₦airaland Forum

MaxInDHouse:
That's where you got it wrong completely because a politician can't become a Christian he must leave everything that has to do with politics! Luke 18:18-23

So there was never a ruler in Christianity we must be on the humble side not part of dictators! Matthew 10:16

Therefore Constantine was never a true Christian!🙂

Ok I see your point. However if JW are waiting to convert the whole world then they are on a long thing. Unless they use force it can't be possible. Even with force not possible
Only clear reasoning can convert everybody

lawani:
Ok I see your point. However if JW are waiting to convert the whole world then they are on a long thing.

No! We are to search for peace lovers in all the earth {Luke 10:6} our God said He wants to restore sanity on planet earth so by the time every home has one or two witnesses the work is done:

And this good news of the Kingdom will be preached in all the inhabited earth for a witness to all the nations, and then the end will come. Matthew 24:14

So the JWs you are seeing in all your neighborhood are witnesses to the fact that you have heard their message but you choose to be adamant! Matthew 10:14-15

Then God will send Jesus to destroy those ruining our planet home! Revelations 11:18

So if you hate peace or peaceful people get prepared because soon Jesus will come and put an end completely to violence and those causing it globally! Luke 19:27

That's why we (his true disciples) must stay clear to prove that we are no part of killers! Revelations 6:3-4

lawani:
Why do you think someone will work for you without being paid? Don't you realize they have bills to pay too?

According to my ifa research God is the head of the fully matured spirits in a body called the God grid. All the spirits there have their last or current incarnation as female but the nominal head known as God can not be on an incarnation.

Your explanation is interesting, but I need to understand the foundation of what you’re teaching. If your claims are truly based on Ifa, then a few points should be clear and easy for you to clarify:

Source material: Which specific odu Ifa or lineage teaching introduces the idea of a ‘God grid’? I’m aware of Olodumare, Orunmila, and the Irunmole, but this structure doesn’t appear in classical cosmology.

Research method: When you say you’ve done ‘Ifa research,’ do you mean documented divination results, guidance from a recognized babalawo, or your own spiritual interpretation? The distinction matters.

Verification: If this knowledge comes through personal revelation, what process or authority within the Ifa community has confirmed it as valid? Ifa wisdom is traditionally verified through consultation, not individual opinion.

On payment: Ifa teaches iwa pele — balanced character and integrity. How does demanding payment before demonstrating spiritual credibility align with that principle?

Terminology: You refer to ‘fully matured spirits’ — is this your translation of an existing Yoruba term such as ori inu, or a concept you’ve introduced yourself? If it’s original, how does it fit within Yoruba metaphysics rather than contradict it?

If your practice is genuine, you should be able to answer these directly and confidently. Clear explanations are what separate an initiated teacher from someone selling ideas.

You’ve presented a number of ideas here, and while they’re expressed with conviction, several of them conflict with one another.
If these teachings are to be taken as serious Ifa philosophy rather than personal invention, clarity and internal consistency are essential.”

🔹 Contradictions that need clarification

‘Self-taught Babalawo’ vs ‘All trained diviners obtain their information from the spirit realm.’
You describe yourself as self-taught but also use the term ‘trained.’ In Ifa, training is not a solitary pursuit — it involves initiation, mentorship, and verification within a lineage.
So, are your insights confirmed through recognized initiation, or are they your own interpretations outside the established framework?

‘God cannot incarnate’ vs ‘God wants you to be a diviner.’
You state that God does not incarnate, yet speak of God actively directing individuals. That implies direct interaction. How does that align with your statement that God cannot exist in incarnation?

‘Every human should be a diviner’ vs ‘When you don’t know divination, you use a diviner.’
These are opposite principles. If everyone is meant to practise divination, then the profession of diviner becomes redundant. If only some are meant to, then your claim about universality falls apart.
Which do you actually mean?

‘Your spirit can drop thoughts into your mind’ vs ‘That is not divination.’
You dismiss inspiration or intuition as divination, but simultaneously describe it as communication from the spirit. That’s inconsistent — Ifa tradition doesn’t separate spirit influence from spiritual process.

