostrate afer such an intervention, and such healing happen not in one or two isolated cases but in large cohort, then the investigators have to explain what else is responsible for the miracle.

The highlighted is what I was trying to get to. It is not that viaro is asking the door be closed against "scientific" investigations of spiritual things; but given the example in yours, one finds that after all is said and done, science 'cannot investigate the power of God'. All sorts of questions would be raised, such that even the most unbiased scientist doing his job as a scientist would be required to explicate the 'spiritual' in naturalistic terms. How does such a scientist even begin to approach that task?

I am a scientist myself and do have considerable experience in biomedical research. Your concern is valid and may ruin the career of such a scientist. But if one is interested in finding out the truth, then career setbacks or excommunication by the mainstream science should not be a deterrent. There are many reputable scientist that have investigated these manifestations but the result of their study are not yet published in peer reviewed literature because mainstream science do not want to hear anything that is not entirely naturalistic. But I believe that things will change in future. On a funny note, I had a collegue who is a professor of medicine and an atheist but he always have flu. We often argue about the natural and the supernatural and he will laugh at what he termed my primitive beliefs and wondered how it is possible that I hold such inspite of my education and training. I said if I tell you what to do and your flu will go, you will laugh me off but just try it and we see what happens. I will not mention here the specific remedy I told him. He decided to try in order to mock me but unfortunately for him, after two weeks of taking the remedy, his flu disappeared and he has never had flu. It is over three years now. Sometimes he wonders how I came to know that remedy and at other times he thinks it is just coincidence. I tell him that that is his problem , not mine. What is important is that he has no more flu. Stay blessed.

Hi Viaro. Thanks for your response.

Hi m_nwankwo, I think the first line of your remarks is in order; but what I'm not so sure about are the ideas you espouse as to verification of these phenomena. How do you "reproduce" such things in "real time"  and "real life"? It seems we often take things for granted and just make unguarded statements that cannot be sustained when closely exam

If I claim to recall pastlives, then these past lives were lived on earth and some physical traces of it are still there. Investigators who want to ascertain the likelihood of my claims being true can be given physical evidence like where I was buried, the cloth I wore for the burial, etc. If they can corroborate what I said and also rule out that I have no prior knowlege or exposure to the information I have given them, then they should seriously consider my claims.

Seriously dude - how do you begin to do so before 'transporting' such things to the status of 'Truth or Falsehood'? What I mean is this line in your next statement

If I claim that I have X-ray eyes and can diagnose ailments just by looking at them. What I said is just a claim or belief. It is possible that I am deluded or that I actually do see. Independent investigators who want to investigate my claims can match my diagnosis with that done with medical instruments. Again if their is a significant correlation between my diagnosis and that done independently by medical research, then I am not deluded or ignorant but in reality have X-ray eyes.

Excuse me, what type of "science" are you talking about here? There are many spiritual phenomena that have material manifestations (depending on what you mean by 'material manifestation') - but how do you begin to make a case for the "science" of spiritual things? It is not that we're asking to close the door against any 'scientific investigation', but I do hope in all honesty that those making such statements are not in the habit of throwing words around where they do not even have a clue what they might mean?

By material manifestation, I mean what can be observed and investigated by the instruments of science. If I claim that I can read the thoughts of others. Investigators can write down what they are thinking and seal it in an envelope. They can then ask me to detail what they are thinking. If what I say that they are thinking has significant corroboration with what is written in the sealed envelopes, then they must seriously consider that I do see thoughts. A better practical example is with the healing of illness. If a claim is made that the power of God bestowed on one have cured cancer. Biomedical research cannot investigate the power of God but it can clearly investigate whether or not a  cancer patient have cancer cells following the intervention of one who claims that God has bestowed him with the power to cure cancer. Stay blessed.

Mavenb0x:
@m_nwankwo: The deal is that Deep Sight says that JESUS PREACHED REINCARNATION in the Bible.

We're not contending reincarnation, we're discussing whether reincarnation is preached in the Bible, and whether it was advocated by Jesus, and whether the Hebrews had such a mindset. As I once said, if someone tells me that Santa Claus has a red unicorn, and the unicorn is the god of every december, I am not bothered. Just don't tell me that the red unicorn-god is the one that Job described in the Bible, or something like that!

My wisdom has multiplied in recent times, and I have learnt to leave people to believe whatever they want to, light does not argue with darkness so time will tell whoever is really correct. But don't twist my own understanding of the truth to give credence to yours!

I am aware of what is being discussed and I have already said so in my short post before the penultimate one. I have also stated in that post that it is incorrect to interpret the bible for those that believe in it or the koran for moslems especially when the one doing the interpretation does not believe in whole or in part the contents of the bible or Koran. I also stated in that post that John the Baptist is not a reincarnation of Elijah. In addition, I do not sense that reincarnation is taught in the bible. It is my conviction that Jesus, the son of God taught reincarnation but that teaching is not in the bible and thus I agree with those who say that reincarnation cannot be found in the bible. Stay blessed.