‘I’ve not said anything outlandish’ vs ‘Humans are food farms for spirits.’
That is, at the very least, an uncommon cosmology. If it’s symbolic, clarify it as such; if literal, explain its source within Yoruba metaphysics. You can’t present such a claim as “common sense” without foundation.

🔹 Reasonable questions a genuine diviner should be able to answer

Lineage and authority:
Which odu or oral source forms the basis of your “God grid” model? If it’s a revelation, how has it been tested through divination or recognized peers in the Ifa community?

Method of learning:
What process confirmed that your understanding of the 256 odu is correct — direct spiritual initiation, apprenticeship, or solitary study? Self-taught interpretations often miss contextual meanings known only through lineage transmission.

Ethics and payment:
Ifa teaching on iwa pele (gentle character) places service before profit. How do you reconcile charging for spiritual access with that principle? When does sacred duty become a transaction?

Theology and gender:
You claim all fully matured spirits are female and that God cannot incarnate, yet God commands individuals. How do you reconcile this with the gender-neutral or dual nature of divinity in Yoruba thought?

Verification of claims:
You mention “over 60 billion spirits” and that each person is “food” for one. Where does this figure originate — oral tradition, scripture, or your own divination? Serious Ifa work is grounded in recorded odu, not estimates.

“None of these questions are meant to attack you. They are the natural questions that arise when someone presents new cosmology under the banner of Ifa.
A true practitioner welcomes examination — because truth never fears questions, and only the seller of mystery resists clarity.

Fenrir:
Your explanation is interesting, but I need to understand the foundation of what you’re teaching. If your claims are truly based on Ifa, then a few points should be clear and easy for you to clarify:

Source material: Which specific odu Ifa or lineage teaching introduces the idea of a ‘God grid’? I’m aware of Olodumare, Orunmila, and the Irunmole, but this structure doesn’t appear in classical cosmology.

Research method: When you say you’ve done ‘Ifa research,’ do you mean documented divination results, guidance from a recognized babalawo, or your own spiritual interpretation? The distinction matters.

Verification: If this knowledge comes through personal revelation, what process or authority within the Ifa community has confirmed it as valid? Ifa wisdom is traditionally verified through consultation, not individual opinion.

On payment: Ifa teaches iwa pele — balanced character and integrity. How does demanding payment before demonstrating spiritual credibility align with that principle?

Terminology: You refer to ‘fully matured spirits’ — is this your translation of an existing Yoruba term such as ori inu, or a concept you’ve introduced yourself? If it’s original, how does it fit within Yoruba metaphysics rather than contradict it?

If your practice is genuine, you should be able to answer these directly and confidently. Clear explanations are what separate an initiated teacher from someone selling ideas.

My research entails asking questions with prayers and answering them with the 256 signs of Orunmila. What is required is to know the right questions to ask and to be able to read the signs. That is all about the research.

The maturity of spirits is part of what I found out about with my research. I found out that a spirit has eight levels of God like managerial ability which determines how they will treat what is put under their care and six levels of empathy rank which determines how they respond to emergencies concerning others. You can drop in rank in the second but not in the first. If you drop from the last rank in the second you die both on Earth and in heaven

On payment truthseeker asked how he can confirm the authenticity of my claims and I told him he should consult diviners but they will charge him. There are many diviners of different creeds not only ifa and many have good reputation

Ori inu I translate as higher self. It is the spirit that own your incarnation who will take the food you harvest after dying. Purpose of incarnation is to harvest food for sustenance in heaven according to my research

Nobody has confirmed my positions. I taught myself. I have no Oluwo but I found out via divination that I am the incarnate of Orunmila.

I agree with you that truth never fears question and I am ready to take on more questions

lawani:
My research entails asking questions with prayers and answering them with the 256 signs of Orunmila. What is required is to know the right questions to ask and to be able to read the signs. That is all about the research.

The maturity of spirits is part of what I found out about with my research. I found out that a spirit has eight levels of God like managerial ability which determines how they will treat what is put under their care and six levels of empathy rank which determines how they respond to emergencies concerning others. You can drop in rank in the second but not in the first. If you drop from the last rank in the second you die both on Earth and in heaven

On payment truthseeker asked how he can confirm the authenticity of my claims and I told him he should consult diviners but they will charge him. There are many diviners of different creeds not only ifa and many have good reputation

Ori inu I translate as higher self. It is the spirit that own your incarnation who will take the food you harvest after dying. Purpose of incarnation is to harvest food for sustenance in heaven according to my research

Nobody has confirmed my positions. I taught myself. I have no Oluwo but I found out via divination that I am the incarnate of Orunmila.

I agree with you that truth never fears question and I am ready to take on more questions

Thank you for elaborating. What you’ve described confirms that your framework is entirely self-derived — you ask your own questions, interpret your own answers, and cite your own conclusions as evidence. That process may be personally meaningful, but it cannot be described as research or divination in any serious sense. It is simply private belief.

In Ifa, as in every disciplined system of knowledge, verification is communal. Claims are tested, cross-checked through lineage, and anchored in recorded odu. When you say no one has confirmed your findings but still declare yourself the incarnation of Orunmila, you’re moving from spirituality into self-appointment.

Your descriptions of “spirit hierarchies,” “food farms,” and “managerial levels” read more like personal mythology than inherited tradition. That doesn’t make them automatically false — but they are yours, not Ifa’s. The honesty would be to call them your own revelations, not ancestral wisdom.

You frequently use the word “research.” But in both academic and spiritual contexts, research implies a system that others can reproduce or verify. Yours cannot. You alone control both the method and the interpretation. That’s not research — it’s assertion.

When spirituality removes all external checks — elders, peers, scripture, even reason — it becomes indistinguishable from imagination.
That doesn’t mean it has no personal value; it simply means it cannot claim public authority.

So, before presenting these ideas as truths about God or Ifa, I suggest you decide whether you are speaking as a seeker, or as a seller. Because the difference is not in words — it’s in accountability.

Fenrir:
Thank you for elaborating. What you’ve described confirms that your framework is entirely self-derived — you ask your own questions, interpret your own answers, and cite your own conclusions as evidence. That process may be personally meaningful, but it cannot be described as research or divination in any serious sense. It is simply private belief.

In Ifa, as in every disciplined system of knowledge, verification is communal. Claims are tested, cross-checked through lineage, and anchored in recorded odu. When you say no one has confirmed your findings but still declare yourself the incarnation of Orunmila, you’re moving from spirituality into self-appointment.

Your descriptions of “spirit hierarchies,” “food farms,” and “managerial levels” read more like personal mythology than inherited tradition. That doesn’t make them automatically false — but they are yours, not Ifa’s. The honesty would be to call them your own revelations, not ancestral wisdom.

You frequently use the word “research.” But in both academic and spiritual contexts, research implies a system that others can reproduce or verify. Yours cannot. You alone control both the method and the interpretation. That’s not research — it’s assertion.

When spirituality removes all external checks — elders, peers, scripture, even reason — it becomes indistinguishable from imagination.
That doesn’t mean it has no personal value; it simply means it cannot claim public authority.

So, before presenting these ideas as truths about God or Ifa, I suggest you decide whether you are speaking as a seeker, or as a seller. Because the difference is not in words — it’s in accountability.

It is still research because many of my findings surprised even me. Divination is communication with the spirit world, my spirit. Many times the spirit refused to give me straightforward answers and asked me to check later.

You can always use divination to ask if something is right or not just like it is used to check the prospects of a proposed marriage and etc but you will always need to be sincere. That is all the peer review in divination

lawani:
It is still research because many of my findings surprised even me. Divination is communication with the spirit world, my spirit. Many times the spirit refused to give me straightforward answers and asked me to check later.

Being surprised by your own conclusions does not make them research — it only means the outcome differed from your expectations. In every field, surprise is the beginning of inquiry, not its validation.

You say your spirit sometimes refuses to give straightforward answers. That perfectly illustrates the problem: the entire process depends on your internal dialogue. There is no independent witness, no repeatability, and no peer verification.
By definition, that makes it private revelation, not research.