It is wiser to say that one does not believe in reincarnation than to say that it is false. To declare that something, particularly spiritual experiences as false or even true pressuposes that such a person have investigated such a phenomenon and have clear cut, irrefutable evidence. An evidence that is both independent and reproducible if such a claim is subjected to objective, independent investigation. By evidence, I do not mean debates or essays but a reproduction of such evidence in real time and in life. If I say that I believe in reincarnation, then that is my perception and I am entitled to it. The same goes for one who says he does not believe in reincarnation. But if I say that reincarnation is true, then that presupposes that I have personal and independently verifiable evidence of reincarnation and if called upon I can recall evidence of past lives which scholars can check out to see if it matches. The same goes for those who say that reincarnation is false. Reincarnation, miracles, demons and other similar phenomenon must pass independent but objective investigation if it is to be transported from belief or personal perception to the status of Truth or Falsehood. A spiritual experience that has a material manifestation must be subjected to scientific investigation or else a wide door to errors is opened where evertything is possible and impossible. Best wishes.

Another common argument for reincarnation, popularized by adherents of the Grail Message, is in Rev 3:12

Rev 3:12  Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name.

And from the boldened lines, the Grail Message claim that it suggests that the norm, that is the usual expectation, is to go out repeatedly i.e. re-incarnate. This repeated going out stops only for those who have overcome, have conquered all sins, have passed the Last Judgment, have gained full spiritual maturity.

Hi Mavenbox. What has the Grail Message got to do with the debate between Viaro and DeepSight? The debate is not on the truth or otherwise of reincarnation, rather it is whether or not reincarnation can be supported with biblical references. Yes the Grail Message teaches reincarnation but it did not infer it from the biblical reference you cited above. What the adherents of the Grail Message say is not the Grail Message. I would have joined this debate if it is on the truth or otherwise of reincarnation but it is not what the debate is all about. My personal view is that it is inappropriate to interpret biblical passages for those who believe the bible or interpret koran for moslems when the interpreter does not believe in whole or in part the contents of either the bible or the koran.  My personal insight into these things gives me the conviction that Elijah didnot reincarnate as John the Babtist, and Jesus, the son of God is not a reincarnation of any person, rather he is the son of God. Stay blessed.

@Blackcypha

perhaps you shud also read the whole of isaiah 45 and tell me if you wont take back and swallow your words,

I do not think that refering me to read  Isaiah 45 have relevance to my input on this thread. As a rule I do not cite the bible in my postings. If however discussants want to know my views on a particular citation from the bible, I atimes accede albeit relunctantly. If you disagree with my input, it is ok. If you want to say why you disagree, then present them and I will find time to address them. Best Wishes.

Hi Deepsight. How are you? Thanks for your kind thoughts. I wish you radiant joy and God`s guidance. Stay blessed!

Chrisbenogor:
@m-nwankwoI don't buy it.

Hi Chris. How body? It is ok if you do not agree with what I said. Stay blessed.

When we or those who we choose to love are confronted with tragedy such as earthquake, plane crash, volcanic eruption or sudden diagnosis with a terminal disease etc, then an accusation is tabled by most of those affected against God. Why should God allow all these if he is all loving, all powerful and all knowing?. For believers, their faith in God is deeply shaken and for the atheist, such tragedies offer another amunition to ridicule belief in God. First, what is nature and what are natural disasters. Nature is the work of a very special servants of God that have their abode immediately above the world of matter. By world of matter, I mean matter that is physically visible as well as matter that is invincible to physical organs or instruments used to improve on them. Matter can be said to be inactive but when glowed through or animated by these servants of God, then the primordial particles that constitute matter become active, resulting in union of primordial material particles with attendant birth and evolution of forms. These forms can be as simple as the metamorphosis of an insect to the birth, evolution and death of stars. Even the entire universe is the work of these servants of God and thus should be considered as natural. Man being spirit is not a part of nature for the spirit is the work of God, not the elemental servants of God. The spirit is placed in nature to learn from these nature beings and then use the higher vibrations of the spirit to bring about unions and forms that are beyound the capacity of this special class of elementals. But because they spirit has cut itself from interaction with these nature beings, they, albeiet uncounsciously bring about unions and forms that have intrinsic disharmony. But worse still, the spirit cannot recognise warnings from these nature beings when catalsymic changes are to take place on earth or indeed in any part of the universe. The birth and evolution of planets or celestial bodies require catalysmic changes. These special servants of God in obedience to God fashioned this worlderful planet for us to dwell in.  They know with mathematical precision where changes are to take place since they bring about these changes. These changes, whether it is earthquake or volcanic eruption or typhoon etc are erroreneously called natural disasters. But they became so because human beings refused to listen to God or his little servants. Had we listened to God, then the little sevants of God will advice us to settle in areas of the earth that are not prone to catalysmic changes. But because we think we know, we settled on tectonic plates, formed settlements around volcanic eruption prone areas etc and then blame God when we get killed. If one looks into the book of life, then one can actually see that prior to the entrance of sin, the cradles of mankinds birth was of tropical beauty, little servants of God admonish the early human inhabitants to leave a particular area months before a catalysmic change is to occure, indeed giant birds that exist at that time  fly little children and their mothers to their new abode,  The point I am making is that the love of God ensures that we are protected from affliction but since we have turned away from all guidance from Above, then we run ourselves into misfortune. Thus God is not the cause of natural disaster but his servants bring about necessary changes for the evolution of each celestial body and these changes would not have harmed even a single man had we not allowed sin to enter into the world. Thus through a wilful interference in the creators cosmic order by man, a necessary change for the health and the evolution of the planet has become a "natural" disaster.