Divination, even in traditional Ifa, involves community, oversight, and interpretation within lineage. Once it becomes a solitary exchange between you and your own “spirit,” it leaves the realm of divination and enters that of personal mysticism. There is nothing wrong with that — but it cannot claim the authority of a tested system.

A researcher submits findings for review.
A diviner submits readings to communal wisdom.
A mystic keeps revelations for contemplation.

Which of these do you actually wish to be? Because right now, you’re attempting to hold all three roles at once — prophet, researcher, and priest — while answering only to yourself. That is not spiritual depth; it is self-reference mistaken for evidence.

And if I may say this gently — when someone builds an entire doctrine that depends solely on personal authority and demands others simply believe, it begins to look less like revelation and more like a performance meant to sell conviction rather than seek truth.

Fenrir:
Being surprised by your own conclusions does not make them research — it only means the outcome differed from your expectations. In every field, surprise is the beginning of inquiry, not its validation.

You say your spirit sometimes refuses to give straightforward answers. That perfectly illustrates the problem: the entire process depends on your internal dialogue. There is no independent witness, no repeatability, and no peer verification.
By definition, that makes it private revelation, not research.

Divination, even in traditional Ifa, involves community, oversight, and interpretation within lineage. Once it becomes a solitary exchange between you and your own “spirit,” it leaves the realm of divination and enters that of personal mysticism. There is nothing wrong with that — but it cannot claim the authority of a tested system.

A researcher submits findings for review.
A diviner submits readings to communal wisdom.
A mystic keeps revelations for contemplation.

Which of these do you actually wish to be? Because right now, you’re attempting to hold all three roles at once — prophet, researcher, and priest — while answering only to yourself. That is not spiritual depth; it is self-reference mistaken for evidence.

And if I may say this gently — when someone builds an entire doctrine that depends solely on personal authority and demands others simply believe, it begins to look less like revelation and more like a performance meant to sell conviction rather than seek truth.

You will be wrong to say they are my personal positions. What you get by interviewing someone isn't your personal position

I interviewed my own spirit

lawani:
You will be wrong to say they are my personal positions. What you get by interviewing someone isn't your personal position

I interviewed my own spirit

The comparison doesn’t hold.
When you interview another person, you are engaging with an independent, verifiable consciousness. Others can meet that person, repeat the interview, and confirm or challenge the responses. That’s what makes it evidence rather than introspection.

When you “interview your spirit,” there is no such external witness. No one else can access that conversation or test its reliability. It exists entirely within your own perception, interpreted by you, and mediated through your own expectations. That makes it, by definition, personal.

The difference is not subtle — it is foundational.
An interview produces information that others can examine.
A private vision produces belief that only you can hold.

There’s nothing inherently wrong with personal revelation — it can be meaningful and transformative. The issue arises only when personal revelation is marketed as objective truth or used to instruct others as if it carried communal authority. That is when spirituality stops being guidance and starts resembling persuasion.

Fenrir:
The comparison doesn’t hold.
When you interview another person, you are engaging with an independent, verifiable consciousness. Others can meet that person, repeat the interview, and confirm or challenge the responses. That’s what makes it evidence rather than introspection.

When you “interview your spirit,” there is no such external witness. No one else can access that conversation or test its reliability. It exists entirely within your own perception, interpreted by you, and mediated through your own expectations. That makes it, by definition, personal.

The difference is not subtle — it is foundational.
An interview produces information that others can examine.
A private vision produces belief that only you can hold.

There’s nothing inherently wrong with personal revelation — it can be meaningful and transformative. The issue arises only when personal revelation is marketed as objective truth or used to instruct others as if it carried communal authority. That is when spirituality stops being guidance and starts resembling persuasion.

I did not have a vision. Did I ever mention that? I interviewed my spirit and my spirit liaised with other spirits to give me the answers most of the time.
IFA is a spirit language. It is very audible if you understand the 256 signs

If you genuinely have doubts about any of my conclusions then ask other diviners that you know to peer review me. That is the only way in the spirit sector

lawani:
I did not have a vision. Did I ever mention that? I interviewed my spirit and my spirit liaised with other spirits to give me the answers most of the time.
IFA is a spirit language. It is very audible if you understand the 256 signs

If you genuinely have doubts about any of my conclusions then ask other diviners that you know to peer review me. That is the only way in the spirit sector

The distinction you’re drawing doesn’t change the underlying point. Whether you call it “a vision,” “spirit liaison,” or “interviewing your spirit,” the entire process occurs within your own internal experience. There is no method for independent verification, replication, or cross-examination by others.

When communication happens solely through one person’s unseen intermediaries, the information remains non-verifiable. It can be sincere, but it cannot be treated as evidence. That is the difference between experience and knowledge.

If your spirit “liaises with other spirits,” that still depends on you as the interpreter of what those spirits allegedly say. Therefore, the conclusions are yours — entirely mediated through your perception, language, and bias.

So, whether it’s called vision, inspiration, or interview, the category remains the same: private revelation.
And private revelation, while often meaningful to the individual, acquires authority over others only when presented by someone seeking belief rather than understanding — especially when money is involved for access to what are, in essence, personal interpretations.

Fenrir:
The distinction you’re drawing doesn’t change the underlying point. Whether you call it “a vision,” “spirit liaison,” or “interviewing your spirit,” the entire process occurs within your own internal experience. There is no method for independent verification, replication, or cross-examination by others.

When communication happens solely through one person’s unseen intermediaries, the information remains non-verifiable. It can be sincere, but it cannot be treated as evidence. That is the difference between experience and knowledge.

If your spirit “liaises with other spirits,” that still depends on you as the interpreter of what those spirits allegedly say. Therefore, the conclusions are yours — entirely mediated through your perception, language, and bias.

So, whether it’s called vision, inspiration, or interview, the category remains the same: private revelation.
And private revelation, while often meaningful to the individual, acquires authority over others only when presented by someone seeking belief rather than understanding — especially when money is involved for access to what are, in essence, personal interpretations.

The only way to verify is to ask your own spirit. This is non material or spirit academics. If you consult a diviner they will still have to ask their own spirits. You can even establish a divination system and ask your own spirit right away

lawani:
The only way to verify is to ask your own spirit. This is non material or spirit academics. If you consult a diviner they will still have to ask their own spirits. You can even establish a divination system and ask your own spirit right away

You clearly don’t understand what “atheist” means — it isn’t someone who refuses to ask questions of the unseen; it’s someone who withholds belief until there is verifiable reason to grant it. That’s an intellectual position, not a spiritual disability.

If the only method of verification is to use the same untestable process, then nothing is ever truly verified — it is simply reaffirmed.
That is the problem with self-contained systems: they protect belief, not truth.

When you say “everyone must ask their own spirit,” that is the equivalent of saying “everyone must use my language to prove my point.” It ensures agreement, but eliminates independent evaluation.
A process that cannot be questioned from outside itself is not a discipline — it’s a closed loop.

In Ifa, diviners indeed consult the spiritual realm, but their readings are checked by peers, elders, and corpus. That communal cross-reference is what distinguishes a tradition from a personal cosmology.
You’ve removed that safeguard and replaced it with personal interpretation — and then attached a fee to it.

Calling that “non-material academics” doesn’t make it academic. It makes it a belief economy, where conviction is traded as knowledge.

Fenrir:
You clearly don’t understand what “atheist” means — it isn’t someone who refuses to ask questions of the unseen; it’s someone who withholds belief until there is verifiable reason to grant it. That’s an intellectual position, not a spiritual disability.

If the only method of verification is to use the same untestable process, then nothing is ever truly verified — it is simply reaffirmed.
That is the problem with self-contained systems: they protect belief, not truth.

When you say “everyone must ask their own spirit,” that is the equivalent of saying “everyone must use my language to prove my point.” It ensures agreement, but eliminates independent evaluation.
A process that cannot be questioned from outside itself is not a discipline — it’s a closed loop.

In Ifa, diviners indeed consult the spiritual realm, but their readings are checked by peers, elders, and corpus. That communal cross-reference is what distinguishes a tradition from a personal cosmology.
You’ve removed that safeguard and replaced it with personal interpretation — and then attached a fee to it.