But there is even much more beside what I said above. The disobedience to the will of God by man resulted in bringing into existence wrong union of primordial particles, emergence of forms and shapes that are inherently disharmonious and destructive, and these pervated forms, unions, shapes, bodies etc brought havoc to nature, and perverted what was once natural,  Thus, some of the things attributed to nature are man made, brought and maintained in existence by wrong use of the power of God.  Best Wishes.

Later, I may make a detailed contribution on sexuality, celibacy, abstinence, marriage etc. But in the meantime I will say that physical abstinence from sex is only a very minor aspect of the story. Is one who have physically abstained from sexual intercourse celibate when such a one harbours lustful desires that are not expressed physically? Is one who have not had sexual union but continually or occationally battles with the sexual instinct celibate? Is one really a virgin simply because he or she has not had sex? Is a man or woman who engages in self sexual stimulation but have not engaged in sexual union with another person celibate? Can a person who have not engaged in physical sex but reads or watches pornographic materials be considered celibate? Can a monk who have no contact with the temptations of life because he is living in a remote cave be considered  celibate just because he has not had physical sex? These questions and much more is to suggest to discussants that physical abstinence from sex is just the tip of the iceberg.

Pastor AIO:
Thank you for this. Though you might not be aware just what I am thanking you for, maybe one day if we meet in the flesh I will explain it to you.

Hi Pastor. You are welcome. I have to log off as my wife have just ordered me to turn off the pc and go to bed. Good night.

@MyJoe

Thanks M Nwankwo for your deep insights. I have listened to Grail Message programmes on the radio off and on for some years. But it was not until I got disillusioned with Christianity and temporarily slipped into agnosticism and later deism that I began to take interest in EVERYTHING (including Christianity!). I read book one and I intend to do two and three shortly. I jotted down many questions and perhaps I will ask for your email sometime. I do share Deep Sight's concerns about the Trinity - I guess due to my previous religious experiences which are very similar to his - but I won't go into that now. What I am particularly interested in this:

Hi MyJoe.  I am pleased that you are reading the Grail Message.You are welcome to contact me via email when you are ready with your questions. Some human beings will have some concerns about Trinity since it deals with the nature of Godhead, and thus it is an event above the spiritual origin of man. Man can never understand what is above the spiritual realm. The knowledge of the divine and God can only be revealed to the spirit. There is no conception of it that is close to the perceptive capacity of the brain and that is the reason why some genuinely do not accept it. It is only the spirit that has the capacity to intutively sense the truth in it.  That is why I often urge seekers to keep to what they can grasp and pray that what remain a puzzle to them will be clarified. And it will be. Most of us think too much and really think nothing. We should simply learn how to pray instead of pondering.

I have read something similar from you in one or two other threads. I believe you realise the vast majority of human beings do not have these "spiritual insights". I am one of those people who do not have these experiences. That is, people who have taken a materialist or rational approach to life all their life. How does such a person read a book a get spiritual insight into it? If I sound lost, it's because I am.

MyJoe, you do not sound lost and you are not lost. You are wiser than you think and I admire your modesty.  My perception is that your spirit is quite alive and I do not accept that you are just a rationalist. Spiritual insight does not necessary imply the ability to see, hear or feel the so called supernatural world. Rather, it refers to the capacity to open your spirit to the power of God, and recieve guidance.  The human spirit was created by God and the spirit is hardwired to recognise the voice of God. Whenever you encounter what is true spiritually, their will be a resonance within you, then restlessness and then inner peace. A book will not give you spiritual insight. But if the book contains an undistorted message of God, then it will show you the path to God. It is only in following the path shown that you will acguire experiences that lead you to spiritual insight and genuine knowlege. Just as an example, to love your neighbour without reservation and without expecting a reward is a path that leads to God. If one reads about it and even accept it to be true but does not love, then he or she will never have the grace of spiritual insight and true knowledge. But if one loves, then slowly but surely, he will be gradually led to all experiences that lead to true knowlege.

A materialist will not be able to recognise God because the spiritual faculty is completely suffocated by the brain. But if the materialist is honest or sincere, then certain deep experiences will be placed on his path. Such experiences come as deep emotional shocks which may manifest as intense suffering or misfortune as well as unexpected blessings. The psychic shocks as a result of intense suffering or joy can temporarly free the soul from the hard grip of the brain, allowing it to look beyound matter, for some that is the beginning of a turn around from materialism to the search for his creator. Stay blessed.

@JeSoul
Thanks for your reply. It is always a pleasure to discuss with you. Stay blessed!