Calling that “non-material academics” doesn’t make it academic. It makes it a belief economy, where conviction is traded as knowledge.

Then I can't help you in your childlike innocence

lawani:
Then I can't help you in your childlike innocence

Resorting to condescension isn’t a substitute for explanation.
When someone’s argument collapses into “you’re too innocent to understand,” it usually means there’s nothing left to defend.

You claim to offer spiritual knowledge, yet recoil the moment that knowledge is questioned. That’s not enlightenment — that’s evasion dressed as superiority.

Real teachers don’t hide behind mystery or mock curiosity; they welcome scrutiny because truth remains intact under examination.

Fenrir:
Resorting to condescension isn’t a substitute for explanation.
When someone’s argument collapses into “you’re too innocent to understand,” it usually means there’s nothing left to defend.

You claim to offer spiritual knowledge, yet recoil the moment that knowledge is questioned. That’s not enlightenment — that’s evasion dressed as superiority.

Real teachers don’t hide behind mystery or mock curiosity; they welcome scrutiny because truth remains intact under examination.

There is peer review or and quality control in the spirit sector.
Let's say you want to marry or start a business then you check the prospects with many spiritual counselors and compare the results. That is a form of peer review or rather quality control but how can I help you if you are an atheist who don't believe in such? That is the point

lawani:
There is peer review in the spirit sector.
Let's say you want to marry or start a business then you check the prospects with many spiritual counselors and compare the results. That is a form of peer review but how can I help you if you are an atheist who don't believe in such? That is the point

What you’ve described isn’t peer review — it’s consensus-seeking among people who share the same unverifiable method.
Peer review, whether in science or structured divination, involves accountability to shared standards that allow claims to be tested, corrected, or rejected.
Multiple opinions don’t create verification; they only multiply subjectivity.

If ten people throw dice and each claims the numbers came from the spirit world, comparing their guesses doesn’t make the process objective — it just shows they all believe the same premise.

My disbelief isn’t the obstacle here; your framework would remain untestable even if everyone involved believed in spirits.
The issue isn’t faith — it’s methodology. A system that cannot fail a test can never pass one either.

Fenrir:
What you’ve described isn’t peer review — it’s consensus-seeking among people who share the same unverifiable method.
Peer review, whether in science or structured divination, involves accountability to shared standards that allow claims to be tested, corrected, or rejected.
Multiple opinions don’t create verification; they only multiply subjectivity.

If ten people throw dice and each claims the numbers came from the spirit world, comparing their guesses doesn’t make the process objective — it just shows they all believe the same premise.

My disbelief isn’t the obstacle here; your framework would remain untestable even if everyone involved believed in spirits.
The issue isn’t faith — it’s methodology. A system that cannot fail a test can never pass one either.

Can you explain what you mean by peer review in structured divination?
A group of people can't come up with an idea. Ideas come from individuals before they are accepted by the general public whether in the spirit or material sector

lawani:
Can you explain what you mean by peer review in structured divination?
A group of people can't come up with an idea. Ideas come from individuals before they are accepted by the general public whether in the spirit or material sector

Peer review doesn’t mean a crowd invents an idea — it means other qualified people test your claim against shared standards to see if it actually holds up.
In proper divination, that would mean elders or trained practitioners checking your readings and comparing them with the odu and lineage teachings.

It’s not groupthink; it’s quality control.
Without that, anyone could declare themselves a prophet, or even claim to be He-Man shouting “I have the power to piss on a flower!” — and call it divine revelation.
It might sound impressive, but it’s still just one person talking to himself.

Fenrir:
Peer review doesn’t mean a crowd invents an idea — it means other qualified people test your claim against shared standards to see if it actually holds up.
In proper divination, that would mean elders or trained practitioners checking your readings and comparing them with the odu and lineage teachings.

It’s not groupthink; it’s quality control.
Without that, anyone could declare themselves a prophet, or even claim to be He-Man shouting “I have the power to piss on a flower!” — and call it divine revelation.
It might sound impressive, but it’s still just one person talking to himself.

You are right and right now I am still at the proposal stage because I am not presently affiliated with any body of diviners but you as a person if you believe in divination can even establish a divination system and use yes or no questions and etc to check my claims. Any group of assembled elders will have to do it that way too but only ask sincere and genuine questions because the spirit does not like monkeying around

lawani:
You are right and right now I am still at the proposal stage because I am not presently affiliated with any body of diviners but you as a person if you believe in divination can even establish a divination system and use yes or no questions and etc to check my claims. Any group of assembled elders will have to do it that way too but only ask sincere and genuine questions because the spirit does not like monkeying around

So the “proposal stage” means no lineage, no verification, and no peers — just a personal system of yes/no questions directed at invisible auditors who “don’t like monkeying around.”
That’s not research; that’s an improv session with your subconscious.

And let’s be honest — when every check and balance still depends on you and your spirits, the only thing being reviewed is your imagination.

Fenrir:
So the “proposal stage” means no lineage, no verification, and no peers — just a personal system of yes/no questions directed at invisible auditors who “don’t like monkeying around.”
That’s not research; that’s an improv session with your subconscious.

And let’s be honest — when every check and balance still depends on you and your spirits, the only thing being reviewed is your imagination.

If I ask any question, there are 256 possible answers. That is more than a Yes/No session. It is research. Yes/No queries can however come in handy as would be expected.
I don't have spirits. I have one spirit that owns me. If I ask it a question it will check the 24 incarnations it has access to for answer and if it requires reactivating a deleted incarnation it will do so with support from relevant spirits. It can also get information from other spirits
What is research to you?
Yes spirits don't like monkeying around. They want you to genuinely seek.

lawani:
If I ask any question, there are 256 possible answers. That is more than a Yes/No session. It is research. Yes/No queries can however come in handy as would be expected.
I don't have spirits. I have one spirit that owns me. If I ask it a question it will check the 24 incarnations it has access to for answer and if it requires reactivating a deleted incarnation it will do so with support from relevant spirits. It can also get information from other spirits
What is research to you?
Yes spirits don't like monkeying around. They want you to genuinely seek.

Thanks for the detail — that helps. But what you describe (256 possible answers, yes/no usefulness, one spirit checking past incarnations) is still a claim, not research.

In practice, research requires at least these things:

A clear method — exactly how questions are posed, how answers are recorded, and how ambiguity is resolved.

Repeatability — others should be able to run the same procedure and get comparable results.

Falsifiability — there must be possible outcomes that would refute your claim.

Independent checking — outside observers must be able to verify the procedure and results (not just accept “my spirit said so”).

Documentation — dated records, transcripts or recordings, and a way to compare answers to outcomes.

If you truly want this to be research rather than personal revelation, propose a test I — or any willing skeptic — can run with you. For example:

Give three specific, time-stamped yes/no questions about verifiable future events (not vague),

Let an independent witness record your answers,

Agree in advance how we’ll judge success, and

If you charge for readings, put that on hold until after the test.

Until someone uses those standards, you’ve got a coherent belief system — maybe important to you — but not an objectively verified divination method. If you’re serious, run the experiment. If not, call it what it is: a private system of interpretation.

lawani:
If I ask any question, there are 256 possible answers. That is more than a Yes/No session. It is research. Yes/No queries can however come in handy as would be expected.
I don't have spirits. I have one spirit that owns me. If I ask it a question it will check the 24 incarnations it has access to for answer and if it requires reactivating a deleted incarnation it will do so with support from relevant spirits. It can also get information from other spirits
What is research to you?
Yes spirits don't like monkeying around. They want you to genuinely seek.

You said “I have one spirit that owns me.”
That’s a very revealing statement — and it raises a serious question about agency.

If your spirit “owns” you, then who exactly is speaking when you post here — you, or your spirit? And if your spirit dictates your answers, how can you claim independent thought or objective research?

Ownership implies subservience. It means you’re not the researcher; you’re the research subject. That’s the opposite of what scholarship — or even responsible divination — requires.

In most spiritual systems, a person is meant to collaborate with guiding forces, not surrender identity or autonomy to them. The moment you say you’re owned, you stop being a seeker and start being a spokesperson for something you can’t verify.

So before we talk about 256 signs, maybe clarify one thing:
Are you in charge of your beliefs — or is your “owner” writing them for you?

lawani:
If I ask any question, there are 256 possible answers. That is more than a Yes/No session. It is research. Yes/No queries can however come in handy as would be expected.
I don't have spirits. I have one spirit that owns me. If I ask it a question it will check the 24 incarnations it has access to for answer and if it requires reactivating a deleted incarnation it will do so with support from relevant spirits. It can also get information from other spirits
What is research to you?
Yes spirits don't like monkeying around. They want you to genuinely seek.

There’s something I don’t quite understand in your position.
You’ve said you’re guided by the 256 signs of Orunmila and by a spirit that “owns” you — but you’ve also referred to Christian concepts like God, Jesus, and divine punishment in earlier posts.

How do you reconcile those?
Christianity explicitly forbids divination and spirit consultation (Deuteronomy 18:10–12, Acts 16:16–18), while Ifá is built entirely on communication with spirits. The two systems contradict each other at the foundation.

If your spirit directs you, that’s not the Holy Spirit of Christian theology — and if it’s Orunmila, that’s an entirely different framework.
So which one defines your faith?

You can’t logically claim both, because their rules about revelation, authority, and truth cancel each other out.

lawani:
If I ask any question, there are 256 possible answers. That is more than a Yes/No session. It is research. Yes/No queries can however come in handy as would be expected.
I don't have spirits. I have one spirit that owns me. If I ask it a question it will check the 24 incarnations it has access to for answer and if it requires reactivating a deleted incarnation it will do so with support from relevant spirits. It can also get information from other spirits
What is research to you?
Yes spirits don't like monkeying around. They want you to genuinely seek.

The way you keep lying and trying to cover one lie with ten lies has exposed you!
If each person has his or her own spirit then why are you saying other people are wrong?
Each person has a spirit that's guiding him or her and according to you just one question is to have 200+ answers which will surely come with contradictions so no one supposed to teach another you should have left everyone for their spirits to guide them and not the other way around!😟

lawani:
If I ask any question, there are 256 possible answers. That is more than a Yes/No session. It is research. Yes/No queries can however come in handy as would be expected.
I don't have spirits. I have one spirit that owns me. If I ask it a question it will check the 24 incarnations it has access to for answer and if it requires reactivating a deleted incarnation it will do so with support from relevant spirits. It can also get information from other spirits
What is research to you?
Yes spirits don't like monkeying around. They want you to genuinely seek.

At last you done cast with all your lies.

Ó mà ṣe ọ!🤔

Fenrir:
You said “I have one spirit that owns me.”
That’s a very revealing statement — and it raises a serious question about agency.

If your spirit “owns” you, then who exactly is speaking when you post here — you, or your spirit? And if your spirit dictates your answers, how can you claim independent thought or objective research?

Ownership implies subservience. It means you’re not the researcher; you’re the research subject. That’s the opposite of what scholarship — or even responsible divination — requires.

In most spiritual systems, a person is meant to collaborate with guiding forces, not surrender identity or autonomy to them. The moment you say you’re owned, you stop being a seeker and start being a spokesperson for something you can’t verify.

So before we talk about 256 signs, maybe clarify one thing:
Are you in charge of your beliefs — or is your “owner” writing them for you?

Our spirit own us. It incarnated in order to harvest food for sustenance in heaven.

When I post here it is my incarnation. It is not everything that my spirit knows that it tells me but it is my higher self or Ori Inu as you called it. Though Ori Inu means inner head literally. I ask questions and get damned sometimes

You and your spirit are a team but we can say it owns you too since you are making food for it.

AkinwaleJJ:
The way you keep lying and trying to cover one lie with ten lies has exposed you!
If each person has his or her own spirit then why are you saying other people are wrong?
Each person has a spirit that's guiding him or her and according to you just one question is to have 200+ answers which will surely come with contradictions so no one supposed to teach another you should have left everyone for their spirits to guide them and not the other way around!😟

That you have spirit does not mean you are communicating with it seamlessly by divination. You can have spirit and still be an atheist for instance not believing at all in communication with your spirit by divination